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

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

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.

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.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

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?

But all servers will inevitably be underpopulated sooner or later, or at least at some point. Obviously the high value targets like bosses would get camped and/or tracked, but smaller random events that could potentially grow into smth bigger could in theory, happen w/o players and the players would then have to deal with a bigger problem, which to me would feel like the world is living on its own and I can only deal with the consequences of that life.

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.

Azherae

To add to that actually, there are some restrictions in Elite, unlike FFXI.

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...

Songcaller

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

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?

But all servers will inevitably be underpopulated sooner or later, or at least at some point. Obviously the high value targets like bosses would get camped and/or tracked, but smaller random events that could potentially grow into smth bigger could in theory, happen w/o players and the players would then have to deal with a bigger problem, which to me would feel like the world is living on its own and I can only deal with the consequences of that life.

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.

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.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

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...

So yeah, I'd want this kind of stuff for events in Ashes. They can resolve whichever way on their own, but players can influence them. Pretty much the same thing as SR2 had, except there your main goal was to "beat the bad guys", so being able to choose either side would give more options than that.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

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...

So yeah, I'd want this kind of stuff for events in Ashes. They can resolve whichever way on their own, but players can influence them. Pretty much the same thing as SR2 had, except there your main goal was to "beat the bad guys", so being able to choose either side would give more options than that.

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.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

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.

Yep, this thread's goal was to see if people are interested in this kind of thing and so far it seems like they are.

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

Ruerik

I think this is a good idea, to a degree.

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.

tautau

Don't we already have a bit of this (we don't know how much) built in? IIRC, there are events that spawn corruption which could flood a node if the players don't successfully defend the node.

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.

Ludullu

tautau wrote: »

Don't we already have a bit of this (we don't know how much) built in? IIRC, there are events that spawn corruption which could flood a node if the players don't successfully defend the node.

In theory, yes, but it's a one-sided progress of things. I'd like if there was the possibility of movement towards the other side as well.

Ruerik

How extreme are you thinking Nikr

Do you want the possibility of a node or region built and controlled by bandit NPCs?

Ludullu

Taerrik wrote: »

How extreme are you thinking Nikr

Do you want the possibility of a node or region built and controlled by bandit NPCs?

I mean, I wish that was a thing, but nah, I simply want a self-completing option for events like the one we saw in the last showcase. And at some point on that event's progression it would target players more directly, making them respond if they haven't before.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Taerrik wrote: »

How extreme are you thinking Nikr

Do you want the possibility of a node or region built and controlled by bandit NPCs?

I mean, I wish that was a thing, but nah, I simply want a self-completing option for events like the one we saw in the last showcase. And at some point on that event's progression it would target players more directly, making them respond if they haven't before.

Why one and not the other though?

A Node is a Node. I would think the thing stopping the 'bandit NPCs' from building up their own node would just be that they're not able to do all the gathering and building, and I'm fine with that too, obviously, since Ashes is meant to be about the players...

But you said you want it, so what's your counter reason for 'not wanting it really'?

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

But you said you want it, so what's your counter reason for 'not wanting it really'?

Mainly because I see that as a bit too much of a scope creep. There's already node decay, so if players are absent - the node will be "taken over" by the npcs. Anything on top of that, with any potential building up by the npcs or any influence on the progress of the node - all of it is a bit too much for an already HUUUUGE game.

My ideal game would have full on wars among npcs factions across the entire server, with mobs becoming green and having their own stories. A true world that lives on its own, where players are just tiny parts of the entire machine, rather than the ones at the wheel. But Ashes is simply not that game, nor do I want it to become that.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

But you said you want it, so what's your counter reason for 'not wanting it really'?

Mainly because I see that as a bit too much of a scope creep. There's already node decay, so if players are absent - the node will be "taken over" by the npcs. Anything on top of that, with any potential building up by the npcs or any influence on the progress of the node - all of it is a bit too much for an already HUUUUGE game.

My ideal game would have full on wars among npcs factions across the entire server, with mobs becoming green and having their own stories. A true world that lives on its own, where players are just tiny parts of the entire machine, rather than the ones at the wheel. But Ashes is simply not that game, nor do I want it to become that.

Well, don't worry, you may be able to play a game like that soon too, and not even need to buy a spaceship.

Dygz

Launch in 2060.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

Launch in 2060.

Roshen

NiKr wrote: »

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

Oh, it's more than being considered, and appreciate you tagging me into this conversation, @NiKr

Here are a couple small examples from recent livestreams with timestamps:

In the September 2023 Development Update spotlighting the Event system, you see Grayshore NPCs fighting some of The Highwaymen. Link to replay with timestamp.

In the July 2023 Development Update spotlighting the Cleric kit updates, revenants overtake the minotaur that were in this area. You can see the minotaur corpses here during this livestream (link to replay with timestamp).

We definitely want the world to feel alive, and that means that based on what players do (or don't do) during Events and Story Arcs, different NPCs may come into conflict with each other.

While things are still very much work in progress, what types of things would you like to see expanded on, regarding things like NPCs fighting other NPCs?

Ludullu

Roshen wrote: »

While things are still very much work in progress, what types of things would you like to see expanded on, regarding things like NPCs fighting other NPCs?

The main thing I'd like to see right now is the AI development/plans progress. Cause that would pertain to both the attackers and the defenders, and has a ton of other implications as well.

I did miss the npc archer in the last showcase, so definitely thx for point that out. It definitely seems like the forces are a bit uneven there, but I guess that could be tweaked and changed depending on what Intrepid want to achieve in any given event. But it's good to know that this is already planned, so @Dygz it's at least 2040 and not 2060

As for the zombies overtaking minotaurs - I would definitely like to see that, if that does in fact happened through fighting rather than just flipping a switch. But I guess that can be left for A2's testing.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Roshen wrote: »

While things are still very much work in progress, what types of things would you like to see expanded on, regarding things like NPCs fighting other NPCs?

The main thing I'd like to see right now is the AI development/plans progress. Cause that would pertain to both the attackers and the defenders, and has a ton of other implications as well.

I did miss the npc archer in the last showcase, so definitely thx for point that out. It definitely seems like the forces are a bit uneven there, but I guess that could be tweaked and changed depending on what Intrepid want to achieve in any given event. But it's good to know that this is already planned, so @Dygz it's at least 2040 and not 2060

As for the zombies overtaking minotaurs - I would definitely like to see that, if that does in fact happened through fighting rather than just flipping a switch. But I guess that can be left for A2's testing.

I would like to be able to call down a Dragon NPC to help in a battle due to my faith or good relationship.

Or better yet, she should have a humanoid form so she can ride on the Caravan and then transform when the bandits start looking like they're going to win and then incinerate them all with dragon breath and then transform back and calmly chat with me about it before enjoying snacks.

Child Item