Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - mughinn

Pages: [1]
Programming / Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:31 AM »
Since I've read Darren Grey's post about randomness in games, I've though a deterministic combat model.
Now, I haven't yet designed everything, but I have some kind of idea where it is going and before getting too deeply in it, I wanted to put it here and ask if it was just too complicated or too boring from a player perspective.

Here is more or less how I designed it.

For this to work, in my opinion, it's necessary to have a fine granularity turn system, by which i mean a binary heap or something like that.

Then, each action takes an X amount of time to get done, and an Y amount of time to be able to start another action.
Leaving the possibilities for vulnerability.
For example, say you are like this:


and you want to move up.
It's turn 350. You ended the rest from your last action. You press up to walk.
The character changes stances and is in the moving stance, swords attacks fail.
Turn 360. You walked and are now in the destination.


You now are resting from your last action and are vulnerable to any attack.
Turn 370. You end resting, and are now ready to start the next action.

This is a basic example, but it escalates from there, fighting would involve a lot of stance changing and maybe mixed attacks, like a quick stab or a powerful upward swing, to mix up timings.
Things like defensive and offensive stances could work or be included.
Stats can be added to make certain attacks be automatically dodged or defended against with armor or shield.

An arrow would have a direction and just hit anything in an occupied tile 100% of the time (unless it has a high enough dexterity?)

I personally like it, but i wanted opinions since it seems like something that could confuse and put away players.
Although i believe it could be played like a normal roguelike and give the feeling that it's random.

Now, i probably didn't explain it very good, so any question is well received and will be answered as soon as possible.
Thanks for any criticism.

Programming / Developing a world generation algorithm
« on: January 25, 2013, 01:18:03 AM »
So, in the makings of a roguelike, I'm trying to develop a somewhat good world generation algorithm, as of now I'm trying to get my own ideas and try them. This one is the one that I liked the most for now, and I somewhat made it.

I'll explain a bit the algorithm, and I'd like some criticism on it, and honest answers, if you think it's not a good idea just tell me, I wouldn't like to waste my time :)

First set a max width and height of a map, and get a good amount of random points(16 now) in it. Then i create a Voronoi diagram (

Having that, I abstract them into Plate tectonics, and "move" them into a random direction, overlaping them in some points.

Then i finally make the map, where the movement left no "land", i put water, when they overlap, i make mountains, and in the rest i make normal ground.

Please also keep in mind i haven't finished working on it, I know these aren't pretty, but i think it has potential.

Some generated maps (should work):

Okay, editing before anyone posts, I managed to make it look a bit better by making 50 random points instead of 16.

Programming / FOV algorithms
« on: December 26, 2012, 02:05:13 AM »
So I'm adding LOS to a roguelike I'm creating.

I've tried implementing a very basic one that i didn't like (creating a Bresenham's line between the player and every tile in FOV and check if it was clear). This method, although fast, created some things that I didn't like, like having random tiles being highlighted surrounded by the dark.

Now I've done a raycasting one, and, for me, it looks bad. Also, I'm still discussing with myself if it should have asymmetry, and considering the gameplay options it adds.

I'd love some kind of comparison or some algorithm I can use, that is somewhat fast and looks good.

What I don't like about raycasting is something like this:


where you can see just behind a pillar.

Thanks for any advice you can give.

Pages: [1]