Suggestion for a solution of the Blueprint vs. Bandits dilemma

    red51 - lots of people want to see more aggressive or challenging Bandit-AI in the game, others (incl. myself) are afraid Bandits attacking buildings could ruin the work of weeks and months. Also stuff like cups made from "blocks", statues and other things should be no aim for bandits but for the AI it would be hard to distinguish between a defensive wall to break and a complex statue just standing in the way.

    My suggestion would be therefore the following:

    Currently there is just 1 type of Blueprint. But wouldn´t it be possible when blueprinting something to add a (optional) tag or marking to the blueprint?

    Lets say:

    Blueprint without tag/mark = regular blueprint, not to be attacked by bandits when placed, needs no ressources in survival

    Blueprint with a tag/mark for "interieur" (i.e. tables, cupboards, chairs, etc.) = not to be attacked by bandits when placed, need a balanced amout of ressources in survival (i.e. if 100 building elements used it needs 50 wood and 50 metal bars to place)

    Blueprint with a tag/mark for "decoration" (i.e. picture frames, cups, bottles, etc.) = same as above but with other ressources (i.e. with 50 building elements = 25 sand and 25 stone or metal)

    Blueprints with a tag/mark for "building" (i.e. house for living, barn, etc.) = bandits dont attack structures, just objects like doors to break inside and go directly either for players, beds or chests. need a balanced amount of ressources in survival (i.e. if 1000 building elements used it needs 500 wood and 250 stone and 250 metal)

    Blueprints with a tag/mark for "wall" (i.e. defensive wall, garden fence, etc.) = bandits attack this structure directly until there is a gap in it, then go through it. they destroy it when its in their way. also needs balanced amount of ressources in survival (i.e. if 1000 building elements used it could be 500 wood and 500 stone).


    with "balanced amount" i mean that the required ressources should be set in the background, not depending on what material/texture was actually used. But it should actually scale with the amount of building elements used in the blueprint.



    What would be a motivation to use a blueprint at all in survival? Well, thats up to each server owner i would say. For example buildings that aren´t blueprinted could be not protected at all from bandits or bandits may spawn even close by or inside walls or maybe tress don´t regrow, etc. just some ideas.

    With that system there would be a reason (outside creative) to blueprint and the problem of bandits being no threat in survival once you are behind a wall would be subject to each player on his or her own. Of course someone could also blueprint a wall and tag it with "interieur" so bandits dont attack it. That would be individual decision and hence adding to the individual possibilities of this game.

    Once a structure with a tag is placed each building object has this tag saved in the background of course. If it is removed and replaced the tag is gone only for this building element, the rest remains untouched.

    What do you think?

    • New

    Are there really lots of people looking for such a feature? A demand for npcs/bandits attacking or raiding player bases (breaking down walls etc) indeed comes up from time to time (and some people are definitely looking for such a feature), but it's hard to tell how many people in the community really want this feature :saint:


    Honestly I'm not sure if such a feature would work well in RW... unlike in other games, the building system isn't made for this... ideally the game needs a simplified building mechanic for that (where you just use modular walls, foundations, roofs etc, i.e build a base quickly with very few elements, like in most other games). With the current building system, there is a chance that such a feature would mostly result in a lot of frustration for a new player who isn't expecting this (who spend a lot of time creating a detailed building and who may not be aware of blueprints yet) :wat:


    The building system also makes it quite easy (too easy?) for players to avoid bandit attacks. A player could create obstacles bandits couldn't pass anyway (e.g. create walls consisting of countless layers of thin blocks etc), so I'm not sure if such a feature really adds much of a "challenge" to the game.


    IMHO it would be more reasonable if bandits can only break through objects like doors, for example. However, the game definitely needs better pathfinding for npcs before we can implement something like that (or tinker with base raids etc in general). It's quite difficult to implement proper pathfinding in RW, mostly due to the building system (buildings could consist of so many building elements which would quickly kill performance if we take a traditional approach on pathfinding), so unfortunately it will require quite some work (definitely something for the post-storepage-update era) ^^


    About your suggestion regarding blueprint tags specifically, basically it's not a bad idea to have tags for building elements in general, but what would prevent a player from just assigning the "interieur" tag to his entire building (and therefore preventing bandits from breaking in)? If a player can easily circumvent base raids, I'm not sure if it that feature would be really useful? :thinking:

    • New

    I've thought about it too. There would have to be something, like a territory block (7 DtD), a dungeon heart (DK1-2, WotO), or this stature of Valheim, that makes it clear who or which group owns the territory that this item marks. Within the area, this item could then save every few minutes like a blueprint every block that is placed or mined by the owner or the group (environment), depending on the setting. Then there would have to be repair tools of varying effectiveness (7DtD = stone axe, carpenter's hammer, nail gun), with which you can see these transparent, permeable blueprint blocks and restore them with one blow (in a radius of 1m also several blocks) if you are entered in the area block (but in survival you have to have corresponding material in your inventory. This would allow area owners to restore their buildings just as quickly as attackers can destroy them.Or even faster, because attackers have to overcome the hardness of the blocks. In the game Red Factions Armageddon, you can also use nanotechnology to restore broken paths.

