Talk:Game design

Axiom: Outsiders and Natives should have access to the same items and skills. Or at least something equivalent.

I think this is a flawed axiom. Who says the two groups have the same skills, or access to the same equipment?! As long as there is balance (and the active player stats are very close) its probably better that each group gets a different game experience. --Jackel 00:16, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

Which is why I have stated that there should be an "equivalent" available. If the game is sided to suit one type over the other, is there a game? --Lint 00:23, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

My overriding opinion is that as long as one side isn't inheirently more "powerful" than the other, its ok if they don't have directly corresponding items and skills. Consider, the technological prowess of the outsiders vs. the jungle knowledge and mysticism of the natives. Different, but equal. I'd be interested to hear other's opinions. --Jackel 02:16, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

I now see how my statements depicted a direct relationship between abilities for the Outsiders and abilities for the Natives (so that whatever one could do, the other could also do). If this were the case, there would be no incentive to try the other side. I have attempted to modify the axiom accordingly to better capture your point. --Lint 03:54, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

As revised, I am in complete agreement. =] --Jackel 21:25, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

---

Proposal for Mechanics Axiom:

Axiom: There is no right or wrong way to play

• While there is a hinted conflict between Outsiders and Natives, players create their own goals. One person could kill only monkeys. Another could devote themselves to only killing players on their side. Do not restrict or punish players for playing differently. While the game would be incredibly easier to manage if the options were limited, it would lose multiple degrees of dynamic complexity. --Lint 06:04, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

• I feel that it is necessary to simulate linear gameplay in this open-ended game through official quests, events, and minigames. --Lint 06:04, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Persistent Shark Bites

As observed by Anothertwilight on the bugs page, shark bites that a character acquires when venturing in deep water will still exist after the character is resurrected. What purpose do persistent shark bites serve in the game? While they haven't affected my playing experience very much (I've killed my soldier twice by shark bite for "research"), I can't see a reason to really keep it ingame. --Lint 08:14, 17 March 2006 (GMT)

• With the changes to the Shaman a couple of weeks ago, the shark bites are no longer persistent. --Simon 21:32, 8 May 2006 (BST)

• Hm, so much for my strategy of earning all my xp by pouring bottles of water on my shark bite. Off to find more poisonberries... --Tycho44 06:55, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Contact Shaman

It is likely to be more efficient to die than to search for items and heal yourself. (Based on an observation was made by Leaf on the Suggestions page.) --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I think this observation is based on the false perception that one needs to be fully healed at all times. There is no fundamental difference in performance when at less than ideal health. Remember, this game is set on an unexplored, remote island, not a heavily populated British suburb *coughUrbanDeadcough* its arguably more realistic to not be at peak health all the time, and for healing items to be somewhat scarce. --Jackel 00:12, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

I guess my problem is that death can be used as a tool rather than a game experience. Say you're at 2 HP. You can spend the next few days scrounging for enough recovery items to heal and continue on or you can get killed and begin playing with full HP the next day. Say you're 100 squares away from your hometown and want to get back, if you can get something to kill you (perhaps even kill yourself with poisonous berries), you will have potentially saved AP. I think we should be discouraged from taking advantage of death somehow. --Lint 18:20, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

This is a very good point.. what form of discouragement would be enough to make this less useful? Loss of AP and XP instead of 50AP (if so, what values for each)? Loss of a random skill? Loss of some of your inventory? Maybe you get summoned to the nearest (or random) camp of the same type rather than to your home camp? --Simon 10:56, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

I do see your point, Lint, and agree, Death should not be so much useful as it is annoying, nor should it be too annoying. One thought I had (aside from simply making it easier to stock healing items with refillable containers) was to make coming back from the dead progressively harder. I don't simply mean heaping onto the AP cost of getting ressurected, but maybe the shaman can send the dead on quests or punishments or something beyond simply waiting for your AP to recover?--Jackel 01:29, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

It's difficult to suggest something to dissuade death while not motivating griefing. I kind of like the camp idea and quests idea, but I'd need to get more familiar with the death experience before I can truly say anything. --Lint 16:12, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Requiring that a dead person (spirit) must travel to a shaman to be 'resurrected' rather than just hitting the 'spend 50AP - go home' button would stop people using death as a teleporter. Making 'Town Shamans' have to recharge between resurrections (with the amount of time being tweaked depending on player numbers), potentially forcing a spirit to have to hang around and check in on a regular basis to see if the Shaman was ready, would make resurrection less of a sure thing. Another alternative to increase the uncertainty, and hence make death a gamble, not a strategy, would be to give the Town Shamans a %chance to resurrect and a set amount of AP. If too many people tap the Shaman looking for resurrections, they are 'asleep' 'til they recharge. Both would also increase the value of player shamans (whom I presume can also resurrect if they have the right skills). Anothertwilight 22:58, 5 March 2006 (GMT)

"Recharging" Shamens sounds like a reasonable idea.

I like the idea of the spirit having to find the shaman to ressurect him; in addition to the AP cost, they have to wander around the jungle, find their bearings, etc. It also segues nicely for the player shaman to have a skill allowing them to ressurect. Zerging risk here, having a player run a shaman and a "fighter", keeping them close so the shaman PC can quickly revive the fallen fighter. Also, this might create imbalance the two factions, as the PC shamen may not want to revive Outsiders.--Jackel 01:37, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

If you make Scientists able to revive people as well (they share most of the Shaman skills) would keep faction balance in. MorkaisChosen 12:24, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

I believe that the purpose behind "Contact Shaman" feature is so players that haven't a clue where the nearest village is (ie. ME) don't spend the rest of the game as a lost spirit. I think I'd just create a new character if I wasn't presented with the option to contact a Shaman. Another alternative that I've considered is perhaps the Town Shaman's power isn't as strong over long distances. If a spirit choose to contact a Shaman, they would respawn where they originally died, but with reduced HP. Perhaps a greater distance from the hometown results in less HP. This would put an end to teleportation and make taking advantage of death to gain full health slightly less advantageous (at least if the player is not within reasonable walking distance of a Town Shaman). However, I can see problems if some animal or PKer is camping the corpse, waiting to clobber them when they return. --Lint 02:32, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

A fair point, what if the player received a message from his "home shaman" if he was he was too far away, and needed to move xx squares in direction X, xx squares in direction Y to be "in range". That player could also choose to go to another shaman if he thought one was closer. --Jackel 02:39, 6 March 2006 (GMT)

After now experiencing multiple encounters with death, I feel that 50 AP is an acceptable cost and I am finding it hard to see how exactly this feature can be taken advantage of. --Lint 20:18, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Also, remember that anyone who scrounges healing items to get back up to full hit points is going to gain 50XP (or whatever) through the process of healing. --Tycho44 06:25, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Summary

To summarize: Contacting a Shaman can currently be taken advantage of to bypass Traveling and to bypass Recovery. Both are presumably essential experiences to how the game is played.

• We can prevent the teleportation element by removing the option to contact a Shaman altogether.
  • However, to provide a user-friendly game experience it probably needs to be kept in place.
    • We can reduce our dependency for this option by increasing the number of available respawn locations.
      • Reduces the established punishment of having to cover lost ground.
• Rather than the Hometown Shaman, players contact the nearest Town Shaman.
  • This will reduce excessive teleportation, but does not eliminate it.
• Allow the Shaman to be contacted but the player respawns where it was rather than hometown.
  • Reduces teleportation, but also reduces the established punishment of having to cover lost ground.
• We can artificially represent the act of Traveling and Recovery by extending the time and/or AP spent before resurrection can occur.
  • Increasing AP cost
  • Quests
  • Queues
  • Chance
• Or apply penalties after resurrection.
  • Reduced HP
  • Temporarily Reduced Actions (only movement and inventory; no combat, speech, writing)
    • Temporarily Reduced Accuracy
• Or apply penalties to discourage dying in general.
  • Loss of XP
  • Loss of Skill
  • Loss of Item