Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Shadenuat]

I live in America though and believe that the best ideas come from the reasoned discussion and evaluation of ideas.

I think that's where DA2 comes from. Best ideas seem to come from cranky stubborn designers who just like games.

[maggotheart]

I wonder how much the PE crew is regretting that open, transparent development initiative right now

 

These updates are really fantastic; I don't see why there would be any regrets. The more I hear, the more assured I am that they know what they're doing and that PE is going to be great.

[TRX850]

What if "miss" damage was only counted as temporary damage? And after X number of rounds, you got back those HP you lost X number of rounds ago?

 

Would solve some of the grinding issue, although it sounds like it's not really an issue.

[Hormalakh]

Hormalakh: I hope you're right, I just can see getting worn out by the way every little design decision is instantly criticized into oblivion when it isn't exactly the same as Baldur's Gate. I also really hope they aren't taking all of the fan advice too seriously, because 90% of it is seriously ill advised imho.

 

lol i think they know better than us how to make a game. i don't consider any of my comments "advice" anyway. they're just snapshots of my gaming experiences. far be it from me to give "advice" to a game developer.

 

Extending on my earlier post, I still struggle to understand exactly what is being solved or improved in a tactical sense. If in practice (e.g. after DT) miss damage is so low as to be undesirable, then there's not a big difference, you're still trying not to 'miss'. What does it matter that I do 2 damage every turn if this guy has HP of 100 and is attacking me at a much higher rate? If miss damage is significant enough, then that opens up, encourage, grinding miss-hits to take down a troublesome opponent; doesn't this devalue dodging, buffing, etc. as a way of improving your chances and giving combat tactical variety? Or is it simply a matter of mathematically finding a magic zone?

 

What is the improvement - that combat is now less dependent on chance? Well, you still have a chance of missing, the same as before - it's just that the costs of the game of chance are now partially mitigated (difference between 3 & 10, as opposed to 0 & 10 damage). Is this really a tactical improvement? Isn't it just making two outcomes - miss and hit - less different (both qualitatively & quantitatively), so that your tactical choices and conditions are made more similar?

 

i think it's a matter of finding a balance between frustration and clear player choice. some older probability-based conflict resolution has been frustrating for players in the past )there have been many threads on this board about save-or-dies for example). It's a trade-off I think between choice and frustration. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I've been getting.

[morrow1nd]

Hormalakh: I hope you're right, I just can see getting worn out by the way every little design decision is instantly criticized into oblivion when it isn't exactly the same as Baldur's Gate. I also really hope they aren't taking all of the fan advice too seriously, because 90% of it is seriously ill advised imho.

 

Obisidian is already improving the criticized parts of BG.. I think i miss the part where ''BG'' is untouchable, perfect build game where no one even dare to criticize it a bit And these guys have enough experience and wisdom to pick the ''ill advices'' easily. Afterall, these guys involved at making epic games not us

Edited January 3, 2013 by morrow1nd

[Tigranes]

i think it's a matter of finding a balance between frustration and clear player choice. some older probability-based conflict resolution has been frustrating for players in the past )there have been many threads on this board about save-or-dies for example). It's a trade-off I think between choice and frustration. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I've been getting.

 

I would argue that the old mechanic of 'perfect misses' was already a good balance of choice and frustration in principle. That is, there is a very clear, very intuitive difference between hitting and missing; the qualitative difference (not being hit at all is different from being hit for 1 damage in terms of healing, attrition, spell interruption, etc) provided tactical variegation; the frustration of missing was well mitigated by the choices it opens up, and the possibility of your enemies missing also (and in Fallout, the reward of entertaining critical misses). The mathematical specifics sometimes didn't work out so well (e.g. some low level battles where everyone misses forever), but that doesn't invalidate a model that worked pretty well many other times.

 

Again, I'm open to the no-miss system, but I have yet to hear from Josh what is the clear benefit.

[Ieo]

I was never big into D&D number-crunching, but I honestly never understood why "miss" chance existed as a concept at all beyond environmental variables (being blinded, covered in sticky goo, whatever). Especially for melee. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it? This is how I'd conceptualize a basic combat scenario:

 

A attacks, B can't avoid it and gets hit

A attacks, B dodges completely and avoids damage

A attacks, B partially blocks and mitigates damage

A attacks, B parries completely and avoids damage

 

From the perspective of A, he missed B half the time--but it's purely a perception, not an abstracted RNG mechanic. The reality is that B countered. When the environment places the individuals on equal footing in a given combat situation, the only variables that realistically matter (IMO) are the classes, weapon skills, weapon equipped, level, and offensive/defensive stats per individual. So from the balancing point of view, it makes much more sense to me to simply tally those individually localized variables and pit them against each other. Like if B is level 20 and A is 15, B is going to be able to block/parry/dodge better and A will perceptually "miss" more. But with a base "miss" chance pivoting on something like armor class, we get stupid scenarios like casting Hold Person on a baddie and somehow "missing" him several times in a row just because he's higher level with better armor.

 

I'd rather see "miss" as a product of environmental affliction like darkness or some magical effect like the blind spell but not as a base application in normal combat.

 

Then there's ranged attacks. Just as stealth bonuses apply in an area where there's shade, perhaps "miss" handicaps can apply in areas with obstacles (like tree cover). Distance can also matter as well as positioning (from behind, etc.). Well. I don't have any concrete ideas for this sort of thing, so I'll just wait. Back to playing BG:EE and suffering 90% miss rates with rest-spamming every single fight after casting 5 cure light wounds during combat against something that would 2-shot my party....*

 

 

Now there was a comment upstream about "miss" (mitigations and avoidance) applying damage to stamina and not health, which makes sense to me and seems like a really good way to parallel the stam/health system with this particular proposal. On paper, anyway.

 

 

 

*No, I don't find that particularly fun. If anything, the early levels certainly amplify the severe "unfun" aspects of the game mechanics.

[BobbinThreadbare]

I think you forgot one major outcome, which is handled very well in 3E rules.

 

A attacks, but is too weak (or unskilled) to penetrate B's armor

 

That's why touch AC exists. If you give some 60 year old wizard who's spend his whole life in a library a sword and ask him to whack at a dude wearing plate mail, he's unlikely every to do any real damage despite the fact that he is making contact with his sword. On the otherhand, if he's trying to cast shocking grasp and just needs to lay his hand on the dude's armor, he probably has a fair chance at suceeding.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The mathematical specifics sometimes didn't work out so well (e.g. some low level battles where everyone misses forever), but that doesn't invalidate a model that worked pretty well many other times.

 

Again, I'm open to the no-miss system, but I have yet to hear from Josh what is the clear benefit.

It's mostly a mathematical/probabilistic benefit (IMO), not something that is likely to change your tactics.

[Labadal]

I personally like this idea if implemented in a good way. You might not "miss", but it still won't count as a pure hit. I can live with that depending on how this is balanced in the actual game.

 

With enough DT, a strike that doesn't hit the target could still cause 0 damage to your fighter. Dodging would still be important. The more you can dodge the better the chance of survival just like in AD&D.

 

Just using random numbers in an example:

If you have 50 hp and a dodge chance of 10%, and the attacker does 5 damage with DT counted in, and 1.2 damage when he "misses". That would mean that it is possible that he'll miss some attacks, but he'll probably hit you a lot. There is a big difference in 5 damage and 1.2 damage. Now let's say your dodge chance is 20 percent. Suddenly, your character is more likely to survive for a longer period. You develpoing your characters dodge chance has increased his chances of winning the fight.

 

Does this make the game more accessible? Sure. Does it make it more dumbed down? I'm not so sure.

 

I guess if enough people complain about this during the beta, something might happen, but I believe they should go with this if they think it will be well balanced.

[rjshae]

I'm thinking the benefit is primarily for attackers with low odds to hit. Take, say, 1d6+1 non-absorbed damage (for average 4.5 or 1 point half-minimum) and a 10% chance to hit:

• With min dmg of 1: .9*1 + .1*4.5 = 1.35 average
  

• With no miss dmg: .9*0 + .1*4.5 = 0.45 average
  

That's a 1.35/0.45 = 300% damage improvement rate.

 

Now take the same damage and a 50% chance to hit:

• With min dmg: .5*1 + .5*4.5 = 2.75 average
  

• With no min dmg: .5*0 + .5*4.5 = 2.25 average.
  

That's a 2.75/2.25 = 22% damage improvement rate.

[Nonek]

Erm quick question, with the early firearms being implemented to reflect their specific pros and cons, we are not going to see these weapons never missing are we? Even the trusty old Brown Bess was an unreliable weapon when it came to accuracy.

[coffeetable]

I live in America though and believe that the best ideas come from the reasoned discussion and evaluation of ideas

lmao

 

Players can only be confused by the system if they don't understand it. Document the mechanics, and this problem goes away.

- a person who has never designed a complex system for others to use

[TRX850]

So what happens exactly, when your stamina reaches zero?

 

Do you drop to one knee and enter a limited-expertise mode where you can only defend? Or fall prone? Or are just unable to attack until you regain stamina?

 

Apologies, but I'm late to this party and I couldn't find the answer in the reams of posts on this.

 

It sounds like it would make a refreshing change to those battles that have previously gone on forever, with no one actually tiring from constant swinging.

[Ganrich]

Interesting revelation. I am not 100% sold, but not dismissing the idea either. Although, I can agree that seeing 3ish misses in a row can be disheartening and downright frustrating, I also think those misses make that crit that follows so much sweeter. It is the lucky oasis in the middle of a patch of desert. Miss, miss, miss... BAM (cheesy Batman sound effect included)!!! I think the IE games being as random as they were are what made them fun, at times, but other times... I got irked by traveling all along the sword coast looking for scrolls/potions to give me immunity to petrification when dealing with those dirty basilisks. Sometimes that random was just stacked against you. Eventually, you will lose to RNG. Then sometimes it is the other way around, and it finally swings in your favor.

 

If the feel of combat, the interesting characters, creative story, and tactical combat are all of an IE feel, but not necessarily a replication I think I will be fine. Come to think of it, we tear down many creative minds within other mediums for replicating their successes. That is because those replications are less interesting the second go around. I can't tell you how many times someone told me that they didn't like X band because "all their music sounds the same." Simultaneously, we get those that dislike change, and complain about something different. The "I like their old stuff" folk. I guess what I am saying is that I don't want BG exactly as it was because I have played that game before (replaying it now actually). If I want BG I will play BG, if I want PS: T I will play that, and if I want IWD I will play that. While, at the same time, I also don't want it to get too far astray of what made me love the IE games in the first place. Actually, wasn't their resistance to IWD2 having 3.0 ruleset when it first launched? Perhaps that was just my circle of 2nd edition friends being pigheaded.

 

Good luck, Josh. You were right when you said that showing the results of your math wouldn't stop the paranoia/hate toward this system. The ONLY thing that will stop it is the naysayers playing the finished product, and liking the result. It was a good interview. I enjoyed the read, and your continued responses in the thread.

[Hormalakh]

One last idea. Instead of making misses not occur and staying away from RNG, how about trying dependent-type probabilities instead of independent event probabilities. Instead of rolling a dice, what about pulling cards from a deck? Will that change anything?

[Ganrich]

One last idea. Instead of making misses not occur and staying away from RNG, how about trying dependent-type probabilities instead of independent event probabilities. Instead of rolling a dice, what about pulling cards from a deck? Will that change anything?

 

I've never been amazing in the realm of math, but you run the same probabilities. EG 20 cards in said deck, 1 or 2 can crit, 10 or more can miss, etc. Pretty similar to DnD minus outside modifiers like stats, gear, abilities, and having an effect.

 

EDIT: Basically, each card would just represent a number from 1 to 20 in said deck.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Ganrich

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't count the number of times I've seen players make a complaint in the vein that their XCOM units had 90% chance to hit and missed three times in a row. "Impossible!"

You can't fix stupid.

 

But nor should you pander to it.

[Lephys]

I still think there are appropriate instances for misses. Josh hasn't yet addressed ranged attacks that I know of, but he specifically stated that they were still working out the system, and they were currently on getting melee combat situated, so... no biggie. Stuff takes time. It's pretty nice of Obsidian to provide us with rough drafts and get feedback as they go, when they COULD just work the whole thing out and not tell us boo. But, yeah, ranged attacks, spell effects (blind, etc.). All things that have been mentioned. Those would suffer a lot more from a lack of full missing than anything in melee range.

 

That being said, the clear benefit is the reduction of the impact of chance on the outcome of the combat. You still have a chance to miss, true, but you no longer have a chance to make NO progress (well, extreme armor threshold aside, mayhaps). So, you still have a chance of making even BETTER progress with a critical hit, and a chance of making much worse progress with a miss, but chance is no longer going to say "Lolz... nothing happens!". I mean, that'd be the same as if a critical hit instantly killed, no matter what. Really.

 

Sure, it's a tiny little immersion breaker. Between how used to it we are and how weird it seems to specifically think that it's impossible to ever not-strike someone with a melee attack, it hurts immersion a little. But, functionally, everything is the same, except that you're going to deal crappy damage instead of none now on the same roll. That and a bunch of numbers are balanced slightly differently now.

 

You're still going to be fighting an ogre that was gonna do 70 damage to your 150 stamina, and he'll miss (or you'll dodge or block), and he'll only do 15 damage. And you're still going to have that little goblin deal 20 damage instead of 7 sometimes. Your probability is still in there, whole and happy. It just doesn't ever COMPLETELY negate whatever happened (excepting maybe the unaddressed things, like ranged attacks and spell effects).

 

That isn't even taking into account the fact that the game's combat COULD involve a lot more active debilitation and positional strategy than other games that we're used to having the full misses in.

 

Besides, Josh never swore he'd punt a thousand kittens before he'd EVER put misses into the system. If they end up needing to be in there, for whatever reason, they'll work 'em in. I have no doubts.

[BobbinThreadbare]

One last idea. Instead of making misses not occur and staying away from RNG, how about trying dependent-type probabilities instead of independent event probabilities. Instead of rolling a dice, what about pulling cards from a deck? Will that change anything?

 

I've never been amazing in the realm of math, but you run the same probabilities. EG 20 cards in said deck, 1 or 2 can crit, 10 or more can miss, etc. Pretty similar to DnD minus outside modifiers like stats, gear, abilities, and having an effect.

 

EDIT: Basically, each card would just represent a number from 1 to 20 in said deck.

I think his idea was that the cards stay pulled out. So probability changes as you attack.

 

I've never seen this done well, it usually feels cheap. Oh I hit 3 times in a row, I'm due for a miss now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

4E, a system people didn't like.

Do you think that miss effects on dailies were one of the things that people didn't like? I don't think that's accurate.

I didn't claim it was. But you appealed to 4E adopting it as evidence that players preferred it, but given the generally negative reaction to much of 4E, we know that 4E's use of a feature is not evidence that players like that feature.

As Homalakh and I have already stated, what players "should" understand and what they actually understand are not the same thing. If people actually understood probability, casinos would shut their doors tomorrow.

This assumes that people gamble to win, rather than simply for fun. The lyrics to Motörhead's Ace of Spades offer a quite succinct defense of gambling as recreation, even when the gambler has full knowledge of the odds.

[BobbinThreadbare]

chance is no longer going to say "Lolz... nothing happens!". I mean, that'd be the same as if a critical hit instantly killed, no matter what. Really.

Spurious reasoning is spuriuos.

 

The opposite of an instant kill would either be an instant self-kill or fully healing the enemy, not doing nothing.

Edited January 3, 2013 by BobbinThreadbare

[Sylvius the Mad]

- a person who has never designed a complex system for others to use

If they can't or won't understand clearly documented mechanics, I have no interest in assisting them further. I'm content to let them fail.

 

People who employ the Gambler's Fallacy should be punished, not rewarded.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Sylvius the Mad

[Ganrich]

One last idea. Instead of making misses not occur and staying away from RNG, how about trying dependent-type probabilities instead of independent event probabilities. Instead of rolling a dice, what about pulling cards from a deck? Will that change anything?

 

I've never been amazing in the realm of math, but you run the same probabilities. EG 20 cards in said deck, 1 or 2 can crit, 10 or more can miss, etc. Pretty similar to DnD minus outside modifiers like stats, gear, abilities, and having an effect.

 

EDIT: Basically, each card would just represent a number from 1 to 20 in said deck.

I think his idea was that the cards stay pulled out. So probability changes as you attack.

 

I've never seen this done well, it usually feels cheap. Oh I hit 3 times in a row, I'm due for a miss now.

 

Ah, I see, my apologies. I have either never played a game using a system like that or have slept my memories of it away.

[Hormalakh]

The card system (event-dependent based probability system) reshuffles at a set point (the end of each battle, maybe?). Over an extended battle you are likely to critical fail (miss), fail (glancing blow), hit, and critical hit a set number of times, each of which varies on X and Y factor (skills?). Variability is maintained and future events (success in shots/melee attacks) are dependent on previous events.

 

Reloading due to failure is pretty much the same as a reshuffle, so your odd aren't changed with a reload. incomplete-information problem is maintained (sometimes you can win tough battles if you get the right set of "cards") and it's actually fun.

 

Edit: Or you can try a mixture of the two. Conditional probabilities for melee and unconditional probabilities for ranged weapons/magic (with a lower critical failure chance). Probability is fun!

 

edit 2: If you reshuffle the deck every so often (end of battle) you aren't sure if you will necessarily fail. "I hit three times and I was due for a fail but this is a new battle. I might fail or I might not."

Edited January 4, 2013 by Hormalakh