Time and Split Parties

[Ratboy]

Got to admit I didn't play the original Wasteland ( missed this title, was playing sentinel worlds: future magic ) but I was curious about how time will be handled assuming the party gets to split up.

The "Magic Candle" implemented this option but handled the way time passed poorly. You had to select one party or the other, that was it. Unless they were engaged in an an activity such as work, sleeping, learning, they sat still in a town with their thumb up their ass.

If a party gets split in game, will be be given time to manage each party or jump real time to the activity the other party is engaged in? How will control of the second party work if they encounter issues ( auto-combat or active takeover ? ).

Additionally, would commands given to party 1 then allow for same time slot to be given to party two? 15 minutes with party 1 traveling west = 15 min control of party 2 after which consists of clearing camp, walking, observing some combat from a distance, and then traveling north..

eg. control of party 1 for 15 min and control of party 2 for 15 min , but if both traveled in same direction, different things could happen or would party 2 be able to see party 1 walking ahead 100 ft ?

[Lucius]

If I remember correctly, I didn't split party often in the original Wasteland, time passed for all parties regardless of which you were manually controlling. You could, of course, switch between parties at any time. If a random encounter occurred to a party you were not controlling, control would be swapped to that party. The non combat party could continue moving during this by executing a round of combat.

[CaptainPatch]

There were actually quite a few opportunities to split the team in WL. For instance, when the party only had 4 rad suits but 7 people that need to pass through a high-rad location, I would send through the four with rad suits first. Then just one rad suit wearer brought back the 3 extra suits for the three people left behind. Once they caught up with the three point men, rad suits would get distributed whichever way I felt was best.

I'm pretty sure that time went linearly forward for ONLY the team members were "highlighted" and active. That is, if you had broken the team into three groups near each other, only the ONE you were presently operating was subject to roving monsters. Being nearby, the other two could participate in the ensuing battle (or not). Whichever way you handled it, only the "focus group" interacted with the world at large.

[Zombra]

There was once a TBS called Empire that had a pretty cool time scale system. The game calculated how many turns it would take you to reach the enemy, assuming you used the fastest method possible (i.e. building an airport ASAP and immediately sending the fastest plane possible in the exact right direction) and your enemy did also. If it knew that you couldn't possibly make contact in less than 10 turns, then you got to take 10 turns in a row, and then your enemy took 10 turns. Then it recalculated the critical time and you got another set of turns, maybe just 8 in a row this time, until you were close enough to be engaging in combat and then each side just got 1 turn at a time.

This wouldn't be very smooth for splitting a party since you start out right next to each other, but it strikes me as a good starting point for developing a "Meanwhile, in Arizona" equal time system.

[Ratboy]

What I'm hoping to see implemented is a second party / 1st party AI that would allow them to start traveling on their own and handle random battle encounters / locations with a warning letting you switch to engage the party at that time.

This would allow time to travel properly instead of allowing party 1 to sit on their ass the entire time.

[Johnny Wasabi]

Ratboy drew my attention to this subject with his post on another thread: "Scripted time sensitive events - vote"

I thought I'd reply here since there are more participants on this thread. Ratboy was specifically asking about the use of time-based events that happen independent of player location and hence give rise to opportunities to split the party to handle simultaneous events in different locations. Here is my response:

Thanks for bringing this up and sharing your thoughts. Internally we have discussed using the game mechanic of time-based events. I agree it’s an effective mechanic for diversifying the story based on player choices, which is in line with the vision of the game. The mechanic of splitting the party is a separate mechanic but it can complement the time-based event system. This can work well within a level, since we already plan to be able to split the party within a level (i.e. in a contiguous space, say a town that is completely loaded in computer memory).

The time-based mechanic also works fairly easily at a large scale across levels (i.e. as in your example, something happens in town X at time Y whether the player is there or not). However it is a challenge to extend the party-splitting mechanic across levels, and it can create timeline conflicts.

In a multiplayer game (or MMO) different people could control each party member and their actions would occur simultaneously in real-time. But in our single-player game, you would have to time slice control of the party branches (i.e. take turns controlling each of the split groups), or assume default behavior for the one not being controlled.

