411 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

tmp7704 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

It would seem that the enemies basically abide by Origins "shuffle" rules while Hawke and Friends get to dash and do their closing moves.

This strikes me as being a misunderstanding. Surely the game would be too easy if that was the case.

This seems to be info given in the dev answer thread. I think the shuffle thing was only found irritating by designers when it affected the player's character and the companions -- since it affects the sense of "your" characters promptly doing what told.

But yes, it does create concern that this disparity combined with the disparity in way the damage is delivered (yours is instant, enemies still play by old rules) and removal of friendly fire on most difficulty levels will make the game quite easier than before. On the other hand, supposedly encounters are done bit differently now, with waves of reinforcements showing up more frequent rather than just bunch of guys delivered upfront. Maybe it'll be enough, maybe it won't.

Wait, what?! So you have to play on nightmare not to be magically protected from your mage's spells? That's probably not a huge issue, since I generally play DA:O on nightmare, but I sure didn't the first time through. On the other hand, now I know how the combat works (hopefully it's close enough to the same for that to still be true). Thing is, now, nightmare is fairly easy. If I have to start at nightmare, there isn't going to be anywhere to go.

Modifié par errant_knight, 13 décembre 2010 - 04:16 .

[tmp7704]

That was the last word we got on it from the dev thread, but it was a while ago. Maybe it was changed meantime, dunno.

I'm guessing this change was made at least in part because all warrior's attacks are now also AoE and so it'd be easy for them to hit other companions (each swing is effectively like a small cone of cold or that cone-shaped fire spell) Still... not a fan, personally.

[Tsuga C]

errant_knight wrote...
If I have to start at nightmare, there isn't going to be anywhere to go.

Oh, given the new direction and mandates BioWare is wed to via EA, I think it's quite clear where they're telling grognards to go. 

Modifié par Tsuga C, 13 décembre 2010 - 04:55 .

[In Exile]

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
And considering that there is nothing which would prevent the warrior from switching to melee once enemy reaches them and deliver the same 100 dmg at once after the same 4 seconds, i still don't see why that extra damage is worse than lack of it. You're presenting a false choice here. [/quote]

No, the false choice is yours. You continue to act as if the trade-off is between not attacking until we get into melee or attacking via range, when instead what we should be looking at is the trade-off with regard to full party composition.

[quote]The damage values you present are either intentionally or out of ignorance downplaying the effect of archery btw. Out of curiosity i gave Alistair plain tier 6 longbow. He has no archery talents whatsoever, and deals ~40 damage per shot to a target. For comparison, with equally plain tier 6 sword + shield setup he deals 30-odd damage per swing to the same target and around 80 using Overpower ability (but that ability takes an equivalent of ~2 regular attacks to animate)[/quote]

I was being facetious to illustrate the point. If we are going to be realistic then we need to look at builds. If we are talking about S&S then we need to specificy whether we are using an STR or DEX build. Moreover, comparing a simple tier 6 longsword to a plan tier 6 longbow is misleading.

Melee is superior because you can buff your attack with runes which far outpace consumable ammo in damage. Moreover, there is never a need to use a plain tier 6 longsword given the magical loot available.

Archery talents do not add to archery damage; only your basic stats do that.

[quote]Well, if the standard on the other hand is supposed to be "if it's not the best possible then it's useless" then we can pretty much end it right here -- this sort of min-maxing black and white approach has simply too different definition of "useful" (compared to normal language) to allow an agreement.[/quote]

But if we use useful as 'I think it's good enough' then we're arguing based on your idiosyncratic truism, which gets is nowehere. Obviously you think it's useful because you otherwise wouldn't do it.

[quote]Yeah, i found this out very much out of necessity after an attempt to tackle things the standard way with Alistair acting like brave knight went pear shaped   But it's surprisingly decent and it allows the mage to focus on the damage more since there's rarely need to heal anyone. The bit more hectic nature also makes it more fun to me than the typical tank and spank thing, but i'll accept the mileage may vary regarding this aspect.[/quote]

I don't tank. I use 3 mages + 1 warrior only because the game does not allow me to use 4 mages. Mages are superior range dmg dealers compared to archers. And the game has so much warrior magical loot that a single warrior even without DLC is a demi-god.

That's the other issue with melee. We have to account for enchanted weaponry. A warrior can easily deal 60 dmg + per hit with S&S on the right build with a 30% critical rate by level 17.

[quote]Hmm maybe i'm just fail to explain it properly, seeing how your interpretation again misses the point i'm trying to make regarding the trapped areas. Let me try again.

* ranged approach: moderate damage dealt, moderate damage taken (from enemy archers if there actually is any)
* melee approach: high damage dealt, high damage taken (from enemy archers if there is any, and traps)[/quote]

No, your missing the point. First of all, it's absolutely subjective whether the damage from traps (which is effectively zero) changes anything from moderate dmg to high dmg.

Secondly, again, we are talking about trade-offs, which you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

Melee + mages approach: insane damage (magic almost kills enemies) + high melee damage = enemies always dead, damage in maybe 5% of encounters that have traps.

[quote]do you see what i'm getting at now? Being able to deal more damage in melee in trap-filled area is offset by taking extra damage from these traps. [/quote]

No, it isn't. Firstly, there are barely any damage dealing traps in the game. The only ones, really, are in Jarvia's hideout. Secondly, there are barely any traps in the game.

So to say that traps should factor into any situation is silly. Not to mention that your initial point had nothing at all to do with traps, and was instead a claim about 'free' damage from archery.

[quote]In such situation, choosing ranged approach nets you comparable utility overall (with less risk the rate of incoming damage will overwhelm your ability to maintain your health) or a net gain if at least some of the enemies in the area in question actually aren't able to hit you from range themselves and have to shuffle to you, taking damage along the way.[/quote]

There is no net gain; again, I am not sure what game you are talking about. Yes, in some hypothetical game these might be concerns, but not in DA:O.

[quote]As such, i view archery in such situation to be as useful as melee, which is in response to the original claim how there's no use for archery in DAO whatsoever. Of course, if you insist to look at it from viewpoint of "if it's not better than melee then it's useless" but then oh well, it's horses for courses.[/quote]

No, it's worse than melee. The only time it can be as useful is if you've designed your party in such a way you are not taking advantage at all from mage or warrior CC.

[quote]And to that i answered that in order to deal damage to the enemies who suffer from knockback your melee characters have to be in melee range. [/quote]

Which I already addressed by pointing out that you outdamage archery closing.

[quote]Since the battle begins with both parties at certain distance from each other your argument (still) fails to account for that period where your warriors are unable to damage things which are out of their reach. And which is the very period i'm talking about. Preventing the enemies from moving doesn't after all bring them right under your nose where your melee would want them.[/quote]

And melee outdamages them.

[quote]In other words -- if you let enemy come to you while you shoot them, then as they approach close enough deliver your knockback and unleash your melee on them, that's more damage dealt overall than in the scenario where you're (as i'm taking it) running to the enemy yourself and then doing the same knockback + damage routine.[/quote]

In that scenario you're taking FF fireball damage because they've already closed into your cone. You're just not accounting for the devastating power of magic here.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
When engaging your opponents at range, melee users cannot hit you.

That's certainly something that's been lost.

But getting hit is irrelevant in DA:O with the right party composition.

I have a hard time understanding how someone could identify the path that involves getting hit as somehow superior to the one that doesn't.

If getting hit somehow mattered, that would be one thing. Bu we have HP bars and infinite healing via magic. This is quite literally a numbers game. Maximize damage taken and minimize damage received; you optimize both via melee.

[Ziggeh]

errant_knight wrote...

Thing is, now, nightmare is fairly easy. If I have to start at nightmare, there isn't going to be anywhere to go.

That's assuming game balance will be the same.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
In a game?  For the challenge, maybe?

I have never understood the handicap mindsent.

Ignoring the RP side of things, like WANTING a bow warrior despite what min-max of game mechanics might say about sword DPS vs. bow DPS or whatever...

I mix-max exclusive from an RP standpoint. Why would my characters ever prepare themselves in some suboptimal way? That would be like modern soldiers refusing rifles or body armour.

My first playthrough of DA:O - Morrigan as a shapeshifter, no arcane warrior, no healing magic, and until the Dalish Camp (the last of the treaties I did) I didn't have healing potions outside of what I bought (no herbalism beyond the 1 point Morrigan had at start.)  My rogue maxed out the talking skills, then the lock picking/trap disarming skills, the esoteric rogue talents, and dabbled in both bows and dual wield until the very end of the game.

I had a blast.

Okay? Like I said, I don't understand the fun of self-handicapping.

I still haven't had an arcane warrior or used cone of cold (more than a few castings in a couple battles at the early stages of my first playthrough) or crushing prison as I read people talking about them being OP and I didn't want that.
I did use a lot of shapeshifting as I kept reading people saying it "sucked."

I had a blast.

Going right back to my ''I don't understand why being weak is fun'' angle.

I don't min-max.  I don't look for the ultimate uber-build that's most effective.  I try and come up with a concept and then make the concept effective (if not the most effective thing I could possibly do, so be it.)

I see the game as a set of constraints, and I like beating those constraints. I don't find it fun to beat self-imposed constraints, because all that usually just amounts to aggravation (e.g. lenghty encounters).

I cannot understand how people have fun playing the game the "most efficient way always" way myself.  That just seems boring... why not set the game to easy mode and use a cheat code for "god mode" invulnerability, those both seem the "optimal" ways to win the game. <_<

Why should I gimp myself to get a challange? I'm not seeing the point of your strawman here. 

Creating the most efficient build is very difficult. There are lots of nuances you need to capture.

[Drasanil]

In Exile wrote...
I mix-max exclusive from an RP standpoint. Why would my characters ever prepare themselves in some suboptimal way? That would be like modern soldiers refusing rifles or body armour.

So you Roll-play as opposed Roleplay? Kind of defeats the point of an RPG, it's not like your characters know that having an exact ratio of Dex to Con to Str points is "optimal". From an equipment point of view what you said makes sense, from a Stats/Abilities point of view that's really not the case.

[AlanC9]

Drasanil wrote...

So you Roll-play as opposed Roleplay? Kind of defeats the point of an RPG, it's not like your characters know that having an exact ratio of Dex to Con to Str points is "optimal". From an equipment point of view what you said makes sense, from a Stats/Abilities point of view that's really not the case.

Sure, but the whole increasing stats system doesn't make much sense from an RP standpoint. You're that much stronger by the end of DAO, really?

[In Exile]

Drasanil wrote...
So you Roll-play as opposed Roleplay? Kind of defeats the point of an RPG, it's not like your characters know that having an exact ratio of Dex to Con to Str points is "optimal". From an equipment point of view what you said makes sense, from a Stats/Abilities point of view that's really not the case.

No, I roleplay. To begin with, I don't think any of the gameplay represents something characters in game know, and I certainly don't think Sten is 5x stronger and Morrigan is 5x wiser or Zevran is 5x more cunning by the end of the game.

But they do know things like fire burns flesh, and it isn't hard to sit down and tell which of the spells sound better than the others. After all, picking spells you don't even have the numbers available to you.

Gameplay and story segregate. It's why 1 arrow almost kills you at Ostagar but you can tank hundreds and never die everywhere else in the game.

Modifié par In Exile, 13 décembre 2010 - 06:11 .

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
Melee is superior because you can buff your attack with runes which far outpace consumable ammo in damage. 

Don't the better bows have rune slots too?

Note that consumable ammo is gone from DA2.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Don't the better bows have rune slots too?

I have never encounted this. Do they?

Note that consumable ammo is gone from DA2.

Is it being replaced with anything?

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
I see the game as a set of constraints, and I like beating those constraints. I don't find it fun to beat self-imposed constraints, because all that usually just amounts to aggravation (e.g. lenghty encounters). 

How do you feel about exploits? Say, Force Field on your tank. I classify this as an exploit because the AI does not respond rationally to the situation.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

How do you feel about exploits? Say, Force Field on your tank. I classify this as an exploit because the AI does not respond rationally to the situation.

I'm against them, precisely for the reasons you describe. I think catching a weak-spot in the AI is like playing the game on easy.

[In Exile]

filaminstrel wrote...

Peter Thomas thread.

He also mentions something interesting earlier about bows where all of the damage is replaced with an element, kind of like Shale's crystals. So, a fire bow, for example. Can also occur with melee weapons.

I thought Alan C9 meant in DA:O.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Don't the better bows have rune slots too?

I have never encounted this. Do they?

Never did Leliana's quest, I see. The bow you get there has three rune slots.

I was about to refer you to the wiki, but they don't actually list rune lots on the individual items. Apparently it goes by material type. So all the best bows will have three slots.

DA2 bows will upgrade the same way other items do, apparently. They agreed with you that the ammo was weak, and decided to scrap it rather than introduce higher-power ammo as the game goes on.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 décembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Never did Leliana's quest, I see. The bow you get there has three rune slots.

Are you sure? I absolutely do not recall Marjolane's bow having rune slots.

Bows will upgrade the same way other items do, apparently. They agreed with you that the ammo was weak, and decided to scrap it rather than introduce higher-power ammo as the game goes on.

The problem isn't the damage - it's the fact it is consumable. It would have to add much more damage to remain consumable to be worthwhile, at least IMO.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

No, the false choice is yours. You continue to act as if the trade-off is between not attacking until we get into melee or attacking via range, when instead what we should be looking at is the trade-off with regard to full party composition.

If you can explain to me in plain terms how the melee members of your party can instantly use their melee attacks on enemies who are outside of melee range, i'm all ears.

There is nothing false about looking at contribution of individual members of your party at any given point. And even if we look at it your way and consider the party on the whole, then mages + ranged warriors still deal more damage combined than the alternative of having just mages deal damage while warriors are doing nothing.

I was being facetious to illustrate the point. If we are going to be realistic then we need to look at builds. If we are talking about S&S then we need to specificy whether we are using an STR or DEX build. Moreover, comparing a simple tier 6 longsword to a plan tier 6 longbow is misleading.

Misleading, as opposed to "being facetious"? The build in question was strength-oriented. I had to actually swap to some shoes with dexterity bonus to equip that bow.

Melee is superior

I don't believe i have claimed anywhere in this discussion that archery provides higher damage output (in situation where both ways are possible to be used) I didn't see need to "be facetious" about facts though, when these facts can stand well enough on their own.

But if we use useful as 'I think it's good enough' then we're arguing based on your idiosyncratic truism, which gets is nowehere. Obviously you think it's useful because you otherwise wouldn't do it.

I think we could simply use "useful" the way it's generally used, which is "providing utility". In this sense archery is useful, period. Whether it's useful enough for your standards can be another matter, but that's not the statement i was arguing against and, for the reasons i have already stated, not one i intend to argue against.

No, your missing the point. First of all, it's absolutely subjective whether the damage from traps (which is effectively zero) changes anything from moderate dmg to high dmg.

I'm not privy to your reasoning so i can only answer that with "huh". Given a situation i talk about involves standing in area in which traps deal significant damage to your characters, the claim that damage "is effectively zero" is rather curious, but utterly confusing.

Secondly, again, we are talking about trade-offs, which you seem to refuse to acknowledge.

No, the trade-offs are the very point i'm basing this argument on. "more damage dealt but more taken vs less dealt but less taken" seems to match the idea of trade-off, to me.

So to say that traps should factor into any situation is silly.

...

i'm sorry, but are you intentionally being thick to just keep it going? I'm certainly not saying that "traps should factor into any situation". Instead, i'm specifically discussing these particular situations where the traps do, in fact, factor. 

It seems to me you aren't as much arguing what i say, but rather a complete misinterpretation of it. Given i have tried to explain what i actually meant  a few times by now and it's still apparently a failure on my part, i'm going to call it quits here.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

But getting hit is irrelevant in DA:O with the right party composition.

Getting hit is never irrelevant.  I don't think anyone who's ever been hit could possibly hold that opinion.

Regardless of whether getting punched in the face has any lasting consequences, it's not something I want to do because I really wouldn't enjoy it.

If getting hit somehow mattered, that would be one thing. Bu we have HP bars and infinite healing via magic. This is quite literally a numbers game. Maximize damage taken and minimize damage received; you optimize both via melee.

And this is why we disagree.

You're playing a game.  I'm playing a character.

[tmp7704]

AlanC9 wrote...

Never did Leliana's quest, I see. The bow you get there has three rune slots.

I have just checked in game to make sure, but that bow doesn't appear to have any rune slots for me. For that matter i can't recall any other bow with slots -- i think it has something to do with technical limitation of damage being delivered by arrows rather than the bow itself. And that's supposed to be a change in DA2 where the arrows are no longer present and you can use runes like for any other weapons.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think bows in DAO have runeslots.

There were mods that gave runeslots to bows (and armour), but the core game didn't have them.

[AlanC9]

Whoops! Turns out that runes on bows are part of the Combat Tweaks mod, not base DAO. I've been using the mod for so long that I've forgotten what it changes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

How do you feel about exploits? Say, Force Field on your tank. I classify this as an exploit because the AI does not respond rationally to the situation.

I'm against them, precisely for the reasons you describe. I think catching a weak-spot in the AI is like playing the game on easy.

That seems inconsistent with the rest of your position.  It's something that clearly works really well, and your character seeks maximum effectiveness.

[Vylan Antagonist]

errant_knight wrote...

[Wait, what?! So you have to play on nightmare not to be magically protected from your mage's spells? That's probably not a huge issue, since I generally play DA:O on nightmare, but I sure didn't the first time through. On the other hand, now I know how the combat works (hopefully it's close enough to the same for that to still be true). Thing is, now, nightmare is fairly easy. If I have to start at nightmare, there isn't going to be anywhere to go.

I know this has kinda transitioned into a 'Character Optimization' thread, but I believe there's an important point to be made about Friendly Fire that you may not be aware of, errant_knight. Melee attacks are now frequently Area of Effect. To borrow 4E parlance, DA2 warriors are essentially Martial Controllers. Two-handed and Sword'n'board attacks affect multiple targets at once. As a result, enabling Friendly Fire might affect more than just Mages; You might have to worry about being tagged by your warrior's attacks. In fact, this may even apply to basic attacks for all we know at this point. This makes Friendly Fire much more of a logistical nightmare than it would be if you simply had to keep your party members out of your fireball radius.

On the other hand, this also means that, regardless of platform, area effect attacks have been balanced with these assumptions in mind. They are known to always be selective in effect, so a spell that might have done 10X damage before, but was balanced by the fact that it was too dangerous to use when your beaters are engaged in melee, might now only do 6X damage, since it is assumed that characters will be spamming it regardless of the placement of friendlies.

Modifié par Vylan Antagonist, 13 décembre 2010 - 07:47 .