|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Owain
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | That approach works great in a real roleplaying game. But it doesn't work as a basis for competition. Because with simulated skills, when you strip away whatever it is that's being simulated, the competition boils down to a contest of patience - a test of who can log the most hours collecting xp. To my mind that seems like a pointless way to compete. If we're going to play these games competitively, give us real competition. Otherwise, drop the competitive element and let us really roleplay. |
I think this argument would be valid if everyone uses the skill development system as a basis for competition. I don't think that is true.
Different people will bring different motivations to the game. There will be some power levelers, there will be casual players, and there will be role players. You just need to play the kind of game you are interested in. Why should you care if someone gets xp faster than you, or has more uber stuff than you after a given amount of time, or whatever? That need not impact your game unless you let it impact your game. In games with XP, until you hit the cap, there will always be someone somewhere who is higher than you. What does it matter if someone got there in a week, or a month, or a year?
In a game with PvP, stronger players will attempt to grief weaker players. Well, that's just life. That would be true regardless of whether there was XP in the game or not. When that happens, then what will you do? Ask for an "I Win" button? If you are a good role player, include that fact in the way that you play. If you are a casual player, there will be places that you can't go solo, so go places where the threat isn't so high, or bring a group. When you skill up, then you can go there solo, perhaps. It isn't a race.
Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
_________________
To the everlasting glory of the infantry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Owain
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I highly doubt piloting in this game will be anywhere near as complex as piloting an F4 and really doubt anyone here could match Owain's skill in that(just because he's actually flown the real deal). |
Heh. In games like BF 1942, my previous flying experience actually works against me. In that game, and BF Vietnam, and BF2, the flight model was so unlike any aircraft I ever flew that I was horrible when it came to flying. I wasn't able to make the adustment from stick and rudder to mouse and keyboard, and even with a joystick, I was only marginally better.
On the other hand, I was very adept with the various tanks, artillery, and other vehicles. Go figure... 
_________________
To the everlasting glory of the infantry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Owain wrote: | | I think this argument would be valid if everyone uses the skill development system as a basis for competition. I don't think that is true. |
But its not just a question of player intent. This dynamic is built into the system. Content is withheld from those of us not interested in climbing the ladders. The content available at low levels is generally not that well developed. And given that most players at the low levels are only interested in 'leveling up' as quickly as possible so they can get to the good stuff, there's not much roleplaying going on at those levels.
So, the players most interested in the roleplaying aspect are prevented from reaching that part of the game where the roleplaying is actually worthwhile. Most of these players don't play these kinds of games in the first place because it's just not a good deal. You pay the same as the climbers and get a fraction of the gameplay.
The other issue is what the munchkin thing does to the game-world environment. The rules of any game serve to define it's default activity. If most of the game rules are built around leveling, leveling is what most players will do. So you get people wandering around doing silly repetitive things that aren't fun and don't make any sense in the context of the gameworld. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owain
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | | Owain wrote: | | I think this argument would be valid if everyone uses the skill development system as a basis for competition. I don't think that is true. |
But its not just a question of player intent. This dynamic is built into the system. Content is withheld from those of us not interested in climbing the ladders. |
Well you can't experience all content simultaneously anyway. Parts of it are far away. Parts of it may be too hard to do solo, regardless of xp. Enjoy the content where you are, and get around to the other parts when you get there.
And there is no content that is withheld. It will still be there when you get there. Someone else may be able to get there first, but who cares about that? What's your rush?
| Quote: | The content available at low levels is generally not that well developed. And given that most players at the low levels are only interested in 'leveling up' as quickly as possible so they can get to the good stuff, there's not much roleplaying going on at those levels.
|
This is a feature, not a bug. The lower levels serve as a tutorial for inexperienced players. The empahsis there should be letting players learn the interface, and to introduce game features in a way that they can be easily learned rather than turning the firehose on noobs. Players who are more familiar with the game (maybe their 2nd or 3rd 'toon) don't need the tutorial and can burn through the introductory stuff quickly, and can get out of the newbie zone and into the wider world.
| Quote: | So, the players most interested in the roleplaying aspect are prevented from reaching that part of the game where the roleplaying is actually worthwhile. Most of these players don't play these kinds of games in the first place because it's just not a good deal. You pay the same as the climbers and get a fraction of the gameplay.
|
Until the game mechanics are learned, roleplaying is not a primary consideration, but as far as game play is concerned, I disagree. Once out of the newbie area, role players will get far better quality game play, because they are not concerned with burning through the content at the maximum rate possible. They will explore more, interact with like minded folks more, and will stop and smell the roses and enjoy the game at their own pace. They will still see just as much of the game as the power gamer. They will just see it in a more liesurely and controlled fashion.
| Quote: | | The other issue is what the munchkin thing does to the game-world environment. The rules of any game serve to define it's default activity. If most of the game rules are built around leveling, leveling is what most players will do. So you get people wandering around doing silly repetitive things that aren't fun and don't make any sense in the context of the gameworld. |
Again, why should you worry about what most players are doing? You play your game, and let them play their game. It isn't that hard to get on the forums and look for like minded people. Form a guild from among players who share your philosophy and go from there.
_________________
To the everlasting glory of the infantry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmc0607
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
About "competition-based games," there are several problems that need dealt with in terms of MMO:
1) In competition, there has to be a loser. One player has fun at the expense of another. There IS a time and place for that, but it is in much, MUCH shorter games--or short side-games within a larger game. The sting of losing lasts for a round, and then in the next round things start over and you've not "lost" anything in the long run---you lost the round, but EVERYONE gains experience with the game, and you very quickly get a chance to make up for it.
In MMOs, though, everyone pays a monthly fee. An equal montly fee. As such, allowing one group of players to have fun at the expense of a much larger group of other players is wrong. Direct competition should not be the central mechanic of a game--that is not to say "competition" shouldn't be, just not of the "I win, and you lose" variety.
2) In a competition-based game, the mechanism of competition becomes the ONLY one that matters. Essentially, ONE playstyle is "right," and the others are "wrong." Other aspects of the game are just "break time." The game is based on whatever the competition is about. Again, this works for smaller-scale games, like online FPS multiplayer (Team Fortress, etc).
3) ONLY in competition-based games do we create an environment in which one person's playstyle can hurt another's. You're worried about "munchkins" causing problems... well, if they can't interfere with your chances for success/failure, how can they cause problems except to annoy you? Answer--they can't. But base the game on competition, and that munchkin has the power to shut you out. In fact, basing the game on competition ENCOURAGES munchkinism--blind adherance to acquiring the advantage.
4) Competition-based games force the player to rely too heavily on other players in the wrong way. You can't compete if no one is online. So, if your schedule is weird, or you live in an off-peak time zone, or you play on a low-population server, you can't experience the game to a meaningful degree. That's why smaller games have "server lists" that you can switch to at will (which won't work in MMOs for economic reasons among others).
THIS IS NOT TO SAY competition doesn't belong in games. Or that it shouldn't figure prominently. Competition is the heart and sole of many games. There are three kinds to deal with, though:
1) Self-competition--or "competing with the game." Progression, making it through, getting used to the game itself, earning rewards, etc.
ex. Player A wants to beat this dungeon boss to complete a quest and earn a trophy for his house. He tries and fails. He tries again and fails. He re-assesses his plan, tries again, and succeeds. His success/failure is dependent on his ability to solve the problem and his willingness to try as many times as he must--not only does he win the reward, he wins know-how.
2) Direct competition--Head-to-head competition between players, by which one wins and another loses.
ex. Players A and B compete for a $100 prize. A, being a slightly better player, wins, gets $100. B loses, gets nothing. Next round, A--still a slightly better player, and now also using advantages purchased with his $100--wins. He gets $100, B gets nothing. The inequity grows exponentially, and over such a slight difference in skill.
3) Indirect competition--Competition between players in which there may not be a "loser," but rather differing degrees of "winner," with the "greater winner" gaining a bit of an advantage, but the "lesser winner" still taking steps forward.
ex. Players A and B both want to meet X goal for their team/side/faction. A gets it first. B gets it second. A's team has the advantage for a bit longer, but B can still catch up. OR Players A and B compete for a $100 prize. A wins by a slim margin. A gets $75, B gets $25--not great, but it's better than all-or-nothing.)
An MMO should never be based solely on direct competition. Direct competition belongs as a separate aspect of play (WoW Battlegrounds are an example, or the one-on-one encounters in a massive PvP fight in other games). It's too "all or nothing" for large-group play. Think of it this way--apply direct competition to guilding. The group with the most members could form the guild, and the other groups, even if only SLIGHTLY smaller, couldn't--too bad, you didn't win.
An MMO can't have too much of just self-competition, either. Else it's just thousands of parallel single-player games. Other players may as well be NPCs, since none of them matter to the others.
That said, self-competition is still the bread-and-butter of MMOs--it's your progression content, so people can play whether their friends are online or not. Indirect competition can have a nearly-equal emphasis, though--and, in fact, often makes for the best endgame content, since it encourages interdependence (which requires people know their characters well) and constantly refreshes itself as new people join or new alliances are formed/broken. Direct competition should be held in special reserve and used sparingly and strategically for PARTS of events--never the whole thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Owain wrote: | | And there is no content that is withheld. It will still be there when you get there. Someone else may be able to get there first, but who cares about that? What's your rush? |
The monthly fee, for one. It it takes me four times as long to slog through the ladder stuff, I'm paying four times as much for the same content. This might not be as much of an issue if they charged by the hour, rather than by the month. Have of these games ever tried that?
| Quote: | | This is a feature, not a bug. The lower levels serve as a tutorial for inexperienced players. |
Hehe... Yeah, but what are they teaching? This is what I mean about the leveling stuff driving default play. The low levels don't teach you to roleplay, they teach you to gain levels. If you have no interest in climbing the ladder, you never get out of this stage. And from what I've seen of the later stages, they're really not much different. Just bigger monsters, biggers weapons, but the same-old, same-old underneath (see code sample above).
| Quote: | | Again, why should you worry about what most players are doing? |
Because the big draw of these games is the virtual community. The community and atmosphere defines the game. I want to play in a game world that is at least a somewhat plausible. It's tough to roleplay plausibly, or suspend disbelief, in a world populated almost entirely be 'leveling machines'.
That's why I'm so obsessed with changing the reward structure. Right now, the reward structure creates very silly worlds for us to play in. Everyone has, essentially, the same goal. Anyone who tries to play with more plausible character motivations finds themselves quickly marginalized and unable to participate in the bulk of the game activities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberius
Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 23
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sergeant-x:
Several years back, I joined an Online Role-playing forum. It allowed me to play a game purely in terms of role-playing. There were no stats, no rewards, and, eventually, no end to annoying people.
You see, what evolved on this forum was anarchy. Characters could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. I was guilty as well, actually taking over several games just to keep them in order, but as soon as I handed control back to the origional gamemaster, the other characters became unreal once more.
My favorite example of this was when I was playing a game where a character had a pet lion. He ordered the lion to attack me, so I pulled out my pistol and shot the lion. Then the boy became upset with me for killing his pet, when it was about to kill my character.
There needs to be organisation to keep this from happening. The situation, not handled well by either side, ruined the entire game and led to a nasty bickering match and ended with my withdrawl from the world of online role-playing. I'm just glad I didn't pay money for it.
I understand your reasoning, I really do. That's why I went to tabletop RPGs while my collegues went into computer games. The role-playing is so much more rewarding. However, tabletops have structure, order, and a final say, which would be hard to implement in your numberless system.
The reward system ought to be changed, I agree. I have not had much fun with MMOs before, but I love Firefly and would like this to be different. But just because something is broken does not mean it should be thrown away entirely. It might need an overhaul, but I think it would be better to try to dismantle, examine, then reassemble and improve the existing structure. If you are going to get rid of it netirely, then there has to be something to take its place, but I do not see any replacement offered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sergeant_x
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 602
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I'm mostly with you Tiberius. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I want freeform roleplay, or anything 'numberless'. I want a roleplaying game and for that you have to have numbers and stats. My interest is in changing the preoccupation with stat-building that has become synonymous with these games, not on eliminating stats entirely. I'd like to see a game that relies on in-game rewards and motivations to drive player activities, rather than tacked on 'progression ladders'. I think that would create a more believable and satisfying gameworld to play in.
| Quote: | | If you are going to get rid of it netirely, then there has to be something to take its place, but I do not see any replacement offered. |
In a sense, I'm not offering a replacement. But its not as though there would be no motivation to do anything. Allowing players to determine their own goals and motivations is one of the things that makes roleplaying games different. Some people like the progression ladders because they relieve the player of burden of making this decision - but making that decision is the core element of roleplaying. That's why I want to replace progression ladders with "in-game rewards", which could be considered the same as "replace them with nothing", depending on how you look at it.
