Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

TB Systems of combat

Self-Ejected

dojoteef

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
970
ichpokhudezh said:
If you will still insist that transformations change functions (*snip*) you've got to take your math classes again.
And this is exactly the sort of response the proves discussing anything related to mathematics (and thus my system) wtih you is pointless. A transformation is from one mapping to another. So I could make a transformation that takes the the bell curve and maps it onto a single point. That results in a function that returns one value for all possible inputs. Like F(x) = 0, for all values of x. So if you want say that doesn't change the function, then obviously you have no mathematical knowledge and moreso, no reasoning ability.

So take your feeble attempted quips and feigned knowledge to someone who cares for you meager fumblings.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
Reading up on statistics feels like I am crushing my soul. I understand that they are necessary, but my god, it is dull. At least it is still fun to see who will win.
 

Hajo

Liturgist
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
283
Location
Between now and then
AFAIK a transformation is a function by itself?

If you have F(x) you can

1) Transform the input -> F(G(x))
2) Transform the results -> G(F(X))

Strictly said, a transformation doesn't change the function, but that's not the point actually. You change the mapping of x into the destination set, and this is the important fact.

So both of you are wrong or right depending how you want to measure wrong or right.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
And the duel was ended by a run-on attack on both from Hajo! Who'd a thunk it?
 
Self-Ejected

dojoteef

Self-Ejected
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
970
Hajo, yes that is correct; I guess I stated it in inappropriate terms in my haste. I started out with saying: "That results in a function" and then I went to say " if you want say that doesn't change the function"; definitely my goof.

Anyway, regardless of my little slip up, you can see that using experience to buy a new transformation for the statistical distribution actually has merit. It changes the relative power of a statistic.

All these other minor details like, what do you do for instanced items or "infinite" items are not critical. What do you do for an infinite item? Well it's a special case and wouldn't be considered in the distribution, or maybe you design the game such that it won't have items/monsters with infinite statistics. What about instanced items/monsters, well it depends, there are many ways to deal with it. You could deal with it the same way as with the infinite powered items, or you could limit the number of instanced items, or not use instanced items in the game at all.

The problem with discussing this with ichpokhudezh is that he just wants to be inflammatory. I don't need to deal with that when trying to have a exchange of ideas.
 

Hajo

Liturgist
Joined
May 19, 2003
Messages
283
Location
Between now and then
dojoteef said:
Hajo, yes that is correct; I guess I stated it in inappropriate terms in my haste.

This happens to me just too often, too. Actually I wanted to support you, yet while writing I saw that it could be used against you.

That is why I put the "right -wrong, wrong-right" wordplay in the last sentance.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Well, the whole percentages thing is just a red herring. in fallout they call skills percentages, but they are pretty meaningless, since they can be 300%...that makes little sense. I like the idea of keeping much of the inner workings mysterious, though. So percentages like done in fallout are fine.

I think it is a mistake to thinkt hat you are somehow going to get people who don't like statistics at all to play roleplaying games. You might, but nonly by making them braindead and moronic. In DnD you can easily ignore thaco and all that crap so long as the computer takes care of it all for you, but you can also obsess over it and optimize your characters very thoroughly, which is a good thing..

DnD is pretty stupid, really, because there is a marked tendency to either be able to hit every time, or else not at all. The same failing applies to every action you take. I think they really dropped the ball in the 3rd edition because they managed to amplify the failings DnD had before. So you end up being able to wade through armies of monsters that are slightly lower level than you, and get stomped on because soemthing not worth much experience has a resistance you cant overcome. The feats are interesting, though.

As for the action queues, you don't really need multithreading for that. Technically nothing needs multithreading. Even a puppet should be able to deal with semaphores and mutex though...it is not difficult at all to do simple multithreaded programming. I do it constantly.

The action queue and some really clever programming and rules would be necessary to make a phasebased sort of system that really worked. I dont agree that wiz 8 is really phase based. I would like to see a phasebased system if it was not totally braindead, but considering developers can't even handle pathfinding algorithms I am not holding my breath.

Failing that I like turn based games. Fallout was good, I just wish the NPC AI was not sa crazy and you could issue some basic orders ingame to get them to flee or hold their ground. The combat could get slow, but there was no real reason for that...somewhere someone had some braindead enemy AI. It was cumbersome to play fallout tactics for me, but it had a lot of flaws and not just the combat. In realtime mode the combat was just silly and you moved someone close, ran them away, etc. You could win pretty much any battle that way in the infinity engine games too...what a joke. If a game is real time, it should be 100% arcadelike or else it is just a joke...controlling 6 characters in real time with pause is just a tedious waste of time only a moron could think is ideal.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Oh, and the arcanum thing.

I have no idea why people go so loopy over arcanum combat. There is nothing wrong with it.

There is one difficult and annoying encounter at the gates to the first city, but I dont see how anyone expects to be outnumbered and outgunned like that and moronically fight through it and win. There are several ways to get past.

Other than that, combat is very easy. The only difficult part is getting enough ammo for weapons if you go the tech route. You dont even need any tech skills as they are all practically worthless except enough smithing to make a looking glass rifle. I would say that a tech party is actually stronger if played right. The grenades are also good, but whoever said you can just throw infinitely was not correct - it does take action points.

It was not the best system, but combat was enjoyable, and I liked that if you did or said stupid things you could find yourself being brutalized by characters much much higher in level.
 

Elwro

Arcane
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
11,749
Location
Krakow, Poland
Divinity: Original Sin Wasteland 2
bryce777 said:
I have no idea why people go so loopy over arcanum combat. There is nothing wrong with it.
RT/TB balance is wrong. If a golem advances towards you you can shoot him 5 times in RT mode and 2 times in TB mode.
 

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
Xcom Apocalypse had similar problems. RT/TB hybrids seem to rarely work well.
 

bryce777

Erudite
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
4,225
Location
In my country the system operates YOU
Elwro said:
bryce777 said:
I have no idea why people go so loopy over arcanum combat. There is nothing wrong with it.
RT/TB balance is wrong. If a golem advances towards you you can shoot him 5 times in RT mode and 2 times in TB mode.

Oh, well I guess there should be consistency if you have two combat systems. The TB seemed fine to me.

Actually I think I tried the RT part and it was like in super fast motion and kind of amusing. I suppose I should have said there is nothing wrong with it in TB mode. I think they threw the RT bit on to appease the publisher or something.
 

Kuato

Liturgist
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
253
Location
3 steps ahead
I like TOEE TB system and I know its based strictly off the 3.5 DnD rules but these are just few things I personally prefer over the current system in a crpg

tiles yes if they can be toggled off or hidden when not in use

mana points yes/memorizing spells no

action points definutely yes/ confusing and clunky standard/partial/free/move action system no way

Armor provides DR (Damage Resistance) but not AC, durabilty may need to be an issue for balancing

fireballs maybe but it has to be a much higher level spell or nerfed somehow because its kind of cheezy in a crpgs and PnP if you have a uninspired DM
 

Naked_Lunch

Erudite
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
5,360
Location
Norway, 1967
I like Arcanum's system (Under the regular "turn-based" option.) ToEE's goes without saying, Fallout's too.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom