World that lives on its own

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Raven016

NiKr wrote: »

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.

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.

CROW3

Overall, I love this idea. It creates a world that feels as if it has it's own cadence, and its axis isn't the player. I think we'd want to set some reasonable thresholds on what actions take place when - particularly if there are significant implications to the economy, health of the node, or widespread impact to freeholds. It might set some interesting race conditions with NPCs in neighboring nodes that start leveling a node faster than a player node. Tons of good content that could spawn from that conflict (or alliance).

I dig it.

Azherae

I'll presume you know my opinion on this already from the games I've talked about, but what specifically do you see as 'different' for Ashes, here, relative to those?

Songcaller

I'm in two minds. PvP is meant to change the world, not EvE.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

I'll presume you know my opinion on this already from the games I've talked about, but what specifically do you see as 'different' for Ashes, here, relative to those?

Nothing really, if I recall the crumbs that relate to this from those games correctly. Just the usual "combo of FF11 and L2" that you've mentioned before

Except in this case it's way more of the ff11 and pretty much none of the L2.

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.

Songcaller

We had EvE in UO and it had to be removed. The players just nuked all sides. Wasn't functional and everything went to shit.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

I'm in two minds. PvP is meant to change the world, not EvE.

We'll have mob attacks and "winter dragons" that will influence the world in their own pve way and will have to be dealt with through pve as well. So it's not like we won't have smth similar already.

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.

Songcaller

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

I'm in two minds. PvP is meant to change the world, not EvE.

We'll have mob attacks and "winter dragons" that will influence the world in their own pve way and will have to be dealt with through pve as well. So it's not like we won't have smth similar already.

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.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

We had EvE in UO and it had to be removed. The players just nuked all sides. Wasn't functional and everything went to shit.

But the "nuke all sides" is already an option in Ashes, so that's the default. Did UO's design differ in its base goal?

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I'll presume you know my opinion on this already from the games I've talked about, but what specifically do you see as 'different' for Ashes, here, relative to those?

Nothing really, if I recall the crumbs that relate to this from those games correctly. Just the usual "combo of FF11 and L2" that you've mentioned before Except in this case it's way more of the ff11 and pretty much none of the L2.

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.

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?

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

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.

But what about the cases where, say, your actions trigger an event, but right at that moment you get attacked by other players and your pvp takes you in the opposite direction.

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?

Songcaller

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

We had EvE in UO and it had to be removed. The players just nuked all sides. Wasn't functional and everything went to shit.

But the "nuke all sides" is already an option in Ashes, so that's the default. Did UO's design differ in its base goal?

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.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

So what I'm asking is, do you have anything more specific in mind, than this?

Nope, I'd want pretty much this just in Ashes.

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.

Nova_terra

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

I'm in two minds. PvP is meant to change the world, not EvE.

We'll have mob attacks and "winter dragons" that will influence the world in their own pve way and will have to be dealt with through pve as well. So it's not like we won't have smth similar already.

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.

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.

Songcaller

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

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.

But what about the cases where, say, your actions trigger an event, but right at that moment you get attacked by other players and your pvp takes you in the opposite direction.

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?

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.

Azherae

Neurath wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

We had EvE in UO and it had to be removed. The players just nuked all sides. Wasn't functional and everything went to shit.

But the "nuke all sides" is already an option in Ashes, so that's the default. Did UO's design differ in its base goal?

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.

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.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

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.

But this would be true in the case of the entire server being 100% populated and all locations being observed/farmed, right?

But what about servers with incomplete population or just deep off-hours where you have a few regions w/o players for a while?

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

Also, I'd be up for looting the battlefields like in real life.

And just to have a fuller picture, would you be ok if this event got finished by npcs but you couldn't get any loot out of it afterwards? So, a type of risk/reward thing, where you'd have to decide whether your current distraction is more valuable than the potential loot/reward of the event.

Nova_terra

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Also, I'd be up for looting the battlefields like in real life.

And just to have a fuller picture, would you be ok if this event got finished by npcs but you couldn't get any loot out of it afterwards? So, a type of risk/reward thing, where you'd have to decide whether your current distraction is more valuable than the potential loot/reward of the event.

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.

Songcaller

Azherae wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

We had EvE in UO and it had to be removed. The players just nuked all sides. Wasn't functional and everything went to shit.

But the "nuke all sides" is already an option in Ashes, so that's the default. Did UO's design differ in its base goal?

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.

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.

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

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.

But this would be true in the case of the entire server being 100% populated and all locations being observed/farmed, right?

But what about servers with incomplete population or just deep off-hours where you have a few regions w/o players for a while?

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?

Child Item