Don't make combat repetitive

[Kore]

One fight should not be similar to another fight, I got bored of Dragon Age quickly because each fight merged into the next. In DA every group of baddies was of equal power to the other and used similar tactics. In Baldur's Gate you might be fighting a level 7 mad cleric one minute and then a horde of gibberlings the next. If I wanted to grind endlessly similar mobs I would play WoW.

 

I really hope that PE goes more along the route of BG than DA,, though judging by their pledge for no level scaling and tactical gameplay they seem to already know this. Just my 2 gp.

[Pshaw]

I agree with you here. Combat takes up too large a percentage of your play time to be left to feel boring or grindy. I do however feel that BG2 wasn't even all that great in fight variety. Even if swapped back and forth between 1 hard monster, 2-3 above average monsters or 5-10 cannon fodder monsters I found the same tactics pretty much got me through every encounter.

 

Sadly I can't think of any positive examples of fun and interesting combat in games like this that aren't turn based. Hopefully they can keep it from feeling repetitive in the real time with pause system because while many games don't do it poorly I don't think I've ever really played one where combat was anything but the least interesting part of the game for me.

 

Part of me wants to say make positioning matter a lot. Let your orientation and distance to the enemy matter. Let line of sight over other party members matter for ranged and casters. Add lots of ground effects that you want to move out of/lure enemies out of. I think this might be the simplest way to keep combat a bit more dynamic. That said I can see it becoming annoying if it was the hallmark of every single fight so maybe it's not a whole solution but 1 part of it.

[Hormalakh]

I concur and I think different enemies having different strategies would also help in this regard. I would like to have to think about how to defeat a certain group of enemies. Here are some examples.

 

1- Have an enemy that while weak individually, likes to attack parties in hordes. While each enemy might be easy when fighting them off one by one, there are just way too many to handle at an individual basis. These sort of enemies require AOE effect weapons, spells or tactics.

 

2- Have an enemy that while lumbering slowly towards your party, would absolutely destroy each member if you got in too close. Thus, havin to defeat this enemy would require ranged battle, and perhaps some kiting strategy.

 

3- Have an enemy which summons other fallen enemies quickly and so it becomes a tactical choice as to whether you should focus on killing the summoner or the summoned.

This is a direct rip-off from Bioshock: Infinite's siren enemy.

 

 

4- Have enemies that call out to nearby camps if they detect your party. Thus the best way to defeat these enemies is to quickly dispatch them with a thief.

 

And so on and so forth.

[Ignatius]

I agree. Please make Project Eternity a good game, Obsidian!

[Solonik]

I agree. Please make Project Eternity a good game, Obsidian!

 

lol.

 

To be honest, I don't know how to "not make combat a grind" in this type of game. I could think of a few things for Fallout (basically what FO Tactics did, plus flanking. However, with a game like this you spam your spells, bash everyone with your magic sword, or spam backstab. I can't imagine how it can be made "not repetitive," without making it obvious - like stupid elemental resistances on everyone.

 

Edit: I would like to see something other than skill levels and equipment affect combat - tactics of some sort, without just making the lower end enemies plain stupid. I absolutely cannot think of how to execute this in this type of game though - maybe formations, tactical retreats (enemy running the hell away), etc. Basically, it would be interesting to see well-equipped bandits to lose to some well-trained ranger type guys who overcome them with tactics. Of course, tactics only matter because there are no clear "power levels" in the real world, but it would still be VERY interesting to see something like this.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Solonik

[Pipyui]

Hormalakh's got some good ideas up there. I think one good solution, though perhaps this was expected, is to have many scripted encounters. This can be used to provide mini objectives during combat, allow enemies to make full use of their terrain, grant them more advanced tactical symbiosis, or any number of things. Or just produce a wider range of NPC AIs.

Anything to give hostiles a little more character than "I approach, and I swing. I approach, and I swing. I ..."

 

Swarmers should try to actively surround and sepparate the party. Archers and wizards should have guards that will (relatively) hold their ground to defend them. Rangers can switch to melee when confronted, but should switch back when it's not necessary. Mages can blast at you from on high as you try to cross a river (wading water decreasing your combat effectiveness), with a melee troup positioned on the other side to hold you in. These kind of things could make combat more dynamic and rewarding for me.

[rjshae]

Besides the types of enemies you face, combat can be made interesting through the tactical situation. Variations in the terrain types, opportunistic cover, deception and surprise maneuvers, unusual environments, party handicaps, and even negotiations can all make a fight unique and memorable.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know... these are all obvious. Yet they rarely seem to be employed in cRPGs to liven things up.

 

Another feature I'd like to see more frequently is the opportunity for the party to plan out an attack in advance, whether through scouting or from information obtained by an informant. Battle planning can be a fun element of the tabletop experience, but in a cRPG it often ends up being done after the first play through. Why not let us do it beforehand?

[GhostofAnakin]

A variation in enemies and their tactics would certainly be nice. Walking down an alleyway and running into the same five thugs I just dispatched a few seconds ago in a previous alleyway gets pretty tedious.

[Osvir]

One thing I brought up in another thread was enemies being able to use the same tactics you can, of course.

 

Can the AI be designed into the game by the Developers/Beta-people actually play a mock-up AI internally and just record it? (like playing chess, not multiplayer feature but simply within the development interface) or is AI always built with scripts and code? (e.g., externally, is it possible to build an AI internally?)

 

So an enemy will use a barricade, they will light torches and they will cast Grease spells at you and now you are locked inside a room. Wizards teleporting through walls... enemies knocking you back and overwhelm you if you get too comfortable at a choke point. Enemies on walls that you can't reach but have to fight with some other type of method.... getting flanked, falling into traps and falling for baits (why am I always pulling the enemy to me? Can't they do that to me as well?).

 

Flying beasts? Shadow of the Colossus beasts/boss(es)?

 

Quick defensive spells... make some combat skill based and with skill shots (A Fireball is a Skill Shot because you need to aim it).

 

When your Wizard recites aloud some common spell or whatnot I want to see enemies move accordingly (If I am doing an incantation of a Fireball spell I want to see my enemies react to that and scatter so that not all of them take damage... this is all difficulty level though).

 

League of Legends has tons of fun skill shots

 

EDIT: Being able to disrupt the Attack Motion or even dodge an attack. In League of Legends when I play Janna, the opponent carry that I am laning against attacks my guy that I'm supporting and I see the bullet in the air but I react and throw a shield so I manage to negate all that damage that would've been done. With pause functions that method is going to be easier to do but it still requires reaction on the spacebar.

 

Reaction is always fun in combat scenarios in any game. APM, Hotkey, Micro-management.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Osvir

[Hormalakh]

Another way to vary up tactics would be to bring in positioning into the equation. Perhaps some enemy attacks are stronger when the party is dispersed (some sort of hurricane-type area of effect with a eye of the storm where no damage occurs - thus you want to bunch up your party into a small tight group) or when tightly grouped (AOE spells).

 

I think the point is just to think about combat mechanics already in place in the game and to utilize those as sort of "puzzle-type" scenarios where you can be effective (although less so) by just attacking groups willy-nilly, or you can be more effective utilizing dynamic strategies. By "Dynamic Strategies," I mean those strategies that involve making real-time, in-battle decisions (how to position party members, what spells to use, special combat-type skills, who to focus first) as opposed to static strategies, where all you do is equip the right armor and weapon and hope for the best whilst spamming massive damage spells and high DPS ranged weapons.

 

Use the combat skills given to classes and build enemy types that take these skills into account. We had a lot of the beginnings of this in BG2 (and I have no experience with IWD, so it might be case that this was considered there), with turning "undead", focusing mages, etc, but the AIs of enemies could have used a bit more work and enemies could have varied their attack routines as well (every mage always did the same thing, their spellbooks only differed).

Edited November 13, 2012 by Hormalakh

[mcmanusaur]

I agree. Please make Project Eternity a good game, Obsidian!

Ignatius for President!

[Hormalakh]

I agree. Please make Project Eternity a good game, Obsidian!

 

Heh. While I do appreciate the humor behind this comment, I did want to make a point. There are a lot of things that Obsidian can do to make this a "good game." The features in making this game "good" are innumerable, but there are certain features that matter more to players than other features. I think it's important for players to describe what features and aspects are most important to them and how deep and complex these features should be, so that the devs know what our expectations are and take what they may from any suggestions that they find promising.

 

In regards to many of the suggestions that I've made in the boards, I've always tried to consider that any game created can always be made "better" with an unlimited budget and time. But because we live in the real world with limits on these two, there should be some features that are more important than others. As such, I have tried to articulate my own understandings of what makes RPGs "better games," and also to give a few examples to clarify. I haven't always been successful, but I try to articulate what my understanding of "better" is in these types of games and hope that the devs take notice and consider these points. Of course, I never assume that my posts are read and that they will absolutely be implemented in the game. Perhaps, they serve as starting points for a more valuable discussion, or they spark an innovative idea that Obsidian has never considered.

 

We all want the best game out there. But, as is obvious by the varied topics in this forum, some things are just more important than others. Vague terms like "cool", "good", or "bad" don't really help illustrate what we find enjoyable in these experiences and being able to communicate what we hold to be important helps the devs in creating a more enjoyable experience.

 

Edit: Clarity.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Hormalakh

[mcmanusaur]

I disagree. Please make better comments, Hormalakh!