Enemy respawn

[SqueakyCat]

@nikolokolus

 

.. considering that the game is going to award experience points for overcoming challenges ..

 

This is still under discussion. The following is a remark from Feargus on October 16th in the 'Comments' section of the Kickstarter page:

 

"@Adric The XP for kills thing is still an ongoing discussion here. Our goal is to make this a game that is reminiscent of the IE games and in my mind that does mean XP for kills. We just need to balance with other systems."

 

That wasn't from Feargus I don't think, it was from Darren.

 

It was from Feargus. I checked before making the post.

 

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/comments?page=148#comments

 

This link won't be stable for long as more comments are added to the Kickstarter page, but it's good for the next few hours I would imagine. Feargus had inquired regarding the reason a pledger was unhappy and this was part of his response.

[Badmojo]

Oh, on a side note, perhaps have it where obvious lower level creatures avoid the PC's if there is the difference in levels is high. A level 6 will attack a level 7/8 PC, but a level 4 (unless in large group) and below should run for the hills from the PC. That will help from having to slaughter every single thing we come across because they want to attack the party, even if the party is obviously overpowered compared to it. On related, do not have different/creatures and enemies all band together against the PC when the PC enter the field. Why would a bandit, zombie, and wolf all gang up against the player group and not fight each other? They wouldn't! It would be a free for all for all the groups and every group attacking every other. I hate lazy game designs where all enemies stop fighting and all gang up on the PC group.

[Thangorodrim]

I don't think they should have respawning every time you leave the game (like the ARPGs) but it is realistic that even after you clear an area there should be some influx of new creatures or inhabitants ... I think it should be geography based ... dungeons and wilderness areas can repopulate quickly (say within a week of game time) ... areas around cities or more populated areas might take longer (say a month of game time) ... this can give the world a lived in feel without creating the constant grind of of the ARPG ... anyway ... that's my take on it ... if they want to create a grinding location then they could use either the Mega Dungeon (let it repopulate every time you leave) or something like sewers and crypts that can repopulate more rapidly

[AGX-17]

If there are respawning enemies, I stick with the idea I espoused in the quest-based XP thread that enemies should reward you less and less experience depending on how much you've fought that particular variety. If you've killed 100 wolves you've got nothing left to learn from killing wolves. At a certain point a slaughterhouse goes from disgusting new job to monotonous, intellectually vacant manufacturing process.

Edited October 28, 2012 by AGX-17

[kabaliero]

gotta remind that the idea of the discussed re-spawn is basically a BG-like random re-spawns here and there

somewhat-dependant and varied

[Jymm]

I think the closeness of the poll reflects a lack of nuance. Like many here I'm OK with some amount of repopulating over time, but I hate spending all evening clearing out a section of map and then the next time I have reason to visit there I have to grind my way through meaningless combat. And I'm not a huge fan of level-grinding either so the XP reward lacks appeal for me personally.

[kabaliero]

--which means, the dude totally didn't read my last post

\or didn't play BG\IWD etc

[Kecaw]

For me it depends, if im walking a forest of some sort then sure a random wolf should pop up here and there or if the area is said to be infested heavy with bandits? sure pop some more bandits! but for the love of dont overspam it, random encounter mobs or disrupting sleep? SURE! over respawn of mobs in an area that i whiped clean of life an hour a go? heck no.

[IcyDeadPeople]

i vote 1

 

cause, yes, i used to grind giants in BG and thugs in PS:T

 

and frankly

i hated DA:O for not having this

i mean, it had some re-fillment with enemies here and there

bandits, monster packs

but it was, all, like... pre-made!

 

you know!~

no sense of freedom of randomness, when the game generates that special number of enemies

just for you!

other players might get it, but also might not

 

say, when you have 5 umber hulks spawning on ya, you know there could be 4, or 3.. or 6!

and the random loot! i really liked it

wish it was sort of more random sometimes, though

 

I certainly don't mind seeing enemies respawn a few days or weeks after you clear a particular dungeon, but I cannot stand the way that enemies respawn constantly in MMOs like WoW and TOR.

 

It was so jarring and bizarre to see monsters standing around just waiting for the player to approach, then you kill them, they lie down and respawn 30 seconds later. It makes the entire game world seem like a phony haunted house maze.

[kabaliero]

I certainly don't mind seeing enemies respawn a few days or weeks after you clear a particular dungeon, but I cannot stand the way that enemies respawn constantly in MMOs like WoW and TOR.

 

It was so jarring and bizarre to see monsters standing around just waiting for the player to approach, then you kill them, they lie down and respawn 30 seconds later. It makes the entire game world seem like a phony haunted house maze.

 

y'know what, i give up

[JayDGee]

I vote 1 because I don't like to return to areas an have them empty. If a forest is named after a species of monster it makes sense they should in some manner always be there.

 

"Yeah Dire-sheep forest used to have 12 dire-sheep in it but then an adventuring party on a stag night wiped them out"

"Dire-sheep forest only had 12 of them? Its 400 square miles according to this book"

"the trees are shaped like them, they are dire-sheep trees"

"oh, that makes sense then... What about owl-goose lake?"

"named during the reign of King Terrance the touched. everyone knows Owl-Geese live in the mountains."

[Hassat Hunter]

No option is biased. Picked it anyway.

 

Respawning should be done as little as possible.

It wouldn't serve your need for XP anyway, monsters don't give XP. (yeah, yeah, I know what Feargus said...)

[gholam]

I could live with some very limited respawn as long as it makes sense story-wise.

[Osvir]

In Kingdoms of Amalur I have to fight my way in, and fight my way out (not in dungeons but in the "exploration"). There's a bandit camp early in the game and there's a quest in the heart of it (kills this "dude" and "destroy shipment"), so I had to fight my way in, then fight my way out too. I also fought and took down a mob of bandits, destroyed some of the shipments, got attacked by a respawn whilst running around there which just felt wrong too. I saw a Let's Play where the guy playing just ran past enemies because he wasn't interested in the fighting. Made battles look more like a chore that I'd rather want to avoid. Which is exactly the problem with respawning enemies.

 

I might've remembered the bandit guy's name, but the respawn occupied my mind more.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Osvir

[Continuum]

I think there should be some random open world areas but that the scripted areas should not respawn. If I wanted to wade through tons of random monsters hanging around everywhere, I'd play an MMORPG. I don't like it if I'm forced to wade through half an hour of respawn just to go back from point B to point A on a fetch quest or such.

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, Kingdom of Amalur was pretty much a singleplayer MMORPG.

 

A design that bogglese the mind.

[IcyDeadPeople]

I think there should be some random open world areas but that the scripted areas should not respawn. If I wanted to wade through tons of random monsters hanging around everywhere, I'd play an MMORPG. I don't like it if I'm forced to wade through half an hour of respawn just to go back from point B to point A on a fetch quest or such.

 

Personally, I don't mind wading through areas with lots of enemies. I've played other games with mods that add more spawns or otherwise enhance the difficulty.

 

However, if I kill a creature, I certainly don't want him to see him stand back up in 30 seconds like they do in MMOs. And if I clear a dungeon it's OK if enemies return to the area after some time, but there must be a logical reason why they have returned.

[Drakxii]

I like random enemies and battles when moving on the maps but I don't want responds. It great not knowing what is ahead, it sucks not knowing what is behind.

[Nerezza]

Actually, there should be a valid reason some areas respawn with enemies, and stopping the source of the respawning will stop the enemy encounters from returning. An example is a necromancer experimenting on bringing back the dead using special magical devices to create an energy field that is spreading beyond his laboratory and bringing the dead back all around the area, turning off or destroying the magical stones will stop the respawning. Or another, is a band or highwaymen, every time you take them down another appear(possibly stronger), you find out that they are part of a bigger group who work for a crime lord and until you take the crime lord down, they will keep respawning...etc.

 

^ This