809 réponses à ce sujet

[Taint Master]

xkg wrote...
Not analogous, but it does perfectly shows the flaws of your entire "skipping part of the game == playing the wrong genre" argument.

You said "If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre".

1). "If someone hates combat"
"Someone wants to skip the combat"  =/=  "He hates the combat."

2). "they're clearly playing the wrong genre"
Then why would the developer put an auto resolve match button in football-simulator genre game.
Why is there an auto resolve battle button in a game, that is in 90% about fighting those battles.
For whom are those buttons ?

No, those games are about building your team/army and calling plays/formations.  Combat/gameplay isn't nearly as hands-on and wins/losses don't effect story progression... since neither of those games are even about story.

Yes, It would trivialize the game for ME, wouldn't for YOU 
Yes, spec/class choices would make no difference in MY game, it would for YOURS. 
Yes, gear would have no meaning  ...  (see the above)---^
Yes, no strategy for ME, YOU can have it all.

Yes, I would be able to play the game to MY likings, and that wouldn't affect YOU nor YOUR game in the slighest.


So one more time, lets go back to my earlier question:

Why exactly are you against this OPTION?

And what is the point of planning out a spec, gearing out your character or even bothering to learn the game mechanics at all if that is an option? 

Sure some may enjoy combat for its own sake (I do to an extent) but just as important is the sense of accomplishment when you finally beat a hard boss, or solve a difficult puzzle.  You know, playing the actual game part.  Simply having auto-win as an option cheapens the entire experience.

For example, finally beating the Cauthrien fight on hard in DAO was one of the most satisfying kills I've had in an RPG.  Heck, even on easy she's no walk in the park.  If you could just auto-kill her entire squad then beating her holds no meaning, even if I choose not to use it. 

It's odd to me that someone above tried to twist this into me hating RP and wanting a "hack and slash."  If anything I'm more in favor of RP than the people asking for this change.  You're supposed to be RPing a legend.  The player should have to earn that title.

Modifié par Taint Master, 16 juillet 2013 - 10:41 .

[Ieldra]

Taint Master wrote...
For example, finally beating the Cauthrien fight on hard in DAO was one of the most satisfying kills I've had in an RPG.  Heck, even on easy she's no walk in the park.  If you could just auto-kill her entire squad then beating her holds no meaning, even if I choose not to use it.

So why not implement an auto-win button in lower difficulties only? I understand the point. I felt the same when I got the Grim Reaper achievement in DAO. Nonetheless, I don't want to play that way all the time. An auto-resolve button doesn't make sense on higher difficulties anyway, since if you choose them, you obviously play for the challenge. Still, having it avaiable in lower difficulties improves them the experience for those who play for the story, even if they rarely use it.

The Cauthrien fight illustrates something that needs to be taken into account though: This is a fight you aren't meant to win. That becomes clear both from the extreme difficulty as well as the fact that you lose content - and most interesting content, gameplay-wise - by winning it. It would be acceptable to disable any auto-win functionality for such a fight. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juillet 2013 - 10:50 .

[xkg]

Taint Master wrote...

xkg wrote...
Not analogous, but it does perfectly shows the flaws of your entire "skipping part of the game == playing the wrong genre" argument.

You said "If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre".

1). "If someone hates combat"
"Someone wants to skip the combat"  =/=  "He hates the combat."

2). "they're clearly playing the wrong genre"
Then why would the developer put an auto resolve match button in football-simulator genre game.
Why is there an auto resolve battle button in a game, that is in 90% about fighting those battles.
For whom are those buttons ?

No, those games are about building your team/army and calling plays/formations.  Combat/gameplay isn't nearly as hands-on and wins/losses don't effect story progression... since neither of those games are even about story.

I am really near the "omfg [put some insults here]" point, but no, I won't do that.

If you still can't see any connection, I'll try to explain it for the last time

"those games are about building your army" and the main point of doing this is to use these armies to fight the battles. If you like you can skip these battles. But the main point of the game is to fight these battles.
You can skip the main part of the game if you want.

"those games are about building your team and calling plays/formations" and the main point  of doing this (and like the above, the main point of the game) is to play a football match with those teams that you have built, yet there is an option to skip it.

I should also mention that in both cases, there is an option to skip the less relevant parts of these games (team/army building) by setting autobuild cities/armies or in case of FIFA jumping straigth into a match.


Dragon Age, here you are building a team to
1) progress through the story
and to
2) fight the battle.

You can already skip the story (just skip the cutscenes/dialogues and ignore the codex entries)
You can't skip the second part. Any reason for not being allowed to ?

Taint Master wrote...
And what is the point of planning out a spec, gearing out your character or even bothering to learn the game mechanics at all if that is an option? 

Sure some may enjoy combat for its own sake (I do to an extent) but just as important is the sense of accomplishment when you finally beat a hard boss, or solve a difficult puzzle.  You know, playing the actual game part.  Simply having auto-win as an option cheapens the entire experience.

For example, finally beating the Cauthrien fight on hard in DAO was one of the most satisfying kills I've had in an RPG.  Heck, even on easy she's no walk in the park.  If you could just auto-kill her entire squad then beating her holds no meaning, even if I choose not to use it. 

It's odd to me that someone above tried to twist this into me hating RP and wanting a "hack and slash."  If anything I'm more in favor of RP than the people asking for this change.  You're supposed to be RPing a legend.  The player should have to earn that title.

Doesn't matter "what is the point", "who enjoys what", "why", "where", "how" ...

You keep ignoring my very simple question.

Some people are asking for an option, that you can freely ignore

Here we go one more time

Why exactly are you against this OPTION?

Modifié par xkg, 16 juillet 2013 - 11:41 .

[Ridwan]

Honestly, if people want to skip all the combat with an I win button, they shouldn't be able to get any loot.

That would be a fun image to imagine, the great hero in her dusty robe with her dull dagger facing off a mighty dragon.

There's a difference between a game like Total War: Shogun 2, and Dragon Age: Origins.

In Shogun 2, when your army is powerful, you don't want to waste time in the loading screen and actually fighting a small 250 strong army, when your own army numbers 1500. You'd crush them either way, hence the auto scenario. However doing that against an army of equal size can often lead to disastrous results. Such as losing the battle, or having a phyrric victory and end up losing the game in the long. That's why you still need to take control in the game to command your troops.

In Dragon Age: Origns, it's never like that. Even if your level is so high and your gear is so strong, you still don't need to do it, since you breeze through it and you're done in no time. Not to mention the satisfaction of the harder encounters, examples would be, the one giant room, just before you meet Kolgrim (or whatever his name was, the one that gives you the quest to pollute the ashes).

And what would be the point of entering a dungeon and collecting different quest items from monsters that's part of a sidequest. You're going to skip all that? In Dragon Age: Origins, in the deep roads, you got a quest where you had to collect bodyparts to summon a demon. That means exploring and fighting. I'm sorry, but it really cheapens the ACTUAL game if you just walk forward, press the skip combat, hell do you even kill the demon through combat or just press the *magically kill the demon through a skip button/cutscene* button?

RPG involves character interaction, yes, but it also involves combat. The G in the RPG isn't there to look pretty, it stands for Game. To spend time on a mechanic to appeal to people that should just be reading a choose your own adventure book in the first and take away time from the actual game and make it work flawlessly is WRONG.

[Ieldra]

@M25105:
Wrong? In which way wrong, may I ask? It there some hidden rule that every single player should always play through every single combat, just so that a minority of hardcore elitists can brag about their awesome videogaming skills? That's nonsense. If combat were an integral part of the story instead of a gameplay contrivance to fill up time most of the time....

(1) You'd be able to put considerable effort into *avoiding* combat, since few people actually want a physical confrontation with possibly lethal consequences.
(2) Lower-tier enemies would run from you after you've established a reputation.
(3) Killing one person (!) in anything but an open war scenario would be treated as a big thing by the story.

And so on.

Also, here is the false dichotomy again: if I want a functionality to get combat over with fast, that does not mean I'll use it every single time.

Gods, I can't believe the nonsense people are inventing just to prevent others from enjoying the games on their own terms by sidestepping the excessive, completely nonsensical amount of combat we find in our typical RPG these days.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 16 juillet 2013 - 12:39 .

[xkg]

M25105 wrote...

[snip]

Summary: Imo, any playstyle other than mine is pointles, therefore you should only be allowed to play your game my way. RPGS are all about   [insert "the TRUE RPG" definition here]   this and that.
If you don't like this or that go and read a book.
  

Thanks for your opinion man. It's nice that you have your own.
Comeback when you find an answer to the question I posted before, backed by some solid arguments.

And btw thanks for the advice but I'll pass. I only read technical books, not much interested in fiction literature, so I'll just keep using /killallhistiles and if DA:I won't have it, I'll find another way to cheat the game.
In the meantime you can keep playing on Super-Mega-Oh-My-Oh-My-******-****** Hard mode. I won't mind it, believe me.

Modifié par xkg, 16 juillet 2013 - 01:29 .

[MerinTB]

Realmzmaster wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

GameHunter wrote...
Harsh truth to you without combat its just animated action sequences with running to golden exclamation marks
with some random story segment in between.

We're allowed to skip cutscenes.  We're even allowed to disable those golden exclamation marks.  How is combat different?

Or are you arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to change how we play the game at all?  Should we all be forced to see those golden exclamation marks?

Both L.A. Noire and Total War are examples of combat skipping.

It's been done in games.  And, with a game like Total War, you could argue it's skipping the "key" part of the game's genre (RTS where you have the computer auto-resolve the battle?)

I don't think the option to skip random encounters is a bad idea.  I think it's a brilliant idea.  It's an option, and you can still fight the battle.

Many games have systems where you can try to avoid random encounters - why not another system to auto-resolve them?  I'm drawing a blank, but I can't imagine that this HASN'T been done in an RPG somewhere.

Actually back in 1985 and 1986 SSI (Strategic Simulations Inc)  put out two games that had auto resolve Wizard's Crown and  its sequel Eternal Dagger. There are others but those are the two that come to mind right away.

Aw, man.... HOW did I forget Wizard's Crown?!?!

That game had epic, tactical combat!

There you go.  You don't get more "combat-oriented" an RPG than SSI's Wizard's Crown.  And it had auto-resolve combat.

Case closed.

[MerinTB]

IC-07 wrote...
Well, if it's optional, then I guess there is no problem with your idea, OP. Knowing how dreadfully painful combat in DA2 was, I'm only preparing myself for the worst.
I can see only a couple of problems:
1) Leveling. By skipping combat you will get no xp and it might ruin your gaming experience, if you don't plan on skipping constantly.

I know there are several threads going on in this conversation - but a "fast-forward" combat option, or a "atuo-resolve" combat option, both don't actually negate the fight - they just make it go by much quicker.  The former would be like the speed controls on an RTS or some such, I assume.  The latter has the computer run estimates and resolve the fight for you - which means you CAN lose.  It happened in Wizard's Crown, it happened in Total War.  You tend to only auto-resolve the filler fights, not the tougher fights, as the filler fights drain resources but the tougher fights can kill you.

IC-07 wrote...
2) Difficulty. People might come up, claiming they finished the game on Insanity (for example), how it wasn't really hard and some might accuse you of just skipping hard battles. It will be unpleasant. Besides, if BioWare, somehow, runs statistics on which difficulty people played most, the results won't be very accurate.

I don't know why that bragging right matters.  Metrics MIGHT matter, but then they could ALSO track how often people use auto-resolve as well and learn how much people would actually love the feature.

In any case, you could just leave the auto-resolve for casual and normal, and not allow it for hard and nightmare.  Even if you left it in for those levels, the auto-resolve would probably have you losing so often you'd stop using it.

[Ridwan]

xkg wrote...

M25105 wrote...

[snip]

Summary: Imo, any playstyle other than mine is pointles, therefore you should only be allowed to play your game my way. RPGS are all about   [insert "the TRUE RPG" definition here]   this and that.
If you don't like this or that go and read a book.
  

Thanks for your opinion man. It's nice that you have your own.
Comeback when you find an answer to the question I posted before, backed by some solid arguments.

And btw thanks for the advice but I'll pass. I only read technical books, not much interested in fiction literature, so I'll just keep using /killallhistiles and if DA:I won't have it, I'll find another way to cheat the game.
In the meantime you can keep playing on Super-Mega-Oh-My-Oh-My-******-****** Hard mode. I won't mind it, believe me.

Thanks for your nonsense post missing the point, with your logic RTS games should also skip material gathering and just give out 100000 resources right away so people don't have to bother gathering them and build troops and anyone complaining are hardcore elitist.

Or maybe Mario should play on level where you can't fall to the death and be immune to goombas so you can rush through and enjoy the level design visually instead of playing it, and those who complain are just elitist.

