:( Sad that obsidian is making this game isometric...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't know... "normalisation" sounds to me like 'as easy as modern games with all their failsafes so you can barely die'

Only if you're like valboo and feel the need to assume the worst(and likely unwarranted) possible outcome. Having the results of combat be more determined by character skill than luck has no correlation to failsafes. Arguably, not being able to be critcaled by a low-level bandit if you have incredibly high deflection translates to combat success relying more on tactics than on randomized dice rolls. It will be plenty easy to die from ****ty tactics in PE, regardless of "normalization". Also, there is always some randomization, as combat success will not solely be determined by hard numbers.

 

That said, I would argue that the untactical sections of BG1 lie not in the encounters Karakov described, but the 1st and 2nd level encounters. You know, like having a level 1 mage killed because a bandit popped out of the edge of the FoW and managed to land a critical with an arrow. No amount of positioning could have stopped that, "Armor" or "Shield" could not have prevented it, and all other counters are unavailable without cheating.

Edited November 11, 2013 by KaineParker

[BruceVC]

Can our character or a companion even die in the PE ? Cause if it cannot as they say, what happens when, example, a party member is maimed/knocked out? He will not be coup-de-grace'd, so does enemy lost interest in him? Does he become temporary invulnerable to any AoE damage and untargetable? Just lying there until someone restores his stamina, and he jumps back up like no fireballs hit the spot where he lay? Or until the combat ends, and then he just gets up and says "PHEW, glad that was over".

With not only instakill spells, vorpal swords and such out of the picture, but player/party member's death, how can anything be appealing in such combat ? "Tactics get better when you can't die", that would be a great final one. 

 

I don't know the answer to this but I would like someone more informed than me to comment on your post as you raise some good questions

[teknoman2]

 

 

 

But the normalization of probability is a Good Thing, since it neither does away with luck nor makes it crucial to survival.

I don't know... "normalisation" sounds to me like 'as easy as modern games with all their failsafes so you can barely die'

As for above post, the amount of skills would also be less with fixed values. Gone chosing a weapon based on 'less damage, more crit' or 'more damage, less crit' since crit's a chance. Skill's would be boring cause +1 is a lot less interesting if you already know your value, rather than if it adds 1 to the 1-20 roll *maybe* allowing you a hit.

No, I can't see it working. Not fun anyway.

 

 

 

have you played gothic? it has pretty much no aspect of combat left to chance, but it still delivers a chalenging experience with room for smart disposal of enemies. 

a game that does no rely on luck is not inherently boring, as one that does is not inherently frustrating.

the problem with DnD based games is the level range prediction by the developers, they know that at every place you go, you will be X+-1 levels, so they adjust the enemies in a way that you will always have around 50% chance to hit them. so you have to buff up for each encounter to raise your chances, and if you cant spam rest, you will not have buffs for the next. i for example, never used confusion, disintegrate, sleep, death, and other hit or miss debuffs in any DnD based game. why? because the chance of it working was small and if it didnt it was a wasted spell slot, that could hold a more direct damage spell that would have had an effect even if they saved (and 96% of the time they did). however if the system was like PE where "saving" against a stun means that instead of 6s you are stunned for 3s with a very small chance to avoid it completelly, the above spells would have again a reson to be used, because even at half efficiency, they offer something to the fight

[Cybersquirt]

   Heard about this game recently and decided to make a forum account to get other peoples opinions about it.  im very dissapointed in the fact that they are making an "infinity engine style" game. i dont understand the logic behind this decision to take such a large step back in game design(cost i guess is the only reason i can think of).

 

   i think gaming is so far past this kind of game,that many players wont give it a second look.  im a long time obsidian fan and iv played many of their games and i would hate to see this project fail because of the antiquity of the design.  i dont think that there are many players in todays gaming landscape that will tolerate this outdated design,no matter how good the story/characters/world are.

 

  i just dont think the isometric view was one of the reasons people loved the baulders gate/planescape/nevewinter nights games,it was an aspect that was simply tolerated due to the technological limitations of the time,and now that we are so well advanced in that aspect,i think very few will want to go back.

 

  heres hoping this project has enough success to open the door for obsidian to create a more modern game,with this new world and lore as a base. i dont see this ever standing up to the mass effects and KOTOR's of the world. but i wish them the best of luck and hope for better in the future .

Cost? I doubt it. This game was billed as iso from the start.  Easier, I'm sure. And us fanboi's have NO PROLEMs with isometric graphics.  I am currently playing another other iso game and I love the fact that I don't have to worry about camera angles/bobs/etc.  It will be plenty "modern" without all those "newfangled" distractions..  And I have no fears about story.

 

Here's hoping Obsidian keeps with it's promise to us gamers that are footing the bill.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Cybersquirt

[TrashMan]

 

As for strategy/tactics (what's the difference again?), I would like a game that didn't have these generally accepted perfect ways of fighting. Like "of course you have to take out the mage first, and you have to buff your fighters with your casters, and Haste is overpowered so use that as often as possible"...

I don't know if that means that I want a non-tactical game. I do want to think about my fights, and if I have a checklist of things I have to do to win a fight, well, that's not really the case then, is it? If a combat system is so balanced, however, that every action in itself is just as acceptable as the next one, and your choices are purely based on circumstantial priorities, that sounds more like tactics to me.

 

 

But of course.

That is why military schools don't teahc standard effective tactics. Things like "fire teams", "supression", "flanking" .. so perfect strategies.

 

You equate "smart/logical way of fighting" with "lack of tactics". It's not.

That's what tactics is all about.

You always have optimal strategies.

[Stun]

^I'll also point out that "kill the mage first", and "use Haste because it's overpowered" were specific examples of tactics/strategy to be used in Baldurs Gate. Completely different tactics would be suggested if we were discussing a different game. For example, In Temple of Elemental Evil, (Another D&D ruleset game with tons of dice rolls/luck elements dictating combat) I most definitely would not suggest wasting any of your 3rd level spell slots on Haste. Nor would I necessarily advocate killing the mage first, because they're hardly the nastiest opponents in any given encounter. Instead, for TOEE I would suggest going after the overly-aggressive enemy barbarian first before he improved-trips and AoO-spams your entire party to death, and having your mage shoot off Fireballs every round to get rid of everyone else.

 

In other words, all combat-centric RPGs have their own specific "magic bullet" ultimate strategy. You'll never find a *good* combat centric RPG that doesn't. The only ones that don't are the ones with truly sh**y combat mechanics. And those games usually employ grotesque amounts of level scaling to insure that nothing the player can do will ever break the soulless, rigid, combat balance.

Edited November 11, 2013 by Stun

[Hassat Hunter]

I don't know HH, I think knowing full well that that spell always hits for x damage, and you see a spellcaster capable of casting that spell, and you have a character which cannot take that hit, the certainty doesn't negatively affect the challenge. You're going to be tense, keeping your weaker character away until that spellcaster is dealt with.

And the joy of surviving something which you thought could kill you? Gone. The thrill of scoring a crit and turning a battle in your favor. Gone.

The game will become a spreadsheet. Not a lot of fun, well I think anyway.

 

When I play The Old Republic there are many people who just love to have "the best" rotation, skills and gear and think everyone should follow their rules. Well, screw them, I'm not going to lock myself in a boring repetition of what THEY want me to do. If I don't like a certain build, I'm not going to have it forced on me since they think it's the best.

 

If everything is fixed and static in a fight, it's just a cross-off puzzle. I'm pretty sure we all want a RPG, not a puzzle.

If the values were fixed, then I would agree with you. But they're not. The range of variance is simply reduced. That puts more, not less, importance on the player's optimization and tactical skill, since big lucky hits are much less likely to save the player or screw the player.

I know they aren't fixed, and for good reason.

However some people here suggest that, and think it would add "tactics". But tactics are already there, without making the game dull and static.

 

And 'reduced' is indeed giving me a bad feeling, since it's already very well in BG/IWD/PS:T. The fear is, if reduced too much, the combat indeed becomes too static (since predictable) and the player gets a big safety net. And that safety net irritates most players in modern RPG's, why should we add it to our return to the root?

Your guy? Every guy in XCOM was replacable. If he got killed, take his understudy, the game doesn't end automatically. In BG your own character, not your companions, is a single point of failure, end of game if he is dead (if I understood teknoman2 correctly, I have played BG so long ago I don't remember myself)

If your elites top notch guys got killed and you had to take rookies in the endgame, yes, you were done.

It might not have a fancy 'game over' immediately, but we all know you're screwed over without way back.

 

And yeah, if the PC dies it's game over in both BG and BG2. IN PS:T it's back to the respawn point, and IWD didn't have a main character to begin with. 

have you played gothic? it has pretty much no aspect of combat left to chance, but it still delivers a chalenging experience with room for smart disposal of enemies.

Nope, but I have Gothic 2 Gold (unplayed) on GOG and played Gothic 3, and it's combat is atrocious.

Also, tell me where Gothic's team is. Right. It's like saying "It works in FPS (and it does) it should go into RPG's!"... apples and oranges.

For example, a 3rd person or 1st person camera works in many games, but both are terrible systems to reliably control a group.

I can say the same as you about the game I currently play (Mark of the Ninja). Does not mean anything of it AT ALL is suitable for PE.

If you leave stuff to chance when controlling one person and it's not hack&slash it usually gets frowned upon. Look at Bloodlines or Deus Ex (though personally I think it works GREAT in DX).

But there's a reason criticial chance was added to RPG's, weapon ranges, to hit rolls.

a game that does no rely on luck is not inherently boring, as one that does is not inherently frustrating.

however if the system was like PE where "saving" against a stun means that instead of 6s you are stunned for 3s with a very small chance to avoid it completelly, the above spells would have again a reson to be used, because even at half efficiency, they offer something to the fight

As far as I know it the system in PE has a x per fight limit to spells. So even without the modification that a save is still negative consequences, it would have dealt with the problem you mentioned. It takes a slot, yes, but if you miss and fail, you can just use it again next time to try, no rest needed.

I wonder what a system where spells always have positive effects even if saved would do to magepower. Will they become powerhouses? Or are all spells nerfed into the ground to compensate the fact they always hit?

[Tamerlane]

Can our character or a companion even die in the PE ? Cause if it cannot as they say, what happens when, example, a party member is maimed/knocked out? He will not be coup-de-grace'd, so does enemy lost interest in him? Does he become temporary invulnerable to any AoE damage and untargetable? Just lying there until someone restores his stamina, and he jumps back up like no fireballs hit the spot where he lay? Or until the combat ends, and then he just gets up and says "PHEW, glad that was over".

With not only instakill spells, vorpal swords and such out of the picture, but player/party member's death, how can anything be appealing in such combat ? "Tactics get better when you can't die", that would be a great final one. 

 

By default, party members who fall in combat receive long-lasting injuries the decrease their effectiveness for some time. There is an optional difficulty setting that adds on permadeath.

[JFSOCC]

Well, I like playing chess, despite the movement options and skills and abilities of each piece being pre-set, completely locked in, and with no randomization, I have yet to play the same game twice. I've been in some incredibly tense situations in chess, ones that I sometimes still managed to survive.

 

And all that, without any randomness whatsoever.

[cleric Nemir]

 

Can our character or a companion even die in the PE ? Cause if it cannot as they say, what happens when, example, a party member is maimed/knocked out? He will not be coup-de-grace'd, so does enemy lost interest in him? Does he become temporary invulnerable to any AoE damage and untargetable? Just lying there until someone restores his stamina, and he jumps back up like no fireballs hit the spot where he lay? Or until the combat ends, and then he just gets up and says "PHEW, glad that was over".

With not only instakill spells, vorpal swords and such out of the picture, but player/party member's death, how can anything be appealing in such combat ? "Tactics get better when you can't die", that would be a great final one. 

 

By default, party members who fall in combat receive long-lasting injuries the decrease their effectiveness for some time. There is an optional difficulty setting that adds on permadeath.

 

 

 

That's is something that bothers me much more than all this tactic/strategy/normalization/chances of this and that. I'll try to be even more clear with what my point is here.

 

If, at some spot, in a gameplay where difficulty setting for death is turned off, our whole party is knocked out or maimed, do we have a message on the screen that says "game over" ? This is extremely relevant to any combat situation. Why? Because,if there is, then:

 

1. Why on earth have we no death of a player character? It results in a same "game over" message. You have to reload. And it drags along the validation of ressurections, healings, and instakills.

 

2. If we can continue the fight with a maimed character lying there immune to all around, then excuse me for noticing, but THAT is what sounds heavily cheap to begin with. There is no pressure on us when his HP reaches 0, because - lol: he cannot die. There's no time-ticking health drop,no coup-de -grace,AoE to worry about anymore,and ALL IS GOOD ??? I like to be open to new ideas, but if I was to see a display of such combat situation, I would very much turned around and walk away. My immersion would break like a captain Ugly's mirror.

 

3. If the option for death is toggled ingame,than let me ask any one of you who played a Bethesda game: How many times have you `tgm  ?  Ex: I have to: go job/out/sleep/etc. ,lemme just god-up a sec and be quick and dominant about dis. Immersion down the drain. If it is reserved to a game difficulty mode, then we have an two-faced game that, with this, PROVES itself to be striving to by default be a failsafe one. AND doing it wrong.

 

So if any this is not viewed by anyone as a primary discussion point to all the talks on combat,then I shall politely leave this thread. It was a troll thread to begin with,but turned somewhat interesting briefly.

Edited November 11, 2013 by cleric Nemir

[Tamerlane]

...

 

See, this is one of those weird scenarios where I know the meaning of each and every single word you used, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[cleric Nemir]

I can live with that. Tried to say something meaningful, if it's viewed as a fail, then ok. Carry on.

[JFSOCC]

I can simply not imagine that the game obsidian creates would not let you fail frequently and in horrible ways. I think there is consensus that nobody wants a game that you cannot lose.

[IndiraLightfoot]

I like the discussion that's been going on for like three or four pages, but I'd be very happy if it got to be a thread of its own, either here or perhaps in Gameplay and Mechanics. Perhaps a mod could fix that if enough of us agree on that or something?

 

And what should the title be?

[Stun]

And what should the title be?

It should be:

 

POLL: All fights must go the distance. Agree?

 

(because, you know, if one fighter gets "lucky" and scores a knockout, then it is: 1) Unfair, 2) Untactical, and 3) Boooring.

[teknoman2]

 

Nope, but I have Gothic 2 Gold (unplayed) on GOG and played Gothic 3, and it's combat is atrocious.

Also, tell me where Gothic's team is. Right. It's like saying "It works in FPS (and it does) it should go into RPG's!"... apples and oranges.

For example, a 3rd person or 1st person camera works in many games, but both are terrible systems to reliably control a group.

I can say the same as you about the game I currently play (Mark of the Ninja). Does not mean anything of it AT ALL is suitable for PE.

If you leave stuff to chance when controlling one person and it's not hack&slash it usually gets frowned upon. Look at Bloodlines or Deus Ex (though personally I think it works GREAT in DX).

But there's a reason criticial chance was added to RPG's, weapon ranges, to hit rolls.

a game that does no rely on luck is not inherently boring, as one that does is not inherently frustrating.

however if the system was like PE where "saving" against a stun means that instead of 6s you are stunned for 3s with a very small chance to avoid it completelly, the above spells would have again a reson to be used, because even at half efficiency, they offer something to the fight

As far as I know it the system in PE has a x per fight limit to spells. So even without the modification that a save is still negative consequences, it would have dealt with the problem you mentioned. It takes a slot, yes, but if you miss and fail, you can just use it again next time to try, no rest needed.

I wonder what a system where spells always have positive effects even if saved would do to magepower. Will they become powerhouses? Or are all spells nerfed into the ground to compensate the fact they always hit?

 

 

 

as i said in other occasions, im not against elements of chance in the games, but the DnD system in the IE games had a sort of randomness that bothered me a lot.

in arcanum you had a % chance to hit based on the enemy's armor, your skill, line of sight, obstacles, lighting and so on, but by maxing out your skills you could get the chance to 100% under good conditions and even keep it close to 100% in case something was in the way. in fallout it was the same more or less with a cap at 95%.

in NWN2 at level 1 the rolls were something like (10+2=12 vs AC 11 hit), at level 5 the rolls were (12+6=18 vs AC 17 hit), at level 10 (10+10=20 vs AC21 miss), at level 20 (9+18=27 vs AC 30 miss)... do you not see a patern on how the unbuffed attacks almost always need a roll of 11+ to hit? that is a permanent 50% chance throughout the entire game. if that is not complete randomness i dont know what is

[cleric Nemir]

Anyway, if someone, anyone, can answer me how hostile environment reacts to a maimed character, I might get a better picture on what's worrying me here. If I can hear more details on that situation, I could draw my conclusion whether it is a good design against the problem of so-called "save scumming", because right know I am not convinced that it is. Thanks in advance? 

 

EDIT: This. The "-Death vs. Maiming" under "Combat options:". I would give my all right now to see more details about this.

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by cleric Nemir

[jethro]

 

If the values were fixed, then I would agree with you. But they're not. The range of variance is simply reduced. That puts more, not less, importance on the player's optimization and tactical skill, since big lucky hits are much less likely to save the player or screw the player.

I know they aren't fixed, and for good reason.

However some people here suggest that, and think it would add "tactics". But tactics are already there, without making the game dull and static.

 

I don't know. It was my impression that it was you who brought up fixed values. Maybe you just misread some other post.

 

And 'reduced' is indeed giving me a bad feeling, since it's already very well in BG/IWD/PS:T. The fear is, if reduced too much, the combat indeed becomes too static (since predictable) and the player gets a big safety net. And that safety net irritates most players in modern RPG's, why should we add it to our return to the root?

You are right it is something more of a safety net, because the player can react. But I don't see this necessarily as easier.

 

With insta-kill spells you go into a fight, get killed. But you know your chance of avoiding the insta-kill is high, so you just reload, don't change a thing and the game will reward you (with high probability) with an enemy mage wasting one high-level spell. Is that difficult? It isn't even dramatic.

 

Without insta-kill the enemy mage hits you for 20 of your 50 HP the first round. You do something, try to engage the mage with your fighter. No use, the mage has shielded himself and hits you again for 22. Now you know the next attack is likely your end. Does it suffice to let the fighter attack, do you have some counter-spell that might work, can someone else of your party disengage his enemy and finish the mage? Maybe only a high-risk maneuvre can help you because the odds are dramatically against your too low-level group. Your actions in the first round might already have doomed you, or the encounter was only winnable by using a specific tactic. THIS is dramatic, this is difficult and you could fail very fast. BUT the chance to react was at least there, for one or two rounds.

 

There is a reason the bomb in movies always has a timer ticking down instead of exploding immediately. Drama!

 

 

Your guy? Every guy in XCOM was replacable. If he got killed, take his understudy, the game doesn't end automatically. In BG your own character, not your companions, is a single point of failure, end of game if he is dead (if I understood teknoman2 correctly, I have played BG so long ago I don't remember myself)

If your elites top notch guys got killed and you had to take rookies in the endgame, yes, you were done.

It might not have a fancy 'game over' immediately, but we all know you're screwed over without way back.

 

See, you played the game one difficulty step higher but on a kill simply reloaded. Others play it a difficulty step lower and play on if someone is killed. Because they know that their soldiers life is dangerous and short they always build up more than one of each type, they have replacements ready to go. In games like xcom, jagged alliance or wasteland with no central PC this is "how the game is meant to play" i.e. the game is balanced that way.

 

Now, I don't mean to critisize how you play xcom (In fact I did the same because I liked my troopers too much ;-). I just want to point out: Really really bad example for insta-kill being end-of-game.

Edited November 11, 2013 by jethro

[teknoman2]

Anyway, if someone, anyone, can answer me how hostile environment reacts to a maimed character, I might get a better picture on what's worrying me here. If I can hear more details on that situation, I could draw my conclusion whether it is a good design against the problem of so-called "save scumming", because right know I am not convinced that it is. Thanks in advance? 

 

EDIT: This. The "-Death vs. Maiming" under "Combat options:". I would give my all right now to see more details about this.

 

if i remember correctly, maiming is similar to death and occurs when you get to 0 hp, but the character does not die, just gets crippled and falls unconscious. however, unlike the trend, he does not come back like nothing happened after the fight, but he must go back to the base and heal over a long period of time before you can use him again (or he may become unusable and in the case of the main character i think it's game over). if chosen from the options and always on in expert, he dies on the spot and there is no resurection.

a downed character (maimed or just out of stamina) is ignored by the enemies who leave him there and go for the rest. the downed character cannot get back up during the fight unless revived and when he does he regenerates his stamina but not his hp. maimed can not be revived

Edited November 11, 2013 by teknoman2

[jethro]

@Nemir: Ok, the point seems really important to you. So I tried to reread your earlier post and summarize and answer your points to the best of my abilities.
 

If, at some spot, in a gameplay where difficulty setting for death is turned off, our whole party is knocked out or maimed, do we have a message on the screen that says "game over" ? This is extremely relevant to any combat situation. Why? Because,if there is, then:

First Scenario: PCs get maimed when they reach 0 HP and are out of the fight. If the whole group reaches 0 HP, the game ends -> Reload.
 

1. Why on earth have we no death of a player character? It results in a same "game over" message. You have to reload. And it drags along the validation of ressurections, healings, and instakills.

Summarize: Fail.

Answer: When only one PC is at 0 HP there is no "game over" message. If the reduced group still wins the fight, this one PC obviously has got wounds that put him out of the fight but didn't kill him. No need to reload. (Does this answer anything you tried to say?)
 

2. If we can continue the fight with a maimed character lying there immune to all around, then excuse me for noticing, but THAT is what sounds heavily cheap to begin with. There is no pressure on us when his HP reaches 0, because - lol: he cannot die. There's no time-ticking health drop,no coup-de -grace,AoE to worry about anymore,and ALL IS GOOD ??? I like to be open to new ideas, but if I was to see a display of such combat situation, I would very much turned around and walk away. My immersion would break like a captain Ugly's mirror.

Summarize: Why no bleeding to final death then? Bleeding is a nice way to turn up the tension. The player gets not only the penalty of having to fight with one man less but also the penalty of having to disengage a second character to heal that one. And it breaks immersion.

Answer: Difficulty can be adjusted. Tension will also be high if most of your party blacked out and your last man standing wins (or not). But sure, bleeding is a nice mechanic, beta will show how good PE works without it (but lots of other RPGs did quite well without it by the way).

Immersion? Now this is really far-fetched. You don't blink an eye if your fighter is battling at 100% effectiveness while at 1 HP and is instantly out and bleeding like a pig when at 0 HP? But a guy passed out with wounds that would need a lot longer than a few minutes to kill you guy and therefore don't need to be simulated breaks your immersion? RPG combat is an approximation and people have no problem to turn a blind eye if it is fun. Select your eye (or select death, that's why it is an option)
 

3. If the option for death is toggled ingame,than let me ask any one of you who played a Bethesda game: How many times have you `tgm  ?  Ex: I have to: go job/out/sleep/etc. ,lemme just god-up a sec and be quick and dominant about dis. Immersion down the drain. If it is reserved to a game difficulty mode, then we have an two-faced game that, with this, PROVES itself to be striving to by default be a failsafe one. AND doing it wrong.

Summarize: I might want to play with death enabled, but the option menu is just one mouse click away and could lead me to change it to maim-mode.

Answer: Really? What about going into options and changing the game to "super easy"? Same problem. What about "save until you succeed with the difficulty check" that gets you the uber-sword ? Same problem. What about reading in the internet which house you have to burglar to get that +3 amulet? Same problem. You have to deal with your weak mind yourself, as it always was in single-player games.

Edited November 11, 2013 by jethro

[cleric Nemir]

 

if i remember correctly, maiming is similar to death and occurs when you get to 0 hp, but the character does not die, just gets crippled and falls unconscious. however, unlike the trend, he does not come back like nothing happened after the fight, but he must go back to the base and heal over a long period of time before you can use him again (or he may become unusable and in the case of the main character i think it's game over). if chosen from the options and always on in expert, he dies on the spot and there is no resurection.

a downed character (maimed or just out of stamina) is ignored by the enemies who leave him there and go for the rest. the downed character cannot get back up during the fight unless revived and when he does he regenerates his stamina but not his hp. maimed can not be revived

 

 

 

So, (and this is now considered final,right?) by default the maimed character is ignored, and AoE can suck it. I know he doesn't just get up without suffering penalties,and that regenerating stamina can get him up, no HP regen, and  I just wanted to be clear on the fact that, while he's maimed, he is beyond interest of enemies plus cannot be further damaged than that. Thank you.

 

Now I can finally say that I find this very bad as a design - regardless of the fact that I can switch it on/off or just go play in Expert,since I don't like it in "vanilla". If that is what the perpetually discussed "goal" of the devs will look like when the game comes out and one sits to play it on Normal, then I don't like it one single bit.

[cleric Nemir]

@Nemir: Ok, the point seems really important to you. So I tried to reread your earlier post and summarize and answer your points to the best of my abilities.

 

If, at some spot, in a gameplay where difficulty setting for death is turned off, our whole party is knocked out or maimed, do we have a message on the screen that says "game over" ? This is extremely relevant to any combat situation. Why? Because,if there is, then:

First Scenario: PCs get maimed when they reach 0 HP and are out of the fight. If the whole group reaches 0 HP, the game ends -> Reload.

 

1. Why on earth have we no death of a player character? It results in a same "game over" message. You have to reload. And it drags along the validation of ressurections, healings, and instakills.

Summarize: Fail.

 

Answer: When only one PC is at 0 HP there is no "game over" message. If the reduced group still wins the fight, this one PC obviously has got wounds that put him out of the fight but didn't kill him. No need to reload. (Does this answer anything you tried to say?)

 

Not really. Two things: if only one PC dies  in the previous games (opposed to what's now a "reaches 0 hp") , you do not necessarily have a game over, and I didn't started this by assuming that it does. Best example (most logical one) is that character is slowly "bleeding to death", imo. And you can manage to get to save him nevertheless. Second, it is rumored that when a main PC gets maimed,you do have a game over. That would be even worse (imo), and I want to get as many info on this as I can here.

But -  when all of the party is KO'd, it is equal to all party died/left to bleed. It doesn't justify their decision that an unconscious character is to be unkillable, or to sum it: I see no reason for a character not to be able to die, and yet they want to present a "vanilla" where this is the case.

 

 

 

 

2. If we can continue the fight with a maimed character lying there immune to all around, then excuse me for noticing, but THAT is what sounds heavily cheap to begin with. There is no pressure on us when his HP reaches 0, because - lol: he cannot die. There's no time-ticking health drop,no coup-de -grace,AoE to worry about anymore,and ALL IS GOOD ??? I like to be open to new ideas, but if I was to see a display of such combat situation, I would very much turned around and walk away. My immersion would break like a captain Ugly's mirror.

Summarize: Why no bleeding to final death then? Bleeding is a nice way to turn up the tension. The player gets not only the penalty of having to fight with one man less but also the penalty of having to disengage a second character to heal that one. And it breaks immersion.

 

Answer: Difficulty can be adjusted. Tension will also be high if most of your party blacked out and your last man standing wins (or not). But sure, bleeding is a nice mechanic, beta will show how good PE works without it (but lots of other RPGs did quite well without it by the way).

 

Immersion? Now this is really far-fetched. You don't blink an eye if your fighter is battling at 100% effectiveness while at 1 HP and is instantly out and bleeding like a pig when at 0 HP? But a guy passed out with wounds that would need a lot longer than a few minutes to kill you guy and therefore don't need to be simulated breaks your immersion? RPG combat is an approximation and people have no problem to turn a blind eye if it is fun. Select your eye (or select death, that's why it is an option)

 

My point was to say that having unkillable characters in a fight is very immersion-breaking. Again-in my opinion. I never suggested that so far solutions (your fighter at 1 HP example) is something that I like. My overall conclusion to the devs decision to make dying a selected thing is that it is bad, and that I feel concerned that it will appear bad to anyone that plays it "vanilla" way. Surely there must be other ways to this,no?

 

 

 

 

3. If the option for death is toggled ingame,than let me ask any one of you who played a Bethesda game: How many times have you `tgm  ?  Ex: I have to: go job/out/sleep/etc. ,lemme just god-up a sec and be quick and dominant about dis. Immersion down the drain. If it is reserved to a game difficulty mode, then we have an two-faced game that, with this, PROVES itself to be striving to by default be a failsafe one. AND doing it wrong.

Summarize: I might want to play with death enabled, but the option menu is just one mouse click away and could lead me to change it to maim-mode.

 

Answer: Really? What about going into options and changing the game to "super easy"? Same problem. What about "save until you succeed with the difficulty check" that gets you the uber-sword ? Same problem. What about reading in the internet which house you have to burglar to get that +3 amulet? Same problem. You have to deal with your weak mind yourself, as it always was in single-player games.

 

You have a good point here. I mentioned it only because it felt like a "drop that spilled the cup" when I think of devs decisions. But you're right, nevertheless.

[Hassat Hunter]

The "penalty upon revive" sounds very Drakensang. Hopefully it's not as easy counterable as in Drakensang, by simply using any of the 1000 random bandages you randomly find. Kind of completely removed the purpose of having the wound-system at all.

Well, I like playing chess, despite the movement options and skills and abilities of each piece being pre-set, completely locked in, and with no randomization, I have yet to play the same game twice. I've been in some incredibly tense situations in chess, ones that I sometimes still managed to survive.

The question is... would you like to play chess for 50 hours? And not over the course of a year or more, but for a gamerun, say a week or 2.

in NWN2 at level 1 the rolls were something like (10+2=12 vs AC 11 hit), at level 5 the rolls were (12+6=18 vs AC 17 hit), at level 10 (10+10=20 vs AC21 miss), at level 20 (9+18=27 vs AC 30 miss)... do you not see a patern on how the unbuffed attacks almost always need a roll of 11+ to hit? that is a permanent 50% chance throughout the entire game. if that is not complete randomness i dont know what is

Sounds more like an issue with NWN2 balancing than D&D to me.

I do know that by the end of BG1 my PC had an AC of -10 and was pretty much invernable against anything other than magic.

So that depends more on the integration than the system.

I don't know. It was my impression that it was you who brought up fixed values. Maybe you just misread some other post.

No, someone was complaining that they kept the mage alive, and it did a good dose of damage to his PC. And that apparently meant BG wasn't tactical (rather than that his tactic sucked) and the solution would be to minimalise or completely do away with random factors, since that apparently would make a game better. I disagreed.

You are right it is something more of a safety net, because the player can react. But I don't see this necessarily as easier.

[example]

The problem with your suggestion is, it relies on you *needing* to react within combat. While those insta-death spells usually focus on your preperation (saves, feats, powers).

If you go willingly into a demon fight without negative plane protection, you should pretty much die. If you are willingly engaging fire-elements with items that give +ice resistance -fire resistance, you should pretty much die. If you focus full on on the offensive (attack powers and feats) but decide to skim the defensive, you pretty much put it on yourself if you do get attacked.

 

Not everything should be decided only in the battlefield, it's an RPG after all.

There is a reason the bomb in movies always has a timer ticking down instead of exploding immediately. Drama

You must not be watching 24. Though there's pretty much always a timer there, bomb or not XD.

Now, I don't mean to critisize how you play xcom (In fact I did the same because I liked my troopers too much ;-). I just want to point out: Really really bad example for insta-kill being end-of-game.

If you read the 'what are you playing' thread, you would have known I *didn't* reload. I moved on. And got mauled horribly.

Hence being very able to say that, yes, it's not technically game over as in the screen appears forcing you to reload, but it's over for you advancing in the game.

Just making it clear that the game over screen doesn't tell all, or if you avoid it it's automatically sure you can finish the game (depending on the game).

[teknoman2]

 

 

if i remember correctly, maiming is similar to death and occurs when you get to 0 hp, but the character does not die, just gets crippled and falls unconscious. however, unlike the trend, he does not come back like nothing happened after the fight, but he must go back to the base and heal over a long period of time before you can use him again (or he may become unusable and in the case of the main character i think it's game over). if chosen from the options and always on in expert, he dies on the spot and there is no resurection.

a downed character (maimed or just out of stamina) is ignored by the enemies who leave him there and go for the rest. the downed character cannot get back up during the fight unless revived and when he does he regenerates his stamina but not his hp. maimed can not be revived

 

 

 

So, (and this is now considered final,right?) by default the maimed character is ignored, and AoE can suck it. I know he doesn't just get up without suffering penalties,and that regenerating stamina can get him up, no HP regen, and  I just wanted to be clear on the fact that, while he's maimed, he is beyond interest of enemies plus cannot be further damaged than that. Thank you.

 

Now I can finally say that I find this very bad as a design - regardless of the fact that I can switch it on/off or just go play in Expert,since I don't like it in "vanilla". If that is what the perpetually discussed "goal" of the devs will look like when the game comes out and one sits to play it on Normal, then I don't like it one single bit.

 

i do not know how exactly it will work on the final game, it's mostly a patchwork guess from the info we have. 

however in a real battle, you do not waste time finishing off the wounded while the rest are still up and fighting so that is what enemies do. first you disable all opponents and then clean up those who are not dead yet.

also we have no info on what happens to downed characters regarding aoe. i suppose that a character that ran out of stamina and is just down (meaning his hp is still>0), will keep getting damage from aoe, but since maiming is like a less permanent death for the non hardcore gamers, i suppose they dont get any damage (they are at 0 hp after all)

 

Hassat i have never played DnD in it's PnP form, just the games based on it. i do not know but im pretty sure the system works fine with real dice, however the games have more rigid rules and most of all are forcefully balanced, making the algorythm that controls rolls to get certain numbers more often. in BG1 for example, my main had a +12 to his roll, meaning he could hit anything with AC-4 by rolling 2. still, he missed a lot, because he was getting gimped by the system, that forced his rolls to be 1, 7 out of 10 attacks. same patern i noticed in IWD, where i played a solo fighter-mage-thief that had AC-18 when i used the shield spell, meaning that most enemies could only hit him with a 20 and guess what: 6/10 enemy attack rolls were 20. the game system, balanced my too strong character, by giving me bad rolls or by giving several critical hits in a row to the enemy.

the NWN2 system tends to keep the rolls to a 50% chance most of the time, so even if you buff up it will just roll smaller numbers more often, unlike the real dice that can be anything. and this is why i dislike the DnD system for video games... also the fact that after a certain level, enemies autosave vs any status effect spells unless you are extremelly lucky

Edited November 11, 2013 by teknoman2

[jethro]

 

I don't know. It was my impression that it was you who brought up fixed values. Maybe you just misread some other post.

No, someone was complaining that they kept the mage alive, and it did a good dose of damage to his PC. And that apparently meant BG wasn't tactical (rather than that his tactic sucked) and the solution would be to minimalise or completely do away with random factors, since that apparently would make a game better. I disagreed.

 

Well, lets check facts. Post#94 of teknoman2:

"all that is nice and good, but what do you do if the enemy mage decides out of all these, to target your main character with a spell and your character rolls 1 as saving throw? it is quite easy for one bad dice roll to send to hell your entire strategy that would offer you a flawless victory otherwise"

 

Do you see any mention of a solution and specifically that the solution is to remove luck at all? Your answer in post 97:

"So in order to add strategy we need to remove "bad luck"? No more rolls? No more variable damage?..."

 

It is rather obvious that you misread teknoman2 and brought up the "no rolls" idea. He immediately answers "i dont say remove rolls and stuff..."

 

The problem with your suggestion is, it relies on you *needing* to react within combat. While those insta-death spells usually focus on your preperation (saves, feats, powers).

If you go willingly into a demon fight without negative plane protection, you should pretty much die. If you are willingly engaging fire-elements with items that give +ice resistance -fire resistance, you should pretty much die. If you focus full on on the offensive (attack powers and feats) but decide to skim the defensive, you pretty much put it on yourself if you do get attacked.

"focus on preparation"? Insta-death spells have nothing to do with preparation. No one expects you to level your PC (take feats and powers) so that he is impossible to get killed by them.

If you go without the right preparation into a fight where you are expected to know how to prepare, naturally you should fail. Or if you try to fight with your level 1 party against a level 10 group you even should expect to be one-shoted to death in the first round.

 

What we have been talking about all the time is that you can't prepare against an insta-death spell. If there is no insta-death spell you still can lose, but if your party loses against a considerably weaker force (like a single mage of the same level as you) you can be relatively sure you made some mistake, be it in preparation or in combat.

 

If you read the 'what are you playing' thread, you would have known I *didn't* reload. I moved on. And got mauled horribly.

Hence being very able to say that, yes, it's not technically game over as in the screen appears forcing you to reload, but it's over for you advancing in the game.

Just making it clear that the game over screen doesn't tell all, or if you avoid it it's automatically sure you can finish the game (depending on the game).

Yes, absolutely. Both Jagged Alliance and xcom (and also many strategy games for example) can be lost by wasting too many exp-points on killed troops. In other words: If you lost eventually, then you probably have been playing at a higher difficulty setting than your tactics and overall strategy waranted (or you just were too sloppy or impatient in fights for this setting). Xcom is a surprisingly difficult game. And it should get obvious much earlier in the game that if you have a death every second fight (just as an example) and never get your troops to higher levels as a consequence that that is too much.

Edited November 12, 2013 by jethro