Debate: Hirelings & Henchmen

[aVENGER]

There is a bit of a catch 22 with AI. If it's poor it spoils the believability of the game. And if it's too good, then your character will be reduced to being a spectator while the super AI cleans up.

 

I disagree with you here. Wheather the game is difficult or not doesn't solely depend on the quality of the henchmen AI, it is a matter of proper game/level design and balance. For example, if an encounter is balanced for a 4 player party and you only have 1 henchmen it will naturally be more difficult, no matter how good the henchmen AI is.

 

You can see the beginings of it even with NwNs poor AI when you have two fighter types. Most encounters your participation is optional as you just shepard them around.

 

Wrong. There was nothing special in the NWN henchmen AI, especially not in the fighter scripts. They were simple 'attack nearest' variations. However, the OC henchmen had illegal feats and much better stats than the PC could get at the same level, thus they were superior in combat early on.

 

If you have more AI companions the effect becomes more pronounced, even more so if they are well programmed and efficient.

 

IMO, as long as the AI does not cheat by employing illegal operations which a human player couldn't use it doesn't make the game easier. Likewise, poor henchmen AI does not neceserrily make a game harder... just more frustrating.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

well aren't you forgetting that it works both ways?? if you AI partymembers have a better AI, so will your opponents!

it's about difficulty, increase the enemies abilities and you will see a sever decrease in your own party's effecienty!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not really no (not forgetting that is) It would simply end up with super AI on one side super AI on the other and the player floundering in the middle.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I disagree with you here. Wheather the game is difficult or not doesn't solely depend on the quality of the henchmen AI, it is a matter of proper game/level design and balance. For example, if an encounter is balanced for a 4 player party and you only have 1 henchmen it will naturally be more difficult, no matter how good the henchmen AI is.

 

Wrong. There was nothing special in the NWN henchmen AI, especially not in the fighter scripts. They were simple 'attack nearest' variations. However, the OC henchmen had illegal feats and much better stats than the PC could get at the same level, thus they were superior in combat early on.

 

IMO, as long as the AI does not cheat by employing illegal operations which a human player couldn't use it doesn't make the game easier. Likewise, poor henchmen AI does not neceserrily make a game harder... just more frustrating.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It does however have a huge influence and is the determining difficulty factor unless you stack the rules. If the monster AI just mills around doing nothing then it's not going to be much of a challenge.

 

That was my point really. There is nothing special about the fighter AI yet it can still clean house while you sit back and drink your tea except in "boss" encounters.Speacil AI could probably handle the boss encounters too.

 

Of course good AI on your side will make the game easier just look at those combat sims like SWAT or even the bots in some FPS games. Not sure how you could come to any other conclusion? Poor AI makes the game harder because you have to bail out the AI (or just let it die and then resurect it).

 

If you have universaly good AI on both sides, then a novice player is going to be watching more than playing. Which is what I meant about AI's being a catch 22.

 

In the end it's something only the developers can work out because it's all about playtesting rather than theory.

[Lucas]

I could care less. I don't use party members/henchmen/whatever for combat purposes. I let them stay in the party for story purposes. I want to see their personality and how they interact with you and other NPCs. I don't want them to be robots who only say a sentence here and there during major story cutscenes. If that's the case, then they fail as party members and I could care less how useful they are in combat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While I understand that is fun to have multiple party members for strategic purposes, especially during complex fights, I'm with Llyranor here: the most important thing for me is to have good story related interactions with them (romances with males or females and other relationships like yours with Carth and the others in KOTOR), being a party formed by three, four, eight or whatever.

And yes, even with only another companion, if the world is then filled with interesting non-generic NPCs that would make up for diversity.

[Niten_Ryu]

I try to win every battle and take no or very little damage. I just can't think of any way how AI could do this, unless you enjoy computer game movies. Most of time fights are very much against human player but still very easy. Now let the AI fight enemy AI and you lose more than you win.

 

Most of time I take AI party members because of roleplay purpose but I really hate how they behave in combat situations. All are idiots or suffer various mental diseases that I can't cure in-game (post-traumatic stress disorder, schizophrenia ect ect). Good thing that they usually die rather fast and I can solo rest of game (of course if game is good otherwise, I have to keep party members alive during my 2nd or 3rd run just see if they bring anything to storyline, writing or game mechanics other than AI).

[Nightblade]

Companion AI doesn't necessarily mean good RP. Even if you micromanage them, they could still be "alive". They could even refuse if the party-leader gives them orders, or ask you questions if you remove something from their inventory etc. Micromanagement could even ADD some RP value to the game, as it would be a ongoing dicsussion between the leader and the companions when you actually order them to do something.

 

For me, even if it is a crpg, controlling my characters in combat is the most important thing. What if you face a group of enemies with good AI, and all you get to do is watch what happens? What kind of game would that be?

 

 

N.

[Loof]

Of course AI controlled companions doesn't automaticaly make good roleplaying. But for me controlling multiple characters dillutes the roleplying since I can't concentrate on my main character as much.

That being said it's not a huge deal and the roleplaying can be almost as good either way.

 

And if you end up just watching the to good AI fight thats realy a issue I would blame on bad game balanceing and not on such genreal design decisions as AI companions or full controll of party.

 

EDIT: maybe concetrate is a bad word for what I mean, what I mean is that if I have controll of multiple characters it feels mor elike playing some kind of demigod or invisible tactician and not roleplaying one person in the gameworld.

[AlanC9]

For me, even if it is a crpg, controlling my characters in combat is the most important thing. What if you face a group of enemies with good AI, and all you get to do is watch what happens? What kind of game would that be?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, you don't want a game that plays itself. But having total control over anyone but your own PC doesn't make much sense . The ideal situation would be to have total PC control plus order-giving for the NPC companions -- oh, and make the game unpauseable, too. (Some folks mention SOCOM as an example; haven't played it myself so I can't judge). I thought Arcanum's limited command interface was fairly good

 

Though given the limited technologies of today, it's really just a choice of different kinds of bad. Right now the choices seem to be somewhat dumb companions or a perfect telepathic union.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No, you don't want a game that plays itself. But having total control over anyone but your own PC doesn't make much sense .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes it does. You only have to watch how a well intergrated party works to realise that AI is a long way off from getting anywhere near that.

 

If people have issues seperating gameplay issues from character, thats something they really need to resolve.

 

SOCOM isnt a good comparitive to an RPG. Especially when you start adding in the magic and special powers.

[Volourn]

"If people have issues seperating gameplay issues from character, thats something they really need to resolve."

 

No, troll, you are wrong. Rople-playing is about role-playing one's character not a half dozen of the DM created characetrs at the same time. To say it has anythiung to do with any "issues" a person has is just flame bait.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

"If people have issues seperating gameplay issues from character, thats something they really need to resolve."

 

No, troll, you are wrong. Rople-playing is about role-playing one's character not a half dozen of the DM created characetrs at the same time.   To say it has anythiung to do with any "issues" a person has is just flame bait.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No your wrong there is nothing that says you only roleplay one character, it is not a rule. In fact D&D makes provision for playing more than one character in a small groups and it's something that a lot of roleplayers have no problem at all with.

[Volourn]

"In fact D&D makes provision for playing more than one character in a small groups and it's something that a lot of roleplayers have no problem at all with. "

 

I have seen many people play and control multiple characters; but I have seen ZERO role-play multiple characters. There's a big difference there.

[Fionavar]

Could we try not to bait one another? Discuss the topic - not the person ... heard?

 

FLoSD.OBE

[Volourn]

Ok. I admit it. I was the evil one this time.

[Nightblade]

Who cares if roleplaying just one character is "the true roleplaying way" or not. It's about creating a good crpg which is fun to play for one person sitting in front of a computer-screen, something which is quite different than PnP gaming.

 

They tried to create that *feeling* i NWN, and watch what happened. Most players still think the old Infinity-engine games are way funner to play than NWN. Besides it gets really boring to just play a mage or a fighter throughout the entire story. Sometimes you want to play a thief and do a few stealth-missions, other times you'd like to concoct some weird potions with a mage in your laboratory, or run a castle with your brave knight. In PnP groups we have each our character, but in crpgs you're just one person playing. There is no way AI characters can give you the feedback a RL PnP-group can give you, so why bother trying to create the perfect PnP-feeling in a crpg?

 

Also, no-pause is just plain idiotic. It's not like we want some Duke-Nuke'em online fast ongoing non-stop action in a crpg where you have to plan and prepare spells, use strategies etc. Sounds like a mess beyong belief. You'd be hopelessly dependant on quick-buttons and RL reflexes, which would make fighers infinitely much easier to play than for instance a mage. On the other hand you have the tedious turn-based nonsense, which makes the game look like chess. RT with pause is the best way. If you don't want to pause, you can always skip it. It's not like you *have* to press the spacebar. It's up to you.

 

 

N.

[Loof]

Im not saying that AI controll is the only true way. Its just something me (and aperantly some others prefer.

There is no right or wrong way in choices like this. So when I said it give a truer roleplay feeling that is my opinion and not fact, but it's an opinion i will stick too.

[GhostofAnakin]

-- oh, and make the game unpauseable, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would personally hate that. I like the ability to pause the action to set up what I want my PC and my party to do. But that's just me.

[Rosbjerg]

yes pause is a big piece of a RP games to me .. since that's how PnP is as well .. you have time to sit and think about your actions and it's not about how fast you are at pressing buttons .. if I want that I'll play a FPS with roleplaying elements! which I do from time to time, since that's cool too .. besides as other people said, you don't *have* to press pause!!

[Kasoroth]

I can see merits on both sides of this debate, and I think that the best option is somewhere in the middle. The major issues as I see it are as follows:

 

1) In general, there is no "game world" reason to assume that the party is some kind of hive mind, so it is more natural for the player to play the role of a character rather than the role of a group. While some people might be capable of playing multiple independent characters simultaneously, I think that many more end up "playing" the other characters as tactical extensions of the main character, or simply playing the whole party as a single tactical entity rather than as characters in a story.

 

2) AI that can act in a somewhat intelligent fashion is difficult but not impossible to make, but an AI that can effectively communicate with the player to plan tactics (and/or strategy) is still probably not possible.

 

3) Even a really good AI could be a bad thing if it doesn't have a way of communicating with the player to plan tactics for a battle. Imagine a party of 6 characters, 1 PC with 5 NPCs. If the AI was good enough to be at all competitive with a human player, then the player becomes largely unnecessary in battle because 5 good AIs would not be that much worse than 5 good AIs and an average human player.

 

The ideal solution to this problem, in my opinion, would be one that clearly reflected that the player is playing a character, not a hive mind, but still allowed the player (who is assumed to be playing the leader of the group) to make the tactical choices that make battles interesting and fun to play, rather than something that you just watch, or a struggle to keep moronic NPCs from getting themselves killed.

 

I was playing BG2 again recently and this reminded me of the morale system that the BG games used for NPC party members. Having party members panic when they're badly injured was an interesting idea, but I think the main flaw with the BG2 implementation is that it was too oversimplified.

 

Rather than simply having "morale failure" I would suggest some kind of leadership/trust system. When a new party member joins your party, their initial trust might depend on the character, the situation in which they're joining, and your charisma/leadership score. If combats go badly (the NPC takes severe damage or dies, or other party members take severe damage or die), the NPC's trust will decrease, but a high leadership score would reduce the loss. As the party gains combat experience, the NPCs' trust will increase, and a high leadership score would improve this increase.

 

There might be conversation options before some major battles to inspire your NPCs so that they really believe in the value of the cause (this could require leadership checks, and include options for both "noble" and "selfish" inspiration, depending on the nature of your party), and the trust penalties for injuries in that battle would be reduced or eliminated, so that the trust you've built up doesn't necessarily get thrown away as soon as you face a really tough boss fight that leaves you almost dead but victorious over a great foe.

 

Once this system is in place, they can have not just morale failures as in BG, but also leadership failures. These leadership failures would not cause the NPC to run around in a blind panic, they would still fight to the best of the AI's ability, but they would essentially be operating on their own with only the AI's extremely limited capacity for group tactics.

 

Some characters would have a more independent personality, and would require much higher trust values to keep under control in a stressful situation, while others would be more cooperative. With this system the game would play very differently depending on your leadership score and which NPCs you have in your party. If you keep the same group through the whole game, and you manage your tactics well so they don't get beat up too badly, even a character with low leadership might eventually gain the trust of even the most unruly characters, while a charismatic but inept leader who gathers a different group for every adventure might never really gain their trust.

 

This could add some interesting strategic elements to the game if certain NPCs were better suited to certain parts of the game, and you had to make a choice between keeping the members you have, who trust you, or switching some of them out for others with appropriately specialized skill sets who might not be as trusting and cooperative.

 

This system would allow the various NPCs to show their own personalities in combat, while still giving the player tactical control of the battle. It's just that the tactical control would be limited in an attempt to reflect that the player is playing the leader of a group, not the hive mind of a collective entity. It's not a perfect simulation of leading a party of adventurers, but it's the best approximation of it that I can think of give the technology that's available.

 

- Kasoroth

[AlanC9]

SOCOM isnt a good comparitive to an RPG. Especially when you start adding in the magic and special powers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why isn't it? It's small-unit tactical combat. What's the difference?

 

To put it another way, why should RPGs stick to a command-and-control model that's thoroughly discredited? Perfect information and total control were considered outmoded as far back as the 70s. You just couldn't do much about them until computers.