I love the idea but I can see it taking up a lot of programming time - and processing if they each have their own AI.

I'm trying to think of a simple way to code it in without using much of either.

Lairs

You'd have lairs, map locations. The creatures live there. You assign it a population value P and a growth rate G. Then for each different type of creature you assign a 'strength' value S. For scary beasts like trolls it would be relatively high, for something weak and unscary like goblins it'd be low. Based around the locations, each lair generates a radius which is a function of P*S. How long this equates to in the game distance unit is totally flexible, and could possibly scale with the map's lairs/(unitdistance^2).

So lair properties:

population value P
growth rate G
strength value S
f(lair radius) = P*S 

We can also assume that the creatures populating these are tantamount to insects in intelligence and will act fairly predictably and stupidly. 

Having lairs interact with each other

When two different lair radii intersect, for each turn they intersect there's a %chance that there'll be a comparison of the P*S values, and it will cause a 'war' which lasts a random small number of turns between the two lairs, subtracting from the population of each using a fixed proportion of the radius value of each, say something like 20%. The player would be able to witness the lair's status changing and the population hanging around a certain level but rising and falling.  This could easily be made more complex, but the point is that lairs should limit each others' growth by killing each other, creating a sort of ecosystem.

The generation of fresh lairs can be based on the absence of these radii and multiplied by the presence of city/lair ruins. Kinda like barbarians in Civ4.

Having lairs interact with the player 

When a lair radius intersects a player's city [or city radius?] there can be a %chance each turn that it will generate a 'lair-city' random event. This would probably involve a dialogue and an opportunity to employ the military or adventurers. The random events can be nicely varied, but would have the same general idea - you want an incentive to go kill these things because they'll grow to hurt you. Like a roach infestation. 

Peasants in [cityname] are complaining about raids and kidnappings from the nearby [lair adjective determined by P] [creaturename] lair. What would you have done?
- We will seek out and destroy these foul miscreants [makes quest - destroy some% of P in lair]
- We will build better defences [makes quest - build walls or build watchtower] 
- Ignore them [-happiness]

As well as random events the lairs could spawn roaming creatures like barbarian cities in Civ4.

Having the AI understand

These lairs could be assigned a threat value which is S*(P*[(1+G)^X]) where X is the number of turns we want the AI to look forward, which could be used to change the AI's attitude to lair conquest. Protective AI, non-militaristic would have a high X - wanting to make the effort kill lairs early. 

To further the "Living World" thought it seems prudent to mention that unlike a DM's D&D session, a PC game has many constraints that have to be applied, before, the adventurers, SoV and gang, actually show up.

I too have DM'd in my day, and have always felt a bit sad when playing games that could/would be so much better "if" the program had some random inherent logistics algorithm running to provide the creatures in the world with real lives, so to speak...

Sadly, that level of deterministic logic, would surely be difficult to implement, properly, due to said constraints.

I am not arguing that it cannot be done, just that to make it a true "living state" for the creatures we want to have lives of their own, would require a vast set of possible "actions" with a related vast set of "consequences".

As a DM, the ability to be instantly flexible based on what transpires, just before, during, and or, right after, any single event, seems iffy given within any games that is inherently limited, due to available inputted possibilities, to be as fluent.

A crazy example of how something unexpected may occur.

You watch a band of Trolls outside your village. Reports are as noted above, they obviously are seeking Food. AS a benevolent ruler you send out troops with Food, using a signal that even a Troll would understand as a non-hostile act.

When the troop arrives with the Food, a young troll, wanting to be playful, runs up and knocks down a Soldier, with some vigor. The man standing next to him reacts and kills the young Troll, it was a reflex action.

Now what? Does anyone in your troops speak Troll? Is the young Troll an Orphan, or the Leaders first born? etc etc. Infinite possibilities.

As a DM, you get to choose the scenario that will either grieve your party, for being so stupid (reflex or not), or save them from being wiped out, as they were on a mission of mercy, by having someone make a saving gesture, or whatever.

A game does not always allow for such flexibility, as outcomes from random actions have to be available for selection prior to most events actual occurrence.

So yes, a "living world" indeed. But one has to also realize the limitations when dealing with written code. Or mod them in, after the fact.

Heh yeah I am dang near decrepit . I am pretty immature (or young at heart if you'd rather) and even when I am talking to people on the phone with my job people always think I am in my late 20s or early 30s. Anyhoo - just really loving the level of involvement SD is giving us fans in the development of this game - truly awesome and eye-opening experience.

I don't think that, for most monsters, it needs to be overly complex.  Just simple, obvious behavior beyond "I show up.  I kill your stuff until you kill me."  

It was always jarring to me when playing Civ4 that the wolves chasing my warrior never attacked the bear that was also chasing my warrior.  Starving wolves aren't picky, but they would never attack one another.  Similarly, when the barbarians showed up at my shores and I kicked the snot out of them, they just tried again.  And again.  And again.  Don't you think eventually they'd go somewhere else?  Or they'd ask to join me?  Or something?  Something different?  You're telling me that humans capable of building themselves ships and finding metallic weapons couldn't see my massive army and advanced civilization and realize "Hey, maybe would should go somewhere else.  Or even better, join them!"

I have no issue with "I kill everything in sight" creatures roaming the land.  But not EVERY non human, especially in a fantasy setting, should be roaming the land looking to kill everything in sight.  

If Elemental Trolls are, by lore, aggressive beyond reason, but also lazy, then I'd expect them to wander the countryside randomly attacking things with no apparent motivation.  However, if they form tribes and have some form of hierarchy, then their behavior should reflect that they're not random killing machines, but a creature within a society with motivations all their own.  Those motivations may just be eat, breed, and be left alone until powerful enough to attack, but they should be evident.  Trolls that will ignore the player as long as left alone until they have a reasonable chance of winning.  

At that point you're reacting to the world and its reacting to you.  How long do you dare ignore that troll village on the border of your kingdom?  Do you take the time to gather the forces to erradicate it now, or do you wait and deal with them when you're more developed.  Should you hire that band of bargain adventurers to try and kill them for you, knowing that if they fail the trolls will be angry and may attack a settlement or a trade route? 

It would be a wonderful experience if, instead of just planning for and being surprised by the behavior of other empires/sovereigns, the player had to deal with an untamed world that responded to their presence based on its own goals.

I agree with Demiansky completely.

Sir Linque, this is so well said.   It does not matter Brad has warned many times that the beta aren't fun;  I can't see the OP direction from the forum so far either (unless he is saving the best for the last?).     Yes, the "get married, have children, arrange marriages" have the potential to make it more RPGish, but I am not so motivated from the mechanism  we have know so far.

Aside from the living world idea, other mechanisms are needed to make it feel like RPGish. 

There are games that I don't want to play the Sov from day  1.  I should not be forced to establish a city every time I play.  It should be an option that I strive for.

I may want to be an adventurer that wander around.   If I wanders into a city, I can buy an army, equipment, do quests, trade, or talk to NPCs.   I should be able to choose to pledge my royalty to a Sov, if I want.  I can marry their prince & princess if I want; so I one day can inherit the throne.    Before that, I can be a powerful warlord that my King/Queen/Sov tolerate the times I ignore their order/requests.

While I knew the game is designed to have Essence front and central, I really think the game will be much more fun if the ability to use Essence is not tied into the player character.   It should be transferable, e.g. by the "One Ring".  Or maybe there can be a spell that grants one's essence wielding ability from one to another, or etc etc.    As a player controlled hero, it will be fun and RPGish to find ways to cast Essence spells, by striving for that ring.   There should be some mechanism to Hero -> Sov, and vice versa.   This struggle alone can be very RPGish.   If you are the Sov in day 1, it does not feel RPGish.

There should be times that when I start the game, my hero do not have the ability to wield essence.   Yet, he will try his own way to simply survive, or make a better world.   Maybe I am asking too much & is so different from the OP, I don’t know; but I hope you agree and Brad found it reasonable to implement most  of it.

(The suggestions I've made above is a remix of ideas I've posted at the idea sub-forum; feel free to suggest your own!) 

Again, I like what Brad & co. is doing to the game & forum.  The goal in OP is admirable, let's find a way to get there.

I too have always been excited by the goals of this project. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed by what we accomplished in beta 1. The only thing that I have seen that I really like alot, that really brings something new to fantasy 4x, is the unit designer, and that was conceived before beta 1. All that was accomplished in beta 1 was a whole lot of bug fixing that will probably largely be thrown out by beta 2. The purpose of beta one, as I understood it, was to play with the game mechanics without having to make assets. I hear it's not supposed to be fun, but why not? Why leave this phase without a fun game? As Frogboy knows well, good graphics do not make fun!

So far, I see two big problems. The whole 'tech tree' 'tech research' thing is extremely run-of-the-mill. I can forgive that such a thing is really out of place in a fantasy game, but I can't forgive the fact that I've done this kind of game mechanic to death. This is boring now. In Civ 1, it was revolutionary. In Civ 5, it won't be shiny new but it will at least be appropriate. In Elemental it's a bad fit. Learning how to make a house out of bricks instead of twigs could be considered progress I guess, as we learned in 'Three Little Pigs', but that is completely apart from the reasons that we enjoy medieval fantasy. 

Going from horse cavalry to armored tanks is exciting! You are watching history and learning how we all got to where we are! Going from a twig house to a brick house, no matter what the in game benefits, is boring. This is medieval fantasy. We are just learning how to farm? Just learning how to chop wood? Huh? Why can't such minutia happen under the hood? I need a much better reason to sit through yet another technology tree!

The second problem I see is that Elemental is a world of magic and this is where it's main focus must lie. Before you say 'Thank you Captain Obvious' I wanna say something that is may not be so obvious. No matter how many spells you create and no matter how spectacular they are, you will be completely unable to give us something we haven't seen a million times! To give us something fresh and new you have to think of a way for us to obtain spells and magical knowledge that both makes fictional sense and is new and challenging. How does one go about his magical study? What ingredients do I need and where do I find them? What sort of experiments must I design? Simulate the process! As game designers you must teach me something I didn't know about magic!

It can't be some thing where we build a building and the knowledge just automatically appears in our spellbook via research 'points'. The only reason to need such simplicity is that the tech research mechanic is encroaching on the spell system's territory and vying for the players limited attention. The crystals on the map were in the last fantasy game I played, Fall From Heaven, of which a stand alone version is in developement. I don't want two fantasy games coming out at the same time with crystals on the map. It doesn't have to be that way. I want something new!

These two aspects of the game are not good enough. Maybe some miracles under the hood happened that a beta tester wouldn't see, but as a beta tester, I have to give beta 1 a C- at best. It needs to be better.

That's always been one of my favorite things to do in games. I'd load up a trainer and super-power my faction in Sins, for example, take a few planets and just sit back and watch the others. Being super-powered made it easy to intervene when one faction became too powerful, but mostly I'd just let them fight it out on their own.

Or, another favorite, is to stack the odds against my team (AI, of course). A game called Heroes of Annihilated Empires, I'd open up the editor mid-game and give the enemy factions dozens of production buildings and huge levels of resources, take my avatar to my ally's base, and unleash magical destruction for as long as I could.

I really like what you had there, Demiansky. I wouldn't mind seeing the game act and react on a basic level. Like having my area be (insert creature here) free for the past 30 turns, only to suddenly have a village of refugees pop up because they were driven out by my neighboring faction.

...in fact, that'd be cool to use as a strategy. Take those border villages, bribe them to move/drive them out of your lands, and direct them to your neighbor to soften him up a bit.

Why should some trolls leave their lairs/lands? Looking for some human flesh perhaps? Btw just one word: MMORPGs. Some of those have "living worlds". Monster raids on cities, randomly generated -yet logical- events in the dungeons, cities or even on the overland map etc.

Either way..Froggie - Take a look at this thread, because it's on topic: https://forums.elementalgame.com/382516

I would hope so as well

This is not a jab cephalo, but what do you suggest?

Hunting for the Herbs and  seek out the lost recipes has also been done.

Experimenting on peasants, perhaps. But that has dark connotations, and a Light side would have to available to the non-dark side crowd.

Something new, interesting and unique is always the goal for sure  but what? and how? always remains.

If not Crystals, then what? Aliens show up to teach the ignorant masses or your SoV?

Magic Unicorns, Pixies (been done).

Sadly, this discussion was likely needed to be had probably 18 months ago. And in Frogboy's office.

I think we pretty much got Crystals...

Yeah well, I understand your points cephalo, but I don't have problems with these current systems [tech&magic] to be honest. Sure it's nothing groundbreaking new I guess, but ah well. These systems are working perfectly.

Nearly always the events you are talking about are scripted or have a team of developers behind them (a "storyline" or "events" team like the "Aurora Team" in Eve).

About the only thing I agree with Cephalo's post is that there (probably) should have been actual implementation of balanced gameplay/mechanics ... as I too thought the main point of Beta 1 was to make a fun game w/o art assets.

Asides from that though, I think the OP explains it all. There really isn't all that new with the basic meat and potatoes of the world ... its more a divorce from previous Perspectives of the world.

For instance, if FFH you were a whole nation (only two leaders existed in-game), and there were no wandering NPC adventurers to interact with.

Also, there is so much more you can do with the tactical battle format than the Over-land stack-battles of FFH Mod.

And, in my personal opinion, there is a lot more flexibility with the NON-tile based tactical battles of Elemental vs the Tile based tactical battles of other series.

As for why people don't know how to accomplish certain tasks, they have lost that knowledge ... they are basically at caveman level, just surviving the apocalypse on random stuff they find.

Sure, some structures have survived (equipment too), but the knowledge of how to create such things is all but lost.

 I mean, the starting of Elemental is more closely aligned to Road Warrior than "My Fantasy Kingdom."

As to whether or not that is at all interesting, in my opinion it IS.

> I don't know what role playing games you've played (pen and paper / computer) but I can't ever think of one that involves giving "motives" to the various monsters.  Why did the trolls leave their lands?  I don't think having an apparent motivation (even in an RPG) is any sort of basic requirement for a "living" world.

Actually, the RPG called Glorantha does just this.  Trolls began in the Underworld, but then, when the sun god was killed and banished (for a time) to the Underworld, the darkness-loving trolls migrated to the surface, where they fought humans (and others) for land.  Later, the sun god reappeared, in a compromise, for half each day.  Trolls not happy.

However, the Trolls also hate Chaos, and so they will team up against that common enemy.  So, in Elemental, you could have a Quest or Random Event that "Enemy X" is invading the land, and offer an option for the player to make a deal with nearby Trolls.

Steve

There are many ways to come up with something exciting and new, but they all involve alot of work and brainstorming. I could suggest some things, as could all of us, but then again I don't want to be the hamster on the wheel. This isn't my game to design.

This is a game about wizards plying their craft for various motives. Here's what I want to know... What happens in the wizards laboratory? What happens when I combine this herb with this mineral powder, put it in urn and submerge it in a fetid swamp for a week? It's potency is strong at 5 days, but is clearly weaker at 6. Let's get our hands dirty with the craft! Who are my apprentices and how exactly should I train them and develop their skills? I have learned through experimentation how to make a potent ink to pen fire scrolls, but it takes refined skill to make, do I have an assistant who I can teach to mass produce this for me so I can focus on somthing else? How can I contact demons in the shadow world and learn the rituals needed to bend them to my will? Where does my own creativity and skill as a player come into this process?

I dunno, this game is called Elemental: War of Magic. What is it about magic that I don't know and want to have fun learning? There's got to be more than building a lab and having all automated.

Well a 'living' world is also scripted, just scripted around a template of actions rather than a specific set of waypoints etc.

If all dragons are scripted to attack and steal treasure then you need a way of communicating what just happened (or is going to happen) to the player. "Theres a rampaging dragon after your loot sire! Improve your defenses!". If the dragon actually bursts in, burns down a few huts and steals half your gold and swords put the gold and swords actaully in its cave for you to go and take back (along with other stuff) that provides a more compelling narritave and gameplay while also giving the illusion of a living world.

With enough rules for each enemy type (and some variation in their tactics and desires) that could be pretty nice no? Its basically a 'unmarked quest' system.

Note that the dragon would be stealing from OTHER people than just the player, including other dragons and other NPCs each time it does so its treasure hord grows by whatever it stole.

Isn't that enough?

If the trolls come looking for food tell the player and they actually become a transitory target for extra food (or whatever) since they are out collecting it which might also provide a raid on the players property to get said food.

If the furry girls come looking for internet males to mate with, then going to thier home will result with lots of noise... Meow/Rawr. Which I don't know how that could be a gameplay advantage? I guess you could improve your population over time with longer term relationships forming? Maybe Im taking my joke too seriously.

You are stating a preference, not describing a fact. One reason I've never considered any computer anything to be a 'real' RPG is that I joined the 'dungeon ecology' crowd the instant those articles started appearing in Dragon magazine, and that was because the best ref I ever knew had already been doing that on his own even though he hadn't coined a good buzzword to describe it.

Sentient creatures need at least a scrap of narrative to place them in a game world independent of any players. Nonsentient creatures need a plausible set of environmental needs and basic behaviors to meet those needs.

None of that means that the players are not the heart of the game, it just means that they don't have to work to ignore 'that random feeling' that pervades games run by refs who love designing encounter tables more than they care about building an interconnected world that their players can 'use' to surprise everyone at the table, including the ref.

p.s. It is a great shame that Will Wright's descent into corporate tooldom has led to folks using the Sim prefix to make up insult-words for PC games. For some unknown share of us who've been hung up on the genre since Civ I, the idea of seeing it married to strong simulation mechanics has long seemed like 'the next logical step.'

What disturbs me about the process so far, is that for months I've been reading probably one tenth of the community's ideas and seeing so many really good ones, and all we have to show for this brain storming in beta 1 is really extremely standard stuff. There's a futility here that bothers me.

Beta1 [alpha], was an engine test, nothing more. The devs are "monitoring" the ideas subforum, so you shouldn't worry at all.

No, a "simulation" of a living world is not scripted at all.

Edit: a longer explanation. Usually on a simulation like the "living world idea", the dragon would not be scripted to attack, it would have instead a big need for treasure that it needs to fulfill. Given that it is pretty strong, it may usually go an attack neighboring lands, but nothing stops him from "finding" another solution to his problem.

Even though I might agree in principle with this sentiment, it is not often "players" get to use, or even see a RAW game engine. The term Beta here has been a major misnomer. I assumed it was used because many would shy away from the term "Alpha Build", or have no idea what it even meant. Most gamers know what a Beta might entail.

The term "Alpha" may have been strong as well , in retrospect. The next tier will, I hope, begin to show the "World".

Then we can get to the Meat and Potatoes (with Gravy) of what E:WoM

Only a couple (fingers crossed) more weeks till Beta 2+3 time.

Despite that being the IDEAL solution. Writing what amounts to individual AI's for each creature, or even just the "big impact" units would be most likely impractical.

The reason being, would all Dragons behave the same? What would make a Mountain dwelling Dragon different from Forest dwelling Dragon? It would have to be something or a Red Dragon is Fire and a Blue Dragon is Ice... And that distinction is merely, and rather obviously, cosmetic....

I would say that it became that after it was over... now beta 2 must accomplish what beta 1 had originally set out to do, which was to 'find the fun'. Now that has to be done with 3D assets? Maybe I'm just confused about what the plan was. As it is we don't have a fun game to impliment. I say, now that many of the showstopper bugs have been ironed out, we can finally begin the discussion of the game's design. Can we bring in the 3D engine before that happens without spending the whole budget and being forced to release? Haha that is sooo not my business. I'll have to leave it to the experts.

Nope. Beta 2 was to be the MP portion, still on the Cloth. Thankfully, being somewhat selfish myself, applaud the Hardware guys that have made it such, that we will get Beta 3 as well, with the Picture Show on.

Then, based on this rather fluid schedule

1. Initial:    Caravans enabled, 3D Engine enabled, Multiplayer enabled, shops enabled, sieges enabled, visual battles enabled.
2. Beta 2A: Beta Fixes. Gameplay updates. Naval transports enabled. Master Quest enabled. Spell of Making enabled.

BETA 3: War & Peace Beta. (Summer 2010)

1. Initial:    Tactical Battles options enabled. Finalized Diplomacy enabled. Naval warfare enabled.
2. Beta 3A: Combat Magic enabled. The Hiergamenon enabled.
3. Beta 3B: Morale and Tactical Battle AI enabled. MP: Wars of Magic.

we should be able to discuss what is and isn't FUN, and eradicate that which is NOT, and expand upon that which IS.

I'm not going to lie- this post almost got me to preorder.

Almost...