[DEV] Gameplay and gimmicks

[CrestOfArtorias]

This is a development thread, please refrain from posting unless you are part of the moderation team. Suggestions may be send to either E1Alpha, Jacogos, Tolvo or CrestOfArtorias via VM or PM.

In this thread we will discuss gameplay changes, new ideas and mechanics.

List of current or upcoming discussions:

<Currently Discussed>[The role of the player] - The battle of Leongarde demonstrated quite well that players might have far less impact on the battlefield than was intended, because of that, some of us brought up to redefine the role of player.

<Upcoming>[Judging and objective battle evaluation] - As has been discussed in the OOC, it became appearend that changes to the judging system are required in order to provide a fair and balanced way of judging the battles between player factions.

<Upcoming>[Magicks and Runes] - Some of the runes and magical abilities are considered overpowered or too useful. Reevaluation might be needed.

[E1Alpha]

I think I'l already want to kick the first topic Crest brought up in his list to discussion here, the Player Role, by bringing in the ranking system aswell.

The ranking system I was currently working on would have players start at zero (deserting players at minus one).
However, if we want to give players more input in a battle, than perhaps they should be allowed one of two things:
Either they start off at a high rank, an equivelant of Corporal or Sergeant, or they climb the ranking ladder, or atleast the first steps of it much faster.
While the latter is something I already employed, it perhaps might not be the best thing.
Like I let Jac be my labrat for, I was going to connect ranks to allowing players to command NPCs, have their own NPC strikeforce and create actual outposts for their own forces. This latter thing might also spur more PvP combat as in that it can allow the player outposts to also become potential targets for INFs, Assaults or maybe even BFs.

Opinions?

[Tolvo]

I'd say starting out as a squad leader would be the better option. Unless you of course start out as a traitor.

In regards to commanding NPC's, NPC Strike Forces, creating outposts, and having created outposts be possible targets I'm totally behind those ideas.

[CrestOfArtorias]

Commanding a squad gives the player way more options to alter the course of the battle, mainly due to the fact that they aren't just ONE guy trying to execute a certain plan. So yes I would agree with both Tolvo and you on that.

The lore reason for that could be that the players are rune carriers. Afterall not everyone has them right?

Creating outposts and co is a good idea and I would LIKE to see them implemented, however I am a bit skeptical.

[Jacogos]

I can get behind those ideas.

I'd suggest, however, to at LEAST start PCs with a "rank" or some such that gives them at least some notable command over forces other than their own men. Just being rune carriers doesn't seem to be as obvious or notable as having even a single ranking title does.

[CrestOfArtorias]

Yeah I did mean giving them a higher rank, where they can command units(still leaving the lower ranks in place, because a) traitors and b) one can be demoted). I was under the impression that Rune Carriers aren't that common, is that a wrong assumption?

[Jacogos]

Most grunts/Privates in this RP don't carry runes, which is why some players have questioned why we have them at all. It's a fair question

[Tolvo]

Do you think player currency would be a good idea? I can see reasons to do it for balancing reasons, but keeping track of it can definitely be a pain. As well it might hold people off from doing something they want to because of lacking resources, and end up having to wait an entire chapter just to get a little bit to afford something. Currency is also often a turn off because of how complicated it can get to manage.

[Jacogos]

Yeah, I for one think it might be too mich of a hassle.

[Tolvo]

So, climates and temperatures. Yay or Nay? I'm testing them out in the dream battle and I think they could be a lot of fun. Rain creating muddy conditions, clouds causing the battlefield to be darker, heat waves making units capable of overheating, extreme colds causing people to be capable of freezing. Certain nations would actually have some interesting ways to deal with things, Scaravus people cover head to toe in cloth currently in the units, so winds would effect them less as would the sun. Firanos could use heated weapons and fire to deal with the cold, or overheat enemies during extreme heat waves. They could melt ice blocking their way, those with maces could cross ice patches of water and trick enemies into following them before breaking the ice. I think it could add some fun elements to tactical combat and combat in general.

[E1Alpha]

I say Yay.
I do believe that environmental hazards should play a much bigger part in battles aswell. It was already executed a bit in Chapter 1 during the battle at the Ilean Mountains, but much too little to my liking.

[Jacogos]

If Deiranar was much more variable in climate, it would work a lot better, I think. All I've read is the bit of mountainous area, tropics near the shoreline and the snowy Ileans.

Weather and varied Times (dusk, dawn, night, high noon) would be fun to throw in every so often. Me and tolvo have gone with a night-time setting for these BFs, so we'll see how much that affects the fighting xD

[E1Alpha]

Today I've been working to finish the ranking system asap.
I however have two things I'd need some input in:

1. I've got the badges for every rank figured out, each different type using a specific symbol to easily recognise (Rogues got a dagger, Treasure Hunters got an eye, etc), but I'm not sure on what to use for the Bounty Hunters, to not have them be too similar to the Rogues.

2. Crest and I had already been discussing a lot about the rank names, seeing as the ones I employed were not completely fit for a medieval setting. And while I agree with him, I think that the current rank names are however a bit clearer than their medieval counterparts. I also noticed that some of the ranks Crest suggested, are also used for unit names by Tolvo. These are possibilities for confusion, so I think it right to ask you guys:
Should we go with medieval rank names (Knight, Knight-Captain, Men-at-Arms, etc...) or stick with the modern ones (Corporal, Lieutenant, Captain, etc...)?

[Tolvo]

I think going with modern ones for our benefit is a better idea. But in character, maybe call them something different and just have the rank for clarification beside their faction rank.

So, maybe for Disgeran one can be ranked as a Demon. Well, Demon could equal a Colonel, but they just call it Demon since they're Disgeran. Leongarde could use more medeival military names, as well some of the units would essentially be the rank they are named after. Men-at-Arms are not really a high ranking member of a military, Champions are people that represent their lord, like the Champions of Archeos. Knights are Knights, etc. It's not like you have a private decked out in full armor riding alongside a single Knight leading their group, they're all Knights, one is just maybe a lord or something, or just a more well known Knight. I can work on rechanging the names if you really need them for ranks, as well some I'm trying to find more solid faction names for. Mouths of Ko'Rhas are also called commanders, but I'd prefer them to just be called Mouths of Ko'Rhas since a commander is basically anyone in command of a battlefield.

Bounty Hunters: Skull, Head, Bullseye, Axe(Executioner), Handcuff, Gallow, Stockage, Jail, Bars, Cage, Footprint(Tracking), a humanoid(Hunting one after all.)

[E1Alpha]

Hmm, that could make it too complicated I believe... Perhaps it's better to stick with the modern ones then, for the sake of gameplay.