23 réponses à ce sujet

[Azador]

The Border Kingdoms project is looking for a motivated, talented scripter who is interested in aiding the development of the most unique persistent world server to date.

We are on the lookout for a talented lead scripter, who is looking to join a team of driven, determined builders, and help craft this ambitious project. The Border Kingdoms will have many unique and dynamic systems never truly seen before on a Neverwinter Nights persistent world.

The highlight of this will be an interactive battle system, where player-generals can directly control the actions of his troops on the battlefield from a riskesque style war room. The battles will be simultaneously lived out in real time as part of a larger DM event, as their NPC armies fight a glorious battle, supported by any player soldiers who wish to take part. This system will allow the kingdoms to truly live up to their reputation as being a constantly changing place with nations rising and falling. We feel that this will provide a breath of a fresh air to the rather stale and unchanging worlds that have been seen before. Other systems will include an integrated fame/reputation system, which will track each player-character's in-game decisions through a numeric system and will effect how DM'd NPCs will react to them.

Knowledge of work with NWNX2 is ideal, as it will grant us greater freedom in bringing our design ideas to life.

The current project is well under way, and a plethora of high-quality content is already available.

Why join the Border Kingdoms team, and what makes this project unique?

• Philosophy towards player dynamics and interaction with the world, a system that allows player groups to form real kingdoms with subservient NPCs to act as 'extras' rather than overshadowing PCs, which are the real focus. Political roleplay will be a large part of the server, and various player-created factions and player-ruled factions will interact to create a living, organic world.

• Our philosophy towards DMing: Favoritism is anathema, DMs exist to serve player arcs and support player storylines. Rather than being rule-enforcers, they are 99% focused on interactive narrative. Player factions will be a key source of roleplay and gameplay, and DMs will do their utmost to support their growth and existence.

• Influences from real-world history, high fantasy, and various low-fantasy settings such as A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE

• A unique adaptation of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting: Magic and the gods are mysterious, and the world is gritty and organic. A significant 'darkening' of the setting.

• 'Spellcaster' classes will be a rare sight, as will magical items and consumables. With this in mind, the server will be balanced to support the martial classes such as Archers, Rogues, Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, et cetera, with a strong focus on these classes.

• A large, carefully chosen soundtrack, entirely sourced from renaissance and medieval music from a variety of cultures around the world.

• A focus on regional culture. While travelling across our many vast, carefully-crafted areas, players will experience significant cultural changes and really feel that they are in a different part of the realm.

• State-of-the-art Hakpaks and the freshest, newest content from the vault, making for a visually enticing server, paired with an extremely high standard for area design and overall consistency with regards to geography.

Visit our forums at:

http://borderkingdoms.hyperboards.com/

Modifié par Azador, 10 mai 2011 - 11:18 .

[the.gray.fox]

Azador wrote...

The highlight of this will be an interactive battle system, where player-generals can directly control the actions of his troops on the battlefield from a riskesque style war room. The battles will be simultaneously lived out in real time as part of a larger DM event, as their NPC armies fight a glorious battle, supported by any player soldiers who wish to take part. This system will allow the kingdoms to truly live up to their reputation as being a constantly changing place with nations rising and falling. We feel that this will provide a breath of a fresh air to the rather stale and unchanging worlds that have been seen before.

The current project is well under way, and a plethora of high-quality content is already available.

Hello.

Sorry to "butt-in" (<-- I just learned that. English is fun) but I have to ask.
What I quoted sounds like the main feature of your ambitious project.
And you say the current project is well under way.

I ask:
Are you 100% sure that you know what you talk about?

There are reasons if nobody has ever fielded the big battles.
I am not talking of epic battles like those in the Lord of the Rings.
I am talking of battles that are not even remotely comparable with those.

Your riskesque approach to war can work. Magnificently too.
But you are never going to succeed to place 2 big opposing forces in a _real_ battlefield, and have them clashing without crashing every last one of your clients.

Let me do some math for you.
I will use the lowest numbers to make it "possible" -- albeit nowhere near "credible".
Soldiers, Squads, Platoons, Companies, Batalliions, Brigades, Divisions, Corps, Armada (or Army).
(Open...
Only the biggest armies do have need for Divisions and Corps.
Otherwise it is pointless to introduce even more individuals in the chain of command and responsibilities.
I hope it makes sense.
To simplify this example I am leaving Divisions and Corps out.
We simulate a _very tiny_ army here.
... closed)

From left to right, each entity is contained within the next one.
And of course to make any one such entity, you need to team up at the very least two of the previous entity type.
The real world numbers are much bigger, with the tiniest Armadas beginning at 50 thousands soldiers and counting.

So:
A squad is made up of at least 2 soldiers...
... a platoon is made up of at least 2 squads...
... a company is made up of at least 2 platoons...
... a batallion is made up of at least 2 companies...
... a brigade is made up of at least 2 batallions...
... an armada is made up of at least 2 brigades.

The tiniest army ever -- but the "design" rules are respected.
How many actors so far? 2 x2 x2 x2 x2 x2 = 64

You need 2 armies clashing. That makes 64 x2 = 128 actors.

And you would field 128 actors within the same Area, and maybe keep them all in combat mode?
And using Neverwinter Nights 1 (one) ??

Even if you cheat and slim down an "Armada" to just 25 soldiers (oh, the joke)... you still have to field twice of it.
50 actors fighting at once in the same area is nevertheless a sure crash for the majority of Clients.


Thus:
I invite you and your team to reconsider this aspect of your project.
Aiming too far high makes you lose perspective.


-fox

Modifié par the.gray.fox, 10 mai 2011 - 05:19 .

[Azador]

Large battles will be cinematic DM events. The actual outcome of the battles will be decided by an in-game adaptation of the Pathfinder ruleset "Warpath: Guide to Mass Combat" (hence the explanation for the 'Riskesque war-room.')

Obviously the NWN engine is not meant to be like Total War, but a large 'feel' for battles is certainly possible. I appreciate your post, however, but we are well aware of our planned systems and have done extensive stress-testing By the way, the squadron/platoon/etc isn't relevant, as that level of organization in warfare didn't appear on the battlefield until the Napoleonic wars - the battles on this server will be much more akin to feudal warfare!

The large battle system will be for very special, uncommon events where two kingdoms actually meet on the field of battle, and is not the centric focus of the server, but is going to be a significant and unique feature of our server.

Modifié par Azador, 10 mai 2011 - 05:25 .

[the.gray.fox]

Already you rectify your initial claim.
So it is not the main feature, but a very special one, instead -- yet you made it sound like main.
You even listed first, and spent a paragraph for it alone.


But very well.

I trust you will post links to youtube clips -- possibly several minutes long of genuine uninterrupted combat.
So anybody can witness these glorious battles without having to "register and buy" the product first (so to speak).

Up to that moment I permit to disbelieve your claim that you have succeeded to field one such glorious battle.

There is nothing personal in it.
Understand, too many times I have seen people selling "smoke", swearing over the heads of their childrens that it was not smoke, but then you go see it with your eyes... and yes it is smoke. Just blue instead of white. Still smoke to me.

It would be refreshing, for once, to see that it really is not smoke.
I will wait for the clips. Good luck.


-fox

[Azador]

I think it's just a translation issue. It is described in the initial post as a 'highlight,' not the primary feature of the server, but I worded it as such because this is a scripting recruitment post There is quite a significant feature list in the rest of the post as well, not just our battle system. Our focus has never been solely on large battles, and has never been advertised as such - you can read our only other post here:

http://social.biowar...9/index/5771551

I don't claim to be able to have thousands of actors on the battlefield, but I do claim to be able to create an immersive feel of being in the midst of a much larger battle, within the realm of possibility in the NWN engine. Hence why I worded it 'cinematic DM event.'

I'm sorry that you've misinterpreted our system - I never claimed to be bringing the Total War series to NWN.

Modifié par Azador, 10 mai 2011 - 05:44 .

[Azador]

All the above confusion/miscommunication aside, we really are very enthusiastic about hiring one of the talented scripters that frequent this board, so hopefully the purpose of this thread is not lost!

[_Guile]

Sounds lagolicious

[Azador]

_Guile wrote...

Sounds lagolicious

It's not! 

Modifié par Azador, 11 mai 2011 - 05:02 .

[ffbj]

One feature of older games is that as computer get faster and better things that were incomprehensible or undoable due to lag concerns become less so. Of course limitations still exist due to other considerations, such as the scripting language, and lag affected by other things such as graphics. But still I could see where you could certainly expand battles 3 or 4 fold compared to what was reasnable only a few years ago.
Good Luck with your project.
For those who really know their stuff when it comes to computers don't lambast me for making such statements. It's just a general observation. Thanks.

[TSMDude]

ffbj wrote...

One feature of older games is that as computer get faster and better things that were incomprehensible or undoable due to lag concerns become less so. Of course limitations still exist due to other considerations, such as the scripting language, and lag affected by other things such as graphics. But still I could see where you could certainly expand battles 3 or 4 fold compared to what was reasnable only a few years ago.
Good Luck with your project.
For those who really know their stuff when it comes to computers don't lambast me for making such statements. It's just a general observation. Thanks.

Honestly i am looking forward to seeing it and agree with you 100% on this...who knows? Maybe they found something the gurus missed....

[Mad.Hatter]

A scripted battle system would definitely be Hall of Fame worthy.

[BozzieM]

We definitely agree that it's possible and with the ruleset already to hand (minus a little tweaking) all we need now is assistance in implementing it. It would be a great challenge for anybody who enjoys creating magic with scripting.

Another thing to note is that this is only one of our systems to put in place. We still need to implement the fame/reputation system which will be integral to players building their own factions and potentially their own kingdoms. All pieces of the jigsaw so to speak. Really, the sky's the limit as we have the hardware to do just about anything. 

Modifié par BozzieM, 13 mai 2011 - 08:54 .

[ffbj]

I use Vendalus PRR persistent reaction reputation, which DM_Vecna is working on, to maintain consistent faction relationships. This system has a lot going for it. Currently in my pw I have around 10 seperate factions which will react to PC's according to actions the PC takes along with alignment of the PC. So as you begin all factions are neutral to you unless your alignment is diametrically opposed to them. Even then you have to do something negative to lose faction with a group. Of course the more opposed to them you are the less you can do against them without going hostile.
One thing I do is to have totems that demarcate various faction boundries, or holdings, etc...Thus if you attack one of these totem it will negatively affect your relationship with that faction, as will killing members of that faction.  At the same time other factions opposed to those you attack will begin to like you more.
Whatever method you use I suggest you implement a method to pay Wergeld to factions you have outraged.
Thus players who have made some mistakes can pay off a faction through an intermediary to recover some face with that faction.  These payments also have historical precedents which contribute to the overall sense of realism of the  system while also contributing to it's flexibility.
Vendalus PRR:
http://nwvault.ign.c....Detail&id=2400

Also of value is the current Deity system which can be used to tweak any faction system and offer such things as miraculous recoveries, and divine interventions in some cases. An example would be a priest praying to his deity and all PC/NPC in that area receive a blessing from the deity, if their deity matches the priest deity.

In regard to the fame question I have a notoriety method which is very simple to implement.  Each time a PC has done something noteworthy they receive a boost to their notoriety.  It is self limited.  For instance a PC can gain notoriety by killing bounties,  npc's who have been flagged as outlaws. But then the notoriety gain is capped dependent on level.  Thus a PC under level 20 can only gain 25 notoriety.  Once they have advanced past level 20 they can gain more.  Then you can add the level and notoreity of a PC to get an overall reaction to how others may be impressed by that PC.  This can have a plus/minus effect on the PC.  More doors open for them and they become more well known, but then others, following the gunslinger effect, wish to prove their metal against them as they have become famous.  Other ways to gain notoriety would be killing other PC's, Boss monsters, completing quests, etc...
In this last regard you could have something like generalship where you could compare the generalship of the two commanders in the field and if one is significantly higher than the other say greater than 5 higher they could add a rallying cry or some such limited boost to their men in battle once per battle.  Of course you would only gain in your generalship if you won a batte and it could go down if you lost. 

Modifié par ffbj, 13 mai 2011 - 11:03 .

[Terrorble]

Has anyone ever played the Good vs. Evil mod?

My PC is far from exceptional, but I could host it, play on the server and have another person playing over LAN with about 40 NPCs on each side and everything ran nicely. I'm certain there are many differences between that mod and the one being discussed, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

Afterall, if they discover their limit, then they may have to have single NPCs represent larger groups of similar NPCs. It may detract somewhat from the epic feel of a massive battle, but still maintain the general idea.

Another RTS Harvest of Souls.. You pick one of the 4 teams and go from there. As far as I can tell in that mod, NPCs actively operate across many areas of that mod regardless of players being present: wandering merchants, loot cleaners, random orc, giant, pigmy, swamp boggles, bandits etc raid your base or the central city whether you are there or not. Now, that mod would crash after 4-6hours of both hosting and playing on it, but the designer even says it isn't very reliable if you are both hosting and playing on the same machine.

[Lightfoot8]

I agree with, "NPCs represent larger groups of similar NPCs" . Not to long ago I started thinking about making a TBS based on Lords of The Realm and integrating it into NWN. That way you could have armies in the hundreds Per side.

I think the main point Gray Fox made was missed by the OP though. Gray fox said nothing about server crashes or the server not being able to handle the load with the right hardware. If scripted right the server has the light end of the stick in this case. It does not have to draw any of the Graphics, He stated that there may be problems with client crashes. I do agree however that just because something may be a problem does not mean that you should not give it a try. Only time will tell.

I wish I had the time to devote to the project, unfortunately I do not. At this point even if I had more time I have several other projects that would suck up my time.

Best of luck on your project.
L8

Modifié par Lightfoot8, 16 mai 2011 - 09:27 .

[BozzieM]

Just a quick point about the server.

The type of battle shown in that video would not be a common occurrence. To field that kind of army a player would need to accrue vast amounts of wealth and resources. You just have to think about the logistics of fielding an organized army of that size. You would need to train, equip and feed an army like that. All of these things will be possible on the border kingdoms, but certainly not an easy thing to do.

The armies you see fighting belong to NPC factions, the larger battles between NPC factions will be a rarity. This is not meant to discourage anybody, the battle system will be integral.. But generally the role-play and political intrigue of the kingdoms is of higher importance to us. After all, we're building a low magic high RP server, not an action server.

Also, to pick up on your points Terrorble and Lightfoot:

The troops in the video posted did not represent the full size of the two armies. Both would be able to field armies of thousands at least, but that would put a tremendous strain on even the best server computer out there. Numbers beyond the hundreds are just not feasible due to the engine itself. Think of the battles themselves as cinematic, just to give players a sense of the epic scale of events unfolding. The real battle will be decided by good old fashioned dice rolls and variables in the battle room itself, the battle on the ground tweaked accordingly for visual effect.

I'm pretty sure Azador mentioned all of this, but it's important that it's clarified. Just to make sure it's clear that we're not blowing any of that nasty blue smoke. 

Modifié par BozzieM, 17 mai 2011 - 10:23 .

[the.gray.fox]

Hm. Late again.

Did I trigger some discontent?
I perceive some veiled fuss about me in the early posts above. Hurting. And unjustified.

With Azador I voiced a concern of mine.
Perhaps I did put too much passion in it, nearing the "attack" type of post (some zealots perceive as an attack anything that strays from the "yes I agree with you" line).
To clarify: it was no attack.
Which the OP realized by himself -- else, he would have replied me in other tones.

Obviously not everyone is as perceptive.
At the fusser(s) I remind that this is a forum: a place "meant for people to meet and discuss" -- not to be twisted in "to meet and agree", a close relative of "give to the infidel!".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At any rate, my point was made, and eventually received. Kind of.
And I have looked at that clip posted by Azador.
Promising, to be sure.
And not looking like blue smoke, no -- come now, you just found a new way to recolor it, eh?

Dare an estimate. How many more actors do you think you can safely push on screen?

From what I know the volume shadows are one of the culprits of crashing on crowded scenes.
Have you thought to go as far as to alter your battle models (persons, weapons, gear) and remove their shadows?
That should chop a big load off the Clients CPU, having them not to re-compute dozens of shadows per frame.
You could push even more actors if that works.
And I bet nobody would notice that the shadows are missing. Assemble a good crowd and the eyes will focus everywhere on screen but the ground.


-fox

[Azador]

We're still very interested in finding a dedicated scripter for the team.

Visit http://borderkingdoms.hyperboards.com/, we'll happily give any potential scripting recruits a tour of some of our high-quality building to show them that we're a serious and determined team, working on a truly unique project.

[Taino]

Sounds pretty interesting..

[Azador]

A hopeful bump. We have the vast majority of our core systems in place, but could really use at least a temporary scripter to help us with some of the slightly more complicated things.

[mwplayer]

Dare an estimate. How many more actors do you think you can safely push on screen?

From what I know the volume shadows are one of the culprits of crashing on crowded scenes.
Have you thought to go as far as to alter your battle models (persons, weapons, gear) and remove their shadows?
That should chop a big load off the Clients CPU, having them not to re-compute dozens of shadows per frame.
You could push even more actors if that works.
And I bet nobody would notice that the shadows are missing. Assemble a good crowd and the eyes will focus everywhere on screen but the ground.


-fox

Shadows are client-sided, just like all the other graphical options. Go to video options and slide "Creature Shadow Detail" to 0. If they're lagging, it's the computer's fault. And IIRC, shadows process off the GPU, not the CPU.

I don't see a problem with clients crashing with a lot of NPCs fighting. I've played in many servers where two factions clashed. Laggy (latency), yes. But crashing? I crash more on ATs and poor scripting than that.

Also wtf, there are shadows in the video. Look closely at 1:40. Honestly, I think you're just really intent on talking smack about the project itself, no matter how much you sugar coat it. Is this the truth, or did it hit a little too close to home?

Modifié par mwplayer, 18 juin 2011 - 07:30 .

[GhostOfGod]

Azador wrote...

A hopeful bump. We have the vast majority of our core systems in place, but could really use at least a temporary scripter to help us with some of the slightly more complicated things.

Why not just ask specifically what you need in this scripting forum? There are quite a few people willing to help out when they have the time but don't want to be dedicated to any particular project. Like that guy over there....~points to himself~

So in essence this forum could kinda be your temporary scripter.

[Rubies]

Shadows are client-sided, just like all the other graphical options. Go to video options and slide "Creature Shadow Detail" to 0. If they're lagging, it's the computer's fault. And IIRC, shadows process off the GPU, not the CPU.

I don't see a problem with clients crashing with a lot of NPCs fighting. I've played in many servers where two factions clashed. Laggy (latency), yes. But crashing? I crash more on ATs and poor scripting than that.

Also wtf, there are shadows in the video. Look closely at 1:40. Honestly, I think you're just really intent on talking smack about the project itself, no matter how much you sugar coat it. Is this the truth, or did it hit a little too close to home?

The comment about custom models without shadows is actually a really good one - shadows are a huge source of lag, even on newer computers (I'm guessing this is just how NWN handles it, rather than it being some unbelievably complex thing). Disabling them on a model basis would remove the requirement for every player to manually toggle their shadows on and off between cinematic scenes, making the entire thing painless for players to get into.

If custom models were made that all shared a non-dynamic palette, they'd be even less laggy for clients watching the action. Not all players are on brand new computers so it's always a good idea to tone things down a little bit if it's something that has no real drawbacks. :happy:

On the scripting front, if you can't find anyone who has enough free time to dedicate themselves to the project, I'm pretty sure any requests can be handled through this same board - pretty much everyone's more than happy to help, if they can.

Modifié par Rubies, 18 juin 2011 - 08:42 .

[the.gray.fox]

mwplayer wrote...

Honestly, I think you're just really intent on talking smack about the project itself, no matter how much you sugar coat it.

Actually my last comment was genuinely constructive (meant to help -- not meant to bash).
And once more, I have not seen Azador reacting in this manner.
So why should you of all persons?

Instead I am not sure wether you are trying to set me on fire :-/
And your join date is suspiciously recent -- if you do not mind me saying it.
Are your first posts on a new forum always of this type?

If it is the case: You may go pick someone else to start a quarrel with.
If it is not the case: Ignore this comment. It is obviously a big misunderstanding.

mwplayer wrote...
Is this the truth, or did it hit a little too close to home? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

I can not answer it. I do not know what you mean.
If it is important and you want an answer, then rephrase it in simpler terms -- thanks(?)


-fox