289 réponses à ce sujet

[Dakota Strider]

@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.

[Allen Spellwaver]

It will be decent if I can kill NPCs after pissing them off like in BG.

[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!?"

[Allen Spellwaver]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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!?"

You are doing the right thing.Diablolike boss fight sucks a lot.

[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!!

[Allen Spellwaver]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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!!

Just reflect the tactic elements of DA will be good.

[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)

[Provi-dance]

Allan Schumacher wrote...



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.

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.

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?

Yes, I'd feel she's playing by the rules.
I'd feel she's playing by the rules if instead she drained attributes or damage or attack rating (chance to hit, which was not used in DA2 for the player character), as well. I'd like this to be checked against the PC resistance score, willpower or constitution.
So it's not black and white. I'd feel the same if a walking dead (possessed by a demon as the DA lore states) had these properties.

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.

Hm, but what if there's a spell that works only on creatures below level 5 for example. This is where draining a few levels could come in handy, no?
Otherwise, sure, it would be preferable to have the actual levels drained and then penalties derived from that. But if it's too much work, what can we do..

I'd say having opponents that reasonably measure up to the player character if they're of a similar level is very important, yes.
If there's 5 levels of difference (bless the absence of level scaling) it should be very very hard, but the opponent shouldn't suddenly seem like a hulk on steroids.

(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) 

Go. It's better than typing on a forum.

[Allen Spellwaver]

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.

[TEWR]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

Though not directed at me, I've been meaning to take a crack at this thread for a while. I just couldn't really gather enough energy to rehash for Maker only knows how many times the same things I've been saying for months now.

But... it really depends on the enemies. And also, it depends on their tactics.

Enemies don't have to follow the same exact rules as us, but there does need to be a level of balance.

For example: The example you gave -- globs of health with low damage -- could be remedied in a few ways. Or at the very least, show clear signs of improving. Bear in mind, this is all imo.

First off, the character's health and mana/stamina should increase every time the characters level up. So as an illustrative example, I start off with 125 health and 100 Mana at the beginning of the game. How this idea would be implemented for DA -- what with the new animations, skills, and whatnot -- I don't know. You'd have to look at FFXII and figure out how to take their system and make it work for your game.

Anyway...

I go into a fight with some enemies that do damage that's considered fair to the points I have. Say... 8-10 points per hit from a normal attack animation. And when I say normal attack animation, I mean the same ones -- or at least some of the ones -- we use. So a Mage enemy would use maybe 3 of the new attack animations in a repeating fashion. And a 2H Warrior would use some of the first few 2H animations.

And maybe they have a few skills relative to what level I am. So Shield Bash/MightyBlow and Taunt/Pommel Strike for Warrior enemies, Fireball/Winter's Grasp/Mind Blast for Mage enemies etc.

I defeat them. I gain enough experience to level up.

As my PC leveled up, his health and mana/stamina automatically went from 125 and 100 (respectively) to 194 and 163 (respectively).

However! I'm still able to invest points in constitution and Willpower, if I so desire. Of course, the bonus would have to be increased from that method.

Then say I go into another battle. The damage the enemies inflict upon me increases in proportion to how much health I'm now at.

rough idea. As I said, this is the system utilized by FFXII -- at least, the leveling up bit save for the investing points -- but I think FFXII is one of the things to look at for combat design. It's hard for me to say what should be done, because of a couple of reasons:

1) I'm not a developer/writer, sadly.
2) I'd have to actually play such a level where this thing was attempted in DA to be able to offer further critique on it.

That said, balance is key. Tactics are key. Monkeys are key.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juin 2012 - 04:04 .

[Provi-dance]

The HP should increase maximally by 10% on level up, because otherwise fighting enemies of different levels would be a nightmare or a walk in the park.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I'd like to see a system where HP doesn't increase on level up. I'd much rather see all stats to be raised as a result of player input. Not leveling.

Whether it's filling out talent trees, raising skills, gaining specializations, whatever.

To add to that, I'd also love to see a tighter Attribute system that is fixed at character creation and can only be raised through plot points.

As for how that relates to combat, it helps to ensure that the relative strength of your characters as they develop are not inflated to unreasonable levels. This makes it easier to design enemies and encounters that rely on a variety of factors that is not HP+++ or Level+++.

It also makes stats less "gamey" as they directly relate to player customization (and as such, roleplaying).

Modifié par CrustyBot, 02 juin 2012 - 04:31 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Since we have two threads talking about combat rather than repost what I said in the other one I will just link direct to the post itself about this element both threads talk about regarding my perception and desires about this aspect.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 juin 2012 - 04:36 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

I prefer a small boost of HP with every level up. Focus on Armor and Attack rates and some extraordinary things by perks.
Also the old system of fortitude, willpower and reflex is very interesting.

[wsandista]

CrustyBot wrote...

I'd like to see a system where HP doesn't increase on level up. I'd much rather see all stats to be raised as a result of player input. Not leveling.

Whether it's filling out talent trees, raising skills, gaining specializations, whatever.

To add to that, I'd also love to see a tighter Attribute system that is fixed at character creation and can only be raised through plot points.

As for how that relates to combat, it helps to ensure that the relative strength of your characters as they develop are not inflated to unreasonable levels. This makes it easier to design enemies and encounters that rely on a variety of factors that is not HP+++ or Level+++.

It also makes stats less "gamey" as they directly relate to player customization (and as such, roleplaying).

It seems like you want a system like GURPS. Is that accurate?

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

I prefer a small boost of HP with every level up. Focus on Armor and Attack rates and some extraordinary things by perks.
Also the old system of fortitude, willpower and reflex is very interesting.

Do you mean something like the DAO leveling system, or closer to D&D?

Modifié par wsandista, 02 juin 2012 - 05:48 .

[TEWR]

CrustyBot wrote...

I'd like to see a system where HP doesn't increase on level up. I'd much rather see all stats to be raised as a result of player input. Not leveling.

The player would still have the option to increase HP if they wanted in the way I proposed.

The alternative -- if the first idea where HP and Mana/Stamina automatically increases upon level up but can be further increased by player input is either too much or not ideal or whatnot -- is to just make HP and Willpower bonuses be a helluva lot more then +5 to help balance out the new combat.

Which.... might be the best thing really. Studying FFXII's method -- while it would be something I'd approve -- may just become too much of a hassle in the long run. Zots may end up becoming an even bigger issue I assume.

Changing it from +5 to maybe.... +75 or something would probably help with that. It's easier, helps balance it out, and so on and so forth.

Though I still think damage should scale relative to how much health each party member has. The more health you have, the more damage you'll take so that it doesn't become too easy to just increase your health and breeze through the game.

And tactics/animations/skills would help with that too.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juin 2012 - 06:17 .

[wsandista]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

I'd like to see a system where HP doesn't increase on level up. I'd much rather see all stats to be raised as a result of player input. Not leveling.

The player would still have the option to increase HP if they wanted in the way I proposed.

The alternative -- if the first idea where HP and Mana/Stamina automatically increases upon level up but can be further increased by player input is either too much or not ideal or whatnot -- is to just make HP and Willpower bonuses be a helluva lot more then +5 to help balance out the new combat.

Which.... might be the best thing really. Studying FFXII's method -- while it would be something I'd approve -- may just become too much of a hassle in the long run. Zots may end up becoming an even bigger issue I assume.

Changing it from +5 to maybe.... +75 or something would probably help with that. It's easier, helps balance it out, and so on and so forth.

Though I still think damage should scale relative to how much health each party member has. The more health you have, the more damage you'll take so that it doesn't become too easy to just increase your health and breeze through the game.

And tactics/animations/skills would help with that too.

I think your idea increases health/mana too much,

DAO had smaller increases that I thought were fairly balanced.

[TEWR]

wsandista wrote...

I think your idea increases health/mana too much

It's an illustrative example, purely. What the actual number should be, I don't know.

But I don't think it's too much healthwise, if the damage dealt by enemies scales with how much health the individual party members have.

Mana/Stamina might be too much though.

DAO had smaller increases that I thought were fairly balanced.

For Mana/Stamina? It was still +5 in there. The difference there was that DAO's enemies had health on par -- or near that -- with the player's party.

So a hurlock might have 243 health and you have 300 health. It was more closely balanced there. DAII changed that to have enemies whose health is larger then 243.

Instead of 243, the weakest enemies will have 1000 health (again, illustrative example. It's more then what it was, certainly. I don't have any actual numbers for what enemy health now is).

It's a move I approve of, but both sides of the spectrum need further refining.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juin 2012 - 06:29 .

[wsandista]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
For Mana/Stamina? It was still +5 in there. The difference there was that DAO's enemies had health on par -- or near that -- with the player's party.

So a hurlock might have 243 health and you have 300 health. It was more closely balanced there. DAII changed that to have enemies whose health is larger then 243.

Instead of 243, the weakest enemies will have 1000 health (again, illustrative example. It's more, certainly).

It's a move I approve of, but both sides of the spectrum need further refining.

Actually, in DAO there were health/mana gains just from the level that were not tied to stats,those were what I was referring to as balanced.

Anyway, I've been arguing for enemies to follow the same general rules as the party, as well as have similar health and stamina. Regular enemies shouldn't have 4x the health as the party members, the only creatures I could justify that with would be Dragons and other powerful beings, not random bandit #398.

[TEWR]

wsandista wrote...

Actually, in DAO there were health/mana gains just from the level that were not tied to stats,those were what I was referring to as balanced.

Are you sure? I don't ever remember that happening on my numerous DAO runs. My health would be the same throughout the game. It would only increase if I either A) invested points in the attributes area or wore equipment that increased my constitution.

Maybe I need to start a new DAO playthrough to see if that's the case. I honestly never noticed that happen, if it does happen.

I now have an excuse to return to the glory that is Xanthos Aeducan!

Anyway, I've been arguing for enemies to follow the same general rules as the party, as well as have similar health and stamina. Regular enemies shouldn't have 4x the health as the party members, the only creatures I could justify that with would be Dragons and other powerful beings, not random bandit #398.

But that's exactly what DAO did. Sometimes a bandit would have more health then you in DAO because he was a higher class then the rest of his cohorts. Even named people -- who are just experienced fighters, but are just as human as you -- would have more health. They would have 4x-5x more health then the PC.

Jarvia, Ser Cauthrien, Kolgrim, etc.

What you're arguing for would mean that people like Cauthrien and Kolgrim couldn't have more health then the PC because they're simply humans and not Dragons, Varterrals, Ogres, etc..

Part of the challenge would disappear. The class they're put as in the game directly affects how much health they have.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[Kileyan]

Waves should be special fights, nail biting tension inducing last stands at important times. The problem with waves in DA2 was they became predictable and frankly annoying. They were not important to the story, they were just quick fix time waster bandaids where it became obvious the dev's didn't have time to create proper set peice battles.

oops meant to be in the waves thread, oh well

Modifié par Kileyan, 02 juin 2012 - 06:41 .

[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 .

[wsandista]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Are you sure?

Positive.

Warrior +6HP/+5Sta
Mage +4HP/+6Mana
Rogue +5HP/+4Sta

But that's exactly what DAO did. Sometimes a bandit would have more health then you in DAO because he was a higher class then the rest of his cohorts. Even named people -- who are just experienced fighters, but are just as human as you -- would have more health. They would have 4x-5x more health then the PC.

Jarvia, Ser Cauthrien, Kolgrim, etc.

What you're arguing for would mean that people like Cauthrien and Kolgrim couldn't have more health then the PC because they're simply humans and not Dragons, Varterrals, Ogres, etc..

Part of the challenge would disappear. The class they're put as in the game directly affects how much health they have.

But none of those are random cannon fodder bandits. Should a commander have above average health, absolutely. Should genlock #245 have 10x the health of the party, no.

Anyway, I don't remember any of those human foes having that much extra health,and certainly not as much as the Aristok!

Looks like DAO is getting a replay, William Cousland rides again!

[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!

[TEWR]

Off to bed after this post!

wsandista wrote...

Anyway, I don't remember any of those human foes having that much extra health,and certainly not as much as the Aristok!

Oh it wasn't as much as the Arishok, certainly. But it was considerably more then the Warden's HP.

wsandista wrote...

Positive.

Warrior +6HP/+5Sta
Mage +4HP/+6Mana
Rogue +5HP/+4Sta

Interesting...

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 juin 2012 - 06:50 .