132 réponses à ce sujet

[Theagg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

No it isn't my failing, but thanks for the patronising flash of ego there on your behalf. Apparently you had failed to understand my points or understand exactly what I mean by 'contradictions'

Which are, the illusion of being able to move and react in real time to unfolding events and actions that the game gives, both in Origins and DA2, and the fact that the hit is already 'scored' before the animation movement begins in Origins (re Boulder hurl or arrow strike) That's the contradiction presented to the player. The 'realistic' animation vs the unrealistic 'effect before cause' temporal mismatch of that animation

(ie, in plain language, the Ogre has already hit you before he hurls the boulder)

Do try to keep up:)

[Theagg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

No, my reasoning doesn't imply that at all, not least because arrows fly a great deal faster than hurled boulders. But, hitting a moving target with an arrow is a lot harder than hitting a stationary target. Do the mechanics take that into account. I see no evidence of that being the case.

And where is your reference for the claim the Hurl mechanic models the Ogre leading his target ? (Rather than it just being a plain 'to hit' calculation vs the targets dexterity/armor class etc, followed by the "Hurl" animation) Link please to this reference....Or is that just supposition on your part ?

[Theagg]

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 exactly what I said in my post above...in fact, the animation should track any moving target and the hit be determined (based on stats etc) after the animation completes (ie boulder lands)

Not as is at the present in Origins where the hit is effectively determined as the animation begins.

Modifié par Theagg, 07 décembre 2011 - 12:32 .

[eroeru]

Theagg wrote...

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 exactly what I said in my post above...in fact, the animation should track any moving target and the hit be determined (based on stats etc) after the animation completes (ie boulder lands)

Not as is at the present in Origins where the hit is effectively determined as the animation begins.

What is the effective difference between the two?? I understood Nerever's post as saying Origins' system is not flawed, only that the animation could possibly be more accurate.

Why does it need to calculate after it's hit and not before? (IF it hits is another yet similar question - for this there are also calculations that take place before it actualy hits...)

[Theagg]

tmp7704 wrote...

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.

Which is what I meant. You the player decide on an area and mouse to it.. The mechanics then decide how accurate your in game character can get to placing that AoE on the targeted area. Much like in wargaming when using artillery, where you visibly choose an area on the table top but then have to roll to see how close the actual shot is. Then place a template there to see what actually gets hit or not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Theagg wrote...

And where is your reference for the claim the Hurl mechanic models the Ogre leading his target ? (Rather than it just being a plain 'to hit' calculation vs the targets dexterity/armor class etc, followed by the "Hurl" animation) Link please to this reference....Or is that just supposition on your part ?

It's not supposition at all.  I'm describing how the mechanic actually behaves.

You seem to be asking for a reference that the mechanic is intended to model that particular detail, and, frankly, I don't care what the mechanic was intended to do.  I care what it does.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Theagg wrote...

Which is what I meant. You the player decide on an area and mouse to it.. The mechanics then decide how accurate your in game character can get to placing that AoE on the targeted area. Much like in wargaming when using artillery, where you visibly choose an area on the table top but then have to roll to see how close the actual shot is. Then place a template there to see what actually gets hit or not.

But then you're requiring that player skill determine which area is targetted.  Again, the stats are there to deal with that.  If you want to hit a group of people, target the grtoup of people, and then let the stats models whether you succeed.

Ideally, yes, targets that move would be harder to hit, and targets that move unpredictably would be much harder to hit.  But that means you should be calling for improvements to the stat-driven mechanic, not discarding it.

Aiming should never be left up to the player.  The player should be responsible only for target selection.

[Theagg]

eroeru wrote...

Theagg wrote...

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 exactly what I said in my post above...in fact, the animation should track any moving target and the hit be determined (based on stats etc) after the animation completes (ie boulder lands)

Not as is at the present in Origins where the hit is effectively determined as the animation begins.

What is the effective difference between the two?? I understood Nerever's post as saying Origins' system is not flawed, only that the animation could possibly be more accurate.

Why does it need to calculate after it's hit and not before? (IF it hits is another yet similar question - for this there are also calculations that take place before it actualy hits...)

Just that if you want a game that continues to give the feel of happening in real time with real time motion and input, the 'to hit' calculations should work in conjunction with that.

