Quote:3. A well opperating genetics engine, and a solid MMO economy are very hard to come by. Maybe I'm invisioning the genetics more complicated then need be, but if it's to have implicative ingrowth defects, I'd think it would take more then just an inter-mingling of stats, and perhaps more then a straight up dominant/dormant 'gene' splicing deal... forgive me, it's been a long time sense I've been in biology of any kind!
But more the economy then a genetics engine. It sounds like you want to take actual, physical presence of items after 'gathering' to be taken into account. This can lead to a drastically more complicated economic model then if it was simply a statistical trade. Although I've always looked at it like this: It works in the real world, give the players the tools and resources and they'll manage their own damn economy (with proper adjustments)! But then I'm no econ major. ~.^

I'm no economist or geneticists, but I have though a bout a game very much like yours (see the thread on busting out an RTS http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=418404&whichpage=1�

In this concept, I had an economy that is based soly on what players would be willing to trade for (a barter economy), and I suppose it could be backed up by threat of force too, but that would be up to the players. I chose not to design a hard coded economy into it and let the players develop it themselves.

As for the gemtics, I thought a paired chromosome system would work best. In this each "character" would have 2 coppies of each chromosome, one from each parent. The parents would randomly provide 1 of their chromosomes from each pair that they had. The child would then (upon getting these chromosomes from its parents) select which one of each pair would be the dominant one and use that to determine its genome (what amounts to the pheno type).

The chromosome would be a sequance of codes that stood for one of the character's abilities. The chromosome is just a string (1 dimentional array) of characters, or integers. To determine the character's ability level all you need to do is count the number of sequances that matched the code for that ability.

For instance, you might choose the character "S" to stand for strength. Each time this letter code appeared in the genome, this would add 1 to the strength of that character. So a sequance like "ASBSCSSBBACCASSB" would give a strength score of 6.

Using this you could also have spacers, or some other code that is needed for the count to go properly. This might be contained on the non-dominant chromosome. As a further example, this might be that an "S" is only counted if the non-dominant chromosome does not have an "S" in that same position (the requierments could be as complex as you like, but this should be fairly simple). This would mean that as inbreeding occures, less and less codes will be validated properly and you will have "genetic" desease effects caused by the inbreeding.

Variations on this basic theme was to allow each chromosome to have a sequance that weights its chances of being selected as the dominant chromosome. This weighting value should be in competition with teh ability codes on the chromosome. So the greater the weighting value, the less positions available for codeing the abilities. The reason for this is that to get an effective genetic algorithm, you need to have competition within the genetic code (which is then translated into the resultant "creature".

Some posible mutations are
Point mutation: These are single mutations in a code. These change the code from one code to a different code.
Swap: Exchange the places of two codes on the same chromosome. If you are using some form of code translation that relies on specific sequances of codes to determine the effect it has (like I described above), then this is a good mutation to include.
Deleation: Remove a code completely, which will shorten the chromosome.
Addition: Add a code to the cromosome, which will lengthen the chromosome.
Breakage: This chances that this occures should be based on the length of a chromosome to stop it becomeing too large. With this mutation, the cromosome is cut and one section is discarded.
Cut and Paste: This should be done before a chromosome is pased onto the "child" from a parent. With this mutation you cut the two chromosomes from one parent in to four pieces and then past the ends onto the other chromosome. The cust on each chromosome do not have to be in the same postions either.

eg: If you had 2 chromosomes the first of which was AB and the otehr CD, then you would cut and paste them so that they were AD and CB (you could do others as well like: AC, BA, CA, DA, BC, BD, DB, DC, etc).

You know, you do have a point about having nothing to do once your tribe is running smoothly. I agree that combat is needed.

What I used to have in mind is a simple raid system, as seen in OGame. But after thinking a bit about it I decided to scratch that idea because it's frustrating to be unable to utterly annihilate someone. So what I came up with is a rough idea of a system in which it would be possible to destroy other tribes, but not economically sound. What I have in mind is a vassalage system, that is you could conquer tribes (by forcing their owner to either surrender or lose). The conquered tribe would still be commanded by the player who created it, but he would have to pay tribute to his overlords or face the consequences. Granted, this can all be done without in-game support for such a system, but building it into the game interface would encourage players to exploit other tribes instead of destroying them. Sure, bloodthirsty players could wipe out whole tribes (well, a couple of villagers ought to be able to escape) but wouldn't fare well long-term against players who make conquered tribes their vassals.

I can see this system working fairly well, but I'm not sure how much fun it would be for the vassals. Would it be too frustrating to be someone's vassal? Keep in mind that you can rebel at any time you want. Speaking of which, it would certainly be possible with this game's reproduction system for conquerors to overstretch themselves and crumble before a massive rebellion of their underlings. Anyway, it seems to me that with this system a capable player could carve out a small kingdom for himself. Given enough time, the game world would probably end up having it's best territories divided between small kingdoms and the badlands roamed by nomadic tribes (which would be eager to exploit any weaknesses in kingdoms). Granted, this seems a bit too sociologicaly advanced for the stone age, but IMHO playability is more important than historical accuracy.

Would this make the game more interesting long-term, and would it attract more players to it or would it simply turn off those who were interested in it in the first place?

i think it could be a good idea, because you could build an empire and vasalges may even want to join help with future raids etc so they could be part of a winning empire
i would allow the people winning other tribes to set the rates of tithe and alter them so thire would be more diplomacy involved. e.g people helping with raids may encourage lower tithes or the vassalge may look like hes going to reveolt so the lord drops the tithe so he dosnt etc

Hmm... conquering would be pretty interesting. Although, I'm still not seeing how these kingdoms... become kingdoms. Are there buildings, a tech tree type deal? o.O Expanding would be a pain without at least a bit of structural aid... even caves. =]

Also, how's all the fighting going to be working, basically? I take it you can, er... produce units very adept at fighting, and may all units pick up arms in defense, sense there's no real class to each unit, just skills? ^.^ How does this whole aspect work? I'm still kinda' confused on visualizing this...

If I may make those assumptions, then with a few additions you may just have quite the snowball rolling. =D

Oh! Something that would make the game very fun to even just have (and provide good challenges to expanding and exploring) would be very dangerous flaura/fauna. Nothing says "oh crap" like a villager walking along to see a mammoth (or sabre tooth tiger, or what ever! I dunno...) bearing down on him. Even just with this addition (if it's not already there) you could make some very interesting environmental exloring to do along with some good rewards for those strong enough to find and take what ever it is... It would also make a neccessity for fighting, though. =/ Which, of course, would increase the chances of tribes fighting because they'd already have the tools to do so.

Just food for thought... =]

The game itself would revolve around people, not buildings. There would be no such thing as "spearmaker's hut", but there could certainly be a hut that houses a spearmaker. That is, all items would be made by individual characters and they could make them anywhere provided they have the needed raw resources, and the buildings (contrary to popular image stone age people lived in a wide variety of structures, as well as in caves) would be used for lodging (weather would be a major "enemy" in the game) and storage.

Every character in the game would be capable of doing anything, but not everyone would do it equally well. There wouldn't be traditional levels like those in RPGs, instead everything would revolve around skills. Proficiency in skills would depend on physical attributes (strength, dexterity,...) and, more importantly, on practice (the more you use a skill the better you are at it). This means that there would be no discrete units, but you could assign a "job" (AI, really) to individual characters. Specialization would be necessary for success, so a tribe would typically have a specialized healer, a dedicated toolmaker or three (knapper for example) and a bunch of hunters and gatherers that would also double as makers of simples items. Offcourse, this is just one possible specialization scheme, and you could certainly run a tribe consisting of a bunch of jacks-of-all-trades. An aggressive player could specialize his entire tribe for combat and rely on raiding to get the needed items (this would be a risky strategy, though).

Combat could be carried out by all villagers, but not all would be equally capable or willing (unless they're cornered). Good hunters would probably make good warriors. that being said, hunting would compromise the majority of "combat" as this game's emphasis would be on diplomacy rather warfare. This means that there would be a wide variety of historically accurate animals (so that means deffinetly no dinosaurs :p ) that would present real challenges because, unlike in fantasy RPGs, no character could ever progress so far as to be able to take on a mammoth single-handedly or do other superhuman stuff. Even with a large hunting party hunting mammoths would be a risky endeavor and would require quite a bit of planning, but it's rewards would also be quite large (a single mammoth could get a small tribe trough the winter).

As far as conquest is concerned, it would basically mean that the attacker and defender enter negotiations (supported by interface) in which they agree on the amount of tribute that the vassal would pay. The master would send a "tax collector" (this could be automated, offcourse) to the vassal's village every once in a while to collect tribute. If the collector doesn't return the natural thing to assume would be that the vassal is rebelling and that some murdering and pillaging is in order. So the vassal could rebel at any time, but it might not be a very smart thing to do because the player that conquered him might beat him again and this time may be less merciful (perhaps even commit genocide). On the other hand, a master with multiple vassals could see his vassal unite to break free of his rule, and this means that conquering more tribes than you can handle might not be the best course of action.

That's it from me for now, and keep those comments coming because you're helping me flesh out the game concept in my head.

would u break down the hunters skills at all?
such as archer (not sure what age these came in) or there was certainly spear throwers (spearmen with a secondary wooden tool kinda like a sling to aid in throwing)
trappers?
spearmen?

this would allow for differnt tactics to be used on differnt pray as well as a small amount or protection from trappers traps.

How will you be handleing learning of skill. You mentioned that the units could learn skills by doing them. Have you though about haivng units teach others skills?

In this system there would be 2 ways to learn skills. The first is through using the skill, but this is the slowest method. The other way is being taught the skills by another.

This is a faster method, but it ties up the units in a non productive behaviour (that is they are not produceing resources, etc) while they are being taught.

If the teacher's skill level, in the skill being taught, limits the maximum level that can be taught (eg: if the teacher has 10 levels in Spear Making, then the highest level that they can teach in Spear Making is 10), then you have a tech level that can be losst (eg a raid could wipe out all the teachers and so you are knocked back in your skill/tech developemnt).

You could also have units "Discover" new skills/tech by having a high enough skill level. So a character that has a Skill level of 5 Spear Making, mightbe then able to start learning Bow Making. This discovery might be random, or it might be predefined. Also you could use several skills to trigger the discovery of a new tech (eg: You need a minimum of level 5 in Spear Making and level 6 Wood Working to be able to learn the skill Bow Making).

This does add a lot of micromanagement, but from the sounds of the game, high intensity battles will not be very common and this micromanagement would keep players interest up by giving them something to do.

A few ideas:


Genetics - keep track of family trees and have an 'inbreeding quotient' be kept for every individual. It gets lower (probably not a linear equation) when you 'breed' individuals with few common ancestors and higher with more shared ones.
(More immediate ancestors having more effect than more remote ones)
You then have an escalating effect (degredation) table that has negative effects/attributes for the new individuals. (This instead of some GA type mechanism).


MMO aspect: Have the game flow be fairly slow so that players can experience the flow of time. Travel times are significant (which will make fast 'warlike' activities much harder to accomplish). The 'people' in the game will have automatic behaviors and will continue logical/prioritized tasks (defendd themselves, etc..) The player would direct new projects and micromanage critical situations (like the hinting party closing with the mammoth...).
Life would go on while the player was offline (and reasonable strategies could be in place to minimize risk of ambushes by bothersome neighbors).


Dissuading 'wars': People in that age lived closer/uncertain/more marginal existances. There were not alot of excess resources to waste on attacks that absorb time and resources (and risk of losing critical personel). The groups had to spend most of their time laying in stores of food and other materials for seasonal shortages and an uncertain future. A warband eats but doesnt produce, and likely will run into more enemy combatants than they can afford to bring (and likely would be spotted by their intended victims who know the territory much better). Much time might be wasted just finding their victims since a tribe might require alot of territory to subside on.


Trade could be extremely important to survival and a warlike group might find themselves consigned to extinction/diminishment when they caused their neighbors to give them the 'cold shoulder'. Mortality rates were high enough, that population pressures arent as great as after agriculture began.


Tribes had affiliations (many thru kinship ties) which facilitated regular trade/interactions. New/improved skills were passed from group to group.

Well, sounds like you've definitley come along with fleshing it out. =] Perhaps it's time to start writing specifics as to how this all works, now? There's still a few holes in it, that I see... (I hate filling holes in other's work... it takes it out of their hands...) These are:

1. How do all these skills work together? So there's several areas... crafting, hunting(fighting), healing, (spells? how does this area work? =]) diplomacy? There's also the question of what kind of emotions are going to play into the AI? but that can be seperate from skills, as that deals with actions, not with proficiency... =] There's also that whole area of teaching eachother skills, but Edtharan has some good concepts to start. ~.^

2. So there are going to be buildings, for cover (not specific purposes) and storage? I guess that area needs to be thought into who makes them and all... =]

3. Resources! Well there's all the kinds of resources; Food, (meat, berries, fish, etc) supplies, (wood, stone, metal?) produced (tools, clothing, rope?, etc...) How are these all going to fit into the big picture? =] After you store up enough food (and how so?), enough supplies, get enough things... there's still not much to do, except fight (or explore, and be... diplomatic).

4. Diplomatic system? It needs more flesh then Conquest and economic trading... or at least a bit of structure... =] (or maybe I'm just lost here o.O)

5. The point of hostile creatures? Surely it's more then pestering and food... =] They could be used to make exploring fun and challenging among other things...

Well... I lost my train of thought, but it sounds like it's coming along quite nicely in your head... ^.^

And by joe, Anonymous has some good ideas! =D