Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

I've been, between thinking about demonic digestion and systems of injury, thinking about how to handle maps. Not how to make  them but the confines of them, so to speak. In ER there's no real boundaries because you can always jetpack over a building or something similar.  But considering this game is more focused, I'm wondering if I should go less sandbox and more dungeon map.  Ie the difference between a MUD style/ soulsian style map like we had in perplexicon's adventure stage, or if it should just be open as usual.

The first means I can craft a denser experience because I know where you're gonna go (or at least where you CAN go) and what places are explorable, so I can focus on enemy placements and items and traps and all that jazz.

Where as the second allows more freedom in terms of how you do what you do, but it also makes the maps exponentially larger and means I won't have time to sit around and decide the contents and design of every single building on this thing.

It's a conundrum.

[Radio Controlled]

I'd consider the tighter design. Should help prevent the aimlessness we sometimes see when there's no clear goal/path, and if there's enough possible paths to take it doesn't railroad the thing completely. Seems to mesh better with the more limited scope and more granular system of the game as well, compared to ER.

(People might still find ways to get to where they shouldn't though.)

On the other hand, sandbox does mean more room for endless tacticool blabbing. I do love me some tacticool blabbing.

[Hapah]

The limited first option, imo.

[MidnightJaguar]

tacticool babbling, or just a somewhat limited map.

[TheBiggerFish]

First option makes more sense.

[Ozarck]

first option requires a limiting mechanism. video games are annoying when they have invisible walls keeping the game limited, so make the limiting factors plausible at least.

Frankly, I'd rather a more sandbox style, but I think for gameplay hte limited is better.

Another approach is to design the limited map, then expand it to an actual city, such that htere are numerous buildings which carry the same set of things, and vast stretches that have nothing to do with the objective. just because there is a residential area doesn't mean we have to wander off down it. keep the team focused by using that 'limited bases" idea, and if they go off rails, they cna wander aimlessly in housing complexes or office buildings of pointlessness until they die and the game ends with the destruction of the so called holy city, as is right and proper.

[Whisperling]

As I see it, this is essentially a choice between walking through two detailed areas or running around a dozen generic ones.

I'd go with the first, if only for the sense that the scenery is more involved and interesting. Maybe make a few secret rooms or something to give people who slip their leash some measure of satisfaction, but present them with a brick wall (metaphorical or literal, take your pick) if they try to go any farther.

[NJW2000]

Say you divide Oro into chunks, with only a few ways of passing from one to another for each? That means it can all be minature dungeons, which you handcraft when needed.

Which is basically dark souls. DS2 at least, with a fair bit like 3, maybe a bit more limited than 1.

Guys, remember massive open expanses can be shoved into dungeons for tacticool stuff.

[piecewise]

The major thing I want to avoid is me creating a street with buildings on either side, and having the game stop for a month and a half while people search every building and every room.

[Pancaek]

"after searching two buildings, demonic spiders start pouring from every crack and crevice. Y'all might want to get moving before you drown in demon spiders!"

Pancaek's Acme solutions.

[Hapah]

"after searching two buildings, demonic spiders start pouring from every crack and crevice. Y'all might want to get moving before you drown in demon spiders!"

Pancaek's Acme solutions.

"Fight the spiders while I check that cupboard over there"

We will succumb to lootlust in scenario 2, no question.

[AbstractTraitorHero]

"THE SPIDERS ARE COMING!"
"!#!LOOTING INTENSIFYS!#!

[piecewise]

I've found that the worse the opposition, the greater the looting. Because obviously, strong or numerous enemies means more loot!

[Pancaek]

I've found that the worse the opposition, the greater the looting. Because obviously, strong or numerous enemies means more loot!

Maybe you could flood the entire block with loot, instead of spiders. Saturate the need for loot so that the players lose interest.

[Whisperling]

I've found that the worse the opposition, the greater the looting. Because obviously, strong or numerous enemies means more loot!

Why not use natural disasters? Oro itself is a living city, so I don't see why it couldn't knock over a water tower or collapse ceilings as some sort of defense mechanism. It would cause it some harm, I guess, but that's a not as big an issue as the adventurers trying to kill it.

Also, landslides don't stink of loot. Not perfect justification in-world, but sometimes you just have to be practical.