Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1028403 Posts in 41285 Topics- by 32903 Members - Latest Member: Pauli

July 31, 2014, 05:29:06 AM
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperCreativeDesigntranslating fighter mechanics
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: translating fighter mechanics  (Read 1020 times)
Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2012, 02:57:33 PM »

mm....

Think in more abstract terms.

Think about how much an opponent's position can modulate, and how much that can affect your ideal strategy. You want the ideal strategy to flex hard with each initiative switch.

You're focused a lot on physical position. That's not enough, unless all the possible combo-maneuvers are deeply dependent on position.

If you lay out something that shows possible maneuvers, i.e. an example game being played out, I can show you in detail.

--

Isolation could be a core tactic. Then you have to think about stuns, knock-back, being slowed. Maybe some attacks can only be executed if no damage was taken in the previous turn, or some are AOE in various shapes, and some require particular positioning of teammates to execute, and so on.
Logged
thunderhead.hierophant
Level 0
***


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2012, 03:21:54 PM »

I'll have to give that a little thought.

One of the reasons I'm focusing so heavily on positioning is that I'm planning on putting in passive effects within a certain radius of a unit.  For instance, Healers are a sort of "set-and-forget" unit, having the ability to heal all units slightly in a given radius once the power is activated, every time initiative is regained.

There'll be debuffs, too. For instance, a poisoned unit will take damage every time it executes an action for an initiative turn.

But, like said, I'll need to give it some thought. Right now I'm trying to set up cost curves for progression, using the paradigm that each class is like a color in M:tG.
Logged
Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2012, 03:33:29 PM »

Ok, so don't do that yet. If you want fighter-like mechanics you need to put those in first. Trust me.

It's fine that you focus on positioning. I didn't mean to knock it. What I meant was that you need a core mechanic that every other mechanic relates to: is affected by and affects. Position can be this. You just need all of your moves to impact position in interesting ways, and be dependent on position.

---

You can do cost progression first. You'll just find yourself redoing it once you add more fighter mechanics. The more you add the more you redo.
Logged
thunderhead.hierophant
Level 0
***


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2012, 03:47:48 PM »

Thanks for the tip.  Actually I was getting pretty hung up on it.

I guess the question I have now is:  should I create a static system based on what I see the end-game as being like, and work backwards?
Logged
Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2012, 03:53:19 PM »

I'll clarify first. The order in which you design mechanics is up to you. It's important to follow your inspiration. I was just trying to iterate that "fighter mechanics" will be more core than progression. Imagine designing power-ups in Mario before figuring out how the jumping works. Unless of course your game is more about the leveling than the fighting... though I don't know if that makes any sense.

Is the end game the most interesting part to you? The way I'd design is to think about the kinds of experiences I want players to have. I'd say things like, "depth of Street Fighter," and "personal play style of Street Fighter," or "very tense end game." Then I'd prioritize them, then design mechanics that try to deliver them, in the order I have.

What's the most important thing your design needs that it doesn't have?
Logged
thunderhead.hierophant
Level 0
***


View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2012, 05:45:29 AM »

Simplicity, and something testable. 

To that end I pared it down to the essentials of what I want and I'll be testing it today on a chessboard.

Gone is the concept of "combo depth levels."  Basically, chaining together multiple moves is it's own reward...no need to have more powerful moves unlocked if you're on a hot streak.   Gone is "momentum," an artefact from the design's previous incarnation. 

I'll keep you posted.
Logged
Graham-
Level 10
*****


ftw


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2012, 01:22:41 PM »

cool
Logged
thunderhead.hierophant
Level 0
***


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2012, 11:22:22 AM »

I'm testing against humans, and I'm really pleased so far.

I stripped it down so almost every unit has just move or attack on a regular winning roll and another special action on the bonus roll.  Or on a bonus roll, you can do 2 regular actions.  Double bonus is 3 regular actions or one regular and one bonus.

A lot of the tension comes from knowing when to commit to a strategem.  You might lose initiative after you give your plans away!  So I imagine in high-level play there'll be a lot of fake-outs and feints.  Of course, if you roll in the bonus, you can execute a couple moves in succession, really altering the game space.

None of the (now 8 ) classes seem to be OP, and I'm not even sure what the best is.  But you can only have 2 units from the same class on your squad of 8...that and the randomness gives me some balance breathing room.

Edit: Ruleset is here:

http://www.fantasystrike.com/forums/index.php?threads/evaluate-my-ruleset-competitive-trpg.7220/
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 01:36:53 PM by thunderhead.hierophant » Logged
Catguy
Level 5
*****



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2012, 12:13:39 PM »

I'm sorry to reply so late. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Riddle_of_Steel The riddle of steel uses a similar 'dice vs dice, compare difference' mechanic to what you're proposing, but places around it an elaborate tactical game based on betting and losing dice on actions -- it's wonderful and an effective simulation of the risk/reward of attacking and defending. It's emphasis is modeling simultaneous action in a turnbased dice game.

There's a playable combat simulator here to feel out the ruleset -- it's pretty great.

http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/support/
Logged


-------------------------------
@Joseph_Catkilo
You can hire me!
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic