Game News NWN2: DnD redefined - I live ... again!

[kingcomrade]

It's amusing that this is the poster who keeps spamming the general forums with astoundingly astute comments about race, religion, and politics that were never answered to satisfaction elsewhere but somehow will be brought to closure here at our very own humble Codex. I present to you Kingcomrade, the little intrepid boy-hero who dared to disregard emo conventions and turn forums everywhere into myspace.com

Touched a nerve, did I?

The tactical vs. strategic debate is one of the most pompous and utterly irrelevant debates found on the interweb. Even if anyone came to a conclusion it wouldn't matter one bit or change one formula. It's like arguing about whether gay means happy or homosexual or whether the word color has a 'u' in it. It doesn't much matter. If I'm the boy hero I'd laugh to find out what you are, in your crusade against injustice and the hairsplit difference between a pair of terms which are pretty much interchangeable in anything besides technical jargon.

 

[Slylandro]

Touched a nerve, did I?

Maybe the illiterate tag was appropriate afterall. It's hard to find a poster more tone-deaf than you. The quoted section was intended to be "EPIC"(TM) humor.

Blah blah pompous blah blah utterly irrelevant debate blah blah wouldn't matter one bit or change anyone's formula blah blah

Let's not be too hard on your threads. I found the one about ideas for a Fallout city to be funny.

<rest of post>

Did I end up touching a nerve?

 

[Paranoid Jack]

Opinions are like assholes everybody's got one, and they all stink.


I just used that comment as a tactic but my strategy was to end this thread or at least the debate of tactics and strategy in PC games since it all comes down to opinion.

Just for the record I would side against you here Crichton. If I was choosing a side... :wink:

 

[kingcomrade]

Did I end up touching a nerve?

Not quite, but you did make me re-estimate the Codex's average IQ.

 

[Slylandro]

@ Paranoid Jack

Fair enough, the debate is getting kind of boring and it's useless since Crichton sticks to his definition even though it's just not standard in use-- chess manuals and other sources regularly use either the more general definition or versions specifically tailored to the game in question. And hey, Crichton and I both agree on the most important thing in either case-- that kc is a humorless twit who can't be taken seriously. Thank you kingcomrade, patriot of the Codex, defender of unity, and all that.

 

[Binary]

There are many chess books and online sources out there that use the word tactics and strategy in this regard, read for instance Winning Chess Tactics by Seirawan (for novices) or Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by Watson (advanced theory). Online sources are simply too numerous for me to even bother giving examples. Try googling "chess tactics." There has only been one major chess player (Teichmann) who considered chess to be almost purely a tactical game and his reasons are quite different from yours.

Wow, seeing that you knew a Seirawan book, I thought for a moment that you were a chess amateur, but quoting Teichmann proved me wrong: you know your stuff

As a chess player too, I of course agree with your description of tactics and strategy. Chess is a very balanced game between tactics and strategy. I find it very interesting to compare with, for example, a game that is 99% strategy like Go

(cue in Astromarine and talk a bit about Go).

 

[Slylandro]

Seirawan has always been one of my favorite players. He's a chess diplomat (helped with the Prague agreement), a superb strategician in semi-closed positions, was one of the few Americans in the 80s who could stand up to the Soviet Union's elite, and in terms of chess instruction he's very clear and precise which is why I pointed out one of his books. I hear he is semi-retired now. I would've loved to play him in a simul although he'd probably handily beat me especially since I'm kind of rusty.

Go is a wonderful "big picture" kind of game and is my focus at the moment. I didn't know Astromarine is a Go player, I should PM him for good theory books to supplement practice.

 

[Astromarine]

I find it very interesting to compare with, for example, a game that is 99% strategy like Go

(cue in Astromarine and talk a bit about Go).

Well, when you go around saying silly things like that :D Bullscheisse.

 

[Binary]

I find it very interesting to compare with, for example, a game that is 99% strategy like Go

(cue in Astromarine and talk a bit about Go).

Well, when you go around saying silly things like that :D Bullscheisse.

OK OK maybe 98%

 

[Slylandro]

I found a research paper that conclusively demonstrates Go to be 80.4392% strategy. Unfortunately I lost it on a business trip, after selling that bridge I was always talking about.

 

[Astromarine]

In the Go world, whenever you are trying to improve your local position, either by striving for good shape or by out-life-or-deathing your opponent, you're using tactics. The strategy is in using those tactics to develop your whole-board position, which defines your strategy. The opening of the game is pure strategy, as you're "stating" where you want to be strong or weak, and there is no local position yet. The endgame is pure reading and counting ability and little else. In the middle game is where the bulk of tactical thinking can be found.

 

[Binary]

In the Go world, whenever you are trying to improve your local position, either by striving for good shape or by out-life-or-deathing your opponent, you're using tactics. The strategy is in using those tactics to develop your whole-board position, which defines your strategy. The opening of the game is pure strategy, as you're "stating" where you want to be strong or weak, and there is no local position yet. The endgame is pure reading and counting ability and little else. In the middle game is where the bulk of tactical thinking can be found.

I don't think that's the correct definition of "tactics", but let's not go BACK into that discussion :D

 

[Astromarine]

Well, that's the accepted term for what goes on in the fighting. When struggling for a local position advantage, what happens is exactly what previous discussions have called "tactics", in my opinion. INCLUDING manouevering. :p For example, in a game yesterday, I invaded the other guy's corner with a stone, forcing a strategic decision on his part. He could defend the right side OR the corner, but not both. He chose the side, giving me access to the corner. However, in the ensuing fight his tactical mistakes gave me a possibility to take both. I moved to do so, but unfortunately misread the position, placed a stone wrong, and ended up giving him back the side that he had "lost", albeit much reduced in terms of territory. What do you call that, if not tactical fighting?

The reason most people don't think of it as tactics is that at an advanced level (beyond mine) sufficient analysis has been done to identify positions that give equal tactical benefit to either side, therefore advancing both strategies, if they're compatible. In Go, they're called Joseki. Fixed sequences that end up in a known, best-case, local position. The REAL pros, though, know to deviate from them, bringing back the tactical element.

In short: you're wrong :D

 

[Binary]

Well, that's the accepted term for what goes on in the fighting. When struggling for a local position advantage, what happens is exactly what previous discussions have called "tactics", in my opinion. INCLUDING manouevering. :p For example, in a game yesterday, I invaded the other guy's corner with a stone, forcing a strategic decision on his part. He could defend the right side OR the corner, but not both. He chose the side, giving me access to the corner. However, in the ensuing fight his tactical mistakes gave me a possibility to take both. I moved to do so, but unfortunately misread the position, placed a stone wrong, and ended up giving him back the side that he had "lost", albeit much reduced in terms of territory. What do you call that, if not tactical fighting?

I call that strategy. Tactics is when a chess player sacrifices his queen on the opponent's defensive pawns :D Go doesn't have anything similar.

The reason most people don't think of it as tactics is that at an advanced level (beyond mine) sufficient analysis has been done to identify positions that give equal tactical benefit to either side, therefore advancing both strategies, if they're compatible. In Go, they're called Joseki. Fixed sequences that end up in a known, best-case, local position. The REAL pros, though, know to deviate from them, bringing back the tactical element.

That's still strategy. In chess, it would be called the "theoretical opening". Many of these include theoretical sacrifices of pawns or even moves that go against the chess "basic rules" (knights in center, occupy the center, bishops in long diagonals, etc), which are not considered tactical.

In short: you're wrong :D

If you want to apply the dictionary's definition, sure, Go has lots of tactics. But the beauty in chess lies in the balance between both and the tilting of the balance in a tactical move. The beauty of Go is on the organization of a strategy from beginning to end. Chess is a much more tactical game than Go.

 

[Mantiis]

Well, that's the accepted term for what goes on in the fighting. When struggling for a local position advantage, what happens is exactly what previous discussions have called "tactics", in my opinion. INCLUDING manouevering. :p For example, in a game yesterday, I invaded the other guy's corner with a stone, forcing a strategic decision on his part. He could defend the right side OR the corner, but not both. He chose the side, giving me access to the corner. However, in the ensuing fight his tactical mistakes gave me a possibility to take both. I moved to do so, but unfortunately misread the position, placed a stone wrong, and ended up giving him back the side that he had "lost", albeit much reduced in terms of territory. What do you call that, if not tactical fighting?

I call that strategy. Tactics is when a chess player sacrifices his queen on the opponent's defensive pawns :D Go doesn't have anything similar.

The reason most people don't think of it as tactics is that at an advanced level (beyond mine) sufficient analysis has been done to identify positions that give equal tactical benefit to either side, therefore advancing both strategies, if they're compatible. In Go, they're called Joseki. Fixed sequences that end up in a known, best-case, local position. The REAL pros, though, know to deviate from them, bringing back the tactical element.

That's still strategy. In chess, it would be called the "theoretical opening". Many of these include theoretical sacrifices of pawns or even moves that go against the chess "basic rules" (knights in center, occupy the center, bishops in long diagonals, etc), which are not considered tactical.

In short: you're wrong :D

If you want to apply the dictionary's definition, sure, Go has lots of tactics. But the beauty in chess lies in the balance between both and the tilting of the balance in a tactical move. The beauty of Go is on the organization of a strategy from beginning to end. Chess is a much more tactical game than Go.

You are both nerds

 

[Binary]

You are both nerds

Was I supposed to be offended by that?

 

[Astromarine]

/wrists

 

[Surgey]

You are both nerds

That's what she said. About my balls. Like, she was talking about my balls. Your mom was.

 

[aries202]

HI

As I understand the combat in NWN2 it is much the same as in Dungeon Siege. Your main character's do not end the game; instead as long as 1 man or woman is left standing, the game will continue.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a bit more realistic
than the main character's death of BG series where the PC's death ended the game. (a feature that really annoyed me...) In normal combat as long
as one man (or woman) stands the fight continues.

I found the combat option in Dungeon Siege as well as the death option really well implemented.

I actually agree with JE Sawyer about his saying about aplotdriven storyline and such.
(and my guess would have been that you at the codex did as well)

 

[Elwro]

As I understand the combat in NWN2 it is much the same as in Dungeon Siege. Your main character's do not end the game; instead as long as 1 man or woman is left standing, the game will continue.

Hm, that's news to me. I thought that the main character had to stay alive, but all companions were revived after the fight.

 

[Volourn]

"As I understand the combat in NWN2 it is much the same as in Dungeon Siege. Your main character's do not end the game; instead as long as 1 man or woman is left standing, the game will continue."

Not quite. Combat is like NWN1 except with 3.5 rules (instead of 3.0 rules), and with a larger party.

Death (TPK) is different. It's exactly - as described - like the KOTOR series. Characters do not die unless the entire party is wiped out. This includes the PC who can fall unconcious.

And, it has nothing to do with the game being 'plot driven'. Many games are 'plot driven', and don't have this lame butt rule. I wish KOTOR hadn't popularize thise lameo method for 'Western style CRPGs'.

Lame.

 

[Voss]

HI

As I understand the combat in NWN2 it is much the same as in Dungeon Siege. Your main character's do not end the game; instead as long as 1 man or woman is left standing, the game will continue.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a bit more realistic
than the main character's death of BG series where the PC's death ended the game. (a feature that really annoyed me...) In normal combat as long
as one man (or woman) stands the fight continues.

I found the combat option in Dungeon Siege as well as the death option really well implemented.

I actually agree with JE Sawyer about his saying about aplotdriven storyline and such.
(and my guess would have been that you at the codex did as well)

1- Don't use realism in context with video game death. Its a sign you have no ability to distinguish between dreams, life and computer games.

2- You think something (much less multiple things!) in Dungeon Siege was well-implemented? Clearly you need to go get an MRI, stat!

 

[Binary]

2- You think something (much less multiple things!) in Dungeon Siege was well-implemented? Clearly you need to go get an MRI, stat!

Someone has been watching too much "Dr. House". And became delusional.

The seamless loading of worlds, from a technical point of view, was well-implemented.

The death system (in multiplayer) was well implemented.

Like I said before, the HUGE multiplayer map was very interesting.