96 réponses à ce sujet

[sleepy__head]

Dragon Age : A breaking of faith between GM and players
Despite the title and the criticism in this post, I promise that this is not a troll post.  I will state my case politely and constructively.
There is an unwritten and unspoken bond between players and GMs, and in the case of Dragon Age, the developers and their paying customers.  The players trust that when they pay for a gaming experience, they will be treated fairly.  After about 80 hours of playing this game, I have concluded that the developers have made this anything BUT.  Here are some reasons why I feel the way I do.

1.  So you see that group of people in front of you, you know you are about to fight them.  Anyone with half a brain will strategically position your party members before initiating contact.  But in Dragon Age (and many games by Bioware), if you initiate conversation and then things progress to combat, YOUR PARTY IS AUTOMATICALLY MOVED FOR YOU.
- That's right.  Nevermind that you have moved your archer or mages or healers back and positioned your tank and heavy hitters in front, as soon as the conversation (or cut scene) ends, your party is all grouped together, often just in perfect position for the enemies to throw a fireball, or cone of cold, or chain lightning etc. into their midst.  WHY would I want to move my party into the middle of an open area surrounded by archers and mages AND traps?  So it often ends up we need to use the first several precious seconds of combat to move the party to FIX the auto-positioning the game has forced onto you, leading to needless deaths and aggravation.  This cheesy "feature" is responsible for more deaths and reloads than anything else.

2.  At the same time, encounters that do not have cut scenes (random encounters being the worst offender here), the enemies are all magically and PERFECTLY positioned for attacks.  Pray tell, when you run into a group of wolfs during your random travels, exactly HOW does your party end up surrounded by traps without tripping over them on their way IN?  Exactly how does a group of foes, who are as surprised as you are this being a RANDOM encounter, have their mages and archers perfectly positioned in high grounds only accessible through long jogs blocked by melee fighters?
- Now, if this happens occasionally maybe I can just ignore it.  But just about EVERY random encounter has this "cheat" automatically given to the npc's.  Somehow everyone you randomly encounter in the wilderness just knows WHERE you will be, WHEN you will be there, and they all have time to set up the perfect position to ambush you while you are utterly powerless to do anything about it.

3.  This one is almost too dumb and obvious to mention : when you fight in a computer game, you want the ENEMIES to be your challenge, you don't want the GAME INTERFACE to be the thing you fight the most.  Combat being the heart of this game, you would think this is the one feature that would be flawlessly smooth, inituitive and painless, but again it is anything but.
- As soon as combat starts, you can see the enemies will IMMEDIATELY start attacking/casting.  But does your party do the same?  Of course not!  Even if you hit pause as soon as you can, and manually issue movement or combat command to each party member, as soon as you unpause, there is a delay that the enemies do NOT suffer from.  Often movement or attack orders issued to your party will be forgotten or ignored.  Party members who are moving will get in each other's way, bumping, jostling and not going where you tell them to because the path finding AI thinks that just because Person A is right next to Person B and trying to move past, A must spend several seconds to get around B even though they are both in a wide open area.
- There is no way for you to tell your party member to NOT automatically switch weapon.  If you want your archer to keep shooting even when an enemy runs past him close by, instead of putting away his bow and pulling out his sword, there is no way to do that.  So you end up with a supposed archer who runs around chasing a fleeing enemy.
- Attack orders are CONSTANTLY forgotten or cleared.  So your fighter is fighting against a templar, and gets knocked down.  Suddenly he no longer remembers who he was fighting against.  In fact, you have to CONSTANTLY and REPEATEDLY re-issue attack orders during combat, either because someone was knocked down, frozen, stunned, etc. etc.  Why make this so annoying?  You want the players to handle the strategy, and not the micromanagement of dealing with the combat interface right?

4.  The game tip says : "Try to flank your enemies".  But it conveniently neglects to mention that you can't flank your enemies if they OUTNUMBER you in EVERY battle.  You can't really have more than 4 people in your party, and you WILL be outnumbered.  So flanking is essentially and mostly a problem you DEAL with, not a viable tactic for you to USE.
- The fact that you are constantly outnumbered leads to the absurd situation in which you have to "pull" enemies by taking advantage of the bad AI.  You aggro one foe, run away while it runs after you, leading it back and then gank it.  Rinse.  Repeat.  THAT is essentially the key to victory in Dragon Age.  The devs stuck huge groups of foes everywhere, and your job is to let one or two see you, lead them away and kill them before repeating this step over and over.  If you charge, you die due to the simple fact that there are always more foes than you can handle.  Now, a few fights like that is okay, but when you are required to do that just about EVERY battle this turns into a game of bait and lure.  What a feeling of 'heroism'.

5.  Lame and cheesy NPC attacks.  I have played just about every Bioware games, every rpg and mmo's out there.  I have never experienced such ABUSES with knockdowns as this game.  Fight some enemies with shields, or drakes, and half your team will spend more time on the ground than on their feet.
- I have also never experienced such ABUSES with friendly fire as Dragon Age.  Enemies, who obviously don't care about friendly fire, often throw fireballs and blizzards directly into the midst of battles.  The game is so hell bent in killing you that it ceases to be FUN when it is willing to kill some nearby friendlies just to get one of you.  But hey, since you are outnumbered constantly they always have more fodders to throw away like this.  Cheap and cheesy tactic if I have ever seen one.
- In D&D, fireball simply does mass AoE damage.  But whoever was responsible for game balance in Dragon Age apparently decided not only that mass AoE damage isn't enough, lets add DoT (damage over time) on top of that too.  But no, even that isn't enough, lets also add knock back on top of an already overpowered attack.  Why?  The players are rarely willing to use this because of friendly fire, but the npc's don't have to worry about it.  So lets make this as OP and cheesy as possible.
- ABUSE of suppression.  "Suppression" is normally defined as crowd control.  Since you are invariably outnumbered in every battle, the fact that you have to constantly deal with being stunned, knocked down, frozen, slept, etc. etc. just makes the battles that much more frustrating.  WHY is it okay to have an ogre hold up one of your characters in the air with one hand, repeatedly pummeling him, dealing damage all the while that character is unable to do anything?  WHY is it okay to be surrounded by 3 or 4 templars only to get repeatedly knocked down over and over and over?  Hell, you don't even need to be outnumbered.  In the Fade one of the bosses was able to KEEP knocking you down, and as soon as you get up its attacks are recharged and you are on your arse again.
- ABUSE of magic.  I am a mage at heart, whenever I have a choice I always play mage type characters or mage hybrid.  But I have rarely seen a game in which magic is so OP.   Here is a perfect example : you fight 4 mages in the elven forest.  You get a conversation cut scene, and as soon as the cut scene ends, your party is all bundled up into perfect position so they are first frozen with cone of cold from one enemy, stunned by a spell from another, take DoT from chain lightning, and anyone lucky enough to survive has to deal with a huge AoE blizzard.  And yes, the spells of the enemy mages WILL take place first (see #3 above) and you WILL get hit first.  The most you can do is to reload waiting for a chance when fewer party members are frozen or stunned.  4 mages vs 4 party members, you'd think that is a FAIR fight.  Having to reload over and over and over again just to get through that part isn't my idea of "fun".

5.  LOOT CHEAT.  So you finally triumph over 6 fighters, 5 archers and 3 mages, and searching through the battlefield afterward you found...2 elfroots and 1 lesser health poultice.  Can we say what the hell?  I swear I saw the fighters swinging swords and axes at me, and those were ARROWS that the archers were shooting using their bows.  Devs, if you use something against me, its BETTER be there when I overcome the challenges.  If you don't want me to have it, don't use it against me.  The game already has an innate balance on how much you can carry on your inventory, and how (absurdly) expensive many items like backpacks, books, recipes are.

Excuses for bad design/behavior.  I know a few people would want to say : "If the game is too difficult for you, set it to Easy mode".   The obvious rebuttal to that tired old line is "why didn't the devs called Normal mode Easy?"  How about making the game, the enemies, and the interface FAIR and SMOOTH instead?  Heck, why bother with Easy mode when at the single press of the Power button of my computer I am able to NOT deal with it at all?
Ages back, when I played pen and paper D&D with friends, GMs who delighted in being unfair, are often never asked to play again.  I remember one GM attacked the party with 15-20 master archers in some unavoidable and perfectly timed/positioned ambush, killing most of us.  And when the fight was over, every bow (and even arrows) magically disappeared so there was no loot.   Needless to say we never played with that person again.  In the case of developers and their paying customers, it translates to whether they will be your customers in the future.
 

[Sylvius the Mad]

sleepy__head wrote...

So you see that group of people in front of you, you know you are about to fight them.  Anyone with half a brain will strategically position your party members before initiating contact.  But in Dragon Age (and many games by Bioware), if you initiate conversation and then things progress to combat, YOUR PARTY IS AUTOMATICALLY MOVED FOR YOU. 

I haven't noticed this, but if it's true it would make me very, very angry.  We were specifically assured during development that the game absolutely would not do this.

If your game is, I'd suggest you report it as a bug, because we were explicitly told that this would not happen.

[Zibon]

- There is no way for you to tell your party member to NOT automatically switch weapon. If you want your archer to keep shooting even when an enemy runs past him close by, instead of putting away his bow and pulling out his sword, there is no way to do that. So you end up with a supposed archer who runs around chasing a fleeing enemy.

I didn't read everything, but if you put your archer's behavior on "Ranged" they will always use a ranged weapon and never switch from it.  AFAIK any other setting will make them automatically switch for melee combat.

Modifié par Zibon, 16 novembre 2009 - 05:47 .

[Oyclo]

sleepy__head wrote...

Dragon Age : A breaking of faith between GM and players
Despite the title and the criticism in this post, I promise that this is not a troll post.  I will state my case politely and constructively.
There is an unwritten and unspoken bond between players and GMs, and in the case of Dragon Age, the developers and their paying customers.  The players trust that when they pay for a gaming experience, they will be treated fairly.  After about 80 hours of playing this game, I have concluded that the developers have made this anything BUT.  Here are some reasons why I feel the way I do.

1.  So you see that group of people in front of you, you know you are about to fight them.  Anyone with half a brain will strategically position your party members before initiating contact.  But in Dragon Age (and many games by Bioware), if you initiate conversation and then things progress to combat, YOUR PARTY IS AUTOMATICALLY MOVED FOR YOU.
- That's right.  Nevermind that you have moved your archer or mages or healers back and positioned your tank and heavy hitters in front, as soon as the conversation (or cut scene) ends, your party is all grouped together, often just in perfect position for the enemies to throw a fireball, or cone of cold, or chain lightning etc. into their midst.  WHY would I want to move my party into the middle of an open area surrounded by archers and mages AND traps?  So it often ends up we need to use the first several precious seconds of combat to move the party to FIX the auto-positioning the game has forced onto you, leading to needless deaths and aggravation.  This cheesy "feature" is responsible for more deaths and reloads than anything else.

 

Most of the rest I don't have a problem with but this one does annoy me quite a bit.

[Blindandbloody]

I'll agree with everything said. I still rate the game 11/10. But the combat is too much of a headache for me. My teammates are the dumbest retards on earth. Except my dog, he does what he can. Or she. I think it's a female... I can't tell.

[Kill The Future]

Zibon wrote...

- There is no way for you to tell your party member to NOT automatically switch weapon. If you want your archer to keep shooting even when an enemy runs past him close by, instead of putting away his bow and pulling out his sword, there is no way to do that. So you end up with a supposed archer who runs around chasing a fleeing enemy.

I didn't read everything, but if you put your archer's behavior on "Ranged" they will always use a ranged weapon and never switch from it.  AFAIK any other setting will make them automatically switch for melee combat.

The Missing Manual says Passive also prefers ranged weapons, but won't chase a fleeing enemy and won't attack unprovoked. http://dragonage.gul...acter_behaviors

[WildstarGoethe]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sleepy__head wrote...

So you see that group of people in front of you, you know you are about to fight them.  Anyone with half a brain will strategically position your party members before initiating contact.  But in Dragon Age (and many games by Bioware), if you initiate conversation and then things progress to combat, YOUR PARTY IS AUTOMATICALLY MOVED FOR YOU. 

I haven't noticed this, but if it's true it would make me very, very angry.  We were specifically assured during development that the game absolutely would not do this.

If your game is, I'd suggest you report it as a bug, because we were explicitly told that this would not happen.

It happens to me after cutscenes. I have maticulously placed my party exactly how I want them in relation to enemies and the environment, and yet, if there is a cutscene, my party is automatically moved by the program to my position. It is very annoying. For a game that has combat largely based on strategy, this really is an issue and should be addressed.

[Man Parts]

Zibon wrote...

- There is no way for you to tell your party member to NOT automatically switch weapon. If you want your archer to keep shooting even when an enemy runs past him close by, instead of putting away his bow and pulling out his sword, there is no way to do that. So you end up with a supposed archer who runs around chasing a fleeing enemy.

I didn't read everything, but if you put your archer's behavior on "Ranged" they will always use a ranged weapon and never switch from it.  AFAIK any other setting will make them automatically switch for melee combat.

This might be true for bows, but I noticed that wynne was CONSTANLY swiching to melee weapons when I wanted her to just stay back and hit with ranged.

[fairandbalancedfan]

We need more posters like the OP, posting their criticisms in a constructive way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Let's address some other points while I'm here...
[quote]sleepy__head wrote...

- There is no way for you to tell your party member to NOT automatically switch weapon.[/quote]
Yes there is.  Turn off their AI.
[quote]If you want your archer to keep shooting even when an enemy runs past him close by, instead of putting away his bow and pulling out his sword, there is no way to do that.  So you end up with a supposed archer who runs around chasing a fleeing enemy.[/quote]
Alternately, you could design his AI to do what you want.  If you want him to be an archer, make him an archer using the tactic screen.  tell him to use a bow all the time, and he will do that.
[quote]- Attack orders are CONSTANTLY forgotten or cleared.[/quote]
Because they are contrary to the tactics you assigned.  If you deselect a character, he'll behave according to his AI, which obviously tells him to do something else.
[quote]4.  The game tip says : "Try to flank your enemies".  But it conveniently neglects to mention that you can't flank your enemies if they OUTNUMBER you in EVERY battle.[/quote]
You can still flank individual enemies, even if they are in a group.  You just need to expose your own character to being flanked in the process (unless you've taken the shield talent that prevents that - hey, that seems like it was almost designed to be used that way).
[quote]5.  Lame and cheesy NPC attacks.  I have played just about every Bioware games, every rpg and mmo's out there.  I have never experienced such ABUSES with knockdowns as this game.  Fight some enemies with shields, or drakes, and half your team will spend more time on the ground than on their feet.[/quote]
There are also talents that prevent knockdowns.  If you'd like to avoid being knocked down, try those.
[quote]- I have also never experienced such ABUSES with friendly fire as Dragon Age.  Enemies, who obviously don't care about friendly fire, often throw fireballs and blizzards directly into the midst of battles.  The game is so hell bent in killing you that it ceases to be FUN when it is willing to kill some nearby friendlies just to get one of you.  But hey, since you are outnumbered constantly they always have more fodders to throw away like this.  Cheap and cheesy tactic if I have ever seen one.[/quote]
You could try to use that to your advantage.  Make sure you concentrate enemies around a single character, and the amount of damage done to enemies by the AoE attack will greatly outweigh the damage done to you or your allies.
[quote]- In D&D, fireball simply does mass AoE damage.  But whoever was responsible for game balance in Dragon Age apparently decided not only that mass AoE damage isn't enough, lets add DoT (damage over time) on top of that too.  But no, even that isn't enough, lets also add knock back on top of an already overpowered attack.  Why?[/quote]
To make it more powerful and dangerous.  It's magic.  That seems like an improvement to me.
[quote] The players are rarely willing to use this because of friendly fire, but the npc's don't have to worry about it.  So lets make this as OP and cheesy as possible.[/quote]
Players are more than willing to use it.  They just need to use it more disciminately.
[quote]- ABUSE of suppression.  "Suppression" is normally defined as crowd control.  Since you are invariably outnumbered in every battle, the fact that you have to constantly deal with being stunned, knocked down, frozen, slept, etc. etc. just makes the battles that much more frustrating.  WHY is it okay to have an ogre hold up one of your characters in the air with one hand, repeatedly pummeling him, dealing damage all the while that character is unable to do anything?[/quote]
Because that character is pinned.  If another character can stun, knockdown, horrify, imprison, or sleep the ogre, the pummeling ends.

Work as a team, and you can overcome these obstacles.
[quote]4 mages vs 4 party members, you'd think that is a FAIR fight.[/quote]
Given that I don't have 4 mages, I would never think that.  However, those Mages would be especially vulnerable to an anti-magic zone, wouldn't they?
[quote]Having to reload over and over and over again just to get through that part isn't my idea of "fun".[/quote]
Then turn down the difficulty.  I'm of the opinion that the combat isn't challenging if I don't die from time to time.  Any encounter I complete successfully the very first time I see it clearly wasn't that hard because I was able to luck into victory without knowing what I was doing.
[quote]5.  LOOT CHEAT.  So you finally triumph over 6 fighters, 5 archers and 3 mages, and searching through the battlefield afterward you found...2 elfroots and 1 lesser health poultice.  Can we say what the hell?  I swear I saw the fighters swinging swords and axes at me, and those were ARROWS that the archers were shooting using their bows.  Devs, if you use something against me, its BETTER be there when I overcome the challenges.  If you don't want me to have it, don't use it against me.  The game already has an innate balance on how much you can carry on your inventory, and how (absurdly) expensive many items like backpacks, books, recipes are.[/quote]
Stop selling things until you're sure you don't need them.  I recall I had a bunch of money when I reached one town, and I promptly sold a bunch of extra gear I was carrying.  Then I acquired two new party members and immediately ran out of money buying back all that "extra" gear in order to outfit them.

Had I done those things in a different order, I still would have had enough to buy the manuals and bags I wanted (as it was, I did not have that money - it was annoying, but it was my own fault).

[Pyrate_d]

yeah, there are some bugs with party movement (especially in the first phase of the last fight)



and it's irritating how if you're playing a rogue/tank, you're at the front of your group when the fight starts due to dialog...makes non combat stealth a lot worse

[Mnemnosyne]

I agree with #1 and #3. #2 is marginally valid. The rest seem like pointless whining.



1- Yeah. There's no excuse for this. The game shouldn't auto-position your characters for a conversation that leads to combat. At best, it should offer you formation options, so you can select where your characters will be in relation to each other, when the conversation ends.



2- This seems kind of whiny for the most part, but it's marginally valid. Only marginally so, however. I usually see random encounters laid out reasonably. Many of them are ambushes - not specifically for you, but for anyone that comes along. Such as all bands of thugs or highwaymen.



3- The characters do seem to forget what I tell them to do very quickly. It's annoying. I order everyone to attack a specific target, then I switch to a particular character to use some talents. A moment later I see that Alistair has decided to go attack that other guy over there, for no reason I can discern. If I manually issue an attack order, the party members should be locked to attacking that enemy until it dies. Neither their tactics nor their AI should allow them to switch targets until the one I manually specified is dead, or I manually reassign a target. And positioning seems a little wonky, and easier for the enemy than for your party. The ranged problem can be dealt with, however, by switching the party member's tactics to ranged - in this case they will always prefer their ranged weapon, and they don't seem to switch to melee even when they're being meleed.



4- Pulling isn't necessary and flanking works just fine. Yeah, in a chaotic melee you'll probably be flanked more than you do any flanking. You just have to decide whether to be defensive or aggressive. If you try to flank your enemies, other enemies will probably flank you too. If you try to protect yourself from being outflanked, then you probably won't manage much flanking of your own. Even on the harder difficulties, large enemy groups can be defeated without cheesy tactics, so this one is pretty much all whiny.



5- Waah. That's all I get out of this one. You don't like some of the spells and abilities, or the fact that you're outnumbered? Deal with it. It's part of the game. Why is it ok for an ogre to pummel you? Cause that's what ogres do. Is it any different than a mage casting Paralyze on you and then pummeling you? Or do you find that unfair too? Would you prefer, then, that all fights were nothing but straight up melee or damage? How boring.



6- You know, I kind of used to agree on this but I've learned it's a bad complaint, because for practical gameplay reasons it's kind of a problem. If you want to follow your "if you don't want me to have it, don't use it against me" rule, then you better also add reasonable inventory limitations. Such as no carrying around extra suits of armor, can't carry around more than three or four weapons per character (or less, depending on the size and bulkiness of the weapon), can't carry more than a half-dozen or maybe a dozen potions, and so on. These things need to be tied together. The more unrealistic your inventory capacity is, the more you have to accept that they have to also make enemies not drop every single item they use, because you would cart it all away with you like if you had a mystical U-Haul following you around, which would lead to screwing up other gameplay aspects such as how much things are worth at the shops.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Another solution to the AI problem would be the multiselect button. When you have the whole party selected, none of them will employ their AI. So if you're eager to see them not do something, tell them to do something else and then leave them selected.



I do this a lot when I'm attacked by groups of weak enemies. I open with Sleep, and I don't want the party rushing in and waking anyone, so I take control of all of them to prevent that.

[Mnemnosyne]

The multiselect button is nice if you want everyone attacking one target, but sometimes I want people dealing with specific targets. If I want two people on one target, one on a third, and a fourth to circle around to gain position to use a cone spell or backstab or something, it can often be difficult to manage because they don't want to stick on the targets I assign them to.



Tactics are a great part of the game, but it really should be set so that a manual order supersedes all tactics. Individual 'hold position' buttons would also be really nice. I might want some of my party to hold position while others move. Hold position is also a major gripe because if I hold position, then tell party members to attack a target, they'll move to that target but they won't STAY on the target, so if the target moves or is knocked away, I have to re-issue the attack order. A manual attack order should mean 'attack until target is dead or I change your instructions'.

[Sinfulvannila]

I disagree with everything except the first.

[Lurchibald]

yeah, the whole grouped together thing after cut scenes is pretty **** but other than that Sylvius the Mad is right about everything else, with my ranger i was pissed that she kept on switching back to her sword until i realised just WHY she was doing that, so i changed her tactics and she stopped

[Unbroken Lineage]

There's a "pause at combat start" option.

[Rainen89]

1. Yes it shouldn't happen. It does because the cutscene is a scripted event and has to move your characters for you in order to show them, while it shouldn't move them for you they can't just magically teleport after being shown in one place now can they?



2. Completely disagree the idea is that you're ambushed, they're not surprised and they're ready for you because it's an ambush. That's why it's a "random" encounter. While annoying it's also to be difficult and challenging. If it's too much tone it down, if not find a way to overcome. If I wanted to fight a linear 5v5 fight every time I'd go play a fps.



3 You can argue this however, the computer can't pause the game and plan how to win either. They also can't think as abstractly so you're still at an advantage. Most of the "attacks" are surprised so human reaction time would allow for the opposer to have a slight advantage when striking. Though I agree the automatic AI for the party characters is freaking retarded.



4 True, you really can't flank it's just there to be another challenge to you. You can flank in the open in that you can get a few spells/strikes off before they do but that's somantics.



5 Agree but again it makes it harder. I loathe scattershot with a fiery passion and hate the end of the game because there are plenty of times where my main character is stunlocked. DIminishing returns would be nice but sigh. Either way, your group has just as many irritating tacts to use. I assure you darkspawn aren't loving how easy it is to mass paralyze them or use forcefield bomb on them. Everyone has cheap tactics.



5/6.Agree but I think it would be a tad strange to just randomly strip every single opponent you happened to kill, not to mention time consuming I believe the "Loot" is supposed to be stuff you found quickly then moved on to defend yourself. You will never get everything the person is using.

[Kill The Future]

Koyasha wrote...

Tactics are a great part of the game, but it really should be set so that a manual order supersedes all tactics. Individual 'hold position' buttons would also be really nice. I might want some of my party to hold position while others move. Hold position is also a major gripe because if I hold position, then tell party members to attack a target, they'll move to that target but they won't STAY on the target, so if the target moves or is knocked away, I have to re-issue the attack order. A manual attack order should mean 'attack until target is dead or I change your instructions'.

It needs to supercede "Enemy:Lowest health::Attack", but not "Self:Health<50%::Use a potion, stupid", so individual tactics should probably have an override/don't override checkbox.

Agreed on individual "Hold Position".

[Wolff Laarcen]

There's actually no arguing with any item on this list. It remains to see whether or not the issues described actually bother you and that will vary from person to person, but each and every thing the OP has described on his list DEFINITELY occurs ingame without question. Some items are worse than others but they are all present.

[Kelston]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Another solution to the AI problem would be the multiselect button. When you have the whole party selected, none of them will employ their AI. So if you're eager to see them not do something, tell them to do something else and then leave them selected.

I do this a lot when I'm attacked by groups of weak enemies. I open with Sleep, and I don't want the party rushing in and waking anyone, so I take control of all of them to prevent that.

There should simply be a tactic option that says: Process what I said first. Without having to keep them selected.

Honestly, the tactics system shouldn't be a huge part of the micromanagement of the game and if it should be, then it should also be more robust. I want to play the game not wonder if I have the proper string of If->Then->Else commands. I thought I was playing Dragon Age: Origins not Gray Warden versus C++.

Modifié par Kelston, 16 novembre 2009 - 06:34 .

[Seeker341]

I agree with Wolff here, with the exception of part 4 as you can still flank people (for me more like ganging up on one enemy).. even if they are in the majority. Of course they'll have a larger chance of doing that to you.

[Archie591]

Yeah, some points are valid. Others simply whining.



#1 - True. A bit annoying. I suppose it's like that for a reason. And even though we are the players - they are the developers and I doubt a problem that so many people are mad at would be left in just accidentally. More than likely it was done specifically to deal with some others issues or smth. I'd like to hear a devs explanation though.



#2 - Game makes sense here. Obivously bandits are going to ambush you. Animals aren't that stupid either and know how to surround their prey. And about the traps. It's completely possible to enter a circle of traps and not trigger something. I don't remember there being more then one area where you were standing in a circle of traps.



#3 - First part makes sort-of sense. There is a small delay. Commands aren't accepted for a second or so, I believe this is because of the game switching from the cutscene mode to the live action mode. This does give the enemies somewhat small of an advantage. I suppose it might be fixable unless once again they felt this was needed.

The rest of the argument is invalid. Like someone said you can customize the character to do pretty much whatever you want. They switch weapons just fine, but only when the requirements of the tactic are met. And It's not that much of a stretch that people tend to forget exactly who they were fighting when they are surrounded by several enemies and get knocked out for a moment.

And like someone also mentioned - if they get knocked down you lose control of the character and your last order becomes invalid and they switch to the tactics.



#4 - Whine, whine, whine. Isn't a problem. Works just fine. There are skills to augment flanking, to help against it. No encounter is impossible no matter the difficulty or party. People think for a second how hard it must have been to make the game completable in every possible party permutation on all difficulties. If you can't make it, you obviously aren't that good of a player. And yes, some party combos are more effective then others against some enemies. Which makes sense. Do not expect to rule every situation with the same party the same way.



#5 - Whine. Magic is supposed to be extremely powerful in this game. Hence the Chantry's role in the game. Plenty of ways to counter it. Friendly fire is only a issue if you do not know what you are doing. Most people you fight are hardly friendly folk. And I doubt a bandid mage would have too many issues injuring one other bandit in order to get your gold...



#6 - Loot is scarce. And I love it. No Oblivion crap where you could take everything but their underwear. Impressive realism true, but completely unbalanced. Unlike in DAO. You have to work to have any gold to spend. Having everyone drop loop by the dozen would mean that the player would end up being very rich, which would have to make items more expensive to keep up. Which in order would make players wonder why it's so expensive to buy, but get so little when they sell.

It's a horrible economic circle and I'm glad they kept it manageble here.

I had over 800+ gold spent at the end of the playthrough. Bought every "super" item from the stores I needed, every book and still had plenty left.





Thinking about the negative makes you like the game even less. It's no fun to concentrate on it. It's no different in life, if you constantly think how bad everything is you are going to be miserable.

Think about the positive.



Obviously you must make note of the negative and it's good that you let everyone know. But seriously that game is awesome. There is a 1000 times more enjoyable content then unenjoyable stuff.



Have fun!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Kelston wrote...

I want to play the game not wonder if I have the proper string of If->Then->Else commands.

That's how I go through my whole life.

[LFDog]

I use a combination of:



1) the space key to pause the action, devise strategy



2) the HOLD button (I use the little hand under the characters) to stop everyone from automatically moving. This allows me to hold back the party, sneak my thief for a backstab on the most powerful character and get my Mage and Healer in place in the back.



3) Use the Tactic slots to tweak the AI to the way I want my party to attack. This prevents them from running off (or in some cases makes them run off).



Yes. It takes some effort on my part, but if I want a custom experience, then ... I need to customize it to my liking.



Some other comments.



Traps. I find these very well-placed. The idea is that the enemy is setting a barricade to prevent attack. So it makes sense that they both know where they are and that they are strategically placed. Try placing some of your own.



Inventory. It would be nice to find the swords, arrows and such that are used against you. However, it's a little give and take. How often would someone place a dagger in a wooden barrel in the middle of the street? For that matter, how many people can carry 6 helmets, 8 swords, some maces, bows/arrows, books, etc, etc? For "realism" in inventory, you would need to reduce inventory slots too. So I'm okay with that trade-off.



Enemy placement. I assume that they are "on patrol" or "on alert" when they are expecting an attack or defending an area. Going back to my theif statement above, I snuck my NPC thief using stealth into a large group of enemies and was surprised that they actually do move in a patrol type pattern!