Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jul 2013
R
RedHaro Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
R
Joined: Jul 2013
How does trooper kill Imp Fighter!?! Trooper cant even shoot up!

Last edited by RedHaro; 28/07/13 09:01 PM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

The game would have to take into account the possibility of other units being produced in combat.

Lone Trooper suspiciously good in autoresolve.

Joined: May 2013
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: May 2013
As Raze says, auto-resolve is NOT just the units that were sent in from the strategy map fighting each other. It's a simulation of the actual full RTS game that you decided to skip and basically let an AI fill your boots.


Unless otherwise specified, just an opinion or simple curiosity.
Joined: May 2005
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: May 2005
It does not seem to take into account what you have researched either, and the battle review they show make it appear extra much as if the trooper took out the imp fighter in head-to-head combat. The autoresolve furthermore appears not to take into account the likelihood that an army composed of grenadiers, juggernaughts, armors, devastators, bombers and hunters should be able to deliver well coordinated firepower. It also does not seem to use shamans appropriately (shamans forces should improve survivability of nearby units, and in order to kill one the attacking unit should be exposed to the firepower of units near the shaman).

There might be more going on than what is visualised. As it is, the visualisation makes it a little harder for me to accept the autoresolve than the old click-and-have-an-outcome-for-little-reason. I like some information on the flow, but since it displays unreasonable specifics (units accomplishing feats they would not be able to do in rts) it makes the resolution less convincing.

I really don't get the impression that it plays the RTS in the background, although that is certainly maybe a possibility.

I think it has done a few things that would actually be impossible under the same circumstances in RTS, and I'm pretty sure the odds in actual RTS would not pan out nearly the way they do in autoresolve. If we could set up mock battles with maps, entrenchments, starting units and AI players all around, we could actually put these things to the test.

If autoresolve actually employs the RTS game with AI and immediate processing (not waiting for a user interface), we could have the option to view autoresolve in realtime (for great scrutiny during testing). That could be interesting for testing and demo-purposes, especially if you get to see what your own automated dispositions are (what sites to conquer, when and where to produce what units, where to establish your position, when to invade). Maybe we'd finally get a handle on the super-quick invasion force the enemy drums up. (Sometimes it might just be that they have a battleforge ready when the battle begins, and you don't.)

Last edited by Sinister; 29/07/13 09:44 AM.
Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
I don't mind if the animations for the auto-resolve look odd or don't match what would really happen. Once I had a group of Shaman mercenaries deliver the final blow to the enemy after every other allied unit was dead. I thought it was amusing, but it's not really something that needs to be fixed. It's an animation.

It's only when the autoresolve calculation does something odd like this - Troopers beating Imp fighters, or a lone Trooper beating 2 Hunters and 2 Armours that it's a bit bothersome.

I don't think that the autoresolve plays out an actual RTS game invisibly, and there's certainly no possibility to review it to see what happened.

Joined: Jul 2013
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Jul 2013
Yes, it likely doesn't play out an actual RTS battle in the background (at least I don't think it is doing so, either), but it's probably balanced according to the results you would see if it did.
Because that is how battles are fought out in DC (at least in multiplayer).

Assuming Larian would return autoresolve to how it was (and who knows, maybe it is actually a bug/oversight), suddenly RTS would again be undesirable in such cases, since it would lead to higher losses compared to autoresolve. At least for average players (like myself).

Last edited by El Zoido; 29/07/13 02:29 PM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Yeah, but it's rather annoying when you loose a 80-20 battle with a really powerful army by auto-resolving it. I know that there is a random principle behind the whole thing but that should have it's limits. And I lose such a battle almost each campaign I play.... smirk


WOOS
Joined: Jul 2013
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Jul 2013
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Yeah, but it's rather annoying when you loose a 80-20 battle with a really powerful army by auto-resolving it. I know that there is a random principle behind the whole thing but that should have it's limits. And I lose such a battle almost each campaign I play.... smirk


As someone else pointed out in another thread, 80% chance to win still means 20% chance to lose. So on average 20 out of 100 battles will result in losses.

Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by El Zoido
Originally Posted by LordCrash
Yeah, but it's rather annoying when you loose a 80-20 battle with a really powerful army by auto-resolving it. I know that there is a random principle behind the whole thing but that should have it's limits. And I lose such a battle almost each campaign I play.... smirk


As someone else pointed out in another thread, 80% chance to win still means 20% chance to lose. So on average 20 out of 100 battles will result in losses.


It's a poor design choice if that is based on pure random principle....


WOOS
Joined: Jul 2013
E
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
E
Joined: Jul 2013
It's not "pure" random. You can affect the outcome via cards and troops.
If they keep the percentage-based outcome, you will be able to lose a fight according to the displayed chances.
But i get what you are saying.
What maybe could help is to change the calculated percentages in a way that "a really powerful army" will have a 100% chance to win and "bad" rolls will only affect losses.

Last edited by El Zoido; 29/07/13 07:04 PM.
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Location: Germany
Originally Posted by El Zoido
It's not "pure" random. You can affect the outcome via cards and troops.
If they keep the percentage-based outcome, you will be able to lose a fight according to the displayed chances.
But i get what you are saying.
What maybe could help is to change the calculated percentages in a way that "a really powerful army" will have a 100% chance to win and "bad" rolls will only affect losses.


Something along these lines, yes....


WOOS
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by LordCrash
It's a poor design choice if that is based on pure random principle....

If you don't loose 1 out of every 5 '80% chance to win' battles, then the initial estimate is simply wrong, regardless of whether the battle results are purely random or based on a simulation.


Moderated by  Issh, Larian_QA, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5