:Flash:
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 6,489
So Stats vs. Player Skill.
Kodex Kritikal Konsesus seems to be that real-time RPGs rely too much on Player Skill, and that Turn-based is the solution. However, this only transfers the required player skill. Instead of twitchy reactions, you need more tactical skills.
Yet, it still comes down to player skill, except if the AI has exactly the same skill level you have, in which case the skill equals out and the stats become more important.
Now, most people generally don't like autoresolve, for a simple reason: You get better results by playing manually, because you're better than the AI. But pitting AI against AI is only fair - both partys are controlled by the same algorithms, therefore the stats are the deciding difference.
The problem with autoresolve is that you know you could have done better, especially if you can watch the battle, and see the AI commit atrocious errors. Perhaps this is the reason I like the combat of Settlers 2 so much: It has absolutely no player input, the only difference between two duelling knights is their experience level. But the combat system itself is so simple that the AI cannot make errors - instead of knowing you could do better, watching the battles becomes a suspenseful experience.
I have been thinking about good combat systems a lot, because I don't like the established standards of RPG combat. And usually I come up with something quite complex, trying to emulate realism.
But this got me thinking: perhaps the best solution is a very simple combat system that is not influencable by the player, a kind of Settlers 2 combat for RPGs.
Perhaps this idea is also completely stupid, so ... DISCUSS!
Kodex Kritikal Konsesus seems to be that real-time RPGs rely too much on Player Skill, and that Turn-based is the solution. However, this only transfers the required player skill. Instead of twitchy reactions, you need more tactical skills.
Yet, it still comes down to player skill, except if the AI has exactly the same skill level you have, in which case the skill equals out and the stats become more important.
Now, most people generally don't like autoresolve, for a simple reason: You get better results by playing manually, because you're better than the AI. But pitting AI against AI is only fair - both partys are controlled by the same algorithms, therefore the stats are the deciding difference.
The problem with autoresolve is that you know you could have done better, especially if you can watch the battle, and see the AI commit atrocious errors. Perhaps this is the reason I like the combat of Settlers 2 so much: It has absolutely no player input, the only difference between two duelling knights is their experience level. But the combat system itself is so simple that the AI cannot make errors - instead of knowing you could do better, watching the battles becomes a suspenseful experience.
I have been thinking about good combat systems a lot, because I don't like the established standards of RPG combat. And usually I come up with something quite complex, trying to emulate realism.
But this got me thinking: perhaps the best solution is a very simple combat system that is not influencable by the player, a kind of Settlers 2 combat for RPGs.
Perhaps this idea is also completely stupid, so ... DISCUSS!