I understand where youre coming from, I definitely agree that the relationship between what the player can do and what the world requests of them is the right way to look at this.
I would say he is talking about the various interactions that can occur when certain mechanics interact within a specific context.
More to that point, I do not think it's practical to develop mechanics without considering the context in which they will be used.
In very simple terms: Why would a character designer give the player the capability to do super high jumps if there is nothing high to jump on, or nothing dangerous to jump over? Likewise, why would a level designer create super high ledges and long chasms without giving the player some capability to overcome them? Either way you come at it, you need both sides of that to match up for it to work right.
If we look at Daynens "beast running through the forest, possibly being chased by something" example, the crunch of it might be that it creates a battlefield that exists only in the short distance between the wake of a moving object followed closely by another, a situation where the player's have to keep re-positioning themselves as they are caught inside the moving safe-zone found only between the forward objects movements and whatever thing it's running from. This is an interesting (and probably challenging to create) scenario from a pure crunch/gameplay perspective.
As a reminder, game designers come from a variety of educational and professional backgrounds. Where some approach design from the more technical-first standpoint, others may approach design from the more narrative-first standpoint, or the visual-first standpoint, etc. All depending on how they begin their path of creation. All styles of beginnings have their merit as long as that person knows how to hit all of the required steps on their way to the end product.
I would say he is talking about the various interactions that can occur when certain mechanics interact within a specific context.
More to that point, I do not think it's practical to develop mechanics without considering the context in which they will be used.
In very simple terms: Why would a character designer give the player the capability to do super high jumps if there is nothing high to jump on, or nothing dangerous to jump over? Likewise, why would a level designer create super high ledges and long chasms without giving the player some capability to overcome them? Either way you come at it, you need both sides of that to match up for it to work right.
If we look at Daynens "beast running through the forest, possibly being chased by something" example, the crunch of it might be that it creates a battlefield that exists only in the short distance between the wake of a moving object followed closely by another, a situation where the player's have to keep re-positioning themselves as they are caught inside the moving safe-zone found only between the forward objects movements and whatever thing it's running from. This is an interesting (and probably challenging to create) scenario from a pure crunch/gameplay perspective.
As a reminder, game designers come from a variety of educational and professional backgrounds. Where some approach design from the more technical-first standpoint, others may approach design from the more narrative-first standpoint, or the visual-first standpoint, etc. All depending on how they begin their path of creation. All styles of beginnings have their merit as long as that person knows how to hit all of the required steps on their way to the end product.
Likes:
Mahdi
@Mk_6
When I can, I get to help people understand what kind of game we are making here. That, of course, is limited to information that is publicly available. Which is limited right now, so what I can say is limited. Such is the nature of things.
Ultimately I'm here to interact with the community, to gather the concerns, and listen to the ideas. At times I will seek to bridge a gap between different stances in hopes it will propel the conversation into more cooperation about expressing preferences and less competition on proving who is right or wrong. Unfortunately, that is far from an exact science. And I, like everyone else here, am far from perfect.
Not every person who read it necessarily felt it wasn't explained well enough, though I did offer more specific explanation when it became known to me that what I meant was unclear to someone. For the record, not every person is equally prone to assumption nor does every person jump to the same conclusions.
To your itemized list-
1) All of that makes it reasonable to think that Hunting/tracking happens before combat, yet none of that implies it happens only before and not also during.
2) We might simply disagree on what specific aspects make a hunter a hunter, as different things are more or less important-to-an-identity to different people. Though, among the wide variety of cultures and timeframes of hunters with many different tools and approaches, the most common element is the ability to discern their prey's location.
3) As I eluded to before, what comes to each persons mind depends on their own personal experience. This is not the same for every person.
Once battle begins, line of sight on an enemy and awareness of where the enemy is, is still not a constant. This is where "hunting/tracking" offers a particular kind of advantage.
At any given time, players may disengage from the direct fight with one or more of their opponents, in hopes to retreat, re-position or regroup. The essential function of the act of hunting, is to gain,regain or retain knowledge of enemy locations despite their attempts to avoid it. This can certainly exist within the eb and flow of combat, as it exists on a game map. As my earlier examples show, in some games it absolutely does.
Every concept can be implemented in multiple ways. You brought up examples that had certain types of effect on the battle, I have already brought up examples that had certain types of effect on the battle.
I disagree completely with the argument that I'm talking from a supposed "idealized developer perspective" verses your allegedly "practical perspective". That's entirely unfounded.
While yes, I'm sure when I speak about such things in the broad sense it may sound like a commercial to some. It's quite different when I get specific. When I present practical, illustrative examples of a feature currently functioning in other games there is nothing idealized, convoluted, or impractical about it. Those examples include both games built around the hunting concept from the ground up, and games where the hunting concept was added in later onto an existing game.
The disconnects, when they happen, stem from something else.
It's interesting to insist on this point, about the "players perspective", considering that there are some players here stating that their personal perspective is different. The fact that different people have different perspectives on the same thing is quite clear. Again, this would be focusing on how something is explained rather than accepting that different people explain things differently, and looking more at the factors involved.
I do not disagree with any of that, though bringing it up here as some sort of counter argument to what I have said or attempt to prove a point here is somewhat missing the context of this discussion.
The hunter/tracker concept was just one example of trying to capture the meaning behind the name in game. Not to say that all people want the same expression of anything, but it's best to keep in mind that not all expressions of hunting would be complex, as my examples show, some are quite simple. And, of course, I only brought it up to help illustrate what someone is asking for when they say "don't focus on dps" or "there is more to combat than doing damage to each other" etc.
I could give a long explanation of what went wrong with how NoMansSky was talked about, and why that went poorly. I will leave that alone for now. At any rate, that is hardly relevant here. As this thread is not a press release or interview about Em-8er. It is just a conversation about what kind of stuff one player or another wants to see, with little to no statements of whether any of it will be the case in game from me.
This game is in early development, I certainly can't talk about a bunch of specifics. There is no way to accurately say how good or bad implementation will be at this stage. Likewise, since I have to avoid most claims of what will or won't be in the game at this time, I can only speak broadly or talk about how features work in other games when discussing concepts. Does this generality make this discussion unproductive? Honestly, I'd wager that depends on which participant you ask.
If you'd rather just not talk about any possible way's a feature or mechanic might play out that is ok. Other folks do. Either way is understandable. But if youre suggesting I should just not talk with the community about their ideas... that is not an option on the table.
To your itemized list-
1) All of that makes it reasonable to think that Hunting/tracking happens before combat, yet none of that implies it happens only before and not also during.
2) We might simply disagree on what specific aspects make a hunter a hunter, as different things are more or less important-to-an-identity to different people. Though, among the wide variety of cultures and timeframes of hunters with many different tools and approaches, the most common element is the ability to discern their prey's location.
3) As I eluded to before, what comes to each persons mind depends on their own personal experience. This is not the same for every person.
Once battle begins, line of sight on an enemy and awareness of where the enemy is, is still not a constant. This is where "hunting/tracking" offers a particular kind of advantage.
At any given time, players may disengage from the direct fight with one or more of their opponents, in hopes to retreat, re-position or regroup. The essential function of the act of hunting, is to gain,regain or retain knowledge of enemy locations despite their attempts to avoid it. This can certainly exist within the eb and flow of combat, as it exists on a game map. As my earlier examples show, in some games it absolutely does.
Every concept can be implemented in multiple ways. You brought up examples that had certain types of effect on the battle, I have already brought up examples that had certain types of effect on the battle.
I disagree completely with the argument that I'm talking from a supposed "idealized developer perspective" verses your allegedly "practical perspective". That's entirely unfounded.
While yes, I'm sure when I speak about such things in the broad sense it may sound like a commercial to some. It's quite different when I get specific. When I present practical, illustrative examples of a feature currently functioning in other games there is nothing idealized, convoluted, or impractical about it. Those examples include both games built around the hunting concept from the ground up, and games where the hunting concept was added in later onto an existing game.
The disconnects, when they happen, stem from something else.
It's interesting to insist on this point, about the "players perspective", considering that there are some players here stating that their personal perspective is different. The fact that different people have different perspectives on the same thing is quite clear. Again, this would be focusing on how something is explained rather than accepting that different people explain things differently, and looking more at the factors involved.
I do not disagree with any of that, though bringing it up here as some sort of counter argument to what I have said or attempt to prove a point here is somewhat missing the context of this discussion.
The hunter/tracker concept was just one example of trying to capture the meaning behind the name in game. Not to say that all people want the same expression of anything, but it's best to keep in mind that not all expressions of hunting would be complex, as my examples show, some are quite simple. And, of course, I only brought it up to help illustrate what someone is asking for when they say "don't focus on dps" or "there is more to combat than doing damage to each other" etc.
I could give a long explanation of what went wrong with how NoMansSky was talked about, and why that went poorly. I will leave that alone for now. At any rate, that is hardly relevant here. As this thread is not a press release or interview about Em-8er. It is just a conversation about what kind of stuff one player or another wants to see, with little to no statements of whether any of it will be the case in game from me.
This game is in early development, I certainly can't talk about a bunch of specifics. There is no way to accurately say how good or bad implementation will be at this stage. Likewise, since I have to avoid most claims of what will or won't be in the game at this time, I can only speak broadly or talk about how features work in other games when discussing concepts. Does this generality make this discussion unproductive? Honestly, I'd wager that depends on which participant you ask.
If you'd rather just not talk about any possible way's a feature or mechanic might play out that is ok. Other folks do. Either way is understandable. But if youre suggesting I should just not talk with the community about their ideas... that is not an option on the table.
Ultimately I'm here to interact with the community, to gather the concerns, and listen to the ideas. At times I will seek to bridge a gap between different stances in hopes it will propel the conversation into more cooperation about expressing preferences and less competition on proving who is right or wrong. Unfortunately, that is far from an exact science. And I, like everyone else here, am far from perfect.
That statement, in itself, is fine.
Still, what happened happened. When the idea of a hunter having hunting/tracking abilities were brought up, you immediately placed them in the "going from A to B/non-combat" section(even after my post with practical examples). Yet they aren't necessarily just that. They are also, potentially, key elements of a classes/roles in-combat style. Maybe it's just because of what pops into your head when you see the words hunting/tracking, maybe it's something else. The question is whether or not your way of defining "the core of combat" helps you personally see the larger varieties in the way combat can play out, or if it makes it harder for you to see it. Again, as long as you see it, we are all on the same page more or less.
Let's be honest here. There are plenty of game makers who don't look much beyond the basics of a combat model when designing capabilities. Something in their design philosophies or methodologies is leading them to that. Sure, sometimes combat models don't go beyond the obvious stuff because of time or budget constraints, but I'm talking about the times when it's ultimately a matter of how they think. Why is that? I find this to be an interesting thing to think about.
As I said, that line of discussion will have to wait.
Still, what happened happened. When the idea of a hunter having hunting/tracking abilities were brought up, you immediately placed them in the "going from A to B/non-combat" section(even after my post with practical examples). Yet they aren't necessarily just that. They are also, potentially, key elements of a classes/roles in-combat style. Maybe it's just because of what pops into your head when you see the words hunting/tracking, maybe it's something else. The question is whether or not your way of defining "the core of combat" helps you personally see the larger varieties in the way combat can play out, or if it makes it harder for you to see it. Again, as long as you see it, we are all on the same page more or less.
Let's be honest here. There are plenty of game makers who don't look much beyond the basics of a combat model when designing capabilities. Something in their design philosophies or methodologies is leading them to that. Sure, sometimes combat models don't go beyond the obvious stuff because of time or budget constraints, but I'm talking about the times when it's ultimately a matter of how they think. Why is that? I find this to be an interesting thing to think about.
Hunting/tracking, by their proper dictionary definitions, simply refer to the acts of hunting and tracking. Which has commonly used tools and tactics depending on the culture, time of history, technology and circumstance. The terms do not inherently indicate whether the prey (animal, criminal, or enemy combatant) is also a direct threat to the hunter at the time of the hunt.
Whether possibly being in danger is part of what people generally think of when they use the words hunting/tracking when referring to in real life and/or video games hinges on the circles that person travels in and particular experience they have.
Now, in a video game, whether "finding an enemy in combat" can accurately be called hunting or tracking is heavily dependent on the specific mechanics involved.
If I called something as basic as poking my head around a corner, or running into the next room after my opponent, "hunting/tracking" that would be aggrandizing. Alternatively, If I call having abilities that pseudo-mimic real life hunter/tracker type actions such as following the imprints of footsteps (something done in real life hunting/tracking) or tagging a target with some sort of technology that allows you to monitor their movements without direct line of sight (something done in real life hunting/tracking), then I am using the terms with dictionary accuracy. Obviously, I was talking about the latter.
In fact, my whole "hunter class" example was literally me saying that for a hunter class to live up the name of hunter they needed some set of capabilities that would fall under an accurate categorization of hunting, as anything less would not be accurate to call hunting.
If you'd like to discuss some better vs worse way's to achieve that, I'd be happy to.
However, I'm not arguing any further over the use of the word. If there is absolutely nothing at all that a character can have that you would feel comfortable calling "hunting/tracking" simply because it would be happening mid combat, so be it. I'm not sure what other word you would put on it but you do what works for you. I have every reason to be comfortable calling it the way I do.
Whether possibly being in danger is part of what people generally think of when they use the words hunting/tracking when referring to in real life and/or video games hinges on the circles that person travels in and particular experience they have.
Now, in a video game, whether "finding an enemy in combat" can accurately be called hunting or tracking is heavily dependent on the specific mechanics involved.
If I called something as basic as poking my head around a corner, or running into the next room after my opponent, "hunting/tracking" that would be aggrandizing. Alternatively, If I call having abilities that pseudo-mimic real life hunter/tracker type actions such as following the imprints of footsteps (something done in real life hunting/tracking) or tagging a target with some sort of technology that allows you to monitor their movements without direct line of sight (something done in real life hunting/tracking), then I am using the terms with dictionary accuracy. Obviously, I was talking about the latter.
In fact, my whole "hunter class" example was literally me saying that for a hunter class to live up the name of hunter they needed some set of capabilities that would fall under an accurate categorization of hunting, as anything less would not be accurate to call hunting.
If you'd like to discuss some better vs worse way's to achieve that, I'd be happy to.
However, I'm not arguing any further over the use of the word. If there is absolutely nothing at all that a character can have that you would feel comfortable calling "hunting/tracking" simply because it would be happening mid combat, so be it. I'm not sure what other word you would put on it but you do what works for you. I have every reason to be comfortable calling it the way I do.
As I said, that line of discussion will have to wait.