Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

393 Neutral

About Pleistorm

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Role
    3D Artist
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

4502 profile views
  1. Pleistorm

    Loosing the upgrade achievements

    LOL, these are interesting ideas! But even with cheats it is hard. Actually the game has 7 levels and I am playing at 6 (very hard) and after 18 minutes the enemy is very close to my capital. I am trying not to cheat too much but... That means something is wrong. It become clear to me that I reached my goal to mix RTS, TD and surviving but still developing the game as RTS and that is causing the problem I think. The enemy is upgrading before each wave and I am not so much, especially when I loose a lot of units and buildings it is a lost war. Maybe I should put some autoupgrades before the next wave. ""In a nearby cave you found several vaults that seem to be sealed tight" - very interesting idea, I will try to put it in use. 2) in Tower defence usually the player is receiving money as a reward I dont have such system but have scrappers that are taking resources by the destroyed own and enemy units but seems that is not enough, maybe not fast enough. 3) When enemy units are more they are less efective so when the player is pressing hard the enemy it will become stronger. But something is wrong. I reduced prices, speed up units building but yet it is hard. Rock paper scissors is a bit reduced in my game to some reasons. Non adequate "meetings" as in Company of Heroes when sniper meets Armored car or AT meets infantry in my game usually leads to heavy losses for the player or totally inadequate units of AI (or very effective counters). But that is not the problem. I think the enemy developing curve is too high and I must leave the idea of loosing all upgrades and achievements.
  2. Pleistorm

    Loosing the upgrade achievements

    What I am sure now is that it is missing the flexibility that I want, the enemy may hit hard and its main attacks are in waves so even the player survived until the next wave may not has the chance to survive it. It is much better when I put more resources via cheat. It is not necessary to upgrade everything (and it is impossible) the player can win with different style of gameplay but the problem is that after strong enemy attack the time to rebuild and heal, reproduce is too short for non-upgraded units. For now I put a "reserve" which is growing up until its maximum and the player can use it to "Credit" himself but the bigger is the reserve the faster it reproduces itself, so if it is 0 probably until the next wave it will give nothing useful. rubberband boni - can not be applied to that game... no allies anywhere. But the idea is good. Enemy upgrades are much different and are not related to players upgrades. Still trying to avoid global achievements but put some small compromise and will try to reduce the enemy power a bit, I think that problem become too serious. Making the game so different bring a lot of "alien" problems that doesn't exist in other games and the solutions are very hard to find.
  3. Hi! I am hitting an unexpected problem in my game. It is built in unusual way where the player is not exploring upgrade tree but upgrading each unit/building separately. The problem is that as the timeline advanced the enemy is advancing too and the player needs more and more resources. But if the mines/farms are destroyed he can not get back to that level and the loss is inevitable. I have some ideas how to compensate that but they have weak points too. What is usually happening is that after about 20 minutes in hard mode the enemy destroyed most of my cities and is close to the capital and I am out of resources so I am using cheats and that way can kick the AI back (not an easy task :)) If use the classic solution - build a farm and it will produce 800% food because of the upgrades that will make some of the structures useless (lets say the Academy - the player can upgrade the farm through it to 3th level step by step). May be the upgrade could be done at once for less price - but if the Academy is lost as it usually happens that is also impossible. And even if I build another one it will level 0 also and allowing only standard upgrades. Also the players resources consumption is going more and more higher. Both solutions I would like are complicated and player may miss the possibility to use them very easy. There is one structure, the main building, that is existing from the start to the end and I tried the idea to upgrade it so each farm close to it will work more efficient but that again is a parasite idea, not comparable to the main idea. Trying to keep the upgrade system is hard. If you have some unusual ideas I would be glad to read them.
  4. Pleistorm

    The fun of the last part of playing RTS

    I am trying to avoid that aspect of Z game, because I dont like such type of games where one or few mistakes at the start can make the game pointless, and because it is very hard to balance the game. Actually holding one more territory (point) will give the player/AI great bonus and will win the game. I made the opposite - if the enemy is losing territory its units are becoming stronger and if it has more territory then the units are less powerful. Also many players prefer to build their base, upgrade, build units and defense until they are strong enough to attack and in my game this means total defeat usually because less territory means less resources, unit types, etc. But with what I made territory close to players base is always the easiest to capture except when the game is in middle stage and the AI put there a lot of units.
  5. Pleistorm

    The fun of the last part of playing RTS

    Thanks for the replays. I was usually playing Cossacks and Company of Heroes to the end but recently I am playing my game only and when I smash the enemy to the corner it is some kind boring to keep on, maybe because it is my game. (But usually the enemy is smashing me.) Finishing the game is a hard task because enemy tries to break the supplies and that way the AI can destroy a big army but it doesnt happen after that win-point of time. The idea of rebelions could work but actually the player is using machines so they can be reprogrammed by the enemy at any stage, will try that as mass effect at the results. Selling buildings is impossible due to the character of the game. I put a mechanism when the player has a lot of units the income will be reduced but that lead to my defeat, it is hard to do because the progression of the enemy. During the gameplay the enemy is causing a great damage to my troops and reviving is hard. I think the main reason is that I dont have upgrade tree as in other games but upgrades are locked to the units and buildings and when loosing important things or a lot of things it is hard to keep it up. Probably the best solution is to give a chance to the player to choose when it gains 70% of the territory to win the game (and if he wants can keep fighting as Telcontar wrote) or to receive a challenge (as the big Boss in arcade games), if he lose the battle the game will keep going (if the damage caused by the Boss is not huge) and eventually if this happens again, again some big Boss; or not any challenge... And maybe an option when the player is in the bad situation to receive a Boss or pack of resources...
  6. When playing a RTS (skirmish - single player) usually there is a moment after which the player holds most of the map, most of the resources and his units compared to the AI are 7:1 or something like that. In this situation the possibility to loose is very small, almost impossible. But the enemy still has power and the player must destroy it playing 10, 20 or more minutes. Scenarios: 1. Win when you hold 70 or more % of the resources (or territory) - as in Rise of nations. That is not valid for the AI, because the player could survive with only one base... maybe. 2. Let the player smash the enemy, the situation will become more and more hopeless for the AI. Maybe that will be fun or maybe not? 3. The enemy will have hidden feature when is in bad situation to pull out very special power/unit so it can crash your army and then the gameplay will become more dynamic because it will take a lot of territory and a lot of players unit will be destroyed, the player can even lose. But what the next time - the player will get the territory around the enemy base again, should this happen again? And maybe the same for the player - when he is in bad situation holding only his base to receive bonus? In the chess at the end of the game, endschpill (?) figures are less and usually most units are destroyed, so even the King could do something. But in RTS usually the winning side will have a lot of powerful and upgraded units. And not even at the end, usually there is a point after which A will become stronger than B and that can not be changed easy.
  7. 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.
  8. Pleistorm

    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?
  9. No, it is not free.
  10. Pleistorm

    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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Hah, that is good idea. Thank you all, guys. I must experiment more.
  14. 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.
  15. 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).
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!