I'm designing a deck building game where the goal is to score points by playing hands. There are two types of cards

1. Value Cards - which give points equal to the number on the card. e.g. 1, 2, etc.
2. Special Cards - which enhance the point generation, apply other effects, etc.

The player can carry max 10 special cards into a round. There is no limit for Value cards.

I want the Value cards to be randomized (like regular card games) where you draw the cards from a deck randomly and play the best possible hand from the cards you get.

But, the special cards should be non-randomized, that is, all 10 cards should be available to play anytime.

To show this in UI, what I'm thinking about is to have two lines of cards, one for Value and other for special. Value cards can be discarded and drawn, special cards cannot.

But I'm having trouble putting this into a decent looking UI, it becomes a bit too crowded having two different decks on the screen.
What would you suggest regarding the arrangement of the decks?

One of my characters is hard of hearing and she has hearing aids, but when she doesn’t, her and other characters use sign langue. I already plan on using italics to symbolize thoughts and actions so I feel like that would be confusing if I always used italics to show signing. What’s the best way to do this?

I'm working on an MMORPG (miniscule instead of massive*) which draws inspiration from games like Runescape and older MMOs where there's a vast amount of skills and a big grind associated with leveling them.

I have a mechanic where I want players to be able to utilise a "Spell Book" which could play a vital part in the game loop. These spellbooks would be dropped from bosses or Skilling activities at a rare chance and will provide buffs to other areas. So for instance let's say you were to go over and begin levelling Woodcutting, you could equip the "Woodcutter's Manual" which had buffs like "Everytime you chop a log you get an extra log". "Decreases depletion time of trees." "Increases your chopping rate by 25%." etc etc. There would be similiar buffs for combat as well, and I'd want it to only allow one buff activate at a time.

I thought this was something different, like (a lot of Runescape inspiration here) the Leagues sigils and perks you could get in these game modes in Runescape.

Spell Books could also be teleports to a couple of locations/cities which would make travelling easier. These might however be purchasable from NPCs

My questions are:

Is it harmful to implement something like this, will players even begin woodcutting for instance before acquiring a spell book for that skill if they know once they have it they'll save it time? I know that a lot of Runescape players tend to grind out the Anglers outfit before even fishing properly since it gives a 2.5% increase in fishing experience.

Is it even a good idea? Like as a player would you like a mechanic like this or just rather wish it was unlocked through level progression? Since I plan on having them be a rare drop does it leave out players who either can't buy them or wish to grind for them and it that sense be unfair?

What are some other ways I could implement something like this if my current idea is bad? I also considered players being able to worship different gods at different churches in game which would permanently provide these buffs but not necessarily locked behind a grind.

If I do it this way, what's a proper way of balancing it?

Hi,

I'm currently developing a 3D game where the player can build and manage rooms, such as guest rooms, activity rooms, etc. For example, when building a guest room, the player can build two separately rooms: a bedroom and a bathroom, but they doesn't necessary need to be adjacent to each other. The problem i'm facing is to implement a mechanic where the player tells the game that these two rooms are considered as one single guest room . I'm exploring the idea of how such system will be satisfying for the player. Here's a brief overview of what I have in mind:

• Centeralized Guest Room Management: Through a common ui interface, the player creates a new "virtual room", which can be named, tagged, colored, etc. Then the player build enclosed walls in the world, that the game then automatically creates a room. The player select the floor/walls of that room to select the room, and then designate the room to belong to the created virtual room that was created through the ui.
• Decentralized Guest Room Management: The player create rooms by building enclosed walls. By selecting multiple created rooms, by selecting floors or walls, the player can then combine these rooms. The room management ui will automatically be populated by individual created rooms and combined rooms, which then the player can manage the rooms.

Another related problem is how the player will select the rooms. The two ways I have in mind are:

• Room as one entity of combined floor, walls, etc: The player can select any floor, wall, etc, that encloses a room, to select the room. Then press "edit" button in the ui for further editing individual elements (walls, floor, etc)
• Individual elements (wallls, floor, etc): The player select individual elements. A ui will show to tell the player information about the element, and the room(s) the element belongs to, and an "edit" button to further modify the element. I suspect this way will be more suitable for the centeralized guest room management.

