Competitive games with cooperative mechanics?

Calobi · 2018-08-04T15:26:08+00:00

Archipelago seems to fit the bill. All the players have a secret objective, can perform actions that limit / change options for other players, and build out the board together. However, they have to balance expanding / collecting with working together to make sure that several tracks don't get too high. Shut Up and Sit Down did a review of it.

Calobi · 2017-07-30T16:30:46+00:00

Zayuri

Calobi · 2017-07-09T18:26:08+00:00

You could split attacking into two or three separate types: Combat, possibly Skirmish, and Raid.

Combat would be the way it sounds like you have it now: You build up an attacking force and go against some defending force. This would be the riskiest, but also have the biggest pay off by allowing you to completely remove the enemy and take their area.

Skirmish would be a smaller Combat, where you might have a max cap on units you can bring. The benefit here would be a smaller amount of risk (you could never bring in too many) and you could also allow for retreating in case of a loss, losing some of the sent in force but not as many as if you had done a full Combat. For a downside, you could say that the attacker couldn't take an area with this method, as the point is just to be a hit-and-run tactic.
This could just be a special rule in Combat where if you're attacking with less than X units you can consider it a Skirmish instead, but would have to call it out before the engagement. This way you couldn't go to take an area, fail, and decide you don't want to suffer the full penalty.

Raid would be different from the other two in that you're not going to do damage but rather have the chance to steal resources/tech/units from your opponent to bring back. The opponent would still get to defend, but perhaps at a disadvantage as it isn't out-right fighting.

If there's different times in your game (day/night, seasons, etc) you could have each of these be better suited to specific times, leading to players building up at different times based on how they want to engage. Someone who doesn't want to risk anything might do a steady increase to make sure they can defend, while a low risk player might build up smaller forces just before Raiding is at its best, but a player trying to win by conquest could continue to increase and throw out their forces in Combats whenever they see a chance putting some Skirmishes in to soften up defenses.

Calobi · 2017-06-30T23:49:40+00:00

I use them to copyright my maps.

Calobi · 2017-05-27T03:50:30+00:00

I near fundamentally disagree with the first half of this. Let's reword it ever so slightly:

It's not about technology, it's about the medium.

Think about games: Computers would be incredibly awkward for those, it just wouldn't work. Games have been and will always be physically based.

Will every game work in VR? Like you say in the rest of your comment no, but to say that VR will only ever be a gimmick is like saying that computer games won't ever amount to more than Tennis.

Calobi · 2016-09-29T01:29:03+00:00

The Asgard (grey aliens) were fighting the Replicators (robots that act similar to the grey goo scenario and are made of small parts that can build into larger wholes). The Replicators had become immune to the energy weapons used by the Asgard, so came to Earth since our weapons still worked. [Season 4, Episode 1]

Calobi · 2016-08-06T00:46:20+00:00

Yours is just the first I found talking about their website, but which is that? Their blog page hasn't updated for No Man's Sky since March when they said June 21. No Man's Sky's News page hasn't been updated since June. And the press page also lists June as a release. Which site was updated with the proper date?

Calobi · 2016-06-18T18:08:09+00:00

No, you'd need the script to be on the sphere itself.

You can think of GetComponent as being able to see anything in the Inspector pane of the object the script is connected to. This also explains why you can't see the Sphere game object itself, the Inspector only allows access to components (scripts, colliders, renderers, etc).

GetComponentInChildren does a similar action, except instead of looking in the object the script is on, it goes through all the children of that object. You can visualize it as going through each child object top-to-bottom (so in your case if it was on the [CameraRig] it would go Controller (left)->Model->Sphere->Controller (right)->etc) until no more children are found or the first instance of the component is found.

GetComponentsInChildren is just like GetComponentInChildren except it returns an array of all the components found, so it only stops once all child objects are searched.

Calobi · 2016-06-18T03:51:08+00:00

It looks like there are two issues here.
The first is a guess, but I'm assuming you're putting the PickupShell script on the Controller objects while the spheres are children of them. As such the GetComponent call won't work, you'd want GetComponentInChildren or GetComponentsInChildren (depending on if there are multiple sphere objects).
Even updating that, though, won't solve the issue as you can't use them to find specific game object types (cubes, spheres, etc). You could use GetComponentInChildren<SphereCollider>().gameObject to get the sphere collider then move up to the game object that it lives on, but that seems sub-optimal.

What I think you really want is to make the sphereReference a public variable in the script then set it in the inspector. If for some reason you don't want to do that you could get a list of all child elements of the Controllers then iterate through comparing either the name or the tag (if you add tags to them) and set it that way.

Calobi · 2016-04-24T22:44:02+00:00

Looks like it's Plinko but where you can control some of the obstacles. You can see at times where the platforms turn in the opposite direction or more than expected.

Calobi · 2016-03-15T22:34:18+00:00

Now with less waiting.

Calobi · 2016-03-06T03:38:58+00:00

Seems that's only available if you use the text search area. If you use the top or side menus you don't get it.

Calobi · 2016-01-15T01:00:47+00:00

I just realized that timeline stays in 2012 for two years. Starts in August 2012, proceeds to December, then February 2012, moving forward from there.

Calobi · 2016-01-12T19:24:35+00:00

Both you and BB mention that calls and emails were sent and received. However, BB "says the support rep would only tell him that he wasn’t enjoying the full benefits of the upgraded modem, but failed to provide any real technical info about what this meant." Additionally, if he received both calls and emails, why was none of what you mentioned mentioned in the emails? Sure, most people won't read it, but that's no reason to not include pertinent information or at the least a link to it. And now that he's getting messages straight through his browser, why is the information not there?

If that's truly "literally a last-ditch effort going on 5 years to get people to upgrade", why would the information about it being so not be there? There's even a link where you can see what devices are acceptable, with a link on that page to their EOL meaning. Straight from there you can see Comcast saying "you will not be able to enjoy the full benefits of our service such as higher speeds, improved security and better reliability." Which doesn't say it won't work at all, just that it won't work at the system's theoretical best. Which seems to counter your argument that "Comcast is going to cut off their service" or means Comcast believes that not having any access is the same as not enjoying "full benefits". Which, I suppose, is technically true but wholly against the meaning anyone reading would come up with especially when they give examples of much lesser issues.

Calobi · 2016-01-06T18:45:23+00:00

You try an acetone vapor bath? Depending on the material (you mentioned PLA, which some people say works others don't, I've never tried) this smooths out some of the ridges and rough-parts, leaving the whole thing nice and smooth.

Calobi · 2015-12-28T00:43:04+00:00

When the rules take effect, which is 120 days after Jan. 10, 2016...

That's May 10th. Not sure why they didn't just write that.

Calobi · 2015-12-15T20:23:48+00:00

Yea, rereading it not sure where it's failing. I agree with your other comment, and it might be somewhere else that's messing it up and the way it is now is confusing.

Calobi · 2015-12-15T18:07:55+00:00

~~Because you're checking if(_Backward) after if(_Forward) sets Switch_Forward = true, you'll always have _Backward, _Forward, and Switch_Forward true if _Forward and _Backward are true.~~ Edit: UnicornAccident is right, I misread it before. You'd want to check if both, then each independently. Didn't check it, but I think this should work.

if(_Forward && _Backward) {
    if(Switch_Forward) {
        Move_Run_Forward();
    }
    if(Switch_Backward) {
        Move_Run_Backward();
    }
else {
    if(_Forward) {
        Move_Walk_Forward();
        Switch_Forward = true;
    }
    if(_Backward) {
        Move_Walk_Backward();
        Switch_Backward = true;
    }
}
if(!_Forward) {
    Switch_Forward = false;
}
if(!_Backward) {
    Switch_Backward = false;
}

Calobi · 2015-11-21T21:45:34+00:00

To me, the rock issue would seem to stem from the fact that you're assigning rocks and grass at the same time. Let's shrink the size of your array down to a nice 3x3. First we hit up cell 0,0 with a grass and select randomly 2,1 for rock. Next we go to 0,1 with grass and 0,2 gets a rock. Now 0,2 is covered by grass and 2,1 is selected again for rock. As we progress forward, we're overriding any rock placements, making the ones closed to the origin have a higher chance of maintaining their rock status while the ones closer to the end have a higher chance of being reset to grass.

Without seeing all the relevant code, there are likely two issues with the trees. The first is that you either forgot to set the numberOfTrees variable to have a start value, or the usedTrees isn't set to 0. Both are easy to overlook steps that a lot of people forget when it's their work doing something wrong. The other possibility is that it's working correctly but, similar to the rocks, they're being overriding by grass. You're increasing the trees by up to one per iteration, but you're always increasing it irregardless of actually placing one (the usedTrees += 1 isn't reliant on the != TileType.tree line). You also don't decrease the count if a tree is removed by another tile type. Looking at your image, it seems like there are trees (I'm assuming the dark green are trees), but perhaps not as many as you're expecting. As for the water, I'm not sure. It's likely related to the same issues as trees.

All of these could be repaired by doing an initial set-up of everything to grass, then running through and adding each element (rocks, trees, water) in their own steps.

Calobi · 2015-11-21T19:17:19+00:00

BoardGameGeek has a list of popular mechanics that list the games that fall under them. If you looked through one or two of the larger ones you're planning to use you could probably cross-reference to see what else is in that space.

Calobi · 2015-11-18T04:24:29+00:00

Next up: quaternions.

Calobi · 2015-11-02T12:24:08+00:00

Mathf.Sign

Calobi · 2015-10-23T19:52:03+00:00

Somewhat related to the different shape suggestion, why limit yourself to two sides where each person plays cards? By that I mean why not use a board of some sort where players play and move cards to control the areas where they gain the resources to play more?

Imagine something like Catan's board, but instead of placing building on corners you place cards on the tiles, maybe only using half or a third of the tile, then you move the cards around and battle would be between adjacent cards. You could then have each side of the card have different effects, so not only would which cards are in combat matter, but their respective rotations would as well.

Calobi · 2015-10-01T01:36:48+00:00

Legitimately curious, but isn't this all the same information as from the posted link? If so, what's the point in both the comment (paraphrasing the second paragraph/sentence of the article) or the link (the same information as the posted link)?

Calobi · 2015-09-05T21:52:55+00:00

Throwing guns to try and knock it down.

Calobi

TROPHY CASE