quote: Original post by Merle
Another quest thought: why must every player have the same quest goals?

Perhaps there is a general goal ("raise the flag on the citadel"). But each race might have distinct subgoals. A Golmek might want to "find the X that you have heard is in the basement and fix it". An Arbag might want to search for treasure. Some goals would be racially implicit, others might come in the form of "you recall an elder telling you that X was lost in battle, but was last seen in Khatovar".

Even assuming that side-quests sometimes depend on having race-skills, what you propose is an interesting idea. For a bonus score, your party might have to split up and the individual characters need to accomplish something specific to their race or abilities.

What would really make such an idea powerful is to randomly generate these individual side-quests at the beginning of each quest. It might be something simple, such as "Player A, go to this location and grab this item" with a few monsters in the way. It''s completely auxillary to the main quest, but the player could get a few more points for his team. However, in this case there would be no way to prevent the other players from helping out as well, unless we do something totally artificial like a portal that only Player A can pass through Anyway, randomly generating them would really increase the replayability and I think it would be possible if they were simple enough side-quests.


----
Darryl Long: Lead Coder The Pythian Project

quote: Original post by Oort
Even assuming that side-quests sometimes depend on having race-skills, what you propose is an interesting idea. For a bonus score, your party might have to split up and the individual characters need to accomplish something specific to their race or abilities.

What would really make such an idea powerful is to randomly generate these individual side-quests at the beginning of each quest. It might be something simple, such as "Player A, go to this location and grab this item" with a few monsters in the way. It''s completely auxillary to the main quest, but the player could get a few more points for his team. However, in this case there would be no way to prevent the other players from helping out as well, unless we do something totally artificial like a portal that only Player A can pass through Anyway, randomly generating them would really increase the replayability and I think it would be possible if they were simple enough side-quests.

Thought to consider: what about "secret" goals (the computer tells player A his goal, but doesn''t tell anyone else)? And, building on that, what about potentially contradictory goals--player A wants to "Destroy the Amulet of Yendor before it can be used" while player B wants to "Use the Amulet of Yendor to..."? Of course, there''s nothing preventing the players from sharing their "personal" goals, but some might decide that their character (hey, they''re Role Playing!) might not want anyone to know what his goals really are.

Might be interesting...

-Odd the Hermit

About combat: I don''t really like most of the ideas everyone''s mentioned, but then I''ve played a lot more single player games than multiplayer ones.

Here''s my idea. Use something like how Chrono Trigger does it, only allow the players to move during combat. I think it''d allow enough time where it wouldn''t just be a clickfest, but if the enemies keep attacking while you''re trying to select stuff you won''t be able to keep your party on hold while you take a long healthy dump, heh. You can have a quick spell list, and/or allow mages to position their spells where in the list they want them for ease of use.

It could add various strategies though. "Hey George, don''t attack yet, I wanna do a combo with you." Or, "Fred, move down a little bit so I can cast this spell on all of us. Or, "Joe, can you throw that orc over there so when he shoots his bow he''ll hit his buddy in the back?"

Hmmm, just thought of an idea. How about if you use skills AND xp? When any skill is used, it has a possibility to improve, depending on how good the skill is and what the person is trying to do with it. Then the skill gain could translate into some amount of xp, and healers would be able to get xp too. And it''d actually be realistic for healers to use their spells whenever they could, because it''d make the spells work better. (Sort of like alchemy formulas in Secret of Evermore, or you could have it so that when they first learned a spell/skill, it might not even work when they tried to do it.) However, if you had party members standing there beating each other up so the healers could heal them, they''d shoot their time limit all to hell and get a crappy score for that quest. Not to mention that monsters could sneak up on them in the middle, and possibly kill them in their weakened state.

If a squirrel is chasing you, drop your nuts and run.

quote: Original post by Odd the Hermit
Thought to consider: what about "secret" goals (the computer tells player A his goal, but doesn''t tell anyone else)? And, building on that, what about potentially contradictory goals--player A wants to "Destroy the Amulet of Yendor before it can be used" while player B wants to "Use the Amulet of Yendor to..."? Of course, there''s nothing preventing the players from sharing their "personal" goals, but some might decide that their character (hey, they''re Role Playing!) might not want anyone to know what his goals really are.

Interesting ideas! The contradictory goals part is truly intriguing but I''m sure it would build conflict within the party and thus isn''t well suited to this game. Nonetheless, I think the contradictory goals idea could itself be the foundation of a great game.

I also thought of the secret goals, but then I realized there''s a limit to how many random side-quests we can make for a certain map. Let''s say there are 32 locations for hiding a side-quest of a map. Each time, we pick one randomly and then tell one of the players about it. Well, this game is designed for repetition, right? So after a while, some players will know where all the secret side-quests go.

If we give Player A a secret side-quest to Location 18, but Player B goes there on a guess that maybe that''s where the side-quest is, Player B could kill the monsters and collect the loot before Player A even gets there. To solve this, I toyed with the idea of restricting only the player who is given the side quest to getting into the area, but this seems "artificial". Maybe we give the chosen player a key, and only he can open the door. I''m not sure.

