139 réponses à ce sujet

[L. Han]

What I would find interesting is different animations for different enemies. For instance if you use a sword and shield and close in on an enemy who also uses a sword and shield, you both engage in a more "realistic" manner.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

Are you basically asking for the tactics system to support the idea of recognizing that an ally is within range of your target (and hence should not attack)?

Just making sense of the request.

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Are you basically asking for the tactics system to support the idea of recognizing that an ally is within range of your target (and hence should not attack)?

Just making sense of the request.

That an ally is under the AoE yea, that would stop 'mage burns entire party to death' incidents.

[Nerevar-as]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Are you basically asking for the tactics system to support the idea of recognizing that an ally is within range of your target (and hence should not attack)?

Just making sense of the request.

Exactly. I already use the enemy at range and clustered to trigger AoE, but often one of the companions is also in the same area and gets hit too, and because of the system in DA2, it´s often a 1HK.

[Dagr88]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Are you basically asking for the tactics
system to support the idea of recognizing that an ally is within range
of your target (and hence should not attack)?

Just making sense of the request.

IF friendly mage casts a damaging AOE spell and your companion is in it (not stunned/casting, just stands/tanks/using normal attacks), s/he will use dodge/small teleport to avoid been damaged. Rogues and Warrior will get
stamina and Mages mana reduction, as a small punishment for not thinking it through. Can make skill out of it (so PC could use it). Can be putted it in companion's priorities table.

Negative side is that you would want it to work against enemy's AOE, but that will a bit oversimplify our ability to avoid them.

Modifié par Dagr88, 25 décembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[Nerevar-as]

Dagr88 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Are you basically asking for the tactics
system to support the idea of recognizing that an ally is within range
of your target (and hence should not attack)?

Just making sense of the request.

IF friendly mage casts a damaging AOE spell and your companion is in it (not stunned/casting, just stands/tanks/using normal attacks), s/he will use dodge/small teleport to avoid been damaged. Rogues and Warrior will get
stamina and Mages mana reduction, as a small punishment for not thinking it through. Can make skill out of it (so PC could use it). Can be putted it in companion's priorities table.

Negative side is that you would want it to work against enemy's AOE, but that will a bit oversimplify our ability to avoid them.

Interesting..., but the one who didn´t think it through was the casting mage firing at were his/her companions are.

There´s also the point of what system DA:I will use. In Origns it could be worth hitting companions with an AoE, as the damage done to the enemy more than made up for the one to the companion. In DA2, and I really like to know who thought to use different rule sets for party and enemies, and AoE will usually 1HK the party while the enemy still has most of its bar to go. I´d also like FF to be less arbitrary. A fire explosion telling friend from foe is silly, but a mage should be able to discriminate with mainly mental attacks, such as the mind blast or sleep.

[gneisenau556]

BG2 combat system, with a variety of enemies like mind-flayers(which could be blood mages in DA).

[Fishy]

* Positionnal/reactionary type of attack for melee and maybe even mage .. This way you actually have to move around to use the best abilities and not just spam it. It will also make good use of stunning effect etc. I hate it when you just spam button..

* Combo/Chain abilities for both mage and melee combatant.. You start with weak to stronger attack . Which can be interupted anytime ( for mage you have to just hit them and for melee to block or stun them) .. Which add more strategy to use the correct abilities at the  correct time unlike spamming everything up.

My idea for this would require a somewhat different  UI .. Both using vertical for combo ( My idea would be unlock combo like abilities .. The vertical UI would be used for this (The UI would be fading though ... Just using the case for the combo abilities) and horizontal normal UI for other abilities( and starter combo) or full abilities that require no combo. Yes that an idea I always had for a solid combat system.

It would make combat in RPG much more dynamic without removing the ''RPG'' element and not making it a beat em up type of game. For instance game like Terra suck. Because it's too much like a beat em up. While game with too much point and click with Cooldown make the game more a level and gear based gameplay .. Which mean what make you the best in a fight is more your gear rather than your skill. Abilities would be more dependant of stat also .. Like dexterity increasing your melee attack and casting speed but reducing your damage per hit...

* Better AI  ( still need weaker enemy to make my character feel awesome though)

Of course I took some idea from some other game but some are mine. I can't wait to see something like this.
SWTOR for instance .. It's just a spamming contest.. It's make the gameplay shallow. While guild ways 2 is boring .. because there's not enough of them.

Modifié par Suprez30, 25 décembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Spedfrom]

I'd like it if on normal difficulty the damage to companions when AoE spells or skills are used would be applied and for the same rule to apply to enemies.

[snackrat]

I found traps pretty much pointless. It requires you to a) know combat is happening in Area 'X' and be able to move around Area 'X' without automatically triggering it. In both Dragon Age games your are always on the offensive: you are pushing FORWARD into enemy lines. The darkspawn archers will not walk over your trinkets.

I can only think of TWO times I used traps - one, the sidequest in Lothering (which is actually a skill check, not combat). Two, in Lothering before entering the bar (knowing there'd be an ambush after). The second was ONLY useful because I'd played before I knew it was coming. Everywhere else you have moving forward, and the enemy jumps you as soon as you get close.

Though there may be the odd one, I cannot remember any scenarios where 1) you know ahead of time you with have to fight someone/something (esp without a first playthrough), 2) without being forced into combat or the dialogue that forces this encounter.

This basically made the skill useless for warriors/mages. For rogues, they could at least stealth, so it had SOME use, but the traps weren't easy to make and ultimately did very little, so I preferred to just sell the components and use 'renewable' sources of crowd-control, like mage spells.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 25 décembre 2012 - 11:38 .

[Dagr88]

I don't know about "more interesting", but the easiest and sanest way to make battle more challenging is to give enemy a good arsenal of skills, that will make MODERATE amount of damage. To put it simple: create battles that feel like PvP.

Enemy mages that cast Heal, Buffs and Curse. Warriors with Taunts (+def/... self buff) and AOE attacks. Rogues... well, they were good in DA2, except for those instant kill Back Stabs.

Game difficulty will manage that skill arsenal and +HP/resistance obviously.

It will add some work with skill animation for enemies and AI programming will be a challenge...

To make battles a bit more unpredictable you can use "enemy battle power value".
You give every enemy unit a numerical value and value to a encounter.

Ex:
While exploring Deep Roads you stumble upon a building with multiple rooms. Only available enemies are darkspawn.

Genlock's value - 3; Emissary's - 7; Alpha's - 10

Rooms value is 30... So it can be 2 Alphas, 1 Gen and 1 Em. Or 2 Em, 2 Gen and 1 Alpha.

Only people who will notice it will be those who on their >1 playthrough and it might put more pressure on AI, but... idea is an idea, even if it's not a good one.

Modifié par Dagr88, 26 décembre 2012 - 12:00 .

[Nerevar-as]

Karsciyin wrote...

I found traps pretty much pointless. It requires you to a) know combat is happening in Area 'X' and be able to move around Area 'X' without automatically triggering it. In both Dragon Age games your are always on the offensive: you are pushing FORWARD into enemy lines. The darkspawn archers will not walk over your trinkets.

I can only think of TWO times I used traps - one, the sidequest in Lothering (which is actually a skill check, not combat). Two, in Lothering before entering the bar (knowing there'd be an ambush after). The second was ONLY useful because I'd played before I knew it was coming. Everywhere else you have moving forward, and the enemy jumps you as soon as you get close.

Though there may be the odd one, I cannot remember any scenarios where 1) you know ahead of time you with have to fight someone/something (esp without a first playthrough), 2) without being forced into combat or the dialogue that forces this encounter.

This basically made the skill useless for warriors/mages. For rogues, they could at least stealth, so it had SOME use, but the traps weren't easy to make and ultimately did very little, so I preferred to just sell the components and use 'renewable' sources of crowd-control, like mage spells.

There´s a skill that let´s you know there are enemies around, and Stealth to plant the traps. Then you go visible and they go for you. Archers will follow if you go out of range or vision. Of course, once you get Storm of the Century or Death Cloud, they are much better at dealing with most enemies than traps.

But the solution is to improve the use of traps, not BW´s usual removal of features whenever someone complains
 (save for the ones they are in love with, such as scanning).

[snackrat]

Nerevar-as wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

I found traps pretty much pointless. It requires you to a) know combat is happening in Area 'X' and be able to move around Area 'X' without automatically triggering it. In both Dragon Age games your are always on the offensive: you are pushing FORWARD into enemy lines. The darkspawn archers will not walk over your trinkets.

I can only think of TWO times I used traps - one, the sidequest in Lothering (which is actually a skill check, not combat). Two, in Lothering before entering the bar (knowing there'd be an ambush after). The second was ONLY useful because I'd played before I knew it was coming. Everywhere else you have moving forward, and the enemy jumps you as soon as you get close.

Though there may be the odd one, I cannot remember any scenarios where 1) you know ahead of time you with have to fight someone/something (esp without a first playthrough), 2) without being forced into combat or the dialogue that forces this encounter.

This basically made the skill useless for warriors/mages. For rogues, they could at least stealth, so it had SOME use, but the traps weren't easy to make and ultimately did very little, so I preferred to just sell the components and use 'renewable' sources of crowd-control, like mage spells.

There´s a skill that let´s you know there are enemies around, and Stealth to plant the traps. Then you go visible and they go for you. Archers will follow if you go out of range or vision. Of course, once you get Storm of the Century or Death Cloud, they are much better at dealing with most enemies than traps.

But the solution is to improve the use of traps, not BW´s usual removal of features whenever someone complains
 (save for the ones they are in love with, such as scanning).

Yeah, warriors/mages can't do that, as I've said. Rogues can stealth, but traps are rapidly outclasses by other sources. And 'going out or range/vision' isn't so easy in a lot of the areas they provide, especially since they like making you walk into obvious traps like a common boob...

Am I correct in remembering that DA2 did not have any traps at all? At best you have 'grandes' that could perform tangently similar roles (eg tar grenades = AoE slow). Probably the 'removal thing' you mentioned.

If someone says WHY they don't like a system, what specifically they don't like about it, they're giving the information needed to fix it... removing it outright just feels like they're giving up too easy.

As for the Survival skill, I know. It is a must-have. But it only tracks enemies that have ALREADY BEEN SPAWNED, and will attack as soon as they are aware of you. Again, WARRIORS AND MAGES CANNOT STEALTH. Even rogues may not always stealth, or not have their stealth up to a high-degree, especially since rogues are basically warriors with backstabbing. You never get much warning for an upcoming battle in an area you can prepare for. I do remember ONE more battle you can anticipate without automatically starting - the Haven high dragon. And traps are useless against a high dragon.

So again, as a warr/mage, all combat is automatically started WITHOUT any prior warning or chance to prepare. Only a stealthy rogue can place traps - traps that ultimately are difficult and/or expensive to make, and yet do next to nothing for combat. Spec for backstabbing instead and just give your healer some CC and your done.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 26 décembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[gneisenau556]

I never understoof what was wrong with classes like the Arcane Warrior/ Spirit Warrior, like what's wrong with a mage that persues physical and mental prefection, or a warrior that uses the arcane arts to enchance his martial skills ?

[Hatchetman77]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
In any case my serious suggestion would be simple:  Much better encounter design.  Better?  A wider variety of tactical scenarios and mixes of enemies to kill.  In DA2 every fight was an ambush by a lot of mooks.

This.

Also, make it turn-based.

I always wondered why they didn't make DA:O turn based.  I had to pause the game every 5 seconds to issue commands I figured BioWare may as well have gone all the way and made it turn based.  I'm all for tactical combat but not like DA:O.  I spent so much time pausing the game to give commands, only to have characters completly disregard those orders and do their own thing it isn't even funny anymore.  Anyone who chose to fight Ser Catherine by pulling her into the hallway when "rescuing" Anora knows what I'm talking about.  I'd have characters at random moments decide to break off attacking Catherine and running back into the room full of archers.  I felt like I was on suicide watch for my companions.