72 réponses à ce sujet

[lenkeith]

yeah I read that but what if it's available? Then the character wouldn't pot a health potion? I mean both tatics are true: 1st tatic, shield bash available = do shield bash; 2nd tatic, health < 25% = pot health potion. -- But becuase the 1st tatic was invoked, then the system stops there, so no potting and eventually dying becuase as a player, I relied on the combat tatics.

Wouldn't that be a problem?

[Gabo]

 We did consider the option of queued actions, a long, long time ago and we actually had it implemented, but we found a big issue with playability that conflicted with our combat and ability system:

What happens to an action in the queue if you have run out of the resources necessary or where somehow disabled from being able to execute the action. At first it seems that its obvious, you just cancel the action and problem solved. However, we found that gameplay became very annoying since actions were being cancelled all the time: you run out of mana/stamina, you get a spell that drains mana/stamina, the previous action changes your mana/stamina, someone stuns/knocks/grabs you, your target dies, etc. This was even worse since you could queue up actions that depended on each other. For example, paralyze someone, then throw some stone fists at them to shatter them.. but what if the paralyze failed, the fists were kind of wasted.

It actually felt much better to know that you have to specify your next action every time than to see your action queue constantly cancelled out or not quite working because the ability system was so reactive. There were alos other minor issues, like the GUI getting too crowded when we tried to indicate what each of your party members had queued up.  

When we realized this, we started to look for other options and thats when development began on the tactics system. It seemed like a natural fit to our ability system since tactics are reactive to the game state. After trying it out with an initial tactics system we were quite convinced that that was the way to go.

[lenkeith]

Ah... thank you so much for the clarification. That does make sense. Much appreciated for the response. I'll just change my play style to suit my needs.

Kudos.

[Gabo]

Lockindal wrote...

I would just be happy with more tactics slots and a more robust tactics system ( if this, then do this AND this)

Obviously the most robust tactics system would allow adding logical statements and an even larger number of options to execute but then it becomes very difficult to implement an intuitive user interface that most people won't see and just avoid because it looks too difficult to understand. Perhaps as this kind of gameplay becomes standarized, games will slowly add more options to it.

There are better threads and gamefaqs explaining how to optimize your tactics for a given character but the logic is relatively simple and allows for a surprisingly robust AI programming of a character. 

Usually most of your characters will be able to use their tactics successfully in combat so it is easy to micro manage one or two of them to do specific things.

[NetBeansAndJava]

Gabochido wrote...

 We did consider the option of queued actions, a long, long time ago and we actually had it implemented, but we found a big issue with playability that conflicted with our combat and ability system:

What happens to an action in the queue if you have run out of the resources necessary or where somehow disabled from being able to execute the action. At first it seems that its obvious, you just cancel the action and problem solved. However, we found that gameplay became very annoying since actions were being cancelled all the time: you run out of mana/stamina, you get a spell that drains mana/stamina, the previous action changes your mana/stamina, someone stuns/knocks/grabs you, your target dies, etc. This was even worse since you could queue up actions that depended on each other. For example, paralyze someone, then throw some stone fists at them to shatter them.. but what if the paralyze failed, the fists were kind of wasted.

It actually felt much better to know that you have to specify your next action every time than to see your action queue constantly cancelled out or not quite working because the ability system was so reactive. There were alos other minor issues, like the GUI getting too crowded when we tried to indicate what each of your party members had queued up.  

When we realized this, we started to look for other options and thats when development began on the tactics system. It seemed like a natural fit to our ability system since tactics are reactive to the game state. After trying it out with an initial tactics system we were quite convinced that that was the way to go.

Huh, interesting points.  Never considered it that way.

It worked well in Kotor... wonder why it doesn't work so well here.

[Saboera]

I was wondering about the queues myself, thanks for the explanation. On a side note, i must applaud everyone involved in the tactics system, this right there is a solid leap of innovation that could be applied to many game genres and hopefully we will see more devs taking a similar direction.

[Elphaba]

Thanks for the great question and answer. I was just going to dig around the docs/faqs to find out how to queue up actions. Looks like I need to spend some more quality time with the tactics system.

[SurferX0]

lenkeith wrote...
I was surprised that the tatic slot location matters. I read in some other post that if the event for tatic 1 was true, then the system would not invoke tatic 2. But that's silly if true because if for example: tatic 1 was to do shield bash, tatic 2 would be to heal up if HP is below 25%. Then if tatic 2 is ignored because the 1st tatic was true, the character could possibily die from a mob crit.
But that's just speculation I guess.

Why does that surprise you? That is exactly how logic works. If you don't want shield bash to take priority over healing then...you put healing first, simple as that. If the first action can't be performed or conditions aren't met, it will fall down to the next action. Alternatively if conditions for a tactic always return true and the action can always be performed, then how did you expect your character to perform any other action?

[Torias]

Gabochido wrote...

 We did consider the option of queued actions, a long, long time ago and we actually had it implemented, but we found a big issue with playability that conflicted with our combat and ability system:

What happens to an action in the queue if you have run out of the resources necessary or where somehow disabled from being able to execute the action. At first it seems that its obvious, you just cancel the action and problem solved. However, we found that gameplay became very annoying since actions were being cancelled all the time: you run out of mana/stamina, you get a spell that drains mana/stamina, the previous action changes your mana/stamina, someone stuns/knocks/grabs you, your target dies, etc. This was even worse since you could queue up actions that depended on each other. For example, paralyze someone, then throw some stone fists at them to shatter them.. but what if the paralyze failed, the fists were kind of wasted.

It actually felt much better to know that you have to specify your next action every time than to see your action queue constantly cancelled out or not quite working because the ability system was so reactive. There were alos other minor issues, like the GUI getting too crowded when we tried to indicate what each of your party members had queued up.  

When we realized this, we started to look for other options and thats when development began on the tactics system. It seemed like a natural fit to our ability system since tactics are reactive to the game state. After trying it out with an initial tactics system we were quite convinced that that was the way to go.

What I really want is an auto-pause option to compensate for this...

I'm looking into scripting it myself (have been asking questions in the toolset forum to gauge feasibility)...

but really I just want the game to automatically pause:
1) whenever a party member casts a spell / uses an ability
2) whenever a party member's current target dies

that way I can manage everything easily...

cause at the moment I have to hammer the space bar pretty quickly if I want my warrior to use 4 active ability talents in a row.

Modifié par Torias, 24 novembre 2009 - 07:06 .

[lenkeith]

SurferX0 wrote...

lenkeith wrote...
I was surprised that the tatic slot location matters. I read in some other post that if the event for tatic 1 was true, then the system would not invoke tatic 2. But that's silly if true because if for example: tatic 1 was to do shield bash, tatic 2 would be to heal up if HP is below 25%. Then if tatic 2 is ignored because the 1st tatic was true, the character could possibily die from a mob crit.
But that's just speculation I guess.

Why does that surprise you? That is exactly how logic works. If you don't want shield bash to take priority over healing then...you put healing first, simple as that. If the first action can't be performed or conditions aren't met, it will fall down to the next action. Alternatively if conditions for a tactic always return true and the action can always be performed, then how did you expect your character to perform any other action?

Hi SurferX0, well actually I felt the tatics should not be in a priority order but rather looked at individually. I'm not sure how to really put in words what I mean but I was thinking that regardless of where the action is listed, as long as the requirement is true, (for example: Health < 25%) it should be invoked.
The concept of a drop down priority now is the same as implementing an office Firewall rules where the first action supersedes the next.
Anyway, it works for most people and the Devs must have thought about it throughly so if I'm not comfortable, I simply will just micro manage myself. Luckly I do prefer micro managing anyway.

Modifié par lenkeith, 24 novembre 2009 - 07:14 .

[Godeshus]

 At the beginning of the game I was just starting to try and work out tactics. I won't mention where to avoid spoilers. My PC was a mage and standing outside of a doorway as I sent in my other characters to do the grunt work. Zoomed in to the ots view and watched the action. It was prety damn impressive and there was a real sense of teamwork going on between the different class types. 

As the story progressed and the enemies got a little tougher, however, I lost the ability to play like this and was a little disappointed that I had to pause every seconds (unless it was a real easy fight, anyway). I find repeated pausing belittles the amazing animation the game has to offer. 

While the combat tactics tend to help in this regards they are pretty static. The character will do the same thing in the same order every battle, and in this sense I find I lose interest in everyone but the Hero (Not as far as the story goes, mind you. All the characters retain an amazing depth at which the scope is unparalleled imho).

I would be in favor of a combat queue, but not if it has a negative impact like Gabochido mentioned.

An alternative is to rework the combat tactics for every battle ( Or every battle that counts, anyway). While this is a little more involved and takes a some time to set up, I think most of us will agree that spending more time in Ferelden is not a bad thing.

I am personally a fan of queueing up commands, then "kicking back with the popcorn" and watching the action. Especially with the animations in DA.

[Inarai]

Torias wrote...

Gabochido wrote...

 We did consider the option of queued actions, a long, long time ago and we actually had it implemented, but we found a big issue with playability that conflicted with our combat and ability system:

What happens to an action in the queue if you have run out of the resources necessary or where somehow disabled from being able to execute the action. At first it seems that its obvious, you just cancel the action and problem solved. However, we found that gameplay became very annoying since actions were being cancelled all the time: you run out of mana/stamina, you get a spell that drains mana/stamina, the previous action changes your mana/stamina, someone stuns/knocks/grabs you, your target dies, etc. This was even worse since you could queue up actions that depended on each other. For example, paralyze someone, then throw some stone fists at them to shatter them.. but what if the paralyze failed, the fists were kind of wasted.

It actually felt much better to know that you have to specify your next action every time than to see your action queue constantly cancelled out or not quite working because the ability system was so reactive. There were alos other minor issues, like the GUI getting too crowded when we tried to indicate what each of your party members had queued up.  

When we realized this, we started to look for other options and thats when development began on the tactics system. It seemed like a natural fit to our ability system since tactics are reactive to the game state. After trying it out with an initial tactics system we were quite convinced that that was the way to go.

What I really want is an auto-pause option to compensate for this...

I'm looking into scripting it myself (have been asking questions in the toolset forum to gauge feasibility)...

but really I just want the game to automatically pause:
1) whenever a party member casts a spell / uses an ability
2) whenever a party member's current target dies

that way I can manage everything easily...

cause at the moment I have to hammer the space bar pretty quickly if I want my warrior to use 4 active ability talents in a row.

If you make sure the floating ability text is on, that's easy.  Hit space when you see the ability come up, order the next one.  It will execute as soon as the prior action completes.

Actually, you can play with the timing a lot by pausing at the right moment - say, to get the melee characters to rush in for the shatters after you use CoC.

[F-C]

i think i prefer a tactics system to just queue abilities up.



however it doesnt make much sense that you would attach extra tactic slots to skill points in my opinion. if the tactic slots are there to make up for queue abilities then they should just be there, i shouldnt have to gimp my characters out of skills in order to get them.

[pokemaughan]

Action queue ftw



Loved it in KOTOR. Don't get me wrong, micro-management is fun, but sometimes tedious.

[FedericoV]

I choose not to use tactics since even for most basic tasks, charachters finish to do allways the wrong thing. I would not call it "solid" AI at all honestly with all respect to the dev team. It does not allow you to have the control needed to get the most out of the game system.

I understand that for console users the tactics screen is necessary... but honestly for PC users is not a great solution. I mean, the result you obtain for the time you have to spend on tactics seems not a great deal.

Tactics is about doing the right thing at the right moment and a routine will never be "tactical" even if you call it so...

The bad thing is that there is no plan B. You get tactic screen or constant pause that breaks the flow of the game.

A solid (optional) turn based system would have been better. At the end, I'm playing a turn based game since I have to pause every second. I would have enjoyed the graphic more if the game was TB.

Or, Bioware should have reworked the overall system to use action queue (since that's the best solution for p'n'p  party game).

Having said that, I'm enjoying the game... only that I find myself pausing more than BG since DA:O is quicker in combat.

Modifié par FedericoV, 24 novembre 2009 - 10:23 .

[Godeshus]

and because of this you get to miss out on all the fun animations



win some, lose some, is what it comes down to.



When will I ever get to eat this cake I've had for what seems like forever?

[FedericoV]

win some, lose some, is what it comes down to.

Yep, I understand: we can't have everything. Developing a game like DA:O is incredibly difficult, there are many things that clash against each other that you have to take in consideration and you have to make a choice. Sure, the dev  team has considered the various options and the tactic screen seems to them the best one.

But still, I'm not happy with those aspect of gameplay and I still believe that the tactic screen is not a great solution. Tactics are situational by definition. A routine is not situational by definition. You have two extreme, tactics screen or uber-micro management. Something in between would have not hurt since they have spent many resources on moves and animation.

[Inarai]

FedericoV wrote...

win some, lose some, is what it comes down to.

Yep, I understand: we can't have everything. Developing a game like DA:O is incredibly difficult, there are many things that clash against each other that you have to take in consideration and you have to make a choice. Sure, the dev  team has considered the various options and the tactic screen seems to them the best one.

But still, I'm not happy with those aspect of gameplay and I still believe that the tactic screen is not a great solution. Tactics are situational by definition. A routine is not situational by definition. You have two extreme, tactics screen or uber-micro management. Something in between would have not hurt since they have spent many resources on moves and animation.

What, is it so hard for you to think of using both?  S'What I do.  Bust out the major micro for the more diffivult fights, but in smaller ones I don't need much beyond targeting.

Except for FF-capable AoE.  I always, always, always control that myself.

[FedericoV]

What, is it so hard for you to think of using both? 
S'What I do.  Bust out the major micro for the more diffivult fights, but in smaller ones I don't need much beyond targeting.

Except for FF-capable AoE.  I always, always, always control that myself.

It's not hard... I allready tried the mix but it doesn't work.

My point is that I will never be happy with an AI controlling MY party with a "non-situational" routine. Even with mobs fight if I want to enjoy them and outsmart them, otherwise it becomes poor hack and slash (without the compensation of good loot )... I want to enjoy the tactics of the game, that's one of the thing I love about CRPG.

The point is that it looks a nonsense to me to have a party with many wonderfull and interesting skills and talents and not being able to controll them to full extent since the devs have discovered that a user friendly "game interface" clashes with the game system... well I would say that for the enjoyement of the game they should have changed the mana/stamina system instead.

You know why many persons (imho  of course) say things like "the archer sucks", "2h sucks", "Templar sucks", "Rogue sucks" etc.? Because they have to micromanage them A LOT to use properly their skills in sinergy with the party. I micromanage A LOT and I see that those classes (even if weaker than say a mage) could give a lot to the party if used well in combination with the skills of each member. But I have to stop the game any second untill I run out of mana/stamina and then play in Real Time .

[FedericoV]

Sorry, double post .

Modifié par FedericoV, 24 novembre 2009 - 11:34 .

[Zibon]

IIRC, the FFXII gambit (tactics) system was actually smarter and more usable than this one.



It also doesn't really make sense to limit the number of slots you have based on some skill, seeing as it's just a shortcut for a tedious process. Of course there is the mod for PC to give everyone 15 slots.

[Odd Hermit]

I'd have personally preferred a queue system over tactics, which I don't get much use out of.

I am constantly pausing and switching characters in DA:O and it does deter from the combat to an extent.



I'd imagine tactics would be more useful in an FPS style game in which you get companions but don't directly control them in battle.

[ToJKa1]

Zibon wrote...

IIRC, the FFXII gambit (tactics) system was actually smarter and more usable than this one.

It also doesn't really make sense to limit the number of slots you have based on some skill, seeing as it's just a shortcut for a tedious process. Of course there is the mod for PC to give everyone 15 slots.

It was pretty much the same, at least in Dragon Age you don't have to buy the triggering conditions As a programmer, i am sorely missing logical AND and OR functions in this system too, i do realise that for the layman it could be a difficult concept to grasp, but thats what the forums, and "helpful" online community, is for.

Modifié par ToJKa1, 24 novembre 2009 - 11:55 .

[0mar]

I hate the current system because I pause like every second, or at least it feels like it.



The worst is Leliana's bard song, because it goes something like this:



AAAA *paused* AAAAAAAA *paused* AAAAAAAAAA *paused* AAAAAAAA *paused* AAAhhh



So annoying. An action queue would have been much better. I've read the official response and it sucks. The same problems cropped up in KoTOR and NWN. It seems more like an order from up high, the EA overlords demanding something like this to dumb the game down for the masses.

[Trelow-LMG]

0mar wrote...
So annoying. An action queue would have been much better. I've read the official response and it sucks. The same problems cropped up in KoTOR and NWN. It seems more like an order from up high, the EA overlords demanding something like this to dumb the game down for the masses.

Cosco is having a sale on tin-foil. Better stock up!