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

#21 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 934

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:51 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.


The problem is that if we are trying to make more realistic creature behavior we have a problem with rpg systems period. For instance in many real world fights you need to get that one shot in and its a kill. RPGs involve incrementally lowering a health point value. If a wolf fought a human in real its all about who gets that critical lethal hit in first. More realistic behavior can't exist in a vacuum. A lot of the "real world" animal behavior is all about things that work like real world fights. There is none of this healing shit that happens in RPGs. Darting in for a hit, running back, wearing people down, it just doesn't work in a game where the corresponding results of the actions don't exist. Normally realism wouldn't be our primary consideration in designing a game but the point of changing mob behavior would be to make it more animal like, in other words more real, so in this case objection from reality is viable. Unless creatures have healing and ranged power to compete with the kind that the players have it is in their best interests to stay right by you and keep hitting you if they want to win.
In regards to just running away when too badly damaged, there are limited ways we can deal with that from a player perspective. Given enough health as long as you can't box the creature in it can escape and how are you going to follow it? Would a fleeing creature leave clues? What clues? Would it be the same for each creature? Would their just be a tracking skill? How would it level? How would it decide if you lost the creature? Its just not realistic to code that.

Sponsor:

#22 ImmoralAtheist   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 31 December 2011 - 09:16 AM

The problem is that if we are trying to make more realistic creature behavior we have a problem with rpg systems period. For instance in many real world fights you need to get that one shot in and its a kill. RPGs involve incrementally lowering a health point value. If a wolf fought a human in real its all about who gets that critical lethal hit in first. More realistic behavior can't exist in a vacuum.

How is this related to what I spoke of? I spoke off using specific strategies to take out specific targets, where the tactic is often to avoid the prey from escaping. It doesn't need to be realistic, but that would be considered a bonus. I primarily mean things that aren't as combat focused. It could be, but it might also be some tool you need to use for one specific task (like a trap, designed to capture specific creatures).

A lot of the "real world" animal behavior is all about things that work like real world fights. There is none of this healing shit that happens in RPGs. Darting in for a hit, running back, wearing people down, it just doesn't work in a game where the corresponding results of the actions don't exist. Normally realism wouldn't be our primary consideration in designing a game but the point of changing mob behavior would be to make it more animal like, in other words more real, so in this case objection from reality is viable.

Realism is not the main goal. The goal is to add fun and varied mechanics to succesfully take on creatures. Adding realistic or interesting mob behaviour does not need to be directly related to this, but it might be a good idea to integrate these somehow.

Unless creatures have healing and ranged power to compete with the kind that the players have it is in their best interests to stay right by you and keep hitting you if they want to win. In regards to just running away when too badly damaged, there are limited ways we can deal with that from a player perspective.

Most mmo's have plenty of creatures that could be using some ranged weapon (like throwing stones). They could alternate between melee and ranged to whatever they find best. Many animals should be capable of high speeds, and with cooldown abilities, and pherhaps some stamina bar, then hit and run attacks could be a better fighting style for them. Other than speed could be primates going up and down tree's (in tree's they could "dissapear"), Diggers going up and into holes in the ground, and birds swooping down from above, and to escape again. It is in your interest to break their hit & run tactic, and so a player is given tools/skills to be able to prevent them from doing that.

Given enough health as long as you can't box the creature in it can escape and how are you going to follow it? Would a fleeing creature leave clues? What clues? Would it be the same for each creature? Would their just be a tracking skill? How would it level? How would it decide if you lost the creature? Its just not realistic to code that.

Like I said, trapping the creature is the big part about succesfully hunting them. For most, if they escape then they escape. There might be some very rewarding creatures that would be very hard to catch on a first encounter, or just very rare. Tracking them down is primarily a plan B, and mostly for very rewarding targets. Tracking could be similar to "dowsing" in Zelda: Skyward Sword. You're signalled when looking in the right direction. Another is to leave a trail (like blood dots). They could be quite far apart, and so very difficult to track without required skill. Skills could improve highlighting of trails, and show the direction the creature was travelling in (if the creature turns it should leave an additional trail mark), or just show direction to next trail.

#23 wodinoneeye   Members   -  Reputation: 818

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 January 2012 - 02:30 AM

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?



