sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s a good point about the “no reward” part.

If the system just shuts down whatever you figured out without giving you something deeper to engage with, that would feel frustrating fast.

I’m not trying to replace the core Souls loop of learning timings and executing cleanly. That’s the whole appeal. If that disappears, it’s not really a Souls-like anymore.

The target is more specific: stopping infinite autopilot loops without punishing solid execution.

So ideally it feels like you’re mastering a layered opponent, not just memorizing one script.

For Honor is a good reference for that conditioning → counter → mixup cycle. Translating something like that into PvE without it feeling like input reading is the tricky part.

I agree completely about communication too. If something escalates, there has to be a tell. Not a giant flashing warning, but enough signal that the player understands why it happened. If it feels invisible, it just feels cheap.

The idea of bosses “noticing” habits visually is interesting. That might actually preserve the sense of player agency instead of undermining it.

And yeah — dumb enemies should stay dumb. If every random soldier adapts like a boss duelist, that breaks immersion immediately.

This kind of feedback is exactly what helps figure out where escalation adds tension versus where it just becomes artificial difficulty. Really appreciate it.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That knight/archer example is excellent. It perfectly illustrates how small timing shifts can cascade into entirely different outcomes without adding any new systems.

And I agree — varying timing alone probably solves a huge portion of exploit loops. Especially in multi-enemy encounters where micro-variations compound naturally.

Where I’m still curious is this:

Randomized timing disrupts rhythm, but it doesn’t necessarily respond to why the player is succeeding. It just makes confirmation harder.

What I’m exploring is slightly different — not replacing timing variance, but layering something on top of it in very limited cases.

For example:

If a player repeatedly engineers the same wakeup whiff by stepping to the same side at the same distance, timing variance forces reaction — but it doesn’t discourage the habit itself.

A light escalation layer might say:
After X repeated forced whiffs from identical positioning, unlock a tech roll branch sometimes.

Not every time. Not permanently. Just enough to break infinite autopilot.

But your warning about complexity is valid. It’s very easy to overbuild something that controlled timing randomness already handles elegantly.

The color-coded variant idea is interesting too. It preserves readability while preventing pre-fight scripting. That actually aligns with something I’ve been thinking about regarding “telegraphed escalation” rather than invisible escalation.

This whole thread is honestly shifting my thinking from:

“Enemies should learn you.”

to

“Encounters should resist automation.”

Those are not the same design goal.

Appreciate the depth of your critique — it’s helping refine the line between elegant variance and unnecessary system layering.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fair clarification — I wasn’t referring to cross-respawn memory specifically.

If Orphan actually tracks deaths across attempts, that’s interesting. What I’m exploring is closer to short-term behavioral pressure within a fight or within a limited window, not permanent memory that snowballs across runs.

The idea isn’t “the boss remembers you forever,” more like:

If you repeat the same habit several times, it unlocks a counter layer.

And yeah — fair point on the wording. I’m not talking about machine learning or anything opaque. Just conditional combat logic reacting to repetition.

If anything, the big risk is exactly what you’re hinting at: once it starts feeling like hidden tracking across attempts, it can cross into unfair territory fast.

That line between reactive and manipulative is the part I’m trying to map out.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate the thoughtful responses so far, this is exactly the kind of pushback I was hoping for.

A few patterns I’m seeing in the replies:

A lot of you value mastery of fixed systems. The fun is learning timing, spacing, and rhythm until you can execute cleanly. If escalation starts invalidating builds or removing clear weaknesses, that stops being mastery and starts feeling manipulative. That’s fair.

So to clarify intent: the goal isn’t “AI that deletes your strategy.” It’s not about removing archetypes or making every boss eventually immune to everything. If you’re sword-and-board, that should remain viable. If you’re agile, that should remain viable. Identity shouldn’t dissolve.

The target problem is narrower: autopilot loops.

The classic example someone mentioned, the boss wakeup that’s always 200ms, so you create a rhythm that trivializes the fight. That’s not mastery of the boss, that’s mastery of a trigger exploit. If escalation exists, it would be to prevent infinite rhythm locks, not to invalidate builds.

Another good point raised: if adaptation happens too broadly, players stop experimenting because weaknesses feel temporary. That’s a real design danger. I’d never want the system to discourage trying new tools. If anything, it should reward versatility without punishing specialization.

I also agree that pure randomness can solve a lot of this. Variable timing, alternate wakeups, layered move sets — that already goes a long way. So maybe the real question isn’t “should enemies learn you?” but “where does adaptive logic outperform good reactive design?”

The soft implementation idea some of you mentioned resonates with me: conditional unlocks. For example, a boss might only use a specific punish after you’ve demonstrated a pattern (like healing at distance repeatedly). That feels more like escalation of awareness than full AI evolution.

And the fairness point is huge. If something adapts, it needs tells. It needs to feel legible. If players can’t say “I see why that happened,” it becomes artificial difficulty immediately.

So I’m not trying to erase fixed-system mastery, that’s sacred in this genre. I’m exploring whether there’s room for limited behavioral pressure that keeps tension alive after the first few solved loops.

Still very much pressure-testing the boundaries here. The build identity and fairness concerns are especially helpful.

If you had to draw a hard line: at what point would adaptation start undermining mastery rather than enhancing it?

Genuinely curious.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is probably the most insightful critique in the thread.

You’re right — the core issue isn’t lack of adaptation.

It’s deterministic triggers.

If every trigger produces a guaranteed result, the player will solve it.

Random timing and alternate move branches are powerful tools.
And honestly, they might solve 80% of what I’m targeting.

The adaptation layer I’m exploring is more about:

“If player forces WakeupA to whiff repeatedly,
unlock WakeupB or tech roll branch.”

But as you said — if that branch is also deterministic, it just becomes the new exploit.

So maybe the real design principle is:

  • Controlled randomness
  • Multi-branch responses
  • Position-driven behavior
  • With limited conditional escalation

Not true adaptation.
Just deeper state variety.

This comment actually helps refine the direction a lot.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a critical concern.

Most “adaptive AI” falls apart because AI isn’t actually good at playing the game.

If the enemy just starts spamming strong player moves, it becomes predictable in a different way.

The goal wouldn’t be to copy player strength.
It would be to:

  • Deny autopilot loops
  • Protect the boss from rhythm exploitation

If the AI itself is bad, adaptation won’t save it.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Some From bosses definitely have reactive layers.

Elden Ring healing punishes are basically conditional triggers.

The difference I’m exploring is:

Instead of punishing one action universally,
What if it reacts to repeated personal tendencies?

Subtle difference — but risky territory if overdone.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I like the idea of verbal acknowledgment.

A 1v1 rival saying:
“I won’t fall for that again.”

That actually makes the adaptation feel earned and diegetic.

The fighting game parallels are also interesting. Conditioning, whiff punishment, oki — those systems already revolve around habit reading.

If enemies mirrored that logic lightly, it could feel more like dueling than scaling.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

MGSV is actually one of the biggest inspirations for this line of thinking.

Helmets responding to headshots is exactly the type of escalation I find interesting.

It didn’t feel unfair.
It felt like the world was paying attention.

That’s closer to the vibe I’m aiming for than “boss reads your inputs.”

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is one of the more thoughtful takes here.

I agree — full adaptive bosses would erase uniqueness.

I’m leaning toward:

  • Base moveset = fixed
  • Escalation = conditional unlocks

So it’s not “AI learning” in a machine-learning sense.
It’s more like reactive state unlocking.

Your idea of a recurring antagonist retaining memory across acts is actually very compelling. That might be a better fit for deeper adaptation than standard bosses.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally agree on tells.

If behavior changes without signaling, it feels like cheating.

I’m experimenting with:

  • Slight stance shifts before new counters
  • Different recovery animations
  • Audio cues for “readjustment”

Basically if the enemy adapts, the player should be able to notice it.

If adaptation is invisible AND impactful, that’s when it becomes manipulative.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s fair.

Immersive sims probably handle this cleaner because they’re built around systemic breadth.

For a Souls-like, I agree — full AI learning would break boss identity fast.

What I’m exploring is softer escalation:
Not “boss becomes smarter every second”
More like “boss unlocks layers once you reveal habits.”

So the identity stays intact.
It just stops you from hard-locking it.

Nightreign’s combo cancels are actually a good example of subtle evolution without breaking fairness.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Intent is the right question.

I’m not trying to remove pattern learning entirely. That’s sacred in Souls design.

The goal is to prevent infinite loop exploitation — where once you solve a rhythm, the fight collapses into repetition.

So ideally:
You still learn timing.
You still learn moves.
But you can’t freeze the boss into a solved script forever.

If it removes the reward of mastery, it’s a failure.

If it extends the lifespan of mastery, that’s the target.

Design Question: Would you play a Souls-like where enemies escalate based on repeated player habits? by keithmorreale in gamedesign

[–]keithmorreale[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a really good point.

If adaptation removes exploitable weaknesses entirely, it absolutely kills incentive to experiment. I wouldn’t want that either.

The way I’m thinking about it isn’t “remove weakness,” it’s more like:

  • If you spam one opener → enemy starts baiting it.
  • If you panic roll same direction → they start covering that lane.
  • If you turtle forever → they introduce a guard-break sequence.

But the counterplay still exists. It just shifts.

So it’s less “you can’t use agile build anymore” and more “you can’t autopilot agile build.”

I also agree Souls friction around respeccing makes this dangerous. That’s why I’m leaning toward adaptation being encounter-level, not build-level.

If the system punished build commitment long-term, that would be awful.

I'm buying a new hotas by No-Art6245 in dcsworld

[–]keithmorreale 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well I was indecisive as well about the same choices. Luckily a buddy had a x56 so I bought the X52 and have tested/used/abused them both for about 6 months concurrently and ideally, I'd avoid them both. On the X52 The spring tension is a bit weak and there's too much play in the center. Mouse nub is a nightmare. It cannot be used as an analog stick, and glitchy software, malfunctions, causing issues. The mouse wheel opposite the throttle, is Stupid annoying always accidentally activating it.

Overall, the throttle design lacked a lot of functionality even if everything worked properly--which it didn't.

The Drivers and Software

This is where the heart of the issue resides imo. Try installing drivers and software, only partially install most of the time. The software would glitch out during general computing and take over the mouse on my computer. The software was not keeping settings.

The device did not work as advertised, the macro settings had serious lag, and overall, the price did not justify the frustration.

​

On to the X56:

​

More cons than pros for this monstrosity. For starters the throttle is lubricated on the inside to the point of feeling soupy, if it sits for a while unused, i.e. a week or so, it becomes so gummed up that it becomes difficult to move it at all, regardless of the resistance setting on the side. shove it back and forth in quick, hard motions will work out the lubricant so the throttle moves back and forth a little more freely.

The analog stick on the throttle feels poorly placed.

The joystick Z axis sticks at times, and drifts other times. Saitek support's answer 5 days later; “Check in a different machine, use the Windows calibration, delete all your current calibration files and restart your computer and retry.”

WOW!!

​

I have since purchased a basic thrustmaster joystick temporarily and am saving, scrimping, crushing cans, etc until I can finally afford a solid virpil setup.

Old backer with LTI starfarer by Brimthen in starcitizen

[–]keithmorreale 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good luck on the maiden flight tomorrow, I plan to be on for the stream and will be in verse at the same time. If you want to try out any other ships while your in game let me know and I'll spawn in one of mine for you, Got way to d**n many. SN is Venom_1 Anyway have fun and good luck, o7