"Jumping is a stat based on quickness, facets, skills, armor, injuries, and special scenario items/boosts/uses. As the player went along in the game, increased their stats, got facets, etc; their ability to jump would increase marginally rather than "look I suddenly jump higher". An analog system would allow for extreme versatility without having to measure out specific jump levels. Getting injuries could slow you down in minor/major degrees, rather than "will this injury drop me down a jump level?" same goes for armor." the problem with this is... there's no clear tier for us to design for, which means we're aiming at a moving target and there's no clear "minimum" to design for, etc. All the problems chris brought up are magnified 10x when there's no tier system. I actually picked the tier system as a bridge between 1 jump level and a purely analogue system for the reasons i mentioned above. On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I like to mix things up a little, but try to keep an open mind here! > No levels of jumping! That's right, none. You can jump, that's it. > > Jumping is a stat based on quickness, facets, skills, armor, injuries, and > special scenario items/boosts/uses. As the player went along in the game, > increased their stats, got facets, etc; their ability to jump would increase > marginally rather than "look I suddenly jump higher". An analog system > would allow for extreme versatility without having to measure out specific > jump levels. Getting injuries could slow you down in minor/major degrees, > rather than "will this injury drop me down a jump level?" same goes for > armor. > > Re: Redux. Yeah, back in Gemstone3 I was a master of the system and for my > level was point-by-point the toughest warrior in the game. Gemstone4 > changed the system and it became to fuzzy to learn (nobody would release the > exact system either), and I wasn't about to test warriors from 0 to 30 for > another year to try and figure it out. :\ > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:27 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> i want to explicitely thank chris, alan and katie for offering the counter >> points to my original thought, i really think having alternate perspectives >> of things will allow us to fully explore elements of game design like this >> and that it will ultimately deliver a better, more intuitive and most >> importantly more FUN gaming experience. I do not mind debating the points >> as I have done below because frankly, if I cannot defend the game design >> philosophy then the system we're discussing is probably broken and i need to >> work on it some more. besides that, it has been my experience in designing >> the combat with nick that when debating ideas like this it occasionally >> inspires great new ideas. I actually consider this to be a vital part of >> "pre-testing" so please, I encourage you to continue offering your insights >> and perspectives! >> >> To give you a specific example, your idea about armor making you >> slower and jump shorter will generally make players avoid doing that >> in any instance they can. In action based games, skilled players will >> go towards what is as fast and damaging as possible, and will avoid >> things like that on purpose. >> >> - this is by design, we want to encourage people who are exploring to use >> lighter armor, it makes no sense to go on a journey into a mysterious temple >> that is bound to have traps, puzzles, etc. in full plate armor. We want >> that style of armor to be reserved for people who accept the penalty of >> speed/jumping for the enhanced ability to take hits without getting damage. >> this is a player choice. >> >> Also, having injuries slow you down will make players feel like they >> can't be damaged. For things like this you want to flip the tables, >> and instead create armor that gives players more speed, but they take >> more damage. It might seem like a small thing, but in the eyes of a >> player it can make a huge difference in gameplay. >> >> - also by design. We want players to feel like there are concequences to >> being injured and it should be avoided as much as possible. There are >> penalties for being injured or dying - that is a major part of the combat >> design here. We are trying to break away from the constant >> healing/ressurection that has been the common thread in most rpgs. we're >> trying to get away from the attrition system. more info on this below >> >> Basically ask yourself if you would play the game and have fun doing >> the things you imagine. >> >> - one of my favorite gaming experiences is america's army, and what makes >> it so great and so immersive is that you are constantly in fear of your life >> so there is actual tension on the battle field, its not like tf2 where you >> run out, spam attacks and if you get killed, oh well, respawn. I love the >> idea of players figuring out the best strategies to stay alive and learning >> tactics and skills to do it. yes, it is a challenge - but that is what makes >> it so great! Another game I love, as alan pointed out, is gemstone. >> Gemstone was ruthless with one shot kills, getting your leg chopped off and >> not being able to climb stuff, etc. like there's areas in the game you have >> to take your armor off and be athletic enough to jump in order to make it >> over there. staying alive is a major part of that game and everytime you >> got hit, you would bleed and feel the effects of it. as a player you had to >> learn to adapt your skills and player style to prevent yourself from getting >> damaged as much as possible. this is a key element to the game design we >> are trying to go with. so to answer your question - yes, i think it'd be >> fun :P >> >> >> Okay guys, this is just my opinion. =) For me when I play arcade-ish style >> games like I the ones I think (if I understand correctly) that we are trying >> to make, I think Chris has got a really good point. I like to take the >> easiest route possible to get to the next step. Not that we should flake on >> stuff. But we should make sure to not scrutinize/overthink things too much >> if that makes sense. >> >> - this is an rpg, not an arcade game! :P the emphasis is on exploration, >> not just going as quickly as you can to get to the next level (although you >> can if you so choose). what makes rpg's (and adventure games) fun for me is >> finding all the little secrets that are hidden all over the world. also, >> everyone is acting like 5 settings is so complex, really the first one is >> only for special case scenarios and isn't meant to be used during actual >> gameplay, and the 5th one is really only to serve as a special thing for use >> like spells, flying, etc. there are only 3 main ones, a weak jump for >> heavily armored players, a normal one for most people, and a long jump for >> people who choose to sacrifice armor for speed and manueverability >> >> I'd bet this jump level thing would more or less be invisible / automatic >> to the player. Like when you were heavier you just dont jump as high or as >> far. The player might not know there are 5 levels of jumping ability, they >> might just realize "hey when i take off my armor i can make that jump to >> that cave i couldnt get to before" (and of course maybe an NPC tips you off >> to that fact). Or there are boots that have the description of "wear to be >> able to jump higher" >> >> -right, this is all an under the hood system. its funny because when i >> write stories, etc. i try to keep things as close to the vest because i like >> the reader to be surprised, i like keeping a mystery and something for them >> to discover for themselves. this is also true in my game design philosophy, >> give players a ton of neat stuff they can find out for themselves if they >> want to... the irony is, as a team we're ALL under the hood so i have to >> express all the hidden things to you guys so it can get made/discussed, but >> then everyone is like "oh that is overly complicated there's no reason for >> that!" without putting themselves in the shoes of the player who doesn't >> even know the system exists and that its just there for them to discover if >> they are curious and interested. >> >> 5 different jumps will matter only as much as we design the game for >> them to matter. In Diablo 2, the barb jump skill only let you cross >> certain terrain that wasn't walkable, so having so many different jump >> lengths was easily solved - just make the pits larger. If we can find >> an easy solution in our game - an equivalent to "just making the pits >> larger" - then we can add as many jumps as we want, and even make them >> scale into flying! >> >> I recently learned how to do the shinespark tricks in Metroid >> Redesign, and if we could make our jumps in the game require a skill >> curve somehow, that would reward the player for the ability to jump >> higher... almost like how in 3d Mario games, you have to jump right as >> you hit the ground again, within a certain amount of time, so you can >> do the triple jump. >> >> -i actually view it as a really simple system that allows for a lot of >> neat versatility in game design and player strategy... something that allows >> for more skill based movement if people are interested because i know some >> crazy people (like nick) enjoy finding crazy challenges and trying to >> exploit gameplay tools to get into areas, etc. i think that is fun and >> great and should be part of our design. i picked 5 as the number so there >> would be differences between teh playing styles while keeping things we >> needed to design/test for to the minimum. >> >> okay so lets get down to brass tacks here (how much for the monkey?) (3 >> adunai points to whoever gets the reference) >> >> IMO we have 2 options: >> a) 2 jump system - 1 for armor too heavy for you (basically, non-jumping) >> and 1 for normal. >> pros: easier to design for, easier to test for, no need to think about >> armor choices for the player beyond "is it too heavy?" >> cons: less versatile, no differences between wearing light/heavy/medium >> armor for adventurers, no hidden areas only accessible by people who invest >> and discover ways to jump farther. >> >> b) 5 jump system - as illustrated above >> pros: more for the player to discover, another "tool" in our tool box, >> gives extra strengths/weaknesses when picking armor and character style >> cons: harder to design/test, may baffle some characters. >> >> now obviously i am biased towards B (the 5 jump system) so my pitch for it >> is, it'll be simpler in practice for the player/designer than it may seem to >> you right now, it's important for game balance between heavy/light armor, >> players can really just make sure they are at level 3 (normal) and they will >> be able to get through the entire game without worrying about the difference >> in jump so i think there is zero bafflement chance, and it gives us another >> neat tool for desiging exploration and hidden stuff in the game. >> >> >> I am definitely open-minded and can be convinced to go with A) - so lets >> open it up to the forum and take a little poll and if you want to post >> comments/thoughts/ideas - then it'll give us more information to make a good >> and intelligent decision. >> >> :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM, eric drewes <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> i didnt have time to read everythign yet but basically here is my take... >>> >>> level 1 is basically a "your character is broken level" and doesnt need >>> to be designed for, its basically a penalty thing we can use. it is the >>> extreme >>> >>> level 2 is needed to differentiate heavy armor from light armor >>> >>> level 3 is what we will design for, it is "normal" >>> >>> level 4 is to sepparate quick characters with ultra light armor from >>> people wearing normal armor >>> >>> level 5 is a special case scenario type of thing >>> >>> we're basically just designing the game for level 3, with maybe a small >>> amount of special case scenario areas for level 4/5 (like under 2-3 per >>> chapter) >>> >>> i really don't think that it is overly complicated at all and this will >>> be a SUBTLE thing, i.e. again, most of the things like this are only >>> designed for people who want the bonus, but dont have to have it >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>> >>>> yeah actually thats a good point, i remember playin zelda and you see >>>> objects which are obviously repeated (ie black rocks in link to the past, >>>> or >>>> the docks in zelda 1 etc) and knowing "there is something up with those" >>>> but >>>> you dont know til you have the item. I forgot about that, that was kinda >>>> fun gameplay :P >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Chris Riccobono >>>> <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yeah, that's part of the fun of Zelda and Metroid style games... >>>>> getting those items that make you able to do things you didn't predict >>>>> were >>>>> possible, so then the player wonders what cool thing is gonna come out >>>>> next >>>>> :) >>>>> That's a pretty cool idea for introducing game mechanics.. the player >>>>> doesn't know about them at all in the game until they actually get the >>>>> item >>>>> for it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> yeah totally i agree with you. >>>>>> >>>>>> we were talkin about this before, we were saying having lots of >>>>>> optional things to discover in a game makes it seem bigger because we >>>>>> don't >>>>>> advertise what the "edges" are. >>>>>> >>>>>> so yeah totally, if we advertise there are 5 jump levels it ruins the >>>>>> magic, but if the player discovers "wtf i jump higher now?" they might >>>>>> try >>>>>> to see just how high they can jump. Maybe they get to level 4 and never >>>>>> cap >>>>>> out at level 5, as far as they know the sky is the limit even though they >>>>>> are almost at the cieling hehe. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, about the player not knowing there will be 5 jump levels, that >>>>>>> would trigger the "yay I discovered something" emotion. It's really >>>>>>> fun to learn how to do something to reach new places, you know? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Chris Riccobono<crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > I do believe simplicity brings about the most fun when done >>>>>>> correctly! >>>>>>> > I think part of the fun of a game is learning how to use the >>>>>>> system, >>>>>>> > too, so when you can learn it very easy at first, you are open to >>>>>>> > learning new mechanics as things go on. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >> You deffinately have a good point. Our game isn't arcadey per se >>>>>>> but it is >>>>>>> >> a game where you can go deeper if you want but don't have to. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Like there will be lots to explore but it's all optional (Eric >>>>>>> correct me if >>>>>>> >> im wrong lol). >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> I'd bet this jump level thing would more or less be invisible / >>>>>>> automatic to >>>>>>> >> the player. Like when you were heavier you just dont jump as high >>>>>>> or as >>>>>>> >> far. The player might not know there are 5 levels of jumping >>>>>>> ability, they >>>>>>> >> might just realize "hey when i take off my armor i can make that >>>>>>> jump to >>>>>>> >> that cave i couldnt get to before" (and of course maybe an NPC >>>>>>> tips you off >>>>>>> >> to that fact). Or there are boots that have the description of >>>>>>> "wear to be >>>>>>> >> able to jump higher" >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> But yeah there is deffinate wisdom to keeping it simple, >>>>>>> especially keeping >>>>>>> >> the end result the player sees simple. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Someone should be able to pick up the game and be able to play >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> >> having to read some huge manual :P >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> the old saying "easy to learn difficult to master" yadda yadda >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:13 PM, katie cook <ktmcook@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Okay guys, this is just my opinion. =) For me when I play >>>>>>> arcade-ish style >>>>>>> >>> games like I the ones I think (if I understand correctly) that we >>>>>>> are trying >>>>>>> >>> to make, I think Chris has got a really good point. I like to >>>>>>> take the >>>>>>> >>> easiest route possible to get to the next step. Not that we >>>>>>> should flake on >>>>>>> >>> stuff. But we should make sure to not scrutinize/overthink things >>>>>>> too much >>>>>>> >>> if that makes sense. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> I like the opportunity to get a little bit deeper with a game if >>>>>>> I choose >>>>>>> >>> to at the time, but appreciate when I don't have to. Usually >>>>>>> arcades games >>>>>>> >>> tend to be shorter in hours played. When I play a short game, I >>>>>>> don't wanna >>>>>>> >>> have to invest a lot of time and deal with frivilous features. >>>>>>> The easier >>>>>>> >>> the game the funner it is for me (for arcade/short games. I hope >>>>>>> this makes >>>>>>> >>> sense. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> --- On Tue, 6/23/09, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> Subject: [project1dev] Re: Project1 - SVN Update 270 >>>>>>> >>> To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>> >>> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 9:46 PM >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> 5 different jump levels is going to complicate things a bit more >>>>>>> than >>>>>>> >>> we want. Try to keep in mind that the ideal is to make the game >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> >>> fun. Ask yourself, will 5 different jumps enhance the game >>>>>>> enough to >>>>>>> >>> warrant the amount of coding, designing, and bug testing they >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> >>> require? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> To reiterate what I tried to stress early on, we want the game to >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> >>> as fun as possible, as simply as possible. Having a complex game >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> >>> great if it enhances the experience, but if it doesn't, it >>>>>>> becomes a >>>>>>> >>> hinderance - just another game, in other words. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> To give you a specific example, your idea about armor making you >>>>>>> >>> slower and jump shorter will generally make players avoid doing >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>> in any instance they can. In action based games, skilled players >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> >>> go towards what is as fast and damaging as possible, and will >>>>>>> avoid >>>>>>> >>> things like that on purpose. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Also, having injuries slow you down will make players feel like >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> >>> can't be damaged. For things like this you want to flip the >>>>>>> tables, >>>>>>> >>> and instead create armor that gives players more speed, but they >>>>>>> take >>>>>>> >>> more damage. It might seem like a small thing, but in the eyes >>>>>>> of a >>>>>>> >>> player it can make a huge difference in gameplay. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Basically ask yourself if you would play the game and have fun >>>>>>> doing >>>>>>> >>> the things you imagine. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Alan Wolfe<alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> > you know the kind of cool thing about this too >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > we could actually make situations that you couldn't escape >>>>>>> from, and >>>>>>> >>> > have >>>>>>> >>> > things like pits that when you fall into them you die instantly >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>> > return >>>>>>> >>> > to the void. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > those are really mean (literally!) features but if we use them >>>>>>> sparingly >>>>>>> >>> > or >>>>>>> >>> > in some kind of "i told you not to look in the box" situations >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>> > could be >>>>>>> >>> > actually pretty funny. >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > im not sure if you are down with it, but it would bring a >>>>>>> feeling of >>>>>>> >>> > mortality :P >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > ps i'll add the previous ideas to the wiki once i get home if >>>>>>> no one >>>>>>> >>> > else >>>>>>> >>> > has by then. I dont mind but just can't right now :P >>>>>>> >>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:44 PM, eric drewes < >>>>>>> figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> yes - harsh but like i said, its an emergency only option to >>>>>>> be as a >>>>>>> >>> >> last >>>>>>> >>> >> resort... i think any other way of doing it will allow too >>>>>>> many holes >>>>>>> >>> >> for >>>>>>> >>> >> exploits (such as exp or item farming, etc) >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Alan Wolfe < >>>>>>> alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> so would you lose all exp, gold and items gained then? >>>>>>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:41 PM, eric drewes < >>>>>>> figarus@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> yeah i think that is what we';ll do, you can recall to the >>>>>>> void at >>>>>>> >>> >>>> any >>>>>>> >>> >>>> time but it effectively just restores a saved game so you >>>>>>> gain no >>>>>>> >>> >>>> benefit to >>>>>>> >>> >>>> it. We'll make this sort of a last ditch option, so we'll >>>>>>> try to >>>>>>> >>> >>>> design it >>>>>>> >>> >>>> so people never have to use it under normal circumstances >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Alan Wolfe < >>>>>>> alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> no, im just here to poke holes in your ideas <g> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> jk but no im not sure... other than perhaps the player can >>>>>>> return to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> the void at any time, and the cost is that you've lost all >>>>>>> the time >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> you've >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> taken to progress to where you are (ie you have to walk >>>>>>> back) >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM, eric drewes < >>>>>>> figarus@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> wait i take that back, i'll have to think of a real >>>>>>> solution. any >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ideas? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Alan Wolfe < >>>>>>> alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> ok >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> is recall always going to be available? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:35 PM, eric drewes < >>>>>>> figarus@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> recall >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Alan Wolfe >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> ok sounds good. the lax attitude and not needing >>>>>>> perfection >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> make it alot easier to test and build. We'll just have >>>>>>> to make >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> sure and >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> keep that in mind when designing things. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> actually i think we will probably still have to do a >>>>>>> lot of >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> testing >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> with the various jumps to make sure people can't get >>>>>>> somewhere >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> they arent >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> meant to be that they cant get out of - ie i can enter >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> level 3 jump >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> area but i can't escape. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> what's your thoughts on that situation? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM, eric drewes < >>>>>>> figarus@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> well 2 things... >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 1 - i am comfortable with the testing, i think it'll >>>>>>> add a lot >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> the game - what do you guys think? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> 2 - alan i would really say we'd only need to test for >>>>>>> 2 things >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> - >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> the ability for level 2 to get past areas that have no >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> non-jumping route >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> through and to make sure tier 5 people can't exploit >>>>>>> anything >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> we don't want >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> them too... i would say if a tier 3 person can find a >>>>>>> way to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> get over >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> something designed as a secret for level 4 people, >>>>>>> then that is >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> ok w/ me, >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> and likewise with level 4 getting to level 5 areas. >>>>>>> if they >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> can find a way >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> to overcome the handicap, i dont want to stop them :) >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Alan Wolfe >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> and of course another option is we just design it >>>>>>> where fine >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> tuned details like that aren't important >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> like if you can jump it instead of having to get a >>>>>>> rope and >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> climb >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> up, who cares! >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> but shrug just wanted to point out this aspect of the >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> solution! >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Alan Wolfe >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I like the idea. It deffinately makes thigns more >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> exploration >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> based since we could put places that you can't get >>>>>>> to while >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> starting out >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This isn't a deal breaker but i want to point out >>>>>>> this will >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> increase testing and designing time: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * all maps will have to be played with the highest >>>>>>> jump level >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> make sure they cant exploit anything they shouldn't >>>>>>> be able >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * all maps will have to played with the lowest jump >>>>>>> level to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> make sure the minimum we want passable is passable >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> * for maps which have a specific jump requirement >>>>>>> areas (ie >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> level 3 lets you get to this area) we'll have to >>>>>>> play with >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that level as >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> well as the next level down to make sure the one >>>>>>> below can't >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> get up too. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM, eric drewes >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what do you guys think of that scale? that way we >>>>>>> dont have >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> guess when we design and we have a baseline >>>>>>> standard >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM, eric drewes >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <figarus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a voice spoke from the mountain tops, "and >>>>>>> let it be >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spoken, there shall be 5 different tiers of >>>>>>> jumping >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ability, one for hardly >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any jump at all, the next for between the current >>>>>>> jump and >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the previous >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels not-really-a-jump, the third is what is >>>>>>> there now, >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fourth for a >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump equal to 1.5x as high/far as the 3rd and a >>>>>>> fifth that >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is triple the >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal jump - this will be reserved for special >>>>>>> facet, >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> item boosts or a max >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 100 quickness bonus. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically it is like this: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 1) barely a jump at all, this will be for >>>>>>> incredibly >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fat characters (w/ the fat facet) people with >>>>>>> super heavy >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> armor that they >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't strong enough to wear, incredibly injured >>>>>>> people, >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people with snake >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> torsos, etc :-P >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 2) this is what people wearing plate/heavy >>>>>>> chain >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> armor, >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or have relatively strong long injuries, etc. >>>>>>> etc. will >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 3) most characters will have this jump, >>>>>>> traps, etc. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be designed with this as the minimum - >>>>>>> though >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically we want it to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a challenge for level 3 people. some areas >>>>>>> can be >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed so it's >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inaccessible without level 4 though, but nothing >>>>>>> vital to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passing the map - >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, traps/jump areas that aren't accessible >>>>>>> except >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through jumping should >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use level 2 as a minimum. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 4) super athletic character with light or >>>>>>> no armor >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have this, they can reach special areas the other >>>>>>> 3 levels >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't, jump >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puzzles should be easier for level 4 >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level 5) these characters are magically imbued or >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> super >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humanly agility, maybe they have little wings, >>>>>>> etc. by >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passable traps, areas >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can only be reached via long distance >>>>>>> travel, etc >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these characters have >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a big advantage on all jumping matters. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Kent Petersen >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man, that sounds awful. At least we have learned >>>>>>> these >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lessons and now know how to prevent them >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Alan Wolfe >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btw line rider had the same issues tee hee >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In line rider, people were exploiting a simple >>>>>>> physics >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to do tricks like gravity wells and >>>>>>> nose >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grinds and other stuff. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when we made the commercial version of the game >>>>>>> we had >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure all the tricks were still possible >>>>>>> and we >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brought in tech dawg to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> play it and make sure everything was still >>>>>>> kosher. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the parts that sucked - whenever we optomized >>>>>>> something >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the game it would break all existing test maps >>>>>>> we had >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made so we had to wait >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> til the very end of the game to make the puzzle >>>>>>> maps. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also, since the DS, Wii and PC all have >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> floating >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point math chips in them (and ds had diff >>>>>>> code), maps >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't work the same >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on all the different platforms so we had to >>>>>>> keep sharing >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be on the same >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform it was created on. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Alan Wolfe >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its ok man ::shakes you:: the wars over, nixon >>>>>>> is outa >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office now >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Kent Petersen >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Kent is having megaman flashbacks* >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Alan Wolfe >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed! I'm going to re-iterate what you >>>>>>> said Kent >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so people understand the importance >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we should figure out how high / far we want >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be able to jump and how strong gravity >>>>>>> should be >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> muey importante~! >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once we decide we can't change without >>>>>>> having to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuild >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rebalance any existing physics dependant >>>>>>> maps (ie >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skill jumps, gaps that >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the player should or should not be able to >>>>>>> jump over >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc) which is a total >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pain and could really be really really >>>>>>> destructive to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our game having to >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuild and rebalance a whole bunch of crap >>>>>>> later. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, lookin at you Eric, we should talk about >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finalizing. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there anything specifically you for sure >>>>>>> want the >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player to be able to do? IE jump across a >>>>>>> certain >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distance, jump over a >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain hight object etc >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Kent >>>>>>> Petersen >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did you want to do for the first trap? >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imagined >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there would be 5 or so different >>>>>>> looking tiles. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then there would be one >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct kind of tile (not the diamond). >>>>>>> Then the >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> player would have to jump >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about through the tiles to the correct >>>>>>> ones. I >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figured it would work >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly to the ones that were on >>>>>>> kenttest. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's your thoughts on that? >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before you get to into designing the temple >>>>>>> I would >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly suggest that we nail down player >>>>>>> control and >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jumping physics. Let me >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> warn you from experience, if we change how >>>>>>> any of >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that works your temple >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will become obsolete. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Kent >>>>>>> Petersen >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Been really busy today and will probably >>>>>>> be busy >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next couple days. I would suggest leaving >>>>>>> the trap >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas open for now. If >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are willing to push on anyway and have >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions, send em my >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way and I will be happy to help out when I >>>>>>> get a >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Alan >>>>>>> Wolfe >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Man that's awesome >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Apache >>>>>>> User >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dhapache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> User:rorac >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Message: Expanded a little on templemap, >>>>>>> added >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> template code as per Kent's advisement. >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Need a sign (next room is diamond path). >>>>>>> Kent, I >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will need your help to help build that >>>>>>> part and >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin putting traps in the >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallway (first right = first trap area). >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Files Changed> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> U Scripts/Maps/templemap.lua >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Scripts/Maps/templemap_geometry.lua >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >