Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


JustinS

Member Since 19 Apr 2013
Offline Last Active Aug 09 2014 04:23 PM

#5162922 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 25 June 2014 - 10:22 PM

 


Okay. Now I'm pissed. Why do people assume every game with guns is automatically another fucking CoD clone? I'm really sick of this shit. Just because this game has guns does NOT mean it's another copy+paste ludicrously unrealistic, proudly jingoistic, blatantly racist hallway simulator with NO self-awareness for violent, paranoid, right-wing shut-ins with no capacity for higher reasoning. QUIT making that assumption. This is NOT a "modern shooter". This is a SURVIVAL game. I have SAID THIS already. I will NOT say it again.

 

I may have misjudged of the technical term for your game's genre, but at no point did I call it a Cod clone. I think its fine to have an opinion of a genre, but honestly you're being rude to other developers (that are here to help you out). I wasn't trying to upset you with this post, I honestly thought with the level of experience you have about weaponry it made sense for you to focus on a game where simulating weaponry is the focus, that's generally a modern shooter, no judgement of the genre either way. 

 

Given the survival genre of the game, you could explore giving the weapon a less weathered look then the other weapons. Where most the weapons (assuming they're found among the ruin of a post tragic event) would have signs of wear and might not fire as clean or true (bent ironsites, etc), this weapon could be less worn(believably) and fire just the way the player would expect it to. Or to be brief, you could believably gimp other weapons in the interest of this weapons focus. Good luck with the survival game.

 

 

Okay, I snapped, and I apologize. I've gotten the "every game with a gun is Call of Duty" thing so many times I'm getting jumpy about it.

 

As for the focus of the game being on the weapons, that's not entirely true. This thread is about the weapons, but the game's focus is mostly on the characters' bodies, and most of the game rules deal with their status. A living body is a tremendously complicated thing. A lot of things change how it works, usually negatively, a lot of things are required for it to work and a lot of conditions affect how it works. It rarely stops working all at once, tends to go on for quite a while before it stops working, and a lot can be done to keep it working before it stops entirely. It's quite an ordeal to even understand how all of this happens, and to translate most of it into a game with any accuracy takes a lot of effort, so since keeping one working is the main point of the game it has to take most of the attention if it's to be handled with any degree of realism. 

 

The only issue with gimping other weapons is most people don't really understand it, and the practical effect can be really strong. But making the weapon look to be in better condition in areas that don't really affect its in-game use (like making the wood less rough, and metal less rusty) is a good enough idea. The weapons are already balanced practically, I just need to make them feel balanced.




#5162333 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 23 June 2014 - 08:40 AM

Okay, so it seems like you are making a simulation game (okay, survival game) where you want the guns to be realistic. However you want to distort the actual power of a gun so that it "feels" more powerful than a gun that perhaps is more powerful?

Yet, in real life, each gun is going to feel like it feels. The only option then is to take care to replicate every nuance (or an approximation, as you said) of how each fun differs from any other gun in real life.

Recoil, smoke, etc.

People assumed you wanted to distort the actual abilities of the guns, (since you said "feel") so they suggested non-realistic things you could do.

A sort of exaggeration.

Then again, you could just exaggerate the effects a bit for the guns you want to feel more powerful. It doesn't change the realism. That's what a stage actor has to do when details can't be seen from afar.

 

More or less. The only thing you're off on is that I'm totally fine with any visual or auditory changes that aren't immersion breaking. It's just gameplay changes that won't fly. Giving the gun an exaggerated muzzle blast, for instance, would be acceptable if it makes the player think it's more powerful. (Though that would actually just make it hard to see where you're shooting.) The whole point is to make players accept a weapon that deals less DPS, but has other advantages that make up for it, without making its other advantages break the game's balance. Like the Lee-Enfield rifle I'm using as an example. 




#5162323 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 23 June 2014 - 08:01 AM

What are some good, general ways to make a weapon feel very powerful without changing its practical effect on the target?


This is the question you posed to the forum.
Several people have tried to answer it, and it's unfortunate you don't feel like any of the standard ways are good enough for your game.
Not quite. See, I already thought of all the standard ways. Because they're, you know, standard. And I'm using most of them. The only non-standard things were knockback, which I didn't accept, and making the weapon bigger, which is a non-option. I'm not rejecting those arbitrarily, they're bad ideas. And every good idea so far I already thought of because they're industry standard.

Or I can, maybe, get a recording of the real thing with echo, ( movie style, but it fits since you would get echo realistically out there) and crank the volume until it becomes alarmingly loud.


The "problem" here is that sound has the same issue that graphics has on a computer.
It never is realistic. It will never be more then an approximation of the real thing.
It's not really practical to play a sound that should sound exactly like a gunshot, unless you make sure the player has an insane sound rig, and even then it would be very hard to get the sharpness of a real gunshot.
It will mostly just sound like a crackling mess.

So just as with graphics, you do it as best as you can, and do various "tricks" to compensate.

It's no longer strictly realistic, but it "feels" better, and can even feel more realistic then the alternative.
Well, if nothing else, I can just surf through a sound library of rifle sounds until I get a good approximation, then tweak to taste and crank the volume. As long as it doesn't sound too off, it shouldn't be a problem.


#5162256 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 11:22 PM

I guess there is no need to argue if it "doesn't fit the game design" or the "realism" your trying to recreate.


Good. Then let's not return to this.

But the reason for my non-sequitor is to push the point that the best way to show off the power of a ranged weapon is to show off the results of it's power.


See, you didn't tie it together, or thst might have made sense the first time.
 

Seems like all you have left is post effects. Blurring, fuzz the HUD, play with Z depth, etc. Given that you're using a ranged weapon you could look at the particles on the enemy as well, exploring the "pink mist" if you will.


Already mentioned this.

Best of luck with your modern shooter.


Okay. Now I'm pissed. Why do people assume every game with guns is automatically another fucking CoD clone? I'm really sick of this shit. Just because this game has guns does NOT mean it's another copy+paste ludicrously unrealistic, proudly jingoistic, blatantly racist hallway simulator with NO self-awareness for violent, paranoid, right-wing shut-ins with no capacity for higher reasoning. QUIT making that assumption. This is NOT a "modern shooter". This is a SURVIVAL game. I have SAID THIS already. I will NOT say it again.

I am not a gun expert myself, but I have fired a few. I feel that you have 3 options:

  • Go for impressive effect (more gamey, less realistic)
  • Go for realistic (you don't have much wiggle room for making it seem more powerful)
  • Make it feel the same, even if it isn't the same
The third option is a bit of a hybrid. The reason I say this is that even a high end computer can't replicate the experience of firing a gun. They are beyond loud. The sound and kick is very visceral. A direct recording will always seem weak. Soup up the sound and graphics beyond realism to the point where the weapon seems as powerful as the real thing. It's your choice where you want to make the compromises.

Or I can, maybe, get a recording of the real thing with echo, ( movie style, but it fits since you would get echo realistically out there) and crank the volume until it becomes alarmingly loud.

I think that's somewhere between #2 and #3.


#5162164 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 02:08 PM

I'm not coming from weapons firing experience, I'm coming from gaming and game design experience. Weapons that have a metallic sound in the games I've played sound heavier to me, as if the mechanism to move the ammo can be heard over the explosion it makes the gun seem just as powerful as the shot it fires and the added bass allows the player to feel the shot as much as hear it. The other way to go is the way of sounding like close by thunder for more energy based weapons.


The issue is, a lot of people have guns. They've fired guns. They know what a gun sounds like. It irks them to hear a gun making a sound that is very much not the sound of a gun.

And the actual sound made by most guns is awe-inspiring anyway, so if it's a gun why not stick with the sound it really makes?
 

As far as stun lock, the trick would be to blend movement with the hit animation (based on where the shot lands of course) then follow up with AI for the unit to find cover using a damaged state movement (like a desperate dash or a lifeless dive for cover). Its important that the timing between shots and the movement for a character to evade is well spaced to ensure pacing. If the weapon is meant to feel strong, then characters and environment should react appropriately to the weapons power. The numbers offered above seem useful if those are the animations you want to use. I've always hated the flinch animation most games use when characters get shot. When I unload a light automatic into an enemy and it does two or three flinch animations then a death animation, it drives me bonkers. I like to see characters(who still have an intact brain) think about the damage I just did to them and move appropriately to the pain and suffering I've cause by using such a sloppy weapon. Seems like every enemy in every game out there is morphed up and tweaking on adrenaline, its boring. I want to see the effects of my weapons and the only time I don't want to see it is when I've hit the mark. If I've done my job, the enemy crumples.

 
There's a lot here that just doesn't fit the kind of game this is. Killing enemies here takes time, the fights are longer and recovery from your injuries is so slow you can't even really consider it. Your enemies are dangerous for a long time, even after being fatally wounded, in much the way a real living thing it. You may, for instance, see a bear a hundred metres off, fatally wound it with your rifle, then get mauled to death by the dying animal before it bleeds out. In a less extreme (and much more likely, since a bear is a big fast clumsy thing that can't slow down or turn easy and is quite avoidable on foot, not to mention you have a full magazine if you have any sense) example, you might shoot a trog in the head with your pistol, then end up wrestling with it until the blood loss gets to it. This fundamentally changes how the game is designed, and how the animations really reflect what your doing should change with it.
 

With particle work, all that matters is that the player thinks it looks right. This will all depend on the weapons design. A couple games that really sell the "feel" of powerful weapons are Gears of War(obviously) and Warhammer Space Marine IMO. As for heat warble, smoke and the likes, each gun should be just as much a character in the game as the NPCs and enemies the player faces. Think about each gun and its history, give it meaningful interesting and useful quirks, even with the most standard weapons, it'll be worth it.

Every gun is already meant to be meaningfully different, but unlike Gears or Warhammer we can have have powerful and unique weapons that are NOT ridiculous.
 

As for knockback it depends on what the weapon's ammo(type) is doing against the type of surface its hitting. Obviously penetration is only going to create knockback if the character becomes mindful of the shot, possibly falling back after realizing they are beaten. But a few successive rifle shots against an armored target should push them back (especially if the shots are high). Even grazes and shots that connect with the shoulders should cause characters to reel back to A)create a smaller silhouette to land a second shot on and B)to inform the player of where the shot landed.


No. It. Doesn't. Any weapon with enough momentum to send somebody back at any significant speed would do just as much, realistically by far more, to its user. There is no push when hit with a bullet, even if it transfers every scrap of momentum, because if there was enough momentum for it to push a target the weapon would be unusable. Spreading it out over several shots doesn't make this any less ludicrous from a physics perspective. The ONLY weapons you could realistically knock people around with are melee weapons, and even then it's not likely since you'd need to throw enough momentum into a hit to knock an enemy down, and that means getting yourself moving pretty fast, which is hard to pull off since you telegraph your attack so far in advance no enemy could fail to get out of the way.
 

This is all just visual feedback. The character could flash red if you want but in the end the player needs to know they've connected their shot with the target and a knockback allows the pacing to change. As the player checks whether the shot has finished the job.


You seem to be neglecting just about everything about the game to make this argument for knockback. This doesn't fit at all. Knockback conflicts with the game's combat style, genre, tone and purpose. Knockback is flat-out wrong for this game in every sense. There's no way it benefits the game.
 

Key word in video games in my opinion is video. Successive images to depict movement. The more you explore movement and its meaning in your game the more you're exploring the element that separates video games from any other number crunching card, board, dice games, etc.


This is a complete non-sequitor.




#5162118 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 09:49 AM

 


And as a major fan of the Ak-47, and having shot it more than any other gun, it does not rattle. It's not a crappy little slapped-together piece of scrap metal, the only sounds are its shot and its (unusually loud and strange sounding) mechanism. It does sound a bit weird, but it certainly doesn't rattle.

 

Hehe, hope I didn't offend. I've just fired it once. The gun I mostly compare it to is the swedish AK5, and it has a lot more "solid" feel to the whole design.

Most of my gun experience is from the (at the time) mandatory military service in the swedish army.

 

 

I've spent time firing just about every major AK model. The Ak-47, AKM, Ak-74, Ak-101 and Ak-104 were the ones I remember by name, but there were others. Of them, the AKM was my favourite, but the Ak-104 was my second choice and the Ak-47 was still damned good. The Ak-74 was nice and light, basically no recoil either, but it couldn't stop a man if he was sedated beforehand and the Ak-101 is a bit heavier and not much better in power,




#5162071 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 06:29 AM

 


Gunshots do not sound metallic, they sound like bombs going off.

 

Just a tiny counter nitpick if we're going super realistic: Gunshots can sound pretty different for the shooter, then for anyone standing next to it in my limited experience...

I remember trying the m16 once, and all I could hear while shooting it was the spring in the stock... Made it sound like I was using a toy gun.

That combined with the plastic "toy" feel of it made me kind of loose my respect for it biggrin.png

 

But the same is true for anything I've fired (mostly military stuff), there is a lot of sounds from the mechanism mixed into the explosion sound.

Or just general rattle from every part of it, like for an ak47...

 

Though, I used ear protection of course...  quite a different thing without it.

 

But in any case, with this level of realism, I assume you just want to use actual high quality samples of the actual guns firing or some gun close to it in model.

 

I don't think you should go for trying to give people problems with hearing or neighbours by mixing the sound level too "relistic" in volume. Better then to simulate it in-game with reduced volume on atmospheric sound, ringing, blurry vision etc.

 

 

For a good example of, for example, what the Lee-Enfield rifle sounds like, here's what a No.4 Mk. II sounds like:

 

(Skip to 2:00 for the shooting. His second shot misses the metal target, that's the best example I can find.) Now, see, there's no metallic noise shooting a Lee-Enfield, and if you're not wearing hearing protection AND holding directly on to most rifles, you can't hear the mechanism over the blast. I know what you mean with the AR15, I had the same experience when shooting it, but when I wasn't the one firing it was impossible to hear the mechanism.

 

As for the volume, it's absolutely going to be extremely loud. Other sounds will be slightly muted in response, and to enhance the effect of the (actually quite limited volume) of the user's speakers, but it's going to be as loud as it can be. The player can use in-game hearing protection to help mitigate this, quieting all sounds somewhat and louder sounds by more, or they can just turn down the game's volume. As long as the first time they fire the gun it's loud enough to take them off-guard, the point has been made.

 

And as a major fan of the Ak-47, and having shot it more than any other gun, it does not rattle. It's not a crappy little slapped-together piece of scrap metal, the only sounds are its shot and its (unusually loud and strange sounding) mechanism. It does sound a bit weird, but it certainly doesn't rattle.




#5162053 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 22 June 2014 - 05:33 AM

Firing animation, sound fx, particals and enemy reaction animation to that weapons ammo type.

Don't get carried away. Enemy reactions have a big gameplay effect, this could easily lead to stun-locking if handled poorly.

The firing animation should show the gun has kick without giving the player much actual recoil even shaking the camera, the sound should be metallic with decent bass, the particles should clearly indicate the weapon is effected by firing (smoke, heat warble, muzzle flash, etc) and the weapons ammo type (which can apply to other weapons obviously) should trigger either good knock-back, penetration, gore, etc on the enemy units.

A few slight nitpicks:
Gunshots do not sound metallic, they sound like bombs going off.
Modern guns do not produce significant smoke.
No firearm can knock a target back, physics won't allow it. (Newton's third law.)
Gunshot wounds are small and really aren't that gory. I could show video if required.

I would prioritize enemy reaction animation, as its not as broad in scope in most games and was IMO what made old games like Golden Eye for N64 stand out and still does in modern games today. Its one thing to kill the enemy, but its good to have feedback for grazes, minor wounds, armor hits, debilitating hits, and major wounds to let the player know they missed the mark.

Again, you MUST keep this under control or you get stunlocking.

And here, how this works:
Enemies have a chance of flinching directly in proportion to the damage dealt. They also have a (way smaller) chance of staggering, a (way, way smaller) chance of falling down and a (way, way, way smaller) chance of passing out. I just did the math and found a .303 british round of standard in-game quality (modern powder) deals 253 damage against a typical low-level human, which is pretty good for a rifle, and has a 100% flinch chance, 25.3% stagger, 2.53% knockdown and 0.253% knockout against an NPC. The chances decrease more rapidly for a PC or special character, so 2.53% stagger, 0.025% knockdown, and 0% knockout. Location is important. Headshots, for instance, are different. (100%, 100%, 100% and 100% base for an NPC, 100%, 100%, 12.65% and 1.265% for a PC.) These are all base values, of course, there's more to it than that, such as adrenalin and the target's stats, and they'll actually end up much lower most of the time.

Enemies also have their stats reduced by wounds, as well, through limb damage, health loss and a couple minor things. Every 25% of a limb's health lost also triggers a status effect, shows damage and changes animations, as does every 5% of their health score. So an enemy shot in the knee will hobble around, losing speed, stability and control, and as enemy that's bled out half their health is slow, weak and liable to fall down and be unable to get back up.

Make sense?


#5161987 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 21 June 2014 - 06:13 PM

I would say that the impression of the weapon is very important. I forget which game it was, but I read an article about how they had a weapon that was underused because people felt it was underpowered, but the problem was audio only. They just increased the bass and it was good to go.

 

Yeah, I hear about that kind of thing a lot. That's the main part I already took into account.




#5161972 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 21 June 2014 - 03:35 PM

If a weapon has range you could put a visor on it to make that more clear to a player.

You could also make it bigger so it will feel more powerfull(yes, two l's) if you insist, but it seems less usefull to me.

 

Putting a visor on the weapon is impractical and ridiculous.

 

Bigger weapons are impractical, these are realistically sized and practically designed, these are weapons that are specifically designed so they'd work quite well if you had them in the real world and many of them are quite real. The first rifle you can find is a Lee-Enfield Mk.4. Not an early production model, a collector's model from the 1980s, but it's the same gun where it counts. Mostly stock, no scope, not in the best shape after sitting out unmaintained by a night stand for twenty years, and you only get 30 rounds for it when you first find it, but it's still a very good rifle.

 

Oh, and I was spelling powerful correctly.

 

Make range actually useful. Players will pick the most potent weapon for the situation, not just the most numerically powerful.

That said, for faking it, graphics and particle effects and sounds. Players that aren't playing the most optimum weapon and going to be playing the coolest weapon. Make the shots sound strong, make the tracers gorgeous, make the impact have impact.

 

Range is already very useful in this game. The range of these weapons gets pretty ridiculously long, maybe even longer than the real thing since the game lacks a lot of the atmospheric factors that foul a real weapon's flight path. Since this game (a survival game) has huge outdoor sections, you'll usually be able to spot enemies from however far your draw range can afford to be, easily hundreds of metres and possibly over a kilometre. (Have fun hitting anything at that range. Seriously, go ahead and try. The round will go that far, but with travel time, air resistance, drop and wind, you probably won't hit your target.) This game has wounding, so an enemy that you've hit is weaker than one you haven't, and it has bleed, so they'll keep getting weaker. An enemy eight hundred metres away with most weapons (if they have a weapon at all, most enemies here are animals of some sort) is no threat to you, and if you put a hole in their chest from that distance, multiple holes if required, they'll bleed out before they stand any chance of reaching you or even getting in range for most weapons.

 

I did get the notion that the muzzle blast should be very clearly visible, kick up snow and dust and the like, and leave a bright spot in a viewer's eyes for a short period. The report should be loud enough to send a player scrambling for the volume button the first time they fire it, and come with a reduction in sound volume and ringing after firing to simulate tinnitus. Hitting a target should produce a convincing wound graphic and a more genuine blood splatter (real splatter from a gunshot has pink bits in it, that's flesh coming off) and with a rifle likely come out the back of the target more than the front as the rifle travels clear through a target. The ability of the rifle to punch through objects (yay, more flying bits) is a realistic, practical thing, but it also makes a weapon feel very powerful, especially when you're on the receiving end and you thought you were safe behind a wall or whatever else can't actually stop a rifle round. (In the case of a typical, modern plaster wall, it won't even seriously slow it.)

 

And we don't use tracers. Nobody should be using tracers in this game. There's no call for tracers.




#5161918 Making a weapon feel powerful.

Posted by JustinS on 21 June 2014 - 08:29 AM

I've been playing games for a long time now, and I've noticed a lot of weapons in a lot of games "feel" very powerful or very weak when they actually aren't. Halo's brute shot, for instance, feels very powerful but testing reveals it to actually be fairly weak compared to the other weapons. Meanwhile, most of Fallout 3's weapons feel shamefully weak, even many of the ones that are actually pretty strong upon inspection. I get some of it, like sound and visual effects, but I'm certain there's something I'm missing.

 

I want to make sure all the weapons in my game feel as powerful as they possibly can, especially the ones that aren't especially damaging, so that players won't abandon useful weapons. I don't want them, for instance, throwing away their rifle in favour of a (legitimately more damaging) melee weapon, because that rifle has a lot of useful properties (like, you know, range) that many other, more damaging weapons don't.

 

So I thought the best way to do that would be by making the rifle, and all other low-mid damage weapons, feel as powerful as possible. What are some good, general ways to make a weapon feel very powerful without changing its practical effect on the target?




#5137252 Quantifying insanity.

Posted by JustinS on 07 March 2014 - 09:10 PM

It's fairly clear to me that you've put a lot more thought and [research? personal experience?] into the fine points of this mechanic than the average forum reader, so I'm not sure if you're going to gain much defending your ideas against the superficial criticisms we can provide.

That's not why I'm doing this. I put up the forum post hoping that the community would notice something Jeremy and I missed.

EDIT:
And there's no personal experience, but my ex's family suffers from stress-triggered dissociation. My ex's little sister especially tends to see her dead father when she's stressed out.

Nevertheless, here is my superficial criticism: it seems like you haven't made a clear distinction between the "real" mental health of the avatar and the perceived mental health of the player.

If I have a lot of concrete statistics to manage and specific rules and interactions to consider, along the lines of a pen and paper rpg, then I expect to be loosely bound to my avatar. I get plenty of information (more than he would reasonably have access to, e.g. his precise level of healthiness) but my means of acting on that information are mediated by the rules of the game and his current state. A crazy avatar, in this sort of game, might do things I don't expect.

On the other hand, if I am forced to perceive things exactly as the avatar does, then I would expect to be more tightly bound to my avatar (there should be relatively few cases where I don't have control) but at the cost of my unrealistic introspection with respect to statistics. In this sort of game, I would not expect my avatar to go crazy, so much as the game to try to convince me that I was crazy.

Both could be enjoyable games. In the past, I've played survival games that hewed towards either side (not with respect to mental health, just in general), and enjoyed them. But a sort of middle ground option might easily get confusing.

