Game Development: World 4

[kinin]

It slows me down. I walk large circles around boars now. Doesn't everyone?

LOL but if me not use guilbutus clint, that change is real shit.

if with out ctrl+x and ctrl+n

50% die to boar (they hide in tree )

bear is too big, i fine too easy, but boar is not

[Lahrmid]

It truly is primitive land we live in now, which is a great feeling and gives so much immersion.

Only thing that makes me sad is that hunting is worthless for anything but meat and hides now...

Back to grinding that flour

[spectacle]

While on the topic of animal AI, I'd like to see boars be mainly territorial. If you manage to run for a while they should be satisfied that you're out of their turf and drop aggro. Bears on the other hand would be looking to feed on hearthlings, so they would pursue until you're out of visual range, like now.

Of course, if you injure a boar, it's going to take it personally and chase you to the end of the heartlands if it can...

[loftar]

While on the topic of animal AI, I'd like to see boars be mainly territorial. If you manage to run for a while they should be satisfied that you're out of their turf and drop aggro.

Yes, I have also considered something to that effect. The greatest problem is that the AI code isn't too great and isn't entirely easy to tweak like that. I'd like to rectify that.

[Danno]

Many of us killed all animals with one or two hits with insanely high quality slings. Now it's their turn.

But yeah, there is a difference to challenge and tedium. You've added tedium.

Well, let me phrase the following question, then -- do you think that animals should really go back to being completely harmless? Is there any point in that? Even if I were to go on improving their AI so as to not be 'sploitable, that still wouldn't change their being harmless. Would that be a good thing? Where's the fun in challenging a wilderness that isn't wild? What do you suggest in order to turn the supposed tedium into challenge? Why is it that you don't consider it a challenge in the first place? The 'sploitable AI?

I'd add more lower tier enemies. The gap between ant and fox is pretty big, as is fox vs. boar and boar vs. bear. Mouflon and aurochsen are... not something anyone in their right mind would attack directly unless they could one hit them. Same goes for deer, I suppose.

I think the tedium comes from the grinding required to be able to take the next step. If there are more steps inbetween, it won't be as tedious. Even with animal levels, the animal gaps were pretty big and in some cases you'd have to travel a ridiculous distance to find, say, a level III boar as opposed to a level X one (I didn't even think they existed in such low levels until I went on a long wagon journey).
That and/or we should be able to fight animals more with skill than stats. Basing it on stats means people will run from the animals when they're too weak and only kill them when they have a clear advantage. We need battles to be on more equal grounds!

[Haba]

But yeah, there is a difference to challenge and tedium. You've added tedium.

Well, let me phrase the following question, then -- do you think that animals should really go back to being completely harmless? Is there any point in that? Even if I were to go on improving their AI so as to not be 'sploitable, they'd still be harmless. Would that be a good thing? What do you suggest in order to turn the supposed tedium into challenge? Why is it that you don't consider it a challenge in the first place? The 'sploitable AI?

Obviously there is no easy answer.

I like challenge, and I think most people who play games do. Now, if we look at hunting as it is currently. It involves you walking or boating around for long time to spot an animal, then spending time to build a trap for it and then spending a lot more time waiting for your sling to slowly take aim... The whole process takes a lot of time and the main challenge is in trying to find a way to exploit the animal AI so that you can safely kill it.

Sure, the first time you down the animal there is the thrill of the hunt, the feeling of excitement as you trap it and try to take it down and the pride that you have as you bring the game home after a hunting trip.

The main issue is not in fact in the hunting itself, but in the fact that you need to repeat this action... thousands of times. Thirty people starting out, make slings and backbacks to all of them, then start making leather for the minehole... and more leather for the hardened leather. You have already solved the problem, now you just need to repeat the process over and over again.

Look at the history: Animals are dangerous to players, players cant hurt them in melee.
Players realize that animals cant enter shallow water, so they start shooting from boats.
You make the animals run away if shot from a boat.
Players realize that they can trap the animals with construction signs.
You make the animals destroy construction signs.
Players build something the animals cant destroy.
... etc

I like the fact that you keep us on our toes, but why not make our behavior "intended" design? Let us make spike traps, pits etc. and instead of trying to find a way to prevent us exploiting the AI, focus on reducing the need to repeat the same grindy hunting action.

Also adding more variables to the play is a great way to make the hunt a bit less boring. What if that bear has learned how to swim (and some havent)? What if that boar is a has friends nearby who attack you as you try to hunt it. Maybe some animals are rabid or otherwise behave in a different way than we normally expect them to. Maybe there are stronger, alpha versions of the base animal, that are much much more dangerous than normal level X version (and can swim as fast as you boat).

[loftar]

I'd add more lower tier enemies.

Definitely. I very much agree, and we do have a couple in stock, actually. It's mostly the current tedium of the AI code that's holding them back.

[Lahrmid]

Is tedium the word of the day or something?

I want to know if there are trolls in caves!

[loftar]

I like the fact that you keep us on our toes, but why not make our behavior "intended" design? Let us make spike traps, pits etc. and instead of trying to find a way to prevent us exploiting the AI, focus on reducing the need to repeat the same grindy hunting action.

This is certainly a good point, and one that we've considered a couple of times already. I've considered adding to the census system information to keep track of general game and wildlife information, so that animal trapping would be mostly a game of resource management, making it possible to "deplete" an area of certain animals by overhunting them, but perhaps being able to manipulate the population by putting out feed and such things. (It might even be possible to make the system even more advanced, so that one can increase the local population of rabbits by hunting fox, for instance.) That would turn direct hunting of animals into something one does either for LP and/or just to enjoy the fight, hopefully.

[Danno]

I think Haba makes some good points, though the grind complaints pretty much apply to the entire game (after you've built yourself tools/a village/etc.). Variable animal behaviour/abilities combined with players actually needing to think and have skill in battle (instead of a q200 sword) would make for interesting combat for new and old players alike. Traps would be great, but they definitely shouldn't be the main hunting method... and maybe they should apply to hearthlings, as well (mostly as an annoyance than something life threatening).

Tedium.