107 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...


Spellscasting where spells can actually miscast and potions that fail. Weapons can be fumbled.

Retarded. It only encourages reloading and doesn't add anything to the game except frustration. The underlying mechanics of the game should work to lessen RNG factor, not enhance it, making battles a matter of skill and strategic planning rather than an outcome of a  favorable roll of the die. As a player I hate when an outcome of a battle is decided by dumb mechanics like you mentioned. You can do everything right in regards to tactics and still fail because of a fumbled spell, failing potion etc. This doesn't add to great gameplay.

I disagree.  Knowing exactly what the outcome will be renders tactics trivial.  It becomes a pure numbers game.

RNG events produce tactics that rely on probability rather than certainty.  Drinking a potion at some point in the battle will lower your risk, but might not actually be necessary.  How much risk can you tolerate?  How much risk can your character tolerate?

I want RNG events throughout the combat mechanics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I understand what you are saying, but in DAO the rogue can stand right next to the enemy under a light source and set a trap. So unless the rogue is hiding in the enemy's shadow I cannot see the possibility. I can understand abstraction not absurdity. Some gamers are willing to hand wave this aspect while condemning DA2 for Hawke's high jumps. There are parts in both games that stretch believeability.

Certainly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise those absurd features that were added for DA2.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Spellscasting where spells can actually miscast and potions that fail. Weapons can be fumbled.

Retarded. It only encourages reloading and doesn't add anything to the game except frustration. The underlying mechanics of the game should work to lessen RNG factor, not enhance it, making battles a matter of skill and strategic planning rather than an outcome of a  favorable roll of the die. As a player I hate when an outcome of a battle is decided by dumb mechanics like you mentioned. You can do everything right in regards to tactics and still fail because of a fumbled spell, failing potion etc. This doesn't add to great gameplay.

I disagree.  Knowing exactly what the outcome will be renders tactics trivial.  It becomes a pure numbers game.

RNG events produce tactics that rely on probability rather than certainty.  Drinking a potion at some point in the battle will lower your risk, but might not actually be necessary.  How much risk can you tolerate?  How much risk can your character tolerate?

I want RNG events throughout the combat mechanics.

I'm with Sylvius on this one.  The less the RNG is involved, the more boring combat tends to be when playing a stat-based RPG.  When you remove the element of chance, you remove so many of the memorable moments from gaming.  No more will you get that lucky hit that saves you and your party.  No longer will you get the fumble that got your level 8 fighter killed by a kobold.  You know, the things that you remember years and years after they happened, and you and your friends like to reminisce or rib each other about.

Knowing exactly how a plan will play out before you even execute it makes playing it out entirely pointless.

The only place I hate the RNG is for things like save versus instant death, but since DA doesn't have that type of mechanic, it's not something we have to worry about.

[Arppis]

I want to be in more control of the character I am using at the momment (having more control over when he swings and dodges and such). And I would like to be able to issue commands to my squadmates while playing the character I am suposed to play. I always felt that combat pushed me away from roleplaying aspect, because you can actualy control the whole team.

I also don't want the mobs to respawn out of nowhere.

Some decissions for DA2 were bit off imo, but didn't exactly loved the DA:0 combat either. Just give me more control over character and I'll be happy.

Modifié par Arppis, 14 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I understand what you are saying, but in DAO the rogue can stand right next to the enemy under a light source and set a trap. So unless the rogue is hiding in the enemy's shadow I cannot see the possibility. I can understand abstraction not absurdity. Some gamers are willing to hand wave this aspect while condemning DA2 for Hawke's high jumps. There are parts in both games that stretch believeability.

Certainly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise those absurd features that were added for DA2.

I am all for criticism as long as it is applied fairly.

[Ponendus]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RNG events produce tactics that rely on probability rather than certainty.  Drinking a potion at some point in the battle will lower your risk, but might not actually be necessary.  How much risk can you tolerate?  How much risk can your character tolerate?

I want RNG events throughout the combat mechanics.

Absolutely, very well said. RNG has always been a favourite of mine. It adds risk, unpredictability and excitement to a battle. All the things that make a game, well, fun.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Arppis wrote...

I want to be in more control of the character I am using at the momment (having more control over when he swings and dodges and such). And I would like to be able to issue commands to my squadmates while playing the character I am suposed to play. I always felt that combat pushed me away from roleplaying aspect, because you can actualy control the whole team.

I THINK THAT DRAGON AGE SHOULD DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THIS. THERE ARE PLENTY OF ACTION RPGS WHERE YOU HIT DUDES WITH A SWORD, BUT NOT ENOUGH RPGS WHERE YOU USE TEAMWORK AND TACTICS.

