11 réponses à ce sujet

[KDD-0063]

So, first, my view on DAO's combat:
Many people say DA2's combat is an improvement on DAO. However, imo, the improvements are mostly on things like boss mechanics, tactical AI, more balanced skill tree and meaningful hardcore/nightmare difficulty. Such improvements can be done without overhauling the whole combat system.

Now, I don't mean that DAO's system is necessarily superior to DA2's system, but I do think DA2's combat system has problems:

DA2's combat system is an odd mix:
1) no tactical top down view, yet in some team fights, good group coordination is required (example: legacy final boss and high dragon. For former, soloing is okay but group fight is extremely frustrating); also, there's friendly fire in nm difficulty, and using ground target AoE ability under a context of no top-down view AND friendly fire is kind of frustrating too.
2) fast paced, action focused, yet did not go all the way; no action features such as dashing or combat rolls, or even jumping down a ledge.

That's why I believe using DAO's combat system, plus a few "tweaks" like boss mechanics and AI and etc, would be more successful because DAO's combat system is all the way on the tactical side, its features have great synergy between them and all contribute to a good tactical system.

I believe that if you want to design an action combat system, you want to go all the way to the action side, focus almost exclusively on the main character, like in Mass Effect or Kingdom of Amalur. Add mechanics like dashing, jumping, combat rolls and etc. to make the combat more dynamic; remove the need for party positioning either by introducing very good party member AI that could dodge AoE on their own or make those AoE ability target the player.

That's what I believe anyways. I don't think a combat system like DA2 that sits in the middle of action based combat and tactical combat is very successful. You either design a tactical combat system, or a dynamic action combat system. DA2's system is neither tactical nor dynamic.

I don't believe you can cater to both sides; that will just be a frustrating experience for both. In fact I like both styles of combat but did not like DA2's combat system.

For me, I'd hate to see companion control go away. Also, I think the current engine BW's using: Eclipse engine suits this system better--I'm not sure BW can add those "actiony" mechanics to either Eclipse or Lycium engines. So I think it's better for Bioware to lean heavily towards the tactical side. Maybe the combat pace could be, say, a tiny bit faster than DAO but that's about it.

Now a heavily tactical combat system also has drawbacks, I do feel less up-close and personal, especially for melee characters. In a tactical system, you will most likely oversee the battlefield, reposition your party, and use those more 'tactical' abilities and leave simple attack abilities such as mighty blow to AI. However, I don't think we can have everything. After all, I don't think focusing on one character a lot is a feature of tactical combat; this also means classes that have more tactical abilities(mages) will get more attention, but BW could also add some more tactical abilities to warriors and rogues.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 18 mai 2012 - 06:59 .

[deuce985]

Good points but if I had it my way, I'd want a perfect balance between both. DA:O can learn some things from DA2's combat and DA2 can learn some things from DA:O's combat.

I don't mind DA2's direction at all, it just needs a little more polish.

Modifié par deuce985, 18 mai 2012 - 07:51 .

[KDD-0063]

deuce985 wrote...

Good points but if I had it my way, I'd want a perfect balance between both. DA:O can learn some things from DA2's combat and DA2 can learn some things from DA:O's combat.

I don't mind DA2's direction at all, it just needs a little more polish.

I kinda think that these two are quite contradictory to each other.

A tactical system wants you to play like a strategy game and control all of your party.
An action based system wants you to focus on one character, most likely your main.

Also, I think even a little control of the party would require a top-down view to be enjoyable.

[wsandista]

I prefer using the DAO combat as a base, but maybe speed up attack time by 20% or 25%. Most importantly have the enemies fight the same way as the party, it was way off in DA2.

[deuce985]

KDD-0063 wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

Good points but if I had it my way, I'd want a perfect balance between both. DA:O can learn some things from DA2's combat and DA2 can learn some things from DA:O's combat.

I don't mind DA2's direction at all, it just needs a little more polish.

I kinda think that these two are quite contradictory to each other.

A tactical system wants you to play like a strategy game and control all of your party.
An action based system wants you to focus on one character, most likely your main.

Also, I think even a little control of the party would require a top-down view to be enjoyable.

I don't believe that to be true. It's like some people try to argue DA2 has no strategy in its combat, which isn't true, IMO. Just because it doesn't have the strategy they recognized from DA:O, doesn't make the combat any less strategic. They're just not seeing it. Different styles of strategy. One thing I thought was a negative but also a positive in DA2's combat is how it stayed hard throughout the game. In DA:O, about midway through on Nightmare, the game was a joke. And that's a bigger balance concern because it means I'm going to play the game lazier and less strategic.

But also the negative to DA2's Nightmare is they obviously didn't balance it as intended. Assassins disappearing every 2 seconds, can't take them out of stealth, Mages one-shot your party and boss fights that take hours to beat. They have a fine line of being hard and then they have cheap. Some parts of DA2's Nightmare was cheap and probably not intended.

If I had to choose though, I'd prefer DA2, balance issues and all over DA:O's lack of challenge. Some people argue they want to feel powerful. That's fine but my thinking is if you want to play the game like that, play on lower difficulties? Why should the game turn into Easy when you're playing on Nightmare? You're looking for a challenge, not to play the game with one hand...

So it brings it back to the original point, do you want a game that presents a challenge throughout the entire game? Or do you want a game that never presents a consistent challenge at all? What is the point of strategic combat if you're never challenged? I HAD to make poisons, pots and bombs to survive in DA2. In DA:O, I just made pots and never bother with traps or poisons.

Modifié par deuce985, 18 mai 2012 - 11:04 .

[MichaelStuart]

I didn't like the combat in Dragon Age. If they were to turn Dragon Age 3's combat into a well done action system, I would be happy.
But since that is not likely to happen, here are my suggestions to make Dragon Age 3's combat more tolerable.

1.Better camera: In a game were I have to control four people, I should be allowed to see them all at once.

2.Get rid of either cool down times or the stamina/mana meter: I just don't see the point of having two systems that stop you using your abilities. I would prefer that cool down times go as I find it adds no tactical challenge, were the stamina/mana meter at lest makes you conserve your abilities.

3.Stop padding combat with high-health enemies: High-health enemies do not make combat more challenging, just more time consuming. Hears my thought. Most people enjoy challenges. When people are enjoying themselves, they are less likely to nitpick. High-health enemies just keep combat going long enough to make people notice small things that bug them.

4.More combat variety: Keep throwing the same type of enemies at people and a game will get repetitive very quickly. Making the enemies look different is not the way to solve this. Each encounter has to make you play differently than the last,

5.Less combat overall: I think you can only add so much variety before you repeat your self. So I would put more time between combat.
Also they should be more ways to avoid combat, like sneaking pass.

[seraphymon]

deuce985 wrote...
I don't believe that to be true. It's like some people try to argue DA2 has no strategy in its combat, which isn't true, IMO. Just because it doesn't have the strategy they recognized from DA:O, doesn't make the combat any less strategic. They're just not seeing it. Different styles of strategy. One thing I thought was a negative but also a positive in DA2's combat is how it stayed hard throughout the game. In DA:O, about midway through on Nightmare, the game was a joke. And that's a bigger balance concern because it means I'm going to play the game lazier and less strategic.

But also the negative to DA2's Nightmare is they obviously didn't balance it as intended. Assassins disappearing every 2 seconds, can't take them out of stealth, Mages one-shot your party and boss fights that take hours to beat. They have a fine line of being hard and then they have cheap. Some parts of DA2's Nightmare was cheap and probably not intended.

If I had to choose though, I'd prefer DA2, balance issues and all over DA:O's lack of challenge. Some people argue they want to feel powerful. That's fine but my thinking is if you want to play the game like that, play on lower difficulties? Why should the game turn into Easy when you're playing on Nightmare? You're looking for a challenge, not to play the game with one hand...

So it brings it back to the original point, do you want a game that presents a challenge throughout the entire game? Or do you want a game that never presents a consistent challenge at all? What is the point of strategic combat if you're never challenged? I HAD to make poisons, pots and bombs to survive in DA2. In DA:O, I just made pots and never bother with traps or poisons.

id rather have what DAo brought than DA2. As DA2 was not strategic IMO. Just tedious battles. Even with the challenege of Nightmare being more consistent on DA2 than DAO only due to one shotting yourself. the enemies stil lwere never a concern as i still can bring enemy rogues at of stleath, and the only thing that mages brought was always bubbling themselves. It just made the long battles longer. The only thing i would say is the boss battles was better, as  most had their gimmicks to it.

However each battle in DA2 was the same mostly.  and never really could be approached differently  or had different types of encounters like DAO. In alot of games they present different ways or so to battle, even if you do not require it. I never used poisons or traps in DAO either, cause thats not my style. nor was it requireed for me in DA2 either. All i really used was health pots even on nightmare.

its not just about feeling so overpowered we one shot bad guys, but a sense of progession, like for example facing an opponent that totally crushes you if you face too early, but as you lvl up a bit  it makes it is easier. Turning down the difficulty in DA2 is really just a skip combat. Then there is the problem when at times  lvling in DA2 actually is bad, especially when you pass a certain lvl.

I welcome a challenege throughout the game, but in a way that genuninley is and makes sense. DA2 was neither challenge nor fun to play after a certain point, and just long and boring. So really yes i would rather go back to DAO formula for the most part but progress from there. At first i thought combat was fun and that i shoulda never doubted bioware. But it was all a mirage, and that fun quickly dissapeared, because under all that flash there was little to enjoy.

[KDD-0063]

deuce985 wrote...

I don't believe that to be true. It's like some people try to argue DA2 has no strategy in its combat, which isn't true, IMO. Just because it doesn't have the strategy they recognized from DA:O, doesn't make the combat any less strategic. They're just not seeing it. Different styles of strategy. One thing I thought was a negative but also a positive in DA2's combat is how it stayed hard throughout the game. In DA:O, about midway through on Nightmare, the game was a joke. And that's a bigger balance concern because it means I'm going to play the game lazier and less strategic.

But also the negative to DA2's Nightmare is they obviously didn't balance it as intended. Assassins disappearing every 2 seconds, can't take them out of stealth, Mages one-shot your party and boss fights that take hours to beat. They have a fine line of being hard and then they have cheap. Some parts of DA2's Nightmare was cheap and probably not intended.

If I had to choose though, I'd prefer DA2, balance issues and all over DA:O's lack of challenge. Some people argue they want to feel powerful. That's fine but my thinking is if you want to play the game like that, play on lower difficulties? Why should the game turn into Easy when you're playing on Nightmare? You're looking for a challenge, not to play the game with one hand...

So it brings it back to the original point, do you want a game that presents a challenge throughout the entire game? Or do you want a game that never presents a consistent challenge at all? What is the point of strategic combat if you're never challenged? I HAD to make poisons, pots and bombs to survive in DA2. In DA:O, I just made pots and never bother with traps or poisons.

but that's what I said at first:
DAO's combat system needs fix on:
1) Character progression and cheap tactics
2) Boss and general enemy mechanics
3) Hardcore/NM difficulty curve

to present a better challenge; I don't believe that the fix is to 'actionize' everything.

I also said it's not that the whole tactical system is necessarily superior. However, I do believe that DAO's system, with the right balance fixes, would provide a more enjoyable experience than DA2's half action, half tactical system.

I believe that in order to give the players an enjoyable experience, you either go very heavy on the tactical side, enabling tactical view and such or go very heavy on the action side.

There are examples for both.
Tactical: Baldur's Gate 2, especially with Ascension and Tactics/Combat/BWP mods
Actiony: Mass Effect 2 on insanity, KoAR with heartcore

[DarkCrownz]

YES! cut down on the waves of enemies..it makes strategy redundant and stupid. Although i agree the combat in dragon age 2 is more fast paced than origins. and while this may not be necessarily bad, it is overdone. enemies should not  just appearing out of nowhere after waves and waves of previous enemies. the combat style of da3 should resemble a little more of dragon age origins than da2. 
If enemies are to be numerous, so be it, but dont stagger them so much in waves. Make controlling your team, your companions together with ur main more important and better than just controlling your main. something da2 encourages.In short more tatical combat , not mindless hack and slash.Rogue's backstabbing should be the way it is in origins. That being said..do keep the leap in attack when we first encounter enemies..really loved that.
And the combat motions of the rogue are a lot better do retain them 

secondly i get that Da 2 was about mages vs templars..but some mage enemies are seriously over powered wheares their counterparts are like completly useless. some balancing might be appropriate and i do realise mages being rarer should be stronger. But it shouldnt be too much

Thirdly, this might sound trivial but i really enjoy all the codex da origins had to offer, on everything. But especially on special items and all. we should have the option of examining weapons again.

Next, it will be so awesome if u could bring back the variety, the diversity and the colour of dragon age origins. Da2 was beautiful and high defined and i love it for that, but it lack the colour and many many different environmentsthat orgins gaved us.

Also please do bring back morrigan, leliana and bethany in some way . Of course this is a given..more and more customisation of our companions like we had in origins. Please.

Lastly..do keep the customisation that were given to us in DA2 for the apperance of our main. our  main was so much better looking in 2 than in origins. but please do not follow mass effect, the characters are seriously ugly.

i reckon i might sound overly demanding ,so I sincerly thank you for creating 2 games i love and enjoy..please consider your fans' suggestions for DA3. we are all hoping for the best[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png[/smilie]

Modifié par DarkCrownz, 19 mai 2012 - 01:33 .

[Rawgrim]

No more weightless weapons, spawning enemies, unlimited amounts of smokebombs, plain old invisibility for no reason, or exploding bodies. And bring back the finishing moves from DA:O.

[PaulSX]

MichaelStuart wrote...


2.Get rid of either cool down times or the stamina/mana meter: I just don't see the point of having two systems that stop you using your abilities. I would prefer that cool down times go as I find it adds no tactical challenge, were the stamina/mana meter at lest makes you conserve your abilities.

I agree with this. they should get rid of CD and portions that instantly replenish health/mana/stamina. And let health/Stamina/Mana regenerate by themselves in the combat at a slower rate. This will give the combat more tactical depth since you should carefully choose ablilities. Or if they want to make a truly action oriented game, make it like mass effect 2.