Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this is something that came up in the wishlist thread. There's a concern that like in WoW, when someone begins moving stealthily, they pretty much go invisible. This is, of course, not such a big problem in PvE (after all, a semitransparent avatar merely represents that this character is being sneaky), however, the issue is quite different in PvP situations, and especially in a world where there are actual invisibility spells. Can sneaking out in the open and being "invisible" to other players be justified? Is there a way around this?
I think it's entirely possible to make a stealth system that is still reasonably effective, and makes invisibility spells still meaningful. It all revolves around using opposed stealth and perception skills/checks.
First things first: let's remember that in tabletop RPGs, there's a difference between character knowledge and player knowledge. If we apply this same principle to an online game, we might reasonably be able to see why an opposing player or mob who is clearly in the field of view displayed on the computer screen might be left "invisible". Just because it is actually there, since your in-game character is not aware of its presence, it is not visually represented to you. Then again, just because someone is moving stealthily in an open, well-lit area that your character is clearly looking at, does not mean they should still be "invisible". We need a means of reasonably determining character knowledge, and this is where perception comes in. Instead of merely being used for detecting and finding traps and trap mechanisms, a character's perception skill might be used to determine whether or not they can detect stealthed entities.
The other side of the coin is just how sneaky a character can be under different circumstances. Lighting should definitely play a major role, as well as cover, proximity, and distractions. But how do you manage all of these factors? I think the answer again lies in the tabletop game - circumstance bonuses and penalties. Pitch darkness might provide a healthy circumstance bonus to stealth checks, while bright light might provide such a harsh circumstance penalty that it makes it impossible to walk in front of someone without them noticing. Large commotions (such as nearby combat) would certainly make you more able to pass without being noticed.
Then that still leaves the question of how often perception should be rolled, and what bonuses should apply. I suggest the perception field of any character or creature be broken down as such: A 30 degree cone in front of the creature counts as its "center of attention" that always recieves a roll of 10 or above, every second. A wider 90 degree cone of visual perception makes visual perception rolls between 1 and 20 every six seconds (one round in tabletop). The creature is able to hear anything in a complete radius around themselves, but this roll is always between 1 and 20 as well, and is not affected by things like bright light, and is more harshly affected by noisy distractions.
What do you guys think?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From an earlier thread on stealth:
In general, being "hidden" is an all-or-nothing proposition, where the server does not communicate any information about my position to your client, period. And when my "hidden" state ends, every client can access that information. Thus, as a game mechanic, its less than ideal and doesn't work the way people wish it would.
There's a lot of significant discussion in that thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sounds good to me, but might be a few too many calculations for the game to make (I have no idea, not much of a programer.)
But let me see if this is what you are saying; a rogue does go invisible when sneaking, but only to those who do not perceive them. So if a rogue tries to sneak up on my fighter there is a good chance he will not show up on my screen or mini-map, but if that same rogues tried to sneak up on my ranger then he would be filled with arrows before he got within 60 feet.
I like the idea, as it still makes invisibility spells useful since then my ranger would also be susceptible. I am sure there is a possibility for a stealth vs perceptions skill check with variables.
Suffice to say: it's doable.
However, the ideal stealth mechanic to me is one of an organic nature. If nothing is obstructing my sight (physical objects in the line of sight or some visual impairment on my eyes), it's daylight out and you stroll across my lawn without any sort of ghillie suit or disguise then I should see you plain as day no matter how "skillful" you are. However, given your skills you should probably be able to sneak up behind me reasonably fine so long as I don't hear your approach and we're not on a field of glass, for example.
Stealth should require proper environment (light versus dark, loud versus quiet, etc), preparation (soft soled shoes versus hard, light clothing versus full plate, etc), proper timing (recognizing guard pathing routes, timing distractions and movements, etc) and a good bit of luck (nothing breaks your well laid plans, the weather doesn't change and such). This should require a minimal amount of programming as it should simply be emergent behavior already built into the game and should work with the rules governing physics, sound creation, etc instead of being an exceptional route of logic through those rules. All your "skill" should do is minimize your own chances of doing something stupid such as dropping an item you palmed, minimize hand shakiness so you don't rattle a lock pick advertising your presence to the room you're in or the adjacent one, let you identify with reasonable certainty what materials are easier to be sneaky on versus others and maybe some situational awareness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say camoflauged is the way to go. I am convinced the guillie suited sniper class in MW3 has this mechanic in play but that's left field.
Basically, the end result is a slighty distorted version of what you should see in said enviroment with small portions of what your character looks like if they are visible. A 90/10% split respectively. Someone can always roll a 20. So if you look at the area indepth, you will see something is out of place. Naturally, you think "stealth" and get defensive. To counter this, you have the same phenomenon occur randomly yet infrequently. A false positive if you will, so that everytime someone sees a stealthed individual they have subconsious doubt which leads to hesitation.
Mechanically, stealth as a skill should imply the use of necessary items to accomplish what the skill is designed to do. So yes, someone can remain hidden in plainview for an amount of time. Upon closer inspection chances for discovery increase. Stealth is a tricky one, but I think both these mechanical and sensorial methods of presentation are both adequate and feasible.
In Pathfinder there are no automatic successes on skill checks. If my skill mod + 1 (min die roll) is greater than your skill mod + 20 then you will fail 100% of the time.
However, how can you say that without a disguise just because you have a godawful high stealth skill that you should disappear entirely from sight even though you're standing right in front of me on a clear day? That makes zero sense. Try it IRL. I'll see you whether you want me to or not. Keep in mind this isn't magical stealth we're talking about. That, I could understand you blanking out from my perception. However, with only mundane means, you're just as visible as you were before.
Also, in Pathfinder stealth does not assume you have all the right tools. It just assumes you're doing what you're doing according to your roll. Having thieves tools doesn't let you pick locks. It just gives you a +2 to disable device. If you're suggesting a change to this for the game, then by extension of your logic spellcraft should give me the materials I need for spells, swim should give me devices that enable me to swim, climb should grant me ropes or ladders, etc. That doesn't make sense either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well obviously any sort of sneaking system will rely on the right conditions. Just as in the table top game, a rogue cannot sneak if he does not have cover or concealment. Just cause he is crouching does not mean he becomes invisible to people without any ranks in perception.
However the point being that if a rogue comes across a fighter walking through a dark forest there is a reasonable chance he can take him by surprise, but if the same rogue comes across a ranger in the same dark forest he would think twice.
How well this can be implemented is a different story...
The issue being that illegal third party software could (and has for other games) convey what one persons sees to everyone else connected to that software. However, I am fine with stealth being an all-or-nothing skill; because IRL as soon as one member of a camp sees a sneaking rogue, they yell out and the whole camp would be aware.
As far as invisibility being more effective, using invisibility spells/potions would only make it harder for anyone to perceive them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In Pathfinder there are no automatic successes on skill checks. If my skill mod + 1 (min die roll) is greater than your skill mod + 20 then you will fail 100% of the time.
However, how can you say that without a disguise just because you have a godawful high stealth skill that you should disappear entirely from sight even though you're standing right in front of me on a clear day? That makes zero sense. Try it IRL. I'll see you whether you want me to or not. Keep in mind this isn't magical stealth we're talking about. That, I could understand you blanking out from my perception. However, with only mundane means, you're just as visible as you were before.
Also, in Pathfinder stealth does not assume you have all the right tools. It just assumes you're doing what you're doing according to your roll. Having thieves tools doesn't let you pick locks. It just gives you a +2 to disable device. If you're suggesting a change to this for the game, then by extension of your logic spellcraft should give me the materials I need for spells, swim should give me devices that enable me to swim, climb should grant me ropes or ladders, etc. That doesn't make sense either.
I may have gotten that confused with the house rules of my circle.
Not disappear, but it is possible albeit difficult to remain hidden in plain sight, for a short period of time.
I miss spoke when I stated necessary items. Items useful to the accomplishment of the intended goal. The lack of lock picks or other like items does not make the disable device skill unusable. Diamond saw string could be used to cut through the lock but wouldn't necessarily provide a bonus to disable device.
As stealth is concerned, watch the Rambo scene where he only uses mud to camouflage himself. Mud is nothing special, it is mundane. But it worked. Had the protagonist that was searching for him stood looking at the area in which he was hidden for long enough, logic would reason he would see Rambo breathing. The inevitable rise and fall of his chest and the air escaping and entering through his airways would shift and possibly dislodge the mud.
This is the ideal representation of what I was trying to convey.
I don't think it is feasible to disappear while others have you in sight by putting on a disguise or covering yourself in mud.
I do think it is feasible to hide yourself in plain view while no one is watching and then have someone observe the area in which you are hidden, technically without cover and concealment, and not see you through the application of mundane yet useful items.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I actually have a problem with all or nothing stealth and no problem with 3rd party software "announcing" your presence. Just because you get a beep and an alarm...and maybe a relative position on a minimap type persistent app does not mean you can target the individual, nor does it mean you can see them on your game UI (based on combat type). It is equivelant to your buddy who does see the stealthed character yelling..."no, over there...there, see them?"
It does allow the cheating player to randomly shoot in the correct direction...and it allows the cheating player to generally move toward or away from the stealth character...but again no different than if someone was warning them verbally. How is it any different than them all being in vent yelling at each other?
Goblinworks Founder
|
I've never been a fan of stealth = invisibility in PC games. Invisibility as a spell is fine as long as the invisible player still makes a noise when they move (unless they have move silently).
Technology depending, for a traditional table top style of rogue (I prefer Thief ;), you only really need to gain surprise, which was more dependant on moving silently out of line of sight to creep up behind someone than it was hiding in shadows. Hiding in shadows was merely the way in which you avoided attention in the first place by standing still in a dark corner.
Sneak attack/Backstabbing should be available any time you flank or surprise your target, this would mean the player is more involved in their own tactical positioning and situational awareness, and less on game mechanics that make a traditionally non-magical class magical by giving them invisibility. This is also co-dependant by not having "auto facing" for players, allowing classes to position themselves to gain that flank advantage so the opponent must physically face the rogue else be shanked for extra damage.
I would not mind if PFO rogues were only able to hide if they were:
a) In a shadow
b) Not moving
c) Could pass a check (Spot check vs hide check)
The Spot (Perception) vs Hide (Stealth) mechanic was done in Age of Conan quite well apart from the fact that all classes could hide (Invisibility) and move while hidden. NPCs had a passive search that could detect you and your stealth skill was also determined by a light meter. The more shadowy your path, the harder it was to detect you. The only problem I had with this system was being able to move while hidden but the game was designed for the Rogue class to rely on this form of invisibility. If the game designs the Rogue class so that they aren't solely reliant on invisibility and that they can get sneak attacks from flanking and surprise (by attacking from behind ie; flanking) then hiding doesn't need to be the primary skill and can instead be a utility to avoid detection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A non-invisible stealth is another one of those things that works great on a tabletop game... and not so well in an MMO. Hiding in shadows, and behind rocks, and coming at your target from behind are all things that require player skills as opposed to character skills.
In P&P you had unlimited time to decide how you were going to sneak past that guard, and that guard rolled spot and listen checks attempt detecting you.
In an MMO things are faster paced. Your targets are less likely to be stationary, and there are far less terrain features and objects to conceal you. As opposed to rolling a spot or listen check you are going up against player's actual ability to spot you.
A warrior in heavy plate or a sorcerer without a single point in hide or move silently can crouch behind rocks and move through shadows. They can see which direction their target is facing and approach from behind.
So if you have rouges who are only hidden behind objects, in shadows, or approaching from behind... what the heck is a point of a stealth class? Why would I EVER play a rouge or put points into hide and move silently??? I am better off playing a less stealth dependent class and just using my player skills to ambush people. Or better yet playing a caster with the invisibility spell as they will be FAR more effective stealth classes than an actual rouge.
No. You need stealth as invisibility. Otherwise there is just no damn point to take the class or to train the skill.
Sneak attack/Backstabbing should be available any time you flank or surprise your target, this would mean the player is more involved in their own tactical positioning and situational awareness, and less on game mechanics that make a traditionally non-magical class magical by giving them invisibility.
In order to balance a stealth dependent class not actually being much sneakier than a non-stealth class where the player is just trying to be sneaky... you would need to make that backstab do ASTOUNDING amounts of damage.
The first time someone got prettymuch one-shot from behind by a rouge you would see waterfalls of tears pour all over the forums, until that class eventually got nerfed into utter uselessness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Totally...that is exactly what many of us asked for in a different thread...specifically that stealth should not be an all or nothing buff...but rather a competition between your stealth skill (plus and minus penalties and bonuses such as armor and magic, as well as environmental conditions such as shadow and/or direct sunlight) and each observers' perception (plus and minus penalties and bonuses).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For a good stealth system, that is not invisibility you need to:
-Remove any targeting of any kind from the game, aim only
-Remove nameplates
-Have state of the art tamper proof software so players can highlight other players via 3rd party software.
-Have a innovative movement 3d noise system, where the character hearing is a factor in the intensity of sounds.
-Have one volume slider so people who crank up volume to improve hearing will have bleeding ears.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For a good stealth system, that is not invisibility you need to:
-Remove any targeting of any kind from the game, aim only
-Remove nameplates
-Have state of the art tamper proof software so players can highlight other players via 3rd party software.
-Have a innovative movement 3d noise system, where the character hearing is a factor in the intensity of sounds.
-Have one volume slider so people who crank up volume to improve hearing will have bleeding ears.
It has already been prettymuch decided this game will be a tab-targeting game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see this heading toward a repeat of earlier threads...
The calculations of stealth versus perception should be done server side anyway to be secure. As such, if a character cannot see an entity, there is no reason to send any information about the entity to their client. If their client has no information about the entity, the player can tab away to their heart's content without effect.
If the server is secure, no third party software will change this.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Andius, I have extensive experience with MMOs and Rogue classes in both MMO's and Table top games as a tester and player. I understand the mechanics behind them and I also hotly debate the need for "Invisibility" as a stealth mechanic. It isn't needed and you will find many games are moving away from permanent stealth.
The recent open beta weekend for Guild Wars 2 highlighted quite well what you can do with a rogue class without stealth. They do have invisible stealth, but it only lasts a few seconds and you can't immediately re-enter stealth. Instead the thief relies on control through smoke bombs, dodging and other mobility features.
You don't need stealth as Invisibility. Stealth should not define a rogue, it is merely one tiny aspect of what they are capable of. A rogue's can be defined in so many more ways.
Too many people have been brainwashed into thinking they are ninjas and assassins. A Rogue is a character like the Grey Mouser, Indiana Jones, Conan, Jack Sparrow, Jimmy the Hand, Matt Cauthon, Arya Stark, Reynard the Fox, The Three Muskateers, The Dread Pirate Roberts, Robin Hood. I don't recall any of them having invisibility, although the Grey Mouser did dabble in black magic at one stage.
I see this heading toward a repeat of earlier threads...
The calculations of stealth versus perception should be done server side anyway to be secure. As such, if a character cannot see an entity, there is no reason to send any information about the entity to their client. If their client has no information about the entity, the player can tab away to their heart's content without effect.
If the server is secure, no third party software will change this.
^ This.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You don't need stealth as Invisibility. Stealth should not define a rogue, it is merely one tiny aspect of what they are capable of. A rogue's can be defined in so many more ways.
Too many people have been brainwashed into thinking they are ninjas and assassins. A Rogue is a character like the Grey Mouser, Indiana Jones, Conan, Jack Sparrow, Jimmy the Hand, Matt Cauthon, Arya Stark, Reynard the Fox, The Three Muskateers, The Dread Pirate Roberts, Robin Hood. I don't recall any of them having invisibility, although the Grey Mouser did dabble in black magic at one stage.
This, with the revision "it is merely one tiny aspect of what some of them they are capable of." many do not even have stealth...or perhaps you were referring to potential. In that case simply This.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stealth isn't just for rogues! I absolutely love a well built stealth wizard. A stealth wizard doesn't care so much about lighting or cover, in fact they can do a lot of things stealth-wise better than rogues. Just look at Gandalf and the three trolls.
Bah, Gandalf was a magic using rogue...
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Gandalf also tanked the Balrog.
I'm not sure whether "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" was a taunt or protection from Evil 10" Radius. He was the traditional Fighter/Mage/Thief from AD&D?
Edit: Wizards should always be able to hold a staff off-hand with a sword in the main hand. Purely because it looks so awesome.
Gandalf was a demigod (i.e. classless (i.e. pure badass :D)).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In any case, the idea of stealth being tied to just rogues is a myth that must be dispelled.
Sure, I agree that any feature of any class should be learn-able by anyone. Why can't a wizard learn how to sing? Or even wield a sword. From my understand of what GW has already said about their archetypes...I think what we are requesting is already planned to be possible.
At least I hope so any ways.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would imagine stealth will be a skill untied to any archetype, some archetypes may get abilities that enhance elements of stealth, and require stealth ranks to advance the archetype. I also see stealth not being very effective if you are not supplementing it with rouge/ranger or magic abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would imagine stealth will be a skill untied to any archetype, some archetypes may get abilities that enhance elements of stealth, and require stealth ranks to advance the archetype. I also see stealth not being very effective if you are not supplementing it with rouge/ranger or magic abilities.
This is exactly what I hope to see...Basic stealth in the archetype-free trees they mentioned somewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not familiar enough with the PFRPG class skill lists.
Would there be a huge problem having separate stealth trees in several different archetype trees?
It just seems to me that having Stealth as a General Utility skill is kind of like having Bows or Swords or even Fireball as a General Utility skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not familiar enough with the PFRPG class skill lists.
Would there be a huge problem having separate stealth trees in several different archetype trees?
It just seems to me that having Stealth as a General Utility skill is kind of like having Bows or Swords or even Fireball as a General Utility skill.
Well honestly I don't quite see it that way, In general in pathfinder, the skills are things that everyone can do, just how well they do them varies. Stealth for instance, IRL I am not a trained spy, nor a super ninja, but to some extent I can sneak and hide with a fairly reasonable chance of not being noticed by a layperson. The same applies for jumping, climbing, swimming. and pretty much anything in the general skills list that is usable Untrained, something untrained means your average layperson can certainly do them, perhaps not as well as a specialist but it is perfectly reasonable to expect even a commoner to have a small ability to do them. I see no reason that any class cannot get those, but miss out on say a bonus skill that may enhance them or grant them bonus options in the classes that have them as class skills.
Say in the case of a rogue, compared to a wizard, if both have spent comparable training time and similar dexterity, they both can sneak about equally well, but the rogue could have a skill that allows him to move at 75% speed instead of 50% speed while sneaking. And lets say a ranger can get a archtype skill that allows him to disguise his scent from animals while sneaking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not familiar enough with the PFRPG class skill lists.
Would there be a huge problem having separate stealth trees in several different archetype trees?
It just seems to me that having Stealth as a General Utility skill is kind of like having Bows or Swords or even Fireball as a General Utility skill.
Other than fireball, I actually agree with you, at the most basic level. Like learning to not cut yourself with it. As for stealth, I only meant the most basic levels would be generic, rogues and other archetypes would have skills that build upon that ability and magnify its effectiveness. Wizards could still take these, but then they would be multi-classing. Same with swords and bows...most classless juvenile humans in a medieval setting would have base bow abilities for hunting. But, it would take a ranger of warrior to know how to notch multiple arrows or quick shot, while maintaining accuracy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's clearly not the same set of rules, but as a DDO player I love my shadow mage. Turbine's house rules have created a system where a very specific type of wizard can actually have a higher move silently skill than a rogue can attain. Invisibility spell already means they can get a higher hide skill. Good fun.
The ONLY difference between a rogue and another class that doesn't have stealth as a class skill, assuming both level-max the skill and equal dexterity modifiers, is 3 points. The non-stealth class will have a skill mod of 20 whereas the rogue will have 23. Thematically, stealth should be available to all.
What sets apart rogues concerning stealth is they get the chance to use sneak attack. That's really it. Rogues don't get special class-only applications of the skill. All classes have skill focus (stealth) available. All classes can partake in any traits and gear boosting stealth. It's really not that special.
This is part of why I enjoy Pathfinder. No one skill makes or breaks a character and each and every ability can be countered by another. Stealth should be just an extension of how the players can interact with the world in PFO and not some convoluted mechanic.
Bear with me here, but I think stealth as an invisibility buff isn't really a bad thing.
Mechanically, stealth in the traditional sense has a lot of problems in an online game (as pointed out by Ryan Dancy). Simply being able to turn invisible would make a lot of things easier (and ultimately even more fun) for stealth characters. Think for example about trying to remain traditionally "hidden" in an mmo. Assuming there are fifty people near you making opposed perception checks, several of them will surely pass. Not to mention all the programming needed- what counts as cover? How does the game design team prevent all sorts of irritating cover glitches? I could see stealth as a skill: Maybe a character with enough ranks in stealth can go invisible when no one is within X distance, but move at half speed. Eventually these penalties would be reduced until some characters could eventually hide in plain sight. Make no mistake, there have to be checks and balances for invisibility, such as spells and items that reveal hidden creatures. But overall I think it could work.
Thematically, I like the idea of rogues and other stealth oriented characters being magically gifted. To me it makes sense that in a world of magic, rogues type characters could just blink out of sight and go unseen. Casting fireballs and other less subtle magic is decidedly un-rogue-like, but casting invisibility or something like it seems right up their alley to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem with invisibility and opposed perception checks is that mechanic is based on a d20 and the concept of a 5 second round. Each round, they get a new perception check. That isn't how PFO will work. Secondly, the constant checking to see if a player notices another would cause some nasty lag. It isn't so bad when one player does it, but what happens when you have 100 people in the same location, 10 of whom are stealthed? That is thousands of stealth checks to be made, and they have to be done several times as time goes on. I think PFO will use stealth, but in a way not yet seen before.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Take 10. Even PnP has passive perception checks. It would make a lot more sense to handle it that way than constant opposing checks, don't you think?
It's not so much rolling the checks as making the comparisons. That issue has been fully covered, and would require custom hardware to address a larger L1 cache to be resolved.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thematically, I like the idea of rogues and other stealth oriented characters being magically gifted.
I'm the opposite. In fantasy worlds where magic is so commonplace it no longer feels "Magical" the Rogue is one of the few tricksters left that relies upon wit and cunning instead of magical rainbows. I have no problem with a skill-system that allows sorcery-wielding, shadow-shifting assassins. I just want to be able to have the option to play a non-stealthy, trap-springing, lock-picking scoundrel that doesn't dual wield swords or daggers. In the current fantasy genre magic is so prevalent that I wish for characters that are mundane or stereotype.
In short, a rogue trying to "stealth" through a crowd of 100 people is a bad rogue. However, I showed in the thread quoted previous that a large number of people stealthing around each other really doesn't take that much processing power especially with a total population of 4,500 which will be PFOs starting population. It actually decreases lag as well as some people won't see the stealthed character and their client will never be sent data about that actor. I'd highly recommend some computer science and mathematics background but check it out.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In short, a rogue trying to "stealth" through a crowd of 100 people is a bad rogue. However, I showed in the thread quoted previous that a large number of people stealthing around each other really doesn't take that much processing power especially with a total population of 4,500 which will be PFOs starting population. It actually decreases lag as well as some people won't see the stealthed character and their client will never be sent data about that actor. I'd highly recommend some computer science and mathematics background but check it out.
The lag in question isn't client-side, it's server-side.
Imagine that you are playing a tabletop game with as few as 20 players. They enter an area in which 20 monsters are independently hiding in wait, and you have to pass a note to each player describing what they see, every turn. How much extra time does that take compared to having each monster noticed by everyone as soon as it is noticed by anyone? How does that change as soon as the numbers increase to the point that you can't fit all their stealth and perception values on one page, and need to turn back and forth between pages to determine if a given player saw a given monster at a given moment?
The server still has to make a determination of what you see. You're missing that fact entirely. "Proper stealth" as is being discussed is just another step in that determination and not an entirely new process. Just because you enter a space doesn't mean you can suddenly see everything in it. If there are walls, objects behind those walls are occluded, as are objects hidden by other objects etc. Your client only knows they exist once you have line of sight. If you turn the corner into that room slowly, your client will receive actor data given how much of the room you can see. Go a little more, and you can see a little more. This is true of all things in any game currently. Doing the "hiding stealth thing" is simply one additional check, doesn't have much overhead computationally or memory-wise and can save network bandwidth for those actors which your character can't see.
Also, your example doesn't scale. Whereas a table top game with 20 players can easily take an hour per round, a computer can do all those checks in a fraction of a second down to several decimal places as I demonstrated in that thread. The computational complexity of "num1 > num2" is negligible.
Lastly, the server doesn't lag. Lag is a term related to network latency between two nodes. Since the server is an end-point in the client-server configuration, the "important one" in this case as it's doing the managing of the game world itself, then it doesn't need to reach out to any other nodes to do it's processing so, therefore, zero lag. Any interconnectedness within the server's cluster is going to be negligible as well as it's likely working on gigabit ethernet or even fiber and the actor data for all these checks is only about 5KB for 200 characters. Gigabit ethernet is about 119MB per second and fiber can be many times that number. 5KB is hardly a drop in the bucket. All 4,500 people in the game world would be 2.4MB should everyone somehow be in a huge, magical globe where everyone had line of sight to everyone and everyone was stealthing for some reason which is still well beneath a single second to transmit this data between two servers in the cluster.
An important anecdote to keep in mind is that Ryan has stated GW is going to be getting the beefiest servers they can buy. I can buy a very beefy 8-core, 16 GB DDR 3 RAM PC with dual video cards for under $1,500. What do you think they can do with $10k-$50k per server? Processing impact will be negligible in the most likely of scenarios.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In short, a rogue trying to "stealth" through a crowd of 100 people is a bad rogue. However, I showed in the thread quoted previous that a large number of people stealthing around each other really doesn't take that much processing power especially with a total population of 4,500 which will be PFOs starting population. It actually decreases lag as well as some people won't see the stealthed character and their client will never be sent data about that actor. I'd highly recommend some computer science and mathematics background but check it out.The lag in question isn't client-side, it's server-side.
Imagine that you are playing a tabletop game with as few as 20 players. They enter an area in which 20 monsters are independently hiding in wait, and you have to pass a note to each player describing what they see, every turn. How much extra time does that take compared to having each monster noticed by everyone as soon as it is noticed by anyone? How does that change as soon as the numbers increase to the point that you can't fit all their stealth and perception values on one page, and need to turn back and forth between pages to determine if a given player saw a given monster at a given moment?
That's not an issue, the server is ALREADY doing all that work because it's not BROADCASTING the entire game world to each client every pulse (Like your hypothetical GM would do in a room full of players in a PnP game). If it tried to do that it would overwhelm it's bandwidth and create client side lag. It's already passing indiviual notes to clients, updating them as to what they individualy can see. It does do this a bit in advance to smooth out rendering issues. So if draw range was 50 ft, it might send that client updates about objects out to 75 ft, in order to be more responsive about rendering those objects when they came into view. At least, that's the general principle of how most MMO engines work...as I understand it.
There really should not be much additional work on the server side in determining whether an object is stealthed and therefore it's info passed along to an individual client. That's not the hiccup at all. The real hiccup comes when client A "spots" the stealthed object and is updated with info about it and client B hasn't. There is no good/easy way to prevent client A from updating client B with info about the stealthed object that it now has, through out of band means. Meaning, once you've given that info to A, you've got to assume that B, C, & D might have got it too...if A is cheating.
So once one client has "spotted" an object, you can't really prevent it from passing that information to every other client. The server can, however, limit how the other clients can ACT on that information (for example not allowing them to target an object they are not supposed to be able to see). For me that's pretty much a good enough compromise. At least I prefer it to the way most MMO's seem to handle stealth these days....which is basicaly perfect, infallible invisability out to a range of 5 ft....and then automaticaly detectable (via translucent character representation) to everyone. The later, to me, just makes stealth TOO powerfull in a PvP focused game. Stealth shouldn't be near 100 percent reliable out to point blank range...that's just too OP.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The server doesn't do line-of-sight checks from every object to every object every update. That would be absurd. Static objects don't need occlusion checking except when interacted with, as a cheat prevention measure. Objects which have occlusion checks done use the result for all other interactions- If I'm occluded from you, my fireball doesn't check to see if it hits you, because I'm too distant to interact.
The 'lag' I was referring to is the part where nothing can happen before the server recalculates all the occlusion checking.
If the 'actor data' is about 5kb, it includes nothing but whether or not a given actor is occluded from each other actor. It would be 2.4MB if those 4500 people COULD BE running on the same process. If you only allocate memory for stealth when stealth is being used, then you need to add the overhead for looking up which bit is being used to indicate stealth at any given moment- every time you check for stealth.
You still cant put in in CPU cache, even for server CPUs. It's not doing the math that's operation intensive, it's finding the math you need to do.
Of course it does. It has to. If it didn't then I would be getting information about game objects on the other side of the game world which simply doesn't happen. Static objects do need occlusion checking because the graphics card is wasting its time rendering something that's hidden anyway. You gain performance by simply not asking for the occluded thing to be rendered because it doesn't need to be.
The data is stored in RAM. I never said or insinuated the the CPU was storing the data. In fact, I actually said the CPU is not a storage device in the previous thread. I've said this already. It's stored in RAM.
"Finding the math" is simply part of the normal execution cycle of any modern CPU when the memory module gets any RAM for an associated CPU instruction. I linked an article explaining this concept in the other thread. Please, read it.