86 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Tommyspa wrote...

I thought DA2 removed the "miss" function. Instead putting glancing blows in instead. Or it seemed this way for me. I would prefer to always hit when swinging my weapon across someones chest though.

Specials always hit, but you could still miss normal attacks.  In theory.  In practice, you'd hardly ever miss.  I think the only character in my party who would actually miss sometimes was Varric, and that was because he was mostly there to throw CC and open locks for me--I gimped him kinda severely.

The real place where hit/miss mattered was on enemies attacking your characters--if you capped defense (particularly on rogues) it made a HUGE difference to how much damage they took.

[Fast Jimmy]

If you remove random chance, then you are left with a game that just has "press A to kill your enemy." To which I would say - does the enemy have a chance to miss? Can you outrun a massive spell? Can you dodge the Arishok's insta-kill stab? Can you kite around the High Dragon? If a Fade Demon spawns behind you to perform Assasinate, can you move your character out of the way?

If the answer is yes to any of those, then giving your character no chance to miss is an entirely unfair advantage to players. Enemies can be easily dodged by using trigger-based gameplay, but to destroy them just requires tapping "A" when anywhere nearby.

THAT would make combat a chore. Because it would lead the developers to assume that everyone was actively dodging every attack, and at the same time spamming the attack button. Which means that if you aren't playing one character the majority of the time and using twitch reflexes the entire game during combat, your enemy can easily wipe you out. After all, if the enemy can be easily dodged, then that will only lead the devs to create more "insta-kill" moves as a penalty for NOT moving out of the way fast enough. Its a vicious cycle where combat becomes incredibly lopsided and more unrealistic, not less.

[Lithuasil]

Realmzmaster wrote...
Combat in RL is not always determine by the skill of the combatants but by other factors beyond their control. That dice roll represents those other forces.
 

In theory. In practice, dice rolls determine that I have a 20% chance of hitting a non-moving robot the size of a small house with my spear at point-blank range, because nobody told me that Fallout2 does not like guns.

Now beyond the baseless claim that lots of statistics add depth, there's precisely one argument in favor of stat-based combat: Those who are unwilling or unable to deal with a faster pace cannot roleplay fighting characters in a fast paced system - which is true. But there's another side to that coin - in a game that mistakes having ten pages of spreadsheets for a good idea, those who are unwilling or able to get a degree in accounting and statistics can't roleplay anything. (And then there's the mmo-style combat we have, that leaves both sides annoyed). Since either way is going to make people unhappy, that discussion is moot. 

But there's a different approach to things - provided the assumption that a RPG's primary objective is to be immersive.
Real swordfighting, as far as eight years of experience tell me, is a pretty fast, pretty hectic affair. Combat in general is. Now at the tabletop, we need dice, because we can't simulate that feeling - but on the PC we can do just that - make us feel like we ARE our characters, and not some deity floating above, moving pawns into place. In other words, make the game more immersive.
There's strategy games for the other kind of combat, as those are more about gameplay and less about immersion.

[Realmzmaster]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

I thought DA2 removed the "miss" function. Instead putting glancing blows in instead. Or it seemed this way for me. I would prefer to always hit when swinging my weapon across someones chest though.

Specials always hit, but you could still miss normal attacks.  In theory.  In practice, you'd hardly ever miss.  I think the only character in my party who would actually miss sometimes was Varric, and that was because he was mostly there to throw CC and open locks for me--I gimped him kinda severely.

The real place where hit/miss mattered was on enemies attacking your characters--if you capped defense (particularly on rogues) it made a HUGE difference to how much damage they took.

One of the complaints I have with DA2 is that Bioware capped defense at 80%. Attack can go to 100%. One of the reasons it was done was because in DAO you could make a character nigh unhittable. Defense in DAO could go above 100. If a character reach 120 or 130 all normal hits would miss. Only certain special attacks like overwhelm and the ogre grab attack were successful. An rogue archer could actually reach over 100 before Lothering with the right build.

[cJohnOne]

I really like the probability system that has developed over the years in RPG games. I don't enjoy blocking, rolling, jumping stuff like that. That just makes combat more complicated. Maybe it has to do with playing with a mouse and keyboard. Ducking just isn't any fun.

[Realmzmaster]

Lithuasil wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
Combat in RL is not always determine by the skill of the combatants but by other factors beyond their control. That dice roll represents those other forces.
 

In theory. In practice, dice rolls determine that I have a 20% chance of hitting a non-moving robot the size of a small house with my spear at point-blank range, because nobody told me that Fallout2 does not like guns.

Now beyond the baseless claim that lots of statistics add depth, there's precisely one argument in favor of stat-based combat: Those who are unwilling or unable to deal with a faster pace cannot roleplay fighting characters in a fast paced system - which is true. But there's another side to that coin - in a game that mistakes having ten pages of spreadsheets for a good idea, those who are unwilling or able to get a degree in accounting and statistics can't roleplay anything. (And then there's the mmo-style combat we have, that leaves both sides annoyed). Since either way is going to make people unhappy, that discussion is moot. 

But there's a different approach to things - provided the assumption that a RPG's primary objective is to be immersive.
Real swordfighting, as far as eight years of experience tell me, is a pretty fast, pretty hectic affair. Combat in general is. Now at the tabletop, we need dice, because we can't simulate that feeling - but on the PC we can do just that - make us feel like we ARE our characters, and not some deity floating above, moving pawns into place. In other words, make the game more immersive.
There's strategy games for the other kind of combat, as those are more about gameplay and less about immersion.

Many years of marital arts in all weather conditions has taught me that chance can play a very big role in who wins or loses. Does not matter how well prepared a person is. A slippery rock in the wrong place or an animal darting out from cover can cause a person to lose. You want to remove chance which is not realistic. It is part of the equation.

Ten pages of spreadsheets are not necessary. The computer takes care of all the calculations. All I have to do is develop my party as I see fit. I roleplay the characters I build I am not that character and the character is not me.   You want to become the character and have your skill decide how well the character does.

I am that deity controlling the pawns because I make all the decisions. I have many different Hawkes and Wardens none of them are me. They are characters I play and I am fully immensed in the world.
I accept chance just like it happens in the real world. As I asked people on this forum before how realistic do you want your fantasy game? Part of that realism is chance.

[BlueMagitek]

We need more critical misses. It always brings a smile to my face when one of the party rolls a 1 and either chucks their weapon in a completely different direction or stabs one of their friends.

Good times. =D

[Realmzmaster]

BlueMagitek wrote...

We need more critical misses. It always brings a smile to my face when one of the party rolls a 1 and either chucks their weapon in a completely different direction or stabs one of their friends.

Good times. =D

Absolutely!  Remember when there was a chance that a weapon could break if not properly maintained or if struck with a shattering blow!

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:48 .

[AlanC9]

It doesn't matter. The average attack does as much damage as the designers intend it should. if attacks hit 50% of the time they do X damage points. Change the design so they hit 100% of the ime and the designers just reset the damage to X/2.

[Lithuasil]

You are piloting these characters, not roleplaying them. Again, the argument of pace, based on preference is moot, since both sides need to be granted equal right to their opinion. But I have yet to meet anyone who honestly claimed bird-eye-view was more immersive then first person / shouldercam.

And yes - part of realism is chance. Part of realism is also, that a smart fighter can influence the odds, be it by choosing the terrain carefully or avoiding combat under certain circumstances. Either way many the odds are crucially misrepresented in statbased combat, both in terms of the gap between tiers of experience, and in the approach to dealing with things like "larger" threats.
For example - you defeat the High Dragon in DA2 by wailing at it's ankles for half an hour. You defeat the Paokai (essentially a lightning-dragon) in Dark Messiah by running away until you can lure it into a bottleneck and drop a gate on it's neck. One of these things is exciting and immersive, the other is busywork.

[Realmzmaster]

Lithuasil wrote...

You are piloting these characters, not roleplaying them. Again, the argument of pace, based on preference is moot, since both sides need to be granted equal right to their opinion. But I have yet to meet anyone who honestly claimed bird-eye-view was more immersive then first person / shouldercam.

And yes - part of realism is chance. Part of realism is also, that a smart fighter can influence the odds, be it by choosing the terrain carefully or avoiding combat under certain circumstances. Either way many the odds are crucially misrepresented in statbased combat, both in terms of the gap between tiers of experience, and in the approach to dealing with things like "larger" threats.
For example - you defeat the High Dragon in DA2 by wailing at it's ankles for half an hour. You defeat the Paokai (essentially a lightning-dragon) in Dark Messiah by running away until you can lure it into a bottleneck and drop a gate on it's neck. One of these things is exciting and immersive, the other is busywork.

I killed the High Dragon in DA2 by using Rogues with bow/crossbow and a mage. I also killed it using three warriors and a mage, three warriors and an archer, three mages and an archer. I killed it in a variety of ways can the same be said for the Paokai in Dark Messiah or did you only have one way to kill it?

[Maria Caliban]

Lithuasil wrote...

How about we scrap the rolling, and get a system based on playerskill?

I don't think 'click button to hit things' is much of a player skill in most action RPGs.

[Lithuasil]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I killed the High Dragon in DA2 by using Rogues with bow/crossbow and a mage. I also killed it using three warriors and a mage, three warriors and an archer, three mages and an archer. I killed it in a variety of ways can the same be said for the Paokai in Dark Messiah or did you only have one way to kill it?

Kind of odd comparison - what you did (hit/shoot/magic it with weapons/spells intended for use against humans) stayed the same in all varieties. Of course given a lack of party, you always kill the Paokai by yourself. I believe there's to ways for that particular enemy - a lot more, some contextual some not, for dealing with the more frequently appearing cyclops (none of which involve wailing at them until they run out of hitpoints). And yes, there's an encounter with an Abyss Worm, were you have no chance of killing the thing at all, and have to leg it, since a sword's not going to help you against a three-hundred foot armored monstrocity.

Maria Caliban wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

How about we scrap the rolling, and get a system based on playerskill?

I don't think 'click button to hit things' is much of a player skill in most action RPGs.

I was talking "skill" not "press button to brutalize highlighted enemy"-Arkham City style 

Modifié par Lithuasil, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:42 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

Others have said it better than I ever could - and I mean no one offense here - but please, keep the button mashing, action oriented, reflex dependant combat out of my RPG's. My character's ability to hit, or avoid being hit should have nothing to do with how fast I push a button, but on the stats that he has acquired over the game.

If people want a button masher, there are tons of games already designed just for them. RPG's simulate combat through an abstraction. The animations are there just to give a little "life" to the abstraction - not necessarily to reflect our twitch skills.

The whole point of building your character is to make the percentages work in your favor while also abstracting the distinct and ever-present possibility that you slip on a bit of blood, you are winded and miss-time a blow or a thousand and one other things that can and do happen in battle.

Keep the random chance, please - and never, ever make my character's success dependent on how fast I can hit that odd combination of keys.

And while I am at it, get off my lawn... :-)

Edited for sticky keys...

Modifié par CaptainBlackGold, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:45 .

[Fyurian2]

cJohnOne wrote...

I really like the probability system that has developed over the years in RPG games. I don't enjoy blocking, rolling, jumping stuff like that. That just makes combat more complicated. Maybe it has to do with playing with a mouse and keyboard. Ducking just isn't any fun.

It has absolutely nothing to do with playing with mouse & keyboard, and everything to do with the person playing.
I played Jedi Knight (and Mysteries of the Sith expansion), Jedi Knight 2 and Jedi Academy with m&K. Same goes for Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim.
The JK games had a degree of automatic defense when using your lightsaber, but only on what was within a narrow arc infront of you. You still had to maneuver your character to maximise defense and offense.

One set of games is FPS with optional third-person melee combat, the other is FPRPG, but both work in largely the same fashion.

But those games (JK series and TES games) aren't built around party-based combat.
Typically, any game that focuses on party-based combat will involve individual character stats that affect combat effectiveness, as well as ways to increase effectiveness by various means, and the enemy having ways to decrease your party's combat effectiveness (as you would have for the enemy as well).
That's a very, very loose explanation of party-based combat style games that really only applies to singleplayer games, and nowadays to a certain style of RPG, though it used to include game types outside of the RPG genre.

Modifié par Fyurian2, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:48 .

[legbamel]

Lithuasil wrote...
You are piloting these characters, not roleplaying them. Again, the argument of pace, based on preference is moot, since both sides need to be granted equal right to their opinion. But I have yet to meet anyone who honestly claimed bird-eye-view was more immersive then first person / shouldercam.

And yes - part of realism is chance. Part of realism is also, that a smart fighter can influence the odds, be it by choosing the terrain carefully or avoiding combat under certain circumstances. Either way many the odds are crucially misrepresented in statbased combat, both in terms of the gap between tiers of experience, and in the approach to dealing with things like "larger" threats.
For example - you defeat the High Dragon in DA2 by wailing at it's ankles for half an hour. You defeat the Paokai (essentially a lightning-dragon) in Dark Messiah by running away until you can lure it into a bottleneck and drop a gate on it's neck. One of these things is exciting and immersive, the other is busywork.

Hello!  I find third-person perspective to be more immersive because I can experience more of the world around my character than I do in the blinkered first-person mode.  I would utterly hate having DA turned into an FPS.  Chance and dice rolling are a traditional part of RPGs.  Dumbing them down to twitches and pandering to MMO min/maxers would remove what few vestiges of a great genre may still be found in today's video games.  Nice to meet you.

[The Night Haunter]

Lithuasil wrote...

mazariamonti wrote...

lol ok, if you get rid of the dice roll eventually the only attributes to pick from will be "strength, mana, and stamina" next thing you know they'll change the point of view to first person and we'll basically be playing Skyrim. Just because you can't live with the occasional time your attack misses.

There's no (fantasy) rpg in existence that would not be improved by lifting the combat system from Dark Messiah, period.

Your right! Just look at how much of a success DM was! Wait....

[snackrat]

The whole point of DA is that it is tactical. You can play it in a more actiony role (one of the complaints of DAII is that it went too far in this direction) but it is supposed to favour those that would rather balance stat against stat, role against role, power against power. Maybe for people with crappy reaction times but excellent logistical skills.

[Lithuasil]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
 but please, keep the button mashing, action oriented, reflex dependant combat out of my RPG's. 

As I mentioned - what makes them "your" rpgs, and why can't they keep the slow, clunky, statbased tedium that causes the massive ludonarative dissonance plaguing all bioware games out of my rpgs? 

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If you remove random chance, then you are left with a game that just has "press A to kill your enemy."

There are a number of games where killing your enemy takes some amount of skill. There are fighting games like street fighter. There are action games like Hitman, Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, or Far Cry where the difficulty is in getting to a target or avoiding enemies.

The problem is that BioWare games are all about enemies mindlessly spotting and attacking you.

[The Night Haunter]

I find this whole thread disturbing. Why would DA completely change its combat system to an action/rpg style?
If you want an Action/RPG game Darksiders 2 is relatively new, and there are others (im not gonna name em cause i dont care about them). Just because you like that specific genre doesnt mean all games should switch to that genre, variety is good.
DA should follow the strongsuit of Bioware, traditional style RPGs like KotOR, NWN, BG and DAO.

[Lithuasil]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

I find this whole thread disturbing. Why would DA completely change its combat system to an action/rpg style?

Because I have yet to play a Bioware game (excluding maybe SwTor) where the gameplay is anything more then the annoying busywork between dialogues, that I have to ignore completely, on behalf of my poor constantly violated suspension of disbilief.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Lithuasil wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
 but please, keep the button mashing, action oriented, reflex dependant combat out of my RPG's. 

As I mentioned - what makes them "your" rpgs, and why can't they keep the slow, clunky, statbased tedium that causes the massive ludonarative dissonance plaguing all bioware games out of my rpgs? 

They are "my" RPG's because that is how combat has been handled since the old D&D days. Action games had twitch combat, RPG's had tactical, stat based combat. However apparently a lot of people like the story telling in traditional RPG's and have migrated over. That and perhaps they got some faint taste by playin MMO's. But now that they see what we have loved for years, they want to change it to make it like their action games.

And as far as the "dissonance" you mentioned; it need not exist at all. All game combat is an abstraction in one way or the other. RPG's use stats, action games use "twitch." You are the one who wants to change the genre - I am just pleading that we retain one of the fundamental aspects that many of us have enjoyed since computers first began replace DM's.

[Icinix]

I think this would require to much of a revamping of the combat and level up system.

Also - I prefer the current system - I like to play with a cup of coffee in my left hand and control the mouse with my right.

[Lithuasil]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

They are "my" RPG's because that is how combat has been handled since the old D&D days. 

Tradition is the worst excuse imaginable. First of all - the rulesets of those old D&D days developed from tabletop wargaming- Rules of strategy games, clumsily adapted to fit different demands.
Secondly - the reason we have abstract rather then simulated combat in old rpgs is not that it was ever a good idea. On the tabletop, we lack the ability to simulate combat - as did the first PCrpgs. This tradition so many people seem to cling to, was never founded by choice, purely by the limitations that a technology had, back then. But we've overcome these limitations. We have the theoretical resources to actually simulate stuff - it's like declaring cars to be witchcraft, because two hundred years ago carriages had to be drawn by horses, and that's the way it was handled since the old roman days.