Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsDFALCON'S PROFILE
DFalcon
2141
Close
Software engineer and amateur game developer with a focus on challenging non-twitch gameplay. I set the bar for "challenging" pretty high.
Other major chunks of interest go toward reading, math and tabletop games of many stripes.
Other major chunks of interest go toward reading, math and tabletop games of many stripes.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
The Screenshot Topic Returns
Keeping the plot focused
Not that many filler-y bits shouldn't make a lot more sense (just start reading), but I did want to say:
Life's tough, wampa happens.
Life's tough, wampa happens.
How to check if a key is being held down?
The variable you're setting to 0 is 0001. The variable you're checking in conditions in that box is 0005. No?
Opera web browser moving over to Webkit
author=K-hos
I 'lock' and 'protect' my first tab in Firefox to avoid this. And so that it asks me if I want to close when I hit the close button.
I would assume Opera and Chrome have such a feature too.
Chrome doesn't as a normally exposed setting. There seem to be some extensions, though I don't use them myself. (I haven't been down to only one browser tab in years, probably.)
Combat systems: Do's and Dont's & Opinions
Relying on a common resource isn't necessarily bad. I think a lot of harm in such systems gets done when players are carting around an MP pool large enough to use several abilities with impunity. If your MP starts at 0 and grows slowly, for example, you can actually have to make choices about whether eventual perfection is worth not achieving something right away: "stun the monster this turn or save enough to kill it next turn?"
(Though of course the usual caveats apply, and that specific method can also kill your pacing in terrible ways depending on the game.)
I probably tend to oversummarize the major points in discussions like this ("Yes, games should have meaningful decisions, already!") so instead I'll give another example. One thing that often works well is to have skills that synergize with some time flexibility.
Say each enemy has a random evade value that changes from turn to turn (independently, so there's usually a spread, but sometimes they're all pretty low or pretty high, sometimes the same target will have a low one a few turns in a row, etc.). Each skill has an accuracy and hits every live enemy with evade lower than that. Each skill can be used once per battle per user.
Skill A has very good accuracy and removes all buffs and debuffs on the user.
Skill B has good accuracy and heals the user, but gives him a debuff that damages him at the end of battle.
Skill C has good accuracy and gives the user a buff/debuff - it's heal-over-time as long as only one PC has it, otherwise it's damage-over-time.
Skill D has poor accuracy but gives the user a heal-over-time buff if it hits multiple enemies.
And I guess for the example as written you have to have some weak but always-available attack option.
(Bonus points if you can guess the board game that was horribly mutilated in the making of this example.)
The player has a tension between generating hits and buff/debuff synergy, but the flexibility in ordering means he can optimize for them together as he plays rather than choosing one or the other.
(Though of course the usual caveats apply, and that specific method can also kill your pacing in terrible ways depending on the game.)
I probably tend to oversummarize the major points in discussions like this ("Yes, games should have meaningful decisions, already!") so instead I'll give another example. One thing that often works well is to have skills that synergize with some time flexibility.
Say each enemy has a random evade value that changes from turn to turn (independently, so there's usually a spread, but sometimes they're all pretty low or pretty high, sometimes the same target will have a low one a few turns in a row, etc.). Each skill has an accuracy and hits every live enemy with evade lower than that. Each skill can be used once per battle per user.
Skill A has very good accuracy and removes all buffs and debuffs on the user.
Skill B has good accuracy and heals the user, but gives him a debuff that damages him at the end of battle.
Skill C has good accuracy and gives the user a buff/debuff - it's heal-over-time as long as only one PC has it, otherwise it's damage-over-time.
Skill D has poor accuracy but gives the user a heal-over-time buff if it hits multiple enemies.
And I guess for the example as written you have to have some weak but always-available attack option.
(Bonus points if you can guess the board game that was horribly mutilated in the making of this example.)
The player has a tension between generating hits and buff/debuff synergy, but the flexibility in ordering means he can optimize for them together as he plays rather than choosing one or the other.
[Poll] Status effect against bosses
I'm impressed by the poll - I wouldn't have guessed we had this much agreement that status effects not applying to bosses is bad. (Though I agree too, for basically the same reasons as above.)
One possibility I haven't seen yet:
Make using statuses against stronger enemies cost more. I guess this could apply to MP alone, but that's often not a very strong mechanic, in terms of how much it affects the player. I would tend to prefer something that constrains your actions a bit more... like if you draw skills at a constant rate, and the cost for any skill is discarding others (ref), or if it forced a longer cooldown, or if it took up a larger percentage of your turn (action points, stamina, whatever).
And one implementation of some of the suggestions above:
Instead of total incapacitation, make stuns cut any enemy from more actions to fewer. If a status effect is -1 action out of 2-6, it's not too crazy to let stronger enemies get hit with it.
One possibility I haven't seen yet:
Make using statuses against stronger enemies cost more. I guess this could apply to MP alone, but that's often not a very strong mechanic, in terms of how much it affects the player. I would tend to prefer something that constrains your actions a bit more... like if you draw skills at a constant rate, and the cost for any skill is discarding others (ref), or if it forced a longer cooldown, or if it took up a larger percentage of your turn (action points, stamina, whatever).
And one implementation of some of the suggestions above:
Instead of total incapacitation, make stuns cut any enemy from more actions to fewer. If a status effect is -1 action out of 2-6, it's not too crazy to let stronger enemies get hit with it.
rpg for windows phone?
Like everyone else, I can hardly imagine anyone developing something like this exclusively for Windows Phone.
But there are some cross-platform game development frameworks, and I'd be surprised if anyone making an RPG maker nowadays isn't seriously considering one of those. Mobile is a very logical step.
(For example, my current project uses libgdx, for desktops/HTML5/Android/maybe someday iOS.)
But there are some cross-platform game development frameworks, and I'd be surprised if anyone making an RPG maker nowadays isn't seriously considering one of those. Mobile is a very logical step.
(For example, my current project uses libgdx, for desktops/HTML5/Android/maybe someday iOS.)
Monsters, stats, damage and balance. A game of numbers.
How do you know a damage formula is good? It's hard to take it entirely on its own, but I think most games are trying to accomplish a couple goals with one:
- Setting up specialization. At the most basic level, this could be something like letting the warrior do more damage than the healer, making some enemy weak to fire, or letting a character spend more MP for a stronger attack.
- Setting up an overall power curve. How far off the level and equipment strength you had in mind does it take for an enemy to be impossible or trivial?
Just for one example, with a basic subtractive Atk - Def system:
If Def values are close to Atk values, a 10% increase in an Atk value will change effectiveness of that character (measured in the number of hits it takes to kill something) a lot. But if Def values are a few times lower than Atk values, a 10% increase in an Atk value isn't going to increase damage much more than 10%. That may not even reduce the number of hits it takes to beat most ordinary enemies.
Without considering other factors, I don't think I'd say that any set of these is necessarily bad. If the warrior kills enemies in three hits, the game will play differently depending on whether the healer kills enemies in four hits or fourteen, but whether that's an effective choice still depends on what other options you open to the player. Hopefully you can figure out approximately the balance you're looking for.
There's a third goal I should mention:
- Transparency to the player.
Opinions may differ and this varies with visibility into enemy stats, but IMO generally you want your player able to make informed choices about the amounts of damage things will do. This isn't exactly "simpler is better", but that's probably how it'll usually work out.
- Setting up specialization. At the most basic level, this could be something like letting the warrior do more damage than the healer, making some enemy weak to fire, or letting a character spend more MP for a stronger attack.
- Setting up an overall power curve. How far off the level and equipment strength you had in mind does it take for an enemy to be impossible or trivial?
Just for one example, with a basic subtractive Atk - Def system:
If Def values are close to Atk values, a 10% increase in an Atk value will change effectiveness of that character (measured in the number of hits it takes to kill something) a lot. But if Def values are a few times lower than Atk values, a 10% increase in an Atk value isn't going to increase damage much more than 10%. That may not even reduce the number of hits it takes to beat most ordinary enemies.
Without considering other factors, I don't think I'd say that any set of these is necessarily bad. If the warrior kills enemies in three hits, the game will play differently depending on whether the healer kills enemies in four hits or fourteen, but whether that's an effective choice still depends on what other options you open to the player. Hopefully you can figure out approximately the balance you're looking for.
There's a third goal I should mention:
- Transparency to the player.
Opinions may differ and this varies with visibility into enemy stats, but IMO generally you want your player able to make informed choices about the amounts of damage things will do. This isn't exactly "simpler is better", but that's probably how it'll usually work out.
The Screenshot Topic Returns
I don't mind the menu shape, but white text on a light gray background with a light gray cursor... please add some contrast!
(Light gray sword, too.)
I would add that LockeZ's example is using a sans serif typeface. General (though not 100% accepted) wisdom is that sans serif is easier to read off a screen - might be worth a look, anyway.
(Light gray sword, too.)
I would add that LockeZ's example is using a sans serif typeface. General (though not 100% accepted) wisdom is that sans serif is easier to read off a screen - might be worth a look, anyway.
Make the player use offense
Not to discount them as potentially good ideas, but delay and debuffing enemy offense are still things to watch out for by the standards of this thread.
The problem isn't that it's bad to have players play defensively, it's when the players' defense can be too good for enemies to pose a credible threat so things just drag on. If at some point a defense doesn't wrap back around to "I have to kill something so it will STOP HITTING ME" or some sort of time limit, it may be too effective.
The problem isn't that it's bad to have players play defensively, it's when the players' defense can be too good for enemies to pose a credible threat so things just drag on. If at some point a defense doesn't wrap back around to "I have to kill something so it will STOP HITTING ME" or some sort of time limit, it may be too effective.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
