Player Convenience VS Game Depth

[DeadRiser]

Personally, I think anything that makes you wait/camp instead of actually playing is the exact opposite of immersion.

So let's have all these skeletons walking around in the daylight when the lore clearly states they only in caves/night time?

I mean it's not STOPPING you from playing, there is OTHER content to do. Dodore and Ureaus make you wait, I don't b**** to my linkshell because we have to wait, I go do something else and we gather at the right time.

[Jocko]

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I seem to be getting answers to my question. Some of you seem to look at the frogs example as nothing but a time sink, and I'm not saying that's wrong. I, personally, look at that as something that gives that particular piece of the game a memorable characteristic. In the pokemon example given above, I look at it like this: The pokemon you can catch change depending on the time of day. You say you don't like this because it prevents you from catching a specific pokemon the second you want it, and that is a valid complaint, but on the other hand, players will have a different experience depending on what time they first get to that part of the game, or perhaps when they traverse that area once more at a different time, they're pleasantly surprised to find a number of new pokemon they hadn't seen before. Mechanically, it can be aggravating for someone such as yourself, but aesthetically (Is that the correct word?), someone such as me finds it a novel idea. So, which of those concepts is more important to you? That's really what my question is.

[Lux_Rayna]

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

I think you're talking about world dynamics, anything that makes the world feel more alive and feel ever-changing. Pokemon and your examples are examples of world dynamics. I like world dynamics, but I find that it really depends on how and why certain dynamics are implemented. In the pokemon example, a better decision would have been to make all pokemon available at all times of day. The only difference is that some would be rarer depending on the time, and when found they would be asleep until attacked. That adds dynamics in its true form, without taking inconvenience beyond conceivable limits.

I don't mind inconvenience, but i want it to be tasteful and logical. Mud frogs come out in the rain? Fine that sounds awesome. But *only* found in the rain? No way. Mud Frogs don't just disappear from the face of the planet when it isn't raining. They come out in the open when its raining, but where are they when its not raining? They have to be somewhere. That means SE has to make them available; otherwise its just a needlessly inconvenient mechanic.

I prefer world dynamics, but only when it isn't done purely at the player's expense.

[Viritess]

I like the examples you gave. so i'll try and give an answer by the examples you gave.

The forggies. I personally don't have much issue wiith the rain = Frogspawn. The question becomes what is the timetable for rain. if its in Gridania, its raining alot there. Ul'dah, not so much. If it rains enough the people have some chance to nab a frog more then once a while in forever, i find it a fine mechanic.

How many frogs we spawning? I think you'd have to be careful about how many "limiting" mechanics you pile ontop of each other. If you have to wait for rain, there should be a TON of frogs spawning, likely in a few areas. So if people do have to wait for it to rain. they will have a likelyhood of actually finding and killing a frog. Droprate is another pile on.

My point. You probably don't want people waiting for rain that happens once a week, for a chance to kill 1 of 3 frogs Frog camping fest), that have a 1% drop rate for frog skin.

You probably want, wait for rain that falls every few hours. Frog fest. Reasonable chance of Frog skin. (little need to camp frog spawns)

For the sneaky example:

I also have no problem with the base mechanics but i'd tune them a bit: Instead of being booted to your return point. Have the guards rough you up and throw you outside the door. Since you've already failed to get to your goal. and will have to go through the same part you got to last time i see little reason to make you chocobo a travel distance all over again.

You'd likely want Sneaky, Sucsess = You are sneaky, goal meet. Failure = Start from the beginning and did not meet goal.

You probably wouldn't want: Sucsess = You are sneaky, goal meet. Failure = Goal not meet, have to start over, have to travel distance from home town/rez spot.

If you see the theme i'm pointing to. Often failure and having to go through from the begining is a fine penalty for failure itself. anything added to the top is generally time sink and exactly what people with limited time do not have the time to do. I know very few people who even with limited time have issues with having to "try again" if they fail. What they have issue with is the extra crap added onto the price of failure for little reason beside taking time.

And the point i'm pointing to with the frog example is if your looking for an interesting mechanic dealing wirt timeing. that should be the interesting mechanic. You likely shouldn't be asking people no matter how much time they can put in to wait for the stars and planets to align. Design your interesting mechanic, and make that the roadblock. If that is overcome (waited for rain) the rest should be effort of skill.

Summary: If part of your design involves Time used or timing, do your best to make that the only Time used or waited for mechanic in that "quest" or activity. Piling a bunch of time related mechanics onto a single activity hardly helps (And in my opinion is bad design anyway)

[Preypacer]

Hmm, it seems I made a mistake. "Game depth" may have not been the correct term to what I was referring to. I wasn't really going on about mechanics, but more about a world that has intricacies that have an effect on how people play the game. Perhaps "world depth" would have been more appropriate.

Either way, I seem to be getting answers to my question. Some of you seem to look at the frogs example as nothing but a time sink, and I'm not saying that's wrong. I, personally, look at that as something that gives that particular piece of the game a memorable characteristic. In the pokemon example given above, I look at it like this: The pokemon you can catch change depending on the time of day. You say you don't like this because it prevents you from catching a specific pokemon the second you want it, and that is a valid complaint, but on the other hand, players will have a different experience depending on what time they first get to that part of the game, or perhaps when they traverse that area once more at a different time, they're pleasantly surprised to find a number of new pokemon they hadn't seen before. Mechanically, it can be aggravating for someone such as yourself, but aesthetically (Is that the correct word?), someone such as me finds it a novel idea. So, which of those concepts is more important to you? That's really what my question is.

I would love a scenario such as what you describe in your OP. Though your choice of words were maybe not "ideal", I got the gist of what you were asking just fine. I suspect others did as well, despite the nit-picking and fussing over specific details from some; forest for the trees and all that. You were offering up examples to convey a general idea, not a specific implementation of it. I got it loud and clear.

Anyway...

I am all for anything that gives the game world more depth and variety. To see different mobs appear at different times or have certain areas with a rare and precious mineral or resource that's also heavily guarded by dangerous, higher-level mobs would be fantastic. As long as the mainline of the gameplay is straightforward enough for people to get done what they need to get done, I have absolutely no problem with other aspects of it being driven or influenced by things like time of day, weather, etc.

FFXI did this quite a lot actually, and I always found it intriguing.

I do agree that there needn't be an "either/or" dichotomy at play. You can achieve both. The only issue would/might be that those who want those rare minerals, or want to go after that elusive mob but are set in the more "casual/convenient only" mode of play would probably raise a ruckus about it on the forums.

[Kiote]

I have found that the majority of people on these forums are far more inclined to sacrifice the depth of the world for the convenience of travel. Beyond that specific circumstance I have always found people begging for a more in depth and thought provoking experience.

People do not want to travel long distances and they do not want to stand around waiting, but while they are on the move and while they are participating in some activity they want it to be as in depth as possible. The community has even said they want simple things like wandering NPCs and mob behavioral characteristics. These are the little things that make a world feel alive. Your example of the Mobs that spawn in the middle of the rain is a good example. The community has come together to ask for more situations like that. Specifically, more enemies that only spawn at night.

[Gramul]

"Depth."
I really hate easy mode. Things get done way too quickly and I end up unsatisfied.

[Zyph]

There is no reason game depth has to mean sacrificing convenience. There are different ways to add depth, different areas that can be expanded on, allowing for complexity for those who choose to look for it, without being a burden for everyone else.

[Pyretta_Blaze]

Not getting into semantics or anything I think I am understanding what you are asking. I would much prefer depth. I would definitely prefer the longer airship ride. To me it is more of a "living world" type thing as is the frog skin example.

Bonus points if there were random occurrences on the airship you could be involved in if you wanted.

While the word convenience is often sounds like "EZ button" to me but things shouldn't be inconvenient for the sake of being time consuming.

[Jocko]

Viritess, I completely agree. I'm all for the opposition of pointless time sinks, but I'm also for adding an element of "chance", so to say. Nothing like the claim wars of XI, but enough to make a player go "oh!" as they're traveling towards a certain objective, stop, and take advantage of a situation that may not always be available to them. Going back to the frog example, I liked how you brought up that the amount of rain is dependent on the area that you're in. If you're going around Uldah for a large amount of time, you'll rarely see the mud frogs spawn, but when you travel to Gridania, there's a decent chance it will start raining on the way and you'd think "Oh, hey! I should stop and farm some mud frogs while I'm here and try to get 5 or 6 skins". That's sort of what I envision when I talk about mechanics such as these.