What I would like to see added to DA3 is the ability to utilize battle formations as well as being able to group techniques. Lets say I had a party consisting of a mage and three S&S warriors, I would make a formation where the warriors would group together in a line in front of the mage and use a phalanx technique that provides a wall of protection for the mage to safely cast spells on the enemy.
Dragon Age 3 Combat
Débuté par
Frenetic Pony
, juil. 22 2012 09:44
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 26 août 2012 - 02:12
Parmida
-
- Members
- 1 592 messages
Nah, I actually loved the combat system of DA2. It really got the blood pumping! and I wasn't bored half of the game because of the slow motion boring combat going on. I mean come on, it was really like watching children hitting each other with plastic swords and being frightened of hurting their opponent.
With DA2's system I felt one with the battle going on and I enjoyed them a lot.
I really hope they keep it and expand on it more, like more animations and attacks.
With DA2's system I felt one with the battle going on and I enjoyed them a lot.
I really hope they keep it and expand on it more, like more animations and attacks.
#28
Posté 28 août 2012 - 08:39
Narosian
-
- Members
- 235 messages
I generally like DA2 combat more than DAO. I do think that could make it so it looks like the weapon your swinging is something that actually has weight to it instead of the weightless object it appears to be in DA2. After going back and playing DAO after DA2, origin's combat to me felt pretty slow and kinda boring. DA2's could drag on as well, but that's mostly because enemies wouldn't stop appearing in thin air or jumping out of a portal in the sky.
Modifié par Narosian, 28 août 2012 - 08:40 .
#29
Posté 28 août 2012 - 11:53
Biotic_Warlock
-
- Members
- 7 852 messages
DAO was far too slow.
It should be DAO (or even dungeons and dragons) style, but with slightly more speed like DA2 (but nowhere near as fast).
It should be DAO (or even dungeons and dragons) style, but with slightly more speed like DA2 (but nowhere near as fast).
#30
Posté 29 août 2012 - 02:24
Reznik23
-
- Members
- 212 messages
DA2 had good, fast, exciting combat, maybe a little bit too fast occasionally...Yep, I just hope they remember to put auto-attack back in DA3 for the consoles - I now have the right thumb of a 90 year old thanx to DA2...
#31
Posté 29 août 2012 - 12:08
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Merlex wrote...
2. Bring enemy health down to the same level as the PC/companion health. It shouldn't take 10 swings from a greatsword to kill a normal mob and I shouldn't have to pop cleave/assail just to do noticeable damage while all enemies do noticeable damage by slowly swinging their weapons. It makes it seem as if I have to work 10x harder than the enemy to land a kill.
I agree about healthbars 100%. But i thought that, insta-kills aside, enemies did less damage than the party. Bring down the healthbars, but increase enemy damage. I'd like to see enemies closer to the party in power and health.
There's an easy way to fix this - NO SCALING AND SIMPLE MECHANICS.
Health depends ONLY on Constitution. That's it.
10 constitution = 100HP.
12 = 120 HP
20 = 200 HP
Same for everyone and enemies. Normalized attribute range (so tehy dont' go into redicolousnes) and less attribute changes (more simialr to D&D..your attribute stats won't change much form begining to end)
Coupled with no items scaling this means the game and enemies are easy to balance and every fight provides ample challenge, while also feeling more "real"
#32
Posté 29 août 2012 - 12:24
Biotic_Warlock
-
- Members
- 7 852 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Merlex wrote...
2. Bring enemy health down to the same level as the PC/companion health. It shouldn't take 10 swings from a greatsword to kill a normal mob and I shouldn't have to pop cleave/assail just to do noticeable damage while all enemies do noticeable damage by slowly swinging their weapons. It makes it seem as if I have to work 10x harder than the enemy to land a kill.
I agree about healthbars 100%. But i thought that, insta-kills aside, enemies did less damage than the party. Bring down the healthbars, but increase enemy damage. I'd like to see enemies closer to the party in power and health.
There's an easy way to fix this - NO SCALING AND SIMPLE MECHANICS.
Health depends ONLY on Constitution. That's it.
10 constitution = 100HP.
12 = 120 HP
20 = 200 HP
Same for everyone and enemies. Normalized attribute range (so tehy dont' go into redicolousnes) and less attribute changes (more simialr to D&D..your attribute stats won't change much form begining to end)
What about mages/rogues/warriors.
They should not have the same amount of health (warriors are supposed to be tanks anyway).
I agree mainly with the fixed health, but some scaling should be in place; what about n% health extra per level:
Mages get 1%, rogues get 2% and warriors get 3%, so at higher levels, as enemies start to scale, so do your characters; and warriors are able to tank better than mages.
#33
Posté 29 août 2012 - 01:03
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
Biotic_Warlock wrote...
What about mages/rogues/warriors.
They should not have the same amount of health (warriors are supposed to be tanks anyway).
I agree mainly with the fixed health, but some scaling should be in place; what about n% health extra per level:
Mages get 1%, rogues get 2% and warriors get 3%, so at higher levels, as enemies start to scale, so do your characters; and warriors are able to tank better than mages.
Armor is for tanking, not HP.
HP is a relic of ye olde days when it was one stat that basicly encompased the battle prowess of a character. It was evasion, parry, defense, etc, and health all in one. Hence why it made sense to scale with level. But in these days, when characters have destinct attributes and skills, HP should really be nothing more than simple health.
What the hell are Doge, parry, defense, evade and similar for anyway? Why have them if HP is gonna take part of their role anyway?
And you want a tank you invest in attributes for tanks.
You want a fit, healthy mage? You can have it, why not?
Make a character, not a walking class template.
And frankly, I'd have only 2 "classes":
Mage and non-mage.
Mold your character into whatever warrior you see fit by picking skills and talents you want. You want to use bows? Swords? Want sneaking skills? Or mabye more combat-oriented? Simply craft your character.
Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 29 août 2012 - 01:05 .
#34
Posté 30 août 2012 - 01:55
ray.mitch7410
-
- Members
- 46 messages
Biotic_Warlock wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Merlex wrote...
2. Bring enemy health down to the same level as the PC/companion health. It shouldn't take 10 swings from a greatsword to kill a normal mob and I shouldn't have to pop cleave/assail just to do noticeable damage while all enemies do noticeable damage by slowly swinging their weapons. It makes it seem as if I have to work 10x harder than the enemy to land a kill.
I agree about healthbars 100%. But i thought that, insta-kills aside, enemies did less damage than the party. Bring down the healthbars, but increase enemy damage. I'd like to see enemies closer to the party in power and health.
There's an easy way to fix this - NO SCALING AND SIMPLE MECHANICS.
Health depends ONLY on Constitution. That's it.
10 constitution = 100HP.
12 = 120 HP
20 = 200 HP
Same for everyone and enemies. Normalized attribute range (so tehy dont' go into redicolousnes) and less attribute changes (more simialr to D&D..your attribute stats won't change much form begining to end)
What about mages/rogues/warriors.
They should not have the same amount of health (warriors are supposed to be tanks anyway).
I agree mainly with the fixed health, but some scaling should be in place; what about n% health extra per level:
Mages get 1%, rogues get 2% and warriors get 3%, so at higher levels, as enemies start to scale, so do your characters; and warriors are able to tank better than mages.
Why shouldn't they have the same amount of health? If they have the same constitution, they should have the same health. CON is the direct numerical representation of a character's constitution! If my mage has the same CON, he should have the same health as my warrior. That's what the number represents!
If warriors are supposed to be tanks, then they should have higher CON. Usually they do, and additionally they have defensive skills. If I have a buff mage with magical defensive skills, there is no reason he shouldn't be able to tank just as well.
Most of the time, however, mages will choose to be glass cannons and specialize in spellcasting. Meaning they will will go Magic and Willpower over Strength and Constitution (or their equivilants in other games) This makes the general warrior a better tank than the general mage.
Having more HP based on their class though? That's stupid.
I know engineering students that are better shape than most people in the military. Me being one of them. Hell, I was a weather forecaster in the Air Force outperforming Army infantrymen. My friend (also Weather) even got 2nd place in an MMA competition while deployed on an Army base.
Your job doesn't determine your physical characteristics, your physical training does. If someone does more physical training as a hobby, than you do as a job, they are going to be in better shape than you.
So from the mechanical standpoint of CON being a measurement of HP, and from basic common sense and REALITY, warriors should only have more HP than mages if they have more CON. If they have the same CON they should have the same HP. Otherwise, it doesn't make any f(_)cking sense at all.
#36
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:00
g99
-
- Members
- 111 messages
abidingdude117 wrote...
I actually think Dragon Age 3 would benefit from becoming more of an action game than a traditional RPG. Before I get destroyed by everyone, at least let me say why: It's clear that Dragon Age 2 evolved into the product it was because of the success of Mass Effect, and the desire to bring that kind of experience into the DA franchise.
1) Player Experience
By Mass Effect 3, the player felt like Commander Shepard in combat. (...) In Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2, you feel like you're controlling a puppet. You click, "Go here, do this" and watch as your character goes there, and does that. There was an inherent disconnect between player and avatar, even with the faster combat of DA 2, that always reminds you that you are playing as a character in a game. (...)
Eee... You miss the design point done during the creation of the DA universe. Dragon Age games are about the world so the disconnection you mention is deliberate. ME games are about Shepard so it is natural you feel like him/her. It's not working in DA, become it's not suppose to.
abidingdude117 wrote...
(...) I want to be able to block, counter, roll, and generally feel as if I am becoming a character, and not simply feel as though I am managing a team. It's the difference between being the batter at the plate, responding to the incoming pitches, and being the manager in the dugout, telling his team what to do.
If so DA games are not for you. It's the progression and evolution done by experience (points and level up), by developing the team and making them work as well as it's possible why we play this games.
abidingdude117 wrote...
You may need to put fewer enemies on screen, but as DA 2 showed us, quantity by no means results in quality.
OK here we agree.
abidingdude117 wrote...
3) Non-Party Based Gameplay
By freeing itself from the traditional party-orientated gameplay of most RPGs, Mass Effect allowed itself the creative liberty to make gameplay that did not always flow along a singular path. Shepard could fight one mission with a full roster of teammates, and then go at the next completely alone.
Because of its reliance on a party-system of gameplay, DA is forced into crafting moments in which every mission must be able to incorporate that full party. By focusing on a single character in terms of player control, the possibilites for crafting much richer and varying scenarios becomes far more open. (...)
Again it's about the party always about the party. DA are games if interactions ether be it quests, dialogue or combat. In my opinion if you remove the party based combat/gameplay than we end up in a very weird place with DA...
abidingdude117 wrote...
4) Reflect Character Progression Visually
(...) When I level up an attack power, don't just change the amount of damage it does by altering the damage indicators above an enemy's head. Show me how that power has changed. If I level up a Shield Bash to do double damage, show my character swing his shield twice. Maybe a level two Backstab shows the Rogue stab both daggers into an opponent. How about a level three Stonefist that soars up and smashes down on an opponent, rather than just fly into their face? The visuals of Dragon Age's combat never change over the course of a twenty or thirty hour game, which only contributes to the feeling of monotony. (...)
Totally support this idea... The problem is do you know how time consuming and work consuming (so $$$ too) development of this kind of feature is? I'd love to see it but I fear it's wishful thinking.
abidingdude117 wrote...
In conclusion, I simply say that the combat in both Dragon Age Origins and Dragon Age 2 felt disconnected. I am being asked to inhabit this amazing world Bioware created, and yet whenever I approach combat, I feel as though I am suddenly a puppet master, standing apart from my character (...) I want the combat in Dragon Age 3 to reinforce the idea that I am the character I created, and I feel that the best way to achieve that goal would be to embrace a genre-bending identity for this next game inspired by the style of Mass Effect: an action game, but with the complexity and tactical approach of an RPG.
I fear this direction stays in conflict with DA core idea. The disconnection you experience suppose to be balanced by the dialogue and choise, lore and interaction... Not to mention that DA combat was suppose to be a gift for old-school gamers (like me) who like the "control everything" in combat element. If so... I hope combat in DA3 will be more like Origins. Not the same but closer to it.
#37
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:07
Foolsfolly
-
- Members
- 4 770 messages
I actually like the combat in DA2 more than the combat in DA:O.
I can see benefits from both styles. But overall DA2's combat is better to build off of. There's just a few things that need to be done.
1- Enough's enough, bring back Origin's top down tactic display all ready.
2- Dropping enemies all around the battle field makes it just hectic not actually fun. The most basic yet effective tactic ever the bottleneck is useless when enemies spawn every damn where seemingly at random.
They haven't done anything about the first. But the second has seen some growth thanks to Legacy and Mark of the Assassin both of which have better combat than the main DA2 game. Mark of the Assassin has one moment when a whole host of chevaliers come at you and they never spawn behind you or on top of you. It's a relentless wave of steel that you manage and endure. There's also an attack on qunari troops where the qunari continue to kite you through no fewer than two ambushes where spear-chunkers or saarabas's await you on raised ground while damage sponges hold your attention.
But I really do like the changes to combat speed, fluidity, and all the new little tactics overhauls. I still want more tactics screen options, BioWare. I don't think I'll ever want less.
I can see benefits from both styles. But overall DA2's combat is better to build off of. There's just a few things that need to be done.
1- Enough's enough, bring back Origin's top down tactic display all ready.
2- Dropping enemies all around the battle field makes it just hectic not actually fun. The most basic yet effective tactic ever the bottleneck is useless when enemies spawn every damn where seemingly at random.
They haven't done anything about the first. But the second has seen some growth thanks to Legacy and Mark of the Assassin both of which have better combat than the main DA2 game. Mark of the Assassin has one moment when a whole host of chevaliers come at you and they never spawn behind you or on top of you. It's a relentless wave of steel that you manage and endure. There's also an attack on qunari troops where the qunari continue to kite you through no fewer than two ambushes where spear-chunkers or saarabas's await you on raised ground while damage sponges hold your attention.
But I really do like the changes to combat speed, fluidity, and all the new little tactics overhauls. I still want more tactics screen options, BioWare. I don't think I'll ever want less.
#38
Posté 19 avril 2013 - 07:18
Rayomatic
-
- Members
- 2 messages
DA2's has a epic combat system.I hope in DA3 it's like that but longer fights. And I hate the combat in the first game, when you press a button and the computer do all the work. I love real time combat but hate when it's like world of warcraft like the first game.
#39
Posté 19 avril 2013 - 11:54
BounceDK
-
- Members
- 607 messages
It should not be anything like Dragon Age II .. Tactics are worthless when enemies spawn out of thin air and the constant button mashing / clicking because your character is too stupid to move by him/herself is a serious pain in the rear.
For instance I place a warrior in a doorway to block enemies, then suddenly they spawn out of thin air behind the party and start killing mages. You'd think mages could withstand the beating when they have clothes that provides MORE armor than my warrior who use plate armor.. Good job Bioware lol.
For instance I place a warrior in a doorway to block enemies, then suddenly they spawn out of thin air behind the party and start killing mages. You'd think mages could withstand the beating when they have clothes that provides MORE armor than my warrior who use plate armor.. Good job Bioware lol.
Modifié par BounceDK, 19 avril 2013 - 11:58 .
