8 replies to this topic

[ScrooLewse]

Because no Ideas and Suggestions board would be complete without one.


Here's where all your small ideas, vague ideas, and partial ideas should go first.

Fellow rM Community members will then look over and evaluate them. Then, if they have potential, you will be encouraged to start a new thread for each of those ideas and develop them into something more complete, meaningful, and hopefully good enough to be considered for inclusion in the game.


Guidelines:

• Posting new ideas:
  
  • When you post your ideas, keep each idea in a separate post (double/triple posts are acceptable so long as each one hosts a different idea - just remember that you can't post twice within 60 seconds).
    
  • Try your best to make sure that you're not posting an idea that's already been posted by someone else (check the catalogue).
• Voting on existing ideas:
  
  • If you like an idea, click the "Like This" button at the bottom-right of that idea's post.
    
  • Don't be afraid to search through the thread for ideas you might like (even if they're not listed in the catalogue).
• Popular ideas:
  
  • If an idea gets two (2) or more "Likes", I (or a mod/admin) will add a link to it in the idea catalogue kept in this post (below).
    
  • If an idea gets five (5) or more "Likes", you will be encouraged to start a brand new thread (filled with more detail) specifically for that idea. If you don't, I or any other member of the community can do it instead (but we'll give you credit).
• Discussions do not belong in this thread! Wait for an idea to have its own thread before you post your feedback.

And remember, you don't have to post every idea here first. This thread is mostly just to gauge fellow members' initial reaction to quick ideas described in only a few lines before fleshing them out in their own individual threads.

---

The Idea Bin: Idea Catalogue

• ScrooLewse: Underwater Areas
  
• leftiger: Multiple Spawn Areas
  
• ponpat: Alternate Sectors

Edited by ScrooLewse, 30 March 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[ScrooLewse]

To kick things-off, I've been nursing this idea about underwater levels/areas.

In an underwater level, players wear diving gear that tethers them to the sea floor. They can swim for a limited time, but they are weighted to the sea floor. Each one gets an oxygen tank that only lasts a few minutes. They can slow the drain of the tank by finding air pockets, but once that tank runs-out, all they have are their lungs and the air pockets.

The idea was that the Agents could approach an underwater base like this, fighting mutant fish, fishbots, or henchmen in diving gear.

Alternate ideas could be that a few of the invading Agents infiltrate the base through the sewer. Or maybe the Evil Mastermind's battleship is capsizing and the Agents don his Henchmen's diving gear to chase the Mastermind's escape submarine.

Edited by ScrooLewse, 08 March 2012 - 09:02 PM.

[leiftiger]

Hm, your idea gave me an idea, unless redMatter already did this in IA!:

That instead of having all GPs spawn in one area, make them all spawn in either 2-10 different areas, or make it so they all spawn in random small groups in those 2-10 areas. Thus giving the OP(s) another disadvantage, but it could be made fairer that all those lead to the same door, but the OP(s) could intercept them before that door or similar.

[ponpat]

There is one thing I hate in many games and like in many smaller indie games. It is that you usually will get used to a game/level to easy. The current way of testing breach/breched in OW(dev) lead me to this idea from which I am sadly not sure if it is possible to use it in the UE3 Engine. When you split a level into sectores like you saw it in the teaser, and for any sectore there are 2 or three different "parts" from which always one will appear random, this in my op0inion will help to have always a new feeling. This + random objectives + some kind of different ways to use like L4D2 did it + the interaction from the rts-player will leed to an always new and fressh feeling when playing the "same" level. When playing OW now I sadly feel a bit like "yeah, this again". Even if it is great it is not as exciting as when I started playing it beacuse it is so uncommon that something total unexpected happen. This is a point where I see big advantages in small games like the binding of isaac etc. but I think it might be possible to get this advantage also into bigger projects. Do not know if this is possible but I would love to see it.

[Lord Faraday]

i was thinking about enemy territory: quake wars and the system they use to encourage players to perform actions beffiting their role and I was wondering if there was a way to make such a system work with the roles that you have planned. What if these were side objectives only available to those who had the equipment to accomplish them and the completion of these offered some tangible reward to the player. These objectives would be dynamic based on whether the gear the player is using (for example a player with medic focused sub-objectives would cease to have such objectives should they drop their med-kit).

For example a player could be tasked with demolishing a certain wall and if they do so then the team gains access to the experimental weapon that was being stored in the room behind said wall. However the flaw in this would be that players would learn to always perform such actions and it would simply become the norm. The previous suggestion on randomising certain elements might therefore be a possible solution to this problem.

Another reason the QW:ET approach would be useful is because it would directly incentivise the careful use of abilities rather than simply their use in and of themselves. If a medic is tasked with ensuring that an ally performing another task does not fall below a certain level of health then the medic will have a more direct focus than simply keeping everyone healthy. These minor objectives would all be entirely optional but would reward the players for playing their roles and would help each role feel more focused in terms of what it is they want to achieve.

I'm not sure how the reward system would play out. I don't feel it should be a reward that would enhance a player from game to game as I feel that would punish players who either don't want to or can't fulfill their sub-objectives from moment to moment. However I also feel that a simple points bonus may also cheapen the reward of fulfilling these tasks.

I'm still thinking through the details of it but I feel that the system worked exceptionally well in quake wars and would be benefficial to the player's experience of this game.

(Also there may be joke objectives such as demolishing a wall to discover a henchmen's disco)

(note to self: now I have a hankering to play quake wars again)

Edited by Lord Faraday, 05 April 2012 - 09:32 PM.

