Random loot or fixed drops from certain mobs?

[injurai]

It really depends what the game is going for. But here is the way I see it. Unless you are specifically going for a Diablo 2 like game setup there is not a considerably strong reason to include highly randomized loot. A master artist can make the most out of the most basic tools, and I would think that would apply to items as well overall. Overly depended item games can strip away or supercede that power that skill points and stat allocations should have.

 

If you are talking about fixed items, but just random in the sense of what drops it, or when stuff drops it. I think this should have a hybridized system where deer drop pelts, pirates drop cutlasses, etc. But furthermore these items should only be occasionally dropped (say you ruined that poor dears pelt while cleaving it) and certain specific enemies will always supply story or lore important items.

 

Items should represent a base template. Steel bastard swords always perform in a certain way. Then make upkeep, oil, whetstones, enchanting, reforging the means to influence some minor additional traits. But overall i'd rather see items stats fixed, and hybridized item drop table based on plausible expectations. 

[JFSOCC]

if random, then at least from loot tables.

This way you can still limit the drops to make sense for the type of enemy defeated.

[jethro]

I agree with Valorian. Which items a bandit drops really only matters if its an item that someone in your party is going to equip. Otherwise it goes in the backpack or get's sold. That means most normal bandits will have equipment that only gets sold. So what the bandit leader has is probably going to be the only thing of importance, and it would mean that Obsidian would have to design a lot of different types of bandit leaders if they are going to give them different items. I think random magic items are best kept to chests and the like.

I think most RPGs don't drop everything an enemy should logically have on him. So archers might have some arrows but no bow, except for maybe one or two. Fighters usually didn't drop their (mediocre) sword, neither did they release to you all the armour they surely had on them. It may not be ultra-realistic, but it keeps money low and avoids packratitis.

 

 

 

@Sabotin:

Good point. But with randomness of enemies there are a lot of solutions possible. There is not just 1) all 10 enemies have completely random weapons and 2) all 10 enemies are swordsmen

 

There is for example:

3) All 10 enemies either are swordsmen, archers or pikemen

4) Enemies are *predominantely* either swordsmen, archers or pikemen. This might lead to a party of 7 swordsmen but 2 archers and one pikeman.

Edited October 28, 2013 by jethro

[Sabotin]

I guess it's kinda naive to think that there wouldn't be filler encounters and everything can be hand crafted .

 

It probably also comes down to how many encounter and enemies there are, what difference does swapping stuff make, etc.

 

Anyway as I said these things can probably be modded in even if they are absent. I can't really cite a source for this but if I remember right there are some similar systems in place, like difficulty swapping numbers/types of enemies instead of +- stats and backer designed drops being available as replacements for default but similar ones. I don't really have any experience with these kind of things, but it seems there should be some kind of hooks there.

[alanschu]

 

 

There's a number of issues attached to it, such as the fact that randomess doesn't care about the recipient's talents or class. It could make encounters repetitive and boring. Even visually.

 

There's nothing mandating that what you just said is true.

[Lephys]

So... what "the non-random crowd" (I'll just go ahead and overgeneralize, too, I guess) is saying is that, there's no dial to tune this? We either have to just randomize everything in the universe, or nothing at all. Is that it?

 

Because, heaven forbid that group of bandits who assaults you jumps you on your travels not consist of an EXTREMELY specific weapon-wielding loadout. If there're TWO daggermen, and only one mace-wielder, *gasp*... the game is ruined! Heck... they could ALL have daggers! Oh, the horror!

 

Is this weaponism? Is that what this is? Are we being weaponist? Do we need to spread tolerance by ensuring that every encounter has at least one of each weapon in it?

 

Seriously though... I understand the need for specific encounters to involve specific weapons. That keep or safehouse you're assaulting isn't going to last long with dagger-wielders on the walls instead of archers. Or if all the enemy mages spawn with a greatsword in each hand, instead of a grimoire... That doesn't mean we can't have any randomization in the system.

[Valorian]

Just pointing out another of the positive sides.

Also, just randomnising does save a developer from manually outfitting the entire map. Just give them their loot roster, there we go. They could make more encounters just by having to spend less time on most of them.

 

That would be tragicomic. Investing so much time into designing beautiful areas, interesting and engaging combat mechanics and then... let's fill it with random encounters! Regardless, they need to place these enemies by hand, somewhere.

Quality over quantity. Designing combat encounters one by one is not the hardest thing they need to do, by a long shot. And I expect it to be excellent.

 

 

There's a number of issues attached to it, such as the fact that randomess doesn't care about the recipient's talents or class. It could make encounters repetitive and boring. Even visually.

 

There's nothing mandating that what you just said is true.

 

 

Sure. Why would they do the sensible thing and, knowing their ruleset and mechanics, outfit enemies manually when they can make complicated algorithms that take into account class, talents, attributes, group composition, target level for the area and then bake a fabulous and balanced combat encounter. Aesthetically pleasing too.

 

 

@No Lephys. It would be fine if they inject some encounter design randomness to random  "ambush" encounters when traveling between areas on the world map. But in regular areas.. no.

[Lephys]

@No Lephys. It would be fine if they inject some encounter design randomness to random  "ambush" encounters when traveling between areas on the world map. But in regular areas.. no.

I respectfully disagree. It would simply demand a tighter constraint on the extent of the randomization, is all. As I said, ranged combatants would have to remain ranged combatants (obviously), and so on and so forth. A larger portion of it would have to consist of either hand-placed, non-dynamic entities or constraints upon what can be dynamic. But, every single encounter in the game doesn't bear an inherent need to be so unique that you couldn't allow for some flexible details.

 

If a given room is supposed to be more challenging for a party weak against magic, there are a plethora of ways in which to configure a particular level of challenge, for example. The same goes for a particular encounter with almost any other criteria. Every encounter in the game doesn't NEED for Foe A to have THIS many hitpoints and THIS particular weapon, and be standing in exactly THIS spot, and for Foe B to follow suit with a different, ultra-specific set of properties.

 

A lot of the challenge in combat will be how things shift once the battle begins, and how you react to your enemy while it's reacting to you. Not "your initial placement and makeup versus THEIR initial placement and makeup." If we reduce it to that, then we're sort of diminishing the vibrance of such a combat system, methinks.

[morrow1nd]

Hand placed loot seems more precious to me

Edited October 29, 2013 by morrow1nd

[Hassat Hunter]

Quality over quantity. Designing combat encounters one by one is not the hardest thing they need to do, by a long shot. And I expect it to be excellent.

Except it still be quality. And they can add quality AND quantity.

With a difficulty system that modifies NPC's based on difficulty, don't you think a system which can add some randomnification helps with that?

Also the encounters would still be handplaced. Just the equipment can be varried, based on a limited number of factors. Which indeed, yes, would make the game less predictable. Which would add a layer of strategy rather than mere anticipation and response. Requires the gamer to play better. How's that a bad thing?

 

It's also not based on 'hard to do', rather 'time consuming to do'. And we all know that lessening timeconsuming things does help developers. Heck, most tools are written just to make the developers time spend as efficient as possible. 

Sure. Why would they do the sensible thing and, knowing their ruleset and mechanics, outfit enemies manually when they can make complicated algorithms that take into account class, talents, attributes, group composition, target level for the area and then bake a fabulous and balanced combat encounter. Aesthetically pleasing too.

You assume that they set ALL that for ALL their encounters.

If so, that's pretty naieve. Most enemies already will have a basic layout, and most of those will keep that, unchanged. If they want a different, they could make the changes. If they want many different, just another default enemy layout to be placed.

If instead of that, the 2 default layouts are instead 1 layout, but it's randomly chosen between the 2 which is used... do tell me what the negative impact on the game that would be from your viewpoint?

 

Look at KOTOR2 for example. They have all these systems like "Lightside/Darkside", but near-none of them are actually set. Specific profencies? Screw that, profency: all. Class? Usually not properly set either (And sometimes leading to hilariously wrong stuff, like Jedi droids). Level? Not set.

That developers have the time to manually outfit all encounters to the effect desired, is a fairy tale sadly enough.

[alanschu]

 

 

Sure. Why would they do the sensible thing and, knowing their ruleset and mechanics, outfit enemies manually when they can make complicated algorithms that take into account class, talents, attributes, group composition, target level for the area and then bake a fabulous and balanced combat encounter. Aesthetically pleasing too.

 

You're presenting a false dichotomy and displaying a misunderstanding on the level of influence randomization must have.  It's 100% or 0% for you.

 

It's not like randomization elements didn't exist in Baldur's Gate games as well, so I think your perspective is a bit narrow.

[Valorian]

 

Quality over quantity. Designing combat encounters one by one is not the hardest thing they need to do, by a long shot. And I expect it to be excellent.

Except it still be quality. And they can add quality AND quantity.

With a difficulty system that modifies NPC's based on difficulty, don't you think a system which can add some randomnification helps with that?

Also the encounters would still be handplaced. Just the equipment can be varried, based on a limited number of factors. Which indeed, yes, would make the game less predictable. Which would add a layer of strategy rather than mere anticipation and response. Requires the gamer to play better. How's that a bad thing?

 

It's also not based on 'hard to do', rather 'time consuming to do'. And we all know that lessening timeconsuming things does help developers. Heck, most tools are written just to make the developers time spend as efficient as possible. 

 

Increasing the quality of encounters by randomizing enemies' gear... that's a new one. It's not "just the equipment"; equipment is essential. It can drastically change an enemy. Wasting time on scripts that will take into account all important elements for gear randomization is.. a waste of time.

 

And stop with the "predictability" bull****. Do you seriously believe that people would remember/make notes that bandit XY number 28 always has a mace and make strategic plans accordingly, on the next playthrough? No doubt there are people who are going to play the game a dozen times and they will learn such details, but an overwhelming majority will enjoy a well balanced encounter on their first playthrough and that's it.

 

You keep ignoring the possibility that enemies will wander. There, your unpredictability.

 

 

Sure. Why would they do the sensible thing and, knowing their ruleset and mechanics, outfit enemies manually when they can make complicated algorithms that take into account class, talents, attributes, group composition, target level for the area and then bake a fabulous and balanced combat encounter. Aesthetically pleasing too.

 

You're presenting a false dichotomy and displaying a misunderstanding on the level of influence randomization must have.  It's 100% or 0% for you.

 

It's not like randomization elements didn't exist in Baldur's Gate games as well, so I think your perspective is a bit narrow.

 

 

How am I presenting a "false dichotomy" if I state that randomizing enemies' weapons will have a negative impact on the quality of encounters? Where did you see "100% or 0%"? You're full of it.

Weapons do have a big impact in PE. Please, do take a look at the armor system/damage types and then come back.

 

Baldur's Gate didn't randomize enemies and their weapons.

What exactly did BG randomize?

[Hassat Hunter]

So... encounters should be methetically handplaced for optimal performance, nothing else... and then they can randomly walk around the map ignoring this placement...

Buuuuuut randomness is bad!

 

I hope you see your own contridictionary there.

 

Apparently seeding 10 bandits with a preset layout and let them randomly go about the map; Good.

Seeding the same 10 bandits with randomnised gear, randomly going about the map; The balance is gone!

???

 

I know for a fact that people will do that, just open a Baldur's Gate or Planescape: Torment walkthrough. However if instead of always that one ring, they have one of three possible rings they could drop, that predictability factor isn't present. Having a Ring of Fire instead of Protection +1 suddenly might require you to change your tactics a bit, learn and thus play the game better, and is perfect for replays.

I still don't see how that's all so very horrible as you make it out to be... :/

How am I presenting a "false dichotomy" if I state that randomizing enemies' weapons will have a negative impact on the quality of encounters?

Maybe in that very sentence itself the answer resides. Maybe.

[alanschu]

How am I presenting a "false dichotomy" if I state that randomizing enemies' weapons will have a negative impact on the quality of encounters? Where did you see "100% or 0%"? You're full of it.

 

You're presenting a false dichotomy because of the following statement:

 

"Why would they do the sensible thing and, knowing their ruleset and mechanics, outfit enemies manually when they can make complicated algorithms that take into account class, talents, attributes, group composition, target level for the area and then bake a fabulous and balanced combat encounter. Aesthetically pleasing too."

 

We have two choices:

1) outfit enemies manually

2) make complicated algorithms that take into account a multitude of aspects (i.e. you made it as complicated as possible)

 

 

It should be noted that the post of yours that I responded to came before you saying

"I'm okay with it in random encounters" as well as "I'm okay with non-equipped loot."

 

Baldur's Gate did have random loot, though it wasn't equipped items.

 

I mentioned it more for Baldur's Gate 2 creating scaled encounters though, since you were focusing on the amount of work required for "random" loot, and it's an example of similar work with similar "complicated algorithms."

 

I think there's also a misunderstanding because in my practical use of the term "random" in game design, it more typically means "some sort of probability based selection."  That is, it'd be "random" in that it's not always the same every playthrough, but would still have significant designer control.  And would not at all require "complicated algorithms."

Edited October 31, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

I had written a more thorough reply to various points, but ultimately since you missed it:

 

It should be noted that the post of yours that I responded to came before you saying "I'm okay with it in random encounters" as well as "I'm okay with non-equipped loot."

 

Which was another way of me saying "I had an inaccurate view of your perspective when I wrote my first response."  As such I had assumed (incorrectly) you were completely against it in any capacity and for any item when I wrote my first response.  Though you seem to be itching for a fight at this point.

[Hassat Hunter]

An encounter wandering as a whole? Sure. But then it's really not handcrafted anymore. They could be encountered at another encounter. You could find them with the bowmen close to your party. I suppose it works best with melee only.

And if that works, why wont random equipment? What makes one kind of interesting gameplay appaling to you, while it's not that different?

 

It's not even for replays. Think you died in a forest due to bandits. In BG1 all bandits had swords. Here they could have a variety of melee weaponry, all different. And they're seeded once you enter the forest. So even if you entered the same area, suddenly the team you just found plays entirely different. That's something handplaced can't do, sure the encounter may be good, but it's the same all the time. This would spice it up, give players a reason to think, act on what's given. Have them to react.

Anyway, from the beginning on, my point wasn't even about used items (though seeing the armor and weapon dropped on the enemy character would be cool, yeah). It wasn't even about items on enemies, or found in the wilderness. It was about how it would be cool if most "unique" drops actually had 1 or 2 variations that could drop instead.

All you guys focused on was the weapons though. I didn't even think about them. But now that I was forced to think about it I had to come to the conclusion that, yes, randomnising them too (again, not completely, but in a limited roster of possibilities) would be awesome. More graphical variety, more variations of items you found instead of always those crappy swords, some change if you played the game again, and yes, more challenge to the player and active required reactivity if weapons really play as big a part as you believe they will (personally I still somewhat doubt that). Bonus; It saves developers time, and instead of bandit1.cr (sword), bandit2.cr (axe), bandit3.cr (hammer) they could all fit it in 1 file, as well as bandit4.cr (bow) and bandit5.cr (crossbow) into bandit2. See how what used to be 1,2 and 3 don't get bows or crossbows? And how randomly chosing 1,2 or 3 (all preset) doesn't require ANY algoriths, just a randomiser?

 

Now, as to the WHY? Because I've played BG1 a few times. I did BG2. I did KOTOR1. All the loot was fixed. It was boring, it was predictable. It was stale. I don't want completely random (KOTOR2 wasn't good either), and yes, making instead of 1 drop 3 (not necessarily unique items though, although as I said before, that would be cool too, and add a layer of depth, and reactiviteness, as well as players discussing items more and potentially using items they otherwise never would. All pro's to me). Why is this bad? I don't know, you tell me, since you're the one objecting against it. If you replay the game to see other choices and all the dropped items are the same, is that going to add an additional layer of strategy and thinking to your brain? No. Indeed. Would if you suddenly find other items, although yes, some the same too, require you to think better about your strategy. Thinking like 'Meh, I'll find that sword+2 there, no need to buy a sword+1 now' could be invalid. You still need to keep your top-game.

Would that be good game design? Yes, I think it would. Would it be wasted development time? Maybe for an AAA+ game with the lowest commoditor, but this game is DESIGNED for the people we KNOW will replay it. And maybe again, and again. And spending time on this, implenting this, would really level up the game for them, for us.

We know people still play BG2 to this day. Most people know everything. With just this tiny bit of randomness you can never say that about PE. It will remain fresh, playthrough after playthrough. No forestwalk the same, no lootfind exactly the same as you had in the game before.

 

But please... do tell me how I have little cognative capabilities or or no long-term vision, or any vision or "how I have to turn on my brain" (oh, the IRONY).

 

I have no objections to items being fixed. But the only reason YOU want them fixed are narrow-mindedness, naitivity and a severe lack of knowledge how games are based. That, to me, are NOT valid reasons. I would have been far more forgiving if the preference came out of mere preference, than because of these 3 reasons, which aren't a preference to begin with.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Valorian]

I had written a more thorough reply to various points, but ultimately since you missed it:

 

It should be noted that the post of yours that I responded to came before you saying "I'm okay with it in random encounters" as well as "I'm okay with non-equipped loot."

 

Which was another way of me saying "I had an inaccurate view of your perspective when I wrote my first response."  As such I had assumed (incorrectly) you were completely against it in any capacity and for any item when I wrote my first response.  Though you seem to be itching for a fight at this point.

 

K.

 

Sure, I'm ok with generic ambush encounters (aka random encounters, when transitioning from one world map area to another one) having a bit of randomness. A bandit with a mace instead of a sword, to make Hassat happy on his subsequent playthroughs.

 

 

 

Ohi Hassat:

"An encounter wandering as a whole? Sure. But then it's really not handcrafted anymore."

 

Stopped reading right here. How is it not handcrafted anymore if it changes position?  

 

Ok, I read a bit more just for the lols.

 

"They could be encountered at another encounter."

 

I suppose each wandering encounter would have an area where they're allowed to wander to not mix with other encounters, hm?

 

"You could find them with the bowmen close to your party. I suppose it works best with melee only."

 

You could find them with the bowmen close to your party if you approch them from east instead of west. Does an encounter lose its handcrafted status if you approch them from the "wrong" side?

 

"And if that works, why wont random equipment? What makes one kind of interesting gameplay appaling to you, while it's not that different?"

 

It's very different. I don't want encounters being "crafted" by randomness. Combat is already very random as it is, we don't need to randomize encounters too.

 

 

 

Also, I don't need encounters to wander. It's more of an alternative to randomized encounters to make people like you happy. Although, I can see a huge benefit from encounters wandering (making stealth a bit more challenging than walking around enemies rooted in place).

[Hassat Hunter]

Game design is funny stuff? Well, you learn new things every day.

 

So 'random terrain' is fine? Despite that that, the cover, the place where you can and can't walk etc. all will most likely play a bigger role in combat resolution than wheter an enemy has a sword of axe.

Why?

Actually that would be the question if I didn't know already. You think wandering is still handcrafted but just wandering in a random area or random within a designated distance from the homepoint.

WRONG. Wandering is randomness, even if the group composition stays the same. Unless the terrain they wander is flat all over with nothing on it, and OE wont make their maps that lazy or boring. It will add factors outside of the developers designation. It's different from patrolling, where the developer has fixed parameters set for his party to be.

You think the axe or sword is full randomness.

WRONG. It's cycling between a selected number of designations set by the developer (your valued hand-crafting.

You think this randomness can only be acquired by complex algoriths.

WRONG. But it's all been explained before so scroll back a bit.

 

So, all your objections are based on wrong assumptions. As such, you don't have much of a footing to stand on, only you don't seem to realise that.

If you said "I don't like that" fine, can't argue with preferences. But don't use false facts or misguided ideas on what is needed to say it should not be done. Wheter you really believe them, or just hope to try and make your opinion the only truth (which would be kinda low) doesn't really matter in that regard.

I do suggest spending a bit of time in researching game-development. Hopefully it will learn you much, so you will no longer will remain steadfully true to incorrect assessements.

 

Also, you still don't get we don't want to randomnise combat but rather have some variety to drops, even on uniquely named enemies, do you?

[Lephys]

It's very different. I don't want encounters being "crafted" by randomness. Combat is already very random as it is, we don't need to randomize encounters too.

Why not crafted by order and specificity, and garnished/seasoned with randomness?

[cleric Nemir]

I would certainly welcome the situations where if I meet a,say,group of 2 archers and 4 meele/tank type enemies ,they have a +X something on them generated randomly,may it be a sword,bow/crossbow/gun or a piece of armor,ammo and such. Nothing wrong with that. If they themselves are spawned randomly and I get a 1 caster,2 assasins,3 meele/tank on a replay of the same spot,it can only be better and more immersive,unless the setting and the spawns are mismatched (but then again,I trust the devs enough to "know" that would not happen) . If I may,I would draw a parallel to the Creatures may respawn in certain areas if you rest, but this won't be always the case.. Wouldn't it be extremely stupid immersion-breaking if the mentioned respawns were same or out-of-place? What I intend to say is that I believe the game must already have some randomness with spawns and loot intended,and I highly doubt that this is done in a bad way. I fail to see why can't it or shouldn't be made random in every encounter (naturally,other than plot-relevant,unique,quested mini-boss etc. types),without exaggerating.

Edited November 8, 2013 by cleric Nemir

[Valorian]

Totally forgot about this topic.

 

There are 3 simple questions we should ask ourselves:

 

1) Does randomizing equipped items on enemies improve the quality of encounters?

I'd say no.

 

2) Considering the above, is it worth it to spend time on creating such scripts (that would have to take a variety of factors into account) or is it better to spend time on equipping encounters by hand as they populate areas with enemies?

I'd say the latter.

 

3) If unsure about 1) and 2) -- is randomizing enemies' weapons and armor in the spirit of games that PoE is inspired by?

No.

 

Take for example a sandwich and a variety of ingredients at your disposal. Would you like them randomized? I wouldn't, because some ingredients are disgusting if combined.

 

***

 

As for encounters wandering...

Some places on the map would indeed offer different tactical options (such as choke points), but wandering enemies is a necessity if they don't want to make stealth a joke. Besides, it's not like they would wander across the map, they'd have a control zone where they're allowed to roam.