What sort of choices, information and feedback do you need to feel like you've succeeded when you've ordered others to do something? Let's say that you're infiltrating an enemy base with a small squad of NPCs and you tell one of them to blow up a bridge. The NPC departs and you engage the base personnel elsewhere, then the bridge goes up in a massive explosion. What would have had to happen for you to feel like this was a satisfying victory? More specifically, what kind of control, instructions, and information would you have wanted to have had (keeping in mind that you'd likely be getting into the thick of things yourself).

---

Details: What I'm most trying to figure out is much is involved with sending NPCs to different places. I'm imagining you switching from a 3D view to a 3D map and clicking where you want people to go. The more heavily you're engaged in live action, the less bandwidth you have to worry about specific details like whether or not NPCs are properly supplied. Yet if you just click and send a guy and side-effects happen (such as them getting captured or spotted), there's a sense of being cheated because you made a decision without enough control. Thoughts?

Well I would think that the player should have had at least some control over an event (such as the destruction of a bridge) in order to feel victorious. Maybe if the player had control over each group of NPCs as a whole, and then was able to control them individually by taking out workers that are tired, bringing others in, etc. Let's not forget that the player should tell the NPCs when it is time to evacuate the bridge before... kaboom! [smile]

In such situations, I feel the most satisfaction as a player if my actions directly contributed to the NPC's success. Laying down covering fire, conducting a diversionary attack or other operation, having procured the explosives, or having planned the whole mission. I think the most vindication I have ever felt in a game is when I successfully planned an op in the PC version of Rainbow Six so perfectly my character never had to move or give a command.

In terms of a balance between player involvement and the ability to support and send NPCs to do your dirty work, I believe Ghost Recon struck a good balance. Even when bullets were landing all around the character you hopped into, the map was a button press away, and commanding another 1-3man team to flank the enemy was 2-4 quick mouseclicks away (about 0.5-1.0 seconds).

I will also add that it hurt (in Ghost Recon) when you sent a guy to run out from cover to a better position and he got mowed down/sniped/ran around a corner into 20 of the enemy. Either you gritted your teeth and fought on, or reloaded (I found myself playing through as much of the rest of the mission as I could, and then trying over for a perfect mission).

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator What sort of choices, information and feedback do you need to feel like you've succeeded when you've ordered others to do something?

Personally, I like setting every last little detail. The more control I have over the situation, the more I feel my choice was what made the situation successful. Using your example, I would like to have the floor plans of structures, possible pictures/photos of the area, demolition type, weapon loadout or stealth gear, and electronics equipment. Basically some sort of intel to assess the situation and come to a conclusion. Red Storm's Rainbow 6 series does a great job at doing this.

On the other hand, I can see how some people may not want all the extra information. I'm sure you could selectively limit the options by making it apart of the storyline. For example, you just hear from headquarters that a supply train will be crossing a bridge just north of your location and you have less than 30 minutes to somehow destroy/disable the bridge. By making it a suddenly urgent task, the player doesn't expect to have all the details, thus making them not as accountable for every choice that is made.

In the previous situation, I think you could satisfy the majority of people by splitting a goal up into basic tasks and checking to make sure they correspond to the story or event. The player has 30 minutes to 1) find the location, 2) infiltrate the base, and 3) destroy/disable the bridge. The amount of control over the event should be chosen by the player. Assuming this type of event will not occur repeatedly in the game, I can picture two opposite situations.

Situation 1
The player learns of the tasks and decides to do each in order ignoring possibilities of failure. At key steps such as infiltration and disabling/destroying the bridge, the player is shown different possibilities such as finding a broken detonator or noticing a sleeping guard on what could be a shortcut. The type of player that doesn't care to watch for details will probably miss these and choose the easiest path. The trick in this situation is to allow the player to succeed based on whether they chose the easy path or not. The player who skipped everything should succeed as long as all the goals (1, 2, and 3) are met. If the player successfully finds and infiltrates the base while ignoring the details then have a handy detonator and explosive nearby where the final goal is.

Situation 2
The player learns of the tasks and decides they need to prepare themselves first. Again, just create many optional details along the way. The player that decides to rummage through a nearby building may find some tools that can disable train tracks or an enemy uniform that they can use to infiltrate the base. The game should alter itself to allow for more or less details along the way if the player chooses to go that path. The trick in this situation is to make it look like the player is in complete control of the situation and thus make them feel responsible should the mission succeed. A player who is looking for more control over the outcome would skip doing the easy/obvious way because in their mind it would fail.

Summary: Let the player choose their level of involvement in the situation through playing. Let the game decide what the player wants and adjust accordingly.

Hope that helps or at least gives you some ideas.

winning by rpoxy yes as long as you have some control,
loseing by proxy is a bit diffrent, especilly if your AI has
some defficencys

On the same thought-process, in RPGs, it would be interesting to travel with a group of NPCs from place to place, and when your gang of heroes reaches a town, all the NPCs suddenly let you know "we'll meet you in the tavern after dark", and disappear to load up on supplies and equipment. Perhaps even upgrading their gear if it's feasable. (Just think of getting to the tavern later, and having your Conan the Barbarian-like warrior talking about the new 50 lb two-handed sword he got at the smithy!)