Bringing variation to clones

[Hassat Hunter]

So, while difficult with sprites (needing to make many different sprites), 3D models will allow variation on the spot.

 

The suggestion is simple, instead of making certain foes (gnolls, kobolds, etc.) have a fixed look, allow them to use different helmets, armors, boots etc. Thus helping reduce the clone syndrome. This however doesn't mean the enemy has to drop the item he appears wearing though. It's just to add graphical variation to the opponents, not a random-loot on enemy system (although I suppose that could work too in a way).

 

Thoughts, yes/no? Any insights why even if this is possible many modern games still don't do it? All welcome...

[Sacred_Path]

I do suppose that you mean the character would be mechanically different if he wears different armor or a different weapon? OtherwiseI think this would just draw even more attention to the aforementioned problem (loot). "Gee, a gnoll with a greataxe instead of a spear! I wonder if he'll drop strawberries instead of a diaper".

[exodiark]

I think it's because it's hard to make an interchangeable armor/cloth sets.

 

For example:

Red Helmet A fits Blue Armor B, but not green armor C. While green armor C fits only with blue greaves D and boots E.

You can force to randomize a person's armor, but that might makes everybody dress funny or ugly.

 

While making algorithm to determine the best match is costly too.

[Ieo]

I think the loot issue is legitimate (especially considering that the avatars are going to have better graphical fidelity than the IE games--who else got that evil dwarf in BG1 only to swipe his nice golden helm?). It may be easier to stick with colors rather than gear sets, like different hair and skin colors, so forth.

[rjshae]

I don't think you need to go overboard to produce a fair amount of variation. From my experience with the NWN2 Toolset, I know that you can get quite a bit of variation just by having two or three sets of prominent gear, along with tinting capabilities. Thus two helms and a bare head, two or three types of armor or clothing, and multiple weapons. Shields in particular are readily visible and identify the creature with a particular tribe or unit, so having a multitude of shield skins is good.

[Pipyui]

I think this can be accomplished fairly easily I feel for creatures with some minor model scaling and color variation (some goblins slightly larger/smaller, some green some grey some brown, etc).

 

People are a little more difficult, as the loot issue should be accounted for, and someone mentioned the equipment should somewhat match. To solve this, I suppose you could randomize from a list of predifined outfits. Each of these outfit archtypes souldn't be strict mind, but should themselves each define the randomization of it's own equipment.

 

This is what I remember seeing when playing around with the TES construction set. It was easy for those games though because you could just take a basic equipment piece and stamp a random enchantment or such on it. My understanding is that equipment in PE will be unique, and so I think you would need something like outfits that defined subsets of equipment pieces to randomize from? This should be easy for citizens and guards and the like, I just wonder how this might be implemented for mercenaries and such.

[Hassat Hunter]

I do suppose that you mean the character would be mechanically different if he wears different armor or a different weapon? OtherwiseI think this would just draw even more attention to the aforementioned problem (loot). "Gee, a gnoll with a greataxe instead of a spear! I wonder if he'll drop strawberries instead of a diaper".

No. If a gnoll only drops some gold, it doesn't matter if he uses a halbard or a sword. Except for graphical difference. And maybe underlying tech (slashing instead of stabbing). But you now have a difference that not all of that species use the same look (halberded), brining a bit of variety to having a whole camp of them, like in BG1.

 

Of course gear should be somewhat locked (no wizard robes for the fighters), also to allow some of the flashier high-level items to appear on elite or boss type of enemies, aside from their distinct different look.

I think it's because it's hard to make an interchangeable armor/cloth sets.

 

While this would be true for red/green/blue armor sets I don't think it holds true for PE, since it's aiming for a more realistic palet and look of gear, rather than green/purple and bright yellow and whatnot WoW uses. That should inherintly make matchmaking easier.

 

Tinting, slight scale changes etc. sounds good too.

But I figure if they spend so much time making gear for the PC, why restrict it to what only the PC will wear. Use it on enemies. Allow it to make thugs look different from each other. I rather don't want clone NPC's. We should really break that in this day and age.

[Sacred_Path]

No. If a gnoll only drops some gold, it doesn't matter if he uses a halbard or a sword. Except for graphical difference.

 

Unfortunately (?) in P:E though, you might want to send someone different to deal with a swordsman or a halberdier due to armor penetration issues. Of course that is even more true for different armor on enemies. Therefore it's very important to know what your enemy's armor and weapon are mechanically.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Sacred_Path

[Tauron]

Variation in appearances sounds good. Time to remove clone armies. I think issue would not be beast races, such as gnolls, as they seem to be quite retarted in many settings and use crude weapons and materials they salvaged. Even such beasts and orcs, goblins have love for gold etc. Also we can always salvage materials we find. Variations shouldnt be an issue, having few different sets and randomize them.

 

I can clear entire area, but many times cant return for materials to sell. There is just so much one can carry. I thought it might be good idea to gather stuff of killed enemies, kind of "burry or hide". Than have send NPC's to salvage area, for a fee, orr pay them to bring us materials back. Depending on what we find. If we choose to have a Stronghold, well it needs maintenance. Killing hundred enemies in one area and leaving all that material behind, seems like such a waste! Just think how much time it takes to make ONE breastpale or sword. So we just take with us best items ofcourse. Yet we leave stuff enough to equip entire army.

[Hassat Hunter]

Unfortunately (?) in P:E though, you might want to send someone different to deal with a swordsman or a halberdier due to armor penetration issues. Of course that is even more true for different armor on enemies. Therefore it's very important to know what your enemy's armor and weapon are mechanically.

While I don't think the game will do get that deep mechanicly, it could add a positive twist, more empasis on recon (rogues).

Also, more varried tactics and stategical thinking. Ie. more variety even more in combat.

 

Since it's not "invade a camp of gnolls, all armor x, weapon x" and adapt to that but you need to adjust to the conditions of that moment ("that gnoll has a sword? That's a task for Warrior 2" and thus even each invasion of a single enemy type camp can be more varied, even between games.

I think it's a better game replayer than random loot (which isn't that great) now that I think about it

[Sabotin]

I'd stick to only visual stuff and even then minor. Actually then I'm not sure it would be even visible. I'm talking about different styles of the same armor type, for example a rogue could be wearing leather1, leather2 or leather3.

For the weapons I don't really care as long as there's some consistency (I'd laugh my ass off seeing a random gnoll with a rapier). But depending on the numbers of enemies I'd say that it might not change gameplay that much as they would just always be a random assortment (2 blunt/2sword/2 spears -> 1 blunt/2 sword/3 spear -> 2blunt/3sword/1spear), which would in my opinion do exactly the opposite of what it's meant to.

[nikolokolus]

I think some minor variations are possible at a minimal development cost if they use a tinting scheme and maybe some ability to use a few different clothing and armor combinations, but overall, this is something that doesn't really matter to me all that much.

[Lephys]

Unfortunately (?) in P:E though, you might want to send someone different to deal with a swordsman or a halberdier due to armor penetration issues. Of course that is even more true for different armor on enemies. Therefore it's very important to know what your enemy's armor and weapon are mechanically.

 

That's quite valid for humanoid opponents, but what if you're fighting giant beetles, who have heavy armor? You're not going to be able to visually identify them by their shiny steel plate armor. So, the game's probably going to have to include some kind of mouse-over info, or an icon beside a healthbar indicating armor type. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, if the humanoids appear to be wearing the correct armor or not, since you'll still know.

 

They could always do that thing (like Fallout did on several an occasion) where they have multiple model variants for the exact same item (Metal Armor comes to mind in Fallout). There could be 5 different models for short swords, and even slightly different groups of models for Goblin short swords as opposed to Bandit short swords, etc. Of course, they could overlap, because Bandits could still wind up wielding Goblin-made short swords (they killed and looted some Goblins at some point), and vice versa. So, you really wouldn't need that many individual model variants (which would be not too much extra work, methinks, since they'd be so similar... maybe a different hilt here, a slightly different blade shape there...) to end up with a large variety from which to randomly equip enemies in encounters (within certain parameters).

 

Also, if they focus more on customization and improvement to player-character armor, these model variants could work for producing NPC variants as well.

[Sacred_Path]

Unfortunately (?) in P:E though, you might want to send someone different to deal with a swordsman or a halberdier due to armor penetration issues. Of course that is even more true for different armor on enemies. Therefore it's very important to know what your enemy's armor and weapon are mechanically.

 

That's quite valid for humanoid opponents, but what if you're fighting giant beetles, who have heavy armor? You're not going to be able to visually identify them by their shiny steel plate armor. So, the game's probably going to have to include some kind of mouse-over info, or an icon beside a healthbar indicating armor type. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, if the humanoids appear to be wearing the correct armor or not, since you'll still know.

 

I was of course only referring to beings that wear armor in the conventional sense. Most animals will count as unarmored I'd guess, while the few animals that are packed in an equivalent of plate are gimmicks/ stuff for the player to experiment until you realize that armor-breaking weapons are the way to go here. No hovering menu necessary IMO.

[Merlkir]

At this scale and view I think the best way to differentiate is by, well, scaling. The MASSIVE software developed for the LOTR movies had this funny utility called Orc Builder, where you could change and randomize the appearance of the orc avatars. It's quite amazing how much a creature seems different if you give it slightly different proportions (limb length, height, perhaps posture..), especially from distance.

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, of course it would only count for humanoids.

I agree with animalistic foes some minor tinting and size differences could be better. Within a range of course, so you can still identify the more impressive animal by it's bigger size and color even if it can vary.

 

And I am pretty sure it'll be visible. Baldur's Gate you could already see it much, with 3D models it will become that more obvious if they're clones without something being done to mask that.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hassat Hunter, great topic!

 

I just posted something wishing for something similar in another topic when I saw this thread, I can only concur!

 

And many of the suggestions are great.