139 réponses à ce sujet

[mav805]

I'll be honest, while I loved DA:O I haven't played DA2. I preordered it 4 months early. I paid for it. I brought it home. I returned it unopened. All because the combat looked like a joke. That was my primary reason for not being excited about the game, and then of course there were the other issues that came to light.

A certain tone was set in DA:O and I expect that tone to be maintained throughout the rest of the games in the series. If Shepard had started shooting behind his back and doing trick shots under his legs, it would have been terrible...it just doesn't fit the tone for the game.

While I've only watched my brother playing DA2 to this point these are my thoughts in making a more enjoyable experience:

1) Tone down the animations, this includes rolling and kickflips to move around, exploding enemies, and roundhouses to throw grenades. Bring them more in line with the theme and style of what DA:O had, and then improve, tweak and polish from there. 

2) Additional diversity to the effects of abilities and spells. Make them useful under different circumstances, not just used to cause damage. That means more effective buffs, debuffs, stat boosting skills, etc.

3) More intelligent enemies, using more effective tactics. Make the encounters take some thought and planning to get through. Not every single battle, there should be varying degrees of difficulty, but for the most part, combat is boring if you don't need a reason to apply what you know about the game and how skills work, etc.

Being *accessible* shouldn't even be a consideration. That's why there's a casual setting, to make it possible for anybody to beat without requiring them to master the mechanics of the game.

4) I like the idea of diminishing returns for spells & potions to not only provide a reason as to why you cant just spam skills but also serves to increase the effectiveness of tactics and planning.

Modifié par mav805, 21 décembre 2012 - 08:23 .

[azerSheppard]

How about a decent difficulty level? And not waves of enemies... That's beyond meta...

[argan1985]

Turn-based tactical combat.

[Taveira]

I prefer the DA:O combat system.

Modifié par Taveira, 21 décembre 2012 - 11:29 .

[Chromie]

No mana/cooldown system for starters. What a joke of a system just spam all abilities and wait a couple of seconds and do it again.

Modifié par Skelter192, 21 décembre 2012 - 01:24 .

[Roflbox]

Skelter192 wrote...

No mana/cooldown system for starters. What a joke of a system just spam all abilities and wait a couple of seconds and do it again.

*cough I've been saving this cough*

[Fast Jimmy]

Skelter192 wrote...

No mana/cooldown system for starters. What a joke of a system just spam all abilities and wait a couple of seconds and do it again.

I agree. The cooldown system system ported almost directly from MMOs/Diablo completely defies all lore and logic. 

Have a spell that is the most powerful one in a skill tree? You'll get it halfway through the game. And it will replace Fireball/Magic MIssile/etc. as the spell you cast over and over and over again in combat. 

Skill cooldowns like this coupled with instant mana/stamina regeneration after every fight removes any sense of long-term planning in a game. 

People hate Vancian casting. And I can truly understand that - it does seem arbitrary to "memorize" a spell you've cast a thousand times. And sleeping to get them back is a mechanic that is easily manipulatable.

My ideal system would have skill/spell cooldowns, but HEAVY penalties for using your most powerful abilities. Casting firestorm or blizzard should take an inordinate amount of time to prepare and summon that kind of energy. Your mage should be allowed to be interupted at the slightest hiccup of interference when summoning and manipulating that amount of power, and any damage done will conjuring up the spell should be at huge modifiers to damage, as the Mage tries to reach and pull essence from another plane. In addition, powerful spells should fatigue Mages and instantly uncast any constant effect spells they have and make their mana regeneration/cooldowns for other attacks slow for a while as well.

And, in the DA world, it should cost lyrium. No, I'm not talking about mana. And I'm not talking having to chug a lyrium potion... I mean, just like with the in-game lore, actual LYRIUM, as a substance and a resource, should be required to cast powerful spells. This would tie a direct gold impact to casting powerful spells. This would not be the case for lower, more normal damage spells, only the "rain down terror and destruction upon my enemies" type of spells. This would keep the system away from the "spell reagants" type of mechanic people also seem to despise, but still put a ceiling of sorts on spamming your most powerful spell OVER and OVER and OVER again.

Also, this would FINALLY give a way for Blood Magic to be useful. Touted as the most powerful form of magic, but hated for its insidious nature, having a mechanic that let your replace blood for lyrium (as we've seen in game lore MANY times) would allow a Blood Mage to unleash their most powerful spells without having a lyrium component tied to it. Maybe it would even allow the spell to be completed faster (leaving the mage open to less devastating interrupt attacks) or minimizing the bad effects. Essentially, it would make being a Blood Mage a game changer for any mage class.


In terms of non-Mage classes, having skills be rebutted/countered could be a good way of controlling the spamming of skills. For instance, say using a Shield-based attack like Shield Bash left you open to a counter skill type, like AoE or Knockback. Or using a large Two-Handed wide sweep, which affects multiple enemies, would then leave you vulnerable to piercing damage, through a bow or dagger. And, the more powerful the skills, the wider the window (and the more punishing the penalties) to take advantage would come into play. 

Example: Two groups collide in battle, group A and group B. The first to strike is a Sword+Shield character from A, who opens with Shield Bash, stunning a group B rogue from performing any debuffs off the bat like Mark of the Assassin. However, since this is a low-level skill, his window for "retribution" is small and doesn't get manipulated. Group B then has a 2H warrior comes in and, foolishly, uses a powerful 2H move to do damage to the front lines of the group A units. However,  his window of penalty is pretty large, which let's a long-range Group A archer to use a high-powered archery skill on the warrior, taking a huge chunk of his HP pool and requiring him to seek healing or to run the risk of falling battle later on. Since the Group A archer was ranged and far away from the action, they have a penalty window that last quite some time, but it doesn't get exploited, due to their distance. However, it would have been possible for a Group B rogue to activate a sneak ability and make their way to the archer without them noticing, ikely one-hit-kill the archer during this time, with the sneak attack bonus as well as the penatly for using a high-level skill. And so on and so on.

This doesn't nerf powerful abilities. It doesn't put artificial HP bloats on enemies. It doesn't limit players to only weak skills... it just balances everything. It can even lead to different builds - do you focus on high powered skills and hope your other companions can distract your enemies? Or do you work on low level skills and do a steady dealing of damage? Or do you focus on crowd control skills, which can protect your more vulnerable characters? Do you create a buff character to help negate these penalties? Do you have a healer that can help heal/res companions who leave themselves open to these attacks? Do you focus on permanent boosts to stats to pretty much ignore this mechanic altogether?

All of this would add volumes more strategy and planning to the game (while still letting other players drop down to Casual, which would have diminished penalties and smaller windows for when those penalties would hang around) rather than just spamming three or four skills, kiting until you can pot-chug or until your cooldowns are done, wash, rinse, repeat.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 décembre 2012 - 02:13 .

[mousestalker]

Just have a rock/paper/scissors one shot combat resolution system so we can plow through the boring combat bits quickly and resume role playing.

Modifié par mousestalker, 21 décembre 2012 - 02:16 .

[argan1985]

mousestalker wrote...

Just have a rock/paper/scissors one shot combat resolution system so we can plow through the boring combat bits quickly and resume role playing.

What is this I don't even...?

[Fast Jimmy]

mousestalker wrote...

Just have a rock/paper/scissors one shot combat resolution system so we can plow through the boring combat bits quickly and resume role playing.

I know you meant this in jest, but I think this kills the opportunity to have story/plot events during combat.

Can't save the princess in time because you weren't able to rip through the enemies fast enough? 

Decide to kill all the enemies instead of taking a smarter, secret back way?

Decide to go after one NPC in battle and let another get away? 


All these things (and countless more) are what's defeated when combat is only treated as "killallhostiles" with animations.

[Chromie]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Decide to kill all the enemies instead of taking a smarter, secret back way?

Could we ever do that in Dragon Age?I do miss sneaking and placing traps that was fun it needs to come back.

[Fast Jimmy]

Skelter192 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Decide to kill all the enemies instead of taking a smarter, secret back way?

Could we ever do that in Dragon Age?I do miss sneaking and placing traps that was fun it needs to come back.

I would love it if we had an instance where our party was going to be attacked.

Not a surprise attack (like the Shriek attacks on camp in DA:O) but a time when we knew an attack was imminent and we could prepare. Somewhat like the Redcliffe first night attack, but with just our party. Where we could set up traps, really assess the terrain, place party members for maximum efficacy... you know, plan a fight. 

Traps are hard to use in games because they either involve setting traps in the middle of combat (which is mechanically not that different from dropping bombs in Legend of Zelda, just another weapon) or to set traps, lure an enemy in, and then have them spring. Which is dumb - because if you can just engage in direct combat without an issue, why bother with all the trap making and back tracking?

Traps would be useful if we were the ones being strategic from time to time, instead of just barging into enemy's lairs all the time.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Enemy variety.  Instead of ramping up the difficulty simply by throwing more waves of the same bandits at you, change it up a bit and throw one or two tough enemies at you.

Speaking of which, allow for actual tactics to work.  Hard for tactics to work if you parachute in enemies right behind the team.

And to emphasis, enough already with the "wave" method.  Combat where wave after wave of the same enemies coming at you is BORING.  I'd rather take on one very tough mage with his very tough group of 3 or 4 minions, and have to come up with a way to defeat him, rather than take on 5 waves of 10 relatively weak bandits.  One is actually an interesting encounter, while the other is a tedious slog.

Also, combat just for combat's sake is a no-no.  If your party is walking down a long hallway between Point A and Point B, fill that empty space with party banter or allowing the player to observe his/her surroundings.  Don't just automatically throw more waves of combat at the person.

[mickey111]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

mousestalker wrote...

Just have a rock/paper/scissors one shot combat resolution system so we can plow through the boring combat bits quickly and resume role playing.

I know you meant this in jest, but I think this kills the opportunity to have story/plot events during combat.

Can't save the princess in time because you weren't able to rip through the enemies fast enough? 

Decide to kill all the enemies instead of taking a smarter, secret back way?

Decide to go after one NPC in battle and let another get away? 


All these things (and countless more) are what's defeated when combat is only treated as "killallhostiles" with animations.

What if Dragon Age even had this stuff? It didn't. I actually think that DAO would have been a better game if it had an auto resolve option because only a few of the boss fights were any fun. Everything you needed to know about winning the game could be learnt and put into practice before reaching Lothering.

Modifié par mickey111, 22 décembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[sangy]

I like the DA fighting system they have in place. I thought DA2 was a huge improvement. The archery fighting system was a lot better and the mage battle system became a lot of fun. DA2 was the first game I've ever enjoyed playing mage. I really noticed a huge difference in my gameplay. I'm sure DA3 will have new tweaks to the fighting, but hopefully it will still keep a DA original feel.

I don't want DA to be like another game. I'll play another game to get another experience.

[H4TE U 4EVER]

     They could improve the fightning systems starting with the rogues. I don't understand how a class that's suppose to be all about stealth, deception, and subtlety, is turned into a bloody massacre. The entire point of a rogue, is to cause massive amounts of damage, quickly and quietly. But in DA:2, they make the rogue unnecessarily leap,kick flip, barrel roll, and 360 twist with a flourish. Why can't we make them instead sneak up behind the enemy pierce through their heart with a dagger, and then move on? It would be easier and more effecient. I enjoyed seeing the enemies health bar flash white, with every other hit I got, but then it got to excessive. I'm supposed to be behind the enemy either weakening it so my warrior teammates can have a clear powerful shot at it, or I'm suppose to be doing things like coating my weapons in poison, and then inflicting numerous backstabs upon the enemy while I'm in his flanking are/range.
     Next are the mages, people say that their spell casting is to unrealistic. And it is. For a mage to use the move Tempest in DA:O, he/she had to stand there, and wave their hands about in the air, trying to summon the weather out of thin air. In DA:2, they make it to wear you just cast the spell, and instantly is starts raining down fireballs, striking down everywhere. If the mage is trying to summon something that major out of thin air, then yeah, it should take a lot of energy and concentration to do so. Even if you had learned Master Combat Tactics as a skill, it doesn't make any sense for a mage to be getting hacked and slashed by a blade, while they are still going on trying to pull a giant blizzard out of nowhere.
      The warriors have dropped the bar in the second game. First off, the two-handed weapons were way to fast. There's a reason why they're two-handed. They're slower at a swing, but inflict so much more damge than normal weapons. The entire time I played DA:2 I would look over at Fenris or Carver and think about how the numbers of enemies didn't matter to them, they just kept on slicing. But they're attack to get closer to the enemies did make sense. You bring the weapon back, and then heave it forward, generation a lage amount of moment, so you can slice your enemies fast and hard. The warriors with shields also made me question it as well. I didn't understand how when you wanted to get close to an enemy, you just press a button and all of a sudden, you're sliding a cross the ground as if somebody just pulled you with a rope.
         What I did like about the warriors however, was their range. The two-handed weapons can now strike up to 7 enemies at a time conceptmade a lot of sense to me. I was playing Origins after finishing DA:2 and then I noticed how whenever Sten or Ogrhen attacked with their weapons, it would hit only one person, but it would look as if it could cut through 5 people standing right in front of them.

[wwwwowwww]

I agree with climbing, tactically it makes a lot of sense for archers and rogues.

I'd like the ability to click on a character or highlight, and tell them where I want them to go and they go there, not put everyone on hold and move them individually. ie: highlight party mage, hold trigger button, slide over behind the rocks, release, move on to next party member.

[Luckywallace]

Once you get a dozen or so skills I love the combat in Dragon Age (2 especially). Before that... it's somewhat dull.

So, can we please just start with more skills (maybe 10) or at least allow this on a 2nd play through (like New Game +).

[DukeFirewood]

Nizaris1 wrote...

combat only become interesting if it is realistic

- magic only as support skill, not primary for a mage
- spell casting need casting time, literally casting it
- damage are determined not by type of weapon, but character attribute

1) I don't like the idea of this at all. In any fantasy RPG that I play my preferred class is a Mage. In common fantasy lore the mage has always been the "glass cannon", so tying down the Mage to only support skills would kill the very essence of the class. When I play as a mage I want to be that character that can turn the tide of a battle at a crucial moment with that powerful spell I've just been waiting to use for that very moment. I want to be able to stand back and cast spells that deal great amounts of damage to enemies. At the same time though, should an enemy get in real close and I do not take the appropriate steps to defend myself then I would die in a matter of seconds. So I believe a mage should be on of the most powerful classes in the game with the offset that it is extremely easy to die. I felt DA:O got this right. An AI mage would always be my first priority because I knew that if I left him alone he would decimate my squad in a matter of seconds if left alive long enough, but once I got in close with my warrior that mage would not stand a chance.

2) The more powerful spells, yes. I think the mage needs a few standard sets of spells that do not need a long time to cast.

3) I really like the idea of this.

[Wifflebottom]

DraCZeQQ wrote...

Dragon's Dogma combat system

[Wulfram]

mickey111 wrote...


What if Dragon Age even had this stuff? It didn't

There was keeping the villagers alive when the zombies were attacking Redcliffe Village.

Which I found rather annoying.

[Nerevar-as]

Didn´t manage that one until I went at level 16 and micromanaging all the time.

I´d like Tactics to allow for taking into account party situation for AoE spells. I would be as simple (I hope) as adding Ally: Any and choose the distance.

And tone animations down. Ezio Auditore´s fighting moves feel 1000 times more badass than Rogue Hawke´s and does far less flashy useless movements.