Can we really play the whole game with just one character?

[Lephys]

Guess who's staying a hundred miles away from this post of yours? Guess who won't touch it or look at it because it demonstrably shatters his ridiculous claim that actual *Literal* kiting doesn't exist in the real world?

That's not kiting. That's just killing stuff while you're running away. If that's kiting, then so is driving away in a humvee and slaughtering people on foot with a 50-calibur mounted atop it while you do so.

[Stun]

I'm arguing the actual legitimacy of kiting as an actual, employable tactic that should be implemented into a virtual system of combat mechanics....

...By saying that Kiting isn't a tactic (it is) because it can't be done in real life (It can).

 

Right. LOL

 

If you wanna go by definition, a pine cone is food. But I'd still say it's no meal. You could eat a pine cone, and even get nutrition from it, but it's not really a viable option when it comes to meal options. If you have the choice between anything else, and a pine cone, you'd choose anything else.

 

"Kiting" is a friggin' side effect of video game programming. "Keeping your enemy at a distance" is not kiting. Killing your enemy without getting hit is not kiting. Dodging is not kiting. Specifically taking advantage of the math involved with movement commands, inter-command delays, attack speed, and move speed such that your virtually programmed foe never actually gets to hit you over the course of a substantial duration of time while you hit him all day long... that's kiting.

Enough already. Everyone here knows what kiting is. Well, everyone but you, apparently. The rest of us have moved on to discussing examples of kiting.

 

 

The act of casting magic spells is just what you do with spells. Therefore, "casting things" is a method.

But you can't cast spells in real life, therefore, according to your stated perameters, casting spells at enemies is not a tactic in an RPG. Edited May 20, 2014 by Stun

[Stun]

 

Guess who's staying a hundred miles away from this post of yours? Guess who won't touch it or look at it because it demonstrably shatters his ridiculous claim that actual *Literal* kiting doesn't exist in the real world?

That's not kiting. That's just killing stuff while you're running away. If that's kiting, then so is driving away in a humvee and slaughtering people on foot with a 50-calibur mounted atop it while you do so.

 

It is if it's a combat situation and those people are chasing you.

 

WTF. You really don't know what kiting is.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Stun

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I said "you weren't asking me a question." Past tense. Unless you ask people questions by quoting other people?

 

Maybe now you're asking me a question, very cleverly disguised as a simply clarification of your initial question (that's rather confusing, for the record, especially since, if you're asking me a question now, it's literally the exact same question you were asking Fatback).

 

 

I was asking a question in general whether it contains kiting or not. Regardless who I quoted. Since there was quite a few posts between my posts about bullfighting, it was necessary to keep the discussion in context by quoting Fatback. The fact that you then responded immediately after my post suggests you were referring to my post. Otherwise why immediately respond after mine? Why not respond earlier? No, you were basically referencing my post even though you didn't quote it. I then responded by asking the same question to you. And you dodged and weaved and you're still dodging and weaving with this response.

 

 

 

The answer is no, btw. It contains the act of dodging, and counter-attacking. Again, in RPG mechanics, the Bull would use an ability called "Charge," and the Matador would then Dodge and Counter-Attack. For him to be kiting, he'd have to constantly run away from the bull the whole time, always staying just too far ahead of it for it to even successfully attack him, all the while killing it with his own direct attacks.

 

It doesn't just contain the act of dodging and counter-attacking. There's more to bull fighting than those two things. There's also the tactic of using the cape to misdirect the bull. The same tactic can be used in a crpg by a solo player to use something to misdirect the enemy while the player continues to move and damage the enemy from a distance. The Matador will also continue to move away to keep a certain distance from the bull. They don't just stand there and dodge. They often move back to keep their distance as can be the case in a crpg. I can see similarities with kiting a bull, regardless of whether the bull is intelligent or not. It's not about the bull's intelligence, but the act itself.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hiro Protagonist II]

That's not kiting. That's just killing stuff while you're running away. If that's kiting, then so is driving away in a humvee and slaughtering people on foot with a 50-calibur mounted atop it while you do so.

 

Geez. I was patiently waiting and wondering what absurd response Lephys could come up with. I thought Lephys couldn't possibly counter this and now I see Lephys has no clue on what kiting is. Of course the act of kiting was invented around 15 years ago from a computer game.

[Stun]

But back on topic....

The question is: Is this true? I really, really hope not. The main reason why I loved Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Greyhawk; Temple of Elemental Evil and so on was because a group was essential. Not one class could solo the game on its own.

Each one of those games could be soloed by any class. In fact, that's one of the reasons why each of those games are all time classics and endlessly replayable. Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Mor]

Giving a class the ability to Kite is not "watering down" any roles. ... honored mage spells like Invisibility, Haste, Dimension door, Slow, Fumble, Grease and Sleep have existed since Josh Sawyer was in kindergarten? Here let me answer that. Because dealing with Bull-rushing battle field goons IS the mage's role.

There is definition gap here, I intentionally haven't used the term kiting. To me any good use you can make of your ability is valid tactic, those spells included. However, you should understand that there are class which role/abilities allow them to counter your tactic easily. Playing 6 one class character should be possible, but much harder in situation to which the class isn't suited for. This goes double for solo character playing without the benefit of party\tactics, going against overwhelmed odds by an enemy who has much superior selection of tactic\abilities e.g. A solo wizard should be easily silenced\stunned\interrupted and quickly dispatched by couple of monks coming from different directions. (I hope that some enemies can stealth so that you can be sneak attacked by a Rouge)

 

A good player can solo a party based game regardless of how strictly the devs decided to define the class roles. If he can't then the game has an options deficit problem.... the rock-paper-scissors kind, to be specific.

On the contrary, if normally a player can ignore class roles, and win overwhelming encounters then the game has poor design, difficulty level or AI. He should have a chance because soloing he got so much experience\levels and can overpower everyone or more likely because he will be using **** load of save\load and gamy tactics that the AI can't use. (i love that alerted enemy's call for reinforcement, this way no boring drawing enemies one by one)

[Osvir]

Some thoughts on some of the discussion that I read through on the first pages, and what seems to be going on still a bit:

Playing solo can be fun, some people like playing Baldur's Gate with 2 characters, or 3, or 4. The fun part of a 6 party game is that it allows for so many different compositions. Some like to play a 6 man Wizard party, where's the class combination in that? That's just 6 Wizards.

Or 6 Rangers, or 6 Barbarians and so and so forth. There's so many possibilities! Which is very exciting. Being able to mix-up and recruit as many, if any, party members you want is only a good thing. I don't understand how some of the discussion I read went "I don't understand how people want to play solo in a party-based game".

I myself am going for a 6 man party on my first run, but I'll probably try out many variations and combinations at later stages (ranging from solo play to 4 party plays).

For the OP:
I hope I can play the whole game solo, but if I do it on Path of the Damned I better be damn sure and ready that I'm going to have to start over from the beginning countless times and try and get some sort of meta-knowledge of where I can go for early equipment, early experience and find "loopholes" in builds and the like and research and spend a lot of "out of game" time to find the right recipe to be able to do it. Because it's probably going to be difficult.

Speedrunners play the same game over and over and over again to become pro's at what they are doing to be able to do the things they do.

The same thing would probably apply to a solo-run on Path of the Damned in Pillars of Eternity.

But on the other hand, a solo-run on some of the easier difficulties (anything Normal or Easy really) could probably mechanically be totally feasible. At least much easier to do.

EDIT: Thinking about it, it would be kind of interesting (and very rewarding) if Obsidian would write some Path of the Damned Solo-Run specific narrative for the end-game section. A last boss or a final character you face who say something like "How the hell did you manage to get here!?"

Edited May 21, 2014 by Osvir

[Stun]

On the contrary, if normally a player can ignore class roles, and win overwhelming encounters then the game has poor design, difficulty level or AI.

Ok, lets back up here. I'm assuming, (since this is the PoE boards, and PoE is being influenced by the infinity engine games), that we may discuss Party based RPGs in terms of how the infinity engine did it.

 

Now, before we go any further, I need your opinion on something: Were the class roles in the IE games too watered down? Was the Difficulty too low? Was the AI piss poor across the board?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Mor]

Some thoughts on some of the discussion that I read through on the first pages, and what seems to be going on still a bit:

Playing solo can be fun, some people like playing Baldur's Gate with 2 characters, or 3, or 4. The fun part of a 6 party game is that it allows for so many different compositions. Some like to play a 6 man Wizard party, where's the class combination in that? That's just 6 Wizards.

 

Or 6 Rangers, or 6 Barbarians and so and so forth. There's so many possibilities! Which is very exciting. Being able to mix-up and recruit as many, if any, party members you want is only a good thing. I don't understand how some of the discussion I read went "I don't understand how people want to play solo in a party-based game".

That because Solo means one character see title, not "2 characters, or 3, or 4" or different compositions.. we all like to experiment with different compositions, kick annoying companions and soloing for a whiling (e.g. in dungeon with high stealth requirements) can be intriguing. However, overall playing solo in game designed as party based, where most mechanic are tied to it is a weird quirk. More so when its an RPG where your companions supposed to help bring the setting come alive, and you'll be throwing away the option to interact\lore\quest is...

 

 

Anyway definitions aside, the discussion at hand is about the viability of solo play. I maintain that a game can't be a jack of all trades, if encounters designed for a party can be soled by same level character the game combat related mechanics are broken, it is as simple as that.

 

So while nothing prevents you from soloing, it should be extremely difficult, made viable due to higher experience\level gain(allowing to overpower the enemies), use of lower game difficulty(less enemies), a lot of save\loading and or gamy tactics(read as exploits) that always can be found.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Mor

[Fatback]

@hiro kiting in this dissociation involves running away from someone to keep distance and attack with range. A bull fighter stands very still and holds out a flag the bull charges the flag because it is moving. When the bull hits the flag the bull fighter spins with the bull. No web spells to keep bull at range no stuns no sleep enchants. Standing very still while being charged is key.

 

When the show is at an end on the last charge the fighter holds the flag a little lower so the bull drops his head exposing the base of neck allowing a clean straight line to heart the bull then charges and the fighter lunges sword into the base of neck threw the heart.

 

Yes they do eat the bull when done.

 

So in short I don't believe it's kiting due to the lack of range weapon and lack of movement impairing magical spells.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

@hiro kiting in this dissociation involves running away from someone to keep distance and attack with range. A bull fighter stands very still and holds out a flag the bull charges the flag because it is moving. When the bull hits the flag the bull fighter spins with the bull. No web spells to keep bull at range no stuns no sleep enchants. Standing very still while being charged is key.

 

So in short I don't believe it's kiting due to the lack of range weapon and lack of movement impairing magical spells.

 

In a lot of bull fights, the Matador isn't standing still. They're using the cape in front or to the side of them whilst moving backwards. In some examples, yes, they're standing still but to suggest they're standing still all the time is not true. They're using the cape to misdirect the bull and kite the bull around them while at times also moving. Other times the Matador will be standing still.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5Oqr1giQ4

 

Also, we're talking about kiting in real life. Not sure why you're bringing up fantasy stuff. Or are you one of these people that think kiting doesn't exist in real life?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Fatback]

Those look more like fat Mexicans than true bull fighters from Spain.

 

And still no movement impairing magical spells or ranged weapons.

 

Maybe the non Mexican matadores can cast spells.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Fatback

[Stun]

we all like to experiment with different compositions,

 

[...]

 

Anyway definitions aside, the discussion at hand is about the viability of solo play. I maintain that a game can't be a jack of all trades, if encounters designed for a party can be soled by same level character the game combat related mechanics are broken, it is as simple as that.

You can't have both of these. They are mutually exclusive desires. A Game with a combat system robust enough to allow for party composition experimentation, like for example a party of 6 monks.... or a party of 5 mages, Or even a party of just a single lone Fighter....cannot at the same time force role-requirements on the player.

 

So that leaves you with a choice. Do you want the game to give you the freedom to choose your party makeup? Or do you want a game to be so Rock-paper-scissors-demanding that only a specific (developer defined) combination of roles can beat it?

 

 

Me, I'll take the first one. And so will everyone in the world who loved the IE games. Oh, and so will the Developers of PoE, btw (note Sawyer's explanation on this thread ) We're crazy like that. We like our role playing choices to go beyond the game's narratives and quests. We want to be able to choose who our protagonist(s) are as well. There are no cookie cutters in this club house.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Mor]

Wtf, are you arguing that we should have the choice to solo the game? because we already can, end of story. The question at hand is how disadvantaged you should be trying todo so. JS quote in the OP stated that would be hard especially for inexperienced players, which is exactly how it should be. Soloing in a Party based game should be the equivalent of one of the extra challenge mode i.e very hard.

 

Otherwise we mostly likely going to end up with waterdown game for everyone else (since I doubt that with only 12 levels solo player higher xp gain would have such a huge impact) Gifted1 want everyone to be gifted at everything i.e. less distinct class roles\abilities, so that your solo player will be able to deal with every situation, without pesky thing like class strength\weakness and party mechanics that encourage tactical gameplay. In other words lets throw tactics out of the window, everyone can deal with everything *push 1* *push 1* *push 1*

Edited May 21, 2014 by Mor

[PrimeJunta]

:catches up:

 

Huh.

 

From where I'm at this argument is to a large extent about semantics.

 

Personally, when I say 'kiting' I am referring specifically to the degenerate strategy, i.e., exploiting flaws in AI or the combat mechanics, which let you hit and move without being hit by careful micromanagement. The IE games had holes that let you do just this.

 

This doesn't mean that attempting to avoid engagement is in itself kiting. If you're faster than the opposition and use that speed edge to your advantage, that's totes legit, whether we're talking bullfighting or a cRPG.

[Mor]

I also had no idea, what that argument was about. kiting shmiting, unless its something the developers consider/planed and built the game around, its an exploit regardless if its realistic or not.

[Stun]

Wtf, are you arguing that we should have the choice to solo the game? because we already can, end of story. The question at hand is how disadvantaged you should be trying todo so. JS quote in the OP stated that would be hard especially for inexperienced players, which is exactly how it should be.

Interesting. Just a few posts ago you were flat out condemning the notion of viable solo play in a party based RPG as pro that the gameplay mechanics were simply broken.

 

Or was it a different Mor who said this:

the discussion at hand is about the viability of solo play. I maintain that a game can't be a jack of all trades, if encounters designed for a party can be soled by same level character the game combat related mechanics are broken, it is as simple as that.

If you want to now amend that to say: "well alright, it should be viable but not the design goal", Or "viable but hard" then just say so. I certainly won't disagree. After all, that's how the IE games were. Soloing Baldurs Gate was not only totally viable, but after a couple of hours, it wasn't even that difficult.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Stun

[Mor]

On the contrary, if normally a player can ignore class roles, and win overwhelming encounters then the game has poor design, difficulty level or AI. He should have a chance because soloing he got so much experience\levels and can overpower everyone or more likely because he will be using **** load of save\load and gamy tactics that the AI can't use.

Highlighted the relevant parts, to help you understand why the above simple concept aren't contradictory. If you haven't actually soloed bg, you might want read why it was possible ( hint highlighted ) Edited May 21, 2014 by Mor

[IWannaBeATiger]

First off most of the things you were arguing about at the start mainly if you build your character carefully you can solo which you can in most of the IE games sometimes this was skill sometimes it was cheesy tactics.

 

But as has been mentioned in this game you can go to a Adventurer's Hall and build your own companions to help you so if you had a choice between 1 fighter or 2 fighters and they are the exact same build exact same level (substitute fighter with mage thief whatever) and you're fighting a monster which of those two groups are more likely to win? One of the reasons why you might do better with a smaller group is because your group is better equipped and that can help or it is easier to manage smaller groups.

 

But when there is a fight between 4 heroes or 6 heroes against one hero and the levels are equal and the people building the heroes didn't mess up the larger group. The larger group will win almost always assuming they haven't missed all the items that the soloer has picked up because they need them. The one man will probably be better equipped individually but not necessarily you could put all your best gear on the one and outfit the others with everything else. But assuming this is at the end game they'll both be the same level and the larger group will have more options maybe they made 2 fighters to engage the one fighter and a rogue and a priest and a chanter and a ranger or just 6 fighters who can swamp you from all sides and swing until you're dead. And you keep saying the character will be a higher level and at the start that will help quite a bit but if they want to make the end fight difficult for people who did all the side quests and managed to hit the level cap with a group of six and built their group competently it will either be really easy for the group of 6 or nearly impossible for the 1 man.

 

You keep mentioning build it properly and you can win and it sounds like you are making the assumption that everyone else won't build it properly. Or that tactics you use will be better than the tactics everyone else can use. Unless there is a secret that only solo or low number groups can use the fight will be easier for the larger group. They will have more per encounter and per rest abilities to use. And there is no way you can build a character that it will be stronger than a group of 6 other characters unless someone badly messed up in the creation or the developers missed something during the development of abilities and allowed something overpowered through.

 

Also how did it get changed from can we solo and how hard should it be hard-nearly impossible to is kiting a legitimate tactic? Not sure if it is a legitimate tactic but it is one I find boring.

[Failion]

In divinity original sin going solo with one player is practically impossible. Baldurs gate infinity engine games its a easy possibility

[Ashen Rohk]

Baldur's Gate 2 was somewhat hilarious with a single monk.

 

Slightly more hilarious with a party of six monks.

 

That said, I think consider that the other party slots will be more akin to BG2 characters than IWD's faceless death machines it would be a shame to exclude them. I guess that's what multiple playthroughs are for!

[forgottenlor]

I just read this thread for the first time and people's reactions puzzle me. There are plenty of things people do in video games that I will probably never be able and probably never want to do, like finishing Fallout 3 or Dark Souls in 20 minutes. I really enjoyed playing Baldur's Gate with 6 characters. I found it challenging. I played it through 3 times. I never once used less than 6 characters, because I enjoyed playing it with 6 characters. Why should it matter to me one way or another if someone solo it in 20 minutes?  In fact I think almost everyone on this forum played through a least one infinity engine game and enjoyed it whether it was six characters or with only one. I played Fallout 2 through 3 times and never once started the game by trekking to Navarro. If someone wants to do this or can remember where every good and easily accessable magic item is in Baldur's Gate 2 (or bothers to write it down or read through a walkthrough before playing and planned out a playthrough) and beelines there on their 2nd or 3rd playthrough, why should it matter to me? Is it a design flaw because it can be done? I recently was stuck on Amnesia: The Dark Decent and needed advice on how to solve a puzzles and found 3 you tube videos on how to solve it. One was the designed solution and the other two involved jumping on to barely protruding pieces of scenery. I though MEH! Throwing rocks correctly looks to complicated, so I'll just jump up like the guy did on the video. I don't know how long that guy practiced jumping, but in the end I was happy to solve the puzzle by throwing rocks on my 3rd attempt. Just because someone spends the time to solo a game that isn't designed that way, doesn't mean completing the game according to design can't be fun.

[Lephys]

^ I think the general expressed concern, forgottenlor, was for the general ability to get through the game solo without all that specific "metagame" knowledge. If you can find a way to get through the game with just one character, on Hard, in an hour, then awesome. If you just intuitively do that on your first playthrough without having to figure out a specific way? That's obviously indicative of an issue with the amount of challenge presented to a party of 6.

 

For some reason, people defensively replied that, no, people who are really good at video games and figure out how to play through them with just one person should not be burned at the steak.

[PieSnatcher]

burned at the steak.

Mmmmm. Steak.

 

I'll reference Fable. Back in my youth, when I thought it would literally be the best thing, ever, I remember being disappointed reading reviews saying how short the main story was. Sure I could spend a bunch of time meandering through the game to make it last, oh, 10 hours, but the fact was that the game was a breeze to get through. I don't care if people can speed run through a game. I just expect the reasonable length of time it should take to move through it when played normally to be much larger.