PDA

View Full Version : General New Game Discussion



Hulky
05-21-2016, 08:14 PM
Please participate in designing the concept of a new similar game. It's being built, and the deadline is months away. Discuss anything relevant to the making of a new game.


Units Thead (http://taoforums.com/showthread.php?111-Game-Units) - Discuss the units and game balance in this thread.
General board shape:


[X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][X][X]
[X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][X]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] No man's land
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] No man's land
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][X]
[X][X][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][X][X]

Toledo
05-22-2016, 05:20 PM
Do we have the CAU forum saved from the original? There was so much to pull from.

Aristocatt
05-22-2016, 05:21 PM
Do we have the CAU forum saved from the original? There was so much to pull from.

We should have the CAU from the old forums. It will be transferred over here eventually.

Toledo
05-22-2016, 05:23 PM
We should have the CAU from the old forums. It will be transferred over here eventually.

The amount of time and effort you guys have put into this new forum and the design of a 2.0 game is incredible. Thank you to everyone involved.r

Also, didn't Mithrandir used to do CAU awards for the best ideas? That should probably be the first place we look.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 05:24 PM
Would rather the remaining and interested community develop for this. We don't have any base units, so all the previous are off in that sense anyways. We are doing a new game, new units new board. Not supplemental for TAO.

Toledo
05-22-2016, 05:26 PM
Would rather the remaining and interested community develop for this. We don't have any base units, so all the previous are off in that sense anyways. We are doing a new game, new units new board. Not supplemental for TAO.

I just meant for inspiration. There was a lot of creativity and thought put into some of those units, surely we can pull some of the more fun and interesting mechanics from some of the CAU units and retrofit them to the new game?

Hulky
05-22-2016, 05:29 PM
Sure, but the forum transfer isn't done yet. People can create their own unique thoughts and not hold up everything trying to get inspiration from decade old ideas. A handful of people have asked to reboot CAU anyways, so this is basically that except this stuff can become reality eventually.

Since this is a new game everything can be explored and discussed as well.

Aristocatt
05-22-2016, 05:31 PM
Lets make a CAU sub forum and let's have a few people moderate that forum so we can get them to consolidate the most popular ideas. Once the old CAU is uploaded, we can have a thread dedicated to discussing old unit ideas.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 05:44 PM
That's essentially what this board is. I don't know what the difference would be.

Toledo
05-22-2016, 05:45 PM
***Accidental double post please explode me.***

Toledo
05-22-2016, 05:47 PM
That's essentially what this board is. I don't know what the difference would be.

It's easier to have an entire section dedicated to it a la the old TAO boards. It makes it easier to critique, review and reference individual unit ideas.

Edit: I'm not saying this thread shouldn't exist, I think a home-base thread is good and will allow for an easy overlook of all of the units deemed worthy.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 05:48 PM
It's easier to have an entire section dedicated to it a la the old TAO boards. It makes it easier to critique, review and reference individual unit ideas.

Then post a thread? This entire section is dedicated to a new game. That's what I don't get what you guys are talking about. Want me to edit in Create a Unit into the description?

The units in this thread are blank. People need to fill them out.

Toledo
05-22-2016, 05:49 PM
Oh no that works perfectly, I just didn't know if you wanted people spamming this section with unit ideas. I'm excited to see what people come up with.

Aristocatt
05-22-2016, 05:53 PM
Oh no that works perfectly, I just didn't know if you wanted people spamming this section with unit ideas. I'm excited to see what people come up with.

Basically this. Happy to use this subforum as an expanded CAU

Achilles
05-22-2016, 06:10 PM
I feel like the best way to do this would be to develop a basic setup like when you first signed up for TAO, then build upon that.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 06:14 PM
I feel like the best way to do this would be to develop a basic setup like when you first signed up for TAO, then build upon that.

Like start with a default formation? (even with blank units?) then fill out the units after the fact? I threw the mock ups onto the board on the second page. Is that sort of what you are talking about?

Here is a text board. Like throw letters in or whatever for quick visual like early TAO did.


[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]


Example (?):


[ ] [ ] [ ] [E] [C] [ ] [ ] [ ] you can write notes in as well
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [K] [K] [ ] [ ] c = cleric//healer k = knight//melee e = enchantress// defensive
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] or whatever
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Aristocatt
05-22-2016, 06:15 PM
I feel like the best way to do this would be to develop a basic setup like when you first signed up for TAO, then build upon that.

That's kind of what we are looking for right now. Feed back for a base set of units.

Achilles
05-22-2016, 06:16 PM
The one thing, in my opinion, that absolutely needs to be addressed is the advantage given to the sheer luck of setups.

Luck was always a huge part of TAO, but there was a difference between the luck of a block in game, and the chance that your setup matched up well against another player's. The chance-based blocking component of the game was formulaic, and while in individual games it could sway against you, it was ultimately fair when you took data from tons of games from tons of players.

After the release of the last few units though, TAO began to heavily rely on how lucky you got in regard to your setup matching well with your opponent's. This, in my opinion, is what killed the gold game. Not that I want a game based entirely in turtle formations, but before the newer units came out, people could match up better against me, but I could still hunker down and outplay them despite the setup disadvantage. Eventually, your chances of winning almost entirely rested upon setup matchup to a very large degree. If there's anything in a new TAO I want, it's this. I don't mind chance with blocking and first turn, but I want both parties to have a fair chance regardless of their setup.

Achilles
05-22-2016, 06:18 PM
And I admittedly don't know how you would do that. I guess one way would be to maybe put more distance between starting formations? I think you need to tread lightly with how many units you put in a game too, because the high versatility is what brought the outrageous random luck to TAO.

Aristocatt
05-22-2016, 06:21 PM
The one thing, in my opinion, that absolutely needs to be addressed is the advantage given to the sheer luck of setups.

Luck was always a huge part of TAO, but there was a difference between the luck of a block in game, and the chance that your setup matched up well against another player's. The chance-based blocking component of the game was formulaic, and while in individual games it could sway against you, it was ultimately fair when you took data from tons of games from tons of players.

After the release of the last few units though, TAO began to heavily rely on how lucky you got in regard to your setup matching well with your opponent's. This, in my opinion, is what killed the gold game. Not that I want a game based entirely in turtle formations, but before the newer units came out, people could match up better against me, but I could still hunker down and outplay them despite the setup disadvantage. Eventually, your chances of winning almost entirely rested upon setup matchup to a very large degree. If there's anything in a new TAO I want, it's this. I don't mind chance with blocking and first turn, but I want both parties to have a fair chance regardless of their setup.

I'd say that set up luck can be addressed in two ways. The first is to standardize all set up...which I think is a bad idea.
The second is to address serious balancing issues that make the game to "Rock-paper-scissor-y" In ever good strategy game where there is some degree of incomplete information, there is always a meta that causes luck in terms of builds(Starcreft) or sets(TAO) to factor in. The job of developers is to try to minimize the advantages so that many play styles can be utilized.

I think comparing grey games to gold games is a good way of looking at it. The faster paced the game is, the more difficult it will be to minimize set advantages, however, faster paced games, more powerful units, etc also help draw in new blood.

I think reducing the offensive potential in TAO freestyle games, or increasing the Defensive potential, would have been a really solid way to update the game...if it ever would have been updated.

Achilles
05-22-2016, 06:30 PM
Name: Wolf pack
Description: Three grey wolves
Inspiration: Assassin

Health: 33
Attack: 14
Armor: 9
Range: 120
Movement: 2
Blocking: 20%
Recovery: 2 Turns

Special: Wolf Pack is able to attack three units simultaneously. For each wolf that attacks an empty tile, the wolf will howl and the entire pack is healed 1 HP. If the all three Wolves attack empty space, it can only be healed to a max of 2 HP, but the Wolf Pack's cooldown will be 1 turn. This heal can occur once every other turn.

Guess I can start there.

Achilles
05-22-2016, 06:43 PM
Name: Bear
Description: Bear
Inspiration: Berserker

Health: 60
Attack: 20
Armor: 12
Range: 119
Movement: 1
Blocking: 15%
Recovery: 3 Turns

Special: Bear's claws inflict a deep wound on the enemy unit. For 2 turns, if this unit moves or attacks, it will bleed for an additional 3 damage. This effect can only occur once.

Dark and Light versions:
106107

Notes: Knight with less range, and more power

Just throwing ideas out there.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 06:51 PM
I was thinking
3 knights became 1 bear 1 horseguy 1 bladesman (bear: less movement, more power. horse: less armor, more movement. bladesman: knight clone ?)
1 assassin became 1 wolf pack (I like the empty squares = heal from Ach's idea. Needs to be slightly better than the assassin stats wise as assassin was generally underpowered.)
1 cleric became 1 priest (Cleric was a great starting point in TAO, but the exact heal number probably is either the starting point or the last stat added)
1 furgon became 1 earth elemental (Furgon is pretty balanced imo, maybe one less range or movement since no mud golem)
1 pryo/lightning ward became 1 fire elemental (Merging the LW with Pyro makes up for no DSM. LW can be defensive, Pyro aggressive, this would need pretty intense balancing)
1 dragon/beastrider became 1 giant eagle (flying unit, don't know how OP it would be. Flying over shrubs and units is powerful in itself)
1 enchantress/wisp became 1 pack of rats (some sort of defensive stall/poisoning)
1 scout became 1 archer (LOS was a huge strategic part of the game, copy pasta it at least in concept)


I was thinking of making an art for each unit dead as well. So when units died they would remain on the field for x turns then disappear afterwards. Dead units can't be walked through like Dragon Tyrant, Beast Rider, Berserker. That would add a defensive element to the game as when you all out attack your dead could get in the way, or you sac a weak unit block an attack while the priest recovers or whatever. Also sense no animation in the first version this would help visualize what is happening.

I think that blend of units would make a solid blend of grey and gold games. Could play into aggressive and defensive strategies.

Achilles
05-22-2016, 07:25 PM
Name: Pack of Rats
Description: a lot of rats
Inspiration: Poison Wisp/Enchantress

Health: 36
Attack: 14
Armor: 0
Range:125
Movement: 2
Blocking: 0
Recovery: 2

Special: After the initial 14 damage against all units in range, the affected units will be infected with the Plague. This unit will be unable to attack until it moves out of range of the Pack of Rats, and will take 2 damage per turn until the Pack of Rats moves, is attacked, or the unit moves out of range. Any other friendly unit that moves directly adjacent to an infected unit or the in-focus Pack of Rats will take 1 damage per turn as long as they remain in that tile.

Dark and Light versions:
112113

or normal, if dark looks too dark
114


Notes: Being in the presence of the rat deals damage like Poison wisp regardless of armor each turn end of controlling players turn.

Don't mean to spam, just a ton if ideas I always had for TAO.

Aristocatt
05-22-2016, 07:36 PM
Don't mean to spam, just a ton if ideas I always had for TAO.

This is pretty cool. With a pack of rats or something else we could have the rats scatter across their attack range to reveal a larger version alone in the center in the final version. I am guessing that this a focus attack? We could even use that animation to do something like remove all the armor from the unit when it is in it's focus attack...since it no longer has it's pack to protect it.

|AFO|
05-22-2016, 07:36 PM
I like the pack of rats idea. They could occupy one space normally, but when they are in focus, they could spread out and bite the units they are attacking. I know we aren't to the animation stages yet, but I think that would be a nice touch when you get there. :D

Hah. Also what Matt said. :D

|AFO|
05-22-2016, 07:45 PM
Name: Ram
Description: Giant Mountain Ram. Big horned sheep mother fucker.
Inspiration: I always wanted a unit that could move other units out of the way or away form my base.

Health: 40-45
Attack: 20-25
*When the ram attacks a unit, it is pushed back 2-3 spaces, unless occupied by another unit. This occurs even when the attack is blocked.
Armor: 15-20
Range: 1
Movement: 4
Blocking: 50%
Recovery: 2

Basic concept... Hope you get the gist. I think this would be decent offensively or defensively. Could make it more tank like, with less power, more health, armor, blocking for a more defensive unit too. We could even play with the option of a stun, to incorporate the zerker. I think the zerker was a nice idea, just not executed very well. Also, units wouldn't be able to pass through him cause he's an asshole.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 07:53 PM
One thing is with something like rats is when the game goes from top down mode to a slight angle like TAO, the rats would be so damned short something cool like spreading out wouldn't be easy to see, nor scaling them into a tile like that.

Maybe cut away animations would work? like top down forever and like a camera on the side for future animations?

Toledo
05-22-2016, 07:54 PM
So is this the game theme we're going with or are these just placeholder names for the stats/mechanics until we decide on a theme?

Hulky
05-22-2016, 07:58 PM
So is this the game theme we're going with or are these just placeholder names for the stats/mechanics until we decide on a theme?

Yeah I just threw stuff together under Matt's size requirements to get the ball rolling. You can change names or anything.

Wizzy
05-22-2016, 07:59 PM
following this thread.. very cool to see. will try to come up with some ideas later maybe.

|AFO|
05-22-2016, 07:59 PM
I don't think there should be shrubs without a way to clear them relatively easily. No one wants to play 1 hour games constantly.

Toledo
05-22-2016, 07:59 PM
Yeah I just threw stuff together under Matt's size requirements to get the ball rolling. You can change names or anything.

Ok coolio. I'm going to look over all the units you posted soon and try to post feedback soonish.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 08:10 PM
I don't think there should be shrubs without a way to clear them relatively easily. No one wants to play 1 hour games constantly.

Maybe 3 in a row instead of 5 in a cross would be better? Like 3 vertically, or horizontally instead of all 5 at once?

|AFO|
05-22-2016, 08:16 PM
Maybe. Another thought is having them "wilt" and disappear/die after a certain number of turns.

Or having them simply slow units down by 1 movement or something, so that you can pass through them still.

Hulky
05-22-2016, 08:36 PM
Maybe. Another thought is having them "wilt" and disappear/die after a certain number of turns.

Or having them simply slow units down by 1 movement or something, so that you can pass through them still.

The slowing down was a popular unit idea on old CAU I think it was LT's unit. Something like tall grass that acted as a fog of war or slowed down I can't remember.

Achilles
05-22-2016, 08:54 PM
The one unit I think was a classic of example of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" was the Scout. I like adding elements to the game, but I feel like the Archer unit should basically emulate that. It was a high skill unit that wasn't too OP and could be used well or poorly.

The one unit I think got really porked was the Stone Golem. It was an awesome idea early on, and the centerpiece of the turtle formation. But the Mudquake decimated it, and it became a useless unit (which is one of the principle problems with how TAO was developed). I would LOVE to see units that were pure utility, but could remain effective without a GA throwing a hail mary over the entire map to render it useless.

Edit: Point being, I feel like the main philosophical approach should be balance.

Aristocatt
05-22-2016, 10:56 PM
Scout knight and cleric are great units. Change the stats to reflect game balance, but the concept behind them should be in any tbs that utilizes health movement and range. An infiltrator type unit l like the br/assassin is also a great standard unit concept.

monkus
05-23-2016, 10:32 AM
A few comments:

I noticed that you've gone down to a 64-square board from TAO's 109. What's the reasoning for that? Note that it's going to start to resemble chess a lot if you use an 8x8 board instead of the old 7/9/11/11/11/11/11/11/11/9/7 TAO board.

I think you might be trying to add too many units too quickly. It's going to be extremely hard to figure out balance/strategy/etc. when most of the testers are going to spend most of their time just trying to remember how all of the units work. It's also going to become increasingly likely that one unit is overpowered and beta tests will devolve into whomever can best use that one unit.

I agree with Ach's suggestion: come up with a basic formation that involves the simplest of units (Priest, some Bladesmen, an Archer, a Horseman, and maybe one or two magic units), and do some playtesting between two identical starting formations. You'll quickly determine which units are under/overpowered, and whether formations need more offensive punch or more defensive capabilities.

What I'm trying to say is I don't really want to provide feedback on "Giant Eagle" and "Pack of Rats" when I have no idea if the Priest, Bladesman and Archer are balanced yet or not. And the only way to determine that is hours and hours of playtesting.

monkus
05-23-2016, 10:45 AM
I'll make one other quick comment:

One thing that I liked a lot about TAO was that there was a simple, "solid" formation, and most strategies revolved around how they compared to that formation.

Here's my view of a "solid" formation:
Knight x3, Cleric, Scout x2, Dragon, +1 other unit

Grey solid formations would obviously lack the dragon and second scout, but make up for it with a witch, pyro, maybe a LW and enchantress, etc. And until the very end, grey games were fun, strategic, and had an immense amount of depth despite the lack of "cool" advanced units.

But the point was, this formation was easy to play, none of the pieces were particularly complicated to use, and both a beginner and pro could use it with relative success.

Then, strategy could be built on top of that by some additional, more complicated units. Defensive players could swap out a knight for a Furgy, offensive players could lose the cleric and add a DSM. Suddenly you have a wider range of formations.

Why is this important? Well first of all, it helps with the learning curve. It's really hard to figure out how to use a wisp or furgon well, but knights and archers are pretty intuitive. So beginners can pick up the game pretty quickly without struggling to remember complicated attack patterns.
Second, it helps to define the game as relatively strategic rather than both players all-out blitzing each other. If you have too many powerful/broken mage units, suddenly there's no sensible defensive play and both players simply rush each other every game. If the defensive resources are too good, the game becomes a stalemate.

So start by coming up with a core formation of solid, simple units, make sure it's relatively balanced and fun, and then start to add defensive/offensive resources as needed.

DivineLeft
05-23-2016, 02:47 PM
The board is a sample layout and I believe we all want the look and feel of the same game with the known board layout. I believe it was a sample of colors and spread out to show what Hulky has put together. Having the no true 4 corners is a huge part of the design that will remain.

As far as units. Without saying they "are the same" the concept is to keep everything as close as possible without treading on true straight-up copyright issues of cloning pixel for pixel hp for hp and action for action of each unit.

I think the Archer/Scout will NEED to be very similar if not exact. I think that Hulky is showing the new units with their respective older unit model as a way of saying "hey, we all know we shouldn't clone to be successful, so lets try and match as close as we can."

I would like to set up a true CAU. Matt and I, and I think I also discussed with Hulky, to have some kind of Base unit start..

Something like every unit has:
Health Base: 20
Attack Damage: 15
Attack Range: 1
Movement Range: 3
Recovery Rounds: 2
Armor: 10
Blocking Chance: 35%

And then we have 8-10 pts of upgrades ability for each suggested new unit.
So to upgrade Health by 5pts requires 1 upgrade pt.
To upgrade attack range, movement, or reduce recovery takes 2pts each for each one.
Add damage to attack goes up by 2-3 pts for every one pt.
Upgrading points in armor, upgrades a certain percentage to block
And then for each special ability takes something like 3-5 pts.

Are these exact numbers tested? No, it my first glance idea of a system to balance, but the method is tested. Several games where you can build characters has something like this set. From your sports games to your RPG's there are a base and you can build onto that and think having sample model in place like this will help with CAU.

I think as anyone really making TAO 2.. (new name required as well) really needs to look at what is going to be allowed and what major and even minor tweaks are going to be required to not get a C&D and provide a workable version of the game we all love.

Toledo
05-23-2016, 03:16 PM
I agree on keeping Scout LoS mechanically the same. For testing purposes, I think it would be best to leave Knights, Scouts, and Clerics identical to their TAO versions. They can be fine-tuned down the road once we figure out the remaining units.

Hulky
05-23-2016, 03:23 PM
Board is 8x8 for the top down bad graphics version so that we can test the networks and stuff behind the scenes Matt, Mel, and Xyx are working on. Like as they build that up we will need testing units for an 8x8 board. Eventually when the more real version comes out (after networks, servers, coding is fleshed out efficiently) then the board will expand out and the crappy 2d top down units would be replaced graphically as well.

On the Slack group Einjar posted this 3D board (game.jam3s.me/play) that could be a direction things head in eventually, or it could be more like what BR did as an HTML 5 TAO (but with unique graphics and stats).

The Butcher
05-23-2016, 03:32 PM
tl:dr, we keeping the Furgon?

Aristocatt
05-23-2016, 04:00 PM
For the record...please use this subform to give feedback on any and everything. Want to talk about the pace of the game or the board size? Awesome, make a thread about it.
Maybe you want a larger board, and you want to have a similar range of mobility found in the units. That has nothing to do with balancing the exact units, but it does say something about what you thought could have made TAO better. Ach suggested a larger board. If you gave tao 2 tiles of no mans land, think about how that might have affected the balance of sets. Maybe set luck would decrease, and the first few moves of the game would be ever so slightly more positional than they were. You can still provide your ideas for how to make TAO better, and we can use Seeds game as a basis for developing the new game. We are all very familiar with the pacing of the game, so you can give us vague concepts, and we can try to work with them, then as the game becomes more rigidly defined over time, maybe then you will be ready to give feed back about unit balancing.

Point is, don't limit yourselves to discussing only unit balance. Be creative and think about what you would want to see in the game. No idea is too vague at this point.

Toledo
05-23-2016, 04:06 PM
Can we rename the subforum 'TAO 2.0 Development' or something similar for clarity?

Wizzy
05-23-2016, 09:58 PM
it is named something similar :p

DivineLeft
05-23-2016, 11:17 PM
It wasn't earlier.. its since been corrected ;)

Achilles
05-23-2016, 11:20 PM
For the record...please use this subform to give feedback on any and everything. Want to talk about the pace of the game or the board size? Awesome, make a thread about it.
Maybe you want a larger board, and you want to have a similar range of mobility found in the units. That has nothing to do with balancing the exact units, but it does say something about what you thought could have made TAO better. Ach suggested a larger board. If you gave tao 2 tiles of no mans land, think about how that might have affected the balance of sets. Maybe set luck would decrease, and the first few moves of the game would be ever so slightly more positional than they were. You can still provide your ideas for how to make TAO better, and we can use Seeds game as a basis for developing the new game. We are all very familiar with the pacing of the game, so you can give us vague concepts, and we can try to work with them, then as the game becomes more rigidly defined over time, maybe then you will be ready to give feed back about unit balancing.

Point is, don't limit yourselves to discussing only unit balance. Be creative and think about what you would want to see in the game. No idea is too vague at this point.

Yeah, exactly. I can sum up exactly where TAO went south in one, simple sentence.

After the mudquake was introduced, even if I was a better player than my opponent, they could move beneath all of my units and mudquake my entire team on the first turn if they simply got a better hand in how our setups matched up.

That shouldn't exist in a strategy game. Some luck, such as blocking, is fine. But a game shouldn't be decided before it's started on absolute blind luck that's not based or some sort of formulaic algorithm like blocking was. And this only got worse when the GA and Wisp were introduced. The GA (before the nerf) could hit a Cleric on its first turn if it matched up well, and then the Wisp, along with the Muddy, could just tele across the map and attack large groups anywhere.

I literally lost to people I knew I was profoundly better than due to how setups matched up. The DSM began the first real rush, but once the mudquake was added, the game was destroyed. Not because of the mudquake, but because of how the mudquake could be used in the context of the board layout. By the time the Wisp was around, it became "let's just make a setup, run directly at one another, and see who has the last man standing."

This isn't to say there weren't great players once the rush took over, there were. But the turtle game, and even defensive spreads, was a much truer tactical game.

Hulky
05-23-2016, 11:57 PM
The worst part of the mudquake was it d/cing you lol. Then they added /fx to toggle it off. So many games I lost when the guy knew I'd d/c so they just mudquaked turn one, or wait until it was close or I was winning then quake to d/c me. That's the kind of bug that would be catastrophic.

|AFO|
05-24-2016, 10:14 PM
Yeah, exactly. I can sum up exactly where TAO went south in one, simple sentence.

After the mudquake was introduced, even if I was a better player than my opponent, they could move beneath all of my units and mudquake my entire team on the first turn if they simply got a better hand in how our setups matched up.

If a mudquake could ruin your strategy then it was not a good one to begin with. You shouldn't be allowed to hunker down and win a game against an equally skilled player. The attacker must always be favored, otherwise the game dies. Rushes will always be more commonly used because most people don't like spending hours on a single match. If the are disadvantaged then they will quit.

I agree with some of your sentiments though. I enjoyed fending off rushes with my turtle, to defeat them with my counter attack. Though some sets simply had too large of an advantage to overcome sometimes. But again, it should be the counter attack that wins it. Not the hunkering down. I'm fine with luring opponents into a trap too, but the offensive player should be able to avoid the trap if played properly.

I think the nerf to the ga and wisp, along with the 1 turn wait was really helpful for game balance. A few more tweaks and I think the game could have allowed for a more diverse set distribution.

As an example... I've always liked the idea of a GA attacking from behind a knight wall or shrubs. Making him more durable, but not able to be set close to the front row would be interesting. If you can march your GA across the board to be in range of your opponents cleric, then you deserve to have his cleric.

Achilles
05-25-2016, 07:15 PM
If a mudquake could ruin your strategy then it was not a good one to begin with.

I agree with this sentiment in theory, but to clarify what I mean, I'm speaking in regard to a relative context. For example, I have a turtle formation with a Stone Golem, and my opponent has a rush with a Wisp, Golem Ambusher, and Mud Golem. Let's say I'm ten times more skilled than this player, and I ultimately win the match. Because of blind luck that isn't formulaic like blocking, I had to win with a 9v10 match because my Stone Golem is effectively taken out of the game.

This has nothing to do with the strategy, but rather is a fundamental flaw in how the game was developed. I wasn't clear before, but to be on point, no unit should be absolutely useless due to random luck. And in that case, it was.


You shouldn't be allowed to hunker down and win a game against an equally skilled player. The attacker must always be favored, otherwise the game dies.

Why? I don't mean to sound rude but this is just an awful statement. And again, I don't mean that as an insult but rather a challenge for you to explain for the sake of game development.

You just said it - both players are of equal skill. What's wrong with one saying hit the deck and defensively outplaying the other? Isn't that, at its core, what a strategy game is?


Rushes will always be more commonly used because most people don't like spending hours on a single match. If the are disadvantaged then they will quit.

This is just wrong, and that isn't my opinion. The longest games were easily pre-Mudquake, pre-Furgon turtles back in 2003-04, and those topped out at an hour. I agree that if they last HOURS people will quit, but if that's the case then the game is just flawed. Mind you that back in those days is when the game had the most interest as well. Rushes were just one and done matches for the most part, except for with extremely talented players. And that's that's when the game went south and started losing interest.

My ultimate point isn't that rushes were bad. I was there when the first rushes were used after the release of the DSM, so I know this all extremely well. My point also isn't that an aggressively offensive setup is bad either. What I'm saying is that the inherent random advantages rushes brought to the game is what destroyed it. You're just outright wrong that setup luck didn't decide matches, because it did. Not even in just losing either, there were games I won that I had to claw tooth and nail to squeak out a v against inferior opponents because they could just mindlessly click and point to send all their units forward and bombard me. Which I guess is my ultimate point.

Want to be offensive? Great, go for it. But in a good strategy game, I shouldn't get an automatic advantage over someone because of random setup luck. This is what needs to be fixed here ultimately, which is why I suggest a no mans land in between both setups. No, you can't just first turn hit my Cleric with you GA because you were randomly lucky enough to have placed said GA in range.


I agree with some of your sentiments though. I enjoyed fending off rushes with my turtle, to defeat them with my counter attack. Though some sets simply had too large of an advantage to overcome sometimes. But again, it should be the counter attack that wins it. Not the hunkering down. I'm fine with luring opponents into a trap too, but the offensive player should be able to avoid the trap if played properly.

I think the nerf to the ga and wisp, along with the 1 turn wait was really helpful for game balance. A few more tweaks and I think the game could have allowed for a more diverse set distribution.

As an example... I've always liked the idea of a GA attacking from behind a knight wall or shrubs. Making him more durable, but not able to be set close to the front row would be interesting. If you can march your GA across the board to be in range of your opponents cleric, then you deserve to have his cleric.

I agree with all of this. GA was a great unit but related to the game's context unfairly and poorly, IMHO.

|AFO|
05-25-2016, 07:49 PM
If the defensive player is favored then both sides will hunker down and the games will drag on unnecessarily. Or the better player may be forced to attack into a disadvantage which doesn't make sense either. This just doesn't make for a good game. If you are going to allow your opponent to attack you then you deserve to lose.

And GAs are not inherently lucky. The cleric can be placed opposite side or in the center. 33% of the time he was in range. 66% he was not. Plus he was not hard to block off after the nerf. Same with the PW. I hear you though. The idea of a no mans land is nice. Chess certainly has one. Advanced Wars has one. I'd say most turn based strategy games do.

But again... Defense is a no no. :p

manonfire101
05-25-2016, 07:51 PM
The longest games were easily pre-Mudquake, pre-Furgon turtles back in 2003-04, and those topped out at an hour.

Want to be offensive? Great, go for it. But in a good strategy game, I shouldn't get an automatic advantage over someone because of random setup luck. This is what needs to be fixed here ultimately, which is why I suggest a no mans land in between both setups. No, you can't just first turn hit my Cleric with you GA because you were randomly lucky enough to have placed said GA in range.

Have you played a grey game against Lemon or Eagle? Those could last for days.

I understand your frustration with losing games because your opponent has a set advantage. But what's the difference between losing a game due to set disadvantage and losing a game due to bad luck? You can go for a low percentage hit on a unit during the game that if it lands leaves you in good shape and if doesn't leaves you at a disadvantage. Similarly you can use a GA and hope it's within striking distance of your opponent's cleric. But if it's not then you are at a disadvantage, because the GA is a pretty worthless unit if it doesn't get a quick cleric kill.

In both cases you're taking a risk. You can still win a game with bad luck. You can still win a game with a set disadvantage.

|AFO|
05-25-2016, 07:59 PM
Tell that to my GA! I used to march him over to opposite side cleric on legends! :p

manonfire101
05-25-2016, 08:00 PM
Probably against fucking Dape or something.

|AFO|
05-25-2016, 08:07 PM
Zad. Which my phone wants to autocorrect to Sad. Probably cause that's how you'd describe his game.

Aristocatt
05-26-2016, 11:00 AM
uguysgotdasikestburnz

Achilles
05-26-2016, 06:21 PM
If the defensive player is favored then both sides will hunker down and the games will drag on unnecessarily. Or the better player may be forced to attack into a disadvantage which doesn't make sense either. This just doesn't make for a good game. If you are going to allow your opponent to attack you then you deserve to lose.

I didn't say the defensive player should be favored. I actually don't want that at all. I said the game should be balanced and any luck introduced into it should be formulaic. I'm all for people being aggressively offensive.


And GAs are not inherently lucky. The cleric can be placed opposite side or in the center. 33% of the time he was in range. 66% he was not. Plus he was not hard to block off after the nerf. Same with the PW. I hear you though. The idea of a no mans land is nice. Chess certainly has one. Advanced Wars has one. I'd say most turn based strategy games do.

But that is luck. If I ended up, by a 33% chance, in range of their Cleric with my GA... I was lucky. That's the inherent definition of luck. And as I said, that luck shouldn't exist in this game unless it's formulaic. But no less, it seems like we agree for the most part albeit minor technicalities.


Have you played a grey game against Lemon or Eagle? Those could last for days.

Sweet summer child... I played TAO for over a decade. As far as I know, X, Mel, and I are the only day one players for TAO.com still around. There were greys who were considerably better than both of them, and who dragged out games far longer.


I understand your frustration with losing games because your opponent has a set advantage. But what's the difference between losing a game due to set disadvantage and losing a game due to bad luck?

Because blocking is formulaic, and it's equally awarded to both players. Myself and my opponent both operate within the context of the same law of probabilities with blocking. Setup luck, however, is completely and totally random. Whereas a block is decided by a mathematical algorithm that applies to everyone, setup advantage is completely and totally random.

Lastly - not sure why you thought you ripped my head off per that visitor message. I'm a laid back dude, we can argue all day and it's no big deal. This is a good thing, we're developing ideas in a Socratic sense. Same goes to AFO. No hard feelings here, we're just respectfully all disagreeing for a good cause.

Aristocatt
05-26-2016, 06:25 PM
Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta, both within the game as a whole, and your approach to a specific player.

That being said. Meta should not stagnate at one or two sets. It also should not be as influential as it was in TAO.

Achilles
05-26-2016, 06:40 PM
Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta, both within the game as a whole, and your approach to a specific player.

I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

Aristocatt
05-26-2016, 06:56 PM
I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

I agree with you, and I realize I am being a bit pedantic, but I do believe the way that we approach and describe the concerns we have is important. I just want to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else when they discuss their gripes with the old game.

The freeturt was used in many games in tournament play at the end. Guide would squash people that weren't at a similar skill level to him by simply playing defensively. I had beaten prof 2 or 3 times in tournament play, but I don't think I ever beat guide once in tournament games or otherwise, and it was because his approach to the game against weaker players made it so hard edge out any kind of a serious advantage in a few moves.

manonfire101
05-26-2016, 09:07 PM
Sweet summer child... I played TAO for over a decade. As far as I know, X, Mel, and I are the only day one players for TAO.com still around. There were greys who were considerably better than both of them, and who dragged out games far longer.


Because blocking is formulaic, and it's equally awarded to both players. Myself and my opponent both operate within the context of the same law of probabilities with blocking. Setup luck, however, is completely and totally random. Whereas a block is decided by a mathematical algorithm that applies to everyone, setup advantage is completely and totally random.

Lastly - not sure why you thought you ripped my head off per that visitor message. I'm a laid back dude, we can argue all day and it's no big deal. This is a good thing, we're developing ideas in a Socratic sense. Same goes to AFO. No hard feelings here, we're just respectfully all disagreeing for a good cause.

No. Nobody dragged games out longer than Lemon and Eagle. Also, you don't know any greys who are considerably better than Lemon because there are none. Additionally, you may have started playing this game a few months earlier than I did, but I have probably played this game a lot more than you have.

Blocking is dictated by an algorithm, but that doesn't mean there can't be games where blocking luck is completely one-sided. Setup luck is not completely random, certain sets are better than others. Sets that are designed to give a player an advantage immediately are usually very flawed in other ways. That is, the player who puts a GA 3 tiles from the left wall is hoping their opponent's cleric is in the left corner. If the cleric isn't there then the player using a GA is at a disadvantage. You're just taking a risk. I actually liked this because it gave inferior players a chance to knock off better players. I don't really see it as being a lot different than an inferior player knocking off a superior player because of a dsm side block. You're also not taking into account that there is skill in creating a set that isn't prone to being countered. If you're looking for a strategy game with no randomness there's always chess.

I don't think the stone golem has ever been irrelevant. I always struggled playing against freeturtles. But that may have just been a fault in my own playing.

The Professor
05-27-2016, 12:27 AM
I have a Stone Golem. My opponents Muddy is able to immediately tele in and negate it. I now have a useless unit. Yeah, you could argue that I should understand the meta better, but if the meta is "the Stone Golem is now irrelevant," then the game is flawed. I guess that's my point.

The stone golem isn't automatically irrelevant. Depending on sets and skill, you could still conceivably win said game. If you're playing a high level player, maybe not. But if said player also got the wrong side, then you have a massive advantage.

It sucks if you're on the wrong end of it, but I've always thought that's what makes this game great and fascinating. Making sets to counter one or many, and then able to create another to counter and counter again.

Also, if one player likes to try to play with set advantages, you could also use that in your favor beforehand. It's no different from sports. Just takes preparation.

Another reason why knowing who you're playing is important and why secondaries are a nuisance.

|AFO|
05-27-2016, 09:55 AM
I didn't say the defensive player should be favored. I actually don't want that at all. I said the game should be balanced and any luck introduced into it should be formulaic. I'm all for people being aggressively offensive.

Okay. I'm not sure what you're asking for then by "balancing the game". IMO anyone who camps should be rolled over by the attacking player if they are of equal skill. Even formulaic luck is not really balanced within a game. Perhaps it evens out over the course of 20 games, but a dsm side block allowing for a 2nd burn is not all that "balanced" when you get your luck 10 games down the road with consecutive scout side blocks after you've already beaten your opponent. Formulaic luck is still random. If anything, set advantages are under your control, making that "luck" more balanced.


But that is luck. If I ended up, by a 33% chance, in range of their Cleric with my GA... I was lucky. That's the inherent definition of luck. And as I said, that luck shouldn't exist in this game unless it's formulaic. But no less, it seems like we agree for the most part albeit minor technicalities.

Naw man. The GA is a unit. He is not inherently lucky. You setting him same sides as your opponent is lucky. But after the nerf, even this wasn't a large advantage. It takes 2 units to block him from the cleric and 3 hits to kill him. Heck, putting your cleric 1 space off the corner means you only need a knight to block him off. Simple tweak of your set and the GA is essentially nullified. Or you may get lucky and have your set opposite sides. Or you could put your cleric in the center and not worry about the GA at all. I think Matt said it best.
Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta.

He's also right about the stagnation of sets towards the end of the game too. There should be more than 3-4 sets being used in tournament play. However, how much of this stagnation was due to the top players only using certain sets? I would agree that TAO was limiting in its design, but I don't think it was as limiting as we made it. Who knows though.

Also, I will welcome a 1st turn mudquake against my free turtle every game. Shrubs to block off flank. Freeze mud. Now all you have to worry about is LOS. Your attack is imminent as soon as you kill the mud, and my opponent won't be able to get rid of the armor on your dragon without giving up a scout or two.

|AFO|
05-27-2016, 09:56 AM
What do you all think of having a larger "no man's land"?

Toledo
05-27-2016, 10:40 AM
What if there is terrain? Impassable objects on the board that limit where you can put units and where units can walk? This would allow flying units like a DT to be stronger since they could fly over terrain, meaning you could take some power from them in other areas (dmg/health/etc). If done properly, this could help address the issue of setup "luck".

The Butcher
05-27-2016, 11:18 AM
WOLFPACK is tight AF

Aristocatt
05-27-2016, 01:11 PM
I think that both increasing the size of no mans land and adding terrain are good ideas. In creasing no mans land by 1 or 2 rows would completely change the dynamic of the game.

Achilles
05-27-2016, 02:06 PM
Hey guys. I'm at work and on my phone, so I can't respond in depth. I just want to throw it out there that I hope nobody takes this personally, and I very much so believe us respectfully butting heads is beneficial. I'll respond tonight.

DivineLeft
05-27-2016, 02:12 PM
I personally hate games where no mans land is too great.. You sit there waiting.. or your opponent does until one of you makes the mistake of getting to close.. Now on the other hand I love Stratego and other games with terrain barriers. I think its why I liked the furgon and stoney combo.

Toledo
05-27-2016, 04:35 PM
The more I think about terrain the more I like it. Or maybe even health packs(we can think of a better name), one time use heals on a designated tile that heal the first unit to walk over it for X health.

The Professor
05-28-2016, 01:48 AM
Special tiles is a pretty cool idea. Like tiles that raise defense or attack power, or the inverse.

|AFO|
05-28-2016, 02:15 PM
Would these be random or would you place them? It'd be interesting if there was a random terrain/tile generator and you would have like 2 minutes to set your pieces. And this could be like a specific style if you aren't into that kinda thing. We'd also have standard terrain/tile layouts, custom layouts that you could edit or none or something.

Toledo
05-28-2016, 05:42 PM
Would these be random or would you place them?

Neither in my opinion. They would be on the same spots every match. Both players would be aware of their location and could create their setups/strategies accordingly.

Aristocatt
05-28-2016, 08:02 PM
Would these be random or would you place them? It'd be interesting if there was a random terrain/tile generator and you would have like 2 minutes to set your pieces. And this could be like a specific style if you aren't into that kinda thing. We'd also have standard terrain/tile layouts, custom layouts that you could edit or none or something.

This sounds like a really cool idea if done right.

feelthemagic
05-30-2016, 02:35 AM
Here's a few units from my old project that fall in the 'special tiles' vein. What do you guys think? :)

http://i.imgur.com/KziX2Pl.png

The last two are artifacts - my version of wards.

rainblade
05-30-2016, 03:09 PM
How about an actual Hydra instead of a 'Vine Hydra'? 9 attack range is ridiculous for a board game that is on an 8x8 grid. It's just too far. Couple that with 10 dmg and that unit becomes an OP pure sniper with a Scout's HP and some armor to boot.

A character buffer with 8 AOE attack range on an 8x8 board and 10HP makes this unit the first one killed every game in which it's used. Buffing characters tend to be of moderate durability, less than tanks but more than pure attackers. I'd balance the super low HP with the super OP passives.

Movement buffs are complex on a board game and would likely be underutilized, which makes it a good idea for a finished game that requires delicate balancing. The heal every turn is way too prone to abuse in a TBS, though. I wouldn't include a ton of passive abilities in a board game like TAO. We should definitely have some, though, since passive abilities are an inventive and intriguing aspect of almost every newer game.


When you really get into the balancing, Hulky, I'm willing to do extensive work with you to help. I've played many games of all kinds (AAAs, Android/iOS, TBS, etc.) and so I have some insight into the broader gaming community that others on the forum might not have.

rainblade
06-01-2016, 09:03 PM
We should decide on a theme before we decide on unit names, so that way we can all have an idea of what kind of creatures we're looking to make into units.

Mar
06-05-2016, 02:35 AM
Do we even know what the game is going to look like or what the details are going to be to already be making units?

Though you do have some good ones, they just don't look balanced. But I still think it's too early.

Hulky
06-05-2016, 02:37 AM
Do we even know what the game is going to look like or what the details are going to be to already be making units?

Though you do have some good ones, they just don't look balanced. But I still think it's too early.

Are you talking about the new thread?

Mar
06-05-2016, 02:38 AM
Are you talking about the new thread?

Yeah, it's good. Really similar to TAO, maybe we should talk game mechanics first. Also, are you planning to launch your own?

Hulky
06-05-2016, 02:39 AM
What unit looks unbalanced to you?

Mar
06-05-2016, 02:43 AM
What unit looks unbalanced to you?

I haven't looked into it that deeply, but the Paladin doesn't seem strong enough. I think the math is a little off for them too, but I'll check it out in more depth later.

I was thinking about creating a tactic where some units would work well with some, like the DSM and dragon, but on a larger scale. So, you could have a stone golem, if stoning a particular unit, can give that unit a special ability. This works on rare occasions.

Similarly, I had the idea of creating styles within styles. Types of play and types of units (7-10 units, in groups) that work together in sync. Like choosing a team in pokemon, you can choose all water, all earth, all grass or a mixture of each.

Mar
06-05-2016, 10:19 AM
What do you think?

Mar
06-05-2016, 02:28 PM
Bah fuck it

Hulky
06-05-2016, 03:12 PM
I went in basically the other direction by eliminating the DSM. (Sorry I was making the archer)

Mar
06-05-2016, 04:04 PM
What would be really beneficial is an extremely basic version of the game with just the units and board, that is fully functional without graphics. Like a 2-D chess variety where we can do trial and error analysis of the balance of the game. I think this would be pretty simple to make, actually.

Toledo
06-05-2016, 04:08 PM
I went in basically the other direction by eliminating the DSM. (Sorry I was making the archer)

I like the idea of a DSM unit. But holy fuck it should not be able to block.

Mar
06-05-2016, 04:41 PM
So I say we get on this mission to develop an extremely basic version of the game, moving pieces on the board and having the math programmed.

Hulky
06-05-2016, 04:56 PM
That's basically been the plan for the last couple months.
Just minus people testing it it's almost more efficient to skip.

Mar
06-05-2016, 05:05 PM
I mean, no animations, just the engine. No AI or anything, just numbers and manual movement.

Hulky
06-05-2016, 05:14 PM
Yeah that was the plan. Tiles with flat images just to show what direct it's facing and the basic 2d top down game.

Mar
06-05-2016, 05:18 PM
Yeah that was the plan. Tiles with flat images just to show what direct it's facing and the basic 2d top down game.

Whose plan? Did anyone make it

Hulky
06-05-2016, 06:00 PM
lol it's being made it takes a ton of work to build it all up from scratch. Matt Roe's doing to programing and I'm doing graphics. I think Realist is helping Matt, and Mel is helping me. Mel has knowledge in both so he's working with both Matt and I and answering a bunch of questions.

BTW it's not a closed team, if you want to help in a certain area post about it.

One by One
06-05-2016, 06:58 PM
do you and the team have an estimated time of completion hulky? Or maybe a rough draft to launch so some of us who aren't really programmers can give feedback

Hulky
06-05-2016, 07:34 PM
I don't think it's really possible to make a realistic timeline since we are learning as we make it so it's kinda hard to guess how long things take.
We could make a forum game of the units and board I posted though. Have a host that uses random.org to determine blocking. Have to keep a log of unit direction as well.

Hulky
06-05-2016, 07:40 PM
One thing that would be nice for me to have as I move into coloring units in the nearish future will be to know what colors you guys would like. Like TAO had or whatever - except it would be nice if you guys Hexcode'd the colors you'd like so I can use the exact colors in the graphics.

Mar
06-06-2016, 02:02 PM
Way to keep the project a secret lol

Toledo
06-06-2016, 02:06 PM
Way to keep the project a secret lol

What's worse is that BR is allegedly developing his own version at an unknown rate with absolutely no transparency.

Hulky
06-06-2016, 02:17 PM
What do you mean we are being secret? What do you want to know? There's another group making a game as well that essentially stopped talking. I'd say the group on the forums is easily the most transparent.

I asked a while ago for people to develop a game. No one created a proposal, so I made one. I made twenty units with stats. Before that I read people essentially wanted the TAO board, but with an additional no mans land, so I made that. I don't know what you want to know that you think we are hiding. Matt's learning things like what kind of information is where and how it's sent from the game to the server and how to do it efficiently and how to create the server and how to make lobby chat and channels and that sort of thing that I don't understand. Matt's also working on game logic potentially with xyxaxyz2 (who reached out like a month ago by reading this board and being interested). Meletus is helping me learn Blender for 3d modeling and going to help with animations and how we make the graphics efficiently work with the actual game. Mel seems to have the most experience across the entire process.

Toledo
06-06-2016, 02:46 PM
Hulky, you're being incredibly transparent. Hats off to you and all of the effort you've put into to not only beginning to build a new game but also teaching yourself how. The frustration comes from the fact that there are other groups allegedly creating their own versions, highly skilled individuals such as BR, and yet we have no information whatsoever.

Aristocatt
06-06-2016, 03:17 PM
The networking is mostly done for the alpha version. The only thing I am stuck on is how to best instant instantiate the game state. I really don't want to do this part poorly and then have to go back and spend days redoing everything.

Once this is decided the rest of the game should take less than a month for an alpha version.

Aristocatt
06-06-2016, 03:18 PM
Br has other priorities right now. Bee started our own group because the slack group hasn't done anything in the past 2-3 weeks.

Aristocatt
06-06-2016, 03:19 PM
Hopefully that gives you guys a timeline for an alpha launch. Probably prior to the end of July. It's not going to be pretty though.

Apollo
06-06-2016, 04:37 PM
I just want you to know I'll put on a cheerleading outfit if it helps in any way

Mar
06-07-2016, 05:32 AM
Nobody told me you were working on one, that's all. I thought you were just making units for the game BR was building, or just for fun.

DivineLeft
06-07-2016, 09:01 AM
Look at the forum title.. read posts.. It's not that hard. I'll send you the evite for paying attention.

Hulky
06-07-2016, 08:53 PM
Expanded World 1.0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsCZSGAnTg

Wizzy
06-08-2016, 02:47 AM
that's pretty cool. is that how the different terrains will be? mountains, water, desert, etc?

Mar
06-08-2016, 03:12 AM
Honestly, I kind of liked the 2-D board. It made it easier to visualize and strategize spatially.

Hulky
06-08-2016, 02:38 PM
I don't 100% get where you are going with 2D board and all that, but in gameplay this file I basically take a picture of the board in a still position. Then I'll vignette it so it fades to black. The entire world is just there so I can move arenas around and create different environments which is something a lot of people asked for. Also open world so I can move the characters through for story telling.

Mar
06-08-2016, 05:43 PM
I don't 100% get where you are going with 2D board and all that, but in gameplay this file I basically take a picture of the board in a still position. Then I'll vignette it so it fades to black. The entire world is just there so I can move arenas around and create different environments which is something a lot of people asked for. Also open world so I can move the characters through for story telling.

What do you mean by story telling? Are you trying to make it a real time strategy? Because I think that would take away from what TAO is actually about: wizards chess. In my opinion, the concept should be kept simple and should have a linear goal in mind. Too many things going on tends to confuse people, the most successful games are the simplest. This game should cater to those who are intelligent and also to those who are not.

Hulky
06-08-2016, 07:21 PM
fml moment:

1: Open world, explorable.
2: Make character on other layer
3: Make an invisible holder object for character and clothing object to enter together standing up so it can move in front of camera like GTA
4: Make the basic code for moving and jumping and adding the character.
5: Play and hope for the best, end up with below s/s


http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Lookitscaptainme/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-08%20at%204.13.14%20PM_zpsb2lptyqf.png

entering sideways (still jumps lol as shown) and without clothing. fml.

Mar
06-08-2016, 11:10 PM
Looks like you've got a whole nother game in mind

Hulky
06-08-2016, 11:35 PM
Learning the program Kash don't get too upset lol.

Mar
06-09-2016, 03:44 AM
Can't wait to see what all of you have planned. I'm not sure what's happening with BR, I think it may have gone stale. He should keep us in the loop if he wants us to rally behind him.

Hulky
06-11-2016, 11:50 PM
I like the idea of a hip quiver, does anyone have an objection to that compared to a sling on the back like traditional? Not going to wait forever for responses obviously, but thoughts?
ie:
http://i.imgur.com/odi8kaB.jpg

Mar
06-12-2016, 12:18 AM
Yup that's good. It won't make that big of a difference, but the aesthetic qualities on the character are different. I don't see a problemo.

Hulky
06-12-2016, 02:01 AM
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Lookitscaptainme/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-11%20at%2010.57.44%20PM_zpswnhjwiay.png

In case people don't look at the other thread as I edit in new screen shots. This is the most up to date of the archer unit.

The pants have armor on the sides and a little on the top middle (front/back) that would be hard to see right now (since pants don't have materials/textures/mapping done yet [neither does the skin or shirt])

Anything you guys want added? Doesn't have to be just the Archer, if you want to describe or post a picture of something you want similarly featured on a unit please post. It's much much much easier for me to do it if it's beforehand.

edit: colored it so it's a bit easier to see:
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Lookitscaptainme/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-11%20at%2011.33.23%20PM_zps1vcln3cg.png

edit2: also I took the curls out of the hair. I could change the hairdo as well (certain things seem wicked hard though like pony-tails). If you guys have hair do style recommendations though feel free.

edit3: close up front view (changed hairstyle again)
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Lookitscaptainme/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-12%20at%2012.29.39%20AM_zpswragxyt5.png

Cross Punisher
06-12-2016, 11:43 AM
Looks pretty interesting, good luck. Hopefully we get to see it in action

oh and thanks for fixing the post count and join date

Hulky
06-14-2016, 01:26 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sOHbrhmh_o

Yes, no, maybe?

Comments on what you want different, add attack animation obviously as well as a marker for color to determine team, but aside from that, or how you want those to look?

KickAssPlaya
06-14-2016, 08:33 PM
I think that looks good :thumbsup:

|AFO|
06-15-2016, 12:35 PM
Agreed. Both look really good.

Wizzy
06-15-2016, 03:11 PM
Woah. Did you make that from scratch? Thats friggin impressive.

For color difference you shold give him some type of armor maybe?

Aristocatt
06-15-2016, 03:30 PM
How do you guys feel about blocking?
One option we have is to remove blocking and just decrease armor for side shots and back shots. Thoughts?

Toledo
06-15-2016, 03:54 PM
That is a mighty fine looking wolf.

Mar
06-15-2016, 04:24 PM
How do you guys feel about blocking?
One option we have is to remove blocking and just decrease armor for side shots and back shots. Thoughts?

Definitely keep blocking, it's what makes people come back. It's the spin to a traditional strategy game, the luck factor is what makes this game different, decreasing armor isn't the same. What model are you using for blocking?

Toledo
06-15-2016, 04:41 PM
Keep blocking, but be smarter about it. MAGES SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BLOCK!!!

Hulky
06-15-2016, 04:43 PM
Toledo can you look at the Units thread and use the new names instead of the TAO units? It makes it harder to follow by using the old game. I don't know what you mean by mages, there is a Wizard which is a hybrid of the Pyro and Witch. It has a staff. Thematically that makes more sense for blocking than a Wolf which is like the old assassin.

Hulky
06-15-2016, 05:02 PM
The biggest discussion is easily Square Tiles v. Hexagon Tiles.

Does anyone have thoughts on it?

Wizzy
06-15-2016, 06:05 PM
what's the difference other than style?

Gabe
06-15-2016, 06:09 PM
Here's two good reads on it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/28zvch/lets_talk_about_the_use_of_a_grid_or_hexes_in/

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedesign/comments/4aqqki/hex_vs_square_tiles/

Aristocatt
06-15-2016, 06:14 PM
Okay so keep blocking, but be better about it.
A little vague but easy enough. Glass Cannons should not have blocking, because it can completely upset the balance of a game in one move.

Hulky
06-15-2016, 06:33 PM
The Wizard needs more protection if no 25% blocking. 2 scouts with no blocking and LOS you just pick him off.

Mar
06-15-2016, 06:51 PM
The biggest discussion is easily Square Tiles v. Hexagon Tiles.

Does anyone have thoughts on it?

I like the idea of Hex tiles. Taking advantage of a diagonal square can make for an interesting strategy. Let's try hex.

Mar
06-15-2016, 07:12 PM
What do you guys think?

Aristocatt
06-15-2016, 07:31 PM
We've been discussing it quite a bit today, and seem to be tentatively in favor of hexagonal tiles.

Two concerns it has raised:
1) Potential to increase the learning curve.
2) Additional considerations for unit balancing to allow for a healthy mix of effective in-game strategies.

Wizzy
06-15-2016, 08:10 PM
I'm down for hexagonal tiles as well.. TAO needs upgrades and this should definitely be one of them. It seems like there will be a tactical advantage to using them as opposed to square tiles.

Mar
06-15-2016, 08:30 PM
We've been discussing it quite a bit today, and seem to be tentatively in favor of hexagonal tiles.

Two concerns it has raised:
1) Potential to increase the learning curve.
2) Additional considerations for unit balancing to allow for a healthy mix of effective in-game strategies.

The learning curve is not meant to be easy, and will be even more difficult for brand new players, but this game is first and foremost a strategy game. I don't think we need to worry about the learning curve when deciding difficulty or balance for this, there are always easier styles and harder styles that we can play around. It would be very difficult to extrapolate how they would play without an extremely basic version of the game. We don't know what units we're using nor and defined movements so lets wing it first and do trial and error checks later.

DivineLeft
06-15-2016, 11:33 PM
Regarding "blocking". It think it's an element of the game worth keeping. However if I would modify it, it should only provide dmg reduction like 70-80% max, not No damage whats so ever. Especially for magic users.. unless we have a force like block that happens.. and that poor poor cleric. What would a game be if he was able to "Block".. I will refer to that character as the Priestess.. (sorry Hulky)

rainblade
06-16-2016, 12:17 AM
hex tiles, bitch!

|AFO|
06-16-2016, 10:41 AM
The learning curve is not meant to be easy, and will be even more difficult for brand new players, but this game is first and foremost a strategy game. I don't think we need to worry about the learning curve when deciding difficulty or balance for this, there are always easier styles and harder styles that we can play around. It would be very difficult to extrapolate how they would play without an extremely basic version of the game. We don't know what units we're using nor and defined movements so lets wing it first and do trial and error checks later.

Eh. I think hex tiles will dramatically change game play to the point that it won't really be the same game anymore. I actually do not think there will be a bigger learning curve per say. In fact, I think it will be a lower learning curve. In my head, I see the ability of attaching from 6 directions means that defense is going to be all but eliminated. That or you really have to beef up defensive units, which would be equally annoying. Part of the elegance of tao was that units could only be attack from 4 directions. You could plan a defense and also had to be wary on offense. You couldn't just out maneuver your opponent.

Has anyone played Hexagonal chess? If so, how did it change the game?

Hulky
06-16-2016, 01:49 PM
I had (sort of still have) the same concerns as AFO. However they (Gabe and Matt) have the code made for the Hex board and the deadline for the Alpha release wouldn't change. The best way to know how it will play out will be in testing, and if it sucks it shouldn't be hard to change the board back to squares.

I've had a hard time visualizing some of the attack patterns in Hex and I guess it makes sense once I took a blank hex board and painted tiles to visually see them. LOS is something that gets remapped and likely the greatest strategic change in the game. I'm excited to play again and try it all out.

Mar
06-16-2016, 03:11 PM
Eh. I think hex tiles will dramatically change game play to the point that it won't really be the same game anymore. I actually do not think there will be a bigger learning curve per say. In fact, I think it will be a lower learning curve. In my head, I see the ability of attaching from 6 directions means that defense is going to be all but eliminated. That or you really have to beef up defensive units, which would be equally annoying. Part of the elegance of tao was that units could only be attack from 4 directions. You could plan a defense and also had to be wary on offense. You couldn't just out maneuver your opponent.

Has anyone played Hexagonal chess? If so, how did it change the game?

I'm just interested to see how hex tiles will function. TAO is a lot different than chess with movement and positioning, there has always been more room to function and maneuver units. I wouldn't mind beefing up defense units, or adding more, but we just need to make sure we keep the fundamental gameplay the same. That is to say, units and gameplay work in sync and we need to keep the synchronicity. I think we can try it out and always change it back if it isn't working, I agree that it would drastically change strategy, though.

Mar
06-16-2016, 04:21 PM
Regarding "blocking". It think it's an element of the game worth keeping. However if I would modify it, it should only provide dmg reduction like 70-80% max, not No damage whats so ever. Especially for magic users.. unless we have a force like block that happens.. and that poor poor cleric. What would a game be if he was able to "Block".. I will refer to that character as the Priestess.. (sorry Hulky)

So are you saying there shouldn't be a hit/miss function? Should everything hit but just to a lesser degree?

Hulky
06-16-2016, 04:55 PM
Yeah basically mel's idea is hit is 100% of damage minus armor. Block is 100% of damage minus armor, and minus another like "blocking armor".

Example like Attack has 100 strength. Defender has 25% armor. A hit would do 75 damage. A block, if it has 50% blocking armor, would do 25% of strength (100% -25% for armor - 50% for blocking) so 25 damage.

At least that's what I think he means.

|AFO|
06-16-2016, 09:54 PM
I'm just interested to see how hex tiles will function. TAO is a lot different than chess with movement and positioning, there has always been more room to function and maneuver units. I wouldn't mind beefing up defense units, or adding more, but we just need to make sure we keep the fundamental gameplay the same. That is to say, units and gameplay work in sync and we need to keep the synchronicity. I think we can try it out and always change it back if it isn't working, I agree that it would drastically change strategy, though.

That's not the point. Its not a comparison between the two, but a suggestion that if it drastically changed chess, then it will do the same for TAO. I'm just not too sure why yall are trying to make so many changes. I think changing the units first is enough. Trying to change everything at once is just going to result in a different game. If that's what yall want to do that's cool, but different units, different map, hex tiles. Probably isn't going to have a TAO feel to it anymore. I could be wrong though.

Hulky
06-17-2016, 10:17 PM
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Lookitscaptainme/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-17%20at%207.14.18%20PM_zpsfsikelv0.png

Any pictures you guys wanna grab for me to add details to the armor a bit? Like a style of hemet or certain armor looks or whatever. Rolling with the general style here unless you guys have input. Got a sword ready not pictured as well. Still adding more to it (ie. upper arm plates, leg plates, and boots). Cape (yes/no)?

Wizzy
06-17-2016, 10:41 PM
http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z457/selene0789/NoCapes_zps82c1bcc0.jpg

Hulky
06-18-2016, 01:52 AM
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Lookitscaptainme/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-17%20at%2010.47.48%20PM_zpsvg1fetjn.png

Still need to make a shield, but that's pretty much what I had in mind unless you guys have anything special you'd like added.

Mar
06-18-2016, 02:00 AM
That's not the point. Its not a comparison between the two, but a suggestion that if it drastically changed chess, then it will do the same for TAO. I'm just not too sure why yall are trying to make so many changes. I think changing the units first is enough. Trying to change everything at once is just going to result in a different game. If that's what yall want to do that's cool, but different units, different map, hex tiles. Probably isn't going to have a TAO feel to it anymore. I could be wrong though.

I agree with this and don't think we should change it so it lacks strategy, but we can always give it a shot and change it later if it doesn't work out. I definitely think new units are a must, there should be a learning curve for even the old players, but hex tiles are debatable.

Mar
06-18-2016, 02:01 AM
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/Lookitscaptainme/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-17%20at%2010.47.48%20PM_zpsvg1fetjn.png

Still need to make a shield, but that's pretty much what I had in mind unless you guys have anything special you'd like added.

Is that a knight? Maybe make him a little bigger?

Gabe
06-18-2016, 12:52 PM
That's not the point. Its not a comparison between the two, but a suggestion that if it drastically changed chess, then it will do the same for TAO. I'm just not too sure why yall are trying to make so many changes. I think changing the units first is enough. Trying to change everything at once is just going to result in a different game. If that's what yall want to do that's cool, but different units, different map, hex tiles. Probably isn't going to have a TAO feel to it anymore. I could be wrong though.

Ultimately if you play any game with the expectation of it being TAO or a TAO-clone you are going to be let down. Simply because we can't rip TAO too much, there are legal issues.

The game we are building is indeed going to be a new, different game. It'll still have a TAO feel to it, but with slight changes to features, units, mechanics, etc, etc.

Think of it like ESO versus Elder Scrolls. ESO, by its own standards is a good game, but so many players went in expecting an Elder Scrolls game and were disappointed. Hopefully we don't disappoint everyone, but its good to set expectations that the game won't be a direct copy of TAO.

Naturally, a lot of testing is going to go into this new game, and one of the things we all will be looking at will be how to best balance defensive and offensive units and strategies.

Mar
06-19-2016, 12:47 AM
Ill definitely beta test when we're at that stage, even just playing with the skeleton would be helpful in balancing. Especially because we will have a much wider variety of unit types.

Hulky
06-23-2016, 03:29 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n68bOUpBOrk

Skip like 3:30 to ~4:30 to ditch the load time on importing the object

This is just me trying to understand what it might sorta be like for what Matt and Gabe are doing. I burned out a bit from overloading on unit making so this is a mini-break that is still somewhat productive. The alpha I'm making is using the same program Gabe is using (but not Matt), but they are doing Hex and I'm going to try square. Mine probably won't make it as far as theirs but it's at least helpful to me to visualize how stuff fits in the game, what works and what doesn't yada yada. Mine's 3D as well, I just have the camera in full top down mode in the Youtube video (I'll move it to a more appealing angle down the line after some graphics are added (like a physical board [the grid shown is invisible. I just have it showing right now to make sure I'm not building it wrong (originally I couldn't figure out how to show it and then I figured that out. Then once it showed I realized I math'd wrong a bit and one of the lines was off to the side lol).

Notes of the day are coding is confusing as hell, like it makes sense but can get super frustrating trying to find the words to do what you want it to do. Then even more so when you mis-capitalize or typo an extra } or miss a semicolon, etc. Kind of fun to start to understand the process a little more though.

Mar
06-23-2016, 10:30 AM
Looks like it's coming together well, make sure not to burn out since that might delay the project. Instead do it little by little and not a whole lot at one time, that's better for learning too. Are you trying to program too? Have you guys all been collaborating frequently? It's important to function as a team and share breakthroughs often too. I'd like to partake if I can but I'm not sure I can help at this stage, I also have other things going on at the moment. I'll let you guys know.

Hulky
06-26-2016, 03:57 PM
New units (concept stats and arts/animations).

Not willing to share quite yet though as I have a ton of learning left to do before I can make anything worth seeing though.

Animations will include:
Attack - Attack animation, multiples if multiple types of attacks
Move - movement.
Hit - Flinches a bit when hit.
Block - if relevant
Death - collapse to ground/ then disappear

Tile previews - Select unit, tiles change color to see whats available as legal options.

I'm super far behind the learning curve, but I don't feel stumped yet so that's good.

One new thing I've thought about and asked some people about that is generally well received (but some reservations) is something like this:
1) Imagine TAO exactly as it was for balance sake.
2) There is no barrier ward unit.
3) Units that can't kill (or paralyze) opposing units do not count towards end game (no more chasing a furgon and cleric around the map when they are the only ones left)
4) Cleric gains a secondary attack (like mud golem could punch or quake) hold = heal team, click individual = barrier. This allows the barrier ward ability the ability to move, something that would make it more powerful as an offensive tool. Move + Attack is 5 turn wait. So to move the cleric, then barrier would create a 5 turn wait and focus attack. Then if you move, heal, barrier something else, or rotate focus is broken. (Note this leads to a question of if Barrier, into break barrier, into heal in a single turn is OP; also makes offensive barriering more viable [barrier opposing units to prevent them from being healed]).

This makes the game of kill the cleric even more so. Perhaps no self targeting on barrier. Moving your cleric forward and barriering your offensive attack is something aggressive, freestyle and turtle formations could use. Like blocking LOS to Cleric, then barriering the stone golem then fighting off the threats is something relevant in turtle perhaps.

Anyways I am going to roll with it in my version, then we can test it whenever it gets that far. Do you guys have any thoughts on that?

Hulky
06-26-2016, 04:55 PM
Would you guys like to see a specific unit? Like the coding isn't done so I can't show a lot of it, but like general appearance if someone's really hyped and really wants to see current progress.

Unit 1: Invader/Knight Like foreign armor / Sword / Sweep Attack / Self Explode [suicide bomb] - TAOComp = Assassin
Unit 2: Halberdier/ Middle ages-esque Armor / Halberd [spear/axe hybrid weapon] - TAO Comp = Berserker? Beast Rider? Maybe like Elephant in the Units thread where it pushes units back.
Unit 3: Wizard / Looks kinda fruity like swindler fake magic / staff / multiple spells - TAO Comp = Pyromancer/Dark Magic Witch/DragonSpeaker Mage
Unit 4: Archer / Armored chain mail / Quiver on back and hip / Bow / Sword /Bow for range/Sword for 1 tile away animation same damage - TAO Comp = Scout
Unit 5: Priestess / Staff / Up to 3 spells [Barrier / Team Heal / and either push back opposing unit or individual concentrated heal] - TAO Comp = Cleric
Unit 6: Knight / Armored / Sword and Shield - TAO Comp = Knight
Unit 7: Electric Elemental - TAO Comp = Lightning Ward
Unit 8: Fire Elemental - TAO Comp = Golem Ambusher
Unit 9: Disease Elemental - TAO Comp = Poison Wisp
Unit 10: Nature Elemental - TAO Comp = Furgon
Unit 11: Machination Automaton = TAO Comp = ??? Some sort of large combat unit.
Unit 12: Earthen Elemental - TAO Comp = Mud Golem
Unit 13: Ice Elemental - TAO Comp = Frost Golem
Unit 14: Rock Elemental - TAO Comp = Stone Golem

+ more elementals if we want them. I have a dragon and the wolf, but haven't imported them yet as I might replace them.

Hulky
06-27-2016, 06:04 AM
Currently I have 13 units uploaded into my board (plus one sub-unit).
1. Archer (Scout-like)
2. Dragon (Dragon-Tyrant-like)
3. Earthen Elemental (Mud Golem-like)
4. Fire Elemental (Golem Ambusher-like)
5. Halberdier (Unique - AFO's idea of a guy that pushes units back)
6. Ice Elemental (Frost Golem-like)
7. Knight (Knight-like)
8. Lightning Elemental (Lightning Ward-like)
9. Paladin (Assassin-like)
10. Priestess (Cleric/Barrier Ward-like)
11. Seed Elemental (Furgon-like)
- Bush (Shrub-like)
12. Spirit Elemental (Stone Golem-like)
13. Wizard (Pyromancer-Dark Magic Witch-like)

Hulky
06-27-2016, 06:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpI00nB4ezI

current update on my progress
(all the elementals have the animations currently hooked on buttons, so I figured I'd show them off while it's that way). The others are on idle animation. Archer dancing is upsetting right now, but it's whatever I guess. Fire Elemental, I messed with it's collider and forgot to switch it back.

Wizzy
06-27-2016, 10:40 AM
It looks like that version of chess they play in Star Wars. the archer made me lol

The One
06-28-2016, 11:55 PM
Phenomenal work so far, Hulky. I'm very excited with where this could go.

Hulky
06-30-2016, 06:06 PM
I posted this in the world thread, but I'll repost here since this is more active


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0FpSdQjAD0

This is my first attempt at an open world like thing. Really rough draft and looks like n64-y right now, but could get drastically better. Not sure if an open world would get implemented, but I'm learning it anyways.

Mar
07-01-2016, 11:15 AM
That's actually really fucking good after learning for a month, keep going. Like we could have the option of a battle after going through a door, etc. it would be like Pokemon except strategy

Hulky
07-04-2016, 02:01 PM
That's actually really fucking good after learning for a month, keep going. Like we could have the option of a battle after going through a door, etc. it would be like Pokemon except strategy

that's basically what I was thinking but I don't have any idea how much harder it would be (or higher server costs?)

Anyways I know the world part wasn't really the part most people are interested in. I'll post a where I'm at right now (Matt Roe is doing it a different way in a different language, and Gabe is doing it also: they may be further ahead or whatever I dunno). I just started the Knight unit at like midnight last night so he is still glitchy as hell (including turn wait time, which is the only unit effected and I need to discover that glitch because it's going to be useful when I implement recovery times), but I did the Archers yesterday and they work well.

Things obviously fucked up:
- One player moves every unit every turn.
- There is no rotation, blocking or LOS
- All units have the same attack pattern (one tile), but there is range.
- There are no buttons for move, attack, rotate, (currently non-existent), (only end turn and restart).
- One player is AI (and it's not all that smart)
- All the shape units are wicked under powered and holder units so I can do testing.
- I don't have a chat or server or any of that connected. Just starting the basics of the actual TBS game.
- I'm not sure yet how to implement the settings style custom formation where you save the starting location on another scene and load it while entering a match. It's drag-drop and attach to nearest tile right now, but not the correct alterable way in-game.


The Knight glitch is if you move it's like a 12 turn wait or something like that to attack again. Which is craziness. I'm going to figure out where that is at and if I messed up the math somewhere (I had armor at one point being damage multiplied by armor = real damage, now I have it set up as subtraction since decimals aren't working in certain areas and I need to learn how to do PEMDAS in C#) . Also the units have unique scripts attached to them where like spear guy is weaker to Archer (who is at full stats so it's one hit kill all of them, but if I boosted spear guy to normal stats you'd see it) and spear guy is stronger against Paladin, who is stronger against Archer. I don't know if you will catch it but the big cylinder titled Hero has a one time boost button with a sword icon. It's directly on the unit and clickable, his power gets boosted for 3 turns if you click it. Basically thats the basis for the Spirit Element script to boost armor (replacing strength with armor and tweaking math and converting from button to a units attack). I have to change not being able to target your own units as well as when the healing Priestess is added it needs to target the team to heal.

Anyways yeah.

Thoughts on the shape of the board? I converted to Hex to try it and realized the tapered corners is not going to be able to be done the same way and there was no conversation on what a hex board would look like.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t-xHJVpn5Y

Hulky
07-06-2016, 05:28 AM
I don't know if you guys have any idea how frustrating it is working on this for hours everyday and check many times during the day to see if anyone suggested anything from an environment that would be cool, to a CAU to even what to call the game instead of "the new game" and always see nothing.

It really really sucks because I have to go back doing what I was doing so I don't become a disappointment and quit building it like seemingly everyone else has done. I've wanted to make a logo for weeks so my user interfaces don't just say shit like TAO2 or Test in Arial font. I've wanted suggestions on anything environmental so I could make a world that looks like the damn world people want so they don't see the final project and have disappointment because it doesn't look how they wanted. I've wanted to know a grid size and or shape for a while so every time I make the game and test things and work out bugs in my code I don't have to redo it all because the fucking board looks wrong. I don't know fi you guys want Hex or Square, Square I made the board decision shape and size based off what I want and like 2 votes. Hex, no one has said anything about shape just maybe hex would be a good change. I haven't even heard a "yeah that unit looks cool" or a fuck I think theres a better looking _____ that could be made. I think Kash and Wizzy are the only two to really make a comment on appearance (no cape on knight, and side quiver is cool [both of which exist now]). This is really really hard to do and it's getting more and more expensive (which I'm not complaining about, but it sure as fuck is more money than I'd spend on a game to play by myself [currently $999.37 into TAO2]). All I want is some activity and I'll make anything ANYTHING you guys wanted for TAO over the last decade.

You remember all the frustration about 2010ish maybe earlier or later individually, but the idea. The idea you spent months of TAO subscriptions $60 a year for years and Seed was gone? All those ideas we all posted in suggestions and CAU, thousands and thousands? All those ideas and the frustration knowing none of it would happen? This is the same feeling for me, except I'm years and years of subscriptions in money wise and it's the community that isn't participating. There isn't a Seed is gone, it's a community is gone right now feeling.

For the last 2+ months I have worked on this new game (notice it's still new game instead of a game title because no one has any input on wtf we should call it) for so many hours that my computer overheats everyday and I have to ice it down to cool it off so I can keep working until somewhere between 2 and 5am when my eyes burn and close and I fall asleep only to wake up and keep working? My birthday was the first of this month. I worked on the new game for something like 8 hours or so and that has been my biggest break. The day before I worked on the new game all day inside, then went outside when the sun went down, worked until my eyes burned and my brain shut down (somewhere between 3 and 4 am) and woke up with the sun rise, screen still open and began working again. I've done that at least 4 times in the last couple weeks. On the night of July 3rd through the 4th of July I sat in the same fucking chair I'm sitting in now and played Game of Thrones in the background for distraction beginning Season 1 Episode 1 and I've finished season 4, all while working on this and taking breaks to refresh the forums hoping ANYONE suggested or commented on ANYTHING.

People wanted this new game as soon as possible. They wanted it the second TAO died. I am putting my full fucking effort in and it's incredibly frustrating to not see any discussion.

Do you guys remember the Slack group being formed from the FB group and the end of the old forums? There is 26 members in that chat. 26 people that said they would work in some capacity on this game. The last messages on it were June 12th, it was "Is Hulky in this chat? Or are the forums a better place for discussion?" "Yeah, but 100% of discussion nowadays is on the forums because it's mostly creative stuff".

I have a playable game right now. A game no one has put any input in at all for. Not a single custom unit (CAU style with a name and stats or even a partial or an idea). Not a single image for "I'd like ____ to look like this sorta" for anything from a fucking tree to a button. Not a single suggestion about any of it. Just TAO and some minor discussion I've started. The Slack group was basically the same, except Billy suggested his old school project as a basis. The most productive has been the chats Matt, Mel and Gabe have had with me, and even those have become seemingly inactive. I'm so many steps past and so many hours in past the last messages sent in those chats.

I started my own alpha because I don't want this project to be another cock tease. I am 100% committed to making this - and it 100% will be done even if it costs me another thousand or five dollars and another month or decade to finish. I've put my entire life on hold to finish this and I am probably among the least qualified of anyone to do it. All I want is what we all wanted. All I want is a handful of people to have a sliver of give a damn so my hundreds of hours of work doesn't become a game that is 100% my creation and my ideas that is played by me. Nothing would be more depressing than if nads was right in 2004: TAO[2] is only Hulky and his alts.

I've even learned how to make it for virtual reality, iphone app, android app, computer browser [minus chrome browser, but learning that too] whatever fucking PS4 or xBox1. It works already. I'm a game ahead of that last video and it's only been seen something like 10 times where at least 5 of them are me. Every time I say or write something along "the new game" it fucking kills me because it reminds me that seemingly no one cares enough to suggest even a name, not just for the game but even down to a unit or less like "put a fucking chicken in the game call it chicken and have it run around and shit".

I posted on the FB group "also a little longer term, the World this game is set in is coming up eventually and I want to know what you guys want it to be like. Is it an island? [...]" and that was June 27th. I finished an Island open world days ago and the only ideas were weather (thanks Max I've looked into it and I can do it) and Kash's feedback on my birthday a not me post ago in this thread. Long term is about a day for me right now. I'm blowing through this. I've deleted TAO-like games multiple times a day for the last few days, not because of errors but because I'm so fucking frustrated that no one else is caring enough to post.

You wanted updates.
You wanted a game similar to TAO, but with everything we all ever wanted in the old suggestion boards.
We can have it but I don't know what you all want because you don't tell me.
What I don't want is a game that's just me and my ideas.

I don't really care if you guys say you want GTA like open world where your avatar explores and shoots chickens and stabs people. Where birds fly and the day comes and goes and you can look at the sky and see the stars. Where you can enter different areas and trigger a battle against AI with aggressive and defensive AIs depending on their formation. Where you can say fuck the open world I just want to play now and enter a game against another player and play head to head. I have collectables. I have custom tiles do custom abilities. I have a set of core units ready to fucking play. I have the drag and drop custom fucking formations.
I have all this.
I have it all made.
What I really have though is thousands of scripts, models, terrains, user interfaces including screens cameras buttons toggles and all that which really are just pieces to a puzzle that no one will tell me how they want constructed or what the name on the puzzle box is fucking titled.

I am really frustrated. To be honest my feelings are hurt. This is a butt hurt post. I am not going to post for a few days and I'm going to return and post a video of the game I've made - maybe as many people will watch it as people signed up to help make a game.

The Butcher
07-06-2016, 08:57 AM
I apologize hulky, i haven't been on the forums much lately, lot of personal shit going on. I'll get caught up today.

Thanks for all the work you guys have done. This is what I tried to explain a lot of times before when I was tourny mod.. you do A LOT OF WORK for people and get little to nothing in return, unless you count complaints and jokes. It's just part of it.. you've got to set your sight on the goal and get there for yourself. Even if you make a perfect game, you know not everyone will be happy. Not everyone is going to be on the same consensus.. and they SURE AS HELL aren't going to help you for nothing in return. I'm not saying you need to offer something (you're already giving them a game) but that's again, how it is. It's a hell of a lot easier to log on and complain about what you're doing than to help make it better.

Make what YOU think will succeed, it's your game.

manonfire101
07-06-2016, 12:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpI00nB4ezI

current update on my progress
(all the elementals have the animations currently hooked on buttons, so I figured I'd show them off while it's that way). The others are on idle animation. Archer dancing is upsetting right now, but it's whatever I guess. Fire Elemental, I messed with it's collider and forgot to switch it back.

This is great, Hulky. I'm not sure if it was an accident, but I think it would be cool to have units kind of oscillate even when they aren't being used.

Is that the view we would see if we were playing a game? I think it would be easier to visualize a move if you were looking at the game board from a completely overhead point of view (like completely orthogonal to the game board and not angled at all). Also I think it would be easier to visualize moves if the units all fit comfortably into one square. Some of the units look like they are sort of on more than one tile. Or at least, from an angled view it looks like they have heads and limbs that are in tiles other than the ones that they are standing in. Changing to an overhead view might help with that. Changing the color of the game board might also help with that. If it's a turn-based strategy game like TAO was, then I think making the board and units as non-cluttered as possible is important.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to give you constructive feedback. I'm really impressed with how much you've been able to do with this.

Aristocatt
07-06-2016, 04:52 PM
Last two weeks have been a real struggle for me, and I believe Gabe as well. I am still 100% committed to building this game, and unless I have to go back to building my Node server, I still expect to be done with the Web browser alpha version around the end of July. The node server is also almost done though, so even if our current server and plan doesn't pan out, I am still ready to have an alpha 2-D version done sometime in August.

Also I know it is hard to recognize, but both the servers that have been built at this point have already addressed some of the most difficult aspects of building this game. Honestly the last really big hurdle is the graphics. That doesn't mean the game will be ready for market in a month or two, finalizing the game will take a lot more time, but the things that have caused other developers to quit are mostly worked out at this point, at least on paper.

In my limited experience with web development and software design, the best advice I can give you, is to not put your life on hold to finish this. Easiest way to fail a project like this is to burn out halfway through.

Hulky
07-09-2016, 01:29 AM
This is great, Hulky. I'm not sure if it was an accident, but I think it would be cool to have units kind of oscillate even when they aren't being used.

Is that the view we would see if we were playing a game? I think it would be easier to visualize a move if you were looking at the game board from a completely overhead point of view (like completely orthogonal to the game board and not angled at all). Also I think it would be easier to visualize moves if the units all fit comfortably into one square. Some of the units look like they are sort of on more than one tile. Or at least, from an angled view it looks like they have heads and limbs that are in tiles other than the ones that they are standing in. Changing to an overhead view might help with that. Changing the color of the game board might also help with that. If it's a turn-based strategy game like TAO was, then I think making the board and units as non-cluttered as possible is important.

Anyway, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just trying to give you constructive feedback. I'm really impressed with how much you've been able to do with this.

Thanks.

oscillate - yes they have idle animations.
Is that the view we would see if we were playing a game? - no
units all fit comfortably into one square. - working on making it work with as big of tiles as possible to fit on the screen so the dragon can be larger than smaller units for example.
Changing the color of the game board - there is no game board in that video. I'll explain this below.
making the board and units as non-cluttered as possible is important - awesome feedback I'm going to experiment with gaps between tiles now


There is no game board. Like 0 gameboard. There is a grid (I can make it either Hex or Square tiles). This grid has individual tiles. Each tile can have it's own qualities (like for example people suggested things like tile types like a tile marked hill gives a bonus to range attacks, or sand is -1 movement through, stuff like that or you need to have a flight like ability to move through or whatever). The majority (currently all) tiles are marked as default. Then there is another grid with where the user can spawn units at the beginning of the game (like Settings in TAO). This grid is the same grid and tiles, just a more limit grouping of them for where to spawn. Where's the gameboard though? Below the grid lays a terrain (the video I posted earlier of the open world is simply a terrain with objects [and a first person controller to explore it]. The terrain there can fit under the grid (like a portion of the terrain not the entire huge thing). This would create environments and those environments was what I've been asking the community for for a while (what the world should look like so I don't have to make an entire world and game and then redo it all after the fact because later people see and and think "oh we can have something like that, I want it to be like____" because then I have to redo it all [I'm like 99% sure this is going to happen and why I'm frustrated at this point]).

It looks pretty cool. One huge thing I'm held up on at the moment is rotating and blocking. I haven't looked into that part yet and that's a huge part of TAO. I'm not sure how it is done [I've figured out attack from front = X damage and attack from side = Y damage using degrees, but I'm not sure how it's implemented especially without rotating].

Wizzy
07-13-2016, 12:33 AM
There should be a sewer where you can find a special key to open a vault that leads to a different part of the sewer and then really nothing happens in the sewer but no one else has any ideas

:)

Hulky
07-13-2016, 01:46 AM
funny enough tunnels (sewers or caves too for that matter) looks incredibly difficult to do. Like to the point I won't even attempt it lol. It's literally easier to make the game sky match the real placement of stars and planets and shit from the real world than it is to make a cave.


Anyways here is a link to a playable demo from the asset I'm building off of for the game part: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23073684/_UAS_Asset/TBTK/Demo/TBTKv2.1_WebDemo_9Mar2016/TBTKv2.1_WebDemo_9Mar2016.html

You can't play on Google chrome (bummer) but like firefox, ie or safari or whatever works. These demo's (like menus UI all that) kinda show what can be done. More can be done, but that's the basic foundation. The demo's use tanks, but I can (and will) swap those for the units I have (units, animations and stats) from the previous video and the Units thread that's stickied. Also I can generate and make custom shaped boards. Each tile is also editable so like the deploy units areas can change, where collectibles spawn (or not at all) can change, all that jazz.

TripleGL
07-13-2016, 10:46 PM
Nice

Greendaybum5
07-14-2016, 09:39 AM
bummer it makes me download a utility player and I can't do that on my work laptop. i'll try from home tonight.

different boards would be an interesting twist for gameplay (I mean picking option of what board to use for an individual game)

I love the idea of a tile having ability to boost a power i.e. a hill to boost scout's range etc. but I'd focus on the easy stuff to get things up and running and then attempt to make custom things like that. Looks awesome so far. excited to try that link tonight.

A-99
07-14-2016, 05:41 PM
funny enough tunnels (sewers or caves too for that matter) looks incredibly difficult to do. Like to the point I won't even attempt it lol. It's literally easier to make the game sky match the real placement of stars and planets and shit from the real world than it is to make a cave.


Anyways here is a link to a playable demo from the asset I'm building off of for the game part: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23073684/_UAS_Asset/TBTK/Demo/TBTKv2.1_WebDemo_9Mar2016/TBTKv2.1_WebDemo_9Mar2016.html

You can't play on Google chrome (bummer) but like firefox, ie or safari or whatever works. These demo's (like menus UI all that) kinda show what can be done. More can be done, but that's the basic foundation. The demo's use tanks, but I can (and will) swap those for the units I have (units, animations and stats) from the previous video and the Units thread that's stickied. Also I can generate and make custom shaped boards. Each tile is also editable so like the deploy units areas can change, where collectibles spawn (or not at all) can change, all that jazz.

Gave it whirl and had some fun. I'm intrigued to see what is yet to come!!

Hulky
07-14-2016, 06:32 PM
Gave it whirl and had some fun. I'm intrigued to see what is yet to come!!

Which mode did you like the most?

Hulky
07-16-2016, 11:59 AM
My internet crashes constantly so everything I'm doing is massively stalled. Matt's computer got lost and then there was a delay getting another so his may be off a little as well. Not sure how far Gabe is.

Habeas Corpus
07-19-2016, 10:18 PM
I think this looks sick. Looks like tao with more variety.(which means more strategy.) Also looks a bit flashier which is cool. Great job and dedication.

Aristocatt
07-20-2016, 01:13 PM
I'm back and excited to get back to this project.

Mar
07-21-2016, 03:42 PM
How long do you think it'll take to market it?

Aristocatt
07-22-2016, 12:27 PM
A little bit of time. Marketing the game is what we might do by doing Steams Green light project, but we need a somewhat complete beta for that. I'm not sure what happened to Gabe, so I am reviewing my Node server right now. Once I reacquaint myself with the server a bit I can push to have the alpha version done in 2-3 weeks. I found some cool 2D artwork in the form of a font type aswell, that I think I will use for the units this first time around. I'm also very keen on still making this game steam accessible, so I will need to look into how I can do that with a node server. Since July has been a fairly quiet month in terms of game development, I will keep you guys posted on progress fairly often.

Weekend Goals:
Review my Node server
Refactor code(this was the point I was at before Gabe came along with the Java server).

Next Weeks Goals:
Create game instances
Build hex board with path finding
Allow for unit movement

2 Week Goals:
Build game logic
Release alpha w/out a DataBase attached to it.

$even
07-22-2016, 04:15 PM
Aawesome, waiting

Aristocatt
07-26-2016, 01:03 PM
Pushing deadline back to 3 weeks(Originally I said 2-3 and was hopeful for 2).

Server is up and running, and I have the chat, log in, and challenge API's finished. I ran into a few client side issues that I need to work through before I can move forward with the game logic though.

Updated schedule:
Work through some of the client side issues and finalize the Alpha server.

Next week:
Game initialization, hex board, and path movement

2 Weeks(finish in 3):
Additional Game logic and Alpha release.

Mar
07-28-2016, 03:59 PM
Sounds like its coming together well, can't wait to see what the alpha brings. Which units are you using?

A-99
07-31-2016, 08:32 PM
Keep the updates coming!

Mar
08-03-2016, 10:48 AM
You should name it Cattao or TAOCat. Geddit?

Mar
08-03-2016, 10:51 AM
Or TAOBro, get that one too?

Aristocatt
08-03-2016, 07:02 PM
Aristaocatt

Aristocatt
08-04-2016, 12:02 PM
Client side issues are fixed, working to make a really simple ui for the game now. Nothing fancy, I'll leave it to you guys to develop a sexy ui that I can code later one.

I got a working hex grid, and will be working on the path finding algorithm this weekend.

Wizzy
08-04-2016, 12:07 PM
i'm excited

The Butcher
08-04-2016, 12:37 PM
anyone who posts on FB about the new game and not here can suck a giant poisoned cock

Mar
08-04-2016, 01:09 PM
Facebook is seen by hundreds of people, this is seen by 20.

Wizzy
08-04-2016, 02:52 PM
Facebook is seen by hundreds of people, this is seen by 20.

what you trying to say homie

dont start none wont be none

Mar
08-04-2016, 08:54 PM
you wanna fight

Mar
08-04-2016, 11:28 PM
Matt Roe, have you spoken to Bills about this? He might be interested in investing in your endeavour.

Mar
08-16-2016, 04:37 PM
Any updates on this?

Hulky
09-22-2016, 06:58 PM
I finished adding the Archer (first real unit) and got the grid/camera so that it works out. The animations are currently off, but the AI can win even though it's pretty bad.


EDIT: all progress paused as program repeatedly crashes. I got a 1 v. 1 Archer game going, and then attached the animations and haven't tested that because it's crashed three times in a row. Once it stops crashing and I can play around a bit more if the Archer works then repeat it to add a handful of units so there will be a playable game.

Mar
09-22-2016, 11:26 PM
Good stuff.

Hulky
09-22-2016, 11:57 PM
Keeps crashing, I am close enough to make that end of the month... but only if it let's me work.

Hulky
09-23-2016, 01:32 PM
Alright so I really want to release something and I run into issues all the time. So if it's not critical and I get stumped on it, I am going to blaze past. So things like figuring out multiplayer - yolo fuck it. I am an amateur so I can't expect EA quality. I don't know what I'm doing yet, so I'll release a hotseat multiplayer. Like you put it on your computer and there are two player controlled teams and you get up and let your friend play the other team, then repeat. Or play yourself using both teams (since everyone is the best TAO player all time, obviously this is the best competition lol). I am stumped on animations, they are there, but I dont understand controllers and triggers right yet so they will be hidden just to make it function without bugs. Fuck it I'm anxious to put something out there and no one wants to see nothing so might as well put out a super jank version to prove it exists.

Omni
09-23-2016, 02:13 PM
I'm a coder (used to be). I'm capable of coding a browser based "Tactics Arena" that would solve the multiplayer problem (Ie. You will be able to play against another player, chat online, lobby, etc), however- I'm very limited to just PHP/MySQL/AJAX/Javascript. I have created a "browser based Tactics Arena"-type of thing in the past; however, elimination is probably the only player that I see on this forums that I know of who has actually tried it. Limitations though: The game would be browser-based (meaning, no flashy graphics) and there would be no animations unless someone is good with pixel art-of-sort or gif animations. If you guys would like to see something like this, I would attempt this project though. I have a server of my own as well but it is a web-based PHP/SQL database server. This type of language is also a very poor way to design a real-time based game, but it would function, at least.

Edit: Also, simple things such as the stat system, rankings, etc are all easily implemented using the languages listed above (as well as a TAO Rankings feature) but the actual gameplay and graphics are the only limitations.

Hulky
09-23-2016, 06:28 PM
Alright so I am going hard as fuck on this game right now building off what I learn before my computer broke and using what I got to keep.

IF we don't give a damn about the prettiness, balance, how well it works and all that. I think I might be able to release an Alpha (hotseat multiplayer [this means 2 teams but no networking or lobbies and all that stuff that I haven't gotten to, but the game with two players that you can pull up on your computer and play a friend or yourself in your house or whatever) release next week if I can keep typing hot fire and dodge bugs.

Then with that type of release you guys will have a game to play around and see what is broken and what units need tweaked and maybe playing around with it will make my posts make more sense? I dunno.

(This isn't a promise, the promise is end of October. Just the rate I'm killing it today I think I can get it sometime next week.)

Hulky
09-23-2016, 06:56 PM
If someone is interested I'll take the time to make a YouTube video previewing what I have and showing a bit of it off Saturday or Sunday (but I won't unless someone is interested).

Mar
09-23-2016, 08:12 PM
Yeah, I'd be interested to see how far you've gotten. I think this could really take off given the right support.

Hulky
09-23-2016, 08:40 PM
Yeah, I'd be interested to see how far you've gotten. I think this could really take off given the right support.

There is an error in the program I am using (that supposedly shouldn't effect launch, just the viewer I use to build) that might pop up while I record. If it pops up while I am recording (the game goes blank on a rendering error) that isn't a bug to be worried about. I'll click around and make a video tonight after I make sprites for the units and show it off a little bit - it will be the first time I play with all the units ready for the Alpha to test. It's obviously not going to be good, but Brandon (on the forums and FB group) said he'd like to play a version earlier than I was thinking to get an earlier Alpha kinda feel (he brought up Tactics Genesis coming out months before TAO [but I am going to add in I am no Seed so a real finished product may take a longer time]).

Hulky
09-23-2016, 11:07 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SNlSw2j3k4

to do:
- test all abilities and see if they are blockable (lol when they are and I can't figure it out so your heal gets blocked lol)
- add in the armor chart (this is going to be a dick ton of typing, but I've finally added enough functional units that armor is relevant before alpha launch testing for balance)
- try and research animations more so it can look much less nooby (animations are in it, but controllers are fucked up thats why the Archer dances for example)
- research and fiddle with other scenes including main menu
- maybe look into different multiplayer options, or at least make other scenes with the AIs turned on.
- learn how to export the game, and then how to put it on this site for alpha testing (or beta or whatever the fuck the steps are called)

Omni
09-24-2016, 12:22 AM
That looks amazing. I'm sure that you'll end up figuring everything out in the end, you've gotten really far. Great job!

Wizzy
09-24-2016, 11:09 AM
that is a crazy amount of progress from your last video, hulky. very nice

|AFO|
09-24-2016, 08:13 PM
Whoa. I'm excited. Keep up the good work!

Hulky
09-24-2016, 11:08 PM
I broke the turns [if you want you can cheat and move/attack with your entire team during a turn, and also mind control the opposing team to walk towards you... so kinda a big deal even though I have the code written to only allow a single unit to move in a turn, and selecting opposing units shouldn't be able to happen] and have asked a support group for help.

I also got animations to work [figured out the controllers and updated the units] since that video yesterday. Related to animation though is I need to figure out shoot objects and effects/particles a bit better. Theres a default ball you can see in the video and a few I have, but upgrading those if it's easy would be cool [ie. an arrow for the archer instead of the default grey ball].

Hulky
09-25-2016, 05:46 PM
I got turn order fixed. The issue was over four different scripts so that was a little confusing.

Now I am going to finish the animations, then work on the armor table (which seems straight forward but will be a lot of typing). After that maybe I'll try to look into networking, but that's such a complete unknown to me it might not be worth looking into for me yet. Another unknown I want to look into is the user interface a bit more.

Really honestly could use a game name about now though and if no one picks one I think I am rolling with Tile Arena Online.

A-99
09-25-2016, 07:56 PM
Just wanted to say I'm constantly reading all your updates in the different threads and am also excited to see what you're cooking up

Hulky
09-26-2016, 04:12 PM
Getting a little frustrated redoing the same steps over and over. (adding the units and writing all their specifics, then redoing it all to add in the animation controller, now redoing it all again to add colliders so a basic LOS can be used [like the Archer can't just snipe anyone in range, you can put a guy in the way to block])

EDIT: fuck LOS for now, not feeling like spending all the time on it.

|AFO|
09-28-2016, 09:04 AM
I missed the poll, but I'd like to cast a vote anyway. I like the idea of simply calling it Tao. Tile Arena Online sounds kinda lame. =\

Hulky
09-28-2016, 09:16 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcCM5twKx9U

Wizzy
09-28-2016, 09:33 PM
Wow man that is not what I was expecting to see so early on.. Great fucking job.

Maverik
09-28-2016, 10:09 PM
damn dude, that's fucking sick

if you had a dev team to work with, you could crush it

Hulky
09-28-2016, 11:41 PM
Anyways this is released if you wanna click around on it. It's for Windows (I have a Mac one on my computer, but the one I shared is Windows). It's a download you need this .exe [ link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sne9kuu3fs2iuxh/TileArenaWindows.exe?dl=0 ] and then the folder next to it from this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/38biew3puz6uh77/AAAqYdOqmzCjJ7lNzkaal4oCa?dl=0

Anyways once you download the .exe from the first link and the folder from the second you put them on your desktop then click the .exe one to open it.

Wizzy
09-28-2016, 11:56 PM
Anyways this is released if you wanna click around on it. It's for Windows (I have a Mac one on my computer, but the one I shared is Windows). It's a download you need this .exe [ link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sne9kuu3fs2iuxh/TileArenaWindows.exe?dl=0 ] and then the folder next to it from this link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/38biew3puz6uh77/AAAqYdOqmzCjJ7lNzkaal4oCa?dl=0

Anyways once you download the .exe from the first link and the folder from the second you put them on your desktop then click the .exe one to open it.


Played around with it a little. Lots of potential

Habeas Corpus
10-03-2016, 10:41 PM
Looks awesome, mad props. Hope to see it live up to the potential it has! :thumbsup:

elimination
10-05-2016, 08:51 PM
, however- I'm very limited to just PHP/MySQL/AJAX/Javascript. I have created a "browser based Tactics Arena"-type of thing in the past; however, elimination is probably the only player that I see on this forums that I know of who has actually tried it.
Who are you again? You talking about that phfrontier game? :o If not I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
@hulky- Its pretty damn cool so far, I was wondering though why are the number of rows on campaign mode limited to only 3 rather 5 like single player AL?

Hulky
10-06-2016, 02:57 AM
, I was wondering though why are the number of rows on campaign mode limited to only 3 rather 5 like single player AL?

Because I was showing Hex instead of square since people weren't really sure which they wanted in chat/fb/forums I spent too much time trying to think of a good hex board so I said f it and just put up a simple one with some fog of war to show that as a potential option.

A-99
10-07-2016, 06:42 PM
Looks great! Keep it up!

Mar
10-09-2016, 11:06 AM
Because I was showing Hex instead of square since people weren't really sure which they wanted in chat/fb/forums I spent too much time trying to think of a good hex board so I said f it and just put up a simple one with some fog of war to show that as a potential option.

I think it's easier to work with squares for now since it's easier to look at movement and balance the game that way. It would also appeal to those people who want the old TAO feel, the new hex drastically changes up strategy.

Omni
10-10-2016, 09:30 PM
@elim.
That's the one.

Wizzy
10-11-2016, 01:54 PM
@elim.
That's the one.

So it's cool that you are capable of making a game and all, but are you doing anything or just coming here to let us know that you can? You don't need anyone's permission, there are 2 people working on separate projects, plus 1 or 2 more people who say they're working on projects but are in the wind. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. So tired of this. Hulky actually made a game you can some-what play, and people are still more interested in TALKING about making a game than giving input on the one game that's the furthest along in terms of gameplay... what the monkey man...

Omni
10-11-2016, 02:53 PM
So it's cool that you are capable of making a game and all, but are you doing anything or just coming here to let us know that you can? You don't need anyone's permission, there are 2 people working on separate projects, plus 1 or 2 more people who say they're working on projects but are in the wind. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. So tired of this. Hulky actually made a game you can some-what play, and people are still more interested in TALKING about making a game than giving input on the one game that's the furthest along in terms of gameplay... what the monkey man...


If you guys would like to see something like this, I would attempt this project though. I have a server of my own as well but it is a web-based PHP/SQL database server. This type of language is also a very poor way to design a real-time based game, but it would function, at least.

I've spoken with Hulky and he kindly gave me feedback/his input after I made a post here. I would of course like input before investing time on creating a game on a platform that people may not even like/play. But thank you for kindly giving your input, your temper is greatly appreciated.

Wizzy
10-11-2016, 03:17 PM
I've spoken with Hulky and he kindly gave me feedback/his input after I made a post here. I would of course like input before investing time on creating a game on a platform that people may not even like/play. But thank you for kindly giving your input, your temper is greatly appreciated.

Sorry that you're one of about 20 people who "who want input before they invest time". Invest some time first. I've seen the screenshots of the game Elim mentioned, and if you're that guy, then yes, invest time.

Omni
10-11-2016, 03:21 PM
Input isn't required to create a game using platforms like Unity/flash since those platforms are highly capable of replicating the original TAO game or something similar- A text-based/scripting language is not. Have I wronged you some way? Nevertheless, this isn't a place to flame an arguement with you and definitely not worth the time, but please continue to indulge yourself if it pleases you.

Wizzy
10-11-2016, 03:22 PM
I'm not flaming you. I'm telling you to make a game.

Mar
11-19-2016, 04:13 PM
Obligatory monthly bump