Game Mechanics

Cheers for the interest dvorak. That sounds pretty close. My unique (...almost) angle is that the environment forces you and every other human being to be mobile - so there are no trusty permanent cities you know you can retreat to and the fog of war keeps closing back in - if you don't keep sending out scouts then your map will be completely outdated as enemies and allies go someplace else (and then you'll either be killed by straying into a powerful enemy you didn't see coming, or stay in one place and be killed by an enemy that finds its way to you ).

So the environment remains a dynamic and constant threat, full of opportunities and danger, and you cannot sit back and become complacent because there are no permanent hidey-holes.

edited 18th Jan '15 12:40:27 PM by betaalpha

An open-world RPG, kind of like The Elder Scrolls, but with two players characters. You can switch between them at will, and the one you aren't controlling is controlled by AI (which is hopefully intelligent enough). This allows you to have more versatility, by chosing two complementary roles : for example, a Magic Knight and a thief, or a mage and a warrior. However, some parts of the game might limit you to just one character. The narrative for this would be a bit tricky : a chosen one story won't work, because "The Hero and his Sidekick" isn't what we're aiming for. They'll need a reason to meet, and to stay together for the duration of the game : either they're close friends (or a couple), or they're a more plot-relevant justification (such as a curse).

edited 26th Mar '15 3:21:16 PM by Aetol

I had this idea for an RPG system, which I am currently just sitting on. I don't know where else to put it, so here it is:

• The system is composed of 3 core statistics from which six more are derived, making 9 total.
  • Physical, which is strength, constitution, to-hit, and dexterity rolled into one. Half of your PHYS. is your defense, while double that value is your HP.
  • Mental, which is intelligence, wisdom, and magic to-hit. Half your MENT. is your magic defense and double the value is your MP.
  • Charisma, which is how good you look and how smooth you talk, as well as your courage. Half your CHAR. is your Morale defense, while double the value is your Morale points.
• The system was intended to be pick-up-and-play, so it was also intended that it be in base 6 since everyone has a D6 from one board game or another laying around somewhere.

edited 18th Apr '15 2:39:58 AM by dvorak

This is less a game mechanic and more a story mechanic, but I can see it being put into a video game somehow.

Basically, all magic comes from inside a person, and every person has some amount of it inside them, though the amounts aren't always the same. There are two big diversions from the norm here: If you cast a spell or enchant a magic item, it takes from your inner store of magic, and magic does not regenerate; if you use some of it to cast a spell, it's gone forever. However, you can absorb the magic from magic items, though this renders them mundane again. In addition, if you kill someone, you can take their store of magic and add it to yours.

RPG item shop tycoon type of game where your shop is visited by actual MMORPG players instead of AI-controlled NP Cs?

You get to build and decorate your shop and maybe even make use of an Item Crafting system that's more robust than that in the MMORPG this game would be connected to (or maybe have this game be the only source of player-crafted items in the MMORPG). Maybe it could become integrated into the MMORPG's guild system so that a shop could offer a guild discount or sell items given by guild members (maybe even have the member who offered it get a percentage of the money from it).

An Edu Tainment RPG where your academic scores affect your stats.

A first person shooter where the use of weapons is treated like individual strikes in a combo. Changing weapons during a reload is encouraged and the amount of weapons and buttons you need to press to swap between them is minimized. The alternate fire isn't a variation of the original weapon, it's a completely new one. Flicking the mouse wheel left, right, rolling it up or down or pushing it in changes between weapons.

That weak infinite ammo starter weapon you have in most games? That's now the finishing move. It does tremendous damage but has the lowest DPS, something that doesn't really matter if you're changing continually between guns. This should make it much more popular than other such weapons. Perhaps an icon could indicate how charged it is.

edited 14th Feb '18 1:18:10 AM by matti23

Ooh, I like that! That sounds fun.

Look into Monster Hunter World 's bow system. The bow works on a combo system with each move adding a damage bonus to each hit. You've got you're regular shot, a shotgun-like quick shot, a plunging fire shot (Really, it's rocks from on high but I digress), a big windup ultra-punch through shot, dodges, and dodge shots. All of them add to your combo counter but every move cost stamina and if you take a break to rest the combo resets.

Dvorak, thanks

Belisaurius, had a look. Good idea.

Got another idea. A special weapon for a shooter game than can shoot through walls. It's got ludicrously low DPS but ammo is cheap and ammo capacity high. There's no ability to see through walls normally. You can only get an alert where somebody is if you hit them directly. If anyone in the game attempts to camp you can estimate roughly where they should be and flush them out with a barrage of fire through the wall.

It's not easy to snipe players who aren't camping through walls because someone who is moving is extremely hard to hit and you can't see them. It's supposed to keep everyone moving during the game and can be used to scout areas ahead of your team.

edited 8th Apr '18 7:43:50 PM by matti23

For an RTS building system do you prefer the Starcraft system where you individually select builders and factories/barracks and have them run separate building queues or the Command and Conquer system where there's one unified building Queue for each unit type? What do you like about each one?

For me the Command and Conquer system is more convenient and streamlines things but I'm leaning towards the Starcraft system as it allows several unit types to be made at once and if we're going with a Terran like system, you can build anywhere you can get a builder, which feels a bit more flexible.

A concealment based mechanic. Think cover but everything can be shot through to hurt the player behind and walls aren't waist high, they're taller than people. Jet packs afford vertical mobility.

You can shoot through concealment or just kool aid man your way through. Bursting through concealment risks running into sticky bombs stuck to the other side or running ass first into the shotgun of the enemy.

Honestly, I'm not on board with the whole building an army in the middle of battle idea. It doesn't work lore wise and leads to weird metas of just throwing soldiers into a meatgrinder without any tactics.

Total War is more my wheelhouse.

Belisaurius actually I think you would probably be interested my idea. Did a little work on it in my free time.

The build system was based on airdrops/orbital drops (depending which time period you choose). The airdrops are always inbound at regular intervals and you select what to put inside them. The "unit cost" represents the space or weight in the aircraft occupied. It's not like in canon home base is just waiting for you to call for reinforcements, they come at regular intervals and so happen to contain whatever you ordered. Story wise it's because home base is cramming units into you operational zone as fast as possible and those shipments are retconned story wise to have whatever you ordered all along, even if you filled the order for that shipment a few moments before arrival.

It's a hybrid between the RTS build system and the total war system. You start with a large army on the field like Total war and there are a bunch of factors that can affect the effectiveness of each unit, making individual unit management (such as monitoring fatigue, cover or flanking) important. The reinforcements are slow enough to be occasional replacements rather than the main focus of battle.

Unlike in an RTS battles don't "wind up" with players getting successively stronger with time but "wind down". Players start the game in their strongest position and their most advanced units and get progressively weaker as they lose units to their enemies. The reinforcement system is slow enough that it arrests the slide downward rather than causing the play to ramp up like in an RTS.

edited 27th May '18 6:02:57 AM by matti23

@ 36: That reminds me of something I was thinking about: A generic power core is air-dropped onto the field, and then modules are brought online, removing the vulnerability of a constructing building. Everything is built this way, at least for one faction. Another method was to have units advance to a sessile phase of their life cycle, acting as Mook Makers.

The entire point of an economy RTS system is to wind up the engagement. Without that you might as well select all the units you want at the beginning of the battle and not worry about them being reinforced.

Dvorak, so your whole base is perhaps stored in a single or a few buildings?

Belisaurius, ah yes. It leans much more heavily towards the Total War bit than the RTS bit. More of a real time tactic game with a reinforcement option added in than an RTS with real time tactic elements.

You're right on point there Belisaurius. Selecting your units and starting battle immediately is the point so you can skip the slow initial base building and get straight to the shooting. The reinforcement system occupies a different role than in an RTS. You don't wind up the game with it. Just like a Total War game as soon as the game begins you start moving that army into position. The reinforcement thing runs in the background initially but is important later.

You already decided initial force composition prior to the game's start but those reinforcements will determine what your army will become. As your initial units fall in battle and your reinforcements constitute a larger portion of your dwindling army, your entire build will drift to counter whatever tactics and units your enemy has. You army will evolve into something different as the game progresses.

It also brings up dilemmas of which types of units you may want to replace. "oh I lost my super artillery unit, I really needed that. Should I order in another one or should I use my limited reinforcement points to bolster my failing line of grunts at the front?".

Also ties into the air/orbital strike system. Ordering one uses up one of your reinforcement slots. A runway back at base gets used up getting that bomber in the air or one of your guidance suites on your mother ship is needed to bring that weapon in on target.

edited 7th Jun '18 7:22:42 PM by matti23

Yeah, pretty much. It was inspired by the way Halo Wars does things, but this has more flexibility in terms of location.

Nice.

A computer game equivalent of this game. Perhaps with a modifier to how a nation functions depending on what class of player seizes control of an empire. Just like the Civilization game series there could be different types of government types and whichever puppet master controls the country dictates its government type.

Coolio sounding.

A game where your character's interface is an actual equipment piece. However, it drops on your death and you must retrieve it. You can also equip other player's interfaces and shape their character without them knowing.

An end you can only get if your intelligence stat is the lowest or the highest. It is perceived different (as nearly everything is depending on your int, social and even moral stats) but it's essentially the same ending. Could work?

@Excuse Myingles Of course it could. Good idea. Could be a way to turn what seems like a bad ending into a good one when both are actually the same, perhaps with the player character overlooking one crucial detail.

For an idea I am working on now I would like to get your opinion on something. For a Diablo or Torchlight style game would you mind having your ability slots restricted to 5 at a time not including normal attack? In exchange you are able to trigger all your abilities with a single button press. This is not you press a button to select an ability then press another button to cast it, you can press one button to activate any ability at any time, no second press required. No spoilers but you can do this without moving your either of your hands by any significant amount.

The game has more than 5 abilities and you can change which 5 with a menu. If that's not enough perhaps you can have two sets of 5 and toggle which 5 you have on with one keyboard key for a total of 10. You think this switching between lots of 5 abilities is necessary or is 5 enough?

Perhaps have two keys so you get 15? Imagine a triangle with each point being one set of 5, the top point is your selection, press one key to rotate the triangle clockwise or another to make it go anticlockwise. Does any one player with a single build even use 15 at once in game play? Seems like you'd pick a few specific abilities to suit your build.

Edited by matti23 on Feb 12th 2019 at 4:57:10 AM

My idea would be to have a online Dungeons and Dragons, where you can play in real time with your friends or unknown people, but you actually get to control your character.

Destructible structures factoring in to the ending. Destroyed a lot of the city? Congrats you saved the world but the citizens fear you for being a Destructive Savior. Were you conscious and careful of your surroundings? Congrats you get viewed in a light like Ghandi

I have an idea for a Turn-Based Tactics game akin to XCOM and Valkyria Chronicles. It's based on my planned book series.

You would command 3rd Parahuman Company, a combat support unit of European Dominion primary forces during Eurasian War against Russian Federation and their mysterious allies for almost triggering nuclear world war. The said company consists of only Parahumans, people possessing superpowers.

Aside from Permadeath, one key element of the gameplay would be the personalities of soldiers. That would have a much bigger impact on your playstyle than in Chronicles, as you would have to pick more carefully what soldier to deploy. For instance, Matthew is a medic and Technical Pacifist. He would never equip grenades and even disobey the orders to attack the enemy if there's a chance he will deal the killing blow. If he accidentally killed an enemy with a critical hit, he would receive a huge penalty to his stats and temporarily be unable to act. However, due to his dedication to keep his teammates alive, he would be able to equip more health kits and would receive a huge buff to his evasion when moving towards wounded ally. He can even more further if the wounded soldier is his close friend. Another example would be

Fielding soldiers who have good relations can be beneficial, but it can be a double-edged sword. If the said friend died (especially if there were in close proximity), their comrades would receive a penalty to their stats and possibly get traumatized, causing them to disobey orders and act irrationally (going berserk, attempting to flee the battlefield, deliberately go into enemy fire to get themselves killed, etc.). If traumatized soldier would survive a battle, there could be a high chance of them being pulled back from the battlefield as they would be emotionally unable to fight.

I admit I would have to work on it harder. But, first, I need to write and publish those books. If they're good, then think how to milk it.