Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Design Topic #1: Assuming Control

Do you want to control allies in combat?


  • Total voters
    99

Eyestabber

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
4,733
Location
HUEland
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
I don't care about "muh immurshun", I only care about proper tactics being implemented at all times, hence my vote for "Any allies". It goes without saying that party + allies should have full control as well. An example of an existing RPG would be the "Ravage of the Wretched Heathens" quest in Expeditions: Viking. During that quest you get to control none other than Hrodgaerda in combat, which is funny because she is your fucking enemy and you get to kill her much later on. Granted, that game comes up with a plausible excuse to do that: the King put YOU in charge of that particular pillage and Hrodgaerda is (grudgingly) following the King's orders. That game always gave me full control of any allies, tho it has no fights where your allies fight without you.

Protip: add an option to bind a key (or mouse button) to speed up combat. That's how I play most TB RPGs.
 

Goral

Arcane
Patron
The Real Fanboy
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
3,552
Location
Poland
And not just risks, but you can actively manipulate things so that the ally takes a hit for your party member and gets killed instead of the guy you care about, since full control means they are just puppets for your whim
You're right of course but this can also happen when you're not controlling allied party (although to a lesser degree). In Antidas fight I often let my allies take hits while I've been waiting for both sides to weaken each other. I've attacked only the ones on the sides so that I wouldn't be surrounded by enemies.
Controlling allies usually means that they make better choices than the ones controlled by AI so full control would make sense for better than average allies and not some bums who don't know how to handle a gun properly and were randomly chosen and yet they could follow your orders perfectly and cooperate with each other as if they were some elite enemy forces.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
It’s definitely immersion breaking. Maybe having full control over your allies should be a reward for a side quest or passing some hardcore skill/stat checks. If you’re going to include it, don’t make it the default—make us work for full control.
 

Quantomas

Savant
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
260
First of all, I agree that full control of allies breaks the immersion. Even if you frame it in a way that it's the player and not your character who has control.

I did lots of work analyzing the complexity of the interactions between combatants, and the one thing I can tell you with certainty is that the complexity ramps up exponentially with the number of combatants. For a turn-based game in which you control the minutiae, you can go up as far as seven for two sides, *if* you give the player the necessary tools to be in charge. These tools require an initiative bar plus a well thought-out interface for the player to access stats, perks and effects and to figure out movement ranges and attack options. For an outstanding implementation have a look at Heroes of Might and Magic V which shows two things: how complex a well designed turn-based battle truly can be and how intricate and involved an adequate interface needs to be.

If you include more combatants the complexity increases, which means you need either better tools or a system that allows you to interpret and control interactions on a more abstract level, because in essence the nature of the conflict changes.

If TNW is primarily meant to be an RPG and squad-based game, the question ought to be whether you want to spend effort on large scale battles.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
1,301
Grab the Codex by the pussy
I don't care about "muh immurshun", I only care about proper tactics being implemented at all times
images


Protip: add an option to bind a key (or mouse button) to speed up combat. That's how I play most TB RPGs.
Probably because they have so many enemies in one fight. This was one of the worst things about Battle Brothers, to name just one game with this problem.
 

azimuth

Educated
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
84
Watching AI fight each other is much more popular than you think. I think it was a Half-Life 2 designer who realized how popular it is based on feedback his games received.

Personally, I always liked the parts of Fallout where non-party AI allies were fighting AI enemies, or when you'd see two neutral AI groups duking it out. I still love coming across random encounters of two groups of AI fighting each other and choosing a side to help (or not).

That having been said, if it's your game, I think you should see your vision through to the end. I can imagine it being fun to take control of allies even if I'm not there. I can also see how it could hurt a game, as if a group of allies is supposed to be incredibly elite, it may fall flat when my dumb hands take control and they seem as retarded as anyone else I control. There's a lot to be said for denying the player control of something as a way of making it seem more powerful or special.
 

Zanzoken

Arcane
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
3,559
I support the idea that, when possible, it's better to have a large fight play out, rather than cutting combatants, or artificially dividing the level, or artificially dividing enemies into 'waves'.

(snip)

After all, I wasn't very bored by the big fights in AOD, even when it sometimes meant 1 v. 15 (like the pass), because the difficulty meant I was often in such a precarious position, and I needed to carefully watch enemy actions. And in fights with allied combatants, I was watching with baited breath for what they were going to do. I would much rather perceive the battlefield as a giant, organic mess that me and my posse need to navigate smartly, rather than perceive it as an artificially reduced 'set piece' puzzle, or perceive it as a strategy game.

I agree with this 100%. A battle between two powerful factions for control of a major hub should have a different feel than a dust-up with some thugs in a back alley, so make it big and believable. I don't mind watching the AI take a lot of turns if the setting is appropriate.

You don't want to put the player through too many large encounters like this, of course, because it would diminish the importance and turn the game into a slog. AoD struck a good balance and as a result the big fights are some of the most memorable -- i.e. Antidas vs IG, Kemnebi, the Pass.

I think you should be able to convince Jonas to give you a couple decent guys for backup. Altering the party size reinforces the feeling to the player that "this fight is special". So characters under player control would range from 3 to 6 which also reduces the time between player turns.

I would also implement the "battle plan" mechanics from the IG / Urdu battle at the pass where you can pass skill checks to buff your team, create traps for the enemy, etc.
 
Last edited:

Jaedar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
9,839
Project: Eternity Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pathfinder: Kingmaker
A potential problem with letting you control your allies is you probably don't care (or even prefer!) if they all die as long as you win, letting you use them in various suicidal ways that aren't really fitting. Although it's not like the AoD ai cares that much for self preservation either...

I agree it's a problem watching a bunch of npcs fight though, but as long as the combat speed can be set to 800% it shouldn't be that bad.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
Relatedly, one feature I would love is where allies get a script for weighing certain basic factors about the state of the fight, and then decide to run away or even turncoat.

E.g. let's say that Jones' men realise your party is using them as meatshields and sending them to their deaths (e.g. calculating that your party is too far away + damage that the Joneses have taken), and that it's not going to end well for them. Perhaps Jones will remember this, and alter the quest outcome/rewards afterwards; perhaps in a different circumstance, your fragile alliance will crumble on the spot.

It is something that commanders had to take into account in historical battles, especially large ones involving coalitions. Nobody wants to rush in first and get all their own men killed, but you also didn't want to pussy out too obviously and get everyone else's scrutiny, so it was always a game of committing just the right amount.

I realise it may be difficult and beyond scope etc, but since you're thinking about large-scale battles VD, it'd be very cool to have something like this come up in one or two places where it's story-appropriate.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
A potential problem with letting you control your allies is you probably don't care (or even prefer!) if they all die as long as you win, letting you use them in various suicidal ways that aren't really fitting. Although it's not like the AoD ai cares that much for self preservation either...
Let's be realistic: It's far easier to make the human player care about preserving the lives of both core party members AND NPC allies than it is to make the AI itself care about preserving the lives of said NPCs. All that is required for the player to care about preserving the NPC allies is to give them some kind of continuing value for being allowed to live. This is quite easy to do: If your controlled allies are named characters and you need them ALIVE to further the storyline in the direction you want, then you will keep them alive, even at the risk of using your own meatshields as their usual selves, because, quite frankly, your party almost certainly HAS front line fighters, and they'll be good at it because you made them to be.

Under AI control, on the other hand, they're guaranteed to Leeroy, and the player needs to do no special work to get them to rush to their deaths (and thus derive any benefit from these deaths), but it quickly becomes frustrating in the extreme when the player wants them alive and they're hellbent on suicide.

A simple compromise might be to simply let the player control the situation if there's good reason for the NPCs to fall in line with the player's wishes, and no obviously good reason for the player to get them killed. But honestly, they're not going to get any less killed Leeroying in under AI control.

I can also see how it could hurt a game, as if a group of allies is supposed to be incredibly elite, it may fall flat when my dumb hands take control and they seem as retarded as anyone else I control.
Of course, the flipside of this is when a group of allies is supposed to be incredibly elite, but because you have no control over them, they entirely fail to work effectively or use any tactics more advanced than "LEEEEROY JEEEENKINS!", and become more a hindrance than a help.
 
Last edited:

Parabalus

Arcane
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
17,432
Why not simply use both?

For example the IG questline in AoD, during Teron best you can do is hope to convince your fellow soldiers not to be retarded, but as you get to later stages like Al'akia or the siege you have enough rank to be given/earn some command.

If you mix them up (not necessarily linear progression like in my example) it will make the "full battlefield command" feel epic and more appropriate.
 

HeatEXTEND

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,933
Location
Nedderlent
It’s definitely immersion breaking. Maybe having full control over your allies should be a reward for a side quest or passing some hardcore skill/stat checks. If you’re going to include it, don’t make it the default—make us work for full control.
I like this. Nicely circumvents denting immersion.
 

Kyl Von Kull

The Night Tripper
Patron
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
3,152
Location
Jamrock District
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
You could also find good ways to divvy it up. Eight elite regulators are just holed up in headquarters? No way. They’re gong to have lookouts and snipers guarding the approach, especially if the conflict has been building for a while.

So maybe have the boss man orders you to take out the snipers/lookouts, ideally before they can radio HQ to warn them. When you get back from the mission, you’ve missed the early part of the attack. Many of your allies are down, as are some regulators, but your buddies have managed to blow open the door. The ratio of casualties depends on whether you succeeded at quickly killing the lookouts or persuading them they’re fighting for a lost cause.

Your allies then blow open a second entrance in back (or maybe getting a second entrance is contingent on your character passing a demolitions check). The leader gives you the option of stealthily sneaking in from behind to flank the enemy or leading the frontal assault. Since there’s already been a first attack, the numbers are slimmed down on both sides. If you succeeded in removing the lookouts, your allies follow your orders. If not, they don’t trust you and act independently.

At any rate, that’s one way to do it.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
I agree it's a problem watching a bunch of npcs fight though, but as long as the combat speed can be set to 800% it shouldn't be that bad.
I think the obvious solution to "scenarios where a bunch of NPCs move/fight" is simple: If a large block of NPCs move when it is not your turn, then their moves are just all played simultaneously, so instead of watching each individual NPC move one at at ime, all their moves are just played to you at once. That way you don't watch 300 zombies shuffle forward one at a time, they just all play their moves at once, so it's the same as watching one enemy.

It’s definitely immersion breaking. Maybe having full control over your allies should be a reward for a side quest or passing some hardcore skill/stat checks. If you’re going to include it, don’t make it the default—make us work for full control.
You could make control over allies work slightly differently from control over partymembers: Whereas you always have control over party members, NPC allies are subject to constraints like command distance from a party member and morale, where you only control them if you have a surviving partymember within command range and your allies have good morale, otherwise they act independently, breaking from fights or whatever.
 

conan_edw

Arbiter
Patron
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
846
Grab the Codex by the pussy Pathfinder: Wrath
it's good to feel like you have allies on their own but you will really hate it when they do something extremely stupid ruining your plan. Also if you have a task of keeping some of them alive or you just want some of them to live, it will be too frustrating. I don't know if the game will have classes but the problem is how will the skills or stats or whatever be distributed to the allies? since yeah I could be too obsessed with micromanaging everything that it could piss me off if some of my allies' skills or builds aren't useful for me. Having the option to recustomize every last one of them would be really great but I imagine that's way too hard to implement. I went with party & allies in the end
 

Darkzone

Arcane
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
2,323
PS. If anyone votes 'absolutely not', I'd appreciate if you state your reason to help us understand your position better.
I voted "absolutely not".
First of all "immersion breaking" is overrated. The optimal control span is between 4-6 dependent on leadership qualities, task and worker mentality. Above this number you lose control and below this number you are inefficient (Polish hierarchy). But all this is not in my consideration towards my decision.

Just Party control:
I assume just the hard standpoint that the player should just control the party (and their ressources) and nothing else. And in a battle people that are not used to a certain fighting formation like allies, do unusual (stupid or good) things that are outside the control of the commander (in this case the player). What makes a good commander is the ability to prevent such things or to use this to his advantage and that makes also a good TB player. Naturally this is just one paradigma and it is limited, but i prefer it.

The Extended Party:
You could have naturally a system where the player is allowed to control a part of the allies due to the skills of the party members, that allows them to issue commands (represented by the player control) to allies in certain proximity of the party members. If the random number plus modifier is high enough.

Allies control:
I'm against total control of the allies by the player, because it is also tiresome and annoying to control them all (especially if there are more than 10 allies) and makes the battles more easy with figures to waste for the player if he wants it to. Therefore i rather watch my allies and the enemies fight it out, then be forced to control the allied figures, because of some known or unknown reason.

This leaves me with the reasoning that allies control in small battle is unnecessary and in large battles annoying and therefore always a bad decision in a TB cRPG.
 
Last edited:

Glop_dweller

Prophet
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
1,164
"Absolutely Not" is a terrible catch-all for "anything else".

Obeying under pressure is not to be taken for granted, and is not guaranteed in a group strangers. It's a learned discipline; one that mercenaries, thugs, PTA members probably lack. Wasteland 2 had "going rogue", tempered by PC leadership mechanics. That fostered a manageable risk of foobar that was stat dependent—the price of accepting questionable aid. I liked it well enough, but I the the real lesson comes from SSI, spread across their Gold Box series. The original GB games allowed for mercenary recruitment. It meant that a novice party could actually hire some skilled help—but that that help (predictably) had their own idea of how to handle a situation; and the skilled (or delusional) adventurer is not going to listen to a bunch of —n00b— dilettantes. This also meant that money can't buy you happiness... there was always a snag, and in the end, you have to play the game yourself. The modern equivalent of this is hiring high level players to "help" clear the way in a MMORPG. You can't fully trust them, and you can't really command them; they help for as long as it suits them, or as long as that they are willing to be helpful.

What I would like to see are free willed NPCs that listen to charismatic commanders. make control a factor of the character development. SSI did this in their Krynn series. Normally NPCs were loose cannons, (consider them haughty or undisciplined), but a knight in your party could (possibly!) assume command over allied knights and guard troops, and suddenly the player might have full control over a party of a dozen—because they are trained to act in unison under a commander; and they see one in your party.

In Fallout, I was always disappointed that the game's NPCs did not respect military training, and have some NPCs that followed tactical orders (those with a paramilitary background), and others who did whatever the hell they felt like doing. The BOS squad at Mariposa (I felt) should have been under player control, and accompanied the party into the base; this could have hinged upon stat & speech checks. They were a trained military squad—not a rag-tag bunch out of the Hub. There was potential there for a dialog, where the BOS would say that the PC was now on their own... the outer threat is neutralized, and their orders are to return home... and the right PC just might convince them to follow them into the breach; possibly all the way down.
 

Van-d-all

Erudite
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,557
Location
Standin' pretty. In this dust that was a city.
Don't reinvent the wheel. If the first party is not the part of player team, why would you control them. It's feels forced and unnatural. It should be either handled narratively, where it's said they already made their attack, and then the player team would have a regular combat encounter but the enemy state and positions would be adjusted (maybe with some random factor) to illustrate that with wounds/destruction/bodies. Or alternatively (preferably) I'd just want to have a big scripted fight where allies are AI controlled, and actually behave reasonably enough not to run in the line of fire, and if needed additional entities arrive offmap and are spawned on defined entry points, when some conditions are met. But most of all - don't waste my time:
c0fTiUK.jpg
 

Diggfinger

Arcane
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
1,200
Location
Belgium
It is weird (immersion-breaking), I agree, hence the question. Like I said, we can easily do it via dialogues (i.e. you tell Jonas to send some men to ambush the Regulators elsewhere or to send in the first wave, Jonas tell you that it's done and you proceed to your own fight) or we can let you take control and fight to make the quests more meaningful and interesting (i.e. the fight against Braxton isn't just one fight but a series of fights across the Pit).

PS. If anyone votes 'absolutely not', I'd appreciate if you state your reason to help us understand your position better.

Dear Vault Dweller, my vote is "absolutely not!" (i.e. I dont want to control followers) for the following reasons:

- I love single-player RPGs, with non-controllable (hirable) followers. Feeds my introvert purposes perfectly that I control/build my own characters while followers have a 'life of their own', act independently in combat etc.
- Think Fallout 2 (or Arcanum) - I have the option to hire NPCs and give them basis instructions plus decide which equipment they use. Also, if they are more skilled than me in e.g. repair they will take action when prompted.
- For your game, maybe you could use this set-up but with more advanced AI-programming a la PoEII: I.e. more options on how followers will react in combat
- Alternatively, Player can switch between and control character 1-4, which the others then go on 'auto-pilot'
- In a perfect world*, can player customize if he wants to control only 1 or all characters on the go?
* please note: I have no idea what budget/time implications there would be with all these things. Obviously, you need to balance what you think is achievable vs. what's cool.

Bottom line: controlling all characters a la Wasteland 2 would be less appealing to me.
--> but not at all a show-stopper.
So stop loitering on forums, and get back to creating your awesome RPG, you silly sods
:hahyou:
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,236
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
I think that controlling characters who aren't yours is often cool from a kind of "system exploration" perspective. Like when they have access to unique abilities or items you wouldn't typically have at that point during the game.

More broadly it's an opportunity to see how the game's mechanics might twist when you generalize them unexpectedly. How WOULD it feel like to play as one of those town guard NPCs with the unique armor? What stats do they have? How are they different from bog-standard adventurers such as myself?

Think for example the CYBERZOMBIE from Dragonfall. Or Planescape: Torment, which is basically an entire game that does that to Baldur's Gate.
 

Tigranes

Arcane
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
10,350
Yes, but none of that is really best served by giving the player the entire allied faction's contingent to control directly.
 

Master

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,160
If you're having trouble visualizing the scenario, there was a somewhat similar situation in AoD in the thieves questline, where you recruit Rusty and some local scum, pump them full of drugs, and send them to soften up the assassins hiding in some house, before you finish them off. In AoD you're told of the outcome of this attack and then you go in. Imagine taking full control of Rusty and his crew and overseeing the attack personally. Basically, having fun instead of being told about other people having fun while you're waiting for your turn.
Do it like in AoD. But if i really have to be there personally, then make it just 5-6 guys on either side so it doesnt take all day. Basically dont waste my (goddamn) time.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom