Brainstorm: Non-linear Upgrade suggestion.

[Ishq]

Post your ideas about how we can implement a non-linear upgrade system. Anything goes. Crazy, extreme, whatever. I just want a wide sampling of every possible idea. Towards the end we can pick and choose from the best ideas to create the best implementation to test.

[Anomalous]

As mentioned in the other thread: default unlocking order, overridden by team votes for which upgrade to unlock next (with the implication of unlocking prerequisites first).

Or, perhaps, use of an upgrade could contribute towards locked upgrades with no remaining locked prerequisites or with that upgrade as an immediate prerequisite, but another item could be unlocked (if no locked prerequisites) by transferring unlock points accrued by other still-locked upgrades to that item.

[Viech]

I'm against using conventional team votes for the core gameplay (as opposed to just fixing corner case issues with them) since I fear it might hurt the atmosphere if game (upgrades) and metagame (votes) get mixed that way. Instead, we should try to make any approach of upgrade related "voting" feel like it was part of the fiction.

[kangz]

I'm going to assume we have a way to give upgrade-points to players without making it directly linked to the kills and without starving bad players completely. In my opinion such an upgrade system has to give more strategy and variety to the game as well as more frustration for the players (frustration can be part of fun: I should have done that...; I wish I had that...).

For both personal and team-wide upgrades there could be tech-trees with separate branches (à la Diablo 2). With essential upgrades at 1/3 of each branch (nade helmet and medkit for example) and large rewards at the end of a tech branch. The question will become: how do we get to the big guns fast or do we try to get all the upgrades at the same time?

For the team-wide upgrades we can have a default upgrade path as anomalous says, with players allowed to change their allocation whenever they want.

[Viech]

kangz, I guess it's best to assume that we will stick to a system similiar to confidence and that the key problem of this thread is the question of how to set the individual confidence thresholds of upgrades in an interactive manner.

[Ishq]

I'm on the fence about directly linking how many upgrade points you earn to how much you contribute
Pros

• Players who know what they're doing are more likely to be able to control direction

• Are not stuck trying to convince new players to do things a certain way

• Having stronger direction teaches new players how it should be done, so as they get to contributing more, they will set the example for the new generation of new players

Cons

• Obviously, can be annoying for new players

• New players don't feel like they contribute as much

• Create a "skill oligarchy" (although some might consider this a meritocracy)

My idea was to create an allocation system of confidence. You are in control of the confidence you earn and are free to "allocate" it to whichever upgrade you chose. As confidence decays, the top level of the tree will decay. We will need a system to automatically give confidence as it is earned. Probably Just pick the tree you want to contribute it too.

[Anomalous]

Or players could be given a number of points for registering preferences for particular upgrades. When upgrade points are won, which upgrade is moved towards being unlocked would be chosen by most preferred, closest to unlocking or, failing both, earliest listed. If the upgrade has locked prerequisites then one of those prerequisites (chosen in the same way) would be moved closer to unlocking. Either way, if an upgrade is unlocked as a result, then the excess contribution from the kill is put towards unlocking another in the same way.

[kangz]

Registering preferences at the beginning of that game would allow players to focus on the actual gameplay afterwards (vs. deciding at every instant what upgrade they'd like to get next). However such preferences give only limited flexibility: it costs you a "preference token" to make a strategic decision so you will be able to make only a small number.

[Viech]

I'm on the fence about directly linking how many upgrade points you earn to how much you contribute

Another important con is that teams with equally skilled players will tend to have less specialized pathes than teams that are pulled by one very good player. Since I assume that a more specialized path is likely to be better than a mixture (too many cooks spoil the broth), this is a bad thing since we have no reason to give the team with the extreme skill gradiant a significant advantage.

[Ishq]

That's true. I had not considered that. In games where one player is dominating, he's essentially the tyrant that determines what path his team takes... However, I think there are merits to allowing more skilled players to have more of a say. I'm reluctant to go full democracy... although, in teams with equally skilled players, the meritocracy, would, in essence, be a democracy. I wonder if there is a way to limit this...