It seems possible that some of the non-player characters (NPCs) in a game of Limit Theory will be people of some sort.

If so, it's not unreasonable to think they'll have lifespans. This poll is intended to get your opinion on how long those lifespans should be, relative to how long you think you'll be playing any individual game of Limit Theory.

Would you prefer to see the same NPCs throughout the entire span of a game?

Or should NPCs change very frequently?

Or something in between?

Note: These rates are assuming you play Limit Theory for an hour or two every other night. If you play more or less often, NPC lifespans would lengthen or shorten accordingly.

Comments on your choices are welcome!

Player = NPC. Infinent unless your lifespan is limited too, which I wouldn't like at all. A lifespan which is perfect for an NPC would be way too short for the player.

In Flottilla you live 7 or 14 turns, depending on game mode.

Then you die.
Game over.

The life span of NPC would also apply to you...

'Til they die, as far as I care. I doubt anyone'll hang around a single system for more than sixty years, game time or otherwise.

Gazz wrote:In Flottilla you live 7 or 14 turns, depending on game mode.

Then you die.
Game over.

The life span of NPC would also apply to you...

Do you want that for LT? I don't.

Vos estis tan limes.

Interesting question, but I feel pretty strongly about no death by age. Remember the human / AI symmetry Human players will not be dying of old age in the game, so is it fair to subject AI players to that penalty? (Or were you speaking of 'workers' rather than AI players?)

They should not age. Frankly this is a sci fi world of the far future. I would think they have solved the whole death by anything but a blaster to the face thing by then.

The only way I could be in favor of immortal NPC’s is if they experienced personality drift both gradual and punctuated. Simply put, I am strongly against static decision making parameters for any given NPC; I feel that even with all the dynamism in place, static decision making will lead to fairly rigid factions and universal structures, that those in power will generally remain in power by virtue of how well their personality fits the job, even if the particular size of their domain grows or shrinks.

I think that it makes more sense for npcs to change with time in their most fundamental personality traits. This could take place either organically, as they succeed or fail in their projects (the pirates in #16 will quickly give up piracy and wont want to return to it if they are absolute failures at it) or it could take place in a statistical chance as they encounter new people and places. (Say a 0.01% chance that encountering a trader slightly inclines you to give up research and become a trader).

I also think that even then there should be a background statistical change in personality as well. Lets say that there is a 0.0001% chance for every tick of the game that a base AEGIS value changes in any direction by 0.01%, a 0.0000001% chance that it changes by 0.1%, a 0.0000000001% chance that it changes by 1%, and a 0.0000000000001% chance that it changes by 10%. This can simulate disillusionment, mid-life crises, sudden irrational urges in life, getting your act together, or whatnot. It may not be a big deal if a pirate feels slightly less aggressive, but if suddenly the Faction leader of the super-powerful Deathdealers wants to go off and play Marco Polo, it could have serious consequences for the faction. I also suppose that such a likelihood could be given to the seed as well, resulting in some universes that have beings much more likely to stay where they are, and others much more scatterbrained on average.

However, barring personality change with time and experience, I would not want npc’s to live longer than a month of game time to allow for this to change.

I voted for "one month of play" - it's not a limit you're likely to hit unless you're specifically aiming for it. I'm not sure what the point would be, though.

edit:

JoshParnell wrote:Interesting question, but I feel pretty strongly about no death by age. Remember the human / AI symmetry Human players will not be dying of old age in the game, so is it fair to subject AI players to that penalty? (Or were you speaking of 'workers' rather than AI players?)

Very nice point... I was speaking of workers, but even so, this makes more sense.

JoshParnell wrote:Interesting question, but I feel pretty strongly about no death by age. Remember the human / AI symmetry Human players will not be dying of old age in the game, so is it fair to subject AI players to that penalty? (Or were you speaking of 'workers' rather than AI players?)

Bear in mind that it's possible to break player-NPC parity without breaking player-NPC parity. So we could make the player immortal and NPCs grow old and die if we wished, and still claim that the player is treated the same as NPCs.

However, I'm happy with the player and NPCs not dying of old age, since none of my ideas rely on that happening and I don't much care for the idea.

Bah. You just want to be the the Emperor on (or rather within) the Golden Throne. =P

20

If anyone dies of old age you're playing it wrong.

No death from old age please.

Pirate attacks, yes!

you'd think that at this time, and how advanced civilization is, they would find a cure for aging

just saying

~Sly