|
What does it mean for a game to feel like an IE game? For me, any party-based game with an isometric-y camera is like an IE game. Wasteland 2 felt like an IE game to me.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
For me it's a party-based RPG that controls like an RTS. I mean, that RTS part is pretty much the only thing that separates the IE games from every other top down or isometric party-based RPG, right? The engine was originally developed for an RTS and it shows. verybad fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
verybad posted:For me it's a party-based RPG that controls like an RTS. Agree x10000 This is what made the IE games for me too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
I'm old. For me, the Infinity Engine was just an updated version of the Gold Box games. I honestly prefer turn-based for this type of game, especially as I age into ooooollllddddd, but real time with pause is a workable substitute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
About the engagement mechanic, I chime in that it doesn't allow front-liners (even Fighters) nail enemies enough to invalidate their AI preferences, which lessen the tactical importance of the division between front-liners and back-row characters. Compared with some TB games which have a tactics around blocking enemy paths or a frigid division between the front-liners and ranged units, in RTwP systems, fights tend to end up cramped, largely depending on the given AI preferences without any option to prevent it by player choices. At least, under the current condition, AI preferences for ranged characters and further discrimination in Stamina/Health between frontliners and ranged units may end up with widening the defect in the "translated" formation system, making the concept that works in TB context feels like a coccyx or a cecum in RTS-ish context.rope kid posted:Male ogres are quite intelligent but extremely aggressive, even with each other. They normally don't organize into larger groups unless they are wrangled by ogre matrons. It's very rare that they form communities of any significant size. The most legendary force of ogres was the army that destroyed White March, though it disbanded shortly after. @Hieronymous Alloy Well, rope kid is also quite fond of the Gold Box and TB games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Sea Otter posted:Compared with some TB games which have a tactics around blocking enemy paths or a frigid division between the front-liners and ranged units, in RTwP systems, fights tend to end up cramped, largely depending on the given AI preferences without any option to prevent it by player choices. . . . . Heh, I never really thought about that before (y'all are clearly *much* more advanced in your thought processes in this area than I am! Which is as it should be considering I ain't a game designer) but yeah, that ability to play the Gold Box games tactically -- to, say, have your front line fighters block a tavern doorway -- was the central magic of the combat system and what set it apart from other games in that era. Question: Can you physically move through an opponent in this game? I read the engagement mechanic article, yeah, but if there's a troll fighter standing in a one-troll-wide doorway, can you run past and through him if you're willing to take the hits, or not? verybad posted:For me it's a party-based RPG that controls like an RTS. Well, there's also the general game mechanics of the AD&D license. The first D&D games were based on a tabletop miniatures wargame, Chainmail, the Gold Box games were a computerization of that tabletop miniatures wargame + narrative story elements, and then (at least from my perspective at the time) the Infinity Engine games were the Gold Box games updated for a new generation of graphics cards and a market that demanded glowy pixel spell animations. But it all traces back to Chainmail and tabletop miniatures wargaming. Which is probably part of why it worked so well in a RTS engine. They have a common ancestor. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Question: Can you physically move through an opponent in this game? I read the engagement mechanic article, yeah, but if there's a troll fighter standing in a one-troll-wide doorway, can you run past and through him if you're willing to take the hits, or not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Heh, I never really thought about that before (y'all are clearly *much* more advanced in your thought processes in this area than I am! Which is as it should be considering I ain't a game designer) but yeah, that ability to play the Gold Box games tactically -- to, say, have your front line fighters block a tavern doorway -- was the central magic of the combat system and what set it apart from other games in that era. rope kid posted:If there's no room around the troll, no. However, a rogue can use Escape or Tactical Positioning to get around that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Sea Otter posted:I saw the best person beat me but I'd leave my comments as just a BB player. The single massive character I encountered in the BB is just the fabulous ogre, whose AI seems to be rather simple. He seems to just attack things in front of him despite his so-called "high intelligence." Also, as an experienced designer of IE games, the devs seem to have avoided clogging path ways, which would be unfriendly to path-finding AI. So, basically such tactics won't work and, at my end, I can only put front-liners between the casters and the enemies, when the front-liners tend to fail in playing the role of fly papers, which is, I think, what some people here, understandably, complaining of. Ahh, so is the problem that the AI needs nice big open areas to work well, so there aren't many choke points? I apologize for being the slow troll in this discussion!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
rope kid posted:If there's no room around the troll, no. However, a rogue can use Escape or Tactical Positioning to get around that. At the moment though, Rogues can't go over areas of the map without Navmesh, you can't Escape over a patch of rocks, the Rogue crashes into the rocks instead. Reported it in the bug forums.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
@Hieronymous Alloy Yeah, at my end, personally I didn't find too many "choke points" to use for meaningful tactical choices, either defensively or offensively, in BB maps. @Sensuki I wondered if it's a bug or newly given limitation to prevent it from being over-powered but, reading rope kid's comment here, I guess you were right in reporting it as a bug.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
I actually made a Suggestion thread about having a separate type of navmesh for abilities, because you can't target patch of rocks with fireballs as well, whereas you could cast a fireball on a table/chairs inside a room or something in the IE games. So like you can't walk on it, but you can target it with a fireball / go through it with Escape - etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Does anyone actually want traps in this game? They were always one of the shittiest parts of IE games, and right now they're one of the shittiest parts of of divinity: original sin. They're nothing but a slight annoying delay once in a while and sometimes a forced quick-load.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Mymla posted:Does anyone actually want traps in this game? They were always one of the shittiest parts of IE games, and right now they're one of the shittiest parts of of divinity: original sin. They're nothing but a slight annoying delay once in a while and sometimes a forced quick-load. To be fair, traps being a lovely mechanic isn't just an IE tradition, it's a D&D tradition (all the way up to 4th where some of them got a bit more interesting, but even many of those).
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Traps are part of the paper and pencil tradition, though. They can make combat interesting sometimes in a don't-cast-fireball-here-you-fool-the-whole-room-will-blow sortof way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Traps are part of the paper and pencil tradition, though. quote:They can make combat interesting sometimes in a don't-cast-fireball-here-you-fool-the-whole-room-will-blow sortof way. Hopefully traps will be more interesting than "make sure you detect them and disarm them", yes--hazard zones you can shove people into or that expand and restrict everyone's movement in combat, say. *I say affectionately, having played tabletop pretend elf games for many years
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:Well, I mean, so's being in a room with a bunch of socially maladjusted nerds with body odor*, Best thing about playing computerized rpgs: the shame is private. Also, does not require "friends" or "leaving basement." Back on topic though, passive traps seem like they need some extra pressure to make them interesting -- either a time limit to traverse the trapped area or a battle or something similar. In Divinity:Original Sin my approach to trapped areas was generally "cast fireball, cast Rain, keep moving." Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Traps I always found an annoying reload thing as well, but the thing in PoE that somewhat lessens it is that trap detection is rolled into Scouting mode. It's a half-movement speed mode that combines trap detection, stealth, and search (for hidden objects) into one thing. Hidden objects are like loot and interactables that show up outline in purple only if you find them in Scouting mode, so you're not just purely looking out for traps, you're also incentivized with rewards for going through slowly instead of rushing. And it's also stealth mode too, so you can push up further ahead than usual. In the beta right now there's only a few big traps that I remember in the dungeons, and the layout is very obvious to anyone who's played this sort of game before. Right now disarming doesn't actually work because the 'disarm' area is right in the middle of the trap, so the rogue just blunders in and sets it off, but that's just a bug. The actual problem I have with scouting mode is that when you activate it, you get a white circle around you indicating your stealth radius, but it doesn't show how far away you can detect traps/hidden objects. Because of that, the white circle looks like your search detection radius as well, which is not accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Mechanics should just detect when standing still as well, regardless of whether you're in scout mode or not. Should be simple to do, they just need a check for "isMoving".
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Best thing about playing computerized rpgs: the shame is private. Also, does not require "friends" or "leaving basement." Best part about D:OS traps was, that companions avoided discovered traps. No need to micromanage party to get past or remove mines. Just walk past!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I'm already picturing me not having the patience of SLOWLY SEARCHING the traps in every loving room and just speeding through without care. I'll be playing in Babby/Easy mode so hopefully that doesn't kill me a lot
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
frajaq posted:I'm already picturing me not having the patience of SLOWLY SEARCHING the traps in every loving room and just speeding through without care. I'll be playing in Babby/Easy mode so hopefully that doesn't kill me a lot Quest for Glory IV had a paladin class that could detect danger and it went off in an area that on a previous playthrough I hadn't found any danger so I went over every inch of it and FINALLY found the trap that hit me for a couple points of damage. Trap detection can be a weird mechanic at times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
adhuin posted:Best part about D:OS traps was, that companions avoided discovered traps. No need to micromanage party to get past or remove mines. Except in combat. Had more than one death where my fighter charged right into traps or environmental dangers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
adhuin posted:Best part about D:OS traps was, that companions avoided discovered traps. No need to micromanage party to get past or remove mines. Until combat started and then you had to remember to manually path them around that pool of lava or they'd merrily wander straight in on their way to attack an enemy! edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Regarding melee cooldown being paused in movement - one reason I don't tihnk this is a good idea is that sometimes you need a melee "interceptor" who can quickly get to backliners in need and attack or disable someone who has slipped past the tanks. The Barbarian has wild sprint they could use for this, the Rogue has escape, the fighter could just run but can then knockdown to help the backliner, monk is fast and can use stunning blows to disable the attacker, but none of these work as well if they have to run up and stand there for a few seconds as their friend is getting eviscerated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Sea Otter posted:@Hieronymous Alloy There are plenty of those in the Skaen dungeon - you need two front liners is all. A main tank (the Fighter) and an off tank (I used a Paladin). Not many enemies will go past them, but those freaking archers will gently caress your back liners up if they ever get aggro.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Yeah, to some extent, but, compared with the image of some TB games, which is the context in which I wrote the post. I thought I had indicated the nuance with phrases such as "at my end", "personally", "found" and "not too many." In any case, again, I chime in with the opinion that some enemies are too easily get past the front-liners, which makes me think that there can be a fundamental issue with the system mechanic. That said, of course, my experience is just limited for the Backer Beta.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Sea Otter posted:I thought I had indicated the nuance with phrases such as "at my end", "personally", "found" and "not too many." Uh, yeah, sure. No need to get all defensive, we're just talking here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
I actually envisioned something like NWN2's combat in terms of "stickiness", but that might have actually been bugged now that I think about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
chiefnewo posted:Until combat started and then you had to remember to manually path them around that pool of lava or they'd merrily wander straight in on their way to attack an enemy! Listen. If I want to charge through Acid Cloud and Oil Barrel while on fire, that's my choice as a fighter with INT as a dump stat! Issaries fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Furism posted:Uh, yeah, sure. No need to get all defensive, we're just talking here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:I actually envisioned something like NWN2's combat in terms of "stickiness", but that might have actually been bugged now that I think about it. The combat does feel closer to NWN2 with higher micromanagement IMO, even though it looks like an IE game. A ship which needs to be steered around somewhat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Sensuki posted:The combat does feel closer to NWN2 with higher micromanagement IMO, even though it looks like an IE game. A ship which needs to be steered around somewhat. More micromanagement is fine as long as the interface holds up. NWN2's biggest problem is that the interface is awful for controlling more than one character
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
I meant how it 'feels', NWN2 feels way less RTS-y than the IE games do, and that's a bad thing. All of the Aurora Engine games have terrible combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Also, the camera view felt restrictive in NWNs in general. NWN had various aspects which could have led CRPGs to different experiences than what today's MMORPGs can offer but, as far as single player tactical gameplay is concerned, I think it was a step back from IE games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
I'm only following the thread every couple of days, but be careful not to make the attributes seem too weird. The name of the attribute should still (generally) tell what it does, I think, or else it will confuse people. Why does resolve give x y and z and int gives a b and z but dex also gives c d and x ??? You get the picture. (I don't really care what they're named, I'm just speaking for my wife who said she would get confused by this since she's new to RPGs)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Sea Otter posted:Also, the camera view felt restrictive in NWNs in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I'm only following the thread every couple of days, but be careful not to make the attributes seem too weird. The name of the attribute should still (generally) tell what it does The extreme-nerd stuff is less important to most potential buyers than having it "make sense".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:38
|
|
|
You can't please literally everyone so you do have to strike a balance between accessible and intricate though. While I don't by any means support arcane game mechanics that require two hours of studying, in an numbers-based RPG like this you also can't go completely to the other end and completely simplify everything because numbers are too scary. What's important is that the information about the stats (and everything else too) is visible and clearly explained and that you don't end up with something unplayable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 07:44 |
|
|
Kanfy posted:in an numbers-based RPG like this you also can't go completely to the other end and completely simplify everything because numbers are too scary. When it comes to the game succeeding, and hopefully generating sequels, it is more important that the end experience make sense. A made-up example of a bad one would be: "Well I guess Personality will have to give a bonus to Baking skill because that makes the statistics better!"\ "Clearly explained" will not help that seem right to most people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 10:15
|
|