ACWraith's Fooldom Come

Another Formula

Sun, 11 May 2008 21:18:26 GMT

I don't like the square root from the last formula that I created for Occupied Forces. I'd rather have something that players can do in their head.

Defense_Troop = Power_Troop*Players_Enemy + Power_Allies/7

This formula is easier to figure out on the fly if necessary. The 7 comes from the maximum number of allies. The dependence on the power of the allies rather than the troop itself means that sending in a few weak ally units will no longer result in a large bonus.

One too many stats?

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:26:26 GMT

I think that I might redesign Occupied Forces to use one Power stat instead of Defense and Offense. It might cut down the number of possible unit variations, but I think it would make the map easier to read.

Right now, there isn't room on the map for guarding defense, guarding offense, invading defense, and invading offense. I have been displaying the guarding stats on the map while the invading stats have been hidden in a territory window that requires right-clicking. This method forces the player to memorize too much temporary information.

However, if I remove half of those stats then I can fit the rest on the map at the same time. Relative strengths and weaknesses would be easy to see.

...Soon after this change, I should be able to start creating custom units. I was just about to try loading some special events on a test unit, but I want my XML scheme to be solid first.

I'm still not sure what I want to do with subscriptions though. I partially implemented the combo-hero idea, but it sounds like a positive feedback loop. Maybe I'll make them be combinations of all of the currently developed unit types instead of the player's currently developed unit types. Then Hero usage would focus on timing rather than developing other units.

Formula Out Of Favor

Mon, 05 May 2008 21:53:40 GMT

I based the simultaneous battles in Occupied Forces around a formula I came up with a while ago and now I'm not particularly happy with it. At first, I thought the deaths of so many units were a bug, but it seems to be a design flaw.

My original formula was:
Damage_Player = Offense_Opponents - (1 + Opponents Fighting Opponents)*Defense_Player

Which, with a lack of ally players, I translated to be:
Damage_Troop = Offense_{Enemy Troops} - Players_Enemy*Defense_Troop

However, damage is not stored, so it's more like:
%Dead Units_Troop = Offense_{Enemy Troops} / (Players_Enemy*Defense_Troop)

The problem tends to be that, while the offense of multiple troops can combine to destroy a territory's guards, each troop will be destroyed unless its defense is greater than the guards' offense. You could surround a territory and send in troops from all 8 sides with 8 offense and 8 defense each. They'll be more than enough to kill a guarding troop with 9 offense and 9 defense. However, all 64 will die in the process. I'm guessing that's not intuitive.

I could change the formula slightly to something like:
%Dead Units_Troop = Offense_{Enemy Troops} / ((Troops_Allied + Players_Enemy)*Defense_Troop)

However, that would give a rather large defense bonus for just sending a random unit in the fray. Invasions wouldn't be so bad, but guarding like that would make the game too stagnant. Both would encourage unnecessary micromanagement.

I suppose I could tone it down like this:
%Dead Units_Troop = Offense_{Enemy Troops} / ((sqrt(Troops_Allied) - 1 + Players_Enemy)*Defense_Troop)

Unfortunately, it's not the sort of math that people can usually do in their head and it's going to look confusing in the help file. I suppose I can list rough guidelines and put the formula in a footnote.

**********

Anywho, I've been working on unit events. I'm not planning on many different kinds, but the modifiers and targets they can use are varied. There are a lot more types of targets than were in PathWrath 2. I also make the length of target lists double as possible modifier values.

So far, I have temporary defense that lasts until the same stage of the next battle, ditto for offense, and the ability to summon units to troops. None of which are tested.

Plans For My Old Games

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:39:10 GMT

It's a day short of a week, but I closed my last poll. I doubt there would have been any more votes anyway.

I took a couple actions and I made a couple plans.

I want it known that I own all of the PathWrath games so I'm keeping the hub entry of the original PathWrath. However, from now on, only subscribers can download the game and I'm not accepting payments. Without a file to download and without a regular host, I have removed the game from BYOND Strategy. I deleted the banners and icons. I have also hidden the entry from the hub index, but I linked to it on PathWrath 2's page. (Hopefully, that still allows people to view servers, but I'm not sure. I just don't want it on my blog.)

The original PathWrath gives a class and a custom card slot to Star*Scurry subscribers so I guess I'll keep the Star*Scurry hub entry. However, I'm going to hide it once I release its replacement. I will not accept new subscription payments.

The original PathWrath also gives a class and a custom card slot to Webcrawl subscribers. I will not accept new Webcrawl subscription payments. My poll results were small, but perhaps I'll need to win people over with the sequel before I go hiding the hub entry.

I deleted StarScurrier. There are no paid subscribers so I don't expect any complaints. PathWrath 2 currently references the passport, but I can take it out since I'm still supporting PathWrath 2.

Occupied Forces subscriptions and dealing with old games.

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:57:33 GMT

The poll is something that has been on my mind for a while, but I'll get to it at the end...

I've been rethinking the Hero unit idea in Occupied Forces. For those who wish to customize, it's another set of cards to create. For those who wish to play, things that can be overwritten are not much of a subscription reward.

Instead, I'm thinking of making Hero units on the fly by combining the common units. At first, I can make the Hero unit the same as the default unit. I can then add the abilities of each new unit type developed until the Hero is deployed.

Of course, one might wonder why they should bother using a Hero if they can get the same result from their common units. I'm thinking that maybe I could multiply their offensive and defensive stats by the number of cards in the combination.

I'm not sure if I want combinations to be handled manually or not. On one hand, it adds one more annoyance for a player to keep track of. On the other, there's a chance that a custom set of units will include ones that are harmful to the user. The user can choose what to deploy, but having a Hero built up and then suddenly ruined might not be fun... It could be an incentive to deploy a hero early though.

********************

Anywho, about the poll...

Some of you may know that I switched out PathWrath for PathWrath 2 in BYOND Strategy's featured games. What you may not know is that I'd also like to replace all of my old games. Frankly, I'd like to maintain a higher level of quality across the board. Supporting games in development doesn't mean that I want to donate to the cruft.

Subscriptions to the old games would be honored in the new games. (So enter the Incursion Interface Contest already!) However, it would be done by subscribing the old players to the new games for free rather than the usual passport checks that I do for my old games.

At the very least, I'd like to remove the games from the main guilds. Better than that would be hiding the games from the hub, but that just seems like a way to annoy the people who host my work. What I'd really like to do is delete the hub entries and start over. (Mind you, this is all on a project by project basis. I'm not just cleaning house.)

Here's the rundown:

Wrangle And Warp would be pretty much the same except for an upgraded interface so I'm not worried about that. I don't think anyone would complain about added abilities for their Wrangler. (Besides, they could just avoid using them.)
I still find PathWrath to be a good game, but PathWrath 2 plays almost exactly the same with the exception of a few reciprocal triggers (mostly dealing with realm actions). I don't see the point in keeping it around.
The next Webcrawl would only have two teams and would play a bit differently. Positive feedback would be avoided by giving stat bonuses to the opposite team instead of the team who scored. Players would get to choose which stat to place their bonuses in. Map creation would be free.
The main games I want to replace are Star*Scurry and StarScurrier. For my next project, I'd like to combine both of those games into a simultaneous turn game which can be won through racing, combat, or profit (as I probably intended originally).
- I have never understood Star*Scurry. I'm guessing that it gets the most downloads out of all of my games because of the *ahem* gorgeous banner, but I never see anyone playing it. (Not that I tend to see players in my games anyway.) To me, the game is just a random mess of dynamic icons.
- Meanwhile, StarScurrier was built for BYOND Strategy events that never happened and, despite being more deterministic than Star*Scurry, isn't very deep.

Occupied Forces: Avoiding Positive Feedback

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:37:24 GMT

The title does not refer to positive comments from players. Those are good things. ;)

I'm working on ways to avoid rewarding players for owning more territories than other players in Occupied Forces. Territories produce things which help gain more territories. If a player loses all of their territories then they lose the game. That means I have to find a way to decrease the effectiveness of production or the winner can be determined too early in the game.

I think I have resource production balanced. Territories will gain 8 resources at the end of the Spend phase. Territories will then lose one resource for each adjacent ally "due to road maintenance". The less ways there are for players to take over resources, the less resources there are to earn.

I'm still working on a way to balance unit production. I could make the cost of developing a new unit increase based on the number of adjacent ally territories. Current unit types could have their production rate increased, but the lower resource production would slow it down. I'm leaning towards leaving the unit production itself alone. I don't want to punish players for upgrading early in the game. Besides, having 1 territory affect 8 others means that negative feedback can spread quite quickly.

Players can choose to abandon territories which lower their production, but they won't be able to travel as freely through those territories if they do. There is a server option which allows territories to keep producing units. Neutral territories could effectively become walls.

Redesigning Occupied Forces

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:41:06 GMT

I've had to change the phases of Occupied Forces. I updated the hub page with the new ones.

As it was, the game would have been too stagnant. Units would have built up evenly across the board. Without an uneven supply of default units, it would have taken too long to conquer any land. Players would have had to wait for resources to build up to a point where they could upgrade and create their own imbalance.

Instead, produced units will now go into a player's reserves. Players can then place as many of them as they want in whichever of their territories they choose. Heroes can be placed as well. This Deploy phase will be the first phase of the game.

Once placed, units will only be able to move to adjacent territories. The new March phase doesn't care whether their target is an ally or enemy territory. This means that neighbors can help guard allies. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

Finally, the Spend phase will be slightly different from the Upgrade phase in that unused resources can be transferred to neighboring territories for use in the next round.

I'm currently making some major skin adjustments. I don't think the phases themselves will be much work, but I really need to adjust the interface again... Not that it has looked like the last screenshots in a while anyway.

Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:01:18 GMT

Getting backed by Sony might lose part of the appeal, but the channel switch really got me. I've been watching Mediocre Films since sometime around the first GTCMS and I still ended up missing the new episodes! I subscribed to C-Spot to give it a chance, but I'd rather subscribe to the playlist on the GorgeousTiny account.

Here are the new episodes (3,4 & 5):

PathWrath 2 has been updated.

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:05:45 GMT

I had to upload multiple updates for some reason. I don't know what was cached, but I kept getting the old skin (despite deleting it from my skins directory) and the old MOTD file. The only reason I knew that the file was new was because the new deck of cards was available in the Boot Deck options. I uploaded again and turned on client.control_freak. I still got the old skin (and MOTD).

Eventually, I uninstalled and reinstalled PathWrath 2 and everything worked fine. It seems like a pain the neck for people trying to update though.

Updates:

Chat filter bugs were fixed.
Some major changes were made to the skin which decrease the number of tabs to get lost in.
Option commands now have a confirmation sound.
A new deck, called pw2_ruleof3, was added.

Rule of 3 is a deck with only 6 cards. I wanted something that would load up quickly on my old computer when I'm testing. It might also be a decent deck to help teach someone how to play.

I'm cleaning out my guild members and giving rewards.

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:35:40 GMT

Back when we needed a guild to have forums, I had one. Once guilds were made unnecessary, I killed mine.

I'm finally getting around to clearing out the ranks. I tried to give ranks based on the number of subscriptions to my projects that someone has. I didn't bother keeping up with new releases though since I wasn't getting many subscribers. The default rank is now Forum Filler. I have a Forum Moderator rank just in case someone takes that to the extreme.

I wanted to give the ex-members something for their support. Jon88 and Calus CoRPS have been given subscriptions to PathWrath, PathWrath 2, StarScurrier, Star*Scurry, Webcrawl, and Wrangle And Warp. (Flick joined as well, but he already gets subscriptions.. and abuse... as my guinea pig.)

My games are not very popular. (Umpteen links. 40 total downloads of PathWrath 2.) However, I'm going to pretend that this announcement creates jealousy in those who don't try to support developers... and ignore the sad realization that Jon88 and Calus CoRPS probably wouldn't notice if I didn't make this post. ;)