n00b0dy

Members
  • Content count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Neutral

About n00b0dy

  • Rank
    Member
  1. yeah in about ~100-500 years of computer calculation, but maybe the computer that performs this caclulation may crash or run out of electricity, then its all from start. Of course if they use many computers it could be reduced.
  2. All rpgs have taken the assumption that given a good gear and skill level they should be able to win a fight 100% of the time. They adopt the holy trinity concept (healer, tank, dps) and end up with 5-10 min boss fights where they follow a predetermined macro they read from a guide. These fights allow 0 player creativity. Same combo spammed every battle, same outcome every battle, they follow a battle chorography like bots. A bot would be more efficient than a human in this case, 0 lag, perfect coordination, 100% ability to dodge aoe effects. What if this wasn't true ? What if battles were luck based. And chance to win was based purely on luck. Better gear or playstyle will increase the chance to win but there would always the risk to outright lose regardless of your actions because luck failed. An example from dnd that doesnt follow determined battles: 3 kobolt mages (each deal 40 dmg with ice ray every 2 sec). Aggro immunity. vs you (3 members) Tank: 110 hp. 3shotted. Dps/healer: 50 hp. 2 shotted. Healer: heals 20-40 hp. Dmg dealers kill kobolts in 2-4sec. Party compositions. a) Random : If you get lucky, you manage to spread the damage and win the battle. Else you lose. b) 3 Rogues : stealth, stunlock them and kill them before they react. if you get spotted before you stun, you die. c) Holy trinity : with luck, if you spread the dmg you defeat them. What would this allow is more chaotic situations, a party member dies, and then your party has to improvise in order to win the fight. You lose a party member, they lose a party member too.
  3. [quote]n what ways did Skyrim and Oblivion change from Morrowind to reduce the 'filler dialog' problem you're talking about?[/quote] 1) all npc's in oblivion have voice. in morrowind only few story npcs have. 2) in oblivion each minor npc has 1-4 topics you can ask, that are UNIQUE. in morrowind each minor npc has 10-30 topics, that you have to ask until they get grayd. Kingdom of amalur got jealous and copied morrowind dialog flaws. 3) oblivion has some memorable npcs e.g the lady that loved the rats (oh my poor babies). [quote]when you really should be worrying about the danger of it all.[/quote] i believe that rpgs cant capture that feeling, only permadeath games can make you worry.
  4. What i hate in some rpgs are Towns. You arrive at a new town after finishing a dungeon. There are 40-60 npcs in the town, each having 10 topics that are "white" and you have to click them so that they get "grayed", every topic causes 3-6 bubble switches. Total 1000-2000 bubbles per town. You try to comprehend what they say the first 5-10 bubbles, then you realise they are all useless mumble. blablabla it never ends. From then on you spam skip all conversations, all quest text, all lore, Mute!!! Really they tried to make those game "verbose" and in the end it ended "Muted" cause of their spam abuse. Game offenders : Morrowind, Kingdom of Amalur, Wow. Games immune to that feeling: Skyrim. Oblvion. Morrowind/Kingdom of amalur: All npc in the town have the exact same bubble that you have to ask them, YES THE EXACT SAME TITLE. You spam ask the same 30 topics about places / races until they get grayed at every npc. Wow: Too many mini quests, instead of big quests with meaning. All quests end as "kill 40 rats", "gather 30 herbs".
  5. Hi, i have the [b]ABSOLUTE IDEA [/b]that can make all games [b]GRIEF IMMUNE[/b]. Bot multiplaying : Forbid player from playing a multiplaying game, instead a bot is made that inpersonates the player, the bot learns slowly by watching the player, and starts using the same moveset, a heristic function could allow extracting the player goals, to allow behaving like him. For example the player in his seperate machine is satan that has killed everyone, but on the machines of all other players he is a kind loving person that helps everyone like jesus. The bot will be immune to all behaviors that are considered griefing or not prethought by the programmers and thus wont learn them. There you go, you have your grief immune game. Bot Battle efficiency: ( Symbol "->" : Pwn ) Hardcoded bots -> Humans -> Human emulating bots. Hardcoded bots always play better than humans because they know all game rules and have 0 lag, thus they are gods. Human emulating bots follow a flawed algorithm that a flawed human taught it (Only bots can play perfect). Advantages: 1) Unlimited amount of players. Can clone same bot. 2) They are still living organisms, its like your dog, it cannot talk to you, but it can play with you, and do some predefined commands. Disadvantages: 1) Poor chat dictionary, bots would only be apply to communicate with 5-10 icons (happy, i help you, need help, i leave). How will infuence the gameplay ? will it make it funnier ?
  6. Deterministic Critical / Dodge Chance

