Idea for next class-based team-play PC shooter

(deems) #1

So, if you lot do decide to do another ET style game for PC (and I hope that you do). I had a little idea that I thought would add to game play in pub and pro…

It’s small and simple:

Currently, during a construct / disarm / hack objective, the player just sits there holding a button down while a timer ticks down for a few seconds. You either are killed during that time, or you’re not, and your hack / construct was successful. Instead of just a timer ticking down, what about some sort of 2D mini-game, so that the amount of time it takes is partially influenced by skill as well… Instead of a construct objective always taking e.g., 30 seconds of time – if you have someone that’s really good at the construct objective mini-game, it might take only 20 seconds…and if some one’s really not good at it, it could take 45 seconds. Or maybe they’d die in the process.

A disarm objective might involve cutting the right wires in the right order as fast as possible. Wrong wire = death.
A hack objective might involve a tangram puzzle.
A construct objective might involve…welding pieces in a straight line – can’t go too fast or its a bad weld…

Anyway, maybe it wouldn’t work – but it might a fun way to have another part of the game involve skill and might introduce more excitement while at the objective “S***! S***! S***!!! I have to do this quick!!!”

What do you think?

Cheers,
Deems

(altonherry01) #2

Nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing these information. Keep it up. :stroggbanana: :penguin:

(tokamak) #3

(YouAreGood) #4

Once you have some immanent “system” or “technology” for the game’s “culture”, you can fit all that stuff into its mechanics.

It would be wickedly fun as more psychological factors would play with us all in the game, making it deeper and giving some additional tools to both defenders and attackers. Well, it could go even further out from ones mind, and make enemies able to not only distract but also make things harder in many ways - as the mechanics would be really part of the game, well - its basis.

Now - what do I mean, when I say mechanics? Simply something logical behind that the explosive charge will explode just because it is explosive charge - it should have some logical way of performing that leads to an explosion. When we have got say water purifier(fallout 3 :P) it would not be just triggered to be… or not to be out there, but could operate on some lower lever mechanics, so you can plan a charge better or worse, and destroy it not only totally or not at all, but makes it require some thinking and tactics (better plant spot can be harder to use(place exposed to enemy fire, for example). Disarming - why only total and zero? Why won’t we be able to disarm only some portion of the combined charges - again: easier than full disarm, maybe in terms of the minigame difficulty level…

En fin de la compte: Making that kind of game is likely easy(as easy as programming in sky-high lever language) when we base the game on the given mechanics first. Having a facility with many functional elements to defend is much more fun than simply defending single place, where you can just camp and feel free to wait idle(camping) for the timeout… but… and it is very important problem - how many ppl have IQ high enough to find that sort of game interesting and not too complicated? Well, its a question similar to the one: How many ppl can recognize, that you need to plug your water boiler to the electricity source before you can turn it on… Its fairly natural that things work in some particular way, unlike in ancient(after ETQW II release it would then be ancient style) games where things works because they do and “just stop asking questions”. Objective looks different after being completed and team is further but… no other difference is there, so it feels unnatural or at least purposeless.

I’m writing too much… with my poor english it must be some sort of serious obstacle… thanks god we now got the SPACE for defeating any sort of terrain…

(Breo) #5

I saw a nice feature in another game that balance the skills a bit by dynamic health points I’ve changed a bit of the idea but it’s similar to this:

+2 health for every death to max. +10 but resets to default as soon the player get a kill
-2 health for every kill to max. -10 to make it more challenging for the skilled players

What do you think of this?

(SockDog) #6

[QUOTE=Breo;408443]I saw a nice feature in another game that balance the skills a bit by dynamic health points I’ve changed a bit of the idea but it’s similar to this:

+2 health for every death to max. +10 but resets to default as soon the player get a kill
-2 health for every kill to max. -10 to make it more challenging for the skilled players

What do you think of this?[/QUOTE]

I’m all for ways to balance skill rather than rely on matchmaking. You could also just give people the option to take a handicap for kudos or when joining a server with lower skilled/experienced players. Not sure if that would open a can of worms though, would people take a handicap and then just die a lot more and so be less effective for their team?

(tokamak) #7

[QUOTE=Breo;408443]I saw a nice feature in another game that balance the skills a bit by dynamic health points I’ve changed a bit of the idea but it’s similar to this:

+2 health for every death to max. +10 but resets to default as soon the player get a kill
-2 health for every kill to max. -10 to make it more challenging for the skilled players

What do you think of this?[/QUOTE]

That’s incredibly perverse. You’re rewarding failure on an individual level. On a team-wide level it’s okay, but on an individual level it means it’s open to exploitation.

How does this work? A lemming player is going to make sure he’s going die as often as possible and doing his utter best not to kill anyone so he becomes more effective at his lemming tactic. +20 hp on each try is an amazing advantage. This is so useful that it’s going to be used in professional matches as well.

On the -2 for every kill. Suddenly players will have to start to consider whether killing an opponent is a good thing or not. Is the target in your sights really worth receiving a lower max hp penalty for? They will feel doubt and will constantly have to consider whether their opponents have enough priority.

And does it stay that way indefinitely or does it reset? If it resets then dying starts to matter less when you’re on a killing spree. You’re running out of health, out of ammo, out of pips, suddenly you’re just done for and so you can just die in peace. That’s no fun. You want dying to become less desirable the longer a player stays alive and the more he does. COD works like a charm in this respect. Whatever you think about the killstreak awards, they DO get you completely worked up when that @#$!& kills you right before you get your amazing toy. Same in TF2, that Demoman’s eyelander makes you faster and stronger with every kill you make with that sword. Getting all six kills makes you incredibly powerful but it’s very hard work to get there. Once you’re on it, you’re on a rush, your life becomes incredibly valuable because dying means having to start from scratch again. Suddenly you find yourself going out of your way not to die, you’re going to have to face incredibly difficult deciscions when suddenly the risk of losing your precious head collection gets in the way of securing the objective.

So my advice is, use these negative feedbacks on failure and success on a team-wide scale (I already gave one with the xp difference between teams skewing the amount of xp people on each team earn) but turn it around on an individual scale. On an individual scale people need to grow stronger with each successful move and let it reset upon death. That causes a lot of tension and makes the game all the more exciting and addicting, it truly is an emotional thing.

(Breo) #8

Maybe your right but rewarding was not the intention it’s more like to help or make the game more challenging for the experienced/skilled players:

A player is new or bad at aiming he died 5x without having a chance to get a kill, he has +10 health to give this player more chance to survive. It works like a chain if he get a kill in the meantime the health reset to 100 or something.

Same with a skilled player if he don’t die the health will decreasing -2 for every kill it will make the game more challenging for this player also reset to 100hp as soon as he dies. Basicly you can get between 90 hp and 110 hp.

You can’t really “farm” HP because as soon as you get a kill it resets. If you want to “gain” the max. avi hp you need to die 5x again without having a frag in the meantime.

(SockDog) #9

As was pointed out on my many AI balancing rants, players hate being placed on an equal footing with lesser players. It’s seen as being cheated. Of course playing against lesser players if perfectly fine. :slight_smile: I’m with you on the need for some sort of handicapping system even if it’s a voluntary one.

(tokamak) #10

Yeah but did you see my example? Fragging isn’t the main point of the game and many players are willing to abstain from fragging, or at least stop fragging indiscriminately if that’s going to help them with completing the objectives. You just don’t want to discourage people getting into the fight and kicking ass.

@Sockdog, it’s about placing placing teams on equal footing with lesser teams. The entire sentiment behind this idea is great but it needs to happen on a team-wide level and not on a player-wide level. This is especially important in games like these where players feel more in competition with their own team-mates than with the opponents.

