Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fayrik]

Okay, so, this idea is probably gunna be pretty terrible in one way or another, but, I just feel the need to put this to you guys.

This topic is gunna assume that you've played Dwarf Fortress in all three game modes, to cut down on how long it's gunna take for me to explain this.

So, this is pretty much a compilation of ideas I've had running around in my head for awhile, which have just suddenly merged, producing something that I feel I should try. What exactly it should end up though, is still foggy to me. I'm going to share these ideas now, to get a better idea of where this idea actually stands.

Put basically, this game engine is heavily inspired by Dwarf Fortress' adventurer mode...
Everything in UTF-8, or ANSII.. Players represented by @s, loads of fatalities dealt out by local wildlife, and of course, the occational ampersand. (Perhaps similar terrain too, if I can't work something out.)
Though, I'm not just suggesting this should be an online multiplayer version of Dwarf Fortress. Far from it, infact. Besides reprogramming everything from scratch anyway, I've already had ideas for things like simulated factions -- with live politics, that change alliegances within a player's lifetime at least.

I'd love to be able to put some of this into action, or at least see some of this happen, because it just strikes me as a fantastic idea of a game that will keep changing, and always have playability to it.

First thing I'd like feed back on the idea about though, is:
Are the similarities to Dwarf Fortress in this a little bit too heavy? I want to take inspiration from it's engine design, but I don't want to be stealing parts of the game.

And, while I can make some of this right this moment, I'd like to hear what how this idea comes across - and how it can be made better.

Post-Preview/Pre-Post Edit: Sheesh! This is more of a Wall of Text than I realised!

[Sowelu]

That's incredibly shy on details...

- Multiplayer, persistant world
- Standard roguelike interface
- Wildernessy
- Has factions

Did I miss something?  :/

[Virex]

yes:
-Needlessly complex for an aspiring game desinger

[Sowelu]

It is worth noting that purely tile-based systems are pretty bad for online games, because they are realtime.  Witness:  BYOND, Furcadia, etc.  All kinds of problems.  And the buttom mashing...oh god the button mashing...  MAngband still feels like a shoddy hack to me.  Leave the roguelike interface to turn-based, single-player games.

[Virex]

In theory there's no need whatsoever for a roguelike to be tile-based. It's just that nearly all roguelikes use it because it's kind of a convention and because it means you can use a curses based library instead of more advanced techniques.

[Fayrik]

-Needlessly complex for an aspiring game desinger

If it's not complex, where's the "FUN"?

It is worth noting that purely tile-based systems are pretty bad for online games, because they are realtime.

I will admit, time is one of the biggest problems I can see with what I've got sat infront of me right now.

That's incredibly shy on details...

Yeah, details are still quite vague, because this isn't an idea for a fully fledged game, but just an engine.
The idea is that every server running this would have an entirely different story behind it. Like world gens in DF. And even then, this is still only a budding idea.

I also failed to mention in the first post, the most solid idea behind all this; the whole reason I want to do it, is to have something to program for use with PuTTY. It's not my only idea behind it, but it's kinda what braught it all together.

But, from the detail of these replies, I really have to ask.. Are there any other types of display I could pull off with PuTTY other than tile-based or entirely word based?

[Sowelu]

But, from the detail of these replies, I really have to ask.. Are there any other types of display I could pull off with PuTTY other than tile-based or entirely word based?

Not really... Why PuTTY?  Why not do it in Java so clients can run an applet?

If you are compelled to do it in ASCII, then more power to you--but online games in that style have a poor track record.

[Fayrik]

Not really... Why PuTTY?  Why not do it in Java so clients can run an applet?

If you are compelled to do it in ASCII, then more power to you--but online games in that style have a poor track record.

Well, I've tried other text systems (I.E: MUD clients), but it's gunna either be PuTTY or the old school Windows Telnet command, 'cause they can quite handily give you every letter one by one, rather than lines of text at a time.
(Okay, others can do that too, but you get the point.)
But, even then, if I had a Java applet.. I don't see the advantage that gives me. It might make it 5 minutes quicker to setup for the client, but I want to avoid reinventing the wheel here.

And, I know that these games aren't popular, but I'm doing it for the experience more than anything else.

[Sowelu]

Then go for it!

I thought the reason you wanted to use telnet was to make it accessible to a wide audience, and I was pointing out that a Java applet does the same thing (it's reasonably ubiquitous) and would let you do graphics.  Was going to recommend flash but it's a serious pain to learn.

But hey, it sounds like a reasonable plan!

[Fayrik]

Fair enough!

Timeframes aside for the moment, I've noticed another closely related problem in my current "Theory" code, that when I use input, holding buttons down generates a huge amount of both input bandwidth, and required processing time.
This needs a KeyUp/KeyDown system really, but, I'm going to see how far I can get this either way.

Well, I'm starting to feel tired, so the idea's starting to loose it's shine for me, but perhaps I'll have another bash at finishing the movement system tomorrow... Though, I might just stick it in my MUD instead, if I can get the theories strait.

Some extra information on the situation though, incase anyone's interested.
Right now I'm programming in C#.NET, because it's my strongest language by far.
After a couple of hours theorizing on this, I've gotten so far as to make a console based demo that generates a square room, that is currently only traversable on two dimensions, but I'm getting around to implementing the third (which already exists, but is invisible at this stage).

[darkflagrance]

Your game description and philosophy remind me of Realm of the Mad God, if it had the detail of DF combat.

[Fayrik]

I'm afraid I was planning on avoiding the combat detail, mainly because it's so insanely complex at this point.
But, in my view, it would be a lovely feature.

...Just for the record, this is just an idea. I really can't commit myself to anything right now. 

[Sowelu]

Timeframes aside for the moment, I've noticed another closely related problem in my current "Theory" code, that when I use input, holding buttons down generates a huge amount of both input bandwidth, and required processing time.
This needs a KeyUp/KeyDown system really, but, I'm going to see how far I can get this either way.

Hmm.  Well it could go either way really.  You can't do keyup/keydown in telnet, but SOP is 'press right to start moving right, press up to change to moving up, press up or space/5/something to stop moving".  But, that's if you want a constant move speed, which isn't always desirable.  Some people prefer an action-point system, where everyone uses turns, but if you sit still you can accumulate three or four turns and use them in immediate succession.  (Can make combat abusable, though.)  If you went that route, then you would want one press = one move, but only so long as they have movement points left.

In no case should holding the button down be desirable for the player on Telnet.  The only thing that does is that it will send the same key over and over, with an OS-configuration-dependent speed.  Bad idea.  Make each individual keypress have a meaning, holding it down is bad.

[Fayrik]

Sowelu, while I already knew some of that..
That post has actually helped quite a lot. I totally agree that holding buttons down is a horrible idea.

Infact, now, I'm considering trying something quite difficult and different. What if you could just press a direction then input a number of how many squares in that direction to move?
That would mean it could squentually move 10 times in a given direction, but only require three keypresses instead of 10.

I shall now go to see what I can do with these ideas.

[Virex]

That's a baaaad idea if players are going to move 1 space a lot of times, because you need 2 keypresses to move 1 space. At least make it a separate key from normal movement.