Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Generating Dynamic Content


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
23 replies to this topic

#1 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:45 PM

I have been thinking a lot about this topic in designing my game. I am making a virtual world for my game environment, or more properly, an infinite number of virtual worlds. I am creating a player driven economy with an emergent political system.
However, a big problem I have is with the environment. I can generate static factors like various resources. But its important for the game to have a good pve system as well. Now some games have tried a natural system and the players immediately came in and killed everything before it could kick in. Essentially it is necessary to use a fiat system. Natural systems won't work because the game isn't real. If you introduce consequences of player actions on the environment you are just going to have a crashed game because players can't possibly understand the real results of their actions. This is why creatures spawn from nowhere rather than somewhere.
I was thinking that given my multiworld system, a good way to generate monster spawns is by having rifts, no Rift jokes please, which are permanent and constantly generate monsters. Monsters spread out from the rifts based on their power. Stronger monsters take longer to spread from the rifts. The concentration of all creatures is greater at the rifts. A given world possesses a number of randomly placed rifts equal to the number of players. I will probably fiddle with the equation, maybe apply roots or division to the number because a world can't actually hold that number of rifts if the population gets too large and possibly the creature per area value will be too high to survive. Perhaps a rift forms as soon as one player arrives and each rift is worth 10 or 100 players and the power of its release grows with that number of players. And once it maxes out a new rift forms. I have also not decided whether the creatures from various rifts will fight or be on the same side.
I am thinking that varying kinds of walls can restrict some creatures. So smaller creatures can't pass dirt walls, and medium ones cant get past log palisades and what not. Large creatures need stone walls, very large need metal reinforced and huge creatures need enchanted defenses or whatnot. It will probably be a number based system actually, but generally their will be those tiers connected.
Now that is how the standard monster distribution will be set up. There may be a random chance that a monster will choose to nest somewhere and stop spreading out from the nexus. This may be based on if it likes caves forests rivers valleys mountains and so forth.
Now I also want some more random dynamic creature events. I suppose I could have temporary gates to other worlds. I might even be able to set it up so that a group of monsters from another world opens their own gate in a remote part of the world and begins bringing in troops for conquest or something. But I am trying to think of other methods.
Players are able to set up gates to new worlds as well for pvp and also just finding new resources, but that is crafting and pvp and not pve.
Aside from world gates I am trying to think up other automated dynamic events. Perhaps very high level creatures already in the world could do very things. Maybe creatures can evolve in a way. For instance over time as they age dragons could grow in stats and gain powers. They might be able to breed and spawn new dragons. Perhaps they gain intelligence or decide to attack the nearest settlement. Maybe they decide to enlist other high intelligence creatures or open a new rift. I would really like the game to generate its own such events of varied kinds and levels of danger.
In any case since my game is free form I would really like to get away from quests.
Now one issue I have with this system is that it may overwhelm a given world. Suppose that there are 1000 players in a world and 10 max level rifts. Suppose that some of them transfer through a gate to colonize a new world. Then suppose that an AI monster invasion sparks up. No one explores the area for a long time and the forces there build up. Maybe some demons or dragons already in the world become more powerful and start armies and attack players. Since there is no inherent safe zone, aside from perhaps the area directly around a gate terminus which may be "protected by a higher power" or "the laws of physics"(in which case the initial and later player made gates would be separate from the rift system for monster) it could be possible for players to "lose" a world, at least for a period of time until players create a sufficiently powerful group to reclaim said world. It is likely that players would react very poorly to being forced out of a world where they have a lot of investment due to pve forces.
Now in many cases it is possible that even with a lot of rifts players will be able to effectively "tame" a world from a pve standpoint. There will be a way to suppress a rift, although it is complex. But is that balancing enough considering the possibility of losing a world?

Sponsor:

#2 Ashaman73   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6943

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:42 AM

Wow...lot of text. A management summery and/or more structured text would help :P

Nevertheless, I had an similiar approach in mind for my game and implemented it to some degree. Now I'm going back to mix more designed content with dynamic content. Here're the reasons:
1. Balancing hell:
Automatically simluation of different creatures which expand on your map is really hard. When you want to prevent that the fittest creature expands on the whole region or even world, you need some good balancing between creatures (creature-player is hard, but creature vs creature makes it even harder). Just one simple flaw in your balancing (i.e. a weak monster with very high health) could result in a dominating population which is on the other hand easy meat for any experienced player.

2. Missunderstanding = bug
An earnest issue with procedural content is, that when the player encounters something, but doesn't know why this has happenend, he often declare it as bug or bad design. A simple example:

A dragon is born in a mountain, the mountain is attacked by undead , the dragon needs to flee into a nearby forest where he grow more powerful. At some time the dragon encounters a crypt filled with undead, being so powerful and hating the undead, the dragon destroys all undead and makes the crypt his new hord. (developer=amazed).

A noob player went from his newbie town to some nearby crypt, other players have told him, that there are some simple undead which could be grinded. But the player encounters a powerful dragon and dies very quickly(player=frustrated).

The player is frustrated and thinks, that this was a really bad design decision. When you do something like this, you need to deliver the story. Take as example dwarven fortress(a procedural world simulation similar to your approach), every entity has a log of all events of his whole life. When something like this would happen, the player would look at the log to understand the scene, the log will tell him the story.


Tell a story
I think that procedural content generation can help a lot, but you need to be very careful to choose the right degree. You need to tell the player a story, either a designed story or a procedural story, just don't create some procedural algorithm and confront the player with the final result only. A good way is to mix procedural content generation with design templates. Eventually procedural content generation should be tool to make the design of your world easier, but don't expect to let these generation tools do all the work for you, it would not result in an interesting world.

#3 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 December 2011 - 01:15 AM

Wow...lot of text. A management summery and/or more structured text would help :P

Nevertheless, I had an similiar approach in mind for my game and implemented it to some degree. Now I'm going back to mix more designed content with dynamic content. Here're the reasons:
1. Balancing hell:
Automatically simluation of different creatures which expand on your map is really hard. When you want to prevent that the fittest creature expands on the whole region or even world, you need some good balancing between creatures (creature-player is hard, but creature vs creature makes it even harder). Just one simple flaw in your balancing (i.e. a weak monster with very high health) could result in a dominating population which is on the other hand easy meat for any experienced player.

2. Missunderstanding = bug
An earnest issue with procedural content is, that when the player encounters something, but doesn't know why this has happenend, he often declare it as bug or bad design. A simple example:

A dragon is born in a mountain, the mountain is attacked by undead , the dragon needs to flee into a nearby forest where he grow more powerful. At some time the dragon encounters a crypt filled with undead, being so powerful and hating the undead, the dragon destroys all undead and makes the crypt his new hord. (developer=amazed).

A noob player went from his newbie town to some nearby crypt, other players have told him, that there are some simple undead which could be grinded. But the player encounters a powerful dragon and dies very quickly(player=frustrated).

The player is frustrated and thinks, that this was a really bad design decision. When you do something like this, you need to deliver the story. Take as example dwarven fortress(a procedural world simulation similar to your approach), every entity has a log of all events of his whole life. When something like this would happen, the player would look at the log to understand the scene, the log will tell him the story.


Tell a story
I think that procedural content generation can help a lot, but you need to be very careful to choose the right degree. You need to tell the player a story, either a designed story or a procedural story, just don't create some procedural algorithm and confront the player with the final result only. A good way is to mix procedural content generation with design templates. Eventually procedural content generation should be tool to make the design of your world easier, but don't expect to let these generation tools do all the work for you, it would not result in an interesting world.


My simulation isn't that complex. Creatures probably won't fight I think. They will coexist and attack players together. So no creature competition.
My game is sandbox, not theme park, it doesn't have rails. Players won't just stumble into a battle anyways, if they see a dragon they could run. And in any case with dynamic pve assaults on settlements the creatures will be hitting you out of nowhere and could be just as powerful as something in a lair so being smashed out of nowhere is hardly a novel occurrence. My game really isn't designed particularly for casuals.
Sandbox games don't tell stories. You do what you want. Even the pvp is player controlled.

#4 Acharis   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3455

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 December 2011 - 04:48 AM

I recommend checking source codes of roguelikes, these are best to learn about generated content.

As for monsters spawn, this is traditionally limited by the number of monsters (generating stops after a certain thereshold in a region has been reached).

I might even be able to set it up so that a group of monsters from another world opens their own gate in a remote part of the world and begins bringing in troops for conquest or something.

Too complex, everything too complex :D Make a game not a simulator.

Europe1300.eu - Historical Realistic Medieval Sim (RELEASED!)


#5 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 December 2011 - 10:25 AM

I recommend checking source codes of roguelikes, these are best to learn about generated content.

As for monsters spawn, this is traditionally limited by the number of monsters (generating stops after a certain thereshold in a region has been reached).

I might even be able to set it up so that a group of monsters from another world opens their own gate in a remote part of the world and begins bringing in troops for conquest or something.

Too complex, everything too complex :D Make a game not a simulator.


It is a game, and its not too complex. DF is a million times more complicated. Although it is single player and unwinnable.

#6 ImmoralAtheist   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 22 December 2011 - 01:52 PM

@AltarofScience
So you want dynamic enviroments? Those rifts that pop up might change dynamically but once there, it sounds like they are very static. Also is this what you really wanted? It does sound a bit monotonous. I would probably go for something inspired more by real wildlife. Rifts are not very realistic, and not very exciting either.

I would probably focus more on how the monsters behare, rather than how they are spawned. Especially not making it a rift game, just to make spawning "realistic".


Some of my ideas:

Make areas quite large (areas where no players cover it by their LOS).
The world consists of creatures, and often found in groups. Whenever a player is not in the vicinity of a group, you will only keep track of group information.
Whenever a player get's close enough, the individuals in the group are generated, but there will be a group ai still "commanding" the individuals. Group AI will validate it's own situation. If things looks to bad it might try to escape. If it is taking damage, but unable to return damage, it migh consider changing to a different strategy (alternatively run). You could also do this with lone wanderers.

Most of these groups should be engaged in some prey/hunter relationship. These could happen even though no player is in the vicinity, only here the result is calculated. When a player is near such an occurence you will see it in real time.

Give these groups interesting behaviours, like attack a young member of a group, and get the entire herd after you. Make Some big grasser, and in large herds. When you scare them, the entire herd will flee, and in the same direction. This would be very difficult if every individual acted on their own, but with a group ai, it can simply command every animal to move in a specific direction. You might think players would be able to clear out a herd, but it's not that easy when the herd will flee (after taking a few losses), and they will move very far away, and at a much faster pace than you. The creatures themselves are adaptable.
You could genereally make creatures intelligent in when they fight and when they flee. They don't just stand around waiting to be slaughtered. This way you could make kills less rare (not 3/minute), but that means you can also make them more rewarding, not to mention that the mechanics to take down someone could be much more sophisticated.

You should make "safe" areas and treacherous areas. In "safe" areas there are no powerful predators that will track you down. In treacherous areas there would be computer controlled groups that would track you down, or waylay you whenever they believe you are an easy target, but the rewards are much greater here. Give players many tools to survive in the wilderness. Combat is an important aspect, but being able to go through dangerous areas should also be very important. It should be more than just a rogue specific sneak ability.

Oh, and groups could spawn wherever there aren't any players in the vicinity (preferably). The map could be made up of a network of small paths, with satisfying density. Groups will move along, and spawn on these paths (a group could store scent on paths, which predators are able to follow).

You could also mix in less intelligent creatures that could spawn by coming down of tree's, rising up from the sea. These could also be player triggered. In secret world you can set of car alarms which will make zombies appear.

#7 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 December 2011 - 02:49 AM

@AltarofScience
So you want dynamic enviroments? Those rifts that pop up might change dynamically but once there, it sounds like they are very static. Also is this what you really wanted? It does sound a bit monotonous. I would probably go for something inspired more by real wildlife. Rifts are not very realistic, and not very exciting either.
Well the problem is that that doesn't work. UO tried to do realistic environments and they didn't work. People fucked it up. They are realistic in my game world and even if they weren't its a fantasy video game. They are perfectly in line with my game world flavor. Rifts are just the UI for the spawn point if you want to look at it that way. A single rift is dynamic in that more players up to a point change the output of the rift and that the monster content of an area changes. Further the way rifts work as I describe they generate danger areas as a side effect of their existence. Numbers of monsters and power of individuals rise as you approach the rift. In addition the spawning of new rifts is constant. and they can spring up nearly anywhere. A rift springing up next to your town causes a dynamic event in the sense that you are now in danger of being slaughtered and overrun and losing your town. Further in combination based on placement and random spawning patterns rifts produce even more events. Further the rifts were described in the op as the replacement to hand placed spawns. The content focused entirely on being dynamic is the monster evolution and such. The rift created events are really cool side effects that i hadnt originally considered.
I would probably focus more on how the monsters behare, rather than how they are spawned. Especially not making it a rift game, just to make spawning "realistic".
Monster behavior is quite complex in the game. In fact as I have been reading RK's blog I realized I have been unintentionally rediscovering many of his ideas. Monsters have individual behaviors based on type, preferred biomes, nests and species behavior related to nests. Dragons can go on a "mating quest" among other complex behaviors.

