809 réponses à ce sujet

[Paul E Dangerously]

My problem with avoiding combat - in an in-game way - is that too often certain options become overpowered. Any character with decent ranks in Persuade in DAO basically had an "I win" button sitting at their command to get out of some tough fights. The non-combat routes in Fallout 1/2 were much more difficult, but quests often gave you several methods to get around an objective.

As far as player skill vs character skill and combat, I think there's a way to find a balance between Origins' shuffle-shuffle-whack and DA2's "Is this Ninja Gaiden?" approaches. Except if auto-attack is off by default, you may want to put the option to toggle it on in the menu in size 48 font and blinking red to boot. Because I can guarantee you people will not only miss it, but complain about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fortlowe wrote...

I think twitch based gameplay gets a bad rap in the RPG space. Powers should work like you say Jimmy, but when simply doing the basic attacks of shooting the bow or swinging the axe or jabbing with the dagger, I should have to bring some level of active input on the players part IMO. Better stats should make the player more effective when doing so, but auto attack is not my favorite part of the game.

I'd honestly like to see a model with no auto attack, but only executable moves. This would be a mod of offensive abilities (like Shield Bash or Giant Swing), but also defensive ones (like Dodge or Counter) and buffs of various sorts. These would have much shorter time frames for both length of effect, cool down times and overall damage/efficacy. This could lead to a faster, more twitch based set of encounters, but still be very tactical instead of me being able to make a 750 yard headshot with the lowest level sniping skill and equipment because I have learned how to manipulate the controls. 

I could do this in DE:HR, Skyrim and many parts of the ME series - it made for a diminished experience for me because of it. I'd rather have a set of rules that I need to learn and have to adapt to based on the situation rather than test my patience and my 25 years of hand-eye coordination development. I don't find it much of a challenge or source of enjoyment when I can make any character an uber-character because of it. 

[Realmzmaster]

What is the purpose of building up a character or party if the player reaction skills trump the character skills? Why put points say into dodging (as an example) if the gamer can use his/her controller prowess to dodge for the character regardless of the character's ability or lack thereof to dodge.

If I level up my character to be a master archer why should I have to do the aiming especially in a party based game? If I leave the main protagonist in combat to switch to another party member the tactics run the main protagonist until I return.

My character is aiming the bow not me and my character is a master archer that I am roleplaying. He/she should not in any way be hindered by my lack of hand-eye coordination.

[AlanC9]

If he's just saying that RPG shouldn't automatically mean non-twitch, that's fine. ME2 and ME3 worked for me. OTOH, defining "RPG" is a fool's game anyway.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juillet 2013 - 05:17 .

[Ieldra]

Should DAI remove the auto-attack feature from the PC version, this will be all the more reason to have a function to skip the combat. If there's one general game mechanic I hate, regardless of genre, it's button mashing. In ME3 the absence of auto-attack worked for several reasons: (1) You had full-auto weapons so you could just hold the button down, (2) cooldowns were short enough that most of a power-based character's attacks were nonstandard, and (3) you never needed more than two or three attacks to kill a non-boss enemy, even on Insanity. In the DA games you depend much more on standard attacks, at least until you've risen enough in level to not have your useful talents always on cooldown. 

Also, yes, success in combat actions should depend much more on character skill. That's why I'm against auto-leveling enemies. They remove almost all of the character skill imbalance that should be *the* major deciding factor in a fight. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juillet 2013 - 06:43 .

[brushyourteeth]

I love in-game combat, and don't understand for a second why anyone who says they're a game fan would want the option to skip it altogether. However, if part of the fan-base wants it, and it doesn't cost Bioware too much to provide it, I definitely don't see any harm in giving anyone the option. Options are good.

I do also agree that past a certain point, "Ugh, another new wave of enemies, really? Totally thought I was done." became a waaaay too common thought in my brain-responses to DAII. But I think the developers have heard that complaint loud and clear.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I love in-game combat, and don't understand for a second why anyone who says they're a game fan would want the option to skip it altogether. However, if part of the fan-base wants it, and it doesn't cost Bioware too much to provide it, I definitely don't see any harm in giving anyone the option. Options are good.

Hooray!

I do also agree that past a certain point, "Ugh, another new wave of enemies, really? Totally thought I was done." became a waaaay too common thought in my brain-responses to DAII. But I think the developers have heard that complaint loud and clear.

Mike Laidlaw has said in this thread somewhere that they're cutting back waves as a core combat mechanic, so that's some good news, I think.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
How well I understand the mechanics, the strategy of the game, the tactics of my enemies, the strengths of my party, etc. SHOULD be based on player's skill.

What if I want my character to be tactically gifted, but I am not so great at the game? What if I want her to be overwhelmingly strong, but I don't kno how to design a character that hits hard?

So that is where a player's skill should come into play.

Except that people already reject that same idea when it comes to persuasion. 

[Fortlowe]

I understand the support for auto attack, I just think having a suitably deep and satisfying system of active attacking could possibly make the combat more enjoyable and engaging.

Not anything overwhelmingly complicated. Having the basic attacks set up combinations using the powers/ abilities that end in a flourish. Like for example, A A shield bash A. The first two attacks set up the shield bash. If my stats are good enough, the shield bash knocks my opponent down. The third attack activates a flourish or finishing move like a stomp or ground stab. The better the stats the more likely you are to get the coolest or most damaging flourish.

Plus a combo system something like this still leaves room for auto attack. Instead of actively pressing the attack button, with auto attack engaged, the player can simply count the attacks to engage the combinations. Assassins Creed uses a similar method to this for its combat.

[Fortlowe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

I think twitch based gameplay gets a bad rap in the RPG space. Powers should work like you say Jimmy, but when simply doing the basic attacks of shooting the bow or swinging the axe or jabbing with the dagger, I should have to bring some level of active input on the players part IMO. Better stats should make the player more effective when doing so, but auto attack is not my favorite part of the game.

I'd honestly like to see a model with no auto attack, but only executable moves. This would be a mod of offensive abilities (like Shield Bash or Giant Swing), but also defensive ones (like Dodge or Counter) and buffs of various sorts. These would have much shorter time frames for both length of effect, cool down times and overall damage/efficacy. This could lead to a faster, more twitch based set of encounters, but still be very tactical instead of me being able to make a 750 yard headshot with the lowest level sniping skill and equipment because I have learned how to manipulate the controls. 

I could do this in DE:HR, Skyrim and many parts of the ME series - it made for a diminished experience for me because of it. I'd rather have a set of rules that I need to learn and have to adapt to based on the situation rather than test my patience and my 25 years of hand-eye coordination development. I don't find it much of a challenge or source of enjoyment when I can make any character an uber-character because of it. 

Very much agreed here. The warriors and melee rogues would benefit from the omission of auto attack, IMO. But statistics should still have as much of an effect on the combat as player skill, otherwise leveling would be pointless. I should appreciate the increase in speed or power as I level up and doing so should open up new tactics and methodologies in combat.

[Mornmagor]

@MerinTB :

The programming should involve usage of actual tactical positioning that you can arrange yourself while engaging an enemy, though it would be practically impossible for a processor to take it into account without some serious tweaking. In other words, you can't take advantage of environment or a party positioning that is favorable.

Usage of tactics is available now obviously, and you could possibly arrange a combat sequence based on tactics, but it's quite possible that you're gonna lose battles that you would win otherwise, exactly because the tactical positioning cannot be arranged for you. You could avoid damage or even kite an enemy(wherever available), or use the environment to your advantage. Addityionally, your selection of moves, or micromanaging when you will press an ability, instead of when it's available, can prove better than tactic-usage.

I guess, what you're saying is possible if they include a sub-system where you can arrange your party's position, aka more options than just tactics, usage of skills or consumables available, but i still think it would require more work to be done than make an alternative difficulty setting where you can stream through combat faster.

For the strawman part, i understand what you said, i wasn't familiar with the term strawman, since english is not my mother language and i haven't encountered the term before, so in other words, people that don't like combat don't need to resort to books or whatever, if i get it correctly, right?

