Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[pseudonymous]

Too many people are hung up on balance.   The most memorable experiences that can be had in games (outside of story) come from entirely unbalanced encounters that result in your party being wiped out or finding that sweet spot of skill/weapon combination that results in one-shotting every enemy on the screen.

[Valorian]

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.

The personal style part is at the top of this page, actually. It's unreasonable to ask you to follow the topic in which you're actively posting, I take it. Seeing PoE's subforums are this huge mass with thousands of posts per day and all.

 

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 see. I don't suppose you could point out my "strawman arguments"? I noticed that "strawman argument!" is this popular umbrella knee-jerk reaction that is unleashed whenever the poster's arguments and examples get crushed. There are exceptions, but you're definitely not an exception.

 

 

 

Also, it creates an unpleasant atmosphere

I know.. I apologize to everyone whose feelings were hurt. *compassionately hugs all emotionally scarred peeps*

 

 

 

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.

 

 I don't see why a defective system as described and suggested by you and PJ should find its way into a decent RPG and I have no intention to fix it for you.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Valorian

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The personal style part is at the top of this page, actually. 

 

You mean the part where he points out that you generally tend to argue in bad faith? Gee, I wonder what might have caused him to have this impression of you. (Hint: about every post you've made in the last year or so?)

 

Also, he is making an observation (which basically boils down to "you tend to nitpick against specific details while ignoring the big picture"), not spewing patronizing bull ("The urge to inject pseudo-intellectual philosophy in everything is too strong for you to resist..." "...you often get quite confused..." "...say things that you're ashamed of later, after you reread them..." etc.).

 

 

 

I see. I don't suppose you could point out my "strawman arguments"? 

 

You mean like the one with the wraiths who haunt your nightmares or whatever? Or where you bring up the example with pre-buffing exclusively against certain damage types where I was (repeatedly) talking about a mix of defenses against specific attacks and generic damage/attack/defense/whatever enhancers? Or completely ignoring the fact that I was always talking about a mix of pre-buffing and bringing in reinforcements, not just switching weapons and armor and whatnot? Or repeatedly bringing up examples of how this could not work in PoE, when literally the first statement I made on the matter was that it's outside the scope of PoE and you would need to build your system from the ground up to properly accomodate it?

 

 

 

 I don't see why a defective system as described and suggested by you and PJ should find its way into a decent RPG and I have no intention to fix it for you.

 

 

You mean the defective system you have constructed in your head seemingly independently of what I was talking about. Yeah, I don't really see a reason to include that in any decent RPG, either.

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PrimeJunta]

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.

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?

[Valorian]

You mean the part where he points out that you generally tend to argue in bad faith? Gee, I wonder what might have caused him to have this impression of you. (Hint: about every post you've made in the last year or so?)

But surely, if he intends to share his perception of people's "modus operandi" then he should also accept, like a grown up baby, that other people could comment his, yes? I'm certain he appreciates you being his feelings advocate though.

 

 

 

You mean like the one with the wraiths who haunt your nightmares or whatever? Or where you bring up the example with pre-buffing exclusively against certain damage types where I was (repeatedly) talking about a mix of defenses against specific attacks and generic damage/attack/defense/whatever enhancers? Or completely ignoring the fact that I was always talking about a mix of pre-buffing and bringing in reinforcements, not just switching weapons and armor and whatnot?

1) The wraith "example" of haunting the party in the tavern while they sleep was an obvious joke.. or mocking, if you will. You thought I was serious? Oh, you obviously did, considering your reaction.

 

2) Defenses against specific attacks like... slashing or freeze attacks, or what? Also, please, try to understand that preparing for EVERYTHING isn't the same as preparing to specifically counter something. You don't need spies to prepare and pre-buff against everything.

 

3) Please, try to understand that bringing in reinforcements isn't logically connected to your spy&scry adaptation. They don't need to organize an espionage mission (collecting data on the player's "favorite attacks") to be aware that they'll benefit from having a robust army with plenty of people in it. This sounds more like level scaling than anything else.

 

(Naturally, assuming it's a system where pre-buffing is actually allowed.)

 

 

 

You mean the defective system you have constructed seemingly independently of what I was talking about. Yeah, I don't really see a reason to include that in any decent RPG.

No. I mean the **** you've been babbling about for ~5 pages now.

