12 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

I seem to remember using in DAO:  A tank, an off-tank, a Healer and a dps mage.  Maybe even using a Ranger pet as an off-tank.  Not using a lock-picker wasn't a big deal to me.

In DA2.  I use one Warrior never two.  A mage, a lock-picker , me or another mage.


What do you think?  DAO seemed to have more variety.

[turian councilor Knockout]

Absolutely, can recall that i've only paused a few times on nightmare in DA 2 to plan tactics and DAO well most fights on Nightmare required tactics (when enemy mages starts with barrier and begin to cast spells when their allies are dead is also laughable from a tactical view since it eliminates every advantage they may have) and the thing that enemies spawn all around you in DA 2 is the BIG tactic breaker simply speaking it makes tactics completely useless since you never knows where the enemy come from.

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 28 décembre 2011 - 08:53 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Agreed. For healing purposes, you were almost stuck with Anders in your party as a brittle mage.

I hardly ever played with Merril, since she had no healing options and also wasn't good for Blood Magic until around level 15 or so (once she unlocked the Specialization and got some good upgrades for it), so it was a bit of an uphill battle.

You needed a fighter just to take some damage, which for me always was Aveline since Fenris would only do moderate damage most of the time and couldn't take the beating that a tank like Aveline could.

Then throw in a rogue like Varric for the long-range attack or Isabella for the DPS.

I won't discuss Carver or Bethany, for obvious reasons, and never played as Sebastian since I didn't activate that DLC.

Which leaves just you. If you were a fighter and didn't mind tanking and being an extremely boring combat player, than you could have two rogues or mages. If you were a rogue, you could do Merril and Anders, but like I said Merril is pretty useless at first, since you'd want to level her up to be a Blood Mage and get the best use out of her (meaning points in Con instead of WIllpower) which really nerfs her until around late-Act 2. And, if you are a mage, you'd still need a healer (unless you want to take up this mantle, but then you are a little screwed when you are trying to find a damage dealer mage). So you're options are pretty much the same.

You can get away with more unbalanced parties, but in harder battles or on higher difficulties, it gets... tricky.

So yes, I think DAO was much more tactical in the ways it let you play.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I am a PC gamer and maybe some features are handled differently on consoles. Anyway.

We had a tactical view which was removed. That view was very important to see who is where and to reach and position your characters. I would like to see that back - even on consoles. Must be doable.

A problem in DA2 was that several classes jumped or teleported all over the place. That prevented proper positioning of your characters, because the AI could decide to make a character move to another location in an instant.

Another problem in DA2 was the inability to disable all the tactical rules with a single tag. That was present in DA:O, but for reasons unknown removed. If, for an example, you wanted to prevent a character from using mana or stamina so that it could use that later on then all you had to do was disable its AI with a single click. In DA2 you had to disable the rules one by one. That gets very tedious.

Also, instead of a drop-down menu system the choices in the tactical screen could only be seen one at a time. Maybe that is handy on a console (I doubt it, though), but PC users are used to select things in an instant. There was absolutely no reason to remove that when in DA:O it did its job well. That became very tedious in DA2 as well.

Then there is the problem of the waves of ninja-paratroopers. Although BW said that they would remove that, we also saw that they used a variation of the same in Legacy. Instead of dropping from thin air they kept coming from an out of view location. I remember a small room which I had cleared and a couple of minutes later a wave of foes rolled out of that location again. Tactical gameplay should have some logic behind it so one can plan an attack or defense. The ninja-paratroopers were not only annoying because they dropped from thin air, they were also annoying because it was hard to predict how many of those were coming. So, I rather have less or no waves at all.

In DA2 we also saw foes, like the dragon near the mine you could own later on, which were indestructible for a while, but were still able to do damage. At the same time there was no room for cover. And waves of little dragons kept coming. Ghehe. All that results in decreasing the health bar of your party for no logical reason. I doubt any player survived that dragon the first time. If annoying the player with such scenarios is more fun for the devs than tactical gameplay then I'll pass.

It is more fun to fight foes who are smart than fight lots of them or fight foes with huge health bars. Make tactical insight matter.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 28 décembre 2011 - 09:35 .

[cJohnOne]

I'm newly addicted to Anders: Haste and Heroic aura. and Varric's Bianca Song and disorientes.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 28 décembre 2011 - 10:08 .

[Marionetten]

While the removal of the tactical camera was a big blow it wasn't the biggest. The biggest blow was definitely the waves. With this lousy mechanic there was no way to make any sort of assessment before engaging. While I liked the addition of cross class combos I disliked the removal of inter class combos. Dragon Age: Origins just had a whole lot more versatility in how you built your party. So yeah, I'd have to consider Dragon Age II a step down even if it had some decent additions.

