Captain Shrek
-
Posts
578 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Captain Shrek
-
-
Health does not regenerate, only Stamina.
-
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.
-
-
-
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).
Time9) 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.
-
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.
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!
-
I suppose we're unable to continue this discussion, then. It seems to me that the IE games provide a perfect example of how RTwP can be implemented without relying on AI (sure, they had optional AI, but it was hardly essential). If you don't think RTwP can be separated from AI in spite of this evidence, I don't really know what to say.
I agree that RTwP doesn't work well with deep tactics if not implemented correctly. NWN2 is a great example of this, as you rightly point out. But there are potential implementation problems in any system. We have an example of how RTwP can be done well in the IE games (it's their greatest strength outside of storytelling, IMO), hinging on the non-reliance on AI. But again, I suppose I can't really make this argument if you refuse to acknowledge this non-reliance.
EDIT: More typos than I can tolerate. :/
Just that this does not end on a misunderstanding:
Those who play NWN2 see this often. The Units if left with even slight freedom start acting up with their 'in-duh-viduality' by casting nuking spells or AOE spells on their own party, running heedlessly into enemy Area of Free Attack zone or buffing themselves up un-necessarily. It is of course sometimes necessary for Units to act on their own. But since the correct balance between automation and tactics is hard to achieve (or you'd have skynet) these things typically do not work out as expected. The solution to that in IWD was that AI was overall too dumb and relied on strong but small 'organised' (scattered but balanced) mobs instead. But again this is a sub-optimal solution.I have highlighted the relevant portion. Rest it there for the context.
-
But I don't see any compelling reason why the stamina system is likely to be detrimental to anyone. Obviously we disagree on this point.
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.
-
You claimed that RTwP had less tactical depth. Again, I quote "Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game." If this statement is true, where does that leave RTwP? Certainly not at the top of the tactics heap, or even tied with TB. And that is the claim I seek to refute, or at least call into question.
You're absolutely right that AI can cause all sorts of problems. But these are problems with AI, not with the RTwP system. If turn-based games were inclined to use party AI, you'd see similar problems. Personally, I don't like AI in my RTwP games. Always played IE with the AI turned off, and I thoroughly enjoyed puppetting my entire party around. So yeah, if the don't let me do that and force another NWN2 on me, I'll be upset. But there's nothing in the RTwP system that inherently requires that.
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.
-
My point was that I don't think this system is more difficult to balance than a straight hp system. In fact, it makes combat difficulty easier to balance. See my comment about fudge room. If you think Obsidian can't handle strict balancing problems, it seems to me that you should support the system that makes game balance easier.
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.
Okay, fair point. But no system is going to solve Obsidian being bad at balancing. Again, I think the health/stamina system is actually easier to balance, combat-wise, and I certainly don't see how it's harder.
See above
. So game designers should just forget about trying to please their playerbase? Bull****. Making a game people can enjoy is their job. In this case, their main focus is on fans of the old IE games, and that's fine. We're paying for the game upfront, after all. But there's no rule that says everyone who likes the IE games has the same skill level. Aren't they doing their target audience a disservice if you don't do what they can to cater to all of us? And again, I point out that this isn't making their job harder. In fact, in one very important way, it's making their job easier.
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 suppose, technically speaking, there is a near-infinite amount of possibilities in a RTwP system, and you can't realistically have time to consider all of them. Why is this a failing? By pausing every few seconds, you can easily get as many options as TB provides. More, considering that you also choose when to pause. I fail to see how that's tactically uninteresting. Different sure, but less deep? In what way? As for "the same function with less hassle" I disagree. The pause in RTwP serves much the same purpose as the TB, but the real-time offers many more possibilities. Why? Because when the situation changes, I can react to it immediately. You might call that twitch-based, and there would be an element of truth to that (although it's rare hard to press the pause button in time), but why is that less tactically interesting? It seems to be that tactical depth would include as many factors as possible, so why exclude reactionary actions?
Why do you need more breathing space in a RTwP system? Isn't that what the pause is for? For that matter, do they even offer breathing space at all? I don't recall them doing that in IE. They just regulated the speed at which things could happen, which isn't a unique property of rounds. A slow attack speed would have had exactly the same effect.
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.
-
Every game is kind of like this, really. But I see your point. Still, I don't see this system as particularly more difficult to balance than any other. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems simple enough to me. Sure, some parts will be harder, but others will be easier.
Obsdian should plan to tackle more reasonable goals. DA2 is a recent fiasco afterall.
So if I can do it, why can't Obsidian?
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.
This actually makes me very sad. You argue well, clearly have well-formed opinions, and I'd love to know what you think makes regeneration work better in twitch-based games than in IE-style games. Regardless, if you don't think you can explain, I suppose I'll have to live with that. It's pretty disappointing, though.
Believe it or not I will rectify this particular discussion related issue soon enough.
I had hope you wouldn't resort to that argument. Yes, that is what difficulty levels are for. In broad strokes, anyway. But even players of the same general skill are not identical. Some are better, others are worse. Some are only better at some types of encounters. Some use potions and such more than others (I, for example, tend to reload a half dozen times so I don't have to use one healing potion). As a game designer, you have to account for these variations, or you will fail. Difficulty settings are helpful in this regard, but they are insufficient to account for the sheer levels of variation. And as such, you need fudge room, even if you're perfect at your job (and if you aren't, fudge room only helps more). Would you argue otherwise?
No matter what you do you will never please everybody. Hey, just look at me, right?
We seem to be in agreement that Tim's loose proposal sounds more fun.
Undoubtedly. I will take this opportunity to say that my favorite combat design for a non-action RPG is Fallout.
-
Shrek:
I follow your argument until you say "Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game." I see why TB games necessarily need more tactical depth than other games, but not why tactically intensive games need to be TB, especially as compared to RTwP. Your argument is framed as though the important thing about TB games is that you have time to think, but RTwP provides this. So why do you say they're less tactically interesting?
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.
I also don't understand what point you're making about rounds. Do you think they're good or bad? What do they have to do with AI (the same problems crop up whether you have rounds or not, or even in turn-based play)? Personally, I think they're a terrible misuse of the computer's resources, left over from PnP days. PnP development and video game development are very different things, and the technical necessities of one should not be applied to the other.
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.
-
When you say things like "but that is bad", without offering any explanation of why it's bad, I tend to wince. Very few things are as simple as that. Full regeneration out of combat certainly isn't. It allows every fight to be a true challenge on its own. That's awesome. It also eliminates the long-term strategic element. That's less awesome. Stamina regenerating outside of combat allows for a middle ground. I think that's pretty cool. I admit, however, that it might end up being the worst of both worlds, with just enough long-term impact to be annoying but not enough strategic potential to be interesting. I doubt that'll happen, but it could. I'd rather take the gamble, because if any games are going to gamble, it's gonna have to be the ones that aren't leashed to publishers.
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.
If you think regen can be fun in some games, why do you think it won't work in PE? Obviously games are different, but what element of an IE-style RPG will make in-combat regeneration unusually problematic? Or, if you prefer, what element of twitch-based games makes regeneration work? It seems to me that the ability to pull back one party member to heal offers more tactical options (body blocking, cost/benefit analysis of retreat, etc), not less.
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.
The combination of always depleting resources in each combat but always having enough to continue is a difficult one. Players have different skill levels, and so will deplete different amounts of resources in each fight. I suppose by "finding" you might mean from drops and such, which makes the problem easier, but I can't say I'm a fan of consumable-based balance. It really just makes the entire game into "can I avoid using these long enough to make the final boss trivial?", which isn't fun. So you have to have enough of your own resources (use-limited but renewable) to tackle the next fight. And it seems to be that the health/stamina system, with stamina recovering out of combat, is the best system for this. It simply provides more fudge room for the game designers by allowing limited post-combat recovery. Are you opposed to this? I'm not honestly sure at this point what you want to see in the game.
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.
Regarding my claim about how spells worked, I apparently got that information from update #16 with Tim Cain. Tim said it was still very up-in-the-air at that point, but that's the system he proposed (little stuff on cooldown, big stuff requires rest). If you have a more recent source, I'd love to see it.
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.
Hi.I understand that RTwP has been confirmed for this game. But it might still be instructive to consider what are the weaknesses and strengths of each type of combat style.
I am posting as essay here on these comparing these two based on arguments built from scratch. This was first posted on RPG codex some time back on a similar issue. Feel free to comment.
Since we are talking about video games, please understand I will not associate the following discussion to games in general although a lot of these arguments wills till hold there.
RTwP and Turn based are time-keeping devices in games. To understand the motivation of putting them in a game requires a set of tools that include a vocabulary and some concepts.
First definitions:
Let's define the following:
Ideas:
Tactics as positioning units and queuing actions for an event.
Turn: Defined in those games where actions of units happen independently of each other and in a sequence determined statically or through an initiative roll.
Round: When a game is NOT turn based then every unit takes a certain amount of time to finish its action. If all actions available to the unit are made to take the same time and simultaneous actions are allowed for multiple players, we call such an action a Round.
Deep: Providing a large array of tactical options.
When the actions are neither turn based or round based we will call then animation-time (AT) based actions.
Genres:
Adventure genre: Concerned with exploration, puzzle solving and interaction. (
Strategy: Resource management and tactics (e.g. HoM&M, JA)
Action: Twitch based gameplay (do not involve tactics as defined above but rather instantaneous decisions e.g. Gothic games)
Now to concepts.
Good tactical games:
The word tactical is quite broad. It can be used for any genre you can think of starting from action to strategy, but not so much in adventure. But to be qualitatively considerate it applies best to strategy genre. RPGs can be a mix between strategy, Adventure and action and then some other elements (typically tiered/leveling mechanics). Depending upon how much part of each had entered the RP game, the level of tactics required changes considerably. Games that focus on tactical combat require certain amount of 'consideration time' before action is taken. Thus, it makes sense to choose a time-keeping device for a game with respect to the number of tactical decisions available and the depth of such decisions. i.e. If the characters in the game under the player control can take a large number of possible actions and the same holds for the enemy then it makes sense to choose a time-keeping system that allows larger consideration times.
Computers by default are always faster than the player. If in a continuous time keeping system with deterministic mechanics, such as Round based or AT based, the computer is given free reign, the player will NEVER win. Thus difficulty for these games is always artificial, in the sense that evenly matched characters in the game will always be biased towards computer victory. In evenly matched turn based games, where the results of actions are purely deterministic, the game will always have a fixed outcome (if there is no starting move bias) of draw if the player is an expert. Otherwise the computer will always win. Only in a game which has mechanics with random component to it, can a player have a chance to win.
Games are (almost always) created to be winnable. Thus they always must have some level of artificial difficulty/ease. In order to retain element of challenge in tactical games, they are made to be restrictive in terms of strategies that can succeed. The typical aim of the game is to force the player to create/explore/discover winning strategies. Intuitively speaking, a game that allows a large variety of strategies and a significantly large variety of winning strategies is to be considered good because it provides more quality contentoverall. I will refer to two of these quantitative ideas often in this discussion:
1) Total number of allowed strategies (TS)
2) Ratio of winnable strategies / losing strategies (RS)
I am hoping that it is obvious that the quality of games can be evaluated with these two numbers. The first is obvious. If the second number is in the range of (1/9 , 1/4) it will be better. Of course some might prefer even lower rate of success, but then TS must go up to compensate for lower values of RS. Please understand, this is a highly simplified descriptor of the real system, since the actual number of losing strategies in typical strategy games are infinite if the player is an idiot. Thus a certain level of smartness is assumed. Also, we are talking aboutRPG games that do not usually involve a large number of units in action (number of units < 10 ). If the number of units exceed 10-20 then the game is a pure strategy game and much more complex to discuss without further simplifications.
We are discussing only games that provide some arbitrary level of challenge. Games that are un-challenging by this arbitrary standard are casual games. Unfortunately I am unable to enforce a condition of challenging onto you since there are people around who find combat of DA: O challenging. But it is always possible to create an artificial and relative scale by referring to one example. In this case we will make the combat of Witcher 2 as the example since it can offer ridiculously large amount of posterior pain from all circles for the common enjoyment of all.
Also, it is important to consider at all points that games need not be realistic. i.e. it is not a priority of the design to make games realistic. The priority is rather that they are made to be fun for the intended group i.e. you don't make strategy games for action oriented players. After this has been achieved realism can be the topping but never the base.
Alright. With this framework in mind we can now analyse how gameplay is affected by time-keeping.
Actual Discussion:
It should be clear by now that games do not always need to be strategic in nature. There are those who rather prefer playing purely twitch based games (genre of action). There are others who prefer more slow paced games (genre of strategy). Real time keeping can exist for either genre while turn based time keeping can only exist for strategy games.
First let's discuss the TB system since it is the easiest to wind up:
For a well designed game TB system automatically implies deep mechanics. Without the depth the game would become bland. This is a two way necessity (TB <-> Deep Mechanics) since if the developer wants to provide deep mechanics to the player, he should also allow the player the time to consider them. Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game.
It now makes sense to state that games with large number of party members require a closer attention when each member has a large array of options. Since a battle is dynamic with the enemy also strategizing it is important to adopt to the situation. Now with larger and larger number of teammates it is progressive harder to maintain control of all actions. A game that has so many options but does not require you to use them is of course badly designed since its RS is too high for non-casual games.
So just to be clear, if the party is made up of two guys with two options each (attack or defend) then there is little reason to make the game turn based.
Real-time games:
There is a large video games audience that plays games just to vent off steam. There is also another audience that plays games to vent of steam and feel like a little tactical challenge and a listening to a good story every once in a while. Real Time RPGs are typically oriented for the latter.
Please do not misunderstand: these games DO require strategizing. But not strategizing the way tactical has been defined in this post. Thus an action game which necessitates preparation before a battle (potions, choice of weapons etc) is smart but not tactical in the same way as a game with party members with distribution of differing skills. The distinction is purely artificial to facilitate a clean division.
I will claim that such games are best played with few party members (1- 4) and have less combat options per action. Sound heretical, but to me, it is a good design decision with the time-keeping system in mind. A game that offers 10 options per action and is real time driven without pause would make no sense to have all these options, because to win you'd either require to cripple the AI severely or have a hand-eye coordination + genius of batman. This is so because the Computer has instantaneous, absolute and precise control of its units, while a human being can meaningfully control one unit at a given point of time. Thus what he can do, the AI can do better. Crippling the AI risks the game becoming casual (although some level of crippling is always necessary).
A Real time system with Pause introduces some level of fine control over the actions of the units. It now allows to issue orders, all the while synchronizing them periodically thus preparing for long term combat. AT based games that do not use a standard time-keeping devices, lose synchronicity faster since the units end their actions at different times thus forcing tighter control over action. That is why I presume a Round based system becomes necessary.
It is interesting to note the apparent inspiration of the idea of a round from the idea of a turn. Round is a one sided time-keeping device that allows greater synchronicity or at least a temporal scale for the player to control his units. Even if individual units are not synchronized, rounds act like mini alarms giving the player a breathing space. The problem with them is of course again the AI and the number of options.
Those who play NWN2 see this often. The Units if left with even slight freedom start acting up with their 'in-duh-viduality' by casting nuking spells or AOE spells on their own party, running heedlessly into enemy Area of Free Attack zone or buffing themselves up un-necessarily. It is of course sometimes necessary for Units to act on their own. But since the correct balance between automation and tactics is hard to achieve (or you'd have skynet) these things typically do not work out as expected. The solution to that in IWD was that AI was overall too dumb and relied on strong but small 'organised' (scattered but balanced) mobs instead. But again this is a sub-optimal solution.
There are indirect ways to take care of these issues:
The first is to exploit the idea of the Round as a time-keeping device. Since Rounds are required to create synchronous and provide 'consideration time', by making everyone's rounds last longer it is possible to make the game more controllable. This automatically reduces the game play speed, which again has to be balanced with gameplay so that it is not overtly slow. Interestingly DA:O to DA2 transition is the travesty of this idea where slow round speeds were replaced with bad AI and restricted spamming to compensate for the lack of tactical combat to achieve faster game mechanics.
Another way of dealing with the problem is small parties. With a single player character or two player character parties, it becomes easier to get a handle on the situation and micromanage effectively. Three is where probably the line is crossed although this may be a little preferential.
Conclusion:
Thus it makes sense to have both kinds of time keeping devices for games as long as they are being developed for the right audience. Video games are a relatively nascent form of expression and will require a lot of guidance and experience that can only come from developing and playing bad games. It is the ability to identify the exact ingredients and the context of the elements that create poor games that will save gaming as a whole from Bioware and co.
http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/61076-rtwp-versus-turn-based-combat/
Relevant thread.
-
Shrek:
What you've heard about spells is apparently contrary to what I've heard. I suppose only time will tell, then. I hope I'm right, as full spell recovery after each fight eliminates an important strategic element. In that, I agree with you.
That is a very interesting post. I agree with you on many points. Not all, though.
First, I would argue that, while limited resting will satisfactorily eliminate the rest spam problem, the stamina/health system offers more than that. The ability to combine long-term strategic elements with the short-term tactical potential that regenerating health provides (as each fight can now be individually challenging) is very exciting. I do hope they implement limited resting, as the stamina/health system does nothing at all to address the problems that limitless resting creates. But I also want the health/stamina system.
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.
Second, I don't see how your suggested encounter layout would eliminate save-scumming. Perhaps you're saying that the long-term nature of encounter strings (the spaces between rests) would make save-scumming less useful? You're right, but only sort of. At any given time, you either have enough resources remaining to win the next encounter or you don't. If you have enough, you can still keep reloading until you win. Save scumming still exists. If you don't have enough resources, you're doomed, which is just frustrating and not at all fun. In fact, in this case, the ability to reload an earlier save is the only thing that will keep you playing the game. In this case, save scumming not only still exists, it becomes necessary to progress. So I don't see how your proposed encounter setup would discourage save scumming (incidentally, I don't think stamina/health will either, though it will help to reduce the incidence of the necessary case).
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.
-
Shrek, from what the devs are saying, your most powerful spells won't be on cooldown. They'll be tied to resting. It's only the weak spells that are on cooldown. So yeah, you can cast a bunch of spells, but choosing when to use your best spells will still be an important strategic decision.
Also, except in a very few areas, there was nothing in IE preventing you from resting after each encounter. So, if you wanted, you could in fact spam your best spell every encounter. Not saying I like this, but don't hold up IE as an example of something it's not.
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:
This is an excellent analysis.I would add some points:
Irrespective of a game type, it is important that the game be balanced for all the play-styles the game allows and for those players that the game is targeting. It makes no sense to make game with (arbitrarily) hard combat for casual players (e.g. players of Farmville). Also, the game should not contain any elements that ANNOY the player, ruining his enjoyment (unnecessarily long quests like in NWN2, GATHER YOUR PARTY, trash mobs of skeletons, zombies and shadows etc).
One of the real tasks of the game designer I believe (since I am NOT a developer) would be balancing the challenge and the annoyance. It is is easy to confuse the two if one is not very bright. For example IWD2 was MEANT to be a hack and slash game with challenging combat. I had tough enemies and required smart planning of tactics before engaging in fighting or being punished for mistakes. This made playing the game satisfying.
As opposed to that NWN2 had surreptitiously large number of dungeons full of unnecessary enemies just so to find that you had to endure another dungeon to complete the main objective (Old own well anyone?).
This separation is necessary to make the game interesting. Please understand that there IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE IDEA that a hack and slash game have NO real story. In fact a well designed hack and slash game with good story is the most desirable kind of game from a general perspective. I am sure that nobody would have complained that a great game like Escape from tournament planet would only be benefited by great combat.
With this thing in mind we can discuss the system of stamina and health.
The question is, who is being addressed by this game?
Obsidian has announced that they want the IE game audience.
IE games were characteristic by good combat and great story. I am not talking about a particular mechanics like RtwP but rather the general feel of challenge provided by games like BGs and IWDs all the while experiencing great story of PST.
There is no doubt in my mind (neither should there be in yours) that these games were NOT PARAGONS OF GAMING. Yeah. Sacrilege. Bring on the stones and the sticks.
These games did suffer from numerous faults and ridding them would only improve them. "Where is the problem with such as assertion?", you ask. The problem, in my view lies in understanding that the broken mechanics (part of it) of these games was easily repairable and had no need to be replaced or removed.
A frequently cited problem of IE games is rest-spamming.
It is quite easy to realize that such problem can be quite decently solved by simply managing the combat encounters more intelligently than whining about how that is detrimental to the game. If the game is designed in a way so that the player party has to move from encounter to encounter (until you reach a safe spot) without an opportunity to rest in between, there would be no rest-spamming. Some might feel that this is too tough. Not so. It is simply made challenging by adding enough resources after every encounter that are just necessary to win the next encounter but still keeping it challenging. IWDs did this quite well. This would allow challenge (NOT frustration or annoyance) to be experienced only enhancing the game.
The second problem cited often is save-scumming:
In my view this is the strangest complaint playing a computer game. In a PnP game (to which a lot of people draw unfair comparison to cRPGs) the DM provides a flexible scaffold to play within the game, so that player misfortune (through bad die rolls) is mitigated unless he is playing terribly. A computer game is also a scaffold but a rigid one. That means good tactics but bad luck may result in losing huge lot of effort. This is solved by saving the game. If the encounters are designed as described above, there would BE NO WAY TO EXPLOIT SAVE-RELAOD system. This is a an easier and an elegent solution compared to a complete overhaul which could result in broken mechanics like so many non IE cRPG classics.
I believe that the system proposed here for stamina and health is a result of these considerations gone off track (trying to avoid rest-spamming or save-scumming). There is NO reason to get rid of a non-broken system in IE games which is simply a victim of poor design of encounters.
-
They are focusing on changing the after and before of battle, and I completely agree on that.
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.
-
"relatively" can mean a lot of things. it could range from a regeneration of 1 point per second to 1 point per minute to instant full recovery at the end of the battle but no regeneration in the combat and so on. also there will probably be painkiller potions in the game and every class will have at least 1 skill that restores some stamina.
the barbarian for example can go berserk and stop losing stamina for a bit.
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?
-
snip
I would be only happy if stamina is not restored automatically as it should be apparent.
Although:
Stamina represents how much general abuse a character can take before falling unconscious. Characters lose it quickly and regain it relatively rapidly, even without assistance -
The part of "hit on the stomach" is the irrecuperable hp loss. The part of "this wound hurts as hell" is the stamina damage.
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.
-
1
-
Time
. 
Solving The Rest Problem: Limited resting, or respawning enemies?
in Pillars of Eternity: Stories (Spoiler Warning!)
Posted · Edited by 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.