    min critical chance that can be represented = 1%. max critical chance that can be represented = 100%. Worst case : you would need at least decks of size 1% / 100% = size 100. [quote]What is the point of the minidecks? You could just use decks with 25 cards[/quote] Yes you will use 4 decks of size (25), what i meant with the term "minideck" is that you can use more than one decks. so conceptually they are part of a bigger deck (100), as far as technical implementation is concerned it may be ignored.
  7. Deterministic Critical / Dodge Chance

    [quote name='RedBaron5' timestamp='1342102888' post='4958406'] [quote name='JTippetts' timestamp='1342100047' post='4958393'] You can also use a bigger deck. 10% would mean 10 crit cards in a 100 card deck. The more cards you use, the less able a player will be to "count cards", so to speak, and try to line up guaranteed crits. At least without third-party tools to do the job for him. With in-place shuffling, you can mitigate the overhead of shuffling so that the larger decks do not become a performance problem. Set your deck size to correspond to the smallest increment of crit chance. [/quote] You wouldn't be able to guarantee one crit in 10 though. You could only guarantee one crit in 91 attacks. [/quote] Lets say player has 4% crit chance. We can implement arbitrary critical chances the following way: Plain logic: 1) Create a deck size of 100 cards. 2) Mini deck size = 100 / 4 = 25 2) place 1 critical card at each minideck[0,25]. b) [optional prevent doublecrits] with the restriction that the distance between 2 critical cards is at least A. if (critical Chance <= 10%) A = 5; else if (critical Chance <= 20%) A = 2; else if (critical Chance <= 30%) A = 1; else A = 0; Code: performance = O( mini-decks ). [CODE] int A ; for each minideck { int randomPos = random( minideck.min, minideck.max); if ( A + randomPos > minideck.max) { getNextMinideck().min = ( randomPos + A ); } } [/CODE] Lets see what points this algorithm covers: 1) arbitrary critical chance; 2) prevents too frequent crits if critical chance < 30%. 3) [predictable].If player knows critical chance, he knows A, he knows the source code (assume open source game), he knows minideck size. Can we remove point c? predictability ? what if we make minidecks variable size ? instead size=25, make it size = random[20, 30]. There is one big problem that makes it complicated / impossible to implement in rpgs. What if critical chance changes ? e.g a player uses an ability with +20% critical chance ? Then it will have to reconstruct all decks from the beginning, losing the previous result = flawed critical chance calculation.
  8. Deterministic Critical / Dodge Chance

    Maybe we should relax the initial requirements to see if we can make it less predictable. Suppose : player has 10% critical chance. Deck(1, 10) = deck with 1 critical card out of 10 cards. Bug: Player can predict last card if he knows all the previous Why: a) he knows deck size in this case 10. b) he knows current attack position (he counts his autoattacks). We cannot change b) but we can modify a) so that player doesn't know the deck size. Deck(2, 20) = deck with 2 critical cards out of 10 cards. Deck(X, X*10); how about a random size of deck is chosen when the deck ends, that way he cannot predict when he can critical. Because he doesn't know the deck size. What restriction does the new algorithm place: 1) It allows attacks to critical several times in a row if they get "lucky" depending on deck size.
  9. Deterministic Critical / Dodge Chance

    [quote]You could only predict the crit if you knew you were at the last card of the deck[/quote] A) Player knows critical chance from tooltip. He infers that deck size is 10. B) Player performs 9 autoattacks on simple minions, he is lucky none of them critted (10% chance). Chance for crit to be last card of the deck = 10%. Now he goes and attacks enemy champion getting a free guaranteed hit. Also here is one other thing that i noticed with my algorithm. Player can get double crit in a quick succession. Imagine the following example : deck 1 : crit 10. deck 2 : crit 1. That means that the player will be able to get a double crit if he is lucky, 1% chance.
  10. Deterministic Critical / Dodge Chance

    [quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(250, 251, 252)]If the player attacked 9 times and neither of those crit, wouldn't he know for sure that the next attack will crit?[/background][/size][/font][/color][/quote] Thats true, it would be a huge exploit, e.g in the laning phase imagine every 10 attacks the enemy carry to get a free guaranteed crit. How about the 10th predictable card, being a "non activated critical" that instead increases the damage of next 9 attacks by 11.1% ? Still we would know that the 9th predictable card has 50% chance of being a critical. [still an exploit]. And the 8th has a 25% chance to be a critical. And so on ... So that would defeat the whole point of placing the "exploit prevention". [quote]you know what's fun: double crits, even better triple crit. nothing more satisfying than being on a crit streak.[/quote] And what if this happens to YOU, instead of the enemy, you instantly lose the fight in 3 sec instead 10. Here is how i will implement the "card" algorithm. [CODE] int currentAttack = 1; int criticalCardPosition = random(1, 10); isCritical( ) { f (currentAttack == criticalCardPosition) { return true; } return false; } onAttack() { currentAttack++; if (currentAttack == 11) { criticalCardPosition = random(1, 10); currentAttack = 1; } } [/CODE]
  11. Alternative minecraft

    [quote]I've already written voxel engine, everything works nice, but I don't want this game to be a complete clone of minecraft. [b]Have you got a better idea for a voxel terrain game?[/b] [/quote] What you have is graphics, I.e Just because you have written your game in z++, doesn't mean your game is a zounterstrike clone. Just because you have "jump" button doesnt mean you are a mario clone. Just because you have "move forward" button doesnt mean you are a packman clone. Just thing your game idea completly from start, ignoring if the underlying implementation has a voxel terrain. There are many genres, just chose one of them.
  12. [quote]Not sure if I agree with this. If the purpose of easy fights is just to let the player relax why have them at all? I think a game should strive to make every encounter challenging. If an encounter doesn't challenge the player in any way, its worthless. I think the level of challenge should change but all encounters should have some challenge. You should be able to die during every fight. If there is no fear of dying, there is no enjoyment.[/quote] That would make sense if we were robots with no emotions, but it is not true in real life. Lets take the best rpgs ever diablo 1 and diablo 2. Casual trash mobs die in 1-3 hits, they do 10-20% hp dmg, you fight 6-10 enemies. Chance to die: 0% Time to go from full hp to 0 : 5-6 sec. Number of potions used per fight : 1-2 These fights are clearly easy, can be won with only 1 button press, but they are fun !!! they show you your power. [quote]They turn into a player just spamming the attack option to get through the fight as quickly as possible.[/quote] True, you can finish the game with only 1 spell used even in hell. But maybe players lack the emotional intelligence to accept another difficulty formula.
  13. elder scrolls online

