Hero Design, Character design for the mains Options

[bulmabriefs144]

Okay well if it's a scrapyard, we'd be talking something like this.

Sans the gun. Sorta muscular, well-built (he's gotta move engines/batteries and operate heavy machinery). He probably has a few holes in his jeans due to batteries acid, and some oily clothes. Mebbe a different color hair or more stubble.

[MEands]

Lol now we're back to this guy again?

And Sparrow, I kinda like the idea of having a puzzle where it depends on who you use, but we need to make sure we give some hints as to what characters we need to use for certain situations, otherwise it's just a luck puzzle.

But I think each puzzle should have at least 3 different ways to complete it, but each has it's own type of difficulty and each has it's own consequences.

[Sparrowsmith]

I was thinking like an exhaustive puzzle.
So you can talk to the characters at each step and they'll be like "I can probably make it" or "I'm not so sure" or "No chance".
However, depending on which you pick, you might end up with characters stuck in certain spots, and then you have to use a character who can't make it.

You need to plan out which characters to send to which areas to get the correct items to get everyone back. Wrong choice and you lose a character, and it builds up over time until you get caught.

[MEands]

Oh I like that. Are these characters just going to be the 4 original ones, or are we having Eddie and Jessica too?

[bulmabriefs144]

I like Jessica and Eddie.

[Sparrowsmith]

For the Junkyard, I think having all Layer 2 characters will work.
This includes Jessica and Eddie.

Speaking of which, we should continue developing those two if possible. This plot's getting more complicated than an adequate metaphor explaining how complicated it is.

[MEands]

Let's write down what each of their skills would be when it comes to this puzzle.

So each puzzle will have a list of easy, moderate, advanced. So like, a puzzle such as being atop a pile of cars or something, you need to jump across to reach the powered crane. Advanced: If you choose someone will high agility such as Jessica, she will be able to jump across to the crane and move it so the rest of the party can cross. Moderate: If you chose someone like Johnny with an average agility, he will jump, but only grab onto a part of the crane, he will have to climb up the crane in order to activate it (since he has advanced strength, he can make the climb all the way up, if he had low strength he would fall off the crane onto a ripped up couch). Simple: If you have low agility then you will try to make the jump, but you will miss and land on the same couch.
So there are basically two directions, the crane way (the rewarding path), and the low path (normal).

Each character has their specialties.
Johnny
Strength: Advanced
Agility: Moderate
Intelligence: Moderate

Rossetta
Strength: Moderate
Agility: Advanced
Intelligence: Simple

Maya
Strength: Simple
Agility: Moderate
Intelligence: Advanced

Kevin
Strength: Moderate
Agility: Advanced
Intelligence: Advanced

Eddie
Strength: Moderate
Agility: Moderate
Intelligence: Advanced

Jessica
Strength: Advanced
Agility: Advanced
Intelligence: Moderate

This post has been edited by MEands: Sep 15 2012, 02:26 PM

[Sparrowsmith]

That seems like a good way to go about this.

So you have to carefully consider which characters you send out. I also think that simple or moderate characters should be able to complete moderate or advanced challenges if certain items have been collected.
So Maya could make the jump if you find the materials to make a grappling hook. She then swings across to the crane by latching it onto the top of the crane.

The more dynamic we make these puzzles, the better.
At the same time, even if a person CAN make the jump, if it's dangerous then they'll become mad at you for making them do it. Meanwhile other characters will want to do it, but might not be able to.
Being mad doesn't change the puzzle, it just means later on you might get different dialogue, or different items, or if it's a romantic arc it could damage that in some way.

In later (much further) puzzles this could become a problem.
"Hey x, can you make this jump?"
"You know what? Why don't YOU do it this time?!"
which leads to the puzzle becoming harder, or impossible to complete.

[bulmabriefs144]

What's with Rosetta's simple Intelligence and Maya's simple Strength? We're assuming everyone is moderate to begin with, since the simple and advanced puzzles can both be solved with moderate skill, while the advanced ones can't be solved without being an expert. (This makes Eddie on par with Maya)

Intelligence in this puzzle would be for making the crane work (moderate can turn it on, advanced can make it move stuff). If a person has advanced Strength, they can pull someone who has only moderate Agility up.

So in this scene, ideally Jessica can not only make the jump, she can pull Eddy up, and while she can only turn the thing on, he can move it from there.

Alternately, Rosetta can make the jump but can't pull anyone up. Johnny can't make the jump, and has to pull himself up, but once there, can pull Maya up and she can move the cranes.

Finally, two characters with Strength can pull each other down when the jump is made. That is, one person having strength will make the attempt to pull the other up, while the other will pull themselves up, resulting in the falling person pulling the person trying to rescue them down, and this makes a huge crash. So yea, never try Johnny with Jessica or vice versa. Jess can rescue Maya though.

These puzzles shouldn't be unsolvable (hence the removal of simple skills), but if you use the wrong combination (such as Maya or Eddie jumping first) you hit the ground, and the racket causes you to get caught. Other puzzles may also require teamwork, and the wrong member choice could get you caught.

Also, you can do this by skill possessed. Have skills called something like Strength (Moderate), and give them to the party for this challenge, along with their normal skills. If the character has that skill, do one thing, if not do the other, and ignore specific status. Or maybe just the high level version like Strength, if they have advanced strength.For example, the above list would look like this (any skill they don't have is assumed moderate, and gets them only through easy challenges).

Johnny
Strength

Rosetta
Agility

Maya
Intelligence

Kevin
Agility, Intelligence

Eddie
Intelligence

Jessica
Strength, Agility

If we can do it this, we, it simplifies the puzzle, as you can ask If Hero Strength skill possessed, and just change the leader.

This post has been edited by bulmabriefs144: Sep 16 2012, 07:31 AM

[MEands]

I'd actually prefer not to simplify the puzzle, in fact, I'd prefer that we don't even tell the player what each character's advanced skills are.
It's going to take a bit of time before the characters arrive at the scrapyard, so I think we could imply what each of them is good at. (ei: Johnny and Eddie do some sort of silly macho competition and tie, Rossetta is a bit of a clutz, and Jessica narrowly evades being caught by security).

And this wont be unsolvable, it's just that choosing the wrong character might cause you to get caught instead of escaping and achieving the special item.

[Sparrowsmith]

I'm with MEands on this one. We want the player to only make it through if they know the characters.
It's basically a ploy to get our players more emotionally invested in the plot... but it's also more challenging that just talking to everyone during the puzzle.

We'll make it fairly obvious, through dialogue, what everyone's strong suits are, then after than it's just a matter of piecing it together.
It is a puzzle after all.

Besides, the exact difficulty of the puzzles can be worked out via beta testing, and too difficult is easier to tone down than too easy is to tone up.

[bulmabriefs144]

I'd actually prefer not to simplify the puzzle, in fact, I'd prefer that we don't even tell the player what each character's advanced skills are.
It's going to take a bit of time before the characters arrive at the scrapyard, so I think we could imply what each of them is good at. (ei: Johnny and Eddie do some sort of silly macho competition and tie, Rossetta is a bit of a clutz, and Jessica narrowly evades being caught by security).

And this wont be unsolvable, it's just that choosing the wrong character might cause you to get caught instead of escaping and achieving the special item.

I didn't mean the puzzle itself, I meant how we deal with it.

If Rosetta is in party (if she personally is worse than the others), or if Rosetta has Intelligence (Simple) skill.

Versus

If Rosetta Intelligence is less than 10. Not only are such things unlikely to remain fixed since leveling up might occur, but they might conflict with in-game parameters (Rosetta for instance, would need intelligence to cast magic well).

Simplifying, in this case, mean just that we do it by something besides a numerical, and have a passive skill which can't be used in battle but needs to be there for events to work.

If we do this without telling what the skills are, then we should probably go the route of having it If (Character) is in party. Strict numerical formulas either are based on real stats (which change with the level), or fake stats 0-2 rating for simple to advanced (which involves 18 variables minimum, in addition to the extra 12 X, Y variables for character location). The code can be alot more user-friendly without that.

I'm not personally in favor of this, though, since I think knowing how characters stack up against each other makes you feel like the creators actually based this off something, and don't get the sense that it's random. I think we should display the skills, because it adds an element of strategy to the choices. Also, if you chose wrong, you can then figure out WHY you chose wrong instead of relying one your knowledge of the characters (let's be honest. Some characters you really like in a game, and some like Zell Dincht, you just breeze past their lines). Having their skills displayed allows for retroactive understanding, and increases the chance of later liking the character. Kevin for instance wouldn't be my first choice as a character, but finding out how useful he is in practical situations makes me feel I can rely on him. I might then use him more. The final reason is personality traits are highly subjective, someone might not get the sense Maya is particularly intelligent, just nerdy. So relying wholly on that creates a Guide Dang It atmosphere, where you have to replay several times to get a sense of the character or just try a zillion times. If by Try 3 you noticed characters had skills, this would mean you could plan around them, making the challenge difficult but not impossible.

Also, teamwork skills makes this more challenging while still revealing all the cards. Like that thing before where is both have strength, they pull each other down. Human pyramid for instance, works if the bottom character has high strength, the middle has high agility AND high strength, and the top has high agility.

Alternately, we could have it based on skill, but hide the menu for the duration (menu button calls the character switch), instead giving hints when selecting them through the character flavor text. "Jessica is lean and strong thanks to years of martial arts training, but she relies on Eddie for planning. Eddie is not very athletic, but he's the brains of the couple. Rosetta is completely different from her online persona, when trouble starts she's the first to run, and she's an airhead. Choose this character? Yes/No"

This post has been edited by bulmabriefs144: Sep 17 2012, 05:50 AM

[MEands]

Idk, I'm still not completely for this. I was thinking since Layer 2 is a simulation of real life, we should try not to explain things, cause in real life nothing ever explains the situation to us or tells us someone's personality traits.

I was just thinking you'd get to a situation in the puzzle, and then your party would break off and "think about it", each one might say something regarding the situation. Kevin: "I think I could make the jump to that crane" Maya: "Maybe we shouldn't have come up here..." Rosetta: "Hey Johnny, maybe you could jump to that crane?"

I'm not really sure if I'm in favor of this entirely, but idk.

[bulmabriefs144]

Well then, I think it should be slightly idiotproof, but still in line with character development. (So hidden stuff it is)

Example: Maya can't make the jump or Eddie is too weak to move something without making a loud racket. If they're average they'll complain about their shortcomings as they carry it out. But you're about to choose them to a task they will critically fail (i.e. fall on their butts or otherwise make alot of noise), you actually get the choice whether to go through with it or not.

That is if Maya tries to jump (she has neither the strength to pull herself up or the agility to make it), she'll say something along the lines of:

"I'm afraid I can't make it guys."

If Johnny or Jessica has made the jump they can grab them, they say something along the lines of:

"Don't worry, I've got you."

If nobody is there, or is strong enough, instead they say:

"Don't be such a chicken!" (Or something like that)

Choice Yes/No comes, and if you choose no, someone else goes first. If Yes here, well, you're kinda screwed. She makes you lose and you get caught as she lands on some metal or glass trash and makes alot of noise.

[Sparrowsmith]

I don't think we should make the process so complicated.

Let's take it from the top:
You're in the junkyard, then the junkyard owner shows up. You all split off into different areas.
You, Johnny, try to traverse areas of the junkyard, but there are some things you can't do (You're not agile enough to grab the rope/You can't jump high enough to reach the rope. You can't figure out how to work this crane.)
Through solving simple puzzles, you reunite with a few of your teammates. By using your new teammates, you can retrieve previous items/locations you couldn't reach before. This teaches you the major strengths of the first few characters.
the next few puzzles are similar, only you choose which character to go ahead.
Play it right, you get more of your separated comrades. Play it wrong, you lose them.
With each puzzle there are multiple characters you could use, and it's pretty easy to decide which character to use, the problem lies in consistently choosing the right character. One slip up will make perfection impossible. You have to know the characters. They'll give you clues, but you'll have to know who's overconfident and who's serious. It shouldn't be too hard.

We won't need numerical values. Just a choice system.

[MEands]

Okay this is really good, I'm excited for this. The junkyard is now my favorite puzzle.

Hm, so before making a design we need to decide about how many puzzles, there should be at least one, maybe even two puzzles for each character. Also, maybe we should have some situations where if you choose the wrong character then they'll get stuck, so you can't use them for the rest of the puzzle.

[Sparrowsmith]

The more open ended we make the puzzle the better.
I also think we should consistently do these kinds of puzzles in layer 2.

Layer 1 puzzles are about putting the right thing in the right place.
Layer 2 puzzles are about cooperation and using your characters right.
Layer 3 puzzles are about timing and wits.

Of course, we can break the above guidelines, but in general I think this kind of blueprint works.

Now about the junkyard puzzle itself. I think a fatigue counter would work well too. Like, you shouldn't use the same character three times, or twice in a row. Some characters will have fears (tight spaces, heights) and if you choose them to do a puzzle that involves their fear, then they're unlikely to do any more puzzles until you're out of the junkyard, or might refuse to do the puzzle outright.

Now, how about:
Johnny only puzzles. There are maybe 3-4 of these. They're mostly about finding items and reaching areas that Johnny can reach. It's open though, so one puzzle will lead to another character, while the other three puzzles get you items (battery, hook, leather jacket). When you reach the other character, you can go back and do 2 new puzzles, one of which gets you the rope, one of which gets you another character. Then you go back to where you met the second character and go ahead. Now the fun begins.
Let's say there are three paths through the scrapyard, each consisting of seven puzzles. The characters all have phones, and so can contact each other saying where they are. We then have a map detailing where each character is.
No matter which path you're on, you can always jump to a different path. You can get the good ending by just doing 7 puzzles, but to get perfection you have to cross paths, which results in doing more like 11 puzzles, or maybe even more.

I could draw a diagram...
2--2--2
-|-/-|-\--|
-1--1--1--
--\--|--/--
----0----

So you can move from 0 to one of three 1s. You can move between 1s as well, and so on. However, moving from one number to an adjacent number requires going through a puzzle.
I'll draw a better diagram if necessary.

[bulmabriefs144]

I still think we should do it by (hidden) skill conditions. Not thrilled about the whole choice thing, I think it should be done with free motion, and allow for wide-range movement. But that whole fears thing is good. I think it would be most likely either a refusal to do the puzzle or they scream (see below). Penalizing for future puzzles makes it so if you need them and only them for the next puzzle, you're rather screwed.

Eddie and Jessica should already be there and in their own group. Probably Johnny in his own group to start with, then Rosetta or Maya splits away from Kevin's party to go find him. Then later some of the other teams join in and you have to figure out the right person to use in a major way.

Not in favor of a fatigue counter. With a well run character system, there should not be any reason why the same character will be used repeatedly, as the very next puzzle, they might fail due to phobia or incompatible skills. Also, there might already be a meter, and it would slow things down to have two meters.

I'm envisioning it as a sort of "Don't Wake Daddy" puzzle. There's a noise meter. Normal walking doesn't trigger anything, but walking into tin cans, glass, whatever, does. Failing teamwork puzzles usually adds to noise (you end up falling, dropping something, whatever). The whole phobias thing earlier? If you put them in a a puzzle they are afraid of, they scream like crazy and the noise meter fills 2/3.

We should make a phobias list, the same as the skills one. Jessica I want to have a really weird fear (carrots or something) since she initially seems fearless, maybe if you find out all the fears of others she tells about it. How do you figure out these fears without them screaming and raising noise? Well, just as there's an assist for skills, there should be at least one character who is able to talk the other character through crossing the area with them. Or remove the problem (killing the rats/snakes, dousing the fire, etc).

This post has been edited by bulmabriefs144: Sep 18 2012, 06:01 AM

[MEands]

A carrot fear would be amazing! But I don't see how we can logically do that
What if she's afraid of cats or something people normally aren't scared of.

I like the noise meter thing, we could just make a noise meter, or we could just count it with variables. Perhaps it takes 6 mistakes to make the junkyard owner catch you, every 2 mistakes it shows a cutscene of him starting to notice something is going on.

So like, if you're perfect and make no mistakes, it should be an easy puzzle to solve.
However, if you make 2 mistakes it will trigger a cutscene where the junkyard owner realizes something is up, and goes outside to check. He will only stand outside of his office/trailer, but if you have done a certain puzzle wrong or if you fail the puzzle in front of his office, he will catch you immediately.
If you make 4 mistakes then he will begin patrolling the area (just a basic route)
If you make 6 mistakes then he will patrol in the area you just recently failed in at a much faster rate. (Gives you about 10 seconds to get out of the junkyard if you're at the end).

I kinda like the fear meter too, but I don't think it should be marked, we should just set a variable where if a puzzle has gone wrong for someone they might not attempt another one for a while.

[Sparrowsmith]

I don't think we should have too many counters. Fears and noise should be relevant, but there's no need to count them.
Like, if a puzzle makes a loud noise, then you can't go backwards anymore, because the scrapyard owner will be heading to your location.
Fears could manifest in lots of ways. If someone has slippery palms then they might fall from a puzzle they could otherwise solve.

Basically, I'd like to make the puzzles 'real'. Not many counters or anything like that. We treat it like it's a very real situation.