Leveled loot and monsters

[Lumpy]

I don't expect an AI system that complex anytime soon, but I'm preety sure that it will happen someday.

The thing is, that's not that complex at all. Think of Civilization (broken record, I know) - that's a game that distills fairly real-seeming outcomes from thousands and thousands of fairly mundane, simple AI choices and strategy. "Which tile should this city improve first?" is very simple AI, but by iteration of that simple choice you get a credible representation of cultivation. AI is not the hangup, commercial will to make that game (and manifold others) is.

Civilization was a TBS, and making such an AI for it is easier than making an AI that does similar things for an RPG.
Radiant AI is the first step, and, as far as I know, it's the most complex thinking system ever implemented in an RPG. But gathering herbs and hunting deer is one thing, and unterstanding how dangerous a location is, interacting with each other in complex way, such as setting up a camp and distributing duties is another.

 

[Section8]

Civilization was a TBS, and making such an AI for it is easier than making an AI that does similar things for an RPG.
Radiant AI is the first step, and, as far as I know, it's the most complex thinking system ever implemented in an RPG. But gathering herbs and hunting deer is one thing, and unterstanding how dangerous a location is, interacting with each other in complex way, such as setting up a camp and distributing duties is another.

True enough, but I think it's more a case of time and effort than nutting out a particularly difficult technical problem. You'd employ a lot of smoke and mirrors to crunch simpler calculations and formulae for anything outside of the player's immediate location, and you could also purpose build the world in a simple and rational manner to suit your means rather than to best imitate reality.

There are also some design principles you can impose to make things simpler. You could take the approach that the strength of hostile critters is a radial thing. The further out from the city you go, the tougher the critters get. So then, for an NPC to understand the danger of a location, all he needs to know is his own safe distance. It's obviously going to get far more complex than that, but I do think that most of the work involved is actual scripting once you have a system like Radiant AI in place.

In any case, there's a whole lot of complexity to be worked out by programmers and scripters, but I think it would be worth the payoff to create a vastly dynamic procedural world. If Civ had the same world with no variable elements, you wouldn't play through it more than a couple of times. As it stands, I still play Civ, and it still manages to stay fresh because the world is dramatically different each time I play.

I'd like to see something comparable as an RPG, but it's a pipe dream. It's beyond the means of the indies, and it's beyond the desires of the commercial developers.

 

[kingcomrade]

Things don't have to be leveled. Say, in Fallout, where everything is mostly hand crafted, it would make sense to allow equipment to take on more difficult enemies.

I was thinking of a system a bit like Metroid's, where you never really change, but you find equipment and stuff that allows you to do things that you couldn't before.

That way, almost all items (I'm intending that they also be handcrafted, or something like) become useful, so long as they have their advantages and disadvantages. Fallout already had something along these lines, as most guns did similar damage to each other, but had greater ammunition capacity/firing rate/armor piercing ability/whatever. You might give pistols the ability to become concealed, which allows you to take a weapon into a place where you couldn't before, and need one to progress (or finish a quest, or whatever). After all, pistols aren't battle weapons.

Someone earlier used an example of some monster in the woods in Gothic. I haven't played it, but it would be just as meaningful to get something that allows you to overcome that obstacle without just being +5 levels from the last time you met?

It doesn't have to be equipment, it can be abilities. Metroid and newer platformers, like Psychonauts, generally allow you to unlock more content by gaining abilities that allow you to do things you couldn't before. Like, as a simple example, in Psychonauts, once you get Invisibility, though, you gain the ability to do a lot of things you couldn't overcome before. You can easily sneak up and damage or set on fire mega-censors and psychic bears and psychic cougars, you can sneak up and steal the gold watch from the squirrel, etc.

Psychonauts even has an EXP system for those abilities. You don't really get more health, I think you get that for accomplishing objectives, but as you get EXP for doing and collecting stuff, you get closer to new (or upgraded) abilities. That way you don't have leveled characters, but if you couldn't do without EXP you could still use that system. Like, you level up, and you get 20 skill points to spend, or whatever you like, but you don't just magically gain HP or anything like that, though this is smudging the line from a "pure" system. It would make more sense that at certain points or as rewards for certain accomplishments, instead of EXP, you are rewarded with skill points directly, or to choose a new ability. That way you can still develop your character the way you want without having to deal with levels.

Personally, I would like a tag system. Where, you don't have skill points, but when the game rewards you, you get to tag a skill. Like, if you tag Small Arms, which allows you to use small arms. You can tag it a second time (or a second skill to go in combination) which allows you to use scoped rifles competently. Or something like that.

The only snag, which I think could probably be dealt with, is how do deal with random monsters lurking about. There would have to be some sort of reward for killing them. In a post-apoc game, ammunition would be nice, or health kits or other things. In Psychonauts, killing got you ammunition, health, money, and grenade recharges. The enemies were also typically in your way and had to be dealt with. There might even be some benefits in the role-playing arena. After all, if you don't need their equipment, why would you want to get into fights? The only time you would need to fight is when something is in your way, or you are surprised, or you need some ammo, etc.

I mean, why would a Vault Dweller actually take the time to clear the cave rats out, or get into fights with 50 Enclave patrols? The player does it for EXP, of course, but otherwise it doesn't make sense unless they attack him or are in the way.

One of the things that happens here is that the world becomes MORE dangerous. You have to pick your battles, and you have to employ tricks to deal with some enemies. I mean, no human is ever going to become powerful enough to take on a dragon, or anything like that. He would have to have abilities and equipment. Goblins will still be a problem unless those equipment and abilities help him deal with them. Why does everyone think goblins should be pushovers, anyways? If they were pushovers, they wouldn't survive in your average fantasy world, especially in their typical large numbers.

 

[bryce777]

Fallout is hardly a great example of balanced gameplay and great turnbased combat (aside from the awesome death animations and the 'feel' of it).

Gothic is about the worst possible example of balanced gameplay, or good gameplay for that matter.

I didn't realize you could tag a skill twice in fallout. I will have to replay them both some time. It has been years now. After the inital time when I played it over and over I never played again.

 

[kingcomrade]

You can't tag it twice in Fallout. I was suggesting my own little quirk. Like, if you have Rifles and Scopes both tagged, you can competently use scoped rifles. Or if you have chemistry and human psysiology tagged, you can make potions or medkits or whatever. Individually, chemistry could allow you to make ammunition, and psysiology could be like "doctor" or "first aid" in Fallout. Or whatever makes more sense or be more balanced, this is just me shooting in the dark. Or, you could just keep the double tag system. One tag means pistols, two means rifles, etc. Not as in-depth, but it's simpler.

By the way, saying Gothic and Fallout aren't good examples doesn't mean a thing if you don't address my points. I was talking about taking specific things, or basing new ideas off specific things from these games.

 

[bryce777]

I see levelled loot and monsters as being just another form of procedural content, and as such, bears the same advantages and disadvantages as other randomly generated bits and pieces. Of course, if a game doesn't take that advantage and run with it, then it's a pointless exercise. There are also plenty of trappings of procedural content that allow the player to exploit the systems, such as level scumming.

Personally, I'd like to see procedural content in an RPG generated with relation to the game world, rather than an arbitrary relation to the player character's level. Think Civilisation, where stronger foes are encountered as the game progresses, because the AI "players" are advancing and expanding, just like the player.

Rather than having a lowbie town that wants the PC to get rid of a bunch of static bandits, I'd love to see bandits set up camp near a lowbie town because other lands are more perilous, and this spot is easy pickings. From there, the town itself could realise the threat the bandits posed, and perhaps post bounties for adventurers, or maybe petition someone higher in the ruling heirarchy of the game to send weapons/soldiers/trainers/whatever, which in turn increases the strength of that settlement, which again attracts more powerful foes, and so forth.

So the general dynamic is that the world as a whole slowly increases in power with or without the player. the individual components of the game world should always have something for the player (say, posting soldiers to deal with a town's bandit problem increases it's strength, but decreases the strength of the towns the soldiers were taken from.) The game world has to be carefully balanced and entirely dynamic, but that's where procedural content shines.

--

It's a fucking great discussion, nice one on bringing it up, Lumpy.

I dont think that that really buys you that much, to be honest. In the fallout example, this is just going to lead to towns unifying together. The whole map would tend to be homogenous because the bad guys would fan out to prey on the weakest targets available and eventually take out everyone.

 

[Lumpy]

The reason Gothic I gave the feeling of "Take that, you stupid monster that used to beat me up" was that leveling up was fast, unlike Morrowind. In Morrowind, I could beat a kagouti at level one, if I was careful. And the rising of your power level was slow, so you couldn't say "Great. NOW I am able to kill that monster.", unless you levelled up 5 times in a room.
Gothic was a different story. The level ups were very quick, and there was armor, which suddenly changed your power level dramatically. That's why a monster you couldn't kill al level 5 was easy to kill at level six - 10 more points spent on attributes, plus getting your first armor, had a really big effect.

 

[Twinfalls]

No, the reason Gothic gave that feeling was because monsters didn't level with you.

 

[Lumpy]

No, the reason Gothic gave that feeling was because monsters didn't level with you.

And in Morrowind or Oblivion they do?

 

[Twinfalls]

Yes. They do.

What scary high-level monsters could you meet in Morrowind near the start when you were low-level, if you ventured way off the beaten path?

I recall plundering some identi-kit tomb. It was patrolled by basic, not-very-powerful things like skeletons and bonewalkers. I returned to the same tomb shortly after, only I had levelled up, and suddenly, instead of the skeletons, these fire-atronarchs were lumbering about in there. It had suddenly become more dangerous because I had levelled.

It was ridiculous.

 

[Lumpy]

Oh. You're talking about levelled lists.
Well, let's see. In the cave next to Seyda Neen, there's a Fire Atronach. In the Daedric ruins, there were high-level Daedra. Also, there were some in tombs.
And ther were many other places where you could find high level monsters.

 

[Twinfalls]

Oh. You're talking about levelled lists.
Well, let's see. In the cave next to Seyda Neen, there's a Fire Atronach.

No there wasn't - there was a (fairly weak) dude who fired shock blasts - you sure you didn't go there after levelling up...?

Admit it, Lumpy - levelled lists in Morrowind were one of the many special ways that game sucked the fat one.

 

[bryce777]

In gothic, basically if you had the armor and weapon, the moster died without damaging you, and if not then it killed you and there was pretty much no two ways about it. It is about the stupidest combat system ever and even morrowind is better.

 

[Lumpy]

Oh. You're talking about levelled lists.
Well, let's see. In the cave next to Seyda Neen, there's a Fire Atronach.

No there wasn't - there was a (fairly weak) dude who fired shock blasts - you sure you didn't go there after levelling up...?

Admit it, Lumpy - levelled lists in Morrowind were one of the many special ways that game sucked the fat one.

No, there was a Fire Atronach next to a scamp in there, at level one.
And levelled (is it with two ls?) lists were a bit redundant there, since they were all set too low. So, I guess I agree with you. Although, it's because of bad implementation, not because of an unavoidable flaw of the system.

 

[Lumpy]

In gothic, basically if you had the armor and weapon, the moster died without damaging you, and if not then it killed you and there was pretty much no two ways about it. It is about the stupidest combat system ever and even morrowind is better.

I don't agree. There were many challenging fights in that game, although the challenge often consisted of pressing the buttons the right way.
As for magic, there were two possibilities. Either you manage to freeze the enemy before he gets to you, and you win, or he got to you before you froze him, making it impossible for you to cast spells, so he won.

 

[bryce777]

. Although, it's because of bad implementation, not because of an unavoidable flaw of the system.

That sums up just about everything wrong with bethesda.

 

[Lumpy]

. Although, it's because of bad implementation, not because of an unavoidable flaw of the system.

That sums up just about everything wrong with bethesda.

True, so far. Those are the mistakes they seem to be trying to avoid making in Oblivion. They might make everything in smaller amounts, but hopefully, they'll get it right this time.

 

[bryce777]

In gothic, basically if you had the armor and weapon, the moster died without damaging you, and if not then it killed you and there was pretty much no two ways about it. It is about the stupidest combat system ever and even morrowind is better.

I don't agree. There were many challenging fights in that game, although the challenge often consisted of pressing the buttons the right way.
As for magic, there were two possibilities. Either you manage to freeze the enemy before he gets to you, and you win, or he got to you before you froze him, making it impossible for you to cast spells, so he won.

Most of the ways you (or at least I) won fights were with cheese. You could win any fight by running away and sniping them etc. etc.

There are no to hit rolls, the damage amount is not random.

What I said about armor is very true. Monsters kill you in one blow, then you get an armor and weapons upgrade and they go from nigh impossible to dying in one blow. It is just an unbalanced, stupid system, and I have pretty good reflexes especially for an old man, but blocking or fighting with any style is basically impossible. And certainly impossible with more than one opponent.

 

[Twinfalls]

In gothic, basically if you had the armor and weapon, the moster died without damaging you, and if not then it killed you and there was pretty much no two ways about it. It is about the stupidest combat system ever and even morrowind is better.

Bah. I bet you just didn't like the fact Gothic was RT and player skill was a genuine factor. Unlike Morrowind, you had to gain sufficient strength/dexterity to use specific weapons - you couldn't just use anything you got your hands on. So you had to train - which involved real decisions (unlike MW once again), as exp points were limited.

It was a real-time system, but one with balls. At least they made player skill relevant in a way that made combat very enjoyable if you like RT. Timing really mattered. Combat was fluid and felt realistic. No stand and click-fucky-click in Gothic, oh no. Morrowind might as well have been turn-based since its attempt at real time immershun was such a total failure.

@Lumpy - I hear what you're saying about implementation, I just don't see why levelled lists are neccessary at all, if enough effort is made with design and placement.

 

[Lumpy]

In gothic, basically if you had the armor and weapon, the moster died without damaging you, and if not then it killed you and there was pretty much no two ways about it. It is about the stupidest combat system ever and even morrowind is better.

Bah. I bet you just didn't like the fact Gothic was RT and player skill was a genuine factor. Unlike Morrowind, you had to gain sufficient strength/dexterity to use specific weapons - you couldn't just use anything you got your hands on. So you had to train - which involved real decisions (unlike MW once again), as exp points were limited.

It was a real-time system, but one with balls. At least they made player skill relevant in a way that made combat very enjoyable if you like RT. Timing really mattered. Combat was fluid and felt realistic. No stand and click-fucky-click in Gothic, oh no. Morrowind might as well have been turn-based since its attempt at real time immershun was such a total failure.

@Lumpy - I hear what you're saying about implementation, I just don't see why levelled lists are neccessary at all, if enough effort is made with design and placement.

And then, people start complaining about Oblivion's "twitch" combat. Really, Bethesda can't please everyone.
Did you try magic in Gothic? What did you think about it?

 

[bryce777]

In gothic, basically if you had the armor and weapon, the moster died without damaging you, and if not then it killed you and there was pretty much no two ways about it. It is about the stupidest combat system ever and even morrowind is better.

Bah. I bet you just didn't like the fact Gothic was RT and player skill was a genuine factor. Unlike Morrowind, you had to gain sufficient strength/dexterity to use specific weapons - you couldn't just use anything you got your hands on. So you had to train - which involved real decisions (unlike MW once again), as exp points were limited.

It was a real-time system, but one with balls. At least they made player skill relevant in a way that made combat very enjoyable if you like RT. Timing really mattered. Combat was fluid and felt realistic. No stand and click-fucky-click in Gothic, oh no. Morrowind might as well have been turn-based since its attempt at real time immershun was such a total failure.

@Lumpy - I hear what you're saying about implementation, I just don't see why levelled lists are neccessary at all, if enough effort is made with design and placement.

And then, people start complaining about Oblivion's "twitch" combat. Really, Bethesda can't please everyone.
Did you try magic in Gothic? What did you think about it?

I just said it was worse than morrowind didn't I?
jesus.

At elast gothic had other things to the game.

the magic was ok. In gothic you are rewarded for NOT exploring because you can only get armor and magic and crap by following the storyline.

 

[Lumpy]

the magic was ok.

The magic was NOT OK. Sure, it was kewl and all, but spells automatically failed when an enemy hit you. Also, you couldn't cast spells while running. That meant that you had to keep enemies in place, thus forcing you to use Ice Block. When you did use it, though, you were undefeatable.
As for archers, you had to pray that they didn't hit you long enough for you to cast Ice Block.
And the Fire Mage/Water Mage crap - there was absolutely no difference.

 

[bryce777]

double post

 

[bryce777]

That was just because that is what you did. You could do other crap, too. I would dos tuff like use shrink and then shoot them.

Like I said, it was all cheesy bullshit and the combat was stupid. The combat got really easy toward the end once you got some armor and some magic but the orcs were still just harder than made any sense.

You are basically a superhero, yet still one orc is pretty hard.

Overall it is just shit combat.

No planning, all cheese, and basically a nonsensical system, not to mentiona ction oriented except in a nonsense way.

I still enjoyed gohic 1 to a degree and liked talking to the people, etc. but whoever came up with the basic stats system and all that was just a fucking idiot.

Also, by the time I got magic, I remember thinking "Who the fuck cares?" Basically the game was about over by then.

 

[Lumpy]

That was just because that is what you did. You could do other crap, too. I would dos tuff like use shrink and then shoot them.
Also, by the time I got magic, I remember thinking "Who the fuck cares?" Basically the game was about over by then.

A shrinking spell cost 2000, IIRC, which was way to much to spend on anything else than a troll, which was almost unkillable otherwise.