[Pzykozis]

Must be the first time I've ever heard RNG being praised.. for me its frustrating and essentially acts as a band aid to support poor encounter design.

Encounters should be interesting in that they should act as a puzzle to be solved, whilst having the actual combat itself challenging at the same time, losing something through no fault of your own is cheap not challenge and is frustrating not fun. Unpredictability should come through unexpected enemy abilties and traps not inherent to the spotting and disarming mechanic, similar to those in Legacy, through sensible reinforcement and enemy tactics. The general combat itself should be challenging and engaging and not requiring your character to randomly suck in accordance with Eris.

[grregg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

(...)

I disagree.  Knowing exactly what the outcome will be renders tactics trivial.  It becomes a pure numbers game.

(...)

Interesting. So would you call chess a tactically trivial game?

The problem with RNG is that it can interact with the save game system in unpleasant ways. It is easy to inadvertently set up a situation where the best choice of action for the player is to reload and try the exact same thing and not to try to improve his tactics.

[Uccio]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Spellscasting where spells can actually miscast and potions that fail. Weapons can be fumbled.

Retarded. It only encourages reloading and doesn't add anything to the game except frustration. The underlying mechanics of the game should work to lessen RNG factor, not enhance it, making battles a matter of skill and strategic planning rather than an outcome of a  favorable roll of the die. As a player I hate when an outcome of a battle is decided by dumb mechanics like you mentioned. You can do everything right in regards to tactics and still fail because of a fumbled spell, failing potion etc. This doesn't add to great gameplay.

I disagree.  Knowing exactly what the outcome will be renders tactics trivial.  It becomes a pure numbers game.

RNG events produce tactics that rely on probability rather than certainty.  Drinking a potion at some point in the battle will lower your risk, but might not actually be necessary.  How much risk can you tolerate?  How much risk can your character tolerate?

I want RNG events throughout the combat mechanics.

I'm with Sylvius on this one.  The less the RNG is involved, the more boring combat tends to be when playing a stat-based RPG.  When you remove the element of chance, you remove so many of the memorable moments from gaming.  No more will you get that lucky hit that saves you and your party.  No longer will you get the fumble that got your level 8 fighter killed by a kobold.  You know, the things that you remember years and years after they happened, and you and your friends like to reminisce or rib each other about.

Knowing exactly how a plan will play out before you even execute it makes playing it out entirely pointless.

The only place I hate the RNG is for things like save versus instant death, but since DA doesn't have that type of mechanic, it's not something we have to worry about.

Good point, seconded.

[Realmzmaster]

grregg wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

(...)

I disagree.  Knowing exactly what the outcome will be renders tactics trivial.  It becomes a pure numbers game.

(...)

Interesting. So would you call chess a tactically trivial game?

The problem with RNG is that it can interact with the save game system in unpleasant ways. It is easy to inadvertently set up a situation where the best choice of action for the player is to reload and try the exact same thing and not to try to improve his tactics.

All chess games if played correctly will result in a draw. It requires an error on your opponent's part to achieve a win not just your strategy. Otherwise if both players execute their strategy to perfection the game is a draw. The best generals knew that while chess can be used to simulate warfare it could not take into account random factors like weather, the incompentenace of a subordinate or the inherent fear or bravery soldiers may have. 

One of the better roleplaying system called Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye) allows you to create your characters with advantages and disadvantages. For example a wizard who has a phobia for water meaning the wizard will not use water spells even if the wizard knows how to cast them. That helps to define the character.  A RNG event could allow that wizard to get lucky and actually cast a water spell at a needed time otherwise it will never happen. What is being asked are characters that never make mistakes. 

Like I said previously gamers want to pick and choose their realism (for lack of a better word). 

As far as reloading gamers are going to do that any way. If the party loses the battle the gamer will reload and of couse change tactics until the gamer finds the winning combination. That is coming down to just a numbers game as 
Sylvius the Mad stated. RNG adds unpredictability into the mix making you change your tactics on the fly like a general has to in real battle.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 avril 2012 - 05:47 .

[grregg]

As far as I know the optimal chess strategy has never been found, i.e. there is no proof that a game must end in a draw if players do not make mistakes. Have I missed something? Link?

I think you misunderstood my second point. If a player reloads and changes the tactics, that's fine and to be expected. The presence of RNG can have an undesired effect though, that the best strategy for the player is to reload and try the exact same thing, simply hoping for the RNG to give him better results.

The often cited definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results, but an RNG can essentially make insanity a valid combat strategy. That's rarely a good thing.

By the way, that's one reason why you rarely see truly deadly weapons in RPG games.

[seraphymon]

I agree executing a chess strategy to perfection om noth sides does not equal draw. There are still variable factors such as chaing on the fly in accordance to your opponents movements. As well as your strategy maybe the weakness of someone else strategy, so even though you execute to perfection you still lose.

Bad luck deciding wether you win or lose i feel is stupid. Always has been.

[Realmzmaster]

grregg wrote...

As far as I know the optimal chess strategy has never been found, i.e. there is no proof that a game must end in a draw if players do not make mistakes. Have I missed something? Link?

I think you misunderstood my second point. If a player reloads and changes the tactics, that's fine and to be expected. The presence of RNG can have an undesired effect though, that the best strategy for the player is to reload and try the exact same thing, simply hoping for the RNG to give him better results.

The often cited definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results, but an RNG can essentially make insanity a valid combat strategy. That's rarely a good thing.

By the way, that's one reason why you rarely see truly deadly weapons in RPG games.

Yes they could reload and try to get a better result but it can also lead to a worse result. So there is a consequence to the action. RNG events make you accept the first occurance unless you wish to gamble on something better happening. 

William Steinitz ( World Champion from 1886-1894 ) wrote in his book Modern Chess Instructor  (Nabu Press ISBN: 1171767900)

In the sixth chapter that begins on page xxxi, Steinitz wrote  “…it is now conceded by all experts that by proper play on both sides the legitimate issue of a game ought to be a draw…”

 He further continues on the next page:

“The principal thesis of the modern school may be briefly summarized thus: … by best play on both sides a draw ought to be the legitimate result.”

[Urazz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

If you want to talk about animations. The over the top animations in DA2 are actually used in a real martial art.

Not while weilding weapons that outweigh their user, they're not. 

I do not think the daggers weigh anywhere near a person's weight. In fact the I believe the heaviest weapon in DAO is about 9 lbs. I could be wrong.

Assuming they have the same density as steel, I calculated the mass of some of the two-handed weapons as being north of 40 kg.

Actually 2 handed swords aren't that heavy so there is not reason why 2 handed swords cannot be swung fast like they are in DA2.  The only hard part about swinging 2 handed swords is that the mass of the sword causes more wider swings than you would get with a normal sword.  So unless you are trying to stop swinging your 2 handed sword in mid swing then you really won't be tired out that easily fighting with a 2 handed sword.

In DA2, we do see 2 handed weapons use bigger swing animations than regular swords.

Anyways, on combat, I prefer DA2's combat system.  I myself never really felt the need to really control my party members all that much once I got the tactic AI set up for them.  I only took control of them to move them away from danger real quick if it was needed.

Modifié par Urazz, 15 avril 2012 - 12:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Urazz wrote...

Actually 2 handed swords aren't that heavy

Look at them.  The DA2 swords have blades that are 10 cm thick.

Yes, real two-handed swords aren't that heavy, but real two-handed swords aren't nearly as big as DA2's swords.

If they made the swords a more realistic size, then I would be more willing to accept the faster animations. 

NWN had great swords.  Use those proportions again.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 16 avril 2012 - 05:15 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

grregg wrote...

Interesting. So would you call chess a tactically trivial game?

Against a scripted computer opponent, yes.

Chess is computationally complex, not tactically.  As long as you can foresee all of the possible outcomes, you can make perfect decisions in chess.  But if Knights could, under some unknown circumstances, move to any point on the board, you can no longer plan for that.  But if you know the chances of that happening, then you can make decisions based on risk-assessment.

The problem with RNG is that it can interact with the save game system in unpleasant ways. It is easy to inadvertently set up a situation where the best choice of action for the player is to reload and try the exact same thing and not to try to improve his tactics.

Reloading is a metagame concern.  I don't see why it matters if some player wants to reload. All that matters is the in-game reality.

[seraphymon]

its not about wanting to reload its about having to reload. and if its and already bad result, it doesnt matter if its made worse, since that just means another reload.

and that chess thins was over 100 years ago. I dont buy it at all. Theoratically thats prolly what should occur, but i dont think it does.

[Mr Fixit]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wowpwnslol wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Spellscasting where spells can actually miscast and potions that fail. Weapons can be fumbled.

Retarded. It only encourages reloading and doesn't add anything to the game except frustration. The underlying mechanics of the game should work to lessen RNG factor, not enhance it, making battles a matter of skill and strategic planning rather than an outcome of a  favorable roll of the die. As a player I hate when an outcome of a battle is decided by dumb mechanics like you mentioned. You can do everything right in regards to tactics and still fail because of a fumbled spell, failing potion etc. This doesn't add to great gameplay.

I disagree.  Knowing exactly what the outcome will be renders tactics trivial.  It becomes a pure numbers game.

RNG events produce tactics that rely on probability rather than certainty.  Drinking a potion at some point in the battle will lower your risk, but might not actually be necessary.  How much risk can you tolerate?  How much risk can your character tolerate?

I want RNG events throughout the combat mechanics.

I'm with Sylvius on this one.  The less the RNG is involved, the more boring combat tends to be when playing a stat-based RPG.  When you remove the element of chance, you remove so many of the memorable moments from gaming.  No more will you get that lucky hit that saves you and your party.  No longer will you get the fumble that got your level 8 fighter killed by a kobold.  You know, the things that you remember years and years after they happened, and you and your friends like to reminisce or rib each other about.

Knowing exactly how a plan will play out before you even execute it makes playing it out entirely pointless.

The only place I hate the RNG is for things like save versus instant death, but since DA doesn't have that type of mechanic, it's not something we have to worry about.

Add me as well to the camp of "RNG good". I particularly like your examples. Situations like those you mentioned were among my favorite RP mementos.

[Silva2005]

Thori wrote...

Some of you talk about easier tactic system in DA2, but every time I would order my tank to protect the vulnerable team member, he would disobey. Many tactical orders I would give to my team members in DA2 would be disobeyed. That never happened in DAO. If I told Sten to protect Wynne he would stand beside her even if that means only Zevran and I are fighting the bulk of the enemy. And DA2 animations as "real martial arts" is really unnecessary.

This drove me nuts in DA2, especially with the waves of adds that came in and always took offense to my ranged companions instead of heading to the plate wearer. I felt like I spent as much time running around 'saving' my companions as I did killing the bad guys at times.

Origins had a lot of fights that required you to consider who dies first and what companion to send where which was missing a lot from the second game. I didnt mind the waves of adds so much in DA2 because it did make fights very dynamic but i think it was overused.

I did like that they took out the friendly fire for Mages in the second game which stopped a lot of the micromanaging that was needed in Origins. The combat graphics also got a massive upgrade for casters even if they were a bit over the top for melee classes. I played a rogue in both games so I kinda liked that the special attacks actually looked a bit more special in DA2.

I'm hoping they continue with the companion specific specialisation trees in the next game as it was good to have party members who werent just another generic rogue/warrior/mage. Some of them were a bit ordinary but others were done really well (Fenris for example)

Modifié par Silva2005, 15 avril 2012 - 01:25 .

[grregg]

@Realmzmaster

I hate to contradict Mr Steinitz, but he is not correct. Again, chess has not been solved, and as a result we do not know whether the optimal play results in a draw. If you have seen a mathematical proof, please point it out. For comparison, checkers have been solved, see Schaeffer et al.

@Sylvius

Not sure what you mean by a scripted opponent. Scripted as in making the same moves every time? Or scripted as in a program?

Regardless of this, still I don't see a fundamental difference between analyzing a chess position and analyzing a probabilistic game. In chess if I make a move, the opponent has, say, 20 possible responses. I have to analyze all of them since I don't know which one he'll choose. In DA-type of game, I instruct a character to, say, attack and the outcome is dictated by an RNG. Still the overall space of outcomes is known and I can analyze them all, right? The outcomes will be miss, hit for 4 points, hit for 5 points, ..., hit for 17 points, you get the idea.

How is one analysis fundamentally different from the other? A tree is a tree.

About reloading, it might be a meta-game concern, but it does affect the game design. I imagine that a game would have to be designed very differently depending on whether it allows reloading or not. If so, then we cannot ignore it.

[Realmzmaster]

grregg wrote...

@Realmzmaster

I hate to contradict Mr Steinitz, but he is not correct. Again, chess has not been solved, and as a result we do not know whether the optimal play results in a draw. If you have seen a mathematical proof, please point it out. For comparison, checkers have been solved, see Schaeffer et al.

@Sylvius

Not sure what you mean by a scripted opponent. Scripted as in making the same moves every time? Or scripted as in a program?

Regardless of this, still I don't see a fundamental difference between analyzing a chess position and analyzing a probabilistic game. In chess if I make a move, the opponent has, say, 20 possible responses. I have to analyze all of them since I don't know which one he'll choose. In DA-type of game, I instruct a character to, say, attack and the outcome is dictated by an RNG. Still the overall space of outcomes is known and I can analyze them all, right? The outcomes will be miss, hit for 4 points, hit for 5 points, ..., hit for 17 points, you get the idea.

How is one analysis fundamentally different from the other? A tree is a tree.

About reloading, it might be a meta-game concern, but it does affect the game design. I imagine that a game would have to be designed very differently depending on whether it allows reloading or not. If so, then we cannot ignore it.

I know checkers has been solved. The checkers program Chinook was retired because it could beat every human and finally solved checkers to the point that mathematically it will end in a draw with perfect play. Chess has been weakly solved  so far, but the tests on chess playing computers points to the same conclusion as checkers the game will end in a draw. At the present moment that is what's available. Until a chess program disproves the assumption made by one of the grandmasters of chess and no other living master has stated otherwise I will go with that assumption. 
I see no where that mathematicians has disproved the assumption.

[Realmzmaster]

grregg wrote...

@Realmzmaster

I hate to contradict Mr Steinitz, but he is not correct. Again, chess has not been solved, and as a result we do not know whether the optimal play results in a draw. If you have seen a mathematical proof, please point it out. For comparison, checkers have been solved, see Schaeffer et al.

@Sylvius

Not sure what you mean by a scripted opponent. Scripted as in making the same moves every time? Or scripted as in a program?

Regardless of this, still I don't see a fundamental difference between analyzing a chess position and analyzing a probabilistic game. In chess if I make a move, the opponent has, say, 20 possible responses. I have to analyze all of them since I don't know which one he'll choose. In DA-type of game, I instruct a character to, say, attack and the outcome is dictated by an RNG. Still the overall space of outcomes is known and I can analyze them all, right? The outcomes will be miss, hit for 4 points, hit for 5 points, ..., hit for 17 points, you get the idea.

How is one analysis fundamentally different from the other? A tree is a tree.

About reloading, it might be a meta-game concern, but it does affect the game design. I imagine that a game would have to be designed very differently depending on whether it allows reloading or not. If so, then we cannot ignore it.

The game does not have to be designed differently. You can choose to reload or not. That is not an in game decision. Hack and other roguelike games used permanent death. If your character die the save file was erased and the character retired to the graveyard. Players simply found where the game kept the save file and copied it periodically. Death still happen it simply meant you lost any progress up to your last copied save.  Or you could play the game as intended with permanent death and you rolled a new character. The choice was up to the gamer.

The same with gamers who played Ironman rules in Wizardry. The game only saved upon exit and one save file. If the character died save file was deleted. The player had to check a box if the the gamer wanted to play by those rules. The game simply enforced the players wishes. 

If the player wishes to reload that is not a concern of the designer and should not influence how the game is designed.

[philippe willaume]

Urazz wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

If you want to talk about animations. The over the top animations in DA2 are actually used in a real martial art.

Not while weilding weapons that outweigh their user, they're not. 

I do not think the daggers weigh anywhere near a person's weight. In fact the I believe the heaviest weapon in DAO is about 9 lbs. I could be wrong.

Assuming they have the same density as steel, I calculated the mass of some of the two-handed weapons as being north of 40 kg.

Actually 2 handed swords aren't that heavy so there is not reason why 2 handed swords cannot be swung fast like they are in DA2.  The only hard part about swinging 2 handed swords is that the mass of the sword causes more wider swings than you would get with a normal sword.  So unless you are trying to stop swinging your 2 handed sword in mid swing then you really won't be tired out that easily fighting with a 2 handed sword.

In DA2, we do see 2 handed weapons use bigger swing animations than regular swords.

Anyways, on combat, I prefer DA2's combat system.  I myself never really felt the need to really control my party members all that much once I got the tactic AI set up for them.  I only took control of them to move them away from danger real quick if it was needed.

Yes I do agree.
make THS closer to reality (that means being significantly better in damage as well), and thrusting based pole arm should really be faster.
Two weapons style  with a THS should give you the opportunity to wrestle or use the pommel or the quillons or with pole weapons the haft or the butt or the bottom end dagger.

but i think the point being made is that if you are using stupidly big THS aka Bio Force Sword 9000/FF n then they should not be that fast.
Now, the difference with sword and buclkler and Two-handed sword, in the ringeck manuscript is 6 pieces and when fighting with messer (sword mounted like knife or one handed sword you are using two handed sword technique with a one handed weapon.
When you fight in armour, well your armour is an integral shield and you can use your armoured fore-arm to deflect incoming cut or thrust. as you would with a shield.
 
Personally I think that ability to used the same principle to all weapon should be the warrior differentiator as opposed to the weapon they use.phil