33 réponses à ce sujet

[Provi-dance]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

And they should all follow the same rules.

They should.

[wsandista]

wowpwnslol wrote...

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.

Thats why damage output should also be balanced as well. IIRC DAO managed to avoid OHKO when foes used class abilities available to the party members.

[wowpwnslol]

wsandista wrote...


Thats why damage output should also be balanced as well. IIRC DAO managed to avoid OHKO when foes used class abilities available to the party members.

Personally, I am not too fond of assassin-type enemies being "difficult" by the virtue of their one shot attacks. In my opinion the game developers should concentrate on difficulty that rewards skill and preparation, not  enemies with cheap one-hit-kill skills that force you to reload until you manage to beat them due to sheer luck.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wowpwnslol wrote...

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.

I can't imagine anyone ever designing a game where the player's characters can hit for 20K when the enemies don't have anywhere near that many hit points.

Because, for the game to be balanced, the enemies would have to have comparable numbers of hitpoints to the player's characters.  And if everyone in the world has about 300 hit points, then there no reason for 20K damage abilities even to exist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wowpwnslol wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Thats why damage output should also be balanced as well. IIRC DAO managed to avoid OHKO when foes used class abilities available to the party members.

Personally, I am not too fond of assassin-type enemies being "difficult" by the virtue of their one shot attacks. In my opinion the game developers should concentrate on difficulty that rewards skill and preparation, not  enemies with cheap one-hit-kill skills that force you to reload until you manage to beat them due to sheer luck.

I like luck to play some role.  One-hit-kill abilities should work only rarely, but everyone should have access to them.

[nightscrawl]

lemarcheur wrote...

Yes I agree in principle with the OP, but I suspect it’s more related to game design than anything else:

A) Actual AI system: is well too limited to master the complexity of group tactics. It works on the PC side because of the extra scripting and/or micromanagement. So going with enemies with the same abilities as PC means probably scripting most of these encounters. This leads to …

The much debated scaling system: if you need most encounters to be scripted than the automatic level scaling system is difficult to balance (no more lev 26 street thugs or wolf in later stage of the game trough a magical formula). You either need to invest massively in creating new monsters (a la TES) or you get a much more linear story to accommodate point A.

I suspect from A and B alone that enemies’ talents arsenal were severely nurfed in DA2 because:
• Cheaper than creating an AI that would handle its complexity ;
• Cheaper than scripting every fight (save Boss one’s);
• Cheaper than creating a broader range of monster types;
• You can keep level scaling and enable appearance of an open story.

As for the yet to be announced DA3, I guess more or less what is the target audience. Will it be:
• “The Wider Audience” a la GoW, KoA, TES where you only need meat to cut and don’t care too much on group tactics;
• “The Niche Market” interested in group tactics and believability of the encounters (no flying Templars or level 26 wolves).

Guess we have to wait …

The stories for both DAO and DA2 were linear. Sure, in DAO you could decide to do Redcliffe, mages, dwarves, elves; decide to do elves, dwarves, mages, Redcliffe; or any combination, but you still had to do them before you could face Loghain and the darkspawn. Those individual areas had their own linear stories to work through. And once you completed them you went to Denerim and followed with the Landsmeet and the final battle.

So I don't really see how specific scripted events changes much in the way of that. Unless you are referring to the game expecting you to be at a certain level when you do Redcliffe with a certain amount of available skills, and at a different level when you go into the mage tower with more skills, so they can script events based on that knowledge.

It would be nice if they could have different, not "difficulties" per say, but modes rather, to accommodate these different interests while still keeping the same story. The Deep Roads for instance, in both games, has a lot of fodder creatures that you kill as you progress through the dungeon. I don't mind the occasional tactical experience, but having to plan out every single encounter as you go through a dungeon seems so tedious to me.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 11 août 2012 - 08:49 .

[Blacklash93]

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.

My problem was the latter. Too few enemy types with very limited abilities and behaviors.

Enemies with seperate abilities can work very well. In fact I prefer them when they're done well.

[Anvos]

lemarcheur wrote...

Yes I agree in principle with the OP, but I suspect it’s more related to game design than anything else:

A) Actual AI system: is well too limited to master the complexity of group tactics. It works on the PC side because of the extra scripting and/or micromanagement. So going with enemies with the same abilities as PC means probably scripting most of these encounters. This leads to …

The much debated scaling system: if you need most encounters to be scripted than the automatic level scaling system is difficult to balance (no more lev 26 street thugs or wolf in later stage of the game trough a magical formula). You either need to invest massively in creating new monsters (a la TES) or you get a much more linear story to accommodate point A.

I suspect from A and B alone that enemies’ talents arsenal were severely nurfed in DA2 because:
• Cheaper than creating an AI that would handle its complexity ;
• Cheaper than scripting every fight (save Boss one’s);
• Cheaper than creating a broader range of monster types;
• You can keep level scaling and enable appearance of an open story.

As for the yet to be announced DA3, I guess more or less what is the target audience. Will it be:
• “The Wider Audience” a la GoW, KoA, TES where you only need meat to cut and don’t care too much on group tactics;
• “The Niche Market” interested in group tactics and believability of the encounters (no flying Templars or level 26 wolves).

Guess we have to wait …

I highly disagree.  The AI in the game is perfectly able to use the basics of of tactics the same as the companions and player character can use them.  All you have to do is give the AI the tactic programs the character and companion AI has and have somebody spend a couple hours setting up the conditions.  Its just somewhere between laziness, lack of time, or bad design decisions that the DA 2 AI can't use a wider variety of abilities and most of the player abilities.