🔒 Locked

Automatic evil twins

Started by Wavinator May 4, 2004 at 9:25 PM 21 replies 2.3k views

Original Post

May 4, 2004 at 9:25 PM

A downside to a great open ended game is that you can level up to a point where you fear neither man nor beast (or starship, in the case of my design). Since you don''t necessarily have to follow the story and can spend your time XP farming or exploring or trading it can be easy to get to a point where game difficulty goes down to the point of being boring. Now, challenges must be somewhat static or you won''t have something to measure yourself by (as in "man, I can kill that troll with one hit now!"). But if they stay static, you outgrow them. Even if new and unique challenges appear only when you level up, as in Morrowind, you eventually will top out because no game can keep creating unique challenges forever. You could automatically raise the stats of challenges in the game world, but this is akin to leveling the player down ("nerfing" them to be weak). You could have a world where challenges got tougher and tougher the further out you went, but then you''d be creating a world where the boring center got larger and larger. What about a very simple solution: Nemesis characters that arise naturally in the game world to oppose the player based on whatever gameplay they engage in the most. These characters would be equipped and skilled in an complementary fashion, and vary in either being equal, slightly weaker, stronger, or much stronger than the player. These nemesis characters, either individuals or gangs, would then level up with the player. Relatively weaker characters would level more quickly than stronger characters, but a nemesis would never be less than slightly weaker than the player. The game would record the player''s favorite tactics in whatever gameplay they engaged and remember weapons/items they use alot, frequented locations, favorite powers, etc. The nemesis would be designed with these elements in mind. Of course, it would be cheap if you just dropped in an automatic counter to the player without giving them any way out or any reason for it happening. So here''s where the idea may have some hope: The game world would begin to drop hints about the nemesis as the player advanced. First, the nemesis would be part of rumors and small talk. Next, they would slightly alter semi-random events in the game world (such as availability of a certain supplies, like fuel or trade goods). Then, they would begin to snap up parallel missions or appear as light skirmishers in opposing missions. Finally, they''d begin to directly impact the player''s business opportunities and impugn the player''s reputation (through trash talk, or false allegations). At each stage, the player is given an opportunity to gain bits and pieces of info about the nemesis. First, they could get non-vital stats (name, description) and a randomly generated pseudo-history. Next, they could get frequented locations, which actually increase the random encounter chance of the nemesis in those areas. Finally, they would have access to always sketchy vital statistics, such as equipment, strengths, weaknesses, etc. At the final stage, though, when the player elects to start asking more probing questions, it kicks the nemesis into high gear and arranges for a confrontation, which involves increasing to a high chance the possibility of encounters. There is a slight delay before this happens, allowing the player to prepare, but it shouldn''t be long enough for the player to overprepare (say, by massively leveling up or buying tons of equipment). The nemesis would spawn for these reasons:

Fear player strength - They want to take down rivals and inevitably come down heavy handed doing so, employing intimidation, scare tactics or outright violence
Envy player success - They want to make a name for themselves by taking down the player
Coopt player - They want what the player has or for the player to serve them, but this is always an unfair deal not in the player''s best interest
Vendetta - As a result of a specific mission success, the nemesis would spawn and appear long after, having been somehow related to the defeated parties and training for revenge; this form of conflict has the nemesis either wanting to ruin or harm the player

There would be two types of nemesis NPCs or gangs: Static and roving. A static nemesis would stay in the area they were spawned and would continue to level up, matching pace with the player within some bounds (again, being stronger or weaker). A roving nemesis would actually follow the player around, causing them trouble. The static nemesis would simply have a chance to appear when a player visits an area (they''d otherwise be off leveling up), with the chance increasing as soon as the player starts asking around about them. But the random nemesis would actually shadow the player, staying back from time to time, but always offering the threat of conflict. The player would have these strategies to deal with the nemesis:

Stealth - They could possibly lose a roving nemesis upon successful use of stealth, and help prevent the spawning of a static nemesis when traveling through their territory. However, as a complement to stealth, the nemesis begins to develop greater counter-measures.
Run - The player could try to out distance roving nemesis characters and flee from encounters with static nemesis characters. This is the only real way in game for the player to signal that they don''t want to deal with this challenge.
Bribe - The player could temporarily buy off all but vendetta spawned nemesis characters, but the effect would be temporary and would escalate with each bribe
Surrender - The player could voluntarily "de-level" themselves in the case of fear, give up their activities in the case of envy, and serve the nemesis in the case of coopt. Vendetta has no such option.
Confront - The player would have to do something to remove the nemesis as a threat

The last item is what really needs to happen, but the others forestall it and put pressure on the player. The nemesis doesn''t have to just be combat-oriented. It can be someone who ruins trade opportunities, snaps up the treasure before the player can, steals from them, frames them, turns NPCs against the player through bribery or intimidation, underbids them for missions, or employs covert sabotage / sniping against the player. To mix things up, from time to time the game should generate red herring nemesis characters. These would be a nemesis that is dealt with behind the scenes by the game world or a "good twin" of the player that spawns, defeats the nemesis, then goes inactive. Or it could be a nemesis that experiences a temporary "behind the scenes" setback. For setbacks, or characters that are only partially defeated, the nemesis could multiply, thus "joining forces." Also, when the game spawns a much more powerful nemesis, there is an equal chance that it will spawn a temporary allied NPC that has a vested interest in helping the player bring down the nemesis. I see blending this idea with challenges that progress as the player moves further from the starting location in the game world. The player will then have the option of "XP farming" out on the border, but also won''t get bored when coming back home. Thoughts? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

dgaf

May 4, 2004 at 10:03 PM

If roaming encounters increase as a player does (and thus slow progress / create a constant gameplay intensity), wouldn''t the player be less likely to want to be stronger? I''m not sure if taking away the motivation to be stronger is necessarily a good thing. People should be able to be excessively strong if they want (as part of uniquely indentifying their style of play) with certain limitations. Chances are, they may feel cheated out of being able to play as a strong fighter (or develop specific combative skills) and will force them to adopt (perhaps unfairly) a new style.

If I was an archer because I chose to be and wanted to use ranged weapons, I would feel cheated to have enemies immunize themselves against my attacks and thus force me to adopt new skills. Tactics may be a little more flexible, but if I am an archer, I can''t be expected to have to learn to use a sword/shield or axe.

Wavinator

May 5, 2004 at 2:47 AM

quote:
Original post by dgaf
If roaming encounters increase as a player does (and thus slow progress / create a constant gameplay intensity), wouldn't the player be less likely to want to be stronger?

They would still want to be stronger in order to deal with all the regular random encounters that progressively intensify as the player goes farther out from home. So you'd still be able to be godly, just not against a handful of NPCs that crop up.

EDIT: And how does a nemesis slow progress? Don't players naturally tackle stronger and stronger challenges anyway?

quote:

Chances are, they may feel cheated out of being able to play as a strong fighter (or develop specific combative skills) and will force them to adopt (perhaps unfairly) a new style.

The main benefit would be occassionally encountering foes who force you to reconsider your strategy. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, especially if you know that you're going to be challenged to play differently (which I think is a good thing).

quote:

If I was an archer because I chose to be and wanted to use ranged weapons, I would feel cheated to have enemies immunize themselves against my attacks and thus force me to adopt new skills.

Okay, what if you were an archer but your nemesis, some religious cult of centurions, went up against you with heavy shields in a tortoise formation? Now, if you're given some time to see this coming, you might decide to buy flaming oil or balista-- IOW, you wouldn't have to stop being an archer, but these guys, unlike most of the dumb monsters you're used to hacking and slashing, would require you to be a MUCH MORE AWESOME archer.

quote:

Tactics may be a little more flexible, but if I am an archer, I can't be expected to have to learn to use a sword/shield or axe.

This is interesting. Are you saying that you want to find one style of play and stick with it? Or are you concerned that the game will make you weak in one area?

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

[edited by - wavinator on May 5, 2004 3:51:52 AM]

grbrg

May 5, 2004 at 3:16 AM

quote:
Original post by dgaf
If I was an archer because I chose to be and wanted to use ranged weapons, I would feel cheated to have enemies immunize themselves against my attacks and thus force me to adopt new skills. Tactics may be a little more flexible, but if I am an archer, I can''t be expected to have to learn to use a sword/shield or axe.

I would not feel cheated in this situation - on the contrary! I''d love to have a game where the enemies adopt to my playstyle and I''d have to come up with new ways to beat them! Players nowadays stick too much effort into one playstyle, which they never alter. Games that encourage you to use your brain (say tactics!) are rare enough and would be a welcome change.

Staying weak is usually not an option in RPGs, since the challenges will grow while progressing anyway. On the other hand, if a player found another way of beating the game, other than getting stronger in fighting, why not let him? I would not consider it cheating if the player avoided all conflict and still managed to win. Maybe it''s a balance issue then, though, since fighting and the other aspects of the game would have to be equally viable.

To sum up, I like the idea of special enemies that are tightly bound to the player. It gives those nemesis a special touch - one that the player will remember...

