Much has been made over the years of destructable environments. But what about destroyed environments that can regenerate over time? What factors do you think should be considered if a designer aspires to create an environment that not only can be destroyed but which is naturally rebuilt over time? Let's say that you have a town filled with buildings and you destroy one of them. Let's also say that the town's occupants can rebuild the building. Conceivably, depending on how valuable the building was and its size and makeup, the rate at which the building is rebuilt might be anything from a day (a sod home) to years (a castle, skyscraper or space station). And that's assuming no magical / superscience intervention. If this sort of thing can happen in a game, it raises a question: How should it be balanced with destruction given that the act of regenerating effectively invalidates whatever work it took to destroy the feature/site in the game? If, for example, you destroy half a town and it's restored a few days later, and this is fairly consistent in the game, then doesn't that take something away from the act? If so, it seems that one factor has to be regeneration rate, which has to go hand in hand with the in-game function of whatever it is that's regenerating. If it's a police station, for instance, which has the function of repairing and rearming police then quick regeneration is probably a bad idea as it will likely create grind (kind of like boss monsters that heal). If, on the other hand, the police station controls the response time / spawn rate of police then depending on the pace of the game fast regeneration might be good because it would drive the player to fight harder and faster out of fear that enemies would be restored in strength before they accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish. What other factors should be considered?How much of the mechanics behind regeneration should the player understand? How much feedback should they be given when something is rebuilt? Should quick rebuilding ever be used as a barrier-- as in say a region of enemies that repopulates so quickly that they create an effective barrier to traveling in a given direction, such as off the edge of the map?

Quote:

Much has been made over the years of destructable environments. But what about destroyed environments that can regenerate over time? What factors do you think should be considered if a designer aspires to create an environment that not only can be destroyed but which is naturally rebuilt over time?

Rebuilding the environment is although a feature in my game. The key factor of rebuilding the environment is resource management. If your cities are still growing, destroying parts of it will result in an increased demand of resources, which will eventually result in lack of resources for new investments. So, even if your city will be rebuild after days/months you will encounter an "underdeveloped" region. Thought, this will only work if your cities are not in a fixed development state.

Quote:

What other factors should be considered?

Beside resources I would consider a development state. This would perfectly fit in a scifi game where you have a quite fast technology development. Rebuilding a city would atleast put it in its old development state but will result in a significant disadvantage compared to other cities.

On the other hand, a destroyed region could benefit from a rebuild program. It has space to place new and better buildings and it will get resources and cash from other regions/goverment to enable a faster rebuild. Eventually this will result in a rapid development where the city gained an advantage over other cities.

Quote:

How much of the mechanics behind regeneration should the player understand?

The player should understand, that if a place regenerates after being destroyed, that he could encounter a new situation when he visited it next time. If it is not always the "destroy=weaken" paradigm and something like a rebuild program will bring an advantage to the then rebuild environment, a player has to think carefully about the destruction of a city.

Quote:

How much feedback should they be given when something is rebuilt?

Rebuild environment should display its scars. Display destroyed buildings, show memorials, patchwork look'n'feel. NPCs will start telling stories about old times, how it was once a better region etc.

Quote:

Should quick rebuilding ever be used as a barrier-- as in say a region of enemies that repopulates so quickly that they create an effective barrier to traveling in a given direction, such as off the edge of the map?

In my opinion this would result in a feeling of beeing cheated and not being able to overcome a gameaspect (destroying the environment) which works in other regions. There's the danger, that the player doesn't understand the feature and is being frustrated, even transfering his "bad" experiences to other regions stopping him from acting in certain ways (i.e. defending or attacking a city,because he thinks that it doesn't matter at all).

If you want to add barriers, take something which is solely a barrier, understandable by the player and doesn't share game features with other game aspects. I.e. a wormhole which is a turn around.

--
Ashaman

Work is only invalidated if things regenerate too quickly, or the regeneration can't be stopped. If you can prevent the regeneration in a system where regeneration is possible, it actually amplifies the sense of having done something.

Anyway, the only other consideration I can think of is if you regenerate things in the same way. That invalidates work, and after a while, seems as though you were never there. With all the procedurally generated content in games now, it's not unfeasible to regenerate villages/towns/areas procedurally, and with respect to past events. The rebuilt town might have a completely new layout, except for the retention of a few destroyed buildings left over, where construction crews refused to go because they're haunted. The NPCs might have a legend of a dragon that came down and destroyed the countryside. Whatever, just some reflection of the past and a change from past to present.

---

I think if something regenerates, the player should be able to know why. Things popping up out of nothing or for some incomprehensible reason really hurt a games sense of realism. It's not necessary to broadcast why things are happening - a bit of mystery is actually a good thing in my eyes. But it should be possible to find out, and shouldn't boil down to "...but the random number generator said so..."

I should point out, though, that I site realism so much because as a writer, I constantly have to pay attention of my audience's suspension of disbelief. The same is true for video games, so keeping things with a realistic/consistent feel (even if the physics, setting, characters, w/e aren't) is important.

---

Map edges always kill realism in my eyes, because there is no realistic edge to the world. Hordes of baddies are just as unrealistic as "the great impassible fence" and just as ridiculous when you get so strong you can crush all of them with a single hit, yet somehow they're stopping you. Unfortunately, some kind of edge is necessary in anything but a procedural world, and even then, edges are still desirable from a design perspective.

I would avoid using quick regeneration as a barrier. It wont gain you anything more than the "great impassible fence," opens the way for exploitation (Who else overleveled all their party members in that tunnel from FF7 where the Shinra guards repeatedly spawned? I think it's part of almost every game walkthrough by now.), and looks just as bad as the other options.

Quote:

Much has been made over the years of destructable environments. But what about destroyed environments that can regenerate over time? What factors do you think should be considered if a designer aspires to create an environment that not only can be destroyed but which is naturally rebuilt over time?

Well, sure, that was Sim City - build things and take action when they catch on fire. I don't think you're developing a Sim City equivalent, though, so the real question is: why do you want a destructable environment? To increase the game's realism? I assume that's the reason - if so, then the environment must have the ability to regenerate.

Quote:

If this sort of thing can happen in a game, it raises a question: How should it be balanced with destruction given that the act of regenerating effectively invalidates whatever work it took to destroy the feature/site in the game? If, for example, you destroy half a town and it's restored a few days later, and this is fairly consistent in the game, then doesn't that take something away from the act?

Unless the point of your game is destroying towns, I think a bigger concern should be how easy the town is to destroy in the first place, and why you would need to destroy towns so often. Are you in a plane shooting from above, or on foot? How do the NPCs react when you start razing the village, and how would they react if you returned later on? How often is the player expected to burn towns? Once you have a destroy rate, I'd say you can then figure out how fast the townspeople can rebuild. As a gamer, quick rebuilds wouldn't disturb me, but a weak defense system on the part of the town would. If I can pass over a town after it rebuilds and destroy it again and again, there's something wrong.

Quote:

What other factors should be considered?

How does the destruction impact the defense of a town? How does defensive technology improve? Will certain towns start building underground if the threat of the player is constant?

How involved can the player be in the regeneration system? Can the player build a building, or is this only available to NPCs? Is construction visible to the player, and can the player affect the final layout of a rebuilt house in some way?

As a designer, the biggest hurdle would be finding a way to keep the game from becoming an arsonfest. What penalties would you put in place to keep the player from wanton destruction, or at least make it challenging to do so?

How would you use both the destruction and the regeneration mechanics? Are there quests in which the destruction system is used for a purpose, like insurance scandals or mob dealings? If the player is involved in the regeneration system, how? Can they bring resources to the construction site, or is it like Dark Cloud, where they can also ask the house owners if there's anything extra they'd like their house to have or a new location they'd like it to be in?

Quote:

How much of the mechanics behind regeneration should the player understand?

It depends on how involved the player can or should be in regeneration. Is the player supposed to be an enemy, where the only houses he sees being rebuilt are the ones he's destroyed? If so, then most of it should be a mystery. If the player has a chance to participate, then he should of course know more about how it works.

i think the primary factor to be considered is population. if a village is under attack, the population may flee to a safe spot. the buildings are destroyed and so hte population return afterwards and rebuild. if the person who destroyed teh buildigs, wanted them to remain destroyed then logically, he should remove those who would rebuild it.
if you really wanted to go into detail, you could assign certain people to certain buildings. if you want to make sure certain buildings remain destroyed then make sure certain people are removed.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Quote:

Original post by bardbarienne I don't think you're developing a Sim City equivalent, though, so the real question is: why do you want a destructable environment? To increase the game's realism? I assume that's the reason - if so, then the environment must have the ability to regenerate.

I'm working on a sort of space trading RPG game, but realism might be too strong a word, as the visual detail I've got now (2d/3d) makes immersion a hard sell. I think what I'm looking for is giving the player the ability to alter the environment and the sense that the environment isn't passive, but will respond. So if you destroy a space station belonging to a particular government in the game, that government will not just allow that change to stand without some reaction..

Quote:

Unless the point of your game is destroying towns, I think a bigger concern should be how easy the town is to destroy in the first place, and why you would need to destroy towns so often.

It's not just towns but supporting infrastructure as well (beacons, defense sats, etc.). But I'll stick to towns for the moment (in the form of space settlements). As in many RPG games there's a progressive increase in player power. At some point, the player has the ability to destroy battleships. Space stations could simply be indestructible, but that seems a bit hollow if you can gut something that's ten times more powerful.

Quote:

How do the NPCs react when you start razing the village, and how would they react if you returned later on?

I think ships (NPCs effectively) would either flee or fight, often calling for help in the process. I'm imagining things like police, militia and naval bases that could also respond. There should also be a "wanted dead or alive" level with every authority force chasing you when they see you.

Quote:

How often is the player expected to burn towns? Once you have a destroy rate, I'd say you can then figure out how fast the townspeople can rebuild. As a gamer, quick rebuilds wouldn't disturb me, but a weak defense system on the part of the town would. If I can pass over a town after it rebuilds and destroy it again and again, there's something wrong.

In an sandbox/open game world I'm not sure how you could limit the rate of destruction other than to limit the player's power. I suppose some of this is going to depend on how untenable it is to be an outlaw. Outlaws would have to survive by raiding other ships for supplies, and I have a mechanic in mind which disallows more advanced equipment full repair unless it's done at a full service base. So the tougher and better you are, the more reliant you are on some sort of base.

Quote:

How does the destruction impact the defense of a town? How does defensive technology improve? Will certain towns start building underground if the threat of the player is constant?

Good questions. Maybe the location should evolve one of two ways after a certain level of destruction: Either it's abandoned for a time, or it's rebuilt under continuously escalating guard. The underground idea is interesting, too, in the form of stealth building, say a base built in an asteroid field for instance. Asteroids themselves might represent hardened targets.

Quote:

How involved can the player be in the regeneration system? Can the player build a building, or is this only available to NPCs? Is construction visible to the player, and can the player affect the final layout of a rebuilt house in some way?

I'd like to offer some of this in the form of the player being able to customize facilities on a station, donate resources or somehow otherwise help it to grow. What I have in mind is abstract, though, akin to outfitting a ship by buying equipment for it. So the visual component would be next to nil.

Quote:

As a designer, the biggest hurdle would be finding a way to keep the game from becoming an arsonfest. What penalties would you put in place to keep the player from wanton destruction, or at least make it challenging to do so?

Well, one idea I'm interested in at the moment is in letting the player perform as many nihilistic deeds as they want with an ever escalating response from whoever defends the territory they're attacking. I like the concept of the player being able to choose from many paths, one of them being a bandit. On this path I'd like there to be some tension between committing enough crimes to survive (say pirating ships for fuel and supplies) and keeping a low enough profile that armadas or hero NPCs don't seek them out. Although it's probably controversial, I don't think after a certain magnitude of crimes that the forces in pursuit of the player should let up.

Quote:

How would you use both the destruction and the regeneration mechanics? Are there quests in which the destruction system is used for a purpose, like insurance scandals or mob dealings?

These are cool ideas. I haven't gotten that far yet, as I've only been thinking of freeform actions the player might take. But that would be a nice touch.

Quote:

Is the player supposed to be an enemy, where the only houses he sees being rebuilt are the ones he's destroyed? If so, then most of it should be a mystery. If the player has a chance to participate, then he should of course know more about how it works.

I want the player involved to a certain degree, as they're a citizen rather than an enemy. But I don't want to expose strategic mechanics that allow the player to game the system in a way that makes the AI look stupid. The more you expose to the player, the more that's a possibility (even moving the game firmly into the strategy category). So toward that end I've been imagining a lot of game state shifts based on resources the player finds or missions they take. They could discover a mineral strike, for instance, that would allow a settlement to increase rapidly, but I want to refrain from exposing that the strike has XXXX resources which deplete in Y time.

Installations (towns, space stations, etc) are there for a reason. Usually it is because of a resource. A town might be built because it was near the coal mines, or a space station might be built because there is a nearby colony (and the colony might be there because of a nearby mineral seam).

But places can exist for historical reasons too. The place might have once been located there because of a resource, but now the resource has been used up, but the settlement has crated its own purpose (it could be that there is now a lot of people living there and that in itself is a resource). So for an installation to continue, it will adapt and change its reason for being there over time. It will try to continue to exist, because it already exists (a bit like a living organisms in that respect).

If you are going to have Installations in your game, you need to ahve a reason for them to exist. If that resource is still there after the places has been destroyed, then people will resettle there and the installation will grow up again. However, if the installation was itself the resource (like people being the resource), or the resource was destroyed when the installation was destroyed, then it would be unlikely that an installation would redevelop there.

When an installation is destroyed, it would be unlikely that all the inhabitants would end up being destroyed as well. Survivors will migrate to other installations, create new installations, and/or attempt to resettle the old destroyed installation (although this last one can be done through a inhabitants leaving an existing installation normally).

Essentially, the system would need to look for new sources of resources (you might want to ahve "explorer" NPCs that do this - and/or even have the player capable of doing it) and create installations on these. These installations then attempt to develop and increase maintain their existence (even change the type of resource exploited, or developing one to do so).

This way, when an installation is destroyed, the surviving inhabitants are moved to other existing installations. These existing installations seek out new resources, and if the resource of the destroyed installation still exist, then they will "colonise" that resource again and exploit that resource. Over time as the resources change or are depleted, the installations attempt to maintain their existence by exploiting new resources or developing their own ones.

The environments are destructible but they regenerate in a realistic manner.

"regeneration invalidates work"

Not in many cases. Consider colateral destruction can be only a means to an end, and if the end is achieved the work would not be 'invalidated'.

Think of a safe having its door burned through/blown off to get to the money/jewels/secret plans inside. So what if the safe is later rebuilt because
the target of the action was acheived.


Another thing is that items which historically are of value/import and have previously been subject to destructive attach are subsequently hardened against
similar actions -- in magnitude corresponding to the value being protected.



The Viking achieved their great success once they worked out the simple rule -

Pillage THEN Burn....

Quote:

Original post by Edtharan Installations (towns, space stations, etc) are there for a reason. Usually it is because of a resource. A town might be built because it was near the coal mines, or a space station might be built because there is a nearby colony (and the colony might be there because of a nearby mineral seam).

This is a very useful factor to base things on. If there's still resources there there will be an incentive to rebuild, and the incentive will rise with how valuable the location is. So this should be a huge modifier to what regrows. I'm thinking if the location is valuable, then maybe what regrows are robust defensive structures. Maybe there's some sort of saturation point involving the value which causes greater and greater defenses to come back until it's just not worth it.

From a player perspective, though, this would mean that they would have to take into account the value of the location, somehow. Maybe this is something that can be learned over time-- attacking fringe, outlier locations causes little response while attacking central, resource rich locations provokes the full might of whatever civilization the player is engaging.

Quote:

If you are going to have Installations in your game, you need to ahve a reason for them to exist. If that resource is still there after the places has been destroyed, then people will resettle there and the installation will grow up again. However, if the installation was itself the resource (like people being the resource), or the resource was destroyed when the installation was destroyed, then it would be unlikely that an installation would redevelop there.

I like this distinction because it can be the basis for creating abandoned ruins versus locations which persistently rebuild.

Quote:

Essentially, the system would need to look for new sources of resources (you might want to ahve "explorer" NPCs that do this - and/or even have the player capable of doing it) and create installations on these. These installations then attempt to develop and increase maintain their existence (even change the type of resource exploited, or developing one to do so).

What I would like is to have both the destruction and new resources come from a few special NPCs and the player. So this is a good idea. An interesting scenario would be the natural pressure created by the destruction of one location which causes the refugees to look for a new home.

Practically speaking I'm thinking of giving the NPC factions some sort of build rate and having locations act as modifiers. I'm also thinking of giving locations varying build needs which are modified by their environment, resources and distance. If the example was the solar system then Venus, for instance, gets a very low build need while maybe the moon gets a high one. Subsequent destruction of bases on these environments can then modify the build need (which could also factor in nearby dangers).

Quote:

This way, when an installation is destroyed, the surviving inhabitants are moved to other existing installations.

I like the idea of handling population like this more concretely, and even flagging the fact that they're refugees. I don't know practically what that could mean other than the aesthetic sense of seeing change, of having the people somehow comment on the destruction. When NPCs do this sort of thing it makes the world feel more alive.