33 réponses à ce sujet

[andar91]

I find myself wanting Bioware to give enemies in the next game player abilities as it was in Origins rather than 2. I liked some of the abilities they had in 2, but I just played Legacy, and there's a point (MINOR SPOILER) where you can fight a mage character with player abilities. 

That single mage fight felt ten times more interesting than the enemy ones. I actually ran forward into the Glyph of Repulsion surrounding the character just to experience it lol. The enemy abilities are fine, don't get me wrong, and I don't object to them having unique abilities. However, the fights just seem more interesting. Similarly, it would be nice if we could get some of the abilities the enemies have like that exploding ball thing or the teleport ability (can't really think of any others from non-mage characters).

At the very least, it would be nice if the enemies' abilities had more strategic impact (like the Glyph of Repulsion) as opposed to just doing damage. Most of them in DA2 had crowd control capabilities, but I still don't think they took it as far as I would have liked. I kinda of miss having Curse of Mortality put on me or having to contend with enemy buffs every once in a while (actually makes Dispel Magic significant).

Does anyone agree with me? 

[wsandista]

Yes. The biggest problem I had with DA2 combat was that the enemies did not use player skills. It seemed that they were much more limited and repetitive, probably because every enemy mage, rouge, or warrior used the same abilities.

[Wulfram]

Having enemies using player abilities - or at least something fairly close - again is something high on my list of things I want in DA3.

Mages were the worst in DA2. They were just totally different from PC mages. And their whole turning invisible and/or invincible and teleporting didn't make for particularly interesting fights either.

[Amycus89]

Definetely agree. That was one of my major gripes about combat, aside from the over-the-top animations. It always felt weird when you could do all those "spectacular" moves, while enemies had their own, much slower, combat animations.

And well, animations aside, I really don't see why human enemy abilities shouldbe any different than the players.

[Renmiri1]

Doesn't Merril have the teleport thingie ? She can move throught the floor or something similar. I

[andar91]

She does, but it's a unique tree, and I'd like for more generic abilities to be in generic trees (probably Arcane or Spirit for a teleport spell).

[SteveGarbage]

In Origins, I always focused mages first (usually with a Mana Clash bomb or other stun). In DA2, mages were more annoying than they were dangerous. Outside of the occassional Arcane Horror, I can't ever remember a mage giving me significant trouble.

[thats1evildude]

I don't recall any mage in Legacy using Glyph of Repulsion, though I do recall that Rhatigan could use some two-handed warrior talents and some of the archers had Hail of Arrows.

I'm of the 4E Dungeons and Dragons school of thought, where the PCs and monsters have completely different abilities. It doesn't particularly add anything to have monsters and NPCs using the same abilities;  in fact, it can make the game worse, as it leads to silliness like crowds of archers spamming Scattershot.

SteveGarbage wrote...

Outside of the occassional Arcane Horror, I can't ever remember a mage giving me significant trouble.

You must have fought different mages than I did, as the rule for most mages that I've encountered is that you have to kill them as quickly as possible, or else they'll wipe out your entire party. Blood mages in particular are nasty this way.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 07 août 2012 - 06:16 .

[Wulfram]

Saarebas are nasty, partly because they don't use the "stand around uselessly surrounded by an impenetrable ball" power.

And the elf blood mage guy is a real pain

Regular mages can cause a party wipe if you don't know they're there and aren't paying attention, but aren't problematic as long as you're alert.

[bloodmage13]

I would love to see enemy templars able to use silence and holy smite. I would also like to see enemy shapeshifters.

[Provi-dance]

thats1evildude wrote...

I'm of the 4E Dungeons and Dragons school of thought, where the PCs and monsters have completely different abilities.

Well, a beholder is quite different from a human...

[wsandista]

thats1evildude wrote...

I'm of the 4E Dungeons and Dragons school of thought, where the PCs and monsters have completely different abilities. It doesn't particularly add anything to have monsters and NPCs using the same abilities;  in fact, it can make the game worse, as it leads to silliness like crowds of archers spamming Scattershot.

The monsters should still follow the same rules as the party though. I don't see why a monster would have 10000x the health, deal 1/15 of the damage, and attack at 1/4 the speed as a party member.

[thats1evildude]

Because monsters don't have the options that are open to the protagonists. They can't use cross-class combos and their attacks don't impart status effects aside from the occassional stun. Barring the odd Lieutenant or Boss-level enemy, they also can't heal themselves and they don't recover after battle. And they don't use de-buffs.

Provi-dance wrote...

Well, a beholder is quite different from a human...

It's in effect for typical "humanoid" combatants as well. A Level 2 human bandit uses attacks that are different from the PCs.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 08 août 2012 - 08:27 .

[wsandista]

thats1evildude wrote...

Because monsters don't have the options that are open to the protagonists. They can't use cross-class combos and their attacks don't impart status effects aside from the occassional stun. Barring the odd Lieutenant or Boss-level enemy, they also can't heal themselves and they don't recover after battle.

Then they could give monsters the ability to cause status effects, heal, and take away auto-heal from the party.

It's in effect for typical "humanoid" combatants as well. A Level 2 human bandit uses attacks that are different from the PCs.

I really dislike this. If the PC is a level 2 fighter and the Bandit is as well, they should be using similar abilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

thats1evildude wrote...

Because monsters don't have the options that are open to the protagonists. They can't use cross-class combos and their attacks don't impart status effects aside from the occassional stun.

That's part of the problem.  The same rules should govern everyone.  There's no reason why the PC shouldn't be able to be stunned or paralysed or put to sleep.

[thats1evildude]

wsandista wrote...

Then they could give monsters the ability to cause status effects, heal, and take away auto-heal from the party.

At which point Dragon Age becomes the series where your party is constantly fighting groups of four enemies or less. What seperates the PC or his party members from the endless stream of ***holes that he comes up against? You might as well hire the local mercenaries' guild to go take care of the Archdemon, or whatever may be the Big Bad of future titles; at least they have more manpower.

wsandista wrote...

I really dislike this. If the PC is a level 2 fighter and the Bandit is as well, they should be using similar abilities.

The bandit is not a Level 2 Fighter or a Level 2 Ranger or even a Level 2 Monk. He's a Level 2 Monster. He's just there to oppose and be killed by the party; thus, he doesn't need things like healing surges or powers that can only be used once per fight.

From the dawn of RPGs and video games in general, enemies have been constructed differently than your player avatar. What's the big effing deal?

Modifié par thats1evildude, 08 août 2012 - 10:21 .

[wsandista]

thats1evildude wrote...

At which point Dragon Age becomes the series where your four-on-four party is constantly fighting groups of four enemies or less. What seperates the PC or his party members from the endless stream of ****s that he comes up against? You might as well hire the local mercenaries' guild to go take care of the Archdemon, or whatever may be the Big Bad of future titles; at least they have more manpower.

Neverwinter Nights 2 had humanoid enemies using the same abilities as the party, and every creature had to follow the same rules. That game had you fight more than four(or five after Act1) quite a bit. The party was different because they were either better built or just had above average stats.

The bandit is not a Level 2 Fighter or a Level 2 Ranger or even a Level 2 Monk. He's a Level 2 Monster. He's just there to oppose and be killed by the party; thus, he doesn't need things like healing surges or powers that can only be used once per fight.

Healing surge? Is that something from 4E?

Why shouldn't enemies have x per day abilities? They did in 1E, 2E, 3E and 3.5E of D&D and the system wasn't broken. If anything it worked better because enemy mages didn't throw a constant barrage of fireballs(or similar Evocation spell) at you, because they had a limited supply.

From the dawn of RPGs and video games in general, enemies have been constructed differently than your player avatar. What's the big effing deal?

In most RPGs I have played, humanoid foes have been able to use abilities that the PC has access to, and everyone follows the same mechanics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

thats1evildude wrote...

The bandit is not a Level 2 Fighter or a Level 2 Ranger or even a Level 2 Monk. He's a Level 2 Monster. He's just there to oppose and be killed by the party;

Again, that's the problem.  That approach makes everything far too game-y, where the whole point of the enemies is to be killed.  That's dreadful.

The design of that bandit needs to make sense from the bandit's point of view as well as from the player character's point of view.  How does the bandit live his life prior to encountering the PC if he's designed in this way?

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

There should be no unnamed enemies in DA3. Every fight should mean something, every fight should be against characters from the story. This would mean far fewer battles, but I'm ok with that if the battles are with opponents instead of fodder.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bandits are characters in the story. They're just not important characters.

And they should all follow the same rules.

[zyntifox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Bandits are characters in the story. They're just not important characters.

And they should all follow the same rules.

I agree.

[Boss Fog]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Bandits are characters in the story. They're just not important characters.

And they should all follow the same rules.

Yes.  I'll tell you what else is odd, when every enemy you encounter fights the same way and your party fights in a completely different way; it looks as if they grabbed enemies from a different game and threw them in for you to fight.

[nightscrawl]

andar91 wrote...

Similarly, it would be nice if we could get some of the abilities the enemies have like that exploding ball thing or the teleport ability (can't really think of any others from non-mage characters).

Yes please! Even if it's made a super high level talent or something, I would love to be able to use that skill. I've always been envious of the Saarebas for that one.

[wowpwnslol]

wsandista wrote...

Yes. The biggest problem I had with DA2 combat was that the enemies did not use player skills. It seemed that they were much more limited and repetitive, probably because every enemy mage, rouge, or warrior used the same abilities.

Yeah, Bioware should totally implement player skills. Getting hit for 20K assassinate when you have about 300 hitpoints would surely guide this game in the right direction as far as balance is concerned.