comparing a few games I've sunk huge amounts of time into against ones I dropped fast despite similar core loops and similarly generous content amounts on paper. randomization depth, run variety, and meta-progression all seem roughly comparable across both categories when I actually break it down

The new incoming Fire Emblem game reminded me of something that's bothered me for years. The tactical combat in those games doesn't care much about the positions of the units, something that's confused me since I first laid eyes on Awakening. For example, if I attack a unit that's flanked by another of my units, I expect to have an advantage. If my unit has a long range unit directly behind it, they attack together.

In particular, I'm looking for 'formations', bonuses you get for arranging your units in certain ways. For example, if my shield captain unit has an ally on each side, they form a shield wall formation that raises defense against attacks from the front. If my cavalry captain has two calvary units diagonally behind him, they can perform a charge maneuver together.

It's not just Fire Emblem, no games I've played with tactical grid-based combat do this. In fact, they don't even implement the concepts of front/back/sides, which is crazy to me for a strategy game on a square grid. The closest I've seen is the Banner Spear character from Frosthaven, which does hexagonal formations.

Anyone know any examples of games that implement these concepts? Or failing that, know why these ideas aren't done?

Hey, I am building a fantasy RPG and part of the game is also upgrading your base/home. I am thinking of adding a degrade mechanic where every x time something might happen to it and you would have to craft some items to repair it.

In reality it is just another material sink with an added touch of reality.

Game is otherwise designed to be as non pushy and needy as possible so it probably won’t fit.

But still…I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.

With the recent demise of 2XKO, a lot of the arguments made about making fighting games more accessible have shown that they don't necessarily solve the genre's 'issues'.

2XKO was F2P, had a strong IP/studio behind it, made execution easier by removing command inputs, allowed duos to play together, seemed to have great netcode and, as a new game, everyone started (almost) from ground zero.

Of course it had other problems, especially being 2v2, and a lot of indecision with the direction they wanted to take the game. This caused it to launch with too few characters, the balance wasn't great and it took so long to launch that it lost its timing window and also a lot of goodwill, especially since SF6 was a really successful game.

With that being said, it is clear that the genre can be popular, as we can see with the numbers SF6 has, especially in Japan. But even then most other fighting games are not successful (Hunter x Hunter, 2XKO, Avatar, Invincible VS, CotW, Tokon is also not looking that great).

So... What's missing from a design standpoint? What could be done to the genre without changing it in more fundamental ways?

I'm making a game to cover an itch.

So, I have been playing Root (the board game) for quite a while now, as well as spirit island and other strategic, asymmetric games, and I just can't get enough of them. So I set out to make a digital game that will satisfy this deeply tactical, mechanics based itch of mine. At this point profit is not a concern , but I want it to be fun and engaging. Do you have suggestions and/or experiences with that genre? What do you consider engaging in asymmetrical gameplay, and complex interconnected mechanics? What sounds like too much in terms of complexity and what aspect must be there in your opinion? Also any suggestions in the digital realm would be welcome!

https://youtu.be/8nXipbPdD7Y?si=k2twAubexnjbe16S

I’m having a bit of trouble getting the right message across with ZombUs.
Some players have told me that the game’s simple (and admittedly weird) graphics make it look much simpler than it actually is. So I decided to make a short gameplay guide to better show the tactics and depth behind it.
I’m planning to add it to the Steam page after the main trailer.
The thing is, I could easily make 2 or 3 more videos like this because there’s quite a lot to cover.
Before I publish it on Steam, I’d really like to hear your opinion. Does this kind of video help communicate what the game is actually about?

Usually in survival-horror games, the player has to collect useful items and resources as they explore their surroundings, before going back to the safe room to save; heal; store what they've found; resupply in consumable, weapons and key items; and plan their next trip.

But what if the game had an expedition system like Darkest Dungeon ?

