645 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica83]

and im not talking of the speed combat im talking about the sword animations the raise slower and its right.. but when they hit the animation must be faster.. But lets talk the longsword too the movements are much slower.. the longsword its not that heavy... In real life i make medieval combat.. I have a true sword too a longsword.. And its not so slower.. It can be used faster.. But its not a problem of time of attacks its a problem of animation..

[Fexelea]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Yeah but you're an exception to the crowd Fexy. *huggity*

Yay hugs!

[Reaverwind]

Monica83 wrote...

and im not talking of the speed combat im talking about the sword animations the raise slower and its right.. but when they hit the animation must be faster.. But lets talk the longsword too the movements are much slower.. the longsword its not that heavy... In real life i make medieval combat.. I have a true sword too a longsword.. And its not so slower.. It can be used faster.. But its not a problem of time of attacks its a problem of animation..

The animations are pretty bad - the characters swing swords like they're sledgehammers - throwing themselves off-balance, leaving themselves wide open, not to mention not even real claymores were swung that slow. The non-hafted weapons are much better balanced than depicted in-game, and the longer weapons had the advantage of reach, which is not depicted by the game mechanics at all. There's no getting in 20 hits with a dagger for every swing of a claymore with the real things.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 28 août 2010 - 02:28 .

[In Exile]

Nighteye2 wrote...

I disagree. I don't want combat to be turned into some decterity-based gimmick. I want combat to require skill and planning, to require the player to think more than to react quickly. Real-time fighting systems are far too shallow for a cRPG.

Combat that requires skill and planning would be fun. Too bad DA:O lacked this. Seriously, all you need is a solid character build, and then you can destroy the game. 2 mages, fireball, cone of cold, spell might, rock armour + frost along with a blood mage/spirit healer combination and a sword and board warrior, and you can effectively destroy any enemy in DA on nightmare.

[In Exile]

Theagg wrote...

Its not just the weight of the weapon, its the length...

Levers and fulcrums, both the length and the weight play in to how restrictive the weapon becomes as regards handling. So the rogue can stab you 20 times before you manage to swing that double headed battle axe but you only need to hit him once to cleave him in two.

Except the dps didn't work out that way. 2-handers were effective at crowd control, but their defence was low so they were easily hit, they wouldn't get the +5 to armour of shield wall, enemies could backstab them, and their damage bonus over a sword and board warrior damage build (i.e. max strength and 30 dex instead of the reverse) wasn't significant.

[DragonRageGT]

Khayness wrote...

Hmm, Action RPG, what could it mean?!

To me it is using your skills instead of the player character's skills in combat. You don't rely heavily on stats and rolls, only your mettle. Like in the Gothic games, as a lvl 1 rookie you could beat a lot of monsters with the right moves and every NPC in fencing duels, because you have turned the combat mechanics to your advantage. You don't tell your character to auto attack and then faceroll the spelltree.

Thinking of DA2 as an action RPG, I get a "smash them buttons for combos" picture, and I do not like that picture.

Sorry but I have to say this. The most skilled Gothic player cannot beat lots of monsters with the right moves because 1) there's no blocking against animals. 2) Most things without the "juvenile"(G1), "young"(G2) or "hungry"(Risen) tag will kill you in 1 hit or just by breathing near the char 3) The perfect timed attacks, without the proper training and with 0% critical chance, will do no damage at all against most things AND the attacks also get stuck, meaning you lose the timing for the next move even if you know how to do it, simply because you're a rookie and the game engine treats you like one.

You can beat the 3 NPC's in the arena if you're lucky enough, but you'll hardly be level 1 by then. However, if you try to pick a fight outside the area at that low level, they'll gang up on you and honestly, I doubt you can take even those 2 diggers outside the Old Camp at level 1. Strenght in numbers. Unless of course you reload a lot until you get the lucky hit.

Demanding that we how to time the left click i/o button-mashing like Diablo (heck, shift-click to hold ground while attacking  was cheap) made Gothic an awesome game combat wise too. And it demanded we trained our character both in attributes and weapon skill because just knowing the right timing would not help much.

[DragonRageGT]

In Exile wrote...

Except the dps didn't work out that way. 2-handers were effective at crowd control, but their defence was low so they were easily hit, they wouldn't get the +5 to armour of shield wall, enemies could backstab them, and their damage bonus over a sword and board warrior damage build (i.e. max strength and 30 dex instead of the reverse) wasn't significant.

I don't know much about builds in Dragon Age, except for two handers. That's my favourite class in any game I play. They are exceptional in DA:O. A good build can hit critical hits in a sequence that no other class can, for some 150-200 dmg per hit which no other class can, with a very fast speed attack if you had some swift salves crafted, even faster with salves plus haste if you have a mage in the party. And they can't be stopped/interrupted unless by magic or some huge elite boss type like an Ogre.

[Merced256]

In Exile wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

I disagree. I don't want combat to be turned into some decterity-based gimmick. I want combat to require skill and planning, to require the player to think more than to react quickly. Real-time fighting systems are far too shallow for a cRPG.

Combat that requires skill and planning would be fun. Too bad DA:O lacked this. Seriously, all you need is a solid character build, and then you can destroy the game. 2 mages, fireball, cone of cold, spell might, rock armour + frost along with a blood mage/spirit healer combination and a sword and board warrior, and you can effectively destroy any enemy in DA on nightmare.

Yea i think cheese tactics are kind of meant to accomplish what you're describing. Its the same way with liberal use of force field. I wouldn't classify cheesing as "playing" but whatever. DA:O combat was tactical with less than optimal group setups and are you going to tell me that soloing it on even normal required no tactics?

[In Exile]

RageGT wrote...

I don't know much about builds in Dragon Age, except for two handers. That's my favourite class in any game I play. They are exceptional in DA:O. A good build can hit critical hits in a sequence that no other class can, for some 150-200 dmg per hit which no other class can, with a very fast speed attack if you had some swift salves crafted, even faster with salves plus haste if you have a mage in the party. And they can't be stopped/interrupted unless by magic or some huge elite boss type like an Ogre.

I find them useless. I suppose if you've built your entire playstyle around them, you've got something that works.

A sword and board warrior strength build will outperform them, with the same party, though. Crit % is improved by precise striking, the bard bonuses and items. Critical strike will give you, well, a critical strike, but that's just one every 60 seconds. A warrior set up can easily have a base 30% critical rate with a solid party. Haste and speed salves apply to the warrior just as easily. 

The warrior has the same advange of being immune to knockdown and backstabs from shield wall and shield mastery. With added taunt you've got a massive damage dealer that doubles as indestructible.

Merced256 wrote...
Yea i think cheese tactics are kind of
meant to accomplish what you're describing. Its the same way with
liberal use of force field. I wouldn't classify cheesing as "playing"
but whatever. DA:O combat was tactical with less than optimal group
setups and are you going to tell me that soloing it on even normal
required no tactics?

What the hell is a cheese tactic?

When you say ''tactical with less than optical group set-ups'' I assume you mean, ''possible to win with poor builds'' but that's just fake difficulty. Yes, I suppose if you go out of your way to design poor characters you have to think really hard about how to use your gimped abilities to win, but that's no different than saying that ME2 is ''tactical'' if you suck at aiming and have to direct your party to kill all your enemies for you.

[PSUHammer]

saruman31 wrote...
Lets take a good example here: Mass Effect (arguably the best bioware game ever) and its seriously lackluster sequel: Mass Effect 2(bad, bad game) They must have taught that since ME did such a good job, making it more accessible to a larger audience would be better. Although it was a success it still failed miserably compared to its prequel. 

Um, dude, speak for yourself.  I love RPG's and I happen to think ME2 was a fantastic game and actually more enjoyable then ME1.

All these arguments are silly nerd rage.  If the freaking game is fun, play it.  If it isn't, don't!

My god...will someone just go make a new Gold Box D&D game for people, with 1992 graphics and an unlimited inventory bag?  Then we can have our newer, more fun "action" RPG?

[condiments1]

slimgrin wrote...

Dice roll stats, tactics, and twitch-based combat can all be blended like they were in Fallout 3 and The Witcher. Neither combat system was perfect, but a step in the right direction.

Notice how these games only focus on a single character? Introduce the need to control your party members and utilize their skills while engaging in "twitch" oriented combat with blocking, slashing, dodging is nigh impossible. The more twitch oriented the game is, the less control you will have over your party and by extension the less tactical the game will be.

"Party based tactical combat" requires both micro AND macro level control. That means positioning, spell placement, party dynamics/synergy, etc. If the game keeps me properly engaged with good encounter design like BG2(which DA:O sorely lacked) I could give a crap less about my heros individual swords swings. Its irrevelant in the flow of battle.

We're not talking merely technical/gameplay mechanics, its simple human limitations.

Modifié par condiments1, 28 août 2010 - 05:42 .

[ErichHartmann]

slimgrin wrote...

Dice roll stats, tactics, and twitch-based combat can all be blended like they were in Fallout 3 and The Witcher. Neither combat system was perfect, but a step in the right direction.

I hate Fallout 3 V.A.T.S system.  I honestly believe the gunplay should have been more in line with a FPS without a "tactical pause" for targeting limbs.  And The Witcher is simply clicking the mouse when prompted.  I have high hopes for The Witcher 2 though.    

[condiments1]

slimgrin wrote...

condiments1 wrote...

 Introduce the need to control your party members and utilize their skills while engaging in "twitch" oriented combat with blocking, slashing, dodging is nigh impossible. The more twitch oriented the game is, the less control you will have over your party and by extension the less tactical the game will be.

I thought ME2 did precisely this. Twitch oriented combat with party-based tactics.

Even on the highest difficulty ME2 doesn't require that my tactical planning beyond occasionally directing your teammate to a certain favorable position or if they do something retarded. The AI can handle themselves, and if you actually find yourself in a bind you blast them with your ultra weapon. Since the game is so focused on twitch actions, its not on the level of control we used to see. 

Imagine if you had 5 teammates instead of 2 like Baldur's Gate 1/2 for example. Since the game is so focused on your third person perspective you simply couldn't manage them effectively, and it would be needlessly difficult. Making it more 'focused'(smaller party sizes, limited ability selection) is more condusive to that playstyle.

Mass Effect and its ilk float in an limbo between TPS and RPG. You neither get the dynamic variety and immediacy of industry TPS leaders(gears of war, Uncharted 1/2), or the depth and complexity of character building and strategic planning. Its a good game, but to call it 'end all be all' of the evolution of the RPG genre doesn't fly by me.

Modifié par condiments1, 28 août 2010 - 06:11 .

[condiments1]

[Double post

Modifié par condiments1, 28 août 2010 - 06:02 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

In Exile wrote...

RageGT wrote...

I don't know much about builds in Dragon Age, except for two handers. That's my favourite class in any game I play. They are exceptional in DA:O. A good build can hit critical hits in a sequence that no other class can, for some 150-200 dmg per hit which no other class can, with a very fast speed attack if you had some swift salves crafted, even faster with salves plus haste if you have a mage in the party. And they can't be stopped/interrupted unless by magic or some huge elite boss type like an Ogre.

I find them useless. I suppose if you've built your entire playstyle around them, you've got something that works.

A sword and board warrior strength build will outperform them, with the same party, though. Crit % is improved by precise striking, the bard bonuses and items. Critical strike will give you, well, a critical strike, but that's just one every 60 seconds. A warrior set up can easily have a base 30% critical rate with a solid party. Haste and speed salves apply to the warrior just as easily. 

The warrior has the same advange of being immune to knockdown and backstabs from shield wall and shield mastery. With added taunt you've got a massive damage dealer that doubles as indestructible.

Merced256 wrote...
Yea i think cheese tactics are kind of
meant to accomplish what you're describing. Its the same way with
liberal use of force field. I wouldn't classify cheesing as "playing"
but whatever. DA:O combat was tactical with less than optimal group
setups and are you going to tell me that soloing it on even normal
required no tactics?

What the hell is a cheese tactic?

When you say ''tactical with less than optical group set-ups'' I assume you mean, ''possible to win with poor builds'' but that's just fake difficulty. Yes, I suppose if you go out of your way to design poor characters you have to think really hard about how to use your gimped abilities to win, but that's no different than saying that ME2 is ''tactical'' if you suck at aiming and have to direct your party to kill all your enemies for you.

Basing everything off of metagaming and min/maxing is generally not fact.

[saruman31]

Hammer6767 wrote...

saruman31 wrote...
Lets take a good example here: Mass Effect (arguably the best bioware game ever) and its seriously lackluster sequel: Mass Effect 2(bad, bad game) They must have taught that since ME did such a good job, making it more accessible to a larger audience would be better. Although it was a success it still failed miserably compared to its prequel. 

Um, dude, speak for yourself.  I love RPG's and I happen to think ME2 was a fantastic game and actually more enjoyable then ME1.

All these arguments are silly nerd rage.  If the freaking game is fun, play it.  If it isn't, don't!

My god...will someone just go make a new Gold Box D&D game for people, with 1992 graphics and an unlimited inventory bag?  Then we can have our newer, more fun "action" RPG?

ME2 was GARBAGE. The combat failed since its no -insert 3rd person view game here-. The story was a copy-paste of dao and the characters were all forgettable except the old ones and the Illusive man. On the story bit, i hope they don`t do it like dao or me2 when you are told from the beginning how the game will end. Its so anti climactic.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

slimgrin wrote...

condiments1 wrote...

 Introduce the need to control your party members and utilize their skills while engaging in "twitch" oriented combat with blocking, slashing, dodging is nigh impossible. The more twitch oriented the game is, the less control you will have over your party and by extension the less tactical the game will be.

I thought ME2 did precisely this. Twitch oriented combat with party-based tactics.

It did, and it wasn't deep by any means. Course when you strip out half the abilities of the previous game, that tends to happen. ME2 was streamlined to levels of rediculously simple gameplay.

[Vicious]

It did, and it wasn't deep by any means. Course when you strip out half the abilities of the previous game, that tends to happen. ME2 was streamlined to levels of rediculously simple gameplay.

Mass Effect 1 was a joke as well. You didn't even have ammo. With the right upgrades, you could just stalk from room to room, holding down the 'fire' button, literally annihilating everything in your path.

[Merced256]

What the hell is a cheese tactic?

When you say ''tactical with
less than optical group set-ups'' I assume you mean, ''possible to win
with poor builds'' but that's just fake difficulty. Yes, I suppose if
you go out of your way to design poor characters you have to think
really hard about how to use your gimped abilities to win, but that's no
different than saying that ME2 is ''tactical'' if you suck at aiming
and have to direct your party to kill all your enemies for you.

Really? Like, really?

Aren't you the same bro who has gone on and on about how the important parts of an RPG are story and roleplay. So you're going to tell me that you are also a hardcore metagaymer that min/maxes and only rolls with NPCs that buff your character rather than characters who you like. Quite the contradiction there i think.

I'll give my most recent play through as an example. I wanted to play a 2H warrior, this meant i essentially had to bring leliana for lock picking and SoC. Wynne for heals since 2h's only defense is armor and avoidance via CC. For the last slot i could've went with any of the other characters. I chose to have morrigan tag along almost exclusively because she was my characters LI. That group by your definition is super sub optimal amirite? I mean you just said a shield warrior can out dps a 2h warrior and take less damage doing it. Obviously my play through would've been easier had i went that route or chosen to take alistair. I DIDN'T. I also went with a slightly sub-optimal stat allocation in order to survive a little better, gearing was also changed to aid in this. So clearly not everyone min/maxes and those that do probably should have a easier time beating the game on whatever difficulty. A game that emphasizes Story and Roleplay, as you apparently wish for it to be, should never really be balanced - at least not exclusively, around min/maxing.

So what exactly is your beef here? ME2 had virtually no min/maxing, and even had you done it you'd really only be slightly better off than you were beforehand. The game could be beaten with out ever leveling, let alone actually activating a skill, yours or your ally's. Are you really going to try and compare that with DA:O?

Modifié par Merced256, 28 août 2010 - 07:33 .

[DragonRageGT]

ErichHartmann wrote...

I hate Fallout 3 V.A.T.S system. I honestly believe the gunplay should have been more in line with a FPS without a "tactical pause" for targeting limbs. And The Witcher is simply clicking the mouse when prompted. I have high hopes for The Witcher 2 though.

You might want to try TW in Expert mode where there is no prompt and alchemy is required to survive, specially if you know advanced alchemy. And honestly, not only it's a bit harder to hit a level 5 combo strike without prompts, it is still a hell of a fun. The "power-up" level 4 abilities, either strong, fast or group style, have the most amazing animations and actual effects in the game. Plus you have to know when and against what to use which.

I get it that some people don't like to control the attacks of their characters but most people who master it in TW enjoy it a lot.

In Exile wrote...

RageGT wrote...

I don't know much about builds in Dragon Age, except for two handers. That's my favourite class in any game I play. They are exceptional in DA:O. A good build can hit critical hits in a sequence that no other class can, for some 150-200 dmg per hit which no other class can, with a very fast speed attack if you had some swift salves crafted, even faster with salves plus haste if you have a mage in the party. And they can't be stopped/interrupted unless by magic or some huge elite boss type like an Ogre.

I find them useless. I suppose if you've built your entire playstyle around them, you've got something that works.

A sword and board warrior strength build will outperform them, with the same party, though. Crit % is improved by precise striking, the bard bonuses and items. Critical strike will give you, well, a critical strike, but that's just one every 60 seconds. A warrior set up can easily have a base 30% critical rate with a solid party. Haste and speed salves apply to the warrior just as easily. 

The warrior has the same advange of being immune to knockdown and backstabs from shield wall and shield mastery. With added taunt you've got a massive damage dealer that doubles as indestructible.

I know some people will hate me for posting this. I've tried all party setups for the fun of it. alwqays in Nightmare. No mages party, All Melee party, powerful party, balanced party, Girls Only party, despite of how powerful my char could be with different setups. Because I do enjoy the story, the game, rp'ing many different characters except for mages. I hate playing mages! Never have, never will! But I also enjoy rp'ing real heroic arquetypes and sometimes that means min/max the best I can that char built. If I wanted to RP a weakling gardener, well, I'd stick with Farmville. (which I never touched and have no idea of what it is about so it's used here just as a joke)

But find me a shield and board main character with end-game stats similar to these of one of my two-handers and I'll reconsider all I can have ever thought about them. Particularly the Damage Dealt and Contribution to Party Damage.

Not my fault that the game keeps track of these things but it's useful when people say that two handed warriors suck. I then would just put more and more videos of them kicking azz. They're all out there. And many people enjoy playing with two handers because, well, there is nothing like a Big Sword.

Oh, and please don't bring mages into this. I know mages can reach twice or triple the Damage Dealt but they are supposed to be the most powerful class in any game. If they can stay alive, that is.  BTW, Shield Wall/Mastery only prevents "direct knockdown" attemps. S/S chars cannot resist most skills that will stun, interrupt or even throw them back and down like Warcry. Watch a High Dragon fight with a 2 Hander and a S/S in the party and see who's the one getting stunned all the time and who's the one resisting all!

Char page can be viewed on BSN - here http://bit.ly/aXCQzz

Heroic Stats
Kills: 2619
Damage dealt: 743068
Friendly-fire damage dealt: 232
Greatest damage dealt: 309
Contribution to party damage: 88
Hit rate: 96
Most powerful foe slain: Archdemon
Injuries: 0

On "cheesy" tactics, using Force Field on an ally who's taunted a Revenant is a cheap, common and overused cheesy tactic. Using Force Field on the Revenant to allow the party to restore some health, reposition or just breath a little, is not. I have never used FF on an ally, except for a fun video/screenshot when a Dragon is about to eat an ally alive. With FF the char just floats in the air and if the Dragon bites another one, then there will be two chars floating in the air.

[Nighteye2]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

While
I usually come across as a pc elitist ( cause I am) I will be jealous
if its the consoles who get more responsive combat and not the pc as
well.



It's high time rpg developers start learning from the
action and fighting genre's so they can develop sophisticated real-time
fighting systems, not just dice roll odds in combat.

I
disagree. I don't want combat to be turned into some decterity-based
gimmick. I want combat to require skill and planning, to require the
player to think more than to react quickly. Real-time fighting systems
are far too shallow for a cRPG.

Hell froze over, I agree
with Nighteye on something.  Yeah I've played the Gothic games, and
Oblivion, they're fun games but they're not very tactical at all. Click
click click click monster dead.  Would hate to see DA become some form
of action click fest ala Diablo.

Actually, we agree more
often than not about non-political issues. Your posts are often
well-reasoned and good to read, even if the values you hold politically
don't really match mine.

Monica83 wrote...
Theagg i undesteand your point of View
Anyways that animation can be better maded ok the wapon is heavy i can
underastand if is slow to move but at the hit moment must be more
faster! Wheight is also this... If you raise up a heavy word you raise
up slowly it but when you move the sword down the movement is faster
because the weapon is heavy

Actually, that's a common
misconception. The weight doesn't matter for the gravitational
accelleration of the sword, only for it's terminal velocity - but at the
low speeds of swinging a sword, air friction is almost neglible. As for
the wielder swinging the sword downward, he has to deal with the
greater inertia of the heavy sword - so the heavy sword may actually
swing slower. However, when it eventually hits, that same inertia
becomes an advantage in penetrating the armour.

RageGT wrote...
I know some people will hate me for posting this. I've tried all party setups for the fun of it. alwqays in Nightmare. No mages party, All Melee party, powerful party, balanced party, Girls Only party, despite of how powerful my char could be with different setups. Because I do enjoy the story, the game, rp'ing many different characters except for mages. I hate playing mages! Never have, never will!

It's much the same for me - I pick a party based on what I expect to be fun, rather than what I think is the most powerful. I do play with mages, though - without using any cheesy meta-gaming tricks like the taunt-FF combo.

[Theagg]

Monica83 wrote...

and im not talking of the speed combat im talking about the sword animations the raise slower and its right.. but when they hit the animation must be faster.. But lets talk the longsword too the movements are much slower.. the longsword its not that heavy... In real life i make medieval combat.. I have a true sword too a longsword.. And its not so slower.. It can be used faster.. But its not a problem of time of attacks its a problem of animation..

We we talking about greatswords not longswords:)

But anyway, if its just the animation you find problematic well thats fine. The animation is exaggerated after all, slow combat techniques being portrayed as deliberately slow to differentiate them. Conversley, fast combat techniques are shown as fast animation.

After all its just as fair to say that some of the rogue animations might be too fast. But I'm not seeing complaints about animations being overly quick. However, cosmetic tweaks with just the animation are of no real issue to me and if that's all that was afoot in DA 2  combat changes that wouldn't bother me at all but if people truly feel they had a serious problem with DA:O  because of the sword animations, then I'm thinking they are not actually playing the game.

But I'm doubting its just the 'animation' that is being referred to when people use the word clunky

Modifié par Theagg, 28 août 2010 - 01:01 .