• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.

powerneg

Members
  • Content count

    454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2010 Excellent

About powerneg

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Location
    western europe
  1.   Legend of Zelda:The Windwaker had this and i bet most games where the protagonist can fly have wind-effect, these games or levels are build around these (fun) mechanics.     Gimmick. You can turn it into a good idea, but you'll have to work hard at it.
  2.     - Guns on your paddle to shoot bricks(this is not new) - brick-redistributor: when triggered it redistributes bricks into lines from the top, so the lower lines disappear, best to implement if bricks are slowly coming down
  3. Sounds more like you want a story/character then being in need of mechanics.   That said, for non-war you could make the towers refugee camps and the monsters refugees that need to be taken in before they overwhelm the cities
  4.   This would depend on how many weapons you would have hard-coded. With a good working systen, you can have many more weapons through build-it-yourself, these weapons will tend to be uninspired/not individual pieces of art, which means the players will need to provide more of the (creative) content. The cost(s) will, off course, depend on your overall design, and not just one part of the design, and likely it would be better to see which design choice you yourself are better with thus decreasing cost.   edit:ninja'd by Norman
  5. 13 is a bit high What you can do is make certain types of ammo usable for multiple weapons. like grenades go in a grenade launcher and an RPG-launcher. and bullets into a machine gun and a pistol.
  6. That's not very detailed.   Fill in the details on a board ?   But honestly, a shooter is about hitting and ducking, not very suited for a paper prototype.
  7.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf
  8.   It IS micromanagement since the player has to come back to make changes. And i realy don't see why the player would have to go to the planets themselves; i have my doubts the officials increase defenses(which would be important for map-location) and maybe they interact with the planet's specialization though i haven't read anything about that too. Thus far what i read about your game the officials are mainly important to make the empire as a whole perform better so i would scrap the current mechanic. If it's about their looks then don't let them influence anything else.     Sounds like auto-select/elect governors   How about this: Each turn(or X turns) there are elections, the people elect their REPRESENTATIVES, these have no power yet, but the player uses them as an officials-pool to fill in positions he wants filled. Now, the player will obviously want to select the highest-skilled representatives, but there's a but; representatives are voted on by X% of the people in the empire, let's call this their (respective) popularity, next elections these X% people who voted on him/her will NOT vote for a new representative if their previous representative isn't given a decent job, thus decreasing the amount of new representatives that are added to the officials-pool every election.   Have the % of (active)voters auto-increase with 5 or so every election since the player can probably not give all the representatives jobs, have officials retire automatically after 4 or 5 election-rounds, Firing an official manually before the next election-round gives penalty of 0.5 times popularity plus 0.2 times (number of elections till autoretire) times popularity
  9. A few years ago, there was a towerdefense game called "Plants vs Zombies" it wasn't about zombies, it wasn't about plants it wasn't even a multiplayer-game(so the "vs" was useless) BUT it needed to skin the towers and the attack-waves, so they became plants and zombies, and it had an interesting, original(and dare i say brilliant) gameplay and scored very high. The story was a comedy and the zombies were cannon-fodder.   And to be honest, i don't think i 've ever played a game where zombies are more then cannon-fodder, soo i 'd say, if you can make a good game that has use for (a lot of) cannon-fodder, use zombies, otherwise use something else.
  10. 1) Faster bullets: wont realy affect the problem unless they they affect it too much 2) Homing missiles : I like 3)Reduced accuracy: this is okay, maybe reduce the accuracy of certain AA-guns(or reduce the accuracy of far-off AA-guns)   Additionally: - Explosive shells, have shells create a (big) explosion that's harder to dodge. - add enemy fighters, i don't know whether they're planned, but they would push AA-fire to the background of the gameplay, (AA-fire will almost always have the problem of being either too easy to avoid or too hard to avoid)
  11. How is the "no micromanagement"-part going to work with over 100 planetetary defenses ? If you can't change much about an individual planet's defenses the game keeps having the same problem as pointed out in some other thread: either the defenses hold, or they don't. On top of that it would not be much of a tower-defense if you can't micromanage the "towers"
  12. Build a golden palace ? The nice thing about gold is is that it is so shiny, so people value it highly just by looking at it. Same thing for silver/diamonds etc. These all being rare helped alot as well, but that probably became important in a late age.
  13.     Allright i haven't played your game, but it seems you're missing a defense. Defense roughly takes two forms, and you need them both: 1)structures that have both hitpoints and firepower. They need to be destroyable but need to destroy some offenders first. They're not there to stop an attack(although it will take away some of the micromanagement if they can stop smaller attacks) but to make attacking costly. 2)A bonus to defenders, this means some of offensive units are being used as defensive as well and they're a bit stronger because they're defending, if an attacker decides to attack anyway while there are plenty of defenders, his forces should suffer so much losses further conquest should be out of the question. (do the AI fight each other as well, btw ? Having an AI or noob sacrifice his entire fleet just to take one of your planets is REALY annoying, except when another AI sees that as the perfect opportunity to attack him in the back)         WW1 trench warfare nothing happened except a bunch of drones dying, nobody wants to play that. The problem here is, different sides(races/empires) are blocking off each other from taking planets behind them, even when they're at peace and this takes away a lot of the strategic possibilities of where-to-go and how-to-defend. Perfectly the player has some chance to "dig in" when needed, for example a colony's figher-squads coming to the defense of neighbouring colonies, BUT this being an uneconomic choice(gotta take all the resourceless/small planets in an area instead of going for those big gaia planets a little further away) but you made it mandatory to take all neighbouring planets   I think this is what you should have as (rough) goal when making any 4X:   8 or so sides, all progressing at the same time, occasionally running into a conflict, during which one or both sides degress until the conflict is resolved. Different sides/races should all have their own time to shine, but because of pop-growth not keeping up, taking over the universe is not interesting for any side. To not immediately punsish/setback a player for any (military) setback this part is filled colonizing, and technologies are more like specialisations, adding more options to what the empire can do. This part of the game will take 60-80% of the game-time.   After most of the universe has been colonised, there will be "endwars" where individual sides can progress through the taking of another empire/race's territory. Here all the previous decisions the player made should pay off. Military conquest pays off much quicker then colonizing. Most technologies have been researched and most options from technology have been unlocked, most new technologies will "only" improve what the empire can allready do, but the power of the technologies will be very high and will increase the speed of progression(which, at this point, mostly means conquest) This is the part you seem to have, except the only previous decisions made by the player are the ones on the settings screen.   At the end, the emperor that manages to take half the universe gets a vow of loyalty from the other races or something to save him the trouble of having to conquer each individual planet. Alternatively, some end-war can be declared between the strongest player and the other races(that wish to be free/alive) to not make the end of the game too lame.
  14.   I see. And now you noticed that the player is either: A) progressing B) in a stalemate C) getting beat   Which are generally the only things the player is doing in a game.   Also, if i understand correctly, planets("starsystems") also have connections to the nearesst other planets, but not to further-off planets, which means a player(and an AI-race) can't skip a planet and go for that "other" planet that 's more to his taste.   I'm sorry but the game seems to be designed for a quick try/challenge to see whether the player can make it, there is no way to have a chance on final victory without annihilating AI-races, and you made it part of the early-game(as there is no colonizing) so the early game is equal to the late-game in most other 4X-games.   Personally i 'd make each AI/race a challenge, so the game is build-up around multiple challenges(AIs) that the player can declare war on on his personal leisure, to at least give some chance ona  longer game. (Note, i 'm a big fan of having different races that are totally weird, letting them have different diplomatic mechanics would make each play-through different, aka one race would have an "agression-level" another would have official declarations of war/peace, a third would strike when they think the player is weak)
  15.   Call it "integrity"