I hope that I am not steering this topic too off-course, but I would like to continue talking about the medic example.

Kits
To help with the logistics of stocking all of the med stuff that you would need you could instead group it into a kit. You would buy kits as whole units and they would come with several things inside them

For example the field medic kit would come with:
Morphine
4-5 Blood/Plasma units
10 Bandages
Scanner with 7 battery charge/units on it
etc. (of course your game would probably techify the names)

The main doctors labs/ quarters/ room/ tent would then have many more items and greater quantities of each item. However, you would purchase the items in groups.
Burn Kit
Surgery Kit
Nanite Removal Kit

Now the idea behind the kits is to make restocking simpler. Lets use the field medic as an example. In the previous situation, the medic used several items and then brought the injured person back to the main treatment area. Before leaving the medic drops off the used kit, and picks up a fresh one. If he is feeling industious he can restock the one he just used (this might save on kits, but should require more time). The best part: when you go to purchase your supplies all you do is push the "restock kits" button and the game calculates the cost of purchasing all of the supplies.

Kits would also make more graphical sense since you would basically model a box instead of everything inside of it.

Non Kit related stuff
New medic versus Experienced medic
To work with your stats concept, a more skilled person should be able to pick out more/ better information. Whereas a new medic might observe:
Hole in chest
Blood everywhere

An experienced medic would see the example I gave in my last post.

It would be interesting to modify the text so veteran medics had a much more clinical readout. example
Newbie:"OMG His head is friggin GONE!!!111!!"
Veteran:"Death caused by seperation of head from body "

Other concerns
The more that I read your posts, the more there is I think I would like about your game. But the shear content that I have seen you post here in forums (which I am guessing is paltry compared to what you must think of) makes me wonder if there is too much. The medic example here would be great for a FPS, but if every occupation you are considering has this much detail, and it sounds like you want it to, will there be too much for the player?
Is player option overloading a consideration?

just wondered..

Quote:

Original post by Thermodynamics I hope that I am not steering this topic too off-course, but I would like to continue talking about the medic example.

Not at all, thank you for the input. Part of making support characters work is making their gameplay viable in detail.

Quote:

Kits To help with the logistics of stocking all of the med stuff that you would need you could instead group it into a kit. You would buy kits as whole units and they would come with several things inside them For example the field medic kit would come with: Morphine 4-5 Blood/Plasma units 10 Bandages Scanner with 7 battery charge/units on it etc. (of course your game would probably techify the names) The main doctors labs/ quarters/ room/ tent would then have many more items and greater quantities of each item. However, you would purchase the items in groups. Burn Kit Surgery Kit Nanite Removal Kit

I like that you have distinctions without overwhelming detail. You grab a kit based on your purpose, and they're labeled as such.

What would be interesting is to have a short hierarchy of kits. At the bottom, you'd have your Burn, Surgery, Nanite, etc; a layer higher, however, you'd have more expensive but more multipurpose kits that combine lower level kits, until you get a super expensive Panacea Kit that is some machine capable of doing everything the lesser kits do. This would provide you a means of leveling up. (Alternately, the kits could get smaller the more expensive they are, so that you can carry more).

The best part: when you go to purchase your supplies all you do is push the "restock kits" button and the game calculates the cost of purchasing all of the supplies.

This is a great idea.

Quote:

Kits would also make more graphical sense since you would basically model a box instead of everything inside of it.

[smile] Anything to reduce art load I'm for. In fact, here's a further extension: Imagine that kits aren't a box of things, but rather a machine with programs linked to various wands. The wand themselves are either sprayers or tools with a self-assembling toolhead that takes a few hours to generate (keeping a bit of reality and strategy). Rather than a scalpel, sissors, bandages, hypos and whatnot, you have these different wands linked to a cable that's connected to the kit. You program the kit to spray a bandage over a wound, or use the pregenerated wand heads to perform surgery.

When you get back to base, you can either recharge the energy and nano of the kit, pickup a kit tailored to a purpose (treating burns or radiation sickness), or set a kit to configure. This would eliminate some of the detail overhead.

Quote:

Non Kit related stuff New medic versus Experienced medic To work with your stats concept, a more skilled person should be able to pick out more/ better information. Whereas a new medic might observe: Hole in chest Blood everywhere An experienced medic would see the example I gave in my last post. It would be interesting to modify the text so veteran medics had a much more clinical readout. example Newbie:"OMG His head is friggin GONE!!!111!!" Veteran:"Death caused by seperation of head from body "

Hahaha! I love it. That's great. I can also complicate the puzzle for the newbie by adding extra red herring detail, making the puzzle more challenging.

Quote:

The more that I read your posts, the more there is I think I would like about your game.

[cool]

Quote:

But the shear content that I have seen you post here in forums (which I am guessing is paltry compared to what you must think of) makes me wonder if there is too much. The medic example here would be great for a FPS, but if every occupation you are considering has this much detail, and it sounds like you want it to, will there be too much for the player? Is player option overloading a consideration?

Yes, I'm very concerned about this and watching it VERY closely. As far as I see it now, most features I've talked about fall within the domain of three modules: Avatar control, effect application and a module which controls events and AI behavior using influence maps.

I think that you can get alot of module reuse and gameplay by varying the stats of entities rather than complicating the game logic with exceptions that are based on different options. However, this will ultimately be limited by art, interface complexity, player feedback and time (so I'm not going to be able to do everything I've proposed, but I'll try for as much as possible).

I am reading a few of the posts in this thread and I am thinking about my own experience of being support.
Needless to say, I love it.
There is nothing like the blast of being a "tag team" when you play multiplayer. I remember playing Battlefield Vietnam as a Medic, and my mate as an engineer... aaaah the joy of flying my Huey being almost invincible :)

But anyway, I was thinking about the difference between what you would qualify as "support" and "hero" :
the hero moves the story forward,
the support is just there to help overcome obstacles that get in the way.

Some of us (well, it seems everybody who posted here, anyway :) ) enjoy this, being the power behind the throne, so to speak. And are content with the situation.
But how could we change what we perceive as a support role into a main role ?
Well, give the role options and abilities that can move the story forward.

In RPGs, combat is needed to defeat the adversaries, to move forward. Simply transpose this concept to the respective paradigm of each support role.

For instance, a medic isnt just a medic, for a start.
He is a scientist, formed to save lives.
He might start as the guy that fixes your flesh wounds, but his education, natural abilities, and acquired experience should allow him to evolve into something more. For instance, a research scientist. In Star Trek, the medics are always also research scientists. How many times did the crew suffer from a strange and unknown illness that required the expertise of the doctor ?
A high level scientist would generate missions for the crew, searching for exotic materials needed for new medications, researching improvements for the crew. If you mix this with the ability to establish businesses, you could become the owner of a clinic (ever seen the series Nip, Tuck ?), you could head the research division of a pharmaceutical company (being sent to discover new medications on exotic planets).

Same with an engineer, who is originally the guy fixing leaking pipes on your ship and who ends up designing a revolutionary propulsion system, scavenging alien technology and adapting/improving it. He could end up managing an orbital shipyard, testing new equipments for the armed forces, or some mega corporations.

And I am sure we could think of things for people like spies, diplomats, religious figures, pilots, etc.

Really, the idea is to promote other means of resolving conflict and advancing the plot. If you do this, you should also design a ladder of progress for each archetype.
Being a medic doesnt end up being played "in a little corner of the game", like some sort of subgame hardcore players would challenge themselves to try (look at any big roguelike game to see what I mean ?) It becomes a fully recognised gameplay experience, rewarded in the game.

Maybe you could check out PnP RPGs like Stargate ? Or any other PROPER roleplaying game, really, because there are tons of character archetypes that focus on other things than fighting to enjoy the game...

...now if I could only make my players understand THAT :)

I have been trying to think of details for support roles. We have discussed the medic. Engineer would be similar but would deal with broken / damaged machinery. I can only imagine either in a combat situation.

ahw had some great ideas and has started to make me realize there could be other situations for these roles rather than combat.

I then moved on to diplomat. I can see the single person combat senario: You meet the opponent, read his expressions, get history on dealing with them in the past. From that you could compose your response and the attitude/ inflection with which it is delivered.
Next I tried seeing this in a multiplayer game. It's not going to happen. At least not in the same way as the single player. sure you could trade with other players, but you really cannot do true diplomacy. Diplomacy, at its very root, works because of the threat of death. You can't really threaten another player online like that, unless the player was IP banned from the game. I am guessing that is not an option, and even then, its just a game. Truely, you cannot force people to do diplomacy IMHO.
I think that MOO3 tried to steer diplomacy by having population responses (unrest from certain actions) and by limiting your options when the population demanded. I have not played it in multiplayer mode though.
I cannot come up with actions that a diplomat could perform in a multiplayer senario without acting on npc's alone.


another role could be a terraformer.

I also would like to see a role based purely on physical labor. heheh I think it would be a blast to have all of the heavy lifting done with a click. On second thought, it would be dumb

Quote:

Original post by ahw For instance, a medic isnt just a medic, for a start. He is a scientist, formed to save lives. He might start as the guy that fixes your flesh wounds, but his education, natural abilities, and acquired experience should allow him to evolve into something more. For instance, a research scientist. In Star Trek, the medics are always also research scientists. How many times did the crew suffer from a strange and unknown illness that required the expertise of the doctor ? A high level scientist would generate missions for the crew, searching for exotic materials needed for new medications, researching improvements for the crew. If you mix this with the ability to establish businesses, you could become the owner of a clinic (ever seen the series Nip, Tuck ?), you could head the research division of a pharmaceutical company (being sent to discover new medications on exotic planets). Same with an engineer, who is originally the guy fixing leaking pipes on your ship and who ends up designing a revolutionary propulsion system, scavenging alien technology and adapting/improving it. He could end up managing an orbital shipyard, testing new equipments for the armed forces, or some mega corporations. And I am sure we could think of things for people like spies, diplomats, religious figures, pilots, etc.

The only way this could possibly work and be feasible with a comparatively small budget would be if there were reusable modules or functions which changed the content without necessarily changing the gameplay. Otherwise, the need for unique content in each of these situations would absolutely crush the game's design under its own weight.

At the most abstract level, you'll care about improving yourself and getting the meaning of your actions to change. In most cRPGs, this is handled through monster slaying and plot triggers. Yes, you're still killing monsters, but you're stronger and doing it for a different reason, which makes it feel different even if the game hasn't structurally changed.

I agree with you that replacing the combat mechanic is the way to go. The challenge becomes with what. Saying "you're running a division" or "you're reseaching a great project" is highly removed from the individual nuts and bolts that makes up the gameplay. That's what makes or breaks this idea.

So what are the activities that are both universal among all character types and interesting enough to be engaging when you're not in danger?

I'm working on some details for this and will make another post as it's going off in a different direction.

Quote:

Maybe you could check out PnP RPGs like Stargate ? Or any other PROPER roleplaying game, really, because there are tons of character archetypes that focus on other things than fighting to enjoy the game...

If only PnP RPGs detailed this stuff! I've found them super-concrete when it comes to combat, right down to every swing and step, and completely amorphous on everything else. It sounds like Stargate is an exception to this rule?

Quote:

Original post by Thermodynamics I have been trying to think of details for support roles. We have discussed the medic. Engineer would be similar but would deal with broken / damaged machinery. I can only imagine either in a combat situation.

Combat has two major advantages: Danger and timing. If the very nature of the machinery is dangerous and "attacks" when damaged (arcing electricity, jets of fire, gas leakage) then this MIGHT be a useful analogue.

Quote:

I then moved on to diplomat. I can see the single person combat senario: You meet the opponent, read his expressions, get history on dealing with them in the past. From that you could compose your response and the attitude/ inflection with which it is delivered.

You could do this the same way you do the medic in terms of text that gets relayed (sweety palms, nervous twitch, honest confusion). Instead of tools removing status, perhaps you could have phrases or gambits that weaken defenses.

Quote:

Next I tried seeing this in a multiplayer game. It's not going to happen. At least not in the same way as the single player. sure you could trade with other players, but you really cannot do true diplomacy. Diplomacy, at its very root, works because of the threat of death. You can't really threaten another player online like that, unless the player was IP banned from the game. I am guessing that is not an option, and even then, its just a game. Truely, you cannot force people to do diplomacy IMHO.

I probably wouldn't put in PvP diplomacy because the main focus is co-op, but here's how you could do it using an idea of mental manipulation:

Diplomacy's goal is to forge a deal, gather information or create an emotional response. The former two are the overall goal, with gambits / approaches being the "attack" moves that create status effects.

What needs to happen is for the game to act as a mediating layer between two battling opponents. You don't get perfect information about the other player, their alignment, who they are or what they're doing. You get the front created by their moves, similar to camoflague on the mental plane.

If one player is trying to threaten another, they could give them an inventory object in the form of a report. The report, when examined, might say "Troop positions of the Terran Empire."

When you perform some diplomacy skill on the report, you might get: "Your experience assures you that the report is quite genuine" or "Several pieces of information appear out of order."

Then, if you examine the opposing player, you may get hints on the true or false nature of the gambit: "His threat appears hollow" or "His threat is backed up by a grim resolve. You have no doubt."

When gambits are used, it could lead to emotional status effects which effectively unbalance or betray the strategy of the opponent. For instance, a predefined tactic like "Storm Out" where you prepare to make a fuss and storm out of the room could inspire panic in another diplomat. Panic will cause the opposing diplomat to reveal more than intended, even if this revelation is silent to the other player.

btw, this will only work if there are resources and tradeoffs. Storming out, for instance, might lower your respect but raise your apparent threat value; calm repose might do the exact opposite. And of course moves would have to rebut each other.

Quote:

another role could be a terraformer.

Crashing comets into planets might be fun. :)

Quote:

I also would like to see a role based purely on physical labor. heheh I think it would be a blast to have all of the heavy lifting done with a click. On second thought, it would be dumb

In one of my more lucid moments at 3 AM in the morning I was thinking about how the game has a pure survival mode for when you crashed on planets. This could be adapted to you getting money for picking up and dropping items at various waypoints within a specified amount of time.

It was hilariously stupid. Maybe I'll include it as an easter egg in v2.0 [grin]

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator The only way this could possibly work and be feasible with a comparatively small budget would be if there were reusable modules or functions which changed the content without necessarily changing the gameplay. Otherwise, the need for unique content in each of these situations would absolutely crush the game's design under its own weight.

Agreed. I realise that since you are making a properly detailed design of your game you need more than vague ideas.
I ll have to think about this.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator At the most abstract level, you'll care about improving yourself and getting the meaning of your actions to change. In most cRPGs, this is handled through monster slaying and plot triggers. Yes, you're still killing monsters, but you're stronger and doing it for a different reason, which makes it feel different even if the game hasn't structurally changed.

I think I missed your point completely there :P Sorry

Improving yourself is necessary in gameplay because to entice the player to keep going, you need positive feedback, rewards for doing something.
The fact is that so far (to my limited knowledge), combat is the only activity that is designed to offer such feedback to the player.

Combat is the one type of solution that is always assured to let you go through the obstacle you are faced with in a game.
Better games alloy you to go other ways, but because combat is seen as the DEFAULT solution, it is the one that is the most detailed.
Because it's considered primary, no one has even TRIED to abstract the obstacle overcoming mechanism.

Quote:

I agree with you that replacing the combat mechanic is the way to go. The challenge becomes with what. Saying "you're running a division" or "you're reseaching a great project" is highly removed from the individual nuts and bolts that makes up the gameplay. That's what makes or breaks this idea.

Well, you wouldnt so much _replace_ combat.
You would make it one amongst other activities that solve conflicts, overcome obstacles on your way.
The question is, what kind of conflicts and obstacles would you have.
After 30 years of PnP Roleplaying games, computer RPGs are still using the Door/Monster/Treasure paradigm... when PnP RPGs themselves have tried to innovate a little bit (dont get me started on how *players* havent necessarily evolved).

To go back to what I wrote on the previous paragraph. When I played Neverwinter Nights, I went with the assumption that fighting was the primary answer to problems.
And guess what ? I was right !
A door blocks your was and you cant pick it ? Destroy it with your axe. You know a chest is trapped but you can hack it lest you blow yourself to pieces ? Blast it with arrows from a distance ! Hordes of undead attack you mercilessly ? Use your brain and take them one by one in a corridor.
And so on and so forth.
No riddles to answer, no puzzles to solve, no nothing. Just monsters to hack through to get an item. Over and over again.

Quote:

So what are the activities that are both universal among all character types and interesting enough to be engaging when you're not in danger?

It's not so much the fact that there are universal activities. Everybody needs to fight, at some point. The thing is that most will try to avoid physical harm because, well, they like their lives.
The problem is that in games, death and pain are not present, leading to a skewed version of reality where it's OK to kill wounded people crawling at your feet, and worse, where those people crawling on the floor will KEEP FIGHTING to the death. ALL of them. The insects, the carnivorous plants, the animals, the extra planars.
Not a single living and fighting entity seems to have the instinct for self preservation...
If we just started there, I am sure we could come up with interesting things.

Quote:

If only PnP RPGs detailed this stuff! I've found them super-concrete when it comes to combat, right down to every swing and step, and completely amorphous on everything else. It sounds like Stargate is an exception to this rule?

Ah, I dont have the book yet, but knowing how those things are, I doubt they would detail anything anyway.
The best things to read in those cases are the Players handbooks, which tend to spend much more time on each type of character, offering more options and opening new paths of gameplay.

Wavinator :
I just forgot. When I talk of science officer ending up leading pharmaceutical companies, or your engineer becoming a shipyard owner, I was really only refering you to your own ideas !
Or isnt that what you were thinking of in your thread "Leveling out..." ?

Thermodynamics :
You say you cant do diplomacy in PvP because there is no fear of death ?
Ummm, I think maybe you meant it's hard to bluff an opponent befor a combat, or something like that. Which isnt true if you can change your avatar appearance easily : "Wow, this guy if wearing a TWIN BFG2K. Surely he cant be a newbie. Better get AWAY from him..."

If you meant Diplomacy with the capital D, I ll remind you the words of Clausewitz : "War is the continuation of politics by other means". i.e. if we cant come to an agreement at the table, this means war.
If war isnt enough of a big stick, I dunno what is. Of course, nowadays, war can also be only economical (ever heard of the Banana wars we had only a few years ago ?)
And I am sure in the future we could come up with even worse forms of "war".
Or we could simply scale up what we already know: Wasnt it in Babylon 5 where the Narn were embargoed on some badly needed medicines to "twist their arm" at the negotiation table ?


This make me think about something rather deep (uh oh) :
in French we say that money is at the heart of war.
Money is power, reward, and happiness. Well, for the less spiritual of us, anyway.
Thing is, that's exactly what it IS in games.
You kill monsters because they are like pinatas. When they die, you win MONEY. Experience is only there to allow the positive feedback system to grow in magnitude, nothing more.

So just like I suggested previously, allow the player other way to earn money...

Quote:

Original post by ahw When I talk of science officer ending up leading pharmaceutical companies, or your engineer becoming a shipyard owner, I was really only refering you to your own ideas ! Or isnt that what you were thinking of in your thread "Leveling out..." ?

Please keep in mind that what I meant by the Leveling out idea is that there is no real detailed gameplay to running those operations, and so they are really just stat-based entities that generate effects, some of which you can muck with.

When I talk of this for being a support character, there has to be something that you do momement to moment, which requires NPC AI, rules systems, gameplay tradeoffs, etc. for each profession.

The leveling out idea does work to enhance support gameplay, but it's more like a money sink / random mission generator based on your property.

Quote:

Or we could simply scale up what we already know: Wasnt it in Babylon 5 where the Narn were embargoed on some badly needed medicines to "twist their arm" at the negotiation table ?

I remember this. If done, something like this would need to be a general option of conversation that diplomats might excel at.

Quote:

Original post by ahw Combat is the one type of solution that is always assured to let you go through the obstacle you are faced with in a game. Better games alloy you to go other ways, but because combat is seen as the DEFAULT solution, it is the one that is the most detailed. Because it's considered primary, no one has even TRIED to abstract the obstacle overcoming mechanism.

You do have replayable, rewarding mechanisms in the form of racing, sports games and puzzle games; but usually, these serve a specific purpose that's not about getting past dangers. Can you gamble with a bunch of guards blocking a door and win their respect? Simply run past them, preferably in the shadows? Pretend to be a commanding officer? These would be I think fun repeating mechanisms.

Quote:

To go back to what I wrote on the previous paragraph. When I played Neverwinter Nights, I went with the assumption that fighting was the primary answer to problems. And guess what ? I was right ! A door blocks your was and you cant pick it ? Destroy it with your axe. You know a chest is trapped but you can hack it lest you blow yourself to pieces ? Blast it with arrows from a distance ! Hordes of undead attack you mercilessly ? Use your brain and take them one by one in a corridor. And so on and so forth. No riddles to answer, no puzzles to solve, no nothing. Just monsters to hack through to get an item. Over and over again.

Yes, this reminds me of some of the writing of Chris Crawford in the Art of Computer Game Design, where he talks about direct and indirect gameplay.

Quote:

The problem is that in games, death and pain are not present, leading to a skewed version of reality where it's OK to kill wounded people crawling at your feet, and worse, where those people crawling on the floor will KEEP FIGHTING to the death. ALL of them. The insects, the carnivorous plants, the animals, the extra planars. Not a single living and fighting entity seems to have the instinct for self preservation... If we just started there, I am sure we could come up with interesting things.

I have thought that this problem arises because there is a linear relationship between the player and the opponent, in the form of HP that has to be reduced to either incapacitate or kill the challenge, thus removing it. But as opponents gain more stats, and the player more ways to affect them, you get more interesting solutions. What would it mean if opponents have a sight or perception stat, and there are ways to affect it (blindness, holograms, etc.) It gets even more interesting when you get into emotional stats and personality, as well.

Vice versa, btw, the game becomes more textured I think when the relationship is complex in both direction. Imagine an enemy whose only interest was in steadily blinding you, or tricking you with illusions, and who could thus beat you without needing to kill you.