GenesisVR, the God game in VR and crowd-sourced design

6. As I understand it, this can split on two points, being able to create a building and having an expectant behavior set or understanding that the AI will randomly/on trigger activate the building powers. This might require some more expansion, as it can lead to balancing issues or lack on incentive - even a break in the loop of progress/time/resource investment and expectation of reward. A random throw-back thought is the fire-trees in From Dust, which provide an interesting gameplay mechanic, but I'm not sure how that can translate to man-made structures or places of worship within your territory. As such, how does one explain the construction of a temple or idol that does contrary to your will, when that construct is built by your 'followers'. An interesting hybrid possibility here is recognizing two classes of assets; follower-made and extension of your agency, and organic/pagan/natural that cast/trigger effects outside of your interaction. Examples being that a pagan stone circle might periodically activate or trigger an event, whilst a man-made temple might provide some sort of visual/contextual indicator of unlocked powers or progression. 

Why am I leaning towards this? Because the system can be scaled up and content can be introduced incrimentally or respond to feedback, without relying on complex systems. A single temple that is built, providing first fire, then lava, then a fire-storm, then a fire-tempest miracle, can be tied into a process that we can template and apply further. What does it provide? Content for the player to consume and expect a reward/consequence. The other, AI-triggered, places of worship essentially provide obstacles, rewards and assets that can be tied into places of interest. But I might be looking at it wrong, I can just see how the very basic implementation has benefits when split.

7. We're going to have to drill down past the narrative and into the mechanical logic behind the disciples (I like that word), being that with diminished control over them, they provide more of a contrast to the lack of control over followers, which can provide a better level of immersion for the player during gameplay. I think that a lack of direct control over them should be minimal, as this will further highlight the NPC follower 'free-will'. That contrast will translate to game mechanics, as replicating 'creature' AI onto your disciplines is going to fall outside scope. That's probably just being really realistic on the complexities of AI programming. An NPC cluster or settlement, in a settlement 'zone' (Godus does this 'right') is something that can be iterated on and scaled, whilst disciplines will probably have too grand of an impact on your player interaction methods to be left to the whims of half-implemented AI programming. Does this mean that you have 'total' RTS unit control? No, but it does mean that you need to delegate high-level tasks to the player, like telling them to build something in your honor. I do really like the conversion by sword mechanic that was mentioned earlier, so maybe telling the disciple to go be a crusader is a really good target to aim for.

1. That's my belief too. I think that regional, or localized, beliefs might be something that Godus should have implemented instead of empire-wide religious edicts. Like, what the hell do the 'wood' people care about the 'fishermen' people's commandment that 'rocks are sacred'? It's not even something that can translate to gameplay because you don't use trees or stones for anything - maybe if they had 'this sticker is sacred', that would have worked (poorly). Let's take a look at the Vaulters from Endless Legend, who delegate holy resources, there is something there worth looking into. Coastal settlements (in human societies) often always end up idol worshiping the sea or creating animal myths around sea creatures, it's just how that works, so I think the idea here is that maybe we can start to break down these settlements into classes, as clusters, based on their surroundings (maybe a percentage of area within bounds), which might open the field for designing commandments or miracles that are opened up by the belief of people. Once we break this down in mechanics, it kind of simplifies, but it further highlights the need to first tackle 'how' the settlements are seen by the game's logic. 

On the topic of Emergent/Adaptive AI: Based on some people I've talked to about AI programming, it might be something worth scaling up from basic behaviors - emergent AI is something of smoke, mirrors, illusions and mechanical systems that stat track or wait for triggers. High level decisions are almost always faked or approximated into sets of behaviors. But, I'm going to push on this and there is (thanks a bit to you giving me a bit to talk about) the possibility that we'll get a third member on (who is an AI/Physics programmer and teaches that at university). 

On the topic of Transitioning Gods/Transformation: I think you're actually iterating on a number of systems, including the idol and miracles, and this is a really good suggestion. It's something that is interesting as it can tie into player progression and physical manifestation. I think that the best example here is looking at mythology, religion and different belief systems - but keeping in mind that they all require unique or tailored player experiences to communicate, justly, their differences. I remember reading, for example, that Christian missionaries who arrived in Nordic lands found that they had great difficulty in converting the local population through assimilation/appropriation of their holy sites/beliefs - because the pagans believes in things like beaches, mountains, rock formations or forests - making the building of churches or incorporation of local beliefs really hard. There is a narrative here that translates to difficulty of diverse gameplay design, in that the Nordic God and the Abrahamic God are completely separate entities with different belief systems with the same entities of followers. I really like the transformation idea and it fits into gameplay experience design, it's something worth talking about more in the frame of 'how would this translate into a God game'. 

Also sorry morsealworth in the delay getting back to you, a lot of thinking and churning of the ol' brain gears was had. 

If followers do have different factions, and we go with the idea that a player is always as powerful as they will ever be, then progression isn't the progression of the god as much as it is the progression of the various factions. But this would only feel rewarding to the player if the player could choose which faction to allign themselves with. A 'chosen people'. In this mechanic, I think it would be more interesting if you can change your allegiance. Selecting a people as your chosen people should feel like placing a bet on which people could most closely adhere to your set of commandments (or some such) and if the people stray from those commandments enough within a certain timespan, you lose the bet, which could mean that belief in you across all factions diminishes. Abandoning a chosen people is possible, and is seen by those people as a severe punishment, possibly changing the ideology of that faction greatly. Chosing a people and abandoning them could then be powerful tools for manipulating how the various factions operate, and how popular they become.

Approaching the mechanics in this way would mean that a sense of progression doens't have to come from increased powers over time. Having a set of commandments and manipulating your chosen people into adhering to them would be where your sense of progress comes from. So even the size of the faction isn't the most important factor, eliminating the 'more equals better' trap, which leads to repetitive gameplay.

I'm a big fan of 'showing it as it is', with which I mean that if a certain belief is popular around an area, you see more people there wearing the uniforms that correspond to this. Your idea of the animal heads combined with colored banners or robes works great for this, since you can easily tell which god, and which flavor of worship by just looking at the people walking around.
If you have to use abstract GUI elements in order to show information, it very quickly takes you out of the experience, especially with VR, I suspect.
So perhaps less precise information of just observing the world (using the idea of the masks and colored banners) and requiring the player to make a rough estimation on that visual context, is preferable to precise information through a GUI.

Aynen you're on fire today. 

Immersion is key. The current iteration of the prototype game is so powerful because you feel like you, as in your physical space, manifests into the game world. Any UI can immediately begin taking that away.

Quick key thing to note: We have good relationship with Valve and have access to their on-site (at Valve) testing for stuff like VR, in terms of technical/usability testing. Benefit of being the people with the most SteamVR kits in Australia. We can also conduct on-site/off-site testing that will give us an idea about UI intrusion with the help of Exertion Labs at RMIT University or Swinburne University. That's probably stuff I can actually get hard figures on usability tests and report back on in time.

Let's tackle these ones first:

Now let's dilute these concepts into mechanics, or at least, systems that we can drain the fun out of and look at in a design-ey way.

1. Factions are defined as NPC clusters that are linked by commonality, a class, and thus all share a behavior set. Would need examples of commandments, what is a commandment, how do they influence the NPC behavior or logic, how would multiple commandments interact, how does commandment conflict resolve and most importantly - are NPC classes set to being a faction or not, as opposed to incrimental belief into factions. That might be desirable, as we start treating settlements of NPC's as an entity, with the indicators of its details show through followers. Even, maybe, commandments can be shown by visual indicators so that the player, by abstraction and interpretation, guesses what the commandment of the people is.

2. I'll get back to you on this with AI consultation - it's high level systems that require tracking. In games, as far as I know, AI isn't really treated as separate entities with independent logic but instead systems that convince the player of intelligence. Assessment, therefore, is basically based on maths/thresholds and such.

3. Yes. This relies on 1. being fleshed out. This is the basis of player driven narrative or contextual conflict. None of this weird story-telling stuff about Astari, instead lets opt to create a believable conflict based on the absurdity of religious conviction. People kill each other on disagreements of the meaning of words. That's an interesting system to capture. Purple Goat worships animals, Red Snake worships hunting, they now have a driver for conflict that you can believably communicate to the player because it makes sense.

4. This needs to translate into a system rather than a high level concept. Maybe instead of corruption, because that might indicate the presence of economic resources/exchanges/systems, we might call it hubris or devotion. Something to indicate the fortification of a belief in a settlement cluster population - the biggest banners, the biggest Purple Goat hats. 

As we start crushing these high level ideas down into systems, we try to overlap them and see where things begin to 'work' together - all of these for example start indicating an interesting world that is starting to present mechanics/functions/user stories that are definitely within what we can scope over development time. 

Okay, renumbering for conveinience:
1. (6) I was thinking about something closer to Tree planter from Anno 2070 or Mutagen Pump from Maelstrom. The kind of semi-passive/periodic/triggered ability that works better if you don't control it yourself, manually. Trust me, it would be even cooler than all those manual-triggered Wonders. But I love the idea of competition making those as well, including minor AI deities. Maybe even a chance to make them into your subordinates/friends, like hero Gilgamesh (the illegitimate En who refused Inanna) befriended demi-god Enkidu?
2. (7) Again, I was thinking more along the lines of Tropico Builders/Teamsters or Majesty Heroes. You know, the kind of people who are special, react to the tasks you place on the world, having their own priorities in choosing such tasks, all while influencing the commoners around them to help those commoners notice and focus on the task, completing it efficiently.
3. (1) Precisely. That's why "Transformation" mechanic is so important in the vision I'm trying to show you - people believe in ideas, quite abstract one, and you can't entice a fisherman by a god of agriculture. But the moment god of agriculture tuns into a deity of abundance... or vice versa.
4. (AI) Nice to know, That's really something to look forward to. As long as computational power is enough.
5. ("Transitioning") I gave you those examples precisely because I want gods to be: A) Different from each other and have personality instead of some cookie-cutter plagiat, B) I want the game progression to start from one seingle little divine power that grows and grows from there. I even linked an ability web to show how it can be implemented, for fadoodle's sake.
So yes, I completely agree this particular mechanic can be a blast. So to gain one me you should gain another me connected to it and have enough worshipper diversity (or crooked enough priests in their political squabbles) to let such a transition happen.
5.1. Small correction of your example, not Abrahamic god, but Akkadian/Sumerian way of worship of gods. As I said, Abrahamic god himself has nothing of his own.
6. (Let me join you in talk about factions)Let's see how I think it might work:
6.1. The factions should not be exactly religious without a god. Religious factions should be defined by gods they worship, however NPC factions may be: political, class, caste, profession, gender (gender-specific gods influence different genders differently, hence the detail), gens, etc.
6.2. Different factions should have different weight over each particular member. And the same faction should weigh on different members differently.
6.3. Each member will always try to spread his personal beliefs (not necessarily religious) against al his factions. The more member and faction align, the bigger weight they cause on each other. The less they align, the less weight and the higher chance of the member to drop from the faction and possibly create a new faction.
6.4. The original factions depend on the gens, familia and profession. Everything else comes naturally.
6.5. The only way to join a faction except from creating one is to have a member that is a member of the same faction as the subject in question, introducing the subject to faction.
6.6. Factions can consolidate if majority are members of both factions and have strong enough weight (matter of balance, non-trivial task).
6.7. Gods themselves can give weight to the "worshipper" faction directly by making the members witness miracles.
6.8. Member that has alignment with a god's value system (close to commandments, but not quite, it's closer to mes the god accumulated and what it represents) has his worship weight fall towards that god's religious faction. However, he must be introduced to that faction first through either 6.5, 6.6 or 6.7.
6.9. Religious factions are always misaligned if gods are hostile to each other. If both religions of gods hostile to each other have the same values, those particular values are ignored by the system. As for miracles, see my previous posts.

I disagree, they are connected through fear.

In it's most rudamentary form, threat assessment may look like this:

    (going with a commandment set of 10)
    If 5 or more commandments are opposite those of the assessing faction: go to war unless a commandment forbids it.
    If certain specific commandments are found in the assessed faction: go to war unless a commandment forbids it.
    If some player miracle tells the faction that the assessed faction needs to be destroyed: go to war.
    If the assessed faction is recruiting from the assessing faction with more strength than the assessing faction can recruit: go to war unless a commandment forbids it.

    If war is prevented by a commandment, this can be overruled if corruption is at a certain threshold.