256 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

This is drastically different from aggro in a sense that you need to force the opponent to engage on your terms using positioning and proper abilities. This is usually called tactics. If you get a bad engage you can lose. It also leaves opponents with a choice of what they do rather then predefined dumb behavior.
 
Whereas in aggro based system you just push the magic taunt button nullifying any need for proper positioning or actually thinking how you want to play this encounter out.

I don't really find it all that different -- if your agro skill has melee attack range, then what's exactly the difference between "positioning and using abilities" vs "positioning and using ability called taunt"?

The choice of what to do that you mention is precisely why the AI is given the agro tables. It is the way for the computer to calculate which of the targets poses the greatest danger and thus who should be engaged. What people often miss when they scoff at the taunt skills is, these skills are only adding a number to the agro table, just like many other things the characters can do. The "taunt" could be easily replaced with animation of your character punching the target in the face or doing some actual weapon attack (like these attacks of opportunity) Would it make the NPC reaction more believable? Apparently so, seeing how AoO get brought up as superior approach.

Furthermore, aggro systems inherently have a built in aggro based target prioritization. So for instance, I want to make an AI that uses a CC spell and then drops a lasting AoE on top because he's just that nasty. But after CCing character 1 he gets hit by character 2 and switches target because aggro mechanics inherently make him retarded.

Well, how is this situation different from your AI character casting their CC and then being hit by a fighter standing next to them with an attack of opportunity, and so turning to deal with what it now perceives to be imminent danger?

The dislike seems based on your own evaluation of what is the biggest target being different from the conclusion of the AI, but the catch is, the AI has no concept of "that guy is just that nasty" that you do, without hard-coding some sort of threat value for that nasty guy, that will be large enough to override threat posed by some sword cut even though the nasty guy didn't do anything (yet). That's all there is to it because that's all a computer can do -- compare numbers.

Yes, it prioritizes targets based on perceived levels of threat. Aka agro table. So do you. You've decided to CC *and* hit the nasty guy because you believe he's nasty enough to warrant it. The problem here isn't agro mechanics per se. It's your disagreement with a typical contemporary rpg AI on how to calculate these agro/threat numbers.
 

But it IS solved for turn based games ages ago, there could be no debate here IMO.Including using methods that OP listed. Or are you arguing that in CIV games ZoC doesn't melee viable meatshields for your ranged units?

No, I don't usually find the melee units in CIV games capable of preventing me from shooting these ranged units with my own ranged units, if I choose to shoot the ranged targets first. ZoC does nothing in this regard. Of course, this choice will be based on my evaluation whether these ranged units pose enough threat to shoot them first.

What about all these competitive turn based MP tactical games that feature heavily armored and lightly armored characters that are both perfectly viable on the same team?

I don't know, what games are these? You mentioned XCOM iirc, but everyone in that game runs with ranged weapons and the units with heavy armour can be just as hard hitters as the ones in light armour. So I don't know if this is a good example how games can totally make the heavily armoured characters something that you'd still want to hit, without the taunt skills. Do you have some other examples..?

[tmp7704]

Because aggro is idiotic? "Hey, this wizard is blasting you in the face with fire... but I'm going to stick my tongue out and taunt you and make you forget and attack me, encased like an iron tank!" As opposed to "hey, this guy won't just let me walk past him."

So, it makes more sense to you to ignore the wizard blasting your face with fire, because the guy encased like an iron tank will stab you with a sword if you don't focus on him instead. Now explain to me, why doesn't it suddenly feel idiotic to focus on the stabbing guy and not the wizard guy when they *both* keep hitting you no matter which you choose, and the wizard is much easier to take out of the picture?

Because the iron clad dude gets extra attack if you ignore him, thus hurting a bit more? Well, why then doesn't the wizard get free fireball of opportunity if you focus on the tank dude instead?

Rules in cRPGs are one thing, but arguing they're one way or another because sense is something else entirely.

