Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
World that lives on its own
NiKr
Member
A few days ago I watched a video about space games, which reminded me of Space Rangers 2, which in turn reminded me of its world that didn't need the player to "finish itself". The game had a feature where you could skip an in-game day, and if you sat on the very first planet and skipped years-worth of days - the game could've completed itself, because npcs (on both sides) worked towards winning the game on their own. And the difficulty you set would determine whether the good guys won or the bad guys.
So I thought, what if Ashes had smth similar? We know that we will be able to hire merc npcs, which will supposedly help us defend ourselves. And we know that there'll be progressive events generated by different player actions (or potentially just randomly).
So what would you say if there was some time limit for "player response" and if that limit runs out the NPCs take over and the event resolves itself, which then triggers the next stage of its progress? The "good" npcs would auto-spawn in this situation, so no player activity would be required. Players could still join the process if they're late, but, in theory, the game could "play itself" even w/o players.
I'd love this mainly because this feature in SR2 made the world feel the most alive I've ever experienced (especially for a single player game). And imo this would also help the game to still feel alive even if the server had a somewhat low population, and it would be a tool for devs to use in those situations as well.
So I thought, what if Ashes had smth similar? We know that we will be able to hire merc npcs, which will supposedly help us defend ourselves. And we know that there'll be progressive events generated by different player actions (or potentially just randomly).
So what would you say if there was some time limit for "player response" and if that limit runs out the NPCs take over and the event resolves itself, which then triggers the next stage of its progress? The "good" npcs would auto-spawn in this situation, so no player activity would be required. Players could still join the process if they're late, but, in theory, the game could "play itself" even w/o players.
I'd love this mainly because this feature in SR2 made the world feel the most alive I've ever experienced (especially for a single player game). And imo this would also help the game to still feel alive even if the server had a somewhat low population, and it would be a tool for devs to use in those situations as well.
5
Comments
Players could still join the process ... but NPCs having advanced AI will ask you kindly, if you have no brain implants to join the opponent group else they lose when you are with them.
I dig it.
I don't remember if FF11 had direct mob on mob altercations. I think it did? I'd love those for Ashes, though obviously that could introduce some potential abuses of loot and stuff, so it would probably have to be presented in a controlled manner.
But I was just reminded of a "living world" game and wanted to see what other people's opinion on that kind of design in AoC's context would be. Cause I don't really know how many other games have had this kind of features, and I'm fairly sure that your group is like the only lucky ones to have played 2 games with design similar to this.
But I do get your point and I agree that this kind of thing would have to be controlled properly. Maybe at some point the event's progress would be way more player-directed (or have a waaay longer timer), so that players HAVE to react to it, rather than the event resolving itself.
Yeah. I mean it would be nice to watch whilst I smoke but other than that I'd jump in on the losing side and try to change the outcome lol.
Ah, I probably should have expanded on those links more directly.
Besieged is a siege with NPCs on both sides. If players don't show up, even, it still plays out. You can just spectate it.
Campaign is an entire ongoing somewhat-looping simulated war. Troop deployments, reinforcement, espionage, repairs to fortifications, etc. Players not required. Territory will change hands over a month or so on its own, players are just pushing it toward the Allied side.
Elite's BGS will run so well without players that technically, they're usually in the way of its most natural outcomes. NPC ships will trade, form trade alliances and convoys, and so on, with or without you. The world is alive, you're just in it.
So what I'm asking is, do you have anything more specific in mind, than this?
Would you want that event to be "paused" (obviously unless other players find it) or would you be ok if it progresses on its own even w/o player interaction?
The base goal was to have a living, breathing world. But everything was just slain. Thus, the only living, breathing world remained the players. Everything else was pristine, overgrown or dysfunctional because of the massacres. For example, you say the Frost Dragon will change the world but the Frost Dragon will probably be camped like the other bosses in A1.
One question though, did both of those games have loot from npcs or were those situations their own separate encounters with a separate reward?
I'm super used to "all mobs drop smth of value, unless explicitly stated otherwise", so a situation where mobs kill each other could be abused for loot, unless it was completely separate from the general loot tables of those mobs.
As an on paper idea, this can be an incredibly interesting and dynamic element to the world that could have a ton of effects as servers develop and I love that. However, I have a feeling that the actual implementation would be a herculean task for IS. I really would love if I knew this could be implemented in a way that affects the world in positive ways, but yes overall I love the idea but I am not sure if it's something that would be able to be pulled off by IS (definitely not a hater like some people on the forums) but A2 is a huge wellness check and before then who knows.
I'd be okay with the event progressing on its own, returning to town and having NPCs talk about the event. Also, I'd be up for looting the battlefields like in real life.
Yeah, basically this. The reason I can't get my people hype for Ashes based only on promises so far, is that they've had 7-12 years to see this play out already and know all the ways in which it can be very unfun if implemented incorrectly or naively.
So they have certain... expectations... but 'NPCs fighting each other' is really basic for games, so I figured you meant something more detailed, NiKr.
But what about servers with incomplete population or just deep off-hours where you have a few regions w/o players for a while?
Not Neurath, but definitely lean toward the every choice is risk/reward party. I love the idea of looking at my friends and deciding what is the best use of our time at the missing out of other options.
Well, UO had npcs fighting each other and also animals would hunt and eat like in real life. However, the prey was slain by players, the carnivores were slain by the players and the npcs were slain by the players. Those carnivores who were too tough to solo soon died of hunger. Though, UO was such a new experiment that players might be less gun-ho about the processes these days.
I'm not sure we should design the game based on incomplete populations. It won't be fun for the overpopulated servers. Underpopulated servers should function the same as all other servers. You can still camp a boss in an underpopulated server but there would be less competition. I wonder if these events would be broadcasted to the server to get more people involved and possible pvp alongside?
FFXI Besieged has no loot tables, because it's a Siege. If you win, you get to keep the buffs from the thing you're protecting (basically the Al Zahbi Reliquary).
If you lose, the enemies take it back to their stronghold and you have to go retrieve it. Back at a certain point of the game's lifespan you needed 2 Alliances to do this, so it was basically players organizing a Siege on the enemies.
FFXI Campaign also drops its loot only at the end of a battle, it's complicated, but you can get good stuff. The thing is that if you didn't kill the mob, you don't get the loot. Obviously the NPCs that did all the work 'get the loot'.
So if I defeat one of their Generals, my 'batallion' gets a better item in the loot chest. The problem, of course, is that they are somewhere between Elite and Raidboss tier...
In Elite Dangerous it's the whole point. Mid level players CAN'T usually beat strong enemies alone, so you get your loot for helping the Security Forces.
I'm not suggesting anything as deep as UO's life simulations, cause I agree that that kind of system would not survive players even now. Which is also the reason why I'm super skeptical about the "overfarming trees will mess up the node's tree spawns" stuff.
I was thinking more about the small-scale stuff like the event we were shown in the last stream. Just a group of mobs spawning due to "whatever reason" and, if no players were around, new mobs spawn to deal with that, leading to whichever result. And this would then grow into smth bigger.
This would, in no way, be any different from any other server. It would simply be the other potential result of those events. If every server in the game just so happens to always have players clear those events - great! Hooray for player agency.
In Elite, certain specific things require a player to be present for them to play out.
More impactful ones such as clashes between two factions, require a player to initiate it, but usually, an outcome is decided even if the player leaves (this depends on some factors).
So if two factions are at war and no players go to ANY conflict Zones, the 'war' will end in a draw and count as if no one did anything. A player must at least attend until the victory or defeat of one side (again, this is complicated, but for now, assume you must stay the whole time, or be defeated yourself).
The player doesn't have to do anything though, beyond joining a side. The battle will play out fully, including all tactics and group/squadron comms, without the player doing much of anything. You can just 'watch it to learn the military tactics to use for certain engagements'.
As noted, FFXI cares about none of this, the battle plays out without anyone even in the zone. The winners and losers are decided by too many factors to count, but you can absolutely 'enter a zone, head for the fortification, and find that the battle is already almost over'.
OR you get those days where the Allied forces are hanging on by a thread and you and your crew roll up like big damn heroes and push the enemy back.
But if you had been 2 minutes slower...
Yeah I can agree with your stance. I too love to see NPCs fighting NPCs. I forget the game but there were Werewolves fighting Humans and it was really epic to get involved in. The Werewolves would overpower the humans without direct intervention - I would hope if Steven agrees that the outcomes would be less predictable. The game was a MMO but I've played 23 MMOs and titles escape me on some memories.
I'm sure that if Ashes wants to take the Throne as the top MMORPG, we'll see it, even if only because I expect to see it from their competition in the near future.
This sort of stuff isn't hard, it's just balance and dedication in the programming. This is the sort of thing that solo modders add to MineCraft for fun.
I'm sure Ashes can find at least a few Devs with the experience to get this working, 90% of it would be covered by their code and balance for players already, that's how everyone else does it. If your classes and such are balanced and their strategies aren't entirely ridiculous, just give the NPCs the same classes and some objectives, then heuristics handles the rest.
So, on the off chance that you hadn't considered this feature before, @Roshen you can tell the team that we're interested in npcs fighting npcs
PvE is supposed to build the world
PvP is supposed to change it.
Within the world building side of things related to PvE, the world building itself could take on something like the following chain of events.
Players advance or destroy a node, causing changes in the nearby region
Seasonal or weather events force migration of creatures from where they were, to somewhere new, since the regional changes plus weather/season changes make their current living situation not good for them anymore.
The creatures in the new area fight existing creatures in that area for a period of time, until one or the other side wins. These are now the new creatures of that area.
During the last stage, players may or may not tip the scales of which side wins as they farm one set of creature or the other, however after the time period is up, only one set of creatures (the ones that 'won') will remain to respawn and be farmed in that area.
So, it may be possible for players to start a server and the server withers due to inactivity. Corruption events are triggered but what players remain are unable to successfully combat them and one node after another falls to corruption...eventually the server is corrupt beyond redemption.
The end result is a corrupted world. Players who choose to start on that server are doomed...or perhaps one island survives with an intact mini-economy and one metro....forever trying to retake the world from corruption.