    • New

    In all my years I've been playing Rising World I've never heard anyone talk about something like this. In the last week's one person who asks about bandits destroying buildings, but never till to that date. In my opinion something like this is not necessary in Rising World.

    • New

    From what i read on the forums a big part of the current survival-community and the potential ones who dont buy the game without more survival, would want such a feature.


    The idea with breaking only doors is ok of course but you intend to give us the opportunity to build our own doors - would those be a target of bandits as well then?

    And yes, as i mentioned someone could of course tag a wall as "interieur" and be safe. Thats the idea - a server owner/admin can determine if such blueprints are allowed at all and the individual player can decide if they want bandit raids or not. Each to their own.


    About new players - i dont think this would be an issue. As mentioned standard blueprints without tags would be still available (you have to check a box when creating a blue print, just like already with including terrain, objects, etc. or not). Therefore if they don´t notice this feature right away they would be safe.

    Maybe if a structure is not blueprinted at all the bandits follow the standard path - breaking only through objects as you suggested. For new players this would be no threat then and only when they decide they want to participate (and maybe only for a part of their building) they could blueprint their buildings and tag them this way. The tag would / should also work for built stuff that is getting blueprinted the first time, not only if you place a blueprint.

    • New
    Quote from Deirdre

    In all my years I've been playing Rising World I've never heard anyone talk about something like this. In the last week's one person who asks about bandits destroying buildings, but never till to that date. In my opinion something like this is not necessary in Rising World.

    not for you as you play only creative but i have read about it multiple times and i also would like such a feature from time to time

    • New

    I play in creative but in survival as well an I don't like the idea that enemies could break my defence walls or steal my stuff. I would rather loot their stuff :D. I hope bandits will get their own base to protect their treasures.

    • New
    Quote from Desmagu

    I play in creative but in survival as well an I don't like the idea that enemies could break my defence walls or steal my stuff. I would rather loot their stuff :D. I hope bandits will get their own base to protect their treasures.

    No problem with the system I suggested. You won't be effected

    • New

    Als erstes kristallisiert sich für mich hier die Frage nach der KI der Gegner Npc im allgemeinen heraus.

    Wenn ja, dann bin ich voll bei Avanar.

    Ja, es gibt natürlich Leute , die gerne ein verbessertes Kampfsystem und herausfordernde Gegner sehen würden.


    Ist das nicht auch irgendwie die logische Konsequenz? Ich mein, du öffnest das Spiel, erstellst eine neue Welt und hast da ja schon die Entscheidungsmöglichkeit wie du spielen willst. Survival oder Creativ, Bergige oder flache Landschaften und eben auch ob friedlich oder nicht.


    Warum sollte man den kein Basedefense anbieten ist für mich viel eher die Frage. Basebau , Survival, Banditen.

    Da muss man doch geradezu davon ausgehen, das die Base, wenn gewünscht, auch angegriffen werden kann.

    Was machen den Banditen, die greifen dich und dein Habgut nunmal an und wenn sie die Chance wittern vielleicht halt auch deine Base.

    Für mich ein weiters klassiches Gameplay Element was Rising World sehr gut stehen würde und gleichzeitig die Creativ Spieler nicht ausschließt oder gar ihnen etwas wegnehmen würde.


    Das funktioniert doch woanders auch wunderbar.

    Bestes Beispiel, der Creeper in Minecraft. '" Oh Shit, da muss ich ja aufpassen, das der mir hier nicht gleich in meiner Bude hochgeht."



    Ich glaube, das Avanar hier von potenziellen, neuen Spielern und diesen, die sagen , " Nett hier! " , " Hat potenzial! ", " Ich beobachte das mal." spricht.

    Und ich glaube das, Red51 hier von der bereits vorhandenen Community spricht.

    Damit will ich sagen, das ihr da in diesem Punkt vielleicht aneinander vorbei redet.


    Auch wenn für mich die Frage nach dem "Wie will ich denn nun ins Spiel starten?'' , bereits bei der Welterstellung defeniert wurde , möchte man eventuell ja dann doch in bereits erstellten Welten, wo schon ganze Imperien enstanden sind, nachträglich Areale Schützen um Überfall Szenarien spielen zu können.


    Welche Lösungswege es da gibt und realistisch sind kann ich nicht bewerten, da ich davon leider keinen blassen

    Schimmer habe.


    Aber das es eine Lösung geben sollte für das nachträgliche Schützen von Arealen/Gebäuden steht für mich ausser Frage.

    Vielleicht würde ja auch schon ein gesamtes kopieren der Welt reichen. Die kopierte Welt

    kann ja dann " zerstört " werden und das Original bleibt unangetastet. 🤷‍♀️


    Alles Genannte natürlich nur vorrausgesetzt, das man sich überhaupt, grundsätzlich ersteinmal entscheiden müsste ob man eine Art der Basedefense mit ins Spiel bringen möchte.



    Einen weiteren Punkt möchte noch unbedingt loswerden.

    Hinter lauten Stimmen, die man so liest oder eben auch nicht liest, sind meistens auch viele stille bzw. unsichtbare Stimmen.


    Vielleicht kann ich das Anhand eines Vergleichs gut erklären wie ich das genau meine.


    Nehmen wir einen YouTubär mit hohen Abozahlen, der beliebt ist und eine aktive, freundliche Community hat.

    Die, die die Videos liken sind immer ein sehr geringer Prozentanteil von denen die die Videos dann doch regelmäßig gucken.

    Und der Prozentanteil von den die dann auch noch kommentieren ist nochmal geringer.


    Wenn man mag kann man, das dann noch mal mit einem YouTubär vergleichen, der auch beliebt innerhalb der Community ist aber niedrige Abonnentenzahlen hat, und dementsprechend auch weniger Aufrufzahlen, likes und Kommentaren.


    Man wird festellen, das im Verhältnis das Gefälle von den Aufrufzahlen, zu den Likes bis hin zu den Kommentaren, bei beiden Youtubären ähnlich ausschauen.


    Die Frage, der Wunsch und auch der Vorschlag nach agressiveren und herrausforderden Gegner Npcs habe ich persönlich jetzt auch schon des öfteren gelesen und herrausgelesen.


    Trotzdem kann es natürlich auch einfach so sein, das es noch viel zu früh ist um solche Themen überhaupt näher zu bequatschen. Weil vielleicht einfach doch noch so viele, wichtige andere Themen Priorität haben und erledigt werden müssen.


    Will mich zum Schluss noch unbedingt wiederholen.

    Wenn das Creativsystem so bleibt wie es ist, kann man mir nichts in Spiel hauen was mir dies verderben könnte. ❤

    • New

    Keep it simple. 8) Bandits and barbarians would try to robe you from your belongings, steal valuable things from your chests (weapons, gems, gold items). Only terrorists blow things up and Vikings burn things down ;) Why do we make it so complex ? Try this:

    1. The AI of bandits and barbarians have to be better so they would be a real challenge. But not the AI of zombies or skeletons; zombies follow only the instinct to eat you and the skeleton can do with the AI now in place.
    2. The things bandits and barbarians can break naturally are doors (even handmade), windows, fences, gates, spikes, ... They can cross ditches and moats (have to find the way using the bridge or using a boat).
    3. A bomb is present in the game, a cannon will follow? A bomb can be used to kill attackers or defenders but there will be only small damage to buildings: your bed, table, chairs, etc ... could break; plaster and paint will be damaged. In addition individual stones can be blown out of the wall or the floor and damage by fire can be simulated. In the java version of this game the walls, floor, and so on started to wear out, boards came loose and etc. That decay system was used if you had not visited a building for a long time, but can also be used to simulate the damage of an attack. It took a while in the java version to fix the 'damage' but you didn't had to rebuild everything. Same can be used to fix damage of an attack.
    4. If you build a wall solely to defend yourself or your property, the system has to notice that no roof is present. No roof indicate a defensive wall (including the gates ) and can be severe damaged when under siege.

    The idea of Rising World is to simulate a real world but will have it's build-in limits. Is it really necessary in this game that we could blow up or demolish buildings, often the fruits of much labor to create nice buildings ? The above 4 points offer a decent solution and make it possible to even wage war between two parties. And that with no more damage than necessary. The settings of claim systems should allow a server owner to decide whether to allow damage to buildings or not.


    But let's wait for now to the moment a version 1.0 can be presented to the public. It's work already enough :D (but do implement the decay system out of the java version :P)

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Create a new account now and be part of our community!

Create Account Login