"Free State" game would simulate 2050 New Hampshire

[Dave Ridley]

A third option would be to move forward primarily with just two elements:

1) making it available for online multiplay
2) implementing the meta game.   Each side's final score at the end of each match would apply to the meta game score. There would be a bar at the top of the game showing where each side stands in the meta game.  Perhaps a month-long meta game.   All the way to the left means blue loses the metagame, all the way to the right means red loses the metagame.  You sort of push the maker into enemy territory. The better your team does in the matches the further it pushes toward victory in the metagame.   "Better" basically means winning faster and/or limiting the number of points the enemy side scores during the game.  Every kill they make does mean points for them and will detract from your winning score in the match.

The upside to focusing on these to elements now...and generally skipping the rest:   It gives us a shot at getting players into the game soon and a long term horse race started soon.  They will be entering a game that has already has two key elements that are nearly unique:  shooting out the side and "everything you do counts toward the final outcome."  Also there's the fact you won't need other players on at the same time to have meaningful gameplay.  That's unusual.

The downside is that they will be entering a game which is still crude and missing most of its features. .  I'd put the chances at about 40 percent that this upgrade by itself....gets us enough players to generate a buzz and lasting conflict.   Those players may want to help with development or will at least have suggestions.  May be worth taking the chance, and we'll always have more bites at the apple as the upgrades come out and folks take a second look.  Once I can start posting public notices to the effect that i am taking down New Hampshire's defenses....I think a fight of the type we are looking for....may ensue

[Errol]

If you supply the vision, I will do what I can to make it happen.

I'm checking out a multiplayer solution presently.

playerio.com

Not sure what the license agreement situation with this company is, so I am just using it to mess around and not involve any of the current game code, but it might be a hosting solution.

So far the game uses the flash plugin that most browsers all over the world support. It is platform independent in that aspect (not just for windows). The only problem with this is it hits some snags in the mobile area. You can run flash on Android (using the photon browser), and on the Kindel Fire. Apple has rejected flash on it's tablets and mobile devices. I have some solutions in mind for this, but I don't presently own enough mobile tech to test on. Either way, I think for mobile devices we shouldn't bother expecting the user to run the game in the browser but instead have an app they can download to play the game. I'm thinking of using Netflix as a model for reaching users. So maybe we can call this the Netflix model for lack of a better term.

[Dave Ridley]

ok so the compatibility situation with mobiles already sounds better than I thought.  assuming all players can exist in the same universe regardless of device.

do you have any sense of what we're likely to be looking at in terms of sticker shock.... i.e. how much it may cost per month to host something multiplayer?

[Errol]

This is what player IO offers:

http://playerio.com/pricing/

[Dave Ridley]

I guess another advantage of taking the "add the metagame then get it live as-is" approach ....we may discover that we've already created a game that is fun once you have 2 or more players on at the same time .  and a downside would be that we will be spending money sooner.

[Dave Ridley]

Well not much sticker shock there!   based on the game elements we're likely to deploy over the next six months, do you think we could get by with their free option during that time?   I guess if the answer is "yes but barely" then we would try to avoid much in the way of graphics enhancements or major new visuals for a while.  But their free option's "maximum 500 players online at the same time" limit indicates to me that their free option bandwidth limit is going to be no problem anytime soon. 

That leans me even more in the direction of "let's put highest priority on implementing the metagame and going live."  Do you think adding other game enhancements will be harder after we're live?   That's the only other reservation I can think of besides the ones stated above.

[Dave Ridley]

One of the folks at KeeneVention is interested in getting involved... so maybe we have a second volunteer !

[Dave Ridley]

Additionally she is reporting that she couldn't play it on I-pad.  I got another report from an apple user that they couldn't make it work either; though maybe you already are aware of this.  Is it likely to not work on *any* apples for now?

[Dave Ridley]

Arright let's focus primarily on the "third option:"  Implementing the semi-persistant meta-game....and the online multiplayer aspect.

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=24297.msg350840#msg350840

After that the priority should be implementing chat, followed by mobile and I-pad compatibility.  Then we can concentrate on ship and gameplay enhancements which players would gain gradual access to by earning and spending credits.   The credits could be attained faster by sending us bitcoin; that's the point at which we hopefully start to go profitable.  Again, this is all *after* we implement the meta game and online multiplayer functionality.


Is there any work you can delegate back to me that would take some of the time burden off of you?   

[Dave Ridley]

I have a tentative formula we can use for tallying the meta-score.  It assumes the scoring regimen you've already set up inside the matches will continue more or less as-is.

As indicated before, the meta game is basically just a one-dimensional affair. There would be a bar at the top of the screen which show's each side's position in a tug of war.  At the start of this meta-war, it would look something like this:

Blue meta defeat ----------X--------- Red meta defeat

Red wins in matches would push the "x" leftward; Blue wins would push it rightward.  But each victory would be nuanced by how well the losing team fought.  I should provide two definitions:

*Match points* are the rapidly changing score we currently see at the top of the screen in this Nov. 2013 version of the game.
*Meta points* are points applied to the metascore at the end of a match.

Each match would end when one team has achieved 1000 match points. A final *meta* score for the match would then be auto-tallied and applied to the metagame tug of war.  Based on each sides accomplishments.  The formula would be:

Winning team's metapoints earned from the match = 400 + winning team's match points (always 1000) - losing team's match points - number of minutes it took to win.
Loser's metapoints earned from the match = Always 0


Example: 

A game unfolds where blue (INH) team wins and scores the requisite 1000 match points in game.  But the losing red team scores 500 match points.  (For instance, by killing 400 enemy ships and 4 towers).  Say it takes blue 50 minutes to win.  Blue's final metapoints would then be tallied as follows:

400 + 1000 - 500 -50 = 850

The "meta game" bar at the top would then push the X a distance of 850 rightward, "into red territory."   It would look about like this now:

Blue meta defeat -----------X-------- Red meta defeat

If the "X" it ever gets all the way to the right, red loses the probably-weeks-long metagame.  It then auto-restarts.  (Matches auto-restart as well, when they end).

I'm thinking the bar would be about "20,000 metapoints long."  So if a metagame started and, say Blue overwhelmingly won its first match of the metagame, with a final metascore of 1,100, it would push the "X" about 1/8th o the way to Red defeat in the metagame.

Blue meta defeat (10,000) ------------X------- Red meta defeat (10,000)

And if Red won the next match with a final match score of 2,000, it would push the X back to dead center.

I have been thinking about your town conquest map idea and how we eventually could make a meta-meta game.  Meta game wins could appear on a strategic map as conquests of NH towns and someone from the winning team could be the strategist who decides which town to attack. You could conquer towns without fighting by controlling all the points around them; like a slow overarching game of Go.   Having an NH map would add a nice ambiance to the game, but we'd have a ways to go before we could implement this. 

[Dave Ridley]

Sorry for the flood of messages, but while working on ideas for new units.... I noticed that the game continues playing pretty well while other windows are open, and you can hear it while minimized.  This will be an important feature in the future so we don't want to lose it.   I'm going to be designing a QuasiStrategic unit that is ideal for deploying while you're checking email, watching TV, etc.  So being able to hear the game while it's minimized.. that would be important.  I'm also working up an score/credit earning formula for the individual players.  Depending on how that shakes out it might affect the tentative metagame formula above.

[Errol]

iPads would fall under the mobile category, and will require its own app.

I think the first thing I'm going to do with the player io templates is make a chat program (conventionally, there is a tutorial out there for this). Also started on my first mobile app. A version of Simon (red, yellow, blue, blue, red, green). So I've been learning some new things.

Things that can be easily delegated for the moment:
Graphics
Sound

I suppose when I figure out how the whole thing will fit together, then it might be time to attempt to formalize the development process a bit. Right now everything happens on the client side. I have to rip out the code that runs the game and get it to work on the server side. Once the server side is up and running, it may be easier to delegate more of the programming work. Someone could be assigned to come up with the client side version for whatever platform we might require.

I can't promise a fast turn around at this point because I assume I'm going to hit a few unforeseen pitfalls along the way.

[Errol]

www.errolpelchat.com/DroneGame/

Drone Bots turn more effectively now.

[Dave Ridley]

Could I help you with graphics myself, despite lacking much knowledge in this area?  If so, how...? any programs you'd recommend?    How about with sound, how could I best help there?  I have some proto ideas of my own but I'd rather do something that you know you need as opposed to something that just adds to your workload....  As for sound, same thing basically: any thoughts on what you need most there?

[Errol]

I'd prefer to use vector graphics for game as they can be scaled without getting pixelated. SVG images would work, but for this, I tend to like having a set of instructions that draw the characters though I may have to create a video tutorial on how to do this.

One open source program for creating SVGs is Inkscape. It isn't hard to find with a quick web search. Flash Develop could be used for creating a set of drawing instructions I could integrate into the game (but would require a tutorial if you are not familiar with it).

If you have some ideas or inspiration, we can dig up some graphics or make some sketches on how the finished product should look.

A clear vision of what the end product should look like and behave would be helpful. Maybe a storyboard on the user experience would be useful.

As far as sound goes. We might want to come up with the type of atmosphere and mood for the game as the sound fx will have a lot of influence on that. So that may be worth deciding before adding more sound effects.