Shadowrun Shadowrun: Dragonfall - Director's Cut

[GarfunkeL]

Yeah, DMS - for me - swings between decent and good, while Dragonfall swings between good and great.

Trying my first rigger/decker character now. For some reason, never bothered with that concept before. At least in the early game, I'm completely useless in combat - using my 1 AP to just hide while Glory and Eigar and my drone take down the enemies. Also, just learned the hard way that your Matrix AOE attacks can harm your own constructs. FUUUUU-

EDIT: just got enough money to buy my second drone. Now I don't have to wonder what I'll be doing with my useless character in combat because she has 0 AP after activating both drones :D

 

[Duellist_D]

I've just finished DMS. Man, the 15 hours I spent on it (including lots of AFK) compared to the 80s hrs of D: OS and Wasteland 2 was a yawnfest.

Please tell me Dragonfall is significantly better than DMS, otherwise I would just play something potentially more interesting instead like Tome4 or Anachronox.

Orignial Dragonfall is better than DMS and the Directors Cut improves upon this by a noticeable amount.

 

[circ]

I don't know about noticeable, unless it comes later. I haven't admittedly played it for a while and not gotten all that far, but got done with 'rescuing' the decker, and so far, everything has felt almost exactly alike - more challenging combat and new UI not withstanding.

 

[Heresiarch]

I've just rescued the decker and it is indeed much, much better than DMS. For me it's like Mask of the Betrayer vs NWN2 OC. The writing is much better and more interesting. I can't believe that the codex review says that DMS writing is better than DF; DMS was all boring while DF even manages to make me reload the game just to re-read the finer details written in the dialogue (which actually exposes a problem with the game: no chat log at all!). I guess that putting in the Biowarish party members helped making the game feeling more alive and RPGish, which is unlike the ADVish DMS campaign.

Combat wise, I'm playing on hard and the game is completely rigged. Missing on 99% to hit constantly just doesn't sound fun at all for me. I think I'll just switch back to normal.

 

[Shadowfang]

Combat wise, I'm playing on hard and the game is completely rigged. Missing on 99% to hit constantly just doesn't sound fun at all for me. I think I'll just switch back to normal.

The game isn't rigged and play it in very hardy you pussy, that way you will hardly get 99% chance to hit.
I am sure it will improve your experience missing with 70%.
Really play in very hard. The game isn't hard enough in very hard much less in any other setting.

I never really understood the probability odds don't fit with my expectations so the game is rigged argument.
I bet you people don't complain when you hit 3 times in a row with 30%.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Yeah, some people have a lot of trouble understanding RNG.

 

[Lhynn]

Only game i remember having shit RNG is X-com EU.

 

[Crichton]

Only game i remember having shit RNG is X-com EU.

Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor had a biased RNG, but I don't think it's that common. I've heard the same complaints about the new X-com and I'm pretty sure that they're baseless; it's just a combination of a small sample size and shitty crapshoot mechanics making irrational people look for irrational explanations.

 

[Lhynn]

Only game i remember having shit RNG is X-com EU.

Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor had a biased RNG, but I don't think it's that common. I've heard the same complaints about the new X-com and I'm pretty sure that they're baseless; it's just a combination of a small sample size and shitty crapshoot mechanics making irrational people look for irrational explanations.

No, really, ive consistently made impossible shots with 0% chance to hit on it. Ive also seen enemies made such shots against me tru terrain, with similar chances to hit. Its fucked up, those kind of things always end up working against the player because of repetition.

 

[tuluse]

Only game i remember having shit RNG is X-com EU.

Yeah because the game lied and said smaller chance to hit than it was was rolling because people r dum

 

[Crichton]

Only game i remember having shit RNG is X-com EU.

Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor had a biased RNG, but I don't think it's that common. I've heard the same complaints about the new X-com and I'm pretty sure that they're baseless; it's just a combination of a small sample size and shitty crapshoot mechanics making irrational people look for irrational explanations.

No, really, ive consistently made impossible shots with 0% chance to hit on it. Ive also seen enemies made such shots against me tru terrain, with similar chances to hit. Its fucked up, those kind of things always end up working against the player because of repetition.

I've only played the base game so I can't speak to what the expansion might have changed. I've seen bugged movement in the base game and shots through terrain sounds like another bug but that shouldn't have anything to do with the RNG, strictly speaking, i.e. why is it rolling to hit if it's not a valid shot? (presuming that LOS isn't simply incorporated as a modifier in the to-hit calculation, I actually don't know how it works in new X-com)

 

[Lhynn]

I've only played the base game so I can't speak to what the expansion might have changed. I've seen bugged movement in the base game and shots through terrain sounds like another bug but that shouldn't have anything to do with the RNG, strictly speaking, i.e. why is it rolling to hit if it's not a valid shot? (presuming that LOS isn't simply incorporated as a modifier in the to-hit calculation, I actually don't know how it works in new X-com)

As far as i know there is a seed generated each turn and modified by each action, so the same shot cant have different results (not sure if theyve changed this), and its this seed that seems kind of fucked up.

 

[Zetor]

Players get angry when they miss a 80% shot 1/5 of the time... and on harder difficulties, this game has a lot of sub-80% hit chances. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to posting rants about 'shitty RNG' on game forums.

One game I've seen that handled the gambler's fallacy in a (mostly) satisfying way was City of Heroes. Basically the game had a "streak breaker" that incremented a counter when any character (player or enemy) was missing or hitting too many times in a row -- after the counter reached a certain number, it'd force a hit or a miss respectively, and reset the counter. I also seem to remember that the forced auto-hit wasn't enabled for NPCs, so it was definitely unfair... but it helped the player feel he wasn't getting shafted by RNG (and powergamers could keep track of the streakbreaker count to make sure that their hardest-hitting attack was the one benefitting from the autohit).

 

[dryan]

This game is way too easy below Hard difficulty.

 

[Ninjerk]

Players get angry when they miss a 80% shot 1/5 of the time... and on harder difficulties, this game has a lot of sub-80% hit chances. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to posting rants about 'shitty RNG' on game forums.

One game I've seen that handled the gambler's fallacy in a (mostly) satisfying way was City of Heroes. Basically the game had a "streak breaker" that incremented a counter when any character (player or enemy) was missing or hitting too many times in a row -- after the counter reached a certain number, it'd force a hit or a miss respectively, and reset the counter. I also seem to remember that the forced auto-hit wasn't enabled for NPCs, so it was definitely unfair... but it helped the player feel he wasn't getting shafted by RNG (and powergamers could keep track of the streakbreaker count to make sure that their hardest-hitting attack was the one benefitting from the autohit).

Warcraft 3 (and thus DotA and now Dota 2) use pseudo-random chance. The chance of the event happening is significantly lower than the advertised chance, but several percentage points are added for each miss until the chance hits or exceeds 100 percent and then it drops back down to the lowest value.

 

[Heresiarch]

Combat wise, I'm playing on hard and the game is completely rigged. Missing on 99% to hit constantly just doesn't sound fun at all for me. I think I'll just switch back to normal.

The game isn't rigged and play it in very hardy you pussy, that way you will hardly get 99% chance to hit.
I am sure it will improve your experience missing with 70%.
Really play in very hard. The game isn't hard enough in very hard much less in any other setting.

I never really understood the probability odds don't fit with my expectations so the game is rigged argument.
I bet you people don't complain when you hit 3 times in a row with 30%.

Dude, read the "constantly" part. Missing once of 99% to-hit is fine, but missing on 95, 99, 90 REPEATEDLY screams:
1. The game puts a hard % (let's say 90%) AFTER the to-hit percentage showing there. So 99% to hit on paper will actually be post-processed to 89%.
2. There's a bug somewhere that making the appearance of percentages incorrect. There are reports on the official forums that the % numbers may change after loading the game e.g. from originally showing 78% and then dropping to 53% after loading a savegame.

I've played enough RNG games that I can smell if there's a problem or not.

Your example is flawed because hitting 3 times in a row with 30% is still freaking 2.7% which is still higher than the 1% of missing, not to mention missing on a 90% and THEN 99% which is 0.1%.

PS: I reserve the right to claim that yesterday I was too sleepy and spotted the percentages wrong

 

[tuluse]

Warcraft 3 (and thus DotA and now Dota 2) use pseudo-random chance. The chance of the event happening is significantly lower than the advertised chance, but several percentage points are added for each miss until the chance hits or exceeds 100 percent and then it drops back down to the lowest value.

You should be careful using this term because all computer rngs are pseudorandom.

 

[Vadio]

Combat wise, I'm playing on hard and the game is completely rigged. Missing on 99% to hit constantly just doesn't sound fun at all for me. I think I'll just switch back to normal.

One major issue i have with this game is the higher the difficulty the less is your hit chance (and presumably the enemy's hit chance also increases). On very hard this forces you to play as a street samurai because your companions cant hit reliably, they being built improperly/their progression being out of your control at least stat wise. And if you dont want to bring dietrich along on your missions than you absolutley must spend karma on willpower/spellcasting for the Aim spells.

 

[Shadowfang]

Dude, read the "constantly" part. Missing once of 99% to-hit is fine, but missing on 95, 99, 90 REPEATEDLY screams:
1. The game puts a hard % (let's say 90%) AFTER the to-hit percentage showing there. So 99% to hit on paper will actually be post-processed to 89%.

I played through this game many times all of them in very hard. It felt to me like any other rpg. If i had a pixel for each time i missed with 90%/95% in Blackguards/Fallout...
But seriously, don't lower the difficulty because of this. Even if the game does what you suspect it does, you won't have a better experience.

2. There's a bug somewhere that making the appearance of percentages incorrect. There are reports on the official forums that the % numbers may change after loading the game e.g. from originally showing 78% and then dropping to 53% after loading a savegame.

That bug was corrected long ago and it was described in this very thread. If i recall correctly it was re-adding the accuracy penalties each time you reloaded.
What version are you playing on?

 

[Ninjerk]

Warcraft 3 (and thus DotA and now Dota 2) use pseudo-random chance. The chance of the event happening is significantly lower than the advertised chance, but several percentage points are added for each miss until the chance hits or exceeds 100 percent and then it drops back down to the lowest value.

You should be careful using this term because all computer rngs are pseudorandom.

They literally termed it "pseudo-random distribution" IIRC.

 

[Vadio]

So ive been playing this game recently and i want to try dead mans switch. But i hear bad things about it.

I would like to hear some opinions on the differences between the two and not just "Oh one is better than the other". Much appreciated.

 

[pippin]

So ive been playing this game recently and i want to try dead mans switch. But i hear bad things about it.

I would like to hear some opinions on the differences between the two and not just "Oh one is better than the other". Much appreciated.

DMS is not really "bad" per se, but it's completely linear. You might feel it's just combat scenario after combat scenario. However, I found out that each replay offers new things, both in terms of mechanics (different classes get different options) but also because I found things that didn't saw on previous playthroughs.
DF is more complex, right from the start. Your companions have deeper characterizations, you're in the middle of a big conflict and not just in a personal vendetta that happens to be related with something else. Also, you have more sidequests. Some of them are pretty linear as well, but you can do them in the order you want and, in general lines, both main and side quests are better designed than any DMS quest. Also, since DF is bigger, you get more options when it comes to character builds. Some characters from DMS are mentioned/appear on DF as well.

 

[Shadowfang]

The difference between the two widens if we compare dms with the director's cut instead.
But having that in mine here we go:

Dead Man Switch:
Pros:
Better setting, atmosphere and story (until you get past the cemetery).
Cooler companions. Coyote, Jake and that shaman (who's name i don't recall) are pretty cool, if underdeveloped compared to the dragonfall ones.
Wide choice of runners, making it easier to hire someone that makes up for your character weakness.

Cons:
Worse items, there isnt a great variety in guns, armor and cyberware.
Too easy (even in very hard).
Too short.
Very linear, you can't pick which missions you want to do first.
Poor c&c and low use of skills and etiquettes.
The cover system isn't as good as the director's cut and makes the game less tactical and fun. Being in the open isn't as dangerous as it is in the DFDC.

Dragonfall
Pros:
Longer story.
Lucky Strike.
More challenging fights.
More C&C, you have more ways of solving missions.
Decking skills are a lot more useful.
Adepts get a lot of more love.
More item variety.

Cons:
You have to deal with boohoo companions and their boohoo stories.
Glory.
You will always bring the same runners because:
Your friends cost 0 nuyen.
The other runners (Lucky Strike not inculded) suck. Their stats are worse than your free mates, and they don't look very intersting.
The atmosphere isn't as cool as DMS's.

 

[Jaesun]

Cons:
You have to deal with boohoo companions and their boohoo stories.

That doesn't really say much. You could say the same thing about Planescape: Torment.

 

[Vadio]

What makes Lucky Strike a pro? Besides her character portrait, I know you can talk to her and it is implied that she will continue speaking to you but, after every mission i went to see her and she wouldn't speak to me. Also do hired companions in Dragonfall DC react to your actions during missions? I never actually tried this thinking they were only there to give you more options stat wise to your squad.

Regarding combat, in Dragonfall DC one of my major issues was that enemies were very boring, there were exactly the same in every mission or they had AI problems like moving all around the place not doing anything or mages casting strip armor repeatedly on the same character.

Even on higher difficulties they wouldn't use different abilities thus making ecounters a bit more challenching/interesting and the only changes i experienced was that they will allways hit you and will gang up on one of your party members. So is combat in DMS atleast a little different than Dragonfall DC? It would be a plus if there atleast some variation in encounters.

Also when you say "low use of skills and etiquettes" in DMS, i found that in Dragonfall most skill/etiquette checks were mostly there for flavour, and besides something like the security etiquette which allows you to avoid a bunch of combat in the Bloodlines mission, those checks didn't really changed the outcome of a lot missions. So this is probably not that big of a deal.