The Next Evolution of Tetris

[mippo]

That's what got me on this track when I first thought about it

Re: "No! don't change field size!" - what I meant was something like "classes" - where you could *choose* to play with a different field (12 wide, 8 wide - maybe scale the height accordingly) and it would affect how the game went. Obviously with a narrower field, stacking would be a little less stable, but you'd clear lines faster - earning you whatevers towards your skill/spell meter. Having a wider field might mean you take less in attacks and send more.

I've also always had a little bit of a hankering for field heights of epic proportions - that is, heights that would require scrolling to display / accommodate. Field height *as* HP anyone?

Maybe this would be good in multiplayer? Both sides having a 20x20 well in 2v2 but each player still has it's own half (I think there is a mode like that in Blockbox?).  One player could have more than half (up to a limit ofcourse), so perhaps one player has 12 x 20 and the other 8 x 20? But lines would only clear if the line is filled across the well.

It would be great if they could do extra powerful moves that work together, like setting up a tsd along the seam (lol somehow twists would go over the seam) or doing a combo where they each clear lines in turns?

[Alexsweden]

If the game could be balanced in a way such that someone that dislikes spells could awoid them to a large degree and put "points" on stuff like endurance and strength instead. And maybe have mana drain as their main spell as counter to spellcasters.

The reason to why I would like this from a strategic point would be that I could do my ST stacking and never ds if I could just negelect the KO's. It all depends on how much I could decrease the KO time with ofc. Then I could send insane amounts of lines :D

btw, I thought that the OP was written by someome anonymous, not anonymous himself!

[NoManual]

I could acctually see this working. As I love both RPG's and Tetris, it would be an amazing idea to create a mix between the two.

(Also im attending to a game-design school soon, which means I will be able to make games in the future, and this looks like a really cool project that I could see myslef working on).

[Paul676]

would this work as a NEURO off nullpo?

[Zircean]

It'd be a part of the game itself. Effectively, you'd have to write a mode for it. I don't think that would be terribly difficult.

It has nothing to do with NEURO, though. Remember that NEURO isn't part of the game itself, it kinda sits on top of it.

[Grave]

There should be a ladder, like matched games where you queue up and go toe to toe with someone kinda like 1v1 from tetrisfriends.

also do skills recharge after use or is it one time use and they're done until you respawn or the game is over?

One more thing, you said this on the doc:  "However, your opponent might foresee this, and use the Regeneration skill so that even though you drain his Mana"

but you have Regeneration in the passive column so I was just wondering if its an active skill on my bars or actually passive?

[caffeine]

I read the TL;DR and wasn't impressed enough to spend twenty minutes reading the rest... =/

I don't mean to be a downer, but aren't RPGs all about time-investment, and not so much about skill acquisition? That sort of thing ain't my bag, baby.

There are also a lot of things us Street Fighter players take for granted. They are truths so self-evident, that we never talk about them because it never even occurs to us that these aren't givens. Here's a few examples:

A fair game does not give material advantages to one player over the other
A fair game gives each player equal opportunity to bring whatever legal materials he wants (in our case, you can choose any character you want, no need to grind him to level 60. All players have immediate equal access to all characters.)
It's ok (and the entire point!) to bring to the game a) more knowledge than your opponent about the nuances of the game, and b) more skill than your opponent.
Time invested should count for nothing in a fair game. It might take me 1 hour to learn a few nuances and gain a certain level of skill and you 1000 hours. The hours don't matter; only the knowledge and skill matter.
I'll say it again: winning is a meritocracy.
Finally, playing a fair game is what it's all about. It would never occur to us to play a game where one player gets to do 50% more damage because he has a level 60 Chun Li.

[Grave]

I read the TL;DR and wasn't impressed enough to spend twenty minutes reading the rest... =/

I don't mean to be a downer, but aren't RPGs all about time-investment, and not so much about skill acquisition? That sort of thing ain't my bag, baby.

Idk man I feel like that argument is more or less invalid.  For instance the top players in Super street fighter 4: AE, and MvC3 have to put in over 5 hours of practice a day to stay on their game and continue to "grow" and "level".  The guy has already stated that being level 100 wouldn't put you over a significant advantage vs a level 50 but there would be a slight advantage, but that also means that the level 100 has put more time into the game to get to level 100.

[caffeine]

Idk man I feel like that argument is more or less invalid.

My "argument" was that:

• RPGs reward time-invested opposed to skill.
• This is a bad thing.

So let me get this straight... To show that my "argument" is "invalid," you're saying that:

• "The guy [presumably Sirlin] has already stated that being level 100 wouldn't put you over a significant advantage vs a level 50"
• To gain that "slight avantage," "the level 100 has put more time into the game."

First of all, I'd appreciate it if you could link me to where "the guy" actually said this. It seems inconsistent with my own experience with RPGs. Perhaps this may be true with WOW, but it certainly wasn't the case with Pokemon (where a maxed-leveled pokemon would destroy a halfway-leveled one). In fact, in all the RPGs I've played, this effect was anything but "insignificant." It was quite clear to me that in these games took time to level up, and those extra levels were the difference between beating the more difficult bosses and losing against them. I thought this characteristic of RPGs was universality agreed upon.

I will have to agree with your logic, though. If time-spent results in "insignificant" advantages, then the game does not reward time-invested opposed to skill. However, even though the logic is there, if the premise is incorrect, then your conclusion does not follow (and I believe that may very well be the case).

[Chopin]

[!--ImageUrlBegin--][a href=\\\"http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8650/channeld.jpg\\\" target=\\\"_new\\\"][!--ImageUrlEBegin--][img width=\\\"400\\\" class=\\\"attach\\\" src=\\\"http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8650/channeld.jpg\\\" border=\\\'0\\\' alt=\\\"IPB Image\\\" /][!--ImageUrlEnd--][/a][!--ImageUrlEEnd--]

[Profane]

Wow i love this idea.  I'm not gonna lie i thought it was gonna be kind of cornyish at first.  But this sounds like a ton of fun.  I'm reading the Google Docs page right now and i'm loving it.

[Grave]

My "argument" was that:

• RPGs reward time-invested opposed to skill.
• This is a bad thing.

So let me get this straight... To show that my "argument" is "invalid," you're saying that:

• "The guy [presumably Sirlin] has already stated that being level 100 wouldn't put you over a significant advantage vs a level 50"
• To gain that "slight avantage," "the level 100 has put more time into the game."

First of all, I'd appreciate it if you could link me to where "the guy" actually said this. It seems inconsistent with my own experience with RPGs. Perhaps this may be true with WOW, but it certainly wasn't the case with Pokemon (where a maxed-leveled pokemon would destroy a halfway-leveled one). In fact, in all the RPGs I've played, this effect was anything but "insignificant." It was quite clear to me that in these games took time to level up, and those extra levels were the difference between beating the more difficult bosses and losing against them. I thought this characteristic of RPGs was universality agreed upon.

I will have to agree with your logic, though. If time-spent results in "insignificant" advantages, then the game does not reward time-invested opposed to skill. However, even though the logic is there, if the premise is incorrect, then your conclusion does not follow (and I believe that may very well be the case).

Go the doc here:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-asJZ-X...en_US&pli=1

scroll down to the leveling section underneath the section describing all the skills.

Also I would like to add that I am not completely disagreeing with what you're saying, you do have valid points on rpg elements and how leveling does give a slight imbalance to those of a lesser level and does reward those who play more etc. but I hope in this case it is incorrect to say the least and that it will be programmed around that.

[Profane]

An idea for the KO/piece dropping thing that Anon and Myndzi were talking about.  You could put up lets say a 30 second clock but dropping a piece would immediately remove a second from the clock.  So what it would do was limit each player 30 pieces max or 30 seconds max.  The faster you drop peices the less time you have,  if you were to use your time for spell setups instead of dropping pieces then you would have obviously more time.  I think if you made the 'KO' time for even more strategy you could make it more interesting.  Possibly allowing you to change spells you can cast during time of KO for both players.  It would allow for some mid game strategy.

I know it's a bit of rambling but i think it would fix your problem of 15 seconds being way to long for a player like Apoc but not enough for nooby12532242.

[!--ImageUrlBegin--][a href=\\\"http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8650/channeld.jpg\\\" target=\\\"_new\\\"][!--ImageUrlEBegin--][img width=\\\"400\\\" class=\\\"attach\\\" src=\\\"http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/8650/channeld.jpg\\\" border=\\\'0\\\' alt=\\\"IPB Image\\\" /][!--ImageUrlEnd--][/a][!--ImageUrlEEnd--]

lol i love this.  

[Anonymous]

Corrosive: Immunity would be a cool skill. I'll lump it with absorption. I already hae something similar to "clear lines". For Gravity, I thought about putting it, but I don't think it'd be a skill that people would really use much. Switch Fields is too powerful/annoying in my opinion.

Credits/Money is a good idea. I talked about buying items in a shop, but I forgot to mention currency in the document.

I think there could also be a gambling system where you could spend your money buying items that have unknown attributes that are revealed after you buy them. This way, players can have an outlet to use their money to get potentially good items.

Mippo:

It might be a cool idea if you had a 2v2 where the two players on the same team share one big field or something similar to what you described. I like the idea that people could work together to do extra powerful attacks. I'm not a fan of changing field sizes though (see last post), but it's always something that could be played around with.

AlexSweden:

That sounds like a possibly effective strategy. I would have never thought of this. Just goes to show there can be a lot of different play styles that can work.

Grave:

I was thinking of a ladder-like system. I had an idea that could have a two-way system. You could have a place where you could level up, and everything is normal. Basically, what I posted in the Tetris RPG document.

And, you could have a rank system where there are no items, and both players are level 30. And then, both players can distribute their 30 stat points and skill points. And then they can fight.

Also, for Regeneration, you'd have to choose it to be one of your three skills in the match. But, since the Regeneration is passive, you don't have to "use" it; it'll always be on. Sorry for any confusion!

Caffeine:

"The guy" is actually me. He was referring to something in my document. You wouldn't see it if you didn't read it though c;

This game isn't an RPG in the traditional sense that you have to put in a lot of time to be strong. The main point of Tetris RPG isn't really the leveling up. It's about customization towards your own unique play style through the use skills.

The levels aren't meant to make it so that a level 100 will always beat a level 50. There may be a significant difference between a level 10 and a level 40, but once you get to 40+, the playing field should even out. And in the game, you should be able to get to level 40 within a month if you play casually, or a week if you played hardcore.

One of the main reason why I have levels is just an added bonus. After a player has reached a temporary skill plateau, he can continue putting in hours without feeling like they're going to waste. If he levels up, he would have something to show for the hours he put in.

And under the "rank system" you'd be able to have a "fair game". I think this would be useful for tournaments and for testing out combinations of skills too.

Also, one more idea I had is that you could have a "random mode", and when you play, it would randomly select three skills for each player before each match. And then the two players could try to play using those skills. It sounds like it could be a lot of fun and result in creative gameplay.

[Profane]

I'll add one more comment for now lol.   I think if this ever happens one thing you should do is make the rankings of players available for view.  and i don't necessarily mean their level.  I mean you should come up with a way to rank each player individually and you should be able to view it easily like you would 40 line time.  One of the things that breads competition is knowing where you stand and whom stands in your way.  It's like when i used to play Madden online i did so to try and become the number one player and i think it's something that could encourage people to come back to the game.