Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[PrimeJunta]

@Valorian:

 

(1) This system would have no impact at all on combat AI. It would simply determine the composition of the units that appear in combat. The simple crushy/shooty/zappy model would already introduce variety that wasn't there before. Naturally you can take it much further, if you like, with finer-grained profiles for example.

(2) In the sketch I proposed, there would not be a separate subsystem for intercepting spies. Instead, we have a quest with bog-standard triggers feeding into party_profile, and an end-state check for encounters without witnesses. Both are dead easy.

 

You don't have to like the idea, but at least do try to base your objections on what's actually in it rather than something you made up on the spot, m'kay?

Edited May 23, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Enemies could switch weapons on the fly without the whole spy and scry thing so what's the point? I think it would trivialize the player's choice of armor if enemies can simply switch weapons to specifically counter whatever they're currently hitting.

They can't switch armor on the fly though.

 

Well, I think that if you're facing enemies who go through the trouble of using spies and scrying (and probably will try to murder you in your sleep, because that's what any sane person would do), it's really not that much of a stretch for them to carry multiple sets of weapons. But that should be a relatively small subset of opponents.

 

Anyway, even with that, you gain an unspecified amount of time while they switch weapons, and as you've said, they can't change armor, so that's also an edge. (A not-exactly-overwhelming one, though, since weapon skills aren't free, and if you specialize heavily in a favorite weapon of yours, your performance will suffer in the lead-up encounters if you use a different one.) Also, their spellcasters will have fewer spells because they've used up some of their slots to pre-buff (which is theoretically impossible for the player, but I'd be quite surprised if you couldn't initiate a fight with a rogue who can turn invisible while the rest of the party is camping a few corners away, happily buffing themselves). Depending on how generic the buffs are in the game, this could either mean they've completely wasted an important resource (in the case of buffs against very specific damage types/status effects which you won't use), or roflstomp you regardless of how you have changed your equipment (in case of general attack/defense/damage/etc boosters).

 

 

Because you haven't offered anything remotely concrete about what would be countered specifically and how would the AI adapt beyond saying that it'll prepare itself for "your favorite attacks".

 

That is because we know precious little about what said attacks could be and how they could possibly be countered.

[Stun]

I dislike the way romances were implemented, most often you could finish the game before you even had the chance to get halfway through it. 

 

But also the randomness of companion/npc quests in general were kinda annoying at certain occasions. Like doing Edwins quest in front of a Dragon for example....

 

Dragon: Oh hey there! Don't mind me, just finish your conversation...I can wait^_^

LOL

 

True story about one of my earlier playthroughs of BG2.

 

I was romancing Viconia. Everything was going fine. OK, we enter Firkraag's lair. At that moment I'm collecting my thoughts, and mapping out in my mind how I'm going to handle a Dragon with my low level party. Suddenly Viconia chimes in with a romance dialogue:

 

Viconia: I'm wondering this. Have you ever entertained the notion of marriage?

 

WTF... I'm currently entertaining the notion of surviving a dragon battle; I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to protect My party from a 20d8 Fire breath.

 

 

But hey, on the Bright side, Firkraag was reasonable. He patiently allowed us to finish our flirt session. Classy guy.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Stun

[Valorian]

 

The case for level scaling taken to it's absurd extreme. These guys want level scaling based on what combat abilities you do in the game. Not what you have access to.

 I was thinking of changes in enemy tactics and group composition.

 

 

 

@Valorian:

 

(1) This system would have no impact at all on combat AI. It would simply determine the composition of the units that appear in combat. The simple crushy/shooty/zappy model would already introduce variety that wasn't there before. Naturally you can take it much further, if you like, with finer-grained profiles for example.

(2) In the sketch I proposed, there would not be a separate subsystem for intercepting spies. Instead, we have a quest with bog-standard triggers feeding into party_profile, and an end-state check for encounters without witnesses. Both are dead easy.

 

You don't have to like the idea, but at least do try to base your objections on what's actually in it rather than something you made up on the spot, m'kay?

 

I see. A few posts ago you were thinking about changes in enemy tactics. Anyway, that model, as I said, makes enemies vulnerable to direct counters by the player. It cripples them.

 

So it's something like catch-them-all? They'll watch you fight, run away and then you'll chase them Benny Hill style?

 

 

What "made up" thing did you feel accused of?

 

 

@alumin

 

The point was that the spy system isn't needed to switch weapons on the fly.

The player being able to literally adjust the composition of an encounter (armor type, weapon type, spells and whatnot) is certainly not desirable.

That we don't know everything doesn't prevent you from making examples with what we know so far. How weapons and armor work has been discussed extensively. Many spells and abilities have been described too.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

@Stun:That happened to me, except it was Yoshimo and not a romance thing.

 

Companion conversations should be scripted to occur at more suitable locations than in the middle of dungeons.

Edited May 23, 2014 by KaineParker

[PrimeJunta]

I see. A few posts ago you were thinking about changes in enemy tactics. Anyway, that model, as I said, makes enemies vulnerable to direct counters by the player. It cripples them.

I was, but I removed them from my "at its simplest" example. No reason you couldn't add some, though, e.g. have the AI default to an aggressive script if it determines that it's more likely to work against your hitherto-observed tactics.

 

So it's something like catch-them-all? They'll watch you fight, run away and then you'll chase them Benny Hill style?

Yup. It's known as "armed recon." You make contact, then scram once you've found out what the enemy response is.

 

What's your opinion on reputation systems, party influence systems, and alignment/karma systems, by the way?

Edited May 23, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[aluminiumtrioxid]

The player being able to literally adjust the composition of an encounter (armor type, weapon type, spells and whatnot) is certainly not desirable.

 

 

Says you. While I think that doing sidequests to literally adjust the composition of an encounter (say, paying off the mercenary bodyguards of the big bad to switch sides, stealing the grimoire of the wizard, blowing up the gunpowder supply of the soldiers to eliminate their firearms) is very much desirable.

[Valorian]

 

I see. A few posts ago you were thinking about changes in enemy tactics. Anyway, that model, as I said, makes enemies vulnerable to direct counters by the player. It cripples them.

I was, but I removed them from my "at its simplest" example. No reason you couldn't add some, though, e.g. have the AI default to an aggressive script if it determines that it's more likely to work against your hitherto-observed tactics.

 

 

What's your opinion on reputation systems, party influence systems, and alignment/karma systems, by the way?

 

 

Oh. Sounds quite simple for the AI to observe, determine and categorize your tactics and then appropriately adjust itself to be, say, aggressive. Too bad the player can change his tactics on the fly. 

 

I like reputation and influence systems.

 

 

 

The player being able to literally adjust the composition of an encounter (armor type, weapon type, spells and whatnot) is certainly not desirable.

 

 

Says you. While I think that doing sidequests to literally adjust the composition of an encounter (say, paying off the mercenary bodyguards of the big bad to switch sides, stealing the grimoire of the wizard, blowing up the gunpowder supply of the soldiers to eliminate their firearms) is very much desirable.

 

 

Yes, and I also say that you experienced a critical failure of logic here.

Your examples are means to accomplish something to benefit your party. That possibility is there to purposely make the encounter easier if you succeed in your action to thwart something.

In your spy and scry system, you'd be better off not thwarting anything. Isn't this spy & scry system supposed to make encounters more challenging because they're meant to adapt to counter your party?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

In your spy and scry system, you'd be better off not thwarting anything. 

 

...And you have arrived at this conclusion exactly how?

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

 

In your spy and scry system, you'd be better off not thwarting anything. 

 

...And you have arrived at this conclusion exactly how?

 

 Because letting them escape to make a detailed report on how you fight, armor and weapons used and so on... and then doing the exact opposite when you encounter this spy group is more beneficial.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

In your spy and scry system, you'd be better off not thwarting anything. 

 

...And you have arrived at this conclusion exactly how?

 

 Because letting them escape to make a detailed report on how you fight, armor and weapons used and so on... and then doing the exact opposite when you encounter this spy group is more beneficial.

 

 

Assuming, of course, that a/ your effectiveness doesn't drop when you're not using the things your characters are supposed to be good at (equipment you're specialized in, powerful spells, etc.) or b/ that the encounters leading up to the final boss are easily solvable while holding back.

 

Isn't this spy & scry system supposed to make encounters more challenging because they're meant to adapt to counter your party?

