134 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Ok in the strategy aspect, the teleporting destroys it, the randomly apeparing in mid air without the need to use entrances destroys it, and the immersion breaking meant that I just couldn't care enough to develop a counter to paratroopers, I eventualyl completed the game, in the hope things got better...they didn't. .

What if enemy mages had a teleport spell that allowed them to move troops around and break battle lines? This is the same thing.

Not only that but if your lines were ever destroyed by enemies paratrooping in it was because you didn't use the terrain. There's no reason to stand in the same place the encounter started just because it started there. Retreat! Form a kill zone.

[AlanC9]

The underlying issue here is that RPGs have often favored a certain type of play, one based on exploiting superior knowledge of the battlefield and devising a plan before battle starts. (It's no accident that, for instance, PC perception ranges in NWN are longer than NPC's perception ranges). You see this in some strategy games -- for instance, the Panzer General series always begins a given scenario with all enemy units in the same position, so a player can build his plan around this even if he can't see them on the map. It's a valid style of tactical game, but it isn't the only style.

 

You could see this as a subset of the old debate over chaotic vs. planned combat. For instance, D&D 3.0 and up had an initiative system designed around everyone taking his turn in a known order, while earlier versions  made you call your moves before knowing who had won initiative. In space games, it's the difference between a Wing Commander and an X-Wing game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The thing is, even if you avoid the really broken abilities (storm of the century, force field tanks, etc.) the game still isn't that hard. 

A well designed CRPG isn't ever going to be that hard, because the player has more opportunities to adapt his tactics than the game does.

 

Difficulty typically only arises from world-breaking mechanical incongruities.  And a well-designed CPRG, I would argue, doesn't have those.

[Sylvius the Mad]

How do enemy reinforcements destroy strategy, again? Because you have to revise your plans? "No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" - Moltke

Not with certainty, no, but I'd still like each enemy to exist before the encounter starts.  Even if I can't find all of them in advance of the combat, I should (theoretically) be able to find any of them.

 

If there are reinforcements, where are they?  Why can't I sneak around back and engage the reinforcements first?  Why can't I determine what path they might follow and lay traps there?  Sure, I might miss some, but I might catch some.  Reinforcements that appear from nowhere mean not only that there is no certainty, but there's no information at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Icewind Dale is not an RPG; it's a D&D combat simulator where you control - via hive-mind - a bunch of multi-classed faceless mooks. 

In what way is that not an RPG?  The PC in a roleplaying game is always faceless until you give him a face.

 

Imagine playing the tabletop game the way you seem to play CRPGs.  You'd never, on your own, make any meaningful decisions about who your character is or what he wants.  That game wouldn't work well.

[CronoDragoon]

A well designed CRPG isn't ever going to be that hard, because the player has more opportunities to adapt his tactics than the game does.

 

That's true to some extent: an AI that exploited tactics the way players do would probably not be very fun to play. Or at least, you'd introduce a high premium on traits that blocked CC, spells that dispelled CC, and would need to readjust stats and HP bars to some extent so that the AI didn't always gank your low-HP party members in two seconds.

 

But I'd argue there are ways to make a cRPG very difficult without frustrating the player in this way. And as I said, I thought DA2 was superior to Origins in this way, since there was very little "adjusting tactics" at all in Origins compared to DA2.

[AlanC9]

That's true to some extent: an AI that exploited tactics the way players do would probably not be very fun to play. Or at least, you'd introduce a high premium on traits that blocked CC, spells that dispelled CC, and would need to readjust stats and HP bars to some extent so that the AI didn't always gank your low-HP party members in two seconds.

 

 

I'm picturing DAO mage battles turning into everybody racing to get Mana Clash off first.

 

I've always been amused by how Threat works in the DA games (and I presume in the MMOs  the mechanic derives from). Until the damage starts coming in the AI is threatened by the heavily-armored characters, which are not the real threat. But the whole point of the mechanic is to get the AI to do something stupid, of course. I suppose it's better to have this be an actual mechanic.

[AlanC9]

Not with certainty, no, but I'd still like each enemy to exist before the encounter starts.  Even if I can't find all of them in advance of the combat, I should (theoretically) be able to find any of them.

 

If there are reinforcements, where are they?  Why can't I sneak around back and engage the reinforcements first?  Why can't I determine what path they might follow and lay traps there?  Sure, I might miss some, but I might catch some.  Reinforcements that appear from nowhere mean not only that there is no certainty, but there's no information at all.

 

Sure. This is a much more serious argument than saying that "tactics are impossible." And one of these days we'll have AI that can understand terrain; or more realistically, the terrain will come encoded with directives for the AI.

[n7stormrunner]

I'm picturing DAO mage battles turning into everybody racing to get Mana Clash off first.

 

I've always been amused by how Threat works in the DA games (and I presume in the MMOs  the mechanic derives from). Until the damage starts coming in the AI is threatened by the heavily-armored characters, which are not the real threat. But the whole point of the mechanic is to get the AI to do something stupid, of course. I suppose it's better to have this be an actual mechanic.

 

 

to be fair to stupid A.I. I would probably more attention to the armoured guy/gal then the one in a bathrobe with a stick... then again the latter sounds like my mother.

[In Exile]

A well designed CRPG isn't ever going to be that hard, because the player has more opportunities to adapt his tactics than the game does.

 

Difficulty typically only arises from world-breaking mechanical incongruities.  And a well-designed CPRG, I would argue, doesn't have those.

 

I don't disagree with you that cRPGs aren't a genre really capable of being difficult, but I would say it's for a different reason: that the very nature of the combat mechanics makes it impossible. Real combat is fast and furious - it's not hard to kill just one person. Everything we know about combat tactics isn't about 4 superhumans ducking it out with 8 slightly weaker superhumans. 

 

 

In what way is that not an RPG?  The PC in a roleplaying game is always faceless until you give him a face.

 

Imagine playing the tabletop game the way you seem to play CRPGs.  You'd never, on your own, make any meaningful decisions about who your character is or what he wants.  That game wouldn't work well.

 

I agree that the PC is faceless until he's given a face. Where we disagree is in what it takes to give him a face. My position is that it requires more than an independent reality that exists only inside the player's head. 

 

to be fair to stupid A.I. I would probably more attention to the armoured guy/gal then the one in a bathrobe with a stick... then again the latter sounds like my mother.

 

I a world where people literally summon fire out of the sky, your focus would be on the person with the sharp piece of metal?

 

In a tabletop game, I am my character. I can choose a much broader range of options to express belief, and the "game" is actually uniquely reactive - because the other players will react to exactly what I say, and not offer a pre-designed response developed many months in advance by other people working on both sides of the conversation. That's a really big, fundamental difference. 

[Medhia_Nox]

DA:I hates labels.. and will not be forced into the little boxes of small minded people! 
 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree that the PC is faceless until he's given a face. Where we disagree is in what it takes to give him a face. My position is that it requires more than an independent reality that exists only inside the player's head.

I think the independent reality within my head is all that gives me a face, so that translates pretty easily to the game.

[In Exile]

I think the independent reality within my head is all that gives me a face, so that translates pretty easily to the game.

I think RPG characters are in a different existential position from us, being our creations. The same with the game world itself (though this is often not our creation). 

[Walker White]

I return to the BioWare forums after almost 2 years to find a "What is an RPG thread" with AlanC9 and Sylvius still debating.  It is positively heartwarming.

[metatheurgist]

I've always been amused by how Threat works in the DA games (and I presume in the MMOs  the mechanic derives from).

Really hate the threat mechanic, it's so artificial. Very gamey. It should only work against dumb opponents and then not just because you're wearing shinier armor (unless you're fighting a giant magpie).

[Walker White]

Really hate the threat mechanic, it's so artificial. Very gamey. It should only work against dumb opponents and then not just because you're wearing shinier armor (unless you're fighting a giant magpie).

 

Aggro was created specifically to handle network latency issues in MMOs.  It is a controller mechanic that does not require spatial fidelity (unlike a continually active area effect).  So two clients can be out of sync with one another by seconds and still have meaningful combats.

 

It has since then worked its way into single-player and even pen-and-paper RPGs.  It was a way to give controller abilities to non-mage characters (which had not really been done before effectively). The move is part of a larger movement to give non-mage characters abilities that better balance them with mages.  

[In Exile]

Aggro was created specifically to handle network latency issues in MMOs.  It is a controller mechanic that does not require spatial fidelity (unlike a continually active area effect).  So two clients can be out of sync with one another by seconds and still have meaningful combats.

 

It has since then worked its way into single-player and even pen-and-paper RPGs.  It was a way to give controller abilities to non-mage characters (which had not really been done before effectively). The move is part of a larger movement to give non-mage characters abilities that better balance them with mages.  

 

What do you mean by controller abilities?

[Walker White]

What do you mean by controller abilities?

 

Lock-down abilities that do not do damage but act as force multipliers.  Think web, hold person, etc.  It is a classic party role that has been largely forgotten since too many people use mages as DPS units.  The 1st edition illusionist was a classic non-damage causing controller.

 

Edit: Also add charm as a controller ability, as that is effectively what a tank is doing with aggro.

[In Exile]

Lock-down abilities that do not do damage but act as force multipliers.  Think web, hold person, etc.  It is a classic party role that has been largely forgotten since too many people use mages as DPS units.  The 1st edition illusionist was a classic non-damage causing controller.

 

Edit: Also add charm as a controller ability, as that is effectively what a tank is doing with aggro.

 

Right, I understand now. Thank you!

[AlanC9]

I return to the BioWare forums after almost 2 years to find a "What is an RPG thread" with AlanC9 and Sylvius still debating.  It is positively heartwarming.

 

Welcome back, and thanks for the insight on the mechanic's history.

[Br3admax]

The only thing that makes an RPG and RPG is the setting and story style. All of these things like choices are just common of the genre, but they are in no way required. In an RPG, the world takes paramount. As long as the journey takes the forefront and actually matters, the game is an RPG. Dragon Age ][ is an RPG, despite the screaming of niche fans otherwise. This is how Dragon's Dogma, a game with absolutely zero choice that actually matters, is an RPG, while the next installment of Assassin's Creed will not, not because it lacks choice, but because the destination dominates the story before it even begins. 

[metatheurgist]

It has since then worked its way into single-player and even pen-and-paper RPGs.  It was a way to give controller abilities to non-mage characters (which had not really been done before effectively). The move is part of a larger movement to give non-mage characters abilities that better balance them with mages.

 

Yes, and I hates it.

[Paul E Dangerously]

It has since then worked its way into single-player and even pen-and-paper RPGs.  It was a way to give controller abilities to non-mage characters (which had not really been done before effectively). The move is part of a larger movement to give non-mage characters abilities that better balance them with mages.  

 

This part I don't mind so much, due to a particular edition of a particular RPG being lopsided as all hell when it came to any balance between casters and non-casters.

 

While I dislike MMO mechanics in general, the agression mechanic isn't even the part I loathe the most - it's the super restrictive class system. DAO gave you a bit of wiggle room (DEX-based archer or dual-wield warriors, STR-based rogues, Arcane Warrior mages), but DA2 pretty firmly clamps you into those Tank, DPS, and Healer roles and doesn't let you go.

[Walker White]

While I dislike MMO mechanics in general, the agression mechanic isn't even the part I loathe the most - it's the super restrictive class system. DAO gave you a bit of wiggle room (DEX-based archer or dual-wield warriors, STR-based rogues, Arcane Warrior mages), but DA2 pretty firmly clamps you into those Tank, DPS, and Healer roles and doesn't let you go.

 

Oh, I agree with this.  I was just commenting on the history of the mechanics.

 

I think breaking things out of the mage is a good idea.  I replayed BG and BG2 with the new EE releases, and it has reminded me how much party structure has changed.  Controller spells like horror, charm, and time stop absolutely rule that game.  It is suicide to spend anything but low-level spell slots on damage spells (thankfully, magic missile is OP). The mage needs controller spells, buffs to protect against controller spells, and debuffs to break through enemy mage protections.  As a result, all strategy is arranged around the mage and cleric; the non-magic based characters are very much second string.

 

Compare that to modern tactics where the party is much more balanced.  Which is a good thing.  But unfortunately, we stopped evolving the mechanic and thus seem to have solidified with some pretty rigid roles, when the right solution is to figure out how to give all classes the role flexibility that the mage used to have.

 

This has gone on so long that players are starting to think this is the way things should be. I have been looking at some forums discussion Bungie's Destiny, and I am seeing a generation of players that now think those roles are the only way you can structure a party.  Sigh.  I have never, ever played a game with a tank.  It is completely unnecessary with a good controller (like an ME Adept or a DA2 force mage).

 

I think the game that did the worst to solidify these roles outside of MMOs is not DA2, but 4th edition D&D.  The need to put everyone in a specific box resulted in the removal of infiltration spells and most of the controller spells.  Play-styles that I had used for decades were no longer supported by the game. And when we complained about this to Wizards, we were told this was no longer "the role" of the mage.

[JEMEDAOME2]

Is this going to be a true RPG like DA1, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter Nights or a novel like DA2 and ME2?

 

If it's going to go the 'My name is Hawk no matter what and this is my story' then I won't be making this purchase come relase date.

 

 

Also, is it going to support mods like DA1 did?

 

Thanks.

Clearly you have never played played Plansescape Torment that game was both a Great Novel and a Great RPG,  the same happening to DAI is not a bad thing