Well, obviously that is true, there is a much better way to avoid combat in my opinion. And it's having the game giving you the option to use wits or something else to bypass it, like in Fallout, as you remember correctly ( well, not 100% of the fights but whatever ).

The book reference or visual novel i used, although an exaggeration, or strawman as you called it, refers to the dumbing down, in my opinion, of the combat part of RPGs, essentially making the game, if you so desire it, to be more like a graphic novel, that doesn't include the actual fighting. And i'm not talking about the option to use alternatives here.

And yes, RPGs are role playing games, but the role play doesn't only refer to decisions, you play a part, a role, like a theatrical play, but you also have a role as part of a group, like in, tank, healer, damage dealer etc. The biggest part of RPGs is not just the story, but the combat mechanics and the skills of combat you use. You're not just Merin, who takes decisions and role plays a character, you're the Mage/Warrior Merin, who both takes decisions and has no equal in 1 on 1 combat or whatever.

Anyway, i respect your desire to have this option, and fully support you voicing it, i just happen to have a different opinion about it, obviously biased because of my love for combat, maybe i'm just unable to see how someone cannot like combat and still play a party based medieval fantasy RPG, or i just hate simulation/managers so much.

To each his own though :]

All in all, if you gave me the option to choose, between auto-resolve, and a story like Fallout, where i can have many alternatives to solve a situation, or even Torment, where some fights are happening, but the important ones you can counter-maneuver, i would certainly choose to have options to solves cases differently.

And i would also like a combat system that makes me wanting to play it, real bad. Not one like in Dragon Age 2, where waves and waves just come at you, essentially making all this desire to avoid combat all together.

So, i say no to symptom therapy, go for the cause. Engaging Combat that we will love, and options to solve things another way.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 27 juillet 2013 - 01:54 .

[Fortlowe]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'm not trying to define RPG. I'm saying that having twitch just to have twitch is an idea I hate (though hate is a bit strong), because the majority of games are twitch. Of all the things you could add "just to have it," twitch seems the most..."overused."

I'm not saying adding twitch just to have twitch. I'm saying creating a simple but satisfying active combat system might make the combat elements in the game more engaging. No awesome button. No no no. Super no. However, I would like love a system similar to what Jimmy described. Reminds me a bit of Zelda: OoT combat experiences. 

Auto attack forgoes some very interesting gameplay mechanisms though. Context sensitivity. Timing based combinations. Active defense mechanisms like dodge or parry or putting up your shield. Counters. These mechanisms and others of the sort that could be included if auto attack were omitted would make the combat a more rewarding experience IMO. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Fortlowe wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'm not trying to define RPG. I'm saying that having twitch just to have twitch is an idea I hate (though hate is a bit strong), because the majority of games are twitch. Of all the things you could add "just to have it," twitch seems the most..."overused."

I'm not saying adding twitch just to have twitch. I'm saying creating a simple but satisfying active combat system might make the combat elements in the game more engaging. No awesome button. No no no. Super no. However, I would like love a system similar to what Jimmy described. Reminds me a bit of Zelda: OoT combat experiences. 

Auto attack forgoes some very interesting gameplay mechanisms though. Context sensitivity. Timing based combinations. Active defense mechanisms like dodge or parry or putting up your shield. Counters. These mechanisms and others of the sort that could be included if auto attack were omitted would make the combat a more rewarding experience IMO. 

I would be VERY hesitant and careful to put in a timing-based response system. A party-based RPG should absolutely NOT (in my opinion, of course) have an improved chance of success if I am controlling one character versus the game's Tactica doing the same thing. 

I should be able to set up tactics to tell my characters to use the Dodge skill uncertain situations and have it just as likely to succeed as if I am controlling the character and doing a Dodge myself. Adding in timing based checks can result in a player causing success every time by mastering the mechanics, even if the character has an extraordinarily low Dodge skill (or the game's equivalent) or, of course, vice versa.

And that is not something I'd advocate unless it was done in a very, VERY careful manner.  

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 juillet 2013 - 02:07 .

[Fortlowe]

Bad gameplay is bad, twitch or no, so I'm not behind shoehorning active combat in just to have it. I am for a well developed and elegantly crafted system that works flawlessly within the party based structure. I believe this is possible and that it would make for a more compelling experience.

[Realmzmaster]

Fortlowe wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'm not trying to define RPG. I'm saying that having twitch just to have twitch is an idea I hate (though hate is a bit strong), because the majority of games are twitch. Of all the things you could add "just to have it," twitch seems the most..."overused."

I'm not saying adding twitch just to have twitch. I'm saying creating a simple but satisfying active combat system might make the combat elements in the game more engaging. No awesome button. No no no. Super no. However, I would like love a system similar to what Jimmy described. Reminds me a bit of Zelda: OoT combat experiences. 

Auto attack forgoes some very interesting gameplay mechanisms though. Context sensitivity. Timing based combinations. Active defense mechanisms like dodge or parry or putting up your shield. Counters. These mechanisms and others of the sort that could be included if auto attack were omitted would make the combat a more rewarding experience IMO. 

The problem with time based combinations is it punishes the player whose reaction skill is not fast enough. Why should I build up a character with an excellent dodge skill if that skill is hindered by my lack of hand-eye coordination or speed?
The very points you suggest that would make the experience more rewarding for you would be utter frustration for a gamer who lacks your hand-eye coordination or speed. 

It turns a series that gamer use to be able to play into one that the gamer can no longer play or ends utterly frustrated in his/her attempts to play it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fortlowe wrote...

Auto attack forgoes some very interesting gameplay mechanisms though. Context sensitivity. Timing based combinations. Active defense mechanisms like dodge or parry or putting up your shield. Counters. These mechanisms and others of the sort that could be included if auto attack were omitted would make the combat a more rewarding experience IMO.

I have no idea how you would control multiple party members simultaneously with this sort of system.

[Realmzmaster]

@Kurio Kishin,

I understand your appreciation for combat. On my first playthrough I play through all the combat encounters. On subsequent playthroughs I am looking for how my choices will affect the story. Most of the combat in DA games have little or nothing to do with the story. The auto resolve button would allow me to have the computer resolve the battle and I move on to the next choice in the story.

I still have the chance to win or lose the battle. I still have to level up my characters to have a chance at winning. On lower levels the Casual or Easy the auto resolve becomes an auto win.

Also most auto-resolve combat takes into account all the tactical considerations and have since Wizard's Crown back in 1985. The program would have no problem deciding tactical positioning , differences in elevation etc because it does that already in the combat sequence.

When you do the battle manually all of that is taken into consideration by the program. As I stated before Bioware had in the game the ability to have the program run all the tactical scripts for testing purposes.
The PC version has a sort of autowin button in the console killallhostiles. The player simply enters the console types killallhostiles and combat is over. The proposal was to extend that function to the other platforms and not hide it in the PC console commands.

Wargames have been using auto resolve buttons for a long time. Even some jrpgs have been using auto resolve or some variation of it especially if your party vastly overpowers the enemy it meets. Auto resolve is a very old concept.

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...

Auto attack forgoes some very interesting gameplay mechanisms though. Context sensitivity. Timing based combinations. Active defense mechanisms like dodge or parry or putting up your shield. Counters. These mechanisms and others of the sort that could be included if auto attack were omitted would make the combat a more rewarding experience IMO.

I have no idea how you would control multiple party members simultaneously with this sort of system.

You could not control an entire party with this system. I believe he is referring only to the party member the gamer is controlling at that time. Tactics would still run the remaining party members. Like Skyrim but with a party.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 27 juillet 2013 - 04:37 .

[Wulfram]

Dragon Age is a party based game.  That, to me, means it needs to keep all the reflex based stuff and micro-management of an individual character quite limited, so you can maintain awareness and control of the whole party.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You could not control an entire party with this system.

Then it has no relevance when discussing a party-based game.