Image – Zesix

Blog Archives

October 28, 2015

Redesigning Kongai

Kongai is a turn-based double-blind (simultaneous play) card battler created by David Sirlin. Read more about it in Sirlin’s article Designing Kongai.

The game is largely dead at this time as no one plays it on Kongregate anymore, but I really enjoyed the ideas behind it and have been thinking of ways to create something that improves upon its design. I use the term improve as a matter of opinion here because design is largely subjective, and should David Sirlin stumble upon my blog he’s likely to defend his design in numerous ways based on his own opinion while criticizing my changes.

I’ll start with Kongai’s faults. The first one is a UI/UX issue, not actually a design problem.

Unintuitive interface. When a new player plays for Kongai the first time, they see different attacks that cost energy and have varying levels of power. However, the user is not aware of the resistances the opponent’s character has because there is no obvious correlation between the meaning of the icons near the opponent’s character and the icon corresponding to each attack your character has.
Multiple attacks don’t add much depth. This is an area of large subjectivity, but I found multiple attacks to be confusing at first (mostly because the way resistances work isn’t clear) and later when I finally understood them, I didn’t think they provided the level of depth and fun that Sirlin makes them out to be in his design article.
Missing attacks is unfun. I don’t think missing attacks is ever fun, especially when they are associated with large energy costs that Kongai typically has. If you miss it should be a form of feedback based on your skill, such as missing in a FPS because your aim was off. When you miss in a turn-based game where aim is not really a skill, it feels artificial and unfun.
Attacks are completely dependent on range. A large number of people may disagree with me here, but I felt attacks being disabled based on my range meant that the four attacks each character has is actually 1 or 2 attacks because half of them are usually disabled for not being in the proper range. I believe fun and viable choice are closely interrelated, and limiting options as opposed to limiting effectiveness is poor design.
Too much of a guessing game. This is mostly a criticism of Sirlin’s preference for heavy rock-paper-scissors style design, whereas I believe balance should be more blurred. Switching causes your opponent’s attack to miss, and the only way to stop switching is to Intercept their switch. While this might have seemed great on paper, over time it just because a glorified guessing game where skilled players feel at crossroads with each other because the odds of making the correct choice against a low health opponent is always 50%. This form of skill gating is unnecessary and unfun.

Improvement Ideas

Here are the changes I am making. Further improvements may be added later on the more I discover.

Single attacks with dual purposes. I’m removing multiple attacks entirely, and instead making single attacks have a dual purpose such as dealing damage and increasing the energy restored for one round or increasing resistance against a certain attribute. This removes the initial confusion behind multiple attacks and how they work while still adding a level of depth players can enjoy.
Four elements. Kongai features Light, Dark, and Physical, but there’s no obvious match balance to those three. I’m changing the elements to Fire, Water, Ground, and Electric. The balance works out like this: Ground beats electric, which beats water, which beats fire, which beats ground. The only potentially unclear matchup here is that fire is strong against ground, but the rest are very intuitive.
Each character has an element. Instead of each character having no element and a set of resistances (as in Kongai), each character now has a primary element and is both resistant to its own element and also capable of dealing more damage when using an attack that matches its element. In Pokemon, this is known as Same Type Attack Bonus (STAB). It also simplifies gameplay for the newer player since there aren’t a bunch of resistances to look up for each character, but instead only one resistance per character to be aware of. While some attacks will raise a resistance of a certain kind, this doesn’t make the gameplay more confusing because both players actively get a notification that the character’s resistance to one type has been raised. If little kids can handle Defense and Special Defense boosts in Pokemon, then I’ll argue similar usage here does not violate the burden of knowledge anti-pattern.
Every attack is usable at any range, but damage is dependent on range. This addresses the issue that your choices in Kongai are actually very limited because some attacks are disabled due to range. I’m changing damage to not be a solid number but instead to be variable with a specified minimum and maximum. Damage dealt in combat is now dependent on the current range, and each attack will have a specified ‘most effective range.’ This expands viable choices per character and doesn’t make anyone feel gimped or fighting over range as opposed to actual combat.
Adding another range. Kongai featured two ranges – close and far – but I’m adding a melee range and renaming ‘close’ to ‘short’. This is to further enhance the idea in Kongai that some characters are very good at close but terrible at far and vice versa because it provides a middle ground for those characters while also allowing me to introduce characters that actively seek short distance but don’t want to be in melee range.
Attacks cannot miss and each character has a critical hit chance of 10%. I find missing to be unfun when there is no skill associated with it – if you miss in an FPS it’s because you actually missed, whereas missing in a turn-based game with no aiming feels artificial. My redesign will remove missing entirely, although some abilities may cause the next attack of a certain element to be blocked or heavily reduced in damage. Each character also has an internal, low critical hit chance since getting a critical hit is the kind of RNG that is actually fun. There might be a class or two that also has the ability to raise its critical hit chance in combat.
Abilities per character can be customized. Instead of each character having a predefined set of abilities, the player will be able to choose abilities out of a pool available to all members of that character’s class. For example, all Archers might have access to a Fire Shot but the Fire Archer would utilize this skill best due to matching the ability’s element.

A New Setting

Kongai is a battler featuring numerous characters in a fantasy setting. I intend to keep the fantasy aspect, but also to supplement it by stealing the premise of the Fate series and the war for the Holy Grail. For those who are unfamiliar, each contestant in the Grail War summons a mythological hero fitting a certain class, such as Archer, Assassin, Berserker, etc. While each hero has its historical name, in the show they are referred to by class, so an Archer-class hero is actually called ‘Archer’ in the show as opposed to whatever name he or she had in history. Each contestant in the Fate series can only summon one hero, and losing that hero spells the end of that contestant’s quest for the Holy Grail (the contestant can also be killed, which causes the hero to disappear).

My redesign of Kongai is currently named Class Combat for prototyping and revolves around creating a party of 4 characters from different classes. Each class has numerous available characters, with each belonging to a different element. For example, Ground Archer, Fire Archer, Water Archer, etc. Stats-wise they are equivalent since the focus is not on a bunch of characters with unique stats, but instead balancing the distribution of elements in your party and choosing what attacks to assign. A Ground Archer deals more damage with ground attacks and is resistant to enemy ground attacks, but maybe you have a Ground Knight you want to use and your team is missing both a ranged fighter and someone who excels at Fire attacks, so you choose a Fire Archer with lots of Fire attacks. However, because Archers are typically weak, you plan to lead with your Ground Knight and switch to your Fire Archer when he will be most effective.

UI Mockup

I firmly believe any game that is actually fun can be played without art assets such as fancy graphics or audio. This is why I prototype my ideas in the most bare form (usually text only), because it allows me to see if they are mechanically where they need to be. Class Combat currently has no working prototype but I am developing one in my spare time. I’ll share a playable once a barebones version is ready.

October 5, 2015

Adapting Other CCG Mechanics into Zems, Pt. 1

As a card game designer, it’s my duty to stay up to date on other card games and to bring some of their funnest mechanics into Zems.

Disclaimer: The mechanics and adaptations mentioned in this post are not guaranteed to make it into Zems, but I hope to incorporate them someday.

Unfun to Acceptable

Many card games have unfun elements deemed ‘necessary evils’ by their communities. However, if you look at the recent design decisions in many CCGs (their latest sets – especially Magic sets), many of these are clearly avoided. Below, I list three of these ‘unfun’ mechanics while presenting an ‘acceptable’ alternative.

Hexproof

The core idea behind hexproof is to play a creature the opponent cannot interact with and build it up with tons of buffs until it’s an unstoppable monster that just wins the game.

The cards above are just one example of a Hexproof setup. There are a large number of enchantments (buffs) that can bring a humble 1/1 hexproof to unstoppable levels and it would be impractical for me to list them all.

The reason Hexproof is unfun is because it doesn’t allow players to interact with each other. One player has an untouchable guy with buffs while the other player is staring at unusable interaction cards in hand. One player is clearly having fun over the expense of the other, and this is true even if the Hexproof player is losing – the very nature of the deck’s design prevents it from running cards that can swing a board state (a common trend in many recent top tier standard Magic decks) because almost all of its cards are either Hexproof creatures or buffs.

Zems will NOT support a core Hexproof strategy. We may have cards that cannot be targeted, but all of them will cost more than 1 and cannot be a core part of deck design. Note that players only see four cards at the beginning of a game, so it is very difficult to mulligan for this kind of strategy in the first place. The strategy behind Hexproof, however, is actually not about preventing interaction. It’s about creating a one man army, and that is something we will support. In Zems, a one-man-army buff strategy will revolve around buffing the player’s Hero. This is a risk vs. reward tradeoff since the Hero unit is also the player’s win/loss condition – if it dies, the player loses the game.

Denial

This strategy is also known as permission.

Any ability that says ‘Certain cards cannot be played’ is a literal shutdown effect that keeps cards dead in your opponent’s hand and many consider this mechanic to be unfun because not being able to play cards is unfun. We won’t be supporting this. However, we do acknowledge that interesting situations can be created by making certain types of cards more difficult to play without preventing them from being used entirely.

Thalia is one of my favorite cards befitting a creature-heavy aggressive strategy. The drawback of non-creatures costing 1 more doesn’t affect you as much if you’re not running many of them in the first place. The fun comes in the fact that Thalia presents both players meaningful choices. It forces the player running Thalia to make deck design choices (running little or zero noncreature cards) and it makes the opponent decide whether to kill Thalia first or kill a bigger threat (short-term vs long-term trade off). For the Thalia player, the major trade-off is in not being able to deal with certain problems unless the deck runs a certain creature with an ability to deal with that particular problem (sometimes no such creature exists that can deal with a certain problem). Together, these sorts of imbalances lead to more fun decisions both in-game and during deck construction.

Cards like Thalia are referred to as ‘soft permission’ cards, and we will support them in our game, albeit sparingly. Too much soft permission leads to a ‘virtual hard permission lock’ and we will take efforts to disallow this.

Enemy Discard

This isn’t a deck strategy like the other two, but rather a mechanic. I use the term ‘enemy discard’ to specifically target cards that make your opponent discard cards. Cards requiring you to discard your own cards can be very fun (and powerful) depending on the kind of deck you are playing.

When you play Mind Rot, you’re forcing your opponent to make a decision on what cards not to have, and that decision decreases both fun and meaningful choice (which is based on having more viable choices in the first place). We’re not going to have them in Zems, but we will likely support this alternative:

Look at your opponent’s hand. Choose a card and increase its cost by 1.

While this does decrease meaningful choice, it does so temporarily instead of permanently. It’s a nice compromise between “Player A needs to slow down a combo” and “Player B’s strategy should not be invalidated by possibly losing combo pieces.” Note that we’re not supporting the game-winning infinite combos that Magic has, so players have even less of a reason to mess with the opponent’s hand.

Adaptations

In this section, I’ll touch on some of the funnest elements (in my opinion) from other card games and how we could incorporate them into Zems.

Conditional Bonus

This is where a card has a normal effect, but you gain an additional effect if you meet a certain condition. We’re doing this already to some extent, but there is always room to expand on this.

That’s a lot of text. To sum things up: If not running Crimson Girl in the Sky, only one of the four abilities can be used, but if you are playing her you can use all four. The card itself is powerful enough to be played for just one of its abilities, but has greatest upside when used alongside Crimson Girl.

Cards like this are very fun if you’re running a lot of Dragons. Not only do you get a sizable 5/4 body, but you also get a bonus for investing deeply in a theme – the more dragons you have in your deck, the more likely you will have one in hand to trigger its Battlecry effect.

This type of design is easily adapted into Zems without much need for modification.

Themed Filter

As a designer, I know players will adhere to what we make viable. Some players may be disappointed if there isn’t support for tribal themes versus just running a bunch of really good unrelated cards. One way to support this is to provide themed filter so such players have access to increased consistency.

The image text is difficult to read, so here’s the condensed version: “When Perceval enters play, look at the top 5 cards of your deck and put either a Knight of the Round Table or a Regalia card into your hand. Put the rest on the bottom of your deck in any order.” This is a very specific tribal support card that has next to no value if you are not running Knights of the Round Table or Regalias. We find increasing consistency to be one of the best ways to encourage players to try tribal strategies without needing to mess with power levels of themed cards too much.

We have taken great care to not go crazy with the number of different races in the game (we currently have only seven) and will do our best to support themes for a few of them.

Flashback

Magic players love Flashback because it’s based on using a card twice (increasing viable choices).

When this card is cast from your hand, it costs 2 colorless and a white mana. When it’s in the grave, it can be cast for 1 colorless and a black mana (and then it goes to exile where it can’t be used again). You effectively get to use the card twice. The closest mechanic we have in Zems is the ability for certain cards to be shuffled back into your deck instead of going to your grave:

However, this isn’t the same as Flashback since the card isn’t immediately reusable unless you happen to draw it again next turn. The closest adaptation I can think of for Zems would be:

[Card ability text]. When this is played, put a [Second card] into your hand.

[Card ability text] is the ability of the card, such as “Give a follower +1/+1.” [Second card] would be a special card we create that has the same effect as the played card. Basically we’re putting another card in your hand to serve as a ‘flashback card’ instead of explicitly allowing you to replay the original card from your graveyard; the latter is potentially difficult to elegantly express in a digital UI.