Instancing is what you have to do if you have dynamic content (more than just different mobs - itself rare enuf in alot of these games -- in a static terrain). It also can allow denying access to interfering players who so easily will wreck other players game experience.

Having a world mechanism that allows instance bubbles anywhere that can be rebuilt 'on-the-fly'
and on a large world of more plain static terrain/scenery (plenty of space for instances well out of sight of each other and far enough that other players wont blunder into them) lets you tailor the quests to the players needs. That include uniqueness, and also changeability for 'seasons' and 'flavorings' that can vary with the players point in the plot (ie- player goes to castle in a quest and vanquishes foe, later comes back and the place is in ruins, later comes back and its now occupied by squatters and other secondaries bad enough for another quest to make use of).



You dont have to sacrifice graphics that much as a majority of the graphics load is in the client. All the server need see is the navmaps and or collision meshes and sybolic markers of significant objects -- all it needs to enforce the game mechanics and the behavior of the npcs it controls.


"twitch style with players" - no thats not really possible from the server (maybe if you distribute the fight AI code into the client - if you can make it cheat proof). But there is a huge spectrum beyond the idiotic simplicity of the "minefields of killer mannekins" most of these games largely are. Ultima Online 10 years ago allowed movement tactics. Frontage rules
(flanks and rear position making difference in battle) can be done easily. Blocking movement, advantage of height/reach/obscured/partial cover all have been stamped out of these lame MMORPGs we get.


Enemies running away and thus no loot?? Our MMORPGs are so unimaginitive and are so centered on hack/shash/loot bodies - dont get limited in your thinking. The loot is in the scenery, the 'loot' is actually achieving the goal, the NPCs drop the loot when they run... Following the running enemies leads you to even better loot... The spectrum of more realism is wide open.

Players will jump at having better content beyond the one dimensional pablum we get from the existing MMORPGs.
--------------------------------------------Ratings are Opinion, not Fact

#24 wodinoneeye   Members   -  Reputation: 818

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:10 AM

The problem is that if we are trying to make more realistic creature behavior we have a problem with rpg systems period. For instance in many real world fights you need to get that one shot in and its a kill. RPGs involve incrementally lowering a health point value. If a wolf fought a human in real its all about who gets that critical lethal hit in first. More realistic behavior can't exist in a vacuum. A lot of the "real world" animal behavior is all about things that work like real world fights. There is none of this healing shit that happens in RPGs. Darting in for a hit, running back, wearing people down, it just doesn't work in a game where the corresponding results of the actions don't exist. Normally realism wouldn't be our primary consideration in designing a game but the point of changing mob behavior would be to make it more animal like, in other words more real, so in this case objection from reality is viable. Unless creatures have healing and ranged power to compete with the kind that the players have it is in their best interests to stay right by you and keep hitting you if they want to win.
In regards to just running away when too badly damaged, there are limited ways we can deal with that from a player perspective. Given enough health as long as you can't box the creature in it can escape and how are you going to follow it? Would a fleeing creature leave clues? What clues? Would it be the same for each creature? Would their just be a tracking skill? How would it level? How would it decide if you lost the creature? Its just not realistic to code that.


Wolves run away, they will posture and decide if its worth fighting. They have someplace to run to as well as places they will defend versus others they wont. This is beyond the 'fight until dead' one dimensionalism we have in our MMORPGS. Wolves also hamstring their prey so that they either cannot run away or are easier to follow (having a world big enough for an extended chase without activating the next monster in the 'minefield' would be a major improvement).

The healing paradigm is overused in most of these games and simply speeds up recovery so that hack&slash can instantly resume, versus recoveries that take hundreds of times as long as the battle. Fantasy makes this crack-monkey stylegaming at least plausible (and a cheap shortcut for game makers)

"Its just not realistic to code that" its doable, just requires the effort and targeting a better game instead of the mostly mindless games we are getting. Even meager improvements in complexity (realism) would be a major improvement for these games which if anything are moving backward to simpler mindless timewasting (game companies will go to the least amount of work
required when the players sheeplike keep paying for such pathetic fare).



--------------------------------------------Ratings are Opinion, not Fact




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