    it would suck. no skills, only levels. (bethesda's advtange removed) extreme time to level up. (bethesda's advtange removed) Bad grapphics. (bethesda's advtange removed) boring classes/skills/spells, (skill design was never bethesda's strong point). boring enemies, (enemy design was never bethesda's strong point) it will end as a crap wow clone and die.
  14. I want a propability distribution / pseudonumber generator / or simple algorithm to simulate deterministic critical chance in an rpg with the following attributes: Lets say i have 10% critical chance. 1) [[b]Requirement[/b]] Every 10 hits, at least one of them must be critical. I dont care which let it be random. i.e Between those 10 hits, player will crit at least once. 2) [[b]Requirement[/b]] Between those 10 hits, player wont be able to crit twice. From 1) 2) we conclude we want player to crit exactly once. 3) [[b]optional[/b]] P(X=x) = 10% for x = {1,2,3,... 10} Chance of an attack between those 10 hits to be a critical =10%. So that it's not exploitable e.g player hitting a minion first and then attacking enemy champion and getting 100% critical chance. Ok so you math experts what is the solution to my problem, there must be a propability distribution to solve my problem. To Conculde: I want between [ 1 / crit_chance ] hits, player to crit exactly one time. [optional] chance the crit to be at Xth attempt is equal for x = {1,2,3,... 10}. thank you,
  15. [quote]That would be attrition at the scale of a single combat. Once the battle is over, the player has lost nothing if they've overcome this, so I'd say this isn't attrition.[/quote] No you can make status effects last permanently, at checkpoints they recover from them, if the player gets unlucky to get hit by 10 deadly poisons between [c, c+1] he instantly dies and restarts from last checkpoint. [quote]if you're where you shouldn't be and die, you start very far from there[/quote] Agree lets make a more detailed discussion. 1) What approach is better A) "Balance trash minions based attritition for the route between 2 checkpoints [c, c+1]" or B) "Balance trash minions based on that they will require 100% of your hp pool to defeat in 1 encounter" ? Afterwords you recover to full hp/mana. Approach A: makes mobs too easy psychologically, possibly boring as you will only get to critical death state after 4 fights, with no imediate results to signify danger, that you failed as a player to adapt to them. Approach B: enemies deal 90% of your hp attacks, almost 1shotting you. The healers have to watch the health pools, and get paniced, do i use my slow casting time healing spell, risking death? in approach A, healers spammed only 1 button (their slow heals). Now they have to decide. Both approaches can lead to the same difficulty, however A is harder because you dont see the result, thus you aren't forced to play at your peek performance. At same arbitary point you "run out juice", which means that you instantly die totally unprepared and unable to do anything to fix it except restarting the game from last checkpoint. [b]Wow Priests:[/b] cannot exist in approach A as their playstyle gets tedius (1button) [b]Dnd3.5 Mages:[/b] cannot exist in approach B as mages are all about resource concervation, the mages deal 1000% more dmg than warriors, but they could only cast 1-4 spells in the whole dungeon. Thus a mage has difficult trash fights, where a warrior has a difficult boss fight. The mage can 1shot the final boss of the game in 1button but he will likely die to trash mobs. Why did we chose attritution ? 1) Games were too easy without attritution, players would to start fight with full hp, thus defeating the purpose of random trash encounters. Well not according to wow psychologists. Imagine a game that you only fight bosses one after another, challenging your party, is this fun ? [u][b]NO !!![/b][/u] trash encounters make the game have a "relax" period that we dont have to worry about [b]Fight Effectiviness[/b]. They are there to relax us from the big boss that we will meet in next battle and we have give all our resources in order to progress. But putting too match effort into attrition of those fights we are removing the "free period" of farming without caring about fight effectiviness, thus defeating the purpose of trash fights. Questions to hear answers: 1) What approach is better A) "Balance trash minions based attritition for the route between 2 checkpoints [c, c+1]" or B) "Balance trash minions based on that they will require 100% of your hp pool to defeat in 1 encounter" ? Afterwords you recover to full hp/mana. 2) Is it fun for trash encounters to exist if they wont challenge your party ? 3) How much time should trash encounters consume for the players to relax, and how much for challenging encounters. How do i mix them up. Following wow formula i.e Easy fights 5 min; Boss fight 5 min ; Easy Fights 5 min; Boss fight 5 min ;