Development Info Josh Sawyer on Utility and Balance in Game Design

[tuluse]

Just to add, requiring specific classes and having obvious optimal party compositions is not strategy, but in fact promotes lack of strategic creativity, instead simply promoting a "go-down-the-checklist" style of thinking.

Strategic challenge comes from the vague middle-ground between "you must have these specific classes/roles" and "everybody can win no matter what they have."

If you can't understand the nuance there then you are just a typical sad nerd who thinks that only binary possibilities exist.

I think most people asking for a game where to beat the harder battles you need roles A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H. While classes will fill either 1 or 2 of those rolls. So if you need area of effect damage, you can have a wizard or sorcerer, but a fighter or rogue won't cut it.

But that's still rather simplistic in terms of strategy, and better described as logistics. Like I said a posts ago, I don't think permanent party composition at the beginning of a game really is within the domain of strategy (unless there are complex synergies between classes/characters, or the like). Strategy is not a "closed system" but rather strategy requires one to learn and predict about the mindset and the resources an opponent has. Which is why I said it could be strategically interesting if you could scout out dungeons/encounters before-hand and modify your party composition pre-encounter.

But party creation, as it is in the norm of RPGs, is just not strategically complex because you can't use your strategic skills to plan for 30 hours of a complete variety of gameplay. At best you end up with what you described, a checklist of roles, which is on the simple end of the strategic spectrum. Strategic challenge comes from thoughts that are more complex than "I need a healer" or "I need AOE damage."

I don't mean to deride party creation at the start of a game. But thinking about it, I feel it is more of a simulationist advantage than a gamist.

I don't really disagree with you here, but P:E doesn't have party creation at the beginning of the game. You make one character at the beginning and you add to the party as the game goes along. So you should be able to adjust your party makeup as you gain more information about the game.

 

[Mangoose]

Meaningful positioning isn't really possible in rtwp.

So all my hours in Total War games, none of the unit positioning mattered at all?

It's not a tactical game, genius, no. It's a strategic game with insanely annoying twitch features, known as an RTS.

You're welcome.

Apparently the phrase "Real-Time-With-Pause" has the word "tactical game" in there somewhere.

Also, Total War has a turn based strategic layer. The tactical layer is real time.

 

[tuluse]

It's not a tactical game, genius, no. It's a strategic game with insanely annoying twitch features, known as an RTS.

You're welcome.

It makes me sad people like mangoose will never even know how wrong they are

You're the one who just said positioning is tactics. Total War games have positioning.

 

[Moribund]

It's not a tactical game, genius, no. It's a strategic game with insanely annoying twitch features, known as an RTS.

You're welcome.

It makes me sad people like mangoose will never even know how wrong they are

You're the one who just said positioning is tactics. Total War games have positioning.

Wrong again. Obviously BG has positioning.

I said you can't have meaningful positioning in rtwp. Which you can't because it's too cumbersome to micromanage to that degree with rtwp. To wit in BG backstab is not based on position because that would be incredibly frustrating.

And no total war is not about tactics, you can't go down to that level of fine grain control in an RTS.

 

[Mangoose]

but it certainly went much smoother if you did and some parties worked much better together than others. What he's basically saying is all parties and all classes should be interchangeable.

Sawyer explicitly states in the video that some party compositions will inevitably work better than others. Stop being retarded.

 

[tuluse]

Ok, well Total War has meaningful positioning too.

 

[Moribund]

Not tactically meaningful, that's the point. You obviously don't know what tactics are, nor does mangoose.

but it certainly went much smoother if you did and some parties worked much better together than others. What he's basically saying is all parties and all classes should be interchangeable.

Sawyer explicitly states in the video that some party compositions will inevitably work better than others. Stop being retarded.

Then said he wanted to remove this.

 

[Mangoose]

Positioning is tactics only in games that design for positioning to be the only method of tactical variety.

A tactic is any short term procedure. A specific combination of spells is a tactic, regardless of positioning.

 

[tuluse]

Apparently tactics mean whatever you need it mean so it doesn't apply to things that prove you wrong.

 

[Mangoose]

but it certainly went much smoother if you did and some parties worked much better together than others. What he's basically saying is all parties and all classes should be interchangeable.

Sawyer explicitly states in the video that some party compositions will inevitably work better than others. Stop being retarded.

Then said he wanted to remove this.

No, he did not.

4:20 - "If you're gonna play this race, or that class... You're going to find the game plays differently - I think that is important, I don't think that the game should play the same depending [on what you choose]"

8:15 - "And again you can have different party compositions that work better with each other or worse with each other in different situations and that's cool."

Watch the fucking video and don't be a moron.


---


Honestly I also am thinking (like RK47) he is looking at the GW2 design route, whether intentionally or not. He suggests that there are different ways to build each class. In other words, it's most likely that a class won't be able to perform all the roles at once, but rather that each class can be built to a variety of possible specialties. So that a mage won't be able to wear heavy armor AND heal AND enchant AND throw fireballs, but that he will be able to pick from 1 or 2 of those.

 

[Mangoose]

Apparently tactics mean whatever you need it mean so it doesn't apply to things that prove you wrong.

No, it's just the typical retard stating general arguments without backing them up with details, which then fall apart when someone actually pulls specific data and evidence from specific sources.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Apparently tactics mean whatever you need it mean so it doesn't apply to things that prove you wrong.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/what-are-tactics.78105/

Within most combat engagements, planning is done on two non-exclusive but sufficiently differing ways:

1) Long term planning
2) Short term planning

The requisites of decision making are typically information regarding your own position and supplies and the enemy’s position and supplies. In rare occasions the enemies movements (plans) are also known. Given this information a manager/general needs to decide how to control the production of supplies, how to expend them and how to move units.

Whatever can be expended(used) and produced is a resource.

Long term planning typically involves allotment of resources and unit movement. But its salient feature is that it also involves resource production that takes time to be available. This kind of planning is called as strategy.

Short term planning is typically limited to resource handling and unit movement in a very restricted area and in most cases as a direct response/preemption to the opponent planning. This is called Tactics. Thus tactics can only allow allotment of available resource. Not all resource types may be available during tactical maneuvers. The ones that are or can be made available are called as tactical resources.

Please understand that strategic resources are always being produced and allotted EVEN during tactical maneuvers. But that is by definition considered a part of strategy. Thus tactics always deal withlimited resources.

Tactical depth is essentially a measure of how many viable options in terms of the above mentioned resources can one use at any "point of time". The quotes are purposeful, since the concept of point of time differs according to how a game is implemented. In Real Time games without rounds, it is indeed possible to perform more than one option and sometimes unrestrained number of options depending upon the resources available at the same "point of time". This indirectly serves as a measure of TIME spent as resource. In Round Based games the numbers of options one can utilize are hard coded, only to be modified by "free actions" or special conditions. In Turn Based game a similar restriction based on context exists, although it tends to be much tighter. Tactical depth is NOT the number of options that you can perform per unit of time. It is the numbers of options that are available. It is desirable than many such options be there (how many?), since that quantifiably increments the quality of the challenge. The larger the number of such options and more balanced (?!) the number of winning options amongst these determines how well implemented tactics in a game are.

 

[Moribund]

FPS are tactical games too, I guess.

Unbearably sorry things got dragged into the direction of defining tactics but hopefully no one thinks that positioning matters much in BG series. It's certainly not a game about tactics.

OTOH that doesn't mean that the combat, character creation etc. should be streamlined so that they don't matter. Which is not how sawyer presents his views, but it's the obvious net result.

 

[Harg Harfardarssen]

Gize, according to wikipedia, US Army doctrine defines tactics as being positioning, attack and target selection, while strategy is defined as spamming fireball until you can spam missile storm.

 

[Castanova]

My preferred option would be a mix of the all three above.

In the ideal RPG that you have in your head, sure. In a party-based, combat-focused, IE-esque RPG? Not so much.

 

[Roguey]

If some of youse guys really don't believe that some battles in BG2 were so significantly easier with a mage that not having one in your party was gimping yourself, I don't know what to say. Destroy mage supremacy, more equal power distribution among the classes.

You're no Josh Sawyer then, he did it in two rounds.

yeah. I did it in one. *yawn*

(Yes. Metamagic skills + 3 spell casters + 1 rogue with the scroll NOPE. Just used Khelgar.).

Heh, taking both Sand and Qara. Yeah few things can stand up against triple mage alpha strikes in 3.5e. I don't think battles should be balanced so that you can only beat them if you have almost nothing but spellcasters in your party. That is obviously a terrible goal.

 

[Moribund]

If some of youse guys really don't believe that some battles in BG2 were so significantly easier with a mage that not having one in your party was gimping yourself, I don't know what to say. Destroy mage supremacy, more equal power distribution among the classes.

They only have any challenge at all due to the game cheating heavily in favor of enemy mages. Parties should probably have a mage but you don't particularly need mages for any combat. They are the least useful characters against the toughest enemies, which is where fighting classes shine. But sawyer thinks rogues are just utility characters, and that says it all about him as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Roguey]

They are the least useful characters against the toughest enemies, which is where fighting classes shine.

You're being too vague. What are the toughest?

But sawyer thinks rogues are just utility characters, and that says it all about him as far as I'm concerned.

Rogues in the IE games where straight up shit at combat unless you were using trap cheese. Only reason to have one was for disabling traps and unlocking chests.

 

[Mangoose]

They are the least useful characters against the toughest enemies, which is where fighting classes shine.

You're being too vague. What are the toughest?

Please, don't waste your time asking him to back up his arguments with specifics.

 

[tuluse]

If some of youse guys really don't believe that some battles in BG2 were so significantly easier with a mage that not having one in your party was gimping yourself, I don't know what to say. Destroy mage supremacy, more equal power distribution among the classes.

You're no Josh Sawyer then, he did it in two rounds.

yeah. I did it in one. *yawn*

(Yes. Metamagic skills + 3 spell casters + 1 rogue with the scroll NOPE. Just used Khelgar.).

Heh, taking both Sand and Qara. Yeah few things can stand up against triple mage alpha strikes in 3.5e. I don't think battles should be balanced so that you can only beat them if you have almost nothing but spellcasters in your party. That is obviously a terrible goal.

Or just make all classes mages soul magic users.

 

[Rake]

They are the least useful characters against the toughest enemies, which is where fighting classes shine.

You're being too vague. What are the toughest?

But sawyer thinks rogues are just utility characters, and that says it all about him as far as I'm concerned.

Rogues in the IE games where straight up shit at combat unless you were using trap cheese. Only reason to have one was for disabling traps and unlocking chests.

I'm not in the Sawyer-hating crowd, but this is wrong.There is a little thing called backstab.In BG2 it was death for enemy mages.FFS, a high level assasin could deal damage in the tripple-digits.

 

[Moribund]

Two antimagic scrolls and a thief can speed solo BG II.

And I don't hate sawyer, I just know the things he's saying are the heart of darkness.

 

[Roguey]

I'm not in the Sawyer-hating crowd, but this is wrong.There is a little thing called backstab.In BG2 it was death for enemy mages.FFS, a high level assasin could deal damage in the tripple-digits.

Backstab is a situational ability that requires a backstab-able enemy, not applicable in a lot of cases.

 

[MetalCraze]

I'm totally buyin' what Josh is sellin'.
Sawyer: 1 - codexers moaning about balance taking away their god given right to use cheese/exploits: 0

There is balance in Sawyer's games? Hahaha
That's a good one

I mean like dat awesome balance in New Vegas. Player must drink water? Let's make the desert have it every 50 meters.

D&D has your characters dying? Oh noez! Let's add instarespawn in NWN2 after combat and no ambushes on rest.

D&D combat must be balanced and fun? Fuck that let's overflow the player with dozens of trashmobs in IWD2.


An amateur who haven't learned a thing about good game design in 10 years is talking like he's a pro.

 

[Roguey]

Sawyer didn't have any time/freedom to influence NWN2's combat, try to keep up man. He also agrees that IWD2 was too combat heavy. It was a result of an insanely rushed schedule combined with a desire not to deliver a short game (as they did with Heart of Winter, which they all still felt bad about even after Trials of the Luremaster).