------------------------------
There are only 10 kinds of people: those that understand binary and those that don''t.

Bad Entertainment

Hase

May 5, 2004 at 3:28 AM

It´s definitely an interesting idea, but I don´t think that it will take care of the problem. In essence, what you are looking for is a way to circumvent the usual "endgame" problems.

A nemesis will provide new challenges for a limited amount of time, but it´s not really something that will keep the player occupied forever. And there´s always the issue of "regular" mobs.

The easiest solution is to simply increase the ladder into the infinite, always have regions or NPCs that are meaner than the player and he´ll never run out of challenges. Of course, this is fairly predictable and not all that interesting. It also gets you in trouble if you have a gameworld of limited size.

A fairly elegant solution is "pirates" style, where you have to divide up the loot among the crew (and sell off all assets in the process), passing on a share of the earned riches into your personal account - which is, for gameplay reasons nothing but a way of keeping track of the score. In some games this is enforced by a time limit, or by the chance of severe losses (i.e. you cash in your loot just to be safe from losing it).
This works rather nicely for a limited amount of time, especially if you introduce new goods/gear/ships into the gameworld at regular timed intervals.

Another solution would be to provide a resource sink at very high levels - in your case maybe link certain ship or equipment types (which are stronger than the usual storebought items) to extremely costly ventures. That way the player will always have somehting to work towards (such as completing his hangar full of the coolest ships or investing in businesses that will, in the long run provide him with more ships).

Jamaludin

May 5, 2004 at 3:54 AM

Ah I was missing you already Wavinator hghee,

making a fair statement again...

About your idea, I love it. Ofcourse this is a good way to tackle this.
Cos I hate the fact that I as a lone player am so kick ass that I have no competition there is ALWAYS someone better in every profesion, every sport, every lifestyle so some opponents that will give you a hard time is a lovely way to make the game intense again.

Ofcourse it is hard to implement his without making it so that growing stronger wouldnt benefit you cos there are allot that can still kick your ass.
I think you can limit this by just making a low quantity of NPC indivudals that have the same spirit as the player. With this I mean NPC''s that have the same goal of becoming stronger and the best, this is still realistic as it is the same in the real world so...

And least it would not even be a pity if you would die by the hand of a better foe, real warriors that live and die with the warriors spirit are always looking for that one person, that one opponent that poses a challenge for them, or is better to them.
They wont rest till theyve found it, it can be a goal as well.

Hope it was a bit usefull,
and I hope you dont mind me using the way you use your posts as examples for what your working on, if your ok with that I will do it in a short while as well with my "PROJECT P.A.L."

Cya when I cya !

kseh

May 5, 2004 at 4:14 AM

I like the idea. I''d like to be able to encounter a nemisis character now and then without the encounter turning lethal. Lay down a few threats maybe. Steal from them. Make them hate you even more. I say, the more you can interact with them the better.

I''ve been playing Inindo recently. They have characters that level up along side the player and pop up from time to time in tea houses, inns, castles, etc to try to kill you for a reward. Sometime after you fight them you can find them resting somewhere and talk to them a bit. I like it better than the random encounters in the game, but sometimes that''s still what it feels like.

TechnoGoth

May 5, 2004 at 10:41 AM

It might be good to have one main nemsis. This main nemesis would be the polar opposite of the character. The nemesis would grow at the same pace as the player, when the player gain skills the the nemesis would gain skills that counteract those skills. If the player played as a pirate the nemesis would play as a police officer. The player increases their smuggling skill the nemsis increases their searching skill.

The nemesis could go through the game world undoning the player actions. The player installs a new governor on a planet that agrees with your views, the nemesis plans their assassination.

Until the eventual final confrontation between the player and their nemsis. You could even have several confrontations along the way, where if the nemesis loses they manage to survie but require months in healing tank or have to have limbs replaced with cybernetics replacements

-----------------------------------------------------
"Fate and Destiny only give you the opportunity the rest you have to do on your own."
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

frostburn

May 5, 2004 at 10:54 AM

Some of you may know that I''m also working with an idea for a space rpg (more like fiddeling with it at the moment). I plan on making many different human civilizations and possibly some alien. These can be mega corporations and varying kinds of goverments (feudal, democraty, teocraty, monarchy, dictatorships etc) spanning several systems. These will be working with or against each other in varying degree. If the player gets very friendly with one mega corporation and helps them a lot then competing corporations may send out people to try to level the playing field so to speak. These will naturally have to be powerful enough to have a chance. They may also try to "convince" the player to change sides by bribery or other acts. In the end the player may become strong enough to take control of a planet or a group of planets, but he''ll never be all powerful and safe against everything. Even in the throne room of the homeworld of dominated systems enemies may still send assassins and the like. It''s impossible to be liked by everyone. Even if you dominate all the planets in the "universe", there will still be rebels.

