Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[PrimeJunta]

 

But why shouldn't it?

 

Why is the way you interact with people fair game for a reputation system, but your party composition and favorite tactics not?

In a reputation system, you see, we're talking about your party gradually accumulating like/dislike points for various factions; you lose points for some factions, but get some for others. They react to your reputation when you interact with them. There's no "best way". It's pure role-playing.

 

I see. Is this a general preference? I.e., are you opposed in principle to any system which, if played optimally, gives your player advantages in beating the game? Or does it apply only some systems and not others? If so, which ones and why?

 

Also, could you give me an example of a game with a reputation system that provides you with no tangible benefits, i.e., is role-playing only? I can't think of one off-hand.

[PrimeJunta]

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer encounters be hand crafted, not computer generated.

 

I would hope that with 11 classes to work with + a large bestiary, that the devs would have both the creativity and the tools to "mix it up" a little bit with the enemy AI and composition to make the important encounters all be unique challenges that require occasional tactic changes by the player party naturally, without having to resort to Player behavior tracking to force those tactic changes, or whatever the system being proposed here is.

Do you have any such mechanism in mind?

 

And, as a rule of thumb (for me at at least), encounter composition should Always be Lore consistent. In other words, if a Tower is supposed to be occupied by a cabal of rogues, but the game decides to replace these rogues with an army of mages instead for no reason but to "challenge" the party, my respect for the game world itself will plummet.

I agree, it would be entirely possible to ruin this by making it too heavy-handed. What I had in mind was adjustment within brackets. So if the encounter designer makes a "base" encounter consist of two orc shamans, four orc elite archers, and four orc elite grunts, at an extreme you might see four orc shamans, two archers, and four grunts, and at anohter, one shaman, two archers, and seven grunts. Fairly subtle, yet enough to make a tangible difference.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer encounters be hand crafted, not computer generated.

 

I would hope that with 11 classes to work with + a large bestiary, that the devs would have both the creativity and the tools to "mix it up" a little bit with the enemy AI and composition to make the important encounters all be unique challenges that require occasional tactic changes by the player party naturally, without having to resort to Player behavior tracking to force those tactic changes, or whatever the system being proposed here is.

Do you have any such mechanism in mind?

 

 

Meh, any kind of shapeshifting opponent, or reinforcements arriving in the middle of a fight through a secret door, or, say, a dragon which fights you on land initially, then takes off to firebreath(e) you to oblivion from high ground where your bashies can't reach it would necessitate a change of tactics organically. That's not really an interesting question

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I don't really see a paralell between "using strategic deception that comes with an increased difficulty and item usage in order to lure an enemy into a false sense of security" (a thing fictional heroes tend to use pretty often, by the way) and "spending 5 minutes between a fight to pass buffs around at no real cost, since I intended to put up those buffs from the beginning" (a thing I've never, ever seen any type of fantasy hero doing [granted, I may be reading the wrong kinds of fiction]).

 

It's not strategic deception. It's exploiting the game knowing that if you use low level spells/combat abilities and the game changes the enemies so they're not as buffed, not having more powerful spells ready and generally less powerful than if the game noticed you were using high powered spells/abilities. That's what it comes down to it. You're exploiting the mechanics of the game through the A.I. and encounters.

 

The enemies and the game shouldn't be going by the highest or in this case the lowest spells and abilities if you're purposefully using those low level spells and abilities to exploit the game. The only deception is fooling yourself into thinking this is strategic when in fact it's exploiting the game's mechanics, encounter design and A.I.

 

 

 

Ok, let's assume he always keeps those lieutenants around him, and when he notices you breaking in, he'll call the other lieutenants to him, too.

 

...This has changed exactly what?

 

If those other lieutenants are in the same room with him, I don't see a problem. If the boss notices you breaking into his compound, then while you're breaking in, he can call those lieutenants to him. So when you eventually get to him, he's got his full party with him. I don't understand why he would have half a party and be unprepared because the game decided to leave half his party in another room because the game noticed you had been using low level spells and abilities. On the contrary, the boss would want his full party because while his spies noticed you using low level spells and abilities, he would rather be prepared just in case you did have high level spells.

 

 

a/ I'm not really sure "implementing a tactic that both resonates with the kinds of stories that inspired the game and has an associated opportunity cost" constitutes as "exploiting the system" (especially since I don't really think you can exploit something in the cheat-y sense if that something actually comes with hardcoded downsides).

 

b/ If I'm designing a game around specific tactics (say, mages having special defenses that can only be penetrated with guns, or spellcasters being able to put up protection spells that have to be dispelled before they can be harmed), hell yes I will assume that people will use those tactics. This isn't bad design.

 

Bad design would be making those tactics the only way you can win a fight. (Which, just to be on topic, is kinda what BG2 did with mages and protection spells...)

 

a) You're not really sure? So you don't know? Well that kind of confirms that you don't know what you're talking about with your rambling. And I have no idea what stories you're talking about that inspired the game. Can you be any more vague? And if you're going to purposefully hardcode the game with downsides that are exploitable then it's exploitable.

 

b) All that designing you've done is thrown out the window because I can use other spells and abilities prior to the boss battle knowing the game has been monitoring my spell/abilities progress and he won't be prepared when I do finally pull out my big spells. You even said this is a trade off you're willing to accept. Now that's bad design.

