@King Mir

Logende mentioned "Age of war" game as the base for his game. That game is actually very simple. It is a constant flow of increasingly difficult enemies. With turrets, timing and some game glitches the player can defend the castle and upgrade his units until he can destroy enemy castle. Of course with good music and graphics it has some charm.

When I first thought about Logende's game I was interested in his idea of arranging units in a formation. I let my imagination run wild because this could change the original gameplay which I don't find interesting. I was talking about strategy in this context, building a formation with different capabilities and maneuvering it in a changing environment instead of reacting to enemy spawns in a linear way. I'd like to move my formation at will, change it's behavior and composition, play defensively or offensively, use terrain...

Nevertheless, if he decides to keep the game close to the original, which I understand, then it's going to be a reaction game. I agree that more complex doesn't mean better, a game with different ways to win is better than a complex game with just one. If there is just one strategy to win there is no choice.

If there are three combat units with a RPS mechanic and they all defeat the weak melee unit then the game will be a reaction game spawning one type and changing it to another when it is advantageous. Probably the melee units will be used to gain time, but the player won't bother spawning them if he can destroy enemy units faster with the main units. So it won't be a game of choices either, because the player will react to enemy spawns with the logical counter units.

I agree about testing mechanics with human players to develop the gameplay. Humans will find what is fun, what works and how to counter different tactics.

King Mir said:

1. We've been talking about this as a strategy game, and even I have been using strategy and tactics interchangeably, but technically everything in a game like this is not strategy but tactics. Not really a suggestion; I just can't help pointing this out.
2. I think you could easily have 10 buttons at the bottom of the screen for different unit types, without cluttering the UI. So I don't think that's going to be a big problem for support units.
3. We talked about having cavalry up front, and foot in the second row, but thinking on it, because knights tend to be wider, it may be better to have the foot in front, with knights reaching through them.
4. My advice to Logende has been to focus on having a good RPS for a very specific reason: it automatically provides at least three additional tactics that a player can use that are balanced against each other. @merkutsam in your 2nd to last post you describe a lot of ways to make combat more complex, but none of this addresses a core problem: how to avoid having one true stategy? How do you make it so that different ways to play, that are effective? I think this is a more important goal than making combat more complex or last longer.
5. I talked about this in discord, but one specific criteria to try to strive for is to have balanced choices that aren't “use this mechanic” or “don't use this mechanic”. The choice of “use this mechanic” or “don't use this mechanic” is a choice a player is going to make based on whether they like complexity. But a choice of playing 1 of 3 units will make the player try to choose the one that fits their desired play style. This specifically applies to real choices where there isn't an “one true strategy”. Not all choices are like this; you might have other choices where the more complex mechanic is better, like using siege, but then using siege becomes automatic in every game that has walls.
6. I think the idea to have touch select the unit to be played when you have enough money for it is a good one. It makes the game more about the tactics rather than click-timing.
7. Human testing has it's place, but ai testing has a huge advantage too: you can run a lot more tests. You can literally test every permutation of anything you can think to vary. So an approach to this might be to have humans play against each other to come up with strategies, then to write an ai that uses those strategies perfectly. The goal is that there will be several strategies that are balanced against each other to be equally effective. You can also test other goals.
8. @logende You talked about how buildings are intended to split a combat into stages, and also how the grant the player a reprise when they are out of units on the field. I think these two goals make for somewhat different kinds of a game. Having "chapters" opens up a lot of possibilities for a long campaign, where the ai is relatively dumb, but has all these building buffs that they player doesn't. So you have a serial game, where they player tries to destroy a progressively more an more powerful castle (with unit power increasing too). On the other hand if the point of buildings is the second goal, it serves more like a “life”. It's sort of each player having 2 nukes that they can use any time to wipe the battlefield clean. But in this case the defenses are balanced between the two players, and it's beholden on you to make the ai equal to the player. Which do you want? I somewhat assumed by the apparent equality of sides in the trailer you showed that you want a balanced sides, but you can go either way.
9. @logende You talk about how you want the player to buy defensive building upgrades that match the progressively more complex castles that each battle with the same tribe will have. The problem I think you run into with this is, because your castles are pretty far apart, the player would never intentionally allow combat to fall back to their own fortification. Unless that's a strategy you explicitly encourage (but then you again have a choice that's “use this mechanic” vs “don't use this mechanic”, which doesn't encourage different strategies). For this reason I don't like letting the player build defensive structures like walls.
10. It sounds like you currently have two major player mechanics in the game: recruiting units, and building buildings. On discord we talked about a mechanic to power up mages that we ultimately rejected. I have also brought up the possibility of player cast “spells”. I think this is a major question you need to be to finalize too: this list of major mechanics. This is after all what your game is all about.
11. Currently you say you have 5 buttons for units and 5 buttons for buildings. But your game is clearly more about units than buildings. So why are buildings so prominent?

1. Thanks for pointing it out.
2. Would be possible in principle if we should run out of space within the top UI panel
3. This might also make sense from another perspective: as melee is the “low worth” unit and not part of the main 3 unit classes rps-system, it is logical to prefer sacrificing it over the other units
4. -
5. -
6. I have an alternative idea which I will describe to you separately
7. I agree
8. A little bit of both is intended and wanted. Enemies in the game could have increasingly stronger buildings (they start a match directly with those buildings) and, additionally, the buildings increase the length of a single match, by serving as “lifes” (as you pointed out). One approach we considered was the following: Both, the player and the bot, start with some buildings, but those can be different. The player, for example, only starts with walls. In the beginning the player has low health values and over time he gets stronger ones. The enemy, on the other hand, can even start with offensive buildings, such as a cannon or ballista. Quick note regarding buildings: we are, basically, just playing around with them at this point to find out what works best and whether buildings make sense at all
9. I, too, see issues with the buildings. Maybe they should just be added to the castle itself, instead of on the battleground. Possibly even as permanent castle upgrade, which is done outside of the actual match. Or as some kind of “special reinforcement” action. Possibly the new idea brings some new light into the building topic
10. See my new idea
11. See my new idea

merkutsam said:

@King Mir

Logende mentioned "Age of war" game as the base for his game. That game is actually very simple. It is a constant flow of increasingly difficult enemies. With turrets, timing and some game glitches the player can defend the castle and upgrade his units until he can destroy enemy castle. Of course with good music and graphics it has some charm.

When I first thought about Logende's game I was interested in his idea of arranging units in a formation. I let my imagination run wild because this could change the original gameplay which I don't find interesting. I was talking about strategy in this context, building a formation with different capabilities and maneuvering it in a changing environment instead of reacting to enemy spawns in a linear way. I'd like to move my formation at will, change it's behavior and composition, play defensively or offensively, use terrain...

Nevertheless, if he decides to keep the game close to the original, which I understand, then it's going to be a reaction game. I agree that more complex doesn't mean better, a game with different ways to win is better than a complex game with just one. If there is just one strategy to win there is no choice.

If there are three combat units with a RPS mechanic and they all defeat the weak melee unit then the game will be a reaction game spawning one type and changing it to another when it is advantageous. Probably the melee units will be used to gain time, but the player won't bother spawning them if he can destroy enemy units faster with the main units. So it won't be a game of choices either, because the player will react to enemy spawns with the logical counter units.

I agree about testing mechanics with human players to develop the gameplay. Humans will find what is fun, what works and how to counter different tactics.

I think it is important to be careful about the wording here: I named “Age of War”, because it is a game which shares some similarities with this game and if someone already knows “Age of War”, this comparison will make it easier for them to understand the main idea of this game (e.g. 2 players, both have a castle and recruit units, trying to defeat the enemy castle. Unit movement is, basically, in 1d).

I do not want to keep my game close to “Age of War”, instead I want it to be different and more fun. I think “Age of War" is very repetitive. Also, in general, I like your formation ideas, just not all those elements match with my vision of the game, which is, actually, a good thing, because it brings in some new perspectives and views. Regarding your “reaction type of game”: with the previously discussed game design it would, to some degree, be reaction-based and not too crazy interesting either.

Therefore, I have a new idea, which I describe to you in a separate message. I really like the general idea, therefore, if you see flaws in the idea, please describe them precisely.

@merkutsam

I by no means feel like an expert in this area. I just felt that the two of us were making suggestions that go in different directions, so I wanted to better justify why I thought a strong RPS is the way to go. I don't mean to be dismissive of your suggestions in any way.

You mention how an RPS mechanic would potentially not feel like multiple strategies, because you're always going to counter what the opponent plays. I agree this is a risk. I think it could be mitigated by providing more buffs to having many of the same unit. The objective being that it's actually a better idea to have two of the three main unit types in prominence, rather than a balance. Also, the fact that with RPS your tactics depend on your opponent may be a good thing in it's own right, even if the goal of multiple strategies isn't achieved.

I agree with how you describe melee foot soldiers; that is how I imagine their role too. I think this an acceptable level of choice. It allows for better choices between the other 3.

@logende

I actually said bottom of the screen because I think it's a better place to put buttons than the top of the screen, not because I think you should have both. For a mobile touch interface, I think it will be better to have a row of buttons at the bottom so that you don't obstruct the screen when you press them. Age of War is a cursor based web game, so this wasn't a consideration there.

Sounds like there some thinking to do about buildings. And about how campaign like your game is going to be. Right now you seem to have 10 factions, and possibly a campaign progression for each. This is quite a lot.

Looking forward to hearing your new idea.

@both

I said before that I am biased toward simulating reality but I know it's just an arbitrary preference. On this basis, I don't like the idea of unbalanced composition and buffs to augment the effect of one type. Also, my feeling is that it will change gameplay even more toward a reaction game. I am not against RPS in itself, only against making it the main gameplay experience. But ultimately, the goal is to make a fun and interesting game so if it works there's nothing wrong. In the end, most games are going to be about reactions and counter reactions and keeping it simple is always good.

So far I've been throwing ideas about possible gameplays. I agree that many ideas are just unnecessary complications or different flavors that don't add anything new to gameplay. I hope we will come out with something.

I like that idea about the role of melee too. It isn't all too different from the traditional infantry as tanks but it could lead to more interesting mechanics.

For now, I think we don't need to worry about the UI and campaign until the gameplay is more or less defined. Only general ideas to consider.

I think simulating reality has a specific benefit: reality is a reliable source of complexity. A prime example of this is Dwarf Fortress. The more elements are added to the game, the richer the story potential as all the complex mechanics interact with each other.

Reality is also more engaging. For example in a movie we want realistic battles because as soon as we detect something that doesn't make sense it breaks immersion. When we are young we accept many nonsenses but as we grow older we see those as stories for children. I said it's good to keep it simple because games tend to increase every added mechanic to unmanageable levels. Of course if story and mechanics are rich and well implemented all the better.

-Stu- said:
I would add more gruesome deaths, a different death animation for each weapon.

This is out of our scope at the moment.

-Stu- said:
i would also add the ability to see what your opponent is making so u can make units to counter them. for example: you build queue an archer so the bot builds a guy with a shield, u see this and build queue a pike man that is stronger against shield, then the bot makes an archer to combat the pike man and so on and so forth.

We, actually, consider going the opposite way, which I will describe below. Right now, having the rock-paper-scissor mechanics already in place, it feels like the player does not really have a choice when building units, because, in order to win, he should always build the counter-units of the units of the enemy. If one would know enemy unit types in advance, the whole “no real choice” topic would be even be increased.

-Stu- said:
you can also add “enrage” to units that are out numbered making them stronger.

Something like this is a good idea and already planned ?

-Stu- said:
you could also add a one time special ability to each unit that u decide when is best you use.

This might be a good option for the Hero unit type.

So, in the following I will give you a short game design update:

Build Cycle mechanic

Instead of building units at any time during the game, units are built are 15 or so seconds. The players can “plan” units, adding then to a queue (e.g. 2 archers and 1 mage). Every time a cycle is finished (after 15 or so seconds), the queued units of both players are built, at the same moment. Therefore, a player does not know the units the other player will build in the cycle and can only react to the currently alive units, as well as make assumptions about the units the enemy will build.

