67 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I disagree.

For one, magic is a skill, like playing an instrument. Many people can pick up a guitar and learn to play after careful instruction. Only the most select few are able to learn how to play nearly every instrument known to man and can do so with beautiful proficiency while also performing with great flair under high stress situations. If any person with a flicker of magical ability can launch fireballs at will, then yes... that world is doomed to terrible imbalance, not to mention social hierarchies that would collapse the foundations of society.

Fighting is, similarly, a highly learned skill. The most proficient don't just clang on their opponents shields for hours until a mistake is made... they are the most naturally athletic, using the environment and their knowledge of enemy weaknesses and gaps to inflict the most damage possible. Just like anyone can play basketball, but few people can make it to the NBA, the same applies to warriors.


5E (which I can't stop harping about) also makes distinctions between "real" classes and more generic NPC roles. A 5E town guard is not made up of a group of Fighters or Rogues. They are either commoners or guards, with dramatically lower power curves and skills. Fighters are the true battle-borne masters of fighting, who can use their expertise to take down foes in a way superior to magic in some ways, given the Vancian nature of D&D spells per day.

Which, to me, not only makes sense but imposes the greatest order of balance. Wizards can't summon the power of the cosmos at the snap of their finger every 120 seconds, all day, every day. The balance of a system is broken by the cooldown systems that have become a staple in CRPGs in the past decade.

We're not talking about the average slub off the side of the road. We're talking about a party in an RPG or MMO - our population subset is already the (in-world) elite of the elite, the absolute martial peak of their respective world. And in that context the martial peak of a mage is just far beyond that of a warrior.

If we were looking at army composition there might sell be an argument here. But we aren't looking at army composition. A guard is a fodder enemy, not a protagonist. That the warrior is stronger than the guard but garbage next to the mage is not inconsistent with what I've said.

And there's no reason why Wizards can't summon the power of the cosmos at will besides arbitrary rules of balance.

[In Exile]

It can. Again, 5E... the rules it uses for aggro abilities don't mandate that enemies Attack the tank. They, instead, have abilities that give penalties to the chance to hit or to damage when the target is anyone but the person Taunting, as an example. AI is only dumb because it is programmed to be dumb. Just like you can program an AI to play chess as smart as a human, you can program an RPG to fight as well as a human. And you need only introduce skills that don't force stupidity on the target (whether AI or human), but give them weighted parameters with which to work.

That just sounds like POE, and I can tell you the AI in that game is hot garbage. The "challenge" (if it can even be called that) derives solely from not being able to spec your own companions at lower levels (unless you're creating a party) and from being assaulted with huge mobs of enemies that outnumber you 3:1. On path of the damned the AI has statistics advantages.

The AI doesn't have the capacity for human creativity. That's why it has to have different rules.

[In Exile]

The problem is with Turn based systems in general. They are archaic, I mean the only thing a person can do to add more complexity to a turn based system is to through more variables or abilities at it. If you are playing D:OS, you can reach a point where you are able to predict the next set of motions. Turn based system is limiting, tightly constraint and shows no room for expansion.

With real time you run into reaction time issues. Even with pause it becomes a bit if a reflex game on an AI whose reaction and control has to be nerfed in ways different from a human to create and maintain challenge.

[Commander Rpg]

The AI doesn't have the capacity for human creativity. That's why it has to have different rules.

AI is made out of instructions and inputs by the original creator/s, they can either be bad and disorganized inputs, or good and organized inputs. If you add the superior computing power a machine has, you can - given the goodness of the rules you have made - beat a man with his same rules, as Kasparov has been beaten at least once by a machine.

[Sully13]

hay kid yoy wana soak up damage like a sponge and shrug it off like a boss?

you wana do a metric sh*i ton of damage in one swing? Warrior is for you.

[Cyonan]

A system that works with the same efficiency PvE as it does PvP tends to avoid a lot of this nonsense. Enemies should be able to do anything the player does (provided all criteria are met) and vice versa.

 

Well what I'm talking about is the belief that everybody in the party needs to be good at everything. The idea that because the Paladin gets to bring a lot of buffs to help the party, the Rogue should be able to do the same thing equally as good.

 

Or in the case of the OP, that because Rogues/Mages can do high amounts of burst damage then Warriors should be able to as well.

 

It admittedly seems to be more of an issue with MMOs than standard RPGs. Blizzard specifically has been really bad with it in WoW in the last few expansions.

[Commander Rpg]

Well what I'm talking about is the belief that everybody in the party needs to be good at everything. The idea that because the Paladin gets to bring a lot of buffs to help the party, the Rogue should be able to do the same thing equally as good.

I support the idea that every class/archetype must work equally and fairly as others do. This doesn't mean having the same powers or doing the same things but in a different manner, it means letting everyone have fun with their choice, without inferiority complex that are brought up when a 20th level wizard blasts everything in combat and the warrior has the only two options of attacking or retreating, both useless and boring at the same time.

[Fast Jimmy]

We're not talking about the average slub off the side of the road. We're talking about a party in an RPG or MMO - our population subset is already the (in-world) elite of the elite, the absolute martial peak of their respective world. And in that context the martial peak of a mage is just far beyond that of a warrior.

If we were looking at army composition there might sell be an argument here. But we aren't looking at army composition. A guard is a fodder enemy, not a protagonist. That the warrior is stronger than the guard but garbage next to the mage is not inconsistent with what I've said.

And there's no reason why Wizards can't summon the power of the cosmos at will besides arbitrary rules of balance.

Again, looking at 5E... the skills the Fighter has aren't godlike or invoking magic. Look at the Battlemaster Path - a feat such as Aware makes pretty certain you will go first. Then you can lead off with the Menacing Attack manuevuer, followed by a regular Attack, followed by the Trip Attack manuevuer as your bonus action, adding Superiority damage die every step of the way. These attacks can be done with ranged weapons, meaning the fighter doesn't even have to make the run up the wizard and leave them an open target.

These attacks, if dice rolls go decent, will do significant damage AND leave the wizard frightened (all saves and Attacks against them gain advantage) AND prone. The wizard will spend a movement action getting up and then be able to get off one spell, which better be a good one. Because the Fighter has lots of HP, natural Proficiency with Constitution Saving Throws (and can easily gain it for Wisdom and gain a big advantage against all mind controlling spells), not to mention the Second Wind fighter skill lets them regain 1d10 + Fighter Level worth of HP, so it better be a strong one that will guaranteed to kill. Because next round, the Fighter is using Action Surge and pummeling out anywhere between four and ten Attacks, which will kill the low HP Wizard. And with the new rules about Concentration, a wizard can't have more than two active spells at once, meaning it limits them to one buff instead of being able to juggle nineteen spells at once to make them immune to everything.


Is a wizard stronger than a fighter? Yes. Mathematically, I can't debate that. But can a high level fighter take down a high level wizard, one on one, with some common and basic tactics (and no crazy game-breaking equilment)? Yes. Without a doubt.



And magic can't be unlimited from a narrative standpoint (forget gameplay). Show me a story world where magic is able to be drawn without limit, over and over, with no fatigue or cost. It's nonsensical. Otherwise, you might as well call them gods.

[Fast Jimmy]

That just sounds like POE, and I can tell you the AI in that game is hot garbage. The "challenge" (if it can even be called that) derives solely from not being able to spec your own companions at lower levels (unless you're creating a party) and from being assaulted with huge mobs of enemies that outnumber you 3:1. On path of the damned the AI has statistics advantages.

The AI doesn't have the capacity for human creativity. That's why it has to have different rules.

Is it creativity to target Mages and rogues, the units able to do huge damage but are weak against direct attacks? That's combat 101. Yet game devs don't code it in because their systems are not refined and would result in TPKs every match.

[Fast Jimmy]

Real time combat systems are more dexterious in design than pause gameplay. I haven't seen a single innovation from turn based system in the last 5-10 years. It is usually the same but with different variables and abilities

I haven't seen an innovation with real time tactics since Pong. At least not an innovation that turn based created and applied first.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well what I'm talking about is the belief that everybody in the party needs to be good at everything. The idea that because the Paladin gets to bring a lot of buffs to help the party, the Rogue should be able to do the same thing equally as good.

Or in the case of the OP, that because Rogues/Mages can do high amounts of burst damage then Warriors should be able to as well.

