Arcen Games

General Category => A Valley Without Wind 1 & 2 => : Andyroo February 07, 2011, 10:12:33 PM

: Worlds
: Andyroo February 07, 2011, 10:12:33 PM
So, been reading more and more into AVWW (was looking forwards to it as a TD, even if this sounds even better). I was reading up on how you would only ever have to make one world, and this sounds great. However - I was also reading up on how multiplayer is a not-commited-to likelyhood, and I wonder how these two factors would work together, should coop happen.

Part of coop is that the progress stops being "mine" and starts being "ours - the few times I was able to slowly drag friends into AI War (they lacked the patience to figure it out properly), I started new games for each instance. That way we both are "up to speed" with whats going on on the campaign. I would not want to play AVWW this way, with a different world/game for every single person I play with. But likewise I can see it being a little confusing to be dragged into different peoples worlds all the time, not knowing the situation or the history of whats going on.

Minecraft is the obvious thing to come to mind here, nowadays my internet social lot all play on the same server just as we would SP.

Would that be a possibility here? I am unsure of the alternatives, but I can see it ending up as a lot of work coordinating between people with such persitent worlds.
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 07, 2011, 10:22:43 PM
Assuming we get multiplayer working -- which seems likely at this point -- then the idea, in those circumstances, is that world = server.  So you'd set up a server for you and your friends, and whoever wanted to would run it.  Then anyone who wanted to connect could do so, with or without other players, and you play while you're there and then exit.  The server itself persists beyond any of the players, and unlike AI War there's no reason to hotsync, etc.  It's basically exactly like Minecraft, or any FPS game for that matter.

The worlds generated by a multiplayer server would be entirely compatible with single player and vice-versa.  So you could play solo if you want without the server, then turn on the server for some co-op.  Though, you can also play via the server for solo if you want, it doesn't limit the players to 2+ for that (though why you'd want to if you never have more than one person would be a question -- but I digress).

The servers should ideally be able to handle 16 players, but that remains to be seen.  Certainly at least 8, but possibly more than 16.  It might depend on your network connection where the server is hosted as to how many you can really support, actually.

If you play multiplayer with a lot of different people who don't want anything to do with one another, you will indeed need to have multiple worlds.  If you have a group of friends where there's only ever 16ish of you online at one time, and someone doesn't mind using their bandwidth to have the server going all the time, then you could all just share one server and that's that; no need to ever have more than that one world for any of you.

All of that is speculative -- but those are the goals, and they should be reasonable based on our technical design for this and our past experience with AI War, etc.
: Re: Worlds
: Echo35 February 08, 2011, 12:37:07 PM
Assuming we get multiplayer working -- which seems likely at this point -- then the idea, in those circumstances, is that world = server.

A server? In an Arcen game? LIES.
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 08, 2011, 12:42:00 PM
Not hosted by us, understand -- you host your own. :)
: Re: Worlds
: Echo35 February 08, 2011, 12:47:36 PM
Not hosted by us, understand -- you host your own. :)

Oh I know. I'm just saying, something manageable and not peer based like AI War and Tidalis :P
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 08, 2011, 01:06:00 PM
Well, it's a really different model from the other games -- I think most every RTS is peer based.  But yeah, that wouldn't fit at all here. :)
: Re: Worlds
: Zhaine February 08, 2011, 02:45:29 PM
Coooool. If (big if) this really takes off there's the potential here for some of the most unique, cool and interesting persistent world gaming available.

I don't want to say MMO cos I don't think that's got the right connotations, but something in that space. . . Like what some MMOs have aimed for in terms of a changing, living world but few (EVE) have got close to. Or halfway between minecraft and traditional MMOs (now I've said it 3 times!) but with more adventure and exploration. Or something!

I'm dreaming, I know this isn't what you're aiming for, but it's cool to dream!

Anyways, I was just going to humbly suggest that, if multiplayer does go ahead that you don't hardcode in some player limit that can't be changed without massive pain, in case things do take this direction.

