<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>wundermint.com</title>
    <link>http://www.wundermint.com/</link>
    <description>The Fresh Express RSS</description>
    <language>en-us</language>

    <pubDate>Sun, 1 Aug 2010 05:54:17 GMT</pubDate>

    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <generator>CakePHP</generator>
    <managingEditor>john@wundermint.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>john@wundermint.com</webMaster>

        <item>
      <title>Fighting Myself</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/102</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        I tended to the outstanding issues with the different ship types,
getting it all squared away in short order. Feeling proud and
productive, it was time to figure out what came next.
<br /><br />

Upon considering what would happen if a ship was put into battle
against itself, I found that two of them yielded unwinnable
encounters. Well, unless you consider "staying alive until the other
guy accidentally suicides on the terrain" a form of winning (and not
all terrain types have lethal collisions, so that's not always an
option anyway).
<br /><br />

This left me with the decision between pressing forward as is, or
chopping things up a bit to make things fit together better.
The obvious option was to just omit battles against ships of the
same type and be done with it. While that does prevent the
stalemate scenario, it feels more like avoiding the problem than
solving it.
<br /><br />

In a competitive multiplayer game, a bout between two similarly
matched characters (e.g. two Warriors with approximately the same
stats / build / what-have-you) is often more interesting and
exposes the players' skill through success or failure. I mean,
we all know rock beats scissors, but rock vs. rock becomes
about who has the bigger rock. <b>No, it is not a tie!</b>
<br /><br />

So, I set about fiddling with the ship concepts so that they'd be
able to competently fight their twins. In doing so, I also discovered
a few glaring oversights in some of the heterogeneous match-ups. After
getting all of this patched up, the design feels significantly tighter,
even on paper. The downside is that the ship diversity has suffered.
The original concepts were just too different; if each had its own
game tailored to it, it would be fine, but as they all have to play
well with each other and adhere to a core rule set, a compromise was
made.
<br /><br />

As grouchy as I sound about all of this, I'm quite happy with how it's
shaping up. This coming week should see some quick an dirty prototyping.
VERGE's gimped input capabilities aren't quite up to snuff, but I'll
probably use it anyway out of familiarity with both it and Lua. It won't
be ideal, but it should be enough to let me know if I'm on the right
track without burning up a lot of time.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:38:54 -0500 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/102</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Vague Details</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/101</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        It's starting to feel more like a game (both in my head and design doc). A rant-like overview:
<br /><br />

There are currently 4 different terrain types. I've been fighting to come up with a few more,
but doing so and keeping them mechanically unique has been difficult. The "Metropolis" terrain
from the original is being retained, but adding something like "Forest" would be essentially
the same thing but with different shapes. Maybe I'm underestimating the value of visual variety,
but for now it's just easier to think in mechanical terms.
<br /><br />

After much fiddling, I've gotten six competent ship designs that all offer a different playstyle
without breaking the others' (in theory). There are some dramatic disadvantages to trying to get
six different things to play nice together instead of just two. With the original
<a href="/games#VectorKnights">Vector Knights</a>,
one side took damage, dealt "hits", and regenerated health; the other side took damage as "hits",
dealt points of damage, and could not regenerate. With a two-sided system, the player doesn't
question this; because the match-up is always the same it behaves consistently in every situation.
<br /><br />

By adding more things to the mix, with different health "types", each ship would need to output
multiple damage "types" to match and the player is left getting inconsistent feedback about the
effectiveness of his character. This is fine in many game times, but in a simple (hopefully even
elegant) action game, this convoluted scheme makes the rules feel arbitrary or subject to change
at any time. So, health and damage have been made universally "hit-based" to keep things as simple
as possible (no more fractional damage). Also gone is regeneration, which should help to curb the
unkillable enemy effect. There are two ships that could be accused of exhibiting regeneration-like
behavior, but I think they stand as integral mechanics unique to the ships' design, so it's not
quite the same as hidden number voodoo.
<br /><br />

Something else worth noting is that four of the six ships actually do "shoot bullets" by default.
This is a very hard thing to avoid in a shmup. Although the actual way in which they do it and
the effects they have are pretty non-standard, to help keep things interesting, three of these
get an upgrade that modify their behavior in a substantial way (the other one gets to remain as
a classic shmup ship). Hopefully, by retaining the some of the more familiar concepts early on,
the player will learn the quirky mechanics in a more comfortable environment before getting to
the more outlandish stuff.
<br /><br />

Coming up next: it's time to clean up some odd bits in the design (mostly in the ship upgrades)
to get everything feeling right. Then, time permitting, it'll be time to get a crude prototype
together and see if this "different but complementary playstyles" thing is working as well as
I think it is (hint: it won't).      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:16:53 -0500 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/101</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Project Surfing</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/100</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        I've been jumping between several projects (many of them new) recently. Although technically
qualifying for <a href="http://www.johnweng.com/gruedorf">Gruedorf</a>, I don't feel right posting about flavor of the week progress, but I am posting now because..
<br /><br />

<a href="http://eldritch05.tripod.com/eoslog/">Eldritch</a> has dethroned me!
<br /><br />

..and also because I am currently working on the design for a new shmup-ish game that may or may not be
<a href="games#VectorKnights">Vector Knights</a> 2. It's being built as a sequel now, but if you
consider that the original VK was started as <a href="games#BlockDodger">Block Dodger</a> 3, you
can see why I'm not committed to the branding.
<br /><br />

This announcement is admittedly more for me than anyone else as it'll (theoretically) force
me to be accountable and stick to a single game. Right now it's shaping up to be a nice mixture of manageable
and ambitious, and plays nicely into my not-so-secret vector fetish, so I'm hopeful. More details to come as
the preliminary design comes together.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2010 13:22:57 -0500 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/100</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Tinkerlist</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/99</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        I was annoyed to discover that VERGE wouldn't support a twin stick setup (more on why that's important later), so I played with a variety of different engines to see what could do what I wanted. I still haven't settled on one (even for prototyping!), but at least I've got a sense of my options.
<br /><br />

Now, on to the actual combat concepts. There are a few different approaches I'm considering, all of them pretty rough, but they are:
<br /><br />

<b>Twin Stick</b><br />
Player moves and fires in realtime.<br />
* Very action-oriented; the default winner for "most engaging".<br />
<br />

<b>Lock On</b><br />
Player's burden is to pick targets and maneuver (realtime); AI does the shooting.<br />
* Would accommodate 3D movement pretty well<br />
* Makes gunnery crew a more interesting element<br />
<br />

<b>Turn Based</b><br />
Closer to traditional RPG combat, Skies of Arcadia being an obvious influence.<br />
* Simplest form of play; the player makes executive decisions is never rushed.<br />
* Would facilitate dramatic animations that I will never have time to create.<br />
<br />

<b>Fleet</b><br />
Turnless, "analog" SRPG combat (similar to Growlanser).<br />
* This seems unfun with a single ship, so there would probably have a small fleet to control<br />
<br />

More to come next week as I move into some actual prototyping.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:12:34 -0600 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/99</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Argh, Me Hearty Is Broken</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/98</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        Oxidus fills an interesting niche. It allowed me to create a concept that I wanted to
see in motion and watch it fail to attract enough attention to justify its creation.
I think a generous helping of design-fussing would make a decent product out of it.
A rough course has been charted for doing this, but the amount of time already invested
in it makes putting more effort into it very unappealing, despite my reservations about
abandoning so much work.
<br /><br />

So, it is with mixed emotions (but renewed energy) that I announce my intent to finish
Ye Olde Pirate Game. "Finish" is a loose term as it arguably has yet to be
started. In an effort to avoid some of the blunders of Oxidus, I'm going to try building
this from the inside out instead of outside in. Over the next few weeks (and the past few
days as well) I'll be tinkering with different approaches to combat, slapping together a
some crude prototypes. Once I've got something with a solid hook.. well, let's talk about
that when we get there.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:23:57 -0600 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/98</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Old is the New New</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/97</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        A brand new build has been released. In it you get:
<br /><br />

 * Old, outdated engine version. <i>(Wait, is that good?)</i><br />
 * Approximately +30% performance gain. <i>(Yes, it is.)</i><br />
 * Intermittent crashes resolved. <i>(Quite good, in fact.)</i><br />
<br />
So, it's the exact same, but better. The only thing that isn't 100% internal
(read: you <i>could</i> notice, but won't so I'm drawing attention to it here)
is that the random emblem generation is a fair bit better about picking colors.
Retroactively adding new improvements to an old engine proved to be pretty
mind-numbing, so I wanted something trivial and visual to offset the pain.
<br /><br />
Head on over to the <a href="http://www.johnweng.com/oxidus">Oxidus</a> website
to upgrade if you haven't already.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:16:07 -0600 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/97</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Oxidus Open Beta</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/96</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        <a href="http://www.johnweng.com/oxidus">Oxidus</a> has arrived. Head on over to the
<a href="http://www.johnweng.com/oxidus">Oxidus website</a> to download the client
and sign up for an account. It is <i>believed</i> to be stable, but please notify me
of any problems you're having. Any and all feedback is welcomed and encouraged.
<br /><br />

Existing beta accounts have <b>not</b> been purged. So, if you've already been playing,
you won't need to sign up again; just grab the latest version of the client and you'll be
on your way.
<br /><br />

Good luck and have fun. I'll see you on the battlefield.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:33:32 -0600 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/96</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Dorfenstein</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/95</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        Although I poked a few things with Oxidus this week, most of my effort
was put into the <a href="http://www.johnweng.com/gruedorf">Gruedorf</a>
page. Those of you who visited late last week will notice that it has changed
yet again. It's mostly superficial changes; I like nothing more than
tirelessly adjusting layouts and tweaking colors. Honest. The end result is a
much more elegant thing, which is what I wanted all along.
<br /><br />

It's not all just fluff, though. Each user profile now has a handy timeline too!
Using bright, cheerful colors, it illustrates just how well a participant has
(not) performed over the course of Gruedorf. There are some more features
I'd like add, but for the immediate future I'd like to get back to Oxidus.
Happy 'dorfing to you all!      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:38:25 -0500 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/95</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>I Don't Give A Dorf</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/94</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        I don't know why I waited until mid-week to push this out, but
here's the fruit of my weekend:
<br /><br />

<a href="http://www.johnweng.com/gruedorf">Gruedorf 2.0</a>
<br /><br />

While it looks somewhat different, functionally it's very close
to how was before. The bulk of actual improvement was done on
the backend, so future improvements and features should be
significantly easier to implement. I can't express how bad it
used to be; there just are no words.
<br /><br />

Feedback is, of course, welcomed and encouraged.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:45:09 -0500 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/94</guid>
    </item>
        <item>
      <title>Failure Abounds</title>
      <link>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/93</link>

      <description>
      <![CDATA[
        The cause of the combat anomalies continues to elude me. I am fast
approaching the point where I just rewrite huge blocks of the combat
engine until it goes away. This makes me die a little inside.
<br /><br />

In other news: as I'm writing this, every participant in
<a href="http://www.johnweng.com/gruedorf">Gruedorf</a> is failing.
<br /><br />

Every. Single. One.
<br />
Simultaneously.
<br /><br />

This makes me die a little more inside.      ]]>
      </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:18:30 -0500 GMT</pubDate>

      <guid>http://www.wundermint.com/posts/view/93</guid>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>