Your ship may be the most powerful ship in the galaxy, but if the enemy outnumber you enough you''ll still get blown out of the sky. No armor is totally inpenetrable. No one survives a bullet in the brain or breathing vacuum. Can you really trust your friends?

In my design the most important way the player gets stronger is to add more and better ships to his fleet. In the beginning you have a single shitty ship, but as the game progresses you can get hired and have more ships in your wing, then you get wing commander, squadron commander, mothership captain etc. You can do piracy and steal ships or hire henchmen, who can get fed up with your poor payment and turn on you, stealing some of your wealth and run. RPG elements will foremost be knowledge, trading, navigation, combat etc. But the player won''t become a über-strong sob who can hit the head off an opponent in one blow, nor having so many hitpoints that he can stand being shot repeatedly with a heavy assault cannon. That''s what ships are for, and even they can be destroyed.
There will be no hard caps on stats, but it''ll get harder and harder to increase them as they rise.
Worst case scenario strenghtwise will be like a top athlete, but even they aren''t invulnerable.

Iron Chef Carnage

May 5, 2004 at 4:16 PM

Good to see you''re still making headway, Wavinator!

The nemesis system feels like a band-aid. When you build an in-game system that is basically a trick to make the player feel like they''ve got something to work toward, all you can do is try to camoflage it. For instance, what you''re doing here is putting one enemy in the game that can blow up your uber-ship, and having it irrationally try to do so. The boo-boo that you''re trying to patch up is the end-game doldrums, where you''ve got all the upgrades and your crew is the best in the galaxy.

Just make it impossible for players to really get that tough. Limit the technology, or use the mutually assured destruction system that you use for gunfights between infantry. If you and another super-tough ship go toe-to-toe, Terminator-style, then you''ll both be so shot up that a hobo in a space canoe could defeat you. Pirates who have just built fast ships with big guns and don''t mind suffering casualties to get at your cargo could be a threat even to large capital ships with clouds of fighters.

Or go the way the Star Trek goes. The U.S.S. Enterprise is a match for damn near anything they come across, but not every problem can be solved by phasering the hell out of it. Politics, bizarre diseases, or multiple badass ships can be a problem, and by the time your ship gets that big and strong, you''ll have personnel problems, espionage problems, and maintenance issues to keep abreast of. I might even leave my capital ship and take a polition on a smaller ship, taking the risk of losing a fight over the burden of command.

The nemesis is a good feature, and can lend heavily to the plot and to NPC character development. Having certain NPCs that are personal friends or enemies would be awesome, and if one of those guys really gets his hate on for you and decides to dedicate his life to killing you, that''s okay. I''m also okay with fudging things a little bit so that your nemesis shows up right when you should be in the clear, or your ally shows up to save your bacon at a critical moment. All these things could be handled with relative ease by your already-sophisticated loyalty and reputation systems.

Nathaniel Hammen

May 5, 2004 at 4:34 PM

This is a pretty cool idea, especially Iron Chef Carnage''s last comment. I would love to see it implemented.

--------------------------------------
I am the master of stories.....
If only I could just write them down...

Wavinator

May 5, 2004 at 10:12 PM

quote:
Original post by grbrg
Staying weak is usually not an option in RPGs, since the challenges will grow while progressing anyway. On the other hand, if a player found another way of beating the game, other than getting stronger in fighting, why not let him? I would not consider it cheating if the player avoided all conflict and still managed to win. Maybe it''s a balance issue then, though, since fighting and the other aspects of the game would have to be equally viable.

Yes, that''s my hope, so that you don''t end up only being able to "win" with just hack & slash. Also, it gives you a taste of the other forms of gameplay the game has to offer.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Wavinator

May 6, 2004 at 5:08 PM

quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
Good to see you''re still making headway, Wavinator!

Still plugging along!

quote:

The nemesis system feels like a band-aid. When you build an in-game system that is basically a trick to make the player feel like they''ve got something to work toward, all you can do is try to camoflage it. For instance, what you''re doing here is putting one enemy in the game that can blow up your uber-ship, and having it irrationally try to do so.

Actually, I was hoping that this would be a recurring thing, a series of enemies that arose to challenge you as you got stronger, but simply sought you out rather than waiting for you to come to them.

quote:

Just make it impossible for players to really get that tough. Limit the technology, or use the mutually assured destruction system that you use for gunfights between infantry. If you and another super-tough ship go toe-to-toe, Terminator-style, then you''ll both be so shot up that a hobo in a space canoe could defeat you. Pirates who have just built fast ships with big guns and don''t mind suffering casualties to get at your cargo could be a threat even to large capital ships with clouds of fighters.

Here''s a problem: If the combat system is uniformly destructive from start to finish, players will have a hard time leveling. But if it only becomes massively destructive toward the end, the game suddenly switches gears and drops whatever fun factor made leveling fun in the first place.

Either idea is logical. Combat could be deadly from the start or only become so when big ships start using mass destruction weapons. But I''m not sure this is fun. It would be like Morrowind suddenly turning into Counterstrike.

quote:

Or go the way the Star Trek goes. The U.S.S. Enterprise is a match for damn near anything they come across, but not every problem can be solved by phasering the hell out of it. Politics, bizarre diseases, or multiple badass ships can be a problem, and by the time your ship gets that big and strong, you''ll have personnel problems, espionage problems, and maintenance issues to keep abreast of. I might even leave my capital ship and take a polition on a smaller ship, taking the risk of losing a fight over the burden of command.

My thinking might be flawed, but I was trying to counter the situation where a person plays the game just for hack & slash purposes primarily. Because there are so many other things to do, though, that might not be a valid assumption. Although, in an open-ended game, you can never tell what people are going to do. I have in mind a "robot crew" option or the Rogue AI character class I mentioned before as examples where the gameplay as ship dominates everything else, and thus must be perfected. (''Course, you can''t have everything

)

quote:

The nemesis is a good feature, and can lend heavily to the plot and to NPC character development. Having certain NPCs that are personal friends or enemies would be awesome, and if one of those guys really gets his hate on for you and decides to dedicate his life to killing you, that''s okay. I''m also okay with fudging things a little bit so that your nemesis shows up right when you should be in the clear, or your ally shows up to save your bacon at a critical moment. All these things could be handled with relative ease by your already-sophisticated loyalty and reputation systems.

Are we basically in agreement with the nemesis being a repeating serious of challenges rather than just a one time kludge? Or are you objecting to it deterministically arising out of the game world, rather than naturally flowing from the player''s interactions within. IOW, if the player has no crew and simply sticks to monster hunting out on the borders of civilization, I''d still give him a series of nemesis challenges in the form of rival hunters.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Wavinator

May 6, 2004 at 5:14 PM

quote:
Original post by TechnoGoth
It might be good to have one main nemsis. This main nemesis would be the polar opposite of the character. The nemesis would grow at the same pace as the player, when the player gain skills the the nemesis would gain skills that counteract those skills. If the player played as a pirate the nemesis would play as a police officer. The player increases their smuggling skill the nemsis increases their searching skill.

Right, this is basically what I had in mind, but I wouldn''t do just one for the entire time the player played. I''d do a series, and let him knock them down as he/she knocked them down.

quote:

The nemesis could go through the game world undoning the player actions. The player installs a new governor on a planet that agrees with your views, the nemesis plans their assassination.

Exactly. Once the player gains notoriety, they themselves would be consider a "player" in the world. Others would start to take notice of them.

If there were multiple nemesis characters, you could even have the possibility of interesting events between them and the player: Maybe two team up against the player after he fails to destroy one; or maybe the player and a nemesis team up for a temporary alliance.

Moreso than XP farming faceless monsters, the nemesis NPCs would give more life and character. It would be great to inspire the emotional response from the player of fist shaking and cursing not the game, but a specific character and plotting how to take them down.

quote:

Until the eventual final confrontation between the player and their nemsis. You could even have several confrontations along the way, where if the nemesis loses they manage to survie but require months in healing tank or have to have limbs replaced with cybernetics replacements

This is sort of the "I''ll be back" mechanic that we see with so many good villians we love to hate. And in a gameworld brimming with alien artifacts and ill-understood leftover technology, villains with an escape hatch would be plausible (as long as it didn''t happen too frequently).

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Wavinator

May 6, 2004 at 5:29 PM

quote:
Original post by Hase
It´s definitely an interesting idea, but I don´t think that it will take care of the problem. In essence, what you are looking for is a way to circumvent the usual "endgame" problems.

A nemesis will provide new challenges for a limited amount of time, but it´s not really something that will keep the player occupied forever.

I''d agree with you if it was only one nemesis, but if they keep popping up with different names, interests, goals and whatnot, do you think this criticism is still valid?

quote:

And there´s always the issue of "regular" mobs.

What do you mean?

quote:

The easiest solution is to simply increase the ladder into the infinite, always have regions or NPCs that are meaner than the player and he´ll never run out of challenges. Of course, this is fairly predictable and not all that interesting. It also gets you in trouble if you have a gameworld of limited size.

You could simply re-populate conquered areas with stronger challenges, and I may do that in some stubborn areas, but overall, I think it''s important for the player to both feel like their making progress and gain ground in the game world. If they wipe out a pirate base in a frontier system, and that system fills up with settlers, the pirates in many cases should stay gone. If on average they simply reappeared, the player''s actions would be meaningless (like spraying for bugs that adapt to the spray).

So, if the player can change the map and sort of spread order and control, this means that they have to keep moving outward. Now I''ve got extra-dimensional monsters to deal with as a very convenient way of providing some challenge, but again these monsters need to be able to be (in most cases) pushed back.

Now since this is space, the monsters could just get infinitely bigger and bigger, but this means that the game has to encompasses a larger and larger space. Assuming this is no problem (just assume) it still leaves the player with a world which is more and more boring to travel. Think of a ring growing wider and wider-- it takes more time to travel to travel the world (for supplies, repairs, etc.) as well as travel the ring itself.

quote:

A fairly elegant solution is "pirates" style, where you have to divide up the loot among the crew (and sell off all assets in the process), passing on a share of the earned riches into your personal account - which is, for gameplay reasons nothing but a way of keeping track of the score.

I never played that game but loved the idea. It only works, though, with pirates who were sailing "on account" and expected to get paid hansomely for their service.

quote:

In some games this is enforced by a time limit,

And yet for RPG players, a time limit is an unforgivable sin.

quote:

This works rather nicely for a limited amount of time, especially if you introduce new goods/gear/ships into the gameworld at regular timed intervals.

If technology advanced, it would be proper for the world to level up around you. But I still think there should be areas where the player can taste a bit of godliness. It''s just nice to be able to go back and kick the schoolyard bully''s butt after getting whipped before.

quote:

Another solution would be to provide a resource sink at very high levels - in your case maybe link certain ship or equipment types (which are stronger than the usual storebought items) to extremely costly ventures. That way the player will always have somehting to work towards (such as completing his hangar full of the coolest ships or investing in businesses that will, in the long run provide him with more ships).

I DO see major resource sinks like funding and protecting businesses. Since leveling is based on money (by buying skills and shipp upgrades), this will help. But after awhile, all ventures are expected to yeild more money, even if they''re hugely expensive. IOW, the problem doesn''t go away, it just takes longer to hit the ceiling, unless there are "cyber-equals" in the game world specifically devoted to giving you trouble.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Wavinator

May 6, 2004 at 5:34 PM

quote:
Original post by kseh
I like the idea. I''d like to be able to encounter a nemisis character now and then without the encounter turning lethal. Lay down a few threats maybe. Steal from them. Make them hate you even more. I say, the more you can interact with them the better.

Yes, got it. I want to be careful in terms of positive interaction, so that they''ll still end up opposing you, but the more negative interaction, the better!

quote:

I''ve been playing Inindo recently. They have characters that level up along side the player and pop up from time to time in tea houses, inns, castles, etc to try to kill you for a reward. Sometime after you fight them you can find them resting somewhere and talk to them a bit. I like it better than the random encounters in the game, but sometimes that''s still what it feels like.

About these still feeling like random encounters: What does that, the fact that you can''t get a sense of them moving about the game world realistically? IOW, that they don''t either have permanence (always hanging out at the pub, rather than occassionally, for example). Would it help to have more trivial encounters, such as seeing them off in the distance doing something, or talking to another character you pass, or passing them in the market?

IRL, there are people we meet infrequently but repeatedly (e.g., a student at school). They might as well be random encounters, if you think about it. Maybe because we''re so exposed to random encounters in games every infrequent meeting will feel like one.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

kseh

May 6, 2004 at 8:27 PM

Just a few vague feelings that may or may not be useful.

quote:

About these still feeling like random encounters: What does that, the fact that you can't get a sense of them moving about the game world realistically? IOW, that they don't either have permanence (always hanging out at the pub, rather than occassionally, for example). Would it help to have more trivial encounters, such as seeing them off in the distance doing something, or talking to another character you pass, or passing them in the market?

IRL, there are people we meet infrequently but repeatedly (e.g., a student at school). They might as well be random encounters, if you think about it. Maybe because we're so exposed to random encounters in games every infrequent meeting will feel like one.

You have a point there. Regular random encounters are common in RPGS. You get used to them. IRL you don't think much about random encounters with people. But continually running into someone that doesn't like you... it feels more like they're doing it on purpose to make your life miserable. It seldom feels trivial and it's rare you can just spot the person and walk away or buy them a beer and chat.

One thing about those encounters in the game was that it was possible to view the character's stats after you "defeat" him so you could decide to enlist them into your party. When you encounter a character a few times and notice that their stats go up the same rate as yours, it feels somewhat contrived. The nature of the game gives no sense of chase (it can't really with the teleport spells available). It is possible to learn about these people that attack you. If you go pay a seer to tell you what you want to know, If you can remember the person's name, and if you can pick that name from a long list of other names. But there isn't much motivation to go visit a seer. I'd describe it as a micromanagement step that you know you can easily skip with no real consequence.

Some (if not all) of the people you meet that you can recruit have a home town. What if there are a few people in that town that are real proud (or ashamed) that the legendary Tofumaru is from there. Maybe they've heard some news about him recently and are itching to share the latest gosip. Maybe there's flaws in this idea as well.

quote:

First, the nemesis would be part of rumors and small talk. Next, they would slightly alter semi-random events in the game world (such as availability of a certain supplies, like fuel or trade goods). Then, they would begin to snap up parallel missions or appear as light skirmishers in opposing missions. Finally, they'd begin to directly impact the player's business opportunities and impugn the player's reputation (through trash talk, or false allegations).

I think this is the primary track to follow. Knowing that you have competition and being able to see the results of that competition I think is an excellent game element to have. If people want to see that their own actions have effects on the game world then it stands to reason that they want to see the effects of characters that are supposed to be their equals. As far as having someone hunting you down... I can only suggest trying to add elements that make you feel like you're being chased.

[edited by - kseh on May 6, 2004 9:29:08 PM]

Iron Chef Carnage

May 7, 2004 at 11:57 AM

quote:
Original post by Wavinator
Actually, I was hoping that this would be a recurring thing, a series of enemies that arose to challenge you as you got stronger, but simply sought you out rather than waiting for you to come to them.

Pretty good. The more "fleshed out" these characters are, the better the system will be. Just having a bizzarro player out there who lives to make you suffer makes for a flat character in an important role.

quote:
It would be like Morrowind suddenly turning into Counterstrike.

Well said. Paradigm shifts in games are one of my pet peeves.

quote:
Or are you objecting to it deterministically arising out of the game world, rather than naturally flowing from the player's interactions within. IOW, if the player has no crew and simply sticks to monster hunting out on the borders of civilization, I'd still give him a series of nemesis challenges in the form of rival hunters.

I object to a purely enemy character, that arises from nowhere just to challenge the player. The dynamic is great, and the game feature is practically indispensible, but the execution must be a little more subtle than having some guy start hating you and dedicte his life to matching and besting you in combat, commerce, or on the dance floor.

I think this idea would work best if it was implemented alongside a large library of NPC personalities. In Escape Velocity, you could run into a number of "named" NPCs. The designers were mostly in there, and a few of the pirates had names, and when you blew up their ships (if you could) they would eject and reappear at a later time, just as tough. If you put a population of such characters in your game, and maybe added in some non-captian types, like diplomats, princesses and merchants, you would have a wellspring of potential allies, nemeses and contacts.

Say you work your way into the Imperial Navy, and are assigned the task of vaporizing a small space colony. It's a self-contained nation, and it's know to be collaborating with rebels. So you roll your Dreadnaught over there, charge up your particle cannon, and disintegrate the station, its pathetic defense fleet, and the three million citizens on board. Well, one cloaked diplomatic ship gets away, and on it is the Prime Minister's eighteen-year-old son. He's pissed. And rich. And he has contacts in the resistance movement. He does a little homework, gets your name, and spends his fortune building a new flagship for the rebels, which he leads into combat against you time and time again. There's your nemesis.

On the other hand, you might get there, fake an emergency, have your crew abandon ship, and dock with the station, scoring a fancy new battleship and some precious intel for the rebels, at which point the handful of major NPCs there become your allies and blah, blah, blah the Empire sends a few trained killers after you.

As long as each nemesis has a good excuse to be fighting you, that's fine. If I'm collecting space chickens on the edge of space, then have some other space chicken wrangler decide to kill me and take my space chickens. If I kick his butt, have his son swear vengeance upon me. No sweat. Heck, as soon as you kill somebody, you've got grounds for a brother/sister/son/protege to become your nemesis. But I'd like to be able to meet these people before they're my enemy, and maybe even be able to talk them out of killing me.

You can throw in a cosmological constant that will ensure that at least one jackass hates me, maybe just use the reputation system and have the character with the lowest opinion of me decide I need to go down.

[edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on May 7, 2004 1:00:05 PM]

Wavinator

May 8, 2004 at 12:56 PM

quote:
Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I object to a purely enemy character, that arises from nowhere just to challenge the player.

Aha! I see now. It feels cheap because it''s a non sequitor, and because you don''t have any control over it happening (like being cursed by fate).

This is VERY helpful.

quote:

I think this idea would work best if it was implemented alongside a large library of NPC personalities. In Escape Velocity, you could run into a number of "named" NPCs. The designers were mostly in there, and a few of the pirates had names, and when you blew up their ships (if you could) they would eject and reappear at a later time, just as tough. If you put a population of such characters in your game, and maybe added in some non-captian types, like diplomats, princesses and merchants, you would have a wellspring of potential allies, nemeses and contacts.

Great example, I''d forgotten about this.

Yes, I now think this is a far superior approach, especially if there were some sort of balancing mechanism that automatically created strife with at least one of these characters. Then you wouldn''t necessarily know where the next challenge was coming from, but you would know (just by the politics of the universe) that you''re inevitably going to PO someone, if for no other reason than that the personalities and goals are different.

quote:

Say you work your way into the Imperial Navy, and are assigned the task of vaporizing a small space colony. It''s a self-contained nation, and it''s know to be collaborating with rebels. So you roll your Dreadnaught over there, charge up your particle cannon, and disintegrate the station, its pathetic defense fleet, and the three million citizens on board. Well, one cloaked diplomatic ship gets away, and on it is the Prime Minister''s eighteen-year-old son. He''s pissed. And rich. And he has contacts in the resistance movement. He does a little homework, gets your name, and spends his fortune building a new flagship for the rebels, which he leads into combat against you time and time again. There''s your nemesis.

On the other hand, you might get there, fake an emergency, have your crew abandon ship, and dock with the station, scoring a fancy new battleship and some precious intel for the rebels, at which point the handful of major NPCs there become your allies and blah, blah, blah the Empire sends a few trained killers after you.

How do you feel about this sort of thing being somewhat randomized, and therefore generic? Meaning NPCs are composed of fragments of stories and randomized relationships, yet still directly tied to your actions.

For example, you destroy a colony and the game draws from a table of relationships and excuses why someone cared: "son/daughter of politician...", "businessman with interests...", "a bounty hunter turned vigilante..."

Context excuses would be something like: "...heard about it on the news", "...was out vacationing nearby", "...barely survived your attack"

These would be mixed and matched, and you as a player would never be able to stamp out all possible loose ends. Even if you nuked the planet, scanned the entire area thoroughly, and destroyed every passing ship, one of these guys would escape.

Would you feel cheated?

quote:

Heck, as soon as you kill somebody, you''ve got grounds for a brother/sister/son/protege to become your nemesis. But I''d like to be able to meet these people before they''re my enemy, and maybe even be able to talk them out of killing me.

Maybe the act of talking them out of killing you IS in and of itself sufficient continuous gameplay alongside combat. If persuasion had at least some of the nuance of combat, then you''d have continuous challenges that arose out of figuring out what to do to persuade people. But if it was something as simple as "give x thousand credits" each time then it''d be boring.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

makeshiftwings

May 12, 2004 at 5:02 AM

I like this idea a lot. The only thing that would worry me about it is that it might lead to counter-intuitive and un-fun metagaming if the nemeses are much more difficult than the standard enemies.

For example, in Final Fantasy 8, they had a system where the monsters would get harder the more you leveled, across the board, such that the game was much more difficult at high levels than at low levels. Thus, a lot of strategy guides and things recommended trying to not level at all and not to get cool new abilities. This would make the game easier, but to me, not much fun. Now, sure, you wouldn't HAVE to do this and could still level up and play as you want, but once you know the mechanics, you start to feel bad every time you level, thinking "Great, I just made the game harder..." instead of feeling good when you level and thinking "Yes! I am so uber!" and it was something I never liked.

Similarly, if the player began to understand the mechanics of the nemesis, he might start feeling like he should try NOT to gain power or NOT to use good strategy in battles because he knows that he would just make the game too difficult in the future, which isn't really much fun.

It has a lot in common with a thing I dislike in many games: trying to adjust for your difficulty behind the scenes without giving you the option of setting the difficulty yourself... once you figure out that they're doing it, you start to feel like you should play poorly on purpose to make the game easier on you so that you can win.

But done properly and with an eye to overall game balance, I think the nemesis a good idea.

[edited by - makeshiftwings on May 12, 2004 6:02:54 AM]

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.