Fuck Dragon Age 3, this thread is now about RPG stat systems

[Gozma]

Most nerds at this point don't even recognize the possibility of escaping the aggro manipulation based tank/healer/dps paradigm and can't conceptualize anything else. How else can the world possibly exist they might say, I have to go listen to the music of the spheres now grog

 

[LeStryfe79]

The biggest problem with the "trinity" is how overbalanced and homogenized it became. At least in Everquest, buffing, debuffing, and crowd control were also important. Most of the classes in EQ were useful and somewhat unique feeling, unless that is you made the mistake of playing a ranger...

 

[Xor]

Most nerds at this point don't even recognize the possibility of escaping the aggro manipulation based tank/healer/dps paradigm and can't conceptualize anything else. How else can the world possibly exist they might say, I have to go listen to the music of the spheres now grog

Aggro mechanics are a pretty easy way to do a functional AI, and the concept is widespread enough that most players are probably already familiar with it. So it's probably here to stay, at least in mainstream games.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I don't know that aggro mechanics are necessarily all that bad. There's just as much stupidity in other AI decisions. One time in IWD1 or 2, I had a bunch of monsters beeline for my casters and ignore everyone else. The encounter turned into me setting the fighters to attack the monsters and just micromanaging the casters to do nothing but run in circles. The fighters stood in the center of the ring the casters were running and just rotated to keep hitting the monsters, the monsters chased the casters ineffectually until the fighters killed them all. Aggro mechanics would have at least had the monsters attack the fighters so they would've did something. I suppose it really was a way to create a memorable encounter, but probably not in the way the designers had intended.

 

[Freelance Henchman]

Kiting enemies like that still worked in Dragon Age I think, never really tried it myself though.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Aggro mechanics aren't bad in and of themselves, its just when its implemented to have separate DPS and tank roles, the kludges for "balance" are kind of stupid in a single player game. Like in DA, wearing heavy armor would draw more threat (at least at the lower difficulty levels). Or DPS classes generate less aggro for no apparent reason and have abilities to reduce threat by disengaging from combat or hiding making monsters so retarded they forget the DPS characters are dangerous.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

Will button-AWESOME also be included in this glorious sequel?

 

[sea]

Aggro mechanics aren't bad in and of themselves, its just when its implemented to have separate DPS and tank roles, the kludges for "balance" are kind of stupid in a single player game. Like in DA, wearing heavy armor would draw more threat (at least at the lower difficulty levels). Or DPS classes generate less aggro for no apparent reason and have abilities to reduce threat by disengaging from combat or hiding making monsters so retarded they forget the DPS characters are dangerous.

I like those mechanics in theory. They work in gameplay. The problem for me is the "feel" of them - they're too obvious. The way you can basically game and manipulate AI using threat as some sort of near-visible "score" or attribute just does not lead to combat that plays out in a realistic way. Enemies don't go after your party members because it is tactically advantageous, they do so because character X or Y hit a threat threshold that tells them to swap targets.

Sure, having base values and relationships lets you fine-tune how enemies behave even at the start of a fight, but there's none of that "oh shit, this mage is casting a spell, get archers to fire and interrupt it" stuff that any sane player would actually do themselves. If you manage your abilities (and cooldowns) properly you can usually avoid aggro problems entirely. That's why most of the enemies feel like standard MMO mobs - very predictable, no real tactics apart from bum-rushing and spamming abilities.

The sad thing is that you could probably fix a lot of this very easily simply by having enemies use abilities and choose targets in more reactive ways (i.e. someone is low on health, or casting a spell), but some combat designer somewhere decided that a universal system was easier and more "elegant" because he could just plug numbers into a spreadsheet and tweak it until the results looked good, instead of come up with logical ways for enemies to behave on a scenario-by-scenario basis.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

The sad thing is that you could probably fix a lot of this very easily simply by having enemies use abilities and choose targets in more reactive ways (i.e. someone is low on health, or casting a spell), but some combat designer somewhere decided that a universal system was easier and more "elegant" because he could just plug numbers into a spreadsheet and tweak it until the results looked good, instead of come up with logical ways for enemies to behave on a scenario-by-scenario basis.

It seems like integrating this kind of decision making into that spreadsheet wouldn't be that much more complicated than the current mechanics - have threat be inversely proportionate to health and have spellcasting trigger a temporary large increase in threat which dissipates after the spell has been cast. So a fighter would be at a consistent medium-high level of threat, which will generally be higher than other party members, except when a spell is being cast. Maybe have the time to react to a change in threat be longer for enemies in melee to prevent them rushing around like chickens with their heads cut off when you put your casters at opposite ends of the combat area. Certainly more convoluted than simply having enemies react to events as you describe, but not more convoluted than the way its done. And at least its something a spreadsheet monkey can work with.

Am I missing something? If not it seems possible that this lack of effective enemy target selection is a feature of the system - creating facsimile of enemies reacting tactically, so that players will have to react to a changing situation, but limiting the effectiveness of the enemy "tactics" to something that can be addressed by the player without having to make hard decisions (like having a spellcaster be dormant until most useful). Which isn't to say it can't be made difficult, just that when difficulty is increased it is done so by increasing the demands of micromanagement rather than tactical decisionmaking.

 

[sea]

It seems like integrating this kind of decision making into that spreadsheet wouldn't be that much more complicated than the current mechanics - have threat be inversely proportionate to health and have spellcasting trigger a temporary large increase in threat which dissipates after the spell has been cast. So a fighter would be at a consistent medium-high level of threat, which will generally be higher than other party members, except when a spell is being cast. Maybe have the time to react to a change in threat be longer for enemies in melee to prevent them rushing around like chickens with their heads cut off when you put your casters at opposite ends of the combat area. Certainly more convoluted than simply having enemies react to events as you describe, but not more convoluted than the way its done. And at least its something a spreadsheet monkey can work with.

Am I missing something? If not it seems possible that this lack of effective enemy target selection is a feature of the system - creating facsimile of enemies reacting tactically, so that players will have to react to a changing situation, but limiting the effectiveness of the enemy "tactics" to something that can be addressed by the player without having to make hard decisions (like having a spellcaster be dormant until most useful). Which isn't to say it can't be made difficult, just that when difficulty is increased it is done so by increasing the demands of micromanagement rather than tactical decisionmaking.

Not bad ideas. However, consider:

1) Spells in the game are mostly instant-use rather than charge-up.
2) Enemies need lots of instant-use, preferably ranged abilities to actually counter spellcasters effectively.
3) Enemies need to be smart enough to use their abilities tactically rather than get caught with their pants down by "blowing their load" too soon.
4) Battles have to last long enough for the player to actually be able to see, understand and appreciate enemy tactics.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's not just threat that matters. A value that tells the AI "bumrush the mage when he casts a spell" might even be a weakness in certain situations. You need to have special-case scripts that appeal to specifics.

And all of that is kind of invalidated if your combat designers have decided that all encounters need to last 30 seconds exactly so ADHD players don't get bored and/or can just hack and slash through stuff if they want to. Watch almost any Dragon Age LP and you will see exactly what BioWare have to contend with - players using their main character only instead of the entire party, players not using spells, players auto-leveling everyone, players constantly charging into glory only to die and then get frustrated when doing the same thing 5 times more doesn't work and concluding the game is too hard, etc.

So basically, making an RPG intended to sell to more than a pretty small demographic is almost necessarily going to mean you either dumb things down or piss off a lot of players who never finish your game.

 

[DraQ]

Aggro management is shit for simple reason - good mechanics should be symmetric.

Imagine what would happen if aggro management abilities were used by your AI opponents.
Problem?

 

[JarlFrank]

So basically, making an RPG intended to sell to more than a pretty small demographic is almost necessarily going to mean you either dumb things down or piss off a lot of players who never finish your game.

Then why did the BG series sell so well?

 

[Roguey]

Imagine what would happen if aggro management abilities were used by your AI opponents.

In DA2 enemy commanders actually can "taunt" their allies into attacking a single character.

 

[DraQ]

In DA2 enemy commanders actually can "taunt" their allies into attacking a single character.

Nono. Against the player. Imagine having to passively watch your party constantly forced to wail on enemy tanks while being pelted with fiery death by enemy casters and you will realize how hopelessly shitty it is.

 

[Roguey]

Nono. Against the player. Imagine having to passively watch your party constantly forced to wail on enemy tanks while being pelted with fiery death by enemy casters and you will realize how hopelessly shitty it is.

Meh, it'd be equally shitty if say, BG enemies also started off each battle by focus firing ranged attacks on your mage as any player would do. AI and People can't be equal.

 

[DraQ]

Meh, it'd be equally shitty if say, BG enemies also started off each battle by focus firing ranged attacks on your mage as any player would do.

Actually, might be interesting - you'd have to stealthily scout ahead, and try to bumrush the ranged attackers to let your mages get into range.

Would be much better and more tactical than frantic clusterfuck we've actually got.

 

[sea]

Much of the importance of positioning in Baldur's Gate is lost by not having grid-based movement. Not being perfectly certain if a spell will hit its target or be out of range, not being able to position party members where you know they are inaccessible to enemy fire, etc., that uncertainty really hurts combat for me. Generally speaking the only value of positioning in Baldur's Gate comes down to exploiting choke points, and sending in the fighter first (because enemies always blow their loads at the first enemy they see).

 

[Hobbit Lord of Mordor_]

Captain Shrek

Well, primarily, the way some derived statistics work make some attributes WAY more valuable than others. You need to be retarded not to have a high AGI (for AP) and/or INT (for Skill point gain). Linking skill point gain to INT is p. stupid design. It might be "logical" but you have to consider most of your development in Fallout comes from skills since attributes are rarely raised and perks are only once every 3 levels. Won't talk about Action Points because I hate it with passion and it would just be my opinion anyway. I do hope I don't need to explain why AC is terrible. Also worth mentioning weird things like AGI not being taken into account for initiative. With the skills it's more a matter of the actual game design, but still I don't know how you can make a rule system SPECIFICALLY for the game and still end up with such a horrible imbalance. It takes a special level of incompetence.

It was designed in a hurry and it shows.

I do not understand why this matters or why anybody would want or expect Fallout to have equally important stats. You are in a sci-fi world with a lot of technology and factions you need to talk to, of course INT is going to be important. If the setting was say some kind of primitive hunting world with few humans and a lot of monsters INT would be less important.

Instead of trying to create viable paths for low-INT characters (a couple dialog options/perk), what they should have done is put some kind of minimum/max constraints on the important stats... so you can't roll a low-INT character and the decision is how to distribute pts among the other stats (eg PER vs CHA). Choice fags would not like it but they wouldn't be able to whine the game doesn't cater every possible retarded combo they can dream up.

Also like for D&D point buy you can make a stat increase can get more expensive/cheaper away from the average, and different cost weights for different stats... INT 5->6 costs 2 pts instead of 1, 6->7 cost 3 pts etc (5->4 gives you 2 pts to spend eg raise two less important stats 5->6)

All these are simple ways to avoid dump stats without screwing with the system and pretending INT and END would be equally important in a high-tech game setting with plentiful medicine/health potions.

 

[DraQ]

Much of the importance of positioning in Baldur's Gate is lost by not having grid-based movement.

Actually no. Much of the importance of positioning in BG is lost for two reasons:

1. Pathfinding messing up even finest positioning (and timing) on part of the player.

2. Lack of environments where any non-basic positioning would be of value.

Not being perfectly certain if a spell will hit its target or be out of range

Could be easily solved by projecting AoE, range and movement 'shadows' on demand.

not being able to position party members where you know they are inaccessible to enemy fire

You can for ranged weapons, as for the spells, do you have the range of every single one memorized?

BG combat is most messed up by RT, not lack of grid.

 

[sea]

Well okay, to be fair, lack of turn-based play is a bigger concern. But I feel grid-based maps are key to getting an authentic D&D experience, considering the way the rules operate. And there is a level of predictability that lends itself both to on-the-moment decisions as well as planning that only a grid-based playing field can provide.

 

[DraQ]

Well okay, to be fair, lack of turn-based play is a bigger concern. But I feel grid-based maps are key to getting an authentic D&D experience, considering the way the rules operate. And there is a level of predictability that lends itself both to on-the-moment decisions as well as planning that only a grid-based playing field can provide.

I don't understand this fixation on exact replication of rules. On a computer you're working with entire different platform. Sure, if you adapt, say D&D, you should follow some general guidelines, but you should try to replicate the overall gameplay dynamics created by the rules, than slavishly replicating the rules themselves.

 

[J1M]

sea

Initial designs for World of Warcraft were such that if an enemy decided to turn around and go after a healer the warrior would be able to daze the creature so it moved more slowly. Additionally, dazed creatures would take much higher damage from the warrior. The monster tried to kill the tank not because it was a great idea, but because its other options were generally even worse. Unlike the current scenario, this meant that if a mage or a priest were to stand next to the warrior the monster could wail on them until someone repositioned themselves to make this daze effect available.

 

[Atlantico]

So guys, I sure hope there's interracial tranny romance in DA3.

This deserves a mention, even though the thread is old as shit, that your sarcastic remark *almost* happened. It was just that the tranny couldn't be romanced. Fuck you Laidlaw. Fuck you Gaider. Or better yet, fuck eachother.

 

[aleph]

But I feel grid-based maps are key to getting an authentic D&D experience, considering the way the rules operate.

Wasn't ti only from 3rd Editon onwards that the PnP rules for combat demanded a grid? IIRC, 2nd edition AD&D combat as written in the rulebook always lend itself to quite a messy experience.

 

[Theldaran]

But I feel grid-based maps are key to getting an authentic D&D experience, considering the way the rules operate.

Wasn't ti only from 3rd Editon onwards that the PnP rules for combat demanded a grid? IIRC, 2nd edition AD&D combat as written in the rulebook always lend itself to quite a messy experience.

That's so true, and I was going to point it out, but, you know... that message is from 3 years ago.

All D&D has wargames as a foundation, but it wasn't that exaggerated in AD&D, the GM just imagined in his head if a player was in position or not, and how the party was positioned. It was kinda decided on the fly, as in the majority of PnP RPGs, that don't have rules so deep and intrincate. After 3rd Edition onwards the game was a rules fest and the Rules Lawyers popped up everywhere. In modern D&D there's a ruleset so complex and quirky that it strains playing the game, even building settings themselves. It actually began in Second Edition with the kits and Player Options and such, aimed to sell books and fatten TSR's coffers. It became worse later. They mistook "giving players options to build characters" with "creating a mammoth ruleset that pretty much required leaving material out". Bun then again that doesn't affect PC incarnations, and there hasn't been a direct adaptation of the rules since NWN.