Return to “Polls”

How Long Should NPCs Live?

Infinitely long (unless killed) -- NPCs are all adults and never age.
Total votes: 61 (60%)
As long as real-world humans -- NPCs age at the same rate that you do.
Total votes: 15 (15%)
1 year of play -- NPCs live a long time, but will eventually die of old age.
Total votes: 11 (11%)
1 month of play -- NPCs are born, take a week to mature, and get three weeks of activity.
Total votes: 10 (10%)
1 week of play -- NPCs grow for one day, then expire several real-time days later.
Total votes: 5 (5%)
1 hour of play -- NPCs are born and die at an evolutionary visible rate.
(No votes)
Total votes: 102
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#16
They should exist as ageless entities, removed and subsequently replaced only when killed. I think the idea of giving an NPCs a lifespan in this sort of data-heavy game is nitpicking, to be honest. Just my viewpoint. Otherwise we might as well introduce hunger, having to work actual jobs in the game instead of flying around, getting fat because of snack food and having to go to space gyms. There are things to have in these games, and things to not have. I think those notions, and the topic at hand, are superfluous; LT is not first and foremost a simulation.
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#17
5anitybane wrote:I think the idea of giving an NPCs a lifespan in this sort of data-heavy game is nitpicking, to be honest. Just my viewpoint. Otherwise we might as well introduce hunger, having to work actual jobs in the game instead of flying around, getting fat because of snack food and having to go to space gyms.
If you disagree with the idea that NPCs in Limit Theory might have finite lifespans, that's fine, but the rest is just Domino Fallacy. Why not let other people explain which option they prefer without trying to dismiss the discussion entirely?

For what it's worth, I don't suggest anything simply "because it would be cool." I created an opportunity for people to say what they think about different NPC lifespans because enabling limited lifespans creates some interesting gameplay possibilities. If NPCs automatically expire, that implies an expanding culture would replace them with new NPCs that potentially have different personalities, and who thus may make different choices than their predecessors. That's especially useful for shaking up established factions so that the world of Limit Theory remains dynamic.

Possibly some here might think that kind of effect is worth seeing in a game with Limit Theory's features. Others may prefer NPCs to be ageless for different positive reasons. I believe that kind of constructive discussion would be more helpful than extending "I don't like it" (which is a perfectly fair reaction) into the equivalent of "and therefore we shouldn't even be talking about it" (which IMO is not appropriate for any of us non-moderators to say to each other).
5anitybane wrote:There are things to have in these games, and things to not have. I think those notions, and the topic at hand, are superfluous; LT is not first and foremost a simulation.
I'll agree with you on the first part of that, politely disagree with you on the second part, and take strong exception to that last assertion.

Firstly, and I'm phrasing this as civilly as possible, it's not your call to say what LT is or isn't. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen someone in a game forum attempt to dictate to other interested fans what some game "isn't" going to be... meaning nothing other than "I don't want that and I don't want you even talking about it in case you accidentally convince the developer to do it." I've never cared for that kind of unauthorized effort to control a public discussion. You're free to believe whatever you like about what you think LT is or isn't going to be -- I don't plan on letting that stop me from continuing to offer courteous and constructive suggestions on this subject or anything else, as well as encouraging others to do exactly the same.

Secondly, I've also seen that specific "it's not going to be a simulation" crack made elsewhere, too, and I've never much cared for that, either. The computer game industry is staggering under the weight of one hardcoded, linear, loot-heavy, achievement-focused, grindy, mechanics-centric game-y game after another. I think it's safe to say that those games will still be there tomorrow if Limit Theory or any other game offers a more interestingly simulated world in which to play.

In fact, Limit Theory as Josh has shown it so far already has strongly simulationist features in its economy; it may also simulate some elements of hierarchical organizations. Those are more than a lot of games offer, and I think it's reasonable to believe that they open the door to other suggestions for systemic simulations of other parts of the gameworld to make them more dynamically responsive to player choices. Of course those suggestions need to make good design and practical sense... but simulationism is play. It may not be your preferred style of play, but you're not going to be the only person playing Limit Theory, nor will you be the most important player -- that would be Josh himself. He may agree with you that LT "isn't going to be a simulation" -- heck, I also assume that will be a true statement -- but "not a simulation" does not mean LT can't or won't include (and benefit from having) more strongly simulated features than most games.

Limit Theory "is" whatever Josh decides it is as he continues to develop it. If you prefer specific mechanics or anything else, awesome; suggest them. I'll do likewise for the simulationist and other features for which I think an objective case can be made that they fit this game and would improve it for many of its potential players. And then Josh can consider those suggestions, or ignore them. What I don't think we need to be doing as not-Joshes is trying to dictate to each other what kinds of suggestions are, in our opinions, out-of-bounds for this game and thus need not be posted. That's not our call, and it does nothing to promote a spirit of friendly conversation about a game we're all here to help support.

Now. Back to positive exchanges on what NPC lifespan choice we think would make LT most enjoyable for many of its players, and why, please.
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#19
Flatfingers wrote:For what it's worth, I don't suggest anything simply "because it would be cool." I created an opportunity for people to say what they think about different NPC lifespans because enabling limited lifespans creates some interesting gameplay possibilities. If NPCs automatically expire, that implies an expanding culture would replace them with new NPCs that potentially have different personalities, and who thus may make different choices than their predecessors. That's especially useful for shaking up established factions so that the world of Limit Theory remains dynamic.
I look forward to this myself and believe you can get evolution happening just as well even without limited lifespans. All you need is to make the world bloodthirsty enough that people die just as often by the phaser as would have done from old age. :) Not many people die of old age in Game of Thrones, that I recall.
Flatfinger wrote:Secondly, I've also seen that specific "it's not going to be a simulation" crack made elsewhere, too, and I've never much cared for that, either. The computer game industry is staggering under the weight of one hardcoded, linear, loot-heavy, achievement-focused, grindy, mechanics-centric game-y game after another. I think it's safe to say that those games will still be there tomorrow if Limit Theory or any other game offers a more interestingly simulated world in which to play.

In fact, Limit Theory as Josh has shown it so far already has strongly simulationist features in its economy; it may also simulate some elements of hierarchical organizations. Those are more than a lot of games offer, and I think it's reasonable to believe that they open the door to other suggestions for systemic simulations of other parts of the gameworld to make them more dynamically responsive to player choices. Of course those suggestions need to make good design and practical sense... but simulationism is play. It may not be your preferred style of play, but you're not going to be the only person playing Limit Theory, nor will you be the most important player -- that would be Josh himself. He may agree with you that LT "isn't going to be a simulation" -- heck, I also assume that will be a true statement -- but "not a simulation" does not mean LT can't or won't include (and benefit from having) more strongly simulated features than most games.
Spot on. Limit Theory is a space simulator game. I want it to simulate space.
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#20
ThymineC wrote: Spot on. Limit Theory is a space simulator game. I want it to simulate space.
I agree, to a point. When the simulation serves no point and actually takes away the fun factor, I don't however.

Thankfully, it looks like the game will be crazy configurable, so we can set things to our own liking to a degree.
My Signature
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#21
The longer time span poll options (1 month, 1 year, approximate parity) intrigue me very much.

On par with a real human's average rate of decline? What a peculiarly fascinating notion! :)
Flatfingers wrote:For what it's worth, I don't suggest anything simply "because it would be cool." I created an opportunity for people to say what they think about different NPC lifespans because enabling limited lifespans creates some interesting gameplay possibilities. If NPCs automatically expire, that implies an expanding culture would replace them with new NPCs that potentially have different personalities, and who thus may make different choices than their predecessors. That's especially useful for shaking up established factions so that the world of Limit Theory remains dynamic.
I'm going to go ahead and side with the underdog here: I see the dynamism possibilities.

In Dwarf Fortress, I believe older dwarves can (or could) become obsessed with their burial accommodations, demanding an ever more elaborately festooned resting place be prepared. Also, it is always a realization of mortality which drives historical characters to seek help from the gods to become Necromancers (implicitly "selling one's soul" to cheat death).

