VD, design philosophy for single character tactical combat?

[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.

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?

There are, maybe not each and every turn but it happens. Example from combat demo: you are playing a slow, heavily armored hammer dude, enemy is lightly armored and quick as greased lightning dagger dude. During your turn, you have to balance whether to go for two fast attacks or one power attack or maybe a disarming attack on his hands. The fast option gives you two chances to damage the dagger dude but on his turn he is going to have five attacks - works well if your hammer skill is clearly higher than his dodge skil; with the disarming attack you force him to pick up his dagger, reducing the number of attacks he can lay on you - works well if your skills are more equally balanced.

In any case, download the latest version of the combat demo and play it with different buiilds, you'll see for yourself.

 

[Grunker]

no proof why you simply must focus your characters on different things is given

Sorry. Didn't take you for a mathematically blind, mate

If you have 1 point and 2 skills/feats/abilities/advantages/what-fucking-ever costing 1 point each you can only buy 1 skill. It goes without saying then, that one character can buy the first one and the other the other one.

More clear? Hence, you can specialize as much as in a class system, there's just more freedom to do it. Hell, throw in 50 more skills and let's get wild. Two characters might buy 4 of the same skills, but utilize them in a different way because they buy different advantages... Hm...

Oh, and just in case you say: "AH BUT CAN YOU ALSO CHOOSE TO PLAY 6 CHARACTERS BUILT THE SAME WAY?!?" Eh... Yes... Just as in a class-based system, I suppose?

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.

You like to make up your opponent's arguments do ya?

More freedom + More options = Better

How was that not clear from what I wrote?

Do non-class-based-systems automatically offer more options? No. Do they offer more options than class-based ones of similar complexity? Yes. That's the fucking concept of a class-based system; to package abilities into groups called "Fighter" or "Mage" or whatever, and each package will do its thing. In a free system I buy whatever pleases me and make my own class.

D&D 3.5 is maybe one of the most complex systems in the world. It has TONS of supplements, extra rules, stuff stuff stuff. GURPS 4th edition has maybe 30 books all in all.

Can I make more builds with more variation in GURPS than D&D? I sure as hell can.

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.

Well I don't. You did. As a matter of fact I said I love D&D. I argued your point about class-based systems being better for party-based combat was bullshit... Oh wait... you didn't provide any proof of that claim, did ya?

"Shiiiiiiiit"

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

You're better than this VD. Please tell me what exactly I can't build in GURPS? Oh, this'll be good, I can't wait to hear it. I'll build you a fucking penguin with a wiener for a penis, a flamethrower in the ass, a mystical ability to teleport (but only to a McDonald's within 50ft. of Iron Tower Studios HQ) and a terminal illness that can only be post-poned by it eating the excrement of Nightcraler from X-MEN. all within the space of the rules... If you want, I can make it a spellcaster with a pointy hat that has a knack for jazz-music and becomes crippled if it touches running water.

Anyway, I wasn't making a case that you could build ANYTHING in all skill-based systems, you deaf motherfucker. I was saying that you can combine any skill/perk/advantage/whatever in the system into the build you want. I can't take a class-ability gained from level 10 fighter and put it into my level 10 wizard. If I could, what's the fucking point of the system being class-based?

If you don't stop turning my arguments into hyperbole to make yourself feel all smug and surperior, I might just have to post that parrot.gif.

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.

Saying that Fallout is based on GURPS is like saying Demon Stone is built on D&D. They have NOTHING in common. You know very little of GURPS indeed if you can claim that the two systems are alike in any way but their classlessness. Hell, Fallout is even based on percentile skill-rolls, one of the top concepts on the list of things GURPS set out to fight.

To your point: Take two systems, exactly equally complex. One groups it's abilities into classes. One presents you everything at a different point cost. Which one is more customizable?

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

Stop with the hyperbole FFS, you're embarrasing yourself. I only said I understood if that was your concern, how the fuck do you turn that into: "OH SO YOU THINK IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!"

By the way, I never said this complexity was something especially related to class-based systems... Tired eyes from all the coding?

TO CONCLUDE, AS THEY SAY: You are turning this discussion into a SKILL-BASED vs. CLASS-BASED - which is better and why?!?-discussion. But no fucking way José - that wasn't the deal. The deal was we discuss your completely unfounded statement:

"Class-based systems are better for party-based combat."

I can understand you wanting to draw away attention from that statement, but it is the core of our argument. You're gonna have to explain it to me - because I don't buy it.

 

[Mangoose]

There are, maybe not each and every turn but it happens. Example from combat demo: you are playing a slow, heavily armored hammer dude, enemy is lightly armored and quick as greased lightning dagger dude. During your turn, you have to balance whether to go for two fast attacks or one power attack or maybe a disarming attack on his hands. The fast option gives you two chances to damage the dagger dude but on his turn he is going to have five attacks - works well if your hammer skill is clearly higher than his dodge skil; with the disarming attack you force him to pick up his dagger, reducing the number of attacks he can lay on you - works well if your skills are more equally balanced.

In any case, download the latest version of the combat demo and play it with different buiilds, you'll see for yourself.

Yeah, I understood the stat/skills better and played more of the demo (not sure if latest version, though - when was the latest?) and I could tell. The main thing was that I wasn't fully aware of the effects (and their probabilities) from the aimed attacks, but seeing their use over time and reading what you wrote I can tell they add a lot more tactical variation.

For example, I had not noticed that aimed attacks have different damage ranges (and also that torso attacks halve DR!), which gives them more tactical nuance than "just" causing a secondary effect.

---

Secondly, party combat is not theoretically drastically more tactical than single character combat. The reason I posed the question in the OP was because despite the previous statement, there haven't been many good examples of (turn-based) single character tactics.

The only significant advantage party combat has, theoretically again, is positioning of multiple units (Though incidentally, tactical positioning is probably the easiest way to introduce complex tactics in an encounter, so perhaps that's why party turn-based games have had superior combat). Besides that, any number of characters (who altogether perform n actions in a turn) can theoretically be simulated by one character (who can perform all n actions himself in a turn).

Whether or not AoD can transcribe theory to binary is the question.

 

[mondblut]

Except for there were party members in both games.

If you can't control your party members and are limited in managing your party members, they are not your party members.

Next time you'll say FO3 or NWN1 had party members. Hey, they gave away a computer-controlled arrow pincushion to follow you around too.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Except for there were party members in both games.

If you can't control your party members and are limited in managing your party members, they are not your party members.

That's an interesting definition, but I don't agree with it. Party members are characters who are in your party, who are traveling and fighting with you, regardless of how you control them. In fact, there are quite a few people who think that controllable NPCs are a misnomer. That's the main reason why you couldn't control party members in Fallout and Arcanum. Sawyer made a good post on this topic years ago, but I don't think I'll be able to find it.

 

[Grunker]

Sawyer's post was good, but it neglected the fact that party members should be controllable from the AI-standpoint alone. As long as NPCs make super-retarded decisions because of bad AI alone it makes no sense to have them as non-controllable.

That, and it's more fun to control 6 characters than 1.

 

[Vault Dweller]

@ Grunker:

First, my original comment was "I think that party-based combat works better with class-based systems". It's a subjective, non-provocative (i.e. not "class-based is awesome, the rest is shit") statement. If you wanted to argue "in good faith", you should have asked why, not claimed that the statement is bullshit and that another reason (that class-based didn't fit the story) is bullshit too. When I replied, you complained because I didn't take you seriously. Do you want to have a serious conversation or a drive-by shooting? I'm fine with either.

Second, your position is based on the fact that GURPS is, apparently, awesome. Unfortunately, you've failed to explained why. I'm not very familiar with GURPS, so I have no idea what you're talking about and what points you're trying to make. Judging by your excitement, it's a good system, so why won't you make a good post in a new thread explaining its advantages and disadvantages? I think that would be more productive.