I'll repeat my question from the other post. If the guy encased like the iron tank wasn't sticking his tongue out but instead stabbed your character when I pressed the "taunt" button, would it make you feel better and more sensible about focusing on the iron clad guy instead of the face melting wizard? Is that all it'd take, or is there more to it?

[MadDemiurg]

I don't really find it all that different -- if your agro skill has melee attack range, then what's exactly the difference between "positioning and using abilities" vs "positioning and using ability called taunt"?

The choice of what to do that you mention is precisely why the AI is given the agro tables. It is the way for the computer to calculate which of the targets poses the greatest danger and thus who should be engaged. What people often miss when they scoff at the taunt skills is, these skills are only adding a number to the agro table, just like many other things the characters can do. The "taunt" could be easily replaced with animation of your character punching the target in the face or doing some actual weapon attack (like these attacks of opportunity) Would it make the NPC reaction more believable? Apparently so, seeing how AoO get brought up as superior approach.

If I haven't made it clear, the main problem with aggro systems I have is not the taunt abilities but how it works at its core. Aggro tables are a very suboptimal way of implementing a competitive AI and THAT'S the main problem. Aggro systems automatically mean subpar AI. Taunt can be seen as a crowd control spell after all, although it's a bit OP if you compare it to the duration of other forms of CC and it would hurt my suspension of disbelief less if it was explained as a mind control spell.

 

No, I don't usually find the melee units in CIV games capable of preventing me from shooting these ranged units with my own ranged units, if I choose to shoot the ranged targets first. ZoC does nothing in this regard. Of course, this choice will be based on my evaluation whether these ranged units pose enough threat to shoot them first.

And they shouldn't. But shooting at them would often mean putting your own squishy ranged units in range of enemy melee. Does it make an all ranged or an all melee army an optimal strategy in CIV? No.Objective accomplished - both ranged and melee units are viable.

 

 

I don't know, what games are these? You mentioned XCOM iirc, but everyone in that game runs with ranged weapons and the units with heavy armour can be just as hard hitters as the ones in light armour. So I don't know if this is a good example how games can totally make the heavily armoured characters something that you'd still want to hit, without the taunt skills. Do you have some other examples..?

Regarding XCOM: and why is that a bad thing that you want to hit heavily armored guys just as much? Are they OP? No. Do you benefit form mixing different character types? Yes.

 

Other examples - OK, The Banner Saga has MP - there both melee Varls and squishy archers are perfectly viable. Is HOMM and Disciples multiplayer good enough for you?

[Fast Jimmy]

So, it makes more sense to you to ignore the wizard blasting your face with fire, because the guy encased like an iron tank will stab you with a sword if you don't focus on him instead. Now explain to me, why doesn't it suddenly feel idiotic to focus on the stabbing guy and not the wizard guy when they *both* keep hitting you no matter which you choose, and the wizard is much easier to take out of the picture?

Because the iron clad dude gets extra attack if you ignore him, thus hurting a bit more? Well, why then doesn't the wizard get free fireball of opportunity if you focus on the tank dude instead?

Rules in cRPGs are one thing, but arguing they're one way or another because sense is something else entirely.

I'll repeat my question from the other post. If the guy encased like the iron tank wasn't sticking his tongue out but instead stabbed your character when I pressed the "taunt" button, would it make you feel better and seem more sensible about focusing on the iron clad guy instead of the face melting wizard? Is that all it'd take, or is there more to it?

Yes, it would make me "feel better" because it's logical. The entire point of blocking with unit placement... is to block. If your glass cannon is blasting damage to the enemy and is being protected by your tank, the enemy should want to kill your glass cannon but can't because the tank is in the way, doing even more damage if you try to get past. You should have to flank the ranged character to get around the tank, or send a stealth unit to get past, or find a way to slow/disable the tank to blast past. Meanwhile, the tank and ranged character should be looking for terrain that let's the tank bottleneck possible threats and give the ranged character a better line of sight to rain destruction.

Not do the equivalent of smashing your sword against a stonewall because apparently the tank said "neener, neener." And where placement and use of terrain are pretty much irrelevant since your tank will just run into the biggest group of enemies, heckle some people, kite in a circle to keep anyone from escaping his undeniable stupidity-inducing words, while a Mage blasts firestorm over and over again.

[RenAdaar]

Dramatic this thread is 

[tmp7704]

If I haven't made it clear, the main problem with aggro systems I have is not the taunt abilities but how it works at its core. Aggro tables are a very suboptimal way of implementing a competitive AI and THAT'S the main problem. Aggro systems automatically mean subpar AI.

Uhmm ok but then how do you suggest for the computer program to determine what's the target that it should engage? It has to evaluate the options somehow, after all. So, how? Let's take the most basic example here -- a wizard is melting the AI's face from the distance and a fighter who can AoO is in its face. How do you picture the AI to determine who should become its target, that wouldn't be subpar?

And they shouldn't. But shooting at hem would often mean putting your own squishy ranged units in range of enemy melee. Does it make an all ranged or an all melee army an optimal strategy in CIV? No.Objective accomplished - both ranged and melee units are viable.

I don't feel this shows that melee units are somehow made viable here per se -- after all, in situation where the melee unit poses an actual danger due to it's position in the front, then focusing them with your ranged (outside of the range of their ranged, as these will be generally behind) will either allow you to take the melee out, damage them before you retreat (rinse, repeat until dead) or to bait their ranged into position where the melee no longer perform their shield function effectively. This renders mixed unit army weaker than all-ranged army of the same size, and the games often wind up having to rig the table in some ways that aren't really any less silly than the taunts... just so the melee doesn't end up as entirely pointless cannon fodder. The point being, if we're somehow ok with these artificial ways for the sake of overall 'balance' then it doesn't seem to me like agro/taunt mechanic is in particular something to get selectively in arms about.

Regarding XCOM: and why is that a bad thing that you want to hit heavily armored guys just as much? Are they OP? No. Do you benefit form mixing different character types? Yes.

I'm not saying this is something bad. But I'm pointing out this is quite different setup from your typical fantasy cRPG where you have usually squishy ranged units that hit hard and heavily armoured melee units that hit less hard (because otherwise the squishy dudes get upset their DPS isn't enough to make them worthwile) and that particular setup creates situation where no one feels like hitting the armoured dudes and so, taunts.

XCOM shows that if you have your entire team composed of differently specced wizards in mail/plate then in the end everyone winds up as worthy enough target. But I don't know if many fantasy games would be willing to go this route just to get rid of the taunt button. Nor how many people would complain how such setup isn't the usual class composition they've always been playing.

Other examples - OK, The Banner Saga has MP - there both melee Varls and squishy archers are perfectly viable. Is HOMM and Disciples multiplayer good enough for you?

Sadly the Banner Saga bored me rather quick so I didn't feel like trying MP there. I've only played solo HOMM no MP (and that was like decade ago) so no experience there. I haven't played Disciples either, will see if I can find it somewhere and check it out.

[MadDemiurg]

Uhmm ok but then how do you suggest for the computer program to determine what's the target that it should engage? It has to evaluate the options somehow, after all. So, how? Let's take the most basic example here -- a wizard is melting the AI's face from the distance and a fighter who can AoO is in its face. How do you picture the AI to determine who should become its target, that wouldn't be subpar?

Well, having a degree in CS I do have some knowledge in how AIs can be implemented . But let's say properly designed decision trees can work much better here for instance. No strategy AI worth a damn uses anything resembling aggro. In fact a much more sensible way to calculate threat would be to take character damage POTENTIAL (not the damage he has been doing so far) and divide it by its survivability coefficient (how that's calculated is another matter). But this is also far from optimal. Going further into these topics is probably too much for the BSN though  ,

 

I don't feel this shows that melee units are somehow made viable here per se -- after all, in situation where the melee unit poses an actual danger due to it's position in the front, then focusing them with your ranged (outside of the range of their ranged, as these will be generally behind) will either allow you to take the melee out, damage them before you retreat (rinse, repeat until dead) or to bait their ranged into position where the melee no longer perform their shield function effectively. This renders mixed unit army weaker than all-ranged army of the same size, and the games often wind up having to rig the table in some ways that aren't really any less silly than the taunts... just so the melee doesn't end up as entirely pointless cannon fodder. The point being, if we're somehow ok with these artificial ways for the sake of overall 'balance' then it doesn't seem to me like agro/taunt mechanic is in particular something to get selectively in arms about.