(Breo) #11

FPS you mean? Fragging is actually the point of this genre. Ofcourse objectives are also important because without finishing them you can’t win but in order to do that you need to kill. You can’t do objectives first and frag afterwards that’s why objectives are always “secondary” even in a objective based shooter.

Some games already have similar mechanics (but not skillbased) for example not all classes in ETQW have the same amount of HP.
Also if you play medic/tech you have a big chance that you have more HP then other classes because of medpacks, not to mention that the tech are able to stroydown… I think that a AI system will make it more fair.

(SockDog) #12

I think this is aiming for a much shorter span and with a minimal impact. As such I’d wonder if it would really impact the overall game to any extent short of the localised acts of easing or increasing pressure on an individual player.

And really, people are competing with their own team? Then we wonder why there is selfish behaviour? If nothing else, that seems to suggest a removal anything that brings about that kind of behaviour.

(tokamak) #13

My issue with that is that it in no way ties to the rest of the game. It’s akin to tying a mini-game to determine your respawn timer as well, it’s an external challenge that doesn’t relate to anything else.

(Cep) #14

This reminds me of something like puzzle pirates where a crew would operate different puzzles to help navigate, shoot or repair on a ship. During a battle between vessels the skill and number of players performing the puzzles would determine how effective the ship fought. The problem was that the puzzles where finite and after a while became tedious.

The idea has merit but from experience the novelty wears off quickly.

(deems) #15

Tokamak:
It ties into the rest of the game in terms of how long it takes to complete the objective. That potentially adds excitement to the person trying to accomplish the objective, and it also potentially increases the amount of skill-learning necessary to master the game (a good thing in general, I think we agree?).

Cep:
Yes. If there were a finite number of puzzles, it could become tedious / dumb. But it doesn’t seem impossible to have procedurally generated puzzles to side step the problem.

I dunno – maybe it would be more distracting from the actual game than a source of additional excitement…Hmm.

(Boktor) #16

I’m with Tokamak and Cep on this.

I saw something similar in Blacklight: Retribution. To capture a control point you have a puzzle where you determine which of two numbers is larger. It’s very simple. Certain clutch moments are fast-paced enough for your speed to matter, but in many cases it’s negligible. Plus, the game doesn’t hinge on a set of objectives, so messing up and losing a control point isn’t a huge deal.

Compare that SD style games where a botched objective IS a big deal. If a puzzle/mini-game was done for objectives has to be simple and shouldn’t carry too much weight. I know you were just giving an example, but a range of 20 to 45 seconds is way too dramatic. Imagine the frustration players would feel when “some noob” screws up the objective by taking too long.

(Cep) #17

[QUOTE=Boktor;402997]Imagine the frustration players would feel when “some noob” screws up the objective by taking too long.[/QUOTE] That and being shot at whilst trying to solve 12 x 3 - 1 would soon become brain fart central :wink:

(tokamak) #18

I imagine that no chance of defending against a payer who ‘got lucky’ at the challenge is more frustrating. You can no longer predict how much time you have to prevent the objective from being completed.

(deems) #19

I think all of everyone’s points are valid concerns, but I don’t think that any of them are insurmountable if the idea is done well.

I was thinking it was a way to add more excitement and skill into the game…but it also might just end up being more of a distraction.

(SockDog) #20

Seems much fairer that someone can play the gamer for a certain period or farm xp and be granted a “skill” that performs the task faster. /sarcasm

I’m with you deems. Skill based tasks would add a new element to the objective gameplay. They need not be so abstract as to break immersion. As you state, disarming could involve cutting a sequence of wires. Setting a bomb may involve connecting those wires. Its something I’d love to see a developer explore if nothing else.

Regarding it being frustrating, this seems fairly simple. Default AI assisted objectives take 15 seconds, take on a skill test and you can bring that down to 10 but maybe as long as 20. You take on a risk but with practice it should give you an edge. This is no different to the quick reload systems in games.

As for being shot there is again no reason why the interface has to block your entire view. Then again perhaps being able to shorten the objective time but in doing so losing the ability to see a possible attack is another risk.