Several months ago, my buddy made a new game. It's a period time strategy war game w\ cities, troops, & shit. It was just something that he & half a dozen or so of his friends could play. He threw up a website, but had to calculate all the moves & battles every day by hand (he can't code, period). A few weeks ago, he brought the site down & wants to bring it back up again for another build. He asked me for help in automating shit. I agreed & got some specs from him this weekend. Turns out he's wants to do more than just rebuild the site. Since I can automate player movement monitoring & resolution for him, he's anxious to revamp the combat system & numerous other critical concepts. Apparently, what I really agreed to was the role of co-designer. For the moment, I find this an interesting project to work on, so I'm not terribly worried about whatever work these sweeping changes will create.
All this being said, are there any huge lessons you've learned from gaming for years of which I should be wary? What philosophies, precepts, rules, etc. should have heed paid to them? Keep in mind that this is ultimately just a thing that's for ten or so acquaintances to do during the day at work & shit.
suggestions?
First of all, you have just labeled yourself as someone who can program games. That's going to mean work down the road on some dtman.com stuff. I can't guarantee that, but if I were a betting man...
Second, what specifically do you want to know? Cake, Gordo, and I used to multi RTS games all the time. Catt is/was into period RTSs. I would put my knowledge of the gaming industry up against anyone. So ask when you hit an issue or if you're not sure about something, someone here will have some opinion.
To get you started, if it's just for 10, your #1 goal should be to just make it work. Worry about bugs and extra features later.
Second, what specifically do you want to know? Cake, Gordo, and I used to multi RTS games all the time. Catt is/was into period RTSs. I would put my knowledge of the gaming industry up against anyone. So ask when you hit an issue or if you're not sure about something, someone here will have some opinion.
To get you started, if it's just for 10, your #1 goal should be to just make it work. Worry about bugs and extra features later.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
First of all, you have just labeled yourself as someone who can program games. That's going to mean work down the road on some dtman.com stuff. I can't guarantee that, but if I were a betting man...
This is just a website thing that ten or so fuckers play at once. Go to the page, look at the map & news, then make your moves. I've nothing to do w\ the graphics or any of that shit. That's my buddy's domain. I am, however, intuitive as a motherfucker. So I can find my way around systems already designed & improve them or come up w\ new ways to do new shit.
Second, what specifically do you want to know?
As for shit I wanna know, one of the rules I've already made clear is that we will attempt to have balance, goddamnit. There will be no god units that can lay waste to all your opponents in one turn. Every object in play must have negatives to balance out the positives. Soldiers cost cash, special units have kick-ass effects, but are usually one-shot deals. If you've ever wanted an excuse to sound off about the Tao of Design, this is it.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
There will be no god units that can lay waste to all your opponents in one turn. Every object in play must have negatives to balance out the positives. Soldiers cost cash, special units have kick-ass effects, but are usually one-shot deals.
That's a good start right there.
Nothing ruins multiplayer games faster than a unit that is unstoppable.
Total Annihilation is the benchmark here. HUNDREDS of units and none were enough to defeat your enemies. The Krogoth, for example, took FOREVER to build and tons of resources, but it could devestate your opponents, with the exception of another unit that was cheap as hell and could paralyze it thus setting it up for defeat.
As for any other advice, do some searches here for Axis & Allies. There should be a few threads discussing game design there.
Otherwise, bring specific questions.
Asking, us for opinions on game design is like asking Stephen Hawking to talk about space. There's too much to cover without spending all day on it.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Working on the combat system currently.
Goddamn, software engineering for even a moderately sized project sucks. Hopefully, I can get this fucker done before too long.
Edited By Malcolm on 1157061846
Goddamn, software engineering for even a moderately sized project sucks. Hopefully, I can get this fucker done before too long.
Edited By Malcolm on 1157061846
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
-
thibodeaux
- Posts: 8121
- Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 7:32 pm
-
DoctorChaos
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm
The only think I don't like about the MBA problems, oops I mean program, is the black eyes you get from the frontal labotomy.I think the MBA program is working already.
Whatever you do Catt, don't close your eyes!
Malcolm, sounds like you've already been a victim of the creep. Scope Creep.
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
Alright. This is the most considerable design decision I've'd to make thus far & I'd very much like to get it right.
Imagine the following scenario :
There are normal troops that can fight. They got basic attributes.
There are special troops that can do weird shit or fight exceptionally. They also have basic attributes in addition to whatever special shit they can do.
There are two issues at hand :
1) Players should be able to split & combine their troops in a generic fashion w\ logical results.
2) Combat resolution w\ multiple attackers &\or defenders.
The solution I'm leaning towards is a mix of some concepts from the board games Axis & Allies and Shogun. There will now be an object called an army. An army is just a container to hold a collection of corps (& potentially special leaders a player can hire). Troops may be placed into corps, but normal & special troops won't be able to be mixed. But using the army solution, one can still group their special units in w\ their normal troops as an escort or whatever. This also leaves endless customization as far as army/corp names, colours, battle record, etc. This means troops need not be combined or split at the corp level in order to make a more impressive fighting force while keeping smaller groups of troops (w\ similar attributes) together. Corps may be recombined or split subject to simple mathematical rules.
The Axis & Allies part of the solution handles the combat system. Since it's a web-based thing, the attacker gets to call a lot of things & the defender may get the option to pull out to any adjacent territory he owns. The combat engine I envision goes as follows :
1) Apply any necessary attribute bonuses to all corps in both the attacking & defending armies.
2) Attacker picks a single corp that will attack & its target (a single corp unless otherwise noted).
3) Damage is dealt to the defending corp.
4) The defending corp deals damage to the attacking corp based on its attributes before step 3.
5) If either the attacking or defending corp drops to zero troops, it is removed.
6) If the attacker retreats, the defender falls back, or either army is destroyed utterly, combat ends. Otherwise, go to step 1.
Now, here's the deal : let's say the defending army has some uber unit they want to keep. I'm currently toying w\ the idea of a setting that will allow the defender to declare one and only one corp in the army such that every other corp must be killed before the former corp can be directly assaulted by any attacking corp.
Comments?
Imagine the following scenario :
There are normal troops that can fight. They got basic attributes.
There are special troops that can do weird shit or fight exceptionally. They also have basic attributes in addition to whatever special shit they can do.
There are two issues at hand :
1) Players should be able to split & combine their troops in a generic fashion w\ logical results.
2) Combat resolution w\ multiple attackers &\or defenders.
The solution I'm leaning towards is a mix of some concepts from the board games Axis & Allies and Shogun. There will now be an object called an army. An army is just a container to hold a collection of corps (& potentially special leaders a player can hire). Troops may be placed into corps, but normal & special troops won't be able to be mixed. But using the army solution, one can still group their special units in w\ their normal troops as an escort or whatever. This also leaves endless customization as far as army/corp names, colours, battle record, etc. This means troops need not be combined or split at the corp level in order to make a more impressive fighting force while keeping smaller groups of troops (w\ similar attributes) together. Corps may be recombined or split subject to simple mathematical rules.
The Axis & Allies part of the solution handles the combat system. Since it's a web-based thing, the attacker gets to call a lot of things & the defender may get the option to pull out to any adjacent territory he owns. The combat engine I envision goes as follows :
1) Apply any necessary attribute bonuses to all corps in both the attacking & defending armies.
2) Attacker picks a single corp that will attack & its target (a single corp unless otherwise noted).
3) Damage is dealt to the defending corp.
4) The defending corp deals damage to the attacking corp based on its attributes before step 3.
5) If either the attacking or defending corp drops to zero troops, it is removed.
6) If the attacker retreats, the defender falls back, or either army is destroyed utterly, combat ends. Otherwise, go to step 1.
Now, here's the deal : let's say the defending army has some uber unit they want to keep. I'm currently toying w\ the idea of a setting that will allow the defender to declare one and only one corp in the army such that every other corp must be killed before the former corp can be directly assaulted by any attacking corp.
Comments?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Also, a word on special units. The philosophy is that special units exist to open up new strategies of effects not previously available or effectively to break a rule by paying for a special unit to whom some laws don't apply.
Like buying a flying unit to get an otherwise nonexistent aerial attack or buying really expensive mercs that pop up in a territory for one move.
Any other things special units could be used for? Just making a unit for some "cool" effect is shit I want to avoid. & they can't unbalance shit. The more the break the rules, the more ephemeral they should be.
Comments?
Like buying a flying unit to get an otherwise nonexistent aerial attack or buying really expensive mercs that pop up in a territory for one move.
Any other things special units could be used for? Just making a unit for some "cool" effect is shit I want to avoid. & they can't unbalance shit. The more the break the rules, the more ephemeral they should be.
Comments?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
On the first post:
1) Why not allow multiple types of troops be combined into a single corp? Why make each corp separate, yet "groupable"? I understand wanting to have separate corps that inhabit the same territory, but why would different types have to be in different corps?
2) I would create a default attack order. Most games have the most worthless people die first automatically, then work their way up to the more leet units. If you've got super-elite units, why would you ever want them to die anything but last?
1) Why not allow multiple types of troops be combined into a single corp? Why make each corp separate, yet "groupable"? I understand wanting to have separate corps that inhabit the same territory, but why would different types have to be in different corps?
2) I would create a default attack order. Most games have the most worthless people die first automatically, then work their way up to the more leet units. If you've got super-elite units, why would you ever want them to die anything but last?
It's not me, it's someone else.
Currently, there's only two types of troops. Normal & special. Normal troops are made for fighting. Special troops have potentially a billlion purposes. The real problem is that normal troops have experience whereas special troops do not. I thought about this for a long time. Normal troops are supposed to be the standard fighters & special troops are more along the lines of mercs. Trying to get abitrary numbers of normal troops mixing w\ arbitrary numbers of special troops would've been a tremendous pain if I wanted to keep all the combination/splitting & combat system things I wanted. I needed a fundamental way to separate the troops cos they get treated fundamentally differently. I needed to determine my atoms, in a manner of speaking.On the first post:
1) Why not allow multiple types of troops be combined into a single corp? Why make each corp separate, yet "groupable"? I understand wanting to have separate corps that inhabit the same territory, but why would different types have to be in different corps?
2) I would create a default attack order. Most games have the most worthless people die first automatically, then work their way up to the more leet units. If you've got super-elite units, why would you ever want them to die anything but last?
2) I had a brainstorm this morning about the combat system. I think I'll let both the attacker & defender organize the corps in their armies into lines. Only front lines may attack or deal damage unless otherwise noted. This'll slow down combat a bit, but it's all just math.
& maybe the defender wants a particular unit to get killed in order that some weird-ass special effect they bought beforehand take place.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
No. Good great goddamn Christ, no. It's ending up being more Heroes of Might & Magic meets MOO2 w\ a lot of my own spin on those two & some new things.So, it's sort of like Magic the Gathering, but with troops instead of cards?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Trying to get abitrary numbers of normal troops mixing w\ arbitrary numbers of special troops would've been a tremendous pain
I guess I just don't see why you couldn't have a class "Corp" that contains items derived from a base class, that then has exposed properties that are collections of each of the different types of units, if you want them all splitted/etc'd. Then you could still just act on the corp for corp level things, and act on the individuals too.
It's not me, it's someone else.
That's possible. But the solution I'm thinking of has the benefit of lending itself to a somewhat simple combat system. If it was only a matter of troop management, it'd be a bit different.I guess I just don't see why you couldn't have a class "Corp" that contains items derived from a base class, that then has exposed properties that are collections of each of the different types of units, if you want them all splitted/etc'd. Then you could still just act on the corp for corp level things, and act on the individuals too.Trying to get abitrary numbers of normal troops mixing w\ arbitrary numbers of special troops would've been a tremendous pain
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."