Game Design Discussion

[saxondragon]

Let me clarify some things brought up here.

Non-Undead Signature Heroes, when captured will offer a gem if you let them go.

What does this mean if you accept their offer?

1- They may re-spawn.
2- If they re-spawn, they will offer another gem if they are captured.

If you kill them:
1- They are locked.. meaning that they will never re-spawn again in this game.

Regarding suppression:

When the minor factions start the game their spawn routines work 100% of the time.
This means that at certain time intervals, we call their individual routines and go through a randomization process and see what we create at the designated spawn locations.

Usually the breakdown is around 70% is a normal patrol, 20% of the time it is a larger Warband, and 10% of the time it is an army or special.

When something spawns, it increases the strength of that faction. 

When that something that spawns is eliminated in combat, the strengh of that faction is reduced just a little more that the gain for spawning.. depending upon who eliminates it. 

NPC forces eliminating these forces are pretty much a wash for factional strength at the lower levels and gain just a bit at the higher level spawns.  Player forces eliminating any spawn does reduce the factional strength.

Now this ties together as the factional strength is checked to see if a spawn really occurs when the routine is called to create something.  Therefore, when a faction is beaten down, it spawns less and less.. but this does not affect "What" is spawned, only if "something" spawns.

So, it is possible for bubbles to occur when say an Army spawns, it raises the factional strength for all subsequent spawn checks and we get a sudden flurry of activity from a given faction.  When those spawns are defeated they go back down in power.

This is one of the reasons we keep seeing trends and cycles of power by the various minor factions as the presence of larger spawns, heroes and personalities tend to uplift the possibility of other spawns for that faction.

This was probably more than you wanted to know.. but it is such an interesting concept that I wanted to share it out.

Best,

Saxondragon

 

[Joe_m845]

Thx for clarifying this SD. Seems i were dreaming. 

 

[kaeldragor]

Love the detail on that, thank you.  It actually makes a great deal of sense, like an army invading and then sending out patrols and recruiting outriders as it gains power.  Always harder to fight an enemy once they've had time to get a good foothold.

Which leads me to my question on this subject: Can the minor factions be enhanced in the future to take over castles and towns?  Or would that alteration (a la Sword of Damocles) require that either they be a major faction, or that they always attack towns and castles, possibly wasting much or there strength, or both?

If it wouldn't cause complication, I for one would love that enhancement.

 

[saxondragon]

Love the detail on that, thank you.  It actually makes a great deal of sense, like an army invading and then sending out patrols and recruiting outriders as it gains power.  Always harder to fight an enemy once they've had time to get a good foothold.

Which leads me to my question on this subject: Can the minor factions be enhanced in the future to take over castles and towns?  Or would that alteration (a la Sword of Damocles) require that either they be a major faction, or that they always attack towns and castles, possibly wasting much or there strength, or both?

If it wouldn't cause complication, I for one would love that enhancement.

From a game design perspective I could not agree more, and my own thinking is moving in this direction.

But.. and I hate these "Buts"..it opens some big questions regarding execution that have to be answered as  like most of how this all works, what seems so straightforward is often stuck in a quagmire of complexity.

To break it down goes something along these lines:

Assumptions and Risk issues:
The AI somewhere in the code will be modified by Armagan and Team in the upcoming Warband Release.
We will have a relatively short period of time to migrate this effort to the new Release or we may lose this community forum.

Approaches:

We can create new factions as per Native concepts.

Execution barriers:
This will require some modification to either how banners are used, (one per faction for example), or we have to add more Banners.
We will require more Lords for the various new factions.
Minor recoding for heroic personalities.
Repression concepts would need to be reworked as they would be invalidated by native reinforcement schedules

Benefits:
We can piggy back on existing AI cleanly with minimal work.


We can create an alternative Factional approach.

Execution barriers:
This will require modification to party creation and attached flags to parties (fairly easy).
We will have to either re-write a new AI routine or find a way to parse into existing AI to get them to behave the way we want. (moderate difficulty)
Will need to expand the repression concepts to include owning centers. (moderate)
Fuzzy areas regarding using existing routines to give locations to Lords, prestige, etc. (something is going to bite us here as this is very convoluted) (difficult)
May require more Lords for the various new factions. (easy)
Possible Minor recoding for heroic personalities.(easy)
How to handle flags for centers that are captures without lords (moderate)

Benefits:
A new possible non-lord based factional system that does not use the existing reinforcement/replacement system for new troops and uses relative repression concepts for creation of new troops.

Discussion:
If we were looking at the second options we have to explore and answer all the big questions there.  This will require parsing into many existing administrative routines of the underlying native code.

In order to do this right, we would need to define some better personality traits and mold those into the AI and provide control variables likely found in the module_constants.py file.  There should be sufficient factional slots remaining to accommodate any modifications we want there.

My rough guess is that we are looking at 200 or so hours of work for one person.

Thoughts?

Best,

Saxondragon

 

[Pode]

Thoughts?

Lots, swirling in my head in a blur.  The one that is floating on the surface in big neon letters is that this question deserves to be elevated to its own thread (sticky even?) rather than left to rot ignored here in the umpteenth al-aziz thread 

 

[kaeldragor]

Thoughts?

Lots, swirling in my head in a blur.  The one that is floating on the surface in big neon letters is that this question deserves to be elevated to its own thread (sticky even?) rather than left to rot ignored here in the umpteenth al-aziz thread 

Ditto here, though I will say that I believe any implementation processes may necessarily require waiting for more release details on Warband.

And I have some thoughts on the lord-less forces, namely doing it similar to SoD or Custom Settlements - basically patrols of various sizes.  Realistic spawning may be an issue, but that way a single powerful war force with only one leader could take and patrol lands.  Few enough (perhaps only 2-3 of them constitute actual conquering armies?) also may solve the banner shortage as there are a few extra as things stand.  I don't know how much lee way is there to be honest.

 

[saxondragon]

We have attained a new topic.  I am open to some discussion on what is possible then after we get some ideas floating and smooth out the rough edges, I would like to talk about implementation strategies.

Regarding Warband: I concur Kaeldragor.. completely.

Best,

Saxondragon

 

[kaeldragor]

Okay, so setting aside implementation plans, and trying to anticipate only possibility:

Are there enough extra banners to assign each one to an invading army (even if they had only one for their subfaction)?
  -if not, can you add a banner file, or is it complicated (I'm assuming the latter)?

AI: Can the invading army make a clear and tactical choice about where to attack?  If it followed basic Lord AI, it would go for the weakest in the entire land, but that could take it a few weeks counting getting distracted and fighting other parties.  Maybe more.
    -once it has taken the castle, I assume you'd need a reinforcement script to ensure a proper garrison, so that the army could move on to try to take more territory?



The picture I have in my head is that several of the subfactions... maybe only the invading armies, not adventuring companies, or cults, would take a castle or town (or try to.)  By mid-game, I picture fractions nations and the land in chaos - potentially making the game much more difficult, but feeling more dynamic.  And it makes the subfactions more than just the occasional (deadly) distraction - this way they can actually move you AWAY from victory.

  - This has raised another question: When enemy AI Lords conquer a subfaction hero, do they just keep them in their prisoner train a la another Lord?  If so, that may drastically delay respawning, and the opportunities for this to happen increase if the army is attacking towns where lords may be residing.

 

[littlemikey]

I really wanted to build a Noldor Castle hidden deep in the woods of Laria. As per game lore, the castle would be invisible, and you could only see it if you had positive relations to the Noldor (>=40) However, I'd need to find some elven architecture of some sort, which dosen't seem to be just lying around >_>;

Some of the signature armies really deserve their own home town/castle, can you imagine a Jatu city? And other armies, such as the Heretics should be able to raze towns to the groun ^_^;

That all being said, there really is a huge issue in coding all that, and with a new version of M&B coming out soon, we can't make too many huge changes because it's likely we will have to undo all our work when warband comes out.

 

[M0rdred]

What about allowing Lords to switch sides if they get beaten enough / relations (or any other codable factor actually). Perhaps if a Lord loses their Village / Town / Castle and is captured in the battle, the player / AI has an option to release them, capture them or force them to swear fealty. If they choose the latter they keep their lands but now fight for the faction they joined.

This would mean that new Lords and Banners do not need to be created, and infact creates more of a strategic depth as Lords now become a tangible resource.

Easy way to explain this in the Lore, is that these Lords make up the landed Aristocracy, the people are naturually inclined to follow them. If a Lord switches their allegience then their whole following does the same. Be it through direct conquest or being "persuaded" to follow another faith. The current nobility are unwilling to raise further people to high title (apart from the Player) so the number of nobles remains constant.