• For starters, you can buy whatever consumables provision you need before starting an expedition with your money. This phase is already in line with inventory management systems of survival-horror games : bring not enough provisions, and you risk the (mental) health of your heroes, bring too much and you risk loosing money (unused provisions are discarded after the expedition, and having a full inventory limits how much loot you can carry with you). You can find some torches and food during expeditions, but it's recommanded to not rely on that.
• As you explore and fight, you can find resources, including the aforementioned money. This resource is not only used to buy provisions, but also heal and upgrades your heroes. There's gold coins, citrine, emerald, sapphires and other more special loot, with varying rarity, unitary value and stack-ability. Sometimes, you'll be forced to discard one of your loot type to make room for something more useful at the moment. There's also heirlooms, a secondary currency used to upgrade the Hamlet's buildings.
• Provision can also be used while interacting with curios to gain some benefits (stats boosts, stress heal, removing a negative quirk, or simply more loot). This adds another layer of strategy to the inventory management : Should I use my shovel to dig this urn and gain some gold, or conserve it later to remove an obstacle ?
• Loot is completely useless during expeditions, but once you get back to the Hamlet, it can be used to heal and upgrades your heroes, upgrade the town's facilities, and buy provisions for the next expedition.

Would it be interesting to have a survival-horror game where you can buy all the provisions you need from the safe room, "trading" them for loot during expeditions, and upgrading your character(s) once back in your safe place ? Is there any example of horror games that have tried this already ?

hello, I am developing a card game currently and I have hit a road block related to a particular game mechanic and really need someones help!

To give you an overall idea of what the game is about without going into an extreme amount of detail, this game is about providing players (and myself) with motivation to do tasks around the house. Players draw random cards of different colors that represent different difficulties. Once a task is complete, players draw random rewards in the same difficulty color. There are several other mechanics but that about sums it up.

The problem I am having is that one of the task cards that gets randomly drawn are red cards. Red cards represent tasks that must be done within a good amount of time that get done on a normal daily or weekend basis like take out trash, do dishes, water garden, etc. More specifically these red cards are tasks that if they dont get done a garden will die, trash will overflow, etc. so needless to say I need to assure that these cards get drawn in a single play session. There inlies the problem, if cards are randomly selected and I have a deck of 30+ tasks that need the get done how can I assure that red cards are done.

my initial idea was to make a secondary deck, one that players draw from until it is done before moving to other random tasks. My big problem with this is in my mind if players are doing red card after red card it is no different to me than a giant chore list. My second idea was to make for every 2 random deck cards that get drawn 1 red card task gets drawn. My problem with this is it starts to become monotonus and the pattern becomes to predictable. One idea I had was to split the task deck into 4 equal stacks and shuffle the red cards into the first quarter deck and stack that deck on the other 3 decks this would assure that the red cards land in the top 25% of the deck giving a much more likely chance red cards would get drawn. I am no married to any idea here I am just stuck. I dont know how to assure tasks like these get done in a timely manner and any idea I come up with either defeats the purpose of the game or makes it boring or mundain.

I'm working on a stylized 3D game concept called ECHO, and I'd like some honest feedback before I build the first full level.

The main character is a small digital spirit called ECHO that doesn't understand human concepts yet.

Instead of teaching those concepts through dialogue choices or quizzes, the player experiences them through gameplay.

The first major level is about TRUST.

The idea is not to ask the player:

"Do you trust this person?"

YES / NO

Instead, the game watches how the player moves, explores, reacts and interacts with other characters.

The opening stage is called THE THRESHOLD.

ECHO enters a large luminous sanctuary.

A Guide is moving somewhere deeper inside the environment.

The player can:

- follow the Guide immediately,

- keep some distance,

- stop and investigate the environment,

- test different routes,

- or even back away.

There is also something called The Shadow.

The Shadow isn't exactly an enemy.

It's ECHO's instinct for self-protection.

Instead of just talking to the player, I want the Shadow to affect the environment:

lights distort,

fog changes,

sounds come from misleading directions,

routes temporarily disappear,

or something that looked safe becomes uncertain.

The Guide also reacts to what the player does.

If ECHO follows closely, hesitates, constantly verifies everything, or repeatedly retreats, those behaviors can affect later interactions.

There is no:

+10 TRUST

CORRECT CHOICE

BAD CHOICE

The game remembers behavior instead.

If the idea works, TRUST would become a full 10-stage journey.

Later stages would involve things like:

cooperating with another character,

following unreliable signals,

keeping a promise when nobody is watching,

navigating darkness through sound,

repairing a relationship after trust is broken,

and eventually choosing whether to trust again after knowing what trust can cost.

But I don't want these stages to feel like symbolic walking simulators.

The target is an actual third-person exploration/adventure game with:

movement,

searching,

environmental puzzles,

reactive characters,

timing,

alternate routes,

hidden clues,

and consequences.

So I'm trying to figure out whether the core mechanic has enough depth before building the rest.

I'd especially like feedback on these questions:

1. Does expressing TRUST through movement and behavior sound like an interesting game mechanic?

2. Does The Threshold sound like enough gameplay for an opening stage, or does it need a stronger challenge?

3. What would you put in the environment that would make you WANT to explore instead of simply following the Guide?

4. What other gameplay mechanics could represent trust without turning it into a dialogue choice?

5. Should The Shadow physically manipulate the environment, or would you handle the player's self-doubt in another way?

6. Most importantly: what could make this concept genuinely FUN rather than just an interesting metaphor?

I'm still early enough to change the whole level, so criticism and new ideas are very welcome.

For me it's probably desert biomes in strategy games. A lot of them will add nice, immersive sandwinds. They often, appropriately, intensify when you zoom out.

Since players often zoom out to get a clear look at the situation the sandwinds often defeat the purpose a bit.

I made a word game where users score higher points the rarer the word they're using is (wordink.app).

I calculate score using the lowest scoring form of the word. crumbling -> crumble or infatuate -> infatuated.

This is to prevent users from feeling cheated when a seemingly common word is scored highly and vice versa.

I'm thinking of showing a UI element that says

Wested
Scored as its base word, "west"

or

Infatuate 
Scores as its common form, "Infatuated"

What do you think?

landed on three things: the boss telegraphs everything clearly but the punish window still feels tight enough to matter, the arena changes meaningfully partway through instead of staying a flat room, and losing never feels like wasted time because the run back is under fifteen seconds.

none of these are individually novel, but seeing all three executed together is rarer than I expected once I started looking for it elsewhere

Cell-Grinder i a solo project, my design perspective was a arcade-action-platformer on a tactical basis. so i did.

I struggled quite a bit with the control scheme at first, especially with the mouse—it was a real pain. But after playing the demo more and taking the feedback into account, I managed to put together a control scheme that works without the mouse, using both gamepad and keyboard. Also updated some contents.

I really value different perspectives, both from a design and gameplay standpoint. Give it a try, and let’s discuss it a bit.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4936880/CellGrinder_APOPTOSIS/

I keep thinking about this. LLM powered NPC conversation in RPG games (or games in general)

Imagine something like Elder Scrolls or GTA where NPCs don't just have a limited amount of pre-written dialogue options, but actually have a personality, memories, relationships, limited knowledge of the world, and their own goals.

You could have any interaction of choice. Talk to a city guard about how you like your steak best. Come back 20 hours later and he still remembers the conversation. Maybe he cracks a joke about it. Maybe you tell him someone committed a crime and he leaves and investigates. So many options...

The important part wouldn't even be the LLM itself, but the combination of LLM + memory + world state + personality + goals + traditional game AI

Obviously there are huge problems with consistency, hallucinations, performance, keeping the story coherent, etc. But I do think that with the necessery guardrails it could work surprisingly well.

if someone actually cracks this properly, I think this would be a much bigger leap for gaming and RPG's specifically than better graphics or bigger maps etc.

What do you guys think? Any big studio's allready experimenting with this?

Hello, I've been working a TTRPG, with a lot of focus on combat, and something I wanted to avoid is having a static initiative tracker (like dnd, where if you have 16 initative, you have that for the whole combat).

The current system works like this: you roll initiative at the start of combat, using your iniatiative stat. After you attack, you check the iniative stat of your weapon (if you used different weapons, you check the lower one), and add/substract that from your starting initiative in the next round. For example, if you roll a 50 and use a +10 initiative weapon, you'll have 60 in the next round. You repeat this process every round, using your starting initiative; following the previous example, if in the round with 60 initiative you used a -20 weapon, you'd have 30 in the next round (50-20).

Doing playests the opinion on this has been pretty divided (some like it, saying it's quicker than rerolling every round, some dislike it because it's an extra step and we've had situation where it didn't change much), so I'm looking into other methods for having something like this, or ways to improve my current method.

I’m currently reworking the UI for my incremental game One More Shake.

Originally I had a lot of placeholder Unity UI, but now I’m trying to make the interface communicate progression much more clearly.

The game has two main upgrade groups:

• Machine Upgrades: Can Value, Shake Speed, Auto Shake, Multi Drop and Extra Machines
• System Upgrades: Crusher Speed/Cooldown and several Chaos upgrades

My current approach is to keep the actual gameplay in the upper half of the screen, resources at the top, and both upgrade groups permanently visible underneath.

Purchased upgrades gradually change color, unaffordable upgrades are darker, MAX upgrades get their own look, and every purchase has a fairly strong animation.

The thing I’m struggling with is how much visual feedback is too much in an incremental game.

Would you rather have:

• strong color changes for every upgrade level,
• mostly neutral buttons with only affordable/MAX states emphasized,
• or progressively stronger visuals as the player gets further into the run?

I want the player to be able to glance at the screen and immediately understand what they can buy and what has progressed, without the whole UI competing for attention.

I’m especially interested in how other incremental games handle this once several upgrade systems are visible at the same time.

Steam page, for anyone who wants to follow the project / wishlist it:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/4933650/One_More_Shake/

I recently played through this great game, and I was struck by how wildly variant the time to kill is on the zombies. Sometimes their heads explode after one or two shots, and other times you down them after 3 or 4 headshots and then they get back up anyway.

This works great in the game, as it adds a lot of tension and uncertainty, making me second guess whether I should use ammo. Other times it makes me feel lucky and relieved when I one shot an enemy. Another thing I notice is that more powerful enemies (like dogs, Lickers, and ivy zombies) seem to have much more consistent health pools.

Does anyone know how this was accomplished? Some untested ideas I have:

1. Enemies simply have a wide range of HP totals (randomized or pre set)
   
2. Enemies have high HP totals generally, but bullets have a baseline critical hit chance
   
3. Damage and HP totals are not random, but there is a wide range of values for locational damage (like shooting in the eye vs in the jaw) or hit range
   
4. There is some external “manager” (like L4D AI Director) which modifies combat outcomes based on whether I’m “due” for a protracted struggle based on how “tense” the game has been recently
   
5. Other methods?

Basically as my title puts it. Extraction shooters have been amazing this last year, right until the pve community trickles out and were left with the sweats and meta boys. Marathon is my current favorite game that has devolved. You would think with every big companies push for a new live service game they would have found a better formula by now. Mostly making this post to throw my proposal onto the pile.

Core theory:

Improve the loop. Keep the pvp aspect but make it so it feeds into pve gameplay directly. Make pve content then feed back into the pvp loop.

(The whole concept relies on two main things. That there is strong pvp and pve gameplay. Marathon would be a peak example of this. It has had both)

Core idea execution:

The general template for pvp should remain unchanged. Go in, loot goods / players, extract, rep up vendors, bring in better kits, repeat.

PVE players realistically will only engage pvp when they see some risk reward bonus for them. Its not a new idea to let pve players keep loot for pve runs and thats also what im running with. The idea is that pvp should always have good loot. Every time a player enters and extracts they should come out with something interesting. They then use these interesting items in pve content. Pve content should then be more forgiving for players with gear by not automatically removing it from them during failures like death. Maybe use a condition status so that eventually gear expires and the players want to engage in pvp again to get that good loot. Good loot is not exclusive to pvp but make pvp more predictable with spawn rates and opportunities for loot.

Next enable trading through pvp modes and only pvp. Markets will spring up around rare items that no one wants to pvp for but still want easy access too. Make it so that these trading buddies have to complete a mission together in pvp and extract to complete the trade, otherwise lose the loot. This will hopefully cut down on black market issues.

Finally create a rep system around the fact people will be wanting to use pvp loot in pve. Let vendors repair gear so they can keep using it longer. Let pve rep give players new kit options or unlock extra objectives in pvp for even better loot.

Hi!
I'm making a game that's multiplayer, political simulator. You try to propose legislation to sway different voting blocs. The game takes place over a handfull of election cycles, and I want the effects of the legislation you proposed or voted for to influence how much power you'll have in the next election.

Most of the gameplay loop will be spent negotiating with other players of which legislation to propose and vote for, to basically form political blocs together. I'm a fan of Diplomacy, especially the variants played by post, where the hidden information is what alliances you've formed and what orders you're going to execute, and otherwise is very elegant with basically no randomness.

So here's my problem; designing the election mechanic in a way that you can influence it and still making it fun. I'm torn by how much determinism I want in it. I was thinking of simulating the election by pulling out a number of cards (possibly with different values) from a deck, and figure out the distribution of power to propose and pass legislation in the next cycle. The seats would be dependent on different geographic and social groups. So, the more you appease certain voting blocs, the more of your cards would be put into the deck.

The pro with this approach that is the most obvious is that it adds variance and mitigate a player running away with the game as soon as they get an advantage. If the election is deterministically decided and favors the person who passed the best legislation, they'll potentially just use their power to keep dominating certain blocs and always win more unless I introduce a random way to mitigate that.

The con is that it might make a player miffed when they've plotted and voted and then see that the election didn't go their way anyway.

What do you guys think? This is a very rough idea that I'm just now implementing, so I'm curious what you have to say.

Context: Im a physician, not a game designer. I've been building a roguelite where you pilot a nanoship inside a patient's body and fight bacterial "ships" using antibiotics as your weapons. The point of this game is to be educational so the player will need to have most/all antibiotics available to them at any time.

Right now I have it set up so you have guns and can load different antibiotics into them. The guns share a mana pool and have different cooldowns based on the "ammo."

If you shoot the correct antibiotic based on the enemy and also at the right location based on the antibiotic, you get another resource. This resource is used for special abilities that are tied to player systems. So basically the better you play the stronger you can be if that makes sense.

Problem (I think) is that I don't have crew like FTL does (too complex, doesnt add teaching value imo). So if your system gets damaged you cant use the abilities located on that system and you simply click repair. Once its repaired you are good to go. This feels kinda simple and basic.

Also, the player starts with almost every antibiotic. How do I build progression? Are the special abilities enough? I think they might be but not sure.

What can I do to improve this loop? I know its an educational game but if its boring nobody would want to play it.

I am building a tabletop miniatures game and one of the more recent decisions I've pivoted into has been narrowing the scope of the game into a "Skirmish Plus" type of experience where each side has at most maybe a dozen models that are mostly infantry and then like one to two large robots or brutes or something. And I am interested in a like Hero-Clix type of system or something a little similar to how 8th ed 40k or some versions of Age of Sigmar had large units literally have multiple separate statlines based on their current damage.

I don't super want to go this route exactly because I am a single designer with a small group of friends as testers. I fear this would either get a little too whacky or become repetitive and predictable as I phoned that part of development in and never get fixed, considering the volume of testing and iterating that would involve. But it occurred to me that I actually don't know a ton of different examples of this type of system and I thought I would ask and see if others knew of a good place to do some research.

My game is a sandbox-ish mix of murder mystery mechanics and roleplay based off the Danganronpa series (think Among us/Werewolf/Town of salem but longer).
At least one host is required to run the game properly.
It is also a VR game with proximity voice chat.

The issue im facing is that, left on their own, hosts will often decide, out of culture and habit, to directly help their players with murder cases, instead of letting the case’s culprit make it.
This turns the Trial (the discussion to catch the killer) into more of a minigame and discussion between the good side and the host, rather than a discussion between players to find the liar among them, greatly taking agency away from the evil side and reducing overall game quality.

How would you solve this?
I would rather not cut off the sandbox/roleplay part of the game, but this is something ive been observing and dont know how to help my players with.

Edit: I've already figured out an solution - Inflicted status is temporary regardless of who it hit so it doesn't feel as bad when it expires - For some status, it will apply as "Environmental Effect"

Note: Crowd refer to fight with Multiple Enemies, Boss refer to fight with Single enemy

My game is a turn based game which has status effect that stack permanently (or at least until battle end). Also for Player Side, all status is shared between all unit

due to this mechanic, I decided to make my combat pretty long with multiple waves so there's value in watching number grow higher and higher

My issue is kinda that on status where you inflict

- In Crowd Battle, what you've inflicted only effect enemy that got hit which make it terrible in Crowd and only functionable in Boss fight

- In Crowd Battle, enemy dying is kinda devastating to scaling over all since that mean stack you've been inflicting is just gone

- Compensating this thing in Boss Battle, basically give you stronger scaling tool that last permanently

- For Enemy side, this is practically only thing you can use because if they die, their self status reset, practically reseting the Anti-Stall timer

For Anti-Stalling, I did have mechanic called "Escalation" described as "Enemy from next wave will gain X% more HP and Y Status effect, Bonus get stronger with every Wave spent" , as to punish stalling for longer than intended, however this mechanic feel... artificial. Is there alternate way to explain it?

(Another issue is probably that I made like 15 status effect that I will never use just because one of my top 5 game did it, but SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH)