Gazz wrote:

MightyMyth wrote:I'm just having fun throwing a few ideas around!

Nothing wrong with that but it's pretty much impossible to find them in such a wall of text.

Some sort of structure would help immensely.

haha very true on reflection I feel I just had too much fun coming up with different situations where NPCs might backstab you and the different reasons for why.
I guess a short of summary would have been a bit more coherent.

So what I was suggesting was these points:

* More ambiguity with choices to do with NPCs

* More freedom to handle situations, eg: solution isn't always just blows up NPC that has done something unexpected.

* I think adding families actually is quite interesting. (Might be overly complex with how envision it!)

* A constant certainly of actions always having the outcome you expect is unappealing. (Example: always better to kill an NPC than to let it go in most situations)

These are just some things that I think can be improved on, the more dynamic a game is the more fun you can have. I would think.

You've made me realise that post was a bit hard to follow, I did rush finishing i even took large amounts out if you can believe that! Anywho from now on i'll keep my posts as clear and concise as I can, I just dislike when people misinterpret what I've written!

MightyMyth wrote: So what I was suggesting was these points:

* More ambiguity with choices to do with NPCs

* More freedom to handle situations, eg: solution isn't always just blows up NPC that has done something unexpected.

* I think adding families actually is quite interesting. (Might be overly complex with how envision it!)

* A constant certainly of actions always having the outcome you expect is unappealing. (Example: always better to kill an NPC than to let it go in most situations)

These are just some things that I think can be improved on, the more dynamic a game is the more fun you can have. I would think.

You've made me realise that post was a bit hard to follow, I did rush finishing i even took large amounts out if you can believe that! Anywho from now on i'll keep my posts as clear and concise as I can, I just dislike when people misinterpret what I've written!
[/size]

Ah, much more internet-friendly! Now that I had time to read them and cross-reference them with the skimming I did of your last post, I will agree wholeheartedly! I think many of your ideas are viable too, because Josh has said he plans for even individual NPCs to remember what you've done. If individuals can remember, then perhaps a network of individuals who care about that individual could remember as well!

Further, since individuals will remember what you do, that may make the best solution not always automatically kill an NPC rather than let them go. Of course, that sometimes may still be the best solution - there's no guarantee that if you let a fleeing pirate escape he will reward you in the end (he may just swear vengeance) - but sometimes he might.

Ambiguous, tangential (rather than linear) quest structures (e.g., transfer this cargo from point A to Point B - JK it was a trap! ) might be hard for josh to realize in a way that doesn't get repetitive, but if he can pull it off it'll really breathe new life into the old "patrol, spy, assassinate, transport, rescue" space sim standbys.

Perhaps this has already been suggested/confirmed/shot-down, but I would like to see contracts as the primary way to interact with NPCs. For ex:
NPC1 is part of a mining corporation and needs the refined substance transported back to Space Station1. You just so happen to be the only transport ship within range of the space station and NPC1 offers you a contract with something like the following:

• 1. You will transport 1000 cubic meters of material X to Space Station1
  2. You will be paid 15% of fair market value for the material you are transporting.
  3. If you are attacked by pirates you will pay 70% of fair market value for any material you lost.
  4. You have 1 in-game week to complete this job.
  5. If you cancel this job after accepting its terms you will pay 15,000cr

Do you:
[Accept] [Decline] [Counter-offer]

If you counter-offer you can change the values of the above terms, so in effect you are bargaining for the terms of you quest. For example you might change the terms to the folowing:

• 1. You will transport 1000 cubic meters of material X to Space Station1
  2. You will be paid 25% of fair market value for the material you are transporting.
  3. If you are attacked by pirates you will pay 60% of fair market value for any material you lost.
  4. You have 1 in-game week to complete this job.
  5. If you cancel this job after accepting its terms you will pay 20,000cr

And then the NPC can accept, decline or counter-offer. I know this may not appeal to everyone (unless I'm wrong) so you make this a toggle and call it "Advanced Questing" in the options menu.

I really like that idea! You're on a roll. We know NPCs and factions will assign us quests based on what they actually want accomplished in the game world (e.g., getting their goods sold in a high-profit system; killing an enemy). They are asking us to do these things because they want/need them done; therefore, we hold bargaining power, because we can get it done. So yeah, it totally makes sense that we could haggle (within reason) over the requirements and rewards of the contract. I like that a lot, and I don't think it's ever been done.

Glad you like it. I don't think anything quite like this has been done before either but I really like the concept and I think it fits naturally with Limit Theory. Plus this way quests don't become something of a chore and there are consequences for failing or canceling a quest. Of course there doesn't always have to be consequences for failing a quest and if you choose you could remove a consequence from a contract in your counter-offer.

And of course leverage the relationship with the NPC in whether they will accept the counter, with the relationship setting a min/max amount for each malleable attribute, so if you have a better relationship you can get more favorable terms and if they don't trust you they won't pay as well. Yeah, I like that idea. Perhaps not covering all interactions, but it would be useful for interactions where a contract would be appropriate IRL.

One of the questions that I have about AI interaction is will there be some sort of hierarchy within the factions?

For example, will factions have a king/president/dictator/etc in control with a successive chain of command? I think it would be awesome to have something like this because it can open up new kinds of missions. Maybe you've decided to become a pirate or "opportunist" and have stumbled upon two warring factions. You make friends with one side and due to your military capabilities they think that it would be a great idea to have you run some assassination missions. (Taking out high ranking officials/important figures/the president)

Additionally, it would also allow for some diplomacy within the game. Say you've created your own faction and are in the process of starting off in the galaxy. Well, you don't have much in the way of resources yet but that faction you found the other day in the system over has plenty of what you need so you fly over there and arrange to meet with someone in charge so that you can arrange some form of agreement or treaty. Thus your story can become a bit more varied. Instead of becoming overlord of known space or the worlds greatest pilot or richest trader you could now become the savior who united the warring factions and brought peace to the land!

Again not really sure if this is something that can be done procedurally just inputting my idea.

PS Found out about this game and signed up on the forums. Looks awesome and I can't wait!