Game pet peeves

User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Supahewok » Tue Jun 06, 2017 11:28 pm

Trix2000 wrote:Heck, Age of Empires 2 had formation movement for military units, and it's pretty old (1999).


Since I just finished it, I should say the AoE 3 also had automatic formation movement. Which is nifty to look at, but it doesn't actually make any real difference in combat.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Ringwraith » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:43 am

Trix2000 wrote:Though unfortunately when I tried to go back, it really hasn't aged well on certain factors (particularly the MINIMAP). Come to think of it, it did have formation movement too... though it was kinda weird with certain units that had massive hitboxes (aka SHIPS again).

The minimap I'm pretty sure never worked.
It has a resolution of about 16 pixels.
User avatar
Trix2000
Location: California

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Trix2000 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:57 am

Ringwraith wrote:The minimap I'm pretty sure never worked.
It has a resolution of about 16 pixels.

Yes, but back then it wasn't so comparatively bad. :P
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Ringwraith » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:19 am

It was still unreadable!
Age of Empires' was miles better, you could actually use it to read things.
User avatar
Retsam

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Retsam » Wed Jun 07, 2017 2:07 am

Yeah, Empire Earth felt like Age of Empires II with twice the ideas but half the polish.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby 4th Dimension » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:32 am

Some games have formations, but they treat them as something units will form into once they arrive at the destination, and not something that they will fight in.

Now that I think about it, formations are also tricky since handling of how encountered enemy units (attack move) are fought is more problematic. If you are using single units or a mass of units out of formation the algorithm is simple, move until an enemy unit gets inside the attack range. Then stop and start firing until either the unit dies, or moves out of range.
But what do you do with formations of units. If it's the usual thing where the ranges are ridiculously short, what should happen once one unit in formation engages the enemy. Should the entire formation stop? Etc.

Also if you are allowing formation, than you should give me the ability to select the final orientation ofthe formation hen they arrive at the destination.
User avatar
Humanoid

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Humanoid » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:35 am

One way to solve the formation issue during combat might be to apply heavy aim penalties at maximum range. It can be as simple as giving each unit two ranges, a maximum theoretical range, and a maximum effective range. Both sides are thus incentivised to move fully within effective range of each other, keeping formation while doing so, rather than dancing around at the edges where one pixel is the difference between being fully effective and not being able to fire at all.
User avatar
Charnel Mouse
Location: England, UK
Contact:

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Charnel Mouse » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:29 pm

Supahewok wrote:
Trix2000 wrote:Heck, Age of Empires 2 had formation movement for military units, and it's pretty old (1999).


Since I just finished it, I should say the AoE 3 also had automatic formation movement. Which is nifty to look at, but it doesn't actually make any real difference in combat.

I remember Celtic Kings giving bonuses for formations. Good luck working out what half of them were, though, and that game did not handle groups well.
Cossacks gave notable bonuses for infantry formations, too, if your nation could get them. Defensive squares, march columns, etc.
User avatar
John

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby John » Sun Jun 18, 2017 6:21 pm

My new gaming pet peeve is patches that change the rules on you mid-game. Crusader Kings II, I'm looking at you here. Once upon a time, before the release of the Monks & Mystics expansion I started a game as the Duke of Apulia in 1066 and then slowly and painfully clawed my way to Emperor of Italia. I recently resumed the game except now I find that a disturbing number of my vassals are now Waldensians, most of them are suspected to belong to secret societies, and that none of them are willing to convert to Catholicism no matter how much they like me. Say what? I'd start revoking titles if I didn't think it would start a civil war that I couldn't win. Oh, and the Shia want Egypt back. And some jerk in the HRE is pressing a claim for Reggio in Calabria, of all places. There are only about 30 years left to the end of the game but I don't need this aggravation. I'm out.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:01 pm

Ah yes,the good old "for the sake of balance" updates for a single player game.If I wanted balance in my single player game,a game I play by myself,I wouldnt abuse every bug,feature and exploit at my disposal,thank you very much.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Ringwraith » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:10 pm

You can definitely have glaring balance problems with a single player game that probably need changing, so I don't think that's a good blanket statement.
User avatar
Retsam

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Retsam » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:42 pm

John wrote:My new gaming pet peeve is patches that change the rules on you mid-game. Crusader Kings II, I'm looking at you here. Once upon a time, before the release of the Monks & Mystics expansion I started a game as the Duke of Apulia in 1066 and then slowly and painfully clawed my way to Emperor of Italia. I recently resumed the game except now I find that a disturbing number of my vassals are now Waldensians, most of them are suspected to belong to secret societies, and that none of them are willing to convert to Catholicism no matter how much they like me. Say what? I'd start revoking titles if I didn't think it would start a civil war that I couldn't win. Oh, and the Shia want Egypt back. And some jerk in the HRE is pressing a claim for Reggio in Calabria, of all places. There are only about 30 years left to the end of the game but I don't need this aggravation. I'm out.


I suspect you should be able to fix this by pinning your game version from Steam (or GOG). Under "Properties > Betas" (in Steam) you can pick a specific version of the game to install, instead of the latest. That'll stop the rules from changing on you, mid-game
Steve C

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Steve C » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:19 pm

Retsam wrote:I suspect you should be able to fix this by pinning your game version from Steam (or GOG). Under "Properties > Betas" (in Steam) you can pick a specific version of the game to install, instead of the latest. That'll stop the rules from changing on you, mid-game
Whaaa? You sure about that?

John's pet peeve is more than a pet peeve of mine. I consider it straight up unacceptable. IE I don't accept it. I prevent all patches mid game. It's fine for multiplayer games where a match/game/w/e can be completed in a single session. A game like Crusader Kings I want the same rules at the start as the end. I don't want it updated at all until it's done. I'm perfectly happy to give up multiplayer to make sure there are no updates.

It's one of the major reasons why I hate Steam. Retsam if you know of a way to force Steam to keep to a particular game version and ignore updates then I really would like to be shown how (including screenshots). My current solution is to turn off my LAN anytime I'm forced to cripple myself with Steam. I'd appreciate a better way. No need for GoG. GoG doesn't have this problem at all. I like GoG.
User avatar
John

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby John » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:30 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Ah yes,the good old "for the sake of balance" updates for a single player game.If I wanted balance in my single player game,a game I play by myself,I wouldnt abuse every bug,feature and exploit at my disposal,thank you very much.

This was less a balance patch and more a new content patch. And I generally think that the new content is fine. I've got another game going where secret societies have been around since the very beginning and it's not really a big deal and it doesn't bother me at all. But I don't like the way that the new content got worked in to my old save one little bit.

As a general rule, I've been pretty happy with CK2 patches, so I'm reluctant to disable updates. I mean I really, really like the UI aspects of the patch. I gather that most of them are things CK2 players have been asking for for years. But you can disable bits of content that you don't like when you start a new game of CK2, so I don't see why new content isn't automatically disabled for old save files.
User avatar
Retsam

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Retsam » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:29 pm

Steve C wrote:
Retsam wrote:I suspect you should be able to fix this by pinning your game version from Steam (or GOG). Under "Properties > Betas" (in Steam) you can pick a specific version of the game to install, instead of the latest. That'll stop the rules from changing on you, mid-game
Whaaa? You sure about that?

John's pet peeve is more than a pet peeve of mine. I consider it straight up unacceptable. IE I don't accept it. I prevent all patches mid game. It's fine for multiplayer games where a match/game/w/e can be completed in a single session. A game like Crusader Kings I want the same rules at the start as the end. I don't want it updated at all until it's done. I'm perfectly happy to give up multiplayer to make sure there are no updates.

It's one of the major reasons why I hate Steam. Retsam if you know of a way to force Steam to keep to a particular game version and ignore updates then I really would like to be shown how (including screenshots). My current solution is to turn off my LAN anytime I'm forced to cripple myself with Steam. I'd appreciate a better way. No need for GoG. GoG doesn't have this problem at all. I like GoG.


Sure, here are some screenshots. Unfortunately, I've poked at some other games, and it seems it's up to the developers to add this. I know CK2 and Factorio both support this, but I don't think it's something that is automatically available for all games, like it is for GOG.
Steve C

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Steve C » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:16 am

Ok. Thank you for showing me. I'll have to check this over in the future. (I'm not sure why old versions are called Betas but w/e.)
User avatar
Humanoid

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Humanoid » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:32 am

It's because they're using the Steam beta program as a workaround/loophole/hack to distribute old files. I assume Steam doesn't want to encourage devs to leave old versions on their servers normally, so this is the solution we're stuck with (and which I'm thankful for).
User avatar
John

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby John » Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:20 pm

Retsam wrote:Sure, here are some screenshots. Unfortunately, I've poked at some other games, and it seems it's up to the developers to add this. I know CK2 and Factorio both support this, but I don't think it's something that is automatically available for all games, like it is for GOG.

I'm pretty sure you need to have GOG's Galaxy client in order to use this feature. As far as I can tell, the installer you download from the website is always for the most recent version of the game. You can also download specific patches from the website, but I think those patches are for use with older versions of the game. Of course, if you don't have the Galaxy client then GOG can't push patches on to your machine and you can't get ambushed by unexpected version changes in the first place.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Supahewok » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:36 pm

Except Galaxy has a very easy to see and simple checkbox for "automatically download and install updates." It might not even be checked by default.
Steve C

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Steve C » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:07 pm

A major pet peeve is where I'm forced to make permanent decisions based on basically no information.

For example a complex leveling tree full of prerequisites. Strength, Dexterity, Stamina, Willpower etc are fine when I know exactly what they are going to do. When I don't, it is just an aggravating decision to put off until later. I don't know what I want yet. I don't have enough information to make that choice. It's fine when the choice can easily be undone. It's also fine if I have enough information to make an informed choice. Before then just... no.

There's no excuse for this. It's so easy to do it right. Give enough info to players to make decisions before they need to make those decisions. It's not that hard. There are many ways. Temporary points. Being able to undo choices easily. Equipment that does the same as more permanent skills so a player can test it out. Make the bottom of the skill tree be a trunk with no choices before allowing the player to branch out. There's a long list of solutions before forcing a character down a one way door.
User avatar
SpammyV
Contact:

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby SpammyV » Mon Jun 19, 2017 10:25 pm

"That's not my problem." Quote from A Game Developer on the subject of players not having a Master's Degree in the homebrewed RPG system the game uses.
Ninety-Three

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Ninety-Three » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:55 pm

On a related note, I hate when learning the homebrewed RPG system the game uses isn't enough, you also have to be psychic. In order to be effective in games like NWN or Fire Emblem, you have to guess, based on no information, what the composition of future enemy groups will be. Will there be lots of low-level enemies or a few high-level ones? Will I face lots of undead who are vulnerable to clerics? Will defense tanks be useful, or will the AI always target the character with the lowest defense?

I have spent literally hours reading a game's wiki in order to build a character, only for my build to be invalidated by the developer randomly leaning on some arbitrary enemy mechanic that I had no way to foresee. NWN 2 is probably the worst example: there's a class whose only ability is "Really good at critical hits", and the entire final dungeon is nothing but critical-immune undead.
User avatar
The Rocketeer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby The Rocketeer » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:54 am

That's not uncommon among systems based on tabletop RPG's or systems made to resemble them, e.g. KOTOR, in which the endgame separates those who can cast Destroy Droid from those who can't. And that's a more benign example, since, at the end of the day, it's just combat that any player can handle some way or another.

I think Rutskarn wrote about this during his Elder Scrolls retrospective, something about the "interesting choice trap," I think. I'd find it myself, but I'm on my phone.
User avatar
Lachlan the Sane
Location: I come from the land down under, where women blow and men chunder

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Lachlan the Sane » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:03 am

Steve C wrote:A major pet peeve is where I'm forced to make permanent decisions based on basically no information.

For example a complex leveling tree full of prerequisites. Strength, Dexterity, Stamina, Willpower etc are fine when I know exactly what they are going to do. When I don't, it is just an aggravating decision to put off until later. I don't know what I want yet. I don't have enough information to make that choice. It's fine when the choice can easily be undone. It's also fine if I have enough information to make an informed choice. Before then just... no.

There's no excuse for this. It's so easy to do it right. Give enough info to players to make decisions before they need to make those decisions. It's not that hard. There are many ways. Temporary points. Being able to undo choices easily. Equipment that does the same as more permanent skills so a player can test it out. Make the bottom of the skill tree be a trunk with no choices before allowing the player to branch out. There's a long list of solutions before forcing a character down a one way door.

I had this problem with Kingdom Hearts 1, actually. The game literally begins by dropping you into a tutorial void where the tutorial voice says "HEY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPECIALISE IN ATTACK, DEFENSE OR MAGIC?" You haven't actually gotten any combat at all by this point, and you don't unlock any magic spells until about two hours in.
Ninety-Three wrote:NWN 2 is probably the worst example: there's a class whose only ability is "Really good at critical hits", and the entire final dungeon is nothing but critical-immune undead.

To be fair, that's a problem inherent in the tabletop D&D system as well.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Game pet peeves

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:22 am

The point of such a system is to find a way to overcome the shortages you get from specializing by getting henchmen and equipment that deal with stuff you are weak at.Though its often not designed well and youll get stuck in a place where you cannot do that.But then there are game like icewind dale which start you with a full party creation,where you can cover all your bases.On the other hand,there are games like alpha protocol where it can be either a breeze if you pick pistols,or a nightmare if you pick anything else.

Return to “Videogames”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest