Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

177 Neutral

About Leartes

  • Rank
  1. Leartes

    Survive together but only one can win

    I'm toying around with a similar game concept for a while now, but it doesn't really work out for me. If players want to win they don't care if they lose hard (all die) or if they lose soft (everyone survives, but one player wins). So in the end everyone tries as hard as possible to win and doesn't care about cooperating.   I don't know how to fix that because if I remove the individual goals of the players then it often boils down to one player telling everyone else what to do. :(
  2. Splinter Cell basically did this fairly well. If you can get 3 friends to play it is great fun!   What they did is: - stealth team has more movement options than defenders (e.g. climb through ventilation system, defenders can only guard/mine the exits) - stealth starting area is impossible to reach for defenders - if you kill a stealth guy he respawns - you play until the attacks reach their objective then you switch sides, faster team wins - it can get tedious as defender if you have absolutely no clue, but it is usually fun   Things you can do if you have free time as defender: - check through various vision options like motion detector, infra red detector or normal vision - place traps like proxy mines in hidden spots to surprise attackers - spread out and coordinate in your team to cover a large area   If you move the defense to an rts perspective there is also a lot of stuff to do, set guards, mines, detectors etc. Also if you add a timer so that the attacker doesn't stall it should be great fun.
  3. Leartes

    multiplayer map / team composition

    A few quick questions: - why do you assigne roles directly to players? Maybe someone doesn't want to be a starbase sitting around and waiting for anything to happen - are you confident to fill up 9v9 maps quickly? If not, does your gameplay degrade if there are less players present?
  4. Leartes

    Comments on an RPG party system

      I think party members should influence combat mainly in what they do. If you bring a healer and he heals you he has an influence. If you bring a melee fighter he can deal damage, tank damage, tie up opponents and potentially interrupt ranged/support opponents. This is plenty of influence. I don't need +phys dmg or something on my main guy on top of it.
  5.   Not sure about the more recent civ games, but in early titels tiles produce trade and you could allocate trade to tax, research or luxury.
  6. Leartes

    "front width" how it works?

    But this is only an abstraction of what would happen in practice. You have stack A and stack B and you don't want to look into the details too much. Now the terrain should favor A therefore you give him a larger front size and assume it happened because they positioned as described above.   "There is a maximum number of men and equipment that may participate in combat with an enemy unit. Just because a formation has x amount of infantry, doesn’t mean that all of x will fight in a given battle. This rule reflects the impossibility of attacking with everybody in one go.... You can see a prediction of which % of your forces can attack in 1 round in the topright bottom of your unittype picutres."   The % number in the given example is 100% for the attacker and 75% for the defender.
  7. Leartes

    "front width" how it works?

    Related notions are an arc, e.g. surrounding the enemy, so that more of your units can attack compared to the opponent. This is mostly done in halfcircles not in complete surrounds, like this: __| A X O _ A X X |    A A |   Here the attackers A form an arc around the defenders X. Note that 4 attacks fight vs 3 defenders. If there is an additional defender at O he can't participate at the fight. (_ and | form impassable terrain features.
  8.   In the example you gave the second strategy would be obvously superior, since it misses only one component (artillery) while the first misses two (artillery and hellicopters). The combat mechanic should punish the first strategy.   The whole idea is the concept of "combined arms". The requirement of different types of units working together and that the diversity is essential to victory (no specialization to certain units, at least not to a total degree). That's what I want to convey in this mechanic.   I think it is a question of scoring. You have to have an elaborate scoring algorithm but it shouldn't be too hard. A simple way of doing it would be to calculate combat contribution not by the number of units of a type but of the root (or log) of said number. That way an army with more types with low numbers achieves much higher scoring than an army with few units and high numbers. Also you can easily add in bonus multipliers for attacker/defender, terrain, doctrine etc on a per unit basis.   Other options are more work, like creating a small fighting simulator that lets unit types attack other unit types in a preference order that does not reflect the efficiency order. Like everyone attacks tanks first but tanks are resilient vs most guys. If no tanks are present (killed or you didn't bring any) dmg hits the more squishy backline. Bring too many tanks and you have no fire power, to few and you lose as well. Here you can also make an target order, an efficiency table and additionally work in terrain bonus etc. Also this system is easier to visualize/describe ingame. So it seems to be more work but easier to get an intuition for than the above simple calculation.
  9. Leartes

    Reality vs Game Mechanic

    I tent to have similar problems. Like, I want to make a combat systems for a game similar to warhammer then I think about allowing every unit in a regiment having different equipment, stats for attackspeed, fighting skill, armor, penetration, damage, health, moral etc. and I realize there will be 15 numbers and only hardcore players will care about those details. Also this system will be an unrealistic simulation anyway despite all my efforts. So I take a step back and make the system more simple. Perhaps you should do the same? I mean, unless your game is a nut gathering game, you should probably take a more holistic view and don't dive into details straight away. In most games a 'gathering in the woods' task is probably detailed enough, why should I care which nut, fruit or herb is gathered exactly? Obviously you could add some flavor information, e.g. make the tooltip sensitive to the season so that it says 'spring: in this time of the year we can gather ??? for x food' etc. But unless you want to cramp your inventory with all kinds of nuts, fruit, herbs, weeds etc. there is no use in more details in the mechanics. And even if you do add all the details, do you want to do the same for animals as well? Like how many organs and body-parts a hare gives to the player and what can they be used for ... Unless the game is only about such details it doesn't really sound like a good idea.
  • Advertisement

Important Information

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

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!