StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Enigma wrote:
What would you envision in Nightmare mode? A warden of a prison colony expected to terraform the toxic planet they're on into a paradise with a bunch of worst of the worst scum mankind has to offer?

I'd have special "nightmare events" that had no chance to trigger in easy mode. A very slight (One in one hundred) chance to trigger in Normal. A small chance in hard (One in twenty) mode and Nightmare mode would drop that to ensure there is at least one nightmare mode will trigger at game start.


Example nightmare events
A. Death to humans!
Hostile alien species has appeared, destroyed earth and your colony is the last hope of humanity. Also those aliens? They are looking for you... clock is ticking

B. Welcome to the Jungle
Remember the alien from "Aliens?" Or the alien from "The Thing?" Guess who's trying to set up a colony on someone's home territory?

C. Fuck this place in particular
The planet hates you. It could be massive technonic activity making complex buildings impossible or solar flares have a bad habit of frying the planet or the orbit takes you through an asteroid belt every few years, there is something about the planet that stands a big chance of making your colony into Neo Pompeii. What type of major natural disaster it is you have no idea. Maybe they have super storms or ultra mega lightning or the star of this planet is due to explode not in a few million years but fifty.

D. You have nothing to lose but your chains
A large group of your colonists lied about who they were, you arrive on planet they break off or attempt to take control of the colony to establish their perfect (insert here) system of government instead of you.

E. Gunsmoke
You arrival to the planet went... poorly. A good deal of the colony is dead in the atmosphere entry and the rest of your ships are mostly scrap. Have fun

I had a few more ideas but the idea is Nightmare is hard plus some massive and creative problem to deal with from day 1 you must address before even setting up your mayors hot tub and water slide.

I'd like a Star Trek vs Star Wars game. A tactical game or RPG with both multiplayer and single player modes.

So, if you're playing as the Federation, it's one long losing streak? Or if you're the Empire, its curbstomp battle after curbstomp battle?

I could change how strong the sides are. As I recall, Star Trek games are non-canon.

Or you could play either an insurgent or an Imperial officer after the Federation's defeat.

Who says it can't be a small-scale RPG where you lead a small Imperial team trapped behind Federation lines after their shuttle was disabled by unexpected transit through the wormhole. You have no Imperial tech other than sidearms and other man-portable objects, and you need to find a way to get back across the wormhole to make your report.

Or you could play Federation officers who went through a wormhole and are trying to get back to their galaxy and collapse the wormhole before the Empire can invade. The Federation are the ones who love exploring after all.

Yeah but that would imply a competent Federation away team. Blows suspension of disbelief in the game out of the water.

Heh.

I want to play the good guys, but I'd probably design the game so that you could play as either Federation officers or Imperial troops.

Who says the Imps can't be the good guys? Not everybody who works for the Empire is pure evil.

I would like a game like Mount and Blade but set in space, Instead of gathering troops you gather the crew for your ship and so on.

Hopefully The Mandate will deliver something close to that.

I would make the sequel to Alpha Protocol. Tell Obsidian to find everyone involved with the first game and put them on this project. Make sure it has online co-op support. I would play the fuck out of this.

Mr. Coffee wrote:I would make the sequel to Alpha Protocol. Tell Obsidian to find everyone involved with the first game and put them on this project. Make sure it has online co-op support. I would play the fuck out of this.

Yeah, this. That AP got bad reviews just just how full of shit the whole review industry is, that game was fantastic. Why every other RPG with dialogue choices hasn't added the timer, I have no idea.

Crossroads Inc. wrote:What would you make?

I would ask Shep draw up THE PERFECT WAR SIM

Each floppy would come with a 1000+ page "Excel Bible" to help you.

Ahriman238 wrote:It'd be interesting to see a video game adaptation of Lensmen, not sure who I'd get to design it.

Hm. You want either a good destructible-terrain shooter (for the personal combat, where everyone fights with megawatt-range handguns and personal shields capable of blocking same), or a good space-combat simulator capable of handling LARGE unit actions.

Having a good interface in the latter case is half the battle, as the crew of Directrix would tell you.

If it's a strategy game, the focus needs to be more on developing exotic weapons and putting them where it counts in response to thrilling/important intelligence. Less on the usual buildup and grinding attempt to win through superior production and mobilization; the plot of the Lensman novels always revolved around dramatic decapitation strikes.

I'd like to see if it's possible to make a fun game that basically combines my two favourite game genres, Real Time Strategy and First Person Shooter.

Players would start with a command base and a handful of units to start with, each of which the player can take direct control of a la Dungeon Keeper (but better implemented - the vertical axis should only be inverted if you're flying an aircraft!). When in RTS mode, the player can construct buildings and units and give orders as standard. FPS mode is activated by taking control of an individual unit, and taking control of a leader-type unit will also allow one to issue orders to others nearby. Playing in FPS mode would also allow the player to enter buildings and destroy or subvert them quicker, and I imagine a player-controlled anti-tank unit would be sheer murder against enemy AI-controlled armour. Hopefully this would be balanced out by being unable to control one's entire army while in FPS mode, allowing enemy players in RTS mode the opportunity to outmaneuver players in FPS mode.

Maybe it's already been done, but if so I haven't heard of it.

There was a HL2 mod years back in the vein of the Battlefield 2 commander except you do more than just issue orders or drop airstrikes. You could drop stationary AI controlled assets. There's also been a few that has one "team" as a solo player that spawns and controls AI NPCs against another team of players. There's a few Starcraft 2 arcade maps you might check out.

But really, Dungeon Keeper was the only game I can think of with a system like you described and even it felt sort of tacked on. Well, there was "Ultrabots" way the fuck back in the day. But it was so long ago (and I was so young) I can't remember if that game was actually as awesome as I thought it was, or a huge piece of shit what with buying time waiting for Scorpion tail missiles to come off CD for one-shot kills.

I'd say a DnD style RPG that lets me have more than four members in a party for no better reason than 'that's how Baldurs Gate did it,' but I might be thinking too far outside the box.

The issue with having more than 4-5 party members total has nothing to do with that. Rather it has to do with simple playability. Firstly you have the D&D side of things. D&D rules are based around a party of 4 equal level characters. And whilst they do work with parties of 3 and 5 things get problematic in terms of calculating encounters the further you deviate from that norm. This is especially true if your array of characters to chose from is diverse. The more characters there are the more opportunities the player has to make combinations that will either make your encounters a joke or unwinnable. On the other hand given a party of 4 you know the average player is always going to have someone who can heal and someone to unlock doors and chests. So you are only left with two real character choices to optimize your encounters for.

Secondly there is the creativity factor. Larger parties necessitate a larger array of NPC allies to chose from. Otherwise people are going to ask why you added a party selection system at all. And you can only come up with so many NPC allies before you run out of creativity, time and money. And whilst this is probably not a problem with the current RAR it is worth mentioning as in the real world it does matter.

Finally, we have the issue of playability on the players side. Playing with a group of 10 or less NPC allies you can really get into character. You can get to know them, befriend them and do side quests for them. But imagine doing it with a party of 50. suddenly it just becomes a chore as you look up a strategy guide to see which ones you care about and relegate the rest to standing in home base.

Well you could use the community to help build npc allies. Give the player a chance to upload the character they created when they finish the campaign, then have a half dozen/dozen NPC allies already included. The ones included have extra quests and stuff and the uploaded ones are just filler. For added incentive to upload a character, give the player an incentive, like say, better starting gear or extra in game currency. The world slowly gets padded out with npcs running around, the community feels like it's a part of the world and the developer doesn't have to create lots of npcs and back story for them. Do an open beta and you'd have dozens if not hundreds extra at launch.

Purple wrote:Rather it has to do with simple playability. Firstly you have the D&D side of things. D&D rules are based around a party of 4 equal level characters. And whilst they do work with parties of 3 and 5 things get problematic in terms of calculating encounters the further you deviate from that norm.

A whole slew of games using broken AD&D rules got by just fine with loads of player characters. Gold Box games were a pretty big thing in the 90s. Some had hilariously overtuned/undertuned modules, some were balanced better. The amount of characters in general had nothing to do with that.

This is especially true if your array of characters to chose from is diverse. The more characters there are the more opportunities the player has to make combinations that will either make your encounters a joke or unwinnable. On the other hand given a party of 4 you know the average player is always going to have someone who can heal and someone to unlock doors and chests. So you are only left with two real character choices to optimize your encounters for.

It just means less work for the developers. Meanwhile, numerous well received games did this without issue. Eye of the Beholder had it's own little quirk in the player editor: you could manually max out your stats to 18. This however lead the game to throwing tougher monsters at your party: I took it as "challenge mode."

A good developer sees how the player will abuse the system and "abuses" them back or let's them get away with it because some players do enjoy breaking the game. Lazy developers just stop you from doing it because they can't figure out an interesting way to curtail it or make it not worth doing.

Secondly there is the creativity factor. Larger parties necessitate a larger array of NPC allies to chose from. Otherwise people are going to ask why you added a party selection system at all. And you can only come up with so many NPC allies before you run out of creativity, time and money. And whilst this is probably not a problem with the current RAR it is worth mentioning as in the real world it does matter.

Even ME1 could handle 7 with a decent amount of character development. FF6 did it with 11 (not counting Mog, Gogo, and Umaro who were really just "there"). Squeenix is good about this all around. You can save yourself a lot of hassle by avoiding NPCs wholly separate from the main story but still optional as player characters. But there are RPGs that exist where the PCs are just there for their skills and the story is told to the player him/herself: and that's fine.

The Vortex Empire wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:I would make the sequel to Alpha Protocol. Tell Obsidian to find everyone involved with the first game and put them on this project. Make sure it has online co-op support. I would play the fuck out of this.

Yeah, this. That AP got bad reviews just just how full of shit the whole review industry is, that game was fantastic. Why every other RPG with dialogue choices hasn't added the timer, I have no idea.

Oh yes please.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I could change how strong the sides are. As I recall, Star Trek games are non-canon.

You mean you could make an actual game that would be fun for both fandoms instead of one tailored to fit the worldview of one particular clique of fans?! ARE YOU MAD?!

And yeah, I'll gladly sign on if it means blowing the crap out of some Imperial scumbags with a Sovereign or Defiant.

Who says the Imps can't be the good guys? Not everybody who works for the Empire is pure evil.

......

*facepalms*

The Empire as good guys is so utterly laughable that I can't believe it is posited. They are archetypical space opera villains. They are the titular EVIL EMPIRE. Sure, not everyone serving in it is an asshole, but aside from Villain Protagonist games (which have been done in the franchise anyway)... calling them good guys is going to get you blank looks from anyone who is not an Empire fanboy.

The Empire as good guys is so utterly laughable that I can't believe it is posited.

Ok we all know the Empire as a whole is evil. But let's say when the wormhole opened up, they got swarmed by the Jem Hadar or the Klingons in an unprovoked invasion. Would we still consider the Empire to be the bad guys in that specific set of circumstances?

My magical dream pixie unicorn game is:

-3rd person, GTA-style sandbox set in Shadowrun Seattle
-Movement/combat/stealth like the AssCreed series
-gunplay from Max Payne (or perhaps rather Stranglehold)
-a character dress-up/customization system that combines all the best parts of dress-up from city of heroes, APB, Dragon's Dogma and Saints Row
-a long branching RPG story that's influenced by your play style, plus toolkit/SDK for mod content
-complex weapons/cybernetics/software/magic/vehicle customization and upgrade system that supports your playstyle
-frequent mission DLC packs.

With fine tweaks to match. Multiplayer optional, Co-op encouraged.

TheFeniX wrote:A whole slew of games using broken AD&D rules got by just fine with loads of player characters. Gold Box games were a pretty big thing in the 90s. Some had hilariously overtuned/undertuned modules, some were balanced better. The amount of characters in general had nothing to do with that.

AD&D might be a different story. I am speaking from my own experience as a DM using 3rd and 3.5 edition rules. And I can tell you what I said is even written in the DM guide.

A good developer sees how the player will abuse the system and "abuses" them back or let's them get away with it because some players do enjoy breaking the game. Lazy developers just stop you from doing it because they can't figure out an interesting way to curtail it or make it not worth doing.

The issue is that there will be a lot of players who stumble into such situations by accident and render their copy unwinable simply by making a party consisting entirely out of hellfire warlocks in a game where half of your monsters are immune to magic.

And I can tell you as a GM the hardest part of any game is getting your players to pick a party that will even work in the setting you propose.

Even ME1 could handle 7 with a decent amount of character development. FF6 did it with 11 (not counting Mog, Gogo, and Umaro who were really just "there"). Squeenix is good about this all around. You can save yourself a lot of hassle by avoiding NPCs wholly separate from the main story but still optional as player characters.

7 - 10 or even 15 NPC allies is not the problem. The problem is the spare NPC to party count ratio. Basically, if you have a party of 5 and 7 NPC total than the game is more or less railroading you into what to play. If you have a party of 5 and 15 NPC allies than you have potential for strategy. But this has to scale. So if you want say a party of 10 you have to have 20-30 NPC to chose from...

But there are RPGs that exist where the PCs are just there for their skills and the story is told to the player him/herself: and that's fine.

That I agree on. But he did specify it should be a D&D style game.