I was thinking about story progression.
Instead of trying to explain let me just write it down real quick.
If you for instance got a flooding.
Than after that instead of looking for something new interesting the first 1 maybe 2 or 3 events should be related.
the 1st should be 75% likely the 2nd 50% and 3th 25%
The followup incident could be for instance famine or some sort of disease or muddy ground wich makes walking around tougher or makes some settlers sink in. For instance it could cause shortage near your power supplies making it so that you have to send guys over to fix it before power gets back
etc etc.
This will make it more feel like a progressive story.
Like in real life.
some floodings dont cause shit others spoil stuff like in japan.
Quote from: Semmy on October 02, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
I was thinking about story progression.
Instead of trying to explain let me just write it down real quick.
If you for instance got a flooding.
Than after that instead of looking for something new interesting the first 1 maybe 2 or 3 events should be related.
the 1st should be 75% likely the 2nd 50% and 3th 25%
The followup incident could be for instance famine or some sort of disease or muddy ground wich makes walking around tougher or makes some settlers sink in. For instance it could cause shortage near your power supplies making it so that you have to send guys over to fix it before power gets back
etc etc.
This will make it more feel like a progressive story.
Like in real life.
some floodings dont cause shit others spoil stuff like in japan.
So your on about progression? That's not a storyteller.
Quote from: Yarkista on October 02, 2013, 06:30:05 PM
Quote from: Semmy on October 02, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
I was thinking about story progression.
Instead of trying to explain let me just write it down real quick.
If you for instance got a flooding.
Than after that instead of looking for something new interesting the first 1 maybe 2 or 3 events should be related.
the 1st should be 75% likely the 2nd 50% and 3th 25%
The followup incident could be for instance famine or some sort of disease or muddy ground wich makes walking around tougher or makes some settlers sink in. For instance it could cause shortage near your power supplies making it so that you have to send guys over to fix it before power gets back
etc etc.
This will make it more feel like a progressive story.
Like in real life.
some floodings dont cause shit others spoil stuff like in japan.
So your on about progression? That's not a storyteller.
urm it is imho
a story progresses. but name it how you want to name it a story that continues or a chapter that lasts longer.
or like part 3 of a song of ice and fire that got split into 2 books.
Quote from: Semmy on October 02, 2013, 06:37:19 PM
Quote from: Yarkista on October 02, 2013, 06:30:05 PM
Quote from: Semmy on October 02, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
I was thinking about story progression.
Instead of trying to explain let me just write it down real quick.
If you for instance got a flooding.
Than after that instead of looking for something new interesting the first 1 maybe 2 or 3 events should be related.
the 1st should be 75% likely the 2nd 50% and 3th 25%
The followup incident could be for instance famine or some sort of disease or muddy ground wich makes walking around tougher or makes some settlers sink in. For instance it could cause shortage near your power supplies making it so that you have to send guys over to fix it before power gets back
etc etc.
This will make it more feel like a progressive story.
Like in real life.
some floodings dont cause shit others spoil stuff like in japan.
So your on about progression? That's not a storyteller.
urm it is imho
a story progresses. but name it how you want to name it a story that continues or a chapter that lasts longer.
or like part 3 of a song of ice and fire that got split into 2 books.
...So story progression?
Quote from: Yarkista on October 02, 2013, 06:45:57 PM
Quote from: Semmy on October 02, 2013, 06:37:19 PM
Quote from: Yarkista on October 02, 2013, 06:30:05 PM
Quote from: Semmy on October 02, 2013, 06:09:12 PM
I was thinking about story progression.
Instead of trying to explain let me just write it down real quick.
If you for instance got a flooding.
Than after that instead of looking for something new interesting the first 1 maybe 2 or 3 events should be related.
the 1st should be 75% likely the 2nd 50% and 3th 25%
The followup incident could be for instance famine or some sort of disease or muddy ground wich makes walking around tougher or makes some settlers sink in. For instance it could cause shortage near your power supplies making it so that you have to send guys over to fix it before power gets back
etc etc.
This will make it more feel like a progressive story.
Like in real life.
some floodings dont cause shit others spoil stuff like in japan.
So your on about progression? That's not a storyteller.
urm it is imho
a story progresses. but name it how you want to name it a story that continues or a chapter that lasts longer.
or like part 3 of a song of ice and fire that got split into 2 books.
...So story progression?
i'm lost now but i think so yeah d-;
lets not yibberyabber about the details but lets look at the idea
I'm just eye-balling it here, but I think what they mean is that this is a thread for Storyteller (the game's difficulty AIs) as opposed to story progression itself.
You're talking about related events occurring together in a clump or chapter yes?
If one event fires, other events related to that have an increased chance of firing.
So the events should feel more natural and tied together to the player rather than just random occurrences.
A basic example might be:
Event: Heatwave - Colonists dislike manual labor
Follow up events:
- Famine: crops die
- Mad Muffulo: muffulo go mad from heat and lack of water
- Air-Con: a colonist found a way to better circulate air in the colony, Colonists +1 happiness...
or whatever.
Cause and effect in small chapters that help the player feel more like the story is evolving rather than just random events.
I like this idea. Having events be related to eachother would create a more seamless feel to the world. It'd feel like a better simulation.
This could be tied into more minor things as well, a flood or heat-wave could have buffs and de-buffs on various plant and animal types. Like the blog post on the emergent ecology in this game, in-game events could effect what sorts flora and fauna you came in contact with.
I don't know how the event are currently "drawn" (I read I don't know where that the storyteller is picking cards and playing them, laying a story), but I think that an event increasing the odds of related events seems interesting at first, and to developpe the idea, maybe it could on the other end decrease the odds of other events to happen.
To follow the previous example, let's say you had your heatwave - crop die arc, your colony, as it currently has less interesting stuff to harvest may happen to be a less interesting target for potential raiders.
Quote from: Zeiph on October 07, 2013, 02:56:20 PM
To follow the previous example, let's say you had your heatwave - crop die arc, your colony, as it currently has less interesting stuff to harvest may happen to be a less interesting target for potential raiders.
Alternatively, Raiders may also be suffering from lack of food, and be more desperate in their attacks. I saw a post by Tynan saying that attackers give up at a certain % of losses. It'd be interesting if the status of the world influenced that percentage, and not have it just be a difficulty thing.
Quote from: CommieKazie on October 07, 2013, 03:03:59 PM
Alternatively, Raiders may also be suffering from lack of food, and be more desperate in their attacks.
The thing with raiders in the current iterations of RW is that, they just appear on the map in their pods, take some time to prepare, and then go after you.
They don't make camp.
I don't know what happens when they actually flee and you don't go after them...
Maybe they bleed to death or come back later, but in any case, they don't linger.
Quote from: British on October 07, 2013, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: CommieKazie on October 07, 2013, 03:03:59 PM
Alternatively, Raiders may also be suffering from lack of food, and be more desperate in their attacks.
The thing with raiders in the current iterations of RW is that, they just appear on the map in their pods, take some time to prepare, and then go after you.
They don't make camp.
I don't know what happens when they actually flee and you don't go after them...
Maybe they bleed to death or come back later, but in any case, they don't linger.
As of right now they walk off the map and disappear.
Quote from: British on October 07, 2013, 03:10:34 PM
Quote from: CommieKazie on October 07, 2013, 03:03:59 PM
Alternatively, Raiders may also be suffering from lack of food, and be more desperate in their attacks.
The thing with raiders in the current iterations of RW is that, they just appear on the map in their pods, take some time to prepare, and then go after you.
They don't make camp.
I meant the global existence of raiders that floats in the mind of the game. When desperate straits come to the player, it is likely that other 'people' in the game (who don't exist on the map) would also be facing similarly desperate times. Therefore when they are materialized onto the map the storyteller would give them different traits and personalities. If they're more desperate for food, perhaps they spend less time scouting (less warning time), and are willing to take more losses when they attack. Perhaps their motives for attacking change (steal your food machine and as much of your food as they can). Maybe kidnap some of your people for food, etc...
Quote from: CommieKazie on October 07, 2013, 03:24:50 PM
Maybe kidnap some of your people for food, etc...
This is something I like. as a kidnapping behaviour of the raider may be pretty established, there could be some way to bargain back your colonist out of the kidnapping...
I always had in mind that they attack to pillage, but not just for food.
I suspect we'll get solid backgrounds when we get factions :P
Quote from: British on October 07, 2013, 04:14:43 PM
I always had in mind that they attack to pillage, but not just for food.
That scenario I had made was in the event of a famine, where they would be desiring food. I'd assume most of the time they'd be raiding for valuables, weapons, and people.
It'd be interesting to see differentiation between peoples, raiders, scavengers, lost colonists, etc...
Each one would want different things from you (rather than an overarching "All aggressive NPC are 'raiders')
(I know 'raider' is a term for 'one who raids', but you know what I mean)...
Am I the only one bothered by 3th instead of 3rd?