Raiders vs Power Armor

[Cultist]

...or street rabble vs Full Plate knights. The same situations could be seen in many RPGs, its just Fallout example is the best known.

*bandit dressed in rags and armed with rusty butter knife*

- Hey you! Yes, you, guy in Full Plate armor with 2 meter sword in your arms! Give me all your money or suffer!

In Fallout, raiders, armed with lowest tier knife, charged people in Power Armor, miniguns and plasma rifles without any concern for their own safety.

The very concept of estimating their chances were absent in the game.

IMO there should be situations where enemies must calculate their chances of winning rather than charging blindly. It could be justified for animals, fanatical cultists and "victory or death" situations, but not for every fight.

Several street thieves attacking full party clad in armor looks completely out of place.

[Gorth]

Didn't Heroes of Might and Magic III have such a mechanism? Awed by your overwhelming presence, enemies would offer to run away and the player could decide to force confrontation or let them run away. Was sort of a nice touch, adding something to the game.

[rjshae]

Yes, group morale based upon the estimated chances of victory and/or the enemy's level of determination would add a significant element of realism. BG had this to some degree, but it only kicked in after the battle was nearly over.

[Pintash]

I think this kind of thing can be found in almost any western RPG ever made.  Honestly it's so common I'd never really considered it.  Now you've gone and done it; it'll annoy the crap out of me every time I see it now.

 

I like this idea, though.  It adds some nice realism and immersion.  It would also give the player a sense of power and accomplishment.  Not only that, but it shows a sign of respect - or fear - from the NPCs of the world.  A reactive world is ALWAYS more immersive.

 

If implemented, should it be confined to just the knife vs full plate example?  I mean, a considerably skilled knife user could probably still beat someone in a full plate.  It's mobility against defense really.  If something like this was in the game I'd like to see it be a by product of your actions in the game.  For example you've just murdered a petty thief in cold blood.  Too great a punishment for a minor crime.  An action like this might make the rest of the town/city's underworld become far more wary of you.  The lowest ranks might flee at the sight of you.  Large groups however may still feel they have power in numbers and only the top ranked among them feel they could best you in a straight up fight.  It could be an interesting mechanic.

 

It would need some sort of equation to work as suggested.  Something involving a level comparison, a gear comparison and a fear/respect check. 

 

I don't know how reactive Obsidian intends to make the people of the world but if there is a system that will be in place I wouldn't think the above would be that hard to implement on top of it. 

 

The other thing is the player would need some sort of compensation for their actions.  If you avoid a fight due to the enemy's fear of engaging you, you would need to still receive the exp you might have otherwise missed.  You also have the problem of loot.  It's an opportunity lost in that regard too, the power-gaming type of player won't like this.  This could be easily overcome by making it a toggle-able option.

 

As an example the Fable series had a somewhat reactive world in the sense of your actions.  If you were evil they responded to it with fear.  If you were good they responded with praise.  Yet I can't think of a game where this extends to your enemies.  Surely the enemies of the worlds of RPGs are not so cut off from the rest of the worlds they inhabit that they have not heard about the hero of the story and his exploits.  A system like this could be a big step forward for RPGs as a genre. 

[Cultist]

Yes, group morale based upon the estimated chances of victory and/or the enemy's level of determination would add a significant element of realism. BG had this to some degree, but it only kicked in after the battle was nearly over.

BG implemented it in a rudimentary manner. Enemies attacked you anyway and morale fail resulted only in enemies running randomly left and right and getting back in a fight shortly after.

If implemented, should it be confined to just the knife vs full plate example?  I mean, a considerably skilled knife user could probably still beat someone in a full plate.  It's mobility against defense really.

I think the simplies way is to defne it by character level. Thief is lvl 2, player is lvl 12. Thief starts a different dialogue instead of attacking. If my sclerosis serves me right, old RPG, Dark Sun had a mechanic for it - if your characters weared few clothes, or open clothes then various thiefs and brigands in the city could easily spot your jewelry and valuables and eager to rob you.

Elder Scrolls, Skyrim had very bad solution for it -level scaling. So later in the game every road brigand were equipped with ebony weapons and rats' bites penetrated your daedric armor .

The other thing is the player would need some sort of compensation for their actions.  If you avoid a fight due to the enemy's fear of engaging you, you would need to still receive the exp you might have otherwise missed.  You also have the problem of loot.  It's an opportunity lost in that regard too, the power-gaming type of player won't like this.

There may be different bands of thieves for example. Some may be lowest of the low. Those who rob drunkards and stray people. Others may be more organized, highwaymen, aiming for more profitable victims and ready to take more risk as such victims could afford more protection. It could be solved in miriad ways in terms of lore.

[rjshae]

The other thing is the player would need some sort of compensation for their actions.  If you avoid a fight due to the enemy's fear of engaging you, you would need to still receive the exp you might have otherwise missed.  You also have the problem of loot.  It's an opportunity lost in that regard too, the power-gaming type of player won't like this.  This could be easily overcome by making it a toggle-able option.

 

The first issue may already be solved by the developers doing away with awarding significant XP from grinding. But yeah, a fleeing enemy should drop some loot in their haste to retreat.