Feel free to share other ideas that are better. Thank you in advance for your feedback!

I'm currently conceptualizing a multiplayer game that uses a faction system. It takes place in a fantasy world where players would choose, for example, the "Goblin Faction" and play in an army of goblins fighting bands of human, orc, and elf players.

While thinking about this more deeply, I thought about an issue this system might run into. Right now, every fantasy race is essentially it's own playstyle. The goblins are focused on agility, the orcs on strength, etc etc. I really don't want to remove or water-down the individuality of each faction, but I predict there might be problems with one playstyle unintentionally countering another too strongly or players getting bored with not having enough options without switching to another army that's another race.

Also, if a group of friends were to play this, I doubt they'd be comfortable with all slotting into one playstyle (I know my playstyle is always wildly different from my friends), and I don't want to separate them for no reason.

So far I can think of two solutions to my problem.

The first is scrapping the species-faction idea. An army can have any number of goblins, orcs, humans etc. based on individual player preference. This way you'll have a situation like an overwatch team with multiple very different playstyles. I kinda don't want to do this, but it's the easiest solution I can think of

Another idea is trying my best to do "sub-playstyles" that are completely removed from species. Like, even though people in the goblin army will all be focused on agility, There can be an RPG system where one goblin player can specialize themselves in swordfighting or archery or gathering food. This way it's more akin to those "minecraft civilizations" videos where players are grouped into species with their own abilities, or "single xenotype colonies" in Rimworld.

​

Does anyone have any example of single-playstle or single-species faction warfare in multiplayer games? Has anyone designed a game like this before? And, in general, what's your opinion on this conundrum? All comments are appreiciated

A fairly classical mechanic is that you need an item to progress the story, and you can obtain that item somewhere else in the game's world. Sometimes I want players to hoard that item without yet knowing that it will be important later (Some other times the item will be important for an optional bonus story content, but disguised as junk you can freely ditch or sell). How can I influence players to pick it up, to not force needless boring backtracking on them too often?

One solution that came to my mind is to force the progression to stall until the player picks it up, via a door that unlocks only after you pick up the item or something, but I don't think there are many options on how to justify that narratively (I don't want to make my game's world too arcade and artificial) and it also sounds like a bit of heavy-handed approach.

Another solution is to just make items auto-pickup if the player's near them, but I think that might be annoying to some, so I was planning on making this an optional gameplay toggle in the game options. If I make story-important items disregard that option and always auto-pickup, won't it feel strange they do not behave like the rest of the items in the game?

Howdy.

I am currently developing a turn-based RPG and it is essentially non-party based. This means, the combat will inherently be simpler as player only controls one character that is built in specific way, rather than controlling multiple characters with set roles such as tank, cc, healer, damage etc.

Now when I am developing my combat further and refining these builds that character can develop, I encountered a problem: How to make combat interesting when character fills only one role, essentially being rather damage-focused most of the time(since killing enemies is the main way to deal with things here). What kind of turn-based mechanics I can include to keep the action interesting, without it being just "buff your attack, attack, your best damage spell, occasional heal, rinse and repeat"?

Do you have any examples of games that did this successfully? Any tips or preferences you would have in this case? Any comments greatly appreciated!

I think the Souls series and Pillars of Eternity do it best with unlimited inventory at all times. I don't have to spend 10% of my gametime lowering my carryweight like in some games.

Of course in survival games a carryweight is almost essential to make decisions about what to carry meaningful.

So in my experience, unlimited inventory capacity is ideal for adventure/rpg games. In fact I think Skyrim could have even benefited from having an unlimited inventory, so long as that unlimited inventory was made less accessible in combat (only access to quickslots) and etc.

I know some players enjoy inventory management but for me it becomes a compulsive chore at times. Maybe I should seek therapy for this mentality of why I insist on collecting and selling items in games when I don't need any more gold and stress out about leaving behind valuable items due to not having the necessary carryweight.

Thoughts?

In The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, you can ascertain whether or not a wall is destructible by hitting it with your sword--impermeable walls yield a different sound effect than those that are permeable. While this may have come in handy as a kid with a whimsical grasp on the game, most of these walls are easily telegraphed now. How I discovered how to bomb that unassuming corner in Zora's Fountain and got Farore's Wind as a kid, I'll never know; I didn't own the strategy guide or have internet access back then lmao.

Hey everyone!

I've been working on a space-themed match 3 game and I'm super excited to share it with you all! 🌌 It's been a labor of love, and now I'm at a stage where I could really use some feedback from the community.

Here's a brief video showcasing the gameplay: Gameplay Video

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it! What do you like? What could be improved? Any features you'd love to see added?

Your feedback is incredibly valuable to me as I continue to refine and improve the game. So please, don't hesitate to drop your comments and suggestions below. Let's make this space adventure the best it can be! 🛸💫

Thanks in advance for taking the time to check it out!

Hello fellow game designers!

We're an indie, student team working on a portfolio project. It's a vehicular combat game that features shooting robot enemies with a mounted gun in a desert. The theme is industrial post-apocalyptic. There's no character control, only vehicle.

We've managed to make a big map and have worked on the world design. The core combat loop is also in place. Now, we've hit a design block with the upgrade system.

The previous concept involved completing 'quests' given by survivors for vehicle and weapon upgrades. This included a mix of fetch, kill, escort and collect quests. However, we found it to be a bit forced and out of context for the player. So we're now thinking of rewarding the player for exploration with upgrades.

However, because the upgrades are necessary for the player to progress in the game and defeat tougher enemies, this can't really be 'optional' or something that can be done at a later stage.

We would appreciate suggestions, feedback, novel quest ideas, tips, anything that could help us make this game!

Thanks in advance!

In the end of the day, attacking anyone from a safe distance will 90% of the time be better than going up close and whacking the opponent, but how can I make sure that the trade off is meaningful enough so that it is worth it for the Melee chracter to go to the front lines?

This is for a TTRPG using a grid system for combat.

I believe that for Melee to be effective, I need to surpass two main problems: how to effectively get close without greater risks and if the reward to getting near is meaningful enough to justify the investment. Is this assessment correct?

I've recently started playing Fear & Hunger. For those who don't know this game, it's a dungeon crawler jrpg with some roguelike elements and an horror theme

The game is famous for being absolutely unfair. But after playing it I can say it's not your typical "hardcore punishing game" for tryharders (like "getting over it" can be)

Actually, the game is quite nice to play: sure, as a player. you will fail a lot, you will fall in every trap the game ser up for you. But every time you die, you will acquire more knowledge, you will understand a little more how the game works. So much so that not a single death is useless. It's very rarely fall for the same trap twice.

I find this gameplay loop extremely rewarding. I feel like the more I play, the I'm uncovering the secrets of the dungeon, and by extent, of the world the characters live in.

To my knowledge the only other game that gives that kind of feelings is Outer wilds.

Do you have suggestions on other games that do that ? I would want to develop a game like that but feel like I lack some knowledge and references

I say "like that" because it's hard for me to clearly define how to give off that kind of feeling. Obviously it has to do with level design, storytelling and a good management of difficulty, but that's vague... Do you have any ressources or anything more concrete than that ?

What are the usual/most common degree of shot (un)accuracy ? Like, if you shoot, the bullet doesnt go completly straight, it goes a little bit to the right, up,... What is the "most common" degree used in game for shotguns ?

Hi everyone.

I was wondering which games would you recommend for creative uses of "Node" type maps. These maps are often not as freely navigable maps in RPGs

Examples:

https://www.deviantart.com/dispacetroblex/art/Super-Mario-Bros-3-SMW-Remix-Map-842549975

https://www.mariowiki.com/images/8/80/DonutPlains.png

https://www.pushsquare.com/games/ps1/breath_of_fire_iv#enlarge-2

By "Node" I mean like Super Mario World, SMB3, Final Fantasy Tactics or Breathe of Fire 4 where each node represents a level or location. They're simple enough to navigate and some creative uses off the top of my head is for Final Fantasy Tactics since some locations are "dungeons" or hostile locations there is a 50% (not quite sure with the exact values) chance for an encounter. This is how the game tackles random battles and in my opinion is more negative than positive since there are some specific locations you would like to fight in for specific monsters yet you cannot simply choose to "enter" a location for a battle to grind and level up your army on.

Another creative use is in the previously mentioned Breath of Fire 4. In between nodes you will sometimes get a ! indicating something of interest. This can be in the form of treasure, usually a healing item or a different node altogether usually branching out to another separate hidden location, usually a fishing spot or hidden critter to learn skills from. Imo this is good use of the Node-type mechanic as it encourages exploration without the annoyance of random battles.

I haven't played many of RPGs with this type of world map but maybe you have. What are some other games you've played that use this type of World map? Which ones come with a specific unique mechanic?

The game is divided into turns, which are subdivided into "subturns", during the subturn everything is automated.

So, all players make their moves simultaneously, without knowing what others do.

• The player has units
• Each unit has a “movement budget”
• The board is made of polygonial territories
• Each territory has a “movement cost”

During the turns, the players decide where their units should move to, but the destination doesn’t have a connection to the unit’s present location but can be distant. The path-finding algorithm finds the path with the cheapest total movement cost.

When all players have placed their moves, the automation begins. The begins looping through all units.

• Firstly, it checks if the unit’s movement budget allows for a move to the province, if so it pays the price and moves to the next territory within its path-array.
• A sub-turn concludes when all units that can move, have moved one territory onward.

After the new subturn begins, the game checks if any territory has multiple units and if those belong to different players. If so, the units will fight, and the defeated units deleted, while the winning unit loses the movement closest remaining movement budget.

Then the subturn repeats the movements for those who still have a movement budget. This repeats until all units have run out of movement budgets.

So, in theory, one unit might have to fight multiple unit units within a single turn. I don’t know if this exact approach has been done before, or if it’s simply too complicated.

So trying to make a coop rougelite but I'm a bit stuck. Rougelite are solo and if die then restart but how would you do that for a coop team while still keeping the feeling of a rougelite (feel like hit a paradox)?

Main issue that I have:

• I feel conflicted as I don't want down time with death. Yes solo rougelites are brutal but even after death (and losing everything) I can still immediately play another campaign so no down time. However coop roguelites when one friend dies they are like a ghost or spectating for a long time which is really boring as lots of down time.

Other side issues I have:

• should like one player dies then entire party dies and restart?
• Is it one player dies then wait for timer to revive but if entire team wipes then game over? then the strat maybe to place one player away in safety and that is boring.
• if one friend dies and then they stay dead forever?
• thought about respawning as new character but still what counts as real game over and what triggers a player revive?
• limited amount of lives? but if out of lives then friends stays dead forever?
• forever revive mechanic? like a player is down and forever in down state and needs to be revived? But chance that stuck in that state forever? and friend can just leave the game then come back full health, but can be boring as friend is never revived and is perpetually in down state?
• respawn at the end of stage, that sounds like a good idea but my game doesn't have a clear end stage and new stage start as it's a pseudo open world?

Just asking if anyone has some idea how to implement this or game examples that implement this well?

another question is how is loot shared in coop rougelite, as I assume that loot is only in that campaign but others told me like to bring back to their world?

I want to create a horror game with a monster that doesn't just randomly spawn, patrol arbitrary routes and follow the player via just ''find game object -> player''.
I want to make an AI system where the enemy would be persistent, wander the map at all times and try to actually figure out how to reach the player with some faux logic.

I have a few ideas on what the enemy would do, such as trying to guess where the player wants to go next and cutting off his path in an ambush, keeping track of some variables such as a door previously locked now unlocked, hence the player might've gone in, placing shards of glass on the floor for sound, keeping track of where the player is moving, hence increasing bias to that location in his patrols etc. etc.

​

I'm trying to make something legitimate out of the enemy. Trying to make him actually try to actively seek out the player while being clueless. His behavior would be advanced and extensive but I can do it.

​

However, the issue I keep running into (in my thoughts) is will it matter for the player and how much, realistically? I could see it being impactful when a player sees his skittering in the distance and hiding to jump out or when he is setting traps, but most of the time, how will the player know?

If the player runs into the monster randomly, what difference does it make to him what he was doing while the player wasn't there? What difference does it make to him if he just spawned due to a randomized timer or if he analyzed footprints on wet ground, found an open door, and tried to predict which objective the player was going for and tried intercepting him?

​

I'm afraid that, for all intents and purposes, those two might be the same to the player. I wish to make it clear that the monster is smart and that he is using ''advanced AI'' (really, just a lot more extensive code for AI). I want to make the player feel like he is really in danger and that he shouldn't be making mistakes. I want to make him feel immersed in the gameplay.

​

Do you have any ideas to tackle this issue? It would be much appreciated. I don't want to end up spending my sanity on making a system which will ultimately go unappreciated.

Hello friends, I recently finished my first game made with Godot and published it. This project took me about 2-3 months and taught me a lot about game development. I can now see the shortcomings of my game more clearly from the feedback it received. I would be very grateful if our experienced friends could help me.

My game was a clicker idle game. Therefore, planning the player's progress is of great importance. Since this was my first project, I didn't think much about this aspect, but now I see that it may be the most important aspect of the game. My questions about this are as follows: Is it possible to express progressions with mathematical formulas to provide the player with the optimum experience? For example, those who use RPG Maker know that when adjusting the required XP to level up, the game engine automatically creates a visual level curve based on the value of XP in the game engine. This calculation is quite helpful. What programs can be used to create a similar curve? Which area of mathematics should one work on to calculate level advancement, upgrade costs, and express them infinitely? Can Excel be used for these tasks? If so, do you have any recommended tutorial sources?

Hello,

I'm making a game with a player that can only use a grappler to move around, to move you have to use the mouse and click on objects to grapple on to them. While testing I found that players didn't know that you could pause and restart the level when they got stuck. To solve this I made a small button in the corner of the screen that would allow players to restart. Further testing revealed that some players who were trying to grapple to a surface accidently pressed the pause button. My qeustion is how do I handle this? Do i keep the button in for easy access or should I trust that players know that ESC is the right way to pause the game.

One of the reasons that I wanna stick with the Tactical RPG game (like FF tactics) it's because I could more easily translate/adapt the bosses battle I see on MMORPG like world of warcraft. On tactical rpg still have movement and placement. But how good and fun are the boss battle in turned based games that aren't tactical, follow the more traditional ideia (like pokemon, FF, so on)? Show me some good example of boss fight there , and why they're good

Hi everyone,

I'm developing a missions/objectives system for Wild Mars, the game I am developing, the page is already on Steam.

The first mission (for tutorial purposes) is activated upon startup after a few seconds and essentially requires an execution of the primary loop, its objectives are the basic tasks of the main loop (producing fuel). The first mission ends at the end of the loop.

There is a UI displayed only once when the mission is assigned and another generic UI with the mission list, checkbox when the objectives are completed.

Some screenshots here on Steam Wild Mars steam page link

I would also like to use this missions/objectives UI to guide the player every time there are new action loops to perform.

A notification UI appears every time an objective is completed.

What do you think?

Consider this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/13ewfma/comment/jjs087w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

It’s essentially the father of ARPG’s and the whole genre is based upon endgame, which usually consists of farming for better loot and min/maxing your build, i think the remake’s mistake was keeping the gameplay 1-for-1 with the original as some of the animations and systems are incredibly outdated, but I think you just went in with the wrong expectations. If that gameplay loot isn’t your thing, then it’ll never be satisfying for you

I was playing Diablo 2 Resurrected recently partly out of nostalgia because I remembered it being really fun when I was playing it as a kid. Except it didn't nearly feel as interesting even with the gorgeous, improved graphics. In the end I was spamming clicks on monsters as they showed up on screen while pretty VFX danced around and picking up various item drops to sell them in town.

I was not having a "fun" time and it felt more like just going through the motions. But I kept playing. Because I wanted to get more items. Better items.

In the end I think I spent maybe 25% of my game time just teleporting back to town and selling off random items for gold. It was an utter chore.

Yet, I still felt an itch to continue.

Is this some sort of gambling addiction? Some sort of compulsion? The game looks gorgeous and the sound design is great and that all certainly helps but in terms of actual mechanics it feels as shallow as a puddle. You are just running around clicking monsters and hoping for the dopamine rush of some Blue or Yellow tinted item drops.

Can you still get away with this sort of thing nowadays? In theory, if you were feeling particularly cynical, what would be the least you could do and feasibly succeed with? Could I just, give you random loot drops in a Match-3 game and call it a day? Actually if I think about it, a lot of roguelike games give you item drops as rewards. Luck be a Landlord is literally a slot machine game.

Anyone have any book recommendations?

Hello everyone.

I am curious about how to design a good persistent Player-Versus-Player (PvP) and/or a Realm-Versus-Realm (RvR) environment. What kind of rules and mechanics do you think should be put in place to encourage persistent PVP in a wayt aht maintains a healthy player base?

An example of what I am talking about would be something like the MMORPG Eve Online. That game designates different regions as having different levels of security. Briefly speaking, the higher the security, the greater the NPC "law enforcement" is in place to prevent PvP, but the lower money or gains for players. The lower the security, the greater the potential rewards. At zero security, there are the greater potential rewards to players, but there is nothing to restrict PvP.

That game seems to have established a good system for encouraging PvP, while also allowing newbies, or players not interested in PvP, some alternative way to play the game. However, I am interested in your opinion.

I am also interested in making a good perpetual Realm-Versus-Realm system, like in a game like Dark Age of Camelot? What kind of system or mechanics should be in place having an in-game Realm-Versus-Realm system works as well?

In sum, questions I have:

- What kind of system or mechanics should be in place for having a good in-game perpetual Player-Versus-Player system?

- What kind of system or mechanics should be in place for having a good in-game perpetual Realm-Versus-Realm system?

Thanks everyone. =)

Has anyone heard of the game Buckshot Roulette? It’s a popular indie game where you play Russian roulette but with a shotgun, and there are items and you can take multiple hits, etc. The dealer shuffles a random amount of blank and live shells into the gun, and on each players turn they have to choose to either shoot themselves or their opponent. Obviously you don’t want to shoot yourself with a live shell.

I really liked it and I’m working on a card game version of it, but with different theming (not involving a gun, or death, or suicide). I was thinking maybe robot factories sending potentially defective robot spies into their opponents factory? Dunno, I’m drawing a blank (pun intended).

I’m not making it for sale or anything, just for funsies to share with friends and family. Anyone have any ideas?

Currently I am developing a sci-fi factory management game and I am around %75 done, I am in a stage where I can add more major/minor mechanics to the game? Some of the ones the game has except from the basic power, storage etc. are:

-Connectable factories.

-Different main buildings with different managers for different bonuses.

-Change of colors/cosmetics.

-Being able to trade with in and off world companies.

-Taking contracts.

-Creating the main character for different play styles.

-Different rarity of products/researches.

I'm looking for single-player games that are "easy to learn, difficult to master", that focus on a narrow set of mechanics that you can spend months/years getting better at, without getting bored, as opposed to games with a wide variety of mechanics (like GTA, for example), where you can do a lot of stuff but each mechanic on its own isn't deep enough to keep you engaged for months/years.

Hi there I've started working on my first game which is built using twinery. It is a text based sci-fi narrative game in which the player has access to a super powerful AI which it can command to carry out the players instructions. This takes the form in a variety of modular pieces of narrative in which the player makes decisions which affects either utility variables or activate subplots based on the value of certain variables.

My goal is to have a sort of narrative spine which consists of main missions in which a majority of the choices will have some consequence. This is done by for example modifying certain challenges rolls the players have to beat. For example maybe the player hacked into the federal surveillance system and now has a plus 10 to a hack check during a mission with a little piece of text explaining why.

My main issue right now is understanding how I should design these variables. I want to use a main utility variable called computing power which is required for almost every of the commands the player can give. I would also want the player to be able to expend resources beyond that in order to increase the chance of their success but I'm not sure if this should be computing power as well or if I should make more granular variables.

I would love any advice or resources that can help me get a sense on how and why these variables should be designed in order to facilitate player freedom without becoming too complex or cluttering the game.

I know about games like Limbo and INSIDE. Are there any other projects with similar level design? Ori - not quite that, I think