The problem with "hey, if that's what they want to do, let them!" is that it takes the design out of game design. Open-ended systems like Elder Scrolls are interesting, but they end up being poorly paced, unbalanced, undirected messes. And this is coming from a guy who is counting down the days until Skyrim comes out

Do games really need more flexibility? Do players really need more control? I think we try so hard to give players a "fully realized world" that we forget that what they want is a game. They want a challenge, they want well-timed rewards. They want to be immersed as part of the world, and that usually means they aren't a god-like entity that can get away with mass genocide just because they figured out how to cheat the A.I.

I believe players do need more control. Its one of the reasons that the Elder Scrolls games have been smashing successes. Giving players options and not a roller coaster ride gives a game more replayability. An open world allows for a number of advantages to the developer, especially with the advent of Trophies/Achievements/Collecting things.

I will agree that when you give players an open world and a bunch of options you will not be as deep as say a game that gave the player just one of the options of play.

I find the biggest thing that breaks immersion for me is barriers. Doors that can't be opened, streets/buildings that you can't get to. It completely takes me out of the world.

A common way games get around this is your first quote (situations where different builds have different advantages). Wind is an interesting alternative for marksman specifically. Other possibilities:

'- Some games "shake" the gun to simulate the unsteadyness of holding a real gun. This could also rise based on some sort of stress factor.

- What if the Marksman stat didn't change your hit rating: instead, it changed what guns you could equip? So you see a sense of progress (I can use better weapons) but not a sense of god-like power (each weapon has its own strengths and weaknesses).

- If sniping a sitting target in the back of the head is a perfect hit every time, just don't place as many targets sitting on benches with large open spaces behind them... level design can fix alot of these issues.
[/quote]
I like these ideas, especially the different take on the marksman stat/skill. Thinking outside the box. Thank you for your contribution!

- You're prototyping in Unity? Simple wind is easy Create two variables somewhere: a public float windSpeed that is clamped between 0-1 and has a public Vector3 called windDirection that must be normalized. Then for each rigidbody bullet that you want to affect, just apply AddForce(windSpeed * windDirection * Time.deltaTime) each frame and tune those two variables until it feels right. If your bullets aren't rigidbodies, you will just do the equivalent with whatever physics you are using. The side effect is that players might find it frustrating that the bullet doesn't go where they're aiming, so be careful... but it's worth a try. Maybe adding an on-screen indicator for wind direction and a TrailRenderer to the bullet so the player can see the path it took will help people get used to it.
[/quote]
Thanks for that tidbit!

- Have a skill cap: if "maxing your character" is 1500 skill points, only allow the player to reach 750 skill points so he has to choose his proficiencies. If he wants to spend 100 points on Marksmanship, he's going to be very weak in other areas. You can hide something like this quite well, to where the player doesn't even feel like they're being manipulated (see Deus Ex).

- Place targets in groups: you might be able to snipe the guy sitting on the bench, but that's going to alert his sidekick that is pacing on the sidewalk practicing a speech...
[/quote]
The skillcap is definitely in. No demi-gods in this game. I also like the groups Idea. You pick off the guy on the bench but all the bystanders are sure to alert the authorities. How that would be built in (GTA style, or something different) is for another discussion.

I don't have a lot to add to the excellent replies you've already gotten, but I can imagine a couple of other balancing mechanisms.

First, as has been mentioned, reducing the number of stationary targets will help to balance out excellent marksmanship. Hitting a stationary target isn't too complicated, but hitting a moving target is much more so. So if an enemy is moving, it would be more believable that the shooter's ability to hit would be less, leading to fewer one-hit kills. This is easily modelled by adjusting down the player's chance to hit stat against some combination of the target's movement and use of cover, plus factors like wind should you choose to include them.

You could even break this up by adding seperate sub-skills to address moving targets, which would let you both start the player off as a poorer shot at moving targets but also let the player hyper-specialize, if they so choose.

Grouping enemies will also help to lessen the imbalance of good sniping. Sure, you can take one out without much trouble, but then the others will scramble and take cover, not to mention hunt you down. So you can't just blow them all away, but strategizing and employing other skills will still let taking out a single high-value target in one shot a valid approach.

Good level design will include obstructions to view/line of fire, which will affect success a priori to the character's skills. And finally, while I strongly encourage the above suggestion to set up play situations in which other builds will have special advantages, I'll also suggest looking in the other direction as well: situations where taking out one target is especially desirable. It can be a mission objective, or a particular type of enemy that might otherwise be difficult to overcome, or whatever you can think up. But whatever you decide, long range rifles aren't meant to be rapid fire. The player gets few shots relative to other approaches, but the tradeoff is that those shots can be highly accurate and so particularly effective.

Sniping is not generally a strategy that a single person can use to take down a lot of enemies quickly or easily. If the player wants to do that, there should be opportunities to do so, but that doesn't mean that every build (including a sniper) needs to be able to.

The issue isnt so much of how to include the one shot kill, but how to balance it when the ability is there, or better even, how to curtail the inevitable situation of the player deciding to pick off everything/everyone in site.

GTA deals with it via their star system, the more stars the bigger the badder the agency is that comes after you. You get up to 5 or 6 stars(forget the max right now) and the FBI and Army are on you and there is no getting away. Your dead. In that situation its fun every now and then to go on rampages, but I highly doubt someone plays the game JUST to go on rampages.

Im also unsure how something like that would work in a multiplayer setting.

The issue isnt so much of how to include the one shot kill, but how to balance it when the ability is there, or better even, how to curtail the inevitable situation of the player deciding to pick off everything/everyone in site.

GTA deals with it via their star system, the more stars the bigger the badder the agency is that comes after you. You get up to 5 or 6 stars(forget the max right now) and the FBI and Army are on you and there is no getting away. Your dead. In that situation its fun every now and then to go on rampages, but I highly doubt someone plays the game JUST to go on rampages.

Im also unsure how something like that would work in a multiplayer setting.

What? GTA's star system doesn't have anything to do with one shot kills. You can fire a gun into a parked, empty car and still rack some stars up. Every part of my post above is about how to balance the one shot kill, both by reducing its potential to break the game and also how to utilize a one shot kill in such a way that is still valuable despite placing more arbitrary limitations on it.

What? GTA's star system doesn't have anything to do with one shot kills. You can fire a gun into a parked, empty car and still rack some stars up. Every part of my post above is about how to balance the one shot kill, both by reducing its potential to break the game and also how to utilize a one shot kill in such a way that is still valuable despite placing more arbitrary limitations on it.

I believe he was saying that as an example. So that the more you kill, the worse the enemies are.

The issue isnt so much of how to include the one shot kill, but how to balance it when the ability is there, or better even, how to curtail the inevitable situation of the player deciding to pick off everything/everyone in site.

GTA deals with it via their star system, the more stars the bigger the badder the agency is that comes after you. You get up to 5 or 6 stars(forget the max right now) and the FBI and Army are on you and there is no getting away. Your dead. In that situation its fun every now and then to go on rampages, but I highly doubt someone plays the game JUST to go on rampages.

Im also unsure how something like that would work in a multiplayer setting.

That'd be me. I only play GTA to go on rampages... Hell, I only play MOST FPS (or TPS, or any 'S') specifically to go on rampages...

COD MW2, I love the museum, just killin everything in there... And trying to beat the game without shooting a bullet on the hardest difficulty... (unless otherwise required)
As well as the stealth missions, I just grab a gun, start firing unsilenced guns
Combat Arms, hehe, I am quite amazing at that game and just go on rampages on other players, getting 5-6 KDR.
assasins creed. Same thing, I kill EVERYBODY possible.
I love rampaging. If somebody were to make a game specifically built around destroying worlds, I would play it for hours on end. (as long as the graphics and storyline were there...)

But yeah, that's off topic.

[quote name='eSJay Designs' timestamp='1305829874' post='4813117']
The issue isnt so much of how to include the one shot kill, but how to balance it when the ability is there, or better even, how to curtail the inevitable situation of the player deciding to pick off everything/everyone in site.

GTA deals with it via their star system, the more stars the bigger the badder the agency is that comes after you. You get up to 5 or 6 stars(forget the max right now) and the FBI and Army are on you and there is no getting away. Your dead. In that situation its fun every now and then to go on rampages, but I highly doubt someone plays the game JUST to go on rampages.

Im also unsure how something like that would work in a multiplayer setting.

What? GTA's star system doesn't have anything to do with one shot kills. You can fire a gun into a parked, empty car and still rack some stars up. Every part of my post above is about how to balance the one shot kill, both by reducing its potential to break the game and also how to utilize a one shot kill in such a way that is still valuable despite placing more arbitrary limitations on it.
[/quote]

I meant no offense. My original post was more about dealing with how players would use a head shot in an rpg to wreak unintended havok on the world, and how to deal with it. So that there isnt a 100% chance that they get that heart or head shot every time. Without being unbelievable.

My bringing GTA up was about how GTA dealt with "rampages" which is the star system. I appologize if I misunderstood your post, but I read it as how to include ways one shot kills can be utilized, etc...

[quote name='Khaiy' timestamp='1305833305' post='4813146']
What? GTA's star system doesn't have anything to do with one shot kills. You can fire a gun into a parked, empty car and still rack some stars up. Every part of my post above is about how to balance the one shot kill, both by reducing its potential to break the game and also how to utilize a one shot kill in such a way that is still valuable despite placing more arbitrary limitations on it.

I believe he was saying that as an example. So that the more you kill, the worse the enemies are.

The issue isnt so much of how to include the one shot kill, but how to balance it when the ability is there, or better even, how to curtail the inevitable situation of the player deciding to pick off everything/everyone in site.

GTA deals with it via their star system, the more stars the bigger the badder the agency is that comes after you. You get up to 5 or 6 stars(forget the max right now) and the FBI and Army are on you and there is no getting away. Your dead. In that situation its fun every now and then to go on rampages, but I highly doubt someone plays the game JUST to go on rampages.

Im also unsure how something like that would work in a multiplayer setting.

That'd be me. I only play GTA to go on rampages... Hell, I only play MOST FPS (or TPS, or any 'S') specifically to go on rampages...

COD MW2, I love the museum, just killin everything in there... And trying to beat the game without shooting a bullet on the hardest difficulty... (unless otherwise required)
As well as the stealth missions, I just grab a gun, start firing unsilenced guns
Combat Arms, hehe, I am quite amazing at that game and just go on rampages on other players, getting 5-6 KDR.
assasins creed. Same thing, I kill EVERYBODY possible.
I love rampaging. If somebody were to make a game specifically built around destroying worlds, I would play it for hours on end. (as long as the graphics and storyline were there...)

But yeah, that's off topic.
[/quote]

Hahaha. This is the player I am worried about(and I dont mean that in a bad way X) and how to curtail this exact playstyle Perfect example, thank you XDawn.

You could make it so that shooting a few NPC's is ok, but if you shoot more the not yet shot NPC's will notice you and come for you unless you shoot them or run away, but shooting those too would make even larger amounts of NPC's notice you, so you need skillz to kill more and more of them...


Or make it so that you dont have an infinite supply of bullets