Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

World simulator, although set in a massive simulated world, has never been the goal! Indeed, when your character dies, the world dies with you; each generated world will be permadeath along with the character you explore it with, and it's certainly not going to be a sandbox. Indeed, I think it's important to ensure a player cannot explore the entire world, so there will always be nations or religions or places you head rumours about and never got to visit, thereby lending import and weight to the decisions the player makes to visit place X, Y or Z, and not to visit A, B or C! Though RPG? Well... I'm seriously debating having no stats, and no combat, so it is still an "RPG" then? I'm not a genre theory person, but I continue to seriously toy with going even further "out there". We'll see.

[Retropunch]

Thanks! Yes, that is the plan; now quite sure how best to do it though, given the existing NPC look-up windows. Possibly it'll be a message at the bottom instead when you look at somebody, though I don't like splitting it up between lookup and the message. So I'll try and fit it in the lookup, maybe below the nickname list etc, and make sure that list can't be so long? Alternatively, if I decide to go the bold route and have no combat whatsoever, then I can remove all the "damage" counters for clothing, and that'll free up tons of room!

Good to hear! I think it'll be fine as a message though - 'you see xyz praying' is a good way of doing it.

*Please* don't go down the non-combat route. I know it seems appealing as it's sort of not been done before and its a challenge, but I think it'll lose a ton of appeal. Mainly though, I feel it would be a bit bizarre/less realistic because you couldn't attack anyone in a time where life was pretty violent. I mean, as everyone carried around swords or weapons, and there are guards/militia that are obviously armed - it'd be a bit odd. If you tried to force it by making the player a pacifist character it'd lock out a lot of roleplaying options and stop the open play style which URR is heading for.

I've just been playing 'The Long Dark' which is a survival game where there is pretty much no combat except for wolves which you button mash to get away from. Whilst the danger is supposed to be the elements/starvation (and that is very pronounced), it lacks the danger/thrill of getting into a tough fight. I knew this when I bought the game, but I was surprised at how quickly I grew bored of it now that I know that the only danger is environmental.

[RoguelikeRazuka]

I was eager to play a RL which is not only about battling against hordes of various monsters, insanely scouring through scary dungeons in hope to possess as much valuable loot as it possible, but also about kind exploring and immersive examining. Is Ultima Ratio Regum of this kind? Regardless of your remark, it does look amazing and tempting to try out, I'm really mesmerized and looking forward to play this as the development is finished. 

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

I was eager to play a RL which is not only about battling against hordes of various monsters, insanely scouring through scary dungeons in hope to possess as much valuable loot as it possible, but also about kind exploring and immersive examining. Is Ultima Ratio Regum of this kind? Regardless of your remark, it does look amazing and tempting to try out, I'm really mesmerized and looking forward to play this as the development is finished.

*Entirely*!

[Aquillion]

*Please* don't go down the non-combat route. I know it seems appealing as it's sort of not been done before and its a challenge, but I think it'll lose a ton of appeal. Mainly though, I feel it would be a bit bizarre/less realistic because you couldn't attack anyone in a time where life was pretty violent. I mean, as everyone carried around swords or weapons, and there are guards/militia that are obviously armed - it'd be a bit odd. If you tried to force it by making the player a pacifist character it'd lock out a lot of roleplaying options and stop the open play style which URR is heading for.

I think that people tend to get a somewhat distorted idea of the past (since we tend to have movies, games, and books about it that fixate on the "exciting" parts, which usually means combat.)  Most people in the era when Ultima Ratio Regum was set would not carry weapons.  In fact, depending on exactly when and where it was set, most people might not even have been allowed to carry weapons.  They might have had armed guards -- but then again, they might not have.  Smaller settlements likely wouldn't have actually had any formal police or guards at all, they're a modern innovation.  If you count police, you'd probably have a bigger "armed militia", per capita, in most cities in the modern US than in most cities in the ancient world.

The vast majority of people throughout history have gone through life without killing anyone.  (There are a few exceptions -- Sparta systematized the murder of its underclass of slaves in order to keep them in line, say -- but even then it holds true, since most of the people there would have been helot slaves; and such societies continue to attract interest because they are unusual, that is to say, not normal, even in their own time period.)  In the Middle Ages, the homicide rate was a bit higher than it was today, but emphasis on a bit -- in 14th century London, for example, the homicide rate was roughly 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year, not that far off from what it was in the nastier parts of New York's recent history.

Anyway, I'm mostly indifferent to whether violence is in the game or not as long as it's not the main focus; the main question is whether it can make doing other things (diplomacy, exploration, and so on) fun, giving players ways to interact with the world in a way that makes the things they learn about it meaningful.

[Retropunch]

*Please* don't go down the non-combat route. I know it seems appealing as it's sort of not been done before and its a challenge, but I think it'll lose a ton of appeal. Mainly though, I feel it would be a bit bizarre/less realistic because you couldn't attack anyone in a time where life was pretty violent. I mean, as everyone carried around swords or weapons, and there are guards/militia that are obviously armed - it'd be a bit odd. If you tried to force it by making the player a pacifist character it'd lock out a lot of roleplaying options and stop the open play style which URR is heading for.

I think that people tend to get a somewhat distorted idea of the past (since we tend to have movies, games, and books about it that fixate on the "exciting" parts, which usually means combat.)  Most people in the era when Ultima Ratio Regum was set would not carry weapons.  In fact, depending on exactly when and where it was set, most people might not even have been allowed to carry weapons.  They might have had armed guards -- but then again, they might not have.  Smaller settlements likely wouldn't have actually had any formal police or guards at all, they're a modern innovation.  If you count police, you'd probably have a bigger "armed militia", per capita, in most cities in the modern US than in most cities in the ancient world.

The vast majority of people throughout history have gone through life without killing anyone.  (There are a few exceptions -- Sparta systematized the murder of its underclass of slaves in order to keep them in line, say -- but even then it holds true, since most of the people there would have been helot slaves; and such societies continue to attract interest because they are unusual, that is to say, not normal, even in their own time period.)  In the Middle Ages, the homicide rate was a bit higher than it was today, but emphasis on a bit -- in 14th century London, for example, the homicide rate was roughly 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year, not that far off from what it was in the nastier parts of New York's recent history.

Anyway, I'm mostly indifferent to whether violence is in the game or not as long as it's not the main focus; the main question is whether it can make doing other things (diplomacy, exploration, and so on) fun, giving players ways to interact with the world in a way that makes the things they learn about it meaningful.

I definitely agree that it wasn't a continual bloodbath, but I have to disagree on a few points. Things like highwaymen were commonplace in many parts of the world (France and England especially), and as such people would often hire guards or at least have weaponry to defend themselves. Similarly, things like the Law of Winchester required nearly everyone (except the very poor) to own at least one sword and a bow/crossbow. Furthermore, there were things like big peasant rebellions and general unrest which also had a lot of violence. Obviously there are vast regional and time differences, and many cities did have laws banning the open carrying of swords in the late middle ages (with the exception of arming swords or 'status swords' by the nobility), but definitely people would be armed whilst travelling/going to unfamiliar places (like we will do a lot of in URR!).

Secondly, crime statistics from those times are pretty shaky. Many contradict each other, and even if you choose some of them there would have been chronic under-reporting. I mean, without the complex means we have of finding or identifying a dead body, how are you going to determine a murder? I don't imagine many acts of violence were brought to court as most places didn't even have laws like assault and battery.

I certainly wouldn't want it to be a focus, but I would hate for it to be washed out when it really was a part of life - even if not to the Game of Thrones level of bloodshed.

[Piotrhabera]

Will legendary weapons exist in the game? Legendary weapons are those who have a legend, unique design, and superior quality (along with respect and awe) (for example "Xaqunop Kelkor" is a tri-bladed sword made from steel which was wielded by Xaqunop who has killed many monarchs) I'd love to find such legends and wield them! And if yes then where would they be found?

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

Will give longer replies soon, but for now, stay off the URR homepage - I've been hit with some malware. Trying to deal with it. If anyone understands FTP/Wordpress well, and can explain things to an *utter* innocent in these matters like me, please send me a message. Otherwise, hold on...

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

First off - the site is malware-free, and back up!

Thoughts

This is a great and very thoughtful comment, and thanks for it. I entirely see what you're saying. The player in URR is a minor noble (hence why you currently start outside a mansion, though in the future I need to add more detail to this aspect and have some kind of actual "intro") in which case I would think it would be more logical for the player to reasonably be trained or expect to be trained in combat. Regardless, it's certainly never going to be ubiquitous, but you've given me a lot of historical/setting-related things to ponder.

I certainly wouldn't want it to be a focus, but I would hate for it to be washed out when it really was a part of life - even if not to the Game of Thrones level of bloodshed.

I see two options atm.

1) Player can choose to pursue a combat-oriented approach, but it is entirely optional, and never forced upon a player, and player can always "surrender" (to avoid issues like the Deus Ex:HR bosses where you were forced to fight).

2) Only NPCs can "fight", player cannot, and has to pursue other methods, though can recruit bodyguards etc. This would be really weird, but really different, so... maybe?

Right now, I'm leaning towards #1. Do nothing to encourage the player towards combat, but have it a system the player can engage with if they choose (think of something like the more obscure systems in NetHack, like polymorphing, demon summoning, etc). The issue is... *fundamentally*, I think I would like to go no-combat, but I just don't see how a realistic Renaissance world could be portrayed without the possibility of combat, and if the player can't fight but others can, then how do I portray/rationalize this?!

Will legendary weapons exist in the game? Legendary weapons are those who have a legend, unique design, and superior quality (along with respect and awe) (for example "Xaqunop Kelkor" is a tri-bladed sword made from steel which was wielded by Xaqunop who has killed many monarchs) I'd love to find such legends and wield them! And if yes then where would they be found?

If we have combat... then absolutely!

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

This week's post is a trip report on my time at GDC (talking about procedural generation) and Gamescom!

http://www.ultimaratioregum.co.uk/game/2015/08/08/gdc-europe-and-gamescom/

[Dorsidwarf]

URR is my most-anticipated adventurer gamer of all time.

[Retropunch]

I see two options atm.

1) Player can choose to pursue a combat-oriented approach, but it is entirely optional, and never forced upon a player, and player can always "surrender" (to avoid issues like the Deus Ex:HR bosses where you were forced to fight).

2) Only NPCs can "fight", player cannot, and has to pursue other methods, though can recruit bodyguards etc. This would be really weird, but really different, so... maybe?

Right now, I'm leaning towards #1. Do nothing to encourage the player towards combat, but have it a system the player can engage with if they choose (think of something like the more obscure systems in NetHack, like polymorphing, demon summoning, etc). The issue is... *fundamentally*, I think I would like to go no-combat, but I just don't see how a realistic Renaissance world could be portrayed without the possibility of combat, and if the player can't fight but others can, then how do I portray/rationalize this?!

I think the first one sounds ideal. I certainly, certainly would not want it to be a focus, but just not having it or making the player unable to fight would seem purposefully obtuse. However, the one way around it would be to make combat very deadly no matter how skilled you are (or, possibly more interestingly, have a high chance at causing long term damage/disability). This would therefore push the player a lot more towards getting bodyguards and/or other security rather than making it feel like becoming a super warrior is a priority.

All that being said, some people are going to want to pursue that path, and I think it's a fine thing to let them. With such an open world it would be a shame to restrain the player choices with the type of character they can play.

Have you thought about how much the player will be able to purchase/own in the game? Will we be able to own houses? castles? cities?!

[Ultima Ratio Regum]

URR is my most-anticipated adventurer gamer of all time.

Thank y'very much .

I think the first one sounds ideal. I certainly, certainly would not want it to be a focus, but just not having it or making the player unable to fight would seem purposefully obtuse. However, the one way around it would be to make combat very deadly no matter how skilled you are (or, possibly more interestingly, have a high chance at causing long term damage/disability). This would therefore push the player a lot more towards getting bodyguards and/or other security rather than making it feel like becoming a super warrior is a priority.

All that being said, some people are going to want to pursue that path, and I think it's a fine thing to let them. With such an open world it would be a shame to restrain the player choices with the type of character they can play.

Have you thought about how much the player will be able to purchase/own in the game? Will we be able to own houses? castles? cities?!

Yeah, I'm leaning this way. We'll see though! I do like the idea of having nothing in the game which indicates the possibility of combat, and the player has to "seek it out" - and perhaps the barrier to entry is fairly high in some way. I think it would be interesting to rather than have combat as the "norm", then other methods of play for more advanced players, do the opposite: combat is only really suitable for very advanced players and is tricky to access. As for purchase/own... I'm not sure. Probably the answers to the three are: possibly, no, no!

[bluwolfie]

URR is my most-anticipated adventurer gamer of all time.

Thank y'very much .

I think the first one sounds ideal. I certainly, certainly would not want it to be a focus, but just not having it or making the player unable to fight would seem purposefully obtuse. However, the one way around it would be to make combat very deadly no matter how skilled you are (or, possibly more interestingly, have a high chance at causing long term damage/disability). This would therefore push the player a lot more towards getting bodyguards and/or other security rather than making it feel like becoming a super warrior is a priority.

All that being said, some people are going to want to pursue that path, and I think it's a fine thing to let them. With such an open world it would be a shame to restrain the player choices with the type of character they can play.

Have you thought about how much the player will be able to purchase/own in the game? Will we be able to own houses? castles? cities?!

Yeah, I'm leaning this way. We'll see though! I do like the idea of having nothing in the game which indicates the possibility of combat, and the player has to "seek it out" - and perhaps the barrier to entry is fairly high in some way. I think it would be interesting to rather than have combat as the "norm", then other methods of play for more advanced players, do the opposite: combat is only really suitable for very advanced players and is tricky to access. As for purchase/own... I'm not sure. Probably the answers to the three are: possibly, no, no!

If combat is for advanced players only, I'd imagine there would be great rewards for being successful considering the difficulty involved.

[Zireael]

I see two options atm.

1) Player can choose to pursue a combat-oriented approach, but it is entirely optional, and never forced upon a player, and player can always "surrender" (to avoid issues like the Deus Ex:HR bosses where you were forced to fight).

2) Only NPCs can "fight", player cannot, and has to pursue other methods, though can recruit bodyguards etc. This would be really weird, but really different, so... maybe?

Right now, I'm leaning towards #1. Do nothing to encourage the player towards combat, but have it a system the player can engage with if they choose (think of something like the more obscure systems in NetHack, like polymorphing, demon summoning, etc). The issue is... *fundamentally*, I think I would like to go no-combat, but I just don't see how a realistic Renaissance world could be portrayed without the possibility of combat, and if the player can't fight but others can, then how do I portray/rationalize this?!

I am also leaning towards #1. Combat being (almost) optional in DX series was an amazing thing. On the other hand, those who want to fight, will be able to. Cue highwaymen Retropunch mentioned.