289 réponses à ce sujet

[Dakota Strider]

I would not expect someone fighting only with hands, to stay away with someone with a weapon, but given a weapon to parry with, if the "kiter" is quicker, he should have a chance to stay out of reach, mixing in deflecting attacks. And it is possible to move and load and shoot a bow. Especially a shortbow. Not a crossbow though.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 27 mai 2012 - 03:14 .

[wsandista]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I would not expect someone fighting only with hands, to stay away with someone with a weapon, but given a weapon to parry with, if the "kiter" is quicker, he should have a chance to stay out of reach, mixing in deflecting attacks. And it is possible to move and load and shoot a bow. Especially a shortbow. Not a crossbow though.

While that is an acceptable strategy for a duel, when there are several enemies things are different.

[Dakota Strider]

wsandista wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

I would not expect someone fighting only with hands, to stay away with someone with a weapon, but given a weapon to parry with, if the "kiter" is quicker, he should have a chance to stay out of reach, mixing in deflecting attacks. And it is possible to move and load and shoot a bow. Especially a shortbow. Not a crossbow though.

While that is an acceptable strategy for a duel, when there are several enemies things are different.

I was under the impression we were only talking about the Arishok battle.  However, if in a group combat, and you have teammates that would take advantage  to strike pursuers in the back, as well as intercept chasers, it "may" be possible.  Always depends on the circumstances.  If you are solo vs multiple enemies, only possible "realistic" way, would be if you were somehow faster, and able to retreat and attack in a much larger area, than most game combat maps allow.  And the strategy would be to pick off, or at least damage whichever foe seems to be closest.   Not viable in most situations.  Most intelligent foes would attempt to encircle you if they were faster, or may just back off and refuse to chase, or get separated.   But, never say never.   Hit and run tactics have been successful through history, and they can be applied in many ways.   Nothing is foolproof though.  Every great attack move has a counter, and every great defensive move has a flaw.

[wsandista]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I was under the impression we were only talking about the Arishok battle.

Oh, I really should have made that clear.

However, if in a group combat, and you have teammates that would take advantage  to strike pursuers in the back, as well as intercept chasers, it "may" be possible.  Always depends on the circumstances.  If you are solo vs multiple enemies, only possible "realistic" way, would be if you were somehow faster, and able to retreat and attack in a much larger area, than most game combat maps allow.  And the strategy would be to pick off, or at least damage whichever foe seems to be closest.   Not viable in most situations.  Most intelligent foes would attempt to encircle you if they were faster, or may just back off and refuse to chase, or get separated.   But, never say never.   Hit and run tactics have been successful through history, and they can be applied in many ways.   Nothing is foolproof though.  Every great attack move has a counter, and every great defensive move has a flaw.

Running around a room while foes chase you blindly while you are waiting to use your abilities shouldn't be a viable strategy, especially when soloing. Mobile Archery is a much more viable strategy, especially when you have a front line combatant drawing attention away from you.

[Provi-dance]

wsandista wrote...

Just thought I should add a few more things.

• Poison and Disease. These status effects are two of my favorite things from D&D, and I missed them quite a bit in DA. Poison and Disease should function similarly to how they do in 3rd edition D&D, where instead of dealing damage over time, they cause a negative status effect that worsens overtime.
  
• Fatigue. DA should have a rest mechanic, if you don't rest you become fatigued, which would have detrimental effects on the party.
  
• No natural Health Regeneration during combat. The only way a characters health should regenerate in combat is if they have a special ability or an item that grants regeneration. EDIT: Natural Regeneration should only happen during resting periods
  
• More status effects having resistance checks. Combatants should have a resistance check for every status effect, so certain effects from abilities can be resisted even if the victim is hit by the ability.
  
• Environmental Hazards. I miss the "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" scenario. On a serious note, if there is extreme weather or difficult terrain, there should be some effects on combat.

A big yes to this, as well.

Let's hope they're not "checking DIABLO III out aggressively" for combat tips.

Realmzmaster wrote...

A lot of what I am hearing here is that you want D & D mechanics in a DA game. The problem is the more DA looks like D & D the more potential for a lawsuit unless Bioware/EA decides to license the D20 system.

Numbers cannot be patented. So d20 is fine as long as they don't name their spells "Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting" or such.

[wsandista]

Provi-dance wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A lot of what I am hearing here is that you want D & D mechanics in a DA game. The problem is the more DA looks like D & D the more potential for a lawsuit unless Bioware/EA decides to license the D20 system.

Numbers cannot be patented. So d20 is fine as long as they don't name their spells "Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting" or such.

Actually d20 is patented by WotC, using it without a license would lead to a big lawsuit.

[Provi-dance]

wsandista wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A lot of what I am hearing here is that you want D & D mechanics in a DA game. The problem is the more DA looks like D & D the more potential for a lawsuit unless Bioware/EA decides to license the D20 system.

Numbers cannot be patented. So d20 is fine as long as they don't name their spells "Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting" or such.

Actually d20 is patented by WotC, using it without a license would lead to a big lawsuit.

D20 stands for a 20-sided die. You cannot patent a 20-sided die. Drakensang uses it as the core for their combat mechanics, for example.

[Provi-dance]

Also, you need to understand that role-playing combat mechanics CANNOT be patented.

"Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form."

http://www.copyright.../fls/fl108.html

[Dakota Strider]

I once had a second job on the weekends, delivering and setting up party equipment, and many of the themes of the equipment looked remarkably like Disney characters. I knew the company I worked for did not have licenses for that, so I asked weren't they worried about a lawsuit. I was told that as long as the depiction was at least 10% different than the original, and they did not use the actual names, they were not violating copyright laws. I assume the same is true of games of any sort. And so,it would be very possible, to make a combat system that borrowed many D&D or other rpg mechanics, and still not violate the WotC patent.

[wsandista]

Provi-dance wrote...
D20 stands for a 20-sided die. You cannot patent a 20-sided die. Drakensang uses it as the core for their combat mechanics, for example.

d20 is also the name of an RPG system currently owned by WotC. Using it in a video game can be quite problematic due to some of the restrictions WotC has on it.

However, using a sytem quite similar to d20 is allowed, because as you quoted in another post, certain game mechanics are not protected by copyright (at least for US law, I am not too sure aboutother countries IP laws).

Dakota Strider wrote...
I once had a second job on the weekends, delivering and setting up party equipment, and many of the themes of the equipment looked remarkably like Disney characters. I knew the company I worked for did not have licenses for that, so I asked weren't they worried about a lawsuit. I was told that as long as the depiction was at least 10% different than the original, and they did not use the actual names, they were not violating copyright laws. I assume the same is true of games of any sort. And so,it would be very possible, to make a combat system that borrowed many D&D or other rpg mechanics, and still not violate the WotC patent.

Actually characters are under trademark law, rather than copyright. Anyway, it is like you said, as long as they aren't exactly the same it is fair game. To use another example, Treants in D&D are quite similar to Ents in LOTR, yet to avoid being sued, D&D renamed them Treants.

It would be impossible to sue over games having similar mechanics, just think of all the lawsuits over XP! However, If DA functioned almost exactly like D&D 3rd edition(NWN) then there might be a case for a lawsuit.

[Dakota Strider]

Another thing, since a computer is being used, you do not "need" a d20 to figure out odds. The computer can roll a 19-sided or 21-sided "die". There are many ways that Bioware could choose to move Dragon Age closer to NwN or BG style combat, that would not get them into copyright problems, if they desired. WotC/Hasbro may be lawsuit happy, but I doubt they would attempt a suit they were likely to lose, that costs too much money.

[Althix]

perhaps i will sound like Daniel Bryan but
1)yes
2)yes
3)yes
4)yes
5)yes

and bloody, spectacular kills. You know on a Varric's personal quest in DA2 that dwarf said something like: "these men were completely out their heads" (pointing on some pile of bodies), and i just thought you are poor sad bastard Varric, you never saw Warden and Sten in action, if you did you would undestand the meaning of "completely out their heads".

Modifié par secretsandlies, 29 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[Provi-dance]

wsandista wrote...

d20 is also the name of an RPG system currently owned by WotC. Using it in a video game can be quite problematic due to some of the restrictions WotC has on it.

However, using a sytem quite similar to d20 is allowed, because as you quoted in another post, certain game mechanics are not protected by copyright (at least for US law, I am not too sure aboutother countries IP laws).

 

What restrictions?
What combat mechanics do you think would warrant a lawsuit if impleneted by someone else? The formula for hitting someone?

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

I'll probably by stoned to death for this but I want to actually control my character's actions, not tell her do this, do that. then watch two people stand there taking turns to whack each other.

[Dakota Strider]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

I'll probably by stoned to death for this but I want to actually control my character's actions, not tell her do this, do that. then watch two people stand there taking turns to whack each other.

Not exactly sure what you mean by control.  I like to be able to micromanage my character's moves, as well as all his henchmen/companions.  I think a lot of the fans of the older Bioware games have similar preference.   Unless you mean by control, making each swing of the sword, aiming each arrow, much as you do in TES Skyrim.  I enjoyed that combat to a degree, but there is no way you could do that for a whole party.   Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "control"?

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Yeah pretty much, blocking etc. I understand dice rolls are like the holy grail, but you can still incorporate that into player controlled action. For example you try to hit someone with a low skill, dice rolls, you miss. Or you timed the block right but the enemy still stabs you in a gap because he's that good. It's not very engaging when it requires no skill on your part but this way character skills are important too. No complaints about party control, it was lovely and I liked the tactics book.

[Dakota Strider]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Yeah pretty much, blocking etc. I understand dice rolls are like the holy grail, but you can still incorporate that into player controlled action. For example you try to hit someone with a low skill, dice rolls, you miss. Or you timed the block right but the enemy still stabs you in a gap because he's that good. It's not very engaging when it requires no skill on your part but this way character skills are important too. No complaints about party control, it was lovely and I liked the tactics book.

Ok, I understand you.  I am not opposed to those type of games.  However, it would be a different game.  It would go from being a party based combat, that depends on tactics, to a more solo type of combat style, which focuses mainly on 1 on 1 combat skills.    The first relies more strongly on the player being able to plan and strategize.   The second relies on the individual player to be able "wield" the weapons competently.   Kind of like Live Action Rpg for people that don't want to get out of their chairs.  

I would be disappointed if DA3 went in that direction, because there are plenty of other games out there that incorporate that style of combat.  But very few that do the tactical combats, where you can control the whole field of action, as we have been able to do in older Bioware games.

[wsandista]

Provi-dance wrote...
What restrictions?

The stipulations required by WotC to use their system. Go here if you want more information.

What combat mechanics do you think would warrant a lawsuit if impleneted by someone else? The formula for hitting someone?

Possibly, it all depends. If attack rolls function identically, WotC will most likely sue. If they have a solid case all depends on the lawyers hired, where they sue, and who judges the case.

Dakota Strider wrote...
Another thing, since a computer is being used, you do not "need" a d20 to figure out odds. The computer can roll a 19-sided or 21-sided "die". There are many ways that Bioware could choose to move Dragon Age closer to NwN or BG style combat, that would not get them into copyright problems, if they desired. WotC/Hasbro may be lawsuit happy, but I doubt they would attempt a suit they were likely to lose, that costs too much money.

Absolutely. D&D style simply could mean tactical combat. If Hasbro were to sue everyone with similar(which is quite encompassing) rules as D&D, then almost every Pen and Paper RPG would have been sued by them.

Modifié par wsandista, 29 mai 2012 - 10:20 .

[Provi-dance]

wsandista wrote...

Possibly, it all depends. If attack rolls function identically, WotC will most likely sue. If they have a solid case all depends on the lawyers hired, where they sue, and who judges the case.

They wouldn't sue. Because they know better than to appear ridiculous and ignorant.

You can't sue someone for using a 20-sided die roll to calculate if your character's attack score (AB) defeates the character's defense score (AC).
I mean, you could sue, but you'd be laughed out of the court.


Anyway, enough about the law.
Also, you know that there are banned topics on the BS network.. religion, politics, social issues, terrorism, petitions etc. etc. So that sensitive BSN dwellers don't get too upset and start "fighting" and mashing the report button. 
Draconic copyright law is probably one of those topics. Therefore, let's keep those very seriouz topics for their games' use only, which are pure fantasy works and all similarities with RL world situations/events is purely a coincidence which ensures no emotional distress is provoked.  

[wsandista]

Provi-dance wrote...
They wouldn't sue. Because they know better than to appear ridiculous and ignorant.

You can't sue someone for using a 20-sided die roll to calculate if your character's attack score (AB) defeates the character's defense score (AC).
I mean, you could sue, but you'd be laughed out of the court.

Like I said it depends, if the calculations are exactly the same(meaning base attack bonus, ability bonus, etc) , then the argument exists. And since when has looking foolish ever stooped a corporation from trying to suck in as much money as possible?

Anyway, enough about the law.
Also, you know that there are banned topics on the BS network.. religion, politics, social issues, terrorism, petitions etc. etc. So that sensitive BSN dwellers don't get too upset and start "fighting" and mashing the report button. 
Draconic copyright law is probably one of those topics. Therefore, let's keep those very seriouz topics for their games' use only, which are pure fantasy works and all similarities with RL world situations/events is purely a coincidence which ensures no emotional distress is provoked.  

