What do you think about AoD?

[Carlos' Bitch1]

So...have you gotten anything constructive out of this thread my dear VD?

 

[Esquilax]

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.

I really liked the demo and I feel that it really did things that no other game has done before, with varying degrees of success. I feel that this game was a really spectacular first effort from a developer and I know that Iron Tower has what it takes to polish and refine things to provide an even better experience in the future.

But stop assuming that you know exactly what a player is going to do to figure things out. Of course it's obvious to you that it "should" take 3 attempts - you're the one who designed it! There are a lot of ways a player can easily fuck up and get frustrated that are totally reasonable: let's say I put points in both dodge and block, assuming that both are useful for defense. Or perhaps I get a few bad rolls and get killed with a "good" build. Or maybe I think that my 4 CHA/6 INT combat build should be winning fights so I repeat the same battle over and over again. There are plenty of ways you could end up not doing the "right" thing.[/quote]

 

[Infinitron]

I'm not saying that a single-character game can be as tactical as a party-based game. This goes without saying.

Good.

My comment was about 'risking' your characters, which, I believe, is less a factor than you implied.

Depends how you define "risk". To me, your 'tank' character in a party-based game is taking risks by being the one who takes a beating. Even if you know he's probably not gonna die.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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

Like I said, when you suggest more options for the PC, apply them to your opponents first. Considering that you fight against multiple opponents, they will close the distance within a turn, surround you, and shred you to pieces.

I'm not a fan of using different rules for the PC and the enemies, which is one of the reasons why I play SS on Hard. On Normal the enemies get less AP, less HP, and you do 30% more damage, iirc. Feels like cheating.

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.

You can't always choose your ground and sometimes you have to fight in less than ideal areas, but when you have room, aimed attacks make all the difference and fit the archer concept perfectly.

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?

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have time to experiment anymore. The system isn't perfect but it works, which is good enough for now.

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.

You won't last a turn against 3-4 enemies.

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.

- 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?

Keep in mind that whatever you're planning to do unto them will be done to you too.

 

[Grunker]

BG was piss-easy..

Bullshit. Most of the encounters maybe, but key ones were very difficult. At least while playing blind (now that I know all the tricks, I need SCS, sure).

 

[Infinitron]

BG was piss-easy..

Bullshit. Most of the encounters maybe, but key ones were very difficult. At least while playing blind (now that I know all the tricks, I need SCS, sure).

Forget it, you're not gonna convince him. Greater minds have tried. (see this thread)

 

[zeitgeist]

Like I said, when you suggest more options for the PC, apply them to your opponents first. Considering that you fight against multiple opponents, they will close the distance within a turn, surround you, and shred you to pieces.

How about, you know, having a party yourself.

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

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.

Did you understand what I was trying to tell you? It doesn't seem so. Lets try again:

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?

Considering that I managed to defeat a superior centurion in Antida's compound with roughly 50% THC, managed to turn a lost fight (at the end of the assassin's questline) into a glorious victory while having 35% THC and managed to eradicate the Aurelians while using nets and handoxes against their captain to good effect, I think we can infer that taking your chances with this *55% attack* might be, in fact, a pretty smart move.
See here, http://i.imgur.com/h6fZk.jpg. Notice how throwing a net takes only 3AP, so that even having a THC of 35% means a good chance to web an opponent within a single round if you have at least 9AP?

Did you miss the point where I said failure had to be YOUR fault?

I was refering to what I've quoted not to some other point. Btw, not using nets because of only 55% THC is your fault.

 

[Morgoth]

This shit still not released yet?

I finally want to witness VD's majestic butthurt when he realizes that once it does get released, nobody will actually care.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So...have you gotten anything constructive out of this thread my dear VD?

A bit, but that's not why I asked the question. I'm curious to see how the majority rates the demo (we aren't there yet though) and what they think about it overall.

 

[Grunker]

I think we can infer that taking your chances with this *55% attack* might be, in fact, a pretty smart move.

A smart move if a coinflip you have no control over turns out favourably for you.

So let's take it once again: You pick the "right" decision which leads to a coin flip. If this coin flip lands badly, you lose. Losing is not your fault. This is not good. Losing should (mostly) be you making a bad decision.

 

[Vault Dweller]

BG was piss-easy..

Bullshit. Most of the encounters maybe...

Splitting hair, are we?

How about, you know, having a party yourself.

Doesn't fit the game.

This shit still not released yet?

I finally want to witness VD's majestic butthurt when he realizes that once it does get released, nobody will actually care.

Yeah, I really thought that it would sell millions and will become the next Diablo. Bummer.

As for people caring, we do have our audience and we do get a lot of support and press coverage. I was asked to do a 2-page interview for a magazine yesterday. The game might still fail, of course, but this possibility was expected from the start.

 

[Grunker]

Splitting hair, are we?

A game is not "piss easy" when most of the key enemies are difficult and almost all of the trash mobs are not.

Who's splitting hairs now?

 

[Gord]

AoD is a single-character game only because the focus isn't on combat

You sure have to invest a lot into your combat skills to have a reasonable chance for success for a game whose focus isn't on combat...

Anyway, I've identified one thing that may be responsible for many of my problems with the game: lack of information.
I understand that you should know which fights to pick in the world of AoD, because you can end up dead fast. But! You seldom get enough information on how hard a fight may turn out to be.
Again, it's trial and error. You seem to enjoy this. Some people don't. Maybe just offer a little bit more of information, this wouldn't mean big changes, either:
E.g. the infamous assassin fight could be modified by adding a description that the guy looks like a tough and dangerous enemy and you have serious doubts about whether you really should feel confident enough to attack him.

Same goes for the CYOA parts. Let's take the thieves guild quest where you try to steal a ring from a merchant: As I'm playing a thief that has invested in sneaking and pickpocketing I would assume that this will be a piece of cake. Too bad that you decided that I need to disguise as a beggar...
So please inform the player of what he's about to do (when this makes sense), so he can plan ahead accordingly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

A game is not "piss easy" when most of the key enemies are difficult and almost all of the trash mobs are not.

Who's splitting hairs now?

I'll bite.

Which key enemies are difficult and what does it mean (i.e. what makes them difficult and require special tactics and multiple retries)?

 

[Vault Dweller]

E.g. the infamous assassin fight could be modified by adding a description that the guy looks like a tough and dangerous enemy and you have serious doubts about whether you really should feel confident enough to attack him.

Common sense? He's an assassin and you're a bouncer?

However, you can beat the assassin 3 out of 5 with consistently (see my post above) using nothing but power attacks. You can do better if you understand the system and your options better, but 3 out of 5 is hardly an example of an impossible fight.

Same goes for the CYOA parts. Let's take the thieves guild quest where you try to steal a ring from a merchant: As I'm playing a thief that has invested in sneaking and pickpocketing I would assume that this will be a piece of cake. Too bad that you decided that I need to disguise as a beggar...

There is another way to steal the ring. Overall, logically, you do need to approach the merchant somehow and that's what a secondary skill is for.

 

[Gord]

Common sense? He's an assassin and you're a bouncer?

Common sense? You rolled a combat oriented mercenary and it's the first fight in the game?

Besides, I had a few builds that did reasonably well against him, so I'm not complaining that the fight is too hard. I'm merely saying that you are doing a bad job at communicating to the players what they have to expect.

There is another way to steal the ring. Overall, logically, you do need to approach the merchant somehow and that's what a secondary skill is for.

The secondary skill however often seems to be chosen quite arbitrarily (note: not illogically).

 

[l3loodAngel]

The combat of AoD is like chess.

Right... because chess is turnbased therefore what is turnbased is automatically chess. Still clinging to this braindead reasoning?

You control skill combinations, stats, armor, weapons, crafting, positioning and attack types...

Which have absolutely nothing to do with or any kind of equivalent in chess.

It's like chess, because you have to plan a lot of stuff for hard battles. Positioning, stat combinations, your attacks to minimize damage, tactics to draw the opponents closer you want to kill first and etc. If you look at the monitor to find 16 wooden or plastic pieces you are retard.

Holly shit, how untrue this is. Combat in AoD is chess and that is much more than a strategy game. What options do you really want?

1. Personally, I'd like to know the rules. That is all.

2. Because most combat is nightmarish to me.
Now, I'm no strategy master or lord of the rpgs, but I'm very far from being an idiot or an aktchung rpg player.

3. It seems you need to have specific builds to succeed in combat, and if you don't, you're fucked.

1. Until the demo has mini arena explained for the new characters, the best way to learn is play the combat demo.
2. Nobody is saying that it's easy.
3. You can ignore some things after you have mastered the system. The better knowledge of it you have the lower stats you need. Also, you have to know that the game is designed for replayability, thus you have to understand that if you walk the combat path you are not likely to accomplish much with non-combat skills. This means that you should not try to have a combat playtrough with half assed combat character or trying to persuade everyone with half assed diplomat.

 

[Phelot]

Common sense? You rolled a combat oriented mercenary and it's the first fight in the game?

Besides, I had a few builds that did reasonably well against him, so I'm not complaining that the fight is too hard. I'm merely saying that you are doing a bad job at communicating to the players what they have to expect.

I assume you felt as though you needed to fight him? I thought the assassin made it fairly clear that this wasn't your fight and to just walk away.

 

[Gord]

Phelot :
Well sure, but wouldn't he tell that in any case?
Of course I can walk away. But it's a challenge. That's what I'm supposed to do in a game, am I not? Winning challenges?
As I said. I won that fight several times.
But I feel there's a mismatch between expectations and what you get that might be easy to fix and might help to calm some troubles.
Not all of course, some other problems arise from different issues that might be solved differently.
And frankly, I wouldn't know how to, most of the time.

 

[l3loodAngel]

Vault Dweller For the love of all that is holy, STOP! Please, just STOP!

Combat is too hard! "It's my game, fuck you!"
Combat isn't tactical enough! "It's my game, fuck you!"
1. I want to have a party! "It's my game, fuck you!"
2. CON should give AP! "It's my game, fuck you!"
GUI is shit! "It's my game, fuck you!"
3. Hybrid characters are weaksauce! "It's my game, fuck you!"

As of opposite to what exactly?

Trying to please everyone? Ignoring people who like the game and chasing people who don't in some hope that if I make enough changes, they will finally like the game?

I like the difficulty. I think that combat is fairly tactical. Quite a few people seem to think so too - check the quotes (taken from the Codex) on our front page. But some people disagree.

Pretty much. I just don't fucking understand how such retard and troll by codex standards, like me can accomplish so much in AoD combat, while old fags (know as just Fags IRL) can't do shit. It's constant whining for reduction in difficulty and more party members. Witch gone wild anyone?
1. Translation I am a stupid fuck so I can't figure out how to win the combat, so please give me party members so that I would not have to learn how to play but try the same shit over again twice or trice and then would win by chance and not learning. The only games that I can finish are Planescape & DA2. Because in both games your character cannot die.
2. Just as CHA should increase dmg. If you didn't do dmg by having high charisma you convince your opponent that you did.
3. The game is designed for multiple playtroughs? If VD would make all options available to poorly made half assed characters, the game would be like the ones that codex calls decline. But this is what you really want do you?

 

[Jasede]

Common sense? You rolled a combat oriented mercenary and it's the first fight in the game?

Besides, I had a few builds that did reasonably well against him, so I'm not complaining that the fight is too hard. I'm merely saying that you are doing a bad job at communicating to the players what they have to expect.

I assume you felt as though you needed to fight him? I thought the assassin made it fairly clear that this wasn't your fight and to just walk away.

Railroading!
j/k

 

[VentilatorOfDoom]

So let's take it once again: You pick the "right" decision which leads to a coin flip. If this coin flip lands badly, you lose. Losing is not your fault. This is not good. Losing should (mostly) be you making a bad decision.

A coin flip? You mean it's pure chance and you, like, can't do anything about it *sob*? Like in every other RPG with dice rolls and THC, including D&D? Ignoring for a moment that not landing a net immediately won't make you lose automatically, your whole notion of "If I do something and don't auto-succeed because there's a roll involved - this is BAD GAME DESIGN" is so fucking retarded, I'm practically speechless. Good job. How about you do something to make the dice work in your favor, like I dunno, let's pick something randomly, throw a net or something and then enjoy your obscenely high THC while the enemy is webbed, enabling you to even use stuff with hefty to hit penalties like Aimed Head to devastating effect. Just a thought.

 

[Marsal]

It seems I have not been clear in my

"It's my game, fuck you!"

post. I'm not mocking Vault Dweller's answers, I'm SUGGESTING to him what to do: stop endless debate and just finish the game the way he likes it.

 

[Grunker]

So let's take it once again: You pick the "right" decision which leads to a coin flip. If this coin flip lands badly, you lose. Losing is not your fault. This is not good. Losing should (mostly) be you making a bad decision.

A coin flip? You mean it's pure chance and you, like, can't do anything about it *sob*? Like in every other RPG with dice rolls and THC, including D&D?

Let me ask you this: Do you think a random 50/50 shot of hitting with an attack matters more in D&D or AoD? 'cause with the above, you sound like a 50/50 chance is a 50/50 chance no matter the context.