Malygris on 30/7/2005 at 15:56
I have no problem with XP being awarded for monster-killing, it just seems a bit ridiculous when it's the only way experience can be gained. It's especially goofy when you consider non-fighter classes; a wizard should gain more XP researching magic schools or experimenting with potions than for being in the same room in which a mob is killed.
What I'd like to see (not necessarily in this game, but in a more generic sense) is XP awarded for the first few times a monster is encountered and killed, and then significantly decreased XP after that. The first time you meet a new monster and manage to kill it, it's a whole new experience and you learn something from it - experience. The second and third times, you put that newly-acquired knowledge to use, refining your technique for handling the creature - more experience. But after four or five kills, maybe a half-dozen or whatever, it's all become rather old hat, so the XP rewarded is either greatly dimished, or removed entirely.
The problem is that the monster-killing XP system works. It's primitive and rather senseless, but it's been around forever, it's easy to implement, and people are familiar with it. It's a lot easier to assign a fixed XP value for every monster in the game (with an adjust for the player's level, maybe) and leave it at that; it's much more difficult to predict every possible approach a player could take to every given situation, and apply an XP value to it, especially when you're talking about one guy handcrafting his own game. It also puts a serious crimp in any plans for significant randomization, not a bad thing in my eyes, but definitely a downer if it's part of his plan.
SalaciousCrumb on 31/7/2005 at 06:28
Concerning the Randomisation:
Maybe you could build some versions of the important areas and the game picks out one of them at the start of a new game. The other areas could be randomised as planned.
Some things could eventually prevent the maps from looking too generic:
1. You could define certain structures which only appear once in the game. Maybe a grave with an inscription or a painting on a wall. This would also help the player orientate.
2. It would be nice if the map generator could handle different themes.
For example a crypt labyrinth would be confusing but a gold mine maybe more systematically built.
Personally I think respawning is good to give the player experience points if he needs it. It should be the players decision how difficult he wants the game to be. An experienced player could advance quicker in the deeper dungeons.
Hmm...do you already have you NPCs/Enemies or do you need suggestions?
Anyways:
Swamplings - Green lizardlike slim creatures about 4 ft tall. They are friendly and sometimes a bit annoying when they invite you to "tasty" swamp-soup.
(This is stolen from "Simon the Sorcerer")
Indiana Jones "Ghosts" - Remember the things that flew out of the Ark in "Raiders of the lost Ark"? I would like to see these things as strong ghosts...maybe coming out of a special grave. First they look like nice and beautiful women but then...
Minotaurs
Bats (Useful in dark corners to shock the player, fly by and give little damage)
Cavebears
Armadillos
Skulls (Lie in corners...they speak to you if you try to pick them up then they bite if you don't leave them alone)
Scarecrow-like puppets
A Poltergeist(Enemies are things like chairs and paintings then...whatever is in the room)
Worms that come out of holes in the walls(Explanation for respawn)
Big Eyes with batwings, a sick experiment of a sinister mage...
The Pigeon People: Bird-like creatures(capable of human language) which had to go into the dungeon for some reasons.
Golems which represent the elements:
Firegolem - Sets you on fire. Heals through fire attack and close to lava/fire.
Airgolem - Flies through you and attacks from behind
Earthgolem - Damage resistance. Attacks push you away and do additional damage if a wall is in the way.
Watergolem - Rises again and again from the puddle if the remains are not combined with a sponge...
Maybe this world even has another set of elements/principles...?
Example: Shadow and Light (Fitting for an underworld)
Or: Harmony(Music...other art, peaceful), Mind(Magic, logical thinking, conservatively), Chaos(Destruction but also free thought)
Hard to think of anything good as you see.
To improve the credibility of your game it would be nice to know how the folks in your dungeon survive. Maybe some neutral creatures could be implemented such as farm animals (Milk giving armadillos?) or there could be plants that grow without sunlight. A garden near a civilisation with these plants in it would be nice.
Can't think of more.
Woodmanzee on 1/8/2005 at 00:24
Don't anybody get too offended, now...
The level-up system is old hat. It may be simple and effective, but it's been used far too many times to be truly interesting anymore. It's a throwback from when RPGs were played with dice and sheets of paper. Complicated though D&D mechanics might have seemed - they were still crude, designed deliberately to simplify gameplay so that it didn't seem like so much of a maths lesson.
There's still some life in flat XP, but let's face it - "original" is a word that rarely springs to mind anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the feeling of attaining the next level and spending my points, etc. but I feel that as these kind of computer games become more realistic and subtle, they should rely less on presenting hard figures and more on giving the player the "feeling" that they are advancing.
It's still important to know how many arrows are in your quiver, but is it really important to know exactly how many numerical points of "experience" you need before you can improve your character? (You shouldn't know, really.)
(How should I know that after I shoot that goblin I'll be able to suddenly increase my body's muscle mass, or make a bigger fireball??)
Why not just leave the big boring numbers to the computer? You can still choose what skills to train at, but your status display could maybe just tell you when you're ready instead. Or if you think you're ready but aren't, the combat trainer will beat you senseless. You'd still get experience from that, though.
When computers handle the math, players are free to concentrate on instinctive gameplay.
Innovation may not guarantee total success, but in my view it's preferable to the old stick-in-the-mud strategy of "go with what you know". That only produces more of the same old stuff.
Many games are remembered for their unique and original feature(s), whether quirky and troublesome or not.
I understand perfectly that aspects of the game need to be simple and you want to make a game that people will want to play, but how simple is too simple? How original is not original enough?
Not to say you aren't doing a grand job anyway!
Thanks for getting back about some of my ideas, I appreciate it. :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote Posted by Malygris
I've always loved the idea of alchemy, and of combining objects to make other, more complex devices (like the fishing pole you mentioned) and I've also almost never made use of either. It's one of those things that, for me, sounds brilliant as a concept, and just falls flat in actual gameplay.
I'm afraid I have to totally disagree.
A system of non-essential interactive objects can make a game come to life more and become a more holistic gaming experience. Sit down, put your sword away and catch some fish. If you don't want to, then don't. It gives the player the OPTION. Take options out of gameplay and it runs the risk of becoming lifeless and boring.
Quote Posted by Spitter
Yes! I hate games where you are allowed other options besides just killing the bad guys -
Priceless!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
About experience from skills you practice more of:
Anyone played "Iter Vehems ad Necem"? (
http://ivan.sourceforge.net/) - that has a system that advances your basic skills automatically (a bit like U8 but more complex)and also in the types of weapon you use more. I think it works. The game has a wide, interesting system of interactive objects, worth a look.
In Fable, you mostly get "general" XP to spend on any ability, but the XP from "practicing" certain skills is small in comparison. It is balanced well, and I think it is one of the best XP based character systems I have played with.
Malygris on 1/8/2005 at 03:51
I'm all for innovation as well, but sometimes life goes smoother if you stick with what works. My rationale is this: if we have Bioware working on their latest RPG, then I expect to see something new; if we have Mr. McOwnage and his one-man show putting together an RPG entirely on his own, and attempting to come up with something in the league of Underworld to boot, then perhaps attempting to re-write the XP/level system isn't the best idea. He may have other ideas. He may absolutely hate the old XP-based system, and maybe he's already got a plan to completely re-design how characters will advance. But if not, and if his resources are as limited as I'm guessing they are (which isn't meant as an insult, simply a comment on the fact that we're talking about one guy here) then he has to focus on what's important. I'd rather see that effort put into plot, character development, and the overall depth and immersiveness of the story, rather than on one aspect of the game's design mechanics.
The same basically holds true for the alchemy/object building idea. It's a relatively minor point that, to my way of thinking, is much less a priority than other aspects of the game.
None of this is to say that I wouldn't like to see both of these features implemented. A new and revolutionary character advancement system would rock my nads, and buildable objects would certainly add flavour. I would just hate to see the game get bogged down in things like unnecessary design complications.
I suppose the question we should all be asking is, is it the author's intent to redesign mechanics like experience, or is he looking more to tell a good story within pre-established systems?
Shadowcat on 1/8/2005 at 04:17
There's a rather important aspect of the 'classical' XP/level aspect of RPG that I feel is being overlooked. While it's very unrealistic, it's actually kinda fun.
As players of a game it's nice to attain goals. Leveling-up is enjoyable because you have achieved a new goal and suddenly you get this rare opportunity to select new abilities or powers for your character which will change the way you play the game. That's exciting! And knowing the target XP for your next level gives you something concrete to aim for, which is arguably better than having the level sprung upon you.
So while it makes no sense in terms of believability that you suddenly cross a threshold and become significantly stronger or more agile, as a game mechanic it's not half bad.
Tony on 3/8/2005 at 23:03
This is a fascinating project, and looks very good. I get nostolgic about text based games, so I'll definitely give this a go.
My only advice is make a good combat system! This was Arx's second worst problem. Arx's worst problem was that gameplay was not sustained; if you stuck around long enough, you ran out of things to do. Your randomization and respawn idea should fix that one.
But back to the combat system! This is vital; no matter how good the story, atmosphere, sound, and architecture, themselves indispensible, the game will suffer greatly if the combat system stinks. Arx failed here; being a warrior was horribly irritating. Fortunately, the magic system saved it. Thief did much better with the combat system. Indeed, Thief's combat system was the best I have ever seen, although it was, in the famous words of the developers, rather lame. All sword games have a bad combat system, for some reason. Have not any of the developers ever swung around a good replica?
I recommend going with a combat system similar to Thief's, only a little more complex. How I've always wanted to see it is that while holding down the mouse button, your mouse movements control swings. Although this might be too advanced for a game like this if the swings were calculated in real time like in Die By the Sword, it could be implemented without real time physics by using three or four preset swings (left, right, over, under) which are then selected depending on your mouse movements while the button is held. It would be much the way Arx's sword swing directions rely on your movement at the time of mouse clicking and Thief's rely on your facing in regards to the target. A stab option would also be nice, possibly obtained by clicking and holding the mouse without moving it.
The pace is also important. Both Thief and Arx were a little slow for sword combat. Actually, Thief was nearly spot on, but the overhead took way too long. Really, the whole idea of "charging" blows for more damage is not a good one at all. Damage should rely on area hit, statistics, and possibly a random factor.
Shadowcat on 4/8/2005 at 01:48
I'll just note again that a lot of general first-person mêlée combat discussion occurred in (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67956&page=1) this thread, and it might be useful if the same discussion didn't overwhelm this thread? (Not that a single post constitutes overwhelming, but the previous discussion showed how many opinions there are on the subject, so I'm getting in early :)
I might split that earlier thread into a more (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99030) generic combat discussion.
Malygris on 4/8/2005 at 05:10
It should also be noted that if you experienced sword combat in Thief, you were playing it wrong. ;)
Tony on 4/8/2005 at 17:40
It should also be noted that if you slaughtered the entire population of Arx repeatedly, you were playing it wrong. Still, we all do it every so often!
No, really, I play Thief as a nice guy. I just have to kill Mechanists. Genocidal maniacs and I don't coexist in any mission.
