I also find it interesting that posters talk about BG1, BG2 ands DAO as traditional cRPGS especially DAO that introduce a great deal of the MMOCRPG elements.
Top post. I've even read a review which complained about the MMOification of Dragon Age Origins.
Well, DA:O did indeed bring some mechanics typical to MMO (not necessarily exclusive), especially when you compare it to previous D&D based BW games.
Threat/aggro system in particular, which I dislike a lot, since basically it bans enemies in the game from having a decent AI by design,
DA:I has added a few more to the list. Maybe DA4 will feature respawnable raid bosses to grind (which is in all fairness more fun than farming metal chunks from rocks).
Well, DA:O did indeed bring some mechanics typical to MMO (not necessarily exclusive), especially when you compare it to previous D&D based BW games. DA:I has added a few more to the list.
Threat/aggro system in particular, which I dislike a lot, since basically it bans enemies in the game from having a decent AI by design,
I agree. And you basically control your enemies thinking by using that. It is like they have no will of their own. Stuff like that should have some sort of saving throw.
The system is there by design because the alternative of having a decent AI is simply not fun for the players who decry it as "unfair" when the AI does the sensible thing and focus-fires their cloth cannons/healers while ignoring/CCing heavy-armoured fighters as obvious second fiddle.Threat/aggro system in particular, which I dislike a lot, since basically it bans enemies in the game from having a decent AI by design,
The system is there by design because the alternative of having a decent AI is simply not fun for the players who decry it as "unfair" when the AI does the sensible thing and focus-fires their cloth cannons/healers while ignoring/CCing heavy-armoured fighters as obvious second fiddle.
Well, I would prefer if the AI acted as you've put it rather than how it does now, as it will force the players to actually play smartly. Squishy mages did perfectly fine in D&D based games if you actually used some tactics. XCOM features no aggro mechanics, yet both squishy snipers and beefier assaults have their place in the squad if you use them properly. There are tons of games that somehow manage without it.
Now, I may come from a rare kind of players that actually like the idea that they can lose the game. We may be a dying breed for all I know,
I agree. And you basically control your enemies thinking by using that. It is like they have no will of their own. Stuff like that should have some sort of saving throw.
Yep. And it's not only about "taunt" abilities, it is also about how it behaves by default - prioritizing targets that generate most aggro with abilities, even though it could make more sense to finish a low health one for instance.
Well, DA:O did indeed bring some mechanics typical to MMO (not necessarily exclusive), especially when you compare it to previous D&D based BW games.
Threat/aggro system in particular, which I dislike a lot, since basically it bans enemies in the game from having a decent AI by design,
DA:I has added a few more to the list. Maybe DA4 will feature respawnable raid bosses to grind (which is in all fairness more fun than farming metal chunks from rocks).
But DAI has also removed some from the list like regenerating health and mana.
But DAI has also removed some from the list like regenerating health and mana.
For all I know, mana is still regenerating just fine. Health part is debatable, since:
Not that I see something fundamentally wrong with regenerating health and mana in the first place, It can work fine depending on overall combat and encounter design.
I'm pretty sure squishy mages were ok in the D&D based games because the AI there *wasn't* set to do the sensible thing. They were instead aiming either at what they saw first/nearest target, or --in slightly more advanced systems-- they'd take damage dealt to themselves as part of the calculation.Well, I would prefer if the AI acted as you've put it rather than how it does now, as it will force the players to actually play smartly. Squishy mages did perfectly fine in D&D based games if you actually used some tactics.
And again, XCOM doesn't prioritize your squishy targets from what I remember, which allows them to actually function. It's not 'using them properly', it's basically the AI giving you a break. Much like the AI in strategic games gives you a break by not doing the most sensible thing, which would be ganging up from the get-go on their largest threat, the non-AI, unpredictable human player.XCOM features no aggro mechanics, yet both squishy snipers and beefier assaults have their place in the squad if you use them properly. There are tons of games that somehow manage without it.
For all I know, mana is still regenerating just fine. Health part is debatable, since:
- There is an extra health layer of guard/barrier which you can regenerate. So taking health damage only means that you "max" health will be lower, sort of an injury system
- With items that give heal on kill and the like it is even less so
Not that I see something fundamentally wrong with regenerating health and mana in the first place, It can work fine depending on overall combat and encounter design.
You are correct mana still regenerates but there is no way to use it for healing.
Guard or barrier I have no problem with because it is also available to the enemy. I would like to see life sucking runes and enchantments used by the enemy .If the AI allowed the enemy to use healing magic and potions the same way it allowed the protagonist and party I would have no problem with that. But in DAO and DA2 that was clearly not always the case except for the Arishok fight where he had a limited amount compared to Hawke (if hawke dueled him).
In fact if it is available to the party the enemy should have access to it also.
DAO allowed the party to carry over 99 healing potions for each level of potency. Even in DAI I would like to see an humanoid enemy drink a potion and keep fighting.
I'm pretty sure squishy mages were ok in the D&D based games because the AI there *wasn't* set to do the sensible thing. They were instead aiming either at what they saw first/nearest target, or --in slightly more advanced systems-- they'd take damage dealt to themselves as part of the calculation.
Later on in a bid to make the AI act 'smarter' that was enhanced with taking into account the healing done to the enemies and that's the point where the AI started to focus the squishies and suddenly players discovered that hey, that's not fun. And so the taunts were added to the picture as a way to allow the classes function like the players expected them to.
And again, XCOM doesn't prioritize your squishy targets from what I remember, which allows them to actually function. It's not 'using them properly', it's basically the AI giving you a break. Much like the AI in strategic games gives you a break by not doing the most sensible thing, which would be ganging up from the get-go on their largest threat, the non-AI, unpredictable human player.
D&D based games are so many that I'm not ready to make an exhaustive analysis of AI behavior in each of them. I played NWN with some AI mods though and I must say that it was quite fun and enemies often made sense with their targeting.
XCOM, AI doesn't always act in the most sensible way, but it will focus down your snipers if you put them in the front. Now, there's also MP in XCOM. If aggro was indeed essential for balancing it would come down to one 2 cases depending on balance:
Now, this is simply not the case and mixed compositions are quite viable even in MP. Why is that? Because artificial aggro mechanics are not needed to balance the roles. Tanky characters can be used as frontline/scouting/charging/tying up enemies. Squishy dps characters can do long range support or ambush attacks.
Seriously, there are tons of ways to balance this without screwing the AI. You're making it sound like it is impossible to balance a game that has both tanks and dps without making a dumb AI that always goes for the tanks. This basically would make a lot of MP tactical/strategic games unplayable if it was the case.
So does Tiger Woods Golf (apart from the moral choices bit.) And before you say something about it being an RPG hybrid, it isn't. It's a sim. They can also come with stats.
That is not an rpg. Not even close. It is a sports game, nothing else.
You are correct mana still regenerates but there is no way to use it for healing.
Guard or barrier I have no problem with because it is also available to the enemy. I would like to see life sucking runes and enchantments used by the enemy .If the AI allowed the enemy to use healing magic and potions the same way it allowed the protagonist and party I would have no problem with that. But in DAO and DA2 that was clearly not always the case except for the Arishok fight where he had a limited amount compared to Hawke (if hawke dueled him).
In fact if it is available to the party the enemy should have access to it also.
DAO allowed the party to carry over 99 healing potions for each level of potency. Even in DAI I would like to see an humanoid enemy drink a potion and keep fighting.
I agree that enemies having access to same tools as players makes things much more fun. I also agree that unlimited almost no cd potions in DA:O were simply ridiculous.
However, when speaking of "if players can do it, enemies should do it too" DA:O was miles ahead of DA:I. In DA:O enemies actually had similar stats and abilities to the player. This was more immersive to me (as opposed to random bandit having 10k health) and tactcally more interesting, as enemies could cast stuff like fireballs, crushing prison, misdirection hex etc. How many enemies in DA:I actually have abilities that can screw you up? Barely any have some form of CC (terror demons are the only ones I remember). DA:O enemies also had healers and healing spells (not potions though, as far as I remember at least).
It is not impossible to balance a game that has both tanks and dps but it is not easy either. A chess playing computer program example comes to mind. They could beat 85% of most players when they first appeared. The top 15% were beyond them. These programs had levels were the AI made mistakes otherwise they would always crush most human players.
The programs are now to the point the AI beats 99.9% of most players.
In a cRPG, if the AI did not make mistakes in combat at the different levels of difficulty and always took out the squishes first many players would find that unacceptable.
On Hard or Nightmare level I would expect the AI to "think" more strategically and tactically. But at the different levels of difficulty the AI should respond differently.
It is not impossible to balance a game that has both tanks and dps but it is not easy either. A chess playing computer program example comes to mind. They could beat 85% of most players when they first appeared. The top 15% were beyond them. These programs had levels were the AI made mistakes otherwise they would always crush most human players.
The programs are now to the point the AI beats 99.9% of most players.
In a cRPG, if the AI did not make mistakes in combat at the different levels of difficulty and always took out the squishes first many players would find that unacceptable.
On Hard or Nightmare level I would expect the AI to "think" more strategically and tactically. But at the different levels of difficulty the AI should respond differently.
I would praise the game that is tactically complex and does difficulty scaling via AI alone instead of usual quantitative bonuses as the best game ever. Unfortunately atm even strategy game AI's resort to having cheat like bonuses to stay challenging at higher levels of play.
But yes, if smart AI makes Easy too hard, dumb it down for players that just want to breeze through the game.
I'm not saying it's something that's impossible; I'm saying such implementations turned out to be not fun for typical players. This "no fun" aspect is why the PvP parts in the multiplayer/MMO games with exactly this sort of "smart AI" that you need to fight against aren't everybody's cup of tea. Few healers enjoy being constant target, and few tanks enjoy not being able to do much about it while they're being largely ignored. And if you start putting "incentives" to target tanks instead of the squishies? Why, that's basically reinventing the agro mechanics, to the same effect.Seriously, there are tons of ways to balance this without screwing the AI. You're making it sound like it is impossible to balance a game that has both tanks and dps without making a dumb AI that always goes for the tanks.
I agree. And you basically control your enemies thinking by using that. It is like they have no will of their own. Stuff like that should have some sort of saving throw.
I would praise the game that is tactically complex and does difficulty scaling via AI alone instead of usual quantitative bonuses as the best game ever. Unfortunately atm even strategy game AI's resort to having cheat like bonuses to stay challenging at higher levels of play.
But yes, if smart AI makes Easy too hard, dumb it down for players that just want to breeze through the game.
No necessarily dumb it down. The overall point to playing the game is to have fun. The different levels of difficulty make it more accessible.
When I was younger (and had more time) playing on Nightmare was challenging and fun. Now if play on normal or hard because I want to have fun and my time is far more divided so playing time is less. I no longer have time to spend planning the perfect strategy and tactics to win. It stops being fun.
I'm not saying it's something that's impossible; I'm saying such implementations turned out to be not fun for typical players. This "no fun" aspect is why the PvP parts in the multiplayer/MMO games with exactly this sort of "smart AI" that you need to fight against aren't everybody's cup of tea. Few healers enjoy being constant target, and few tanks enjoy not being able to do much about it while they're being largely ignored. And if you start putting "incentives" to target tanks instead of the squishies? Why, that's basically reinventing the agro mechanics, to the same effect.
Note that not every type of game can rely on hiding the squishy characters to give them some chance of survival, and even in these which do allow it this is hardly something that can be called "playing smart" or engaging. It's a pretty basic, gimmicky approach and when you repeat it a fight after fight after fight it quickly grows as stale as the agro mechanics.
Hiding is not the only mechanics that can be used for these purposes. CC, attacks of opportunity, zones of control and tons of other mechanics that actually make you think about your positioning and abilities you use can work here.
Now, I've been enjoying SC1/2 and WC3 competitive mplayer a lot, so I know how to put my hydras behind roaches or my priests behind footmen. But I simply don't see how the magical taunt button makes stuff more fun or tactically interesting.
It's just a haphazard way of simplifying the real problem which is controlling the battlefields. I loathe aggro but there's not much I can do about it.
I liken it to trash talking done in most competitive sports. Trying to get into the enemies head. Otherwise the AI could just simply target the squishes and the player would spend most of the battle trying to defend and keep them alive.
The operative word is fun. If the player is not having fun why are you playing the game?
I liken it to trash talking done in most competitive sports. Trying to get into the enemies head. Otherwise the AI could just simply target the squishes and the player would spend most of the battle trying to defend and keep them alive.
The operative word is fun. If the player is not having fun why are you playing the game?
Once upon a time mages had powerful spells but could only memorise a fixed number, so that they had to be selective about which battles to deploy them in. They also had to use some strategy, because it wasn't cool to drop a direct damage AOE on top of your comrades.
The fighter classes were important because the mages didn't have unlimited mana and so couldn't spam their uber magics at every trash mob. They also had better armour and more hit points, so were more durable.
Now combat is largely about watching cool down timers.
I accept that things have moved on and that class balance is very, very hard to get right and always has been. I'd like to see a better format for gameplay than mana/stamina pools and cool down timer though.
I'm too far removed from pen and paper mechanics these days, but how is this handled in modern RP games?
No necessarily dumb it down. The overall point to playing the game is to have fun. The different levels of difficulty make it more accessible.
When I was younger (and had more time) playing on Nightmare was challenging and fun. Now if play on normal or hard because I want to have fun and my time is far more divided so playing time is less. I no longer have time to spend planning the perfect strategy and tactics to win. It stops being fun.
Well, "making it more accessible" is technically the same as "dumbing it down", although it sounds less harsh. Not that there's anything wrong with players that want an easier time because they don't have time or desire to study the combat system.
Personally I have much less time for games too now, working as a full time software engineer and writing a few side projects of my own, But I have gotten pretty good at rpg/strategy games over the years, so I can play most of them on highest difficulty from the get go. Now stuff that I DON'T want to spend my time on is pointless grind, fetch quests, looting or running around looking for the next quest objective (so I actually like quest markers and corridor type games more now).
Once upon a time mages had powerful spells but could only memorise a fixed number, so that they had to be selective about which battles to deploy them in. They also had to use some strategy, because it wasn't cool to drop a direct damage AOE on top of your comrades.
The fighter classes were important because the mages didn't have unlimited mana and so couldn't spam their uber magics at every trash mob. They also had better armour and more hit points, so were more durable.
Now combat is largely about watching cool down timers.
I accept that things have moved on and that class balance is very, very hard to get right and always has been. I'd like to see a better format for gameplay than mana/stamina pools and cool down timer though.
I'm too far removed from pen and paper mechanics these days, but how is this handled in modern RP games?
It's not that I don't find it fun. I just don't think it makes sense and would prefer an alternative mechanic. I can't think if a good one though so that is that.
Mmmm...
Lots of possibilities without even thinking much, most implemented somewhere already (some work only for turn based though): ZOC (zone of control), cover system, using cc as means of keeping enemies away (like simple slowdown), attacks of opportunity for running away from melees, some "tie up in melee" mechanic that makes harder to disengage when in melee combat,
Also: actually rethinking combat roles and how they work?
Well, "making it more accessible" is technically the same as "dumbing it down", although it sounds less harsh. Not that there's anything wrong with players that want an easier time because they don't have time or desire to study the combat system.
Personally I have much less time for games too now, working as a full time software engineer and writing a few side projects of my own, But I have gotten pretty good at rpg/strategy games over the years, so I can play most of them on highest difficulty from the get go. Now stuff that I DON'T want to spend my time on is pointless grind, fetch quests, looting or running around looking for the next quest objective (so I actually like quest markers and corridor type games more now).
I very careful with terms like dumbing down because some posters use that to signify about the lack of intelligence of the gamer. Given the level of discussion I have come across from many of posters here lack of intelligence is not the case. I find time constraints, and RL concerns to be more the case.
I on the other hand like exploration and care less for linear corridor type games. Grinding does not bother nor fetch quests since my party is out exploring any way.
I must admit I do like doing the line puzzles and finding the shards.
Retour en haut