It admittedly seems to be more of an issue with MMOs than standard RPGs. Blizzard specifically has been really bad with it in WoW in the last few expansions.

The problem is greater - the mindset not only that everyone must be equal in combat, but that combat efficacy is the only value any class can bring. CRPGs have seen declining non-combat skills and benefits due to this MMO mindset. "A rogue can't be good at just being able to take care of every non-enemy obstacle the party faces in a dungeon, it also has to be good at crit damage and Attack speed, wielding dual daggers like a blender." Or "wizards can't be smart glass cannons that use their knowledge to shed insight for the party into lore or esoterical history... they have to Attack with spells every round, all combat! Fireballs and firestorms and flame novas, oh my!" The fighter was originally the class meant to fight, to do damage and to handle the riff raff. Now it has been devolved into being a slow, dumb punching bag and little more.

That's why I like, in principle, a limited number of spells or abilities per day (or per rest, as 5E handles it, since day can be nebulous). Because it tries to make everyone ultra powerful on combat. When not everyone should be (arguably, NO ONE should be).

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm talking in general. If we had to compare combat systems no matter the genre, action games have adopted a much more fluid-esque characteristic(because of the batman games). That is an innovation as it adds another layer to the system. Turn based system is to limited and tightly constraint for a new era or wave

Timing in not an innovation. What some call fluid-esque characteristics, others would call button mashing. It's not strategy, it's reflexes. In a turn based system, you are limited by what your character can do, not what you can do as a player. That's the difference - your character determines if an attack misses, if their movement speed allows them to make it over to the other side of the screen before being hit, if walking right in front of an enemy will result in suffering damage.

Many people think of turn based JRPGs, which have been stuck in the same design for decades, instead of other RPG genres which incorporate positioning, action cost, terrain or surprise in their design. In these systems, you are forced to think of the party as a unit and devise solutions to a constantly changing chess board, not just recycling the same tactics over and over again.

[o Ventus]

Warriors in WoW were THE class to play for a tank in both Vanilla and TBC. They were still arguably the strongest tanks in Wrath, but starting in Cata and on to now, the other tanks are more or less even. As far as DPS is concerned, Warriors are currently one of the highest-scoring classes (for melee anyway, who are average-at-best when compared to the average ranged class). Warriors have been one of, if not the best melee class for general PvP for a while in WoW as well, having anti-heals and heal reductions, strong self-heals, a multitude of stuns and other forms of CC, and strong burst damage and DoTs that cannot be removed or dispelled, all coupled with some of the best mobility abilities in the game for melee. As far as damage goes, they outright murder cloth-wearing classes if the cloth-wearing people don't get off strong heals in time or get the Warrior away from them. IIRC, they also used to have a disarm to use against other melee classes at one point, but that ability might have been removed.

[Voxr]

Warriors in WoW were THE class to play for a tank in both Vanilla and TBC. They were still arguably the strongest tanks in Wrath, but starting in Cata and on to now, the other tanks are more or less even. As far as DPS is concerned, Warriors are currently one of the highest-scoring classes (for melee anyway, who are average-at-best when compared to the average ranged class). Warriors have been one of, if not the best melee class for general PvP for a while in WoW as well, having anti-heals and heal reductions, strong self-heals, a multitude of stuns and other forms of CC, and strong burst damage and DoTs that cannot be removed or dispelled, all coupled with some of the best mobility abilities in the game for melee. As far as damage goes, they outright murder cloth-wearing classes if the cloth-wearing people don't get off strong heals in time or get the Warrior away from them. IIRC, they also used to have a disarm to use against other melee classes at one point, but that ability might have been removed.

Let's face it. Blizz has a Warrior bias. 

[In Exile]

AI is made out of instructions and inputs by the original creator/s, they can either be bad and disorganized inputs, or good and organized inputs. If you add the superior computing power a machine has, you can - given the goodness of the rules you have made - beat a man with his same rules, as Kasparov has been beaten at least once by a machine.

Sure. But Deep Blue doesn't work on the same rules as a person does in playing chess. As I recall their initial solution was to brute force it.

[o Ventus]

Let's face it. Blizz has a Warrior bias. 

 

As far as melee is concerned, yeah. They used to, at least, I haven't played Warrior much in Warlords to really tell how they are now. I prefer my Death Knight.

[Commander Rpg]

Sure. But Deep Blue doesn't work on the same rules as a person does in playing chess. As I recall their initial solution was to brute force it.

Deep Blue used the same rules that every professional Chess player is limited to. It has an amazing computing power, that's why it won the second time. The machine, given the right inputs, can outsmart man.

[Voxr]

As far as melee is concerned, yeah. They used to, at least, I haven't played Warrior much in Warlords to really tell how they are now. I prefer my Death Knight.

Well they've always been a favored class at least. And all three specs have had they're far share of time in the sun, save for Fury a little bit. I haven't seriously played my Warrior since Cata. My guild needed DPS so I went back to my Rogue. Was really disappointed in how Assassination got treated in Cata for PvE. It was Combat or gtfo for a while, it seemed to have improved in WoD though. Can't say much for MoP, took a long break until Siege dropped. 

 

DK's are cool, I don't like tanking with Blood, but Unholy DPS I like a lot. And Frost PvP was pretty rad too, or at least used to be I haven't been on my DK for a while.

[o Ventus]

 

DK's are cool, I don't like tanking with Blood, but Unholy DPS I like a lot. And Frost PvP was pretty rad too, or at least used to be I haven't been on my DK for a while.

Unholy is my favorite spec for a DK, but I've been playing it for so long that I want to give DW Frost another go. That one was pretty good and fun to play in Cata. I skipped most of MoP and only came back starting in the last couple months of Siege. Frost is horrible as of right now for raiding (and PvP, from what I hear) while Unholy is one of, if not the strongest melee DPS (which is weird, since DK's tend to start out each expansion strong, but fall off entirely by the second tier since Blizzard doesn't know how to give them longevity). Patch 6.2 actually looks like a tremendous buff to Frost though, so I might give it another go if I can get my hands on 1-handed weapons to dual-wield with since I hate playing 2h Frost.

[The Invader]

Her. I have a picture on this very forum and everything. :)My opinion is pretty straightforward. I like fun, which is, for me, a system that lends itself to quick conflict resolution without consulting the rules (for PnP games) or encouraging min/maxing (for all games).If you want to discuss how the roles should be balanced in rpg's, I'm game.But, that being said, the traditional roles (warrior, thief and wizard) are fairly limiting and grossly artificial. No one ever really explains why wizards can't wear steel plate any more. Or why fighters have to be over muscled and stupid. For MMORPG's and PnP such limitations can make sense. You want every possible player in a group to have an effective role. But in a single player video rpg, that argument gets pretty weak.

D&D, you can play a finesse based warrior( high dex ) or a spell sword, war mage, battle mage all have the option to wear armor. But yeah, for the most part I agree with you.

[Fast Jimmy]

It essentially created a whole new school of how action game combat systems are implemented. Question is have you played the games? You are looking at it too shallow. The system :

• Eliminates jerky transitions by analyzing the current form that the player character is in.
• Eliminates the standard input sequence to get a combo because certain moves and abilities are executed based on movement
• Creates a unique way for locking onto enemies
• Enemies attack based on a crowd performance rather than individual reactions
• Seamlessly incorporates crowd control into action mechanics without the need for the user to manually lock at all times.
• Encourages fluid animations

There is probably more but the system is much more than just a reflex. The reason I asking is that I have seen the same gameplay from rpgs in the last 10 years. What is the next step? Are we content with not moving forward in any way?

If you were talking about action games, I would agree... the action/timing mechanics are getting more detailed but it does so by sacrificing the things that are the RPG games typical mechanical strengths, namely party mechanics and character/player segregation.

Imagine an RPG where every character fought like Batman in Arkham City... the differences between classes would be near non-existent, because AC's combat system is firmly rooted in player skill and reaction rather than in the character's abilities. If you take a classic Pen and Paper RPG like Dungeon's and Dragons and put five classes into a party, such as a Wizard, a Cleric, a Fighter, a Rogue and a Paladin, they would all interact and work in very different methods, building and supporting the group's efforts with their unique skills.

What you are advocating is making RPGs is just an action game with more stats/equipment/levels. Which qualifies FIFA to be an RPG, by that logic.