Hello everyone,
while playing the last three weeklys "Enemy mine", "Frozen" and "Coliseum" I often wished I could have a choice sometimes to change the reaction and the outcome of a conversation, or change a possible fight scene to a conversation. So, here I am not beging for this posibilities, but want to ask, could the STO engine do such things? Is it even possible to let the player choose his path, at least for the misson?
Why those thoughts?
A lot of players wish to act more diplomatic, more Star Trek TNG, while another great part of the community wish quite the opposite. So, I asked myself, why not combine those wishes for one mission and not generate 2 diferent missions for 2 different kind of players?
Does this idea even demand less work for the dev's?
After those 2 questions, the big one came up:
The major question is, Are decision mechanics on a mission for STO even possible?
When you play Klingon you have the option to help the Sh'mar against the True Way or blow it up to prevent the infection aboard the ship from spreading.
So decisions seem to slowly be added to the game.
Decisions are great, but they mean nothing without Consequences.
Regardless of how you treat Obisek in Frozen, he still buzzes you for help in Coliseum. The illusion of choice and nothing more.
Mission Replay could put a spanner in the works, but any consequences between missions should depend on what you do in the initial playthrough. Everything else is a simulation.
Decisions are great, but they mean nothing without Consequences.
Regardless of how you treat Obisek in Frozen, he still buzzes you for help in Coliseum. The illusion of choice and nothing more.
Mission Replay could put a spanner in the works, but any consequences between missions should depend on what you do in the initial playthrough. Everything else is a simulation.
True but: One step at a time... First they need to figure out what the audience responds well too... Once they know what type of selections players want, then they can add alternate endings.
True but: One step at a time... First they need to figure out what the audience responds well too... Once they know what type of selections players want, then they can add alternate endings.
Agreed. It's a hard problem to resolve. If a Featured Series has a single Either/Or decision with consequences in each episode, then that'll give 32 different endings. Let alone needing to take consequences into consideration in all the episodes leading up to the end.
Perhaps the decision tree could be crafted in such a way that somewhere along the line we may end up doing a different mission depending on an earlier decision, but at the end the results are the same so things come back to one mission at the end?
I was a little disappointed after deciding to side with the Remans and telling them that Starfleet would back them up. When I reported back I was made a liar out of by my superiors even if they did tell me I could keep investigating.
I can see the pitfalls of too many decisions though; I think the previous example of 32 different endings is a good argument against too many consequences to our decisions.
yeah. one thing about colisium was, after I beamed back onto my ship, why didn't I turn the surface of the thunderdome planet into the surface of the moon?
There were a lot of potencial choices to make in a lot other missions as well...rememer the one where we escort Admiral Zelle. This one is still a black spot om my register as a captain, which could've been avoided, if I had a choice. I was suspicios the first time while I was in the facility at the first console, but there were no chocies at all.
As for the before mentioned CI episodes, there is no real decision behind any choice. You say yes, or no, the same thing happen. And at the end of the missions you have to act always the same. Thatfore I can not see a real diference. There are only wrong or right decisions. And because of that I asked this.
First of all we have to know if the engine even capable to let minor decisions and work those through, second, we have to know if it could react on major decisions, some like helping the Remans or busting them, and what consequences you'll have to bear. Third, if those two mechanics are possible, is it even practical for the Dev's? -Lets be realistic, they won't do such missions, IF the design is way to complicated and the building time and costs are to high.
I really like to hear what the dev's know about the engine's posibilities.
Agreed. It's a hard problem to resolve. If a Featured Series has a single Either/Or decision with consequences in each episode, then that'll give 32 different endings. Let alone needing to take consequences into consideration in all the episodes leading up to the end.
Meh... you could have it go one of four ways instead:
We're all friend
Faction A good; Faction B bad
Reverse Option #2
FUUUUU other factions!
Just keep a tally and weight the final decision to break any ties.
Honestly, I wish the Foundry supported boolean variables for custom triggering.
Comments
So decisions seem to slowly be added to the game.
Regardless of how you treat Obisek in Frozen, he still buzzes you for help in Coliseum. The illusion of choice and nothing more.
Mission Replay could put a spanner in the works, but any consequences between missions should depend on what you do in the initial playthrough. Everything else is a simulation.
True but: One step at a time... First they need to figure out what the audience responds well too... Once they know what type of selections players want, then they can add alternate endings.
Agreed. It's a hard problem to resolve. If a Featured Series has a single Either/Or decision with consequences in each episode, then that'll give 32 different endings. Let alone needing to take consequences into consideration in all the episodes leading up to the end.
I was a little disappointed after deciding to side with the Remans and telling them that Starfleet would back them up. When I reported back I was made a liar out of by my superiors even if they did tell me I could keep investigating.
I can see the pitfalls of too many decisions though; I think the previous example of 32 different endings is a good argument against too many consequences to our decisions.
There were a lot of potencial choices to make in a lot other missions as well...rememer the one where we escort Admiral Zelle. This one is still a black spot om my register as a captain, which could've been avoided, if I had a choice. I was suspicios the first time while I was in the facility at the first console, but there were no chocies at all.
As for the before mentioned CI episodes, there is no real decision behind any choice. You say yes, or no, the same thing happen. And at the end of the missions you have to act always the same. Thatfore I can not see a real diference. There are only wrong or right decisions. And because of that I asked this.
First of all we have to know if the engine even capable to let minor decisions and work those through, second, we have to know if it could react on major decisions, some like helping the Remans or busting them, and what consequences you'll have to bear. Third, if those two mechanics are possible, is it even practical for the Dev's? -Lets be realistic, they won't do such missions, IF the design is way to complicated and the building time and costs are to high.
I really like to hear what the dev's know about the engine's posibilities.
Meh... you could have it go one of four ways instead:
Just keep a tally and weight the final decision to break any ties.
Honestly, I wish the Foundry supported boolean variables for custom triggering.