Hi there.
First off, I have no idea if these ideas have already been mentioned. I'm drunk right now, and cant be bothered to check, but I have been thinking of this for awhile.
As a note, I played CoX, and am currently playing CO. I also played WoW ince early burning crusade, as well as a few other games, so these thoughts do not come out of nowhere.
NPC's.
All NPC's should be targetable, this means quest givers, random citizens, furnature, etc.
Lets say you pick your characters powers to be all AoE mass damage, you get sent on a mission to rescue some guy, so you run into the middle of the enemies and hit your AoE, killing all the bad guys.
For example, in CO, I use Regeneration to keep me alive, while Epidemic kills everything around me.
In reality, you just killed the guy you are trying to save!!!!!
It shouldnt be so easy, that your powers ONLY affect your enemies. "rain of rire" should burn everything in its area, and massive property damage could be taken off your resources. Ouch.
Imagine the reality of the situation, you use a mass AoE to blast all the bad guys in a building. Well, you also just did tens (or hundreds) of thousands of property damage, made 76 people homeless, and killed 6 innocent civilians.
On that note, may I suggest additional health bars. You have your basic Health/HP, after that there is a short 'hospitalised' health bar, which ends in a shorter 'dead' bar. Knocking your enemy out is okay, the police take the bad guys away. Hospitalising your enemy is frowned upon, but acceptable, there is no alignment change. killing your enemy, even if its a villain, puts you in the villain camp. YOU JUST KILLED A GUY!!!!!
Finally, may I put forward the three basic types of mission.
1) Fight the bad guys
2) Rescue the innocents
3) Stop the disaster.
Quite often, we get 1 and 2. But never number 3. Picture it, your hero flies in, and uses their powers to dig a trench to divert a lava flow away from a village, or their force fields to block a tidal wave from wiping out a town, or their super strength to stop a satalite falling on a, errr, collection of mud huts (lol). Where are the disaster missions?
I understand, of course, this may be the most difficult of mission to plan for, you cant know what powers player characters have. Green Lantern can only make walls to block a collapsing damn, cos the writers KNOW what he can do. I'm sure though that there could be a way around this, such as your player character fighting to keep bad guys off of a computer controlled character who IS planned for the mission.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Posting drunk is never a good idea.
That being said, I have no idea if any of your ideas are good, because I'm a bit drunk and couldn't be bothered to read past your first sentence :P.
FIGHT EVIL! (or go cause trouble so the Heroes have something to do.)
As I understand it....this game is designed around a sort of four color comic concept....meaning many reality issues will be largely ignored in favor of telling a fun story and providing enjoyable content. This means that it will be unlikely that powers will affect teammates or npcs on a regular basis (might be a few exceptions... but not the rule).
Ease of play I think is the goal of the devs.
This would affect a rating for the game and some countries will have issues with its release if the game features a mechanic that specifically points out the instant when a player kills.
It can be left vague (as CoH did it) and let you decide if you arrest the guy or kill him in your own internal story.
There is also solve the puzzle , escort the npc and find the item.
I am all for a variety of mission types...even ones that mix and match multiple goals. But I am very much against the following tired option.
I would much rather prefer the missions be designed in such a way that the player does the work and not have an npc do it (which in essence is just another protect mission). Other games have provided multiple ways to overcome a goal based around the players class ....DDO for example has doors that can be bashed, lock picked, or magic'd open. The trick is to provide a challenge for the players WITHOUT requiring anything specific (not an easy goal)...even if that specific thing is an NPC.
I can understand that anyone currently playing CO might want to be drunk. :-)
Spurn all ye kindle.
While i do understand that the 'additional healthbars' may be a bit too much, I still think my other 2 ideas have merit.
Stopping the disaster, type of mission, might still be possible, and I have not seen it yet in CoX or CO. I only gave an example how it could be played out.
My main point though, I will stand behind. AoE attacks should do AoE damage, to all in the area (except the caster, maybe). Accidentally killing the guy you are trying to save, and thus failing the mission, should be a possibility. There is a reason why single target attacks exist.
_____________________________________________________________________________
No offense but having AoE attacks damage team mates and the NPC's you're trying to save is a really bad idea.
This will only agravate the player as I would assume if you do kill your targeted NPC you would fail the mission.
Although I am a huge fan of realism and immersion this just wouldn't be fun. It would make the game absurdly hard and slow down the game flow.
Now if you would suggest that the NPC should be vulnerable for visual burn effects or let him experience knockbacks and holds that would be a different story. However this would still causr annoyance as you might get the NPC in a 10 second long sleep which would result in the same effect, but it's a better idea.
Other 'to-be-fellow-titans' have been pleading for a fully destructible environment, that is something that can work and might just happen.
If you realized how powerful your thoughts are, you would never think a negative thought.
To quote the game GAUNTLET (from 1985) ... (at 4:49) ...
[b]Shots Now Hurt Other Players[/b]
[youtube]JL3FdRKefQ0[/youtube]
If done at all, it would have to be an Optional Challenge.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
It is easily possible. Without resorting to NPCs. It would have to be designed in such a way that includes multiple ways to stop the disaster.. there could be a handy water tower or fire hydrant that can be broken to flood the building and put out the fire, all characters will have some form of damaging attack so breaking something works for anyone.
As we know there will be many damage types...burning, freezing, ect....all the devs need to do is provide a way each damage type can be used to solve the problem (freezing lava with a blast, digging out a trench with super strength and what have you). THis is of course a very simplistic method to offer options (and a small replay value) into missions.
The problem with having AOEs behave this way is it changes the entire dynamic of gameplay.
In this kind of system AoE powers become a liability in team play...requiring them to be balanced around a new metric than other powers (one that takes its limited usefulness into account).
Without the use of mass AoE's combat time will be increased...requiring further balancing from the devs to keep combat engaging and not a long slog.
Not only that, but the opportunities for griefing are broader if players have access to powers which can cause a mission to fail or hurt teammates with.
Sadly I cannot agree with AoE powers always behaving this way... it would change the aspects that I personally enjoyed the most about CoH combat (simplicity and speed).
That's not to say that a mission or two can't use this as an added difficulty...but I do not want it as the drawback to AoEs in general.
I dont think that having realistic AoE would make the game "absurdly hard", rather, it makes the game "not absurdly easy".
Quite frankly, a player who runs into a rescue mission and uses mass AoE, killing their civilian, SHOULD be aggrivated.
See, maybe gameplay should be changed away from the norm. How about we dont reward folks for being dumb.
There is a gunman holding the president/princess/reporter/Bill Gates hostage, how do you take the gunman out, with your revolver, or a granade?
Well okay, if its Bill Gates, you use the granade (lol), but in general its the revolver. This isnt a genius level decision, any dingbat knows the right answer there.
A player who uses AoE in that situation, then gets upset for failing, only has themselves to blame.
(Plus single target attacks should be higher damage anyway, its not really a drawback).
What I'm saying is, dont lower standards to lowest-common-denominator. Too easy = dull.
And I mean no insult to you IslandTrevor72, but when I read 'simplicity and speed', it was instantly translated to 'stupid and fast'. Not you, the gameplay.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Wel ofcourse if there is just one baddie/hero holding the hostage/ally/random npc, I see this being a thing. However I assume that there would be a group of enemies and then trying to pick them off one at a time might be a bit less obvious.
So let's assume there is just one villain/hero, then this person should pose quite a threat or else the event would be very anti-climatic.
I really don't mean to be witty here but wouldn't the NPC be at the very least hurt in the battle or probably killed there. As the villain probably took the hostage to lure you out, I don't see a reason for him/her/it to hold back from using devestating fireballs and kinetic explosions.
Don't get me wrong I do like your idea, and I think games should be more realistic and forcing it's players to be thoughful. I just don't see it working as an actual gameplay feature.
If you realized how powerful your thoughts are, you would never think a negative thought.
Posting as fan not dev.
IMO we're trying to write a game that is a spiritual successor to CoH. Putting in indiscriminate AoE would be fundamentally contrary to that and our commitment not to go into twitchy gaming. I wouldn't object to one NPC in one mission having that sort of ability with suitable warnings in the brief, but I don't think it's sensible for it to be in any way normal for players, too much griefing potential for a start.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Plus, if your teaming and someone is in Scrapper Lock... and the NPC Ally is in the midst of the next enemy group, they wont stop and listen till its a little late. You should avoid things of this nature in the majority of the missions. If its a Special Arc, and it happens just once in one of the 4 or so missions.. then Fine. Throw it in. ;)
Putting those in quotes make it seem as if I said them. I did not say absurdly hard. I said it changes the dynamic of the gameplay. Not just from a players perspective but from a developing standpoint as well.
If a power is able to actually cause a mission to fail then it needs that taken into account when it is balanced against other powers. If it becomes more limited than other attacks then again it needs to be factored in when working out its effects.
This in turn makes every other power require balancing to take into account that single target is the easiest to use(therefore most desired) powers to have.
The devs will need to look at average combat time, acceptable progress speed, possible exploits/griefing, ect.
They need to do this just to include a SMALL aspect for combat....AoEs with NPC hostages.
Now from everything you have said you seem to be focusing on just the interaction of hostages and AoEs. If its for all NPCs (trainers, contacts, random citizens ect) or even Teammates things get even more crazy.
If the NPC's you use to progress in the game (trainers, stores ect) are targetable as you suggest then you have just opened the game up for insane amounts of griefing. Now I can take my character 'Captain Troll' and just go around removing every trainer, store owner and contact I see ruining everyone elses fun. And before you say it....the devs having to design ways to hinder this type of behavior is just more work for them. Again...all for just making those few missions with NPC hostages a little bit more difficult (or IMO frustrating).
It gets even more silly when you now let AoE powers hurt other players outside of PvP. Essentially giving every player the ability to force PvP on any other player.
So no...I agree ...this would not make the game 'absurdly hard' but it would change the ENTIRE dynamic of the game from one of friendly enjoyable encounters to constant battles of finding ways to not be horribly annoyed by the few asshats out there.
Again...I have no issue with this mechanic being used in a few missions...but every hostage encounter....its too much work for too little gain.
Then you might want to look them up in a dictionary.
The rubiks cube is a simple concept but it is by no means stupid...how about jenga....or even tetris.
But to clarify for you, I do not want to have long discussions before combat on the best way to make use of all of our powers so we don't fail a random mission because someone hit an AoE at the wrong time.
Seriously....this is not so much an increase in difficulty as it is a restriction on powers.
If you want to increase difficulty then stop thinking of ways to limit what a player can do as it will be ill received. Try thinking in terms of multiple layers of goals or puzzles that require thinking.
For example...to increase the difficulty in a hostage mission.... include explosive barrels....this has the same effect you want...people to not run in guns blazing all the time....but it does not affect the entire game. How about the idea of Stockholm syndrome....you beat all the terrorists and just as you are about to leave the hostage turns on you...How about a situation where once the fight starts you have a single hostage taker run off with the hostage and you now need give chase before he escapes with him.
So when I say simplicity and speed I am referring to the style of combat ...not the overall games difficulty. I enjoyed much of the way combat was designed in CoH and want that reflected in CoT with it being expanded upon ...not limited.
Actually, no, it doesn't. It makes it seem as if they were said (or typed) , but there is no attribution. But a quick search upthread finds that it was written, by Gor Coron up in [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/96382#comment-96382]post # 6[/url].
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
Sure if we were making a "realistic combat simulator" then we could have AoEs tag all tag all targets including the caster. Then why limit it to AoE powers? Why not allow friendly fire on all powers? Because any power that can negatively affect what should be a "friendly target" is what in part, instigates PvP. Even if the action was indirectly or unintentional, like an errant AoE.
When we stipulate that PvP will always be optional, then it must apply in every aspect of game play. Therefore all powers, AoE or otherwise, should not be capable of directly negatively affecting other player characters. What then of just applying this to NPCs? Again we fall back to the realistic combat simulator problem. Which dove-tails into griefing issues. This is particularly important when actions by players can affect not only the success or failure of a mission, but also reputation of the player characters with relevant factions, and even alignments of the player characters.
Killing or saving a hostage npc for example could be a choice given in a mission which will have an affect on the alignment of the player characters involved. There are reasons that even in this example, we must not only clearly indicate to the players how each choice can affect their characters, but also set up ways for the entire team to decide or opt out of alignment affecting choices.
PvP in all its forms being optional, or given tools to players to minimize the possibility thereof. Be it combat pvp, social pvp, pvevp, and various forms of griefing. Heck, if hostory is any indicator, even powers with a knockback effec have been contentious for those who prefer melee style play. When multipage threads occur over a perceived issue over a single mechanic being contentious among players, imagine the issues that would occur when players are attacking one another with AoEs, causing faction rep loss, causing missions to fail, or even causing a change of alignment.
If we as devs allow players to make AoE style builds, single target style builds, or anything in between, then each build should be viable for use as often as possible within general gameplay. Consider this: in general play with spawn size scaling with team size, having AoEs are an advantage. When up against harder targets when the large group has been whittled down favors single targets. By combining efforts, players with different builds have synergistic experiences. Everyone gets to have fun instead of one style of play causing strife.
One of the interesting aspects of AoE powers is that they provide both a ease of play, use power on group of targets, and can still have deeper tactical applications; line up cone for maximum usage, use cone from above for maximum area, apply location effect in ideal place and so on, without the need to enforce "proper application" through a negative reinforcement method.
Now another thing to consider: environmental effects. One of the things we plan to include over time is powers affecting the environment, leading to emergent gameplay tactics. Maybe the warehouse shelves can be knocked over to fall on enemies. Maybe they can be set on fire and knocked over, etc... Suddenly AoEs can be used even more tactfully to apply the appropriate environmental conditions for an extreme advantage. If used without forethought, still useful, but perhaps not as useful as it could have been with the proper set up.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Why limit it to only damage? Why not healing and buffing/debuffing as well? I mean, if casting an AoE damage ability damages your teammates then I only see it as reasonable that an AoE heal heals the enemies. Same thing with buffs/debuffs. Couple this with "full collateral damage" on the environment around you and you have effectively removed the usage of AoE's for many people, since it would put so many limits on it's usage for people who wants to minimize any negative "side effects".
