51 replies to this topic

[Feanor]

But seriously, it would really be nice for a new, innovative and workable magic system but in general the concepts are re-used because they work, and people are familiar with them. Something I definately dont like in a game is the requirement for a 2-hour tutorial before I know how to work everything (I think a possible exception for this is Metroid Prime for GC - thats anothing story)

now you begin with this lazy attitude, too? lazy players like you stop innovative ideas. all those people who like shit clone games.

Yeah, I'm lazy, so what ?

[Shed]

No flaming please .

Games shouldn't be excluded to a "hardcore" group, but neither should they be so simple as to prevent such a group from evolving.

There is a balance that needs to be walked for developers: on the one hand, anyone ought to be able to pick up their game and enjoy, but perseverance ought to be more rewarding.

I think it's more important that a system works than it is original. Mana has been shown to work, and with some tweaks, it could work very well .

[Schatten]

"No flaming please smile.gif."

nobody flamed.



"Games shouldn't be excluded to a "hardcore" group, but neither should they be so simple as to prevent such a group from evolving."

what you mean by hardcore?



"I think it's more important that a system works than it is original."

big no. it is more important that is has new features and then it must work. so partly both. i rather like something new with flaws then the same shit with another name. why do you think i dont play many new games? they are all the same. i play the shooter 'sw:battlefront' because is has new features and is not a simple clone.

[Shed]

nobody flamed.

Didn't say you were . Carry on.

what you mean by hardcore?

I am talking about the learning curve of a game. If a game is too complicated, has hundreds of obscure spells, or (in a beat-em-up) requires knowledge of special combos to play, then it the best experience is had by those who put in the time to study the manual and practise. This would be a game for "hardcore" or dedicated gamers. RPGs are usually complicated, so it is easy for

On the other hand, we have arcade style games, when short-term satisfaction is the idea, when anyone with no prior experience can play the game.

Dragon Age should be easy to play and get into with little experience, but the more time invested in the game, the better it becomes .

big no. it is more important that is has new features  and then it must  work. so partly both. i rather  like something new  with  flaws then the same shit with another name. why do you think i dont play many new games? they are all the  same. i play the shooter 'sw:battlefront' because is has new features and is not a simple clone.

There is a proverb: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I am not advocating clones at all. Only the best parts of a working system should be kept, and otherwise new things looked for. Something entirely new is not necessarily any better than something entirely old . Of course, if no new features are in a game, it will be boring . Overall, doesn't it rather depend on how it plays, with some tried and tested, and some new and exciting, gameplay?

[Schatten]

first, the sheer amount of spells equals not with complexity of games. it only means little punk kids need to spent 1 min instead of one sec to read through spell description after leveling up/getting a spell/spend a night to rearrange spells. bg2 with its spell amount is not complex, all the rules are working in the background, you only need to know what number must be high or low and that is easily understanable by a short view in the manual. you dont need to be a d&d maniac.
second i dont think da is an arcade game for extasy techno drugheads. it is made for mature people (target audience is 20 years, said by devs iirc). so a bit steaper learning curve as breakout is nothing the devs must look away in fear they would loose customers.

you know those proverb means a stop in every development once something works. not applicable.

"Something entirely new is not necessarily any better than something entirely old smile.gif."

yes it is. this is what keeps me playing the game named "kult. heretic kingdom.". the spell/skill system is something new and i like it. i wouldnt play it if it would be another d2.
do you think guildwars was this popular if it was another mmorpg? i highly doubt it. i like it because it is not a shit mmorpg.

Edited by Schatten, 21 December 2004 - 03:08 PM.

[Tom]

No flaming please .

Games shouldn't be excluded to a "hardcore" group, but neither should they be so simple as to prevent such a group from evolving.

There is a balance that needs to be walked for developers: on the one hand, anyone ought to be able to pick up their game and enjoy, but perseverance ought to be more rewarding.

I think it's more important that a system works than it is original. Mana has been shown to work, and with some tweaks, it could work very well .

That balance is what I was getting at. An extremely complex, hard to get used to system reflects poor planning and lazyness on behalf of the game devs. Of course Im not expecting a 'CLICK TO BASH, HUHUHUHU' game, but preferably something which you can pick up reasonably easy as you play.

Edited by Tom, 21 December 2004 - 06:48 PM.

[Shed]

Something entirely new is not necessarily any better than something entirely old

yes it is. this is what keeps me playing the game named "kult. heretic kingdom.". the spell/skill system is something new and i like it. i wouldnt play it if it would be another d2.

Ah, but might you want to play other games that use the same spell and skill system? Or would you prefer something completely new every time ?


How can a mana system be used without mages becoming over-powerful (at least at the beginning of a round)? Should there be limits, and if so, where? In the spells themselves or how the mana is distributed?

[Tom]

I'd say at a guess that it will be limited by the amount of Mana a person has (assuming they implement a mana system)

[Shed]

But that makes it very easy for mages to be over-powered. It can lead to "the best blatty spell" being cast at the beginning of every battle, killing everything. The mana cost won't matter so much because by the next battle, it will have recharged :\.

[Archmage Silver]

But that makes it very easy for mages to be over-powered. It can lead to "the best blatty spell" being cast at the beginning of every battle, killing everything. The mana cost won't matter so much because by the next battle, it will have recharged :\.

Heh, that's how I like it.

[Schatten]

But that makes it very easy for mages to be over-powered. It can lead to "the best blatty spell" being cast at the beginning of every battle, killing everything. The mana cost won't matter so much because by the next battle, it will have recharged :\.

who said there will be nuclear missile spells? a mage is not a mage because he has spells that let the planet explode. he is not limited to only spells that deal damage but other things as well. transport spells, time manipulation. a mana system can very well be balanced. to say it is per definition not is ignorant and offensive.
you say it is inbalanced. i say not. you say he can unleash 30 "adhd like spells" in the first round. i say he can cast it once and is then useless for a long time.
hmm... wait, why am i defending this system? i want a new one. *lol*

[Shed]

But high level mages will inevitably be more powerful, no? So balancing is very important . I'm not saying it is inherently unbalanced, it will just take some work to get right.

I was wondering what would be the best way of doing this .

hmm... wait, why am i defending this system? i want a new one. *lol*

Heh.

[Schatten]

you could make damage and mana usage proportional. you cast magic missile lvl8 and do lots of damage and thus sucking up lots of mana or you cast mm on lvl1 and use not so much mana. of course mm lvl8 is doing more damage than x casts of mm lvl1 with the same amount of mana. this results in mages thinking what they cast. casting few spells that do more damage but you must think during what battles to do it. effectively preserve mana as much as possible for the really tough battles during dungeon crawls. so you must think during the crawl if your warriors need help or not. or do only a bit damage in every battle but then you are less effective during boss battles. or the third, the golden middle. doing a cast here a cast there but unleash with the rest of your mana for the boss battle on lvl3 in the dungeon of iron maidens.

[Archmage Silver]

Maybe... and then maybe not.

[Shed]

you could make damage and mana usage proportional. you cast magic missile lvl8  and do lots of damage and thus sucking up lots of mana or you cast mm on lvl1 and use not so much mana. of course mm lvl8 is doing more damage than x casts of mm lvl1 with the same amount of mana. this results in mages thinking what they cast. casting few spells that do more damage but you must think during what battles to do it. effectively preserve mana as much as possible for the really tough battles during dungeon crawls. so you must think during the crawl if your warriors need help or not. or do only a bit damage in every battle but then you are less effective during boss battles. or  the third, the golden middle. doing a cast here a cast there but unleash with the rest of your mana for the boss battle on lvl3 in the dungeon of iron maidens.

Spells could be charged up, draining mana, and released at a certain level of power. Trying to cast higher level spells will take longer and therefore increase the chance of disruption .

[Archmage Silver]

Hmm... you know, that could actually work.

[Shed]

I really think it could !

Higher level spells could have penalties apart from the mana-cost... longer casting time perhaps? Or penalties unique to the spell?

[Archmage Silver]

Longer casting time sounds good, since it would be too much work if it was a unique penalty for each high level spell.

[Shed]

Alternatively, over-charging or spell failure could result in damage to the caster.