Ticking bombs would be nice too.
..tick..tick..tick..tick..
Adv: - "A BOMB! Quick, find it!"
Doc: - "OVER HERE!"
Eng: - "Disarming it now! 30 seconds left..."
Eng: - "15 seconds.. this is a tough one.."
Eng: - "9.. 8.. 7.. 6.. 5.. 4... RUN FOR THE DOOR!"
I like your ideas... but I do believe you vastly underestimate the difficulties involved. Yes, proper design and planning will always be better than not. However, it really isn't a simple solution you propose. While I believe everything you describe could be done (though I don't know that, as I don't know what their codebase looks like), I suspect many of the items would take several hundred hours of programming time, and would likely result in numerous bugs and balance issues.
The larger the matrix, the more complex the interactions... this is just simple math. MMORPGs, in general, are vast. AO is no exception. The more classes you have, the more interaction you must watch for. The more situations you have, the more chances of untenable ones you must watch for. Simple as that.
Let me spin a counter example for ya...
Let's say you have mission specific elements... your mission requires half a dozen skills to be successful, because of your "template puzzles". Do you put this in the mission description? If so, how do you write the system to properly describe that, without "giving it all away"? Or do you give it all away in the mission description? Questions that need answering.
Now, let's assume you go into this mission. Do you allow situations that are "one way"? For example, a bridge that must be extended that requires engineering skill to do, but that can only be active for "x" time? If so, what happens if that person dies? Or leaves? Or both? You can have people stuck in missions. This will create unhappy people.
Other questions... what about the random-mission-generator that is a key component of the game? Do you truly believe that adding in such template puzzles will be simplistic? If you add them in totally randomly... even then... it will require logic to decide "this one can only be used in this room", and the like. Special rooms will take further special logic... all of which must be carefully considered and coded.
The point I'm trying to make quickly, without writing too much of an essay or a full design document, is that there is no simple answer. Your ideas have merit and are solid. However, the implementation is likely much more than you realize... and no amount of "good planning" will change this. Planning will get you so far... and then it just becomes hard work, and lots of it, to get it in.
Hawk, while your arguments hold merit, you are making too many assumptions without any knowledge of the codebase whatsoever. The choice of languages tells you nothing, and that's the only thing you know (AO was written in C++).
Basically you know that AO MAY have been written using OOP techniques. Then again, a lot of your arguments against these missions seemed to be based on asuming the code was NOT designed and implemeneted using object orientation.
You talk about having to add functionality and special cases, when in fact, if AO was programmed using true objects, then these missions wouldn't be too hard to implement.
If we are permitted to assume as much as you have, then it is safe to assume that they HAVE used true object orientation practices. If so, then things could work as follows:
What would take time is what industry folks refer to as "business logic." In other words, balancing issues. Questions like "What profs get what puzzles?" and "How much experience/loot should be rewarded?" can be answered by people who have never in their lives seena drop of code. As such, the coding team's time need not be usurped. Also, if they are smart, they could program the functionality in to be tweakable with paramters so that balancing issues can be addressed by mearly changing constants in a database. As such, you can have the developers design and implement puzzles independant of who and how they are used. Also, many puzzles should be possible by reusing many of the objects and methods that currently exist in code, and putting them and instantiating these objects and calling these methods from a series of a few new objects created in code. If they are smart, they would create a few base types of mission puzzles which can be expandable to seem like more. For example, an object which requires a tradeskill to activate could be one object which might have the following attributes:
Skill used (e.g. Quantum Physics)
Puzzle Object Type (e.g. Sentry Turret)
Puzzle Object Activation Method (e.g. sentryGun.deactivate())
Puzzle Object Failure Method (e.g. sentryGun.attack(player Bob))
This way, when a tradeskill puzzle is generated, a random tradeskill is picked, a random thing to use it on is picked, and based on the methods available to that thing, it would pick a random action for it to take when succeeds and when you fail. All of these things can be kept in tables in a DB such that you can dynamically generate just about any tradeskill puzzle which is based on that formula, and OMG YOU ONLY NEED TO MAKE ONE OBJECT! Imagine that! This is how GOOD design and development is done.
Keep in mind, this was written making no more assumptions than you already have, Greenhawk. So, the door swings both ways. I'm willing to give Funcom the benefit of the doubt.
And while you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, I am not based on the difficulty they have had dealing with bugs and feature implementation during their development cycle. With purely the anecdotal evidence we have in front of us, I honestly can't imagine how you could come to the conclusion their codebase is as beautifully crafted as you describe.
This having been said, let's assume for a moment it is. Let's presume they have the most beautiful C++ OOP codebase on the planet (which, no offense, is pretty much what you describe). Even then, you correctly point out that it would take smart people (which I would hope you would agree is the exception, not the norm) who, though not coders, are capable of having the vision to see all of the possible parameters and issues, and crafting the logic (if not the code) accordingly. Once again, we must now assume they have such skilled designers.
Now, presuming they have both... presuming they have a perfect OOP codebase and have excellent designers (which I concede I do not know they don't have, but I suspect they are short of perfection with)... they still must have the bandwidth to implement these changes. This bandwidth takes away from all the other tasks they already have on their plates, which I presume are of import (since we're assuming they are bright, and bright companies don't leave talented employees without much to do).
Honestly, I feel like I'm arguing against these changes when I think they would be great. I'm not arguing against them. I am merely trying to do a reality check and point out that it really isn't as simple as it has been made out to be. Yes, there is little question that they could start small, do some base types, and expand from there. Yes, there is no doubt that working up in this fashion will spell success. However, I truly do not believe either their staff or their codebase are likely to support such without a significant level of time investment that they simply may not have the bandwidth to give.
Oh, and one more thing, PipBoy... patronizing me isn't likely to help. I don't know you, and you don't know me. Lines like, "Imagine that! This is how GOOD design and development is done" are just plain insulting. If you want to whip your dick out and see who's is longer, let's get to it... but that's not going to be constructive to anyone. All I was trying to do was help folks scale their expectations in a realistic fashion, based on my experiences doing exactly what is being discussed.
More ideas -
Ok since we have all been trying to come up with ideas or maybe bump this thread higher to grab more attention (thanks to you who do this). I have gone back to the drawing board to come up with more ideas.
Beurocrat / Agent mission - You and your select team have been chosen for a elite mission involving a high degree of danger and the potential for great rewards. It seems that a renegade group of (Clan / Omni) terrorists have setup a lab developing an agent bio-terrorism, the problem is this lab has been setup under our very noses somewhere in (Athens / Omni-1) and if they are alerted to our moves against them there is a strong chance of release withing our own city. We need you team to slip into this facility and make it past the guards to do a controlled release of the canisters by doing this you should end up killing all the member of the terrorist group. The only potential problem is to kill DR.X who no doubt will be in the same room as the canisters has a death spasm release programed into his cortex. If he dies before it is neutralized we are still done for. Hurry to complete this mission the lives of everyone here in this city are in your hands.
Objectives using mez, sneak type things make ones way past the guards and into the leader area. Once in the room fight the "boss" but the canisters must be neutralized before killing him or no mission reward.
Meta - The Church of the Great Cataclysm has setup and underground shrine in the wilderness outside our fair city. This cult organisation seems intent on bringing about this event by focusing their energies on unleashing a great way of energy from their hidden site. Apparently as they all unite together they will form some kind of bizarre one mindedness and be able to share the load of this great program causing all the nanite in the vacinity of the shrine to go into a frenzy replicating and then breaking down explosively. This is supposed to cause a chain reaction as they spread out across the planet consuming everything on their way. While we are not certain this is even viable we also certainly don't want to take the risk of this type of planetwide disaster. Go to the shrine and destroy the machine and incapacite as many member of the cult as possible it is only a matter of time before they achieve their oneness and the program begins.
Objectives kill over x percent of the cult members before time runs out to interupt the progrma as wel the the transmition device.
Don't worry I know we're just discussing
As I said earlier I'm looking at things from a game theory point of view rather than a coding view. There are people around here far more familiar at coding than I am (in RL I'm a biochemist in cancer research) so I bow in deference to that knowledge. However, I do understand complex interrelationships and how to take apart complex systems for analysis.
I actually have no idea how complex intergrating these ideas into the game would be. No one here aside from the developers themselves does and they aren't speaking to us. Ah well. That given, my initial reason for posting this was running into a belief that to implement actual puzzles and profession based missions would require all kinds of new systems to implement those puzzles so it simply will not be done. End of story.
I was stewing over this information because AO was touted as having this magnificent mission system that could tailor missions to professions. It seemed to me, that perhaps people were not looking at the problem in the right way. So I set out designing missions that used systems already in place in the game.
Specifically:
1. Using objects on other objects with a skill check.
2. NPC interaction
3. NPC following a character
4. Time limits
The idea being all of these things would go a long way to developing profession based missions which I would hope is still a goal of the developers. If all the developers want is a shooting gallery then this entire discussion is moot. So our assumption is that the profession based mission system is still *desired* if not going to be readily implemented.
So using those mechanics my thesis is that no new *game mechanics* (allow me to qualify my statement) are necessary to implement profession based missions. By using those systems already here you can do so.
In my opinion, the hardest part of any game is getting the game design right and thoroughly defined. Once that is done it is simply a matter of time and perserverance to put it into action. I liken it to designing a good experiment, the techniques may be difficult and time consuming to implement but the hardest part is asking the right question first. To me that's a difference. Time and complexity is not the same as difficulty.
In other words implementation is time dependent. If you know your tools it is not *difficult* in the same way that designing a system de novo is. You try it, if it doesn't work then you try a different approach, but you have a goal and you can constantly work towards it.
The initial statements felt, to me, that they (FC) were abandoning profession missions because designing the puzzles would be too difficult (in other words, not having a starting point). My hope was to show that the basic systems were already in game.
Some of the points you mentioned above aren't really technical issues as much as they are balancing ones. Such as should there be a 'one way' solution or allow for multiple solutions. I agree those have to be discussed (for the record one way solutions already exist and a mission can be fubar if you can open that locked door so I support one way missions) but they're separate from coding issues.
I won't discuss coding specifics, but I wonder...
The very first thing that should be tried are the 'repair' missions and tagging a skill check on the item use. That requires the addition of the skill check, however the coding that does skill checks is in the game and should be readily migrated.
If it works, and if players take to it or support it, then you have the foundation of trying something else. How about instead of giving the player the object necessary to use for the repair have the object spawn in a chest (which may or may not be locked or trapped). We've expanded the complexity and we still haven't added a huge array. If these things work, perhaps now is the time to create the array from which the 'item' is chosen and the 'skill' is chosen that is tested when the item is used on the dungeon object.
This is my thinking on implementation and why I don't see it as being difficult as much as it may be time consuming.
"The engineer profession is geared toward the creation of items and weapons. No profession beats engineers at creating robots to do the dirty work for them. An engineer may not be the strongest of all professions but makes a powerful opponent or ally by using gadgets and robot helpers."
Transcript of CHAR_CRE_29 sound in the AO character creation sequence.
"This post brought to you by TECHNOLOGY! Indistinguishable from magic since 1875."
You couldn't be more right, Sir. Yes, asking the right question is vital. Yes, getting the game design right and thoroughly defined will yield very positive results. I was only trying to inject a reality check from personal experience... simply put, software engineering of games is a consumer business. Unlike research, you don't have unlimited time and sometimes unlimited funding. With a game, it is always a choice of balancing between the "perfect game" and "a game that will ship early enough so that we can make some money". If you're researching a new drug, and it costs 40,000,000 to research it, you can just set the target price based on the research cost. If you're making a new game, you can't say "well, we'll charge you $500 for this one, because it is so cool". (actually, you might be able to, but no one has ever had the guts to find out... the risk is extreme, and if you guess wrong your career is over). However, though in some ways time and complexity are not the same as difficulty, they do equate to "business difficulty" when you inject the business model on top.Originally posted by Trosida
In my opinion, the hardest part of any game is getting the game design right and thoroughly defined. Once that is done it is simply a matter of time and perserverance to put it into action. I liken it to designing a good experiment, the techniques may be difficult and time consuming to implement but the hardest part is asking the right question first. To me that's a difference. Time and complexity is not the same as difficulty.
Just for clarification, one way missions don't exist... it is one thing to have a mission be unable to be completed because you can't get past a locked door. It is another thing to be unable to escape a mission without /terminate. Anyway, again you are correct I'm not discussing technical problems because I don't know their codebase. I can "guess" at the types of coding problems they may face, but it would be just that... a guess. What I can speak to is the sheer volume of balancing and design issues they would face in implementing this. Do I think it can be done? You bet. Do I think it is a great idea? You bet. Do I think Funcom is likely to do it based on the state of the product and the work involved? Not really. Again, I'm not trying to say these ideas don't have merit... I'm only trying to point out that implementation may exceed their abilities/time and might be better served with a next-gen MMORPG.
Some of the points you mentioned above aren't really technical issues as much as they are balancing ones. Such as should there be a 'one way' solution or allow for multiple solutions. I agree those have to be discussed (for the record one way solutions already exist and a mission can be fubar if you can open that locked door so I support one way missions) but they're separate from coding issues.
Absolutely. My point was that time-consuming = difficult in a business reality. Realistically, difficulty always = time when dealing with software engineering... there is pretty much always a way to solve a given problem, as long as you're willing to give in some direction (you can make a game phenominally beautiful if you're willing to put up with a frame rate of 1 frame/minute, for an over-simplified example).
If it works, and if players take to it or support it, then you have the foundation of trying something else. How about instead of giving the player the object necessary to use for the repair have the object spawn in a chest (which may or may not be locked or trapped). We've expanded the complexity and we still haven't added a huge array. If these things work, perhaps now is the time to create the array from which the 'item' is chosen and the 'skill' is chosen that is tested when the item is used on the dungeon object.
This is my thinking on implementation and why I don't see it as being difficult as much as it may be time consuming.
Anyway, realistically it is pointless for me to continue to try to inject reality here. Funcom will do what they feel is right, regardless of our wishes. They will read these (and other) ideas, and take what nuggets they feel they can work with, while discarding the great bulk of other ones. It is my opinion (just opinion) that Funcom is unlikely to be positioned to take more than a rudimentary advantage of the suggestions you have here... but that is pure speculation on my part. For what it is worth, I'd love to be wrong.
Last edited by Greenhawk; May 17th, 2002 at 15:05:43.
I'm just resisting reality here.
Reality stinks!
Btw, for the record in research a team doesn't have unlimited time or unlimited money, research just has no choice but to be as close to perfect as possible on release. However, the difference is usually a million different teams are attacking the same problem and the winner is the one to get there first. In game design you can have dozens of teams working on the same project (an MMORPG) and the winner is not based on being first, but rather based on a host of other factors. So each team in game design can win...
ugh this is not the place for a Research vs Game Design thread (but that could be fun!).
For the record my friend, I do understand and agree with your premise that given the state of AO at present implementation of these ideas is unlikely. Yes, I have to say I agree. However, my hope is to urge the powers that be (TPTB) to give it a go even if in a limited extent. To do so, imho, requires the design (by us the players) of puzzles and such that can be profession specific and utilize systems already in game. Maybe if we show enough interest and enough creative permutations of the systems in game the devs will say "It's worth a go."
Then again maybe not.
So I do agree with your assessment overall. Though like you I hope its wrong.
No matter what this aspect of the conversation has been a delight, and what is really great is this thread has gone on so long with no sign of degenerating into a flame war. A great constructive discussion thread!
Kudos to everyone!
"The engineer profession is geared toward the creation of items and weapons. No profession beats engineers at creating robots to do the dirty work for them. An engineer may not be the strongest of all professions but makes a powerful opponent or ally by using gadgets and robot helpers."
Transcript of CHAR_CRE_29 sound in the AO character creation sequence.
"This post brought to you by TECHNOLOGY! Indistinguishable from magic since 1875."
Hear hear!Originally posted by Trosida
Reality stinks!
Actually, I have no real experience with research... just purely guesses from what limited knowledge I have, which (as you can see) led me to some bad assumptions. This is not surprising, as this is often what happens when you haven't had a chance to wear the other guy's shoes
Btw, for the record in research a team doesn't have unlimited time or unlimited money, research just has no choice but to be as close to perfect as possible on release. However, the difference is usually a million different teams are attacking the same problem and the winner is the one to get there first. In game design you can have dozens of teams working on the same project (an MMORPG) and the winner is not based on being first, but rather based on a host of other factors. So each team in game design can win...
On that we must most assuredly agree. Honestly, I wasn't trying to squelch positive discussion of great ideas... and if I came across that way I sincerely apologize. Anything we can do to help "educate" the designers is probably a good thing. Unfortunately, as I am certain you know, most people have to learn things by doing them (wrong) themselves. Personal failure seems to be the most effective method of learning out there still... and even then they don't always learn
For the record my friend, I do understand and agree with your premise that given the state of AO at present implementation of these ideas is unlikely. Yes, I have to say I agree. However, my hope is to urge the powers that be (TPTB) to give it a go even if in a limited extent. To do so, imho, requires the design (by us the players) of puzzles and such that can be profession specific and utilize systems already in game. Maybe if we show enough interest and enough creative permutations of the systems in game the devs will say "It's worth a go."
Couldn't agree more, my friend... couldn't agree more
No matter what this aspect of the conversation has been a delight, and what is really great is this thread has gone on so long with no sign of degenerating into a flame war. A great constructive discussion thread!
Kudos to everyone!
Your discussion is very relevant. Worries about realistic implementation aside, perhaps we should start looking at the types of systems that would have to be created for each mission concept?
So with the trade skill things there would have to be a matrix of items against skills to be tested and objects to be acted upon. What other things would be needed?
(Oh and definitely keep the mission ideas coming and if maybe, if you like, state which game mechanics it would use or what new mechanics it would need.)
"The engineer profession is geared toward the creation of items and weapons. No profession beats engineers at creating robots to do the dirty work for them. An engineer may not be the strongest of all professions but makes a powerful opponent or ally by using gadgets and robot helpers."
Transcript of CHAR_CRE_29 sound in the AO character creation sequence.
"This post brought to you by TECHNOLOGY! Indistinguishable from magic since 1875."
Actually, I'd probably try to approach it with a big excel spreadsheet. Spreadsheets are very handy for building such xref tables, and also force you to use math as opposed to eyeballing for balancing.
As for the ideas list, perhaps the best way to continue the discussion would be to make a summary list of the current active ideas?
WAY TO GO!
I only had time to read a few of the great posts, Trosida, but I do declare THEY ROCK! You should go False Profession: Funcom Game Director and infiltrate their organisation
BUMPAGE!
Keep this thread a live.
Interesting discussion Trosida and Greenhawk! keep it up.
Yureiko
Level 74 Fixer
"You've been adrift in the sheltered harbor of my patience," - Cobra Bubbles
"There are computer games that handle the Fixer type character really well. AO is not one of them.
Check out Uplink, System Shock II and Project Eden for a truly engaging Fixer Fix."
Bumpiddilee
Thanks
To everyone who is contributing and thanks for all the kind words directed towards me. Mission content is one of the two subjects I feel very strongly about and believe would go a long way to making this game what it was originally envisioned (the other is engineer gadgets, for the record).
So far the ideas and discussion has been wonderful, let's hear some more!
Anyone who has just stumbled on this now but hasn't read the whole thread take a peek there is some great stuff and all very constructive!
"The engineer profession is geared toward the creation of items and weapons. No profession beats engineers at creating robots to do the dirty work for them. An engineer may not be the strongest of all professions but makes a powerful opponent or ally by using gadgets and robot helpers."
Transcript of CHAR_CRE_29 sound in the AO character creation sequence.
"This post brought to you by TECHNOLOGY! Indistinguishable from magic since 1875."
Bump!
I agree. I have read all the awesome ideas here and am compiling them all for the designers (including the new ones that I haven't already sent along).Originally posted by Trosida
Anyone who has just stumbled on this now but hasn't read the whole thread take a peek there is some great stuff and all very constructive!
Just another bump for you guys.
There must be something
You know a thread is doing well when Cosmik gives ya a bump!
"The engineer profession is geared toward the creation of items and weapons. No profession beats engineers at creating robots to do the dirty work for them. An engineer may not be the strongest of all professions but makes a powerful opponent or ally by using gadgets and robot helpers."
Transcript of CHAR_CRE_29 sound in the AO character creation sequence.
"This post brought to you by TECHNOLOGY! Indistinguishable from magic since 1875."
8)
I really hope some of this goes live... Some of these things will give us players a challange other then racing to do the best damage.
/DaveDread (D.A.V.E.D.R.E.A.D.: Digital Artificial Violence and Exploration Device/Replicant Engineered for Assassination and Destruction mohahaha)
200 Opifex Clanner Gimp - Dinged in Style! (dimached a Virulent Minibull) Finally got my head straight, nothing like a goat helmet to get you in shape again. Oh, and those marks on my forehead (yah, still visible through the helmet, duh)... It was a Motorcycle baby. Really. Ran me over in West Athens while I was working on my tan. Think I look bad? You should see the biker.
I want a Mission. :(
Awwww. These types of missions would put a whole new aspect to the game. Classes would actually have more of a meaning that What Weapon you want to use or What Nano you want to kill that 10,000,000th mob with.
Posting Permissions
