Author Topic: Gadget Design Theory  (Read 8177 times)

Offline Kubanator

  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Gadget Design Theory
« on: April 02, 2009, 01:24:36 AM »
Spy vs. Merc gameplay is based of off 2 different teams.

The attacking team is the Spies, who lack the direct firepower required to overpower the Mercs, so instead must use their acrobatics and their indirect combat abilities to secure objectives, or kill the Mercs

The Mercs are the defending team, who have direct firepower, but the mobility of the Spies.

The Spies job is to evade and escape the Mercs, and complete the objectives, while the Mercs have 2 possibilities, either kill the Spies, or prevent them from capturing the objectives for the allotted time period.

This makes thinking up gadgets much easier. It means the Spy gadgets must do one of the following:

Assist in detection (Heartbeat sensor, Spy bullet, Spy camera)
Assist in evasion (Camouflage, Alarm snare, Spy camera)
Assist in escape (Smoke, Flash and Chaff grenades)
Assist in capturing of objectives (None)

While for the Merc gadgets, they must:

Assist in detection (Flare, Spy trap, Camnet)
Preform area denial (Mines, Spy trap)
Assist in combat (Frag grenade, Taser)
Assist in survival (Backpack, Gas mask)

Gas mask is a special one, as it is purely a counter for 2 spy gadgets, both of which are overpowering without gas mask. Meaning that the Merc must always take it, regardless of if the spy takes one of the 2 gadgets.

All gadgets must fall into one of these categories, and must be able to compete with, but not beat them, in their abilities.

And that is my Theory of Gadget Design.

The following is simply my idea on how to fix the gas mask.

I propose that as a gadget choice, Gas mask be removed, and be added as a permanent ability of the Merc, preventing this slot from being wasted.

Offline frvge

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7682
  • Karma: +9038/-38
  • [insert witty statement]
    • View Profile
    • ProjectStealthGame.com
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2009, 02:27:10 AM »
Nice write-up. We dont know about gasmask yet.
Quote from: savior2006
SCDA has more bugs than a rain forest.
Quote
Treat your customers with respect you make more customers. Treat your customers like pirates, you make more pirates.

Offline I <3 U

  • Posts: 729
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2009, 10:18:12 AM »
This has been discussed before, and i agree with kub. Nice write-up btw.

Offline VaNilla

  • Posts: 854
  • Karma: +4/-2
    • View Profile
    • YouTube
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2009, 05:23:23 PM »
When I seen your list about the spies having no gadgets to help with objectives, I came up with something. Just to get something out on the table, what about being able to double hack an objective? One spy could have to go the computer to start the hacking but another can target it from a certain range using a gadget to speed up the process. I don't think it's imbalanced and for any team I think it could be a useful gadget.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 05:25:09 PM by STON3COLDKILLA »

Offline I <3 U

  • Posts: 729
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2009, 11:00:22 PM »
When I seen your list about the spies having no gadgets to help with objectives, I came up with something. Just to get something out on the table, what about being able to double hack an objective? One spy could have to go the computer to start the hacking but another can target it from a certain range using a gadget to speed up the process. I don't think it's imbalanced and for any team I think it could be a useful gadget.

bad ideaaaa

Offline Kubanator

  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2009, 02:12:50 AM »
When I seen your list about the spies having no gadgets to help with objectives, I came up with something. Just to get something out on the table, what about being able to double hack an objective? One spy could have to go the computer to start the hacking but another can target it from a certain range using a gadget to speed up the process. I don't think it's imbalanced and for any team I think it could be a useful gadget.
While I agree with Freeman that it's an imbalanced idea, I dislike how he doesn't explain why, so I will.

Basically, your gadget has these features:

Pros:
-Increases hacking speed

Cons:
-Takes up gadget slot
-Requires both players
-Alerts enemy to both player's presence

Which gives it use only when both players are at the same objective. Given that the Merc will immediately know that 2 players are there, him and his partner will rush the objective. Now 1 of 2 options will occur. The Merc makes it, in which the hacking gadget brings death to both of you, or he doesn't, in which you complete an objective, but now both of your locations are given away, and there are 2 heavily armed guards heading for your location. Not to mention that it has no function if you aren't with your teammate. Though, I do appreciate the attempt, because even though you didn't make the perfect gadget, you did give us a general idea.

I did think up a gadget for this very same problem though. It works like so:

Hack Plug

This device interfaces with your communications to allow you to remotely access computers. As soon as the device is plugged into the target computer, you are ready to begin hacking. Due to the wireless transmissions, you will not be able to hack as quickly, but you will be able to hack from anywhere that has a direct line of sight to the computer, within a given radius (Thin walls withstanding). Once you begin hacking, you will be unable to move, and attempting to stop hacking will take a second to disconnect. The Hack Plug self destructs when you cease to hack, and you have a limited supply, so make good use.

Pros:
-Allows you to hack from a distance

Cons:
-Hacks slower
-Limited amount
-Limited range
-Can only hack through soft walls (Walls you can see through with thermal)
-Requires that you physically reach the computer first
-Creates EMF

Basically, this lets put the plug in when the guard is looking away, get some distance, and hack.

As for Mercs, my new gadget is:

EMI (Electromagnetic interference) Suit

This is a suit worn underneath the Merc's body armor which when active, emits magnetic waves which interfere with all electric device within a certain range. It has a limited battery supply, similar to the oxygen in the gas mask, and disables friendly electronics as well.

Pros:
-Disables visions, cameras, shocker gun, etc.
-360 degree radius

Cons:
-Limited range
-Limited use
-Disables friendly mines, visions, etc.

The suit could either work as an alternative for the gas mask if you are making the gas mask a permanent gadget, or as another gadget.

Offline VaNilla

  • Posts: 854
  • Karma: +4/-2
    • View Profile
    • YouTube
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2009, 02:33:14 PM »
I like that mercenary suit idea but the precise reason I didn't mention your 'hack plug' idea is because I felt that it would be imbalanced :P. The thing with my gadget idea is that the whole point is to hack with two players; the two players would speed up the process of hacking an objective so it's not necessarily a con IMO, it can benefit spies travelling togeteher (although it's not a good tactic to do that all the time anyway).

Like I said I was just getting the idea out on the table, I haven't thought about the balance much to be honest, but now that we are I still don't think that there's much dis balance about it, sure it takes up a gadget slot but if it benefits a spies style of play and doesn't harm the mercs in any other way than a decreased hacking time for an objective (like you said, they are already benefited from it in some ways) then I see no problem.

Offline frvge

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7682
  • Karma: +9038/-38
  • [insert witty statement]
    • View Profile
    • ProjectStealthGame.com
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2009, 02:40:55 PM »
2 Spies hacking an objective would best not be linear. Like it hacks 1.5 times the normal speed.

New ideas are always good, doesn't matter if it's not really balanced.
Over-the-top ideas generally are not good, but anything that could possibly work, is a nice addition to the brainstorming process.
Quote from: savior2006
SCDA has more bugs than a rain forest.
Quote
Treat your customers with respect you make more customers. Treat your customers like pirates, you make more pirates.

Offline Spekkio

  • Posts: 1738
  • Karma: +7/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2009, 04:12:14 AM »
The biggest problem with new gadget ideas is that most of them are created just for the sake of making a new gadget. First think of something within the context of the game that would actually be useful yet not balance breaking (ie, rocket launchers for spies would be useful, but it doesn't fit the game), then work from there.


Offline Farley4Fan

  • Posts: 5057
  • Karma: +21/-5
  • Fan 4 Farley
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2009, 04:22:44 AM »
I would love a gadget that helps you to get to areas usually only accessible by coop moves.  Say your partner doesn't have a mic.  Say your partner is dead or on the other side of the map.  What about a grabbling hook sort of thing?  I know it's been discussed already but what if it can only be used in coop-move areas?  This would not completely hurt the necessity of working together because both players can use a rope already in place, regardless of whether or not both players actually brought a grappling hook.  This means that the grapple rope gadget isn't a gadget that just benefits those lone-wolves, but certainly helps when spies are separated or not working together.  Setting up easy access to coop-spot areas might be a neat addition to gameplay.

To balance this idea, the following could be done:

1.  Make it so that it's only useable once per life.  Once the grappling rope is attached in place, the spy cannot pull it up and take it again.  However, the spies can both use the grappling rope until the merc disables it (shoots it, pulls it down, whatever we want that to look like)

2.  Possibly, setting up the hook makes noise.  Maybe that would be too much, should it be a silent setup?

3.  As I already said it can be disabled by a merc who comes across one in place.

*plus the obvious one being that it takes up a gadget slot.


This would add to gameplay because usually mercs think that places are non-accessible when they know the spies are separated.  With a lone spy being able to access certain areas, though while making noise, you help to achieve a feeling for mercs that spies can be anywhere.  Remember in Aqua when the doors to tech were still closed and you knew the spies were separated?  It was pretty much a safe bet that tech was secure.  It will force mercs to patrol areas that they could deem secure depending on how much they knew about 1 spy's position. 

Yes, it *might* be a bit harder to balance maps, but balanced maps weren't drastically balanced by the placement of coop spots.  Mercs would adapt anyway.

Just an idea.  Any suggestions or reasons why this wouldn't be good for gameplay?

Offline frvge

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7682
  • Karma: +9038/-38
  • [insert witty statement]
    • View Profile
    • ProjectStealthGame.com
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2009, 12:54:47 PM »
Not all coop spots are accessible by Mercs, which would mean infinite access to lone-wolves while they shouldn't be able to get up there.
Quote from: savior2006
SCDA has more bugs than a rain forest.
Quote
Treat your customers with respect you make more customers. Treat your customers like pirates, you make more pirates.

Offline Spekkio

  • Posts: 1738
  • Karma: +7/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2009, 01:34:48 AM »
Quote
I would love a gadget that helps you to get to areas usually only accessible by coop moves. 
If coop is done right, ala Club House, Factory, and Orphanage, instead of stupid like Station, then this won't be necessary.

Offline AgentX_003

  • Posts: 1315
  • Karma: +41/-77
  • The fire under your ass
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2009, 02:03:49 AM »
I would love a gadget that helps you to get to areas usually only accessible by coop moves.  Say your partner doesn't have a mic.  Say your partner is dead or on the other side of the map.  What about a grabbling hook sort of thing?  I know it's been discussed already but what if it can only be used in coop-move areas?  This would not completely hurt the necessity of working together because both players can use a rope already in place, regardless of whether or not both players actually brought a grappling hook.  This means that the grapple rope gadget isn't a gadget that just benefits those lone-wolves, but certainly helps when spies are separated or not working together.  Setting up easy access to coop-spot areas might be a neat addition to gameplay.

To balance this idea, the following could be done:

1.  Make it so that it's only useable once per life.  Once the grappling rope is attached in place, the spy cannot pull it up and take it again.  However, the spies can both use the grappling rope until the merc disables it (shoots it, pulls it down, whatever we want that to look like)

2.  Possibly, setting up the hook makes noise.  Maybe that would be too much, should it be a silent setup?

3.  As I already said it can be disabled by a merc who comes across one in place.

*plus the obvious one being that it takes up a gadget slot.


This would add to gameplay because usually mercs think that places are non-accessible when they know the spies are separated.  With a lone spy being able to access certain areas, though while making noise, you help to achieve a feeling for mercs that spies can be anywhere.  Remember in Aqua when the doors to tech were still closed and you knew the spies were separated?  It was pretty much a safe bet that tech was secure.  It will force mercs to patrol areas that they could deem secure depending on how much they knew about 1 spy's position. 

Yes, it *might* be a bit harder to balance maps, but balanced maps weren't drastically balanced by the placement of coop spots.  Mercs would adapt anyway.

Just an idea.  Any suggestions or reasons why this wouldn't be good for gameplay?


I like this idea but i think since everything is coded from scratch that it only becomes active after your partner is completely dead.


-Thanks Murdy for da Sig <3  xD

Offline greenday5494

  • Posts: 98
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2009, 01:18:44 AM »
Quote
I would love a gadget that helps you to get to areas usually only accessible by coop moves. 
If coop is done right, ala Club House, Factory, and Orphanage, instead of stupid like Station, then this won't be necessary.

what was wrong with station?

Offline frvge

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7682
  • Karma: +9038/-38
  • [insert witty statement]
    • View Profile
    • ProjectStealthGame.com
Re: Gadget Design Theory
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2009, 01:28:42 AM »
Start of Station was seriously flawed.
Quote from: savior2006
SCDA has more bugs than a rain forest.
Quote
Treat your customers with respect you make more customers. Treat your customers like pirates, you make more pirates.