Skip to Content
 

Helping in making a video game

217 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
larienna wrote:I only see a 3

larienna wrote:
I only see a 3 minute ad to a webinar. How do I access the content?

Found some books that talks about math and music. It's an interesting subject, I just have tons of things to work on, so I cannot afford to spare time on it.

Wow, that is as long as the video.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
If there was a ready made

If there was a ready made math based computer music generator software available. I would be happy to try playing with it. It could be semi automated.

There is little AI based music generator and most of the time, it takes a known piece of music and permute it.

I also found about the Mozart's dice which just permute portion of music partition.

Else, I can come up with music ideas from my head quite easily, but I cannot easily play them on a keyboard or put the notes on a music partition. So one idea I got is maybe I could sing the intonation and have a program that detect the frequency I am singing to position notes. It could be an interesting research project to try in the future.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Meanwhile

I finished the main calculator.

Made a list of options that a player could reach after applying special items.

An example would be a light infantry, will replace its rifle with a sniper rifle/flamethrower/machine gun.
And its combat suit with carbon fiber suit/heavy plated suit.

Things that I still have doubts about:
- splash damage
- projectile speed, not sure what the team wants. But if a projectile is slow. The moment of hitting is reduced in damage when the shooter dies between moment of firing and hitting.

There are extremes in the second one. I don't know if anyone can advice on it. Should i make a topic about that issue?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Teamwork

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Vision mechanics in RTS games

I have NO IDEA, how to balance this.

We already have some main rules.
But let's describe first how the vision works in the most simplistic way.

Every soldier and tank has its own vision.
The vision is by default equal to the attack range. (I already have doubt with this)
Units help each other see if nessesary. Only units with an projectile following an arc trajectory will benefit the most.

If the vision is less than the attack range, the unit needs help from another unit. But the weapon cost will decrease for 1/3th that is missing.
For example, every 3 attack range that remains unused, the weapon weight will use 2 as a weight instead of 3.
An attack range of 15, will be considered 14 if the vision is 12.
13 if the vision is 9,
12 if the vision is 6,
11 if the vision is 3 and
10 if the unit is blind.

1. - I am not sure if this is a good way to start. Testing seems to be taking some (a long) time. I get no info on this. I rather have the attack range calculated normally.

2. - What about structures or units without attack range? Keeping them blind is silly. Perhaps a default vision? And simply adjust when nessesary? I am thinking of a value of 10.

3. - No matter what. If the vision is changed, how should I weight this?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... Sounds a bit "wrong" TBH!

How is 10 Attack Range = the unit is blind???

If you have Towers and Bunkers for soldiers with Rifles, those structures cannot have a "default vision" because the Towers can INCREASE the Vision while Bunkers may have as you suggested some kind of "default vision".

Blind Attack Range = 1 (TBH)

So basically a RANGED unit becomes BLIND and can only do MELEE Damage. Think like the Zerglings in Starcraft. Of course a BLIND unit would also be SLOW to move and attack unlike the Zerglings which are fast.

What I am thinking is the following:

You have SPEED(!?) of attack... The lower the Vision, the slower the unit. "1" or "0" Blind units are the slowest moving units. And so therefore heavily wounded units (including vehicles and tanks) get slower as they take on more DAMAGE (less effective which could mean a slower rate of movement or reaction).

I thought you had something for "speed" ... Not sure TBH.

Just sharing with you some of my thoughts reading this last comment.

Note #1: Your SPEED may be "RATE-OF-FIRE"... I think we talked about that too. But again that would be something else to balance too. I don't think my idea will work, it's not connected sufficiently to Vision.

Can't Range just be a separate variable??? And it's value can be 1 to ???. And Towers can ADD to the Range, while Bunkers have a preset Range, etc.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Weight

Weapon weight is different than weapon attack range.
Not sure where you thought I wanted units to be blind by default.

And yes, movement speed is a factor with vision.
It is also a factor on the health of an unit.

For healty, we are using a 10% basis. So a structure has a weight of 1 * health.
An unit with movement speed of 10 has a weight of 2 * health.

Maybe I should consider sight as something like health??

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I don't get it...???

How can MOVEMENT ADD "Health" ??? Doesn't make any sense to me. Like Vision or Vision Impairment can SLOW a unit (so movement speed is affected by vision makes 100% sense) ... But I just don't get movement affecting health... HEALTH AFFECTING MOVEMENT... Now that I GET! The "reverse" just doesn't work (at least not in my own understanding and mind...)

As for Vision being it's own Variable... That sounds logical. Could be balanced separately from Health and the To-Hit and Armor, Accuracy et al.

But Vision could AFFECT "Accuracy"... Hey... That sounds good TBH!

What if Vision was a variable that affect "Accuracy". So the BETTER the Vision, the HIGHER the ACCURACY. If the vision is POOR, the ACCURACY becomes a fraction of what 20/20 Vision allows. Makes real sense in my mind.

That just came to me while working out the different things you can BALANCE.

Anyhow ... Maybe EXPLORE "Vision" as AFFECTING "Accuracy".

Cheers.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:How can

questccg wrote:
How can MOVEMENT ADD "Health" ??? Doesn't make any sense to me.

I think you understood wrong.
The weight of the body is mainly based on the health.
When movement is added, this adds 10% more weight per movement speed.
A movement speed of 5, adds 50% more weight. Thus the unit becomes more expensive to train/build.

Why is this the case?
If you move faster, you can:
- re-arrange your troops faster in terms of where you want your durability.
- approach longer ranged units faster, thus taking less damage.
- In some games, and this one as well, accuracy will be less on moving targets. We have yet to decide if this is linked to an actual movement factor. And perhaps we should.

questccg wrote:

As for Vision being it's own Variable... That sounds logical. Could be balanced separately from Health and the To-Hit and Armor, Accuracy et al.
It has influence on an unit attacking others though. However, the main influence is still.... I often look at it as if we start with a wall. No movement, no weapon. What does vision mean in that case?

ohhh... times up. Will try to answer later, with more completion

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Before i see vision as an factor on accuracy

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Lets keep it simple

Shooting in the dark gives reduced accuracy.

Not able to see has a yes/no balance, thus 50% weight adjustment.

I am not sure how to calculate the weight.

Should it be as health?
Either way, it is at least linked to movement speed.

Should it start with a basic value?
It would ve linked to the body design.

Should it be linked to the existing weapon range?
No...

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Another way...?

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.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Got to be BS... This weight concept I don't understand!

X3M wrote:
I think you understood wrong. The weight of the body is mainly based on the health. When movement is added, this adds 10% more weight per movement speed. A movement speed of 5, adds 50% more weight. Thus the unit becomes more expensive to train/build.

Weight is not a factor on health. A person who has less health does not weight less... Or weight is not affected by "movement"... None of that makes any sense (at least to me).

X3M wrote:
Why is this the case?

None of those explanations make any sense either. To me, it doesn't apply to reality nor is it balanced by realistic modeling.

questccg wrote:
As for Vision being it's own Variable...

Nevermind... Vision should apply directly to ACCURACY of a projectile. If you have 20/20 or "1" you have perfect vision. If it is dark and you are penalized by terrain (like Jungle or Trees) it could be 10/20 or "1/2" (reduced by HALF) and if you are in a cave or area without ANY light it could be 5/20 or "1/4" (reduce by 3 quarters).

That all makes sense... And is realistic in the term modeling too.

But RANGE itself could also be affected by Vision. But I think RANGE is something different that is a "variable in itself". Why? Because like I said you can be on top of a HILL and have FURTHER vision (or BETTER vision) making your line of sight more distant and increasing your RANGE.

That should be ANOTHER Variable: Range which is ALSO affected by Vision. So if your Guard Tower has lights at night ... Vision could be 20/20... If the power goes out and no lights... Maybe the Vision could be 15/20 or "3/4" a faction of perfect vision.

Like I said, you sometimes like to complicate things when they can be VERY simple and to-the-point. Vision should AFFECT "Accuracy" and it should also AFFECT "Range". Accuracy is part of an ATTACK while Range is how far an attack may occur (distance to the enemy unit).

I didn't understand all that "weight" reasoning... None of that makes sense either to build/train. Why should a unit that "weights" more be costlier to train? Again you are trying too hard to make some kinds of connections which I don't see as mattering.

Or am I just confused what the term "Weight" stands for???

Weight means how HEAVY a unit is. Just because a Tank "weights" more than a "Hummer" doesn't mean it should be costlier to build. The "Hummer" may be equipped with a Machine Gun and ergo "costlier to build". Or have variants like a Bazooka Launcher (to be anti-tank effective). Or maybe a Javelin system like the US Army uses against Tanks... They are saying that infantry is better than mobile units nowadays (because of how effective Anti-Tank weapons are against opposing units).

Your explanations are not clear. Confusing at best. Sorry... Just my opinion. Maybe if you better explain it so that everyone can understand... Maybe then it may make some "kind of sense" (in your own definition).

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... Not sure about that!?

Or is WEIGHT some form of "Abstract" Variable??? Like Weight/Complexity of a GAME (for example). They sometimes use the term "Weight" to mean something like how "beefy" or "complex" a Board Game is.

Quote:
Is that what you mean? An Abstract Variable??

Because none of what you wrote to me made any sense. I could understand nor heads or tails about the explanation, what you wrote, etc. You seemed to be generally dismissive without any logic (as per my opinion).

And EVEN IF your "Weight" is an Abstract Variable... What does it mean??? Does this mean like simply "Cost to Build"?! The bigger the "Weight" (or unit complexity - see it still doesn't make sense to me...) the costlier it is to produce...? I see maybe that's something along the lines of what you are talking about ... It's a very long response with having little to nothing to do with the comment that I wrote.

Seemed almost dismissive in a way.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Synergy effect

Synergy is one of the hardest things to balance.
And i think that vision has the highest influence on this.

Lets go from easy to hard.

- The faster an unit is. The more value vision has. Vision here follows the fact as if it is health.

- The more health an unit has. The longer the vision exists. But the same goes for weapon damage.
Vision follows the, what I call, KKnD balance.

- Vision causes yes/no situations.
So, certain effects will have a threshold that turns the weight into 50%.

- Vision is shared with other units.
Whaaaargh!!!
Perhaps having accuracy effects like you suggested. Can be abused more?

***

So, what do you think of the following idea?
Every unit that supplies vision. Will supply extra accuracy.
The chance to miss is divided by the number of vision plus 1.

So, 1 unit has the chance to mis cut in half.
2 units together will cut the chance to miss in a third.
Etc.

I don't known if it is feasable.
But maybe I shouldn't even bother.
And simply consider sight to be calculated with only the first 2 facts.
Thus calculating vision as health AND as damage.
Give it its own KKnD rule.
And then add to the unit as body weight???

Then again, i am still over complcating things here.
Yet, did I mention the game will have unit design for the players?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Slowly getting a vision on vision mechanics.

X3M wrote:
The faster an unit is. The more value vision has. Vision here follows the fact as if it is health.

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.

X3M wrote:
The more health an unit has. The longer the vision exists. But the same goes for weapon damage.
Vision follows the, what I call, KKnD balance.

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.

X3M wrote:
Vision causes yes/no situations.
So, certain effects will have a threshold that turns the weight into 50%.
This will be scrapped if we do the 2 adjustments as described above. Because... see the next one.

X3M wrote:
Vision is shared with other units.

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.

***

X3M wrote:
Did I mention the game will have unit design for the players?

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just tell me that...

You won't be using Vision to do Hit-and-Run tactics or even BAITING tactics to lure a group of units into the Field of Vision of an opposing Army. I always hated that:

Quote:
You gather a army of Marines and Tanks at Waypoint 1 and the opponent would move one High Templar and cause an Ionic Storm and then all your units would move forwards and then the opponent could literally just defeat your entire army because of all other other units (and other High Templars).

Anyways the Click-And-Bait could get really frustrating in Starcraft 1.

Best!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Hold position.

questccg wrote:
You won't be using Vision to do Hit-and-Run tactics or even BAITING tactics to lure a group of units into the Field of Vision of an opposing Army. I always hated that:
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.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hold position ... When the battle is 50% done! Ha ha.

X3M wrote:
Even in SC1, you had this hold position. Heck, even in Warcraft 2 you had this option :D

Well it never works well. Because as soon as one Marine moves forwards and gets attacked, the rest of the Marines react and ALSO move forward! So it was perhaps implemented "differently" than a mere "Hold Position".

X3M wrote:
The AI does not have this option in Starcraft. Not even in AoW3. But we might add it.

Hmm... Maybe that's why I got the impression that "Hold Position" NEVER worked is because the AI "didn't" have this option in Starcraft! Now that makes a lot of sense... One Marine would get baited, the a High Templar would move in and then use Ionic Storm ... And then even if I tried to "Hold Position" the entire battle would occur.

Thank you for explaining that. Cheers!

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, back to sight radius

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What if I use the body value

What if I use the body value and divide it by the total value?

A wall would give back a 1.
A scout between 0.5 and 1.
Support units between 0 and 0.5.

I can use this factor by multiplying it by the movement speed.
The result could be added to the total sight radius.

A wall would remain the same sight radius.
The first guy will have 1.25 added to the 3.7.
Turns out, this will be 5.

Now to test an insane case.
The scout.

Has only a body, and costs 125. With a movement speed of 10.
The kuub root is 5.
5*10/(10+10)=2.5

Then we have 1 * -1 * 10 = 10
The total vision would be 12.5

Not sure yet. But I think that the second part can abuse the 0 health bug again....

Back to the drawing board.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
0 health, infinite

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Subtraction?

I like the idea that if an unit has a weapon. It can see more.

Although, scout units are the hardest to design. But perhaps I found something usefull indeed.
For now, if I want walls and structures to have less sight radius. And balanced designs not much extra. I subtract the factor that I thought of by 0.5. So we get to add 0.5 instead of 1.0.

Ok, let's summarize how I get to an uniform sight radius.

Kuub root of the unit cost.
Divided by ((10 + movement speed)/10).

Square root of (body * weapon)
Divided by the highest of those 2 values.
Add 0.5.

***

Now then, some funny effects are given:

Wall and bought weapons
1:0 and 0:1
Returns a factor 0f 0.5

Balanced designs
1:1
Returns a factor of 1.5

Meat and support of tier 0.5
2.25:1 and 1:2.25
Returns a factor of 1.17

Meat and support of tier 1.
4:1 and 1:4
Returns a factor of 1.0

Meat and support of tier 1.5
6.25:1 and 1:6.25
Returns a factor of 0.9

Meat and support of tier 2.
9:1 and 1:9
Returns a factor of 0.83

My calculator will return a sight radius automatically.
I have yet to think of a modifier that also alters the costs of an unit. But I rather not.
If an unit has more attack range than vision. You simply need a scout for sure.
The best scouts will be low health, high speed. Despite the reduciton on vision by this high speed.

My next goal is to see, what movement speed will return the most optimal sight radius?

Maybe, just maybe, I have the units get extra vision when they are standing still. The increase of vision will take 10 seconds.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Situation so far

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I need to test a bit

I toyed around with some numbers etc.

I think that I need to have a set factor for vision adjustment.

So far, with some experimenting.
Blind objects would have roughly a 90% of the original costs.

The others? Very weird results pop up....
And I don't think it works that well.

An object that has a vision of 10. And is actually just a wall. Should cost 8000.
Obviously, the health follows the costs as well.
And a cost of 8k, yields a ridiculous strong wall.

This means that smaller objects have relatively more vision. And adjusting this to the same sight radius, is less expensive too.

***

My last test was:
Required sight radius divided by aquired sight radius.
This result to the power of 3.
The factor is multiplied by the aquired costs.
The required adjustment divided by 4 (2 times yes/no).
The required costs divided by the aquired costs.
This factor to the power of (1/3).
Multiplied by the aquired costs to get the new costs.

Example:
We have the rifleman of 100. Who has a sight radius of 7.
We want a sight radius of 10. The new costs will be 114.
Would a player be willing to pay 14% more, just to have 40% more vision?
When is this calculation interesting?

Example 2:
We have a tower of 125. Who has a sight radius of 2.5.
We want a sight radius of 10. The new costs will be 320.

Let's compare the 2.
Fact 1. The sight radius is when an unit is standing still.
Fact 2. The tower is actually more like a wall.

The sight radius 7 or 2.5, going to both 10.
Ignoring the movement factor.
The tower will be having 5 times more health points than the rifleman.

Example 3:
What vision would we get when we have the cost of that rifleman increase from 100 to 320?
The sight radius would go up from 7 to 35.
Well, you will see a lot. But your soldier would be relatively very weak.

3.5 times more vision than the adjusted tower.
5 times less health than the adjusted tower.

I still have a lot of doubts about this one.
Cheaper units can simply still get too much vision.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
KISS

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.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Other new things

Allowing the players to design their units.

There are bodies, weapons, modifications to the bodies, modifications to the weapons.

The parts are going to have weights, somehowish.
This will slow down the movement speed.

I am also using rotation speeds on the bodies and weapons, in degrees i guess. Based on some properties.
Structures naturally don't get a rotation speed. Although the weapon mounted has too!
Not sure yet if this all went correctly

I still need to add splash damage effects. But I fleshed that one out on paper.

Lastly, a request for body transformations.

I think, I will have the sheet, being doubled up.
Then the advancements are selected on both sides.
And I have to do something with the difference.
An example here would be that mode 1 would have 100% health and 2 movement speed. Mode 2 would have 80% health and 5 movement speed. The difference is 20% health on one side and 3 movement speed on the other side....
And it is this issue, that needs a separate post. I think I tried something in the past as well.

I can't simply take an average. That would mean a practical balance disaster.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm... It's no longer "All about the game"

I've been studying among my other research about Mobile Gaming and the Video Game scene ... And I've learnt some interesting things that come from "FarmVille".

"FarmVille" that dumb game where you seed and grow crops paved the way for the MODERN ERA of "Video Games", specifically anything MMO.

How? It may sound ridiculous that "FarmVille" is such a HUGE Protagonist in the evolution of Video Games and the infamous "Engine" of making a game sufficiently interesting and progressive that players keep RETURNING to the game each and every day, logging in the morning before work or before sleep.

This has been seen in other later MMOs such as "Lord Of Ultima" (LOU) in which you build queues are all busy building and you have no more SPEED UPS to accelerate production. WAIT... BACK UP... DID I SAY "SPEED UPS"???

So this is partly the way on how the EVOLUTION of gaming has turned to in-game currency! Ahaaa... Didn't think I was this smart, eh?! In-Game Currency can be used to ACCELERATE a game, provide AUTOMATION (like auto-builds or auto-defends or auto-regeneration, etc.) and generally costs some weird factor from normal money.

Doing more research I found that when you CONVINCE a Player to make his FIRST in-game credit purchase (1st), that same Player is many, many times more willing to make SUBSEQUENT purchases on in-game credit. That's why MANY of Today's MMOs like "Total Battle" (Which I played a bit) offer you like a "Starter Pack" for $2.99 USD and the deal is usually very worthwhile... Once they have your credit card information... More payments for more credits are more easily obtained once your credit card information is in the "system".

The other interesting FACT is that in-game credit should be ODD and never rounded off to normal values like 5 or 10 or 20 credits. Some thing should cost 4, 8 or 16 credits ... Just so that there is MONIES "left-over". Why??? Because Players HATE seeing UNSPENT in-game credit. It's PSYCHOLOGICAL and what happens (because of this???) usually players buy MORE in-game credits to yet again get screwed with amounts that DON'T work out to ZERO ($0)!

But it doesn't stop there... No why, more??? Yeah because in more MODERN DAY MMOs ... Now you can pay to SKIN your Avatar or some aspect of the game like your MAIN HERO, etc. If he/she is a wizard you can buy a Blue, Purple, Red, Green, White, Black, Gray Robes as an in-game purchase... Usually this is very expensive and forces players to DROP more monies on in-game credit to personalize the game's experience to their liking. Think Avatars on Reddit!

Or you can be a sucker and play "Stormfall" wihtout ANY WALLS! Ha ha. Yup you guessed it: Walls to your city can only be bought via in-game credit. Otherwise your city has ZERO (0) protection. Did I mention that you could ALSO UPGRADE those walls to HIGHER WALLS and/or WALLS WITH SPIKES... Now what do you think about YOUR MODERN MMO!

If you want your game to be successful, you've got to do in-game purchasing and credits a real SOLID job. Tech trees all require UPGRADING to the NEXT Tech. Have some in-game credit and you can HALVE the TIME take for the NEXT advancement... How you use and spend your in-game credit is YOUR BUSINESS...

But know that NOW, many are talking about how to design a GOOD or GREAT game also means how you can suck the life out of Players' wallets!!!

Oh yeah, and did I mention SUBSCRIPTIONS???

Could be as cheap as $4.99 USD a month ... and as 3 month grace period for inactivity before your account and all its assets is LOST FOREVER!!! Mouhahahahahah!!! (Evil Laugh of the marketing department head-honchos)!

Have FUN designing the game... But remember everything that I have shared here as that will probably determine how effective your game is in turning Gamers into real Slavers!!! Ha ha.

Cheers @Ramon.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Furthermore...

If your MMORTS has a Waypoint mechanic... Your units could SCOUT out an opposing army marching on the same path... This could trigger an E-MAIL saying... "Look out enemy approaching... Log into to battle it out!" Or if they don't the CPU takes care of battles a bit like in RAID Shadow Legends Auto-Play mechanism.

Did I mention this could be determined via an "Tactical Advisor" which costs 96 in-game credits to be active for a period of 24 hours!!! (BTW in my mania, 96 = 4 x 24!!!) Some freaky DEV Easter Egg.

Ha ha... Back to my previous comment! Hehehehe.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I read it all

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.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut