72 réponses à ce sujet

[Spaceweed10]

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.

I think you came up with a very interesting and unique system with the 'tactics'.  I'm still playing with it and come up with new and interesting combinations all the time.  It has added to my enjoyment of the game immeasurably.

/sycophantism off.

[SheffSteel]

Adding an action queue now would be quite problematic. How would it interact with the AI Tactics?



For example, you might have some tactics set up for Shale to use a health poultice if health is below 50%. Let's say you set up an action queue that "1. Activate Ranged mode (I forget the name) 2. Hurl Rock at (target)". Pretty simple, eh? What could go wrong?



If Shale gets badly injured during step one, what should happen? Should the tactics command (use health poultice) take precedence, or the queued action (Hurl Rock)?

1. Yes - that's why the tactics are there

2. No - direct orders must be followed

3. It depends (a) - go into the tactics screen to disable tactics if you want your orders to be followed blindly, otherwise the tactics will work alongside the action queue and can take over (however that is going to be tedious and annoying).

4. It depends ( - add another checkbox to the interface that puts tactics on hold only while one or more actions are in the queue (however that is going to confuse players who've got it set wrong and/or don't understand what it does.)

[MerinTB]

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.

I was very glad to read this.  I, too, missed queueing up actions -
but I can now understand why you don't have it.

And -
I have gotten used to the tactics and, unlike previous "set the AI for your party members", this time I'm actually satisfied with the results and quite enjoy it.  I'm at the point (yes, over 80 hours into play) where unless I'm seriously needing Morrigan to pull off a complicated series of spells and shapeshifts in a precise order, I'm just controlling my main character with little pausing -
that's a big change for me.

So I'd say in the case of tactics, Bioware has succeeded.

[xourico]

this was one of the reasons my 1st play-trough was 127hours long

No tactics, I micromanaged everything (and also red all codex entries and such lol)



Still, for Dragon Age 2, please allow the queue of 2 actions at least, and more tactic slots... cmon... having 3 or 4 slots when u start the game is pretty much calling the player stupid...And ofc, more tactical options...

[xourico]

*double post* delete

Modifié par xourico, 24 novembre 2009 - 03:04 .

[thisisme8]

I'm pretty happy with the tactics set-up. It's very satisfying to figure out ways to make everyone's tactics synergize with each other and then seeing it play out successfully in combat. Just wish I had more slots. Giggity.

[Aurvan]

Action queue was absolutely necessary in NWN online since you couldn't pause the game, and because most mages would go through quickslot [shift]+1-9 to self-buff before a tough fight and the queue-system made it possible to quickly buff up without having to wait for one buff to finish.



I guess it would be nice in Origins as well, but I can live without.

[danbosko]

Select rogue, click behind badguy#1, shift + click on badguy#1. Holy crap the game would explode with issues if this is implemented right? Because its so super perfect as it is right?



Want an easy fix for the excuse you gave for not putting command queuing in the game? Have it execute the actions after the stun/cc ends, or if they're out of mana/stamina pause the game and select the character.



Sorry, I love the game, it's good, but there were a few things in the game that were done poorly and I get riled up thinking about em.

[cembandit]

Rogues not using stealth and backstabbing worth a damn is annoying.

Probably why many people just put a bow on their npc rogue and forget em.

[GravityParade]

The complaint i have about tactics is that you can't say, if this is the last enemy in a group, don't drink a potion. Or if this is a named boss, change to custom 2. Cast dispel if a party member is immobilized, unless the party member is in a force field cast by your ally etc...It should have another tier of refinement.

Modifié par GravityParade, 24 novembre 2009 - 03:58 .

[Gabo]

danbosko wrote...

Select rogue, click behind badguy#1, shift + click on badguy#1. Holy crap the game would explode with issues if this is implemented right? Because its so super perfect as it is right?
Want an easy fix for the excuse you gave for not putting command queuing in the game? Have it execute the actions after the stun/cc ends, or if they're out of mana/stamina pause the game and select the character.

Sorry, I love the game, it's good, but there were a few things in the game that were done poorly and I get riled up thinking about em.

The queue system works for KOTOR because its actually a fully turn based combat and because combat is much less disrupted by cancellation or delaying of commands. Believe me, we started with the action queue system first. If you played DA:O with KOTOR's queue system you would get really, REALLY riled up. We also tried that case of executing abilities after a stun effect had passed and that generated many annoying moments when the spell you wanted to cast was wasted because the target had moved away and we experimented with a few auto-pause options. 

It seems easy to come up with an idea and post it on a forum, but when making a game this big you really have to try things out first since there are many, many factors that can affect how an idea might work and its usually impossible to consider them all until you see it working in different scenarios. Perhaps for future products we can try out more things and evolve our system, now that we have a fully working game. That is the nature of games and is why sequels are often loved more than their original versions.

[Aprudena Gist]

Gabochido wrote...

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.

Starting out with Not even enough tactics slots to use your basic ablitiles let along even trying to heal yourself or others makes the computer AI for your NPC's TOTALLY useless you really should get your heads out of your asses and give everyone starting out ~15 tactics so you can use all your spells/ablities setup situational things like HEALING POTS. Its just so fustrating you can't tell your NPC's to do anything but basic attacks auto-matically because there just aren't enough tactic slots unless you go and download a mod that gives you enough to functionally do something.

[thisisme8]

Gabochido wrote...

danbosko wrote...

Select rogue, click behind badguy#1, shift + click on badguy#1. Holy crap the game would explode with issues if this is implemented right? Because its so super perfect as it is right?
Want an easy fix for the excuse you gave for not putting command queuing in the game? Have it execute the actions after the stun/cc ends, or if they're out of mana/stamina pause the game and select the character.

Sorry, I love the game, it's good, but there were a few things in the game that were done poorly and I get riled up thinking about em.

The queue system works for KOTOR because its actually a fully turn based combat and because combat is much less disrupted by cancellation or delaying of commands. Believe me, we started with the action queue system first. If you played DA:O with KOTOR's queue system you would get really, REALLY riled up. We also tried that case of executing abilities after a stun effect had passed and that generated many annoying moments when the spell you wanted to cast was wasted because the target had moved away and we experimented with a few auto-pause options. 

It seems easy to come up with an idea and post it on a forum, but when making a game this big you really have to try things out first since there are many, many factors that can affect how an idea might work and its usually impossible to consider them all until you see it working in different scenarios. Perhaps for future products we can try out more things and evolve our system, now that we have a fully working game. That is the nature of games and is why sequels are often loved more than their original versions.

Cheers.  I had a sneaking suspicion that as an experienced RPG gaming company Bioware tried and experimented with many different forms of gameplay controls to come up with one that felt as intuitive and responsive as possible while keeping the depth of its features intact.

Sadly, we are of a generation riddled with an unwarrented sense of entightlement who believes we know better, even though we have little to no experience in these matters.  Call me a fanboy, I'm just glad Gabochido was able to give some actual facts about the reason for the current state of play in DA:O.

[menasure]

in my opinion it would not hurt this game to implement a turn based system. that's more or less what i'm doing anyway by pressing the pause button this much. automated tactics have only a limited use anyway because no fight will ever be the same.

[Zibon]

ToJKa1 wrote...
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.

Well you can get them using the Jump To Tactic commands.  But then it feels like programming in assembly.

[SheffSteel]

Once you've figured out that spending an extra line buys you AND functionality, working out how to do OR is trivial.

[Bibdy]

lenkeith wrote...


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.

Think about it...how on earth would a logic system ever work without priority? If 2 conditions are true at the start of the cycle, which one will get performed? The computer can't make the decision of which of the 2 is more important to you at that specific moment of time. If your 2 tactics were:

1) Pommel Strike your target at low health
2) pop a potion at low health

Iif you're both at low health simultaneously, which is going to get performed? You're a low health, so you must pop a potion, but your target is low health, so you must Pommel Strike. You can't do both at once, so which do you do? 

Well, if it were a human mind making the decision, you might calculate that maybe the fight is almost over, and a successful Pommel Strike would knock the guy down and you could easily defeat him before he got back up to finish you off, saving yourself a potion. Or you could determine that you don't have sufficient time to land the Pommel Strike before his Winter's Grasp destroys you, so maybe you'd choose to pop the potion.

How on earth do you think the computer is going to figure that out? They run by logical order, not by making calculated risks on your own behalf. That's up to you to decide, and that's why games like this are called 'tactical'.

Modifié par Bibdy, 24 novembre 2009 - 09:17 .

[Norolim]

Thanks Gabochido for the information you gave us. What about the autopause system Torias has mentioned:

Torias wrote...

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

This would solve most of the problems for those gameres who like to play their battles with no AI assist (e.g. me ). Is it also impossible to implement such a system? Please don't say it is...

[Norolim]

Bump...Does anyone have any information on whether it is possible to implement an autopause system? The idea seems reasonable and we know at least one game, in which it worked perfectly: BG II. I would really appreciate an answer from the devs.

Modifié par Norolim, 29 novembre 2009 - 05:48 .

[foil-]

Gabochido wrote...


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.

That was a nice response like people have mentioned.  Good raport with your customers and staying focused on the answer rather than taking the request as a gripe.

I'm also going to give my vote for action queu for the sequal however.  I also prefer to be more of a battle field manager than to allowing automatic tactics.  But the pausing to do this is excessive without the action queu. 

I don't have answers to all the points you mentioned above, but know that some are sacrifices I would be willing to live with to have the queu.  I'm wondering however, did you folks consider doing the mana calculation as the queu was been selected and have it ring/clang when your selection passed the energy reserves.  You could even have it calculate the addition of mana in the queu when drinking the lyrium potion is selected.

I can see from the above there are no easy answers and that you've thought things through.  But there's almost always an answer or at least a good compromise.  I guess it just depends on how many resources you can afford to devote to the answer which I understand are not always realistically there and may delay other components of the game.  I also get the feeling that many decisions were made on this game in order to streamline performance and make it accessible to a greater range of computers/consoles.

Modifié par foil-, 29 novembre 2009 - 06:40 .

[gurugeorge]

At first I missed being able to queue actions, but as time has gone on I've gotten used to the system as it is, and quite enjoy it. I think stacking was necessary before because of the "clock" nature of the D&D system (can't remember the proper term, but all actions went to a fixed timer, right?). But with this game, actions are done WHEN you activate them, so actually you can set an action, switch character, set an action, unpause, then a fraction of a second later those actions have been set off, so you can pause fairly quickly afterwards. It gets into a nice pace - sort of intbetween "traditional" action queueing and pure action.