A Level Playing Field?

Gameplay
#1

So, I’ve just finished playing The Last of Us and the Left Behind DLC (Both AMAZING, by the way), and I was thinking of the first improvement I would have liked to see: Enemies on a level playing field.

I was always tight on ammunition but the enemy all had trigger-fingers and enough bullets to match. It would have been nice to wear down your enemy’s supplies before finishing them off with my bare hands (as another alternative to the stealth vs. guns-blazing divide in the game).

This made me think: Will KC: D be played on a level playing field?

  • Will the enemy have similar ammunition/supply constraints?
  • Will the enemy try to conserve stamina as you do? (rather than relentlessly attacking until they’re tired and, thus, giving you an easy target to finish off)
  • Will the enemy have to worry about inventory? Health supplies? Weapons? etc.
  • Will the enemy have to eat and sleep? (So look-out guards will take breaks, swapping shifts every so often)
  • Will the enemy have limited wealth?
  • Will the enemy have skills which he has leveled-up? Can he get better?

So, does anyone have any thoughts?

6 Likes
#2

My speculations:
1)limited amount of arrows
2)definitely, based on level of enemy. Given the fact that stamina is main factor in the combat, it should be a very important part of AI.
3)Not exactly sure what you mean by that, but imo npcs will be limited in how much they can carry.
4)Some of them will, but not all of them and not necessarily.
5) Not only enemies, but also merchants.
6) Possibly, but not very likely

#3

I agree, except with regards to eating and sleeping. I think this would be a really cool and interesting factor in the game. With countless possibilities for gameplay…

Your enemies needing sleep opens up several possibilities:

  • You can ambush them when they’re tired.
  • You can catch them when swapping shifts (if on look-out duty or similar).
  • You can keep them under siege until they are too weary to put up a good fight.
  • They can do all of the above to you, adding an extra challenge to the game.

And your enemies needing to eat opens up further opportunities:

  • When sieging an enemy, you can wait until their food supplies are depleted.
  • You can stop the market from trading (kill the merchant, burn the supplies, bribe the trader, etc.) and thus weaken your enemies as they are starving.
  • And it could work in the opposite way: At a banquet/feast, you could spoil the guests with too much food and beer, and kill them whilst they are full and drunk.
4 Likes
#4

Difficult prospect. For the entirety of of what passes for the history of design of digital games - giving the player a handicap by boosting the non player characters or computer in less than realistic capacities, has been the way of doing things.

Though by the looks of it, their NPC simulation offers up the opportunity of just this kind of change. If any and all NPCs are equipped with their own hobbies, aspirations, personalities, medical history and so on. Adding inventory to that is not inconceivable.

They just need to create the right tools for the job so doing this is feasible with their manpower and allotted time. One of those things that is easier said than done, I imagine.

1 Like
#5

My speculations about if the enemys need to eat and sleep:

One of the ways to destroy a castle is making a siege, and one of the imporants points is block the entry of food… So I think the enemies will die if not eaten in some weeks

1 Like
#6

Exactly. But this also works on a smaller scale (so not just for sieging castles).

For example: If you need to assassinate a man who is protected in a small fortress/large camp, you could create many small problems (like burning buildings, killing guards, spreading rumors, etc.) to keep him from sleeping (since he is so worried/occupied with the havoc you bring to his fort) and thus making him an easier (and sleepier) target.

1 Like
#7

Or flee the fort in delirious paranoia. Something about owls in the walls and rafters.

#8

Yep… Or flee the fort in delirious paranoia…

The point is, since the player character is bound by these interests (food and sleep), why not NPCs? And It will add a really cool and interesting gameplay element and a refreshing break from the usual Stealth vs. Guns-Blazing divide which “open world” or “sandbox” games usually offer.

#9

I see what you guys are saying about alternate strategies, realism, and immersion, but I can’t help thinking, what will we, the players, be doing in-game while we are waiting a month outside of a castle while the enemy runs out of food? You guys don’t think that will be a little bit… boring? Especially with the talks of how the in game clock will work (1.5 hours IRL = 1 day in-game). So, let’s do the math here:

-Say the enemy has 28 days of food until they are at the point of surrender.
-For the first 3 days (or 4.5 hours of real time), you have a good fight. Then, the enemy retreats to your superior numbers and ammunition.
-For 2 days after that (another 3 hours IRL), they use up their remaining projectile ammunition on you. You are still having fun though right? It’s challenging to save your troops from hails of arrows, isn’t it?
-For the next 23 days (34.5 hours of real time), you sit outside the castle and make sure no food or reinforcements are received by your enemy.

While this may be a bit extreme, you see where I’m going with this? On a smaller scale, it works, but I just don’t think that 100% realistic is always going to make a fun game.

2 Likes
#10

Yes, this kind of large-scale siege would be impracticable for a game and, as you say very boring from the player-character perspective.

However, the same is not true of these kinds of tactics on a smaller scale (E.g. When dealing with a look-out guard, or a smaller fortress/camp) since their supplies would be less and (I assume) the game will work so that 1 or 2 days without food would significantly impact your performance.

#11

Such leeway for the sake of gameplay is a given. Much as a good DC animation is not a frame by frame carbon copy of any given comic, but a interpretation. A good game is a mixture of realism - enough to make it plausible and the player is is not nagged by how gamey or “unrealistic” it feels. And mechanics of a appropriate nature - according to what type of game it is.

A simple rule of thumb, I think. Though each designer has its own definitions, I find many of the modern games ignore this and shove pointless features - say collectibles - into their games. Shallow Skinner box approach to game design. Filler features.

1 Like
#12

Yes, if this game are realistic will be a little more boring, but if you can try diferent strategies, if you like wait 34.5 hours, why you can’t? if you don’t want to wait 34.5 hours you can take an other strategies, no?
And ok, probably nobody will waiting 34,5 hours, yes, in a large scale is more dificult, but in a little scale is more funny. If you don’t eat in 2 days… please, you can’t have the same force than the other who eats some hours ago.
And the same with water and sleep

(sorry for my english, i’m spanish and google translater don’t work very well xD)

#13

This made me chuckle. I’m afraid they will also die if you do eat them.
Don’t mind me, your english is fine enough. :wink:

First remember that sieges aren’t as free and strategically planable as some still seem to think. As far as I got the updates and videos right, a siege will be heavily scripted (excuse my foul language), so you won’t be able to starve a castle as long as it isn’t a choice in a quest that is part of the siege (I guess a siege can be understood as a series of quests and related choices that result in the taking of a castle).

If an NPC needs to sustain nutrition and hydration is another affair. NPCs seem to have a rather complex day-cicle, periodical eating exists in other games and the AI-Editor they showed us in update 5 seems to be quite powerful, so I think it’s feasible. The question is, is it the expenditure / gain ratio reasonable? Do you really want to have the devs spend time on something that would only show in very rare circumstances? You’d have to stalk an NPC to keep it from eating and drinking for like a week to have it keel over and then what amount of precious immersion have you won? I don’t think starving NPCs will make this game better, but it wouldn’t hurt either.

€dit: Just noticed that I simply assumed that enemies will be handled like any other NPC, that’s not necessarily the case…

#14

Hmm ok… I want to kill all the NPC with a siege xD Ok no, my example is a extreme idea, but we can create a system with some similar rules, in other same post we found a interesting thing:

This is a realistic and playable rules? and we can put/change some rules

#15

These are some great suggestions. But, what I’m really interested in this thread is finding out whether/how the enemy should be constrained by the same rules!

If NPCs/Enemies take the same penalties for lack of sleep, then this will be great!

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz