132 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Plaintiff wrote...

But speaking generally, I always thought the whole point of games that involved dice was that they were based mostly on luck and chance than any sort of skill or strategy. I'd be very surprised to learn that this wasn't the case.

It's not the case.

In RPGs, dice rolls exist to add an element of chance to the game, not to remove skill entirely.

Melness wrote...
With so many people seem to dismiss more action-based as 'superficial and devoid of strategic potential' or even faster as 'dumbed down', I was drawn to think about the question above and couldn't settle on an answer. What is the strategic depht provided by having a combat so incredibly tied with dice-rolls?

I think this entire line of questioning is flawed, but I'll still answer. 

Strategy involves long-term planning for events. Dice provide more variation in possible events. Adding dice simply means that you now have to plan for events that are less predictable. Because the range of possible outcomes is larger, you increase strategic depth. 

I mean, one of most important tactical elements of DA:O's combat was positioning: to avoid friendly fire and find cover against enemy ranged attacks, mostly. But then I'm playing DA:O and find myself on the first Ogre battle at Ostagar. There, the ogre turns around at my mage and builds up to a very obvious AoE attack. Noticing that, I move my Mage to avoid the Ogre's attack but forget about Alistair, the result is that my mage is hit from across the room, dies, but Alistair somehow 'saves against death' and lives to deliver the final blow.
Were this realistic or strategic by any measure, I would have been rewarded for my presence of mind and punished for my ineptitude: MageWarden would have lived and Alistair would have died.

Positioning and reacting to various immediate problems falls more under tactics than strategy.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 05 décembre 2011 - 11:01 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Incidentally, the isometric view and moveable camera are simply a means to correct for the lack of depth-perception offered by a more limited view (like over-the-shoulder). Similarly, having a third-person perspective rather than a first-person perspective offers the player more information about his character's physical location and disposition - information that the character should have through things like peripheral vision and proprioception.

That we see the world from a first-person perspective is not itself sufficient reason to give us only a first-person perspective within the game, because the game doesn't provide us with as much information about the character and the world from that perspective as we would have if we were there ourselves.

Once again, these mechanics are abstractions to allow more realistic and credible behaviour from the characters.

Furthermore, having stat-driven events rather than twitch-based events prevents the player's physical disabilities from handicapping is character. If you have tendinitis in your thumb, you won't be as agile with an analog stick, for example. Why should your character suffer as a result? How does that make sense within the setting?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

But speaking generally, I always thought the whole point of games that involved dice was that they were based mostly on luck and chance than any sort of skill or strategy. I'd be very surprised to learn that this wasn't the case.

It's not the case.

In RPGs, dice rolls exist to add an element of chance to the game, not to remove skill entirely.

True.  The character's stats existed to remove skill.  The dice just made the outcomes less deterministic.

An attack roll in AD&D was itself an abstraction of an entire minute of your character's attacking and feinting in combination with his target's dodging and parrying.

[bEVEsthda]

I see that my beloved Sylvius the Mad  (platonic, ofc) has already responded in this thread. That is a cue for me to exhale deeply from relief, relax and stop troubling my little head with how to approach this subject in order to educate.

But a few general points. All advanced games employ elements of randomness, in order to make them - A) seem more realistic - introduce a level of unpredictability.

This has nothing to do with any tactic or strategic attributes!
Strategies and tactics often involve taking gambles. Must consider unpredictable nature of things.

To me it seems the OP is confusing reactive immediate action with tactic & strategy?

That is like saying that running to intercept and hitting the ball is a tactical move by a tennisplayer. It's not. Staying by the baseline and playing deep balls, otoh, is an example of tactics.

I also strongly suspect DA:O really is a turnbased game. And that DA2 is a modified turnbased game. Modified in the sense that a turn can be interrupted, and the remainder of that char's turn time is cancelled and the new order is initiated immediately. That is how they seem to me at least. Though I'm not terribly interested in combat in that way, so I haven't paid much attention.

The true answer to the OP's question is that the strategic depth of a dice roll can be a bottomless abyss. It all depends. In this case it's not a matter of that, but rather that the feedback mechanisms (animation) and control mechanisms cannot be entirely in phase, in a turnbased tactical game that tries to appear like fluid and fast paced action.

Personally, I think Mike Laidlaw has made an excellent job of making the combat seem more responsive and directly engaging in DA2. It's not what I want, but it's not a bad job at all,  ...if you change the animations and overpowerful skills. It's not what I want, and it's too simple gameplay, but if it's what it takes to get it appealing enough to all the mainstream ...ehu,.. eh,.. persons, it's ok, I think. It will always have flaws, if your mindset is that it 'should be an action game'. But c'mon guys. And, besides, it's not an action game.

Finally, BG is a far more strategic game than DA:O and DA2, because you have to consider so many more things, have to take so many other decisions. Things which are carried over, along the game. In DA:O and DA2 every fight is reset at the start. Everything is always the same.  The fight setup is completely static. And there is in DA2 no other gameplay, which essentially makes DA2 a sort of  tactical console platformer, with RPG elements. ...And a story.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 05 décembre 2011 - 11:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I also strongly suspect DA:O really is a turnbased game. And that DA2 is a modified turnbased game. Modified in the sense that a turn can be interrupted, and the remainder of that char's turn time is cancelled and the new order is initiated immediately. That is how they seem to me at least. Though I'm not terribly interested in combat in that way, so I haven't paid much attention.

I think you have them backward.  DAO's attacks are interruptible, while DA2's attacks are not.  As such, I would argue (and I have previously) that DA2 is more like a turn-based combat system than anything we've seen fromn BIoWare in many years.

DA2 really does lock you into your turn, because once you've selected an action there's nothing else you can do but wait for your next turn.  DAO does nothing of the sort, and allows you to cancel nearly any action partway through if you suddenly need to do something else.  In this way, DAO's combat was far more responsive to player inputs.

Personally, I think Mike Laidlaw has made an excellent job of making the combat seem more responsive and directly engaging in DA2.

I completely disagree.  Moving the attack to the start of the animation produced a very unfortunate side-effect of characters being unable to respond to player instructions.  I think DAO came far closer to fulfilling Mike's stated design goals for DA2 than DA2 does itself.

[Rawgrim]

The strategy and tactical bit isn`t the dice-roll itself. But the number that is added to the dice-roll.

[Xewaka]

Statistical control and probability handling is the strategic depth.
A great example of a deeply tactical and strategical gameplay with dice affecting almost every outcome is Blood Bowl. In that game, most of the player development, team development, and play manoeuvres are dedicated to minimize your chance of failure while maximizing your opponent's. It is a very fun, engaging game.

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 décembre 2011 - 12:47 .

[Theagg]

tmp7704 wrote...

Melness wrote...

You're confusing the player's input with the character's ability.

No, you are ignoring the intelligence of the other character, the attacker is also a factor -- it's their ability to realize that throwing a projectile at a spot where they see a character that's moving isn't going to result in the hit, and adjusting their aim accordingly. That's why effective dodging involves certain levels of skills.

There shouldn't simply be a need for player input when it  comes to dodging boulders. Nor should it affect the outcome -- much like there's no need for such input where it comes to trying to avoid individual weapon attacks or arrows. It's automated (for convenience) character behaviour tied to their attributes, and that's just to avoid the necessity for you to repeatedly issue the command "i try to avoid the incoming attack" every time your character(s) get attacked.

All fine in theory but the point is this. Origins still tried to keep some semblance of turn based, stat based combat mechancis under the hood but overlaid it with a 'real time' graphic front end. A front end which allowed players to move their character and party members around during combat as though in a 3rd person "as it happens"simulation.

The two together did not work, hence the failing to dodge boulders problem that arose. Because Origins as it is played literally begs the players to move about in real time during combat, to attempt to dodge, seek cover etc. But the combat mechanics work under differing laws, hits being predetermined separate of player input.

So at times it looks stupid. Unrealistic even. It was a bad mesh of two competing game styles.

One of them had to give way in DA2. So in electing to keep the 'real time' movement feel that Origins had, the combat responses became more real time in tune with that.

Now, to go the way you envisage and have it make visual sense, the game would have had to drop the 'real time' graphical front end.and literally go back to a turn based screen view similar to chess. (ie turn 1. Move to postion, choose spells, talents etc, Resolve. Turn 2, move again...and so on)

But that would then not have been Origins or Dragon Age either.

[Theagg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I completely disagree.  Moving the attack to the start of the animation produced a very unfortunate side-effect of characters being unable to respond to player instructions.  I think DAO came far closer to fulfilling Mike's stated design goals for DA2 than DA2 does itself.

There is that but changing it to a front loaded system did have advantages over Origins. AoE spells in Origins especially, where often, due to the long cast time, you could not 'tactically' cast these spells as by the time your spell went off, the targets would almost always have moved through and out of the intended area. and if you ended up targeting a creature itself rather than the area, the spell would fire off just as they closed in on you, dealing freindly fire damage to your party as a result.

Moving the attack to the start of the animation in DA2 certainly made those situations resolve better.

[MerinTB]

Theagg wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I completely disagree.  Moving the attack to the start of the animation produced a very unfortunate side-effect of characters being unable to respond to player instructions.  I think DAO came far closer to fulfilling Mike's stated design goals for DA2 than DA2 does itself.

There is that but changing it to a front loaded system did have advantages over Origins. AoE spells in Origins especially, where often, due to the long cast time, you could not 'tactically' cast these spells as by the time your spell went off, the targets would almost always have moved through and out of the intended area. and if you ended up targeting a creature itself rather than the area, the spell would fire off just as they closed in on you, dealing freindly fire damage to your party as a result.

Moving the attack to the start of the animation in DA2 certainly made those situations resolve better.

Or, like shooting a gun at a moving target, you learn to LEAD the target with your spell.  And that's where the tactics come in.

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

Because Origins as it is played literally begs the players to move about in real time during combat, to attempt to dodge, seek cover etc. But the combat mechanics work under differing laws, hits being predetermined separate of player input.

I found the DAO system to work largely as i expected -- cover could be used to break the line of sight and prevent (new) attacks from incoming (usually giving a way to draw the enemies towards you as they sought position from which they could see you and aim at you again)

I have just spent a few minutes verifying that, to make sure the memory wasn't tricking me -- i put a character in corridor, with enemy arched in the next room. When i placed the character in the archer's view, this would cause the archer to start executing the skill. If i moved the character out of the door or just closed the door before he was done, effectively breaking the line of sight, the attack would be cancelled and the character was never shot as the result. The same went for an archer in my own team.

If you moved after the skill was already executed then yes, it's not possible to "manually dodge" the hit past that point. However, that's more of issue with projectiles being animated moving too slow and possibly making some people think "i should be still able to move out of the way" when it actually shouldn't be the case at all much like you can't just walk out of the way of an incoming bullet.

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 décembre 2011 - 03:04 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Theagg wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I completely disagree.  Moving the attack to the start of the animation produced a very unfortunate side-effect of characters being unable to respond to player instructions.  I think DAO came far closer to fulfilling Mike's stated design goals for DA2 than DA2 does itself.

There is that but changing it to a front loaded system did have advantages over Origins. AoE spells in Origins especially, where often, due to the long cast time, you could not 'tactically' cast these spells as by the time your spell went off, the targets would almost always have moved through and out of the intended area. and if you ended up targeting a creature itself rather than the area, the spell would fire off just as they closed in on you, dealing freindly fire damage to your party as a result.

Moving the attack to the start of the animation in DA2 certainly made those situations resolve better.

This is where you must use tactics. If an enemy is coming for you, do not shoot a fireball at him for it will most likely engulf your friendlies. It's common sense. Like firing a sniper in BF3 (and real life for that matter), you must gauge where you think the enemy will end up by the time the bullet reaches their area. You can't put down an inferno on a crowd of sprinting darkspawn and expect them to just sit there. Predict where they'll end up, and if they are too close, do no use an AoE. SImple really.

[Kidd]

What's interesting in this thread to me is how role playing clashes with tactical game play, and where we see how people look at games differently. I'm sure many would die if they heard me and an IRL friend talk about how he plays DAO "BG style" (topdown, lots of strategy) whereas I play "role play style" (never topdown - I'm on a console after all - almost never switching from controlling my warden aside from when I really have to).

Some in here would definitely say my friend's tactical game is a big part of what makes DAO a party-based rpg, though of course I would not agree. Most interesting! ^^

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

This is where you must use tactics. If an enemy is coming for you, do not shoot a fireball at him for it will most likely engulf your friendlies. It's common sense. Like firing a sniper in BF3 (and real life for that matter), you must gauge where you think the enemy will end up by the time the bullet reaches their area. You can't put down an inferno on a crowd of sprinting darkspawn and expect them to just sit there. Predict where they'll end up, and if they are too close, do no use an AoE. SImple really.

This means you support how you can move out of attacks in DA2, right? I mean if you (as a player, not the character) have to anticipate where somebody is going to end up when casting an AoE spell, that would also mean it's fine if you similarly react to an AoE being cast and then tell your characters to run away, I think.

Either both targeting and dodging require player skill and not character skill, or both should require it. Depends on what kind of game BioWare wants DA to be, I believe.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 06 décembre 2011 - 09:13 .

[tmp7704]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

This means you support how you can move out of attacks in DA2, right? I mean if you (as a player, not the character) have to anticipate where somebody is going to end up when casting an AoE spell, that would also mean it's fine if you similarly react to an AoE being cast and then tell your characters to run away, I think.

There's a UI-related catch to that -- when you point at the spot on the ground where you want to fire the spell, the game doesn't really have a way of knowing if you point there because you want to intercept some specific NPC, or because you estimate it to be a good spot to catch multiple enemies in resulting spell, etc. As such, it's probably easier to entirely automate the dodging process than it is to automate the "fire at certain spot in order to hit a moving enemy" process... as the latter doesn't always have to involve the character you're aiming at to be in the perfect centre of the AoE effect.

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 décembre 2011 - 09:37 .

[Theagg]

MerinTB wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I completely disagree.  Moving the attack to the start of the animation produced a very unfortunate side-effect of characters being unable to respond to player instructions.  I think DAO came far closer to fulfilling Mike's stated design goals for DA2 than DA2 does itself.

There is that but changing it to a front loaded system did have advantages over Origins. AoE spells in Origins especially, where often, due to the long cast time, you could not 'tactically' cast these spells as by the time your spell went off, the targets would almost always have moved through and out of the intended area. and if you ended up targeting a creature itself rather than the area, the spell would fire off just as they closed in on you, dealing freindly fire damage to your party as a result.

Moving the attack to the start of the animation in DA2 certainly made those situations resolve better.

Or, like shooting a gun at a moving target, you learn to LEAD the target with your spell.  And that's where the tactics come in.

Absolutely but taking account of all what has been said above, 'leading' the target in this manner has nothing to do with your characters stats, skills or otherwise and everything to do with you the player and your ability to judge timing.

So if player timing comes into critical events like this (getting the spell to go off in the right place) then player timing should have applied in your abiliy to dodge incoming boulders.

So again I point out, Origins was a flawed mix of both styles.

[Theagg]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...



This is where you must use tactics. If an enemy is coming for you, do not shoot a fireball at him for it will most likely engulf your friendlies. It's common sense. Like firing a sniper in BF3 (and real life for that matter), you must gauge where you think the enemy will end up by the time the bullet reaches their area. You can't put down an inferno on a crowd of sprinting darkspawn and expect them to just sit there. Predict where they'll end up, and if they are too close, do no use an AoE. SImple really.

See answer above. (I'm fully aware of the tactical concept of leading the target etc), the point being that form of tactic is totally reliant on player input timing, not character ability. (You the player see on screen what is happening and in a 'real time' manner judge accordingly where to place the spell) Whereas when you the player see onscreen an Ogre picking up a boulder, you could not judge in 'real time' where to move to to avoid that.

The two conflicting mechanics were trying to exist in the same universe and as such it wasn't a cohesive experience

Modifié par Theagg, 06 décembre 2011 - 10:31 .

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

So if player timing comes into critical events like this (getting the spell to go off in the right place) then player timing should have applied in your abiliy to dodge incoming boulders.

Using the same logic you should request to have it logically extend even further, and demand player timing to also be required for every regular non-aoe attack as well, no? After all, how comes archers and mages are hitting their targets without the need for that crucial player timing?

Just because an exception is made in situation that can't be easily resolved without taking player's input (deciding what area should be covered by AoE effect) doesn't mean it's something that should be applied everywhere you can.

And a more sensible approach for such situation would be to remove the need for player's skill factor in this area, e.g. by having no delay between using the skill and the moment the damage actually takes place... which, incidentally is exactly what DA2 does (or at least tries) Meaning that, using your own logic again, this game shouldn't allow for the player timing to affect other aspects of the game, like dodging boulders.

[Theagg]

tmp7704 wrote...

Theagg wrote...

So if player timing comes into critical events like this (getting the spell to go off in the right place) then player timing should have applied in your abiliy to dodge incoming boulders.

Using the same logic you should request to have it logically extend even further, and demand player timing to also be required for every regular non-aoe attack as well, no? After all, how comes archers and mages are hitting their targets without the need for that crucial player timing?

Just because an exception is made in situation that can't be easily resolved without taking player's input (deciding what area should be covered by AoE effect) doesn't mean it's something that should be applied everywhere you can.

And a more sensible approach for such situation would be to remove the need for player's skill factor in this area, e.g. by having no delay between using the skill and the moment the damage actually takes place... which, incidentally is exactly what DA2 does (or at least tries) Meaning that, using your own logic again, this game shouldn't allow for the player timing to affect other aspects of the game, like dodging boulders.

Again, all we are demonstrating here are the problems with a game that tries to present a graphical representation of real time movement and real time input, whilst having under the hood mechanics that are at odds with that.

For example, if the suggestion is that 'dodging' boulders should rely entirely on the characters Dexterity stat (and possibly a bit of Cunning) and not player input then it's equally valid to suggest that the placement of AoE spells (and attacks) should have nothing to do with whether you as the player can judge distance and timing and therefore decide where to place the targeting cursor (to lead the targets etc). Instead it should rely totally on the characters Cunning stat (and perhaps some Wilpower)

There is no end to the level at which character vs player actions could be weighted like this but the real problem still remains, the onscreen graphical representation of the game is that of one in which you as the player can move characters around the world in 3D, in real time in a manner in which you choose.

And then when you suddenly find you cannot react to 'real time' events in a way that seems feasible (ie Ogre visibly picking up boulder and readying a hurl) the problem and contradictions arise.

There are probably ways around this that would still maintain the real time illusion whilst having the ability to dodge rely principally on statistics, which would involve changes to the animation of the creatures attack. Ie, if the Ogre for example has scored a hit based on those stats and you are attempting to run away, the Orge swivels to track you, and the boulder launch is based on a vector from where you were to your current position. The problem in Origins animations being that the 'hit roll' sucess determination precedes the animation, rather than the animation preceeding the succesful hit.

But again, this is all a problem of having a game that is trying to look and feel like real time 3D. (with pause !)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Theagg wrote...

There is that but changing it to a front loaded system did have advantages over Origins. AoE spells in Origins especially, where often, due to the long cast time, you could not 'tactically' cast these spells as by the time your spell went off, the targets would almost always have moved through and out of the intended area. and if you ended up targeting a creature itself rather than the area, the spell would fire off just as they closed in on you, dealing freindly fire damage to your party as a result.

Moving the attack to the start of the animation in DA2 certainly made those situations resolve better.

It solved that specific problem, but created many others, and ignored that there were options for avoiding that problem already in DAO.

For example, DAO let you pre-cast big AoE spells, so that they were the first strike in the battle.  And because creatures moved slower in DAO, targetting the floor in advance of moving targets was easier.

I'll grant, it was never entirely clera to me which creatures were going to be hit by Cone of Cold when I cast it, but the same is true of many DA2 abilities.  Pointing out DAO's failings that DA2 didn't correct doesn't make a very strong case for DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Theagg wrote...

Absolutely but taking account of all what has been said above, 'leading' the target in this manner has nothing to do with your characters stats, skills or otherwise and everything to do with you the player and your ability to judge timing.

Which is why player timing shouldn't enter into that either.  That's why the Ogre's rock hits you even if you move - because the hit mechanic models the Ogre leading his target.

The same is true for archery in both games.  By your reasoning, DA2's archery should work like Skyrim's archery, where you can move out of teh way of arrows as they fly toward you.  But it doesn't do that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Theagg wrote...

There is no end to the level at which character vs player actions could be weighted like this but the real problem still remains, the onscreen graphical representation of the game is that of one in which you as the player can move characters around the world in 3D, in real time in a manner in which you choose.

And then when you suddenly find you cannot react to 'real time' events in a way that seems feasible (ie Ogre visibly picking up boulder and readying a hurl) the problem and contradictions arise.

There are no contradictions.  You perceive contraditions because you've drawn unfounded conclusions about how the mechanics work, and then see the mechanics not work that way.

It is a failure of reasoning, not of game design.  And the failure is yours.

[eroeru]

I agree with Sylvius and xkg.

Besides, the "postitioning tactics" like in DA2 are rather lame imo. The ogre is really the stupid one to throw a rock to an empty place or head-butt a wall. And I like my opponents a bit better in handling fights.

The good about more dice-oriented and with-stronger-opponents play would be 1.) metagaming and 2.) you twitch less moving your character (moving him from place to place is more micro), and think more about the situation at hand + the situation in farthest perspective (in acquiring skills) when there's more skill-options and less unimaginative moving around (hence there's more macro - it is thus a bit more interesting for the strategist).

Also, your claim that DA:O has just as important positioning contradicts with what you've said - that it wouldn't matter "if you run or not". And of course the arrows seemed more off in DA2 (in origins you could still escape the line of fire - slowly), and attribute-checks were functioning also in DA2 (though in a somewhat worse manner imo).


.

Modifié par eroeru, 06 décembre 2011 - 08:36 .

[Nerevar-as]

Theagg wrote...

And then when you suddenly find you cannot react to 'real time' events in a way that seems feasible (ie Ogre visibly picking up boulder and readying a hurl) the problem and contradictions arise.

There are probably ways around this that would still maintain the real time illusion whilst having the ability to dodge rely principally on statistics, which would involve changes to the animation of the creatures attack. Ie, if the Ogre for example has scored a hit based on those stats and you are attempting to run away, the Orge swivels to track you, and the boulder launch is based on a vector from where you were to your current position. The problem in Origins animations being that the 'hit roll' sucess determination precedes the animation, rather than the animation preceeding the succesful hit.

But again, this is all a problem of having a game that is trying to look and feel like real time 3D. (with pause !)

The Ogre boulder attack looks bad on both games. In Origins it would hit even if you already were on the other side of the screen with nothing you could do about it, in DA2 the Ogre came across as a retarded who couldn´t change target in between grabbing the boulder and tossing it(or direction before the charge). Not to mention his friendly fire.

Personally I´d keep the Origins system but working the animations so that attacks go towards where the target is going (and something similar so we don´t have homing arrows), but also keep the Evasion/Stone wall skills so the player isn´t hopelss against such attacks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Personally I´d keep the Origins system but working the animations so that attacks go towards where the target is going (and something similar so we don´t have homing arrows), but also keep the Evasion/Stone wall skills so the player isn´t hopelss against such attacks.

This is a good point.  Clearly the Ogre's rocks could home on the target, because that's exactly how arrows worked.  Perhaps the Ogre was designed to target the grounds and not a character, and that caused the problem, but this obviously isn't a technical limitation.  Arrows already solved the problem - rocks could do the same.

I have no problem at all with homing rocks.

[tmp7704]

Theagg wrote...

Again, all we are demonstrating here are the problems with a game that tries to present a graphical representation of real time movement and real time input, whilst having under the hood mechanics that are at odds with that.

I think what we are demonstrating here are the problems with the implementation. The game doesn't illustrate properly enough an attack which it has no intention to allow you to sidestep. That's really all there is to it -- if the illustration was more accurate, it'd never occur to you there should be a possibility for you to avoid the hits on your own rather than leave that to the character.

For example, if the suggestion is that 'dodging' boulders should rely entirely on the characters Dexterity stat (and possibly a bit of Cunning) and not player input then it's equally valid to suggest that the placement of AoE spells (and attacks) should have nothing to do with whether you as the player can judge distance and timing and therefore decide where to place the targeting cursor (to lead the targets etc). Instead it should rely totally on the characters Cunning stat (and perhaps some Wilpower)

It would be more accurate analogy to suggest that character's cunning stat and such should perhaps have effect on whether the character actually manages to fire the attack at the exact spot the player has pointed to.

That's because these two actions aren't really exact equivalents -- the act of dodging is a result of very simple "dodge incoming attack" instruction, one that's presumed to be issued on every incoming attack without the need for you to "manually" issue it. In contrast, placement of the AoE spell is typically a result of multiple instructions combined together -- "hit this guy and this and this if possible, but avoid hitting this companion and that one too".

While it would be fair to say that a game which reduces player's manual input should only allow to provide such set of instructions ("attack this and this and this") rather than involve the player's ability to judge distances etc, it'd be quite a design nightmare to actually provide a way for the player to issue their input in that manner. And likely more cumbersome for the player as well.

In other words, the AoE stuff allows the player's "skill" to become part of the equation only because good luck with implementing the more logical alternative. But such necessity isn't a very good reason to demand the practice should be extended to elements where it's not the unfortunate necessity.

Modifié par tmp7704, 06 décembre 2011 - 10:22 .