Re: CF: Long term experimental ideas

[Hwei Sheng TEOH <hsteoh@cs.toronto.edu>]

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, dragonm wrote:

[snip--I don't like long intro paragraphs as much as you don't like long
subjects... ;-) just kidding]
> 
> Implementing greater persistence doesn't have to be done all at once.  Mark
> has already proposed modifying the random encounter code, so that monsters
> can be encountered in some general vicinity without an associated generator.
> I think that's the first and possibly one of the most important steps down
> that road.  Right now, both Mark and David are right.  The way dungeons are
> built, stomping on monsters is an end in itself.  You may be working on a
> quest, but don't we all try to clear the dungeon while we're at it?
> Implementing Mark's proposal is a step towards my proposal and it's part and
> parcel of our stated goal of moving away from the hack 'n' slash model.
> Monsters become an obstacle to be dealt with along some longer road.  It's
> no longer POSSIBLE to totally clear a dungeon.

Hmmm.. this will be interesting. Note that we will then have to differentiate
between dungeons and other maps like houses, cities, etc.. But I must say,
this is a very neat idea.

> The theory is that a dungeon is a long and winding hole, and there's always
> some bolthole a kobold or a slime could hide in.  After all, they've been
> living in that dungeon since time beyond memory.  They know where ALL the
> hidey holes you can't find are located.  So they'll always be jumping out at
> you, even though you killed every one you could find and could catch your
> first time through.  While you were busy messing around in lower dungeon
> levels, the survivors crept out of their holes.  After you've been through
> their area a few times, and you slaughtered every one which dared attack
> you, they'll remember you and hide from you, so you'll stop seeing them as
> much.  But another person who has never been there will be set upon just as
> you were.

Hmm... I've never liked the idea of generators in CF, especially generators
that you can "kill", and that ceaselessly produces monsters. I think,
generators should either be made invisible (as is proposed), or made
"indestructible" (what does it mean to "destroy" a dragon cave anyway?!).
Then, generators should produce only limited numbers of monsters, like with a
max number (as is also proposed). I like the idea of "hidey holes" that no one
can reach -- we can put generators behind dungeon walls, (simulating
unreachable caves where the monsters are hiding) and have them produce
monsters on the other side of the wall.

Another interesting idea would be to have players that choose to play as a
monster of that type have access to that hole. (So that if a player is a
kobold, he can lurk around the kobold holes). This may or may not be feasible
for mapmakers to do, though... so maybe the player can only access a few small
rooms where the kobold generators are. We can then explain the generators as
the holes where reinforcements are coming from. The kobold player can then
use that hole to hide from other creatures in the dungeon.

> In AI terms, there are any of several ways to handle it, and even a couple
> ways that can be combined.  The random generator, which is no longer visible
> and can no longer be destroyed, and which the monsters it generates are
> linked to, can have a list of characters who have murdered numerous of its
> kind, so the monsters linked to that generator will know to run from that
> character.  Another way to handle it is to make monsters smart enough to
> recognize when a character is powerful enough to slaughter them and run for
> it without even trying to attack.

Hmm, keeping track of *every* player that had been in the dungeon, *per*
generator, seems a little infeasible to me, unless we compromise somehow.

[snip]
> Some of the difficulty of the rework can be mitigated by yet another
> proposal that's already on the table.  Vastly increasing the number of
> species available to the player, and allowing the player to play a monster
> species fixes a lot of that problem.  The monkey wrench thrown into the
> works by making quest results persistent is compensated for by having
> player-controlled monsters.  The monster character wants the same
> Super-Duper-Gold-Plated-Whatsit as the hero character.  The tendency of a
> large fraction of the gaming population to indulge in player killing is
> addressed quite well.  If you want to kill players, be a monster.  Then
> you're actually ENCOURAGED to kill heroes.  I'm astonished that the
> commercial services haven't implemented that solution to the age-old
> problem.

Hmm, if we do things this way, we'd have to have AI heroes to satisfy the
urges of the monster player, esp. if the server has very few "hero" players.
Why not generalize? It seems, with the recent discussion, there's already a
trend in making the races more distinct. Why not push it further -- instead of
differentiating between "heroes" and "monsters", why not we use the RACE as a
distinguishing factor? So, elves and dwarves will be opposed to the giant
races, and either of them may or may not be players. This way, we won't need
special provision for AI heroes. I think this will make things a LOT more
interesting. I'm sick of the traditional "hero vs. monster" philosophy. Why
not we have something more general -- multiple races, each with likes and
dislikes for the other races. Players may choose to play *any* race (or at
least, most of the races, that are feasible to implement), and he'll play the
character according to that race.

[snip]
> In the heroic case, the quest isn't changed.  The newly human wizard at the
> end of the obstacle course now amuses himself by controlling and editing his
> obstacle course, and still rewards the Silver-Plated-Whatsit, which he now
> makes, for successfully completing it.  And he doesn't have to sit around
> twiddling his thumbs waiting for lower level characters to reach him,
> either.  He doesn't even have to be home most of the time, if his maze is
> well designed.  When a worthy character reaches him, he can just use David's
> Portal to get back.  If he's willing to allow the character to wander around
> in his domain unsupervised, he doesn't have to return home at all.  The
> Whatsit can be sitting on a purple pillow, there for the taking.

This works well in the case that the quest involves a fixed reward, like an
artifact. Things are much harder if the quest has a storyline -- with many
clues, and NPCs which tell parts of the story, etc.. You will no longer be
able to have NPCs tell you "do such and such to the wizard at the bottom of
dungeon xxx, or give him such and such, to get a reward." You'll be limiting
quests to interacting with static things like artifacts and objects; you can't
have any clues that talk about the wizard himself (or whatever monster plays
that role) since he may get replaced, nor any special monster/NPC that you
may encounter on the way, since the new player-wizard may choose not to put in
the dungeon super-monster XXX which was originally the bodyguard of the old
wizard.

[snip]
> I think this is a VERY good thing for online-only RPGs.  The commercial
> services suffer very much from being commercial.  Business-oriented people
> always want to have CONTROL, and surrenduring control of their world in any
> way is fearsome.  (Yes I know there are non-employees with Game Master
> powers in some of the services.  They get to sign a contract that limits
> their behavior quite as much as the contract an employee signs.)  The result
> is severe ennui.  Players discover that the world they're paying for access
> to is just a pretty NetHack.  Kill things, gain levels and equipment, kill
> more things.  There's no end, because the steps between levels become
> exponentially farther apart in experience points.  Player Killing sets in,
> and enormously complex reputation systems that are STILL buggy are
> implemented to try to compensate for it, and still fail.  Ultima is trying
> to compensate, and making headway, as near as I can tell, but their options
> are too limited, and they foolishly neglected the option of monsterous
> players.  Our options are wide open, and the proposal of monsterous players
> is on the table.  Bring back the MUD Wizard, and a true GOAL becomes
> available.  To begin with, the server administrator fills that role.
> Eventually, a player becomes powerful enough to take on much of the role
> himself, and there's certainly no reason why there can't be multiple
> Wizards, each intent on ruling the world, some by heroic means, some by any
> means necessary.

Being able to take over a particular dungeon certainly appeals to me... I
don't know how far you should push this Wizard thing, though; having the
entire world dominated by one player seems a little too far (may cause vast
imbalance in the game depending on what the player does with his power -- if
we allow things like changing dungeons (like you described above), you're
assuming that whoever manages to take over the dungeon has enough sense to
keep that dungeon reasonable. Otherwise you may get total chaos on the entire
CF world (whoever takes over will turn it into whatever he likes it to be)
with unreasonable traps, map inconsistencies, strange combinations of 
monsters, etc., but on a worse order of magnitude (can't guarantee game 
quality at the map level).

OTOH the idea of being able to "administrate" a dungeon that you just took
over suonds really fun to me. We'll definitely need to think over the
necessary restrictions and rules that the player needs to abide by.

Now, of course, the ideal situation would be a server that actually lets you
dynamically create new maps that act as extensions to the "standard" area of
the game world, so that powerful characters can actually become King of their
part of the game world, and they'll be responsible for creating the necessary
things in their domain to attract players. But this does sound a little out in
the blue, though it's not impossible...


T

-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]