Improved Overworld Mechanics

[Game_Exile]

The overworld should be the world, not just a crude mechanic we use to get from one "town" to another. "Towns" should just be the most interesting and tricky to navigate parts of the world. In fact, great overworld mechanics are your best bet for drastically improving every other aspect of the game. Here is what I have in mind:

1) Make a hex or square grid turn based system for the overworld, having as many squares or hexes as you need to represent small enough movements/areas, as you require it. You move a square or hex and a certain amount of time passes depending on your party's attributes and the qualities of the terrain you are moving over.

2) Populate the overworld map with "creatures" and other things of interest. "Creatures" can spawn from (and exit into) "towns" and other locales and will have movement attributes and AI that causes them to react certain ways to other creatures and things on the overworld map. You could have party and creature attributes that modify how well they can spot things on the map, size them up, ambush, decide start positions in tactical combat, initiate dialogue, trade, etc.

3) Profit! With these systems in place you can make travelling the wasteland challenging and dangerous, as it should be (this is also why you need something like a food/health maintenance system, which would make mechanics like trading less superfluous and force you to make travel plans...but I digress). And you would have major events on the overworld map! You could have VIPs going from one locale to another, caravans, Mass Exoduses, Armies on the Move, City Sieges, land sharks (Moby Dick), etc. Quests that take advantage of your rangers' skills at ranging. Not to mention vehicles would be much more useful and interesting.

Drastically improving the overworld, making it part of the game's central mechanics, should be the top priority as far as new features go. Hands down. If you like PR speak, you could say you're making the game world more "coherent". But the bottom line is that there is a lot of potential for this to make all the mechanics in the game that much more interesting.

Agree with something? Disagree with something? Have anything to add?

[jurbanek]

I like this. I would love to hear from more of the armchair game designers. I would love to see you system fleshed out more

I seriously think that a vehicle Combat system is doable within the limitations of this game's funding.

As stated earlier by Brian Fargo there will be a top down view Large Scale map of the world for traveling from area to area, and then there will be an Isometric view map of a smaller scale for a more tactical view. Vehicle movement and combat
can implemented the same way with just a few vehicle specific variables. You vehicle that you can use to fast transit between various travel hubs. Then when you get to the travel hubs you handle vehicles the same as you handle people with a few additional vehicle specific attributes added.

The material and construction of the vehicle would be the same as armor. The speed means the ability to have more movement points in the world map and the tactical map. Just like on foot, terrain will offer positive and negative modifiers. Some Terrain will be impassable for some vehicles. I don't see it as that difficult to add this to the existing game.

I look of example's like Steve Jackson's Auto Duel and Road War 2000 and Road War Europa.

[Game_Exile]

The speed means the ability to have more movement points in the world map and the tactical map. Just like on foot, terrain will offer positive and negative modifiers. Some Terrain will be impassable for some vehicles.

Yes, and think of how interesting it could be if you actually had to intercept or escape from things that were out in the wasteland. There should also be mechanics in place where you have to plan your resources/inventory and routes. Make the wasteland overworld dangerous and exciting, so the vehicles will be more worthwhile!

As stated earlier by Brian Fargo there will be a top down view Large Scale map of the world for traveling from area to area, and then there will be an Isometric view map of a smaller scale for a more tactical view. Vehicle movement and combat can implemented the same way with just a few vehicle specific variables.

This is a good idea. Different vehicles can give you different advantages/disadvantages in tactical combat. I would be surprised if the devs were not already thinking about ideas like the ones in this thread.

[Woolfe]

The speed means the ability to have more movement points in the world map and the tactical map. Just like on foot, terrain will offer positive and negative modifiers. Some Terrain will be impassable for some vehicles.

Yes, and think of how interesting it could be if you actually had to intercept or escape from things that were out in the wasteland. There should also be mechanics in place where you have to plan your resources/inventory and routes. Make the wasteland overworld dangerous and exciting, so the vehicles will be more worthwhile!

It also allows you to avoid annoying and pointless encounters, that are just time sinks. Or in the case of smarter AI, allows those encounters to avoid you.

Balance is important, as this isn't a resource management game. Exploring the world shouldn't be a chore of getting the right resources. There was another topic where the suggestion was having certain skills (survivalism) would reduce the requirement for carrying resources(food and water specifically in this case), as your skill accounts for it.

As stated earlier by Brian Fargo there will be a top down view Large Scale map of the world for traveling from area to area, and then there will be an Isometric view map of a smaller scale for a more tactical view. Vehicle movement and combat can implemented the same way with just a few vehicle specific variables.

This is a good idea. Different vehicles can give you different advantages/disadvantages in tactical combat. I would be surprised if the devs were not already thinking about ideas like the ones in this thread.

I too would like to see this, but there are a whole swag of elements introduced.
"How common" are vehicles. In the Original there was 1 (That I remember). Now this may have simply been a technical limitation of the time, or it may be an on purpose theme.
So there may simply be no need for vehicular combat mechanics.

I don't mind either way ultimately, but if they are having difficulty getting the mechanics to work well, I'd rather it just not be included.

[Game_Exile]

It also allows you to avoid annoying and pointless encounters, that are just time sinks. Or in the case of smarter AI, allows those encounters to avoid you.

Yes, totally.

On vehicular combat:

I too would like to see this, but there are a whole swag of elements introduced.

All you really need for vehicular combat is first, a way to acquire a vehicle, and second, some combat variables for each vehicle, as jurbanek said. I could see, maybe, some physics engine issues if you were allowed to control drivers/vehicles in tactical combat view, i.e. in a chase. I don't think it would be too difficult to balance, though, unless they just threw in the vehicles as an afterthought. Then again, I've never actually balanced a game before, so .

On food/resource systems:

There was another topic where the suggestion was having certain skills (survivalism) would reduce the requirement for carrying resources(food and water specifically in this case), as your skill accounts for it.

For aesthetic/story reasons, I would make it so that certain attributes allow a pc to consume less resources rather than carry more of just certain kinds of items. But I'm not trying to design the game for the devs, so whatever I guess.

Balance is important, as this isn't a resource management game. Exploring the world shouldn't be a chore of getting the right resources.

Pretty much every game is, at bottom, a resource management game. But lets not argue about this, because I know what you mean... The "resource" systems need to, of course, be implemented in a way that's challenging and interesting, i.e. they should be carefully designed to make the quests more challenging and interesting. The devs could also give "resources" a major and continuous role in the game's "story", which makes perfect sense, because people need water, food, fuel, etc.

The more I think about a food/subsistence system, the more I like it to go along with a complex quest branching system (with lots of timers). You could make it so that each locale that sells resources produces/sells a certain amount over a period of time. There could be a different things that modify this for each local, like trade caravans, regional/faction politics, etc. And the quests themselves would have an impact on the game world's economic systems. Players would really have to make careful plans about where to travel, whether to do this or that quest, help this or that faction, get help from NPCs, etc. This also gives the devs another way of controlling where the player can and can't go in the overworld.

P.S. Naturally, players shouldn't be able to do every (interesting) quest that the developers design. The choice is between 1)a boring, static game world where you can do everything, and the alternative: 2) an exciting, dynamic one where you make meaningful choices but, obviously, can't do everything (the choices wouldn't be very meaningful if you could).

[Woolfe]

All you really need for vehicular combat is first, a way to acquire a vehicle, and second, some combat variables for each vehicle, as jurbanek said. I could see, maybe, some physics engine issues if you were allowed to control drivers/vehicles in tactical combat view, i.e. in a chase. I don't think it would be too difficult to balance, though, unless they just threw in the vehicles as an afterthought. Then again, I've never actually balanced a game before, so .

I would have thought vehicle combat would have changed the battlefield quite significantly. You could just make it a "moving platform" for your party, but I think that would do the concept a disservice. Probably depends on the battle area and how they implement movement and turn actions.

But yeah, so long as the build it in from the start and don't just "tack it on" it should work fine.

For aesthetic/story reasons, I would make it so that certain attributes allow a pc to consume less resources rather than carry more of just certain kinds of items. But I'm not trying to design the game for the devs, so whatever I guess.

True. The idea behind the skill element wasn't that you used less food, but in your day to day roaming, you were better at foraging as you travelled/camping. So the concept being, when your party rests(however the hell that is managed) you set out traps to catch game and similar. Or as you are walking you might recognise an edible patch of mushrooms, or spot a deer that you can take down. That sort of thing. So its not that you are eating less per se, you are just getting better at finding the food and water.
But your comment on the Attributes is interesting. I imagine that a higher stamina type attribute could allow you to last longer on less food and water. Definately something to consider.

P.S. Naturally, players shouldn't be able to do every (interesting) quest that the developers design. The choice is between 1)a boring, static game world where you can do everything, and the alternative: 2) an exciting, dynamic one where you make meaningful choices but, obviously, can't do everything (the choices wouldn't be very meaningful if you could).

The only issue is the amount of development requirement to do this. I certainly hope there is some degree of this, I want to see decisions I make affect the rest of the world, in good and bad ways. I imagine getting this sort of thing right would be quite complex, as you would need to take into account how a change would affect multiple different areas, and in theory how any responce to that effect would then cause further effects.The whole Butterfly flaps its wings cause and effect model could get seriously complex. You also have to consider "timing" in it as well. Why would an effect over here knock on over there, would it take a while or be close to instant. I agree it would be worth it. But the question is whether they could do it on that budget in the proposed timespan. I am sure they will have some degree of this though.

[Game_Exile]

I am sure they will have some degree of this though.

If the devs planned it very carefully, I don't see why they couldn't pull off something magnificent. In this case anyway, I'd rather see a game that aims high and fails, than a game that just repeats the same formulas we've seen in past CRPGs. And the devs really need to keep themselves from falling in love with too many supercool or amusing story scenarios, at least until they have designed the central mechanics of a genuinely complex and awesome quest system. I have a lot more to say about his (and I have a supercool story scenario), but I'll save that for another thread.

Back on topic, the main benefit of these Improved Overworld Mechanics, is that they represent everything that "happens" in the game world in a more interesting way. I don't like that in Fallout, when anything had to "travel" outside of the towns/locales, it went into some random cloth map Dimension-X. Like I said before, having these mechanics in place would go a long way toward having a more sensible game world, and this would really tie together the network of quests and economic/political systems with exploration, tactical combat, etc. When someone goes from one place to another, they "really" go. You'll finally be able to interact with trade activities, fugitives, army movements, patrols, monsters etc. Whatever goes on outside of town.

One last word on the impact of food systems, wastelands full of dangerous enemies, etc., on exploration: if you have some cool things that players can find by exploring, then making exploration costly and dangerous can make the "finding" part much cooler.

[tuluse]

I am sure they will have some degree of this though.

If the devs planned it very carefully, I don't see why they couldn't pull off something magnificent. In this case anyway, I'd rather see a game that aims high and fails, than a game that just repeats the same formulas we've seen in past CRPGs. And the devs really need to keep themselves from falling in love with too many supercool or amusing story scenarios, at least until they have designed the central mechanics of a genuinely complex and awesome quest system. I have a lot more to say about his (and I have a supercool story scenario), but I'll save that for another thread.

I disagree with this. I like CRPGs, well at least the older ones, and I don't mind at all if they just make an old school RPG with an interesting setting and story. I would be perfectly fine with that, and would definitely prefer that to a bad game where they tried to do too much.

[Game_Exile]

I disagree with this. I like CRPGs, well at least the older ones, and I don't mind at all if they just make an old school RPG with an interesting setting and story. I would be perfectly fine with that, and would definitely prefer that to a bad game where they tried to do too much.

As far as the quest system goes, a well planned and ambitiously complex game that fails (being, perhaps, somewhat buggy or broken) could, anyway, end up being more interesting (meaning better) than a "by-the-numbers" CRPG that is "problem free" at launch. There should, at least, be some brilliant moments in the failure.

Btw, does anyone have anything to say about overworld mechanics?

[Zombra]

Btw, does anyone have anything to say about overworld mechanics?

Not really I've seen you mention this thread once or twice as well as sigging it, but it doesn't really get my blood pumping. I agree that making NPC and creature movement part of a coherent system is a more interesting design than just having "random encounters", but I honestly don't see a major impact on gameplay itself. From the player's point of view, there just isn't much difference between a mutbear spawning from a pre-placed mutbear cave and chasing me across the overworld map and a random dice roll telling me "wandering monster!"

As far as town sieges and army deployments go, that seems kind of like turning it into a strategy game. The first Wasteland wasn't about massive troop movements and city vs. city engagements, and it would be a dramatic (to say the least) paradigm shift from a tactical game about half a dozen guys. Also, having mobile points of interest such as your migrating VIPs sounds nifty and "dynamic" on paper, but in practice it just turns into a dull headache for the player. OK, next thing I want to do is find Joe Smith and ask him about this clue ... but he could be anywhere in one of these three cities, or somewhere on a road between them. Time to start pacing back and forth in a search pattern. Exciting.

I honestly don't see a good reason to deviate from the standard set in Wasteland, and used again in Fallout and the Jagged Alliance series: overworld "strategic" map for time lapse travel, dropping into the tactical/exploration map when something interesting happens, be it arrival at a preset location, a completely random encounter, or a time sensitive set piece.

[Game_Exile]

What I like best about the Improved Overworld Mechanics is that you think about the overworld less as a bunch of random triggers, and more as the game "world". Obviously, you would have to go to some trouble to design the game with overworld mechanics in mind so that it's integral and interesting, and not just a cooler way to represent the same stuff you had in Fallout. I think it's definitely worth the effort in a game like this.

From the player's point of view, there just isn't much difference between a mutbear spawning from a pre-placed mutbear cave and chasing me across the overworld map and a random dice roll telling me "wandering monster!"

There would be a difference if there is a whole bunch of other stuff, including things that you will have to be able to spot and/or outrun. Better overworld mechanics that represent movement speed, position, sight, etc. could make traveling parts of the overworld map challenging, risky, and "tactical"; especially if the combat encounters are well placed/well balanced.

And lets say, for example, that traveling around the mutbear cave is so dangerous that you have to take a long way around to complete a quest. Well with quest timers active, it makes a huge difference. Not to mention the amount of food you'll be consuming. Maybe you can complete a quest for an NPC to get special mutbear repellant spray. Maybe not, but you get what I'm saying right? Add some more factors and it has the potential to make a whole lot of choices more interesting.

As far as town sieges and army deployments go, that seems kind of like turning it into a strategy game. The first Wasteland wasn't about massive troop movements and city vs. city engagements, and it would be a dramatic (to say the least) paradigm shift from a tactical game about half a dozen guys.

I do think that there should be lots of strategic concerns in this game, but maybe not on the scale you're imagining here? What's wrong with big events, and how would they necessarily make a paradigm shift from a tactical game about half a dozen guys? There were armies in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. I'm not saying that you should have to control an army (though it would be cool if you could command people outside your party, maybe via ranger base mechanics). An army sweeping through the overworld map would make for one hell of a final act.

OK, next thing I want to do is find Joe Smith and ask him about this clue ... but he could be anywhere in one of these three cities, or somewhere on a road between them. Time to start pacing back and forth in a search pattern. Exciting.

We want to avoid boring stuff. I understand that it is not all that exciting to think about a broad mechanic like this one, because there aren't many past examples of how something like this would work. But even the boring example you made about Joe Smith would be more (even if only slightly more) interesting than a simple trigger that makes him appear at this or that city at this or that specified time. And you could design a mission to, say, ambush and assassinate Joe Smith while he is traveling between cities in his armored vehicle, or whatever.

[tuluse]

Btw, does anyone have anything to say about overworld mechanics?

It sounds interesting, but complicated to do and prone to problems.

I'd rather the dev team focused their efforts on other things to be honest.

[Zombra]

Hmm. You paint an interesting picture! That does sound far more engaging and filled with opportunities than the traditional model. I do agree with tuluse, though; it would be a very ambitious approach, to state the case mildly. It's true that if they're going to try something ambitious, now is the time to suggest it!

But, to be honest, while I am generally supportive of bold and pioneering new design decisions, I don't think Wasteland 2 is the game to try the experiment. It would be a radical departure from what the supporters are expecting; it would eat up a lot of development resources; and the first game with a design of this type will obviously be the one to make all the rookie mistakes.

Wasteland was a groundbreaking game, but by and large the backers don't want another groundbreaking game; they (myself included) want a rehash of everything that made the original great, with tons of mind-blowing new content and the advantages of modern design perspective to eliminate all the boring stuff that make classic CRPGs so dated and unplayable now. And that's what we were promised. That's my take, anyway.

I do want to play the game you described, and I'll back it on Kickstarter but I don't think W2 is it.

An army sweeping through the overworld map would make for one hell of a final act.

Ever play Star Control 2? Ever take too long finishing the storyline? Oh man. What a game.

[Hertzila]

1) Make a hex or square grid turn based system for the overworld, having as many squares or hexes as you need to represent small enough movements/areas, as you require it. You move a square or hex and a certain amount of time passes depending on your party's attributes and the qualities of the terrain you are moving over.

Or make it completely square-less or hex-less ala Fallout. True, it had squares in the map but your character/party could completely disregard them when moving. Computers are pretty good in this kind of stuff.

2) Populate the overworld map with "creatures" and other things of interest. "Creatures" can spawn from (and exit into) "towns" and other locales and will have movement attributes and AI that causes them to react certain ways to other creatures and things on the overworld map. You could have party and creature attributes that modify how well they can spot things on the map, size them up, ambush, decide start positions in tactical combat, initiate dialogue, trade, etc.

Like Mount & Blade: Warband and/or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. does?

In general, I like this idea.

[BadMojoRising]

Btw, does anyone have anything to say about overworld mechanics?

Not really I've seen you mention this thread once or twice as well as sigging it, but it doesn't really get my blood pumping. I agree that making NPC and creature movement part of a coherent system is a more interesting design than just having "random encounters", but I honestly don't see a major impact on gameplay itself. From the player's point of view, there just isn't much difference between a mutbear spawning from a pre-placed mutbear cave and chasing me across the overworld map and a random dice roll telling me "wandering monster!"

As far as town sieges and army deployments go, that seems kind of like turning it into a strategy game. The first Wasteland wasn't about massive troop movements and city vs. city engagements, and it would be a dramatic (to say the least) paradigm shift from a tactical game about half a dozen guys. Also, having mobile points of interest such as your migrating VIPs sounds nifty and "dynamic" on paper, but in practice it just turns into a dull headache for the player. OK, next thing I want to do is find Joe Smith and ask him about this clue ... but he could be anywhere in one of these three cities, or somewhere on a road between them. Time to start pacing back and forth in a search pattern. Exciting.

I honestly don't see a good reason to deviate from the standard set in Wasteland, and used again in Fallout and the Jagged
Alliance series: overworld "strategic" map for time lapse travel, dropping into the tactical/exploration map when something interesting happens, be it arrival at a preset location, a completely random encounter, or a time sensitive set piece.

um to help find joe smith you'd ask around about him?
What you're doing here is poo pooing for no good reason and instead making up ridiculous situations where the person playing the game must be completely backward as to not be asking around for the whereabouts of said individual.
Sigh.

[Zombra]

um to help find joe smith you'd ask around about him?
What you're doing here is poo pooing for no good reason and instead making up ridiculous situations where the person playing the game must be completely backward as to not be asking around for the whereabouts of said individual.
Sigh.

So everybody in the world but me knows exactly where to find him? Or does it become a game of talking to every NPC I can find and hoping that someone knows something? And then hoping that my dynamic target hasn't moved again by the time I get there?

Don't get me wrong. If the leg work is designed as part of the fun, that's great. Searching for people or things is a mainstay of gaming. In past games, though, having characters with dynamic schedules just for the sake of realism or innovation has not turned out well. You end up doing stuff like hitting the Wait button for 96 hours because you know the guy will come back to his house, shop, etc. eventually. Or if there is no wait button, you run around in circles to make time pass.

Having one NPC on the move in a game is an interesting challenge. Having everyone be dynamic because of some grand vision turns a game annoying fast.

If that's "no good reason" to dislike the idea, then I guess I'm just no good.

[Game_Exile]

Or make it completely square-less or hex-less ala Fallout. True, it had squares in the map but your character/party could completely disregard them when moving. Computers are pretty good in this kind of stuff.

I was thinking of grid based movement because
1) This makes it simpler to balance all the overworld mechanics so they can be tactically challenging. From the player's perspective, it puts more emphasis on stats, calculations, and modifiers, and less emphasis on clicking back and forth trying to measure out tiny spaces.
2) The entire map could be represented square/hex by square/hex, so that your path through different terrain becomes more significant. You could do this without making movement grid based, but it would be harder to keep the player from exploiting the AI in certain circumstances.
3) For aesthetic reasons, movement on the overworld map should be less "complex" than zoomed in movement in towns/locales and tactical combat.

On the other hand, basing the overworld mechanics on micro-movements like in Fallout could make for some interesting ideas. Are there any examples of a game that does this sort of overhead movement well (not an action game, rather where the game pauses when you are not moving or performing an action)?

Like Mount & Blade: Warband and/or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. does?

I've never played STALKER, but it would be similar to M&B in that you have a lot of significant action going from the overworld to locales to the overworld and back. I would want more to be happening than in the Warband overworld map, and I would want encounters and other things to be much more carefully planned. Everything would obviously have to be balanced within the overall confines of the "quest" system, whatever that works out to be like.