[project1dev] Re: Skill Design Input
- From: Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:17:18 -0400
Okay, let me know if this has addressed any of your concerns. Actually,
this goes for everybody, because I could use a little input with it all as
well.
Each Elemental branch has a unique element, each of the elements have same
of the same basic similarities, example: All will provide a basic elemental
attack for basic damage (each one will have unique properties that will set
it apart from other elements however).
Keep in mind for the moment these are rough draft ideas that I've been
cooking up, and have not fully fleshed out yet.
Example of some purposeful skills
Earth. Earthquake, minor damage, knocks down enemies, possibly slows
movement for a short period (ground, burrowed [greater damage to burrowed
creatures])
Wind. Gust/Tornado, minor damage, slows down movement for a short period
(ground + air)
I proposed the thought of elemental combination, I haven't decided yet if it
should be a hidden talent where you can find a book or something, (or a
series of books that will allow you to combine higher levels of elements, eg
book 1 says you can combine elements up to level 3, second book will take
you to level 7)
Fire + Wind. Firestorm, great damage, slows down movement for an extended
period, possibly knock down enemies (ground, air, water)
In the end, my goal is to create 5 useful, yet functionally different skill
sets that have some of the same type of attacks so that going up one does
not necessarily limit what you can do, and have enough differences that
going up to master a specific element will provide a different kind of feel
for your character (water will be the only element to offer solid healing
spells, fire may have something to gain health from your enemies, earth may
have something to gain mana from enemies).
I'm not trying to say anybody is wrong, merely provided more insight as to
what my overall goal with this aspect of the design is so that everybody has
a better understanding, and thus can continue to provide necessary and
welcome feedback. (:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I like the direction Rorac is taking this.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Hanaan <designs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> yeah i agree on the replay value. you guys have great reasons for
>> talents.
>>
>> i just dont want us to lose focus of gameplay purpose. In diablo the
>> purpose was definitely for replayability. you can beat the game long before
>> level 99. but getting there allows you to max every talent you ever want
>> for the sake of simply smashing more monsters. it definitely served
>> diablo's gameplay purpose. plus the meta game of talents tied in with the
>> meta game of gear set collecting. once you beat the game you spent time
>> just collecting items. that was the point of diablo at the end of the game.
>>
>> gemcraft is very purposeful. the talents allow you to strategize each
>> map. in the latest flash gemcraft (Cursed Treasure:
>> http://deadwhale.com/play.php?game=1415), you cannot get the highest
>> score without maxing some talent trees. its there for replayability and
>> score topping after you beat the game.
>>
>> at the end of god of war they pretty much make sure you max out every
>> single weapon before beating the final boss. the reason? once you beat him
>> you just replay the game on a different mode ...with all your abilities back
>> down to level 1. the purpose in god of war is to feel like a god by the
>> time you fight zeus. weapon upgrades served that purpose at all costs. no
>> talent trees, you just decide where to spend your blood orbs as you collect
>> them.
>>
>> so these are just some examples of how we can keep focus on gameplay in
>> our game while designing our talents. i want to emphasize i think
>> everything said so far sounds cool and fun! im on board with whatever we
>> do. just want to make sure we keep eye on our purpose as we design.
>>
>> if we have talent trees or just "improve with play" mechanics, what
>> purpose will they serve in actual gameplay terms as far as beating the game
>> and overcoming challenges?
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/2010 7:00 AM, Nick Klotz wrote:
>>
>> And I don't believe 'specialization' should be a forced choice in the
>> beginning of the game, hindsight will limit the players ability to choose
>> what they'd really want. Lightning may sound cool but you may find Earth
>> being far cooler/more useful at later stages of the game. It should
>> be determined naturally by the player through use of skills, generally
>> somebody who wants to specialize will use that elemental skill more often,
>> and end up dumping their 'insight' points for further progress.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> The way the trees are being designed now is, it's impossible to max out.
>>> You can max a skill, but not an entire tree [unless we later decide
>>> there's a reason for full mastery for regular game play] (Dragon for
>>> example, if you put every available point into it, you become 2 points short
>>> of full mastery).
>>> Maybe second or third playthroughs could allow for complete mastery and
>>> in return, very difficult enemies?
>>>
>>> I believe trees add a ton of depth and reply value to a game where
>>> otherwise static skill sets can become redundant and give the player less
>>> goals to achieve.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Heres another wrench to throw in the gears (better earlier than later
>>>> right??)
>>>>
>>>> Another possibility (not saying i think this is best, just throwing it
>>>> out there) would be that when you start the game you are forced to choose
>>>> your elemental specialization, and from there you are limited to the single
>>>> elemental skill tree of your choice, along with the general "town" and
>>>> "dragon" tree.
>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You bring up an interesting point Hanaan (:
>>>>>
>>>>> I like talent trees in some games like...
>>>>>
>>>>> * Diablo / WoW - use talent trees to customize your character to be
>>>>> unlike other characters and be a unique type of fighter. A good way to
>>>>> make
>>>>> your character more unique. Kinda adds some replayability cause you can
>>>>> replay the game with a different type of character, customized your own
>>>>> way,
>>>>> and it's a different experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> * Gemcraft (flash game) - the talent tree in that game is just how you
>>>>> get more powerful. You choose what you get stronger at, but you can
>>>>> replay
>>>>> any level as many times as you want to level up moer and spend more points
>>>>> in the talent trees til all the skills are maxed out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont like talent trees in some random flash games because they are
>>>>> pointless (you dont really have a choice) or in some other games, you are
>>>>> just going to max everything out in the end anyways so why bother
>>>>> (gemcraft
>>>>> to a degree but kind of not... also fable 2).
>>>>>
>>>>> I kinda pulled adding talent trees outa the air to add more depth to
>>>>> our game but are they appropriate? Maybe we should talk about their
>>>>> purpose
>>>>> some in our game (:
>>>>>
>>>>> #1 - Do we want talent tress to be there to customize your character to
>>>>> have a unique game play experience / promote replay? I think this could
>>>>> be
>>>>> an appropriate use of things. We'd have to design the trees / game with
>>>>> this in mind up front though so this is a good time to think about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> #2 - Do we want to use talent trees as the way of the player choosing
>>>>> how they get more powerful each level, but in the end they basically max
>>>>> everything out and become godlike? We could go this way maybe but
>>>>> shrug...
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think would be fun / a good way to go for our game?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Hanaan <designs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> very nice ideas guys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the core question is how important are the skills to
>>>>>> gameplay. if we are aiming to keep it simple, then all the skills should
>>>>>> serve a direct purpose to gameplay in my opinion, instead of just having
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> variety of skills for skills sake. talent trees are a meta game.
>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>> theres a talent tree in a video game it serves as alternate advancement.
>>>>>> unless this is our aim in the game, im not seeing the point in talent
>>>>>> trees.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a good example of functional, fun skills in a game is actually god of
>>>>>> war. comes to mind because ive been playing it lately, hehe :) Kratos
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> many different weapons, all with different styles, looks, feels and
>>>>>> purposes. but every single one has a purpose very important to gameplay.
>>>>>> you gain new power moves by using weapons basically (killing things) so
>>>>>> everyone likes that idea already.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> im not a huge fan of talent trees unless the point of the game is
>>>>>> character building. but simple spell improvements/enhancements and such
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> be pretty complex even though simple as someone already put it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/23/2010 2:10 PM, Kent Petersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds good man. I like where you are going with this. I don't care
>>>>>> about penetration in particular as much as I was trying to make a point
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> variety being good. I like what I hear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Nick Klotz
>>>>>> <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Each skill will have their own unique properties as well as shared
>>>>>>> properties, penetration is not 'too much' of a consideration
>>>>>>> unless there is going to be horde type attacks in the 1st person
>>>>>>> view, overhead kind of eliminates this variable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will there be differences between elemental combat skills? Oh hell
>>>>>>> yea there will be. I will be working on creating a rough skill list
>>>>>>> over the
>>>>>>> next week and releasing new information daily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If anyone has any problem viewing the file I uploaded please let me
>>>>>>> know and I can change the file type to something compatible with what
>>>>>>> programs you have. (:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And as always, if anybody has any other ideas, suggestions,
>>>>>>> concerns, please voice them! Feedback is the absolute most critical
>>>>>>> thing
>>>>>>> during the design and concept phases!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Kent Petersen <kentkmp@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like the where you are going with this system. I like how the
>>>>>>>> skills you use will get better with time. I have always enjoyed that
>>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>>> in games. It makes me want to use my skills more to see how powerful
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> will become.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are there going to be specific differences between the elemental
>>>>>>>> combat skills? For example fireball may have a blast radius while
>>>>>>>> lightning
>>>>>>>> penetrates through targets. Or is that going to be more of an insight
>>>>>>>> thing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Nick Klotz
>>>>>>>> <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yea, the basic idea of it would be that the basic skills you start
>>>>>>>>> out with are still very useful and important at the later stages of
>>>>>>>>> the game
>>>>>>>>> so its not like, "oh I start with this but why level it when I won't
>>>>>>>>> use it
>>>>>>>>> later"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Without getting into the art side of it too much, yes I had
>>>>>>>>> thoughts of different graphics such as larger fireballs, etc, as the
>>>>>>>>> skill
>>>>>>>>> improved, at least as far as the basic "bolt spells" go.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Glad you like the idea, any other input or ideas, and feedback is
>>>>>>>>> surely welcome.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Alan Wolfe
>>>>>>>>> <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you know... the "using a skill to make it better" idea is really
>>>>>>>>>> awesome...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i really like the direction you are going with all this (:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> what would be really neat too would be if we did something such as
>>>>>>>>>> at every 10 levels of a skill (could be different for different
>>>>>>>>>> skills), the
>>>>>>>>>> graphics of a skill could change too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's kind of the idea of fire 1, fire 2, fire 3 from final fantasy
>>>>>>>>>> but itd be the same spell you just get better at it and the visual
>>>>>>>>>> effects
>>>>>>>>>> look more awesome.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we could do fun stuff too like make a really wimpy spell that if
>>>>>>>>>> you level it up does a ton of damage to the hardest enemies in the
>>>>>>>>>> game and
>>>>>>>>>> that kinda thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ::high five::
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> really nice Nick, this is great stuff
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Nick, nice job!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Im a fan of making it simple too usually and that simple rules
>>>>>>>>>>> can make for more complex gameplay (ironically!) but i think if
>>>>>>>>>>> done right,
>>>>>>>>>>> these different options could make a lot of replay in the game with
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> wanting to try diff methods and play styles.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Player would gain 3 points per level to use on the tree, this
>>>>>>>>>>> model assumes 17 playable areas (9 overworld, 8 first person) and a
>>>>>>>>>>> potential of 4 total level ups per area, so an assumed max level of
>>>>>>>>>>> 68"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cool deal. If we end up making more levels or less, we should
>>>>>>>>>>> be able to scale the points per level or # of level ups per level
>>>>>>>>>>> to stretch
>>>>>>>>>>> or squish this i think. This is a good starting metric for us to
>>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>>> towards but yeah, just pointing out we can adjust if necesary w/o
>>>>>>>>>>> too much
>>>>>>>>>>> impact on things (hopefully!)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I like your idea of making it so the more you use a skill the
>>>>>>>>>>> better you get at it (and similar skills). Do you think we'd show
>>>>>>>>>>> someone's
>>>>>>>>>>> profficiency in a specific skill to them or would it happen behind
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> scenes?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Nick Klotz <
>>>>>>>>>>> roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I've been mulling over ideas for skillsets, how they will
>>>>>>>>>>>> work, various variables, etc, and I've talked to Eric a little
>>>>>>>>>>>> about balance
>>>>>>>>>>>> and simplicity vs complicating things just to be complicated, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> I feel
>>>>>>>>>>>> complication adds depth. In light of that, I wanted some input,
>>>>>>>>>>>> because I
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that complication adds tremendous depth and replay value
>>>>>>>>>>>> if its
>>>>>>>>>>>> simple to the user.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have in mind a couple dozen skills, along with 8 trainable
>>>>>>>>>>>> skill trees, with two separate types of level ups for all
>>>>>>>>>>>> Elemental trees.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Player would gain 3 points per level to use on the tree, this
>>>>>>>>>>>> model assumes
>>>>>>>>>>>> 17 playable areas (9 overworld, 8 first person) and a potential of
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 total
>>>>>>>>>>>> level ups per area, so an assumed max level of 68 (game could be
>>>>>>>>>>>> playable at
>>>>>>>>>>>> final stages at much earlier levels for players who decide not to
>>>>>>>>>>>> go over an
>>>>>>>>>>>> area several times to gain exp)
>>>>>>>>>>>> Skill Trees: [Elemental] Fire, Water, Earth, Wind, Lightning
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Other] Population, Town, Dragon
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Insight leveling and combat leveling are combined to figure the
>>>>>>>>>>>> total overall power, however mastering one skill may not be the
>>>>>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>>>>>> beneficial to the player, allowing for these two types provide the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>>>>>>> to specialize as well as keep the player balanced in other areas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Insight Leveling]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Skill points sent into the trees via leveling will increase
>>>>>>>>>>>> overall abilities, and unlock more sub-skill sets, including the
>>>>>>>>>>>> ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>> combine skills for devastatingly powerful attacks. There will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough of
>>>>>>>>>>>> these to insure that spreading out points will not necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>> yield any
>>>>>>>>>>>> advantage or disadvantage over dumping all points into a specific
>>>>>>>>>>>> skill.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [Combat Leveling]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Combat leveling is gained via using Elemental skills. Combat
>>>>>>>>>>>> leveling increases all attributes of all skills under its relative
>>>>>>>>>>>> element,
>>>>>>>>>>>> example:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max level for any element or skill is hard capped at 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fireball - Skill Name
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fire - Skill Element
>>>>>>>>>>>> ManaCost -
>>>>>>>>>>>> CoolDown - Time in seconds between being able to use the skill
>>>>>>>>>>>> Speed - Speed the physical attack moves from player to target
>>>>>>>>>>>> BaseDamage - Damage
>>>>>>>>>>>> DamageRadius -
>>>>>>>>>>>> SplashDamage - Damage outside the normal damage radius
>>>>>>>>>>>> SetOnFire - %Chance to set target on fire causing damage over
>>>>>>>>>>>> time
>>>>>>>>>>>> OnFire_Damage - Damage per second target takes
>>>>>>>>>>>> OnFire_Duration - Time in seconds target will remain on fire
>>>>>>>>>>>> FireResistance - %Resistance player gains from fire based damage
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: Capture.PNG]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If more information is necessary on examples and how this type
>>>>>>>>>>>> of leveling system will work, please feel free to ask, I have more
>>>>>>>>>>>> notes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and am currently working on more material, but I don't want to get
>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved with this method unless approved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
