Idea for realsing creations

[Lord Safey]

On creations that you created you have the options of developing it should it have skill points or asorbing it. Another option should be to realse it. If you realse a creation you would have no control over it. It would become rouge and go hostil against the first thing that approachs it. If you realse a creation you don't get the essence from it but it doesn't lower your totale essnce you can have. It would be good if you wanted to repoulate an area with rouges say if you want to train your chacter more. Or to harass a very powerful enemy.

[*i]

Quote:

It would be good if you wanted to repoulate an area with rouges say if you want to train your chacter more. Or to harass a very powerful enemy.

I wouldn't have it reward experience. I could also see it being an AI controlled character after releasing it as workable.

[Kelandon]

I kinda like this idea.

[Dikiyoba]

Dikiyoba would like to be able to release creations as well, purely for role-playing reasons. Only Dikiyoba would rather release them and have them go neutral, instead of friendly or hostile.

[Shaper Anton]

Can we release a creation? How?

 

It would be fun to releace some strong creations and make some of them hostiles. then i can have fun being in a battle

 

Mawhuahaahaha!!! Put them in the friendly town and watch the people there suffer

[Shaper Anton]

Quote:

On creations that you created you have the options of developing it should it have skill points or asorbing it. Another option should be to realse it. If you realse a creation you would have no control over it. It would become rouge and go hostil against the first thing that approachs it. If you realse a creation you don't get the essence from it but it doesn't lower your totale essnce you can have. It would be good if you wanted to repoulate an area with rouges say if you want to train your chacter more. Or to harass a very powerful enemy.

 

Ahhh!!! or make them friend ly and conquer the whole town if you can create servile, especially if they can be warrior

[Aran]

What does "realse" mean?

 

Edit: Somehow I failed to see half a page of posts.

[Lowbacca]

I believe he meant "releasing". If you see a word not understandable, just word-scramble. i myself have alot of practice in this. And is useful for things, such as forums where people fail to spell correctly.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Arancaytar:

 

Quote:

What does "realse" mean?

Santa: No, gaurdian, realsing creations is not a good thing. They go rouge.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Student of Trinity]

*shoos away the Thing again

 

I kind of like this idea too, but it needs some limits. You certainly shouldn't get experience from the creatures. Some funny new kind of AI would be needed to make them behave reasonably: they might hate you, or still like you, or just try to escape from you. They might be aggressive against anything near, or passive or trying to hide.

 

Also I think they should have a sharply limited life span. This has never been spelled out by Jeff, but I have always had the idea that the reason for anyone to invest in the various big vats and labs that we always see is that growing creations in vats is the only way to make them really independent. Creatures formed from essence alone, as by spawner or by the PC, must (it seems to me) dissipate after some time, if they are not deliberately maintained (at a cost against your maximum essence).

 

All this could be built in, though it would be a fair amount of work and would take a lot of testing. The result might be interesting and useful a few times. I see no reason to try to squeeze this feature into G4, but maybe it would be something for G5 or G6.

[Fort]

If you could not gain experience from the creation or reabsorb it for essence, why release it? Sure, you could carry some essence pods/potions/whatever so you could make lots of little rogue creations, but could that really be useful if you had no control whatsoever over it?

[Drakefyre]

It could kill things for you/trigger mines/wreak havoc without you getting in danger or needing to maintain it.

[Alorael at Large]

I've definitely noticed that the whole sacrificial lamb through the minefield doesn't work anymore, so that's out. Really, I can't see what the point of releasing creations would be. Either it would provide a temporary army for you, which seems interesting but abusable, or it would be worthless.

 

—Alorael, who definitely has experienced the frustrations of walking his thahd back and forth through the apparently deadly minefield only to notice that those clever shapers have finally worked out a solution to the suicide thahd. Alas!

[Randomizer]

Jeff warned that he was changing tool use and minefields. Now you have to do it the old fashioned way and risk yourself.

[Fort]

While it sounds potentially useful to create a rogue army, whose members I think by definition are still very hostile to their creator, I doubt it would be worth the essence to shape a creation that would be less effective in combat than an equivalent one you could control.

[Lord Safey]

Well the idea would make essence pods more valuable. If you worried about unbalanceing the game you could make essence pools harder to access. I agree the life span sould be minimized. They should fade away after you leave the map. Another way is that the amount of endurance deterime how long the creation last. Also how much intelegence you give your creature should determine its AI. Creatures with a lot of intelegence tend to heard stuipder creations and have hostile tendencys once realeased toward every thing in general (execpt what they may be hearding). Stuiped creations would be more likely to be neutral. Any chacter (doesn't matter if you created or not) with enough intelegence can take control over a creation you realse. You should also be able temporay inlist creations made by spawners. Said creations would not count toward your total possible creations, disappear when you leave the map and loyalty would depend on your intelgence, their injuries, the number of oppents and, what ever mental spells your enemy may use.

[Fort]

That does sound intriguing, but of course too complicated to be put into the next game. Historically, it can be said that Jeff does not do "revolutionary."

 

If anything, I think that implementing a true way to capture a rogue creation -- which may be an NPC, spawned creation, or one of your own -- for a short while would quickly give rise to being able to release creations. I feel a main, non-destructively unbalanced way to use these rogues would be in a battle where you want to temporarily have many, many creations on your side, with possibly some under your direct control. Those not considered a part of your party, being captured rogues, would easily change sides. I believe this would allow this type of large-scale battle to occur while preserving gameplay balance.

[*i]

Quote:

If anything, I think that implementing a true way to capture a rogue creation -- which may be an NPC, spawned creation, or one of your own -- for a short while would quickly give rise to being able to release creations.

Basically this is sort of like charming, but more complicated.

[Armed_Defender]

maybe in g4 we should be alowed to choose if we want to be good or bad from the start, if we choose to be bad we should be able to make spawners and things that create thier own little monsters to wreak havoc on any nearby towns, and as you go along you should be able to make a few really powerful spawners sort of like bosses? just an idea.

[Alorael at Large]

Killing everything that moves already isn't all that challenging by the end of Spiderweb games. You don't need spawners. Besides, the games make it seem like spawners are a little beyond the spontaneous shaping that Geneforge protagonists use.

 

—Alorael, who gets the feeling in A4 that being a bad guy is easy. It's being a good guy that takes effort.

[Drakefyre]

If even accomplished Shapers have problems making spawners, what can a non-shaper hope to do?

[Lord Safey]

I never suggested makeing spawners. I was suggesting that you be able to release creatable creations and take control of npcs with a low leadership skill compared to you.

[Drakefyre]

No, but Armed_Defender suggested making spawners.

[Lord Safey]

prehaps we should be able to use vats. They would create more stable creations. It would use up less essnces. You could make more things such as servant minds, serviles, liveing tools, spawners, turrets and other complex creations as well as normal creations. It would take awhile to make a creation this way. Time could be detirme by actual playing time, areas cleared/travel or combination of both. Creations created in a vat would be permenat if release in to area. Also the would give much less essence if asorbed.

 

P.S. can anyone come up with an idea for what a servile or servant mind could be used for.

[Alorael at Large]

Servant minds are immobile. So are turrets. So, for that matter, are spawners. That makes them all useless to the adventuring life. Being able to create living tools would make Unlock useless and mechanics rather less useful.

 

—Alorael, who still doesn't see what releasing creations is supposed to add. If the game were organized around it, maybe it would work, but that's not how Geneforge has been set up.

[Fort]

If the game were restructured to include creating defensive strongholds and your own little guarded safe-havens periodically as a part of strategy, then maybe these immobile creations could have a purpose.

 

For instance, suppose that randomly spawning monsters could appear even without NPC spawners around under the premise that the area is not cleared. Going back to town would be a long, involved, and dangerous process, so you need to create your own points to rest at along the way.

 

Your own spawner, revitalizing vats, etc., would have great use then.

[Lord Safey]

That and lets say part of a quest would to build up the defenses of a town or village before it gets attacked.

[Fort]

Then your quest or mission would have to involve acting as a conscripted commander of the defenses or something to that effect. Sounds like RTS to me.

[Alorael at Large]

There are already several places where you have to defend things. There's no RTS involved. Turrets and other fixed defenses would require some time to set up, though, and time usually isn't something you get a lot of before defending.

 

—Alorael, who wishes the cowering civilians who are supposed to be protected at all costs would cower more and valiantly charge less.

[Zummi]

Ooooh..releasing your creations sounds interesting. Too bad the shapers made their creations not able to reproduce. Poor rogues. They get fragged without even making out with their own kind.

[Alorael at Large]

Not true. Or not always true. At least some creations are able to reproduce and are in fact encouraged to do so in order to save valuable shaper time and energy.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this may relate to creation type a bit. Nobody is horribly disturbed by, say, mating fyoras. Even artilas are probably okay as long as they aren't disturbing the peace. Vlishes, on the other hand...

[Fort]

Perhaps some areas should have wandering rogues that come from mating, rather than always from a spawner. It would be like extermination of rabbits... that breathe fire.

[Alorael at Large]

From what I remember, which admittedly isn't much, spawners weren't the major source of rogues in any game past GF1. They certainly aren't in GF4.

 

—Alorael, who actually hasn't been running into all that many rogues at all. It's the creations that have perfectly legitimate and organized reasons for wanting to eat you that you have to worry about now.

[Drakefyre]

You should go back and look at Litalia's island-terrorizing spawners in GF3.

[Azdimoyne]

I think many of these ideas could have great usages if their were more attack/defend scenerios. You could build stationary creations to help defend the town, or, if you're playing for the other side, you could let loose an army of rogue fyoras in the shaper capital or whatever. (Please let us see it, Jeff!)

 

P.S.

In the begining of GF4, it says that Dangerous creation are never made capable of reproducing.0

 

P.P.S.

That would be a good way to get free new creations... "Select Eyebeast 1. Option-Click Eyebeast 2. Select "Mate". *screen goes black* Enjoy your newly created Eyebeast!"

[Drakefyre]

Quote:

Originally written by Azdimoyne:
P.S.
In the begining of GF4, it says that Dangerous creation are never made capable of reproducing.

They said that in Jurassic Park too, and we all know how that turned out

[Student of Trinity]

I have no doubt the creations can get around any controls the Shapers could impose. What they can't get around is Jeff's G rating.

 

Anyway, Eyebeasts just like to watch.

[Hamilton G. Phantamos]

I actually like the idea of creating creations that can mate. It would just have to be set up where it wouldn't be as effective as shaping one but still useful enough to be a viable way to make new creations if you aren't in a rush for when they have to join. It would also require you to keep the mother unit alive until it could lay an egg of give birth, and then you'd have to keep the offspring alive and manage to level it up until it developed into an adult creation after reaching a certain level.

 

It's not really that bad of an idea, or probably even that hard to implement, but I still doubt it's going to happen any time soon.

[Goldengirl]

If creations can mate, then our PCs creations shouldn't be able to. That's just cheating practically!

[Lowbacca]

I dont like the idea of releasing creations. Bad idea. Andas for the mating thing. Only Serviles can mate remember? Duh. Also, even if it were possible... Naw, i dont like that either. I'd much rather be able to make my fyora into a cryoa. That would be sweeter. And both resemble pokemon to much

[Major]

Quote:

Andas for the mating thing. Only Serviles can mate remember? Duh. Also, even if it were possible...

It is possible for creations to mate. Here:

text1 = "This battle alpha is extremely old. He may be the father (or mother, you're not sure) of this clan. He stares morosely into the fire. He is not as strong and confident as the others.";

This was in G1. I was also under the impression that the reason most creations weren't able to breed was because they were shaped specifically not to.

[Lowbacca]

Quote:

Originally written by Major:

Quote:

Andas for the mating thing. Only Serviles can mate remember? Duh. Also, even if it were possible...

It is possible for creations to mate. Here:

text1 = "This battle alpha is extremely old. He may be the father (or mother, you're not sure) of this clan. He stares morosely into the fire. He is not as strong and confident as the others.";

This was in G1. I was also under the impression that the reason most creations weren't able to breed was because they were shaped specifically not to.

Lol, oddly, i havnt played all of GF1 yet. Sadly. And in GF2 it says something about only serviles can mate. Either in the very begining, or when you encounter the guardian looking after his serviles, and you can convinve him to help you kill rouges in the next section. Sry, i can never remember names

[Drakefyre]

That's because, in general, they're bred not to be able to mate. But then there are Shapers who let them breed because it's more convenient then shaping a lot, or the ones where shaping them not to breed doesn't work.

[Fort]

Serviles and ornks are generally made to be able to breed. The other creations have it all buried in their DNA somewhere, I imagine.

 

To me, this whole topic deals with a fundamental question about how creations and their shapers are related: why do our creations tie up our maximum essence reserves for as long as they are alive?

[Dikiyoba]

Originally by Garrison:

 

Quote:

To me, this whole topic deals with a fundamental question about how creations and their shapers are related: why do our creations tie up our maximum essence reserves for as long as they are alive?

Mostly just for game balance. However, NPC Shapers have difficulty keeping their creations under control if they are trying to control too many, so Dikiyoba suspects that the connection between a Shaper and his or her creation is mostly mental.

[Goldengirl]

I was always under the impression that the essence was tied up in the creation to keep them alive. If the essence wasn't with the creation it would die immediantly.

[Major]

Quote:

I was always under the impression that the essence was tied up in the creation to keep them alive. If the essence wasn't with the creation it would die immediantly.

No, that wouldn't work. Because you can't absorb a rogue creation. So it's probably more of a mind thing.

[Alorael at Large]

Essence is used to create instant creations and to keep them from melting into sludge. Unfortunately, absorbing them requires willingness, so when they go rogue they also abscond with your essence.

 

Permanent creations grown with vats and tubes and big crystals don't permanently tie up essence, sometimes breed, and are far more likely to develop egos that cause them to go rogue, start rebelling against their erstwhile overlords, and so on.

 

—Alorael, who is sure that the ornks are behind everything somehow.

[Fort]

That is the connection between releasing creations and essence. If essence were, in the context of the Geneforge universe, being constantly used to maintain the very physical form of the creation, then releasing it would be impossible without permanently reducing your essence cap. It just doesn't make sense; that is, unless you shape something out of your own essence and then fortify it with a shaping vat while reabsorbing what it originally drained from you.

[Retlaw May]

Drayks are able to mate (refer to G1).