Chadeo said:
Um, you just changed the statistics of the character to make up for the statistics of the player.
Wolves, on a scale, are quite stupid. However, they can be capable of coming up with strategies that include driving the stragglers of a caribou herd off of a cliff to save them from having to chase.
Combat experience and ability is hardly relative to intelligent thinking. Trust me, I know, I've been around plenty of marines and football players, and they need to utilize strategy and interperet their orders given to their situation.
You just dodged the issue. It is the same as if I said SP’s archer was “a highly skilled but very unlucky†archer, and that is why he missed. No, wrong, he missed because of the lack of a player ability. Just like my very low intelligence barbarian won the fight based solely on the ability of the player.
I did not doge the issue. I think you need a shitload of classes in psychological development before you can understand this. Low intelligence does NOT mean they are a vegetable or completely incompetent. That explains why there are still people living in Arkansas. It is a different path than higher thinking. Besides, they aren't in command of a large army, they are deciding which enemy to slice apart. HUGE difference, there, so you should see that even the simplest dullard is often quite able to defend themselves and come up with some strategy. Mind you, this arises from the "strategy" of being able to walk, attack, use an item, or possibly cast a spell if they were wise enough or had some other provision in the ruleset that differed from book study. All of which are the general combat options in a CRPG, and I would have difficulty imaginging someone so mentally devoid that they could not figure out how to do such.
Yes, very duifficult for poor Tor to understand the concepts of walking and fighting.
Comparing following the system written versus game mechanics is a little erronious[sic] to begin with.
I apologize, I do not understand this sentence, you will have to clarify it for me.
Put it into context.
Only if he wanted to, for making such a blatant choice and obvious outcome. Could anyone come up with a more laughable example?
See, this is what cracks me up. Mental ability is put under the umbrella of “choice†while physical ability is not. Could not the highly skilled archer “choose†to miss with his arrows? Even if he knew it would result in instant death? Sure he could, in the exact same way that the diplomat could “choose†to insult the prince even though he knew it would result in instant death.
Now you're equating a missed attack because of bad player reflexes to be akin to blatantly choosing to insult someone. While you are right in the player's ability to define both combat and conversational decisions, one is an accident while the other one is deliberate. Big difference.
No wonder your "meet in the middle" "solution" is about as likely as TB and RT working together in a hybrid system, despite the fact that doesn't alleviate any of the problems within.
The point of both cases is that it is NOT character skill or ability that “makes the choice†it is purely the player who is in control of that.
No, it is the player playing the character in the system. The speech options are usually generated by a speech skill or some other manner to represent the ability of the character. WIzardry 8 has the Communication skill, in which topics are talked about, picked from a list, and depending upon the character's skill, the NPC may or may not opt to react or divulge the information.
I realize this doesn't quite fit with BioWare games, but they have been generally lacking in attention to detail in most regards to CRPGs.
It is trivial to come up with a situation where the player could make the incorrect dialog choice because they have not been paying attention to the story and thought they picked the correct option, when in fact it was an option that was blatantly incorrect for the character to pick. (heck this is why we have save and reload. Players make mistakes all of the time.)
What if the character just wants to piss off the prince, as it would clearly infer? Even the most influential characters are at an impasse with someone so resolute in their methods, sometimes unknown issues can crop up or perhaps the character could be trying to make the person irate. A good example, ironically for BioWare, would be the main character choosing to insult Minsc in order for him to break the bars of his cell. It just happened to be the right response to get him to move into action.
It is because of that speech is a little bit of an unknown, to represent the unknown factor of communication, the response of the person listening to it.
God’s eye view isometric, along with infinite time to plan your moves, are as much an “ungodly†interface issue as someone with good reflexes.
No, it isn't, as anyone who has worked on such a system could tell you. The character (and the player's influence) is still in the constraints of the combat system rather than being able to compensate for it. There's also ways to handle looking too far (LOS algorithms, compensating for the view's ability to see behind the player (the methods used for various surprise attacks), and much more.
Whereas with most RT systems, they tend to balance it out so that 60% have the reactions play it. That means that some could easily be far better, and some would be far worse. That problems is alleviated by using a system that everyone could use.
Knowing exactly how much health you have left,
Spoken like someone who has spent their entire life on the couch. What, you don't think you're aware of the extent of your own injuries?
being able to calculate ranges and area of effects exactly,
Estimating distance isn't much of a stretch, and usually their skill in judging distance is represented in their combat skill. With spells or other effects, they are there plotting it out in their mind as to where to place it and how far it affects.
And no, spacial thinking is not reserved for those of higher intelligence alone.
knowing the exact order (in a turn based system) that things will occur in, and so on.
What, you don't see someone gearing up and moving to attack you? Despite that many don't show what exact order that the combatants are going to be fighting in, it would be rather obvious in a fight whom was going to act when judging by how ready they are.
I do agree, however, that if there is a "deciding phase" for the enemy to decide what they are going to do, that the player be unaware of it. The player should be aware, however, of issues like when a spell is being cast from the start of the spell, or when a fighter is charging. While not a wholly faithful representation of combat (and RT often fails mostly in balancing and on other accounts), it does present it in a form that leaves little for the player to explot and also puts players to a level playing field. While there is always someone else that can twitch faster than you, you both still have to work within the constraints of the combat system. All that would be needed is a learning slope or a good explanation and most people would undoubtedly get enough of the basics to put the rest together. That explains how some of the dumbest people can play through Fallout as a combat character. Therefore it is easier to balance the combat as the audience is on a level playing field, leading to fewer complications in the development process.
Many times the player has access to more information, or the interface allows the player to use his own skills to improve his success rate. This is by no means something exclusive to a real time system.
Most of the "flaws" in a TB system are alleviated by LOS or other methods, quite easily. In Fallout, you didn't know generally how strong something was until you were a good judge (Awareness perk) to see how much life it has. I have always preferred the "Injured", "Weak", "Near Death" sort of scale to represent the enemy's life, to avoid the player from calculating precisely how much damage would be needed (to cast a spell), instead relying on what they and undoubtedly the character have both figured out - how much life is approximately left to the enemy and judge what spell to use there.
RT has major issues inherent to it no matter what incarnation.
If I can follow what you are saying, I think you are pointing out that just changing combat to real time still allows many of the “mental advantages†that the turn based system allows, while also allowing for the “physical advantagesâ€. Thus the game is terrible because both can be exploited. Does this then imply that you would be more than happy with a theoretical system that greatly limited the “mental advantages†that the player had if it allows for “physical advantagesâ€? I doubt that, but it does seem to be what you are saying.
That's what speech and other social skills/stats are for. They limit the amount/avilability of choices in order to better depict what reactions the character is capable of. With a TB combat system, that then neatly limits both the flaws with RT combat (in context with a CRPG) and the influence of the player's experience, forcing them to work along with the character system.
I can take by your ignorance of this that you haven't played Fallout, Arcanum, or any other game that really depicted how intelligence and charisma affected character interaction. Do you think you can expose the whole assassination plot by telling it all to the sheriff, as a stupid character? Not a chance.
That is why I tend to dislike the BioWare games, as social character skills/stats are hardly represented.
Your "solution" of putting it straight down the middle is rather laughable. Instead of having to deal with just one problem, you now have to deal with a doubly broken system. That complicates balancing and generally opens up more exploits than anything else. To achieve an ideal balance but also leave a game to the player. While your example below is indeed quite correct in playing a character by their stats (well, not completely), it doesn't seem to be a game that much at all. That's the big issue of development, keeping the game fun while also keeping the balance maintained. That's why Dungeon Siege isn't fun for a LOT of people, and it would technically be considered the epitome of a "role" if it had social skills and conducted all speech for you as well (and moved according to the character), except that it wouldn't really be a CRPG because of the lack of any "playing" to it.
I design a game which has a combat system as follows: When you get in a fight with someone or something, the game pauses, you then click on the opponent you wish to fight (in case there is more than one possible choice). The statistics of your character, the opponent, and relevant modifiers for your current positions are compared, with some random “dice rolls†tossed in for good measure (the random factor is equally applied to each combatant). The result is then determined and the winner is declared. If you are still alive you may then choose to pick the next opponent. (a good example of this is a space sim like MOO where you choose to let the AI resolve battles)
Seems like the proponent(s) of “emphasis upon playing the character†would, what’s that phrase, “have fun creaming their pants as it sounds like their wet dream.â€.
No? Oh I see, you want to “play your character†in combat by using your own tactical abilities which have been modified by the character’s statistics. Hmm, that sure sounds like a trade off between giving the player some interaction options, and allowing the character statistics to matter.
Hyperbole at its finest. Yes, there are a certain amount of player interaction with the game, and your example is flawed in that you clicked to choose which enemy. The character should have done that themselves.
The trick is to get the combination to the right point. RT still is more away from the ideal constraints. Choosing where to move and attack is not a laborious detail, nor is it one that could be easily exploited if the system is crafted correctly.
That is why game balancing is important, as is limiting the amount the player can influence to an acceptable level that does not result in exploits or a system where the player is getting really pissed off because the monsters crawl upon them faster than they can click, to dully watch as the character repetitively whacks upon it. RT takes away from your ability to fight often, in gauging precisely which blow goes where.
Now, think of the term "role-playing". Now, to get to the best meaning of CRPG, it would stand to reason that you'd get the role part firm and still be able to play it, staying as much as possible to the character role while still offering the ability to act as you think that character should. That is role-playing.
Then why are you excusing elements that do nothing but the contrary?