[project1dev] Re: Skill Design Input
- From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 16:24:57 -0700
So far so good I think
Details still need to be fleshed out and thats probably where a lot of
discussion will happen i think. For instance when you talk about burrowed
creatures etc we obviously don't know if we are even going to have any yet.
(chicken and egg problem...)
But overall from a high overview POV, i think its a good plan so far (:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Nick Klotz <roracsenshi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
