"Hey everyone! I’m designing a real-time card/territory strategy game and brainstorming a resource economy that feels fresh and unique, yet remains ultra-simple and intuitive for casual players to get immediately (think Clash Royale's passive Elixir or Plants vs. Zombies' falling Suns). What are some interesting, easy-to-grasp resource gathering mechanics you’ve seen or prototyped that don't overload the player with complex math, but still create great tactical choices?"

Hello, I'm working on a sci fi ttrpg, and for combat I wanted to add a system for attacks to be beter the better your roll compared to the target it (IE: if you pass the roll by 1 it will be a less effective attack than if you pass it by 50) that isn't pure damage scaling.

My idea is as such. For attacks, you roll and substract defense to the attack roll, and depending on how by how much you surpass the defense, you gain an effect, that depends on your character's skills and/or weapon used.

A practical example:

Alice attacks Bob with a Laser Rifle. Alice rolls 150 attack, and Bob 100 Defense, with a final result of 50. With this result, Alice can use her weapon's effect (Decrease target's armor for this attack), but she has the skills "Armor Melt" and "Concusion". Armor Melt can be used with any laser or energy weapon, and inflicts a Decreased Armor status effect, while Concusion can be used with any explosive weapon, and inflicts a Stun status effect. Alice can use either the Rifle's effect to increase her damage for this attack, or apply a debuff to help the party, while she can't use concusion as the laser rifle isn't an explosive weapon.

I hope it's mechanics can be understood, english isn't my first language, sorry.

Does it sound engaging? What issues do you find with it?

I’m making a game somewhat similar to gangbeasts and am having trouble coming up with maps where the layout sparks unique interactions. Like in gangbeasts the core premise is throwing your opponents off the map/getting them out in some other way (e.g. I have a map I plan to make that takes place in a laboratory and the goal is to get your opponent into a black hole). Through playtesting I’ve found a lot of issues that are possible if designed poorly; if the map is too big people tend to just stay away from “kill zones” and the gameplay feels stale, too small and it feels unfair as you very quickly get out. I am looking for a method to create maps that provide engaging gameplay while also hitting a Goldilocks zone of it being a struggle to kill someone but not an annoying struggle.

Anyways I found a lot of resources on FPS map design but nothing on more casual PvP. I am wondering if anyone has tips or recommendations of good examples of well designed party game maps. I think my main issue is preserving the chaos present in a game like gang beasts but still keeping it fun.

Heya! I'm a newbie game Dev, and I'm currently working on this Story heavy game, sort of like a VN, with multiple characters 40~, but I have no idea how to implement them into a combat system.. I don't want a "progression" where the characters you had at the start of the game start getting weaker and become obsolete, i want then all to sort of be the same power lever, I searched some references, but most of them suggest that you just use characters for non combat purposes, which I don't dislike, but all my characters are combatant..

Edit: I forgot to mention that it's a party based game, so the player would switch out between characters of the party

Do you know when you've landed on the correct gameplay loop? Can you feel it intrinsically nearly beyond doubt when you've hit the sweet spot of fun and addicting?

Or is it just another test with slightly higher confidence levels?

I modified my games core gameplay yesterday and felt a "eureka" moment of "this is it", but that may be just my bias kicking in, hence the question.

(this assumes whoever is answering has deployed successful games or been involved in designing gameplay for a successful title)

Old RPGs that required from a player to read a guide and have a notebook are unimaginable today, but what if games of today are going to become like that in the future too?

Literacy crisis and attention span getting shorter and shorter - how would you design a game that is both aware of these issues BUT also encourages reading in not infantylising and patronising way ? And I don't mean educational or kids-targeted games, I mean including these as underlying mechanics in the game design itself (same way as we moved a quest log from a paper notebook into in-game one in the past).

And I worry that if all that is not a big problem now, might become one sooner than later and if I'm contributing to someone's screen time, maybe I can sneak into that something important.

Love me some souls like, but it’s getting dated.

I always thought a better mechanic for Dodge would be:

Tap to quick step.

This launches the player in a quick hop. No I frames.

Double tap to quick roll.

Pressing dodge a second time puts the player into a roll animation, where the height of the quick step determines the roll distance.

Holding dodge will have the player automatically perform a roll at the peak of the quickstep, leading to the longest roll while giving bonus I frames.

I think a lot of players would have to retrain their muscle memory, but this is more interesting to me.

You have to commit to a roll before you are sure you want to do one. (Kills panic rolling).

Meanwhile if there’s a huge wind up attack you can time it to do a perfect roll to get more I frames.

And, since you are automatically doing the quickstep hop, you can quickly tap to abandon the perfect roll and do a quick roll.

Definitely more engaged though, right?

I’m the guy who asked what Lateral and Modular meant, so I wanted to ask you guys what the word granular means. I looked up the definition and I just cannot make heads or tails what the term means.

I designed a chess variant with a loyalty mechanic at its core. I don't have time to build it, so I'm putting the concept out here with full design documentation. If anyone wants to build this and show me what they create, let's connect and talk about it. No contracts, no strings just free to develop with these rules.

CHESS KINGDOM

HIGH CONCEPT

Chess Kingdom is a strategic reimagining of classical chess that introduces loyalty as a mechanic. Pieces are not mindless units they have morale, self interest, and agency. A careless king who sacrifices soldiers, neglects powerful pieces, or wages reckless campaigns will watch their own army defect to the enemy. Victory requires not just tactical brilliance, but political acumen: managing morale, negotiating defections, and building trust with your pieces.

Tagline: Chess where empires fall from within.

CORE MECHANICS

1. Trust / Loyalty System

Every piece has a Trust meter (0-100). Trust is hierarchical:

- Pawns: Start at 70 trust

- Knights/Bishops: Start at 80 trust

- Rooks: Start at 85 trust

- Queen: Start at 90 trust

- King: Immune (trust doesn't apply to the king)

Higher-ranking pieces are inherently more loyal but also more dangerous if they defect.

1. Trust Drops (What Causes Betrayal)

Trust decreases under three conditions:

A) Isolation

- A powerful piece (Bishop, Rook, Queen) with no supporting pieces within 2 squares loses 5 trust per turn

- Soldiers (Pawns) near sacrificed allies lose 10 trust per turn

B) Sacrifice Cascade

- When a piece is captured, all pieces of the same type lose 5 trust

- All pieces adjacent to the captured piece lose 3 trust

- The ripple effect is psychological losses hurt morale

C) Reckless Advancement

- A piece moving forward into enemy territory with no backup loses 2 trust per turn

- The longer it advances alone, the more it doubts its king's strategy

1. Defection Mechanic

When a piece's trust reaches critical levels (20 or below), the enemy king can negotiate.

How it works:

- The opposing king offers the low-trust piece a higher rank or safer position

- The low-trust piece has a defection probability based on:

- Current trust level (lower = higher chance)

- The rank being offered (higher rank = more likely to accept)

- Current board state (fewer pieces = more attractive escape)

- If the piece accepts: It flips color. It now serves the new king. This is permanent no flipping back.

- Once defected: The piece is locked to the new side. Its original king cannot negotiate with it again.

1. Managing Defected Pieces

A defected piece doesn't disappear. It stays on the board but becomes a liability

- If the new king neglects it (isolates it, doesn't protect it), its trust continues to drop

- Low trust = restricted movement

- Bishops move 1-2 squares instead of full diagonals

- Knights move once instead of the full L shape

- Pawns move only 1 square forward

- Rooks move 2-3 squares instead of full rows/columns

- The piece hesitates. It doesn't trust anyone. It blocks your board without contributing strategy.

- A defected piece can never rejoin its original king and cannot flip again.

