Game design

This an open forum to discuss game design. These are neither Bugs nor Suggestions (though they may lead to bug reports and game proposals), but points to consider for maintaining balance and consistency.

Mechanics

• Base accuracy for a weapon is higher than a fist, which is arguably unrealistic. One assumes that you would be less skilled with a weapon than your own hand. (I recall reading a similar comment to this, but I can't find it at the moment.) --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  • All characters appear to have a 10% chance to deal 1 damage with punching.
  • Knives and Daggers appear to have a 20% chance to deal 1 damage.

maybe it is just the punch only has a ten percent chance to actually doing damage(the text does say missed however), I know if i fought somebody who has a knife(or dagger) in RL they would do more to me than me to them, even if niether of us have any training,ex. Fists are a strange weapon and to actually do any damage with a punch(mainly only at the strongest point in your swing) you have to have some good timing.-- Daylan 02:02, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

I see what you're saying... how about punch 50-70% with a 20-30% chance of inflicting 1 damage after a successful hit, 0 damage otherwise (making it 10-21% but with 3 different messages - miss, hit but don't do damage, hit and do damage). --Simon 10:56, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

Let me point out that this isn't really a problem. It's just something that a die-hard realist would try to press. On one hand, you can have Fists as the most accurate weapon until you get weapon skills (which will make the the first levels incredibly painful). On the other hand, you can have weapons as more accurate than fists (which allow new users to quickly become involved in the game). I don't know if I'd have the patience if it took me 70 AP to kill a parrot. --Lint 16:12, 4 March 2006 (GMT)

• 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)

Outsider/Native Balance

Axiom: Outsiders and Natives should not have a complete advantage over the other.
Axiom: Different, but equal.

• Natives by default can determine the difference between "Tasty" and "Poisonous" berries. Outsiders by default cannot. --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

• Outsiders by default can use a GPS unit. Natives by default presumably cannot. --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Class Balance

Axiom: No class should have a complete advantage over the other.

• According to the chart, Soldiers have a slight advantage over other classes in regards to skills. Add to that their high HP, gives them even more of an edge. The only disadvantage they face is the process of searching and reloading ammunition. --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

Assuming that chart is accurate, the soldier isn't even the most advantageous class among his own group! The scientist has more total skills available then a soldier, and if you give more preference to being able to shoot a gun, then it is important to note how low search rates are, and that ammunition is even more rare. --Jackel 00:27, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

The chart isn't complete. I did make some assumptions in possible skills based on what we know about the skill trees, but I don't think that it was wholly inaccurate to do so. --Lint 00:40, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

• Shamans supposedly don't start with any items and have the lowest HP.
  • Counterpoint: Shamans and their outsider counterpart, Scientists, are among some of the highest ranking characters at the moment. Something is obviously working. --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

What shamen may lack in starting inventory they more than make up for in overall skill potential (seemingly the most of any class). What good is starting with a banana or a few extra bullets by comparison? --Jackel 00:27, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

• According to the statistics, there is a lack of interest in Villagers and Settlers. --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

I agree, at this point there doesn't seem to be any overiding appeal for these classes, which logically should be the most abundant, at least with regards to villagers. --Jackel 00:27, 3 March 2006 (GMT)

• Are there any game mechanics (besides HP, starting inventory, and available skills) that are influenced by your character class? Should there be? --Lint 22:52, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
  • Inventory size
  • Base accuracy
  • Base damage
  • Search odds
  • AP limit