For me, part of the point of a game such as this is that it provides an opportunity for interaction with the other players. If the players are all heads-down solving puzzles on their phone when they come together at the bases, it spoils that somewhat.
Say, hypothetically, that ticks diminish at a rate of one per minute. If the game has half an hour left to run, then there’s no point in trying to get any ticks onto a base unless you’re sure you can get at least thirty on it. So, to make the game competitive from the start, I guess the victory condition has to be something more complicated than “most bases at the end wins”.
I will admit, I had not thought of it from this point of view. My goal with such an app is to encourage movement and give people an excuse to run around for half an hour.
The point of the game on the phone is to handle the issue of winning a base - i.e. if only one person is at a base, it’s easy to work out that they’ve won it, but if you’ve got two people there - who’s winning it? In FPS games this is easily resolved - you simply kill your opponent, but (last time I checked) you can’t do this in real life
I’m open to other ideas for this.
I think we can help solve this issue by making ticks expire more quickly - probably one per second. The the activities you play to win ticks on a base should probably take no more than 5 second to complete (quite a change from my originally proposed 10-30), and will add, say 20 ticks at a time.
This mechanic is defiantly something which is going to take some play-testing to get right however.
Not totally relevant but I thought I’d share it as I think it’s a cool idea. A capture the WiFi Access Point game.
A while back I saw that someone had asked for a list of free WiFi networks that were available around Birmingham. This game idea got me thinking how cool it would be to create a game where people earn points for finding and holding wireless access points. The main purpose being it would produce an accurate up to date list of available networks.
So I was wondering how I could make this be all about parkour because anything that’s about parkour is better than anything not about parkour.
But what I really wanted to do was to make a game where parkour could feature. In the OP, you could simply stick the bases in places that are hard to get to.
But what about if instead of just bases you could also describe the ideal route? Or checkpoints - places you have to visit before reaching the base. You could lose points if you acquire a base without passing within a reasonable distance of a checkpoint. Additionally, the time it takes you to leave a base and arrive at the next could factor into it.
Just spitballing; I think evolving this idea would be valuable
One of the things I’ve been aware of is that the bases need to be placed in locations that are accessible (be it via parkor, or simply walking), which is why I’ve always envisioned a game where the bases are defined by the players, rather than randomly via the game.
If you did was random bases, I guess the above could be mitigated against by setting up a boundary (the edges of the park) and dead zones (bodies of water, etc…). I think something like this is more of an implementation detail than anything fundamental to the base idea of the game however.
This is an interesting idea, and may solve the issue of ‘people looking at their phones’ as mentioned by @mavit - you capture a base by performing a physical task. This could be, like you mention, a particular route that you need to take to reach it, or maybe some other type of physical activity, like jumping jacks (which the phone’s accelerometer should be able to recognise and calculate)
I love the ideas, keep them coming.
The only thing I’d mention in addition to the above is liability. I don’t think it could be promoted specifically as a parkor game, as you just know some idiot is going to go jumping off a building and hurting themselves. I get that people could just as easily hurt themselves running around a field, but this is far less so, and we can potentially mitigate against this with the usual warnings about being safe.
This is a good point. Depending on how large an area you have to play in, this might not be an issue. I’ve always envisioned this being something you play in a park, with a good clear view of the sky.
One possible solution to this would be the use of beacons. In fact one of the very earliest ideas I had for this was a kit which you’re able to purchase from Toys R Us (or wherever) which contained everything you needed to play - beacon-based bases, radar/positioning devices for each of the players, etc… I suppose the GPS-based app version is the proof of concept for this.
I envisioned the bases being reasonably far apart and actually zones. The park thing would work in something the size of Greenwich Park, but not really something the size of Caldecott Park in Rugby. In fact, I would say that Caldecott Park would be about the size of the ideal zone … well, maybe an oversized zone. But you would be looking at a zone maybe 1/3 the size of the park, so you could be anywhere in it and be considered to capture it.
This is approximately the size of a building or parking lot, as well, so the point would be to travel a reasonably non-trivial distance between them.
But why restrict? You could just set the radius of the base when you place it, based on how bad the GPS is for you and your friends. If you’re travelling further between bases, bigger bases make sense.
My next step is to get this data it to sync with Firebase (which should be quite simple), then look into displaying it on a map (no idea how to do this currently), and finally populating said map with everyone else using the app at the same time (I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it).