[FA] FAangband development

[Nick]

I have wanted some sort of discussion forum for FA development (outside ladder dump comments ...) for ages, but not got around to doing anything about it. Looks like I was right, and the best thing was to wait for someone else to do it

So anyway, here's an outline of the plan for 0.3.0:

• Major code cleanup.
• User interface improvements in parallel with Angband development.
• Big AI changes
• Themed wilderness levels
• Possible rebalancing of wilderness monster levels and some races
• Rethink of PPPP (Priest/Paladin Pointy Penalty)

All suggestions, complaints, opinions, abuse, etc treated with the appropriate mix of consideration, argument and sarcasm.

[andrewdoull]

I have wanted some sort of discussion forum for FA development (outside ladder dump comments ...) for ages, but not got around to doing anything about it. Looks like I was right, and the best thing was to wait for someone else to do it

So anyway, here's an outline of the plan for 0.3.0:

• Major code cleanup.
• User interface improvements in parallel with Angband development.
• Big AI changes

Details please?

• Themed wilderness levels
• Possible rebalancing of wilderness monster levels and some races
• Rethink of PPPP (Priest/Paladin Pointy Penalty)

All suggestions, complaints, opinions, abuse, etc treated with the appropriate mix of consideration, argument and sarcasm.

Andrew

[Seany C]

Themed wilderness levels sound good, as long as they'll fit. Does race rebalancing mean new ones or simply retuning existing ones?

Some new monsters/artifacts from Tolkien would be nice (like the Boldog and his spear*) - I'll keep an eye out for First Age-friendly ones...

*this is assuming that he's not already in the game, at a lower depth than I've got to...

S.

[Nick]

AI

OK, here's some of my ideas.

First, there's the issue of "why does everything attack the player?" It's obvious why evil things would, but I'm thinking of having two new classes of monsters (and probably trying to get pretty much every monster into one of these classes). First one is territorial monsters - largely animals. These would have an area which they would defend, but would not want to get too far away from. The second one I am tentatively calling "neutrals", and their behaviour would be more complicated. They would defend themselves if attacked (or if one of their friends is attacked), and might attack first, or might just ignore the player. All this I'm thinking would just be for wilderness - dungeons are haunts of evil things, and everything in them is affected by that (maybe monster behaviour should change when the guardian is killed, though). Should monsters ever actually help the player? Should they fight each other? I don't know, but I don't want to go down the route of pets or symbiotes.

Then there's awake = aware of the player. I'm thinking of separating those two ideas; in particular, having patrolling monsters which might or might not notice the player. Unlight and superstealth could come into their own here; I'd also probably want a light-dousing mechanism.

Some of this stuff may well have been done elsewhere (certainly there's some more complex monster behaviour in Un), but I'll probably try to do it from scratch.

[Nick]

Does race rebalancing mean new ones or simply retuning existing ones?

I'm wondering if superstealth is a bit too good for ents - especially with the monster cutdown. I don't have plans for new races at the moment, and can't think of any obvious ones.

Some new monsters/artifacts from Tolkien would be nice (like the Boldog and his spear*) - I'll keep an eye out for First Age-friendly ones...

*this is assuming that he's not already in the game, at a lower depth than I've got to...

I've done a fairly extensive trawl through Tolkien writings for monsters (and objects). I've heard the Boldog referred to, but never actually found the passage where he was mentioned (something to do with Doriath?).

I must say, one of the things I have found most frustrating is the existence of Numenorean hollow steel longbows, which would be a brilliant in-theme weapon if they weren't from the Second Age. I hope someone will read this and put them in their variant.

[Psi]

I've done a fairly extensive trawl through Tolkien writings for monsters (and objects). I've heard the Boldog referred to, but never actually found the passage where he was mentioned (something to do with Doriath?).

This might help.

Si

[Big Al]

Should monsters ever actually help the player? Should they fight each other? I don't know, but I don't want to go down the route of pets or symbiotes.

Then there's awake = aware of the player. I'm thinking of separating those two ideas; in particular, having patrolling monsters which might or might not notice the player. Unlight and superstealth could come into their own here; I'd also probably want a light-dousing mechanism.

I think that it would be interesting/more realistic if there were monsters that would remain indifferent to the player unless they were angered by something that the player did (eg. attack them), at which point they would behave as they do now.

If so, it'd be neat to make creatures react differently depending on the player's race. eg. Elves would be generated neutral if you were an elf, but hostile if you were a dwarf, etc. Though keeping all that managable with edit files might be difficult.

[andrewdoull]

OK, here's some of my ideas.

First, there's the issue of "why does everything attack the player?" It's obvious why evil things would, but I'm thinking of having two new classes of monsters (and probably trying to get pretty much every monster into one of these classes). First one is territorial monsters - largely animals. These would have an area which they would defend, but would not want to get too far away from. The second one I am tentatively calling "neutrals", and their behaviour would be more complicated. They would defend themselves if attacked (or if one of their friends is attacked), and might attack first, or might just ignore the player. All this I'm thinking would just be for wilderness - dungeons are haunts of evil things, and everything in them is affected by that (maybe monster behaviour should change when the guardian is killed, though). Should monsters ever actually help the player? Should they fight each other? I don't know, but I don't want to go down the route of pets or symbiotes.

When you do this, have a long hard think about two things:

1. What's the point of a monster existing if its not after the player? Is it to make area of effect attack spells harder, or slow down the game play, or confuse the player? Think about the game-play implications, not just what you think is right?

For instance, if you want the player to avoid casting fire ball indiscriminately, make ents, or some other guardian monster appear if they destroy enough trees. If you want to spook the player, implement Sangband's sensing monsters out of sight, and add fake 'sensing' and have a message 'Its just a rabbit', if the player detects.

Otherwise you'll end up with the ToME - I killed this mold and it summoned great wyrms. Or some variation on it.

Your idea about animals sounds good - it gives the player the option of running away, sufficiently far. 'Neutrals' - I need more information.

2. Secondly, once you've got the behaviour you want: How do you impart the information to the player? F.E.A.R.'s AI is particularly impressive because it tells you what the enemy is doing at all times. In fact, they 'fake AI' occasionally by having a command 'call for reinforcements' if one guys is left by himself: that does nothing.

If you want neutrals, maybe replace their monster symbol with an 'N' until they attack the player. etc.

Then there's awake = aware of the player. I'm thinking of separating those two ideas; in particular, having patrolling monsters which might or might not notice the player. Unlight and superstealth could come into their own here; I'd also probably want a light-dousing mechanism.

Some of this stuff may well have been done elsewhere (certainly there's some more complex monster behaviour in Un), but I'll probably try to do it from scratch.

I'm definitely thinking about awake = aware of the player. However, I don't have any concrete way of displaying the difference between an 'awake' monster and an 'aware monster'. I was thinking of changing the line of sight routine if the player is 'sneaking' by having monsters display their cone of vision. However, this is a slightly difference mechanic.

At the moment I have 'sneaky monsters' that try to avoid the player's line of sight all the time, and the pack AI. That seems enough for 'monsters that don't immediately chase the player' at the moment.

Don't forget, even with an 'awake != aware of the player', as soon as the monster sees the player, they become aware of them. So from the players perspective, they'll never see an 'awake, but not aware of the player' monster. Its probably not worth spending the coding time on it...

Andrew

[andrewdoull]

I'd also probably want a light-dousing mechanism.

Did this. The game play effect in Unangband at the moment is that some monsters NEED_LITE. If the player is not standing in a lit grid, these monsters will also have a light radius.

More to come, of course.

[Psi]

I'm definitely thinking about awake = aware of the player. However, I don't have any concrete way of displaying the difference between an 'awake' monster and an 'aware monster'.

At the moment you can tell if a monster is awake/asleep by the HP bar being blue asterisks - you then get messages if the monster stirs or wakes. Perhaps their could be a similar scheme for aware with different coloured asterisks?

Don't forget, even with an 'awake != aware of the player', as soon as the monster sees the player, they become aware of them. So from the players perspective, they'll never see an 'awake, but not aware of the player' monster.

Are you forgetting telepathy...?

[Nick]

I think that it would be interesting/more realistic if there were monsters that would remain indifferent to the player unless they were angered by something that the player did (eg. attack them), at which point they would behave as they do now.

That would be one of the ways neutrals would behave.

If so, it'd be neat to make creatures react differently depending on the player's race. eg. Elves would be generated neutral if you were an elf, but hostile if you were a dwarf, etc. Though keeping all that managable with edit files might be difficult.

Yeah, that's a good idea. I'll think about that.

[Seany C]

Another development idea that came to me last week (not fully thought through, though*) is regarding the proportion of the ME map actually used. At the moment. the 'standard' path is often just "Initial Home -> Big Town (if IH isn't one) -> Amon Rudh -> Nargothrond/T-I-G -> Angband**".

The problem is easier to define than the solution but is there any way to rejig the FA map to end up using more of Beleriand in practice, without creating lots of pointless treks?

S.


*Damnit, that's difficult to type correctly.
** Just realised last night that I've shamefully never even *seen* Thangorodrim in FA yet...

[Nick]

1. What's the point of a monster existing if its not after the player? Is it to make area of effect attack spells harder, or slow down the game play, or confuse the player? Think about the game-play implications, not just what you think is right?

OK, I tend to do things the other way around. It seems to me that there should be monsters that don't just wake up and attack, so I have to work out a way to make the gameplay work. The ultimate aim is immersion, and everything else has to bow to that.

Your idea about animals sounds good - it gives the player the option of running away, sufficiently far. 'Neutrals' - I need more information.

Here's an example. You see a group of novice mages. They're not evil, so you don't know how they will behave toward you. Maybe they'll ignore you, maybe they'll attack you. Maybe one will attack and the rest will just watch; maybe if you retaliate the others will start getting involved. So you have a choice: you can run away; you can attack and hope to kill them and take their stuff.

More problematic - should you be able to enlist them for help? Should they attack other monsters? Should you be able to trade with them?

2. Secondly, once you've got the behaviour you want: How do you impart the information to the player? F.E.A.R.'s AI is particularly impressive because it tells you what the enemy is doing at all times. In fact, they 'fake AI' occasionally by having a command 'call for reinforcements' if one guys is left by himself: that does nothing.

Possibly a message as they change attitude toward you; definitely a description of their attitude if you 'l'ook at them.

Don't forget, even with an 'awake != aware of the player', as soon as the monster sees the player, they become aware of them. So from the players perspective, they'll never see an 'awake, but not aware of the player' monster. Its probably not worth spending the coding time on it...

Well, not necessarily. With Unlight, for example, the player is stealthy and needs no light source. They may well be able to walk past an awake monster without being seen. Or the player might detect orcs in an unlit room, douse their lantern and try to sneak past.

Of course, all this may not work and I may abandon it, but it's fun to think about (and more practical than the time I was trying to remove all teleportation...)

[dionysian]

Here's an example. You see a group of novice mages. They're not evil, so you don't know how they will behave toward you. Maybe they'll ignore you, maybe they'll attack you. Maybe one will attack and the rest will just watch; maybe if you retaliate the others will start getting involved. So you have a choice: you can run away; you can attack and hope to kill them and take their stuff.

the imagery is hilarious. but unfortunately it doesn't present the player with any additional choices.. same as usual "you can run away; you can attack and hope to kill them and take their stuff." maybe you can make an attempt to pacify a single monster. you could extend the opportunity to players encountering a mob as well, with little chance of success. at least then you have a gameplay element involved in the change, rather than just an aesthetic appeal.

[Nick]

the imagery is hilarious. but unfortunately it doesn't present the player with any additional choices.. same as usual "you can run away; you can attack and hope to kill them and take their stuff." maybe you can make an attempt to pacify a single monster. you could extend the opportunity to players encountering a mob as well, with little chance of success. at least then you have a gameplay element involved in the change, rather than just an aesthetic appeal.

There is a bit of variety potentially added - if a couple of monsters from a pack chase you, you can run away and then beat them to death out of sight of their buddies, then go back and walk past as if nothing had happened. This would be particularly useful if (as often happens on mountain levels in FA) there is a pack of things between you and where you need to get to.

I like the pacifying idea, though - that could be a single action, or it could involve offering items or something.