289 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelStuart]

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

[Provi-dance]

- Attributes should work the same for each class. No silly "primary attributes", please. Strength is strength for a rogue, for a warrior and for a mage. As is dexterity, constitution, intelligence and other attributes.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with abilities one can pick to twist the default mechanics a bit. For example, the rogue (or warrior!) could pick a passive ability that lets him draw part of the damage for light weapons from dexterity instead of strength.

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

Probably not, but I'm not sure.

I liked the attack speed in DA:O and wouldn't mind if it was slower.

[Swordfishtrombone]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

It was cartoonishly fast. I'm no absolute-realism-freak, but you shouldn't be able to swing great swords and massive hammers as if they were made of styrofoam.

[AkiKishi]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

Depends how you play it. If you just play it like an action game thats one thing. If you are constantly pausing to give orders thats another.

I can handle about 90% of the game in real time and some times watching peoples youtube movies of them pausing to give orders just because they can sends me to sleep. The slower pacing of DAO made that a more natural thing.

[Dakota Strider]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

As I have stated before, my belief is a faster game requires a dumber AI, to give the player a chance to keep up.  But, I am curious as an example of a game you have played that you believe is fast enough to suit you?

[MichaelStuart]

Dakota Strider wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

As I have stated before, my belief is a faster game requires a dumber AI, to give the player a chance to keep up.  But, I am curious as an example of a game you have played that you believe is fast enough to suit you?

Tetris on fast diffcultly 

[wsandista]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

As I have stated before, my belief is a faster game requires a dumber AI, to give the player a chance to keep up.  But, I am curious as an example of a game you have played that you believe is fast enough to suit you?

Tetris on fast diffcultly 

Sir, I believe you may be looking at the wrong game genre.

[MichaelStuart]

wsandista wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

As I have stated before, my belief is a faster game requires a dumber AI, to give the player a chance to keep up.  But, I am curious as an example of a game you have played that you believe is fast enough to suit you?

Tetris on fast diffcultly 

Sir, I believe you may be looking at the wrong game genre.

What I mean is that the best speed for me is when you have less than a second to make your move.
Dragon Age 2 gave you more than a second, which is more than ethough time for me to tell my party what to do.
Dragon age Origins pactical gave me all the time in the world.

[wsandista]

MichaelStuart wrote...

wsandista wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

As I have stated before, my belief is a faster game requires a dumber AI, to give the player a chance to keep up.  But, I am curious as an example of a game you have played that you believe is fast enough to suit you?

Tetris on fast diffcultly 

Sir, I believe you may be looking at the wrong game genre.

What I mean is that the best speed for me is when you have less than a second to make your move.
Dragon Age 2 gave you more than a second, which is more than ethough time for me to tell my party what to do.
Dragon age Origins pactical gave me all the time in the world.

Generally that is what is desired in RPGs with more tactical combat. While I agree that speeds such as Skyrim or The Witcher would be great for an action game, attempting to replicate that same speed with a party-based game is quite difficult and generally results in "dumber AI" as Mr. Strider explained. Dumb AI is not desirable for me in most games.

[Sejborg]

Don't worry. The combat will be "awesome".

[bEVEsthda]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Am I the only one who found Dragon Age 2 too slow?

Lol 

Lots of actions were instantenous - just like in some Japanese fighting games (this is possible to see by examining individual frames) - the movement just an illusion, a trick on the mind. So what does words like "slow" and "fast" mean to you, in this context?

[AkiKishi]

wsandista wrote...

Generally that is what is desired in RPGs with more tactical combat. While I agree that speeds such as Skyrim or The Witcher would be great for an action game, attempting to replicate that same speed with a party-based game is quite difficult and generally results in "dumber AI" as Mr. Strider explained. Dumb AI is not desirable for me in most games.

I'm liking White Knight Chronicles speed. No auto attack, different attacks depending on the weapon, some of which cost magic points (and action chips) and some which don't.

In essence its a 3 by 8 grid. giving you almost instant acess to many more actions than DA/2 Somewhat similiar to a MMOs hotbar. Because DA2 was basically a lot of pressing X.



