obediah
Erudite
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 5,051
Elhoim said:If you are not butthurt, why are they putting a vaccine in your butt?
If there was a 4chan vaccine, I'd let them inject it into my eye.
Elhoim said:If you are not butthurt, why are they putting a vaccine in your butt?
My point was that you're acting emotional.obediah said:butthurt
I don't even know what the word means, and from usage neither does anyone else. What's important is the last person to use it in the thread wins - so butthurt?
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.Mortmal said: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.
In a few weeks.When will the unwashed masses have access to this demo please ?
I like playing a crossbowman, but fighting multiple opponents is extremely hard. You have to plan every shot/move very carefully
Vault Dweller said:In a few weeks.
Vault Dweller said:My point was that you're acting emotional.obediah said:butthurt
I don't even know what the word means, and from usage neither does anyone else. What's important is the last person to use it in the thread wins - so butthurt?
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?
Haba said:Just in: Annie Carlson plays the AoD combat demo in a wet t-shirt. Watch the video at ITS website!
It is. What seems to be the problem?PorkaMorka said: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.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 741#935741I 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...
Jora said:On the whole, for a single-player RPG whose main focus isn't combat your system is sufficiently tactical both in theory and practise. Not to mention that it's always good to have a breath of fresh air in an industry that has been so stagnant when it comes to combat design for so long.
Galsiah said:In general I'm impressed with the way things work out. There aren't any clear exploits - the AoOs for withdrawal from combat prevent most cheap tactics -, and I've changed my opinion more than once on the viability of different builds/tactics. It's an engaging, addictive challenge.
...
The variety of fights is interesting, but also makes it hard to adopt any clearly optimal build strategy - which is good. That goes both for skill allocation, and for item acquisition: gold is in short supply, so a weapon bought for one fight will probably have to serve through three. It's still very welcome to get the Arena Master's take on each opponent before you commit to facing him - it's possible to decide on items as appropriate, or allocate any defensive points immediately if they're ranged opposition.
Hazelnut said:Triari: Fucking hard. Got knocked down, shield broke, disarmed. Must got to sleep now - curse you for such an addictive combat demo.
Suibhne said:The fight against the Barbari was, in a word, awesome. I was down to 4HP (out of 45! - hit by a nasty crit for about 20HP) after killing the first one, then pumped all the points into Dodge and withdrew bit by bit across the Arena, often at odd angles - positioning myself for best interrupt hits on approaching enemies.
...
I'm really looking forward to playing more tonight! So yes, it's fun and addictive even if I feel like I haven't quite figured out the combat system yet.
1eyedking said:I haven't had this fun with a game in a long, long time.
Kos-Koa said:Overall I felt the combat itself to be fairly well balanced and interesting, and many of the builds felt viable in each attempt in the arena. I made it to the Triarii twice with a two-handed sword/dodge build and a one-handed hammer/block build. Sadly I haven't gone farther than the Triarii or reached their level again with any other build, though that's less a balance issue and more a time/sanity one. Has anyone told you how difficult trying to beat the arena is?
Overall I felt the combat demo to be solid, which is crazy when you consider that if you were only limited to the combat of any other rpg you would be bored to tears under an hour (if you are lucky). The time I spent playing I kept wanting to try new weapons and different stat builds, just trying to move up the arena ranks was fun, albeit frustrating. It's quite the accomplishment and it definitely shows that you guys are on the right track, but it still has room for improvement.
Claw said:It's clear that the same tactic doesn't work against every opponent, and the wrong approach will usually cause utter failure. ... In any case it's alot of fun and looks great.
Ghan said:As you know I am not a TBC conoisseur. However I find combat suitably fluid and providing interesting choices. Especially distributing skill points represents hard choices, that becomes evident. As is choice between heavy and fast weapons in a category. I found myself using a variety of attacks and weapons, and varying it by opponent - that is good. Certainly the opponents make it obvious that different approaches and skills can be optimal in different circumstances.
Dhruin said:I've enjoyed it so far and look forward each time to trying something new. Different builds vary quite a bit, which is great.
Samurai Jack said:Best TB combat since ToEE!
obediah said:Comments are only helpful when they are accurate. Is this array for threats or generic messages? Reminds me of this programmer joke.
Code:// set x to 1 x = 2;
Vault Dweller said:It is. What seems to be the problem?PorkaMorka said: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.
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.
Vault Dweller said:It is. What seems to be the problem?PorkaMorka said: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.
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.
In reality "novice wins" gives you 2.5 mil matches in Google.PorkaMorka said: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.
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!!!")?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)
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.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.
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.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....
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.b) failed builds
Given that there is such a high potential for your points spent to be entirely useless in certain fights....
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?... 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)...
You're a very giving person. Did someone ever tell you that?Given that there is such a HIGH POTENTIAL for your points spent to be entirely USELESS in certain fights....
Given that there is a HUGE CHANCE of players to just make FAILED characters...
Given how there is such a HUGE POTENTIAL for your points in combat to MEAN absolutely NOTHING...
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?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.
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.If you read one of the combat demo reviews, a guy mentions keeping a pool of unspent points from earlier encounters...
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.Not a problem unique to AOD though, most homebrew RPG systems end up having some massive issues...
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!"thesheeep said:Because this makes 200 points of investment completely unimportant in that situation.
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.Vault Dweller said: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!!!")?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)
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).Awor Szurkrarz said:If it's 200 and 200 the bonuses to hit and to defence should cancel each other.
Vault Dweller said: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!!!")?
Vault Dweller said: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.
Vault Dweller said: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.
Vault Dweller said: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?
Vault Dweller said: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.
What's that gotta do with anything? Does chess match your concept of two armies fighting each other in real life?PorkaMorka said:Doesn't really match my conception of real life combat ...