Complex life in the universe and how to do it.

[wolvern]

Like in Rimworld, each character is given traits, given abilities they do well at and badly at, things they can and can't do.

With such small things added we could expand the universe depth 20x over, Think about it, we could totally have ships that could run from battle, eject, flee sooner or later than expected. With such little extras in the universe we could also make it even more diverse by timing and placement.

If there's 8 stations in a sector, we just mix them around, we spawn them in different locations in the same area. This little thing would mix things up exceptionally well with timing. Players making ships at different times means different pilots are there and waiting.

The traders wouldn't always stick with the same company, they would shift depending on a random timer, they'd pick up jobs for different companies over time and since the stations are different distances apart that also means the timing is different as well for every player.

You'd think this might effect missions but if you're looking for Terracorp HQ in home of light... it'd be there, it's not going to tell you the zone because that changes with stations placement.

In X3 we had a tonne of sectors with 4-5 stations in each easily sometimes or even more, fact being that the mission wouldn't likely care.

---------------

What extra depth?
So going on such, we could also have a police record for each person, things they got caught for because with such station shifts timing comes into play.

Police license would be used for more, we could find ships we could bribe and even police that stop issues with us boarding

We could bribe a ship engineer to sabotage radar / guns / engines / radio to make it easier to board

We could hire loyal pilots and would need to look around for people with good records and history with a company, we could have our ships bribed. Sometime later we may be able to hire a HR department of sorts to screen pilots but may still let 1-2 bad pilots through once in a while. This would automate and speed up the process later on.

Difference in station positions also could effect births different relationships forming that create different pilots, that will also change up every cap ship entirely, who worked on them and how skilled all their staff are in the long run without being random but planned out in a procedural fashion after the start as the game devs want.

---------------

So what does this change in the long run? EVERYTHING
I mean literally everything including the storyline but if really needed, giving them a temp boost or even a number point system so that it means different ships make up the storyline group when needed for battles, patrols or otherwise. This would mean that every single squad might have a weakness due to it's build of ships if such point system was also in place.

So overall i'm just looking at a possibly simple way to implement a very diverse system.

[mr.WHO]

It will be a great feature for X6 release circa 2030 when w 64-core CPU will be a standard.

Seriously - this might sound stupid that the game like Riworld can provide such level of complexity, but rimworld don't have to real-time simulate 50+ sector galaxy with thousand ships, NPCs stations and complex economy + high end graphic and 100+ ship battles.

[monster.zero]

X4 could easily simulate a million sectors.....SHOWING the action would be difficult....but it can be simulated.


Could be a separate program....X4 SIMULATOR. It runs in the background, simulating the universe. Run it overnight.

I can easily simulate a battle between a billion starships. My strength is 53% theirs is 76%...I lose 546,987, 324 ships they lose 233,546,655. I could show a small slice of the battle...maybe 1000 ships.

My mining fleet gathered 100 million tons of various ore in 100 years of mining the outer Oort cloud....They made just over 2.1 trillion dollars...simulated! I could stop the simulation and help them mine when I want.

No limit to anything when you can simulate.

Baseball simulates seasons/decades/centuries millions of games millions of stats...space games can do the same.
[/u]

[Morkonan]

A word of caution: In a game, randomization is not "content."

If "everything is customized" to such an extent as some suggestions may dictate, then the overall effect is "more randomization", even if these changes aren't the result of a random number generator, somewhere, or even if they're only randomly generated once.

A "game" requires rules, an objective, and tools the player can use, within those rules, to accomplish the objective of the game. (Sometimes, the objective is just explodey things and a score, but that's still an "objective." There are also tools that "break the rules.")

Players get frustrated when what they understand are "rules" don't seem to apply anymore and when their "tools" don't function in the same way to help them attain their objective. Such things also make "progress" seem more difficult or even non-existent.

Surprisingly enough, when you have so many variables being generated that being able to predict what certain game-related circumstances will be like, the only way such a game will be "fun" is if, underneath, there is a very rigid structure that has been built that supports such randomization. Inevitably, for any long-format game, such a necessary structure purposefully reduces the impact of the very "randomness" one may have been trying to achieve.

How long can you play a game of Rimworld before it all goes pear-shaped? Sure, you can play on easy mode, where the only challenge is really going to be "can you build these blocks of things."

That's not an "X" game.

I'm not saying such suggestions aren't worth considering. Some bits of randomization, here and there, with some unpredictable behaviors and the novel gameplay they could present might be interesting to discuss. They could truly add to the flavor of the experience.

However... there is a threshold past which you can not go and still have an "X" game. A Random Number Generator is not a game-creator and anything tied to it has to be very closely scrutinized for its effects on gameplay.

An example of one that could work, within limits and would have to be weighted properly - Random weapon attributes. The equivalent of finding a +1 sword in a random loot roll. The problem is that the RNG may not care that it gives you, instead, a +10 Vorpal Sword of Doom. And, if used too frequently, you'll have a hundred ships, each with unique capabilities that just aren't easy to manage since you can't possibly remember all the unique attributes that make them all special little snowflakes.

An example that couldn't work: Random faction affiliations for all game objects. 'Cause, that should be obvious when you first start up the game and everything attacks everything else. Total playtime - Five minutes of watching a lightshow.

Note: On specific traits and behavior sets. Some of that would be worth considering. But, because such a large number of game objects would be effected, we'd have to be sure that the impact on primary gameplay would be, perhaps, a bit minimized. In other words, when the player is interacting with them, then these attributes could come into play. When the player isn't, then a much more watered-down version is what is really taking place.

[RAVEN.myst]

Upon reading the OP, my first thought was "randomisation - ewww!", and I was going to post extensively about it, but I see Morkonan has beaten me to it. So I'll keep my remarks brief.

Randomisation is a dangerous "tool", that is best (and most safely) applied to cosmetic elements: mixing up visual styles such as ship paintjobs (in X3, you have a small degree of ship colour randomisation, which goes largely unnoticed), and such. But when it comes to affecting game-play mechanics and results, RNG'ing has to be used with EXTREME care, for reasons already well explained by Morkonan. Variety is the spice of life, but too much spice leads to heart palpitations and gustatory perspiration and indigestion and heartburn and all sorts. But seriously: it comes down to a careful balance between such variety and a consistent rule-based framework ie. a certain amount of predictability is not only desirable, it is necessary.

Just to give an example of how randomisation can seriously screw things up if not extremely carefully implemented: what is the single most complained-about aspect of capital-ship boarding in X3TC/AP? Could it be how RNG can sometimes screw up even the most carefully prepared boarding operation with highly skilled marines, perhaps? That's an example of how a random system can be too extreme, too "swingy", negating even a good player's skilled plays arbitrarily. Now, when it comes to trivial or nearly-trivial endeavours, having the occasional unexpected reversal or setback can add a bit of "spice", but when an expensive (both resource- and time-wise) venture goes *poof* despite all competent (even excellent) efforts to the contrary, then the result tends to be... reload. That cheapens the experience, and is totally contrary to game immersion. With too much emphasis on RNG-based result resolution, there's a risk of rendering players' achievements nearly meaningless - the perception becomes that if the player failed then it was due to bad luck - and conversely if the player succeeded it was due to good luck. Let's also not forget that for many players, the incredibly lucky-break windfall is as damaging to the game experience as is an horridly unfair and expensive setback - having too much cash or ship or whatever land in our laps is not necessarily a cause to celebrate (I know it certainly isn't for me.)

Just to clarify: the problem is mostly when randomisation is used to preemptively, unilaterally collapse a probability, ie. to create a result without allowing the player to adapt his/her approach, or to avoid/withdraw a commitment to a situation (for example: the 20 five-star marines are all already aboard the target ship, but arbitrarily half of them die in a round of combat despite the fact that the target is by all metrics an easy one.)

A long, long time ago, I used to run a Dungeons & Dragons game, and as dungeon master, one of the most important things I learned (which was, in fact, pointed out by Gary Gygax himself in some foreword, probably the one for the Dungeon Master's Guide) was that despite all outward appearances, the dice-rolls are NOT king, and are in fact wholly subordinate to the story-telling process - therefore, if a die-roll would sabotage the story rather than creating an opportunity to enhance it, then the DM should ignore and overrule it. (And that's what the DM's screen is there for - not only for players not to see when and what the DM is rolling, but equally to not let the players see how often the DM disregards said rolls.) The moral here: random number based decision-making should always be moderated. When there's a person at the wheel, this isn't a problem - but a computer has no imagination, no intuition, no empathy, and certainly no story-telling skills, so it has not the skills or tools to make such "grey" decisions; hence, the RNG limits have to be drawn very conservatively in advance - the ranges have to be made deliberately narrow.


EDIT: Bah! So much for keeping my comments brief...

[wolvern]

A long, long time ago, I used to run a Dungeons & Dragons game, and as dungeon master, one of the most important things I learned (which was, in fact, pointed out by Gary Gygax himself in some foreword, probably the one for the Dungeon Master's Guide) was that despite all outward appearances, the dice-rolls are NOT king, and are in fact wholly subordinate to the story-telling process - therefore, if a die-roll would sabotage the story rather than creating an opportunity to enhance it, then the DM should ignore and overrule it. (And that's what the DM's screen is there for - not only for players not to see when and what the DM is rolling, but equally to not let the players see how often the DM disregards said rolls.) The moral here: random number based decision-making should always be moderated. When there's a person at the wheel, this isn't a problem - but a computer has no imagination, no intuition, no empathy, and certainly no story-telling skills, so it has not the skills or tools to make such "grey" decisions; hence, the RNG limits have to be drawn very conservatively in advance - the ranges have to be made deliberately narrow.

