Imagine a world...

[MrAlien]

Ladies and gentlemen, please open up your minds, and imagine a world like UO...but more involved and real.

I want a game where every NPC can randomly offer a quest, that can only be completed by one person, which activates only once a day, week, or month.
(I am sick of these quests where 20 people rush the NPC and all do the same thing and all get the same reward)

For example, you walk into a bakery and the NPC starts screaming that they are out of flour. So they send you out to the nearest farm to gather some grain for them.

Or your hanging around a mine and a miner walks up and asks for a shovel.

I remember back in 1997 an article in a magazine that made it seem like dragons would attack cities. Did this ever happen? Could it happen without the dragon being immediately guard whacked?
Anyway, a monthly quest could spawn a dragon outside a town and it could slowly approach the town. A guard would shout that anyone who could return with the dragons head would be rewarded. And since this world would take place before artifacts...it would take a group of 5 or so people to bring down the dragon. Creating community.

Community...that is what this game needs. Therefore in this world everyone would be restricted to 1 character per shard. This would make people have to rely on each other. It's pretty pathetic when one person can do everything and doesn't even need to talk to a single person. Let tailors be tailors. Let smiths be smiths. Let adventurers be adventurers.

Which brings me to my next point...add mini games!
Make it so in order to make a sword you have to bang the piece of hot metal. And depending on where you hit it determines what sword you craft.
Or make it so to sew a tunic you have to guide the needle through the leather.
Or to mix a potion a menu pop up where you have to supply the correct amount of ingredients.
Gone would be the days of leaving a macro running to craft 100 potions while you go find a snack.
Potions would actually mean something and be highly valued.
Another great mini game would be to gut a fish. It's organs could be used for alchemy. It could be scaled and filleted, and then sold to a chef.
The chef would then take the fish and start a mini game where they cook the fish over a fire.
Yes, this might sound repetitive and redundant. But it would actually put a value on every single skill in the game.

Now, in order to make catching fish and cooking the fish worth while they would need to add a few things. First, they would need to make the fish decay within a couple of hours. I cannot understand why fish can last over a decade and still be edible. Make the fish spoil within 2 hours and fishermen would actually have a purpose. And add the ability to pack the fish on ice or in snow to make the fish last for more hours or perhaps a day or two.
That would open up a whole new opportunity for people to bring back snow and ice from frozen regions into towns to help the fishermen and chefs.
Anyway, the second thing they would need to add is hunger bars. And then they might as well add tiredness bars and other such bars as well.
I can hear you all groaning but seriously these would be good ideas.
Having to eat would make chefs important. Having to eat makes sense.
Also, a tiredness bar would prevent power gamers from playing on one shard for too long and getting too powerful too quickly.

So um yeah, where was I?

ABOLISH the STUPID in UO.
Take away the gold from animals and monsters.
Take away the stupid artifacts.
Take away the dumb stuff you have added to this game.
MAKE THE GAME MORE REAL. MORE PURE. MORE DEPTH.

Instead of eating a pink scroll and gaining 0.8 skill in blacksmithing, how about you help a blacksmith NPC out via a mini game to gain 0.1 skill.
Or help teach a lower smith a new hitting technique to gain 0.1 skill yourself. (Which could only be done a couple of times as to not exploit it)
There is real depth that could be added to this game if only they would have PASSION for it.

And what the freak is up with this 255/255 armor that never breaks? Make it so armor and weapons and tools and items break and have to be replaced!

Why does it feel like the game industry is brain dead?
Why do they keep dishing out the same old junk?
Why do we eat it up and pretend like its something new and different? IT ISN'T!
I want a real game.
Not a cheap game.

Bring on Ultima Online 2.
You can beat farmville!
Sell 7x7 land deeds that can be placed anywhere...let us loosen the soil...let us plow the fields...let us plant seeds...let us water it daily...let us pick our crops...add more crops to the game...make all those crops used for cooking...make that food nourish adventurers...make an ecosystem that runs efficiently.

Make monsters feared again...
Make lumberjacking important for making everyones tools...
Make me love gaming again...

We want a classic server because everything was new and fresh back when the game first came out. You had to learn everything. Add more learning into the game. Make each profession actually take practice and skill so not everyone can do it. Make it trail and error. Make it fresh again. Make it new again. Make it so I can decorate a cake the way I want it, pass it along to my friend, who can open it up and see the way I decorated it.

Does anyone understand what I am saying?

 

[hawkeye_pike]

I very much understand what you're talking about.

 

[Babble]

Not going to happen anytime soon.
Too much work, too complicated and definitely not as profitable as a theme park game.
SWTOR might bring it a bit in the direction you want with a questline with story to follow.

Closest you could come with would be a shard that has 5+ seers/gms constantly adding 'content' storyline to a shard. This does not seem to be a viable option these days though.

 

[Coldren]

Agree with the consensus hat it will never happen, unfortunately.

I'd link both you and Hawkeye to someplace you'd probably take a keen interest in, but let's just say it wouldn't be allowed.

I've given up hope that UO will grow in any way more meaningful than adding new items and land, or tweak a skill here or there.

In the absolute best case scenario, maybe they'll fix the things that are broken or finish the things they've already started. But I doubt they'll do that either.

But hey, EA has supposedly sunk over $100 million into SW:TOR..

 

[Trebr Drab]

OP, I agree with the sentiment, not sure about the specifics without getting into more detail. But I've been doing that for years, and I'm just tired of trying to spell it out.

Suffice it to say, I want a world, not a game. You mentioned Farmville, and I'll mention the excitement of ships and canons. Most of us like to DO things in our game world. It's not all about the numbers.

I'd add plenty of mystery, once the world idea is done.

SWTOR is not going to be anything new in game play. It's another level grind with directed game play and gamey components. Game developers have a nasty habit of making things gamey rather than worldly.

 

[Megilhir]

I very much understand what you're talking about.

Ok, this wins.

It was tested and was working.
It sounds WAY WAY COOL!
It blows away just about every MMO out there for game content.

Yep! This is the Golden Bullet for UO to return to the spotlight.

But who wants to make a lot more money and rival WoW/LoTR for content?

EVE comes close to this apparently. I have not played but discussed it with other people.

EVE Online | Free Trial

Go to Butterfly effect trailer.

 

[Trebr Drab]

I very much understand what you're talking about.

Hawkeye, I'd absolutely love that system. Things like that make a world feel much more alive. However, UO doesn't have a world that is big enough for that, in my opinion. You need space, lots of space, for that to play out.

I think it would be worth it, to build a very large world so this sort of thing can play out. On top of that, there are other things that would make a game great that also require lots of space, lots of world. Player cities and housing, for a classic example. UO's current Britannia is chock full of houses. There's a huge lack of overlands. In Britannia. Even with the other Facets added, it's still not large enough to allow for ample exploration, wondering MOBs with AI, "wildlands", etc. There's no exploration, nothing much of interest. The entire map is like one massive residential area.

It would be a good thing to have a much bigger world.

 

[Babble]

Yes and no.
The trick around it would be a more 'dynamic' spawning system.
Maybe even combined with story lines.

Most games are just too static in heir spawns and these days there si no real reason to be so.

Spawners could be activated by proximity - for example the ground could crumble and a cave entrance open - from there you could have a mini dungeon - have 5-10 mini dungeons with 5-10 different spawns/stories/objectives and the game looks a lot more dynamic.

Such a thing would be easy in UO.

 

[copycon]

Yes and no.
The trick around it would be a more 'dynamic' spawning system.
Maybe even combined with story lines.

Most games are just too static in heir spawns and these days there si no real reason to be so.

Spawners could be activated by proximity - for example the ground could crumble and a cave entrance open - from there you could have a mini dungeon - have 5-10 mini dungeons with 5-10 different spawns/stories/objectives and the game looks a lot more dynamic.

Such a thing would be easy in UO.

Truthfully, I am of the understanding that no programmed intelligence or game mechanic can truly be "dynamic". The truly "dynamic" content were the players, and the challenges that were introduced through conflict by those players. When the players were removed, the game became what it is today. That is the problem, not the game itself but the people who have left due to what it has become.

I agree that what you are describing is what UO is missing, but I don't agree that any computer program can truly be as dynamic as what anyone here is describing. Programmed AI will always have some level of predictability, and a unique player will never truly be predictable.

 

[Babble]

Games follow rules rules per defintion.

It is unfair that people say 'here is your sandbox - play with it and make your own content'. That works for Second Life where people can send in content and own land and so.

But every sandbox needs more than just 'sandbox rules'. It does not have to be quests, but a storyline would help.

In an ideal sandbox players would decide everything (Tale in the desert might get close), but as long as that is not the case developers need to add sandbox compatible content.

 

[copycon]

Games follow rules rules per defintion.

It is unfair that people say 'here is your sandbox - play with it and make your own content'. That works for Second Life where people can send in content and own land and so.

But every sandbox needs more than just 'sandbox rules'. It does not have to be quests, but a storyline would help.

In an ideal sandbox players would decide everything (Tale in the desert might get close), but as long as that is not the case developers need to add sandbox compatible content.

I don't think it is/was ever the intention to make UO the equivalent of a story book.

Sure, UO does have "quest" content, but that has a beginning and an end, and at some point the player will reach the end. Also, there are only so many areas in the game that would be appropriate for quests before they would start to repeat themselves, and anything else is just a "grind".

As I said before, the truly "dynamic content" were the players. When the players left, UO became what it is today.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Yes and no.
The trick around it would be a more 'dynamic' spawning system.
Maybe even combined with story lines.

Most games are just too static in heir spawns and these days there si no real reason to be so.

Spawners could be activated by proximity - for example the ground could crumble and a cave entrance open - from there you could have a mini dungeon - have 5-10 mini dungeons with 5-10 different spawns/stories/objectives and the game looks a lot more dynamic.

Such a thing would be easy in UO.

Truthfully, I am of the understanding that no programmed intelligence or game mechanic can truly be "dynamic". The truly "dynamic" content were the players, and the challenges that were introduced through conflict by those players. When the players were removed, the game became what it is today. That is the problem, not the game itself but the people who have left due to what it has become.

I agree that what you are describing is what UO is missing, but I don't agree that any computer program can truly be as dynamic as what anyone here is describing. Programmed AI will always have some level of predictability, and a unique player will never truly be predictable.

AI can learn. AI can be so good that players wouldn't stand a chance against the fast, perfect computer reasoning. As one developer once told me, the real problem with a true AI is making it beatable by more than just World Chess Champions.

 

[Babble]

I don't think it is/was ever the intention to make UO the equivalent of a story book.

Sure, UO does have "quest" content, but that has a beginning and an end, and at some point the player will reach the end. Also, there are only so many areas in the game that would be appropriate for quests before they would start to repeat themselves, and anything else is just a "grind".

As I said before, the truly "dynamic content" were the players. When the players left, UO became what it is today.

Such games will come just give them 10-20 years
UO was not meant as a story book, I ageee. But you can hold the interest of a player longer.

Remeber before MMO's it was very rare that a computer game would be played more than 6 month or a year and that is what UO was designed for.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Games follow rules rules per defintion.

It is unfair that people say 'here is your sandbox - play with it and make your own content'. That works for Second Life where people can send in content and own land and so.

But every sandbox needs more than just 'sandbox rules'. It does not have to be quests, but a storyline would help.

In an ideal sandbox players would decide everything (Tale in the desert might get close), but as long as that is not the case developers need to add sandbox compatible content.

Of course Sandboxes need more than just that. "Sandbox" is the foundation that determines the game play. The best thing about "Sandbox" is that once it's built, it's built. Then developers can start making the world exciting and fun with what happens inside that Sandbox.

This is as opposed to quest driven content, where it does get "used up", and then has to be expanded on with more of the same.

I disagree that players should decide everything. Rather, they should make their decisions based on what happens inside that world. To take away the world, and leave it up to the players, cripples what can be very exciting happenings. A great Sandbox should have decisions by players, GMs, and AI. All three.

 

[copycon]

AI can learn. AI can be so good that players wouldn't stand a chance against the fast, perfect computer reasoning. As one developer once told me, the real problem with a true AI is making it beatable by more than just World Chess Champions.

I think you are describing the exact point that I was trying to make.

Sure, any developer can make a single monster that has nearly infinite hits. That is not the point. The point is that this thread is describing something that is truly "dynamic" and I believe that it is impossible to emulate that element through computer language.

 

[Babble]

Though RNG gives the illusion of dynamic.

With enough options the illusion of a fully dynamic system could be achieved. It just costs too much to program the choices or the programming of such AI is too complicated to implement it.

 

[copycon]

Though RNG gives the illusion of dynamic.

With enough options the illusion of a fully dynamic system could be achieved. It just costs too much to program the choices or the programming of such AI is too complicated to implement it.

I agree. RNG (Random Number Generator) does give the illusion of "dynamic content". But, I don't think the problems that are being introduced in this thread can be solved by a simple RNG. There are already implementations of RNG's in the game today, and it certainly doesn't introduce much in the way of "dynamic content".

What is being described is a game that can "figure out" what to do and how to interact with your character and adapt to your interests. That is far and beyond what a simple RNG is capable of doing. That is why I'm focusing on the players and not the game itself.

 

[Trebr Drab]

AI can learn. AI can be so good that players wouldn't stand a chance against the fast, perfect computer reasoning. As one developer once told me, the real problem with a true AI is making it beatable by more than just World Chess Champions.

I think you are describing the exact point that I was trying to make.

Sure, any developer can make a single monster that has nearly infinite hits. That is not the point. The point is that this thread is describing something that is truly "dynamic" and I believe that it is impossible to emulate that element through computer language.

But it is possible. You make an AI that actually makes decisions based on it's perceptions of the world around it. It has to start with perception, recognition, and then followed with decisions that are somewhat random, but heavily weighted by those recognitions.

(By the way, MOBs with massive hit points is nothing to do with AI. Not sure if you were saying I thought so, or how that got there.)

Look, lets take an encounter, then expand it into something more.
Orcs, fighters and mages, confront players.
-A mage orc could recognize that a fighter orc is hurting and cast a heal on it.
-But that mage may also have other options, such as casting a damage spell at a player that it also recognizes as "hurting", or healing other Orcs that are also "hurting". Random choice. This is not that hard to code. And it's the beginnings of "dynamic".

Now lets expand.
-NPC Orc party, leader is established by some determination. (Would be cool if there was actually some NPC fighting to determine the final outcome of which Orc becomes the leader.)
-The new Orc leader is hungry, and also getting "tells" from the other NPC Orcs that they are hungry too.
-Leader issues command, "we go hunt, follow me"
-Orcs follow. They hunt, it plays out depending on what they run into.

Now, decisions by individual Orcs can come into play.
-Suppose there's one Orc that's not hungry. He might have a reduced weighted decision to not follow. But not much, he has his leader...for now.
-Suppose this same Orc also doesn't like it's leader, maybe because he was one that fought it for leadership and lost. Now it's "decision" is even more heavily weighted against the "hunt, follow" command.

But lets say this Orc does "decide" to stay with this leader and party. They all go hunting together.

At some point in the next battle, this unhappy Orc might decide that it's going to just skip out if it can, because it doesn't like it's leader much, and it doesn't really have any goal to "be here".

Now lets go back to the leader.
-The hunting party finds a deer and kills it, eats it. They even take hides and antlers for making things.
-They are happy for now, except that they also want shelter.
-Orc leader gets "tells", as he has been all along, that they want shelter, a home. He agrees. He "desires" shelter, just like they do.
-Orc leader issues command, "we roam, we hunt shelter, and any other "desires" such as food, gold, weapons, resources, etc.
-They stumble upon a cave, small.
-Leader "perceives" the cave as Shelter.
-Leader has a choice to make. Make this home? This one is heavily weighted in favor, because this Orc leader has a party that keeps sending him "tells" that they want shelter, and he wants shelter. But it's not 100% that the leader will decide this.
-Lets suppose that the leader decides against this shelter. He orders the party on, but each member now has a choice also. Follow or stay and take up shelter here. A wide range of weights can be applied here. Do they break from their leader and stay? What if they do? What happens if some are close to deciding to break from this leader, but haven't, but they perceive another Orc has already broken from the leader.
And what does the leader "decide" when that first Orc "breaks away"? Does he force him into submission?

AI can be really deep, and make the world very dynamic.

 

[copycon]

But it is possible. You make an AI that actually makes decisions based on it's perceptions of the world around it. It has to start with perception, recognition, and then followed with decisions that are somewhat random, but heavily weighted by those recognitions.

(By the way, MOBs with massive hit points is nothing to do with AI. Not sure if you were saying I thought so, or how that got there.)

Look, lets take an encounter, then expand it into something more.
Orcs, fighters and mages, confront players.
-A mage orc could recognize that a fighter orc is hurting and cast a heal on it.
-But that mage may also have other options, such as casting a damage spell at a player that it also recognizes as "hurting", or healing other Orcs that are also "hurting". Random choice. This is not that hard to code. And it's the beginnings of "dynamic".

Now lets expand.
-NPC Orc party, leader is established by some determination. (Would be cool if there was actually some NPC fighting to determine the final outcome of which Orc becomes the leader.)
-The new Orc leader is hungry, and also getting "tells" from the other NPC Orcs that they are hungry too.
-Leader issues command, "we go hunt, follow me"
-Orcs follow. They hunt, it plays out depending on what they run into.

Now, decisions by individual Orcs can come into play.
-Suppose there's one Orc that's not hungry. He might have a reduced weighted decision to not follow. But not much, he has his leader...for now.
-Suppose this same Orc also doesn't like it's leader, maybe because he was one that fought it for leadership and lost. Now it's "decision" is even more heavily weighted against the "hunt, follow" command.

But lets say this Orc does "decide" to stay with this leader and party. They all go hunting together.

At some point in the next battle, this unhappy Orc might decide that it's going to just skip out if it can, because it doesn't like it's leader much, and it doesn't really have any goal to "be here".

Now lets go back to the leader.
-The hunting party finds a deer and kills it, eats it. They even take hides and antlers for making things.
-They are happy for now, except that they also want shelter.
-Orc leader gets "tells", as he has been all along, that they want shelter, a home. He agrees. He "desires" shelter, just like they do.
-Orc leader issues command, "we roam, we hunt shelter, and any other "desires" such as food, gold, weapons, resources, etc.
-They stumble upon a cave, small.
-Leader "perceives" the cave as Shelter.
-Leader has a choice to make. Make this home? This one is heavily weighted in favor, because this Orc leader has a party that keeps sending him "tells" that they want shelter, and he wants shelter. But it's not 100% that the leader will decide this.
-Lets suppose that the leader decides against this shelter. He orders the party on, but each member now has a choice also. Follow or stay and take up shelter here. A wide range of weights can be applied here. Do they break from their leader and stay? What if they do? What happens if some are close to deciding to break from this leader, but haven't, but they perceive another Orc has already broken from the leader.
And what does the leader "decide" when that first Orc "breaks away"? Does he force him into submission?

AI can be really deep, and make the world very dynamic.

I think you realize that what you are describing is far and beyond the processing capacity that any game engine has today, and especially for UO considering that it's game engine was developed 13+ years ago. There is no way that a game engine could track the movement of thousands of individual mobiles, run the code necessary to perform each action, and respond to players as you are describing. If anyone could reproduce that, they would be a God among men.

I believe that computer language is incapable of dealing with every situation and countering every action. Certain actions can be programmed and repeated, but never truly reproduced based on what an individual player is doing at any given moment. What you are describing at that point is the interaction player(s) have with the game.

This is important and is why every similar game on the market today has enemies, and every enemy is beatable by players.

 

[Zosimus]

I totally understand the OP post. Realism is what UO desperately needs. For the ones that dont think it's possible to have a game with as much realism that could be coded beware. Anything is possble. Many things we as the human race take for granted, was created by people who believed they could. They had nay sayers/unbelievers say that it couldnt be done but anything is possble.

Animals and monsters should be able to run away in a fight if they are hurt.

Food should be able to spoil over a period of time.

Quests could be implimented for skill gaining. Like working for a blacksmith or a miner and gain skills. Hunting could gain skills in archery.

Random quests should exist. Not to hard for a developer to code simple unlimited quests made that change each week.

One main city/capital should exist. Smaller towns for trade. People could place small simple housing of lands designated for villages.

Make trading a vital part of the game so villages could trade with each other or towns for vital needs or defence of their own village.

Have certain areas of the lands designated for their own resources. Say a village in a mountain range is good for mining ore, gems, and rock. Since the village is in a mountain range then they lack areas of good farming and timber. Now another area of the land is abundance with farm lands and timber but lack ore, gems and rock. That village would need to trade or buy in the capital, small towns, or with the other village.

With areas designated for villages/housing that particlar village once occupied by a player your alliegance is loyal to that village. Meaning if you attack another player loyal to the same village then you are cast out of the village with half of your belongings. Kind of like the old order vs chaos system. Each village that is allied to you are green to each other. If an enemy villages then they are red to you.

Have players choose to be bandits/mercenaries if they want to. They are orange to everybody if they decide to choose that path when out of the main city. They can be attacked anytime or attack another player outside the main city.

I know Im going to far with it and I get crazy ideas so I apologize for that. Realism could be achieved to a point I believe but it's up to the DEVS that would or could make a game like that. GW2 will have the random events happen in the game when it comes out. Here is some info....

Event system

Guild Wars 2 will use a very different system for quests than Guild Wars 1. Instead of the standard green exclamation point above an NPC's head to mark a possible quest, Guild Wars 2 will use a new Event system. In this system, events will happen with or without the presence of the player, and if a player happens to be present at the time of the event, then the player can complete the quest by participating in the event, and the outcome of the event may affect if, or what kind of, an event may happen soon thereafter. Three examples were provided to illustrate how this system may work.

The first example shows the arrival of a dragon near a particular town or village. The players nearby that town or village can choose to fight the dragon. If they are successful, the dragon may flee or die, and the players involved are rewarded by the village elder; if the players fail, the dragon destroys a bridge vital to the village. At that time, the village people attempt to build a new bridge, and the players may help them by fending off a group of bandits that see the opportunity to attack.

In the second example, if a player happens to be inside a garrison when a scouting party returns, they may overhear the scouts warning of an approaching column of centaurs, intent on destroying the garrison. The players can then participate in defending the garrison from the attacking centaurs. If the players are successful, the garrison may ask them to participate in a counterattack. If they are not successful, or if they weren't at the garrison in time to save the garrison, they may join other soldiers from a nearby town attempting to recapture the garrison.

The third example involves a player walking along a familiar road, but this time they happen upon a caravan traveling along the road. They can choose to travel with the caravan, and defend it from roving bandits, or not.

These events may overlap. For example, you are asked to escort the caravan to the garrison. But when you arrive at the garrison you find out it is being attacked by the centaurs. The two events may have nothing to do with each other, but in order to receive the rewards for escorting the caravan, you would have to fend off the centaurs from the garrison, resulting in you doing two events at once.

 

[copycon]

Animals and monsters should be able to run away in a fight if they are hurt.

I thought they did? Or, at least, some do.

Food should be able to spoil over a period of time.

Sure.

Quests could be implimented for skill gaining. Like working for a blacksmith or a miner and gain skills. Hunting could gain skills in archery.

I don't see how this changes the way the game is today, but okay.

Random quests should exist. Not to hard for a developer to code simple unlimited quests made that change each week.

Give an example?

One main city/capital should exist. Smaller towns for trade. People could place small simple housing of lands designated for villages.

Important statement in bold.

Make trading a vital part of the game so villages could trade with each other or towns for vital needs or defence of their own village.

Important statement in bold.

Have certain areas of the lands designated for their own resources. Say a village in a mountain range is good for mining ore, gems, and rock. Since the village is in a mountain range then they lack areas of good farming and timber. Now another area of the land is abundance with farm lands and timber but lack ore, gems and rock. That village would need to trade or buy in the capital, small towns, or with the other village.

I thought that UO did have different areas that were abundant with different resources? Or, maybe you are saying something else that I am not understanding.

With areas designated for villages/housing that particlar village once occupied by a player your alliegance is loyal to that village. Meaning if you attack another player loyal to the same village then you are cast out of the village with half of your belongings. Kind of like the old order vs chaos system. Each village that is allied to you are green to each other. If an enemy villages then they are red to you.

Important statement in bold.

Have players choose to be bandits/mercenaries if they want to. They are orange to everybody if they decide to choose that path when out of the main city. They can be attacked anytime or attack another player outside the main city.

Replace "Orange" with "Red" and I believe this is the way it was. This element was removed.

 

[Trebr Drab]

I think you realize that what you are describing is far and beyond the processing capacity that any game engine has today, and especially for UO considering that it's game engine was developed 13+ years ago. There is no way that a game engine could track the movement of thousands of individual mobiles, run the code necessary to perform each action, and respond to players as you are describing. If anyone could reproduce that, they would be a God among men.

I believe that computer language is incapable of dealing with every situation and countering every action. Certain actions can be programmed and repeated, but never truly reproduced based on what an individual player is doing at any given moment. What you are describing at that point is the interaction player(s) have with the game.

This is important and is why every similar game on the market today has enemies, and every enemy is beatable by players.

UO keeps track of items now. It's just more of that, it just boils down to numbers and processes. This isn't that big of a deal. Yes, there is a bigger cost, obviously.

UO used to have MOBs that wondered around without players around. Then, to cut back on costs, they (whoever it was at the time), decided that they'd change it to the stagnant stuff there is now, until a player comes into range and kicks it into gear. That's just one of the many, many cost cutting things they've done. Look where that got them.

If you want customers, you need to give them something worth buying and subscribing to. This is just one feature among many, but they are all things players want.

 

[Zosimus]

I thought they did? Or, at least, some do.

They do but lets make it more real then it is. Not like when they are redlined and they slowly stumble off. Make it like half health and a little faster so you just dont stand in one place and kill something.

I don't see how this changes the way the game is today, but okay.

Crafting quests that gives rewards in random skill points. UO does not have that.

Give an example?

Say an alchemist needs so many reagents to make potions for storage to defend the city if an invasion would happen. Then the next week maybe the alchemist needs barrels. Week after that he may need something else. I am just using this as a quick example but this could go with any NPC in the city.

I thought that UO did have different areas that were abundant with different resources? Or, maybe you are saying something else that I am not understanding.

UO does have an abundance everywhere but when a village is located in certain regions of lands they have more access to it then other villages. Any village could go try to mine this and that in enemy village territtory but dont have rights so they cant mine in that area. They could mine in other areas that does not have control ( say a desiganted safe mining area for everybody but triple the work to mine in that area.) but to get more easily and rare ores and items they have to work out a trade/barter system with other villages.

This gives villages control of resources if they are located in a particular region. There would be mutiple villages in various places in a mountan region so not one village can control the market of ore, gems and rocks. Like I said before this is just a quick example.

UO cant be coded with all the newer ideas games have now days. It would have to be UO2, not the current game we have.

 

[copycon]

Crafting quests that gives rewards in random skill points. UO does not have that.

BODs? I understand that BODs don't give skill points, but they do give players a reason to craft.

Say an alchemist needs so many reagents to make potions for storage to defend the city if an invasion would happen. Then the next week maybe the alchemist needs barrels. Week after that he may need something else. I am just using this as a quick example but this could go with any NPC in the city.

Okay, I get that. I agree that it's a good idea and it should be implemented.

UO does have an abundance everywhere but when a village is located in certain regions of lands they have more access to it then other villages. Any village could go try to mine this and that in enemy village territtory but dont have rights so they cant mine in that area. They could mine in other areas that does not have control ( say a desiganted safe mining area for everybody but triple the work to mine in that area.) but to get more easily and rare ores and items they have to work out a trade/barter system with other villages. .

This gives villages control of resources if they are located in a particular region. There would be mutiple villages in various places in a mountan region so not one village can control the market of ore, gems and rocks. Like I said before this is just a quick example.

Also a good idea. Sounds similar and could be built as an extension on to factions.

 

[Babble]

*coughs*
You can code almost anything in UO.

Much of it has been done one way or another.

 

[copycon]

*coughs*
You can code almost anything in UO.

Much of it has been done one way or another.

and a 9th grade Art student could repaint the Sistine Chapel if only he had enough time...

 

[Babble]

pfff. one layer of white is easily done


Or did you mean restore Michelangelos paintings?

 

[copycon]

pfff. one layer of white is easily done


Or did you mean restore Michelangelos paintings?

Clearly white is the colour of choice.

 

[Babble]

Then better don't use an art student for that

 

[Megilhir]

Okay, okay...Too long - Too hard.

Great ideas but too much too fast with questionable benefit.

Simple changes did work and could still work with the present platform.

Simple AI without the game playing itself would be good.

Forget the random decision-making orcs seeking their own destiny.

Simply Predator V Prey for a screen or two works. If an area goes barren then you have to kill the predators to respawn the prey.

This is known is some circles as a spawn table. It has been in action since EQ1 way back in the 90s.

Simple AI actions and limited skill gain for Predators works as easily.

Presently, as a side note, if a monster begins to flee a simple double click while in attack mode brings it back to you.

Keep it simple but engrossing - Win.

Programing individual decision processes clouds what could be clear and concise enthralling gameplay.

 

[copycon]

Presently, as a side note, if a monster begins to flee a simple double click while in attack mode brings it back to you.

Keep it simple but engrossing - Win.

So, you are saying that the only problem is the broken flee mechanic?

Geez... and it was right in front of us!

rolleyes:

 

[Megilhir]

So, you are saying that the only problem is the broken flee mechanic?

Geez... and it was right in front of us!

rolleyes:

Now seriously mate, is that all you got from the post?

 

[Babble]

Changes in AI are what UO needs anyway.
The continuation of higher resists/hp only goes so far when introducing new monsters.

Mage using mobs should use more interesting combinations without being annoying/spamming and same for melee mobs.

UO was before eq and they always were slow at adapting.
I think they had such a system in and found it faulty.
Either no resources or murderous trained rabbits
There are some interesting articles on what they really intended to do with the environment.

i would settle for 10 different spawning options at outdoor spawns and 10 different spawn options for the dungeons, so you really don't know what awaits you and not o that earth elm finally respawned on its spot.

 

[copycon]

Now seriously mate, is that all you got from the post?

To be honest, I didn't really see anything that I don't already consider part of UO except the part I quoted.

If UO somehow doesn't have a "spawn table" or "Predator V Prey" doesn't exist please elaborate, but it sounds exactly the same as what UO has today to me. I was always under the belief that a spawned monster did respawn when it was killed, but if that has changed please let me know.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Really "dynamic" world you have there, guys.

You should be game developers. You'd fit right in.

 

[AxiamInc]

I remember back in 1997 an article in a magazine that made it seem like dragons would attack cities. Did this ever happen?

Did you miss the Trinsic invasion?? Recalling to the bank during my normal daily routine, only to be dirt napped by 782479234783 dragons!! That was the best invasion IMO.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

I think you realize that what you are describing is far and beyond the processing capacity that any game engine has today, and especially for UO considering that it's game engine was developed 13+ years ago. There is no way that a game engine could track the movement of thousands of individual mobiles, run the code necessary to perform each action, and respond to players as you are describing.

Absolutely wrong. It already works on some free shards. I myself programmed a new AI for a UO spellcasting creature one year ago, and I am not a professional programmer. The creature would try to keep distance to its enemy and aviod being hit. It would use intelligent spell combos. The creature would use such spells that would hurt the enemy most. It would run and heal itself when its health was low. It would heal other damaged creatures of the same species in its vicinity. It would even loot useful items from slain enemies and equip them to improve their own equipment. Similar to AI driven player characters.

And so on. It worked, and it even worked when I spawned 300 of two enemy creature types and let them fight each other on a mediocre PC. I even made screenshots.

Instead of giving monsters a zillion hit points, it would be more fun if they were more intelligent and thus more challenging.

Technically, it is not a problem. The power of hardware has increased 20-fold since the day UO was released and the idea of an AI engine was originally born, while the number of players has decreased siginificantly.

Technically, you could give every creature in Britannia a hell of a lot of intelligence. The questions I see are:

- How would such an AI engine actually improve the gaming experience?
- How do you balance the system?

A good concept is needed, and a lot of thinking, testing and tweaking. But if it is done right, it would be fantastic. It can be done, and it should be done.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

I remember back in 1997 an article in a magazine that made it seem like dragons would attack cities. Did this ever happen?

Did you miss the Trinsic invasion?? Recalling to the bank during my normal daily routine, only to be dirt napped by 782479234783 dragons!! That was the best invasion IMO.

No, this did never happen. The Trinsic invasion was not happening due to unpredictable dynamic monster behavior as a reaction to player activities. It was a GM-run staged event. It was a great invasion, but back then GMs actually played monsters and controlled large hordes of monsters, instead of simply placing a couple of spawners.

 

[Babble]

You still just wrote a script that the computer looks up and uses when necessary, so yes UO could handle different fighting modes for each monster.

But a working code of thousands of monsters and animals that the computer calculates where they go would probably overtax the network.

And yes there are some reasons why the developers keep the AI dumb.

Anyone remember the orc mages when they did exp ebol flamestrike combos...outch
The Problem is probably that we are so used to fight and survive hordes of stupid mobs that the learning curve would be harsh and he developers would have to redesign the spawners.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

You still just wrote a script that the computer looks up and uses when necessary, so yes UO could handle different fighting modes for each monster.

But a working code of thousands of monsters and animals that the computer calculates where they go would probably overtax the network.

No, that's not correct. The AI and the path of the MOBs is calculated only on the server. And if a cheap PC can handle 600 MOBs with enhanced AI, a high-end server could handle 20,000 or more.

The network will not be loaded more than it is today, because it just has to transfer the coordinates of the MOBs on the very screen of a player. It doesn't matter if the MOB is walking by an intelligent scheme or by a stupid one.

 

[Old Man of UO]

... But a working code of thousands of monsters and animals that the computer calculates where they go would probably overtax the network. ...

It shouldn't overtax the network, since it really wouldn't be doing anything new.

The basis of UO and most game AI's is Fuzzy Logic. In simple terms, it's a look-up table with inputs and outputs. Of course in game code they look like if/then other conditional statements. These already exist for every NPC and monster in UO, but in many cases are very simple tables with just a few actions (inputs and outputs). If you want more "realistic" AI, you just add more cells to the tables, or more responses to each cell.

If it's done right it doesn't tax the servers any more than before, and it's actually easy to do. It's possible to program any NPC/monster with multiple behaviors, such as teleporting when damaged (aka gremlins), stealthing away when low on health (orc bombers I think?) or life drain when low on health (blackrock elementals). It's even possible to program a mobile with multiple fighting styles - use magic attacks against player archers, archery attacks against player mages and melee attacks against melee players. None of that should require more computational power than is already available and isn't new or hard to do.

Now, Adaptive Control can be used to create new self-learned behavior, and would make a much more dynamic AI. That will take more computational power, but wouldn't be an issue for boss creatures. Adaptive Control can be used to "learn" how best to defend itself against a player or multiple players, try new attacks, knowing when to run and hide. This is also a great way to create quest chains that could be based on the individual player's skills to give unique quests that no one else would get, and the rewards would be custom tailored to a player's needs.

All these tools already exist, and the computational power is now available to handle it. This isn't a guess - I've used Fuzzy Logic Controllers and Adaptive Control to tune non-linear processes in the factory to get very sophisticated controls. What we may not have is Developer time or knowledge to program large numbers of NPCs/monsters, or a game engine flexible enough to do a decent job.

 

[Old Man of UO]

You still just wrote a script that the computer looks up and uses when necessary, so yes UO could handle different fighting modes for each monster.

But a working code of thousands of monsters and animals that the computer calculates where they go would probably overtax the network.

No, that's not correct. The AI and the path of the MOBs is calculated only on the server. And if a cheap PC can handle 600 MOBs with enhanced AI, a high-end server could handle 20,000 or more.

The network will not be loaded more than it is today, because it just has to transfer the coordinates of the MOBs on the very screen of a player. It doesn't matter if the MOB is walking by an intelligent scheme or by a stupid one.

You're quite right there, Hawkeye. Most MOBs already have an intelligent tracking routine to walk around objects and find you around walls. That already exists.

 

[Trebr Drab]

The game world would be a lot more dynamic if MOBs had AI that was advanced enough for them to move around and take over areas, build defensive walls and barriers, using archers and mages appropriately, hunting and gathering, fighting players for resources. Learning and growing, advancing as individuals and communities.

The immersion would be advanced a great deal, and so would the fun.

 

[Old Man of UO]

The game world would be a lot more dynamic if MOBs had AI that was advanced enough for them to move around and take over areas, build defensive walls and barriers, using archers and mages appropriately, hunting and gathering, fighting players for resources. Learning and growing, advancing as individuals and communities.

The immersion would be advanced a great deal, and so would the fun.

HEH... I could see my miner going red while killing NPC miners for resources.

 

[Babble]

Some of it could be done 'cheaply*
An orc group spawns
If they are not attacked for a day they build a camp and get scouts going out
If they still don't get wiped out they build some fortifications and the group gets larger

don't know if any game does such things at the moment though

 

[Trebr Drab]

Some of it could be done 'cheaply*
An orc group spawns
If they are not attacked for a day they build a camp and get scouts going out
If they still don't get wiped out they build some fortifications and the group gets larger

don't know if any game does such things at the moment though

MMO's don't do it because players don't know it can be done, and don't expect/want/demand it because of that.

I don't know about games like Civilization and Ages of Empires. There's an MMO coming out for Ages of Empires, and I don't know about that one either.

The thing is, advanced AI is possible, but it does cost more to maintain and run. It's also something that takes another level of programming that the producers don't see a need to do. It would make a great MMORPG, but producers have been trying to drop the RPG from MMOs for years. Even boldly stating so, while groupies ate it up like they knew something about it too.

 

[copycon]

Absolutely wrong. It already works on some free shards. I myself programmed a new AI for a UO spellcasting creature one year ago, and I am not a professional programmer. The creature would try to keep distance to its enemy and aviod being hit. It would use intelligent spell combos. The creature would use such spells that would hurt the enemy most. It would run and heal itself when its health was low. It would heal other damaged creatures of the same species in its vicinity. It would even loot useful items from slain enemies and equip them to improve their own equipment. Similar to AI driven player characters.

And so on. It worked, and it even worked when I spawned 300 of two enemy creature types and let them fight each other on a mediocre PC. I even made screenshots.

Instead of giving monsters a zillion hit points, it would be more fun if they were more intelligent and thus more challenging.

Technically, it is not a problem. The power of hardware has increased 20-fold since the day UO was released and the idea of an AI engine was originally born, while the number of players has decreased siginificantly.

Technically, you could give every creature in Britannia a hell of a lot of intelligence. The questions I see are:

- How would such an AI engine actually improve the gaming experience?
- How do you balance the system?

A good concept is needed, and a lot of thinking, testing and tweaking. But if it is done right, it would be fantastic. It can be done, and it should be done.

Maybe I misspoke when I said that it wasn't possible. Maybe the more accurate way to describe this is not feasible.

You do realize that what you are describing accounts for a very small fraction of possible interactions that a MOB could have with a player? Let alone how many different types of MOBs exist (animals + monsters = 302) along with other factors that must be considered such as attack counter measures during combat...

Here is just the tip of the iceberg showing how many factors must come into play to do what you are describing to scale:

UO Stratics - Hunter's Guide - Welcome!

Even if it were feasible, if monsters were capable of stringing attacks together in such a way that would deal an enormous amount of damage to the player, wouldn't that invoke the same response from the player that was received when offensive players did the same thing during nonconsensual PvP combat? If monsters were so intelligent that they could simply defeat a player by synchronizing their attacks what is the point?

Again, I'll go back to my statement about this thread describing player interaction as opposed to simply PvM.

 

[Old Man of UO]

Maybe I misspoke when I said that it wasn't possible. Maybe the more accurate way to describe this is not feasible.
...

Again, I'll go back to my statement about this thread describing player interaction as opposed to simply PvM.

It's absolutely feasible with current technology and computer power. All of those monsters in the Hunter's Guide already a have programmed behavior, though not what I would call advanced AI. There is only one reason that I can see it not being done, and that is Developer and programmer time.

As far as making them overpowered, that is certainly possible and would have to be balanced. But then giving new monsters 30K hit points, 160 barding difficulty, 600 STR, etc., doesn't create a balanced boss, rather a boring boss.

As far as your last statement, you lost me on what you meant.

 

[Trebr Drab]

Absolutely wrong. It already works on some free shards. I myself programmed a new AI for a UO spellcasting creature one year ago, and I am not a professional programmer. The creature would try to keep distance to its enemy and aviod being hit. It would use intelligent spell combos. The creature would use such spells that would hurt the enemy most. It would run and heal itself when its health was low. It would heal other damaged creatures of the same species in its vicinity. It would even loot useful items from slain enemies and equip them to improve their own equipment. Similar to AI driven player characters.

And so on. It worked, and it even worked when I spawned 300 of two enemy creature types and let them fight each other on a mediocre PC. I even made screenshots.

Instead of giving monsters a zillion hit points, it would be more fun if they were more intelligent and thus more challenging.

Technically, it is not a problem. The power of hardware has increased 20-fold since the day UO was released and the idea of an AI engine was originally born, while the number of players has decreased siginificantly.

Technically, you could give every creature in Britannia a hell of a lot of intelligence. The questions I see are:

- How would such an AI engine actually improve the gaming experience?
- How do you balance the system?

A good concept is needed, and a lot of thinking, testing and tweaking. But if it is done right, it would be fantastic. It can be done, and it should be done.

Maybe I misspoke when I said that it wasn't possible. Maybe the more accurate way to describe this is not feasible.

You do realize that what you are describing accounts for a very small fraction of possible interactions that a MOB could have with a player? Let alone how many different types of MOBs exist (animals + monsters = 302) along with other factors that must be considered such as attack counter measures during combat...

Here is just the tip of the iceberg showing how many factors must come into play to do what you are describing to scale:

UO Stratics - Hunter's Guide - Welcome!

Even if it were feasible, if monsters were capable of stringing attacks together in such a way that would deal an enormous amount of damage to the player, wouldn't that invoke the same response from the player that was received when offensive players did the same thing during nonconsensual PvP combat? If monsters were so intelligent that they could simply defeat a player by synchronizing their attacks what is the point?

Again, I'll go back to my statement about this thread describing player interaction as opposed to simply PvM.

Copycon, it is feasible. It can be done. It's not that much more processing that today's, or even yesterday's, computers can't easily handle.

For your comment that NPC can string together deadly combo's, that's what I was pointing out earlier when I mentioned a developers saying "the real problem with a true AI is making it beatable by more than just World Chess Champions."
You do this by giving the MOBs random, but weighted, choices. Weighted by what's going on around them. Random to take away the certainty. Throughout a battle, this will leave the MOBs open to doing the wrong thing, and able to be beaten even if they otherwise should win. Or not, do players have to always win, never run for cover, never retreat?

As to player driven content with MOBs, if you are suggesting players AS monsters, then you get into that same old problem of monsters and humans in guilds together. Out goes immersion and "realism", and any semblance of a "world" that makes sense.

If you are suggesting that PvP is the only means to making a world dynamic, you are selling short on the "world". Although I dearly wish I could get PvPers to understand that wide open PvP drives all other player types away. Because PvP under control of real "consequences" would truly add yet another level to it all.

 

[copycon]

Copycon, it is feasible. It can be done. It's not that much more processing that today's, or even yesterday's, computers can't easily handle.

I was referring to feasibility from the development perspective. Not from the ability of the computer to process those additional instructions. Though, I do think that if you factor in the amount of additional instructions that would be expected of the computer to perform you will end up with a severely bloated and unstable application. But, that is going further off topic.

For your comment that NPC can string together deadly combo's, that's what I was pointing out earlier when I mentioned a developers saying "the real problem with a true AI is making it beatable by more than just World Chess Champions."
You do this by giving the MOBs random, but weighted, choices. Weighted by what's going on around them. Random to take away the certainty. Throughout a battle, this will leave the MOBs open to doing the wrong thing, and able to be beaten even if they otherwise should win. Or not, do players have to always win, never run for cover, never retreat?

I don't understand this. This seems like a "have your cake and eat it too" attitude. It doesn't work that way IMO.

As to player driven content with MOBs, if you are suggesting players AS monsters, then you get into that same old problem of monsters and humans in guilds together. Out goes immersion and "realism", and any semblance of a "world" that makes sense.

Different thread. Not trying to hijack this thread which is why I posted it elsewhere.

If you want to discuss this: Linky

If you are suggesting that PvP is the only means to making a world dynamic, you are selling short on the "world". Although I dearly wish I could get PvPers to understand that wide open PvP drives all other player types away. Because PvP under control of real "consequences" would truly add yet another level to it all.

I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that players are the only way to assure "dynamic content" in its truest form.