Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

AoD - Readme: the combat demo survival guide

sqeecoo

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
2,615
Oh god, is this still going on? I am ashamed for you guys.

Let me try to say something constructive:
First, I don't like daggers being able to bypass armor. Not only is it unrealistic - it makes sense while grappling or something, but not in a normal "swordfight" - but since they do little damage, the most obvious defense against them is to wear armor. This would make them the only weapon where the special ability is a direct counter to their only weakness.

How about a "rapid attack" or "grapple" option?
But this is just a minor complaint, I can live with it.
Axes should perhaps also be able to disarm enemies - not all of them will have shields, which would make their ability useless on many enemies.

I have a more serious question though.
Is ranged damage determined by STR, and is a purely ranged character viable?
If the answers are no and yes respectively, it seems to me that such a character would be "overpowered" compared to other combat builds in the sense that you could have low STR and CON and still be an effective fighter, while having other attributes much higher.
 

Nedrah

Erudite
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,693
Location
Germany
This really is such a minor issue. I'd even call it a non-issue overall. If the game lives up to expectations concerning c&c/story, world design and general depth - who the fuck cares about how many types of ammo we get, as long as combat isn't as crappy as, say, in Arcanum or PS:T? Now THOSE games had some real problems concerning their combat implementation - which must be why nobody seems to like or play them anymore around these parts. As someone mentioned earlier, there are far more ridiculous concepts we accept in our arpegees than universal ammunition. Much like Oblivion didn't fail because blunt and axes were merged, AOD certainly will be judged on grounds that are in no way related to the absence of a distinction between arrows and bolts.
 

John Yossarian

Magister
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,000
Location
Pianosa
The Ticktockman said:
While obediah was a little bitch about it, I kind of liked his main point: if you're looking to minimize the number of different "ammo" types, please cut something else. I don't care what. Make some clever excuse why one of the metal types can't be used for projectiles, or get rid of one of the other modifiers. Then you can have arrows and bolts without having too many different ammo types to deal with

Not just directed at you Ticktockman, but please realize that cutting one option off anything else won't cut down the total by 60. The most you can get is 40 by not letting one of the arrow/bolt heads be upgraded or given effects (2 ammo types X 5 upgrades X 4 effects), and that would really be a gameplay sacrifice. And if you don't cut one type completely, you have to cut a little off some types and a little off others, all of which will affect gameplay a hell of a lot more than universal ammo.
Of course, if balanced well, giving different arrow/bolt heads these types of tradeoffs might be a good thing, but it's definitely too late for this game.

Also, the goal here is not to cut any options. Let's see, the overwhelming majority of people who would play rangers would play bow focused or xbox focused, but not both. So, for almost all rangers, everytime they get to one of these item transfer screens half the ammo types they'll have to scroll/click through will be completely useless to them. Not in a "not useful right now" way, but in a "not useful through this entire playthrough way". So cutting down those to half by preventing upgrades or effects doesn't really remove the problem does it?
Universal ammo does. Using UA, every time any ranger gets to one of those screens, all ammo types will be potentially useful. So he won't just be clicking/scrolling through, but thinking about his upcoming fights and which types he'll need.

About UA in loot, reducing the amount carried by NPCs will fix that won't it?

So, from where I'm sitting, the only remaining problems are the easier time for the insignificant number of people who would play a bow+xbow ranger (who would likely not get passed the first half of the game in any case) and tradition I guess.

Not even worth adding filter buttons to GUIs IMO. Those would be worth it if you leave both ammo types, but let both weapons use both types, with a penalty for using the "wrong" one.
 

John Yossarian

Magister
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,000
Location
Pianosa
Nedrah said:
This really is such a minor issue. I'd even call it a non-issue overall. If the game lives up to expectations concerning c&c/story, world design and general depth - who the fuck cares about how many types of ammo we get, as long as combat isn't as crappy as, say, in Arcanum or PS:T? Now THOSE games had some real problems concerning their combat implementation - which must be why nobody seems to like or play them anymore around these parts. As someone mentioned earlier, there are far more ridiculous concepts we accept in our arpegees than universal ammunition. Much like Oblivion didn't fail because blunt and axes were merged, AOD certainly will be judged on grounds that are in no way related to the absence of a distinction between arrows and bolts.
No doubt it's been blown out of proportion here (with "but it's how it's always been done" arguments no less), but it's not a non-issue in general. If xbow+bow rangers were a viable build, it'd swing balance in their favor (assuming the game wasn't designed this way from the start). If this swing was significant, this issue would be important.
 

Trash

Pointing and laughing.
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
29,683
Location
About 8 meters beneath sea level.
It's a bit silly to bring out a readme before there is even a demo. When the readme however explains some game mechanics and doubles as a manual I can understand why it was released. That doesn't mean it isn't looking a bit strange though.

Bolts and arrows as one ammo type is a bit silly. Even when there are more than 60 variations of that ammo type. Crossbows and bows are two different weapons with rather different uses and strenghts and weaknesses. Still, it really isn't much more than a minor negative. Javelins and other throwing weapons still in though?

On one hand I'm rather amazed at the amount of bitching and hatred that ITS seems to attract. On the other hand one could expect criticism from the target audience they choose.
 

WhiskeyWolf

RPG Codex Polish Car Thief
Staff Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,729
AODOCombat1.jpg
 

Pliskin

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
1,587
Location
Château d'If
Trash said:
On one hand I'm rather amazed at the amount of bitching and hatred that ITS seems to attract. On the other hand one could expect criticism from the target audience they choose.

*DING* *DING* *DING*
 

Seymour

Liturgist
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
152
VD, if you know Drog and Obediah are bitching out of spite/contrarianism, then don't let them dictate the tone of discussion here. But while the rest of us critical of this decision acknowledge it as minor, aesthetic or what have you, it is still looked upon as a flaw, not the non-issue you write it off as.

I get that it might not seem worth the time it could take to fix, especially given the "cry vaporware" crowd, but I think it would be worth it to include both types along with ammo containers in the final game, seeing as that might improve scrolling through inventories as a whole.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Adding containers and proper mechanics will take time we don't have [anymore]. Considering that only a tiny, tiny minority cares about it, it's just not worth the hassle.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom