• 16
• 15
• 11
• 9
• 10
• ### Similar Content

• Hiiii, so ive been studying marketing in my own time and I have experiments i wanna try do to past recorded strategies of other marketing strategies. Also im on Redbull, Dr Pepper and a 48 hour energy mixture soooooo excuse my preppy nature on my typing and grammer usage.
As far as I can see I have a theory (actually I got hundreds of these), so as far as I know a game doesnt necessarily need to be advertised to be sucessful from the content publishers themself. There are other means to counter the forceful advertisment. Yea im not speaking of reviews and playthrews to go up in search ranking and relevancy tho that is a tactic that happens on its own.
Sooo whats on my mind today is that online games pretty much baits the players to spend money to look smancy, now what if the fancy panties were to be grabable in game without the need to spend actual money. Then no one would spend anything right? What if i told you there is a way to trick players mentallity using this method in order to get them to spend money. Your probably thinking to yourself "go to sleep Anthony you are drunk"... Im energy high theres a different... If a function were to be available in game for free then by all means players would go the free route, now if the free route was difficult to achieve the player would quit the game and you will have a fanbase on those rage quiters (Dark Souls, and binding of isaac). If the free route was easy to perform yet very time consuming and grindy then thats more hours spent on the game. Now heres the trick, what if the option to purchase instead of grinding was available?
Then the players would think, would they spend a full hour trying to fetch the item, which in a working net worth terms 10$... Or would they rather spend 3$ to get the item right away.
[deleted by moderator]
This weird drink mixture is making me lo key depressed.
• By a.gene
Hi,
My name is Aaron. I have been a software engineer/ programmer going on 8 years working with languages such as C++,C#, Java, JavaScript. Most of my development experience has been backend development. I always wanted to get envolved in gaming development just never found the time. I am a quick learner and looking for a experience where I could work with a team to learn about game development and also help create cool games.
I could contribute 15-20 hrs a week mostly in the evenings I am currently located in Washington DC. If you have any projects that you are looking for some help on or think I have skills that could help please don't hesitate to reach out.
-Aaron

• With my design document relatively fleshed out, my mind is turning towards starting a prototype. As they say, the first step is always the hardest. This will be my first self-driven project, and that first step is looking awfully daunting. Does anyone have any advice on where to start? I know this is a very personal choice, but I'm interested to hear how more experienced devs approach that first step in development. For example, do you start small with something like the player movement and controls? Or do you prefer to set the stage a bit first by establishing a bit of the world space?

• Hi all,
I’ve nearly finished my C# WPF project (using VS2017) and am now thinking about deployment and managing updates. This is my first time doing this, and I wanted to run my current thinking past you to see if you can help, as I don’t think my current solution will fully work. I have drawn a quick mock-up of what’s in my head at the moment (attached).
My app needs to be able to update itself, but also to add in new content once I create it (this is in the form of small .zip files, ~100kb each, and due to the volume of these files [currently 3000, hopefully expanded up to 5000 in a years’ time] I have kept these separate from my project, i.e. not as Content). I welcome comments on this decision.
Due to keeping the content separate, this kind of broke my initial intention of “simply” using ClickOnce deployment, and letting Windows manage the updating for me, and so I’ve been thinking of how to manage i) initial app deployment, ii) ongoing updating of the app, iii) ongoing addition of new content.
I’m currently intending to use my *free* DropBox account to host all the files, I think this is possible. Does anyone know of any better web hosting I could use?
If you could refer to my attached diagram, what I’m currently thinking of is:
Deploying the initial version of the app using ClickOnce by Publishing to DropBox or wherever (my project A publishing to web host D). Users can then download the Installer from here, and install on their local machines as usual. This initial installation wouldn’t have any content (the 3000 zips) and so these would be pulled down to the local machine by the below step (the initial batch of 3000 zips would only need to be downloaded the first time the app is run, after then it’d just be new content that’d be downloaded):
Also, I have as a second Project in my overall Solution a small Updater app, which when run by the users will connect to DropBox and pull down an xml manifest of my project files and the content (I create this manifest myself), and synchronise any files which are newer. This Updater app will be downloaded and installed by the users too. In the diagram, I publish Updater app code C to web host G, downloadable by users. Please see below question:
Question: my main app and my updater app are two separate projects under the same Visual Studio Solution. Is it possible for me to build/publish these together so that the two executables are together in the same output (in the same folder)? The reason I have them separate is so that the main project’s executable file and any resource files can be overwritten by any new files pulled down by the Updater app without the Main app being open and locking these files out.
The 3000-zip Content on my PC (B in the diagram) I just manually copy over to DropBox (F), and keep these up-to-date when I create new zips.
Also, whenever I update my app code, I intend (this is probably the most painful bit) to manually copy the “\bin\release” folder contents from my PC (A) over to web host (E), so that the Updater app on user’s PCs can synchronise the executable and resource files with any newer versions I have created, without the user having to download a new version of the installer, and potentially uninstall/reinstall to go from v1 to v2 of the app.
This above bit I think is the least possible, as I have found out that just by moving the \bin\release\ executable and resources from one location to another on my PC, it no longer works if I double-click the .exe file, it only works from the project’s original \bin\release folder  . Is this expected? In my naivety I was thinking that once the user had installed v1 of the application "properly" using ClickOnce (and therefore their PC was checked for .Net framework etc) I could then just have my Updater overwrite the .exe and other embedded resource files (like bitmaps) with updates and it’d just work. I guess this would have worked with VS2005, but not with VS2017 hey.
So, after writing all that out, and thanks for reading this far, I guess that if it wasn’t for the 3000 zips, I could package all the above as ClickOnce, and let Microsoft manage the updating for me. I don’t fancy adding the 3000 zips to my project as Content [copy if newer] to enable this to happen, but I did fancy having a go at writing the standalone Updater package, which would synchronise the files between DropBox and the user’s PC, based on the xml manifest I create.
Any feedback you may have would be greatly appreciated, as this community has proven invaluable to me so far

• When seeking a composer for your games, what is it that you will typically look for when hiring someone? What about their music makes you want to employ them? what do you look for in regards to professionality? I'm really curious as i'm seeking to get my foot in the door, but i want to know what i should be doing to impress you and get commissioned! thank you!

# To use or not use RNG in combat?

## Recommended Posts

Here is the scenario I have pertaining to a combat system I am jotting down on paper.

The attacker has 100 soldiers each with 1 attack point and 3 health points. The defender has the same.

All the player has to do is press a button and combat is all computed then the player is just shown the results. From my current example, I would have the attacker's soldiers do 100 points of damage to the defender resulting in 33 defenders being killed. The same happens to the attacker's soldiers. This continues until both sides defeat each other at the same time and it ends in a draw.

I feel if I introduce a random factor, the battle could get lop-sided and the smaller side could not recover So I thought I would ask the community for their opinions of the very simple combat scenario.

The game concept I am designing deals with combat from outside the actual conflict. Sort of like a coach and a sports team. You give orders and watch as your units perform them. The game does start small, with 100 to 200 soldiers (all the same) and could grow to larger numbers as well. I was just wanting to get a system in place for small conflict that could scale into larger ones.

Each side has a unit type (soldier) a unit quantity (100). The player give the order, and the computer does the rest. After both players give their orders, the results are computed instantly. Keeping all things equal, Attack power, defensive power, etc. (I need a baseline) What would be the best way to determine damage? Static numbers, or RNG numbers?

To use or not use RNG in combat?

##### Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This sounds similar to auto-resolve in total war or such games.

As such, I think you need some mild randomness to it, to make it seem more realistic/simulation-like.

Just try and add a factor like x0.8-x1.2 for each "round of damage" one side deals to the other and see how that feels. Given all other factors are equal (terrain, morale, equipment etc) 200 soldiers should always win against 100. But not necessarily against 160 (but more often than not!).

So 100vs100 would often result in 20-25 guys alive on one side and the other side dead. For realism you could allow routing since the loosing side almost never fights to the last man in battles (or are we inside the movie "300"? )

You can also try and add bigger randomness factor, but make these uncommon and very clear to the player. Like a popup telling you the "event":

Fog - only half casualties on both sides (if your system supports not always killing one side completely)
Commander killed - your side only deals 70 % dmg for the remaining rounds
Rain - archers (if applicable) deal only 70% for the remaining rounds
You get the idea!

This can add character to an otherwise plain "press the button and get the results". Each "combat rounds" can take some moments to resolve so the player can watch the numbers tick down (the entire battle can still be over in 3-10 seconds depending on the feel you are after). I tried this for a game and it gives a bit more organic feel to the simulation.

Edited by suliman

##### Share on other sites

There are other factors that will be involved in the actual resolution of combat, like weather and terrain.  I guess I should have explained that a little in the original post.

I guess I am looking for baseline stats.  What happens on a sunny day, flat land, and everyone in good moral.  I would think all things being equal and no combat modifiers, I was thinking that a soldier would do 1 point of damage.  The group would do 100 points of damage, that then could be modified by outside factors.  Just need to get a base line established.

I like the random range idea of making the group of 100 soldiers deal damage of 80 to 120 points of damage, but feel that may be too big of a swing before other modifiers.

##### Share on other sites

If there's a geometric aspect (flanks and such), I think randomness is worth having just to introduce variation in outcomes along the line when two walls of units approach each other. Given that the player is sort of a coach, my design instinct is to introduce unpredictable wrinkles in combat to strategize around.

In terms of range of values, there's two levels a combat can be viewed in: at the low level, it's pairs of individuals fighting. If 100 equal soldiers per side pair off and fight to the death, 95% of the time each side will end up with 40-60 soldiers (binomial distribution). As the armies grow larger, that collapses into a tighter and tighter proportional range (1000 vs 1000 is about 470-530).

At another level, though, it's a team activity: If there's a lot of victories at one flank, the forces can wrap around and start seeing big advantages in that region. If an individual trips, he might leave his allies vulnerable. If one guy panics, it might sweep into a general retreat. At this level you can have much wider variations in outcome (although there's no standard equation anymore).