The opposite, actually. Chess is the perfect example of a game that is pure tactics with no numbers/statistics element. FF13 is a better example of a game where the player is largely redundant.Continuity said:
RPG Combat Systems Discussion
- Thread starter Ninjat_126
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Different tastes; different games.
That about sums it up. Personally, I don't have anything against anyone who plays anything. What you do is your own business, and doesn't concern me in the slightest.
The only thing that "gets on my chips" is when people try to demonize, or belittle, those with different preferences than their own.
So, basically, do what you want, just don't demand other people agree with you.
That about sums it up. Personally, I don't have anything against anyone who plays anything. What you do is your own business, and doesn't concern me in the slightest.
The only thing that "gets on my chips" is when people try to demonize, or belittle, those with different preferences than their own.
So, basically, do what you want, just don't demand other people agree with you.
I think I prefer the way Spiral Knights does things. Your character has no stats whatsoever, besides the most basic healthbar, and everything beyond that (your maximum health, your damage, your speed, your defense etc.) depends on what equipment you're using. Say I've got a Wolver Coat that gives me more attackpower one moment, the next I can switch into a Ironmight Plate Mail, instantly turning into a tank.
Sure, it contains some grind, I mean finding some of those components for your new weapon recipe can be retardedly obnoxious at times, but thankfully you can still buy those components at the auction house from persons with more freetime than you.
CAPTCHA
but elyingis
"Elyingis"? Is that a latin name or something?
Sure, it contains some grind, I mean finding some of those components for your new weapon recipe can be retardedly obnoxious at times, but thankfully you can still buy those components at the auction house from persons with more freetime than you.
CAPTCHA
but elyingis
"Elyingis"? Is that a latin name or something?
Just my 2 cents...
I now it might seems controversial for you, but I think that actually a noob have higher chances to win at call of duty that in a Wow arena (even if im not playing wow since 2008, it might have changed...).
Let me explain it:
In wow, your character is much more personalized. Is true, gear influence a lot the outcome of any fight or duel, but you have so many skill to use, both offensive and defensive, countermeasures, and buffs, that if you are a noob (and therefore do not know how to use them), there is no saint of earth to save you.
This is true for most MMORPG, since customization usually means TONS of skills (and thats why also they make you grind uselessly for your levelling up, so that you know how to use them all).
Moreover the combats are more "long", since you need to hit multiple times, block healings to kill another character
In a FPS, where pretty much all player are the same, and there is mainly 1 skill (shot him), a noob by pure luck may one shot another character (a pro). This is not possible in a MMO. There is no one shot (unless as you say there are 20 levels difference, or super-uber epic gear vs crappy ones, but I ensure you, no pro has characters with crappy gears, and no newbie has all-uber, especially in wow arena where different sets are not THAT different or too difficult to obtain). By having mainly 1 skill to use, the outcome is still predominantly related about what strategy a player use or how much his reflexes are good, but it leaves more space for randomness...
I now it might seems controversial for you, but I think that actually a noob have higher chances to win at call of duty that in a Wow arena (even if im not playing wow since 2008, it might have changed...).
Let me explain it:
In wow, your character is much more personalized. Is true, gear influence a lot the outcome of any fight or duel, but you have so many skill to use, both offensive and defensive, countermeasures, and buffs, that if you are a noob (and therefore do not know how to use them), there is no saint of earth to save you.
This is true for most MMORPG, since customization usually means TONS of skills (and thats why also they make you grind uselessly for your levelling up, so that you know how to use them all).
Moreover the combats are more "long", since you need to hit multiple times, block healings to kill another character
In a FPS, where pretty much all player are the same, and there is mainly 1 skill (shot him), a noob by pure luck may one shot another character (a pro). This is not possible in a MMO. There is no one shot (unless as you say there are 20 levels difference, or super-uber epic gear vs crappy ones, but I ensure you, no pro has characters with crappy gears, and no newbie has all-uber, especially in wow arena where different sets are not THAT different or too difficult to obtain). By having mainly 1 skill to use, the outcome is still predominantly related about what strategy a player use or how much his reflexes are good, but it leaves more space for randomness...
except that if you have one stat for opening everything it will be over the top useful and everybody will pick it. if you split that up you will have to invest into being able to open stuff if you want open every container you come across.
also combat through numbers comes from 2d turn based combat mechanics which come from pen and paper rpgs and numbers are just the best way to deal with this.
also, COD is a really bad example because at least since MW2 you are rewarded for just playing a lot than for playing good. And then you get those nasty helicopter gunships and the fun goes out the window.
also combat through numbers comes from 2d turn based combat mechanics which come from pen and paper rpgs and numbers are just the best way to deal with this.
also, COD is a really bad example because at least since MW2 you are rewarded for just playing a lot than for playing good. And then you get those nasty helicopter gunships and the fun goes out the window.
You misunderstand the point "point" of statistics. Stats might determine a characters skill, and simulate how the character fights but it does not 'eliminate' player involvement. At least, any GOOD game will not do that. The difference is, most action games are all about micro management, and reaction. When I'm playing Ninja Gaiden fighting Alma, or DMC3 fighting Vergil, I'm not planning things in advance. I'm trying to dodge boulders, and looking for specific moveset cues to determine how I will dodge or react to the following move.Kahunaburger said:
RPGs simulate these individual sword swings, etc. so the player doesn't have to worry about each swing or dodge. The player still has to worry about things like their parties relative position, resources, health, and apply those things according to the situation. Playing games like Temple of Elemental Evil, Baldur's Gate 2 and X-com require a lot tactical/strategical prowess to get through the game. You have to manage multiple members and their respective skills at time, while taking into account what enemies you were facing(Like in BG2, Mindflayers would attack players INT, so most warriors would be ravaged instantly).
Then you have games like Fallout 1/2 where stat and skill placement determined how you would play, and how the WHOLE game world would react to you. Low intelligence means your character is a bumbling idiot who can barely hold a conversation with most people, cutting off questlines and potential party members. However, in exchange he can have high combat skills, so he can CRUSH into dust anything its path. The game gives a blank slate and you basically tell the game what you want your character to be. A big brute, suave businessman, cowboy gunslinger, science nerd, etc. Its an awesome system that is left by the wayside because people get intimidated too easily by stats.
This is a small picture of the reasoning behind the mindset of the "RPG". I'm a pretty big fan of all genres, but I love RPGs the best. They delay immediate enjoyment(most of the time), for big payoffs along the road, making them immensely rewarding.
Well.. there's the Megaman Battle Network series, and those are almost completely based on player skill. Unless you're going for 100%, and that's where the grinding begins. Guild Wars is also very good about the grinding, in that you rarely need to do it, if ever. It's much more player-friendly, while relying on the idea that the players can actually make a good plan for the skills to take with you.
Yeah, I'm only talking about RPGs that use stats as a substitute for player involvement. I'm not saying that "stats are bad" because every game has them. I'm specifically saying that the games that are stat-based to the point where I don't have to think or act don't do anything for me.Condiments said:
Well it depends on the type of game, but generally mind numbing combat is poorly designed. Stats can be applied in any number of ways, with greater and less influence.Kahunaburger said:
Compare and contrast these two games I would consider "RPGs".
Turn based party RPG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkBJWibmmsE
Action RPG:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzPCwwWvSKI
My problem with Morrowind:Grouchy Imp said:
-Standing next to an enemy and exchanging misses is really boring. Combat is supposed to be fun. Most RPGs let you mess with tactics and a variety of skills, but sure as hell not in Morrowind. Enjoy repeatedly missstabbing everything you see.
-You could still shoot a man's eye out with a bow from 100 meters away even at skill rank 1. Magic and arrows didn't have the same potential to miss, and often did a nice amount of damage.
-The stamina system made everything horrible. Yes, realistic. But realism doesn't jive well with fun. For instance, you get an invincibility period in many games if you get hit. That's to give you a chance to escape bad situations. Were they more realistic, the enemy that just jumped you would cripple your movement ability and give it and anything else around a better chance to deal more - likely lethal - damage. Running was slow unless you got absurdly good at it, and walking was SUPER SLOW. Nobody wants to explore the massive world of Morrowind at walking speed. Everything took stamina, and the more tired you got the more you sucked at everything. This did add a bit of extra flavor to battles, so you might want to use your stamina more tactically to give yourself an advantage, but its purpose outside of battle was nothing more than preparing you for failure the moment you go over that hill to find a pack of diseased Guars that want to eat your face off.
-Stats should add depth to a game and make it more interesting, opening the potential for more tactical gameplay. Having blocking and hitting as percentage chances really killed the potential to actually use those things TACTICALLY in battle. You could get unlucky and die in a fight you should have easily won simply because you missed so often, or the other way around. Maybe you manage to randomly block every hit from a powerful monster. Either way, I want to feel IN CONTROL of what happens to me, not throwing my fate to the RNG God's winds. In a game with such simplistic combat as Morrowind, you really need that level of control to keep things interesting.
-Hand to hand combat. Just no. It wouldn't make sense that unarmed fighters could take down armed opponents, but they made it so underpowered... If anything, at least giving players the ability to disarm their opponents would even the playing field a bit, and hey. That's just more realistic, too. Like how people bitched about them taking away spears in oblivion, I thought the addition of USEFUL hand to hand combat was better than that loss. I really like fighting that way, and I think it makes more sense for the types of characters I tend to role-play.
My point being, (generally speaking, for RPGs) stats should add some depth to what you can choose to be in RPGs. They cannot and should not replace actual gameplay and strategy. Pumping up just the right amount of STR and AGI does not equate to fun.
There are some JRPGs like that - I remember Skies of Arcadia being a little bit that way. And Dragon Age: Origins was kind of flirting with this because of the emphasis on mages crowd controlling, warriors pulling aggro, and rogues DPSing. There were some fights that required you to strategize, but for most of them you were literally unnecessary - you could just spam some sort of reasonably relevant move and let the AI routines you had set up do the work.Velocity Eleven said:
I'll get back to you on these points fella, but at the minute I'm swamped at work and can't really dive into an in depth to and fro. I'll edit this post at a future date when I can spare the time to properly discuss this with you. Just really letting you know I ain't ignoring ya!Eventidal said:
Right then, I'm back. To counter your points in order:
- Combat is supposed to be fun. Yes, it is. But there is a difference between an FPS hack-and-slash system and an RPG system. No-one complained about the combat system in Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights, despite their systems being nearly identical to Morrowind's. The problem occurred when people confused a first person camera with the FPS genre. Call me a stickler for the rules but I like my RPGs to have RPG combat systems.
- Magic and arrows. Yeah, I'll give you that one. That's why I always played a battlemage-type character, for those nice and accurate fireballs. No system is perfect.
- The stamina system. It was a hell of a sight better than Oblivion's stamina system - the game where holding a shield tired you out but you could regain stamina by running whilst wearing full plate armour. Also Arrille (the Altmer who runs the tradehouse in Seyda Neen) tells you right at the start of the game that always carrying potions of Restore Fatigue is essential to survival. So if you're not carrying them is that the game's fault?
- Tactical combat. Firstly, see the above comments regarding FPS vs RPG combat systems. Different genres, different combat styles. Secondly, in Morrowind each weapon had three selectable attacks (executed like the power attacks in Oblivion, but available from the word go), a slash, a thrust and a chop - each doing different damage ranges and each one with differing potency. In Oblivion there was simply one attack command, with no level of tactical combat whatsoever. All a player needed to do was hold down the block button until their opponent struck them, then get in two quick slashes whilst their opponent recoiled, then lather-rinse-repeat until your opponent was dead. Boring as hell.
- Hand-to-hand. I'll be honest, I never used it and so cannot comment with any form of authority. And I was one of those people who was annoyed at the lack of pole-arms in Oblivion.
Overall I can see what you're driving at, but I still believe stats and abilities are the core of any RPG game. Each different character having their own limitations and specialisations is interesting, and makes for a varied gaming experience, forcing the player to realise what their character can and can't do. A system where a 5th level Bosmer mage is as skilled in melee combat as a 25th level Redguard fighter because the player knows how to buttonmash is not a good system in my eyes.