[Lord Faraday]

Mini-bosses were mentioned and it got me thinking.

What if the OP could summon special anti-hero henchmen - named henchmen who were distinct from the rest and who would pose a more loegitimate threat to the players. These character henchmen could possess greater physical ability than the other henchmen and possess more powerful weaponry. There might be only one or two key moments in which the OP is allowed to deploy one of these and there might even be an array to choose from but only one can be deployed for the sake of variety.

On a more adventurous note you might even consider making these super henchmen playable by the players. like my previous suggestion these players might be given sub-objectives that are designed to hinder the opposing team. I'll offer some suggestions for henchmen and their possible equipment and objectives:

- The assassin (Shadow Fox) - a henchman who behaves much like the spy in tf2 in that he can briefly turn invisible, can disguise himself as members of the other team and can sabotage the equipment of the other team. Possible objectives: Kill a certain player and take their identity (the player in question would be locked out from chat for a certain amount of time to ensure they can blow the henchman's cover); Sabotage a shield. Kill an engineer hacking a terminal etc.

- The Bruiser (Ivan) - a melee henchman with a large amount of health who takes largely reduced armour from the front but takes greater damage from the back (as a result of genetic experimentation or armour). He can charge like the berserker in Gears of War 3 and deals heavy melee damage but when not charging he is relatively slow. Possible Objectives: Soak up X amount of damage; Delay the heroes from achieving X objective for Y amount of time

- The Inventor (Kreegle) - a slow weak henchmen who can place turrets (like the engineer from tf2 but with weaker turrets and more of them), mines and can booby trap terminals to make them take longer to hack. Possible objectives: Hack a terminal: have your turrets deal X amount of damage)

If the henchmen were to be player controlled then they would be balanced such that the player controlling a super henchman would not be able to succeed in defeating the heroes without the support of the OP. Each possible henchman would possess key weaknesses that could be abused by the heroes which would make the henchmen reliant on the OP providing backup to cover their weaknesses. I would also imagine the Heroes having a numerical advantage over the super henchman because I would imagine there being only one player controlled super henchman. This player would essentially be the OP's most powerful tool (like Jaws in James Bond or any one of the key henchmen you'd care to point out in those movies).

This would also serve to spice up the gameplay for the heroes as they would potentially come up against different super henchmen who would mix up the gameplay by their different actions.

The examples i have given are by no means carefully planned out they are just placeholder ideas off the top of my head to give an idea of what I'm getting at.

[Lord Faraday]

I was looking at the other post in this ideas section concerning customisation and it got me thinking about how you make the heroes feel individual. I have an image in my head of a GI Joes sort of organisation and I feel that if they turn out to be a bunch of nondescript agents then that would be a waste of opportunity. That is why I'm suggesting that you give the players a choice of personalities to choose from.

By this I mean that there should be an array of heroes each with distinct appearances, personalities and suitably over the top codenames. You could have a wide variety based on how many players you are planning on having involved in games (it would also help for variety's sake to give players a wide variety of options). These decisions would be purely aesthetic as the character you have chosen could still equip whatever they like and fulfill any role the player chooses. This suggestion is purely one of flavour by offering the team some distinct personality tf2 style but without limiting these personalities to different classes.

[ScrooLewse]

Payrolls

A variation on buying units that counters the tendency for OPs to build up units in one area, then unleash them on the GPs in an unstoppable rush.

Instead of buying units, you hire them. Let me restate, actually bringing them into play is completely free, what costs you money is putting them to work.

At intervals, they could be synchronized or on a per-unit basis, each unit will take their pay out of your resources. Of course, this would probably only apply to humans, and a few aliens, but it would be a very interesting mechanic, nonetheless.

This would make Masterminds think about how each unit is being put to use, and whether he needs that one guard keeping watch over the pile of crates Infiltrators occasionally hide in, or if he could economically withstand building up that mob of elite mercenaries for the final battle while the Agents are still muddling-about outside the complex.

Edited by ScrooLewse, 13 April 2012 - 10:10 PM.

[ScrooLewse]

Platforming Interludes

This whole game holds so much possibility, that only sitting in one genre is almost a shame. Why not break-up the standard TPS and explore some different genre? Keep it logical, of course. We don't want our daring escape to suddenly turn into a turn-based RPG when we bump into an enemy. Nor do we want to loose all our weapons and fight through a survival-horror interlude all of a sudden. A safe bet in my book would be platforming... We're already in third person, why not make it side-scrolling for a bit?

Levels, or sections of levels, where the standard TPS format breaks-away, players get enhanced jump height (from a role item? From a power-up? Just from entering the area? I don't know...), and a side-scrolling perspective. The level plays like a side-scrolling platformer, with either completely new enemies or current enemies re-purposed to function in the platforming format. To make sure the Mastermind still has the reconnaissance advantage, his view point is turned sideways and he gets a full perspective on the level that way, while the Agents are forced to a specific zoom level focused on themselves.

This would basically create a whole new game with existing assets, opening a whole new world of possibilities for strategy and planning where your ability to charge-into crowds of minions and send them flying can be used to cross gaps and your power to disguise as an object can be used to give an ally a boost up.

Being able to switch between the two on the fly would be even more amazing. Having one person try to complete a platforming section towards an objective while your allies try to stop the artillery positions that are bombarding the course would be a very interesting concept, indeed. Or maybe a boss battle in a circular arena where you have to platform through scaffolds to get to control panels that you have to defend in TPS mode while you cap them.

Edited by ScrooLewse, 22 July 2012 - 06:46 PM.