809 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You could not control an entire party with this system.

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

I agree, but some posters want to see more reaction time events, QTEs and feel that it will enhance the combat of DA. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I agree, but some posters want to see more reaction time events, QTEs and feel that it will enhance the combat of DA.

Then those posters are wrong, because such things would clearly break the combat of DA.  DA is party-based.

They can't actually want what they think they want, because what they think they want is incoherent.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 28 juillet 2013 - 06:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

The other party members would be controlled by the AI or yourself, as usual. It would just give you more direct control over the character you're controlling right now. A good AI could possibly respond to so-called "twitch" situations as demonstrated by the effectiveness of setting companion tactics to take advantage of cross-class combos in DA2. (waiting for rationalizations about how that's either not twitch despite the potentially very short timeframe of the effects, or that it was indeed a horrible mechanic consequently)

There should be nothing the player can do that the AI cannot also do with roughly the same chance of success.

In DA2, you could see a Rage demon/assassin pop up behind a character, switch to that character and physically walk them outside the attack range by simple pixel dodging, while every other AI-controlled character would have been killed.

That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with said gameplay elements. If I can take control of a character and come out with a radically more effective result simply by the virtue of me controlling them, then that is not party focused combat. Because if I have two characters in the exact same position, I cannot give orders/set up tactics for them both to succeed, but instead make a VERY meta-game approach on who lives and dies not based on the characters abilities, such as Dexterity or dodging experience, but on which one I, as the player, want to save with my player-based skill.

That is incongruent with a party-based game.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If I can take control of a character and come out with a radically more effective result simply by the virtue of me controlling them, then that is not party focused combat. Because if I have two characters in the exact same position, I cannot give orders/set up tactics for them both to succeed, but instead make a VERY meta-game approach on who lives and dies not based on the characters abilities, such as Dexterity or dodging experience, but on which one I, as the player, want to save with my player-based skill. 

That is incongruent with a party-based game.

I agree with you in principle, but the game still needs to deal with the absurdity of telekinetic ogre punches. Frontloading damage vs, animation is more absurd (IMO) than the wushu-esque combat of DA2. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If I can take control of a character and come out with a radically more effective result simply by the virtue of me controlling them, then that is not party focused combat. Because if I have two characters in the exact same position, I cannot give orders/set up tactics for them both to succeed, but instead make a VERY meta-game approach on who lives and dies not based on the characters abilities, such as Dexterity or dodging experience, but on which one I, as the player, want to save with my player-based skill. 

That is incongruent with a party-based game.

I agree with you in principle, but the game still needs to deal with the absurdity of telekinetic ogre punches. Frontloading damage vs, animation is more absurd (IMO) than the wushu-esque combat of DA2.
 

Well, I'm going to put on my Assumption Hat and say that's not going to be a problem in DA:I. DA:O and DA2 were built on an engine designed with little hit/collision detection in mind. Frostbite 3, on the other hand, was made for it.

Realistic combat physics are likely going to be the easiest thing for DA:I to have. RPG elements like dialogue, on he other hand, are going to be the uphill battle. So in that regard, I wouldn't be worried about such contrivances as if a hit is calculated in before or after the animation starts, as I'm fairly confident that it will be a real-time experience on FB3.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Realistic combat physics are likely going to be the easiest thing for DA:I to have. RPG elements like dialogue, on he other hand, are going to be the uphill battle. So in that regard, I wouldn't be worried about such contrivances as if a hit is calculated in before or after the animation starts, as I'm fairly confident that it will be a real-time experience on FB3.

I've been worried about the engine from the start. I was here for the UE3 choice for Mass Effect, and saw what we ended up with as a result. Although I can't point to any evidence, I'm almost convinced this delay is more engine related that EA magnimity related. 

But anyway, my point was more that realistic combat physics can't work when you don't allow characters to move out of the way out of telegraphed impacts. 

[philippe willaume]

Filament wrote...

snip

...If you have two characters in the exact same position, you can command them both to move out of the way while paused. Still not seeing the incongruity. It would only be incongruous in situations that demand you to maintain sustained active control over one character, which none of the example abilities cited necessitate as far as I can see.

Yes you are right, in DA:2 however it is mitigated since you need the animation to finish before doing anything.
I.e.  you can pause all you like, you may or may not have control of the char before it is too late.

so  the only way you can be sure to have effective control is not to let the AI take control of the companion char.

In the example you can use pommel strike to "interrupt" the assassin back  stab I am not sure if I agree that it is the same as kitting, as i like the idea of  having counter at your disposal,  That being said I fully agree with you the AI should be  able to do that, be it with tactics and talents or just by  default.

Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 30 juillet 2013 - 02:52 .

[MerinTB]

Kuroi Kishin wrote...
@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.

No, see, the point is that people who'd want to speed past the occasional combat aren't going to be worried about doing the best they could in that combat.

They aren't worried if their characters are using the environment to the best of their ability.

They aren't micromanaging their resources when they choose auto-resolve.

What they want is 1 - the battle to be over with instantaneously, 2 - them not having to deal with all the tactics and time consumption of said battle, 3 - to get on with the game after said battle.

If they ARE concerned whether or not they can win the battle, or about best using the environment, or about best micromanaging their resource use in battle... THEN they actually care about said battle, and will most likely be wanting to fight it themself!

You don't need extra coding.  You need to, when set to auto-resolve, remove the combat animation process and remove the code that keeps the player-selected character from doing anything without player input.

It's not to auto-win, or to make fights easier, or another tactic to beat combat.  It's for those times when you just don't want to do another filler fight, another random encounter, another "these are the minions blocking your way from getting to the room with the boss and, no, they won't be talked down!"

Kuroi Kishin wrote...
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 :]

The problem here is that you are making a false dichotomy error.  It's not "either you love combat or you hate it, therefore if you hate it why do you play games with so much combat?"

There are people who love the combat of RPGs, and almost only the combat, and there are some players who hate fighting and combat, and would rather never have to run a fight in an RPG...

and then there are most people, who fall somewhere along a continuum in-between those two extremes.

And even people who love combat more than most stuff in the RPG can, on occasion, get tired of random encounter fights and want to get past them to the more challenging, more story-important fights.

Kuroi Kishin wrote...
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.

In an ideal game, combat would only happen if story-relevant, each combat would be unique and require strategic thinking, and many combats could be circumvented with other options (stealth, talking, bribing, magic, etc.) -- but most games aren't that, and...
... here's the kicker ...
... there ARE players who like random encounters and like filler combat, because most of what they like is combat, and they don't care if there are ways to deal with situations that aren't combat.

Ideally, I agree with you.  I'd rather have the game you outline, where you can skip most combat by means of in-story game choices (a la Fallout series or Wasteland) or where all the fights are really story-relevant (The Walking Dead, Starcraft series single-player) -  but most games just aren't going to spend the resources, or even have the game design goals (because of developer or publisher desires, or because of target audience) to make such "ideal" games.

The auto-resolve is an elegant solution to make RPGs more appealing to more people.  Filler combat can exist, as those who don't want it can jump over some of it, but those who do love it can fight every single battle without a thing changed for them.