Magic & Mercenaries: The Curse of Eternal Darkness

[ProphetSword]

I'll get back to you about what I decide about the death system in the game. I'm working out some ideas on how to approach it, but I haven't settled on anything yet.

As a minor update, here's another image of a waterway with a sort of natural bridge. Just to mix things up, this combat takes place outside on the grass (no obstacles for rocks or trees added yet):

 

[ProphetSword]

Okay, I'm trying to decide if I actually like the look of having obstacles on the battlefield or not. I both like it and dislike it at the same time.

Truth is I might just skip obstacles for now. I don't want to bog the game development down trying to work it out. Without a dedicated artist, it just really stacks up the development time. If anyone knows a decent artist who might want to hop onto a Gold-Box style old school RPG project, let me know. I approached someone who was really good with EGA style artwork whose abilities would have really made this project shine, but he was too busy.

 

[Morkar Left]

Trying to decide if I want to go to the effort to make this even more Gold-Box like and use the OGL. Seems like a headache, but it might be worth it.

As long as you make good use of non-combat skills...

 

[ProphetSword]

Okay, last update for a while. I created more terrain for grassy areas and found a way to randomize it to give interesting terrains for the creatures and characters to navigate and possibly use to their advantage. Here are three screenshots of the same combat, each with different randomized terrains. Setting up the right way can be helpful when protecting characters with ranged weapons and spellcasters...

 

[Mustawd]

Only thing I’d say is be careful with boxing in characters using this type of randomization.

Or do you get to deploy your characters before battle begins?

 

[ProphetSword]

Or do you get to deploy your characters before battle begins?

No. Starting position is determined by the combat situation.

The video posted in the first post shows much of the game play, including combat.

 

[Mustawd]

Or do you get to deploy your characters before battle begins?

No. Starting position is determined by the combat situation.

The video posted in the first post shows much of the game play, including combat.

Oh that’s right. Duh.

Besides the possible boxing in, I’d say that the terrain can definitely spice up a battle. It can make some unwinnable fights winnable and easy fights seem difficult. Vice versa for the AI.

 

[Dorateen]

Something else to consider for obstacles on terrain is line of sight, which could make targeting ranged attacks or spells more tactical, while providing cover for characters and enemies.

 

[ProphetSword]

Didn't think I'd be uploading any thing new this soon, but I had two spare hours tonight and decided to conquer overhead mapping in the game. Unlike the "Area" view in the Gold-Box games, it actually rotates as the player turns (something that I found really helpful in the remastered version of the Bard's Tale games recently). Anyway, here's a GIF of it in action:

 

[anvi]

How deep is the combat gonna be? Better than KOTC?

 

[ProphetSword]

I was bored, so I made sure that area maps show doors. Well, non-secret doors, anyway...

 

[Mastermind]

Didn't think I'd be uploading any thing new this soon, but I had two spare hours tonight and decided to conquer overhead mapping in the game. Unlike the "Area" view in the Gold-Box games, it actually rotates as the player turns (something that I found really helpful in the remastered version of the Bard's Tale games recently). Anyway, here's a GIF of it in action:

Player represented by some sort of arrow that shows direction being faced is much better than rotating the entire map. At least make it a toggleable option like in Elminage.

 

[ProphetSword]

Player represented by some sort of arrow that shows direction being faced is much better than rotating the entire map. At least make it a toggleable option like in Elminage.

I'd prefer to avoid having a toggable option for the area map and just keep things as simple as possible. Might as well go with the standard set by the Gold-Box games...

 

[Strange Fellow]

I agree with mastermind, this way is easier to read at a glance.

 

[ProphetSword]

Looking for some feedback on the Area Maps for areas. In the Gold-Box games, some areas simply wouldn't let you use the area map at all. I want to take a slightly different approach and have started programming the changes.

Areas that the PCs should have access to (like the starting city) will allow the use of the Area Map. But, other areas may not. However, unlike the Gold-Box games, I think there should be options to enable it. Essentially, if the PCs travel to a new area where the map wouldn't normally be shown, they can open the map in one of the following ways:

* Find a Map: If the party locates a map of the area, the Area Map will open up for them.
* Pay a Scout: Scouts exist in the world, and if an area can be scouted, players can pay the scout for a map of the area which will open up the area.
* Cast a Spell: I'm considering adding a spell to a couple of the spellcasting classes that will open up area maps during the duration (like a "Bird's Eye" spell)
* Explore the Map: If all else fails, there will be certain points of interest on the map and if the party hits those then the area is considered explored enough to open the map. This does not require the party to march into every corner of the map or open every square or anything. The points of interest are likely to be areas of high traffic that the player can hit just by spending time in the dungeon.

I know some people would like for maps to be on in all areas at all times, but I don't think that's the best option. Still, I wouldn't mind hearing everyone else's thoughts on the matter.

 

[anvi]

I vote for no map, and no mazes. Make areas like real buildings etc, so the player can navigate using landmarks.

 

[Strange Fellow]

* Find a Map: If the party locates a map of the area, the Area Map will open up for them.
* Pay a Scout: Scouts exist in the world, and if an area can be scouted, players can pay the scout for a map of the area which will open up the area.
* Cast a Spell: I'm considering adding a spell to a couple of the spellcasting classes that will open up area maps during the duration (like a "Bird's Eye" spell)

All of these sound good, frankly, and I'd include all three. The fourth option sounds like a Ubisoft-y "vantage point" sort of thing if I'm understanding you correctly, which doesn't sound as fun. Were you planning on doing the 'fog of war' thing where the map gets gradually filled out as you explore it? You should do that too, if it's feasible.

 

[Dorateen]

Find a Map. I always enjoy item-based solutions. Any chance for a cartography skill? Perhaps this is something that could be tied into revealing an area view.

 

[ProphetSword]

Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear. The player will have all four of these options in the game, not just one of them. So essentially, any area that has no overhead Area Map can have the map opened if the PCs find a map, pay a scout for information, cast a specified spell or simply explore major areas of the map (if they don't have the money, can't find a map or don't want to cast the spell). Once a map has been opened, it remains open permanently (except in the case of the spell, which only lasts for the duration).

 

[ProphetSword]

There's not much work going on these days with the programming side of things (except to fix bugs as I encounter them or to occasionally add something new or tweak something). All the work is going into developing the actual content of the game now.

Just so nobody thinks the game is dead, here are some random screenshots...

 

[anvi]

Can you shrink the UI and increase the game window? I get that it is retro but 80% of the screen being UI is >.>

 

[ProphetSword]

Can you shrink the UI and increase the game window? I get that it is retro but 80% of the screen being UI is >.>

I can. I don't really like it, though, and I think it betrays some of what I'm trying to do. For example, here's an experiment I did a couple of months ago (but quickly reversed):

The problem with this kind of thing is that as you increase the size of the 3D window, the less of an abstraction it becomes. Then, people start demanding other things...like expecting to see monsters approaching them, roofs on buildings, plant-life, etc. It's all crap that derailed my last project and why I made a design decision this time to keep a retro style layout.

Not to mention it might make the artwork I'm using look less appealing if I have to stretch it out to fill a ton of space.

To be fair, this project started off looking like this:

The evolution of the game continues to add more and more creep to the scope and pushes it further away from getting done, so I have to be careful about what I change.

 

[anvi]

Man that experiment version looks WAY better imo. I think you should make it look like that and just stick to your guns when it comes to adding any other eye candy. I can understand that problem though, if it looked like the early blue version, nobody would ask for nothin because it is so clearly low tech. Although I think the experimental version would sell about 100 times more copies than the early blue version.

 

[ProphetSword]

Man that experiment version looks WAY better imo. I think you should make it look like that and just stick to your guns when it comes to adding any other eye candy. I can understand that problem though, if it looked like the early blue version, nobody would ask for nothin because it is so clearly low tech. Although I think the experimental version would sell about 100 times more copies than the early blue version.

It’s something to think about. I’d like to hear a few more opinions. I’m always torn between sticking to my vision and trying to make the best game possible, and sometimes that’s a really fine line.

 

[Dorateen]

Man that experiment version looks WAY better imo. I think you should make it look like that and just stick to your guns when it comes to adding any other eye candy. I can understand that problem though, if it looked like the early blue version, nobody would ask for nothin because it is so clearly low tech. Although I think the experimental version would sell about 100 times more copies than the early blue version.

It’s something to think about. I’d like to hear a few more opinions. I’m always torn between sticking to my vision and trying to make the best game possible, and sometimes that’s a really fine line.

With the party of six split into three on each side of the central viewport in the experimental version, it evokes the look of Wizardry 7. Keeping the smaller viewport in the left corner, along with representing only names and stats, is more inline with Gold Box design. Since you are using Gold Box style combat, I think it would be consistent to stick with the original version.