86 réponses à ce sujet

[legbamel]

Regardless of my twitch-fail, chance makes combat more engaging, as does having the ability to muster your forces and get the best out of your companions. The whole point of being able to customize then is to make them more capable and effective at having your back. If you already regard combat as a distraction from the story then why would you give a hang what it was like? Leave the fundamentals as they are and play an FPS is you really want something that depends more on your reaction time and less on the characters whose stats and equipment you've spent 37 hours getting just so.

[iSignIn]

Lithuasil wrote...

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

It is based on playerskill and it's easy to get rid of rolling.

Just build characters which have 100% Attack vs bosses. Do that and you'll never miss. It's that simple.

[MichaelStuart]

legbamel wrote...

Regardless of my twitch-fail, chance makes combat more engaging, as does having the ability to muster your forces and get the best out of your companions. The whole point of being able to customize then is to make them more capable and effective at having your back. If you already regard combat as a distraction from the story then why would you give a hang what it was like? Leave the fundamentals as they are and play an FPS is you really want something that depends more on your reaction time and less on the characters whose stats and equipment you've spent 37 hours getting just so.

Why do you think I want somethin based on reaction time? What's wrong with wanting a better combat system to go along with a story?The all or nothing system I suggested would make stat and equipment far more important.

[legbamel]

That was more in response to Lithuasil, who wrote
"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."

[Realmzmaster]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A pure black and white system like the OP proposes is not realistic. Basically what is proposed is that if the attack score is higher than the defense score the attacker will always hit. If the attack and defense scores are the same then they cancel each other out. If the defense score is higher than the attack score the attack always fails.

The OP would suggest that in the last two possibilities that the attacker run and find a way to raise the attack score. The attacker then goes back to the same enemy and is assured of a win because the attack score is now higher than the enemy defense score. That is simply not fun to me because it removes the chance of my character or the enemy getting lucky.

No matter how skilled the opponent luck plays a factor. The point of skill is mitigate the effects of chance not eliminate it. Otherwise actions like the "Hail Mary" pass in football would not exist.

Golfers would never miss a hole because the golf ball hit a pebble just enough to deflect the ball. Swords would never break.

Also in the example it was stated that if the enemy is surrounded the attackers should automatically hit, but that removes the chance of the attacker hitting other attackers (friendly fire). If an archer (no matter how skilled) fires into a crowd there should be a chance that the archer strikes one of his own men because the that attacker stepped in front of the arrow.

If you remove chance you remove these possibilities.

I don't see how that would be a bad thing?

Because it is not realistic. And almost everyone on the forum complains about how unrealistic certain points are from floating weapons to no bow strings. If realism is a requirement then chance is part of that realism.

[Fawx9]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A pure black and white system like the OP proposes is not realistic. Basically what is proposed is that if the attack score is higher than the defense score the attacker will always hit. If the attack and defense scores are the same then they cancel each other out. If the defense score is higher than the attack score the attack always fails.

The OP would suggest that in the last two possibilities that the attacker run and find a way to raise the attack score. The attacker then goes back to the same enemy and is assured of a win because the attack score is now higher than the enemy defense score. That is simply not fun to me because it removes the chance of my character or the enemy getting lucky.

No matter how skilled the opponent luck plays a factor. The point of skill is mitigate the effects of chance not eliminate it. Otherwise actions like the "Hail Mary" pass in football would not exist.

Golfers would never miss a hole because the golf ball hit a pebble just enough to deflect the ball. Swords would never break.

Also in the example it was stated that if the enemy is surrounded the attackers should automatically hit, but that removes the chance of the attacker hitting other attackers (friendly fire). If an archer (no matter how skilled) fires into a crowd there should be a chance that the archer strikes one of his own men because the that attacker stepped in front of the arrow.

If you remove chance you remove these possibilities.

I don't see how that would be a bad thing?

Because you are limiting an area based on a level.

Lets say my attack rating is 9 and the NPC's defense is 10. Under your system I would never kill them. Under dice rolls I'd probably miss a bunch, but with tactics, good timing and luck I might actual beat the challenge.

The black and white system removes all grey area, and instead replaces it with an invisible wall. Sure I may run into something that I just can't beat, cause the odds are too high, but why take out that option? Me failing at challenges makes overcoming them that much better.

And if its not chance that makes you fail its going to be the skewed health pools and damage that NPCs will get to take into consideration that you will never be missing or get hit.

[AlienWolf728]

 Why don't we just make DA3 an FPS while we're at it? <_<

Edit: "playerskill" = players ability to right-click.

Modifié par AlienWolf728, 29 septembre 2012 - 04:28 .

[MichaelStuart]

Realmzmaster wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A pure black and white system like the OP proposes is not realistic. Basically what is proposed is that if the attack score is higher than the defense score the attacker will always hit. If the attack and defense scores are the same then they cancel each other out. If the defense score is higher than the attack score the attack always fails.

The OP would suggest that in the last two possibilities that the attacker run and find a way to raise the attack score. The attacker then goes back to the same enemy and is assured of a win because the attack score is now higher than the enemy defense score. That is simply not fun to me because it removes the chance of my character or the enemy getting lucky.

No matter how skilled the opponent luck plays a factor. The point of skill is mitigate the effects of chance not eliminate it. Otherwise actions like the "Hail Mary" pass in football would not exist.

Golfers would never miss a hole because the golf ball hit a pebble just enough to deflect the ball. Swords would never break.

Also in the example it was stated that if the enemy is surrounded the attackers should automatically hit, but that removes the chance of the attacker hitting other attackers (friendly fire). If an archer (no matter how skilled) fires into a crowd there should be a chance that the archer strikes one of his own men because the that attacker stepped in front of the arrow.

If you remove chance you remove these possibilities.

I don't see how that would be a bad thing?

Because it is not realistic. And almost everyone on the forum complains about how unrealistic certain points are from floating weapons to no bow strings. If realism is a requirement then chance is part of that realism.

If people want realism, then getting rid of dice rolls is a step in the right direction.
Thet is no chance in real life.
Its just your skill versus what the world throws at you, and if you haven't got the skill, the world will crush you.

[MichaelStuart]

Fawx9 wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

A pure black and white system like the OP proposes is not realistic. Basically what is proposed is that if the attack score is higher than the defense score the attacker will always hit. If the attack and defense scores are the same then they cancel each other out. If the defense score is higher than the attack score the attack always fails.

The OP would suggest that in the last two possibilities that the attacker run and find a way to raise the attack score. The attacker then goes back to the same enemy and is assured of a win because the attack score is now higher than the enemy defense score. That is simply not fun to me because it removes the chance of my character or the enemy getting lucky.

No matter how skilled the opponent luck plays a factor. The point of skill is mitigate the effects of chance not eliminate it. Otherwise actions like the "Hail Mary" pass in football would not exist.

Golfers would never miss a hole because the golf ball hit a pebble just enough to deflect the ball. Swords would never break.

Also in the example it was stated that if the enemy is surrounded the attackers should automatically hit, but that removes the chance of the attacker hitting other attackers (friendly fire). If an archer (no matter how skilled) fires into a crowd there should be a chance that the archer strikes one of his own men because the that attacker stepped in front of the arrow.

If you remove chance you remove these possibilities.

I don't see how that would be a bad thing?

Because you are limiting an area based on a level.

Lets say my attack rating is 9 and the NPC's defense is 10. Under your system I would never kill them. Under dice rolls I'd probably miss a bunch, but with tactics, good timing and luck I might actual beat the challenge.

The black and white system removes all grey area, and instead replaces it with an invisible wall. Sure I may run into something that I just can't beat, cause the odds are too high, but why take out that option? Me failing at challenges makes overcoming them that much better.

And if its not chance that makes you fail its going to be the skewed health pools and damage that NPCs will get to take into consideration that you will never be missing or get hit.

You miss the part were attack and defence can be modified.
I suggest that you get bonuses and penalties dependent on were the character is.
For example: A character fighting on higher ground would get a bonus to attack. A character fighting more than one enemy would get a penalty to defence.
So to beat a NPC with a higher defense you need to maneuever your character in to a better postion, or trick the NPC into a worst postion.
All tactics, no luck.

[tmp7704]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

 now im all for "dice rolls" as you say, but as far as Origins goes, the enemy must move or block for me to miss, otherwise id rather have DA2's approach. Origins made me angry when i miss an enemy 3 times in a row yet the enemy still continues to attack, when the enemy clearly doesnt move to avoid the attack.

Perhaps your issue is then simply lack of appropriate dodge animation? Avoiding an incoming attack doesn't after all require every time jumping couple meters out of a way, or actively blocking -- a small lean is often enough. It's just the game doesn't actually show that for the most part.

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:06 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

tmp7704 wrote...

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

 now im all for "dice rolls" as you say, but as far as Origins goes, the enemy must move or block for me to miss, otherwise id rather have DA2's approach. Origins made me angry when i miss an enemy 3 times in a row yet the enemy still continues to attack, when the enemy clearly doesnt move to avoid the attack.

Perhaps your issue is then simply lack of appropriate dodge animation? Avoiding an incoming attack doesn't after all require every time jumping couple meters out of a way, or actively blocking -- a small lean is often enough. It's just the game doesn't actually show that for the most part.

its mostly realism basically. im just saying people complain that DA2 doesnt have misses, but if it were actually fighting that close youre rarely going to miss, and i want to see the character(s) actually dodge/block attacks for every miss, that way the enemy will stop to dodge or block instead of attacking while you continue to miss

Modifié par MagmaSaiyan, 29 septembre 2012 - 10:35 .

[septembervirgin]

I found I never really missed opponents in DA2. The problem with DA2 isn't the random chance to hit, as Maria Caliban pointed out, it's the fact that monsters and opponents are usually going to see us and then attack without much more reason than Bioware believing that we like fight after fight.

Dragon Age 2 didn't have much option for stealthing in and positioning myself. I disliked that. Also, my characters would run scurrying in many directions even if I set their position. Setting their tactics was a pain and hardly helped our shield-maiden Avelline when she'd feel it appropriate to run to the rear, behind my archer character, drawing the battle to the rear row. It's not like she was suffering at all. Removing a random element won't help this nor will it help the game much.

DA2 had the problem with combat being too very non-tactical and even dumb at times.