[mr_afk]

i found the tactics (as in that AI programming thing) in DA2 to allow for greater party synergy in DA2. especially with the introduction of CCCs/threat management abilities which actually worked, it was a lot easier to setup a party which did what you wanted them to do without having to micromanage everything.
whether this ability to have non-pause play means it's less 'tactical', or whether it just reflects an improvement in the AI is another question (it can still be pretty stupid - i.e. walking into firestorms),

I know that the removal of friendly fire on the lower difficulties resulted in a large drop in the need for tactical gameplay, but as I play on nightmare I didn't find too much of a difference. Also, the implementation of cooldowns on potions meant that fights didn't degenerate into potion chugging contests - a good thing in my mind as it encourages proper threat management, crowd control and healing strategies.

Even the ability to manually move around (and avoid attacks, unlike Origins where they can magically still hit you from across the room) is a good thing, allowing for more fluid targeting - although it also allowed relatively non-tactical kiting...

Waves can get annoying, but if you kill things fast enough/have solid tactics, it doesn't really make that big a deal. Tactics allow for the party to adapt to any new situations in most cases - but i think waves are one of the things where they recognised a need to change (and enemies parachuting down from the sky/roof are pretty lame).

In terms of possible party setups, I would say that any setup is possible in DA2. While there's no need for two warriors, it's certainly possible. Even with the melee friendly fire, fully melee parties can be made to work if you so wished. It's simply about knowing enough about the game to set up good party synergy tactically and through builds; this wasn't very intuitive though, so perhaps certain setups (i.e. fully melee, fully ranged, etc) aren't so obvious.

Overall, in terms of the options available to be used tactically, I would definitely say that DA2 is better. The only thing which could be maybe improved is increasing the need for 'tanking', as the easiest/most powerful setups in DA2 generally just involved loading up offence and steam-rolling enemies before they could deal any damage.


@AngryFrozenWater - i'm pretty sure you can disable all tactics with a single button. you can on xbox anyway.

Modifié par mr_afk, 29 décembre 2011 - 06:17 .

[SuicidalBaby]

"use condition for next tactic" has allowed for a wider range of tactics and tactical use of abilities and spells but the over all tactical decisions are a series of dps checks vs waves.

DA:O allowed for more tactical variety mainly based on the fact that the game is incredibly easy on nightmare. DA:II has tougher enemies that have a weaker AI script than DA:O.

[maxernst]

The waves wouldn't have been so bad if they entered the area logically (through doorways, etc) so that you could plan for their appearance in a sensible way instead of falling from the sky. I also think the sheer speed of the game made it harder to keep up with what was going on, so my tactical choices weren't as good as they were in DA:O. You also had more abilities to play with in DA:O--I find playing as a mage in DA2, I spend a lot of time simply attacking instead of casting spells because all my spells are either in cooldown or not appropriate to the situation.

The AI tactics menus in DA2 were certainly a step up, however.

[PsychicHammer]

I'm just glad they kept the pause - yeah, I do that. Quite a lot actually.

I like DA2 being more fast-paced than DA:O The-turtle like movements in the first game were boring.

I dunno about the rest of you guys, but just the issue of knockbacks and possibility of getting stun-locked to death makes DA2 more tactically-involving. You can't do anything if this pesky Poisonous Spider spits its venom at you. I know the latest patch removed the knockback, but I couldn't stand the warrior nerfs and dmg caps for rogues so I reinstalled the game to get rid of this s***.

[Quething]

That depends.

DA:O with mods was infinitely superior. DA2's tactics are more robust, sure, but they still can't touch the Advanced Tactics mod. I mean, just the simple difference between "target" and "enemy" in AT makes for infinitely more control than the DA2 system (which even with "use current condition for next" will waste abilities on the currently targeted foe instead of the enemy who actually has the trigger you're trying to code for).

Also, in DA:O, there was an iso camera, you could trap chokepoints, you could do stealth recon, there were no waves, enemy abilities were the same as player abilities, enemy resistances actually made sense and the bloody Hold function actually damn well functioned.

Without mods, those last few considerations are somewhat cancelled out by DA2's more sophisticated base tactic system and better potions (not just in terms of cooldowns, but also the one-variety percentage healing thing), the elegant CCC system, more complex boss fights, and the ability to dodge by moving a character. So at that point I call it a wash; both games off-the-shelf have their strengths and weaknesses, and both require you to outsmart the game design more than the actual enemies.

[Gallimatia]

The immunities in DA2 makes perfect sense. You just have to understand the underlying mechanisms.