Aller au contenu

Photo

Combat for Dragon Age 3


289 réponses à ce sujet

#151
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Tirigon wrote...

No, Friendly Fire should be toggleable on or off regardlessof difficulty. I enjoy difficulties to overcome (DAO is only DAO on Nightmare, tbh) but the difficulty should come from your enemies, not from 1-shotting your entire party, and besides I would like my mage to feel like an intelligent being who controls his powers and leads them, not like a f*cking retard throwing bombs in the battle even if it hits his friends.

While I would agree that friendly fire should be an available toggle at all difficulty levels (because I love friendly fire, but I don't particulaly enjoy unreasonable difficult combar), but one-shotting your entire party was a problem with the asymmetrical combat mechanics more than the friendly fire.

If I can't one-shot my enemies, I shouldn't be able to one-shot my friends.  DAO established the standard that the PC and his companions were roughly equivalent to lieutenant-rank enemies.  So lieutenant-rank enemies should be roughly comparable in killability.

#152
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

Dakota Strider wrote...


Your claim that magic can tell the difference between friendlies and enemies is flawed in many ways.   If you cast a fireball into a crowded city square, do you believe it would leave your friends and innocents alone, and just kill the thieves and others that had criminal intent?   If that was the case, it would make it real easy for the city guard to clean up crime, just throw a fireball into the marketplace a few times a day. 


Being magic it can do magical things. Like not set alight the buildings that were in the area of effect. Magic is already unbelievable anyway in the way it interacts with the enviroment. The only reason that it does not set things on fire is because it is magic.If is was real fire Kirkwall would be in ashes.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 04 juin 2012 - 05:49 .


#153
Dr. wonderful

Dr. wonderful
  • Members
  • 1 548 messages
...Something of a mix between DA:O And DA2.

Keep the tactical aspect from DA:O Along with the controls, but keep it in the animation of DA:2. Oh and please don't have exploding bodies and PLEASE do not have the body disappear...I like the Bones of DA:O, and terribly missed them in DA:2.

I also want Item Descriptions. They were nice.

#154
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Dr. wonderful wrote...

...Something of a mix between DA:O And DA2.

Keep the tactical aspect from DA:O Along with the controls, but keep it in the animation of DA:2. Oh and please don't have exploding bodies and PLEASE do not have the body disappear...I like the Bones of DA:O, and terribly missed them in DA:2.

I modded DAO to have the bodies stay as bodies rather than decaying to bones.  I liked that a lot.

#155
wsandista

wsandista
  • Members
  • 2 723 messages
Friendly fire should apply for AOE spells like fireball or cone of cold. For spells like chain lighting, I would assume that the mage would have some control over who is struck with by the spell.

Friendly fire should have a toggle switch, especially if it is as broken as it was in DA2. I always play with friendly-fire on, and I believe that it is a critical part of combat in Tactical/RTwP cRPGs.

Modifié par wsandista, 05 juin 2012 - 02:37 .


#156
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

wsandista wrote...

Friendly fire should apply for AOE spells like fireball or cone of cold. For spells like chain lighting, I would assume that the mage would have some control over who is struck with by the spell.

I'd suggest that control of that sort should come at a cost.  Either only allow that control at higher levels (perhaps the upgraded version of the spell is controllable, but the base spell is not), or have two spells where the controllable one is less powerful.

Friendly fire should have a toggle switch, especially if it is as broken as it was in DA2. I always play with friendly-fire on, and I believe that it is a critical part of combat in Tactical/RTwP cRPGs.

Yes.

I modded DA2 to enable friendly fire.  It broke the game horribly, because of the asymmetric combat mechanics, and the glancing blow system, but it was better than not having it.

And that glancing blow system warrants attention.  The way DA2 worked, you never missed with melee attacks, but your accuracy with the weapon reduced the risk of scoring only a glancing blow.  But the difficulty level changed how much damage a glancing blow did.  On nightmare, a glancing blow did only 10% damage, and all melee auto-attack friendly fire was glancing blows.  But on lower difficulties, a glancing blow did more damage, so friendly fire actually became more dangerous on lower settings.

I can see why they restricted friendly fire to nightmare, because friendly fire was broken.  But hiding it in nightmare doesn't make the broken friendly fire okay.

#157
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

wsandista wrote...

Friendly fire should apply for AOE spells like fireball or cone of cold. For spells like chain lighting, I would assume that the mage would have some control over who is struck with by the spell.

Friendly fire should have a toggle switch, especially if it is as broken as it was in DA2. I always play with friendly-fire on, and I believe that it is a critical part of combat in Tactical/RTwP cRPGs.


While it adds an additional layer of complexity I'd hardly call it essential.

#158
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

wsandista wrote...
Friendly fire should have a toggle switch, especially if it is as broken as it was in DA2. I always play with friendly-fire on, and I believe that it is a critical part of combat in Tactical/RTwP cRPGs.


It must be explained logically though.

Friendly Fire on a bomb or a misguided catapult shot? Yes, of course.

Friendly Fire on an arrow? Only if the archer is bad, a good archer will make sure to only hit his target.

Friendly Fire on magic however? Only if there is a logical reason why the mage would not bother to protect his friends (for example, it makes sense that a Demon Overlord would be willing to burn his mindless thralls if he can blow up the enemy army, but a good guy like Gandalf would NOT strike his allies)

#159
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

Tirigon wrote...


Friendly Fire on an arrow? Only if the archer is bad, a good archer will make sure to only hit his target.

Friendly Fire on magic however? Only if there is a logical reason why the mage would not bother to protect his friends (for example, it makes sense that a Demon Overlord would be willing to burn his mindless thralls if he can blow up the enemy army, but a good guy like Gandalf would NOT strike his allies)


You have to be a pretty exceptional archer to hit something while it's fighting something else. Magic on the other , well that can do whatever you want it to do. It's magic after all. If you look on AoEs as artlilery weapons, then you just would not use them in close quarters period. Unless the situation was "danger close" and you had no real options.

There is always a degree of larger than life abstraction. It's just the degree that varies.

#160
wsandista

wsandista
  • Members
  • 2 723 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Friendly fire should apply for AOE spells like fireball or cone of cold. For spells like chain lighting, I would assume that the mage would have some control over who is struck with by the spell.

I'd suggest that control of that sort should come at a cost.  Either only allow that control at higher levels (perhaps the upgraded version of the spell is controllable, but the base spell is not), or have two spells where the controllable one is less powerful.


Your control suggestion sounds like it could be a meta-magic feat from D&D 3rd. Anyways, I can see your point, although I believe chain-lightning should be a fairly high-level spell anyway(It is 6th lvl in D&D 3rd I believe) so I believe Chain Lightning should be able to avoid allies, while a simpler spell like Lightning Bolt would travel in a straight line and would not discriminate between allies and foes.

#161
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Tirigon wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Friendly fire should have a toggle switch, especially if it is as broken as it was in DA2. I always play with friendly-fire on, and I believe that it is a critical part of combat in Tactical/RTwP cRPGs.


It must be explained logically though.

Friendly Fire on a bomb or a misguided catapult shot? Yes, of course.

Friendly Fire on an arrow? Only if the archer is bad, a good archer will make sure to only hit his target.

Friendly Fire on magic however? Only if there is a logical reason why the mage would not bother to protect his friends (for example, it makes sense that a Demon Overlord would be willing to burn his mindless thralls if he can blow up the enemy army, but a good guy like Gandalf would NOT strike his allies)

How much control a mage has oner that would be determined by the rules of magic in that setting.

Yes, a good guy like Galdalf would not strike his allies, but if magic damages people indscriminiately that just means that he can't use AoE magic during massed combat.

DAO worked like this.  You could start a battle with a Fireball (because we could cast spells outside of combat in DAO, unlike DA2), and then send in melee fighters to clean up the mess.  Once the melee fighters were there, a Fireball became too dangerous to use, so you wouldn't, except perhaps as a desperate last gamble.

#162
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Friendly fire should apply for AOE spells like fireball or cone of cold. For spells like chain lighting, I would assume that the mage would have some control over who is struck with by the spell.

Friendly fire should have a toggle switch, especially if it is as broken as it was in DA2. I always play with friendly-fire on, and I believe that it is a critical part of combat in Tactical/RTwP cRPGs.


While it adds an additional layer of complexity I'd hardly call it essential.

I'd call it essential.  Without Friendly Fire, combat is reduced to a process of throwing as much damage as possible at the enemy.

That gets boring awfully fast.

#163
Realmzmaster

Realmzmaster
  • Members
  • 5 510 messages

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


While it adds an additional layer of complexity I'd hardly call it essential.

I'd call it essential.  Without Friendly Fire, combat is reduced to a process of throwing as much damage as possible at the enemy.

That gets boring awfully fast.


I agree with Sylvius here. Friendly fire is essential if you are playing normal and above. I liked the way it was implemented in DAO. Unfortunately DA2 only made it available on Nightmare. (which in my opinion was a mistake). Once a fireball is thrown into an area it should affect everything in that area including the environment. Unfortunately that would consume a lot of resource to make a destructable environment. I therefore settle for a fireball effecting both friends and foes.

I simply consider it in my planning. For example in DAO I used Alistair equipped with Wade's Drakeskin Armor to attack a group and then have the mage lob a fireball or firestorm into the group. Proper planning makes this a viable option.  It adds to the tactical considerations and as Sylvius states keeps the combat interesting. I also use the same tactic in DA2. since you can effectively make a companion 95% fire proof.

In fact in some cRPGs if you were not careful with the AOE spells a friendly NPC could become hostile to the party. The same with traps. Once a trap is set it is neutral. So if a companion accidently sets on a trap that the party's rogue set then it should go off. The same with cold AOE spells if your party member is in the way the party member becomes a popsicle. The party member should also be subject to shatter but DA2 does not allow that which is also in my opinion a mistake.

If gamers are going to talk realism then friendly fire is realistic.

#164
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

Realmzmaster wrote...

I agree with Sylvius here. Friendly fire is essential if you are playing normal and above. I liked the way it was implemented in DAO. Unfortunately DA2 only made it available on Nightmare. (which in my opinion was a mistake).

Given how DA2's mechanics worked, it was probably the only option.

I don't forgive the design, but at that point simply turning on friendly fire wasn't really going to work.  But they should have thought of that from the beginning when designing the asymmetrical combat.

#165
SwooopingIsBad

SwooopingIsBad
  • Members
  • 2 messages

Dr. wonderful wrote...

...Something of a mix between DA:O And DA2.

Keep the tactical aspect from DA:O Along with the controls, but keep it in the animation of DA:2. Oh and please don't have exploding bodies and PLEASE do not have the body disappear...I like the Bones of DA:O, and terribly missed them in DA:2.

I also want Item Descriptions. They were nice.



I agree completely. I prefer the combat in DAO as it was slightly less...Dynasty Warriors-like and more realistic. However, i do think the Mage combat animations were pretty cool, but slightly repetitive. They just need to find a perfect medium between the combat looking good and being tactical and realistic.
Oh and the item descriptions were a nice feature too. I loved reading about what details and noticable features weapons and armour had on them, who forged it, etc :P

#166
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

Realmzmaster wrote...

I agree with Sylvius here. Friendly fire is essential if you are playing normal and above. I liked the way it was implemented in DAO. Unfortunately DA2 only made it available on Nightmare. (which in my opinion was a mistake). Once a fireball is thrown into an area it should affect everything in that area including the environment. Unfortunately that would consume a lot of resource to make a destructable environment. I therefore settle for a fireball effecting both friends and foes.

I simply consider it in my planning. For example in DAO I used Alistair equipped with Wade's Drakeskin Armor to attack a group and then have the mage lob a fireball or firestorm into the group. Proper planning makes this a viable option.  It adds to the tactical considerations and as Sylvius states keeps the combat interesting. I also use the same tactic in DA2. since you can effectively make a companion 95% fire proof.

In fact in some cRPGs if you were not careful with the AOE spells a friendly NPC could become hostile to the party. The same with traps. Once a trap is set it is neutral. So if a companion accidently sets on a trap that the party's rogue set then it should go off. The same with cold AOE spells if your party member is in the way the party member becomes a popsicle. The party member should also be subject to shatter but DA2 does not allow that which is also in my opinion a mistake.

If gamers are going to talk realism then friendly fire is realistic.


Well we can conclude that unless you are an idiot ( I did the same thing Alistair) friendly fire is not that much of a big deal anyway since we can work around it. Like I said, extra layer of complexity but ultimately not a big deal.

I do recall in Fallout (think that was it) friendly fire from NPCs meant no SMGs for them and hitting someone accidently would cause everyone to attack you.

When the only consequence is a reload that's never going to be the case so your not really adding anything except more reloading.

#167
nightcobra

nightcobra
  • Members
  • 6 206 messages
just played through dragon's dogma and... I think they're on to something here, some animations could use some polish and in my personal opinion a little more flair in the attacks effects wouldn't hurt and the party member A.I could have not talked all the time but overall they were pretty good. I imagine a combat system like this or amalur's with a few improvements could be, imo, a near perfect fit for the dragon age series

#168
AkiKishi

AkiKishi
  • Members
  • 10 898 messages

nightcobra8928 wrote...

just played through dragon's dogma and... I think they're on to something here, some animations could use some polish and in my personal opinion a little more flair in the attacks effects wouldn't hurt and the party member A.I could have not talked all the time but overall they were pretty good. I imagine a combat system like this or amalur's with a few improvements could be, imo, a near perfect fit for the dragon age series


Pretty awsome isn't it. Clambering over things reminds me of SoC. While I would not object to it at all, it is the sort of combat system that requires a good deal more of your attention than DA's. You can't really leave people to their own devices and switch around for instance. It's purely AI/Prompt control rather than direct intervention. It's a pretty big change.

#169
nightcobra

nightcobra
  • Members
  • 6 206 messages
i could see changing player control between party members like in DA though or even allowing other players to take control of a party member, that's how i'd like co-op to work in a DA game, you don't have to have more than 1 main character but rather let other players control one of your allies.

#170
Case

Case
  • Members
  • 67 messages
I agree with all, some I care about more than others. I totally agree with the speed thing, I just felt silly playing DA2 and it took away a lot of the fun of combat, didn't have any feel of strategy to it. On the other hand when you first start as a 2H in origins and don't have a lot of abilities that swing can feel a little too slow when you don't have anything else to do. But that doesn't mean I want to fly across the screen with lightning speed. Attacks in origins felt like they actually had weight to them though and that was important to me. In DA2 I felt like I was using a fly-swatter instead of a giant two handed sword.

#171
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

BobSmith101 wrote...

When the only consequence is a reload that's never going to be the case so your not really adding anything except more reloading.

Reloading is a metagame event.  It never matters.  It never needs to be taken into account.  It is certainly not something to be avoided.

#172
nightcobra

nightcobra
  • Members
  • 6 206 messages

Case wrote...

I agree with all, some I care about more than others. I totally agree with the speed thing, I just felt silly playing DA2 and it took away a lot of the fun of combat, didn't have any feel of strategy to it. On the other hand when you first start as a 2H in origins and don't have a lot of abilities that swing can feel a little too slow when you don't have anything else to do. But that doesn't mean I want to fly across the screen with lightning speed. Attacks in origins felt like they actually had weight to them though and that was important to me. In DA2 I felt like I was using a fly-swatter instead of a giant two handed sword.


it's funny though, people usually think 2handed swords equals slow attacks when in reality it's quite the opposite.
a 2hander blade style uses momentum to gain speed and acceleration and thus take advantage of the principle that mass times acceleration equals force. the drawback of this style versus an one hander is more about versitality rather than speed.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 06 juin 2012 - 08:16 .


#173
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 112 messages

nightcobra8928 wrote...

it's funny though, people usually think 2handed swords equals slow attacks when in reality it's quite the opposite.

But in reality, a two-handed sword is a lot smaller than what we see in either Dragon Age game.

As long as the sword weighs 20 kg, it should be slow.  If they want them faster, make them less comically huge.

#174
MichaelStuart

MichaelStuart
  • Members
  • 2 251 messages
To me, Two-handed seamed to move slower than other weapon styles, except Archery.

#175
PsychoBlonde

PsychoBlonde
  • Members
  • 5 130 messages

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?"


It means that when you lay down ability trees, skill trees, skill points, gear, etc. you're establishing a "physics of Dragon Age" and a set of expectations on how all characters (PC and NPC) that fall in the same category will behave.  When the player then goes on to discover that NPCs who look like PC's and move like PC's nevertheless have their own COMPLETELY SEPARATE "physics" that has NOTHING to do with the physics that govern their own transparent characters, at least some people don't like that.

That "physics" in a game serves the same purpose as our notions of physics in the real world--to make things predictable.  Like everything, there's a tradeoff involved.  If you have a uniform physics (or mostly uniform, with a few exceptions here and there for some variety), you don't have to wrack your brains trying to figure out how to telegraph special attacks/abilities that the player can *never see directly* and thus HAS to infer.  And, if you don't telegraph them well enough, you have (some) annoyed/frustrated players who had a TPK three times in a row before they realized OH, there's a blood mage WAY BACK IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM who I can't see because I'm in this teeny tiny entry hall that blocks me from seeing or targeting them but  THEY can freely target THROUGH THE WALL.

Personally, any time you have a TPK and *do not know why*, that's a game fail.  The designers have failed on some level at giving you access to the information you need to play the game successfully.  Having a uniform physics is one way (although not necessarily the only way) to do this.

If you want examples, Skyrim is a game with a uniform physics.  Monsters that look like PC's have PC abilities.  (Actually the PC has MORE abilities because NPC's cannot sneak up on or backstab the PC.)  Heck, even most of the creatures that aren't humanoid have PC abilities--the dragons use melee attacks and shouts, atronachs throw spells, etc.  At most, they'll have one or two abilities that the PC doesn't have, like dragons can fly, and those are BIG and OBVIOUS.  Heck, ORIGINS had uniform physics.

Having a uniform physics has other benefits than predictability, too.  Seeing an enemy mage cast a big spell you haven't seen before can make you want to pick up that spell so you can use it, too.  Getting whaled on by some hideous weapon special makes you excited for the loot you're about to get.  

If you guys are going to continue to pursue this non-uniform physics, MAKE THE MOST OF IT, just like everything else, because otherwise you're going to have the current situation, where the people who hate non-uniform physics will hate the game, but the people who might LOVE your particular brand of non-uniform physics don't give a crap because the game isn't offering them anything much to go in its place.