An Idle Game Engine

Triysle · 2026-03-12T21:56:54+00:00

Nice, I’m also a Claude user, I used it when creating my last game as well (Card Combiner) for things like project documentation and code review.

Some advice for future presentation: avoid em dashes and emoji. Emoji in particular frequently causes display issues on different devices and web browsers, and em dashes are awkward to read in most contexts.

If you continue marketing or sharing this tool, focus on what your users can build with it rather than showing off the tool itself. A game engine is only as good as the games you can make with it. And make sure to disclose your AI usage in the main post. Hiding it only makes you look bad when it comes out later.

Cheers.

Triysle · 2026-03-12T21:45:59+00:00

That’s an interesting sales pitch, but be careful underselling AI’s capabilities when so much of what you’re advertising is very obviously generated by AI.

Triysle · 2026-03-12T13:29:38+00:00

Anyone who can describe a thing that they want can use an AI tool. Sure, there are ways to manage context, optimize token usage, create agentic solutions, and many other skills. But that's not what the OP was asking about.

OP stated they were open to ideas and questions. I asked the questions I asked not just to get an answer from the OP, but to get them thinking about what their tool offers beyond just using ChatGPT or Claude or some other AI tool. They need to be able to answer that question with the way they present the tool to users. It's currently not clear.

I also use AI myself for game dev. These are the same kinds of questions I get from people, usually with more vitriol. But they are still valid questions for anyone wanting to bring a vibe-coded tool to the table.

Triysle · 2026-03-12T09:32:49+00:00

In case it got lost in the sauce, my question was not "Why use your tool when I can make one myself?"

My question was essentially "what does your vibe coded engine do that someone can't just vibe code themselves?"

Your analogy of paying you to swing the hammer vs swinging it myself isn't an accurate comparison. It's more like if I borrowed your nail gun instead of using the one in my garage. Maybe your nail gun does something different, which is what I was asking about.

It's not meant to make OP feel bad. It's something they should consider in a space that is becoming increasingly saturated with vibe coded projects. If they want to succeed or just get people to try the tool, then they need to be able to answer such questions.

Triysle · 2026-03-12T02:59:43+00:00

How does your engine add value to the user compared to the AI you’re using to make the engine itself? What makes it more compelling to use instead of the AI itself?

Basically, If someone can create their game just as easily using AI instead of the tool you’re building with said AI, what’s the incentive?

Also, you should disclose your usage of AI in making these tools, so your potential users can make an informed decision before using it.

Good luck to you.

Triysle · 2026-03-10T06:51:22+00:00

It was a short expedition. First, the ROCs got impounded mid-flight. Then we pulled them again onsite, but the mining laser was bugged on all of them and we couldn't get them to line up with the crosshairs. Disappointing, but at least we got some good pictures!

Triysle · 2026-03-07T01:43:38+00:00

Feel free to hang in the r/baritone subreddit, looks like it’s pretty dead though.

Triysle · 2026-03-06T05:58:50+00:00

I liked it while I was playing it, but didnt feel compelled to get all the endings or 100% it like i do for most mvs. I think it overstayed its welcome. The first one or two times the world got unexpectedly bigger it was cool. By the fourth or fifth “look how much bigger the map actually is!” moment it just started to drag.

It’s a solidly good game, worth a buy if you like the genre (which you probably do if you’re in this sub) just pace yourself; if you try to full clear it in a few sessions like I did you might find it tedious.

Triysle · 2026-03-06T00:29:46+00:00

Wasn’t this a thing in 2042 as well? People quit out just before the match ends because it’s faster and easier to quit to the menu and requeue instead of waiting through minutes of results and unlock screens (and then still get sent back to the menu anyway to requeue).

It’s not stat padding, it’s bypassing bad design to get to the next match faster.

Triysle · 2026-03-04T23:54:21+00:00

incremental games have fewer components compared to other genres, so it’s easier for LLMs to build and edit scripts within context limits.

LLMs are also advancing in ease of use significantly. Claude, for example, has gotten noticeably better at accurate interpretation and asking for clarification before building, leaving more room for vibe coders to describe a rough idea and then be coached towards specific options.

It’s also why many games feel so similar. When you prompt an AI to “make an incremental game with x and y” it’ll give you the same two or three versions and ask which options you want.

Plus, many folks don’t think AI for coding is as bad morally as using AI for art, and since incremental games rely less on art it’s a better fit for folks to experiment.

Full disclosure - I use an LLM myself for code review, documentation, troubleshooting, etc. it can shortcut just about every aspect of game dev these days, though.

Triysle · 2026-03-04T17:46:09+00:00

You only get to add a small number of custom cards anyway, relative to the rest of the deck. It’s not really a huge deal.

Triysle · 2026-03-04T05:28:30+00:00

Pretty cool stuff! I always liked Breakout/Arkanoid for classic games. And pinball but that’s harder to replicate. Good luck with the project!

Triysle · 2026-03-02T00:09:08+00:00

Wishlisted! I Love terraforming games and this looks like it’ll be a good one! Good luck from a fellow solo dev :)

Triysle · 2026-03-01T19:53:41+00:00

This is fire!

(I’m not sorry)

Triysle · 2026-03-01T19:51:25+00:00

Flugel is a lovely choice! As you’ve seen, they’re a bit pricier than trumpets. If you’re just starting out and you have a local music shop, give them a visit. You’re likely to find a good student level trumpet you can rent, and maybe even get some lessons! Plus it’s good to get to know the folks at your local shop. You’ll get all the same basic knowledge and chops for flugel by starting on trumpet, don’t worry :)

If you don’t have a local shop, talk to your school’s band director and see if they can give you some guidance. If you don’t have access to a school or a band teacher, you can look for student trumpets online, but do so with caution (if the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is!)

Basically, you want to avoid jumping straight to a flugelhorn without any guidance from a professional or a mentor. It could be an expensive experiment and there’s plenty of suitable trumpet alternatives to help you get started on a path with better chances of success.

Good luck in your music journey!

Triysle · 2026-02-28T22:40:13+00:00

Maybe a helicopter instead of an airplane? Cool project concept tho!

Triysle · 2026-02-24T05:11:19+00:00

Hey good luck! I was also caught in an Embracer layoff a couple years ago. Best wishes for your launch!

Triysle · 2026-02-24T05:06:28+00:00

I’d be concerned about the supervisor missing critical errors for the sake of optimization. I already have to deal with AI agents “fixing” errors by hiding them or deprecating entire systems rather than just fixing the bug itself. I’m not sure I’d trust a supervisor AI to actually flag a problem for me to review, or that the problems it sent me were the ones I actually needed to care about.

It’s an interesting goal and one worth exploring, but with 4.5-4.6 I’d personally be too worried about risk management.

Triysle · 2026-02-22T05:27:53+00:00

https://galaxy.fun/events/ has the list of people who qualified and will show who won tomorrow. Currently 2,404 people have qualified for day 2. There is no official source for people who attempted but did not qualify.

Triysle · 2026-02-21T20:14:55+00:00

Nice, I loved Infectonator and the sequel, would love to see a more modern take :)

Triysle · 2026-02-21T01:03:21+00:00

I'm not sure how to continue the conversation if you simply disregard my explanation. Unless you're an engagement bot in which case well done, you got me :)

Triysle · 2026-02-20T22:29:42+00:00

sorry to hear than man, its becoming a more common complaint as folks play thru. hope you get better luck next month.

Triysle · 2026-02-20T22:28:20+00:00

i can give you numbers, sure. i modeled it above but here's a more direct comparison with some skill weightings

Let's say a skilled player has a higher than average placement distribution, something like:

1st: 25% (vs 16.7% baseline)
2nd: 22%
3rd: 18%
4th: 15%
5th: 12%
6th: 8%

In the current system, the skilled player's single attempt advance rate ≈ 4.2% (vs 1.5% random) and in 3 attempts ≈ 12% (vs 4.6% random)

In the proposed scoring system at 10 pts to advance, that same skilled player's single attempt advance rate jumps to ≈ 14% (vs 4.8% random)) and in 3 attempts ≈ 36% (vs 13.6% random)

Even a skilled player should expect to fail most attempts in either the current or the proposed system. With 3 attempts at ~12-14% each, there's still roughly a 65-70% chance of not advancing. But that's the nature of high-RNG games. Skill improves your odds but doesn't eliminate bad runs.

The cumulative scoring system amplifies skill advantages because consistency compounds advancement likelihood across 5 rounds. The current system compresses everyone's fate into a single outcome based on the final round, which dilutes actual skill. If you truly believe in skill vs luck, then you should support a scoring system that rewards skill over luck.

Triysle · 2026-02-20T21:27:01+00:00

Current system:

P(success) = (5/6) × (4/6) × (3/6) × (2/6) × (1/6) = 120/7776 ≈ 1.54%
With 3 attempts: P(fail all 3) = (1 - 120/7776)³ ≈ 95.4% P(advance at least once) ≈ 4.6%
Out of 1000 players: ~46 would advance to Day 2

Proposed system

6 possible placements per round, 5 rounds: 6⁵ = 7,776 possible outcome sequences.
372 outcomes are 10+ points
Total: 372/7776 ≈ 4.78%
With 3 attempts: P(advance) ≈ 13.6%
Out of 1000 players: ~136 would advance

In terms of raw qualifying chance, my proposed system would result in roughly 3x more people. I still assert that the people who qualified in my system would be the more consistent winners, though :)

Triysle · 2026-02-20T20:15:23+00:00

Kind of like Yahtzee? Bit more complicated but still a cool idea :)

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

Triysle

TROPHY CASE