• Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

393 Neutral

About Pleistorm

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

3940 profile views
  1. Hi! I am looking for a solution for my issue - when a territory for example city is full but need to keep developing. No more buildings inside, no more updates. It should start conquer the territory around, primary desert and the player should spent money and assimilating something. But what? In other words imagine that you are playing a strategy where there is no enemy but you should conquest the world. What could be your obstacles? After each success city's territory's influence will become larger. For example it could assimilate villages around, convert desert to usable soil, wild flora to cultivated, find out ores... The problem is that in some point for a limited time the player can not take new territories and it will become boring if he cant use some of the cities for anything except production.
  2. Mines here and there

    Hi! In my RTS project I am trying to put roads which the enemy should use extensively. Moving on roads is always better so the player may prefer to use them too. There are several reasons for that but one of them is the pathfinding which is not very good and enemies are "confused" before they leave their base. Also roads can be used to set some attacks from behind.  But here is another problem - mines. They can be put on the road (and everywhere) and the enemy always will hit them.  Another problem is that many mines means many objects and I dont want too much of them but the roads are the main problem. I was thinking of limiting the number of mines that can be build by the player. The roads are many and is hard to guess where the enemy will pass but once the player is sure it can put a lot of them. Another option is to put enemy sapeurs cleaning them or randomly appearing skill "avoid mine".  Another thing - when players saper is removed from the region mines will start disappearing. But in that case the enemy may guess there are mines somewhere. Any other ideas?
  3. No, it is not free.
  4. 3D software for mobile games

    Depends on what you need. 3d apps have similar tools and power but there are things like: - how money you can spent; - how many tutorials are available (good tutorials); - the tools you need to export to 3d; - personal preferencies; - some small pluses you will find later.
  5. I was in the same movie before and made a search, not good results. As I remember Serif Photoplus has such features, but the very old version I have had some problems with transparency, cant remember exactly. There is free version with limits but maybe it has macros, really cant remember.
  6. Sorry I dont have time to read all threads posts now, but from your first posts I got the impression that we have some similarities. I started to make games but not video games when I was small child and they evolved. When I start "computing" I realised that is another and great possibility to revive that. A long story. But nobody could do that instead of me so I start learning and working. I prefer not to say how many years and time I spent but I prefer that way. Searching for people who will do someone's great ideas for free is a lost cause I think. In other words if you want something to happen do it yourself... From what I see most people that are inspired by games have their great or "great" ideas and their focus is entirely on that. Exceptions are when they are working for money. Even now, when I am close to the end (or closer) I need help but people that have power to do that are usually people that passed that long time ago on their own and they need their time for their own projects.
  7. Hah, that is good idea. Thank you all, guys. I must experiment more.
  8. It is not usual RTS. More features means more things to deal with simultaneosly and more enemies. For example the storm appears from time to time and deals damage to units in some areas. In larger maps some new enemies appear specific for the map. Larger maps are more difficult because the game has some relations with tower defence and this means the enemy may become strong. Unit production requires more place so in small map is almost impossible to build all factories and building types except when the player controls 2/3 or more of the map. The same is valid for the enemy. In larger maps the enemy could build few types of infantry, tanks, ships, submarines, planes, long distance rockets, spies, and to use specific terrain options. In smaller maps the enemy can build few of them and eventually no ships, no spies, less terrain options. If I make a comparison with the chess, imagine that you play: - 4x4 table with 5-6 units including 3 types of units; - 5x5 table with 6-7 units including 4 types of units; the horse is available; - 6x6 table with 7- 8 and the queen is presented, when your unit reaches the end of the table you can replace it with anything... There is a difference - in the chess you know the rules and figures, in my RTS some features are new in some maps, it is somekind of campain like and TD, more enemy types will attack you. Sure enemy weaves and types could be controlled but larger maps with more features to deal with will make it difficult anyway. The problem is when the player become good small maps with less features (well known already) will be too easy and the difficulty could be controlled by other things. Maybe I should combine them.
  9. Hi! I am thinking about the possibility to replace game levels with something else. The game is RTS with some elements from other genres. It is too specific and much different from other RTS so the player will definitely need a tutorial. What I am thinking is: tutorial as easy level where the players learn the basics of the game (and eventually the genre) and then maps which difficulty will vary and each next map will have more elements of the game. I think that in most cases the player is playing the game on easy level until he become more familiar with the game. But would it be interesting to play the same maps? If I can sort that it will look like this: map 1, level 1, small map map 2, level 1.5 + 1 more game features (imagine tower defence game or Rise Of Nations wonders), small map map 3, level 2 + 1 more game features, larger map map 4, level 2.5 + 2 more game features, larger map  map 5, level 3 + 2 more game features, large map map 6, level 3.5 + 3 more game features, huge map... ("more game features" means there are more factores to deal with or to use. For example on some maps I have storms.) ... Alternative map "world" with map 1, map 2 etc.   The game have some tower defence and RPG elements so these worlds will be different in some aspects. More features, larger map will make the game harder to play. What do you think - would it be better for the player to play these maps also in easy, normal, hard modes? Definitely even the best player will fail in anything else than easy until it got some experience; jumping on map 4, level 2.5 will be a fail too. And tutorials are usually boring. To provide more fun on the same map, player could start at different places, can play different doctrines (races) in different way, so the enemy, althought the enemy is randomly controlled on the map. Only the enemy race is defined so there is a chance that AI (so called) could play in similar ways sometimes. Another problem is that I dont have betatesters and "easy" and "normal" is something very uncertain, unclear. Trying to make the game much different and unusual I jumped into deep ocean and cant really compare it with something existing (well that is not enought to declare it as good or interesting, I just hope so).
  10. Pleistorm game graphics

    Pictures from my current game and some others...
  11. Hi! I am looking for ideas of the bonus of keeping bonuses. The player received some units in some cases but some of them are completely useless at the current time. Or they can be used effectively but could be lost. I need a reason for the player to decide to keep them but not because they will be useful later. Also could be a decision to use them directly or to "collect" them with some other effect. For example: you got some things done and got some generals. 10 soldiers and 8 generals... Most generals will stay in the base, they are too expensive to be lost in battles. But, in other hand, completely useless in such number. If the player keep them for some time there should be some positive change. 1. Or maybe they could be transformed (disassembled) for something which will give... what? • Spare parts - no, it is pointless. New parts will be cheap enough; • new units of the same type upgraded when build - pointless, too expensive; • new abilities for the same unit type; ? 2. Or placing them in a specific place and they will generate knowledge? I saw this in Celtic Kings where druids in some magic places are doing some magic. Or they could generate something else. 3. Selling them - no, noone to sell, the game doesn't allow trading, only enemies. 4. Generating new free unit for a given time - may become too much. 5. Converting one of the units after a period into another, better type of unit, that can not be produced directly. Maybe that is not so bad.   I am really running out of ideas. :blink:  
  12. Orymus3, that is very interesting info. Somehow I missed SC, played it maybe 6 times and found out too late Red Alert. I think this mechanic is a different from what I did and I should put some changes. Maybe I am influenced by Company of Heroes too much and most of my starting units become almost obsolete when the gameplay is in the middle or become auxiliary units.
  13. Thank you for your responces. But I think my first post was not enought clear. Wil try to explain in other words. In my game player cant choose the enemy (not possible yet and maybe in the future). The game is RTS but with some tower defence and RPG elements and City-Builder-like RTS which means the player will start always with the same "race" against one enemy "race" (noth enough time to finish the others) which is mutating during the game (depending on the map). So should I leave the Doctrines choise from the start or remove them and the player will be able to develop the race as he want... Not everything, sure, but many things. Or even I keep the doctrines they will put some hues.  I think the problem is more related to the player psychology - imagine you start with the same race, the same few buildings, the same few units. Always. And then you make the difference.
  14. Hi! Briefly most classic RTS games hase predefined possibilities for each race, like Rise of Nations - each nations have some superpower units, cheaper technologies, etc. Cossacks is the same - Saxons have the best cavalry units, it is logically to choose Saxons because of that and to use these units. In other games like Company of Heroes it is similar, but here we have doctrines and "races". Generally these races or doctrines have some predefined (or few predefined possibilities). But what if the player has nothing predefined - or almost nothing - and it depends on him what will be the race doctrine? For example - you start with good infantry: researching upgrades, researching new units, new abilities, etc, but later you add tank doctrine and start researching tanks and armoured machines - instead of aircraft, navy, science, artillery, etc. This will totally remove the idea for doctrines and maybe for races. The start will be usually the same but with good versatility later. Is that too stressing?
  15. I think the colors. They are chosen to make such warm feeling. That is the same if you look landscape photos from usual camera and by a professional photographer.  This doesnt mean that some pictures are worse, but the style is different. Look at food photos for commercials, colors there are not "real" but somekind "tale" style. The 4th picture is more natural and realistic (but realistic doesnt mean attractive). Modern games are using often such "hot" colors. 2d achieves this result easier. You just need the right palette.
  • Advertisement