Interesting idea. Can you provide an example of how you would imagine it working?
Alright, let’s give it a try:
We escort a charr tank to a certain enemy gate to take it down and invade their base. Upon failure, we could get another event that requires us to get explosives to blow up the gate instead. This event will be harder as the players now have to get close to the gate to drop the explosives. Or, to add a little diversity, an Ash Legion soldier pops up, makes some sniffy remark on how the Iron Legion can’t even keep their own toys in one piece, and offers to take the group via a second, secret (perhaps even previously locked) path into the base.
I like that. Let me generalize the concept and take on the road:
What’s being suggested is adding “second chance” events. Plan A has failed. Rather than just fall back in disarray, we get to try plan B, which is specifically designed to play to a different set of player strengths/builds than plan A did. Frontal assault didn’t work. Here’s a mini-jump puzzle that opens up that gets you to the goal – giving the avid jumper with weaker gear who couldn’t down the doorguards by brute force a way to shine.
Now imagine redoing the entire southern march from Fort Trinity to the Rally Camp with Second Chance technology. Failed to secure the beach for the trebuchets by plowing in all iron-fisted? A pact submarine pops up off shore and you get a second chance to secure it by playing siege gunner from the deck. If either event succeeds, you are able to advance on to the assault on the first island across the bridge.
Later in the chain you have to hold that first island against a counter attack. If you fail, instead of immediately being booted back to the trebuchet beach, you get a second chance event – maybe some sort of footrace to reach a horn that lets you call in an NPC Airstrike so that you end up holding on to the island and can advance to the next stage of the march. Again, giving you a way to showcase an alternate skillset, and a way to not have your progress kicked back because the guy that helped you take the island in the first place wandered off before the counter attack event started.
Second Chances, especially creative ones, would open up a world of heroism and let you actually access the later portions of some of the really long chains, better leveraging the work you’ve already done.
As to implementing DE expansion. If I were king, I’d pick pairs of zones, of radically different level ranges, and focus all the additions in those two zones so that I could announce the introduction not a~
“We added 50 events… somewhere”
But as~
“Things are heating up in Gendarren Fields. Not only have the Centaur attacks taken on a sinister new dimension, but the Inquest has begin probing the Headquarters of the Vigil for weakness. Return to this war-torn frontier in this permanent Living World release and be among the first to raise your sword against the new and renewed enemies of Kryta and Lion’s Arch!”
Hi Nike and All Those that have been discussing Failure Consequences,
Your comments and discussion have been really cool. I picked this post to quote because Nike has put forward some really cool ideas and very much in a Brainstorm fashion.
Internally for a while we now we have been talking about positive and negative consequences of completion or failure of activities and challenges within the game and more specifically around events. For example Jon Peters one of our Design Leads was putting forward the idea of the above rules/paradigms around TQ. So for example if the players are fail to take down TQ then this would cause a ‘Darkness’ to fall across the zone, perhaps where he would fly around attacking locations and creating new events. A second chance on TQ would therefore be to complete these events and then perhaps rally the NPC forces in the zone to help you take him down. A positive modifier could bring ‘Light’ to the land for example and lower cost on NPC traders, give greater rewards from events and perhaps even create new events. Of course this is all brainstorming but it is the natural evolution of our current platform.
We have for example as Nike points out already started down this path with some events in game but we have not extended it further just yet. This is because we try to approach the game from a balanced development standpoint, whereby we aim to take systems, mechanics and features to a point where we are happy with them all before moving onto more sophisticated avenues. I guess the analogy would be that we want to ensure that we build on firm foundations so we are more efficient as we move forward.
(cont.)