Leartes

Members
  • Content count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

177 Neutral

About Leartes

  • Rank
    Member
  1. 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. 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. 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. "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. "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. 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.
  10. Spaceship design: space vs slots

    I'd go another route and take a look at BattleMech-like games. I enjoyed Titans of Steel a lot some years ago. It has battle robot (equivalent to ships in space combat) that could be customized a lot. There were slots that take armor, weapons and auxiliary systems. All slots take individual damage and armor in that slots protects the body part. Also there is a maximum weight AND there is energy AND heat management. It is a complex system but I think parts of it can be cut without losing too much. In this game projectile weapons required more slots and could run out of ammunition. In contrast to that energy weapons needed less slots, caused more heatup and needed energy to reload. Also a bigger engine produces more energy. You could do something similar with slots, energy management and good auxiliary systems. For example armor is nice, but maybe you should add a shield that also costs more energy - maybe not. Add some booster that gives speed-boosts for energy, scanner systems, targetting etc. Also restrict space in the most central part so that you can not fit everything into one area of the ship AND protect this area best at the same time.
  11. Problem with skills

    Why not simply make stacks of brick ? Like the player can chose to attempt to make 10, 50 or 100 bricks for 30/150/300 stamina (or less due to skill level) and some clay. This removes the need to use a higher granularity on the stamina stat. Also it allows for a failure rate without the player succeeding or failing at every attempt. I won't like clicking 100 bricks one by one anyway, so just make it a package ... The same works for other jobs. You can lose grain during the milling process if you don't care (just drop a sack of grain/flour ..) or it gets wet due to some mistake. But for jobs that totally do not allow for failure rates reduced stamina cost in conjunction with bigger bundles ( I won't mill one piece of grain for one stamina and then the next one anyway).
  12. Medieval MMO, stuck in design

    Just read the agriculture thread and this one. I think I really love the direction you chose for this game. If you manage to make the whole management of the estate worthwhile (no stupid clicking like in all those facebook games) and interesting (some choices to make that have meaning - like a none trivial crop selection) I will love it. [quote name='Zethariel' timestamp='1319186773' post='4874971'] If you point them out with contempt, then no, I do not like it Why make is so obvious? Why do you care so much to have a "pure" game? Even if they are inactive husks, they can provide good sport for raids, and if there is a mailing system attached, who knows, maybe some players could be drawn back in by an e-mail or a friend request. [/quote] This notion seems to be fairly common and I don't get why. Why does anyone want to raid inactives? Why does anyone join a game with 1k active and 99k inactive players? I have joined so many browser games, clicked the highscore, looked up rank 1k+ and decided the active community is too small... Anyway I think deleting them is harsh if you are unable to go online due to unforseen circumstances. I think you should auto-delete everyone on tier 1 due to inactivity. Tier 2 and above should be put in some vacation mode for at least a month - maybe two.
  13. Need an Antagonist Race

    Hi, I really like your idea. Tinkering with nature and human souls to silently keep some balance. As antagonist races I would add classic dwarves and orcs, the former being pretty much immun to magic and hungry for wood (though only expanding slowly) and the later being aggressiv and destructive but easier to deceive. Also there might be a mighty dragon as a final enemy and you have to pump up one human to be strong enough to slay the monster. (for example by stealing weapons from the dwarves and some other stuff from the orcs) Because I think your game lacks a final goal.
  14. I haven't found a single game as good as plant tycoon. :( I played it years ago and really loved it, though it gets booring pretty fast as soon as you understood the whole evolution concept. Recently I thought it would be cool to have a game that focuses more on creating/growing combinations of plants in a single spot just to make it look nice. (Like choosing a bowl, some deco elements like a rock or two and three different plants, putting them together and try to grow them together) If every plant has individual requirements (like amount of water, type and amount of fertiliser, type of soil) it could become quite a challenge to do it right. Though you would need a good simulation on how the water and fertilizer spreads and different options on how to distribute them etc. I think many people would like to have such an application (is it a game or a riddle if you don't really interact with other players ?) on their desktop to click them every now and then and care about how the plants grow and look nice.
  15. Quote:Original post by Edtharan As an example of this sytem, you might want a laser weapons that does 100 points of damage and fires 10 shots per second. So to get that, the game would work out that you need to research "laser weapons" to get the base technology, then research it long enough in "damage output" to reach 100 damage and also "fireing speed" to 10 shots per second. It would then give the player an indication of the time and costs involved in doing this. I don't think this is applicable in many games. Any realtime game should have too much going to allow you to play with sliders and calculate which setting is optimal for your current situation. Even in turn based games like civilization I would not research every tech in this way, since I really like fixed tech with a short note on historical data, nice pictures and eventually a short film-sequence as a reward for researching some technology. A much better approach could be to build tech-labs and assign them parts of the tech tree to work on (like economy, military etc - or general for small advancements in all fields). If you assign the same branch to several labs they give dimishing returns. Also already researched tech should get cheaper for everyone else, eventually leaking completely after when it is in use for some time. Finelly for designing specific units you could to it similar to alpha centaury. For example if I have tech for armored vehicles, infantry armor, vehicle laser guns and automatic infantry weapons I could design some mobile infantery unit driving around in their vehicle and jumping out for combat. This specific combination of used tech is made into a research project which can be assigned to a military tech-lab. But the general teching becomes too much of hazzle if you have to set a dozend parameters every third turn.