With items that have more than one stat, "better" is to be determined by the player. They have to weigh the bonuses and drawbacks of any given piece of equipment.
We could replace "better than the item the player is already using" in that condition with "an item the player can use at all". So equipment that is, say, only usable by a specific class (not the player character's class either) is never going to be used by the player, therefore the game shouldn't bother dropping it and should instead drop gold.
However, you could argue "What if the player wants to trade that item to an allie who IS able to use it". I think my point is that there is a tradeoff between convenience vs. choice. The more convenient you make it, the less choice the player has. Some choices are just not worth it and convenience is better, but some players draw the line at drastically different places than others.
"If the game decides what you should wear, you might as well remove equipment alltogether..." This is an excellent (albeit extreme) demonstration of what I am talking about. Makes it REALLY convenient for the player, but eliminates all choices relating to equipment.
Having no ability to covert items to gold, on the other hand, presents the player with even more choices: Is this big bulky peice of armor worth the money you'll get from dragging it back to town to sell it? No? then don't pick it up. Inventory space vs. sale value is an equivalent sacrifice to "Maybe I'm willing to sacrifice damage for some spell effect?"
I'm not neccessarily saying everything must be dragged all the way back to the merchant if the player wants gold for it, just that the level of convenience vs. choice that the player may want should be considered. I feel that making things convenient without any drawbacks means it isn't a choice. Who the heck would NOT take advantage of a convenience with zero drawbacks? A game with fewer choices is more like... a choose-your-own-adventure book where you don't really get to choose your own adventure.
I'm with MoikMellah on this one. I think there should at least be some convenience penalty for that. Sometimes the trekking back to town is part of the gameplay. If not, why not just incorporate the following condition:
If item is better than the item player is already using then
drop item for player to pick up
else
drop gold instead.
even more convenient! No need to hassle with that annoying "convert it to gold" button on all the items the player is never going to use.
"Unity is nice for a commercial project if you have the $1500 it requires for the license, and then another $500 for the team license. We don't. It also requires a separate license for each platform."
Unity only requires $1500.00 for a PRO license and only requires $400 additional per platform for iPhones, iPads, and Android devices. You can still use Unity free under the following conditions:
You only really need the features of the free version and not Pro (go to https://store.unity3d.com/ and click "read more". see attachment)
Your company doesn't earn over $100,000.00 anually. (If you start earning this much I'm guessing you can afford the pro license?)
You are releasing the game on any platform other than iPhone, iPad, Wii, Xbox, and Android. Any computer with an HTML5 compatible browser is free game.
You are willing to work without the benefits of the team license features. They're nice, but beggars can't be choosers... and by beggars I mean those who want to develop a game on a tiny budget. ..and by tiny budget I mean relative to the ~$100 million budget that skyrim had.
No discussion of politics, except relating directly to copyright, the Creative Commons, and/or FOSS.
Don't be racist, hateful, or otherwise homophobic.
Conduct:
On some forums, it is okay to be snide. That isn't acceptable here. As a FOSS gaming community, we are ambassadors of FOSS in general, and as such it is not acceptable to be rude to people who are interested enough in what we do to take the time to ask questions. Specifically, it is not okay to do the following:
Say something along the lines of "READ TEH FAQ U IDIOT"
Reply to a question with a link to a google search
Say "SOMEONE ALREADY ASKED THIS READ TEH FORUM U IDIOT"
Talk down to anyone because of their choice of software or operating system
On the other hand, it's quite possible that we'll get certain questions over and over, which is the reason FAQs exist in the first place. It is acceptable to reply with a link to a relevant FAQ question provided you read their post carefully and make sure that it actually applies. Just try to understand that when someone asks a question in a forum, they're looking for a personalized answer, and it's better to provide one and encourage discussion than just send them off to a FAQ link.
The perspective you are using is typically referred to as "Orthogonal 3/4 perspective", "Orthographic three quarters perspective", or "Overhead 3/4 perspective". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_projection
I'm sure you already knew that, but if not it may help when looking for art that is drawn in the same style. I've found a lot of resources just by using those terms in search phrases.
I agree with bart; adding almost any feature- especially some that overlap other features- will quickly demonstrate z-order- and therefore depth and perspective- to the player.
Attachment: Who knows why there are trees and a big blue rock in this room, but you can tell where they are positioned, yes?
Good point.
With items that have more than one stat, "better" is to be determined by the player. They have to weigh the bonuses and drawbacks of any given piece of equipment.
We could replace "better than the item the player is already using" in that condition with "an item the player can use at all". So equipment that is, say, only usable by a specific class (not the player character's class either) is never going to be used by the player, therefore the game shouldn't bother dropping it and should instead drop gold.
However, you could argue "What if the player wants to trade that item to an allie who IS able to use it". I think my point is that there is a tradeoff between convenience vs. choice. The more convenient you make it, the less choice the player has. Some choices are just not worth it and convenience is better, but some players draw the line at drastically different places than others.
"If the game decides what you should wear, you might as well remove equipment alltogether..." This is an excellent (albeit extreme) demonstration of what I am talking about. Makes it REALLY convenient for the player, but eliminates all choices relating to equipment.
Having no ability to covert items to gold, on the other hand, presents the player with even more choices: Is this big bulky peice of armor worth the money you'll get from dragging it back to town to sell it? No? then don't pick it up. Inventory space vs. sale value is an equivalent sacrifice to "Maybe I'm willing to sacrifice damage for some spell effect?"
I'm not neccessarily saying everything must be dragged all the way back to the merchant if the player wants gold for it, just that the level of convenience vs. choice that the player may want should be considered. I feel that making things convenient without any drawbacks means it isn't a choice. Who the heck would NOT take advantage of a convenience with zero drawbacks? A game with fewer choices is more like... a choose-your-own-adventure book where you don't really get to choose your own adventure.
I'm with MoikMellah on this one. I think there should at least be some convenience penalty for that. Sometimes the trekking back to town is part of the gameplay. If not, why not just incorporate the following condition:
even more convenient! No need to hassle with that annoying "convert it to gold" button on all the items the player is never going to use.
"Unity is nice for a commercial project if you have the $1500 it requires for the license, and then another $500 for the team license. We don't. It also requires a separate license for each platform."
Unity only requires $1500.00 for a PRO license and only requires $400 additional per platform for iPhones, iPads, and Android devices. You can still use Unity free under the following conditions:
Common sense dictates I check the FAQ:
Oops. :)
Forum Rules
The basics:
Conduct:
On some forums, it is okay to be snide. That isn't acceptable here. As a FOSS gaming community, we are ambassadors of FOSS in general, and as such it is not acceptable to be rude to people who are interested enough in what we do to take the time to ask questions. Specifically, it is not okay to do the following:
On the other hand, it's quite possible that we'll get certain questions over and over, which is the reason FAQs exist in the first place. It is acceptable to reply with a link to a relevant FAQ question provided you read their post carefully and make sure that it actually applies. Just try to understand that when someone asks a question in a forum, they're looking for a personalized answer, and it's better to provide one and encourage discussion than just send them off to a FAQ link.
The perspective you are using is typically referred to as "Orthogonal 3/4 perspective", "Orthographic three quarters perspective", or "Overhead 3/4 perspective". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthographic_projection
I'm sure you already knew that, but if not it may help when looking for art that is drawn in the same style. I've found a lot of resources just by using those terms in search phrases.
I agree with bart; adding almost any feature- especially some that overlap other features- will quickly demonstrate z-order- and therefore depth and perspective- to the player.
Attachment: Who knows why there are trees and a big blue rock in this room, but you can tell where they are positioned, yes?
Nice. Goes well with http://opengameart.org/content/700-rpg-icons
Trying to find the forum rules before making any posts, but the link above just directs me to this topic... Which has no forum rules listed.
Pages