Greatak

Member
  • Content count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

120 Neutral

About Greatak

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Removing NPC economy.

    You don't lose control. You need to use different control mechanisms. You get all the tools of real governments, which in some cases are great at controlling markets. But you also get complete control over the world. Iron is too expensive? You can arbitrarily make more mines.   Solely operating on bartering is messy. There's a reason why the world doesn't work this way. Depending on the game, you could have lots of people who just aren't online at any given time. Some sort of 'NPC-run' shop which just services player transactions, while providing no materials would be extremely useful, I'd think, in keeping a large market going when you don't have tons of people online at any given moment.
  2. Removing NPC economy.

    *cough cough* Has anyone mentioned EVE? They're as close as I know to something like this. NPC merchants are usually unrealistically expensive. While most purchasing is on it's surface, like an NPC transaction. Players decide what stuff they want to sell and set a price and quantity. Others can then buy this. There's a trade skill, I forget what it's called, that changes how far away you can market your buy/sell orders, only inside the system, or within the region or everywhere. This also introduces logistical concerns. When you buy things, they don't show up in your inventory, they're just earmarked for you in whatever station the seller left it in. Then you have to go pick it up. There's a whole slough of players who do little more than act as interstellar UPS drivers, hauling people's goods across the universe.   You would control prices of things the same way the real world controls them, however you get to pick how easy it is to make things and how easy the materials are to come by. Starter gear needs to be produced by a large number of people with cheap materials. These expiration date mechanics are not implemented in EVE and their economy functions just fine. There is attrition of components because ships can be destroyed, and ammunition is used, but this isn't an essential mechanic. Just as in the real world, some things are durable and others are not. You shouldn't arbitrarily have durable goods become perishable just because you want a fluid economy. It sort of ruins the sense of achievement that comes from finally acquiring x thing, when that thing will just fall apart in a few weeks. Without an object of desire, economies will stagnate eventually as well.   The key to 'fixing' relative prices, I would guess is complexity. That's why mundane things are expensive. Your television commands a high price compared to bread not because plastic and silicon are rarer than wheat, but because it's much harder to make a television. With a properly implemented system of crafting, the balance should come from that, things you want to be rare, make them hard to make. Raw materials should be relatively universal, so limiting them in that regard is troublesome. People don't want to mine magnetite vs. hematite, they want iron. Don't make resource gathering too tedious and annoying. There's little entertainment value in mining or farming, that should be relatively easy. The transformation of those materials is where people invest their attentions and energies, they should get a reward for that.   Also, I would recommend against implementing strict castes. Maybe make crafting classes, so certain players can only make certain kinds of items, but don't restrict their ability to do other things in the game. Combat shouldn't be exclusively classed apart from crafting, it gets boring that way.
  3. Like I said, I consider things like bladewitches out of Call of Duty to be abuse of bugs. Especially in the case where a lot of them were using an actual bug when the care package thing let you run much faster. Or the fairly common FPS oversight to make shotguns perform like overpowered rifles. I'm using bug in a more generalized sense though of 'unexpected gameplay' rather than just the narrow game-breaking interpretation. I'm just personally strongly opposed to gimicky games where the experience feels, well, stupid. It's much more fun, in my opinion, when things happen differently every time rather than spamming the same trick over and over. Many RTS's are also guilty of these sorts of design oversights, where one or two factions have a vastly superior rush strategy that turns every game into the exact same rush, over and over. Such things make PVP into a boring experience, with all the same problems as AI enemies doing repetitive things.
  4. Seems to me that there's an awful lot of gear-bashing going on here. These complaints about how fights ought to have pre-set gear to 'level the playing field' is a bit like taking away any classes special powers, or only lettings fights occur on flat terrain with no obstacles. Gearless combat isn't 'pure skill' because choosing and acquiring gear is its own skill. It should go without saying that special gear that is purchased or something like that isn't quite the same, but if everyone has the same capacity to acquire the gear, there's no reason to bash gear in terms of skill level. If you want to run naked into battle, that's your own choice. It doesn't mean the other person isn't fighting fair for having better armor. Appropriate balancing of gear is essential, but balanced does not mean having no advantages.   However, back to the topic, PVP is only marginally more satisfying to me merely from a challenge standpoint. Against other people, you're roughly on the same level, combat becomes a challenge. Usually, PVE is designed so that the player can win. Maybe not easily, but losing isn't often what games are designed to make us do. This is why PVP tends to be more thrilling, there's a challenge, a risk of losing and more often than not, you lose because you get beat, not just because you did something stupid.   PVP needs to be carefully designed though. I absolutely hate games with unexpected gameplay in that regard. Call of Duty is notorious for this. I expect some sort of military simulator and I get people sprinting around with overpowered shotguns and bladewitches. Win or lose, CoD never feels very satisfying because it's too jarring, I have to spend my time playing an entirely different game countering what I consider to be abuses of bugs. The combat experience of a game ought to feel like it fits with the rest of the experience. Halo is a little better at this. Still some weird, obnoxious tactics, but they fit more into the tone of the game. You're a super soldier, of course you could just jump onto the jet and hijack it. However, none of this is exclusive to PVP, a carefully balanced PVE experience, where enemies pose a real challenge can be equally satisfying, even if you can't abuse psychology to do so.   Personally, I prefer immersive environments. PVE is almost always immersive because the game gets total control over everything and I'm in the mindset of being there. PVP is almost never immersive because people care less about playing a game and more about flat out winning. This is where abuse of bugs and so forth comes in because they don't care if they're being a dumbass, they won. PVP is only preferable to me when it's light-hearted, pointless competition. If players don't care about the outcome, then it becomes more enjoyable because there's less... manhandling the engine to do odd, unexpected things, which I personally find to be the biggest killer among PVP experiences. However, a robust engine might be able to prevent that.
  5. Non-Command Role in Squad

    It would be at least as entertaining as any other FPS. Killing people seems to go over well. I'm not proposing redefining the genre, just adding a new mechanic.
  6. Non-Command Role in Squad

    Presumably, venturing too far from the mission zone would trigger some sort of mission abort, or your commander could come looking for you. Maybe if you go too far, your mates go hostile and hunt you down. Or the old fallbacks of arbitrary walls or just totally vacant uninteresting surroundings too far from the battlespace. Increasingly frequent enemy spawns could deter you as well. Too far and you get absolute zergrushed by enemies, with some sort of notice about 'maybe we shouldn't go that way' when you respawn. Most FPSes have that part figured out. Commonly you're free to do whatever you want, the level just only advances if you go through objectives. Mortars, nothing to do, arbitrarily killing you, that kind of thing would work fine.
  7. Non-Command Role in Squad

    Err, I was talking about single player, though the karma system could potentially be applied to multiplayer. Definitely could in a comp-stomp style game, but it would take some work to make it work with player enemies. And what you described is the exact opposite of what I was getting at. Games with squad mechanics always make the player the boss. I was suggesting an attempt to let the player not be the boss. How being a subordinate might be able to work with the incentive to choose a non-boss role as getting to do the 'fun' things like sniping and blowing things up and all the stuff that people like to do in games, at the expense of getting ordered around through the game. Orders you could ignore, but at a cost. A game where you're not the team-leader, nor are you a completely independent man with a gun. Every FPS I've ever played has fallen into one of those two categories.   It could be said that being bossed around isn't fun, but that's why each character's skillset would be somewhat limited to encourage different choices and playstyles.   And you already have to make AI for the NPC teammates. The 'extra' bits of work is just also having an AI for the leader as well, This could be simplified by keeping the commander off-point, only ever providing cover fire or whatever, making his AI roughly similar to the standard enemy. The only additional parts are the command interface. And this wouldn't be too differently from how the enemy chooses where to stand and fight from. The only significant difference would be that instead of just making an NPC take that position, the player would just be told.
  8. So, thinking back over all the games I've seen  that employed a squad mechanic of some sort where the characters are relevant, command has never been a viable role. Squads are always full of specialities: snipers, engineers, hackers, heavy gunners, rocketeers, pilots, a plethora of specializations. Sometimes a stock soldier exists, but there's rarely any point to play as them. And what's worse, even with the auspices of military organization in a huge number of games, rarely do they actually implement command as a gameplay mechanic. Either objectives are assigned and progress is prohibited if order aren't followed, or orders given are totally pointless and you're free to do whatever you want.   The idea I was tossing about was to introduce a command role, and give it a real point. Just for a bit of context, the setting involved essentially a 3 man mercenary squad, in which I wanted to emphasize each character being a proper character, not an extra gun for you to boss around. So we give the player a choice between these three people, who fall into a few tropes. A sniper, an engineer and a leader. The idea was that each character had their sphere of action, and the leader, instead of a big gun or a mortar strike or anything like that, would get freedom. The commander is free to choose how to approach objectives, which objectives to approach in the first place and when he issues commands to his subordinates, they will be followed.   However, the part I haven't seen implemented before was what might happen if you chose to be the sniper or engineer. They don't get freedom. Objectives are selected by the leader and they're ordered to positions and commanded to perform actions, which the player will have to carry out. The player is of course free to to ignore those commands, if they think there's a better way to do it. But breaking rank would have consequences in a soft karma system. If you run off and choose a sniping roost the leader didn't point you to, there'd be higher chance to get flanked and attacked from behind because you're not somewhere your mates can cover. Or consequently, you might be in the wrong place to cover your mates and they can get injured/killed because you prioritized killing enemies over protecting your mates. Following orders would get greater help from your mates like calling out targets better, or pointing you towards a loot cache they noticed. Even such responses as making the enemies smarter: Thugs often might not know how to tell where a sniper shot came from and duck inefficiently, but a renegade sniper would find his targets hiding better, or being more alert.   Just food for thought, trying to spread some ideas I've been tossing around, feel free to discuss and/or implement.