243 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO, in every respect but one.

I did really like DA2's melee friendly fire, and would like to see that again in future games, but DAO surpasses DA2 by:

Allowing friendly fire at lower difficulty levels;
Having a movable tactical camera;
Giving mages a wider range of things to do;
Making positioning matter;
Not using waved encounters; and,
Being slower.

edit: Cross-class combos are a wash, because their addition merely balances the loss of DAO's spell combos.

Making positioning matter? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...seriously????? When your units couldn't react to ANYTHING positioning could not matter. You couldn't choke point a door because any enemy would run right by you - plus you had no real mass to block anything so you hit hit or slow down foes.

CCC > spell combos because DA2 forced you to do something other than bring the all mage party to the game. That remains the biggest problem with DAO's combo is that there was really never a need to adjust any tactics to anything other than a handful of bosses because the same scripts run over and over again were enders for combat. By the end by mage was pretty much soloing the game. The other people were along for grins.

[imbs]

Sidney wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO, in every respect but one.

I did really like DA2's melee friendly fire, and would like to see that again in future games, but DAO surpasses DA2 by:

Allowing friendly fire at lower difficulty levels;
Having a movable tactical camera;
Giving mages a wider range of things to do;
Making positioning matter;
Not using waved encounters; and,
Being slower.

edit: Cross-class combos are a wash, because their addition merely balances the loss of DAO's spell combos.

Making positioning matter? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...seriously????? When your units couldn't react to ANYTHING positioning could not matter. You couldn't choke point a door because any enemy would run right by you - plus you had no real mass to block anything so you hit hit or slow down foes.

CCC > spell combos because DA2 forced you to do something other than bring the all mage party to the game. That remains the biggest problem with DAO's combo is that there was really never a need to adjust any tactics to anything other than a handful of bosses because the same scripts run over and over again were enders for combat. By the end by mage was pretty much soloing the game. The other people were along for grins.

Erm, did you not try mage in DA2? By the end of the game mages utterly destroy everything in that game as well. You win against packs of mobs before pretty much anyone hits anything because you have them on hold waiting for firestorm to end......

Thinking Positioning doesnt matter in either game just makes you wrong honsetly. In da2 its often nullified by the absurd wave system, but it can still help. In DAO its better but still flawed, and i would argue not being able to effectively choke anything, anywhere assuming a doorway in the vicinity and aoeing everything with insane efficiency ie DA2 is partially a good thing.

CCCs are an extremely lame way of forcing you to bring other classes too. They should force you to bring all classes by you know, making warriors essential for tanking, and keeping mobs off your other members. Rogues for lockpicking, disarming traps (weak ones i know) and single target lockdown, dps. Mages well yeah doesnt seem Bioware need to try to make mages worth bringing.

[Melca36]

DinoSteve wrote...

There was another poll like this about a month ago and Origins was the clear winner.

These polls don't really mean anything since the forum only represents a small spectrum of the gaming audience.

They already said NOT to expect the combat to be like Origins or DA2 for the next game.

People should just accept that the combat likely won't be the same.

[Mantaal]

Melca36 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

There was another poll like this about a month ago and Origins was the clear winner.

These polls don't really mean anything since the forum only represents a small spectrum of the gaming audience.

They already said NOT to expect the combat to be like Origins or DA2 for the next game.

People should just accept that the combat likely won't be the same.

They say alot during the day. The Bioware today are at a point i only believe what i see myselve. 
Im kinda sure it would not be THAT much different at all. 
DA:O And DA][ isnt THAT different also. The DA][ one just has less tactics more speed and idiotic Animations.

[BouncyFrag]

I liked the DA2 combat but I voted for DA:O due to the horrendous wave system of baddies falling from the sky and crawling out of solid ground.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

Making positioning matter? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...seriously????? When your units couldn't react to ANYTHING positioning could not matter. You couldn't choke point a door because any enemy would run right by you - plus you had no real mass to block anything so you hit hit or slow down foes.

There were many crowd-control abilities that could stop moving enemies.  Any knockdown attack would stop an advancing foe.

CCC > spell combos because DA2 forced you to do something other than bring the all mage party to the game.

Why would you want to be forced to do that?  What you're really saying is the DA2 prevented you from using an all-mage party.

That remains the biggest problem with DAO's combo is that there was really never a need to adjust any tactics to anything other than a handful of bosses because the same scripts run over and over again were enders for combat.

Just as, except for a handful of boss encounters, DA2 combat could be rendered trivial by retreating to a choke point.

[Sidney]

imbs wrote...
Erm, did you not try mage in DA2? By the end of the game mages utterly destroy everything in that game as well. You win against packs of mobs before pretty much anyone hits anything because you have them on hold waiting for firestorm to end......

Thinking Positioning doesnt matter in either game just makes you wrong honsetly. In da2 its often nullified by the absurd wave system, but it can still help. In DAO its better but still flawed, and i would argue not being able to effectively choke anything, anywhere assuming a doorway in the vicinity and aoeing everything with insane efficiency ie DA2 is partially a good thing.

CCCs are an extremely lame way of forcing you to bring other classes too. They should force you to bring all classes by you know, making warriors essential for tanking, and keeping mobs off your other members. Rogues for lockpicking, disarming traps (weak ones i know) and single target lockdown, dps. Mages well yeah doesnt seem Bioware need to try to make mages worth bringing.

Mages < Rogues at ther end of DA2, a rogue with Vendetta and Assasination was the main force of death. Mages were always weaker, their function was to drop haste onto the rogues. It felt so much like they toned the mages down from DAO->DA2 (which would be a good thing although really just dumping mana clash and the artillery level spells (Inferno, Blizzard) might have been enough).

The fact that you couldn't choke point anything is a weakness. Plus, if you put Sten and Allistair in their big honkin' armor in a little doorway you should, short of some sort of spectral enemy for example, expect them to block a door or at least slow down an enemy or maybe take an opportunity attack ....anything.  Positioning didn't matter in and of itself, drawing aggro mattered so to the extent that you put your warrior not near your mage it "mattered" but at that same level it mattered in DA2.

CCC aren't lame, well no more lame than making warrior tanks and so forth.  Still, in the realm of silly "combos" the CCC's are more interesting than the magic combos from DAO - not the least of which is they allow a lot of party composition choice to be able to break off and there are more of them.

Really, in the end I'm not defending DA2's combat which for me was far too similar to DAO's craptastic combat. DA2 did things better but so much of the "better" was undone by the awful encounter design (waves). DAO's combat was so mindless that I didn't control 95% of the fights instead just running the scripts for my party because the same things always worked.  The waves made things more challenging albeit in a much dumber way and because they dragged out the encounters so much it made managing mana/stamina more of a priority and prevtned as much of the scripting because my idiots would burn up all their power ability on wave 1 and be spent for wave 2.

[Anomaly-]

DA:O.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DAO, in every respect but one.

I did really like DA2's melee friendly fire, and would like to see that again in future games, but DAO surpasses DA2 by:

Allowing friendly fire at lower difficulty levels;
Having a movable tactical camera;
Giving mages a wider range of things to do;
Making positioning matter;
Not using waved encounters; and,
Being slower.

edit: Cross-class combos are a wash, because their addition merely balances the loss of DAO's spell combos.

Pretty much agree with that, though I didn't like the way CCCs were handled in DA2.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


There were many crowd-control abilities that could stop moving enemies.  Any knockdown attack would stop an advancing foe.

Why would you want to be forced to do that?  What you're really saying is the DA2 prevented you from using an all-mage party.

Just as, except for a handful of boss encounters, DA2 combat could be rendered trivial by retreating to a choke point.

You could stop moving foes, if you could hit them which you wouldn't in most cases.

DA2 didn't stop you from having an all mage party. I went as mage heavy as anyone in DA2 for a lot of it. It just made the other party compositions more viable because of the combos while in DAO there was no incentive to have anything but 3 mages.

DA2's combat wasn't good. Again, I'm not a fan of the DA* combat systems. I think they're all pretty trivial and shallow overall. I thought the mechanics underlying DAO were not as good as those underlying DA2. I thought DAO had a better combat presentation (both artistically and animation) and better encounter designs than DA2.

[Anomaly-]

Sidney wrote...
The fact that you couldn't choke point anything is a weakness. Plus, if you put Sten and Allistair in their big honkin' armor in a little doorway you should, short of some sort of spectral enemy for example, expect them to block a door or at least slow down an enemy or maybe take an opportunity attack ....anything.  Positioning didn't matter in and of itself, drawing aggro mattered so to the extent that you put your warrior not near your mage it "mattered" but at that same level it mattered in DA2.

I had no trouble creating choke points in DA:O. I don't mind the fact that enemies could push past you as a default action, because you didn't tell that character you actually wanted them to block anything. You simply had to make that explicit, by having them use skills like taunt, shield bash, glyphs, whatever. That makes perfect sense to me.

Positioning mattered for less in DA2, imo. Playing a Rogue in DA:O, one important aspect of the gameplay was positioning myself and choosing targets in such a way as to find the shortest path to the nearest enemy's back in the shortest amount of time in order to deal the most possible damage. That aspect of gameplay was completely gone in DA2, because I could simply teleport or leap across the battlefield to whichever enemy I chose.