Time slicing at any reasonable turn-interval leads to the potential timeline conflicts. For example, group 1 could return to group 2 in the middle of a time-span which has already played out for group 2. This could artificially be avoided by just assuming extra time passes when the splinter group enters the same level as the main group so that they always merge at the end of a time-slice turn.

However, the interface challenge remains. You would have a loading delay when transitioning back and forth (loading levels each time). Or we would have to build the levels so two (maybe three) can always fit in memory at once to avoid the loading time during transition. Then there is the matter of how long each turn should be? The longer it is the greater potential for time-loss when merging groups back together (for the timeline matching adjustment).

So there are trade-offs that have to be made to allow party-splitting across levels to work (and some significant implementation labor). At the moment, we think the trade-offs are too big. If we allow party splitting across levels, we currently would opt for default behavior (inaction) of one group. In other words you can split party members off and leave them behind in a level, and continue controlling the main group to other levels, but time passes for all groups while you control the main group, and the non-controlled group(s) are assumed to do nothing (stay put), or perhaps travel back to base. This avoids time conflicts and avoids the jumping back and forth and level loading issue.

This still leaves open the possibility that the mere passive presence of Rangers in a location could change the result of time-based events in a default way. So for example, say you leave behind a couple Rangers in town X while you take the main group to head off a major problem in town Y. The election could be influenced (or delayed) by the presence of the Rangers, even though you don’t control them.

So, yes, it’s a powerful mechanic, and I think it’s something we may adapt to the single-player focus of the game to further the effects of player choice on the unfolding story. Thanks again for your thoughts and suggestions.

[ButchinMelancholy]

I think this topic and the ideas discussed in it have a little to do with this also.

[Zombra]

Thanks for your perspective, Johnny!

One quick point: as parties are separated by greater and greater distance, "turns" can become longer and longer with no chance of continuity interference.

I would far prefer to see a "turns" system than a "one party just sits there" system.

[Woolfe]

This still leaves open the possibility that the mere passive presence of Rangers in a location could change the result of time-based events in a default way. So for example, say you leave behind a couple Rangers in town X while you take the main group to head off a major problem in town Y. The election could be influenced (or delayed) by the presence of the Rangers, even though you don’t control them.

So, yes, it’s a powerful mechanic, and I think it’s something we may adapt to the single-player focus of the game to further the effects of player choice on the unfolding story. Thanks again for your thoughts and suggestions.

I love the sound of this. It could create some seriously complex situations.

[BlackGauntlet]

I think the short of what Johny meant is that, if OP's idea is adopted, our split parties could Dum Dum Duum... TIME TRAVEL!

Also, if the maps could be integrated into something like Ultima 6 (just one large map) and turns MUST be taken by each party (with an option to "Skip 'X' Turns") and NPC every round, I think it could be done, couldn't it?

[Lucius]

I think the short of what Johny meant is that, if OP's idea is adopted, our split parties could Dum Dum Duum... TIME TRAVEL!

Also, if the maps could be integrated into something like Ultima 6 (just one large map) and turns MUST be taken by each party (with an option to "Skip 'X' Turns") and NPC every round, I think it could be done, couldn't it?

By the sounds of what he said, I'd say yes that would be correct. But also going by his post, it sounds like they are pretty confident it won't be one large map, but an overworld map with nodes.

[Zombra]

It's kinda too bad that it looks like party splitting won't use a "turns" system so both teams can be active during the same period of game time. Having multiple teams taking care of simultaneous time-sensitive crises would be a fantastic use of the party splitting function, which seemed kind of worthless in Wasteland (although I applaud CaptainPatch's ingenuity with the radiation suits!).

Actually I don't see why there would have to be any time conflicts if you just add a factor to leaving/entering maps. Look at Jagged Alliance 2. Team Blue is entering combat in sector A1. Team Green in sector A2 is coming to help them, but travel between sectors isn't instantaneous. Team Blue will have to deal with it themselves, and maybe Team Green will show up before it's over, but probably not. Personally I wouldn't even care if "overworld time" was always "slower" than "tactical time", such that Team Green would only arrive after the action was over. It wouldn't really need to be complex. Just bump up the clock to whichever time is later when the two teams reunite.

--------------

What are some uses of party splitting if one team just has to sit there? If it's complex to code with few applications, is it even worth including it?

* Passive influence. One team sits in a town to guard it, intimidate the people, whatever.
* Healing faster. A team at rest might recover more quickly from injuries than an active team.
* Stuff best done by a smaller team, e.g. a stealthy character can slip into a back door alone, but if he takes the whole group they'd have to shoot their way in since they can't all sneak. Or if only two characters have the Mirror Armor, it might be smarter for them to leave the rest of the party behind when they fight the Laser Lady.

Any other ideas?

[BlackGauntlet]

[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LetsSplitUpGang]I'd do one better![url]

[Johnny Wasabi]

I think this topic and the ideas discussed in it have a little to do with this also.

Thanks, ButchinMelancholy. That was interesting. I like the idea of NPC persistence and encountering them again for good or ill. Some nice ideas on this thread since I last posted as well. Interesting to see that people aren't so hung up on perfect time lines and are willing to forgive some fudging to make it feasible to control a widely split party.

There are still development trade-offs to consider, and ultimately it's not up to me, but the comments have got me motivated to advocate reconsidering the option.

[Zombra]

There are still development trade-offs to consider, and ultimately it's not up to me, but the comments have got me motivated to advocate reconsidering the option.

Thank you!

Interesting to see that people aren't so hung up on perfect time lines and are willing to forgive some fudging to make it feasible to control a widely split party.

Yeah. It just seems like concurrently active parties could open up so many interesting opportunities. Realism is great to strive for, but it can go take a bath if it gets in the way of awesome gameplay.

[BlackGauntlet]

Thanks, ButchinMelancholy. That was interesting. I like the idea of NPC persistence and encountering them again for good or ill. Some nice ideas on this thread since I last posted as well. Interesting to see that people aren't so hung up on perfect time lines and are willing to forgive some fudging to make it feasible to control a widely split party.

There are still development trade-offs to consider, and ultimately it's not up to me, but the comments have got me motivated to advocate reconsidering the option.

Well, we're all in agreement on Suspension of Belief for the benefit of enjoying the game. Doesn't matter if it's the Fallout crowd or the Wasteland crowd, we pledged because of either games' quirkiness (be it consuming Hobo Dogs or blowing up a shithouse).

If it's fun, screw the time line.

[Zombra]

As to "how long are the turns", I have an idea for that.

Why not let the player choose? Switch back and forth when they want. This limits the frustration of an unwanted load screen popping up, and it also lets the player switch at dramatically interesting moments rather than submitting to a relentless game timer. It would suck to get switched in the middle of a hot fight, for instance. Or even an intense conversation.

(Then again, the player might decide to switch in the middle of a fight so he could bring the other party galloping to the scene, to arrive in the "nick of time"! This is unrealistic, but come on, every movie ever does it.)

Each team would have their own "team clock" showing their "local time". If they cross paths in a way that would break continuity, simply bump up the active team's clock to match the time that the other team was last there (or sync them if the first team is still there).

[EDIT} Or you could simply force a switch to the team with the "lower" clock when paths crossed, although this would impose some limits on player freedom. See the first post of page 2 of this thread.

Example:

Code: Select all

Teams A & B part ways at Munition Rock.
Clocks are synced at A08:00 B08:00.

Team A goes north to Bomb Gulch.  Arrive at A09:30.  They walk around and talk to the inhabitants for three hours (A12:30).  Setting off the bombs accidentally, they destroy the town but stay for a while sifting through the wreckage to find hidden gold.  Finally, they leave a devastated Bomb Gulch at A13:30.

Player decides to switch to Team B (B08:00).

Team B goes east to the Valley of Spiders.  Arrive at B09:00.  They have a huge fight with the Spiders which ends at B09:15.  Short game time, but it took a long time in real time ...

So the player switches back to Team A (A13:30).

Team A goes panning for gold in the river several miles north of Bomb Gulch and stay there until A16:00.

Player gets bored with that and switches back to Team B (B09:15).

Team B is still badly wounded from the fight.  They rest until B12:00, when their Perception skills allow them to evade a fatal random encounter.  Deciding that this area is too tough for a smaller group, the player decides to reunite his teams.  Team B heads northwest to Bomb Gulch, arriving at B14:30.

Since Team A left Bomb Gulch at A13:30, they have already been through here (and neither clock needs to be adjusted).  Team B finds a destroyed town whose hidden gold has been thoroughly pillaged.  They head north, leaving the town at B15:00.

The teams are almost reunited, but Team B makes another Perception roll and discovers the entrance to a buried laboratory.  Foolishly entering, they fall through a trapdoor and the player is terrified.  Team B spends many hours trying to find their way out of this "dungeon" like environment.  This lasts until B22:00 with no end in sight.

Eventually the player decides that Team B needs help so he switches back to Team A (A16:00).  Team A heads towards the laboratory but is delayed by a fight, so they do not arrive until A18:30.

Team A enters the same map as Team B at A18:30 B22:00.  Team A's clock is bumped forward and they lose 3½ hours as the clocks are synced at A22:00 B22:00.

Team A is able to save Team B from being overwhelmed by the strange denizens of the lab!  Hooray for happy endings!

Alternate ending:

Code: Select all

Team B explores the lab until B22:00 as above.

Eventually the player decides that Team B needs help so he switches back to Team A (A16:00).  Team A heads towards the laboratory but is delayed by a fight, an encounter with a lawyer, and an interminable phone call from a Ranger's chatty stepmother, so they do not arrive until A23:30.

Team A enters the same map as Team B at A23:30 B22:00.  In this case, Team B's clock is bumped forward and they lose 1½ hours as the clocks are synced at A23:30 B23:30.

Again, the loss of time is unrealistic, but just being able to do this at all would be so fun, I don't care. Realism is important, but gameplay is a higher priority.

[EDIT] See page 2 for a refinement to this system that prevents continuity loss at the expense of some player freedom.

Thought: maybe when a party leaves an area (when teams are split), the game would ask which team the player wanted to proceed with, avoiding an extra load screen. In the example above, Team A leaves Bomb Gulch at A13:30 but doesn't load the northern riverbank map. Instead, the player switches directly to Team B and goes straight to the overworld screen.

[Lucius]

Keep in mind though with that clock jump in your "alternate ending" you could have a character that was critically injured and die due to that jump in time forward. Let's say your best medic was in team A so there was no way to help him until they arrived, but you end up screwed by the clock. I would be upset by that.

But that is probably the only type of situation where a time shift would bother me.

[Zombra]

Keep in mind though with that clock jump in your "alternate ending" you could have a character that was critically injured and die due to that jump in time forward. Let's say your best medic was in team A so there was no way to help him until they arrived, but you end up screwed by the clock. I would be upset by that.

Nah, the clock would jump, but the intervening time would not pass. The characters would not be assumed to be resting or whatever; they'd just reset their watches, so to speak. This is the "fudging" that Johnny Wasabi referred to.

So in your example, the medic would arrive just in the nick of time. Artificial, but dramatically appropriate and fun

[Lucius]

Keep in mind though with that clock jump in your "alternate ending" you could have a character that was critically injured and die due to that jump in time forward. Let's say your best medic was in team A so there was no way to help him until they arrived, but you end up screwed by the clock. I would be upset by that.

Nah, the clock would jump, but the intervening time would not pass. The characters would not be assumed to be resting or whatever; they'd just reset their watches, so to speak. This is the "fudging" that Johnny Wasabi referred to.

So in your example, the medic would arrive just in the nick of time. Artificial, but dramatically appropriate and fun

Ok! I wouldn't mind the time jump if it has no effect on the characters' conditions. I assume if group B was in the middle of combat and group A arrives that the time would have no effect other than possibly how light it is outside. I wouldn't mind this either.

I bet some people would flip out though and complain that it's unrealistic for group B and the enemies to be on pause for over an hour simply because team A arrived. There are some folks on here who takes that realism stuff incredibly seriously.