Scavenge

Scavenge is exactly what it sounds like – scavenging the fallen dead for bonuses.

Scavenge wasn’t a viable constructed strategy in Magic standard, but it was a fun limited (draft and sealed) mechanic. Similar to how we would implement Flashback, Scavenge can be adapted by giving the player a card when the unit dies:

When this follower dies, add a [Buff card] to your hand.

[Buff card] would be a spell card that increases the stats of another follower you have in play. You can tell there’s a recurring trend of how we replace graveyard abilities with new cards that just get added to the player’s hand.

Summary

There’s a lot of design space we have to work with even though we simplified many CCG mechanics to minimize the burden of knowledge. I cannot guarantee all the above mechanics will be implemented into Zems, but these are ones I’m certain most players would find fun and I would love to incorporate them someday.

July 8, 2015

Three Types of Games In My Steam Library

After several years, I’ve realized there are three kinds of games in my Steam library:

Games I started but never finished.
Games I finished, possibly more than once.
Games I own, but haven’t started yet.

As a game designer, this intrigues me. I think I know why some games fall into the latter while others stay on the first point.

30 Seconds of Fun, Iterated

In one of my earlier posts, Elements of User-Driven Games, I mention the phrase “30 seconds of fun, iterated” (go read the ‘Constant Iterative Change’ section of that post if you haven’t – it’s a short read). This idea is central to the difference between the first two types: Games that constantly iterate on the gameplay to introduce something new are typically games that I will finish. Games that are interesting but become ‘stale’ after 20 hours are the ones that never get past the first point. Note that a game doesn’t have to iterate every 30 seconds – it’s just a number given to express the point. For some games, the iteration timeframe could be as long as 20 minutes. Any longer and the game starts to fall into the ‘stale’ category.

Here’s an example: YS Origin. This is a game with a ‘not bad, but not great’ metascore and user score, despite having a forgettable soundtrack and story. The reason why this game isn’t bad is because of its gameplay: Lots of running, jumping, dashing, shooting, striking – very reminiscent of many Legend of Zelda games. There are even reviews for YS Origin that start out like this: “I wanted to rate this game poorly, but the gameplay was just so much fun that I don’t regret the time I spent.”

So what’s the pacing of YS Origin? It goes like this:

Clear dungeon level. Often includes several rooms and involves acquiring a unique new gear that when equipped, gives you a new skill. This gear is often required to complete the dungeon.
Mini-bosses at certain points throughout the level that force you to use this new gear, in comparison to many of the dungeon ‘trash mobs’ that can be defeated using methods or habits we have long settled into.
Boss at end of dungeon that requires you to use the new skill you have learned. Defeating this boss is akin to ‘mastering’ the new skill.
Repeat the above.

Some of you will recognize this as the tried-and-true Legend of Zelda gameplay loop. The reason I mention YS Origin instead of The Legend of Zelda is because most people will agree Zelda (and its spinoffs) are fun games with interesting plot twists and memorable music. YS Origin can be seen as the abstraction of that: Throwaway story, forgettable soundtrack, uninspiring characters, just pure tried-and-true gameplay pattern put into practice. I spent more time on this game than I would have liked, even though some much more detailed games (such as Pillars of Eternity) deserved much more of my time.

In terms of gaming time spent, gameplay will always be king, and even though I speak of games like Pillars of Eternity with more adoration, most of my gaming time is spent on the games I find to be legitimately more fun to play. I don’t think I’m alone on this subject, and as game designers it is important to remember that our goal first and foremost is to entertain, even if aspects such as story are deep parts of what we are producing.

July 1, 2015

1GAM 2D Space Shooter – Wrapping Up

With June over, I am writing this post to say my 1GAM experiment was a failure. There are many reasons why, but I also believe the 1GAM concept is only effective for certain game types and likely not the kind of games I prefer to invest my time in.

Can You Really Find Fun In One Month?

The heading presents the heart of the problem: It’s not that we couldn’t develop the necessary parts of the game in a single month, but instead that I could not settle on core gameplay I found to be fun. Part of this is because the core gameplay could not be adequately tested without AI, and when you iterate gameplay you must also update the AI.

The Vision: Fun, 2D space combat.

What We Tried: AI ships flying in formation and patrolling. They break formation when the player gets within a certain range and engage the player. We tried this in small quantity, and while it was cool, it wasn’t fun.

Most of the month was actually spent on the AI. We messed around with different times to break formation, different behaviors like strafing and flying backward, to even changing the whole feel of the game from tight controls to momentum-heavy ‘drifting’ and we’re still not certain what we need to do to make the game feel fun. The only conclusion we came to was that ‘drifting’ felt a lot more fun than tight controls, so we plan on keeping that.

Ideas Worth Trying

Floating Asteroids That Damage Ships

Technically, this was supposed to be part of the original implementation for June, but we ended up spending so much time trying to figure out the AI that we never got around to this. Will adding asteroids as a dynamic make combat more fun? I think so.

Bouncing Collisions and Shields

This is actually more work than it sounds since we are not using the Unity physics system, but instead precisely controlled movement with artificial (controllable) drifting. We didn’t want to use Unity physics because we wanted to be able to better tune the gameplay ‘feel’ and so when we add shields and the ability to bounce off objects, this should add more liveliness to gameplay.

Friendly Wingmen

Even if they’re AI-controlled, the idea of being a lone space fighter against a bunch of enemies is pretty unappealing unless you have some really badass capabilities. We’ve developed our game with Factions in mind and adding AI wingmen that follow the player and assist in engaging enemies shouldn’t be difficult, although it will require a refactor of our AI combat code that currently only looks to engage one enemy target.

Finding Fun

We use gut feeling to measure fun. Fun is different depending on who you talk to, but as a developer I know that if I don’t find the game to be fun then I will not have the desire to continue working on it. Therefore, the game needs to be fun to us first.

When we get around to trying the above, the main question we will ask each time is not “Does it feel fun now?” but instead, “Does this feel more fun than before?” Fun in games often is not a spontaneous discovery, but rather an iterated process. This brings me back to my main point – 1GAM is an interesting experiment, but due to my personal standard of never developing an unfun game, I don’t think it’s for me. Games with simple AI requirements or don’t require any AI at all are much better suited for 1GAM, as the amount of experimentation required is much lower. Perhaps if we extend the time to two months (1G2M), we will have ample time for fleshing out fun in games where AI is at the forefront? It’s worth a try.

June 30, 2015

The Vision

I recently had a conversation with someone about why I am in the games industry. I shared a personal story of mine and how I believe games can change society by fundamentally enhancing the way we approach education. In this post, I will share that same story and the vision driving what I do.

Games Versus Learning

Any game developer reading this knows the irony of the heading, because the essence of gaming is fun and the driver of fun is the application of learning. However, in American society today, games are often seen as a waste of time even by many of the people who play them. Parents are especially guilty of this (for good reason), worrying about the free time of their children and monitoring the amount of time they spend in games to make sure they are studying sufficiently.

But what are games at their core? They are learning tools presented in a way that reinforces application of those tools in the hopes of encouraging the player to keep playing. When you buy a new game, you are buying a product offering to teach you new skills (that are often useable only inside that game). As you learn this skill and apply it, the game gives you feedback: Positive feedback means you are getting better and progressing further in the game’s story, while negative feedback often leads to in-game death or having to restart the level. From this point of view, it shouldn’t be difficult to see that games are actually instruments of learning. Most games developed today don’t teach applicable skills for a number of reasons. Here are two big ones:

Games are creative mediums that typically promise to bring us into an imaginary world that has its own set of skills not applicable to the real world.
People have not figured out effective ways of teaching practical skills in games.

When I say skills, some may think I’m referring to mashing buttons on a controller, but that would simply be the input of the application. If you are playing a racing game and learn that to make a high speed turn, it’s best to drift to the outside of the track and turn toward the inside (as opposed to the average driver who typically does the opposite), you have learned something that may one day be useful in real life, even if (in-game) it is reinforced by moving a stick on a controller.

2366934-need+for+speed+rivals+aston-cop-in-pursuit---iconic-web

Games Make Learning Fun

When I was in the fourth grade, my math teacher asked who wanted to complete an assignment on their own time and who wanted to have a race. The winner would get a bag of M&M’s and would be determined by the first person to turn in the assignment with zero mistakes. I raised my hand to participate in the race, which surprised my teacher because I was not very strong in math. Later on, this teacher would tell my parents that I am competitive by nature and that it’s a gift that fuels my education. I didn’t think much on it at the time, but I never forgot what she said.

When I got older, I randomly remembered this incident one day and came to a realization: I didn’t want to race in math purely because of my competitive nature, I wanted to race in math because I enjoy math as a problem-solving endeavor. See, I wasn’t the typical student who thought, “Ugh, math, I’m not good at that.” I was the rare student who said, “I’m not very good at math but I think it’s fun.” Now, how many people do you know who say, “I’m not very good at this game, but I enjoy playing it”? Probably a lot. This is the basis for the vision.

AngryBirdsTrilogy_Screen8

The Vision

I believe we can utilize games as a way to address subjects students struggle with. I see the American education system as a giant hierarchy under the control of profit-making systems. Attacking this structure head-on could take a lifetime just for small gains. I believe one viable strategy is to go around rather than through.

The purpose of the vision is not to make students better at subjects, although well-designed educational games are going to cause this as a side-effect. This is a critical area where ‘edutainment’ failed, as it heavily focused on making players better without addressing the fundamental problem: Students who do not enjoy a subject will not pursue it, regardless of their natural aptitude for it. Educational games, therefore, must present its subject matter in an enjoyable way first, and then use game reinforcement techniques to give effective feedback. This is the manifestation of the vision.

Zems Online Card Game

My first game is a fantasy online card game featuring randomness, weather, and combat. How does this game stand in line with my vision? The direct correlations between acquired skills in my card game and ones that are useful in the real world are not apparent, but my game reinforces the following:

Playing around variation. Namely, the fact that not everything is fully reliable due to random factors, which mirrors the real world: You must plan for unforeseen events.
Mathematical deduction. The combat in Zems is math-based, and often revolves around more than simply subtracting numbers. Several attacks are also likely to happen each turn, which means a lot of number-crunching is going to happen. While being able to calculate numbers does not correlate to fast calculation in non-numeric situations, there are benefits to learning how to think mathematically in fast, small sprints.
Positional importance.Â The innate power level of most cards is not very high. The placement and formation of your forces is primarily what determines their effectiveness. There are a lot of parallels to our real world that can be gained from this, but my favorite one is the idea that people are most effective when placed in situations where they thrive.

I would be lying if I said Zems is purely related to my vision and not related to any industry profit strategy. Zems is indeed a calculated market contender, utilizing a monetization model gamers of the genre have come to expect while providing astonishing quality in its content. It’s important to note the games industry is very harsh and there isn’t a lot of room for research and trial. Games cost a lot of money to make, and without a powerful stream of income, a game producer often cannot pad the budget to partake in (potentially) years of research on minorities learning in the classroom. Should Zems take off as a powerful product in the card game market, then hopefully it will provide the money to fund my vision.

May 26, 2015

One Game A Month Challenge – Procedural 2D Space Shooter

Back when I used Construct 2, I created a 2D space shooter with wave-based enemies and random asteroids that would damage both enemies and players.

Recently I heard about the One Game A Month challenge and decided to try it. This post defines the goals of my 2D space shooter, which I call Project Icarus.

Influences

The main influence for this game is S.P.A.Z – Space Pirates and Zombies. One thing Icarus – Wave Attack (the Construct 2 space shooter) did not have is mouse controls, which is better defined as physics-based movement with mouse input. Given how much I liked the feel of the player ship in SPAZ, I’ve decided to make the change from tight ‘snappy’ controls to more fluid momentum-based motion.

Project Icarus

Keeping in mind that I have one month – better defined as 30 days – to do this, I will separate the ‘core’ from the ‘extras’ so I don’t feel bad if I don’t get around to the latter.

Core

Physics-based mouse input controls for the player ship. [Mostly done!]
Player ship firing and taking damage.
Player ship shields automatically activating when an hazardous object gets within range.
Infinite starfield background. [Already done!]
Procedurally generated nebulae with random placement. [Already done!]
Randomly placed enemies within a set distance from the player’s initial spawn.
Randomly placed asteroids within a set distance from the player’s initial spawn and enemies. This means asteroids need to be spawned after enemies.
Basic enemy AI that fires at the closest hostile target (either the player or asteroid), and will seek out the player ship if it is within a certain distance.
Asteroids break into smaller parts when shot or colliding with another object. The game needs to have objects bounce off each other after collision (except bullets).
Smaller asteroids get destroyed upon collision.

Extras

Missiles! Only homing missiles will do, since missiles that travel directly to target are unfun. If the core gets done, this asset should speed up this extra.
Decoys. If we add missiles, then decoys naturally follow.
Powerups. Icarus – Wave Attack had the ship automatically upgrade upon collecting debris, and it would be cool to bring this back.

Current Progress

12 3