Now this is pure theorycrafting without any competitive experience to back it up. An all ranged army is going to be slaughtered without melee to cover it because melee in civ does very high damage to ranged whose melee skill is usually very low. Unless terrain heavily favors the ranged army that is.

[AlanC9]

If I haven't made it clear, the main problem with aggro systems I have is not the taunt abilities but how it works at its core. Aggro tables are a very suboptimal way of implementing a competitive AI and THAT'S the main problem.

Meaning that the design goal itself is the problem, right? You don't use an aggro system to make the AI competitive, you use it to build in exploits for the player.

[tmp7704]

Well, having a degree in CS I do have some knowledge in how AIs can be implemented . But let's say properly designed decision trees can work much better here for instance.

Hmm wouldn't that require not just proper design but also lot of preparation work in the code to provide input that would be useful *and* a decent set of data "how to play" generated in up-to-date combat system?

That's not the main question though. That would be... after you spend large amount of time making the competent AI, presuming you achieve the point where it can reliably fight and win, how do you then *dumb it down*? Because that's the main catch with the AI in games. It's not supposed to win against like, 95% of players. It's instead supposed to be beatable by the majority of them, while providing impression of a struggle.

(there's some pretty good insight on this here: http://askagamedev.t...yers-want-smart And hopefully it can show why the "dumb ai controlled with a taunt button" might make more sense, overall)

[MikeJW]

If you make AI too good then it is going to beat the players most of the time unless you make their power substantially weaker. Aggro tables are gamey but knowing them is part of the game. One thing, you mention melee blocking the enemie from your caster and thats good but what if the enemie is ranged and not weak? How is melee going to block a dragon or a 9' tall ogre thats going to one shot your ranged?

[Solar1101]

troll thread 0/10

[metatheurgist]

But if you followed this thread, it'd make you believe that this has been solved decades ago and all it takes is a warrior with attacks of opportunity standing between your warlock and the mobs running past. Was that not solved then and mobs still don't give many fucks about the dude clad in heavy armour that wants them to hit him instead of the squishies?

I feel lied to

As I mentioned, we don't have much of a frontline. Our party composition is...frequently wacked.

The difference is in verisimilitude.

My big, burly fighter has attacking skills with weapons and fast reflexes. If someone tries to get past him to attack the squishies, he might trip them, bowl them over, simply stand his ground in a small area or stun them with a ferocious strike. Because he's a fighter, not a Jedi Master. He doesn't just suddenly develop these psychic abilities to cause people to ignore all tactics and reason and attack only him. If we're just going to suddenly develop psychic abilities, why stop there? He should just force choke them or mind lance them. Why wear armor? He should just cover himself in a telekinetic force field. Why be a warrior at all?

The system of attacks of opportunities isn't perfect, and it shouldn't be. It gives the warrior a chance to frustrate the enemy if the player is playing a tactical character and is good at what he does. It's not the illogical auto win of taunt, where suddenly everyone in range magically attacks the warrior for no explicable reason.

Imagine if the mechanic was used against the player. You're lining up your big attack against the boss and suddenly his minion "taunts" you and you lose control of your character and waste your attack on the little guy. This is another reason the mechanic sucks. It's another example of divergent mechanics where PCs have access to a different ruleset to the NPCs. If taunt exists it should exist for everyone.

The mechanic should have a valid in-game reason for working. If you're actually throwing insults you should need to be skilled at that and your opponent should either be really dumb or susceptible to verbal attacks. The idea of experienced warriors just ignoring everything and attacking someone just because a PC said so is just plain dumb.

[Realmzmaster]

Note that in this thread some posters consider certain games to be cRPGS while others do not consider those games to be cRPGS. As i stated each poster has their definition of what they think constitutes a cRPG and a checklist of features it must have.

 

For example some consider IWD (Bard's Tale, Might and Magic, Wizardry) to be a cRPG others a combat simulation. One of the problems may be that IWD (and other like it) has one person roleplaying all six characters which does not happen in a tabletop situation nor does it happen in a game like BG. BG, NWN and DA has the player roleplay one character in the group, but the other five character's personalities are set by the developer's writers. Therefore it is actually closer to a tabletop situation in that regard.

 

 DA and BG allows the player to control the stat & skill advancement of all the characters and through dialogue choices try to affect the companion's personality. IWD allows the player to headcanon all the character's but there is no interaction in-game between those characters (no companion banter etc).

 

BG has companion interaction to the point that certain characters cannot be in the same party with other characters. And some characters came as pairs. DA  (and to a lesser extent NWN) shares that kind of companion interaction.

Now some would consider BG to be more of a cRPG because of the social aspects between companions that try to mimic the social interaction of a tabletop situation in game.

 

Some posters would consider DA2, The Witcher 2 and many jRPGs not be cRPGs because the character is set (well in DA2's case somewhat set). Therefore the character is not their own.

 

Some would state that they are cRPGs because it allows the player to assume a role.

 

So there is no one size fits all definition of cRPG.

 

As far as Bioware or any company making cRPGs that is up to each individual person to decide based on their checklist and definition. That fortunately or unfortunately is the crux of the issue.

 

I have my checklist and if a game hits most (if not all) of the points I am good to go. For me it is a cRPG. The number one criteria is it has to be fun, but YMMV.

 

If one game can kill a genre then stick a fork in it and let it die.

[AlanC9]

The mechanic should have a valid in-game reason for working. If you're actually throwing insults you should need to be skilled at that and your opponent should either be really dumb or susceptible to verbal attacks. The idea of experienced warriors just ignoring everything and attacking someone just because a PC said so is just plain dumb.

 

The implicit assumption here is that the game's supposed to be something of a simulation, right?

[metatheurgist]

No, the explicit declaration is taunt is a dumb mechanic.

[MadDemiurg]

Meaning that the design goal itself is the problem, right? You don't use an aggro system to make the AI competitive, you use it to build in exploits for the player.

Pretty much

 

Hmm wouldn't that require not just proper design but also lot of preparation work in the code to provide input that would be useful *and* a decent set of data "how to play" generated in up-to-date combat system?

That's not the main question though. That would be... after you spend large amount of time making the competent AI, presuming you achieve the point where it can reliably fight and win, how do you then *dumb it down*? Because that's the main catch with the AI in games. It's not supposed to win against like, 95% of players. It's instead supposed to be beatable by the majority of them, while providing impression of a struggle.

(there's some pretty good insight on this here: http://askagamedev.t...yers-want-smart And hopefully it can show why the "dumb ai controlled with a taunt button" might make more sense, overall)

I dunno, maybe "impression of a struggle" is what tickles the fancy of most players these days. To me the flanking AI described in the article was perfectly fine apart from the fact that it could be pulled. What it should do is set up an ambush and wait for the player to come out. In fact, the aforementioned XCOM AI often flanks and i'd be severely disappointed if it didn't. There's a reason a lot of people enjoy playing vs other people more as they can actually "outsmart" them. I wouldn't expect the same level of intelligence from AI for a game with complex rule set, as these are hard to implement and would probably require unrealistic computational resources to be anywhere near optimal even in theory. But I enjoy the game more If I can actually get beaten and need to adjust my tactics. I'm not sure what target audience the aforementioned shooter was made for, but RPG crowd used to enjoy challenge, optimizing builds and strategies etc. 

 

As for difficulty scaling, most strategy games do AI scaling just fine, and complexity of AI needed there is much higher than what's needed for small scale tactical engagements. Higher difficulties also use some sort or resource bonuses as well though, as making an AI competitive with a semi decent player by using tactics alone is too complex there. Or you know, you can just lazily scale hp and damage as most games do nowdays. So that even if you get flanked you just shrug it off like its nothing.

 

So what's your point exactly? That aggro system is better for making a dumb AI that provides no challenge and is well suited for players that just want to press a button and see explosions? Then we come to an agreement here.

 

I also don't think the original design intent of the aggro system was to make a "fair" AI. There's a reason it appeared in MMO first. Thing is, it's one of the most computationally cheap ways to make an AI and as MMO need to run the game logic on the server side as well to avoid cheating, this was one of the better ways to save computational resources, while providing an AI that does smth better than just selecting targets at random. Adding abilities that manipulate aggro was a quite interesting design idea that followed up. It served its purpose there. However, I see no reason for doing this in singleplayer apart from saving money on AI development (I could probably code a base implementation for an aggro based Ai in 1 evening). This is my theory anyway.

 

It reminded me of one of discussions I had with my American colleagues when I visited California. I'm not sure if they were pulling my leg, but someone told me that  there it was recently forbidden to keep score while playing sports games at schools so that god forbid someone didn't get offended. If that is true after all (which I find hard to believe), than this all reminds me of recent gaming developments where a seven year old can beat the highest difficulty without noticing.

[tmp7704]

So what's your point exactly? That aggro system is better for making a dumb AI that provides no challenge and is well suited for players that just want to press a button and see explosions? Then we come to an agreement here.

Essentially... yes. That's the underlying point under that "changed because no fun" thing I mentioned initially. We then got a little sidetracked into talking about whether the "it's better in ye olde days/elsewhere" is really all that different (because the way some people seem to get bent out of shape over how the taunt thing robs them from the oh-so-tactical "you shall put your squishies in the back" always feels a bit funny to me) but that's secondary.

I guess since we have no argument about that main point though, it can now be put to rest.

[MadDemiurg]

Essentially... yes. That's the underlying point under that "changed because no fun" thing I mentioned initially. We then got a little sidetracked into talking about whether the "it's better in ye olde days/elsewhere" is really all that different (because the way some people seem to get bent out of shape over how the taunt thing robs them from the oh-so-tactical "you shall put your squishies in the back" always feels a bit funny to me) but that's secondary.

I guess since we have no argument about that main point though, it can now be put to rest.

I see then.

 

For me it was always hard to understand the mentality of people that do not want challenge, but still want combat in the game. I mean, if there's no challenge in combat system I'd rather play an interactive movie type of game. What's the point of having stats, abilities and character builds in this case? I guess it can be explained as adding to interactivity a bit, and also roleplaying a certain type of character. But to me this can be pretty much reduced to a dialogue wheel type of choice where you pick one of "decapitate with a sword", "fry with fireball" or "poke to death with a fork" options and see a corresponding cutscene play out (with certain options like "fry with a fireball" available only to certain classes to allow to roleplay different character types). Also overall number of encounters could be drastically reduced. (And I would actually play a game like this if it had a good plot).

 

However most modern RPGs still have 90-95% combat content (if you compare the time spent on dialogue/cutscenes to the time spent on fighting) and a lot of development effort (and thus budget) put into the combat system. So what's the point in having all this if you can just mindlessly click through it?

[tmp7704]

For me it was always hard to understand the mentality of people that do not want challenge, but still want combat in the game. I mean, if there's no challenge in combat system I'd rather play an interactive movie type of game. What's the point of having stats, abilities and character builds in this case? I guess it can be explained as adding to interactivity a bit, and also roleplaying a certain type of character. But to me this can be pretty much reduced to the dialogue wheel type of choice where you pick one of "decapitate with a sword", "fry with fireball" or "poke to death with a fork" options and see a corresponding cutscene play out (with certain options like "fry with a fireball" available only to certain classes to allow to roleplay different character types). Also overall number of encounters could be drastically reduced. (And I would actually play a game like this if it had a good plot).

That sounds a lot like Telltale games (the combat sequences there are driven by QTEs rather than stats/abilities) and yeah, they're fun in their own way
 

However most modern RPGs still have 90-95% combat content (if you compare the time spent on dialogue/cutscenes to the time spent on fighting) and a lot of development effort (and thus budget) put into the combat system. So what's the point in having all this if you can just mindlessly click through it?

At the risk of sounding slightly cynical, your typical player thinks they want the challenge, too. But it's not something they'd actually handle. So they get a game which can be defeated without much effort, and they can feel good about themselves because just look how they totally moped the floor with these NPCs. Some won't recognize there wasn't any actual challenge there due to the D-K effect, and some will choose to overlook it.

The closest analogy I can bring up is "pwning nubs" sentiment in the multiplayer games. Beating the heck out of people who never stood a chance (either because they had no wits, skills or just game gear to stand that chance) is very entertaining for many people who play these games, even though on some level they're well aware it was never fair nor challenging.

[AlanC9]

No, the explicit declaration is taunt is a dumb mechanic.

Right, but aren't you saying that it's dumb because a RW fight wouldn't work that way?

[MadDemiurg]

At the risk of sounding slightly cynical, your typical player thinks they want the challenge, too. But it's not something they'd actually handle. So they get a game which can be defeated without much effort, and they can feel good about themselves because just look how they totally moped the floor with these NPCs. Some won't recognize there wasn't any actual challenge there due to the D-K effect, and some will choose to overlook it.

The closest analogy I can bring up is "pwning nubs" sentiment in the multiplayer games. Beating the heck out of people who never stood a chance (either because they had no wits, skills or just game gear to stand that chance) is very entertaining for many people who play these games, even though on some level they're well aware it was never fair nor challenging.

You're probably right, but it makes me sad .

[AlanC9]

I see then.
However most modern RPGs still have 90-95% combat content (if you compare the time spent on dialogue/cutscenes to the time spent on fighting) and a lot of development effort (and thus budget) put into the combat system. So what's the point in having all this if you can just mindlessly click through it?

This is a little unfair. Using the aggro-exploiting abilities isn't automatic. We've had plenty of people over the years asking about how to get their tanks to actually get and hold the enemies' attention. Usually the problem is unloading too much damage too fast from the other characters, sometimes it's a bad build, sometimes it's bad tactics or bad Tactics.

[MadDemiurg]

This is a little unfair. Using the aggro-exploiting abilities isn't automatic. We've had plenty of people over the years asking about how to get their tanks to actually get and hold the enemies' attention. Usually the problem is unloading too much damage too fast from the other characters, sometimes it's a bad build, sometimes it's bad tactics or bad Tactics.

I'm not saying that having aggro automatically makes the game not challenging. It can be challenging in other ways. However having an aggro based AI instead of an actually smart AI definitely takes away from the challenge and tactical depth. The "mindlessly click" through it part referred not to aggro mechanics specifically but just the state of gameplay in many games in general, and it usually suffers from many more problems than just a dumb AI.

[keesio74]

The MMOfication (if there is such a thing) began with NWN. NWN removed permadeath or the possibility of protagonist death resulting in a game over. The Bioware games prior to NWN had permadeath (BG1 & BG2) as did the Gold Box games and just about all the early crpgs.

 

DAO further up the ante by including regenerating health and mana. DAO also added cooldowns. All of those are according to some posters on this forum MMO elements. DA2 took it a step further and added instant health and mana regen after each combat.  

 

 

This. People have so much love for DA:O, asking for bioware to go back to being a CRPG like DA:O when people forget that DA:O was criticized for losing its CRPG roots.

[metatheurgist]

Right, but aren't you saying that it's dumb because a RW fight wouldn't work that way?

I'm saying it's dumb because warriors aren't mages. They shouldn't have magical powers. And if they do enemy warriors should have the same powers to use against the player.