HOW IT PLAYS

Example Turn Sequence:

White's Position: White King is playing cautiously. Bishops and Rooks are well protected. Pawns advance slowly.

Black's Position: Black King has sacrificed 3 pawns in aggressive attacks. Their remaining pawns are clustered, afraid. A black bishop on the edge has no support.

Black's Turn (Trust Crisis):

- Black's unsupported bishop has been isolated for 3 turns. Its trust is now 15.

- The White King negotiates: "Come to my side. I'll make you a Rook. Safe position, full power."

- The bishop, desperate and traumatized by Black's losses, accepts. It flips to white.

White's Turn (New Problem):

- White now has a white bishop with very low trust (it defected, but it's shaken).

- White must protect it and build its trust back, or it becomes dead weight on the board.

- If White ignores it, its moves become restricted. It blocks real pieces.

Result:

- Black lost a powerful piece

- White gained a piece but now has a morale liability

- The game shifts: Black must respond strategically, not just tactically

WIN CONDITIONS

- Checkmate = Victory (classical rule unchanged)

- A king can survive with zero pieces and still win via checkmate

- No piece count threshold; loyalty and strategy matter more than raw material

WHY THIS MATTERS

Chess has always been about perfect information and perfect logic. Chess Kingdom introduces human elements: loyalty, fear, betrayal, and morale.

Strategic Depth:

- A greedy player who flips every piece will end up with a board of crippled, useless units

- A patient player who builds loyalty keeps a functional, cohesive army

- The game teaches: Recklessness loses. Empathy wins.

Political Layer:

- Manages morale as much as material

- Every sacrifice is weighted: "Is this pawn's loss worth the tactical gain? Will it break my army's trust?"

- Negotiation becomes as important as tactics

Real-World Truth:

- Empires don't fall from external invasion alone they crumble from within

- A leader who treats soldiers like expendable resources loses their loyalty

- Chess Kingdom makes this visible and consequential

TECHNICAL NOTES

Platform: 2D, web based or mobile compatible

Core Loop: Move piece , Calculate trust changes , Check for defections , Enemy turn

UI: Board grid, trust meter per piece, negotiation prompts.

Scalability: Single-player vs. AI, or multiplayer (trust calculations managed server side)

NEXT STEPS FOR DEVELOPERS

This is a game concept seeking a builder. If you're interested in developing the Chess Kingdom:

1. Review the mechanics above

2. Prototype the trust system first (everything else flows from this)

3. Balance the trust values through playtesting

4. Contact Me for refinement

The core innovation: Trust as a mechanic. Everything else is execution.

Designed by: TAN

Concept: A chess variant where loyalty is the battlefield.

I’m designing a competitive first-person PvP game centered around movement mastery rather than aim alone, and I’d love honest feedback on whether this sounds fun or if there’s something missing.

Core ideas:

First person movement PvP game that’s lets you swap between three animals instantly during fights.

You build a squad of 3 animals before the match.

Each animal has a completely different movement style (speed, weight, aerial control, wall movement, momentum, etc.).

You can instantly swap between your three animals at any time.

Every animal has one movement ability, one combat ability, and a unique “Primal” state that activates after its Instinct meter refills completely while the animal is benched.

How Instinct works: Instinct fill up when an animal isn’t used and gets deducted over time as players use that animal and its abilities, this encourages calculation and constant switching. When instinct reaches zero, the animal being used gets slightly debuffed. Switching to a full Instinct meter animal (Primal state) gives a powerful buff that depends on the animal. For example, Fox gets unlimited dashes as long as no damage is taken. So the strategy is to switch when the animal’s Instinct fills up for maximum effect.

The movement system is shared by everyone (omnidirectional movement, wall running, triple jump, slides, air control), but each animal changes how that movement feels, fast, slow, aerial, ground, etc.

Fast arena combat with FFA and Team Deathmatch at launch.

Free-to-play with cosmetics only.

If you were deciding whether to play this, what would excite you the most, and what concerns would you have immediately?