What do you think about AoD?

[Infinitron]

'Divine' weapon class

???

 

[NiM82]

I mostly enjoyed the demo, my feeling upon completing it was "moar!", but there were a couple of things that annoyed me a lot (mostly the camera).

The Good:

Liked the writing, loved all the skill checks
Combat seemed decent/rewarding
The apparent lack of trash mobs made me smile
Ambient music was Morgan level
The combat animations amused me
World seemed interesting

The Bad:

The camera. I nearly stopped playing after 10 minutes, due to the camera resetting constantly. Eventually, I gave up trying to fight it and went with whatever it defaulted to - which was less than ideal. I'd appreciate a camera that maintained a consistent zoom level/direction, or if forced to change would bounce back when possible.

The teleporting seemed a bit forced at times (overall, I understand why it's there). For instance: I got rather mad when after defending the Assassin's guild from attack, Neleos teleported me away before I could loot the bodies. I'd like more choice with being able to delay teleports to loot, change gear, explore (where possible).

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

IF you hit the tide of the fight might be turning.

And if I don't the turn is wasted, and a reload is incoming. Is that good combat to you? Relying on a 55% chance to win you the day?

Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that combat where you don't have 100% to hit chance but have to rely on a mere chance to hit, like it would be in any decently balanced DnD game for instance, is bad?

Yes, having 55% THC means you might need 2 tries for a succesful web on average. Ever considered that the effects might be worth it? Maybe it's time to consider it now, now that I tell you that I know they're worth it.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Teleporting is probably the worst decision they've made. The reasoning behind it (if that's really the reasoning) does not mean that it should be mandatory. Quite the opposite actually. As it is right now it's pretty much "yeah, see, we're saving you from forced walking by forced teleporting".

 

[Infinitron]

It's very different in that game though. You've got a party so more shots during a turn and during an engagement total, so randomity evens out more in the long run.

QFT

I didn't want to get into it, but since it was QFT'ed...

It's not uncommon in SS to spread your forces, to solo (temporarily or permanently) with a scout, or to turn a corner, spot an enemy, and face him without any backup. If you have 40-50% chance you know you have a very good chance.

Here's the deal, VD. To create interesting tactical scenarios, you really need to provide some form of "strategic depth". Basically that means risking some part of your force so that another part can inflict more damage.

When you have only character - one single pool of hit points that your entire game depends on - you have no room for such defense in depth. You don't dare take any risks, you lose flexibility. The game's combat is reduced to application of a set of rock-paper-scissors "best practices". The effect is particularly drastic in a turn-based game where any movement is a sacrifice of APs you could be using to attack.

 

[Infinitron]

Teleporting is probably the worst decision they've made. The reasoning behind it (if that's really the reasoning) does not mean that it should be mandatory. Quite the opposite actually. As it is right now it's pretty much "yeah, see, we're saving you from forced walking by forced teleporting".

It's pretty obvious that the real reason for teleportation is so that they wouldn't have to write dialogue and scripting for all NPCs when you're in the intermediate stages of quests. You could say it turns the quests into "atomic operations", in programming terms.

 

[Jasede]

IF you hit the tide of the fight might be turning.

And if I don't the turn is wasted, and a reload is incoming. Is that good combat to you? Relying on a 55% chance to win you the day?

Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that combat where you don't have 100% to hit chance but have to rely on a mere chance to hit, like it would be in any decently balanced DnD game for instance, is bad?

Yes, having 55% THC means you might need 2 tries for a succesful web on average. Ever considered that the effects might be worth it? Maybe it's time to consider it now, now that I tell you that I know they're worth it.

A 55% chance in practice often means that you can have a pretty good chance of four tries with not one result.
Personally I avoided shooting in Fallout unless I had 80% or better to-hit, everything else seemed too risky and I don't like reloading. I'd walk in front of people and shot-gun or burst-fire them at point blank.

To-hit chances <70% aren't much fun; they're just frustrating to me. Sure, if you're not very skilled you shouldn't hit a lot- but if you are, you should. Makes sense.

And I play a lot of D&D games so I can safely tell you that when your hit-chance is 55% you need your wizard to cast more buffs on you; you're just going to get creamed at the difficulties I prefer. A D&D Fighter would want at least a 75% chance to hit against most enemies, short of some uber-bosses. But that's what your Aid, Bless, Divine Favor and True Strike potions are for.

Try playing a campaign when the wizard does nothing but cast magic missile vs one where the wizard casts Flame Weapon, Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength, Improved Invisibility, PfE and so on on your fighters; the difference is just enormous. And the more your fighters hit the tougher and more fun encounters can you throw at them, without having to resort to impossibly-high AC's.

Missing ain't much fun when it becomes the norm. There are other ways to make a game more difficult: increase damage taken, reduce damage inflicted, increase HP or improve enemy AI & skills. Those are all more entertaining than ~55% hit chances.


Most people don't use status effects because they reason: I could gamble trying to put this thing to sleep - assuming it's not immune, which I don't know yet - or I can just do some damage for sure to it instead. I should go with the less risky option.

Wizardry 8 got around that by making status effects really strong and, surprise, work fairly often (due to large amounts of enemies; you were bound to get *some*).

 

[FeelTheRads]

It's pretty obvious that the real reason for teleportation is so that they wouldn't have to write dialogue and scripting for all NPCs when you're in the intermediate stages of quests. You could say it turns the quests into "atomic operations", in programming terms.

You mean they lied when they said it's only so you don't have to walk? NOooooooooo

 

[hiver]

Would it be possible to reduce the movement cost to 1 Ap BUT keep the range of movement the same as it is now?
Same number of squares a character can reach. For NPCs and PC too.

... maybe connect it with dexterity...?
wait...again with the bloody dexterity... con + dex? to provide some differences that ranged chars can use backed by attribute points alocation?

 

[Johannes]

And if you lose the combat after failing that net throw, what will you do? Retry? If it's a hard enough fight that you actually want to waste a net on it, you'll probably be reloading until it hits regardless if you reload straight away or only after death.

You don't need to reload. A good throw will give you some advantage, but won't kill your enemies for you. I don't reload after missing several attacks in a row or taking a critical or bad wound, so I'm not sure I even understand what you're talking about. Throwing a net and failing won't doom you, that's for sure.

You don't reload upon death?

Considering you said

I think that combat should be hard enough to push you to take risks to gain advantage.

It doesn't really make sense to now say that those risks paying off is not needed.

 

[Infinitron]

It's pretty obvious that the real reason for teleportation is so that they wouldn't have to write dialogue and scripting for all NPCs when you're in the intermediate stages of quests. You could say it turns the quests into "atomic operations", in programming terms.

You mean they lied when they said it's only so you don't have to walk? NOooooooooo

I'm not sure if they ever actually said that, or if it was only given as an excuse as to why teleportation "isn't so bad".

 

[hiver]

Try playing a campaign when the wizard does nothing but cast magic missile vs one where the wizard casts Flame Weapon, Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength, Improved Invisibility, PfE and so on on your fighters; the difference is just enormous. And the more your fighters hit the tougher and more fun encounters can you throw at them, without having to resort to impossibly-high AC's.

Missing ain't much fun when it becomes the norm. There are other ways to make a game more difficult: increase damage taken, reduce damage inflicted, increase HP or improve enemy AI & skills. Those are all more entertaining than ~55% hit chances.

AoD mechanics closely follow the setting and rules and themes of the world and its atmosphere. Thats why a single character doesnt have all those nifty options other games give you.
Besides... if you give some ability to PC you have to give it to NPCs as well, and that wouldnt work in AoD at all. It would clash with the setting.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Here's the deal, VD. To create interesting tactical scenarios, you really need to provide some form of "strategic depth". Basically that means risking some part of your force so that another part can inflict more damage.

Define risking. You play a game like XCOM or SS long enough, you get attached to your characters. No fucking way I let one of my characters die, so we aren't talking about risking anything. When I split my forces, I split them to kill people here and over there. Simple as that.

 

[Infinitron]

Here's the deal, VD. To create interesting tactical scenarios, you really need to provide some form of "strategic depth". Basically that means risking some part of your force so that another part can inflict more damage.

Define risking. You play a game like XCOM or SS long enough, you get attached to your characters. No fucking way I let one of my characters die, so we aren't talking about risking anything. When I split my forces, I split them to kill people here and over there. Simple as that.

It's not that simple. When you have one single character in the game, when he dies, it's GAME OVER. That means it's too risky for you to even allow him to get seriously wounded, because what if there's another fight afterwards, or somebody gets a lucky crit at the last moment? Etc, etc.
In a party-based game, again, your risk is spread out. One party member seriously wounded? No problem, he can retreat while his buddies fight on. Or another party member can heal him.

Honestly man, the way you describe party-based games (such as in your argument about Baldur's Gate with MMXI), it makes me think you've been playing them on easy mode or something. You don't seem to appreciate their depth at all.

 

[Jasede]

Try playing a campaign when the wizard does nothing but cast magic missile vs one where the wizard casts Flame Weapon, Magic Weapon, Bull's Strength, Improved Invisibility, PfE and so on on your fighters; the difference is just enormous. And the more your fighters hit the tougher and more fun encounters can you throw at them, without having to resort to impossibly-high AC's.

Missing ain't much fun when it becomes the norm. There are other ways to make a game more difficult: increase damage taken, reduce damage inflicted, increase HP or improve enemy AI & skills. Those are all more entertaining than ~55% hit chances.

AoD mechanics closely follow the setting and rules and themes of the world and its atmosphere. Thats why a single character doesnt have all those nifty options other games give you.
Besides... if you give some ability to PC you have to give it to NPCs as well, and that wouldnt work in AoD at all. It would clash with the setting.

I can appreciate that reply and reasoning; but still believe missing isn't much fun when it becomes the norm. By extension, reloading is not very fun either, when done excessively. It's better to roll with the consequences. But if the consequence is death there isn't much choice. If combat is going to be brutal then care must be taken that most of them can be avoided/talked out of. Perhaps a merchant should be able to hire body guards?

 

[Grunker]

IF you hit the tide of the fight might be turning.

And if I don't the turn is wasted, and a reload is incoming. Is that good combat to you? Relying on a 55% chance to win you the day?

If your chance is 90%, where is the excitement? I always prefer early levels' combat in RPGs because nothing is guaranteed yet and your victory isn't assured. Combat becomes boring (for me) the moment you become a demigod and start steamrolling over your enemies.

IF you hit the tide of the fight might be turning.

And if I don't the turn is wasted, and a reload is incoming. Is that good combat to you? Relying on a 55% chance to win you the day?

Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that combat where you don't have 100% to hit chance but have to rely on a mere chance to hit, like it would be in any decently balanced DnD game for instance, is bad?

Yes, having 55% THC means you might need 2 tries for a succesful web on average. Ever considered that the effects might be worth it? Maybe it's time to consider it now, now that I tell you that I know they're worth it.

Did you miss the point where I said failure had to be YOUR fault? I'm not talking about 55% or 90% here, I'm talking about you doing the wrong thing and losing because of it. Hard games have complex solutions. Not a "right" choice where you flip a coin and hope for the best.

 

[Phelot]

The whole nets thing would suck if missing once always meant instant death and if that is the case, then the fight is probably too difficult for the character anyway. In any case, if you miss once, try again next round, no? I can't imagine people reloading in Fallout everytime they miss.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's not that simple. When you have one single character in the game, when he dies, it's GAME OVER. That means it's too risky for you to even allow him to get seriously wounded, because what if there's another fight afterwards, or somebody gets a lucky crit at the last moment? Etc, etc.

In a party-based game, again, your risk is spread out. One party member seriously wounded? No problem, he can retreat while his buddies fight on. Or another party member can heal him.

Or he drinks a potion or the equivalent.

Honestly man, the way you describe party-based games (such as in your argument about Baldur's Gate with MMXI), it makes me think you've been playing them on easy mode or something. You don't seem to appreciate their depth at all.

I do and I usually play on Hard. I like party-based games and I prefer them to single-character games. AoD is a single-character game only because the focus isn't on combat and the game's setup doesn't have room for a permanent party. The next two planned games (a quick dungeon crawler and a full-scale RPG) are party-based.

So, I do appreciate the depth, but not every party-based game has it. BG was piss-easy. You have to larp to invent depth there.

 

[hiver]

Merchant can and should avoid any combat at all - because he has his own path to follow instead of freaking going into combat and hiring guards.

I think combat can be improved with some well thought out, minimal adjustments and changes.
I argued that difficulty should be a bit reduced for Theron to get the more reasonable difficulty curve - for those not experienced in this type of game - and for "AoD guide for total beginners".
Among other things.

Such as:
- decreased AP cost of movement to 1 Ap while the size of the movement grid remains the same. that basically gives more APs to spend on combat but doesnt spend most of them on taking two - three steps.
- enable double wielding for knives only - add ability to deflect blades and bladed weapons but have none against hammers and projectiles.
- flanking and backstabbing modifiers for damage and critical strikes
- reducing the cost of opening inventory


If these four could be made it would radically expand already great system.


Hell, they could just make a "normal" difficulty and the real Developers cut and satisfy both sides like that.

-edit-

 

[Infinitron]

Or he drinks a potion or the equivalent.

Which kind of sucks in a single-character turn-based game with highly restricted movement because:

1) While you're drinking potions in the middle of a fight, you're not attacking
2) While you're drinking potions in the middle of a fight, enemies are hitting you
3) Moving away from the fight to drink a potion costs lots of APs, which, again, you could be using for attacking
4) Even if you do move away from the fight to drink a potion, you have no buddies in your party to cover your retreat

Verdict: Too risky.

 

[Ringhausen]

me: Here is how I see it (at leas that's how I play games):

- make a balanced build first, enter combat, see what happens.
- if almost beat your opponents (i.e. if you were very close), try again
- if not even close, change stats - see what you can do without. If a charismatic fighter can't win a fight, see if an ugly bastard can't. If he can't, see if a dumb and ugly fighter can.
- simultaneously, start decreasing skills' spread. Start with a balanced distribution, see where it gets you. If nowhere, start decreasing. It's a trial-n-error style approach, but in 3 attempts you should have a very good idea of where you stand and what's required to beat the fight you're stuck on it.
- so, eventually you should lock down the stats and skills and move to weapons and attack types.

This is exactly what I didn't like about it.
Made a fighter/diplomat. Died. Okay, didn't want to play as a pussy this run so-
Made a Fighter/diplomatish character. Died.
Made a Fighter. Died.

I wasn't anywhere near figuring out what exactly was happening but after that I really didn't feel like doing this. I mean I did manage to beat the Drassen counterattack with tons and tons of reloads and I loved it. I also always thought the beginning of JA2 sucked because of how pointlessly easy it was. Now I'm beginning to see differently, that there's actually a reason so many games start with those stupid rat killings. Putting a player through this shit before he's necessarily even interested in the game is... questionable. There's a million other games to play and I'll check out AoD again once it's released, probably.

 

[Castanova]

So, I do appreciate the depth, but not every party-based game has it. BG was piss-easy. You have to larp to invent depth there.

Learning curve != depth. AoD combat has a learning curve, sure. That's why threads about it are an argument between people who have "solved the riddle" and those who haven't. It's basically the opposite of my, and apparently many other people's, concept of fun combat.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

A 55% chance in practice often means that you can have a pretty good chance of four tries with not one result.

Yes. Even with 90% THC you can miss ten times in a row. Not very likely but certainly possible.
However, this whole complaint (only 55% THC? Nets are useless!!11!!) is incredibly inane, considering the fact that I turned a lost fight into a convenient win (http://i.imgur.com/h6fZk.jpg) with throwing nets at the IG centurion while having 35% THC. (35% THC? It boggles the mind) You can throw more than one net per round btw.

THC of less than 70% are not fun for you? I can recommend Dragon Age 2, you cannot miss there.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Which kind of sucks in a single-character turn-based game with highly restricted movement because:

1) While you're drinking potions in the middle of a fight, you're not attacking
2) While you're drinking potions in the middle of a fight, enemies are hitting you
3) Moving away from the fight to drink a potion costs lots of APs, which, again, you could be using for attacking
4) Even if you do move away from the fight to drink a potion, you have no buddies in your party to cover your retreat

I'm not saying that a single-character game can be as tactical as a party-based game. This goes without saying. My comment was about 'risking' your characters, which, I believe, is less a factor than you implied.

 

[Vault Dweller]

There's a million other games to play and I'll check out AoD again once it's released, probably.