• Advertisement


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

276 Neutral

About Peon

  • Rank
  1. Warbook is/was pretty popular on Facebook (it's like Utopia).
  2. Quote:Original post by AGreen Hey guys, some cool ideas getting throw around. My suggestions are very similar to what has been said. Try taking a que from Warhammer and giving the players bonuses for being near their leader, such as increased attack strength, or speed. Or maybe a radar or map only visible if within a certain range of the tactical officer. This is exactly I what I was thinking of. In particular, I was thinking of heroes in Warcraft III. Many have auras that are beneficial to nearby units. I could see this being useful in other team based games like FPS. For instance, in Savage, you could imagine players clustering around an Officer to gain certain beneficial effects (they might do this already). Going off alone some time can be fun too. In games like Battlefield where fighting is clustered around some midpoint flag, it's fun to be stealthy and steal the one behind it.
  3. my game - hoping for some feedback!

    I think a strafe would be helpful as well, as someone pointed out. I sort of naturally gravitate towards the circle strafe in a game like this. Also, I don't think anyone has pointed this out but I think playing this game would make me dizzy. I play all kinds of FPS (which people commonly associate with feeling fizzy) without a problem, but I think I'd get dizzy if I played this for 15 minutes. All that sounds kind of critical, but good work so far :)
  4. My first reaction is that I don't really know what the gameplay is like. You call it 'Pong', so obviously I have some idea, but it's still not clear. For instance, do you score points by scoring goals? Is it by some how disabling your opponent? There's a lot of good specifics here, but a slightly larger summary of gameplay would help to focus how the game is played. I can get a good feel from a description of the gameplay; I'd say that specifics like power-ups and what they do isn't really needed for this kind of document.
  5. There was an old Mac game called 'Mortal Pongbat' which you might look at for inspiration. Apparently it's been ported as well: http://www.pygame.org/projects/20/200/
  6. The first thing I thought of was a 'Lost' style theme. Instead of a train, you start with a 'plane crash' tile and go from there. The goal is to take control of the island; kind of could be like Lord of the Flies too. Depending on your occupation previous to the island, you get certain abilities (the classes you mentioned). Just a thought as far as theme and direction. Sounds like a great idea.
  7. I'd just wrap it in a function (psuedo code): boolean isWithinDelta(int x, int y, int delta){ if(abs(x - y) <= delta) return true; else return false; } eg: if isWithinDelta(ball.x, paddle.x, 0.4) doCollision();
  8. Puzzle Quest as an RTS

    doctorixstring: Some great ideas. A few comments: - Yes, by real-time I meant the players would be able to go as fast as they want without waiting for the other player. My fear though is that this might be too chaotic. In Puzzle Quest, the computer goes so fast some time that it's hard to tell what's going on. Imagine if you were trying to do create matches on the same board. One possibility is that the players would play on separate boards like in 'battle Tetris' type games. Another is your 'gold coin' idea which I really like. - And I did forget about skulls :) I think skulls would be appropriate for the 'ability charging' idea I mentioned earlier, instead of coins. My thinking on this is something like Advance Wars. Your commander would have certain abilities (units move faster, hit harder, etc... ) that could be activated when a meter was full. I think it'd be cool to use skulls for this. Tromack: I'll PM you as well. Thanks for the feedback!
  9. I was wondering if the successful 'Puzzle Quest' model could be applied to an RTS type game. For those who don't know, Puzzle Quest is a popular, multi-platform game based on (I think) Bejeweled. By finding series of 3, 4, or 5 'orbs' of the same color, you get 'mana' for using abilities against your opponent. In an RTS, you'd move from the Puzzle Quest turn-based system to real-time. The four colors would act as resources for building units. The purple 'experience' stars would act as research points that would allow you to buy new buildings/units to take into battle (research is spent on the world map, not during battle). The 'gold coins' would act to charge a special commander ability you could select. Abilities, as they are in Puzzle Quest, would become buildings and units. When a unit or building is built, it is added to a separate section of the playfield. For instance, consider the following 'abilities': Barracks (4 Red, 2 Yellow): Allows production of knights Knight (1 red, 1 yellow, barracks) Paladin (2 green, 2 blue, barracks, church) Units are smart enough to move on their own when produced and march across towards the enemy. The objective is to destroy the enemy headquarters. At a high level, there is a metagame that focuses on taking over territories like in Risk. Different territories have different effects on the gameplay, so there is some strategy in choosing an attack route. In addition, users can customize their army by choosing which buildings and units they want to include. For instance, if there are 20 units total and you can keep 8, part of the strategy is choosing which units you want to take with you. Any thoughts on the viability of this idea? A few questions come to mind: - Would make Puzzle Quest real-time instead of turn-based be too difficult, from the player's perspective? - Does the RTS model described above make sense as described? - And generally, does the game as described sound 'fun'?
  10. Shoot em up in RTS??

    I've been thinking of developing something like this too, and definitely like the idea. My concept revolved around the idea of a standard RTS, where you could pick any one unit (or possibly just control one hero) and control them with a WSAD key-scheme -- move around, attack, etc... like it was an action game. Other units could 'follow your lead', if you will, allowing you to control a squad of units with just one guy. Pikmin on GC / Wii does a pretty good job of allowing you to control one squad, and a single character at the same time. I think you could apply the Pikmin model to an RTS. I did some research and found a game called Age of Invasion http://www.allegro.cc/depot/AgeofInvasion that implements a similar concept. The game itself is too slow and overall not that good, but I think the idea is still sound. It's worth a try to give you some inspiration, if nothing else. Besides Archon, I always enjoyed Unholy War, an old PS1 game. In the game, you manage resources and move troops in a turn-based fashion on a hex grid. However, combat takes you to a separate arena where you battle other units in real-time. Each unit has a variety of abilities that they can use in this combat, as well as a separate set that can be used on the map itself. XBox / PS2 have a similar title; I believe it's called 'Wrath Unleashed' or something of that nature. I didn't like it as much, but it plays a little bit like a modern version of Archon. You can get it for $5 at Blockbuster in the used game area.
  11. Here's a little more (ignore the art; I CAN actually draw :)) - The squares on the top bar are buildings you can build. They are hotkeyed #1-#X, or can be clicked. - The 3 'resources' in the top right are ore (used for buildings and ships), population (establishes maximum on # of active ships), and science (used to 'buy' upgrades) - You can see two planets on the left and right, each with buildings. In the middle, you can see a battle taking place. Ships look the same for each side (unless I add multiple races), but are identified by engine / laser color. Hope they gives you a clearer picture.
  12. Looking for some feedback on a Flash game I'm currently working on (just to clarify, it's very early in development with no demo to show quite yet). It's always good to get a second opinion on this stuff. Players start out with a planet on the left side of the screen, on which they can build a variety of structures. Structures are placed radially around the planet (much like the Sim City Societies logo, if you're familiar with that). Players can use the arrow keys to rotate their planet around its own axis. This is significant because not only is building placement important, but so is the current orientation of the planet. If you've built a shield generator, for instance, you probably want to rotate your planet so that it can bear the enemy assault. The objective is to capture an enemy planet on the other side of the map. A planet is captured by any class of 'Capital' ship that is in orbit, if it is free of buildings. When a unit producing building is built, it automatically produces units that fly towards the enemy planet, intercepting enemies in the middle. I envision probably 10 different types of ships that can be built, ranging from fighter class ships all the way up through Battleships. There are also other RTS staples, such as a basic tech-tree, but focus is quick, arcade-like play and simplicity. This isn't really a deep RTS, but instead would target 5-10 minute games. Flash games need to be 'explosive' to capture ADD gamers, so the idea is to keep things simple, and to keep the action going. Any thoughts? One concern I had is that it might not be deep enough; that is to say, you don't actually control the units themselves. The only things you can effect are what buildings to build and the orientation of your planet. I was also considering neutral planets that can be captured in between your planet and the enemy planet. Things like the tech-tree and 'commander powers' add some more depth, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on an RTS where you don't really control the units. [Edited by - Peon on March 10, 2008 11:35:44 PM]
  13. Untitled

    I had a question about your implementation of A* (not pertaining to this entry specifically, but anyhow... ) Assuming a large horde of enemies on the screen, is it feasible to run the A* algorithm for each entity (perhaps as once as often as one every cycle, depending on if the target is moving)? The reason I ask is because I'm trying to implement A* for a game I'm currently working on, but am worried about the time it will take to run the algorithm so often. How has it worked so far for you?
  14. Quote:Original post by Vegettex Hmm with java applets it shouldn't matter where they are run because they are using your vm (at least that is what I thought about java, been a while though :) ) are you testing them both on the same computer or on different computers? and the local version, are you running it in a browser aswell or running it through your IDE? I haven't tested running the "local" version in a webpage -- I compiled and ran it with the NetBeans Java IDE, and it ran significantly faster than in a brower (I tried both IE and Firefox). I tested both on the same computer, yes.
  • Advertisement