vilhazarog
Diplomat
F)ight, F)ight, F)ight, P)arry, P)arry, P)arry!
Posts: 125
|
Post by vilhazarog on Feb 17, 2006 15:39:13 GMT -5
So anyway, thought I'd just share a game I occasionally work on in my spare time.
The whole reason I even found BM was because I found Warlocks, and the only reason I found Warlocks is because I've been hanging onto a copy of Richard Bartle's Spellbinder rules for many many years in an ancient email and always wanted to implement it. So anyway, one day I got a hold of Eclipse (a super cool free java ide) and coded up the whole thing, including Raise Dead, but Invis and Blindness don't work correctly (you still see the gestures, the other side effects are there, turned out a pain to implement in my design). But anyway, I wondered about some oddness in the rules and how to handle it, then it occurred to me that perhaps there were people out there actually playing this game today... a quick Google turned up Firetop and Warlocks.
Anyway, my version runs as a MUD or could be IRC bot, so the interface is a bit of a pain (Better than Firetop, worse than Warlocks.) Turns out I couldn't find any friends willing to play it but one, the learning curve is too steep for them.
So Sun just released Java Studio Creator 2 for free, and now I'm thinking maybe I'll see if I can get some JSF experience and put a web interface on top of it. First just get logins and duels working, then blindness and invis correct.
After that I'd like to put in custom spellbooks, because I went to a lot of trouble to make it easy to add new spells, so maybe at first you could just select the spells you want in the battle, then later I'd make it so you could change the gestures for the spells, etc.
Ultimately I thought it would be cool if there was some outer game around the duels. So instead of just a ladder, perhaps there was a map and you could try to control wizard towers, gain special abilities or titles, things like that.
So my question is.... would any of you be interested in something like that?
|
|
vilhazarog
Diplomat
F)ight, F)ight, F)ight, P)arry, P)arry, P)arry!
Posts: 125
|
Post by vilhazarog on Feb 17, 2006 15:40:12 GMT -5
If you have no other comment, feel free to mock my overuse of the word 'anyway'.
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Feb 17, 2006 16:12:45 GMT -5
I, too, found BM from within the realm of warlock. I like the thought of a customizable spell list, and a story around the battles sounds interesting, however, I'd be weary of allowing players to "power up" too much. (Wouldn't want a n00b to have an additional penalty of playing an expert in that the expert has additional spells.)
If you're looking for beta testers (and if you can manage to sneak the url past my stupid work firewall), I'm up for it.
|
|
vilhazarog
Diplomat
F)ight, F)ight, F)ight, P)arry, P)arry, P)arry!
Posts: 125
|
Post by vilhazarog on Feb 17, 2006 16:50:45 GMT -5
Well, ideally n00bs shouldn't be taking on masters anyway. (At least, not in matches for keeps.)
But yes, play balance always needs to be a consideration. For example, perhaps you could earn spells that are functionally equivilent of a spell you have that you can use as a replacement, the effects of which are perhaps more 'evil/good looking' if you're roleplaying that way (the text is just different.) Also, seems theres a lot of room to play with summoning... in addition to creatures that are the same as the current ones, just differently named, we could see how about a creature that has 2 hps but only does 1 damage? Or one that has 1 hp but does 2 damage? Or how about a creature that has a chance of doing a special effect (ok, that one would totally mess up game balance but it's something to think about.)
Also, how about titles you could earn for doing different things in battle? Killed someone with a clap of lightning? Earn a special lightning title'. Summoned ten goblins in a single duel? 'Goblin Master'. Etc... Then a battle between two people may not just be about winning but also about getting that certain title you haven't gotten yet... Which might even things up a bit for a lesser player just trying to win!
|
|
|
Post by psiweapon on Feb 17, 2006 21:09:02 GMT -5
Well, the idea sounds cool, but I *tried to try* Warlocks and it seemed... well I didn't like it. But if it involves some kind of "story" around it I am willing to try, the other game just looked too much "making gestures for the heck of it" for me :S
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Feb 18, 2006 12:07:04 GMT -5
Oh, my dear psiweapon... warlock is far more than "making guestures for the heck of it". It is actually a fairly deep strategy game (akin to chess in that both players have exactly the same facilities and perfect knowledge [with the exception of while invisible/blind]) I do think the choice of calling forth a "berserker ogre" (2 damage but only 1 hp) vs an "armored goblin" (1 damage but 2 hp), possibly even with the same spell flow, sounds interesting. Or, if maybe there was a simple spell (*very* short to cast) within battle that switches what type of sommener you are (so your opponent could plan ahead for the 2/1 vs 1/2 creature) that would be cool too. But, yes, my initial concern was that of play balance. (Grented, a n00b playing Taliesin, will routinely get slaughtered, regardless of any additional tricks in the master's pocket.) Although, maybe if there was some way, based on the RPG portion of the game, that you could acquire some sort of skill that allowed you to handicap yourself, but by doing so, you got a greater payout. (Like, starting with only 10 hp, or not allowing certain spells, or granting your opponent a banked spell, or perm shield, etc.) I think the different battle accomplishments sound interesting too.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Feb 19, 2006 17:21:41 GMT -5
ha! I coded up the exac same thing. Never did get past the pickle matrix though... Actually, all I managed to code was the patten parse which determined what had been cast, and what effects had been thrown. But that was as far as it went cause I wanted to write some kind of RPG around it and never found the time... It went under the name of xarlocks. (Plus, I got throw by the fact that coding an AI was *way* to hard in a game this complex without doing a myriad of research). My basic plan was to implement a series of duels/quests in order to first learn the gestures, then learn the spells. ie, you start off with a > and a P and you walk around killing goblins, then ogre, until you unlock a W. And so on and so forth until you have all the spells. meh, sounded good at the time. -x.
