Ecosystem

[Dragomir]

Have you even read my first post? My point was not to necessarily make it a realistic ecosystem, in which the amount of turds dropped by buffalos can affect the quantity of flowers in the next months.

What I would want is some AI algorythms that would make animals respond to the player, to NPC's and to other animals in a realistic way. And that IS significant, as it affects the mob behaviour greatly. I don't feel need to play Animal Planet Simulator, but I'd like animals to be, or at least feel like an integral part of the world, rather than mindless mobs piling up on us. They should pick their natural victims over humans, they shouldn't all instantly attack on sight etc. Variety in mob behaviour really makes a huge difference in how the gameplay feels. You get to know which animals are safe and which you should avoid. Skyrim got it right to some extent, but I never saw a wounded animal flee for example (except for those unable to fight), or leave player be if presented with a more meaty prey.

 

[ZaratanCho]

I agree about the complexity of the eco system, I just got a bit off topic and wasn't really reffering to it. It should be practical, as much as it exists. ;D
And yes, realistic animal behaviour will be great of course, attacking on sight is quite dumb. In skyrim there was a mod that made alot of changes in animal behaviour and all. They were supposed to look for water, migrate and such.

 

[fluffydino2000]

What you're saying there implies that the devs would end up doing loads of work to work out how to balance an ecosystem. If the AI is good enough for the animals and their needs are realistic enough, it should balance itself out. You could literally put in 100 of every creature into the game and overtime it should balance itself out. I'd also like to imagine that the AI has very little hard coded, therefore less bugs would be created by adding new things to the game. Also, I doubt they'd even have to put that much effort into making the AI for wildlife. The biggest problem they would have would be creating the ecosystem aspects for plants, that would require actual development time compared to just adding an enemy that natural becomes part of the ecosystem.

This was in response to Xerxes by the way.

 

[Xerxes]

If the AI is good enough for the animals and their needs are realistic enough, it should balance itself out. .

It has less to do with AI and more to do with behavior simulation of the eco system as a whole. The meta game will run in a completely different world from yours. The balance itself out part is a big IF. If it is like a population model built in matlab then the devs would need to spend weeks if not month to make sure it will always stay equilibrium. It is just nonsense and players will never notice that.

In fact, players are only as smart as the core game mechanics are. Most players only cares about having a good time killing things, rather than learning mathematics models. It would be the same if not straight better with a simple and intuitive system.

 

[Xerxes]

Have you even read my first post?

Yes I have, I only want to point out how people are going off rail by trying to make the game earth sim.

I do agree with many of your points, especially that variety of animals bit.
The thing that plagues all AAA rpg titles this day is their unreal quality. They want to have the dark and edgy cake and eat it, so they are characterizing the guts of all their characters, but players are killing bandits and thieves as if they are not humans. So it really undermines the story and the messages the devs wanted to convey by a lot.

However, I don't see the long term benefit of having this in the game. It would be impressive for the first few minutes, but it will be put to the sides. Why? Because there have never been a rpg in which animals are your biggest threat. Why would I care about avoiding a pack of wolves when I can kill them just as simply as washing my hands? The BM need to make animals into the centre of the game or else the effort would be wasted.

Another problem is: animals doesn't go well with sword fights.

These being said, using fire to repel wild animals would be really atmospheric.

 

[fluffydino2000]

I think the misunderstanding between us is that I'm still not 100% sure as to what the meta game is. Is it the simplified simulation of events that aren't happening around the player so don't deserve as much processing? If this is the case, I understand you completely now and see where the effort might come from.

 

[Dragomir]

Yes I have, I only want to point out how people are going off rail by trying to make the game earth sim.

I do agree with many of your points, especially that variety of animals bit.
The thing that plagues all AAA rpg titles this day is their unreal quality. They want to have the dark and edgy cake and eat it, so they are characterizing the guts of all their characters, but players are killing bandits and thieves as if they are not humans. So it really undermines the story and the messages the devs wanted to convey by a lot.

The main problem with AAA rpg's is that they try to appeal to as many people as possible That produces boring, mediocore stories in which you run around, complete generic quests, kill anything that looks at you funny without consequence (now even breaking equipment is not a concern) and picking up tons of crap from which most of it is only there for you to sell.

Kickstarter campaign combined with the indiependence of BareMettle will hopefully prevent that ruining attitude.

However, I don't see the long term benefit of having this in the game. It would be impressive for the first few minutes, but it will be put to the sides. Why? Because there have never been a rpg in which animals are your biggest threat. Why would I care about avoiding a pack of wolves when I can kill them just as simply as washing my hands? The BM need to make animals into the centre of the game or else the effort would be wasted.
Another problem is: animals doesn't go well with sword fights.

Well, in a fantasy world we have MONSTERS. I want all kinds of fierce, supernatural wildlife to be incorporated in that system. After all, every beast that is not humanoid should be considered an animal in terms of the game world. Thus - animals WILL be a major threat throughout most of the game, especially a game that has lots of exploration. You can easily dispatch a wolfpack late in the game - but what about a pack of WHATTHEHELLISTHATMONSTRUOSITY?

I also named quite a few long term benefits of that kind of behaviour like a nice way to balance out the pacing of exploration, but most important of them would be that getting to know how the animals act could save you a lot of sweat and blood.

For the most of examples I used a very simple but effective system we had in Gothic. It was surely not a wasted time. Being hunted by monsters was the first time in an RPG I really feared a mob.

Another problem is: animals doesn't go well with sword fights.

I hope there will be a lot more variety of weaponry than just swords But I think I explained the issue of picking right weapon for the right opponent in the "Melee" thread.

"pick weapons accordingly to situations. A spear has very small chances of succes against a shieldman. As soon as he gets past the tip we're in serious trouble. However - taking a one handed sword with a shield against a troll would be suicidal, since we won't be able to either block any of it's attacks, or reach it without getting dangerously close. Spear in this case is a much more viable option, and a ranged weapon would work best. Two handed weapons should work well against armoured enemies et cetera. I'm not saying our character should carry a whole arsenal all the time, but different weapons should work best against certain enemies. Physics system will force that anyway hopefully."

 

[Xerxes]

You can easily dispatch a wolfpack late in the game - but what about a pack of WHATTHEHELLISTHATMONSTRUOSITY?
For the most of examples I used a very simple but effective system we had in Gothic. It was surely not a wasted time. Being hunted by monsters was the first time in an RPG I really feared a mob.

I hope there will be a lot more variety of weaponry than just swords But I think I explained the issue of picking right weapon for the right opponent in the "Melee" thread.

I totally totally agree with you. There aren't enough games that have the courage to hunt the player down with monsters and ambushes after ambushes. Having some super strong monsters that encourages player to use strategy rather than button mashing and potion chugging would be great. One problem Skryim has is that all monsters are fought with the same strategy, mash your attack button, then heal up when you are hurt. If the monster is too strong then the only way to kill it is exploiting it. That's just bad game design. If I'm in charge of designing monsters in Skyrim, I would give troll a strong charge attack that stuns itself after use and leaves the troll open to attacks rather than give it a lot of attack power and unkitable thus force players to jump on a bit of rock and shoot the troll to death with arrows. Another problem I have with skyrim is just how awful the loot system works. Giants only drops their toes, trolls drop troll fat. These are utterly useless for many play styles and can't be sold for much. It does not provide an incentive to raise up to the challenge and kill those totally unbalanced and boring monsters.

Picking right weapon for the right opponent is a cool idea but it should not be over done. Arbitrarily making turtles totally immune to slashes would only be annoying. Sure smash turtles with a big hammer would do a lot of damage and crush the little thing's bones. Swords should still be somewhat effective against armored targets.
My suggestion would be giving weapons different fighting styles that the player can switch from one to another, like the fast, strong, group style in Witcher. even though it is poorly implemented in that game, it's still a good idea non the less. Since all attacks are going to be made by pressing the left mouse button in certain ways, it would be a waste to not give player the ability to switch between different fighting style.

Such as a fast style that has very little attack lag so you can immediately parry after one strike, a power style gives powerful slashes but put you off your balance if the attack did not connect, a charging style grants you extra range and can be used against far away monsters and armored foes.

As an example, if you are using a katana, the fast style would be a more agile moveset, in which you are focused on attacking the foe's weaknesses (neck, unarmored parts) and retract your blade more than using brutal force.
The power style would unleash slashes that are powerful enough to sever bones, however because you are using your whole body to swing your blade, it is harder to recover from it.
The charging style would either be a powerful running thrust to pierce armor, and a dashing quickdraw that will reach your enemy's neck before he lift his sword.

This not only encourage players to learn about monsters, but also make the combat all that more interesting. Switching weapons around sounds good on paper however, in most games with rpg elements, the player will only have one good weapon that he uses a lot. It is realistic for hunters to have some backup weapons and traps, but for a rpg game whose sole goal is to get better drop, it is simply not possible.

It's just my 2 cents though. May be people would prefer to button mash their way through the game, I can't speak for them.

 

[fluffydino2000]

Well Sui generis' sole aim is clearly not to get better drop so I assume you are talking about games in general. But I do agree that different attack styles are a good idea. However in Sui, you are supposed to control the attack style by how you move your feet. Anything that can't be controlled by that will seemingly be controlled by pressing a button while attacking or clicking in a specific way (double click or click then click and hold). I think this is a better solution to the whole attack styles over weapon changes thing. Also, I'd imagine having two weapons will likely be common in SG as just based on the physics some weapons will be too awkward against some enemies.

 

[Dragomir]

I don't really like the idea of having to switch styles. Don't get me wrong, there are many different stances and guards one can take, but fighting style should be much more dynamic than choosing from different sets of combos (as it was in Witcher). I'd rather have something more similar to what Dino described - different possibilities to control your character that would define your style, rather than preset styles controlling the character's moves. I'd love to be able to choose from big variety of attacks of which all have pros and cons.
I feel like this should be in the Melee thread though... Fighting styles aren't very much a part of an Ecosystem


I actually had an idea on how the game could work with our character needing to have a personal arsenal, it could be a fun system, but it's a lot of wishful thinking Say, there are CARTS. Pulled by horses, donkeys or mules. With accurate collisions and physics they would work great in SG. And on that Cart we can not only travel, but we can have crates and chests. Thus it would be very prominent to get a cart if we want to become a Dungeon Raider (and also have a considerably realistic carry weight). We could have sets of armour and weapons for any circumstances riding with us over the world, and it would be a great place to drop our loot before we transport it to a merchant to sell it all.
But again, that's a detour.

 

[tiny lampe]

Sorry for continuing with the off topic but the comments on melee are too interesting to be ignored.

Personally, I'm all for switching between styles (I'd call them stances) as a way to make a weapon more appropiate against a certain type of enemy. 2 examples I'd love to see implemented:

1) Half-swording: this is a technique were with one hand you hold the sword by the grip and with the other you hold it by the central part of the blade. The point is to give you a second point of leverage so that your thrusts become a) more precise and b) more powerful. Essentially you are using your sword as if it was a spear. This technique was traditionally used to pierce through well-armored opponents.

2) Pommeling: instead of taking the sword by the hilt you take it by the blade, and use the pommel to cause blunt trauma. You would be half-swording here as well, because essentially you are using your sword as a hammer and to do so effectively you need a second point of leverage. This technique effectively transforms a slashing weapon into a blunt one.

Polearms (tri-weapons that combine a piercing end, a blunt end and a slashing end) could also make use of different stances that specialize in using a particular end.

So, in my opinion it is possible to make certain attacks realistically ineffective against certain opponents (slash against armored knight) and yet, provide room for alternatives without forcing the player to carry an arsenal with him (just change your stance!)

 

[Dragomir]

Or we could just take it to the melee combat thread

I'm afraid half swording only really makes sense with well... Half swords (which is - swords that only have their tip tempered). They're surely good for fencing, but most swords are best off being sharp on the whole blade. And there's no problem hitting with the pommel without having to hold the sword by the blade

 

[Xerxes]

My concern with SG's current planned control scheme is that, it provides little to no precise control.
You do not have 100% percent control over how you will swing your sword because your attack moves is limited.

Unless SG comes with a special mouse with 10 buttons, I just don't see how BM will make the battle skillful. Or did I miss something? If I did, then plz tell me how you are going to do anything other than thrust and mindlessly swinging away your blade.

I think it is my duty to state that this has been tried before in many wii motion plus gimmicky sword fighting games. In theory yes, you can angle your attacks, but because most moves are just so difficult to pull out, it all comes down to mindless stick wiggling.

Adding stances has another benefit you guys have ignored. This opens up a whole new level of modding support. It would be impossible at least very hard for any modder to add in the stance swap system, but if the frame is there, then people can pull out all kinds of cool things.

My dino friend, I've heard that SG's final goal's not getting better loot, but if the game throw in all the most powerful weapons to the player, then what's the incentive of keep playing?
If powerful gears are not that easy to come by, then getting gear upgrades is one of the incentives, isn't it? Would you care to explain this?

 

[Komuflage]

My dino friend, I've heard that SG's final goal's not getting better loot, but if the game throw in all the most powerful weapons to the player, then what's the incentive of keep playing?
If powerful gears are not that easy to come by, then getting gear upgrades is one of the incentives, isn't it? Would you care to explain this?

I don't think you'll get the "best" weapons easy, but SG will not be a lootfest like Diablo/Torchlight.
And honestly, ain't playing through the story, having fun killing enemy's and so on enough to keep you entertained?
However getting better loot might be a incentive, but it's not the main goal of the game.

 

[Xerxes]

I don't think you'll get the "best" weapons easy, but SG will not be a lootfest like Diablo/Torchlight.
And honestly, ain't playing through the story, having fun killing enemy's and so on enough to keep you entertained?
However getting better loot might be a incentive, but it's not the main goal of the game.

Then, the player will not get a good weapon of every type without a lot of grinding. Making some monsters immune to certain types of weapons will not add depth to a game.

I think as a demon's souls veteran (more than I'm), you should know that certain degree of complication and reward player's critical thinking is essential for a hard game to be enjoyable. If Demon's souls have no parry, no jump attack, no backstab, it would not be so much fun. The same thing applies to ARMA. If ARMA is another modern shooter with 2 weapon slot and can be played with mouse and direction key only, it would not be so great.

PS: I usually hate seeing games claim to be cinematic and well written sending truck loads of humanoids to be slaughtered without any consequence; however, I've been playing uncharted 3 this month, and I can't wait to kill more sweary mercenaries. It's because the story does not take itself too seriously. It does not try to be the next lord of the rings or shawshank's redemption. Here is my question of the week: "does realism and seriousness add to a game's story and fun?".

 

[fluffydino2000]

As has been said many times before, the skill in the combat comes from knowing the general attack patterns of yourself and your enemies and then applying that knowledge in a fight. You apply that by parrying effectively and making the most out of your attacks. You do that by positioning yourself in the most effective way and by moving your body properly. All this is thre without half the weapons and special moves (stabs et cetera) in the game and without thaumaturgy, will this actually become skilful, who knows but it seems to have a lot of depth without a lot of the complexity of things like ARMA, to me that seems like the perfect way to achieve true skill.

 

[ZaratanCho]

It is all subjective. For me it is not just about "fun" though. Like with books for example, don't read books that I have nothing to learn from, I won't read a book just for a kind of fun story. "Realism and seriousness" can add alot of value, and yet again everything is decided by execution and by the one 'playing' to a high degree. I personally don't get into games just for combat or slaughtering tons of enemies, some games are fun but this is all you get, this is the highest point of the "fun".

A game(not just games) that makes you think and think about things outside the game world is a good game for me. I like to put myself in my avatars shoes and feel as if i am really in the place and situation the he(I) is. Having this to a point where your mind and body really react to it, not easy. ;D

Of course having an amazing combat with weight behind it contributes quite alot.

And to have something on topic. You seem to misunderstand some comments and react little silly at times.For example, just because i comment on something in general or a concept/idea doesn't mean I am saying "Put this in the SG" or "Do it exactly as i have said". It is more of the opposite because I don't know enough for the game and it's development to say more exact things and alot of my comments are kind of in the middle of nowhere ;D
So i don't think anyone is trying to make SG "earth sim" or whatever. ;D I think enough is said about the "eco system" topic and such including some dev comments, When more info is released there may be more to talk about.

 

[Komuflage]

Then, the player will not get a good weapon of every type without a lot of grinding. Making some monsters immune to certain types of weapons will not add depth to a game.

I think as a demon's souls veteran (more than I'm), you should know that certain degree of complication and reward player's critical thinking is essential for a hard game to be enjoyable. If Demon's souls have no parry, no jump attack, no backstab, it would not be so much fun. The same thing applies to ARMA. If ARMA is another modern shooter with 2 weapon slot and can be played with mouse and direction key only, it would not be so great.

PS: I usually hate seeing games claim to be cinematic and well written sending truck loads of humanoids to be slaughtered without any consequence; however, I've been playing uncharted 3 this month, and I can't wait to kill more sweary mercenaries. It's because the story does not take itself too seriously. It does not try to be the next lord of the rings or shawshank's redemption. Here is my question of the week: "does realism and seriousness add to a game's story and fun?".

Dunno what u're talking about now I never said that you had to grind to get good weapons, or that some monsters are immune to certain types of damage. I just said that finding better gear won't be the main goal of the game, and that you (at least I know I will) shouldn't need a lootfest in order to enjoy a game.
Imo, it's the game itself that should keep the playing wanting more, not the obsession with finding better loot.

And ofc I know that at least to some degree a game need to be complicated and rewards player's critical thinking, to be enjoyable for a more "Hardcore" player. I never stated otherwise. And the more complicated it's and the more it forces me to actually using my brain, the more I'll enjoy the game. As an example, I just finished killing Artorias with my lvl35 Warrior, using a +10 Claymore. (not the most ideal weapon for the fight, but didn't have any other upgraded weapons) Artorias have loads of different attacks, and in order to be able to beat him at that lvl, you need to think of what u're doing, u can't just button mash to victory. The fight took around 10-15 minutes, and I had to keep on my toes the whole time, since a lot of his more powerful attacks would most likely one hit me. (Even blocking his charge attack, he penetrated my guard, and took me down to ~10%hp) Point is, he's somewhat complicated with his 10+ different attacks, and u need to use ur brain in order to beat him. And it rewarded me for doing so, not just that I now could get his Armour and Weapon, but also the mental reward of being able to beat him at that lvl, without to much hassle, and with a non op build. (ie Intelligence builds)

Realism and Seriousness Can add to a game's story and fun, but it depends on what type of game it's.
The Witcher 2 is a game that benefits quite a lot from it's seriousness and semi realism.
While Magicka really benefits from it's humor.

 

[Dragomir]

Realism and Seriousness are not to be considered factors that game can either benefit or get worse from. It's just another level of depth you can add. Games that try to be "serious" nowadays often are simply stupid and that's why they don't benefit from that. But looking at Telltale's Walking Dead point&click game - gods curse me if there weren't serious topics explained in many deep and detailed ways, and if the game didn't benefit from that. Asking questions about what's human and what's not, and how far can we go to protect our lives and lives of those we love and what it means to be responsible for someone... And it answered them much better than a movie, because you were the one who decided on those things, and there were many different things you could do.

That being said, I don't think Sui Generis would benefit from intense writing, since it's not to be story driven. You state the question - what is it going to be driven by? As far as I can deduce from what devs said - the game is going to be a sort of a simulator. With not all the aspects taken into account, but many of them (one of them will hopefully be some kind of ecosystem ). Thus, this would make SG a perfect sandbox RPG. It wouldn't be the story that drives you forward, it would be just finding out how far can you push the boundaries of this world and how much can you influence it with your actions. And of course character development - I think these two things should be the main focus.

So - about the loot - I just think that it should balance itself out. It should be done in a realistic and logical manner, not Diablo style wolves with axes buried in their innards. If you want a really good sword you will first have to beat someone who's wielding it. That way game will make sure you're not powerful enough to get end-game stuff, those who are guarding it will be just too powerful. Of course I think there should be items just lying around, sometimes even powerful - but then the more powerful they are, the more and more dangerous searching they would require. Besides, items that are not on NPC's should also be placed logically - in safe and locked chests in safe and locked areas guarded by them. I would say big no-no to abandoned chests so popular RPG's, they make no sense and they often break balance with their loot. This way, the loot system actually would emphasize on the main focuses of the game - exploring and character development.

Now that got me thinking - should we start a "Loot and Economy" thread?

 

[Stupidity]

I agree with OP.

The shallow nature of monsters/animals in 99% of games always bugged me. It breaks immersion when wolves are waiting patiently right beside orcs and skeletons to attack you. Monsters should react to you and each other according to their nature not just attacking anything they see.
Some monsters/humans/animals should run away from you or each other depending on the situation and monsters should only be standing around on a road if they are actively ambushing you.

Extinction and endangerment seem like too much work for too little reward. A fun hunting/survival system (even if only basic) would be amazing, adding variety, fun and world depth in the best ways.

That said, like others have posted, the mechanisms to accomplish this must be kept simple and efficient. If such behavior is impractical it would be great if we could get even realistic interaction between monsters and our corpse (Wolves tearing at the body, ogres bashing it a few time to be sure).