Turn-Based Tactics Archrebel: Tactics - A reincarnation of the classic Rebelstar.

[oasis789]

It sounds silly, like having one's cake and eating it too

 

[udm]

Having one of those abilities sounds cool on paper, especially if there are already other abstracted elements and you're going for a more gamey design. But combining it with simulationist design (which is what you're actually going for) is like hooking up with a 8/10 then discovering she has a dick when the lights are out. The presentation was nice and all, you might have gotten hard, but then you feel the jab of a wiener and there goes the party.

Yeah, I was looking into those mechanics and they didn't sit well with me as well. I already ditched the idea of such mechanics; just wanted to make sure people were on board with that idea, and if my view wasn't somewhat skewed.

Regarding the term "consume", I see the term is often used with the army, mostly regarding ammunition, or items that are consumed by other items, like ink cartridges for printers.

From what you've presented so far, you're a fantastic designer mate. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise and don't doubt yourself.

 

[Ularis Badler]

Having one of those abilities sounds cool on paper, especially if there are already other abstracted elements and you're going for a more gamey design. But combining it with simulationist design (which is what you're actually going for) is like hooking up with a 8/10 then discovering she has a dick when the lights are out. The presentation was nice and all, you might have gotten hard, but then you feel the jab of a wiener and there goes the party.

Yeah, I was looking into those mechanics and they didn't sit well with me as well. I already ditched the idea of such mechanics; just wanted to make sure people were on board with that idea, and if my view wasn't somewhat skewed.

Regarding the term "consume", I see the term is often used with the army, mostly regarding ammunition, or items that are consumed by other items, like ink cartridges for printers.

From what you've presented so far, you're a fantastic designer mate. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise and don't doubt yourself.

LMAO!
Thanks, man! Your words are more than welcome!

 

[motherfucker]

What do you guys think of this tooltip to display information on the upgrades of a unit's armor? I'm trying to decide which one is easier to read:

If I have to choose between the two, A is miles better because B doesn't explain shit and leaves you wondering "so which of the three armor numbers do I have?".
But ideally, you do this and hide the rest of the numbers in a separate menu, like a "?" button in the corner.

 

[Ularis Badler]

What do you guys think of this tooltip to display information on the upgrades of a unit's armor? I'm trying to decide which one is easier to read:

If I have to choose between the two, A is miles better because B doesn't explain shit and leaves you wondering "so which of the three armor numbers do I have?".
But ideally, you do this and hide the rest of the numbers in a separate menu, like a "?" button in the corner.

Oh, thanks for the reply. I deleted the post about this subject because I finally changed my mind and went with A for a couple of other reasons. Like A, B would let you know which upgrade level you have based on color, going up to down. It would be apparent as you would start using it because initially, it would all be gray with your first level unlocking on the top.

The idea of this tooltip is to give you an overview of all the possible upgrades the item has and at which state of upgrades the item is.
For consulting your current stats on the armor, you just look at where I'm highlighting on the image (I'm in a revamping process and the image doesn't reflect all modifiers seen in the tooltip).

If you notice the gray arrow pointing up after the armor's description, that's where you will hover the mouse to show the full stats tooltip with all upgrade levels.

If you notice the gray arrow pointing up after the armor's description, that's where you will hover the mouse to show the full stats tooltip with all upgrade levels.

 

[motherfucker]

The idea of this tooltip is to give you an overview of all the possible upgrades the item has and at which state of upgrades the item is.
For consulting your current stats on the armor, you just look at where I'm highlighting on the image (I'm in a revamping process and the image doesn't reflect all modifiers seen in the tooltip).

If you notice the gray arrow pointing up after the armor's description, that's where you will hover the mouse to show the full stats tooltip with all upgrade levels.

I mean, even so, there should be a clear indication of what you currently have so you can estimate how much of an upgrade you'll be getting, without going back and forth between screens. So the "current" section works very well in that regard. If you want to visualize the progression, you can do some sort of arrows or chains, like in these pictures I just pulled from Google:

Spoiler

 

[Ularis Badler]

Yeah, I see your point but you wouldn't need to go back and forth because you would open this tooltip above your armor's current skills; you would be able to see both at the same time. But even so, you can tell how much you have and how much you would increase with each level. Using the image below, the first level of Absolute Armor grants you an increase of +5% on Armor Coverage, giving you a total of 80%, meaning you started with/had 75%. The next level would grant you 10% over its starting value, and so on.

The symbols are not complete so you would have the number of squares beneath each upgrade level reflecting their level numbers (1 square, 2 squares, etc..), currently they all have 3 squares, which doesn't help either.

Sorry about the confusing and unfinished image.

 

[Ularis Badler]

Here's the final result of the upgrades tooltip. Thank you for providing feedback.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Ularis Badler]

I've reworked the Upgrade System. Now, upgrade kits come with a resource score that can be used to upgrade multiple items.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Ularis Badler]

Just a quick update as I work on releasing the game's first demo. I've finally implemented the possibility of using the melee weapon Ripper to destroy obstacles, as originally intended.
This can provide significant strategy value for having your troops moving without penalties or to create some protective perimeters.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Ularis Badler]

I am quite interested in hearing your thoughts on this:

In a tactics game, how do you feel about panning the camera over unexplored terrain and being able to listen to terrain features like rivers, even before they have been uncovered on the map?

 

[Alienman]

I am quite interested in hearing your thoughts on this:

In a tactics game, how do you feel about panning the camera over unexplored terrain and being able to listen to terrain features like rivers, even before they have been uncovered on the map?

I don't mind it. But hearing enemy units might feel a bit cheap.

 

[Lord of Riva]

I am quite interested in hearing your thoughts on this:

In a tactics game, how do you feel about panning the camera over unexplored terrain and being able to listen to terrain features like rivers, even before they have been uncovered on the map?

See, depending on how reliable it is and how much terrain features impact your game, you may be forced to do it, you would implement it right into your gameplay loop. Now I imagine myself, on any given map, looking at a black screen trying to listen for terrain features and I think, that would be shit.

Realistically think about if that is actually fun and I don't think it would be then why implement it?

If you want to implement something do it by incorporate strategic or tactical decision making into it.

First of all, should all maps be unexplored? I mean depending on the story unfolding people may actually already know how the terrain is, maybe it would be better to utilize a fow only hiding troops rather than terrain.

Could there be some equipment that allows you to check out unexplored terrain? As in, maybe get yourself a drone to see further ahead, costing space in the inventory or use of a Directional microphone.

Do different units have an impact on it, maybe it makes enough of a sound (just like a Gunshot) when a Giant alien moves through water while the smaller troops don't.

And so on not that I know how far your game is going simulation/strategic wise

So my answer to that question, is a no, it does not sound fun.

 

[Ularis Badler]

True! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Ularis Badler]

Now I imagine myself, on any given map, looking at a black screen trying to listen for terrain features and I think, that would be shit.

This is exactly my problem with having sound being captured by the camera from unexplored terrain. Good to know I'm not the only one concerned with this.

 

[Visperas]

I think it should only happen at the edge of the camera.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Sound cues in games generally drive me crazy because they're too subtle and I often fiddle with the default sound settings in such a way to make them even more subtle. At the very least you need to reference that such a mechanic exists somewhere, perhaps not in a forced tutorial but in some tips or manual style documentation. That said, I did enjoy the sound cues in DoomRL. They were not subtle at all and focusing on the sound of demons stomping around or screaming when wounded or dying really enhanced the atmosphere in a situation (firing blindly into fog of war) that would have otherwise felt tedious.

Fog of war in general always felt like an odd mechanic to me. It makes sense on a larger scale like in a 4x, but in a more tactical game, it often feels silly that I didn't know a mountain was 50 meters ahead of me or whatever. I feel like X-Com got it right where there are 2 tiers of the fog of war; one for revealing terrain and another for revealing enemies. OTOH it's again extremely silly to not know the overall terrain when you literally arrived via aircraft.

 

[Ularis Badler]

Fog of war in general always felt like an odd mechanic to me. It makes sense on a larger scale like in a 4x, but in a more tactical game, it often feels silly that I didn't know a mountain was 50 meters ahead of me or whatever. I feel like X-Com got it right where there are 2 tiers of the fog of war; one for revealing terrain and another for revealing enemies. OTOH it's again extremely silly to not know the overall terrain when you literally arrived via aircraft.

You make a strong case. One reason why I like fog-of-war in tactics games is that it lets me understand which parts of the terrain I've explored. Although one could argue that you could have the terrain fully revealed but still have a visual layer pointing out which areas of terrain have been uncovered.
But I also think that having the terrain fully revealed is unrealistic as it gives you persistent access to every single detail about the terrain, each rock, tree, and bush within the map area, without any effort or latency. You would only be able to explain this if units had a visor with direct access to a satellite or drones in the area, which may not fit the setting the game presents itself in. Even if you arrive through an aerial vehicle you won't be able to memorize all the terrain features down to the details I described - once you land you will rely on memory, which is faulty.

My point is that gameplay should keep realism at bay. There's still a myriad of aspects that make a game unrealistic, no matter how realism is taken into consideration, exactly because they are games.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Galdred]

Fog of war in general always felt like an odd mechanic to me. It makes sense on a larger scale like in a 4x, but in a more tactical game, it often feels silly that I didn't know a mountain was 50 meters ahead of me or whatever. I feel like X-Com got it right where there are 2 tiers of the fog of war; one for revealing terrain and another for revealing enemies. OTOH it's again extremely silly to not know the overall terrain when you literally arrived via aircraft.

You make a strong case. One reason why I like fog-of-war in tactics games is that it lets me understand which parts of the terrain I've explored. Although one could argue that you could have the terrain fully revealed but still have a visual layer pointing out which areas of terrain have been uncovered.
But I also think that having the terrain fully revealed is unrealistic as it gives you persistent access to every single detail about the terrain, each rock, tree, and bush within the map area, without any effort or latency. You would only be able to explain this if units had a visor with direct access to a satellite or drones in the area, which may not fit the setting the game presents itself in. Even if you arrive through an aerial vehicle you won't be able to memorize all the terrain features down to the details I described - once you land you will rely on memory, which is faulty.

My point is that gameplay should keep realism at bay. There's still a myriad of aspects that make a game unrealistic, no matter how realism is taken into consideration, exactly because they are games.

That can easily be justified from the context of the game, though. In the future, it is not a huge stretch to imagine that troopers would have a way to "streetview" whatever part of the surrounding they want with micro drones swarms, satellites or whatever.
In a way, if the commander(ie player character) is supposed to be remotely giving order, being able to see any part of the terrain in real time would make sense. It sounds a bit more difficult if he is leading from the front, though.