Saving During Combat

[MF]

Right now, I haven't accommodated for data serialization during combat. It's not hard to do for me, but it's a lot of busywork.

Thing is, I generally dislike saving during combat myself so I'm hesitant to implement it in the first place.

What's your preference?

If I do implement it, I'll add some feature to deal with savescumming in a fun way. I'm already going to have some version of fate points so you have some player agency involved if you really must beat the RNG, but reloading until you get a better dice roll is never fun.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

metagaming via save mechanics is cheating, simple as
save & quit('suspending') should nearly always be present though, even during combat. So I don't see option 2 & 3 as exclusive, but the same choice.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Right now, I haven't accommodated for data serialization during combat. It's not hard to do for me, but it's a lot of busywork.

Thing is, I generally dislike saving during combat myself so I'm hesitant to implement it in the first place.

What's your preference?

If I do implement it, I'll add some feature to deal with savescumming in a fun way. I'm already going to have some version of fate points so you have some player agency involved if you really must beat the RNG, but reloading until you get a better dice roll is never fun.

It's a single player game. Why think so much?

 

[zapotec]

Depends from the average encounter length, because my time is more important than a shitty game

 

[Cyberarmy]

While I'm mostly "it's always good to have options" guy, saving in combat is where I drew the line.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

I do it sometimes but it's a bad habit.

 

[curds]

If I were making a game I would not allow saving in combat. However as a player I often save during combat. It does feel a bit naughty but I can't help myself sometimes.

 

[Butter]

Unless the combat is fully deterministic, this just encourages degenerate savescumming. If the combat encounters are so long that you can complete them in one sitting, that's a separate problem.

 

[MF]

Right now, I haven't accommodated for data serialization during combat. It's not hard to do for me, but it's a lot of busywork.

Thing is, I generally dislike saving during combat myself so I'm hesitant to implement it in the first place.

What's your preference?

If I do implement it, I'll add some feature to deal with savescumming in a fun way. I'm already going to have some version of fate points so you have some player agency involved if you really must beat the RNG, but reloading until you get a better dice roll is never fun.

It's a single player game. Why think so much?

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Rusty but I'm not concerned with any kind of judgement. If people want to cheat that's their prerogative. I'm not about telling people how to have fun with whatever options are available, but the question is about that availability.

I'm concerned with implementing it well if I add the feature. I know how I like to play, but I'm curious if there is a rough consensus on the subject here. If a game is conducive to savescumming I have to actively restrain myself from doing so, which feels worse than when I don't have the option in the first place for some reason.

It's not just about whether the system calls for it or not either. For example, in a completely deterministic system like Hard West -which I really liked-, I had a tendency to try and optimize my moves as if it were chess. There was no RNG involved, but having to do redo a mission just turned it into a puzzle game where I retraced my opening moves until I could try something else the same situation. It really comes down to personal preference as well as design.

If combat takes a while and you barely fail in the end, it can be frustrating, but the sense of accomplishment is greater if you try again and succeed. Dungeon Rats was pretty good at that. It's always going to be a balance between tension and relief. I liked fate points in Arcanum because I never once felt the urge to reload in that game when I messed up. Of course, in Arcanum it was always a relief when combat was over, but that's another story.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Right now, I haven't accommodated for data serialization during combat. It's not hard to do for me, but it's a lot of busywork.

Thing is, I generally dislike saving during combat myself so I'm hesitant to implement it in the first place.

What's your preference?

If I do implement it, I'll add some feature to deal with savescumming in a fun way. I'm already going to have some version of fate points so you have some player agency involved if you really must beat the RNG, but reloading until you get a better dice roll is never fun.

It's a single player game. Why think so much?

Don't get me wrong. I agree with Rusty but I'm not concerned with any kind of judgement. If people want to cheat that's their prerogative. I'm not about telling people how to have fun with whatever options are available, but the question is about that availability.

I'm concerned with implementing it well if I add the feature. I know how I like to play, but I'm curious if there is a rough consensus on the subject here. If a game is conducive to savescumming I have to actively restrain myself from doing so, which feels worse than when I don't have the option in the first place for some reason.

It's not just about whether the system calls for it or not either. For example, in a completely deterministic system like Hard West -which I really liked-, I had a tendency to try and optimize my moves as if it were chess. There was no RNG involved, but having to do redo a mission just turned it into a puzzle game where I retraced my opening moves until I could try something else the same situation. It really comes down to personal preference as well as design.

If combat takes a while and you barely fail in the end, it can be frustrating, but the sense of accomplishment is greater if you try again and succeed. Dungeon Rats was pretty good at that. It's always going to be a balance between tension and relief. I liked fate points in Arcanum because I never once felt the urge to reload in that game when I messed up. Of course, in Arcanum it was always a relief when combat was over, but that's another story.

Right, but is your game one where combat takes a while? I assume if it's reasonably lethal it would be over quick enough that saving during combat becomes a moot point.

 

[Funposter]

Depends from the average encounter length, because my time is more important than a shitty game

If all encounters are kept to 15 minutes or less, I've no issue with not being able to save.

 

[MadMaxHellfire]

saving during combat is an invite to savescumming.

 

[MF]

Some encounters are over in a couple of minutes, most are longer. I don't have enough data to project a useful average yet.

It's lethal with no HP bloat and feels pretty good to me right now, but a friend of mine played it and started agonizing over each and every move which took forever. I'll probably need to finish the combat beta and open that up to a larger group first before I can get that sort of thing exactly right.

One encounter I tested definitely felt too long for one sitting. It was JA2 length, but that was because two shifty AI characters kept using the momentum system to great advantage. If the AI is cheesing the player instead of the other way around, do I need to nerf the AI or git gud at my own game?

I'd lean more towards improving the pacing there than using save/load as a stop gap.

 

[anvi]

I think saving is old an unnecessary today. But I beat KOTC2 anyway.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

One encounter I tested definitely felt too long for one sitting. It was JA2 length, but that was because two shifty AI characters kept using the momentum system to great advantage. If the AI is cheesing the player instead of the other way around, do I need to nerf the AI or get gud at my own game?

First, give your AI a raise.
I suppose we'll know better once the beta is out.

 

[Valdetiosi]

Saving in combat turns combat itself into a chore where brain dulls into doing what sticks and works for the combat. Worst case if you save just to avoid taking any damage or using any items.
Imagine if in real life one guy says "check mate!" but other one insists "Alright let's return back to the state before you got my pawn on round 8..."

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Simply add the option to an ingame cheat menu. Those who want it know where to look.
Presenting it as the default option invites people to think the game was designed around such decisions.

 

[Abu Antar]

It depends. If you have super long encounters, maybe.

 

[laclongquan]

Based on my experience: Forbid saving in active combat in any way. Think fallout new vegas: can save if hostiles nearby but not if shooting each other.

Save in combat like F2 or Silent Storm make us exploit that tool too much. it's in our nature to use ANY tool we can, and over use BETTER tool than worse ones.

Dont even talk about "self control" or "no abuse moral" like a moron or noob in gaming field! In video games we just use any legal tool within our hands.
+++ Some will use logical reason like you need to save during too-long or too-big fights. While it's quite valid, on paper, it open door to over-abuse save/reload. The answer to that reason is control pacing and terrain from the development stages. Ensure that player should always be able to have a safe place to save after 20 minutes of playing, either by setting safe space, OR just AUTO-SAVE, biatch! set about 10 autosave slots and 15 minutes interval.
+++ Some talk about metagaming, but it's not about that. It's about acknowledging that save/reload is the most powerful tool in the hand of gamers, and developers need to control the degree they can abuse that tool. The difference between manual saving and 10 autosave/15min interval is that the control lie in the hand of developers, not gamers. Without that tool fully in their own hands, they wont build up the bad habit of overuse reloads.

 

[Alphons]

Add an option to turn on/ off autosaves at the start of combat.

Savescummers can savescum, purists can remain pure and I can jump right back into the beginning of the encounter after getting wiped out.

Personally I don't save during combat because it breaks the flow for me.

 

[Darth Canoli]

My two cents:

• Speed up combat movement by x2-x5 depending on the actual speed
• Speed up Combat animations by the same amount
• Improve your AI calculation to make it faster

Once it's done, would the game still have long battles?
If so, allow a save mid-battle or every 3/4/5 turns.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Saving during combat is symptomatic of the much larger problem at hand: free saving.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

If the game is turn-based, then it should have a single "save & quit" file
If it's real-time it shouldn't allow saving during combat, whatever the circumstances

 

[Volourn]

I feel dirty the times I've used it, but FREEEDOM.

Some games call for it ebcause the game likes to cheat and cheese as well.

Oh yeah, 20 misses in arow when I have a 95% to chance to hit him? WELL... FUKK YOU. SAVE AFTER EVERY ROUND.


R00FLES!

If a game pushes you to save mid battle that means the game was made poorly in that instance. PERIOD.

If people feel things need to play out PERFECTLY to progress that is on the game.

End of rine.

Still, I'd rather not do it, and try to avoid it as much as possible.

 

[hello friend]

Saving during combat is nice to have. In the early game or when new mechanics are introduced it allows you to test and work out exactly how they work and interact with various systems without having to waste a lot of time. Combined with some way of preventing savescumming would be the ideal scenario.