by agentlemanloser » Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:44 pm
While I appreciate the thought that has gone into the madness system, I feel you have made a few missteps that should be addressed.
Full disclosure for the critics who tend to straw-man arguments: I am a fully-established player who has not gained a single madness level intentionally since the patch. I do not find the system to be a burden or a difficulty, with the possible exception of losing valuable tools (if you want that to be the case, revisit the wear issue). I don’t really care how madness is generated nor how one fights it. My criticism lies with the larger implementation of the concept of madness and how it interacts with player experience. Let me explain.
Madness, as it is currently implemented, is a system in which X number of points equals death. In other words, once a meter fills, one’s character keels over as a consequence of the filling of a meter. This, I feel, is a massive misstep in this kind of game—or any game, really—since it eliminates the concept of agency, at least in a direct sense. Since JC has spoken of a certain “Salem experience” before, I am assuming that the developers want systems that generate very specific emotions in players: paranoia, fear, relief, etc. A filling meter reset by a smoking session and occasionally punctuated by episodes does not do this, as it is essentially an agency-less system.
A brief word on the psychotic episodes before I continue. I do not find the episodes themselves to be problematic—indeed, some of them play into the emotional responses you as developers likely want (the coal/spark episode, for example). Even so, the episodes still occupy the same slot as unskippable cut-scenes in other games, which is to say that they simply take up small amounts of time. I realize this is a slightly inaccurate comparison, but the point about time stands. This kind of mechanic only matters insofar as it interacts with other mechanics, something I will explain later.
First, though, is my primary criticism: no player should die from the meaningless accumulation of numbers in a meter but rather through agents attached to level gain, agents with which a player can interact. A madness level 10, therefore, should not directly kill a character. Rather, it will mean that a character has a 100% probability of a number of things happening that can and more often than not will lead to the death of the player. What follows is one relatively easy-to-implement proposal for what those things could be.
First, as a character ascends the madness level, chances increase that all animals, regardless of other factors, will become aggressive. Moreover, these animals will become aggressive from greater distances, up to the limit of visibility. These aggressive animals will also have minor AI changes such that, when aggroed, they make a bee-line for the player, wander much less during combat, and require a much greater distance before combat is ended.
Second, as the madness level rises, all animals have an increasing chance to inflict a deathblow. At madness level 10, a rabbit or cricket on the coast or in Providence will kill.
Third, as the madness level rises, players have an increased chance to see a much stronger version of common and uncommon animals. As I realize time and resources are not unlimited, I suggest simply tweaking the numbers and making the animal models much darker with red eyes. These animals should be on par with darkness variants in terms of stats, but should carry standard loot drops.
Fourth, as the madness level rises, the chance that these animals will spawn inside someone’s base increases. At the highest levels of madness, single animals might spawn in mines, houses, barns, etc.
Fifth, as the madness level rises, the spawns would become separate from the standard timing system. A single, violent animal could spawn at the edge of radar contact and rush the player, regardless of whether one was on a known node.
I feel that this is far more consistent with the play experience of Salem. You speak of insanity, but insanity as a concept is far more appropriate to the narrative of Don’t Starve. Here, you are really speaking of PARANOIA, something more appropriate to the literary/historical inspirations for this game. You’ll note that the proposals above all center around the animals, quite literally, being “Out to get you.” As such, the random insanity events seem somewhat out of place—though not entirely, and I do not feel you should remove them. However, while a scratching episode is irritating and frustrating, walking into one’s otherwise secure house to find a murder-capable black deer preparing to charge is another thing entirely. Stepping into one’s mine and finding instantly aggressive giant bats would increase the actual player’s paranoia level, something that I would assume to be your actual goal.
Under this system, the madness episodes would be transformed from pointlessly annoying (if occasionally amusing) delays to genuine dangers. One would hardly want a psychotic episode when running for one’s life from an animal there only to kill. Indeed, simpler variants of the psychotic episode could be added to enhance this effect. Something as simple as losing control of one’s character for a few seconds as he or she looks suspiciously around and says “Did you hear something?” could be fatal.
The naming of the mechanic should probably also be changed. Insanity and Madness would probably work better as Paranoia and Madness, as the latter is the consequence of the growth of the former. Insanity is synonymous with madness, while paranoia is a state that can lead to madness or insanity. As such, the lowest levels of madness would be accompanied by paranoid episodes, such as the “What was that?” brief loss of control in addition to certain voices, while the higher levels would also be accompanied by genuine craziness.
Admittedly, I do not have a full grasp of all of the systems you have implemented here. Regardless, I feel that my read of the ultimate problem is solid. A great number of the comments I have read do not constitute valid or valuable feedback, and I can understand your frustration at dealing with bile. I hope, however, that you take something from my argument, as I think a great deal of the player bile is, at some level, a response to a system that is not, as yet, in perfect harmony with the game.
I recall your discussion of witchcraft: it was intended to be a system based around paranoia and false positives—player paranoia, I might add, rather than solely some measurable number in-game. Here you have a chance to do something similar with madness by making a few minor changes. Are my solutions ideal? I have no idea—I’m a lazy teacher, not a programmer. That said, I am confident that the idea underlying my solutions is valid.
![¦]](./images/smilies/troll.gif "Trollface")
