725 réponses à ce sujet

[Theagg]

Yrkoon wrote...

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. 

Sadly we are not yet at the point in AI development where this could be pulled off successfully I think.

[Theagg]

In Exile wrote...

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

Or rooftops. Imagine that instead of jumping from rooftops (and windows) the enemy archers stayed up there and rained the good stuff down.

[Yrkoon]

Theagg wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

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. 

Sadly we are not yet at the point in AI development where this could be pulled off successfully I think.

Nonsense. 

I've seen amateur *modders* for  a 10+ year old game  (BG2)  successfully pull it off.  

Game developers like Bioware could easily do it, if not for the fact that they're a commerical business, and have to take the casual fan into account, which means combat has to  be simple so that Average Joe doesn't quit  in frustration 15 minutes into the game. 

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:51 .

[Theagg]

Yrkoon wrote...

Nonsense. 

I've seen amateur *modders* for  a 10+ year old game  (BG2)  successfully pull it off.  

Game developers like Bioware could easily do it, if not for the fact that they're a commerical business, and have to take the casual fan into account, which means combat has to  be simple so that Average Joe doesn't quit  in frustration 15 minutes into the game. 

I think, in part, you have answered your own question there. Here's the thing though, in DA2 we already have enemies who can, like the player can heal or be healed via both potions and auras (and reading back through the forums you will probably note how many found it annoying that assassins for example can heal and more importantly, steal your potions and then heal ). We already have enemies who, like the player can crowd control, Blood mages, Saarebas and Arcane Horrors being some of the meanest examples. So there is a sort of parity there.

Even though there is, from the enemy point of view, not much of a crowd to control (4 members in your party at maximum) The player as a 'crowd' does not constitute the same threat to the enemy as does the larger enemy crowd to the player.

And we already have enemies who outnumber the party.

What we don't have are enemies that can use every single ability that the players can. But if they could I suspect they in larger number, would wipe the floor with almost all players. Imagine a mob of warrior types that had every warrior ability for example. Make them deal out exactly the same damage as you can per individual and you have real problems. It becomes a knife edge gaming experience that will alienate more players than its worth.

Especially without the ability to fully use the environment to any tactical advantage (and at the same time an AI that could use the environment in the same way, there's a tall order)

This is why, with tabletop skirmish gaming for example, when both players have characters that have similar abilities, the usual set up is to strive for a balanced approach.  Not one where one player constantly outnumbers the other. HeroClix ( since that's one of the last games i played recently ) does it with points totals, Like many other games. Even when it comes to full on tabletop wargaming the set up is much the same for most of the time.

Modifié par Theagg, 01 juillet 2011 - 02:51 .

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

No, you know about the Wardens. It was the whole, kill darkspawn after the death of the archdemon thing. It has a name - I just forgot. And you control the arling, but don't answer to the King. So that's an issue.

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).

You're still a ruler, and Ferelden is quasi-democratic. As the Hero of Ferelden, you can still rally the Landsmeet against the Wardens. Just like what happened with Soldier's Peek. Especially if Loghain is alive; you can still cast it in his anti-Orlesian politics.

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.

Which is why I think it's much worse than DA2 in that respect. With DA2, you start with Hawke. With DA:A, you have a game that could have featured your Warden (and indeed, lets you)... except it was only designed for one kind of Warden.

[In Exile]

adlocutio wrote...
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. 

Here is the follow up issue: if the party can't be immune, enemies can't be either. Otherwise you run into frustrations - why do I have 'unfair' difficulty because the enemy has AOEs that always hit, and I never do? Also, you run into AI scripting issues: why shouldn't the enemy AI use AOEs every time you bunch up? But if that happens, then you're essentially forced into aggro stacking and the most spread out position possible (with your warriors running around to steal aggro).

The thing with aggro mechanics is that they're just a way of cheaping out versus making actual mobility part of the combat.

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.

Have you seen Bioware try to design environments? ME2 had corridors and sometimes a 2nd floor, and it was trying to be a cover-based shooter where awesome environments are really important.

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?

Exactly. Especially since you more or less know what encounters throw at you abilty wise, and then it becomes about:

1) Understanding #s and types of enemies (DA2 already does this)
2) Understading the environment & positioning (DA2 lacks this).
3) Managing the superior numbers of the enemy (DA2 has this, but it's all aggro instead of movement).

Theagg wrote...
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.

The thing is, when everything is equal, it is the player's planning that makes the difference. Difficulties then should just affect the AI of the enemy. On easy, enemies essentially spread out their damage and don't move about and use abilities rarely. Players can easily beat them because their effective DPS is higher because of abilities.

As you increase the difficulty, the DPS increases to favour the enemy NPCs, the AI becomes very advanced (so advanced tactics against you) and damage becomes concentrated on single PCs. That's a real "nightmare" difficulty.

But it's fair, because if you can find ways (using the enviroment, IMO, that's why good environmental design is crucial!) to mintigate the damage or spread out the enemy, then you can pick them off 1-by-1.

I actually have an entire magical system in mind for this (essentially instead of DPS, magic creates barriers, shields, protections from dmg, etc.).

[Addai]

Lenimph wrote...

Hold on... When did DA2 claim to be political? Last time I checked DA2 was about Hawke.   
Hawke rose to "power" with a title... what someone chooses to do with such is a totally different issue. I'm sorry you didn't get to roleplay Hawke to the extent of which you wanted.  Also it seemed to me most of the politcal nonsense was set up and tease for DA3, which I'm sure you wont buy so oh well. 

They did, actually, specifically say in the marketing of the game that you could choose how your "rise to power" would look, and one of those options was for it to be political.  So I guess throwing in a meaningless title of viscount on top of your title as champion was supposed to qualify as this.

And yeah, I am kind of peeved that the whole game feels like a setup for another game.  I wouldn't, if you had actually been able to meaningfully interact with events in Kirkwall on a micro level while the larger mage-templar conflict is building around you.  But Kirkwall itself, as it turns out, is just a setup for another plot, rather than a real place with real issues of its own, especially since the marketing also said that the framed narrative would allow you to see the outcome of your decisions in the game.  In DAO we needed epilogues to tell us this- which was presented as a negative they wanted to change- but now apparently we need more paid content to show us the outcome of DA2.  Not a step forward.

[Theagg]

In Exile wrote...

Exactly. Especially since you more or less know what encounters throw at you abilty wise, and then it becomes about:

1) Understanding #s and types of enemies (DA2 already does this)
2) Understading the environment & positioning (DA2 lacks this).
3) Managing the superior numbers of the enemy (DA2 has this, but it's all aggro instead of movement).
.

I'm trying to imagine how to make an AI unerstand what a 'choke point' is and what that means to it in tactical terms such that it behaves accordingly. As opposed to it say confusing that with a situation in which the party happens to be standing by some crates Or some pillars. Or numerous other aspects of the environment vs the position of both the player and enemy deployment in relation to that which might confuse it into thinking that as its indiviual units cluster together, it should behave in a specific manner.

It's one thing for an AI to path in a manner that looks real, ie best way to flank, most direct route to acheive this etc. But for an AI to actually understand the lie of the land..hmmm, much more challenging

[alex90c]

Theagg wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Exactly. Especially since you more or less know what encounters throw at you abilty wise, and then it becomes about:

1) Understanding #s and types of enemies (DA2 already does this)
2) Understading the environment & positioning (DA2 lacks this).
3) Managing the superior numbers of the enemy (DA2 has this, but it's all aggro instead of movement).
.

I'm trying to imagine how to make an AI unerstand what a 'choke point' is and what that means to it in tactical terms such that it behaves accordingly. As opposed to it say confusing that with a situation in which the party happens to be standing by some crates Or some pillars. Or numerous other aspects of the environment vs the position of both the player and enemy deployment in relation to that which might confuse it into thinking that as its indiviual units cluster together, it should behave in a specific manner.

It's one thing for an AI to path in a manner that looks real, ie best way to flank, most direct route to acheive this etc. But for an AI to actually understand the lie of the land..hmmm, much more challenging

If encounters were more carefully scripted it could definitely be possible. At the moment you just have a bunch of blokes dropped in an open space, insta-killed by one scythe and then in a few seconds a wave of paratroopers come down from all sides and it's only the fact that they're in the player's vicinity that they even attack (hence the problems in back alleys where enemies get stuck). Now that is just shoddy scripting.

On the other hand, if encounters were more carefully thought out it could work like this:

1. If player approaches from location A, skip to 2a, if player approaches from location B, skip to 2b
2a. Swordsmen withdraw, archers on ledges engage player (as player would need to climb up steps to reach them, bringing them in contact with the withdrawing swordsmen)
3a. If archer (any) is engaged in melee combat, remaining archers fire at lowest HP/armour player party member, swordsmen engage strongest (highest HP/armour/DPS?) to hold in place

2b. Player approaches from location B, archers are exposed so swordsmen advance to engage layer, archers withdraw to location C with the other archers
3b. As swordsmen are engaged, should party member enter within certain radius of archers, all archers focus fire on weakest party member there to try to pick them off

I don't know, something like that could work. Depends on how the Eclipse engine works, but they must be able to assign certain zones on maps (in relation to combat situations) and apply certain attributes to them (IF player enter radius A, characters* 145, 146, 147 AND 148 attack weakest party member in radius A)

*just used the word to describe what enemies could be labelled as in an editor

[Theagg]

alex90c wrote...

If encounters were more carefully scripted it could definitely be possible. At the moment you just have a bunch of blokes dropped in an open space, insta-killed by one scythe and then in a few seconds a wave of paratroopers come down from all sides and it's only the fact that they're in the player's vicinity that they even attack (hence the problems in back alleys where enemies get stuck). Now that is just shoddy scripting.

On the other hand, if encounters were more carefully thought out it could work like this:

1. If player approaches from location A, skip to 2a, if player approaches from location B, skip to 2b
2a. Swordsmen withdraw, archers on ledges engage player (as player would need to climb up steps to reach them, bringing them in contact with the withdrawing swordsmen)
3a. If archer (any) is engaged in melee combat, remaining archers fire at lowest HP/armour player party member, swordsmen engage strongest (highest HP/armour/DPS?) to hold in place

2b. Player approaches from location B, archers are exposed so swordsmen advance to engage layer, archers withdraw to location C with the other archers
3b. As swordsmen are engaged, should party member enter within certain radius of archers, all archers focus fire on weakest party member there to try to pick them off

I don't know, something like that could work. Depends on how the Eclipse engine works, but they must be able to assign certain zones on maps (in relation to combat situations) and apply certain attributes to them (IF player enter radius A, characters* 145, 146, 147 AND 148 attack weakest party member in radius A)

*just used the word to describe what enemies could be labelled as in an editor

Now assume you as the player choose not to follow the swordsmen up the stairs but instead stay by the choke point because it benefits you. What I'm really trying to get at is the actual AI, which adapts hopefully to the positonal relationship between it, the player, and the enviroment, versus  location based scripting which is rigid.

And can understand the differences between when its attack front is reduced because of moving into a choke point, versus other factors tha reduce its attack front as it moves. A nd so on....

Things we humans understand pretty easily.

Modifié par Theagg, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:01 .

[alex90c]

Theagg wrote...

alex90c wrote...

If encounters were more carefully scripted it could definitely be possible. At the moment you just have a bunch of blokes dropped in an open space, insta-killed by one scythe and then in a few seconds a wave of paratroopers come down from all sides and it's only the fact that they're in the player's vicinity that they even attack (hence the problems in back alleys where enemies get stuck). Now that is just shoddy scripting.

On the other hand, if encounters were more carefully thought out it could work like this:

1. If player approaches from location A, skip to 2a, if player approaches from location B, skip to 2b
2a. Swordsmen withdraw, archers on ledges engage player (as player would need to climb up steps to reach them, bringing them in contact with the withdrawing swordsmen)
3a. If archer (any) is engaged in melee combat, remaining archers fire at lowest HP/armour player party member, swordsmen engage strongest (highest HP/armour/DPS?) to hold in place

2b. Player approaches from location B, archers are exposed so swordsmen advance to engage layer, archers withdraw to location C with the other archers
3b. As swordsmen are engaged, should party member enter within certain radius of archers, all archers focus fire on weakest party member there to try to pick them off

I don't know, something like that could work. Depends on how the Eclipse engine works, but they must be able to assign certain zones on maps (in relation to combat situations) and apply certain attributes to them (IF player enter radius A, characters* 145, 146, 147 AND 148 attack weakest party member in radius A)

*just used the word to describe what enemies could be labelled as in an editor

Now assume you as the player choose not to follow the swordsmen up the stairs but instead stay by the choke point because it benefits you. What I'm really trying to get at is the actual AI, which adapts hopefully to the positonal relationship between it, the player, and the enviroment, versus  location based scripting which is rigid.

And can understand the differences between when its attack front is reduced because of moving into a choke point, versus other factors tha reduce its attack front as it moves. A nd so on....

Things we humans understand pretty easily.

IF player is NOT in radius B*, do not engage

*locations A, B and radius A would encompass more specfic areas whereas radius B would be more battlefield encompassing, so should the player step out of that boundary, the Ai does not engage.

Of course, that forces the player to either withdraw or just go through the battle head-on. This could be remedied by alternative battleplans, so there could say be two in this hypothetical instance with what i've described being the first "AI plan of action" and the alternative, provided the archers are out of range could actually be to harass the player from a distance , and while we probably couldn't get them to place their swordsmen in front of their archers, if we then also gave individual "characters" their very own radii and we could "group" characters in to a group radius then we could have it so that should the player enter group X's radius (which would be the archers), then group Y (which is what these swordsmen would be assigned to) would be ordered to engage the player's party.

I understand where you're coming from though. While my method would possibly work, it's quite clunky and requires a fair bit of scripting as each encounter would have to be written individually (unless a way is found to copy+paste groups, characters, locations and radii while simply assigning new IDs to the pasted data) and it would be better if the AI itself could actually react to the player. I mean, the DA2 AI was horribly lacking in practically everything but i'm sure with the technology out today, an AI could be constructed with certain routines which could apply to any combat situation which would as a result simply just be deployed by the AI with the difference simply being where the battle is set. Then if we create a few basic routines we could then have a few encounters in the game (as in, beyond bandit encounters so more specific ones) where Bioware could override certain AI routines for this specific encounter and set the "characters'" priority to scripting done in place of their regular AI routines.

It's a similar case with Age of Empires 2 (which I did a bit of scenario editing in about 3/4 years back), you had AIs which you could apply to each "player" but then there was a trigger system which you would use to script a scenario. These would override the AI while the trigger was in effect and only once the trigger had turned off would the AI characters targeted for the script go back to activities outlined within their actual programming.

[Monica83]

DanaScu wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Also anything they say may be taken as a promise , fact or Word of God. Far better to remain silent.

It's kinda funny how some forumites have this double standard. On the one hand, anything said by developers and executives is "a promise, fact or Word of God." This is why people clamour for more information, more honesty, more transparency, and why they want us to make promises for next time.

On the other hand, everything we say is dishonest, lies, said only to make more money, and is a personal affront to many fans. This is why interviews are discredited, lambasted, made fun of, and attacked as being disingenuous. We are also never to be trusted.

Anyone else feel there's some kind of Catch-22 around this forum somewhere?

Maybe that is what Bioware and the good doctors should do. But then we would be accusing them of not listening to us.

Anyone else feel there's another Catch-22 around here somewhere? And you wonder why we say the things we do, the way we do.

When there are people who are posting constructive criticism, no ranting, no raving, but real, "I think this aspect of the game sucks, and here's why, and how I hope its fixed", and the interviews say its a vocal minority that can't handle change and want DA:Origins 2 carbon copy, then, sorry, it sounds as though the people who matter aren't listening. The interviews say there were problems, and they know about them and will do better, but never mention the problems they are referring to and how they might go about fixing them, the interviews feel like lip-service to calm critics down and get them to shut up. The people giving the interviews are the ones that "fixed" DA2 in the first place; sorry again if I don't quite believe they actually understand why and what the players feel the problems are.

Kind of like when you mentioned, in a different thread, that you didn't think anime fit the DA/Fereldan setting, when the pinned post at the top of the forum has the announcement of the DA anime movie.....

This...

But in those times bioware lack of coherent is just epic

[Mr.House]

Addai67 wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

Hold on... When did DA2 claim to be political? Last time I checked DA2 was about Hawke.   
Hawke rose to "power" with a title... what someone chooses to do with such is a totally different issue. I'm sorry you didn't get to roleplay Hawke to the extent of which you wanted.  Also it seemed to me most of the politcal nonsense was set up and tease for DA3, which I'm sure you wont buy so oh well. 

They did, actually, specifically say in the marketing of the game that you could choose how your "rise to power" would look, and one of those options was for it to be political.  So I guess throwing in a meaningless title of viscount on top of your title as champion was supposed to qualify as this.

And yeah, I am kind of peeved that the whole game feels like a setup for another game.  I wouldn't, if you had actually been able to meaningfully interact with events in Kirkwall on a micro level while the larger mage-templar conflict is building around you.  But Kirkwall itself, as it turns out, is just a setup for another plot, rather than a real place with real issues of its own, especially since the marketing also said that the framed narrative would allow you to see the outcome of your decisions in the game.  In DAO we needed epilogues to tell us this- which was presented as a negative they wanted to change- but now apparently we need more paid content to show us the outcome of DA2.  Not a step forward.

I saw the outcome of many choices in DA2, just not the main choices in the main story.

[Monica83]

JohnEpler wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Weell someone likes:

Mediocre plot
Ennemy from nowhere
Reused Areas
Lack of ennemy creature variety
Lack of details on areas
Mangatard animations
Imbarassing gigglesquee of merryl (that try to be a Tali but don't have a chance)
Final fantasy look character (fernis *coff coff*)
Hentai pirates (isabela with corset and panties)
Exploding Ennemy
Herp Deeerp dialogues....

In the end is only a matter of tastes.... I don't like those things at all

I think, perhaps, you need to respect that others have different opinions than yourself and stop trying to create strawmen of position that they are not, in fact, taking. It does you a disservice and it certainly doesn't contribute to any sort of discussion.

In fact i added this: In the end is only a matter of tastes.... I don't like those things at all

But some serious issues and fact like recycling areas ,ennemy from nowhere,exploding corpses, lack of details areas are weak points and not matter of opinions...the rest is pure personal

those are matter of tastes:
Imbarassing gigglesquee of merryl (that try to be a Tali but don't have a chance)
Final fantasy look character (fernis *coff coff*)
Hentai pirates (isabela with corset and panties)
Mangatard animations
if someone like them its ok i have nothing to say about that.. i dislike them i found those features very immersion breaking for me..

about the dialogues for me the paraphrase system in da2 don't work at alll but i had not problem with this in TW2..
in fact in DA2 the line of dialogues sway many times from what i mean in TW i had not this problem

[Theagg]

Monica83 wrote...


about the dialogues for me the paraphrase system in da2 don't work at alll but i had not problem with this in TW2..
in fact in DA2 the line of dialogues sway many times from what i mean in TW i had not this problem

I have no problem with the either text choice or paraphrasing. both have advantages and disadvantages. Paraphrasing presents you with a mood choice, the actual dialogue that then follows is simply representative of that, even if its not what you personally might say in such a situation.  But the mood is still correct and so pushes the game in the direction dictated by the mood you choose..

Being presented with several written lines of actual dialogue from which to select often fails to convey which line actually embodies which sentiment you want to express. More to the point though, this system is just as weak in delivering you the player any kind of real choice over what you want your PC to say.

Instead you are presented with several lines of dialogue a writer has decided are in character but sometimes none of them match how you imagine the PC would speak . Exactly the same problem as paraphrasing

Instead, just give me the intent, thats the important thing for navigating the dialogue tree and shaping how the game develops, the words written or spoken don't matter at all in that respect.

[Bryy_Miller]

Monica83 wrote...
But some serious issues and fact like recycling areas ,ennemy from nowhere,exploding corpses, lack of details areas are weak points and not matter of opinions

Exept they are.

The only view that is objective here is the DA teams. Unless you helped create DA2, I doubt you can say what is and is not a fact of the game. This is not to say that I think DA2 is perfect - in fact, I agree that thew things you mentioned were weak sauce - but to say that you know better than the people that created the thing at the time of creation is rather silly.

those are matter of tastes:
Imbarassing gigglesquee of merryl (that try to be a Tali but don't have a chance)
Final fantasy look character (fernis *coff coff*)
Hentai pirates (isabela with corset and panties)
Mangatard animations
if someone like them its ok i have nothing to say about that.. i dislike them i found those features very immersion breaking for me..

I, and many others, have said that we liked these things but not because of the strawman points you mentioned.

Monica, it's clear that you *want* a discussion, but being hostile, rude, saying that the co-founder of BioWare should quit, listing a bunch of games you love that are not even BioWare's (but assuming they are), and unable to see past your own highly exaggerated views is not the way to go about it. You wanted a direct response from Epler, you got it, but then you proceed to go "no, this is really what you mean"? Being "smart" with people is not the way for them to respond.

[furryrage59]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Monica83 wrote...
But some serious issues and fact like recycling areas ,ennemy from nowhere,exploding corpses, lack of details areas are weak points and not matter of opinions

Exept they are.

The only view that is objective here is the DA teams. Unless you helped create DA2, I doubt you can say what is and is not a fact of the game. This is not to say that I think DA2 is perfect - in fact, I agree that thew things you mentioned were weak sauce - but to say that you know better than the people that created the thing at the time of creation is rather silly.

those are matter of tastes:
Imbarassing gigglesquee of merryl (that try to be a Tali but don't have a chance)
Final fantasy look character (fernis *coff coff*)
Hentai pirates (isabela with corset and panties)
Mangatard animations
if someone like them its ok i have nothing to say about that.. i dislike them i found those features very immersion breaking for me..

I, and many others, have said that we liked these things but not because of the strawman points you mentioned.

Monica, it's clear that you *want* a discussion, but being hostile, rude, saying that the co-founder of BioWare should quit, listing a bunch of games you love that are not even BioWare's (but assuming they are), and unable to see past your own highly exaggerated views is not the way to go about it. You wanted a direct response from Epler, you got it, but then you proceed to go "no, this is really what you mean"? Being "smart" with people is not the way for them to respond.

His explanation of the minus points of the game seem pretty accurate to be fair. He's passionate in his expanation but for good reason.

[adlocutio]

Theagg wrote...
Sadly we are not yet at the point in AI development where this could be pulled off successfully I think.

Thanks for your response earlier, but I think this sentence really distills our difference of opinion most precisely.  You think my suggestions can't be accomplished because of coding problems?  But you don't object to what I'm saying, in theory?

How do chess programs work?  Do they assign numerical values to pieces and positions, so that the computer tries to come up with the best configuration each move?  Or in 3 or 5 or 12 moves?  I'm just guessing here, but couldn't that kind of ai be applied to a battlefield?  Formations and partial cover and height and flanking and range of weapon, etc being given higher numerical scores than other factors, so that the ai will weigh options and try to achieve the best configuration?  Maybe this with a mix of scripting which is specific to the battlefield (with hills and obstacles, ect)?

I'm just spitballin' here.

[adlocutio]

In Exile wrote...
The thing with aggro mechanics is that they're just a way of cheaping out versus making actual mobility part of the combat. 

  I've said the same exact thing before.

Have you seen Bioware try to design environments? ME2 had corridors and sometimes a 2nd floor, and it was trying to be a cover-based shooter where awesome environments are really important.

  But it can be done, right? Maybe Bioware would just have to add one expert to the team to get it done? A worthwhile tradeoff, imho.

The thing is, when everything is equal, it is the player's planning that makes the difference. Difficulties then should just affect the AI of the enemy. On easy, enemies essentially spread out their damage and don't move about and use abilities rarely. Players can easily beat them because their effective DPS is higher because of abilities.

As you increase the difficulty, the DPS increases to favour the enemy NPCs, the AI becomes very advanced (so advanced tactics against you) and damage becomes concentrated on single PCs. That's a real "nightmare" difficulty.

But it's fair, because if you can find ways (using the enviroment, IMO, that's why good environmental design is crucial!) to mintigate the damage or spread out the enemy, then you can pick them off 1-by-1.

I actually have an entire magical system in mind for this (essentially instead of DPS, magic creates barriers, shields, protections from dmg, etc.).

This is exactly what I have in mind for rpg combat.  It seems like a magic system in this context would resemble more what you would do with magic in real world combat if magic existed. 

I hadn't expected to find people here with ideas similar to mine, and I am gratified to have done so.  Though, when I consider it, this type of combat makes much more sense from a roleplaying perspective and it's perhaps an obvious conclusion for those who value that sort of thing.

[adlocutio]

alex90c wrote...
Of course, that forces the player to either withdraw or just go through the battle head-on.

This is exactly what I would expect an enemy to try to do.  Force my party into a disadvantage.  Now with other spells or abilities I could try to neutralize that advantage.  This seems ideal to me.  On harder difficulties, there shouldn't be an obvious path to victory.  The ai could scale for difficulty, right?

 

alex90c wrote...
I mean, the DA2 AI was horribly lacking in practically everything but i'm sure with the technology out today, an AI could be constructed with certain routines which could apply to any combat situation which would as a result simply just be deployed by the AI with the difference simply being where the battle is set. Then if we create a few basic routines we could then have a few encounters in the game (as in, beyond bandit encounters so more specific ones) where Bioware could override certain AI routines for this specific encounter and set the "characters'" priority to scripting done in place of their regular AI routines.

Is there any reason Bioware couldn't or shouldn't do this?  It sounds like you would prefer this type of combat, too, no?  Has Bioware given any reason why DA2's combat is better than this?

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
As I said it is far better for Bioware to say very little about what it is planning to do. This way gamers cannot say you promise us this and gave us that which we did not want. Bioware should play its cards close to the vest and let no one peek the hole card.

Now you mean.
They have to reveal what they are planing eventually, when they want to market for DA3 (and hopefully this time, with a bit more honesty).

But I agree. Like I said, what I think is ideal is not going to happen.

Absolutely. Eventually Bioware will have to make its intentions known. I just hope marketing leaves the awesome button alone and there is truth in the adevertising. But , I still will not believe the hype.

[Bryy_Miller]

Realmzmaster wrote
 there is truth in the adevertising. But , I still will not believe the hype.

what truth are you talking about? Did they actually not make a video game?

[upsettingshorts]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

what truth are you talking about? Did they actually not make a video game?

"No, they made a $60 coaster" in 5..4..3..2...

[ipgd]

No, they made a $60 coaster

[KnightofPhoenix]

You're 2 minutes late.