What do you think about AoD?

[MMXI]

I have to say, Grunker pretty much nailed all of my issues with the game. Also, Infinitron summed up what the game feels like to me, an RPG for the "archetypal Codexian Fallout fan". However, I wouldn't be too concerned that you don't have a perfect cRPG on your hands. Most of the well regarded cRPGs tend to do one thing really well, and in the case of Age of Decadence that one thing is probably "C&C".

 

[Helton]

Should probably just keep my mouth shut and wait for more informed people to respond but whatevs.

I haven't played the main demo because I'm sure to buy the final game. The combat demo was enough for me to make this decision. And, based on what I saw there, I think there are plenty of tactical options and I think they make a HUGE difference within a character build. How could there not be?

I got my ass kicked, improved, got my ass kicked again, improved, over and over again in the combat demo. Never beat it. But guess what. A lot of people did. With the same builds, or very similiar, as I was using. How could there not be tactical choices? I was switching builds, and some builds have more trouble on different fights, but all the while I was improving TACTICALLY. And those people who actually beat the combat demo didn't have the magic build figured out; because they could win with any number of builds. They had better TACTICS than I did. What other explanation could there be.

Now, Grunker, you list a large number of tactical choices in your post, but you say most of them are useless. But you're wrong. Each of them can and has been utilized to win fights you couldn't win without them. So there you go. There are tactical choices, you've identified many of them, just got to figure out how to properly leverage them.

 

[Cassidy]

It has been a while since I played the demo, so my points may not be exactly accurate. To put it shortly, from the demo, AoD is definitively a good game, although it could have been better.

PROS:

- Real choices, real consequences and different character builds truly leading to different play styles and to completely different plot developments. C&C being integrated with the gameplay instead of a sad Biowarian joke that has no influence over it(*cough*Alphail Prototurd*cough*)
- No easy rides. If you play like an idiot that trusts what every NPC says and offers you will die rapidly instead of following breadcrumbs towards gigantic exclamation marks and derping along.
- Considerable variation in weapons and combat, and no AWESOME techniques to easily win all battles(like eye shots in Fallout). Never trust that the same method you use for a battle will work into another.
- Good combination of text-based quests with turn-based RPG combat as the means of progressing through the game.

CONS:

- Considerable lack of environmental interaction and of exploration, with most of the 3d world serving as eyecandy. IE: You can't break into random houses as a thief for a quick profit.
- Victory in combat will oftenly rely as much over raw luck as in player decisions, which for a game with difficult and challenging combat can be very frustrating.
- The non-combat approaches are easy compared to combat ones, and usually tend to be too binary in results(either succeed skill check or die)

 

[Grunker]

I was switching builds

Bingo. Read my post again.

EDIT: I'm not saying there are not many builds that work. I'm saying there's little tactical variety beyond the act of choosing a build. Bleh. I write this in my post many times:

In my eyes, you've created one of the deepest weapon systems, if not THE deepest, in any RPG ever, however short of the enemies you face, the player doesn't actually get to use that depth actively while playing. Instead of a set of options at the player's disposal, the player gets to choose one at character creation and use that the whole game.

not sure if you missed it or just misunderstood?

 

[Helton]

Not bingo, dipshit, read my post again.

Edit:
I read and understood what you said. I'm saying you're wrong. I'm pointing to evidence. Using the same builds, different people experience an entire spectrum of success.

If that isn't coming from tactical variety, WITHIN A BUILD, then where is it coming from?

Edit2:

. You can't, say, switch weapons (skill points are too sparse), you can't shift attack modes (one will often be best), you can't use utilities such as nets (most of these are bound to skills too) and you can't shift fighting styles (tied to skills, again).

Here we go. Have synergies been dropped? Because there was a period where you certainly COULD switch sweapons.

You CAN shift attack modes. Of course one will often be best. What kind of observation is that?

You CAN use utilities. Hey, such as nets. Man you did all the leg work here.

And I honestly don't know fighting styles.

Its just I've read posts from people very sucessful with AoD combat and the main difference between them and me? They use each of these things you have listed, and they use them a lot. I don't. They win and I lose with the same builds.

So I've gotta go with: You're wrong. There's plenty of tactical variation. You've identified it. You've dismissed it. Stop that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Pretty much.

I think you might be surprised at the variety of tactics available. During testing, I lagged behind many of the other testers. Sometimes I'd try, say, one of Galsiah's builds and still fail badly. If the build was the same and he could win the whole arena and I repeatedly failed halfway through, that means the choices during combat were the difference.

It took me a while to get my head in the right place. Positioning can be important, sometimes a different weapon is better (faster, rather than more outright damage, for example) and so on. It's more subtle than most games and that took some adjusting for me.
- Dhruin (RPG Watch)​

 

[hiver]

Grunker did not nail the issues of the game but showed that he doesnt understand it completely and tended to overreact on things that are not there.
Now you may take this post as a fanboy reaction, but if you want to be stupid thats your own choice.

1. Grunker says several times that a single character is a one trick pony in combat - which is just not true.

2. He seems to be motivated to make these criticisms much more because Vince laughed at... how many people? Two? Three?
I dont know... i remember one, even not really - laughing at, exactly.
And i do remember hundreds (and more) of well thought out posts as responses to various suggestions and complaints.

So if you want to criticize, at least stick to the fucking truth.

3. He is also motivated by his personal preferences for specific mechanics rather then actual faults. In fact, the faults he can find he overemphasizes and then offers a solution that is his personal preference. This may not be intentional but, its not any less obvious.

Fleshed out the maneuvers like Power Attack or Fast Attack, and given more active choices in combat that were all valid. More maneuvers (unlocked at different levels of weapon skill, even), different ways to use each maneuver.

What the fuck would this actually be - exactly? how would it actually play out?
How do you flesh out maneuvers more? And what would be the "active choices in combat that are actually valid"? Are there any active choices you have that are not valid? Why is that? It wouldnt be because you used the wrong choice at the wrong time against the wrong opponent?
if not, then what is it?

What "maneuvers"?

magic is a good example of what I mean; with spells a character always has different options for different situations.

Seriously? In every game? You mean to say that you just put in magic and that automatically creates different options for different situations? Oh rylly?
yeah i get that you didnt suggest putting magic in AoD... but considering that this statement is false by itself i have no idea what you really mean.

Made the game party-based, so that we could use more of the options presented at the character-selection screen that we never get to see again while playing.

Personal preference. There are other ways to expand combat feeling a bit focused - if its necessary. Instead of redesigning everything according to your personal preference.

Isnt the game meant and designed to be played through multiple times?
With different builds, each being relatively unique?

Do you have any idea how long would it take to create a completely new combat system?
Because that is what you are requesting here.

This goes directly against one of the cores of design foundations of the game.
YOU GET TO SEE THE WHOLE RANGE OF TACTICAL POSSIBILITIES THROUGH PLAYING THE GAME MULTIPLE TIMES.
That was always stated as the core of design.

the lack of variety inherent in the system.

It is not - inherent - in the system.
This is completely false.
And just an excuse for arguing that the whole system should be changed from the ground up.
In fact not just the one whole system but the game itself.

Therefore it is the a wrong suggestion. And a completely wrong logic starting from the wrong and factually false propositions, followed by wrong premises and ending in conclusions that are therefore not applicable, to say the least.



The only thing i can agree with in ALL of that is that movement plays too limited of a role. As for adding a bit more tactical options there is one that is sorely missing, and it is seemingly a very small one.
I was meaning to ask something but i thought its way too late to change things, even if my suggestion might seem very minimal it would bring big changes to the combat in the game.

My question/suggestion is:
Vince, would it be possible to:
1. change the AP cost for each step from 2 pints to 1 point?
2. create backstabbing and flanking multipliers for damage?

I know that even something looking so innocent at first glance would require more work on the Ai, on each combat encounter and on weapons mechanics such as THC or armor penetration and so on too... and probably several other things i dont see from my PoV.
I think these two things would seriously increase variability and diversity of combat a lot and move it away from "two dudes standing in front of each other and whacking until one is dead" illusion.
While everything else can remain exactly the same.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You can't, say, switch weapons (skill points are too sparse), you can't shift attack modes (one will often be best), you can't use utilities such as nets (most of these are bound to skills too) and you can't shift fighting styles (tied to skills, again).

- you can switch to 'synergized' weapons (the ones that get the highest boost). A weapon expert would have no problem doing it.
- you can and should switch attack modes (they can bring the difficulty down from "incredibly difficult", as you called it, to merely "challenging")
- you can and should use different weapons within the same weapon class; they make quite a difference.
- you can and should use nets (your success depends mostly on your Dex vs your opponent's Dex, your throwing skill is a bonus on top)

Now, back to my point about losing being your own damned fault. I've played P&P for many, many years, and designed, gamemastered and played in a large number of excrutiangly difficult encounters. In the well-designed ones, losing is clearly your own fault. You didn't utilize the options at your disposal correctly, and thus, you lost. You did the wrong thing on your turn, you underestimated a given factors role in the fight, or whatever, and you got put down. In AoD, far too often when you lose you can't explain why - either you got fucked by the RNG, but far more you simply "gambled on the wrong horse" (i.e. made a bad choice in character creation). In my humble opinion, your laughing replies to the outcry about the difficulty when you released the BETA were arrogance that mistook what was people having a hard time identifying why they lost, or people losing to something that wasn't their fault, with rage against the very nature of difficulty. You concluded that people who loved Wizardry or decade old, impossible platformers weren't men enough to handle AoD's difficulty. As I've stated many times, there is good and bad difficulty.

There were people who struggled (including those who struggled too much and gave up) and there were people who didn't. It's a fact.

The most obvious conclusion is that people who struggled failed to understand and "utilize the options at their disposal correctly". Your comments (can't use nets, can't shift attack modes, one attack is usually the best) only reinforce this conclusion. No offense, of course.

I'd say that the fault is mine - these options could and should have been presented better, but we're working on it.

 

[Kaol]

I voted meh.

The combat is too RNG, you need to be able to control more than just the one character to make it work. The rest of the game.. its basically just a text adventure, maybe thats ok.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My question/suggestion is:
Vince, would it be possible to:
1. change the AP cost for each step from 2 pints to 1 point?

Then your enemies will close the distance before you can blink and playing a ranger would be impossible.

2. create backstabbing and flanking multipliers for damage?

It's possible, but I don't think it would fit the combat system well. You don't have enough AP to run around and even if you did, you'd trigger attacks of opportunity. So, if we add backstabbing and flanking, considering that you fight against multiple opponents most of the time, it would only make the game harder.

 

[Malpercio]

Meh, wasn't impressed. Can't comment on the gameplay too much, but this is what i disliked mostly on my short playthorugh:

- Too much teleporting around. It's annoying and it completely kills the immersion.
- City didn't felt alive. Not enough NPCs to talk with, no chit-chats in the background, random rumors, etc. A good example of how a city should be in this kind of game is Athkatla.

Wasn't also impressed by the writing, but i won't comment on that.

 

[Rivmusique]

Wasn't also impressed by the writing, but i won't comment on that.

 

[hiver]

My question/suggestion is:
Vince, would it be possible to:
1. change the AP cost for each step from 2 pints to 1 point?

Then your enemies will close the distance before you can blink and playing a ranger would be impossible.

My first reaction to that, as i was thinking about it and consequences it would cause, was to make areas to do combat in bigger... which may be difficult but not... impossible?
Clearly that is not enough or may not be possible in some or many cases.
So... is there anything else that can be done?

I mean... it is kinda silly to expect ranged characters to go into tight, confined, closed spaces and fight successfully against melee opponents in the first place.
I tried playing a bow ranger in CD and ended up kiting all the time, especially when there was two or more opponents.

Maybe giving rangers a bigger chance to do interrupt aimed:leg shots which would be automatic?
Maybe... i dont know... something else? What would a ranger do in reality... except try to dodge like mad and die?
Would adding different critical special effects help?

So at least when you score a critical there is more stuff happening?
What is the special critical effect rangers have anyway? I know crossbows knock people down... what do bows and other throwing stuff do?

2. create backstabbing and flanking multipliers for damage?

It's possible, but I don't think it would fit the combat system well. You don't have enough AP to run around and even if you did, you'd trigger attacks of opportunity. So, if we add backstabbing and flanking, considering that you fight against multiple opponents most of the time, it would only make the game harder.

That was the reason for my first suggestion. Reducing moving cost to 1 point would create enough APs to move to a backstabbing or flanking position. Especially against shield users... maybe limited to just "backstabbing" shots.
Would be useful for rangers though and they could use additional movement being available.... which wouldnt be overpowered because enemies would have the same ability to balance it.

- edit-

-attacks of opportunity would work the same for the player and enemies...
... maybe limiting them to frontal and flanking proximity in case of defense?

- making it automatic in offense if an enemy turns his back toward you for a full turn? same for them?

- also... now that i think about it... wouldn't attacks of opportunity actually be a good defense from enemies just running around and then backstabbing you to death? Or you doing the same to them?
At least theoretically..

I'd say that the fault is mine - these options could and should have been presented better, but we're working on it.

I tell you man... having a "AoD for total beginners" digital booklet (dont use the word "manual" - its scary), written in ordinary human everyday language, would go a long ------ looong way for that.
A full manual written in full gaming tongue should be separate from that - for advanced users only.

And it would be much, much easier to do then doing it all through the gameplay, especially if youre still thinking about doing it through the arena.

- i would suggest rather just having one NPC who would be selling combat basics classes instead of that.... or as a part of arena... if you are really, really hell bent on implementing the whole of it into the game.
An old, one armed, one legged veteran mercenary not able to fight anymore so is forced to make a living teaching the basics to the new kids.
Show them the ropes and all choices of different moves with general advice when to use them - kind of a thing.

Put him somewhere close to the Imperial guards.
And if the player kills him he gets an expedient, quick visit from a couple of guys (about five would do the trick) from the Imperial Guards because his estranged son serving there still feels a bit for his old da.
Or they just like him. And dont like you at all.

-edited-

 

[Helton]

VD are you including the combat demo with the final game? I mean like a seperate, smaller campaign?

I really enjoyed that and having a few intro campaigns to introduce setting and mechanics seems like a cool thing for future games.

 

[Castanova]

Meh.

The RPG elements should have been limited to the combat, if not removed altogether. Dialog possibilities and outcomes should have been determined by your starting role and your previous actions in the game world (reputation, etc.). Instead, it's determined by whether a couple nebulous stats add up to X. Building your social skills is like stabbing in the dark and building your combat skills rewards pumping the same couple stats every time you get any points available. Character-building-wise, no choice / arbitrary-feeling choices abound, meaningful-feeling choices scarce.

Saved from "Bad" just because it's experimental and interesting from that perspective.

 

[Grimlorn]

The combat IS fairly tactical compared to other RPGs (which I actually state in the post you responded too), it's just not nearly tactical enough for the kind of difficulty AND limited options you have. From the bottom, I'll make three points in relation to why I think your game does not have enough direct combat depth:

1) If an RPG is as incredibly difficult as yours, I need to have many options at my disposal in any encounter. Different ways to tackle shit with the skill-set that I have (provided, of course, that I invested in combat). I don't in AoD really. I have a short list of different ways to attack where, depending on my opponent, one of them will most often be clearly favoured. Unless I've invested in other weapon skills than my primary weapon one (i.e. put point into throwing or whatever) my options are limited to almost only that short list. Movement is almost non-existant unless you're built for it.

So, the first point is that your RPG is incredibly difficult but does not offer enough options for the player to try different things in different encounters (with the same character - a different approach requires a new character) to combat the difficulty. You can't, say, switch weapons (skill points are too sparse), you can't shift attack modes (one will often be best), you can't use utilities such as nets (most of these are bound to skills too) and you can't shift fighting styles (tied to skills, again). So the difficulty is often rooted in something being "wrong" with your build (woops - dodge wasn't as good as you thought for this quest line!) rather than you using your build wrongly in the gameplay. This ties in to something very important in difficult gaming - you must feel, if you lose, that it was your own fault. I'll come back to this point.

Just want to say I mostly agree with Grunker's post. I don't know if the game is incredibly tactical or not. It doesn't seem that way to me. When I think tactical, I also think of the options available to the player, and depending on how you build your character there still only seems like a few realistically good options to undertake in combat depending on the way you build your character. This usually doesn't seem to be a problem in other games, but I think that's due to the party aspect or perhaps that it's a bit easier.

I think the problem here is you wanted difficult, realistic combat. You wanted a player somewhat equal to each enemy he fought and it being very difficult and challenging and almost impossible to fight a group of those enemies. So the options have to be somewhat limited, because the more options you have the tougher it is to balance and the more room you have to give to the player to make mistakes, since they may invest points in bad ways or pick bad skills/spells. Then usually when players figure out the system they're able to create the most efficient builds that steamroll through a game. The problem is I think options make the game more fun and some of the best RPGs are like this.

People said KotC was a hard game, but I found it pretty easy, but it was still fun because of the options and different classes and the fact you could control your party.

I think people would enjoy when being in a group vs group battle in AoD controlling the people on your side. No one wants A.I. on their team doing stupid crap. It's not fun imo. It's not even challenging because with something this difficult, if the A.i. does something stupid you're stuck reloading. I'm not sure how to improve the combat system to be honest. Perhaps if the current system was turned into the hard difficulty and you added a normal, easy difficulty that gave the player bonuses to skill points in quests or damage bonus or reduction in combat, that might work. But I'm just speculating at this point. I haven't played the new demo though. Wanted to wait until you had more stuff figured out and fixed before jumping back into it. I don't like demoing/betaing games too much as it burns me out when the full game is released.

I liked the writing, setting and quests and that there were different options for solving quests (lots of non combat options too) in the game. Just the combat is boring to me and a bit too stressful.

 

[Haba]

Don't really know yet.

I'm about as hardcore oldschool RPG gamer as declinecodex gets those days, but somehow AoD has a huge barrier for entry. I really liked the concept, but the demo didn't really grip me. The whole 3D with rotatable camera just wears me down. And I guess the fact that I picked the most boring class to start the game with didn't help much either.

It might be my previous extensive experience with shitty cRPGs (not claiming that AoD is one) that makes me very careful on what I invest my time on, especially since I have a bad habit of having to finish every game I start.

AoD is very pretty game that I like a lot on paper, but can't seem to get started with. Probably would need to be in the right state of mind, maybe I'll try again during the summer holidays.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Voted meh. Couldn't be assed to try the beta/demo. When the game's released I'll likely be more interested, but I've mostly been ignoring it up to this point. I don't even know what the setting is. I know it's vaguely Roman, but I don't know if it's post apocalyptic in the sense of Roman civilization collapsing, or post apocalyptic in the sense humanity was advanced and now it's up TO Romans again. Sorta thought it was the former, but I think I saw someone mention batteries or somethinng somewhere.

I dunno. I DUNNO.

 

[20 Eyes]

Voted meh, but I haven't play the more recent beta. First the good:

+Interesting setting
+Emphasis on C&C
+Decent combat mechanics for a single character turn-based game
+Looks nice, especially for an independent RPG

What I didn't like was the whole thing feels kinda meta-gamey. The teleporting is certainly a matter of taste, but I didn't care for it. I think teleporting into in-progress combat takes away a lot of the tactics and decisions you'd put into these encounters, and as a single-character game you need all the tactical decisions you can get in order for the combat to be interesting. I feel the character system and the choose-your-own-adventure style the game has really puts the emphasis on just min-maxing a character for Skill X and putting him/her through the Skill X dialogue/decision paths. I know people laugh at 'immersion' as a buzzword around here, but I felt no immersion and I barely even felt like I was playing a role-playing game. I was a bit disappointed by the beta, not because it was bad, but because I realized it might not be my cup of tea.

 

[betamin]

I loved the teleporting (I played Fallout on 500% speed so walking times would shorten so maybe that's me) and I loved the combat so if I weren't a thirld worldian I would definitely buy your game

 

[1451]

I tried fighting the assassin when guarding that rich dude. I died and the game mockingly informed me that my death was a punishment for trying to act like a hero. Then I stopped playing.

 

[Gord]

Pretty much.

I think you might be surprised at the variety of tactics available.​

Well, if you indeed have some people that "get it" and a lot of others that don't, then you probably should think about communicating better to the player what possibilities there are at his disposal. I understand that you won't provide a boring-ass hand-holding tutorial for the intellectually challenged, but it might still be worth considering to provide the players with some more information to the different available tactical choices and their scope.

My feel during the beta-demo-thingy was that the best tactics mostly boiled down to:
equip sword'n'board -> move to a position where you can reduce the number of enemies attacking you -> maybe use a net on the stronger enemies -> use the combination of attacks that best utilize your AP pool (usually Fast attack mixed with some other, or the multiple-targets attack if surrounded) -> repeat until death or victory, whatever comes first.
If you are fighting with some npc on your side, the best choice seemed to be to use him as a meat shield, switch to a slow two handed weapon and use power attack.

The problem I see with putting a too strong emphasis on special attacks with special effects (crippling strikes, instant-death attacks) is that they would be available to your enemies as well (at least it would feel cheap if a game like AoD gave them to the player, but not the enemy). In party based combat that would be ok, as you can make up for one incapacitated character with the others, in a single char combat situation it will most likely only lead to frustration.
But hey, I won't exclude the possibility that there are people that like replaying the same fight a dozen times because the RNG yet again screwed them over.

 

[Grunker]

Sadly, I'm on my way out the door, so I don't have time for an in-depth response, but I gotta quickly dismiss Helton and Vault Dweller on a few key things:

- you can switch to 'synergized' weapons (the ones that get the highest boost). A weapon expert would have no problem doing it.

In 9/10 situations, it makes no sense for me to switch to a weapon I have less skill in when I am losing an encounter.

- you can and should switch attack modes (they can bring the difficulty down from "incredibly difficult", as you called it, to merely "challenging")

The list of things you can do in combat is EXTREMELY short considered we only have one character. We have maybe 4 or 5 things to actually do in combat, realistically. Of course you should switch between two attack options depending on opponents, but this doesn't negate my point: you do not utilize more than a single, maybe two, options in a single encounter once you've "solved the puzzle" of beating it.

- you can and should use different weapons within the same weapon class; they make quite a difference.

When I played, the difference between weapons in the same class were not of the "switch to another and solve this encounter more easily" variety.

[/quote]- you can and should use nets (your success depends mostly on your Dex vs your opponent's Dex, your throwing skill is a bonus on top)[/QUOTE]

Without throwing, my THC with nets never got above 55%. Are you saying with a straight face that the correct play is for the player to take his chances with his 55% attack?

Summa summarum: The difficulty of AoD is most often rooted in the character system (which is not transparant enough to warrant it). A lack of options during gameplay means it's whether you built your character properly (which includes A LOT of guessing and not much calculating on part of the play) that determines difficulty more so than what you do in combat. That's a problem.

You both highlight the same tactical options I've done myself, but you are blind to the fact that when you actually do combat in AoD, each turn almost does not differ from the last. That's a problem in a difficult, single-character RPG.

And don't even get me started on hybrid characters - the only way of enforcing variety in the gameplay on the long term is almost banned from the game, since he effectively cannot compete. This is, of course, the way you chose to make your game, but it's a personal bummer for me (I love playing gish). As I've stated earlier, the praetor is what appealed most to me, but the "fighting diplomat" it represents is sadly mostly unplayable as far as I see it

Overall, I am with Gord. But hey, I can't exclude the possibility that even though I've been able to complete the hardest P&P encounters and the most (non-arbitrarily) difficult cRPGs without too much frustration, AoD just did a number on my old and slow self.

 

[hiver]

oh..gaawwd!
youre just repeating the same thing all over again Grunker!

:picard facepalm:

 

[Grunker]

Did you stop to consider the reason for this might be that the points I already raised are sufficient to respond to the responses I've gotten?