VD, design philosophy for single character tactical combat?

[Mangoose]

VD, I'm curious, what is (was?) your design philosophy or 'plan' for making combat tactical without a party of characters?

I can tell that strategy, in the planning of character build and equipment choice, matters a lot. But I've never found single character combat to be very tactical or require deep decision making during combat (as a hyperboilic generalization: find the optimal attack chain and spam it every turn). I've unfortunately only played a little of the demo (was going to research the combat formulas before playing more but forgot), and the little I've played seems to reflect my assumptions so far, though on the other hand I can see combat possibly being tactical outside of an arena with more varied terrain and enemy composition.

 

[Melcar]

Didn´t he answer this like 100 times already? And no, I don´t remember his excuse because 90% of what he says is bullshit. Is the game out yet?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Still butthurt, Melcar?

Anyway, about the combat system. The game is focused more on dealing with factions, establishing your own place in the world, and influencing events. A single character is better suited for this purpose. Serving someone and going around with your own entourage would have been silly.

Besides, I think that party-based combat works better with class-based systems. As for the demo, I don't think that spamming "best" attacks will get you far. I think you quit too early.

Read the quotes from our front page:

"It amazes me that simply switching from one sword to another has a huge effect on how combat plays out. I honestly don't think I've ever even seen another system like this that pays such close attention to the distinct differences that weapon types have from one another and represents it with something other than a damage range."

"I think you might be surprised at the variety of tactics available. During testing, I lagged behind many of the other testers. Sometimes I'd try, say, one of Galsiah's builds and still fail badly. If the build was the same and he could win the whole arena and I repeatedly failed halfway through, that means the choices during combat were the difference.

It took me a while to get my head in the right place. Positioning can be important, sometimes a different weapon is better (faster, rather than more outright damage, for example) and so on. It's more subtle than most games and that took some adjusting for me." - Dhruin, RPG Watch

"All of the weapon types are fundamentally different. Changing character builds around changes how you approach the combat entirely. You've got so many different options within a single build that figuring everything out will take you a while. It's HARD but, most of the time, FAIR hard. If you're failing you're probably doing something fundamentally wrong, and adjusting your strategy will help you along."

 

[Melcar]

Was I ever butthurt about the game? Well, maybe a little. After you guys flipflopped about the promised Linux client I raged a bit.

 

[Vault Dweller]

When was it ever promised? Can I see a quote?

We were asked several times and the answer was always the same: we'll look into it once the game is out but we can't promise anything.

 

[mondblut]

Re: VD, design philosophy for single character tactical comb

VD, I'm curious, what is (was?) your design philosophy or 'plan' for making combat tactical without a party of characters?

The design philosophy was "Fallout and Arcanum had it, therefore so should we"

 

[Vault Dweller]

Except for there were party members in both games.

 

[Melcar]

When was it ever promised? Can I see a quote?

We were asked several times and the answer was always the same: we'll look into it once the game is out but we can't promise anything.

Nah, I don´t play the quote game. Suffice to say, it went from "yes, there will be one" to "if we have time" to "if someone is interested and can help". We still Brolove you, though.

 

[villain of the story]

I imagine the source of linux expectation might be this post:

There are lots of things to do in a living world. Not all look like quests, and not all should.

Right on. I want to make a game that's based on logic of a situation, and quests where you have to perform a single deed for a reward and personal growth are ridiculous.

Good luck and... will it have a GNU/Linux port? :wink:

Absolutely! What's a port?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=41752

 

[Mangoose]

VD, I definitely did quit too early. But I just found your 'survival guide' so I'll try it again some time soon.

I'm not so concerned with pre-battle character build than purely the in-combat decisions you have to make.

Dhruin's quote applies the best to my question, but he didn't provide any specific examples or elaborate very in-depth about the mechanics so I'm still curious.

The fast, normal, power attacks are what seem "obvious." It sounds and played like that depending on your weapon and enemy AR, only one (fast, normal, or power) would be most effective and you'd end up repeatedly using the same ability. Some memorization required but not a lot of tactical ingenuity.

On the other hand, reading the actual effects of the aimed attacks, those look more interesting to play with.

 

[Vault Dweller]

When was it ever promised? Can I see a quote?

We were asked several times and the answer was always the same: we'll look into it once the game is out but we can't promise anything.

Nah, I don´t play the quote game. Suffice to say, it went from "yes, there will be one" to "if we have time" to "if someone is interested and can help". We still Brolove you, though.

It was never promised (as it mostly depends on the engine). While we'd obviously want to release the game on other RPG starved PC platforms, if the engine won't run, there is nothing we can do.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Mangoose, what skills you have, what weapon you use, what armour you are wearing, do you have a shield or not, what your enemy is wearing and using, are you outnumbered, melee or ranged or mixture - these all vary a lot even in the combat demo. There is no way to "spam best attack for win". It might seem impossible at first but that's because the piss-easy popamoles have spoiled you.

 

[revealer]

Each time you make Vince post, AoD gets postponed for a few minutes.
Be a Bro and stop busting balls.

 

[Excidium]

You should warn the polacks on the Twitcher 2 thread then, because they have delayed AoD release date by a few months already.

 

[revealer]

Yeah but it's an rpg (kinda). They are going to see some nice dialogues, a mature story as I hear it, maybe get some inspiration for a few quests in AoD or something alike.
Same with most post's Vince & Co. make on codex and IT forums where they discuss the game design, writing and such. They may delay the game, but in a good way, since that's one way in how they improve it.

But making topics like this that have been discussed before as someone mentioned, trolling, asking is it done yet and all other bullshit simply delay the game for no fucking reason.

 

[Melcar]

Each time you make Vince post, AoD gets postponed for a few minutes.
Be a Bro and stop busting balls.

But VD is multi-threaded, Bro. He can do many things at the same time.

 

[revealer]

Each time you make Vince post, AoD gets postponed for a few minutes.
Be a Bro and stop busting balls.

But VD is multi-threaded, Bro. He can do many things at the same time.

So he could be working on more things in AoD then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfpb4sEqX8k
Switch money with AoD.



(hopefully he won't decide to whack all of us)

 

[Castanova]

Mangoose, what skills you have, what weapon you use, what armour you are wearing, do you have a shield or not, what your enemy is wearing and using, are you outnumbered, melee or ranged or mixture - these all vary a lot even in the combat demo.

None of these have anything to do with in-combat decision-making. It sounds like dressed up rock-paper-scissors to me... you pick scissors and then go with it. If you die, you pick paper next time.

 

[revealer]

^ Then you obviously didn't play the demo.

 

[Mangoose]

Mangoose, what skills you have, what weapon you use, what armour you are wearing, do you have a shield or not, what your enemy is wearing and using, are you outnumbered, melee or ranged or mixture - these all vary a lot even in the combat demo.

None of these have anything to do with in-combat decision-making. It sounds like dressed up rock-paper-scissors to me... you pick scissors and then go with it. If you die, you pick paper next time.

That's my concern.

Yes, there is a lot of pre-battle planning. Yes, your attack decisions matter depending on the enemy composition.

But my question is, DURING battle, do you get situational reasons to change your tactical methodology and develop new tactics on the fly?

Again as an example, the fast-normal-power attacks. If you are using a dagger and your enemy is light armored, is there any reason NOT to use fast attacks?

(Examples would be cool)

Edit: Possible miscommunication: I didn't mean spam attacks as in the whole fight, but as in the above situation in a one-on-one scenario - does every single attack choice matter or do you end up spamming fast (or any other singular) attacks against one person if it's the optimal choice?

 

[Grunker]

I support this game with 99% of my entire being. The last percentage is the one that hates the decision to not go with a party-based RPG. Really hates it.

This:

party-based combat works better with class-based systems.

Is just complete bullshit. Yes, I understand where you going with the argument, but no, it's still a terrible one. It only works for your game because the point-to-build ratio is constructed for a single character (explanation below).

Case in point: GURPS. With limited access to points and a HUGE variety of stuff to buy with them, it doesn't matter that there are no classes. The limits of the points will have each character focusing on different things thus entirely voiding the class-based argument. Different builds will fill different roles regardless. I play Pen&Paper extensively and in many systems, and if a GM can handle it, class-less systems make for much better, tactical and deep experiences than class-based ones, also when it comes to party-based combat. In essence, no-class systems are actually better at party-based combat. Why? Because class-based systems offer a tight set of roles - Tank, Healer, Mage, Rogue, so on. Basically whatever the designer put in. Class-systems offer unlimited variations within the options (skills n' stuffies) they present, only limited by the player's imagination and the system's efficiency in making different combinations viable. And a designer shouldn't fret that not everything is viable. That's part of the thought process in character customization. If no builds fail, no builds are good i.e. I care less about thinking about my build and less about customization overall.

Do I understand and sympathize with the fact that a system as complex as GURPS or something similar was not possible for you to introduce? Yes.

But, this was about your comment on class-based systems being better for party-based combat. And that's bullshit now, isn't it? I can't really see any arguments for the contrary that make sense from a descriptive standpoint. What you should say is:

"We recognize that awesome party-based combat within the framework of a class-less system is viable, but we do not have one or all of these:

1) The resources to construct one complex enough to offer interesting party-dynamics.

2) The incentives of making something so complex for one reason or the other.

3) The copyrights to utilize a system already created."

In any case, my PERSONAL feelings on the subject is that the much greater RPG-experience of having party-based combat outweight the concerns of having a class-less system (and that's coming from a raving GURPS-fan). In this vein the "a party wouldn't make sense in our story"-comment feels like an excuse. So if you really felt that way (class-based systems are better at party-fightan') you should have made classes. But it's your game, and I fully recognize that you have limited resources. It's not as though I'm not gonna cum in my pants of release day anyway. Just my main gripe with the game - and it's a big one.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I support this game with 99% of my entire being. The last percentage is the one that hates the decision to not go with a party-based RPG. Really hates it.

I read it as "I missed arguing with you so let's forget about TW2 and argue about something else". Sure, Grunker. Anything for you.

This:

"party-based combat works better with class-based systems."

Is just complete bullshit.

Really? Just like that? An argument that something "works better" is "complete bullshit" by default? There is absolutely no way? Just impossible? A big fat lie? Oh, Grunker, you silly fucker, you.

In essence, no-class systems are actually better at party-based combat. Why? Because class-based systems offer a tight set of roles - Tank, Healer, Mage, Rogue, so on.

And I think that's exactly why they work better. Imagine that.

Btw, everything depends on the implementation, of course, but assuming that a system is decent and has more than 3-4 basic classes, mixing (multiclassing) different roles in different ways is loads of fun, adds strategy and depth, and most importantly, makes your "tight set of roles" objection a non-issue.

But, this was about your comment on class-based systems being better for party-based combat. And that's bullshit now, isn't it?

I don't see how, old boy.

I can't really see any arguments for the contrary that make sense from a descriptive standpoint. What you should say is:

"We recognize that awesome party-based combat within the framework of a class-less system is viable, but we do not have one or all of these:

1) The resources to construct one complex enough to offer interesting party-dynamics.

2) The incentives of making something so complex for one reason or the other.

3) The copyrights to utilize a system already created."

We have the resources. It's less complex than you think. Copyrights have nothing to do with it.

In any case, my PERSONAL feelings on the subject is that the much greater RPG-experience of having party-based combat outweight the concerns of having a class-less system (and that's coming from a raving GURPS-fan).

Thank God! I was worried there for a second.

In this vein the "a party wouldn't make sense in our story"-comment feels like an excuse. So if you really felt that way (class-based systems are better at party-fightan') you should have made classes.

If we really wanted to make class-based party-based combat, don't you think we would have done it? We do have party based mechanics. We do have situations where you're fighting with allies. All we'd have to do is make the allies permanent and give you direct or in-direct control over them, which isn't that hard either.

AoD isn't a dungeon crawler. Combat isn't the main feature and the story is more than an excuse to kill things. Within the context of the story it doesn't make any sense for you to have a party, which is why you don't have one.

 

[Grunker]

THE AMOUNT OF HERP-DI-DURP IS OVA NINEZOUZAND!

I said it was bullshit after which I pointed out why. But since you seem pretty focused on taking one or two sentences from a bigger whole and comment on them, let's do it your way, brutha:

I read it as "I missed arguing with you so let's forget about TW2 and argue about something else"."

Your ability to interpret my meanings is exactly what I want from a good wife. Marry me?

In essence, no-class systems are actually better at party-based combat. Why? Because class-based systems offer a tight set of roles - Tank, Healer, Mage, Rogue, so on.

And I think that's exactly why they work better. Imagine that.

How is 5 standard roles better than "built-your-own"? How is less customizability better than more? The easy answer would be: Because it's simpler simpler to balance! But you just said that wasn't the case.

Now you've really got me, mr. VD, sir. Care to enlighten a lost soul seeking answers?

Thank God! I was worried there for a second.

Hawdy-harr-harr. How witty.

It's less complex than you think

I've designed rule-systems as big as 300 pages and as small as 5. Let me tell you, game-balance is a bitch. But maybe you're superman, I dunno. Or maybe it's easier to handle in a game? I don't know, in my mind, it makes sense that a single character using a simple systems is much easier to balance than a large party with a complex system. Maybe the world of computing works under different rules. Then again, it can't be that simple when an ultra-simple system on one character can fuck the balance up so bad (see: TWITCHERII)

Within the context of the story it doesn't make any sense for you to have a party, which is why you don't have one.

A real damned pity that you couldn't have created another story or modified the one you have, then (this is coming from a story-fag). Party-based combat beats single-character combat so hard it isn't funny.

On another note: Will there be romances? If so I totally forgive you for the party-based combat thing.

 

[quasimodo]

I too would far rather have a party, but I understand VD's problem with it. I have never played a story heavy game where dragging around an entourage seemed reasonable. (Of course for me TB combat with party trumps all other considerations every time...but I understand his point.)

 

[Vault Dweller]

I said it was bullshit after which I pointed out why.

You did, did you? Well, I must have missed it. Let's take a look together, shall we?

"Case in point: GURPS. With limited access to points and a HUGE variety of stuff to buy with them, it doesn't matter that there are no classes. The limits of the points will have each character focusing on different things thus entirely voiding the class-based argument. Different builds will fill different roles regardless. I play Pen&Paper extensively and in many systems, and if a GM can handle it, class-less systems make for much better, tactical and deep experiences than class-based ones, also when it comes to party-based combat. In essence, no-class systems are actually better at party-based combat. Why? Because class-based systems offer a tight set of roles - Tank, Healer, Mage, Rogue, so on. Basically whatever the designer put in. Class-systems offer unlimited variations within the options (skills n' stuffies) they present, only limited by the player's imagination and the system's efficiency in making different combinations viable. And a designer shouldn't fret that not everything is viable. That's part of the thought process in character customization. If no builds fail, no builds are good i.e. I care less about thinking about my build and less about customization overall. "

Hmm... Let's break it down:

- GURPS is awesome, each character will focus on different things, thus it's better than class-based, no proof why you simply must focus your characters on different things is given
- Classless systems are better, deeper, wider, more tactical than class-based one? Proof? I play PnP extensively! Ergo, "in essence no-class systems are better"! Mmmkay.
- Why? Because class-based offer a fixed set of roles. Why is it bad? Because class-based systems are limited by the designers, whereas skill-based systems, given to us by God, are limited only by our imagination. If you say so.

How is 5 standard roles better than "built-your-own"?

Than build your own what? As if skill-based systems are magical and you can create anything you want.

How is less customizability better than more? The easy answer would be: Because it's simpler simpler to balance! But you just said that wasn't the case.

This argument is based on a hell of an assumption: any skill-based system is more customizable than any class-based system. Which game has a better character system: ToEE or Fallout (which, coincidentally, is based on GURPS)? Or Fallout: Tactics, if you want to compare apple-to-apple, or Avernum (it has classes but it's actually skill-based)? Please explain your answer.

I've designed rule-systems as big as 300 pages and as small as 5. Let me tell you, game-balance is a bitch. But maybe you're superman, I dunno. Or maybe it's easier to handle in a game? I don't know, in my mind, it makes sense that a single character using a simple systems is much easier to balance than a large party with a complex system. Maybe the world of computing works under different rules.

Got it. Balancing a complex class-based system is an impossible task, which explains why it's never been done.

Then again, it can't be that simple when an ultra-simple system on one character can fuck the balance up so bad (see: TWITCHERII)

It doesn't look like they gave it much of a thoughts. Some issues are way too obvious. You can't play the game and not notice them.