StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For some reason, this game looks really really cool.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2014/01/23/mi ... own-ratbag

Indeed it does. A few of my friends are really excited by it. I just hope it lives up to its hype.

Man, Monolith? A Nemesis system combined with a death system that is more than "reload checkpoint" or the Bioshock no consequences route? Color me modestly optimistic even though I'm kind of getting tired of people beating Tolkien to death even when it's actually LOTR.

A man can dream for Co-op, but that would likely interfere with Storytelling! so I'm no so optimistic.

Well it is based of the assassins creed engine so co-op is pretty much out. There will be multiplayer of some description though.

It looks impressive, but a little bit too ambitious. I'd be surprised if they can pull off everything they're claiming.

Yeah, this Nemesis thing sounds deeply awesome - if it works as advertised. Admittedly, I'm no computer programmer, but I suspect actually random voiced characters will be tricky.

InsaneTD wrote:Well it is based of the assassins creed engine so co-op is pretty much out. There will be multiplayer of some description though.

Wiki pegs it using the Lithtech engine (which makes sense considering Monolith), but it could be wrong. However, if Trion can turn the Gamebryo engine into Rift, then I see no reason Monoloth couldn't make either engine work for co-op. This is kind of a killer for me in current RPGs. 20 years ago, you could get by having SP RPGs due to technology in the Internet/LAN department as well as the noticable lack of hardware the average person could afford. But we're at a day and age where even Mass Effect gets a tacked on MP component sans RPG elements outside "leveling up," yet co-op is still consistently out of reach for many RPGs outside of MMOs. And it might be the problem for developers is: higher ups hear "co-op RPG" and think they'll immediately need to compete with WoW and so the idea gets axed.

From the perspective of a guy who spent years PnP RPGing, it seems incredibly stupid to me that co-op is more represented in fucking TPS/FPS than in RPGs. Especially one like LOTR where the whole point of the books is about a group of heroes, rather than just one badass space marine.

All that said, it's going to be development limitations and publisher oversite that makes a game perfect for co-op lack co-op. Not engine limitations.

Anybody have any thoughts on how they're going to accomplish the infinite unique enemies thing? I'm certainly not a programmer, but that seems very tricky to pull off.

Esquire wrote:Anybody have any thoughts on how they're going to accomplish the infinite unique enemies thing? I'm certainly not a programmer, but that seems very tricky to pull off.

As a programmer I can thing of several possibilities. One is that they could create a number of generic parts (ork face, ork body, goblin limbs, weapons etc.) and than mix and match these elements together randomly. Which should given a wide enough array for each category and a wide enough amount of categories create the illusion of infinite unique figures. Alternatively, they could create some sort of algorithm to procedurally generate each of these elements on the fly, but I imagine that would be far too processor intensive.

I'm guessing they're gonna go for the "large pool of possible parts" option as it's simple and you'd have to go that route for the voice clips anyway as there's no way you generate those dynamically and make them sound natural.

I've already given up on a good choice-consequence or plan-execution game, because it won't sell. Fatty nerds want to feel empowered and cool, which is one of the reasons AC combat is "press left mouse to win".

I only hope that the combat mechanics will be decent and it will present at least a modicum of challenge. It "looks" a little more complicated and interesting than AC, but not by much.

I am not sure what AC is. But you only need look so far as say Mount and Blade for rather decent combat mechanics.

Assassin's Creed series. I rather enjoy it on console, though I've never played it on PC. Looks like similar gameplay between this and AC.

Purple wrote:I am not sure what AC is. But you only need look so far as say Mount and Blade for rather decent combat mechanics.

Oh boy, this is one of the most broken games ever. It was broken and boring back in 2008, and I doubt they fixed anything since Warband came out.

Tolya wrote:

Purple wrote:I am not sure what AC is. But you only need look so far as say Mount and Blade for rather decent combat mechanics.

Oh boy, this is one of the most broken games ever. It was broken and boring back in 2008, and I doubt they fixed anything since Warband came out.

I have only ever plaid warband but I can't really see anything that is broken in terms of the actual combat mechanics.
Of course, I am not talking about the fact that you can get a bunch of mounted knights and just steamroll everything. But that's another story that does not factor in here.

InsaneTD wrote:Assassin's Creed series. I rather enjoy it on console, though I've never played it on PC. Looks like similar gameplay between this and AC.

The nature of the controls make it more frustrating on the PC, but otherwise it's basically the same as console. Plug in a controller and the problems go away though.

Purple wrote:

Tolya wrote:

Purple wrote:I am not sure what AC is. But you only need look so far as say Mount and Blade for rather decent combat mechanics.

Oh boy, this is one of the most broken games ever. It was broken and boring back in 2008, and I doubt they fixed anything since Warband came out.

I have only ever plaid warband but I can't really see anything that is broken in terms of the actual combat mechanics.
Of course, I am not talking about the fact that you can get a bunch of mounted knights and just steamroll everything. But that's another story that does not factor in here.

And the fact that with mid-level gear and a fast horse you can kill an entire party of enemies pretty much only by yourself does not count as "broken combat mechanics" to you? Lol I remember I once slaughtered 70+ enemies on my own. Took a while, like 20 minutes of riding in circles.

MB was quite interesting when you are one guy with a wooden sword, but when you actually start playing it a bit and level up and buy decent gear, combat gets worse than in Skyrim.

Tolya wrote:And the fact that with mid-level gear and a fast horse you can kill an entire party of enemies pretty much only by yourself does not count as "broken combat mechanics" to you?

Of course not. That's not combat mechanics but character and equipment balancing. Which while related is a different beast altogether.