The rewards for play would be reaping the results of your adventures. If you're playing a pirate it might be loot, if you're a mercenary it might be cold hard cash. If you're a merchant you might be trying to corner the market on some valuable commodity. The thing I don't want to do is create a progression vector that points the player-characters along a path of advancement. I want the player to decide what their character's goals will be and advance toward them in the way they choose. That's what I mean by 'in game rewards'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmc0607
Joined: 02 Apr 2007
Posts: 132
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But those rewards are ALREADY in nearly every single game that has those archetypes. So, you're taking away one motivation, forcing the game to rely on the others. You've yanked a leg off the table, and are expecting the table to work on 3 legs.
You haven't presented a replacement leg. And actually, the way you talk about this opening possibilities, you should really be bringing 3 or 4 "replacement legs" to the table... otherwise, it's just trading one for another, and the question becomes "Why bother, if we're nowhere better than where we started?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Owain
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | | Owain wrote: | | And there is no content that is withheld. It will still be there when you get there. Someone else may be able to get there first, but who cares about that? What's your rush? |
The monthly fee, for one. It it takes me four times as long to slog through the ladder stuff, I'm paying four times as much for the same content. This might not be as much of an issue if they charged by the hour, rather than by the month. Have of these games ever tried that?
|
It seems to me that you are getting 4 times the game than the power game gets. Maybe he should request a discount because he burns through content too quickly.
Think about it. The power gamer fills his quest log, runs out, grinds through them as quickly as possible, killing everything in his path, including mobs that have nothing to do with his quests in order to extract max xp per unit time. He levels quickly, never stays long in any one area, never explores areas not involved in quests, and burns his way to the level cap.
You, on the other hand, examine your quests, and play through them in a manner consistant with your characters motivation. You take time to stay in town and interact with other role players, and you discuss the implications of the quest, and the wider affect these events have on the world at large. After the quest, your group makes camp, and plans your next course of action. You may go back to town, or perhaps your group will climb that interesting peak to the south to see what lies on the other side.
Yeah, it takes you 4 times as long to complete that quest arc. Which player has the better gaming experience? In truth, both get the gaming experience they want, and neither one is 'correct'. If your path happens to intersect with the frenetic power gamer, adept role players will try to weave the behavior they observe into their role playing, making it part of their developing story. Hard to do sometimes if you encounter k3Wl doodz with 'l33t skilz, but if that really and truly spoils your game, you have no business playing MMOs.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | This is a feature, not a bug. The lower levels serve as a tutorial for inexperienced players. |
Hehe... Yeah, but what are they teaching?
|
This may be a players first MMO. He may not even know how to move his char around the screen. Most games use WASD keys, but ShadowBane, for one made you right click your mouse pointer on the spot on the ground you wanted to move to (which is why I hated their interface, even though I enjoyed the game design otherwise).
The noob area teaches a player how to access his inventory, how to interact with NPCs, how to initiate combat, how to use any special moves he may have, and so on. This is not the place for role playing, which is why the content is only rudimentary. You are not intended to linger lovingly in this spot. It's a tutorial. Experience players, even role players, burn through it, but it is necessary for the total noob.
| Quote: | This is what I mean about the leveling stuff driving default play. The low levels don't teach you to roleplay, they teach you to gain levels. If you have no interest in climbing the ladder, you never get out of this stage. And from what I've seen of the later stages, they're really not much different. Just bigger monsters, biggers weapons, but the same-old, same-old underneath (see code sample above).
| Quote: | | Again, why should you worry about what most players are doing? |
Because the big draw of these games is the virtual community. The community and atmosphere defines the game. I want to play in a game world that is at least a somewhat plausible. It's tough to roleplay plausibly, or suspend disbelief, in a world populated almost entirely be 'leveling machines'.
|
How does this affect you. If you are working on level 20 quests in an area, most of the people in that area will be around your level anyway. So if somebody comes in at level 18, power grinds his way to level 22 in a day and then leaves, how does that hurt you if you spend a week there instead? If you group with the guy, and he is a grinding machine, leave the group and find someone more your style.
I really think you need to stop trying to dictate to the whole community how they should play their game. If you want to role play, find a role playing server, and be happy. If there is only one server, find a role playing guild, and knock yourself out there. Let the other guy play his game, and I suspect he will be more than happy to let you play your game. If JoeBag O'Donuts wants to power level from level one to level 100 in one day, and he does it legally, good for him. He's playing HIS game. You play YOUR game. Mind your own business!
| Quote: | | That's why I'm so obsessed with changing the reward structure. Right now, the reward structure creates very silly worlds for us to play in. Everyone has, essentially, the same goal. Anyone who tries to play with more plausible character motivations finds themselves quickly marginalized and unable to participate in the bulk of the game activities. |
Crap. With any amount of luck, this game will draw a large audience. In that large audience, it shouldn't be that hard to find a group of like minded folks. If you are so far removed from preferences of the vast majority of players, then why on Earth should the dev's consider for a nano-second implementing a game with the design you propose, a game with a total target audience of...
You.
_________________
To the everlasting glory of the infantry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wingfire9
Joined: 29 Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Location: Salisbury, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | Good grief. You'll clearly defend munchkinism to the dreary end, so have at it. There's lots of games where you can go wallow in your leveling wankfest.
Firefly has a proven audience of discriminating adults who look for something better than the ordinary. It's the perfect IP, and audience, for a game that does something new.
Firefly deserves better than adolescent power fantasies. |
While I think that this is good, it has countlessly proven fatal to many games. The best course of action, really, is to incorporate BOTH mentalities.
Instance of a failure.. Dawnspire. Though great to look at, it gives you what is supposed to be the best weapons of your class and the highest class. It was intended to be an RPG that is purely pvp, therefore player-based skill, however it became a fantasy-based third person shooter in effect and FLOPPED.
SWG is a good example of what to do and what not to do. SWG, both pre-CU and NGE, and post-NGE, is a wonderful mix. You have the space combat, which your level determines the equipment you are proficient with, however still largely based on skill. On the other hand, you have ground-combat, which is largely level related. The failure is discussed later since it's not gameplay.
This mentality, though, makes sense in the form of a game from the reality standpoint. In reality, your skills are based on your age in many ways. When you are 15, you simply CANNOT be a professional football player. You have to grow, which comes through age (to a certain point).
Also this mentality is shown in the grind form. People in reality that spend all their time training in one skill, will be better at it than someone who slacks off. Doesn't mean the slacker can't reach that skill level, just that they will not reach it as fast.
I understand the viewpoint of HATING grinding and having to constantly farm to make things. I work 3 jobs AND run my own business on the side. I am also going to school for 3 classes a week (6 sessions). I work, due to these circumstances, 14-20 hours a day. Guess what.. even with working that much, I still play WoW, even though that is a grind game if I ever saw one (though no where near as long to get things as L2). You know why? As much as I hate farming the countless materials needed to make gear to enable me to raid, just to replace that gear soon, it gives me something to work for and feels like I am progressing in my class, just like I would progress irl. I may not level as fast as people still in school with no job, or people that just have a lot of free time on their hands reguardless, but I still get there eventually, and it feels damn good when I do.
Just making a game with NO grind and NO levels is impractical. It will flop, guranteed, because, as much as people hate having to level at times, they still have a sense of accomplishment when they are done with it and they UNDERSTAND their class through practice and determination, just like you would understand your job through the same process. If I got a job and I knew everything I had to do the second I walked in the door and it was just a matter of refining my speed and accuracy in completing my task, it would be dull and I'd leave that job as soon as I found another.
To put it this way, yes, it is a game. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't require work. That's what first-person shooters are for. That's what making a pre-made character who's level is already maxed out on Guild Wars (or other games of that type, just a perfect example) is for. Guess what, both are free after the initial purchase. Guess what else, most of those games don't have consistently active players that play using those venues of gameplay. The consistantly active players, the ones providing a steady economy, are the ones that enjoy working towards a goal. If we wanted mindless entertainment, we'd just watch TV. If we wanted an interactive chat-room, we'd just spend all day on Gaia Online or similar places (IMVU I think is one). The trick is, pulling all of that together, as well as providing a rewards system and making it have enough ties with reality in how characters progress, yet just few enough ties to make it a game instead of just work.
L2.. just work. Lineage made it really hard to advance due to losing experience every time you die. It could take a few years to get to higher levels.
WoW.. grind fest. However, they keep from having a definable platuea through releasing patches and expansion packs, yet they do it slow enough that the players that achieve the current platuea don't feel like all the work was for naught.
SWG.. good mix. The only real, fatal flaw, that happened with that game is that Sony took over and changed a system that players already loved. The CU was bearable, even many liked it better. However their BIGGEST flaw wasn't just in changing the game with the NGE, but putting the NGE out when it wasn't completed! They still haven't completely finished the NGE and it's been a couple of years since they released it.
