539 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's tactical combat. It's about management and direction, not dramatics or cinematography. It's fantastic because it is functional. And I never once found it to be unresponsive.

What management and what direction? Glyph Paralysis + Fireball combos could absolutely murder any crowd short of nightmare where you had to deal with the randomness of resistance to magic. Even then, you could murder the archdemon in minutes with a 3 mage party and a decent tank.

My Blood Mage/Spirit Healer had infinite mana without even bothering to chug lyrium potions, because blood sacrifice + group heal essentially mean infinite reload. And since persistent abilities (i.e. spell wish and spell might) would lower your mana limit but not affect your health pool, and you could pump your constitution to 40+ with items without investing any points into it, you could easily have a spellpower of 120+ by that point and over 500 combined health/mana points with persistent abilities on.

I just do not see the tactics in a game like BG or DA:O once you learn the leveling system. After that, it is just a matter of whether or not you choose to gimp yourself by using a suboptimal build.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yeah, the characters had actual
movement speeds. They didn't just warp to where they wanted to be, which
is what they will effectively do now. The actions were based around
timers and to get them to work right you had to get the timing right. It
wasn't based on your speed like firing a gun in an FPS is based on your
finger speed. That doesn't mean it's not responsive. That mean it
responds within it's own timing.

When spacing is impossible, this is a problem. If mooks made a bee-line for your mages, your tanks had to use the broken aggro-drawing taunt or you'd have to "choose" to let your mages soak damage. There was no way to use a tank to block, which led to the overpowered taunt mechanic and the ability to use joke tactics like: have tank walk alone to draw aggro; use taunt to ensure full aggro; use force field; use storm of the century. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
Glyph Paralysis + Fireball combos could absolutely murder any crowd short of nightmare where you had to deal with the randomness of resistance to magic. Even then, you could murder the archdemon in minutes with a 3 mage party and a decent tank.

In Exile wrote...
I just do not see the tactics in a game like BG or DA:O

The first quote is the answer to the second quote. Those are, by definition, tactics. You found some that work spectacularly. Good job.

In Exile wrote...
When spacing is impossible, this is a problem. If mooks made a bee-line for your mages, your tanks had to use the broken aggro-drawing taunt or you'd have to "choose" to let your mages soak damage. There was no way to use a tank to block, which led to the overpowered taunt mechanic and the ability to use joke tactics like: have tank walk alone to draw aggro; use taunt to ensure full aggro; use force field; use storm of the century. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Sheild bash, or whatever the equivilant was for two-hander. Or the various rogue and archer abilities that handle crowd control. Or all the mage spells that handled crowd control. If one tactic doesn't work, try other ones.

[Ryzaki]

Big Blue Car wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So...someone actually moving to attack is unresponsive now?

You're a moron.

It's unresponsive because the characters all shuffle to exact right spot adjacent to the enemy before using a move, it takes ages. If you moved a character an inch to the side their attack cycle would stop. You constantly sheath and unsheath weapons to cast some spells. Character movement feels divorced from your input.

The devs have recognised this and talk about fixing it in DA2. If even the devs admit the problem is there then even you as an ur-fanboy should be able to.

Ah. What a well reasoned arguement.

And yet it doesn't answer my point in the least bit.

And fanboy? 

...Wow. The logic fail in this is astounding.

[crimzontearz]

...yeah...because seeing a hurlock vanguard rush your mage and being unable to intercept him because by the time your character was done carefully positioning himself exactly in the right spot possibly getting stuck with the environment or other characters and tried to swing the hurlock was already pummling my mage was toooootally realistic and responsive and functional right?

[Ryzaki]

crimzontearz wrote...

...yeah...because seeing a hurlock vanguard rush your mage and being unable to intercept him because by the time your character was done carefully positioning himself exactly in the right spot possibly getting stuck with the environment or other characters and tried to swing the hurlock was already pummling my mage was toooootally realistic and responsive and functional right?

Bumrushing him regardless of equipment and distance isn't realistic either. Magically being able to go through swarms of enemies to reach your target isn't realistic either.

I'm not saying DAO's was oh so realistic but to say it wasn't responsive (I.E. if you inputted a command it didn't do it) is a straight up lie.

It might not have been as quick to respond as you like but it was responsive. It was also functional, if it wasn't combat wouldn't have worked out.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:42 .

[the_one_54321]

crimzontearz wrote...
...yeah...because seeing a hurlock vanguard rush your mage and being unable to intercept him because by the time your character was done carefully positioning himself exactly in the right spot possibly getting stuck with the environment or other characters and tried to swing the hurlock was already pummling my mage was toooootally realistic and responsive and functional right?

And the character making a magic 10ft leap is more realistic? Let's not kid ourselves. There is nothing realistic about combat in video games. Again I'm not objecting to the new system. But the old complaints were still silly as hell.

[Big Blue Car]

Fail isn't a noun genius. 

Edit; if the old system had no flaws, why do smart fans and developers alike consider the unresponsiveness a flaw. do the point that the devs constantly talk about how they've fixed it? Don't bother answering you're just wrong and it's tiresome.

Modifié par Big Blue Car, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:45 .

[the_one_54321]

Seriously?

o.O

[upsettingshorts]

What I think Bioware is saying with the changes is very simple:

Responsive unrealism is better than unresponsive unrealism.

And I agree with 'em. I'd rather be slightly annoyed that my characters are too fast/powerful than be slightly annoyed that my characters are too slow/stupid.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:46 .

[Lyssistr]

soteria wrote...

The references you cited are not from Bio tho, this time it's Bio advertising DA2 as an aRPG. Bio pushed DAO as a return to their roots, a spiritual successor, a game that would revive old school RPGs etc.

You didn't read very carefully. The very first reference says, "According to the Bioware guy showing me the game..." And as many other people have commented, Bioware did use that term in the old forums (which are gone). I don't know why you insist on assuming that THIS time "action RPG" means something different from what it meant in DA:O's case.

 Well, THIS[sic] time, it comes with a gimped top down view, which pretty much suggests playing the game a la BG is not how the game is supposed to be played. Also, THIS time, consoles got the focus and old-school style pretty much requires more focus on PC. THIS time they're not even advertising it as a return to their roots.

[the_one_54321]

Big Blue Car wrote...
Fail isn't a noun genius. 

Edit; if the old system had no flaws, why do smart fans and developers alike consider the unresponsiveness a flaw. do the point that the devs constantly talk about how they've fixed it? Don't bother answering you're just wrong and it's tiresome.

Are you 12? I don't want to argue with a kid. It would be embarasing. <_<

Upsettingshorts wrote...
What I think Bioware is saying with the changes is very simple:

Responsive unrealism is better than unresponsive unrealism.

And I agree with 'em. I'd rather be slightly annoyed that my characters are too fast/powerful than be slightly annoyed that my characters are too slow/stupid.

That's a good point, and I have no objection to that. If it speeds things up, that could be a lot of fun.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:49 .

[John Epler]

A reminder that calling people names is not and never will be acceptable on these forums. If you can't get your point across without being combative, then you'll be taking a short vacation, and perhaps longer if you still don't get the idea.



Let's be civil, folks.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
The first quote is the answer to the second quote. Those are, by definition, tactics. You found some that work spectacularly. Good job. 

Ah, I see. I think we have different standards for tactics. I consider a game tactic if and only if I have to consistently reconsider the use of my set of abilities for every situation. If I can ever develop a 1-size fits-all approach, then the game is not tactical.

This is distinct from strategy, where the entire goal is long-term management. So for example, character-leveling would always be strategy.

Sheild bash, or whatever the equivilant was for two-hander. Or the various rogue and archer abilities that handle crowd control. Or all the mage spells that handled crowd control. If one tactic doesn't work, try other ones.

The problem with shield bash or any of the melee abilities is the shuffle charge; your tank would often walk with the enemy until the attack started, you got damaged, and only then use bash. And the knockdown effects were very rare on nightmare, making it not very useful.

Cone of cold or paralyze for mages worked well, but that just comes back to mages being broken and the solution to all problems. Besides - taunt works very well in all situations. It just isn't tactical because, well, it works very well in all situations.

[AtreiyaN7]

Big Blue Car wrote...

Fail isn't a noun genius. 

Edit; if the old system had no flaws, why do smart fans and developers alike consider the unresponsiveness a flaw. do the point that the devs constantly talk about how they've fixed it? Don't bother answering you're just wrong and it's tiresome.

Gee, if you're such a "smart" fan, I suppose you should get your capitalization correct all the time, not to mention punctuating correctly on a consistent basis as well. I'd list your errors, but that would be as pointless as your posts have been thus far. If all you can do to support your "argument" is to call people morons, I suggest you consider readjusting your attitude - that and using facts to support your cause.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:54 .

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
Ah, I see. I think we have different standards for tactics. I consider a game tactic if and only if I have to consistently reconsider the use of my set of abilities for every situation. If I can ever develop a 1-size fits-all approach, then the game is not tactical.

classicaly strategem is something of an "overall." Such as implimentations that will help you reach a final desired goal. Methods by which you win an entire battle. Tactics are individual movements or action. So to couple 2 spells in succession while using a swordnboard character to set up a screen is an example of tactics. Choosing to use a rogue/swordnboard/mage/mage combination for it's effective implimentations in a battle is an example of strategy.

[soteria]

Because he has a movement speed and an attack range. I mentioend those earlier as well. It's not any less ridiculous the way you put it. At least not in terms of saying "it's unresponsive." It's plenty responsive, it just doesn't respond the way you want it to respond.

That's a non sequitor to what I said. It's absolutely ridiculous that I can be within attack range and have my character still shuffle around just because special attacks didn't follow the same rules as autoattacks. Are you claiming to have never seen that behavior? Your character is in range--attacking--but using a special forces them to move before attacking?

I don't even care about the fact that you're obviously using a different definition of "unresponsive" than the rest of us. I just can't believe you're defending the behavior.

[the_one_54321]

soteria wrote...
That's a non sequitor to what I said. It's absolutely ridiculous that I can be within attack range and have my character still shuffle around just because special attacks didn't follow the same rules as autoattacks. Are you claiming to have never seen that behavior? Your character is in range--attacking--but using a special forces them to move before attacking?

It's perfectly sequitor.
Because what would be ridiculous would be if the character could completely break sequence any time you want him to when the mechanics are based around timers and sequencing. DA:O combat is about timing. That means you have to wait for an action to end before starting a new one and you have to deal with movement speed.

In specific, no I have never seen a character be in range, then move when I click an ability before using the ability. I've seen the "does not attack until movement is completed" issue. I just didn't see that as an issue. It works the same in the mechanics for everyone.

[crimzontearz]

Did I say that the dragon-ball-mad-dash-teleport-annihilation was more realistic? No... but being unable to attack when I want because I am not in the exact position at the exact angle where I am allowed to swing because that is how the animation works is just frustrating. Also it IS unresponsive because de facto I would issue a command and even tho I was right next to my target often there was a nice delay before the command was followed...that is indded unresponsive

[the_one_54321]

The character has to finish the action that is already taking place. Hence timing.

[soteria]

In specific, no I have never seen a character be in range, then move when I click an ability before using the ability. I've seen the "does not attack until movement is completed" issue. I just didn't see that as an issue. It works the same in the mechanics for everyone.

Strange. I see it with some frequency if I pay attention. I *really* noticed it when I tried timing the animations for various warrior specials.

[the_one_54321]

*shrug* It's never come up for me. I've seen them rotate when I tell them to change targets. And I've seen the two-handers fall horribly behind the rest of the party because everything they do is really slow. But that's about it, really.

[crimzontearz]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The character has to finish the action that is already taking place. Hence timing.

But my character wasn't ****ing doing anything when I issued the command, THAT is the problem. I get and agree that you should not be able to abort in mid action but that is NOT what the issue is

[the_one_54321]

Is that so? Again, never happened to me so I was unfamiliar with it.

[MerinTB]

Almost 4 full playthroughs and I never once, not once, not even after reading others starting to complain about it...

found the combat unresponsive. Combat in DA:O is not something that I ever disliked. I have some complaints about game mechanics, but combat was never one of them.



Almost 4 full playthroughs. Aggregate over 300 hours of gameplay. No issue with responsiveness of combat.



Clearly it must be subjective, but I've never seen it.



I just LOOK at the footage of gameplay for DA2 for a few seconds and I cringe.

[maxernst]

Hmm...maybe I just don't pay close enough attention. Or maybe I just don't expect immediate response because fighting with melee weapons or even a bow, isn't like pulling the trigger on the gun. I wouldn't expect instant response the way I would with a shooter. Doesn't it make sense that a special attack might require a change of balance and footwork?