21 replies to this topic

[Feanor]

We all know the situation in BG when enemies reaching near death panic and try to run away (I don't remember such a situation in NWN, unless they are affected by a fear spell, correct me if I'm wrong). It would have been expected for this feature to be implemented further in DA, but :

The function it will not be serving is having opponents running away as an inherent feature. As mentioned earlier, we do have situations where enemies surrender or attempt to flee coming up in the game... provided the encounter has been set up to accomodate it. Beyond that, we just don't need it and morale is not needed as a combat feature because we have other behaviors that we are focusing on. The only thing that's been said that I think applies to this discussion (and one I agree with) is that having enemies regularly fleeing combat doesn't inherently add anything to the game experience. And that comes with a period. Any other comments on what you'd like to see are fine, but remember that it comes with a big caveat that you have no idea how the combat system nor character advancement system functions.

The quotation belongs again to David Gaider. Being a fanathical of reasoning, I don't like that, because it would be normal for your opponent to try to flee if they are loosing badly a fight.
Opinions ?

[Tom]

Doesnt bother me either way, although I must say I didnt like it when opponents broke and ran away (and likewise when my party memebers did it) so Ill say a good move.

[Feanor]

Another assertion (Darcy Pajak this time) :

Come to think of it, we did have times in NWN when the player beat down an creature, or NPC, and then they surrendered. I?m pretty sure we?ll have something similar to that in Dragon Age.

I?ll just make one last comment on player morale:

One thing that people complained a lot about in NWN was the fear effect. When the player became feared, the player could do nothing but watch them run into corners and, more then likely, get killed. Yes it was a rule from D&D, but that didn?t make it any less frustrating.

We?ve learned from that to not take control from the player. And there is no real reason to. As this is a mature game, we going to keep accountability in the hands of player. If the human controlling the player does not want to run away from the 20? foot lizard breathing fire, then so be it. If they then die off, at least they can say they had a choice. We?re not going to let them get away with ?But then the Monster feared me so I ran off.? I?d rather hear them say ?We had to run off and recoup because that monster was kicking our ***.?

Party moral boils down to this: Either run away or die. It?s up to the player to decide when that time comes.

I found such a motivations "If the human controlling the player does not want to run away from the 20? foot lizard breathing fire, then so be it." verry funny. After all, in games we are all Achilles.

[igi]

I always found the fear effect annoying - it either stopped me controlling my characters, or made me run after some numpty who ran away, so I could kill him.

Player controlled Morale is a good idea, IMO - let there be creatures you *are* scared of (as opposed to 'I'll just whpi out my +5 anti-god sword'), so then the player will make the choice to run away, rather than the game saying "you should be running away" and doing it for you.

[Feanor]

I always found the fear effect annoying - it either stopped me controlling my characters, or made me run after some numpty who ran away, so I could kill him.

Player controlled Morale is a good idea, IMO - let there be creatures you *are* scared of (as opposed to 'I'll just whpi out my +5 anti-god sword'), so then the player will make the choice to run away, rather than the game saying "you should be running away" and doing it for you.

It depends. For the instance, in case of horror spells, that was the idea : the characters loses control over himself and acts like a rabid chicken.

[Shed]

I agree with Darcy Pajak that the player should not be subject to Fear as an effect. It is up to the player what he does. However, this argument extends that enemies should have a choice whether to fight or flee. Surrender (in NWN at least) only occured with important plot characters.

Why should normal enemies be denied the choice to fight or flee? Especially how scary the player is, shouldn't they be more likely to run away

[hlidskialf]

    It depends. For the instance, in case of horror spells, that was the idea : the characters loses control over himself and acts like a rabid chicken.

For the record, in BG the rabid chickens would ATTACK! *Reminds everyone of the poultry shop in BG City swarming with rabid chickens.*

[Schatten]

It depends. For the instance, in case of horror spells, that was the idea : the characters loses control over himself and acts like a rabid chicken.

yep, things like this should cause an fear effect, imo.

[Tom]

yeah keep the horror spells etc, but dont have the characters loose morale.

[Archmage Silver]

I always found the fear effect annoying - it either stopped me controlling my characters, or made me run after some numpty who ran away, so I could kill him.

Player controlled Morale is a good idea, IMO - let there be creatures you *are* scared of (as opposed to 'I'll just whpi out my +5 anti-god sword'), so then the player will make the choice to run away, rather than the game saying "you should be running away" and doing it for you.

I agree with bt igi here.

[Shed]

Even magical fear is annoying, but I suppose that is the idea, after all.

I still think that some enemies at least should have morale checks. The PC's party with their swords of goblin slaying should have some effect on goblins, after all .

[Archmage Silver]

True, though it doesn't take that much to scare goblins...

[Shed]

True, though it doesn't take that much to scare goblins...

Exactly, but David Gaider implied that there would be no fear effect for enemies at all :-\.

[Archmage Silver]

Well, I hope that it won't be so, but that's just me.

[Tom]

Well I dont honestly think its going to affect the bigger picture in the end.

Edited by Tom, 22 December 2004 - 01:11 PM.

[Archmage Silver]

No, prob not, but I just like to tinker with the smaller parts of a game.

[Schatten]

Well I dont honestly think its going to affect the bigger picture in the end.

no, there are good rpgs out there without that effect. it just add to tactical decisions.

[Archmage Silver]

It still would be nice if it was added...

[Feanor]

It still would be nice if it was added...

Send a petition to Bioware because it seems they don't intend to do it...

[Archmage Silver]

Yea, I make them a offer they can't refuse.