So, an aging executive who becomes uncomfortably conscious of the looming Inescapable Reaper may exhibit extraordinary shifts in priorities, thus defying the player's expectations (dynamic!). Or, even if the case is that every NPC denies his or her mortality and descends stiff-necked into the grave, the "expiration" mechanic could serve to relieve the player of an otherwise impregnable* adversary, or else unsettle the player from an all too comfortable position (as Flatfingers has already noted). Eh?

*while I do not expect undefeatable foes in LT, I use the word more loosely. ie. "Ah, crap, killing that [unsavoury gentleman] is going to be all sorts of hassle.. kinda wish he'd just drop dead of a heart attack.." :roll:
"omg such tech many efficiency WOW" ~ Josh Parnell
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#22
Until I kill them.


Seriously though, from a dev POV I would make them live forever purely because the added complexity and mechanics to track/maintain deaths NPC doesn't bring anything new to the table. To have them simply moving about doing what they do (with differing behaviours when in conflict) would be more than sufficient imho, and besides you could simply garbage-collect NPC's when you leave that area, and when you return again, they'll be a new set of NPCs with potentially different traits (just like when you see different people on the same bus/train each day)
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#23
Deej wrote:Seriously though, from a dev POV I would make them live forever purely because the added complexity and mechanics to track/maintain deaths NPC doesn't bring anything new to the table. To have them simply moving about doing what they do (with differing behaviours when in conflict) would be more than sufficient imho, and besides you could simply garbage-collect NPC's when you leave that area, and when you return again, they'll be a new set of NPCs with potentially different traits (just like when you see different people on the same bus/train each day)
You don't necessarily want to do this.
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#24
Well I voted for the 1 week game time.

That is 168 hours of game play and I don't know about you but that is a lot of hours of game play for me (I have 205 hours into X3).

I reckon that the head of the company high-npc should be replaced with a new one after the 168 hours because well think about it. If each high-npc has different characteristics and is replaced you would see a shift in the way the company operates.

Lets say the original npc has projects in mining, then when he is replaced maybe the npc changes his projects to military or pirating. That would be cool if all a sudden your trading with the npc then bam he's declaring war on you.

Or perhaps he keeps mining and but is really bad at it, selling way too low, mining in the wrong places, you could see him bring down a huge company and maybe be wiped out if the company has some strong enemies.
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#26
"Infinitely long," currently the must popular preference by far, feels a bit static to me -- odd for a game with a great deal of procedurally generated content.

If NPCs never expire unless killed, doesn't that imply there could still be NPCs when we start playing who were generated from the "Big Bang" of the very start of the game's simulated history? Wouldn't that also cause many, many NPCs to exist, rather than expanding at just above the replacement rate?

Or is every game of Limit Theory nothing but a non-stop festival of digital murder, keeping NPC numbers controlled by attrition rather than expiration?

A month seemed right to me. It gives us time to interact frequently with known NPCs, but still provides turnover. That allows for dynamically varying factional behaviors based on the different personalities of new leaders, as well as solving the problem of keeping population counts relatively stable without requiring that every member of every culture in every game behave like an axe-wielding maniac.

Personal taste, perhaps.
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#27
Flatfingers wrote:Or is every game of Limit Theory nothing but a non-stop festival of digital murder, keeping NPC numbers controlled by attrition rather than expiration?
This one, I assume. Plus with the kind of lore I've established for myself (if no one else), everyone is a mind-uploaded entity (biological aging is eliminated) and, with mind acceleration, what agents in the LT universe would perceive as years would only be perceived as days to us.
Post

Re: How Long Should NPCs Live?

#30
I've been thinking about this... During actual gameplay, NPCs really shouldn't die, as the player can't die. However, if the procedurally generated history is supposed to span a decent number of years, similar to Dwarf Fortress - say, anywhere from a hundred to a thousand years - then NPCs should die during worldgen, simply to make simulation more interesting with overturning of power and whatever.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron