Tactics, what is the point?

[hiver]

Even so, if i ever make a cRPG i will disable savescumming completely. I especially hate save being enabled in combat, especially in a Turn based combat and i love AoD for not allowing that.

Instead of just being Iron Man, which i think is just too extreme of a solution - i would allow saving only in safe places. Taverns, towns, temples etc.
Once you go adventuring - youre on your own. If you die you can just reload the previous save made in safe location and then try again. Or go in a different direction.

This doesnt have just the purpose of spiting Draq and Rads.
This would actually affect the gameplay and force the player to be much more careful about his tactics in combat (provided they play a bigger role then usual - which they would).
Simply said - if you can save scum - you wont be so careful and you will pay less attention - simply because knowing you can save makes a difference. It also allows the player to "go back in time" every time he makes a choice that doesnt turn out the way he prefers. Like a spoiled whiny brat.
"Oh i didnt get the most xp from that dialogue option!" - "oh i didnt get the most awesome sword if i chose this!"

Well screw you!

Just saying "hey then dont save scum" is not the answer - that forces the player to behave contrary to the options he has and force himself not to use a mechanic that is in the game (even if its a meta mechanic).
While on the other hand knowing that you cannot save would make a big difference in approach, the feel and the gameplay itslef.

 

[Jaesun]

No savescuming allowed is fine when you're 20 something and have time to replay the game from the beginning

So you have never ever played a PnP session before? Does your DM allow you to Savescum?

 

[Commissar Draco]

Decent DM allows you to loose the roll and continue; in most cRPG ITZ the win or game over screen is the norm.

 

[Ninjerk]

Decent DM allows you to loose the roll and continue; in most cRPG ITZ the win or game over screen is the norm.

And if you cheat some DMs make your character's life hell.

 

[DraQ]

If you have a sophisticated AI, then you already have variety, no need to start disabling components to make zombies and other dumb enemies.

You're speaking from purely gamist point of view.

From both simulationist and narrativist POV it makes perfect sense for braindead zombies to be braindead.

Plus, you can always compensate by throwing a lot of dumb enemies at the player, letting them erode player's resources for a long time or making your zombies easy to hurt but hard to actually incapacitate.
Asymmetrical conflict with all the mobs working in concert and controlled by best possible AI would be impossible to win, so you're going to nerf the dominant side anyway by fragmenting it, etc. anyway.
Why not by making part of it composed of dumb zombies and wildlife?

Finally, adding such seemingly low threat enemies can actually help root out strategies and builds overoptimized for fighting small groups of smart, strong, optimally fighting enemies.

What? Stop savescumming then. Or play iron-man. What, iron-man too much for you? But I thought you're not allowed to saved in PnP?

You also aren't doomed to repeat the same shit or its randomized variation over and over in PnP.

Iron-Man has some definite advantages (tension and ease of implementation), but is neither perfect nor universally applicable.

I really dont get what youre opposing here. You dont like the example of saving only in safe places or having a choice? wtf?

Choice between a scumming prone system you want to avoid in the first place and save system that doesn't do the main thing it's supposed to right is not much of a choice.

 

[DraQ]

What about games that deal with losses? How can you enjoy failure as part of the game if you savescum?

What? Stop savescumming then. Or play iron-man. What, iron-man too much for you? But I thought you're not allowed to saved in PnP?

See, I don't want random dice rolls to ruin my game, I want my decisions to ruin my game and I want to keep playing from there.

Yeah, of course, so you typically reload to get all the criticals but if it's a mistake "YOU" made, then you wouldn't reload. Don't make me laugh.

You ARE trying to tell the players how to play their games. Fuck you, if I want to savescum, I savescum, you're not my Sawyer to tell me what to do.

Whenever I hear people complaining about dice rolls in RPGs I can't help but feel that they're not in the correct genre. You're seeing RPGs as action games where you're gimped by dice rolls. Move on, this is not for you. Go with Bethesda or something.
You are the reason we can't have nice things, and you are the reason the future is bound to be an IGN-heaven where all numbers are removed from RPGs because lol u don't play pnp why u need numbars anyway lol

Say no to popamolers, throw some dice today!

Fuck you and try reading what I said.
How am I telling people how to play the game if I'm getting rid of one thing, dice rolls? In a game that is not an RPG?
Didn't you read that I'm making a 4X game?

What I want is a game that savescumming is not necessary, you can do it all you want however, it's just that there is no point if random dice rolls are removed.
You would then reload because of other things and not to try a lucky roll.

Don't give me that fucking argument "stop savescumming", what I said is that most games don't allow you to STOP savescumming, like a part of the game is that you need to win or it's game over.
I'm not complaining about the difficulty, I'm complaining that losing is not an option so I can either savescum or I can restart the entire damn thing, those are my only options.

Again, I'm not trying to say how RPGs should be played, as I'm not talking about RPGs.

And if you fucking READ you will see that I'm always saying that I don't mind savescumming and that I just don't like when someone savescum to get a lucky dice roll.
What? Can't I have a fucking opinion? Do I have to like that fucking shit just because you do? Just because I'm a developer?

EDIT: And fuck yeah I save scum, like what have been said earlier, people have lives, I have a job, a wife, a kid.
I saved to get lucky dice rolls until the point that I started hating those games that allowed it by design.
Games that you can either win or win, that's why I stopped playing most games and play just 4X most of my sparing time.
I never said I didn't do it but just because I do something doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Or means that every game that I develop I have to put that fucking thing on it.

Tiago, the best way to avoid having luck affect your game too much is to learn statistics. Please! I am not preaching to you! Just exploring what I think about the role of "randomness" in tactics. I believe that randomness does add to the fun, as long as it is constrained artificially to some level so that your distributions are very tight.

Let's take D&D for example.

Low level D&D sucks because it has too much randomness compared to HP/Abilities.
Mid level D&D is amazing because the HP/abilities are now slightly higher than randomness
High Level D&D sucks because the HP/Abilities are too large compared to randomness.

The goal of a developer is to tap the mid level D&Dness into tactics.

I once wrote stuff about it. May be you'll find it interesting.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/tactics-and-randomness.80221/

...

 

[hiver]

How it doesnt do what its supposed to fing do when its doing exactly what its supposed to do?

Any better or different suggestion?

 

[Horus]

No savescuming allowed is fine when you're 20 something and have time to replay the game from the beginning

So you have never ever played a PnP session before? Does your DM allow you to Savescum?

You're not supposed to die in most encounters and most DM's try their best to keep the group alive even if they are complete retards. Unless they killed precious npc's of the DM on first sight(Before they were allowed to talk), that is the shorthest way to hell in PnP.

 

[Jaesun]

You're not supposed to die in most encounters and most DM's try their best to keep the group alive even if they are complete retards.

Man you mush have played with shit DM's then. Sorry to hear that. The people I played with, if we are doing stupid shit, our DM's would kill us all off for playing stupid. Period.

If we are trying to play smart (and in character) yes, sometimes death could be avoided (or other consequences). But not always. Death is a part of D&D.

 

[DraQ]

How it doesnt do what its supposed to fing do when its doing exactly what its supposed to do?

Sigh.
Save is for me to get up from computer at any time I want. If I can't save whenever I want (and with no ill consequences) it just plain fucking misses the point of saving.

Are you trying to live up to your tag or something?

Any better or different suggestion?

Several.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-recent-realization.77830/page-7#post-2382503
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ave-design-theories.68015/page-2#post-1919192
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...urage-save-scumming.64007/page-2#post-1784170
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/i-had-a-dream.40538/#post-1042555

 

[Clockwork Knight]

EDIT: And fuck yeah I save scum, like what have been said earlier, people have lives, I have a job, a wife, a kid.

*sigh*

To be honest, i have never understood this obsession with the "savescumming". Why does one care why and how a player decides to play the way he does? All developers need to care about is providing more content that is both sensible, interesting and challenging. Leave the rest to us, the players to decide what to do with it.

Because the players use the tools at their disposal, even if they don't necessarily like them. I don't like reloading all the time, but sometimes it looks likesavescumming is the "better" way to play the game (example: level ups possibly bringing some stats down, or locks being randomly jammed - just reload and you don't have to deal with that).

 

[Horus]

You're not supposed to die in most encounters and most DM's try their best to keep the group alive even if they are complete retards.

Man you mush have played with shit DM's then. Sorry to hear that. The people I played with, if we are doing stupid shit, our DM's would kill us all off for playing stupid. Period.

If we are trying to play smart (and in character) yes, sometimes death could be avoided (or other consequences). But not always. Death is a part of D&D.

Well we don't play much D&D and generally play in Fate system so that's the main difference. But you misunderstood me, what i actually meant by trying to keep group alive is that our DM's try to drop subtle hints for the group before doing dangerous/retarded things and try to discourage stupidity beforehand. If we die after all those hints there we probably deserved it.

 

[hiver]

How it doesnt do what its supposed to fing do when its doing exactly what its supposed to do?

Sigh.
Save is for me to get up from computer at any time I want. If I can't save whenever I want (and with no ill consequences) it just plain fucking misses the point of saving.

Are you trying to live up to your tag or something?

Any better or different suggestion?

Several.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-recent-realization.77830/page-7#post-2382503
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ave-design-theories.68015/page-2#post-1919192
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...urage-save-scumming.64007/page-2#post-1784170
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/i-had-a-dream.40538/#post-1042555

Then you FUCKING CHOSE THE SAVE ANYTIME OPTION!!

/
Pheh! Those are your suggestions? This manure?

The ironman is of course the best - until you die. If you could keep the tension and gravity of ingame decisions without forcing a restart on every death, you'd have all the pros of ironman without the cons.

No shit moron? well lookey there i just made such a suggestion!

1. Forcibly limit reloading to some extent - from ironman to variously distributed safe-spots with ironman in between.

OH! BUT I GUESS HAVING THOSE SPOTS ALIGNED WITH THE SETTING, STORY AND CONTENT OF THE GAME IS WORSE THEN FUCKING HAVING THEM RANDOMLY SPRAYED OVER THE GAME - LIKE SOME FUCKING MORONIC CHECK POINTS!

First, you can use save points with ironman-like mechanics between them, so that failure will return you to the last checkpoint, while you can still leave the game and return to it at will.

godamnit... you actually meant checkpoints... :facepalm:

Attach punishing meta-mechanics to the act of reloading.

Punishing? Especially if this means something like examples you have given of game failing a quest for me - without any input from me - just because i reloaded. Or taking away something i already got.

Negative overrides may consist of autofailing sidequests (oops, Timmy died before I even reached the well),

did you loose some parts of your brain somewhere?

removal of unique artifacts from random drop lists or their fixed sites,

Even if this means removing these items before i actually got to them - its still a fucking abysmal moronity. Instead of fucking removing them - they should be placed somewhere else.

attach the counter to savestate, then use it to screw player over in non-fatal, non-transparent manner (by overruling successful or desirable random stuff with failure) and only then decrement the counter.

So... instead of a game that practically gives everything to the player you would have the game that plays itself and fucks the player in the ass and makes him fail - intentionally? Regardless of player actions and choices?

this is just... beyond words.

3. Make as many consequences as possible delayed and not indicated in any way immediately after decision

What the fuck this has to do with saving system? This should be in any game, regardless of save system.

Are you trying to live up to your tag or something?

what i find fucking ironic is that every single time some fucking imbecile latches to that tag - put there by a fucking moron who got his ass handed to him in an argument he himself provoked for no reason at all - is that it somehow magically makes all they say after that a complete imbecility only a true mind boggling utter dumbfuck could come up with!

because it seems Easy eh?






FIRST: I dont give a fuck what kind of save system is the other choice!

SECOND: You can add five other different saving systems to game options - even your mindbogglingly moronic one for all i care!

THIRD: My idea allows the players to choose what they prefer and deals with several issues of save scumming in a much more natural, simpler to implement and LESS STUPID WAYS that dont negatively affect the game AT ALL.



-edit-
go fuck yourself draq

 

[Jaesun]

 

[hiver]

Ah, another living proof of that very concept.

 

[rpgcodexusername]

Hiver is suggesting the Bards Tale approach, I do like that way of doing things, it does add some drama.

 

[hiver]

I didnt play Bards tale (ok, there was just one place where you could save in that game - im suggesting having many - basically), but anyway... i dont see the problem here. Its an option. Dont like it - dont take it. There can be ten other options beside it. Iron man, save anytime, whatever.
Its easy to implement. It presents a reasonable cost of reloading, not some meta weird mechanic but, you playing through a section of the game to reach the point you failed at, died or wasnt satisfied with some consequence.
It would force the players to really think about reloading in cases where they didnt get the best reward - and in doing so force them in a reasonable way (without bending their hand in some obnoxious way - while still leaving the option of reload open) to live with their choices - which would result in players paying more attention to what they are doing - being more immersed in the world. It would make combat much more of a serious proposition to engage in.
While death wouldnt mean starting from beginning, like in Ironman.

And it would make reaching or establishing some safe area a real reward by itself.

Really, im trying to think about it objectively - not because it is "my idea" - and i dont or cant see any actual downsides to it.

 

[DraQ]

 

[hiver]

what a pathetic piece of shit. What a stupid little turd. Good to know.

- anyway, moving on. back to topic and whatnot.

 

[RK47]

hiver come play bloodbowl

 

[Midair]

If you have a sophisticated AI, then you already have variety, no need to start disabling components to make zombies and other dumb enemies.

You're speaking from purely gamist point of view.

Let me stay within that view for now.

Asymmetrical conflict with all the mobs working in concert and controlled by best possible AI would be impossible to win, so you're going to nerf the dominant side anyway by fragmenting it, etc. anyway.
Why not by making part of it composed of dumb zombies and wildlife?

The OP suggested that you need dumb enemies to add variety to more intelligent enemies. But intelligent enemies would already have variety in their tactics, so there has to be a better reason than variety for not wanting smart AI all the time.

The typical view is that tactics require good AI, with some even saying tactical combat only really works in multiplayer. I can think of 2 reasons someone would not want good AI:
1. It is too puzzle-like, though I am not sure what this means. Puzzles can have multiple solutions. If you want something to challenge the intellect, then that is more or less the definition of a puzzle.
2. You don't want something to challenge the intellect, you just want to micromanage, which has a psychological reward.

In your example of a mob of zombies, even if the AI of an individual zombie is simple, they could still put the player in a puzzle-like situation in dealing with the mob. I am curious whether most players want challenges that feel like solving a puzzle, or if they essentially want to micromanage, preferably with plenty of task variety, but no real mental test. If the latter, then the answer to making tactics interesting is in providing psychological rewards and giving simulation or narrative meaning to tactical actions.

 

[RK47]

You wouldn't need to remove dice rolls altogether, but I'd have a tactics game where tactics have equal emphasis with character building (i.e. what chiefly influences the dice rolls).

Isn't that what Blood Bowl is about?
Higher Agility teams, perform dodges at high success %. But never to the point of 100%. They are bad at defense since they lack raw strength, but with the right mix of skills can perform a make-shift defense. Or rely on a good ball-winning skill to dispossess the opponent.

High Strength team can get better odds at taking down their opponents in physical combat, but takes high risk when they have to employ a passing play. Do you cover that weakness by developing a ball-handler piece or focus on sharpening your killers to win the game by body count?

With a very lucky level up, you can alter these odds to your favor, but never to the point of 100% success rate.
The only 100% sure action is to move within your Movement Ability limit.

I don't understand why a lot of people dismiss Blood Bowl as 'a dice determining my success game hence it's not tactically deep' when they play RPGs that derived from a table top strategy game that rolls dices to determine the outcome.

 

[Telengard]

It's a relative thing. People don't mind dice rolling - as long as they feel they have control over the bigger picture. Many people dismiss Blood Bowl's system because stuff like this happens:

Last play of the game, and the enemy team is down by one. The only player they've got in scoring range is their center, who is on the sideline, and partly hemmed in, like so.

XO
/OO
/O

The enemy team does a hail mary, misses, and it lands on the central person (who has good hands). Fumble. Passes to the right. Fumble. Passes to the lower. Fumble. Passes back to the central. Fumble. Passes to the upper. Fumble. Passes to the enemy team's center. Catch. Now, this center has no defenses abilities., but he walks straight down, dodge, dodge, dodge, and walks into the end zone.

Stuff like that is epic. But it can also serve to make people think that they have no control over the outcome of the game at all.

 

[Anomalous Underdog]

You wouldn't need to remove dice rolls altogether, but I'd have a tactics game where tactics have equal emphasis with character building (i.e. what chiefly influences the dice rolls).

Isn't that what Blood Bowl is about?

I'm not one of the people dissing on Blood Bowl. I have not played it and I haven't given any opinion on it yet. This thread does make it sound interesting and its something I'll be checking out.

The reason I said I don't feel like putting dice rolls in my videogame is that I'm no expert on making PnP-style rules and systems. But as a player, I do enjoy any RPG with dice as much as anyone else. I'll probably look into it more before I decide.

I guess dice rolls is about the risk of whether they get the result they want or not, and making players managed that risk. Of course, players who don't understand or care to learn the game system sufficiently will just savescum their way through. Assuming the system isn't broken. I take it that's why savescumming was brought into the discussion in the first place.

 

[Anomalous Underdog]

If you have a sophisticated AI, then you already have variety, no need to start disabling components to make zombies and other dumb enemies.

You're speaking from purely gamist point of view.

Let me stay within that view for now.

Asymmetrical conflict with all the mobs working in concert and controlled by best possible AI would be impossible to win, so you're going to nerf the dominant side anyway by fragmenting it, etc. anyway.
Why not by making part of it composed of dumb zombies and wildlife?

The OP suggested that you need dumb enemies to add variety to more intelligent enemies. But intelligent enemies would already have variety in their tactics, so there has to be a better reason than variety for not wanting smart AI all the time.

The typical view is that tactics require good AI, with some even saying tactical combat only really works in multiplayer. I can think of 2 reasons someone would not want good AI:
1. It is too puzzle-like, though I am not sure what this means. Puzzles can have multiple solutions. If you want something to challenge the intellect, then that is more or less the definition of a puzzle.
2. You don't want something to challenge the intellect, you just want to micromanage, which has a psychological reward.

In your example of a mob of zombies, even if the AI of an individual zombie is simple, they could still put the player in a puzzle-like situation in dealing with the mob. I am curious whether most players want challenges that feel like solving a puzzle, or if they essentially want to micromanage, preferably with plenty of task variety, but no real mental test. If the latter, then the answer to making tactics interesting is in providing psychological rewards and giving simulation or narrative meaning to tactical actions.

I get the feeling we're starting to use the same words but could be really each of us mean a different thing.

The earlier discussions referred to puzzle-like situations where there is really only one-way to win a mission. One specific set of commands you give to the units you have (move here, attack this one, move there so you won't get counter-attacked by that unit by next turn, so on), to win the day, or you pretty much lose. This happens in games like Battle Isle and Massive Assault. You could liken this to a crossword puzzle where there's really only one solution.

True that there are different puzzle games in reality and some puzzle games can have multiple solutions, so its probably not the best word to use.


With regards to this I think what they really mean is variety in the sense of enemy behaviour and their strengths and weaknesses. Forcing the player to deal with each type in a different way. Sometimes encountering many types in one battle to keep it interesting.

Enemies that are quantity over quality (zerg-style) means you're outnumbered and you can't take them head-on simply. But since they are dumb, you can, for example, herd them into funnels in the map so you deal with a few at a time (just one example of how to deal with them).

Enemies that are quality over quantity (protoss-style) means they're not foolish enough to fall for simple bottleneck traps if they can help it. And they have a variety of abilities that can let them deal with different kinds of situations they find themselves in.

Think of it as the contrast between the regular infected in Left 4 Dead vs the special infected.

I don't think it's about having superhuman AI, but having variety to keep things interesting for the player, and having AI that's sufficient and makes sense for the personality of that particular enemy. Granted, if the idea for that enemy is about superior AI, then go ahead.