• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Brohoofs

Recent Profile Visitors

499 profile views

About e^2

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Discord Username
    x ILoveKimPossibleAlot
  • Skype
    rp with me ;3
  • Twitter
    chirp chirp
  • Fimfiction
    this ship will sink like the titanic
  • deviantART
    do not steal
  • YouTube
  • YouTube
  • YouTube
    and be sure to hit the bell
  • Steam ID
    condense it. i'm thirsty

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

  • Best Pony
    Mare Do Well
  • Best Pony Race
    Earth Pony

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Wrong Neighborhood
  • Personal Motto
    git gud
  • Interests
    i have them

MLP Forums

  • Opt-in to site ads?
  • Favorite Forum Section
  1. e^2

    Celestia Fan Club

    PRaise the sun. She is grossly incandescent.
  2. A good free DAW off the top of my head is LMMS. The link to their site is below. https://lmms.io/ Despite being free, folks have made some amazing stuff with it. Down below is a YouTube channel link to a mainly orchestral composer who uses or has used LMMS for plenty of his work. https://www.youtube.com/user/PCHU13/videos If you want a DAW on the cheaper side, Reaper is in the double digits and is does well for its asking price. If you are looking to buy a popular DAW, be sure to do your research and make sure you know what you are buying. I'm not a DAW expert my any means, but birdies have told me that different DAWs are better suited for different purposes. From my personal experience, most of the software costs are going to come from the instruments. You will likely only need one DAW you really like and fits you, but when it comes to the plugins, instruments, sounds, etc, those are going to pile up. As most people say, free stuff isn't going to be the best. You get what you pay for after all, and if you pay zero expect something close to that. What genre are you planning to write? If you mention that, maybe it will be easier for other folks to give you more specific help.
  3. Goodness me. I was expecting ideas for buildings in a game design viewpoint. Not going into the nitty gritty of how the programming functions correlates to how the structures function at a fundamental, base level. No complaints. It was a great read and shows how intricate coding can be for something as simple as buildings, spending resources, and how the problems can add up for even the most mundane things. 2. In Starcraft Brood War, there is a term called Sim-City, in which buildings are used for more than the fundamental purpose, being used as walls or obstacles for the enemy forces due to their size and sheer quantity of health. You'd have to arrange the buildings well and be careful with it, but this is a way players have and do use buildings in order to block enemies and keeping them out as you have said. https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Sim-City https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Protoss_Fast_Expand_Forge_Walling https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Walling_as_Terran 4. I don't know too much about Age of Empires but I do recall playing it a couple times. Perhaps I should look into it again. I do know that Red Alert 2 has walls. They aren't the fanciest thing on the planet but it prevents ground units from moving through it indiscriminately but can be destroyed by explosive damage or heavy forms of damage. http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Fortress_Walls_(Red_Alert_2) 5. That's... actually quite an interesting idea. Limited functionality when a structure hits certain milestones in its construction process. 6. Can you sell a building to get a refund for a fraction of the cost? Would that also factor into the complexity of the destruction code? 8. Please make the hotkeys reasonable and easy to hit haha. In Brood War, the default hotkey to build certain stuff is "P". 9. I think having it flattened should be the criteria for buildable terrain. There are factions in RTS games that has another condition on top of having the raw terrain itself being buildable. In Red Alert 2, structures must be placed in close enough proximity to the Construction Yard. In Starcraft, Protoss buildings must be placed in a Pylon power field (except the Nexus and Pylons) and Zerg can only build on Creep. 10. Terrans have flying buildings, which is definitely a strength. Melee units cannot strike buildings that are airborne. That being said, the buildings are extremely slow when flying in the air and cannot serve their function (e.g. Barracks cannot produce Marines) when lifted off until they are placed on the ground. Sorry that I'm mentioning Starcraft a lot. It's the RTS I'm most familiar with not to mention its longevity and esports success over the years. I'm not a coding guru but there might be something about buildings that you might want to consider and that is how they are built. For the Terrans, the SCV must be with the building for the entirety of its construction. During the construction, the SCV moves back and forth on the construction site, pausing only to have the SCV perform the welding animation on the structure in progress. Protoss buildings construct on their own and the worker is free to do other things. Zerg buildings also construct on their own but the Drone, the Zerg worker, morphs into the building, sacrificing the Drone to make the structure. Not sure how much systems like this would complicate the coding if you choose to implement it but just in case, I wanted to mention it. If two buildings are placed directly next to each other, is that tiny space in between those units passable? How will the overall collision of the buildings work? There are building arrangements in Brood War that allow small units to pass but large units cannot. ------------------------------ The model can use refinement, yes. But that looks fantastic if it is your first time. I'm not too aware of 3D modelling on Blender. I do music, not animation as far as the arts are concerned. ------------------------------ Have you figured out the factions and the direction you'd want to take the game at a thematic standpoint?
  4. Good to see you again! That mare is... quite good for first iteration, in my opinion. I'm sure there are 3D modelling folks on these forums that can give you more feedback and better tips that I ever will. Congrats on completing this school period. I finished my undergraudate recently. Looking forward to seeing progress. You've mentioned that you had some ideas on how building will be handled earlier. How is that going?
  5. Good to see that you are alive! I was wondering where you were. Looking forward to your idea of buildings!
  6. Yeh. It's a dark universe and I completely understand if people are put off by it. Certainly not for everyone. That being said, the units are creative and the overall lore does make the likes for an RTS, as you have stated. I'm glad you love the unit designs as much as many others do. As for PoorYorick, I do now know about his status. He has a FimFiction account but it's been offline for two years. From what I know, he is off the grid. https://www.fimfiction.net/user/103714/PoorYorick Speaking of FimFiction, Equestria Divided has a page based on it and even have a forum of it. https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197422/equestria-divided/forum There are even RTS based threads you might want to check out if you want to go forth with this idea. I think another disclaimer is at hand is that I'm no expert of Starcraft or RTS design. Not even that good at the game either so do take what I say about the game with a grain of salt as well. These are simply my observations and what I've learned through my enthusiasm. An RTS where "hero units" work is in Red Alert 2. For instance, in the lore, Tanya is an allied hero and am important character in the story, appearing in the live action cutscenes and her death being a failure condition. You can actually get this unit in the multiplayer, if I recall. She is balanced in some sense. She can mow down literal hordes of infantry units, insta-kill buildings and boats, but doesn't deal anything to vehicles such as tanks and visibly struggles in combat with static defenses. Yuri is the hero unit for the Soviets and is also critical to the story, has no attack, but a single ability to mind control a single enemy unit. If Yuri chooses to mind control another unit, the current unit under his control is released from his grasp. Both "hero" units seem balanced while still giving off the aura of power and importance. There are other details with these units but they don't pertain to the current discussion. I've played LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth before. I don't recall all the details, but I think the heros were also powerful, influential, but not too OP to leave the victim completely helpless. I'll have to look into it if the time allows. Understood. Then from this, the tech tree can be focused on what buildings are present and said techs results in the units that can be micro-ed. Your idea sounds great, I think. There is an interesting thing about the mirror matchups when it comes to Starcraft. Bizarrely enough, these matchups are incredibly thematic and it exemplifies and brings out the personalities of the races. Terran vs Terran is all about taking territory and pre-occupying resources, players even taking inefficient and seemingly unreasonable fights to take resources where they will expand later, even if it cannot be extracted right then and there. A common thing that also happens in TvT is this "line" across the map; a no man's land. It isn't a surprise if a game takes a very long time and all of the resources on the map is exhausted. The pacing is slower than most matchups and moves are clearly seen like a game of Chess. This all looks similar to how humans wage conventional war in real life. Protoss vs Protoss is dynamic, micro-intensive, and requires the player to predict and read the opponent. It's a matchup that definitely requires experience. Most, if not all, ground units are on the table. It's filled with trickery, deception, and predicting the enemy's technology. The game and fight goes back and forth given both players are even in skill. It looks like two tribes clashing. Even for experienced casters, viewers, and players, the winner isn't always clear. Seems fitting for an advanced, psionic alien race. Zerg vs Zerg is volatile, degenerate, and fast paced. Games rarely ever get to late game tech and it is uncommon for the game to ever exceed 10 minutes. It's a slugfest that some people joke that it isn't even a matchup. Both players are functioning on a very sensitive and low economy. Even one wrong move and the enemy can slash your jugular, causing you to lose. Makes sense for insectoid aliens to fight like the animals they are. Now, I don't know if Blizzard designed the races and their units with this in mind, but it does point to how well the design is. As for your idea, I think it makes sense. Equestria is a diverse kingdom with a variety of citizens with a myriad of talents. There would be a rock-paper-scissors element in that matchup. Changeling vs Equestria would make sense to be more "static" as Changeling are a single race, to put it simply as possible. There is a Starcraft meta matchup that I'd to talk about regarding this but time is short at the time of writing this. Thanks! Have a great day!
  7. I used to have an account but it wouldn't let me in. So after wanting to reply to this but some time but MLP Forums refusing to link it to Poniverse, screw it. New account it is. RTS's have been on of my favorite video game genres, Starcraft: Brood War being my favorite. Now, I'm not game designer, so do consider what I say with a grain of salt. I do have an idea for a universe, and that is the Equestria Divided fan universe: https://equestria-divided.deviantart.com The tl:dr, so to say, are that the celestial sisters disappear from Equestria yet the sun and moon function like normal and each of the Mane 6 separate in efforts to shape the future of the kingdom in their image. There are already units for each faction or House. Do check it out and see if it is something of interest. Different races/ factions keep the design asymmetrical which can appeal to different players and what they desire. In Tiberium Wars, players getting into the game will appeal to NOD, GDI, or Scrin depending on various factors like how the faction plays, the personality, and theme. My personal view on hero units are that they should be restricted to the campaign only. If I recall correctly, Warcraft 3 is an RTS with hero units that can level up. Another game that takes this to a lesser extent is Red Alert 2, in which there are units that are "heros" in the lore and story, but you can have them in multiplayer. They have clear cut roles and/ or niches, so it isn't always an advantage to get them. Starcraft tech/ building progression would be good. Depends on how you want to the game to function. Is it more building focused? Unit focused? Somewhere in the middle? Assuring that each faction has some sort of air units or at the very least anti air is critical. In Starcraft: Brood War (BW), there are race matchups where air units are essential. For Protoss vs Zerg, the meta is for the Protoss to get Corsairs for scouting initially but later on killing Overlords and responding to Mutalisks. Protoss ground units in general have a lot of trouble dealing with air units, especially an air unit that is particular fast like the Mutalisk. The thing with the current idea of how the factions are laid out is that there needs to be some worldbuilding and additions to the lore to make sure it makes sense to accommodate for air units for factions that naturally don't have them (e.g. Zebras, Earth Ponies, etc). When it comes to the balancing of units, hard counters/ Rock-Paper-Scissors design is fine, but measures of soft counters and even matchups needs to be devised. From word of mouth, some people have beef with games like Overwatch and Starcraft II because there is too much Rock-Paper-Scissors design, to the point where outplay is neigh impossible. Not saying these games are bad, but having too much hard counter design can be detrimental. Having some soft counters/ checks will make outplay and execution of the player a possibility. I can 't give you an example from the top of my head, but in competitive Pokemon, there are Pokemon that "checks" an opposing Pokemon while some serve as "counters". https://www.smogon.com/smog/issue32/checks-and-counters The other thing is "even" matchups. This is where the outcome of the battle is mainly on the execution of the player. Let's use the simplest matchup in BW, Terran vs Protoss, as an example. The army compositions for both races in this matchup is very static. The Terran's core units are Siege Tank + Vulture. The Protoss' core units are Dragoon + Zealot. There are other units down the line that help "mature", "develop" or "support" the core army such as Shuttles, Arbiters, Observers, and Science Vessels, but the 4 units I've mentioned are the meat and potatoes. You will see games where Tank/ Vulture obliterates Zealot/ Dragoon. You will see a similar amount of games where Zealot/ Dragoon eviscerates Tank/ Vulture. The units are evenly matched, so to say (there are nuances, but for simplicity's sake) and the outcome of the battle rests on how the respective players use and manage the units and bends the game in their own favors both before and during the fight.