So ever since heart of the swarm came out it seems that there are enough critters/primal zerg/zerg units to create a simple monster collection game a la pokemon.
The idea is that your character begins with only 1 zerg larva type unit that can permanently shapeshift into any enemy that has been killed.
As you progress thru the game you get the chance to obtain more larva, and thus build your stable of critters.
In total I would say that there are about 50+ units to "catch" and evolve. It's not nearly as many as Pokemon, to be sure, but Kingdom Hearts 3D, another game with monster catching elements, has that number, so it seems like a safe number.
I'm not trying to be too ambitious over here because I am not terribly experienced with the editor. Combat will probably be unmodified SC2 combat focusing solely on micro-ing a squad of critters around the map.
I thought of some other game mechanics but I just want to throw it out there to see if the community finds them acceptable or not:
- Each monster would have 1 or 2 abilities one that serve to distinguish it and make it memorable. In short, the average monster probably corresponds to a caster unit in SC2. As much as possible the abilities are matched to the monsters in ways that characterize them or represent a particular gameplay gimmick (eg Tank, DPS, Support) The bulk of strategy will most probably lie in the combinations of monsters you take onto the field rather than individual monsters.
- Monsters are also balanced out by a modification of SC2's supply system so you can choose to take only a couple of powerful monsters or a horde of weaker monsters and everything in between.
- There will be a 'feeding' system where consumables will drop from killed enemies. Consumables give a temporary buff depending on type (eg +Damage, +Life Regen, + Movement speed). There is also a limit on how much you can feed a monster that varies from monster to monster.
- Monsters permanently die. There would be a means to 'recall' a monster that is taking too much damage but this will wipe out all the food-based buffs that you have given it thus far.
- There would be a way to fuse two monsters to get a more powerful one, but some other conditions need to be met.
Beyond this, everything else is still up in the air. So please feel free to tell me if my current suggestions are terrible etc. And feel free to suggest new mechanics and progression systems :) Thanks
I have looked through the thread and a lot of discussion seems to be centered around replicating the pokemon mechanics. That would be beyond the scope of what I could do.
My questions are actually quite general. Things like:
- What do you feel is the minimum amount of monster species that should populate such a game?
- Do you it is essential for monsters in such a game to 'level up' or could simply obtaining more monsters be sufficient enough as a progression system?
- Similarly, should all monsters be viable in some way or do you consider it par for the course that not all monsters are not created equal?
- How customizable do you feel individual monsters should be?
- Are hard counters/RPS mechanics necessary for such a game to succeed?
I don't know what you mean by equal monsters. Each one should have unique strengths and weaknesses to keep things interesting
As in, should monsters found earlier in the game be able to
a) be viable against later monsters and last the whole game
b) be allowed to fall by the wayside as stronger monsters are acquired?
This is important because if a)that means some kind of levelling system for the monsters should be in place. If b)then simply acquiring stronger monsters should work as a progression system :)
In the absense of hard counters, the winner will usually be whoever throws more and bigger monsters at the enemy. Not good for a strategy game but you don't need to make one. What's 'RPS'?
RPS is rock-paper-scissors. In Pokemon's case, Types may be super-effective against other types while ineffective against others. In starcraft II's case, certain units' attacks do bonus damage against certain unit types. The benefits of RPS mechanics is that it broadens the range of options available to players. The drawbacks is that it may not be readily apparent or visible to the player as to what counters what. In the complete absence of such mechanics, the strategy would be placed squarely on timing, unit positioning and unit combinations.
If I could ask for ANYTHING... number one feature I would want to see in a game like this would be an advanced breeding system. Not one that's shallow and predictable like in Pokemon- one that's interesting and really makes you think about it. But the probability of that happening is depressingly low. So, I don't know, then.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So ever since heart of the swarm came out it seems that there are enough critters/primal zerg/zerg units to create a simple monster collection game a la pokemon.
The idea is that your character begins with only 1 zerg larva type unit that can permanently shapeshift into any enemy that has been killed.
As you progress thru the game you get the chance to obtain more larva, and thus build your stable of critters.
In total I would say that there are about 50+ units to "catch" and evolve. It's not nearly as many as Pokemon, to be sure, but Kingdom Hearts 3D, another game with monster catching elements, has that number, so it seems like a safe number.
I'm not trying to be too ambitious over here because I am not terribly experienced with the editor. Combat will probably be unmodified SC2 combat focusing solely on micro-ing a squad of critters around the map.
I thought of some other game mechanics but I just want to throw it out there to see if the community finds them acceptable or not: - Each monster would have 1 or 2 abilities one that serve to distinguish it and make it memorable. In short, the average monster probably corresponds to a caster unit in SC2. As much as possible the abilities are matched to the monsters in ways that characterize them or represent a particular gameplay gimmick (eg Tank, DPS, Support) The bulk of strategy will most probably lie in the combinations of monsters you take onto the field rather than individual monsters.
- Monsters are also balanced out by a modification of SC2's supply system so you can choose to take only a couple of powerful monsters or a horde of weaker monsters and everything in between.
- There will be a 'feeding' system where consumables will drop from killed enemies. Consumables give a temporary buff depending on type (eg +Damage, +Life Regen, + Movement speed). There is also a limit on how much you can feed a monster that varies from monster to monster.
- Monsters permanently die. There would be a means to 'recall' a monster that is taking too much damage but this will wipe out all the food-based buffs that you have given it thus far.
- There would be a way to fuse two monsters to get a more powerful one, but some other conditions need to be met.
Beyond this, everything else is still up in the air. So please feel free to tell me if my current suggestions are terrible etc. And feel free to suggest new mechanics and progression systems :) Thanks
@Trieva: Go
I have looked through the thread and a lot of discussion seems to be centered around replicating the pokemon mechanics. That would be beyond the scope of what I could do.
My questions are actually quite general. Things like:
- What do you feel is the minimum amount of monster species that should populate such a game?
- Do you it is essential for monsters in such a game to 'level up' or could simply obtaining more monsters be sufficient enough as a progression system?
- Similarly, should all monsters be viable in some way or do you consider it par for the course that not all monsters are not created equal?
- How customizable do you feel individual monsters should be?
- Are hard counters/RPS mechanics necessary for such a game to succeed?
Here is a good writeup that I have been referring to: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/SoYouWantTo/WriteAMonSeries
@Trieva: Go
As in, should monsters found earlier in the game be able to a) be viable against later monsters and last the whole game b) be allowed to fall by the wayside as stronger monsters are acquired?
This is important because if a)that means some kind of levelling system for the monsters should be in place. If b)then simply acquiring stronger monsters should work as a progression system :)
RPS is rock-paper-scissors. In Pokemon's case, Types may be super-effective against other types while ineffective against others. In starcraft II's case, certain units' attacks do bonus damage against certain unit types. The benefits of RPS mechanics is that it broadens the range of options available to players. The drawbacks is that it may not be readily apparent or visible to the player as to what counters what. In the complete absence of such mechanics, the strategy would be placed squarely on timing, unit positioning and unit combinations.
If I could ask for ANYTHING... number one feature I would want to see in a game like this would be an advanced breeding system. Not one that's shallow and predictable like in Pokemon- one that's interesting and really makes you think about it. But the probability of that happening is depressingly low. So, I don't know, then.