Realism v. Playability

SeaQueen · Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 358 Location: Washington, DC

I've been designing a mission lately and came to an interesting conclusion: Skilled players could potentially draw the game out for about a week.

All of this depends a great deal on luck as well, and the results are probabilistic (Koopman equations for random search and exhaustive search). One can always get lucky and have things happen very fast, but the fact remained, most of the time, the scenario would take a really long time to play.

Given what I was able to determine from my research and experience, that was completely realistic too. As an ASW geek, I try hard to make scenarios which have some depth to them (get it?), but I'm also aware of the short attention spans of most players. ASW in particular has the problem of being slow paced. Has anyone developed a good rule of thumb for compromising between realism and playability?

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

I am not sure whether your mission is primarily aimed at SP or MP and that's a little relevant.

In MP available player gameing time and maintaining the connection are limiting factors.
There are two schools of thought the previous NCHQ type players who feel that realism is foremost.
Starting positions well spaced to allow for the sort of RL care required in careful scouting, feeling for a
position, stealth, closing the odds down etc. On the other hand , we have players who rightly demand action/fun
within a shorter timeframe, determined by the factors above.

Harpoon faces difficult ballance issues . Many find the action too slow and in SP the remedies
are to hand. But with the new MP Harpoon Beta when do you agree to accelerate ? Can you ?

For SP what ballance ? One would not satisfy the gamer who posted that he had given up an anticedent
of Silent Hunter from boredom. ...........When challenged it transpired that he never used any in-game acceleration.
That must also be compared with the guy who played SH in realtime, over weeks, posting his action (sic) almost daily.

For me the limits would be a MP mission lasting no more than 3 hours and a SP one 2/3 days,
with average(?) gameing time.

But surely if the MP mission is designed not to 'overload' the connections, as long as the proper health
warning description is given by the designer, those who choose to play a more realistic mission will queue.
Especialy when they see the plaque on the door ! Wink

PS. ** I see no reason why a ( none platform sharing ?) MP mission,, could not have goals set at different intervals. The players could decide whether to participate in a 2, 3 or 4 course meal.

OKO · Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject:

I agree with you SeaQueen, MP scenarios must use some compromise.

Especially against mission duration.
Real ASW engagment takes hours, even days ... you just can't do that on a MP mission with DW.

But there is tools, able to compensate this problem.
Random location is the best one.

With them, you could still have the fewer possible range beetween platforms with a very large choice of initial position.
This way, you allow at least 15 mn before any detection could occurs, and nobody knows where the ennemy will come from.

On MP mission, this is a basic rule for replayability of a mission.
When creating a MP mission, you should spend most of the time not on creating the action, but on generating the randomless, preferably on speed, bearing and even course of the targets.

If you manage to do that correctly, each time you replay the mission, you shouldn't have more informations available than if you played it for the first time.

So the 2 main factors for MP games are
1) no more informations for everyone than if they played the mission for the first time
2) At least 15 minutes before any detection occurs.

Then you have lots interesting and "realistic" possible scenarios.

I made some scenarios I replay quite often, editing them will better show you the way I proceed to try to make this kind of scenarios.
you could find the latest versions here :
http://okof4.free.fr/missions/DW/

Miika · Joined: 10 Oct 2005 Posts: 60 Location: Helsinki

I've always used a very simple way of balancing my missions - if I like playing them myself, I'm satisfied. To say it differently; no matter how you create your missions, there will always be those that like them and those that don't.

If you always make them the way you see fit, you will also be able to improve them once you learn more of the game and the mission editor.

As for me; I like those 1-2h missions after a day at work, and those longer ones on Sunday mornings. Wink

Miika

XabbaRus · Joined: 21 Sep 2001 Posts: 6949

Well SeaQueen what you can do is send the mission to Bill to put on his site.

I would be more than happy with a scenario that could take a week.

I play then save, then go back to it the next day.

That way we could try and then comment.

SeaQueen · Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 358 Location: Washington, DC

SeaQueen · Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 358 Location: Washington, DC

LuftWolf · Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 1872 Location: Free New York

I can tell you that I am very much looking forward to playing your scenarios SQ.

BTW, when you say that the mission will take a week, is that with the detection ranges in the stock 1.03 DB? Surprised

:doh: :hmm:

Also, have you tried LWAMI? Cool

SeaQueen · Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 358 Location: Washington, DC

Bill Nichols · Joined: 14 Mar 2001 Posts: 2657

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724

Very impressive Scenario Notes in PowerPoint with background and briefing SeaQueen. Neutral

\

I hope I can do the scenario justice. Thank you. Rock

SeaQueen · Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 358 Location: Washington, DC

SeaQueen · Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 358 Location: Washington, DC

SeaQueen · Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 358 Location: Washington, DC

Bellman · Joined: 14 Feb 2004 Posts: 1724