[Lephys]

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).

So it's a horribly flawed idea, but also you would do it?

 

Good stuff.

 

"What if we tried to sneak into the castle?"

 

"THAT WILL NEVER EVER WORK AND IS A STUPID IDEA! Here's how I'd do it, though..."

 

I don't know if you can fathom what I'm getting at, but, finding out how it could work is kind of the goal of discussing ideas on this forum. Not criticizing the sheer idea over all the ways in which it couldn't work. If you wanna point ways in which not to do it, that's awesome. That's actually constructive. Pointing out how "the idea's bad because I can think of things more specific than the idea itself that don't work, and attribute those to perceieved flaws in the idea" is not cutting it.

 

It's like someone says "Hey, we should make a grocery run for the party!", and saying "NO, MY COUSIN'S ALLERGIC TO CHILI! THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA!". Great. 'Cause we were gonna buy groceries at random, without actually deciding what groceries to buy. That makes having food at the party a bad idea.

[Stun]

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.

Yes, I imagine it would sensibly take extremely intelligent (and time consuming) surveillance, high level scouting and sophisticatedly coordinated reconnaissance for a faction to locate their target, who in this case happens to be the proud and famous lord of a large and significant Stronghold.

 

That is, if they want to take the pointlessly complicated route.

 

For everyone else, I imagine the plan can't be any more difficult than walking up to the front gate and yelling: "My Lord, we have a Business proposition for you! Open up!" Then, when they're let in, they....attack.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Stun

[Lephys]

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

Haha. Exactly.

 

"Sir DudeMan is renowned throughout the land for slaying countless baddies and saving many a kingdom! But, I have absolutely no idea if he's magical, or mainly uses ranged weaponry, or wears plate everywhere, or what he even looks like, etc. All I know is that he exists and accomplishes feats."

[Lephys]

Yes, I imagine it would sensibly take extremely intelligent (and time consuming) surveillance, high level scouting and sophisticatedly coordinated reconnaissance for a faction to locate their target, who in this case happens to be the proud and famous lord of a large and significant Stronghold.

... What the hell are you even talking about now? Who said anything about location? Why would the makeup of assassins need to change in order to LOCATE you? "Wait, does he fight with his fists a lot? Okay, whoa... I'm gonna hafta use some OTHER means why which to locate him! o_o"

 

If you're a Wizard, with a party of all Wizards, you still reside at the same stronghold as if you're a Fighter with a party of all Fighters. Can you spot the difference, there?

 

That's right! What would be best suited to take you and your party down! 8D! So, for the 73rd time, when it's actually feasible for someone to have information about your party makeup and general strengths and weaknesses, it seems like it'd be prudent for that person to, I dunno... actually utilize that information.

 

Crazy, I know. Ya got me.

 

Now, if you would be so kind as to respond with some further counter-argument that revolves around some factor I didn't even argue (like the difficulties of locating your character/party), that would be splendid. I do so love all this time we waste together, ^_^

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

But surely, if he intends to share his perception of people's "modus operandi" then he should also accept, like a grown up baby, that other people could comment his, yes? 

 

Why yes of course. On the other hand if you answer an observation like "you tend to nitpick on the details, but don't engage with my core argument" with being a condescending little ****, maybe you should not be surprised if people call you out both on being a condescending little **** and treating a fairly values-neutral statement as the same as being a condescending little ****.

 

 

1) The wraith "example" of haunting the party in the tavern while they sleep was an obvious joke.. or mocking, if you will. You thought I was serious? Oh, you obviously did, considering your reaction.

 

 

So you admit answering with mockery instead of, y'know, arguments to actual arguments. We're making progress! Maybe you will, one day, even achieve a modicum of self-awareness!

 

****, I've jinxed it!

 

 

2) Defenses against specific attacks like... slashing or freeze attacks, or what? Also, please, try to understand that preparing for EVERYTHING isn't the same as preparing to specifically counter something. You don't need spies to prepare and pre-buff against everything.

 

 

For the third time: yes, against specific attacks like the ones you used and generic buffs as a general answer to making your presence known. Since they're an answer to making your presence known, your opponent wouldn't put them up if you don't make your presence known - therefore it is heavily tied to spying and scrying.

 

 

 

3) Please, try to understand that bringing in reinforcements isn't logically connected to your spy&scry adaptation. They don't need to organize an espionage mission (collecting data on the player's "favorite attacks") to be aware that they'll benefit from having a robust army with plenty of people in it. 

 

Man, how much easier this would be if you've actually read what I wrote!

 

 

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 or might not 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.

 

 

 

 

(Naturally, assuming it's a system where pre-buffing is actually allowed.)

 

 

Man, how much easier this would be if you've actually read what I wrote!

 

 

...Déja vu, anyone?

 

 

 

"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.

 

 

(Not to mention the fact that the "no debuffing" rule is a systemic feature designed to prevent degenerate gameplay, not an absolute truth rooted in the logic of the game world - therefore, if your enemies know that you are coming, they should be able to put up buffs whether you are allowed to, or not. Y'know, verisimilitude?)

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Stun]

... What the hell are you even talking about now? Who said anything about location? Why would the makeup of assassins need to change in order to LOCATE you? "Wait, does he fight with his fists a lot? Okay, whoa... I'm gonna hafta use some OTHER means why which to locate him! o_o"

Do you miss points for a living Lephys?

 

Here, lets try this again.

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

I personally would rather enjoy reading someone's perfect example of an adaptive scouting system, as I believe such a system would make everything it touches, whether it be quests or combat, so much better. But, of course, leave it to YOU to find the ONE example where it wouldn't work at all: Sending assassins against a high profile Land owner HERO. LOL

 

What sort of adaptive scouting is required here, exactly? Don't answer. I'll show you.

 

Assassin: Yo, Bartender!

Bartender: What?

Assassin: I saw you serve a small group of heavily armed adventurers here last night.

Bartender: Yep.

Assassin: Tell me about their leader.

Bartender: Um.... have you been living under a rock? That's Lord ___CharName___. You know that giant fortress stronghold to the east? It's his. He lives there.

Assassin: Thanks for the very useful information (damn, am I a good adaptive scouter or what!!!)

 

Later... at the stronghold.

 

Assassin: Yo, Gate keeper, We are Businessmen from Dyrwood. We have a proposal for Lord _____CharName____.

Gate Keeper: Very well, come on in. Please see the steward to schedule an appointment with Lord ___CharName___.

 

 

^sound familiar? It should. Almost Every RPG in history that has had Assassins come after the protagonist has done it this way. It's a 3 step process. Step 1: protagonist does something to piss off a group/individual. Step 2: Assassins are sent. step 3: Assassin locates the protagonist based on some in-game trigger point (either time, footprint, or central location that Protagonist is bound to pass through). Problem: There's nothing particularly adaptive or creative about this.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Stun

[Valorian]

 

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.

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?

 

 

"Fair game", "very similar", "equally likable", "an extension".. decide already.

 

I haven't mentioned "fair game", so let's go back to your non-mutated original question about why is it different, if you're still interested in finding out.

 

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.

In your defective spy,scry&scam system, it's all about combat encounters, spies collect data with the purpose of adapting their forces to be more difficult for you to overcome. Simple, ya? But, these informations, particularly for metagamers like you who start the game over and over again and read all possible guides, would just be a boon to adjust their party accordingly and exploit it as best as they can. 

 

Why do you play RPGs if they frustrate you so much? Are you a masochist?

 

 

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).

So it's a horribly flawed idea, but also you would do it?

 

Good stuff.

 

"What if we tried to sneak into the castle?"

 

"THAT WILL NEVER EVER WORK AND IS A STUPID IDEA! Here's how I'd do it, though..."

 

I don't know if you can fathom what I'm getting at, but, finding out how it could work is kind of the goal of discussing ideas on this forum. Not criticizing the sheer idea over all the ways in which it couldn't work. If you wanna point ways in which not to do it, that's awesome. That's actually constructive. Pointing out how "the idea's bad because I can think of things more specific than the idea itself that don't work, and attribute those to perceieved flaws in the idea" is not cutting it.

 

It's like someone says "Hey, we should make a grocery run for the party!", and saying "NO, MY COUSIN'S ALLERGIC TO CHILI! THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA!". Great. 'Cause we were gonna buy groceries at random, without actually deciding what groceries to buy. That makes having food at the party a bad idea.

 

 

I pointed out the flaws of several defective systems that have been proposed so far, explained why they're very exploitable and also suggested something different that would be acceptable for me, if implemented (not that I'd push for it).

 

Your level of inanity is insurmountable.

I'll quote Stun's response to one of your many inane comments: "Enough already".

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I pointed out the flaws of several defective systems that have been proposed so far, explained why they're very exploitable

 

 

Yes, this is a pretty accurate description of what you did, if by "pointing out the flaws and explained why they are very exploitable" you actually mean "I have nitpicked a bit and consequently refused to engage with any of the counterarguments (presumably while basking in a strong, yet sadly unjustified sense of intellectual superiority)".

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

 

But surely, if he intends to share his perception of people's "modus operandi" then he should also accept, like a grown up baby, that other people could comment his, yes?

 

Why yes of course. On the other hand if you answer an observation like "you tend to nitpick on the details, but don't engage with my core argument" with being a condescending little ****, maybe you should not be surprised if people call you out both on being a condescending little **** and treating a fairly values-neutral statement as the same as being a condescending little ****.

 

Hon, you're losing your temper. I suppose it's frustrating to be dwarfed intellectually, but at least try to embrace reality and restrict your hypocrisy (in relation to, but not limited to, your knitting-circle buddy who goes around calling people obtuse).

 

 

So you admit answering with mockery instead of, y'know, arguments to actual arguments. We're making progress! Maybe you will, one day, even achieve a modicum of self-awareness!

 

****, I've jinxed it!

I admit I like to mock certain forms of life, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

For the third time: yes, against specific attacks like the ones you used and generic buffs as a general answer to making your presence known. Since they're an answer to making your presence known, your opponent wouldn't put them up if you don't make your presence known - therefore it is heavily tied to spying and scrying.

Nope, you still don't get it, at all. This is the part that's exploitable. AI adapting attacks and defenses based on what was previously observed.

 

Increasing forces and using general pre-buffs has nothing to do with ADAPTING to specific tactics that were "observed by the AI".

 

Repeat it a thousand times, please.

 

 

 

 You're still, sadly, unable to comprehend that we're on PoE's forum, which is more or less envisioned as a place to discuss PoE-related things and in the PoE-related universe pre-buffing is not allowed.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I suppose it's frustrating to be dwarfed intellectually, but at least try to embrace reality and restrict your hypocrisy (in relation to, but not limited to, your knitting-circle buddy who goes around calling people obtuse).

 

Which is pretty much the same thing you just did?

 

 

...You were saying something about... hypocrisy, was that it?

 

 

Nope, you still don't get it, at all. This is the part that's exploitable. AI adapting attacks and defenses based on what was previously observed.

 

Nope, you still don't get it, at all. A system which is built around the assumption that the AI would adapt to attacks and defenses based on what it previously observed would heavily incentivize specialization, therefore making the decision to use suboptimal tactics and equipment one that has an associated opportunity cost.

 

But even if it doesn't, you can still compensate by designing your lead-up encounters to have a difficulty where not playing to your strengths would not be a trivial decision to take.

 

Man, this is like the third time I'm repeating myself. One would think that a person who supposedly dwarfs me intellectually would have no problems with grasping these concepts. 

 

Increasing forces and using general pre-buffs has nothing to do with ADAPTING to specific tactics that were "observed by the AI".

 

So you can spy or scry on someone, but this somehow magically compels you to only acknowledge the tactics they're using, not the general fact that they are there, slaughtering your underlings. Seems legit.

 

 

in the PoE-related universe pre-buffing is not allowed.

 

Again, for someone who is my intellectual superior, you do seem to have a difficulty grasping concepts like "opponents don't need to play by the same rules as you". Do you also throw a hissy fit when a dragon breathes fire at you, because that's totally not something your character can do?

 

And this is ignoring the mechanically sound reason I already gave you why it would be legit, by the way.

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valorian]

Would you like me to give you another 30 minutes so you can edit your post for the 10th time?

 

 

I suppose it's frustrating to be dwarfed intellectually, but at least try to embrace reality and restrict your hypocrisy (in relation to, but not limited to, your knitting-circle buddy who goes around calling people obtuse).

 

 

 

Which is pretty much the same thing you just did?

 

 

...You were saying something about... hypocrisy, was that it?

 

That's not hypocrisy, kitty. I'm not scolding people (selectively, knitting-circle based) not to call people this and that and then calling people **** and ****. That's hypocrisy.

 

 

 

 

Nope, you still don't get it, at all. A system which is built around the assumption that the AI would adapt to attacks and defenses based on what it previously observed would heavily incentivize specialization, therefore making the decision to use suboptimal tactics and equipment one that has an associated opportunity cost.

 

But even if it doesn't, you can still compensate by designing your lead-up encounters to have a difficulty where not playing to your strengths would not be a trivial decision to take.

 

Man, this is like the third time I'm repeating myself. One would think that a person who supposedly dwarfs me intellectually would have no problems with grasping these concepts.

Oh, you'd like to change subject to discuss a system that heavily incentivizes specialisation, built around an adaptive AI?

I'd prefer to discuss something PoE-related.

I like flexible systems. With party members, different weapons, varied armor. You can change all of that, including party composition.

 

You specialize in, say, tactics A and tactics B. You're clever enough to build your party so that it's flexible enough (talking in general), and very good with both A and B. On week 3, spies notice you're using tactics A quite a lot.. and then they totally prepare to defeat you with tactics C, but you're bright enough to use tactics B when you fight them and they're utterly confused and helpless.

 

 

 

You repeated your design visions more than 3 times and you could repeat them another million times, but it'd still be nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you can spy or scry on someone, but this somehow magically compels you to only acknowledge the tactics they're using, not the general fact that they are there, slaughtering your underlings. Seems legit.

I kind of think they wouldn't need to send spies and use soul magic to notice that their underlings are getting slaughtered. I suppose they'd see that some people are missing and replace them if they're able to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

Again, for someone who is my intellectual superior, you do seem to have a difficulty grasping concepts like "opponents don't need to play by the same rules as you". Do you also throw a hissy fit when a dragon breathes fire at you, because that's totally not something your character can do?

 

And this is ignoring the mechanically sound reason I already gave you why it would be legit, by the way.

 

Undoubtedly, you see the difference between a monster with specific abilities and a system design decision (like no pre-buffs) that would affect only the player and his party?

 

 

 

That said, I leave the stage for you to discuss and elaborate pertinent details and technicalities, and wish you good luck with your espionage RPG project. I'm sure that in a few years you'll be able to set a solid foundation for something sensible, with the help of Lephys and PJ.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I wasn't actually thinking of scaling at all. I was thinking of changes in enemy tactics and group composition.

 

Suppose you have three categories of units, crushies, shooties, and zappies, where shooties counter zappies, zappies counter crushies, and crushies counter shooties. If you've been fielding lots of shooties, then you'll start seeing the enemy group composition shift towards having fewer zappies and more crushies. They'd still be the same overall strength. The strategic deception you could pull off is to convince the enemy e.g. that you don't have any zappies, then break them out at a critical moment.

 

 

But you are scaling. You're encounter scaling. And this is an invitation of exploiting and gaming the system. If you know the boss will be either be a) crushie, b) shootie and c) zappie based on what you've been doing and your party is best at one of those tactics, then you can play dumb with one of those tactics leading up to the encounter to make it easier for you.

 

That's the whole point of exploiting the system. The encounter is hard with zappies and not crushies due to my party make up, so I'll change the encounter to more crushies and get through it easier. You've just changed the boss battle to make it easier for you due to knowing the system. The player shouldn't be able to change the boss encounter to make it less effective against your party due to knowing the system.

 

 

 

That wasn't me. That was AlO3.

 

I would do that differently; instead of scaling the boss encounter in power, I'd change it in composition. If the boss encounter is with Baron Invidius, <minion> and <bodyguard>, I'd have <minion> be Archmage Necrosius, Champion Invictus, or Master of the Hunt Oriol, and <bodyguard> consist of a mix of elite shooties, crushies, and zappies, depending on what you had done up to that point.

 

 

Again, this is easily exploitable. And what's worse is if the loot is different in different examples, I imagine most people will game the system to get the best loot from whichever encounter. I know I would.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

If you are a level 10 Mage in a dungeon designed for a level 10 party and manage to survive using only level 1-3 spells, congratulations. But if you manage to pull it off, that's the fault of the encounter design, not the AI.

 

No, you've missed the point of what I said. You want scaling based on what you do during the game. That's easily exploitable leading up to a boss fight and changing the encounter to make it easier. And using low level spells for the simple fact to gimp the boss fight is exploiting the A.I. and the system. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

"Why would a boss have all of his minions and lieutenants always near him when they could be out there, working towards his goals?" is a much, much better question, I think.

 

Also, the fact that he doesn't use his spell slots to put up protection spells doesn't mean he won't use those spell slots to turn your party into a fine pink mist. Or to put up those defenses during the fight.

 

 

Why would it be binary with a boss have only a few minions and lieutenants being a) with him or b) going out there and working towards his goals? How about a third option, c) he has minions and lieutenants doing both? That's a much, much better question, I think.

 

But what you've done is changed the encounter from the boss putting up protections to having no protections at all. Yes, he can put them up during the fight, but you've changed the encounter to make it easier for you. That's gaming the system.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I'm not scolding people (selectively, knitting-circle based) not to call people this and that and then calling people **** and ****. That's hypocrisy.

 

I'm scolding you for being generally disrespectful, condescending, and more interested in winning some kind of hypothetical Internet Price of Being Right than actual conversation. Whether one includes the words ****, **** or **** in their posts has no bearing on this.

 

 

 

Oh, you'd like to change subject to discuss a system that heavily incentivizes specialisation, built around an adaptive AI?

 

 

...Meanwhile in the initial post...

 

It's outside the scope of this game, that is true.

 

On the other hand, a game which adapts itself to your party composition sounds like fun.

 

I don't really see a changing of subject anywhere. Perhaps you should put a few points in your Comprehending Written Text skill?

 

 

 

 

You specialize in, say, tactics A and tactics B. You're clever enough to build your party so that it's flexible enough (talking in general), and very good with both A and B. On week 3, spies notice you're using tactics A quite a lot.. and then they totally prepare to defeat you with tactics C, but you're bright enough to use tactics B when you fight them and they're utterly confused and helpless.

 

 

Assuming utterly idiotic enemy AI, tactics which rely heavily on hard counters and combat situations that are not varied enough to force you to consider using the grand total of two tactics you can work with in three weeks, yes.

 

Is any of the above the fault of having adaptive AI?

 

 

 

I kind of think they wouldn't need to send spies and use soul magic to notice that their underlings are getting slaughtered. I suppose they'd see that some people are missing and replace them if they're able to do so.

 

Depends on the timeframe. Also, pre-buffing only works if your buffs don't wear out until the actual fight starts, so a "receive a report that some guards are missing on the north walls, put up ALL TEH BUFFS" would probably be suboptimal.

 

 

 

Undoubtedly, you see the difference between a monster with specific abilities and a system design decision (like no pre-buffs) that would affect only the player and his party?

 

I'm not really seeing the difference between having certain tactical options being strictly restricted to enemy creatures and... having certain tactical options being strictly restricted to enemy creatures, no.

 

Also, assuming that no pre-buffing works by disabling the use of spells and abilities outside of combat, I think the "have the rogue walk up to enemy group, initiate fight by backstabbing, turn invisible, have the rest of the party buff itself to full capacity a few corridors away while it lasts" routine could handily allow you to do the same.

 

 

That said, I leave the stage for you to discuss and elaborate pertinent details and technicalities, and wish you good luck with your espionage RPG project.

 

That is probably for the best, and I also wish you best of luck in your undoubtedly fruitful and fulfilling future endeavors of "spending way too much time criticizing hypothetical RPG systems".

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Hah, forum limits the maximum number of quotes you can have in a post. How sad.

 

 

 

 

 

If you are a level 10 Mage in a dungeon designed for a level 10 party and manage to survive using only level 1-3 spells, congratulations. But if you manage to pull it off, that's the fault of the encounter design, not the AI.

 

No, you've missed the point of what I said. You want scaling based on what you do during the game. That's easily exploitable leading up to a boss fight and changing the encounter to make it easier. And using low level spells for the simple fact to gimp the boss fight is exploiting the A.I. and the system. They're not mutually exclusive.

 

No, I have perfectly understood what you said. The power level of the enemies would not change based on what you do, only their level of preparedness - I don't really think that is a form of scaling in the strict sense. You couldn't gimp the boss fight by casting low-level spells, you could win a few rounds' worth of time while he puts up the buffs he neglected to based on what he saw - at the cost of an increased difficulty (and therefore possibly material resource-use) in the lead-up encounters. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

 

 

 

 

"Why would a boss have all of his minions and lieutenants always near him when they could be out there, working towards his goals?" is a much, much better question, I think.

 

Why would it be binary with a boss have only a few minions and lieutenants being a) with him or b) going out there and working towards his goals? How about a third option, c) he has minions and lieutenants doing both? That's a much, much better question, I think.

 

Well, maybe because those lieutenants that are hanging around with him are still a very bad investment unless bloodthirsty adventuring parties regularly break into his compound? (In which case he has probably bigger concerns than scrying your progress...)

 

 

 

Also, the fact that he doesn't use his spell slots to put up protection spells doesn't mean he won't use those spell slots to turn your party into a fine pink mist. Or to put up those defenses during the fight.

 

But what you've done is changed the encounter from the boss putting up protections to having no protections at all. Yes, he can put them up during the fight, but you've changed the encounter to make it easier for you. That's gaming the system.

 

...Assuming, of course, that the boss having more attack spells at his disposal because he didn't use the spell slots for buffing did make the encounter easier for you.

 

Also, if you balance the system with the assumption that this is something players will regularly do, and the baseline difficulty is the "non-buffed", it would hardly cause problems. Wouldn't be more "gaming the system" than "using True Sight to get rid of his Mislead clone instead of hacking away its health" is gaming the system.

Edited May 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

No, I have perfectly understood what you said. The power level of the enemies would not change based on what you do, only their level of preparedness - I don't really think that is a form of scaling in the strict sense. You couldn't gimp the boss fight by casting low-level spells, you could win a few rounds' worth of time while he puts up the buffs he neglected to based on what he saw - at the cost of an increased difficulty (and therefore possibly material resource-use) in the lead-up encounters. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

 

So in effect, you're pre-buffing your own party. That's what it boils down to.

 

 

Well, maybe because those lieutenants that are hanging around with him are still a very bad investment unless bloodthirsty adventuring parties regularly break into his compound? (In which case he has probably bigger concerns than scrying your progress...)

 

Having the boss without lieutenants in his compound sounds like a boss who has no idea about defences. And as I said before it's not binary. It's not either send his lieutenants out or keep lieutenants in his compound. You can send some out and keep some for base defence.

 

 

 

...Assuming, of course, that the boss having more attack spells at his disposal because he didn't use the spell slots for buffing did make the encounter easier for you.

 

Also, if you balance the system with the assumption that this is something players will regularly do, and the baseline difficulty is the "non-buffed", it would hardly cause problems. Wouldn't be more "gaming the system" than "using True Sight to get rid of his Mislead clone instead of hacking away its health" is gaming the system.

 

 

So now you're base lining the difficulty at players who will exploit the system because you've implemented a system that can be easily exploited. Here's a solution, don't implement a system that can be easily exploited and you won't have to base line the difficulty at the exploiters.

[Stun]

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.

 

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.

Edited May 24, 2014 by Stun

[Kjaamor]

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

 

/Sad Panda

Edited May 24, 2014 by Kjaamor

[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!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

No, I have perfectly understood what you said. The power level of the enemies would not change based on what you do, only their level of preparedness - I don't really think that is a form of scaling in the strict sense. You couldn't gimp the boss fight by casting low-level spells, you could win a few rounds' worth of time while he puts up the buffs he neglected to based on what he saw - at the cost of an increased difficulty (and therefore possibly material resource-use) in the lead-up encounters. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

 

So in effect, you're pre-buffing your own party. That's what it boils down to.

 

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 before 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]).

 

Having the boss without lieutenants in his compound sounds like a boss who has no idea about defences. And as I said before it's not binary. It's not either send his lieutenants out or keep lieutenants in his compound. You can send some out and keep some for base defence.

 

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?

 

 

 

Also, if you balance the system with the assumption that this is something players will regularly do, and the baseline difficulty is the "non-buffed", it would hardly cause problems. Wouldn't be more "gaming the system" than "using True Sight to get rid of his Mislead clone instead of hacking away its health" is gaming the system.

 

 

So now you're base lining the difficulty at players who will exploit the system because you've implemented a system that can be easily exploited. Here's a solution, don't implement a system that can be easily exploited and you won't have to base line the difficulty at the exploiters.

 

 

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...)

 

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.)

Edited May 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid