Sensuki's Suggestions #018: Backer Beta Version Review v278 bb

[Namutree]

I agree Hiro, but combat can still be improved. It just won't be as smooth as the IE games. Hopefully we can get at least a decent combat system.

[Sensuki]

1) What is IAS?

Increased Action Speed, as stated in our paper.

 

2) NWNS variety: Than itself. It was too repetitive.

Sorry I don't follow. I do agree that NWN2 was too repetitive though.

 

3) Hmm. I did not like the RTS feeling for RPGs in the first place. Neither do I think that IE games played like RTS games either. You yourself pointed out that the animation speeds there were slower. IE was a hybrid if anything between an action RPG (you push a button, something awesome happens) and a RTS (you push a button something awesome might happen, if you played right). PoE right now is more on the action category.

The IE games were built on an engine that was an RTS engine in the first place, the most recent info on that was the Matt Chat with Feargus Urquhart but it's been a known thing for a long time. Movement and commanding units in the IE games does feel like an RTS, especially an RTS from around the same era. The camera is isometric, units have selection circles, movement is responsive and movement and non-movement actions are separated. NONE of the IE games feel like an ARPG at all, if anything the single character Aurora engine games veer towards that style more.

 

ARPG means constant input required from the player - holding down mouse = continuous attack, let go of mouse = no attack. Hold down move = move, let go of move = no move. The IE games have a click to move and click to auto attack, therefore they feel nothing like an ARPG at all.

 

Josh also recently stated that he'd prefer to make a turn-based classless game. I think he'd be more comfortable doing that to be honest, as you can clearly see those design preferences bleeding into this game a little bit with the way that attributes, advancement and the class system works and some of the decisions regarding combat. Some of the decisions have been very good though - such as having increased IAS slow recovery time first before the action animation frames.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

 

We won't be using a strict round-based system, so the timing of actions will be much more flexible for us to tune. That will help a lot.

It was a design decision made early on before the Kickstarter finished. I would've thought if they were testing the combat, even a year ago when we saw the teaser trailer, they would've noticed there were problems with it. A decision should've been made to introduce rounds like the IE games when they knew they had a problem. Not persist in trying to 'fix' it because in my opinion, I don't think it can be fixed to a degree where it will be like the IE games. They might be able to slow it down, but the lack of rounds is the problem for me. The combat feels like I'm playing an arpg like Diablo, trying to control 6 characters at once, constantly pausing to issue commands and not 100% sure when they have fully recovered to issue a new command.

 

You don't need rounds, just slow down combat, move speed, damage dealt (and made D.T. system work with it probably by changing it into % of damage reduced) and implement queue for next action so you can give another action at any point and it will continue with that action into as soon as current one is finished. But I don't want NWN full action queue as it was worse when you could queue 4 actions as after 2 rounds you had no idea what would happen soon.

 

Another way to fix this, would be to implement a system from Jagged Alliance: Back in Action where when you paused you would get into a special screen where you could give multiple actions to your squad members and easily sync their action with one click. If you want to see it in action, you can find videos of it on youtube. It was a best part of that game, and although the game wasn't as successful this part was done well (for those that could live with new Jagged Alliance not being Turn Based anymore)

[Sensuki]

No action queues, that won't solve the problem at all. They just need to fix the core issues such as having different animations for when units are in recovery and when they are not, as well as adding in the required visual and audio cues and UI feedback. The Infinity Engine games didn't need action queues, and they didn't need half of the stuff that Obsidian has added into PE to tell what was going on. They really need to shape up a bit to even compete with Baldur's Gate - a game that got it right 16 years ago. There has been a serious decline since then because not many games of this type have been made and people have forgotten the basics (or maybe taken then for granted).

 

Also transparency of how long actions will take - which I mentioned in the attribute paper and this suggestion video.

 

Spell FX are also too strong and can be very confusing when there's heaps of them going on at once.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[gkathellar]

This is due to the base reason that RTwP is potentially counter-productive to heavy micromanagement. A good RTwP game demands fewer options that allow you to actually consider between them in the RT part of RTwP. If you are pausing more often than not, then the best mechanics is TB.

 

You must not have played much with high-level casters. The spellcaster micromanagement in BG2 was absolutely fantastic, and absurdly technical - for reference, the person who started the Solo Ascension challenge used the Limited Wish spell's rabbit summon as one of her primary tactics.

 

absolutely shockingly bad combat ... Jade Empire

 

Oh no you didn't.

 

A decision should've been made to introduce rounds like the IE games when they knew they had a problem. Not persist in trying to 'fix' it because in my opinion, I don't think it can be fixed to a degree where it will be like the IE games. They might be able to slow it down, but the lack of rounds is the problem for me.

 

I don't know that rounds or the lack thereof are really the issue, considering that the IE games only really had rounds in the most abstract sense. I'd say the confusing nature of recovery time is the largest thing here. The solution that I want, for me, is auto-pause on recovery from non-repeated actions (i.e. anything other than basic attacks).

 

 

No action queues, that won't solve the problem at all.

 

+1.

[Captain Shrek]

 

1) What is IAS?

Increased Action Speed, as stated in our paper.

 

2) NWNS variety: Than itself. It was too repetitive.

Sorry I don't follow. I do agree that NWN2 was too repetitive though.

 

3) Hmm. I did not like the RTS feeling for RPGs in the first place. Neither do I think that IE games played like RTS games either. You yourself pointed out that the animation speeds there were slower. IE was a hybrid if anything between an action RPG (you push a button, something awesome happens) and a RTS (you push a button something awesome might happen, if you played right). PoE right now is more on the action category.

The IE games were built on an engine that was an RTS engine in the first place, the most recent info on that was the Matt Chat with Feargus Urquhart but it's been a known thing for a long time. Movement and commanding units in the IE games does feel like an RTS, especially an RTS from around the same era. The camera is isometric, units have selection circles, movement is responsive and movement and non-movement actions are separated. NONE of the IE games feel like an ARPG at all, if anything the single character Aurora engine games veer towards that style more.

 

ARPG means constant input required from the player - holding down mouse = continuous attack, let go of mouse = no attack. Hold down move = move, let go of move = no move. The IE games have a click to move and click to auto attack, therefore they feel nothing like an ARPG at all.

 

Josh also recently stated that he'd prefer to make a turn-based classless game. I think he'd be more comfortable doing that to be honest, as you can clearly see those design preferences bleeding into this game a little bit with the way that attributes, advancement and the class system works and some of the decisions regarding combat. Some of the decisions have been very good though - such as having increased IAS slow recovery time first before the action animation frames.

 

1) If you really think that the view angle and formations is all there to RTS then I have nothing to say about this issue. As for NWN the combat there was much more tactical than in IE games just that the encounters were worse. So you could potentially use all those spells and abilities in NWN much more strategically but the enemies were stupid and repetitive. So you did not have to. NWN could potentially have been a much better game.

 

2) ARPGs can have auto attack. Period. It has nothing to do with clicking continuously. I am not going to go into a detailed debate. ARPGs just mean quick short and highly rewarding if shallow combat in my opinion. How you do it is your (developer's) problem. In PoE the combat right now very formulaic. Every class has a set tactic which is pigeon holed into it. You stick to that and win. Except it is not rewarding and feels like a chore.

[Captain Shrek]

 

This is due to the base reason that RTwP is potentially counter-productive to heavy micromanagement. A good RTwP game demands fewer options that allow you to actually consider between them in the RT part of RTwP. If you are pausing more often than not, then the best mechanics is TB.

 

 

 

Believe it or not, I am a big fan of spell battles in IE games. I feel that it was the only redeeming feature of the combat however. The solo is way better for a good reason. Because it automatically solved the problem of RTwP, unnecessary micro that did not suit it in the first place. By bringing the number of actions down to ONE char you actually make a great RTwP game. Something that NWN could have been but wasn't due to terrible encounter design. Try and play the Conant modules for NWN2 and see how good the game could have been. 

[Kjaamor]

1) If you really think that the view angle and formations is all there to RTS then I have nothing to say about this issue. As for NWN the combat there was much more tactical than in IE games just that the encounters were worse[citation needed]. So you could potentially use all those spells and abilities in NWN much more strategically but the enemies were stupid and repetitive. So you did not have to. NWN could potentially have been a much better game.

 

And, as the saying goes, my aunt could potentially have been my uncle were she in possession of a set of testes.

[Sensuki]

1) If you really think that the view angle and formations is all there to RTS then I have nothing to say about this issue.

That's selective ignorance. You're just picking out one thing I said and forming a statement based off that. I didn't even say formations?!?!? It should be apparent that this is not what I think. RTS games are usually isometric (and they pretty much all were in the 90s/early 2000s) and you can select multiple units at once. Selection circles around units is a thing born from RTS games.

 

RTS combat involves units (player vs player or player vs AI) that attack each other at a constant rate either governed by a system where every unit has an attack animation with no cooldown between them (continuous attack) or where they do (like in PE and Warcraft 3) where there is an attack animation followed by a cooldown until the unit can next perform that action. Special Abilities and spells are governed by a different system where a unit can use them immediately after an attack animation, not having to wait for the attack recovery to cooldown. These are balanced by single ability cooldowns.

 

RTS games do not penalize normal units for moving, some units can move and attack at the same time (Marines, Siege Tanks in Starcraft etc) and some (usually siege type units) have to 'set up' to be able to attack such as Trebuchets in AoE2.

 

As for NWN the combat there was much more tactical than in IE games just that the encounters were worse. So you could potentially use all those spells and abilities in NWN much more strategically but the enemies were stupid and repetitive. So you did not have to. NWN could potentially have been a much better game.

I disagree. Movement is not really important in the NWN games they try and emulate turn-based a little bit more than the IE games do. Knights of the Chalice followed by Temple of Elemental Evil are the best implementations of 3rd edition (even tho KotC is Open d20) D&D, but those are turn-based. The non-trash combat in Icewind Dale 2 beats anything in the Aurora Engine games.

 

2) ARPGs can have auto attack. Period. It has nothing to do with clicking continuously. I am not going to go into a detailed debate. ARPGs just mean quick short and highly rewarding if shallow combat in my opinion. How you do it is your (developer's) problem. In PoE the combat right now very formulaic. Every class has a set tactic which is pigeon holed into it. You stick to that and win. Except it is not rewarding and feels like a chore.

For a game to be declared an action game it requires constant player input, it is not automated. That just tells me that you don't like ARPGs more than anything. Some of them are really awesome.

 

oh no you didn't

Despite this, I would say Jade Empire's combat is the most fun aurora engine game combat-wise but still pretty terrible compared to a proper action game like Jedi Knight 2 or something.

 

I really think PE needs to move the hell away from thinking in a D&D / Turn-based mindset and concentrate on obtaining RTS fluidity.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[gkathellar]

1) If you really think that the view angle and formations is all there to RTS then I have nothing to say about this issue.

 

Not to speak for Sensuki, but I think you're misunderstanding. He's saying that it's clear, from even a cursory examination of the Infinity Engine, that its fundamentals were originally put together for RTS combat. And he's right that it does have all of the staples and geegaws.

 

As for NWN the combat there was much more tactical than in IE games just that the encounters were worse. So you could potentially use all those spells and abilities in NWN much more strategically but the enemies were stupid and repetitive. So you did not have to. NWN could potentially have been a much better game.

 

Disagree - NWN at its best (though pretty good!) never approached the weirdness and tactical sophistication of IE, mostly due to control's limitation to a single character. Even spellcaster duels in PWs ultimately came down to the repetition of several metagame tactics.

 

ARPGs just mean quick short and highly rewarding if shallow combat in my opinion.

 

Okay, but that definition is not the one that everyone else here (and also not here) tends to use. ARPGs place the focus on, as Sensuki said, constant player input - which is neither necessarily quick, nor necessarily shallow. Diablo, Torchlight, Ys, Jade Empire - these are ARPGs. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not this.

 

Believe it or not, I am a big fan of spell battles in IE games. I feel that it was the only redeeming feature of the combat however. The solo is way better for a good reason. Because it automatically solved the problem of RTwP, unnecessary micro that did not suit it in the first place. By bringing the number of actions down to ONE char you actually make a great RTwP game.

 

You could easily get the same kind of craziness without spellcasters. Thieves in particular had a great variety of tricks and ways to work around their opponents.

 

Soloing had its virtues, but lacked the sheer complexity and back-and-forth sophistication of playing with a party.

 

Something that NWN could have been but wasn't due to terrible encounter design.

 

Rule #1 of talking about NWN: Ignore the OCs. Modules and PWs are the only things worth talking about (and they could be very much worth talking about).

[PrimeJunta]

I want clutter on my portraits. Those action icons are a really good way to see at a glance what everybody's up to.

[Sensuki]

They do not make up for actually looking at the units/combat itself and being able to see what's going on - that's copping out.

 

"We can't make combat not look like a cluster**** - so we'll just add in some UI help instead"

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

No, they don't, but I find them useful in any case. Supplemental information.

[Sensuki]

Yeah I don't care if they add them in as long as they can be turned off, but they SHOULD NOT be considered as a 'fix' to the actual problems in combat.

Bandaid over a bullethole.

[PrimeJunta]

Oh yes, absolutely not! That would be bad.

 

Bulletholes need tampons, at the very least.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Sure, none of us advocating the in-action-icon UI suggested it would fix any of that. It's supplemental and sometimes superior to looking at the characters on screen (which can be very spread out) and it's much faster than trying to use the combat log just to see which guy is using/doing what. For instance, with BG:EE, I immediately spot if some character gets empty-handed (also, the combat log isn't crystal clear in its feedback on stuff like this), and then I can cancel weird actions like a dart-throwing sorceress running up to some big ogre boxing it with her fist. 

Edited September 16, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Sylvanpyxie]

I just want to address something you said towards the end of your video:

 

 

Durations make intelligence overpowered at the moment.

 

While I agree a number of spells require a reduction to their base duration, particularly powerful ones such as Dire Blessing or Consecrated Ground, I think the majority of the problem is the fact that a single attribute is capable of doubling the duration of every single effect you have.

 

It's stupid to ignore the fact that with each skill point granting you a 5% increase to all your beneficial and negative effects, intellect is currently scaling ridiculously well. Nerfing the base duration of effects is not going to change that. In fact, I imagine it's far more likely that it will just further encourage casters to cap their intellect as high as possible.

 

From my experience with a number of caster classes, intellect is the best scaling attribute for them at the moment and ignoring that is not going to make durations any more balanced than they currently are. That's my two cents anyway.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sylvanpyxie

[Sensuki]

Reducing the percentage to something more sensible might be the better way to go. I have no problem with one attribute controlling it but double durations @ 20 Int is OP.

 

maybe 3% per point would be more balanced, so you can get an extra 60% at 20 Int instead.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[PrimeJunta]

Re durations, I'm not sure I agree that 5% is OP. If the base durations were nerfed somewhat so that INT 10 would be the "average," I don't think a 50% bonus on top of that for INT20 is unreasonable. At INT 3 the durations ought to feel "too" short, much of the time anyway.

[Grotesque]

Not a word about the volume of footsteps?

 

And those door interaction icons and such gives the game the flair of a sh!tty browser game.

I can't stand them.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Grotesque

[Sensuki]

Re durations, I'm not sure I agree that 5% is OP. If the base durations were nerfed somewhat so that INT 10 would be the "average," I don't think a 50% bonus on top of that for INT20 is unreasonable. At INT 3 the durations ought to feel "too" short, much of the time anyway.

I think if you didn't nerf the base durations as much and went with 3% it would be pretty good. Then extra durations wouldn't be as much of a 'must have' on casters - something Matt and I could look into possibly by running a few test cases.

 

Not a word about the volume of footsteps?

 

And those door interaction icons and such gives the game the flair of a sh!tty browser game.

I can't stand them.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/67678-the-music-good-or-no/?view=findpost&p=1503134

 

And I don't really like the icons either as much as the IE method, but it's not a big deal for me.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Sensuki

[archangel979]

I think it would be better to have durations work of character levels or have fixed duration then to have one attribute controlling it all.

It will just create situation where durations are too long or too short and you cannot fix it in a good way without making problems in other places.

Edited September 16, 2014 by archangel979

[Zwiebelchen]

Regarding the UI: I wonder why nobody ever thought of just adapting the WC3 UI for an RPG.

 

It's intuitive, convenient, functional and looks great!

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gZQ4tQ5pTD4/TfTH8ZGlwbI/AAAAAAAABMo/ocmMFg-f3-Y/s1600/Warcraft-3-Frozen-Throne-The-Tales-of-Raviganion_1.jpg

http://www.gamesurge.com/pc/war3/nightelf.jpg

 

So what do we have here?

 

- We obviously have a minimap that could be replaced by the combat log, simply because this is an RPG and we don't need a minimap here.

- We have a portrait of the currently selected character

- When drag-selecting multiple units, we have a sub-selection menu in the center panel, that allows us to change the command card on the bottom right to the actions and abilities available to the sub-selection unit (highlighted in the center panel) and only this unit will use those abilities, but other orders like move or attack orders get applied to all units selected

- When only selecting one unit, we see details about this unit instead of the sub-selection control panel at the center (second image) that displays all kinds of stats, buffs, debuffs, etc. ... in PoE, this could be used for combat information like an action queue

- We have a mini-inventory between the command card and center panel for consumables

 

The WC3 UI basicly has all functionality an RPG needs and is optimized to allow heavily micro-intense fast-reaction gameplay. If this works well for even a fast paced real-time strategy game without pause function, imagine how intuitive it is for an rtwp RPG?

 

 

Imho, a party-based RPG has a lot more in common with RTS games than with MMORPGs. And yet a lot of game developers seem to adapt the design of MMORPG huds for RPGs instead of checking out RTS games.

 

 

Soom food for thought on the whole UI thing.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Zwiebelchen

[Sensuki]

Just wanted to point out that the bit where I'm running left and right and the game is not recognizing my movement commands - that is actually my mouse causing that, using a quite old Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 and the switches under the buttons are wearing out, it's doing it in windows as well.

[Uomoz]

Just wanted to point out that the bit where I'm running left and right and the game is not recognizing my movement commands - that is actually my mouse causing that, using a quite old Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer 3.0 and the switches under the buttons are wearing out, it's doing it in windows as well.

 

That was quite obvious by simply listening to the sad clicks of the mouse in the video tbh. Classic ol' mouse dying on you there.