This is a hard one to gauge since most games don't support this gameplay, but some RPGs do... How many of you would play a support character, or have done so in multiplayer games and found it interesting? My theory is that those who would is a vanishingly small minority because we play games to be heroic, which means up front and in danger rather than in the back supporting the fight or alternately addressing the challenge. Some examples of what I mean: Medic characters, if the gameplay were detailed enough that healing someone was like a puzzle where you had interlocking status effects. Addressing one status effect could alter another, and you'd have only so many tries to get it right. Subterfuge characters who can't directly attack, but can enhance allied attacks and confuse or delay enemy attacks. An example would be a Wild Weasel fighter pilot bent on drawing enemy fire with drones and decoys long enough for a convoy to escape. Diplomatic characters involved in channeling conflict away from their allies, if diplomacy were like a puzzle of figuring out what people wanted and racing against time to see if you could get it. Success would be smoothing over flaps, making alliances, and using bribes and intimidation when necessary. I think most gamers would regard these roles as too passive, or require that they be complete games in and of themselves rather than minigames or character classes in a game. In most RPGs, everyone defaults to a fighter, no matter what they are normally, because most RPGs put all their detail into combat. Thoughts?

I see only one big reason to play support characters in multiplayer games: everyone wants you to be in thier group/play with them. It has its part of excitment, knowing that the group could probably not do it without you, and you have to be always attentive in fights. Casting a critical spell at the right moment and saving the day made my support character the hero a number of times.

The major downside to me is the solo play, which is often impossible as a support character. Playing in groups is fun, but I like to have my own adventures too.

You are right; support players are rare. For me, I love being support in multiplayer games. My enjoyment for supportive characters is part of personality. I don't like to be the center of attention, yet I enjoy being critical to the team. This is why I do network and sound programming versus graphics. Overall, I think it depends on the personality of the player. However, you can make support characters more enjoyable to more people.

Recently, I finished Tales of Symphonia for the GameCube with my friend. I have to say the game made support characters fun. Genis, the spellcaster, was fun to last battle. His spells were flashy, and actually determined the outcome of many boss battles. Raine, the healer, was a must in almost every single battle my friend and I played.

So, my point is: If you plan to use support characters, make sure they can actually be the difference in losing a battle or whatever. Though you may have already conclude the above, it isn't as easy as it sounds.

Sorry, haven't been following your other posts very closely, so I don't have much idea as to what your over all plan is. But, my goodness, I love playing support characters! Even if it has been a couple years since I've played multiplayer games.

I find them more interesting because their role is more passive. This usually means more forethought must be put into each action. I loved playing support characters in Infantry. There were all sorts of theories on how best to position turrets/mines as an Engineer. Also, just because their "powers" are more passive, doesn't mean there're no heart-pounding moments. Squad Leaders and Medics could teleport other units to their location. This kept a steady stream of fully refreshed units on defense and/or offense, but drained your own energy. Constantly moving so that they have more trouble finding the location of the reinforcements, trying to stay close to the battle without getting yourself killed. Medics had trouble too, because they aren't made for combat (weak armor and weapons), but needed to stay close to the front lines to heal those who needed it. Engineers stayed near their turrets, keeping them repaired, firing their shotgun at infiltrators (cloakers with little armor) and tossing well timed/placed grenades.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator This is a hard one to gauge since most games don't support this gameplay, but some RPGs do...

I wouldn't say most don't support it, but that most don't support it well. I remember in Asheron's Call (the first) there was barely anyone who wasn't their own support character. And, even before everyone figured out the magic formula, it was impossible to get experience as a support character.

Quote:

How many of you would play a support character, or have done so in multiplayer games and found it interesting? My theory is that those who would is a vanishingly small minority because we play games to be heroic, which means up front and in danger rather than in the back supporting the fight or alternately addressing the challenge.

There's little glory, but if they can have a significant impact there will be many thanks.

Quote:

Some examples of what I mean: Medic characters, if the gameplay were detailed enough that healing someone was like a puzzle where you had interlocking status effects. Addressing one status effect could alter another, and you'd have only so many tries to get it right.

Don't know how your game works, but that could be interesting. However, like in Infantry, it doesn't need to be detailed to be interesting. Many a tense moment trying to stay alive while keeping the troops healthy and a steady flow of reinforcements.

Quote:

Subterfuge characters who can't directly attack, but can enhance allied attacks and confuse or delay enemy attacks. An example would be a Wild Weasel fighter pilot bent on drawing enemy fire with drones and decoys long enough for a convoy to escape.

I love it! "Get them, my pretties!" I like the idea of not being able to do anything directly, but being able to slow the enemy down long enough for your friends to arrive. I also like the indirectness, sending out your pets to do the job. I imagine a tinkerer unleashing a clever new device with almost a tear in his eye over his love for his creation, or saying "I've got just the thing" as he pulls some strange contraption out of his pack.

Quote:

Diplomatic characters involved in channeling conflict away from their allies, if diplomacy were like a puzzle of figuring out what people wanted and racing against time to see if you could get it. Success would be smoothing over flaps, making alliances, and using bribes and intimidation when necessary.

Ya know, I always wanted to dominate Civ2 economically, but the mechanics just weren't there. I enjoy the "My strength is my friends" or "Pull a few strings" aspect of this character.

Quote:

I think most gamers would regard these roles as too passive, or require that they be complete games in and of themselves rather than minigames or character classes in a game. In most RPGs, everyone defaults to a fighter, no matter what they are normally, because most RPGs put all their detail into combat.

No, I think making them games in and of themselves, or even minigames, would make them less appealing to me. I would prefer that they work together with and enhance the more active classes. Like in movies, the hacker taking down the security as our hero infiltrates the building. Sure, there should be a specific skill needed in doing this, but calling it a minigame makes it seem like something seperate. Either don't make it feel like a minigame, or make it part of the regular mechanics (like turret placement in Infantry).

Well. I think it works in multiplayer games very well, but I don't think I've seen it implemented in a single player game very well. Most of my mulitplayer has been in the various tiny 'M'MORPG mod groups of NWN.

We used to be a fighter, a monk, and take along a healer speciliast to be out support. Was lots of fun. Later I got into being a rogue / shadowdancer support character, and now play that exclusively. It's nice being one of the major support players instead of just the guy who hits things. Had I not disarmed the traps, and got in my well placed sneak attacks, the only thing they would have hit was the floor.

Also fun in FPS games. In Wolfenstein :ET I often go into the role of the guy who watches some of the other guy's backs, or just become the sacraficial lamb so the other guys can reach the objective while I disrupt the opposing team abit.

I can picture that type of play working well in a single player game in the scenario where the character in the main hero role was a complete idiot / clutz and it was your job to make sure he didn't screw up. You know, like the player goes through a lot of pain and frustration making sure the lead character achieves all his goals, and the whole time the main character thinks the player is the one who can't stop screwing up. Everytime the main character does something embaressing or that would hurt him, it's the support character that takes the ill effects. It could make for a very funny game.

Quote:

Original post by Steadtler I see only one big reason to play support characters in multiplayer games: everyone wants you to be in thier group/play with them. It has its part of excitment, knowing that the group could probably not do it without you, and you have to be always attentive in fights. Casting a critical spell at the right moment and saving the day made my support character the hero a number of times.

In my case, with my personality, I disagree slightly. It's not the idea that "I was the difference between winning and losing" that appeals to me (often any given class, in the right hands, can make that difference), but the particular flavor of how I add my own part to the team. I don't kill the enemy, defend the base, or capture the flag. I improve my allies' ability to kill the enemy, defend the base, and/or capture the flag. It's like that ad on TV "We don't make the things you use; we make the things you use better".

I want to be the hero.

The exception comes when I'm playing a game like Everquest. Back in the day, I played a dwarven cleric that would sit outside of the battle area and heal my fighters on request... I was a support character, but all of us knew that if I wasn't in that group, they would have been dead long ago and would have nowhere near the experience points they had then.

It's starting to look like what makes or breaks a support character is acknowledgement of being indispensible.

Is NPC gratitude text during or after the fight adequate acknowledgement?

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator It's starting to look like what makes or breaks a support character is acknowledgement of being indispensible. Is NPC gratitude text during or after the fight adequate acknowledgement?

Like I said, for me, it's not acknowledgement since I know I did my part. For me it's variety. I'm doing something useful that's qualitatively different from what the fighter is doing. In Infantry (to continue examples from before) I also enjoyed being a Jump Trooper and a Heavy, doing the combat thing, but, while they fulfill different roles in the team, they are both doing the same sort of thing.

That said, NPC gratitude has always seemed a bit hollow to me. I know there's no one on the other side, I know that the game stuck my kill ratio, my healing rate, etc. through some formula, the number that came out was higher than some magic number, and thus it printed certain text to the screen. However, I, personally, could enjoy being a support character to NPCs if their AI was good enough (i.e. they don't do anything stupid) and the support character was interesting enough (e.g. I'm not just the medic off safely in the corner; I'm the medic on the frontlines, having to concentrate on staying alive and keeping my team alive). Granted, though, that your Wild Weasel and Diplomat would be more interesting when dealing with NPCs than a medic.

I personally like to be the supporter ,I mean whats really so great about killing stuff? I think its that usefullness sidekick
feeling i like you know like merlin was the sidekick of arthur.

I remember when seeing this 3D Zelda for console i asked myself how it would be to play as the fairy or a kind of pure enhancement charachter like an symbiont.

Like always i tthought of some skills anf fighting system and enjoyed imagining how it would be to play that, but uptill now i never saw a game where i can fly about as a spirit helping a hero
or be some kind of speaking sword/living artifact thr hero fight with.

You know the manga King of bandit Jing? Where that raven always transformed into jings gun?