|
It's the same sort of skill used for games like poker - you learn your opponent's patterns.
There can still be good options and bad options - the trick is not to have a best option.
I strongly disagree - a 'best' option results in linear gameplay. You can have some options being better at certain things, or providing advantages in certain situations, but there should never be an option which is the all-round 'best'.
The most accurate attack might also be slow. The fastest attack might also inflict the least damage. The most damaging attack might also leave your defences wide open. A knockdown attack might inflict no damage, but leave the enemy open to followup attacks. A bash attack might do very little damage, but disrupt your opponent's moves. A disarm attack might have a low chance of success and inflict no damage, but leave your opponent without a weapon. Yet none of these moves are innately better or worse than the others.
To use the chess analogy again: What is the 'best' opening?
Once again you're using the word 'best'. Who's the best target, the warrior who's hitting you or the cleric who's healing the warrior? What if the cleric has spells which deflect your strongest attacks? What if your weaker attacks result in damage which the cleric can't heal?
Multiple targets results in more tactical options, which in turn increase the difficulty of scripting.
|