Im having a tough time deciding how to go about some things.
The game I am currently developing is a roleplaying game. Not by the modern FPS roleplaying definition, such as Final Fantasy, or kill-2000000-orcs-and-get-uber. Roleplaying is encouraged, and enforced(Not strictly, but it still is).
I have two choices: I can choose to respawn monsters, or not. The first option means, that if city a decided to invade city b, all the units lost by both cities would just respawn a while later. The second option means that casualties are permanent, and the cities have that many less inhabitants.
I havent really explained the full scope of it, as it would affect many things. But heres the dilemma:
If I use a system where things simply respawn, there are a number of problems.
Inflated economy, as shown in games like EQ, AO, and other MMORPGs.
It also presents a problem in logic. How can more and more things keep appearing, seemingly out of the blue? Infinate amounts of guards, and an evergrowing supply of herbs growing in the same patch of dirt.
If I use a system where things dont respawn, it also has its problems.
The biggest one, is that people will think its unfair, that other people got an advantage just because they started before them. 'I wasn't around when Sydria was, and so I couldn't buy their primologists' guide to idiots', or whatever.
That's the problem in short version. The two things can only be applied to many other situations.
My question for you is this: Which do you prefer? Am I missing any larger advantages/disadvantages of one way, or am I totally off the mark?
I wrote this as a spur of the moment thought, so I am probably missing a few large points, but anyways.
Thanks,
Alathon
ID:154115
 May 31 2002, 11:18 pm
|
|
|
Jun 1 2002, 4:27 am
|
|
Sariat
 |
Why not make a check to see if that person is alive, if that person is not alive, respawn it.
|
I'm in favor of the once dead always dead idea, but then, respawning is 100 times easier to build and maintain. If you make the game world large enough, people won't be surprised if creatures keep poping up, but if they don't respawn, you'll have to let the administrators keep creating new stuff to keep the players happen. It keeps the world changing, and keeps the staff busy, but I don't think it would be able to stay that way if the game were to maintain a large playerbase. You'd have to create some way for the things that get slaughtered to re-populate one way or another.
If you're going to have a small game, respawning can be done without. If you want to be managing up to hundreds of players (doubtful unless you want a multiserver game) then respawning is a must. | |
uummm, why respawn them? People don't respawn, but the race doesn't just die out. Maybe you should have it that every so often, the population is multiplied byt 150% (each couple had a kid) and that a percentage of those became the classes (guards, thieves, knights). That way, cities grow fast if there is high population, but it still takes time to recouperate (spelling?) from a huge invasion. Just an idea, but it's very realistic, and I think it could get quite complicated.
| |
Lol, if you want very realistic, look at the Garbage Collection thread on Newbie Central. One of my later posts has my AI in it. But still, if you're managing a city-sized population, that would be good. A bit of randomization is always nice, too.
| |
One thing to look at is replacing instead of respawning ... if players can camp one site because they know that a mob with good stuff will spawn there, then at least some of them will. If, on the other hand, it actually spawns a new mob of a different, carrying who knows what and appearing anywhere, there's nothing to camp.
You could make it measure the "damage" done to a city by deaths... if a city has a 100 population and 20 die in a raid, then only have 10 replacements appear... the population is lowered until it has time to heal a little bit. | |
Lesbian Assassin wrote:
One thing to look at is replacing instead of respawning ... if players can camp one site because they know that a mob with good stuff will spawn there, then at least some of them will. If, on the other hand, it actually spawns a new mob of a different, carrying who knows what and appearing anywhere, there's nothing to camp. You could make it measure the "damage" done to a city by deaths... if a city has a 100 population and 20 die in a raid, then only have 10 replacements appear... the population is lowered until it has time to heal a little bit. After considering the posts, im going to opt for a mix between the two. I do not want static repops(Atleast not many of them), nor do I want a world where a player entering half a year into the story is blocked from doing most of what people before him/her were able to. Perhaps something along the line of letting cities repopulate themselves over time. The newborns would be assigned lives in the society, given a job, etc. if any were available. Perhaps becoming a street bum, if no housing was available nor jobs. This puts new aspects of the game into play: Overpopulation, Famine, taxes, the ability to create a more realistic cost=supply/demand system, if properly implemented. Not to mention, it would provide a nice effect for war. If a city was continually struck by invaders, and the food supplies were burnt, people would starve. More people would die, and so there would be less to defend the city. Cities could adjust war 'behavior' dependant on the various factors(Oponent strength, oponent mass, food supply/demand, citizens capable of fighting, etc.) I guess I will be getting some books on AI and some such. Would anyone happen to know some good sites related to Artificial Life and or Artificial Intelligence for games? (Preferably at a beginners level) Thanks, Alathon | |