Quote:

Original post by liquiddark The core ideas sound good, but I have some personal perspective to inject:

Appreciated, as always! :)

Quote:

1) Make forward momentum more important than anti-powergaming. Take a concrete example: the described brotherly Loss Bonus would be an excellent way for the player to continue forward. So make it happen. Please stop worrying about the powergamer, and start worrying about guys like me - 26 years old, working full time, looking for a game where I don't have to reload all the time. If I feel like my best interests are always in your thoughts, I can still keep going. If I feel like you're willing to mess with me, I have to reload just in case. Don't offer a possible reward, promise a definite one. Consider it a form of auto-balancing if it makes you feel better about it.

My philosphy is that death is not interesting because you can't really do anything when up against it but succeed or fail ultimately. Loss is more interesting, however, because it MIGHT get you into interesting situations you never would have gotten into otherwise and make you discover resources you didn't know you had. The worst thing I can do is waste your time with stupid gameplay, and killing you outright with no warning and no control is in my book an extreme sign of disrespect for the your time.

That said, what do you find more important, getting through a mission successfully because you planned for it, or getting through it successfully because the game wanted you to continue for the sake of story or advancement?

It's possible to design missions were reloading is unnecessary. Freedom Force sort of does this, heroes don't die, they get knocked out and recover at the end of the mission, so as long as you have one left to finish the job, you're fine. But the wider the gameplay of the game, the more likely you're going to use up some resource, make some miscalculation or suffer some setback.

My challenge is not in removing setbacks, though, but in giving you a reason to carry on despite them.

Quote:

2) I think the Strength of the Dying idea combines well with two other proposed solutions. First, the personality model - when someone gets hurt, your party is very likely to split into the save-the-strong and no-one-left-behind factions. Traditionally, dramatic works give the ones who stay behind a bonus due to teamwork. This can be a bit cloying, but it makes a lot of sense.

I think I will incorporate this much as you say because it reinforces personality gameplay, possibly creates drama among NPCs, and helps provide some edge in overwhelming situations. I will make it based on NPC relationships as well, so that the bonuses are more pronounced the more cohesive the unit is.

Quote:

3) Remember the old advice - just because you use a non-detailed combat system, doesn't mean your players aren't going to figure it out. Many have tried, and failed, to get around this, so the only option you realistically have at this point is to accept that people are going to deduce "hp" from the systems, and make it integral enough to not make that deduction significantly effective.

I'm not sure that I ever made this clear, but you'd always still see HP, and I have nothing against that. Like the originally mentioned "Injured (Internal) -5% if moved" idea, you might look an an NPC and say, "Hmmm... well, he's got 50 HP left, I think we can risk 5% more damage" If, on the OTOH it said -70% if moved, you might have to think twice.

Quote:

There comes a point where a philosophy of realism has to compromise - if a character can take bullets to the arm indefinitely with no ill effect, then you lose your realistic flavour. If the arm becomes useless at some point, you have hp, you just called it something else. My personal favourite is the shallow-stack approach favoured by White Wolf, which includes room for an injury (and scar) system but only in very simple terms. Alternatively, you could decide to only "record" serious injuries. That way, injuries are necessarily sudden, and do not "accrue" from more minor wounds.

The "death of a thousand cuts" won't really occur with this system. The only way to do status effects is as a result of significant damage (a grenade launcher to the chest, for instance) or with special weapons (monofilament blade, for ex.)

The Loss Bonuses are a good idea but I don't know if you can find enough situations like the 2 brothers without it looking weird (5 members of your crew have brothers outside who are better than they, and will replace them if they die?? :P )

Maybe Loss Bonuses could be more like this: one of the members of your crew is afflicted by a weird condition caused by contact with an alien. It's going to be hard to capture one of the aliens to investigate a cure, or go deep into their nest or something, but in addition to saving your mate you will also get some other bonuses: being able to cure that condition in the future, making some important discovery, I dunno :) So instead of getting a bonus because something bad happens to you, you get a bonus because you got into the trouble of making it right. It would be super if you had a system that watches what happens to the players and creates this sort of stuff: when there's a situation and the player doesn't have the resources, the game creates them, along with some bonuses, and gives the player some clues (NPC hints). Hey this could even be extended to improve the player's experience in other ways, too :)

That and the way NPCs react to having their butts saved in the last minute by their commander should be enough. But nothing motivates the players as much as a score in their save game. This is their level in Diablo II, their rankings in Starcraft and Counter-Strike, the number of hours played in Final Fantasy, the number of secrets in... you get my point :) So, simply count how many times the player has saved. That should be enough ;)

[EDIT] When talking about Starcraft and CS I meant the ladder rankings on the net and stuff, it's the same principle ;)

The game 'Jagged Alliance 2' had a system to discourage save-reload playing.

JA2's main focus was on turn-based squad-level combat set on an island called Arulco. This island was divided into small sectors, some sectors contained enemies and some did not. The game was played in real time until you encountered enemies within a particular sector, at which point it became turn based until it had been secured. Equipment could either be bought or scavenged from fallen enemies - the latter being the most fructuous method.
Every time you save-reloaded within a sector, the game reduced the probability of dead enemies yielding any equipment, thus encouraging each sector to be played straight through - even though this usually meant many of your squad members be injured or killed.

--
QSense

I love the idea of the loss bonuses! Especially the story based ones like the crewman's brother agreeing to join up. This is becuase it immediately cancels the impression that the death of a comrade is equivalent to failure.
The fact that the game absorbs it means it was expected and prepared for, and may even give the player a sense of expectation when a comrade dies that will negate the reload fear.

In practice you will only need two or three situations with really big bonuses, e.g. the brother thing or it could even start a mini-quest. Perhaps Charlie had been hoping to get enough money from this to free his beloved from a vicious space pirate who had kidnapped her, but now he's dead he would want his best buddies to save her for him.

Then you could have something like a semi-standard bonus almost everytime a teammate dies. Maybe they could have a will which bequeaths some of the items he had to his family back home and some items back home to the team. Most of the time this should be small things which the player can wait until he's in the area before doing (or even ignore totally) and which aren't at all worth the death of a team member (sentimental value stuff - useless but pretty necklaces, pictures etc.) but once or twice it could be something really big which the team member had been hoarding back home.
It is important though that desirable bonuses are rare enough that people won't be tempted to let him die just to see what happens.

The idea of loyalty being affected by your decision to save a team member is also a fantastic one. As is the idea of having a teammate carry him along. That way the choice to carry a teammate along will require you to hamper the performance of a perfectly healthy one as well. E.g. While carrying a comrade you can only use one handed weapons.

One last thing though. I don't think there should be punishment for moving a wounded comrade (ie x amount damge, -5 if moved). Unless it can be garuanteed that leaving him there will be perfectly safe until you come back. Otherwise, you may have the tools to save a comrade, but not the ability to take him to them or the time to bring them to him.
The problem with this is that the player won't realise it's a hopeless situation without many futile attempts. Which can be frustrating.

IMHO with a number of the ideas people have suggested here, you wouldn't even need to restrict the number of near death situations, as saving a comrade will now be viewed as a valid gameplay choice rather than a blind win/lose decision.

(btw, is a mono-filament strong enough to make a sword :P)

Quote:

Original post by Jotaf So instead of getting a bonus because something bad happens to you, you get a bonus because you got into the trouble of making it right. It would be super if you had a system that watches what happens to the players and creates this sort of stuff: when there's a situation and the player doesn't have the resources, the game creates them, along with some bonuses, and gives the player some clues (NPC hints).

This is a very dicey philosophy to pursue and I don't think there's a right answer here. If you create resources at every turn and the player knows this, you'll make player decisions irrelevant and have them thinking that they're just along for the ride. So this is tough.

Quote:

This is their level in Diablo II, their rankings in Starcraft and Counter-Strike, the number of hours played in Final Fantasy, the number of secrets in... you get my point :) So, simply count how many times the player has saved. That should be enough ;)

It's not a problem to assign a save and restore score, so I can do that.

Quote:

Original post by QSense Every time you save-reloaded within a sector, the game reduced the probability of dead enemies yielding any equipment, thus encouraging each sector to be played straight through - even though this usually meant many of your squad members be injured or killed.

I think Baldur's Gate originally did something like this in terms of refreshing traps inside of some of the dungeons.

I'd rather use positive rather than negative reinforcement, though. I don't really know why you would have saved and restored. I don't know if you're trying to cheat or if you realized you forgot something or got in over your head.

If you apply negative reinforcement (i.e., a punishment) I think players may grow to feel that you're being abusive, which I think creates more negative feelings down the line.

(Also, heaven forbid, but there is the unfortunate issue of any bugs that may require restoring.)

Quote:

Original post by thelurch The fact that the game absorbs it means it was expected and prepared for, and may even give the player a sense of expectation when a comrade dies that will negate the reload fear.

It's a careful balancing act, but I tend to think that a certain amount of loss can enhance the sense of triumph when it comes later.

Quote:

In practice you will only need two or three situations with really big bonuses, e.g. the brother thing or it could even start a mini-quest. Perhaps Charlie had been hoping to get enough money from this to free his beloved from a vicious space pirate who had kidnapped her, but now he's dead he would want his best buddies to save her for him.

I like interesting little personal scenarios like this and it's supposed to be integral to raising loyalty for your characters. Every character has some mission, state or scenario which you can come to be aware of, and if you do something about, will make them devoted to your cause.

I could use the same material and somehow introduce several scenarios that will still give you access to it. This way, you could be carrying on their work, and that could have unexpected bonuses as well as maybe raising ambient loyalty among the surviving crew.

Quote:

Then you could have something like a semi-standard bonus almost everytime a teammate dies. Maybe they could have a will which bequeaths some of the items he had to his family back home and some items back home to the team. Most of the time this should be small things which the player can wait until he's in the area before doing (or even ignore totally) and which aren't at all worth the death of a team member (sentimental value stuff - useless but pretty necklaces, pictures etc.) but once or twice it could be something really big which the team member had been hoarding back home.

Not a bad idea at all.

Quote:

It is important though that desirable bonuses are rare enough that people won't be tempted to let him die just to see what happens.

There's a question as to the timing of the loss bonuses as well. If you're out on the rim of the galaxy, you're not going to get them immediately.

Quote:

The idea of loyalty being affected by your decision to save a team member is also a fantastic one. As is the idea of having a teammate carry him along. That way the choice to carry a teammate along will require you to hamper the performance of a perfectly healthy one as well. E.g. While carrying a comrade you can only use one handed weapons.

Perfect restriction, and I think it'll create some good, dramatic gameplay. (Given that there are aliens with non-humanoid shapes, however, the carrying part is going to be severely challenging... but I'm already thinking of a cheat that has to do with folding levitation boards [grin])

Quote:

One last thing though. I don't think there should be punishment for moving a wounded comrade (ie x amount damge, -5 if moved). Unless it can be garuanteed that leaving him there will be perfectly safe until you come back. Otherwise, you may have the tools to save a comrade, but not the ability to take him to them or the time to bring them to him. The problem with this is that the player won't realise it's a hopeless situation without many futile attempts. Which can be frustrating.

Does this mean that you also think allied NPCs shouldn't be able to be incapacitated or KOed by anything?

What would transform the above situation you mention into something like "Man, I tried to save my executive officer but we were surrounded and didn't have the equipment-- but I really made those guys pay for that loss when I..."

IOW, what would make you accept a loss but rather than feel upset at the game, you feel upset at the denizens of the game, which in turn deepens your emotional connection and drives you to seek justice or even revenge?

Quote:

(btw, is a mono-filament strong enough to make a sword :P)

It's a universe of FTL drives, psionics, and space monsters, and you're doubting monomolecular blade crafting? [grin].

On the subject of loss bonii, XCOM had a system where a heavily damaged individual who survived, when he recovered, had more hit points. In general, if you use a system whereby surviving near-death experiences makes you stronger than before (once you recover), then players are more likely to accept high-risk near-death situations (though you at least want the associated risk to make it a tough choice for the player).

