725 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

adlocutio wrote...
No one here believes that, you just fail to understand.  I want to fight enemies intelligent enough to adapt to the most obvious tactics.  If I'm in a chokepoint, they should switch to ranged and try to focus fire me down. LIke fish in a barrel. which is what I would be.

That would be useless, because enemies that try to switch to range are just AOE & CC bait. All you have to do is chase them enough that they have to crowd in a narrow corridor to fire, and them turn them to dust. If they didn't rush to break your ranks it would be even easier.

Movement should be tactical in nature.  In other words, I should move not to avoid being hit by flying rocks, but to coordinate a defense or an assault, or to counter the enemy's movements.  One is tedious micromanagement, the other is party-based tactics.

I agree, but RPGs will never be able to support this without idiotic terrain and essentially making the party & the enemy identical in dmg output but the party outnumbered.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
But the worst offender is DA:A. The game is unplayable unless you have a "Warden" who wants to be a Warden.

It can also be played as a Prince Consort as well who genuinely wants to serve / has plans for Ferelden (or any PC that wants to help Ferelden, though yea they have to tolerate being Warden commander for that).

Probably the main reason why I really enjoyed it, when many did not. Understandably so.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:44 .

[Lenimph]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


In Act 2, instead of being told about a mage resistance and superficially helping them, you could actually involve yourself more directly with them and when doing so, discover different view points and ideas within the mages (a good place to introduce the resolutionists).

 I can see this... I guess 

In Act 2 or 3. In the Chantry itself, we could see two NPCs (or more) that represent the inner Chantry division vis-a-vis the Divine and the mage issue. They in essence would act as a microcosm. It would still be telling over showing, but it's better than nothing. Since we can chat with Elthina, I don't see why we can't with two sisters of lower rank (indeed, more often then not most ideological divides within organisations happen in the middle and lower ranks). Ideally, maybe they could have had a quest about it, or that shows it. 

 
  For Act 2 dialog about the Qunari and Petrice would be more appropriate.  For Act 3 I find it very unlikely that Hawke could get more out of lower level sisters then Elthina or Leliana. 

Meredith should have been introduced way earlier for as it stands, she barely has any character development at all. How? Well I still find it weird that Meredith apparently never cared about the Qunari until they launched their attack. She has the largest military force in Kirkwall and she doens't seem worried about the Qunari that are armed to the teeth in the middle of the city with undeclared reasons? Heck, the Qunari even send a death sqaud to the gallows.  That would have been a proper time to introduce her and a proper time to have Hawke interact with her. Same with Orsino who as it stands, doesn't have a character. 

 I don't see why Hawke would be concerned about Orsino at all.  And as for Meredith's concern, well it's hard to attack the Gallows without a boat. 

As for mage dynamics. We can see Grace in the courtward of the gallows, so if they don't want to show us the insides, have 2-3 mage npcs from different fraternities debate about it thoroughly and have Hawke come in, listen and potentially participate. Again, telling and not showing, but better than nothing (or 1-2 lines of dialogue). I'd prefer it being integrated into a quest of some sort.

 Oh you mean like in DA:O?  I guess that would be nice for new players. 

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote..
It can also be played as a Prince Consort as well who genuinely wants to serve / has plans for Ferelden (or any PC that wants to help Ferelden, though yea they have to tolerate being Warden commander for that).

Not at all. You have to have a Prince Consort (or Queen) who believes that commanding the Grey Wardens is the best way to serve Ferelden or satisfy any plans. But there is no reason to think that an Orlesian Grey Warden isn't the best choice to just kill darkspawn (remember, at that point, the whole point is to rebuild the Warden order in Amaranthine).

In fact, you'd need a Prince Consort/Queen that isn't of the opinion that giving an extranational force like the Wardens a fief is a decidedly bad idea.

ETA:

Oh you mean like in DA:O?  I guess that would be nice for new
players.

A game has to be judged on its own merits. If DA2 needs DA:O to justify mage dynamics, it did a bad job.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:58 .

[Feraele]

JohnEpler wrote...

Feraele wrote...

alex90c wrote...

When Bioware in these little interviews repeatedly blame people who dislike the game for not being able to handle the "innovations" and they "wanted a second Origins" despite people saying this is absolute BS on the forum and it was simply because they thought the game itself sucked, it really does make you wonder whether they're even paying attention to what we say.

I think they are avoiding what we say..ignoring us to be blunt.    They will continue to do things their way (of course..due to budget and orders from HQ)   and I guess think that the fans don't know what they like..that Bioware knows best and so it will go.     I can see a certain amount of that...but at the same time, taking clues from the fanbase on direction headed, what works, what doesn't work.....and discussing it amongst the dev team..wouldn't hurt.   Or would it?  

If we're ignoring you guys, we're doing an awfully poor job of it. We're still reading the forums on a regular basis, and whenever we see an opportunity to do so, we still interact with you guys. The Constructive Criticism thread is still being read, as is the review thread in this forum. We're still making sure to see what you guys liked and didn't like in DA2, as well as the reasons behind both. 

However, and I say this as a general statement - insults and vitriol are not going to get us to listen to you. Is there anything wrong with expressing your frustration at the direction DA2 went? Of course not - look to a number of posters on these forums (most of whom are on my friends list because I value their input) for examples of how you can be opposed to the direction the series went with this installment and still be constructive. However, referring to other posters (or developers) as morons, idiots, etc. - that's a quick path to being both A) banned and  ignored.

We understand that there are concerns with DA2, and we're doing what we can to address some of them. Having said that - not every concern you have will be addressed. We're not building a game by committee, and that's good, because doing so would be an impossible task that would result in a mess of a game. Certainly, there are concerns that fans have with DA2 that are near universal - but there are others that are perceived in a wildly different fashion, depending on who you speak with. And there are some concerns that aren't necessarily with the decision that was made, but rather the specifics of implementation.

In the end, we have to make the decisions ourselves. Some of them will work. Some of them won't - that's okay, that's on us. Game design is an iterative process, and if we could make a game where everyone liked every single design decision - well, I'd own no fewer than three islands shaped like my face. But we are listening.

Insults and vitriol?  I don't think so..large disappointment yes.    Large disappointment with the idea that no you folks weren't listening when you first told us all the changes to DA2..prior to releasing it.     The Mass Effect stylizing of Dragon Age, it's very evident, and it seems that's more than likely how the rest of the franchise will continue to look...because in that area you (the company) seem to believe that Mass Effect was the better game, therefore everything..ever after that..needs to be its clone.     

Dragon Age, far as I know..was supposed to be the old fashioned RPG, allowing you to roleplay your character, allowing you space and freedom to do that..within the lore constraints.    

I realize what I am speaking about is old news, but it is still something that bothers me a great deal.    I'll ask the question again..why fix something that wasn't broken..(not talking about the bugs here)  Dragon Age Origins had a style and flavour all its own.   Dragon Age 2 is a pale shadow of its predecessor...I can't relate to it..I can't relate to the console controls.    Everything..and I mean everything changed.     And not for the better.  

Well with the exception of the character animations, and graphics.    Those were improvements.    We were told that all these changes taking place..were done in order to woo the console crowd.     Very offputting as I have bought every dlc and I bought the collector's edition (digital).    So in other words, those of us who happen to use the PC platform were cast aside in favour of these others...in order to boost sales.    I have no clue if that worked or not, but the way it was presented to us in that original announcement, it was very off-putting.   I see folks stating that the sales for DA 2 did not compare with the sales from Origins. 

Also,   when talking about input from the fanbase, the boards as it were,  I was not stating that every little thing we ever dream up..should be considered by the Dev team...what I was referring to was, when there was a definite negative reaction to CERTAIN proposed changes, and the changes were put in anyways,    its those things that make me..and possibly others think that  you (the company) are not listening to your fanbase.      Thought I would clarify that..I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation...that when you get a major negative reaction from your fans, that you at least consider that or discuss it before going ahead and implementing it anyways.

We may be "just the fans or fanbase" but we are also your customers.   We're here to support you and your games, but we also know what we like and we don't like. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lenimph wrote...
  For Act 2 dialog about the Qunari and Petrice would be more appropriate.  For Act 3 I find it very unlikely that Hawke could get more out of lower level sisters then Elthina or Leliana.

Why not?
Nothing is physically stopping Hawke from stumbling into an argument in the Chantry between two groups of sisters for example.

And it''s not about secret info being revealed. But rather to have us see the internal Chantry divide, even if a small peak at it, and hear their positions (even if vague). It would have given the impression that the divide is important and relevent to the plot (and may have explained why the Chantry is so inactive).

 I don't see why Hawke would be concerned about Orsino at all.  And as for Meredith's concern, well it's hard to attack the Gallows without a boat.

Well I don't see why Hawke would want to stay in Kirkwall after Act 2, especially if spoilers [ (all his family is dead) ].

Why would I want to learn more about Orsino? Well for one, his face shows up when I start the game, so I assume he's supposed to be important. Second, he represents the Circle (at least officially). This is supposed to be about mages ve templars, so mages need to have screen time as well.  

Why would Hawke want to? I don't know, why would Hawke want to run his errands?
Orsino as it stands is a missed opportunity and is barely a character. I don't see why they shouldn't  have developped him.

As for Meredith. Well other than the fact that the Qunari are in the docks (where there are boats), and that they possess explosives, the Qunari also pose a threat to the city she is claiming to protect (and are attracting converts), while deliberately making sure she is the only one capable of protecting it. How could she not care? Doesn't make sense.

 Oh you mean like in DA:O?  I guess that would be nice for new players. 

Preferrably more and not just for new players. We hear a few lines of dialogue about the Cumberland vote. Ideally, I would have vastly preferred a cutscene showing us the conference. But what we could have had is a discussion between several mages that ends up being a mirocosm for the conference. We hear their arguments, what they'd want...etc etc.

Now ideally, I'd wish that all of the above is integrated into the main plot (or have sub plots and sidequests) and not just extra lines of dialogues, because I prefer the game showing me and not just telling me. That would have added more complexity and depth to the entire issue.

Of course I'd also have the entire concept of the idol erased from existence, but what can you do.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote..
It can also be played as a Prince Consort as well who genuinely wants to serve / has plans for Ferelden (or any PC that wants to help Ferelden, though yea they have to tolerate being Warden commander for that).

Not at all. You have to have a Prince Consort (or Queen) who believes that commanding the Grey Wardens is the best way to serve Ferelden or satisfy any plans. But there is no reason to think that an Orlesian Grey Warden isn't the best choice to just kill darkspawn (remember, at that point, the whole point is to rebuild the Warden order in Amaranthine).

It was more than just killing Darkspawn though. The Commander would essentially become the Arl of Amaranthine. Indeed, they didn't even know there would be a darkspawn threat.

Though yea like I said, the character needs to either tolerate the idea of being a Warden commaner, or think it's a good hting. Or perhaps think that giving Amranthine to the Wardens is not a good idea, but it was outside his control, so he thought to salvage the situation as much as possible (a "might as well be me" kind of mindset).

Though of course I am nto saying that Awakening is not a slap in the face. It really requires a very specific mindset / character to enjoy it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

...making the party & the enemy identical in dmg output but the party outnumbered.

That is exactly what I would like to see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

It depends on how you view the dialogue system. If you (for example) have characters that don't avoid saying
things, then DA:O only supports I [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/heart.png[/smilie] Warden dialogues (the Wynne conversation, for example, where you cannot deny you consider yourself a Grey Warden).

Again, that's a construction the game doesn't support.  BioWare has yet to make a game that allows an active and expressive PC without completely removing the player's ability to control that PC.

But the worst offender is DA:A. The game is unplayable unless you have a "Warden" who wants to be a Warden.

Never played it.  It was actually the patch requirements that stopped me (I refused to patch to 1.03, and Awakenings required 1.03).

In Exile wrote...

I want to just point out and say that I think DA:O allowed for the illusion of variance with certain character types, because essentially DA:O removed a middle step. In reality, we have personality - behaviour - outcome.

But DA:O just has outcome (and it isn't entirely transparent how you pick it) and you have the opportunity for some limited make-believe of behaviour (which may or may not be consistent with the things you do).

Better than that, I don't think the outcome matters, because we can't control the behaviour or understanding of others, so it's really just personality - behaviour, and that's all.

DA2 shows us the behaviour, which means we're stuck with the behaviour the writers chose.  DAO doesn't show us the behaviour, so it can be whatever we'd like.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:20 .

[adlocutio]

In Exile wrote...
There's no way for them to adapt. Even if they do actually sorrounding you, that just makes a 2  warrior party ideal, with either 2 mages (for CC) or a mage (limited CC) and a rogue (for anti-elites DPS).

RPGs will never be tactical until we have intelligent environmental design. And spells & abilities that take advantage of the terrain.

I agree that real world tactics are limited in their use in RPGs due to lack of realistic environments.  What I meant, though, is for the enemies not to rush into a corridor, but to spread out outside of the corridor and fire into it.  Ideally they would be too spread out for me to target them all with AOE or crowd control. They, however, could target me with AOE or CC because my party is in a confined space.  Ideally, you shouldn't be able to force them to chase you to their disadvantage.  This would be most easily addressed by making the enemies stay within a battlefield border.

In Exile wrote...
That would be useless, because enemies that try to switch to range are just AOE & CC bait. All you have to do is chase them enough that they have to crowd in a narrow corridor to fire, and them turn them to dust. If they didn't rush to break your ranks it would be even easier.

I think I addressed this concern.  Point it out if I didn't, though.

In Exile wrote...
I agree, but RPGs will never be able to support this without idiotic terrain and essentially making the party & the enemy identical in dmg output but the party outnumbered.

What exactly do you mean by idiotic terrain?  Why necessary for them to have identical dmg outputs? I would understand everyone using weapons all with dmg in a certain range, but mages will always throw that kind of balance out the window because dmg output can be reduced or mitigated through magic.  I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

[Lenimph]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why not?
Nothing is physically stopping Hawke from stumbling into an argument in the Chantry between two groups of sisters for example.

There is nothing to suggest  divisions between sisters are properly organized into groups... but rather individually.  And often when one expresses different idealology with the other sisters ignore or critisize them. (I assume this because of Leliana) 

Well I don't see why Hawke would want to stay in Kirkwall after Act 2, especially if spoilers [ (all his family is dead) ].

A house and title that Hawke worked hard to achieve?  My Hawke was going to leave with Isabela but Castillions ship was still mustard yellow...   Bethany and Carver can still be in Kirkwall and very much alive as well. 

Why would Hawke want to? I don't know, why would Hawke want to run his errands?
Orsino as it stands is a missed opportunity and is barely a character. I don't see why they shouldn't  have developped him.  

I do not disagree with you but I don't see why you're suggesting it to be done in act 2.  

As for Meredith. Well other than the fact that the Qunari are in the docks (where there are boats), and that they possess explosives, the Qunari also pose a threat to the city she is claiming to protect, while deliberately making sure she is the only one capable of protecting it (and are attracting converts). How could she not care? Doesn't make sense.

So what if they are in the docks? They don't have their own boats and they refuse to steal (you know because of the Qun)   Also we don't know the power of the gunpowder like substance of the Qunari,  but I doubt it is enough to attack the gallows from range.  She might have wanted to do something about it but it wasn't within her power and in Act 2 she's not yet tainted by the idol, and probably not willing to make visible reaches out of it.

Modifié par Lenimph, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:48 .

[KLUME777]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But the worst offender is DA:A. The game is unplayable unless you have a "Warden" who wants to be a Warden.

Never played it.  It was actually the patch requirements that stopped me (I refused to patch to 1.03, and Awakenings required 1.03).

I'm curious, what did you not want in patch 1.03? There is nothing here on the DA Wiki - Patches that i can see thats bad - at least bad enough to skip an entire 40 hour expansion pack.

Modifié par KLUME777, 01 juillet 2011 - 05:50 .

[adlocutio]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

...making the party & the enemy identical in dmg output but the party outnumbered.

That is exactly what I would like to see.

Curious what about this appeals to you.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lenimph wrote...
There is nothing to suggest  divisions between sisters are properly organized into groups... but rather individually.  And often when one expresses different idealology with the other sisters ignore or critisize them. (I assume this because of Leliana)

Well apparently the Chantry's internal divisions is a big thing that is happening. It doesn't have to be an organization. Rather a band of sisters who share the same ideals.

Leliana was different. She was just one person who for them is spouting nonsense. This however is a big internal divide in the Chantry. I don't see why Sisters wouldn't  argue about their disagreements. And the more vocal they are, the more it lends to the idea that the divisions are deep and factions are polarizing more and more. It would add to the feeling that everything is going to hell, except make it more human and less about idol / thin veil / demons.

A house and title that Hawke worked hard to achieve?  My Hawke was going to leave with Isabela but Castillions ship was still mustard yellow...   Bethany and Carver can still be in Kirkwall and very much alive as well.

Point is, we can't have it otherwise. So if they want to force certain things, which is understandable, they can also force other things that would help better the plot.

 I do not disagree with you but I don't see why you're suggesting it to be done in act 2. 

Because Orsino only being properly introduced near the end does not give him enough screen time.

Also, if we see him evolve as a character from Act 2 til Act 3 (for instance, him getting more and more depressed, which would make his insanity at the end somewhat less a wtf moment),  it would give him character development (as opposed to character exposition at the end of the game).

Orsino is a main character. He should not be introduced at the end of Act 2, if they want to develop him as a character.

  So what if they are in the docks? They don't have their own boats and they refuse to steal (you know because of the Qun)   Also we don't know the power of the gunpowder like substance of the Qunari,  but I doubt it is enough to attack the gallows from range.  She might have wanted to do something about it but it wasn't within her power and in Act 2 she's not yet tainted by the idol, and probably not willing to make visible reaches out of it.

I am pretty sure the Qunari who just decided to take over a city that doesn't belong to them (actually breaking peace accords), would be perfectly fine with stealing a few boats.

How wasn't it within her power? Meredith was the most powerful person in Kirkwall at the time, with the largest military force. Of course she was not powerless. Could she have averted the outcome? No, and that's not the point. The point was to introduce her earlier and see her evolve as a character (and also make it look like she's not that stupid / incompetent).

I am not interested in excuses as to why the game didn't have all this. I am saying the game should have had all this (if they want a more complex political plot and / or character development for the main characters) and it was pretty easy to do so.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 juillet 2011 - 06:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

KLUME777 wrote...
I'm curious, what did you not want in patch 1.03? There is nothing here on the DA Wiki - Patches that i can see thats bad - at least bad enough to skip an entire 40 hour expansion pack.

40 hours?

[Lenimph]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



Point is, we can't have it otherwise. 

 Point taken... perhaps take your own advice.

[adlocutio]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...
I'm curious, what did you not want in patch 1.03? There is nothing here on the DA Wiki - Patches that i can see thats bad - at least bad enough to skip an entire 40 hour expansion pack.

40 hours?

20 hours, for all content, or thereabouts, iirc.  I think, KLUME777, a lot of people objected to how 1.03 treated elites and bosses differently from others in regards to immunity from shattering and other stuff.  Maybe changed that for the PC,too. I could be wrong, though.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Lenimph wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...



Point is, we can't have it otherwise. 

 Point taken... perhaps take your own advice.

Oh I know that DA2 is going to remain what it is. I question that we couldn't have had it otherwise, but well obviously now we can't.

So I am looking forward (but with less interest), hoping that the criticism might be taken into account for the future of the franchise. If not, too bad for me.

[In Exile]

adlocutio wrote...
I agree that real world tactics are limited in their use in RPGs due to lack of realistic environments.  What I meant, though, is for the enemies not to rush into a corridor, but to spread out outside of the corridor and fire into it.  Ideally they would be too spread out for me to target them all with AOE or crowd control. They, however, could target me with AOE or CC because my party is in a confined space.  Ideally, you shouldn't be able to force them to chase you to their disadvantage.  This would be most easily addressed by making the enemies stay within a battlefield border.

RPGs break that, because you have immunities. If you spread out enemies and let them use CC, that just means you want to find the right rock/paper/scissor gear that lets you build up elemental immunities. If gear makes immunities impossible, then you look for abilities. 

If immunities are impossible, then you run into a balance problem. If enemies are just as strong as you but outnumber you, the fight is really hard (depending on the #s) because you have to think really tactically. If enemies (like in DA2) just have a metric ton of HPs and deal (%wise) more dmg than the party per hit, then the game might be too hard.

What exactly do you mean by idiotic terrain?

Party-based RPGs have flat terrain and corridors. Very rarely there will be hills.

Why necessary for them to have identical dmg outputs? I would understand everyone using weapons all with dmg in a certain range, but mages will always throw that kind of balance out the window because dmg output can be reduced or mitigated through magic.  I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.

Not between classes; between enemy NPCs and party NPCs (and the PC). If enemies deal less dmg %wise but have greater HP% than essentially forces the battle into a slugging match. You just whittle away at enemies until they eventually die because they're all HP sponges.

[adlocutio]

In Exile wrote...
If immunities are impossible, then you run into a balance problem. If enemies are just as strong as you but outnumber you, the fight is really hard (depending on the #s) because you have to think really tactically. If enemies (like in DA2) just have a metric ton of HPs and deal (%wise) more dmg than the party per hit, then the game might be too hard.

Ok, then I would agree with that completely. In fact, that's essentially what I had in mind.  Obviously immunities ruin the kind of tactics I was suggesting.  I never meant to suggest that the rest of the combat would stay in its present form after these tactics were implemented. 

In Exile wrote...
Party-based RPGs have flat terrain and corridors. Very rarely there will be hills.

Oh, for some reason I was reading your statement as meaning hills and rocks and furniture in the environment would be idiotic.  We agree. Is there any reason this can't be added to RPGs like DA3?  It seems a far superior type of combat to me.

In Exile wrote...
Not between classes; between enemy NPCs and party NPCs (and the PC). If enemies deal less dmg %wise but have greater HP% than essentially forces the battle into a slugging match. You just whittle away at enemies until they eventually die because they're all HP sponges.

Right, gotcha.   No, I would prefer a universal combat system in which pcs, npcs, and enemies all operate.  If everyone has to obey the same rules then fights are about tactics instead of immunities or weird special transporting abilities (mages), or extremely inflated HP (tanks) or dmg output (assassins).  It seems more intuitive, no?

[FieryDove]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...
I'm curious, what did you not want in patch 1.03? There is nothing here on the DA Wiki - Patches that i can see thats bad - at least bad enough to skip an entire 40 hour expansion pack.

40 hours?

Yes my first DAA game was about that. However it was my fault for letting Anders do the rune making, in/out of keep, drat need 1 more of this, in/out, dang I need three more of these!...it was ugh.

As to patches maybe the same reason I didn't want to buy the expansion. Many people had trouble with 1.03. I didn't have any patches for DAO, didn't need or want them. But 1.03 broke my DAO with constant crashing and DAA crashed tons. It seemed to happen with enemy/my spell casters did a lot of pyrotechnics in fights.  (At least I didn't have the holy smite crashes on top of that but still).

[Yrkoon]

adlocutio wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

...making the party & the enemy identical in dmg output but the party outnumbered.

That is exactly what I would like to see.

Curious what about this appeals to you.

I can't speak for Sylvius or Exile, but for me the answer to your question is simple:  Because  when all things are equal, then the fight invariably comes down to either who's smarter, or who's luckier with their  attack/damage rolls.  But if you unbalance it just a little bit... say,  make all things  equal  except the PC's party is out-numbered,  then luck will play a lesser role and battle intelligence will play a larger roll. That's the way it *should* be.

Remember  in BG1 when your party would stumble upon an enemy party consisting of very similar class/level makeup?  Those were the funnest, most memerable fights.  But they still weren't perfect because of the ****** poor AI of the time.  But that's something that can be improved upon today.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:44 .

[Theagg]

adlocutio wrote...


No one here believes that, you just fail to understand.  I want to fight enemies intelligent enough to adapt to the most obvious tactics.  If I'm in a chokepoint, they should switch to ranged and try to focus fire me down. LIke fish in a barrel. which is what I would be.

I do understand. Most encounters I recall had a mixed of ranged and foot enemies. Such that even if the party retreated to a choke point, and the enemy foot followed you in, you were still pelted from afar by the ranged enemies who kept their distance. (How often in real warfare did infantry switch to bow for the reflected period we are dealing with anyway. They didn't, just as in game, melee infantry did not carry bows ?) In Exile neatly points out the other problems with enemies who would switch totally to ranged tactics. But sure the enemy AI was not the smartest on the planet but to be honest, I have yet to see any AI in any game demonstrate the level of AI required to give you what you want.  Origins was just as lacklustre in this respect with enemies demonstrating a similar lack of realistic AI.

And, looking at one of your other solutions to that of the chokepoint. Well, usually AI's path to the target via the best/quickest route for example. .

So I would love to see how an AI attempts lets call it "The Persian Solution" and attempts to path to the rear of a bottled up party via various backstreets in the game environment for example. (in essence, rather than going from A to B via the shortest route, you want the AI to go From A to B via C, D, E etc, counter to the way most AI pathing in games works)

For example look at this pathing example in Origins and the attached description. Which is a "shortest route between A and B" example



Now, I'm sure it can be done, (in which case the target for pathing becomes a rear flanking maneuver via the 'long way') but I suspect given the added complexity required in pathing it would cause as many problems as it would add tactical benefits.

Could the AI, for example, react in a realistic way to you moving out of the choke point in response to you the player seeing the enemy send out a squad that is intent on pathing its way to your rear.

I don't know, perhaps coders can explain how easy, or otherwise it would be to have the level of smart and responsive AI tactical pathing you envisage in gaming.

I would also add that if has often been the case in real warfare of one side hurling troops at a choke point and dying en masse with no other tactic, until the overwhelming numbers break that choke point. So humans have been just as stupid as the AI at times as well.

[Theagg]

Yrkoon wrote...

I can't speak for Sylvius, but for me the answer to your question is obvious:  Because  when all things are equal, then the fight invariably comes down to either who's smarter, or who's luckier with their  attack/damage rolls.  But if you unbalance it just a little bit... say,  make all things  equal  except the PC's party is out-numbered,  then luck will play a lesser role and battle intelligence will play a larger roll. That's the way it *should* be.

Remember  in BG1 when your party would stumble upon an enemy party consisting of very similar class/level makeup?  Those were the funnest fights.  But they still weren't perfect because of the ****** poor AI of the time.

I can't imagine this approach working very well in reality.(if by that you mean each individual enemy can deal out as much damage as each individual party member) Invariably players will die much more rapidly, frustratingly so because the gaming environment doesn't allow for the required tactics to survive. If the damage output is equal but the party is outnumbered, then the party has to be capable of dealing out damage at a consistently faster rate than the enemy in order to survive.

Which then breaks the 'both parties are equal' requirement.

And who is smarter in this scenario anyway. That would usually be the human, rather than the AI. This everything is equal approach is best suited for human player vs human player IMO.

[Yrkoon]

I'd completely agree, if we were just talking about some simplistic 2 dimensional system where there were no factors at play except "who can deal more damage the fastest". We're not, though. We're dealing with a much more dynamic system. One that incorporates healing, and crowd control, and the ability to summon stuff.

And *of course* the end result will see the Human player  still at an advantage.  Since the human is the one with the true thinking skills-- and the Human is the one that can pause the game  to assess the situation whenever he needs to.  That's  a given.     But the point is to try to limit that advantage.  How do you do that?  Well, IMO, you do that  with good enemy AI tactics to go along with Equal enemy levels and damage output. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:08 .