CCC aren't lame, well no more lame than making warrior tanks and so forth.  Still, in the realm of silly "combos" the CCC's are more interesting than the magic combos from DAO - not the least of which is they allow a lot of party composition choice to be able to break off and there are more of them.

I disliked CCCs for a couple of reasons. First, they force you into a particular party set up with a particular combination of skills. In addition, there really isn't anything tactical about them. There is never any reason not to use them. An example combo would be having lightning strike a frozen target. The lightning would melt the ice, but the moisture would increase the electric damage done. This creates an actual tactical choice, because if you just wanted to leave that enemy disabled while you dealt with others you would just leave them frozen, but if you were confident you could kill them quickly and safely, you would use the lightning. This is similar to the grease + fire combo in DA:O. In DA2, you just get a free damage increase. There is nothing tactical or strategic about it, and you are actually forced to do it if you want to be most efficient.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 07 février 2013 - 10:12 .

[-Skorpious-]

DA:O if only for the fact that the animations didn't make me cringe in disgust.

[kalasaurus]

I voted for DA: O because DA2 was a bit over the top with everyone jumping around and swinging their swords and staffs all hyped up. DA: O was clunky, but the rogues and warriors were more realistic in their combat moves- like not teleporting or flying in the air to slam a huge sword (Fenris...)

I'd welcome a mix between the two styles- smoother but slowed down.

[addiction21]

Anomaly- wrote...


I disliked CCCs for a couple of reasons. First, they force you into a particular party set up with a particular combination of skills. In addition, there really isn't anything tactical about them. There is never any reason not to use them. An example combo would be having lightning strike a frozen target. The lightning would melt the ice, but the moisture would increase the electric damage done. This creates an actual tactical choice, because if you just wanted to leave that enemy disabled while you dealt with others you would just leave them frozen, but if you were confident you could kill them quickly and safely, you would use the lightning. This is similar to the grease + fire combo in DA:O. In DA2, you just get a free damage increase. There is nothing tactical or strategic about it, and you are actually forced to do it if you want to be most efficient.

Apply that same logic objectively and evenly to DAO. To be most efficient you are forced to bring three mages and storm of the century everything to death. Nothing tactical or strategic about it.

One standard to judge DA:O and then a different one to Judge DA2 on. Oh right its called double standards.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

DA2 didn't stop you from having an all mage party. I went as mage heavy as anyone in DA2 for a lot of it. It just made the other party compositions more viable because of the combos while in DAO there was no incentive to have anything but 3 mages.

The most important reason to have any particular party composition is because you like that one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

addiction21 wrote...

Apply that same logic objectively and evenly to DAO. To be most efficient you are forced to bring three mages and storm of the century everything to death. Nothing tactical or strategic about it.

Storm of the Century was too large to be that broadly applicable.  Friendly fire was too great a risk.

If you'd said Paralysis Explosion, then you'd have had a stronger point.  But I get the impression Paralysis Explosion was used far less often than Storm of the Century was, even though it was safer, could be learned at a lower level, and was more easily performed by a single mage.

[Anomaly-]

addiction21 wrote...
Apply that same logic objectively and evenly to DAO. To be most efficient you are forced to bring three mages and storm of the century everything to death. Nothing tactical or strategic about it.

One standard to judge DA:O and then a different one to Judge DA2 on. Oh right its called double standards.

Actually, I am judging them by the same standard. I didn't claim to be overly fond of DA:O's spell combos either, but I did highlight one key way in which they differ. Using storm of the century as an example, you forfeited the status effects of blizzard for a 50% increase in damage and range, as well as an increased mana cost. This decision is still tactical. It isn't worth it to use the combo if it's going to be overkill, or you just want a group disabled, or if you don't have the mana to cast it, or if the increased area of effect is going to be too risky to your party. This is a much more tactical decision than simply receiving a free 500% bonus. As for the usefulness of the combo itself, that's simply a balance issue.

[Sidney]

Anomaly- wrote...

I had no trouble creating choke points in DA:O. I don't mind the fact that enemies could push past you as a default action, because you didn't tell that character you actually wanted them to block anything. You simply had to make that explicit, by having them use skills like taunt, shield bash, glyphs, whatever. That makes perfect sense to me.

Yeah it makes so much sense that foes push past heavily armoured warriors. That's why lines were broken all the time in real life.

All the other stuff you are talking about - drawing aggro, glpyhs have nothing to do with positioning. I could have mages in front of my warriors which is awful positioning but yell at the bad guys and they come running Same thing with glyphs which don't care how you are drawn up to stop the bad guys. DA2 offered all those same options and because positioning doesn't matter for those it works out about the same as DAO.

