Annie Carlson plays the AoD combat demo

Click here and disable ads!

Put for example a legendary boxing match: Hearns vs Ray Leonard, the latter was considered one of the best of all times in defense while Hearns was great offensively. In their first fight hearns didn't knock leonard down but scored a lot of points with hits that weren't full power, so thanks to his 'dodge' abilities Leonard could avoid most damage but not all. That seems more realistic as a real life situation than Hearns not doing any damage at all. Besides, in fights the random factor plays A LOT.

If you really think that the dodge dude should have a .05 chance of getting hit against a foe of equal skill in an opposite area I believe that you live in a strange world my friend.

Can't say that I agree with that. Let cheesy players be cheesy and reload their fill. I don't think making the game harder for those who play fair is... fair. :wink:

Hmm... Is dodge some uber skill that allows automatically avoiding attacks or does it have some limitations like having to activate it and not being able to attack/being much less effective at attacking?

Yeah. Right now it sounds like it's going to be cheesy for everyone.

You are counting on impulse purchases?

I'll admit, that does sound a bit odd.

If it may sway you: Fallout had a demo, and it made me really want to buy the game. It was very nice to see "Hey, I can kill them. Or, hrm, I can talk them out of it. Or I can help their enemies. Or I can cut the power here with this item and then sneak in. Or I can hack their computer for the info I need. Or I can join them. Or I can..."

You concern about the demo being part of the full game is very easy to mitigate: just make like Fallout and set the demo in an area that is in the actual game, but has nothing to do with the plot of the game itself (except tangentially) and has unique NPCs and quests that are not found in the game.

ITS are copypasting Fallout 1 fail. It had exactly the same problem, but of course when F1 is teh greatest RPG in teh world evar, and criticisms of it's rule system are ignored, what do you expect.

Anyway where did this 5% is the lowest probability possible come from? It couldn't be lazy switching from a d20 system to a d100 could it?

The > threshold = auto success, else fail is another fail mechanic they've apparently re-introduced, despite my criticizing it ages ago.

I am expecting a good role-playing experience, multiple solutions and interesting quests, but the combat are character mechanics from the snippets we have been given do not fill me with hope.

100% fail, no saving throw, for you

Are you serious?

Fallout demo changed my perception of Fallout from "an interesting game that I probably won't ever buy" to "holy fuck, I have to buy it RIGHT NOW!"·

I liked the demo being a mini-game too.

What problem is that?

I believe that there is always a min chance to succeed. Call it luck.

Please restate the criticism.

Overall, as someone who communicates for a living, I can assure you that "> threshold = auto success, else fail " is a very realistic approach. Try convincing your boss to give you a promotion and/or increasing your pay without having enough skills to overcome his resistance.

Link

Explain.

As I've explained: "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."

RPG combat systems aren't faithful adaptations of real life battles. Like chess, they are abstract concepts that have nothing to do with realism.

That you will get game situations where 100 pts of character investment are wasted? I think it's self-explanatory.

But why does that chance have to be 1/20? Why can't it be 2.3% of 1.0% since you chose to use a percentile system?

Well to start with it philosophically contradicts your immediately preceding statement - there should always be a chance to succeed - "call it luck". Equally, it means that stat points will be 'wasted' on the first playthrough. The luck is no longer tied to player judgments (luck, as in you are told/can calculate there is a 20% chance of success, and a 7% chance you will be worse off for trying if you fail), but blind luck. It also means the first playthrough will be different than the second and third. Once you learn that you need exactly 80% in a particular skill in one part of the game, but anything over 80% is useless (never threshold checked), you will aim for exactly that and nothing else. Or decide it's not worthwhile, and not take the skill.

It's player knowledge of what the character doesn't know changing his decisions.

It depends on a system. There are systems that try to be realistic, like TRoS, GURPS and CP2020.

Also, if dodge is more powerful, is swords skill cheaper to get than dodge?

You don't see the contradiction between the "minimum threshold skill checks" and "there should always be a chance in combat" positions, both inherited from Fallout 1.