Some of my ideas:

Make areas quite large (areas where no players cover it by their LOS).
The world consists of creatures, and often found in groups. Whenever a player is not in the vicinity of a group, you will only keep track of group information.
Whenever a player get's close enough, the individuals in the group are generated, but there will be a group ai still "commanding" the individuals. Group AI will validate it's own situation. If things looks to bad it might try to escape. If it is taking damage, but unable to return damage, it migh consider changing to a different strategy (alternatively run). You could also do this with lone wanderers.
There is some AI, don't feel like details.
Most of these groups should be engaged in some prey/hunter relationship. These could happen even though no player is in the vicinity, only here the result is calculated. When a player is near such an occurence you will see it in real time.
Monsters do not have cross species behaviors. Some monsters have increased intelligence functions where they might lead other monsters even of different types, but its not standard.
Give these groups interesting behaviours, like attack a young member of a group, and get the entire herd after you. Make Some big grasser, and in large herds. When you scare them, the entire herd will flee, and in the same direction. This would be very difficult if every individual acted on their own, but with a group ai, it can simply command every animal to move in a specific direction. You might think players would be able to clear out a herd, but it's not that easy when the herd will flee (after taking a few losses), and they will move very far away, and at a much faster pace than you. The creatures themselves are adaptable.
You could genereally make creatures intelligent in when they fight and when they flee. They don't just stand around waiting to be slaughtered. This way you could make kills less rare (not 3/minute), but that means you can also make them more rewarding, not to mention that the mechanics to take down someone could be much more sophisticated.

You should make "safe" areas and treacherous areas. In "safe" areas there are no powerful predators that will track you down. In treacherous areas there would be computer controlled groups that would track you down, or waylay you whenever they believe you are an easy target, but the rewards are much greater here. Give players many tools to survive in the wilderness. Combat is an important aspect, but being able to go through dangerous areas should also be very important. It should be more than just a rogue specific sneak ability.
Say could instead of should. Don't tell me what I should do. The rift mechanic provides automatic safety/danger systems.
Oh, and groups could spawn wherever there aren't any players in the vicinity (preferably). The map could be made up of a network of small paths, with satisfying density. Groups will move along, and spawn on these paths (a group could store scent on paths, which predators are able to follow).

You could also mix in less intelligent creatures that could spawn by coming down of tree's, rising up from the sea. These could also be player triggered. In secret world you can set of car alarms which will make zombies appear.


Responses in red.

#8 ImmoralAtheist   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 23 December 2011 - 05:40 AM

Say could instead of should. Don't tell me what I should do. The rift mechanic provides automatic safety/danger systems.

I did say they were my ideas, and so by should, I mean how some of the mechanics are supposed to be in my fictional mmo wilderness. You can look at it as suggestions.

Well the problem is that that doesn't work. UO tried to do realistic environments and they didn't work. People fucked it up

I was talking about dynamic/interesting behaviours, not that monsters needs to follow a realistic reproduction/eating pattern. You could however make spawning a little more sophisticated than popping out of thin air on a fixed location regardless of wether any player is nearby.
Oh, and the realistic part is that by making dynamic/interesting behaviours, it is often a good idea to look at what you see in real life.

UO's realistic ecology could work with the right game mechanics. You could make a hybrid, where mechanics stabilizes this dynamic ecology.
A simple stabilizing implementation would be to add a fairly significant base to every animal (about half the typical population). You could kill every wolf you can see, but the actual population (when determining reproduction) would still be a decent amount. So the typical amount of wolves you can see in a zone is 500, then you have a base of 500 wolves. If wolf population is only 100, then the base would contribute to a total population of 600 wolves (60% reproduction rate of typical case).
A large population of wolves in neigbouring zones could also lead to immigration to less populated zones.

There is some AI, don't feel like details.

What do you mean?

Monsters do not have cross species behaviors.

But this is exactly what is so important. It is what makes the world come to life.

Dragons can go on a "mating quest" among other complex behaviors.


How will you visualise this? A dragon going on the mating quest means nothing by itself. It is how you visualise this that really matters. Mating calls, mating rituals, competing against other males etc.

#9 Ashaman73   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6943

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 December 2011 - 08:05 AM

Monsters have individual behaviors based on type, preferred biomes, nests and species behavior related to nests.

This is really funny, I use almost excatly same terminology in my game, but I dumped most approaches due to the complex handling and the lacking relevance to the player.
I hope you're more successfully than me.

Your rift system reminds me of tabula rasa(sci-fi MMORPG), instead of rifts, some kind of drop ship releases hords of enemies (including conquering/defending outposts).Whatever technology they used, as player it felt like scripted events/standard spawning.Tabula rasa has been shut down, but maybe you can still find some more information about the used technology, a post-mortem, player reviews etc.

The following passage is more about a philosophy of procedural content generation (atleast this is a forum to discuss such things :wink:), feel free to skip it :P

Your approach sounds good, but I'm telling you this to motivate a better focus on the target audience . There's always the danger of making a game, or let's say a simulation, which satisfy the developer , but the players, your audience, don't see the benefit of such a system, even worst, see more bugs and cheats than gamedesign.

Although I recommend to read some AI articles. A common issue with AI in games is, that 'clever' behaviour of the AI will not be interpreted as 'clever', more as 'bug/cheat', by the player. From the player point of view it is often better to let your AI agents talk about their actions, instead of just doing the 'clever' things. An example is, that the AI discovers, that the player is hiding, then sneaks up to the him and throw a grenade into the hiding spot. The player doesn't see the 'clever' behaviour, he just see the game-over screen and things about a cheating AI.

Procedural content generation is similar to AI (kind of god AI, creating and managing a world) and there're similiar pitfalls. One pitfall is the story. With story I don't mean written text, with story I mean the story of an image, an object, a character, an environment etc. When you encounter a forest, with blood splattered on the ground, plants which has been trampled etc. this environement tells you the story about a recent battle.

It is like a book story. A story without conflict is not a story. It like prince charming has been born, meets pricess boring, marries her, got some childs, dies from age, fin.... that is not a story. You need conflicts, an evil mage who wants to steal the pricess, threatens the children, an other prince who wants to marry your princess etc.

A story without conflict is like a procedural world without 'story'.

#10 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 December 2011 - 12:51 PM

Say could instead of should. Don't tell me what I should do. The rift mechanic provides automatic safety/danger systems.

I did say they were my ideas, and so by should, I mean how some of the mechanics are supposed to be in my fictional mmo wilderness. You can look at it as suggestions.
mmk, i am nitpicky about words.

Well the problem is that that doesn't work. UO tried to do realistic environments and they didn't work. People fucked it up

I was talking about dynamic/interesting behaviours, not that monsters needs to follow a realistic reproduction/eating pattern. You could however make spawning a little more sophisticated than popping out of thin air on a fixed location regardless of wether any player is nearby.
Oh, and the realistic part is that by making dynamic/interesting behaviours, it is often a good idea to look at what you see in real life.
the rift is only the base point of the spawn. monsters move out from there. besides my monsters will generally not be wolves.
UO's realistic ecology could work with the right game mechanics. You could make a hybrid, where mechanics stabilizes this dynamic ecology.
A simple stabilizing implementation would be to add a fairly significant base to every animal (about half the typical population). You could kill every wolf you can see, but the actual population (when determining reproduction) would still be a decent amount. So the typical amount of wolves you can see in a zone is 500, then you have a base of 500 wolves. If wolf population is only 100, then the base would contribute to a total population of 600 wolves (60% reproduction rate of typical case).
A large population of wolves in neigbouring zones could also lead to immigration to less populated zones.

There is some AI, don't feel like details.

What do you mean?

Monsters do not have cross species behaviors.

But this is exactly what is so important. It is what makes the world come to life.
monsters killing each other isn't really that useful to gameplay.

Dragons can go on a "mating quest" among other complex behaviors.


How will you visualise this? A dragon going on the mating quest means nothing by itself. It is how you visualise this that really matters. Mating calls, mating rituals, competing against other males etc.

essentially a dragon would head towards the nearest lair of a dragon of another sex, so it would be out of its normal territory. A new dragon would be spawned from this. Baby dragon's are weaker but they do grow eventually.

#11 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 23 December 2011 - 12:58 PM


Monsters have individual behaviors based on type, preferred biomes, nests and species behavior related to nests.

This is really funny, I use almost excatly same terminology in my game, but I dumped most approaches due to the complex handling and the lacking relevance to the player.
I hope you're more successfully than me.
well in some cases there isn't gameplay relevance to the player per say. the code is actually really simple to write and process. a nest is just a monster not spread out from the rift anymore. it stays in its current area.
Your rift system reminds me of tabula rasa(sci-fi MMORPG), instead of rifts, some kind of drop ship releases hords of enemies (including conquering/defending outposts).Whatever technology they used, as player it felt like scripted events/standard spawning.Tabula rasa has been shut down, but maybe you can still find some more information about the used technology, a post-mortem, player reviews etc.
the rifts are somewhat scripted events. they produce some different events as side affects, but they are just intended to fill the world with pve enemies.
The following passage is more about a philosophy of procedural content generation (atleast this is a forum to discuss such things :wink:), feel free to skip it :P

Your approach sounds good, but I'm telling you this to motivate a better focus on the target audience . There's always the danger of making a game, or let's say a simulation, which satisfy the developer , but the players, your audience, don't see the benefit of such a system, even worst, see more bugs and cheats than gamedesign.
the AI isn't "smart". it functions like the AI in Majesty: The Fantasy Kingdom or warcraft type RTS.
Although I recommend to read some AI articles. A common issue with AI in games is, that 'clever' behaviour of the AI will not be interpreted as 'clever', more as 'bug/cheat', by the player. From the player point of view it is often better to let your AI agents talk about their actions, instead of just doing the 'clever' things. An example is, that the AI discovers, that the player is hiding, then sneaks up to the him and throw a grenade into the hiding spot. The player doesn't see the 'clever' behaviour, he just see the game-over screen and things about a cheating AI.
As I said above anyone familiar with those types of computer games will not see the AI as cheating.
Procedural content generation is similar to AI (kind of god AI, creating and managing a world) and there're similiar pitfalls. One pitfall is the story. With story I don't mean written text, with story I mean the story of an image, an object, a character, an environment etc. When you encounter a forest, with blood splattered on the ground, plants which has been trampled etc. this environement tells you the story about a recent battle.
There is some lore to the game, as well as areas that do what you say. Mostly they are city ruins, but you may see things elsewhere.
It is like a book story. A story without conflict is not a story. It like prince charming has been born, meets pricess boring, marries her, got some childs, dies from age, fin.... that is not a story. You need conflicts, an evil mage who wants to steal the pricess, threatens the children, an other prince who wants to marry your princess etc.
the game is a sandbox, not a themepark. Within the loose constraints of the lore the players are making their own story. Granted if you haven't read my other threads about my game the context may not be incredibly obvious. This is just one aspect of the game.
A story without conflict is like a procedural world without 'story'.



#12 ShawnCowles   Members   -  Reputation: 295

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 24 December 2011 - 06:47 AM

I disagree with the statement that monster's killing each other isn't useful to game play. The player being able to see creatures interacting among themselves does a great deal to give the impression of a living world. If I see two types of monsters fighting each other then I can infer that they do it while I'm not looking. If they're just standing around I get the impression that nothing happens in the world unless I'm involved.

In Oblivion you would occasionally see a wolf chasing a deer, from a player's point of view that makes sense and helps reinforce immersion. Seeing a wolf just standing idly next to a deer would show that the world isn't alive and break any sort of immersion you had managed to create.

Even in WoW wolves will occasionally attack the rabbits hopping around the woods.

#13 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 December 2011 - 11:11 AM

that is immersion not game play.

#14 Luckless   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1736

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 24 December 2011 - 03:40 PM

that is immersion not game play.


Luring a strong MOB into a nest of another MOB so they kill each other and you slay the 'victor' isn't game play?
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.

#15 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 24 December 2011 - 04:11 PM


that is immersion not game play.


Luring a strong MOB into a nest of another MOB so they kill each other and you slay the 'victor' isn't game play?


No one said anything about luring a mob towards another mob. The comment was about wolves killing rabbits and leaving their bodies around for players to find and similar things.

#16 ShawnCowles   Members   -  Reputation: 295

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 25 December 2011 - 06:33 AM

that is immersion not game play.


Immersion and gameplay are interrelated. If I'm immersed in a game I'm usually having a good time. Giving your players an enjoyable experience is the whole point of the game, so it should be the focus of the gameplay design. If I'm not interested and emotionally invested in your game all the fancy rift spawning in the world isn't going to keep me playing.

Luckless has a good point as well, a clever player could take advantage of MOB interactions. Say I want to get through a forest filled with Deadly Deadly Spiders and I see a group of goblins heading toward the same forest. I could sneak behind the goblins, letting them kill (and be killed by) the Deadly Deadly Spiders getting me through the forest unscathed.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say that your idea is bad, just that you shouldn't dismiss MOB interactions so quickly.

#17 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 25 December 2011 - 10:32 AM


that is immersion not game play.


Immersion and gameplay are interrelated. If I'm immersed in a game I'm usually having a good time. Giving your players an enjoyable experience is the whole point of the game, so it should be the focus of the gameplay design. If I'm not interested and emotionally invested in your game all the fancy rift spawning in the world isn't going to keep me playing.

Luckless has a good point as well, a clever player could take advantage of MOB interactions. Say I want to get through a forest filled with Deadly Deadly Spiders and I see a group of goblins heading toward the same forest. I could sneak behind the goblins, letting them kill (and be killed by) the Deadly Deadly Spiders getting me through the forest unscathed.

EDIT: I'm not trying to say that your idea is bad, just that you shouldn't dismiss MOB interactions so quickly.


I didn't. I thought about it a lot and decided not to do it.

#18 wodinoneeye   Members   -  Reputation: 721

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 December 2011 - 09:37 AM

MOB on MOB interactions that players can figure out and use to their advantage would be a great improvement over the scream and charge killer mannekins (on rails) most of these games have. Normal patterns, logical behaviors/interactions, territories, valid/logical placement/group dynamics...
Enemies should runaway, run to defensible positions, ambush players, assist players, seek reinforcements, cringe and plead for their lives, ignore players(if big and bad enough), feign attacks, fight defensively, etc.. These different interactions ARE scriptable at the current server NPC processing loadings (offset largely on no longer having minefields of countless enemy entities across most of the world). Fewer more interesting computer run opponents (more challenge+reward and less repetition) with more suprises and more tactics to match the situation. The entities can actually look like they belong in their situation (no spawning out of thin air next to the player).

In MMORPGs you will want to see more instancing (and a large world to make the instances far apart) so that you can choreograph more interesting quests/missions/encounters without the interference of other players (who as we know will willfully interfere with other players to get their infantile jollys). The more complex something is, the easier it is to fall apart and external player interfence has to be exculded except for the players group.
Bigger player mobs can happen in other scenarios (and are interesting in their own way) but for most of the game disruption of the players experience needs to be eliminated. With a sufficient bubble size the player can decide which way to approach the situation even round about paths if allowed and dont have to be restricted to 'getting out of the way of the next boatload of newbies' and can take their time to figure things out.

Dynamic (generated) content more complicated than simply running into a MOB can be done including scenery props and terrain using hierarchical parameterized templates controlled by world spanning influence maps (with local recursion) to vary the details of the experience. Those would be controlled and change with larger world trends and patterns (which could be influenced by player activity). AT the highest level you probably would need some GM controlled tuning/adjustments to keep the whole system from falling apart (trying to write a program to do it trouble-free would be too much work)

You have a instance bubbles and build what you need in it for whatever the quest is (or even just random encounters) The bubble is on whatever part of the world it needs to be and its border can be seemless. Scripted events/dialog/explanations can be part of the larger template with numerous substitution possibilities/alternate factors. Quest givers/intermediate checkpoints/target areas can be generated and worked phase by phase. These themselves are triggered by the larger game plot lines that give the whole system some cohesion as the 'plot' (itself maybe a tree with different paths) . They are tailored to the player.players group and can be regenerated whenever needed (for player playtime flexibility)

You can stay away from any (generalized) Real AI as the local situations are largely choreographed/balanced (and can use conventional FSM scripting methods) and the high level control of the gameflow can just be cellular automaton type behavior (high level entities that guide/flavor the local situations ). Its more varying behavior from the computer controlled entities and the behavior scripts themselves can be heavily template based to improve production efficency and allow tools to streamline creation/debugging/testing.

Why dont games (game companies) do this (and probably wont for a long time) ???

The scripting is about a magnitude more complex (random substitutions that need balance trimming and illogical endcase elimination)
Templates can greatly streamline creation but there will simply be more factors involved that need to be planned for 'situations' and how they fit into the larger game. From what Ive seen alot of the game companies have enough trouble making their simple static scripting work correctly.
Old QA rule - twice as complicated, four times the debugging and game companies think nothing about skimping on QA if they can get away with it.

Players would have to actually learn how to think and pay attention to clues (even when you lay them on thick and they have logs to go back to refresh their memories - might actually need dialog scene replay which might be neat). The game mechanics will have to support a wider range of effects and choices/outcomes of situations (versus the boring fail=die, win=loot) which actually in a more complex world would shape the players future world experience with the consequences(and not just these static paths and tech trees of current games)

You cant so easily have an online wiki tell you exactly what to expect and do for every bit of the game experience (there can be enough combinatorics of situation variations that you wouldnt be likely to experience the same things anyone else did most of the time).

WIll casual players want a more detailed game or just reject anything that isnt the mindless conditioned monkey with the lever and the m&m rewards the current games largely provide?

Later, with better tools, niche games (with much lower player counts) may be a whole lot easier to produce (thing the computer publishing revolution) and we could get this different kind of game. .
--------------------------------------------Ratings are Opinion, not Fact

#19 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 931

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:00 PM

Instances are the devil. It sounds like you want to play some sort of coop or something. The goal of my game specifically is to be sandbox off rails with actually massive player interaction. I am sacrificing graphics for gameplay in order to reduce computer loads as opposed to minimizing the number of moving objects like creatures and players.
In any case creatures will be a little more intelligent than just charging in. But creating creatures that can fight twitch style with players? Thats just not realistic. They might have simple patterns like range attacking from the farthest possible distance or small fast creatures trying to run if they get too damaged. To be honest though that can create a lot of problems. For instance loot and exp wise, if you are fighting multiple mobs and a lot of them get away, whats the gameplay there? That's why designers tend not to make creatures run. All it means is you waste time and lose rewards. Sure you could make a tracking thing, but what % of people really want to do that?

#20 ImmoralAtheist   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:22 PM

Instances are the devil. It sounds like you want to play some sort of coop or something. The goal of my game specifically is to be sandbox off rails with actually massive player interaction. I am sacrificing graphics for gameplay in order to reduce computer loads as opposed to minimizing the number of moving objects like creatures and players.
In any case creatures will be a little more intelligent than just charging in. But creating creatures that can fight twitch style with players? Thats just not realistic. They might have simple patterns like range attacking from the farthest possible distance or small fast creatures trying to run if they get too damaged. To be honest though that can create a lot of problems. For instance loot and exp wise, if you are fighting multiple mobs and a lot of them get away, whats the gameplay there? That's why designers tend not to make creatures run. All it means is you waste time and lose rewards. Sure you could make a tracking thing, but what % of people really want to do that?


Use your imagination. Incorporate these behaviours to be more than just being harder for players. Also if something is harder, then you can increase the rewards.
Your evaluation with trouble with loot and xp is based on the "old world" where you advance by killing near stationary evenly distributed creatures.
Use these behaviours to make some targets hard to get. To succesfully take them out, you need some special tactic, often in cooperation with other players. The potential rewards would be so that players want to take these out. There will still be easy targets, but they won't offer much of a reward.
Preventing high reward targets from escaping would be a big part of succesfully getting rewards, while tracking them down would be an optional plan B. They could be easier to catch after chasing them away once, but you waste time. The reward could also be something else than regular foes. You may have to face regular foes on the way though. In Tracking down a rich resource site you may discover that a group of npc's is alreay extracting them. The most powerful foes are in the group that carries resources back to base. Striking when they are gone is a good idea, but if you are discovered, they won't leave.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS