Dofus adds extra challenge layer to combat

I got the usual advertising from dofus recently (having played it once). But this one was interesting – they added random challenges to combat. Scroll down on this page and you’ll find the details.

What I find interesting is that on top of regular mmorpg combat, they have these extra conditions that you can fulfil if you wish. If you fulfil them, extra treasure. If you don’t, regular treasure. And reading them they would seem to change how you’d play out a combat a fair bit.

In terms of mmorpgs it seems a really good idea, where combat was often just repeating the same sequence over and over. This seems to vary it, and also seems quite easy to implement – your not changing the environment to add challenge, your just adding some extra conditions to the combat code. Also it slightly spurred my imagination somewhat, thinking why you might have the ‘zombie’ challenge is because the last fight gave you a wounded leg. Of course it didn’t in directly described mechanical terms, but at the same time, such a piece of imagination does fit the situation. And that’s cool to me 🙂

Here’s hoping mmorpgs do what they usually do, copy good ideas, and copy this one 🙂

Though I have to say, I’m playing grand chase at the moment. Kind of like medieval metal slug, or super smash brothers, I suppose. That’s quite challenging just with its regular set up – I’ve been meaning to post about this mmo’s great qualities at some point.

The impossible trait use before breakfast

I was having trouble finding a home for this post at the forge, because it didn’t quite fit, but then I remembered I haz blogz!

The discussion was about trait usage (didn’t quite fit the thread topic, though, and I don’t have just the right actual play). Basically I’m saying if ALL narration has to take into account the result of a trait, then all latter uses of traits will have to fit into that narration. That’s fine if your using what were currently calling ‘Before’ traits. But it’s completely screwy if you want to implement ‘After’ traits. And cause it’s my blog I’ll randomly say I dislike the terms ‘before’ and ‘after’ and would prefer internal traits and external traits, in reference to whether they are inside/restricted by the SIS in how they further effect the SIS, or if they are outside the SIS and are not restricted by the SIS in how they affect the SIS.

After Christoph’ post, this is my phantom, doesn’t have a home yet, responce (I have PM’ed it to him at the forge, block quotes are Christoph. ):

Your alleviation of the “impossibility” for “after” traits seem to me to be superfluous, in the sense that otherwise we’re not talking about “after” traits in the first place

Yes, your not talking about ‘after’ traits. After traits are your goal, but the logic in your design is flawed and will not meet your goal. No biggie. It’s like writing a computer program and writing code your certain will meet your goal, only to find it does something screwy. I’ve done that a million times!

Also, I don’t see the use of traits on such a long time-scale. I’ve understood this discussion of “after” and “before” to be purely based on the immediate conflictual situation. Of course, my “Killer Instinct” trait example would be “before” if we took the whole history of play into account, but then we wouldn’t be distinguishing between “has already been mentioned (or is obvious when pointed out) in the situation leading to the resolution of the present conflict” and “will be used once mechanical resolution of the present conflict is done, as part of the narrational resolution of the present conflict”. Then again I could be wrong.

Your thinking in too compartmentalised a way. The immediate conflict may be whether Rupert the red is killed, but after it’s resolved and narrated that he dies, are you going to keep playing as if he’s alive, or dead? As you can see, the narration is on a longer time scale than the immediate conflict because the narration is on a longer time scale.

Actually, should clarify that. If someone HAS to take Rupert’s death into account in their narration, is that for ALL narrations after that, or is that just for the narration that happens in the conflict? Say for example we kill Rupert, we narrate him being decapitated, then I roll a pass on working a copy machine and narrate Rupert walking in and helping me operate it. Was it only the kill conflicts narration that has to take the kill into account? Or is ALL following narration supposed to take his death result into account? If it’s the former, oops, you don’t have a problem in the logic of the wording! Sorry to type so much! If it’s the latter, your wording is indeed bugged (as noted, specifically the use of the word ‘ALL’, without any exemptions. Must have exemptions!).

Do you work to holiday, or holiday to work?

It’s pretty much a given you need to have a good rest in order to really work. Isn’t a holiday about having a good rest?

Is your holiday really for you, or does it set you up so you can keep on working so…you can have that holiday you really want, which…sets you up to do more work?

The old saying is ‘Don’t mix work with pleasure’. What if you need that holiday in order to keep working? Then it’s not really a holiday, is it? It’s just part of the job. Your just continually working.

If you think the reward for working is to rest and relax, it’s kind of a dragon eating its own tail, isn’t it?

WoW and ‘phasing’ content

I’m suprised at the reaction in a thread (or should I be?)

I’m surprised simply removing some models is perceived as a big deal? I’m not sure as to the exact details, but as I understand it it in no way mechanically effects gameplay for the player. It just changes what they see. So they have story right over here, and players just play their character right over there! And if you do stuff, the story advances – in a preset way, of course of course – and you see new graphics which in now way affect your gameplay.

It’s seen as a big advance? It’s nothing that hasn’t been done in single player RPG’s for years?

How come this sells, and how can I wrap my iron claws around its throat and shake some money from it?