Re: [Adonthell-general] Fw: Ideas, review of rules... WARNING does not contain any Yeti

[Andrew Phillips]

Please excuse my skepticism about criticism coming to us out of the wild. I
suppose I should be open-minded, but I'm still skeptical. Has this fellow
joined the project, or is he just waiting for things to happen?

Comments follow:

----- Original Message -----
From: Kai Sterker <address@hidden>
To: Adonthell General <address@hidden>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: [Adonthell-general] Fw: Ideas, review of rules... WARNING does not
contain any Yeti


> And another one:
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 08:26:58 -0400
> From: Riux <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Ideas, review of rules... WARNING does not contain any Yeti
>
>
>
> Hi there,
>
> one quick question, is it possible to change the resolution
> or is it fixed at something that looks like 320x200/240 ?
> Something like fullscreen, with antialiasing... or dunno
>
> My main subject
> I just played the Waste's Edge and was looking at the file
> rules_v0.5.pdf. So I write to let you(girls/guys) know what I think of
> it.
>
> About the rule set :
>
> 1.2 Attributes and Properties
>
> this is more of a personal matter, but I don't
> realy like RPGs where you "buy" rank points.

Frankly, this guy makes it sound like Evercrack. I understand what he's
talking about, though. He's almost describing the next generation of
computer RPG. I might have to give this guy more credit than I thought.

>
> For instance, a player that allways kills
> monsters using weapons shoudn't be able to
> be better in magic because he decided that he
> wanted to spend his points on it.

I disagree at two levels. For one thing, such a limitation locks a player
into a style of play for an entire character for the duration of the game.
In Diablo, working with the Sorceror class, for example, the free
distribution of points meant that the player could choose to play a mage who
relied solely on magic, or choose to make the mage a fighter later in the
game after he was basically competent as a spellcaster. It also means you
can squander points, but that's the player's choice.

Secondly, it would seem to me that trying to implement his suggestion would
bog down the game engine in tracking who killed what when and how and then
making an analysis of kill method. Surely memory space (and programmer time)
can be better used.

>
> Points could be accumulated in a way more like this
>
> Strenght:
> 1- How many creatures did you kill with brute force
> 2- How you select the best weapon to do the most damage
> (a sword can't cut an armor, but a club can stunt)

Best weapon? That's a player/style issue, not engine.

> Hardness:
> 1- The more you get hit, the more you develope resistance
>     (can also work in a certain way against magic as well)
> 2- The more you train the more stamina you get...
> Agility:
> 1- Using something often gets you used to it, so you're better at it
> 2- Evading others attacts...
> Willpower:
> 1- Do you work your brain and stay calm even in the worst situation
> or do you just act recklessly and try to use bruteforce ?
> (more like an annimal)
> ...
> (think the rest)
>
> This would just make more sens, than shopping for ranks. :)
>

I must say, this is nonsense (at least for now). A human DM might be able to
make these grey-area, value judgements, but frankly, I would think it would
take a lot of work for the computer to do the same. See "next generation"
comment above.

The only sense I can see in this is the idea of growing (but never permanent
and absolute) tolerance for poisons. Otherwise, there's not such thing as
losing less blood because you get hit ten times instead of five. The whole
concept of experience points assumes that the character is improving by
living longer (not dying regularly) and that the player is gaining
experience in how to use the character well.

>
> Hmm, varable skill check (1.4.2) is something quite
> interesting. I like the concept.
>
> As for experience per level, I've would have use something
> more like exponential, because when you are good in something,
> and want to surpass your self, you have to work a lot harder than
> if you where realy bad.
> Also, it would be cool if it would be transparent to the user.
> I prefer when they are no big numbers, because I never found the label
> where it was writen my experience, could it be written on my back ??

More nonsense. Did he miss the part about there being no leveling system in
Waste's Edge? Game engines already implement the catch-up effect through
ever-rising leveling thresholds, don't they?

>
> personal note:
> it would be cool to have some hidden features in the game
> to speed up the game play. Let say, you have to do a specific
> serie of actions and it will alow you to procede to the end of the
> game more quickly.

Um...not sure what to do with that. I've read something on Gamespot which
suggests giving more than one way to meet any quest, but it sounds like he's
asking for a straightest-route, or a walk-through. What's the fun of having
to to kill things to jump through hoops if you don't have to jump through
the hoops?

>
> also, online web stats could be cool.
> something like:
> -player name
> -time used to do the game (H)
> -total # of days
> -player stats at the end of the game
> -inventory
> -how many time you died ...
> -date finished
> and the player could have a rating according to it
> (or could be just one other crasy idea of me)

See above in re Evercrack. Just out of curiosity, though, how much of a
headache would this be to implement?

>
> Something else, self evolving game.
> Remember the level generation in Diablo I ?
> That was something quite amasing as every level was different.

True, every level was different - different magicks in play, different
magicks useful against the monsters, different look and feel (and available
quests) but this is more an atmosphere issue than an engine issue, so far as
I can tell.

> Now, what about something similar, but in a story plot fassion ?
> I will clarify myself.
> Suppose you write the end of the story, with multiple ending,
> lots of different dialogs...
> Now supose I would go and kill a caracter in the game, all that
> caracter's intervention in the game will not occure, resulting in some
> weirds results. About like a game of chess, or a game of Go.

I wasn't aware that one could kill NPCs. I think he's thinking of
CronoTrigger and Magus.

> In the end, you still win or loose, but your previus actions influenced
> the game in a way that can't always be imagined by the player of the
> board game. Or in a game developpement, that the programmers didn't
> think of.

That the programmers didn't think of?

>
> One last feature, caracter evolution.
> It is the most important part of the story plot.

In a computer RPG, isn't "character" evolution driven by things like
leveling, point distribution, item gains, quest progress, or growing the
questing party?

> But also, his image in the game.
> The player has to feel his caracter becoming more mature...

Really? I never felt that need. The changing appearance in D/DII was cool,
but I certainly wasn't expecting it until I came across it. Oops. I made his
case. The changing character gfx thing has been done once, so I guess people
will expect it from all that follow. However, gfx, I think, should be
secondary to gameplay. I learned from DII to expect it, didn't get much of
that from Diablo, and was pleasantly surprised by the gfx change when the
char puts on heavy armors or changes weapon classes. A character who looks
cool is a nice-to-have. A character who doesn't die easily is essential.

> And the caracters face as well as whole body would change.
> A barbarian will have a body full of scarves, while a black magic
> user will grow dark hair ... in other words, just picture it :P
>
> Finaly you guys did a good job, and if anything in my mail is usefull,
> then use it :) (don't care for credits)
>
> wow, I can't wait to play the squel in ...3002

3002? Thank you, Mr. Rioux for that vote of confidence.

Andrew