Jump to content
  • Advertisement

suliman

Member
  • Content Count

    1736
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

suliman last won the day on March 23

suliman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1713 Excellent

4 Followers

About suliman

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Information

  • Role
    Game Designer
  • Interests
    Art
    Design
    Programming

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. There is "normal" turn-based gameplay. In this mode a single player act and all other players wait. This thread is about simultaneous turns. Not all multiplayer turn-based games use this, but some do (and some, like civ 3 allows usage of both modes of turn-based gameplay in different modes). In simultaneous turns, players' actions can overlap to some degree, but the game is still not realtime (in realtime, such as starcraft, units can all constantly move at the same time, and there is no "end of turn" were specific things happen like refilling unit movement points, do income etc). In turn based, typically only one action is resolved at a time (which makes simultanous turns tricky to implement). Also, when no players are issuing commands, the game is not moving forward (in realtime games the game goes on all the time). That was some explanation on what simultaneous turns are. In this thread, Im asking about how to best implement simultaneous turns. There seem to be two major ways of doing this, and some feedback has been given on both as you can read in the thread. If you are not experienced in simultaneous turns, maybe you are not the right person to offer help on the subject.
  2. @Talvysh Aaaand I think you are not being helpful. I see you have replied in several threads just complaining and not adding much. About your comment: So "civilization" is not turn-based? It's probably the most well known turn-based game in the world. Also games like xcom (the combat part), you move and resolve one unit at a time and it's resolved DIRECTLY. That's still turn-based. Also, why argue the semastics instead of adding to the actual question? (how to implement / pros&cons of different styles of simultanous turns in multiplayer-games). Also, the wording has already been discussed in the thread.
  3. suliman

    Class skills in tactical rpg?

    Nope I haven't. When it comes to active class skills, these games are not optimal no (battle brothers has none of these for example). I use some of the mechanics and some settings though. And the class skills in darkest dungeon are a bit different. Let me phrase it like this then: any other games were you think this was done correctly? Good spread of abilities and feel that are still balanced?
  4. suliman

    Class skills in tactical rpg?

    Yes, this is what i meant Tom. Thanks for clarifying. Any good "bank"/index of basic skills for "typical fantasy classes" that I can use as a base? Or particularly suitable games to look at?
  5. Hi! Im doing a dungeon crawler rpg / tactical game. It's influenced by Darkest dungeon, Battle brothers and tabletop RPGs. You control a party of 3-6 heroes (each has a class like mage, ranger, cleric etc). Fights are started when the party runs into enemies and they are turn-based and units move around on a grid (chess-board style). All ranged attacks/skills reach the entire board. How would I go about setting class skills for each class? I understand this is a complex issue but any input is welcomed. My idea is this: Basic attack (low dmg but cost no energy ("mana")) Weapon-based attack (low energy cost, 4t cooldown. Spear has chance to cause bleed, mace has chance to stun etc) Class based: two mid-range skills (medium energy cost, 2-4t cooldown). one "ultimate" (cost lots of energy, has long cooldown) Some classes should be tanky, some DPS, some support/buffers. There is no healing through hero skills but there can be shields and damage-reduction buffs. Should I just look at similar games and start off by mimicking some of the skills from there? I dont want to be too unoriginal but balancing all this seems like a nightmare if I start from nothing
  6. This is how multiplayer in civilization works (in simultaneous mode), and some other games. This is also how singleplayer works in most turn-based games (you select any unit and move them, you dont need to wait for the turn to end for units to move/resolve action). End-turn normally just gives you income, random events and moves units that have "go-to" (multi-turn) orders. It DOES have the problem of (possibly) be a benefit of moving early in a turn. But since it's the same for everybody, this might be ok. The other option (everybody gives only orders, then everything moves/resolves "at the same time") also has alot of problems (mainly you dont get direct feedback on your actions, exploring gets wierd as you have to give order before you know what you will discover etc).
  7. The RTS "Homeworld" had loads of units types, but in the end most players focused on no more than 6-7 types in each engagement, as it became hard to organize and remember all the counters and tactics for everything otherwise. Roles tend to (at least partially) overlap if you have alot of unit types, this may be ok, but it's also an indication that they are not all NEEDED. It might be easier in turn-based (compared to realtime), but many unit types can also lead to slower games (if players need to reference unit info, think alot etc).
  8. This is not about realtime VS turn-based gameplay. The gameplay is turn-based. Im asking about how to make SIMULTANEOUS TURNS should work.
  9. Maybe you have too many unit variants already (basically 20 types!). Units should have a distinct function and a distinct look, so the player can get feedback on the tactics he/she tries out. If not all have this, i'd say you have too many units. And since you havent even started playtesting i'd say take it easy with more units Maybe starting with 5 units and see how they interact would make more sense to figure out what you need to add (if anything).
  10. Hi! Im making a turnbased strategy game were players move around armies on a map. How would this work with (preferably) simultaneous turns? Do players move there armies at the same time, and (since there is battles when armies meet) it's first come first serve? Meaning when a new turn starts, all armies refills their movement and the player who moves first simply moves first (actions are resolved directly). Or would all players assign orders, and when complete, all actions resolves in a seperate "mid-turn phase" where no players have the ability to interact further? The second one seems more fair but also makes the game slower.
  11. I think you overcomplicate this. Finding a formula is very hard since there is SO many parameters in even a simple game like this. You will work very hard and in the end the formula will probably not magically give you good balanced costs for your game anyway. Do a "design"-balance first. This is when you think broadly about what you want the feeling of the game units to be. for example: a cheap unit - 100 gold two medium units - 250 gold each but have different roles a luxury "kick-ass" unit - 600 gold (this may be "normally not worth it" but good if you are swimming in cash, for example). When your testers start testing the game, find out what is used and what isnt (you might be the only tester you have, this may be fine). If one unit is too good (is overly being bought compared to other things) --> either raise the price or lower the stats. This should be the overall loop of balancing the unit costs. You may want to keep one unit very expensive (if this is what your design needs), so then you need to increase its power rather than decrease its cost if it's not being used (this of course depends of the type of game you make). Makes sense to you?
  12. I would just say that making ONE good game is hard enough. Split it into 5 different and that seems like an unnecessary complication for you as a developer. And as previously stated, when I want to play I normally know what I want to play, I dont want anyone else to just decide for me what to play
  13. So timers are a timeless method eh? On a serious note, what does the waiting add to the player? I often feel such waiting is introduced just to offer premium items/currency for sale so the player can skip them. You add an annoyance to make the player skip that annoyance.
  14. Hi! Why cannot i do this? (and any way to do it?) #define MY_VAL 5 someFunc("the value is MY_VAL"); I thought defines were replaced when compiling exactly as they are written. So why cannot the parameter of the function (char *) interpret this as "the value is 5"? I also use the MY_VAL as an number such as: int val = MY_VAL;
  15. suliman

    Save-scamming in turnbased game?

    Well no I hate slow load/saves so that's not an option Also it seems too devious to add a "sleep" function just to waste the players time! Increased randomness will be hard with my game, so I think i'll need to use one of the other solutions. Thanks guys! (more input is always welcomed)
  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

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

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!