I'm on the point of prototyping and currently I'm stuck on define what is fun in a manipulation/infiltration game, hoping for some feedback on that too
2) inspiration on sources, books, films (or anime, like Code Geass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Geass), it's an awesome mix between mech battles, manipulations, politics and magic powers)You might be interested in the "Overlord" novels by Kugane Maruyama. Almost every volume consists of multiple schemes and events that could be broadened into more general game elements. It's also heavily focused on more minor characters which would be the agents that you seem most interested in from the TWS inspiration. The first half of the series is adapted to anime, though I didn't care for it and only watched a little, and people who have watched it without reading the books first don't seem to regard it that highly. There's also a manga adaptation out there, but anyway I can only recommend the books.
3) sources: board games, videogames
Grand strategy game is something I want also to consider, in the end Europa Universalis IV seems to be a really complex game, but in the end you follow always the same loop:I think some people would see that as a pretty brutal take-down of the game... But I don't disagree.
1) take a nation
2) make some alliance
3) fabricate claim on nearby provinces
4) start a war
5) handle rebellion
6) start again
I watched Overlord anime I agree is entertaining without being too much interesting, but main character (too much OP for my tasted) manipulate characters. I will try to search also for books, thanks!If you've watched the second season, it shows a lot about how the side areas are focused on, especially the Men in the Kingdom arc. If you got the feeling that the main character was manipulating things, you may have missed the plot a bit, but parts of it, especially when you get to volumes 9 and 10, are still useful as things that ought to be able to happen even if you are directly and intentionally manipulating.
1) player can see every POI, notable characters and factions stats (not hidden ones, they are unlockable, I mean characters and some POIs) and must absorb a lot of informations to take first stepsI think it could be better if instead of seeing everything, you can only see some places - those where you have at least a very small amount of influence - if overwhelming the player is a concern.
2) after decided right target, start manipulation on this target. Change on one notable characters alter equilibrium in the faction and between factions and make changes in some part of the world, because characters are connected in a graph. This power has a limit and cannot be used every seconds, of course, it's a matter of balance. After using this power, some clues are left. Clues can be little, medium, big.I'm not understanding the player's action here. Does the player use a power to incite the warrior's hatred towards the mage? Then, how does the power work? Well, the details aren't quite necessary yet; as a gameplay loop so far it checks out.
An example: Warrior of Guild of Warrios in Theros, you hate a mage in the Mage Guild in Theros. Warrior has some actions: stay idle, move, attack, train, do a quest. In this case decide to train to get more powerful then attack and kill the mage (with some random in combat, so is not so deterministic). This killing provoke a butterfly effect. Now Mage Guild declare war on Guild of Warriors and Theros is a dangeours place. Economy problems and Merchant guild lose money. Also in some turns, problem with food and more rebellion chance. So local government (another faction) decide to raise an army. People get more angry and a rebellion start.
4) in this chaos, player what get? Factions in a war are more manipulable and in fact this unlock new notable characters (level 2 chars) that can do more.It could also be that the player, if it's a god oriented towards war or chaos, wants to spread it across the world and this is therefore desirable in itself. Or for a victory condition where you destroy all life, these organizations are weakened as they expend resources to fight, and you can roll over them more easily.
Warrior has following action, with weight (more is better)I think this is a good approach. However rather than actions that the character can do, I think it's better if they have not just actions (events that they initiate) but also events that happen to them. Either on the same random roll or not. That way you can extend your influence at the PoI or on an individual to do things like curse them, or create PoI modifiers that can randomly effect the people who live there in one way or another.
- stay idle: 5
- train: 4
- do quest: 3
- train: 2
- attack: 1
Every "turn" each actor has only to choose right action to do (just one for sake of simplicity) sorting them by weight.
Player manipulate here. Player action move attack to a specific target from 1 to 6 and then the madness begin.
Other factos, like POI modifiers, faction modifiers and so on can change weight for each actor, for some time.
Faction level actions, like wars, alliance, embargo or create a quest are just actions that has a weight value.
This approach could be useful to build a set of interactions based on simple rules that can generate a lot of other interactions (keep in mind that there a graph of connections between characters).
What do you think of this approach? To do not overwhelm a player, some stats should be hidden, but general rules, in order to be manipulable, should be transparent
Looks good, I'll check it out when I get a chance. Do you want feedback on English / proofreading or just gameplay?
Liberal Crime Squad could easily serve as inspiration for a few mechanics, or even as a base for a total conversion mod.
Inserting sleeper agents into various organisations ✓
Attempting to influence society on a grand scale ✓
Winning people over to your side through debate, seduction or torture ✓
Needing to keep a low profile initially ✓
Delicious brownies ✓
Is the game's main map hand-drawn at the moment?
So right now, running the game causes nothing but a grey screen. Specifically https://prnt.sc/jf1kxk
I'm interested in trying the game out and giving feedback, but obviously that's impossible right now.
Also: Would it be possible to have future versions be a .exe instead of a .jar file? I don't know if that could be causing issues, since I do have Java (just updated it for this game, actually) but am used to just running .exe.
Similarly, having the README be a .txt instead of a .md would be helpful.
That which sleeps. A delayed KS//failed KS//possible scam (depending on how much you believe the developer's claims. Though you have to be really trusting to think it's merely "delayed") about a game in which you'd play a trapped evil deity.
Me too, pretty much.That which sleeps. A delayed KS//failed KS//possible scam (depending on how much you believe the developer's claims. Though you have to be really trusting to think it's merely "delayed") about a game in which you'd play a trapped evil deity.
Ahhh, I wondered, because it reminded me of That Which Sleeps (although I couldn't recall the name, obviously). That was the game that drove me off kickstarter. So disappointed.
So... i'm getting the same thing someone else reported. Grey screen. Resources folder is there, everything looks to be in place inside it, but... grey screen.
Maybe add some sort of logging file, which can output the status of the game's startup process. That way you can narrow down which of the files it's actually loaded etc, whether there's a folder problem, etc.
So... i'm getting the same thing someone else reported. Grey screen. Resources folder is there, everything looks to be in place inside it, but... grey screen.
Until you know how to begin, it can seem like even starting a game is an impossible task. We're told to manipulate the mortals using the Calling button, but the feedback on what's going on is so poor, I didn't realise I had even done anything to begin with. The blue dot and lack of a black button on the character indicated that something might happen, but it appeared to me that you must first discover the person by scouting them before any calling could be done, and that was not made clear at all in the opening message.
From there flow general gripes with how information is provided to us with regards to character actions. Generally, any character actions are lost in the scrum of world actions (which, at present, we cannot influence) Perhaps splitting the feedback dialogue into two, one for character actions and one for world actions, would make the comings and goings of the actors more obvious. I didn't realise someone was starting a quest against me until I received a little message saying that they had failed, for instance. On the occasions that I did use an action against another character, I felt that there was very little feedback on what they were likely to attempt, and nothing at all on what they had actually done. While an element of randomness or uncertainty is desirable, the player still needs to understand the possible outcomes of their actions for the game to work. My friends had mixed feelings on taking up even more space with feedback screens, but perhaps this could later be rolled into the quest dialogue (plus the ease-of-coding that might be gained from framing everything within a quest).
On the subject of character interactions, (and this is a minor note) each person needs to possess a tangled web of relationships. While hate is the only one that exists currently, the current single-target hate doesn't provide enough opportunities. Let each person hate two or even three other people. When relationships and character actions evolve, it might be handy to assign these feelings a value, either internally or exposed to the player, which indicates the depth and thus, the possible actions arising from, an attempted character action. I put this here because if it's going to be shown to the player, the UI will need to incorporate a potentially long list of relationships, each with their own values.
Clues are also an annoyance, in that the game clearly tracks them, while the player cannot. An obvious entry somewhere on the city screen would be helpful in helping us determine where to focus our efforts, and as the districts get fleshed out, they might need to take on the roll of clue-holders, rather than the city at large. This would enable players to install an antagonistic ruler of a district in order to keep prying eyes away. Just a thought.
The impact of a Rebellion or Loyalist win is.. nothing? I haven't worked out if this is an issue of it lacking content, or an issue of the player not being informed what the differences are. Of course, this too will need to be made more obvious as complexity grows, especially if regime changes become a more natural element of character interactions with juntas and assassinations taking the place of never-ending food riots. If even these could be represented within the quest framework, we would have a strong idea of the causes and outcomes of these sorts of city/world actions.
So, I've spoken a lot about the "quest framework", so I'd like to elaborate on what I mean. This is a mix of how I'd like to see actions presented, and the means by which they are undertaken. I envisage a popup box for your interactions with the world, in which each element of the world may play a part. Essentially, when you want to make use of something you would select it as the prime mover of a quest. Then you would select a target (a city, a district, a character, a clue or even a less concrete thing, like the rebellion currently underway, or the region in which your foes have marshalled an army. You could then add additional resources, either further pawns, money, eldritch power or anything else in the game world over which you have some modicum of control. The opposition would depend on the target and various circumstances, such as the presence of an army, or the current Doge of the city in which you take your action. For instance, if you want to institute the usurpation of a local Doge in order to place your favourite minion, Valerie, (a dyed-in-the-wool politico) at the head of the table, you would first open the Quest Dialogue, place your devious, political minion to be elected (or depending on how complex this gets, someone else who will install your favourite minion) in the actor box, and the current Doge character, Doge Vincent (or again, complexity allowing, the very position of Doge) in the target box. The Vincent's wealth would fill one defender box beside him immediately, so you react by placing the angry peasants (that the current food shortage has generated) in an attacker box beside Valerie. The Doge pops the mercenaries he hired as a result of a previous action, in another defender box beside him. Doge Vincent, sadly, has more than just positive resources on his character card - you select the Scandal you spent a bit of time and money creating (the result of a previous action you took with a local harlot as the actor and the Doge as the target) and slot that in your third attacking box. The Doge has no further options, as you've spent a while slowly eroding his control over the city council, and just for good measure you put one of those very council members in one of your boxes - you could add more, but why expose your precious resources to risk when you've probably already got this. Sitting in town there's a rebellious cleric, but the Doge doesn't use him and neither do you - he's too anti-establishment to be helpful to the Doge and he's too wary of the insidious evil that your (unfortunately revealed) politician agent works for to be anything but a danger to your plans.. for now. Had your politico avoided a previous quest which unearthed her as an agent of the darkness, she could have made use of this wayward clergyman without risking her plans, and with additional actions later he might be swayed or tricked to your benefit. Obviously in a straight-up fight Valerie would've gotten her face done in - The mercenaries are much better fighters than peacekeepers, and the manufactured scandal would have been of no use at all. Add to that that the Doge is famous for his swordsmanship, and that Valerie has a flat 0 in a fight, and perhaps Doge Vincent could've averted this whole crisis with a spot of martial law (after all, evil prospers when good men do nothing), or perhaps the repurcussions would have only given you another opportunity further down the line, with Doge Vincent having acquired the "Tyrant" trait.
I think that unifying all quests, events and action into this single Quest Framework would ensure readability and provide an easy way to implement and represent the conflicts that go on during the game. In this manner the heroes attempting to uncover a clue can be easily handled by assigning one hero as the actor and his party members as attacker resources with the clue as the target, and whatever you happen to put in their way being the defenders. The rebellious peasants would work much the same way - angry peasants as actor, the district, character or city being their target and the various circumstances of the game being played either as attacker resources or defender resources with an outcome decided by the appropriate values of the resources on each side and a small amount of RNG.
For visualisation, since it was a bit of a mess up there, I've attached a little Paint drawing for your viewing pleasure. Obviously I'm a shit artist.
One of my friends pointed out that this setup seems very Cultist Simulator-y to him. Fair point.
By the way, do you think this would fit better in Creative Projects?
By the way, do you think this would fit better in Creative Projects?
There are a couple of advantages. Creative Projects is a slower board, so your game will stay on the front page for up to a month instead of a day.
Also, you can go back and edit the thread title on the original post, to give the thread as a whole a more informative title. Something like "Infiltration - Game v1.0"
That way makes it clear what type of thing it is, you can put the version number in the title, and update links in the first post, and people can see that a new version has come out when the thread title also changes.
by the way, have you considered implementing a procedural map generator for this?
"Seed" values can let people create any world they like, for greater replayability.
However, there's one designer who has an interesting procedural game I heard about. He created a ton of levels via seeds, played them and found a set of interesting ones, then graded them from easiest to hardest, and those become the "official" levels of the game. That way, you get the replayability of procedurally generated levels, but you also have a clear number of "official" levels that people can talk about and use to compare their strategies and results.
Hah, it's no good having random seed generation until you know all the variables that your seed has to alter.
QuoteHah, it's no good having random seed generation until you know all the variables that your seed has to alter.
That's not really how it works. It's an iterative process. A seed is just the initial value for a random number generator, and you grab a stream of random numbers for whatever you need. You start with a seed system, then you find uses for the numbers it generates.
It's impossible (or just really really dumb) to avoid having the seed system until you "know all the variables" you have to alter in your generator system. That's just not a practically workable way to go about it. You start with the seed system then see what things need random rolls and pull numbers from the stream for that. It's the only physical way to build the thing, you need to see what comes out of different seeds during the design process.
Sure, guy could build the final dynamic game, then try and retrofit a world-generator to it, to get initial worlds, but that would basically stink as a design process. What makes more sense is to break down the world into rules, generate worlds from the rules and have those be the same rules that you manipulate during play. So "history" made the world from a random seed, and those same rules are what you manipulate to change the future of the world as the gameplay. Thus, if the world is going to have procedural generation at some point, that's going to profoundly change how the gameplay works, so it would be far more efficient in terms of developer effort to make the seed system first, have it generate worlds according to the normal rules of play, and adapt those rules of play iteratively in ways that make fun worlds that are fun to interact with.
As a more general note, you might generate some interest if you take some time to go through your process, turning this into a two-in-one Infiltration and design/mechanics thread.
Well, my opinion on tags is a double thumbs-up. Having resolutions be influenced by randomised or earnt tags opens up a lot of opportunities for interesting emergent gameplay, and it has the bonus of being easy to change and add to. The trick to making it interesting will be ensuring that the tags interact often enough and in a meaningful way to bring about situations that the player can work out the likely outcomes without being entirely predictable.
Well, my opinion on tags is a double thumbs-up. Having resolutions be influenced by randomised or earnt tags opens up a lot of opportunities for interesting emergent gameplay, and it has the bonus of being easy to change and add to. The trick to making it interesting will be ensuring that the tags interact often enough and in a meaningful way to bring about situations that the player can work out the likely outcomes without being entirely predictable.
yes, we are on the same line, let me clarify one point: for now tags will be "passive" with only a bonus/malus and stop, when I will have clarified how they interact each other in "active" way I will add more tags of this type.
An idea that comes up on my mind is to create a tag, for example "undead" that can be added to creature created by a mad mage and these creatures will trigger response (note: a quest!) for other npcs that hate "unded" creatures :D
So for example someone could be traumatized after their friend tried to stab them in the back?
Glad to see another (probably much more skilled) developer trying their hands on a game.
I recently posted a topic about my future project in Other Games, and moved it here following your example.
I will need some time after work to check the prototype. So far I only watched the video, and the idea is definitely cool and interesting to me.
I will try to come back with some meaningful feedback later, and I will definitely be watching the thread.
Thanks! Any feedback is welcome as always!
Thanks! Any feedback is welcome as always!
Soon! Soon m'lord, I promise! I've just filled all of my weeks and weekends of late, and it has been hard to find time to play the latest version.
- I'd suggest that you exert extra time thinking about more ways for the player can interact with the world. This was also a previous issue with our game. Since the game is simulating NPCs, you may get caught up and be focused too much on the world as a simulation but may neglect that the player must have interesting ways to interact with it and not end up mostly just watching the events taking place. From what I can see right now, there are three available actions: Corrupt, Calling and Move. I'd love to hear what your other future plans for player interaction.
- It may be difficult for the player to keep track of everything that occurs in a tick. Maybe you can also do it like we did where each character and location has their own log list. Like this: