cRPG Party Control Poll

[Zombra]

This isn't quite a "chosen one" RPG. Chess, not Wizardry.

Nice. One more important question: is it "game over" if your "king" (main character) dies? Or does the whole battle have to be lost? Actually, is there permadeath for all units?

The problem with AI control is that it's only good if the AI in question is competent

The upside is that even mediocre tactical AI can be fine as long as the player has access to meaningful strategic options; because remember, the computer enemies aren't using better AI than you. For example, if your guys are wasting premium consumables and ignoring defensive position, you'll know to keep plenty of cheap potions on hand and make sure even your wizards have good armor. But I agree with you on the whole that watching your troops be idiots is frustrating, and bad AI is always to be avoided.

 

[AeriusSky]

Zombra

There will be Permadeath yes. I haven't decided if I will have 2 modes of play or not yet. One without Permadeath, the other with it. Currently everything is written with permadeath, I haven't added the mode to make it easier.

 

[Zombra]

There will be Permadeath yes.

In that case you want full control. I don't want to lovingly build up characters in an RPG then have them die, not because of my mistakes, but because the AI did something asinine.

 

[Saduj]

If it is a combat focused game with variety of tactical options then full control is necessary. If combat is line up opposite the other guys and blast away then it doesn't matter.

 

[Sceptic]

As for Option 4, I would make it so you can checkbox something to set the control, instead of it switching auto like that, as well as account for other opposite annoyances. That would be fully in control of the player. I agree, there are several RPG's that autoswitch and it is very annoying.

That's not what I meant. I meant manually switching from A to B, and A no longer doing what you told him to do. In BG/IWD if you set A to attack a target then clicked on B to get him to cast a spell A would keep attacking. In DAO or KOTOR or NWN2 if I click on B then A immediately starts doing something else like running to a different enemy or casting spells I didn't ask him to cast or whatnot. That's the worst possible implementation of gambits IMO. I hated the entire "tactics" aspect of DAO - I just want to tell my PCs to do what I want without having to jump through hoops, again like the IE games (and every pre-IE game with full party control that I can think of)

 

[Wysardry]

For me, it depends on whether the party contains hirelings and/or how long the characters have known each other. I wouldn't expect a level 3 bard hireling I picked up in the nearest town half an hour ago to attack a level 10 dragon head on just because I told him to.

 

[gestalt11]

When I play a computer game I feel like 75% to 85% of the player's side of the engagement should be done by the computer.

 

[Hyperion]

Chose Option 1, because why play a game if it's going to play itself?

Option 3 is an interesting one because 2 of my favorite games would actually fall under that category (Ogre Battle and The Last Remnant). But the thing about Option 3 is it's really the same as Option 1, but the game does it in a way that you're in command of an army, rather than roleplaying the individual units of a small group. To use Ogre Battle as an example, it has all the facets of Option 1 regarding controlling my characters in that I can put each character where I want in the unit to give them a specific attack range, and in a specific row to use a specific ability. If I want to heal, I put a Cleric in the back, if I want to cast spells I put a Wizard in the back, strongest knight front and center to tank and hit any enemy he wants to, etc. and choose a Tactic that I know will cause them to attack a certain enemy with almost certain success.

In the case of The Last Remnant, I can choose to activate certain abilities of each character, arrange their classes a specific way to lean the outcomes of their actions in my favor. I can put a group of healing-focused classes together to make a healing-centric unit, pure phys, support, and so forth, as long as I have the foresight and wherewithal to build my characters appropriately. Has all of the micromanagement of Option 1, but has more of a 'full-scale war' feel to it.

 

[luinthoron]

It depends a lot on whether the combat is proper turn-based or real time (with or without pause). Direct control is the only way to go with actual turn-based play where you can take your time to decide every action. In a combat moving in real time, similarly to the Infinity Engine games, option 4 giving you some AI help will be better and avoids party members ending up standing idle. So you could have total control when needed, but also let the dumb fighter hack away at an enemy without having to direct him to do so every few seconds.

 

[Ranarama]

Why have a main character at all? Why not have all of the characters be AI, and then I can eat popcorn.

 

[Sjukob]

Directly - Command (You choose every party members, movement, actions and attacks, every turn)

And being able to participate in conversations , and being able to select what they say , even if it's happening between party members . If you can't talk to yourself through companions you are doing it wrong , your RP is weak . Trust me , I'm an expert .

 

[HeatEXTEND]

TB has te be direct.

 

[Leitz]

Blob.

 

[Max Damage]

Full party control is the reason why I play RPGs in first place. Macros like in Phantasy Star 4 are good too, there are several macro slots available + you can ignore them and play manually as well. For worst case of macros based gameplay see Final Fantasy 13, where both manual and macro commands are undermined by inability to directly control more than 1 character, weak single actions, and lack of macro save slots, leading to engaging "click lmb to win, sometimes use potion/switch style, find 10 differences from Dungeon Siege" gameplay.

 

[Zombra]

Why have a main character at all? Why not have all of the characters be AI, and then I can eat popcorn.

Non-ironically agree. Games with automated tactics can be great.