 

 

Also, I have forgotten to respond to this. No, it's not (necessarily) supposed to make encounters more challenging, it's supposed to introduce verisimilitude and another layer of strategy to the game.

[Valorian]

Assuming, of course, that a/ your effectiveness doesn't drop when you're not using the things your characters are supposed to be good at (equipment you're specialized in, powerful spells, etc.) or b/ that the encounters leading up to the final boss are easily solvable while holding back.

Don't worry about that, PoE's systems will allow much flexibility. Every group of weapons you can specialize in has all 3 physical damage types covered, for example.

 

Also, I have forgotten to respond to this. No, it's not (necessarily) supposed to make encounters more challenging, it's supposed to introduce verisimilitude and another layer of strategy to the game.

But what's the point of this "layer of strategy" if the direct product is crippled encounters?

 

Right, how can we say no to verisimilitude?   Anyway, the spy group in question is certainly quite resourceful. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Also, I have forgotten to respond to this. No, it's not (necessarily) supposed to make encounters more challenging, it's supposed to introduce verisimilitude and another layer of strategy to the game.

But what's the point of this "layer of strategy" if the direct product is crippled encounters?

 

Assuming, again, that an opponent who comes pre-buffed and brings extra manpower to the battle can be considered "crippled" just because he's (say) wearing suboptimal armor and has perhaps wasted a few spell slots on spells that have no relevance to the battle (along with more general buffs that do).

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PrimeJunta]

I like reputation and influence systems.

Then why don't you like this system? They're very similar, only this one is simpler to implement.

[Valorian]

Assuming, again, that an opponent who comes pre-buffed and brings extra manpower to the battle can be considered "crippled" just because he's (say) wearing suboptimal armor and has perhaps wasted a few spell slots on spells that have no relevance to the battle (along with more general buffs that do).

 

 

What makes you think they'll be allowed to pre-buff when we know it's not possible? And what if they do pre-buff, say, against slashing and freeze damage... and then you use crushing weapons and crackling bolts?

 

Bringing extra manpower is irrelevant here. Wasn't the point of this system to "adapt" based on espionage and not to bring MOAR? They can bring more regardless of spies. If it's *moar* they want, then they'll just bring everyone and their grandmother so they'll most likely be able to counter something.

 

 

@PJ

 

Are you now in attempt-at-humor mode?

An espionage system that changes combat encounters (and cripples them more often than not) is not "very similar" or "similar" to Obsidian's reputation or influence systems. 

An adaptive combat AI that "defaults to an aggressive script if it determines that it's more likely to work against your hitherto-observed tactics" is simpler to implement... than? 

[PrimeJunta]

@Valorian, I notice you're arguing against the subsystems I specifically removed from my example, rather than the core idea. I find that both characteristic of your style, and illustrative of the strength of your position.

Consider the idea an extension of the reputation system. If you get a reputation for fielding mages, the opposition will start fielding mage-killers.

So, once again, why is it bad if reputation systems are good? 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Assuming, again, that an opponent who comes pre-buffed and brings extra manpower to the battle can be considered "crippled" just because he's (say) wearing suboptimal armor and has perhaps wasted a few spell slots on spells that have no relevance to the battle (along with more general buffs that do).

 

 

What makes you think they'll be allowed to pre-buff when we know it's not possible? And what if they do pre-buff, say, against slashing and freeze damage... and then you use crushing weapons and crackling bolts?

 

Bringing extra manpower is irrelevant here. Wasn't the point of this system to "adapt" based on espionage and not to bring MOAR? They can bring more regardless of spies. If it's *moar* they want, then they'll just bring everyone and their grandmother so they'll most likely be able to counter something.

 

"No prebuffing" means it's not possible to use buffing spells outside of battle. But if your opponent knows that you're there, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the battle has actually started, even if the player is not aware of it. This is kind of the point of ambushes and recon.

 

Also, if they see you using attacks that mostly do slashing and freezing damage, it is prefectly reasonable of them to assume that you will use these damage types prominently. On the other hand, it is also reasonable of them to assume that being resistant to your damage will not win the fight in itself, and put up more generic offensive buffs, too.

 

Again, the point of this system is to introduce verisimilitude and opponents who react to you in a reasonably tactical manner. Concentrating your forces is a pretty tactical thing to do when you know what the opposing party intends and know where they are headed.

It can also be done without spies and whatnot, but paying an army to always be on the lookout for enemy adventurers who might be breaking into your base is not a very economic thing to do when you can pay those same forces to actually work towards furthering your goals.

[Valorian]

@Valorian, I notice you're arguing against the subsystems I specifically removed from my example, rather than the core idea. I find that both characteristic of your style, and illustrative of the strength of your position.

You reiterated it, after I pointed it out, by saying: "No reason you couldn't add some, though, e.g. have the AI default to an aggressive script if it determines that it's more likely to work against your hitherto-observed tactics."

 

The urge to inject pseudo-intellectual philosophy in everything is too strong for you to resist, so I understand that you often get quite confused and say things that you're ashamed of later, after you reread them a few times. However, it's rather easy to demolish your bad AI.

 

 

 

Consider the idea an extension of the reputation system. If you get a reputation for fielding mages, the opposition will start fielding mage-killers.

 

So, once again, why is it bad if reputation systems are good? 

 

 

There's no reason to consider it an extension of the reputation system, because the reputation system doesn't track your combat tactics and doesn't "adapt" and ruin encounters based on the type of armor you wear and the weapons you use.

 

Saying that I should like it because I could like a reputation system is as absurd as playing the game like this:

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Not surprisingly, the source of absurdity is the same person.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Valorian

[Lephys]

Holy carp... Why are people overcomplicating this so much, then arguing against the over-complication?

 

Want a perfect example of this adaptive scouting system? At some point in the game, some faction or another sends assassins after you.

 

Wouldn't it make PERFECT sense if they actually utilized intelligent thought when they sent assassins, instead of just sending Generic Strike Team Alpha after you? Yes, yes it would.

 

There, now work your way down from that. From "Uh oh, you didn't know this innocent bystander watching you man-handle some bandits in-town was a courier for that same bandit group, so he went and reported on what he saw, and those bandits hire a couple extra mages, since you seem to have some trouble with mages," down to "no one spies on your or changes, because this situation isn't one of those situations."

 

Like Junta said, it's functionally exactly like the reputation system. You don't just secretly save a bunch of baby seals on the beach, and when you go to the next town, everyone reveres you. People just respond accordingly when they do happen to know things. When they know things and when they don't is a completely different design decision that has nothing to do with whether or not they do something with the information they have.

 

Also, the whole "You could just completely do one thing, in case anyone's reporting on you, then, when you reach the group that's been put together specifically with info about your party's combat prowess, do the opposite!" idea is pretttttty silly. I mean, yeah, you could occasionally have the opportunity to trick some dumb bandit into thinking he's gotten the best of you, and gotten all lucky to escape with his life. But, either way you look at it, you're making things really hard on yourself. "My Wizard'll just not use any spells at all, and ONLY use this weapon, with which he's barely trained! 8D! And I'll have my Monk not use any melee combat techniques, AT ALL! And my Priest WON'T HEAL OR SUPPORT ANYONE! No Paladin auras, Fighter... you fight with a piece of rope. All right, guys, let's DO THIS!"

 

Yup... man, you sure pulled one over on that silly game. You'll easily get through combat encounters in the first place by not using any of your party's actual assets, whatsoever.

[Valorian]

Why are people overcomplicating this so much, then arguing against the over-complication?

You've been doing this the whole time since you first appeared on this forum, literally.

 

The rock paper scissors (crushy shocky blabla) is easy to counter.

 

If I mention a more nuanced and complicated system then it's "arguing against the subsystems someone specifically removed from his examples".

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

You've been doing this the whole time since you first appeared on this forum, literally.

 

 

 

The urge to inject pseudo-intellectual philosophy in everything is too strong for you to resist, so I understand that you often get quite confused and say things that you're ashamed of later, after you reread them a few times. 

 

Could we please try arguing the points, not the people who made them for a change?

 

The first thing I have said when I proposed this system was "it's probably outside the scope of PoE". You would kinda need to balance your whole system around it. It would also make the game more fun and varied, I believe.

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Lephys]

Translation: I've been bringing up things you don't feel are important at all, then arguing against them.

 

I'll take it.

 

His rock-paper-scissors example is a simplification, and you know that, because you're not an idiot. If you mention a more nuanced and complicated system, then point out how that one specific system has some flaw, then pretend that means any possible iteration of that type of system is therefore folly, then yeah, prepare for some resistance on that front.

 

The problem with your style of argument is that you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge the merest possibility of an idea like this. You won't be content until it's either shut down completely, or proven in an actual, full prototype form that you can't find any flaws with that it not only works but SHOULD DEFINITELY be implemented into PoE at all costs.

 

The argument warps into some big stupid "yes or no" thing, instead of just a friggin' discussion about someone's idea.

 

It's amazing how you can focus so much energy into all these little ways in which it could be horribly problematic, and yet you can't seem to put any of that into simply correcting the idea on how you think it could work. I.e. "No, that would cause problems... maybe if you did it like this, it could work."

 

But, people keep telling you "that situation you pointed is useful in evaluating how NOT TO do this, but what about THIS?", and presents one. And all you can do is "lol" about it and say "Oh, great, so you've found like, a handful of situations in which it would work." As if that wasn't their idea in the first place, and it NEEDED to work in all the situations you pointed out.

 

Quite frankly, I don't understand it.

[Valorian]

 

You've been doing this the whole time since you first appeared on this forum, literally.

 

 

 

The urge to inject pseudo-intellectual philosophy in everything is too strong for you to resist, so I understand that you often get quite confused and say things that you're ashamed of later, after you reread them a few times. 

 

Could we please try arguing the points, not the people who made them for a change?

 

The first thing I have said when I proposed this system was "it's probably outside the scope of PoE". You would kinda need to balance your whole system around it. It would also make the game more fun and varied, I believe.

 

 

Cool. But if you're going to play moderator, then do a throughout job and lecture your knitting-circle friend when he comments posters' "styles" and spouts **** like "Gfted1, question. Are you being intentionally obtuse or just genuinely blockheaded?"

 

I don't think I said anything controversial. In both cases it's an easily observed fact.

 

 

@Lephys.

 

Why would I argue in favor of a system that I dislike?

I mention the flaws... because, duh, there are many.

And if you read carefully (and you don't, you're too occupied typing furiously), you'll also read that I did say how I'd do it (one or two special ambush encounters).

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Cool. But if you're going to play moderator, then do a throughout job and lecture your knitting-circle friend when he comments posters' "styles" and spouts **** like "Gfted1, question. Are you being intentionally obtuse or just genuinely blockheaded?"

 

 

Surprising as it may sound, I have better things to do with my time than scour every single topic to see who was kind of being an arsehole and when.

 

Also, my "knitting-circle friends" seem to do the whole "insult the other party repeatedly", "use strawman arguments heavily" and "generally argue in bad faith" routine somewhat less often than you.

 

 

 

I don't think I said anything controversial. In both cases it's an easily observed fact.

 

You were still being unnecessary rude, which is a totally fine thing to do if your goal is to infuriate the other parties to the point that they (also) spend more time on personal attacks than actual arguments, but if you want to, say, actually discuss things rationally, it's not that useful.

 

Also, it creates an unpleasant atmosphere and makes you look kinda bad.

 

 

Why would I argue in favor of a system that I dislike?

 

Nobody asked you to argue in favor of it, they asked you to stop for a moment and use a fraction of the time and energy you spend on bitching about its perceived flaws to think about why it could be awesome instead.

[Fearabbit]

"My lord, they left the inn. I overheard them asking for directions to your fiefdom, it seems like they are heading here now. I came as fast as I could."

"Good. Exactly as I planned. How many were they?"

"There were six of them, my lord."

"And the wizard, was he with them?"

"Yes, my lord. There was also the cipher, and the priest; the leader of the band is, as you know, a cowardly fighter who likes to attack his enemies while they are facing another direction, and it seems they have teamed up with an Amaua barbarian and an elven ranger. They seem to have left their most capable fighter behind, as well as some of the others that we know of."

"You've done well. I'll have to think about my strategy now, go and see that the mercenaries are ready, and tell the wizards to get their grimoires."

"I'll do so at once, my lord." (Bows and exits.)

 

...a little bit less sophisticated than other proposed systems, but this seems an entirely plausible thing to do for a villain who is expecting our party. Since we have like a dozen possible companions, knowing which ones we'll take on our journey is already a huge help.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Fearabbit