Bay 12 Games Forum

Every ten years the Quendian department of natural resources holds a lottery for one weeklong permit to kill one Jabberwock.  Your uncle through his political connections obtained the permit for you.  As part of this ancient test of manhood you have embarked with nothing but your bare hands and a brand new top of the line Vorpal Kill-o-Zap 3000 and will not return until the week runs out or with its head you come galumphing back.  However you will be fined for any protected species killed along the way.

Download it here: Coming Soon.

How it might look: (made with advASCIIdraw)
an overhunted level.


deeper


Design Goals:
-Attractive and evocative scenery
-Interesting and challenging creatures to hunt

Gameplay: Gather items. kill wildlife for money and trophies. Kill jabberwock. Return.

Controls: arrows to move.

Dungeon biologist is a dungeon ecology simulator
http://github.com/dungeonbiologist/Dungeon-Biologist
currently is is rather rudimentary but I am expanding it daily.
I would love any suggestions on interesting things to add

windows build http://dl.dropbox.com/u/14015641/Dungeon-Biologist.zip

As you probably already know this week is 7d RL week.  My entry into the competition is going to be a jelly farming game. Where you protect your jellies from vicious kobold attackers.
here is a kobold that stepped on a landmine.


OSX executable (new)

Windows executable(new)

linux

source code (new)

    I just found this great tidbit from the unix haters handbook circa 1994
It's still applicable so I'm sharing it with the rest of you

Seven Stages of Snoozenet
By Mark Waks
The seven stages of a Usenet poster,
 with illustrative examples.

Innocence
HI. I AM NEW HERE. WHY DO THEY CALL
THIS TALK.BIZARRE? I THINK THAT THIS
NEWSFROUP OOPS, NEWGROUP --- HEE, HEE) STUFF IS
REAL NEAT. :-) < -- MY FIRST SMILEY.
DO YOU HAVE INTERESTING ONES? PLEASE POST SOME; I
THINK THAT THEIR COOL. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY
BIZARRE DEAD BABY JOKES?

Enthusiasm
Wow! This stuff is great! But one thing I’ve noticed is that every
time someone tries to tell a dead baby joke, everyone says that they
don’t want to hear them. This really sucks; there are a lot of us who
*like* dead baby jokes. Therefore, I propose that we create the news-
group rec.humor.dead.babies specifically for those of us who like
these jokes. Can anyone tell me how to create a newsgroup?

Arrogance
In message (3.14159@BAR), FOO@BAR.BITNET says:
>[dead chicken joke deleted]
This sort of joke DOES NOT BELONG HERE! Can’t you read the
rules? Gene Spafford *clearly states* in the List of Newsgroups:
rec.humor.dead.babies Dead Baby joke swapping
Simple enough for you? It’s not enough that the creature be dead, it
*must* be a baby—capeesh?
This person is clearly scum—they’re even hiding behind a
pseudonym. I mean, what kind of a name is FOO, anyway? I am
writing to the sysadmin at BAR.BITNET requesting that this
person’s net access be revoked immediately. If said sysadmin does
not comply, they are obviously in on it—I will urge that their feeds
cut them off post-haste, so that they cannot spread this kind of #%!T
over the net.

Disgust
In message (102938363617@Wumpus),
James_The_Giant_Killer@Wumpus writes:
> Q: How do you fit 54 dead babies in a Tupperware bowl?
> ^L
> A: La Machine! HAHAHA!
Are you people completely devoid of imagination? We’ve heard this
joke *at least* 20 times, in the past three months alone!
When we first started this newsgroup, it was dynamic and innova-
tive. We would trade dead baby jokes that were truly fresh; ones that
no one had heard before. Half the jokes were *completely* original
to this group. Now, all we have are hacks who want to hear them-
selves speak. You people are dull as dishwater. I give up; I’m unsub-
scribing, as of now. You can have your stupid arguments without me.
Good-bye!

Resignation
In message (12345@wildebeest) wildman@wildebeest complains:
>In message (2@newsite) newby@newsite (Jim Newbs) writes:
>>How do you stuff 500 dead babies in a garbage can?
>>With a Cuisinart!
> ARRGGHH! We went out and created
> rec.humor.dead.babes.new specifically to keep this sort of
> ANCIENT jokes out! Go away and stick with r.h.d.b until you
> manage to come up with an imagination, okay?
Hey, wildman, chill out. When you’ve been around as long as I have,
you’ll come to understand that twits are a part of life on the net. Look
at it this way: at least they haven’t overwhelmed us yet. Most of the
jokes in rec.humor.dead.babes.new are still fresh and interesting. We
can hope that people like newby above will go lurk until they under-
stand the subtleties of dead baby joke creation, but we should bear
with them if they don’t. Keep your cool, and don’t let it bug you.

Ossification
In message (6:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
> In message (2374373@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quartermass Public)
writes:
>> In message (5:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>> In message (2364821@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quartermass Public)
writes:
>>>> In message (4:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck(Cluck Kent) crows:
>>>>> Therefore, I propose the creation of rec.humor.dead.chicken.
>>>> Before they go asking for this newsgroup, I point out that they
>>>> should follow the rules. The guidelines clearly state that you
>>>> should be able to prove sufficient volume for this group. I have
>>>> heard no such volume in rec.humor.dead.babes, so I must
>>>> conclude that this proposal is a sham and a fraud on the
>>>> face of it.
>>> The last time we tried to post a dead chicken joke to r.h.d.b, we
>>> were yelled at to keep out! How DARE you accuse us of not
>>> having the volume, you TURD?
>> This sort of ad hominem attack is uncalled for. My point is simply
>> this: if there were interest in telling jokes about dead chickens,
>> then we surely would have heard some jokes about dead *baby*
>> chickens in r.h.d.b. We haven’t heard any such jokes, so it is
>> obvious that there is no interest in chicken jokes.
> That doesn’t even make sense! Your logic is completely flawed.
It should be clear to people by now that this Cluckhead is full of it.
There is no interest in rec.humor.dead.chicken, so it should not be created.
People like this really burn me. Doesn’t he realize that it will just
take a few more newsgroups to bring this whole house of cards down
around us? First, we get rec.humor.dead.chicken (and undoubtedly,
rec.humor.dead.chicken.new). Next, they’ll be asking for
rec.humor.ethnic. Then, rec.humor.newfy. By that time, all of the
news admins in the world will have decided to drop us completely. Is
that what you want, Cluck? To bring about the end of Usenet?
Humph!
I urge everyone to vote against this proposal. The current system
works, and we shouldn’t push at it, lest it break.

Nostalgia
Well, they’ve just created rec.humor.ethnic.newfoundland.bizarre.
My, how things have grown. It seems like such a short time ago that I
first joined this net. At the time, there were only two newsgroups
under the humorous banner: rec.humor and rec.humor.funny. I’m
amazed at how things have split. Nowadays, you have to have 20
newsgroups in your sequencer just to keep up with the *new* jokes.
Ah, for the good old days, when we could read about it all in one
place...

Noisy neighbors with barking dogs, popup advertisements in websites. emails from nigeria about a small favor.  advertisements in my mailbox for things I don't care about.

It seems that there is a common theme here but I'm having trouble defining it.  The emotion I have is that I should be able to go about my business without having to deal with outside junk disrupting my thoughts.

For fun I'm trying to make a little (2d side view) tiled physics simulator so I can have fun collapsing mountains.  The problem is I'm having trouble coming up with a simple set of calculations for the physics, so that blocks store up momentum as they fall and arches collapse when their strength is exceeded.  I'm hoping that one of you has a better idea of how this could be done.

What I understand of game design says that to balance a multiplayer game all you have to do is make sure that no one thing is completely superseded by any other, people will take care of the rest.

To test this idea I took rock paper scissors and gave
a win by Rock a value of 3
a win by Scissors a value of 2
and a win by Paper a value of 1.

Obviously your choices no longer have an equal utility. But how often would you want to use each available choice?
rock is useful when your opponent uses scissors more than 1/3 of the time that the use paper because your opponent gains 1 point when they throw paper, and you gain 3 every time they throw scissors
this can be restated as (with '>' standing in for '>=')
 R = S>3P
the other two are
 S = 3P>2R

 P = 2R>S

if you notice the point that all these are true at is when for every 1 scissors you have 2 rocks and 3 paper.  This is the balance the game will end up at because this is the balance that you can't gain an advantage against. (Obviously if your opponent is using a different strategy then you can gain an advantage by using the symbol they are weak against)

..|Three P]Two R] S
P | 0| 0| 0]-1|-1] 2       sums to 0
R | 1| 1| 1] 0| 0]-3       sums to 0
S |-2|-2|-2] 3| 3] 0       sums to 0

you can clearly see that no matter how often they use any given sign there is no advantage they can gain on you (though in this case since neither the equation for paper nor that of scissors are true you gain an advantage by choosing only rock).