The New World - Assuming Control

[Silver]

A design topic on The New World forums asks the question about assuming control.

Design Topic #1: Assuming Control

Now that we're slowly implementing things, different design issues start popping up, so we might as well discuss them openly and get some feedback.

Imagine a situation where you're helping a group of armed men (Jonas and his thugs) to attack another group of armed men (Braxton and his Regulators). Let's say that Braxton has less men but they're better armed and trained (aka quality) and Jonas has more men but they're poorly armed and trained thugs (aka quantity). Let's say 8 Regulators vs 12 thugs plus your party, so it's 8 vs 14-15 avg and the Regulators have the advantage of properly fortified headquarters.

If you control only your own party (which could be just you if you're playing solo) and you have to wait until 20 guys take turns shooting at each other, it will get boring very fast. We can reduce the Regulators to 4-5 and Jonas men to 5-6 but it won't solve the problem but make the fight less interesting. Thus it seems that the best solution is to let the player assume control over all allies and have a bit of fun, instead of waiting.

Basically, it's like attacking Antidas and his men in AoD but controlling not only your own characters but the Imperial Guards as well.

Let's take it a step further though:

To make it more manageable I think we should split the attackers in two waves (the first wave will soften up the Regulators and the second wave will go in for the kill) and let you control the first wave (the suicidal thugs destined to die) as well, trying to inflict as much damage as possible before your party and the remaining allies go in.

If you're having trouble visualizing the scenario, there was a somewhat similar situation in AoD in the thieves questline, where you recruit Rusty and some local scum, pump them full of drugs, and send them to soften up the assassins hiding in some house, before you finish them off. In AoD you're told of the outcome of this attack and then you go in. Imagine taking full control of Rusty and his crew and overseeing the attack personally. Basically, having fun instead of being told about other people having fun while you're waiting for your turn.

Other examples of such control would be attacking several targets simultaneously (your party attacks target #1, your allies attack target #2, then combine forces) or splitting your party to lead different groups.

I know that this design is definitely not for everyone, so we want to hear what you have to say before we start designing fights.

More information.

 

[rjshae]

Having staged combat like that can be enjoyable, as long as it doesn't get too tedious. Interesting terrain/environment or unusual tactics can make it more engaging. Perhaps even the occasional opportunity to win the enemy position without a fight through trickery or diplomacy?

 

[Silver]

I think taking a step back from full control would be better.

Give the player the ability to determine the combat strategy of the ally squad aka pincer movement, flanking, snipers on the roof etc. The success of the manueveurs will be dependent on the acquired intel on the situation which the player character can help acquire. Then the success or failure of the engagement will depend on the players actions indirectly which is more proper. All the micro-management when fully controlling allies would slow things down too much imo.

 

[Pongo]

If the game and combat have grabbed my attention, I don't mind watching the AI characters slug it out. It's basically watching the dynamics of the combat field shift before your turn. I can see why others might find it a bit boring though, and if I wasn't enjoying the combat in the first place then it might just get tedious. In games like Fallout it never bothered me though.

Some of the dev's ideas could work, if I'm understanding them correctly. Splitting your party to lead different groups could be an interesting way to handle it, but I'm not sure how it would work in practice. I guess it would mean that when a party character attacked one target all of their linked group would do the same thing. It would definitely speed things up. Overall I'd rather the AI had more of a role though - preferably with a capacity for good/bad decisions and critical success/cock ups etc.

I quite like Silver's idea as a middle ground - give the player control of ally tactics and where appropriate basic positioning rather than full control (but full control of party characters of course!).

 

[TomRon]

I think taking a step back from full control would be better.

Give the player the ability to determine the combat strategy of the ally squad aka pincer movement, flanking, snipers on the roof etc. The success of the manueveurs will be dependent on the acquired intel on the situation which the player character can help acquire. Then the success or failure of the engagement will depend on the players actions indirectly which is more proper. All the micro-management when fully controlling allies would slow things down too much imo.

This was my thought as well. Let me help plan the attack, but I don't want to be in control of all the characters.