53 réponses à ce sujet

[zazei]

Legacy_QuEsT wrote...

mmu1 wrote...

Legacy_QuEsT wrote...

this game is for real gamers that have been playing games for a while. If you suck so much that you complain about difficulty than slide the scale to EZ and your problem will be solved, stop complaining about sucking as if that is Biowares fault.

If your reading comprehension and writing ability are anything to go by, I'm probably safe in assuming that I've been playing games considerably longer than you've been alive, and your parents are failing you by not monitoring your gaming purchases.

Either that, or you're an adult semi-literate moron.

Kind of a no-win situation for you either way.

ok grampa, try not to rage about your 2 clicks per minute APM. I know us upstarts can @ least push pause @ the beginning of a battle (and friendly bioware even included an option to do that automatically for u because they know how hard it is to push spacebar when u should)

The combat system in Dragon Age isn't hard. I had problem with one boss fight on hard the first time I played, the problem is that it takes too long, has too many filler battles and is just boring. Because of this it's much more enjoyable to play on easier levels simple because I don't have to do it as much. Everyone got the right to their opinon but I never understood why anyone would want to grind in a single player game. I don't even want to do it in a mmo.

[KalosCast]

Bioware didn't pace their combat in this one as well as their other releases. I stop caring about minor encounters pretty quickly. The bigger setpieces are still pretty awe-inspiring though.



I wouldn't say it's the combat as a whole that's the pain, as much as it is the tactics system. You're not given anywhere near enough slots to set up your party in any particularly useful way, until you've already invested several hours into levelling them up. That is, when they're powerful enough for it to stop mattering.

[OneBadAssMother]

I actually find the combat system refreshing, though the 2handed system - being a trained 2handed swordsman myself, could use a little work. Not to mention in reality a sword/shield warrior has a much superior advantage to any other weaponry setups both on the battlefield and on one on one. But it is a fantasy game, and I find it balanced very well.



Either way I'm glad there's no D&D setup, armor shouldn't be determining how often u get hit or not, it's to protect yourself if a hit does occur. I have no complaints and find it quite good. Also, I do not understand why ppl believe mages are overpowered - except for the insane CC spells.

[Dex1701]

Legacy_QuEsT wrote...

mmu1 wrote...

Legacy_QuEsT wrote...
this game is for real gamers that have been playing games for a while. If you suck so much that you complain about difficulty than slide the scale to EZ and your problem will be solved, stop complaining about sucking as if that is Biowares fault.

If your reading comprehension and writing ability are anything to go by, I'm probably safe in assuming that I've been playing games considerably longer than you've been alive, and your parents are failing you by not monitoring your gaming purchases.

Either that, or you're an adult semi-literate moron.

Kind of a no-win situation for you either way.

ok grampa, try not to rage about your 2 clicks per minute APM. I know us upstarts can @ least push pause @ the beginning of a battle (and friendly bioware even included an option to do that automatically for u because they know how hard it is to push spacebar when u should)

Lol...yes, you're obviously a very mature and intelligent person on top of being a "real gamer".

Anyhoo...I like the combat in DA:O quite a bit.  Loving it, in fact.  It would be nice to be able to have 5 or 6 people in your party at a time, though.

Modifié par Dex1701, 17 décembre 2009 - 12:57 .

[Survalli]

vizering wrote...

I don't know what you don't like about the combat system... it's very similar to Bg2. I

similar?  "enchantments? enchantments!"

no they arent similar in the least.  the poster is right,  combat is tedious and boring in DA....i just wanted to get it over with as soon as possible and get to the next cut scene.    BG's at least had more variety in everything....sure i could cloudkill, timestop, ae my way through the trash in BG,  but the boss fights required more creativity than cone of cold rinse and repeat.    BG2 was tactically an awesome game, particularly with the expansion.

so this game left me, not really caring about my physical abilities because of the stamina..not really carrying about armor or weapons..  like the OP,  i  had to struggle my way through the combat..im on my way through for a second spin,  but im dreading going through the dorf area again.

[Pseron Wyrd]

mmu1 wrote...
 How many times must I fight the group of 8-10 enemies consisting of 4-5 melee types, 3-4 archers and 1-2 mages, set up in the same defensive formation?

This bothers me as well. I long to face a non-boss lone enemy every once in awhile, just for the sake of variety. 

Modifié par Pseron Wyrd, 17 décembre 2009 - 07:58 .

[specter7237]

To the contrary I didn't get enough combat.  A six member party would've been welcome in addition to battles being larger in scale with more enemies.  Would've liked to see more casters, more bosses and more oh **** moments for my party.  Basically MORE.  Do I make my point clear?

[KalosCast]

specter7237 wrote...

To the contrary I didn't get enough combat.  A six member party would've been welcome in addition to battles being larger in scale with more enemies.  Would've liked to see more casters, more bosses and more oh **** moments for my party.  Basically MORE.  Do I make my point clear?

It would be nice to have a reason in this game for your arbitrary headcount limit.

[Survalli]

KalosCast wrote...

specter7237 wrote...

To the contrary I didn't get enough combat.  A six member party would've been welcome in addition to battles being larger in scale with more enemies.  Would've liked to see more casters, more bosses and more oh **** moments for my party.  Basically MORE.  Do I make my point clear?

It would be nice to have a reason in this game for your arbitrary headcount limit.

see NWN2....similar games. similar party size.

[KalosCast]

Survalli wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

specter7237 wrote...

To the contrary I didn't get enough combat.  A six member party would've been welcome in addition to battles being larger in scale with more enemies.  Would've liked to see more casters, more bosses and more oh **** moments for my party.  Basically MORE.  Do I make my point clear?

It would be nice to have a reason in this game for your arbitrary headcount limit.

see NWN2....similar games. similar party size.

Similar lack of explanation for your arbitrary hedcount limit. At least in Mass Effect you could fanwank it off as the other members doing their ship duties while you were out, and the missions themselves would rarely benefit from more than a surgical team.

[Survalli]

KalosCast wrote...

Survalli wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

specter7237 wrote...

To the contrary I didn't get enough combat.  A six member party would've been welcome in addition to battles being larger in scale with more enemies.  Would've liked to see more casters, more bosses and more oh **** moments for my party.  Basically MORE.  Do I make my point clear?

It would be nice to have a reason in this game for your arbitrary headcount limit.

see NWN2....similar games. similar party size.

Similar lack of explanation for your arbitrary hedcount limit. At least in Mass Effect you could fanwank it off as the other members doing their ship duties while you were out, and the missions themselves would rarely benefit from more than a surgical team.

i see your point.   Mass Effect/KOTOR's did have a nice handy way of leaving party members on the ship.  but the campfire  is sort of like the ship.  Jade Empire did the campfire thing too.

Modifié par Survalli, 17 décembre 2009 - 09:31 .

[KalosCast]

Survalli wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Survalli wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

specter7237 wrote...

To the contrary I didn't get enough combat.  A six member party would've been welcome in addition to battles being larger in scale with more enemies.  Would've liked to see more casters, more bosses and more oh **** moments for my party.  Basically MORE.  Do I make my point clear?

It would be nice to have a reason in this game for your arbitrary headcount limit.

see NWN2....similar games. similar party size.

Similar lack of explanation for your arbitrary hedcount limit. At least in Mass Effect you could fanwank it off as the other members doing their ship duties while you were out, and the missions themselves would rarely benefit from more than a surgical team.

i see your point.   Mass Effect/KOTOR's did have a nice handy way of leaving party members on the ship.  but the campfire  is sort of like the ship.  Jade Empire did the campfire thing too.

Yeah, except that we don't need 37 people to make sure all 2 fires don't burn out. Let DLC guy handle that.

[Gracchio]

Darpaek wrote...

I'm sure there will eventually be a mod that reduces or completely removes stamina costs for most abilities. I'm just saying combat would look a lot different than other "stand-and-swing" RPGs if you could get off more than a shield pummel, an assault, and a warcry every battle.

The game was advertised as having dynamic, moving combat with clips of ogres throwing people around, shield dudes knocking other dudes on their ass, etc. Actual in-game combat looks like the trailers for about the first 5 seconds of any combat. Sans stamina costs, I think combat would look at lot more like how the game was billed pre-release.

While that does sound like it would work, to compensate for the massive damage increase this would cause, they would have to tripple the cooldown on abilities. And that leaves us where we started with stamina, only being able to use a few abilities in each battle.

Also a character not getting tired from swinging around two hand swords would be rather odd.

I think it's safe to say Bioware has considered all the possibilities and chose what would be the most doable and work the best in this particular game setting. After all, major changes to combat would mean major changes to the whole game. Though I suppose you could blame endless stamina on the taint or something vague like that.

[Faerell Gustani]

zazei wrote...

I don't find them all that similar to be honest. While there are a lot of cheesy tactics many enemies in Baldur's gate had to be handled in different ways while in Dragon Age I mostly did the same thing over and over until the dungeon crawl was done.

Here most of what I seem to do is toss one or two AoE spells and then spam Cone of Cold and shatter the adds with crits. Beyond that I dislike aggro in a singleplayer game. While I like and play mmorpg's I don't think it has any place in a game I play on my own. It just feels stupid that enemy AI goes for the enemies that carries the heaviest armor. I never once had to worry about rogues one or two shotting any mage that wasn't protected like in some battles in BG

I feel the exact same way.
I changed tactics once through the entire game.
Hell, I think I made the exact same post (content wise) as you once before, are you sure you didn't just copy-paste?

[arrrasdgaehjskmszkm]

First, good to see some criticism in the forum that is not whining, and aports reasons. Its your opinion and deserves respect, but i disagree

[quote]mmu1 wrote...
The biggest problems with DAO combat?

1. There is too much of it. Even if every encounter was great, the sheer volume is excessive. 

2. Most of the encounters are, in fact, rather dull and repetitive. How many times must I fight the group of 8-10 enemies consisting of 4-5 melee types, 3-4 archers and 1-2 mages, set up in the same defensive formation?
DAO breaks one of the most important rules of RPG adventure design -
making encounters varied both in theme and difficulty, to keep the
players from getting bored and complacent.[/quote]

[quote]

I actually enjoy combats as i enjoy dialogs
 yeah, the archers, and filled with traps, ogres, multiple ambushes, bosses.. etc etc.. .never seen a game with enemies so filled with different strategies, traps and good IA.  Do you ever play against brained-dead AI of KOTOR, Jade Empire, Drakensang, and All MMORPG games ?

[quote]
3. Even the obvious filler encounters can require some micromanagement, which feels like a huge waste of time.

4. Enemies have way too many hitpoints - especially the unimportant ones. Unless it has a name, it needs to die really quickly so I can move on to some enemy that actually matters. If the fighting in the in-engine cutscenes happened at the same pace as during actual gameplay, the intro movie and the battle of Ostagar would each be an hour and a half long.
[/quote]

 what is bad with micromanaging?  ts a game.. maybe a graphic adventure, a turn-based game or Underworld or Matrix or FF movie suits more your tastes, as it is what your words transpired

[quote]
BG2 had variety, and the designers understood that it was ok to have a decent amount of easy encounters that hardly required any party management, and were only there to make the build up to the important fights more atmospheric.

[/quote]

 I will love BG2 until i die, but the swordfighting archery an rogues in BG series is plain boring.. just click and attack. It is  more complete in this game.

[specter7237]

KalosCast wrote...

It would be nice to have a reason in this game for your arbitrary headcount limit.

My favorite is Rioradan's at the final battle, "I would suggest taking Alistair and two others with you.  Any more would just get in the way."  Lol, or something like that.

[RoninOmega]

vizering wrote...

I don't know what you don't like about the combat system... it's very similar to Bg2. I totally agree on the small party though. I think BG2 felt so epic because you had a adventuring group where DAO sports a small swat team.

Yeah that I can agree on, at least a party of 5 or 6 would be nice.

But there should be at certain times where you need a limit.  Like what the post above me ^^^ says

Modifié par RoninOmega, 17 décembre 2009 - 09:50 .

[Faerell Gustani]

arrrasdgaehjskmszkm wrote...

I actually enjoy combats as i enjoy dialogs
 yeah, the archers, and filled with traps, ogres, multiple ambushes, bosses.. etc etc.. .never seen a game with enemies so filled with different strategies, traps and good IA.  Do you ever play against brained-dead AI of KOTOR, Jade Empire, Drakensang, and All MMORPG games ?

Err the AI is actually pretty dumb compared to most AI.  Even WoW AI is better.
As for strategies?  The enemy only uses one strategy.  Attack mindlessly with some contingencies (stuns and knockdowns and heals)
Similarly, almost all battles can be one using the same strategy.  Send a "Tank" character in to draw aggro...preferably a Massive Armor wearing Sword/Board fighter with Threaten active (and if you're feeling cheesy, use Taunt).
Keep healing on him while the rest of your party focus-fires down enemies in a kill order: Weakest targets first, usually mages, then non-mages.
This strategy works for any fight that is not a Revenant or Dragon.

[FlintlockJazz]

Considering the fact that I find it easy to set up the tactics for most of my party members and to just leave them to their jobs except for when I need then to do specific actions, I would not find another two party members being added to the party a problem and would allow a better mix, since at the moment every role is already predetermined by type (healer/rogue/warrior with space for one more dependant on what I am trying to do). I think they limited it to four due to the smaller number of NPCs available, otherwise you could take over half the available number of NPCs most of the time.

[Jonfon_ire]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Considering the fact that I find it easy to set up the tactics for most of my party members and to just leave them to their jobs except for when I need then to do specific actions, I would not find another two party members being added to the party a problem and would allow a better mix, since at the moment every role is already predetermined by type (healer/rogue/warrior with space for one more dependant on what I am trying to do). I think they limited it to four due to the smaller number of NPCs available, otherwise you could take over half the available number of NPCs most of the time.

I like to think that the forgotten camping NPCs actually sneak off when you're gone and form their own party and go dungeon crawling.

PC : "So when we got into the dungeon it was the weirdest thing. All the monsters were already dead and the treasure chests were empty"
Leliana : "How very strange indeed"
PC : "Wait, is that a new bow you have?"
Leliana : "No, no. This is the one you gave me. I, erm, cleaned it. Yes. That'll do."
PC : "Riiiiight... And did Dog always have that tiara?"

[Pocketgb]

The combat at first for me was nigh impossible, dunno why. Couldn't even do it on easy. Then I remade my character, made a few different choices, and was struggling to find a challenge, even on Nightmare. Guess I got over that little "push">

But meh, the combat ain't too bad. It certainly isn't draw me in, that's for sure.

Plus there's two things I really, really hate with it:
1. Initial aggro draw with "heavy armor": Why? If you see someone wearing a rather stable armor as opposed to someone wearing robes, why would you connect the "knight" to be a bigger threat", especially when robe = mage, and mage = ow?
2. Taunting. Such a mindless mechanic. It never makes sense unless you assume everyone you go against in the game is a slumbering, slobbering idiot.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 17 décembre 2009 - 10:20 .

[Soretooth]

To answer the OP's question: NOPE!

[radt250]

something i find strange is that i have to use a lot of healing potions.

i'm not yet very far in the game. i don't have a healer yet, my mage can only do dmg (even though i can set him as "healer" in the tactics menu, but he doesn't have any healing spells.)



my tank simply always dies because of potion cooldown, or i run out of potions. Then the rest dies.



hope it gets better once i get a healer

[Dick Delaware]

The mechanics of the combat system are solid, but with a few flaws. The major ones are the fact that mages (particularly Arcane Warriors/Blood Mages) are quite powerful and some spells are too strong (Cone of Cold, forcefield exploit), being an archer is a far weaker build than being a dual wielder as a rouge, two-handers are also not as powerful as dual wielders for warriors (though they have their uses and it's not nearly as bad as how gimped archers are). Rampant potion quaffing is also an issue.



Lastly, if I were to make one criticism about the combat, it's not that it isn't good or bad, it's that there is often WAY TOO MUCH OF IT. Too many filler encounters. I'd love it if you didn't have to fight your way through yet another wolf attack on your way to Denerim, or that grinding through the Deep Roads weren't so tedious.



There are some truly epic battles in the game that are tricky and require you to think, but I think that the game could be greatly improved by focusing more on providing choices and consequences, more dialogue, etc. as that's where the real strength of Dragon Age (and RPG's in general) lies.

[lazuli]

radt250 wrote...


hope it gets better once i get a healer

You don't need to get a healer.  Just spend the 1 talent point to get Heal and you're basically golden, even on Nightmare if you know what you're doing.


I love the combat in this game.  It reminds me of everything I liked about combat in NWN and BG1+2, but with the fantastic inclusion of aggro control.  I spent hours of NWN2 just buffing my wizards/sorcerers because enemies would typically stroll by the stupid dwarf in the front of my party and pummel my squishies into submission.  Thank you, Bioware, for including Taunt.  Now my mages can walk around naked and never worry about a thing.

Another thing I love about the combat is the prevalance of knockdowns and knock back effects.  It lends the combat a more visceral feel.  It's not a feature implemented in many RPG's.