128 réponses à ce sujet

[KennethAFTopp]

by that you mean enemies and creatures more or less follow the same rules as the player?

[Sylvius the Mad]

by that you mean enemies and creatures more or less follow the same rules as the player?

Not more or less. The same.

[Rawgrim]

by that you mean enemies and creatures more or less follow the same rules as the player?

 

Exactly the same rules as the players. Otherwise the players are given a huge advantage over "the rest of the population" in the world, and that makes them kind of like superheroes.

[KennethAFTopp]

Not more or less. The same.

Not entirely sure that is possible but I do agree with the idea that an enemy shouldn't merely be given an arbitrary number for hp or strength just to make the game more challenging instead of having them follow the same rules the Player.

[Beerfish]

Not more or less. The same.

Can't do it and shouldn't do it at this point in time  Enemy AI just cannot keep up with human interaction at this point in time so if you have the same rules then humans will cake walk most encounters or they will be far too tough.  There is a line in game play balance that has to be walked because the end goal at this time is fun for the player not equality.  (That is why in ME multiplay they gave some of their enemies weapons way way more powerful than what the human players get.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Can't do it and shouldn't do it at this point in time Enemy AI just cannot keep up with human interaction at this point in time so if you have the same rules then humans will cake walk most encounters or they will be far too tough. There is a line in game play balance that has to be walked because the end goal at this time is fun for the player not equality. (That is why in ME multiplay they gave some of their enemies weapons way way more powerful than what the human players get.

We're trying to emulate tabletop games, here. If we don't have a symmetrical ruleset, we'll never succeed.

In a tabletop game, you need a live GM running the opponents because there are so many more options in terms of what you can do. Using thr environment or subterfuge is extremely powerful.

In a CRPG, our toolbox is much smaller, so the human advantage is also much smaller. Also, even opponents using the same rules can be given advantages. They could have greater numbers, or better position, or better equipment, or be higher level.

I don't understand why people think we'd just be fighting doppelgangers.

[The Night Haunter]

The only really noticeable effect MP might have had negatively on SP is the 8 active abilities limit. Once we see the PC UI we'll know for sure if this limit is in place for all systems. This is a fairly serious detriment to DAI, but not enough to make me reconsider buying it. It is still a bad move on their part.

[Sylvius the Mad]

https://www.shadowrealms.com/

More of an emulation of tabletop games.

It's a multiplayer action game. That resembles what I want in no respects whatever.

[The Elder King]

The only really noticeable effect MP might have had negatively on SP is the 8 active abilities limit. Once we see the PC UI we'll know for sure if this limit is in place for all systems. This is a fairly serious detriment to DAI, but not enough to make me reconsider buying it. It is still a bad move on their part.

Again, it might not be because of MP. It's possible that there only four mapped powers in MP, as GI stated. The trailer sadly shown no evidence of how many mapped powers are present, since the LT button for switching the two slots is present in the combat part but not in the talent screen when you can map powers (and it is present in SP).

[Jester]

Can't do it and shouldn't do it at this point in time  Enemy AI just cannot keep up with human interaction at this point in time so if you have the same rules then humans will cake walk most encounters or they will be far too tough.  

Enemy AI in Baldur's Gate 2 from 14 freaking years ago was able to pose just right challange, with a perfectly symmetrical combat mechanics, and enemy AI in next-gen late 2014 game with 89371873 times bigger budget cannot?

[KennethAFTopp]

Enemy AI in Baldur's Gate 2 from 14 freaking years ago was able to pose just right challange, with a perfectly symmetrical combat mechanics, and enemy AI in next-gen late 2014 game with 89371873 times bigger budget cannot?

 

I think they basically had exist and react to a flat space, the areas of DA: I I assume are much more advanced.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Baldur's gate didn't have to render heavy 3d models and environments in it's game loop while registering and talking to a centralized server . Not to mention with the previous titles, A.I has not been bioware's strong point.

But the point is that symmetrical mechanics are not incompatible with quality enemy behaviour.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The basis of the A.I is how quick and smart they react before an event can be rendered on the screen. I have not looked at the code myself, but maybe it is a combination of leveling and how many extra calculations would need to be added for such a thing. Maybe they are trying to submit to the lowest common denominator of internet speed while being able to have some functionality. If less is processed then it would decrease the effect of lag.

I wasn't talking about the multiplayer (though I should have been, given the thread).

I would like the single-player mechanics to be symmetrical. I literally do not care how the MP works.

[Wulfram]

I guess I shouldn't be too hostile to MP influence since both previous games had pretty serious problems with their combat.  Hostility to change only makes sense when the status quo is good.  Even if the change isn't in exactly the direction I would choose.

[deuce985]

Interesting concerns. It's probably reasonable to assume some design decisions had to be made with both in mind due to various reasons like limited resources or needing to recycle said resources. I guess we'll never truly know since we're not the ones sitting behind development and we'll just speculate. Best thing to do is just wait for the package and decide if it was a major compromise for yourself I suppose.

[Giantdeathrobot]

Enemy AI in Baldur's Gate 2 from 14 freaking years ago was able to pose just right challange, with a perfectly symmetrical combat mechanics, and enemy AI in next-gen late 2014 game with 89371873 times bigger budget cannot?

 

If you call mages reacting to a script and being able to store up and then instantly cast more spells than the player ever could ''perfectly symmetrical''. Not to mention the bevy of enemies who had special immunities your party couldn't even acquire if they were of the same race, albeit that was more pronounced in  Throne of Bhaal.

 

And enemy AI in BG is as stupid as anywhere else. It will happily pursue my fleeing Hasted fighter while my archer pelts it full of arrows. It will get dragged in chokepoints. It will not use spells in any optimum capacity unless it has a specific script made for it. 

 

Playing BG2 a year ago lifted a lot of my nostalgia filter for it. It's a great game, but it's not the nec plus ultra of RPGs to me, and I hate the DnD ruleset anyway.

 

As for multiplayer, my only concern is that it forces limits on abilities on PC. We won't know if it does until they finally unveil the KB&M interface, but I really hope they haven't got rid of the toolbar in single player. Given that they boast we have access too 200 talents, limiting the player like that would suck. I understand that you have a set amount of buttons on a controller, but on PC that's not a problem.

[In Exile]

Ah. I see. But I don't see a conceptual problem there, merely an implementation issue. A keypress doesn't have to have more latency than a thumbstick, does it?

No, I just think a controller is a better interface device than a keyboard for action controls.

[Malanek]

It certainly has influenced it. They have freely admitted that. I am quite hopeful that it will be a significant improvement. As good as I felt gameplay in ME2 and then ME3 single player was at the time, the quality of gameplay by the end of the multiplayer development was just staggeringly better. They learned so much about their own game through the development cycle and I would like to think the same could happen here. I am quite excited about focus. I always like alternate resources and this one allows you to use more powerful effects while (hopefully) not being able to abuse them and stroll through the game. Its another level of strategical depth. Focus may well have come from multiplayer but will be equally applicable to single player.

 

I think that it is important that it stays a tactical game, there is a risk that single player could lose some degree of this element. But it doesn't have to and since most of us haven't played it yet I think we should withhold judgement on that. I am very optimistic and excited there will be more focus on gameplay because it has been something that could have been quite a bit better in DAO and DA2. But will need to wait and see how it plays before casting judgment.

[In Exile]

Hmmm, I didn't need to micromanage anyone on Corypheus or the Rock Wraith. You just need to set them to passive or whatever it was called so they follow wherever you go and don't engage on their own. Unless that counts as micromanaging.

On nightmare everyone gets almost 1kit KO'd by any of the boss attacks or by the elemental garbage.