167 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Provi-dance wrote...

I'll also point out that I'd want enemies to function within and under the same attribute rules like the player character.  I don't want the DA2 aka Alice in Wonderland situation.

Well, yes.  In DA2, Hawke's HPs don't increase by level, but his enemies' surely do.  How many hit points does a generic bandit have in Act 2?  10 times as many as Hawke?  How does that make any sense?

[Wulfram]

Provi-dance wrote...

I'll also point out that I'd want enemies to function within and under the same attribute rules like the player character.  I don't want the DA2 aka Alice in Wonderland situation.

I don't think they necessarily need to function under exactly the same rules, but something that's at least in the same ballpark would be nice.  So that Friendly Fire can be done sensibly and not just on Insanity, for one thing.

And I'd like to see them using the same sort of talents too.  Rather than the enemy Mages acting totally different from party mages.

[Maclimes]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't think they necessarily need to function under exactly the same rules, but something that's at least in the same ballpark would be nice.  So that Friendly Fire can be done sensibly and not just on Insanity, for one thing.

And I'd like to see them using the same sort of talents too.  Rather than the enemy Mages acting totally different from party mages.

I agree with this. Enemies don't need to have Strength, Con, Will, Magic, Dex, etc etc. They don't need to have 20 talent trees with one or two points in a few. They just need the derived stats. HP, MP, Dodge %, Hit %, Resistances, etc. But it needs to be approximately in line with what the player's characters are.

It seems like DA2's answer to the question of "How do we increase the difficulty?" was to simply say "More bad guys! More health on bad guys!". That's not the answer.

The answer is "Smarter bad guys." Let bad guys use potions, let them be prepared for battle. Let them coordinate to take down important characters. Let them try to tank me. I want the battles to be winnable, but if I'm playing on Nightmare difficulty, I want to EARN it.

[Realmzmaster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fire Emblem is great for attributes. Because it's random you can't really plan on getting a particular character. Sometimes you might get a super human version , sometimes you might get a real gimp.

No random in my character generation, please. The sacred cow that is rolling dice for attributes in D&D is bad enough - now that we're not using D&D, let's reap the benefits. I want full control over my PC's growth, not less - and random, at that.

The benefit of randomness is it forces people out of their comfort zones.

That is only if the gamer is force to take the initial roll otherwise they simply keep rolling until the desired stats are obtained.

Random encounters in D & D based crpgs does not force one out of their comfort zone. In fact gamers used them to game the system. Randomness can be good or bad. If you have a party and the random encounter is one that requires magical weapons of spells to hit then for a low level party it is basically reload because the only companion that will be able to hit the creature is the mage who has a limited number of spells.

The only way to avoid that situation is to have a modified random encounter where depending on level the random enounter is take from a limited creature pool that mataches party level.

Random encounters are good in that they can be used to grind up levels.

[Provi-dance]

Maclimes wrote...


I agree with this. Enemies don't need to have Strength, Con, Will, Magic, Dex, etc etc. They don't need to have 20 talent trees with one or two points in a few. They just need the derived stats. HP, MP, Dodge %, Hit %, Resistances, etc. But it needs to be approximately in line with what the player's characters are.

 

This is baffling... Why would they need to design a completely new system for enemies if they design a good and robust underlying system for both? There's no logic in this.

[Wulfram]

I think the HP inflation in enemies wasn't so much about increasing damage as it was allowing you to inflict big damage numbers. Because big numbers are cool.

[Maclimes]

Provi-dance wrote...

Maclimes wrote...


I agree with this. Enemies don't need to have Strength, Con, Will, Magic, Dex, etc etc. They don't need to have 20 talent trees with one or two points in a few. They just need the derived stats. HP, MP, Dodge %, Hit %, Resistances, etc. But it needs to be approximately in line with what the player's characters are.

 

This is baffling... Why would they need to design a completely new system for enemies if they design a good and robust underlying system for both? There's no logic in this.

Because then every single enemy needs to have every single state programmed in. Who CARES what the Magic score for a Melee Bandit is? Who cares if he got a 75% hit chance because he put X points into Dexterity, took X Ability from this tree, and then X Ability from another tree, and has a +X% bonus from his weapon and another bonus from his ring? All that matters, for enemies, is that he has a 75% hit chance. No need to go any deeper than that.

[Provi-dance]

Maclimes wrote...


Because then every single enemy needs to have every single state programmed in. Who CARES what the Magic score for a Melee Bandit is? Who cares if he got a 75% hit chance because he put X points into Dexterity, took X Ability from this tree, and then X Ability from another tree, and has a +X% bonus from his weapon and another bonus from his ring? All that matters, for enemies, is that he has a 75% hit chance. No need to go any deeper than that.

Because it adds depth? It allows for spells that would lower enemy attributes? It would allow for spells that would check against the willpower score of an enemy to calculate the outcome? It would allow abilities that would check dex vs dex or str vs str? Level vs level?

Things like that, you know.

Also, building enemies on the fly without a stable foundation (attributes, stats, feats) leads to the ridiculousness of DA2 enemies.

And you paint it way too oh-so-difficult.. there's no "programming" involved in designing an enemy once the systems are set and programmed. Have you ever used the nwn1/2 toolset? You obviously haven't. Enemies have all the stats that the player character has and it's not a chore to design them.

Modifié par Provi-dance, 13 juillet 2012 - 08:41 .

[Maclimes]

Provi-dance wrote...

And you paint it way too oh-so-difficult.. there's no "programming" involved in designing an enemy once the systems are set and programmed. Have you ever used the nwn1/2 toolset? You obviously haven't. Enemies have all the stats that the player character has and it's not a chore to design them.

Nonsense. In the more "streamlined" system, if I want to add a new enemy, I need to input his hit chance, damage, health, armor, and any abilities he may have. In the more advanced system, I need to input his every attribute, even irrelevant ones, every skill, all items, weapon modifiers, equipment modifiers, and THEN I have to make sure that the end result matches the end result I was going for anyway. When I could have just put in the end result, and be done with it.

NOW, I'm not saying that way is bad. In some games, it's in fact the best way. Take Skyrim, where you can loot every item. Then suddenly, we DO need to track how the enemy's items are affecting his stats. At that point, you might as well just make them full characters. I get that.

But for Dragon Age, which doesn't use that system, and doesn't have spells that increase or decrease anything based on attributes or anything like that, it's unnecessary. Dragon Age spells lend more towards "Decrease Attack Speed", not "Decrease Dexterity, which happens to also decrease attack speed, and a host of other things".

Unless you are building the ENTIRE SYSTEM to take advantage of it, there's no point. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I love games like that, such as Skyrim and NWN. BUT, some games are better off just going for a more simplistic approach. And Dragon Age, I believe, is one of those games.

[Provi-dance]

Maclimes wrote...


Nonsense. In the more "streamlined" system, if I want to add a new enemy, I need to input his hit chance, damage, health, armor, and any abilities he may have. In the more advanced system, I need to input his every attribute, even irrelevant ones, every skill, all items, weapon modifiers, equipment modifiers, and THEN I have to make sure that the end result matches the end result I was going for anyway. When I could have just put in the end result, and be done with it.

NOW, I'm not saying that way is bad. In some games, it's in fact the best way. Take Skyrim, where you can loot every item. Then suddenly, we DO need to track how the enemy's items are affecting his stats. At that point, you might as well just make them full characters. I get that.

But for Dragon Age, which doesn't use that system, and doesn't have spells that increase or decrease anything based on attributes or anything like that, it's unnecessary. Dragon Age spells lend more towards "Decrease Attack Speed", not "Decrease Dexterity, which happens to also decrease attack speed, and a host of other things".

Unless you are building the ENTIRE SYSTEM to take advantage of it, there's no point. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I love games like that, such as Skyrim and NWN. BUT, some games are better off just going for a more simplistic approach. And Dragon Age, I believe, is one of those games.

Right, you need to input even the enemy's DNA code..

Hey Maclimes, I have a revelation for you, there are things like, oh.. preset enemy archetypes, so you modify the stats you want to modify. You don't need to input every single stat in the universe.

I don't want butchered enemy stats because you or a developer feels lazy and frankly your tirade against a system that wouldn't butcher and remove the majority of stats from the enemy isn't very persuasive.

Let's imagine a charm person spell in the DA universe. I charm this lovely bandit and look at his character sheet.. what do I see? An alien!
I don't want humanlike alien bandits. I want non-butchered enemies with a solid attribute background, that my character can somehow be compared to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maclimes wrote...

Nonsense. In the more "streamlined" system, if I want to add a new enemy, I need to input his hit chance, damage, health, armor, and any abilities he may have. In the more advanced system, I need to input his every attribute, even irrelevant ones, every skill, all items, weapon modifiers, equipment modifiers, and THEN I have to make sure that the end result matches the end result I was going for anyway. When I could have just put in the end result, and be done with it.

Because designing the game around specific damage outputs and HP levels is designing the encounter backward.  you shouldn't be trying to create a specific encounter experience.  You should be placing an encounter that suits the setting, and letting the difficulty arise naturally.

If you have a ruleset that works, then you can drop in a bandit of a certain level and he'll be an appropriate challenge.  But if you make up ad hoc creatures to produce an encounter of a specific difficulty, or to encourage a specific tactical approach on the part of the player, you've done nothing but damaged player agency and risked breaking your setting.

[Maclimes]

Provi-dance wrote...
Right, you need to input even the enemy's DNA code..

Hey Maclimes, I have a revelation for you, there are things like, oh.. preset enemy archetypes, so you modify the stats you want to modify. You don't need to input every single stat in the universe.

I don't want butchered enemy stats because you or a developer feels lazy and frankly your tirade against a system that wouldn't butcher and remove the majority of stats from the enemy isn't very persuasive.

Let's imagine a charm person spell in the DA universe. I charm this lovely bandit and look at his character sheet.. what do I see? An alien!
I don't want humanlike alien bandits. I want non-butchered enemies with a solid attribute background, that my character can somehow be compared to.

But there is no Charm Person spell in the DA Universe! You're trying to build a system around complete hypotheticals. Why NOT build their entire DNA code? Imagine a spell that lets you change their genetics one piece at a time, now I suddenly need that information. No. That's just absurd. If you can achieve the EXACT same result with less work, to not do so is insane.

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Nonsense. In the more "streamlined" system, if I want to add a new enemy, I need to input his hit chance, damage, health, armor, and any abilities he may have. In the more advanced system, I need to input his every attribute, even irrelevant ones, every skill, all items, weapon modifiers, equipment modifiers, and THEN I have to make sure that the end result matches the end result I was going for anyway. When I could have just put in the end result, and be done with it.

Because designing the game around specific damage outputs and HP levels is designing the encounter backward.  you shouldn't be trying to create a specific encounter experience.  You should be placing an encounter that suits the setting, and letting the difficulty arise naturally.

If you have a ruleset that works, then you can drop in a bandit of a certain level and he'll be an appropriate challenge.  But if you make up ad hoc creatures to produce an encounter of a specific difficulty, or to encourage a specific tactical approach on the part of the player, you've done nothing but damaged player agency and risked breaking your setting.

That's a far more coherent argument.  Thank you.

Did DA:O do the "full invisible character sheet" thing? I know DA2 didn't. That's obvious just fighting them. The insanely different health bars being a big clue.

[Provi-dance]

Maclimes wrote...


But there is no Charm Person spell in the DA Universe! You're trying to build a system around complete hypotheticals. Why NOT build their entire DNA code? Imagine a spell that lets you change their genetics one piece at a time, now I suddenly need that information. No. That's just absurd. If you can achieve the EXACT same result with less work, to not do so is insane.

Right, it doesn't have the charm person spell. That's too hardcore for the DA setting.
Indeed, I'm trying to build a system around.. a ruleset that has the PC and the rest of the world function using the same attributes and stats. That's lots of "hypotheticals" considering how it all worked in DA2, I agree.

Sure, why not build a system with the DNA code in mind, right!? It would be awesome! Or even better, how about the player takes a DNA and IQ test and then you input it to your computer and have the game make an appropriate character for you to play? That'd be a really realistic approach. It would set your character's genetical weaknesses, ability to understand (intelligence), etc.

Also, I'm glad Sylvius explained it to you in a way you can understand. After years and years of rpg forum debates, he mastered the art.

[Maclimes]

Provi-dance wrote...

Right, it doesn't have the charm person spell. That's too hardcore for the DA setting.

And yet ... you are using it as an argument for inclusion in DA? That doesn't make any sense. Does it belong in DA or not? If not, what the heck are you even talking about?

Provi-dance wrote... 
Indeed, I'm trying to build a system around.. a ruleset that has the PC and the rest of the world function using the same attributes and stats. That's lots of "hypotheticals" considering how it all worked in DA2, I agree.

Sure, why not build a system with the DNA code in mind, right!? It would be awesome! Or even better, how about the player takes a DNA and IQ test and then you input it to your computer and have the game make an appropriate character for you to play? That'd be a really realistic approach. It would set your character's genetical weaknesses, ability to understand (intelligence), etc.

Look, I'm not saying that full control over details isn't awesome. It is. I would love to play a game that goes into such crazy detail that I my hero's children would have their stats generated by comparing the parent's, and that every single enemy has a life story. I would LOVE that game.

But that is not Dragon Age. That's what it boils down to. I'm not saying your ideas are bad. I'm saying that if you keep looking for them in a DA game, you're going to be sorely dissapointed. I love spaceships, too, but I don't need to see them in Dragon Age.

[Wulfram]

DA2 does have something of a Charm Person spell. "Blood Slave", which forces enemies to fight along side your party for a time.

[MichaelStuart]

I don't see anything wrong with enemies being able to do stuff I can't.
In real life lots of people can do stuff i can't.
Why should games be any different.

[Maclimes]

Wulfram wrote...

DA2 does have something of a Charm Person spell. "Blood Slave", which forces enemies to fight along side your party for a time.

True. But you can't exactly go into their character sheet and examine their stats and equipment. I don't think it's quite what Provi-dance meant.

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't see anything wrong with enemies being able to do stuff I can't.
In real life lots of people can do stuff i can't.
Why should games be any different.

 

HA! A valid point.

Modifié par Maclimes, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:02 .

[Provi-dance]

Maclimes wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

Right, it doesn't have the charm person spell. That's too hardcore for the DA setting.

And yet ... you are using it as an argument for inclusion in DA? That doesn't make any sense. Does it belong in DA or not? If not, what the heck are you even talking about?

I was being sarcastic.
There's nothing hardcore about the charm spell and as it's been pointed out there is a form of the charm spell in DA.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maclimes wrote...

Did DA:O do the "full invisible character sheet" thing?

It did not.  But that their absence wasn't immediately obvious was a strength of the game.

MichaelStuart wrote...

I don't see anything wrong with enemies being able to do stuff I can't.
In real life lots of people can do stuff i can't.
Why should games be any different.

The list of things you can do is different from the list of things you could do.

DA2's problem is that it lets the enemies do not only things that Hawke can't do, but things that Hawke couldn't ever do because the rules of the universe forbid them.  That's the problem.

Like having 20,000 hit points.  How can enemies in DA2 have 20,000 hit points when Hawke has only 1% that many?

[Maclimes]

Provi-dance wrote...

I was being sarcastic.

Really? If only I had some way of determing your tone so I could have known that...

Anyway, yes yes. The point is, Dragon Age is NOT a complex, deep RPG, and likely never will be.

[Fallstar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Like having 20,000 hit points.  How can enemies in DA2 have 20,000 hit points when Hawke has only 1% that many?

It was actually far worse than that in some cases.

http://www.imgplace....20110327182.jpg  Courtesy of IN1

Way over 200k hitpoints.

When a boss has over a thousand times your health (by the looks of that pic over three thousand times) you know there's a major problem with your player damage balancing.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 13 juillet 2012 - 10:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I was intentionally excluding bosses from the analysis. Boss battles are themselves a problem that I think needs to be fixed (removed), but even ordinary enemies who should have been roughly comparable to Hawke had 100 times as many hit points.

This is why friendly fire was so broken.

[Maclimes]

DuskWarden wrote...

It was actually far worse than that in some cases.

http://www.imgplace....20110327182.jpg  Courtesy of IN1

Way over 200k hitpoints.

When a boss has over a thousand times your health (by the looks of that pic over three thousand times) you know there's a major problem with your player damage balancing.

I agree that's absurd, but I think the problem has more to do with damage vs health scaling, regardless of PC or NPC. 

[Provi-dance]

DuskWarden wrote...


It was actually far worse than that in some cases.

http://www.imgplace....20110327182.jpg  Courtesy of IN1

Way over 200k hitpoints.

When a boss has over a thousand times your health (by the looks of that pic over three thousand times) you know there's a major problem with your player damage balancing.

 

Yep, a Bioware employee, I think it was Stanley... once said that [(they think) - added by me] people like big numbers. The accent is obviously on they think.

Sure, if you're 10 years old you love huge numbers in video games. At a young age people mostly tend to neglect the importance of relativity. Everything is an absolute and it's wooo..w!