----
Darryl Long: Lead Coder The Pythian Project

quote: Original post by onyxflame
About combat: Here''s my idea. Use something like how Chrono Trigger does it, only allow the players to move during combat.

I admit I don''t understand your idea from your explanation and I''ve never played Chrono Trigger, so I''m lost on this one. If you''re talking about turn-based combat, then I don''t like the idea. Otherwise, I''d like it if you could explain better

quote: Hmmm, just thought of an idea. How about if you use skills AND xp? When any skill is used, it has a possibility to improve, depending on how good the skill is and what the person is trying to do with it.

Although I haven''t added the "Skills" section of the Design Document yet, it was actually written quite some time ago. In it we basically had the system you describe, where the use of skills causes them to improve. This was wholly unconnected from XP, however.

After talking to some other people, I''ve decided that my use of the term XP is misleading and confusing. I''ve decided to most-accurately refer to it as "Score Points", that is, the number of points for the party''s score. This is unrelated to player character advancement.

quote: And it''d actually be realistic for healers to use their spells whenever they could, because it''d make the spells work better. (Sort of like alchemy formulas in Secret of Evermore, or you could have it so that when they first learned a spell/skill, it might not even work when they tried to do it.)

Our magic system is basically that. A magic user can learn any spell at any time, but his chance of successfully casting the spell obeys the formula: % chance = current skill / required skill * 100%. So the spell might fail and "backfire" if the caster is not skilled enough to use it. For a backfire, we were considering having the spell costs double mana and nothing would happen. In any case, casting a spell successfully increases the casters skill and makes him a better caster.

quote: However, if you had party members standing there beating each other up so the healers could heal them, they''d shoot their time limit all to hell and get a crappy score for that quest. Not to mention that monsters could sneak up on them in the middle, and possibly kill them in their weakened state.

Interesting idea for handling this problem, but I the time limit would have to be relaxed enough to allow exploration and side quests, so I don''t think it''s enough of a detriment. I think better is just not to allow players to damage each other Your other suggestion about the "weakened state" is good, though. If we make mana slow enough to recharge, players will be careful about using it.

----
Darryl Long: Lead Coder The Pythian Project

quote: Oort writes about contradictory subquests:
Interesting ideas! The contradictory goals part is truly intriguing but I''m sure it would build conflict within the party and thus isn''t well suited to this game. Nonetheless, I think the contradictory goals idea could itself be the foundation of a great game.

I don''t know that contradictory sub goals would detract from the overall cooperative nature.

One of the more interesting D&D campaigns I played was one where it was a generally lawful party, but I played a chaotic-neutral klepto thief posing as a fighter. I was constantly doing small things against the rest of the party... even though we were all working towards the same goal. Sometimes it even helped the party out (when I would filch some magic item that turned out useful later on).

Conflict can be exhilarating, and as long as it''s not all-out conflict ("subquest: kill all other party members"), you can still cooperate. It can even make things more interesting. "Yes, we''re all following the massively thewed fighter towards the goal... grumble... ah, there''s the door, when can I sneak off without anyone noticing?".

quote: If we give Player A a secret side-quest to Location 18, but Player B goes there on a guess that maybe that''s where the side-quest is, Player B could kill the monsters and collect the loot before Player A even gets there.

Ah, but if only Player A gets credit for the subquest, why would B bother? B could get some XP for killing the monsters, but not as much as A might. (and if, say, half of the XP from the subquest goes into the party pool, then there''s less incentive to block others from their subquests -- it might even invite parties to share subquests and work together towards them... which adds more complexity if some subquests are in conflict...)

Put the subquests (usually) buried at least half way towards the goal, and make them small outings, not full-fledged quests, so someone could "disappear" for five minutes and do their thing. Some might be more involved, but it would still be a side outing.

quote: I also thought of the secret goals, but then I realized there''s a limit to how many random side-quests we can make for a certain map.

Theoretical question. There are a number of roguelike games that generate dungeons randomly. Although a random 3D dungeon would be harder (and suffer from the similar "blocky" problems), perhaps it could be done? Subquests might still be easy to locate, but once within one, it''s more randomized. That would make it harder to (say) race through and explore each of the possible locations.

quote: After talking to some other people, I''ve decided that my use of the term XP is misleading and confusing. I''ve decided to most-accurately refer to it as "Score Points", that is, the number of points for the party''s score. This is unrelated to player character advancement.

A term from the Nightfall MUD is "QP", for "quest points". But if the points directly relate to score, SP might work (although be confused with the semi-standard HP/SP).

I like the idea of sub quest they would have to fit into a the feel of the rest of the quest, You could make them character specific and race specific. How you handle them is you have a chance that a character is approached by an indviudal to them a little side job. For instance the party is about to embark on a quest of to ride a wealthy nobels castles of a evil spirts that have taken it over. Now the thief in your party gets approached by a shady indivual who want them to retrive certain important documents from the nobles private safe. Now only a theif could complete this quest or want to.

There could be any number of diffrent side quests that only benift one character or race, they don''t have to be Kill X. Infact you could have hinderence subquests. Example the part is sent to kill an evil necromancer. The wizard in the party is asked to make sure the nercromancer survies, by useing a special teleport gem on them if the necromancer is fatally nearly dead. Or They could be asked to make sure the party takes the long way to the objective.



-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

Wow, I''m pretty impressed with this idea. It''s not very often that a massively multiplayer RPG post acually gets me going.

Browsing through your design doc and through most of these posts I''d like to share a couple of my thoughts.

First of all, if you haven''t already, read the diablo 2 postmortem at Gamasutra, it''s got some nice stuff particually to user feedback loops etc..

You''re going to have to have some very good level designers / scripters on your team so that the quests dont become boring. Let the community create missions

If there are a lot of people on the main server at once. (Like say 80) that might be quite a bit to all have wondering around a small town with just a shop and a quest guild. (Especially when everyone wants to go to the quest guild, or to the weapons shop)

I think one of the hardest parts of this game would be rounding up 16 people all in the same place to start a mission and wait for others. May I suggest that when you choose a quest that you can select a ''find players'' option which randomly picks the amount of players that are needed for the quest.

Those players then get a pop up of ''Do you want to go do this quest'' if they say yes then they''re in and they get teleported appropriately. If they say no then the server randomly chooses another player to ask, until the appropriate amount of players for the task is obtained. Options for ''Inviting'' certain players and making the quest ''open only to those in your guild'' might be nice touches too.

Making quests in level ranges might be a good idea.

Eample
Hunt the goblins levels 1-3
Storm the orc stronghold levels 3-6
Slay the Dragon levels 15-20

etc


About combat. The Diablo post mortem is useful reading here too if I remember correctly. I think that you could get away with a lot without having to memorise a billion click / keyboard combos
heres my suggestion.

Number keys 1-9 select weapon / spells / potions
Left click - Attack
Dbl left click - Stronger attack (Slower)

right click - Block

Now about blocking, if you hold down the right mouse button you can block. But only infront of you. If you move the mouse left or right when blocking you pivot on the spot. IE block facing a different way. This allows creaturs to still attack you from behind and you can easily face of one opponent, but multiple and especially fast opponents will prove troublesome.

Oh, and co-op quests would be cool, something along the likes of one player has to stand on a button to open a door so that the others can go through kinda thing.

quote: Original post by Merle
I don''t know that contradictory sub goals would detract from the overall cooperative nature.

If players have a lot to gain through the sub-quests I can imagine people will start to take them pretty seriously and they might undermine the main quest, and thus the cooperative aspects.

I also fear that once the conflicting sub-quests become a staple of the game (that is, people expect them and learn to deal with them), such role-playing as you detailed in your example of faking being a fighter would not be possible. People would not trust each other at all, always fearing that someone is waiting to do something sneaky.

quote: Ah, but if only Player A gets credit for the subquest, why would B bother?

Yes, that''s a good solution to the problem.

quote: Theoretical question. There are a number of roguelike games that generate dungeons randomly. Although a random 3D dungeon would be harder (and suffer from the similar "blocky" problems), perhaps it could be done?

Anarchy Online has done this with some success, but I think it''s too much work for our team to undertake.

Basically, the conclusion that I''ve come to is that although side-quests (of any kind) appear on the surface to be a really cool idea, they boil down to a lot of work and introduce some very tricky game-balancing issues. I think my team will have enough trouble just producing the content and balancing our existing single-quest design as it is. Therefore, I''m not going to add side-quests to the design despite really liking the idea. Thanks to everyone for the great discussion, though.

quote: A term from the Nightfall MUD is "QP", for "quest points". But if the points directly relate to score, SP might work (although be confused with the semi-standard HP/SP).

QP sounds perfect. I''m sure Nightfall won''t mind



----
Darryl Long: Lead Coder The Pythian Project

I don''t know how feasible this is or how clear I can explain it but here it goes.
When I play CooP RPG/adventure games there seems to be this annoying event. I''ll be hacking away at a monster for about 5 minutes. Then my partner who happened to be behind a tree healing himself and taking a piss, just wanders up and hits the monster... killing it and taking all the XP or the majority of it. While I''m left scratching my head with my axe wondering "what the hell just happened?!". So I''m wondering if you could put some kind of XP bonus/sharing system.

Let''s say there''s an Ogre Chief with 200 health and worth 50 XP.
Now my player delivered 180 points of damage and my partner delivered the other 20 and ended up killing the Ogre. Now since I dealt 90% of the damage then I should get 90% of the XP and he should get 10%. But seeing that my partner did kill the Ogre he should get 10% of XP as a bonus. So in all I get 45 XP (90% of 50 XP) and he gets 10 XP (5 XP for the damage, 10% of 50 XP; and 5 XP for the bonus, 10% of 50 XP).

Hopefully this will be something to think about and implement.
I believe this is the type of gameplay question you were talking of?