Limited followers

[Oona]

The annoying thing in most RPGs is that you have a limited amount of people who can follow you. I would really love it for SG to have as many followers as you can convince, rather than a set amount.

How cool would it be to have convinced ten people to follow you, and lead them into a dangerous dungeon just so you can loot?

 

[666jet]

The annoying thing in most RPGs is that you have a limited amount of people who can follow you. I would really love it for SG to have as many followers as you can convince, rather than a set amount.

How cool would it be to have convinced ten people to follow you, and lead them into a dangerous dungeon just so you can loot?

Sounds epic idea to me and you could ambush in coming waggons would be epic

 

[Jack Spicer]

I think the main problem with followers is that a larger number is harder to get the game to run, especially depending on the terrain you're trying to fight over. Admittedly, a higher limit than 2 or 3 would be nice, since that's what a lot of games seem to run at, but I would imagine there would still be an upper limit.

 

[666jet]

would be epic to be in a massive battle like loads of people and have a squad with you of like 10 people and as for game not handling its only going to be the pc and by that time next year there will be more powerful pc's out so it's all good

 

[Siyeh]

It would also be lots more work for the devs. You'd have to program follower AI for a squad of 2, 3,...,9,10. And what if there were 2 ranged followers, a dude with a pole arm and some sneaky thief types. It would be really easy to ruin great AI by having too many followers.

Not to say it wouldn't be awesome.

 

[The Hedge Knight]

I think the main problem with followers is that a larger number is harder to get the game to run, especially depending on the terrain you're trying to fight over. Admittedly, a higher limit than 2 or 3 would be nice, since that's what a lot of games seem to run at, but I would imagine there would still be an upper limit.

It's not like the game can't handle more than 10 NPC's on screen at once.

 

[calithlin]

I think for whatever upper number they come up with, they can make it fit realistically as well. NPCs that are possible to convince can all have their own idea of how big of a party is too big, and as you get more followers fewer people want to join up in what starts to look like a band of mercenaries, but maybe some would like larger groups.
However, you will have to be careful because you may have followers that decide to leave when things get more crowded (or if they aren't receiving a big enough share of spoils anymore). That way they can develop a system where there is an eventual equilibrium, where you can't keep everyone happy and the party size naturally evens out, instead of an artificially forced number that seems out of place.

 

[calithlin]

It would also be lots more work for the devs. You'd have to program follower AI for a squad of 2, 3,...,9,10. And what if there were 2 ranged followers, a dude with a pole arm and some sneaky thief types. It would be really easy to ruin great AI by having too many followers.

Not to say it wouldn't be awesome.

Well the thing about good AI is it can easily be size independant. I've programmed a robotic soccer team and as long as it has a list of all it's team mates, the robots can designate a goalie, ball handler, and defenders no matter how many team mates or enemies there are. Do the issue won't be programming capability, but processing consumption.

 

[666jet]

Well the thing about good AI is it can easily be size independant. I've programmed a robotic soccer team and as long as it has a list of all it's team mates, the robots can designate a goalie, ball handler, and defenders no matter how many team mates or enemies there are. Do the issue won't be programming capability, but processing consumption.

wow pretty cool man have you thought about using the raspberry pi in any of your robots or do they have a more powerful processor?

 

[calithlin]

Oh, sorry my post was a little misleading. I'm a game programmer by trade, so the robots were programmed and designed in a game
I'll link to a video of them but it's a bit low quality (at the end of the video)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QtwIwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRrQ1bYdh7I&ei=C-XAUKXENMT6igK6hICgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHRn8D8jsWUT7DpiU1L3Asi--mI7Q

 

[the0thMonkey]

I don't think the implementation of follower AI would be problematic. I also don't think the game would have trouble keeping track of a bunch of people on the screen at once. But I do have a couple of concerns.

Realistic follower commands would have to be implemented, and done really well. This would be to avoid Skyrim's problem of your follower following you too closely and imprisoning you in a confined space (at least until you Fus Ro Dah them ). This is really not too big of an issue because hopefully BME will already have a good way to control your follower.

Also, to balance your ability to have a lot of followers some sort of system like Mount&Blade might have to be created as well. The larger your party was, the lower morale. Also, there were group dynamics to consider as well. Each follower liked some of the other potential followers and disliked some. If they were kept with people they didn't like, morale went down, which resulted in longer travel times and eventually they would abandon you. This was pretty effective at limiting the number of followers you could have in a plausible way.

Lastly, we need to consider if BME want this feature in the game. We know they want realism and that they intend to have followers but I'm not really aware of anything more than that.

I see these as being the biggest determining factors.

 

[BrecMadak]

You read my mind the0thMonkey, i knew 'morale' mechanic should had to make its way already, and its damn time for the injection !

Besides, moral ala HoMaM series could also be implemented designed specifically within combat. I have no doubts that devs would take care of this issue within 'who loves the rose should put up with its thorns' mindset.

 

[The Hedge Knight]

Personality crashes would be great.

 

[666jet]

Oh, sorry my post was a little misleading. I'm a game programmer by trade, so the robots were programmed and designed in a game
I'll link to a video of them but it's a bit low quality (at the end of the video)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QtwIwAA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRrQ1bYdh7I&ei=C-XAUKXENMT6igK6hICgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHRn8D8jsWUT7DpiU1L3Asi--mI7Q

dams your miss-leading posts lols HAHA still very cool and im sure they will do what is best for the game eh i hope just needs to be more than 2 followers the more the better and the hole and the hole personality clashes and stuff would be great

 

[Verva]

Just the thought of being in a all out war with hundreds of NPC's fighting hordes of monsters in some kind of war... It makes me happy on the inside.When it comes to followers, you CAN go about finding people you like and asking them to stick around with you, but that takes time and perhaps they won't all get along...

OR, a city could give you control of their army (Because you're just awesome like that), and you have to lead the men into battle against some kind of threat, or maybe you ARE the threat, I dunno. The point is, armies. Sure, bands of mercinaries are fun... but... ARMIES. Hundreds of soldiers marching toward an enemy army, inevetably clashing and havoc ensuing. Any thoughts?

Do you think it would be technically possible to have so many active NPC's? Considering they want the entire world to be dynamic and to keep interactions going even when the player isn't there, perhaps the idea isn't too far-fetched.

 

[calithlin]

Just the thought of being in a all out war with hundreds of NPC's fighting hordes of monsters in some kind of war... It makes me happy on the inside.When it comes to followers, you CAN go about finding people you like and asking them to stick around with you, but that takes time and perhaps they won't all get along...

OR, a city could give you control of their army (Because you're just awesome like that), and you have to lead the men into battle against some kind of threat, or maybe you ARE the threat, I dunno. The point is, armies. Sure, bands of mercinaries are fun... but... ARMIES. Hundreds of soldiers marching toward an enemy army, inevetably clashing and havoc ensuing. Any thoughts?

Do you think it would be technically possible to have so many active NPC's? Considering they want the entire world to be dynamic and to keep interactions going even when the player isn't there, perhaps the idea isn't too far-fetched.

Maddox has personally mentioned multiple times that because of the complexities of the physics used, this just isn't a reality. No 100+ character battles ever are likely.

 

[Rob]

I think that complex NPC follower AI is something that the industry desperately needs at some point. I think that Bare Mettle have loads to do already, so I'm not imply that it has to go in Sui Generis, but I can see it being the future of RPGs...

Suppose you've got a follower that happens to have a relatively short attention span. Suppose you're follower is quite happy to follow you - perhaps he's indebted to you, or you've paid him as a mercenary or something. However, one day you're running down the street, only to turn around and he's gone! Where's he gone??? He's got distracted, and gone into a passing shop or bar!!! Idiot. When you find him, you'll show him what for!!! Lousy good-for-nothing useless follower!!! So you go and find him, and he's really apologetic (or arrogant, or blissfully ignorant, depending on his personality and what he already thinks of you). So you decide to shout at him, or hit him, or something. Either you accept his apology --- he's promised to try and stay more focused in future, and anyway you need him as cannon fodder --- or you sack him, having decided that you'd be better off trying to find a more loyal and reliable companion.

This sort of mechanic would be much better than those used in existing games. For example, take Skyrim - apart from quest-specific followers, you choose your follower based on... well, nothing, really!!! Personal preference of what they look and sound like? How often they seem to die? Whether they've got a big axe or a dagger?

Basically, I'm fed up of having NPC followers that you've got absolutely no personal attachment to, don't have any personalities, and whether or not you sack/kill them and get a new follower seems like an arbitrary decision.

Of course, the other approach is the Bioware one, whereby all companions are completely pre-programmed with specific personalities and dialog options. Needless to say, that is far from a perfect solution.

I call for reform!!!

 

[NoSoAna]

I hope someone will prove me wrong, but...

The problem I see with the follower doing various things is the communication. Specifically, the text which is printed or more likely the voice which is recorded. For every situation the developer needs to write the text, record the voice, and to include it in the game.

This seems to be OK for a limited number of standard situations: Enemy spotted, enemy killed, NPC approves, NPC disagrees. Also for prewritten dialogues or banter (see the bioware RPGs).

However much I'd like to see an NPC as Rob describes, I believe that for any meaningful implementation the NPC would have to have a lot of different actions to take: Going into a bar for a drink, visiting a relative, going off to kill some special bandit who killed whoever, any number of things. And (s)he would decide what to do depending on what the NPCs opinion of the player-char is: If the player plays a nice guy, then it's OK to do visits. otherwise if the player goes rougue himself (-> let's have a drink), or if he is singlemindet in pursuing evil (-> bandit). Then, depending on how long it takes the player to find the NPC, how he talks to the NPC, the responses would have to be different. Also depending on how much the NPC woul want to stay in the party.

Take all this together, and the number of dialogs which need to be written, recorded, and included in the game snowballs. And unless the player makes lots of playthroughs with deliberately different choices at every step, most of the dialog options would not be seen by any one.

TLDR: Would be nice, but much effort, and not enough to gain.

 

[Verva]

NoSoAna,

To my understanding they aren't doing full voice acting. Most of the dialogue will be through text, with only important scenes and greetings or whatever being vioced. I think what Rob proposes is completely possible, just that it hasn't been confirmed how much effort and resources they plan on putting into followers, and also we aren't sure what they already have in mind.

Maddox has personally mentioned multiple times that because of the complexities of the physics used, this just isn't a reality. No 100+ character battles ever are likely.

Aww, that's a bummer. But then again, by 2014 who knows what kind of hardware will be around... Maybe high end systems pushed to the limit could handle something epic like that.

 

[NoSoAna]

To my understanding they aren't doing full voice acting. Most of the dialogue will be through text, with only important scenes and greetings or whatever being vioced. I think what Rob proposes is completely possible, just that it hasn't been confirmed how much effort and resources they plan on putting into followers, and also we aren't sure what they already have in mind.

Writing the text is a lot of work, it has to fit the location, the situation, the mood of the characters etc. otherwise it will break the immersion. Also coding things like "Follower 17 will say 'Burp' if having more than two but less than seven glasses in the last hour, if the situation is ... and the location is any bar, inn or similar and if no other text should be written. The player responses would be..." Some of it is necessary for the story, a bit more will enhance the game, but there will be a point reached at which the player most likely would not see most of the added text.