Project Wish  
Project Wish
Project Wish
hardwired

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Brotoi mentioned monsters..., (in his blog)
RicoSuave
post Mar 20 2008, 09:29 AM
Post #1


Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22-March 06
From: (Undisclosed)
Member No.: 585



Here's a quote from Brotoi's blog:
QUOTE
Today I came up with descriptions for the pallisade and buildings in Three Bridge Outpost, a commercial and military settlement in the midst of the Oak forest. I also added descriptions of musical themes for several key points in the Three Bridge Outpost area. Then I went to the Oak Forest page and added some new creatures to the magical beastiary for the forest. From the moment a person enters the forest until the time they finally leave, I want them to encounter beasts that are both oddly familiar and shocking in their uniqueness. I'd like to have a dozen, but even after adding today's entries, I am still far from that number.
The part I want to discuss is underlined. I have a question and perhaps a discussion topic. First, will we be sticking to normal convention and using monsters with strict min-max toughness? For example, In UO, I know that I won't be able to take on a troll until I've battled for at least 50 played-hours. But once I get to about 80 played-hours, no troll would stand a chance against me. Additionally, at 150 played-hours, I could stand indefinately against millions of trolls. Not just that, but troll from server to server is nearly exactly the same... give or take a stat or skill point. Should our adversaries be the same, where one can just Wiki the expected value of a goblin and know where to find them, what they drop, their exact strengths and weaknesses, et cetera? Or should some goblins be very weak and others exceptionally strong, with adolescent ages?

Whatever we decide on, how will the player learn about the relative strengths and weaknesses of beasties? Trial and error on a random system? That sounds a little harsh. Should town folk have rumors/quests? How about a towncryer? Newspaper? What about completely no reference at all, and needing the players to piece together information about missing PC/NPC parties or trade-routes being overcome?

Personally, I love exploring with a chance of getting my butt handed to me. To me, that is a key element to the excitement of a game. If I know what to expect, if I know how to prepare, I will succeed, but won't have as much fun as if I got beat on a few times in the process learning new tactics. Personally, I like knowing that I outsmarted someone, whether it be the coder or a random number generator... while OBEYING the rules. smile.gif

I would like to see Brotoi's strange and new monsters and learning about them like a scientist would... by poking and prodding then recording a response. I think it would be cool to see a cute, little fuzzy caterpillar thing (with big puppy-dog eyes) turn nasty in a split second... only because I was wearing a blue shirt instead of red (or something). Discovering these nuances in the game is what thrills me. I guess I'm just weird that way. Most people would just like to know what is the best/fastest/easiest way to get to the top. Yes, I want to have my character develop and be respected, but there is a game to be played as well; not a race to be won.

I look forward to Brotoi's response along with anyone else's. Do we already have something in place?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Areena
post Mar 20 2008, 02:36 PM
Post #2


PW Story Team
***

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 53
Joined: 11-January 05
From: WI
Member No.: 48



i know personally i think mobs that also gain skill, although much more basic than players, would be really awesome. especially if once they reach a certain point they become "epic" named mobs.

for example say a goblin starts with an attack rating of 5.0 and a defense rating of 7.0. after numerous players attack this goblin and die to it, it gains skill in attack and defense. After a week no one has been able to kill this troll and now its at a 15/30 attack/defense rating. at this point it goes from being labeled simply as "Goblin" to "Shr'nruk the Blocker". he could possibly even learn basic skills, become more aggressive, increase agro range, or all kinds of other fun stuff. not to mention all the sweet lewts he'd have from killing all those players.


--------------------
Areena, citizen of Kemilnar
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post Mar 20 2008, 03:23 PM
Post #3


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,610
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(RicoSuave @ Mar 20 2008, 09:29 AM) *

Here's a quote from Brotoi's blog:The part I want to discuss is underlined. I have a question and perhaps a discussion topic. First, will we be sticking to normal convention and using monsters with strict min-max toughness? For example, In UO, I know that I won't be able to take on a troll until I've battled for at least 50 played-hours. But once I get to about 80 played-hours, no troll would stand a chance against me. Additionally, at 150 played-hours, I could stand indefinately against millions of trolls. Not just that, but troll from server to server is nearly exactly the same... give or take a stat or skill point. Should our adversaries be the same, where one can just Wiki the expected value of a goblin and know where to find them, what they drop, their exact strengths and weaknesses, et cetera? Or should some goblins be very weak and others exceptionally strong, with adolescent ages?

Boy, you really are digging in deep for answers wink.gif. Since I am in the middle of documenting our design, Brotoi doesn't yet know the answers to these questions, so I'll give you the vision that we are "shooting for" right now:
Monsters should be able to "level up" themselves, to a point. Because of this, there will be a range of levels or rather, skill levels, that any given monster can fall between. How great the range still remains to be seen. We aren't that far along yet in the design. Monsters will be a part of a particular "ecosystem" in a given area, and can even go extinct, if they are thoroughly killed enough. What will follow that should be another monster filling in to take its place, or maybe even some other types migrating.
<edit> just noticed that Areena beat me to the punch

As far as their strengths and weaknesses go, this will depend on the player's skill level in knowledge-based abilities, like anatomy and insight. There will be a base that all players will need to be able to know, like your standard con systems, where if something is going to kick the crap out of you, you would want to know by way of it being labeled red, for example. With a higher skill however, a player will be able to spot weaknesses, and more information (similar to knowing exact HP in another game)to help them better make the decision, and how better to attack.

QUOTE(RicoSuave @ Mar 20 2008, 09:29 AM) *

Whatever we decide on, how will the player learn about the relative strengths and weaknesses of beasties? Trial and error on a random system? That sounds a little harsh. Should town folk have rumors/quests? How about a towncryer? Newspaper? What about completely no reference at all, and needing the players to piece together information about missing PC/NPC parties or trade-routes being overcome?

Brotoi can comment about the townsfolk, rumors, and quests, since he is helping to design that system.

As far as towncryers and newspapers, absolutely. Add in bulletin boards for player quests, bounties, etc. and you are starting to get the immersion level you are talking about. Regarding no reference, I plan on having a basic map of geography available to players, but then the details will have to be filled in through exploration, or bought from player cartographers (who have explored those areas themselves). How this will tie into con and other systems is still to be determined. Unfortunately, even with a sense of randomness, game guides and wikis are still going to pop up whether we like them or not.

QUOTE(RicoSuave @ Mar 20 2008, 09:29 AM) *

Personally, I love exploring with a chance of getting my butt handed to me. To me, that is a key element to the excitement of a game. If I know what to expect, if I know how to prepare, I will succeed, but won't have as much fun as if I got beat on a few times in the process learning new tactics. Personally, I like knowing that I outsmarted someone, whether it be the coder or a random number generator... while OBEYING the rules. smile.gif

Totally agree. I'm the same way.

QUOTE(RicoSuave @ Mar 20 2008, 09:29 AM) *

I would like to see Brotoi's strange and new monsters and learning about them like a scientist would... by poking and prodding then recording a response. I think it would be cool to see a cute, little fuzzy caterpillar thing (with big puppy-dog eyes) turn nasty in a split second... only because I was wearing a blue shirt instead of red (or something). Discovering these nuances in the game is what thrills me. I guess I'm just weird that way. Most people would just like to know what is the best/fastest/easiest way to get to the top. Yes, I want to have my character develop and be respected, but there is a game to be played as well; not a race to be won.

Most people would, but most people aren't who we are targetting with this game wink.gif.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RicoSuave
post Mar 20 2008, 09:20 PM
Post #4


Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22-March 06
From: (Undisclosed)
Member No.: 585



Thanks a ton, guys! I appreciate the quick turn-around response. It looks like you guys have a skeletal outline built and just need more time on your hands to flesh it all out.

Outstanding!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brotoi
post Mar 22 2008, 01:36 AM
Post #5


PW Story Team
*****

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 151
Joined: 30-November 07
Member No.: 1,123



Where to start, where to start? huh.gif

If you go back and read my thread on Kandonda (and eventually the Wiki once my schedule opens up again the week after next and I have time to update) you'll find that at least as far as Dryads, Kitsune, and Tropes are concerned, I have outlined a growth system that should allow them to never go extinct. As a player, I would be quite thrilled to see an ecological system in place that encourages natural (or natural appearing) growth and movement of creatures, but I would be equally angered if a species I enjoyed having in the game went extinct. Personally, for me, it falls under the "nice idea but not practical in reality" category. Rather than allow extinction, we need to find a spawn system that maintains the illusion of natural growth while not allowing brutal, overeager players to destroy the gaming environment for everyone else.

If extinction is possible, there will be players who pursue it with a passion. For evidence, just look at the real world.

Seriously, a year or two from now do we really want to be faced with a virtual playground empty of enemies and overflowing with player-made ghost towns? Look at Europe, look at China, look at Japan, look at India. This is what our game will become if we allow players too much freedom.

Enemy difficulty, aggression, and behavior is something I have spent a great deal of time thinking on the past few days. I think we, like everyone before us, have been looking at the problem from the wrong side of the mirror.

Instead of worrying about how the player will "con" the potential enemy, we need to focus on how the enemy views the player. NPC AI is the key to the problem.

Players need to have a hidden attribute: for illustration purposes, let's call it "Aggression". Aggression should have a fixed range (like all attributes), from 0-200, for example. The player enters the NPC's awareness circle (modified by terrain, weather, and so on) allowing the NPC to become aware of the player. (Sometimes this is called a "taunt circle", or "aggro range".) The AI immediately checks the Aggression stat. If the stat is 0-50, the NPC ignores the player or even offers a friendly greeting. If the stat is 51-100, the NPC "goes on the alert" and prepares an attack of some kind (by drawing a weapon or charging a magic skill). If the stat is 101-150, the NPC hails the player and demand they identify themselves. If the stat is over 150, the NPC attacks the moment they become aware of the player.

This is quite realistic. If you are an experienced beat cop in Los Angeles the instant you meet another person you automatically analyze body posture, clothing, hygiene, movement, facial expression, and so on, and arrive at a threat level assessment. Your response to that person is then determined by the assessment. The greater your experience level, or the more obvious the person is, the easier this process becomes. Players who are naturally aggressive (i.e., they attack often and early) would naturally have about them an "aura" of violence that another sentient in a violent world would be instinctively watching for.

So how do we arrive at an Aggression attribute? Simple, by adding and subtracting. If the player initiates a combat action (i.e., takes first hit, launches an unprovoked attack with a ranged weapon or magic skill, pursues multiple attacks on the same NPC group in a short time frame, etc.) then their Aggression stat gets +1. If they assist a player who was attacked without warning (probably because they have a high Aggression stat, but that's not something the assist would know), if they accompany an overland caravan and act in the caravan's defense (assuming we have caravans), or something similar, their Aggression stat gets -1. Naturally, protections would have to be in place to prevent the stat from falling outside the acceptable range.

These ranges are just suggestions. The degree of intelligence that the programming department is willing to develop would have a direct effect on how the attribute is both adjusted and perceived. Perceptions of the player's skill level, equipment, and how many people are with the player could all easily become factors in how the AI responds the moment the player enters the awareness zone.

We can't control the player. We can, however, control the NPC AI. The more intelligent our enemies are, the less we have to worry about what device (if any) the player uses to "con" the comparative difficulty of the enemy.

As for Wikis, forums, and whatnot. I've said it before and I'll say it again here. We want the players to be actively involved in both building and utilizing these tools. Production and use of peer aids is the #2 element in building a loyal player community. The only thing more important is ingame tools such as chat client, guild management, and global communications (ingame bulletin boards, etc.)

In conjunction with this we also need an attribute like "Diplomacy". If a player never takes the initiative in combat, often accepts trade offers from "enemy" NPC groups, spends time (say, ten minutes of apparent inactivity) just watching "enemy" NPCs go about their business, regularly writes ingame books (a function that could be available in libraries, for example) or publishes ingame maps (a function available at a friendly NPC in towns, villages and outposts) then their Diplomacy rises (and Aggression declines). Players with high Diplomacy stats will find even the most fearsome NPC groups willing to allow them to pass unharmed through their territories.

As players learn about these two hidden stats and how they affect gameplay, they will naturally fall into traditional scout, spy, stealth roles, or disdain the advantages of Diplomacy, max out their Aggression stat, and fall naturally into the role of tank, lead attacker, pull initiator, etc. Having these two attributes ingame gives NPC AI something else to consider and helps to cause player choice rather than some kind of pre-defined class become the overriding influence on individual gameplay experience.

One really nice side effect of this system is that it also encourages non-traditional player roles such as interspecies merchants, anthropologists, cartographers and so on, while still allowing a player to kill everything in sight and "level up" if they prefer to play that way (or "skill up", as would be a more fitting definition for our system).

So, in summary:

1. Allowing extinctions is bad game design
2. Aggression and Diplomacy attributes have the potential to dramatically improve gameplay while maintaining relatively simple programming.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jerky
post Mar 22 2008, 02:51 PM
Post #6


Former PW Project Manager
**********

Group: PW Admin
Posts: 1,610
Joined: 11-January 05
From: Dallas, GA
Member No.: 62



QUOTE(Brotoi @ Mar 22 2008, 01:36 AM) *

1. Allowing extinctions is bad game design
2. Aggression and Diplomacy attributes have the potential to dramatically improve gameplay while maintaining relatively simple programming.

1) Notice that the extinct word was prefaced with "in a given area." I hope there to be many areas where any one type of monster will inhabit while not having these areas touch. It was probably a poor word choice, but still one in which leads to the comprehension I was seeking. Probably more apt would be "driving a monster from an area" with the caveat that it could be temporary. I totally agree that spawns should always seem dynamic, and so I dislike the taint associated with the word. I don't think a monster should ever "spawn" right next to or ontop of a player. I don't think they should even be within eyesight. Given the size of our world, I think given the right logic and AI, we could pull that off.

Driving a monster out could be like a local extinction, which is why I used the word. I do, however, agree that actual extinction would be a bad idea, not to mention wasteful (of our own precious resources as developers). I would almost be accepting of it if the same models could be reused elsewhere in the world under another name, being some sort of distant cousin, but this is something to be discussed when approaching our first or second expansion, meaning its a LONG ways off. That being said, I would not want all your hard work as a writer to go to waste.

2) I understand the idea, but dislike the names. I wouldn't want to go to a new area where I have never been and have something attack me just because they knew ahead of time that I was an aggressive player, whether it was true or not. I would much rather use the faction, karma, reputation, fame and notoriety systems to take care of this same effect. I think that if you kill a lot of a certain type of mob, you're reputation with them would suffer. The results from what you describe could still be the same, but the way to get there is a little different.

The one difference, that I happen to like, and seems more "realistic" to me is that if you've never met this race before, they won't know how to handle you. Unless you are widely known as a dastardly murderer of all things wild, they would merely be cautious/wary (or aggressive if that happens to be their natural tendency).

I do like the described effects of the system, and think that the enemy/NPC AI does need to be taken to a new level. I could definitely see some players who consistently did not attack a race would not be attacked on site, and could therefore be better at reconnaissance or something other useful. This could make them more effective at some non-combat types of gameplay, which I am in favor of encouraging.


--------------------
Erik Briggs (Jerky)
Project Manager
My Blog
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RicoSuave
post Mar 22 2008, 09:26 PM
Post #7


Master
******

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 22-March 06
From: (Undisclosed)
Member No.: 585



Perhaps there are a few small variables that could fit into this aggression (call it what you will) system. I'm not sure how easy some of these will be to code up, but I think most would be pretty easy:
- Weapon drawn?
- PC facing NPC?
- Direct intercept course? (could be simplified to vectors toward vs. strafing NPC)
- Group activity? (I'm not scared of one fire ant, but a few hundred FREAK ME OUT!)
- Weapon/Armor/Raw-stats caliber? (seriously, who would YOU rather fight? Conan or Napoleon Dynamite?)

I do, however, agree with Jerky's notion of fame, notoriety, karma, faction, etc. in that there are some things in real life that (most) everyone will jump at (i.e. a scorpion). They are known for being aggressive (fame), even attacking at times with no provocation... whereas most snakes would rather be left alone and ignore us (unless you're on the menu). But how many of us know anything about Wildebeests in Africa? Who would have figured they are the number one killer of humans there (apart from Malaria-bearing mosquitoes) outpacing crocodiles, cats, elephants, etc.? Where on Earth was I going with this…? huh.gif Oh well.

Anyway… therefore, I think a system of notoriety AND aggressive stance should be used. Just my 2¢.



(I think I win the random forum post of the week award) blink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
echorev
post Mar 23 2008, 04:20 PM
Post #8


PW Sound Team
*****

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 132
Joined: 29-December 06
Member No.: 864



In terms of how different races treat the players:

- If one alien comes down and attacks us, we will be wary of the rest. If another does, we will probably consider them all dangerous, whereas if the first came down and gave us a gift, we would be much more favorable to the rest.

I think how a type of race views another type of race as a whole has a huge impact. In real life people are naturally biased towards people who are most like them, which I think should translate into the game. Whereas if a bunch of players consistently attacked a race, it would not be impossible for another member to become friendly with them, but just much harder.

As well, there could be signs or newspapers in the main town of a certain race charting the aggression level of another race towards them, such as "at war" or something like that.

In short: I think how races interact should be measured on the individual level, but also the macro level as well.


--------------------
IPB Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ghedipunk
post Apr 17 2008, 01:04 PM
Post #9


PW Programmer
***

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 65
Joined: 3-May 06
Member No.: 596



An individually macro level...

In real life, reputation needs witnesses to spread. If a person is killed in the wilderness, then the area gets a bad reputation... If, however, someone were to witness the death, then he could regroup and mount a hunt against the bears of the area...

In a system such as this, each person would be "known" by each NPC... They would all begin with a neutral or racially weighted reputation stat, then as the players interact with the NPCs, the reputation would change... When an NPC meets up with other NPCs of the same species, their reputations mix, allowing an entire species to eventually love or loath a particular player, although if the player runs through an area, they're likely to outrun any spreading reputation changes.

From a game sim perspective, though, this is incredibly inefficient. The number of reputations to keep track of would be p to the np power... (p = number of players, np = number of NPCs)... 10 to the 10th power is an incredibly huge number, so 10 players with 10 NPCs would create 10,000,000,000 relationships... Now, if we add another player, or another NPC, the number of relationships grows astronomically... double plus ungood.

If, however, we had hidden factions, and split factions to revolve around individual communities (i.e., town/city sized) rather than spread across the entire race, or even had a hybrid faction system, then we could keep the relationships in an (more) easily managed database.

(warning: arbitrary numbers ahead)

For illustration, if we have 10 NPC races, each of which had 10 communities, we have 110 factions to keep track of per player. (100 communities and 10 race-wide factions).

If a player kills 10 members of a community, their reputation with that community goes "bad" by 10 points, and their reputation with the entire race goes bad by 1 point. If I killed 10 people in my town, then the town is going to hate me, but everyone else in the world will simply be repulsed by me. This allows immediate penalties or bonuses for different actions, as well as the "word of mouth" spreading slowly through a civilization.

Certain clothing and items would also affect the immediate reputation... A naturally hostile monster would tend to attack characters wearing light armor, where a defensive monster would be more intimidated by characters wearing heavy armor and sporting large weapons.

In this case... who would you rather fight, Napoleon Dynamite or Conan? Well, it depends on whether you're fighting to defeat someone, or fighting to defend something. If you want to defeat something (i.e., you're a hungry goblin roaming the forests), then Napoleon Dynamite is the prime choice. If you want to defend something (i.e., you're a well-fed goblin and a human just ran into your cave), then you would be more likely to attack someone who looks like a threat.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Brotoi
post Apr 17 2008, 03:23 PM
Post #10


PW Story Team
*****

Group: PW Developer
Posts: 151
Joined: 30-November 07
Member No.: 1,123



QUOTE(ghedipunk @ Apr 18 2008, 04:04 AM) *

From a game sim perspective, though, this is incredibly inefficient. The number of reputations to keep track of would be p to the np power... (p = number of players, np = number of NPCs)... 10 to the 10th power is an incredibly huge number, so 10 players with 10 NPCs would create 10,000,000,000 relationships... Now, if we add another player, or another NPC, the number of relationships grows astronomically... double plus ungood.


This is exactly why I suggested the use of a hidden attribute assigned to the individual Player-character. When handled in this way the code becomes quite simple. In addition to all the other attributes that are altered, the program simply adds or subtracts an iterative value. Each encounter alters the attribute for the individual Player-character regardless of any past encounter between that player and that faction or that player and that NPC.

PC accepts a hunting quest from a friendly NPC -> Aggression++, Diplomacy--
PC accepts an assignment to guard a caravan -> Aggression--, Diplomacy++
PC kills five NPC from the same faction in a row -> Aggression++, Diplomacy--
PC accepts a trade invitation from an NPC enemy -> Aggression--, Diplomacy++
PC attacks an enemy NPC engaged in combat with a non-team member PC -> Aggression++, Diplomacy--
PC attacks an enemy NPC engaged in combat with a team member -> Aggression--, Diplomacy++
PC heals another PC -> Aggression--, Diplomacy++

So forth and so on. Naturally, the actual increments would depend on guidelines established by Design.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 12:04 AM
Original skin by: b6gm6n | Conversion by: Chris Y
hardwired
  hardwired
hardwired hardwired
hardwired hardwired