• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Neutral

About ChandlerT

  • Rank
  2. I've come up with a solution I'm at least semi-happy. It does borrow partly from Gears, but I think it solves most of my issues I had with each system. I think the choice of only 1 upgrade chip vs. 1 upgrade chip and 1 weapon chip depends on the number of upgrades we can come up with. I want there to be thought out choice, which doesn't happen when you can fit pretty much every upgrade between both chips. Therefore, I'm still undecided on 1 or 2 chips, but this isn't a huge issue as long as the basics are down. The best solution I came up with was to have 3 starting weapons, similar to gears. A machine gun, a close-range weapon (i.e. shotgun), and a pistol. This could be modified to be 2 starting weapons, but its not a huge issue that needs to be declared now. You have a choice of 2 or 3 weapons for your machine gun, something like a full auto one or a single shot, and can customize this weapon with a few things like which sight it uses (that's all I can think of right now, but things that don't affect the "weapon's stats" could be added). There could be attachments for your weapons that you could customize with, but I'm unsure on this. This would be something like, large muzzle, which increases accuracy, but decreases damage, and is entirely optional. You could also possibly have a choice for your pistol, but again, this is a non-critical feature that can be tested and decided on later. You also start with a "gadget" which the player can choose from things like Frag Grenades, C4, etc. There are weapon pickups all over the map, included the machine gun, close-range weapon, and pistol (picking up these makes a super version of your basic starting weapon.) Weapon Pickups would be things like Rocket launchers, sniper rifles, etc. Upgrades are done universally. For example, there's a reload speed upgrade, and having it makes all weapons reload faster. The kicker here is that all weapons are variables. Each weapon upgrade has a "Details" tab, which brings up a list of each weapon and how much that upgrade improves its reload speed. This is due to the fact that some weapons may value a certain upgrade over another. A gun that already reloads fast, won't really want a slightly faster reload, so for that specific gun, the upgrade has a higher percentage increased speed. This allows us to attempt to balance each upgrade based on each weapon making it a true choice which upgrades to get rather than which is optimal for your most commonly used weapon. There are also special type upgrade (likely takes up more bits than a normal upgrade), which don't increase basic stats of a gun, but rather alter the actual gun (There may be only one special upgrade, depending on how many things we can think of for each weapon). For example, the special upgrade may increase the splash radius on the rocket launcher, give you a 12x sight on the sniper instead of 8x, and give your assault rifle less recoil. This upgrade is very versatile and focuses on the unique parts of each gun. TLDR Version: Have 3 basic starting weapons, machine gun, shotgun, pistol, and a gadget that can only be basically customized with things that don't actually increase stats (or at least trade-off stats, i.e. increase damage, sacrifice accuracy). Picking up a starting weapon on the map gives you a super version. Upgrades are universal for whatever weapon you pickup, and are variable depending on the weapon. A Reload speed upgrade has different effects for each weapon.
  3. Thanks to all of you for the feedback. Just for clarification, we are definitely tilting toward unrealistic Quake 3, Unreal type over Modern Warfare like you said. When I said a sight, I didn't mean put it on a chain gun, each weapon would have its own type upgrades, I was a little general on describing that, sorry. I really like the "pellet" idea. One thing to mention is we want to keep the majority of this game, skill-based, not class-based. I refer to it as a shooter with RPG elements rather than an RPG with shooter elements. The thing I kind of wanted to avoid was grouping things in a certain class, so when you say sniper grabbing a rocket launcher, I want that to still be semi-effective, and to not have everyone in the game get angry. Of course, thats the main dilemma is that there are upgrades, yet I don't want people to specialize, its definitely a contradiction. The one issue I do find with the "pellet" system is that some players may try to just run around and collect pellets at the start of the game, and as a fellow player, that would probably irritate me. My first thought was to base it off damage on the boss, but then again, if some upgrades start poorly until you get a large number of pellets, then it'd take them longer to fill up anyway. I definitely think something like pellets are on the right track, though it doesn't completely solve the weapon problem. Aethonic's point of view agreed with the "make a super weapon upon pickup of starting weapon," though does this mean they can pickup weapons they didn't start with? I still haven't found a solution I just unquestionably like unfortunately, not sure if that's ever going to come :(
  4. I appreciate both of you guys feedback so far. Taking it into consideration for sure. One thing I do want to mention for future posters, is that we want to keep this game at its core a shooter, not an RPG. Abilities should not be flinging fireballs around, and bosses should not require a certain ability to defeat (i.e a boss has flame vulnerability.) The way I view plasmids is a little RPGish, so we'd like to keep most abilities to something like "Turn invulnerable for 2 seconds" or "Extra damage for 3 seconds," not "shoot lightning at the boss." I should've made that clarification before hand so I apologize, but you are correct in assuming something like Godzilla or Cloverfield.
