Isometric + Party: Combat Control

[quasimodo]

If you make a party based TB game without party control you have thrown away the best part of the game before you start. I don't want to watch the AI play the game. I want to play it myself.

This is why I have lost a lot of interest in Dead State. With AI controlled parties I usually park my useless party somewhere safe and carry on alone with my main character.

 

[denizsi]

Short of full control, ability to give commands and if the game supports it, varying degrees of obedience by NPCs to follow those orders based on some skill and or past track record of combat, or sanity/panic/something states where NPCs can become autonomous if you control them poorly (keeping a gung-ho character out of combat, keeping a cowardly character to close to it, being exposed to attacks one too many times etc.)

 

[Mastermind]

Well, AI-controlled parties worked in FO.

No they didn't. It was easily the worst part of the game. The only thing it resulted in was in me not giving a shit about them and actually hoping they died and stopped wasting time that could be better spend with the enemy doing his turn so I could get to poping them all like moles with my upgraded plasma rifle faster.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Well, AI-controlled parties worked in FO.

No they didn't. It was easily the worst part of the game. The only thing it resulted in was in me not giving a shit about them and actually hoping they died and stopped wasting time that could be better spend with the enemy doing his turn so I could get to poping them all like moles with my upgraded plasma rifle faster.

That's the last 1/8 or less of the game. Before that they are quite useful. Also, always use the NPC mods which adds more commands, allows to change their armour and have them level up with you.

 

[quasimodo]

How strange I actually find myself in agreement with the troll Mastermind. The AI controlled party in FO1&2 was the worst part of the game. I love FO1&2 but I always play them solo as the NPCs just piss me off.

Contrast this with JA2 which has the best TB ever. Even though you control the NPCs in combat their personalities are interesting and their individual strengths and weaknesses greatly affect their performance.

 

[zenbitz]

AI controlled party in FO1/2 was the only part of the combat system that was tolerable, because it was the only part that wasn't mindless and predictable. That or when 2 opposing sides were fighting and accidentally shot a third side. That was cool.

"aim at eyes"
"cut to inventory, use X stimpacks, and buffs"

Even the random criticals and cool animations got old pretty fast.

And god forbid you had to fight 8 or 9 guys standing in a circle around you!

That being said, combat in FO1/2 was actually better than PST or Arcanum.

 

[quasimodo]

Playing FO1&2 solo you can use mobility related tactics. You baindead AI companions can't.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

People tell me Baldur's Gate was good though. I'm told it has something to do with a hamster or something. God know's, I zoned out when they told me. Maybe I should play it.

I would rank BG's combat as top five, right up with the best roleplaying combat ever. Most arent as fond of it as I am.

 

[Johannes]

BG combat is definitely better than FO at least. It's still not very good but manages. BG2 is better though since it has more interesting encounters and player abilities overall.


And full control is definitely much better. If the combat is supposed to be tactically engaging, why have the AI make decisions for your guys? If you play a strategy game, be it RTS or TBS or whatever, would you rather play 1v1 or 5v5 with 4 more AIs on both sides?
The tactics often actually becomes less deep when you add uncontrollable party members, since then you have to account your tactics to a mold those followers are capable of supporting.

Some predictable quirks for NPCs can work too, like Fidel refusing to back off when shooting in JA for example. But this was something you knew and could plan for, instead of the AI just being an unpredictable retard.
Or if you have a summone spell for example, it can be ok that the summon charges straight at the enemy without listening to you - then you know the limits of its AI, and know what situation it's suitable for.

 

[SacredPath]

BG combat:

Bows > everything. Actually the ability to use composite bows will be the only criteria for party members

Melee: Monsters kill you in 2-3 hits for the most part of the game, while you will miss about 90% of the time unless you cheatrolled your strength to 18/9x

Magic: monsters always fail their saving throws so hav fun. Stinking Cloud = 20 prone enemies.

 

[Mastermind]

That's the last 1/8 or less of the game.

For you maybe. I can get both items without having to fire a single shot. I'm reasonably certain it's possible to get both before recovering the water chip.The plasma rifle at the very least is easy. just buy radx at the hub, go to the glow, loot it (don't have to bother with the 5th floor), sell the loot in the boneyard and buy one from the gun runners. Then at the hub you can rescue the brotherhood captive. if you've got time you can go grab your reward from the brotherhood, otherwise just get/deliver the chip and grab the armor on the way back.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

That's the last 1/8 or less of the game.

For you maybe. I can get both items without having to fire a single shot. I'm reasonably certain it's possible to get both before recovering the water chip.The plasma rifle at the very least is easy. just buy radx at the hub, go to the glow, loot it (don't have to bother with the 5th floor), sell the loot in the boneyard and buy one from the gun runners. Then at the hub you can rescue the brotherhood captive. if you've got time you can go grab your reward from the brotherhood, otherwise just get/deliver the chip and grab the armor on the way back.

I usually don't do stuff like this in roleplayfag RPGs - it's not fun for me. If I'm in mood for metagaming, I tend to play skill-based games or challengefag RPGs like roguelikes where winning actually means something.

 

[zenbitz]

Playing FO1&2 solo you can use mobility related tactics. You baindead AI companions can't.

You mean you can do silly things like move-fire-move all in the same turn if you have enough APs? That's not tactics, that's exploitation of an ill-thought-out game mechanic.

Your tactical options in FO1/2 consist soley of:
1) which enemy to shoot first.
2) which weapon to use; including but not limited to melee vs. range
3) what to aim at
4) is there cover or other boundary issue I can exploit (shoot where you cannot be shot back)?
5) some settings for your party NPC "aggro/range of engagment".
6) when you take your health packs.

 

[quasimodo]

Moving and shooting is an exploit?

 

[zenbitz]

standing behind something where you cannot be shot (cover). Then in a single turn use 1 AP to move into the open, 4 APs to shoot at enemy and 1 AP to move back into cover is an exploit.

Because there is no interrupt fire in the game.

If that's not what you meant, I guess I missed the drift when you said there were "mobility based tactics".

If I wanted to be nice to Fallout I guess I could squint and say move-shoot-move is just a (poor) representation of firing from a covered position. Still not sure it's "tactical" though. I mean, What's the choice? Could you actually start a fight where you had the advantage of cover and the bad guys didn't? I suppose.

 

[Shemar]

You mean you can do silly things like move-fire-move all in the same turn if you have enough APs? That's not tactics, that's exploitation of an ill-thought-out game mechanic.

No it is not. It is bad AI. If the AI was good enough to do similar tactics then it would not end its turn in the open just like you don't. Peeking out of cover (which since there is no leaning is best simulated by moving one square out of cover) to fire and then ducking back in cover is a perfectly legitimate combat tactic, as long as both sides get to use it.

In reality there are very few games where winning is not based on somehow gaming the system. Most games just throw enemies with superior numbers and/or capabilities at you to balance the fact that their AI sucks. Whether you concentrate damage where the AI is just attacking whoever, or using aggro tactics to fight the AI in smaller parts or make it attack your tanks instead of your softies, or lure the AI into kill zones, there could all be termed 'exploits' but in reality it is just plain old player vs AI combat. I have yet to play a game where the AI would stand even a sliver of a chance against me on equal power terms.

 

[zenbitz]

No argument the the AI in these games is awful.

But what doesn't follow for me is all you guys clamoring for "full party" control so that you can exercise your "tactical acumen" vs. a brain damaged AI.

You don't NEED tactics to beat a brain damaged AI. I mean, when you play your 8 year-old nephews at basketball do you foul them if you think you can get away with it?

 

[Johannes]

But what doesn't follow for me is all you guys clamoring for "full party" control so that you can exercise your "tactical acumen" vs. a brain damaged AI.

I much prefer that over using braindamaged tactics myself too.

 

[Spectacle]

Here's a tip: Don't call it "isometric", use "top-down view". While the meaning may be more or less interchangeable on the codex, the rest of the world thinks of isometric as the specific artistic method used to make a bit map environment look three dimensional.

If you say "isometric" people will think you're talking about outdated technology rather than gameplay.

 

[quasimodo]

No argument the the AI in these games is awful.

But what doesn't follow for me is all you guys clamoring for "full party" control so that you can exercise your "tactical acumen" vs. a brain damaged AI.

You don't NEED tactics to beat a brain damaged AI. I mean, when you play your 8 year-old nephews at basketball do you foul them if you think you can get away with it?

When I request "full party" control there is an implicit improved AI request tacked on. If the FO dev's had made the game with full party control they would have realized the need for good AI and maybe they would have come up with something like JA2. That is something I dream about...an FO game with JA2 combat.

 

[zenbitz]

There is a reason why commercial games have crappy AIs.
Can anyone guess what it is?

 

[JarlFrank]

That is something I dream about...an FO game with JA2 combat.

That is something you might recieve in a year or two (or three).

 

[Shemar]

Here's a tip: Don't call it "isometric", use "top-down view". While the meaning may be more or less interchangeable on the codex, the rest of the world thinks of isometric as the specific artistic method used to make a bit map environment look three dimensional.

Funnily enough, that is also a completely wrong interpretation of what 'isometric' means. The term originates in technical drawings and it simply means "no perspective" or "objects further away appear the same size, not smaller". The actual angle that the 'camera' is positioned relative to the 'target' has nothing to do with whether a view is really isometric or not. You could have a first person isometric view (although things would look really strange, isometric view is best used when all the viewed objects are roughly the same distance from the camera).

At the day of 2D engines, isometric view was much easier to use for top-down or 3/4 views as each map tile was always the same pixel size regardless of its actual distance from the camera (viewing point). No 3D game engine that I know of has used actual isometric view, they all use perspective views, but for many gamers the term isometric has stuck to mean 3/4 top down view.

 

[Shemar]

That is something I dream about...an FO game with JA2 combat.

That is something you might recieve in a year or two (or three).

Well, to be honest JA2, although a great game was limited in the vertical area and destructibility of the terrain (as well as crappy AI but that's almost a a given for any game). I prefer the Silent Storm engine (but with the JA inventory control patch). So my ideal game would be Mass Effect with a combat system using the best features of SS and JA2.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Playing FO1&2 solo you can use mobility related tactics. You baindead AI companions can't.

You mean you can do silly things like move-fire-move all in the same turn if you have enough APs? That's not tactics, that's exploitation of an ill-thought-out game mechanic.

Your tactical options in FO1/2 consist soley of:
1) which enemy to shoot first.
2) which weapon to use; including but not limited to melee vs. range
3) what to aim at
4) is there cover or other boundary issue I can exploit (shoot where you cannot be shot back)?
5) some settings for your party NPC "aggro/range of engagment".
6) when you take your health packs.

7) engage as few enemies at the same time?

Also, you're not GarfunkeL.