Dear FD: How To Code Realistic Spawns, Sincerely: Another Game Developer.

[askavir]

FD decided to go 'NPCs for the player' when it got big backslash over harder NPC combat AI. Granted, balancing everchanging player curve is hard. Overall it feels that after Master ED kinda takes off kid's wheels, and NPCs become more harder to predict and I have found myself running from them quite often - something I didn't do before reaching Master.

My gripe with this is not even a matter of difficulty, is because it makes the world feel too artificial. Whatever my ranks or ships, I should always be able to see and interact (or not) with NPCs of all difficulty levels and ships. I want to be able to smash and other times having to run, I want to navigate calm waters and other times shark infested waters. I want to be able to smash though (where it makes sense) and want to have to run with my tail between my legs (where it makes sense).

I hate "mirror universes" in all games. I hate that the whole galaxy changes because I switched ship, or a bunch of characters (rank) changed. I want to blend and have to adapt to the environment, not have the environment adapt itself to me.

If the NPC population was created in a natural way, according to environment (with some degree of randomness), people would be able to predict and decide by themselves accordingly to navigate easier or more troublesome waters according to their playstyle or wishes, and more important we would have a much more coherent and natural world that wouldn't feel so artificial as now. And FD would not have the burden of having to tweak difficulty (which will never ever satisfy most people), it would be up to the player because all difficulty levels would be present in the game at all times in a way that made sense and matched location / situation / bgs, everybody would be happy, and the game world world would feel much better for it.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I feel the whole game is based too much around RNG ....... nothing seems purposeful, with an intent that leads to something else.

That's the problem with RNG .... it's too random

You just haven't played enough. At around 5,000 hours you start to see the overall pattern. It's like hearing the voice of god in radio static.

 

[Vardaugas]

That's the problem with RNG .... it's too random

That always depends on how much content the random generation can draw from and how it is focused. You can channel rng into purposeful design when you invest the effort.

 

[askavir]

I feel the whole game is based too much around RNG ....... nothing seems purposeful, with an intent that leads to something else.

That's the problem with RNG .... it's too random

A bit of RNG is good, as long as its a bit of RNG on top of coherent and logical rules to provide some variation.

For instance, I hate that every single time I enter a tourist POI there are always exactly 3 Belugas there that immediately jump away (no RNG at all). I also jhat that every single time I drop into a random place in a huge asteroid ring in a random planet of a random system, there are always a pirate already there (no logic at all).

 

[wstephenson]

If the NPC population was created in a natural way, according to environment (with some degree of randomness), people would be able to predict and decide by themselves accordingly to navigate easier or more troublesome waters according to their playstyle or wishes, and more important we would have a much more coherent and natural world that wouldn't feel so artificial as now. And FD would not have the burden of having to tweak difficulty (which will never ever satisfy most people), it would be up to the player because all difficulty levels would be present in the game at all times.

But for this to work, the game would have to directly state and indirectly telegraph risk to players in several places, so they don't jump into a system and immediately get their face eaten because it's too high for their ability. And FD would also need to introduce rules that generate the distribution of difficulty across the galaxy, so that you don't have random noise putting High risk next to Low Risk next to Insane Risk next to Mushroom Cup risk next to Nightmare risk, because it would feel unrealistic, and be too easy to mis-step into peril. Half the risk component is player dependent (value, reputation, Wanted level, Power affiliation) and for the game to display this usefully, ie levels of risk on the galaxy map, it would need to be computed per-player. Not as easy as only displaying static values common to all players.

 

[babelfisch]

If someone's PC crashed that often...they should give up or git gud.

Microsoft just released an update that caused crashes in Chrome. If something like that happens to ED say goodbye to your entire playerbase. No, it's a bad idea.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I feel the whole game is based too much around RNG ....... nothing seems purposeful, with an intent that leads to something else.

That's the problem with RNG .... it's too random

No. That not the issue. The issue is that FD uses only one single random encounter table with 1-4 entries for a given situation, regardless of context.
As any GM knows, random tables have their uses but : 1) not over do it 2) the table content must fit with the context.

ED fails at both in many instances.

And dangerous/very dangerous/insanely dangerous places could work fine : just add an FSD selective block for those.
Don't want to risk going there : activate the FSD block (like a permit).

Set the blocks to on at the start of the game, so that noobs don't get mashed to a pulp by ignorance.

 

[DaveB]

But for this to work, the game would have to directly state and indirectly telegraph risk to players in several places, so they don't jump into a system and immediately get their face eaten because it's too high for their ability. And FD would also need to introduce rules that generate the distribution of difficulty across the galaxy, so that you don't have random noise putting High risk next to Low Risk next to Insane Risk next to Mushroom Cup risk next to Nightmare risk, because it would feel unrealistic, and be too easy to mis-step into peril. Half the risk component is player dependent (value, reputation, Wanted level, Power affiliation) and for the game to display this usefully, ie levels of risk on the galaxy map, it would need to be computed per-player. Not as easy as only displaying static values common to all players.

You mean something like "Nav point at a high-sec system, clean player, clean cargo - Enjoy your little bimble around, just don't foul up and aggro the cops and you'll be fine. Wanted player, hot cargo - Face eaten." or "Haz-res in anarchy. Face eaten every time, unless you're really, REALLY good" The cues are already there - it would be nice if they actually meant a little more than they currently do.

 

[Koen]

cosmic background noise "because SPACE! It's ELITE!"

You might be surprised what you find when that turns out not to be random at all.

 

[AdriánGuth]

Hi Friends!

You know what grinds my gears? Terrible enemy spawn mechanics! You know the kind I mean - the sort where poor programming leads to a very obvious maintenance of the same number(s) of enemies no matter what you, the player, try to do. For example, Ngalia. Oooh Ngalia. You would think that a Compromised Nav Beacon wouldn't spawn police, but you would be wrong! They are called bounty hunters, and for the last two hours they have spawned consistently and relentlessly - always one wing, always close to my ship, always scanning me first. This mechanic is not exclusive to compromised nav beacons, it's pretty much a staple throughout encounters in Elite. In asteroid fields for example, you will always have at least one ship coming to harass you. Near certain bases marked as "impossible to beat solo", you will *always* have at least one fighter hanging around. It seems to me, that someone at Frontier forgot to code some decent spawn mechanics. So without further ado ladies and gentlemen, I, a fellow game developer, present to you and Frontier - a nicer way to spawn enemies!

spawnCountDown = minSpawnTime + rand() % (maxSpawnTime - minSpawnTime);

There you go! Easy isn't it? Obviously, timing is in milliseconds.

You are welcome.

 

[Sergio Smegolia]

Experience

Either that or the first group are bare faced liers

All code has bugs, possibly excepting hello world....

>hworld
>Hello Wo
>Memory segmentation fault - creating core dump

 

[Koen]

>hworld
>Hello Wo
>Memory segmentation fault - creating core dump

> Dead Hand algorithm detected that system is down
> Launching preemptive missile strike

 

[wstephenson]

You mean something like "Nav point at a high-sec system, clean player, clean cargo - Enjoy your little bimble around, just don't foul up and aggro the cops and you'll be fine. Wanted player, hot cargo - Face eaten." or "Haz-res in anarchy. Face eaten every time, unless you're really, REALLY good" The cues are already there - it would be nice if they actually meant a little more than they currently do.

When you know where to look for them, they are there. For a player in their first ten hours, I think they could be stronger. See my second post about showing security, government and system state information in the target/location panel in the cockpit, and add a Universal Mutual Assurance view to the galaxy map so that dangerous volumes are clear as daylight (and 4-5 newbie jumps away from LHS 3447 or wherever it is they start out nowadays).

I agree with you though that the 'dynamic range' of difficulty could be increased.

 

[sidereal6]

The ideal is to get it so that you can't tell the age of the instance just by looking at what NPCs are there and where they are, which is not straightforward.

I agree that this is the goal. Two places where it's really easy to observe the opposite of this (meaning, it's really obvious that the instance is created when you arrive) are tourist beacons and ring systems.

When you drop in on a tourist beacon, you always get exactly three ships, and they always boost away from you and h-jump. If you try to imagine that they were there before you arrive, it's very strange - they scatter like bugs fleeing a light switch. It looks very, very strange.

The other situation is when you're mining, out in some random location in a ring system. You're all alone - which makes sense, these ring systems are huge, you could spend a lifetime without ever encountering another person. But then your phone rings, so you take a break, hop out to the main menu. When you return to the game, you will always, and I do mean always, get an instant bounty hunter right on top of you. It's annoying.

 

[askavir]

But for this to work, the game would have to directly state and indirectly telegraph risk to players in several places, so they don't jump into a system and immediately get their face eaten because it's too high for their ability. And FD would also need to introduce rules that generate the distribution of difficulty across the galaxy, so that you don't have random noise putting High risk next to Low Risk next to Insane Risk next to Mushroom Cup risk next to Nightmare risk, because it would feel unrealistic, and be too easy to mis-step into peril. Half the risk component is player dependent (value, reputation, Wanted level, Power affiliation) and for the game to display this usefully, ie levels of risk on the galaxy map, it would need to be computed per-player. Not as easy as only displaying static values common to all players.

But I don't want the game to telegraph me the risk of my destination, or displya a "risk level". I want the game to have risk levels that make sense in any destination. And allow me to judge the risk by looking into system information that is already there.

A high security democracy should be a place with very low risk for legal activities, and very dangerous for wanted criminal players. A low security anarchy should be a dangerous place for traders etc and a cakewalk for piracy due to very low and weak police response. A system at war should have a higher level of risk than a system in boom. A Haz Res in a low security system should be a terrible place. A low res at a high security system should be a heavily policed place. I also think that the most dangerous places should produce the most lucrative opportunities. So for instance more dangerous places would have higher demands for goods with higher profit margins. And the reverse for illegal occupations, ferrying contraband into heavily policed areas should yield higher payments for instance.

If the rules make sense according to area and state, any player can plan accordingly.

Of course if a place flies blindly through any location without caring then yes he will accidentally stumble into trouble. But that is actually natural and makes sense. I think using our brains should account for something.

 

[DaveB]

When you know where to look for them, they are there. For a player in their first ten hours, I think they could be stronger. See my second post about showing security, government and system state information in the target/location panel in the cockpit, and add a Universal Mutual Assurance view to the galaxy map so that dangerous volumes are clear as daylight (and 4-5 newbie jumps away from LHS 3447 or wherever it is they start out nowadays).

I agree with you though that the 'dynamic range' of difficulty could be increased.

Now, here's where we diverge a little. ED is notorious for its learning curve, for its "root, hog, or die" approach. Admittedly that's a tad diluted by the wealth of youtube vids and how-to guides that have been created but to me that's a feature not a bug. There's a kind of player who looks at those and a kind of player that doesn't, that has as much "figuring out how" in their gameplay as actually doing it. FD don't need to put all that right in the players face for the players that want it to find it because somebody WILL create a guide for it somewhere, just like back in the day you'd find the "walkthrough guides" in the same stores as sold the games within a week of the game being released. FD can be completely confident that if they make it happen then somebody, somewhere, will start telling the players who can't or won't pick at it until they've figured it out how to deal with it. I'd much rather they spent the resources on making it happen than on creating tools to show the player it IS happening. Aside from anything else it avoids the accusations of "dumbing down the game" or "hand holding"

 

[wstephenson]

Of course if a place flies blindly through any location without caring then yes he will accidentally stumble into trouble. But that is actually natural and makes sense. I think using our brains should account for something.

FD don't need to put all that right in the players face for the players that want it to find it because somebody WILL create a guide for it somewhere, just like back in the day you'd find the "walkthrough guides" in the same stores as sold the games within a week of the game being released.

EDIT: Ok, 'directly state.. risk' would be going too far.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't calling for an in your face, precise warning such as a large red 'EXTREME DANGER, press [H] to cancel jump' popup in the middle of the HUD'. More like make the first derivatives of risk more visible up front, so we can plan, not react. Show system characteristics in a panel to the right side of the Navigation tab, like we have for contacts. Flash them on the target/location cockpit UI panel on arrival. And make them visible overall on the Galaxy map, so we can visualise a dangerous neck of the woods or a boring one, the same way an explorer can look for a field of young blue stars to scan.

Agree with all your other points re risk vs reward. There should be grues. Did you see any of my past mentions of dynamically generated 'MINING ACTIVITY SIGNATURE' supercruise PoIs for lucrative wildcat mining?

 

[askavir]

EDIT: Ok, 'directly state.. risk' would be going too far.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't calling for an in your face, precise warning such as a large red 'EXTREME DANGER, press [H] to cancel jump' popup in the middle of the HUD'. More like make the first derivatives of risk more visible up front, so we can plan, not react. Show system characteristics in a panel to the right side of the Navigation tab, like we have for contacts. Flash them on the target/location cockpit UI panel on arrival. And make them visible overall on the Galaxy map, so we can visualise a dangerous neck of the woods or a boring one, the same way an explorer can look for a field of young blue stars to scan.

Agreed!

Agree with all your other points re risk vs reward. There should be grues. Did you see any of my past mentions of dynamically generated 'MINING ACTIVITY SIGNATURE' supercruise PoIs for lucrative wildcat mining?

I don't think I have, but I will if you kindly point me in the right direction.

 

[Wyaston Hypatia]

My gripe with this is not even a matter of difficulty, is because it makes the world feel too artificial. Whatever my ranks or ships, I should always be able to see and interact (or not) with NPCs of all difficulty levels and ships. I want to be able to smash and other times having to run, I want to navigate calm waters and other times shark infested waters. I want to be able to smash though (where it makes sense) and want to have to run with my tail between my legs (where it makes sense).

I hate "mirror universes" in all games. I hate that the whole galaxy changes because I switched ship, or a bunch of characters (rank) changed. I want to blend and have to adapt to the environment, not have the environment adapt itself to me.

If the NPC population was created in a natural way, according to environment (with some degree of randomness), people would be able to predict and decide by themselves accordingly to navigate easier or more troublesome waters according to their playstyle or wishes, and more important we would have a much more coherent and natural world that wouldn't feel so artificial as now. And FD would not have the burden of having to tweak difficulty (which will never ever satisfy most people), it would be up to the player because all difficulty levels would be present in the game at all times in a way that made sense and matched location / situation / bgs, everybody would be happy, and the game world world would feel much better for it.

Totally agree, the onus should be on the players to adapt to the environment, not the environment adapting to the players.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

@askavir, @wstephenson

How about if local GalNet and/or station announcers in High Sec systems gave warnings about, say, "increased pirate activity in [neighboring Low Sec system]. Pilots are advised to avoid"?

Then the information is available and flagged for new Cmdrs without being totally 'in your face'.