Aller au contenu

Photo

Action Friendly XUI Patch Please


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
48 réponses à ce sujet

#1
SLPr0

SLPr0
  • Members
  • 1 396 messages
I have, of course, heard every argument in the book in regards to DA:O's intention to be a strategy based pause and play RPG. Thats great, far as the game goes from base install it definitely gets that job done.

Problem is, most RPGs now back to TES3:Morrowind have moved on to a more action oriented dynamic. Which many people, especially people that have been retrained to RPG play by MMOs over the last decade, prefer.

So the idea here is looking at the way the game is set up, there has to be a simple way to take the "click to attack this target" function, in the XUI scripting, and add an option to not use that and split its functions between a pair of introduced key binds, one of which on key press selects the nearest target, and another that says "attack what I have selected".

Frankly, an addition of this kind of XUI functionality, which would take a ton of frustration out of the combat in DA:O, removing the frustration of having to shift camera angles to efficiently select the appropriate target in a huge press of enemies, and also gives the player the freedom to play the game in a more action oriented style at any difficulty level because of the removal of the stilted and inefficient targeting dynamics and lack of enough bind capable keys to efficiently manage combat in real time in comparison to pause and play one skill queuing.

This is not me saying pause and play is inferior to action RPG gaming, but, largely while DA:O's strategy play is well done, once the combat actually begins it really becomes a mash of annoying dynamics that are simply not responsive enough to deal with situations in real time forcing an immense amount of pause and play orientation to play the game well, when simply a more robust system for binding keys would allow for more flexibility and freedom in regards to the flow control of combat situations in the game. People who wanted to micro-manage have that engine viability, and people who want to be more real time oriented have their option to do so as well.

The expansion of bindable key elements in the XUI is something that needs serious consideration, potentially as a patch update, or, really, even a DLC, if you put out an "Action" XUI Upgrade DLC for a few bucks, I'd probably buy it, because while the strategy of pause and play is alright, I'd prefer to play the game on Hard or Nightmare without the need for too much of it, and let my reflexes and quick thinking decide the outcomes.

I really think the game can do both, the problem isn't that the game wouldn't do it well, the problem is that the XUI doesn't allow for it. And XUI changes/additions are very simplistic changes for developers who actually have the access to do this kind of thing, everything I can tell from the XUI mods that have been done so far indicates that theres a pretty definite ceiling on the amount of XUI changes the modders of DA:O are going to be able to implement.

So I think largely this is something that needs to be considered by BioWare themselves. Because I continue to stand behind my assessment that this game can play both as a strategy and action based RPG dependent on the choice of the player, its just the action oriented player hasn't been given the XUI elements needed to play in their style, and of course the strategy based player is forced to play every combat encounter in stop motion video because of the single skill queue system.

So, I'd say, expand the strategy queue to 3 skills in queue, and then expand the XUI to allow for more bindable functions to replace game elements that are inefficient for action play...and voila, your game now does everything, for every one.

What dev house wouldn't want that?

Modifié par SLPr0, 29 novembre 2009 - 11:53 .


#2
Spaceweed10

Spaceweed10
  • Members
  • 498 messages
There is a reason for the combat <no queueing of abilities> being the way it is.  A dev commented on this very recently - I can't be bothered to dig it out, so do some of your own research.

This game has been slated 'the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate' since inception, so all of the fans of those games knew exactly what to expect.

Your opinion is worth a response - maybe - but don't suppose to think it is the general one. It isn't.  This game is the best game of its kind that has been made, and owns that crown because of 'exactly' the way it plays out.

The 'tactics' system is revolutionary, and if you consider all the options available to you, you can actually keep 'pause and play' to a minimum, because in effect it allows you to 'queue' decidedly more options than the 3 you are suggesting.

This makes your point moot, and suggests you need to L2P Image IPB.

#3
MartinJHolm

MartinJHolm
  • Members
  • 339 messages

SLPr0 wrote...
Problem is, most RPGs now back to TES3:Morrowind have moved on to a more action oriented dynamic. Which many people, especially people that have been retrained to RPG play by MMOs over the last decade, prefer.

That's good and all but this game is EXACTLY as the devs intended it to be.

This is really another of those apples to oranges compartison threads that doesn't make much sense.

But I'd really like a single player version of WoW... just saying.

#4
DragonRageGT

DragonRageGT
  • Members
  • 6 071 messages
While I understand what you ask, I am really glad that DA is just the way it is. For a real time check on my player skills in another true and great WRPG, I go for a Risen run. It would be boring if they were all like it though, imho, specially because I came to love DA system after a harsh start with it.

#5
SLPr0

SLPr0
  • Members
  • 1 396 messages

Spaceweed10 wrote...

There is a reason for the combat being the way it is.  A dev commented on this very recently - I can't be bothered to dig it out, so do some of your own research.

This game has been slated 'the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate' since inception, so all of the fans of those games knew exactly what to expect.

Your opinion is worth a response - maybe - but don't suppose to think it is the general one. It isn't.  This game is the best game of its kind that has been made, and owns that crown because of 'exactly' the way it plays out.

The 'tactics' system is revolutionary, and if you consider all the options available to you, you can actually keep 'pause and play' to a minimum, because in effect it allows you to 'queue' decidedly more options than the 3 you are suggesting.

This makes your point moot, and suggests you need to L2P Image IPB.


I think I'd like it if you stopped trolling my posts. And using blatant WoWisms like L2P. I know very well how to play I've had no problem playing I am pointing out a potential GAIN for the game.

The tactics system is far from revolutionary, it simply automates things for characters you're not currently in control of, most games do this already without you having to specifically mess with it. I suppose the "revolutionary" part of it is giving the user the ability to ineptly program the AI themselves, versus laying all the blame on the developers in that regard.

The simple facts are is a XUI overhaul of this type is NOT a gigantic project, it does not take a lot of resources, you get a couple XUI devs from the interface department, buy them pizza for a weekend and a couple cases of Mountain Dew and its done.

Then basically in key binds you have the ability to keybind functions that are inefficient for action style play, making the game work BOTH WAYS, while RETAINING your oh so holy "pause and play" and "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" mantra.

This doesn't affect you, you still have what you wanted. This is basically just expanding the game to make it even more palatable and acceptable to all kinds of player styles in the RPG market. Your continued attempts to marginalize that are stupid and show a deep ignorance and disregard for anyones opinions but your own.

Its patently stupid to look at a small patch update that could potentially widen the games appeal to the entirity of the RPG gaming market and go "thats stupid you need to L2P", theres thousands of people that have complained about the game play elements as they stand, theres tons of reviewers that have pointed out the flaws in the strategy style of combat since half the big battles screw up all your positioning and tactics with cutscenes that replace your group where they "should be" according to the cutscene, thus making any kind of proactive strategy nearly impossible and forcing all strategy to be reactive in nature.

So stop responding to my posts with this L2P bull**** dude, you need to learn the difference between a few things, first you need to learn the difference between flawed game dynamics and "revolutionary" game dynamics, because I can assure you you will find no "revolutionary" game dynamics in DA:O, then you also need to learn the difference between constructive suggestions offering up an idea that could potentially strengthen the title's appeal in the market and thusly make it all things to all players, and unconstructive ****ery thats based in ignorance and a lack of information.

You cannot keep saying that the "developers said this" to justify against something that is a completely logical suggestion. I'm a developer myself, I've said a lot of things over the last 5 years and situations change, new ideas happen, and what I said 3 years ago means very little to what I'm doing today.

BioWare has a lot more talent on hand than I do and they've got a lot more money than I do, this XUI expansion is all of a few days work and a few days QA time and makes the dynamics adaptive to the players preferred style. This is in NO WAY some kind of bad thing. It doesn't take away the strategy elements of the play, it simply gives support to reflex based play as well...and as pointed out, half your "strategy" is based in "reflexive" or "reactive" play anyways because theres very few situations in the game where you actually get the option to attack first and on your terms.

#6
SLPr0

SLPr0
  • Members
  • 1 396 messages
This is also the answer a lot of players that are "casual" gamers are looking for in regards to making Dragon Age a more enjoyable experience for them.



I'm fine with this game being designed with the micromanager in mind but its definitely got the ability to swing towards both play styles and all BioWare has to do is give it a minor XUI upgrade to do it.

#7
Guest_krullstar_*

Guest_krullstar_*
  • Guests
SLPr0,



Good posts and very insightful. I was just about to say your perspective sounds like one of a developer and then I read your last post and apparently you do have experience as one.




#8
LesserHellspawn

LesserHellspawn
  • Members
  • 72 messages
I am completely oldschool and would prefer a true turn based combat system. Those at least allowed some really deep level strategy. Oh wait....the flash game has exactly that :)

#9
orpheus333

orpheus333
  • Members
  • 695 messages
What you don't get is that all the rpgs you have been playing are bad and this one is good. You have been retrained by bethesda to wonder around a pretty canvas bashing clumsily designed things with equally clumsily designed things in a combat mechanic that takes as much skill as headbutting a wall.

No changes leave the game as is. Its perfect. The flow  of combat is simply more satisfying than any rpg i have played in the past 10 years. Including BG2.

Modifié par andyr1986, 29 novembre 2009 - 03:37 .


#10
Ghandorian

Ghandorian
  • Members
  • 407 messages
Sounds like a good way to die to me. You can use the Attack nearest script in your tactics for all except the currently selected player but if you don't have a little more control over your party than that I think you are looking at frequent party wipes.

Also if you care to notice the trend in mmos has moved from "chatting on the phone with friends while your toon runs around on autoattack" type combat to a much more sophisticated targetless system. Hitboxes are coming back and manual aiming is in. The lazy wowbies that grew out of the everquest model are not that only game in town.

Thank the Maker some game companies still have a bit of creative desire to try and the get the player involved in whats happening on the screen.

Modifié par Ghandorian, 29 novembre 2009 - 03:33 .


#11
Elanareon

Elanareon
  • Members
  • 980 messages
Action oriented button smashing?

#12
J.O.G

J.O.G
  • Members
  • 355 messages
Computer games of the past

Yes they look crappy, but that isn't the point, the point is that they all were different, even if they were of the same genre. Only 20 years later, the market is reduced to a handful of genres with games that mainly differ from each other in graphic quality. Whohoo!

#13
Joan Moldovia

Joan Moldovia
  • Members
  • 50 messages
Dear god don't do this please, leave the game as is... I've been waiting years for a game like this don't ruin it now with your action elements!

#14
SLPr0

SLPr0
  • Members
  • 1 396 messages

LesserHellspawn wrote...

I am completely oldschool and would prefer a true turn based combat system. Those at least allowed some really deep level strategy. Oh wait....the flash game has exactly that :)


This is actually one of my points in one of my original threads pointing out the flaws in the combat dynamics.

The simple facts are DA:O is no more "revolutionary" than Fallout: Tactics was, in game dynamics, the only difference being is DA:O replaces AP and turn button with the simple conversion of your space bar into an "OH ****" button.

What is revolutionary about DA:O is its epic fantasy storyline and its long term marketability if its handled correctly and updated/upgraded/patched to rub out the flaws and make the game play functionally in both action and pseudo-strategy style modes.

Right now its not doing either of them spectacularly, its doing the strategy mode fairly well if you understand the tactics menu pretty well and, of course, you ignore the glaring flaws in "tactical game play" when none of the encounters in the game are open world/open ended and absolutely none of them are fought on your terms.

The ambush where the player character meets Zeveran for the first time is a glaring example of this, though potentially an unfair one so I'll use a more standard scenario.

Elven Ruins, lets say you have a few talents into Survival so you can "sense" enemies in the rooms around you. This is great.

Now tactically what are your options to make opening a door of one of these rooms a battle fought on your terms? Tactically there are very few options at all. Why? Because even if you move your party away from the door and send a stealthed rogue to open the door, all the undead enemies in the room immediately react to the opening of the door and run out into the hall.

How are you supposed to tactically approach that as a battle on your terms? Other than to....set up traps in the hallway?

The game also talks about "flanking your enemies" really? Flanking, with 4 people? When exactly is this going to be a viable tactic? Even in a relatively open ended road encounter, theres usually twice to three times the amount of darkspawn on the field as there are PC's...what are you going to "flank" them with? The cavalry unit in your pocket?

So yes, as a pseudo-strategy RPG, DA:O does, to a point, pull its weight, but, its also attempting to be an action RPG as well and action play does not mesh well with an "OH ****" button, and strategy play does not mesh well with almost every encounter being something you cannot possibly establish a strategy for previous to already being neck deep in things trying to kill you.

So in essence, the game does both, but its not doing either of the styles particularly well, and this is basically what I'm trying to address.

Modifié par SLPr0, 29 novembre 2009 - 03:43 .


#15
Elanareon

Elanareon
  • Members
  • 980 messages
errr NVM erase that...

Modifié par Elanareon, 29 novembre 2009 - 03:47 .


#16
SLPr0

SLPr0
  • Members
  • 1 396 messages

Joan Moldovia wrote...

Dear god don't do this please, leave the game as is... I've been waiting years for a game like this don't ruin it now with your action elements!


Shush, I'm not saying change YOUR way of playing the game, I'm saying fix the game so my way of playing it works too.

Seriously, to ignore this kind of additional playstyle accomodation is simply xenophobic nonsense.

"OMG WE DON'T WANT WOW STYLE BUTTON MASHING IN DA:O THATS STUPID!"

Err, 8 million people play WoW, a potential total of somewhere near 35 million have played it since release, I don't quite care what your distaste for button mashing gameplay styles is, lots of people apparently like it and DA:O only needs a few minor tweaks to add it as an OPTIONAL style of game interface for those that enjoy that style of play and the addition of it takes nothing away from you playing the game the way YOU want to play it..

And then you get several more million copies of DA:O sold, theres more money for faster development of DLC/Expansions/Sequels..several more gold plated humvees show up in the parking lot at BioWare, EA gets its tribute, and everyone wins.

#17
orpheus333

orpheus333
  • Members
  • 695 messages
You're missing the point by assuming its attempting to do anything other than re-use and modernise a tried and tested combat mechanic from classic rpgs of the past. To this end it updates the formula incredibly well and adds a pace to the combats that was missing from previous RPGs of its kind.

If you don;t enjoy this style of gameplay change your game. It may not be for everyone and thats fine, but 'fixing' the game? Its not broken mate and its dishonest for you to suggest so. What needs to be fixed are the elements within the combat engine that currently aren't working. Dexterity, the balance of certain spells and weapons etc Not changing core design on the whim of a player. Thats for modders to work on.

Modifié par andyr1986, 29 novembre 2009 - 03:57 .


#18
Elanareon

Elanareon
  • Members
  • 980 messages

andyr1986 wrote...

What you don't get is that all the rpgs you have been playing are bad and this one is good. You have been retrained by bethesda to wonder around a pretty canvas bashing clumsily designed things with equally clumsily designed things in a combat mechanic that takes as much skill as headbutting a wall.

No changes leave the game as is. Its perfect. The flow  of combat is simply more satisfying than any rpg i have played in the past 10 years. Including BG2.


This! Button smashing is not a fun way to play.

#19
Avispex

Avispex
  • Members
  • 111 messages
I think it is pretty pathetic that people who like this game troll every single post asking for additional options. This is ridiculous. No game is "exactly as the maker intended it" because as development wears on schedules, budgets, and deadlines impose trade offs and compromises.



And for those of you who say that Baldur's Gate has some magical connection to this game, so what? This game is not Baldur's Gate and it does not play like Baldur's Gate. It plays much more like WoW except with a broken interface. They could make the AI work like in Baldur's Gate and not lose that spiritual connection couldn't they?



There are about 15 people on these forums who must have paid dearly for the Exclusive Collector's Reach Around Edition of this game that requires them to constantly object to any comments and opinions that don't insiste that the game should never, ever, be changed in any way because it is perfect, sniff, it is just so beautifully perfect.




#20
SLPr0

SLPr0
  • Members
  • 1 396 messages

Avispex wrote...

I think it is pretty pathetic that people who like this game troll every single post asking for additional options. This is ridiculous. No game is "exactly as the maker intended it" because as development wears on schedules, budgets, and deadlines impose trade offs and compromises.

And for those of you who say that Baldur's Gate has some magical connection to this game, so what? This game is not Baldur's Gate and it does not play like Baldur's Gate. It plays much more like WoW except with a broken interface. They could make the AI work like in Baldur's Gate and not lose that spiritual connection couldn't they?

There are about 15 people on these forums who must have paid dearly for the Exclusive Collector's Reach Around Edition of this game that requires them to constantly object to any comments and opinions that don't insiste that the game should never, ever, be changed in any way because it is perfect, sniff, it is just so beautifully perfect.


This. He gets it.

#21
Joan Moldovia

Joan Moldovia
  • Members
  • 50 messages

SLPr0 wrote...

So yes, as a pseudo-strategy RPG, DA:O does, to a point, pull its weight, but, its also attempting to be an action RPG as well and action play does not mesh well with an "OH ****" button, and strategy play does not mesh well with almost every encounter being something you cannot possibly establish a strategy for previous to already being neck deep in things trying to kill you.

So in essence, the game does both, but its not doing either of the styles particularly well, and this is basically what I'm trying to address.



Then I'm for removing the action style and making it fully strategic.  There are dozens of Action-RPGs out there what happened to the true simple standard RPG?

#22
orpheus333

orpheus333
  • Members
  • 695 messages

SLPr0 wrote...

This. He gets it.


This. You don't though.

#23
SLPr0

SLPr0
  • Members
  • 1 396 messages

Joan Moldovia wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

So yes, as a pseudo-strategy RPG, DA:O does, to a point, pull its weight, but, its also attempting to be an action RPG as well and action play does not mesh well with an "OH ****" button, and strategy play does not mesh well with almost every encounter being something you cannot possibly establish a strategy for previous to already being neck deep in things trying to kill you.

So in essence, the game does both, but its not doing either of the styles particularly well, and this is basically what I'm trying to address.



Then I'm for removing the action style and making it fully strategic.  There are dozens of Action-RPGs out there what happened to the true simple standard RPG?


I'm going to ignore the troll below you and answer you.

Yes I would agree, if they had to go one way or the other, I would say yes, go and make the game truly strategic. Make the encounters less linear, give the player group more room to make pre-engagement tactical preparations that matter, and replace the pause button with turns and and go full on into trying to take the old turn based style into a new and modern presentation....I'd have no problem with that.

They have not, though, done this. They've only half done it, by allowing you to pause and queue one command, they've pretty much forced you to fight every encounter reactively and in total stop motion video.

There is no point in DA:O where you can feasibly move say...Morrigan and Leliana to high ground to ambush an enemy group from above while flanking them with your PC and Alistair from a different direction with the potential exception of one scripted encounter which actually blatantly gives you the options "Listen" - "Ambush them (for once)" - "Leave and avoid their inept ambush attempt".

ONE encounter, which gives you choices. All other encounters the enemy AI is reacting to you immediately, so you're not in a position to strategize, you're simply in a position to pause and react, thats not strategy gaming at all.

I'm a huge strategy game buff and far as strategy RPG's go Medieval Total War II is pretty much my gold standard for actually being able to use capabilities, terrain and tactics to your advantage. I actually had a situation where I had 12 Ribault units and a lieutenant moving to a castle to join the forces there, they got ambushed by a force 10 times their size, but even given the gigantic odds against them, I was able to retreat and use hills and terrain and even though my forces were defeated my 12 Ribault's took out nearly 75% of the enemies forces due to using tactics and terrain to my advantage.

DA:O doesn't give you anywhere near that kind of "strategy" play. The options are "I just got swarmed by 8 darkspawn and an ogre, let me hit pause, and figure out whos going to tank while I send someone after the Emissary thats nuking the tank"

Thats not strategy thats reactive play and it is no more superior or inferior than button mashing. Its just that instead of mashing multiple buttons you're simply mashing one button, then mouse clicking 4 others then mashing the spacebar again to see how things work out.

So yes I'm with you, if they had to go just one way, fine strip out the action elements. But for them to make the "strategy" elements actually strategic in nature they'd have to do a lot more work than simply doing a bit of XUI additions that allow the game to play in both modes fairly effectively.

They'd have to, in essence, rebuild how the whole game is played. Get rid of map travel, get rid of scripted events except in major storyline cases, they'd have to get rid of the surreality of every encounter being a situation of both YOU and the ENEMY becoming aware of each other at the EXACT SAME TIME. They'd have to map areas to give variant tactical approaches.

So going 100% your way is a lot more development intensive than splitting the game 50/50 and giving both styles the tools they need. Strategy buffs already have the top down view, pause and queue capabilities, action gamers just want the ability to select a target with a key click and to attack it with another key click so they can use their hotbar abilities.

One of the things the devs said, in reference to the 2 handed playstyle, is that the 2 handed warrior playstyle isn't about auto attacking and strategy, its about spamming your hotbar abilities as fast as your cooldowns will allow and building a 2 handed warrior based on strength/willpower to ensure this play style is viable. Why would the devs say something like that if the game wasn't already attempting to do both action and strategy RPG play at the same time?

All I'm asking for is a few XUI bind additions that will allow action play to be as viable as strategy play is in the current linear environment. I don't think thats an unfair request, nor would it harm the game at all.

#24
Mordaedil

Mordaedil
  • Members
  • 1 626 messages
So, how many people would pay for it? How much resources do you really believe goes into circumventing the engine to change it's general purpose without exploiting the flow of battle?



You say you are a developer yourself, but your request lacks the insight valued to giving you more credence than someone who has only worked on flash games.



What exactly is your experience so you can better educate Bioware on how they carry their business and invest their resources so they can make the perfect game for you?

#25
marshalleck

marshalleck
  • Members
  • 15 645 messages
The responses to this idea are ridiculous. Get some perspective, people. He's not attacking you.