How to prevent party NPCs from disbalancing the game?

[Tycn]

Make NPCs conditional, they don't follow you around all the time but only for specific quests and things they have a personal stake in. That way you can design content for player and companions (possibly doable with just a strong player) as well as solo without fear of imbalance.

 

[shihonage]

That is an interesting idea.

The current crop of companions are codependent and infinitely patient.

On the downside, losing "long-term companions" also loses player's attachment to them... I mean, there are so many people who tried to keep Dogmeat from dying for as long as possible...

 

[Kz3r0]

Give a look at how Arcanum inplemented it and remove the suckage.
If you want determined followers or a large numberof them certain requirements must be met, also you must invest in specific skills to have companions diverting your xp points from other abilities, race, alignment, personal grudges, and various other incompabilities to maintain the party on its toes, bickering and taunts would be nice too, the possibility of betrayal or revolting against you according to how you behave or specific turning points in the plot, an influence system a-là KOTOR would be great too.

 

[laclongquan]

Not all combat is encounter-based. The obvious solution - racking up HP on EVERYONE, would result in a number of oddities, such as weak and medium critters suddenly devouring strayed gunmen. Equipment becoming disproportionately weak to the point beyond which common sense cannot be stretched.

My solution does NOT rely on Hp scaling, or even scaling per se. It's number of enemies scaling. Give a fixed number of enemies with loots each RE, and a number of lootless enemies that will join in as extra if your party is bigger than one. Do you understand the concept? You will have to fight bigger battle but not bigger the loot. This is the key point, because if the loot is bigger some people will always travel with big party in order to 'farm' stuffs.

 

[shihonage]

Yes, I understand the concept. It still only covers random encounters, however. Not pre-existing settlements.

RE: taking a look at Arcanum. I'll look for an article and try to steal something useful.

To be honest, I'm way past the honeymoon stage of setting overenthusiastic goals. "My NPCs will bicker with each other in Shakespearean English and pass the Turing test!" Yeah, right.

I just want to find something that's interesting, workable, and, well, EASIEST to implement out of those that pass previous two requirements. Companion behavior is just one of the many parts of the engine.

I am leaning toward them refusing to join w/their enemies, negatively reacting to BASIC things (player attacking their faction), making quips from time to time, and, finally, crippling their leveling ability and thus eventually wearing down their usability within a specific leveling tier. Hey, it worked in Fallout.

 

[Kz3r0]

Practically that's Arcanum, for example one of your companions will not join you if you strike a deal with some Necromancer, Another one will complain and abndon you if a member of the opposite faction will join the party, good aligned character can object at your behavior or attck you, really you don't need to look any further than Arcanum for what you want to do, downsides included.

And their levelling is crippled too.

 

[Johannes]

NPCs "demanding" _regular_ payment for help is not good IMO. I have naive hopes of player being able to generate a silent rapport with his party, and I don't pay my friends IRL to go do stuff with me. Hookers don't count as friends

Your boss does pay you though, right?

And if a friend of mine asked me to risk my life following his orders, I'd certainly consider it appropriate to get some of the money we make in the process towards my retirement fund. Of course some folks might be in the position that all they care about is helping the PC, they owe him something, want to romance him, have a shared goal, whatever. Also often it might be better to go hire a professional than convince your less skilled buddy to help you out.

Regular payments also help to add some strategy to the game, encouraging you to think how to make the most out of the time available to you, when in most RPGs you don't have to care about time passing at all. Which is not at all challenging obviously.

 

[Excommunicator]

Johannes etc

- Don't make out that the social/economic system of a world like Arcanum or Fallout works the same way as our world. They sure as hell don't have retirement funds.
- Having every service dependent on money makes the game feel shallowly capitalistic. In a bad way.
- Compulsory payments to characters who are supposed to be your genuine friends and comrades just cheapens the friendship/bond that is meant to exist between the characters in the game.
- It was customary not too long ago for payments for work/services to consist 80-90%+ of food, general necessities, lodgings, living basics etc. The settings of these games are harsh and resources are more scarce than our own, and it follows that if you can provide those basic requirements, then the need for money is much, much smaller.
- In anticipation: the argument that the money is being spent on these things somewhere in the background automatically is flimsy and inadequate, and - without further elaboration on my part - at the very least it is going to lead back to point 2 above.
- Following from the friendship component, while regular compulsory payments may be impersonally formal for friends, sharing is most certainly not, and the friendship should require voluntary sacrifices from the leader to maintain the appreciation of the relationship and prevent degradation into a working relationship once more

As to the more general topic ITT:

- Always offer the possibility of going solo for the player unless you can come up with a really good reason why a team is necessary (in which case, individual team members will no longer be a choice but a need, taking away significant customisation element)
- Provide means for companions to advance themselves by doing whatever the hell it is they do (assuming they aren't all just plain fighting types)
- Provide means for the whole group to advance as a whole in addition
- Adjust the way characters advance according to the types of problems being faced (assuming it isn't all combat)
- Soften the exponential character power scales
- Link characters more strongly to role than to level

etc

 

[Mastermind]

How would one go about balancing out the increased firepower and skill specialization that you get with additional NPCs ?

If the game is made for one player, and said player has helpers of comparable skill or firepower, it will get broken. On the other hand, there's no point in having your party consist of retarded paraplegics and 95-year-olds.

As I understand, in Fallout you simply couldn't use their skills, and they were also annoying and weak (F1), so they became less helpful with time until their inevitable demise.

In KOTOR you could use their skills, which kind of negated the significance of your own?

_________

Here are some solutions I was thinking of:

a) if you play a WeakSmart, then you can convince a brute of an NPC to follow you around and wield weapons you cannot use effectively. Voila, the "you don't have to fight" solution, because the NPC fights for you!

b) if you're a StrongDumb, then you get a geek to follow you around and pick those lockpicks and repair equipment. Maybe you only get them to follow you because you reek of adventure and violence, something they don't have in their life.

But then these scenarios are kind of limited. What if you choose not to have a party NPC? The game should be an enjoyable experience with a variety of character builds and choices.

What if you choose more than one?

Maybe there should be a form of punishment for having a party? For instance, taking their differences into extremes, and constantly having to stop them from killing one another, or making members "incompatible" with others by belief/etc ?

Making them require you to maintain their equipment, because they're little babies who can't do it themselves?

Making you provide them with ammo?

Any thoughts/ideas on proper ways to prevent party NPCs (or lack thereof) from breaking game balance?

My advice: stop worrying so much about balancing in a SP rpg. In real life a squad of people will pretty much always be more effective than just 1 person. So if it ends up like that in your game, so be it. As long as the game is playable (if a lot more challenging) as 1 person, it doesn't really matter.

 

[laclongquan]

THere's one way to pay your NPCs but without that act actually appearing on game's actions.

You set NPCs with an innate perk of 'reducing 20% money looted". So once you get your party, the loots you gather have very little money. And you dont have to actually do the act of 'paying your friend'.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

How would one go about balancing out the increased firepower and skill specialization that you get with additional NPCs ?

If the game is made for one player, and said player has helpers of comparable skill or firepower, it will get broken. On the other hand, there's no point in having your party consist of retarded paraplegics and 95-year-olds.

As I understand, in Fallout you simply couldn't use their skills, and they were also annoying and weak (F1), so they became less helpful with time until their inevitable demise.

In KOTOR you could use their skills, which kind of negated the significance of your own?

_________

Here are some solutions I was thinking of:

a) if you play a WeakSmart, then you can convince a brute of an NPC to follow you around and wield weapons you cannot use effectively. Voila, the "you don't have to fight" solution, because the NPC fights for you!

b) if you're a StrongDumb, then you get a geek to follow you around and pick those lockpicks and repair equipment. Maybe you only get them to follow you because you reek of adventure and violence, something they don't have in their life.

But then these scenarios are kind of limited. What if you choose not to have a party NPC? The game should be an enjoyable experience with a variety of character builds and choices.

What if you choose more than one?

Maybe there should be a form of punishment for having a party? For instance, taking their differences into extremes, and constantly having to stop them from killing one another, or making members "incompatible" with others by belief/etc ?

Making them require you to maintain their equipment, because they're little babies who can't do it themselves?

Making you provide them with ammo?

Any thoughts/ideas on proper ways to prevent party NPCs (or lack thereof) from breaking game balance?

My advice: stop worrying so much about balancing in a SP rpg. In real life a squad of people will pretty much always be more effective than just 1 person. So if it ends up like that in your game, so be it. As long as the game is playable (if a lot more challenging) as 1 person, it doesn't really matter.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Tycho just told me, two days ago: "I feel stronger now" in white text-float over his head. Had never seen it before, either. And since I don't remember his HP before that text, I have no idea if it actually affected anything. But this playthrough I deliberately got all the companions as early as possible and then proceeded with the quests, so both Ian and Tycho have received nearly as much XP as my PC.

EDIT: just checked Per's guide and it doesn't say anything about the subject.

Do you use the mod that allows companions to change armor and tell them to change tactics? It allows few selected NPCs to level up.

Ah, I don't think so... but now I'm not so sure. I do have TeamX patch, only thing I'm certain.

As to shinonage, yeah, Arcanum did it pretty well and going with that style won't, at least, cripple your game. CHA decides how many companions you can have, opposite alignments wouldn't work with each other (both good<>bad and magic<>tech) and not all followers are meant for combat either.

Also, zenbitz, which one of us will change their avatar?

 

[Undead Phoenix]

THere's one way to pay your NPCs but without that act actually appearing on game's actions.

You set NPCs with an innate perk of 'reducing 20% money looted". So once you get your party, the loots you gather have very little money. And you dont have to actually do the act of 'paying your friend'.

The flaw with that is when it comes to buying equipment for your companions. That said, personally I favour XP reduction for having NPCs in the party - it makes sense and provides a (small) drawback to gathering a small army.

 

[laclongquan]

What? Your pay is your pay, gift of friendship is gift. Why do you want to muddle the two separate issues together.

 

[shihonage]

I appreciate all of the ideas. Especially the ones about ripping off Arcanum. And "not worrying about balancing", because that way I have to do even less

Hopefully I'll find an acceptable middle ground.

 

[Excommunicator]

Put some links to whatever it is you're doing in your sig, shihonage.

 

[shihonage]

It's already in my sig, I just disable it when posting frequently in the same thread. Probably a habit that carried over from other forums.

 

[zenbitz]

I think I see how to combine Tcyn's idea and your concept of super nerd. The "pay them" aspect is also sort of critical, but not in a literal way.

The key is that is that the PC must expend some kind of in-game resource (or possibly simple game time ME style?) to retain his NPCs. The usual boring resource is simple cash/loot. But there are other resources - in fact, XP is basically a resource. Mana and HPs can also be considered resources, although usually there is some way to couple them to loot (health potions). In PARPG I want to make 'game time' one of the primary resources -- that is you only have X months to do whatever (That allows us to balance lean-by-doing/studying)

So to balance a SP game for "lone wolf" vs. "party of minions" you just have to make the resources to complete an area/quest roughly constant.

Using an NPC to help you with a quest is just like learning a new skill or buying a new weapon or something. You can make them "decay" or leave unless they are kept happy (with $, loot, service, etc.).

They should also betray your ass. Especially if you treat them like mercenaries or puppets.

 

[Shemar]

Well I will go the complete opposite direction. Don't balance the game. Either make a single character game and fuck companions (or have companions only available for specific parts of the game and balance those parts accordingly) or make a party based game and balance the whole thing assuming there will be as many companions as the game allows. There are enough problems to solve when making a game without adding non-issues. If somebody wants to be able to solo through a party based game, that is their problem, not the developer's.

 

[Excommunicator]

And typically it is their (our) problem. I am one who takes the solo route if it is possible in any game (RPG. RTS. TBS. any.) and I see it as a way to better invest myself in a game that might otherwise not be able to hold my interest as much. The results are always mixed, and with a strong lean in the direction of "possible with occasional use of allies/minions necessary and/or requiring some glitching" (typically AI).

Consider it the same as any old fag who might prefer to map his own dungeons, or the newfag who wants to get all the achievements. It works for me.

 

[Karmapowered]

Don't create a game in a certain way, because someone told you so.

Create a game that YOU would enjoy to play. In other words, follow your guts.

I think it is the best advice one could give to aspiring game developpers.

Plenty of time later on to surrender to the Mainstream(tm).

 

[PorkaMorka]

It is retarded to try and balance it so one guy is equally as effective as 8 guys.

 

[Excommunicator]

It is not retarded, it is merely irrational at face value.

If this balance of solo and party play is built through the way the main character advances, where not only is that character receiving more concentrated rewards (experience, money, loot, whatever), but also able to pursue a skill set exclusively complementary to the independence of a solo lifestyle, then it makes perfect sense to excel in ways that a group of 8 together cannot. Obviously he does not have the versatility of a team of 8, but he does not need that versatility if he can solve the same problems to his own benefit.

For example, there is nothing "realistic" about a thief infiltrating a fortified manor, being followed some 15 metres away by 4 warriors, a mage, a ranger and a priest. That is not a thief, that is a scout. A thief is by common nature an independent profession, and in realistic circumstances would go alone to complete the job with the others on missions to their owns strengths. They can only cause harm to the thief's covert approach unless they can contribute the same skills. This is but one example of a situation with disadvantages for a team.

That said, a game typically does not have this type of broad awareness of roles, and will focus on the solo vs group dynamic long before it breaks down the elements of those activities. As a result, a game should only be prepared to balance groups with solo if the group is also designed to have limitations, i.e. that the group is a transient thing, to be chosen for particular situations only, and not a game-long decision.

Thus, balancing a "Group game" with solo equivalence is typically irrational- economics aside -, and time should be spent on more important things so long as you intend for players to remain with groups the whole time. Of course, my preference goes to solo first with extra companions as offering opportunities to certain scenarios, but any "group-obligatory"-designed game should steer away from it completely or risk introducing many, many additional problems

 

[PandaBreeder]

Having a party can sometimes negatively affect replayability e.g. The player might be trying to infiltrate the Evil Fortress of Doom and one of the various ways to do so would be to pick the back door's lock. The player might not be proficient with lock picking so he hires a thief. Exchange picking locks with fighting or what have you, add the ability to control other party members, and the player would have access to a sort of ideal way of doing things.

 

[Crichton]

What I'd like to see implemented some day is the ability some of the lone wolf types to create their own backup. Ex.

Necromancer: Undead obviously, and it would be lots of fun trying to collect new material or new recipes to create new ones, going from basic skeletons to skeleton mages to dread knights et al.

Druid: Lots of animal friends, bigger and badder as time goes on, including some with magical abilities (dragons can breathe fire, spiders shoot webs, etc)

Mage: Summoned elementals, golems, steampunk-like constructs, the possibilities are endless.

Arcanum is the game that comes closest to this with the ability to have unlimited clockwork spiders or automotons following you around; other games pretty much just give you one short-term summoned creature for show. Though there was one NWN mod that let you build an undead creature.