Demiansky
Posts: 7
3/8/2015
|
I've developed an unhealthy obsession with Sunless Sea, but one thing I'm finding is that I never, ever lose my captains to hunger or loss of fuel. I basically always make it to where I'm going without ever cutting it too close and as of yet, I've never had to eat anybody due to diminished resources. Part of the problem is that I can always accurately predict how far I can make it with a specific amount of resources... So I was thinking about what game mechanics could be introduced to stir things up a bit. The best thing I can think of? Currents that shift. Because the Zee is a strange place that is abundantly populated by vortexes, why not make vortexes generate currents that change over time? They could vary in strength, push you into problematic situations (like into a Zee monster), and make you think on your feet as far as navigation is concerned. Sure, you may have PLANNED for those 4 supplies to get you back to London... but then that harsh current kicked up and blew you off course.
The vortex mechanic is already in game, so I wonder how hard it would be to implement currents?
edited by Demiansky on 3/8/2015
|
|
|
0
link
|
MisterGone
Posts: 139
3/8/2015
|
The simpler solution is closer to what Sporks suggested: make the vortexes move.
Every time the player gets a "Free Evening" (so the game knows they're IN London), it rolls to determine if any in map vortex moves position, and then if they do, move it there. It wouldn't be a huge distance away from where ever the origin points are currently, but it could move within a range around each origin point. They could also change in the size of diameter, shrinking and expanding within a range, so as to never be fully predictable.
If two vortexes hit each other (because there are two pretty close by near Port Carnelian), they combine into a unique super vortex that's really HUGE, and does lots of extra damage if you're sucked in.
Currents aren't a bad idea in theory, but in practice I'm guessing they'd either be so subtle an effect that no one would notice them (so why even include it), or they'd be so strong that they'd be interfering in a way that makes players thing the game's control scheme is broken: "why is my ship constantly listing to the left right now? WTF? Is this Desert Bus?"
The vortexes are big and dangerous and noticeable. The problem is that they're so stationary that you never really have to worry about them or alter course once you see where they are the first time. They need variation to create a sense that you can never really be fully safe on this sea. Even with the sea itself.
Another idea - Have the fog weather effect add back the "fog of war" effect on islands.
Currently in the game, when you go to a place you haven't been, a lot of islands are darkened an hard to see against the backdrop of the sea until the player gets close enough and triggers their reveal. I've ended up bumping and crashing into a lot of lillypads near Wisdom while avoiding enemies due to this effect in fact.
If the effect were re-implemented while they were stuck in the middle of a fog bank (or other storm), you'd have the interesting situation of fog actually affecting the player as fog affects real ship captains. Which would be a pretty good, super immersive threat, and make the game a touch more interesting and unpredictable no matter how much experience you actually have with the game.
--
If you'd ever like to enjoy a good round of pugilism or discussing the higher mysteries, Reginald Drownheart may be the dapper gentleman for you!
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Reginald~Drownheart~
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
3/8/2015
|
We don't do flamewars around here. Locking the thread: please be nice on other threads.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Jabster
Posts: 6
3/8/2015
|
I understand your dilemma but I think it's pretty inbuilt into the game. The early few hours and first few captains are, to me, basically an extended tutorial. Once you understand the concept of how to generate echoes and a rough idea of how much fuel/supplies you need it's pretty hard to run out unless you take massive risks. Currently the bigger problem I have is managing terror but given time I'm sure that will become much easy itself.
Managing resources is important but surely the game is really about exploring not micro-management?
|
|
|
+1
link
|
SporksAreGoodForYou
Posts: 291
3/8/2015
|
I'm comfortable that given the island layouts change magically with every captain, currents could magically change magically with every few Time: The Healers.
edited by SporksAreGoodForYou on 3/8/2015
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Passionario
Posts: 777
3/8/2015
|
Has your life grown too safe and predictable?
Are you tired of hauling tons of fuel, supplies and trade goods everywhere?
Do you long for danger and adventure on high zee?
Buy Stymphalos-class Steam Launch today!
--
Passionario: Profile, Story, Ending
Passion: Profile, Appearance
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Dagmar
Posts: 25
3/8/2015
|
Demiansky wrote:
I disagree on just about every point. I never overstock on fuel and supplies and generally make it back to London with 1-2 each. That's pretty much the definition of overstocking fuel and supplies. When your UI says 1-2 units of fuel it actually means 2-3 because after the 1 disappears you still have one full bar of fuel after it disappears. There are other choices you get that can further extend that supply depending on your resources. If you push the envelope on your fuel reserves you can find out what they are. The same holds true for your supplies. Your play style is what is denying you these experiences. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is that, and not a lack of variance in fuel and supply consumption, that is preventing you from getting to experience what happens when you "cut it close".
That being said I don't have a problem with the concept of introducing currents to the Sunless Sea, but you should realize it probably won't impact on your ability to experience death or near death from lack of fuel or supplies. You will be able to hedge against that possibility by maintaining the margins you do for fuel and supplies when you hit a port or by adjusting them upwards if that's what's needed. Your own words pretty much sum it up:
Demiansky wrote:
I can just pick up one or two extra for 20 echo. Adding currents into the game may simply end up meaning that instead of spending 20-40 echoes you end up spending 200-400 echoes with more frequent and/or greater in between purchases based on nothing more than luck. That's why I said it only makes the game more of a grind by cutting into your profit margins. If you're inclined to lose 20-40 echoes to eliminate risk by maintaining a very safe buffer for fuel and supplies there's no reason to believe that you'll be less inclined to spending more than that over the course of your voyage if the alternative is frequent death by chance.
The only way that's going to change is if it can happen so often early in the game before you can create any kind of buffer in echoes that you end up dying from sheer attrition of resources in echoes, supplies and fuel. That means that players can end up dying repeatedly simply based on bad luck. If they get over that hump before quitting the game, you're right back to where you started with a large enough buffer in echoes and an overall route that is profitable if less so by implementing the same risk averse practices you're currently using on a larger scale.
As stated before, you're the architect of your current situation. If you want to experience nearly dying from starvation or almost sinking out at sea from lack of fuel you have to take greater risks. The fact that you're not willing to do so with the current game mechanics means that nothing changes unless the frequency and randomness of currents can turn the new player experience into one of repeated death for no other reason than bad luck rather than a lack of understanding of game mechanics and content. The latter entails a constructive learning experience through death which is why players are told not to be afraid of dying in the Sunless Sea. The former does not. It would simply be bad game design.
Demiansky wrote:
And why are we so concerned about new players? Dying is part of the game. I was a newer player once, and since I started the game weeks ago, I've only died once (thank you, Mt. Nomad). Maybe it sounds weird, but I kind of wanted to die more than that. Then you should have taken greater risks. The perspective of a new player is very relevant. You no longer have it because you know many things that a new player isn't going to know and your perspective on how they will deal with an added difficulty mechanic that could end up killing them a lot more is extremely subjective, especially since you've avoided the experience entirely of having to repeat the same content over and over again due to multiple deaths early on in the game.
Your experience as a new player isn't reflective of that of all new players or even most new players. There was a post this past week from a player that said they died repeatedly from Bat Swarms, which are the easiest things to kill in the game. There are numerous posts from players who had a hard time with the game that might not have continued to play it but for their posting on this forum and getting advice from other players and, given the small percentage of players that actually even bother to read game forums, it's hard to get a measure of how high the attrition rate is for the game. That's something that Failbetter Games can't ignore not only because it may be reflective of game design issues but also because Failbetter, even as small independent studio, has to consider the revenue impact on its ability to develop additional content for the game and make some margin of profit.
|
|
|
+1
link
|