Wavinator, you and I are on the same wavelength with this one. I think it could be extremely cool to kinda be cursed and you could have it so that at the dying moments of the game when the evil bad dude is about to strike the final blow a left for dead friend gives their last little bit of life away to save you so you can save the world.
Or alternatively you could be the person that does that and the player could feel all dark, yet happy at the same time.

Okay, bringing this thread back up for more consideration:
We''ve got some good ideas for how to work "minimizing" {leveling downward} into the system, but I believe we should now consider its impact on the system as a whole. In short, how to balance minimizing.
{BTW, does anyone have any other suggestions for leveling downward? Minimizing is the best I could come up with, but just doesn''t quite sound right.}

I know this ain''t really what you guys are talking about, but maybe instead of decreasing the players ability, you just reverse the system of skill levels.

Ie. You start of as level 20 (newbie) then as you progress your skill level goes to a lower number (but your powers increase). This way, once the player reaches level 1 they know that they can''t increase anymore.

This is sort of what happens in Perfect Dark, and is also good because if you place limitations eg max skill level=50 then people say "why not skill level 51, or 52?"

Oh well. Totally off topic I suppose.

P.S. wavinator - the game noir idea is very good! I like it!


wise_guy

Sorry if this has been said, but I am too lazy at the moment to read all these messages (I have been gone for 2 weeks, so there is a lot to catch up on). Is this system to be so that the player must choose what to reliquish in their character? So they must make wise choices about what their character needs and does not need. I think that this could work, theoretically

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft
"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy"
IOL (The list formerly known as NPCAI) - A GDNet production
Our Doc - The future of RPGs
Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche

quote: Original post by wise_Guy
...You start of as level 20 (newbie) then as you progress your skill level goes to a lower number (but your powers increase). This way, once the player reaches level 1 they know that they can''t increase anymore...

Good suggestion!

Back on topic:(Balancing "minimizing")
One thought that has been recuring to me is should all stats be affected, or just those crucial to combat? {This, of course, presumes that there are stats that do not directly relate to combat.} One would be weary from using strong attacks/magoc, so it could easily be explained either way. I feel certain stats must be affected, such as strength and health, else there won''t really be a penalty. Knowledge and speed probably should not be affected, the former because it doesn''t make any sense, the latter because it could leave the character as a sitting target. Last, I was considering that the different abbilities used would affect each stat uniquely.

You guys will kill me for saying this, but it must have something to do with the story. A player will not tolerate a system like that unless you give them a very good reason. i.e. They are cursed, etc. Players expect to gain levels.

I was thinking. A player in such a game would do best if they avoided combat like the plague. Avoided gaining experience at all. Then they could still be in full strength. Also, if a player gained too much experience (lost too many levels too quickly) in the beginning of the game it would be nearly impossible to win.

I think it would be a good change of pace, but you have to implement it very carefully.

What about a system, where the areas of proficiency that degrade are ones you choose. So you start out with a character who is good in some fields, and each time you level you increase some skills/proficiencies at the expense of others. -4 hunting is put into +4 lockpicking. Or -2 sword = + 4 research (because research Costs 1/2 as many points).
Maybe you get extra points for doing cool things, which allows you to build up the stats you want to keep.

But would this detract from the player character? Maybe, only if the story didn't support this system ?
?

There is a guy in the South village called Tony, he's a Ninja.

Edited by - Ketchaval on October 2, 2000 10:51:20 AM

okay, how about you build up "use points" every time you use a certain skill, then, when you are ready to level up the use points are cashed in to up your attributes in those areas. I kind of No-Pain-No-Gain system. and if you don''t get a minimum of use points in a certain area, then that area decreases. and this minimum will go up as you level up. And if you don''t get enough "U-P" in enough areas, you overall level goes down. Also, this would lend to the player wanting to choose when to level up. You could have a minumum requirement needed to level up, but after that it''s up to you when exactly because you may also want to build up you use points instead.
One way this could be done is if you have an automatic deduction each level up, and then you add the use points, this way you could also lessen the amount something is decreased so that it''s not depleted too much.
There we go, call it "Depleating".

shut up
CAN I GET A WOO WOO!

What about a game where you are training to be an assassin. Like in "The Professional", you start with long range weapons, and the more you advance in your training, the more you get close to the "client"... you finish your training with the knife, or even with bare hands.

Have any of you played the old Bitmap Brothers game, GODS? In it the system tried to estimate the players ability and change the difficulty during the game to accomodate for it. So if the player really sucked extra power-ups would appear to help the player a little further, but not enough power-ups appeared to let it be worth being bad. To complete the game you really had to be good.

This reminds my of the the social security system in many countries. Here people with no job are given money to survive but it isn''t fun, while people earning money must pay a lot while still being rich. Having a job should be a benifit, but the due to the scheme of taking money from the rich and giving to the poor the difference isn''t so great.

I have seen a chess program once that learned how good you where so it could give an opponent at the same or a bit higher or lower difficulty level.

Jacob Marner