Missions for Experienced Players

[grayman]

A comment on In the North got me wondering about something.

 

What do experienced players look for in a map?

 

I suppose beginners look for something short, AI they don't have to mix it up with, easy ways to get from A to B, loot that's not hard to find, no key hunts, easy jumps and mantling, short (or no) readables, blah blah blah.

 

What do experienced players like? The opposite of the above things? Other aspects?

 

I have (at least) 7 more missions to make.

 

Curious minds want to know.

 

Thanks.

[skacky]

As an experienced player myself I look for big levels mostly, and difficult, frequent and complex patrols so I'm always cautious when I play. I dislike keyhunts (especially if the keys are very well hidden) and overly long readables (keep them short/to the point, I gave up on Finals at the Academy for this very reason) but I like hard-to-find loot, difficult jumps and looking for hidden areas. I especially like finding my way through a level by myself, take a path and see where it will take me. Most inexperienced players prefer rather linear/simple levels first to practice their skills and discover the game more in detail, and will then go onto more non-linear/complicated stuff when they're more confident.

 

Concerning loot, when I make a mission I usually place a certain amount of loot that the players will, 99% of the time, find. This amount is usually the required amount of loot for Normal, meaning that the players can just take the shortest route and they will fill their pockets with enough loot to end the mission, without having to discover the rest. The rest of the loot is usually either placed in areas that are more difficult to access, or hidden in areas where loot is easy to find. Like if you think you cleared a room because you took these two candlesticks, but you missed this gold coinstack on the top of the bookshelf. And then I usually put 150 or 300 loot that's very well hidden, for completionist taffers.

[Sotha]

I think you will please experienced players if you make an interesting map with tight gameplay. Be sure the player knows what the mission is about "Wander around a location and find out what is going on" -objectives are horrible.

 

Put AI so that the player has to occasionally expend equipment to make progress, but be sure to give choices:

 

AI guards a door. Do I i) distract the guard? ii) KO the AI iii) shoot him in the face with a fire arrow?

 

Door is locked. Do I i) lockpick the door and risk being surprized while focusing on the lock, ii) find the key for quick and nice unlocking, iii) find an alternative, less risky way in.

 

Avoid creating situations which have only one way to solve (like the front desk girl + guest ledger in "Not an Oridinary Guest"). Avoid keyhunts like a plague, they ruin a mission in minutes. Avoid placing mission-critical objects in locations that the player can easily miss them. Like skacky, I think it is good to avoid extensively long readables, especially if you are not a professional writer. The thief is there to do some thieving, not reading to exams. Also the thief is probably not exploring around and stealing what they can, but rather they are in the location to achieve a specific task.

 

So... I think the key to please experienced players is to make the AI tough. Give them helmets so that the player has to use gas arrows or kill to take them down. Put the AI so that there is not always a road of darkness to every goal. Occasionally the player must find themselves using equipment in order to make progress. Reward clever thinking to sidestep obstacles.

[Obsttorte]

I think that the mission size has nothing to do with whether you are an experienced player or not. Just because a mission is big, it is not neccessarily challenging.

 

It's important to create tight spaces, where the player has to think twice on how to pass them and maybe has to use some equipment, like Sotha already said.

 

Another thing is to extend the stealthing mechanism a bit. Most missions rely on shadows for that purpose, thus meaning that the player can move from shadow to shadow to avoid being seen by the ai. However, this is not neccessary. Players can also hide behind obstacles, so you can also create some (almost) full lit rooms, where this is the only way to hide. Try to get the player out of his comfort zone.

 

Another point are the difficulty settings. Decrease the audio treshhold on higher ones and increase the ai's acuities. Place loot in hard accessible areas, which the player does not have to access under lower difficulty levels to fulfill his loot objective, but under higher ones.

 

Nokill or limited blackout objectives are another possibility. This can be either done directly, by adding said objective, or indirectly by limiting the player equipment (no blackjack, some arrows, arrowsticking disabled). Some people always complain about such objectives, but I think this is bullshit, if you only have them on the highest difficulty level the can still play under a lower one if they don't like it.

 

You can also make changes to the map difficulty dependent. Maybe some doors are locked/not pickable under higher ones. Maybe a hallway is barricaded, so the player has to go a more difficult route.

 

There are actually thousend of things you can do. Make it challenging, but not unfair. And remember, if I don't have to reload in a mission, the mission is not difficult

[STiFU]

I suppose beginners look for something short

I wouldn't say that. I'd say beginners want something not too difficult as far as the tdm gameplay is concerned (mainly easy routes around the guards). Having a big and possibly even complex map should not pose an issue. I mean someone who plays TDM has probably played an RPG or a FPS before, so he should be prepared for that.

 

So, how to make a map enjoyable for experienced players (although I am not convinced an easy map may not be enjoyable to an experienced player):

• Non-exstinguishable lights may create tough routes and tension
  
• Limited amount of tools: Don't spoil the player. Not too many healthpotions and especially water arrows. The player feels way too comfortable in the dark. Although I gotta say, if you hadn't put so many candles in your map, the amount of water arrows in your mission would've felt about right.
  

I am almost in complete agreement with Sotha and Obst. Although, I don't mind a good keyhunt and actually rather disliked Sotha's solution to it to just have an enormously complex lock to pick for doors that a key is available for. But that's a question of preference I guess.

 

One more point maybe: Do not overuse elite guards. That eventually just becomes tedious. You did that exactly right on WS1.

[Xarg]

Key hunts are one thing, loot hunts are entirely another... I despise a loot hunt. If your mission has 6000 loot, and I'm on expert and need 4500-5000 of it (what am I doing, paying rent or buying an entire block of the slums?), and a good chunk of the final 2000 is very hard to find and well spread out... I get bored very quickly with the mission.

[demagogue]

I'd say most important is that it's been well thought out as a complete mission (and of course beta-tested so it's been vetted and works as intended). I mean the gameplay logic works well and you it doesn't break or the fiction doesn't breakdown and it all holds up no matter how you play it. I can play a not-well-thought-out mission ok too, but I really appreciate the well designed ones & prioritize them.

 

I play FMs now like I would watch a TV show or movie. I want to get in a good, self-contained story in an hour or two, with really good gameplay to go with it. So the storytelling & mission design is what's important to me now. Mechanics I can be more agnostic about, as long as the mechanics all support good storytelling and design... E.g., with a keyhunt; my issue isn't doing it per se, but sometimes it can be a mark of weak mission design, making the player do work for nothing that progresses the story (loot hunts can be the same issue). On the other hand, sometimes it's necessary for a clever design; if you are saving a certain reveal for later in the mission when it packs an emotional punch, a key mechanism is a tool to do that. And using loot to reward a player for making progress in the story, or moderate player expectations, is the good way to use it IMO.

 

Readables should still be, well I wouldn't use the word short per se, but they should get to the gameplay point and stick to what's relevant for the player in what s/he needs to do (which tends to be shorter, but not always). Then they'll have much more relevance to the player & they'll be much more interested in reading them; now it's about them too. I mean pure flavor readables can be important too, but they should be shorter just because without the gameplay connection they're only there as flavor, and taking the player out of the game, so IMO they should give the flavor quickly then let the player get on with the game.

 

I'm realizing everything I'm talking about are the things in my wiki entry for plot design, so read that if you want to know what I think makes for a good mission. My basic punchline is mission design and storytelling are what's most important for me as someone that's played FMs for a loooong time now; and mechanics only to the extent they support that.

[Melan]

Just because I am experienced doesn't mean I only want to play extra-hard missions, or huge missions, or whatever. I enjoy a good balance of different FMs. Otherwise, I agree with the comments in this thread.

[zergrush]

I like maps that impose me certain limits, like not having lockpicks from the start, or having no blackjack and/or weapons of any sort, requiring me to be 100% sneaky and knowing how to escape pursuit well enough. I also like being allowed to take unorthodox routes , such as walking through roofs and such.

[RPGista]

Sorry people, but no-kill or no-ko restrictions have no reason to exist. Unless its an extraordinary case, like In a Score to Settle, I cant kill a certain character not to unbalance the political forces in the story's setting. Sure, as long as its optional (as in you can choose other difficulty levels that dont restrict you), Im not going to complain, but some missions dont give you a choice. Unless its deeply part of the concept of the mission, there's no real reason to do that.

 

Maps should be designed in such a way as to allow AI to pose puzzling problems for the player, so that it would be more to his advantage to actually avoid contact and go on with the mission, rather than to try to take them out (which he could). People complain that AI can be systematically taken out by a player focused in that, so the only way to force people to play normally is to restrict. That only ever happens in missions where AI is NOT placed in a good strategic way, lone guards, long routes, sprawling dark areas with little spot lights, where they are defenseless. Also, throwing wave after wave of servants and guards through all the rooms in the castle is a sure way of forcing the player (at least me) to take them out, as it becomes very clumsy to walk around with the crowd going their way incessantly. Again, missions like Heart and Score are models to be studied, theres a bit of everything, sure, still guards, people going round and round in infinite loops (instantly take those out), and then there are special situations (like the inner courtyard in Heart, or the Hide Out in Score), where it really comes alive and each room offers an interesting challenge to be overcome, in ways that feel natural.

[Krypt]

My present thieving skills aren't good enough to play TDM on Expert, but I still consider myself a stealth enthusiast. With that in mind, take this somewhat random list as you will

 

I like being given lots of paths through a level, some of which would not be available to your average non-thief. I like being given the opportunity to feel like a clever thief when I find a sneaky and/or daring means to a goal. I like being empowered to observe a stealth challenge ahead of time to figure out the variables and plan my approach. I like being given opportunities to mess with NPCs by stealing stuff out from under their noses or otherwise doing things I'm not supposed to and watching their reactions (or lack thereof) as I get away with it. I like getting intriguing bits of story from readables (I agree with previous posters who prefer them concise), especially those that feel like 'secret information' or give a clue that's relevant to gameplay. I like the tension of having to risk being spotted to get to a place I want to go, and the feeling of satisfaction when that risk pays off. I like to have amusing places to hide KOed bodies. I like being rewarded for exploring the level, whether that be with loot or an alternate path or just getting to see something maybe not every player sees. When I get caught I like it when the level layout gives lots of options for getting the better of my pursuers and making an escape.

 

After writing all that out I'm coming to understand that I basically just enjoy playing with the simulation of being a thief

[fllood]

What do experienced players like? The opposite of the above things? Other aspects?

 

Things I like in a mission:

 

- I like it if most areas do have tight gameplay or story relevance in some form or another. And dislike too much empty spaces / rooms which just connect one important gamplay ara to the next.

 

- I like multiple ways to get from A to B, and if there is some vertical option to find my way around areas and challanges I usually go for that one.

 

- I love rope arrows, I like mantling and hate jumping parts (I suck at them)

 

- I like consistency in gameplay and story regardless which way I explore and get through a map.

 

- I like optional objectives, and objectives changes along story twists during gameplay

 

- AI cleverly placed at important "hotspots" to avoid / deal with. And AI with clever routes for a challange. I do like mixed AI in a map, like drunken guards and unamored AI mixed with keen and amored AI. I do not like it every AI being fully armored or every AI having keen eagle eyes. It should make sense for the situation. It isn't fun having a map only with hard challanges on every area. I rather like the balance and alternation of 'challanging' spots with 'calm' areas regard AI.

 

- More lighting and relighting lights on "hard" is another good option to increase difficulty instead of increasing the awareness or number of AI.

 

- I don't having three or more lockpicks to use and/or long lockpick sequences on 'normal' locks (one of the few things I dislike about "Requiem".). Save that for special locks as it hinder game flow and get boring if every lock is long-winded to pick.

 

- I like loot mixed with about lets say 50% easy to find, 25% not so easy to see/find/locked and 25% clevery hidden. I like it if most cleverly hidden loot there are hints (optical / in readables / in conversations) and only a small part is only to find with pure exploration. Different loot locations at different difficulty setting add variation and replay value.

 

- I disagree on the key-hunt being indisposed for fun - To me finding a key following clues in the story or texts can be really rewarding IF logical hints are given where to search for! It helps gameplay flow and avoid frustration to many players to make at least two clues: one rather vague wher to search and a second one more detailed where a key is to look for. If a critical key to progess probably even more or a straightforwrd clue wher to look for, at least on the lower dificulity levels.

 

- I do not like hunting the "last loot" coin. Thus I do favor loot objectives being optional for challanging loot values.

 

- I perfer 1-5 page long readables. I like paper and books from AI that also tell about their personality, every day business, relations to other AI and/or add to the world lore. I do not like if the one and only readbles in a FM are clue giver. If a readable central for the story has a long length I might enjoy it as well, but if so, it should be really a interesting relevant read.

Edited October 25, 2013 by fllood

[Diego]

I always look for the same thing: challenging with minimum saving/loading required. For me entertainment comes when I feel rewarded for good planning and execution; trying, failing and loading breaks that flow completely because I know exactly what to expect.

 

This balance is extremely difficult to find when designing a level because it's different for every player.

[Professor Paul1290]

I think others have already mentioned most the more obvious and generally wanted things, though there are some things I would like to see more of personally:

 

-I like seeing more random-ness in guard patrols.

I love guard patrols that have additional branches that may or may not be taken. Because they add "hidden" elements to the routes and when players realize that they are there, they move more carefully wherever they are to try to leave some safety room for unexpected occurances.

The biggest thing is that it puts pressure on players to utilize the obstacles and shadowed areas in a room even when it's empty or apparently safe, which in my opinion allows the existing space and obstacles to have a greater effect how the player moves at all times rather than only when there is a threat present.

It also pushes players towards acquiring stronger more versatile general-use tactics and techniques rather than relying on one-off ways to solve a specific situation.

 

-I like seeing mission having more tools and less tool restrictions, and instead having more guards and more lights to compensate.

There are performance and balancing issues associated with this of course, but personally I prefer having more guards and more lights and instead having more tools to compensate. I sort of lean that way because there you have greater difficulty but still give the player freedom of movement where they might need it, though it leaves it up to the player where to "budget" this freedom of movement according to how they play.

 

-I feel that ghosting should be possible, but I don't feel that it should be balanced around nor should the mission author should be obligated to be able to do it themselves.

That might sound a bit weird so I'll try to explain. I feel ghosting should be possible, but be something of a "hardcore bonus" way to complete a mission. I don't think it should be practical for most players under normal circumstances. I also do not think should it be expected to allow for solutions as flexible as "normal play" as that limits how hard "ghosting" can be and how versatile "normal play" can be, and personally I believe the two should be allowed to diverge in that respect.

I could be completely wrong about this, but in a lot of TDM missions I'm getting the impression that mission authors try to ghost their own missions and balance their missions around that (I do NOT know that for a fact of course, but that's the feeling I get). I feel that wouldn't be ideal because it doesn't leave room for people who are better at the game than the author. I think ideally you should be able to "prove" the mission is ghostable without being able to ghost it yourself. There are several ways to this, one is to test each the hardest parts of the mission individually and "prove" that they can be ghosted. If you can prove each of the toughest sections that make up your mission are ghostable, you've essentially proven that the mission is ghostable even if you cannot pull it off on the mission as a whole yourself.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Professor Paul1290