> > My only remarks so far are: > > * It's missing some kind of external threat - maybe an AI went > bad > and turned into a virus that is infecting the web? [David] that's right, there is a need for some external threat. I'm creating a paragraph on the wiki page where we can put our ideas regarding the context/storyline and I'll add the bad AI/virus. More comments on this context at the end of the mail
> * Missions take some time to keep the time played minimal, but > compared to FB games I think it's missing an incentive to come > back at the end of the mission (like when you have to come back > to avoid what you planted to get rotten). Maybe make players > performs something at the end of the mission? For example, he > could have to answer the quizz or hack/scan a website only at > the end of the mission. [David] you're right, it's better like that. This way, the player comes once to launch the mission, and back after some time to perform the last task of the mission. I've updated the page with that. > * We need to detail the steps for a mission. For example, it > could > give something like that: > * The player selects a mission on his homepage among > several (missions can be specific to given AI types - > an > AI can only perform one mission at a time) > * The player discuss with the AI through the chat to get > more info about what the AI will be doing and what he > will need to do at the end of the mission > * The player waits for the AI to complete her part of the > mission > * The player perform his part of the mission, or gives > the > results > * Reward is given (experience for the AI, hack/scan > points) [David] yep ! updated the wiki with that. > * We'll need to imagine the interface/representation of the > AIs... > Maybe they could appear in the chat interface, with an icon > representing them like in MSN - would be nice if it's animated [David] right, added this also > I think once this is integrated to the gamedesign, it will have reached > the stage where it would be good to get it reviewed by a professional > game designer. [David] I've asked Nicolas if he has a little spare time, waiting for his answer. > If alpha1.3 is the mission system, alpha2.0 could immediately follow > with something like this: > * AIs representation and types/attributes/experience > * AIs added randomly to websites (an AI sits on a single website > in this version - only level 1 small AIs) > * Linking AIs to missions - AIs become the ones giving missions > and chatting with the player > * Possibility to give AIs to players through missions > * Missions require to spend hack&scan points (cost and gain > written on the missions overview, displayed on the player > homepage) > [David] This first step looks ok to me overall. - for you missions require to spend hack/scan points in order to limitate in this first step the pace of gaming right ? Should we keep the current formula for leveling up scan/hack points ? - AI should be randomely added or scripted ? Like once we have the first AI, the third (for instance) mission of the AI will be to hack a specific web site which will host an AI ? - Attributes of AI, what do you mean apart from XP and type ? Complementary notes&ideas : - about the context and the beginning of the game, it could be interesting to have some blurring of the situation through the intervention of humans. In the sense that for example, the first chat in game could be with a human (a military person for instance) who explains the player that he's been chosen to help an AI (for some reason). After some time, this first AI that teams up with the player could be explaining more about what is happening and maybe ask the player to do a mission that goes against the interest of the other human. And by the way, the virus could be the result of a human experience, which created the AIs but also the virus that is not controlled anymore by the humans. And this is why the human could be contacting the player, to fix the mess. This might help create a bond between the AI and the player (on the back of the human, in my example) and add some ambiguity by having different forces in the field without really understanding the endgame of each one. The reason I mention this is to create a feeling of uncertainty and an objective for the player (1) first help a human maybe in exchange for something, 2) then affective bond with the AI, 3) and an objective to understand the endgame of the participants). What do you think ? - Apart following the context idea I give above, I'm still unclear about the player's motivation, why would I help the AI and what do I have to win by doing this. A solution for me could be through two ways, the storyline (see example above), and the gameplay - some elements that belong exclusively to the player and not to the AI, and that could be useful to the player in the game. Before digging into this, what is your opinion on this ? - there is a lack of arbitration in the alpha 2.0 (which is maybe ok because it's the first step), but do you think that in the overall concept there is enough arbitration (chosing between actions and resources to spend) ? I'm curious because for me in a sim game, it's one of the core element we should focus on, and I'm not sure yet if we spent enough time thinking about this. _______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
