If Demon's Souls and Dark Souls were High School girls...

#81DuneManPosted 12/29/2012 11:55:08 AM
If you want to get technical, the AI does know it is in combat when you shoot an arrow at it, even with the Thief's Ring equipped. It's just that the Thief's Ring overrides the combat script if the enemy loses sight of you for several seconds. If you kept firing at Scirvir he would start shooting spells in your direction, even if he can't see you. The AI doesn't start firing blind attacks at the first hit though, instead it tries to find the source of the attack.

If anything though, you need to accept that not everything aside from standing six feet in front of your opponent and occasionally tapping R1 is considered cheating, or even cheap.

And yet you're saying that ranged attacks break the game, and IIRC you also said that any weapon which produces a knock down effect breaks the game. I can only assume you throw on all stealth effects with that too. In your mind then, it's melee and certain buffs only or bust. That's rather narrow minded.

I'll return to the example of 1-3 in Demon's Souls as a case of good level design where multiple enemy types and assaults keep you on your toes regardless of your playstyle. Sure, it came up in another thread, but there's a lesson to be learned from that stage when it comes to balancing melee and ranged attacks. Hell, a number of the enemies used stealth against the player there too. There's no reason to call out ranged attacks as 'cheap BS' when the game can factor that into the overall design.
---
"I'd rather betray the world than let the world betray me." -Cao Cao
#82toughguypetePosted 12/29/2012 11:58:04 AM
all I know is if they were women is they would be unshaved down there
#83SolidKnightPosted 12/29/2012 12:26:11 PM
Regardless of being cheap or not, it highlights that the AI needs proper reaction to being attacked from range. In Dark Souls, you can spam arrows from outside the perception range of an enemy and it'll just stand there and take it. That's stupid. The AI should, at the very least, move around and look for you. It should be able to perceive the general direction of your attacks.
#84aneed4peedPosted 12/29/2012 1:24:24 PM
From: The moonlight knight | #077
Because in both instances, you're reducing a fight to freely firing arrows at an enemy with them never knowing you exist. Effectively making it where there is no fight. They have no capability to perceive or hit you. It's not a fight - it's an execution. It's unfair beyond anything the game ever throws at you. While they put cloaking effects and arrows in the game, it's not right to act like the limited intelligence of the AI was an equally intended and desirable quality of the game. Logically, even with the thief ring, BP Scirvir should be able to determine where you are well before he's lost even 25% of his health and send fireballs your way. But he doesn't. The thief ring makes you harder to see, but in this scenario it may as well be some sort of god mode that erases the very concept of your existence from the minds of the AI.


I feel like you're getting too caught up on semantics and overlooking the end result. Getting Flamelurker stuck, or attacking a boss through the fog gate, allows you to overcome a strong enemy, without even fighting them, bypassing the fight by attacking them in a situation where they literally have no way to fight back. That is the exact same outcome you get when you fight Scirvir the way you and Duneman are encouraging. Frankly, I seriously do think some people's inability to accept it's cheap-ass BS and illegitimate as far as techniques go, is because they just can't handle accepting things as they are and seek to instead bypass them. Someone who can't handle a boss/miniboss fight and needing to resort to ridiculously cheap tactics to bypass the fight, are also likely to not be willing to deal with the internal battle of accepting that what they do is effectively cheating.

The same outcome? So what you're saying is that the player should not win against BP Scirvir and co.? Because no matter what tactic you use, if you win then the outcome will be the same, i.e. you winning. So you should in fact lose... to make things fair and legitimate.

Makes sense yo!
---
a knock, a thud, a tiny...zwoosh, where?
Please, call me Aneed [http://i.imgur.com/DDzaw.jpg]
#85Shadow286Posted 12/29/2012 2:16:59 PM
Christine and Smoughette?
#86The moonlight knightPosted 12/30/2012 12:49:39 AM
If anything though, you need to accept that not everything aside from standing six feet in front of your opponent and occasionally tapping R1 is considered cheating, or even cheap.

Complete misrepresentation of my stance.

And yet you're saying that ranged attacks break the game, and IIRC you also said that any weapon which produces a knock down effect breaks the game. I can only assume you throw on all stealth effects with that too. In your mind then, it's melee and certain buffs only or bust. That's rather narrow minded.

More misrepresentation. This is an example of why arguing with you is a waste of time.

The same outcome? So what you're saying is that the player should not win against BP Scirvir and co.? Because no matter what tactic you use, if you win then the outcome will be the same, i.e. you winning. So you should in fact lose... to make things fair and legitimate.

Makes sense yo!


I would think you'd be above such troll logic. The outcome I'm speaking out against is defeating a tough enemy through ranged attacks that are set up in a way where your opponent literally has no ability to perceive you or fight back. Not the outcome of simply winning the fight. Winning the fight, and winning the fight when they have no way to fight back are different. Kind of a gaping hole in your logic.
---
I am snazzier, hot, hot rant. Warily slight as.
Croak rush, OK? Weirder, almighty make out. ::)
#87Sailor_Razor(Topic Creator)Posted 12/30/2012 11:00:30 PM
Oh, and if they were racist against Jews, they'd make fun of Ornstein.
---
I am so getting modded for this one.