Of course, the exact same rules would have to apply to the NPCs as well, that is friendly fire and structural damage, which leads to another major point. They would have to make the NPCs (regardless of friend or foe) be fully aware of all this so that they don't kill the hostage, cause a cave in or building collapse or whatever, unless they want to. Wouldn't be very fun if you had an NPC hero with you charging in and start blowing of AoEs over a hostage.
From what I have heard given everything else equal between an AoE and a single target attack then it's rare that the single target attack has more than triple damage compared to the AoE, they usually lay around double. This means that effectively every game is designed to be more efficient with AoEs when you have a certain amount of enemies. Of course you can design it so that that "tipping point" is at the target cap of the AoEs but that imposes fairly severe design constraint in that every AoE has to have the same target cap then.
However, if you really want this level of realism then we should also incorporate clipping and full LoS handling on NPCs.
With the exception of that one line the entire reply was directed at my post. What I actually said so as to not be lumped together with every argument in opposition is an important distinction.
There needs to be a separate type of punctuation for "air quotes" type stuff. Note that nobody ever said "air quotes" and here I am , putting it in regular quotes. I think this proves my point.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
It is not uncommon to use single quotes for irony (aka I"m insulting you but because I put irony quotes around it you're not allowed to be offended).
Double quotes are reserved for actual quotations.
There's 5 basic types of quests, if you go with the lazy standard combat oriented principles
1 - Kill (x number of enemies), which is the basic grind
2 - Fetch quest (get an item from an npc) To teach you the hub and its services
3 - Fed-ex (go and bring an item somewhere) directs you to the next zone
4 - Collect (go and get X-items) which is basically just a kill quest with a randomised fetch tacked on
5 - Escort (fed-ex with an annoyingly slow npc to keep alive)
This is pretty much the limit of what can be done if the only mechanics allowed in quests are kill and running around.
Other means to develop quests can be developed (especially see early Everquest or the Secret World)
A simple but powerful expansion to standard quests is to do away with quest hubs (past the initial one in each zone because players have to start somewhere)
and instead put in environmental quests, where the player may find items and when examining them these may, nor may not, trigger a quest.
Or at least the information that can be turned into a quest.
E.g. finding a burned out car well away from any road. Examining the wreckage may reveal some bit of lore (like e.g. a few scraps of a burned notebook), that
combined with another piece of lore becomes a clue for a next step in a quest (like e.g. a cryptic description of a location within the zone, or a previously
unavailable contact, if the player figures out from the clues the key phrase to unlock them).
The effect of this kind of quests (even if they involve running and killing), they most of all make the players pay attention to the world and to its lore, because
that is how most of the quests are unlocked. Unless you look for clues, explore the zone so you recognise clues like landmarks, out of place objects and so on,
and speak to npcs you will miss a lot of potential content. And just speaking to an npc ones might not be enough because along the way you may pick up some
lore that you realise is relevant to a particular npc and requires returning to them for another chat.
.
@Nadira
Right, the Devs have already declared 'combine the clues' mission-generation as a thing to anticipate. How much clue-obfuscation there is, seems completely up to the writers.
However, you've left out the other mission types we had in the City. There were:
6 - Rescue the kidnapped NPC.
7 - Click the Glowies - with optional 'arrest the enemies'.
8 - Find the xObject, AKA 'arrest them all until one drops it' - which usually means the Boss.
9 - Classic 'dungeon crawl' real-estate deals, where you 'arrest all the enemies at xLocation' (and take their stuff).
. And varitations like:
10a - Penetrate the base, Discover the Boss, and 'arrest' him.
10b - Penetrate the base, Discover the Boss, and click the Glowie, AKA 'deactivate the infernal device' - with optional 'arrest the Boss'.
. all with the occasional 'trigger monologue' thrown in for spice.
NPC mission-givers will, likely, have Lore-linked mission arcs to unlock, as well. All of these missions are expected to be stored in table-format, for ease of creation, editing and storage. Complexity, again, seems up to the writers. It seems to me that 'branching arcs' would not be difficult, as some missions might have an ending-state of 'start xMission'.
Be Well!
Fireheart
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing][b]Griefing[/b][/url].
/thread
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Actually...
Rescue missions are escort ones, only you first have to find the escortee (i.e there is a fetch part to it)
Clicking glowies are fetch quests
Gather x items by defeating enemies is a collect quest
Nr 9 is a slight variation on a traditional kill quest as is nr 10.
There is, sadly, a reason why the five are considered the 'classics'. And no, I did not think of all this myself :)
That said, the windowdressing of a quest can make a huge difference in how players perceive them.
The problem, as said, is caused by the fact that if a game only allows interaction through travel. looting and combat, the number of combinations is severely limited (*). The more interaction the game allows the more you can do with innovative and interesting quest design.
(* limited to: Travel, Travel + Combat (Kill), Combat + Travel, Travel + Loot (Fetch), Loot + Travel (Fed-ex), Combat + Loot, Loot + Combat (aka ambush), Travel+Combat+Loot (Collect or Kill). Not all of these are equally interesting and bare Combat and Loot have been dismissed as not being a mission at all. In principle there is also the inverse of Combat where you have to avoid it instead of win it. Which gives us one more type: Travel + non-Combat)
Alright, I concede your point. Reduced to simplicity, your mission-list is correct. Even more so, when reduced to combinations of Travel, Defeat, and Loot.
Then your 'avoid combat' becomes another aspect of 'Defeat' and 'Click' or 'Rescue' becomes another aspect of 'Loot', as you loot the completion-cookie. Escort then becomes 'Defeat' with extra 'failure-conditions'. It almost reduces the whole game to a series of Skinner Box tests.
However, as you say, the real reason for doing these rat-tricks is to experience the 'window-dressing' of the Story. I wonder if there isn't another possible interaction (or two), besides Travel, Defeat, and Loot? I suppose we could break out more variations on 'Defeat'?
Be Well!
Fireheart
Don't be to bummed out about the lack of variety of missions that developers can do.
You can come up with random memory retention puzzles (simon says style) and those then become a case of "quick note it down and then enter it ASAP" or "Look it up on the internet" style.
I remember back on a set of forums when a player turned around and went "I have an idea for a type of quest that has NEVER been done before"... I listed the same 5 types that Nadira did and went, well... if it can be broken down to this, then it isn't unique.
The only ones that spring to mind are the ones in The Secret World. granted, these are not (as far as I am aware) essential for story progression, but when you have to start using Amazon to look up the ISBN number and using online resources to work out various working parts of it, it becomes quite unique.
It also becomes *ideal* for writing a guide on how to do it.
And yes, Funcom didn't give you ANY idea about what the mission actually involved when you picked it up. It just left a clue.
I still ended up using google for the solution though, much better than beating my head up against a brick wall for YEARS trying to solve it.
The only thing unique about those quests in TSW, as far as I remember, was that they used resources that were outside the game itself but otherwise they broke down to those 5 basic types, mostly as the go to type I believe.
However as you essentially say, with the right window dressing any quest can feel unique.
I'm thinking that the Non-Combat Mission type is something that really deserves to be usefully explored. Furthermore, there may very well be more to it than there at first appears to be. For one thing, there are different flavors (or degrees) of Non-Combat. There's the "never get aggroed" variety, where you stealth past everything and no one ever knew you were there. Then there's the "never take damage" variety, which any good Mind Controller can perform in *THEIR* sleep (ie. Defeat Foes without ever taking damage yourself), thereby not leaving any evidence behind (ie. no blood on the floor from the PC, etc.).
So why not "formalize" the Stalker ideal of being able to "ninja" a Mission?
Well, the first objection I can think of is that not everyone would be capable of achieving such an Objective (thus it isn't "fair"). Which then brings up the possibility of having multiple paths to achieving a Mission's objectives ... with Non-Combat being a choice just as valid as Defeat All in certain circumstances.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
So, we'd have missions with a variety of 'success' and 'failure' conditions. 'You did this, but that didn't happen, so xResult.' That sounds... fun, actually, as long as there's no, "so you lopped off your foot" or other permanent effects from hidden failures.
Hah! Redlynne, you know a Talented Mind Controller could finish the mission without even taking Aggro! Of course, by the time they're Done with the mission, the Scrapper will have given himself a Lobotomy from sheer boredom. Still, that WAS one of the things I enjoyed about Controllers and Mind Controllers in particular.
Be Well!
Fireheart
We have these set up as different possible achievements within missions which could yield their own bonus rewards for mission completion. There are certain caveats to many scenarios which I can't get into. However, I seriously doubt that it will be possible to ensure providing a method of controlling one's way through a mission and never taking damage, as controls are non-binary (even sleeps!), and there's a bunch of other possibilities involved that we couldn't sanely design for in providing it as its own achievement. Now controlling sufficient spawns within a mission (regardless of being attacked) may be another story entirely...
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Game mechanically speaking, ANY attack Power that contained the [b]Notify Mobs: Always[/b] parameter would count against the "never get aggro" condition. Notice that [url=http://tomax.cohtitan.com/data/powers/power.php?id=Controller_Control.Mind_Control.Confuse]Confuse[/url] was one of the FEW Powers that instead had a [b]Notify Mobs: Never[/b] setting. Mass Hypnosis was another one. Flash Arrow (in the Trick Arrow powerset) was yet another. However, such Powers were decidedly few and far between ... and the one thing they all shared in common was ... NO DAMAGE.
But yeah ... City of Statues with a Mind Controller was awesome. I personally took it as a challenge to play as if the Foes would "never know I'd been there" after entering the Mission Door ... meaning never giving them a CHANCE to attack me, even as I Defeated them. Made for a much more "intellectual" gameplay than simple steamrolling.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
TSW had some fun and interesting mechanics involved in the missions but they had little replay value as once you solve the puzzle it does not change. 576 is ALWAYS the answer for Dirty Laundry.
That's the issue with puzzle types quests (my personal favorite type). They are either too generic (as to be near pointless) or they are too specific and never change.
With CoT's longevity design being replay ...puzzle quests are going to be hard to include in a meaningful way.....I do hope the devs can think of a way to do it but its unlikely given current tech.
So instead I think the time would be best used to find unique ways to present the standard combat style missions to keep us interested.....CoH managed to a limited extent with the randomized mission maps. CoT can expand on that greatly with the use of u4.
Yeah, the Simon Says memory style quests in Wildstar are the only ones that spring to mind as being "repeatable" but different each time.
The hardest one, caps out at 11 or 13 (IIRC) steps to remember, but it is never the same solution on the same character for the puzzle. The prize? A title.
That was it. The ones that are essential for "story line" purposes cap out at 4 or 5 steps.
The only other options that I can think of *quickly* off the top of my head of "puzzle but repeatable and different" are things like sudoku, but they are not always quick to complete.
Oh, the Towers of Babylon as well....
Of course, there is also the placement of these types of puzzles. Do you attach them to "progression essential" style of quests (or at least an easy version of them) or do you just stick them onto the outlying optional quests?
These are all examples of puzzles too generic to have meaning.
What I was getting at was CoT won't be able to include a Riddler type quest line that involves the player without it losing replay value (in regards to the puzzles themselves). They would either need to have all the puzzles solved in the text popup as part of the exposition or they would need a multitude of questions players would answer ....eventually learning them all.
Simple random math problems, pipe connection, part alignment or CAPTCHA type problems become more of a chore than a puzzle after completing it once (IMO). Once you know you can do it...doing it again holds little interest.
Like I said...I love puzzles (loved almost all of the puzzles in TSW the first time through) and hope that CoT will include some that don't lose value as soon as you have completed them once. Or at the very least include a wide variety of puzzle minigames throughout (like the current trend with hidden object mystery games). I don't hold much hope for either though as I think they will spend more time coming up with interesting ways to present mission structure and combat challenges.
EDITED TO INCLUDE
There is also the issue of player skill/desire in regards to puzzles....some people have a knack (or even interest) for them ...others don't....
To keep things flowing for both types of players the game would need to include a way to 'skip' the puzzle. I brought up the hidden object games...they now include a skip button which comes active after a short time of trying to solve it...letting the player decide if they want to spend more time on it or not. As CoT is not being hyped as a puzzle game...some sort of option to skip puzzles should probably be included.....
They you have to think about teams....its seldom fun for a team to stand around while one person solves a puzzle so they would need to be able to be solved by multiple people as well as solo....which can limit what types of puzzles are useable....
As I said....its incredibly tough to include a puzzle in an mmo and have it fill all criteria.
This I would be very curious to learn more about. Have there been any more official statements on this topic, or do you have any idea when we might see some?
Allowing control to be a legitimate form of primary mitigation was one of the things that set CoH apart for me.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/compilation-information-city-titans](Unofficial) Compilation of Information on City of Titans[/url]
Nothing official as far as an update (yet). I can say that in pve things will play similarly, the lower the pawn rank the easier to control, the higher the rank the more application required. Even then, against those higher rank foes, there will be some subtle-to-noticeable (depending on the control type) effect. PvP is only more noticeable because of the more prominent player-facing nature of PvP. Basically, whenever possible we have strived to avoid binary systems.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds as though mass control on a scale similar to CoH will be available, but even when controls need to be applied more than once to reach a full effect we will see some benefit from the initial application? If so, then control should have some value for the equivalent of AVs, even up to Incarnate Trial level (if such a thing exists)?
I for one hope a future update focuses on this. Controllers were my favourite AT in CoH. If I had to choose only one AT to play, that would certainly be it.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/compilation-information-city-titans](Unofficial) Compilation of Information on City of Titans[/url]
Pretty much, yes.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
How long was I gone, about a week? 25 new posts, wow, and this was just a suggestion thread.
(all because walking into a pile of mobs, hitting hellfire and brimstone powers on a radius, is odd if it doesnt hurt bystanders).
I was replying to multiple posts since my previous post. In different paragraphs. If you read, you'll see I was also trying to keep the conversation light
On that note :-
Thats pure internet troll right there. For your information, they're called synonyms. Simplicity and speed, stupid and fast. Synonyms.
If the devs want to dismiss my idea, no problem, really. if they want to incorporate it in a limited fashion, cool.
This doesnt mean anyone should be a dick about the idea itself.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The basic problem you're running into is the fact that not everyone has the necessary degree of fine control/discrimination necessary to pull this off successfully EVERY time. Things as simple as Network Latency and other sources of "lag" can do all kinds of nasty things to precision and intent.
One thought that occurs is that if there are intermediate steps of engagement, there are opportunities to model the sort of thing you're talking about. In City of Heroes, there were "Civilians" that could not be targeted or affected by Powers. They were simply "invisible" to the Powers system. But then, Praetoria introduced the idea of non-hostile NPCs that could become hostile when attacked. Take that one step further and you can introduce non-hostile NPCs [i]that would flee the scene when attacked[/i]. That way, you don't have Civilians just casually strolling on by the scene of a supers battle, as if nothing were out of the ordinary.
Depending on how far you want to take things, that can ultimately impinge on "traffic management" and other pathing issues so as to route people/vehicles around the scene, but the first step towards that is designing NPCs that are smart/perceptive enough to act in a manner consistent with self-preservation, even if game mechanically speaking there's no ACTUAL danger of them getting whacked. Bonus points accrue if those NPC "runners" summon reinforcements (whether that be TCPD or the local gangsters) to restore "order" in the vicinity. That way, street fights don't happen in a vacuum, and Players need to remain vigilant concerning their surroundings.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
I'm just worried new players will start to gradually annoy more seasoned ones, and gradually exclude n00bs from most of the team missions. :/
I'm not in favor of any Game or UI mechanics that Divide players.
Now thats the idea im talking about (and there have been plenty of others since i was away, for example, this also covers AoE heals, etc.
Anyone remember the initial raid we had on villain side, level 2+, sewers full of monsters and undead. Times I ran that with a KB character, I'd knock all the undead down the slope behind them, and the AoE guys would kill them all together. Other times,the group fell apart, and me on a kinetic energy tank would be left with one other random player, and wed take 15 minutes to kill the last boss.
It was awesome, and I wouldnt want to lose that.
Here is the thng, I've ben playing CO, like I said. Easy mode seams to be supernatural-infernal. it gets you regenration, 'supernatural power' and mass AoE (early too). This is god mode (seriously, im not even kidding).
On the other hand, my alter-ego (for those who read my stories on the forum) is of a guy who can generate kinetic energy, and this gants super strength/speed, invulnerability, flight, and long range blasts.
So I make the kinetic energy guy, and have a wonderfull time playing out my inner hero (punching villains off roofs). Then I do the 'socrates' computer mission, get stuck, reboot the character to god-mode infernal, and pwn everything WITHOUT EVEN TRYING. It stops being fun, cos its too easy.
It came to a head whe I had to rescue scientists from bad guys, and I just fly in, hit my ever-lasting AoE (seriously, its god mode), and walk away with the prize.
There needs to be a balance. CO doesnt have it.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So when I suggest you look at a dictionary for the definition of words I'm trolling but when you say my preferred gameplay style is stupid you're keeping it light? I guess if I put in a few 'no offenses' I wouldn't have been trolling right?
If you came away with me being a dick from the entire post then there is nothing I can do about that. I tried to explain why I did not like your idea in detail and offered a suggestion of alternatives that would give you what you want as well as what I want....a compromise....and I am now a dick?
Oh well...
Using words like 'dumb' and 'stupid' will almost always be seen as an insult. Tone and inflection are hard to get across in type....so sadly no I didn't see you as keeping it light. Just as you instantly took the dictionary comment as an insult when it was not intended that way.
Perhaps you can now go back and actually respond to the body of the post instead of perceived insults.
Whoa whoa whoa ... hold up there. There is only one person on these forums that islandtrevor72 is allowed to troll mercilessly. [b]*ME*[/b]. So if there's going to be any exchange of "perceived insults" going on, you're going to have to take a number and get in line (I hear that number 73 is now being served, whatever that means) and wait your turn.
/fire extinguisher
/taunt
[img]http://paragonwiki.com/w/images//6/62/Ghost_Widow_Emote_Taunt1.gif[/img]
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Yes.
Me keeping it light was suggesting using a granade(lol) to rescue Bill gates.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I guess you can't.
Directly after typing :-
You cite me perceiving insults, yet do exactly the same yourself, in the same post. At no point did I call you dumb, I did mention that the games shouldnt reward players for being dumb. I'd already described MY actions of using mass AoE around bystanders.
Also :-
I did.
Look, I'll be honest with you. From my perspective (and it is perception, yes), you came across as very heavy handed in shooting down my ideas, and it seamed, because you wanted your games calibrated for simplicity and speed. I'll admit, I may have been just as heavy handed in replying to you (maybe even a little more), and for that I appologise.
But when somebody on a gaming forum calls my intelligence into question by suggesting I get a dictionary to look up basic words, it gets frustrating. I'm not trying to insult you here, just explaining my reaction.
_____________________________________________________________________________
I conceded that we had misinterpreted the insults. In the part you quoted. Not you ...not me...us.... lets move on please.
If that is all you have to say about everything I brought up then ok.
Again....I am not saying the GAME has to be simple and quick...but the combat system can be and still provide challenges. The combat system in the arkham series is fairly simplistic in its execution but it is far from being without challenge.
I am NOT shooting down your ideas. I am not exactly a fan of missions that put the player in the backseat to an NPC (like your idea of how to do Disaster missions) or to give the entire playerbase a way to grief at will (as your all npcs being targetable) and said so....then gave reasons why. So I am at a loss as to why you think its heavy handed.
And when someone insults my intelligence by saying that my preferred gameplay is stupid I get frustrated.... We are both guilty...
So I ask you now to explain why you think AoE's affecting everyone should be incorporated? And please...don't just say it makes sense for it to do so.
I already said that the player helping an NPC hero was just one example for disaster missions, so I dont know why you bring it up again.
This is not a debate thread. It was just my ideas for the devs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
You want to say your ideas and don't want any discussion? That's probably not going to happen.
I never said I didnt want a discussion. That discussion has been had, plenty of others have provided alternatives, additions, objections, reasons, etc.
I said its not a debate thread. I'm not trying to win (I dropped 1-2 of my original 3 ideas), and there aint going to be a vote.
_____________________________________________________________________________
The idea of AoEs having consequences is pretty intriguing, actually. Maybe one approach to consider would be adding a switch for AoE powers that only works in instances or special battlegrounds. One setting would be "power" and the other would be "precision." While you have it on "power" you inflict a minor percentage of your normal effects on friendly or neutral NPCs and possibly key destructibles as well. If your AoE is set to "precision" you sacrifice a small amount of effect to simulate an extra effort at controlling your power, and you affect ONLY enemies and normal destructibles within its range. In the case of [i]positive[/i] AoE effects then "power" mode would actually do nothing at all to NPCs while "precision" mode would give friendly or neutral ones a tiny bit of your love. The idea is that you don't want to make protect missions a simple matter of leading your charges through the gauntlet while spamming Health Explosion repeatedly. (My rationale is that negative AoEs are like dropping a live grenade while positive AoEs are more like trying to point separate flashlights at multiple targets.)
While in "power" mode the damage/benefit to NPCs and friendly non-partied players in range is still minor - maybe 5% of your total effect [b]at most[/b] (be it dmg, heal, duration, buff or debuff). If you exceeded a neutral or friendly NPC's "annoyance threshold" for negative effects they would they start yelling at you to knock it off. In the case of faction NPCs you might even lose a small amount of reputation with them if you harm them too often within a certain amount of time. Actually [b]killing[/b] one would probably cost you most of your reward and maybe the whole mission if "let nobody die" were a condition. Certain NPCs might run away or even start attacking you if you did [i]ridiculous[/i] damage to them (like 10% of their health in a single attack). This could be a real complication in protect missions!
I also think its perfectly reasonable to have collateral damage figure into the amount of rewards for some missions. For heroes I would expect extra rewards for mitigating damage to any friendly or neutral NPCs (or their property) in the area. Villains might get a bonus for not harming friendlies and [i]for[/i] seriously harming NPCs that are friendly to heroes! (But while you're AoEing that soft ally of Captain Righteous you may be opening yourself up to a pounding by the heroes - decisions, decisions!) It might also make sense to only enable the power/precision switch when your power or class reaches a certain level. After all, it takes time to master your super powers :)
In regards to the all-damaging AoEs - I really don't think that will be suitable for this game in the majority of cases. Just remember how knockback was frowned upon in CoH, this is much worse than that.
As for the additional KO/KILL health bars - they are unnecessary. Any alignment changes will be taken care of by the mission structure - and related decisions should be presented to the character. Just like in CoH it would probably be best if it is left to the player's internal narrative if he KO's/Arrests/Captures the bad guys with knives and fire, or if he kills his victims.