NPC players

[AlohaSnackbar]

Is there a plan to introduce NPC players in solo so you can set them to do automatic tasks for you?

[LadyWYT]

Like this? https://mods.vintagestory.at/show/mod/2635

I'm certain there will be NPCs aside from the traders to find and interact with. As to what level of interaction they'll have, it's hard to say. I'm guessing that if they can do tasks for you, you're going to need to earn their trust beforehand so they're willing to work for you, unlike the villagers in the other block game.

[Wahazar]

Are you sure that villages mod offer possibility of NPC's doing some tasks ordered by player? I didn't fund anything like this mentioned. VS Quest mod works opposite, if I understad it well, player need to do something (a taks) to get reward. OP probably wanted is opposite, like to tell NPC "fell down these trees, you will get food".

[LadyWYT]

5 hours ago, Wahazar said:

Are you sure that villages mod offer possibility of NPC's doing some tasks ordered by player?

I'm not sure what the mod allows and what it doesn't, as I've never used it. However, it's the one mod I'm aware of that adds friendly NPCs for players to interact with. From the description, I'm guessing that it allows the player to build their own village and designate tasks for the villagers, which I assume acts as a way to automate the production of certain resources. I know there's been a mod or two that did similar in the other block game, and task automation seems like it would be one of the primary reasons to build a village anyway.

[AlohaSnackbar]

Basically I was asking, I just started playing soul mask and you can set NPC’s to do things like work the farm, butcher and feed livestock, collect specific resources qnd craft for you. That way you can go out and explore more. I was just curious if that was a future option.

[LadyWYT]

I know that villages/more NPCs are on the roadmap, but what their function is outside of storytelling/trade potential I'm not sure. There may be more clarity on intended NPC functions after the next update, as it's supposed to be adding at least four different locations important to the main story. I'm guessing that those may be villages, but it remains to be seen.

Personally, I get the impression that the game intends for the player to be doing most work themselves, and partially automating certain tasks(like forging and milling) through medieval machinery. For some resources that you don't have ready access to, the intention seems to be bartering for them via traders. As I noted earlier, I would assume that villager NPCs that may be added in the future will function in similar fashion, as I'm not sure that having NPCs work for you fits the direction the game seems to be headed in currently.

That being said, I wouldn't mind NPC workers for the player being added in, though I think it should be a late game goal to work towards. I'd also say that they should require a bit more effort to acquire and maintain than livestock. Perhaps you could pay a hefty amount of rusty gears at a village to hire a worker(for simplicity sake, perhaps a token that spawns an NPC). You'll need to equip them with tools to work with and weapons to hunt/defend themselves, as well as a place to live(which will also keep them safe from drifters, provided you light it). Similar to livestock, they'll need food in order to be productive(but perhaps not quite as much as a player needs), but unlike livestock they can retrieve food from designated areas and will abandon your service(despawn) if they can't get enough to eat. However, while they may require more effort to acquire and maintain, they could fully automate certain specific tasks such as tending farmland, tending livestock, or keeping the fires going in a refractory until it's finished refining. It would also be something interesting to manage in the late game, after you've established a solid foundation.

The main drawback I see is that it might be difficult to code and require more system resources for the game to run smoothly. Mob AI is already a little derpy, so it would need some improvements in order for NPCs to pathfind efficiently and not get stuck somewhere and die. You'd also need a way to mark specific work areas, storage areas, homes, and resources for the NPCs to use, otherwise you're going to have an unorganized mess and resources used that you didn't intend.

[Thorfinn]

I think it should be the other way around. You don't get to tell them what to do. You just create the home and workshop and whatnot and an appropriately-classed NPC (maybe)  either moves in to fill that role or he does not. I'm thinking some kind of reputation-based system. If the "wrong" class moves into what to you is obviously supposed to be a foundry, if you evict him, word gets around. Figure out some way to work around whomever shows up, or be prepared to do without anyone, potentially for the rest of the game.

[EDIT]

Welcome, @AlohaSnackbar.

There's a local radio talk show host who uses that term a lot as the situation merits.

[/EDIT]

Edited July 23 by Thorfinn

[ifoz]

3 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I think it should be the other way around. You don't get to tell them what to do. You just create the home and workshop and whatnot and an appropriately-classed NPC (maybe)  either moves in to fill that role or he does not. I'm thinking some kind of reputation-based system. If the "wrong" class moves into what to you is obviously supposed to be a foundry, if you evict him, word gets around. Figure out some way to work around whomever shows up, or be prepared to do without anyone, potentially for the rest of the game.

This is basically how Starbound did NPCs, though I think that having a potentially large penalty for firing a worker for not matching what you built is a little harsh. I think you should be able to choose the type of NPC who moves into your housing, though their sub-type may be random. Say there was a type "commoner" that you could choose, though they could be a "hunter", "farmer" or "artisan" depending on RNG.

[LadyWYT]

6 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

I think it should be the other way around. You don't get to tell them what to do. You just create the home and workshop and whatnot and an appropriately-classed NPC (maybe)  either moves in to fill that role or he does not. I'm thinking some kind of reputation-based system. If the "wrong" class moves into what to you is obviously supposed to be a foundry, if you evict him, word gets around. Figure out some way to work around whomever shows up, or be prepared to do without anyone, potentially for the rest of the game.

That's a dastardly level of humorous challenge, although I agree with @ifoz in that there shouldn't be too harsh of penalty for "firing" a worker. I would lean more towards giving NPCs random personality traits rather than class, and give the player control over which job they perform. So a worker with the Industrious trait would be more productive in most jobs, whereas a worker that's Lazy would be worse in most everything except fishing. A Green Thumb would be good at farming, and a Bloodthirsty NPC might be really good at fighting but prone to relentlessly pursuing enemies or less likely to get along with certain other NPCs. A Pacifist might also be good at farming or special "luxury roles(like acting as a bard or bartender) to boost NPC happiness, but probably won't get along with warmongering types. I'd also say that you can fire a worker at any time, but you won't get any of your resources back if you do(cost of hiring + whatever you didn't take from them before firing them).

There's still a place for a reputation system though, and I think this probably works best if you decide to kill an NPC to collect their drops(perhaps a partial refund of hiring cost) instead of just firing them, or if you fire multiple NPCs in a row after hiring due to not getting the traits you wanted. Word would eventually spread about your shenanigans, and perhaps the consequence is that hiring new workers becomes more expensive to compensate for the risk, at least until your reputation improves. Likewise, you still need to make sure your workers have their basic needs met; workers that constantly go hungry and don't have adequate shelter will spread the word about your treatment, and may leave if conditions are bad enough. Likewise, if you don't properly equip combat NPCs, or protect civilian NPCs, the excess death rate will tank your reputation as well. On the flipside though, taking good care of your NPCs and providing good equipment and luxuries would increase your reputation, resulting in cheaper hire prices and happier workers.

In short, it would be a lot to manage, but it could offer an interesting option for the end-game progression and world interaction. It would also fit nicely into the medieval feudalism niche. One drawback I can think of though, is that given what I've seen of the current lore, Falx's faction(which the player character seems to be or have been a part of) appears to operate more on principles of individual freedom instead of feudalism. The aristocracy of the Old World seem to be the ones inclined to stick to feudalism, if they're even still around as a faction. So it could offer some interesting alternate story options, but it could also conflict with how the developers want to tell the game's story. I think it depends somewhat how far Vintage Story intends to lean into RPG elements.

[Thorfinn]

I don't know. We don't get to tell a trader wagon what kind of trader he is, or whether coons or wolves or deer spawn in a given location. We just learn to work around the challenges the RNG gives.

Having been an employer most of my life, I want nothing to do with that for a pastime.

If some hunter wants to move into my starter cabin, why not? I'm happy to trade honey or jam or a cord of firewood for meat and fat, or whatever. I'd be inclined to build another home nearby and hopefully attract a tanner. But if a potter moves in, that's fine, too. I'll just keep building until the guy I want moves in, and meanwhile, we are building up a prosperous little community. A charcoal maker moves into the house with the hog pen that was obviously intended to be for a swineherd? Fine. I can move the pigs, and now I can trade (say) seashells or cabbage stew for charcoal.

No, I don't want to turn this into a trader sim. But it would be nice to have someone take over the tedious stuff -- milking the chickens and whatnot. That's the primary reason I start a new world. The mundane worklife part of the game interests me not at all, and generally by early winter, that's what the game has left to offer.

Edited July 24 by Thorfinn

[Maelstrom]

Chicken milk?

[GeloBledo]

So I been playing Medieval Dynasty and one thing that really stands out to me is how alive the game feels with NPC characters aging and passing away then the kids taking over. People having a day cycle where they will wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, then after work possibly go to the pub get a drink before going home eating dinner then going to bed. Now this is one thing I would like Vintage story to have. Communities of NPCs that live a life and reproduce and provide to the game somehow by farming, raising animals, selling goods, ect.  