They are not wasted. They only go so far, as they should. Let me ask you a question. You put in 100 points into a weapon skill in a system that goes up to 300. What do you expect? To be able to kill some enemies, most enemies, all enemies? If you agree that 100 points shouldn't ensure you a victory over anything (which is what Fallout #1 flaw was, btw, as there was no reason to invest more than 100 points even though the system went up to 200/300), would that not mean - according to your own logic - that's the points are "wasted"?

Why not 5? 1 is too little, 10 is too much. 5 makes sense.

I meant in combat. Your opponent can trip, make a mistake, open up; you can have a lucky strike/shot, etc. While you can hit the right spot with some luck, you can't come up with a good argument that greatly surpasses your knowledge/abilities just because you were lucky. Different areas.

I do agree that luck should apply in lockpicking/disarming, but I'm concerned that the player will be able to reload fishing for that lucky chance, which would make investing pointless. We're considering adding/increasing the luck factor for the ironman version - without reloads it would work fine.

All checks for all non-combat skills go all the way to 300. You may decide that you don't need what 250 - for example - in some skill opens up for you, but that's a different matter.

Personally? I would keep it simple, have no arbitrary minimum/maximum values, and allow to-hit %ages to reach 0% and 100%. If you are so underpower/overpowered that success ratios are <5% or >95%, you are not going to (/always going to) win the battle anyway. For the character getting <5% chance, something is seriously wrong with your character build or you are trying something way too difficult for your level too early. You are not realistically going to succeed the series of <5% rolls you need to win a battle unless you save/reload cheat. Such a weak character should be able to resort to multiple buffs or extreme risky tactics (berzerk/critical type of attack) but shouldn't be able to just continue as normal since he knows he will have a 5% of success whatever happens.

By the way it was the maximum %ages which was more of a problem for me in Fallout 1. Eg, a crippled, unconscious wounded opponent at your feet one square away, using an aimed sniper rifle attack to finish him off, which misses.

And I do not agree that there should always be a chance at anything. The reason I think skill thresholds are bad design is mainly the player/character knowledge issue.

There is a big difference between 5% and 1%. Needing to roll 100 times to expect success vs 20 times represents a big difference in the distribution of outcomes, which you are throwing away. With 20 rolls you can expect to achieve a few successes in the average length battle (as long as you survive), and if your damage is high enough it might even be worthwhile. If you need 100 rolls you're not going to be bother.

Again, I don't think there should always be a chance of success.

For non-combat skills, my approach would be to allow attempts if you are within some distance of the threshold. Instead of Speech 80%+ = success, something like chance = (Speech-60%)*5
[chance 0->100% from Speech 60 to Speech 80... Speech 70 gives you even odds].

That way, the player just 1 level-up away from the threshold (which he is unaware of on the 1st run through) needed to pass will still have some kind of chance, but the player who never bothered at all with the skill won't. And the guy who heavily invested his points suffers no risk of failure.

That way, there is a less heavy penalty on not having played the game before, and there isn't a "guess what the difficulty threshold is" meta-gaming.

As for save/reloading, that's a problem you can't prevent, cheaters will do that whatever your efforts. There's no use trying. You can't stop cheating, because if you have fixed absolute skill thresholds players inclined to cheat will look for a walkthrough and design their characters based on it - a different kind of cheating.

If you are saying your justification for thresholds is to discourage save/reload, then it looks pretty weak.

If the full range of skills are used for skill checks, that's good, but it still leaves the replay problem.

Another solution to skill thresholds would be to randomize them within a certain range at the start of each game. That would avoid the need for probability rolls for non-combat checks, while still reducing the replay/player knowledge issue. It might also be easier to implement.

You are no longer absolutely certain? We're making progress then!

Again, you're failing to grasp one huge difference. A guy with 200 points in swords is a very good fighter who can defeat most people in the gameworld, while an unskilled peasant can't defeat anything at all.

Take the famous "Miyamoto Musashi vs Sasaki Kojirō" duel. Kojiro was considered one of the finest swordsmen who often fought against several opponents. Yet Musashi didn't even use his sword and fought and killed him with a wooden stick, showing his disdain and superiority. I'm sure that Kojiro was very pissed off when he was dying and thought that he wasted decades of his life and at least 250 points, which were as useless against Musashi as if he had - wait for it - no skills at all.

The same.

Like I said, rpg combat is not about realism, which is why we have turns, hit points that allow your character to be hit repeatedly with a battle axe, be reduced to 1hp and fight as well as if he were a well rested man without a scratch, instantly healing spells and potions, 250 pounds of spare armor and weapons that don't slow you down at all, kill hundreds of people and creatures throughout a game, etc.

In a linear game? Sure.

Our Skills Points represent experience. In a class-based system you usually need to gain a few thousand points to gain a level and gain a handful of points. Let's say you need to hit 10,000 but you only have 9,500. Are they "entirely meaningless?" Yes or no, please.

First, it's basic math. -50+50=0. Not -100+50=0. Second, it's much harder to get 200 points in Dodge than in Swords. No, it doesn't cost more but it's a secondary skill. High Dodge without high weapon skill is pointless as then it's only a matter of time until your opponent kills you and since dodgers don't have heavy armor, they go down easy. So 200 in Dodge implies at least 200 points in a weapon skills, so we're talking about 400+ points, which is more than half of what you can get in the game.

Ok. So, our system is not like other systems. Where is the downside? If you've read the quotes I posted, it certainly appears that people were enjoying it.

That it is.

Well, it goes without saying that a system that was polished for decades would be better than something that was developed in a few months and tweaked for a few years internally. The downside, however, is that I know DnD like the back of my hand and all the novelty is long gone. So, personally I'd take a slightly flawed new system, like PtD, for example, over a well polished but too familiar DnD.

I haven't read all the responses but I hope the linearity this system would bring would be taking care of since you wouldn't be able to take on X foe unless you level
Y times but I can see where you are coming from, I can only imagine the possibilties if the player would be forced to find alternative solutions to combat problems, I guess linearity wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Kinda dissapointed about the "non realism" aproach since I train, but on the other hand the ranged combat seems to be going in a great direction, im excited to see it working.


Oh, and Im actually happy that you would try this new system because as you said, there are too many D&D and its a very forgiving system, yours seems more visceral

You didn't answer my question. Or does it mean that you agree with me?

Which is a chance of success.

I beg to differ. If a system encourages you to reload by giving you a reasonable chance to succeed despite low skills then people will reload and try again. If a system doesn't do it, then reloading is kinda pointless.

I think that many gamers consider exploits as part of the design. They won't use an editor to give themselves 200,000 XP because that's cheating but they will use an exploit (like the conversation loop in PST where you gain 200-300,000 xp every time you click on a certain line) because it's in-game and thus legit. Eliminating exploits and reducing reasons to reload (to achieve a more favorable result by simply clicking on something again) is definitely a good thing in my book.

That's a p damn good idea, actually.

True I didn't answer directly.

Question 1: I expect to be able to kill enemies who are of my level. I also expect to have a relative (dis/)advantage against all enemies depending on my investment. Unless I have really no chance (<1%) of success in which case I do not expect an arbitrary minimum chance to succeed which is unwarranted by my stats and skills.

Question 2: I think Fallout had a screwed skill system, which meant some investments were a total waste, yes and that learning from that means the same mistake should obviously be avoided.

Yes, evidently. Though you only have that sliding scale of a chance within a skill range. If you invest nothing you won't even get a chance.

The problem with cheaters is the cheaters. Some people don't cheat, by warping the game design to try to make cheaters not cheat, you make the game worse for honest gamers.

And as I pointed out, you encourage a different kind of cheating not allowing the possibility of skill check successes within a small range.

I disagree with that view. The ability to save/reload constantly so your character is able to do anything (whatever his stats) is not the designer's fault. Ideally I would like save points, eg rest areas, but that might not be commercially viable.

What do you think of my proposal, which is a simple way of enhancing replayability and removing the distortions of the threshold game mechanic (since you insist on keeping it)?

Actually it was partially fault of designers of games like Fallout, Arcanum, etc. who actually assumed that players will SFL through their games to the point of advising players to do so in game manuals and brought up a generation of people who are accustomed to using such exploits.

I wonder what's the point of making a game that emulates PnP RPGs and then spoiling it by teaching players to repeat combat/skill usage until they "win".

Personally, I have found Fallout/Fallout2 a lot more enjoyable when I have started to play Iron Man. Mainly because it allowed avoiding being frustrated by repeated deadly failures. I think I have played Fo1 a few hundred times and despite remembering the whole game, I still enjoy playing it because each play-through can be different depending on what character I create, C&C and various random factors.

I didn't read all the words in this thread which is longer than the eula of the last game I pirated but while scrolling I've detected numbers that go up till 300.

VD, does AoD have skills that go to 300? Why does it go to 300 instead of 100?
I don't like bug numbers.
I also hope AoD has a great story =D . Does it? Any hints?

I'm not failing to grasp it, I just don't find it relevant to discuss, as your system is probably working properly in that case, and what I'm worried about is the areas where it breaks down.

The ability to beat up random thugs may be small consolation to you if you get stuck on an encounter due to 5% chance to hit, but your other skills like stealth and dialog are too watered down to pass the encounter in other ways, due to your investment in swords.

The thresholding effect makes hybridizing your guy far more risky than a more typical system where failing to match your swords to enemy dodge, but still investing substantially, just left you with 45-25% hit.

Unfortunately for your example, accounts vary heavily of what exactly happened in that fight, some experts think that they Mushashi and his buddies just assassinated Kojiro.

Luckily, we don't need to go to feudal Japan to get examples of guys fighting; we have unprecedented access to watch guys fighting today. Admittedly, we don't know everybody's stats, but one thing is clear;

Journeymen- expert fighters tend to get beaten up by Master level fighters... but they do a lot better than an untrained person would. And when two guys who are of the same skill level fight, they hit a lot more than 5% of the time.

So your system doesn't really produce results that match player expectations which have been built up from both reality and from other RPGs.

Well, I will have to take your word on this for now (that there aren't going to be any strong builds favoring dodge over weapon skill), since I don't have access to the game. It's certainly possible that people won't run into the thresholds much in actual gameplay.

True, you don't need realism, but you still want the mechanics to make sense to your players, and players have certain expectations both from real life and from other RPGs that are being defied here.

People expect spending a substantial amount of points in fighting to put them ahead of not spending any points at all, and people expect a reasonable progression of effectiveness from no investment, to moderate investment to max investment, if people run into the 20 swords but 5% hit issue in actual gameplay a lot, they're going to be confused and/or irritated.

Not meaningless, unless you're at the EXP cap, or you have no way to earn more EXP prior to the encounter you're stuck on.

Similarly, due to the low caps in this game, a hybrid might not always be able to spend more points, or you might not be able to earn more points to raise your swords prior to the encounter you're stuck on.

The downside is that it makes building a hybrid character extremely risky, unless you've got a guide telling you what level of skill you'll need.

Whereas in a more typical system, if you guess wrong and have your sword skill a little too low for a certain encounter, you'll be at a disadvantage, but it won't be like you didn't spend points at all.

This will make it very frustrating for people who guess wrong on how many points they'll need. It is not ideal for players to be frustrated by unintuitive game mechanics.

Right now, everyone is building pure combat characters for the combat demo, so this issue would be minimized compared to the real game where people will want more skills. I know that I'm pretty much scared to build a hybrid character without a guide due to this mechanic.

Anyway, don't feel obliged to go for a super long response as I'm probably gonna respond less to this thread as it's taking me too long to write these long ass responses.

This isn't a game where you fight progressively tougher enemies. If you have to fight someone, it's because of something you did, i.e. something that was 100% avoidable.

We've covered that part.

Porka: ".. 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)..."

VD: "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? "

Porka: "No see ...your system vastly more unforgiving..."

A jack of all trades won't do very well in AoD. Some specialization will definitely be required. Anyway, let's end this rather pointless debate for now. The demo will be out in a few days. Try it and then you'll tell me what you didn't like specifically.

Overall, you've made some good points and I'm not saying that the system we have now is perfect, totally amazing, and beyond any criticism. We'd appreciate all and any criticism, especially from you, and maybe the system should be tweaked and the linear formula should be replaced with something more curved IF what we have now - as flawed as it may sound to you - doesn't work.