Other > General Game Discussion
What if ...
Malice Song:
While I think that this is actually a very valid and probably important topic to bring up, a big problem (which I've seen mentioned in other topics, if I recall correctly) is the uncertainty regarding the direction of the game. That will probably reflected in the answers you get here, too. For example:
--- Quote from: Alec Ramsey on December 03, 2012, 07:44:42 pm ---alts ruin the game in my opinion. people shouldnt be able to be everything, otherwise, why have skill points to begin with?
--- End quote ---
While being a valid opinion, have you considered the difference between tb and rt combat? I tend to agree with the underlying notion, nevertheless there are some builds, while being good in one mode, that are utter dogshit in the other. Meaning without alts either some people simply can't play together or take a big hit in efficiency. You could argue that is part of a role playing game, but personally I prefer my char sucking sometimes because of the choices I made, not because the gameplay mechanics are completely schizophrenic.
--- Quote from: Giftless on December 03, 2012, 08:17:47 pm ---I think the main problem with this though are the skillsets which force alting (sneak and lockpick being next to impossible to multiclass).
--- End quote ---
Is it the skillsets that force alting or may it be the entitlement of the playerbase and the reluctance to accept that one's character may actually be mediocre at what he sets out to do? That's an honest question, personally I enjoy the limitations, but maybe there are people who absolutely cannot enjoy the game at all, if they don't have access to a 300 lockpick build. Which sounds like someone to me, who doesn't enjoy RPGs in the first place, but to each his own.
What seems important to me with this is either to set a direction for the game and go with it, or - if consensus on the topic at hand can be achieved - tweak the game to whatever will emerge out of this topic. Fwiw I strongly believe that a one character per player rule would make for a great game, although it may be a very different one. One thing to keep in mind is that different players enjoy different things. I know there are players who gladly pursue and get enjoyment out of things that a lot of the louder voices on the forum perceive as annoying grind - farming, crafting, stealing etc. Which I assume wouldn't mean gear starvation for organized groups, but rather that acquisition of valuables wouldn't depend on alts and efficient usage, but more on recruiting and teamplay. At first glance I can't see anything wrong with that, although we'd very much have to keep player numbers in mind here. While I personally would like that change, I am the first to admit that it would break down in no time without the player numbers to support it, turning some of the larger conflicts from "whoever has the most alts, wins" to "whoever can lure a dedicated crafter into their faction, wins".
Another thing to keep in mind here is that while I may argue that skillsets are not necessarilly what forces people to alt, some of the gameplay mechanics definitely may do. Take companions for instance (just because it's one of the things I've witnessed a lot firsthand). You regularly run into players who have alts just for checking bars via fast relog. I've actually gotten to talk to some of them, all upstanding individuals, I don't have any problem with them personally, for the record. But I believe it brings up a problem with the way the game works (which has been brought up in several other topics, as well), when players decide to go that route, because it is by far the most efficient one to achieve a personal goal. Again, there is an argument to be made for the situation changing radically with a one character rule. Less need for several NPCs, less prevalence of power builds to begin with, thus merely average NPCs becomming more acceptable, etc. But it may also lead to a massive source of frustration (which obviously shouldn't be what the mechanics should aim for), that's something I just can't tell at the moment. Bottom line is: right now I wouldn't call the game exactly balanced and a major change like this most likely wouldn't be able to stand on its own, that is something important to keep in mind.
Most importantly, though:
--- Quote from: T-888 on December 03, 2012, 12:52:11 am ---Multiple alts allow you to experience the game in many ways, try out something new without losing the ability to experience what you already have, and what you are. New character doesn't always mean it is a new tool witch the player will store at a specific location, for a specific use and take advantage of it on demand as we speak, but personality, character witch the player fulfills at his own intentions and capabilities.
--- End quote ---
Personally I'm a sucker for the idea of trying to survive with whatever limited skillset you happen to have. Quite obviously I cannot speak for everyone else and as much as I'd like to get rid of alts alltogether, my personal boundry for that is exactly what you stated here and I'd hate to see this option taken away from players who enjoy a variety of gameplay systems, at the very least under the current set of gameplay mechanics.
I'm going to get a lot of shit for this, but imo one source of the problem are the skill mechanics of the original F1/F2. There's a reason Beth changed them for the modernizations. They're overspecialized and quite frankly fucking terrible. At the very least they are near impossible to translate into any form of balanced multiplayer experience (which, admittedly, is partly the fault of it being multiplayer, not the mechanics themselves). Point being: maybe that particular game design fossil needs a few serious overhauls, before we actually can achieve balanced diversity and realistically get rid of alts (if that would turn out to be the desire of the playerbase).
Alec Ramsey:
isnt it about making a decision and sticking with it, though? like, take D&D. if i asked my DM if i could run 2 characters, he'd try to stab me. as far as lockpicking and sneak, isnt it only hard to multiclass only if youre trying to hardcore max out a character? doesnt have to be perfect character. just round him out the way you want.
of course, im not a competitive player, im here for fun and slight RP. i dont care if it takes me months to max out my level.
maybe my opinion doesnt really count that much. hell i dont even use alts.
sure love this game though!
avv:
--- Quote from: T-888 on December 03, 2012, 09:22:48 pm ---I meant a situation where it is impossible to have more than one character, you wouldn't have the option to "wait to re-log", you wouldn't have the ability to have more than one character, all your abilities would be closely connected with interaction. If you didn't pick repair on your character, you would have to use someone's else service, for example.
--- End quote ---
So what if my team is afk? I can't farm because my team is offline. Or what if my team needs me to farm but I don't want to do it at the present time? Then the whole team can't farm because they are missing a key character. Yes this is team-based game but some players like to get their materials alone at their own pace, nothing will change this. You can't change the nature of players with game changes, but you can change the game to fit the nature of mostly all players. Something for everyone.
--- Quote from: Malice Song on December 03, 2012, 09:25:26 pm ---Personally I enjoy the limitations, but maybe there are people who absolutely cannot enjoy the game at all, if they don't have access to a 300 lockpick build. Which sounds like someone to me, who doesn't enjoy RPGs in the first place, but to each his own.
--- End quote ---
Tradeoffs are okay, but in our case being bad in something means you have to WAIT longer or plaing can't do it. Example: lockpick. Less lockpick, more fails, more waiting. Repair: more grinding of materials because condition transfer is smaller. Barter: more grinding of materials because merchant price is worse. Science: less materials, thus more grinding. Basically all support skills mean that with less, you get more waiting or grinding. And the grinding isn't even fun in most cases, take a look at repair for example.
Then we got some dead-end tradeoffs.
Example: carryweight. Lowest cw is 18. You can barely carry your gear and then, NOTHING. Okay you can buy buffout and psycho to boost it, but selling stuff is going to take forever with such low cw. Your life is utter hell because everything you carry needs to be handled in small parts.
--- Quote ---Fwiw I strongly believe that a one character per player rule would make for a great game, although it may be a very different one.
--- End quote ---
It wouldn't end up that way with Skycast's idea. People would still make alts but they'd have to wait for the cd timer.
Lordus:
Well, nice dreaming :) I believe that it would lead into specialization of charaters, of course, and neccesitity to trade and offer stuff and skills among other factions and individuals. It could be a long-awaited non combat Player vs. Player element , that i miss a lot in this game.
On other way, i dont believe that some clever guy would not bypass it. Or at least a lot of "second" computer alts would support primary powerbuilds.
Malice Song:
--- Quote from: Alec Ramsey on December 03, 2012, 09:49:53 pm ---isnt it about making a decision and sticking with it, though? like, take D&D. if i asked my DM if i could run 2 characters, he'd try to stab me. as far as lockpicking and sneak, isnt it only hard to multiclass only if youre trying to hardcore max out a character? doesnt have to be perfect character. just round him out the way you want.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I get the notion and I think you're not wrong. The thing is (and I am sure someone will correct me, if I am wrong) there are some hard limits on skills. It's not just that you can't do some things well with an average skill, but that you can't do some things at all. As far as I know Lockpick is an example for that. Also in D&D your GM has the liberty to create scenarios that give value to such a char. Here that is not the case, he is necessary for some tasks but of limited use virtually anywhere else. Of course, as you said, that only applies if you want to minmax and doesn't apply if you go a more moderate route. Which is fine, but may not be applicable in any competitive context. One char per player would get rid of that problem, too, however with mechanics in place as they are, emphasis might just shift to a different aspect that may be just as undesirable. It may not be a major detriment, but it is something to keep in mind.
--- Quote from: avv on December 03, 2012, 10:06:45 pm ---Tradeoffs are okay, but in our case being bad in something means you have to WAIT longer or plaing can't do it. Example: lockpick. Less lockpick, more fails, more waiting. Repair: more grinding of materials because condition transfer is smaller. Barter: more grinding of materials because merchant price is worse. Science: less materials, thus more grinding. Basically all support skills mean that with less, you get more waiting or grinding.
--- End quote ---
Agreed, this would be an undesirable outcome.
Ideally this grind would not be necessary, conflict would be less gear dependant and so forth. But in reality chances are the team with more willingness to grind would come out on top. Hence my assumption that mechanics would need to be changed in order to make this viable.
--- Quote from: avv on December 03, 2012, 10:06:45 pm ---It wouldn't end up that way with Skycast's idea. People would still make alts but they'd have to wait for the cd timer.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: T-888 on December 03, 2012, 09:22:48 pm ---I meant a situation where it is impossible to have more than one character, you wouldn't have the option to "wait to re-log", you wouldn't have the ability to have more than one character, all your abilities would be closely connected with interaction. If you didn't pick repair on your character, you would have to use someone's else service, for example.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version