25 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

I believe that DA3 should meet these criteria in terms of combat

• Enemies should follow the same rules as the party. Foes should use the same ruleset as the party, instead of behaving like Final Fantasy monsters with huge globs of health but low damage output. All opponents need to attack at the same speed as party members, use the same attack/defense mechanics as the party, draw from the ame Talent/Spell trees as the party, and damage like a party member of the same class.(The only exception are monsters, which have no class)
• Combat speed should be closer to the speed in DAO. While I thought that combat in DAO could get a little slow(particularly with a Two-Handed Warrior), DA2 was much too fast for my liking. I think using the DAO combat speeds as a base, then multiplying basic attack speeds by a factor of .8 would be a sufficient pace for combat.
• Multipliers for weapons need to be more diverse than in DA2, but more uniform than in DAO. Attribute multipliers should depend on the weapon style like in DAO, while unlike DAO, most weapons shouldn't have speed or attribute modifiers(the speed modifier on maces made them unusable)
• Bosses should just be extremely powerful enemies with high resistances(or immunities), not actiony fights that require the PC to move around into awkward positions while some attack is charging. Many of the boss fights in DA2 seems like they would fit in more in a Zelda game than an RPG.
• Traps should have much more of an impact. In both DAO and DA2, traps were more of an annoyance than a danger, I believe this should change. Traps need to have disastrous effects when triggered that can result in characters getting killed.

[Allan Schumacher]

Enemies should follow the same rules as the party. Foes should use the same ruleset as the party, instead of behaving like Final Fantasy monsters with huge globs of health but low damage output. All opponents need to attack at the same speed as party members, use the same attack/defense mechanics as the party, draw from the ame Talent/Spell trees as the party, and damage like a party member of the same class.(The only exception are monsters, which have no class)

I can understand why this works with a game with more rigid rules like AD&D, but most of the examples you state seem like they could exist just as well even without the "enemies must follow the same rules as the party" modifier.

For example: enemies not being globs of health with low damage is a valid criticism, but in order to achieve this would enemies need to follow the exact same rules to a T?

Since you've made an exemption for animals, am I to assume that the exemption applies to all non-humanoid (i.e. non player class) creatures? My presumption is yes, but if that's the case then it would seem that the condition placed by the first point is muddied, since there's no way of anyone verifying that the creatures are "following the rules." (unless we were to take the time to explicitly spell out what those rules are...)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 juin 2012 - 12:40 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Provi-dance wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Enemies should follow the same rules as the party. Foes should use the same ruleset as the party, instead of behaving like Final Fantasy monsters with huge globs of health but low damage output. All opponents need to attack at the same speed as party members, use the same attack/defense mechanics as the party, draw from the ame Talent/Spell trees as the party, and damage like a party member of the same class.(The only exception are monsters, which have no class)

I can understand why this works with a game with more rigid rules like AD&D, but most of the examples you state seem like they could exist just as well even without the "enemies must follow the same rules as the party" modifier.

For example: enemies not being globs of health with low damage is a valid criticism, but in order to achieve this would enemies need to follow the exact same rules to a T?

Since you've made an exemption for animals, am I to assume that the exemption applies to all non-humanoid (i.e. non player class) creatures? My presumption is yes, but if that's the case then it would seem that the condition placed by the first point is muddied, since there's no way of anyone verifying that the creatures are "following the rules." (unless we were to take the time to explicitly spell out what those rules are...)

A robust combat system doesn't need (completely) different rules for enemies to balance things out.

It's all about having a measure. Is it ok for certain enemies to have twice as much hit points as the player character? Of course. Is it ok for enemies to have 200x as much HP? No, because it's ridiculous.
Why can't my PC ever miss against enemies, while at same time he's constantly evading blows?
So, it's not about "following the exact same rules to a T", it's about people not wanting to have completely different rules governing the PC on one hand and the rest of the word on the other.

Since you mentioned D&D rules... Let's take a succubus as an example.
She's a demon so she's immune to some effects because it makes sense in the context of the lore. Her melee attack also has a chance to drain a level. She possibly has some magic resistance as well and can charm her opponents. That's what makes her unique and dangeroues.
She isn't a punching bag with 300x more HP than the player. She has a defense value or AC if you will just like the PC (so the player can and probably will miss some attacks against her), she has saving throws just like the player, she has HPs comparable to the player, she has an attack value that works the same way the player's attack value works. And she's... still unique. More unique than any of the DA's 30 000 HP punching bags will ever be.

Sorry if this just sounds terse, so is the issue really just that guys have a ton of hitpoints and it's lame to have to wail on them when it doesn't really make any sense?

The unfortunate thing about using D&D as an example is that it's a ruleset that requires explicit declaration of all the properties of the character based upon it's core use (PnP games).

Is there actually an advantage in knowing what the Succubus' AC is, what her saving throws are, or is all you're really looking for is the idea that her hit points appear to be an appropriate level and that the encounter with her is enjoyable.  That is, must the armor rating of the succubus be specifically a function of her attributes, or does it work as long as her armor rating is set to a value that makes it so she can avoid/absorb damage at a rate you'd expect?

Compound this with the fact that the rules aren't explicitly laid out and transparent.  Note that with a succubus we already seem to be okay with foes having abilities that the player doesn't have the ability to learn, as long as we feel it makes sense.

I pose this just to make everyone (including myself) think and to be a bit of a devil's advocate, not to give any impression that I'm of the opinion of "I think it's better to do it this way so deal with it."

[Allan Schumacher]

Hmm.. I believe I didn't have an "explicit declaration of all the properties of the charater" when playing games based on the D&D ruleset so I'm not sure what you mean by this. :-) If you're talking about the PC; sure. I expect to know the properties of the character I'm controlling. Enemies'; not.

When I mentioned this, I more meant that the only reason why you know that the Succubus is "playing by the rules" is because as a part of the monster manual, it must be stated.

Oh, but the player can drain levels with his attacks, just like the succubus. http://social.biowar...ns/sideways.png If he finds an item that drains levels.

If you're playing a D&D game featuring a succubus but does not feature an item that can drain levels, do you still feel that the succubus is still playing by the rules?

Now, if you're playing a Dragon Age game with a succubus that can drain levels, but does not feature an item that can allow the player to drain levels, does this mean that the succubus is not playing by the rules?

Also, how could I level drain/attribute drain an enemy if that enemy doesn't have levels/attributes because it works under a different set of principles?

What expectations do you have when a creature's level is drained? As long as the targeted creature saw decreases in their attack rating, defense, hit points, and maybe also damage (particularly for special abilities/spells).

I realize I'm mostly just arguing semantics, but part of why I'm doing this is because I'm curious if people necessarily want strict adherence to the rules, or if they want opponents that reasonably measure up to their player character (and the relative level difference) in terms of capabilities, and don't have any extreme differences that aren't easily understood via the lore.

(I'm also just facilitating discussion as my friend and I decide if we want to catch a movie or not.... yes you're me pawns and you're all entertaining me by continuing to reply. Muahhahahaha. I mean... this is fun)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 juin 2012 - 03:03 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Dakota Strider wrote...

@Allan
What really brings up this subject, is some of the battles with humans in DA2. You have a swarm of cannon fodder that seems to be useful for nothing but absorb some damage before they explode. And there will usually be one or two bosses that have more health than a team of Clydesdales, and stand around waving their arms. In large hordes, they will always manage to do some damage, especially when they "poof" in all around you. But they do not behave as PC's do. It really ruins immersion of the game, and makes it feel very arcade like.

I think that in some cases, cannon fodder can still work (I think it worked quite well in DAO's ending), but I do see your point.

Rexamining the combat system, as well as things like health regen and stuff like that, are things we're doing.  Though the way you style your point it's essentially (and fairly) that the way BioWare did combat encounters in DA2 was not something you found particularly fun.

The idea of fighting less hordes, but rather foes that are more similar to the capabilities (without level scaling I hear too... ) of the PC is more along the lines of what you're looking for.


FOr the record, I'm not a fan of typical boss fights specifically because they're usually "repeatedly hit a guy with lots of hitpoints" and have been this way in gaming forever.  Heck, I remember playing with friends in elementary school and most of them seemed to be like "okay now we're fighting a guy and it'll take 8 hits to defeat" and I was always like "NO NO NO that makes no sense why can he take 8 shots when a normal person can't!?"

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, it works for Diablo

Though I can't promise anything. A ton of people in ME threads say they miss the boss fight. Can't please everyone! I just need to mind trick the leads!!

[Allan Schumacher]

But I really wanted to pitch the Megaman idea....

Think about it... defeating bosses givse your PC more powah and it won't be level scaling. You'll just fight other guys that just have their one power. And it's non-linear!


(On that note I'm out to hang with some friends. Night all)

[Allan Schumacher]

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

But I really wanted to pitch the Megaman idea....

Think about it... defeating bosses givse your PC more powah and it won't be level scaling. You'll just fight other guys that just have their one power. And it's non-linear!


(On that note I'm out to hang with some friends. Night all)

Sounds......weird enough....
As a megaman fans and beated a lot of megaman games,I still don't think it's good in an RPG.But it depends on you guys' job.

Just to be clear I wasn't being serious with this idea!

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 02 juin 2012 - 07:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

You see, in these other games I never posed this question to myself.. "wth, what is this, are they playing by the rules??".. because it felt very natural. Creatures and enemies felt integral to the setting even if I haven't read any rulebooks. I can't accept bandits and wolves and skeletons that are miss-proof and have countless more hit points than my character as natural and integral to any setting that makes sense, if you get the drift.

That's fair and it was sort of what I was investigating by posing the questions in this thread. Basically figuring out for my own curiosity the specific about "what is the cause that leads to someone saying they want characters to obey the same rules?"

Thanks for the discussion!

[Allan Schumacher]

Preparation? Could mean resting strategically before venturing forth into a dungeon, but it's more likely he's talking about pre-combat buffs and buying potions. I'd love to see the return of the rest mechanic.

Preparation could also mean going "Oh look some hostiles ahead. What plan am I going to come up with to deal with them.

[Allan Schumacher]

It *CAN* be tricky if a game developer has an interesting idea for a key feature of a game, if that feature can just end up being save scummed.

I think there's going to be a tendency to favor the lower cost features for things like that.

I'm of the opinion that gamers in general really don't actually care for consequence in the true sense of the world. I think when they say they want choice and consequence, by consequence they mean they want the game to have varying reactions that respond in a way that they like. In other words, consequence is interesting when it's fully anticipated and matches their expectations (and the expectations are usually some level of benefit).

Making alterations to the save game system, however, in order to accent a feature often sees much more vitriol. As an example, see Alpha Protocol. Their checkpoint system was designed in a way that it happened immediately after conversations. With a lack of save anywhere, combined with the timed conversations, in general I'd say the system was not well received. (Though I really liked it).

[Allan Schumacher]

and is that so wrong?

I actually don't think it is wrong either. It's more just a difference in expectations between myself as a gamer.

I like appropriate reactivity in my games because I feel it's something unique to the medium and it engages me in the game. So I like the reactivity in almost anyway, and enjoy being thrown curveballs where sometimes a choice that I make results in something bad happening later on.

It ties in with a critique that I have had of RPGs for sometime where in almost every case, being the noble hero comes with little to not cost (often additional benefit) to being more selfish or even evil. I dislike when sparing the guy gets me the same reward as killing him, for example. I find it interesting when sparing him results in him kicking me in the butt again later. Kind of like the german soldier in Saving Private Ryan.

[Allan Schumacher]

BobSmith101 wrote...
The trick there is to make the consequences appear later rather than as a direct result of the action. JRPG flags are like that.

I'm a big supporter of having consequences reflected at a later point in the game.

i can understand having some negative consequences to being good, but
when it's too much you end up feeling being good is a punishment rather
than a playstyle. or worse, being good and the situation surrounding the
quest stays the same (the mages you could help escape in da2's act 1
just appearing again in act 2 captured)

I don't actually mind if some situations are ultimately not within your control.  Part of making the choices is just about defining your character as making that particular choice.  I do think there's such as thing as excessive player agency, and not just because it can be expensive for a CRPG.  If excessive player agency exists, it starts to hamper the verisimilitude because it starts to overstate the influence the PC has on the game world and effectively makes the NPCs pawns to react to the PC.  At its core games are always going to react to the player, but if you can write it into the narrative that other people are doing things while I'm doing things, it just makes things better.

[Allan Schumacher]

When we talk about consequences, we're talking about consequences for the character, not for the player. The auto-save after conversations in Alpha Protocol forces consequences on the player, which is why it wasn't well-liked.

These are not mutually exclusive. It's impossible to entirely disassociate the player from the character in game since the player is the one driving the character and making decisions on behalf of the character.

Now, what about a typical DA game? "Oh look some hostiles ahead. What plan am I going to come up with to deal with them? Hmmm... I'll charge in, like always, and try to slaughter them on the spot."

Mike's commentary is about a future game though.

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

These are not mutually exclusive. It's impossible to entirely disassociate the player from the character in game since the player is the one driving the character and making decisions on behalf of the character.

When I play, I do entirely divorce myself from the character.  The character's personality was established at the start of the game, and that's what drives the decision-making.  I'm just the guy pressing the button, but any choices are his.

Within the game, the player doesn't exist.  Therefore, the player's preferences can't matter.

It is impossible for you to divorce yourself from your character.  As the game player, you're the only one qualified to determine the acceptable reaction and decisions based on the framework you've created for your character.

If it was possible for you to entirely divorce yourself from your character, you wouldn't actually need to play the game.  It'd be playing itself and making its own decisions.  There'd be no need to for you to press a button.

Any choice that your character makes in the game, is a choice that you, the player, deems an appropriate choice for the character based on how you've imagined it.  As the guy pressing the button, the game requires your input to determine which button to press.

Even the creation of the character's personality is a complete manifestation of the player creating said character.

[Allan Schumacher]

Provi-dance wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Mike's commentary is about a future game though.

Hence the speculation about what does "preparation" specifically encompass in Dragon Age 3.

Then I'm doubly confused.  You concluded that it might be tactical resting, but seemed dismissive of the idea that preparation may also include simply the fact that the player may plan the fight before hand.

I'm curious why you made this assessment, unless I'm just misunderstanding you.

[Allan Schumacher]

Character creation is, yes, but once that's done I choose options by consulting not my preferences, but that character design.

The only way the character can make appropriate decisions for the character's design, is if YOU deem it to be an appropriate choice for the character. They are by your preferences. The fact that the character may make choices that you yourself may not make if you found yourself actually in that position is irrelevant. The character can only make the choices you choose for it. There's a reason why you pick the choices that you do when playing those characters.

The player's metagame knowledge is irrelevant. The player's preferences with regard to outcomes are irrelevant. All that matters is that character design.

If it was irrelevant, it'd be impossible for you to make any choices on behalf of the character. You make the choices that you do because you have a preference based on the type of character design you have come up with. This is actually fundamental about roleplay from a psychological perspective. It is a fact that a person can never truly remove themselves when making any decisions. When playing an RPG, you're making decisions on behalf of your character. Ergo, it's impossible for you to completely divorce yourself from your character. You actually concede this when you say this: "I choose options by consulting not my preferences, but that character design."

You're choosing options. Ergo, it's impossible for you not be impacting the character. You make the choices that you make because you feel that those are the choices that best suit the design of the character you created.

And yes, if I could program that entire character personality into the game, the game wouldn't need me at all, and I could just sit back and watch it. I would be perfectly content doing that, too. If you give me a game where I can program in the PC's personality in exhaustive detail, I'll give that a shot.

And it all comes falling down if YOU feel that the choices that this AI makes don't make sense with the design you've created. Even if the logic behind the choices makes sense. Even if some other person feels it's a perfectly valid decision.


If you aren't the one making the decisions based upon your preferences, then you wouldn't be upset at things like the dialogue wheel or anything else that you feel artificially restricts your character.  The only reason it's a restriction is because you don't feel the choices are satisfying enough for you, the game player.  If you were truly divorced from the character, such things wouldn't bother you because you've no investment in the character.


EDIT:  Realizing my absurdity, I'll be stopping this discussion here.  Clearly we don't agree on the issue and there's no point in continuing it any further.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 juin 2012 - 02:30 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

I don't know if I'd say being the noble hero comes with no cost. I've found the cost is that the good guy normally gets less of a reward in terms of experience, ingame money or powerful items than the bag guy.

The good guy will spare a character and earn that characters thanks and maybe a small amount of gold or an item as a reward (which the good guy will turn down because they're a good guy). The bad guy will kill a character, loot his corpse for all the money and items he would have otherwised offered, loot his house for all the items in there and then not have to worry that the character will come back and stab him in the back later on.

Of course I consider the more pleasing narrative and story that comes with being a good guy a much greater reward then any sort of experience boost or item a bad guy might receive. I just thought that I'd point out that from a pure gameplay perspective in terms of building a powerful character it's often a lot better to go the bad guy route.

I find games often present this as being a potential outcome, but it is in fact not actually the case.  As in, often regardless of what the game tells you, you often come away with similar rewards regardless of the choice that you make.

As in "You can kill the guy and get his loot" or "You can help the guy, and he ends up giving you equivalent loot as a reward."

To be fair, I'm thinking back to earlier gaming days (KOTOR in particular has a good example with the bullied merchant on Taris) so maybe it is a bit less prevalent today.  THere are some good examples of games that do much better (Alpha Protocol is the one that comes to mind for me).

[Allan Schumacher]

Provi-dance wrote...

I didn't dismiss it.

You stated the obvious (that preparation involves a thought process also known as planning future actions) so I pointed out I was specifically commenting what kind of actions we could expect. As in... actual in-game actions before the battle begins.
We'll have the option to pause the game, so if I don't need to use any spells, abilities, potions or simply rest before the battle starts, why wouldn't I just enter the fight, pause and evaluate the situation? Would you call that preparation? In this situation is there a need to plan beforehand at all, since the pause feature doesn't have a time limit?
Is it positioning you're thinking about? He's mentioned "preparation" and "positioning" as separate topics.
I hope I explained it better now.

Preparation would include positioning.  But while buffs and whatnot are one means of preparing, other things I prefer to do are things like threat assessment.  Do any look like mages?  Can I get to them and burn them down.  Are there ways that I can manage the fight to isolate the bigger threats?  Stuff like that.

You mentioned that DA2 (and maybe DAO?) the preparation was "charge in and fight."  Wouldn't you rather that the idea was to actually have a plan of attack (whether paused) that you felt was necessary in order to maximize your chances of success during the encounter?

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius, agree to disagree.  We have different definitions of what we expect when it comes to roleplaying.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 juin 2012 - 07:46 .

[Allan Schumacher]

The way I played.. I wouldn't say I needed "preparation". I'd send the one with the highest defense/HP in, leave the squishy one behind and start pounding on the one that, from my previous knowledge, is the highest threat or easiest to kill. If I had no previous knowledge of a specific creature type, I'd try to guess or I'd simply start with the closest one.

Did you play on Nightmare too? Haha (I didn't....)

Sounds to me, though, like maybe it was a problem with DAO's combat? Hehe


You could very well be correct though. I don't know the context of Mike's preparation comment. Could be buffs and other active abilities. I hope it'd be more of what I listed earlier though

[Allan Schumacher]

So resting is out of the question?

At this point nothing is out of the question hahaha.

[Allan Schumacher]

At this point I wouldn't say anything is guaranteed either.

What do you mean by "natural health regeneration" though?

[Allan Schumacher]

i'm guessing, regenerating health out of combat.

The word natural is what throws me off.  DA2's health regeneration likely wasn't "natural."

Although in reality health regen in general is something we're evaluating, so I suppose that level of detail is a bit irrelevant lol.

[Allan Schumacher]

I haven't played Dragon's Dogma (I am primarily a PC gamer). Could you get me more information about it, mostly just because I'm curious?

Videos or links would be fine.