First quest so not many skills and your solo but you can see the system. Forgot about the PC character oop, but it plays little part in the story game.

PS How fast the circle charges depends on your load. Light equipment to heavy.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 juin 2012 - 07:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Face of Evil wrote...

I disagree with Point #1 for a couple reasons. First, I believe that party members and PCs should be treated differently than enemies because it helps reinforce that these are exceptional people, not simply random NPCs who managed to get to a really high level.

That they reached high level is what makes them exceptional.

I very much would like to see an end to asymmetrical combat mechanics of the sort we see in DA2.  I agree with point #1.

wsandista wrote...

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.

While my preference is for real-time-with-pause combat, at DA2's speed it is nearly unplayable.  I would rather play a fully turn-based game than something that runs as quickly as DA2.  I agree with point #2.

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.

I'm not entirely thrilled with the concept of bosses at all, and I certainly wouldn't approve of giving them immunities simply to make them more challenging.

The very concept of boss fights conflicts with your first suggestion.  If everyone follows the same rules, then bosses can't have immunities unless there's some avenue by which any relevantly similar character could gain similar immunities.

If there is to be a challenging encounter at the end of a quest, fine, but having an encounter that breaks the rules established in the rest of the game is an absolute no go.

Who remembers Davaeorn?  In BG, he was the boss at the bottom of the Cloakwood Mines.  He was a mage, he followed mage rules, and the only thing that made his encounter especially difficult was his ability to cast Dimension Door to move around his lair.  His use of the spell was largely consistent with the AD&D rules that governed the game, but Dimension Door wasn't a spell the PC was allowed to learn.  That's about as much deviation from the core game rules I'd allow in a boss fight.

And I'd like to see more quests end with something other than a powerful foe to vanquish.

I disagree with point #4, though perhaps not for the reasons others might.

On points 3 and 5, I have no strong opinion.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 juin 2012 - 09:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Provi-dance wrote...

- Attributes should work the same for each class. No silly "primary attributes", please. Strength is strength for a rogue, for a warrior and for a mage. As is dexterity, constitution, intelligence and other attributes.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with abilities one can pick to twist the default mechanics a bit. For example, the rogue (or warrior!) could pick a passive ability that lets him draw part of the damage for light weapons from dexterity instead of strength.

I agree entirely.  Strength is strength.  Dexterity is dexterity.

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Generally that is what is desired in RPGs with more tactical combat. While I agree that speeds such as Skyrim or The Witcher would be great for an action game, attempting to replicate that same speed with a party-based game is quite difficult and generally results in "dumber AI" as Mr. Strider explained. Dumb AI is not desirable for me in most games.

I'm liking White Knight Chronicles speed. No auto attack, different attacks depending on the weapon, some of which cost magic points (and action chips) and some which don't.

In essence its a 3 by 8 grid. giving you almost instant acess to many more actions than DA/2 Somewhat similiar to a MMOs hotbar. Because DA2 was basically a lot of pressing X.



First quest so not many skills and your solo but you can see the system. Forgot about the PC character oop, but it plays little part in the story game.

PS How fast the circle charges depends on your load. Light equipment to heavy.

You seem to be a quite a fan of action/JRPGs sir.

I also enjoy them so I have a question, should I get Xenoblade or Dragons Dogma?

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The very concept of boss fights conflicts with your first suggestion.  If everyone follows the same rules, then bosses can't have immunities unless there's some avenue by which any relevantly similar character could gain similar immunities.

If there is to be a challenging encounter at the end of a quest, fine, but having an encounter that breaks the rules established in the rest of the game is an absolute no go.

Who remembers Davaeorn?  In BG, he was the boss at the bottom of the Cloakwood Mines.  He was a mage, he followed mage rules, and the only thing that made his encounter especially difficult was his ability to cast Dimension Door to move around his lair.  His use of the spell was largely consistent with the AD&D rules that governed the game, but Dimension Door wasn't a spell the PC was allowed to learn.  That's about as much deviation from the core game rules I'd allow in a boss fight.

When I say "boss' I mean highly powerful individuals of a certain class or powerful creatures. For example,a mind-flayer wizard would be much more of a challenge than one from one of the basic D&D races (those found in the player's handbook). The mind-flayer would still follow the same basic rules as the party(attack rolls, saving throws, etc) but would be a more powerful caster and have special abilities.

Going with a creature example, a Red Dragon(Great Wyrm) could be considered a boss, seeing as it is extremely powerful. However, it is still beholden to the same rules as the part, it has AC, makes saving throws, etc.

And I'd like to see more quests end with something other than a powerful foe to vanquish.

I don't think there are many who disagree.

[wsandista]

Provi-dance wrote...

- Attributes should work the same for each class. No silly "primary attributes", please. Strength is strength for a rogue, for a warrior and for a mage. As is dexterity, constitution, intelligence and other attributes.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with abilities one can pick to twist the default mechanics a bit. For example, the rogue (or warrior!) could pick a passive ability that lets him draw part of the damage for light weapons from dexterity instead of strength.

Absolutely. That this even has to be stated is quite sad to me.

[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 .

[Provi-dance]

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.

[Iakus]

wsandista wrote...
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.

Indeed.

For all I loved the Legacy DLC, the final boss fight felt like something out of an mmo

Modifié par iakus, 02 juin 2012 - 01:27 .

[Dakota Strider]

A good combat should be sort of like a chess match. Both sides have similar weapons at their disposal. Occassionally one side may have a surprise or two up their sleeve. Sometimes the other side starts the battle a move or two ahead. But the test is not how fast you can swing your sword, or how many energy blasts you can cast. The thrill of victory comes from out-manuevering a foe of equal or higher skill, because you had a better plan of attack, and you executed your plan better than he did.

[wsandista]

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?

Not necessarily, but I would like them to. Attack, resistances(mental and physical), armor, etc. should function the same for party members as for enemies for an optimal situation. Similar attack speed as well.

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...)

The exemption for non-human creatures was meant for abilities, I wouldn't expect an Ogre or Dragon to not have certain special abilities. However, I believe that they should follow the same basic combat rules(attack,armor, etc.) as humanoid creatures. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough, I was tired when I typed those suggestions.

[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."

[Provi-dance]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


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."

In order...

Inflated hit points were just one issue of the asymmetrical DA2 rulset. The one-way miss chance was another. Random immunities was another.. and so on. And level scaling on top of that. 
 

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.


There is a big advantage in knowing what her AC value is (not every succubus has the same AC, though). But in a computer game I don't know her AC. I could guess it by observing the combat log, of course. If I miss a lot I could use a spell that enhances my character's attack bonus. Also, I could choose to destroy her using powerful spells I would otherwise spare if I was sure physical attacks would be enough..
Her AC value is derived from her attributes (specifically dexterity) and natural properties of her skin. Yes, I'd like opponents to have attributes just like the player character. This doesn't mean that some creatures shouldn't have a certain bonus that feels natural for the creature in question. A bonus and/or weakness that makes a specific type of creature unique, but not ridiculous.


Oh, but the player can drain levels with his attacks, just like the succubus.  If he finds an item that drains levels. Or if he uses a spell that drains levels. It's a powerful, but known effect within the universe of the FR. The fact that the succubus has this property [this item] because she's a demon.. it simply doesn't break the setting; it makes sense, like you said. In fact, I love this type of uniqueness. Through special passive on hit effects, through some enemies withstanding part of the critical hit or sneak attack damage (demonic creatures), through being more resistent to stuns, rather than completely detached and separated enemy combat mechanics.
I'd love wraiths or hunger demons to have 50% lifesteal on attacks, for example. Because it would make sense for these demons to steal life, but it wouldn't for a player or for a bandit. It's funny now that I think of it... Because with the DA2 system and the inflated HP this 50% lifesteal wouldn't mean a thing. You see how this huge asymmerty ruins many concepts... and friendly fire is one of them, as well. (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?)

[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 .