Jump to content
  • Advertisement


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Neutral

About RolandofGilead

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. RolandofGilead

    Smooth transition between 2D animations

    Just for thoroughness, if a character is giant, one can use a bone system and connect images end to end. It also makes physics easier to incorporate if that's important.
  2. v = w x r v = linear velocity of point w = angular velocity of point (supposed to be lowercase omega, not "w") x = cross product operator r = position of point so I think it's safe to change it to w = r x v I have nothing to base this on though except i × j = k j × k = i k × i = j. So r might be from the target to the tracker.
  3. RolandofGilead

    Leveling without killing

    Thanks for the replies. I like the idea of exp gain for map coverage(both per boss and per premier entry). I don't want to veer too far into the programming aspect, but I've said this many times, *how*. Giving exp after killing a monster is ridiculously easy to implement and think about, but I'm looking for a theory of non-killing exp gain. How do I know if an non damage ability has been used successfully in the first place? Yes, I must reward the player(that's just an axiom for this particular discussion). What do I give them? There's an obvious corollary, but what are the problems with that approach? What happens when non direct damage abilities or stats reach the godlike proportions of the normal leveling process? Players become so stealthy they walk through walls :) ?
  4. Quote:my rotation rate is stored as three euler angles. I'm not sure how to make this work. Me neither. I'm going to use a vector for my part of the discussion. The direction of the vector is the axis upon which "me" is rotating. The magnitude of the vector gives its rotational velocity in radians/sec. Also, velocity/distance = 1/time. Oh, wait, that's actually almost the correct unit for comparison; never mind. Do keep in mind that one rotation equals 2*PI radians. You're doing the same thing in 3d that you would do in 2d but there's more to it. Use the relative linear velocity(in meters) of the target to determine a fake rotational velocity(in rad/sec). To do this, "relative" means relative to the tracking ship, find the relative linear velocity(vector, m/s) of the target and the relative distance(vector, in meters). Perform a cross product. This gives you the fake rotational velocity of the target(vector). Take this result and do a dot product with the tracking ship's rotational velocity vector. Take that result(magnitude, rad/sec) and subtract it from the target's fake rotational velocity magnitude. Compare that result with the maximum rotational velocity magnitude that the ship's tracker can perform(rad/sec). If the tracker's max is higher, the target can be tracked.
  5. #1 A DSL(domain specific language) for defining card classes + an algorithm for classifying cards. The DSL will have to be built on top of the representation of the cards themselves though. #2 A few dozen utility ratings based on abstract positions Considering the vast number of cards and rules, I'd say go with utility by ranking utility based on an artificial personality/playtype and then performing the generated actions which provide the most utility. As a human player, I don't know what all the cards do but I can still play any deck because I know the rules so I can predict cause-and-effect and know how to use the cards in a general sense. Special combos could be hard-coded. It's really hard to know what an opponent will do far into the future but several thousand possible states could be generated in very little time. Using card classes would make coming up with combos on the fly(during the game) much easier. The game could learn to predict stuff by remembering opponent actions in previous turns and by using Markov models, both with specific cards and by analyzing the class of cards used. Utility/Abstract areas of interest: number of cards in hand, total creature defense/offense, elimination of things which have damaged me/creatures in the past, mana production, having or eliminating special cards, damage to the opponent, life to self. Aspects of the game which a human player must have an appreciation and awareness of must be encoded to the ai as having utility. I don't know if it will make a better ai player, but the card classes could also be fuzzy(in the sense of fuzzy logic).
  6. RolandofGilead

    AI scouting

    If height confers a scouting advantage perhaps you could set them to continually seek out the high ground then task other scouts with filling in the blanks. Your heightmap is a preexisting potential field. The fill-in-the-blank scouts could use the unvisited/unseen nodes for lowering the cost in A*.
  7. RolandofGilead

    Leveling without killing

    Thanks for the reply. Perhaps one could 'tag' monsters or their could be some arbitrary flag in each room that one must reach in order to get exp and like you say, one mustn't take damage before or after getting it. Like someone who's so good at walking in the woods they win in capture-the-flag paintball but never actually shoot. Perhaps every use of a particular skill would add exp to its own level and to the main character level so the character is gaining exp so long as the player is active and the rate of exp gain could be tied to how much pressure the player is under at that point.
  8. RolandofGilead

    Leveling without killing

    I'm doing a 2d action rpg; most of my inspiration comes from the newer 2d Castlevanias(SOTN). I'm trying to make sure the game mechanics allow for a robust and rich variety of actions. It occurred to me that non-damaging actions can get you past monsters or guards just fine but they aren't traditionally rewarded. One can cause pain or illusion to make monsters flee, use a distraction, sneak past, run past, trap or hinder the monsters temporarily, or any number of skills, but generally games of this type only give rewards of bigger stats for killing bigger and bigger things. I still prefer slashing and casting but these non-damaging skills and spells have their place in combat and I think they should "realistically" cost much much less than direct damage(compare the energy required to singe somebody's eyebrows vs sending a fireball up their ***). So the question is how can I dole out stat/level increases(player rewards) for surviving the game, regardless of how players choose to do so? I have some vague notion of tracking "defeats" rather than just kills, but it isn't entirely clear how to do that sort of thing(it's such an odd thing to realize there's a huge gaping hole in a genre you love). Ultimately, it is a matter of player progression. Typically, for the optimum challenge of progressing past a particular boss there is an implied function that maps player skill level to a necessary character level. Fall off that function and lower skill players quit because it's too hard and higher skill players quit because it's too easy. I'd say abandon stat leveling altogether but I like watching my character progress and if I did abandon stat leveling it becomes less an 'rpg' and more of an action game with a wide assortment of upgradeable equipment and weapons. Though Ratchet and Clank is popular, I only own one of theirs but all six rpg-ish Castlevanias. I'm not sure how to fit this in but a popular feature among more hardcore fans of Portrait of Ruin was to use Level Caps on subsequent playthroughs. That still implies leveling up is a part of the game though. Another, broader question, how does one balance grinding? If it takes too long, they stop, if it's too short, they do nothing but grind and make the game too easy.
  9. RolandofGilead

    RFC: A design for concurrent orders in a TBS.

    It's been so long I forgot how to quote, forgive me. "Who gets it? Actions cannot take place at the same time." This one is troubling. Here's why, it's a game logic/rule question rather than a programming one. You simply must come up with a rule for dealing with that scenario. I'm using phases. The key to phases is that only actions which may conflict go into the same phase. Consistency is achieved because you always know what actions can happen now and in the next phase because the phases always follow the same order. It simplifies planning. Another option is to give commands different times for completion and allow units to spend AP to complete tasks more quickly. If you really want to make sure every zombie gets a chance, combine TechnoGoth's idea and your idea, resolve all the 1st orders, then sort and resolve the 2nd and 3rd's 4th's etc. based on your system(7/8 > 2/3).
  10. RolandofGilead

    Let's Blame GPU Makers!

    Well of course I have empty wallet syndrome, you think a rant like this appears out of nowhere? Also, something I'd thought I'd mention since apparently most people here are computer literate. It may be some type of weird phenomenon that only I see, but I live near a large metropolitan area and you can not buy mainstream much less high-end cards at retail. I shop online cause that is literally the only place I know of to get the newer stuff. Also, what usually is for sale in-store may be extremely old(relatively) and how is a know-nothing supposed to know the difference? I'm not trying to figure out why enthusiasts are enthusiastic, I'm making a point about the majority of people, the idiots. While I don't want to talk to idiots, I don't mind taking their money for products and services. Our endeavors rest upon the existence and flourish of certain technology so by definition our little hobby is smaller than that technology. We must therefore try to slice that pie as best we can. Obviously we can always make games that don't focus on graphics and indies can almost never make graphics that look AAA, but most idiots are graphics-whores by definition. If they don't have a good enough system, no one can suggest games to them, b/c it is impossible for them to play. Anyway, "Let's Blame GPU Makers" was just a catchy title. I thought it'd be fun to espouse a contrary view, and it was, plz continue to tell me I'm wrong. Run_The_Shadows: You misunderstand, I don't want gpu makers to cripple anything. What I'd like is for gpu makers and graphical application developers to have a dialogue and define standards that are necessary to reach in order to be part of a given generation, thus assuring users have a predictable experience. (Weren't expecting something rational, were you?) I'd like to apologize for disrupting the worldview of anyone who rated me down. Now that I've done that, you suck you immature bastard. Now that I have insulted you, plz keep the rating where it's at.
  11. RolandofGilead

    Let's Blame GPU Makers!

    etothex: Yes, and sometimes they're crippled intentionally because they can't sell them all as high-end. cow_in_the_well: Yes indeed. Figured out why I agreed with gumpy macdrunken: hardware innovation stifles software stability! Do you realize just how many render paths there are in a 3D engine? Also, thanks for bringing up consoles, as this brings me to another point: it takes developers until the end of the console cycle to truly bring out the power of the hardware, that cycle lasts years so new generation cards come out faster than devs can grok! Now does anyone have an opinion on my use-case that the mainstreamers and budgeters don't get further into gaming because their experience is fundamentally different?
  12. RolandofGilead

    Let's Blame GPU Makers!

    Quote:Original post by Run_The_Shadows So you want to handicap the industry and limit hardware choices? No, I want them and game makers to realize that people use the things they create. Second thought, yes, there should be good cards and great cards. I, and presumably others, would play more games if a computer is capable of giving an experience worth my investment of time and energy. For instance, why would someone create an animation for a mod if their computer couldn't play it back fluidly in-game? In other words, PC gaming gets real old, real fast if your framerate sucks. Quote:Isn't that a lot like saying "The only programmers we should allow into the industry are are white males ages 18-25 - everyone else gets shot; and to make sure those programmers aren't making things go too fast, we're going to smash their hands with rubber mallets to slow them down." I can only assume you were being sarcastic. Quote:Original post gumpy macdrunken hardware innovation stifles software stability! Uh, kinda, yeah.
  13. RolandofGilead

    Let's Blame GPU Makers!

    Quote:Original post by RolandofGilead At the end of this, it may sound stupid I just thought I'd highlight this part again.
  14. RolandofGilead

    Let's Blame GPU Makers!

    At the end of this, it may sound stupid as I am going to ignore economics. I think PC gaming isn't as popular or all it can be because of the stupid gpu makers, maybe other pc parts mfg's as well. In another thread, someone described a card as being for the "I like to play games but I'm not a gamer" demographic. You know what I think? Those people are never gonna be gamers because they will never have the experience that people with better systems do! There should be two cards per generation, one that can play games and one that can play games really really well. Naturally, generations should last longer as well.
  15. RolandofGilead

    Social Decomposition: Interracial Relationships

    Quote:Original post by alnite Pop culture is politics in media I love that quote btw. Back on to a sub-topic, I think pop culture(or perhaps growing up & becoming more cynical) is making race relations worse. As a kid I had no anxiety being around anyone and now in the back of my head I'm hoping a riot doesn't break out. Pysch Research On Attraction? If I knew the answer I'd be a millionaire, or at least laid. As to why anyone might oppose them, there's always fear of the unfamiliar and my own theory. My theory is based on the Men-Want-Every-Woman-They-See Principle. As the Principle is self-explanatory, I will continue. There is further the realization that it just ain't gonna happen. Therefore a sort of compromise is reached(interally, and unspoken socially) whereby competition is reduced through filters based on economic class, religion, race, age, intelligence, looks, etc. Since one must generally see a woman to approach her(thank you for changing that internet), the sight is more likely to offend then the concept. What sensibility is offended? Why, the most powerful sensibility of people who call themselves civilized: the taboo of line-breaking(for you Brits, that's queue-jumping). (Any resemblance within my theory to the Id, Ego, and Super Ego of Freud is because that f***ing misogynist ripped off Aristotle, or was that Plato?, the one with the metaphor of the driver and the two horses.) Fortunately most standards of beauty are universal. In other words, if it increases the number of beautiful ladies I might entertain, I'm all for it. *winks; head bob & air kiss*
  • 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!