All in all, take the best from everything you see. Incorporate enough innovation that it is a unique experience to an extent. With a game based from something previous, as is the case with this game, keep it in line with the story setting, while keeping it open ended, with the mindset of it potentially going on forever, even though it realistically won't. Do all of that, and you have the ingredients for a GURANTEED decent game, if not damn good.
If you throw out an idea that has died countless times due to impracticality, only true innovation of that idea will give it a chance of success, but it is still more likely it will fail then succeed, which I do NOT want to see happen with Firefly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vadarios
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 61
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sergeant_x wrote: | | Vadarios wrote: | | I personally would rather they limit the grinding to the effective stage of your character to upon character creation, and have you through missions and teachers re-adjust your character to your needs. |
This sounds interesting. Could you elaborate? Or is this the teaser for the other thread you mentioned?  |
Hmm well since I haven't fully fleshed it out, I think I'll try to elaborate.
I think of it like the personality tests. For this example I'll take 3 skills, but I could see them being stretched to a number of differing skills. You get basically a triangle and a circle. Around the edge of the triangle you have the skills. Point one is engineering. Point 2 is leadership. Point 3 is combat. The triangle is about half the size of the circle. You can have it all the way maxxed in combat or leadership, or engineering, and be less effective at the other two points. Or you can align it with as much leadership and engineering and be an engineering manager. combat and engineering and be a weapons designer, or align with combat and leadership for bonuses to leading groups. This way you can start out and you can be mostly effective in what you want.
From there you can actually build skills. Say you aren't sure, so you leave the triangle centered. You realize you like the engineering side. SOOOooo you build that up and let the others fall in value. Or you decide you want to lead a crew. and after you have started out you want to be another Jayne. so you build up your combat. Side quests could be added to add new skill points to the circle. and you can build in those areas. You could have the triangle that stretches all the way across from say piloting to engineering(piloting seems more like a cross between combat and engineering, so maybe the point could be there).
As I said it's not fully fleshed out, but more like a hypothetical...
Heck you could have a backstory creator that allows you to pick some history for your character. Say you were a freighter pilot for your family business friendly to the aliance, that got betrayed by aliance contacts. Heck it could even be used to give a nice intro cutscene to get you really into your character. To me its better than "You wake up in a hospital with no memory of who you are"
| bmc0607 wrote: | But those rewards are ALREADY in nearly every single game that has those archetypes. So, you're taking away one motivation, forcing the game to rely on the others. You've yanked a leg off the table, and are expecting the table to work on 3 legs.
You haven't presented a replacement leg. And actually, the way you talk about this opening possibilities, you should really be bringing 3 or 4 "replacement legs" to the table... otherwise, it's just trading one for another, and the question becomes "Why bother, if we're nowhere better than where we started?" |
Witches cauldrons have 3 legs. The reason is that with 3 legs it is less likely to wobble  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hievycivywell
Joined: 04 Dec 2009
Posts: 1
Location: Guatemala
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:21 am Post subject: The M word |
|
|
| Lets not forget about our own Segundo. Dude had some real talent and seemed to share the same love for this that we all have. Tough to get to know somebody from posts on a forum, but Im guessin he was one cool brother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eros
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know this topic is really old and no one will probably read this but I just had to reply. I haven't read every single post because I would have been here for ages but I glanced over several and I don't believe I mentioned anyone say Guild Wars. This is basically an example of no leveling. Ok the cap is at 20 but with the addition of Factions, Nightfall or Eye Of The North you can hit 20 in a few hours. The grinding instead is in whats called titles but they aren't required for anything in the game (apart from exclusive rewards in GW2). You can just wear them to show off to other players. I know this game is like marmite, you either love it or hate it but I'm one of those who loves it and believes the challenge is all down to the skill set you use and the team you take with you on missions. I admit it has many faults but there is no monthly fee so you can't be too critical over it.
Personally for me though I don't think I'd care too much about grind in a game. I just a strong storyline. Ok I know GW stories aren't the best, but I do like the main mission system and how the story is a key part. WoW irritated me with grinding so many quests. I felt like there wasn't much of a reward for it. As I said those are personal opinions and I know others don't feel the same so no flame please =] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phan
Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mmm didn't you just describe Second Life? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