[moridin84]

Well it shouldn't be too difficult to do, just measure the difference in level. 

[AGX-17]

...or street rabble vs Full Plate knights. The same situations could be seen in many RPGs, its just Fallout example is the best known.

*bandit dressed in rags and armed with rusty butter knife*

- Hey you! Yes, you, guy in Full Plate armor with 2 meter sword in your arms! Give me all your money or suffer!

In Fallout, raiders, armed with lowest tier knife, charged people in Power Armor, miniguns and plasma rifles without any concern for their own safety.

The very concept of estimating their chances were absent in the game.

IMO there should be situations where enemies must calculate their chances of winning rather than charging blindly. It could be justified for animals, fanatical cultists and "victory or death" situations, but not for every fight.

Several street thieves attacking full party clad in armor looks completely out of place.

I agree except for the animals thing. Animals aren't self-aware creatures capable of rational, logical thought. In general they tend to avoid groups of humans to begin with. Some pack animals might be hostile even to a group of well-armed humans, but that's out of fight-or-flight instinct. In the case of wolves, wolves would probably just avoid them. A bear might go for it, if it's a big male looking to defend his territory/fatten up for winter, or a defensive mother bear.

Well it shouldn't be too difficult to do, just measure the difference in level.

You (i.e. a highwayman in the world of P:E,) can't see (so far as we know,) someone's "level." A high-level party deliberately equipped with crappy gear would still be perceived as being weak, easy prey by a logically-thinking bandit leader. Edited March 15, 2013 by AGX-17

[Sacred_Path]

In reality, a fully armored and armed swordfighting legend would look like any other armored and armed person, until they actually spring into action. So a group of bandits might still rely on the strength of numbers and jump on said person. It's only in fantasy RPGs that your high-level character sparkles like a Christmas tree and can be identified as a threat from miles away. Therefore, I don't really care either way. Bandits can run up to me and die or run away and fellate my e-ego. It seems to be a huge deal to a lot of people that the game recognizes their awsumness in this fashion though.

[moridin84]

You (i.e. a highwayman in the world of P:E,) can't see (so far as we know,) someone's "level." A high-level party deliberately equipped with crappy gear would still be perceived as being weak, easy prey by a logically-thinking bandit leader.

 

Sure but why would you have to bother accounting for something like that? 

 

I suppose you can just do an "average gear level" comparison then.

Edited March 15, 2013 by moridin84

[Lephys]

New equipment attribute: Awe.

 

You could wear the 12-defense, 1-awe armor, or you could wear the 12-awe 1-defense armor (Arbitrary numbers alert! You probably shouldn't actually have 1-defense-quality armor that's that awe-inspiring... *shrug*... probably...).

 

Some foes would be more susceptible to Awe. Some foes would be largely unaffected by it. You could even wear low-awe armor/equipment whilst being an ultra-death-machine, and maybe (if your reputation hadn't spread to these foes, or you didn't have a potent reputation) potential combatants WOULD charge in, recklessly.

 

*shrug*. OR maybe it's just a number/factor that contributes to a larger, encompassing thing, such as reputation or Intimidation. Or, maybe it's even more complex than that, and there are various different aspects. Some equipment would make you more intimidating, some would make you more noble-looking, some would make you look inviting and innocent, etc.

 

Almost like... an Aesthetics modifier to your reputation/skill checks/dialogue options.

[JFSOCC]

scale challenge ratings. nice invisible(if not entirely unnoticable) way to make sure any challenge is a realistic threat.

[Gfted1]

Meh. Fleeing mooks, while realistic, only serve as something you have to chase across the map to kill. For no experience.

[PrimeJunta]

Uh... why would you want to kill them?

[Gfted1]

Its in the first post:

- Hey you! Yes, you, guy in Full Plate armor with 2 meter sword in your arms! Give me all your money or suffer!

[PrimeJunta]

Yes, but why would you want to kill them? Doesn't driving them off work just as well?

[Gfted1]

True dat. In P:E it would be absolutely pointless to chase them down.

[forfs]

It could be very interesting mechanics. Say computer determines thug's behaviour based on:

1) His aggression level (taunted, provoked or generally aggressive enemies will tend to ignore obvious danger)

2) Your team's apparent power (i.e. equipment and "fame")

3) His own power

Consider these situations:

1) You're wearing full plate, but your reputation as a fighter is low in this parts of world. Thugs outnumber you, and their boss, although wearing only leather, considers himself to be master in blunt weapons (i.e. good vs plate) . Should they run anyway? I don't think so, at least not initially, while their boss is still standing. 

2) You have great equipment and are quite famous, but you still need to confront thugs without them running on first sight of your party. You could remove your armor, so you are less intimidating or maybe make part of your party invisible, so that they will gain some confidence, talk to you, maybe revealing some secrets before they attack you thinking you stand no chance. 

3) You are tasked with escorting someone trough a dangerous neighbourhood, but you are low level. Your mage could make illusions of more people in the group or visually enhance your equipment. You better be damn sure it doesn't get dispelled in the middle of street! 

 

Problems I could see with such system: If it relies heavily on items you wear, it would be difficult to asses the power level of a mage or a warrior that doesn't use heavy armor (like kensai kit from BG2). If it relies more on level, what you wear wouldn't matter, and we would be back to square 1. 

[Bonecrusher]

Animals aren't self-aware creatures capable of rational, logical thought.

 

Actually they have logical thought up to a point, of course not the same as humans.

In games, we see every animal as mindless beast which attacks player as soon as sees him. In reality, every animal has different level of intelligence and habit. Some animals tend to stay away from groups, some animals hunt grouped animals with their packs, some animals stay away from bigger animals, some animals don't care the size...

[AGX-17]

 

 

You (i.e. a highwayman in the world of P:E,) can't see (so far as we know,) someone's "level." A high-level party deliberately equipped with crappy gear would still be perceived as being weak, easy prey by a logically-thinking bandit leader.

 

Sure but why would you have to bother accounting for something like that? 

 

I suppose you can just do an "average gear level" comparison then.

 

 

You just ignored my point. If you have a high level party and deliberately equip low-end/low level gear, and the enemy's judgement is based on gear as the OP said, they would still make the pointless, futile attack the OP was complaining about.

 

 

Animals aren't self-aware creatures capable of rational, logical thought.

 

Actually they have logical thought up to a point, of course not the same as humans.

In games, we see every animal as mindless beast which attacks player as soon as sees him. In reality, every animal has different level of intelligence and habit. Some animals tend to stay away from groups, some animals hunt grouped animals with their packs, some animals stay away from bigger animals, some animals don't care the size...

 

 

Intelligence and reason are not identical. There are very few animals capable of logical thought (Ravens are the most prominent ones that immediately come to mind, there is ample evidence/documentation of them solving problems and creating original tools and strategies to that end without engaging in trial & error or being taught, but you're ignoring the fact that none of the animals that have been theorized to be capable of such thought are typical or even ever enemies in fantasy RPGs, and if/when they are, it simply shows that developers give zero ****s about real animal cognition so this is an exercise in futility.)

 

And the second part, you're just regurgitating what I already said about the variance in behavior depending on species as if I didn't say it and you're making a brilliant counter-argument.

Edited March 18, 2013 by AGX-17

[Bonecrusher]

I didn't put it as a "counter-argument", but if you want, so be it.

I just criticized games' approach on animal behaviors.

[TrashMan]

While animals aren't dumb, they wouldn't judge a group by their gear, but rather numbers/size.. unless they are really smart animals with prior experience when encountering armed humans....but in that case any sword or weapon would raise their alarm bells.

 

 

Frankly, I want any enemy group to act and fight according to who they are. Developers making te AI should think about how these creatures would fight. What are their weapons? Their advantages? Do they have rudimentary inthelligence? Organization?

[Lephys]

^ True that, Trashman. Animal example of the OP's human example? Would a group of wolves really charge at a summoned Flame Elemental (who's literally comprised of burning) and try to bite it?

 

Many RPGs have, to an extent, been reduced to some semblence of "Oh, a thing. Time for the two of us to fight, thing!" No matter what that thing is. Provoking it usually only requires walking near it. A single wolf trying to find its way back to its pack? There are 73 people in your party, trompsing through the woods? Get within 15 feet of that wolf, and it'll attack you. Otherwise, it'll just stand there/wander aimlessly. That wolf doesn't care HOW many people are coming toward it. It's an insane wolf with no survival instincts.

 

Maybe that's what fantasy evil does? It drains the world of survival instincts? That would be a pretty ingenious way to take over things, actually. *chin stroke*...

[Cultist]

The way most RPGs treat enemies as just win-or-die situation. Even charm in Infinity engine games was used in purely combat ways - to get temporary ally and kiling charmed person shortly after. Animals could go berserk when, for example, protecting their youg, lairs or due to lore - some fantasy animals could be very territorial.

The problem is with self-aware and sentient living beings. They are treated in the same way - attack until death. the only way to prevent it so far - is when developers decide to add some kind of dialogue before, when you can threaten or otherwise persuade opponents and prevent this confrontation.

[Bonecrusher]

I remember LOTRO had an interesting system. There were three types of creatures (I am not sure if the official names were exactly like this) 1- Passive, the creatures which not attack you if you don't attack them, 2- Aggressive, these creatures will attack you on sight, 3- Territorial, these will not attack you on sight, but if you stay near them too much and provoke them, they will attack.

 

Most of the RPGs/MMORPGs seperate the enemies into two groups, Passive (like birds, deers, sheep) and Agressive (every creature, character, animal in the world)

But I liked LOTRO's approach better. Think about this,

If you walk around in a group with your high tier gear (full metal armor or high class mage robe) at the level 15, the level 2 street mugger will prefer to stay away from you (passive enemy)

If you encounter a satiated wolf, or an alone wolf while you are in a crowded group, that wolf will prefer to stay away from you, unless you come closer to become a threat (territorial enemy)

If you encounter a hungry predator, an evil demon, an orc raider or a character from enemy faction, it will attack you on sight (aggressive enemy)