107 réponses à ce sujet

[seraphymon]

Rogue animations in DAO didnt feel attuned to that style this is true. But DA2 took it way overboard and completely unrealistic regaudless of what realmaster says. That is ridiculous. Its pure eye candy and aill admit "some" of it is practiced in real life, but the kicking of the flask, the teleportation across the field in less then a second, the 50 foot distance jump, not gonna fly.

and trying to cancel in mid swing is one thing, but waiting for a mage to do the final twirl and spin and around and stabd the ground with the staff, is too much. Trying in real life i could cancel or stop myself way before and do something else. The shuffleing in DAO is annoying, espcially the way they are crouched, but then again you need to find an opening to attack, instead of just going through a companion such as in DA2.

Ideally the only thing i would keep from DA2, moving forward is the smoothness, everything else just toss it.

[Melca36]

seraphymon wrote...

Rogue animations in DAO didnt feel attuned to that style this is true. But DA2 took it way overboard and completely unrealistic regaudless of what realmaster says. That is ridiculous. Its pure eye candy and aill admit "some" of it is practiced in real life, but the kicking of the flask, the teleportation across the field in less then a second, the 50 foot distance jump, not gonna fly.

and trying to cancel in mid swing is one thing, but waiting for a mage to do the final twirl and spin and around and stabd the ground with the staff, is too much. Trying in real life i could cancel or stop myself way before and do something else. The shuffleing in DAO is annoying, espcially the way they are crouched, but then again you need to find an opening to attack, instead of just going through a companion such as in DA2.

Ideally the only thing i would keep from DA2, moving forward is the smoothness, everything else just toss it.

Lets not forget Hawke's ability to get a perfect decoy of himself to fool enemies.  That skill was ridiculous and made Rogue hawkes almost mage-like. <_<

[tankdogg937]

I actually prefer the DA2 combat system. Personally I feel the fights in Origins were way too dragged out and slow. Of course I'm not a micro manager either so that fits into my preference. I rarely use party tactics unless a situation (high dragon, varterrel etc.) calls for it.

Mage combat is especially better because you can melee with the staff if enemies get too close. I also like the effects of mind blast and similar talents (holy smite for warriors) that give you significant breathing room when surrounded.

[philippe willaume]

katiebour wrote...
I'd slow down the 2h strikes a bit- those swords are heavy!  I mostly play a sword and shield warrior, and I liked the shield bashes and general attention to the shield as a weapon.  The bow animations as well I enjoyed.  I hated the stances for the warriors- they look like they're squatting, facing front, instead of turning to the side and giving the enemy less of a target to strike (as in fencing.)  I'd prefer to see them lighter on their feet and not hunched down so much.  Some great techniques here:

 
 

i mostly agree with your post, but 2handed sword are not heavy (about 2-3lbs for longswords, and 3-4lbs for zweihanders.
In fact a a two handed weapon has much more tip control than a single hand wepon would have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49CubW9XK_A&list=UUzHmlSTUA4K0kdOkInAdkwA&index=2&feature=plcp
phil

[philippe willaume]

tankdogg937 wrote...

I actually prefer the DA2 combat system. Personally I feel the fights in Origins were way too dragged out and slow. Of course I'm not a micro manager either so that fits into my preference. I rarely use party tactics unless a situation (high dragon, varterrel etc.) calls for it.

Mage combat is especially better because you can melee with the staff if enemies get too close. I also like the effects of mind blast and similar talents (holy smite for warriors) that give you significant breathing room when surrounded.

I can see where you are coming from, and it really depends on your game style and the class you play.
I find the DA:2 combat boring and repeatitive and there are cases where it is the same in DA:0 but even slower...
Tactic are much easier to use in DA:2 than in DA:0 hence in DA:0 it was less painfull to pause and order and using minimalist tactics.
as well in DA:2 companion always have to gfinisdh the animation they are doing before acting upon whatever  you asked them to do, in DA:0 there were doing it straight away.

What i liked the most in DA:0  and i really miss in DA:2 was that you could have two weapons style specialisations so you could have a different approach to a given fight.

So even if  was longer i preferned the combat exprerienc in DA:0 because it was less repetive for me.
phil

[Sylvius the Mad]

tankdogg937 wrote...

I actually prefer the DA2 combat system. Personally I feel the fights in Origins were way too dragged out and slow. Of course I'm not a micro manager either so that fits into my preference. I rarely use party tactics unless a situation (high dragon, varterrel etc.) calls for it.

I dislikd DA2's combat for very similar reasons.

I am a micormanager.  The fun of party-based combat for me is the employment of detailed tactical plans, and DA2 didn't really allow that because it went too quickly, the characters were far less responsive to my commands (because of the change from a leading animation to a trailing animation), the characters routinely disobeyed my direct instructions, there were strict limits on how far apart from each other they could be, the enemies were invulnerable until they initiated combat (so I wasn't allowed to ambush them), combat spells couldn't be cast before combat commenced (so, again, I wasn't allowed to ambush anyone), combat roles were enforced through class selection, and the enemy waves meant that no plan could ever know the disposition of enemy forces until the battle was done.

From my point of view, DA2's combat did literally nothing right.  DAO's combat was by no means perfect, but it was superior to DA2's combat in every way.

[Realmzmaster]

Melca36 wrote...

Lets not forget Hawke's ability to get a perfect decoy of himself to fool enemies.  That skill was ridiculous and made Rogue hawkes almost mage-like. <_<

And calling a pet from thin air in DAO if you are a ranger is not (which actually continues in DA2 with Dog)?
Let's not forget that Decoy was available in Awakening in the Shadow specialization. 

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 12 avril 2012 - 10:24 .

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tankdogg937 wrote...

I actually prefer the DA2 combat system. Personally I feel the fights in Origins were way too dragged out and slow. Of course I'm not a micro manager either so that fits into my preference. I rarely use party tactics unless a situation (high dragon, varterrel etc.) calls for it.

I dislikd DA2's combat for very similar reasons.

I am a micormanager.  The fun of party-based combat for me is the employment of detailed tactical plans, and DA2 didn't really allow that because it went too quickly, the characters were far less responsive to my commands (because of the change from a leading animation to a trailing animation), the characters routinely disobeyed my direct instructions, there were strict limits on how far apart from each other they could be, the enemies were invulnerable until they initiated combat (so I wasn't allowed to ambush them), combat spells couldn't be cast before combat commenced (so, again, I wasn't allowed to ambush anyone), combat roles were enforced through class selection, and the enemy waves meant that no plan could ever know the disposition of enemy forces until the battle was done.

From my point of view, DA2's combat did literally nothing right.  DAO's combat was by no means perfect, but it was superior to DA2's combat in every way.

And there lies the problem between those who do not micromanage and those who do. Here you will probably not find a successful compromise.

[FedericoV]

Teredan wrote...

Another thing that I feel like makes DA a very unflowing game is the necessity between switching between party members or rather the way it is represented. Pause, Switch, Command, Pause, Switch, Command did not create a very flowing experience for me in DA:O. Now on the other side of the spectrum DA2 where I didn't need to switch much at all or the way ME does it without switching, isn't to my liking either due it cutting the strategic part out.
So that's kind of a design challenge for which I don't have and answer for.

I have many more points but before this becomes a monster post(maybe to late?) that no one will read I'll let you guys digest this and throw some of your thoughts in.

I understand your points. I must say that while DA:O is less responsive (mostly thanks to the dash/charge animations) the flow is not better in DA2. In many ways, if you are serious about micromanaging and don't play it ME style, DA2 forces you to pause/switch even more than DA:O (even because the camera angle is not meant to allow real tactical gameplay). That's completely at odds with the flashy presentation of the combat and create a sense of disconnection between what you play and what you see, a problem that at least DA:O do not present (what you see is what you get, slow or not).

Imho, to improve the flow of the gameplay, DA3 has only two (and opposite) solutions.

- Doing it like ME2/3. Basically, remove the party if not for support and going totally in real time. DA would become an action game with dialogues and skills. I would hate it but it could work if done well (think of something like Jade Empire gameplay).

- Doing it like BG and Kotor. Bring back action queues and turn based symmetrical combat: Bioware have invented that kind of party based pause&play combat and no one should know its strenght better than them. The second aspect is the most important imho: DA3 gameplay should scratch the idea of a-synchronized combat and return to good old D&D turns. You know, in both BG and Kotor the actions were measured in turns while being in real time. That alone created a sense of flow because you could feel the rhytim of combat sequences. In DA, the combat is asymetric and does not use turns. Thus force even more micromanaging than BG on the players because everything is too frantic and there is no room for queues logically (any effect could distrupt any queue at any time). It's not a mistery that pause & play combat works best when a turn based system is running underneath.

Modifié par FedericoV, 12 avril 2012 - 08:42 .

[thats1evildude]

I micro-manage the s**t out of my party and I didn't have any problems with the combat in DA2.

Melca36 wrote...

Lets not forget Hawke's ability to get a perfect decoy of himself to fool enemies. That skill was ridiculous and made Rogue hawkes almost mage-like.

That ability was available in DAO, actually. I had Nathaniel use it all the time. (Except he propped up a skeleton.)

[philippe willaume]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

tankdogg937 wrote...

I actually prefer the DA2 combat system. Personally I feel the fights in Origins were way too dragged out and slow. Of course I'm not a micro manager either so that fits into my preference. I rarely use party tactics unless a situation (high dragon, varterrel etc.) calls for it.

I dislikd DA2's combat for very similar reasons.

I am a micormanager.  The fun of party-based combat for me is the employment of detailed tactical plans, and DA2 didn't really allow that because it went too quickly, the characters were far less responsive to my commands (because of the change from a leading animation to a trailing animation), the characters routinely disobeyed my direct instructions, there were strict limits on how far apart from each other they could be, the enemies were invulnerable until they initiated combat (so I wasn't allowed to ambush them), combat spells couldn't be cast before combat commenced (so, again, I wasn't allowed to ambush anyone), combat roles were enforced through class selection, and the enemy waves meant that no plan could ever know the disposition of enemy forces until the battle was done.

From my point of view, DA2's combat did literally nothing right.  DAO's combat was by no means perfect, but it was superior to DA2's combat in every way.

And there lies the problem between those who do not micromanage and those who do. Here you will probably not find a successful compromise.

You know I am not sure it is totally mutually exclusive
The need to micro-manage come from the way the battle is presented.
In DA:0 I paused a lot because it was less painfull than trying to setup different combat tactics (and I could save the skill point for something else)
 
Now if you imagine a the flexibility of DA:2 tactic with DA:0 combat settings, where you can position yourself before the fight and use the terrain, you will need less pausing.
You could even map the tactics to dialogue options so you get the same feel as in the sacred ashes demo.
phil

[Meris]

Considering not only that there could be improvements to DA:O's combat (especially encounter design) to accomodate the strategic minded player, and that DA 2 was, already, a attempted compromise between the action rpg player and traditional RTwP combat (with a horrifyingly bad difficulty system and an even worse encounter design to boot), I'd say any further attempts at compromise is a voice of mediocrity. The greatest action games weren't what they were because they tried to catter to another niche and vice versa.

Furthermore, what made DA2 difficulty, if anything did, was not improved AI or improved encounter design but rather arbitrary inflations like random elemental immunities and inflated health bars. Not to mention the lack of top down view.

And, in my opinion, Dragon Age's niche is that of strategy combat. Not Action or even actiony to resemble diablo.

Modifié par Meris, 13 avril 2012 - 12:42 .

[Rawgrim]

I want an rpg - not an aaction game with a few rpg elements tossed in. If DA3 has spawning enemies that explode if I poke them with a sword, I won`t buy it.

[Realmzmaster]

philippe willaume wrote...


You know I am not sure it is totally mutually exclusive
The need to micro-manage come from the way the battle is presented.
In DA:0 I paused a lot because it was less painfull than trying to setup different combat tactics (and I could save the skill point for something else)
 
Now if you imagine a the flexibility of DA:2 tactic with DA:0 combat settings, where you can position yourself before the fight and use the terrain, you will need less pausing.
You could even map the tactics to dialogue options so you get the same feel as in the sacred ashes demo.
phil

Sylvius wants to micromanage the entire game not just the combat. He wants to harken back to the days of total control like in Temple of Elemetal Evil or Wizardry. Total party creation which is found in games like Icewind Dale, Wizardry or Might and Magic. As he has stated to him DAO is a compromise and he is not willing to compromise further. So it is not just micromanaging combat. He wants to go back to the stats based turn based total party creation. Where all the companions are his creation and the story is just the frame in which he roleplays the characters. So in his eyesight it is almost mutually exclusive.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 13 avril 2012 - 02:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

And there lies the problem between those who do not micromanage and those who do. Here you will probably not find a successful compromise.

Daggerfall (TES2) teaches us how to fix the problem.

Daggerfall allowed the player to choose whether he wanted slower stat-driven combat or fast-paced action combat, all with a single switch (that really did nothing but change the speed).

For a more modern example, see FO3's VATS system, an optional stat-driven aiming device that augmented what was otherwise a real-time shooter mechanic.

For an example from BioWare, ME's cone of death, which allowed pausable stat-driven combat within a shooter environment (or ME2, which replaced stat-driven aiming with stat-driven damage, which over time produces a similar result, as still allowed target-selection while paused).

There are many ways to compromise between the stat-driven muicromanager and the fast-paced action player.  DA2 just doesn't use any of them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius wants to micromanage the entire game not just the combat. He wants to harken back to the days of total control like in Temple of Elemetal Evil or Wizardry. Total party creation which is found in games like Icewind Dale, Wizardry or Might and Magic. As he has stated to him DAO is a compromise and he is not willing to compromise further. So it is not just micromanaging combat. He wants to go back to the stats based turn based total party creation. Where all the companions are his creation and the story is just the frame in which he roleplays the characters. So in his eyesight it is almost mutually exclusive.

At no point have I asked for turn-based.  My preference is real-time with pause, which is what DA2 has (it's just badly done, and doesn't really allow full-party control (just as KotOR didn't).

Honestly, if DA2 has just let the attack animations be interruptable like DAO, it would have vastly better combat.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 avril 2012 - 03:56 .

[tankdogg937]

I could get on board with a ME style pause menu that makes selecting spells or powers easy. I might actually use tactics more often then. I just can't be bothered to go through an entire menu changing every ability just for one fight and then changing it all again moments later.

[katiebour]

philippe willaume wrote...

katiebour wrote...
I'd slow down the 2h strikes a bit- those swords are heavy!  I mostly play a sword and shield warrior, and I liked the shield bashes and general attention to the shield as a weapon.  The bow animations as well I enjoyed.  I hated the stances for the warriors- they look like they're squatting, facing front, instead of turning to the side and giving the enemy less of a target to strike (as in fencing.)  I'd prefer to see them lighter on their feet and not hunched down so much.  Some great techniques here:

 
 

i mostly agree with your post, but 2handed sword are not heavy (about 2-3lbs for longswords, and 3-4lbs for zweihanders.
In fact a a two handed weapon has much more tip control than a single hand wepon would have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49CubW9XK_A&list=UUzHmlSTUA4K0kdOkInAdkwA&index=2&feature=plcp
phil

Zweihanders could weigh up to 16 lb.  

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Zweihänder 

Pier Gerlofs Donia is reputed to have wielded a Zweihänder with such skill, strength and efficiency that he managed to behead multiple people with it in a single blow. The Zweihänder ascribed to him is, as of 2008, on display in the Frisian museum. It has a length of 213 cm (84 in) and a weight of about 6.6 kg (14½ lb).[1]

And given that most of the 2h weapons in DA2 seem to be over 4 feet in length, I'd imagine that they pack quite a bit of heft.  But of course the zweihanders don't represent the majority of real-world 2h weapons that were in use, even if most of the DA2 two-handers seem to be of a similar (and extreme) length/weight:

http://dragonage.wik...om/wiki/Lineage 
http://dragonage.wik...Empress's_Point

Modifié par katiebour, 13 avril 2012 - 07:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

katiebour wrote...

Zweihanders could weigh up to 16 lb. 

Zweihanders also have considerably less bulk than DA2's weapons.  Not to mention the mauls - the mauls are absurdly massive.

[Realmzmaster]

katiebour wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...

katiebour wrote...
I'd slow down the 2h strikes a bit- those swords are heavy!  I mostly play a sword and shield warrior, and I liked the shield bashes and general attention to the shield as a weapon.  The bow animations as well I enjoyed.  I hated the stances for the warriors- they look like they're squatting, facing front, instead of turning to the side and giving the enemy less of a target to strike (as in fencing.)  I'd prefer to see them lighter on their feet and not hunched down so much.  Some great techniques here:

 
 

i mostly agree with your post, but 2handed sword are not heavy (about 2-3lbs for longswords, and 3-4lbs for zweihanders.
In fact a a two handed weapon has much more tip control than a single hand wepon would have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49CubW9XK_A&list=UUzHmlSTUA4K0kdOkInAdkwA&index=2&feature=plcp
phil

Zweihanders could weigh up to 16 lb.  

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Zweihänder 

Pier Gerlofs Donia is reputed to have wielded a Zweihänder with such skill, strength and efficiency that he managed to behead multiple people with it in a single blow. The Zweihänder ascribed to him is, as of 2008, on display in the Frisian museum. It has a length of 213 cm (84 in) and a weight of about 6.6 kg (14½ lb).[1]

And given that most of the 2h weapons in DA2 seem to be over 4 feet in length, I'd imagine that they pack quite a bit of heft.  But of course the zweihanders don't represent the majority of real-world 2h weapons that were in use, even if most of the DA2 two-handers seem to be of a similar (and extreme) length/weight:

http://dragonage.wik...om/wiki/Lineage 
http://dragonage.wik...Empress's_Point

You will also note in the wikipedia article that Donia was reported to have superhuman strength to the point where he could bend coins with just his thumb, index and middle finger. The article also states that he was over seven feet in height. So he could weild the sword since it was made for him. So to him the sword would be like a regular zweilhander.
The regular zweilhander weigh between 2 and 3.2kg ( 4.4 to 7 lbs) with a length up to 180cm (7 feet). The zweilhanders that were very heavy and long were mainly ceremonial and rarely used in combat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweih%C3%A4nder

Some where much shorter at 5 feet and weighing 3 1/2 lbs. 
So zweilhander (great sword) were not as heavy as some seem to think. and were not hefty
The typical Zweilhander did not weigh 16 pounds.

Also the swords in DA2 are about the same length and weight as the swords in DAO. Some one on the forum actually measured the length and esimated the weight. I will have to find that thread. 

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 13 avril 2012 - 08:08 .

[Ice-Whiz]

I have to admit I did like the DA2 better, but I can understand it would be annoying for some, still I felt that in DA:O you had only barely an idea of how to handle your weapon. If you had dual-wielding, aside from finishing combos, you would strike with the right hand ALL the time for standard attack in a slow and tedious way or do breast-strokes, as if you were swimming?, it was a bit clumsy, however, it also sucks when the warriors in DA:2 are just as fast as the rogues, who are supposedly the nimble fighters.

[Xewaka]

katiebour wrote...
Zweihanders could weigh up to 16 lb. 

Only decorative ones. Combat zweihanders were necessarily lighter.
About the combat: Give back the full zoomed out pseudoisometric camera, remove the frontloading, slow down the combat a notch - not to DA:O levels, but to something tolerable to watch. Those three steps would be a great beginning.

Modifié par Xewaka, 13 avril 2012 - 08:40 .