Of course I am excited and anxious to play this , but I do fear this is a lot of pre release hype. After all, some of this type of talk was heard prior to the release of GW2. I play GW2 and do love the game but I do admit the pre release hype and the actual gameplay differ in degrees of magnitude. How will EQN actually play?
Im still not clear if anything described is really all that different. Players will now have choices. Okay, They will still need to add these content choices in to the game. Whether you call it an update, expansion, or whatever, developers will need to add these changes in to the game and players will be waiting for the next content addition similar to the way we already do. It almost seems like they are just calling these systems by different names and trying to convince us they are new and different. I hope they are. I will be there on day one to play this game and hope I am completely wrong. Perhaps I am just a jaded gamer who has listened to much too much pre release game hype to believe what I read.
A small example.
The developers put a gold mine into the game.
Now every faction, group or individual that is affected by the desire for wealth has been dynamically changed by the introduction of this gold mine. Not only that but with every faction, group or individual affected, there will be a knock on effect with those that are not interested simply through their interaction with those that are. If you have thousand of factions, groups and individuals that are all interacting then any change could potentially have a very dramatic effect.
In essence Storybricks allows for a world to operate with a very real 'butterfly effect' going on.
Hard to imagine the complexity of all the content that will be needed to allow for this. GW2 claims they have teams working on all aspects of the game. How many would be needed for all these different choices? How often would we get updates? Yes, they would need to be updates. You might not like the word and SOE apparently doesnt but when you add content to the game you update. Again, I forsee players just waiting on the next additional content update to the game so they can play with more choices. Not a bad thing if SOE can deliver, for sure, but I feel we are being bamboozled with the language and superlatives used in describing these systems.
For what I understand, they don't need to "script" that much content... Sure, there may be a few "scripted" events, but in majority content does not need to be script if the AI is developed enough... By tweaking (be it by player actions / devs or whatever) global objectives / motivations, the game npcs will start collectively working towards that goals and affecting the rest of the world (provoking other factions, consuming resources, etc). If you consider the chain reactions possibilities you can imagine 2 servers evolving in a much different ways even if the "base" content is exactly the same... Think of it as "alternate realities"
If this really works out, in such an automated way... damn...
The features sound interesting (on the paper). However, the videos indicate that EQN is going to be an arcade console game which kind of prevents me from getting excited about it.
the downer to me is that EQN will be action combat similar to a MOBA
i dont think console when i think of EQN, i think MOBA
I am willing to overlook the action aspects if the rest of the game is fun
yup...me and combat is so done...decades of that...enough already
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The key thing to note is that players will be able to change their surroundings by their actions and the world will also change over time even without player intervention. You don't need to get so specific, as in something like "Can players bar other players from being shamans!?" to understand this fact. They've already given examples of possibilities that work within their system. Things like orcs taking over a town, and players driving orcs out of the town making it peaceful again where you can then use the town to buy items and resources... then the orcs could come back in force with a larger raid-sized army.... OR maybe brigands see the orcs are no longer there are decide to attack. Or maybe that town turns into a xenophobic militarized community that attacks everyone on sight because they're so afraid from being attacked all the time. This is already done by ArenaNet (GW2) with dynamic events, just on a smaller scale.. Trion's Rift touches this with their zone wide invasions .. So this really isn't anything new, it's just done on a bigger scale.. The wheel has already been invented, but because SOE is making it a bigger wheel isn't invention..
All you questions have already been answered. You don't need to know about a specific scenario you dreamed up answered right now. The key point is that the world will constantly be changing and it's not the same as scripted events like GW2 or a simple faction KOS vs Friendly system.
GW2's world is always changing too.. in fact each server is different then others.. No two servers are technically the same.. These are not real changes, they are only short term temporary effects.. Have you played GW2 yet? lol
I've played GW2 for many months and I don't understand why you can't figure out that they're drastically different systems that work in drastically different ways.
Probably because they aren't that much different on a player perspective. A scripted event triggered by players.
This statement only proves you don't know anything about the system, how it works and why it's drastically different.
Are you saying that the choice an NPC can make won't be scripted ?
No, I'm saying there is a clear difference between GW2's public quest system with two different outcomes (depending on complete/not complete) that just rotates on a 30 - 60 minute timer and the Emergent AI system, which allows for hundreds or thousands of outcomes, at any place in the world, that constantly evolves over time with or without player engagement.
Trying to equate the two is about the same as trying to equate a cross bow made in 256 BC to a F-22 Raptor.
Now every faction, group or individual that is affected by the desire for wealth has been dynamically changed by the introduction of this gold mine. Not only that but with every faction, group or individual affected, there will be a knock on effect with those that are not interested simply through their interaction with those that are. If you have thousand of factions, groups and individuals that are all interacting then any change could potentially have a very dramatic effect.
In essence Storybricks allows for a world to operate with a very real 'butterfly effect' going on.
I appreciate what you are hoping for; however, I'm not sure I want to play a game where some random event, such as a gold mine suddenly appearing out of thin air, can immediately make areas of the game unplayable because everyone, including "smart" NPCs flock to the area and keep every node permamined the moment it spawns.
Don't get me wrong, I love dynamic events - especially those that chain on into other events depending on the success or failure of the prior event. This is still an online world though - filled with other players and more than a few of those players will attempt to harness every possible method to exploit the system or grief other players.
There are many plans that look awesome on paper and would make for absolutely awesome single player games. There are some plans that just will simply not turn out well in a multiplayer environment where the individual player has no control over who they play with.
No, I'm saying there is a clear difference between GW2's public quest system with two different outcomes (depending on complete/not complete) that just rotates on a 30 - 60 minute timer and the Emergent AI system, which allows for hundreds or thousands of outcomes, at any place in the world, that constantly evolves over time with or without player engagement.
Trying to equate the two is about the same as trying to equate a cross bow made in 256 BC to a F-22 Raptor.
Little difference.
While GW2 may only have a win/lose type choice for the script to follow that may or may not lead into another event - what I've read here just insinuates that a single event may end up with more than those two choices.
Each choice will have to have developer time to create the next event path - be it a faction building a city or a group of NPCs building a bridge. In the end, many of these events cannot be permanent fixtures - less the environment become pockmarked with past "events". Don't get me wrong, the event to build a city would obviously be permanent but a "random" type of event for a group of NPCs to sink a mineshaft cannot just be allowed to happen anywhere and at anytime less the gameworld eventually become overrun by abandoned mineshafts.
To that end, the gameworld must reset some dynamic events and in that capacity it will feel just like GW2.
As for what EQN is claiming to attempt to do - I believe Horizons already tried some of this stuff although it was more direct developer engagement than dynamic scripting - if memory serves. (I may be completely wrong).
GW2 did a great job of automating and making typical quest systems fun and interactive.
It's not the same as what is going on here as there are more variables for the system to consider on an NPC group and indivisual basis. Will it still be scripted? Of course, software has to be scripted. Will there still be events and changes that happen because SoE wants it to be part of the story? Yes, those are "Rallying Calls" that change the world in front of you as lower objectives are met to a larger goal.
The main difference is the day to day happenings as you explore. In GW2 I bet if I walked to the NW corner of the Foothills there will be trees with spiders in them that if killed enough will spawn an event with a big boss spider... just as it did when it was released years ago. With what SB is showing this would not happen, the spiders could move to another location. Giving NPCs and NPC groups a spreadshet of like and dislikes is the first step. The next is a system that tracks what is going on, where people are, where resources are and what type of terrain it is. Landmark alreaady has these "state checks" like jumping off a cliff and the system will check for water below you. If there is your character will go into a dive.
When variables are done on an individual level in a world that knows where everything is at any time you can produce actual "dynamic" content that moves of it's own volition. It's still scripted yes but will seem like it isn't.
Yeah, there sure are a lot of awesome features in this game... just that theres no game yet (still being developed for another 2-3(?) years), and its pretty much all talk and typing about a feature list still.
Don't get me wrong: I'm reeeaaally interested in the potential of this, but the proof is in the pudding. So I'll wait and see these things in action, then I'll decide if Im impressed or not.
The main difference is the day to day happenings as you explore. In GW2 I bet if I walked to the NW corner of the Foothills there will be trees with spiders in them that if killed enough will spawn an event with a big boss spider... just as it did when it was released years ago. With what SB is showing this would not happen, the spiders could move to another location. Giving NPCs and NPC groups a spreadshet of like and dislikes is the first step. The next is a system that tracks what is going on, where people are, where resources are and what type of terrain it is. Landmark alreaady has these "state checks" like jumping off a cliff and the system will check for water below you. If there is your character will go into a dive.
This is another one of those things that look awesome on a PowerPoint slide or in a memo passing around the office - yet, in day-to-day playing may just end up being a thorn in the side to the players.
I will admit, I'd love to experience a world that can change to a degree where NPCs seem intelligent and will literally move to a new area and construct a new spawn point after being heavily farmed. This would represent some elements of the real world.
That said, I also can see the frustration, as someone that likes to farm my own crafting components, at trying to constantly hunt down where the source of, say - spider silk, can be currently found at if those spiders are constantly moving their spawn point all over the map.
If this type of NPC behavior is implemented, then I would suspect crafting recipes will need to be adjusted to require lower quantities of some materials - else the game just may become frustrating.
I know the developers could just allow hunting/tracking but if that is the case and everyone is just simply given a "big green arrow that points to their prey" - then what was the original motive for spending the time to make the NPCs move their spawn points dynamically?
edit: Not to mention the script forks and "sentient" NPC dialog referencing the movement of all these NPC spawns points. It would be strange for spiders, rats, or worms to suddenly take over a NPC camp and those NPCs not even mention it. One of my peeves with MMOs is how there are always those NPCs that don't act "as they should". I love it when a guard or merchant just stands there while a big bad monster is fighting me in the camp, literally clipping through the guard or merchant while the guard/merchant just stands there "ho-humming" as if nothing is happening. I don't care if their attacks do zero damage to the monster or they run away scared to death - the point is, they should react to their surroundings. Lazy job, devs.
Systems like this have been attempted since UO, which had a full ecological system in place but had to scrap it because they could never get it working correctly. Players killed all the animals too fast.
Due to the number of people MMOs are way too chaotic for a complicated AI system to respond too. While I have high hopes for this, i am rather skeptical.
Starr Long, the game's associate producer, explained in 1996:
Nearly everything in the world, from grass to goblins, has a purpose, and not just as cannon fodder either. The 'virtual ecology' affects nearly every aspect of the game world, from the very small to the very large. If the rabbit population suddenly drops (because some gung-ho adventurer was trying out his new mace) then wolves may have to find different food sources (e.g., deer). When the deer population drops as a result, the local dragon, unable to find the food he’s accustomed to, may head into a local village and attack. Since all of this happens automatically, it generates numerous adventure possibilities.
However, this feature never made it beyond the game's beta stage. As Richard Garriott explained:
We thought it was fantastic. We'd spent an enormous amount of time and effort on it. But what happened was all the players went in and just killed everything; so fast that the game couldn't spawn them fast enough to make the simulation even begin. And so, this thing that we'd spent all this time on, literally no-one ever noticed – ever – and we eventually just ripped it out of the game, you know, with some sadness.
I think it's obvious that EQN will have amazing innovation features that have never been present in the genre. I think it is articles like this that prove it and anyone who thinks EQN isn't going to be innovative is fooling themselves for personal reasons all because I feel they are upset it isn't going to be a clone of what has come and gone and come again. Love the direction this game is taking but I'll not get too hyped till I see it in action for myself.
I think it is fairly obvious why Tenton Hammer and others have lauded over it's potential with unheralded and unprecedented awards!
The thing is azz.. I'm not sure if this Storybricks is really innovation or just old school faction on steroids.. We are constantly told how NPC's will become smarter and be part of the world, and how choices "matter".. It is also hyped how each server will be different from another due to the actions of the community.. But is that real difference or just cosmetic differences? None of us know for sure.. Example of this is rallying calls (RC).. It was said in the article, as well in other interviews, that players can effect a rallying call.. Such as if leaders of Qeynos strike out to build new cities like Halas, Freeport, Highkeep and Rivervale, the players can aid in the progression of those cities.. So if the community splits up equally, each city will progress at 25% speed... Or, if the community focuses on ONE city it's completed faster.. So yes, all servers will be different, but that difference is only cosmetic.. Why do you ask? Because eventually ALL 4 cities will be completed and look exactly alike.. The only real difference is the length of time it takes to complete the rallying calls.
Now the thing is.. A significant change and difference would be that a class such as "Shaman" can only be learned from an NPC after Halas is finished, and only after you earned faction.. Now here a community can semi-effect the game world, but in such a way it prohibits other players from THEIR choices.. Will SOE allow that? Unless the community can make permanent changes it's then all smoke and mirrors cosmetic..
Another example I gave in another thread was this.. Can the community effect a "real" difference in the world such as promoting a leader of a city such as Freeport to be tribal or religious.. If the community choose tribal, then learning to become a Shaman is possible, but if the community endorses a religious city then one can become a Cleric.. BUT you can NOT be both.. Now that is REAL difference.. However if you are a character wanting to become a Shaman, but the community on your server didn't endorse or follow that path, you are screwed.. Will SOE allow that? Cause if they don't, then as I said, there really isn't any meaningful differences between servers..
So many details and question not asked or answered.. Lets wait and see what is actually served on "launch" day..
Edit: Another example is, Can a community effect a city to HATE all Dwarfs.. and if so, make it so that any Dwarf character wanting to go into that city will be KOS and unable to every enter it.. But on another server that same city loves Dwarfs, but hates Elves.. Now that is real difference..
...and this is why we have something to look forward to
None of us know for sure and, for me, that's kind of exciting and bothersome all at the same time. I do believe in the future of gaming and I'm going to at least say that EQ N will be a different approachh. It truly is an enormous task, let us at least put some faith that just maybe this will eventually work out..
Patience...
Alyn
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth John Lennon
The key thing to note is that players will be able to change their surroundings by their actions and the world will also change over time even without player intervention. You don't need to get so specific, as in something like "Can players bar other players from being shamans!?" to understand this fact. They've already given examples of possibilities that work within their system. Things like orcs taking over a town, and players driving orcs out of the town making it peaceful again where you can then use the town to buy items and resources... then the orcs could come back in force with a larger raid-sized army.... OR maybe brigands see the orcs are no longer there are decide to attack. Or maybe that town turns into a xenophobic militarized community that attacks everyone on sight because they're so afraid from being attacked all the time. This is already done by ArenaNet (GW2) with dynamic events, just on a smaller scale.. Trion's Rift touches this with their zone wide invasions .. So this really isn't anything new, it's just done on a bigger scale.. The wheel has already been invented, but because SOE is making it a bigger wheel isn't invention..
All you questions have already been answered. You don't need to know about a specific scenario you dreamed up answered right now. The key point is that the world will constantly be changing and it's not the same as scripted events like GW2 or a simple faction KOS vs Friendly system.
GW2's world is always changing too.. in fact each server is different then others.. No two servers are technically the same.. These are not real changes, they are only short term temporary effects.. Have you played GW2 yet? lol
I've played GW2 for many months and I don't understand why you can't figure out that they're drastically different systems that work in drastically different ways.
Probably because they aren't that much different on a player perspective. A scripted event triggered by players.
This statement only proves you don't know anything about the system, how it works and why it's drastically different.
Are you saying that the choice an NPC can make won't be scripted ?
No, I'm saying there is a clear difference between GW2's public quest system with two different outcomes (depending on complete/not complete) that just rotates on a 30 - 60 minute timer and the Emergent AI system, which allows for hundreds or thousands of outcomes, at any place in the world, that constantly evolves over time with or without player engagement.
Trying to equate the two is about the same as trying to equate a cross bow made in 256 BC to a F-22 Raptor.
Yet those outcomes are only possible if they have been coded, that emergent AI won't create different outcomes by itself. If we stick with the gold mine exemple.
A mine pop in the world, an Orc camp interested in gold hear about it. What happens next depend on what action they actually have scripted for such an event.
They could send a scouting party to see if it is claimed,
if yes, then it depends by whom. Allied clan or race, engage negotiation to be a part of the mining. Allies refuse, then start a war or go back home. If enemies, then gauge resistence, if equal or inferior start a war, if superior go back home or try to find allies to take over.
if not claimed, gauge potential of the mine. Too small, don't bother, big enough, start moving the clan closer and take over the mine.
Every one of those action have to be scripted for them to ever happen.
While in essence it is a step forward from what we have in GW2, on technical levels, it's about the same thing. You could set up event in GW2 with hundreds of outcomes if you wanted.
No, I'm saying there is a clear difference between GW2's public quest system with two different outcomes (depending on complete/not complete) that just rotates on a 30 - 60 minute timer and the Emergent AI system, which allows for hundreds or thousands of outcomes, at any place in the world, that constantly evolves over time with or without player engagement.
Trying to equate the two is about the same as trying to equate a cross bow made in 256 BC to a F-22 Raptor.
Little difference.
While GW2 may only have a win/lose type choice for the script to follow that may or may not lead into another event - what I've read here just insinuates that a single event may end up with more than those two choices.
Each choice will have to have developer time to create the next event path - be it a faction building a city or a group of NPCs building a bridge. In the end, many of these events cannot be permanent fixtures - less the environment become pockmarked with past "events". Don't get me wrong, the event to build a city would obviously be permanent but a "random" type of event for a group of NPCs to sink a mineshaft cannot just be allowed to happen anywhere and at anytime less the gameworld eventually become overrun by abandoned mineshafts.
To that end, the gameworld must reset some dynamic events and in that capacity it will feel just like GW2.
As for what EQN is claiming to attempt to do - I believe Horizons already tried some of this stuff although it was more direct developer engagement than dynamic scripting - if memory serves. (I may be completely wrong).
There is a difference between writing a system that has two possible outcomes, and writing a system that tells the system to find an outcome that fits a particular set of criteria.
In one case, there will only ever be 2 outcomes and adding additional outcomes scales up the amount of work required to produce the outcomes in a linear manner. In the second case, there are many possible outcomes, allowing for many possible responses from players without scaling up the amount of work required to generate the additional outcomes. A change in the environment by the players results in a change in the possible outcomes and responses in the AI mobs. I don't know if it is a "living world", but the AI mobs are certainly reactive to the players and environmental changes without intervention from the developer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No, I'm saying there is a clear difference between GW2's public quest system with two different outcomes (depending on complete/not complete) that just rotates on a 30 - 60 minute timer and the Emergent AI system, which allows for hundreds or thousands of outcomes, at any place in the world, that constantly evolves over time with or without player engagement.
Trying to equate the two is about the same as trying to equate a cross bow made in 256 BC to a F-22 Raptor.
Little difference.
While GW2 may only have a win/lose type choice for the script to follow that may or may not lead into another event - what I've read here just insinuates that a single event may end up with more than those two choices.
Each choice will have to have developer time to create the next event path - be it a faction building a city or a group of NPCs building a bridge. In the end, many of these events cannot be permanent fixtures - less the environment become pockmarked with past "events". Don't get me wrong, the event to build a city would obviously be permanent but a "random" type of event for a group of NPCs to sink a mineshaft cannot just be allowed to happen anywhere and at anytime less the gameworld eventually become overrun by abandoned mineshafts.
To that end, the gameworld must reset some dynamic events and in that capacity it will feel just like GW2.
As for what EQN is claiming to attempt to do - I believe Horizons already tried some of this stuff although it was more direct developer engagement than dynamic scripting - if memory serves. (I may be completely wrong).
There is a difference between writing a system that has two possible outcomes, and writing a system that tells the system to find an outcome that fits a particular set of criteria.
In one case, there will only ever be 2 outcomes and adding additional outcomes scales up the amount of work required to produce the outcomes in a linear manner. In the second case, there are many possible outcomes, allowing for many possible responses from players without scaling up the amount of work required to generate the additional outcomes. A change in the environment by the players results in a change in the possible outcomes and responses in the AI mobs. I don't know if it is a "living world", but the AI mobs are certainly reactive to the players and environmental changes without intervention from the developer.
But wouldn't those extra possible outcomes already have to be coded anyway ? In my limited coding experience, I assumed that there was always only 2 outcomes to a single question. 0 or 1, no or yes. While the result could contain variables on the execution, it still always result in 1 of 2 possible outcomes. (NPC attacks or he doesn't, NPC start building a church or he doesn't.)
Can you give me an exemple of how different that system will be working ?
But wouldn't those extra possible outcomes already have to be coded anyway ? In my limited coding experience, I assumed that there was always only 2 outcomes to a single question. 0 or 1, no or yes. While the result could contain variables on the execution, it still always result in 1 of 2 possible outcomes. (NPC attacks or he doesn't, NPC start building a church or he doesn't.)
Can you give me an exemple of how different that system will be working ?
Use the example given using Orcs.
Orcs desire wealth.
Some options might be: -
Travel around until they find some Gold mine and mine it out.
Find a well travelled road and waylay travellers to rob them.
Hire themselves out to the local Dark Elves.
Lets take the travellers example to further explore options: -
The Orcs want more wealth and so decide to call for re-inforcements to attack bigger groups.
The road is too dangerous for their group so they decide to move on to another place.
The Orcs realise that they get most gold from travelling priests and so only choose to attack priests.
The choices made are not either/or choices. They have various conflicting wants and needs and multiple avenues from which to pursue each of these needs.
Think of it like this...
Do I attack?
1 = yes
2 = no
Do I attack and if so what with?
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = No
Now add ways to escape and another weapon and see what happens.
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = Yes With spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
Now add in some knowledge that the NPC has about who they are thinking of attacking as they know that they are a mage and have good defences against close combat: -
1 = No. Do not attack with Dagger
2 = Yes. Attack with Bow
3 = No. Do not attack with spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
What if the NPC is too close to attack using the bow?
Or what if it was a fighter not a Mage?
Or what if the Orc was better at close combat?
Each layer of options provides another set of potential outcomes. So add in several desires, several ways to fulfil those desires, several personality traits, several bits of knowledge about the land, races or anything else and what you have is a series of decisions weighted by who the NPC is, what they are trying to achieve, what they have to do to achieve their desires, what resources they have available to achieve them...
Now some might say "but that means things are totally random" but they are not because each level of the process will be weighted based on the 'IQ' of the NPC and the process is weighted for the NPC to achieve it's goals the best they can in any given circumstance.
If you saw early storybricks video's you can see how the layers are constructed and now with the latest video's you can see how it fits together. And now that they seem to be able to procedurally generate NPC's and even entire races with variations and that they will interact with the world using their tagging system you can hopefully see how it all fits together.
BFD ! It's a faction system. So your actions, choices have affects on the various races and factions in the game thereby alter your access and choice in quests and quest locations. It's similar to what Vanguard had. Possibly better instituted. So they saw the potential of what was in Vanguard and instituted it in this game. Not really ground breaking or earth shattering. In Vanguard you could change bad faction with various races either through grinding quests or diplomacy. Surprisingly Sony is borrowing from a game they've just shut down and adding it to a new game. Meh , let me know when it's something truly new and impressive. As I recall they had something less refined in SWG also.
Originally posted by gotha Systems like this have been attempted since UO, which had a full ecological system in place but had to scrap it because they could never get it working correctly. Players killed all the animals too fast.Due to the number of people MMOs are way too chaotic for a complicated AI system to respond too. While I have high hopes for this, i am rather skeptical. Starr Long, the game's associate producer, explained in 1996: Nearly everything in the world, from grass to goblins, has a purpose, and not just as cannon fodder either. The 'virtual ecology' affects nearly every aspect of the game world, from the very small to the very large. If the rabbit population suddenly drops (because some gung-ho adventurer was trying out his new mace) then wolves may have to find different food sources (e.g., deer). When the deer population drops as a result, the local dragon, unable to find the food hes accustomed to, may head into a local village and attack. Since all of this happens automatically, it generates numerous adventure possibilities. However, this feature never made it beyond the game's beta stage. As Richard Garriott explained: We thought it was fantastic. We'd spent an enormous amount of time and effort on it. But what happened was all the players went in and just killed everything; so fast that the game couldn't spawn them fast enough to make the simulation even begin. And so, this thing that we'd spent all this time on, literally no-one ever noticed ever and we eventually just ripped it out of the game, you know, with some sadness.
Thanks so much for posting this; I had heard months ago on this site that UO originally had a great ecology system but scrapped it when players just killed everything, lol. Good to know the details!
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Originally posted by AG-Vuk BFD ! It's a faction system. So your actions, choices have affects on the various races and factions in the game thereby alter your access and choice in quests and quest locations. It's similar to what Vanguard had. Possibly better instituted. So they saw the potential of what was in Vanguard and instituted it in this game. Not really ground breaking or earth shattering. In Vanguard you could change bad faction with various races either through grinding quests or diplomacy. Surprisingly Sony is borrowing from a game they've just shut down and adding it to a new game. Meh , let me know when it's something truly new and impressive. As I recall they had something less refined in SWG also.
It is nothing like a faction system, at least not in the way you have compared other systems with. The approach as explain in presentations and via the Storybricks detailing is a little more complex then kills x to make y happy.
Thanks so much for posting this; I had heard months ago on this site that UO originally had a great ecology system but scrapped it when players just killed everything, lol. Good to know the details!
But wouldn't those extra possible outcomes already have to be coded anyway ? In my limited coding experience, I assumed that there was always only 2 outcomes to a single question. 0 or 1, no or yes. While the result could contain variables on the execution, it still always result in 1 of 2 possible outcomes. (NPC attacks or he doesn't, NPC start building a church or he doesn't.)
Can you give me an exemple of how different that system will be working ?
Use the example given using Orcs.
Orcs desire wealth.
Some options might be: -
Travel around until they find some Gold mine and mine it out.
Find a well travelled road and waylay travellers to rob them.
Hire themselves out to the local Dark Elves.
Lets take the travellers example to further explore options: -
The Orcs want more wealth and so decide to call for re-inforcements to attack bigger groups.
The road is too dangerous for their group so they decide to move on to another place.
The Orcs realise that they get most gold from travelling priests and so only choose to attack priests.
The choices made are not either/or choices. They have various conflicting wants and needs and multiple avenues from which to pursue each of these needs.
Think of it like this...
Do I attack?
1 = yes
2 = no
Do I attack and if so what with?
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = No
Now add ways to escape and another weapon and see what happens.
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = Yes With spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
Now add in some knowledge that the NPC has about who they are thinking of attacking as they know that they are a mage and have good defences against close combat: -
1 = No. Do not attack with Dagger
2 = Yes. Attack with Bow
3 = No. Do not attack with spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
What if the NPC is too close to attack using the bow?
Or what if it was a fighter not a Mage?
Or what if the Orc was better at close combat?
Each layer of options provides another set of potential outcomes. So add in several desires, several ways to fulfil those desires, several personality traits, several bits of knowledge about the land, races or anything else and what you have is a series of decisions weighted by who the NPC is, what they are trying to achieve, what they have to do to achieve their desires, what resources they have available to achieve them...
Now some might say "but that means things are totally random" but they are not because each level of the process will be weighted based on the 'IQ' of the NPC and the process is weighted for the NPC to achieve it's goals the best they can in any given circumstance.
If you saw early storybricks video's you can see how the layers are constructed and now with the latest video's you can see how it fits together. And now that they seem to be able to procedurally generate NPC's and even entire races with variations and that they will interact with the world using their tagging system you can hopefully see how it all fits together.
But like I said, only 2 possible outcome for each decision. The orc will attack or he won't attack. The execution of the attack could be played differently but that is only part of a combat script. Many variable could alter what weapon or skill he will use.
Just because it is not random, doesn't mean the end result won't be exactly the same. Why make it so complicated, if in the end you get the same result. Just make it totally random and tell everyone that there is a reason for every action taken by each npc, would save a year of coding.
Originally posted by AG-Vuk BFD ! It's a faction system. So your actions, choices have affects on the various races and factions in the game thereby alter your access and choice in quests and quest locations. It's similar to what Vanguard had. Possibly better instituted. So they saw the potential of what was in Vanguard and instituted it in this game. Not really ground breaking or earth shattering. In Vanguard you could change bad faction with various races either through grinding quests or diplomacy. Surprisingly Sony is borrowing from a game they've just shut down and adding it to a new game. Meh , let me know when it's something truly new and impressive. As I recall they had something less refined in SWG also.
It is nothing like a faction system, at least not in the way you have compared other systems with. The approach as explain in presentations and via the Storybricks detailing is a little more complex then kills x to make y happy.
But killing X will still make Y happy. You will just have to also collect flowers and build a temple to make Y totally love you. Except that you will have no idea what the result of your action will be, so you will just randomly have some npc love while some other will want to kill you.
But wouldn't those extra possible outcomes already have to be coded anyway ? In my limited coding experience, I assumed that there was always only 2 outcomes to a single question. 0 or 1, no or yes. While the result could contain variables on the execution, it still always result in 1 of 2 possible outcomes. (NPC attacks or he doesn't, NPC start building a church or he doesn't.)
Can you give me an exemple of how different that system will be working ?
Use the example given using Orcs.
Orcs desire wealth.
Some options might be: -
Travel around until they find some Gold mine and mine it out.
Find a well travelled road and waylay travellers to rob them.
Hire themselves out to the local Dark Elves.
Lets take the travellers example to further explore options: -
The Orcs want more wealth and so decide to call for re-inforcements to attack bigger groups.
The road is too dangerous for their group so they decide to move on to another place.
The Orcs realise that they get most gold from travelling priests and so only choose to attack priests.
The choices made are not either/or choices. They have various conflicting wants and needs and multiple avenues from which to pursue each of these needs.
Think of it like this...
Do I attack?
1 = yes
2 = no
Do I attack and if so what with?
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = No
Now add ways to escape and another weapon and see what happens.
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = Yes With spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
Now add in some knowledge that the NPC has about who they are thinking of attacking as they know that they are a mage and have good defences against close combat: -
1 = No. Do not attack with Dagger
2 = Yes. Attack with Bow
3 = No. Do not attack with spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
What if the NPC is too close to attack using the bow?
Or what if it was a fighter not a Mage?
Or what if the Orc was better at close combat?
Each layer of options provides another set of potential outcomes. So add in several desires, several ways to fulfil those desires, several personality traits, several bits of knowledge about the land, races or anything else and what you have is a series of decisions weighted by who the NPC is, what they are trying to achieve, what they have to do to achieve their desires, what resources they have available to achieve them...
Now some might say "but that means things are totally random" but they are not because each level of the process will be weighted based on the 'IQ' of the NPC and the process is weighted for the NPC to achieve it's goals the best they can in any given circumstance.
If you saw early storybricks video's you can see how the layers are constructed and now with the latest video's you can see how it fits together. And now that they seem to be able to procedurally generate NPC's and even entire races with variations and that they will interact with the world using their tagging system you can hopefully see how it all fits together.
But like I said, only 2 possible outcome for each decision. The orc will attack or he won't attack. The execution of the attack could be played differently but that is only part of a combat script. Many variable could alter what weapon or skill he will use.
Just because it is not random, doesn't mean the end result won't be exactly the same. Why make it so complicated, if in the end you get the same result. Just make it totally random and tell everyone that there is a reason for every action taken by each npc, would save a year of coding.
Give me an example of what a 3rd outcome is then.
If the NPC also had the option to try and talk his way out of the fight would that still be only 2 options according to your logic of fight or don't fight. So please provide a 3rd option as you either are confused or have me confused.
The point of the example was to show that in a simple case of fight or don't fight there are many layers that affect how the decision process reached a conclusion not that the AI suddenly finds a miraculous 3rd choice.
Using your logic you could equate the entire process on the worlds economy down to "the guy either sells it or doesn't" and totally ignore all the factors that affect the choice that include small things like the mood of the guy selling something on the day to how the geo-political stability of the world is shaping that day's fortune 500.
Or another way.
The final choice I made here was to either post or not post. What I wrote, what your reply was and even if I wanted to reply at all got me to the point of posting. So are all the factors that went into my choice to post a reply irrelevant or not? If you think they are and the important part is simply did I post and not the content and reason behind it then I guess your logic wins. But I don't think it is sound logic or even reasonable logic at all. And certainly doesn't make me believe you understand how the storybricks system works.
Thanks for the link. I'm eager to get all information regarding Storybricks that is available. A very interesting middleware with a huge potential for better gameplay. Even if SOE should fuck it up and fail to deliver (really don't hope so), I'm very optimistic that someday someone will deliver something spectacular with that approach ....
I like how Archeage has 2 mobs in a certain area, and when you finish a quest you get the same loot as you would by killing those same monsters. Truly revolutionary! You guys were right, i should listen to you more. Since you guys paid for the beta. Were totally not suckers. Anyway, Lets continue trolling Everquest!
I can already tell this is going to a massively hyped feature that isn't really going to deliver anything revolutionary to the individual player. Sure the world might be subtly evolving around the players, but it doesn't impact the core gameplay, combat will be combat, crafting will be crafting etc. No one is going to shit their pants because a town is altered or a faction replaced or a crater is in the ground where there wasn't one before.
I'm also not going to flip out because a mob suddenly cast a fire ball at me that was before using a bow. I'm not knocking the innovation here but its not reinventing gameplay, the game play at its base remains unchanged.
Comments
For what I understand, they don't need to "script" that much content... Sure, there may be a few "scripted" events, but in majority content does not need to be script if the AI is developed enough... By tweaking (be it by player actions / devs or whatever) global objectives / motivations, the game npcs will start collectively working towards that goals and affecting the rest of the world (provoking other factions, consuming resources, etc). If you consider the chain reactions possibilities you can imagine 2 servers evolving in a much different ways even if the "base" content is exactly the same... Think of it as "alternate realities"
If this really works out, in such an automated way... damn...
"Vidis Fodidis Est"
yup...me and combat is so done...decades of that...enough already
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No, I'm saying there is a clear difference between GW2's public quest system with two different outcomes (depending on complete/not complete) that just rotates on a 30 - 60 minute timer and the Emergent AI system, which allows for hundreds or thousands of outcomes, at any place in the world, that constantly evolves over time with or without player engagement.
Trying to equate the two is about the same as trying to equate a cross bow made in 256 BC to a F-22 Raptor.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
I appreciate what you are hoping for; however, I'm not sure I want to play a game where some random event, such as a gold mine suddenly appearing out of thin air, can immediately make areas of the game unplayable because everyone, including "smart" NPCs flock to the area and keep every node permamined the moment it spawns.
Don't get me wrong, I love dynamic events - especially those that chain on into other events depending on the success or failure of the prior event. This is still an online world though - filled with other players and more than a few of those players will attempt to harness every possible method to exploit the system or grief other players.
There are many plans that look awesome on paper and would make for absolutely awesome single player games. There are some plans that just will simply not turn out well in a multiplayer environment where the individual player has no control over who they play with.
Little difference.
While GW2 may only have a win/lose type choice for the script to follow that may or may not lead into another event - what I've read here just insinuates that a single event may end up with more than those two choices.
Each choice will have to have developer time to create the next event path - be it a faction building a city or a group of NPCs building a bridge. In the end, many of these events cannot be permanent fixtures - less the environment become pockmarked with past "events". Don't get me wrong, the event to build a city would obviously be permanent but a "random" type of event for a group of NPCs to sink a mineshaft cannot just be allowed to happen anywhere and at anytime less the gameworld eventually become overrun by abandoned mineshafts.
To that end, the gameworld must reset some dynamic events and in that capacity it will feel just like GW2.
As for what EQN is claiming to attempt to do - I believe Horizons already tried some of this stuff although it was more direct developer engagement than dynamic scripting - if memory serves. (I may be completely wrong).
GW2 did a great job of automating and making typical quest systems fun and interactive.
It's not the same as what is going on here as there are more variables for the system to consider on an NPC group and indivisual basis. Will it still be scripted? Of course, software has to be scripted. Will there still be events and changes that happen because SoE wants it to be part of the story? Yes, those are "Rallying Calls" that change the world in front of you as lower objectives are met to a larger goal.
The main difference is the day to day happenings as you explore. In GW2 I bet if I walked to the NW corner of the Foothills there will be trees with spiders in them that if killed enough will spawn an event with a big boss spider... just as it did when it was released years ago. With what SB is showing this would not happen, the spiders could move to another location. Giving NPCs and NPC groups a spreadshet of like and dislikes is the first step. The next is a system that tracks what is going on, where people are, where resources are and what type of terrain it is. Landmark alreaady has these "state checks" like jumping off a cliff and the system will check for water below you. If there is your character will go into a dive.
When variables are done on an individual level in a world that knows where everything is at any time you can produce actual "dynamic" content that moves of it's own volition. It's still scripted yes but will seem like it isn't.
Yeah, there sure are a lot of awesome features in this game... just that theres no game yet (still being developed for another 2-3(?) years), and its pretty much all talk and typing about a feature list still.
Don't get me wrong: I'm reeeaaally interested in the potential of this, but the proof is in the pudding. So I'll wait and see these things in action, then I'll decide if Im impressed or not.
This is another one of those things that look awesome on a PowerPoint slide or in a memo passing around the office - yet, in day-to-day playing may just end up being a thorn in the side to the players.
I will admit, I'd love to experience a world that can change to a degree where NPCs seem intelligent and will literally move to a new area and construct a new spawn point after being heavily farmed. This would represent some elements of the real world.
That said, I also can see the frustration, as someone that likes to farm my own crafting components, at trying to constantly hunt down where the source of, say - spider silk, can be currently found at if those spiders are constantly moving their spawn point all over the map.
If this type of NPC behavior is implemented, then I would suspect crafting recipes will need to be adjusted to require lower quantities of some materials - else the game just may become frustrating.
I know the developers could just allow hunting/tracking but if that is the case and everyone is just simply given a "big green arrow that points to their prey" - then what was the original motive for spending the time to make the NPCs move their spawn points dynamically?
edit: Not to mention the script forks and "sentient" NPC dialog referencing the movement of all these NPC spawns points. It would be strange for spiders, rats, or worms to suddenly take over a NPC camp and those NPCs not even mention it. One of my peeves with MMOs is how there are always those NPCs that don't act "as they should". I love it when a guard or merchant just stands there while a big bad monster is fighting me in the camp, literally clipping through the guard or merchant while the guard/merchant just stands there "ho-humming" as if nothing is happening. I don't care if their attacks do zero damage to the monster or they run away scared to death - the point is, they should react to their surroundings. Lazy job, devs.
Systems like this have been attempted since UO, which had a full ecological system in place but had to scrap it because they could never get it working correctly. Players killed all the animals too fast.
Due to the number of people MMOs are way too chaotic for a complicated AI system to respond too. While I have high hopes for this, i am rather skeptical.
Starr Long, the game's associate producer, explained in 1996:
Nearly everything in the world, from grass to goblins, has a purpose, and not just as cannon fodder either. The 'virtual ecology' affects nearly every aspect of the game world, from the very small to the very large. If the rabbit population suddenly drops (because some gung-ho adventurer was trying out his new mace) then wolves may have to find different food sources (e.g., deer). When the deer population drops as a result, the local dragon, unable to find the food he’s accustomed to, may head into a local village and attack. Since all of this happens automatically, it generates numerous adventure possibilities.
However, this feature never made it beyond the game's beta stage. As Richard Garriott explained:
We thought it was fantastic. We'd spent an enormous amount of time and effort on it. But what happened was all the players went in and just killed everything; so fast that the game couldn't spawn them fast enough to make the simulation even begin. And so, this thing that we'd spent all this time on, literally no-one ever noticed – ever – and we eventually just ripped it out of the game, you know, with some sadness.
...and this is why we have something to look forward to
None of us know for sure and, for me, that's kind of exciting and bothersome all at the same time. I do believe in the future of gaming and I'm going to at least say that EQ N will be a different approachh. It truly is an enormous task, let us at least put some faith that just maybe this will eventually work out..
Patience...
Alyn
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
Yet those outcomes are only possible if they have been coded, that emergent AI won't create different outcomes by itself. If we stick with the gold mine exemple.
A mine pop in the world, an Orc camp interested in gold hear about it. What happens next depend on what action they actually have scripted for such an event.
They could send a scouting party to see if it is claimed,
if yes, then it depends by whom. Allied clan or race, engage negotiation to be a part of the mining. Allies refuse, then start a war or go back home. If enemies, then gauge resistence, if equal or inferior start a war, if superior go back home or try to find allies to take over.
if not claimed, gauge potential of the mine. Too small, don't bother, big enough, start moving the clan closer and take over the mine.
Every one of those action have to be scripted for them to ever happen.
While in essence it is a step forward from what we have in GW2, on technical levels, it's about the same thing. You could set up event in GW2 with hundreds of outcomes if you wanted.
There is a difference between writing a system that has two possible outcomes, and writing a system that tells the system to find an outcome that fits a particular set of criteria.
In one case, there will only ever be 2 outcomes and adding additional outcomes scales up the amount of work required to produce the outcomes in a linear manner. In the second case, there are many possible outcomes, allowing for many possible responses from players without scaling up the amount of work required to generate the additional outcomes. A change in the environment by the players results in a change in the possible outcomes and responses in the AI mobs. I don't know if it is a "living world", but the AI mobs are certainly reactive to the players and environmental changes without intervention from the developer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
But wouldn't those extra possible outcomes already have to be coded anyway ? In my limited coding experience, I assumed that there was always only 2 outcomes to a single question. 0 or 1, no or yes. While the result could contain variables on the execution, it still always result in 1 of 2 possible outcomes. (NPC attacks or he doesn't, NPC start building a church or he doesn't.)
Can you give me an exemple of how different that system will be working ?
Use the example given using Orcs.
Orcs desire wealth.
Some options might be: -
Travel around until they find some Gold mine and mine it out.
Find a well travelled road and waylay travellers to rob them.
Hire themselves out to the local Dark Elves.
Lets take the travellers example to further explore options: -
The Orcs want more wealth and so decide to call for re-inforcements to attack bigger groups.
The road is too dangerous for their group so they decide to move on to another place.
The Orcs realise that they get most gold from travelling priests and so only choose to attack priests.
The choices made are not either/or choices. They have various conflicting wants and needs and multiple avenues from which to pursue each of these needs.
Think of it like this...
Do I attack?
1 = yes
2 = no
Do I attack and if so what with?
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = No
Now add ways to escape and another weapon and see what happens.
1 = Yes with Dagger
2 = Yes with Bow
3 = Yes With spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
Now add in some knowledge that the NPC has about who they are thinking of attacking as they know that they are a mage and have good defences against close combat: -
1 = No. Do not attack with Dagger
2 = Yes. Attack with Bow
3 = No. Do not attack with spear
4 = No by hiding
5 = No by running
What if the NPC is too close to attack using the bow?
Or what if it was a fighter not a Mage?
Or what if the Orc was better at close combat?
Each layer of options provides another set of potential outcomes. So add in several desires, several ways to fulfil those desires, several personality traits, several bits of knowledge about the land, races or anything else and what you have is a series of decisions weighted by who the NPC is, what they are trying to achieve, what they have to do to achieve their desires, what resources they have available to achieve them...
Now some might say "but that means things are totally random" but they are not because each level of the process will be weighted based on the 'IQ' of the NPC and the process is weighted for the NPC to achieve it's goals the best they can in any given circumstance.
If you saw early storybricks video's you can see how the layers are constructed and now with the latest video's you can see how it fits together. And now that they seem to be able to procedurally generate NPC's and even entire races with variations and that they will interact with the world using their tagging system you can hopefully see how it all fits together.
a·maz·ing
causing great surprise or wonder, astonishing.
Thanks so much for posting this; I had heard months ago on this site that UO originally had a great ecology system but scrapped it when players just killed everything, lol. Good to know the details!
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
It is nothing like a faction system, at least not in the way you have compared other systems with. The approach as explain in presentations and via the Storybricks detailing is a little more complex then kills x to make y happy.
Storybricks isn't an ecology system.
But like I said, only 2 possible outcome for each decision. The orc will attack or he won't attack. The execution of the attack could be played differently but that is only part of a combat script. Many variable could alter what weapon or skill he will use.
Just because it is not random, doesn't mean the end result won't be exactly the same. Why make it so complicated, if in the end you get the same result. Just make it totally random and tell everyone that there is a reason for every action taken by each npc, would save a year of coding.
But killing X will still make Y happy. You will just have to also collect flowers and build a temple to make Y totally love you. Except that you will have no idea what the result of your action will be, so you will just randomly have some npc love while some other will want to kill you.
Give me an example of what a 3rd outcome is then.
If the NPC also had the option to try and talk his way out of the fight would that still be only 2 options according to your logic of fight or don't fight. So please provide a 3rd option as you either are confused or have me confused.
The point of the example was to show that in a simple case of fight or don't fight there are many layers that affect how the decision process reached a conclusion not that the AI suddenly finds a miraculous 3rd choice.
Using your logic you could equate the entire process on the worlds economy down to "the guy either sells it or doesn't" and totally ignore all the factors that affect the choice that include small things like the mood of the guy selling something on the day to how the geo-political stability of the world is shaping that day's fortune 500.
Or another way.
The final choice I made here was to either post or not post. What I wrote, what your reply was and even if I wanted to reply at all got me to the point of posting. So are all the factors that went into my choice to post a reply irrelevant or not? If you think they are and the important part is simply did I post and not the content and reason behind it then I guess your logic wins. But I don't think it is sound logic or even reasonable logic at all. And certainly doesn't make me believe you understand how the storybricks system works.
I can already tell this is going to a massively hyped feature that isn't really going to deliver anything revolutionary to the individual player. Sure the world might be subtly evolving around the players, but it doesn't impact the core gameplay, combat will be combat, crafting will be crafting etc. No one is going to shit their pants because a town is altered or a faction replaced or a crater is in the ground where there wasn't one before.
I'm also not going to flip out because a mob suddenly cast a fire ball at me that was before using a bow. I'm not knocking the innovation here but its not reinventing gameplay, the game play at its base remains unchanged.