[Maelstrom]

Not sure if lifecycles would make much sense with the slow progression of time.  I play on a server that started in April or May, that has little down time and it's only year 11 or 12.  My single player worlds rarely go longer than 3-4 years (if that).

[Thorfinn]

49 minutes ago, Maelstrom said:

Not sure if lifecycles would make much sense with the slow progression of time.  I play on a server that started in April or May, that has little down time and it's only year 11 or 12.  My single player worlds rarely go longer than 3-4 years (if that).

Unless seraphs are a short-lived species.

Much as I like the idea, the details of that will get messy. "Let us choose our seraph's gender,"  and we are off to the races with a potential political war. Which we don't need.

Doesn't really work in this game anyway. Since you only get one character, it would have to be something like a phoenix. Where one day, you wake up as a different seraph. All the effort you put into that one seraph is dust in the wind. I guess you could do it something like Dungeon Keeper, where you can take over the body of an NPC and play as that for a while, eventually giving you access to all classes, albeit one at a time.

But that's not the family thing of Medieval Dynasty, either. 

[FlareUKCS]

It may be controversial to say but I don't like NPC actors in my games, I want to be the sole owner of all I see, its my world I want it to be pristine before I effect it... adding odd things like villagers  makes it less my domain and more something I can control if I want, oddly its a not pleasant thing... I mean if the village is in a spot I want, I need to murder them all.... and I dont like that. I dont mind the traders as they are expected, NPC's are often not. Its hard to explain its just a feeling, I want to build here with NPC's it more about building around them and then using them.

I like it being Trader in a tiny cell, than trying to find Villagers to exploit in some manner, aka the other block game.

That is my opinion

[ifoz]

6 hours ago, FlareUKCS said:

I like it being Trader in a tiny cell, than trying to find Villagers to exploit in some manner, aka the other block game.

Totally agreed. I think that villages defeat the whole point of survival in that other block game, and definitely would here too, if implemented like their Minecraft counterparts. Why build when there's houses for you? Why farm when there's farms for you? Why mine iron when there's loot for you?
They are also way too common, making it hard to find a non-populated area to make your own.

I don't think this game would ever add villages in that manner though. If they did, it would likely be a unique story location very far from spawn with unbreakable blocks.

Edited July 26 by ifoz

[Thorfinn]

10 hours ago, ifoz said:

Totally agreed. I think that villages defeat the whole point of survival in that other block game, and definitely would here too, if implemented like their Minecraft counterparts. Why build when there's houses for you? Why farm when there's farms for you? Why mine iron when there's loot for you?
They are also way too common, making it hard to find a non-populated area to make your own.

That's really nothing more than a tweak to the claims system. Start with Trader permissions, then revoke sleep in their beds or use their storage or do anything with their crops, make sure fire can't go from the non-protected world to the structures etc., and villages are just window dressing. Though adding the ability to trade with them would make sense and give a point to exploration.

I don't get why so many cannot envision a system that works differently than that other block game. How many other systems where VS differs from that other game have to throat-punch them before they get the point?

As for too common, that's normal for a mod. Everyone seems to think his mod's changes should be in your face all the time. Best practices should include a tunable scarcity parameter. Better Ruins did it with loot drops at least, though not for the frequency of the ruins itself. Or at least I didn't find it last time I looked a couple versions ago.

10 hours ago, ifoz said:

I don't think this game would ever add villages in that manner though.

Maybe not. I can see the occasional seraph holding, but storms mean none but the best or the most sound sleepers survive many of them.

Edited July 26 by Thorfinn

[Thorfinn]

17 hours ago, FlareUKCS said:

I mean if the village is in a spot I want, I need to murder them all....

Hope you don't mind if I find that just a tad humorous. There are 10^12 blocks in a standard world, and you absolutely have to have these couple hundred?

Hope you don't think that way in real life. There are lots of people who have houses in prime locations that would be ideal for you to build on...

[LadyWYT]

11 hours ago, ifoz said:

Totally agreed. I think that villages defeat the whole point of survival in that other block game, and definitely would here too, if implemented like their Minecraft counterparts. Why build when there's houses for you? Why farm when there's farms for you? Why mine iron when there's loot for you?
They are also way too common, making it hard to find a non-populated area to make your own.

I don't think this game would ever add villages in that manner though. If they did, it would likely be a unique story location very far from spawn with unbreakable blocks.

Hence why I think villages would be best implemented as very rare points of interests, to the extent that you need to travel a few thousand blocks to find the first one, and then several thousand more to find another. The current protection system for major points of interest(traders, the Archive) would probably be enough to prevent players from acquiring certain resources too easily, like what happens in the other block game. A reputation system would be an alternate method of protection, allowing the player to still influence the world directly but making it undesirable to raze villages, murder villagers, or otherwise engage in theft via looting their possessions/crops/livestock.

Making them a rare spawn would also make them much more exciting to find, and more valuable as a trading hub or safe place to rest when traveling. Even moreso if there are items that can only be acquired via bartering in a village. Most importantly though, it would preserve the lonely survival aspect of the game, as moving to a village(or more likely, somewhere close to the village) isn't going to be an option until later in the game when you have a good means of travel.

57 minutes ago, Thorfinn said:

Hope you don't mind if I find that just a tad humorous. There are 10^12 blocks in a standard world, and you absolutely have to have these couple hundred?

Never underestimate the determination of a gamer with an epic build plan. I'd also argue that when it's a point of interest that easy to find, you stop feeling bad about razing it to build there, even if it was occupied by NPCs. Although in all fairness, the NPCs in the other block game tend to be rather good at removing themselves from the world, which is one major reason why most players tend to end up locking them in tiny cells for trading.

[Thorfinn]

46 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Never underestimate the determination of a gamer with an epic build plan.

Never have understood that vibe in a gamer. With some games, sure, but with the terraform abilities in VS, you can eventually make any place in the right climate work. And there's always another "ideal" location for that build within a few hundred blocks anyway. That's the thing about the mapgen -- there are lots of essentially identical locations in the game. All you have to do is find them.

46 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

I'd also argue that when it's a point of interest that easy to find

I'm always astounded at the sheer number of points of interest in the game. Floating islands or spires, some with waterfalls, that you can see from hundreds of blocks away. Massive barrier mountain ranges. Lone mountains high enough for glacier ice. A redwood on a hill. Large lakes or open plains. Gravel or sand deserts. Pine tree forests you can see from afar. Some of the ruins. Used to be I didn't appreciate it all back when I played with a map. And they are a good measure of distance. If you can still see them, they are less than about 400 blocks. (Or less than your view distance if it is not set that high.)

And if you find a place that's ideal other than lacking a landmark, there is no reason you cannot construct a spire based around a ladder. Indeed, you could dress that up to look like a "natural" mapgen feature, maybe poke in windows with light sources behind, and put your windmill atop it, also visible for hundreds of blocks.

46 minutes ago, LadyWYT said:

Hence why I think villages would be best implemented as very rare points of interests

Truth. I'm not convinced villages fit the vibe of the game. Yes, there are small ruined villages in the game, but those are all pre-calamity. (Of course, any wood-based settlements should be long gone, which is why that new ruin with ancient wood or partially-ruined wooden crates and chests exposed to the elements make no sense to me. Under cover of stone, sure, but open to the sky, or maybe even a block or two to the side of cover, not so much.)

I think widely separated seraphs with their own holds makes sense, though. Where else are the traders getting their goods?

Edited July 26 by Thorfinn

[LadyWYT]

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

And if you find a place that's ideal other than lacking a landmark, there is no reason you cannot construct a spire based around a ladder. Indeed, you could dress that up to look like a "natural" mapgen feature, maybe poke in windows with light sources behind, and put your windmill atop it, also visible for hundreds of blocks.

This is probably why most will opt for a pre-existing landmark instead of building their own. If it's already there, it's less work on your end of things typically, although it depends on your building style. Outside of using creative mode to make some adjustments, it's also not as easy to mob-proof the insides of hollow builds. Although with the way Vintage Story's lighting currently works, a hollow build is going to end up with a weird glow around pieces of it if you leave it hollow and light the inside to keep drifters from spawning.

1 hour ago, Thorfinn said:

Truth. I'm not convinced villages fit the vibe of the game. Yes, there are small ruined villages in the game, but those are all pre-calamity. (Of course, any wood-based settlements should be long gone, which is why that new ruin with ancient wood or partially-ruined wooden crates and chests exposed to the elements make no sense to me. Under cover of stone, sure, but open to the sky, or maybe even a block or two to the side of cover, not so much.)

I think widely separated seraphs with their own holds makes sense, though. Where else are the traders getting their goods?

Lots of villages don't really fit the post-apocalyptic theme, and while there might be a proper city or two that comes into play later, I don't get the impression that survivors have progressed much further than the odd village or two.

As for where the traders are acquiring their goods, they do mention the existence of villages, although they also make it very clear that those are few and far between, and difficult to find if you choose to go looking. How they refer to the player(and others like the player) indicates that seraphs have only recently begun to appear in the world, and haven't been around long enough or in enough numbers to know much about them. If, however, the traders were acquiring their wares from seraph settlements, they shouldn't find the player a strange entity at all.

It's also worth noting this short story: https://www.vintagestory.at/stories/storyexcerpt-ghosts.html/

It's set post-calamity, and the majority of characters are human, with the main reference character being a human hunter named Bardo. The driving factor of the story is the appearance of a seraph in the settlement--perhaps the first one they've ever seen--and while they aren't unfriendly to the stranger they find him quite odd.

Of course, the story and lore could change as the game progresses, but I think we can reasonably expect to see a village or two later on, at least for the main game modes. For the Homo Sapiens survival mode I don't expect to see them, as it would defeat the whole purpose of that game mode, lol.

[ifoz]

6 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

Never have understood that vibe in a gamer. With some games, sure, but with the terraform abilities in VS, you can eventually make any place in the right climate work. And there's always another "ideal" location for that build within a few hundred blocks anyway. That's the thing about the mapgen -- there are lots of essentially identical locations in the game. All you have to do is find them.

Perhaps someone could make their base near a protected village, and then when they wanted to expand, they would be prevented.
Maybe a village generates in an otherwise perfect location where you could envision a super cool build.
I think villages should be extremely rare or a super far-away story location as to prevent stuff like this.

I kind of don't really want villages in the game anyway, it detracts from the lonely survival aspect the game has going for it. I think a village as a story location could be really cool, but not as a regularly-spawning structure.

Edited July 27 by ifoz

[Thorfinn]

[EDIT]

TLDR: Trader in a wagon, fine. Trader in a cabin, double-plus ungood.

Discuss.

[/EDIT]

 

DIsclosure -- I've never tried that other block game. I simply have not seen any of how it implements NPCs, so have no basis for understanding any of those prejudices.

What I have seen is how VS implements NPCs -- traders. Can't every complaint about NPCs be lodged against traders, albeit to possibly a lesser extent? Don't they prevent you from building in your perfect spot? Don't they offer storage and a bed and a safe place for the night?

I agree villages don't fit the game as intended. If it were, it would probably be on the roadmap. And rifts and storms being what they are, drifters spawning in anywhere sufficiently dark, villages don't make sense. Perimeter walls alone serve little purpose, which, oddly, is one of the common player complaints. "Why are they spawning in my [insert arbitrary unlighted location here]? Make them stop it!" 

Why would one expect to be able to loot a seraph's homestead when you can't loot the game's own prototype NPC? And, worse, what if traders or the Resonance Archives were in your ideal location?

No, I just don't get it. Why are traders OK, but other seraphs are not?

 

Edited July 27 by Thorfinn

[Thorfinn]

17 hours ago, LadyWYT said:

This is probably why most will opt for a pre-existing landmark instead of building their own. If it's already there, it's less work on your end of things typically,

Of course that's true, but how much work are we really talking about? Climb up 30-50 ladder sections, place a half-dozen packed earth blocks (or even just one), climb back down, retrieve your ladders. Landmark visible from hundreds of blocks away, similar to lots of others out there that mapgen placed. Maybe put a regular dirt on top and plant one of those tree saplings you don't know what to do with. If you are so inclined, put a water source block on top of it, and it is unmistakable.

Anyone willing to chisel a single block or live in more than a dirt hut is putting in more effort. Seems to me that's not the real concern.

 

Edited July 27 by Thorfinn

[ifoz]

20 hours ago, Thorfinn said:

No, I just don't get it. Why are traders OK, but other seraphs are not?

I'll agree to disagree about the whole landmark thing, but I would just like to say that other Seraphs might not fit the lore very well.
I kind of like how Seraphs explicitly represent players - having a clear divide between humans and Seraphs as NPCs and players is pretty cool in my eyes.
Every Seraph you see is a player, and every human you see is an NPC, and I don't know if having (many) NPC Seraphs would mesh all that well. Maybe a few really story-important character like Jonas and Tobias as Seraphs, but not Seraphs as a whole NPC faction.
At least, that's my thoughts on it.