In battle enemy art paradox
Displaying 1-20 of 25 total.
12
next
Syn
|
So I decided to make a test art for the in game battles. So I drew a picture of a bull on paper and scanned it. On the computer, using photoshop, I fixed it up and colored it. (First time I did something like that, came out great, woohoo for me!)
Anyway, I noticed after that I miscalculated the amount i needed to resize the pic for it to work. The maz amount of height for a enemy art is 100 pixel, and i needed to leave enough place over to add a rider. So I resized the pic to like 12%. It looked really crappy, I had to rework the entire thing. Anyway, that's what came out :
It was made bigger of course, the coloring needs work.
Anyway, having a talk with the coder he said he could make the graphics bigger. So I tried resizing with retouch the pic i made at 25%.
I'm seriously thinking of changing the color to something wackier like purple.
Well the first one is 41 pixel high, the second is like 84 pixel. I dunno but there is a whole style change between the two. I wonder what would be best to use between the two size. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Posted on 2004-09-10 05:58:02
|
mcgrue
|
Looks pretty good. I'd recommend toying with increasing the size of the shadow areas. Right now, they kind of just fade into the outline.
Definitly a better stock-beast than I could manage. Quadrupeds are my bane.
Posted on 2004-09-10 06:03:52
|
Syn
|
ok, cool I'll try that. But which one do you like best between the two stiles?
Also, I suck at four legged creatures to. That's why I'm quite happy with it's turnout.... :D That and attempting to use photoshop for the first time.
Posted on 2004-09-10 06:22:26
|
Eldritch05
|
*sigh* This is what I get for letting a real artist work for me. Now I have to go in and redesign the entire battle layout so the good graphics will fit like he wants them to. Artists.
Really, though, it looks great, Syn. Doubly so because I didn't have to draw it. I'd feel evil if I made you use Baby Bull, so I'll work it so Atlas Bull there fits. Besides improving the look, it gives me a chance to dive back into the code and not actually have to design maps. Ah, code.
Posted on 2004-09-10 06:31:01
|
Syn
|
Blah! I know you like coding! Even more when it is to make the game better. Now get used to it, cause I'm still pretty sucky at this thing called 'Art'.
Posted on 2004-09-10 06:35:17
|
Gayo
|
Hee hee. Remember how Dragon Warrior games had to remove the HP readout during rounds for some fights so giant enemies would fit onscreen?
WHILE YOU'RE AT IT FIX TARGETING EH?
Posted on 2004-09-13 17:36:05
|
Eldritch05
|
Quote:Originally posted by Gayo
WHILE YOU'RE AT IT FIX TARGETING EH?
I'm sorry. I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. I seem to be able to target enemies just fine. :P
In the end, since I really do care what people think (misguided fool that I am), I'll probably add an option to the config menu that lets you pick whether you target enemies before or during the round.
... That defaults to during. And then make the retargetting AI painfully stupid. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Posted on 2004-09-13 19:20:28 (last edited on 2004-09-13 19:21:49)
|
Gayo
|
...that is stupid. Dude, all you need to do is be able to count the number of live characters in a party and you can effortlessly design a retardeting system to randomly select one. It doesn't have to be all clever or anything.
int RandomLiveEnemy()
{
// random enemy picker pseudocode
int chanceleft = NumberOfLiveEnemies() - 1;
for (currenemy=0; currenemy<MAX_ENEMIES; currenemy++)
{
if (EnemyIsAlive(currenemy))
{
if (!random(0,chanceleft)) return currenemy;
chanceleft--;
}
}
return 0-1; // Return -1 if no enemies are left alive.
}
Posted on 2004-09-16 17:32:50 (last edited on 2004-09-16 17:35:06)
|
Eldritch05
|
If it's going in, it's going to be clever. I'm not going to pick a random enemy from the list. That's fine for Final Fantasy, but Dragon Warrior was always so much smarter than that. It won't be terribly difficult, and really, I care too much to make it stupid. But play some of the later Dragon Quests. Those characters know what they can kill in one hit, what's almost dead, and which things will resist their spells. Heck, if you take the main character out of the battle, you don't even have to enter any commands and your party will still be doing basically what you would have told them to do anyway.
It doesn't need to be quite that smart, since I don't plan to put in an Auto-Battle, but it needs to be similar. I know how to do it, and it really isn't difficult, it's just going in and doing it. And really, the player will (or at least should) be smarter than any retargetting that I do. I'd rather retarget myself, which is why it's done the way it is. But I'll give players the option to change it. It's not that big an issue.
Posted on 2004-09-16 22:58:55
|
Gayo
|
This is only going to happen when the previously chosen target is dead, though. Most of the time, that won't be the case.
Posted on 2004-09-16 23:31:11
|
Eldritch05
|
I know. It's the principle of the thing.
Posted on 2004-09-17 00:06:01
|
Gayo
|
Remember, Dragon Warrior had good AI for targeting because it didn't allow you to choose whom to attack within a given group!
You should at least have random in as an option if you aren't going to add an alternative better method. I'd use random retargeting in an instant even though it's a huge stategic handicap, just because it would double the speed of battles.
Posted on 2004-09-17 01:13:29
|
Syn
|
Back to the subject at hand please, the migration of the northern black loon.
Posted on 2004-09-18 03:32:33
|
resident
|
Quote:Originally posted by Eldritch05
If it's going in, it's going to be clever. I'm not going to pick a random enemy from the list.
Real battle do not involve the participants all forming orderly rows and taking neatly ordered turns to hack at each other ;)
A battle is supposed to represent a swirling melee, with fighters and enemies running, dodging and jumping all over the place. Random selection works fine stylistically because you're hardly going to run all the way out of position to strike the 'best' target, are you? No, I think you're far more likely to go for the closest, which thanks to the fluid nature of combat, could be just about anyone.
On the art... I'm sorry, I can't really see a lot of difference, aside from the size thing.
Posted on 2004-09-23 07:55:11 (last edited on 2004-09-23 07:56:33)
|
zaril
|
Quote:Originally posted by resident
Quote:Originally posted by Eldritch05
If it's going in, it's going to be clever. I'm not going to pick a random enemy from the list.
Real battle do not involve the participants all forming orderly rows and taking neatly ordered turns to hack at each other ;)
A battle is supposed to represent a swirling melee, with fighters and enemies running, dodging and jumping all over the place.
..and how many battles have you been in sir? ;) Anyway, just had to point out that I would very much like a more traditional way of battle myself. Choose Attack and then the pointer moves to the enemies so that I can choose who to attack.
Posted on 2004-09-23 09:12:35
|
Eldritch05
|
Targeting was altered Sunday. I left in the former way of doing it for any who actually preferred doing it that way (like me.) Retargeting is done randomly until such a time that it bothers me enough that I go in and change it. That time may never come for something like choosing a new monster to attack, but for something like trying to heal the party when the original target already died, I think there's probably just cause to make it find who needs healing the most.
Posted on 2004-09-23 15:23:32
|
resident
|
My general pugilistic endeavours tend to suggest that only side that lines up and takes turns to attack, in the manner beloved of 8bit RPG's, is the losing side.
Intelligent selection of targets for healing spells makes sense. If you're going to bend the rules in anyones favour, make it the player - the AI won't thank you for it ;)
Posted on 2004-09-23 17:48:38
|
Gayo
|
I dunno, I like clever enemies in games. However, a sophisticated enemy AI system would make the hate system much less useful, I suppose. Anyway, infinite thanks for auto-retargeting.
Posted on 2004-09-26 02:08:59
|
blues_zodiakos
|
Whatever you do, DON'T make the enemy AI like Xenosaga. That game thought it was great fun to consistantly have every enemy attack your weakest character in one round. :/ Sure, it might be a very viable strategy (it's what the player does, usually :D) but it's not very fun when the computer does it to you. EVERY BATTLE in some places. :(
Posted on 2004-09-27 01:30:32
|
Gayo
|
Bah. A good AI will be as ruthless as it possibly can. Xenosaga allowed your strong characters to protect your weak ones -- that's all that's required.
Posted on 2004-09-27 02:23:57
|
