Each NPC has their own needs and wants. So long as those are met they will not move to another settlement. Players have more influence than the NPCs on how this would work, notably players that have the power to control taxes, land usage, etc (Land owners, Mayors, Counts, etc). If NPCs were in control of said resources, they would self regulate to become a more stable settlement based on their AI needs and wants. If they were unable to regulate, the settlement would likely decline to a lower settlement type until it was able to be regulated by either the managing player(s) or NPC(s).

For instance if a settlement is lacking food and more sustainable farms are created with plots of land granted by the Count for this purpose, the settlement should stabilize more. Another option might be to trade with neighboring settlements.

If there were bandits hijacking traders the settlement , sending a hunting party out to take care of said bandits would ease the tension of the local citizens and they would be more likely to stick around.

I think Haji understands the basic mechanics for how npcs in settlements will react when faced with shortages of food Sport, I think he is asking one step beyond that which I'd like to see an answer for as well.

If the npcs have land they can till, or trades they can make, will they leverage these unused assets and expand and provide more food in an effort to increase sustainability on their own volition?

So far we have heard plenty of examples of npcs going off their needs and if they can't get food and shelter here they will go somewhere there is food and shelter. Well do they have a desire to create More food and shelter first before they just look for warmer climates, or are they more basic than that?

We can all make guesses on what would make sense, but this seems the type of question Snipe or Caspian would have to hit up for a real solid answer.

I personally will not be waiting for the AI taking the initiative. If the community needs food, I'll designate land to that and hope an AI persona takes it. If the community needs a well, or a smithy, I'll make that available and hope a player or AI take advantage of that opportunity.

I don't want to assume that I know what Emperor HajimeSaikou is asking exactly, but I'm very curious about the answer as well.

I certainly don't want the AI expanding my town without my consent.

If I had to guess on what would happen, I don't think the npcs will be able to. If npcs run a fishing village and security is one of the necessities for happiness but the city does not have guards, I think npcs would fill all the roles the city needs at the cost of individual needs. They may have someone act as a guard, that's not a guard. Sooner or later that npc will leave due to it no fulfilling it's true role, the city will reassess and do the same thing again.

As long as they have all the pieces to the puzzle npcs can put the puzzle together but it they are missing a piece they are going to try to jam the square in the circle hole. I think we may have to send them a npc the help fill the role they need but after that, the city could grow as it needs.

Labbe nailed it. Thanks for helping to clarify my question :)

Posted By Ilyria at 12:06 AM - Mon Oct 28 2019

I certainly don't want the AI expanding my town without my consent.

If you are the mayor with majority control, the AI can't do that.

As I specifically stated in my question originally (although somewhat wordily explained), it is only pertaining to NPC settlements that are not owned by a player.

To put it bluntly, in the absence of player (Count, Duke or King) intervention:

will a Non-player owned settlement that is run by an NPC AI Mayor or Elder be able to sort its own shit out with respect to settlement sustainability by expanding trade and/or developing the surrounding land and resources?. Since the settlement is NPC controlled, the only thing that would stop them from doing this is the AI, because there is no player to make the decisions..

Or

Will the AI by default simple pack up and leave the settlement for greener pastures without even trying to expand the settlement and trade and do whatever is necessary to acquire the lacking resources?

I have been working with the assumption that NPC's will simply pack up and move, but I realized that this was indeed an assumption based on information given to us about player owned settlements, not NPC settlements. Hence the question. If the NPC's are in control, will they figure it out for themselves or just move on?

i would hope it is a matter of which is more costly, for anyone not tied down with property that would be costly or impossible to move, or business relationships that would have to be established anew somewhere else if they moved, not to mention the cost of the journey itself and lack of income during it. i hope the npc needs system takes these things into account properly.

i expect the less tied down an npc is at the very least, the more often they will move to more favorable economic locations.

I mean, unless something is really messed up, sustainability will be fixed with a decrease in population. Ergo, 800 mann- settlement can only support around 500. After 300 leave, the sustainability level will balance out, and the others will mostly stay. Bazak makes a good point- definitely makes sense that the strain effects each npc differently- ie. the governor will probably stay the longest due to position. The wealthy may be more likely to weather sustainability issues bc they can afford inflated food prices, shelter, ect, whereas the poor may need to leave, even with just the clothes on their back.

