So I thought it would be fun to do a Space Empires themed roguelike for this year's 7DRL challenge. I think I'll call it "Beware of Strange Warp Points". It will play out sort of like the old DOS Trek games (could those perhaps be considered early roguelikes?), or like last year's KlingonRL - you're the captain of the last surviving ship of the Terran fleet, and it's your job to stop the Jraenar invasion!
I'm thinking the map will be laid out on a grid, with star systems being like "rooms" and warp points being like "doors". I say a grid and not a freeform warp point network because grids are easier to program. That said, I'd like for there to be "holes" in the galaxy map, so it resembles a cave level in a traditional roguelike.
The player will start with a basic ship, and will be able to upgrade it at a spacedock using minerals he collects, either from defeated enemies, or from allied colonies. Unlike in traditional Space Empires games, ship design will be a bit more freeform - there won't be any preset "hull sizes"; instead, you can just install whatever components you want. The more components you install, the heavier your ship becomes and the slower it goes, unless you install more engines to counter this effect. I guess it's kind of akin to a traditional roguelike's inventory system - you carry more equipment, it slows you down; you drink strength potions, it lets you carry more stuff!
Since most weapons in Space Empires are ranged, and targeting ranged weapons in a roguelike is a pain, I thought I'd do something a bit different with the combat system. Weapons will automatically fire at a randomly selected (or perhaps the closest, if there is ranged accuracy/damage loss) appropriate target every time they are reloaded. So all you have to worry about is maneuvering your ship to stay in range, but out of range of too many enemies' weapons!
I'm thinking the goal of the game will ultimately be to destroy all the Jraenar shipyards scattered around Terran space. Perhaps they will be cloaked, so you'll need to upgrade your ship with a tachyon sensor to detect them! Destroying the Jraenar ships is ultimately a diversion; once you take out all the shipyards, the game would only get easier from there, so there's no point in dragging it out.
I haven't decided how I'm going to handle missiles and units yet. Perhaps missiles will behave the same as they did in SE4 - move at a set speed toward their target, and be able to be shot down by specialized point defense weapons. Or, if I'm feeling lazy, they'll just be long-ranged weapons with 100% accuracy but high cost and low fire rate. Another alternative is a MOO2-style "missile evasion" stat, which the point defense weapons would increase, abstracting away the missile/PD balance while still keeping it in play.
As for units, I suppose there's really only a few kinds that I'd need to worry about. Troops and weapon platforms are pretty much irrelevant, unless I actually want to include planetary combat. Drones are basically just fancy missiles, so I don't really see the need to include them. Fighters would be interesting - have them controlled by AI and pursue the enemy (or you, if they're enemy fighters)? Mines would also be interesting, especially if they're invisible like in SE4! Satellites are basically just giant immobile fighters, so I'm not sure if they're really all that necessary.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Infinite diversity in infinite combinations? Not so great after all.
Suppose there were, as some scientists have proposed, an infinite multitude of parallel universes, each differing from the next in only the minutest detail. For instance, in one universe, my favorite color is red, while in another, my favorite color is blue, and in a third, I still can't make up my mind.
This might sound like a wonderful thing - it means that anything truly is possible. But is it really all that great? I think that if such a thing were true, it would mean that we actually have no free will. Because all the choices we make would be preordained at the creation of our universe, our actions would have no meaning - for every choice I make, my counterpart in another universe would make a different choice. For every time I say "yes" when my sister asks if I want to play a game, there's a universe where I say "no". There's also a universe where I walk off silently, a universe where I punch her in the face, and a universe where I spontaneously combust, then teleport to Mars. What kind of freedom is that if I'm constrained to do only what's within the parameters of our particular universe?
Now it could be that there are so many universes that there's room for more than one identical copy of each. That would allow for free will, and it would be the ultimate expression of God's creative power. But is that actually a good thing? A simple look at history would say: almost certainly not. You thought the Holocaust was bad? Multiply that by infinity! Of course, there would also be universes where the world was at peace all along, and unicorns frolicked among the verdant truffula trees. But would God actually allow an infinite amount of human suffering? Somehow I doubt this; it seems beyond cruel, even if he can make it up in the end.
So, I'd have to say that if there are multiple universes (whatever exactly that means*), there are only a finite number of them, because if there were an infinite number, either life would be utterly meaningless or God would be infinitely cruel.
*What's "multiple universes" mean? Well, I suppose that a "universe" can be defined as a self-contained region of spacetime to which there is no entry or exit. So, obviously, the universe we live in is one, as there's no way to enter or escape it. Also, any alternate dimension is a universe, as we can't get there, and whoever lives there can't get here. A black hole, though, while it might appear to be a universe, is not, because it has a connection (albeit one-way) with the outside world. Likewise, a warp bubble as envisaged by Star Trek is not a universe, because even if it is isolated spatially from the outside world, it is still connected via time at the moment the ship enters or drops out of warp.
This might sound like a wonderful thing - it means that anything truly is possible. But is it really all that great? I think that if such a thing were true, it would mean that we actually have no free will. Because all the choices we make would be preordained at the creation of our universe, our actions would have no meaning - for every choice I make, my counterpart in another universe would make a different choice. For every time I say "yes" when my sister asks if I want to play a game, there's a universe where I say "no". There's also a universe where I walk off silently, a universe where I punch her in the face, and a universe where I spontaneously combust, then teleport to Mars. What kind of freedom is that if I'm constrained to do only what's within the parameters of our particular universe?
Now it could be that there are so many universes that there's room for more than one identical copy of each. That would allow for free will, and it would be the ultimate expression of God's creative power. But is that actually a good thing? A simple look at history would say: almost certainly not. You thought the Holocaust was bad? Multiply that by infinity! Of course, there would also be universes where the world was at peace all along, and unicorns frolicked among the verdant truffula trees. But would God actually allow an infinite amount of human suffering? Somehow I doubt this; it seems beyond cruel, even if he can make it up in the end.
So, I'd have to say that if there are multiple universes (whatever exactly that means*), there are only a finite number of them, because if there were an infinite number, either life would be utterly meaningless or God would be infinitely cruel.
*What's "multiple universes" mean? Well, I suppose that a "universe" can be defined as a self-contained region of spacetime to which there is no entry or exit. So, obviously, the universe we live in is one, as there's no way to enter or escape it. Also, any alternate dimension is a universe, as we can't get there, and whoever lives there can't get here. A black hole, though, while it might appear to be a universe, is not, because it has a connection (albeit one-way) with the outside world. Likewise, a warp bubble as envisaged by Star Trek is not a universe, because even if it is isolated spatially from the outside world, it is still connected via time at the moment the ship enters or drops out of warp.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Why I love Mega Man (and Rogue Legacy, and Zelda, and Metroid)
This morning I was playing the excellent indie platformer Rogue Legacy, and something occurred to me - there's one way in that Rogue Legacy is like one of my favorite series, Mega Man. It's that both have steep difficulty curves early on, which level off as you progress, with occasional spikes throughout the game.
See, in Mega Man, you start off with pretty much nothing. All you have is your wimpy (except in Mega Man 5) mega buster, and maybe a few special moves like a slide or a Rush Coil. You have to claw your way to the top of the robot pack, defeating robot master after robot master, growing stronger all the while, until you're finally ready to take on Dr. Wily. It can be insanely difficult early on, especially for someone new to the series, and I'd have to say that the game actually gets easier as you progress - at least until the final stages when you confront Wily!
In Rogue Legacy, you again start off with pretty much nothing. 100 HP, 100 mana, only a few classes to play as, and no special equipment. Throughout the game, you can find and buy upgrades, which you get to keep even after your character dies and you start a new one (hence the "Legacy" in the title). The game, like Mega Man, is brutally difficult at first, but once you get used to the controls, and upgrade your HP, mana, classes, and equipment, it becomes... well, only moderately difficult. (There's actually an item you can equip that depowers enemies at the cost of reduced gold drops!)
So why do I enjoy these games so much? Is it because I'm a masochist? Well, no, I'm not a masochist. (At least, I don't think I am!) I think it's actually because there's a sense of accomplishment that comes from pressing on and finally defeating the initial challenge of the game, making my character powerful enough to tackle the rest of the game. Then when I get to the grand finale, and the difficulty ramps up again, I can really appreciate how much I've progressed.
To take an example from one of Jirard "The Completionist" Khalil's favorite games (and one of mine as well), in Mega Man X (which he does an excellent review of in his first episode of his YouTube series), at the beginning you as X are pretty wimpy, and have no hope to defeat Vile (though to be fair, he was riding in a mech...); you're saved by Zero, who says that someday you may be as strong as him. Well, sure enough, at the end of the game, Zero gives you his weapon (which lets you charge up any weapon you have captured from a boss, which is totally awesome)... but then Zero gets into another fight with Vile, and blows himself up to destroy Vile's mech so you can take out Vile himself. And sure enough, the fight with Vile is challenging, but not impossible. It's awesome to be able to fight for Zero, just like he fought for X in the beginning of the game, using all the new powers you've acquired throughout the course of the game!
Another series which has this sort of inverted difficulty curve is the Zelda series. In some of the games (such as the original Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time, and Wind Waker), you don't even start with a sword! Of course, there's not much actual danger at that point (except in the original Zelda), so that doesn't really count. But once you start exploring, you'll find yourself confronted with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, such as those annoying centaurs that shoot deadly sword beams at you and take way too many hits to kill in the original game. Eventually, though, you'll find some item that makes you start to wonder if you've somehow become God incarnate, because it makes dealing with the lesser challenges a complete cakewalk. Master sword that does 4x normal damage? Check. Blue ring that halves all damage taken? Check. Double hookshot that lets you zip around the sky level like Spider-Man? Check. Once you have these items in hand, you realize that maybe it's time to take on some of those obstacles that previously seemed impossible - and what do you know, they're not so hard after all!
And then there's Metroid. You start with 99 max health, a wimpy blaster that (in the original at least) doesn't even shoot all the way across the screen, and no advanced weaponry like missiles or bombs. But when you get to the end of the game, you can have over 1000 health, a wave spazer plasma ice beam that freezes and/or obliterates multiple enemies at once, 100 missiles, bombs, a dozen or so each of super missiles and super bombs, and the screw attack. Yeah, the screw attack. Seriously the most overpowered item in all of gaming. (Except in Metroid Prime 3; there it kinda sucked.) It lets you literally jump through enemies to kill them, as if they were balloons waiting to be popped. And you still get health and missile pickups! Oh, and did I mention you can use it repeatedly in midair, allowing you to kill lots of enemies at once, or just air-climb up to high platforms? And yet still, all these weapons aren't quite enough to defeat Mother Brain (at least in Super Metroid) - you still need the hyper beam!
Come to think of it, the inverted difficulty curve isn't all that uncommon. It's especially prevalent in roguelikes such as Angband, where progress is measured not just in terms of character stats and equipment, but also in terms of player skill, as characters are expected (as in Rogue Legacy, which draws inspiration from roguelikes) to die like Chicagoans vote - early and often! Permadeath games in general, such as The Binding of Isaac and FTL, don't necessarily qualify, though, as they usually get much harder as the player progresses to compensate for the lack of length. I included Rogue Legacy because your accomplishments carry over from one game to the next, making future playthroughs easier, and Angband because the difficulty curve, while sloping upward, does so gently, what with the game's ridiculously long length; the real difficulty comes from mastering the game's mechanics and strategies. Not that games with upward-sloping difficulty curves are less enjoyable than games with downward-sloping curves with the occasional spike; each style has its own unique charm!
See, in Mega Man, you start off with pretty much nothing. All you have is your wimpy (except in Mega Man 5) mega buster, and maybe a few special moves like a slide or a Rush Coil. You have to claw your way to the top of the robot pack, defeating robot master after robot master, growing stronger all the while, until you're finally ready to take on Dr. Wily. It can be insanely difficult early on, especially for someone new to the series, and I'd have to say that the game actually gets easier as you progress - at least until the final stages when you confront Wily!
In Rogue Legacy, you again start off with pretty much nothing. 100 HP, 100 mana, only a few classes to play as, and no special equipment. Throughout the game, you can find and buy upgrades, which you get to keep even after your character dies and you start a new one (hence the "Legacy" in the title). The game, like Mega Man, is brutally difficult at first, but once you get used to the controls, and upgrade your HP, mana, classes, and equipment, it becomes... well, only moderately difficult. (There's actually an item you can equip that depowers enemies at the cost of reduced gold drops!)
So why do I enjoy these games so much? Is it because I'm a masochist? Well, no, I'm not a masochist. (At least, I don't think I am!) I think it's actually because there's a sense of accomplishment that comes from pressing on and finally defeating the initial challenge of the game, making my character powerful enough to tackle the rest of the game. Then when I get to the grand finale, and the difficulty ramps up again, I can really appreciate how much I've progressed.
To take an example from one of Jirard "The Completionist" Khalil's favorite games (and one of mine as well), in Mega Man X (which he does an excellent review of in his first episode of his YouTube series), at the beginning you as X are pretty wimpy, and have no hope to defeat Vile (though to be fair, he was riding in a mech...); you're saved by Zero, who says that someday you may be as strong as him. Well, sure enough, at the end of the game, Zero gives you his weapon (which lets you charge up any weapon you have captured from a boss, which is totally awesome)... but then Zero gets into another fight with Vile, and blows himself up to destroy Vile's mech so you can take out Vile himself. And sure enough, the fight with Vile is challenging, but not impossible. It's awesome to be able to fight for Zero, just like he fought for X in the beginning of the game, using all the new powers you've acquired throughout the course of the game!
Another series which has this sort of inverted difficulty curve is the Zelda series. In some of the games (such as the original Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time, and Wind Waker), you don't even start with a sword! Of course, there's not much actual danger at that point (except in the original Zelda), so that doesn't really count. But once you start exploring, you'll find yourself confronted with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, such as those annoying centaurs that shoot deadly sword beams at you and take way too many hits to kill in the original game. Eventually, though, you'll find some item that makes you start to wonder if you've somehow become God incarnate, because it makes dealing with the lesser challenges a complete cakewalk. Master sword that does 4x normal damage? Check. Blue ring that halves all damage taken? Check. Double hookshot that lets you zip around the sky level like Spider-Man? Check. Once you have these items in hand, you realize that maybe it's time to take on some of those obstacles that previously seemed impossible - and what do you know, they're not so hard after all!
And then there's Metroid. You start with 99 max health, a wimpy blaster that (in the original at least) doesn't even shoot all the way across the screen, and no advanced weaponry like missiles or bombs. But when you get to the end of the game, you can have over 1000 health, a wave spazer plasma ice beam that freezes and/or obliterates multiple enemies at once, 100 missiles, bombs, a dozen or so each of super missiles and super bombs, and the screw attack. Yeah, the screw attack. Seriously the most overpowered item in all of gaming. (Except in Metroid Prime 3; there it kinda sucked.) It lets you literally jump through enemies to kill them, as if they were balloons waiting to be popped. And you still get health and missile pickups! Oh, and did I mention you can use it repeatedly in midair, allowing you to kill lots of enemies at once, or just air-climb up to high platforms? And yet still, all these weapons aren't quite enough to defeat Mother Brain (at least in Super Metroid) - you still need the hyper beam!
Come to think of it, the inverted difficulty curve isn't all that uncommon. It's especially prevalent in roguelikes such as Angband, where progress is measured not just in terms of character stats and equipment, but also in terms of player skill, as characters are expected (as in Rogue Legacy, which draws inspiration from roguelikes) to die like Chicagoans vote - early and often! Permadeath games in general, such as The Binding of Isaac and FTL, don't necessarily qualify, though, as they usually get much harder as the player progresses to compensate for the lack of length. I included Rogue Legacy because your accomplishments carry over from one game to the next, making future playthroughs easier, and Angband because the difficulty curve, while sloping upward, does so gently, what with the game's ridiculously long length; the real difficulty comes from mastering the game's mechanics and strategies. Not that games with upward-sloping difficulty curves are less enjoyable than games with downward-sloping curves with the occasional spike; each style has its own unique charm!
Friday, May 31, 2013
The 4 X's of game enjoyment, or "Hi, my name is Ed, and I'm an explorer." ("Hi, Ed!")
In 4X games, such as Space Empires and Master of Orion, my favorite part of the game is researching new technologies for my empire. I especially like when the tech tree is randomized from game to game, as in Sword of the Stars and Master of Orion (if you're playing an Uncreative race).
On a (seemingly) unrelated note, I don't like to play roguelikes that are not under active development. Somehow they seem "stale", even if the game mechanics and UI are perfectly polished. I'd play Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup over Nethack any day! (Well, that's not the only reason, but you get the point. I'd use ADOM in place of Nethack since it's more polished, but, well, ADOM is kind of under active development again...)
It never occurred to me until now, though, that these two concepts could be related. I guess you could divide people into 4 categories (named after the 4 X's) based on how they get enjoyment out of games.
Explorers (that's me) enjoy playing games to discover new things - new game mechanics, new unlockable features/characters/weapons/whatever. They tend to be completionists, although explorers may also complete a game 99%, then decide that that last 1% is too hard to bother with.
Expanders are also completionists, but unlike explorers, 100% completion is their primary objective. An expander will not stop until every last bit of unlockable content is unlocked. They don't really enjoy actually playing the game as much as explorers do - instead they get a huge adrenaline rush at the end when they finally complete everything.
Exploiters are minmaxers. Not content to have a +10 sword of awesomeness, they will find loopholes in the rules to get a +11 uber miracle sword of awesomeness and slay everything. They draw enjoyment from the process of devising these schemes, and also somewhat from laying the smackdown on opponents with their cool toys.
Exterminators, of course, are in it to win it. An exterminator is not happy unless he eradicates every last one of his opponents. Exterminators might also like to taunt their opponents and kick them when they're down. They absolutely hate losing, obviously.
Actually, I guess you could pretty much equate these categories to the "classic" 4 categories of gamers:
Explorers = Real Roleplayers
Expanders = Loonies (the weakest correlation of the bunch - hey, someone had to be Loonies!)
Exploiters = Munchkins (obviously)
Exterminators = Real Men
Maybe I should get into some D&D sometime, if I'm that kind of player...
On a (seemingly) unrelated note, I don't like to play roguelikes that are not under active development. Somehow they seem "stale", even if the game mechanics and UI are perfectly polished. I'd play Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup over Nethack any day! (Well, that's not the only reason, but you get the point. I'd use ADOM in place of Nethack since it's more polished, but, well, ADOM is kind of under active development again...)
It never occurred to me until now, though, that these two concepts could be related. I guess you could divide people into 4 categories (named after the 4 X's) based on how they get enjoyment out of games.
Explorers (that's me) enjoy playing games to discover new things - new game mechanics, new unlockable features/characters/weapons/whatever. They tend to be completionists, although explorers may also complete a game 99%, then decide that that last 1% is too hard to bother with.
Expanders are also completionists, but unlike explorers, 100% completion is their primary objective. An expander will not stop until every last bit of unlockable content is unlocked. They don't really enjoy actually playing the game as much as explorers do - instead they get a huge adrenaline rush at the end when they finally complete everything.
Exploiters are minmaxers. Not content to have a +10 sword of awesomeness, they will find loopholes in the rules to get a +11 uber miracle sword of awesomeness and slay everything. They draw enjoyment from the process of devising these schemes, and also somewhat from laying the smackdown on opponents with their cool toys.
Exterminators, of course, are in it to win it. An exterminator is not happy unless he eradicates every last one of his opponents. Exterminators might also like to taunt their opponents and kick them when they're down. They absolutely hate losing, obviously.
Actually, I guess you could pretty much equate these categories to the "classic" 4 categories of gamers:
Explorers = Real Roleplayers
Expanders = Loonies (the weakest correlation of the bunch - hey, someone had to be Loonies!)
Exploiters = Munchkins (obviously)
Exterminators = Real Men
Maybe I should get into some D&D sometime, if I'm that kind of player...
Friday, March 15, 2013
Miracles vs. Magic: What's the diff?
Years ago, I remember being annoyed at the depiction of religion in the computer game Space Empires IV. Even though I was an atheist at the time, I somehow saw it as almost offensive that you could just build religious buildings and get some sort of supernatural benefits from them. So when I went to make my own mod for Space Empires IV, I wound up explaining this away by treating the effects of the buildings as, well, basically magic in the descriptive text. "It's so because we believe it to be so", in other words - the placebo effect in action! That was probably even more offensive to people who were actually religious, though...
But then if religion isn't magic, how do we explain miracles? I think the answer is clear - it's divine intervention with the laws of nature. What about actual magic, though? Is it real? And if so, where does it come from?
If it is real, I'd have to say it's probably Satan's attempt to mimic God's miracles. We see this in Exodus, where God, through Moses, sends the ten plagues upon Egypt; the Egyptian magicians in turn try to duplicate them (why they would want more plagues, I don't know, maybe they just wanted to show that they were powerful magicians?) but their attempts are nowhere near as impressive as God's. We also have Elijah's competition with the priests of Ba'al; Elijah is so confident that God will set his offering ablaze that he douses it with water first to prove that it really was God and not some parlor trick! The priests of Ba'al of course are unable to duplicate this marvel.
So what does this say about portrayals of magic in games and media? Do we need to stop playing D&D and reading Harry Potter because they're "satanic"? I don't think so. People are capable of telling fantasy from reality, and there's nothing wrong with a little escapism so long as it doesn't consume one's life. Does playing Grand Theft Auto turn people into criminals? Does watching Jackass turn them into idiots? No, it's just entertainment. Mostly harmless, as Douglas Adams would say.
Back to Space Empires IV, then. What's up with the religious buildings providing wide-ranging effects such as bonuses to ship combat effectiveness (War and Death Shrines) and renewal of planets' natural resources (Nature Shrines)? I'd have to say that it's simple - Space Empires IV is set in a polytheistic universe, so there are actual gods answering the prayers of the worshipers at these shrines. But the gods are unnamed, for whatever reason. Maybe someone will make a mod which expands on the religion system, naming the gods. Maybe someone will even make a mod for Space Empires V which has scripted "religion spreading" events, sort of like Civilization IV and V. (You couldn't do that for Space Empires IV because it didn't support scripting.) Who knows? But again, it's just escapist entertainment.
But then if religion isn't magic, how do we explain miracles? I think the answer is clear - it's divine intervention with the laws of nature. What about actual magic, though? Is it real? And if so, where does it come from?
If it is real, I'd have to say it's probably Satan's attempt to mimic God's miracles. We see this in Exodus, where God, through Moses, sends the ten plagues upon Egypt; the Egyptian magicians in turn try to duplicate them (why they would want more plagues, I don't know, maybe they just wanted to show that they were powerful magicians?) but their attempts are nowhere near as impressive as God's. We also have Elijah's competition with the priests of Ba'al; Elijah is so confident that God will set his offering ablaze that he douses it with water first to prove that it really was God and not some parlor trick! The priests of Ba'al of course are unable to duplicate this marvel.
So what does this say about portrayals of magic in games and media? Do we need to stop playing D&D and reading Harry Potter because they're "satanic"? I don't think so. People are capable of telling fantasy from reality, and there's nothing wrong with a little escapism so long as it doesn't consume one's life. Does playing Grand Theft Auto turn people into criminals? Does watching Jackass turn them into idiots? No, it's just entertainment. Mostly harmless, as Douglas Adams would say.
Back to Space Empires IV, then. What's up with the religious buildings providing wide-ranging effects such as bonuses to ship combat effectiveness (War and Death Shrines) and renewal of planets' natural resources (Nature Shrines)? I'd have to say that it's simple - Space Empires IV is set in a polytheistic universe, so there are actual gods answering the prayers of the worshipers at these shrines. But the gods are unnamed, for whatever reason. Maybe someone will make a mod which expands on the religion system, naming the gods. Maybe someone will even make a mod for Space Empires V which has scripted "religion spreading" events, sort of like Civilization IV and V. (You couldn't do that for Space Empires IV because it didn't support scripting.) Who knows? But again, it's just escapist entertainment.
7DRL 2013 day 7: ITS OV4R!!!
Well, I finally completed my 7DRL for this year You can go and download it here:
http://edkolis.exofire.net/triquest.php
Things that are new since yesterday:
http://edkolis.exofire.net/triquest.php
Things that are new since yesterday:
- Added a user manual
- Added victory conditions (as yet untested, the game's kinda hard!)
- Added "memory sight" (you can see terrain that you've already explored on the minimap)
And as always, you can check out the source code here:
Enjoy!
Thursday, March 14, 2013
7DRL 2013 day 6: Itemized Deductions
Today I implemented items for TriQuest. Since this is a 7DRL and I wanted to get things done quickly, though, I took a slightly unconventional approach to the inventory. Instead of being able to carry around duplicates of all your items, each item type just has a flag to say if the party has found it or not. If it's been found, you can equip it; otherwise, you can't until you find one. Also, consumables (health and mana potions) can't be stored; they're used immediately as soon as you step onto the tile containing them. If you want to save them, you'll have to avoid stepping on that tile until you need them!
That said, there are a few interesting inventory mechanics. For instance, there are two kinds of health and mana potions you can find. The "pack of small potions" restores the health or mana of all party members by 20 points, while the "large potion" restores the health or mana of the most injured or depleted party member by 60 points. Also, no item is designed to be superior to any other item; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. (Though I might want to increase the defense penalty on the warrior's heavy weapons since I bumped up the positive stats of just about everything during testing to make the midgame more survivable! And I still haven't found the final boss yet - I hope he's at least theoretically beatable, not to mention extant!)
Again, no screenshot today, because not much has changed visually - all you'd see different is maybe a blue % sign indicating a pack of small mana potions lying somewhere on the map!
That said, there are a few interesting inventory mechanics. For instance, there are two kinds of health and mana potions you can find. The "pack of small potions" restores the health or mana of all party members by 20 points, while the "large potion" restores the health or mana of the most injured or depleted party member by 60 points. Also, no item is designed to be superior to any other item; they all have their strengths and weaknesses. (Though I might want to increase the defense penalty on the warrior's heavy weapons since I bumped up the positive stats of just about everything during testing to make the midgame more survivable! And I still haven't found the final boss yet - I hope he's at least theoretically beatable, not to mention extant!)
Again, no screenshot today, because not much has changed visually - all you'd see different is maybe a blue % sign indicating a pack of small mana potions lying somewhere on the map!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)