Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Luridis]

As I noted within my own comments, when you control an entire party it's far less of an issue. But, if I had only one character to control and had to sit there for 20 seconds of paralysis it would piss me off immensely.

 

BTW: It really isn't an "MMO" mentality to dislike certain mechanics. My first RPG was:

 

Edited January 17, 2013 by Luridis

[IndiraLightfoot]

I will be ****ing furious if they nerf or get rid of spells that allow you to lose or simply not control your character. Sure it's not fun when one of your characters gets held in a web while there's 2 sword spiders next to it or imprisoned by the Maze spell in a lich battle but it's all part of the challenge. There's a good encounter in BG1 Durlag's Tower where you come up against a bunch of Skeleton Archers which aren't that fearful enemies on their own, but all the platforms are covered in Sleeping Cloud and Cloudkill traps, which made that encounter a challenge. I don't really care how much they nerf it for people who play on pissant difficulties but on expert mode, I hope there are such punishing debuffs. Charm, Hold, Stun, Paralyze, Sleep, Fear etc. Wouldn't feel like an IE game without those.

 

I must disagree with Luridis on cc and general "control loss" spells - PE should have plenty of these.

 

The reason why control-loss skills and spells stink in MMOs is because you literally lose all control over everything--your own toon. But that is irrelevant to tactical party games: You always have something to do. I have never lost control of my entire party in any IE game; some members will escape a trap or miss it while others make their saving throw. I can still move at least one member and try to save the others or something. The frustration level compared to the MMO genre is completely different in this case.

 

^This! I agree that a party-based CRPG should have plenty of "freezing"-CC effects. It is not always fun, but usually it makes the party challenge so much sweeter.

[Adhin]

I've lost my whole party multiple times in original BG. Rare in the other ones but the low lvl in BG getting hit by some AoE oriented stuff can cause a lot of issues unless you know its coming to setup a protection.

 

-edit-

It's why I think they should have them, but should be single target or small AoE. Once you get into screen wide CC's on your party it gets bad, least with the old rules.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Adhin

[TrashMan]

Wait..so this basicly means that no matter how good I am or how good I'm armored, a tiny gobling with a stick will still do damage to me, EVERY time?

 

I don't get it.

Why are the rare instances of critical hit/miss considered UNFUN?

It's partially what made many PnP rPG sessions so great.

Those unforgettable strings of good luck and defiance of all odds and those strings of bad luck where you had to use every thick in the book to survive a seemingly average random encounter.

 

:( :( :( :(

[Adhin]

Not always, least with the newer thing they've been considering (with the miss range beyond the glancing blow) and glancing blows (along with all damage) keep track of decimals. So that goblin, glancing doing his min 20% of his min dmg to you would be about .2 to .3 damage a 'glancing blow'. Gather up a lot of goblins and have them flail away... after awhile it may start waring you out even though they're barely landing stuff that matters in the short term.

 

Ultimately, if they stick with the idea of a true miss showing up 50% below whats considered a glancing blow... you still have the 'critical misses' and critical hits, but the middle ground gets smoothed over. And ultimately that was only melee combat, it had nothing to do with ranged or magic. And the vast majority of having to use every trick in the book was due to magic, not melee enemies.

 

Either way as I've said before I hope they go with the -50% from a glance to be a complete miss, makes more sense then never having misses.

 

-edit-

Would also give them more to play with as far as talents and such are concerned which, in general is better for them regardless if complete misses are fun or not.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Adhin

[J.E. Sawyer]

PE will have control-loss effects (stuns/roots/charms), though their durations will probably not be as long as A/D&D counterparts (which are often really, really long).

 

Last week, we implemented a full miss mechanic at the bottom end of graze, as I described earlier in the thread.  It's really an "out of bounds" effect and doesn't occur often unless the difference between the attacker's Accuracy and the target's defense is large.  This would allow you to build a "dodge" or "block" oriented character that boosts avoidance and that was the primary motivating factor in introducing the mechanic (supporting a character concept).  Damage is still pretty heavily normalized since misses are the exception and only start becoming more common as full hits become less likely (which also makes critical hits impossible).  At the other end of the spectrum, if the attacker has a large Accuracy advantage over the target defense, misses become impossible and critical hits become more common.

 

Think of Accuracy vs. defenses as being a sliding window where perfectly matched values result in a small chance to fully miss, a small chance to critically hit, and large chances to hit and graze.  As the Accuracy and defenses move out of alignment, the worst and best cases shift in a directly proportional fashion.  The typical "attacker is outclassed" situation will result in a lot of grazes, some hits, some misses, no crits.  The typical "defender is outlcassed" situation will result in a lot of hits, some crits, some grazes, no misses.

[IndiraLightfoot]

As long as control-loss effects are in I'm a happy camper! Thanks for letting us know, Josh! 

 

As for Accuracy and defenses being a slidable window, where an encounter with an overpowering foe would mean a lot of glancing blows and even a few misses, it sounds interesting. But my concern is that you cannot make a critical hit then, if I understand you correctly. If so, that would negate some of the adventure-feel of taking on tough opponents.

[rjshae]

^^^^

I wonder though whether flank/rear attacks would compensate for that somewhat. That is, even if your attack odds are low, if you can attack from the rear you will still have some chance for a crit. In that case, a mob attack becomes something to be feared.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Even when an attacker's Accuracy is completely outclassed by the target's defense, there's always a 5% chance to score a (normal) hit.  In the opposite direction, even the greatest Accuracy advantage still allows a 5% chance to graze.

[PrimeJunta]

That sounds familiar... #d20

[IndiraLightfoot]

Even when an attacker's Accuracy is completely outclassed by the target's defense, there's always a 5% chance to score a (normal) hit.  In the opposite direction, even the greatest Accuracy advantage still allows a 5% chance to graze.

Hmm, so, say, if I still want to achieve a crit on some nasty ogre with a low-level party, perhaps I can use the party creatively to lower the defenses of said ogre. The rest of party distracts, tangles or blinds the big grunt while me tiny dwarf slashes one of his heels in what would normally be a 5 % chance of a normal hit, but with the help of some other party members, that window slid into the realm of crit possibility! 

Edited January 18, 2013 by IndiraLightfoot

[Helm]

 

Yes, I approve.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Helm

[Valorian]

Oh boy, crits on a sliding scale.

 

There's going to be lots of... blood-spattering annihilations.

[TRX850]

Crit-tastic. No need to wrap 'em. I'll take 'em as they are.

[J.E. Sawyer]

PE's crits are not currently ultra-devastating because it's 150% max damage and the damage ranges are smaller than they are in A/D&D.  Crits are still powerful, but don't compare to a 3E max damage greataxe crit.

[Hormalakh]

PE will have control-loss effects (stuns/roots/charms), though their durations will probably not be as long as A/D&D counterparts (which are often really, really long).

 

Last week, we implemented a full miss mechanic at the bottom end of graze, as I described earlier in the thread.  It's really an "out of bounds" effect and doesn't occur often unless the difference between the attacker's Accuracy and the target's defense is large.  This would allow you to build a "dodge" or "block" oriented character that boosts avoidance and that was the primary motivating factor in introducing the mechanic (supporting a character concept).  Damage is still pretty heavily normalized since misses are the exception and only start becoming more common as full hits become less likely (which also makes critical hits impossible).  At the other end of the spectrum, if the attacker has a large Accuracy advantage over the target defense, misses become impossible and critical hits become more common.

 

Think of Accuracy vs. defenses as being a sliding window where perfectly matched values result in a small chance to fully miss, a small chance to critically hit, and large chances to hit and graze.  As the Accuracy and defenses move out of alignment, the worst and best cases shift in a directly proportional fashion.  The typical "attacker is outclassed" situation will result in a lot of grazes, some hits, some misses, no crits.  The typical "defender is outlcassed" situation will result in a lot of hits, some crits, some grazes, no misses.

How is this playing Josh, as compared to what you had before? Do you find this to be more or less fun than it was without misses at all?

[J.E. Sawyer]

It hasn't currently had a big impact on "fun feel" in part because the target Accuracy/defense values are pretty close in our test level.  Personally, I don't think it will dramatically change the extreme imbalance situations because everything's skewed in either system.  Attacking a target with high defenses in the hopes that your low Accuracy grazes will wear it down wasn't much of a viable strategy before; it becomes less so in this system.

[Hormalakh]

It hasn't currently had a big impact on "fun feel" in part because the target Accuracy/defense values are pretty close in our test level. Personally, I don't think it will dramatically change the extreme imbalance situations because everything's skewed in either system. Attacking a target with high defenses in the hopes that your low Accuracy grazes will wear it down wasn't much of a viable strategy before; it becomes less so in this system.

Well I'd imagine there should be enough of a difference than before to make the dodgy character a viable character concept (and not just a gimmick).

 

Also what kind of ranges are you thinking of when talking weapon damage? Ranges of 1-3 or 4-8 or >8? I'm assuming this will depend on the weapon type?

e: I realized the numbers don't really mean much, I guess a percentage of variation from the mean would be a better way to put it. What does one standard deviation from the mean look like?

Edited January 18, 2013 by Hormalakh

[Valorian]

PE's crits are not currently ultra-devastating because it's 150% max damage and the damage ranges are smaller than they are in A/D&D.  Crits are still powerful, but don't compare to a 3E max damage greataxe crit.

Against targets with high armor, 150% max damage is a huge difference compared to a normal hit.

[Ieo]

PE will have control-loss effects (stuns/roots/charms), though their durations will probably not be as long as A/D&D counterparts (which are often really, really long).

 

Last week, we implemented a full miss mechanic at the bottom end of graze, as I described earlier in the thread.  It's really an "out of bounds" effect and doesn't occur often unless the difference between the attacker's Accuracy and the target's defense is large.  This would allow you to build a "dodge" or "block" oriented character that boosts avoidance and that was the primary motivating factor in introducing the mechanic (supporting a character concept).  Damage is still pretty heavily normalized since misses are the exception and only start becoming more common as full hits become less likely (which also makes critical hits impossible).  At the other end of the spectrum, if the attacker has a large Accuracy advantage over the target defense, misses become impossible and critical hits become more common.

 

Think of Accuracy vs. defenses as being a sliding window where perfectly matched values result in a small chance to fully miss, a small chance to critically hit, and large chances to hit and graze.  As the Accuracy and defenses move out of alignment, the worst and best cases shift in a directly proportional fashion.  The typical "attacker is outclassed" situation will result in a lot of grazes, some hits, some misses, no crits.  The typical "defender is outlcassed" situation will result in a lot of hits, some crits, some grazes, no misses.

Interesting.  

 

As a side comment, I'm curious if there's an "in combat" state flag? I think the IE games had this. For control-loss effects/debuffs of long durations (relatively), I play a game where the full duration would run so long as you're "in combat," but the effect would fall off shortly after you enter "not in combat" state regardless of how much time is left on the effect timer. The advantage of this is that you wouldn't be waiting around for that party member to drop out of the Hold spell, yet the full tactical effects of the debuff were in play during combat, when it matters most.

 

As for this accuracy-vs-defense concept, sounds interesting indeed. I'll never care for a miss mechanic, but I can't wait to try it out anyway because building for different combat character concepts is fun.

[J.E. Sawyer]

 

PE's crits are not currently ultra-devastating because it's 150% max damage and the damage ranges are smaller than they are in A/D&D.  Crits are still powerful, but don't compare to a 3E max damage greataxe crit.

Against targets with high armor, 150% max damage is a huge difference compared to a normal hit.

If your damage is being outclassed by DT, yes.

[Somna]

Interesting.

As a side comment, I'm curious if there's an "in combat" state flag?

[...]

There has to be.  You couldn't save in combat.

[Valorian]

 

Interesting.

As a side comment, I'm curious if there's an "in combat" state flag?

[...]

 

 

There has to be.  You couldn't save in combat.

Yeah.

Also, as I understand you don't naturally regenerate stamina in combat (y/n?), so that's also an instance of the "in combat" state usage.

[IndiraLightfoot]

How about some perk granting you chain-critting, where one crit leads to another based on some condition? Sort of a "crit cleave".

[J.E. Sawyer]

Yes, there will be a combat state.

 

Also, to build upon the previous comment re: crits when armor is high: crits do make a larger difference when armor is high, but they're effectively helping you to dig out of a hole.  The most damage you'll do is in a situation where the target has no DT and you score a crit.  Once DT starts being applied, your damage goes down linearly per-hit until it hits the minimum threshold.  If you're already being maxed out by DT, a crit can help you bump out of that, but the best case is still going to be worse than if the target were wearing no armor.