Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Feature Suggestions' started by Agarthan, Apr 20, 2014.
Think somewhere between DayZ humanity and Fable.
Can you please elaborate for those of us who are not familiar with either game?
This explains nothing.
As the two previous posters have said, you really do need to elaborate on what you mean. Make your suggestion in a fully fleshed out post, and add any extra notes, such as examples of your idea in action and so on. Without this, a suggestion isn't really going to attract much useful feedback!
You can also consult the guidelines: http://www.seedofandromeda.com/community/threads/suggestion-guideline.14/
To make your idea easier to understand.
Making paint drawings, screenshots, images or links for reference also help a lot!
Well basically with DayZ humanity, if you just kill other people indiscriminately, you get negative humanity and are a bandit, if you do nothing but kill bandits and protect or avenge the defenseless you are a hero. With fable this similar concept is applied but it effects your characters game path, who you interact with, who will interact with you, who will give you missions, and what they consist of, npc or player.
Also if you know anything about Dungeons and Dragons alignments, it's a similar concept. The whole reason I left it so open ended is for you as the dev team to take the ideas and integrate them how you see fit. Figured you would know the game references.
The issue with making that assumption, is that it isn't just the devs that interact with a suggestion, it is the whole community! That means you should explain it, both for anyone who may not get a reference, but also in case you had some ideas on how it could work in SoA!
That said, let's take a look at your idea;
The idea of player actions governing how others interact with you is a really nice one, and really adds an extra layer of dynamics to player decision making if pulled off well - I think the best example is Mass Effect's implementation of this, where the entire outcome of the game could be affected by decisions you made, as well as your squad behaving radically different. I personally would love to see this sort of alignment and NPC stand point on action to exist in the game, as it would really change the way players would consider acting and reacting towards NPC people and groups.
I think it has potential if it's done well. It might be good to look not only where it was done right but also where it was done wrong so not to repeat mistakes of past games. I haven't played any but maybe someone else might be able to provide examples?
I know there are some games (MMORPGs especially) that offer a good and evil alignment in a very non-immersive way, that it affects stats and purely stats and not the roleplay style of the player. The player may play a good character and even be a charitable, well-liked player but have an evil alignment because buffs and perks. It makes it all very numbery and technical and not really mean anything beyond that (except some exclusive but equally meaningless quests). That's one thing SOA should avoid.
I don't know how linear or open the devs want SOA to be but needless to say the more open the storyline more chance that particularly adventurous players with unprecedented gameplay styles might encounter bugs and continuity errors. These could range between absolutely hilarious to infuriatingly game-breaking. Not being a coder and I can't really suggest solutions to these problems but I just wonder if it might help to adopt a system that is vaguely similar to that of games like Morrowind, where each NPC has self-preservation instincts and seems to behave towards you independently, with your actions and words determining who will cooperate with you, who won't, and who will try to kill you. Earning trust could gain you more information or better bargains. Quests become open or locked out depending on who likes you or not, and some quests opened or locked depending on what other quests you had done before (probably to maintain continuity). No matter what happens the main storyline is always still available. You didn't have an alignment for your own character but you had an alignment with other characters which is more believable. It wasn't without it's own bugs and continuity errors but overall it was pretty well pulled off. Some aspects of it could work with SOA if it goes down that route.
I believe that the NPCs should not have only pure personal behaviours but group behaviours towards you.
Also, communication and information between NPCs!
Where i want to reach is:
You have a lot more power on SOA than you would probably have on Morrowind (I did not play it).
Basically, you being able to coordinate or rule a group of people (or more), on the way you wish.
The groups themselves will behave towards you depending on how you behave towards them, if you murder someone in public, even the ones that did not see it will "hear about it" and it will influence everyone's behaviour.
Now depending on the communication with another cities or groups of NPCs, other groups will also get to know about this fact, and that will also change the behaviour of them towards you.
So, more than just a personal action towards you, everyone will have a group behaviour summed to a independent behaviour.
Remember that on SOA you are not just an adventurer, but anything you want to be.
Just being somewhere can motivate and make people happy, or scare the shit out of them, making them hide on their houses and send guards after you (whatever tech level they are at).
Also, you would be abble to have a group of people with you that support you, but be a bandit or pirate that steals and murders people on the other groups etc.
Exactly almost even to the level of the game Black and White, like low tech npc civs viewing you as a god or a devil.
The problem with an alignment system is its rigid. An evil character is an evil character. And all NPCs view him as such. But the world isn't that black and white. One district/country could view you as the devil incarnate, while the next country over could view as the greatest war hero in history. If any kind of alignment is implemented it should be as an individual a basis as possible. To pigeonhole the character as evil or good is so StarWars. It's not the force it's personal interaction.
Okay, best ever example of how this can be done right! I can tell you right now, if we pulled off anything as good as that I would... I can't even explain the sheer pride I would have, nor the insane epicosity of it. For those that don't know, Black and White is an epic God-game from the era of Peter Molyneux (or rather, the era in which his games had some of the best mechanics of any games in existence) and of course, Bullfrog and Lionhead Studios, who produced, at least, my favourite games from my childhood, no doubt many other's too.
Rather than it being a case of you are solidly evil or solidly good however, as Restless suggested, it could be designed in such a way that you gain or lose reputation with different groups individually, maybe even an individual entity-by-entity basis, so that your level of fame/infamy is based on your interactions with specific groups. In fact, I may have just had a brain wave - that means off to notepad for me, be back soon!
I agree with that, One civs god is another civs devil. Not all civs are going to default be in communication with each other. A pre-industrial civ on one planet has no way to be in contact with a pre-ind civ on another planet. Though two pre-ind civs on the same planet, word would eventually spread about you based on their relationship with each other. If the civs are hostile with each other one may love you and the other hate you, if they are allied they will both hate/love you and so forth.
Also much like Elder Scrolls, there could be specific subcultures, or as you said individuals within the civs who's alignments alter or insulate their perception of you outside of the civ as a whole.
For example, lets say you run into a civ that is post industrial, but still type I, pre-space, they are a dictatorial military regime and you use your superior tech to destroy their gunships, this makes you enemies of people loyal to the dictatorship but a hero to the npcs who are oppressed.
Maybe we could have it so that your "Good" or "Evil" is determined on a per-settlement basis. Travellers going to and fro would spread news of your heroic deeds or villainy. Of course, as mentioned before, such a system would not account for individual variation; maybe tyrannical settlements could have a different meter measuring your "Rebellion" or "Anticitizen" status? In any case, I don't want any clear-cut "Ethics" meter. It would encourage decisions for all the wrong reasons.
you could havit so that the more you atack a species or a animal in that fact the more they get scared of you or more angry. if you dont hurtt them then theyl just be nutral and if you help them like normal households pets and stuf they will like you and maybe follow you around.
Try going on the wilderness and helping a lion, that won`t end up well.
They should behave towards what they have, if you kill their prey they wont have food and atack you/your animals, if you manage to increase their prey population they increase in population.
Don`t you dare increase their prey population for a while then dizimate them.
yea you have to take in consideration to what tybe of animals they are. but like herbavors they can be thame to humans if they fell that we are no threat but if you start hunting them they will be scared of usand runn avay more often. same can be said to meat eatinng animals. they get bolder when we dont scare them away.
Thats not really something that can be said for a whole species of animal though. If you help a couple animals of the same species, that doesn't mean that the whole species becomes less afraid of you. Animals can only communicate to a small extent, depending on the species, but in general, it goes on an animal to animal basis. So is you help/eventually tame an animal, by helping or feeding it, the whole species does not become tamed, just that one animal among the species. Maybe having one of the tamed animals in your presence will make it easier to tame another animal of the same species, but it does not automatically tame all the animals of that species. Catch my drift?
Like having one tamed animal making it easier to approach other animals of that species?
That makes sense.
You may also consider the animal scent on you, which would apply for both simmilars and hunters of such animal.
And that by atacking a group of animals, the survivals will recognize you and flee.
But yeah, taming would be a very nice feature.
taming would be a nice feature. understand what you mean.