Logic_error
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 137
That would be a pity :D.Thanks to this thread I stopped working on Wild West Tactics
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Tactics, what is the point?
- Thread starter J1M
- Start date
Robert Jarzebina
Guest
That would be a pity :D.Thanks to this thread I stopped working on Wild West Tactics
I just completed an alpha combat demo when this thread popped up and I got heavy thinking.
You are right. Most of tactical turn based party based games are so schematic that you could write a simple script that could play a game for you.
So I was thinking why is that and how could I change it.
I am still working on a game
. But new setting, new gameplay and you will control around 30 characters Logic_error
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 137
I just completed an alpha combat demo when this thread popped up and I got heavy thinking.
You are right. Most of tactical turn based party based games are so schematic that you could write a simple script that could play a game for you.
So I was thinking why is that and how could I change it.
I am still working on a game
With 30 characters I would assume you mean like a strategy game? Or is it more like in JA2/XCOM where each character needs to be given (As opposed to 'can be given') a single order? I am almost certain that it is the latter (strategy like) but just wanted to hear it from you before I could contribute anything.
Robert Jarzebina
Guest
Yes. It is detailed tactical game like JA2 or XCOM but with a strong twist.
Kaucukovnik
Cipher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 488
Delterius
Arcane
Well, I'm fishing for ideas for a mod. What other necessities would you have to buy in MUDs and PnP RPGs?
J1M
Arcane
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 14,745
Rope and a liquid that will burn.
Its core design still has many things that makes it superior to most tactical RPG for me : if you compare it to The Banner Saga : Factions for instance, which is purely MP, I find that Blood Bowl has a much wider variety, and I think it is achieved through a few different mechanics :
- Specialization : several team builds work, but they all require very different tactics to use and counter. On the other hand, must tactical games make you end with very low viable build variety
- "Significance" : Every decision, every mistake can have huge consequences
- luck mitigation : Luck is very important in BB, but it can and must be mitigated, that's the essence of the game. By having luck play such a big role, it ensures that you have a lot more to prepare for (you have to prepare for each action succeeding, or failing, which drastically increases the space of possibilities).
- scale : the game board is larger than your typical RPG encounter board, and you have more guys on it. It makes mobility and positioning much more relevant.
That said, Blood Bowl illustrates that a dumb AI can make the best of game designs bland, as all these options do not really matter when you can trivially stomp the AI without really trying (or maybe there are a few interesting single player modes, I have not played against the AI much after all). On the other hand, a very good AI would only make a game of more limited space of possibilities more puzzle like.
I consider every turn of Blood Bowl to be a puzzle you need to solve. And the goal ever changing.
And that's the beauty of it. Learning curve is a bitch, but having fun is apparent when things click together.
You have skills that unlock more options (wrestle, leap, sprint) or lessen the risks (accurate, mighty blow) they're all good variety that messes with the 'outcomes and tactics'
It was solid, good and fun system that I wish more game devs took note of instead of focusing on COMBAT COMBAT AND MORE COMBAT.
And that's the beauty of it. Learning curve is a bitch, but having fun is apparent when things click together.
You have skills that unlock more options (wrestle, leap, sprint) or lessen the risks (accurate, mighty blow) they're all good variety that messes with the 'outcomes and tactics'
It was solid, good and fun system that I wish more game devs took note of instead of focusing on COMBAT COMBAT AND MORE COMBAT.
But it's not only a puzzle, there are elements of strategy and choice too :
Do you play it safe and ball control? Or do you try to score as soon as you get the chance?
Do you go for the risky but more rewarding play, or the low risk low reward one?
Trying to skill up someone you want in BB is much harder than in any combat oriented RPG : instead of just trying to deliver the finishing blow with a given rookie, you have to entrust him with the ball, which usually is risked, so you constantly have to balance short term goals vs long term ones.
That said, even combat only can be much more interesting than what we have in most RPG : Descent and Earth Reborn both have more interesting tactical encounters than any CRPG I have played (except if we count X-COM and Jagged Alliance as CRPG, but that would be pushing things a bit far).
Descent has hidden information (the hero players do not know what the overlord player can throw at them in term of traps, spells or reinforcements, so they need to balance each risk accordingly, and follow mana usage).
Earth Reborn has a weird but functionnal bid system (where you secretely bid for interrupting an action), and fully destructible environment (in a board game!).
The new Descent has a lot of non combat objectives too, despite being mostly a combat game (prevent the vampire lady from reaching the tome of knowledge, the goblins from stealing crops, whatever...).
I'd even say that Space Hulk has better tactical combat, even though it is completely puzzly for the marine player.
But I think all of these systems have something else in common : They do not "break" as soon as you get an unlucky roll (like someone dying), they are designed around the fact that you are supposed to carry on, while most RPG either give a ridiculously small pool of characters to recruit from, or force you to grind for an insane amount of time to replace casualties.
Do you play it safe and ball control? Or do you try to score as soon as you get the chance?
Do you go for the risky but more rewarding play, or the low risk low reward one?
Trying to skill up someone you want in BB is much harder than in any combat oriented RPG : instead of just trying to deliver the finishing blow with a given rookie, you have to entrust him with the ball, which usually is risked, so you constantly have to balance short term goals vs long term ones.
That said, even combat only can be much more interesting than what we have in most RPG : Descent and Earth Reborn both have more interesting tactical encounters than any CRPG I have played (except if we count X-COM and Jagged Alliance as CRPG, but that would be pushing things a bit far).
Descent has hidden information (the hero players do not know what the overlord player can throw at them in term of traps, spells or reinforcements, so they need to balance each risk accordingly, and follow mana usage).
Earth Reborn has a weird but functionnal bid system (where you secretely bid for interrupting an action), and fully destructible environment (in a board game!).
The new Descent has a lot of non combat objectives too, despite being mostly a combat game (prevent the vampire lady from reaching the tome of knowledge, the goblins from stealing crops, whatever...).
I'd even say that Space Hulk has better tactical combat, even though it is completely puzzly for the marine player.
But I think all of these systems have something else in common : They do not "break" as soon as you get an unlucky roll (like someone dying), they are designed around the fact that you are supposed to carry on, while most RPG either give a ridiculously small pool of characters to recruit from, or force you to grind for an insane amount of time to replace casualties.
Logic_error
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2013
- Messages
- 137
You are right about this, once you have taken the few strategic choices in the match, Blood Bowl turns into a puzzle. What is lacking to make it non puzzly is imperfect information. Although you can brute force with game theory to turn an imperfect information problem into a puzzle, (or save/reload in SP).
J1M
Arcane
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 14,745
I know that FFXII and Dragon Age offer some scripting of party members, but those are primarily there because the player needs to babysit multiple characters in real-time combat.
Is there an example of a game with turn-based combat that allows party member actions to be scripted?
Is there an example of a game with turn-based combat that allows party member actions to be scripted?
Anomalous Underdog
Dreamlords Digital
These are the kinds of discussions that I like, so since this thread is kinda old, I will do a necro.
Here's my wall of text reply. Robert, think of this also as my two-cents for the game you're making, and for anyone else who's also making a game:
The thing to understand here is that the act of "finding out the one or two overpowering methods to win the game", that's a problem that any game can have, tactics-genre or not. You could say it's the bane of any game designer, unless he's designing the game to be like that on-purpose.
It reminds me of this game, Massive Assault, which is dressed up as a tactical war game, but the more you play it, you realize there's always only one best way to win each mission, and it pretty much devolves to a puzzle game. It was actually fun for a while, so I suppose some people actually don't mind that. I take it the mentioned Battle Isle is like that.
It's a natural inclination for us humans (in general) to, once we find a game that interests us, to always optimize our strategies. And once we finally exhaust all avenues, the game becomes boring, and we'd prefer to move on to the next interesting game. Everyone goes through this. This is what we experienced when we played tic-tac-toe as a kid.
What games will want to aim for is more breadth: giving the player numerous methods to win the game that are equally effective, it's just that designing a game like that is hard to pull off. In a word, variety.
----
There's also the issue of how much would you want the character building part (i.e. planning out of battle) to be more of an influence in winning battles as opposed to being clever on the battlefield and using actual tactics to win the game (i.e. planning in a battle).
So on one end, you'd have a "tactical" game where leveling-up and grinding is paramount (Disgaea comes to mind).
And on the other *extreme* end, you'd have a game where it was designed so that level 1 characters can win a fight against level 80 characters as long as the player was very good with tactics. Of course the point there is, why not just get rid of levels altogether? The problem there is that it sucks in that it doesn't feel like your character is "growing" after every victory.
For most of us, I don't think we'd really want a game that goes on either of those extreme ends, so you'd design the game where character management (leveling up, stat allocations, squad composition) is as important as being clever on the battlefield (proper positioning, using terrain to advantage, etc.).
----
Galrdred brings up a good point: fog of war will help stop battles turning into puzzle solving affairs. Risk management (e.g. "should I explore this part or not?"), "mind games" with your opponent, use of decoys, etc. are important parts and would make any tactics game more interesting.
----
Also an important point is whether you want your game to rely on "hard counters" (borrowing the term from Starcraft). Meaning to say e.g. fire-type damage always trumps water-type unit. Aka rock-paper-scissors system. Heavy use of that will obviously make the game a puzzle-solving experience. However, there are times when those things simply make sense (cavalry is weak against spearmen), so I wouldn't throw out the idea completely.
----
I think one aspect games can improve on is making terrain an important feature (advantage of higher ground, using tall grass for concealment, allowing units to create temporary bridges), and of course, interestingly designed maps.
Also, giving unit positioning and formations more emphasis.
Those things (terrain, positioning) are features that aren't inherently a "have only one way to be effective" type of system like a rock-paper-scissors system would be.
Because terrain is (generally) accessible to all units, and all units can be moved and positioned regardless of their level or class. This means a lot of permutations and combinations of things to try out in the battlefield. And not too much reliant on the character's level or class. This is, what we were aiming for in the first place: breadth, variety of options.
The restrictions would be more on the actual geometry, so properly designed maps are a must in these things.
But ultimately you still need to be mindful that your design doesn't devolve into a puzzle-solving experience.
----
Galdred's right, the good tactical games are the ones that do not "break" as soon as you get an unlucky roll. It's more of your skill as a tactician (and of your opponent's) that decides victory or defeat. I mean, the whole point is that it's a tactics game, right?
Here's my wall of text reply. Robert, think of this also as my two-cents for the game you're making, and for anyone else who's also making a game:
The thing to understand here is that the act of "finding out the one or two overpowering methods to win the game", that's a problem that any game can have, tactics-genre or not. You could say it's the bane of any game designer, unless he's designing the game to be like that on-purpose.
It reminds me of this game, Massive Assault, which is dressed up as a tactical war game, but the more you play it, you realize there's always only one best way to win each mission, and it pretty much devolves to a puzzle game. It was actually fun for a while, so I suppose some people actually don't mind that. I take it the mentioned Battle Isle is like that.
It's a natural inclination for us humans (in general) to, once we find a game that interests us, to always optimize our strategies. And once we finally exhaust all avenues, the game becomes boring, and we'd prefer to move on to the next interesting game. Everyone goes through this. This is what we experienced when we played tic-tac-toe as a kid.
What games will want to aim for is more breadth: giving the player numerous methods to win the game that are equally effective, it's just that designing a game like that is hard to pull off. In a word, variety.
----
There's also the issue of how much would you want the character building part (i.e. planning out of battle) to be more of an influence in winning battles as opposed to being clever on the battlefield and using actual tactics to win the game (i.e. planning in a battle).
So on one end, you'd have a "tactical" game where leveling-up and grinding is paramount (Disgaea comes to mind).
And on the other *extreme* end, you'd have a game where it was designed so that level 1 characters can win a fight against level 80 characters as long as the player was very good with tactics. Of course the point there is, why not just get rid of levels altogether? The problem there is that it sucks in that it doesn't feel like your character is "growing" after every victory.
For most of us, I don't think we'd really want a game that goes on either of those extreme ends, so you'd design the game where character management (leveling up, stat allocations, squad composition) is as important as being clever on the battlefield (proper positioning, using terrain to advantage, etc.).
----
Galrdred brings up a good point: fog of war will help stop battles turning into puzzle solving affairs. Risk management (e.g. "should I explore this part or not?"), "mind games" with your opponent, use of decoys, etc. are important parts and would make any tactics game more interesting.
----
Also an important point is whether you want your game to rely on "hard counters" (borrowing the term from Starcraft). Meaning to say e.g. fire-type damage always trumps water-type unit. Aka rock-paper-scissors system. Heavy use of that will obviously make the game a puzzle-solving experience. However, there are times when those things simply make sense (cavalry is weak against spearmen), so I wouldn't throw out the idea completely.
----
I think one aspect games can improve on is making terrain an important feature (advantage of higher ground, using tall grass for concealment, allowing units to create temporary bridges), and of course, interestingly designed maps.
Also, giving unit positioning and formations more emphasis.
Those things (terrain, positioning) are features that aren't inherently a "have only one way to be effective" type of system like a rock-paper-scissors system would be.
Because terrain is (generally) accessible to all units, and all units can be moved and positioned regardless of their level or class. This means a lot of permutations and combinations of things to try out in the battlefield. And not too much reliant on the character's level or class. This is, what we were aiming for in the first place: breadth, variety of options.
The restrictions would be more on the actual geometry, so properly designed maps are a must in these things.
But ultimately you still need to be mindful that your design doesn't devolve into a puzzle-solving experience.
----
Galdred's right, the good tactical games are the ones that do not "break" as soon as you get an unlucky roll. It's more of your skill as a tactician (and of your opponent's) that decides victory or defeat. I mean, the whole point is that it's a tactics game, right?
Anomalous Underdog
Dreamlords Digital
You wouldn't need to remove dice rolls altogether, but I'd have a tactics game where tactics have equal emphasis with character building (i.e. what chiefly influences the dice rolls).
Critical hit and misses is something fun that equals reality to some degree but it's a mechanic that can break a game just like any type of rolling dices can. Imagine two guys with swords fighting each other, can they really make 20 moves each missing each other?
Dice roll is something that I want out of my game as much as possible (a 4X space game) because it can turn the game into a game of chance.
Players can abuse it by reloading the game until the dice is favorable to them.
It can make battles longer just because of misses.
You no longer can guess the outcome of a battle based on the skill of your team and have to rely on luck.
You can however reduce the influence of dices making small random variations in the damage instead of completely deciding how much damage you caused. In any case it is also subject to taste, I find that missing or hoping the enemy misses me completely breaks the immersion of the game for me.
Also most games do not deal with losses very well, as your team members die you get a game over instead of being able to recruit more.
Or having a decent member dying means you can never have someone else replace him because you have to recruit earlier and train them closely the entire game.
In my case it's a space game but spaceships are huge and costs a lot of money, you will probably have less than ten the entire game.
You have to plan well how to use them instead of throwing thousands of ships at the enemy every ten turns until he dies.
The game focus is no longer on luck or chance, but on careful planning your next move.
Luck and chance is then moved to other areas of the game like random events, espionage and so on.
Dice roll is something that I want out of my game as much as possible (a 4X space game) because it can turn the game into a game of chance.
Players can abuse it by reloading the game until the dice is favorable to them.
It can make battles longer just because of misses.
You no longer can guess the outcome of a battle based on the skill of your team and have to rely on luck.
You can however reduce the influence of dices making small random variations in the damage instead of completely deciding how much damage you caused. In any case it is also subject to taste, I find that missing or hoping the enemy misses me completely breaks the immersion of the game for me.
Also most games do not deal with losses very well, as your team members die you get a game over instead of being able to recruit more.
Or having a decent member dying means you can never have someone else replace him because you have to recruit earlier and train them closely the entire game.
In my case it's a space game but spaceships are huge and costs a lot of money, you will probably have less than ten the entire game.
You have to plan well how to use them instead of throwing thousands of ships at the enemy every ten turns until he dies.
The game focus is no longer on luck or chance, but on careful planning your next move.
Luck and chance is then moved to other areas of the game like random events, espionage and so on.
About saving, it goes down to basic design.
-Is save allowed?
-When you load a save you have a new seed or use the old seed you were using before?
(Using old seeds means you can reload but the result will be the same, unless you change the sequence of actions, but in this case this could also be exploited)
-Does saves blend with the game or do they break the immersion?
(In Eador Genesis it blends with the game, and it is a limited type of save as you can go back only one turn because your power is about controlling time, you can also restart the whole map)
-Should the game be played using saves or avoiding saves?
(In rogue like survival games you usually try to avoid players from reloading)
So it goes down on how you want the player to proceed in the game as opposed of having feature X or feature Y.
I like ironman mode, even more when they give XP bonus for example, because it means less grinding at a price.
Ironman mode just for the sake of ironman mode usually have some score associated with it which means some shit leaderboard thing and my penis is bigger than yours situation.
So my decisions are:
Save is allowed.
You have a new seed. (Because I'm already avoiding situations where seeds can be exploited in combat.)
Save breaks the immersion. (It does not fit the story, it's a convenience feature instead of a clever/dumb part of the story)
Saves should be avoided but I won't hide the savegame files from the player nor get rid of the save/load buttons.
With that in mind now I can select and avoid features that goes with the decisions I've made.
Instead of selecting features and then trying to fit a type of save into the game.
-Is save allowed?
-When you load a save you have a new seed or use the old seed you were using before?
(Using old seeds means you can reload but the result will be the same, unless you change the sequence of actions, but in this case this could also be exploited)
-Does saves blend with the game or do they break the immersion?
(In Eador Genesis it blends with the game, and it is a limited type of save as you can go back only one turn because your power is about controlling time, you can also restart the whole map)
-Should the game be played using saves or avoiding saves?
(In rogue like survival games you usually try to avoid players from reloading)
So it goes down on how you want the player to proceed in the game as opposed of having feature X or feature Y.
I like ironman mode, even more when they give XP bonus for example, because it means less grinding at a price.
Ironman mode just for the sake of ironman mode usually have some score associated with it which means some shit leaderboard thing and my penis is bigger than yours situation.
So my decisions are:
Save is allowed.
You have a new seed. (Because I'm already avoiding situations where seeds can be exploited in combat.)
Save breaks the immersion. (It does not fit the story, it's a convenience feature instead of a clever/dumb part of the story)
Saves should be avoided but I won't hide the savegame files from the player nor get rid of the save/load buttons.
With that in mind now I can select and avoid features that goes with the decisions I've made.
Instead of selecting features and then trying to fit a type of save into the game.
Anomalous Underdog
Dreamlords Digital
Also, just remembered: another good addition is bottlenecks where you can funnel enemies into, and AI that also recognizes such things. Then you can have things that can circumvent them perhaps (units that can leap/climb through walls, make walls destructible, burrowing, etc.)
But having a streak of misses, technically plausible in real life. But certainly outrageous.
But having a streak of misses, technically plausible in real life. But certainly outrageous.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.