AI on BG Games Question (Bonus: Poll Included)

[Axie]

Soon to finish my long, side-play of Baldur's Gate (mentioned already I play it sowly, non-exclusively, on early mornings with coffee and in cold nights) which I started last November. Core difficulty.

Will go through SOD content and then sweet BG2. In the meantime I read a lot about SCS improvements to AI.

Would Codexians reccomend me, to take my time and finish it all set-up as I started, and then try to go another run (maybe only BG2 run) with much appraised SCS G3 improvements to AI, or would you suggest to jump right in, even now to it?

Sure, I have no doubts that the AI modification will bring much quality and challenge (and I am happy about it), just I have slight reservation it might be abrupt to change the settings mid-playthgrou, so to speak, and it would be better to wait for new game...

Suggestions welcome.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

If the overall difficulty suits you so far, I'd suggest leaving things as they are, SCS can be pretty brutal. Now, if you feel it's cakewalk and don't like it, by all means install it ASAP.

If this BG playtrhrough is your first though, SCS is probably overkill. I wouldn't recommend it to a first-timer, be damned.

 

[polo]

I would have recommended SCS from the start, its how the game should have played originally.

 

[Lacrymas]

Yeah, SCS is pretty mandatory even on first playthroughs. Unless you've never played RPGs before and don't know the first thing about D&D in general. SCS doesn't increase the overall difficulty, as the mob spawns are the same and you can only do so much with diseased gibberlings, the boss fights are what is significantly harder, but that's how they should be. By boss fights I mean any unique encounter, like the Red Wizard group, not only end-of-act bosses.

 

[Axie]

Yep as I thought. Just, as I am at some 2/3rd of BG one so I don't feel like making drastic change "in the middle of it". But for BG2, or even earlier for SOD, I will def go for it.
TY dear m'ladies for your invaluable comments, much appreciated.

 

[NotAGolfer]

Don't install it on the first BG2 run. And don't try to cheese too much, using staffs all the time or abusing greater wish or simulacrum.

Only ever install SCS if you want to give in to the desire to cheese to the extreme.

BG2 combat doesn't need AI mods for the first playthrough. Enemy variety, caster AI, enemy behaviors and resistances etc are more than good enough as they are. Also SCS makes it all center around mage duels even more and the game is already lopsided in their favor without it.

Same thing as with the fan patch for Jagged Alliance 2, that one also only makes sense after playing through the game at least once.

 

[Tigranes]

Vanilla is, well, what a lot of RPGs are like.

SCS is super groovy and you should play it, now or later.

 

[Axie]

Right, will go pure Core Rules run of trillogy, then will go on langsam JSawyer kingcomrade Mod SCS after that.

 

[Cael]

The problem with a better AI in DnD is that mages will rule. They have the most options and by far the most devastating effects on the battlefield. At high levels, like in BG2, it becomes basically rocket tag. Whoever gets the first spell off first, wins.

I have played a lot of mages in my RPG "career" and they can make or break PnP games. In fact, I tend to hold back and only go full out when the DM needs a reset button due to a series of ultra bad rolls.

 

[Tigranes]

Mages rule in BG2 anyway - and that's the attraction, it offers superpower mage duels like no other D&D game has really done.

 

[Cael]

Mages rule in BG2 anyway - and that's the attraction, it offers superpower mage duels like no other D&D game has really done.

It ends up the same, more or less. Going full optimal every time tends to mean the same path every time because of the limitations of the CRPG media.

 

[Tigranes]

That's so vague I don't know what you mean.

 

[Cael]

That's so vague I don't know what you mean.

CRPG tends to have a "best path" in combat because a game can only do what it is programmed to do. It doesn't adapt, it doesn't come up with new stuff. It just does what it does. Computer programmes are "stupid" like that. It is a limitation of the media. If the programmer did not put in something, then that something will never happen. End of story.

What does this mean? It means that in a fight, if you are always facing an optimised enemy who uses the best path or best combination of spells and abilities, you must always use the same spell and abilities on your side to counter them. Every fight basically becomes the same. For example, in BG2, you must always protect yourself against Maze because every Tom, Dick and Harry will be using it. You don't dare be innovative because you know the AI has been optimised and they WILL use that spell, no and, ifs or buts. It limits what you can do and becomes boring. Oh look, another mage fight. Better start buffing and layering on the shields and rest afterwards... Yawn.

In a non-optimised AI game, you can have a bit of fun with different spell combinations and explore things a bit because a small misstep won't end in an automatic game over.

 

[Tigranes]

OK, but this reads like theorising up in the clouds that doesn't really translate to the specific parameters of SCS / vanilla BG2.

Specifically speaking, I don't really think SCS makes your playstyle more monotonous than vanilla. If anything, it's the opposite, because the vanilla balance for an experienced player is that you quickly learn Haste, Fireball and a few other cookie cutter solutions get you through most things easily.

SCS does force its own set of routines on the player (e.g. multi-round prebuffing, several rounds trying to dispel enemy buffs), but it's been my experience that SCS forces you to use your own toolkit more thoroughly, and also, given that you can't just backstab / magic missile the mage to death or whatever, you're more likely to suffer from your own debilitating conditions that again force you to change plans.

I prefer situations where enemy attacks and protections force me to explore different options, not situations where I could just haste+fireball everyone in 2 rounds but I fuck around for kicks.

 

[Cael]

OK, but this reads like theorising up in the clouds that doesn't really translate to the specific parameters of SCS / vanilla BG2.

Specifically speaking, I don't really think SCS makes your playstyle more monotonous than vanilla. If anything, it's the opposite, because the vanilla balance for an experienced player is that you quickly learn Haste, Fireball and a few other cookie cutter solutions get you through most things easily.

SCS does force its own set of routines on the player (e.g. multi-round prebuffing, several rounds trying to dispel enemy buffs), but it's been my experience that SCS forces you to use your own toolkit more thoroughly, and also, given that you can't just backstab / magic missile the mage to death or whatever, you're more likely to suffer from your own debilitating conditions that again force you to change plans.

I prefer situations where enemy attacks and protections force me to explore different options, not situations where I could just haste+fireball everyone in 2 rounds but I fuck around for kicks.

Call it what you will. But in a fight where everyone is using nukes, you'll be suicidal to use a knife. Whereas if people were all using automatic rifles, perhaps there is a place for grenades, tanks and shovels.

 

[Tigranes]

More broad brush analogies. Sorry but I'm not going to get into a long debate about how it's more like guns and knives and machine guns and blah blah blah. The point I'm making, based on many playthroughs, is that vanilla is prone to a number of cookie cutter routines, whereas SCS buffs enemy defenses (in multiple senses) sufficiently that a variety of scenarios and tactics play out during this time.

 

[Cael]

More broad brush analogies. Sorry but I'm not going to get into a long debate about how it's more like guns and knives and machine guns and blah blah blah. The point I'm making, based on many playthroughs, is that vanilla is prone to a number of cookie cutter routines, whereas SCS buffs enemy defenses (in multiple senses) sufficiently that a variety of scenarios and tactics play out during this time.

Your opinion is just that: an opinion. If you don't like mine, you are free to disagree. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. But since we are into the wang waving part of the debate: I, too, have had multiple playthroughs of the game, with and without mods, the first of which was when I was working in a computer store when it first came out.

 

[NotAGolfer]

More broad brush analogies. Sorry but I'm not going to get into a long debate about how it's more like guns and knives and machine guns and blah blah blah. The point I'm making, based on many playthroughs, is that vanilla is prone to a number of cookie cutter routines, whereas SCS buffs enemy defenses (in multiple senses) sufficiently that a variety of scenarios and tactics play out during this time.

Not to my experience.
SCS indeed makes mage duels more monotonous because of all the necessary prebuffs and dispells.

And his analogy was spot on, sure you can often use haste and fireballs (unless the enemy has high fire resistance I guess) and beat most fights in the game that way.
But you can also use summons or turn your mage into a quite deadly frontline fighter or use enemy crowd control spells or just buff your party and so on.
In vanilla BG2 a lot of approaches work. Sure there isn't much challenge compared to SCS but a first time player gets more than enough.
In SCS you often have to counter the most deadly spells the next enemy could come up with in advance (and a ridiculous amount of enemies has them) and what you have to do after that is predetermined by their actions which are too samey too often.
I'd rather see a lot of different aproaches work, some of them better than others but they all still work. It just feels less restrained that way. SCS doesn't give me that experience, vanilla BG2 does.

 

[octavius]

SCS would have been better if it was more random.
As it is mages always have full repertoire of spells, and they always have Stoneskins and those annoying Melf's Meteors.
In BG 1 they nearly always start with casting Mirror Image, which actually was an advantage for me since they waste their first spell on something my Cleric of Helm can just counter with True Seeing. In BG2 so far it's nearly always Prot Magic Weapons they start with.

And Carrion summons as a long time buff is just daft. So daft that I just wait them out.

Also, with SCS installed it's like all enemies know which of my front liners have the worst AC and will always target him.

But overall, SCS signifcantly improves the game, especially BG 1.

 

[Cael]

SCS would have been better if it was more random.

That's the problem. It can't. Basically with a computer game, you have a set of limits. You cannot violate those limits. For example, if Level 9 spells are the highest programmed into the game, then the limit is Level 9 spells. That means that if you want to make things "more difficult", you have to either optimise the use of the spells in the game or increase numbers of or spells. If you optimise the use of spells, because of the (relative) lack of choices, there is always a set of spells that is superior to all other permutions/sets. Protection from Magical Weapons, for example.

As another example, in 3.5, we have multiple BOOKS worth of spells to choose from. The Sorcerer would really feel his limitation (limited spells known) there. In NWN, a Sorcerer is not as handicapped because, of the spells in the game, you really only need 1 or 2 per spell level and the rest are just bonus. Now, if ALL your spellcasters choose the same 1-2 spells per level, then all of the counters to those spells must also be the same. Spell, counterspell, same old, same old every single mage encounter. If you want an example that is on here, go look at Micoselva's Insane Solo BG2 LP. Look at the enemies he runs into and the sheer number of times he runs into the same crap over and over and over again. Protection from Magical Weapons, Stoneskin (and his running out), Maze. If he wasn't playing killing off his PC as a running gag, he would be running the same old routines time and again BECAUSE of what his opponents are bringing into the fight.

That is the problem. Optimised means BEST, and there is rarely more than ONE best. And when you have ONE best, you really only have ONE counter against it. Hence, the repetitions and lack of randomness. Optimising the AI is actually BAD for games. OK, AI that are dumber than a bag o' hammers is not good for the game either, but to think that an super-optimised AI somehow makes a RPG better is nonsense.

 

[Lilura]

It is better to talk about SCS in relation to a specific WeiDu log, since it's customizable to the point of hitting roadblocks.

My write-up illustrates a few of those.

And Carrion summons as a long time buff is just daft. So daft that I just wait them out.

I was hoping that you would 'Dex-blog the Kahrk encounter, but I guess you're just not that monocled.

 

[octavius]

I couldn't be bothered with him this time, but I did defeat him before, only I can't remember how. I probably had Kivak use an Arrow of Slaying. It seems impossible to defeat him without using some sort of cheese; he hits as hard and more often than Sarevok, is very hard to hit, and in addition casts spells, so he is the hardest enemy in the game IMO.

So what tactics did you use? Cheese like waiting out his buffs while invisible, Arrow of Slaying, creating a maxed out Kensai, or something clever?
Let's see...

Your search - "Kahrk" site:lilura1.blogspot.com - did not match any documents.

BTW, your blog would improve if in your walkthroughs you wrote about detailed tactics used in the more interesting encounters.

 

[Lilura]

So what tactics did you use? Cheese like waiting out his buffs while invisible, Arrow of Slaying, creating a maxed out Kensai, or something clever?

Haven't played BG1 SCS for several years. You just played it, and can't remember.

BTW, your blog would improve if in your walkthroughs you wrote about detailed tactics used in the more interesting encounters.

I have covered IE tactics more than anyone in recent times; from IWD to BG1 to BG2:SCS to even Dark Side of the Frickin' Sword Coast. Of course, I could cover more but I'm just one person. Sorry I haven't covered Kahrk yet; it's why I was hoping you would. But instead, you gave up.

Bonus pics:

Dark Side on-rest spawn:

Duergar battle. It's funny because they all have Monty's voiceset.

 

[octavius]

So what tactics did you use? Cheese like waiting out his buffs while invisible, Arrow of Slaying, creating a maxed out Kensai, or something clever?

Haven't played BG1 SCS for several years. You just played it, and can't remember.

Huh?
I clarly said "I couldn't be bothered with him this time, but I did defeat him before", "before" being in 2009.

And since I defeated him before I didn't have the incentive to bother with it this time.

 

[Lilura]

And since I defeated him before I didn't have the incentive to bother with it this time.

And yet you had the incentive to write a paragraph on Kahrk here and in the other thread. Like I said, gave up. To be fair, difficulty has probably been ramped up since 2009. It also depends on what spells you had access to (increased spell range of BG2 would be helpful).