GoldenEye: Source Forums
Global Communications => Development Media => Topic started by: VC on February 05, 2010, 01:52:24 pm
-
Goldfinger
Objective: Accumulate all of the gold.
Implementation:
The Bank begins with a gold reserve and draws from it to spawn gold bars throughout the map for players to acquire. Whenever a player picks up gold, he also gets a golden gun with which to defend his investment and pursue further acquisitions, and the Bank attempts to add another gold bar to the map. Once the Bank is depleted, whoever gets all the gold wins the round bounty.
Scoring:
Pick up any gold: +1
Kill someone who carries gold: +1
Steal dropped gold: +3
Kill someone with a gold bar: +2 (Do you guys think I can get KM to make Gold Bar a melee weapon?)
Collect all of the gold: +1 for each bar that entered play.
Achievement Drafts: Scenario achievements aren't and may never be, but whatever.
Aurophobia - Play through a complete round without touching, or being touched by, gold.
Money, J-Money - Capture the gold of a player who carries over half of the bank's reserves.
Operation Grand Slam - Kill all enemy gold carriers, at least two, with a multikill.
Rags to Riches - Win a round by picking up all the gold when you held only one bar.
Economic Stimulator - (Lifetime stat) Disburse 300 gold bars.
This probably won't make 4, but it's possible...
-
It's an interesting idea.
Will a player lose all their gold when they die? It seems a little excessive, if for instance a player has 30 gold bars and they die a few seconds before the end of the round.
A 50% loss might be more appropriate, that way there's a progressive risk without total loss. If you have 1, you lose it. If you have 2, you lose 1. If you have 30, you lose 15. That way you've at least still got a fighting chance. It also means that competition is much more stiff, the person that killed you will have at least as much as you, so there's good reason to go after them for a higher reward.
A vendetta mechanic might be nice, for instance the person who last killed you is marked on your radar and will drop 100% of what they picked up from you if you kill them before anyone else.
Will gold only spawn in one location? It seems there's a lot of potential for camping, especially if you're the person who gets a gold bar first, it means you have the Golden Gun.
Oddjob's hat might make a nice weapon. I'm thinking Half-Life 2 sawblade style sticking into walls.
-
This is never going to work... Not only is this system totally unbalanced (the gold can never spawn somewhere practically everytime it's drawn and at the same time be as far away from player x as from the rest of all the players) but also when two people already collected a gold bar, and thus have a GG, the rest of all the players won't stand a chance at beating these two players.
It may be fun to play for about three rounds but after that I can assure you that no-one will ever host that game mode anymore...
-
Can you change the Gold Bars to Rings, and Bond to Sonic?
-
"This is never going to work"
That's what they said about invunerability periods and my more-accurate weapon designs. At first.
Don't project your inability to combat an AuG onto other players, that's rude.
"Can you change the Gold Bars to Rings, and Bond to Sonic?"
No problem.
-
Sounds like a good idea, minus acquiring the Golden Gun. Having a powerful gold bar melee weapon upon pickup is a good idea though.
-
"This is never going to work"
That's what they said about invunerability periods and my more-accurate weapon designs. At first.
Oh it's not like I don't trust you in accomplishing making such a game mode work, but I can't wrap my head around the exact way you are projecting your idea in your OP.
I am sure that if it's prototyped and playtested and then tweaked it will be awesome. I have all the confidence in the dev team since all they have made so far is epic and by the looks of it Beta 4 is not only going to be much more GoldenEye-ish, but also much more fun on the gameplay side of thing (not pixelshooting fun but mayhem fun).
Don't project your inability to combat an AuG onto other players, that's rude.
I don't even know what AuG means... But I know that there are people that are thus much skilled that even without a GG they can whipe the floor with skilled players, let alone let them have a GG... So then when the odd turn in their favor, like getting a GG for pwning, it could get extremely outbalanced; the weaker players get weaker and the stronger players get stronger.
A better approach, IMHO, would be that when players are kicking ass, then the rest should have a bit bigger advantage and not the other way around. That makes it a little like poker; the person that wins the first few round get a bigger stack and can play the big stack bully tactic. So now that there are newbies to GES already rage quiting servers (even because of me, and I am not that good) I can imagine a lot of players quiting the GF mode earlyer on and rendering this mode quite boring to newcomers to a round that's already going on for a while...