You'll also notice i did suggest the same system as even what D&D uses where each challenge has a combat rating limiter, so a squadron of ships on patrol would have a set figure of 35 battle points... which means if a cap ship is classed as 3 but having a limiter of max 2 cap ships allowed, fighters allowed in such ship would be 20 drones all using maybe 1 so 23 there and then fighter escorts. 12 points for those and they use 2 each, maybe 3?

Thus 1 flight of cap ships on a normal patrol would look like normal grouping that you'd see from the other X games. There's a few limits that can be in place but if you think about it... all ships have a purpose in X4 as they said meaning they already are tracking what all these ships are doing. Every pilot / engineer / security officer already has up to 5 stars on many different skills. A mod then expanded on that by making people bail based on amount of squad left and a few other variables which were calculated as things progressed.

It's not that much of a leap to add a little extra info and people think it's too complex for a computer to handle? that's pretty ridiculous when all the x games basically go to 2d simulation mode when you're not rendering them in...

[Sandalpocalypse]

XR actually used a point-based system behind the scenes when spawning enemies for missions etc. The same mission might spawn a Taranis by itself or a Heavy Sul with lots of escorts.

[RAVEN.myst]

You'll also notice i did suggest the same system as even what D&D uses where each challenge has a combat rating limiter, so a squadron of ships on patrol would have a set figure of 35 battle points... which means if a cap ship is classed as 3 but having a limiter of max 2 cap ships allowed, fighters allowed in such ship would be 20 drones all using maybe 1 so 23 there and then fighter escorts. 12 points for those and they use 2 each, maybe 3?

Thus 1 flight of cap ships on a normal patrol would look like normal grouping that you'd see from the other X games. There's a few limits that can be in place but if you think about it... all ships have a purpose in X4 as they said meaning they already are tracking what all these ships are doing. Every pilot / engineer / security officer already has up to 5 stars on many different skills. A mod then expanded on that by making people bail based on amount of squad left and a few other variables which were calculated as things progressed.

It's not that much of a leap to add a little extra info and people think it's too complex for a computer to handle? that's pretty ridiculous when all the x games basically go to 2d simulation mode when you're not rendering them in...

Yes, and I agree that the above example IS suited to some degree of randomisation - because here it determines the initial setup/conditions, and not a result - as I noted above, *that* is where the problem lies. Stuff being randomly set up initially is fine: the player observes the initial setup and gets to make decisions based on that info; the problem is where a RNG roll is made to determine a result, especially after a player has committed heavy resources - getting crippled by an arbitrarily punishing RNG result most often results in a reload - ugh!

Also, again as previously explained, D&D mechanisms don't necessarily port across well (or even at all) to a computer-arbitrated world, as the computer lacks the aforementioned imagination, intuition, creativity, empathy, and story-crafting capabilities that a human DM/GM brings to the table - in short, a computer is a purely rational machine that is entirely driven by rules, it cannot make intuitive leaps, and it can't cope with fuzzy, ambiguous edge cases in a creative way that might enable it to make an exception that is contextually more correct than applying the pre-defined ruleset it is operating in. A human DM can fudge a die-roll when it's beneficial (to the narrative process as a whole, rather than necessarily specifically to a player) - a computer can't.

[wolvern]

Stuff being randomly set up initially is fine: the player observes the initial setup and gets to make decisions based on that info; the problem is where a RNG roll is made to determine a result, especially after a player has committed heavy resources - getting crippled by an arbitrarily punishing RNG result most often results in a reload - ugh!

Also, again as previously explained, D&D mechanisms don't necessarily port across well (or even at all) to a computer-arbitrated world, as the computer lacks the aforementioned imagination, intuition, creativity, empathy, and story-crafting capabilities that a human DM/GM brings to the table - in short, a computer is a purely rational machine that is entirely driven by rules, it cannot make intuitive leaps, and it can't cope with fuzzy, ambiguous edge cases in a creative way that might enable it to make an exception that is contextually more correct than applying the pre-defined ruleset it is operating in. A human DM can fudge a die-roll when it's beneficial (to the narrative process as a whole, rather than necessarily specifically to a player) - a computer can't.

Actually some of this has been able to work well when using not just one AI Director but even 2 or 3..

Having a director of sorts allows empathy to be translated into it by possibly keeping track of the reloads? basically working behind the scenes in a small part continuously before you even load a game. Doing this by including player profiles instead so we can generate a profile for anyone who plays on our device and thus the director kicks off right after that. (I'm just throwing ideas around here)

Ship gets destroyed on a mission too many times and it lowers the difficulty, changes things up a little.