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.

Messages - mughinn

Pages: [1] 2 3
I guess the result from this thread is that Realm of the Mad God is the epitome of Multiplayer roguelikes?

Programming / Re: Alternatives to Mana/MP?
« on: May 03, 2013, 11:45:05 PM »
Energia (energy in spanish)
Natura (nature in latin i think)
Pater (father in latin)

I think they somewhat fit.

Challenges / Re: Looking for testers for Rodney (7DRL)
« on: March 16, 2013, 02:54:19 PM »
The only thing i have to say it's that around depth 14 or 15 items appear on walls again, and sometimes somehow i seem to get on walls

Challenges / Re: Looking for testers for Rodney (7DRL)
« on: March 16, 2013, 04:37:30 AM »
Apparently in the first floor it seems to have bugged map generation, as it just generated a big empty room with walls around it.
I don't know about the others as i didn't find a stair.

Challenges / Re: Looking for testers for Rodney (7DRL)
« on: March 14, 2013, 10:42:19 PM »
I've now reached level 6, it seems interesting, although weapons seem to be degraded all at once, after my first dagger degraded all the daggers had 1D0 as damage.

Challenges / Re: Looking for testers for Rodney (7DRL)
« on: March 14, 2013, 01:08:18 PM »
I tried playing it.
I don't like that you can't see what the skill you're choosing at the beginning does before actually choosing it.
It seems my 9 in numpad doesn't work, it just says that i stand alert, while the other keys make me move.
Also, I'm not capable of using alt+62 to get down stairs, and in my keyboard it's the only way i can do >.
And finally, there are items but i can't find the key to pick them up.

Besides that, i started the level, killed everything an couldn't go down. No story? nothing? :P

I did see that sometimes monsters wouldn't surround each other and decide to stay behind others, while they could move and attack me.

This are the things I noticed. Maybe you're already planing to change them, but I don't know.

Programming / Re: Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:54:30 PM »
Oh, I get it.

But of course, that's what balancing is for, I'll have to make sure speed differences are not making the too easy or impossible.

That can create inconsistencies if the number of ticks used doesn't sum to 1 (or whatever your factorial is) at the end of each turn. That is, if you have something moving at 1/3 for 2/3 of the turn but then changes to some other movement factor, it goes out of sync. While this isn't necessarily undesirable, it can result in the 'extra turn' phenomenon relative to the player's experience. If you lock the user into a specific speed for the duration of a turn, that can be solved- but, imo, it's unpleasant unless you have a fatigue system or something of the sort that makes it clear that a player's last action in a turn is limited to, say, a move or something- but this really gets into certain degrees of incoherence- the currency of fatigue, ticks, and turns only obfuscates the experience. There's also the issue of a monster having different attack rates and movement rates, or different abilities functioning on different timescales- you can't ensure that they resolve in a consistent way.

I don't think having an out of sync monster would be noticed, the player would notice it if suddenly the monster changed speeds. But if the monster start the turn at tick 360 and you start at 365, and both just move (let's say 16 ticks per movement) then they'll have the same number of turns in X ticks.

Programming / Re: Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 13, 2013, 05:24:36 PM »
Okay, thanks for the information, though, what do you mean by broke down? did the player have infinite turns because he had 0 tick moves?

The difficulty you speak of is my main concern with my system, it' be awesome if I could do the granular time without that confusion.

I was thinking something along the lines of your speed tiers, maybe I'll use something close to that.

Programming / Re: Is this Rogue-like?
« on: March 13, 2013, 02:27:19 PM »
It sounds like a roguelike, procedural content, permadeath. I have to agree with joeclark though, how does that 256x256 grid work?
Is it an overworld grid that you can pass one by one and then, if you want, can get inside? or is it a full blown map, gigantic and enormous?

Good luck with it, hope you make it

Programming / Re: Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 13, 2013, 02:14:31 PM »
There is a way to make it so that same tick moves always happen in the same order. If i remember right it's using the > comparison instead of >= (or the other one, depending on how you order the heap), that way, if 2 monsters are doing the same things, they always are doing it in the same order.

But of course i get what you're saying, and i think using multipliers of 2 can solve that.

Say the standard tick is 32, you get, 1/2 with 16, 1/4 with 8, 2 with 64 and 4 with 128. You don't get thirds, but i guess I can live with that.

There are things against the system, and that's the reason i posted it, i'm trying to get feedback before i go an implement everything and end up with something boring or confusing.

I'm in the process of trying to combine everything said here, I feel the heap method is very good, but i won't know until i code it, and I'm currently somewhat far away from there, So I'll have to wait until I do it.

Programming / Re: Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 13, 2013, 04:39:27 AM »
I'll have to think about it a bit more then.

As I understand now, there are 3 viable choices.

What I originally though, with some differences like only allowing timing in powers of 2.

1HP with lots of tactical play an monster behaviour variety.

Chess-like play with attack variations.

I like them, I'm leaning towards a mix of the last 2, without 1HP, but I've to think about it a lot.

Of course the best way would be to get going and make some playable demos of everything i can think off.
I think i may have to remove the dust from my python skills and download libtcod (or if there's something else i could develop some quick demos i accept suggestions).

Programming / Re: Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 12, 2013, 03:14:39 PM »
Although the idea is nice, i don't how i could extrapolate it to a big game, some things like wall attacks are possible, but i'd like to actually be able to stab, chop, shield bash, etc. wherever and however i want.
I'll have to think about it, the time simulation seems too random or weird for someone who doesn't know about the system and too spreadsheet-like to those who know.

Programming / Re: Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 12, 2013, 02:07:04 PM »
Naughty, although single hit-point is very interesting, is not exactly what I'm talking about, although thanks for that list, since those behaviours can be implemented in any game and are all interesting.

Darren, I don't like high granularity systems a lot, but it seems for me that that's the way it should be for something like this to work, although something like Sil's system may work, it seems to me like there must be a big amount of turns so that there's more variety in the kinds of attacks and other things that can be put in.

Agingminotaur, that's exactly the reason i made the thread, it seems like it is too oriented on that kind of thing to make a viable strategy, it's not really complex math, but having three monsters with different speeds, and differents kind of attacks (like the quick stab or the big swing i mentioned in the post) could be something that is just too much for someone that ants the optimal strategy.

In the end, I'd love to end up with a system that could be inserted in, for example, Nethack, and not just a gimmick for a 7drl. Single hit-points are interesting, but don't work in big games like Nethack (again, for example).

Any suggestions to make it work better are also welcome, this can be another way of designing a roguelike and until i realize there's no solution to the problem of having to have a machine brain i will try to see if it can be done in a simple way.

EDIT: Giving it some though, would it be better if turns were divided like this?

Fast-decide dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn
medium-decide dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn
fast-decide dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn
slow-decide dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn dummy-turn

or something like that? i heard of someone dividing turns like that, where monsters can use a turn of a speed equal or below them. So i leave the deciding turns where monsters can take up an action, some dummy turns to let things unfold (pre-action and post-action stances) and another deciding turn.

Is this better or less math-oriented?

Programming / Re: Deterministic combat too complicated?
« on: March 12, 2013, 04:09:06 AM »
What i meant by confusing or boring is that the optimal strategy to play, is to (if possible) having the information on turns and do calculations.
This could be liked by some people, i read somewhere that roguelikes usually give you the internal information so that players who want actually can do that, and that makes roguelikes roguelikes, but maybe this is going too far?

And besides that, if it is well executed, do you think it is a viable/interesting system or not?

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3