Demiansky

Numerous opponent types

Numerous opponent types

Hey, I made this post in another threat, but though that perhaps it might deserve its own thread.  I personally think that most of a player's opponents in Elemental should not be channeler style, empire building opponents.  It would be interesting were there both channeler style opponents and non-playable style opponents.  There could be 8-10 channeler style opponents but many dozens of non-playable style opponents that could come in multiple forms.  Non-playable opponents would have objectives that don't always revolve around the basic expand and conquer schema.  Many of them would be "emerging" opponents, that appear throughout the game, and some of them could rival even a channeler's empire at certain points.  They could come in various forms, such as the following:

1. Armed City States: Cities that form around some kind of defensive feature, but with no channeler.  They are capable of expanding and, with some luck, create proto nations.  They can be negotiated with, conquered, or integrated if relations remain good.  Sometimes, a channeler might arise in well-to-do city states and become a channeler style opponent.

2. Dragon Clutches: A group of dragons that live together, typically a group of males or a female and her offspring.  Given the strength of dragons, they would be one of the most important "opponents" in the game which all players would fear or court.  They can either be noble benefactors that fight evil empires or wicked manipulators that shake down other opponents for tribute.  Sometimes, human worshippers or followers can start settlements at the base of their dens.  Either way, they can be negotiated with in a fashion that is limited (while you couldn't make a formal trade treaty, you could forge alliances, or call on them for mercenaries, etc.)  

3. Bandit Lords and Robber Barons: Small opponents that spring up around cities that do not guard their commerce well.  They can be the subjects of limited diplomacy (bribing to leave you alone or, in a more pricey case, hire them to go fight other opponents on their own innitiative.) 

4. Hordes: There can be numerous villages of barbaric humans or other humanoids like orcs that on occassion band together briefly to invade and pillage civilized lands.  While they are in scattered village form, you cannot negotiate with them, but can conquer / destroy their villages (be careful, you might incite them into a horde to fight you!)  When they turn into hordes, they become temporary opponents that would generally be hostile to everyone but you can use diplomacy to "deflect" them toward other opponents or convince them to return home to their lands.  Sometimes, they can become hordes in order to flee from their former land and will damage the economy of any land they pass through as they forage to survive (you could invite a horde to settle in your territory if they are simply looking for a place to live, which would put pressure on your arable land but give you the option of assimilating them later.)

5. Monstrous Tribes: Tribes of large monstrous creatures, like trolls or ogres.  They can field raiders against other opponents, be they other monstrous tribes or civilized ones.  They even grow in strength and generally when they get to a large size, they splinter, preventing them from ever becoming a formidable empire.  Typically what would happen when a region becomes too overpopulated with such tribes is that many tribes would be driven out and in some cases end up in a civilized opponent's land.  They are generally a nuissance and must be slain.  To eliminate them for good, you'd have to launch a campaign into the wilderness to strike at the heart of their tribes and, in the process, perhaps recover some treasure as well.  But you could, for instance, feed them on a regular basis if you had very large surpluses of food and it could open up diplomacy options which would allow you to maintain tenuous relations and, in some cases, you could bring them to war with you as unreliable, but formidable allies, and even hire some of them on as mercenary units. 

In the end, channeler style opponents are your long term, permanent rivals, which expand rapidly and remain competitive throughout the game.  Non-playable opponents can be powerful, but typically don't became rivals to world domination because they are unable to organize effectively (though in some rare cases, if conditions are right, non-playable opponents like a growing dragon clutch might be an interesting game long ally or arch nemesis.)  Minor opponents in this fashion would give the game a lot of spice--- having to only contend with the same old empire building foe time and again can just get tedious...

 

27,350 views 39 replies
Reply #26 Top

Quoting landisaurus, reply 12

Quoting GW Swicord, reply 11
Where is Jonny5446?

Very good question, and right-on call to reference the Wild Spaces thread.


I was wondering that when I was reading the "how do you rank in the community" thread.  Just because he used to be very common, but not as much recently.  (he was missing from a lot of the "top 24" lists, and I thought "huh, if this had been 3 months ago I bet he'd be on there")[/quote]

Oooow oooow! Sorry to necro the thread but I'm rereading the boards little by little and was surprised/delighted that I got discussed <3 It's quite fun reading these old threads, it's like I'm looking back into the not so distant past! :D ... errr anyway... as you were!

Reply #27 Top

Well, I love good backstory, but since dev time is limited, I would personally prefer to see it behind the factions and certain places, as opposed to creatures. Hard to choose, though.

Reply #28 Top

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 27
Well, I love good backstory, but since dev time is limited, I would personally prefer to see it behind the factions and certain places, as opposed to creatures. Hard to choose, though.

If you're typing about dragons, I haven't gotten my point across to you. I want them to be treated on the level of independent powers/factions, not 'creatures.' Frankly, I was quite disappointed when I read the recent dev typing about questing to find a dragon's clutch and have it join your army. That sort of language lays too much groundwork for eventually putting saddles on the things and heading off into Pern-D&D stuff.

@Jonny: good to see you around some again. I'm one of those net-ancients who seriously believes that this 'thread necromancy' stuff is totally in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it's just my past life as a scholar, but I think of a forum like this as a steadily growing archive-discussion. Good discussions can take months or years, so as long as a poster isn't trying to open a new Dead Horse Buffet, I see no shame in dropping a line in wherever inspiration strikes.

Reply #29 Top

If you're typing about dragons, I haven't gotten my point across to you. I want them to be treated on the level of independent powers/factions, not 'creatures.'
Now I see what you mean.... yes, dragons-as-faction-entities would by necessity have to have at least basic backstory behind them.

Reply #30 Top

Quoting GW, reply 28

~clip

@Jonny: good to see you around some again. I'm one of those net-ancients who seriously believes that this 'thread necromancy' stuff is totally in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it's just my past life as a scholar, but I think of a forum like this as a steadily growing archive-discussion. Good discussions can take months or years, so as long as a poster isn't trying to open a new Dead Horse Buffet, I see no shame in dropping a line in wherever inspiration strikes.

Yes I quite agree, especially in a forum such as this which has had such compelling discussions. For me the ideal would be to have one really strong thread on any and all aspects of the game, but no duplicates; when I go to a thread on Wild Spaces or what have you I want to be able to read all the forum has had to say on the matter :D

On the topic of the thread itself I quite agree that this kind of diversity of groups/entities to interact with would really helip to make the game world feel rich and alive. I'm still hoping for something such as Geoff the super slug and his swamp kingdom to be included in the game but if that's not to be then I at least want the operation of non-faction diplomatic entities to be present in some respect. Fingers crossed that dragons will fill this role as I think they're probably our best shot given Frogboy's previous comments on the matter.

Reply #31 Top

Quoting Jonny5446, reply 30



Quoting GW Swicord,
reply 28

~clip

@Jonny: good to see you around some again. I'm one of those net-ancients who seriously believes that this 'thread necromancy' stuff is totally in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it's just my past life as a scholar, but I think of a forum like this as a steadily growing archive-discussion. Good discussions can take months or years, so as long as a poster isn't trying to open a new Dead Horse Buffet, I see no shame in dropping a line in wherever inspiration strikes.


Yes I quite agree, especially in a forum such as this which has had such compelling discussions. For me the ideal would be to have one really strong thread on any and all aspects of the game, but no duplicates; when I go to a thread on Wild Spaces or what have you I want to be able to read all the forum has had to say on the matter

On the topic of the thread itself I quite agree that this kind of diversity of groups/entities to interact with would really helip to make the game world feel rich and alive. I'm still hoping for something such as Geoff the super slug and his swamp kingdom to be included in the game but if that's not to be then I at least want the operation of non-faction diplomatic entities to be present in some respect. Fingers crossed that dragons will fill this role as I think they're probably our best shot given Frogboy's previous comments on the matter.

Hey guys, back from a super long thesis push :-) 

I don't mind seeing dragons as immensely powerful, but my main problem with Dragons being as powerful as a divine entity is that it's hard to keep them out of the "Muck of Biology" when they are specifically designed like Raptor style predators that we see regularly in real life biology.  Some kind of elemental being or archon would seem more suited to the lofty heights of demi-godness rather than a big flying T-rex that has teeth and talons that are uniformly used for eating meaty prey in the real natural world and a crevice between their hind legs to house their genitals (which are used to make baby predators).  And personally, I somewhat resent the fact that someone would imply that, giving even powerful entities a biology, only hurts the value and depth that is imparted to a fantasy setting (and yes, "pulling them into the muck of Biology" sounds pretty negative to me, Sword.)

Now, I don't want to get into a some kind of my-taste-in-dragons-is-better-than-your-taste-in-dragons mud fight, but all other things being equal, it's impossible to get rid of the impression that dragons are "Critter like" if they are almost completely designed like a real life animal.

Reply #32 Top

Now, I don't want to get into a some kind of my-taste-in-dragons-is-better-than-your-taste-in-dragons mud fight, but all other things being equal, it's impossible to get the impression that dragons are "Critter like" if they are almost completely designed like a real life animal.

Well, in most Fantasy stories that include dragons, they start out as little more than animals with an extreme long lifespan. And the older the dragon gets, the more powerfull, intelligent and dangerous they get.

In the end, even we humans are little more than animals ourselves, and look at what we're doing now, discussing about the way a dragon should be portraited inside a computer game...

So, I really don't have a problem with all powerfull dragons designed like a somewhat real life animal (or an animal that could be real life in a fantasy world)

Reply #33 Top

Quoting Scorpiana, reply 32

Now, I don't want to get into a some kind of my-taste-in-dragons-is-better-than-your-taste-in-dragons mud fight, but all other things being equal, it's impossible to get the impression that dragons are "Critter like" if they are almost completely designed like a real life animal.


Well, in most Fantasy stories that include dragons, they start out as little more than animals with an extreme long lifespan. And the older the dragon gets, the more powerfull, intelligent and dangerous they get.

In the end, even we humans are little more than animals ourselves, and look at what we're doing now, discussing about the way a dragon should be portraited inside a computer game...

So, I really don't have a problem with all powerfull dragons designed like a somewhat real life animal (or an animal that could be real life in a fantasy world)

Yep, that's a great way to work in super powerful dragons into a plot--- the same way a super wizard or a super warrior hero would start from humble beginnings.  But I'm averse to the idea that giving dragons biology damages their intrigue.

Reply #34 Top

Thought it might be fun to revisit this idea.

Reply #35 Top

  Kinda like 1, 3, 4, and 5.  On subject of Dragons, I would prefer they remain somewhat rare and are used mostly in the quest part of the game.  Maybe a particularly ancient old wyrme would be a 'Oracle' type figure, that lords, ladies and heroes consult with.  The Dragonriders of Perne 'dragons' are not that interesting(IMO).  I enjoyed the books, however, for me Dragons need to be more like the Smaug type.  They talk, they evaluate, they have huge amounts of past combat experience.  They are feared and maybe sometimes respected.  Some even might wield magic as in D&D.  I also think having dragons as loners is also good for story development and keeping them special.  I also like the huge amounts of treasure that dragons tend to amass or acquire.  Lets give them unique names and maybe some unique abilities and not put them in the same category as generic creatures or animals.

   

Reply #36 Top

What about spiders? They are much scarier and are actually taking over this world!

Reply #37 Top

Why does it have to be dragons? Why can't dragon dens be dragons that aren't the recruitable-types because those are the top-notch ones? Meaning, these dens mostly have drakes and wyverns with several small dragons maybe? Explore it out. We always mention "trolls and ogres" why not new creatures or other well-known ones.

This city-state idea is almost exactly like Civilization 5's city-state one which isn't a bad thing, but clearly similar even if you don't want to mention it lol. I would like to see AI-only nations that don't have Channelers but in everything else they excel for better or worse, it would spice games up.

Also, this tribes idea reminds me of Fall From Heaven's, a Civ4 modification whereas several events could occur in which either some Orc hero went around rampaging with other orcs or a black dragon took over a barbarian city. It's a good idea and I would like a fantasy game world where throughout the game, there was creature armies or entities that always potentially rivalled the game factions.

Reply #38 Top

I think I'l start modding the creatures first chance I get. I am going to need more Pan's Labrynth style things less lordsy ringsy ceatures. An army of tooth faries just chills the bone. I have a lot of ideas for my own games and I hope we can share them on some sort of Stardock generated and moderated library. I would never ask the devs to create the abominations I have planned.

Reply #39 Top

This sounds like a really good idea.

Occaionally I have had FFH early-games when I either declare to "capture all the lizards" or "crusade against the lizard kingdom"

usually I decided to "crusade" against the lizards, by fervently hunting them down and exploring their lizard lairs, even at my own possible detriment.