88 replies to this topic

[L33T]

That's uselessly vague.


I don't want to use "real time" as a resource, because I don't like the idea of down-time in browser games. I want to be able to log in at any time during the day and do what I can in the time I have - not feel pressured to log in for ten minutes every few hours to make the most of the time. The plan is to have some resources that regenerate on a daily tick, and for any unused resources to generate an additional bonus, so not using your full complement isn't a complete waste.

 

Would you mind sharing why you're inquiring--with such tenacity too--about this?

Edited by L33T, 10 December 2013 - 06:53 AM.

[HappyAccident]

That's uselessly vague.


I don't want to use "real time" as a resource, because I don't like the idea of down-time in browser games. I want to be able to log in at any time during the day and do what I can in the time I have - not feel pressured to log in for ten minutes every few hours to make the most of the time. The plan is to have some resources that regenerate on a daily tick, and for any unused resources to generate an additional bonus, so not using your full complement isn't a complete waste.

Ah I see, so yea that is definitely the opposite of Tribal Wars. Almost like the experience of Call of Duty, where there is no pressure to play the game, just whenever you feel like killing some things, you get on and do it

 

I'll let you know if I think of anything else.

Would you mind sharing why you're inquiring--with such tenacity too--about this?

I believe he said earlier that he was messing around with creating a game.

[Sweeney]

I like stat training, an hourly recharge of a fixed amount with a higher numbered cap, ways to increase both of those, and no end game. Some side plot is nice but I want to battle NPCs and PvP without any "end" to it.

I don't think you understand what "end-game" actually is. If there is character progression, such as stat training, there has to be a cap. Otherwise people with unlimited time to spend would be exponentially more powerful than others. Reaching that cap is the end of character progression, and the start of end-game content.

Neopets, for example, doesn't have end-game content because there is no real aim or main story. World of Warcraft is essentially all end-game content. There are things to do to progress your character, but once you're max level, the fun really begins.

For me, at least, the ideal is somewhere between those two extremes.

[L33T]

Ah I see, so yea that is definitely the opposite of Tribal Wars. Almost like the experience of Call of Duty, where there is no pressure to play the game, just whenever you feel like killing some things, you get on and do it

 

I'll let you know if I think of anything else.

I believe he said earlier that he was messing around with creating a game.

 

But CoD is so intense, like a little kid waiting to receive his fully blown-up balloon at Disney world. That, and it has way too many raging 13 year olds.

[Sweeney]

Would you mind sharing why you're inquiring--with such tenacity too--about this?

I'm messing around with writing a browser game.

[L33T]

I believe he said earlier that he was messing around with creating a game.

 

Ah, yeah I figured as much. Either that or he had found a game, but wanted to get opinions on it (doesn't make too much sense anyway?)

Edited by L33T, 10 December 2013 - 07:32 AM.

[pyke]

Enemy numbers and difficulty scaling based on the size of a team present. Diablo does a good job of this, it allows one user to be able to get through an area on their own, while keeping it similarly difficult for a larger party to acheive the same goals. Perhaps drops could have a higher likelihood to be geared towards the kind of character you're trying to build (if there would be a race/class system implemented).

 

Occasionally special events are always nice as well. This could be as simple as giveaways or something as far reaching as a whole new plot (maybe monsters invade typically safe areas).

 

One thing I've never enjoyed about browser games is the waiting factor either. There are some actions that you can probably justify having a cool off period (training, if it's possible to die in the game, perhaps you have to wait a while to get back into the action), but being able to do a few actions and then having to leave for a while before you can do anything else is a pain in the ass.

 

As for end game, you obviously want to reward people who put the most time into a game, without making them so ridiculously OP that there's no point anymore. Maybe you could establish a ladder ranking that only maxed out people can access, hence giving the topped out players a means to compete with one another for game supremacy. End game special items are also fun (bind them to a max player, so they can't just hand the items out to other people), exclusive max level areas could be a lot of fun as well. Plus if it's a special location for only end game players, you have no reason to have any mercy on them at that point.

[Sweeney]

Ah I see, so yea that is definitely the opposite of Tribal Wars. Almost like the experience of Call of Duty, where there is no pressure to play the game, just whenever you feel like killing some things, you get on and do it
 
I'll let you know if I think of anything else.

Yeah, I much prefer the "drop in and play" style, over the obsessive timer-watching of things like Farmville. The most I'd want to do is create a daily pressure - by having daily events (like Neopets) and the daily resource reset. If you don't want to check in on the game at least once a day, it's failed, but more than that and it becomes a job I don't want to alienate players who don't have the ability to log in ten times a day.

