RTWP and TB inherent problems (and NPC companions)

[JarlFrank]

All the "problems" people seem to have here with both TB and RtwP revolve around shitty encounter design.

"I don't want to micromanage my party in every single trash fight in an RtwP game!"

"I don't want to wait for an enemy turn that takes 2 minutes in a pointless trash fight with 30 low HP enemies!"

Yeah... so... the possible solution might just be not to include pointless trash fights that serve only as filler and don't add anything interesting to the gameplay, other than padding out the game length so the dev can proudly claim 60+ hours of play time.

If there is no filler, you don't need programmable party AI for irrelevant battles in an RTWP game.
If there is no filler, you won't need to wait for long turn times in irrelevant battles in a TB game.
Because there will be no irrelevant battles.

The only instance where trash combat is acceptable is when it serves to drain the player's resources. For example, when you're in a dungeon and there's no easy way back to town to heal up and re-stock on potions and bandages. KotC had some very effective instances of this, especially the orc fortress. You were cut off from retreat and had no opportunity to rest so even trash fights became strategic because you had to conserve your resources.

If you encounter a trash mob on the road to the city, there's no point to it whatsoever. You will easily wipe the floor with the mob, and since you're already on your way to the city it's not like you're cut off from resupply. Why even have that fight in the first place? What point does it serve?

If a fight is so trivial that it makes you think "Oh boy I wish I could script my party members' AI to handle it on their own without having to get involved", the game would be vastly improved by just cutting that fight out.

 

[fantadomat]

People bitch about trash fights,but that is what rpgs is at its core lol. Without trash fights those games will be boring as fuck. What you will spend 10 reading some scripts and picking a option and then fight two unique enemies. Trash fights are there so you could get better equipment and gain levels. If all the enemies are hard then the game becomes boring shit,just look at might and magic x,you never feel that you had levelled up or upgraded your equipment because every enemy is strong for the wrong reasons. People that constantly bitch about trash fights should try their hands at some other genre!

 

[JarlFrank]

You can even make fights vs common enemies interesting by good environment design, so you have to use proper tactics to get rid of them rather than cruising on autopilot.

 

[fantadomat]

You can even make fights vs common enemies interesting by good environment design, so you have to use proper tactics to get rid of them rather than cruising on autopilot.

Sure,but that won't stop the bitch crowd from complaining. Very few games actually a terrible trash spam.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Turn-based and real-time can both result in effective combat systems, provided that they are chosen with consideration to the other game mechanics.

I love these posts that are absolutely meaningless, something something in theory can be fun, blah blah, provided they are <using other words for fun>.

Unless you provide examples and explain what game fixed RTWP combat and how, you're not saying anything. Your post is devoid of substance.

It means you should make a combat system that works the best with all other mechanics, and that both these things should be in service of the vision you have for your game.

People bitch about trash fights,but that is what rpgs is at its core lol.

Shitty RPG's yeah.

If all the enemies are hard then the game becomes boring shit,

God Hand and Ninja Gaiden beg to differ.

 

[JarlFrank]

How to turn a trash fight into not a trash fight:

Trash fight = boring, repetitive, offers nothing interesting. You just slay your way through a bunch of mooks and that's it.

On the right, the same fight is turned into a tactical challenge by giving the enemies good defensive positions and the player a few tools to exploit. The player can throw a fireball at the barrels to make them explode for extra damage against enemies close to them. The archers and the mage are behind barricades that offer them some protection. The AI is instructed to behave defensively here so the player will have to breach the defenses at the chokepoints if he wants to get rid of the archers.

This way, the fight will not be boring! Because you actually have environmental factors and AI formations to consider, rather than the enemy just being one big mass of trash mob!

It will be an interesting fight in both RtwP and TB.
As long as:
- combat animations don't take too long
- groups of enemies have their movement animated simultaneously like in ToEE
there won't even be any excessive waiting time in TB despite the high amount of enemies.

The problem with trash fights is that there is no deliberate design behind them. It's just a bunch of monsters plopped into a room with little thought given to their positioning, and no relevant environmental elements that have to be considered as part of the combat tactics.

