FreeGameDev

I'm still against the implementation of factions, but I have an idea that could be similar to factions: Keeper archetypes. What I want are more roleplaying elements regarding the dungeon keeper. The player should be able to choose between keeper classes like necromancer, warlock, villain or warlord, who would all get access to the basic creatures and buildings, but have special magic skills and other abilities, and additonally some special creatures. For example only the necromancers should have a raise undead spell, and maybe the keeper class could also influence creatures in some way (more speed if you are a villain, more strength if you are warlord). The player should also be able to influence the immigration, if he wants to specialize in a creature class.

That would probably also be interesting in the campaign. You start out as a poor, unknown (classless) keeper and after some levels, when you are more infamous, have earned enough money and experience, you may choose a career path. In the beginning maybe between sorcerer and warrior, and later the paths could split up again, so that a sorcerer can become a warlock or a necromancer. Of course this can be varied in many ways.

Well I am for factions.

But just to start up we could also just make a DK clone (which only has multiplayer), while we develop the engine and gameplay/backstory/concept art/models (generally content) of the real OD project. So the DK clone could be like a mod for OD. Maybe we could get this guy (Niels) involved, he sounded like he would like something in that direction.

Skorpio {l Wrote}:I'm still against the implementation of factions, but I have an idea that could be similar to factions: Keeper archetypes. What I want are more roleplaying elements regarding the dungeon keeper. The player should be able to choose between keeper classes like necromancer, warlock, villain or warlord, who would all get access to the basic creatures and buildings, but have special magic skills and other abilities, and additonally some special creatures. For example only the necromancers should have a raise undead spell, and maybe the keeper class could also influence creatures in some way (more speed if you are a villain, more strength if you are warlord). The player should also be able to influence the immigration, if he wants to specialize in a creature class.

That would probably also be interesting in the campaign. You start out as a poor, unknown (classless) keeper and after some levels, when you are more infamous, have earned enough money and experience, you may choose a career path. In the beginning maybe between sorcerer and warrior, and later the paths could split up again, so that a sorcerer can become a warlock or a necromancer. Of course this can be varied in many ways.

I somewhat agree - I dont really like the idea of some creatures being available to one keeper and not to the other but I guess I just love DK2 too much. I like the idea of a 'career path' - it adds depth to the game which would keep people playing it longer.

Bodsda

I think Scorpio's idea sounds very good and would give some character to the game.

You might have to add options to multiplayer games to create 'Level X' keepers so you don't always start with a novice 'unskilled' keeper, but I am sure you'll come up with something for that.

As for implementing a pure DK clone as the first stage of DK, I wouldn't make that the target. In a volunteer effort just go for what you are going for - a unique game inspired by DK - because otherwise you'll just deviate and take a lot longer to get there.

I agree, I still like non-faction over faction, and the keeper archetypes sound cool.. Although I still have a soft spot for my alignment system...

I think the keeper archetypes and alignment system are not necessarily incompatible.

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:.. Although I still have a soft spot for my alignment system...

Care to explain?

charlie {l Wrote}:I think the keeper archetypes and alignment system are not necessarily incompatible.

I aggree

svenskmand {l Wrote}:

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:.. Although I still have a soft spot for my alignment system...

Care to explain?

Basically, you have different measures of how you are playing Good/Evil Order/Chaos Magic/Mechanic, and depending where you stand on those axis, you attract different creatures to fight for you. Paladins like you if you're playing in a way that makes you lean towards Good, Demons like you if you're leaning towards evil, golems like it if you're leading towards order etc, so your playstyle basically determines what kind of creatures you can get.

The archetypes can make your character lean towards a direction, for example, making it easier to have the type of creatures you'd find in a "faction"

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:

charlie {l Wrote}:I think the keeper archetypes and alignment system are not necessarily incompatible.

I aggree

svenskmand {l Wrote}:

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:.. Although I still have a soft spot for my alignment system...

Care to explain?

Basically, you have different measures of how you are playing Good/Evil Order/Chaos Magic/Mechanic, and depending where you stand on those axis, you attract different creatures to fight for you. Paladins like you if you're playing in a way that makes you lean towards Good, Demons like you if you're leaning towards evil, golems like it if you're leading towards order etc, so your playstyle basically determines what kind of creatures you can get.

The archetypes can make your character lean towards a direction, for example, making it easier to have the type of creatures you'd find in a "faction"

I think that is also a pretty good idea. But how about the backstory of the game then? What is the role of the players, and where does the creatures come from and why? I think the only problem is that this gives the same problem as DK1 and 2 had, namely no backstory at all. It could be nice to get a solid backstory for that alligment system, then I think it would actually be pretty nice

svenskmand {l Wrote}:

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:

charlie {l Wrote}:I think the keeper archetypes and alignment system are not necessarily incompatible.

I aggree

svenskmand {l Wrote}:

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:.. Although I still have a soft spot for my alignment system...

Care to explain?

Basically, you have different measures of how you are playing Good/Evil Order/Chaos Magic/Mechanic, and depending where you stand on those axis, you attract different creatures to fight for you. Paladins like you if you're playing in a way that makes you lean towards Good, Demons like you if you're leaning towards evil, golems like it if you're leading towards order etc, so your playstyle basically determines what kind of creatures you can get.

The archetypes can make your character lean towards a direction, for example, making it easier to have the type of creatures you'd find in a "faction"

I think that is also a pretty good idea. But how about the backstory of the game then? What is the role of the players, and where does the creatures come from and why? I think the only problem is that this gives the same problem as DK1 and 2 had, namely no backstory at all. It could be nice to get a solid backstory for that alligment system, then I think it would actually be pretty nice

DK2 backstory was that the noble lords/princes/king had dug into the dungeons and set up shop. Horny didnt like that and went to destroy them, however he was not only interested in destroying them, he wanted to go topside and therefore collected portal gems which he used to open the door to go into the light - as seen in the last and first cut-scenes.

Bodsda

Yes yes, but my point was that there is not much more story than that. E.g. there is no explanation of why and how the keeper has come to existents, why there is a dungeon heart and why creatures are attracted through portals, and why there is portals at all, and so on...

I think this is a very important topic, which will influence the character and style of the finished game the most, so we should discuss it and come to a first decision soon, even if it's only temporary. That would help me and others a lot with the design of creatures, factions and other stuff, like spells, skills and buildings.

First off I want to say that my idea of keeper archetypes could co-exist with the implementation of factions and alignments. I just think that five factions are a bit overambitious. Roleplaying elements and archetypes would be good instruments to keep the long time interest of the players, while factions could add different play styles. My biggest problem with five factions is the huge amount of creatures, textures, etc. that I would have to produce, and I would consider this a waste of time, if the factions were more or less the same, only with a different look. So I suggest we plan for three factions maximum, which should be significantly different in their play styles. Less factions should also be easier to balance.
What I have in mind are the Corpars, with similar gameplay as in the original DK games, the Undead, which could be a nomadic faction that uses fallen enemies to build at least a part of its troops and wanders from cemetery to cemetery, and the Constructs (I have no idea how they could be played yet). Balancing will be difficult, but the game would be more interesting. This is just a rough first suggestion that needs to be discussed some more. We also need to talk about the creature list/classes, maybe in another thread. And for our first playable version I think we should just focus on one faction: the Corpars.

BTW I've stolen the archetype/career idea from Nexus War. It was a funny, action point based, text, browser, PvP, MMORPG which had archetypes, factions and alignments. Unfortunately it doesn't exist anymore, due to financial problems, but I think there were over 10k (or 20k?) players when it was most popular. If you wanna check out something similar, with zombies instead of angels and demons, try Urban Dead (NW was inspired by UD, but far more advanced).

Skorpio {l Wrote}:I think this is a very important topic, which will influence the character and style of the finished game the most, so we should discuss it and come to a first decision soon, even if it's only temporary. That would help me and others a lot with the design of creatures, factions and other stuff, like spells, skills and buildings.

This is the exact same thing that I have tried to get out to the rest of the OD community. So now at least we are two with the same opinion

Skorpio {l Wrote}:First off I want to say that my idea of keeper archetypes could co-exist with the implementation of factions and alignments. I just think that five factions are a bit overambitious. Roleplaying elements and archetypes would be good instruments to keep the long time interest of the players, while factions could add different play styles. My biggest problem with five factions is the huge amount of creatures, textures, etc. that I would have to produce, and I would consider this a waste of time, if the factions were more or less the same, only with a different look. So I suggest we plan for three factions maximum, which should be significantly different in their play styles. Less factions should also be easier to balance.
What I have in mind are the Corpars, with similar gameplay as in the original DK games, the Undead, which could be a nomadic faction that uses fallen enemies to build at least a part of its troops and wanders from cemetery to cemetery, and the Constructs (I have no idea how they could be played yet). Balancing will be difficult, but the game would be more interesting. This is just a rough first suggestion that needs to be discussed some more. We also need to talk about the creature list/classes, maybe in another thread. And for our first playable version I think we should just focus on one faction: the Corpars.

I was for 4 factions; Corpars, Undead, Humans, and Constructs. For now we could focus on the Corpars and Humans, which would basically mimic the old DK1 and 2 games.

Regarding how the factions differ, Bodsda and I have tried to do this in the Backstory section, which is a mixture of history/storytelling for the game and the game plot. That is the backstory-section basically defines how much of the gameplay is going to be. So people should really read through this part of the wiki and the give their opinion here, PLEASE READ THIS. It is specifically the sections Humans, Corpars, Undead and Constructs that should be read as they give some ideas of how the gameplay will differ among the different factions.

We have not really done anything with the Villans, and regarding those I think we should drop them, they are also not incorporated into the backstory/gameplot.

I thought the Undead could move around and harvest mana, bones or souls from the tiles. If they stay too long at one place they use up all of their resources and have to move on. But such a nomadic behaviour would probably require big maps and I'm not sure how they could be forced to build an interesting dungeon. I'm also not sure if that play style would be amusing for the players. It's just a very basic idea.

Skorpio {l Wrote}:I thought the Undead could move around and harvest mana, bones or souls from the tiles. If they stay too long at one place they use up all of their resources and have to move on. But such a nomadic behaviour would probably require big maps and I'm not sure how they could be forced to build an interesting dungeon. I'm also not sure if that play style would be amusing for the players. It's just a very basic idea.

If they move around then how will they protect their dungeon temple? But I think that it is an excellent idea to allow the undead to harvest resources from slain enemy creatures.

I think harvesting mana or bones from the tiles would be better, since it'll probably be difficult to get a sufficient amount of enemy corpses, especially in the early phase of the game.

If they also can harvest ressources from portals, by killing the arriving creatures and using them. Then there should not be any problems in the early phase of the game

Maybe I'm barging in on this discussion, but I felt the need to reply.

You guys seem to be headed to a faction system, but have you given the event driven alignment system any thought?

In such a system the player gets confronted with various choices during the game, each affecting a balance (good vs evil, mechenical vs technical, water vs fire, earth vs air, life vs death, just to name but a few possible variations).

This could affect creatures the player attracts, effectiveness of traps, etc. An interesting option could be to see what happens when a player manages to attract two opposing creatures (for example demons vs angels). Some of these might just attack each other and fight to the death (angel vs demon), but others could simply coexists peacefully (earth and air), while yet others could have an undesirable side effect when in each other's vicinity (water + fire = steam).

Now, if keepers collect points (by buying them with gold or by defating an opponent's creatures) they could spend them on various advantages; for example creature and/or room improvements, new creatures and/or rooms, better attributes/skills (needed to control the creatures), spells, traps (magical, mechanical or a combination of the two in some form).

This way the players effectively have access to everything in the game. However, of course they cannot choose everything they desire, because points do not allow for that. The net result will be that people come up with all kinds of armies; some will just evolve, while others will be carefully planned.

Thats pretty exactly much the system I was talking/thinking about

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:Thats pretty exactly much the system I was talking/thinking about

Yes, and as an added bonus you don't need to develop all kinds of factions, the players get an additional incentive to keep playing (addictiveness, i.e. the "level" treadmill) and you add an additional layer of depth to the game.

But err.. how do you guys intend to attract the public? What makes this game special? Who would want to play this game? Why would they play this game?

Todays computers are a lot more powerful then they were in the days of dungeon keeper, so you can do a lot more.

Anyway... Here's the alignment list which appears best to me, I consider all to be greyscales ranging from black to white:

• Nature vs technology
• Physical vs Spirit
• Life vs Death

Note that good vs evil isn't present in that list; that is because "good" and "evil" are concepts defined by humanity, nature does not know what is "right" (the weak are left to die, some creatures eat their victims alive). Elementals (and all their deviations) could be considered manifestations of nature, sprit and life.

Now, here's the interesting part. If you happen to float to a corner of the resulting cube, the creatures could get stronger and more specialized, until you finally get a creature which is extremely strong and focussed, but requires you to be in that corner of alignment.

Now each creature, spell, power (yes, there is a difference), skill and constructable should have a point cost in that scale attached (to make sure people who want to have much life power don't build all kinds of death rooms (prison and torture chamber, for example).

But then which creatures should there be?

And how should they look depending on you alignment? I think that you would want them to alter dynamically depending on which alignment you have, like the pet you have in Black and White.

@svenksmand

No, I don't think the creatures themselves should change (at least, not all of them). Mainly it will attract different creatures, instead of affecting all the creatures you own.

The creatures would be, well, any kind of creature we can think of, really. We just need to think what "alignment" they would fall under. The current list of creatures would work fine, we'd just need to make them more unique instead of just equivalent copies of eachother.

@xahodo

I do think a light/dark subset would work (instead of good/evil), thematically more than philosophically though. Also, magic instead of spirit might be a clearer definition, as spirit could be mistaken for life/light

What will attract the public? This is a topic for a different thread (OD already has waaay to much information lost in these thread subtopics). But to slightly answer your question, its an open-source remake of a beloved game, and that always garners interest

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:@svenksmand

No, I don't think the creatures themselves should change (at least, not all of them). Mainly it will attract different creatures, instead of affecting all the creatures you own.

The creatures would be, well, any kind of creature we can think of, really. We just need to think what "alignment" they would fall under. The current list of creatures would work fine, we'd just need to make them more unique instead of just equivalent copies of eachother.

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:Then what is the story behind the game; why is there keepers?, who do they serve if any? where does the creatures come from? why do they do the keepers bidding? why are the keepers fighting? what is the keepers goal?, ...

@xahodo

I do think a light/dark subset would work (instead of good/evil), thematically more than philosophically though. Also, magic instead of spirit might be a clearer definition, as spirit could be mistaken for life/light

What will attract the public? This is a topic for a different thread (OD already has waaay to much information lost in these thread subtopics). But to slightly answer your question, its an open-source remake of a beloved game, and that always garners interest

Regarding the PR, I was thinking about making a poster for OD and then put some copys at my university. It is at the computer science department, so there will surely be some nerds that will come join our project Then all of the OD community could do the same But I have waited to talk about this as I thing the game should be in a more playable state to keep the new people, so they do not just loose interest.

To get back to the discussion of factions vs. the alignment system, here is TheAncientGoats last remarks:

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:In my eyes, the faction system would be more artwork intensive, and balance intensive if you want to make the factions be anything more than just the same units with different skins. An alignment system would mean that you have 1 pool of creatures, smaller than the combined amount of 4 different factions of creatures. Each creature can be as individual as you want, without regard for "is this balanced compared to the other 3 factions' creatures". Adding creatures to this pool is way easier too, because in a faction system, if you want to add 1 creature to a faction, you have to give each faction an equivalent bonus. This gives the artists more freedom, and thus makes it a more attractive projects for artists to contribute for, and makes it easier for us to grab creatures from other free art resources.

Currently, we don't have enough models to support a faction system

Also, it is easy to switch from an alignment system to a faction system once you have enough creatures. You could even implement a faction-like system by using the Avatar/Keeper system that has been suggested (you choose a character to play as that biases your alignment). The play-style code that is needed to support an alignment system would also really benefit a faction system (creature happiness and the like)

I also think the current backstory would be usable in an alignment system, just like backstories fit in in any openworld-sandbox-rpg type game.

All a faction system does is duplicate work, and pidgeonhole you into a limited set of play styles for that faction.

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:In my eyes, the faction system would be more artwork intensive, and balance intensive if you want to make the factions be anything more than just the same units with different skins. An alignment system would mean that you have 1 pool of creatures, smaller than the combined amount of 4 different factions of creatures. Each creature can be as individual as you want, without regard for "is this balanced compared to the other 3 factions' creatures". Adding creatures to this pool is way easier too, because in a faction system, if you want to add 1 creature to a faction, you have to give each faction an equivalent bonus.

I do not really care if it will take longer time to create, what I care about is that the quality is comparable to a AAA+ commercial title.

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:This gives the artists more freedom, and thus makes it a more attractive projects for artists to contribute for, and makes it easier for us to grab creatures from other free art resources.

I fear that this would lead to the typical "open source content zoo" - that is you have all sorts of content, which might be brilliant, but it does not at all fit together and your total impression is that the creators just picked out content that was freely available without many regards to how the total outcome of the game would be.

Also regarding artistic freedom. When you have some content, there is inevitably made allot of choices, so I think we might as well make some good choices from the start - by specifying a design theme for each faction - than it is to say anything goes :S

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:Currently, we don't have enough models to support a faction system

This exactly the point, we should not make content before we have agreed on WHAT content to make. That is we have agreed upon if we go with factions or a alignment system, whatever we go with either one of them, we also have not agreed upon exactly which creatures we should have, and what they look like and can do, we also have not agreed upon which rooms, traps and doors we should have (this is also why I made the development plan thread).

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:Also, it is easy to switch from an alignment system to a faction system once you have enough creatures. You could even implement a faction-like system by using the Avatar/Keeper system that has been suggested (you choose a character to play as that biases your alignment). The play-style code that is needed to support an alignment system would also really benefit a faction system (creature happiness and the like)

I think this is only true if you do not care if you end up in the "open source content zoo", which I would very much like to avoid.

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:I also think the current backstory would be usable in an alignment system, just like backstories fit in in any openworld-sandbox-rpg type game.

I would like to hear more about this, as one of the main difficulties I have with understanding the story-telling-logic of the alignment system, is which story-logic you would use as a design criterion for the creatures and alignment. Please elaborate on this.

TheAncientGoat {l Wrote}:All a faction system does is duplicate work, and pidgeonhole you into a limited set of play styles for that faction.

I actually thinks that we already have some very different and interesting styles of the factions, at least for the Constructs, Undead and (Corpars or Humans - these are similarly in game-play right now).