Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
I like the TES skill system from oblivion or skyrim where you train your skills by just using them
I've re-checked Skyrim to remember, and it's not completely true.
Yes, you're training skills by using them, but there is also a perks points.
And with perks you can "learn" skills/abilities: backstab, critical charge and more. That's what I'm talking about.
Its not 'completely' as it HAS to be based on recombination selection of precanned elements (provided in the game code/animations, game mechanics, and what options the 'creation' interface allows).
Variations of action appearance is one thing (recombination of particle effects) , and the payout (affect on things in the game) are another.
Too complex/specialized and the 'action'/tactic/weapon becomes, too limited in its use. Too loopholey powerful and the player will uses little else (and maybe destroys any challenging gameplay).
The system of advancement ramps likewise comes into play --- that is to facilitate the game (player experience development) which thus limits 'customization and may impose a pattern of improvements which must be compatible with the other 'precanned' elements.
it HAS to be based on recombination selection of precanned elementsthat is what I'm going to avoid in my game mechanic.
Of course, it will have some magic laws/rules, but no predefined effects (in any way – in-game effect or graphic effect).
it HAS to be based on recombination selection of precanned elementsthat is what I'm going to avoid in my game mechanic.
Of course, it will have some magic laws/rules, but no predefined effects (in any way – in-game effect or graphic effect).
That's going to be the problem. Although on paper it seems fun and doable, but when translated to code and animation it's almost impossible. You'd have to procedurally design everything including animations and interactions between atoms. To make fire looks and feels like fire would require an artist's touch. Even say you get yourself some fire effects with procedural only, then how do you make water element not look like a blue fire?
We are only talking about the animation here, what about the effects between atoms?
Unless you are reprogramming the universe itself, procedurally generating everything could reach past that threshold of expectation where suspension of disbelief can no longer help you.
We are only talking about the animation here
Actually, it's a different task. For now I'm still working on the mechanic itself, as I described in the initial post.
without reproducing complex physics simulation
That's exactly what I'm thinking about. A kind of "magic physics" laws which allows to create any imaginable effect.
Of course, there will be some restrictions/requirements for balance/progression/etc., but it's outside of this topic.
without reproducing complex physics simulationThat's exactly what I'm thinking about. A kind of "magic physics" laws which allows to create any imaginable effect.
Of course, there will be some restrictions/requirements for balance/progression/etc., but it's outside of this topic.
I don't think that's practical, they will only be able to create within the scope of effects you can imagine, and you'll have to be far more creative to balance every possible creation.
1. everything is made from "elements" (or "particles") 2. player can somehow control such elements (e.g. with telekinesis) 3. any skill is an algorithm which form/compose/move such elements in one way or anotherNot sure what 3 is about yet, but let's ignore that for now, and assume we have it in some way.
Your example
Fireball: need to collect some fire elements from environment, compress it and then push it in some direction ...I see a bunch of problems with the example.
What are "fire" elements? How do you define them? All I have is "particles" and "player can control them".
What is "environment"? How do you define it? All I have is "particles" and "player can control them".
What does "compress" mean? You don't have "collection of particles in close proximity". How can you define it? All I have is "particles" and "player can control them".
I haven't reached the point of "push", or "hit" or "do damage", and have major trouble already. The example uses concepts and words that you cannot express in "I have particles and player can control them". If you want to have a concept in your world, you must have a means to express it in that world, or you cannot differentiate between "fire elements" and "other than fire elements", between "in the environment" and "not in the environment", or between "compressed fire elements" and "just a collection of fire elements in the environment".
That implies you need a lot more than just "particles" and "control by player".
I see a bunch of problems with the example.
Well, I don't see such problems. Try not to ignore things which marked as "basic" – maybe than you can understand.
Obviously, each type of elements has some kind of different behaviour/different parameters.
Obviously, all elements has some basic rules "how to interact".
Obviously, "environment" does not need any special description (unless you're expecting a big game-design document here).
About "compress" try to look here: https://www.google.com/search?q=meaning+of+word+compress (the "verb" part)
The example uses concepts and words that you cannot express in "I have particles and player can control them"
Actually, I can.
In common, not sure for what purpose you're arguing semantics, so can't add anything else here.
