Dawn of Daria Forum Index Dawn of Daria
Official forums
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

IRC CD - Contiued for Topic: Player Emotions

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Dawn of Daria Forum Index -> Archived
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Kalorian
Developer


Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 300
Location: Uiejonbou, South Korea

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:20 pm    Post subject: IRC CD - Contiued for Topic: Player Emotions Reply with quote

Hello all,

For those of you that were unable to attend the Community Discussion on IRC. I have highlighted the main points of this topic and pasted them below. For a full read of the community discussion head over the Archives for the log.

Please continue the discussion for those that missed it put your 2 cents in.

2. Player Emotions

- fear based on monster size and power based on lore.
- A bar that goes from -100 to 100 based on past successes in combat as well. Negative side is fear and positive side is confidence.
- Over confidence not being the best.
- a monster affects you should be unique to each monster and character combination depending on each's power
- The monster attacks you but you hardly suffer any dmg so you gain more confidence, you attack it and cause lot's of dmg
- But now you are overconfident which gives you negative effects rather than the positive ones of being in a party
- Have several bars.. fear.. surprise etc.. and each monster effect it in seperate ways.
- Killing 200 bunnies to build confidence doesn't mean you will have the same confidence to take on that Grizzly Bear. Killing 200 bunnies would add say 30-40 confidence and then getting attacked or attacking a grizzley bear would lower it around 50.
- Argued that killing 200 bunnies still would not prepare you to take on a grizzly bear.
- monster abilities could scare a person more than its presence.
- the possibility to learn from named monsters and such. Or a certain monster type. Going in confident at first based on its small size but learning that its much more than what it appears.
- Confidence/Fear alike dwindles with time. Prevents players from hacking and slashing 100 monsters before taking on the boss.
- As you are approaching boss areas lower confidence and such to also prevent mass fighting to gain confidence prior to boss fighting.
- Scared not being necassarily bad, when you're scared get lots of adrenaline in you're blood, adrenaline makes you stronger and able to endure more. Never able to run as fast you would if you were running away from something that could kill you.
- Bars that would have a -100 to 100 and their counter parts. Fear to Confidence, Surprised to Prepared, Sadness to Vengence/Revenge.
- need to monitor balance between hack and slash and making fighting to heavily based off emotions and perceptions.


There was also an arguement that this would take away too much from the hack and slash and vice versa its time to get away from the hack and slash.

Have at it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Stant
Posts until end: 500


Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 753

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only fault I have with a confidence meter is where you said overconfidence is a bad thing. What defines overconfidence aside from the players descisions? I spend all day hunting wolves... Heck, I spend all week hunting wolves... I'm starting a fur trading biz and collecting lots of startup materials... I've killed hundered's of wolves and have stories told about me in taverns as being the legendary wolf trapper, and one day while travelling through a new place, I see a great wolf pack... The overconfidence issue can only be based on my descision to fight. I may be of equal threat level to these wolves (meaning I'm level 60 and a very capable fighter vs. 5 great wolves level 15) but I may feel I can't take on 5, so I walk away...

Later that day I decide I need more fur then what I'm getting so I stalk that wolf pack, set up my attack plan and ambush point, and attack. By some formula the game would say oh you want to go up against 5... But you only kill small grey wolves all day long, not great wolves... You've never even attacked one before let alone killed one... No, not yet... You're overconfident so you're getting penalized in some way. Reduced accuracy with a bow, slower movement rate, less agility during the fight, what ever... Yet, my hit and run tactics would prove to everyone else that I'm actually playing it very cautiously by taking ranged shots on the weakest looking one to test out their abilities, as well as thin the pack down and weaken it before rushing right in on the rest... Unless you have some great AI running the game that can evaluate tactics and player skill/descision making, I can't agree with a formula based penalty of any kind in these types of situations. Granted that this won't always be the case, but it's the most likely one.

Sure, you (level 40, Rogue, moderatley skilled) hunt stone turtles (level 12, medium agressive, slight pursuit) all day long and decide to go after a Master Warrior of Kartalia (level 60, highly agressive, cooperative, persuit to territory boundary) (aka giant turtle guard dog of the mer people). Overconfidence off the charts... That's an extreme case and you should suffer from penalties for even considering attacking to begin with. But how does the game determine you went in looking for a fight, or just went in to explore a new location to see what's going on and decided hey, I got this monster chasing me, I'm gonna attack it a couple of times to see how I match up against it. All it's going to do is formulate in some way that you're underpowered for the situation and register that you're a turtle hater because of what you do all the time and judge you overconfident and penalize you...

I'd say ok as long as it also recognized that first battles, even second battles, are usually just test battles to see how you compare and shouldn't be held against you, and that after players level or acquire new things, they may want to test themselves again and again until they find a method that works. Would every player automatically be penalized every time they faced a new monster of any kind until they have a victory or two under their belt? And would this penalty apply in a heirarchial tree, so if I managed to kill off a stone turtle before ever seeing a red turtle, I could see that the red turtle is smaller and a much lower level and knowing I can best it's bigger cousin, without ever having fought one before, automatically have superior confidence that I'm going to win in a match and not be penalized by the game before hand because we all know a stone turtle is higher on the tree then a red turtle...
_________________
This change isn't because of Kal's request to change it, it's to tell the community that I'm pissed at him because he fucked me over by not sticking up for me when he should have, instead he blasted me. I have no problem with Daria or any of it's other staff. It was changed in response to his lies about fixing it, which he did NOT do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thewreck
Site Admin


Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1109

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

just a general comment to all three discussions:

great job, it gave me tons of inspiration.

i just love it when the players draw small example images of how it could look ingame, that I wanna see more of!

i might get around to comment on the specific discussions later, right now i wanna sort out my thoughts. cheerio
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mythalinear
Posts until end: 960


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 43
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a thought. Maybe there could be indirect hinderings to over-confidence. Way back in Akarra down in U-Lake I recruited Warhammer to be my second meat shield. This guy was over confident and nearly killed us. He ran into the dark with his two handed berdiche, instead of the lure tactic I was fond of, and succeeded in getting all the the creatures angry at us and then dying. We ran away and came back when everything settled down.

Maybe in DoD there would be some disadvantages to attacking more than one foe. (besides the obvious fact that they are both beating on you) Maybe if you are far away from your fellowship members you will lose confidence. Fighting in the dark would definately yield some disadvantages. Maybe the oposites could be true as well. The cautious warrior sticks with his comrades, fights where he can see his opponents, and lures enemies away from their friends.

The implications for this could greatly effect player choosing. Maybe certain races are adept solitary hunters and don't recieve as much disadvantages from fighting alone. Another race could have a better vision in the dark, or more attuned senses to be able to handle itself better in multi-combatant situations. Player stats or paths could also effect these things.

Just a few ideas. Best of luck.
_________________
I could have gone on a Pk spree....
If my zaps did more than just tickle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Manifold
Posts until end: 600


Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 457
Location: Treading my dreams, UK

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aaah. I was over-arrogant. Used to think that you could take down all of U-Lake with a level 65. I came close a lot, but..
_________________
Once known as Novan Silverglow
'So can you name your demon?
Understand its scheming/
I raise my glass and say "here's to you".'


The DOD News - http://darianews.talonz.com (Lying Dormant)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scotty
Posts until end: 1000


Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 13
Location: canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was reading what stant wrote, and i thought is it so bad if you sucked the first few times you killed something? becasue they are differnt monsters so what if ones a grey wolf and ones a great white wolf.they might fight different. it would make doing somthing for the first time harder and promote team work. (you would want to fs with someone who has killed many before).

just a thought
_________________
Lord Scotty
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Stant
Posts until end: 500


Joined: 02 Dec 2004
Posts: 753

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The discussion wasn't specifically relating to monster cooperation or monster tactics (monster AI), it's relating to penalties/bonuses incurred by a player due to their relationship and experience with the monster. In my arguement, I'm stating that a hard coded formula based system is not the way to go in this area. The game itself would need an adaptive AI that could learn (<-- Say that to Kal when talking about game AI and watch him cringe in pain ;P ) your tactics and thus make an 'informed' descision on how you should be rewarded/penalized. As I stated in my example, a first battle against a creature you've never encountered would have you penalized because you've never matched up against it before. Every following battle would have you penalized because of that loss, until you began to succeed in battles against it. Why would I go and explore some place while waiting for people to come on line if I know that if I come close to a new monster, my speed is going to be reduced, or if I'm trying to just avoid a fight and go around a creature, the game may register that as a fear reaction and randomly change the direction I'm running and possibly get me stuck somewhere or throw me right at more of the very same creature I'm trying to avoid and my ass gets killed because of it...

Yes, it does promote player grouping, but seriously, some people just like to go off on their own for a while and check things out, spend some time away from groups, test their capabilities by going alone... As it was in Akarra, you could solo and do alright by yourself, or you could group up and do better. Making it so that people can't solo is counter welcoming so to speak... How many times do you start up a game knowing enough people that you can come on and group up whenever? Honestly, I started Akarra with 8 people I've known for a very long time, and it was still very troublesome to get enough on at once to actually do some real gaming. I'm an outspoken person, and I can make friends easily, so it wasn't much of a big deal to me... I just joined groups and played... But there are those that lack social skills, and are shy even on the net. But I'm getting away from the topic now, so I really should stop on that tangent.

Back to the topic at hand... In my opinion, game AI's have yet to become adaptive enough to guage a players capabilities and tactics to warrent coded reactions and emotions. Single player games are barely able to judge your tactics and react accordingly enough to pose a challenge. They have yet to outsmart a creative player. Apply this to a group of several players at once, each with their own style, each with their own plan of attack, each with their own threat assessment, yet all working together in a fashion that makes their overall tactics decent enough to succeed, and you put this up against even the best of adaptive AI's and it's going to get killed. We can learn and adjust, and get very creative when we need to, game AI's haven't achieved a comparable level yet. Our minds work on a chaotic level where we can completely randomize our thoughts and feelings, computer AI's are still restricted to the realm of logic. Every action it takes is based on the best outcome it has calculated from preprogrammed rules. Our minds reach descisions based partially on logic, and mostly based on emotions.

Just one example to illustrate this point. The only condition is that life needs to be maintained. A three on two situation quickly turns to a three on one. You know you're outnumbered and your ally just fell, and your odds of winning just decreased by a large amount. A game AI that is programmed to stay alive, initiates a retreat from battle response because the odds of victory fell below some number, and the condition that life needs to be maintained cannot be met under such odds. Logically it's a better choice to retreat to stay alive then it is to continue the fight. A human may get upset his/her ally just got killed and against logic, rush in and do whatever it takes to somehow win, even take down one or two of the 3 opponents or even somehow all three due to the use of expendable items (aka healing/stamina/mana potions or items) in the process. Of course they may also die as well, or they may let logic finally take over and save themselves and retreat. The end result is the AI fled based on the condition present and the programmed reponse to the situation, the human changed the condition based on emotion and acted accordingly to the situation.

AI's just don't have the complex emotions that we have so I don't think it should judge us and apply rewards/punishment accordingly in an area it has no expertise. But again, as I said before, if we have some very inventive programmers (as is the human way) some form of adaptive AI may be achieved where it does mimic emotional responses fairly well and we get an AI that reacts in a somewhat chaotic emotional manner rather then a purely logical manner. But even that doesn't give it enough credit to judge human emotional reactions and reward/penalize accordingly.
_________________
This change isn't because of Kal's request to change it, it's to tell the community that I'm pissed at him because he fucked me over by not sticking up for me when he should have, instead he blasted me. I have no problem with Daria or any of it's other staff. It was changed in response to his lies about fixing it, which he did NOT do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tyrael
Posts until end: 980


Joined: 24 Dec 2004
Posts: 21
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
- Bars that would have a -100 to 100 and their counter parts. Fear to Confidence, Surprised to Prepared, Sadness to Vengence/Revenge.

Ah, the difficulties of a programmer.... designing systems that actually work.
The fear to confidence factor is an interesting idea, but probably largely unworkable. Like Stant said, the human response would be varied, depending on the certain situitation, confidence in party members, knowledge of the monster, reasons why they are fighting the monster, inherent phobias and fears, the type of person the person perceives themself to be, the type of person others expect them to be, what is at stake in the battle, how emotional the person is, if they have any inherent ego problems, etc etc etc. There are just way too many factors to incorporate, largely the ones dealing with who the character(rp wise as well as playing style) and what their relationship is to the enemy they are fighting. These are things that are hard to define in RL, let alone trying to program it through logic. I think that instituting a set fear/confidence bar might take some freedom away from RP.

The idea of a surprised to prepared difference seems decent enough. Many games have incorporated this is different ways. Backstab abilities would use this, ambushes, etc. If your character is surprised by an enemy he would be at a disadvantage for a few rounds. A much lower chance to successfully attack the enemy(due to a natural instinct to go defensive when surprised). How long it takes the character to "respond" would likely depend on the level of surprise of the attack and inherent agility(reflexes) and possibly intelligence(how quick your character is able to assess the situitation).

I'm not quite sure how a sadness to vengeance and revenge bar would necessarily work. This, again, delves into the realm of emotion which is very hard to define. I'm not sure that I have ever seen this successfully implemented in a game before as an actual feature... the closest thing to it would be something like Baldur's Gate(Dnd 2nd Edition rules probably...) where the Ranger had a racial enemy he was better at fighting, but had worse relations with. Yeah... this one is a head scratcher...
_________________
If the road is easy, you're likely going the wrong way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Dawn of Daria Forum Index -> Archived All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Style by Oxeye Game Studio