Messages

1

Programming / Re: Order of Execution In Turn Based Roguelikes

« on: March 31, 2021, 06:44:33 AM »

One game that really drove home this idea was DROD. There were levels you literally couldn't win unless you utilized the order that the enemy did things in. It was more of a puzzle game and discrete in its outcomes but I thought it was an interesting reminder of this and how to make enemies distinctly different without resorting to stats. I wish more roguelikes took notes from it, although some do.

2

Programming / Re: Looking for a language for minimum effort/maximum payoff.

« on: March 31, 2021, 06:37:34 AM »

I'd say I highly recommend using any language that does garbage collection and other things like ekolis suggested. There are just too many messes you'll make yourself without having to deal with the additional overhead. I also second Unity as long as you are comfortable with component based architecture and I was surprised that I actually liked going from a loosely typed language to one that is strongly typed. It simplifies a lot of things and helps a lot with avoiding errors. I just don't see a lot of gain from the having things loosely typed. I'm sure there are well thought out arguments to the contrary though.

If you want to really simplify it and don't mind paying for an engine, GameMaker Studio can be pretty effective for 2d games (I wouldn't bother with 3d even though I've seen people push it). They've added structs recently so you can do a bit more with it than you used to. The only problem there is that you are learning a proprietary language that can't be used elsewhere, but I found it similar enough to Java that the transition was very quick (coming from Java, not sure how well the other way would be). When I prototype I like to use it, but I find that C# and visual studio are much more robust.

3

Design / Re: Buildings

« on: July 24, 2020, 03:11:15 PM »

The game that does come to mind that tried procedural buildings was Cataclysm: DDA but their procedural buildings we're pretty terrible as I recall.

4

Design / Re: Buildings

« on: July 24, 2020, 03:09:59 PM »

This paper presents a way that requires an outline of the building to already be in place but I found it straight forward to implement and allowed good variety. You could try it. The paper also references other papers and methods and even describes their strengths and weaknesses so you could use it as a spring board.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4606/b08a7c0f33771fd645fbdd6dce1a60a9db09.pdf

5

Design / Re: Turn-based vs real time

« on: February 02, 2017, 03:06:59 AM »

rofl, I love you Krice! 

Wait, what.. are you a woman? Could it be possible?

Krice showing remarkable honesty about the likelihood of this response from a woman. Mad respect. Haven't posted in like a year and don't stop by often enough to keep up any dialog, but I just had to indulge myself. See you when the three billy's get you out from under your bridge next time.

6

Design / Re: Nonstandard Attack Option

« on: December 17, 2015, 01:51:12 AM »

@ LindaJeanne and AgingMinotaur

I'm trying to figure out a way to get it to work on wine but it's not my expertise.

@LindaJeanne

Yes, the player can choose from any of the three choices each attack. What I mean by the second quote is that the player will learn the monsters preferences and can then always play the most preferred's counterpoint. Instead of this, I allow the monsters to gradually learn the player's patter that they have been using and adjust their preferences to suit (only not completely, I'm not trying to totally compete with the player). That way, if the player always uses the same attack which is the counterpoint to the monster's most preferred attack, then the monster will start playing the counterpoint to that attack. This forces the player to adjust their playing to not just the monster's counterpoint, but varying in other choices to keep from producing an exploitable pattern for the monster.

I think that standing alone the system might have some value as a mini-game or something, but I get the feeling that it is cumbersome. I'd still love to hear from any one who can run it, and in the mean time I'll try to figure out something for the linux users, or maybe mac. Both are platforms I can't claim to know a whole lot about.

As always, thanks so much for the interest!

7

Design / Re: Nonstandard Attack Option

« on: December 08, 2015, 08:00:42 PM »

So I cobbled together a working prototype and have been playing around with it. I went with three types of basic AI for it. One chooses attacks based solely on its preferences, another a mixture of its preferences and your observed choices, and a third that is based solely on your observed choices. The AI movement is really basic and no frills anywhere else, but if someone want's to take it for a spin I'd be more than happy to hear your thoughts. I forgot to mention in the readme that the A prefers attacks and D defense and so on. Thanks for all of your previous replies.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4p6x1zjzg4kk8lp/RPS%20combat.zip?dl=0

8

Design / Re: Nonstandard Attack Option

« on: December 03, 2015, 04:40:54 PM »

@Krice
Thanks so much for the input. I did want to hear whether it was a fool's errand or not. I have no idea if it will work. What I understand you saying is that it might, but depends on a lot else. That sounds like it's worth trying. Thanks.

9

Design / Re: Nonstandard Attack Option

« on: December 03, 2015, 01:51:55 PM »

@Krice
Obviously, at least with some members. Thankfully not the case with all. If you'd like to tell me your opinion on my topic, I'd still be interested. You have been on these forums a while and could probably give good input.

10

Design / Re: Nonstandard Attack Option

« on: December 02, 2015, 10:32:56 PM »

@AgingMinotaur

Although random choices (33%) make perfect play in a one off game of RPS, if you know of the other player's pattern then subsequent games should favor the counters to that pattern. If the monsters have a predefined pattern that would mean best play against them would conform to that pattern. If you do best plays against their specific pattern then you create a pattern that they can then adjust theirs to exploit. I don't want them to be perfect players though, so I would only let them adjust their predefined pattern by a set amount. The player would have to play close to their predefined pattern, but not so close as to make their pattern too exploitable. My question is, do you see interesting play here.

I didn't envision doing a separate game space for the battles, but instead integrating it into the main game space. I thought that the players choice would be used for all monster attacks surrounding it until the player makes his next choice (possible implementing double blind, player and monsters hit at once). I was hoping this would create the further depth of causing the player to not just choose best play against one monster, but best play against what he considers best for all the monsters that will attack. I do want to maintain the overall feel of rogue with @ moving around a grid facing multiple monsters. I guess I see it like the original Fallout with the option to choose hit locations, but instead of increasing risk and reward you are doing your best to figure out optimal play.

I will spend some time thinking over your ideas about the the items. I'm not sure I'm fully imagining it yet. I do like the idea of different effects over simply doing more or less damage (I just have to figure out whether that would bog down the combat more than this whole idea already does).

I'm starting to agree that prototyping this first and discussing later may be a better route. Thank you so much for the time you spent reading and commenting. If you have any more ideas, feel free to let me know.

11

Design / Re: Nonstandard Attack Option

« on: December 02, 2015, 07:37:12 PM »

"you mean a level of 7DRL games when you talk about these projects"

Not really, just games with balance issues and a difficulty in viewing things from the player's perspective. I'm not sure what you mean by 7DRL not being rogues, since I have never played them, but I am aware of their existence. I would say that my projects would fit the Berlin interpretation of roguelike, but, as I've already stated, I didn't design them well enough to be fun (being the reason I abandoned many after initial prototyping). Simply adding all the ingredients in what makes something a roguelike doesn't mean it will be good. Most of what I have worked on is patterned on the original rogue, and while I could directly copy it (changing just enough to call it mine), that isn't designing a game. I'm trying to design a game that takes inspiration from others, but is separate. I don't plan or expect it to be popular, or a huge hit, I just want to make something I am happy with and proud of.

If you mean by the above quote that my projects have been amateur and thrown together without thought and planning, you would be right on the former (I'm not paid, and self learned*), and part right and part wrong on the latter. I've thought of many things I'd like to implement in a new game aside from this post and put much planning into some of my previous projects. My 13 year old can spend weeks planning a new game but if he has little successful experience to draw on, and no advice, it may be in vain. I don't say that I have started on many to brag (starting but not finishing is no great achievement, and finishing your goals but ending in failure even less so) but to illustrate that I see something needs to change.

I was hoping for constructive discussion of this particular part of it because it would form one of the core mechanics. If not done right, probably not going to redeem the game with anything else.

If you consider it a trick, I suppose I can take that to mean you don't see it as a worthwhile departure from the norm and that you don't see merit in it? Thank you for your feedback, and I'd like you to elaborate on it if you want to.

*Self learned meaning I learned from other's writing, but not formally educated. Self taught always sounds to me like I taught myself from my own intelligence.

12

Design / Nonstandard Attack Option

« on: December 02, 2015, 04:34:04 PM »

I have been considering starting on a new project and making another rogue. I've started many, completed one (ok, it didn't have a true ending, but complete as far as my goals are concerned), and I continue to run into the same problem. They fulfill a lot of the rogue check boxes (permadeath, proc gen levels, etc) but they just aren't fun. I tend to make things that are interesting to me, from a programmers perspective, but aren't near as interesting to a player. I work on NPC to NPC AI, give the player options, but they aren't interesting (one is as good as the other or one is dominant). So I'm wanting to think really hard about the design before I start on yet another. I've read articles about balance and design on ASCII dreams, Sirlin, here, and RBasin. If you have any other good article sites, let me know.

The real impetus behind the post is I was thinking about one idea and wanted to hear feedback. I want to give the player interesting options in combat and thought about giving him a rock, paper, scissors (RPS) kind of choice. Something like a attack, block, and a counterblock. Instead of these being distinct actions, I wanted to implement them all as a form of attack. It's just that block would do very minimal damage but would essentially negate that full attack option that the opponent uses.

Since RPS isn't fun as a single match and only becomes interesting as you play multiple against the same opponent, I thought I would give each mob a set of preferences (probabilities) to which action it would use but give it an ability to partially modify those preferences to what it has observed the players pattern as.

What I'm trying to achieve is give the player an ability to learn monster patterns, but at the same time balance exploiting those with creating a player pattern the monster can exploit. I want to match the preferences with the monster stats as well, giving high hp but low damage abilities to ones who use block more often etc. Hoping to give the monster some personality here.

I feel like I could take this further with gain-able perks that reinforce one of the options and gear that relates as well.

I'm not naive enough to think no one has thought of this kind of thing, so if you have examples of where it has worked or not, tell me. Also, I'd like to know if this sounds like it could work and what problems are forseen or guidelines I should follow.

I also understand that interface seems like a problem with making it streamlined without many controls. Idea's here would be great too. Start from an interface like the original rogue is what I'm hoping and modify it, but there may be better alternatives(?).

13

Design / Re: Considering when to generate random map details, all at once or as needed?

« on: December 02, 2015, 03:20:47 AM »

I think that there are ways you could obfuscate the player's ability to influence the next level generated if that is important to you. You could generate a couple of levels ahead as one way. Depending on how hard it is to implement, I think your idea of a separate RNG would be more logical though.

I do think that generating the whole world at once would need some good justification if it could conceivable be done on the fly (Not saying that there aren't valid justifications, there are).

14

Design / Re: map with complex numbers

« on: November 30, 2015, 07:11:13 PM »

@Cfyz Hmm, never thought of that way of representing it. My description is certainly more of a physical representation of a nonphysical idea. I think yours probably captures the idea of a different dimension (ie not physical) while still existing in the physical much better. Possibly putting fuzzy transitions between different ai routines and stats for all the in game actors depending on how far into the other dimension you travel.

15

Design / Re: map with complex numbers

« on: November 30, 2015, 06:23:06 PM »

The problem (I think) with imaginary space (assuming it's like 4d) is that each spot in real space (x, y, z) would have a whole set of separate coordinates you could travel through in the 4th dimension. On a linear scale, each x has one location, on a grid each x has y locations, in 3d each x has y*z locations. In 4d each x has y*z*? locations. This could really increase your map size and storage (as well as generation) requirements (pathfinding would be doable, but abstract to think about). Not sure if what I'm talking about is exactly what you were suggesting.

One way I would implement another dimension would be to keep it separate from the current, but related in an unusual way.

Perhaps rotate it. When the player moves between, take the angle from the center of map and distance, rotate it a set amount and round for the nearest grid location.

You could instead have the world offset from the original by a set x and/or y amount and wrap the edges.

Mirror the coordinates (the whole world on the other side of the flat world we live in).

Another option is to have the scale be different. 1 grid in real world equals 2 (or .5) in the other (pretty sure Minecraft did this). This opens the option of changing dimensions to speed up travel. It also allow enemies that if you stay in your dimension can catch up to you in their's then switch over to yours to attack. If you jump into their dimension you could then outrun them.

You could potentially adjust the way the world interfaces over time or when certain events occur. Change the angle of the offset in the first example or the amount of x and y offset in the second (essentially making the world scroll. Not sure you would want to change the scale since that seems complicated to keep there from being places that don't map anymore. If you change the way it interfaces over time then you make it where a short trip and return into the other dimension keeps you in relatively the same area but longer trips make it more and more uncertain what trouble you could land in when you return.

For npc pathfinding you would simply transpose the coordinates of the destination in the other dimension into their dimension and they would path towards it in their dimension. IE the same way you would move the player from one to another, just not actually moving anything.

Finally you could combine some or all of these to create something that would really seem to connect the worlds in a mysterious (confusing) but related way. I guess the goal of what I'm getting at is that they would appear related in a way that could be utilized by the player and/or npcs (if not using many it is more useful to player) or mysteriously connected but hard (impossible) to predict (if using many of the above, more useful to npc).

Another slightly different idea would be to treat them like a z dimension where each dimension must be reached through a previous dimension but each relates to the other in different ways, and/or with progressive differences like you mentioned (more and more strange things in them). Or just skip to any dimension you like.

All of these are just ideas that could be mixed and matched. May not work well all together. Some may be bad. Maybe what you were looking for. Maybe completely misunderstanding you. Hope to hear what you think.