[FA] FAangband development

[andrewdoull]

Ick - that blue ink was a bad idea.

My eyes....

[Seany C]

Ick - that blue ink was a bad idea.

[Seany C]

I've given this a fair bit of thought, too, and I'm not sure exactly what to do. In some respects, I quite like it that there are areas of the map that a standard game doesn't explore. There's also a gameplay issue there, in that already the player has to visit a lot more levels than in a dungeon-only game. Mind you, we've just had the first sub-CL50 winner, so maybe that's OK as it is.

That's true - there's nothing inherently wrong with certain areas of the map not being compulsory for a visit.

Part of my intention in making the races more distinctive was actually to encourage a less standard path through the game. For example, all the dwarf races get an advantage from mountain terrain, so basing themselves at Belegost and heading north through the mountains might be a good idea.

True - especially for Ents and forests...

Another interesting question is Nan Dungortheb. It seems that I've made it so horrible that no-one wants to go there, which was kind of the intention, but kind of not too. So should that be different, and if so, how?

Heh, I'm the wrong person to ask as I've never been there yet. Part of the problem(?) is that you don't get a speciality for the 3rd 'guardian' and Mim and Glaurung are relatively easier than Ungoliant and Sauron to bump off.

So maybe an incentive (a minor 4th speciality? an artifact not found elsewhere?) should be put in place for clearing out ND and/or TIG to reflect their greater difficulty...or maybe not, as I don't hear anyone else complaining...

[Nick]

...the other general issue is of game balance overall - if the game is currently set up to be difficult-but-winnable with everything attacking you once awake, will adjustments have to be made to avoid it getting too easy if a lot of early-level creatures become 'neutral'?

I should think there would have to be at least some rebalancing. Lots of playtesting

[Nick]

i don't know if i could suspend disbelief for that one... wouldn't the others realize what just happened? all but the dumbest monsters would put two and two together and realize you just killed their associates.

Well, maybe they just ran after you into the wilderness and got lost - which is something that may be feasible in actual gameplay, too.

[Nick]

Had a thought about this. Maybe you could have your beastmasters as the controllers of the animals on a level. Therefore if the beastmaster is killed, the animals revert to being territorial rather than hunting you down? You could either have it so that there is one specific beastmaster in charge of a pack or a simpler model where if all the beastmasters on a level are killed then the animals will return to their territories (a radius around their spawn points).

This is more structure than I want, I think. Monsters should for the most part still be just random things that you encounter on walking through the wilderness; orcs will attack you, animals will defend their territory, others (Gaveronians, for example) it will depend on the individual. Maybe. I still don't know if I like this idea.

[Nick]

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?

I've given this a fair bit of thought, too, and I'm not sure exactly what to do. In some respects, I quite like it that there are areas of the map that a standard game doesn't explore. There's also a gameplay issue there, in that already the player has to visit a lot more levels than in a dungeon-only game. Mind you, we've just had the first sub-CL50 winner, so maybe that's OK as it is.

Part of my intention in making the races more distinctive was actually to encourage a less standard path through the game. For example, all the dwarf races get an advantage from mountain terrain, so basing themselves at Belegost and heading north through the mountains might be a good idea.

Another interesting question is Nan Dungortheb. It seems that I've made it so horrible that no-one wants to go there, which was kind of the intention, but kind of not too. So should that be different, and if so, how?

[Seany C]

The "beastmaster as leader" idea is cute but might make the game turn too much on killing off the beastmasters on each level before doing anything else... (at least until the character is powerful enough not to fret about most animals, say CL35 or so)...

...the other general issue is of game balance overall - if the game is currently set up to be difficult-but-winnable with everything attacking you once awake, will adjustments have to be made to avoid it getting too easy if a lot of early-level creatures become 'neutral'?

[Psi]

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... ...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).

Had a thought about this. Maybe you could have your beastmasters as the controllers of the animals on a level. Therefore if the beastmaster is killed, the animals revert to being territorial rather than hunting you down? You could either have it so that there is one specific beastmaster in charge of a pack or a simpler model where if all the beastmasters on a level are killed then the animals will return to their territories (a radius around their spawn points).

[dionysian]

i don't know if i could suspend disbelief for that one... wouldn't the others realize what just happened? all but the dumbest monsters would put two and two together and realize you just killed their associates.

[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.

[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]

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...)

[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]

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.