Several modifers could be used to increase / decrease the "loyalty" of the Lords, for example the King building a Palace which displays their wealth and power would encourage their lords to remain loyal, while widespread use of Torture Chambers would be a useful asset in "persuading" the Lord to join them.

With regard to the ideas already posted by Saxondragon, im not keen on the first, whats to stop you just making each of those factions a true nation then? As essentially I think thats what that would do. The second is interesting and keeps to the idea you have already in place, and encourages the waxing and waning of those minor factions. One suggestion if you go with the later, keep their reinforcements coming as coded at the moment, do not allow them to recruit from their newly captured centres. Instead the lands they conquer send home a tribute to their Kings back in the homelands, who in return sends men more frequently to assit the invasion. (Resulting in higher numbers of parties being spawned, and with more men). Let a minor faction take to many lands and they will become very difficult to dislodge.

Edit : Further to my last point, you wouldnt actually need to create Lords for the minor factions, instead give each their own banner which displays faction ownership of the lands rather than Lordly ownership.

 

[Ackwell]

What if the lesser factions would not actually conquer anything but just loot the towns and castles off their riches and free the prisoners and leave the castle in weak state? Damaging buildings etc. I don't see some forest bandits taking up a castle because they know that the counter attack and sanctions will be harsh. I would just loot the hell of the place, burn the buildings, capture the women and run away back to the forest hideout. And all the more organised minor criminal factions are people working underground and they seem already be pretty well established in the cities and castles that way. Can't seem them to have any needs to control castles directly when they can effect the lords and their decision indirectly.

Just my thoughts

 

[Calathar]

well, thing is:
strenght of snake cult in my game is "fading" yet i've defeated small group once, they've never spawned army. Now heretics "overhelming" with 3 armies, multiple smaller and larger bands, i've defeated countless numbers of smaller heretic groups and 1 army, yet they aren't "fading" and snakes are ;] Now, Jatu changed to "weakned" after me smashing their army, but i'm not into chasing smaller groups, so where is the logic? :]

 

[kaeldragor]

well, thing is:
strenght of snake cult in my game is "fading" yet i've defeated small group once, they've never spawned army. Now heretics "overhelming" with 3 armies, multiple smaller and larger bands, i've defeated countless numbers of smaller heretic groups and 1 army, yet they aren't "fading" and snakes are ;] Now, Jatu changed to "weakned" after me smashing their army, but i'm not into chasing smaller groups, so where is the logic? :]

If you stop at Weakened, you'll never achieve final victory, even if it seems a large spawn never comes along.  I suppose if that doesn't bother you, then you aren't really trying for the victory conditions / long-term game anyway.

 

[Calathar]

@up:that wasn't my point, i've stated that maybe there are some flaws with code, beacause from SD's post we can read pure logic behind condition of spawned minor factions, but in my game this logic is hidden somwhere (prolly deep in that inland sea ) beacause i've fight snake cult only ONCE and they have never spawned any army bigger than 50-60 yet they are fading, i've defeated 2 small groups of jatu and one big army AND they changed from overhelming to weakned and now we have heretics:i've killed over 15 small groups and 1 army and they are still 'overhelming' and i don't really get it
btw:real problem with beating PoP isn't with minor factions but with conquering whole map, don't ya think? ;]

 

[Xeoneatus]

Hey Cal,

As far as i can tell the minor spawn listings are logical.  The way I think they work (from just messing around randomly to see what does what) is that the status is based upon how many soldiers they have, not how many armies you yourself have defeated, because dont forget, the npc armies fight them to, so if your snake cult army is weakened after one battle, either they have spawned much, or the empire has crushed them, where-as the heretics still have a large portion of their armies left.

Look at it this way. lets say every X days there is a spawn, between those X days there is a percentage based on their armies. so if you deafeat 50% of their army, they will show up as "weakened", 90% they are "crushed" etc. so, because the heretic armies have so many soldiers, defeating one army doesn't do to much to them, even if it is big.

Now, im sure this is really simplified compared to how the game determines it, and now im rambling so i shall stop typing. Hope this helps

Xeon

 

[ArakDemonBlade]

What if the lesser factions would not actually conquer anything but just loot the towns and castles off their riches and free the prisoners and leave the castle in weak state? Damaging buildings etc. I don't see some forest bandits taking up a castle because they know that the counter attack and sanctions will be harsh. I would just loot the hell of the place, burn the buildings, capture the women and run away back to the forest hideout. And all the more organised minor criminal factions are people working underground and they seem already be pretty well established in the cities and castles that way. Can't seem them to have any needs to control castles directly when they can effect the lords and their decision indirectly.

Just my thoughts

I like this idea and frankly, this is an option that I always kind of wished I had in native. I have enough troops to take a weak castle but really don't want the responsibility of having to defend one (this is assuming I do not have allegiance to a faction). So instead we charge in, free prisoners, loot the place (big payoff here) and then leave it in shambles. Basically just sack the place and then leave.

 

[Pode]

My inclination is to treat each of the minor factions differently depending on their lore.  No clue if this is codeable, but I'm trying to at least use concepts that are already coded in, just apply them differently.

- Religious minors should seek to take and hold new lands and covert the people to their faith.  Taking a town should give them a faction spawn strength boost and a bunch of prisoners that get slowly converted to bottom tier units of their tree like Native's undead conversion.  Holding a town should give them a steady trickle of their tree recruits like a normal faction, but at lower rates for balance.

- Eyegrim should burn places to the ground (set prosperity to zero, empty the recruit pool) and get a big boost to his faction spawn strength for doing so, along with a lot of prisoners that can be converted to undead via the old native script. 

- Bandit / adventurer types should raid (lower prosperity but not to zero) but not hold centers for a spawn strength boost, recruiting from their prisoners instead of making them undead.  Not sure if this applies to the Shadow Legion or not.

- Noldor should operate as is, with no interest in human lands, prisoners, or recruits. 

- Jatu should take lands for spawn strength boosts, get regular kingdom recruits from their new lands like a normal faction, and have that recruiting depress their spawn rate some.  So there are always some new Jatu coming in, especially right after they take a new town, but as their progress stagnates local auxilliaries do most of the heavy lifting and the actual Jatu become rarer.  When they lose a town, they lose spawn strength, but it shouldn't trigger reinforcements because the garrison is local sympathizers, not Jatu.  This conquering army model may apply to the Shadow Legion as well, not sure what their motivations are.

-I think the religious and army minors, those that seek to hold lands, should start with one king each.  When this king captures an AI lord, they should check to join their captor just like they currently do for the player, like M0rdred said.  If that check fails, they get released with a relationship boost for the captor, again just like for the player.  This way minors interested in such have another chance of acquiring sympathizers and lands, but without the large number of starting lords to get reinforcements, they'll have a hard time breaking out to become a major kingdom.  Until the army spawns

 

[saxondragon]

well, thing is:
strenght of snake cult in my game is "fading" yet i've defeated small group once, they've never spawned army. Now heretics "overhelming" with 3 armies, multiple smaller and larger bands, i've defeated countless numbers of smaller heretic groups and 1 army, yet they aren't "fading" and snakes are ;] Now, Jatu changed to "weakned" after me smashing their army, but i'm not into chasing smaller groups, so where is the logic? :]

In a dynamic environment it is not just you effecting the game, but the game effecting itself.  The strength of a faction can decline by what happens to it when it encounters and is defeated by, other factional forces.

The first post of this thread I go into this in some detail.

Best,

Saxondragon

Pode..

I feel that you are on the right track. and yes the concepts you are working with are codeable.. and doable, they just need to be designed.  At this moment I need to attend to other pressing matters.. but I want to circle around and dive into what you have brought forth in more detail as soon as I am able.

Saxondragon

 

[M0rdred]

I really like the idea of the factions having different attributes like that. I wasnt sure if it was possible but if it is. Sweet!

What about the player joining / fighting for one of those factions? I gather from some other threads that the Snake Cult are quite popular, and I can see people wanting the choice of converting to the Snake. Some players would also do it from the challenge. Join the Adventurers as a small band yourself, perhaps with dreams of nation at the end of a very long road?

 

[saxondragon]

I really like the idea of the factions having different attributes like that. I wasnt sure if it was possible but if it is. Sweet!

What about the player joining / fighting for one of those factions? I gather from some other threads that the Snake Cult are quite popular, and I can see people wanting the choice of converting to the Snake. Some players would also do it from the challenge. Join the Adventurers as a small band yourself, perhaps with dreams of nation at the end of a very long road?

Now you are crossing the two approaches.  If the player can join a "faction" then we either have to re-do the entire faction system (1000+hours of work), or just follow the first concept and create new factions from the minor ones that follow the same concepts that are already in the game. ~S