Because of this cycle and simultaneous unit spawning, the player can not just react to the enemy, but also has to take some risks. He can still react to units, who are already on the battlefield, but he can only assume about the units of the next enemy cycle. This could result in many different strategies, one of them being “fooling the enemy" by, for example, building some archers, expecting the enemy to respond with knights in the next cycle while the player responds with many mages in that cycle

Now or Never mechanic

The player can only plan a certain amount of units per cycle (e.g. the limit could be units with the cost of 10, with Melee costing 1, Archer and Mage 2 and Knight 3). Now, the idea of the “Now or Never” mechanic is, that the amount of money the player receives every cycle equals the unit build limit per cycle. Therefore, the player can not save a lot of money and then build tons of units in one cycle. Instead, actually, every unit not built in a cycle can never be built in a further cycle. But what happens to the leftover money? We consider calling the currency “Mana” and adding a special mana shop. Money not spent on units can be spent on special stuff, such as:

• Spells (e.g. arrowrain on some units on the playground)
• Permanently upgrading all unit entities of one type who are alive on the battlefield (e.g. all knights on the battlefield get boosted stats. Newly spawned knights will not have this upgrade). This could be just boosting stats, such as health or attack, but also giving archers fire arrows and stuff like that
• and more

The player could either invest a lot of money into units directly, build only a few units, and collect a lot of mana or do something in-between. There are many possibilities. One could, for example, collect a lot of mana and then build many mages, which are then upgraded with mana a lot. Alternatively, one could build many units directly. Additionally, because of the things purchasable with mana, the player always has something he can do. Last but not least, the unit upgrades result in an advantage of building many units of the same type instead of a balanced army

Open Points

The “Archer > Mage > Knight > Archer” RPS mechanic has already been implemented and it, definitely, improves gameplay, however, it does feel a little too simple at the moment: if the enemy, for example, has a lot of mages, the player, basically, has no other choice than build a lot of archers. To give the player more choices and improve this point, we are considering going one step further and implementing a 5-units-rps or, possibly, a 3-short-range-unit-rps + a 3-long-range-unit-rps, which are somehow combined.

Hi.

I would like to offer you a bucket of cold water Sir.

Your game s@cks and it will be for as long as you'd repeat the same mistake as you are currently making… you've never answer the most important question (or I've missed this answer) which is “what makes my game ‘fun’”. And what do you consider as ‘fun’. Because from what I can see in this conversation its just adding more complexity to a boring concept. It doesn't matter how many unit types you'd add to your game or how many buildings / spells / etc - it wont make it fun because you don't have an idea of which part of your game is considered as ‘fun’. Your game now feels like playing tic-tac-toe with your 5yo brother - maybe its fun for him because its a new concept but its definitely NOT fun for you because you know the outcome of every single game before you even begin to play. If your game is about defeating an opponent - why you want to prevent the most satisfying way of doing it - by flooding your opp with units? Or maybe your game is about just killing units and you want to make a neverending cycle of it?

So let me just ask a few questions that hopefully would help you define your game:

1. What is the goal of this game? (yes we all know the answer ‘destroy your opp' but this is not the answer - real answer is more complicated like ‘to solve a puzzle with the least amount of resources because you might need some of those resources for following riddles’)
2. What is the ratio between luck and skill in your game?
3. What concept player needs to understand/master/do in order to win the game?
4. Which parts of the game provides ‘fun’ for the player? Where is the WOW effect? How much space you have for ‘Eureka’ moments? Which bit of your game is the most satisfying? Is there a ‘cavalry backup’ effect in the game? Where is the engagement in this game?

So when you answer those questions, go back to your code, remove all the ‘fancy’ effects and graphics, make your units in a form of basic shapes, remove all the names / races - just leave it in a form of pure number-based mode and play your game - if the core of your game is not fun - then no matter how many ideas you'd throw at it - it wont be fun - ever.

If you want to make a fun game - you have to start your design with this in your head.

And btw - ‘fun’ is a tricky concept because different ppl have different definitions of fun - you should rather think about ‘feeling good’ or ‘feeling bad’ - like dopamine shots vs anticipation lvl - because good management of balance between those things makes your game ‘fun’…

Cheers,

V

PS.:
Players want to learn/achieve/progress. they need a sense of direction in the game, they want to discover new strategies/combos etc. they play the game to learn something about the game and based on this new knowledge they want to explore new ways of winning… Having this in mind - if there is only one way to win your game - it'll became boring after player'd discover the way of doing it - because there is nothing else left to discover.