next »

[Fallsburg]

Well if you can save, I think people will just work their way up to a 10% chance and then try for the ending 10 times.

Someone needs to learn probability.  If there is a 10% chance of success and we believe these to be independent events (i.e. random seed is seeded off of something sufficiently random and isn't always the same) then after 10 events the chance of none of them being a success is 34.8%.  This is because you don't add the probabilities of independent random events with each other, you multiply them.

So:
10% chance of victory == 90% chance of failure
Probability of 10 out of 10 being failure == (0.9)^10 ~= 34.87%
Probability of having at least 1 success in 10 tries == 1 - (0.9)^10 == ~65.13%


On to the actual question, I think that's a horrible idea.  As was stated, if the player could save before trying then they indeed would get up to a high enough percentage that just trying over and over would have good enough odds.  If it wasn't then the guy who had a 90% chance would curse you forever when it failed (and it will fail for 10% of those people).

I'm all for randomness, but not this kind of randomness. 

[tesselode]

This idea reminds of Solitaire. Except you always have a low chance of winning.

I think this is a cool idea, but it wouldn't make a good game by itself. If it were worked into a game that relied on other things to make it fun, however, it would be an interesting idea. Maybe you could beat the game properly, or you could try to beat it without doing everything you're supposed to and try your luck. It could be worked into a storyline.

[XRA]

it's an idea worth exploring, but I'd remove the random chance of failure in terms of it being a dice roll, and instead have the Player be in direct control at all times...the chance of failure would be put to use in measurable ways that affect the controls or how the ship performs.   So a player trying to escape with 15% chance of survival has a ship that barely flies 10 feet off the ground, or wont steer...etc.. but maybe it can be finessed by a skilled Player to assist them in reaching more resources.
Each time the Player crash lands again they lose a certain amount of resources that they had collected, so it is a setback and not total failure.
 Maybe the further the Player progresses in their escape the more risk, asteroid fields that require a responsive ship and pose a great threat to a half-functioning ship whos boosters may not reliably fire to evade obstacles in time... etc, maybe there is an incentive or time limit that makes Players want to risk escaping sooner with a partially rebuilt ship.  I wanna make this game now 

[frederiksen]

i kinda like the idea but for me there are 2 problems: Why wouldn't you just collect all items, there must be a reason for taking off too soon. And when i take off with 40% and make it i don't know if it would feel that satisfying because i know it was just luck that i finished the game. And my reward for completing the game with 40% is the same as with 100%. The game i think of now is Spelunky, because it somehow did something similar. You can go straight to the exit or take your time collecting everything. In the end it doesn't matter how you get through but you get a reward for taking longer but in your game the reward is the same(i don't know if that makes sense).

 

[iffi]

I like XRA's idea of replacing the luck aspect with skill - make it harder, but not necessarily less likely, to win if you skip some of the items. Kind of reminds me of how you can beat Hero Core without actually getting any of the upgrades. It could potentially make for some interesting speedruns.

Also, I think that this is something that should be paired with permadeath or a short game that doesn't have saves, to prevent people from just getting the minimum number of items and retrying the end until they win.

[man of doom]

I believe that the original concept is not a good one as a primnary gameplay mechanic. My views are to either replace probability with difficulty, as has been mentioned before, or to use it as a secondary mechanic, for example sending out a space probe to do research on other planets or something. The more research/resources/time you put in the more likely you are to succeed, but the more you have to lose. However failure does not cost one the entire game. In this manner it would be akin to a gambling minigame. The player should not have to rely on chance to advance in my view.

[deathtotheweird]

i'd play it. especially if it was a short flash game or something.

[Zaphos]

I could see this working as a multiplayer game with short rounds -- like you're all racing for resources & profit (which are separate things), and when anyone tries to leave you have the chance of getting on the ship with them, or waiting.  If you get on with them, you pool resources and split profits (but if it fails everyone on the ship loses).  If you wait, then if they fail the ship parts come back and you'll get a chance to go later, otherwise you're stuck and lose.  There could also be additional options to sabotage or help the other players throughout.  Or something like that.

[LemonScented]

I like it. I'd make a few suggestions:

- Don't fudge the probabilities, like people have suggested. Let people make the call and know it's the real deal.

- I think it's better suited to a shorter game rather than an epically long one.

- I like frederiksen's idea that there should be something acting as an incentive to risk taking off before 100%, perhaps some kind of threat on the planet itself.

I don't think this would be the most fun game of all time, but introducing randomness into something as important as whether you win or lose, and giving the player the tools to choose what level of randomness they're willing to accept is an interesting experiment. And interesting experiments can do good things for the progression of game design as a whole.

[LazyWaffle]

I'm actually kind of interested in this idea. I think it would work pretty well as a metroidvania, similar to the Great Cave Offensive but maybe more ambient Knytt-ish. Anyone interested in collaborating?

[Triplefox]

http://www.vizzed.com/vizzedboard/retro/game.php?id=6246&system=appleii&name=Run-For-The-Money

(http://www.mushca.com/f/atari/index.php?idx=6 diskette #289 for the much better Atari 800 version with funky title screen music)

Almost exactly the described probability system, except it's visual(you fill up your ship's panel with "paint") and it doesn't game over you for failing.

Whenever my brother played this when we were young, he would obsessively fill every last pixel. I would just make a go of it at like 50%.

[moi]

I didn't read the whole thread, but to answer the original idea:
what would be cool would be to hunt several parts of the ship, and then if you want to take off without 100% you don't lose but you enter another game where you have to fix the ship's system while piloting out of the atmosphere, and putting out fires, etc...It would be hectic.
And if you get the 100% you'd get a reward cinematic or sthg.

[rivon]

I'd imagine the game as having two parts, first a platformer part where you gather the ship parts etc. and then shmup part where you try to not get hit by asteroids etc. The gathered parts would then make controlling the ship different. Like it would steer faster, it would survive more hits, it could destroy asteroids in front of it etc.

I wanna do this