So the balancing issue arises between making sure there's enough compelling content for "always on" players, but ensuring that casual users don't feel like they're missing out on the whole game.

[Keil]

Yeah, I much prefer the "drop in and play" style, over the obsessive timer-watching of things like Farmville. The most I'd want to do is create a daily pressure - by having daily events (like Neopets) and the daily resource reset. If you don't want to check in on the game at least once a day, it's failed, but more than that and it becomes a job I don't want to alienate players who don't have the ability to log in ten times a day.

So the balancing issue arises between making sure there's enough compelling content for "always on" players, but ensuring that casual users don't feel like they're missing out on the whole game.

 

Seems like you're dooming yourself to fall between two extremes of either another Candy Crush or another after Neopets.

[Sweeney]

Seems like you're dooming yourself to fall between two extremes of either another Candy Crush or another after Neopets.

Falling between two extremes isn't necessarily "doom".

[Dan]

Falling between two extremes isn't necessarily "doom".

 

In fact, it's generally the complete opposite. Keil just doesn't quite understand most of the words he writes.

[Sweeney]

I scratched out and implemented my basic combat EXP curve. Basically, EXP requirements increase exponentially by level, and so do exp rewards by enemy.

It will take 100 kills on monsters of the same level to result in a level-up, with over-levelling being penalised and under-levelling being rewarded. You can earn up to triple EXP by fighting a monster ten levels above you (a linear increase of 0.3 bonus per level difference) - which ends up being a huge bonus, since that's triple the enemy's usual EXP which is already much larger than you'd get from fighting an enemy of your own level.

EXP rewards from monsters lower than your own level decrease exponentially, hitting 0 at ten levels lower. You do, however, still get drops and gold from fighting low-level enemies.

I also implemented a newbie bonus which boosts your EXP by decreasing amounts up to level 20.
Thoughts?

[L33T]

I scratched out and implemented my basic combat EXP curve. Basically, EXP requirements increase exponentially by level, and so do exp rewards by enemy.

It will take 100 kills on monsters of the same level to result in a level-up, with over-levelling being penalised and under-levelling being rewarded. You can earn up to triple EXP by fighting a monster ten levels above you (a linear increase of 0.3 bonus per level difference) - which ends up being a huge bonus, since that's triple the enemy's usual EXP which is already much larger than you'd get from fighting an enemy of your own level.

EXP rewards from monsters lower than your own level decrease exponentially, hitting 0 at ten levels lower. You do, however, still get drops and gold from fighting low-level enemies.

I also implemented a newbie bonus which boosts your EXP by decreasing amounts up to level 20.
Thoughts?

 

I don't like the over-under leveling scheme. If I was playing a game like this, I'd want the freedom to progress as fast as I possibly could (accomodates hardcore players).

[pyke]

I scratched out and implemented my basic combat EXP curve. Basically, EXP requirements increase exponentially by level, and so do exp rewards by enemy.

It will take 100 kills on monsters of the same level to result in a level-up, with over-levelling being penalised and under-levelling being rewarded. You can earn up to triple EXP by fighting a monster ten levels above you (a linear increase of 0.3 bonus per level difference) - which ends up being a huge bonus, since that's triple the enemy's usual EXP which is already much larger than you'd get from fighting an enemy of your own level.

EXP rewards from monsters lower than your own level decrease exponentially, hitting 0 at ten levels lower. You do, however, still get drops and gold from fighting low-level enemies.

I also implemented a newbie bonus which boosts your EXP by decreasing amounts up to level 20.
Thoughts?

Sounds pretty sensible. Would help to discourage jerks from camping out low level areas and encourages people to put themselves in danger for extra rewards. Only thing is if you've got different enemies at the same level and one's tougher than the other, people are probably going to ignore the tougher enemies. There's no incentive to fight them if you're getting the same exp reward (unless the drops/rate of drops improve with that particular enemy).

[L33T]

Sounds pretty sensible. Would help to discourage jerks from camping out low level areas and encourages people to put themselves in danger for extra rewards. Only thing is if you've got different enemies at the same level and one's tougher than the other, people are probably going to ignore the tougher enemies. There's no incentive to fight them if you're getting the same exp reward (unless the drops/rate of drops improve with that particular enemy).

 

Also @Boggart, make sure to encourage teamplay, and maybe add some randomness in the encounters as well. (i.e something can "unexpectedly" pop out).

Edited by L33T, 11 December 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[Sweeney]

I don't like the over-under leveling scheme. If I was playing a game like this, I'd want the freedom to progress as fast as I possibly could (accomodates hardcore players).

What? Name me a game that gives you the same experience for killing lower levelled enemies as it does for killing higher levelled enemies.

If there's no incentive to beat harder monsters, there's no incentive to play.

[L33T]

What? Name me a game that gives you the same experience for killing lower levelled enemies as it does for killing higher levelled enemies.

If there's no incentive to beat harder monsters, there's no incentive to play.

 

Oh, that's what you mean. I misunderstood. By all means, incorporate this. Even go as far as to make it so no exp is awarded after player has surpassed said entity by x levels.

[Sweeney]

Sounds pretty sensible. Would help to discourage jerks from camping out low level areas and encourages people to put themselves in danger for extra rewards. Only thing is if you've got different enemies at the same level and one's tougher than the other, people are probably going to ignore the tougher enemies. There's no incentive to fight them if you're getting the same exp reward (unless the drops/rate of drops improve with that particular enemy).

Well, all the enemies are instanced, so there's no possibility for jerks to do much My aim is to make like-levelled enemies fairly balanced, although certain character builds will have an easier time with certain enemies - but to me that's playing smart, not lack of incentive.

All enemies will have unique drops, as well as more frequent common drops. Eg, if you want Cave Bat Eyes for a crafting recipie, you ain't gonna find 'em anywhere but cave bats. Or user shops, but those aren't implemented yet

I'm also thinking of adding a fixed exp bonus for "fighting smart". Say, not using magic against a magic-immune enemy will check the "fighting smart" modifier, and earn you the bonus. Or using healing potions as a weapon against undead enemies. Or predicting when an enemy will attempt to heal, and interrupting it. Things like that.

Oh, that's what you mean. I misunderstood. By all means, incorporate this. Even go as far as to make it so no exp is awarded after player has surpassed said entity by x levels.

Like... 10? Which is exactly what I did say?

[L33T]

Like... 10? Which is exactly what I did say?

 

Use a number based on how many levels are in your game. Personally, I'd use:

 

a = 1/11 * maxLevels, where a is the amount of levels til you're cutoff from earning any exp at all from entities <= a levels from yours. Round up.

Edited by L33T, 11 December 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[Sweeney]

Use a number based on how many levels are in your game. Personally, I'd use:
 
a = 1/6 * maxLevels, where a is the amount of levels til you're cutoff from earning any exp at all from entities <= a levels from yours.

Why a sixth?

[L33T]

Why a sixth?

 

Changed some stuff up after rethinking it. 1/11 is a lot more ideal in my opinion. 100 levels would make it so you can still gain experience from things less than 9 levels lower than you, whereas 50 would make it 5.

[Sweeney]

Changed some stuff up after rethinking it. 1/11 is a lot more ideal in my opinion. 100 levels would make it so you can still gain experience from things less than 9 levels lower than you, whereas 50 would make it 5.

Right, but why is a 1/11th Max arbitrary cut off preferable?

[L33T]

Right, but why is a 1/11th Max arbitrary cut off preferable?

 

It's based off of my gameplay experiences in other MMOG's.

Edited by L33T, 11 December 2013 - 10:58 AM.

[Sweeney]

It's based off of my gameplay experiences in other MMOG's.

Ah, ok. Which MMOs are you referring to?
I don't think there's going to be a max level as such, just 10 levels above the hardest dungeon at the time. I figure a soft-cap of 100 should work for a launch figure - and there'll need to be a good amount of content for the "soft" end-game at that point.

I'm still figuring a lot of the mechanics out as I go, so literally everything is subject to change

[L33T]

Ah, ok. Which MMOs are you referring to?
I don't think there's going to be a max level as such, just 10 levels above the hardest dungeon at the time. I figure a soft-cap of 100 should work for a launch figure - and there'll need to be a good amount of content for the "soft" end-game at that point.

I'm still figuring a lot of the mechanics out as I go, so literally everything is subject to change

 

1/11 isn't an exact number, just seemed about right:

 

-Runescape

-FusionFall (deceased August 29th, RIP)

-WoW (I think)

-Firefall (old leveling system, was scrapped due to people wanting more of a horizontal progression system)

 

My interest is actually really piqued now. Looking forward to seeing what you bring out, be sure to keep me updated