However, I want to note that PnP and CRPGs are two different things. CRPGs do have limits and, for the record, my initial comment was based on my experience with different CRPGs, not PnPs. Also, I said that Fallout is based on GURPS, not using it. I'm sure you're well aware of it.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_13: ... _Adventure
^ This is actually a good example showing the difference between PnP and CRPGs. At best you can do a faithful partial implementation.

Third, skill-based systems do give you more freedom when it comes to creating a single character instead of forcing you to be stuck with forced advantages and disadvantages but it's these set advantages and disadvantages that balance party based gameplay and create interesting combinations of classes.

That's why - in my opinion - single-character systems work better with skill-based because a jack of all trades (using Fallout as an example - someone who can shoot a gun, dress a wound, talk his way in and out, pick a lock, and fix some old shit) is what's needed there. However, jacks of all trades are absolutely unnecessary if you have a party. The logical thing to do is to spread secondary skills and increase each party member's combat worthiness, ending up with a fighter who can talk, a fighter who can heal, a fighter who can steal, etc.

That's why I asked you which game had a better, more fun to play with character system: ToEE or Fallout/Fallout: Tactics. You didn't answer the question.

So, the core of my argument is:

- single player encourages jacks of all trades, which works best with skill-based systems.

- party-based encourages specialists, which works best with class-based systems

- the addition of multi-classing allows you to mix and match different abilities, which is a lot of fun in ToEE and IWD2. It gives you that flexibility you need and gives you more options than you can handle. I replayed ToEE 8 times simply because the character system was that good and experimenting with different class combinations was fun and changed the way you approached most encounters (playing an all rogue party (multiclassed, rogue is the primary class) was very different than playing a traditional party.

- classes aren't about having a fixed role; they are about having advantages & disadvantages, and the reason they work so well in a party-based environment is because you can cover weaknesses of one character with strengths of another, which really is a lot of fun.

While GURPS does allow you to create your own advantages and disadvantages a-la Daggerfall's TES, I don't think that it can approach the level of carefully balanced classes. For example, in Daggerfall it was easy to score bonus points by selecting weaknesses you could work around (again, it's worth noting that it was a single character system and the goals were different, the advantages & disadvantages were about creating the most robust single character): for example, can't regenerate spell points in the darkness and in the light for fighters, critical weakness to disease and poison, weakness to paralysis for high elves, forbidden armor: leather (who needs it?), even iron; forbidden weapons: anything you are not specializing, etc.

Not the same as having real weakness you simply have to deal with.

 

[Grunker]

Do you want to have a serious conversation or a drive-by shooting?

Usually on the dex? A bit of both. You usually deliver just that. Equal parts of arrogance and well-founded arguments. So don't put the drive-by shooting on me alone, brutha.

CRPGs do have limits

I recognized that. As I've said earlier, I'm willing to concede to the fact that class-based systems work better for party-based CRPGs if there are bounderies I don't know about. Then I presented some examples. The point is you've yet to state exactly what these bounderies are, and why you chose a class-less system if that was indeed the case.

At best you can do a faithful partial implementation

ToEE is almost a 1:1 implementation of 3.5 rules. KotC would be, if not for home-made spells. I'm not arguing your point, because I don't know shit about shit in this area compared to you, but I do know that party-based combat in RPGs has trumped single-character combat time and time again.

Third, skill-based systems do give you more freedom when it comes to creating a single character instead of forcing you to be stuck with forced advantages and disadvantages but it's these set advantages and disadvantages that balance party based gameplay and create interesting combinations of classes.

This is completely possible to achieve in a class-less system... Say you want a restriction on magery. Well, the obvious answer is a restriction on armor, but that has never made much sense. What about spellcasting costing hit points? Or what about having a selection of different methods for the player to choose from. Maybe each spell-school comes with a different restriction.

There is nothing that you cannot accomplish with an open system that can be achieved in a class-based system except simplicity, clarity, and profiling of flavour. Considering the colossal complexity of D&D 3.5, it does a really good job at seeming simple, being clear for new players, and almost building your character with the flavour it put into its ability-groupings (classes). That's why I like it.

That's why - in my opinion - single-character systems work better with skill-based because a jack of all trades (using Fallout as an example - someone who can shoot a gun, dress a wound, talk his way in and out, pick a lock, and fix some old shit) is what's needed there. However, jacks of all trades are absolutely unnecessary if you have a party. The logical thing to do is to spread secondary skills and increase each party member's combat worthiness, ending up with a fighter who can talk, a fighter who can heal, a fighter who can steal, etc.

I'm not sure if I can see the harm in that, but let's say I could. If that's the concern, then the answer is a more limited point-to-options ratio. And that isn't even as extreme as it sounds. If the good spells are expensive, for example, investing points into fightan' will cost the healer that power. Of course, the ideal here is to expand the options, not to limit the points. And again, this fact I have ackknowledged as a potential problem because of resources with regards to C&C.

But you were the one that told me that resources wasn't a problem. I took that as a "we can make the system endlessly complex, no problem." If that was wrong, please expand, 'cause if its right, there is no problem.

That's why I asked you which game had a better, more fun to play with character system: ToEE or Fallout/Fallout: Tactics. You didn't answer the question.

Because it's a trap. It's like if I asked you: "Why do you hate freedom, VD?"

I said it myself: The systems need to equally complex for my statement to work. ToEE is much more complex and much better made that the system in Fallout and Tactics. Thus, ToEE is obviously better. But let's say you used a proven class-less system instead.

By the by, again you're making this out to be about me saying class-less systems are better. Sure, I think so, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that they're not worse.

- single player encourages jacks of all trades, which works best with skill-based systems.

- party-based encourages specialists, which works best with class-based systems

And I say that's bullshit. It depends entirely on how you design the system.

the addition of multi-classing allows you to mix and match different abilities, which is a lot of fun in ToEE and IWD2. It gives you that flexibility you need and gives you more options than you can handle. I replayed ToEE 8 times simply because the character system was that good and experimenting with different class combinations was fun and changed the way you approached most encounters (playing an all rogue party (multiclassed, rogue is the primary class) was very different than playing a traditional party.

I agree. D&D 3.5 is so good because it is, essentially, a very restricted class-less system at its core. If you need, say, the Mettle abiity of a level 3 Hexblade, the 3 levels work more as a prerequisite for the ability than as an actual class.

Because classes are so open in 3.5. This is extremely unique for this system by the way. They even dumped it in fourth, which I consider a huge mistake.

classes aren't about having a fixed role; they are about having advantages & disadvantages

Aye to the first part. A fixed role. Which is bad for a player who takes the time to understand the system. It's only advantage is ease-of-use.

Nay to the last part. A restricted pool of points can force you into to live with certain disadvantages. GURPS actually does this directly; you start with a limited number of disadvantages you can pick. Say, Blind, Broken Arm, Paranoid, Bloodlust. These are always negative points (they add more points you can use in other places), and as said, you can pick up to a maximum number of negative points.

But there are plenty of other ways to do it.

Not the same as having real weakness you simply have to deal with.

Because they were engineered in a shitty way. GURPS spent 20 years getting points right for their disadvantages, and I think they're at a pretty good state. Try going through the basic set and find a set of disadvantages worth -45 points (the norm limit) that are as those you describe in Daggerdale. Even if you could find such a said, a good designer (you, I presume?) can easily make sure his disadvantages matters in his game, and cripple the player sufficiently.

I'm not telling you how to make your game, Vince. Hell, I've said several times you sold me a copy the day you announced the shit, basically. What I'm saying is: I enjoy THE FUCK out of party-based combat, and that I don't understand your reasons for not choosing to roll with it.

 

[quasimodo]

Sawyer's post was good, but it neglected the fact that party members should be controllable from the AI-standpoint alone. As long as NPCs make super-retarded decisions because of bad AI alone it makes no sense to have them as non-controllable.

That, and it's more fun to control 6 characters than 1.

I generally play FO1&2 solo because the AI is so bad it loses any feel that your party consists of "real" characters.

Contrast this with JA2 where you control your party in combat, but their well written and spoken dialog makes them come alive.

Bottom line is if I have a party I want to be in control in combat. AI control of party members is throwing away most of the fun of TB combat before you start.

 

[Malakal]

So is the combat presented in the combat demo final (including those hinted at special maneuver)? Because I found it to be rather... boring honestly.

There is simply nothing to do other than hitting some dudes with appropriate attacks. No charging, side-stepping, feints, parrying (other than with shield), called attack are viable only on high AP high to-hit builds etc. Your character can only advance near the enemy (if he is mellee) or fire away from some range. I would really love if AoD took some advice from the Incursion RL school of combat, including DnD inspired combat movement.

Otherwise I really hope that combat is not an important part of the game and can be mostly avoided.

 

[GarfunkeL]

IIRC non-combat path is a viable one. My first character is going to be a diplomat.

 

[MicoSelva]

I, on the other hand, rather enjoyed the combat in the demo. Tried two builds. The first one was a failure. The second fared much better, but still wasn't able to defeat those six guys in the end. Group fights were by far the most challenging with Triarii being the difficulty spike after which it was only easier, with the arena champion failing to withstand repeatedly being stabbed in the face. Very satisfying.

The only two three issues I saw, are:
1. Combat can become repetitive after a while, and as it's basically Fallout's combat (with some minor changes) transferred to sword & crossbows, there are more limits to it than in a post-apocalyptic setting. No grenades, no different damage resistance types in armors (however, there are many types of arrows, which is good - I did not take a closer look at them, but I hope they have different properties), only human enemies available (probably?) - the options are much more limited.
2. No ability to permanently cripple enemy's arms or legs. Targetting arms only disarms opponents (with the weapon mysteriously ending up in their inventory - ?) and targetting legs only slows them down for a few turns - unless I missed something. Fallout's approach was better here, IMO.
3. One mistake during combat means You're basically dead. Fail to utilize optimal tactics from the beginning and You can reload immediately, since there's no chance of victory left (AI does not make mistakes - or at least I haven't noticed any). This means most tactics are metagaming ones, where You use knowledge gained from failed attempts to finally make that successful one. Not that I mind - most games work this way (at least for me), but some people might find it frustrating.

Anyway, figuring out how to beat arena fighters was the best gaming part of the weekend for me, but I agree with Malakal that some more combat moves and actions would be a good thing to improve this aspect of the game. On the other hand, I really would not to be repeadly charged and knocked down by those triarii, and I understand that implementing every new combat move can fuck up game balance in many areas, so I'd leave those improvements for the sequel.

BTW: I found characters in the game using the word "fuck" jarring and out of place. Somehow it does not suit the setting for me. Ah, well, will have to get over it, I guess.

 

[Malakal]

It also annoyed me that all weapon types have the same damage. They differ a bit in their abilities but somehow they all look like reskinned swords... I guess its too late for implementing damage types?

 

[MicoSelva]

Yes, damage types seem to be missing completely, which is a rather serious omission. The same with breakable gear (all weapons and armor are indestructible). All in all, the system feels rather simple. Let's hope it will be more balanced thanks to that.

 

[Mastermind]

As for the demo, I don't think that spamming "best" attacks will get you far.

It does for crossbows.

 

[DragoFireheart]

As for the demo, I don't think that spamming "best" attacks will get you far.

It does for crossbows.

AoD: Crossbow wielding, Speech savy bowman that aims for the eyes!

 

[Vault Dweller]

As for the demo, I don't think that spamming "best" attacks will get you far.

It does for crossbows.

Against multiple opponents? Do tell.

Yes, damage types seem to be missing completely, which is a rather serious omission.

Why? Do most RPGs feature damage types (other than physical/elemental)?

The same with breakable gear (all weapons and armor are indestructible).

I don't like breakable weapons/armor. It was extremely annoying in Arcanum and probably any other game I played. We did a poll a few years ago at the Codex. Most people wanted upgrades but not repair.

It also annoyed me that all weapon types have the same damage.

Would it be better if axes, for example, did more damage than swords?

They differ a bit in their abilities...

... which is what makes them different. Duh.

... but somehow they all look like reskinned swords... I guess its too late for implementing damage types?

Why? To force you to carry several weapons? Would that make combat more engaging?

So is the combat presented in the combat demo final (including those hinted at special maneuver)? Because I found it to be rather... boring honestly.

No system will ever appeal to everyone. Maybe it's not for you.

There is simply nothing to do other than hitting some dudes with appropriate attacks.

Isn't that how 99% of games work? We've never aspired to be in that rare 1%.

Otherwise I really hope that combat is not an important part of the game and can be mostly avoided.

It can.

 

[Elhoim]

There have been several improvements made since the combat demo, like the addition of especial moves for some of the weapons, shield bash, acid flask (corrodes armor) and bomb grenades, among other things.

 

[Esquilax]

There have been several improvements made since the combat demo, like the addition of especial moves for some of the weapons, shield bash, acid flask (corrodes armor) and bomb grenades, among other things.

One thing, about the acid flasks you mention. You say that they can corrode armor, but Vince also mentions that weapons and armor are indestructible (a wise decision, I might add. The only game I can think of off the top of my head where repairing stuff made the game better was System Shock 2). With that in mind, say someone chucks an acid flask at your sweet Imperial Guard armor that you spent hours crafting to perfection: it won't fuck it up permanently, will it? So I'm curious as to how it'll work: does it just diminish your armor's DR until combat ends? How is it implemented?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Permanently. Say good-bye to your nice and shiny armor.

About the acid mechanics:

- acid is rare, so most enemies won't have it
- weaker acid won't damage stronger metal
- it can be blocked (deflected) or dodged
- if acid is strong enough, it will start going through the metal at the rate of X DR points per turn. Regardless of how much DR points left in the armor, when combat ends, the armor will be replaced with some corroded metal in your inventory.
- you can melt the corroded metal but you will get only 80% of the armor weight (i.e. you lose 20%, which matters if your armor was made of rare metal).

It's done this way to discourage you from spamming acid flasks during combat. So, if your opponent is wearing a heavy armor, acid will help but at the cost of the armor.

 

[Esquilax]

Thanks! That makes perfect sense. It doesn't fuck me over unfairly if I've gotten tagged by acid because at least I can salvage most of the metal, but at the same time, it makes the player recognize it as a serious threat not to be taken lightly. I like the way that this is implemented, and it's far more nuanced than Arcanum's design where you whack a golem in the BMC and your shiny sword is fucked.

 

[MicoSelva]

Yes, damage types seem to be missing completely, which is a rather serious omission.

Why? Do most RPGs feature damage types (other than physical/elemental)?.

Good ones do. :D
Fallout has six damage types (if I recall). PST (and every other D&D-based game) has three for physical attacks alone (piercing / slashing / bashing), not to mention various elemental types.

Also most ARPGS and H&S games, which have Diablo-derived types of damage - usually at least four or five.

As for breakable gear, I won't miss it much, but introducing breakable weapons would allow You to diversify various gear a lot more than it is possible now. For example, most armors would probably have weaker damage protection against piercing weapons, but piercing weapons would be the most fragile ones - easiest to break. Or maybe piercing weapons would get more chance to score a critical hit (or a hit halving enemy's damage resistance).

It would also increase viablity of certain buils. For example, a brute force warrior with a large hammer would able to break opponent's weapons and shields if they try to block his attacks. It would be wiser to dodge his attacks, even if a block would have higher chance of succeeding than a dodge = new tactical options.

Basically, it would add a whole new layer of complexity to the combat and make it more enjoyable (at least for me), but as I said, the omission of this particular feature is not very important to me. Most games don't have it, including some of my favourites.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, damage types seem to be missing completely, which is a rather serious omission.

Why? Do most RPGs feature damage types (other than physical/elemental)?.

Good ones do. :D

Do they?

Fallout has six damage types (if I recall)...

...which had no effect whatsoever. You were never given a reason to switch to a different weapon because the one you had wasn't very effective against your target (because of the damage type).

PST (and every other D&D-based game) has three for physical attacks alone (piercing / slashing / bashing), not to mention various elemental types.

Same applies. When did you have to choose between a slashing weapon or a piercing weapon? You can as easily play the entire game with a hammer as you can with an axe or a dagger/sword/ravel's fingernail.

Also most ARPGS and H&S games, which have Diablo-derived types of damage - usually at least four or five.

And in how many of them do you really have to think of what opponent you're facing and prepare the right weapon? I think D2 is the only action game that did it right (on higher difficulty levels). In most the fast nature of these games makes damage types nothing but flavor.

As for breakable gear, I won't miss it much, but introducing breakable weapons would allow You to diversify various gear a lot more than it is possible now. For example, most armors would probably have weaker damage protection against piercing weapons, but piercing weapons would be the most fragile ones - easiest to break. Or maybe piercing weapons would get more chance to score a critical hit (or a hit halving enemy's damage resistance).

At the same time frequently losing your gear isn't fun. To be honest, I like the concept of different damage types and I regret not having them the most. However, I can't think of a game that did them right and in the absence of a template to follow, I didn't want to overcomplicate things. Maybe in our next game.

It would also increase viablity of certain buils. For example, a brute force warrior with a large hammer would able to break opponent's weapons and shields if they try to block his attacks. It would be wiser to dodge his attacks, even if a block would have higher chance of succeeding than a dodge = new tactical options.

Not as simple and fun as it sounds. First, it means that we should give you an automatic pause during your opponent's turn to decide if you're blocking or dodging. Second, it means that we should give you a lot more skill points to make this choice viable (if most of your points are in Block, then giving you a choice between Blocking and Dodging isn't a choice at all), in which case you can simply put all these extra points in Dodge becoming untouchable. Huge balance issue. It's easy to come up with a seemingly good idea, expecting the player to pick both skills to alternative, but then they don't, which breaks the system. Third, we already have it to some degree with axes and shield splitting.

 

[Surf Solar]

Yes, damage types seem to be missing completely, which is a rather serious omission.

Why? Do most RPGs feature damage types (other than physical/elemental)?.

Good ones do. :D

Do they?

Fallout has six damage types (if I recall)...

...which had no effect whatsoever. You were never given a reason to switch to a different weapon because the one you had wasn't very effective against your target (because of the damage type).

It DID have an effect, but a rather minor one. Floaters or Centaurs were very weak against flame damage but almost immune to other damage types. Tesla or Metal Armors had higher resistances against Laser weaponry. Robots had pretty high tresholds against any normal damage (but are easily defeated by EMP damage). Still, agreeing with you. It was a good system, but not pushed far enough to really make a big or tactical difference. This was one of the first things I did when I started to tweak my armors in the game - raising/editing the amount of resistances, tresholds, weaknesses, damage types, etc. IMO - it's worth the effort to do that. It takes away the "I am god" feeling one had in late game in Fallout, where you just blaze through everything with your uberweapon XY and never had to switch it.


As for a game feeling a bit odd when travelling with an entourage (yeah I'm late to the party) in story heavy games - I disagree. Imo it was done very well in Torment. Maybe I just misinterpreted the term entourage though.

 

[Radisshu]

The effects of damage types in Fallout was a bit too limited to be used as an example, though. The only fight where I think it made a real difference was with the Deathclaw Mother (she had both a particular weakness to energy weapons, if I recall correctly, and aimed attacks for the eyes).

EDIT: With C&C heavy games that focus on a single character, I actually prefer the non-party approach. It makes combat less interesting, but it can still be good ( which the AoD combat demo proves, IMO ), and it makes more sense than when you go up to some NPC and say "Hey, I want to join your gang" and the NPC doesn't reply "Okay, and these other five people too?"