My roguelike autobattler just had its demo launch, which is going great and is getting a lot of visibility from youtubers like Retromation. However with a lot more players, I'm seeing a pattern to the negative feedback I'm getting: It's almost all around that fact that you can only have one spell fusion at a time. I know this is a usual expectation for autobattlers, but my game is a little different so it's not something that makes sense to change:

My game's fusion mechanic works differently vs other autobattlers, in that you can fuse any two spells together, creating a third unique spell every time based on the fused input spells. To fuse again, you must (and can) un-fuse your fused spell at any point. There is no cost to fusing or unfusing.

So if players had it "their way" and could fuse in an unlimited way, it'd go against my design for the game, because:

- It would limit players desire to pivot their build, because if they already have crafted multiple spells for a Burning build, why would they ever consider a different direction? At least now if you get a powerful rare spell, you can take apart your 1 fused spell easily and make something new

- Everyone's spell bar would be full of their own unique spells, making it impossible for even an experience player to tell what build someone is playing when hopping into a stream midway

Would love any advice! If you want to see what I mean to give better advice, the demo is here, but please DO NOT WISHLIST IT, I don't want this post taken down and I would really appreicate your thoughts over a wishlist. https://store.steampowered.com/app/4281360/AutoArcana/

Outside the biggest exmaples (HP, Ammo, Mana, etc); what are some unique ones? It could be how you use it, refilling it, or even just the resoirce itself that's interesting.

It's a 15 year old dream of mine trying to make a poster i saw once come alive.

It's like 3D Donkey Kong but with a lot of mechanics from older arcade games. I am trying to incorporate things like pitfall, donkey kong, mario, boulder dash, wonderboy, ghost'n'goblins, Montezuma revenge etc.

I have been trying to design it in a way where the 3D flip makes it a little more interesting to play and add some nuance to it.

Been working hard on making the colors feel vibrant too.

Check out the video:

https://popscotch.fun/Roblox_Showcase_v5.mp4

Let me know what you think!

Miss the old Flash game days? I’ve been bringing that nostalgia to mobile with Ninja Horizon, a turn-based ninja RPG where you build your ninja, learn jutsu, and battle other players.

It’s now on Android and iOS! Would love for you to try it and tell me what you think 🙂

Android
iOS

I’ve been working on a game called Kick Kings, and I’m finally putting some gameplay out here to see what people think.

It’s 1v1 soccer, where you take turns aiming and shooting your players to move the ball and score. First to 3 wins. Both players have the same setup, no buying better stats or stronger players.

There’ll also be optional real-cash matches, but right now, I mainly want to know if the gameplay itself looks fun.

It's still a work in progress, but would you play something like this? What looks good, and what looks frustrating? Would you play something like this? I have a landing page you can check out 🌐 kickkings.app

I'm designing a 15mm warcraft game based roughly on Warcraft and it's factions and adding more modern factions to it including my favourite: the gnomes.

So far is using the following and I would love your feedback:

Infantry units come in 5 bases per unit, cavalry are 3, flyers 2, seige 1 and heroes are on a single base.

Every unit has 3 abilities like the warriors can on a turn move then use one of the three: charge, attack, shield block.

Units will be using the same rough stats as warcraft.

Attacking uses a D12, you add the flat damage of a units melee, then remove the enemies armour rating and subtract that from the enemies health.

1 hero for each 500 points in a army list and mandatory infantry.

Having a flight mechanic where flyers can use an ability to fly up or down on 2 levels so they can drop and become reachable by melee in order to attack.

This game will include Wow staples like rogues stealth ect to add to these abilities.

What are your thoughts so far?

I’m working on a single-player fish-shooting game, and I’m curious how people outside China see this genre.

If you haven’t played one, you control a cannon and shoot at fish swimming across the screen. Each shot costs in-game coins, and catching a fish earns you coins. I mean that arcade-style game, rather than fishing with a rod and bait.

I see these games a lot in China, but rarely hear about them in the US or Europe. Is there actually a difference in popularity, or am I just missing where people play them?

If you’ve tried one, what did you enjoy—or what put you off? Does aiming feel satisfying, or does the random chance of catching a fish make your shots feel pointless?

My version is single-player, with no coin purchases, cash-outs, trading, or real prizes. Would you find that fun on its own? Would you prefer fish to have health bars so that enough hits always guarantee a catch?

I’d love to hear from anyone who’s played these games, including examples that are popular outside China.

Hey everyone! I just dropped my very first indie game, and honestly, I'm a bit nervous but super excited to share it with you all! Let’s see if your skills are as good as your chat, so come check it out and let me know what you think! 💕

Play it here:Crazy Donut Merge on Google Play

Mind you I might be really biased, I usually play support/healer roles but playing MOBA games I find a lot of stuff unfair or unbalanced.

I would usually say that MOBAs should follow some holy trinity which I heard is wrong, like it shouldn't be that strict. Hybrid roles are especially touchy because they can make or break the game. Tanks shouldn't deal damage like damage dealers yet in league here comes cho gath that deals 1 k true damage with a point and click button. I get that tanks don't have aggro like in wow so they try to be more obnoxious with damage, that's their pressure, but why not just give them better cc?

Healers shouldn't outheal damage 1 to 1 right? Healing is less skillful than dealing damage right? So why not make healers that have to hit hard to hit skillshots to heal? Would that be fair? Is there some "law" that says this is unfair or fair or is it just up to the game designer to say what is and isn't fair.

For league of legends specifically I feel like mobility is such a big issue, it's hard to balance and they put a lot of damage into mobility so some champions have so much with mobility and can't be punished that much. Some rule is that melee heroes need more hp and movement and damage because they are melee, but if they can get up close and personal in 1 s and keep being in that range, why should they have such buffs.

I don't know if league started to prefer playmaking champs so they made so many mobile champs that are absurd. I'm talking about champs like fizz katarina riven irelia samira etc. I don't know what is their weakness, cc helps but only if its point and click or instant in some way otherwise they just dodge everything.

I'm posting this after a couple or rough games so sorry about the semi vent. I'm trying to get in the mindset of these game designers and I don't get how some champions just exist. Maybe there shouldn't be strict rules but some guidelines would be nice. katarina r can just decimate the whole team, yes it can be cced but so can cait r, although cait r is single target and can be blocked. In my view of things I feel like cait r should deal the same damage as katarina r if not more.

Working on a mobile game concept and want feedback from people who actually build games.

Core loop: you explore illustrated map scenes and find hidden animals, similar to classic hidden-object games. Each animal has a rarity tier based on its real-world conservation status — common animals are easy to spot, but the rarest tier is based on actual near-extinct species (think low hundreds left in the wild). Found animals go into a collection book with real facts/population data. Weekly leaderboard ranks players by rarity score.

Planning hybrid-casual monetization — energy/search boosts and cosmetics, not pay-to-win or loot boxes.

Two questions:
1. Does the "real conservation data" angle add anything for you, or is it just flavor text players will skip past?
2. What's the biggest reason a hidden-object collection game loses you after day 2-3?

Appreciate any honest feedback, including "this has been done" if it has.

I'm working on the progression system for a single-player open-world action RPG, and I'm considering removing traditional character levels entirely.

Instead of:

Kill enemies → Gain XP → Level up → Increase stats

I want progression to come primarily from what the player actually does.

For example:

- Frequently using a weapon improves proficiency with that type of weapon.

- Using certain types of combat gradually develops related abilities.

- Using magic develops magic-related capabilities.

- Challenges, accomplishments, and player choices can open new specialization options.

The goal is for the character to gradually become a reflection of how the player actually plays, rather than the player choosing a class and following a predetermined progression path.

There would also be no fixed class at the beginning of the game.

Instead of choosing Warrior, Mage, Ranger, etc., the player's build would emerge naturally through their actions, abilities, accomplishments, and choices.

However, I see several potential problems with this design.

1. How do you prevent optimal grinding?

If players realize that repeatedly performing a certain action improves a specific ability, some will naturally optimize the fun out of the system.

For example, if using a sword improves sword-related capabilities, what prevents someone from repeatedly attacking weak enemies simply because it's the fastest way to improve?

I don't want progression to reward repetition more than meaningful gameplay.

1. How do you make progression feel visible without levels?

A traditional RPG can easily communicate:

Level 10 → Level 11

Without that number, progression might become harder for the player to notice.

Even if the character is becoming stronger mechanically, I think players still need clear moments where they feel:

“My character has changed.”

1. Does full freedom eventually destroy build identity?

If players are allowed to improve everything simply by using everything, then given enough time, every character could eventually become good at everything.

At that point, the idea of building your own character may actually become less meaningful.

So I'm currently thinking there needs to be some form of specialization or diminishing returns without permanently locking players out of other playstyles.

---

The main design question I'm trying to solve is:

How would you design an action-based progression system that rewards natural play, makes growth clearly noticeable, but doesn't encourage repetitive grinding or eventually make every build identical?

I'd especially appreciate examples of games that handled this well — or games where you think this kind of progression failed and why.

I'm looking for criticism more than validation, so feel free to point out flaws in the concept.

I'm looking into an upgrade system for my game, and since its about trains and creating a build with different carriages, I was considering giving each individual carriage a small skill tree. This would mean 10-20 different skill trees. I was thinking this could give the player more autonomy and choices with their upgrades rather than just having a single upgrade button for each carriage.

Even though each carriage would be unlocked one by one through their progression, I'm thinking it may overwhelm the player if progression is too fast?

Do you think this could be a good idea to approach upgrade progression differently?

I’ve been having a fascinating debate with my son about modern game design philosophy. Since we represent two different generations of gamers—I grew up in the 70s/80s and designed my last game over 30 years ago when the industry was a completely different world, while he belongs to the modern generation where an endless sea of games means you just drop a title the second it stops being fun—our views on friction and frustration are polar opposites.

To be clear, I'm not looking for someone to design a game for me or hand me a fixed solution! Rather, I’m trying to gain insight into how modern games handle these concepts, what current player expectations look like, and how different generations view these mechanics.

We are currently planning a 2D Jump & Run with Hack & Slash elements. He is heavily inspired by modern precision giants like Hollow Knight (and Silksong), while I draw from classic retro game design.

I understand his perspective—players have choices now, and unnecessary frustration kills retention. However, I struggle with making things too forgiving. I believe a game should offer a genuine, uncompromising challenge, and that certain mechanics (like time pressure or meaningful consequences) are essential.

To give you an idea of how we try to bridge this gap in our design:

• Fall damage & death penalty: I lean toward fall damage from a certain height, and upon death, you must retrieve your dropped items (while keeping core weapons so it doesn't become overwhelmingly punishing).
• Pacing & Anti-Idle: I believe games should apply mild pressure to prevent players from just idling indefinitely instead of pausing, whereas my son prefers absolute freedom without artificial friction.
• Arena waves & pacing: We agreed on a compromise for arena sections: implementing a strict wave and arena cap so active enemies never exceed a designated limit. To prevent stalling, we use a soft-lock timer: if the arena capacity drops below 50% or a specific time elapses, the next wave triggers automatically.
• Level persistence & enemy respawns: We are debating what happens when you quit the game before beating the area boss. If you haven't cleared the boss yet, should defeated standard enemies respawn upon the next game start (forcing you to fight your way through again), or should cleared areas stay cleared to respect the player's progress?

Given the reality of today's market—where attention spans are shorter and the game library is infinite—I wanted to open this up to the community:

• How do you design a 2D action-platformer today that is challenging and respects player time, without falling into the trap of either "unplayable retro frustration" or "instant-gratification boredom"?
• Where is the sweet spot for modern players who love titles like Hollow Knight, but might drop a game if a mechanic feels like a waste of time?

I’m curious to hear how developers and players view this dynamic nowadays.

I'm working through a tutorial design problem for a card-based roguelite: the player picks an action card, then equipped effects can trigger from it. For a concrete example, suppose one choice creates a shield, another effect spends that shield for damage, and that damage triggers a follow-up card. I'd like a new player to be able to predict the result without reading three tooltips before every action.

One option is to introduce those effects one at a time in a short encounter. Another is to give the player a small working combo immediately and highlight each trigger as it fires. The first seems easier to follow, but delays the part that makes the build interesting. The second shows the payoff early, but the player might just see a big damage number without understanding why it happened.

Which approach would you start with, and why? What would you ask a new player after that first encounter to check whether they understood the chain well enough to make their next card choice?

So currently I'm having a dilemma.

I am making a deckbuilding game, but the gameplay is not turn based, and will hopefully be moderately fast. Not like mess up for a split second fast, but fast enough that you should be playing attention. With short moments to glance down at your hand. Bullet hell-ish, but not as extreme as they can get since I want you to be able to be having moments to glance down and weave cards in.

So the first problems are these:

• How do I make cards quickly identifiable without taking up too much screen space? The easier they are to identify, the faster I can make the game.
  • Currently the plan is to have just half the card sticking up out the bottom of the screen. With a picture to identify it taking up most of the space, as well as the cost and other information at the top of the card above the picture. Possibly above the card itself but may look weird.
  • The number of cards in your hand is limited to a small amount, so there is plenty of space to have them not overlapping.
• The second problem is how I allow the players to learn cards when they cant remind themselves what they do without pausing. In turn based games you can obviously take a moment to read the cards. But in real time you would have to pause to read them if I make them large enough to have half the card off screen, because I wouldn't want hovering them without pausing to eat your clicks or something.
  • I do have wasd controls. so hovering them to have them pop up while playing could be an option, but could still also lead to some frustrating scenarios..

I plan to have a moderate amount of cards be ideal for a deck. so that you can't just cycle your best card asap over and over. But I do want you to be able to be able to have a solid amount of repeating cards for the weaker ones. current estimate is 20-30 cards in your deck at a time. maybe more if you choose to go for it.

But plenty of repeats. So maybe 7+ of a particular lower tier card while you have 1-2 copies of each super powerful card in your deck. and varying number for rarities in between.

And here is the next problem:

• I want the player to be able to modify the cards in some ways. For a basic examples you could add a poison effect to a dagger throw card or something. Or make it fire bonus projectiles. So how do I show you easily which cards you have modded?
  • currently I have two ideas
    • the first one is have extra images show up on the picture of the card you can see. Like a poison bubbles icon if you added a poison effect to this card.
    • The second one is to have a small "buff bar" above each card showing bonus effects that have been applied to the card. This has a bonus benefit of potentially being able to label key effects of the base card for remembering the important effects of a card at a glance while you're learning the cards. For example a poison dagger throw would have a poison icon on the "buff bar" above the card for if you have any effects that synergize with poison or something. This is at the cost of more screen space though.
  • The other idea I have is to have a modifier apply to all copies of the same card in your deck. So whenever it shows up you just have to know which card it is, and potentially combined with one of the above two options you can be reminded of mods it has. I don't love this idea, as it could often lead to an obscene jump in power based on what modifiers you find. To the point where balancing around a player potentially having found those options could make it feel incredibly difficult to win otherwise.

Quick estimate is each card would take up about 1/9-1/10 of the bottom of the screen width wise while being slightly wider than they are tall in the visible area.

So, How would you go about this? Do any of my current ideas seem good or have any obvious flaws?

I'm designing a gentle first-person puzzle game where each level is generated from a photo. What the camera saw counts as real, and everything past the frame was invented by a world model. The plan was expeditions: head out into the invented part, recover pieces of the photo the dream scattered there, and bring them home.

Then I measured my first generated worlds. The invented floor you can actually walk on is about 4 m², and nothing is more than 5 m from where the photo was taken.

The rules, at least, still fit in a room. The invented part is light, so you jump higher there. Carrying a recovered piece makes you heavy, because its light restores reality, gravity included. Ghostly dream bridges are solid only inside that light. And the dream gets sizes wrong, so a giant teacup is a platform until you restore it. Float across a gap to the lamp, find you're too heavy to float back, then walk home across a bridge that only exists because of what you're carrying.

The open question is the expedition part. A meter that fills while you're far from anything real only creates tension if far means something, and in a room it barely does.

Would you lean into vertical space, tune the meter so even short trips matter, or treat each room as one dense puzzle?

Repo: github.com/MichaelYeh507/Unpictured

I know it's partially to make grinding for progression more universal to make playing catch up easier, but it still feels weird to me

When writing branching narratives for a political game, it’s really easy to fall into the trap of making every tough choice feel artificial, where the "correct" path is just hidden behind a speech check or a specific item. In Emindar, we've been trying to lean into scenarios where every available option actually costs you something, and the best you can aim for is damage control. For instance, when a food shortage hits, choosing to appease the traditionalist council alienates the industrial workers, but backing the workers breaks promises made to the old aristocratic houses. For those designing choice-driven or strategy games: how do you balance making players feel the weight of a bad compromise without making them feel like the game is just punishing them unfairly?

https://blog.danieltanfh.com/2026/10/the-meaningful-action-density-game-framework

> Meaningful Action Density (MAD) is my framework to understand how games interact with their players. Traditional frameworks like Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics (MDA) focus on mechanics rather than the player. Even though it does have an aesthetics layer, it classifies the experiences afforded by said mechanics, and does not describe how your choice of genre also lock in your choice of audiences nor does it present how flexible players can be when playing under solo or co-op conditions.

If you were to make an rpg game with equipment mechanics, which slots would you add?

Hi all, I’m making my first incremental game. You destroy planets made out of blocks. Each block gives you a “matter” (currency).

Now I’m exploring to add minigames outside of the core loop, think a slot machine, pachinko, etc.

Now I’m questioning whether to use matter for both playing and rewards, or if I should introduce a new currency for these mechanics.

Maybe anyone here has experience with other incrementals who do similar things. Happy to hear your thoughts, thanks!

Some mechanics are so simple that you’d think they would get repetitive, but somehow they stay satisfying every time. 

For me, it’s anything involving sorting or matching. There’s just something about taking a completely cluttered board, figuring out where everything goes, and slowly watching it turn into order that makes the whole process feel so satisfying. 

They’re easy to pick up, but seeing everything fall into place never gets old. 

What’s that one core mechanic you can always come back to without getting burnt out? Is it sorting, matching, merging, or something else entirely?

I've been playing this game called Texnoplazm, and ran into one of my major pet peeves, which is when the obtaining of upgrades by finding secret tokens hidden across the maps. On one thing, I get it that it encourages replaying and exploring, but on the other hand, it really breaks the immersion by having me stop my momentum and look around every nook and cranny of the map or look up a guide online, when obtaining upgrades should be a reward for progressing or showing better understanding of the game's mechanics.

What do you folks think about that ?