Helping in making a video game

Yes.... I need to keep an eye on this one now.

It is one of my skills that are the worst...
I am kinda educated and raised in doing things all by myself...

But now, I need to keep in mind that my numbers don't bother the main creators of the game.
Nor that the players have a lot of trouble with certain aspects of the game.

The best example in this is the unit sizes. These should be constant. Not changing all the time.

Which I already have in other parts of the game :)

I need to see vision as an factor on being able to shoot or not.

Sight range.... it is shared by all units. So if another unit see's more, it will be helping all units AND the player.

Sight range less than the attack range means that the extra attack range is only able to fire if the target is visible through other means.

Also, the unit can fire ground where it cannot see. Higher ground for example, is not visible. The accuracy does go down here, while higher ground. The accuracy goes further down when not being able to see.

So, I can use that part for same level combat with insufficient vision.

The accuracy goes down by 1 level per situation. And a level is a 70% accuracy.

So, this factor is noticable on the insufficient sight.
It will be a yes/no situation, since other units can help here.
So, weapon range that is more than the sight range would be worth 85%.

What if there is more sight radius than a weapon range or even a weapon at all?
Then sight radius itself is depending on movement speed for sure.
I have to consider the sight here as a "damage" or "health".
Logical speaking "health", since it is part of the body.
It cannot be a factor TO health, but a factor AS health instead.

oof..... it is all new to me. So I doubt this is correct what I have so far.

Instead of thinking of effects of sight that could exist.
Let's first map out effects of sight that already exist.
Maybe look at other games.
How does sight affect the game in...
retro RTS? Like Warcraft 2?
The units shoot into the cloud anyway. Only the player doesn't know.
C&C, Dune2?
The units don't shoot into the cloud. You need to explore first.
Starcraft?
The units don't shoot into the FOW. And don't shoot around obstruction.
FOW remains if it is higher ground.
I think Starcraft will be the closest thing to what we want to have. But with extra layers.

The FOW there will only be a yes/no situation, with shared vision.
The higher ground, despite being visible, will reduce accuracy.

I could consider vision as a weapon as well.

It is "X" damage points.
It weights 100% when less than the attack range.
It weights 67% when more than the attack range.

This way, the vision advantage borrowed from a friendly unit will not make the weapon itself cheaper. But the friendly vision will be cheaper in some cases.

The vision will be considered a constant effect where you could consider it as a hit and run weapon. Well, you keep watching. So the movement speed is included in the calculation.

Now what is left is to determine how much "1" vision truly weights...
And if I should have a default range in vision as well.
No, a default range wouldn't work.

Ehm.... I don't want the vision weight to be a factor to damage. Instead it is an addition.
So that a lot of vision doesn't let the weapon explode exponentially in weight.

I also will place whatever comes out of the calculation. In the body part. Since without a weapon, you still can see.

Anyway, I will keep cooking.

Instead of adding costs for an unit. I decided to calculate a default vision instead.
The default vision will be lower when the movement speed goes up.
Not sure if I should allow a toggle between moving and not moving. Would be funny though. You only see this in certain RTS games. I know that Dune 2 and EbfD have this mechanic.

Not sure here...
But I think that if the sight is altered compared to the default sight radius. We want either the body cost, or the total cost, to be adjusted.
Not sure yet if I should use square roots etc.

This will be scrapped if we do the 2 adjustments as described above. Because... see the next one.

This will remain a fact.

However, we will get classifications here. While not sure about the default vision. I have set it to 10 at the moment.

- Normal units, will have their vision less than 10.
Depending on their movement speed. A speed of 10 gives a vision of 5.

- Normal structures, will have a vision of 10.

- The blind. Will have no vision.
The factor is 2 to begin with. I don't want 50% on the unit costs. 50% on the body costs is also a big factor here, since it is 50% for walls total costs. Then we got the option to actually take the square root in effect. Thus 70%.
A blind wall costs 35 if a normal wall costs 50.

- The scouts. Will have more vision than the default.
If the factor is 2 if the vision is 3 times more.
Unless we use the square root.
Then we have a factor of 1.4 while the vision is 3 times more.
So, if a scout costs 50 with a default vision of 8. Then giving this scout a vision of 24 would mean it would cost 70.
Obviously, you want to turn enemy artillery blind by blasting those scouts. Which is easier since their health is lower as well.

- The watch tower. Will have more vision than the default.
If a watch tower costs 100 and has a default vision of 10.
The new costs would be 140 and a true vision of 30.
Don't get me wrong. But the problem will now be shown:

- The silly cheap ass wall with super vision.
So, we work with infinities or close to infinities.
The default vision is again 10.
But the costs for this wall is....0 since the health is an absolute minimum. Close to 0 is all I can say.
The vision can now be infinite. And the costs would be multiplied by the square root of infinite.
Still 0 though.

The only counter is a weapon with super attack range. And also does damage close to 0. It surely is cheap though, at a cost of 0 as well. It is a fact that if a weapon like this is needed. We got a problem with the game mechanics.

The weapon itself, has only one possible target.
The target though, see's all. Shares all.

---> I must have the default vision being linked to health somehow.

***

Even in SC1, you had this hold position. Heck, even in Warcraft 2 you had this option :D

The AI does not have this option in Starcraft.
Not even in AoW3.
But we might add it.

The AI should even consider moving backwards if it decides that the distance is too long.

On another note. We are not going to use splash damage.
Splash damage is to imbalanced to my taste. Especially if we don't even know the scale yet on which the players will play.

Perhaps some projectiles can "explode" into more damage. But that is a different story.

I discovered that most games have a smaller radius for smaller units. And a bigger radius for bigger units.
So, something with the size of units?
Well, the size of units depends on the unit costs. So...

If I take the kuub root of the unit cost.
And multiply it with the HDratio then divide it by the movement speed + HDratio.

I seem to be getting a somewhat acceptable list of vision radius.

This means that the first guy, who costs 100.
And has a movement of 2,5.
Will have a sight radius of 3.7.
It just so happens that this little guy has a weapon range of 5...
Well, I did give the guy an insane weapon range.

I remember using an attack range of 2 in my board game.
Which is based on C&C td.

Now, that game has a HDratio of only 3. We use a ratio of 10.
So, perhaps multiply the sight with a number again.

We also got walls, these guys, I rather have them not get more sight radius.
In fact. A wall with a cost of 100 would get a sight radius of 4.6

***

Now, scouts do little damage and have a higher movement speed in most RTS games.
They often see more than other units.

Walls on the other hand, don't have movement speed. But also don't have a weapon.

Somehow I must think of something that will add more vision to units that are used most likely as scout.

0 health, infinite speed
Using speed is a no go as multiplier.

There is no problem using it as a divider.

We still can do body divided by total.
And use this factor as a divider.

But then we get that a normal unit gets the vision multiplied by 2. Well, that is still ok.

But the support unit of lets say 1 body points and 3 weapon points. It would have a factor of 4. That ain't good.

What about taking the square root of the numbers then?
A normal unit has the sight multiplied by 1.4.

The 3.7 becomes now a 5.3.

If.... the artillery is going to cost 1000 and is going to stand somewhere, let's say, 0 speed.
The sight radius will be 10.
But this might be a 1:3 units. Thus a factor 4, or square root of 4 is 2.
The sight would become 20....
That might be too much now.

***

Also, scout units do bad too. They get a lower factor this way.

Perhaps square root of (body * weapon). Then divided by the highest value of either body or weapon.
Then we add 1.

A wall returns 1.
A 1:1 unit returns 2.
A 4:1 unit returns 1.5.
A 1:4 unit returns 1.5.

Normal units get the highest factor.
The 3.7 now becomes 7.4.
The 4.6 remains 4.6.

Now, what if a tank costing 800, with a distribution of 400 and 400 will see.
Let's say, the movement speed is 2.
I get 15.5 as sight radius.

Structures without a function will have the least vision in terms of sight radius.

Right now, I have a factor of 0.5 for them.

And through the complex formula. A wall worth 27.
Would have a sight radius of 1.5.

If the factor is set to 0. The sight radius will be 0.

The factor goes up if a design has a function.
It is either a weapon. Or it can do something.

A watch tower would be comparible with an expensive wall.
When looking at the value's.
125 would result in a sight radius of 2.5.
1000 would result in a sight radius of 5.

But if the factor is set to 0.
All visions would be 0.

***

In order to give extra vision.
I have 1 option left.

Adjusting the value of the functional part.

And with that, I need to make sure that turning units blind will not result in units costing only 50%.
While adding a functional part will not result into super vison.

So far, I am thinking to have the effect being 50%. Since it is a yes/no situation for that unit. Then another 50%, since other units can supply a yes/no situation.
Thus vision -100% would result in the balanced unit cost going -25% on the functional part. Or, -12.5%.
Thus a blind soldier would cost 87.5%.

I cannot link this adjustment to the original functional value. It has to be an addition or subtraction.

I need more time to think.

Frankly, I am tired. Very tired.
Perhaps due to the workload I have from my RL job, school and arrangements...

Anyway. KISS.

While I have sight radius as a concequence of the unit value.
Perhaps I should simply see what unit value corresponds with the desired sight radius.

Then have the difference divided by 4. And this number adjusts the unit value. The change should be as if the weapon is changed. Not sure if it works.

It would be stupid of players to alter the sight radius of certain units. Unless it is only 1 guy from the group. As planned.

The money making will be decided by the BIG guy.
But I THINK the game will have the following:

- Play to Play
- Play to Win
- Win to Play
- PAY to get skins
- PAY to get pre-battle info about your opponent.

As for your second post...

It will be a retro RTS without base building. You play, when you play. The game is not going to bother you if you are not playing.

***

As for game development atm.
I made sure that armor and weapons both weight down an unit.
There is now a maximum speed linked to a body. For the light infantry, this is 4,6.
Add the assault rifle, it is immediately 2,45.
Then modify the armor to 100%. And the speed slows down more to 1,84.

Today, I am going to decide on the research, upgrades and basic skills the assault rifle is going to get. Then I will go back to my todo list.

My todo list is currently:
- Double checking existing adjustments.
- Implementing Splash Damage (i had no time at work yesterday to double check, and last evening I had to fix the armor weight)
- Transformations.