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.

Dragon Age Cooldown Versus Vancian

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
25,045
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
It's clear there's no difference between short cooldowns and long cooldowns or even memorization with no regard to area/encounter design.
It's more-so that bad area/encounter design obviously can mess up mechanics, like being able to rest anywhere or having umpteen wands of fireball nullifies the mechanic of memorization. Thus have a control and make the assumption that encounter design is done fine. The issue is about game mechanics solely, not about whether this game is better than another game.

There's a lot of shit going on in some of the harder fights in DAO, so even with short cooldowns, you have to time your casting anyway.
Timing isn't really a criticism I'm making. Repetitive micromanagement in a non-turn-based game is.
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
I do more clicking playing Baldur's Gate
r00fles

You wouldn't laugh at that if you actually had knowledge of both games. Origins has a conditional tactical framework menu which automates many processes inside and outside of battle, minimizing micro-management. Infinity Engine has mere clunky IF THEN END scripts, which, apart from clerical healing are about as useless as tits on a bull.
 

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
25,045
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
I do more clicking playing Baldur's Gate
r00fles

You wouldn't laugh at that if you actually had knowledge of both games. Origins has a tactical framework menu which automates many processes inside and outside of battle, minimizing micro-management. Infinity Engine has mere clunky IF THEN END scripts, which, apart from clerical healing are about as useless as tits on a bull.
Lol, jesus, such a DA:O fanboy. Just because it's better means it's OMG THE BEST. Yes, the Tactics menu is marginally better. Marginally being the key word. Don't forget it had limited slots, now.
 

eremita

Savant
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
797
Except there were almost no dungeons in all the Infinity Engine games wherein you couldn't sleep. In fact, I struggle to think of any (though they definitely exist). And in Infinity Engine games you have an all-powerful rest "spell", which trigger respawns only rarely.

Sure, you can self-impose a rest restriction, but you can also self-impose a "no wait" restriction in Origins.
Yeah, fuck self-imposing. IIRC you couldn't rest much in that dungen with Bodhi for example and couple others. Not sure now...
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
Lol, jesus, such a DA:O fanboy. Just because it's better means it's OMG THE BEST. Yes, the Tactics menu is marginally better. Marginally being the key word. Don't forget it had limited slots, now.

Wait, you actually went there, you drew the tiresomely predictable fanboy card. I blush for you. But snark aside, I've played IE games lots more than Origins. I consider them superior in almost every respect, but combat and tactics definitely isn't one of them.

Yep, the framework had limited slots which could be expanded on thru pumping Combat Tactics, enough for anyone not playing RAVage on Nightmare difficulty, in which case they'll probably install the framework extender as well.

Look up IE scripts by even the most dedicated coders, they're primitive in comparison.
 

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
25,045
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
Lol, jesus, such a DA:O fanboy. Just because it's better means it's OMG THE BEST. Yes, the Tactics menu is marginally better. Marginally being the key word. Don't forget it had limited slots, now.

Wait, you actually went there, you drew the tiresomely predictable fanboy card. I blush for you. But snark aside, I've played IE games lots more than Origins. I consider them superior in almost every respect, but combat and tactics definitely isn't one of them.
That's nice. But since the original argument is about combat mechanics in an ideal setting and not about specific games, what happens to an IE system game if you ARE prevented from resting whenever you want? And, as mentioned before, bad itemization in the form of easily acquired winds of fireball aren't an issue?

The point of comparing BG to DA:O is to use them as examples to compare the base combat mechanics and see how they apply to the design of a new game (PoE). Not to actually look at every specific of each game and say that one game is better than another.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
Oh, so in other words, you don't spam spells in BG. But you do spam spells in DA:O. Clearly they play similarly.

Of course, Origins just has comparatively weaker spells (dmg, duration) than Baldur's Gate, you might cast a disabler like Cone of Cold two or three times per encounter, whereas for the same encounter in BG you would just cast one OP Sleep.

The difference is that inbetween cooldowns, Origins gives the mage more to do because they can immediately cast another, different spell from the quickbar. Say, follow up the Cone of Cold with a Stone Fist, to cause shatter. In Baldur's Gate you're just waiting for 1 round before you cast Fireball on the sleeping enemies.

