So, here's the thing. I have ideas, like everyone else, and I want to suggest and express them in some form or fashion, to see if they are viable. Not all ideas are bad for the game, but some ideas start off bad and become good--input helps.
However, simply stating what I want isn't enough, I have to organize the thoughts into something coherent and tangible, but also make it presentable. The format I'm using is a variant I've used on other forums to the same affect:
Abstract, or the tl;dr version;
Description, or the full intent and scope of the suggestion;
Design implications, or what consequences this has to the rest of the game; and
Implementation concerns, or the realization that your idea is unworkable due to hardware limitations.
So, without further ado,
Abstract: Character backgrounds
"Character backgrounds" is a short-hand term to refer to the back story and history of a specific player character or possibly bridge officer. These are assorted in a collection of pre-defined or semi-randomized traits that provide no tangible benefit or drawback to the character(s). Character backgrounds can be extended and utilized, if semi-randomized, into creating unique missions and scenarios for players.
Concept
The main scope of this suggestion is
long-term and it is most definitely a
bloat. A bloat is an extension to the game that provides fun, detail, and immersion, but otherwise isn't necessary for the game to continue. That is, a desirable but unnecessary feature. Its intent is to provide immersion, unique and distinctive characters, new content, and bolster RP where desired.
Character backgrounds are set of predefined traits that help round out a character's history and personality, assisting tying together the physical traits, stance, and biography. As these are elements that are hard-coded, they assist in creating characters that are involved and part of the STO universe, but moreover, generate new, dynamic content that is relevant to the game and player. They do not replace or supercede the player's desires and are
wholly optional--no player is required to go through the process if they choose not to.
Backgrounds help define origins, dislikes, hobbies, family or personal problems, outlooks, and philosophies, and if applied to bridge officers, assists with Bridge Officer morale. A character receives a number of backgrounds irrespective of their (relative) age, but should be limited to no more than 3. The limitations are necessary for the further scope of this suggestion.
Character backgrounds are defined by Scenarios, which are composed of Circumstance, Event, and Reaction.
- Circumstance - The time period that this happened; examples include "Birth," "Early Life," "Young Adult," etc.
- Event - What happened? Battle, disease? Parent or other family member killed? Award perhaps? Scientific breakthrough?
- Reaction - How did it get resolved? Was the battle lost? Was vengeance sworn? Was the award given wrongly? Was the breakthrough stolen out of the player's fingertips?
Various options and relevant reactions creates new scenarios. These new scenarios are then generated, at specific or random times, into semi-randomized, pre-scripted missions. These missions then have various tasks to be completed, overcome, and finally resolved. New bridge officers can then help generate content.
There is no mechanical drawback or benefit from this--this precludes the creation of a vessel filled with characters all hating the Borg for assimilating their favorite tribble, granting them a tactical advantage against the Borg at the cost of another faction, or creating top-notch specialist scientists. Specialization, even weighted, is beyond the scope of this suggestion.
Design implications
Generating dynamic content expands the existing Genesis system that is currently being used. Immersion is definitely granted, as your history has an impact on the existing gameplay. It creates unique one-shot missions that deal with something very important to the player: The character, or his or her bridge officers.
If coded properly, it may also affect existing in-game content. Boss battles and story missions may be more dear to a player if the actions of that specific named NPC wronged one of the characters.
Because it's implication is wholly optional, there's no reason to delve further if a player desires not to involve him- or herself or a specific bridge officer into this content. Not every character has demons to face or obstacles to overcome--and to some, this might be a detraction of core content. It's optionality, however, allows existing players to explore it later on in gameplay.
Implementation concerns
The expectations thus far are too much at the present time. It requires a massive amount of coding new variables, concepts, user interfaces, and then the down-the-road missions. Being that Genesis already creates content with predefined variables, this simply uses the existing engine coupled with new variables. Once minigames, diplomacy, etc. become implemented, this suggestion becomes more realistic and viable.
It does require new dialog and interactions to be drafted and translated. As this content is dynamic, it has to very sensitive to the variables presented thus far. Bugs will prominent in such a system. Moreover, any factor of randomness can result in detractions from existing content.
++++
So there you have it. Now, to wait for replies that'll shoot this idea down.
Comments
But you could extend your idea by creating your "arch-enemy" with this system. Kirk had Khan, Picard had Q, Sisko had Dukat so why shouldn't we get somebody that bothers us once in a while?:D
It's easy to shoot down an idea! But I'm glad there is support. And it doesn't stop with just arch-enemies. Rescuing a family member, or re-uniting with a traitorous relative, and more, become possible missions with the right scenario. But hell, who doesn't want an arch-enemy to fight? I know I do. The more content such a system can generate, the more like the show this becomes--as it isn't about the player going Pew Pew, but also about the captain and the crew.
Thank you, again, Hyperion, piwright, and Ariev.