Annie Carlson plays the AoD combat demo

Click here and disable ads!

If there was a 4chan vaccine, I'd let them inject it into my eye.

Nice to read some feedback aboutt his game, that show first its not vapoware, and that combat is complex enough to talk about.

It seems ranged combat is clearly superior in AOD, as they choose the realistic way, indeed a peasant with a croswbow could kill a full plated knight in armor, the pope in 1139 considered those weapons as devilish and immoral.
I dont see how they can balance that except making them rare or very expensive, in a post apocalyptic world, it must not be that easy to manufacture one, i think after a nuclear war you have to start from stone age, and those weapons requires roman empire technology at least.
Ranged is always superior to close combat weapon except if its dark , or you are ambushed.
And thas the demo, maybe you can find in ruins, guns and more advanced ranged weapons even in the full game.

When will the unwashed masses have access to this demo please ?
Oh and please dont discuss the scripting, it breaks all the magic

My point was that you're acting emotional.

It's not the first time you complain about something AoD-related. Now you pretend to speak for everyone and say "no game - nothing to talk about", yet you read the thread about some "better than you people" playing the demo and spent enough time here bitching about the non-existent code issues. Then you tell Oscar to shut the fuck up or produce the demo.

Are you going to claim that you aren't upset for whatever reasons?

There are plenty of crossbows in the gameworld. Overall, ranged combat is balanced by shields offering superior protection against ranged (as shields should) and inability to shoot/throw point-blank, which forces rangers either to switch to melee or step back, which gives the melee opponent a chance to get an opportunity attack.

The cost of each movement is 2AP, so retreating is costly.

I like playing a crossbowman, but fighting multiple opponents is extremely hard. You have to plan every shot/move very carefully.

In a few weeks.

And that's how I think it should be. Investing in ranged combat should have more to do with careful planning, preparation etc. than what a straight-up fighter can afford to do. In that sense, ranged attacks being deadlier sounds like music.

Great.

Slightly stupid question: Are you proud of the game?

Or d''you just think its as good as you can make it, and pride has nothing to do with it? Are you just nervously apprehensive? I wont accuse you of being an egomaniac if you say "yup", and I'm not asking for a marketing pitch...just curious is all.

I can promise you that I have no emotional attachment to AoD.

Don't get too excited princess, I complain about everything. I don't make shit up, but I'm good at finding fault.

I was commenting on the lack of discussion in the thread. You can claim I derailed it, but it languished with zero interest for most of a day before I posted. Perhaps I'm not the only one waiting on the demo to enter the debate?

Reading and discussing are different things. Often separated by level of interest.

And yes, I find the "hear what some celebrities had to say about our demo" angle hilarious. I shouldn't bitch too much, I think it's cool that you shared te feedback - it just hasn't fired me up.

Oh no, I wasted codex bits arguing about programming languages. I wonder which Andiawhateverthefuckhisnameis question we missed out on?

Awe, did I fowrget to say pleaz on teh codex? I explicitely stated that I was being "unduly rude" in case some utter retard wouldn't be able to recognize by the phrasing that the hostility was tongue-in-cheek. I guess I didn't aim low enough.

I'll claim it, swear on it, whatever. Criticizing the development of AoD may be a waste of time, but it was a hell of an investment. Maybe I can pass my experience on to my children one day!

Can it just be fucking Thursday already? I need some new rpg goodness.

If worse comes to worst just pull a Paradox Interactive and let us mod and fix all the problems.

rpgdot.com More highlights from the Lets play AoD thread on the Irontower Studio's forums over at RPG Watch: Our brave assassin returns to the guild and reports that the mission is completed successfully and that the late merchant Gracius is on his way to the under
-------------------------------------------------------------
Self Certificate Mortgage
Appraisal Management Companies

This thread really didn't deserve this abominational advertising resurrection :/

Where is the late Merchant Gracius on his way to?!?! Fuck now I want to know.

Just in: Annie Carlson plays the AoD combat demo in a wet t-shirt. Watch the video at ITS website!

sort of want

The Iron Tower Studios version of this thread seems to be much more informative.

Specifically, it goes into details which make the combat system sound seriously fuck up(sic).

If NPC has 200 dodge, and you have 200 sword skill, you have only 5% to hit.

If NPC has 200 dodge and you have zero sword skill, you have only 5% to hit.

This is working as designed.

I feel like this has confirmed my theory that it's far too difficult for an indie team to develop on it's own a quality RPG game mechanics system, which isn't exactly surprising, because professional teams fail to develop good systems consistently.

It is. What seems to be the problem?

To have a good chance against somebody you have to be better than him/her. While someone may argue that evenly matched opponents should produce a 50/50 chance, I don't think it works well in games where a 50% chance plus frequent reloads can assure you a victory.

If you're complaining about the points investment that seemingly makes no difference then:

A) the difference is that someone with 200 points in swords can kill most people while someone with 0 points can't kill anyone.

B) the value of your investment depends on your goal. Let's say - purely for argument's sake - that I want AoD to be one of the 3 top selling games of all times (for the record, my expectations don't go higher than "I hope it doesn't suck and sells more than a 1000 copies"). Now I've spent 5 years, which is a long time, yet my chances remain 0 - about the same as the chances of someone who hasn't done anything yet and is only thinking of making a game.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 741#935741

Some feedback from people who are known around these parts:

Programmers are really not funny

I lol'd.

Then again, I'm a programmer. Guess we are different, somehow

Two problems:

a) It gives nonsensical and counter intuitive results
b) It is going to lead to an incredible amount of failed builds once we're outside of a combat demo and people are spreading their skill points around more.

a) nonsensical and counter intuitive results

200 points in a fighting skill makes you an adept or expert in that skill, considering 300 is the max.

It's counter-intuitive and counter-factual to say that a novice fighter (30 points) and an expert fighter would have the same chance at hitting a guy who is an expert defender (5% chance). In reality this is not remotely the case, a guy who hasn't trained at all will have a much worse chance than a guy who has trained enough to become an expert.

What's worse though, is that the guy with 200 fighting skill has spend as much as 1/3rd of his total points *EVER* in fighting, for no gain whatsoever (in this specific fight vs a guy with 200 dodge)

The guy who didn't spend any points in fighting is actually better off than the guy who spent 200 points in fighting, because he has 200 points that he spent somewhere else which will presumably not be quite as useless.

The threshold effects we're discussing are classic results of poorly done combat algorithms. The results seem reasonable within certain ranges, but then past certain thresholds all sanity leaves them, so that in some cases 30 points is as good as 200 in fighting, or 200 points is as good as 300 in dodging, etc.

b) failed builds

Given that there is such a high potential for your points spent to be entirely useless in certain fights, there is a huge chance of players to just make failed characters when they get into the real game rather than the combat demo.

Likely many people will want to mess around with a few skills (a little combat, a little dodge, a little stealth, a little diplomacy), and will not just go for a "max out combat and put a few points in dodge and that's it build". Given how there is such a huge potential for your points in combat to mean absolutely nothing, if you put in too few points to reach a certain threshold, the potential for screwing yourself seems incredibly high.

The potential for screwing yourself is present in most games, but it's rare to see one where you can spend so many points on a basic fighting skill, yet see zero results because you didn't quite keep up with the growth of enemy dodge skills.

If you read one of the combat demo reviews, a guy mentions keeping a pool of unspent points from earlier encounters, and then jacking his fighting skill up enough to ensure reliable hit on the next set of opponents. This should not be necessary, but I expect if I play a combat character, I'll be spending my points almost exclusively in this fashion, rather than just making an intuitive build.

Not a problem unique to AOD though, most homebrew RPG systems end up having some massive issues, although here they do seem to be a little more obvious than in most games.

Well, while it does make sense that a skill level in the attack vs. the same level of defense skill results in a low attack probability, it does NOT make sense in any way that the same defense skill level vs zero attack skill level has the exact same probability.

Because this makes 200 points of investment completely unimportant in that situation. I understand that 5% is simply the lowest probability there can be, but why not simply make 200 defense vs 200 attack result in something like 10-15%. Still pretty low, but at least it does matter somehow.

Though I fail to see how this could be seen as a fuck up of the whole combat system...

I hope I didn't confuse anything here, as I certainly didn't read through all that stuff.

In reality "novice wins" gives you 2.5 mil matches in Google.

I thought I've already explained. "A) the difference is that someone with 200 points in swords can kill most people while someone with 0 points can't kill anyone." 200 points give you a good to excellent chance against 2/3 of the game's fighters, but you're upset that after investing 200 points you still can't kill anything you wish ("no gain whatsoever!!!")?

If he'd attempt to pass a dialogue/text adventure/sneaking/crafting/lockpicking/disarming check requiring more than 200, his 200 points would be even less useful, because he won't even get that 5% chance.

Btw, do you have similar complaints about dialogue checks in games? In Fallout 2, for example, you need 75 points in Doctor to learn about combat implants. Guess what, if you have 74, your chance to get the schematics is exactly the same as that of someone who didn't invest nothing at all.

What you're calling the lack of sanity is a simple and universally accepted fact that when a game requires the player to have a certain skill to either pass the check or have a reasonable chance of doing so, if the skill is less than the required amount, the actual skill value is irrelevant and both 5% and 95% of the required amount result in the same outcome.

Because you are a seer and you said so? If you put 100 points into combat and start challenging top fighters, then yes, your 100 points would be entirely useless. If you'd play in a more reasonable manner, then I'm sure that you'd find the progression somewhat enjoyable.

Sounds like a winning strategy. Let me guess, I'm expected to make sure that a guy who's invested a little bit in combat would be as good as someone who's a dedicated fighter, right?

You're a very giving person. Did someone ever tell you that?

There is neither growth nor progression of enemy skills. Nor there are any default enemies. You'll decide what your goals are. If you'd want to be able to protect yourself against bandits and such, a modest skill will be enough. If you'd want to be a good fighter, it would require a bigger investment. If you'd want to be the best of the best, then you better put every fucking point into combat. Hardly a rocket science, aint it?

It's a personal preference. I do it in most games I play. That's how I got the implants and the cybernetic brain in Fallout 2. Sure as fuck not because I thought I'd role-play a guy with 75 points in Doctor and 125 in Science.

Like? You sure like making vague statements a lot, so let's cut through the bullshit. What are the massive issues in most "homebrew" RPGs? Considering how small the indie RPG market is, I'm sure that "most" includes Avernum, Geneforge, Prelude, and Eschalon. Knock yourself out.

In this situation. Not all. So this complaint can be easily read as "I invested 200 points but can't kill anything I wish. I'm very disappoint!"

It would be sensible if it would be 200 points in swords and 300 points in dodge. If it's 200 and 200 the bonuses to hit and to defence should cancel each other.
Otherwise, it would mean that the dodging person is more skilled at dodging than the other person is at trying to hit people who try to not get hit (which is the point of raising the sword skill in the first place, isn't it?), which should be shown by a higher dodge skill.

It's a matter of perspective. The way I see it, x value at dodging means that you can dodge attacks made by someone with x value at attacking. In other words, 50 points at dodging teaches you how to avoid attacks made by someone with an equal skill at attacking. To make it easier to understand, let's say that 50 points in attacking means that you've mastered the basic attacks, in which case 50 points in dodging would mean that you've mastered how to avoid basic attacks (but would be vulnerable to more advanced varieties you aren't familiar with).

I will grant you that your mechanics likely make sense inside a certain range. The problem is that they appear to break down badly outside of that range.

200 points of investment in dodge reduces a trained man at arms with 200 swords to the offensive effectiveness of a untrained peasant... yet the peasant's effectiveness is still 5%, just like the man at arms.

And if you throw more men at arms out there, does their chance to hit get any higher (per person), or does Mr. 200 dodge maintain his 95% dodge rate against five 200 swords opponents?

Doesn't really match my conception of real life combat or RPG combat in general. I've never been able to obtain such reliable evasion rates in RPGs without vastly out leveling my foes or stacking magic items.

Absolutely. It's a big problem with skill checks, although it is solved in some systems by not having so many useless points.

For example, in a D&D based game, instead of having 300 points of dialog skill, where only a small portion of the numbers can actually be the threshold required to pass a check, you will typically put in four points at first level, plus one point per level thereafter, plus a stat bonus ranging from +0 - +5. This means that it's extremely easy to figure out where you stand as far as your ability to pass checks, and it means that there will likely be new challenges you can pass each time you raise your skill level, since there are not 300 different levels your skill could be at, but more like 20-25.

In comparison, going from 281-284 may well be entirely meaningless in a a 300 point system.

But normally this problem was confined to skill checks for non combat actions, as combat thresholds were not brick walls like they are for skill checks, instead effectiveness tapered off more gradualy, so even lower level opponents still had non trivial chance to hit, it seems unfortunate to extend this problem to combat too.

What's crazy about your system though is that it takes only 200 points of dodge to render 200 points of swords as useless as zero points.

In other games you can get opponents down to 5% chance to hit, but it takes a lot more than simply MATCHING the points they spent, usually it'd only be someone far above them in skill reducing their hit so low.

No see, the problem with your system is that it the threshold for your points spent in combat to become useless is vastly lower than in typical systems.

Let's say that in a typical system, matching opponent dodge with your weapon skill gives you a 50% chance to hit.

And lets say someone is playing an assassin and he needs to raise several skills, dodge, daggers, stealth, poisons, critical strike. (we only get ~700 points remember)

So he can't match a good fighter's dodge. So he might have only 35% chance to hit instead of 50%... means he has a harder fight than normal, but his weapon skills still benefit him.

But in your system, he can't match his opponent's dodge so he has 5% chance to hit, same as he would have if he did not train his dagger skill at all.

This makes your system vastly more unforgiving if you guess wrong about how much is the minimum weapon skill your hybrid character can get by with.

Sorry I was unclear, I should have used a different word, when I said "homebrew" I was referring to any system created from scratch by the developers, rather than adapted from a licensed product such as an existed P&P system.

So for example the skill system in Morrowwind would count. Or for example, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, which is still a good game, despite the fact that 2/3 stats are nearly useless and the entire weapon system is broken.

Normally unless you're Blizzard or you've licensed a solid P&P system like D&D, a homebrew system is going to be rather wonky, so I won't specifically hold it against AOD. The combat demo looks fun, I'll just avoid playing anything but pure combat and pure non-combat until a FAQ comes out and tells me how much combat skill hybrids will need to have it not be wasted.

What's that gotta do with anything? Does chess match your concept of two armies fighting each other in real life?

I'll reply to the rest in the morning.