What you lot are asking for is for Bioware to spend time and money on features that make an RPG play like Heavy Rain. The charm of roleplaying game is part combat, part leveling, part gear gathering, part exploring (which involves lockpicking too), and part character interaction. Like I wrote before, what about all the side quests and such where you can get powerful loot, like Gaxkang, the Pride demon in the Deep Roads and so on. Just breeze through it and up winning the game in less than 10 hours?

[Zazzerka]

Only if beating the game without it rewards me with a badge that says, "Super-Mega-Oh-My-Oh-My-******-****** Hard mode."

[xkg]

M25105 wrote...

xkg wrote...

M25105 wrote...

[snip]

Summary: Imo, any playstyle other than mine is pointles, therefore you should only be allowed to play your game my way. RPGS are all about   [insert "the TRUE RPG" definition here]   this and that.
If you don't like this or that go and read a book.
  

Thanks for your opinion man. It's nice that you have your own.
Comeback when you find an answer to the question I posted before, backed by some solid arguments.

And btw thanks for the advice but I'll pass. I only read technical books, not much interested in fiction literature, so I'll just keep using /killallhistiles and if DA:I won't have it, I'll find another way to cheat the game.
In the meantime you can keep playing on Super-Mega-Oh-My-Oh-My-******-****** Hard mode. I won't mind it, believe me.

Thanks for your nonsense post missing the point, with your logic RTS games should also skip material gathering and just give out 100000 resources right away so people don't have to bother gathering them and build troops and anyone complaining are hardcore elitist.

Or maybe Mario should play on level where you can't fall to the death and be immune to goombas so you can rush through and enjoy the level design visually instead of playing it, and those who complain are just elitist.

What you lot are asking for is for Bioware to spend time and money on features that make an RPG play like Heavy Rain. The charm of roleplaying game is part combat, part leveling, part gear gathering, part exploring (which involves lockpicking too), and part character interaction. Like I wrote before, what about all the side quests and such where you can get powerful loot, like Gaxkang, the Pride demon in the Deep Roads and so on. Just breeze through it and up winning the game in less than 10 hours?

1).    About that part about Bioware wasting time and money

... I'll just quote myself from before

xkg wrote...

If they already have (on the new engine) something similar to killallhostilies for testing purposes, adding a new button to the interface and linking it to that script would require an entire few hours of devs time to code ...

2). About that part, where you're telling me AGAIN the one and only definition of  "true RPG", and how should I play it, why I can't have my own likings etc etc ....

... I'll just Ignore it, thats all it is worth.

[Nefla]

I don't see why combat is being held up as sacred, combat has never been BW's strong suit (ME2 and 3 are the only exceptions IMO). BioWare games have been well known for their stories and characters, NOT for their combat. "If you don't like combat you're playing the wrong game, go read a book hur hur!" Really? If anyone is playing DA for its awesome button exploding combat and not the story, characters, character building, etc...then I'd argue there are much better combat centered games out there that you should be playing yet BW is still the only company that makes games with that kind of story/characters/roleplay/choices/etc...the combat in DA2 added little to nothing to the game (in my opinion it was so terrible and sooo frequent it brought the whole game down even more).

If I just want to experience the story and characters (which BW are great at) why is it necessary for me to wade through wave after wave of parachuting enemies that if you kill too fast you have to actually sit there and wait for the next wave to materialize out of the sky so you can press A and explode them again and again. This is not fun. I would think that someone who likes combat would find it even less fun.

What I really want is for them to make combat good but I really don't see how it affects combat fans if combat is skippable on casual difficulty only.

[MerinTB]

Nefla wrote...
I don't see why combat is being held up as sacred, combat has never been BW's strong suit (ME2 and 3 are the only exceptions IMO). BioWare games have been well known for their stories and characters, NOT for their combat. "If you don't like combat you're playing the wrong game, go read a book hur hur!" Really? If anyone is playing DA for its awesome button exploding combat and not the story, characters, character building, etc...then I'd argue there are much better combat centered games out there that you should be playing yet BW is still the only company that makes games with that kind of story/characters/roleplay/choices/etc...the combat in DA2 added little to nothing to the game (in my opinion it was so terrible and sooo frequent it brought the whole game down even more).

If I just want to experience the story and characters (which BW are great at) why is it necessary for me to wade through wave after wave of parachuting enemies that if you kill too fast you have to actually sit there and wait for the next wave to materialize out of the sky so you can press A and explode them again and again. This is not fun. I would think that someone who likes combat would find it even less fun.

What I really want is for them to make combat good but I really don't see how it affects combat fans if combat is skippable on casual difficulty only.

Also - even if you like combat, you might not be in the mood for endless waves all the time.

Plenty of games have survival / stealth / spot skills / mechanics that let you avoid encounters.  How is that any less "removing combat from the game" than an auto-resolve option?

[Ridwan]

Why are people here writing that DA: Inquisition is going to keep the horrible wave combat style from DA 2 and not revert back to old style of origins. Assumption or fact? If it's a fact is there a source so I can check it out? I'm asking this, cause this is one of the gripes it seems that the "pro skip" crowd have.

Modifié par M25105, 16 juillet 2013 - 03:26 .

[Inprea]

As someone else skipping combat has absolutely no influence on me and given how easy casual mode already is I wouldn't mind a skip button. I wouldn't want to see anyone using the skip button complaining about how short the game was though or how easy it was. I also believe that using such a button should lock you out of any achievements related to that fight.

I do understand the desire. In Mass Effect 3 I beat the final mission once on normal just to see that I could. Ever sense then I just set it for casual as I quite simply hate that fight. It kind of reminds me of Baulders gate and using console commands to save a head ache on your third or forth play through. I believe it was /player kill or some such.

[xkg]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Also - even if you like combat, you might not be in the mood for endless waves all the time.

Plenty of games have survival / stealth / spot skills / mechanics that let you avoid encounters.  How is that any less "removing combat from the game" than an auto-resolve option?

Those are in-game mechanisms. Your character can actually do them (if the game supports them). "Life" supports it.

There is no realistic in-game mechanism for killallhostiles. "Life" does not support it.

It does.
My character was looking so mighty, that they all died of a heart attack.
or
He was looking so pity ... they died laughing.

Choose your scenario.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Also - even if you like combat, you might not be in the mood for endless waves all the time.

Plenty of games have survival / stealth / spot skills / mechanics that let you avoid encounters.  How is that any less "removing combat from the game" than an auto-resolve option?

Those are in-game mechanisms. Your character can actually do them (if the game supports them). "Life" supports it.

There is no realistic in-game mechanism for killallhostiles. "Life" does not support it.

Okay... take a step back and realize that what I'm mostly advocating is an auto-resolve.  It is the computer "fighting the battle for you" but not in real time - it just uses algorhythms to determine the outcome.

Like Total War.  Lik Wizard's Crown.

Life doesn't support auto-regenerating health, med-packs / potions insta-healing you, nor shooting lightning from your hands so... go ahead and put the "life" argument away, thanks.  Otherwise realism will lead to some VERY slow, VERY tedious games.  Last time you had to actually eat / use the toilet / shower / sleep in a game?  As in SPEND THE ACTUAL TIME, not hit a button and have it resolve in a few seconds?

[Realmzmaster]

xkg wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
Dragon Age is an ACTION RPG.  If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre.

Combat introduces strategy, and adds substance/context to the story between cutscenes.  It also allows you to build and progress your characters and adds challenge to the experience.  If it was completely skippable the game would be much thinner and actually beating a difficult encounter would lose all meaning.

Reading these forums it's like half of the posters want this game to be a dating sim or an interactive romcom...  Come on, people.

And Fifa is a football simulator, it has an option to auto resolve matches. How's that possible ?
Total War series is a starategy game focused on tactical battles and .... what a surprise, you can auto resolve every single battle. Heresy !!!.

Taint Master wrote...
Well those gamers can go play the Sims.

Or you know, they can add the button to skip the combat for those players.

If they already have (on the new engine) something similar to killallhostilies for testing purposes, adding a new button to the interface and linking it to that script would require an entire few hours of devs time to code ...

So yeah, remind me, why are you exactly against it?

There is a difference between an auto resolve button and an autowin button. The auto resolve button still means that the party or team has to be built up for combat and there is a chance to lose. There is no chance of losing with an autowin button and the party or team could conceivably finish the game at level one.

I have no problem with the autowin option as long as it does not affect how developers approach combat gameplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Aw, man.... HOW did I forget Wizard's Crown?!?!

That game had epic, tactical combat!

There you go.  You don't get more "combat-oriented" an RPG than SSI's Wizard's Crown.  And it had auto-resolve combat.

And further, I would argue, the auto-resolve combat option in Wizard's Crown was designed purely as a time-saving mechanism.  Actually playing through the tactical combat in Wizard's Crowd could, in some encounters, take a very long time.  Large scale battles in the Total War games take less time than a combat encounter in Wizard's Crown.

Time-saving (what the OP requested) is exactly why auto-resolve exists.  In Total War, I'll auto-resolve any encounter I don't think is going to be very interesting.  If I'm driving off some rebels, and they're badly outmatched, I see no reason to spend 10 minutes actually playing through that encounter, when I can get a similar outcome with a single click.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

There is a difference between an auto resolve button and an autowin button. The auto resolve button still means that the party or team has to be built up for combat and there is a chance to lose. There is no chance of losing with an autowin button and the party or team could conceivably finish the game at level one.

I have no problem with the autowin option as long as it does not affect how developers approach combat gameplay.

I'd rather have an auto-resolve button, but I see no reason why that couldn't simply become an auto-win button on the lowest difficulty setting.

[Realmzmaster]

I am sure most here would agree that if you use an autowin button excessively obviously you should not get any combat related achievements. (Since most gamers seem to like achievements). You can still get the achievement if you meet the actual combat requirement. So I do not see that as a problem.
As I stated I have no problem with an autowin button as long as the developers do not slack off on the combat gameplay because of it.

[xkg]

Realmzmaster wrote...

xkg wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
Dragon Age is an ACTION RPG.  If someone hates combat they're clearly playing the wrong genre.

Combat introduces strategy, and adds substance/context to the story between cutscenes.  It also allows you to build and progress your characters and adds challenge to the experience.  If it was completely skippable the game would be much thinner and actually beating a difficult encounter would lose all meaning.

Reading these forums it's like half of the posters want this game to be a dating sim or an interactive romcom...  Come on, people.

And Fifa is a football simulator, it has an option to auto resolve matches. How's that possible ?
Total War series is a starategy game focused on tactical battles and .... what a surprise, you can auto resolve every single battle. Heresy !!!.

Taint Master wrote...
Well those gamers can go play the Sims.

Or you know, they can add the button to skip the combat for those players.

If they already have (on the new engine) something similar to killallhostilies for testing purposes, adding a new button to the interface and linking it to that script would require an entire few hours of devs time to code ...

So yeah, remind me, why are you exactly against it?

There is a difference between an auto resolve button and an autowin button. The auto resolve button still means that the party or team has to be built up for combat and there is a chance to lose. There is no chance of losing with an autowin button and the party or team could conceivably finish the game at level one.

I have no problem with the autowin option as long as it does not affect how developers approach combat gameplay.

Yes, I do realise that. But seeing how vocal some of the “anti” crowd is, I was affraid to propose this.
Can you imagine all the uproar because of a few days of dev time "wasted" to implement it?

The auto-resolve feature, with some complex algorithms to determine the outcome quickly, would be the best solution of course. But if they really have no time and/or resources to do that, a simple button, triggerring the "killallhotiles" script would do. At least for me.


But you know what, now that I think about it...
having both options - "insta win" and "auto resolve" would be even better.
<----*runs away and hides in deep bushes*

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

There is a difference between an auto resolve button and an autowin button. The auto resolve button still means that the party or team has to be built up for combat and there is a chance to lose. There is no chance of losing with an autowin button and the party or team could conceivably finish the game at level one.

I have no problem with the autowin option as long as it does not affect how developers approach combat gameplay.

I'd rather have an auto-resolve button, but I see no reason why that couldn't simply become an auto-win button on the lowest difficulty setting.

I see no problem with that. I remember in certain JRPGS that there is a feature that allows for an autowin if the party come up against an enemy that the party vastly outpowers. I think the Earthbound series had the Auto-Kill ability.

[Realmzmaster]

xkg wrote...


Yes, I do realise that. But seeing how vocal some of the “anti” crowd is, I was affraid to propose this.
Can you imagine all the uproar because of a few days of dev time "wasted" to implement it?

The auto-resolve feature, with some complex algorithms to determine the outcome quickly, would be the best solution of course. But if they really have no time and/or resources to do that, a simple button, triggerring the "killallhotiles" script would do. At least for me.


But you know what, now that I think about it...
having both options - "insta win" and "auto resolve" would be even better.
<----*runs away and hides in deep bushes*

I agree with you. Both would be a welcomed addition. I could see the autowin at lower levels like casual or story mode. The Auto resolve could be used at higher levels