The issue here is that I can't account for how deep in character the player is. If they're deep in character a few hints of failing sanity will push them into the realm of madness. (As they, for example, have their character rush up the stairs into their attic with a gun, searching for the source of an imaginary creaking sound.) If they don't get into character at all, there is no amount of effort on my part that will get them to behave like a crazy person. This mechanic is really just some non-standard encounters and interface screws. It relies on player immersion to be any more than that.

As for the amount of information, all information in this game is skill-dependent. (For instance, medicine determines health information.) The speech skill determines how much information you have on your mental health and emotions. Only at 100 speech do you actually get a number. The rest of the time you rely on descriptive words.


#5137155 Quantifying insanity.

Posted by JustinS on 07 March 2014 - 11:20 AM

Okay, so one of my teammates sent me a list of features he wants to include in our sandbox survival game. One of them is a "dissociation" meter that measures the player character's detachment from reality and controls the frequency and strength of in-game hallucinations. Personally, I think trying to quantify insanity is going to be difficult and we'll need some help with this, so here we are. I'm not sure where we really need help with this, but here's what we've got so far.

The scale is 0-10000, and as it increases you have a higher chance of having certain hallucinations, these hallucinations become stronger, and once you pass certain thresholds you begin seeing newer, crazier hallucinations. For instance, with the rules he sent me, at 200 you have a 20% chance of seeing ghosts on a number of cues, and at 2000 you start occasionally seeing shoggoths when you try to sleep. The maximum is 10000.

Increasing dissociation:
Starvation and dehydration cause dissociation in the (obviously already quite unhinged) player, but not much.
Sleep deprivation and low will cause dissociation in the player, and quite a bit of it.
Some psychoactive drugs (especially alcohol) increase dissociation.
Some enemies cause auditory and/or visual hallucinations and increase dissociation.
Anti-psychotics (iloperidone, asenapine) leave you more dissociated after they wear off.
Killing other living things, to varying degrees, increases dissociation.

Decreasing dissociation:
Dissociation does not decrease during normal gameplay, but using the wait/rest/sleep feature decreases it slowly.
Anti-psychotics (iloperidone, asenapine) decrease your dissociation a massive amount temporarily, but they are counter-productive in the long term, are addictive and have nasty side effects. (If there's an elder thing standing by your bed you should probably just take the damn pills and make it go away. You can worry about your long-term mental health when you're NOT having an episode.)
Some psychoactive drugs (NOT alcohol) decrease dissociation in the long run, although they usually increase it in the short term.


#5115169 Tricking the player

Posted by JustinS on 07 December 2013 - 12:43 PM


Games are fun. And what could be more fun than a guilt trip? Yay!

 

This kind of thinking is what has been holding our medium back since its inception.




#5089535 Competitive/cooperative multiplayer shooter/RPG/RTS/Vehicle sim. (I know that...

Posted by JustinS on 27 August 2013 - 10:09 AM

You may need something to keep the 'out' players with something to do. Its often the most boring thing in the world to watch other people play while you are waiting (and depending on the sims reality you dont want them watching/spying from in-game positions where communications breaks the visibility/hidden movement mechanics of the game)


Well, thanks for that bit of wisdom. (Maybe there was something in that mead afterall.)

When they watch, they do so through the eyes of their team-mates and (if applicable) allied bots. They can't see anything their team can't see, except for what the bots are seeing. (Which yes, they can relay, just like the bots would if they were actually people.)

During this time, they can also ready their next character (if in a match that allows them) and read the database, or go through that match's footage. This splits the screen, so they can still watch the current events while replaying footage, reading database entries (and annotating them, if they so choose) or, if allowed, prepping their next character. Clans will LOVE this feature, by the way.

If they're out of good, they can also leave without leaving any party they may be on, and go spend time on the menu. They'll be notified when the party finishes their game and when entering the lobby again they'll be back with their party. (Or they can just take a keyboard shortcut.)

If none of that works, go get yourself lunch, or at least sone more coffee. That always helps.




PARTNERS