[SoSolaris]

DA2--I preferred the revamp for archers.

[Maverick827]

DA2 had, unarguably, the more difficult/involved combat system of the two games. DA2 on Nightmare is objectively more difficult than DAO on Nightmare. There were less broken classes, less broken abilities, less broken items, more enemies, harder hitting enemies, etc. etc. etc.

That said, I prefer the non-answer of a mix between both. I did not like DA2's over-the-top cartoonishness, but I vastly preferred its responsiveness. When I tell my tank to move to and attack an enemy, I want him to move to that enemy and attack it. Not hump the enemy while it closes in on my mage and only attack when the enemy stops and hits my mage (probably killing it). When this happened in DAO, I would then be forced to start kiting with my mage, with the enemy chasing it, with my warrior chasing the enemy. Insert Yakety Sax joke here.

As an improvement over both games, I would prefer less jerky damage spikes from enemies. Both games had parts where a tank in full tank gear with full tank abilities would still die in two hits from a boss or even a leveled normal enemy. I would much prefer a more MMO style combat system, where I'm just playing every character in the party.

I'd like to be able to send my tank in, switch to my DPS and start them attacking, then switch to my healer and watch everyone's health, and then micro-manage the encounter from there. Dodging area abilities, switching to interrupt an ability, etc. Both DAO DA2 turn into Potionfest 2013 when the low health/mitigation tanks and the abysmal healing capabilities of mages.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maverick827 wrote...

DA2 had, unarguably, the more difficult/involved combat system of the two games. DA2 on Nightmare is objectively more difficult than DAO on Nightmare.

But only on Nightmare.  And DA2 achieved that diffuclty partly through completely arbitrary and lore-breaking damage immunities.

[The Hierophant]

addiction21 wrote...
Apply that same logic objectively and evenly to DAO. To be most efficient you are forced to bring three mages and storm of the century everything to death. Nothing tactical or strategic about it.

One standard to judge DA:O and then a different one to Judge DA2 on. Oh right its called double standards.

I'm not following your logic as one mage by themselves could set up Storm of the Century then reap the rewards, while Da2's CCC strictly relies on a warrior, rogue, and mage being in the party while using a certain skill set-up to take advantage of staggered, disoriented, and paralyzed opponents.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 08 février 2013 - 12:01 .

[Twisted Path]

I think this message board is a bit skewed since everyone who loved Dragon Age 2 posts here and a lot of the people who were more fans of old school-style CRPGs have given up on the franchise.

[addiction21]

The Hierophant wrote...

addiction21 wrote...
Apply that same logic objectively and evenly to DAO. To be most efficient you are forced to bring three mages and storm of the century everything to death. Nothing tactical or strategic about it.

One standard to judge DA:O and then a different one to Judge DA2 on. Oh right its called double standards.

I'm not following your logic as one mage by themselves could set up Storm of the Century then reap the rewards, while Da2's CCC strictly relies on a warrior, rogue, and mage being in the party while using a certain skill set-up to take advantage of staggered, disoriented, and paralyzed opponents.

Guessing I did a poor job at it.

Both DAO and DA2 can fall into the "the games forces me into this setup so I am most efficient" Hell most games you can min/max to that point.

Anomaly- wrote...

. Using storm of the century as an example, you forfeited the status effects of blizzard for a 50% increase in damage and range, as well as an increased mana cost. This decision is still tactical. It isn't worth it to use the combo if it's going to be overkill, or you just want a group disabled, or if you don't have the mana to cast it, or if the increased area of effect is going to be too risky to your party. This is a much more tactical decision than simply receiving a free 500% bonus. As for the usefulness of the combo itself, that's simply a balance issue.

Just like here its different standards or maybe just deliberately omitting that much of that can been said about CCC's.  Take the frozen enemy or sacrifice that effect for the CCC.  Do you blow your wad at the first chance of a CCC on any mook or set that elite mage/rogue/warrior up for one to take them out the fight asap? So on and so forth.

It has nothing to do whether I or anyone else likes or dislikes DAO or DA2s combat. Its the disingenuous comparisons that get me.

(feel like I prolly muddied the water more then anything else)

[addiction21]

Twisted Path wrote...

I think this message board is a bit skewed since everyone who loved Dragon Age 2 posts here and a lot of the people who were more fans of old school-style CRPGs have given up on the franchise.

 Sorry this one internet poll does not reflect your opinion. Maybe you should go dig up the many other polls on this exact subject where DAO sometimes comes out ahead and other times its a near 50/50 split.