Combat mechanics, in the sense I was talking about are a subset of the total combat system that refers to purely the actual mechanical part of how combat actions are handled. As in, what you would call a core rule set for combat. This means among other things the list of various actions available to the player, the mechanics of calculating hits and damage, existence or nonexistence of things such as region specific hit zones (body part damage), critical hits and blocking and how these are handled etc. And in this regard M&B holds up quite well indeed.

The issue is that as with any system its only as good the weakest of the modules attached to it are. And in this respect M&B is mostly let down by equipment design and character skills which after a certain point can get ridiculous.

Esquire wrote:Anybody have any thoughts on how they're going to accomplish the infinite unique enemies thing? I'm certainly not a programmer, but that seems very tricky to pull off.

The Skyrim creation kit has support for random and semi-random NPCs with alternative textures/models available and the ability to script them (or just use the GUI) to say when to use X. It however, last I checked, did not work right as Beth seemed to have scrapped the idea and instead hardcoded NPCs like Thug_1, Thug_02, Bandit_01, etc. And adding in story specific random dialog isn't all that hard. You just need a check system of "has player done X" then string together a bunch of shit like they did with the ending of Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Also, get it voiced by Ron Perlman because it's just better that way.

We're talking about Monolith, the guys who brought us laughably stupidly AI that, through intelligent map design, fooled everyone into thinking it was actually intelligent. FEAR's AI is still held up as some of the best in the industry.

You don't have to make a truly random or plot specific inury/nemesis system. You just have to cover enough bases to fool the player into thinking his specific choices are impacting it. And if anyone could pull that off, it would be Monolith.

That makes me a lot less cautiously optimistic about this.

Combat mechanics, in the sense I was talking about are a subset of the total combat system that refers to purely the actual mechanical part of how combat actions are handled. As in, what you would call a core rule set for combat. This means among other things the list of various actions available to the player, the mechanics of calculating hits and damage, existence or nonexistence of things such as region specific hit zones (body part damage), critical hits and blocking and how these are handled etc. And in this regard M&B holds up quite well indeed.

Well, call it whatever you want, it pertains to combat.

And even if we discuss it your way, any game where a single archer can stop a castle invasion by Legolas style headshots, because hit zones are awfully broken, has broken combat.

Nope, I think combat in M&B is pretty much abysmal. It is alright in 1v1 with wooden swords, but it gets worse when combatants and gear level are increased.

Is the single or multiplayer? Because if it's single, you can turn the damage enemies take down, the damage you take up, and use less-than-the-absolute-best gear and skill builds if you want a more lethal experience.

Also, shouldn't good gear and tactics be a major force multiplier? As far as I'm aware, mounted lancers really did beat almost arbitrary numbers of peasants anytime they had enough flat ground to charge.

And what's this Legolas-style headshot problem you speak of? It's always been my experience that shields are pretty good at stopping arrows in the game.

Once you get your bow skill up high enough, and you personally have the requisite skill, getting arrows into people's faces over their raised shields is not only possible but common.

The combat in mount and blade is terrific and satisfying, and Tolya is welcome to his opinion (even though I think it's wrong).

**watches mordor video**

Wow, if that's not literally running on an assassin's creed engine, I will eat my sock.

Tolya wrote:And even if we discuss it your way, any game where a single archer can stop a castle invasion by Legolas style headshots, because hit zones are awfully broken, has broken combat.

I am not sure we have been playing the same game than. I have yet to see any brokenness in terms of hit zones beyond what Joviwan said.

Nope, I think combat in M&B is pretty much abysmal. It is alright in 1v1 with wooden swords, but it gets worse when combatants and gear level are increased.

And again, you are confusing the mechanical side and the tacked on character development side. Yes, there is some terrible imbalance in the system due to level creep. But that's not a fault of the combat system but the tacked on character development and item options. Use wooden swords forever and a non leveling system (or just a system where skills have different effects) and you get quite a different story.

What you are basically doing is the equivalent of claiming D&D is broken and proving it by handing a LVL1 character a +25 Voporal Blade of Everything Slaying. Of course this breaks the game. But it's the item designers fault and not that of the game designer.

Tolya wrote:
And the fact that with mid-level gear and a fast horse you can kill an entire party of enemies pretty much only by yourself does not count as "broken combat mechanics" to you? Lol I remember I once slaughtered 70+ enemies on my own. Took a while, like 20 minutes of riding in circles.

MB was quite interesting when you are one guy with a wooden sword, but when you actually start playing it a bit and level up and buy decent gear, combat gets worse than in Skyrim.

Ah...... no. Warband actually resolved that 'charge' mechanic, you can't do that anymore and in terms of tournaments, its actually easy to 'lose'. That is, if you're not playing at the pansy default 20% damage setting.


I played M&B and Warband and the combat mechanics are now dramatically changed. There ARE still some broken game tactics( make cavalry worthless at edge of map!) but the introduction of morale makes it possible for an infantry archer combination to win against the AI. Cavalry is still heavily overpowered in that game, although if you're outnumbered enough, its no longer game-breaking compared to M&B.


The REAL issue is with your archery. And the fact that you NEED to use said exploit because its fucking impossible to take over a castle otherwise. I brought an entire army of nobles out to siege a town that requires the siege engine and it was fucking IMPOSSIBLE to break through it using meelee tactics. Nevermind the fact that I brought out like thousands of soldiers against 300,the nearly 2k army I brought to battle melted away after the first failed siege.

Crossbows in the hand of the enemy AI is simply too overwhelming an advantage for you not to use your own Legolas exploits against them. This is also the same in defence mode. In M&B, the proper way to defend the castle was to actually pull away from the walls and go straight to the keep, where your reinforcements would allow you to hold the courtyard even if dramatically outnumbered. It doesn't work that well in Warband anymore although god knows why. Holding the walls against the initial charge is now a better tactic, although if you lost the wall, the keep is the best place for a slow defence.