Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#16
The game shouldn't nerf the player, since the simulation would have had hundreds and thousands of years prior to the game starting, with factions falling and rising based on a simple seed generation technique.

If the player is infinitely large and infinitely powerful, there is an infinite chance he will find an NPC faction that is just as infinitely large and infinitely powerful.
Lurker Mode: DEACTIVATED
The most intriguing fact about imagination is that its all in your head.
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#17
I was reminded of this thread today after reading a blog post at Gamasutra about the quest system developed for the game Crashlands.

The developers had built a sandboxy world with tech advancement. But they were finding that at around ten hours of play, the "why am I doing this?" question started coming up.

Their solution was to add story to the game world. They did this by adding a flexible quest creation tool... but the part of this I want to highlight is that telling a story implies an end to the game.

Limit Theory is also set to be very sandboxy, and to include tech advancement (via research), and to have a Project creation tool (albeit one set within the world of the game itself). So there's a question: would adding a main story line, created using a version of the Project tool modified to support narrative text, improve LT? Or would that degrade the open-world play experience?

I'm curious to hear what people think about this, bearing in mind:

1. This worked pretty well for the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games. You could win by doing the main quest, or you could wander forever just doing side quests, or something in between.

2. "Story" implies an ending -- should LT end if you play it in story mode? (Remember that when asked what he learned from making Fallout 3, Bethesda producer Todd Howard said, "Don't let the game end.")

3. The inclusion of a research tree in LT implies that players will eventually reach a point where they're just marginally optimizing prior discoveries. That's a kind of practical ending to LT... so why not hook that to an engaging core story?

4. Freelancer had a story. ;)
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#19
I don't believe in an end game scenario in this kind of game. If all goes well with the AI programing, the universe should rebalance itself one way or the other before a faction (including the player's) controls everything. Besides, I can't imagine how much time one person should play the game every day to counter everything the game can do against him/her.

But maybe I'm being too idealistic... :ghost:
Last edited by Lum on Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have been - and always shall be - your friend.
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#20
Let the universe flow around the player. Let events unfold naturally and let the player craft their own story as they play LT. If Limit Theory is the theory that anything is possible then we the players should not restrict other players to a path. Let each game in LT be truly unique.

Adding a story to the main game isn't going to fix anything. It just gets a person to play for maybe an hour or two more before they decide to quit. If we don't want the end game player to be too OP then adding a story element is the worst thing anyone could do.

LT is about freedom and choices. If you want to make a campaign mod that's fine, but asking for a campaign to be added to LT by default defeats the purpose of Limit Theory.
Image
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#21
BFett wrote:Let the universe flow around the player. Let events unfold naturally and let the player craft their own story as they play LT. If Limit Theory is the theory that anything is possible then we the players should not restrict other players to a path. Let each game in LT be truly unique.

Adding a story to the main game isn't going to fix anything. It just gets a person to play for maybe an hour or two more before they decide to quit. If we don't want the end game player to be too OP then adding a story element is the worst thing anyone could do.

LT is about freedom and choices. If you want to make a campaign mod that's fine, but asking for a campaign to be added to LT by default defeats the purpose of Limit Theory.
QFT.
I have been - and always shall be - your friend.
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#22
BFett wrote:Let the universe flow around the player. Let events unfold naturally and let the player craft their own story as they play LT. If Limit Theory is the theory that anything is possible then we the players should not restrict other players to a path. Let each game in LT be truly unique.
then dont hardcode the whole universe from front to back while implementing the story.
make the story missions just "key moments" which affect the rest of the games universe with it.

example:
you have 3 different worlds
one where the starting area is only to a small degree civilised, if one system gets destroyed the whole empire around fails.
one where 2 empires are bordering each other, close to open war, but not yet fighting.
and a last universe where a big, stable faction is controlling a large amount of space.

the story mission has the effect that a single system with a certain degree of civilisation gets shut off from the rest of the world and sees heavy combat (from specially spawned enemies) that destroys much of the systems infrastructure.
player is locked in in the system for the duration of the story element, story happens, afterwards the system gets unlocked again.

but the outside of that system isnt stopped for the duration of that event.

the first universe, with only the small empire, would see a key system taken out and destroyed, the empire maybe collapses because of that heavy hit.

for the second universe there are 2 paths that could emerge from that event.
the first possibility would be that the empire which lost the system thinks that the other one is responsible for that act, war erupts.
the second possibility would be that both empires are scared by the event and decide to put their animosities aside and cooperate in case another such attack happens.

the third universe probably wouldnt care much in the grand scheme of things, there are enough other systems to take up the slack.
some short term confusion, not much more.


here are 4 scenarios that could emerge from a single story event, and those scenarios are just what i just pulled out of nowhere.

playthroughs wouldnt be identical or lacking in uniqueness just because of a handcrafted story happening in it.
BFett wrote: Adding a story to the main game isn't going to fix anything. It just gets a person to play for maybe an hour or two more before they decide to quit.
[citation needed]
BFett wrote: If we don't want the end game player to be too OP then adding a story element is the worst thing anyone could do.
why?
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#23
Citation not needed. Play any story game and you'll find that after the story has been complete the game is over. You can't go back and change what happened, you end the story with a vast amount of resources, wealth, and prestige that allows you to become the OP player we are trying to prevent or limit.

If a problem exists a story does not solve the problem. Story can't make a weapon have drawbacks, change the rate of research, or make the market more realistic. The story just gives some people a reason to keep playing, keep grinding away with the same broken mechanics that don't make the game fun.
Image
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#24
BFett wrote:Citation not needed. Play any story game and you'll find that after the story has been complete the game is over.
Fallout and The Elder Scrolls disagree with you.

BFett wrote:you end the story with a vast amount of resources, wealth, and prestige that allows you to become the OP player we are trying to prevent or limit.
[citation needed]

why should it be that way? some goodies maybe, but enough to haul yourself to OP ness? nnnoppe
BFett wrote: If a problem exists a story does not solve the problem. Story can't make a weapon have drawbacks, change the rate of research, or make the market more realistic. The story just gives some people a reason to keep playing, keep grinding away with the same broken mechanics that don't make the game fun.
that doesnt answer why it is
BFett wrote:the worst thing
to do

that it is not solving the op problem is clear, but i can think of worse things to do.
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#25
Lum wrote:I don't believe in an end game scenario in this kind of game.
Agree. The full "end game" concept irritates me. The fact that this game is suppose to be infinite should mean that there is not "end game" possibility (whatever "end game" means if it actually means anything). You may continue playing for ever and ever if you so wish, or at least that's how I see it. To accumulate power is not an interesting way to playing a game for me, and even if you do no one can be powerful enough. And even if you do, you can start again. The procedural nature of the game almost guarantees that it will be a significantly new experience every time.

One thing that comes to my mind is that maybe characters should grow old and eventually die. (This could be particularly interesting if the games portraits different alien races, some of which could live longer than humans, and others, even having other advantages and virtues, much less. What about investigating new technologies to prolong life through machinery?) If you die you loss everything, though could be interesting if your possessions can be transfered to some degree. I imagine the subsequent fight for the control of a big personal empire after its leader death between his inheritors.

About the "main story" thing, even if I like the idea of adding hundreds of "story missions" to this game through mods, I thing that one of the selling points to LT is that every story is unique and yours alone. Emergent stories, likes the ones in XCom, that's what I want. (Even if XCom has a main story too.)
Image
"Playing" is not simply a pastime, it is the primordial basis of imagination and creation. - Hideo Kojima
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#26
I haven't entirely been following the conversation, but I thought I'd throw in a few thoughts.

I dislike the idea of an "end game" scenario. In fact, if you ever got to a point where you were the most powerful, and starting to get bored, I'd want something come along to change that.

My fear with the current way Limit Theory is designed is that eventually the universe will reach a stable equilibrium that will stop large-scale wars and growth - everything will have its place, and everything will be balanced. The way around this is to occasionally intentionally introduce things into the world that unbalance it.

I like the idea of having a story - not a fixed story, but a dynamic one based on little things - little story elements - that can come together to make a whole dynamically and procedurally. In other words, these little things happen on their own, but it's up to the player whether he wants to consciously link them together to make it into a story. Some semi-scripted events might happen here and there, but without any end goal in mind. Again, I'd want the player to be able to decide whether he wants to help them along, hinder them, or ignore them completely. Some events might include (just off the top of my head)...
  • A large, powerful faction threatens to wipe out neighboring systems
  • A particular faction is unfairly targeted and suppressed
  • A new system is discovered with particularly abundant resources
  • A highly valuable item is found; the faction that finds it guards it zealously
  • A faction becomes very territorial and tries to wipe out any faction that infringes on their space
  • A faction discovers a new source of wealth and begins to grow
  • A faction's leader is killed; the assassin has the option to take over said faction
  • A powerful fleet of rogue ships return to reclaim their home
  • A larger faction suddenly targets a nearby one that is starting to grow
  • A faction's source of wealth suddenly fails and they're forced to find a new way to survive
  • A faction suddenly accepts a smaller faction as their ally and they defend each other to the end
  • A trade-oriented faction becomes allies with a pirate faction
  • A faction makes friends with another faction, only to use them as cannon fodder
  • A faction flees their home because they realize they can't grow if they stay
  • A group of smaller factions form an alliance to take on a much larger faction
  • A fleet tries to travel through a series of hostile systems in search of something - or just across an unusually large number of systems
  • A faction gets caught between two much larger factions having a war
  • A pirate faction decides to stop their illegal activities and become traders, or vice versa
  • A faction abandons their home to search for a better system
  • A faction sets out to destroy a large neighboring faction
Just some random ideas. By keeping these going, you help unsettle balance and keep things dynamic. To an extent things might stay partly dynamic on their own, but if you want to keep things truly exciting, you add in elements of stories - and where they mix and overlap, you have the beginnings of a much larger story. It would need to be done in moderation, though. A little chaos is good, but too much is... well, chaos.

Of course, you as the player could still ignore it all entirely and just go along with your regular routine. It's just there for people who want a story.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: End game players too OP?

#27
Etsu wrote:One thing that comes to my mind is that maybe characters should grow old and eventually die. (This could be particularly interesting if the games portraits different alien races, some of which could live longer than humans, and others, even having other advantages and virtues, much less. What about investigating new technologies to prolong life through machinery?) If you die you loss everything, though could be interesting if your possessions can be transfered to some degree. I imagine the subsequent fight for the control of a big personal empire after its leader death between his inheritors.
I also think that natural character death after a few in-game weeks would be a valuable and interesting feature.

When I proposed it as an alternative, the suggestion was... not popular. ;)

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron