108 réponses à ce sujet

[Vanilka]

jillabender wrote...
On the other hand, I really disliked the long cooldowns for potions in DA2 – it meant that when my characters were out of stamina, I was often stuck waiting for the cooldown on the stamina potions to run out, and that's definitely not the fun part of combat for me!

Oh, this is truly a very annoying aspect of the game. I also find it very frustrating. I put the potion into the quickbar, so that when I use a potion, at least it doesn't disable the rest of the party from using one, as the quick options do. But it still does take quite a long time to get usable again. It also bothers me I can't use a different potion with a similar effect as I could in Origins. You can use the lesser health poultice and health poultice and greater health poultice, one after another. Still, it doesn't make Origins easy. I'm not saying it's ideal, but I see no reason for disabling it in DAII. Short cooldowns are okay, but I do feel it should be up to the player if they feel like winning with or without drowning their characters with potions.

[Foolsfolly]

Stop trying to bring realism into this.

Realistically light armor would mean you die. Realistically arrows means any style that didn't favor a shield was useless. Realistically swords should never make contact with other sword blades it's dulls them and swords are more for stabbing than swinging. Realistically all of this looks clumsy and ugly.

I like fantasy in my fantasy, thank you. Epic sword fights, cool moves, interesting tactics, synergies with other abilities and attacks... all of which are very video-game-y. But why are we suddenly supposed to pretend we're not playing video games?

[n7stormrunner]

because the game is no where near out and we need to do something while waiting for info?

[jillabender]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Stop trying to bring realism into this.

Realistically light armor would mean you die. Realistically arrows means any style that didn't favor a shield was useless. Realistically swords should never make contact with other sword blades it's dulls them and swords are more for stabbing than swinging. Realistically all of this looks clumsy and ugly.

I like fantasy in my fantasy, thank you. Epic sword fights, cool moves, interesting tactics, synergies with other abilities and attacks... all of which are very video-game-y. But why are we suddenly supposed to pretend we're not playing video games?

I find it interesting to learn about real-world historical combat, but I agree that "realism" doesn't necessarily have to be the be-all and end-all when it comes to combat and combat animations in a game – the fact that something is "realistic" doesn't necessarily mean it would look or feel right in a game.

Modifié par jillabender, 04 novembre 2012 - 02:18 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I mean proper animations, not simply a skill.

The difficulty with animations is that they need to be synchronized. How does one reconcile that when both combatants are executing their attack? Although, this IS giving me some ideas about things I could potentially suggest... >.>

[Lethys1]

From an animation standpoint I loved the mages, hated the rogues and 2h warriors, and thought the 1h shield warriors were fine.  The rogues jumping around like anime idiots and the 2h warriors swinging ballpoint pens was just too much.  I understand this game is a fantasy game, but it should be a Lord of the Rings style fantasy, where it can be related to the real world.  DA:O over-emphasized 2h warriors but this game did the exact opposite.

From a mechanics standpoint, I hated the decision to make potions replace healing as the only effective way of regaining health, and the inability of warriors to get enough aggro.  

The enemies were not at all balanced.  There were low health bad guys, then high health bad guys, then high heatlh bad guys who could completely disappear.  The ones that can disappear needed to be medium health or low heatlh.  They were way overpowered in DA2, to the point of game breaking.  There is no reason I should be slicing through the game's enemies like butter, then be on attempt 25 of a fight involving 3 brand new mid-fight spawns of disappearing high health bad guys.  I hope the enemy balance is taken into consideration a little more in this game.

But the worst part of combat was the continually spawning warriors which eliminate any strategy from this game.  DA:O's main gameplay feature, the strategic pause menu combat, was essentially eliminated because planning for brand new spawns mid-fight is impossible.  It made the game so frustrating that towards the end of the game, where this happened a lot more, I switched the difficulty to easy and just sped through the game to see the ending, which I was disappointed by (that's for another post).

[Realmzmaster]

I found DAO set battles to easy. There was no surprise. Enemies should not be that predictable. Sten said the darkspawn came from everywhere. That was not true in DAO. The darkspawn was basically in front of the party. The spawning in DA2 was silly but at least there were enemies coming from more than one place and not just in front of the party. That is realistic (not the spawning). Strategy and tactics are not static they have to be adjusted on the fly many times.

One learns to adapt to the situation. Mybe it is my background in wargames that I expect enemies to appear from many places especially in a city.

I had no probably adapting my strategy to the waves or parachuting enemy. Parachuting enemies are a problem in most wargames. They always drop behind enemy lines to hit the supply lines or weakest units.

The animations did not bother me because I know they are animations. The combat system has already calculated whether it was a hit or not. The animation is eye candy. Just like the animations in DAO or DA2 with the beheadings. Very difficult to do in real life.

I like the rogue and mage animations more than the ones in DAO. At the very least the characters in DA2 actually know how to run in combat.

[Anomaly-]

jillabender wrote...
I also liked the way that selecting attributes and abilities worked in DA2. I respectfully disagree with those who have argued that DA2's leveling system resulted in too many "useless attributes" – I found the opposite to be the case.

Definitely going to have to strongly disagree here. What they did to attributes and class builds was one of the things I hated most about DA2. Basically, they told you what two attributes to invest in, and if you tried to think outside the box at all, all you did was shoot yourself in the foot. I'll take some quotes from my DA2 review:

...First of all, attributes are even more shallow than they were in Origins. I played a rogue, as I always do, and I was very disappointed. Essentially, there are only two attributes of use and/or interest: dexterity and cunning. Every rogue mechanic is tied to these two attributes, whether it makes sense or not. I realize this makes things convenient for people who don’t want to think about how they build their characters too much, but I find it horribly shallow. It’s even worse when you realize that  dexterity is pretty much forced on you as it is a requirement for equipment (more importantly, weapons). Origins had requirements too, but they were primarily strength. This made more sense, as strength should obviously dictate whether or not you can carry/use something, and it also gave more depth to the builds as you at least had to consider how much you invested in a third attribute. Dexterity should only contribute to things like accuracy, evasion and possibly critical chance and/or speed. Having it affect damage and so many other
things as well just lumps too many useful things into 1 place and makes anyone stupid not to invest heavily in it.

...skills also fall victim to this. I quickly noticed just how many skills become obsolete as a result of either similar skills, or the attribute design. This makes the depth of classes and combat even shallower than Origins. My plan was to be a purely offensive rogue, focusing on cunning to boost critical damage and high damage abilities/stealth. I planned to use the skill that grants 100% critical chance while flanking to make up for the critical chance deficit I would have from not investing as heavily in dexterity. That skill, btw, pretty much makes the similar skills that grant 100% critical chance from stealth and 100% critical chance on a stunned enemy obsolete. However, I then realized that I pretty much had to invest in dexterity if I hoped to use any decent equipment. I then also noticed that any
gear I wore inevitably had the same bonuses – critical chance, critical damage, and/or physical damage. As I progressed through the game, even without focusing on dexterity I still achieved a critical chance of nearly 70%. Combined with the inherent flanking bonus, I pretty much had 100%, making all 3 of those critical passives obsolete.

The only thing I liked about DA2's approach was larger specialization trees and skill upgrades. Unfortunately, it was just poorly designed. Too many similar skills resulting in much fewer choices than at first glance, specializations didn't differ all that much, and skills and attributes were poorly designed, resulting in doing anything other than what the developers clearly intended for you to do awkward and ineffective.

I really enjoy playing a Rogue, scanning the battlefield looking for the shortest path to the back of the nearest enemy with the most enemies in close proximity in order to deal the greatest amount of damage in the shortest amount of time, using poisons concocted through my mastery of rare toxins I painstakingly gathered. I guess what it comes down to for me, was that I just never had this feeling in DA2. I never had to do any of the above. Backstab became an active skill that instantly teleported me through the ground to the target enemy's back. I went from target to target by pressing 1. Poisons I could just buy from a vendor, as with every other class. No more traps, pets, poison making. All of these things -- Rogue-like things -- were taken out of my hands and done for me (or no longer done at all, as the case may be). I felt like the game was playing the Rogue for me, and all I was really doing was interacting with the same interface as the other classes. Sure the animations were different, but I felt little difference between playing a Rogue and a Warrior, despite all the arbitrary restrictions intended to have the opposite effect.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 04 novembre 2012 - 06:00 .

[Vanilka]

With rogues being my favourites in DA, I must completely agree with Anomaly-. I am very sorry, seeing a lot of options and abilities go. I still sorely miss things like lockpicking talents, which offered an option to be the party's lockpicker, but also focus on dexterity or strength instead of just cunning. As it has been said, the attribute system almost forces you to build your character one way, giving you only two attributes to focus on, unless you want to break your characters. These attributes are essential if, as Anomaly- has mentioned, you want to wear decent armour, and, might I add, pick more complicated locks. Origins system isn't perfect, but I do consider it superior for it allows more variety, more fantasy.
Recently, I've got back to playing Neverwinter Nights and realised how many possibilities I have in this game as regards building my character. There is one essential attribute I should focus on (I can choose not to without breaking the character), but I can basically build my character however I please. Some of my spellcasters are also skilled fighters and I love I can play this way.
I also agree that some skills simply make it too easy, such as the aforementioned Backstab talent (which basically allows you to backstab enemies FROM THE FRONT). Ordering potions, poisons, grenades etc. as the only way of getting them also doesn't make me happy.
Rogues are so multifunctional and fun to play in Origins. They are tricksters that fight using their heads. DAII rogues are just another kind of warrior, the main difference being that they can pick locks and disarm traps, can't equip certain weapons and armour. Which is also incredibly frustrating. Why can't I equip my rogue with a sword or heavier armour? Again, you're forced to use the same kind of equipment.
I have fun playing rogues in DAII, I really do, but, gods, I do want Origins rogues back. So, what I would definitely love to see in the next game is variety. Variety in character building, variety in the use of equipment, variety in fighting styles.

[philippe willaume]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I having trouble understanding the lack of a sense of weight. I admit that two handed swords should not look like you are using a toothpick, but neither should it look like you are swinging an anvil. DAO was too slow in that regard. The two handed technique has to be used for both offense and defense. The slow movement in the swing in DAO made me doubt the ability to recover for defensive purposes.

I think it is the speed of the swing in DA2 that makes it look like it has less weight if that is what you mean by sense of weight.

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

hello
Really as far as fighting, both game are just about as far remove from reality and realism as each other
Two handes swords and pole-axe are really show stopper when used agains't an inarmed opponent.
Fiore de Liberi, a late 1300 early 1400 italian fencing master, said it that you need to **** up one and you end up in two parts.

But the speed in DA:2 was closer to how quick a two handed sword is. In fact you have a better contol of the tip and the cut  than a one handed sword.
it is easy to check take a broom, broom head towards you. and you see how much control you have on the tip and how easy it is stop the cut two handed compared with one hand.

It would be nice, is for people in full plate to us their armour in a more "realistic" manner. 
if someone strike with a one or two hande sword, you deflect th eblow with your arm and you cut him one handed or run him through, bracing the crossguard against you breastplate to give a lance rest effect.


phil

[philippe willaume]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Note that one of the reasons that animation interrupt is less important, imo, in da2 is because the player must voluntarily choose to attack unlike dao where it is less obvious.

hello Alan
that hold true only at the start of the fight, as several people have pointed out, you need to react to the changing enviroment hence you will have to interupt animation when something new happens, like when a new waves arrive and you have not quite finished the last one.
phil

[philippe willaume]

@ Lethys1, and Realmzmaster
Your point are true but not mutually exclusives, in fact I think we are after the same thing.

Spawning was not a problem in DA because you could scout ahead (with a rogue or a skill)
so even when enemy was located at several places. you could modify your approach so that you dealt with a quantity of your liking
and organize your party as you saw fit using the terrain and eventually using traps.
Having two weapon specialization did really help as you could mix role for the same char between ranged and melee.
and DA:0 mechanics let you make your char/companions according to the role you want them to play and the game is much much kinder with the sub-optimal build that are the result of that possibility.

The animation interrupt enabled you to respond to any on the spot changes of tactics you would need. This in certain measure can be done through tactics scripting in DA:2.

Both game did not really scale up well. play an ultimate build in DA:2 and you don't need tactics anymore. Just like playing a party with two mages in DA:0.

yes waves are fine, and ambushes by shrieks were the same in DA:0 and we could say that the DLC changed most of the waves to behave more like DA:0 where they would span from rational locations.

we can't disagree, that if BW get rid of the manga-esque and brass band conducting elements of the animation,DA:2 is better than DA: 0 where rogues are LFMAO shuffling every day fan base.

i would say that the difference for me, and what i would like to see in DA:3 was DA:0 feeling that I was playing as a member of a integrate party where the sum of all was greater than the arithmetical addition of each and not a super dude who happens to have geezers tagging along.
phil

[abaris]

philippe willaume wrote...

Spawning was not a problem in DA because you could scout ahead (with a rogue or a skill)
so even when enemy was located at several places. you could modify your approach so that you dealt with a quantity of your liking
and organize your party as you saw fit using the terrain and eventually using traps.

That's also one of the reasons why the wave mechanic was such a terrible idea with DAII. Apart from looking ridiculous it took away on the tactical level, since whatever you do, there's always more out of thin air.

[philippe willaume]

Anomaly- wrote...

jillabender wrote...
I also liked the way that selecting attributes and abilities worked in DA2. I respectfully disagree with those who have argued that DA2's leveling system resulted in too many "useless attributes" – I found the opposite to be the case.

Definitely going to have to strongly disagree here. What they did to attributes and class builds was one of the things I hated most about DA2. Basically, they told you what two attributes to invest in, and if you tried to think outside the box at all, all you did was shoot yourself in the foot. I'll take some quotes from my DA2 review:

...First of all, attributes are even more shallow than they were in Origins. I played a rogue, as I always do, and I was very disappointed. Essentially, there are only two attributes of use and/or interest: dexterity and cunning. Every rogue mechanic is tied to these two attributes, whether it makes sense or not. I realize this makes things convenient for people who don’t want to think about how they build their characters too much, but I find it horribly shallow. It’s even worse when you realize that  dexterity is pretty much forced on you as it is a requirement for equipment (more importantly, weapons). Origins had requirements too, but they were primarily strength. This made more sense, as strength should obviously dictate whether or not you can carry/use something, and it also gave more depth to the builds as you at least had to consider how much you invested in a third attribute. Dexterity should only contribute to things like accuracy, evasion and possibly critical chance and/or speed. Having it affect damage and so many other
things as well just lumps too many useful things into 1 place and makes anyone stupid not to invest heavily in it.

...skills also fall victim to this. I quickly noticed just how many skills become obsolete as a result of either similar skills, or the attribute design. This makes the depth of classes and combat even shallower than Origins. My plan was to be a purely offensive rogue, focusing on cunning to boost critical damage and high damage abilities/stealth. I planned to use the skill that grants 100% critical chance while flanking to make up for the critical chance deficit I would have from not investing as heavily in dexterity. That skill, btw, pretty much makes the similar skills that grant 100% critical chance from stealth and 100% critical chance on a stunned enemy obsolete. However, I then realized that I pretty much had to invest in dexterity if I hoped to use any decent equipment. I then also noticed that any
gear I wore inevitably had the same bonuses – critical chance, critical damage, and/or physical damage. As I progressed through the game, even without focusing on dexterity I still achieved a critical chance of nearly 70%. Combined with the inherent flanking bonus, I pretty much had 100%, making all 3 of those critical passives obsolete.

The only thing I liked about DA2's approach was larger specialization trees and skill upgrades. Unfortunately, it was just poorly designed. Too many similar skills resulting in much fewer choices than at first glance, specializations didn't differ all that much, and skills and attributes were poorly designed, resulting in doing anything other than what the developers clearly intended for you to do awkward and ineffective.

I really enjoy playing a Rogue, scanning the battlefield looking for the shortest path to the back of the nearest enemy with the most enemies in close proximity in order to deal the greatest amount of damage in the shortest amount of time, using poisons concocted through my mastery of rare toxins I painstakingly gathered. I guess what it comes down to for me, was that I just never had this feeling in DA2. I never had to do any of the above. Backstab became an active skill that instantly teleported me through the ground to the target enemy's back. I went from target to target by pressing 1. Poisons I could just buy from a vendor, as with every other class. No more traps, pets, poison making. All of these things -- Rogue-like things -- were taken out of my hands and done for me (or no longer done at all, as the case may be). I felt like the game was playing the Rogue for me, and all I was really doing was interacting with the same interface as the other classes. Sure the animations were different, but I felt little difference between playing a Rogue and a Warrior, despite all the arbitrary restrictions intended to have the opposite effect.

+1 
and what they intended for you worked so well that it becomes tedious to play.
having the same experience as you has with out of the box character creation, i went for ultimate build and tried it and it works too weel.  i just did the same thing over and over again, and quicly I welcomed waves as cheap stamina fuel.

Did not need to plan, just need to control the companion at the start , after that it a matter of potioning them up.
and 1 wound injury kit is cheap enough that it is better to let them go down than the tactical cost of managing their survival during cool down. Anyway by that time they will have done enough for the main char to mince his way through. 

phil

[philippe willaume]

abaris wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...

Spawning was not a problem in DA because you could scout ahead (with a rogue or a skill)
so even when enemy was located at several places. you could modify your approach so that you dealt with a quantity of your liking
and organize your party as you saw fit using the terrain and eventually using traps.

That's also one of the reasons why the wave mechanic was such a terrible idea with DAII. Apart from looking ridiculous it took away on the tactical level, since whatever you do, there's always more out of thin air.

yeap. i am not going to disagree with you on that. 
That being said, i agree with R when he said dropping opponents can add a nice tactical challenge. I.E in DA:O the Ambush by 8 Shrieks on the bridge was reallly nice.  
i think it need to be used with more moderation and only  by some particular specialisation.
Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 06 novembre 2012 - 12:35 .

[JerZey CJ]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

abaris wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that the two handed warrior in dao was much too slow. On the merits of realism I find dao too be farther from than da2.

I didn't have that feeling at all.

As a not very strong person that has actually held and manipulated some actual two-handed swords, the swing speed in DAO is pretty much a snail's pace.

The actual weight of a two-handed sword is usually between 3-8lbs.  Which really isn't that heavy, and when properly balanced and held correctly, is still a quick weapon.

Some interesting reading here.

But the two handed weapons in DA are ridiculously(sic) huge and would way far more than 3-8#. DA:O may have been too slow, but DA2 was WAY too fast.

[spartanmax52000]

I would like if DA3 Have the finishing kills like in DAO It was the best part in Combat. I was Bum out when DA2 didnt have it and why didnt it?

[Terrorize69]

What is all this talk of weight regarding weapons? I don't recall a weight value being given to some of the fantasy materials. I do recall however magic and enchantments that allow the user to move faster then normally would be possible.

As long as combat is not as slow as DA:O, I wouldn't mind if it was slowed down "slightly" from DA2. The reason DA:O could take up to 70+ hours was not down to content, it was down to slow combat *flinch*

[Cimeas]

DA2's combat, at the end of the day, just looked awesome.

As long as my fantasy ninja mage makes a return, I'll be happy

[LTD]

I hated look, feel and tempo present in combat in DA2. Less action in DA3 reminds me of DA2, the better.

Unlike poster above me claims, combat in DA2  looked ridiculous. It looked like group of  people eager to look cool were too busy looking cool to manage any actual combat. It was like MTV music video version of generic gantasy combat in generic fantasy RPG. Combat in DA2 was essentually about sexy people "swiging" each other with flashlights. Also, 80's action movie fuel explosion OF BLOOD!!!111 How awesome is that?! Spoiler not very

Modifié par LTD, 04 novembre 2012 - 12:38 .

[Guilebrush]

 
[on mob waves] i think it need to be used with more moderation and only  by some particular specialisation.

Spot on, one of the failings in my mind of the DA2 encounter design is the lack of identity and distinction that the mobs and encounters possessed. Its something ME2 and 3 did real well even with a high volume of wave based encounters. In DA2 for the most part terrain wasn't utilized (notable exceptions are the act bosses) and the mobs just came accross as too "samey." Honestly aside from immunities what's the difference between a Rage demon and an Assassin Lieutenant? Revenants and Warrior Lietenants are pretty much identical aside from having a different special move (pull vs stun bombs) and so on. Couple that with nearly every fight playing out the same way (initial group + 1-2 wave groups) and well you end up with threads like this.

Oh and speaking of immunities that's probably the one thing that annoyed the heck out of me more so than anything else about DA2 combat. The arbitary immunities mobs would get just to artificially create a challenge (all bandits having 100% cold immunity, really now?) doubly annoying since players weren't given a weapon quick switch option...

To be perfectly frank neither DA game really did combat particularly well (DA:Os incredibly stiff animations, slow response times and inconsistent "back spots", DA2s well documented issues including but not limited to encounter and unit designs) but they still managed to do a lot of things right in both games (let's be honest for all the love Skyrim gets its combat is categorically worse than anything in either DA game, a fault of the perspective/engine I know).

I'm cautiously optimistic that with the new engine and the lessons from what worked and hasn't in both their games and the rest of the industry that DA3 will end up with at the very least respectable combat.

[cindercatz]

The stat system in DA:O was magic. Let's go back to that.

The animation in DA2 is only just slightly too fast. It shouldn't appear that there is no swing between strike start and end point, just a flash effect, though a moving blur on particularly fast strikes would work. It'd be better if we had a fluid animation set with a blur and flash effect added at high speed. I hope it's not choppy like DA2 again. Flashy is fine, but it should be semi-realistic flashy.

More realistic weapon design would be a big plus, thinner, narrower blades and all that.

I like weapon switching, but I also like the close range defensive fighting with bows and crossbows like we had in DA2, and I would love a throwing knife weapon class that switches between close range throwing and hand to hand knife fighting. I prefer it be limited to close range so that the character remains mobile, rather than standing in place most of the time and throwing knives at seemingly any range like we had with Tallis.

So I'm fine with a single chosen weapon class for each character, but if we have that, we should also have skills that play into battlefield tactics and support tactical combat, such as a defensive shield wall skill for sword and shield warriors to hang back and passively boost the archers while drawing the attention of any enemy that comes into its area of effect, or a spear and sword wall skill set for spear and two handed sword users. Weapons switching opened up a lot of tactic options to play with and utilize to real benefit in the game, and if we don't have that, then the single weapon sets should still support those kind of tactics in different ways, rather than just having the hand to handers always charging in and the archers always running away to gain distance, with no heed for each other. It would add depth and variety to any number of combat scenarios. Ideally, we'd get the sense of ebb and flow, of combat rhythm back that we lost in DA2.

Also, daggers, knives, short swords, long swords, great swords, maces, mauls/hammers, axes, small axes/hatchets/tomahawks, spears and staves should all have different animation sets. And nothing should be as slow as the two handers in DA:O, agreed.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I mean proper animations, not simply a skill.

The difficulty with animations is that they need to be synchronized. How does one reconcile that when both combatants are executing their attack? Although, this IS giving me some ideas about things I could potentially suggest... >.>

Synched combat animation is exactly what I hope to see, both aesthetically and in terms of stats influencing hit and defense rates. So here's hoping it can be implemented. :-) And I still like finishers a lot because they give you the emotional punch during the course of regular combat.

KoTOR is by far my favorite weapon combat system in a BioWare game so far, and what sets it apart is the synched combat animation.

idea: For synched combat, when both combatants (or both sides in the case of a single cobatant being attacked on multiple sides) are on the attack:

Think about the way synched combat works in the Arkham games and the more recent Assassin's Creed games, and then one up them.

When the attack of one is triggered before the attack of the other, then the animation gives a synched attack and defense and then a counter, etc. in a sword dance type thing, allowing for glancing blows. When a killing blow would connect, the animation shows this as a fully successful strike and would/kill. A wounding animation for any party member or plot-protected enemy (as in one that would then trigger a conversation choice, for instance), a killing blow for all others.

When the attacks are triggered at the same time (within a certain window of time), attack and defense are then calculated and a few things can happen:
 
-If both attacks would miss, the resulting animation is a neutral blade parry (or even a multiple parry like you see in action films from Jackie Chan or Matrix 2 etc.)

-If one attack would be successful and the other a miss, then the resulting animation is a parry and counter attack akin to the Batman Arkham games' counter animation sets, right down to multiple strike counter.

-If both attacks would connect but not kill, the resulting animation is a weapon clash and glancing blow (and multiple variance).

-If some attacks would connect and others miss, you have a combination of the two previous.

-If both attacks would connect but only one would kill, then you have a counter kill animation.

-If both attacks would connect and both would kill, you have a simultaneous wound and kill animation or wound and wound animation (where the enemy can't be killed).

Yes that's a lot of animation, but that would make one beautiful game. With all the possible combinations that can occur, you'd end up with a fluid, much less repetitive visual combat dance for regular combat, that doesn't take from the tactical gameplay like the button/controller dodge and strike system does (very video gamey, not very satisfying, personally).

And bonus, if every killing blow is a killing animation, considering the variety with a fully synched combat animation system, you don't need finishers to step outside of regular combat. They'd be fully integrated, which is exactly how I'd like to see it.

edits: bits here and there :-)

Modifié par cindercatz, 04 novembre 2012 - 01:57 .

[jillabender]

Anomaly wrote…

I really enjoy playing a Rogue, scanning the battlefield looking for the shortest path to the back of the nearest enemy with the most enemies in close proximity in order to deal the greatest amount of damage in the shortest amount of time, using poisons concocted through my mastery of rare toxins I painstakingly gathered. I guess what it comes down to for me, was that I just never had this feeling in DA2. I never had to do any of the above. Backstab became an active skill that instantly teleported me through the ground to the target enemy's back. I went from target to target by pressing 1. Poisons I could just buy from a vendor, as with every other class. No more traps, pets, poison making. All of these things -- Rogue-like things -- were taken out of my hands and done for me (or no longer done at all, as the case may be). I felt like the game was playing the Rogue for me, and all I was really doing was interacting with the same interface as the other classes.

I love rogues, too, and I also missed things like positioning my rogue behind a target for a backstab. I'd like to see DA3 allow us to make use of those kinds of positioning tactics.

[Anomaly-]

Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote...
As it has been said, the attribute system almost forces you to build your character one way, giving you only two attributes to focus on, unless you want to break your characters.

This was one of the main issues I addressed in my Origins mod. One of my favourite things to do in these games is build characters with very distinct strengths and weaknesses. It's one of the ways I like to give my characters character. With DA2's attribute system, this simply isn't possible. You're either good at everything, or good at nothing. I really hope they make at least the majority of attributes useful to each class in DA3.

Another hope I have is in regards to specializations. I'd like to see very deep specialization trees, but besides that, I'd like to see more of a focus on strengths and weaknesses. Specializing in one thing entails that you neglect other things, and I'd like to have to make those kinds of choices and come up with ways to mitigate my weaknesses.

I also wish people would stop talking about Cross class Combos as though they provide any kind of tactics or strategy. Gaining 300% damage with no clear risks or downsides is not strategy, it's simply a no-brainer. There should be a downside, such as requiring two skills that are relatively ineffective by themselves, or leaving your party more open to attacks, or something. That way you would have to make a meaningful choice about when and where to use them, and that would be actual strategy.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 05 novembre 2012 - 06:51 .

[Realmzmaster]

Anomaly- wrote...

Vanilka of the Sword Coast wrote...
As it has been said, the attribute system almost forces you to build your character one way, giving you only two attributes to focus on, unless you want to break your characters.

This was one of the main issues I addressed in my Origins mod. One of my favourite things to do in these games is build characters with very distinct strengths and weaknesses. It's one of the ways I like to give my characters character. With DA2's attribute system, this simply isn't possible. You're either good at everything, or good at nothing. I really hope they make at least the majority of attributes useful to each class in DA3.

Another hope I have is in regards to specializations. I'd like to see very deep specialization trees, but besides that, I'd like to see more of a focus on strengths and weaknesses. Specializing in one thing entails that you neglect other things, and I'd like to have to make those kinds of choices and come up with ways to mitigate my weaknesses.

I also wish people would stop talking about Cross class Combos as though they provide any kind of tactics or strategy. Gaining 300% damage with no clear risks or downsides is not strategy, it's simply a no-brainer. There should be a downside, such as requiring two skills that are relatively ineffective by themselves, or leaving your party more open to attacks, or something. That way you would have to make a meaningful choice about when and where to use them, and that would be actual strategy.

What? I always thought strategy and tactics was to use the abilities that you have available. If I can set up a Cross class Combo that is both strategy and tactics. Just because you do not think it is does not make it so.

If I am a general and I have a gun with superior range and firepower the strategy is to make use of that advantage and protect that advantage. The strategy of the enemy is to find a way to neutralize that advantage.

If the party can setup a CCC that is strategy pulling the CCC off it tactics.