One of the main reasons I started this blog was as a way for me to keep track of my ideas and projects. So, in that context, this is more of a post for me, as it is a rough plan of what I plan to do this year.
Frozen Kangaroo, the real time strategy game I am making has been put on hold. This is for a number of reasons. The most important is simply that I have learnt so much since I have started that I have emerged on to the second stage of ignorance: aware of my failures (the step before being incompetent AND unaware). As a result, I can look at Frozen Kangaroo and say it is a lot more complicated than I thought and needs full planning.
I need to find you what works for me. My Computing coursework has helped me in this respect, but there is still much I need to learn. However, Frozen Kangaroo is too big for me to experiment with
Instead, I am planning a couple of much smaller projects. The first one I am allowing only a month to complete. I will have more details out soon, but I will briefly explain what I am trying with the planning. I am using a free piece of software called Freemind which allows me to create mind maps. Now, none of this is new, but I have never really done it properly. What I am going to do is break down each part of the game in to tiny little components that may be one algorithm or object.
The aim is, if I can make sure I know how to do each component, then theoretically I can make the whole game. The problem I had with Frozen Kangaroo, the nail in the coffin if you will, was that I needed to enhance an existing feature to include extra functionality. However, the feature was woven in to the very fabric of the game and when I changed it, everything broke. My hope is, with these tiny parts, each part will equate to one function that will have a fixed output and once they are done, they are done.
The second stage will be drawing up a schedule. I said that I would limit myself to one month. That means, that at the end of one month, I will publish everything I have made if it works, and if it doesn't, I move on with only a post mortem to remember it by (where I will try to decide what I did wrong)
I hope to start this one month project in February but I want to draw up a plan before I start and I have exams in January, so it may be more like half way through February. If all this goes to plan, I will begin planning a 6 month project. Hopefully, this will lay quite a lot of ground work for Frozen Kangaroo as it will have similar planning challenges as FK.
I also want to learn how to use Unity. I don't plan to make anything particularly noteworthy, my rough aim is to make a game set on an island where you must collect 8 items to help your escape. Hopefully, there should be just enough there for me to learn the basics of Unity.
The big thing for me this year is going to university. Don't ask me where I am going, I don't actually know (:S). Also, as it will be the last year at school I plan to go on holiday with my friends during the summer. None the less, I would still like to get the proper Bot website up and running, whilst maintaining Veteran Gamer, this blog, my school work, playing games and all of the above.
I hope everyone had a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Hopefully this time next year I will have 2 games to my name, an understanding of planning (and Unity 3D!) a place at a university and ready to restart Frozen Kangaroo. Bon Voyage!
Showing posts with label Frozen Kangaroo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frozen Kangaroo. Show all posts
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Frozen Kangaroo Concept: Nuclear Weapons
In a series of posts I intend to explain the more detailed elements of Frozen Kangaroo, the real time strategy game that I am working on. You can read an executive summary here. I hope to make it so that the posts only rely on things explained before them. However, please excuse me if my posts either digress to explain some concept, or don't make any sense because of no digression. If you have any questions, leave a comment (if it is an old post, I would recommend posting it on a newer post) or email me @ thekileyenator@gmail.com
As with the real Cold War, nuclear weapons will play an important part in Frozen Kangaroo. Not only do they add a devastating weapon to your arsenal, they can be used as a diplomatic bartering tool and even a direct path to victory.
Types of Nuclear Missiles
There are three types of nuclear missile in this game, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. They are: long, medium and short range nuclear missiles, or ICBM, err normal, and tactical nukes. Sadly, Blogger doesn't support tables, so I will have to explain it in paragraphs.
The long range nuke has, as you might expect, the longest range. Indeed, it can shoot anywhere on the map, including the proxy nation's colony cities (Will explain this in a later post, but they are basically where the civilians live. Each proxy nation has an associated colony city which contains millions of civilians who have been moved to keep them out of the way of the war). These missiles also inflict the most damage. Sadly, the pay off is in cost and speed. Cost is fairly self explanatory, but the effect of speed I will explain in a moment.
The medium range missile can reach most of the map, but cannot reach the proxy nations colony cities. Damage is similarly weakened, although it is still very powerful. However, it is faster and cheaper.
Finally the short range missile, which can only fire in provinces within a 4 province radius (subject to testing), and deals far less damage, particularly to buildings. It is, however, significantly faster and cheaper.
Missile Launchers
To fire these missiles you have three options; fixed, mobile and submarines. Fixed missile launchers can be constructed by your builder units. They can fire any of the above missiles.
The mobile missile launchers are a trainable unit. They can be moved about on the map, but need to be "deployed" before they can fire. These can only fire medium and short missiles.
Finally, the submarine is a normal unit. It can carry two small nuclear missiles with it. Further nukes must be collected from a port. However, it does not need to set up. Also, as they are water based, they can quickly manoeuvre very close to key enemy provinces and threaten them before they have a chance to respond.
With the exception of the sub (which needs to take its nukes with it) the launchers can only store one nuke at a time. Further nukes must be stored in a silo and then transported to the launcher. These silos come with stationary launchers, so you don't have to constantly arrange the transport of nukes. Trucks carrying nukes can also be "parked" in to either of the launchers, allowing all the connected nukes to be fired.
However, if you wish to use a mobile nuclear launcher to target deep within the enemies territory, you will have to advance it with a truck carrying a nuclear missile. It may also be wise to accompany the truck and the launcher with some form of defence, as neither have any attack capabilities.
The Nuclear Missile Management Screen
So how does speed factor in to all of this? Well, nuclear missiles aren't instantaneous. When you fire a nuke, your opponent is immediately alerted to this development and are taken directly to their nuclear missile management screen. On this screen, for each of the provinces there is a count down till the missile will hit... if its been targeted. The opponent, however, does not know which province has been targeted and so all provinces will have a countdown clock running. I hope to make this quite a tense screen to be on, with flashing red lights, constantly ticking clocks and maybe even a siren!
What can you do with this information? Well, each one of your provinces can be sent into "bunker mode". This significantly reduces the damage done by any potential nuclear strike. However, going into and coming out of bunker mode takes time. During this time (and the time in bunker mode) all buildings production queues halt, units stop moving and you can't enter the province.
You must then decide which provinces to put into bunker mode. Obviously, the opponent is more likely to target high value provinces, but if one of them is producing something very important, does the nuclear missile pose a big enough threat to warrant halting production.
This is also where the speed of the nukes comes into play. A short range nuclear missile gives the player virtually no time to react, let alone put any of their provinces in to nuclear bunker mode.
The other important thing with nuclear weapons that I want to cover in this post is retaliation fire. When a nuclear missile is sent your way, you have the option to hit a big red button marked FIRE. Prior to any nuclear strike, preferably during a quite period of the game, you can target your nuclear missiles at specific provinces. Then, whenever you hit the red button, they all simultaneously fire at these predetermined locations. This means that if the opponent launches a huge, devastating barrage of missiles at you, you can retaliate before they even hit.
From the nuclear screen, you can set up retaliation fire, deploy provinces in to bunker mode and watch the approach of oncoming nukes with suitably tense flashing red lights.
Nuclear missiles are clearly a very powerful weapon. However, they come with a severe cost. Using nuclear missiles is highly frowned upon by proxy nations and their colonies. As I explained in my post about the proxy nations, firing nuclear missiles, particularly in a province associated with them, has a strong negative impact on your relations. If you fire at their colony city, that will make them sworn enemies to you, and will strongly effect everyone's opinion of you.
I will be explaining this is more detail, but nukes are, in some ways, more useful when not fired. You can use them in diplomacy to threaten your enemy or "persuade" other proxy nations to join you, lest they fall foul to your rain of terror. Also, as I said earlier, you can use them to win. Although I will be covering ways to win more fully, if you manage to significantly out-build your opponent on nuclear missiles, you can force them in to surrender.
For my next Frozen Kangaroo concept I hope to be covering either the resources or diplomacy (including how you can use nuclear missiles in diplomacy - I never said it was friendly diplomacy).
As with the real Cold War, nuclear weapons will play an important part in Frozen Kangaroo. Not only do they add a devastating weapon to your arsenal, they can be used as a diplomatic bartering tool and even a direct path to victory.
Types of Nuclear Missiles
There are three types of nuclear missile in this game, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. They are: long, medium and short range nuclear missiles, or ICBM, err normal, and tactical nukes. Sadly, Blogger doesn't support tables, so I will have to explain it in paragraphs.
The long range nuke has, as you might expect, the longest range. Indeed, it can shoot anywhere on the map, including the proxy nation's colony cities (Will explain this in a later post, but they are basically where the civilians live. Each proxy nation has an associated colony city which contains millions of civilians who have been moved to keep them out of the way of the war). These missiles also inflict the most damage. Sadly, the pay off is in cost and speed. Cost is fairly self explanatory, but the effect of speed I will explain in a moment.
The medium range missile can reach most of the map, but cannot reach the proxy nations colony cities. Damage is similarly weakened, although it is still very powerful. However, it is faster and cheaper.
Finally the short range missile, which can only fire in provinces within a 4 province radius (subject to testing), and deals far less damage, particularly to buildings. It is, however, significantly faster and cheaper.
Missile Launchers
To fire these missiles you have three options; fixed, mobile and submarines. Fixed missile launchers can be constructed by your builder units. They can fire any of the above missiles.
The mobile missile launchers are a trainable unit. They can be moved about on the map, but need to be "deployed" before they can fire. These can only fire medium and short missiles.
Finally, the submarine is a normal unit. It can carry two small nuclear missiles with it. Further nukes must be collected from a port. However, it does not need to set up. Also, as they are water based, they can quickly manoeuvre very close to key enemy provinces and threaten them before they have a chance to respond.
With the exception of the sub (which needs to take its nukes with it) the launchers can only store one nuke at a time. Further nukes must be stored in a silo and then transported to the launcher. These silos come with stationary launchers, so you don't have to constantly arrange the transport of nukes. Trucks carrying nukes can also be "parked" in to either of the launchers, allowing all the connected nukes to be fired.
However, if you wish to use a mobile nuclear launcher to target deep within the enemies territory, you will have to advance it with a truck carrying a nuclear missile. It may also be wise to accompany the truck and the launcher with some form of defence, as neither have any attack capabilities.
The Nuclear Missile Management Screen
So how does speed factor in to all of this? Well, nuclear missiles aren't instantaneous. When you fire a nuke, your opponent is immediately alerted to this development and are taken directly to their nuclear missile management screen. On this screen, for each of the provinces there is a count down till the missile will hit... if its been targeted. The opponent, however, does not know which province has been targeted and so all provinces will have a countdown clock running. I hope to make this quite a tense screen to be on, with flashing red lights, constantly ticking clocks and maybe even a siren!
What can you do with this information? Well, each one of your provinces can be sent into "bunker mode". This significantly reduces the damage done by any potential nuclear strike. However, going into and coming out of bunker mode takes time. During this time (and the time in bunker mode) all buildings production queues halt, units stop moving and you can't enter the province.
You must then decide which provinces to put into bunker mode. Obviously, the opponent is more likely to target high value provinces, but if one of them is producing something very important, does the nuclear missile pose a big enough threat to warrant halting production.
This is also where the speed of the nukes comes into play. A short range nuclear missile gives the player virtually no time to react, let alone put any of their provinces in to nuclear bunker mode.
The other important thing with nuclear weapons that I want to cover in this post is retaliation fire. When a nuclear missile is sent your way, you have the option to hit a big red button marked FIRE. Prior to any nuclear strike, preferably during a quite period of the game, you can target your nuclear missiles at specific provinces. Then, whenever you hit the red button, they all simultaneously fire at these predetermined locations. This means that if the opponent launches a huge, devastating barrage of missiles at you, you can retaliate before they even hit.
From the nuclear screen, you can set up retaliation fire, deploy provinces in to bunker mode and watch the approach of oncoming nukes with suitably tense flashing red lights.
Nuclear missiles are clearly a very powerful weapon. However, they come with a severe cost. Using nuclear missiles is highly frowned upon by proxy nations and their colonies. As I explained in my post about the proxy nations, firing nuclear missiles, particularly in a province associated with them, has a strong negative impact on your relations. If you fire at their colony city, that will make them sworn enemies to you, and will strongly effect everyone's opinion of you.
I will be explaining this is more detail, but nukes are, in some ways, more useful when not fired. You can use them in diplomacy to threaten your enemy or "persuade" other proxy nations to join you, lest they fall foul to your rain of terror. Also, as I said earlier, you can use them to win. Although I will be covering ways to win more fully, if you manage to significantly out-build your opponent on nuclear missiles, you can force them in to surrender.
For my next Frozen Kangaroo concept I hope to be covering either the resources or diplomacy (including how you can use nuclear missiles in diplomacy - I never said it was friendly diplomacy).
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Blender fun and a quick update
I have recently been using Blender. Here is my image that I created this afternoon. I was trying out a few things (transparency, multiple light sources and actually finishing an image). No, it isn't a hint as to any future project, it's just a ray gun of some sort.Also, I found out how to make really quick games in Blender. I had always thought you needed to use Python and so didn't bother, I have enough to learn as it is!
However, what you can do is use the very simple "Behaviour Editor". While I haven't produced anything meaningful, indeed anything even resembling a game, it does some very cool stuff out of the box. Namely, it has a physics engine complete with rotation, bouncing and friction. Hooking up keyboard input is easy and you can quickly get to grips with the basics.
In the way of Frozen Kangaroo, the real time strategy game that Botworks is currently making (read the articles linked on the right under Frozen Kangaroo Concepts for an overview), progress has been made, but not huge progress. My exams are coming up, and so a lot of my time is devoted to revision etc. However, my laptop should be turning up within the next 2-5 working days. When that happens, I will hopefully be able to spend much more time working on it.
Probably the most signifcant improvement I have made is the terrain engine. Before, each province had an asocitated image file which had all the terrain features in it. However, I have now moved the actual features off the image and in to a seperate file. When I want to place down a clump of trees, I now create a new TerrainFeature, giving it width, height and type of terrain. The engine takes that, tiles the correct image the set number of times, adding some random spacing to give it that natural feeling. It also can be queried to see whether a unit is within it. This will allow for easy checking to allow for speed modification.
It also means it will be easier to update map designs without having to
a) go in to the image file and edit that and
b) recode it to hit test different areas of the map for movement modification (in the original, if I wanted units to slow down when travesering a ceartain type of terrain, I would have to manually set where the terrain was going to be and enter how much I wanted the unit to slow down by).
Finally, there may be a hiatus of posts during my exam period. Hopefully I will get one or two more posts in before, but if I don't, posting will resume on the 11th of June.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Frozen Kangaroo Concept: Proxy Nations
In a series of posts I intend to explain the more detailed elements of Frozen Kangaroo, the real time strategy game that I am working on. You can read an executive summary here. I hope to make it so that the posts only rely on things explained before them. However, please excuse me if my posts either digress to explain some concept, or don't make any sense because of no digression. If you have any questions, leave a comment (if it is an old post, I would recommend posting it on a newer post) or email me @ thekileyenator@gmail.com
As I explained in my summary, Frozen Kangaroo is set in a fictional second Cold War in 2046 (100 years after the start of the first Cold War). A Cold War is one without direct fighting between the two countries involved. At first, this may seem to be quite a crucial element to any war. Or even if it isn't, how do you plan to make an RTS without fighting? In a Cold War, the two countries compete in other ways. For the original Cold War, the Space Race (the race to get a man on the moon) was a significant focus. These non-military competitions will be in Frozen Kangaroo. In this post, however, I will focus on the other main element of a cold war; proxy nations.
Proxy nations in the real Cold War were nations that were in alliance with one of the two super powers. These nations then attacked either other proxy nations allied to the other side, or the other side itself. Through this, direct combat between the two super powers was avoided. Instead, they would advise, supply and help the proxy nation in every other way they could.
In Frozen Kangaroo they will operate slightly different. Naturally, you will control one of the two super powers. Sadly, I do not believe the game would be much fun if all you could do was vaguely boss around some inadequate AI (because, whoever I am, it would end up being inadequate for what a player would want to do with them). Instead, I am going to take a slightly satirical view and give the player complete control of all their proxy nations; well, nearly.
I am hoping to implement a change in game when fighting breaks out between American and Russian troops. However, I am not quite sure what it should be. While in theory the player will have control over where their units come from, this could be incredibly annoying to manage. What I will probably do is restrict diplomacy after this global event. I will be talking about diplomacy in a later post, where I'll explain what the implications for direct confrontation are.
You will have control over your proxies as if they were your own troops... while they like you. If you upset them, they will cease to operate under your orders, and may even join the other side. Likewise, enemy proxies can be converted to your cause. This is done indirectly through your actions.
There are three main elements that effect your standing with the proxy nations. Firstly, there is how well you are doing generally. If you are quite clearly more powerful, then they may wish to join you out of fear. Likewise, they might chuck in their lot with your enemy if it seems he is going to win. If you can't beat them, join them. This does create a design problem - once you start winning, you could become unstoppable. If it becomes too overwhelming, I may swap this round, as people would want to ally against the dominant force to bring back the status quo.
The second factor is more directly tied to the nation. If you use their troops wisely, ie. low casualties for high kills, they will like you more. If, however, you seem to be sending their men in to pointless deaths, they may stop supplying you with troops.
