ID:154064
 
Well, a long summer with no hosting of my own available has given me plenty of time to reflect (and theoretically work on, although I've just barely touched) Lode Wars, and I'm beginning to look towards some pretty hefty changes... but I can't decide on just which ones. I've got two thoughts here: one, I could junk most of the character development and focus on the action itself (this was the approach I was leaning towards when the game went on hiatus), or two, I could move towards a more peristent (but still quasi-round-based) game with a little more emphasis on character development. Either way, of course, there would be considerably More Stuff to play with, which is (almost) always a good thing.
Leftley wrote:
Well, a long summer with no hosting of my own available has given me plenty of time to reflect (and theoretically work on, although I've just barely touched) Lode Wars, and I'm beginning to look towards some pretty hefty changes... but I can't decide on just which ones. I've got two thoughts here: one, I could junk most of the character development and focus on the action itself (this was the approach I was leaning towards when the game went on hiatus), or two, I could move towards a more peristent (but still quasi-round-based) game with a little more emphasis on character development. Either way, of course, there would be considerably More Stuff to play with, which is (almost) always a good thing.

Somehow I think either would be a bad way to go. I like the balance as it stands now. Newbies who focus too much on theft and killing get shafted at the end of the round when promotions get handed out, but big diggers and contributors get big rewards. There's enough action, almost enough character development.

I say almost enough because probably a few improvements could be made: Slight stat bonuses for higher promotion levels (beyond just getting an extra weight unit at level 10 or 11); access to extra items based on rank, perhaps to items not usually available to the team. Extra ways of measuring a player's contribution to the team could be determined, such as a body count for near-base intruders.

Lummox JR
In response to Lummox JR
Well, let me put the same issue in different terms: What are your feelings about the current team system?

My biggest regret, and the game element most lacking compared to the original design document (or documents, rather; I have a habit of rewriting the same game up from scratch 3 or 4 times before going off and building it in a considerably different manner than any version of the design doc) are the teams. Originally they were designed to be distinct from one another, with considerably different backgrounds and styles of play; sure, they're distinguished by employee benefits and equipment lists, but there aren't as many different attributes of employee handling as I'd like and the equipment list is far too small in general.

The "more persistent" idea I had would mostly involve taking the original team concept and going even farther with it, where players would have a somewhat longer relationship with their teams (they'd be free to change teams between rounds, but they'd have a lower rank on their new team and they'd have to cede their equipment--which would also then last between rounds, since the differing equipment lists are the main reason it doesn't). To solve the problem of team presence without resorting to eight-way rounds, multiple rounds would be played out side-by-side, on random maps with more specific random properties--something I'd like anyways, but another aspect of this design is that the same team would generally have a presence at multiple digging sites, so players would have a bit of a choice; it wouldn't be quite as fair to have some more extreme map types if players didn't have the option to play a map more suited to their playing style or race.

Even if I didn't go for a more persitent version, I'd still probably like to flesh out team differences a bit more. Having a larger, better developed equipment list would mean I could have sharper differences amongst the team equipment lists while still decreasing the impact of the lack of items for a given team, and it occurs to me that it would make sense to give different teams different weights for "experience" gains/losses--possibly even different weights for racial pay (not everbody's an equal-opportunity employer) to encourage segregation. Of course, the autoteam mechanism would be loosened very considerably, so that players would be less likely to be forced onto a team they didn't like... and with better documentation on each team, it's possible that additional differences might not be necessary, since players would naturally try to play on a team better outfitted for their style of play (they did so before anyway, but not necessarily very well).
In response to Leftley
Leftley wrote:
Well, let me put the same issue in different terms: What are your feelings about the current team system?

I like it fine.
My only major problem is being saddled with morons. This happens rarely, but on occasion it does come up. To an extent there's not much to be done about it. It would be nice if you could force a teammate to drop something of yours they picked up, though, as this happened to me once; I kept telling the idiot to drop it, drop it, drop it--he had every intention of doing so, I think, but was just too stupid to actually pay attention to me talking. Similar problems come from trying to give people directions to a find. Other moron aspects are the players who blast right next to you, but this is probably incurable unless you put in some kind of way to pull rank and disable explosives nearby.

The only other thing that's a problem is that the differences between teams aren't documented properly, so there's no way of knowing which team gets a bigger payoff (or by how much), etc. It'd be nice to have projected payouts listed along with team scores, or alongside each player (or at least yourself). I'd also like to know in advance which teams can get which equipment.
I should add, though, that sometimes the lack of particular equipment is a big hassle. I'm of mixed feelings on this; it does give the teams different strengths and basically makes for more varied gameplay, but on the other hand it can be a burden.

My biggest regret, and the game element most lacking compared to the original design document (or documents, rather; I have a habit of rewriting the same game up from scratch 3 or 4 times before going off and building it in a considerably different manner than any version of the design doc) are the teams. Originally they were designed to be distinct from one another, with considerably different backgrounds and styles of play; sure, they're distinguished by employee benefits and equipment lists, but there aren't as many different attributes of employee handling as I'd like and the equipment list is far too small in general.

A larger equipment list would probably solve much of this problem.

The "more persistent" idea I had would mostly involve taking the original team concept and going even farther with it, where players would have a somewhat longer relationship with their teams (they'd be free to change teams between rounds, but they'd have a lower rank on their new team and they'd have to cede their equipment--which would also then last between rounds, since the differing equipment lists are the main reason it doesn't). To solve the problem of team presence without resorting to eight-way rounds, multiple rounds would be played out side-by-side, on random maps with more specific random properties--something I'd like anyways, but another aspect of this design is that the same team would generally have a presence at multiple digging sites, so players would have a bit of a choice; it wouldn't be quite as fair to have some more extreme map types if players didn't have the option to play a map more suited to their playing style or race.

I think this would hurt matters based on the fact that players are randomly assigned to teams. Actually I really don't like the idea of players having a permanent or long-term team assignment. Too many would go for one or another, and you'd have major balance issues pop up.

However, I do like the idea of having different map types. You could do one old-school with no water, or one where the ore distribution follows the old pattern instead of the newer, closer-to-center pattern. It also seems to me that when you switched ore patterns, asbylite ended up almost everywhere; this made it a lot harder to identify lodes--maybe that should be addressed.

I'd like for all teams to have some way of more quickly widening tunnels as they pass through, too. I suggested some equipment to that end, but another possibility is that you could apply one "digging point" to each turf nearby every time the player moved. Eventually the tunnel would widen on its own, or would be easier to dig off to the side. This would also make it a lot easier to clear concentrated lodes without getting weird maze-like formations.

Even if I didn't go for a more persitent version, I'd still probably like to flesh out team differences a bit more. Having a larger, better developed equipment list would mean I could have sharper differences amongst the team equipment lists while still decreasing the impact of the lack of items for a given team, and it occurs to me that it would make sense to give different teams different weights for "experience" gains/losses--possibly even different weights for racial pay (not everbody's an equal-opportunity employer) to encourage segregation.

All that sounds good to me.

Of course, the autoteam mechanism would be loosened very considerably, so that players would be less likely to be forced onto a team they didn't like... and with better documentation on each team, it's possible that additional differences might not be necessary, since players would naturally try to play on a team better outfitted for their style of play (they did so before anyway, but not necessarily very well).

I think this is best. If the autoteam mechanism is loosened but not cut, it forces people to constrain themselves so not everyone ends up on the same team, but it does allow players to choose a team they prefer within reasonable limits.

In my case I never noticed much difference between team colors and styles of play before, mostly because the differences were kind of light; but what I'd do, when I had the option, was choose a team full of people I believed to be reasonably competent (i.e., your team). There's a lot to be said for that approach.

Lummox JR