Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

They could themselves be in transit and resting for a bit. I imagine even bandits and raiders need to buy stuff once in a while, and sell the loot they don't want. Although it's kinda hard to explain the random raider in Fallout 3 in DC who's just sleeping in a subway tunnel, surrounded by super mutants and ghouls with no way in or out.

[Lossmar]

Bandits that are in the middle of nowhere
Skyrim, Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are all guilty of this to some extent. Basically, bandits are just located in random places on the map, just sitting there, instead of being in places that are near important trade/travel routes like most bandits would be.

Well to be honest - most important trade routes are usually the most protected, patrolled and most crowded, not a good place to rob anyone.

But that also brings us to another thing :
Bandits that have absolutely no self preservation, no will of survival and basically act as fanatics ready to die just for the sake of action and giving player exp and loot.

Charging 1lvl schmuck in leather armour and shitty weapons ? Understanable ( if somewhat debateable - its not like guy like will have much cash on him ) especially if bandits have the numerical advantage.
Charging the same guy, 90 lvl later when he is armed with vorpal blade, demonic armour and has a pet dragon ? Completely retarded but for vidya bandits its basically no problem.

[Krevsin]

Bandits that are in the middle of nowhere
Skyrim, Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are all guilty of this to some extent. Basically, bandits are just located in random places on the map, just sitting there, instead of being in places that are near important trade/travel routes like most bandits would be.

Well to be honest - most important trade routes are usually the most protected, patrolled and most crowded, not a good place to rob anyone.

Well, if the trade routes are protected, patrolled and guarded, there are no bandits. Banditry and (traditional) piracy only make sense if you're doing it to someone who cannot defend themselves. Or they only do it on the least defended/patrolled parts of the trade route. Places like marshes and thick woods and suchlike. A trade route being crowded is actually a good thing for a bandit because it means lots of fat loots. Provided that crowded means a lot of merchants rather than a lot of escorts.

It's why banditry is prevalent in times of war, when most of the troops are on the front and protection can only be spared for military purposes rather than guarding the King's road.

Besides which, most bandits lay down traps and ambushes, stuff like roadblocks littered with landmines and caltrops, rather than just standing by the wayside, waiting for someone to come along and then jumping out. Also this:

The only way to deal with bandits is to kill them
again, Skyrim and the newer Fallout games are good examples of this. It's not in a bandit's interest to murder you, it's in their interest to profit from you. Which means that yes, you can pay a fee and then pass. And then do it again and again and again, each time you come across them.

[94dima94]

Also, related to bandits:
Enemies always fighting to the death

Zombies? That's fine. Robots? Makes sense. Crazy monsters? Logical.
But... city guards with ordinance weapons? Animals hunting for food? Bandits? Those should recognize when the battle is lost and LEAVE.
I've seen so many games where the enemies just keep fighting, even though they just wanted you to give them money and you said no. Once it becomes clear they have no chance, why don't you just give up, or leave to finde reinforcements?

[Neonivek]

There are quite a few animals that will fight to the death.

Though I will say, in my Dungeons and Dragons game I have noticed IMMENSELY how much the balance relies a lot of enemies willing to fight to the death, My general philosophy is that an enemy at 50% health should assess their chances and then leave if things are going south. With a full retreat if things have tipped. (Only enemies with at least 50% damage count for EXP)

I often will keep track of enemies who left to use later.

But GOODNESS does Dungeons and dragons not factor in enemies simply wanting to live.

[94dima94]

There are quite a few animals that will fight to the death.

Though I will say, in my Dungeons and Dragons game I have noticed IMMENSELY how much the balance relies a lot of enemies willing to fight to the death, My general philosophy is that an enemy at 50% health should assess their chances and then leave if things are going south. With a full retreat if things have tipped. (Only enemies with at least 50% damage count for EXP)

I often will keep track of enemies who left to use later.

But GOODNESS does Dungeons and dragons not factor in enemies simply wanting to live.

That's exactly why I noticed this. GMing Pathfinder now, I keep finding notes in published modules that say something like "This enemy is too crazy/too excited/too angry/too stupid, so he will fight to the death"; so now I notice it in every game when it happens. It almost seems like the concept of "retreat" is too complex to understand in any RPG, but I've seen that happen, an it can be done.

I see how it would be annoying if you get EXP only when you actually defeat/kill the enemy, but if that's the main problem, just change that! Make it so that an enemy fleeing gives you 3/4 EXP, or something similar. Or give all the EXP enyway, you still won, after all.

[Shadowlord]

I've wondered if it was because the player would feel robbed of their victory if their foe got away from them. Also, it seems like they half-assed the surrendering in Skyrim, making NPCs feign surrender only to try to stab you in the back a couple seconds later (resulting in you probably just killing them out of hand if they try to surrender).

It's noteworthy that the commanders (and orcs iirc) in Shadow of Mordor will try to retreat if they're losing and terrified.

I remember that if anyone tries to break away from combat in [A]D&D (2.0 at least), anyone they were standing next to got a free shot at them (frequently lethal in the crpgs). (Also in the earlier gold box games based on, I think, 1.0?)

[94dima94]

I've wondered if it was because the player would feel robbed of their victory if their foe got away from them. Also, it seems like they half-assed the surrendering in Skyrim, making NPCs feign surrender only to try to stab you in the back a couple seconds later (resulting in you probably just killing them out of hand if they try to surrender).

It's noteworthy that the commanders (and orcs iirc) in Shadow of Mordor will try to retreat if they're losing and terrified.

I remember that if anyone tries to break away from combat in [A]D&D (2.0 at least), anyone they were standing next to got a free shot at them (frequently lethal in the crpgs). (Also in the earlier gold box games based on, I think, 1.0?)

Exactly. Both those games do that, but give you no reasons to let enemies surrender (in fact, you are actually penalized for doing so). If an enemy runs away and you were actually fighting him, you should gain points for it anyway; otherwise, it's just annoying because you have to reach them and kill them anyway.

Also, in D&D and similar games (and ideally in videogames too), enemies should notice that:
it could become a good game mechanic: if someone surrenders you should let him run away; otherwise enemies who witness you and see what you do will NOT surrender, and will still damage you even when they are fighting a lost battle. If giving up is an option, a cornered enemy may NOT blindly fight with everything he has just to have a chance.

[Rolan7]

If there's no logical reason to kill an enemy, doing so shouldn't give any extra XP.  The Book of Exalted Deeds says that resolving encounters without unnecessary violence should give full or even bonus experience.

Of course enemies who flee can still be dangerous to the party and others...  A fully resolved encounter means that the enemies will stop doing their bad things, out of fear or enlightenment (or death).  Chasing some goblins away from a village doesn't really save the village if they'll just come back later.

[Zangi]

Kerrigan was a Zerg hero in Starcraft 1, although she didn't really rise to prominence until the expansion Brood War.

Kerrigan is/was playable as a Ghost before joining the swarm.

[Bauglir]

Well, if I were a bandit, I'd have my camp somewhere several hours' hike off the main road and haul the loot there after a successful robbery. Most of the time it'd be a "pay a toll" sort of thing, so it's not like we'd be spending all our time hauling. And this would make it harder to find by chance (although real-world geography being what it is, not that hard for somebody searching). Post a lookout a few miles up the road to let us know when a target's coming, and just hunker down and wait in times of heavy guard - maybe do odd jobs for folks living nearby, or something. Keep on their good side, anyway.

Probably kill any lone people who stumble in and don't immediately surrender when they realize what's happened, sure, but that's got more to do with secret-keeping.

Of course, Skyrim is too small for that sort of arrangement. You can cover a huge chunk of the map in a couple of in-game hours. There's nowhere that's really "off the main roads".

[miauw62]

Ill-fitting mods

See this is the thing that drives me crazy about mods, and doubly so Minecraft mods. It's the number one complaint I have with virtually every mod for every heavily-modded game out there.

I REALLY want to play Thaumcraft, based on recent discussion in Games You Wish Existed. But, based on the screenshots I've seen, it looks nothing like the base game at all, and that will bug the shit out of me to no end. I tried Mo' Creatures when that was popular. I couldn't stand it and I uninstalled it immediately because the things the mod added very obviously didn't belong.

Thaumcraft isn't too bad in that regard, imo. The worst offender is probably the wands and the thaumometer. If it really bugs you, you could always install an HD texture pack first!

[Arbinire]

Well, if I were a bandit, I'd have my camp somewhere several hours' hike off the main road and haul the loot there after a successful robbery. Most of the time it'd be a "pay a toll" sort of thing, so it's not like we'd be spending all our time hauling. And this would make it harder to find by chance (although real-world geography being what it is, not that hard for somebody searching). Post a lookout a few miles up the road to let us know when a target's coming, and just hunker down and wait in times of heavy guard - maybe do odd jobs for folks living nearby, or something. Keep on their good side, anyway.

Probably kill any lone people who stumble in and don't immediately surrender when they realize what's happened, sure, but that's got more to do with secret-keeping.

Of course, Skyrim is too small for that sort of arrangement. You can cover a huge chunk of the map in a couple of in-game hours. There's nowhere that's really "off the main roads".

This actually brings up another gaming pet peeve of mine....filling in space for the sake of filling in space.  Bethesda has become especially bad about this since Oblivion, but they're not the only culprits.  Pretty much every open world game, even the ones billing themselves as survival games, feel this incessant need to cover every inch of the game world with something to do/discover/loot, and after awhile it becomes immersion breaking.  Saddly survival in survival games is only a real task within the first hour.  There doesn't need to be a cave, radiant quest, dungeon, or 4th wall breaking reference every 15 feet.

[Darkmere]

This actually brings up another gaming pet peeve of mine....filling in space for the sake of filling in space.  Bethesda has become especially bad about this since Oblivion, but they're not the only culprits.  Pretty much every open world game, even the ones billing themselves as survival games, feel this incessant need to cover every inch of the game world with something to do/discover/loot, and after awhile it becomes immersion breaking.  Saddly survival in survival games is only a real task within the first hour.  There doesn't need to be a cave, radiant quest, dungeon, or 4th wall breaking reference every 15 feet.

Cue everyone and their grandma whining for years about how desolate, empty, and boring NV was.

[itisnotlogical]

A semi-related peeve:

Complaining that a game isn't complex enough

Nobody complained that SMB3 didn't have a crafting system and six classes with five skill trees each. Nobody complained that Ocarina of Time didn't have food/water/rest meters and a dynamic food chain. Nobody complains that Doom didn't have subsystem damage with unique effects as your legs, arms, eyes, etc. get damaged.

I don't understand why people want every single game mechanic ever invented to be in their game. Balanced and finely-tuned mechanics working in harmony create a good game, not just putting it all together for the sake of having more.