289 réponses à ce sujet

[Provi-dance]

I'd like to bring something to the table:

http://www.youtube.c...xkoGVKlY#t=3m0s


Many have seen this already, but since there's a part with Mike Laidlaw talking about plans for DA3 combat, we could discuss it a bit.

Anyhow, he starts with saying that DA:O combat was very paced, which I assume he meant in a positive way and continues with a joke about the increased speed and acrobatics of DA2.
I believe this is a hint that the team is aware there's a lot of unhappiness concerning the attack and movement speed in DA2's. Excellent.


After the joke, they presented a screenshot of a battlefield with many small dots and arrows representing combatants and movement directions. Combat tactics. Interesting. To overview the battlefield in such a way one would need a top down view, right? This, I think, is another hint.


3 points are accentuated as they appear on the screen. Preparation. Positioning. Teamwork.

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

Positioning. Is key. Good. But if you're able to close in on your enemy in 1 second there's no pressure to position yourself correctly, right? That's why movement speed in combat is an important topic. High movement speed (and teleportation) trivializes the importance of positioning and archery. "OK, my position on the battlefield is wrong - but no problem, I'll run across it or jump on the other side of it in a second."

Teamwork. Like, the warrior holds the line while the rogue sneaks behind the enemy to apply his backstab passive talent.



All in all, I am pleased.



What do you think?

[AppealToReason]

 Do most of you complaining about button mashing realize you can change the setting to what it was in DAO where you just hit 'A' and he continually attacked until you gave him a different command?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Provi-dance wrote...

Positioning. Is key. Good. But if you're able to close in on your enemy in 1 second there's no pressure to position yourself correctly, right? That's why movement speed in combat is an important topic. High movement speed (and teleportation) trivializes the importance of positioning and archery. "OK, my position on the battlefield is wrong - but no problem, I'll run across it or jump on the other side of it in a second."

Teamwork. Like, the warrior holds the line while the rogue sneaks behind the enemy to apply his backstab passive talent.

All in all, I am pleased.

What do you think?

When he talks about positioning and teamwork, I'm a bit worried he's going to enforce class roles even more strongly than he did in DA2.  I like positioning as a requirement.  I much prefer positioning to aggro, for example.  But if the encounters are designed specifically to require positioning be used, I'm less thrilled about that.  I'd like to have more possible avenues to victory than the one BioWare intended.

Not enforcing combat roles by class is, I think, key to this.  traditionally, Warriors are the guys who stand at the front and get in the way of enemies.  But in DAO, Rogues could do this, too.  So could mages, using Arcane Warrior.  But even without Arcane Warrior, mages could eliminate the need to have anyone stand at the front with their extensive crowd control abilities.  Glyphs were far more useful in DAO (especially with Paralysis Explosion), Sleep could render an entire wolfpack temporarily harmless, Fireball was a ranged AoE knockdown - DAO mages just had more options for controlling the battlefield.

[wsandista]

MichaelStuart wrote...

To me, Two-handed seamed to move slower than other weapon styles, except Archery.

As it should be. A greatsword should not be swung as quick as a dagger.

AppealToReason wrote...

 Do most of you complaining about button mashing realize you can change the setting to what it was in DAO where you just hit 'A' and he continually attacked until you gave him a different command?

The fact that it is not only an option to buttonmash but also the default is a serious flaw. Success in combat should not be determined by hammering a button.

Modifié par wsandista, 07 juin 2012 - 06:06 .

[Realmzmaster]

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 metagaming event. It has nothing to do with the game itself. If a gamer wishes to reload that is their choice. Reloading should never be considered in developing a game. That decision rests with the gamer.

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

[Maria Caliban]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Reloading should never be considered in developing a game.

Gamers have some odd ideas.

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

Recon can also be considered preparation. Send the rogue ahead in stealth to muster up enemy positions and numbers, and plan accordingly to the size of the enemy. Also useful in spotting ambushes  - i.e. triggering scripted encounters from a vantage position. Out of combat gameplay while in a hostile area, in general, can be considered preparation.

Realmzmaster wrote...
Reloading should never be considered in developing a game.

What if the game uses checkpoints only? What if the game has or has not autosave? Quicksave? Reloading has to be very much considered in developing a game. You need a continuation system. In what position will the character be when reloading is indispensable to properly plan the gameplay design.

Modifié par Xewaka, 07 juin 2012 - 08:32 .

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

Recon can also be considered preparation. Send the rogue ahead in stealth to muster up enemy positions and numbers, and plan accordingly to the size of the enemy. Also useful in spotting ambushes  - i.e. triggering scripted encounters from a vantage position. Out of combat gameplay while in a hostile area, in general, can be considered preparation.

Realmzmaster wrote...
Reloading should never be considered in developing a game.

What if the game uses checkpoints only? What if the game has or has not autosave? Quicksave? Reloading has to be very much considered in developing a game. You need a continuation system. In what position will the character be when reloading is indispensable to properly plan the gameplay design.

having pets again for the rogue would be awesome, imagine a mouse pet to do the recon, a wolf for DPS and a bear for tanking.

[sickpixie]

AppealToReason wrote...

 Do most of you complaining about button mashing realize you can change the setting to what it was in DAO where you just hit 'A' and he continually attacked until you gave him a different command?

The speed of attacks and the unfortunately-placed waves discourage any kind of slow, methodical way of playing and encourage using your abilities as soon as possible and attacking the most convenient targets until you recharge (so on a PC it'd be something like 1234 r r r r r 1 etc). Some might call that button mashing.

[AkiKishi]

Realmzmaster wrote...

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 metagaming event. It has nothing to do with the game itself. If a gamer wishes to reload that is their choice. Reloading should never be considered in developing a game. That decision rests with the gamer.

The character is dead at that point. Unless your advocating some sort of games that wipes itself when you die, reloads are always a consideration.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

wsandista wrote...

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

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

QFT

Also NO MORE AWESOME BUTTON

[Realmzmaster]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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 metagaming event. It has nothing to do with the game itself. If a gamer wishes to reload that is their choice. Reloading should never be considered in developing a game. That decision rests with the gamer.

The character is dead at that point. Unless your advocating some sort of games that wipes itself when you die, reloads are always a consideration.

I am not just taking about reloading for a dead character. I am talking about reloading because you did not like a particular choice made. That is a decision to be left to the gamer. Actually Hack, Rogue and the Ironman rules for Wizardry do just what you suggest.

[AkiKishi]

Realmzmaster wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

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 metagaming event. It has nothing to do with the game itself. If a gamer wishes to reload that is their choice. Reloading should never be considered in developing a game. That decision rests with the gamer.

The character is dead at that point. Unless your advocating some sort of games that wipes itself when you die, reloads are always a consideration.

I am not just taking about reloading for a dead character. I am talking about reloading because you did not like a particular choice made. That is a decision to be left to the gamer. Actually Hack, Rogue and the Ironman rules for Wizardry do just what you suggest.

Combat tends to be a domino effect.

While I like games like Fire Emblem and Diablo Hardcore I don't think designers are going to force that on everyone. And unless you do make it a key feature, then it's questionable whether or not it is worth it in the first place.

For example Binary Domain. Friendly fire damages the relationship between the characters (and alters their AI behaviour). That is a key feature. Reloading because you just cooked half your party with a badly placed spell is not.

[Allan Schumacher]

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

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

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

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

[nightcobra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

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

and is that so wrong?

to me the fun of it is making a save before those big choices and seeing what happens differently, kinda like bookmarking a page in a "choose your own adventure book" and seeing what would happen.

[Allan Schumacher]

and is that so wrong?

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

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

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

[AkiKishi]

..

Modifié par BobSmith101, 07 juin 2012 - 05:12 .

[AkiKishi]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

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

I'd tend to agree with that.

I liked it too. Removed any temptation to save/reload and really benefited the game and the theme of the game.


All my negatives about AP tend to be technical and mechanical (and a few questionable boss fights).

[nightcobra]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

and is that so wrong?

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

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

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

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

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 07 juin 2012 - 05:18 .

[AkiKishi]

nightcobra8928 wrote...
and is that so wrong?

to me the fun of it is making a save before those big choices and seeing what happens differently, kinda like bookmarking a page in a "choose your own adventure book" and seeing what would happen.

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

[Provi-dance]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not enforcing combat roles by class is, I think, key to this. 

I'd like flexible classes, too. There should be several ways to build each class, which would promote the player's input and variety (as opposed to having a robotic process: put point into your primary attribute/pick a talent from your class-bound combat style tree). I've already mentioned what I think is the solution for having classes play differently, without needless restrictions.

Don't you worry, I suspect only a minority of encounters will feature (the need to find) choke points etc..

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

Right. Naturally, there's a thought process involved when one wants to prepare, but I was talking about the actual options; in-game actions.

In certain games this would be a typical preparation scenario:

"Oh look some hostiles ahead. Oh noes, it's a group of nasty ogres! I've used most of my spells in a difficult battle half an hour ago, my rogue is missing 1/3 of his HP... I should really find a safe spot to rest and replenish my resources. *moves back and rests* Now that that's behind us, I should use a potion or two, before the battle begins." Because using an item in melee combat causes an attack of opportunity  and takes 6 precious seconds in which my rogue could execute 2 sneak attacks, instead of drinking. Pre combat spell buff are also an option (although I like the sustained spells concept).


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

This... I don't call preparation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

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

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

I think players like there to be consequences available for their character.  I doubt players enjoy facing those consequences themselves.

That's where reloading comes in.

If a negative consequence can befall the character, that's interesting, and the player can work with that.  but if the player doesn't enjoy that particular story branch (I'm talking about emergent narrative, here), then he can reload and try again.

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

Imagine you're writing a story, and you've fleshed out the characters in advance.  You get to pivotal scene, and the characters act accordingly, and the result is the story ends abruptly because someone did something that didn't match the story you had in mind.  Sometimes you can salvage that, but sometimes you can't.  If you can't, the only option is to back up and change one character's behaviour (even if that change doesn't feel entirely natural) to produce a different outcome.

That's reloading.

This is also why I say the developer shouldn't bother trying to control pacing, because reloading means that the player always ultimately controls that.

I don't like the term save scumming, as I have no problem at all with the practice.  In fact, I think the ability to do so is a positive feature in games.  The player should be given as much control as possible over the narrative, and the ability to save and reload accentuates that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Provi-dance wrote...

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

This... I don't call preparation.

DAO allowed some pre-planning.  You could cast glyphs or AoE spells in advance of combat to create killing zones.

I liked to cast Glyph of Repusion at a chockpoint, and then draw enemies toward it with a single bowshot.  As they approached, I'd cast Glyph of Paralysis to trigger a Paralysis Explosion, and then drop an Inferno on them as they were trapped.

DA2, though, didn't let us cast combat spells outside of combat.  That was a terrible restriction.