17 réponses à ce sujet

[ckriley]

I'm sure this has been brought up many times over the course of the last year, and for that I apologize.  But since I've only recently played through the game a couple times, I have to say, tanking in general needs a major improvement.  I have no idea how aggro mechanics work in DA2, but whenever I'm playing a DPS character, Aveline just does not hold their attention at all, and she doesn't seem to have any skills or passive talents that increase threat.

This gets really, really messy on hard and nightmare modes (and somewhat annoying on normal mode) due to the wave system that mobs use to attack your party.  You get one group down, then suddenly 10 more mobs spawn or jump down off of roofs.  They will often go after the nearest group member to them - namely Anders or any ranged character.  This includes you if you're playing a mage.

I've spent so much during a fight on hard mode running around on my mage as two or three mobs chase me because Aveline can't hold aggro.  I've set her tactics to use taunt often, but it's just not enough.  If Anders is healing too much, he gets aggro.  If Varric is doing too much damage with Bianca, he gets aggro.  If my mage is pew pewing too much, she gets MAD aggro.

This was really frustrating and I hope it gets addressed in DA3.

[mr_afk]

if you really want to manage threat you should consider using abilities such as goad and armistice.
basically, get varric/any rogue to cast armistice on weaker party members whenever they are getting attacked by melee attacks and cast goad on aveline/tank whenever your other party members are getting attacked.
this can be done all through tactics so there isn't a ridiculous amount of micromanagement necessary.

also, for rogues, abilities such as decoy, stealth, and inconspicuous drop all the threat - handy for redirecting enemies towards your dog/tank/decoy.
warriors have additional sustains and abilities such as taunt/bravery/battle synergy, but imo they aren't quite as important.


while the threat generated while using shield-defence was increased in the latest patch, you have to understand is that threat is generated when you deal damage. so unless your tank is dealing respectable amounts of damage, your relatively dps characters are going to pick up all the threat.

i play dps characters (read: glassiest glass cannons possible) and manage threat mostly by crowd control and directing all the threat towards hawke (by dealing the most damage). melee enemies attacking hawke can be manually dodged and ranged enemies/elites can be quickly killed with some spike damage.
with this and the tactics using goad and armistice (and stealth etc where relevant), fragile party members are usually left alone.

also, as a side-note, assassins using stealth aren't effected by aggro. they attack the nearest thing - whether that be dog, decoy or the weakest companion that was quietly minding their own business.


the other method to deal with nightmare is to simply steam-roll the enemies and leave no need for tanking. if you really want a 'tank' or focal point for your threat, using a dps aveline works really well. she will probably deal enough damage to pick up all the threat and will help in killing enemies faster - and if you kill enemies fast enough they can't deal as much damage!


so anyway, i think the threat system was a step up from the non-existant one in DA:O (if i remember rightly, it was completely bugged), but yeah - it couldn't hurt to make it more intuitive. or create an actual need for it..

[Sylvius the Mad]

I hope warrior tanking isn't necessary in DA3. In DAO it was entierly possible to play without a tank, or to tank with a Rogue. I'd like to see a return of that sort of versatility.

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I hope warrior tanking isn't necessary in DA3. In DAO it was entierly possible to play without a tank, or to tank with a Rogue. I'd like to see a return of that sort of versatility.

DA2 is entirely possible to play without a tank.  And I'd think you could do a pretty good job taking with a rogue - Cunning, Constituiton, Duellist, Armistice

[maxernst]

I'd really prefer to see games return to the idea of protecting your weaker characters with tactical positioning rather than tanking. Tanking just feels like an immersion-breaking A.I. exploit to me.

[Forst1999]

I agree with maxernst. The whole "threat" system is pretty silly. And if you let enemies behave somewhat intelligent, you don't need masses of them/overpower them to make the game interesting.

[lobi]

Origins Tanks were pretty good with the vanilla gear. Items make every class a bit too op but Bioware likes to keep the game 'accessable' for casuals. Thankfully Tanks suffer less from item spam, not many boost agro or moral, just strength and cons.
I think Avaline was a very good tank in DA2. I just put almost all points into cons give a high dex, spam stamina pots and mostly rely on items and weapons for the damage aspect. Buffs are where its at, damage is only useful if it draws agro.
Story plays a huge part for me. I give rivals a high DPS and plenty of agro, friends get high defence and moral buffs. Cheerleaders and maniacs, I love tanks.

(buffs seem to be tied more to lvl than attributes, any thoughts?)

Modifié par lobi, 08 février 2012 - 10:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

I'd really prefer to see games return to the idea of protecting your weaker characters with tactical positioning rather than tanking.

I agree entirely.  Tanking requires idiotic behaviour on the part of the enemies.

The tactical positioning model would be even more interesting with the addition of some sort of overbearing mechanic.

[HolyAvenger]

+1 who thinks "Tanking" is a stupid idea imported from MMOs for no good reason.

That said, Aveline or even my 2Handed Warrior Hawke made a perfectly acceptable tank. Aveline with Immovable was just ridiculous actually.

[mr_afk]

Just to be the devil's advocate, the threat system isn't that bad.. I mean, it kinda makes sense. Simply put, it makes the enemies focus on the most 'threatening' thing.
It figures that the heavily armoured warrior right in their face would seem the more immediate threat than the mages and rogues lurking in the back. That explains the way that warriors innately have a greater threat generation.
However, threat generation is also based on the damage been dealt. This means that when a rogue assassinates someone dealing thousands of damage, they're going to notice. So unless the rogue drops their attention, the focus is going to shift to the rogue.

While the enemies may appear to be a little bit stupid (i.e. ignoring the heavier hitting party members in favour of heavier armoured weaker hitting party members), unless the 'tank' deals enough damage/generates enough threat, they tend to clue on and attack the dps companions (which is actually the OPs complaint).

All in all, the threat system (and thus tanking) is probably preferable than no system. If enemies were to always attack the nearest companion, a great deal more micromanagement would be necessary and everyone would be complaining (even more) about their mages and rogues getting attacked.


On that note, the main problem with 'tactical positioning' is that it makes pause play and companion micromanagement almost necessary. While this may not be quite as bad on pc, currently on consoles, micromanagement (e.g. moving companions around) is quite clunky and not very fun.
Also, from what i've seen, 'tactical positioning' is sometimes used as a fancy way to describe 'pulling' - where enemies are funnelled into combat one at a time (and the tank might 'tactically' block the doorway etc).
To me this is more exploiting the enemy programming than actual tactical positioning. I'm not sure how a balance between them could work.

I can see it working on the rts side of things or games like fallout tactics - topdown team based games where positioning (cover, height) plays an important role. But I don't think such positioning would work with the current bioware rpg model.

Modifié par mr_afk, 09 février 2012 - 11:41 .

[Wulfram]

The origins of the threat system makes sense. It's the way it's become so elabourate with loads of active abilities designed to manipulate it that I find a bit silly.

I'd just give the warrior a decent bonus to threat generation in melee to represent their ability to hold the attention of the enemy and leave it at that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

mr_afk wrote...

On that note, the main problem with 'tactical positioning' is that it makes pause play and companion micromanagement almost necessary.

I would hope so.  It's a party-based game.  Controlling the whole party is kind of the point.

[mr_afk]

If this were solely a pc game it would be a different story.
Currently the method for 'micromanagement' or 'controlling the whole party' on consoles is to pull up the radial menu and switch between characters - individually allocating which enemy to attack, which abilities to use, and where to move to.

Even without the need for 'tactical positioning', this method of management means completely controlling the ability usage of the party is already almost impossible, or very troublesome and time-consuming to say the least.
Constantly holding the radial bar open to pause isn't quite the same as simply pressing the space bar. And switching between companions to select their abilities is a lot harder when you have to slowly jump from one member to the other.
Pause-play is still useful when working to achieve some effect (e.g. CC and spike damage to an elite), but I doubt any console player directly controls every action in every fight. That would be a fast way to make fights tedious.

This means that tactics are a core part of the console gameplay, allowing the party to do what you want without having to manually select it. There is still a strong element of the 'party-based' game, but without the need for manual micromanagement.
And as I do not think tactical positioning could ever be programmed into tactics, introducing it would be practically forcing clunky micromanagement on console players.

The other problem is that move-to controls are pretty shoddy. Irresponsive half the time, and with party members refusing to stay where they are (intelligently), positioning in DA2 is pretty ridiculous. Of course we are talking about possibilities for DA3, but I believe the point applies - directing party movement is a lot harder without a mouse.


Basically, unless they develop a new system for controlling the party on consoles (and slow the combat down drastically), I don't see how tactical positioning could be implemented into the gameplay.

Modifié par mr_afk, 09 février 2012 - 08:27 .

[maxernst]

mr_afk wrote...


Also, from what i've seen, 'tactical positioning' is sometimes used as a fancy way to describe 'pulling' - where enemies are funnelled into combat one at a time (and the tank might 'tactically' block the doorway etc).
To me this is more exploiting the enemy programming than actual tactical positioning. I'm not sure how a balance between them could work.

You're conflating two separate ideas.  Drawing off enemies in small numbers is an exploit of bad A.I. unless the enemies are too far apart to communicate.  Funnelling the enemy through a narrow passage so that only a small number of them can attack is a standard tactic in real world battles when facing superior numbers.  Thermopylae is a famous example.  Admittedly, it should only work if the enemy has reason to pursue you, but it's a perfectly valid approach to combat.  In an ideal system there should be some risk attached to hitting your own guys with spells and arrows as they try to attack from behind the front line. 

As to a heavily armored warrior being more threatening--serious question: do you attack the most heavily armored opponents first?  I bet you don't.  Real life generals try to avoid attacking heavily fortified positions in preference to more weakly defended ones. Armor doesn't have offensive value, so it makes no sense to go after the heavily armored people first, unless they are far more dangerous offensively.  If you can knock out five weak opponents in the time that it takes to kill one strong one, even if the heavy hitter does 3x as much damage as the weak ones, you diminish the opposition' strength faster by going after the weak. 

Modifié par maxernst, 09 février 2012 - 08:37 .

[mr_afk]

Well, in DA2 they were largely linked. Fight design is based on waves and by retreating to an area of tactical advantage (e.g. behind the doorway of a nearby room) the enemies parachuting down are out of LOS and do not always join the fray. This means that a fight is broken up into smaller easier numbers of enemies.
One of the best examples would be xebenkeck - leaving the room makes the fight a lot easier but probably not the way it was intended.

Basically, the game seems designed to have fights held within rooms/spaces. Instead of locking the door behind (a popular mechanism many other games use), it is left open such that the fight conditions can be altered by leaving the room - which is probably different from what was intended.
Playing the game other than designed isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when it makes things easier it usually is termed as an exploit.

I have nothing against positioning archers/mages in a corner of the room and protecting them with warriors or whatever. But I was just describing what I saw - and pulling and kiting aren't really what I would describe as ideal combat scenarios to be aimed at.


As to the second part - heavy armour isn't the main point. It's proximity. Most of the other classes are kinda trying to skirt around and not draw attention.
Warriors (at least the way I play it), are a lot more in your face. And when someone is bashing you in the face, it probably seems a lot more threatening than the archer standing further back.
Of course the archer may be more dangerous, but priorities would suggest you would try and stop the guy hacking at you first.

Anyway, the point remains that it's a game - and if they programmed enemies to go after the weakest party members and/or target healers; people are going to not find it very fun.

[Sylvius the Mad]

mr_afk wrote...

Basically, unless they develop a new system for controlling the party on consoles (and slow the combat down drastically), I don't see how tactical positioning could be implemented into the gameplay.

Slowing down combat dramatically is something I very much want them to do.

I've also suggested ways to streamline micromanagement on the consoles by changing how the controller buttons are used.  By requiring buttons be used in combination.(much like the hotbars worked in NWN), they could allow more different functions to be triggered without the need to navigate a menu.

[Sylvius the Mad]

mr_afk wrote...

Instead of locking the door behind (a popular mechanism many other games use)

A lot of games do it, but it's terrible design.  The behaviour of doors shouldn't magically change based on some metaphysical state of "combat".  I'm annoyed enough when regen rates differ in and out of combat, but having the environment conspire (for no in-game reason) to make your characters' lives difficult is awful.

Anyway, the point remains that it's a game - and if they programmed enemies to go after the weakest party members and/or target healers; people are going to not find it very fun.

That's not true at all.  If the players are given the tools necessary to prevent those enemies from succeeding, I don't think anyone would object.

[frustratemyself]

HolyAvenger wrote...

+1 who thinks "Tanking" is a stupid idea imported from MMOs for no good reason.

^ This.

DA2 certainly doesn't require a tank in your party on any difficulty. Standing there as a punching bag soaking up damage isn't fun. I'd rather make things explode with rogue Hawkes C4 daggers