Ahh yes some BSN dwellers get their precious feelings hurt easily. I apologize to any who might be offended with the discussion of copyright law.

Back to the discussion at hand then.

I have another round of suggestions for combat in DA3

1. Give us more interesting creatures to fight. I personally would like to see more variety in undead, as well as some aberrations. Mind-Flayers, Beholders, and Aboleths are vicious and challenging foes in D&D. Similar creatures need to appear in DA.

2.There needs to be ways of avoiding combat. I think everyone agrees that combat is a central part of most games, however, in RPGs there should be quite a few instances where combat can be avoided. DA3 definitely needs other ways of handling challenges than combat.

3.classes need to be able to take on more roles. I actually have another thread about classes. However, as classes do determine how combat will be handled, it needs to be addressed here as well. DA2 had much more limited options for classes than DAO. DA3 should not do that, players should be able to spec classes to fill more than one role. I see it like this Warrior: CC, Tank, Damage. Rouge: Tank, Damage, Disabler. Mage:CC, Support, Disabler, Damage. With specializations open up even more roles for classes.

[Althix]

one more thing
global cooldowns on abilities. We have such a thing in DA:O, so you just can't spamm AoE or CCs from engagment to engagment.
in DA2 however as soon as skirmish is over all abilities is ready to use again, no matter how deadly those abilities are.

[AkiKishi]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Yeah pretty much, blocking etc. I understand dice rolls are like the holy grail, but you can still incorporate that into player controlled action. For example you try to hit someone with a low skill, dice rolls, you miss. Or you timed the block right but the enemy still stabs you in a gap because he's that good. It's not very engaging when it requires no skill on your part but this way character skills are important too. No complaints about party control, it was lovely and I liked the tactics book.

Having player actions and a dice roll leads to a sort of double fail chance. Now not only do you need to hit the right place, you also need to hope the dice rolls well too. This is why hands on RPG systems use modifier skills rather than dice rolls.

In DA you don't really have the time for anything hands on unless you play with full AI control. Even then you still need to split your attention between your character and the rest of the party.

[MichaelStuart]

wsandista wrote...

1. Give us more interesting creatures to fight. I personally would like to see more variety in undead, as well as some aberrations. Mind-Flayers, Beholders, and Aboleths are vicious and challenging foes in D&D. Similar creatures need to appear in DA.

2.There needs to be ways of avoiding combat. I think everyone agrees that combat is a central part of most games, however, in RPGs there should be quite a few instances where combat can be avoided. DA3 definitely needs other ways of handling challenges than combat.

3.classes need to be able to take on more roles. I actually have another thread about classes. However, as classes do determine how combat will be handled, it needs to be addressed here as well. DA2 had much more limited options for classes than DAO. DA3 should not do that, players should be able to spec classes to fill more than one role. I see it like this Warrior: CC, Tank, Damage. Rouge: Tank, Damage, Disabler. Mage:CC, Support, Disabler, Damage. With specializations open up even more roles for classes.

1.Agree

2.Agree

3.Agree, but I wish they would just get rid of classes and allow me to build my character however I want.

[Provi-dance]

- Monsters with passive (on hit) abilities that a player has a chance to negate with a resistence check. This includes lifesteal, curses, penalties to damage/attack/defense/armor/attributes etc. Makes monsters and combat more interesting.

- Return of the armor mechanics from DA:O or similar; floating armor value vs armor penetration roll, but more balanced. Heavy armor shouldn't be a no-brainer. It should protect more, yes, but should come with some disadvantages. It's harder to dodge/evade blows wearing a suit of iron, therefore there should be an inherent defense penalty when wearing heavier armor.


- classes unique not through arbitrary restrictions on weapons/armor, but through a set of bonuses added to each class on level up (+ player chosen attributes/abilities/skills) and some unique appropriate ability trees. For example, the warrior could get a bonus to HP on each level up, the rogue could get a small bonus to defense or dexterity.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Regarding the speed issue, I agree - I hope DA3 tones down DA2's battle speed a little. Doesn't need to go back all the way to DA:O (Though I'd be fine with that too), but just tone it down a little. No enemies exploding to dagger strikes please!

[edit:] OH! And please have enemies that use a wider variety of damage types! In DA2, there's no reason to have anythign but fire and electricy resistance. All the other elemental resistance runes are pointless, because so few, or no enemies inflict that type of damage.

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 30 mai 2012 - 06:03 .