I've always been sceptical of specific injuries, since they usually seem to either boil down to "toss a coin: heads you die/become fatally crippled; tails you survive (relatively) unscathed" or to hit points with progressive penalties (-1 to all rolls at 50% etc). If you can avoid both of these, then go for it.

As far as untreated wounds causing further damage on activity, I quite like the idea, provided it's possible to stabilise most conditions (not heal the damage, but stop the blood loss etc well enough to move the patient) but at the cost of some time, and if the original condition is serious enough, tying up a couple of stretcher bearers from your squad who can't participate in combat effectively without dropping the stretcher (damaging the patient) or putting it down (taking some time)


For save/reload counts, I consider it important to ignore "save on exit, reload on restart" saves, since counting them isn't a measure of how much save-scumming the player does, but rather how fragmented their gaming time is - if they can only find the odd hour here or there to play, they shouldn't be penalised compared to the person who puts in 24 hour stints at a stretch, and certainly don't deserve to be equated to the player who plays solidly for 24 hours, but during that time goes back to previous saves a couple of dozen times. Mind you, apart from a constant rolling background save, I haven't heard of any way to deal with game crashes that prevents the dedicated save-scummer from deliberately crashing the game in order to reload... On the other hand, a prominent statistics page at the end of the game is one of the best suggestions I've heard of to guide players into playing the game your way without them feeling forced. Of course, it probably works better if the player can see the statistics from time to time during the game or at least has a fair idea that they're being collected (eg labelling the save games with them). In fact, that's one of my few gripes with Prince of Persia: Sands of Time - the save games all have a percentage completion associated with them, but there's no 100% - the best completion percentage you can hope for is 98%. Would it have killed them to have included a single splash screen at the end with "100% completed, Sand Clouds collected XX/48, Magic Fountains found XX/10"? (/rant)

[Edited by - rmsgrey on August 11, 2004 10:57:48 AM]

I agree with rmsgrey in every single point he made :)

You're right that creating life-saving resources for the player when he needs them might make them a bit too secure and not worry at all when something important is missing, because it will always show up. First of all, getting this "something" should not be easy ;P It should still be quite a decision, to fight all the aliens until you reach the med-lab, or just get the hell out of there.

Then, there's the fact that this is a balance just like any other. Games that railroad you through a story are one extreme (same as the game always creating life-savers), completely open-ended games are the other extreme (as playing a heavily simulation-based game). There should be always a chance that a life-saver is created for you, but the rest of the time you're on your own. Maybe this could be tied to the difficulty setting, instead of simply being hard-coded.

Quote:

Original post by rmsgrey On the subject of loss bonii, XCOM had a system where a heavily damaged individual who survived, when he recovered, had more hit points.

*looks around sneakily*
STOLEN! [grin]
I REALLY like that idea, especially because in order to emphasize armor and equipment I wanted HP to be hard to raise. But rather than this being automatic, it should be one of many possible bonuses for survivors, including another coveted stat boost in the form of increased Loyalty.

Quote:

I've always been sceptical of specific injuries, since they usually seem to either boil down to "toss a coin: heads you die/become fatally crippled; tails you survive (relatively) unscathed" or to hit points with progressive penalties (-1 to all rolls at 50% etc). If you can avoid both of these, then go for it.

Rarely do you have a system where losing one thing gives you something else to soften the loss. It might be interesting to play with the idea that injuries could change the character in subtle or drastic ways, such as increasing their zealotry and willingness to fight; causing neutral factions to become more sympathetic; or unlocking hidden gifts. I have to be careful here not to confuse you, though. I don't want to remove the potential penalty for failure or it will make your moves meaningless.

Quote:

For save/reload counts, I consider it important to ignore "save on exit, reload on restart" saves, since counting them isn't a measure of how much save-scumming the player does, but rather how fragmented their gaming time is

Yes, I didn't mention it but this is how I'd do it should I record this sort of thing. I'm also thinking about bringing up a reminder box at the bottom of the load screen that clues players in on the idea that not all losses are real losses.