  5. Hey all. I've currently run into a brick wall for a project of mine. I'll start by giving you our token "about" description, and we can go from there. In Troubleshoot, players control a single character in a group of four other human players. It is handled in a basic third-person shooter format. They are tasked with working together to take down a giant monster/boss. Levels are generally oval and constrained in nature and do not "progress," in that the whole level is available right off the bat. Its not like a typical campaign level where you fight, run to next area, fight. The whole area is the fight as the boss moves around the level (think of it as an arena.) Behind this fighting system, is a customization system. Essentially each character has a "memory chip." These memory chips have a restrained number of "bits" to fill up with upgrades. These upgrades could be something like Faster Reloading, faster sprint, jump higher, more ammo per clip, etc. These upgrades are added to your "chip" and then affect you in the game. All customization is done before the game, so you choose your upgrades before ever joining a game. These upgrades are permanent between game to game, or at least until you remove it from your chip. (Its not like Counterstrike where you purchase each round.) The space on your chip does not fluctuate. Imagine it like a Call of Duty class, you make your class, then can choose it once the game starts. We are currently running into an issue on how to handle weapons and ammo. We'd like players to be allowed to customize their weapons, such as adding sights, stronger bullets, etc. similar to the chip system. However, we also would like to add weapon pickups on the level to encourage the player to move around. We have a few current ideas that I'll list below, though I'm open to something creative. Multiple Chips Our first idea was to have two separate chips. The upgrade chip and then a weapon/weapon upgrade chip. The upgrade chip is used for things like increased armor, running faster, faster reload, jump higher. The weapon chip is used for selecting your starting weapons and then upgrading them. For example, the player buys a sniper rifle and a pistol and it takes up 5 bits on their 10 bit weapon chip. They player decides to put a red dot sight on his pistol, and increases the fire rate and bullet damage on his sniper rifle taking up the other 5 bits. This allows us to still use weapon pickups, as the player can pickup new weapons, they just won't be upgraded. Questions: Should the player be able upgrade weapons they don't own? I.E I don't start with a rocket launcher, but I purchased increased fire rate with it, so whenever I pick it up on the level it has increased fire rate. One thing we were thinking is to allow players to pick the starting weapons the want (by putting them on the chip), and then anytime the player walks over the same weapon on the map, they get a super powered version. I.E player starts with the sniper rifle and finds it on the map as well, he now has a super powerful sniper rifle. Basic Starting Weapon Another option we were debating was to have a selection of a couple basic starting weapons. Gears of War does the lancer and hammerburst, so you have a small choice of which to start out with. This weapon could have unlimited ammo, so it is always your backup plan if you don't pick up a weapon off the map. Your weapon/weapon upgrade chip is now reserved for other weapon upgrades. So you can upgrade your basic starting weapon, or you can just purchase upgrades for weapons you'd pick up on a map. Buy the red dot sight for the chain gun? Pick the chain gun up from the map and it would have a red dot sight. One thing that concerns me about something like this is that some players may argue over who picks what weapon up. Someone may pick up a rocket launcher, and another player say something like "I called Dibs on rocket launchers, I have upgrades for mine." While this isn't a huge issue, its just going to get annoying I feel like. Universal Upgrades Each weapon is customizable to a certain sense. So there's a menu where you choose your preferred basics of each weapon you pick up, i.e all your rifles have red dot sights and digital camo. Your weapon/weapon upgrade chip is then reserved for universal upgrades, like increased fire rate. Any weapon you pick up is going to have increased fire rate. This solves the problem of someone having more upgrades for a certain weapon than someone, but still may run into an issue of some upgrades are better for certain weapons than other. This does also run into the problem that it limits our freedom as designers as we can't do weapon specific upgrades, like a 12x zoom on a sniper instead of 8x. I just see a ton of advantages and disadvantages to each, so I'm hoping I come here and someone says something mindblowing and it solves everything. I'll appreciate any feedback you can give me regarding any solution, so just let me know. Thanks in advance for all your help!