But to be clear, it's not calculating after it's hit, it's calculating the chance of a hit after the sequence of motions are complete. And since this is a game about motions, placement and real time combat, that's important (example, you see an Ogre pick up a boulder, so attempt to run for cover or whatever., the animation runs correctly, the Ogre tracks you and the boulder lands where you arrive at the end of that phase. Your stats then determine whether or not you were hit at that point in space and time, also importantly at the same time correctly taking into account any cover you may have managed to run to in that time. In essence the environment plays a greater role.

Having the hit be calculated before you run off, as the animation begins (remembering hurling boulders is a much slower process than archery) fails to take that latter part into account.

[eroeru]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Theagg wrote...

Which is what I meant. You the player decide on an area and mouse to it.. The mechanics then decide how accurate your in game character can get to placing that AoE on the targeted area. Much like in wargaming when using artillery, where you visibly choose an area on the table top but then have to roll to see how close the actual shot is. Then place a template there to see what actually gets hit or not.

But then you're requiring that player skill determine which area is targetted.  Again, the stats are there to deal with that.  If you want to hit a group of people, target the grtoup of people, and then let the stats models whether you succeed.

Ideally, yes, targets that move would be harder to hit, and targets that move unpredictably would be much harder to hit.  But that means you should be calling for improvements to the stat-driven mechanic, not discarding it.

Aiming should never be left up to the player.  The player should be responsible only for target selection.

This.
Though I'm not absolutely sure about the last statement...

edit: plus, I'm really quite sceptic about the micromanaging and moving your character around. As I said earlier, this kind of tactics lacks imagination. Games should focus on the more strategic, less tactical imho (this means ditching the ideal of "real combat simulation" though - and I would be more than fine with it).

Modifié par eroeru, 07 décembre 2011 - 01:02 .

[Theagg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Theagg wrote...

And where is your reference for the claim the Hurl mechanic models the Ogre leading his target ? (Rather than it just being a plain 'to hit' calculation vs the targets dexterity/armor class etc, followed by the "Hurl" animation) Link please to this reference....Or is that just supposition on your part ?

It's not supposition at all.  I'm describing how the mechanic actually behaves.

You seem to be asking for a reference that the mechanic is intended to model that particular detail, and, frankly, I don't care what the mechanic was intended to do.  I care what it does.

Well, that's how you imagine the mechanic works not neccesarily how it behaves, how I imagine it works is different.

I imagine it goes something like this...

Cooldown complete. Choose target, activate Hurl. Determine hit or not. Begin animations.

After that, it doesn't matter who moves where, spacial postioning and the environment have no further effect.  And since Hurl is partially an AoE effect, if your party were all together but then ran to the four cardinal points of the compass away from each other and they all failed their physical resistance checks, they will all be floored by the Hurl when it impacts at he place where they all previously were but are no longer. despite them all being in different places.

That's not modelling the Ogre leading the target. That's a special kind of boulder.













 

[Theagg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But then you're requiring that player skill determine which area is targetted.  Again, the stats are there to deal with that.  If you want to hit a group of people, target the grtoup of people, and then let the stats models whether you succeed.

Ideally, yes, targets that move would be harder to hit, and targets that move unpredictably would be much harder to hit.  But that means you should be calling for improvements to the stat-driven mechanic, not discarding it.

Aiming should never be left up to the player.  The player should be responsible only for target selection.

Err, no, I'm no more saying player skill is required to determine whci area is targeted than I am saying that player skill is require to select an area or location to move to.

And stats can't determine which area is targeted to start with. Only intellect can decide that. So player input is required on one side and enemy AI on the other. After than stats can then determine how accurate that targeting is. And then stats further determine the success of hits based on that targeting (In a way this is what happens in FPS games, you the player select and aim but your stats at that time skew that aim off (ie the cursor wobbles, shifts about etc, if your stats are low)

[eroeru]

2:34

"If you're telling a dark fantasy, you don't want combat to feel like you're playing chess with friends".

Actually, this type of overall feeling is THE best thing a game could offer, imo. (of course it should have other values as well - but you can't go wrong with something that feels as does the infinitely ingenious game of chess)...

Actiony-respond-jump-swing-with-your-mouseclick micromanaging hassle RPG is not a good thing for many including myself...

Modifié par eroeru, 07 décembre 2011 - 02:24 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

eroeru wrote...


2:34

"If you're telling a dark fantasy, you don't want combat to feel like you're playing chess with friends".

Actually, this type of overall feeling is THE best thing a game could offer, imo. (of course it should have other values as well - but you can't go wrong with something that feels as does the infinitely ingenious game of chess)...

Actiony-respond-jump-swing-with-your-mouseclick micromanaging hassle RPG is not a good thing for many including myself...

Heh, it's really interesting to watch that video after the fact. You can see many places where they went wrong, but also many places where you can see some very good ideas at work.

I agree with you that the strategic feeling in combat is *exactly* what a game like Dragon Age should be shooting for. If they're actually going for a "dark fantasy," then a Game of Thrones-esque world where A) you win or you die, and you need a plan to win, is something they should be going for, not trying to avoid.

[Gallimatia]

You can dodge boulders in DA:O. You can also dodge the Ogre's regular attacks which is a bit harder. In at least the latter case the hit area check takes place before the visual strike. It's not where you are when the strike happens that counts but where you are some time before that.

This is inconsistent because the Ogre also has a charge that always hits and a pounce that I think always hits. More over the charge looks like an AoE attack but is single target. Meaning if Alistair and the Warden are standing next to the Ogre and the Ogre starts to ready for a charge on let's say the Warden then he or she can move out of the way leaving Alistair to be the only one visibly hit but the Warden being the only one taking damage. This is probably what happened in the quote below. No dices involved only a single target ability with a large preparation time that always hits and looks like an AoE attack.

Video showing various Ogre attacks.

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.

[SkittlesKat96]

Theagg wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But then you're requiring that player skill determine which area is targetted.  Again, the stats are there to deal with that.  If you want to hit a group of people, target the grtoup of people, and then let the stats models whether you succeed.

Ideally, yes, targets that move would be harder to hit, and targets that move unpredictably would be much harder to hit.  But that means you should be calling for improvements to the stat-driven mechanic, not discarding it.

Aiming should never be left up to the player.  The player should be responsible only for target selection.

Err, no, I'm no more saying player skill is required to determine whci area is targeted than I am saying that player skill is require to select an area or location to move to.

And stats can't determine which area is targeted to start with. Only intellect can decide that. So player input is required on one side and enemy AI on the other. After than stats can then determine how accurate that targeting is. And then stats further determine the success of hits based on that targeting (In a way this is what happens in FPS games, you the player select and aim but your stats at that time skew that aim off (ie the cursor wobbles, shifts about etc, if your stats are low)

Good point...I didn't think about that in my earlier post here 

[Theagg]

Gallimatia wrote...

You can dodge boulders in DA:O. You can also dodge the Ogre's regular attacks which is a bit harder. In at least the latter case the hit area check takes place before the visual strike. It's not where you are when the strike happens that counts but where you are some time before that.

This is inconsistent because the Ogre also has a charge that always hits and a pounce that I think always hits. More over the charge looks like an AoE attack but is single target. Meaning if Alistair and the Warden are standing next to the Ogre and the Ogre starts to ready for a charge on let's say the Warden then he or she can move out of the way leaving Alistair to be the only one visibly hit but the Warden being the only one taking damage. This is probably what happened in the quote below. No dices involved only a single target ability with a large preparation time that always hits and looks like an AoE attack.

Video showing various Ogre attacks.

Entertaining clip ! The amusing shot of the ogre charging into a close knit group of men only to floor one of them is priceless.

I would question how much of the boulder dodging is due to movement and not stats and the hit claculation though. And how much is just due to catching it on the correct clock cycles. My mage for example having run away in exactly that manner only to end up being floored many a time when a hurl action begins.

Modifié par Theagg, 07 décembre 2011 - 02:05 .

[eroeru]

Did you actually take this clip for too faulty? Ok, there's some footage where the animation is off, but hey, as I haven't played Orignis for a while but have tried DA2 a couple of times, this seems marvellous overall... Nigh nothing bugging me in the simple case of imperfect animation and especially the dice-rolls.. if getting hit by the boulder is calculated prior to it actually landing, what's bad in that? There's nowhere to plausibly hide anyway...


Also, as of the boulder, I think it mainly depend on the fact if you're moving at the time of the start of the attack. If you're moving already, it hits (don't know if always), but if you're on a spot, he throws it there instead.
It sorta makes sense that the Ogre has quirks - his throwing move is rather quick, so he wouldn't really want/need looking out for you in the midst of this physical strain. An ogre will imply that a standing target is a sitting duck and make his effort into looking out for you only if you're already fixed as moving. These type of quirks I really enjoy even. They're old-school...
(anyone can confirm this moving thing? I cannot access my DA:O right now).

Modifié par eroeru, 07 décembre 2011 - 02:42 .

[Theagg]

eroeru wrote...

Did you actually think this clip for faulty? Ok, there's some footage where the animation is off, but hey, as I haven't played Orignis for a while but have tried DA2 a couple of times, this seems marvellous overall... Nigh nothing bugging me in the simple case of imperfect animation and especially the dice-rolls.. if getting hit by the boulder is calculated prior to it actually landing, what's bad in that? There's nowhere to plausibly hide anyway...

As I had said before, the problem lies not so much in the mechanics as it does in the conflict of a game that gives the illsuion of real time freedom to move and position yourself, versus hits calculated that don't work in that 'real time' way.

Also, what's bad in that. The fact it takes no account of the environment and postional placing in that environment. (many on here have stated they want to see the environment play a greater role in DA3)

This conflict is further exaggerated by what happens after such a boulder (or charge) hit. For example, the hit pays no attention to where you are when the boulder lands(or his horns connect). (it only determines whether you are hit based on stats etc) You get knocked over even if you are 50 metres away fron where the impacts occur.

Yet having moved 50 metres away, your new postion can influence your next tactical decision and may be to your advantage. (ie you might now be in a flanking position when you get up from the boulder hit) Again, a contradiction between a hit mechanic that pays no attention to your position in the environment and your new position which to a degree does.

Hence why I feel the animations would work better being changed to reflect this and the hit determination being calculated at the moment (and thus location) of impact.

Modifié par Theagg, 07 décembre 2011 - 02:45 .

[eroeru]

Theagg wrote...
As I had said before, the problem lies not so much in the mechanics as it does in the conflict of a game that gives the illsuion of real time freedom to move and position yourself, versus hits calculated that don't work in that 'real time' way.

Just to be a ******: illusions are mostly understood as the viewer not grasping what is actually going on.

It's probably only the involvment of magicka or some random brain-affecting disorder/genetics/disease that lets ones who misperceive have no fault in it... and that's already more like hallucinating or "being a natural" in the way as was Forrest Gump.

(I do understand that you're not talking about a genuine illusion though - but it does seem rather important to point out that many people could relate perfectly with the "less of a hassle" turn-based mechanics-in-disguise and thus enjoy DA:O's combat more)

edited for a couple of things that kept bothering me
PS sorry for the somewhat derailing second paragraph...

Modifié par eroeru, 07 décembre 2011 - 03:49 .

[Theagg]

eroeru wrote...

Theagg wrote...
As I had said before, the problem lies not so much in the mechanics as it does in the conflict of a game that gives the illsuion of real time freedom to move and position yourself, versus hits calculated that don't work in that 'real time' way.

Just to be a ******: illusions are mostly understood as the viewer not grasping what is actually going on.

It's probably only the involvment of magicka or some random brain-affecting disorder/genetics/disease that lets ones who misperceive have no fault in it... and that's already more like hallucinating or "being a natural" in the way as was Forrest Gump.

(I do understand that you're not talking about a genuine illusion though - but it does seem rather important to point out that many people could relate perfectly with the "less of a hassle" turn-based mechanics-in-disguise and thus enjoy DA:O's combat more)

edited for a couple of things that kept bothering me
PS sorry for the somewhat derailing second paragraph...

Indeed, for me though personally, I would quite like to see this 'illusion' become more real, the turn based mechanics play less of a role and the physics and 3D nature of the world and movement and location therein play far more of an accurate role in determining hits etc.

This doesn't mean the game becoming increasingly twitch based, far from it (and thankfully we still have tactical pausing, which goes a long way towards ironing out the need to physically be quick and nimble with fingers around the keyboard, mouse or controller in order to succeed in combat. One of the reasons I disliked Witcher 2 or other action RPG games. In DA I can pause mid combat and go away for an hour or more, think about tactics, then return if I like)

I probably can't help feeling this way as I just love envisaging vectors, trajectories and velocities of moving objects in relation to the targets movements (which, of course, should be limited by the targets dexterity and gear worn/carried !  Low dexterity = not so fleet of foot)

But that's just me

[Maria Caliban]

eroeru wrote...
"If you're telling a dark fantasy, you don't want combat to feel like you're playing chess with friends".

Actually, this type of overall feeling is THE best thing a game could offer, imo. (of course it should have other values as well - but you can't go wrong with something that feels as does the infinitely ingenious game of chess)...

Actiony-respond-jump-swing-with-your-mouseclick micromanaging hassle RPG is not a good thing for many including myself...

If you want a dark fantasy RPG, you should ditch the tactical combat all together and probably any strategic considerations as well.

Dark fantasy is fantasy with horror elements. It doesn't benefit from a top-down view and controlling multiple combatants.

[Rawgrim]

There are plenty of dark fantasy games that works very well with tactical combat. But for horror elements, I suspect a first-person-view would be more effective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Theagg wrote...

Err, no, I'm no more saying player skill is required to determine whci area is targeted than I am saying that player skill is require to select an area or location to move to.

Then the player should also be able to select a moving target and then let the stats determine whether he hits that moving target - just like how archery works.

Forcing the player to guess at his target's future location removes character skill from the equation.

And stats can't determine which area is targeted to start with. Only intellect can decide that. So player input is required on one side and enemy AI on the other. After than stats can then determine how accurate that targeting is. And then stats further determine the success of hits based on that targeting (In a way this is what happens in FPS games, you the player select and aim but your stats at that time skew that aim off (ie the cursor wobbles, shifts about etc, if your stats are low)

The only shooter-style game I've seen that does anything of that sort is Mass Effect, as it allowed the player to select targets while paused, but then used Shepard's stats to determine his accuracy at hitting those targets.

The ability to aim while paused removed player skill from both ME games, and that was good.

I cannot think of another shooter that did something similar.  The vast majority of shooters require the player to aim or select targets in real time, and that achieves none of my design goals.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you want a dark fantasy RPG, you should ditch the tactical combat all together and probably any strategic considerations as well.

Dark fantasy is fantasy with horror elements. It doesn't benefit from a top-down view and controlling multiple combatants.

Why?  Losing the top-down view only serves to limit the player's knowledge of his character's environment.  Nothing about dark fantasy requires that.  Nothing about horror elements requires that.

The only reaon to limit the player's knowledge like that would be if you were trying to have those horror elements frighten the player, and that's wrong-headed.  The player need never be frightened.  As soon as the game is trying to evoke emotional or visceral reactions from the player, the game fails.

It's the character's reactions that matter.  Never the player.  Only the character.

[Maria Caliban]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you want a dark fantasy RPG, you should ditch the tactical combat all together and probably any strategic considerations as well.

Dark fantasy is fantasy with horror elements. It doesn't benefit from a top-down view and controlling multiple combatants.

Why?  Losing the top-down view only serves to limit the player's knowledge of his character's environment.  Nothing about dark fantasy requires that.  Nothing about horror elements requires that.

I didn't say requires. I said benefits.

Lack of awareness is a good thing in horror. Silent Hill is a great example of this. The heavy fog obscured the player's vision so they have difficulty orienting themselves to their surroundings.

The only reaon to limit the player's knowledge like that would be if you were trying to have those horror elements frighten the player, and that's wrong-headed.

That's like saying it's wrong-headed for pornographers to try to create desire in the viewer/reader. The point of the horror genre is to create fear, disorientation, unease, or a sense of the uncanny.

It's a genre defined by desired emotional or psychological reaction.

The player need never be frightened.As soon as the game is trying to evoke emotional or visceral reactions from the player, the game fails.

Then you cannot have a dark fantasy game.