Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 121
04-09-2010, 02:07 PM
Yes!

Amazing Job, and sounds like fun! Could make many of these ground missions a lot more interesting!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 122
04-09-2010, 07:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thelor
I love this idea! But also make an option to "buy" the solution if you get stuck with Energy Credits. The game needs a moneysink and these mini-games could add a minor one. Like in Mass Effect
Actually your reply struck me with a notion.

There are a few (minority it appears) folks who think this is a bad idea. Typically "just get me out of fhte ground missions asap, not another moment" or others that think this idea would kill the immersion factor.

Personally I think its just the opposite, but it started me thinking...
why cant we have the best of both worlds...
Hey, Im flexible, you want to opt-out of this idea? No problemo, but that doesnt make the problem go away...

when you press F to fix the satellite who do you think is doing that fixing anyway?
Someone has to do the fixing... you want to find the best person for the job right?
Not so much as outright buying a solution, but how about HIRING a player willing to do it for you...

Think of this as a secondary exchange, for services instead of goods.

Player's would register to sell their SERVICES instead of objects. While they are on, you could see their stats (how well have they accomplished X task in the past) and their Rate for solving Puzzle Y.

"I can solve that rubick's cube unlock puzzle for you in 2mn, only 10,000 credits" ;-)


Thoughts?
Here is exactly how i see it working.


1. You're mini-game screen has a button "call for help".

2. you press it, it opens up an exchange-like interface were players that are online have registered, you can see details (per above).

3. You select a player and press 'hire' or 'contact' (phone a friend or whatever).

4. The selected player is notified via an in-game popup (or you are told they are in combat and given the option to wait for them to be available or try another player).

5. the popup on the other players screen describes the mini-game challenge and parameters and the payment you are offering. They can accept or reject (though multiple rejections may have penalties for the player, removing them form the exchange for a time).

6. When the player accepts the challenge, The mini-game window appears on both screens yours and theirs so you can follow progress.

7. if they suceed in the alloted time, you press 'pay' or 'accept' to complete the game and transaction.

8. if they do not suceed in time alotted, you do not pay, but can offer them a second chance (perhaps along with a different pricing offer) or you can kick em to the curb and try again.

9. likely that Cryptic would have a NPC registered that was always able to solve the puzzle but at a much higher cost than a player, this way you get your "buy a solution" click through option.

solving your own puzzles might earn you exps,
solving someone elses may earn you less exps as well as the credits...
always going to someone else might harm some 'diplomacy' skill/faction counter while participating in the services exchange might increase it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 123
04-09-2010, 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomastheCat View Post
The biggest problem is that right now environmental objectives don't scale with team size like critter squads do.

This means you always have 5 blinkies on a map no matter how big your team is. My initial idea was to tie minigames in directly with pre-existing "press F" missions. Providing a scaling mechanism for other players would be problematic in that case, since those missions don't provide 5 interaction points per player, just 5 total.
Yes. the same is true of space based "press F" missions (F to fix the satellite) or even "aid the planet missions". Anything that requires 'interaction' rather than combat so far is a single player event.

Thats why I come back to DSTALs questions on "how would you adapt your idea to a team" my initial reaction is that we dont really have team-play today, so why do we have to have it in this idea?

My previous post was a method to scaling at a Universe/STO level, with the Player services exchange.

Here is how I would scale to team play at the world-level
We could, AS A TEAM, elect the Captain(s) that will confront the puzzle in the same way we elect an away team. If its a 5 person team and we need 1 or 2 to solve the puzzle the others could either stay in the main instance/world view or "watch over the shoulder". I can see instances where either would be appropriate (ie defend em, or learn from em).


Here is how I would scale, at the puzzle level
Essentially many of these ideas could be scaled to multiplayer.
Again, multiplayer could be parallel (everyone plays at once) or serial (we each play in turn).

Multiplayer in parallel could mean cooperative or competitive; for example, does eveyone have to finish the maze, or only 1 player.

Multiplayer in serial could be limited by indivdual score or overall score; for example, tag-team relay asteroid genre could be evaluated so that each person has to meet a specific goal or its ok as long as the overall team meets it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 124
04-09-2010, 11:58 PM
I completely disagree on all this talk about "letting people get out of doing it". it just defies the whole point, either you wanna play the game or you don't. if you don't and you simply wanna rush through a mission and smash F on shiny objects all day for your tokens or whatever don't bring down the potential quality of the game for everyone else.

"how do you adapt this for a team?"

well, don't? currently pressing F on objects isn't adapted for a team so why should this be?

fine, if you really want it to be adapted for a team, make it so each person needs to complete the puzzle on each object in order for it to "complete". simple.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 125
04-10-2010, 12:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
I completely disagree on all this talk about "letting people get out of doing it". it just defies the whole point, either you wanna play the game or you don't. if you don't and you simply wanna rush through a mission and smash F on shiny objects all day for your tokens or whatever don't bring down the potential quality of the game for everyone else.

"how do you adapt this for a team?"

well, don't? currently pressing F on objects isn't adapted for a team so why should this be?

fine, if you really want it to be adapted for a team, make it so each person needs to complete the puzzle on each object in order for it to "complete". simple.
hrm, I think we crossed somewhere. No one is really talking about "let people get out of doing it"

The idea is that you could assign a specific person in a team to do a challenge. If its a multiple player challenge then you assign multiple people...

If it is a single player challenge, then you could implement the service exchange idea and let them opt-out by buying someone elses services to do it... I dont really think you could combine the exchange and multi-player ideas... I'd have to think on that.

but the service exchange idea adds additional social interaction to the game that I think people will like.
Personally I believe the majority will like the puzzle aspect, but I can see scenarios that even I might want to hire someone. Maybe I have to log off soon (wifey is getting mad) or its a puzzle type I've really come to dislike. Why force me to do it... when there are likely others that would love it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 126
04-10-2010, 03:57 AM
Sorry, it's late and I didn't read the whole thread but this is an amazing idea. Good job on the amount of work put into this and hopefully we can get stuff like this implemented, it would be amazing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 127
04-10-2010, 04:06 AM
Craig answers a question about minigames in an interview :

Quote:
Regarding content additions, will we see gambling and/or other mini-games come to STO?

We’re always looking at mini-games as a way of augmenting and complementing the gameplay we currently have in place. Speaking as a player of the game, I’d love to see some sort of hacking mini-game when interacting with consoles. From a development standpoint, getting mini-games right is almost as hard as getting regular games right. There’s a reason there’s only one PopCap. But if it’s something the designers think would make the game better, and it in itself is fun to play, there’s nothing stopping us from adding that to the game.

However, gambling games do a lot to mess with an ESRB rating, which is a can of worms I’m not sure we’ll be opening soon.

http://www.subspace-radio.net/index....-da-zinkievich
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 128
04-10-2010, 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delazure View Post
Craig answers a question about minigames in an interview :




http://www.subspace-radio.net/index....-da-zinkievich
hard to get right? he should probably just take a look at the first 2 posts of this thread, all the work is already done for him.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 129
04-11-2010, 03:11 AM
Haven't read the whole thread, just wanted to say I like this idea. There was a DS9 game, which I want to say was called Harbinjer (been to many years i guess) that had these sort of mini games included in it. Sometimes they could get tedious, but they really made you feel like you were part of the game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 130
04-11-2010, 03:59 AM
This would be incredible and would really solve a lot of the content/immersion problems too.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 AM.