Captain Shrek

Either way of solving the problem (Rest anywhere/go to resting place as often as you want - they are equivalent vs. Regenerate everything) is a terrible idea. Both of them trivialize encounters. Even worse, they decide the kind of encounters you get. The best way is to make resting a resource. IE games never got many things right. Some of it is encounter design. They have great mage battles. That is all they have in terms of encoutner design. IWD/2 are some of the worst games to play just because you have to practically maw through trash dungeons one after another. The way of avoiding this is making resting a limited option that is skill dependent. Take for example the recent mediocre RP game that is fun to play for first half an hour or so, Expeditions conquistador. The game allows you to rest anywhere, but with the possibility that rations run out. That is good design, right there.

I am really at a loss. Is resource and story limited resting such a hard thing to comprehend or use? You still have save reload people.

Wow. Regerating health and respawning enemies. That's the combo I want too. Seems like a good solution to avoid frustration due to difficult combat encounters.

Reserved

Reserved

TACTICS AND RANDOMNESS There have been some really severe opinions about randomness in video games from developers recently. Although it makes me concerned that loaded dies are being justified by many, it *is* interesting to consider what role does randomness really play in tactics and what might be the best way of implementing it in video games. I am assuming that Randomness does not need to be defined in an explicit manner for this discussion and an example would be sufficient. In DnD you roll a D20 for your attack rolls and add your Attack bonus to it. The attack Bonus is the deterministic part and the D20 the random (probabilistic) part. How are tactics affected by randomness? Tactics is (are?) usually allotment of resources and placement of units. If the game is perfectly deterministic, there is typically an optimal path that always maximizes benefit. This means the game become fairly repetitive and/or looses replayability. Randomness essentially adds flavor to the game since, tactics are now based around optimization as before but WITH the consideration of the probabilities. In my mind there are three distinct ways randomness can be incorporated in the game: 1) Random numbers have large 'spread' (standard deviation) with respect to (deterministic) modifiers 2) Random numbers have small spread with respect to modifiers 3) Random number have similar spreads compared to deterministic modifiers Let's call the ratio of the spread to modifier as luck/tactics ratio. This nomenclature is highly motivating and it will become apparent as to why eventually. The case 1, is the classic 'level 1- 3' DnD syndrome. Your fighter is level 2 with Attack bonus of +3 (example) and AC of 16. The enemy has attack bonus of +5 (higher CR) and AC of 18. The probability of you hitting him is now ~25%. Him hitting you is ~50%. The problem in such a situation is that the heroes spend most of their time trying to connect hits than actually using tactics to arrange units and planning. This happens due to the obvious fact that luck is MUCH more important than small changes the heroes can make to their modifiers with abilities available at low levels. Modifiers are the only reliable guides to planning for tactics, since the probability of the random effects is beyond control. This is NOT to say that probabilities can NOT be considered in tactics, but rather when their roles supersede tactical deployment by a vast gap, it is CLEARLY bad design. When the game is dominated by luck, probably something is wrong with the luck/tactics ratio. No tactical game should relegate the necessity of tactics to magical and or loaded dies. Case 2, where the luck/tactics ratio is low, is typically required in games where there are a lot of combat encounters. In such games the player needs to advance through a mob of opponents and can NOT afford to save/reload every so often because the randomness threw his game off. Late game DnD is a somewhat fitting example since you still roll a D20 for the Attack roll but your Attack bonus is off the scale. This makes the combat linear since usually there are optimal ways of dealing with enemies with your current skills, which are repetitively or algorithmically used. Case 3 occurs when the luck/tactics ratio is fairly close to one. In such situations, considerations to probabilities are as important to resource allocation and placement as the understanding and comparisons of yours and enemy modifiers. This can be useful when there are small number of encounters and the game has deep tactics. With small number of combat instances, the game needs to really avoid repetitive tactics and that is accomplished via randomness. Since the player has to plan according to what he will roll besides the abilities he has, he starts thinking about alternate and branching scenarios and deploys resources conservatively but not too thriftily since every move may be his last. Such designs tend to be more *tense* (read 'fun') and can be found in games like Bloodbowl and mid level DnD (level 3 - 9/10). Thus: High amount of randomness is always bad. Low or mid level of randomness (as defined by the luck/tactics) ratio is a design choice. It is intriguing to consider that most wargames avoid the 'Tick-Tack-Toe style' low randomness design, for the exact reason provided here. Whether that attests to the case 3 being the ideal way of considering randomness in the game is up to the reader to determine for himself.

WHAT ARE TACTICS? Here is some very basic description of what the word Tactics ought to mean in video games. First, I need to explain that I am NOT borrowing the meaning from a dictionary. I am going to take the description from experience. Also, nothing revolutionary is being said here. If you are reading this to get new insights, give up now. Alright. Within most combat engagements, planning is done on two non-exclusive but sufficiently differing ways: 1) Long term planning 2) Short term planning The requisites of decision making are typically information regarding your own position and supplies and the enemy’s position and supplies. In rare occasions the enemies movements (plans) are also known. Given this information a manager/general needs to decide how to control the production of supplies, how to expend them and how to move units. Whatever can be expended(used) and produced is a resource. Long term planning typically involves allotment of resources and unit movement. But its salient feature is that it also involves resource production that takes time to be available. This kind of planning is called as strategy. Short term planning is typically limited to resource handling and unit movement in a very restricted area and in most cases as a direct response/preemption to the opponent planning. This is called Tactics. Thus tactics can only allow allotment of available resource. Not all resource types may be available during tactical maneuvers. The ones that are or can be made available are called as tactical resources. Please understand that strategic resources are always being produced and allotted EVEN during tactical maneuvers. But that is by definition considered a part of strategy. Thus tactics always deal withlimited resources. In computer games, the most usual tactical resources are: 1) Units 2) "Health" 3) mana / stamina / fury etc indicating a resource to do special actions 4) Choice of weapons and armor 5) Spell's / special ability 6) Stances 7) Potions / grenades/ traps (grouped, but serve differing functions). Time 9) Positioning of units It is not too difficult recognize these obvious resources. Since in video games, you are playing in a semi-rigid scaffold, the job of a good designer is to manage encounters and provide resources to implement combat as targeted towards a requisite group. This brings us to the question as to what is tactical depth. Tactical depth is essentially a measure of how many viable options in terms of the above mentioned resources can one use at any "point of time". The quotes are purposeful, since the concept of point of time differs according to how a game is implemented. In Real Time games without rounds, it is indeed possible to perform more than one option and sometimes unrestrained number of options depending upon the resources available at the same "point of time". This indirectly serves as a measure of TIME spent as resource. In Round Based games the numbers of options one can utilize are hard coded, only to be modified by "free actions" or special conditions. In Turn Based game a similar restriction based on context exists, although it tends to be much tighter. Tactical depth is NOT the number of options that you can perform per unit of time. It is the numbers of options that are available. It is desirable than many such options be there (how many?), since that quantifiably increments the quality of the challenge. The larger the number of such options and more balanced (?!) the number of winning options amongst these determines how well implemented tactics in a game are. There are other issues related with this topic such as: 1) How does the flow of time affect the tactical nature of the game? 2) What is the ideal way resources should be allotted by design? 3) What is a balanced tactical depth? that we can discuss later.

I am sorry Crojipjip. The copyright already belongs to the Tzimisce.

restricting the player's possibilities too much, leads to rest-spamming after every encounter. Of course, similar to you, I don't want rest system completely gone, too. I don't want insta-heal regeneration, too. However you can easily balance the rest-spamming with regeneration. How? Three ways I can think of: 1- Out of combat regeneration and no in-combat regeneration. The out of combat regeneration will be slow. Think about %10 heal per minute, so if you stay on one location and don't enter combat, you will regenerate your health slowly. This is not a "resting" system, but think this as "relaxing" system. Instead of rest-spam after every combat, you can relax, let your hp back to %50-60 and continue to the next fight. you don't necessarily fully recover in this system. If you want recover your health faster, you can just Rest. So, resting system will be still here, but just softened. 2- Slow in-combat regeneration and quick out of combat regeneration. After each fight, you will just wait one minute and your health will fill up (I am not talking about insta-heal, this will still take some time). However, during fights, you will get many stat damages. You need to rest to recover these stat damages, these stats can't be recovered by hp regeneration system. What this mean is, you will not need rest-spam after each combat, but you will still need to rest time to time because combats will have affects on your character. 3- Seperating hp with stamina. Each time you get soakable (dodged, blocked, reducted) damage or blunt force trauma, they will reduced from your stamina. Each time you get wounds, burns, injuries, they will reduced from hp. Stamina will be regenerated slowly, during out of combat. If you want to recover stamina during combat, your character may have some specific skills to do that (battle rage, for example). If you want to recover your stamina quickly, you need to use rest system. However, resting will not recover your HP. In order to recover your HP, you'll need to use bandages, healing potions, healing salves, medical treatments or healing spells. Each of these three system have their advantages and disadvantages. And can really change according to game's own playstyle. Hi. It's like 12:30 over here. I would love to respond to you since these are some good ideas! But do you mind if we continue this later? Good night to you!

Just that this does not end on a misunderstanding: I have highlighted the relevant portion. Rest it there for the context.

We do not. We only disagree that whether they are easier to balance or not in terms of work schedule Obsidian has. If they do, they will at least have two pleased customers. Also I am not a video game designer. Nice discussing with you. Hopefully we will continue discussing in the future.

As I see it, AI and time keeping mechanics of RTwP can not be separated. I must emphasize that. If you do not agree with me there, I am unable to continue this discussion. To do so is folly and may not work out as expected. I did not say that RTwP is less tactically suited. In fact I said that RTwP is a hassle to use for deep tactics when not implemented correctly. I also suggested two solutions to rid of this issue: 1) Slow down time 2) Reduce party members. I am very happy with a non-party based RTwP NWN2. Make that and I am easily pleased.

I agree so thoroughly with you that I would say that the easiest such system is the one they have already dealt with! i.e. IE. Remove its completely solvable problems as mentioned and you have already a good system. See above . I did not say that! What I said was about finding the smallest possible subgroup and chasing after it. Let's optimize the game for colorblind since every 1 of 7 males is colorblind! Also, that was my public opinion. If you ask my personal opinion they should consider the level of challenge they consider appropriate and go ahead. If the games are bad, we will complain and won't buy their next game.

I think I must have made some mistake writing that particular essay since all and sundry accuse me of claiming that RTwP is somehow inferior. I have made NO SUCH CLAIM. In fact I believe that RTwP fits certain kind of gameplay better than TB. I am just against the FACT (!) that RTwP makes it difficult to manage too many options at all points, sometimes even frustrating the player if the AI fails to keep up with expectations. That is why I am giving an Example of NWN2. The combat hardly ever plays out (at least for me, and hence why I am generalizing without proof) the way I expect because even slight freedom given to party, it somehow always takes silly decisions. In NWN I never had this problem with an almost equally complicated system (although the story left a bitter taste) because it is not really party based.

Obsdian should plan to tackle more reasonable goals. DA2 is a recent fiasco afterall. Excellent question. Please ask it to whoever designed the trash mobs in NWN2 and the combat system in AP. Although I *must* admit SOZ was the jump in the right direction. Believe it or not I will rectify this particular discussion related issue soon enough. No matter what you do you will never please everybody. Hey, just look at me, right? Undoubtedly. I will take this opportunity to say that my favorite combat design for a non-action RPG is Fallout.

TB will allow you sit back and consider all the possibilities (TS) at your disposal and apply them as you choose without concerning about response. RTwP is prohibitive in that respect that it will force you press SPACEBAR every moment to get the same level of control. That system exists not so that it can emulate the TB gameplay; otherwise you'd rather use TB gameplay to do it since it can do the same function with less hassle. Rounds are better than AT based gameplay. They give you a breathing space. I drew a comparison to TB there, I hope you noticed just to draw attention to the point that they are a (I will not call it a relic since it is an extant living system; but consider the tragedy of such a quip when I am on a cRPG forum) analogue of PnP inspired TB combat.

I am not against innovation. I am just considering the following: 18 months + 11 Races + Dungeon with 14 levels + new setting + new lore + new combat system + Obsidian's amazing reputation for balanced combat = Everything will go well. As to why it is bad. To have all resources per encounter is making all encounters trivial as you can always have all the resources you want ready; kind if like rest -"spamming" in the IE games. it is the same thing, rest removed. This system, mentioned to have created to oppose it, does it even more blatantly. I am sorry I can not engage in this particular discussion. I agree saying it is a cop-out, but I believe that a discussion about genres are hardly dealt in one post. You can happily cross this point off. I was hoping to appeal to some sense one gets after playing such games, but I freely admit that it is not a mature way of doing so. I am sorry; I will never buy this argument that there are players of different skill level and encounters need to adjust for them. That is why toggles of difficulty are for. Make them an option and the NORMAL mode can have challenging combat as described. I understand that the system is not finalized. But the stuff about cooldown is my impression from talking to Josh here, from other posts where he has claimed that cooldowns are not yet dropped and general statement spread about the system. I was never the stalker variety hence I did not gather them diligently. My mistake.

Sorry for copy pasta, but I thought it would be relevant. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61076-rtwp-versus-turn-based-combat/ Relevant thread.

Well to be perfectly clear, I am NOT against Stamina + health system at all. I think there I agree with you completely. I would like a stamina resource that modulates the short terms use of abilities. I am only and only against the regeneration that is continuous. I believe that regen is for action (twitch based) games, which are also interesting and fun; to give the example of Dark Messiah. Save scumming, to me, implies save-reloading until you have achieved a perfect result. That system is still in action in the design where you loose anything until rest (like Health in this game). This you can get rid of with checkpoints which will ruin the fun of gaming on a PC as it can lead to frustration for starting off way back. This is a problem that will NEVER go away unless you implement complete regeneration of all resource post combat; but that is bad. I think the kind of save-reloading which allows you to address battle tactically is NOT bad at all. I mean this: If a battle was really really hard and you said after it was done: Oh boy, I want to play that again because it was fun and I think I can do it even better! I think then you have achieved real tactical challenge in design. What can be done to minimize the absolute abuse of such systems is what I am tackling here. I think that IE games can get rid of most of the save reload "scumming" problems by simply designing combat so that you are always challenged extensively and you WILL have to deplete resources in each combat and still you can always find enough resources at the end of it to go on resolutely. Since such a simple (!??) system will not allow you to have any advantage after a successful battle that is worth considering reloading will become unnecessary. It will still reward good tactics.

very nice. Except the spell do indeed regen after every combat. Can't find the source now. Take my word for it or not. As for IE: You know what, you are absolutely correct. Which is why I made this post:

Unfortunately I don't agree on that. Because IE games did not do cooldowns which as has been mentioned in earlier posts on this thread boils down to spamming your best spell in every encounter.

As I said: Right now it sounds like it will be regenerating during combat, If and when it is clarified that it is not so I will be happy. But since you said this: I assume you do not like regenerating (during combat) stamina either?

I would be only happy if stamina is not restored automatically as it should be apparent. Although:

Which in real life would GET WORSE not better in a matter of minutes. actually this is a good point, from the realistic route of course - in combat, adrenaline may still the pain, but after the adrenaline is out of your system, you feel every bit of the wounds you are caused... question now is, do they want to go they complete realistic route, or just say, stamina is the immediate exhaustion, nothing more In my view relaism is NOT necessary at all. I can spare realism if that offers more tactical combat.