 

Bad design is knowingly implementing a system you know players can exploit and willing to accept it as a trade off for the first couple of rounds before the boss realises what you're doing and then tries to counter your party. But by that time, the fight will be half over.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It's not strategic deception. It's exploiting the game knowing that if you use low level spells/combat abilities and the game changes the enemies so they're not as buffed, not having more powerful spells ready and generally less powerful than if the game noticed you were using high powered spells/abilities. 

 

Actually, since they didn't buff themselves, they have more powerful spells ready, because they didn't spend those spell slots on buffing. Didn't we already discuss this?

 

 

The only deception is fooling yourself into thinking this is strategic when in fact it's exploiting the game's mechanics, encounter design and A.I.

 

I really don't get what is so hard to understand about "if Tactic A (holding back) comes with downsides - namely, more difficult lead-up fights - and Tactic B (not holding back) also comes with downsides - namely, a more prepared final boss -, and those downsides are adequately balanced against each other, the choice between Tactic A and Tactic B is a meaningful one". Aren't meaningful choices the basis of strategy?

 

If the boss notices you breaking into his compound, then while you're breaking in, he can call those lieutenants to him. So when you eventually get to him, he's got his full party with him. I don't understand why he would have half a party and be unprepared because the game decided to leave half his party in another room because the game noticed you had been using low level spells and abilities. On the contrary, the boss would want his full party because while his spies noticed you using low level spells and abilities, he would rather be prepared just in case you did have high level spells.

 

Which is totally something a prudent or paranoid boss would do in this system. Another who is characterized by arrogance or an overdeveloped sense of chivalry would not. Yay, diversity! Yay, NPC characterisation actually influencing their tactics!

 

(Another point I've made earlier: the enemies can react to the fact of your presence, not just your observed tactics.)

 

 

a/ I'm not really sure "implementing a tactic that both resonates with the kinds of stories that inspired the game and has an associated opportunity cost" constitutes as "exploiting the system" (especially since I don't really think you can exploit something in the cheat-y sense if that something actually comes with hardcoded downsides).

 

b/ If I'm designing a game around specific tactics (say, mages having special defenses that can only be penetrated with guns, or spellcasters being able to put up protection spells that have to be dispelled before they can be harmed), hell yes I will assume that people will use those tactics. This isn't bad design.

 

Bad design would be making those tactics the only way you can win a fight. (Which, just to be on topic, is kinda what BG2 did with mages and protection spells...)

 

a) You're not really sure? So you don't know? Well that kind of confirms that you don't know what you're talking about with your rambling. 

 

I can understand that feeling the coveted prize of Having Won an Internet Argument dangling so close is tantalizing enough for you to throw everything to the wind and start viciously attacking any perceived weak points in my arguments with redoubled effort (whether that feeling has any basis in reality or not), but it would be kinda helpful if you took a moment to make sure you have actually understood what I wrote. Arguing over semantics and jumping to conclusions based on a turn of a phrase? Not helpful.

 

 

And I have no idea what stories you're talking about

 

I have included a link in my edit. Feel free to browse and pick out the examples that could be relevant and please do ignore those that are not.

 

 

if you're going to purposefully hardcode the game with downsides that are exploitable then it's exploitable.

 

...I could snark about how it's not an especially astute observation that "something is exploitable when it's exploitable", but instead I will just point out that the downsides in question belong to our hypothetical Tactic A (holding back), therefore pushing it out of the realm of "exploit" into "a tactic you use when you feel the benefits outweigh the costs".

 

 

All that designing you've done is thrown out the window because I can use other spells and abilities prior to the boss battle knowing the game has been monitoring my spell/abilities progress and he won't be prepared when I do finally pull out my big spells. 

 

Won't be prepared for those specific spells (which is, incidentally, the exact same thing that would happen if said boss is a static encounter, assuming that there is enough variety in spells for it to be unfeasible to protect against all of them using a limited number of spell slots). Will probably still have generic buffs up and running as an answer to your presence.

 

 

Bad design is knowingly implementing a system you know players can exploit and willing to accept it as a trade off for the first couple of rounds before the boss realises what you're doing and then tries to counter your party. 

 

Assuming that indeed it will try to counter your party instead of tearing it apart with offensive spells.

 

But by that time, the fight will be half over.

 

Now that's one hell of an assumption to make based on nothing I said or implied whatsoever.

[Yellow Rabbit]

My special thanks to Valorian, aluminiumtrioxid and Hiro Protagonist II for extending my vocabulary. No, seriously, as non-native English speaker I've never even heard about some words you were using during your... errr... conversation. *eagerly scribing something in his notebook*

 

Uhm... Sorry about that.

 

If anyone has recently played (say, last twelve months) any of the IE games I'd appreciate your input too.

 

Not sure if my input will be of use, but here it is.

 

Baldur's Gate 2

 

1. Main plot.

 

IMO it just became too epic too quickly since BG1. Having Athkatla as main quest hub wasn't annoying at all, but all that places like Underdark and other Planes, epic creatures that I am have to and able to kill ("Hi, demilich Whatwasyourname, I am mage %charname% 25 years old and I am so much stronger than you!") left me with certain impression I am taking part in theatric performance director of which a little too much excited to look healthy.

 

Not that I have something against epic stories and dreadful creatures. I'm just a little shocked by abruptness of story in becaming epic one.

 

2. Romances.

 

I always knew good adventurers' party does ordinary things like killing dragons or saving nations only when they have free time from arguing with each other. And all dragons certainly are polite enough to wait them finish their arguing. Not impressed.

 

3. Evil is stupid.

 

I always took all the disadvantages of evil way in this game as a hint from designers. "Being bad will bring you to harm". I know it's a role playing game and there must not be such restrictions in it, but considering auditory Bladur's Gate 2 was made for, I think this is possible too. Or maybe designers just didn't pay enough attention to evil path, I don't know, but it's playable after all. Just not as comfortable.

 

For the sake of truth - all that I listed is just narrative details that got my attention while playing. I don't mean they're done plain wrong, but there is way to design such things smoother.

 

I apologize for my grammatics, tried to make not too much mistakes.

[Stun]

Do you have any such mechanism in mind?

Not a mechanism so much as just a bunch of different encounter ideas to insure that the party can't always rely on the same tactics. And the sky's the limit on that. I don't consider myself particularly creative (I was never the DM in my old D&D pen and paper days) But even I can take 11 classes and a decent bestiary and create hundreds of uniquely tactical encounters.

 

You can use unique terrains to pose combat challenges. You can have one encounter be a party of enemy chanters, then the next be a party of enemy barbarians. You can have one encounter where the enemy's tactics is summons and another where the enemy spams debilitating AOEs, and another where they do both. You can have an enemy that specializes in melee engagement, and another composed of skilled archers. You can introduce a trapped battlefield into the mix. You can have dead magic zones. You can have a situation where the party is taken prisoner and stripped of their gear, and then have them fight their way to freedom using just their innate abilities.

 

You can have an encounter take place in total darkness. You can have the party fight while intoxicated. You can test the party's quickness, then later test their attrition. You can forcibly divide the party and have them fight individually. You can have fire based encounters. Then ice based encounters. You can have a party of enemy monks. You can create an encounter where the enemy is completely immune to Magic. And another where the enemy takes nominal damage from physical attacks. etc. etc.

 

 

And, as a rule of thumb (for me at at least), encounter composition should Always be Lore consistent. In other words, if a Tower is supposed to be occupied by a cabal of rogues, but the game decides to replace these rogues with an army of mages instead for no reason but to "challenge" the party, my respect for the game world itself will plummet.

If a tower is occupied by a cabal of rogues, and your party both intends to wipe those rogues out (a goal that is presumably at odds with the rogues' own goal of, say, "continuing to survive") and has a reputation for struggling with mage fights, yet the rogues don't use the undoubtedly fairly significant resources at their disposal to hire a few mage mercenaries to bolster their ranks, my respect for those rogues would plummet. (Y'know, in those five minutes intermittently between roflstomping them.)

 

I'd be fine with mages coming to the rogue tower's aid in this situation, since you're not replacing those rogues, you're just giving them some backup. But, the notion that suddenly there's mages there because the player has trouble with mages is....silly. It's cheap and gamey. Game world/narrative events should dictate whether or not those rogues get the opportunity to hire/befriend a small army of mages. Like, for example, if the party fails to do a certain quest before entering that tower (like cut off their smuggling/communication supply lines), then that would justify the sudden existence of "mage help" Edited May 24, 2014 by Stun

[PrimeJunta]

I'd be fine with mages coming to the rogue tower's aid in this situation, since you're not replacing those rogues, you're just giving them some backup. But, the notion that suddenly there's mages there because the player has trouble with mages is....silly. It's cheap and gamey. Game world/narrative events should dictate whether or not those rogues get the opportunity to hire/befriend a small army of mages. Like, for example, if the party fails to do a certain quest before entering that tower (like cut off their smuggling/communication supply lines), then that would justify the sudden existence of "mage help"

So you'd be OK with changes in encounter composition if it's done through quest triggers, but not if it's done through an independent subsystem?

 

I'd certainly not be opposed to doing it through quest triggers; just from where I'm at the independent subsystem would provide similar dynamism with much less work -- it'd be doing its thing in the background, and the only thing the scripters would have to do is flag which encounters are subject to adjustment by it, and what the brackets within which the adjustment happens is.

 

Again, the system I have in mind isn't all that dramatic; I wouldn't want to have it completely change encounter composition, simply to adjust it to a moderate extent. Swap out a few magic-using units for a few ranged units, or vice versa, or perhaps equip the melee units with slashing instead of bludgeoning weapons, or vice versa, whichever is more effective. The kind of stuff that would be quite tedious to script in on a case-by-case basis.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

Actually, since they didn't buff themselves, they have more powerful spells ready, because they didn't spend those spell slots on buffing. Didn't we already discuss this?

 

They may have more powerful spells to access but because the enemy thinks you're a low level party they'll be using low level spells. Because you tricked the game into thinking you're a low level party. Just because they have access to more powerful spells doesn't mean they'll use them at the start because your intention was to fool the enemy into you're a low level party. That's an exploit.

 

 

 

I really don't get what is so hard to understand about "if Tactic A (holding back) comes with downsides - namely, more difficult lead-up fights - and Tactic B (not holding back) also comes with downsides - namely, a more prepared final boss -, and those downsides are adequately balanced against each other, the choice between Tactic A and Tactic B is a meaningful one". Aren't meaningful choices the basis of strategy?

 

 

Not when you're changing the encounter, changing the boss to be less prepared and less minions and lieutenants to make it think you're a low level party which is what you want. That's an outright exploit.

 

 

 

Which is totally something a prudent or paranoid boss would do in this system. Another who is characterized by arrogance or an overdeveloped sense of chivalry would not. Yay, diversity! Yay, NPC characterisation actually influencing their tactics!

 

(Another point I've made earlier: the enemies can react to the fact of your presence, not just your observed tactics.)

 

 

Exploiting the game is now diversity. It was strategy a few pages back but now it's changed to diversity. I'm just waiting for the next word for you to come up with now for exploit.

 

 

 

I can understand that feeling the coveted prize of Having Won an Internet Argument dangling so close is tantalizing enough for you to throw everything to the wind and start viciously attacking any perceived weak points in my arguments with redoubled effort (whether that feeling has any basis in reality or not), but it would be kinda helpful if you took a moment to make sure you have actually understood what I wrote. Arguing over semantics and jumping to conclusions based on a turn of a phrase? Not helpful.

 

 

Ah, the age old changing of the topic and accusing me of trying to win an argument over the internet at all costs tactic. Deflecting and accusatory accusations of trying to win a debate. tsk tsk. You should look at yourself before trying to accuse others. You've been trying to defend exploiting a game for pages now and calling it everything but exploiting. Strategy, Diversity. What next?

 

 

 

I have included a link in my edit. Feel free to browse and pick out the examples that could be relevant and please do ignore those that are not..

 

 

The burden is on you. Don't shift the burden onto me, considering you stated these so called stories. So it's you who should be pointing out what stories these are. Not to link some internet address and tell me to read it.

 

...I could snark about how it's not an especially astute observation that "something is exploitable when it's exploitable", but instead I will just point out that the downsides in question belong to our hypothetical Tactic A (holding back), therefore pushing it out of the realm of "exploit" into "a tactic you use when you feel the benefits outweigh the costs".

 

 

An exploit is an exploit no matter how much you wrap it up.

 

 

 

Won't be prepared for those specific spells (which is, incidentally, the exact same thing that would happen if said boss is a static encounter, assuming that there is enough variety in spells for it to be unfeasible to protect against all of them using a limited number of spell slots). Will probably still have generic buffs up and running as an answer to your presence.

 

 

No it's not. If the boss has buffs and I can debuff him before I even enter the room by using low level spells so he thinks I'm not a threat, that's not strategy. That's gaming and exploiting the encounter. If the boss has buffs for a high level party, he should have those buffs regardless of what I've been using prior to the encounter because he has no idea what to expect. He has no idea that I might have high level spells so a boss should be prepared for anything instead of deciding to not to buff and use low level spells first, because his spies said we look like a low level party. That's just insane.

 

Boss: My spies tell me this party has been using low level spells. I know, instead of buffing myself and using high level spells and having my lieutenants to join in and to wipe them out as fast as possible, I'm not going to call on my reinforcements and use magic missile because... 

 

I have no idea why a Boss would think like that. However, I can understand why he would want to use high level spells on a low level party. He wouldn't want to waste time and will want to wipe them out as fast as possible.  

 

 

Assuming that indeed it will try to counter your party instead of tearing it apart with offensive spells. 

 

Well he'll probably won't be using offensive spells. He'll probably be using healing spells since my party took a fair chunk out of him in the first couple of rounds when he wasn't expecting it. And if he's using healing spells or drinking potions, then he's not attacking which makes the encounter even easier. See Sensuki's post about healing and how it's weighted as an example of how enemies can change from attacking to being on the defensive. I know it's not gospel but it gives an idea how enemies can change from being offensive to defensive. And that can change a challenging fight into an easier fight by gaming the system.

 

 

 

Now that's one hell of an assumption to make based on nothing I said or implied whatsoever.

 

 

See above with taking a fair chunk out of an enemy in the first couple of rounds when I exploited the game by making out I was a low level party. It has a domino effect.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Stun]

So you'd be OK with changes in encounter composition if it's done through quest triggers, but not if it's done through an independent subsystem?

 

I'd certainly not be opposed to doing it through quest triggers; just from where I'm at the independent subsystem would provide similar dynamism with much less work -- it'd be doing its thing in the background, and the only thing the scripters would have to do is flag which encounters are subject to adjustment by it, and what the brackets within which the adjustment happens is.

 

Again, the system I have in mind isn't all that dramatic; I wouldn't want to have it completely change encounter composition, simply to adjust it to a moderate extent. Swap out a few magic-using units for a few ranged units, or vice versa, or perhaps equip the melee units with slashing instead of bludgeoning weapons, or vice versa, whichever is more effective. The kind of stuff that would be quite tedious to script in on a case-by-case basis.

The system you're proposing is actually decent. After all, the core ideal of any RPG is reactivity. When an RPG reacts to your choices...like how you choose to fight, then it's doing things right, by definition.

 

But I'm just concerned about the method the devs would use to bring about that reactivity. Because it could fall into a trap. For both the player and the Developer. For the player, it'd force them to build their party as a "jack of all trades" so as to not have to worry about the headache of encounters increasingly exploiting their weaknesses. And for the devs, they'd have to worry about suitable XP rewards and loot drops (if there's gonna be any) that result from even the minor changes in encounter composition, as well as, again, making the game feel too...machine-like

 

I'd just prefer that things not rely solely on combat behavior tracking. It's much cooler if the devs add a "human" element to it. Like, for example, if your party develops a reputation as a devastating mage killer, then instead of just suddenly adding more non-mages to every encounter, they should form a scripted plot around it. Maybe have the leader of the city's mage guild put out a call for Paladin and Fighter mercenaries to go after the party in every town.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Stun

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Actually, since they didn't buff themselves, they have more powerful spells ready, because they didn't spend those spell slots on buffing. Didn't we already discuss this?

 

They may have more powerful spells to access but because the enemy thinks you're a low level party they'll be using low level spells. Because you tricked the game into thinking you're a low level party. 

 

As soon as you can quote when I said this, I will engage you, but as things stand now, you are vehemently fighting an idea I've never advocated and have built every counterargument on this flawed premise. 

 

Edit: I've bolded the specific part I have a problem with.

 

...And a few other points, as an aside...

 

 

 

Which is totally something a prudent or paranoid boss would do in this system. Another who is characterized by arrogance or an overdeveloped sense of chivalry would not. Yay, diversity! Yay, NPC characterisation actually influencing their tactics!

 

(Another point I've made earlier: the enemies can react to the fact of your presence, not just your observed tactics.)

 

 

Exploiting the game is now diversity. It was strategy a few pages back but now it's changed to diversity.   I'm just waiting for the next word for you to come up with now for exploit.

 

Creating a system where your opponents have access to the same information, and can interpret it differently based on their characterisation does seem to promote diversity to me.

 

 

Ah, the age old changing of the topic and accusing me of trying to win an argument over the internet at all costs tactic. Deflecting and accusatory accusations of trying to win a debate. 

 

Way I see it, it's a fairly reasonable reaction to what amounts to basically "you have used the term 'I'M NOT SURE!' THIS MAKES ME AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!! 8D!!!", especially when said "I'm not sure" was obviously intended as a rhetorical device.

 

But you are welcome to play victim if you wish.

 

 

 

I have included a link in my edit. Feel free to browse and pick out the examples that could be relevant and please do ignore those that are not..

 

 

The burden is on you. Don't shift the burden onto me, considering you stated these so called stories. So it's you who should be pointing out what stories these are. Not to link some internet address and tell me to read it.

 

The Princess Bride. Basically every thing that is about people beating up other people, ever (comic books, shounen manga/anime, to a lesser extent wuxia and chanbara). If we're accepting large-scale equivalents (doing the same thing with armies and whatnot, instead of a six-person group), even the Silmarillion has examples. Pulp stories, like Michael Strogoff by Jules Verne. I'm fairly sure there are a lot of examples rooted in greek and other mythologies, too. "Pretending that you are weak while you are really not" is a fairly widespread trick used by literary heroes.

Edited May 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PrimeJunta]

The system you're proposing is actually decent. After all, the core ideal of any RPG is reactivity. When an RPG reacts to your choices...like how you choose to fight, then it's doing things right, by definition.

Coming from you, that's high praise. :salute:

 

Reactivity is the thing I like about it too. If a world changes based on your decisions, it feels more alive. The most important way this happens in cRPG's is through quest triggers, obviously, but I still think dynamic systems can significantly enrich the experience. Reputation mechanics, for example. I see this idea as very similar in many ways.

 

But I'm just concerned about the method the devs would use to bring about that reactivity. Because it could fall into a trap. For both the player and the Developer. For the player, it'd force them to build their party as a "jack of all trades" so as to not have to deal with the headache of encounters increasingly exploiting their weaknesses. And for the devs, they'd have to worry about suitable XP rewards and loot drops (if there's gonna be any) as a result of even the minor changes in encounter design.

If the "jack of all trades" party was the resulting optimal outcome then I agree, it would not have been a successful system. I think some care would need to be taken to ensure that there isn't a single obviously dominant strategy to play against the system, but I think the same thing applies to character and party mechanics in general. While (IMO, as always) classes ought to be roughly similar in value, they don't have to be exactly balanced, just not obviously unbalanced. Same thing for party strategy here.

 

I also don't think this system would fit well in a game where you have no party pool to draw from, i.e. where you only have the party you travel with and that's it. That would severely penalize specialist parties since they would be the most vulnerable to being countered, and you would have no way of changing strategy mid-stream.

 

However, if you have more NPC's than party slots and can swap them in and out, then I think it could work nicely -- it would encourage you to swap between party members from time to time. In P:E I understand you'll be able to send NPC's off on quests to gain XP on their own, which would prevent them from falling behind too much even if you don't adventure with them while avoiding the (IMO jarring) system of having everyone level up at the same rate even if all they've been doing is play pazaak in the Ebon Hawk.

 

Again, this obviously wouldn't work for every game -- the player, would need to have sufficient tools to work with the effects of the mechanic, and there would have to be a solid in-world justification for it. It would also have to be transparent enough that you have an idea of what's going on. But I think that if done well, it could add significant flavor.

 

It might even be possible to mod something like this in, even at a very rudimentary level where it only responds to your party composition.

 

I'd just prefer that things rely solely on combat behavior tracking. It's much cooler if the devs add a "human" element to it. Like, for example, if your party develops a reputation as a devastating mage killer, then instead of just suddenly adding more non-mages to every encounter, they should form a scripted plot around it. Maybe have the leader of the city's mage guild put out a call for Paladin and Fighter mercenaries to go after the party in every town.

That would be a good addition. You could hook any number of things to the base mechanic -- script triggers, quests feeding back into it (e.g. spies), special encounters feeding into it (e.g. armed recon), and so on.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

As soon as you can quote when I said this, I will engage you, but as things stand now, you are vehemently fighting an idea I've never advocated and have built every counterargument on this flawed premise. 

 

Edit: I've bolded the specific part I have a problem with.

 

Were you not for changing the encounter by "he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks".?

 

That's a substantial change to the encounter. You've effectively scaled down the encounter by not having his lieutenants and minions with him. And when you change the encounter so much, especially with him not having any buffs, the encounter will not be the same as the same party who was using high level spells and abilities beforehand. It's a pretty big assumption to think he will use the same tactics against you as he would with a high level party. Even if he does use the same spells as he would against a party that did use high level spells and abilities beforehand, it's still an underpowered boss fight which he has no buffs and no help. That's not strategy or diversity at all, it's exploiting the game.

 

 

Creating a system where your opponents have access to the same information, and can interpret it differently based on their characterisation does seem to promote diversity to me.

 

No, not when you can exploit the system. You just don't want to accept that this system is highly exploitable. To you it's strategy and diversity when really it's just exploits.

 

 

Way I see it, it's a fairly reasonable reaction to what amounts to basically "you have used the term 'I'M NOT SURE!' THIS MAKES ME AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!! 8D!!!", especially when said "I'm not sure" was obviously intended as a rhetorical device.

 

But you are welcome to play victim if you wish. 

 

Ah yes, the old name calling. I'm not playing the victim at all. Nice try anyway. Was it not you that said in this very thread Could we please try arguing the points, not the people who made them for a change? Apparently not by the look of it. Perhaps practicing what you preach?

 

 

 

The Princess Bride. Basically every thing that is about people beating up other people, ever (comic books, shounen manga/anime, to a lesser extent wuxia and chanbara). If we're accepting large-scale equivalents (doing the same thing with armies and whatnot, instead of a six-person group), even the Silmarillion has examples. Pulp stories, like Michael Strogoff by Jules Verne. I'm fairly sure there are a lot of examples rooted in greek and other mythologies, too. "Pretending that you are weak while you are really not" is a fairly widespread trick used by literary heroes.

 

 

Again, you don't actually cite specific examples. Oh look Silmarillion. It's in there somewhere. Go read it. And comic books and manga? I've been reading and collecting comics and Manga for over 20 years. What comics and manga are you referring to? And this is a crpg, not real life or comic books where you can do, write or draw anything and make it believable. This is a crpg which is far more limited in what it can do compared to real life, books and manga. Moving the goal posts to defend exploits in a crpg.

[PrimeJunta]

Uh, Hiro. Are you seriously claiming that "pretending to be weaker than you are" is something you've never, or rarely, encountered in fact or fiction?

 

"Witness the power of this fully operational battle station" ring any bells?

[Valorian]

*more questions*

I have answered quite a few of your questions. Now, being the polite person that you are, you'll realize that it's your turn to respond to my queries.

 

Not being interested anymore in discussing the crappy spy&exploit project/idea generated in the mind of amoebe3, which is off-topic for both BG and PoE, I'd like to go back to on-topic subjects. Like, PoE style games; BG 1 and 2 etc.

 

 

My biggest problem with PoE style games is that I tend to flip into "meta" mode too easily. This leads to all kinds of stuff that kind of ruins things for me, like restarting over and over again, exploring branches by going to a previous save and trying another approach, looking for strategy guides which leads to looking for spoilers, and so on and so forth. I find it difficult to just throw myself into a game and enjoy it, whatever happens.

 

So.. why do you torture yourself with PoE style games, hmm? It is clearly an exceptionally frustrating experience for you. You constantly ruin things for yourself and as a result you're unable to enjoy anything.

This is a serious issue, I'd like to help you.

 

What could be the solution to your problem? You prefer extensively discussing PoE style games rather than playing them, yes? Similarly to, say, a good portion of soccer fans who're unable to play so they focus on being fans and discussing the game? But.. I don't know, it seems different after all.. because I believe they're actually not frustrated with soccer itself. Hmm, tough one.

[PrimeJunta]

@Valorian: thank you for conceding the debate so gracefully.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Uh, Hiro. Are you seriously claiming that "pretending to be weaker than you are" is something you've never, or rarely, encountered in fact or fiction?

 

"Witness the power of this fully operational battle station" ring any bells?

 

It depends on the context. You're comparing apples to oranges. A movie and a crpg are two different things.

[Valorian]

@Valorian: thank you for conceding the debate so gracefully.

I'll gladly pass you the crown of the victor if it's so important for you, but let me help you, please.

Having a compulsion to torture yourself is not healthy, PJ.

 

Sending me a PM was the right step, yes, but I'd prefer to discuss it in public. Surely, there will be other people with valuable suggestions and helpful advices regarding your self-torture issues.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

As soon as you can quote when I said this, I will engage you, but as things stand now, you are vehemently fighting an idea I've never advocated and have built every counterargument on this flawed premise. 

 

Edit: I've bolded the specific part I have a problem with.

 

Were you not for changing the encounter by "he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks".?

 

That's a substantial change to the encounter. You've effectively scaled down the encounter by not having his lieutenants and minions with him. And when you change the encounter so much, especially with him not having any buffs, the encounter will not be the same as the same party who was using high level spells and abilities beforehand. It's a pretty big assumption to think he will use the same tactics against you as he would with a high level party. Even if he does use the same spells as he would against a party that did use high level spells and abilities beforehand, it's still an underpowered boss fight which he has no buffs and no help. That's not strategy or diversity at all, it's exploiting the game.

 

 

Could we try not moving the goalposts? You were fighting against the idea that the opponent doesn't use his strongest spells, I've never advocated for him to do so. That is all there is to it.

 

I was advocating for him not having important lieutenants and minions and buffs at all* if you manage to protect yourself against scrying and kill his spies, in which case it is fairly reasonable to assume that you do manage to catch him unprepared and with his pants down. Mind you, enemies who are extremely paranoid and walk everywhere fully buffed and with a full cadre of bodyguards should exist, but maybe they should not be the norm.

 

By the way, this...

 

It's a pretty big assumption to think he will use the same tactics against you as he would with a high level party. 

 

In light of this...

 

 

If the boss has buffs for a high level party, he should have those buffs regardless of what I've been using prior to the encounter because he has no idea what to expect. He has no idea that I might have high level spells so a boss should be prepared for anything instead of deciding to not to buff and use low level spells first, because his spies said we look like a low level party. That's just insane.

 

Boss: My spies tell me this party has been using low level spells. I know, instead of buffing myself and using high level spells and having my lieutenants to join in and to wipe them out as fast as possible, I'm not going to call on my reinforcements and use magic missile because... 

 

I have no idea why a Boss would think like that. However, I can understand why he would want to use high level spells on a low level party. He wouldn't want to waste time and will want to wipe them out as fast as possible.  

 

...is sending a bit of mixed signals.

 

 

 

Creating a system where your opponents have access to the same information, and can interpret it differently based on their characterisation does seem to promote diversity to me.

 

No, not when you can exploit the system. You just don't want to accept that this system is highly exploitable. To you it's strategy and diversity when really it's just exploits.

 

The system, paired with both ****ty character advancement and ****ty encounter design is indeed exploitable.

 

I've never been clamoring for either ****ty character advancement, nor ****ty encounter design. In fact, I have even pointed out that you have to be careful when designing the advancement system and the encounters, you have to take the dynamic AI into account.

 

That said, I believe that in order for a system to be exploitable in the pejorative sense you seem to use the word in, it needs to work in a manner that was unintended by its creator. If you "exploit" a system that is intended to model human error, that means the system is doing what it was designed for!

 

 

 

But you are welcome to play victim if you wish. 

 

Ah yes, the old name calling. I'm not playing the victim at all.

 

Engaging in completely unnecessary and not at all helpful nitpicking, then when you are being called out on the fact that you were engaging in completely unnecessary and not at all helpful nitpicking, accusing the other party of changing the topic is apparently not playing victim.

 

I'm not going to argue over that, but it does seem to me that you have a strange definition of 'playing a victim'.

 

 

Again, you don't actually cite specific examples. Oh look Silmarillion. It's in there somewhere. Go read it. And comic books and manga? I've been reading and collecting comics and Manga for over 20 years. What comics and manga are you referring to?

 

So apparently neither The Princess Bride, nor Michael Strogoff (which seems more than appropriate, considering the relatively 'modern' feel of PoE), nor The Silmarillion are valid examples. 

 

- The Princess Bride, "I am not left handed" scene.

- in Michael Strogoff, the titular character pretends to be blind during about half of the book in order to reveal that he can see perfectly during the final battle

- in The Silmarillion (again, large scale battle example) the whole of Nirnaeth Arnoedidad could be considered as such, from the whole setup of "luring the enemy to attack by showing them a less numerous force while our main army stands in waiting" to the "pull out the dragons at the climax of the battle" ending.

- Anime/manga: almost every single battle in Bleach, but especially everything featuring Yumichika, who even has a half-released state of his zanpakutou. Naruto and the Rock Lee versus Garra fight with the leg weights. YuYu Hakusho has Karashu who leads his opponent to believe that his power is making things he touches explode, when in reality it is making invisible bombs anywhere (cue curbstomp). "This isn't even my final form." etc., more examples in the link.

 

 

This is a crpg which is far more limited in what it can do compared to real life, books and manga. 

 

I fail to see how anybody could think that a fantasy game with heroes using soul magic could relegate said soul magic-using heroes to being capable of LESS than people in real life.

 

(Also, "this is a fantasy RPG" pretty much comes with the assumption that it intends to emulate certain genre tropes, but that's not really relevant right now.)

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'll gladly pass you the crown of the victor if it's so important for you, but let me help you, please.

Having a compulsion to torture yourself is not healthy, PJ.

 

Sending me a PM was the right step, yes, but I'd prefer to discuss it in public. Surely, there will be other people with valuable suggestions and helpful advices regarding your self-torture issues.

 

Val's just so cute when he's sulking, isn't he?

 

I love how he totes wants to discuss on-topic subjects like PoE, and BG 1-2. Apparently he wants to do it so much that he will even insist on introducing his PM conversations about PJ's absolutely relevant self-torture issues to the topic!

 

*pats on head* There there, you have gotten the attention you so crave, now go play with your friends.

[Valorian]

 

I'll gladly pass you the crown of the victor if it's so important for you, but let me help you, please.

Having a compulsion to torture yourself is not healthy, PJ.

 

Sending me a PM was the right step, yes, but I'd prefer to discuss it in public. Surely, there will be other people with valuable suggestions and helpful advices regarding your self-torture issues.

 

Val's just so cute when he's sulking, isn't he?

 

I love how he totes wants to discuss on-topic subjects like PoE, and BG 1-2. Apparently he wants to do it so much that he will even insist on introducing his PM conversations about PJ's absolutely relevant self-torture issues to the topic!

 

*pats on head* There there, you have gotten the attention you so crave, now go play with your friends.

 

 

 

Awww, sweetykitty, your words of comfort are much appreciated. Although, I wonder.. I let you on the stage so you can have a platform to elaborate that cra.. that next-gen-AI espionage RPG of yours. Why are you still stomping your feet on the ground in a violent tantrum? You'll ruin your grandmother's cellar.

 

 

Actually, you're a bit confused, PJ's cry for help was very public:

 

My biggest problem with PoE style games is that I tend to flip into "meta" mode too easily. This leads to all kinds of stuff that kind of ruins things for me, like restarting over and over again, exploring branches by going to a previous save and trying another approach, looking for strategy guides which leads to looking for spoilers, and so on and so forth. I find it difficult to just throw myself into a game and enjoy it, whatever happens.

It is my intention to help our mutual buddy and prevent further self-torture. Because that's the responsible thing to do.

[Gromnir]

 

Won't lie, I was hoping more people would've posted their direct opinions on the IE games by now.

 

/Sad Panda

people have. perhaps a thousand times on this board alone.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

is gauche to quote our self, but is far too late to edit our own post, and we don't want our next contribution to feel like a non sequitur.

 

black isle made half o' the infinity engine games, so as you might expect, or perhaps not, the obsidian folks has seen many references to their ie games as they made kotor 2 and their nwn2 offerings. "don't do like ________, " and "do more like _________," threads where blanks is filled with bg, ps:t, totsc, iwd, how, trials of the luremaster, bg2, tob, and or tob is some o' the most common fodder 'pon these boards. somebody says why bg were so fantastic and that storm of zehir should be more like bg. five people agree. five people disagree. five people thinks storm o' zehir should be more like ps:t. another ten says it should be like bg2. unwinnable debates 'bout the merits o' various ie games is fleas on the dog that is these obsidian boards. 

 

additionally, virtual every obsidian/black isle development since the turn o' the century has had folks suggesting, pleading, arguing that the current game should be more like bg2. their newish tank game may turn out to be the lone exception to the rule. so, after more than a decade of seeing threads and posts demanding for the next bg2, and following their own failed attempt to make bg3, obsidian/black isle folks is gonna finally give folks what they has been clamoring for since before this board existed. perhaps obsidian is making just to make us all shut the hell up 'bout bg2. just saying.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am doubtful the obsidians would ever admit, but can you imagine what a coup it would be for them if a significant portion o' those unavoidable, "do it more like bg2," demands became, "do it like poe" from 2015 onward?

Edited May 24, 2014 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Awww, sweetykitty, your words of comfort are much appreciated. Although, I wonder.. I let you on the stage so you can have a platform to elaborate that cra.. that next-gen-AI espionage RPG of yours. Why are you still stomping your feet on the ground in a violent tantrum throwing pity scraps of attention at the obvious troll?

 

 

Actually, you're a bit confused, PJ's cry for help was very public:

 

My biggest problem with PoE style games is that I tend to flip into "meta" mode too easily. This leads to all kinds of stuff that kind of ruins things for me, like restarting over and over again, exploring branches by going to a previous save and trying another approach, looking for strategy guides which leads to looking for spoilers, and so on and so forth. I find it difficult to just throw myself into a game and enjoy it, whatever happens.

 

 

There, fixed it for you. As for the answer, I don't really know. I guess I'm just a generally charitable sort of person?  

 

As for PJ's cry for help, it's apparently so relevant and on-topic that you had to dig it forth from a different topic which, by the way, has been dead since four months. I can only admire your dedication for the mental health of the members of our little community    

Although if I were you, I'd worry more about my own. Digging through long-dead threads in a desperate scramble to find something to discredit those who engage you in a discussion is, after all, not only creepy, but also doesn't exactly sound like something a sane person would do 

[Valorian]

There, fixed it for you. As for the answer, I don't really know. I guess I'm just a generally charitable sort of person?  

 

As for PJ's cry for help, it's apparently so relevant and on-topic that you had to dig it forth from a different topic which, by the way, has been dead since four months. I can only admire your dedication for the mental health of the members of our little community    

Although if I were you, I'd worry more about my own. Digging through long-dead threads in a desperate scramble to find something to discredit those who engage you in a discussion is, after all, not only creepy, but also doesn't exactly sound like something a sane person would do 

Sweetykitty, that hole beneath you is getting deeper and deeper. It is time to cease stomping the cellar floor with your feet, I think.

 

You see my dear, in the world of sentient beings, memory is not an unknown feat. It may seem like (soul) magic to you, but it really isn't.

 

I'm also aware that this has turned into your cry for help, as well. No worries, I have enough love for you both, and more. Perhaps a brain transplantation would solve your particular sweetykitty-amoebe issues, but alas that's not possible yet so I'm just going to soothe your soul. And PJ's, of course.

 

My biggest problem with PoE style games is that I tend to flip into "meta" mode too easily. This leads to all kinds of stuff that kind of ruins things for me, like restarting over and over again, exploring branches by going to a previous save and trying another approach, looking for strategy guides which leads to looking for spoilers, and so on and so forth. I find it difficult to just throw myself into a game and enjoy it, whatever happens.

 

An age-related thing is that my tolerance for frustration has gone down. I no longer have the patience to, say, keep reloading until I figure a battle out (BG2, here's looking at you), or keep exploring until I find that annoyingly-hidden last piece of a puzzle, and so on. Nowadays getting stuck mostly just gets me to quit, or look for spoilers, both of which ruin it for me. Conversely, if a game gets too easy, I get bored and quit as well.

Much pain... so much. 

[Yellow Rabbit]

I hardly feel like interrupting you, guys, but this thread has slightly different purpose if I recall it right. You know, other than insulting each other.

 

Disregard that, thanks for fun!