|
|
|
Post by Lynx Shaman on Feb 20, 2006 14:35:35 GMT -5
This sounds cool. I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Rasteroid on Feb 20, 2006 17:12:40 GMT -5
I'd definitely take a look at anyone's stuff, too.
I've considered what might go into a Warlock's engine before.
Keep in mind though that it's probably a very subtley balanced gaming; adding too much might spoil it. With the present game, a newbie at least COULD beat Taliesin.. but Taliesin with some rad unatainable spells? Dno..
|
|
|
Post by psiweapon on Feb 20, 2006 20:32:09 GMT -5
To Spamwise:
Well, I don't love chess that much either. Warlocks, at least as I have tried it, doesn't appeal to me XD I'm not saying that is bad or anything, just that I don't like it. It may have the deepest strategy ever, it still looks daunting (In a bad way... not like BM XD).
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Feb 21, 2006 9:23:43 GMT -5
To psiweapon: Fair enough. There is definitely a learning curve, but, if turn based strategy games (like chess) are your thing, I think it's worth the investment. If not, then it's probably not for you... not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by psiweapon on Feb 21, 2006 13:46:31 GMT -5
Well I do like turn based strategy games, otherwise I wouldn't be here ^_^ But I think I like characteristics that Warlocks, at least for the lego, doesn't seem to have. I don't know how to put it well but... I think you could divide games in two large groups: Games with stylised mechanics of seemingly simple premises which have complex implications: Go, Chess, Checkers, Rubik's Cube...; and games with elaborated mechanics which have complicated, fuzzy implications: games like those here, tabletop RPGs, and so on. I'd say that the former have rules (or mechanics) of a more mathematical nature, and the latter of a more humane nature (for lack of better terms). Of course there are blends, there are lots of games which fall somewhere in between, but I'd put Warlock closer to the "mathematical" than the "humane" nature, and I tend to like more "humane" games (well with the exception of single-player puzzles like Hanoi Towers or Solitaire which I quite like) Although I do like a lot a "humane" game with a set of simple and stylised core rules.
|
|
|
Post by spamwise on Feb 21, 2006 14:05:03 GMT -5
I agree that I was using TBS to be more specfic than it actually is and, yes, games can be grouped any number of ways, though it is difficult to deal in absolutes. Warlocks is definitely in the same "mathematical" group as Chess, Go, Checkers, and such. I tend to group games (probably unfairly) based on the degree of chance or randomness present. In Chess, Go, Checkers, and Warlock, both players are given exactly the same tools, have "perfect knowledge" (i.e. no hidden cards or concealed values), and choose their own moves (within the confines of the rules [e.g. a player in check must address that first]) (as opposed to some outside force determining the move.) I tend to prefer these games, because, win or lose, it's all in your hands. You can't "get cheated" by a lousy roll or a poor draw. You can still be beaten or tricked by a clever play or lose by a miscalculation or error in judgement, but it's all between you and your opponent. I find that very satisfying.
The complexity of the rules isn't crucial to enjoyment, though a certain threshold needs to be met (Tic-Tac-Toe just doesn't do it for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Feb 23, 2006 19:52:43 GMT -5
Well, the idea sounds cool, but I *tried to try* Warlocks and it seemed... well I didn't like it. But if it involves some kind of "story" around it I am willing to try, the other game just looked too much "making gestures for the heck of it" for me :S Dare you to say that to Taliesin or surial!
|
|
|
Post by Rycchus on Feb 23, 2006 19:59:02 GMT -5
And I would be interested in your game, vilharawhateveritis. The way I'd tackle the problem that everyone seems to mention, of masters having 'bonus spells', is to make the building towers or achieving levels the aim of the game, and the spellcasting a feature - as opposed to the spellcasting being the main focus of the game.
Although I also like Xade's idea of gaining gestures, and whoever suggested the titles (so-and-so the Goblin Killer, etc.) - that's cool too.
|
|