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.

Stats vs. Player Skill: Is Autoresolve the only solution?

:Flash:

Arcane
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,454
So Stats vs. Player Skill.
Kodex Kritikal Konsesus seems to be that real-time RPGs rely too much on Player Skill, and that Turn-based is the solution. However, this only transfers the required player skill. Instead of twitchy reactions, you need more tactical skills.
Yet, it still comes down to player skill, except if the AI has exactly the same skill level you have, in which case the skill equals out and the stats become more important.

Now, most people generally don't like autoresolve, for a simple reason: You get better results by playing manually, because you're better than the AI. But pitting AI against AI is only fair - both partys are controlled by the same algorithms, therefore the stats are the deciding difference.

The problem with autoresolve is that you know you could have done better, especially if you can watch the battle, and see the AI commit atrocious errors. Perhaps this is the reason I like the combat of Settlers 2 so much: It has absolutely no player input, the only difference between two duelling knights is their experience level. But the combat system itself is so simple that the AI cannot make errors - instead of knowing you could do better, watching the battles becomes a suspenseful experience.

I have been thinking about good combat systems a lot, because I don't like the established standards of RPG combat. And usually I come up with something quite complex, trying to emulate realism.
But this got me thinking: perhaps the best solution is a very simple combat system that is not influencable by the player, a kind of Settlers 2 combat for RPGs.
Perhaps this idea is also completely stupid, so ... DISCUSS!
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
But pitting AI against AI is only fair

Being fair to the AI is very important. More important than the specieist entertainment of priveleged human shitlords. You ignorants would say it doesn't matter because AI did not buy the game, but the only reason they didn't is the social injustice YOU have put them into.

#AILivesMatter
 

Animal

Savant
Shitposter
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
384
For me, the best solution is a combat system that is fun to play.

If a game truly has a good engaging combat system, I'm happy to play it even without a story.

The good thing about turn based and rtwp is that it allows you to go through different options in you mind. Some real time games can also pull off engaging deep combat, but usually don't mix so well with the more relaxed approach of a story driven game and are hard to swallow in most RPGs.

No auto-resolve for me though...
 
Last edited:

stony3k

Augur
Patron
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
470
Strap Yourselves In
It's an interesting idea, but it would convert an RPG into a spectator sport. I'd rather play games with the right kind of player skills (those I do better at, i.e. tactical)
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium II

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
1,866,227
Location
Third World
Sounds stupid. Who the fuck wants to watch the game play itself?

It's some high level cretinism to think player skill influencing results is somehow a bad thing in a GAME. Fucking newfags.
 

:Flash:

Arcane
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,454
Sounds stupid. Who the fuck wants to watch the game play itself?
Nobody, but I'm not talking about combat-centric RPGs. IMO the non-combat possibilities of RPGs are way underdeveloped, so this would be an opportunity to focus on the other parts, which is what I want to do anyway.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium II

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
1,866,227
Location
Third World
Nobody, but I'm not talking about combat-centric RPGs. IMO the non-combat possibilities of RPGs are way underdeveloped, so this would be an opportunity to focus on the other parts, which is what I want to do anyway.
And what would be your approach to non-combat scenarios?
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Look up Demise: Ascension for fun auto-attack combat.

The idea that True RPGs have to rely exclusively or even mostly on character skill to the exclusion of player skill is extremely silly and reductionist, though.
 

Dorateen

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
4,332
Location
The Crystal Mist Mountains
Look up Demise: Ascension for fun auto-attack combat.

I agree, and was skeptical of its real time system at first. But the combat is redeemed by the pause function in larger scale battles, allowing the player to make tactical decisions about what group of enemies to target, selecting spells and items to use.
 

DramaticPopcorn

Guest
This idea goes right alongside with Sawyer's design philosophy. You two should meet. He will take you to his place and show you his latest videogame. That is actually a screensaver.
 

Neanderthal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,626
Location
Granbretan
For me turn based or real time combat are usually hamstrung by their lack of options, for instance retreating, how often can you stage a tactical retreat? Usually this is prevented by the homicidal Lemming like enemy AI, there is no sense of self preservation. A group of mercenaries might well just stand aside and sod off if given the chance, money's fine but their lives are better and there's always another contract, or they might give you the chance to fuck off as they know that combat is dangerous, even if they're winning. This really depends on making combat difficult and deadly though, which lets face it most developers don't want to simulate.

Also preparation, if I can win or gain a substantial edge in a fight then i'm gonna fucking do so, and if you don't want me prebuffing for half an hour then make a better buffing system, don't just arbitrarily restrict it for no good reason. Also make this a two way street, if i'm caught unawares and ambushed, then fucking slip me a crippler and don't be afraid of me failing, if my Thiefs not scouted out and warned me then I deserve it. Also intimidation, challenge and knowing your enemy should be a factor, if you can gain a psychological edge through threats or knowledge of your enemy, then you should be able to do that and be rewarded for it. Or suffer from it if the enemy does. If you've got a character as dangerous and unbalanced as Skarp Hedin, then let his prowess and reputation be reflected mechanically.

I suppose what i'm saying is i'd not like auto resolve, i'd like the opposite, sorry about that Flash.
 

Ellef

Deplorable
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
3,506
Location
Shitposter's Island
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
So Stats vs. Player Skill.
Kodex Kritikal Konsesus seems to be that real-time RPGs rely too much on Player Skill, and that Turn-based is the solution.

Completely false, which makes the rest of it unnecessary, basically. RT(wp) adds an unnecessary twitch element and completely obfuscates all the information you can use to plan out your actions. Genuine real time RPGs are just action RPGs, which don't count.
 

Alex

Arcane
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
SĂŁo Paulo - Brasil
Nobody, but I'm not talking about combat-centric RPGs. IMO the non-combat possibilities of RPGs are way underdeveloped, so this would be an opportunity to focus on the other parts, which is what I want to do anyway.

Well, if that is the case, why have combat in first place? Just have your game feature little or no combat. I could understand it if you want the logistics for combat to be important. In that case, auto-solving makes perfect sense. But if all you want to do is besides combat, just feel free to not include it. Some people think combat is a defining characteristic of RPGs, but I've seen even old school pencil and paper games with little or no combat. Usually those relied on investigation to challenge the players.

About the player vs character skill, as far as I understand, the issue is that some of those games defeat the purpose of character skill through player skill. For instance, by being "twitchy", you might be able to avoid all blows from enemies way beyond your level range and this could mean the RPG systems that are in the game are simply unneeded. There is nothing wrong, of course, with being able to do more with less because of greater skill, but the game should try to work out some way that these aren't in opposition. If leveling up spoils the game because it makes it too easy, or even if it doesn't really add anything because the effects of leveling up just help players with less skill, then these two aspects are working against each other.
 

Lhynn

Arcane
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
9,824
Football manager actually has auto resolve and it works quite well, especially if you witness the match and get to change some tactics and have an impact on the outcome indirectly. Im not against that idea, but then again, the entire gameplay revolves around preparation and planning so its only fitting.
An rpg like that would be fine i guess, but you need a lot of complexity and planning as a core element necessary for that, and a different mindset than the one you regularly have when wanting to play an RPG.
 

Beastro

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
7,952
Autoresolve games have their niche when you want to indirectly affect the course of a conflict and see how your decisions pan out against others, but that's a very small niche of games.

Pretty much all games revolve around the player wanting direct control and immersion because it's, well, fun.

This idea is about the worst you could put into a game to balance combat, if that's your primary focus for it. Yes, people like to use whatever advantage they have at hand to gain an advantage and win. Instead of taking that away and pretty much all agency they have work with it and that satisfaction that comes from bring clever. You're punishing the player for being smart, not working with them to create fun and encourage strategizing.

There's an alternative to what you propose and that's stacking the odds against the player to even things out, but unfortunately most developers go the lazy route of hp bloat or, in the case of RTS and such, giving the AI blatant cheats like having infinite money and a powerhouse economy that only wind up crippling certain mechanics of both, like taking a indirect commerce warfare strat or blockading your enemy to drain your the strength of a much more powerful foe.

I personally try to be aware of my strengths over the AI in strategy games and handicap myself by not simply playing smaller powers but not painting the map and concurring willy nilly, often my games revolve around interceding in conflicts to help out weaker nations against large ones, helping them become stronger until they themselves become top dog and I turn on them. As you can tell I really do love my British heritage.

For RPGs I try pushing the limits of what can be done against higher level content. I don't deliberately underlevel myself because I find that unfun, but when I encounter the chance to push into a higher level area, like the Endless Paths in PoE I keep going until I physically can't, either spending hours doing an encounter and dying too much or running into a locked door that requires 11 pockpicking when I'm still at 6. With that said the only real fun I had in that game was doing that sort of thing against encounters like the Fampyr king with the Aedra armour or soloing the pack of wolves near the beginning without using scrolls and only a couple potions on Eder.

Also I hate mechanic approaches to gameplay like this. I'd rather have ppl fiddle with shit and somehow make it enjoyable without really know how instead of trying to turn fun into a formula, but it almost never works since much of this hinges on emotional investment and other aspects of human nature which are irrational.
 
Last edited:

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,982
That doesn't really remove player skill either, assuming you still have control of things like equipment, character/party creation, and distributing stats or skills on level up or swapping party members. In that case you're just leaving the entire focus on the strategic layer. I've played a couple of games like this, and it's entertaining in it's own way, but I'd hardly call it a more authentic rpg experience.
 

:Flash:

Arcane
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,454
And what would be your approach to non-combat scenarios?
The game I'm thinking of is a mix of Ultima and Realms of Arkania, with a lot less combat. Especially RoA is full of great ideas that have not been developed further since then. I want a game where it depends on your horse skills whether you can cross a river at a ford, where the seasons and your mountaineering skill influence the access to areas in the mountains, where survival in the wilderness depends on a wide range of required skills, where you can buy your own ship, but can only steer it, if you have the right combination of sailor skills in your party.


Well, if that is the case, why have combat in first place? Just have your game feature little or no combat. I could understand it if you want the logistics for combat to be important. In that case, auto-solving makes perfect sense. But if all you want to do is besides combat, just feel free to not include it. Some people think combat is a defining characteristic of RPGs, but I've seen even old school pencil and paper games with little or no combat. Usually those relied on investigation to challenge the players.
I don't think that's an either-or thing. Imagine if you go into the wilderness unprepared, all kind of stuff happens to you that makes you weaker, and then an encounter happens. The outcome might well depend on how well you prepared - both for the combat, but also for the survival part before that.

Football manager actually has auto resolve and it works quite well, especially if you witness the match and get to change some tactics and have an impact on the outcome indirectly. Im not against that idea, but then again, the entire gameplay revolves around preparation and planning so its only fitting.
An rpg like that would be fine i guess, but you need a lot of complexity and planning as a core element necessary for that, and a different mindset than the one you regularly have when wanting to play an RPG.
I think football manager is a good example, actually. The matches are the cumulation of everything you have done before, yet you have no (or hardly any) influence on them. Similarly in Settlers 2, you have no control over combat, but your chances of winning still depend on everything you did in the game.

Autoresolve games have their niche when you want to indirectly affect the course of a conflict and see how your decisions pan out against others, but that's a very small niche of games.

Pretty much all games revolve around the player wanting direct control and immersion because it's, well, fun.

This idea is about the worst you could put into a game to balance combat, if that's your primary focus for it. Yes, people like to use whatever advantage they have at hand to gain an advantage and win. Instead of taking that away and pretty much all agency they have work with it and that satisfaction that comes from bring clever. You're punishing the player for being smart, not working with them to create fun and encourage strategizing.
Balancing combat is not my focus. I never cared about balanced combat, simply because I'm not much of a fan of combat. Perhaps that's also the reason why I see autoresolve as an option.

That doesn't really remove player skill either, assuming you still have control of things like equipment, character/party creation, and distributing stats or skills on level up or swapping party members. In that case you're just leaving the entire focus on the strategic layer. I've played a couple of games like this, and it's entertaining in it's own way, but I'd hardly call it a more authentic rpg experience.
I guess that's true. Perhaps it simply me liking the other stuff better - and therefore not minding the influence of player skill on these matters.
 
Unwanted

a Goat

Unwanted
Dumbfuck Edgy Vatnik
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
6,941
Location
Albania
And to do this because ??????

Turn based is better because it's cleaner than real time. Which doesn't mean real time can't be done well.

Games are meant to be played. Just because it doesn't fit to some :retarded: philosophy about roleplaying games being stats plus math minus player input doesn't make it any different.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
795
I"m open to a Realms of Arkania that has less combat, but what else will it have? How will it make up? Will it be tactical in nature, or something else? Where will the challenge come from, or is there supposed to be challenge? It won't play itself will it?

I've often thought I'd like a fully simulated game world where almost everything is generated by the game. The difference is you can be anything you want. You can create a super powerful character at anytime. You can "/create 100000000000 gold". You can win any fight instantly, if desired. You're a god. You can explore the world and play like one of them, weak and vulnerable, but you're not forced to. The point of teh game is to be a fly on the wall and watch what happens in the game.

It's like a game where god-mode is accessible and part of the game, but optional. The god-mode will be fully developed, so that a player can instantly teleport anwhere, create anything, be anything, at anytime. It's not an afterthought.

Wher would the fun be? Not sure. Like I say, it's being the fly on the wall. Watching the NPCs live their lives and being able to influence them to see what changes. And you could roleplay one of the beings within the world by not fully using god-mode. So if you were interested in playing as one of them for a short time...

It wouldn't really be a game, since there's no score or way to finish it. You would determine the ground rules.

That's the kind of game I'd like to make if I ever made one. I think the cloest thing to what I'd like to make is Dwarf Fortress, except it's text-based and I'm not sure how well developed its cheat system is.
 
Last edited:

:Flash:

Arcane
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,454
I"m open to a Realms of Arkania that has less combat, but what else will it have? How will it make up? Will it be tactical in nature, or something else? Where will the challenge come from, or is there supposed to be challenge? It won't play itself will it?
Think about all the challenges you would face if you had to explore an uninhabited area in medieval times (hint: it's not you meeting a bunch of monsters). I'd say if any one of us were thrown into such a situation, chances are, he wouldn't survive, and again, not because of roaming monsters. Then try to think about all the skills you'd need to overcome those challenges and incorporate them into an RPG system.
I really think that this focus on combat is reductionist thinking. It has grown out of a combination of it being easy to design (in contrast to the many layers a more balanced approach would require) and its prevalence shaping player expectations.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2014
Messages
795
Think about all the challenges you would face if you had to explore an uninhabited area in medieval times (hint: it's not you meeting a bunch of monsters). I'd say if any one of us were thrown into such a situation, chances are, he wouldn't survive, and again, not because of roaming monsters. Then try to think about all the skills you'd need to overcome those challenges and incorporate them into an RPG system.
I really think that this focus on combat is reductionist thinking. It has grown out of a combination of it being easy to design (in contrast to the many layers a more balanced approach would require) and its prevalence shaping player expectations.
You're right but SOME combat would make sense. Constant combat, as is common, doesn't make sense.

But also keep in mind for someoen who wants a challenge, you still ned to find a way to replace it. Combat, while it can be grindy, is at its core a challenge for you to overcome. Failure to make an vigorous challenge doesn't mean there was no intent to make one. Ever since I can remember playing RPGs, combat is always been the largest source of challenge for me. I'll add a lot of the challenge came from resource a management and figuring out winning tactics. A lot of this meant finding the AI weaknesses. Game programmers have mostly failed to make actual AI, but for me it has always been enough. Not perfect, no.

I'm not unfamiliar with this idea. One of the first games I ever played was MYST. Taht game had no combat. YOu just explored, watched videos and solved puzzles. Some of the pictures were pretty, at least back then.
 
Last edited:

Jimmious

Arcane
Patron
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
5,132
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
If we are talking about "tactical skill" then why not talk also about mathematical and analytical skills that when a player has in good amounts will make his character creation and development OP? In the end the solution will be to watch a movie.
The big difference between RT and TB for me is that in RT you can take advantage of AI issues much more easily, eg when it has pathfinding problems. TB just makes things a bit more fair and stat reliant which is good.
 

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