• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

244 Neutral

About Plunjukl

  • Rank
  1. I'm currently working on a game with some fairly similar mechanics as Rimworld. Now I'm looking for a fun mining system in which the player has to actually investigate his surroundings with his characters before he even knows what's hidden in the ground. I want the player to invest some of his time into the process of mining, at least in the beginning of the game. I've considered a couple of possible systems but I think I can do better, so that's where you guys come in :).   Things I've considered: - Like with Dungeon Keeper you assign tiles that you would like to be mined and then on good look you will keep hitting more of the good stuff. The player has to continously update his mining plans as you will keep discovering more mineable tiles. - Characters have to survey an area on the map. They have to specifically survey for the kind of resource they want to find in this area so it's important they pick the right spots to survey. These right spots can be discovered by recognizing the certain terrain patterns(like: rocky ground and water has more chance of having metal whereas swampy ground has more potential for peat) have a higher chance of having a kind of resource in the ground and by gaining hints from war and trade with natives.
  2. Interesting implementation employees?

    Thanks I will check them tonight!
  3. Interesting implementation employees?

    Thanks all for the replies. I also like the ideas of Servant of having a set crew which can develop itself. I feel it would give players a more personal relation with their staff, instead of it being some meaningless chore.    I think I'll implement something like this, yet less complicated. If I use only one stat I think it would give players a meaningful choice where to spend their best workers on.     Lol   And was this fun to do? To me it seems like a distraction that gets tedious after you've figured out the system.     Indeed, there should be some choices in it. And if skilled employees are required to unlock some special options, I think it would further increase the relation with those characters.
  4. Where to take this from here?

    Perhaps you could have something drop from the sky once in a while. If you manage to hit it with your rocket you might get something special? Like a faster rocket or a new rocket for 20 seconds to which you are invulnerable.
  5. I'm currently making a small flash game of some tycoon-game idea I have. Part of this game is hiring employees, abstracted in having three different kinds of employees with a need of around 10 employees in total. Now I'm wondering if you have some ideas or have played a game that handled hiring employees in an interesting way, because personally I can only come up with something bland and generic.
  6. [4X space] Research (discussion)

    Look, I'm the Emperor and I say if they are going to discover a new ship hull, laser or nanobots to massage my foot. And scientists are going to deliever. I'm not intertesting in their excuses "like if they see some wormhole or whatever", I they can't deliever they will be reassigned to scrubbing nuclear reactors (there are billions loyal citizens in my domain eager to take their place).   Scientists are on *my* payroll, not on some wormhole/alien artifact payroll and they are going to do what *I* say. It can't work any other way, absolutely. It doesn't matter how powerful you as a emperor are. How can you demand something you don't even know exists or which requires information no one possesses. When you get into contact with advanced technology the player can start demanding this technology, or not. So the player still has his choice.
  7. [4X space] Research (discussion)

    It will definitely give some reason for players to start exploring and it's always fun for players to discover something important. This has given me some inspiration for adding something similar in my own game as well. Perhaps there could also be alien objects that give bonuses when they're in your possession, but that would be too dangerous to store in your cities. So that would give players a reason to play hide and seek. Meh, perhaps I'm taking this too far.
  8. [4X space] Research (discussion)

    Only 6? I think it does not have the most interesting part of research system, which is investing in one of multiplie goodies. If there are less than like 30 techs to choose from you lost me as a player Of course it might be personal. There are 6 technologies or perhaps something like "directions" or "fields" would be a more appropriate name. They represent your empires' advancement by increasing in level. All of these technologies have multiple bonusses associated to them and unlock various things when they've reached certain levels. In this system 6 technologies, of which multiple could be worked on simultaneously, offers quite enough choice. Of course this approach is radically different from the usual tech tree and might not be what you are looking for but I thought it might give you some inspiration.
  9. [4X space] Research (discussion)

    I'm currently developing a medieval/fantasy 4X game and I started asking the same questions as you did. I also felt I wanted something different than the bland tech tree that a lot of games offer. I came up with the following system: I personally like technology to be based on the society/culture of an empire and thus indirectly by the choices the player has made. AKA buildings, armies, navies, battles, characters and policies all give a tech boost or malus in one of the six technologies. This way, players will need long-term planning to create a society in which their nation will excel in certain aspects. For example: a player notices he has little trade opportunities but he does have some naval or administration orientated players on the same island/continent. He could easily destroy their armies if he succeeds at gaining a military technology advancement. So he tries to buy enough stone to start building military buildings and tries to produce enough grain and iron to maintain his armies and starts training his armies by attacking neutral regions and he tweaks his government to be more focused on the military. Now let's say this player has conquered a few cities and has gained access to some valuable resources but now he is suffering from his backwardness in trade and naval technology. This system allows him to switch some of his focus and start getting better in these fields. But this will require him quite some effort and time. In the meantime he will start to lose some of his military superiority. Another thing I've added is that some aspects of a nation give it a little edge in all technologies, like having a free society or a centralized empire(in most cases this means small) or by investing a lot of money, effort and resources to build universities. I feel this system gives the players meaningful choices and a realistic and flexible system to work with. It hasn't been tested yet though, so who knows if it actually works.   I hope my explanation was clear and has given you some inspiration.
  10. Where to find test players?

    My friends aren't into these kind of games so I'm not expecting too much from their feedback, and indeed they might be biased as well. I feel like regular people that enjoy playing 4X games would give the best feedback as they're the target audience, but perhaps I'm wrong. How much do professional testers cost?   I would really like that. As there are a lot of idea-guys you would say there are plenty of people that would like to realize their ideas in the form of aiding a developer, without actually having to go through a year of coding.
  11. Hello all, I’m currently working on a multiplayer game for the browser where players have to build cities, conquer regions and gain tradegoods, a bit like Civilization. The game progresses at fixed intervals regardless of whether the players are online and they only have to check on their empire for a few minutes each day. Now I’m looking for a couple of people that would like to play this game with me and share their view on how they think the game could be improved. As the players don’t have to download anything and they don’t have to be online at a fixed time it should be rather easy and flexible for the test players, but I’ve no idea where to find them. So I’m wondering if some of you can tell me how you found your test players or if you have any tips for me to solve this issue.
  12. Issues with multiplayer 4X game

    I feel this would completely take the action out of the game. I've purposely gave no battle options so the battle itself won't be influenced by someone being online, besides that the offline player won't be retreating his army when he loses. The thing I'm more concerned of is that offline players might have their armies defeated and cities conquered because the enemy can amass his army and pick off armies and cities one by one. But I think I've already got some good advice on the matter. Players have to garrison their armies before they go offline and by offering games for certain timezones and at different speeds, they should be able to login more often.   The first one. The game will start and end at the same time for everyone, for 8 players per game for now. The game progresses despite players not being online but I guess that doesn't make this game not a multiplayer. I'm done playtesting my game for singleplayer now and I'm ready to open it up for people to try. If you want I can post a link here in a couple of hours.   You have two things in conflict here. If there is an advantage to being online (e.g. more actions), then those who are offline clearly lose this advantage. I don't think there is any way to avoid making a fundamental game design choice here. However, just because the game-play must make a clear choice here, doesn't mean you cannot address the corresponding issues that arise in another way.   If your game "update" loop is infrequent, you can address the "boredom" issue in other ways, as mentioned by allowing each player to participate in multiple game instances against different players. More than just allow them actually, encourage them by building an appropriate way to manage their ongoing games and to switch between them. The more engaged players can have plenty of simultaneous games to keep them satisfied even if some games might be against more casual players who only participate once or twice a day.   Another idea might be to allow the players to specify the update rate as they start a game instance. You might even cater for this in matchmaking, where players are pitted against players with similar usage patterns (e.g. similar timezones and desired update frequency).   If you're update rate is frequent, to avoid punishing casual players perhaps an idea might be to allow each empire to be managed co-operatively. So for example you could allow several casual players jointly control an empire against a more engaged player. This could allow the game to progress much faster than if each player had their own empire, and opens some interesting social opportunities.   Another idea might be that each game instance could have have a dynamic update rate, where for a number of hours a day a particular game is in a higher intensity mode, but for the rest of the day the rate is drastically reduced or even paused while the majority of players are elsewhere (e.g. work or sleep, again timezones pose an interesting problem). Even just allowing the participants to pause the game until an agreed time has similar benefits.   Obviously, some of these ideas might only make sense as the numbers of users increases, at the start you might not have enough users to sustain such options.   Thanks, these are all great advises which I'll take into consideration.
  13. Issues with multiplayer 4X game

    Sorry for the late response, I completely forgot to check the website for some reason.   Armies engaging by themselves is definitely not impossible, but it can definitely become complex if they have to check a lot of things like human players would do, otherwise they become easy targets and the feature actually does the opposite of what it was supposed to do.   Ah, a modern-inspired social-game-like then? There were a bunch of these on Facebook at some point during the last 5 years. You might want to look into Kixeye's games. They had a fairly popular game following that model (I can't remember the name, but it was a game about flottilas engaging one another in small coves/islands). I mean that before a player goes offline, he garrisons his armies in his cities so that cities are protected by the armies and the armies are protected by the cities. This way an enemy won't be too vulnerable when he/she isn't online.
  14. Issues with multiplayer 4X game

    Doesn't this get boring very quick? Progress is rather slow so it will take days for anything meaningful to happen. Right?   That would require quite an advanced AI. Right now, players could order an army to march to the other side of a continent and with pathfinding it will find its way to that spot, but that's about as far as I can feasibly go. I can't imagine the coding horrors to program armies to engage other armies that are nearby without it being buggy or annoying to the player because it has engaged a superior army or didn't take into account any reinforcements etc.   Thanks for your response BTW.   A very popular browser game like ogame gives the player the chance to keep in a relatively safe state his goods for when he is not online. If you ever played ogame you know I'm talking about fleet save strategy. In ogame your main resource is your fleet. If left on a planet it can be destroyed by an attacker, but if flying it cannot. So, when you go offline, you put your fleet moving toward a far planet, keeping an eye to the hour of arrival, which would be an hour in which you are online. Maybe a similar concept can be useful for you? This is exactly what I need but in a more medieval way. Putting armies inside cities and giving them a huge defense bonus would protect both the cities and the armies. Fleets should be able to hide in harbors. Thank for your reply.
  15. I'm currently working on a multiplayer game for the browser where players have to build an empire, somewhat similar to Civilization in how you have unsettled land and players start building cities. Tradegoods are incredibly important to the prosperity of empires and will be the main reason for war and diplomacy. And with technological progress(which the players have no direct influence over but is instead based on their way of playing) I want to change the importance of certain tradegoods/increase the defense against piracy/make it viable to have longer trade routes etc, so that the power of players will fluctuate and games remain interesting for a longer period. There will be updates at fixed intervals so the game will continue regardless of whether there are any players online or not. One regular interval for army and navy movements and one big less regular game update.   Now that I'm starting to playtest my game for the first times I'm starting to get worried of the nature of my game. One concern is that players have to wait a lot because there's only so much things they can do before they have to wait for an update. But my main concern is that players will be punished for not being online. If a player wakes up and half his empire is conquered it would be enough for that player to never play a game again.   So now I'm wondering if others here have experience with these kind of games and how I could minimize the negative effects of not being online. And I'm also wondering what you think of my game idea and if this would be something that you would like to check in on a few times per day and then continue doing whatever else you were doing.   Here some screenshots of my first playtests: [attachment=24334:ss.png] [attachment=24335:ss2.png]