Jump to content
  • Advertisement

Thiago Monteiro

Member
  • Content count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

34 Neutral

About Thiago Monteiro

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

  • Role
    Game Designer
    Programmer
  • Interests
    DevOps
    Education
    Production
    Programming
    QA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thiago Monteiro

    Attribute balancing

    I suppose it all depends on what type of balance you want to achieve. Without knowing much about your systems, I could think about some possibilities: A) Each attribute is highly independent and function constantly over time. In this case, you have to analyze your tracks. As long as they are well built (in terms of requirement distribution), each attribute will be somewhat balanced. The downside of this is that it increases the relevance of the roll, which doesn't seem to be what you want. B) Attributes have synergies, or are situational. In this case, some attributes would not strongly influence your performance, but would give you a big boost at some points (e.g. determination might give a big boost towards the end of the race or something to that effect, or sprinting boosts your strength during certain points). This way, you would have core and support attributes, and their combinations would determine the player's optimal strategy. Unfortunately, I'm more of a tinkerer to provide you with elegant Math to calculate optimally those things. However, I'd include the dice roll in your model and minimize its influence iteratively until you reach a level you find fun, or that it doesn't feel too luck based. You can also avoid people investing in a single attribute if you provide diminishing returns (something in the e^(1/x) function family). You might also try running multicriteria optimization and adjust your variables until the problem is not dominated by only a few attributes. Hope this helps a bit
  2. By the way, coincidentally, a while back I was thinking about a rather similar game (in the sense of a caravan traveling towards a goal, turn-based combat). since I'm unlikely to work on this idea any time soon, I'll write what I had coarsely in my mind in the hope that it might be useful to you. The main idea would be to have a caravan journeying towards a goal (the reason could be anything, really). Actions would run in accelerated real time. Action would include traveling, foraging for resources, healing, fixing equipment, scouting the region and so on. Time taken to complete each of those and degree of success would be based on skills of the characters doing those things. In principle, there would be no limit to members of the caravan, but find food and camping supplies to many people would make large caravans impossible. The journey would be dangerous, and staying long in one place wouldn't be wise, as the perils of the land would close in the caravan. Part of the challenge would be to manage the different aspects of the caravan, making it efficient in terms of combat and survivability. On top of this, elements of RPG would be added, mainly in the villages and ruins found along the way. Another point is that the 'active group' would be limited, as the other would be taking care of the caravan (say, while other go explore some ruins). All in all, it would play a bit like Expeditions and Thea: Awakening, but with more emphasis on what happen in the caravan and its members.
  3. I'd personally also nudge the player forward to avoid the sense of 'must explore everything before going' and being more like 'I'll try this differently next time'. Perhaps healing supplies dwindle, or there's more enemies around. Another possibility is to add a type of bonus if you reach a region before a given time.
  4. I believe grinding is the "easy" way to add length and smooth out the curve in progression-based games. In aRPGs like Diablo, without the grind, you'd reach the maximum too fast, eliminating the replayability it is known for. On the other hand, if you are always progressing (due to lack of grinding), your improvements are likely meaningless, at least in the immediate sense. I'd say Slay the Spire reached a good balance and studying that game might give you a nice starting point to build your game (and this analysis of the progression is quite interesting to read also https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/07/05/what-works-and-why-juicy-maths-in-slay-the-spire/). Going a bit back in time, you could have something similar to Jagged Alliance, that is, a map where you can travel at your pace, then you'd add more and more perils the longer you linger (like being chased, or something, making you always on the move, gently pushing you towards the end area).
  5. Thiago Monteiro

    Check My Damage Types & Condition Balance

    I find it quite impossible to tell whether damage types and their effects on their own are balanced or not. It really depends on your combat (and possibly progression) system. Without any point of reference, it's hard to place a value on the seconds and %'s. How did you reach the conclusion that this is balanced? Put differently, how did you test it out during design?
  6. Thiago Monteiro

    WHO recognising 'gaming disorder'

    I think this aspect is key. It's not really about the time people are playing, but the context of usage. If someone is playing games for 5 hours a day, but is a teenager with nothing else to do, and gaming has no effect on daily life (studies, socialization and what not), then it is not really an issue. If this same teenager is setting his/her life aside to make time gaming, and this is reducing school performance, creating conflict in the family and the response is more gaming, this already requires some attention, as it does suggest some difficulty in refraining from a behavior. If we consider that this person is an adult, and is risking job or neglecting family family for that, then again it's already a case demanding attention. To add a bit to the mix, there are people that spend a lot of money in gaming. If you have the disposable income, that's fine, but if you don't, and you can't stop despite the negative effects this lack of cash brings you, that's again a compulsive behavior. All in all, I believe those compulsive behavior, to which they have added gaming now, are considered a disorder because at one point it ceases to be a pleasant activity. It's all too possible that those people would stop acting like gaming is fun activity, and get increasingly frustrated or antisocial. This is bad for those people and for the community at large. I think the official consideration by the WHO brings more possibility (funding) for those question to be scientifically investigated. You're likely not wrong there, and there is a lot of people studying this very issue. Truth is, technology changed human behavior in a drastic manner and we are still trying to catch up with our understanding. We are little by little uncovering the mechanisms of why those new technologies are so addictive and I find it important to add game in the mix. Sure, the majority of us has a healthy relationship with internet, gadgets and gaming, but we really need a better grasp of how our mental relationship with them (if for nothing else, i want to believe that it is a good way to avoid witch hunts like those of the past).
  7. Thiago Monteiro

    ARPG Weapon Types Feedback

    Well, I don't have, at the moment, much consideration for too much realism (in terms of real world use) and dual-wielding seems to be a very typical way to go in ARPG. The idea of having it in place of single pistol is quite good, though, and simplifies things a bit. Yes, DPS-wise things are very similar, although play style might be different (high damage/low speed and the other way around, in this case). I had not considered armor penetration, though, which is also a nice idea. That's the idea I'm trying to come up with the minimal set of equipment that would still give plenty of options on how to create builds. Skill-wise, I will likely group those weapons where possible. Thanks for the answer, it did give some nice ideas on how to trim down things a bit
  8. Thiago Monteiro

    Best Modelling Software for Character Rendering & Items

    I suppose Blender is a good and free option
  9. Thiago Monteiro

    ARPG Weapon Types Feedback

    Hi all, I'm currently designing the combat system for an ARPG in the vein of Diablo, but not medieval. At this moment, I'm thinking which weapon/weapon types to include. Briefly, I'm thinking about the different roles/builds players might want to make and which weapon types would go with such builds. Ideally, the weapons should allow for plenty of play style variability, without being overly complex (and consequently useless). In terms of weapons and roles, what would you say to the list below? [NB: scaling would work more or less like in Souls series] Pistols (All-arounder) --> I suppose if there are pistols, then I also must let players dual-wield them, but not sure how to handle this yet Damage: Low to Average Scaling: Average to High Speed: Fast Range: Average Crit %: Average Crit Dmg: Average to High Shotguns (Area) Damage: Low (per pellet, total Average to High) Scaling: Low to Average Speed: Slow to Average Range: Short Crit %: Low Crit Dmg: Average Rifle (Crit/High Damage) Damage: High to Very High Scaling: Average Speed: Slow Range: Long Crit %: High Crit Dmg: Very High Automatic Rifle (Crit Proc) Damage: Average Scaling: Average Speed: Fast to Very Fast Crit %: High to Very High Crit Dmg: Low to Average Two-Handed Weapon (Stagger, makes foes few moments inactive) Damage: High to Very High Scaling: Average to High Speed: Slow to Average Crit %: Low Crit Dmg: High Bladed Weapons (1H, Bleed) Damage: Low + Low to Average DoT Scaling: Average to High Speed: Fast Crit %: Average to High Crit Dmg: Low Dual-Wield (Defensive, Increase Defense and add Riposte Effect) Damage: Low to Average Scaling: Average to High Speed: Average Crit %: Low to Average Crit Dmg: High
  10. Thiago Monteiro

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    Can you show any proof of that? And why would they hide game features that can attract potential costumers? To not hurt the sensibilities of people that firmly believe the world owes all their attention to them? Again, can you show any proof that this is a US centric view of the world? Do you think representation equality is only a US (or US 'fans') thing? I don't see why. They should use whatever aspect of the game sells. History,as written, is absolutely full of bias and propaganda. That's why history research is important. History, for me, is not a belief system. As with other branches of science, we have an accepted view, we have an understanding of where our knowledge is still insufficient and we are open to new data correcting or corroborating the current understanding. Even when confronted with 'propagandistic nonsense', I'd still check whether, maybe, there's something to it. On the one hand, I get the feeling that confirmation bias is extremely strong in the general populace's consumption of science information. On the other hand, if you think that scientists, and science in general, is a propaganda machine where they will do whatever to push a given agenda that political parties can use, let me dispel this gross misconception. First, there are many predatory journals which will publish whatever for money, and you will find most of pseudoscients there (which could be more political, but I don't follow much of the social literature). Those are not the places to look for (proper) science. Second, social scientists examine a deeply complex topic, which includes a large number of aspects impossible to analyze in a single study. Each little aspect is investigated, sometimes multiple times, by multiple people giving context, confirmation and weeding out results that are potentially incorrect. Those studies have varying degrees of statistical quality (sample size, variable, confounders), but in the long run we improve. That's why it's important to take any scientific result with context, and have a vague idea of their methodological quality. It's a burden on the media AND readers. No, it cannot. If you cite whatever bogus source because it agrees with you, it just means your argument is very poor. Pretending otherwise just means lack of argumentation skill. Science, news or the topic is not at fault. It's whoever just wants to see what they already believe confirmed.
  11. Thiago Monteiro

    Player menu and inventory. Log #1

    I meant something slightly different. I was thinking about a Search box where, for instance, if you type 'w', the list is restricted to wire, wood etc. This could be done within panel or globally. It's quite possible. If I'm not mistaken, Victor Vran fully supports controller, despite being a Diablo style game, and it works great (according to me, at least). In any case, I was just curious why you have a radial menu when players have access to a keyboard. In a very short while, I'd think players would have memorized the key shortcut they use most, rendering this one extra menu useless. I'd be curious to know if players would keep relying on the radial menu.
  12. Thiago Monteiro

    Player menu and inventory. Log #1

    Hey Darthy, first of all, nice looking menus I was wondering what was your reasoning behind how they are organized. Let me try to explain a bit better what I mean: I have lately been conceptualizing an in-game menu system for an ARPG that I'm (oh so very slowly) making. I have the intention of supporting both keyboard/mouse and controller as input. For those, controllers radial menus work greatly. The Skyrim style, however, I'm not that convinced. In a game where you expect lots of items in the inventory, that might be a drag to scroll through everything to find what you want. So, some thoughts/questions: 1. Do you intend to support controllers? If not, might be wise to skip the radial menu and open directly the intended menus. 2. Have you thought about a search feature (as you type, things that don't match simply disappear)? 3. If you want to keep the radial, perhaps it could be nice to have only your favorites there?
  13. Thiago Monteiro

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    And just how are you going to talk about business if you don't consider purchasing power? Are you giving away your games? Are they giving away their games for free with full disregard for who plays it or not? Making game is their business and those things are absolutely related. Also, taking a single chart of the whole paragraph and pretending that this alone explain explain the whole thing is being willfully ... blind. For your benefit, let me simplify the train of thought then: Women are somewhere between 40% to 50% of gamers. They have (increasingly more) money to spend on it. They are not spending in FPS. If they do, we gain more money. Conclusion: let's convince them to spend more money. It makes business sense to try to get an untapped portion of the market. To do that, they need to increase the appeal to that particular segment. If they are doing this, is because their (professional, survey based) market analysis indicated that there is more profit in increasing that 7%, even if it costs them some people storming off in anger because of that. And if those people are that angry because there are more women on screen or playing, good riddance.
  14. Thiago Monteiro

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    True, problem is neither you nor I have enough information to accurately say which segment is that. It's very easy to mix vocal with high number, especially on the internet. If you look at current wealth distribution trends, it makes no sense to market media only to young white males. To give examples, again take the Nintendo Wii strategy, which payed off big time. Look also here https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridgetbrennan/2017/01/31/why-has-womens-economic-power-surged-five-stats-you-need-to-know/#37110cff9562 and here http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/modern-day-women-the-powerhouse-that-invests-engages-and-influences.html and here http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/buying-power-women-us. Women have more buying power, are using more media, buying more electronic devices. Besides that, they are an increase share of the gaming market https://www.statista.com/statistics/232383/gender-split-of-us-computer-and-video-gamers/. True, they are the minority in shooters https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/, but given the context, I'm willing to believe that it makes a great potential future market. People making public outcries because a strong woman appeared in a game does not help this cause (and it's not like they already feel very welcome play online FPS games https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=honors_theses)
  15. Thiago Monteiro

    The Battlefield V "Historical Accuracy" Controversy

    I cannot stress enough how absurd it is the fact that you see non-white men as moralizing. Seriously. And even if I conceded, which I'm far from doing, that such representation is "extremely moralizing", where's your anger against the false representation of battlefield doctors? Where's your anger against the creative liberties in the Zeppelin usage during the war? So if I get your point right: showing super human, inaccurate white male immortal heroes -> not moralizing, perfect, the way the world is meant to be. Show anybody else doing similarly fantastic things -> moralizing, ridiculous agenda, those horrible people must be stopped. The series started with realistic diversity because the game was designed like that. And suddenly, excessive diversity is forced into it. It is forced because it doesn't make sense to be there. Now, making sense refers to historical accuracy, but historical accuracy is not the problem Why it doesn't make sense? Could you explain what makes sense in Battlefield, or CoD? It's not that alone that makes it moralising, it's the combination of the multiple factors that leads into it. Multiple? Really? Like what? I don't really agree with this. Companies need to think in their long term financial health, and public opinion matters a great deal in sustainable sales. Games are become more popular, which means a wider range of people will want to play them and it benefits no one that they don't buy games because the established user base is rabid about it. When the Nintendo Wii went against common sense and made a 'everyone can join' console, it was a massive hit. It makes financial sense to be inclusive and that new players feel welcome to the hobby, not shunned.
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!