New Game Idea - Currently Unnamed. I am wondering what your opinion on this game is. It will be like FF tactics but not quite. Keep in mind that this will probably not be as extravagant as some of your games, as I am still a beginner. I have made 1.75 games (the ¾ part is because I’m almost done another one). While I finish my current game I often plan or work on a new one. It will be programmed with C++ and Win32. Maybe DirectX, but I still need to practice with it. Concept Like I stated earlier, it will be somewhat like FF Tactics. It will have a few major differences though. Unlike Tactics, it will be primarily multiplayer, H2H. Players will begin with a single character, level 1 with no armour or weapons. From there the player can train against computer opponents, visit a store to purchase new characters, weapons, armour etc. Players will level up as they fight more. Obviously there will be save files and you won’t have to start from scratch every time Programming style I plan on making this OOP. There will be classes for weapons, armour, player, etc. Like I said, it will be made with C++ and Win32. Aside from that it will be in multiple source files. Items Concepts Items will be able to be purchased from the store, or retrieved from corpses of defeated opponents. I am contemplating the idea of weather the player will have the ability to create their own items (for a price of course). There will also be spells and skills, which will be gained as the player levels up. Spells will have to be purchased with level points. Every time a player levels they gain some level points which can be used to purchase spells or skills. Game Play The game will be played on a grid, probably about 15x15 tiles. It will be turn based. Each turn, the player will get the choice to attack, move, cast a spell, use an item etc. Upon death a character will be resurrected automatically at a cost of some XP (undecided). The victor of a match will have all participating characters gain XP depending on the XP of the competitors. XP will be directly proportional to their level. Each team in a match will consist of 5(?) or less characters. They will move in a random, pre-decided order. Attacks, spells, defence, and turn order will all be influenced by the stats strength, intelligence, defence, and speed respectively. Graphics The graphics will be 2D, where each character looks like a red or blue circle with the name of the character written in the circle. I am no graphics genius so the graphics will probably not be of the greatest quality but they will be there. What I Want From You A name for one. An unnamed game isn't cool. In general, I'd just like some comments on what you like about the idea and what you don't. The idea of combat, items, multiplayer etc. Conclusion This is a project that I am highly anticipating completing so I will probably finish it. Thanks to you people of GameDev, I have almost completed my first project and look forward to completing another. - Darobat

I like the idea Darobat, it's similar to a design treatment I'm writing now (and yet, at the same time extremely different. But tactical turn-based PvP is the essence of it) and it's got legs. I would suggest two design considerations:

1) Make sure the game is exceptionally finely balanced. Spend a long time making sure the design of the game is sound, and then spend a long time tweaking the game. Make sure it's coded in such a way that this tweaking and testing can be done.

2) Consider ways to contain exceptionally successful players. There's potential for a game-killing feedback loop in this system, where a player gains a lead and becomes difficult to beat, and thus builds a bigger lead (in levels, equipment, XP etc) and slowly becomes unbeatable. There are design methods to prevent killer veteran disease, and you must use them.

One way would be to link XP gained from victory to the gap in level between the teams. Hammering a lower team gives you just a few XP, beating higher teams gives you loads. Similarly, resurrecting members after losing to better teams is cheap: after losing to worse teams, expensive. This encourages teams to seek opponents of similar ability.

As for naming a project... ooh, I don't know. Generally, the ideal name for a project pops up in progress for me, or after some story's in place. Don't constrain things with a plot-based name just yet.

what's the new concept? you just describe almost every snes rpg.

Quote: Original post by hpolloni
what's the new concept? you just describe almost every snes rpg.

Quote: Unlike Tactics, it will be primarily multiplayer, H2H.

Never seen SNES do that...[wink]

Mushu - trying to help those he doesn't know, with things he doesn't know.
Why won't he just go away? An question the universe may never have an answer to...

Quote: Original post by Acapulco
Make sure the game is exceptionally finely balanced. Spend a long time making sure the design of the game is sound, and then spend a long time tweaking the game. Make sure it's coded in such a way that this tweaking and testing can be done.

I've started by coding in the weapons. Right now, making another weapon is easy as adding another few lines to weapons.wpn. I'm going to do the same thing for the armour, spells, and skills.

Quote: Original post by Acapulco
2) Consider ways to contain exceptionally successful players. There's potential for a game-killing feedback loop in this system, where a player gains a lead and becomes difficult to beat, and thus builds a bigger lead (in levels, equipment, XP etc) and slowly becomes unbeatable. There are design methods to prevent killer veteran disease, and you must use them.

One way would be to link XP gained from victory to the gap in level between the teams. Hammering a lower team gives you just a few XP, beating higher teams gives you loads. Similarly, resurrecting members after losing to better teams is cheap: after losing to worse teams, expensive. This encourages teams to seek opponents of similar ability.

Thats what I said. Basicly, killing a team of low level characters will give you minimal expeirence. Also, I'm hoping to make it so that higher teams can still be clobbered by low level teams. Thats where the tactics element. For example, say one player finds really good weapon for a relativly low price, and gets only 5 fighters, they still have a chance to lose. If the lower level characters were to be lets say primarily mages, they could probably win. The guy who is a higher level would probably lose because he has to be in melee range. If I was to reverse it though so that there are high level mages against lower level fighters, they could win if they were to work together, i.e. mass attack style

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Acapulco
2) Consider ways to contain exceptionally successful players. There's potential for a game-killing feedback loop in this system, where a player gains a lead and becomes difficult to beat, and thus builds a bigger lead (in levels, equipment, XP etc) and slowly becomes unbeatable. There are design methods to prevent killer veteran disease, and you must use them.

One way would be to link XP gained from victory to the gap in level between the teams. Hammering a lower team gives you just a few XP, beating higher teams gives you loads. Similarly, resurrecting members after losing to better teams is cheap: after losing to worse teams, expensive. This encourages teams to seek opponents of similar ability.

Thats what I said. Basicly, killing a team of low level characters will give you minimal expeirence. Also, I'm hoping to make it so that higher teams can still be clobbered by low level teams. Thats where the tactics element. For example, say one player finds really good weapon for a relativly low price, and gets only 5 fighters, they still have a chance to lose. If the lower level characters were to be lets say primarily mages, they could probably win. The guy who is a higher level would probably lose because he has to be in melee range. If I was to reverse it though so that there are high level mages against lower level fighters, they could win if they were to work together, i.e. mass attack style

Good thinking - that will work if there's a power element in the XP required to level up, so the benefit from beating minnows is minimal. One other thing to watch out for is the "training" tactic, where two players (or one player controlling two teams) cooperate by beating each other up, thus becoming ridiculously tough without facing any risk.

I like the balance of characters suggested too, the notion that a fighter might be able to beat a mage by rushing him, or a mage might hold off a fighter. It would be wise to think carefully what "classes" you want in the game, what they will be capable of, and who they will be strong and weak against. This would lead to players choosing balanced teams.

Quote: Original post by Acapulco
Good thinking - that will work if there's a power element in the XP required to level up, so the benefit from beating minnows is minimal. One other thing to watch out for is the "training" tactic, where two players (or one player controlling two teams) cooperate by beating each other up, thus becoming ridiculously tough without facing any risk.

I like the balance of characters suggested too, the notion that a fighter might be able to beat a mage by rushing him, or a mage might hold off a fighter. It would be wise to think carefully what "classes" you want in the game, what they will be capable of, and who they will be strong and weak against. This would lead to players choosing balanced teams.

There aren't going to really be any predesigned classes. From the beginning you will allocate your stats to be either a fighter(lots of str and def), a mage(lots of int), or a combonation of both. I never really liked games with alot of restrictions on them.

I think that there should be something detrimental to picking a fight with someone at a level way below yours. Making it so that you gain only a small amount of experience isn't enough, in my opinion. But lowering your experience is pretty bad as well. I think there should be a stat called honor, kind of like FFT's brave and faith, it would affect your other stats.

I’m doing something similar, i have been in design stage for the past 8 months while I finishing up the other projects that i have already started. (I should be staring on my project by the New Year)

Anyways here is a list of questions i had to ask my self while i was designing my game

- Stats, are you going to have stats? if so what type and how will they effect your unit, will these stats go up as you level up.
- What different jobs are you planning on having and how will they effect your units.
- Can you change jobs 1/2 way thou the game
- Shooting on a diagonals ( line of site )
XXX1X
XXXXX
XX2XX
X3XXX
if one fires at 3 does he hit 2 or does it magically pass thou it.
- Items, how many are you going to have, can they give you special attributes, can your items cast magic too.
- Play balancing, this is one of the hardest parts, how are you planning on solving this problem, (for us we are planning on using the AI engine to run thou all the different setups and auto price the items, even still with 100 items with 5 locations on the body and 5 different people in your squad == a f*ck of a lot of different combinations)
- Turn order, do you order everyone by initsh or one side at a time, or only move one unit per turn.
- Asshole effect, how do you stop people from just taking the absolute longest time that they can for each turn, and making it so the game goes on forever and the other side forfeits, a HUGE problem in http://www.tacticsarena.com/
- Match making, how do you pair people with the same abilities together

* As for combat we have 2 different stats, Attack and defense. If your attack is higher then there defense then you get thou other wise you block it.
* Out items just add points to the different stats on the unit that they are equipped.
* Multiplayer, this is a huge huge question, look at how other games do there and you should get an idea.

This is not a new idea either,
What makes your game special compared to other turn based tactics multiplayer games?
What is your clinch?

And how big are you thinking?

One more thing

http://www.tacticsarena.com/ has been working on there game for the past 20 months or so and they are still play balancing there units.

They only have 10 differnt units with static items and stats.
and there still play balancing.

thats going to be one of the biggest hurdels you will have to overcome.