next »

[mirosurabu]

Adding probabilities only turns it into a (predictably) unpredictable mathematical formula.

Which is not really true. Chance doesn't [necessarily] imply unpredictability.

[Chromanoid]

A nice article about luck in games on Gamasutra: A Matter of Luck

Warhammer has plenty of luck in it. I like luck in multiplayer games or games w/o saving. In singleplayer with saving it often leads to reload until the right result gameplay.

[JasonPickering]

Gimmy Tilbert: those articles are insanely interesting. oddly enough I was playing around with something like a static engine but this has really helped. right now I am thinking something like an unpredictable/predictable static engine. I am thinking about situations now to put the Player in. I am dealing with relatively low numbers, so a upgrades aren't going to be really needed. one thing I kind of like is the idea of variable resource generation. so I figure the player can have two options in "stance" or distance one produces 1 mana the other produces 2 mana. the faster stance has weaker attacks though. this forces the player to make choices and requires them to switch back and forth. this of course is all very early as i am still mapping out the specific long term goals I want a player to have while playing and the situations I can put them in that directly oppose that goal with different short term goals.

[gimymblert]

Glad it help, I know you work on small number, it was more to make you back on the right track because I didn't see you were going the right way, also consider interaction between many battle, especially if the player can choose the next encounter, if enemy release loot you may have a buildup system by treating them as trade off of resource (risk vs loot). So the strategy is less about the battle but more about the encounter order.

[JasonPickering]

originally I wasn't going to have money, but I don't know now. originally the game was going to be like a mountain climb. get all you gear from the beginning and head out hoping you planned correctly, but i think shops in between might be better.

right now I am thinking something like:

get 2 - 3 Mana (mana saves from turn to turn)

weak attack - 3 mana - 2 to block
Heavy attack - 5 mana - 4 to block
counter - variable cost
Rest - gives you extra mana

so right now there is a trade off in the mana, you want to make sure you have mana to attack, but enough to block. this of course is kind of ehh, but the examples they give on those websites really help.
 

[JasonPickering]

so here is a small question. that I thought might spark a small chat. does the chance of missing make a game more exciting? what I am specifically talking about is:

attack vs defense
attack + d6 vs Defense + d6

no in the one you have specific knowledge, but I think the second one makes the feel of hitting an enemy much better.

[gimymblert]

In a game of attrition the math is simple, is the rate of attack in worst and best case is balance between the rate of the opponent? Worst case is always missing which is 0 damage dealt. Of course if the rnd is an offset you have a minimal damage dealt, it can still be greater than the rate of the enemy damage.

That's why static system are boring and encourage attack attack heal strategy, with heal acting like a miss. Now if you have the amount of one enemy health and the best/worst case rate, you have the range of turn the player will take to kill the enemy, with the health of the player you know how many turn it takes for the enemy to kill the player, the problem is that no matter what the player do he will lose energy, you can precisely predict the range in which the player will inevitably die along the encounter rate if he does not use health recovery, of course that's assuming he have a source of health. But there isn't much strategy there, it coule be cool to teach the basics to the player early on to play the attrition card with the player being progressively overwhelm and having to manage some resource like paying attention to how much potion he have (like the example I provided in your devlog using very simple stat and basic rpgmk system) but if that's the only type of encounter you have the game will be bland quickly.

Think about which resource the player have and how they affect the fight and enemy. The most basic battle system simply have parallel or mixed attrition system dubbed elemental weakness that force the player to manage which resource to carry on (potion, mana, herb, poison, etc...) to face enemy. The strategy is not necessarily on the battle but on the choice of the resource to carry on, resource is limited by price and gold the player farm from enemy, that's a converter engine with a static engine (infinite enemy). To avoid trapping the player in a dead end, there is a generic enemy "cannon fodder" with low risk reward that allow the player to power climb to more powerful enemy with more reward to buy more stuff to face tougher enemy (i'm deliberately leaving the influence of xp or inn). Most rpg are just that resource planning and management. Pokemon for exemple limit party to 6 pokemon and attack to 4 per pokemon, forcing the player to balance and rebalance his "deck" to face future situation (that's why you can only switch pokemon at town between 2 area).

[JasonPickering]

The static system is just a base underlay for the simpler guys like the mouse or goblin. what I am thinking the main resource in the game will be are Tokens (they need a much better name maybe Mana or Valor). fighting enemies will earn you tokens. tokens can be spent to use stronger attacks and add bonuses.

so right now an attack is decided by Attack + D6 vs. Defense + D6.
so you can look at your attack and the enemies defense and see what type of chance you have.
now attacks are special moves that might be Attack + 3 + D6 or maybe even Attack + D6 + D6. these each cost one token. however the second use is 2 tokens, then third 3 tokens, etc, etc. so the player will have quite a road ahead of him. it will be

2 enemies
town
3 enemies
town
4 enemies
town
boss

towns will allow you to heal, buy items, lower token cost on attacks or even upgrade your character. I don't know if I will use tokens for these purchases always or have tokens and coins. it seems if tokens purchase everything and they are somewhat limited, the player needs to think about their choices much more, but if there are coins they can have an easier time in the shop. I will probably start with just the tokens and see how that works, since it would be easier to code.

I think this gives a good balance, the player will worry about managing health and tokens along with an overall journey. I like to put short term and long term goals in opposition and I think the increasing token cost does that pretty well. yes the player can use that spell to kill the goblin now, but its going to cost more later when they fight the boss.

Edit: after prototyping this a Spell and an Item are very similar mechanic wise. I might do away with the spells and only give the player items. The two are so very similar and I dont see how I can change them to much to make  huge difference. Originally potions effected monsters and spells affected you, but its not super important. They will still earn tokens, but they will use those tokens to buy items. or course each item will increase every time it is purchased. this still leaves the basic mechanic there, but puts more thought into the players shopping. they need to think of it as stocking up on whatever items they need as they head out. I will also have a limited inventory space. so the player will really need to think should they take en extra attack potion or an extra heal potion? I will also have other stranger potions, one idea I had was a swap potion where you changed attack and defense with the monster, so a player could in theory take a weak guy through the whole game and then use a swap potion on the boss, giving the boss his weak stats for the easy kill, of course actually getting to the boss would probably be super hard this way.

[gimymblert]

I see what you did, there is so many best system you can make up your mind to choose one and is stuck into an indetermination loop.

Balancing a game mean you have an experience goal and you make mechanics to achieve that, but you are doing it the other way, finding mechanics and seeing if it create a good experience. Not the way to go. Decide pacing and structure upfront and see if it work and make a system for that.

Also you are not thinking in function, you are thinking with items, which is teh wrong way and you will end up with thing that does the same thing! It doesn't matter what do what, this is all dress up and theming, that's the easiest part once you figure up the function, whether you call the progression journey, affinity, map, or whatever does not matter in the dynamics.

You are the designer, you are the one who laid up resource source and sink. The system itself is not doing everything, the same gameplay can be tactical or just bryte force if you play with scarcity of resource, so don't think too hard. If you plan ahead each level and its goal experience as a designer, it became easy to define the system.

What's the game is about, what the player is suppose to feel, what is the main progression? what is the pacing? then design system and the level that support this.

[JasonPickering]

I actually wont have levels. the game is procedurally generated. so level design wont really be an option. right now the player will be given two sets of enemies and will have to choose which path to take. now I could design the sets of enemies but then this cuts out the replay I was hoping to give the player, if the sets are always the same. the main experience I want to give the player is having to plan ahead and adapt to whatever paths are placed in front of them. maybe they will be given a path with weaker enemies but they wont get as much XP, while the tougher path would give them more to spend.

[gimymblert]

Even if it's procedural it does not change a thing It only mean you have to be pretty robust in the rules of encounter making. Even roguelike have set of rules about which enemy you meet at which level and which set of combination can be use per level. I don't think the player will meet tough enemy for first battle whatever you do. Procedural != random.

You don't have level per see, but when you say:

2 enemies
town
3 enemies
town
4 enemies
town
boss

You are pacing the game around break point (boss) which may serve "functionally" as level caping, not counting level on xp (xp are progression).

[JasonPickering]

okay so you mean limiting the selection of what a player will deal with in each section.

since this isnt really about chance anymore and has delved more into the specific combat for the game I am making I think I might continue posting about it in the Devlog as opposed to here. I should be posting later tonight about "Experiences" I want to create with the monsters.