14 réponses à ce sujet

[Steeltrap67]

There's another thread ('this game is beginning to tire me') that talks about the constant mass-attack battles.

I thought I'd post a few thoughts about combat/game design for discussion.

I admit I don't like some of the game design choices they made. A few comments:

*
the system of having characters take abilities to 'suck in' enemies is
dopey IMO. The whole 'tank' construct is a response to the artifical
requirements for crowd control stemming from a few things, not least is
the fact that you pretty much always face crowds. In that respect the
OP is correct; it is pretty repetitive.

* the fact people
(particularly enemies) can run straight through a battle line in a
choke point is daft. This forces 'skills' that prevent it through
;attracting' enemies to those with the sklills. My preference would be
a passing glance to reality that has something like 'zones of control'
for fighters so two fighters in a door can't simply be ignored on your way to the enemy spellcaster/ranged troops.

*
Equally, fighting styles included 'pairing' (or more) so as to prevent
flanks/rear being vulnerable. This is particularly so in a melee in
open space. The fact enemies can go wherever they like, and your party
will respond, means you end up with flanks/rear being attacked even
when you should be able to use walls/other party members for
protection/support.

* Firing missile weapons into melee without
the risk of hitting your own side is similarly silly. Plain nonsense.
Should be fixed/adjusted.

I would change these things. You'd end
up with a far more 'realistic' combat experience. As it is, everyone
says the way to win is use 'xyz tank ability' while spamming 'AOE
spells/effects', but nobody seems to stop to ask WHY this is necessary or if  there might be a better way of designing combat mechanics in the
first place.

If you feel like replying, please try to be constructive.

Cheers

[JHorwath]

Hmm, lately I've been playing without a main tank or dedicated healer. I have been playing with a tank by committee method. I do a ton of moving around and stick in move with the stun abilities. It's kind of like playing defense on hockey with the mage as the goal tender. Two 2h warriors and a shield and sword. No one melee is the main tank but instead can tank in tiers or each handle their own enemies. Certain characters are better at holding off enemies so I prioritize them to handle the bigger enemies. By doing this there is a ton of flow in the combat.

My melee characters don't stay put or on the same target they exchange targets and move around. The mage picks off the enemies with low health. By playing in this manner I have limited the healing aspect of the game. I don't have a dedicated healer and rarely use any health or mana potions. The game has really changed and the flow to combat is better to look at then the traditional tank and spank formula.

There are different ways to play the game.  None of them wrong.  Some more creative than others.

Here is an example.  I'll use an encounter in the ruins with an ashwraith. 

Mage walks in and the ashwraith appears.  I cast vuneralability hex then cone of cold.  The 2h's use mighty blow on the wraith then the fun begins.  A mage and a reaver appear in the right door.  I send the 2h warrior after the mage, tactic set to pummel strike.  The shield warrior goes after one reaver.  The ohter 2h warrior engages the other reaver from the left.  I ignore the archer at this time.  Why?  At this level the enemy archer doesn't do much.  The mage continues to pelt the wraith until it's dead. 

Now if I'm lucky the 2h warrior got to the mage before fireball.  The reaver goes after the 2h I sent to the mage.  My shield warrior uses stun to stop that so the 2h has a free run at the mage.  He connects with the pommel strike leaving the mage down.  I throw an acid flask on the mage.  The shield warrior is occupying the reaver.  The mage gets off a shot and weakens my 2h warrior before he can kill the mage.  The shield warrior has weakened the reaver so now he goes to the target the other 2h is attacking.  The 2h on the mage goes after the reaver the shield warrior was attacking.  He has pommel strike set up so when the shield warrior peels off the enemy is knocked down.  The shield warrior now picks up the target the other 2h was engaging.  The 2h goes after the archer with pommel strike set.  The shield warrior stuns the reaver so he won't follow the 2h.  The melee characters have switched targets and moved.  The mage offers assist spells to help out the warriors.  After one of the 2h's is done with their target they move to the archer who has the most life or one 2h can move to help the other 2h and set pommel strike.  Then the other 2hder goes to the archer.  The melee characters rotate targets according to avialable moves and how they are doing against the target.

Sometimes the battles work better than others.  Much depends on the flow of the battle.  Get the idea.  Before you switch targets it's nice to stun them or knock them down. 

*not one heal spell nor health poltice used.  No pulling or choke points or that stuff.  What you do have is a ton of movement, offensive spell use, and some target switching.

What you can do is get your best tank to engage first then bounce from target to target by using stuns and such while the other melee clean up after they take care of their buisness.  To do this each character needs to be able to stand on their own for a bit anyway until they can get help. 

With this type of combat shield warriors are great at knocking down opponents, stunning, and moving them around.  The 2h's can pommel strike and mighty blow for quick damage so the mage can finish and the 2h's can bounce to the target the sheild warrior is fighting and the shield warrior can then bounce.


Another example with a random encounter.  Two hurlocks attack from the back.  A hurlock alpha two glenlock archers and an emissary from the front.  The mage one on one's the emissary with offensive spells.  The two 2h's attack the hurlocks in the back.  They open with pommel strike and mightblow.  The shield warrior attacks the hurlock alpha.  Battle isn't going well.  The shield warrior is getting beat up by the alpha.  So he and the two hander switch.  The 2h leaves the hurlock and goes after the alpha.  The shield warrior stund the alpah and goes back to the weakened hurlock.  As the 2h is leaving the hurlock the shiled warrior shield bashes the hurlock.  The 2h gets a free disengage for a second to pommel strike the now unstunning alpha.  The mage offers assist to the 2h on the alpha.

After the one 2h kills the hurlock he goes after an archer.  The shield warrior kills his hurlock and goes after the alpha again, stunning him.  The 2h on the alpha peels off the alpha since he's almost dead and attacks an archer.  A different archer then the other 2hder.  The mage offers support through offensive spells. 
After the alpha is dead the shield warrior assists on the remaining enemies.

Again, no heal spell or health poltice.

One thing about building your characters is to balance them out.  If you make a character to the extreme of a situation they can only function in that situation.  For instance, If I made a pure tank then the other characters struggle when they are engaging an enemy alone.  So by not making one character to either side of an extreme you get better balance and characters that can move throughout the combat.  There are some tricks, like acid flasks and things to help a character that has a lower damage output as well as mage support.

*Another thing you can do to alleviate damage pressure from on one character is to rotate your taunts.


*So, I guess at the start of the battle I am assigning zones for my melee warriors.  They are each to hold the zone they are assigned.  Even if this zone means facing multiple enemies.  The strongest warrior in defense will start out engaging multiple enemies while the other two take care of their zones to avoid flanking.  If a warrior is struggling in his zone then he needs help.  Mage assist or swapping zones with another warrior.  It's important to know the limitations of each warriors zone.  if I have two warriors gaurding a doorway while the mage nukes then their job is to stun or knockback and enemy when they try to break that zone.  ie - shield bash, pommel strike, overpower, ect. 

Or if I need to get through a doorway, the shield warrior uses shield bash or overpower then the 2hder follows with pommel strike while the shield warrior busts through into the room.  After the power move the sheild warrior engages enemies in the room while the 2h stays with the garabage.  Let's say then the other 2h is attacking a monster that got through.  After he takes care of that with help of mage he takes the other 2hders target while the 2hder previously engaged goes into the room.  They effectively switched targets.  This 2hder can now take the target the shield warrior is fighting while the shield warrior switches targets.  A target switch always made with a stun or knock down power.  What your basically doing is creating a floating line with the mage in the middle or back.  It's nice to have the mage in the middle for cone of cold.  With two 2hders that's usually two shattered enemies at the start.

Modifié par JHorwath, 09 décembre 2009 - 02:33 .

[Steeltrap67]

Thanks for the combat description.



I don't want to sound ungrateful, but you haven't really addressed any of the points I raised. I'm not so interested in discussing HOW to play as I am in WHY these things are necessary due to game design etc. For me they could be improved considerably.



Cheers

[JHorwath]

Your probably right. It depends on how you look at it. Does the game make you alter tactics do to it's design or flaws in design? Or is it just player error and bad scheming that expose certain elements?



If it's design flaws then is it right for the player to have to alter tactics to get the desired results?

[Faerell Gustani]

I can address the "Tanking" issue:

High quality Artificial Intelligence is difficult to program, and taxing on resources. That's the biggest issue.

The Threat/Aggro system has the best effectiveness to efficiency ratio currently.



If you want a better AI start doing some Graduate level computer science projects.

[JHorwath]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

I can address the "Tanking" issue:
High quality Artificial Intelligence is difficult to program, and taxing on resources. That's the biggest issue.
The Threat/Aggro system has the best effectiveness to efficiency ratio currently.

If you want a better AI start doing some Graduate level computer science projects.

Then again, how much AI is enough?  I don't think we want to turn these things into skynet.  Hehe.  Sorry, just watched all the terminator movies again.  EEEEKKKK!

[Stengahpolis]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

I can address the "Tanking" issue:
High quality Artificial Intelligence is difficult to program, and taxing on resources. That's the biggest issue.
The Threat/Aggro system has the best effectiveness to efficiency ratio currently.

While high quality AI is difficult to program, the threat/aggro system in DA:O is designed to promote 'tank mentality'.  There are a number of skills which directly affect enemy aggro and the AI is programed to go after targets with heavier armor - which are usually the 'tankier' ones.  Thus it becomes trivial, encouraged even, to make all the bad guys focus on a single nigh-invulnerable character while your mages sit back and nuke them from orbit.

Better to move away from the 'hate' system (you're stabbing me, so I'm going to stab you back) and towards a threat/vulnerability system where the AI selects targets based on perceived threat (real threat, not 'shoot me button' threat) and how difficult the target is to kill.

Obviously that's not something that can be done with the current game, since it would require a complete redesign of not only encounters, but base game mechanics, but it is something I would like to see in future titles.

[12monkeys]

@ steeltrap: i was the one who started that thread you referred to in your first post. seems this game was designed for a party to handle not only groups of monsters, but crowds of them. fyi, i got tired of facing mage after mage, archer after archer, traps after traps in that deserted building, so i decided to "desert" (pardon the pun) it for the meantime and come back once i've gained a level or two. deciding i've had enough of thugs in the dark alleys of ferelden (is it such a slimy place that that place is littered with thugs, so many of them?), i went to haven to continue the urn quest (after going to bro genitivi's house).

on the way there, i was "ambushed". after the cutscene, another battle ensued. oh my, not again. 8-10 well-positioned archers, 5-6 warriors/rogues, a mage, and zevhran (?), in a place that is full of traps! 4 or 5 reloads after, as he lay dying, zehvran went on his speech, saying so and so, that he was sent to assassinate me, etc.. well, well, an assassin (he's an assassin, right? that much i can remember.) with a full army behind him. he looked more like a general with a platoon of soldiers to me. anyways, i just finished him off after. don't want to be bothered anymore with an assassin like that, even with the option to take him into the party.

look, people can say that we are fighting the darkhorde spawn here. but are the thugs part of the darkspawn? why is there so many of them? an assassin with an army? how did he manage to recruit all these people? did he put out recruitment ads in the streets of denerim for an assassination? at least solomon in port llast in nwn1 only had 2-3 companions when he tried to waylay me. 

there were some comments also in gamefaqs about fighting mobs who outnumber your party 3-1, or 4-1, or even 5-1 80% of the time. well, i guess such is the norm in ferelden.

[JJM152]

Steeltrap67 wrote...

Thanks for the combat description.

I don't want to sound ungrateful, but you haven't really addressed any of the points I raised. I'm not so interested in discussing HOW to play as I am in WHY these things are necessary due to game design etc. For me they could be improved considerably.

Cheers

I wouldn't consider hardly any of the things you listed as "improvements". Instead I would say that they are your own personal preferences. I know that I would absolutely hate having to worry about ranged firing through melee and while adding zones of control to combat might make it more tactical, it would also probably destroy AI controlled rogues. Neither of these things sound like fun to me.

My advice: Either make a mod to the game or pester someone else to do it. I think most of your points would not get a favorable response from the gaming community as a whole, so I can see why they were not included in the design.

[Faerell Gustani]

Stengahpolis wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

I can address the "Tanking" issue:
High quality Artificial Intelligence is difficult to program, and taxing on resources. That's the biggest issue.
The Threat/Aggro system has the best effectiveness to efficiency ratio currently.

While high quality AI is difficult to program, the threat/aggro system in DA:O is designed to promote 'tank mentality'.  There are a number of skills which directly affect enemy aggro and the AI is programed to go after targets with heavier armor - which are usually the 'tankier' ones.  Thus it becomes trivial, encouraged even, to make all the bad guys focus on a single nigh-invulnerable character while your mages sit back and nuke them from orbit.

Better to move away from the 'hate' system (you're stabbing me, so I'm going to stab you back) and towards a threat/vulnerability system where the AI selects targets based on perceived threat (real threat, not 'shoot me button' threat) and how difficult the target is to kill.

Obviously that's not something that can be done with the current game, since it would require a complete redesign of not only encounters, but base game mechanics, but it is something I would like to see in future titles.

Uh, well I just designed a Neural Network for my Artificial Intelligence class.  I took Art of War (by Sun Tzu) and broke it down into its base components.
It takes 19 inputs and generates 4-5 outputs.
The inputs are 2 variables for Power/Numbers.  One for yourself and one for your opponent.
1 input for arrivial time.  This input is trinary, it's either -1, 0, or 1.
And 15 binary inputs to cover the 6 types of terrain and 9 tactical dispositions.

Based on these 19 inputs, it weighs the chance of success for the 4 actions of:
Attack
Wait/Defend
Advance
Retreat/Regroup

There is an exception to the rule which is "Hemmed-in" which is a tactical disposition.  To quote Art of War "On Hemmed in ground, resort to strategem".  Meaning, you must resort to trickery and ruses.  A computer can't really be "Tricky" on it's own as it will eventually fall into a pattern.
I interpreted this to mean the 36 strategems
http://en.wikipedia....-Six_Stratagems

My current expansion of the project is to include the 36 strategems as potential outputs, and to program in situational awareness so that the AI can diffrentiate between different types of terrain and dispositions.

Fun stuff, but I doubt I'll ever get the chance to program it fully considering how huge of a project it will be...much less have it be functional in a game.

[Steeltrap67]

Stengahpolis wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

I can address the "Tanking" issue:
High quality Artificial Intelligence is difficult to program, and taxing on resources. That's the biggest issue.
The Threat/Aggro system has the best effectiveness to efficiency ratio currently.

While high quality AI is difficult to program, the threat/aggro system in DA:O is designed to promote 'tank mentality'.  There are a number of skills which directly affect enemy aggro and the AI is programed to go after targets with heavier armor - which are usually the 'tankier' ones.  Thus it becomes trivial, encouraged even, to make all the bad guys focus on a single nigh-invulnerable character while your mages sit back and nuke them from orbit.

Better to move away from the 'hate' system (you're stabbing me, so I'm going to stab you back) and towards a threat/vulnerability system where the AI selects targets based on perceived threat (real threat, not 'shoot me button' threat) and how difficult the target is to kill.

Obviously that's not something that can be done with the current game, since it would require a complete redesign of not only encounters, but base game mechanics, but it is something I would like to see in future titles.

Yes, this is in part what I'm getting at. The fact you can readily induce your enemies to spend all their time attacking people they can't substantially hurt while they ignore the killing threat to them is, on its face, pretty stupid.

Put differently, would we, as players, spend our time attacking a single enemy we can't hurt while our party is being taken out one by one by other, softer targets? If the answer is "NO", we should hope to see an AI that reacts equally.

That's why I also why I'd like to see 'zones of control' and/or combat methods that are able to create true choke points. The 'aggro' system is there, I suspect, to compensate for the fact that your enemies can run straight past your melee characters to attack 'softer' options if they so wish.  So they've developed a system (aggor/tanking) that, intuitively, is flawed in order to address an original situation (complete freedom of movement irrespective of enemy deployment) that is flawed.

The ultimate expression of this is the AI continuing to attack a person in a forcefield that CANNOT be injured. People say that is exploiting the AI. Closer examination suggets to me that is is the logical extension of 'tricking' tha AI through skills to attack who YOU want them to, as opposed to them attacking who might be the best choice for THEM. That is how the entire system works; the FF issue simply highlights the problems.

It might 'work' in a simple, gameplay mechanic sense, but I find it unsatisfactory after any real examination of how well what you're seeing on-screen matches with available, real-life examples.

Cheers

Modifié par Steeltrap67, 10 décembre 2009 - 12:09 .

[Steeltrap67]

JJM152 wrote...

Steeltrap67 wrote...

Thanks for the combat description.

I don't want to sound ungrateful, but you haven't really addressed any of the points I raised. I'm not so interested in discussing HOW to play as I am in WHY these things are necessary due to game design etc. For me they could be improved considerably.

Cheers

I wouldn't consider hardly any of the things you listed as "improvements". Instead I would say that they are your own personal preferences. I know that I would absolutely hate having to worry about ranged firing through melee and while adding zones of control to combat might make it more tactical, it would also probably destroy AI controlled rogues. Neither of these things sound like fun to me.

My advice: Either make a mod to the game or pester someone else to do it. I think most of your points would not get a favorable response from the gaming community as a whole, so I can see why they were not included in the design.

Yes, you're quite right that 'improvement' is definitely a matter of preference.

My feeling that the system is highly artificial instead of more of a 'simulation' is my opinion, and others might not like it. Part of that, however, might also be due to the fact that gamers, as much as anyone else, tend to stick with what they know.

It would be interesting to see a combat system more along the lines of what I'm proposing and then let people play test it to see how they like it. They might be surprised.

Your point about rogues is a fair one. Mind you, I didn't cover the issue of whether 'zones of control' negate stealth. As an aside, being able to 'stealth' past two warriors in a door should  be all but impossible unless magic is involved.

Thanks for the comments.

Cheers

Modifié par Steeltrap67, 10 décembre 2009 - 12:16 .

[Steeltrap67]

@ Faerell Gustani: very interesting stuff!



Thanks for sharing it.



Cheers

[Matthew Young CT]

youre right about the flaws, the problem is there really isnt any way to have 'realistic' zone of control. it would just be an absolute nightmare to design. so you can have some kind of aggro system, some kind of artificial zoc system like old alpha centauri had, or you can make no class particularly squishy. sadly all these 'solutions' are unsatisfactory as you say.



sadly goes in the "nice idea, wish we could do it" overflowing bin of ideas

[Beechwell]

I too hate the aggro system, which is why I never use any aggro-skills. It works, as JHorwath already described.

And zones of control or something similar is a feature I've been waiting for for years. But I think ones has to admit that it would really be much more difficult to intelligently guide groups of comabtants around a battle field with constantly moving zones-of-control, and thus constant reevaluation of paths an goals.



I don't agree on the friendly fire arrows. That would pracically render ranged combat useless once close combat starts. This is still a game with the main goal to be fun to play, and not to model reality (which is also nice, but only as long as it doesn't interfere with good gameplay).