Game Design, Programming and running a one-man games business…

Server Downtime

The GSB server, and my website will be down at some point tomorrow for about 30 minutes as physical server moves take place. You can still play GSB then, but not download or upload challenges, rate them or anything similar. The forums will also be offline for that period.

Unavoidable really, unelss you use fancy cloud stuff, and although amazon and google are gerat, I like hosting companies that answer the phone when things go bad. Google aren’t big on that.

Campaign AI stuff

I am working on the various chunks of code that determine the strength of AI opponents in the GSB campaign game (currently being developed). The game takes existing challenge fleets, as well as other players campaign-fleets to use as the enemy, in massively-singleplayer style. However, it needs to select an appropriate fleet, in terms of strength, to fight against you, either as a defending fleet when you attack, or an attack on one of your systems.

The simplest method is just to assign a fleet size value to each planet, and let that be the strength there. Simple, but dumb, because nothing prevents the player sitting back and building up a larger fleet. A refinement would be to gradually ramp up a scalar for the enemy fleet sizes over the game, but that would mean it could spiral into insane difficulty, and doesn’t allow for different skill levels.

A system I’m working on is a ‘reactive-arms-race’ style approach. The nearby enemy worlds have their fixed starting values of fleet strength. When battle is joined, the Ai will start to build up larger fleets in nearby systems when it loses, and not bother if it wins. There will be some lag here, to represent building times.

The idea is that once you think you have a slight fleet-size advantage, you need to get all expansionist and start conquering, before the enemy realsies how mighty your fleets are, and builds it’s own countermeasures. If you just sit back and build up, the enemy will be doing the same. I may introduce an additional ‘anti-turtling’ scalar that starts ramping the enemy fleets up even faster if you have gone a long period without expanding your empire.

All this takes ages to code and test, and you never notice it’s effects on the surface. It is important to get this stuff right though (more important than adding more shiny or features) because it’s what drives long term playability.

Why GSB is not like a normal RTS (deliberately)

Have you seen korean starcraft players?

http://kotaku.com/5580080/korean-gamers-are-faster-than-a-speeding-bullet

fast huh?

Although it’s impressive, and kinda funny, it’s also a bit depressing and kinda sad. I like to see the RTS genre as a mostly ‘S’, and not so ‘RT’. If I was 14 years old, I’d think differently, but I’m not. One thing spending your teenage years learning neoclassical heavy metal does, is to teach you that someone with more free time than you is going to be faster than you. Always.

When I was at Elixir, I worked on a game that got canned, which was like speedball. it seemed to be a really strategic game. The player who won was the cleverest, the most strategic thinking. It played a bit like real-time chess. The reaction-time and number-crunching side of it was minimal, it was an ‘outwit-the-enemy’ style game. I liked it.

GSB doesn’t care how fast your reactions are. You can be 55 years old and have arthritis, you can still design a kick-ass fleet, and a cunning challenge.  I know starcraft is a massively popular game, and they know what they are doing, but you can only really design good games if they are games you personally enjoy playing. I can’t compete in FPS games or arcadeish super-fast RTS games, but I can compete happily in GSB. I also like the asynch nature of online challenges, because it eliminates the asshole attitdue of many online RTS players, who drop connections when losing or mock you during in-game chat,

I met the guys from introversion for lunch today. Had a good chat about games and indieness. It’s always refreshing to chat to people who understand what it is you do, and do something similar.

Crappy windows code

Soo… some people have a bug in GSB where in fullscreen mode, the titlebar of the windows ‘window’ is still there, but invisible, meaning you can accidentally hit the close or miniomize buttons, or worse-still, double click and then ‘maximise’ the already fullscreen window.

I have encountered this a few times in GSB myself. but cannot reproduce it right now. It’s certainly not reliable. And it’s annoying. I would love to fix it. I’m pretty sure its something to do with the windows code that selects either a windows style or windows class.

currently I use:

wcex.style            =    CS_CLASSDC | CS_DBLCLKS;

and

HWND gWnd = CreateWindow(appname,appname,
 WS_BORDER | WS_CAPTION | WS_SYSMENU | WS_MINIMIZEBOX | WS_MAXIMIZEBOX,
 0,0, width, height, GetDesktopWindow(), NULL, hInstance, NULL);

Both chunks of code I haven’t changed in ages. I suspect the code is wrong, but am finding it impossible to find what is ‘correct’. Looking at the directx samples makes me want to cry. In amongst 500,000 pages of incredibly convoluted, confusing, totally over-engineered MFC style bullshit that they call ‘DXUT’, there is a hint that microsoft themselves use just CS_DBLCLKS and WS_OVERLAPPED. The thing is WHY? There is no documentation. In the old days, directx5 used to tell us we need to use WS_TOPMOST or somesuch.

You would imagine that as 95% of people using directx write games, and 90% of them want to, at some point, run fullscreen, that the directx docs would have a line saying “for fullscreen apps, you need to select these options for your window”. No such clues have emerged though.  Another evenings trolling through coding forums no doubt…

Shield Support Beam

Right, so here we have a brand new module I think I’ll just add to the game. I was thinking about shoe-horning it into the campaign, but that is a bit awkward to do. It’s the first module that affects a ship on your side that isn’t the owning ship. Its….. (drumroll)…

The Shield Support Beam!

Or ‘Remote shield energy projector’ or whatever I finally call it…

Basically it lets a frigate beam-over shield energy to reinforce a failing ship on a nearby friendly cruiser. It’s a frigate-only module, only working to reinforce cruisers, with a max range of 450. Crew use is  8, power use is 18 (high!).

screenshot (its the blue beam thing): I may well tart-up the graphics for it a bit more. Click to enlarge.

The beam looks for nearby friendly ships whose shields are below 80%, and then triggers this beam which empties it’s ‘capacitor’ into the target ship, over a short burst of time. That then reinforces the target shield, back up to it’s normal strength. This is basically a way to temporarily gvie a nearby ship a really fast shield recharge, and is a defence againts those fleets that hurl 100 plasma or 100 missiles at your cruisers and crush them instantly.

I’ve tested it lots, but obviously it remains to be seen how people use this. Obviously you could stick 3 frigates behind every cruiser, in formation and have super-reinforced shields, but that ties up 3 frigates that have to stick by their cruiser, and also chews up 3 sockets and a ton of power. It’s a weapon socket, so that matters. So far, I’ve found it handy to combat plasma spam, but not a totally killer-app.

I’ve also set it to be an empire-only module, initially locked (but cheap to unlock). I like the idea of making any future modules race-specific, to give the races more flavour.

Thoughts?

back to the campaign tomorrow…