Game News The Age of Decadence Released

[Lurker King]

The combat difficulty in AoD is not enough dependent on intra-combat decisions. It's depned dependent on what you do before hand, how you build your character, what weapons you choose, etc. But during combat, choosing your attack is based on logistics, not so much tactics or adaptation during combat. Now it would be better at combat with more party members.

So there are two methods to make good combat: (1) Promote combat decisions that depend on the situation rather than decisions that depend on calculating optimal usage of AP. (2) Have more party members, or "pieces," to control because that inevitably tends to lead to having to non-number-based decisions, such as maneuvering and fighting for position. Or actually (3) For solo-combat you can be creative and add interesting, unique mechanics that may be unrealistic but add, again, choices that balance

I maybe didn't make myself clear, but I don't mean that the aforementioned logistic element should be totally taken out. I just think there should be a better balance between "non-number" combat decisions that are based on conflict over terrain and position, in addition to optimizing your attack choices based on AP pool.

I also do agree that there is good challenge in what I said about building, preparing, etc. your character. I think that's definitely a good part of the game. Because it requires thinking and strategy, finding the right balance stats and skills and of equipment choice. That's different than a hypothetical simple system where it's very clear what stats to min-max (cough DnD).

But I feel like combat encounters themselves are not as... actually a better word is interesting rather than challenging. And if an aspect of a game is not interesting, I'd rather it be made more interesting or be less emphasized or possibly changed into something drastically different - A good example being the CYOA encounters which supplant less interesting methods of story/non-combat/NPC interaction.


---


All that being said, I definitely don't think AoC necessarily a combat heavy game, and has a bunch of equally or more important features that are done very well. I'm just going in-depth into one area, in a borderline nitpicky manner.

Good post!

 

[Lurker King]

Please point me to the deep game-changing C&C in the Commercium questline. I can't wait. It is when it's as half-arsed as in AoD.

You see this, guys? That is the type of red flag that indicates that you are arguing with a troll. Just ignore him. Let him speak to himself.

 

[Irenaeus II]

You see this, guys? That is the type of red flag that indicates that you are arguing with a troll. Just ignore him. Let him speak to himself.

Thanks for the hand-holding and quest compass.

 

[Lurker King]

Thanks for the hand-holding and quest compass.

People with 10 points in trolling are hard to resist.

 

[Western]

I can’t comment about ADOM (sadly), but BG2? The only special thing about the combat are the effects of items and spells, but they are fucked over by RTwP retardness. I’m not sure that you can implement a lot of overpowered stuff with different effects and call that a good combat system. Of course, the enormous diversity of items and spells, make the game fresher than most games, but the combat is not that great.

Agree about BG2, can't see how the combat is better than AOD, the only thing that it really has over AOD is quantity of classes, spells, monsters, etc, but from a tactical perspective it's definitely behind AOD.

 

[Irenaeus II]

People with 10 points in trolling are hard to resist.

Let me try and help you dealing with him. Since you are a bro, I'll do it for free with no back alley business.

But no really, please tell me about the mystical merchant C&C. I'm dying of anticipation here.

Here is some mystical merchant C&C from yours truly:

My only merchant playthrough so far was doing good until I threatened Cado in his tavern for no good reason (idiot):

Spoiler

This describes almost literally how I felt

I had the basic merchant atributes 5 6 5 7 8 9 and 2 in lore but no crafting or alchemy.

Here is more mystical Merchant C&C: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/official-thread-for-merchants.104095/

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

BG2 is about as tactical as picking your nose.

 

[MrMarbles]

Agree about BG2, can't see how the combat is better than AOD, the only thing that it really has over AOD is quantity of classes, spells, monsters, etc, but from a tactical perspective it's definitely behind AOD.

I'm a fan of AOD and it has strengths but I just can't agree with this. Whether or not the combat is "better" can be a matter of opinion, but BG2 is geared towards combat in a way that AOD simply isn't. As soon as you admit that BG2 has more classes, more spells, more monsters etc., you have to admit that there is more tactical variety, provided implenentation isn't completely retarded. And while RTwP has its flaws, the implementation of it in BG2 is not completely retarded.

With all the variety you don't just get battles decided by melee brawn, you also get things like
- mage battles (with huge differences based on levels) with selective stripping of mage protection layers,
- battles decided by backstabs and traps,
- cleric use and tactical healing,
- use of 1/day items/HLAs (if playing with ToB) or other limited skills,
- party positioning to protect squishies or exploit choke points and ability/spell AOE (and both kiting and rushing),
- selective buffing to counter damage types (or builds based on different resistances, such as damage resistance/magic resistance or an elements resistant char that uses items triggering elemental area effects),
- different setups of spell orders in battle, and spell synergies to maximize potential (for example affecting saving throws, mobility or resists),
- battle preparation that includes which spells and contingencies/spell triggers to prepare and which buffs to spend,
- selective equipping of gear,
- selective use of damage types (like hitting high level enemies with stat drain weapons, lowering spell resistance drain, debuffs etc.)
- a huge variety of summons with different uses (like spell drain, ele resist, spell resist, phys resist).

Now multiply those things with the huge differences in classes, the addition of kits, the possibility of varied solo builds and vastly different enemy strengths, and you have combat that is on a different tactical level. If the problem is difficulty, you can limit yourself with difficulty level, how often you sleep, number of party members or, best of all, mods like SCS (yes it's a mod, but it's a mob that wouldn't be possible within the AOD systems). Try taking out the Twisted Rune solo in the first chapter and tell me that it's as easy as picking your nose.

 

[Irenaeus II]

Select all click on enemy, take a sip of whisky

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Initial position is important but a lot of the time you don't get much choice. Usually there is a clear best option which is either: shortest distance to closest target so you can get an extra attack in, move to a position where enemies have to move to attack you first or get in position that limits amount of enemies that can hit you (subject to terrain).

Mostly true, however keep in mind that while AoD is a single player there are quite a few your group vs enemy group fights in which positioning can play a very important role and is a bit trickier to gauge it right.

Target order can be important. You generally use debuff attacks first to lower the enemy stats and then use harder hitting ones. If they hit you and debuff you, that makes you stick with the basic ones.

Target selection nearly always plays a crucial role and it depends on a number of factors (how vulnerable you are to range attacks, are you lightly armored, heavily armored, do you have a weapon that can attack diagonally etc.).

You'll generally use debuff attacks a lot but not always switch to harder hitting ones after them (power attack, aimed to head), it depends on the type of enemy you're facing. Against dodgers you'll go for the legs first (reduce their ability to dodge) then for the arms or head, against blockers however leg attacks are useless so you'll usually go for the arms and then maybe power attacks to break through the armor (or head attacks if he isn't wearing a helmet).

Keep in mind, there are ways to debuff enemy besides aimed attacks like nets and bolas.

You generally do not want to move in melee combat because of high AP cost and AoOs. You move when you have to. System uses shared AP for move and attacks, so existence of AoO is fine here.

Depends on the build, alchemy/poison, spear and ranged weapon users will generally move around the battlefield a lot.

In videos I've watched I just see people repeating the same attack over and over again once they've gotten more powerful.

Yes, the game does fall into that trap with certain builds and power level reached.

What actions enemies take matters in the sense that you hope they don't hit you too often (as it is largely RNG, which is fine) but so far about the only reactivity from enemy actions that I've encountered is that when they debuff you it often forces you to stick with basic attacks. This probably happens less and less as you get more powerful.

Enemy AI could use some work. For example if I'm playing a char with high dodge they'll just continuously use fast attacks against me instead of going for my legs to reduce my dodge ability (doesn't matter how low THC they have against me, they'd still be more dangerous that way).

 

[ZagorTeNej]

I'm a fan of AOD and it has strengths but I just can't agree with this. Whether or not the combat is "better" can be a matter of opinion, but BG2 is geared towards combat in a way that AOD simply isn't. As soon as you admit that BG2 has more classes, more spells, more monsters etc., you have to admit that there is more tactical variety, provided implenentation isn't completely retarded. And while RTwP has its flaws, the implementation of it in BG2 is not completely retarded.

With all the variety you don't just get battles decided by melee brawn, you also get things like
- mage battles (with huge differences based on levels) with selective stripping of mage protection layers,
- battles decided by backstabs and traps,
- cleric use and tactical healing,
- use of 1/day items/HLAs (if playing with ToB) or other limited skills,
- party positioning to protect squishies or exploit choke points and ability/spell AOE (and both kiting and rushing),
- selective buffing to counter damage types (or builds based on different resistances, such as damage resistance/magic resistance or an elements resistant char that uses items triggering elemental area effects),
- different setups of spell orders in battle, and spell synergies to maximize potential (for example affecting saving throws, mobility or resists),
- battle preparation that includes which spells and contingencies/spell triggers to prepare and which buffs to spend,
- selective equipping of gear,
- selective use of damage types (like hitting high level enemies with stat drain weapons, lowering spell resistance drain, debuffs etc.)
- a huge variety of summons with different uses (like spell drain, ele resist, spell resist, phys resist).

Now multiply those things with the huge differences in classes, the addition of kits, the possibility of varied solo builds and vastly different enemy strengths, and you have combat that is on a different tactical level. If the problem is difficulty, you can limit yourself with difficulty level, how often you sleep, number of party members or, best of all, mods like SCS (yes it's a mod, but it's a mob that wouldn't be possible within the AOD systems). Try taking out the Twisted Rune solo in the first chapter and tell me that it's as easy as picking your nose.

It's apples and oranges, AoD should be compared to Fallout and Arcanum in combat (and it smokes them), not BG2. It would be like comparing AoD's C&C with BG2's or I don't know, stealth in Thief compared to Deus Ex.

BG2 is all about encounter design, itemization, spells, classes and combat (in addition to having adventure/exploration elements). AoD is a game where combat is merely one of the options available, that's a crucial difference.

 

[Sensuki]

Enemy AI could use some work. For example if I'm playing a char with high dodge they'll just continuously use fast attacks against me instead of going for my legs to reduce my dodge ability (doesn't matter how low THC they have against me, they'd still be more dangerous that way).

That's interesting. I mucked around with the Mercenary background and the majority of enemies hit my arms first, not sure about legs though.

 

[Cazzeris]

Because a full-talk merchant playthrough is a through and through Bioware game, just with the combat removed, and the worst aspect of AoD by far.

You are exaggerating. I could agree with you about the full-talker playthough of the game being shit, but I can't see how it is worse than any diplomatic path on other RPGs. All of them are plain boring because there has been little to no effort spent on creating dialogue mechanics that blent well with the systems and gameplay in the genre, but AoD has no special flaws that make it worse than the norm. It just comes with the usual lacks.

Yes, there are many examples containing interesting ways to design non-violent solutions for quests, often involving proper exploration and content providing an adequate form of gameplay, but dialogue-only ones? Almost never. If anything, AoD is a shining example of cool content with banal gameplay in this regard, since there is a good number of creative solutions that aren't often found in other games (such as the "killing two birds with one stone", "the chosen one", and similar examples of dialogues that at least try to add bits of fun to your usual "click here to make the villain kill himself").

It could be said that, since this game can be played with such focus on interacting with other NPCs, the diplomatic path should provide proper gameplay if only as a pioneer among RPGs, but I can't see how it'd be fair to criticize so much an aspect that the game doesn't do particulary wrong on a relative scale just because it can be played in a way that the usual problems become so clear. That would mean asking the developer to do what no other game has done before, even when AoD at least lets the player do a full talker playthrough (which is a rare feature these days).

Yes, it's good to point out when the game is not being fun, and the full-talker playthrough in AoD is undoubtedly lacking from a gameplay perspective. But putting it at a Bioware-level is absurd.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Yes, it's good to point out when the game is not being fun, and the full-talker playthrough in AoD is undoubtedly lacking from a gameplay perspective. But putting it at a Bioware-level is absurd.

A full talky commercium playthrough of AoD is almost 100% on rails, boils down to doing errand boy deliveries of plans devised by Conspirator_A to Conspirator_B, and when it finally does present you with a choice that seems like something important, it shits all over you because that choice doesn't matter in the least. Spare the remaining IG or enroll them into Antidas's troops? No difference. Give the power in Maadoran to Strabos or Lorenza? No difference. Side with Athanasius or Strabos in Zanzibar? No difference. Persuade Paullus to nuke Al-Akia or not? N o d i f f e r e n c e. It doesn't even matter in the least if you screw Paullus and get Antidas to break the siege, FFS!

How is that NOT Bioware-level?

 

[Jasede]

This is a personal request, but PLEASE write a review, Darth Roxor.

 

[hivemind]

Isn't it obvious that he is going to ?
Already long practicing his edge.

 

[Jasede]

It is, but I'm trying to hype it up. I get paid for this.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Roxor's technique seems to be make an accurate statement coupled with provocative hyperbole (Dungeon Siege 3! Bioware!) and then sit back. VD himself has called the merchant playthrough p. much a cog simulator: having the freedom to make independent choices would counteract the setting or something. AoD as a merchant is about understanding the futility of existence. Bioware is about understanding that life's choices involve either selflessly helping everyone or killing them.

 

[Excidium II]

VD himself has called the merchant playthrough p. much a cog simulator: having the freedom to make independent choices would counteract the setting or something. AoD as a merchant is about understanding the futility of existence.

Age of Decadence Roleplaying Tips

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

That's interesting. I mucked around with the Mercenary background and the majority of enemies hit my arms first, not sure about legs though.

Same. Ended up with -30 to hit in almost every fight.

 

[Irenaeus II]

VD himself has called the merchant playthrough p. much a cog simulator: having the freedom to make independent choices would counteract the setting or something. AoD as a merchant is about understanding the futility of existence.

What is futile about a cog? Without it, the machinery disrupts, my little lumpenprole.

 

[Vault Dweller]

This is a personal request, but PLEASE write a review, Darth Roxor.

Can't wait to read Roxor ripping it apart for the lulz?

 

[Irenaeus II]

Can't wait to read Roxor ripping it apart for the lulz?

It's interesting this ultra-faggot liked you back in 2006 (treated you p. well in that thread with Brady questions), but nowadays he hates you like the plague. Some history there in the last 10 years. I wish I had any interest in knowing the story, but it probably revolves around dick-butt stuff.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

. Some history there in the last 10 years

Nah, just Alzheimers.

 

[Goral]

Spare the remaining IG or enroll them into Antidas's troops? No difference. Give the power in Maadoran to Strabos or Lorenza? No difference. Side with Athanasius or Strabos in Zanzibar? No difference. Persuade Paullus to nuke Al-Akia or not? N o d i f f e r e n c e. It doesn't even matter in the least if you screw Paullus and get Antidas to break the siege, FFS!

How is that NOT Bioware-level?

Not much difference if anything, "no difference" is a huge exaggeration. Siding with Lorenza shuns you from the Commercium, you can also get access to Levir's machine that way. Siding with Strabos is more profitable but you lose the chance to see the machine. As for your "nuke Al-Akia or not", there is a difference, the same goes for nuking Master in Fallout 1 or not (you just get a different ending slide). Do you want to say that it's also on Bioware level? Sorry but comparing retarded Bioware games with Age of Decadence or Fallout 1 is absurd.