Symmetrical Combat Mechanics

[AdaMusic]

It must be said that the last line of your post has nothing to do with the thread's proposal. If anything, a sickly beggar is more likely to be a 'challenge' to seasoned adventurers in scaling (kill it with fire) combat systems.

Darn, I had hoped I accomplished an understanding. That the core concern was enemies having difficulty or ease beyond justification, making the setting appear silly.

 

Are sickly beggars a challenge in Baldur's Gate? Certainly not.

 

Unfortunately, supposed common city guards in Amn are. But that's scaling game design scaling everything. Sure, they probably didn't want you to burn the city because you aren't low level anymore, but that's not reason to make everything in the city a high level opponent. A better option would be to add high level oponents to places of interest (such as important magic shops) and make the player suffer his low reputation (if all he does is pillaging without care and no PR work).

 

So while this shows that scaling game design isn't abolished just by rules-based game design, its also clear that the latter is a good first step to keep writers and encounter designers from causing the former without justification.

 

I totally agree with you, and the thread creator.

 

I also have a feeling Tale misunderstood the thread.. what the thread is about however implies hard and easy enemies.

 

A very good counter example to Baldur's Gate magnicificent "game system" (in lack of better words) are The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and Oblivion. These games have horrible enemy scaling, even to an extent where the game is unplayable. But worst of all is that it is terribly unlogical. At level 1 you are able to beat 7-8 guards without problem. Even without any gear (apart from a weapon). While you might have, depending on your build, have huge problems with the same guards at level 20. This is a good example of a worst case gameplay system.

Edited September 17, 2012 by AdaMusic

[fkldnhlsdngsfnhlsndlg]

Agreed. I want to fight enemies that have the same abilities that my party does, the same stats, the same gear. I want to overcome them through superior tactics and planning, not because the enemy has a -50% damage modifier that lets me power through everything and win just because I am a human. Even small groups should be a threat provided they are of similar level to the player's party - none of the usual steamrolling through waves of monsters. Keep encounters smaller, more focused, and more memorable, instead of the lazy modern approach of dropping in groups of 5 generic mobs every 20 feet.

 

I do think it's okay to have trash mobs, weaker enemies, stronger bosses, etc. of course. You need those for variety, otherwise combat becomes monotonous and has little rhythm to it. You need weak enemies and strong enemies to provide contrast to the player and give a yard stick as to how well he/she is doing, just as you need both complicated and lengthy quests with C&C as well as fetch quests that can be completed in 2 minutes.

 

RE: friendly fire etc. - do it like Dragon Age. Turn it off on easy difficulty, make it 50% effective on normal, and 100% effective on hard. Could do the same for damage, resistances, etc. as well for players who don't want to have to play perfectly to win.

Edited September 18, 2012 by sea

[Grimlorn]

The rules that govern the PC and his companions should be fundamentally the same rules that govern every other being in the game (I'll allow exceptions for gods). The PC shouldn't be immune to stun abilities while still being able to stun his enemies. The PC shouldn't hit vastly harder than his enemies do. The PC should not have vastly fewer hit points than his enemies do. Friendly fire should be equally deadly for all sides.

 

Asymmetrical combat mechanics reached a laughable level with DA2, and that needs to be reversed. Eternity is just the place to do that.

You really shouldn't have to post this, but these days you have to be sure people don't forget the basics and think they should have to stroke the player's ego by making the game too easy. Edited September 18, 2012 by Grimlorn

[DYWYPI]

Oh, yes, this. This a hundred times. This is one of the things I really didn't like about 4E. Obviously, dragons or people with unique abilties will have powers that the PC doesn't have access to, but they still need to use the same system for acquiring and using those powers - the laws of the universe aren't different because one guy is being controlled by a player. It's a great balancing aid, and it's also one of those little things that really goes a long way in making the game universe feel less like a game.

 

On a related note, I also hope the combat system will have the same degree of transparency that D&D-based cRPGs tend to have. DA:O's homespun system really put me off with how difficult it was to actually tell what was actually going on under the hood in fights. Bring back dice rolls!

[Grayman]

I like all types of games where the opponents have similar abilities and play by the same rules as the player. If the game cheats too much with immunities and effects the player start losing a lot of their tactics. Make allowances for special cases and give some unique statuses, abilities, and items but keep the default as normal rules where another player could be swapped in for the ai into a fair game.

[eimatshya]

I would definitely prefer a system in which NPCs operate according to more-or-less the same rules as PCs. That is, a human NPC of roughly the same level should not have ten times as much HP as the PC. I always found the human boss fights (e.g. Loghain, Ser Cuthrien, Arl Howe) in DA:O to be really tiresome because these NPCs had ginormous health bars, and the fights just became a process of whaling on the enemy and periodically healing yourself for ten minutes until s/he dies. It made me feel like a panzy who was incredibly outclassed and only won because I had a ton of health potions.

 

In contrast, in Final Fantasy Tactics, human enemies always had comperable hitpoints to your character. They might have special abilities, but you felt like this adversary existed in the same world as your character. It also meant that combat was more about strategy and less about drinking several gallons worth of health potions.

 

I really hope that Project Eternity takes the latter approach to enemy design as it not only promotes fun, tactical combat but also makes the game world feel more authentic and immersive.

[1varangian]

It must be said that the last line of your post has nothing to do with the thread's proposal. If anything, a sickly beggar is more likely to be a 'challenge' to seasoned adventurers in scaling (kill it with fire) combat systems.

Darn, I had hoped I accomplished an understanding. That the core concern was enemies having difficulty or ease beyond justification, making the setting appear silly.

 

Are sickly beggars a challenge in Baldur's Gate? Certainly not.

 

Unfortunately, supposed common city guards in Amn are. But that's scaling game design scaling everything. Sure, they probably didn't want you to burn the city because you aren't low level anymore, but that's not reason to make everything in the city a high level opponent. A better option would be to add high level oponents to places of interest (such as important magic shops) and make the player suffer his low reputation (if all he does is pillaging without care and no PR work).

 

So while this shows that scaling game design isn't abolished just by rules-based game design, its also clear that the latter is a good first step to keep writers and encounter designers from causing the former without justification.

 

Let's not assume PE will have a DnD like power curve where high level PC's can mow through hundreds or thousands of low level opponents.

 

Perhaps they will make the power curve a bit more realistic in what a lone warrior can do against many. It will also help make the setting more believable if a single high level PC can't wipe out the entire city guard at will.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Not much more to say say than what others have said but a consistent system of spells and abilities is great for immersion.

[teknoman2]

problems with asymetrical combat mechanics existed even in baldur's gate. based on the rule system, to hit someone with AC -9 you had to get: x (dice roll) + y (attack bonus from stats) >= 19, yet some enemies (Sarevok most of all) could land a hit with any roll except 1 that was reserved for critical miss. or my main character could hit anything with a maximum AC of -3 with a dice roll of 2, and he was getting a shipload of 1s on every fight, especialy againsts enemies that were considered bosses. also if you used a spell on someone who was imune to its effects, you would get a message saying something like "the spell had no effect"... still i often got a message saying "spell cast: silence" "enemy mage: silenced" "enemy mage: casts fireball" and im like "WTF?" (in BG there were no "silent spell" or "still spell" abilities).

i do hope not to see stuff like that in the game

[Paul D]

I agree with the general concept of this thread, to try and avoid unrealistic advantages to either PC or NPC. I think it is a difficult one though, are we looking for equal probability of outcome (either side can win) depending on the tactics employed. The analogy I think of is car racing, where there is one make, one model, one engine type etc, and the only difference is minor suspension changes and the skill of the driver. The outcome in that situation is to measure the skills of one driver vs another to determine the winner.

In an RPG combat system, is it about strategy (correct formation position, application of appropriate power etc); or simply a game of who can drain the others hit points faster. Where friendly fire is concerned, a poor strategy (everybody is killed) can have other environmental outcomes (that faction goes to war with you endlessly).

Given this game proposes Formations I am hopeful a system balanced more towards application of strategy, than asymmetrical adjustments.

[Haplok]

The rules that govern the PC and his companions should be fundamentally the same rules that govern every other being in the game (I'll allow exceptions for gods). The PC shouldn't be immune to stun abilities while still being able to stun his enemies. The PC shouldn't hit vastly harder than his enemies do. The PC should not have vastly fewer hit points than his enemies do. Friendly fire should be equally deadly for all sides.

 

Asymmetrical combat mechanics reached a laughable level with DA2, and that needs to be reversed. Eternity is just the place to do that.

 

You have my full support!

 

Same stats, skills, talents and spells for NPCs and PCs (well, except some special abilities for monsters, like tail swipe, disease carrier, poison fangs, flight, firebreath, wing buffet, petrifying gaze, aura of despair and such - where their physiology permits).

 

DA2 was truely ridiculous with the gap of damage PCs were making vs NPCs... or health bars of PC vs NPCs... and boss enemies... that was just ridiculous.

And quit with the new MMO fashion of making armor rating % damage reduction against enemy of X level. That's just annoying! Or X armor being Y% reduction period. This is silly as well. Armor should have the capacity to absorb X damage, while enemies deal variable damage - some agile opponents deal less, but hit more often, some tougher enemies hit like a truck...

Skyrim also got the armor system wrong. But the assymetrical spellcasting was even worse.

 

Some of the best, most memorable fights in crpgs ever were the party versus party encounters... in BG games... and in some NWN2 mods. Where both parties were evenly matched and on the same playing field. Please Obsidian, bring those back!

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would definitely prefer a system in which NPCs operate according to more-or-less the same rules as PCs.

More-or-less the same would be wholly adequate, and a massive step forward from what we've seen in modern AAA titles.

Let's not assume PE will have a DnD like power curve where high level PC's can mow through hundreds or thousands of low level opponents.

I think the D&D power curve worked well in CRPGs, as long as you didn't advance all the way from 1-20. Since I prefer low-level gameplay, I'd like to see a D&D power curve with characters advancing from 1-8, but players who enjoy more fantastic content might enjoy levels 10-16 instead. But either way, I don't think it was D&D's curve that was the problem - it was using all of it in a single game.

 

A shallower power curve solves a great many problems.

[Juggie]

I want to say I fully support symmetry in combat mechanics. I've been advocating this concept in several discussions for a couple of years now. I hope this game can achieve this, because it's what makes games not only much more believable, but also lets you base your tactical decisions on the knowledge that the enemy has certain bounds and cannot do things that are impossible within the setting/combat mechanics.

Just look at Jagged Alliance 2. The game rules are (almost) perfectly symmetric. Every enemy has stats within [0,100] range, uses real in-game items and equipment and acts the same way the player's characters do. This is one of the things that make the game one of the best tactical games ever created. I know that it's not a true cRPG, but taking ideas from the game could make the combat much more tactical and interesting.

[Delterius]

It must be said that the last line of your post has nothing to do with the thread's proposal. If anything, a sickly beggar is more likely to be a 'challenge' to seasoned adventurers in scaling (kill it with fire) combat systems.

Darn, I had hoped I accomplished an understanding. That the core concern was enemies having difficulty or ease beyond justification, making the setting appear silly.

 

Are sickly beggars a challenge in Baldur's Gate? Certainly not.

 

Unfortunately, supposed common city guards in Amn are. But that's scaling game design scaling everything. Sure, they probably didn't want you to burn the city because you aren't low level anymore, but that's not reason to make everything in the city a high level opponent. A better option would be to add high level oponents to places of interest (such as important magic shops) and make the player suffer his low reputation (if all he does is pillaging without care and no PR work).

 

So while this shows that scaling game design isn't abolished just by rules-based game design, its also clear that the latter is a good first step to keep writers and encounter designers from causing the former without justification.

 

Let's not assume PE will have a DnD like power curve where high level PC's can mow through hundreds or thousands of low level opponents.

 

Perhaps they will make the power curve a bit more realistic in what a lone warrior can do against many. It will also help make the setting more believable if a single high level PC can't wipe out the entire city guard at will.

 

As said before, DnD is exponential so it only gets crazy in higher levels even though you can argue that things are already fantastical by fifth level. So that might not even be a relevant discussion.

 

But, I don't think that really powerful PCs is that much of a problem. Its when a really powerful PC seems to transcend mortality (in the setting's sense), which isn't the case. In a world people can reach level 20 (as your PC did), then while your PC might be a rare ocurrence, he's hardly unique. There should be forces (not necessarily characters) that surpass you even if by the 'maximum level'.

 

Simply put, if a city or a nation exist in a world where people can reach level 20, then it must have ways to deal with level 20 people, if not level 20 people of their own.

 

This is why I said 'put relevant challenges in interesting places (if you're level 15, you're not going to, say, steal from a shop that sells common swords) and eventually make the PC suffer if he abuses his power too much (but in case you do raise hell in <Nation>, then some powerful group of elite mages or fighters or whatever, even if other adventurers, should be hunting you and making your life difficult - not necessarily kill you, if resting is limited and cities aren't safe for you, you won't be able to advance through the story).

Edited September 18, 2012 by Delterius