(disclaimer: I'm no programmer so I have no idea on the technical realities of my ramblings)
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 08, 2011, 03:22:42 PM
Yep, no plans for a hardcover player limit. The situation on LANs ought to be such that really tons of players are supported no matter what is going on with bandwidth limits for individual servers on the Internet. :)
: Re: Worlds
: Morslok February 08, 2011, 05:15:58 PM
The situation on LANs ought to be such that really tons of players are supported no matter what is going on with bandwidth limits for individual servers on the Internet. :)

That sounds like a challenge to someone to have 100 or so of their closest friends LAN it up and get a screen of everyone in the same town. :D

The worlds generated by a multiplayer server would be entirely compatible with single player and vice-versa.  So you could play solo if you want without the server, then turn on the server for some co-op.  Though, you can also play via the server for solo if you want, it doesn't limit the players to 2+ for that (though why you'd want to if you never have more than one person would be a question -- but I digress).

Based on your statement that you would only ever want/need one world, where would our level progression stand in this multi-world server system? If I get to level X on single player, will I be able to carry that to a server? Or will I be back to level 1 in that world? If I go back to level one, isn't that a disincentive to play multiplayer at all (or at least to play in anything other than your own server)?
: Re: Worlds
: Echo35 February 08, 2011, 05:24:20 PM
You could always pull a Monster Hunter and Phantasy Star style and make your character persistent and transferable between online and offline worlds.
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 08, 2011, 05:26:23 PM
The situation on LANs ought to be such that really tons of players are supported no matter what is going on with bandwidth limits for individual servers on the Internet. :)

That sounds like a challenge to someone to have 100 or so of their closest friends LAN it up and get a screen of everyone in the same town. :D

Heh, that would certainly be quite interesting. :)

The worlds generated by a multiplayer server would be entirely compatible with single player and vice-versa.  So you could play solo if you want without the server, then turn on the server for some co-op.  Though, you can also play via the server for solo if you want, it doesn't limit the players to 2+ for that (though why you'd want to if you never have more than one person would be a question -- but I digress).

Based on your statement that you would only ever want/need one world, where would our level progression stand in this multi-world server system? If I get to level X on single player, will I be able to carry that to a server? Or will I be back to level 1 in that world? If I go back to level one, isn't that a disincentive to play multiplayer at all (or at least to play in anything other than your own server)?

"You" don't have anything outside of the specific server/world in question.  The world itself would have a level progress (which we call player level, but it's actually global for the world).  "You" also don't have any permanent characters, even within a given world, because one character dies and then you take over the next, etc.  So there's really nothing to be carried between worlds, or between multiplayer and single player, because everything is so tied into the world itself that it just doesn't make sense out of context.

Honestly I don't think that going back to level 1 is going to bother folks that much.  It's the loss of all the history of what you did, and the ways you shaped the world, that will be the bother.  That said, if you had to have a solo world and a world you play on with friends, I don't think that would be a tragedy by any stretch.  Each world would be different and would contain a unique and interesting history per that world.  If your friends have been playing multiplayer without you and got the player level there up to 20, and you join, then you're at level 20 with all the rest of them.  No need to play catch-up (except on equipment, to some extent).
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 08, 2011, 05:30:34 PM
You could always pull a Monster Hunter and Phantasy Star style and make your character persistent and transferable between online and offline worlds.

Your character will be perma-dead within a few hours of normal gameplay most of the time!  Sometimes less! ;)
: Re: Worlds
: Morslok February 08, 2011, 05:34:22 PM
"You" don't have anything outside of the specific server/world in question.  The world itself would have a level progress (which we call player level, but it's actually global for the world).  "You" also don't have any permanent characters, even within a given world, because one character dies and then you take over the next, etc.  So there's really nothing to be carried between worlds, or between multiplayer and single player, because everything is so tied into the world itself that it just doesn't make sense out of context.

Honestly I don't think that going back to level 1 is going to bother folks that much.  It's the loss of all the history of what you did, and the ways you shaped the world, that will be the bother.  That said, if you had to have a solo world and a world you play on with friends, I don't think that would be a tragedy by any stretch.  Each world would be different and would contain a unique and interesting history per that world.  If your friends have been playing multiplayer without you and got the player level there up to 20, and you join, then you're at level 20 with all the rest of them.  No need to play catch-up (except on equipment, to some extent).

Ooooooohhh. That makes so much sense, and I never would have thought of it. I'm glad you're making this game and not me.

I'm very excited about this game, have been since the initial press release. I will buy it as soon as you'll let me, and I hope you make a ton of money off it and turn it into "the only game you will ever need" (along with AI War).
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 08, 2011, 05:36:05 PM
Thanks! :)
: Re: Worlds
: BobTheJanitor February 08, 2011, 05:50:37 PM
Honestly I don't think that going back to level 1 is going to bother folks that much.  It's the loss of all the history of what you did, and the ways you shaped the world, that will be the bother.  That said, if you had to have a solo world and a world you play on with friends, I don't think that would be a tragedy by any stretch.  Each world would be different and would contain a unique and interesting history per that world.  If your friends have been playing multiplayer without you and got the player level there up to 20, and you join, then you're at level 20 with all the rest of them.  No need to play catch-up (except on equipment, to some extent).

I understood the concept of the world leveling instead of you leveling, at least at an intellectual level. But then something like this just sort of slaps me upside the head with it and how much it changes the traditional mold. I look forward to being continually amazed by this game.  :)
: Re: Worlds
: Flatfingers February 08, 2011, 08:26:16 PM
Hmm. Puzzled moment.

If the world levels, rather than the (current) character or the player, and if the difficulty level of challenges (which I'm assuming are related somehow to the current "world level") tend to increase to the east of your character's current location, then how is the world persistent if the world-level gets reset on character death?

In other words, if I explore enough places with one character to get the world up to (say) level 20, and then that character dies, can I ever return with a new character to those previously explored locations (I assume the answer is "yes"), and if I do, will the challenge level of those places remain at what they were for my previous character (implying world-persistence)? Or will those locations reset their challenge level to scale to my current character's longevity?

I'm not trying to pick holes here, I promise! :D It's just interesting to wonder how these unique systems might interact. I figure I'm missing a whole lot of information that hasn't been revealed yet -- looking forward to learning more when the time is right!
: Re: Worlds
: Invelios February 08, 2011, 08:33:11 PM
Hmm. Puzzled moment.

If the world levels, rather than the (current) character or the player, and if the difficulty level of challenges (which I'm assuming are related somehow to the current "world level") tend to increase to the east of your character's current location, then how is the world persistent if the world-level gets reset on character death?

In other words, if I explore enough places with one character to get the world up to (say) level 20, and then that character dies, can I ever return with a new character to those previously explored locations (I assume the answer is "yes"), and if I do, will the challenge level of those places remain at what they were for my previous character (implying world-persistence)? Or will those locations reset their challenge level to scale to my current character's longevity?

I'm not trying to pick holes here, I promise! :D It's just interesting to wonder how these unique systems might interact. I figure I'm missing a whole lot of information that hasn't been revealed yet -- looking forward to learning more when the time is right!

IIRC, x4000 said somewhere that character level transfers from character to character, so if your Lv 20 character dies, your new character is still Lv 20. I wish I remember which thread he said this in...
: Re: Worlds
: Morslok February 08, 2011, 08:47:56 PM
Hmm. Puzzled moment.

If the world levels, rather than the (current) character or the player, and if the difficulty level of challenges (which I'm assuming are related somehow to the current "world level") tend to increase to the east of your character's current location, then how is the world persistent if the world-level gets reset on character death?

In other words, if I explore enough places with one character to get the world up to (say) level 20, and then that character dies, can I ever return with a new character to those previously explored locations (I assume the answer is "yes"), and if I do, will the challenge level of those places remain at what they were for my previous character (implying world-persistence)? Or will those locations reset their challenge level to scale to my current character's longevity?

I'm not trying to pick holes here, I promise! :D It's just interesting to wonder how these unique systems might interact. I figure I'm missing a whole lot of information that hasn't been revealed yet -- looking forward to learning more when the time is right!

IIRC, x4000 said somewhere that character level transfers from character to character, so if your Lv 20 character dies, your new character is still Lv 20. I wish I remember which thread he said this in...

It was my understanding that the specific character that you play as does not level. The world levels instead. Each character has a different name, and there are different crafting classes, but other than that they are essentially the same once you take control.
: Re: Worlds
: BobTheJanitor February 08, 2011, 09:30:55 PM
As I understand it, it is YOU, the player, that levels. So any NPC you take over will be your level. If you're at level 20, every new character you get will be 20. I don't think everything in the world is equal to your level, per se. I've already mentioned in some other thread how Oblivion does this quite wrong and makes leveling seem pointless since everything you fight will be the same as your level no matter where you go. I don't think AVWW is going to be that sort of equal leveling system, but it is going to have something whereby the world levels up with you.
: Re: Worlds
: Morslok February 08, 2011, 10:42:31 PM
As I understand it, it is YOU, the player, that levels. So any NPC you take over will be your level. If you're at level 20, every new character you get will be 20. I don't think everything in the world is equal to your level, per se. I've already mentioned in some other thread how Oblivion does this quite wrong and makes leveling seem pointless since everything you fight will be the same as your level no matter where you go. I don't think AVWW is going to be that sort of equal leveling system, but it is going to have something whereby the world levels up with you.

I apologize, the terminology I used was perhaps not the best. I was trying to say that rather than keeping track of a player's level (which would then be different for each player on a multiplayer server) there is a "global" level that is tied directly to the world. x4000 has said that the monsters and such in the world will not level equally with this "global" level, but they will get slightly tougher the higher this level is. In each self contained world, you would never go back to level 1, all progress is saved and persistent within each world, even if that progress was not your doing, you reap the benefits.

So, in other words, yes, it is YOU, the player, that levels, and WHAT the player levels is the "global" level, not his own individual level, nor the level of the character he plays. Player progression, "global" progression, and character progression are one and the same, represented by the "global" level, which can never decrease, nor reset.
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 08, 2011, 10:51:05 PM
Yeah, there is one overall "player level" number for the entire world.  There is also a "player experience" stat that is global for the world.  When any player does stuff that gains EXP, it goes into the global player experience pool.  When that's high enough, the player level flips up.  Now, the player level is a good thing, and boosts the stats, etc, of all the characters you control -- and the death of a character doesn't affect this, as others have noted.

There is also a "region level" number for each region in the world.  That determines the difficulty of the monsters.  Depending on how far you go in the various compass directions, you will find regions with differing region levels, indicating different difficulties.

As the player level increases, ALL of the region levels in the world will also increase, but far more slowly -- about 30% of the player-level increase, most likely.  That way things don't get so stupid easy in the starting areas, though actually they will still be quite easy because you'll be 60% stronger than them still.

That's not the entire system, but that's the basic gist, anyway.  Don't worry, I'm not afraid of anyone poking holes -- if you can, then that's something we need to fix, but so far nobody has.  There's just a LOT of gameplay mechanics we haven't publicly revealed yet, so a lot of the holes line up with that stuff. :)
: Re: Worlds
: Flatfingers February 09, 2011, 01:19:24 AM
Ah, so -- separately tracked "player/world level" and "region level" control numbers, then. Thanks for the clarification.

That's a little more complex than either just a "world level" or "character level" approach. On the upside, giving every region its own challenge level should allow AVWW to avoid what we might call "the Oblivion problem" where everything scales to the character's abilities. That scaling thing didn't bother me too much, but as BobTheJanitor pointed out, a lot of people really hated that they couldn't get that feeling of growing in power that comes with returning to a location (that has a static difficulty level) to easily crush the challenges that previously had seemed very dangerous.

At the same time, regions are still keyed somewhat to player/world level, so previously explored regions don't become static "been there, done that" locations where once the content becomes too easy, it is forever too easy to be worth visiting again.

Nice design!
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 09, 2011, 10:38:28 AM
Thanks!
: Re: Worlds
: ShinseiTom February 11, 2011, 07:10:31 AM
Actually, there is a question I had when I read about things leveling in older areas and coming back.  Sorry if this has been asked.

Why, other than if a settlement you made is close by, would you go back to an old area you already cleaned out?  Other than the monsters getting slightly stronger over time, will things like items also reappear slowly over time?  Such as that pile of junk you rifled through hours ago (possibly years game time, I'm not sure what the time scale in-game is either) perhaps having a few new nuggets of stuff you missed uncovered?
: Re: Worlds
: BobTheJanitor February 11, 2011, 11:44:09 AM
I don't know why you'd do it specifically in game terms for AVWW, but I will say in general sometimes it's fun to be able to go back to an area that was deadly dangerous in the past to find that you can now carve through anything. For me, at least, one of the fun parts of RPGs or any game with advancing power levels is that you can go back and gauge your power against now weaker enemies. It's pointless, sure, but fun. When I used to play MMOs I would go back to starting areas when I was really bored and annihilate lower level creatures with AoE attacks. Why? Why not?
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 11, 2011, 01:10:39 PM
Part of it certainly is the fun-factor -- if I haven't been somewhere for six months of realtime, but I remember it fondly, it's neat to go back there.

But, in AVWW, it's also important.  When you die, you take on the persona of another character you'd interacted with.  If everyone at your newer settlements dies (ouch), then you're back to people in the older settlements that you haven't seen in a while.  Of course, you could just as well ask them to move, so it's not like you're tied only to the older places you've been at, but still.

A lot of the things about the benefits of settlements and about improving NPCs that you work with I don't want to get in to too much yet, because they are a bit speculative at this point.  But for one example, there will be certain "legendary" items and weapons and spells that require a specific type of craftsman, and improving certain NPCs in their crafting skills over a long period of time can pay dividends in that regard.

Granted, this raises a whole lot of other questions about fast-travel, crafting, and so on and so forth.  Some of those we have tentative plans for, other things we're waiting to solve when we see them in terms of actual implemented gameplay, and our "plans" are actually just a collection of ideas that seem promising, but which we don't yet  know which will be the best from.  AI War evolved like this, too, and I think it benefits the game -- anything that can be fully comprehended from day one can't be that original. ;)

A lot of that sort of thing will shake out in the alpha and beta phases, and we'll definitely be accepting player ideas on how to keep things fresh and interesting, too.  There's nothing for adding variety like throwing hundreds of fans at a project each with their own ideas. :)
: Re: Worlds
: Echo35 February 11, 2011, 04:01:52 PM
But, in AVWW, it's also important.  When you die, you take on the persona of another character you'd interacted with.  If everyone at your newer settlements dies (ouch), then you're back to people in the older settlements that you haven't seen in a while.  Of course, you could just as well ask them to move, so it's not like you're tied only to the older places you've been at, but still.

So kinda like being able to choose your character from your allies/team/party/etc?
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 11, 2011, 04:03:56 PM
Sort of, yes.
: Re: Worlds
: tigersfan February 11, 2011, 04:12:49 PM
One thing I'm not clear on from this thread. Sorry if I missed the answer somewhere. But, will we be able to create multiple simultaneous worlds if we want? Sort of like Minecraft allows for multiple worlds?
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 11, 2011, 04:24:50 PM
One thing I'm not clear on from this thread. Sorry if I missed the answer somewhere. But, will we be able to create multiple simultaneous worlds if we want? Sort of like Minecraft allows for multiple worlds?

As many as you want.
: Re: Worlds
: RCIX February 11, 2011, 10:21:53 PM
This is actually shaping up to sound like Minecraft, except a lot more heavy on the Craft than the Mine. :)
: Re: Worlds
: x4000 February 11, 2011, 10:47:39 PM
This is actually shaping up to sound like Minecraft, except a lot more heavy on the Craft than the Mine. :)

Eh... while I love Minecraft, I think this game has a lot more in common with Crystalis, Zelda 2, Zelda 3, or a number of other games.  The only things in common with Minecraft are the huge open worlds (though in our case it's not seamless, it's chunk-based like the games I listed above) and the fact that there is some crafting.  Minecraft has this huge amount of ways you can construct in the world, and that you can alter it, in very atomic, fundamental ways.  We won't have any of that. 

But at the same time, Minecraft doesn't really have a story, or any particular goals, or all that much variety in locales (despite the biomes, etc, it's all basically blank and uninhabited until you arrive -- very garden of eden-ish).  I don't think that means that AVWW or Minecraft are better or worse than one another, but they also aren't substitutes for one another.  I very much intend to keep playing Minecraft for years, even once AVWW is done and I'm also playing that.  I think the general feel of them will be vastly different in practice.