  6. Unity Best Game Engine for Indie Game?

    This has been a great read for me, really appreciate everyone's input, though admittedly it is a bit old at this point so some info is out of date. I'm looking a starting up a project and have been doing some heavy research on engines. Of course, everything has their pros and cons, and it doesn't help that I don't have an incredibly expansive knowledge on graphical programming. Through my research, I've found that my two personal favorites based on reviews are Esenthel and Leadwerks. Just as a precursor, the project is a Third-Person co-operative (so it does require AI and Networking) multiplayer shooter. Mostly outdoor environments. Not sure if that affects which would be better, but I figured I'd mention it anyway. The reason I mentioned AI and networking is because I'm unsure if you don't have the engine source, can you add things like this (see question below). Does anyone have experience with both of these that could make some comments? One thing I've noted in reviews of some engines was if the engine license included the source or not. How much of a difference is this in indie development? What is something I might need to add or detract that would require needing the source? Lastly, how do these licenses typically work or is it a case by case basis? What I mean is do I have to buy a license for each programmer and artist on the project, or is it per project? Thanks for the help!
  7. Yeah I was thinking about just doing Red vs. Blue, the only thing I don't like about that is that our models will actually have faces, unlike Halo, so that you'd see the same characters fighting against each other. While there's no story line, that seems a little weird to me. Of course, I suppose we could just have every character have a helmet. The way we were planning on doing equipment is a cash-based system, but everyone has the same pool of cash. You select everything before you even join a server. So you can make, let's say, 5 pre-sets for yourself, and you can swap through these presets between each round of the game. So you have a base of $10k, and one weapon cost 1k while another is 1.5k and each upgrade costs a different amount based on how good it actually is. The only way I see to ensure that people don't choose the same stuff is to have a counter on the team menu that says, Team has 3 lights, 2 mediums and 1 heavy, 2 sniper rifle weapons, 1 machine gun, etc. If we made people change their equipment every round based on their team, it would become less playing and more menu hunting to change to something the team doesn't have yet. Thats how I see it. Appreciate the feedback.
  8. I'm currently in the process of finalizing our ideas for our upcoming mod, and we've hit a few roadblocks and I just want to get all the possible solutions out there and see where we can go from there. Just for some ground-work, this is a competitive team-based multiplayer, third-person shooter. So teams must utilize all the abilities to succeed, i.e not everyone can buy sniper rifles. Its a little like classes, but its customizable classes rather than just choosing a title. What we want to accomplish is bringing a certain level of stats and character customization to the shooter genre. Our original thought was to allow the player to pick each slot of his/her equipment, so they choose a piece for head, chest, legs, gloves, and feet. These equipment pieces affect speed, defense, life, damage, and give the player abilities depending on what they selected. After we realized that this would limit us to one shape of player model (or else we'd have to make armor pieces for every single different model), we decided this probably wasn't the best of ideas. My current solution is a little different than the first. It starts with having two "factions", humans and "robots." Each side has, let's say, 4 different player models, each with 3 different customizations, light, medium, and heavy. So, the player chooses his model for each side, and then what base armorset he/she wants. These base armor sets determine your base speed, strength, defense, life, etc. You can then customize your armor with things such as a lighter material, thicker shell, etc. to change those base stats. Each weapon can also be customized like this, so you choose two weapons and can choose things such as faster reload, larger clip, etc. You then just select abilities to buy off of a list rather than them being attached with each equipment piece. With this method, its simply a matter of making the 4 different players models (total of 8), and then just modifying basic armor to make a light, medium, and heavy look, as we don't actually have to make it visual that that armor has lighter material or a thicker shell. I think this is a decent solution at least, it solved any problems of having to color the equipment a certain color for team, and saves us a ton of modeling work and coding aside from just the base models. My questions are: What possible stats can you even modify with equipment? I think I've covered them all with Speed, defense, life, and strength (bullet or melee attack damage) Is there another way to add customization aside from my solution? Feel free to pitch any ideas you have, maybe you dislike the idea of robots and rather me go with some crazy aliens or something, I don't know. Thanks for the input!
  9. Currently working on my 3rd person camera for my HL2DM mod, and I'm running into one issue. The camera originally "twitched" when I moved too close to a wall, making it throw off the view as it completely changed angles to the player rather than smoothly transitioning into the wall. After finally being able to fix this problem, I ran into another one. Whenever you do move against a wall, the tracelines no longer work and you can see through the wall rather than the camera detecting the wall and moving against it. I don't know if this is all the code needed, but its all I've been messing with, everything else is default except a few code snippets in various files just to turn the camera on. void ClientModeShared::OverrideView( CViewSetup *pSetup ) { // Let the player override the view. C_BasePlayer *pPlayer = C_BasePlayer::GetLocalPlayer(); if(!pPlayer) return; pPlayer->OverrideView( pSetup ); if( ::input->CAM_IsThirdPerson() ) { Vector camForward, camRight, camUp; AngleVectors( pPlayer->EyeAngles(), &camForward, &camRight, &camUp ); trace_t tr, tr2; Vector vecStart, vecStop, vecDirection, vecSetDirection; static float camCurrentY; static float camCurrentX=18.0f; //used for fluid camera transfers float camDelta=0.0f; vecStart=pSetup->origin; AngleVectors(pPlayer->EyeAngles(), &vecDirection); vecSetDirection.Init(0,0,1.0f); vecDirection=vecDirection.Cross(vecSetDirection); vecStop = vecStart + vecDirection*52.0f; VectorMA( pSetup->origin, 18.0f, camRight, pSetup->origin); UTIL_TraceLine( vecStart, vecStop, MASK_ALL, pPlayer, COLLISION_GROUP_NONE, &tr ); if (tr.fraction == 1) //are we far enough away to not be hugging a wall with the camera? { if(camCurrentX < 18.0f) camCurrentX +=camDelta; if(camCurrentX >=18.0f) camCurrentX=18.0f; //VectorMA( pSetup->origin, camCurrentX, camRight, pSetup->origin); //set the right offset VectorMA( pSetup->origin, 1.0f, camUp, pSetup->origin); vecStart=tr.endpos; } else { //we weren't clear on the right, lets check the left vecStop = vecStart + vecDirection * -52.0f; UTIL_TraceLine( vecStart, vecStop, MASK_ALL, pPlayer, COLLISION_GROUP_NONE, &tr ); if (tr.fraction == 1) //are we clear on the left? { if(camCurrentX > -14.0f) camCurrentX -=camDelta; if(camCurrentX <= -14.0f) camCurrentX=-14.0f; //VectorMA( pSetup->origin, camCurrentX, camRight, pSetup->origin); VectorMA( pSetup->origin, 1.0f, camUp, pSetup->origin); vecStart=tr.endpos; } else //not clear, so set the camera behind the player and raise it more than normal to maintain clear view { //set camera behind player because left and right are not clear //VectorMA( pSetup->origin, 1.0f, camRight, pSetup->origin); //check to see if there is enough room above AngleVectors(pPlayer->EyeAngles(), &vecDirection); vecSetDirection.Init(1.0f,0,0); vecDirection=vecDirection.Cross(vecSetDirection); vecStop = vecStart +vecDirection*32.0f; UTIL_TraceLine( vecStart, vecStop, MASK_ALL, pPlayer, COLLISION_GROUP_NONE, &tr); if(tr.fraction == 1) { VectorMA( pSetup->origin, 1.0f, camUp, pSetup->origin); vecStart=tr.endpos; } else //not enough room on left, right, or above, so move the camera eye level //TODO: Add code to make player translucent as well so the player can see better { VectorMA( pSetup->origin, 1.0f, camUp, pSetup->origin); } } } AngleVectors(pPlayer->EyeAngles(), &vecDirection); vecStop = vecStart + vecDirection * -70; UTIL_TraceLine( vecStart, vecStop, MASK_ALL, pPlayer, COLLISION_GROUP_NONE, &tr ); vecStart=pSetup->origin; vecStop = vecStart+vecDirection*-70; UTIL_TraceLine( vecStart, vecStop, MASK_ALL, pPlayer, COLLISION_GROUP_NONE, &tr ); //multiply the default distance by the percentage the traceline traveled, should put the camera infront of the object /*if(tr.fraction != 1) { camCurrentY = -96 * tr.fraction + 10.0f; } else { camCurrentY=-96.0f; VectorMA( pSetup->origin, camCurrentY, camForward, pSetup->origin); }*/ camCurrentY = -70 * tr.fraction + 10.0f; VectorMA( pSetup->origin, camCurrentY, camForward, pSetup->origin); } } Thanks!
  10. Appreciate the replies. We have decided on a Mouse-controlled camera, with A and D being turn and run rather than strafe, and after some early testing, it looks really great. Our current issue is that of actual controls now. We'd like to have some type of combo system in tact, such as a normal attack then a special. So attack, attack, attack, special to finish off the move. Or normal attack and strong attack with attack, attack, strong attack, attack. We haven't set our mind on the ways combos will work, but we really can't figure out how to execute it properly. If LMB is normal attack, I feel like mashing that to attack will feel awkward, and also likely result in a lot of camera frustration as the clicking will lead to the mouse moving. We've also thought about using space as normal attack, and binding special or strong to the LMB or RMB, and then using Shift to jump, but we feel this is awkward since nearly every games spacebar is jump. Again, we are very open on actual combo system as long as there are at least two varying attacks and an ability/spell button. It is a real-time, action combat system, so despite the mention of WoW, it's not one where you click someone and it attacks until they are dead, each button press results in an attack. So if you have any ideas on an effective control scheme, please please please let me know. That part of our design doc is staring me in the face and it is getting frustrating!
  11. So I'm used to just using one analog stick to move and the other to rotate the camera, but I'm having a hard time thinking about what the controls for that would be on PC. Do you rotate with the with the mouse like most shooters and "A" and "D" are just strafe with "S" moving backwards, using only the mouse to turn your character? Do you bind keys such as "Q" or "E" to a camera rotate function and "a" and "D" now turn your character? The last system I've though is the WoW system where you use the mouse to rotate, but only by clicking does the camera rotate? Is there some more effective system that I'm not even thinking of? I'd prefer to have a more cinematic view, and the problem with the mouse view is that you are staring at your character's back the entire time. Not only that, a mouse means you are going to be clicking... a lot. I feel like trying to click enough to get your combo high would be incredibly frustrating, compared to just mashing a key. But then again, I feel like the "Q" and "E" rotate system, may feel awkward sometimes. So how do you see most action games do this on PC? I don't really play any on PC or know if the ones I'm thinking of are on PC but games like Prince of Persia, God of War, Devil May Cry, etc. Thanks.
  12. Yeah, definitely only considering free Modding engines with the SDK out, and AFAIK, Total War's isn't open modding. And even if it was, I think I'm looking for more level of detail than that. While the size of the armies would be no problem with it, I think creating an up-close hero may be awkward. And I agree that all the editors are perfectly capable of accomplishing it, I just figure one would be better than the other for it.
  13. Title pretty much says it all. I don't know a great deal about all the different engines, so I'm looking for a decent place to start. I'm thinking its between Crysis (Sandbox), Source (Hammer), or UE3, but I don't really know what would be the best. I suppose the term "best" would be for the engine easiest to convert into something like Dynasty Warriors, but I'd love to hear other comments on which and why. If you don't know what Dynasty Warriors is, it's basically a third-person Melee action game with possibly hundreds of units on screen at a time in outdoor, large-scale environments. Difficulty with an FPS engine is of course making it third-person (or is that that difficult?), melee combo-system combat, and a load of enemies on-screen at a time. Random question and I'm being vague, I know, but there's thoughts-a-brewing. Just need to be pointed in a general direction before I begin research! Thanks for the help!
  14. True First Person and Body Awareness

    If you are wanting to add peripheral vision on a first person why not make it widescreen and just distort the far sides of the screen? I can see perfectly clear in front of me, but things in my peripherals are more blurred, I'd say it's pretty easily done in a game, just make it more focused on things in your direct line of vision. Doesn't make it a "true" view as you referred to, but it's a start?
  15. Braid - The epitemy of game design.

    Quote:Original post by kiwasabi Why do people like this game so much? I've heard the following things about this game: 1. It has an intentionally convoluted story that (correct me if I'm wrong) forces the player to fill in gaps that are left in the story. 2. It's a platformer with very difficult puzzle elements (so difficult that the op, who is an avid puzzle game player, had to use a strategy guide). 3. You have to force yourself to get through the monotony of the gameplay for a while. Why do people love this game so much? I've read about it and watched some videos of the game in action, and I just don't understand how this game could be such a phenomenon. I didn't see it until I played it either. I look at screenshots and it looks pretty basic and boring, but once I played it, it all changed around. You don't really have to fill in story gaps, you just have to make sense of it until the end where it gives you the big clue (and the best level ever). Tough puzzles yes, but each puzzle uses game mechanics beautifully. Monotony, kind of, but in the end it's completelyyyyyyyy worth it.