A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet series

[jon50559]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

My last post was just about removing votemap, not your suggestion; which I still like.

 

[Thothie]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

that's why it would be everyone best interest o REMOVE the votemap system. like how we discussed on the source version.

Now here is an idea I can get behind!

You, my friend, are insane.

It doesn't matter how these maps might be arranged, there's nearly 70 of them. It'd be reasonable to set it up so you could only votemap for maps you've visited on foot, or for root towns (hell, we have a system for that!), or yeah, to teleport via caravan fee or wizard fee or what not - but no vote-travel system at all, is just plain insanity - eventually true even in MSS.

Yes, because sitting through up to 70 map transitions to get to one place would be just grand.

I'm not sure where you are getting an idea like this from. "save point" maps would be placed strategically so that you didn't have to walk through tons of maps. Only a tiny handful before you reached the next town.

We're weren't talking about your system anymore - we descended into the aforementioned madness of removing the votemap system entirely.

Granted, your "world wide anti-multi-property ownership conspiracy" system would bjork that anyways, as you could only have one save point - all it does is change your starting town - still forcing you to walk through dozens of maps, even if all you want to do is change your save point.

Jon50559's time-rental, on the other hand, at least makes sense. Not that it's anymore viable, but at least it's logical, and doesn't completely defeat its own purpose.

Best method would probably be to say, "Hey, you got here, and you did the local quest to get access to this Inn: Congrats! Exploration complete! You may now return here anytime." - As really, barring alzheimers, or, perhaps, complex mazes like mscaves, exploration is something you can only do once.

The problem is, this severely limits what can be done with the gameplay. With the vote system as it is now, there is absolutely no way to have exploration oriented gameplay across more than one map.

How so? The gauntlet system is the same as there being no vote system at all, for the affected maps.

[quest data blah etc.]

That's not how Lodagond and the rest of the gauntlet system works - it works by checking the transition data for the last map you were on, which is stored on your character. Quest data isn't reliable for this sort of thing.

The reason why every single map in this game (save a small handful) follow the terribly trite 'lodagond formula' is because the current mapvoting policy leaves no room for creativity.

Only two people in the entire history of this game have completed more than a series of two connected maps: Crow and Rickler, and each time it was about a half-decade apart. There's nothing limiting anyone on how they want to connect their map series. Most people *choose* to have their map to be voteable, because they want people to actually play it.



The gauntlet flag is not restricted to sequential maps (hence why you can go to Lost_Castle and sidetrap to Orc Place *or* Skycastle, and back again). People don't make straight run goal-oriented maps because they are required to, nothing about the system forces that, but they instead do so because that's the sort of map series they like.

 

[zeus9860]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

I like oyster's idea for his own project. I do not approve of the voting system being entirely removed though, i wouldn't stand travelling a truckload of maps to reach a certain map i want to play... I do approve of the caravan idea or wizard idea, but i think this would be best suited to be only connected to certain areas, and possibly unlock a few more as you progress with quests. I actually would like to see something like that, have some friendly wizard send us to some dungeon in some task, get back to him and get something in return for doing the job.

If the voting system was removed, we would need a major change in most maps, like actually make the maps we travel worthy of beating them, only way i see this solved would be self-adjusting most maps (which is a bad idea imo) and individual chests with better loot.

 

[Supercoke]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

Score: 17 vs. Thothie
Get to work, Thothie.

 

[Monika's_BFFEx0256]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

Score: 17 vs. Thothie
Get to work, Thothie.

+1

 

[Hakariaki]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

I would like the idea to be able to just teleport to some coremaps anheckpoints.
Lets say your at edana and wants to go to kfortress. you can fasttravell to helena and then from there you need to run by dangerous passes> complete the_keep> kfortress.

And also to start a vote to the core maps you need to first walk from a city you alredy have been to. like completing a quest in every town to grant their trust to use a teleport stone or something.

Starting from edana walking to helena there can be like a quest defend from the orcs raiding the town. After completing the quest you can now vote map to edana and helena. then go to another town like gate city complete a quest and get there aproval.

sorry if text got a bit messy, typeing on my phone.

 

[Keldorn]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

Jeez, I already have a hard time getting motivated to vote "Yes" to going to kfortress in a few minutes due to slow loading times/reloading MSC to have FN/textures not mess up, and there's still people who want to crudely force players to play through level 20 maps every day to get to 35+ maps?

I could see why you would do it if the player hasn't been there yet, but adding artificial time sinks where players aren't challenged or entertained at all just to induce another level wall in an effort to NOT get them bored is just completely retarded. It's at about the same derp-level as adding a 30 minute timer before players are able to play after each transition, or adding a cap to how much time or how many maps players can play per day.

I mean, there's a reason why Square's server wasn't very popular compared to other servers while it was around, despite offering greater stability and lower ping besides the self-damage from PVP being permanently on.

Regarding Oyster's gauntlet map idea, ignoring the strangeness of being unable to rent multiple inn rooms, it might be possible to script an untradable item (Note: This is somewhat hacky) that reads character quest data, then shows a menu that allows the player to start a map vote to certain areas.

The poll is missing the following option: Players should be able to vote to the first map of the gauntlet series, or the map(s) immediately before the gauntlet series.

 

[Echo717]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

This idea seems stupid.

I don't see why votemapping to your towns is such a bad thing, if you're only able to votemap to the towns and not to the connected maps I don't see how that hinders exploration.

 

[TheOysterHippopotami]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

It doesn't matter how these maps might be arranged, there's nearly 70 of them. It'd be reasonable to set it up so you could only votemap for maps you've visited on foot, or for root towns (hell, we have a system for that!), or yeah, to teleport via caravan fee or wizard fee or what not - but no vote-travel system at all, is just plain insanity -

I definetly went overboard with that statement. There isn't any way to remove the votemap without making any other modifications to the game (which is what a suggestion like this, or the caravan system would be implemented for)

As really, barring alzheimers, or, perhaps, complex mazes like mscaves, exploration is something you can only do once.

And since my map series consists of nothing but a series of complex cave mazes, this is why I want a system that requires exploration. But even then, it's not so much a 'series of maps' as it is one very large 'super-map' divided by loading points.

How so? The gauntlet system is the same as there being no vote system at all, for the affected maps.

Problem is, the gauntlet system does not allow for players to backtrack. You cannot travel from Lodagond-4 to Loda-3. And that makes sense, for Lodagond because it is a linear quest. If a series of maps are organized in a non linear fashion but players aren't allowed to backtrack that will ruin the gameplay.

That's not how Lodagond and the rest of the gauntlet system works - it works by checking the transition data for the last map you were on, which is stored on your character. Quest data isn't reliable for this sort of thing.

If you type "votemap goblintown" you get a message that says: "Goblintown is hidden within a maze. You must navigate the maze to find it's entrance."
There has got to be some way for an item or quest data or something to bypass a restriction like that.

ignoring the strangeness of being unable to rent multiple inn rooms

I don't understand why people think this is strange. Have you ever heard of someone who simultaneously rented a hotel in California and New York? Theoretically people can do that, sure, but realistically nobody would ever do that barring the super rich.

it might be possible to script an untradable item (Note: This is somewhat hacky) that reads character quest data, then shows a menu that allows the player to start a map vote to certain areas.

Something like this would be a rather good way to implement said idea if it worked.

The poll is missing the following option: Players should be able to vote to the first map of the gauntlet series, or the map(s) immediately before the gauntlet series.

This option is missing because they already can. The series connects to a map that players can are currently able to vote to. (Well, not really, since it connects to gatecity, but they can vote to mscave. If I let players vote to the first map in my particular series anyone who needed to go to gatecity could bypass mscave entirely and that has not been allowed since as long as I've played the game)

I don't see why votemapping to your towns is such a bad thing, if you're only able to votemap to the towns and not to the connected maps I don't see how that hinders exploration.

This is problematic because town B towns is under siege by goblins and is, thusly, cut off from town A until the siege is lifted. Players are required to travel through multiple hostile maps in order to reach the city, which then must be defended Old Helena style. This is the 'linear quest' I mentioned in the first post and being able to vote there would kill that aspect of the gameplay too.

 

[Thothie]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

Problem is, the gauntlet system does not allow for players to backtrack. You cannot travel from Lodagond-4 to Loda-3.

No, it does. Crow just chose to set it up that way.

You can rig a Thornlands, gauntlet it, and every map it connects to, and still backtrack from each of those maps, and appear at the appropriate transitions each time. It's exactly the same as if there's no map voting system at all for the maps so flagged.

(As an example, I think you can still transition from Lostcastle_MSC to Highlands_MSC, and wind up at the castle entrance rather than the forest entrance - granted, all the guards respawn too.)

Have you ever heard of someone who simultaneously rented a hotel in California and New York?

Well, yes, silly, as it would rather suck if I had to redo my lease every time I rented a place out of town.

In anycase, I canna make the system you want work reliably. I can make map triggers fire based on whether or not you have an item. I *may* even be able to rig it so you can only initiate a vote for a particular map if you have a particular item. I can also rig server-side flags as to the status of a map (ie. whether it is under siege or not). But that's about the limit of things.

 

[TheOysterHippopotami]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

(As an example, I think you can still transition from Lostcastle_MSC to Highlands_MSC, and wind up at the castle entrance rather than the forest entrance - granted, all the guards respawn too.)

This has given me an idea and when I organize my thoughts a bit better I'll ask you about it. I have to leave atm though so it will have to wait.

Well, yes, silly, as it would rather suck if I had to redo my lease every time I rented a place out of town.

You lease a hotel room?

In anycase, I canna make the system you want work reliably. I can make map triggers fire based on whether or not you have an item. I *may* even be able to rig it so you can only initiate a vote for a particular map if you have a particular item. I can also rig server-side flags as to the status of a map (ie. whether it is under siege or not). But that's about the limit of things.

This is pretty much exactly what I'm asking for saving one or two minor things. If the emboldened text can be accomplished everything should function as originally intended.

 

[Thothie]

Re: A discussion about gameplay mechanics in my 'gauntlet se

Well, yes, silly, as it would rather suck if I had to redo my lease every time I rented a place out of town.

You lease a hotel room?

Well, I was living in a hotel, once upon a time, and did exactly that, and it didn't forfeit my room, so yes. Granted, I'm renting an apartment now, but as the lease entails first+last and security deposit, it'd mean another $4500 every time I left the state - which is a bit rough when you just barely make six figures. So I'm just thankful there's no world-wide rental conspiracy.

In anycase, I canna make the system you want work reliably. I can make map triggers fire based on whether or not you have an item. I *may* even be able to rig it so you can only initiate a vote for a particular map if you have a particular item. I can also rig server-side flags as to the status of a map (ie. whether it is under siege or not). But that's about the limit of things.

This is pretty much exactly what I'm asking for saving one or two minor things. If the emboldened text can be accomplished everything should function as originally intended.

Except for that whole rental exclusivity thing... But as that's the bit that makes no sense to me anyways...