108 réponses à ce sujet

[Anomaly-]

Realmzmaster wrote...
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.

Strategy implies a weighing of options. When spending my talent point, if I'm choosing between a 50% bonus to a skill's damage, and a 300% bonus while the enemy is staggered (which my warrior does all the time, anyway), how is there any strategy involved in this decision when one option is clearly the better choice no matter how you look at it? If one option is clearly superior, there really is no choice to make. If there is no choice to make, there can be no strategy involved.

You could argue that maybe you don't have a Warrior or whatever in your party, but in that case, not taking advantage of the Cross class Combos is just severely hindering yourself. This goes back to what phillipe willaume said above, that the game has a very clear plan of how it intends for you to play it. If you follow this plan, the game is very easy, but if you try anything outside that mould, you only shoot yourself in the foot. So once again, you have one clear superior choice, and because of that, there is really no meaningful choice to make, and hence there is no strategy involved. The only "strategy" is that which the developers intended.

[Vanilka]

I think that the thing with cross class combo is relative. I do love shattering my enemies in Origins. Couldn't that be considered a cross class combo of sorts, as well? The mage either freezes or petrifies the target, while the warrior or rogue hits them hard. Of course, the mage can finish the enemy off on their own using Stonefist. Still, I like making my party work together and would definitely like to see that in the next game.

With all that said, I do have mixed feelings about how DAII dealt with the issue. It's a bit forced upon you, in my opinion. They might as well put a big sign saying "ROGUES HIT HERE NOW!!!" above enemies when they're in weakened state. I'm not saying it's a bad idea; just that I'd like to see it executed differently. Instead of big, floating icons signalising the enemies state, I'd also like to see more natural visual effects - you can clearly see when the enemies are stunned or frozen. Why not use something like that instead?

Anomaly- wrote...
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.

I can relate to that. I've spent years playing NWN games and I'm used to combining classes, skills, abilities, weapon proficiencies, sacrificing some things to get other. I always welcome more variety, more options, more space for adding, as you say, character to our characters. Including weaknesses I guess, as you mentioned. DAII bothers me in this aspect. I'd like to fix my rogue's playthrough eventually and I simply know I'm going to build more or less the same character, just not to make it useless. I don't like that thought.

Anomaly- wrote...
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.

I guess that would be fair. I agree that the amount of damage you can deal in DAII is pretty ridiculous. You don't even need cross class combos. My rogue was able to take thousands of hitpoints on one hit. My dear Mahariel would go green with envy if she saw that. Part of me liked to test how far I could go, especially with the cross class combos, but the damage is indeed absurdly high for an absurdly cheap price. It takes the challenge from the game.

Modifié par Vanilka of the Sword Coast, 05 novembre 2012 - 09:41 .

[jillabender]

I found it interesting to play a Berserker in DA2 – the abilities that multiplied my damage based on stamina invited me to make use of willpower and stamina-replenishing abilities, instead of just relying on strength, which was an interesting change. However, that resulted in constant button-mashing to keep my stamina up, which made combat feel more frantic than I would have liked. Still, I think that having specializations that invite significantly different builds (for example, focusing on constitution instead of willpower with a blood mage) adds variety and helps to keep character-building from feeling too repetitive.

Modifié par jillabender, 06 novembre 2012 - 03:41 .

[Realmzmaster]

Anomaly- wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
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.

Strategy implies a weighing of options. When spending my talent point, if I'm choosing between a 50% bonus to a skill's damage, and a 300% bonus while the enemy is staggered (which my warrior does all the time, anyway), how is there any strategy involved in this decision when one option is clearly the better choice no matter how you look at it? If one option is clearly superior, there really is no choice to make. If there is no choice to make, there can be no strategy involved.

You could argue that maybe you don't have a Warrior or whatever in your party, but in that case, not taking advantage of the Cross class Combos is just severely hindering yourself. This goes back to what phillipe willaume said above, that the game has a very clear plan of how it intends for you to play it. If you follow this plan, the game is very easy, but if you try anything outside that mould, you only shoot yourself in the foot. So once again, you have one clear superior choice, and because of that, there is really no meaningful choice to make, and hence there is no strategy involved. The only "strategy" is that which the developers intended.

The game may have a clear way that it intends for you to play ( in my opinion I do not think so), but as phillipe willaume can tell you I never play that way. So I have been very sucessful shooting myself in the foot.  I have fifteen different Hawkes one is which is a mage that is strength based because he wanted to be a warrior like Carver but was cursed with magic and then plagued by guilt because he was ignoring his natural gift and hindering the party. 

The only strategy is the one you choose to shackle yourself with. I am not interested in superior choice. Many of my Hawkes are sub-optimal. I am interested in my choice and if I can use the abilities and attributes I choose to rise in power. 

There is no set way to roleplay . I like being able to succeed with unconventional strategy.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 06 novembre 2012 - 03:10 .

[Vanilka]

Realmzmaster wrote...
The game may have a clear way that it intends for you to play ( in my opinion I do not think so), but as phillipe willaume can tell you I never play that way. So I have been very sucessful shooting myself in the foot.  I have fifteen different Hawkes one is which is a mage that is strength based because he wanted to be a warrior like Carver but was cursed with magic and then plagued by guilt because he was ignoring his natural gift and hindering the party. 

The only strategy is the one you choose to shackle yourself with. I am not interested in superior choice. Many of my Hawkes are sub-optimal. I am interested in my choice and if I can use the abilities and attributes I choose to rise in power. 

There is no set way to roleplay . I like being able to succeed with unconventional strategy.

I like the way you roleplay. I must admit that this had never occurred to me with DAII for some reason, despite doing it in other games. I do feel forced to take certain attributes, but you might be right; maybe it's just me? I do have a question though. Doesn't that make playing your characters a little frustrating? Especially since you're very limited when it comes to weapons and armour in DAII? I like unique characters with unique features, but am also worried about making a character that might make playing tedious. While it might add the challenge I'm looking for to the game, I'm afraid it might be annoying to the point of being game-breaking.

I've done a similar character to your mage as regards attributes. But that was a different game. I simply feel that some games are better for this than the other.

[Anomaly-]

jillabender wrote...
I found it interesting to play a
Berserker in DA2 – the abilities that multiplied my damage based on
stamina invited me to make use of willpower and stamina-replenishing
abilities, instead of just relying on strength, which was an interesting
change. However, that resulted in constant button-mashing to keep my
stamina up, which made combat feel more frantic than I would have liked.
Still, I think that having specializations that invite significantly
different builds (for example, focusing on constitution instead of
willpower with a blood mage) adds variety and helps to keep
character-building from feeling too repetitive.

Agreed. What I'd like to see out of specializations boils down to two things:

1) Greater diversity and amount of options, and;
2) Finer control over those options.

Realmzmaster wrote...
The game may have a clear way that it intends for you to play ( in my opinion I do not think so), but as phillipe willaume can tell you I never play that way. So I have been very sucessful shooting myself in the foot.  I have fifteen different Hawkes one is which is a mage that is strength based because he wanted to be a warrior like Carver but was cursed with magic and then plagued by guilt because he was ignoring his natural gift and hindering the party. 

The only strategy is the one you choose to shackle yourself with. I am not interested in superior choice. Many of my Hawkes are sub-optimal. I am interested in my choice and if I can use the abilities and attributes I choose to rise in power. 

There is no set way to roleplay . I like being able to succeed with unconventional strategy.

What you describe sounds great to me. I don't know, maybe the other two classes were more flexible, but all I know is I really couldn't play any of the Rogues I wanted to. They were not just sub-optimal, they weren't even possible. This is why the Toolset was a game changer for me in Origins. I was able to make anything that was sub-optimal competitive, and introduce many entirely new options besides. If only we had got a Toolset for DA2, I would have had a far greater chance of enjoying it.

[cindercatz]

You guys perfectly described what I loved about spell combos in Origins and what I really didn't like about CCCs in DA2 a few posts up there. CCCs are a game mechanic, not tactics, and in order to get anything out of them, you need to perform the same setup move with the same CCC finish move repeatedly, rather than using moves oppurtunistically according to positioning. I love spell combos in DA:O. I don't like CCCs.

I liked the more proficient individual moves in DA:O better, where I could really focus on the battlefield and positioning, using the right move at the right time in the right place. The level design rewarded battlefield tactics in DA:O. I'm very much looking forward to an improvement for battlefield tactics in DA3. That's some of the best news I've seen come out so far. :-)

[DaringMoosejaw]

My main problems with the combat were excessive tapping of A, and the wave system. The wave system actually got so boring that I turned down the difficulty to the lowest setting just so the combat would go quicker.

[NomadDC]

Can someone from Bioware give any comment on warrior dual wielding? I really like that combat style in DAO, and I really miss it in DA2.

About combat - I will write detailed post with combat analysis in DAO and DA2 and what I'd like to see in DA3, but for now:
I'd like to see shift back to DAO combat style. It feels much better than DA2 (well, maybe except greatswords). Also I don't like that warriors are forced into Two-handed or SnS styles. I miss ability to swap to crossbow in moments of need (like elder dragons - those guys throw you back like no tomorrow if you're not tank and approach in melee). And well, again, I REALLY miss dual wielding.

[Realmzmaster]

Anomaly- wrote...


What you describe sounds great to me. I don't know, maybe the other two classes were more flexible, but all I know is I really couldn't play any of the Rogues I wanted to. They were not just sub-optimal, they weren't even possible. This is why the Toolset was a game changer for me in Origins. I was able to make anything that was sub-optimal competitive, and introduce many entirely new options besides. If only we had got a Toolset for DA2, I would have had a far greater chance of enjoying it.

My favorite class is the rogue. In fact 7 of the 15 are rogues of different types with sub-optimal builds.

[philippe willaume]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Anomaly- wrote...


What you describe sounds great to me. I don't know, maybe the other two classes were more flexible, but all I know is I really couldn't play any of the Rogues I wanted to. They were not just sub-optimal, they weren't even possible. This is why the Toolset was a game changer for me in Origins. I was able to make anything that was sub-optimal competitive, and introduce many entirely new options besides. If only we had got a Toolset for DA2, I would have had a far greater chance of enjoying it.

My favorite class is the rogue. In fact 7 of the 15 are rogues of different types with sub-optimal builds.

That is really the paradox in that DA:0 vs DA:2, very often both sides like their version for the same things.

Like Anomaly, I find suboptimal build so unplayable that it makes casual a painfull experience.
on the other hand one ultimate build makes the game too easy. 
One poster mentioned that he changed the game to casual because it makes th combat shorter, that's exactly what i did for bosses after act I (save the Arishok) and for the barrel fights wich is an overdose of waves. 

If i want to be honnest, i tried to play DA:2 with a DA:0 mindset, and that's probably why i can't make sub-optimal build work. we could try to find out why that is by comparing notes with Realmz but i am not sure that would be that productive. 

Now what i would like to see in DA:3, is the same ability to plan,  influence/use  the terrain and have a diversity in talent that support several startegy/tactis for one charater build  as i had in DA:0 and that is not present in DA:2.

However, what i liked in DA:O and i beleive that is what Realmz was talking about  in DA:2, is the ability to adapt tactics on the fly.
when i play a Vanguard berserker, there is abosutly no need to change the way the go about things (which is just as well because theres is not that much choice either) but in DA:2 sub-optimal comes from chossing diverging options.
So not that DA:2 will ever let you become an Archer when there is a vast expense of ground for the ennemy to cover and then go back to the warrior/rogue hand to hand but is you diverge from the build optinisation track approach you will have more flexibility at the cost of efficiency.

I don't beleive that Realmz is saying that DA:2 offers the same planing and on the spot tactical choices as DA:0 is. 
I think that what Realmz is telling us is that it is possible and viable to create a rogue that can "rogue" but can tank from time to time like we could in DA:0 and the you don't have to go the ultimate build route.

In DA:0 terms he would be saying that you do not have to play a party with two mages and you can build each character as you see fit (ie possibly having 4 suboptimal build) and still make it work.

Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 07 novembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree with some of the above posters in that the balancing in DA2 wasn't done all that well... but even if it was, I wouldn't have cared. I played on Nightmare my first playthrough and got through without much problem (except for the Arishok fight... ugh, that was just a waste of thirty five minutes of my life, kiting the entire time as a mage). But I didn't enjoy hardly any of it.

My next 1 1/2 playthroughs were strictly on Casual, something I never did for DA:O. Not because the combat was hard, but simply because I wanted to be done with it as soon as possible. It was all so mindless... use uber-ability, spam attack button until cooldown is over, use uber-ability, check on health and see if anyone is standing in middle of an AoE attack and not moving for some stupid reason, lather, rinse, repeat...

It didn't feel tactical or like I was managing my party. To me, it felt like I was going through a list of chores, a "To Do" list. In fact, the way the game's quests and story were set up, I had this prevailing feeling through out. That I was doing a chore, not playing a game. Like I was forcing myself to do this so I could finally find some nugget of awesome that would make me see "Oh, I get it. THIS is what they wanted me to feel when playing the game."

[Bernhardtbr]

But that´s true of any RPG. A huge appeal of any game. from Final Fantasy to The Elder Scrolls to Bioware games is the sense of discovery. Once you´ve finished a playthrough in any of these games there´s barely new things to discover and enjoy. Just as combat becomes a chore in DA 2, so does it become a chore when you are running around casting spells, or shooting arrows and drinking potions in TES in some random cave killing random guys just to get more fat lewt.

I´ve just finished a playthrough of DA:O to get more insight of things to improve DA 3 and honestly I don´t plan on playing again, ever. I´ve seen everything there is to see.

Modifié par Bernhardtbr, 07 novembre 2012 - 12:31 .

[Wulfram]

The main problem with DA2 combat was the encounter design, and general blandness of the enemies.

There was too rarely a situation that really made you feel like you needed to come up with a new situation, and the wave system helped homogenise the fights.
It felt like 99% of the game was fighting the same 4 generic enemy types, which never really evolved. DA:O had the issue with enemy types too, but it at least had some people with specialisations so Templars could do Templar things. Also the enemies having access to talents helped spice things up, and meant that higher level enemies were somewhat different to lower level enemies, which really wasn't the case in DA2

[Fast Jimmy]

Bernhardtbr wrote...

But that´s true of any RPG. A huge appeal of any game. from Final Fantasy to The Elder Scrolls to Bioware games is the sense of discovery. Once you´ve finished a playthrough in any of these games there´s barely new things to discover and enjoy. Just as combat becomes a chore in DA 2, so does it become a chore when you are running around casting spells, or shooting arrows and drinking potions in TES in some random cave killing random guys just to get more fat lewt.

I´ve just finished a playthrough of DA:O to get more insight of things to improve DA 3 and honestly I don´t plan on playing again, ever. I´ve seen everything there is to see.

HA! That's possibly one of the most incorrect statements I've ever heard. I replayed Origins 8 times and in each playtrhough had a multitude of different options. The way the endings alone reference all of the different outcomes is proof that the game has tons of replay value.

And in regards to combat, in DA:O, you had situations where how you did in combat actually affected the story. Battling at Redcliffe, for example, may cause many NPCs to die if you didn't handle the enemies quickly enough. This wasn't a dialogue choice or a click of the button, but rather the ability with which you handled combat determined who lives and who died. 

In DA2, it was all foregone conclusions, left and right. You were going to resolve every situation with combat, regardless, and there was no other method available. It was terrible game design.

I can understand not liking DA:O, but to say that playing it again had nothing to offer someone is just flat out incorrect. The number of permutations available in any given playthrough is staggering.

[MichaelStuart]

I think they should remove combat completely and replace it with cutscenes.
The cutscenes would very depended on characters and equipment.

[filetemo]

the problem with two handed warriors is that the DAO warriors were as slw as if they were handling the oversized manga style DA2 weapons and the DA2 warriors were quick as if they were handling the DAO ones.

DAO warrior speed with oversized DA2 weapon: looks right
DA2 warrior speed with DAO weapons: looks right

My opinion: for DA3 we need the 0.8x speed of DA2 two hander and the weapon size of DAO

[Wulfram]

I didn't think DA:O's swords were really smaller than DA2s

[Arppis]

I just wish they would make the combat more personal. But I am most likely in minority here.

Maybe a spin-off game where we could get the same choices and dialogue mixed with personal combat and just issuing your squadmates with commands, instead of invading their minds as this super spirit in the sky and taking direct control of them.

Oh yeah, and make the weapons smaller this time around. XD

Modifié par Arppis, 07 novembre 2012 - 03:01 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I agree with some of the above posters in that the balancing in DA2 wasn't done all that well... but even if it was, I wouldn't have cared. I played on Nightmare my first playthrough and got through without much problem (except for the Arishok fight... ugh, that was just a waste of thirty five minutes of my life, kiting the entire time as a mage). But I didn't enjoy hardly any of it.

My next 1 1/2 playthroughs were strictly on Casual, something I never did for DA:O. Not because the combat was hard, but simply because I wanted to be done with it as soon as possible. It was all so mindless... use uber-ability, spam attack button until cooldown is over, use uber-ability, check on health and see if anyone is standing in middle of an AoE attack and not moving for some stupid reason, lather, rinse, repeat...

It didn't feel tactical or like I was managing my party. To me, it felt like I was going through a list of chores, a "To Do" list. In fact, the way the game's quests and story were set up, I had this prevailing feeling through out. That I was doing a chore, not playing a game. Like I was forcing myself to do this so I could finally find some nugget of awesome that would make me see "Oh, I get it. THIS is what they wanted me to feel when playing the game."

Yep, same here. My second (and last) playthrough was on Casual as well, which is something I've probably never done in a game before. Little to no fun in the combat due to pretty much all factors, from the ott asthetics to the abysmal encounter design.

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I agree with some of the above posters in that the balancing in DA2 wasn't done all that well... but even if it was, I wouldn't have cared. I played on Nightmare my first playthrough and got through without much problem (except for the Arishok fight... ugh, that was just a waste of thirty five minutes of my life, kiting the entire time as a mage). But I didn't enjoy hardly any of it.

My next 1 1/2 playthroughs were strictly on Casual, something I never did for DA:O. Not because the combat was hard, but simply because I wanted to be done with it as soon as possible. It was all so mindless... use uber-ability, spam attack button until cooldown is over, use uber-ability, check on health and see if anyone is standing in middle of an AoE attack and not moving for some stupid reason, lather, rinse, repeat...

It didn't feel tactical or like I was managing my party. To me, it felt like I was going through a list of chores, a "To Do" list. In fact, the way the game's quests and story were set up, I had this prevailing feeling through out. That I was doing a chore, not playing a game. Like I was forcing myself to do this so I could finally find some nugget of awesome that would make me see "Oh, I get it. THIS is what they wanted me to feel when playing the game."

my experience is exactly like yours.
I stayed in nightmare on non boss enounters because It made the combat slightly less borring. Ie i had to make choises as how to start the fight as it has an inflence on how quick it will finish. I just had an ultimate build in the team none of the companion or their tactics was especially optimised.
and from that i think I can see where Realmz is coming from.

I am sure that there is are builds that are so that you have a few more options and hence are less efficient but still viable, give or take companion utimate builds and/or more optimised tactics.

of course that does not compare to what you could do in DA:0, but i do not think that is the point he is making


Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 07 novembre 2012 - 06:33 .

[philippe willaume]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I think they should remove combat completely and replace it with cutscenes.
The cutscenes would very depended on characters and equipment.

Only if we have a combat wheel with gory, plain nasty and merciful.



Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 07 novembre 2012 - 06:33 .

[Realmzmaster]

I will give an example. I recently played a constitution based force spirit healer mage named Joseph. The stats were:

Strength 10 + 5 =15
Dexterity 10 + 3 =13
Magic 39 + 16 = 55
Cunning 10 + 4=14
Will power 34 + 6=40
Constitution 52 + 13=65

Magic resistance with hit points. You can play the game with sub-optimal builds.  

One of my rogues is a duel wielding assassin duelist. The stats were:


Strength 10 + 4=14
Dexterity 35 + 10 =45
Magic 10 + 4 = 14
Cunning 38 + 3=41
Will power 28 + 2=30
Constitution 39 +1=40

No optimal builds. 

I make use of every availab le resource from fire bombs, freeze bombs to poisons. Maximizing all available rune slots. Taking advantage of all armor like the Messenger armor for thr rogue. The party can make it through DA2 without optimal builds. It requires changing strategy on the fly and not being stuck to a set battle type of strategy.

One of the reasons why the Germans were so successful at the beginning of WWII is they mastered the concept of Blitzkrieg (lightning war). Changing strategy and tactics as the situation demanded.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 07 novembre 2012 - 09:50 .