 

[Desolate Dancer]

Finally, a good thread. For your RTwP example and BG, and most importantly BG2 I beg to differ in your presentation. Although it was pretty much this in the vanilla game (attack nearest aka the WTASIGHT script) the underlying system IE was capable of waaaay more than that. The fact that the final game (which is still the largest and longest rpg content wise) did not have a sophisticated A.I. was a result of insufficient time, not because of an inherently shit or clanky system. Any A.I mod like SCS and the likes had shown us the true potential and fun of BG combat and spell-duels, which admittedly might not have been possible due to system limitations when it originally came out (some of the mod scripts are thousands of lines long, and ancient PCs were fucking weak so there's that). But I'd argue that someone who likes both RTwP and isometric games I am yet to find an engine so complex, so moddable and so much fun as IE (especially for BG2 but it was the best not because of the system, but because of several other additional factors).

On companions: I believe an optimal solution is to have your main char as your self-insert and the companions as any other NPCs. As such, dialogue checks are always made on your main char, and for combat purposes or scripted interactions (e.g. climbing up a wall, scaling down a well etc...) you can use any other companion's stats (i.e. your char is instructing them to do shit). Of course, just as BG had the occasional 'comments' from your party members during dialogues, we can most certainly allow that. But making a decision between having a high CHA or high STR should count dialogue wise (it also increases replay value). So how to make them equally useful? Easy, well tedious but easy, make a 'personality' for all relevant NPCs in game e.g. a weak peasant can easily be Intimidated by a high STR main char, he might as well be Bluffed with a high CHA main char, but a strong brute might retaliate when you try the former, and a sexy bardess might send you the hell away if you try to woo her into doing something. The downside of that approach is that after a single playthru you become aware of these stats (oh this is Bill the gullible and this is Frank the aggressive asshole), but its not like we had a problem with this in BG. We knew we could convince the guard with a high CHA to allow us in to the ceremony to Sarevok yet it didn't bar us from a replay. In a game where most of the NPCs have a totally different 'personality' or 'dialogue options with set attribute check conditions' this is even less of a problem. Again, another untopped potential of IE-BG2 since it used these conditions in less than 1% of the cases.

Therefore, your problem imho does not stand: yes a high fantasy ought to have more companions, it should be RTwP as it worked wonders for BG, but combat never sucked in BG, especially not in BG2, especially not with the mods (aka with true potential unlocked), therefore the game will not suck.

It really is boils down to this: you must do the exact opposite of what Twatsidian and Jwsh Swyr did, may his name never be uttered, may his memory be forgotten. Amen.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Bester]

Therefore, your problem imho does not stand: yes a high fantasy ought to have more companions, it should be RTwP as it worked wonders for BG, but combat never sucked in BG, especially not in BG2, especially not with the mods (aka with true potential unlocked), therefore the game will not suck.

It really is boils down to this: you must do the exact opposite of what Twatsidian and Jwsh Swyr did, may his name never be uttered, may his memory be forgotten. Amen.

Is Pathfinder just as fun as BG2 or less so? It's supposed to be doing everything BG does. And yet it's not up there, wouldn't you agree? Why? Elaborate.

 

[Ranselknulf]

I wasn't talking about mechanics bro, I was talking about scriptable AI.

RTS games use scriptable AI also, but the scriptable AI's are not as robust as the mmo spergs.

You must not speak english as your native language.

My point is that if you've only got a few well designed fights in each dungeon/hub then scriptable AI is unnecessary and ruin the fun of it. Plus it will likely prove to be inadequate against a well designed fight. If you've got a lot of useless trash encounters - then yes scriptable AI and RTwP might become a better way to handle that. But its basically a design of: "lets be lazy about our encounters and say that our game is about combat" - and then being forced to find a way to deal with all that trash without wasting player time.

I agree, I wasn't talking about sniping MMO game mechanic design.

I was talking about a system that lets players modify the AI of their npc companions with scripts.

 

[Ranselknulf]

The only problem with that is, I prefer playing the game myself rather than having the game play itself for me.

To each their own, but the automated AI aspect could be applied to NPC companions.

The level of sophistication you want the companion to have is up to you.

 

[anvi]

Option 2: Make AI "Smart". It always goes for your mages and the weakest targets.

Result: It's a pain in the ass to deal with, your mages die all the time, warriors become useless because mages are tanking, it looks weird. You gotta buff mages with a ton of shit or make them stay way way back. It's super NOT FUN.

Any other ideas?

The only one I like is this one. But instead of the mages dying, the player has ways to keep the enemies at bay. In some games you can physically block the path of enemies, like Temple of Elemental Evil, etc. You put your tank and a big pet in a corridor and nothing is getting past. But also in good games the mages can teleport out of danger, or they can use spells like slow or entangle or whatever. Also many stuns make it so that the enemy has to decide if it is going to try to reach a distant target and get chain stunned along the way and die before he reaches the target, or just attack someone nearer (ie: the tank). Also tanks should have a chance of using something like Taunt which makes the target focus the tank. Too much of this and it becomes like your Option 1 which is boring. Not enough of it and it becomes like Option 2 which is a shitshow. A good game should balance this in between.

 

[anvi]

I've seen all types of this in games. BG2 has a lot of kobald ambushes where they charge your group including healers and mages. But I liked it because there is no point a Cleric being a mace+shield user with some ok strength and constitution, if they never have to actually defend themselves. And there is no point a mage having things like quick cast, entangle, etc, if they are never in direct danger. TOEE was the same, the enemies attacked anyone, but you had a lot of ways to keep your casters safe. My dream game (EQ) was like that too. But I also played one game that I actually really loved, called Vanguard, but it had a problem of too many options and they were too reliable. So a tank could hit taunt on a target and it worked 100%. The same tank also had an area taunt, and it even had a second taunt for another target which did something like force the enemy to attack you for 3s or something. But a combination of all of those things meant that you very rarely had a battle where everything wasn't just glued to the tank. It made things far too easy. Also healers were really powerful, and crowd control was too, so combat was generally just far too easy. Lots of depth, lots of options, incredible class design and character building and customization, but it was all basically ruined by being too easy.

 

[Sergiu64]

My dream game (EQ) was like that too. But I also played one game that I actually really loved, called Vanguard, but it had a problem of too many options and they were too reliable. So a tank could hit taunt on a target and it worked 100%. The same tank also had an area taunt, and it even had a second taunt for another target which did something like force the enemy to attack you for 3s or something. But a combination of all of those things meant that you very rarely had a battle where everything wasn't just glued to the tank. It made things far too easy. Also healers were really powerful, and crowd control was too, so combat was generally just far too easy. Lots of depth, lots of options, incredible class design and character building and customization, but it was all basically ruined by being too easy.

Sigh... yes: monster just saw the mage drop a meteor on his head - but hey this super armored guy with a shield just taunted him - best keep attacking the armored guy. Lets also ignore the rogue stabbing the monster in the back for 4x the damage that the armored guy is doing. That's ignoring the fact that the monsters would have crazy hp bloat and take a minute to kill in a 6 on 1 situation. What brilliant encounter/mechanic design. Lets all sit in one place for half a day and gain third of a level. Can you MMO fans exit the conversation please?

 

[anvi]

THAT is your argument? Really? First off, how is taunt a bad and unrealistic thing when you are talking about fireballs and meteors? And without that ability, what's the point of building a high con/agi character with a shield if nothing ever attacks them? And the reason people sit in one place all day is because the combat is interesting, and they want the experience and the loot that drops there. What is your alternative? Fights where enemies die in 2 seconds? And you get levels and gear without having to put in any effort? That exists too, even in MMOs, and it is stupid and made for children. You are a retard. Why try to debate combat mechanics when you don't even know all the various types and why they exist?

 

[anvi]

.

Another reason why you are retarded, is that in most RPGs, enemies have an innate aggro for tank characters anyway. So even without the ability to taunt, things attack the warrior no matter what. Or their AI is so dumb that it doesn't even consider attacking something else. Also if the warrior has abilities like trip or disarm or bash to stun, that is no different to taunt. It achieves the same thing.

ALSO, the game you are trying to shit on actually has an AI which does exactly what you are bitching about not happening. A mage with a huge meteor, WILL get focused by enemies in EQ and will die because of it. And in EQ, taunt isn't guaranteed to work. It is an ability that can fail based on the skill level, the level difference between you and the target, and the type of target it is. Tell me a single player game where enemies will aggro a caster based on 100 different calculations constantly? You can't, so shut your retard mouth.

 

[JarlFrank]

"Aggro" is a retarded mechanic.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[anvi]

"Aggro" is a retarded mechanic.

No it isn't, it is the exact opposite of that. And this is why you shouldn't comment on games, because you don't even understand such basic things in gaming... 'Aggro' is nothing more than a version of AI for an enemy to act in a realistic way.

In the best game, every single thing you do is judged by the enemy, and this gives a numerical + or - to determine who the enemy should target first, and each enemy keeps their own list with all these calculations based on their own judgement. That is called the aggro list. So if a Wizard starts spamming huge damage spells, this judged number gets high and everything nearby will try to kill him. If a healer heals in an intelligent way, with heal over time etc, then they will be fine. But if they save the Wiz with massive heals, then this might put them up the list too and cause them to be targeted. All spells have an affect on this, things like stuns and control spells can have large increases. And your status affects it too, so if you get knocked unconscious, it is massive + aggro for all enemies nearby and they will try to finish you off.

The result is that an enemy will change targets and will focus whoever is causing the most problems. The biggest damage dealer and the biggest healer will be the top priority. A warrior can try to stand a chance of taking the attention of an enemy by doing things like standing in the face of the enemy, or using weapons with effects like poison etc, but mostly the enemies will focus on the bigger problem which is wizards and healers.

In other words, a game with aggro, which you have never played, is the only type of RPG to have realistic enemy behavior. They will fight whoever is the best target for them, and change target based on what is happening in real time. Without this, you are fighting a bunch of game characters with zero intelligence. Which I know is what you prefer, because you like dumb games. Just because you never played anything post 1998 doesn't mean nothing has been improved since then. The definition of retarded is enemies that just attack whatever is nearest. If an enemy attacks something based on some sort of intelligent decision, then that is aggro. The exact opposite of retarded. I shouldn't need to explain that...

 

[Sensuki]

That is a nice example of smart, yet not "pain in the ass" AI. However, I can't imagine a lot of other examples of this.

I don't even really know anything that actually does it either. I like how in BG enemies had an AI script and I think unit scripts with some good AI classes (such as being able to find other character's actions, and group units together as a 'team') could go a long way in using AI to make a battle interesting and different from each other.

I can see why this sort of thing isn't done as in a larger team the lead designer has to ask for it, the team has to have the budget for it and then someone has to have the skills to do it - often I'd imagine a designer wouldn't have the coding skills, and the AI programmer wouldn't be allowed to touch the design side of things himself. I could see it existing in a Knights of the Chalice type scenario where one guy with teh sk1llz does everything.

 

[Siobhan]

To each their own, but the automated AI aspect could be applied to NPC companions.

The level of sophistication you want the companion to have is up to you.

It could even be its own mini game. As your companions level up and gain better equipment, you get access to more sophisticated ways of controlling their AI. Specialized ways of picking targets, branching behavior based on enemy type or current (de)buffs, and so on. Would be nifty, and could work well with a battle system like Ultima 7's where you have very little direct control. Basically a kind of RPG Manager game. But it would also require lots of trash combat so that you can tweak the AI through trial and error, and it would actively discourage hand-crafted encounter design because your AI scripts wouldn't be able to exploit the environment.

 

[Desolate Dancer]

Is Pathfinder just as fun as BG2 or less so? It's supposed to be doing everything BG does. And yet it's not up there, wouldn't you agree? Why? Elaborate.

Frankly, I do not know for I do not know Pathfinder. I'm some kind of a purist so once I found the true G-d there was no point in looking anymore. I do wonder sometimes if it's at all possible to replace the wonder that was the BG series? We do have to consider that it was a once in a lifetime constellation that enabled us to receive such a divine blessing:
- IE was a marvel, a perfectly capable machine to simulate just the right game, ruleset, artwork (imho character animation with the black outline is horrendous in beamdogs tranny crap)
- they had a lot of money to burn, at least the common understanding is this compared to other game studios
- the team was talented, perfectly capable of doing what they love, and apparently most if not all their hunches were correct (as proven by the final product)
- they had the perfect IP to emulate, something that is a legal nightmare today for most IPs (failure to make your own IP is pathetic, see Pillards of Wallsoftextity)
- they managed to simulate just the right ruleset perfectly (despite mistakes and errors it played out well, e.g. I never got used to the overly bloated HPs in Neverwinter Nights or any other D&D game afterwards, as the HP-to-damage output ratio felt very off to me after years of BG, but I'm a 2e purist, I'm not into any mmod&d after)
- they were in the right zeitgeist (imagine doing anything fun today that is not destroyed by the SJWs, case in point: Shillards of Identitypolitics)
- they managed to do the impossible (or at least what most game designers fail at): they improved upon every facet of BG to BG2
- most if not all design decisions were spot on
I bet there were codexians before me who explained even better and more points than the above ones...

Now I realize that some of the points are a bit subjective, just as it is subjective to hate or like certain genres/games, but I suppose we can still draw upon objective measures as well i.e. if a game by and large fulfills its premises AND promises, then it is a fine game. BG series did everything and more than that, and with the mods we had taken it even further. But as you see, there were several factors all in concert that enabled this wonder to happen. I'm realistic to know that it is unlikely to happen again in our lifetime, especially seeing how every attempt failed so far, in fact the whole genre/industry never managed to reach the heights of IE since. For that reason, I believe someone should kickstarts a new engine FIRST, which will then enable game designers to make games with it, just as IE enabled the creation of both BG and Torment (and IWD to a lesser extent, but I never much valued it it was boring). An engine that can accommodate both high fantasy and science fantasy games (I'd have ideas for both). Like in every business, we have to be pragmatic and we ought to take one step at a time... just my two cents.

 

[JarlFrank]

"Aggro" is a retarded mechanic.

No it isn't, it is the exact opposite of that. And this is why you shouldn't comment on games, because you don't even understand such basic things in gaming... 'Aggro' is nothing more than a version of AI for an enemy to act in a realistic way.

In the best game, every single thing you do is judged by the enemy, and this gives a numerical + or - to determine who the enemy should target first, and each enemy keeps their own list with all these calculations based on their own judgement. That is called the aggro list. So if a Wizard starts spamming huge damage spells, this judged number gets high and everything nearby will try to kill him. If a healer heals in an intelligent way, with heal over time etc, then they will be fine. But if they save the Wiz with massive heals, then this might put them up the list too and cause them to be targeted. All spells have an affect on this, things like stuns and control spells can have large increases. And your status affects it too, so if you get knocked unconscious, it is massive + aggro for all enemies nearby and they will try to finish you off.

The result is that an enemy will change targets and will focus whoever is causing the most problems. The biggest damage dealer and the biggest healer will be the top priority. A warrior can try to stand a chance of taking the attention of an enemy by doing things like standing in the face of the enemy, or using weapons with effects like poison etc, but mostly the enemies will focus on the bigger problem which is wizards and healers.

In other words, a game with aggro, which you have never played, is the only type of RPG to have realistic enemy behavior. They will fight whoever is the best target for them, and change target based on what is happening in real time. Without this, you are fighting a bunch of game characters with zero intelligence. Which I know is what you prefer, because you like dumb games. Just because you never played anything post 1998 doesn't mean nothing has been improved since then. The definition of retarded is enemies that just attack whatever is nearest. If an enemy attacks something based on some sort of intelligent decision, then that is aggro. The exact opposite of retarded. I shouldn't need to explain that...

What you're describing is just intelligent enemy behavior with assessment of threats, target values, and setting priorities.

Aggro, as I have experienced it in the few MMOs I played, wasn't centered around logical AI behavior reacting to player threat levels, but specific tank abilities that raise aggro so the AI would focus on him while shielding higher priority targets.
Mage/rogue/whatever: "Oh no the enemy is attacking me because I'm a priority target due to dealing a lot of damage but being squishy, help."
Tank: "Ok let me just use this ability that raises my aggro so the enemy attacks me instead despite that being a retarded tactical move."

It's just way too gamey and a replacement for dissuading the enemy from attacking your squishies by other means (protecting them so rushing towards them will result in getting free AoOs in, etc).

 

[anvi]

" intelligent enemy behavior with assessment of threats, target values, and setting priorities" is exactly what aggro is. It can be directly raised or lowered with tank abilities in some games but that is usually because tanks can't cast massive fireballs. In EQ it wasn't like that, 2 out of the 3 tanks had to raise and lower it with spells of their own. The third tank had no spells at all but had one 'taunt' which was a class skill that could fail or be resisted, and some targets were immune to it. So people had to balance their damage and healing output carefully. It was such a big deal that they later added a threat meter to the game for modern dumb gamers to see the number increasing towards danger levels so they know when to ease up.

Hate the 100% taunts dumb games have, not the concept of aggro.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

To each their own, but the automated AI aspect could be applied to NPC companions.

The level of sophistication you want the companion to have is up to you.

It could even be its own mini game. As your companions level up and gain better equipment, you get access to more sophisticated ways of controlling their AI. Specialized ways of picking targets, branching behavior based on enemy type or current (de)buffs, and so on. Would be nifty, and could work well with a battle system like Ultima 7's where you have very little direct control. Basically a kind of RPG Manager game. But it would also require lots of trash combat so that you can tweak the AI through trial and error, and it would actively discourage hand-crafted encounter design because your AI scripts wouldn't be able to exploit the environment.

This is an interesting novel idea. The sofistication of the programmable AI increases as the character increases its experience/level.