132 réponses à ce sujet

[philippe willaume]

SKRemaks wrote...

I don't understand how people can keep saying Origins was tactical.  Once you played the game a few times, you learned where all the enemies were placed, which made combat trivial.

Sneak up, open a door, pull the camera way out, and have Wynne hit the mage a room over with a Mana Clash without them ever knowing you were there.   

Combat was kind of a joke in Origins.  Not to mention the slower than molasses animations.

People might complain about the waves in DA2, but at least they kept things interesting and dynamic.

I can pretty much sleepwalk through Origins.  DA2 actually takes some attention.

No DA:2 does not require more attention, you just use the same talents in the same order over and over.
we could add that yes DA:0 animation were making movement like an aggravated  stroll and the mage very poky-poky and that two mages in the group in DA:0 or an optimised protagonist in DA:2 makes  anything trivial even in nightmare difficulty.

You can only understand why people say that DA:O was more tactical, if you have  played DA:0 with sub-optimal char.
if that case, you have to be creative with positioning and switching between ranged  and melee.
you have to use scouting or a skill to discover enemy positions in advance on the map. (so you should really have been able to know where the enemy were the first time around, no need for replay)
you have to use/modify the terrain to funnel control the number of enemies you will fight.

now
really one, if the tactics screen for each companion are as good as DA:2, and given that frostbite is shooter engine, as fast jimmy said, using the game as twitch oriented game should really be kind of there.
phil
 

Modifié par philippe willaume, 08 août 2013 - 06:21 .

[cjones91]

I'd much prefer fluid tactical combat over absurdly fast combat like DA2.I want combat like the Batman Arkham games or Assasin's where it's fluid and you have to use tactics in order to beat tough enemies/bosses.

[Ariella]

philippe willaume wrote...


You can only understand why people say that DA:O was more tactical, if you have  played DA:0 with sub-optimal char.
if that case, you have to be creative with positioning and switching between ranged  and melee.
you have to use scouting or a skill to discover enemy positions in advance on the map. (so you should really have been able to know where the enemy were the first time around, no need for replay)
you have to use/modify the terrain to funnel control the number of enemies you will fight.

Actually, you make the OP's point, considering few people WANT to play a sub-optimal character especially the first time out the gate. DAO tactics were basic to the extreme. DA2 did have some better tactical options though the support wasn't as good as I'd like (the companion skill duos for example). But DAO was snail slow, clunky animation and I don't remember ever having to scout, and this was not having the skill to bring up every enemy on the map. Plus the scripted encounters (especially the in-between travel ones) were about as tactical as a week old fish.... The ONLY combats that I can think of that were even close to tactical were Night in Redcliff and the Final archdemon battle.

Also, DAO's talents were visually BORING as sin. They all looked alike, and at times it felt like it didn't matter if I reposte or flurried. At least DA2 kept it interesting, and I knew that what I was doing had a visual consequence as well as a statistical one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The slow movement in DAO meant that movement had a cost. You had to decide whether moving was actually worth it.

That's something most modern games simply don't do.

[Reidbynature]

I'd much rather be managing my spells/abilities and squadmates than mashing the X button in a Dragon Age game. Give me more options for spells with mages and abilities with warriors and roges. Don't have me play along in a simulation of an 'action rpg'.

[The Baconer]

Nefla wrote...

I hated the combat in both games though I found it bearable in DA:O as a mage. I would love actual twitch combat such as TES and not button mashing press-A-to-win without aiming,etc...that DA2 had. Boring and boring.

TES combat is button mashing.

[xnode]

I loved DAO but DA2 combat was better, at least to me I had allot more fun with it. I paused all the time to give order to my companions in later missions, but controlling my own hero non-stop action was a blast!

Modifié par xnode, 08 août 2013 - 10:41 .

[philippe willaume]

Ariella wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...


You can only understand why people say that DA:O was more tactical, if you have  played DA:0 with sub-optimal char.
if that case, you have to be creative with positioning and switching between ranged  and melee.
you have to use scouting or a skill to discover enemy positions in advance on the map. (so you should really have been able to know where the enemy were the first time around, no need for replay)
you have to use/modify the terrain to funnel control the number of enemies you will fight.

Actually, you make the OP's point, considering few people WANT to play a sub-optimal character especially the first time out the gate. DAO tactics were basic to the extreme. DA2 did have some better tactical options though the support wasn't as good as I'd like (the companion skill duos for example). But DAO was snail slow, clunky animation and I don't remember ever having to scout, and this was not having the skill to bring up every enemy on the map. Plus the scripted encounters (especially the in-between travel ones) were about as tactical as a week old fish.... The ONLY combats that I can think of that were even close to tactical were Night in Redcliff and the Final archdemon battle.

Also, DAO's talents were visually BORING as sin. They all looked alike, and at times it felt like it didn't matter if I reposte or flurried. At least DA2 kept it interesting, and I knew that what I was doing had a visual consequence as well as a statistical one.

sorry my English is visibly not up to the par.
yes  i do agree with certain point the OP made. IE, play DA:0 with two mages and it is like playing DA:2 with an optimised char. you will pretty much roll over every thing, clicking the same talent in the same order regardless the
encounterand his comments (or yours) on the animation are spot on.

The tactics menu of DA:2 was much better than the one in DA:0. and I totally agree that it is a different way but equivalent to most of the tactical options you had in DA:0, especially the for Combos.
i.e.  in DA:0 to shatter an enemy frozen by cone cold you had to control an  other party member to hit with an attack that would generate a critical (or stone fist) so de facto you have to position them so that the combo
was achievable (same with oil barrel and fire)

all that is only one aspect of tactics, Now you mention that you did not need to scout, well gathering Intel is the one of  the initial phase of tactical planning.

so you would know where the opposition was composed of and how many they would be and where trey would come up or if groups nearby would be able to come quickly or at all.
and  where you need to put the traps or where you could cast a area spell to control the number of enemy you would have to face at a given time.
so for example, you could then position your archer in a not easy to access and  where you can protect the entrance, setup the mage and the warrior at a choke point along the way (so you can combo) and so on.
for the next encounter, it might be a better tactic choice to have there missile party members and one melee holding the access route

in  DA:2 you can’t do that, the companion can't be separated from the their glorious leader (but their are not bothered in combat) and need to finish their animation before they will do what you ask. So once the tactical options have been set up, it is pretty much i am going in the  combo will take care of themselves. that and you need to do X to refuel stamina,you have much less tactical options than in DA:2

If I want to play a set character, I play Diablo or a FSP, the point  of a group based RPG is to have you companion fit a certain role (as in role play).
IE  Leliana in my game and in your game is going to be different , but and effective  Fenris in my game is going to be very similar to yours.

For  me the great strength of DA:0 was that it was tactically flexible enough that you could have companion play the role you saw fit for them and still be viable, which is not the case for DA:2 by far.

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 09 août 2013 - 12:47 .

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The slow movement in DAO meant that movement had a cost. You had to decide whether moving was actually worth it.

That's something most modern games simply don't do.

That only applies somewhat*as sometimes the game would force you to move to cast spells* if you used a ranged character.

That's because it's a mostly outdated design.

[Melca36]

SKRemaks wrote...

I don't understand how people can keep saying Origins was tactical.  Once you played the game a few times, you learned where all the enemies were placed, which made combat trivial.

Sneak up, open a door, pull the camera way out, and have Wynne hit the mage a room over with a Mana Clash without them ever knowing you were there.   

Combat was kind of a joke in Origins.  Not to mention the slower than molasses animations.

People might complain about the waves in DA2, but at least they kept things interesting and dynamic.

I can pretty much sleepwalk through Origins.  DA2 actually takes some attention.

Please explain how enemies materializing from the ceiling is interesting and dynamic. Some of us would really like to know how that has depth.

[Realmzmaster]

philippe willaume wrote...

SKRemaks wrote...

I don't understand how people can keep saying Origins was tactical.  Once you played the game a few times, you learned where all the enemies were placed, which made combat trivial.

Sneak up, open a door, pull the camera way out, and have Wynne hit the mage a room over with a Mana Clash without them ever knowing you were there.   

Combat was kind of a joke in Origins.  Not to mention the slower than molasses animations.

People might complain about the waves in DA2, but at least they kept things interesting and dynamic.

I can pretty much sleepwalk through Origins.  DA2 actually takes some attention.

No DA:2 does not require more attention, you just use the same talents in the same order over and over.
we could add that yes DA:0 animation were making movement like an aggravated  stroll and the mage very poky-poky and that two mages in the group in DA:0 or an optimised protagonist in DA:2 makes  anything trivial even in nightmare difficulty.

You can only understand why people say that DA:O was more tactical, if you have  played DA:0 with sub-optimal char.
if that case, you have to be creative with positioning and switching between ranged  and melee.
you have to use scouting or a skill to discover enemy positions in advance on the map. (so you should really have been able to know where the enemy were the first time around, no need for replay)
you have to use/modify the terrain to funnel control the number of enemies you will fight.

now
really one, if the tactics screen for each companion are as good as DA:2, and given that frostbite is shooter engine, as fast jimmy said, using the game as twitch oriented game should really be kind of there.
phil
 

I used sub-optimal parties in both games. I had a relatively more difficult time in DA2 than I ever had in DAO. I actually had to change my strategy and tactics on the fly in DA2. I never had to do that in DAO. That is why I like the combat in DA2. But  other people YMMV.

[Realmzmaster]

Melca36 wrote...

SKRemaks wrote...

I don't understand how people can keep saying Origins was tactical.  Once you played the game a few times, you learned where all the enemies were placed, which made combat trivial.

Sneak up, open a door, pull the camera way out, and have Wynne hit the mage a room over with a Mana Clash without them ever knowing you were there.   

Combat was kind of a joke in Origins.  Not to mention the slower than molasses animations.

People might complain about the waves in DA2, but at least they kept things interesting and dynamic.

I can pretty much sleepwalk through Origins.  DA2 actually takes some attention.

Please explain how enemies materializing from the ceiling is interesting and dynamic. Some of us would really like to know how that has depth.

I actually had fun with that aspect. It was one way of making sure that you could not just place your squishes in a safe location where they could blast the enemy with abandon. It require changing strategy and tactics on the fly. I just thought of them as para-trooper dropping in behind enemy lines. Waves are a tactic used by the military for years. But maybe that is just the wargamer in me talking.

[Melca36]

[quote]simfamSP wrote...

e talking.

[/quote]

I agree, but it's the execution that puts me off. If enemies must come in waves, then so be it, as long as it's coherent with the situation. The best examples I can give are Legacy and MOTA, where reinforcements came from back roads and forests.

It's all about appearance and image. I'm telling you, if Isabella wasn't as revealing with her attire, you'd have a lot less people calling her a ****. Whatever thoughtful explanation some users might give, a lot just can't get past these superficial boundaries.

[/quote]

I agree Legacy and MOTA were fun and and improvement but this (posted below) was ridiculous and I will NEVER it in a future game from any company.




I'm glad Inquisition will NOT have this.

[giveamanafish...]

philippe willaume wrote...

yes  i do agree with certain point the OP made. IE, play DA:0 with two mages and it is like playing DA:2 with an optimised char. you will pretty much roll over every thing, clicking the same talent in the same order regardless the
encounterand his comments (or yours) on the animation are spot on.

The tactics menu of DA:2 was much better than the one in DA:0. and I totally agree that it is a different way but equivalent to most of the tactical options you had in DA:0, especially the for Combos.
i.e.  in DA:0 to shatter an enemy frozen by cone cold you had to control an  other party member to hit with an attack that would generate a critical (or stone fist) so de facto you have to position them so that the combo
was achievable (same with oil barrel and fire)

all that is only one aspect of tactics, Now you mention that you did not need to scout, well gathering Intel is the one of  the initial phase of tactical planning.

so you would know where the opposition was composed of and how many they would be and where trey would come up or if groups nearby would be able to come quickly or at all.
and  where you need to put the traps or where you could cast a area spell to control the number of enemy you would have to face at a given time.
so for example, you could then position your archer in a not easy to access and  where you can protect the entrance, setup the mage and the warrior at a choke point along the way (so you can combo) and so on.
for the next encounter, it might be a better tactic choice to have there missile party members and one melee holding the access route

in  DA:2 you can’t do that, the companion can't be separated from the their glorious leader (but their are not bothered in combat) and need to finish their animation before they will do what you ask. So once the tactical options have been set up, it is pretty much i am going in the  combo will take care of themselves. that and you need to do X to refuel stamina,you have much less tactical options than in DA:2

If I want to play a set character, I play Diablo or a FSP, the point  of a group based RPG is to have you companion fit a certain role (as in role play).
IE  Leliana in my game and in your game is going to be different , but and effective  Fenris in my game is going to be very similar to yours.

For  me the great strength of DA:0 was that it was tactically flexible enough that you could have companion play the role you saw fit for them and still be viable, which is not the case for DA:2 by far.

phil

In DAO on the Xbox the only way to position any character is by using the "hold position" command and by taking direct control and walking it to the position you want. Hold position also suspends tactics, so that you would have to select all - select target and attack with basic attacks or select each character individually and select whatever attack you want -- basically pause and play. The problem I have is with the time used in positioning. In DAII you can use a "move to" and "hold position" which allows you to do the same thing you are writting about but quicker and as long as you are not more than half a city block away the parties will hold their position (these tactics make the Legacy boss fight a cakewalk -- basically allowing the player to do what you were writting about but on the fly.The DAII positioning system is superior in my opinion while the attachment the party has to the controlled character is actually rather touching (not really but its workaroundable).

Your point about using steath to scout ahead and set-up this type of set-piece is a good one. Although again I would prefer the DAII positioning system for its ease and brevity. I'm not sure what you are talking about with the last 3 quoted paragraphs.

End reference to quote.

1)  There have been a number of comments referring to having to constantly jab the attack button in DAII. This is an old and out-dated complaint. One of the early game fixs allowed you to set the attack button to auto-attack  basically requiring you to only select the target once (the implied secondary command being "stab till like raw meat").

2) On topic. Twitch combat would and could only apply to the controlled party. Movement speed and responsiveness could still be affected by and improved by the carefull selection of attributes and armour not just by the reaction speed of the player. So that issues with poor stats and encumberment, exhaustion could mean an attack or dodge attempt could fail even when the player thinks she was quick enough.

[Rylor Tormtor]

Realmzmaster wrote...

IMHO, I do not believe that my ability to use a controller to quickly push a button should have any affect on my character's ability in a party based crpg. For example if I am controlling a companion or the PC and that character has low dexterity and dodge capability my reflex skill with the controller should not compensate. What is the point in building a character if by using my reflexes alone I can win. I want to put my strategic and tactical abilities to work.

Yes, I like turn based games (TOEE is one of my favorites), but I am content with real time with pause (like BG1, BG2, NWN and NWN2..

I think this at the crux of the issue. I feel, and I think not an in signifigant portion of people on the boards (although I think a shrinking demographic), that a character's combat efficacy should be based on the build of the character, not the reflexes or coordination of the player. Hence, you are going to miss a lot at lower levels of development, and hit more at higher levels and have greater options. I think many people (and I will generalize here by saying most of them were console players) were not expecting this with DAO, so when running around Ostagar and missing all the time they felt that their character was unresponsive and got frustrated. The devs then went to a DA2 style combat, where they tried to blend responsive with tactics. In my mind, they failed, but others obviously have different opinions. 

The thing is, there is evolution, and there are different games. The Dragon Age franchise was explicitly trying to recall types of PC games where combat success was determined by character build as well as tactical and strategic savy. Now, that is not the only quality of the genre that Bioware was trying to evoke, but it was one of them. Not ARPG combat, not Third-person shooter combat. 

Can the devs have changed there mind? Sure, but trying to make a game all things to all players is an untenable design philosophy. The OP loved DA2 combat. I loathed it. I found it gimmicy, over the top, requiring very litte fore thought, and above all tedious. I just started up a DAO game (man, I looked at my old saves, I have well over 400 hours stored up there, I think I have an issue), and you know what, I felt the combat was more responsive than I remembered (or maybe the memory overlay that all the complaining on the boards has given me) as well as tactically interesting. I know that I am not getting that combat in DAI, even though I would like it. What I am hoping for is a combat system that more nuanced than DA2, which fewer enemies who seem to have explosive allergies to metal. 

[Leanansidhe]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

SKRemaks wrote...

I don't understand how people can keep saying Origins was tactical.  Once you played the game a few times, you learned where all the enemies were placed, which made combat trivial.

Sneak up, open a door, pull the camera way out, and have Wynne hit the mage a room over with a Mana Clash without them ever knowing you were there.   

Combat was kind of a joke in Origins.  Not to mention the slower than molasses animations.

People might complain about the waves in DA2, but at least they kept things interesting and dynamic.

I can pretty much sleepwalk through Origins.  DA2 actually takes some attention.

Please explain how enemies materializing from the ceiling is interesting and dynamic. Some of us would really like to know how that has depth.

I actually had fun with that aspect. It was one way of making sure that you could not just place your squishes in a safe location where they could blast the enemy with abandon. It require changing strategy and tactics on the fly. I just thought of them as para-trooper dropping in behind enemy lines. Waves are a tactic used by the military for years. But maybe that is just the wargamer in me talking.

This is it exactly.  When you know precisely how the battle is going to play out, ala DA:O, there's no surprises.  You can literally set everything up beforehand.  Where's the fun in that?   Once I had enemy placement memorized, I never once died.  Not even on nightmare.  It was boring.
The waves in DA2 made for a more fluid, dynamic battlefield.

[Realmzmaster]

I will agree that the wave system in DA2 could have been better implemented like in Legacy and MotA. The tactic itself is sound. I would expect in the city streets that gangs would not attack with all their force at once, but use only the force thought necessary to achieve the objective. If the battle is going badly then reinforcements can be called or orders can be given subordinates to access the situation and if necessary help.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The slow movement in DAO meant that movement had a cost. You had to decide whether moving was actually worth it.

That's something most modern games simply don't do.

That only applies somewhat*as sometimes the game would force you to move to cast spells* if you used a ranged character.

That's because it's a mostly outdated design.

What does "outdated" mean when you use it like this?  You're using it like it's meaningful, and leads to some obvious conclusion, but I have no idea what you think it might be.

And, the game never forced to you to move to cast spells unless you put yourself in the wrong position in the first place.  Again, movement - and its static counterpart, placement - had a cost.  That was a good thing.

This movement cost created a disincentive to rely solely on melee abilities.  This movement cost created an incentive to use the ranged crowd control abilities (as they would increase the movement cost borne by enemies).  Having movement have a cost is hugely valuable.

You can see this modelled explicitly in the new Shadowrun Returns game, which uses a system much like Fallout's action points.

[Melca36]

SKRemaks wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

SKRemaks wrote...

I don't understand how people can keep saying Origins was tactical.  Once you played the game a few times, you learned where all the enemies were placed, which made combat trivial.

Sneak up, open a door, pull the camera way out, and have Wynne hit the mage a room over with a Mana Clash without them ever knowing you were there.   

Combat was kind of a joke in Origins.  Not to mention the slower than molasses animations.

People might complain about the waves in DA2, but at least they kept things interesting and dynamic.

I can pretty much sleepwalk through Origins.  DA2 actually takes some attention.

Please explain how enemies materializing from the ceiling is interesting and dynamic. Some of us would really like to know how that has depth.

I actually had fun with that aspect. It was one way of making sure that you could not just place your squishes in a safe location where they could blast the enemy with abandon. It require changing strategy and tactics on the fly. I just thought of them as para-trooper dropping in behind enemy lines. Waves are a tactic used by the military for years. But maybe that is just the wargamer in me talking.

This is it exactly.  When you know precisely how the battle is going to play out, ala DA:O, there's no surprises.  You can literally set everything up beforehand.  Where's the fun in that?   Once I had enemy placement memorized, I never once died.  Not even on nightmare.  It was boring.
The waves in DA2 made for a more fluid, dynamic battlefield.

Well, if it had been more successful they would not be changing the combat.  I'll have to respectfully disagree.  The combat was mostly ridiculous and over the top for me.  I am not interested in waves materializing out of the ceiling. That was stupid to me. IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE.

I am happy they are changing the combat for the next day and it looks like a "REASONABLE" Compromise so that it appeals to all fans instead of catering to one group.

[Realmzmaster]

Melca36 wrote...

SKRemaks wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

SKRemaks wrote...

I don't understand how people can keep saying Origins was tactical.  Once you played the game a few times, you learned where all the enemies were placed, which made combat trivial.

Sneak up, open a door, pull the camera way out, and have Wynne hit the mage a room over with a Mana Clash without them ever knowing you were there.   

Combat was kind of a joke in Origins.  Not to mention the slower than molasses animations.

People might complain about the waves in DA2, but at least they kept things interesting and dynamic.

I can pretty much sleepwalk through Origins.  DA2 actually takes some attention.

Please explain how enemies materializing from the ceiling is interesting and dynamic. Some of us would really like to know how that has depth.

I actually had fun with that aspect. It was one way of making sure that you could not just place your squishes in a safe location where they could blast the enemy with abandon. It require changing strategy and tactics on the fly. I just thought of them as para-trooper dropping in behind enemy lines. Waves are a tactic used by the military for years. But maybe that is just the wargamer in me talking.

This is it exactly.  When you know precisely how the battle is going to play out, ala DA:O, there's no surprises.  You can literally set everything up beforehand.  Where's the fun in that?   Once I had enemy placement memorized, I never once died.  Not even on nightmare.  It was boring.
The waves in DA2 made for a more fluid, dynamic battlefield.

Well, if it had been more successful they would not be changing the combat.  I'll have to respectfully disagree.  The combat was mostly ridiculous and over the top for me.  I am not interested in waves materializing out of the ceiling. That was stupid to me. IT DID NOT MAKE SENSE.

I am happy they are changing the combat for the next day and it looks like a "REASONABLE" Compromise so that it appeals to all fans instead of catering to one group.

You make the assumption that it will appeal to all fans. I can equally assume that it may appeal to none. A compromise always has that problem that it may appeal to one group and not another or appeal to neither group because each side must make concessions to reach a compromise. So the compromise may not appeal to all the fans it simply becomes a necessary evil.

[Shadow Fox]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The slow movement in DAO meant that movement had a cost. You had to decide whether moving was actually worth it.

That's something most modern games simply don't do.

That only applies somewhat*as sometimes the game would force you to move to cast spells* if you used a ranged character.

That's because it's a mostly outdated design.

What does "outdated" mean when you use it like this?  You're using it like it's meaningful, and leads to some obvious conclusion, but I have no idea what you think it might be.

And, the game never forced to you to move to cast spells unless you put yourself in the wrong position in the first place.  Again, movement - and its static counterpart, placement - had a cost.  That was a good thing.

This movement cost created a disincentive to rely solely on melee abilities.  This movement cost created an incentive to use the ranged crowd control abilities (as they would increase the movement cost borne by enemies).  Having movement have a cost is hugely valuable.

You can see this modelled explicitly in the new Shadowrun Returns game, which uses a system much like Fallout's action points.

Most people aren't fond of slow and clunky gameplay these days hence mostly outdated.
Would be nice for the game to tell me that
Unless you used a melee class to you maybe I don't  like slow gameplay and I prefer direct control over my character*I despise auto attack for this reason* hence I prefered 2's gameplay.

[Sir JK]

One thing I can never understand is how there can be requests of increased "tactics" while at the same time decrying that the system requires you as a player take a more active role in controlling combat.

Tactics is all about changing circumstance and windows of opportunity. If there are no surprises, nothing that requires you to adapt and no time element... then there is no tactics. Strategy maybe, logistics certainly... but not tactics.

That said... Which parts of combat that should be influenced mostly by character numbers and which needs an active hand from the player is a valid question. Too much of the former and the only thing you do is allocating numbers and watching the game simulate with no input from you. Too much of the latter and the whole idea of party-based feels flat since you're too busy controlling a single character.

It's well worth pointing out however that rpgs (of the bioware variety) has since the very first game had three crucial actions that has always primarily relied on player skill:
Timing a heal, Aiming AoE spells and manouevering.

No matter how well you build your character, it has always required the player to manually time the heal so it lands before the character dies. Character skill does not affect this, it does not even provide a hint on how long the casting would take or how much it would heal. That's all player skill.
DAO and DA2 gives us an ability to automate it, but character skill is still irrelevant.

Similarily... character skill will never affect whether the character can toss a fireball so it lands in a cluster of enemies (and especially not if there's friendly fire involved). It's all manual aiming for the player. It won't even affect things like target reticules or even a chance that it does not hit perfectly on target.

And manouvering... where we place the characters is again firmly rooted in player skill. No matter how much Int or Cunning you put on your mage, he will stand on the front lines taking hits if you do not place him anywhere else. The rogue will only put himself in position to backstab if you move him there. The warrior will only run to the mage's support if you move them there.

Those are all entirely player skill. Even the speed said actions are executed at aren't affected by character stats. Only availability.
Those are all also tactical. Because they require active input and have windows of opportunity. They ask questions about assets. Making the wrong choice can cost you victory.

Had those things been partly or entirely automated... the game would be less tactical as a result. And I personally would like to keep control of them. I would not mind them being expanded a little even.

Now, controlling every individual dodge or strike is a bit too much and indeed more micro-management than tactics. Dodging a charging ogre after a visual cue (or indeed, the ARW) is however something I think is fine. I too would also like to see placing the rogue behind the targets (and stealth) return. It expands on the manouvering side. There's very little difference between them to. It's about spotting windows of opportunity and move the characters there in time.
If the rumours about terrain is true, that too sounds excellent since it'd up the importance of manouvering. Which is great.

Overall, I do think that most actions relating to casting spells, aiming AoE and manouvering (including putting the rogue in position and dodging charging ogres) are things that should be player- as opposed to character-controlled.

[MerinTB]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Most people aren't fond of slow and clunky gameplay these days hence mostly outdated.

Yeah, no one plays chess anymore where there's Arena Football!  Go and Backgammon, so outdated, just enter the MMA!

Modifié par MerinTB, 09 août 2013 - 08:52 .