So what's so bad about Origins cooldowns, then?
Vancian Magic is geared towards the quality of spells. You won't cease to use Sleep in favour of Blindness and Web because of a cooldown period only, rather because Sleep has specific uses whereas Blindness and Web have others. Low level bandits ambushes can be dangerous when you still can't gear a character with enough missile AC bonuses. Mid level mages are pretty much never susceptible to Sleep so you'll instead memorize spells like Blindness, Charm or even Spook in order to disable their spellcasting. The undead are immune to most of those, I should think, and they come in numbers, so you'll favour Grease instead. And if you are a multiclassed Fighter, Armor comes into play just in case need another melee character.

When level 2 comes around Web, Horror and even Stinking Cloud more or less outclass the other methods of crowd control, but not always. Ettercaps and Spiders are immune to Web. Horror is hell on earth because your targets flee from you. And I think you can chain stun massed spellcasters by stacking Stinking Cloud with Web, cast with different characters.

In fewer words, the situation makes your spellbook depending on party composition, encounter design, beastiary and etc. Its just as you said it yourself: few spells under a balanced cooldown system are as powerful as AD&D Sleep, Blindness, Entangle, Fireball, Web and etc. That is because cooldown systems are tactical but rarely strategic minded. The reason why Origins' spells often come close to the power of AD&D magic is because its spellbook was often very much full of bullshit. There is absolutely no reason in Origins not to run with as many mages as you can. But even then, the likes of Mana Clash and Cone of Cold are rarely as interesting as the distinction between the spells above. To go beyond the already common game of elemental resistances was something I had hoped for a Dragon Age: Origins 2. But alas.
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
Vancian Magic is geared towards the quality of spells. You won't cease to use Sleep in favour of Blindness and Web because of a cooldown period only, rather because Sleep has specific uses whereas Blindness and Web have others.

That's an implausible distinction, Origins also has an array of quality low level disablers which also have specific uses. If the single-target disabler is more strongly gonna effect a lieutenant, you're not gonna subsequently cast the useless multi-target weak disabler on him, just because you can, wasting mana. You're gonna wait for cooldown to expire, and cast another single-target spell if needed. That's just the same as casting Blindness and then not subsequently casting Sleep, but casting Blindness again. There's no difference other than Origins lets you fire a rocket launcher during cooldowns instead of feebly swinging a wooden stick.

Low level bandits ambushes can be dangerous when you still can't gear a character with enough missile AC bonuses. Mid level mages are pretty much never susceptible to Sleep so you'll instead memorize spells like Blindness, Charm or even Spook in order to disable their spellcasting. The undead are immune to most of those, I should think, and they come in numbers, so you'll favour Grease instead. And if you are a multiclassed Fighter, Armor comes into play just in case need another melee character.

Not sure why you typed all that, but Web is the "I WIN" button in Baldur's Gate for 95% of the encounters. Spook isn't in Baldur's Gate unless you're playing BG2 engine mod. Grease is all but useless.

When level 2 comes around Web, Horror and even Stinking Cloud more or less outclass the other methods of crowd control, but not always. Ettercaps and Spiders are immune to Web. Horror is hell on earth because your targets flee from you. And I think you can chain stun massed spellcasters by stacking Stinking Cloud with Web, cast with different characters.

I beat some SCS2 Ascension boss battles with stacked webs as the major point-turner, a level 2 spell, so I don't think I really need a lesson on what's immune to web, or you mentioning a few AoEs that are better than Web in 5% of encounters, do you?

In fewer words, the situation makes your spellbook depending on party composition, encounter design, beastiary and etc. Its just as you said it yourself: few spells under a balanced cooldown system are as powerful as AD&D Sleep, Blindness, Entangle, Fireball, Web and etc. That is because cooldown systems are tactical but rarely strategic minded. The reason why Origins' spells often come close to the power of AD&D magic is because its spellbook was often very much full of bullshit. There is absolutely no reason in Origins not to run with as many mages as you can. But even then, the likes of Mana Clash and Cone of Cold are rarely as interesting as the distinction between the spells above. To go beyond the already common game of elemental resistances was something I had hoped for a Dragon Age: Origins 2. But alas.

1) Origins has it's own OP spells, Cone of Cold for example.
2) There is nothing strategic about Baldur's Gate or any IE game unless you self-impose a rest restriction. You can self-impose wait restrictions in Origins, too.
3) There is no reason in Baldur's Gate not to run with as many mages as you can, either.
4) Calling the Origins spellbook very much full of bullshit with no arguments hints only at you being very much full of it. And lets ignore all the detritus littering each level of the BG spellbook, shall we?

Nobody here has plausible arguments against cooldowns as featured in Origins, only ignorant comments that reveal them as change-fearing basement-dwellers who don't get enough sunshine and fresh air. The arguments about spamming, button-mashing and micromanagement in Origins are slaughtered by the conditional tactical framework. The IE has nothing but primitive IF THEN END scripts, which don't work with any degree of reliability outside of non-combat clerical heals.
 

Sensuki

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,800
Location
New North Korea
Codex 2014 Serpent in the Staglands Shadorwun: Hong Kong A Beautifully Desolate Campaign
Nobody here has plausible arguments against cooldowns as featured in Origins, only ignorant comments that reveal them as change-fearing basement-dwellers who don't get enough sunshine and fresh air. The arguments about spamming, button-mashing and micromanagement in Origins are slaughtered by the conditional tactical framework. The IE has nothing but primitive IF THEN END scripts, which don't work with any degree of reliability outside of non-combat clerical heals.

Are you trying to say Origins combat is good? Because it's not, it's terrible. The biggest offender is probably the fact that you can only control one character at once.
 

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
25,045
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
Back to the discussion of cooldowns (or perhaps it's not so much specifically about cooldowns now), we need to step away from comparing a specific game to another specific game and consider the core mechanics in ideal contexts - in other words having controlled variables and minimizing extraneous ones.

Some criticism has been that BG/BG2's Vancian system is undermined by allowing you to rest anywhere, poor itemization in that you have lots of wands of fireball, AI scripting is not as complex as DA:O's, etc. Okay, yes, that is true. However, going back to the original discussion, which is in the context of what mechanic is best in a new game - namely, PoE - we need to think about an ideal situation where those issues are not issues.

In other words, picture a Vancian system - with high impact spells that you use less in a single encounter - in a game where you are NOT allowed to rest anywhere, where itemization does not undermine the limited spells you have, where there IS good AI scripting on par with DA:O (or better). (However, note that it doesn't seem like Obsidian is working on a strong scripting system)

And then picture a system more like DA:O - with low impact spells that you use more times in a single encounter - with everything outside of the combat mechanics being ideal and supporting said system.

That is where the discussion should start. Forget about how this and that undermine the core mechanics of one game or another. Just consider the core mechanics with the rest of the variables being ideal. Is one really better than the other? Why?

I myself think that having high impact spells/abilities that are used less is better in an RTWP game, because it minimizes the need to pause, I like that each decision makes more impact because a wrong decision will hurt you a lot more, and it tends to make ability-use more situational.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
How would a global cooldown system work? If you compare Vancian, Mana and Cooldown systems, the way the latter is different is that its much more focused on individual abilities as opposed to a limitus to spellcasting in general.

Every spell must be memorized and every spell spends mana and/or spell points, but cooldowns mostly force you to use another spell and, therefore, you'll always be spellcasting which may lead to one of two situations: a string of low impact spells where your resources were never under pressure anyway (DA:O boss battles against creatures such as Dragons and Pride Demon); a string of high impact spells where you dispatched everyone in 6 seconds without having to think much about things (most every trash, tedious and unremarkable encounter against creatures susceptible to either Cone of Cold or Fireball); one or two high impact spells which just means you killed the trash even faster. I'm using DA:O as an example because its Mana system isn't really relevant to spellcasting itself, as there are many abilities that enlarge the mana pool - Rejuvenation, Mass Rejuvenation, Wynne's super charger, the expansion's special abilities for mages, Blood Magic itself, that aura that restores mana based on bodies, potions, etc.

However, if you don't really care about strategic resource management but you still want every single spell per encounter to be really relevant, you could add a global cooldown. After all, in a game of high impact and rare spellcasting, most of the weight is carried by encounter design. By the need to cast different spells according to the nature of each monster. If you can cast every spell in your spellbook at each encounter, but only once per battle then you are always casting spells. Basically, forego resting and make everyone a sorcerer with fewer casts.

Believe it or not there is a middle ground between "homogenous and symmetrical" and "sitting out 75% of battles".

Is called multiclassing.
 

Sitra Achara

Arcane
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
1,859
Codex 2012 Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
Question: is there any game / system where instead of resource management or cooldowns etc using powerful abilities just opens up opportunities for counterattacks / directly creates vulnerability?
 

eremita

Savant
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
797
Back to the discussion of cooldowns (or perhaps it's not so much specifically about cooldowns now), we need to step away from comparing a specific game to another specific game and consider the core mechanics in ideal contexts - in other words having controlled variables and minimizing extraneous ones.

Some criticism has been that BG/BG2's Vancian system is undermined by allowing you to rest anywhere, poor itemization in that you have lots of wands of fireball, AI scripting is not as complex as DA:O's, etc. Okay, yes, that is true. However, going back to the original discussion, which is in the context of what mechanic is best in a new game - namely, PoE - we need to think about an ideal situation where those issues are not issues.

In other words, picture a Vancian system - with high impact spells that you use less in a single encounter - in a game where you are NOT allowed to rest anywhere, where itemization does not undermine the limited spells you have, where there IS good AI scripting on par with DA:O (or better). (However, note that it doesn't seem like Obsidian is working on a strong scripting system)

And then picture a system more like DA:O - with low impact spells that you use more times in a single encounter - with everything outside of the combat mechanics being ideal and supporting said system.

That is where the discussion should start. Forget about how this and that undermine the core mechanics of one game or another. Just consider the core mechanics with the rest of the variables being ideal. Is one really better than the other? Why?

I myself think that having high impact spells/abilities that are used less is better in an RTWP game, because it minimizes the need to pause, I like that each decision makes more impact because a wrong decision will hurt you a lot more, and it tends to make ability-use more situational.
I disagree with the statement that "minimazing the need for pause" is a relevant argument when it comes to core mechanics of particular system. Because, let's be honest here, in majority of cases we're, again, not talking about principles of the Vancian/Cooldown systems, but basically about some kind of extreme (overkill) manifestation of the latter. So in the end, we're back at what you were trying to avoid from the beginning - "not ideal context".

Why I think sawyer did it right: First, we're talking about systems with basic attack plus unique "abilities" here (feats, spells all of that shit - some are unique because they're powerfull, some for their usefulness in specific situations). I'll make it short; besides Mages (and variations), there's not a single class with useless basic attack (ok, let's consider Sneak attack as basic attack - so it's clear "abilities" are defined by their scarcity in encounter) besides Mage. Why? There's not a single reason for that. Class with high impact abilities doesn't imply absence of utilization for the entire fight/rest restricted area. It's a manner of balancing the system, sure, but it's not fundamentally impossible (again, because one does not imply the other).

There's not really a reason for different aspects of one system not to appear in another other than insisting on artificial boundaries...
 

Mangoose

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
25,045
Location
I'm a Banana
Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity
Because, let's be honest here, in majority of cases we're, again, not talking about principles of the Vancian/Cooldown systems, but basically about some kind of extreme (overkill) manifestation of the latter.
Both examples of the systems are extreme for the sake of ease of discussion.

Why I think sawyer did it right: First, we're talking about systems with basic attack plus unique "abilities" here (feats, spells all of that shit - some are unique because they're powerfull, some for their usefulness in specific situations). I'll make it short; besides Mages (and variations), there's not a single class with useless basic attack (ok, let's consider Sneak attack as basic attack - so it's clear "abilities" are defined by their scarcity in encounter) besides Mage. Why? There's not a single reason for that. Class with high impact abilities doesn't imply absence of utilization for the entire fight/rest restricted area. It's a manner of balancing the system, sure, but it's not fundamentally impossible (again, because one does not imply the other).
You make a lot of statements and claims without much supporting argument. What is the benefit of having both high impact abilities and low impact abilities? If it is beneficial, then what is the correct balance? Should there be more high impact abilities or should there be more low impact abilities, and why? After that, how does adding low impact abilities help minimize the necessity for pausing? Or, if you think pausing a lot is a good thing, then explain why that is the case.

The only "reason" you cite is that "there is no reason not to have both other than artificial boundaries," which does not add to the discussion. I'm not trying to "win" or "lose" an argument here, I'm trying to promote a discussion.
 
Last edited:

eremita

Savant
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
797
Because, let's be honest here, in majority of cases we're, again, not talking about principles of the Vancian/Cooldown systems, but basically about some kind of extreme (overkill) manifestation of the latter.
Both examples of the systems are extreme for the sake of ease of discussion.

Why I think sawyer did it right: First, we're talking about systems with basic attack plus unique "abilities" here (feats, spells all of that shit - some are unique because they're powerfull, some for their usefulness in specific situations). I'll make it short; besides Mages (and variations), there's not a single class with useless basic attack (ok, let's consider Sneak attack as basic attack - so it's clear "abilities" are defined by their scarcity in encounter) besides Mage. Why? There's not a single reason for that. Class with high impact abilities doesn't imply absence of utilization for the entire fight/rest restricted area. It's a manner of balancing the system, sure, but it's not fundamentally impossible (again, because one does not imply the other).
You make a lot of statements and claims without much supporting argument. What is the benefit of having both high impact abilities and low impact abilities? If it is beneficial, then what is the correct balance? Should there be more high impact abilities or should there be more low impact abilities, and why? After that, how does adding low impact abilities help minimize the necessity for pausing? Or, if you think pausing a lot is a good thing, then explain why that is the case.

The only "reason" you cite is that "there is no reason not to have both other than artificial boundaries," which does not add to the discussion. I'm not trying to "win" or "lose" an argument here, I'm trying to promote a discussion.
Okay you're right, let's take it from different angle. Things we might dislike and why: 1) There's a party member without low impact abilities - I don't like that because he's useless after he's done with his thing (or even worse, he's useless the entire fight because of the previous encounters). Solutions: a) giving him low level abilities b) making him useful without giving him low level abilities. 2) I don't like pausing frequently in my game - I don't like that because of flow/dynamic etc. of combat... Solutions: Absence of low level abilities and creating some kind of a) stances/auras/basic scripts etc.(passives). b) useful basic attacks

Now I don't think arguments why something deserves a "problematic tag" or not are the real problem here, but solutions are... It's all highly subjective, that's the point. I don't mind frequent pausing at all, yet I have absolutely no problem with "fixing" it without damaging the other aspects of the whole system (those aspects, of course, might only be important for me). If you're gonna fix that shit with keeping Wizard without low level abilities, I won't like that. So for example Sawyer doesn't like some of the more traditional stuff. Good for him. But what I really care about (unless those likes/dislikes are completely retarded) is how well he's gonna implement it. The criteria is changing that particular aspect without "doing too much damage" to the core concept of that system.

This is all just a preparation for the discussion - more like initial setup of chess figures, not playing itself (yes yes, I know, we're not trying to win an argument here, it's just an innocent comparison). I just felt it had to be done... Simply because I think instead of discussions whether this or that is more problematic than something else (what "deserves" to be changed) we should try to come up with "harmless" solutions. Especially because that kind of game we're discussing here is made for a vast audience (fundamentally).

EDIT: Shit, I hope you read this after I'm done with editing. I excel in writing like a retard today...
 
Last edited:
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
Forget about how this and that undermine the core mechanics of one game or another. Just consider the core mechanics with the rest of the variables being ideal. Is one really better than the other? Why?

The only problem is that a few court of jesters in this topic are misrepresenting the "this and that" of the games in question, both for Origins and the IE. The funny thing is that you seem to revel in the ignorance, and are inexplicably smug and proud of yourselves in spite of what nature did to you. Then, Infinitron, the court jester with the most bells on, tries to silence me with a cheapshot, merely for bringing you guys to task on the absurdities spouting from your gaping maws of ignorance. I've seen him try that on a few posters over the years, and he's always defending his fellow ignoramuses.

Back on topic, there is no "better" in non-turn based RPG combat - there's only bad, worse and worst.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,824
Saying realtime combat in a RPG can't be good is as absurd as the opposite.
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
In action RPGs like Deus Ex and System Shock 2, sure, full real-time is fine. But in party-based games, RtWP has always been a bit of a joke. Just compare IE games with Temple of Elemental Evil and Jagged Alliance 2.
 
Self-Ejected

Lilura

RPG Codex Dragon Lady
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
5,274
I'm looking forward to what they can do with exploration, characterization, quests, story and CnC. I expect the tactical combat to be fairly mediocre, and not difficult, shrug.
 

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