next »

[Blink]

I really like the infection idea. I'd love a multiplayer game where both teams are infecting each other/curing each other, and you debate at any moment whether you infect to grow your troops (resources) or strike with what you have. It would end up a lot like an RTS, but with direct manipulation of your character who used hive mind mentality/mass communication to issue the attack signal.

[jgrams]

My suggestion offers the most diversity in play. The excitement should come from how the mechanic can be manipulated by the player. Tactical variety is what makes shooters interesting. That also happens to be the core strength of the original suggestion.

Hrm. I still can't follow your logic. Tactical variety was exactly what I was thinking of. And from a balance perspective it seems like both suggestions have pretty much the same complexity and even the same knobs to tweak; just a question of direct control vs. indirect...

But I haven't played an FPS in a long time, so I guess I just don't understand the genre well enough to understand the difference.

Thanks for the discussion!

[Graham-]

Indirect control is synonymous with complexity.

If the goal is to make the player balance shield use with shooting, then a mechanic that directly ties these things together is the easiest to work with.

For example, your idea to have the shield recharge when the player is shot adds a whole new concept. In fact it would encourage other players not to shoot shielded players.

Also, with this idea, the players would not be thinking of defense vs offense. They would have this new variable of the likelihood of getting shot while on the defensive. That is mitigated by the original requirement of needing 2 seconds of rest before using the shield.

You are having to add all of these new mechanics that are used sparingly, when the original mechanic - the gun - can be used instead. With the gun, other players are encouraged to shoot to charge their own shields. Players are discouraged from over-using their shield because they'll need to shoot to get it back up again. So they have to consider the entire field in terms of attack and defense, many moves ahead.

The shield becomes worthwhile because it is a building block for thousands of tactical maneuvers, all of which integrate with normal FPS thinking. On top of that the power is activated by exactly what people play shooters for in the first place: shooting other people.

We see this direct contrast between gunning and defense. We have the cover shooter with mobility, and the pauses of "waiting behind cover" are gone.

For example, if you had to maintain speed to keep the shield up you could just run around forever. Players move around arbitrarily: chaos.

Your ideas are all interesting. You can definitely put them into a game. But they are separate ideas. The original idea of the shield got me thinking too. Then your suggestion that it would make players too defensive got me thinking even more. Players would be overly defensive in single player too. So you sought a mechanic to balance defense and offense, and instead found mechanics that sort of did that, while adding new things in at the same time.

If you find a plain shield "boring" then make it work first, then add in things that make it interesting. Then you won't get cornered by your design.

Thank you for the discussion too. I enjoy it.

The meter may not be the best solution, but so far it is the most direct.

edit:

Just to be clear, I am not saying this kind of thinking is more valuable than yours, just that it solves the attack/defense problem more effectively.

I'm just following through on my own thought process here. Discussing your ideas, and their value and so on, is all worthwhile too.

(I don't mean to sound combative if I do)

[Udderdude]

Random ideas - The shield can take so many hits before it breaks, and you have to find scraps from defeated enemies or other sources to repair it, which could take a short time (1-2 seconds) or be instant depending on the gameplay flow ..

[Graham-]

yeah, this does the same thing as the meter, but now we're focusing on killing instead of shooting. the nice advantage is that shield charge is chunkier, because picking shit up is more tangible.

a simple merging:
 - shooting charges the shield
 - killing an enemy super-charges it
 - picking up their remains ultra-super-charges it

I would also throw in some penalty for charge hoarding, like slow constant depletion, combo bonuses, or a low cap on how much charge you can store.

we can also get into different types of shields.

edit:

though the most elegant solution might just be with level design etc.

[The Translocator]

I actually meant that you couldn't shoot while it was active, activating, or deactivating, but I'm glad the confusion brought some good discussion with it. Maybe some day it will actually get made- I for one would love to see how it could be balanced.

[Graham-]

No, that's how I understood it.

You have to shoot to charge the shield, wait, then activate it. Let it deactivate before you can shoot again, or shooting cancels it.

[jgrams]

Indirect control is synonymous with complexity.

......

Wow, that's a very helpful explanation, thanks.

[Graham-]

I want to say that there were two tangents there:
 a. Balancing the shield.
 b. More interesting things to do with the shield.

I chose to focus on a, and you focused on b. One isn't better than the other.

You're welcome. I needed your posts to inspire mine.

[Noogai03]

killing an enemy buffs your shield into a sort of extra bar that goes on top of the existing bar, which gradually disappears but can be restored only by killing more people or picking stuff up? I would have the bits fly towards you as you go near them like Minecraft XP but with a smaller range for ease of use.

Also Borderlands' Second Wind mechanic would be interesting for this topic (fyi it means that when you die you have a few seconds to get a kill and revive you before you die)

[Noogai03]

I really like the infection idea. I'd love a multiplayer game where both teams are infecting each other/curing each other, and you debate at any moment whether you infect to grow your troops (resources) or strike with what you have. It would end up a lot like an RTS, but with direct manipulation of your character who used hive mind mentality/mass communication to issue the attack signal.

I have a lot of ideas for how this would work but my internet is too bad for multiplayer games so i can't make it

another twist: humans can de-infect groups of civilians? Or maybe when you kill the zombies all the infected become normal, to encourage you to try and save as many as you can for an optional bonus?
That would open up stealth vs butchery as an option when combined with a time bonus, so you can just wade in guns ablaze for speed or slowly work you way towards the zombies for a kill with explosives or a sniper

[Graham-]

killing an enemy buffs your shield into a sort of extra bar that goes on top of the existing bar, which gradually disappears but can be restored only by killing more people or picking stuff up? I would have the bits fly towards you as you go near them like Minecraft XP but with a smaller range for ease of use.

Also Borderlands' Second Wind mechanic would be interesting for this topic (fyi it means that when you die you have a few seconds to get a kill and revive you before you die)

magnetic pickups are always nice.

my only issue with the second wind mechanic is the gamble that came with having an enemy near you when you got it. that luck element hypothetically could be removed.

edit:

yeah, that's the general idea

[Noogai03]

Indeed, I HATE how it means they can just design enemies who oneshot you and then fly away; being killed by one of them is stupidly frustrating and ruins the fun

[Graham-]

they should have given you a power-up near-death, make you move faster, maybe more erratically. then they just dial up the difficulty and everything is balanced again. luck gone, new mechanic in!

[Sir Raptor]

Mort Royale

You own and operate a six-star hotel, and try to appeal to the incredibly rich super-aristocrats of the near future to get hefty donations from them. And because the super-aristocrats pay in sneaky checks that only cash in after they're dead, you then have them secretly killed before they leave.

[Udderdude]

Aristocrats check in.  They don't check out. 

But their checks do, apparently.

[Graham-]

hitman with more morals.

[Sir Raptor]

It's a balancing act where you want to get as high donations as possible before killing them, and try not to rouse suspicion by killing too many famous rich people in one day. Nobody will get too suspicious if the chef "accidentally" serves Sir Richmond von Cashington Esq. a dish with peanuts in it (nobody likes Richmond), but if Russian dignitary Billiakov Rublinski disappears before a meeting, questions will be raised.

And yes, these will all be real in-game names.

[.swishy]

You start the game as a mediocre pot dealer and work your way up to having a multimillion-dollar, Walter White-esque drug empire

[Rat Casket]

You start the game as a mediocre pot dealer and work your way up to having a multimillion-dollar, Walter White-esque drug empire

so you and one other guy?

Walt didn't have an empire, bucko.

Also this is called Drug Wars and has been on Facebook for like a decade.