Well I gues that's why it doesn't have a high chance of succeeding on public servers in it's current draft form...
-
@V!NCENT:
The AuG is the abbreviation for Au->Aurum=Gold(en) G->Gun.
So yes, you already replied to what VC said, but I just wanted to point that out.
It's an interesting idea for a game mode, but as V!NCENT said it's maybe a little unbalanced.
Depends on a few things:
1.) whether the AuG body armor restriction is active or not
2.) how many bullets you have when obtaining the AuG
3.) what kind of weapons other players carry
4.) whether AuGs despawn or not when a player dies
In any case here's a suggestion adding a more tactical element to the scenario:
buying things for your earned bars.
This will drop you behind, but still you could have some benefit of it.
Possible things to buy would be AuG, AuG bullets, body armor, maybe even health or some kind of hitpoint increase (maybe even temporary, maybe extending you max health or max armor) or golden body armor (prevents being killed by an AuG shot to the body one time only).
Crucial for this would be the implementation where and how to buy stuff:
special zones or just plain everywhere?
buy menu or keyboard shortcuts?
Halving the players gold after death seems and/or encouraging revenge kills on the player who killed you - like Mangley suggested - seem pretty good ideas as well.
-
Kill someone with a gold bar: +2 (Do you guys think I can get KM to make Gold Bar a melee weapon?)
*WHACK*
-
@V!NCENT:
The AuG is the abbreviation for Au->Aurum=Gold(en)
Seriously... If you would be physically standing next to me I'd have asked you to slap me in the face >.<
-
*WHACK*
-
I like the idea of having a set amount of gold in play, but the idea of receiving a golden gun feels wrong to me. The only way I could see this working is if there were no other ammo for the golden gun in the map, and when you get the gun, it has like 3 or so bullets. This way people would have to think when to use it, instead of trying to spam it. And when they steal a gold bar you get another 3 bullets.
-
*WHACK*
Lol x'D
This way people would have to think when to use it, instead of trying to spam it. And when they steal a gold bar you get another 3 bullets.
Goldbar lying in front of the main screen in ge_control. You have a GG with 3 bullets. There are three other people there trying to grab it. You camp and while pressing shift you aim at the bar. Then when anybody tries to grab it you just plain deny it.
Sounds to me like a massive problem...
-
Yeah, I too think giving all the gold equipped players a golden gun is a terrible idea.
If you really want a golden gun in the set, I would recommend having the golden gun/golden pp7 randomly spawn sometimes instead of a gold bar. That way people can fight over it and stuff.
-
Goldbar lying in front of the main screen in ge_control. You have a GG with 3 bullets. There are three other people there trying to grab it. You camp and while pressing shift you aim at the bar. Then when anybody tries to grab it you just plain deny it.
Is this any different from Control on MWtGG?
-
How about upon picking up a Gold Brick, the player gets a Golden Gun with three extra rounds. The only way they can get additional ammunition is to pick up more gold bricks (1-3 rounds per pickup), and if you run out of GG ammo you lose all your bricks.
This forces players not to spam with the GG, and makes it a precious item to have.
-
Is this any different from Control on MWtGG?
Yes it is, because with the MWtGG you only have one player with the GG and he/she cannot on forehand predict where players are going to (which is away from you if you chose a good campspot) so you can shift aim camp at a certain spot while taking cover.
And then with MWtGG the player with the GG is highlighted on the map (you can't do that with GF because it would get too complex to manage) and he is attacked by everyone. In GF a person which has a GG is not the center of attention (for bullits).
However, if you would equate the goldbar with the amount of bullets in your gun, you could make an investment with your goldbar in killing people more easily and thereby increasing your score, which makes it kinda financial and gold is finance.
Soooo... getting a GG with three bullits when picking up a goldbar would be realy interesting to play. However, getting goldbars wouldn't be the main focus of the gameplay anymore because it would only be interesting for players without a GG to grab a goldbar to get it and then the people that do have it might camp for the players who want to reach the goldbar. That in turn would probably make people without a GG go after the person with the GG and thus rendering the gamemode irrelevant. It would turn it into MWtGG mode with multiple GGs and making the aquiring of the GG just more difficult, which would imbalance the mode even further.
OK, just playtest it first and then we (or you, VC+devs) will see if it's fun.
-
Or have it so the gold bars ARE the bricks. And to use the GG you have togive up a "brick" per shot. Then youd probably need more "bricks"...
Anyway its got a lot of potential.
-
Or have it so the gold bars ARE the bricks. And to use the GG you have togive up a "brick" per shot. Then youd probably need more "bricks"...
Then there would be no use of getting the GG, other than denying another person to obtain a goldbar,..
Anyway its got a lot of potential.
That I can totally agree with ;)
-
Ooh, I like the gold brick/bullet idea. If you want to use your gold gun, you have to sacrifice your score.
-
Then there would be no use of getting the GG, other than denying another person to obtain a goldbar,..
That is the perfect use for the GG then. This same strategy is involved in Living Daylights. You carry the flag whose only use is to deny other players from scoring (while increasing yours). It's a fundamental part of competitive gameplay. :-)
I really like the idea of the GG eating your gold reserve, will have to add a python callback for when you fire a shot though (currently only have one for when a shot hits). Although we could just do it so you have unlimited GG bullets, but when one hits (and kills obviously) then you lose GOLD.
-
Would it be possible to change ammunition types of other weapons to Golden Bullets?
IIRC correctly Auric Goldfinger had a Golden revolver... perhaps you could have tiered Golden guns? If for instance a Golden skin was made for the Cougar and you could change the bullet types you could do this:
Tier 1: Golden Gun
Tier 2: Golden Magnum
Tier 3: Golden PP7
Perhaps based on your score? Or how many people you've killed? I don't know, just a thought really.
-
Feel free to add that callback support, it may be useful in the future. However, the scenario designer is becoming quite worried at what will happen to GES servers when people with a text editor get carried away like this so easily, though he is flattered that an idea that popped into his head while jogging gathered so much attention.
Seriously, though: I'm not going to publish my drafts anymore. A scrap of notebook paper will do fine as a reminder to myself of what I was thinking about henceforth.
-
Sorry VC :-X
You excite us too much...
-
The feedback is crucial though because you aren't the only one who is going to be playing the gameplay. And yes, anyone can edit our scenarios, but a big fat (CUSTOM) tag will be emblazoned on it with even one addition of a space or new line.
-
Feedback like this shouldn't deter you from posting VC. Everyone deals with this kind of thing. Look at he mappers for instance, they get people saying "this is shitty, this is shitty, you need to fix this, I think you should do this blah blah blah" but that is what separates the awesome maps from the ok maps. I mean look at KM..he has had to redo so many things as well just because of critique from everyone. This isn't just trying to beat up on you. This scenario might become the greatest scenario of all of them JUST because it was REALLY thought out before put into action. Gotta be able to take constructive feedback man. :)
-
Feedback like this shouldn't deter you from posting VC. Gotta be able to take constructive feedback man. :)
Theres a bit of a difference in all fairness.
No one is critiquing a detailed concept, because there isnt one yet. They viewed the initial thoughts (notice : FIRST DRAFT) and are excitedly or skeptically throwing their ideas into the hat that wasn't offered up in the first place. In essence this aims to drive it elsewhere when nobody has even played, much less viewed it working in a test phase.
When this kind of early input is allowed, the final product can likely dissapoint those people who thought their idea was better, even though without having been given the insight, theyd probly think the the full concept VC creates is great.
Its like a book guys, lord of the rings first draft was probly mostly crap, but the entire world werent given the chance to be "editors" to getting it to be how successful it became.
-
Seriously, though: I'm not going to publish my drafts anymore. A scrap of notebook paper will do fine as a reminder to myself of what I was thinking about henceforth.
Why so? Is it the critic?
I, for one (and I am not the only one), have not only expressed great confidence and potential for your idea, but also did some constructive critisism and this turned out to come to the conclusion that one brick per GG bullet would result in competetive gameplay.
We are not bashing your idea, VC. This discussion convinced KM for example that it would lead to competetive gameplay, which is great, right? And I didn't thought about it.
I also said it should be playtested because obviously it was hard/impossible for me to manage to predict if all the variables would, or would not, lead to a great balance of the mode.
Critisism, as long as it's constructive and not bashing instead, can improve your idea, as long as you are fine with being the main inventor and not the complete inventor.
And that is hard, because I always project my ideas really early on on forums and having to deal with the fact that somebody points out that some part has already been (partialy) done before, or something else will not work, kinda makes it steal away your 'baby'. But then things can leads to things that do work and in some cases makes me rethink things and end up with something way better than the original draft, which is why it is called a draft; it's subject to change ;) And this also makes me have to thing outside of the box and in other ways I would have never thought.
-
I really don't agree with the idea that feedback deters from the original.if anything it helps vc see all the possible options his idea and then some. To be honest I like vcs idea but I also like hearing everyones idea. Plus isn't the point of posting something like this to get ideas and thoughts from the community? Vc you come up with awesome ideas and have always been a master at gamemodes. Don't let this thread discourage you
-
I laid out my thoughts clearly.
The feedback people are saying, those people are expecting VC to agree and insert those changes/ideas ; Wether he likes it or not, because theve convinced themselves the concept is flawed without their wisdom. I dont believe he did set out to have a love-in of feedback, seems he was more creating a sense of hype and transparency about HIS proccess. Quite frankly i dont think he cares if anyone retorts his concept because its the first draft.
Since he is more a mastermind of these matters than anyone else here, he would have troubleshot any flaws in the draft by the time any of us even saw the final thing.
Look at my book analogy. Thats all there is to this matter. Seriously.
-
I don't think there's anything wrong with VC's first draft as it stands, since it's a first draft. You can never tell if things will work or be fun or not until you test them.
My feedback was really just suggestions and ideas. I don't care if any of them are implemented or not, but ideas will give more room for exploration and expanding on the concept. Take it from being MWGG with a different scoring system to being something totally unique in its own right.
Here's a good analogy: I'm not saying your baby is ugly, I'm just saying it might look better with a hat on.
-
The feedback people are saying, those people are expecting VC to agree and insert those changes/ideas ; Wether he likes it or not, because theve convinced themselves the concept is flawed without their wisdom.
Does it look like I have "I'm a ges dev" in my signature? This is a discussion. We discuss ideas. We present our thoughts and whatever the devs do with it is up to them.
Thus far nothing bad has come out of the dev department. Everything is just epic and that creates expectations (which is not the same as demands). The few who closely follow and play the mod love GoldenEye and so people feel compelled to point what they think might improve certain things and the fans, me included, will point out what is in their opinion not total perfection.
The more epic you perform, the tinier the details will be criticised.
I was just trying to calm down and show that it was not my intention to correct VC, but just present my thought which he could think about if he likes, and implement it or not. I am not saying that 'if it doesn't go the way I want it', it will suck. I was just trying to convince VC to considder other peoples thinking. I am not expecting/demanding that he will and I am also not trying to say that if he doesn't do it, the mode will suck, or be worse of....
-
Re: VC's Laboratory 100205: Goldfinger, First Draft
First Draft...
-
Ya'll be gettin' too fired up.
I just wanted to make a note somewhere that I can't lose it. As far as feedback I was mostly hoping for a yea/nay on the concept of a token collection competition, since that is a game mechanic that few FPS games have. The only thing similar that I can think of is one of the later Bond games had something where your goal was to assemble the golden gun from its component parts.
My latter comment is mostly to address the fact that the discussion was a cycle of state an unfounded potential problem, pull a broken 'solution' out of a hat, then try to add something that 'sounds cool' and creates a new unfounded potential problem. That's how Perfect Dark happened.
But there is some good thoughts in here. I hadn't given any serious consideration to the ammo situation for the AuG. Too much might threaten to create a Golden Gun Arena situation that makes the other guns mostly ignored. Too little might make the weapon not worth using except for sniping/counter-sniping other gold holders.
-
Okey partial yay then :P
-
Can you change the Gold Bars to Rings, and Bond to Sonic?
while your at it make the klobb a gold club hahahaha :) not really