However, I think it important to note that the only difference between npc run and player run settlements is the actual mayor/count//duke/king in charge. So, if a player fixes sustainability issues in 2 weeks (years in game) then many npcs will leave regardless. So, it isn't about if npcs will pack up, but if NPC leaders will have the AI needed to adapt a settlement and order construction, farms, or whathaveyou, in order to fix the sustainability issues, and how effectively they will sort it out (too well, and lords may with their underlings npcs, too poorly and immersion kicks the bucket)

I really, really hope that the NPC AI will be smart enough to improve settlement sustainability as far as 'professions, good production and trade' goes, without player interference.

It'd make no sense if...:

• ...NPCs are capable of migrate some place several counties away because it needs whatever profession they happen to be, but are unable to simply switch to a profession their current settlement needs.
• ... If the system can calculate where people should migrate to live in some place where there's food, but is unable to calculate where traders should go to buy food for the starving village.
• ...NPCs will continue to create goods even if the market for said goods is saturated.
• ...NPCs won't spend gathered taxes to buy additional farmland for starving village, because, no reason...

That said, settlement development feels like it'd be too much of a hands-on process for the AI to be able to manage intelligently (unless SBS is able to hire half a dozen more programmers).

For example, if you mess up on settlement-layout, you'll need more walls and additional defensive structures, which is more expensive to build, maintain and guard. Players can optimize the * beep * out of it, but if building-placement in the video's and screenshots we've seen so far is representative of what the NPC AI would do, you'd definitely want a player to be in control of settlement-layout. I mean, the placement of the buildings in the soundscape video was bad enough to make me want to pull my hair out. Definitely pretty to look at, but a disaster to defend if raiders decide to drop in.

It also wouldn't surprise me if the NPC AI is "slow to act", "sometimes does things double" and "sometimes does weird stuff". The Sims 4 AI is an excellent example. The sims 4 are autonomous enough as to not get themselves killed, most of the time, but you can't expect them to become successful on their own.

/my 2 cents.

I have pretty low expectations with respect to AI overall because that's some seriously complicated stuff. But resource management is an area where I think they can succeed in making an effective AI. At this level, the AI is mainly dealing with data, which is something that a computer can be ruthlessly efficient with.

So in this narrow case, it becomes possible that an NPC mayor/count working tirelessly on a 24/7 schedule and that is not chained to any quaint ideas of morality, ethics or loyalty can quickly outperform players. At least until players learn to adapt. We've probably all experienced this sort of thing in other strategy games we've played.

Posted By Hieronymus at 3:34 PM - Mon Oct 28 2019

I have pretty low expectations with respect to AI overall because that's some seriously complicated stuff. But resource management is an area where I think they can succeed in making an effective AI. At this level, the AI is mainly dealing with data, which is something that a computer can be ruthlessly efficient with.

So in this narrow case, it becomes possible that an NPC mayor/count working tirelessly on a 24/7 schedule and that is not chained to any quaint ideas of morality, ethics or loyalty can quickly outperform players. At least until players learn to adapt. We've probably all experienced this sort of thing in other strategy games we've played.

I am of a similar mind in that right now i'm keeping my expectation of npc decision making to be pretty conservative in scope. I would rather assume npcs are primitive and be pleasantly surprised than have pie-in-the-sky expectations and be disappointed.

Do we want our experienced professionals putting down the tools of their trade to pick up farm implements as amateurs? If possible, I'd rather trade the results of their labors for food and bring in professional farmers and not risk them deciding to stay with farming.

Posted By Vucar at 7:50 PM - Mon Oct 28 2019

Posted By Hieronymus at 3:34 PM - Mon Oct 28 2019

I have pretty low expectations with respect to AI overall because that's some seriously complicated stuff. But resource management is an area where I think they can succeed in making an effective AI. At this level, the AI is mainly dealing with data, which is something that a computer can be ruthlessly efficient with.

So in this narrow case, it becomes possible that an NPC mayor/count working tirelessly on a 24/7 schedule and that is not chained to any quaint ideas of morality, ethics or loyalty can quickly outperform players. At least until players learn to adapt. We've probably all experienced this sort of thing in other strategy games we've played.

I am of a similar mind in that right now i'm keeping my expectation of npc decision making to be pretty conservative in scope. I would rather assume npcs are primitive and be pleasantly surprised than have pie-in-the-sky expectations and be disappointed.

i mean, i would agree with you, but i backed this game on the premise of those pie in the sky npc AI. without them at least being passable, things will probably just fall apart. i don't think its that pie in the sky for them to make npcs that prioritize their needs relatively efficiently, and to choose the patch of least resistance based on their needs. but we will see, if they don't succeed i probably will loose interest in the game.