58 réponses à ce sujet

[Moleculor]

Yes.



I want it to play more like a simulation, using the provided tools for such gameplay. The tools are there, I would like to use them.



If I WANT to micromanage, then I can disable the tactics in that situation and micromanage.

[Korgaah]

Just like muh grandpappy used to say... there aint no cure fer stupid!

[LethalBlade]

Olrod wrote...

And what's the point of having a main character if they're not going to be selected for most of the game?

If he is selected, then you don't need to worry about his tactics. If you don't want to control ANY characters in combat, well, I don't know what to tell you.

Modifié par LethalBlade, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:07 .

[MrGOH]

It's like a Zen Koan - Olrod doesn't want to control his main character and then he asks why there should even be a main character if he's allowed to not control it!

Modifié par MrGOH, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:08 .

[Akuntakenta]

Korgaah wrote...

Just like muh grandpappy used to say... there aint no cure fer stupid!

Amen to that, words of the maker, no?

[Olrod]

LethalBlade wrote...

Olrod wrote...

And what's the point of having a main character if they're not going to be selected for most of the game?

If he is selected, then you don't need to worry about his tactics. If you don't want to control ANY characters in combat, well, I don't know what to tell you.

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/133211/1#135632

[Taleroth]

Moleculor wrote...

How the hell is it a problem?

Because everything about game design isn't simply about making options?  Why not give the option to be invincible?  Why not give the best equipment at the start of the game?  Ask the player what level they'd like to start at?

Because not all options improve the experience.  Letting the player surrender control completely is such an option.  But people will still be inclined to take it.  And designers might be inclined to design assuming it.  Which are both bad ideas.  Both can bring the experience down.

Modifié par Taleroth, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:10 .

[Moleculor]

If he's selected, and I'm not playing him like a WoW character, then his tactics settings better kick in, or my character stands around like a statue and an idiot.



I don't want to play an action game. If I don't want to play an action game, then I'm not pushing my hotbar buttons, watching cooldowns cooldown, or other random WoW-esque things.



Don't get me wrong, I like WoW, but if I wanted to play WoW, I'd play WoW. This game has BUILT-IN (and advertised) tools for automating character actions AND built in stats for expanding those options. If I'm going to spend the points expanding those stats to build up those options for character automation, I would like to be able to use character automation.



Just because YOU don't want have character automation with the tools that are PROVIDED, doesn't mean WE shouldn't have access to those tools.

[LethalBlade]

Not to mention that if you relied on the automated tactics to fight the battles for you, your party would die fast and frequently.

Modifié par LethalBlade, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:12 .

[Moleculor]

Stupid forums and their slow response times and double-posting.

Modifié par Moleculor, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:13 .

[soteria]

Because part of what makes a good player is being able to pay attention to small things like buff timers while still managing everything else in your party.



I'd say I spend about equal time controlling all my party members, for what's worth.

[LethalBlade]

It's not an action game. It's a tactical game. Controlling the individual characters in combat requires tactical consideration. Either you are playing on easy, or you have not actually played the game very far. You NEED to take control of party members to position them and use their abilities. The tactical slots are just an assistance.

Modifié par LethalBlade, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:19 .

[Darkangael]

If it's like any other RPG combat system (got bored waiting for Warden's Keep to DL so I decided to check this out), chances are most battles are going to require the same repetitive action done over and over again. Despite what the "hardcore" people will say, this is just plain not fun for most people. Allowing the game to take over and use tactics at least allows the player to just sit back and watch as their party plows through "zerg swarm 10023" using the tactics they carefully set up (the tactics don't just program themselves y'know!).

The people who want to meticulously click the same buttons over and over still have the choice to do so, but those of us who are more in it for the plot than showing off their "l33t" mouse skillz can relax a little and enjoy the ride.

Modifié par Darkangael, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:21 .

[LethalBlade]

Darkangael wrote...

chances are most battles are going to require the same repetitive action done over and over again.

You must be playing on easy. Otherwise, chances are most battles your party is going to die because you were not directly controlling them.

Modifié par LethalBlade, 09 novembre 2009 - 07:23 .

[Moleculor]

So why not just remove tactics altogether? If it's there, why can't I use them to their logical full extent?



Sometimes this game gets to be a bit... heavy... on the combat side. (ZERG RUSH OF ABOMINATIONS!!! KEKEKEKEKE!) Half-Life and other games are very conscientious about having spikes and lulls in the pacing of the game. A little combat, a little conversation, a little puzzles. Dragon Age has some pretty dragged out combat sequences.

Spoiler

Like, for example, the attack of zombies on Redcliffe or the entire Mage Tower.

Sometimes I'd like to be able to just sit back and let the tactics kick in for the easy fights.



And for the record, I'm playing on Normal. And yes, I'm having to pause and constantly reposition and reorganize and command all my people. Why? Because I can't let the tactics do their job because every time I DO select someone, it breaks their entire tactics routine. And it's -exhausting-.

[PatT2]

After reading this thread, my head feels all squishy.

[Olrod]

Moleculor wrote...

Don't get me wrong, I like WoW, but if I wanted to play WoW, I'd play WoW. This game has BUILT-IN (and advertised) tools for automating character actions AND built in stats for expanding those options. If I'm going to spend the points expanding those stats to build up those options for character automation, I would like to be able to use character automation..

^ This.

[Jose-san]

I agree with the OP. It could be "tactically" rewarding to design combat scripts so that you can win battles without issuing further orders, i.e. if all the characters could follow their scripts, even the selected one.

[Eoweth]

Olrod wrote...

Moleculor wrote...

Don't get me wrong, I like WoW, but if I wanted to play WoW, I'd play WoW. This game has BUILT-IN (and advertised) tools for automating character actions AND built in stats for expanding those options. If I'm going to spend the points expanding those stats to build up those options for character automation, I would like to be able to use character automation..

^ This.

The points you spend on expanding your Tactics slots are not solely meant for YOUR CHARACTER but instead to allow the OTHER THREE CHARACTERS you have in your party to have more options.  Don't think your points in tactics are wasted, everyone that you're not controlling directly benefits from them.

Personally I think playing this game by "watching" is silly, but whatever.  This just isn't the game for you if that's what you want however.

[Jose-san]

Personally I think playing this game by "watching" is silly, but whatever.  This just isn't the game for you if that's what you want however.

I don't see why it is silly. If a battle is easy enough I'd like to watch the party win without me micromanaging. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy micromanaging the tough battles.

[Okpal]

whats the point of playing if you want everything done for you? Go watch a movie instead or play on easy, don't need to do much then.

[EricHVela]

I wouldn't use it until I've played the game the way it is right now, but I can see why someone would use the option. The programmer in me would try to build a bot afterward to see if I managed to learn anything.



Right now, I don't bother trying to expand my main's action slots. When I switch for something specific, I pause, switch, give command, switch back, un-pause. If I have to do it again shortly after, I do it again. I kinda like it.

[Jose-san]

Okpal wrote...

whats the point of playing if you want everything done for you? Go watch a movie instead or play on easy, don't need to do much then.

What's the point on micromanaging a non-challenging battle? As I said I enjoy micromanaging tough battles, and I like the story, the dialogs, the world... please, don't tell me how I must enjoy my game...

[Eccer]

Olrod I get you.

I would love to have that kind of control Maybe future modders will imply this.

But what the hell, it's a bioware game. They do want they want.

Modifié par Eccer, 09 novembre 2009 - 03:57 .