Thursday is finally here.

[Vault Dweller]

You should just get a person who hates RPGs to design one instead, then they can leave everything out! 0% FLUFF, 0% BAD STUFF YAY!

Yep. RPGs are all about fluff. Only a person who hates RPGs will want to remove it.

Either way, you can still continue ignoring negative feedback and instead enjoy this flawed thing you've released yourself!

Clearly, I'm the only one who's enjoying it. Everyone else agrees with you, which is why you so desperately brofist everyone who doesn't like something about the game.

AoD was much better left as a hopeful vapourware dream of what might come if we all closed our eyes and wished enough.

 

[JarlFrank]

Without the dialogue popup, you first have to talk to people to know what's going on, then try out some of your skills on the well to see if it helps.

Some? You mean, it took you several tries to figure out that Repair is the right skill? IIRC, you have this big honking well that's begging you to click on it. You click, it says that it's broken. You click Repair, click on the well, and now it's fixed. Victary at sea!

Yeah, the well was probably a shitty example, but you should get the point, no?
Really, some of the automatic dialogue window triggers should be replaced by manual triggers. Instead of the dialogue popping up when you enter a room, let it pop up when you click on an item or character within the room. Click on the hatch to the basement. You enter the basement. No need to add a dialogue with choices right when you enter the room - especially when the only choices are "enter hatch" and "go away".

Sometimes it's appropriate. When you approach the priest who is talking to a crowd. When that one guy at the market tells you he sells cheap goods. These are instances where you overhear something that is already happening, or when someone else approaches you. Having a dialogue pop up most of the time when I enter a new area is kinda jarring, especially when you then get choices that can easily be made by clicking an object in the game itself, especially when those objects are incredibly obvious (like aforementioned hatch). It's not the most elegant solution in my opinion.

 

[Excidium]

http://imgur.com/a/yTPyX

I see AoD took some inspiration from Dragon Age.

 

[halflingbarbarian]

Don't think I'll be further commenting on combat because after some testing the combat part is done pretty well, as many of you here I think can attest to. Too many differing scenarios possible (a GREAT thing) to allow me to cover it comprehensively - like combat encounters one after another would depend heavily on how much HP you have left over from the first. I would just like to say the random/luck based comments are kinda exaggerated; I think it just feels that way because CRPGs of yore taught us to crunch numbers before anything happened and treat combat encounters like an exercise in prediction (will you win or lose, comfortably? and many don't even do that) when I feel that the combat in AoD is gritty and realistic (tm) in the sense that you get plenty of information and basis on YOUR abilities but you can never really predict what kind of shit will fuck up.

I have found some encounters statistically weighted heavily against you, and the great part is that it MAKES SENSE in the game world. You don't wander around a world created to be dynamic and expect combat encounters to revolve around YOUR abilities. It's a bad habit developed from playing games with scaling mechanics, I think, in that you expect the difficulty to adjust itself with the player character's capabilities as the median. In this way, the AoD demo manages to 'put the player in his/her place' convincingly. It's a refreshing change, imo.

Regarding the promised combat tips, I am sorry there is none to have for now, except that the encounters that seem impossible are probably those that you should not have went into in the first place. Treat the entire combat sequence as a drawn out death screen for your stupidity. Completing the demo with a combat-centric character going through most of the combat encounters of the 'main plot-line' is definitely doable, though.

As for my opinion on the game as a whole, I have no specific comments to make other than it feels kinda 'empty' and non-interactive as many have pointed out. I don't know what can fix this sense of detachment but currently the teleporting and the lack of environmental engagement makes for less IMMERSHUN. Different things work for different players in different CRPGs in this department and I hope the AoD team eventually adds some manner of IMMERSHUN that works for me, I guess.

 

[Vault Dweller]

http://imgur.com/a/yTPyX

I see AoD took some inspiration from Dragon Age.

I forgot to remove the portrait and expand the feedback. Let's laugh at it together.

 

[empi]

OK V.D, the game is clearly perfect, nothing to improve on!
I didn't say it wasn't enjoyable, clearly people are enjoying it. That doesn't mean it can't be improved, I thought you wanted to make the best game you could?
Also, i really like fisting of the bro variety

 

[Excidium]

It's not only that, but why the fuck do you need a dagger to execute an NPC? I thought I had just failed the critical check but got curious, bought some daggers to try again and what the hell...

 

[zeitgeist]

I have found some encounters statistically weighted heavily against you, and the great part is that it MAKES SENSE in the game world.

Indeed, things like assassins armed with crossbows executing an attack (and they're not even being ambushed here, they're the ones doing it) by walking right up to the enemies on perfectly flat ground between a bunch of easy-to-climb houses make perfect sense in the gameworld.

Now what does that tell us about the gameworld?

 

[sgc_meltdown]

I will give to TfTC here that I have yet to see P&P player discussions about how their DM isn't challenging them strategically enough. Keeping players characters poor and motivated is easy as long as you don't use falling rocks.

Thing is on the tabletop RPGs are seen a framework for adventure and world-exploration with the ruleset being the laws used to resolve and give final say to the outcome of character actions, from "my barbarian totally could so have lifted that gate" and "our team could have taken that dragon and his orc minions" in entertaining semi-chance based boardgame like fashion and provide an additional gameplay layer to the usual decision making.

Tales of P&P enjoyment are more of the 'we did something awesome/hilarious!" or "some crazy shit happened with the lizardmen last night" side rather than "we dominated challenging encounters balanced for party levels far higher than ours thanks to our well tested party composition and demonstrated great knowledge of mechanics, an excellent outcome considering the weight of positive modifiers on the side of the enemy".

I think what VD has done here, perhaps ironically, is expose the limitations of computer rpgs compared to P&P very clearly through AoD. He will not brook the extra motions and padding that comes with aforementioned mechanical challenges, so everything is laid bare here with the excision of serendipitous player exploration and automatic dialog boxes showing your available actions for all qualifying scenarios.

I think AoD may be perhaps the first 'adventure crawler', offering not only monster encounters per X numbers of rooms explored but per-character decisions as well.

 

[halflingbarbarian]

I have found some encounters statistically weighted heavily against you, and the great part is that it MAKES SENSE in the game world.

Indeed, things like assassins armed with crossbows executing an attack (and they're not even being ambushed here, they're the ones doing it) by walking right up to the enemies on perfectly flat ground between a bunch of easy-to-climb houses make perfect sense in the gameworld.

Now what does that tell us about the gameworld?

I'm not talking about the AI in that part you quoted. And if some queer stuff is happening with the combat AI, like the one you mentioned, wouldn't it be much more constructive to suggest it to the AoD team in a less antagonistic manner? It's a demo, ffs.

 

[circ]

Did another assassin, not required 200 reloads as previously, though there have been some. Don't think I can do the thief ambush, tried 3 times. However, I was able to fuck up Mefucknuts, and the second group too in one sitting. Think it only took one reload. All 3 spies too, wasn't so hard. Dodge is kind of sucking a little more than block though. Sadly overcoming fucked up RNG has been the only appealing thing as I've just clicked through whatever text there is. I wish the combat atleast had grappling moves or more inventive counters.

Anyway, found another bug. If you kill a guy, then fight another guy on the same spot and you knock him out with say an aim head, you can't hit him lying down until he gets up again. Annoying.

 

[Excidium]

I have found some encounters statistically weighted heavily against you, and the great part is that it MAKES SENSE in the game world.

Indeed, things like assassins armed with crossbows executing an attack (and they're not even being ambushed here, they're the ones doing it) by walking right up to the enemies on perfectly flat ground between a bunch of easy-to-climb houses make perfect sense in the gameworld.

Now what does that tell us about the gameworld?

I'm not talking about the AI in that part you quoted. And if some queer stuff is happening with the combat AI, like the one you mentioned, wouldn't it be much more constructive to suggest it to the AoD team in a less antagonistic manner? It's a demo, ffs.

He's not talking about AI either. It's encounter design.

 

[Darth Roxor]

What AoD is doing here is telling instead of showing.

Requires high Perception to realize it, apparently.

Unfortunately a bug makes the dialogue window refuse to pop up

 

[halflingbarbarian]

I have found some encounters statistically weighted heavily against you, and the great part is that it MAKES SENSE in the game world.

Indeed, things like assassins armed with crossbows executing an attack (and they're not even being ambushed here, they're the ones doing it) by walking right up to the enemies on perfectly flat ground between a bunch of easy-to-climb houses make perfect sense in the gameworld.

Now what does that tell us about the gameworld?

I'm not talking about the AI in that part you quoted. And if some queer stuff is happening with the combat AI, like the one you mentioned, wouldn't it be much more constructive to suggest it to the AoD team in a less antagonistic manner? It's a demo, ffs.

He's not talking about AI either. It's encounter design.

He is talking about AI. It is the AI of the crossbow-wielders not to engage at range, and instead walking up into melee range with a ranged weapon. And again, my reply wasn't about him talking about the AI (though he is), but that the whole point of a demo, and a beta, is that things could be made better with player feedback. I don't understand why people are getting on VD's back like he owes them something. I know it's the Codex and it's cool to be confrontational but if I'm not wrong VD's posts in general on the Codex are typically this curt and snappy. Instead of making it about 'OH MAN VD IT'S YOUR GAME DATS WHY YOU DON'T LIKE HATERS' why not just be civilised and explain shortcomings, like the very valid one zeitgeist pointed out? I'm sure VD is reasonable and educated enough to see real flaws in his own game.

 

[Excidium]

I have found some encounters statistically weighted heavily against you, and the great part is that it MAKES SENSE in the game world.

Indeed, things like assassins armed with crossbows executing an attack (and they're not even being ambushed here, they're the ones doing it) by walking right up to the enemies on perfectly flat ground between a bunch of easy-to-climb houses make perfect sense in the gameworld.

Now what does that tell us about the gameworld?

I'm not talking about the AI in that part you quoted. And if some queer stuff is happening with the combat AI, like the one you mentioned, wouldn't it be much more constructive to suggest it to the AoD team in a less antagonistic manner? It's a demo, ffs.

He's not talking about AI either. It's encounter design.

He is talking about AI. It is the AI of the crossbow-wielders not to engage at range, and instead walking up into melee range with a ranged weapon. And again, my reply wasn't about him talking about the AI (though he is), but that the whole point of a demo, and a beta, is that things could be made better with player feedback. I don't understand why people are getting on VD's back like he owes them something. I know it's the Codex and it's cool to be confrontational but if I'm not wrong VD's posts in general on the Codex are typically this curt and snappy. Instead of making it about 'OH MAN VD IT'S YOUR GAME DATS WHY YOU DON'T LIKE HATERS' why not just be civilised and explain shortcomings, like the very valid one zeitgeist pointed out? I'm sure VD is reasonable and educated enough to see real flaws in his own game.

No, it's not an AI issue, I've been on that fight. The thieves use their crossbows, they only switch to dagger once the mercenaries are in melee range. It's just shitty encounter design that they ambush the caravan in the worst position posible.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Tales of P&P enjoyment are more of the 'we did something awesome/hilarious!" or "some crazy shit happened with the lizardmen last night" side rather than "we dominated challenging encounters balanced for party levels far higher than ours thanks to our well tested party composition and demonstrated great knowledge of mechanics, an excellent outcome considering the weight of positive modifiers on the side of the enemy".

Now I know why I enjoy CRPGs much more than P&P.

 

[Excidium]

Probably because you never played a P&P with a good group.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Maybe, but the first part of meltdown's opposition sounds boring and/or stupid to me, while the second sounds like something I always enjoy and look forward to.

 

[empi]

You sound a bit weird then

 

[zeitgeist]

It is the AI of the crossbow-wielders not to engage at range, and instead walking up into melee range with a ranged weapon.

Excidium was correct, I was talking about encounter design. One of the characters from the example is the PC.

Btw, there's a whole genre of games with mission-based setpiece combat where encounters start similarly to AoD - it's a subset of the tactical jRPG genre. Some even have C&C, and a lot of them have various other combat options (like random encounters) to provide variety. The difference is that the initial conditions are usually logically presented via cutscenes, player decisions or similar (and of course, you can control more characters).

 

[halflingbarbarian]

I have found some encounters statistically weighted heavily against you, and the great part is that it MAKES SENSE in the game world.

Indeed, things like assassins armed with crossbows executing an attack (and they're not even being ambushed here, they're the ones doing it) by walking right up to the enemies on perfectly flat ground between a bunch of easy-to-climb houses make perfect sense in the gameworld.

Now what does that tell us about the gameworld?

I'm not talking about the AI in that part you quoted. And if some queer stuff is happening with the combat AI, like the one you mentioned, wouldn't it be much more constructive to suggest it to the AoD team in a less antagonistic manner? It's a demo, ffs.

He's not talking about AI either. It's encounter design.

He is talking about AI. It is the AI of the crossbow-wielders not to engage at range, and instead walking up into melee range with a ranged weapon. And again, my reply wasn't about him talking about the AI (though he is), but that the whole point of a demo, and a beta, is that things could be made better with player feedback. I don't understand why people are getting on VD's back like he owes them something. I know it's the Codex and it's cool to be confrontational but if I'm not wrong VD's posts in general on the Codex are typically this curt and snappy. Instead of making it about 'OH MAN VD IT'S YOUR GAME DATS WHY YOU DON'T LIKE HATERS' why not just be civilised and explain shortcomings, like the very valid one zeitgeist pointed out? I'm sure VD is reasonable and educated enough to see real flaws in his own game.

No, it's not an AI issue, I've been on that fight. The crossbowmen attack at range, they only switch to dagger once the mercenaries are engaged in melee combat. It's just shitty encounter design that they ambush the caravan in the worst position posible.

Oh man why is it so hard. You first tried to reinterpret what zeitgeist mentioned, and now you talk about that encounter from your perspective, ignoring what I'm replying to. I am only replying to context, and if you keep coming up with new ones I cannot keep up. But you are right that the encounter is not planned right, in that there should be maybe an elevation (like those watchtowers at the mine) on the houses where the crossbow guys could have camped. So we can cancel the engine limitation part out, since we know it can be done.

I'm just saying, some stuff can be shit. Point that shit out to VD! Maybe the guy who designed that encounter was lazy and combined with some flaw in ranged AI it becomes a clusterfuck. I'm not even defending VD and AoD mindlessly here, if you happen to be on a crusade against 'fanboyism', I just think that with a promising game like AoD and in a thread of it on Codex, it deserves more than reflexive bile.

 

[halflingbarbarian]

It is the AI of the crossbow-wielders not to engage at range, and instead walking up into melee range with a ranged weapon.

Excidium was correct, I was talking about encounter design. One of the characters from the example is the PC.

Btw, there's a whole genre of games with mission-based setpiece combat where encounters start similarly to AoD - it's a subset of the tactical jRPG genre. Some even have C&C, and a lot of them have various other combat options (like random encounters) to provide variety. The difference is that the initial conditions are usually logically presented via cutscenes, player decisions or similar (and of course, you can control more characters).

I apologise that I misread you then, because I mostly just saw the 'by walking right up to the enemies' part.

 

[Silellak]

CRPGs originated as emulations of Pen and Paper RPGs, which basicly are about providing a bunch of nerds the possiblity to pretend to be powerful heroes in a fantasy world. If that's not escapism, what is? Exploring the world, moving your character trough it, finding stuff, interacting with the world (even if it's something simple like using your repair skill on a well) - that's all part of the immersion and escapism.

Here's the thing, though. I think AoD in its current form has the ability to emulate P&P RPGs better than most (if any) other CRPG. Why? Because a large part of the fluff has been removed.

In PnP games, do you talk to every NPC in town? Do you move your mouse over the entire screen looking for interactive objects? Does the DM describe you walking from place to place in intricate detail?

No. If you need to go somewhere, typically the next part is your character actually being there. If you encounter something interesting, the DM tells you (and makes any appropriate checks to determine how that particular encounter plays out). As far as I can tell, that's exactly what AoD emulates.

The biggest problem right now is that you're limited largely to what the developer thought of - like a DM who has thought of quite a few scenarios, but refuses to play out any other. "I want to sneak over the wall of the bandit camp at night and rescue the prisoner." "Well, you can't, because...cuz." An actual stealth system, of course, would have this flexibility, but as VD has described before, it was scrapped simply because they don't have time to implement it properly. It's a shame, sure, and I hope they'll compensate for that by adding as many Stealth options in the Text Adventures as possible.

 

[Vault Dweller]

OK V.D, the game is clearly perfect, nothing to improve on!

There is plenty to improve. We're going through all the feedback as we always do and taking notes, but we aren't going to change the overall design, obviously, and that's what this discussion is mostly revolving around.

It's not perfect, but it works. Some people like it, some people don't like it. Much like any other game.

It's not only that, but why the fuck do you need a dagger to execute an NPC? I thought I had just failed the critical check but got curious, bought some daggers to try again and what the hell...

What the hell what? You need a small, easily concealable dagger to kill people in dialogues. It's a small thing, so why make a big deal out of it?

Indeed, things like assassins armed with crossbows executing an attack (and they're not even being ambushed here, they're the ones doing it) by walking right up to the enemies on perfectly flat ground between a bunch of easy-to-climb houses make perfect sense in the gameworld.

Now what does that tell us about the gameworld?

Or they could burrow under the ground and pop out like zerglings. Or shoot from the windows wild west style.

Let's try to remember, however, that it's an RPG and only so much is possible in general and Torque in particular.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Or they could burrow under the ground and pop out like zerglings. Or shoot from the windows wild west style.

Let's try to remember, however, that it's an RPG and only so much is possible in general and Torque in particular.

B-but, they do exactly that if you hire the thieves to get rid of the raiders