The other modifier is nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons is frowned upon by all nations. As I will explain in more details in a later post, you can either use nuclear missiles on provinces, or fire them directly at colonies. While targeting provinces can cripple your opponent, many nations will desert you as you are incredibly evil.
Furthermore, it is possible to take action to reduce damage done by nuclear attack, as I will explain in a future post. If a leader neglects to do this, proxy nations may cease to want to be under your control.
Each proxy nation has a score for both super powers. The proxy nation will ally with whichever score is higher. This means that if your opponent is treating a nation terribly, it will be easy for you to convert them.
However, if both teams treat the country with disregard, the country can invoke sanctions and even withdraw completely to a state of neutrality. If, say, the score falls below 5 for either side, they cease to provide population for the construction of troops even if they are on their side. At 3, they may take away control for existing units, they can even block your troops advancing through their territory.
So, to summarise, most of the fighting in this game is done through proxy nations. For the large part, this has little impact on how you play the game. However, if you are not careful with your allies troops, they might stop being your troops to control, or even your ally.
As I explained in my summary, Frozen Kangaroo is set in a fictional second Cold War in 2046 (100 years after the start of the first Cold War). A Cold War is one without direct fighting between the two countries involved. At first, this may seem to be quite a crucial element to any war. Or even if it isn't, how do you plan to make an RTS without fighting? In a Cold War, the two countries compete in other ways. For the original Cold War, the Space Race (the race to get a man on the moon) was a significant focus. These non-military competitions will be in Frozen Kangaroo. In this post, however, I will focus on the other main element of a cold war; proxy nations.
Proxy nations in the real Cold War were nations that were in alliance with one of the two super powers. These nations then attacked either other proxy nations allied to the other side, or the other side itself. Through this, direct combat between the two super powers was avoided. Instead, they would advise, supply and help the proxy nation in every other way they could.
In Frozen Kangaroo they will operate slightly different. Naturally, you will control one of the two super powers. Sadly, I do not believe the game would be much fun if all you could do was vaguely boss around some inadequate AI (because, whoever I am, it would end up being inadequate for what a player would want to do with them). Instead, I am going to take a slightly satirical view and give the player complete control of all their proxy nations; well, nearly.
I am hoping to implement a change in game when fighting breaks out between American and Russian troops. However, I am not quite sure what it should be. While in theory the player will have control over where their units come from, this could be incredibly annoying to manage. What I will probably do is restrict diplomacy after this global event. I will be talking about diplomacy in a later post, where I'll explain what the implications for direct confrontation are.
You will have control over your proxies as if they were your own troops... while they like you. If you upset them, they will cease to operate under your orders, and may even join the other side. Likewise, enemy proxies can be converted to your cause. This is done indirectly through your actions.
There are three main elements that effect your standing with the proxy nations. Firstly, there is how well you are doing generally. If you are quite clearly more powerful, then they may wish to join you out of fear. Likewise, they might chuck in their lot with your enemy if it seems he is going to win. If you can't beat them, join them. This does create a design problem - once you start winning, you could become unstoppable. If it becomes too overwhelming, I may swap this round, as people would want to ally against the dominant force to bring back the status quo.
The second factor is more directly tied to the nation. If you use their troops wisely, ie. low casualties for high kills, they will like you more. If, however, you seem to be sending their men in to pointless deaths, they may stop supplying you with troops.
The other modifier is nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons is frowned upon by all nations. As I will explain in more details in a later post, you can either use nuclear missiles on provinces, or fire them directly at colonies. While targeting provinces can cripple your opponent, many nations will desert you as you are incredibly evil.
Furthermore, it is possible to take action to reduce damage done by nuclear attack, as I will explain in a future post. If a leader neglects to do this, proxy nations may cease to want to be under your control.
Each proxy nation has a score for both super powers. The proxy nation will ally with whichever score is higher. This means that if your opponent is treating a nation terribly, it will be easy for you to convert them.
However, if both teams treat the country with disregard, the country can invoke sanctions and even withdraw completely to a state of neutrality. If, say, the score falls below 5 for either side, they cease to provide population for the construction of troops even if they are on their side. At 3, they may take away control for existing units, they can even block your troops advancing through their territory.
So, to summarise, most of the fighting in this game is done through proxy nations. For the large part, this has little impact on how you play the game. However, if you are not careful with your allies troops, they might stop being your troops to control, or even your ally.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Dynamic economies in games
Before reading this post on how dynamic economies can work within games, I recommend reading Soren Johnsons post on Game Economics.
The Problem
Due to the international credit crisis, stories about our worlds economics going wrong are rife. More relevantly there was a case in Eve Online. You can read more about it on the BBC website but it basically involved some viscous back stabbing on the part of some players. I bring this up for two reasons. Firstly, Eve is a game which is heavily focused around a dynamic economy. However this story demonstrates both the pros and cons of a manipulatable economy. This Sandbox environment allows for cool, real life things, to happen. This keeps the game fresh and interesting. However, this comes with its downsides. While some people may have loved this twist in the galaxy, many players will have had there experiences ruined by 2 people who they probably don't know.
While this isn't exactly synonymous with dynamic economies, particularly in single player, the problems are certainly similar. Even in a single player game, a dynamic closed economy can bottom out. A closed economy is one which everything remains inside the system and nothing can be added.
This is actually less common than you might think. Take any RPG, drops from monsters are being created when you kill them. In an otherwise closed economy, this will create hyper-inflation as you sell all the excess items you find, so you have more money to spend, so prices rise etc.
However, even if you create a completely closed economy, you will hit problems. For example, in an RTS, most resources are finite, so the system is closed. At the start of the game, this can make for interesting trading; if you are fortunate enough to start next to lots of stone, you can trade it for wood. However, as the game goes on, supply will out-pace demand as other constraints come in to play, namely managing your troops. This causes the market to drop out with everything becoming worthless.
Advantages of a dynamic economy
All this adds up to is, if you include a dynamic economy, you need to think carefully about a lot of things. Obviously, the reward is a dynamic game that features an extra layer of strategy. One of the main things that makes Civ 4 so re-playable is the different strategies that are available to you. Even the different victory conditions can all be broken down in to different ways of achieving them. A dynamic economy can become one of these ways; cripple the persons economy, then you can easily walk over them.
Sins of a Solar Empire (a game which I will be mentioning a lot on this blog as in some ways [not setting] Sins is very similar to Frozen Kangaroo and there are many lessons to be learnt from it, both in its successes and failures) features a dynamic economy involving the buying and selling of resources. It doesn't immediately suffer from the above problems, but rather another thing that you need to consider when including an economy in to your game.
Distractions can destroy economy
Unless your game is entirely focused around the economy, then it is likely to be a small part of some other strategy. The problem with Sins isn't an economic one, but a game design one. To read the economy requires careful injections and extractions of resources to raise and lower the price. You have multiple options for buying and selling. However, you simply don't have time to figure out how it works. You are expected to do this whilst managing your fleet, your empire, your technology and your diplomacy. As a result, despite the fact it is quite cool, it slips down your list of priorities as the reward is simply not worth the time investment.
What are the solutions to this? The first solution is to strip everything else out of the game, leaving only the economy. Obviously, this is not viable for Sins, the focus of the game is epic space battles.
However, that doesn't mean that an economically focused game can't work. I read an interesting post on Gamedev.net about why all our games seem to be focused around violence or fighting. Part of it is certainly down to the human need to feel like we are winning. However, that does not mean that an economy driven game can't do that. Possibilities include either having to bankrupt your enemy, or, if you want to keep the war aspect, have a "war" being fought with you only managing the economy. Cornering resources secures you battlefield advantages etc. While you don't manage the battles, they are almost entirely play out as a result of your actions (the last thing you want is for your actions the feel irrelevant)
The other solution is what I hope to implement in Frozen Kangaroo; automation. In some ways, this does not solve the problem; the fun is playing the economy and seeing the results. As a result, in Frozen Kangaroo it will be everything else that is more automated. While I describe Frozen Kangaroo as a real time strategy game, it is heavily focused on management and logistics of a war. As a result, I think that it is right to allow a greater focus on the economy. I'll be posting more about what the economic element is in Frozen Kangaroo soon.
Conclusion
Back to my original point: can dynamic economies in games work. The short answer is yes. However, you must consider a number of different things. The first one is one you should ask yourself every time you add anything to your game, does it fit with what already exists and does it improve the enjoyment? If you can't confidentially say yes to both questions, chances are you are putting it in because it sounds quite cool.
Next, you must asses whether the player will have enough time, and the reward great enough, to actually use it. If you think it passes these stages, then an economy can work in your game. Only then do you need to start working how keep the economy balanced and interesting throughout the duration of your game. Play testing is the key to this.
And finally, a "realistic" economy is not necessarily a fun economy, our economy is realistic, is unemployment or very expensive oil fun for anyone?
The Problem
Due to the international credit crisis, stories about our worlds economics going wrong are rife. More relevantly there was a case in Eve Online. You can read more about it on the BBC website but it basically involved some viscous back stabbing on the part of some players. I bring this up for two reasons. Firstly, Eve is a game which is heavily focused around a dynamic economy. However this story demonstrates both the pros and cons of a manipulatable economy. This Sandbox environment allows for cool, real life things, to happen. This keeps the game fresh and interesting. However, this comes with its downsides. While some people may have loved this twist in the galaxy, many players will have had there experiences ruined by 2 people who they probably don't know.
While this isn't exactly synonymous with dynamic economies, particularly in single player, the problems are certainly similar. Even in a single player game, a dynamic closed economy can bottom out. A closed economy is one which everything remains inside the system and nothing can be added.
This is actually less common than you might think. Take any RPG, drops from monsters are being created when you kill them. In an otherwise closed economy, this will create hyper-inflation as you sell all the excess items you find, so you have more money to spend, so prices rise etc.
However, even if you create a completely closed economy, you will hit problems. For example, in an RTS, most resources are finite, so the system is closed. At the start of the game, this can make for interesting trading; if you are fortunate enough to start next to lots of stone, you can trade it for wood. However, as the game goes on, supply will out-pace demand as other constraints come in to play, namely managing your troops. This causes the market to drop out with everything becoming worthless.
Advantages of a dynamic economy
All this adds up to is, if you include a dynamic economy, you need to think carefully about a lot of things. Obviously, the reward is a dynamic game that features an extra layer of strategy. One of the main things that makes Civ 4 so re-playable is the different strategies that are available to you. Even the different victory conditions can all be broken down in to different ways of achieving them. A dynamic economy can become one of these ways; cripple the persons economy, then you can easily walk over them.
Sins of a Solar Empire (a game which I will be mentioning a lot on this blog as in some ways [not setting] Sins is very similar to Frozen Kangaroo and there are many lessons to be learnt from it, both in its successes and failures) features a dynamic economy involving the buying and selling of resources. It doesn't immediately suffer from the above problems, but rather another thing that you need to consider when including an economy in to your game.
Distractions can destroy economy
Unless your game is entirely focused around the economy, then it is likely to be a small part of some other strategy. The problem with Sins isn't an economic one, but a game design one. To read the economy requires careful injections and extractions of resources to raise and lower the price. You have multiple options for buying and selling. However, you simply don't have time to figure out how it works. You are expected to do this whilst managing your fleet, your empire, your technology and your diplomacy. As a result, despite the fact it is quite cool, it slips down your list of priorities as the reward is simply not worth the time investment.
What are the solutions to this? The first solution is to strip everything else out of the game, leaving only the economy. Obviously, this is not viable for Sins, the focus of the game is epic space battles.
However, that doesn't mean that an economically focused game can't work. I read an interesting post on Gamedev.net about why all our games seem to be focused around violence or fighting. Part of it is certainly down to the human need to feel like we are winning. However, that does not mean that an economy driven game can't do that. Possibilities include either having to bankrupt your enemy, or, if you want to keep the war aspect, have a "war" being fought with you only managing the economy. Cornering resources secures you battlefield advantages etc. While you don't manage the battles, they are almost entirely play out as a result of your actions (the last thing you want is for your actions the feel irrelevant)
The other solution is what I hope to implement in Frozen Kangaroo; automation. In some ways, this does not solve the problem; the fun is playing the economy and seeing the results. As a result, in Frozen Kangaroo it will be everything else that is more automated. While I describe Frozen Kangaroo as a real time strategy game, it is heavily focused on management and logistics of a war. As a result, I think that it is right to allow a greater focus on the economy. I'll be posting more about what the economic element is in Frozen Kangaroo soon.
Conclusion
Back to my original point: can dynamic economies in games work. The short answer is yes. However, you must consider a number of different things. The first one is one you should ask yourself every time you add anything to your game, does it fit with what already exists and does it improve the enjoyment? If you can't confidentially say yes to both questions, chances are you are putting it in because it sounds quite cool.
Next, you must asses whether the player will have enough time, and the reward great enough, to actually use it. If you think it passes these stages, then an economy can work in your game. Only then do you need to start working how keep the economy balanced and interesting throughout the duration of your game. Play testing is the key to this.
And finally, a "realistic" economy is not necessarily a fun economy, our economy is realistic, is unemployment or very expensive oil fun for anyone?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Frozen Kangaroo: Quick Summary
In the coming months - as I will be busy - actual programming of Frozen Kangaroo will remain slow and mainly prototypes. I will be spending the time refining the finer points of the design - such as how you win, a hazy issue at the moment and something which I have glossed over. I want to be able to use this blog as a place where I can place my thoughts, in the hope that someone, somewhere, when they play the game, and understands why I made such a decision.
However, to do this, I must explain, to a point, what this game is about so that my posts make some sense.
OK, let's start with the basics. Frozen Kangaroo is the code name for the Real Time Strategy game I am making for the PC. It is set in the near future, allowing me to include cool futuristic units and technologies. However, as history repeats itself, it will be an alternative history (what could have happened) of the Cold War(1945-1990). You will take control of either America or the USSR in a modified map of the northern hemisphere.
Although technically you will only be controlling either America or USSR, with them you can manipulate without restriction (nearly) all of their allies. This allows the game to represent a Cold War through the use of Proxy nations. This was seen in the real Cold War in Vietnam. Although it was technically America vs. the Vietcong, Russia were supplying weapons and support to the Vietcong.
The game's pace will take it's lead from Sin's of a Solar Empire. Although everything will be happening in real time (to create a sense of pressure that must surely have been felt in the more tense times during the Cold War), it will be slow enough that it is not like modern RTS's such as Dawn of War where the quickest clicker will win. Also borrowing from Sins (although entirely accidentally, I had not played the game until long after I started designing the game) you will be able to zoom in to the individual provinces which the map is divided in to and out to see the whole world.
One of the key features of the game is to really invoke a feeling of immersion. Surely, all games do this? Well yes, to a degree, but, what I mean is you will be able see your deployable missiles moving about in real time, passing from province to province. You can use trucks to transport your men around. I am also toying with the idea of some resources that need to be transported to the front line, maybe even munitions, but this will depend of how complicated the game becomes.
That really is just a brief (ed: disjointed and confusing) summary and there are loads of mechanics that I will need to explain. However, I hope that offers a taster of what FK is. Stay tuned for more updates.
However, to do this, I must explain, to a point, what this game is about so that my posts make some sense.
OK, let's start with the basics. Frozen Kangaroo is the code name for the Real Time Strategy game I am making for the PC. It is set in the near future, allowing me to include cool futuristic units and technologies. However, as history repeats itself, it will be an alternative history (what could have happened) of the Cold War(1945-1990). You will take control of either America or the USSR in a modified map of the northern hemisphere.
Although technically you will only be controlling either America or USSR, with them you can manipulate without restriction (nearly) all of their allies. This allows the game to represent a Cold War through the use of Proxy nations. This was seen in the real Cold War in Vietnam. Although it was technically America vs. the Vietcong, Russia were supplying weapons and support to the Vietcong.
The game's pace will take it's lead from Sin's of a Solar Empire. Although everything will be happening in real time (to create a sense of pressure that must surely have been felt in the more tense times during the Cold War), it will be slow enough that it is not like modern RTS's such as Dawn of War where the quickest clicker will win. Also borrowing from Sins (although entirely accidentally, I had not played the game until long after I started designing the game) you will be able to zoom in to the individual provinces which the map is divided in to and out to see the whole world.
One of the key features of the game is to really invoke a feeling of immersion. Surely, all games do this? Well yes, to a degree, but, what I mean is you will be able see your deployable missiles moving about in real time, passing from province to province. You can use trucks to transport your men around. I am also toying with the idea of some resources that need to be transported to the front line, maybe even munitions, but this will depend of how complicated the game becomes.
That really is just a brief (ed: disjointed and confusing) summary and there are loads of mechanics that I will need to explain. However, I hope that offers a taster of what FK is. Stay tuned for more updates.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Welcome to BotWorks
Bot Works is a game development studio set up by Thomas Kiley. On this blog you will find, not only the latest news for any Bot game, but also both coding and designing topics related to games.
At the moment, we are working on a title which goes by the code name "Frozen Kangaroo" and I am hoping to release it Chirstmas 2010. I will have more details about it soon.
I would also recommend you read my gaming blog for regular updates about the video game industry @ www.veterangamer.co.uk
At the moment, we are working on a title which goes by the code name "Frozen Kangaroo" and I am hoping to release it Chirstmas 2010. I will have more details about it soon.
I would also recommend you read my gaming blog for regular updates about the video game industry @ www.veterangamer.co.uk
Publish Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)