883 réponses à ce sujet

[ARTHURIUSS]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

ARTHURIUSS wrote...

That obsessive pausing and micro-managing that you mention counts as tactics for many. Also,I felt positioning had a greater tactical significance in origins as opposed to DA2 wher you could literally teleport to the enemy.

I agree that many of them are jumping the shark by judging the game based on a minute of pre-alpha footage but the gripes mentioned there are valid and I wanted to bring them to Bioware's attention. I myself don't understand Bioware's reluctance to give us PC gamers the isometrice view but I'm not going to start waving pitchforks until we get more info.

I pause-unpause in every single game I can. Bioware RPGs, FTL: Faster than Light, Obsidian games, you name it I use it. I also abused the slow-mo menu in TW2. It's my way of playing, I don't consider it tactics.

As for positioning, I see your point, but some DA2 fights still required lots (the Rock Wraith and Corypheus especially had several moves you had to avoid). I wouldn't say that one game required tactics more than the other, honestly. RTS games require tactics at higher level; some FPS require teamwork which are similar. RPGs are about stacking numbers and making them work except in some cases (boss fights especially). I've never played any RPG that required tactics in that sense. Maybe Fallout 1 and 2, and even then it was more about ressource management and hoping not to eat a lucky crit.

Everything that you mention, no matter how trivial they appear to be, as long as they contribute to a player coming up with a plan to perform a specific action to achieve a specific end can be counted as tactics.

The question here is not about a lack of it but rather if there will be ample opportunities to satisfyingly use various and multiple, creative tactics as opposed to just blowing past everything with relatively less thinking.

[leaguer of one]

ARTHURIUSS wrote...

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

ARTHURIUSS wrote...

That obsessive pausing and micro-managing that you mention counts as tactics for many. Also,I felt positioning had a greater tactical significance in origins as opposed to DA2 wher you could literally teleport to the enemy.

I agree that many of them are jumping the shark by judging the game based on a minute of pre-alpha footage but the gripes mentioned there are valid and I wanted to bring them to Bioware's attention. I myself don't understand Bioware's reluctance to give us PC gamers the isometrice view but I'm not going to start waving pitchforks until we get more info.

I pause-unpause in every single game I can. Bioware RPGs, FTL: Faster than Light, Obsidian games, you name it I use it. I also abused the slow-mo menu in TW2. It's my way of playing, I don't consider it tactics.

As for positioning, I see your point, but some DA2 fights still required lots (the Rock Wraith and Corypheus especially had several moves you had to avoid). I wouldn't say that one game required tactics more than the other, honestly. RTS games require tactics at higher level; some FPS require teamwork which are similar. RPGs are about stacking numbers and making them work except in some cases (boss fights especially). I've never played any RPG that required tactics in that sense. Maybe Fallout 1 and 2, and even then it was more about ressource management and hoping not to eat a lucky crit.

Everything that you mention, no matter how trivial they appear to be, as long as they contribute to a player coming up with a plan to perform a specific action to achieve a specific end can be counted as tactics.

The question here is not about a lack of it but rather if there will be ample opportunities to satisfyingly use various and multiple, creative tactics as opposed to just blowing past everything with relatively less thinking.

And both DAO  and da2 had that if you put it hard and up in difficulty. DAO was about misdiration and picking off the enemy. DA2 was about crowd control and set ups for more damage.

The harpoon concept bw has with DAI clearly shows they are planning the player to use tactics.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 19 août 2013 - 12:19 .

[andar91]

I do think they (Bioware) need to do a better job communicating the difficulty levels and who they're intended for than in DA2. I think some people that were dissatisfied with the game may have been happier on Hard, but they played on Normal without knowing better.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There are issues with how the targeting system is working right now, and it's a bit more accented because at this time you can use abilities (any of them) without a valid target.

That's a good feature.  Keep that in.

[sickpixie]

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

I pause-unpause in every single game I can. Bioware RPGs, FTL: Faster than Light, Obsidian games, you name it I use it. I also abused the slow-mo menu in TW2. It's my way of playing, I don't consider it tactics.

As for positioning, I see your point, but some DA2 fights still required lots (the Rock Wraith and Corypheus especially had several moves you had to avoid). I wouldn't say that one game required tactics more than the other, honestly. RTS games require tactics at higher level; some FPS require teamwork which are similar. RPGs are about stacking numbers and making them work except in some cases (boss fights especially). I've never played any RPG that required tactics in that sense. Maybe Fallout 1 and 2, and even then it was more about ressource management and hoping not to eat a lucky crit.

I consider tactical games to be those that require you to make good moment-to-moment decisions to overcome obstacles; meaning bad decisions exist and result in penalties ranging from a less-than-ideal state to outright failure. With RPGs this becomes muddled because certain items, abilities, and builds can make good tactics less or even unnecessary.

Some complaints are largely about feel. Origins gave us battles with varying terrain, barriers, and traps. For example, sure that Zevran fight was just a few melee opponents mixed with archers but the archers were elevated on hills with the only path to them blocked by traps. Some bad decisions in that case would be sending someone to get caught in a trap, or focusing on the melee when you should be focusing on the ranged or vice versa.  With 2 it seemed like traps were few and far between and I don't recall too many archers on elevated chokepoints. The waves were usually a big jumbled mess on flat terrain.

[leaguer of one]

andar91 wrote...

I do think they (Bioware) need to do a better job communicating the difficulty levels and who they're intended for than in DA2. I think some people that were dissatisfied with the game may have been happier on Hard, but they played on Normal without knowing better.

Players have to be told if you find it too easy to up the difficulty and that modern day normal difficulty is easy?

[leaguer of one]

sickpixie wrote...

Giantdeathrobot wrote...

I pause-unpause in every single game I can. Bioware RPGs, FTL: Faster than Light, Obsidian games, you name it I use it. I also abused the slow-mo menu in TW2. It's my way of playing, I don't consider it tactics.

As for positioning, I see your point, but some DA2 fights still required lots (the Rock Wraith and Corypheus especially had several moves you had to avoid). I wouldn't say that one game required tactics more than the other, honestly. RTS games require tactics at higher level; some FPS require teamwork which are similar. RPGs are about stacking numbers and making them work except in some cases (boss fights especially). I've never played any RPG that required tactics in that sense. Maybe Fallout 1 and 2, and even then it was more about ressource management and hoping not to eat a lucky crit.

I consider tactical games to be those that require you to make good moment-to-moment decisions to overcome obstacles; meaning bad decisions exist and result in penalties ranging from a less-than-ideal state to outright failure. With RPGs this becomes muddled because certain items, abilities, and builds can make good tactics less or even unnecessary.

Some complaints are largely about feel. Origins gave us battles with varying terrain, barriers, and traps. For example, sure that Zevran fight was just a few melee opponents mixed with archers but the archers were elevated on hills with the only path to them blocked by traps. Some bad decisions in that case would be sending someone to get caught in a trap, or focusing on the melee when you should be focusing on the ranged or vice versa.  With 2 it seemed like traps were few and far between and I don't recall too many archers on elevated chokepoints. The waves were usually a big jumbled mess on flat terrain.

But da2 has this as well. And DAI , with it's environment effecting the characters in battle has it more.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 19 août 2013 - 12:51 .

[Ziegrif]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There are issues with how the targeting system is working right now, and it's a bit more accented because at this time you can use abilities (any of them) without a valid target.

That's a good feature.  Keep that in.

What Sylvius said.
Any skill.
Anywhere.
Anytime.
*Shield bashes the Grand Cleric*

[In Exile]

sickpixie wrote...
Some complaints are largely about feel. Origins gave us battles with varying terrain, barriers, and traps. For example, sure that Zevran fight was just a few melee opponents mixed with archers but the archers were elevated on hills with the only path to them blocked by traps. Some bad decisions in that case would be sending someone to get caught in a trap, or focusing on the melee when you should be focusing on the ranged or vice versa.  With 2 it seemed like traps were few and far between and I don't recall too many archers on elevated chokepoints. The waves were usually a big jumbled mess on flat terrain.

There was no terrain in DA:O ever. The archers were massacred by fireballs. Once they were down and burning, they were easy to eliminate one by one with mage single target attacks. If you do the Circle first, you have three mages in your party. There's absolutely no need to choose between focusing on anything. 

Mana Clash = Mage dead
Fireball near Zevran = Melee knocked down, your one warriro can play clean-up
Group Heal = Everyone back to full HP
Fireballs on the archers = they die

Game over. Terrain is meaningless in DA:O when you have mages. 

[nihiliste]

I agree that DA:O was not necessarily all that tactical which is why its troublesome that DA2 was even much less so. I talked about it earlier in the thread but the type of tactical play they're describing (get around a guy with a big shield and stab him) is not what interests me in RPGs vs having a variety of enemies and encounters that you need to approach with completely different methods from a party perspective (ranged vs melee, certain spell types being effective, aggressive vs defensive, blunt vs sharp weapons, holy vs arcane magic etc). In DA you can choose to play whichever way you want, but the game rarely, if ever, forces you to a particular approach through its genuine challenges. Ultimately you can bash pretty much anything over the head with a sword until it dies, including fade creatures like the demons, which to me is disappointing.

[leaguer of one]

Ziegrif wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There are issues with how the targeting system is working right now, and it's a bit more accented because at this time you can use abilities (any of them) without a valid target.

That's a good feature.  Keep that in.

What Sylvius said.
Any skill.
Anywhere.
Anytime.
*Shield bashes the Grand Cleric*

This is not bulder's gate.

[sickpixie]

In Exile wrote...

There was no terrain in DA:O ever. The
archers were massacred by fireballs. Once they were down and burning,
they were easy to eliminate one by one with mage single target attacks.
If you do the Circle first, you have three mages in your party. There's
absolutely no need to choose between focusing on anything. 

Mana Clash = Mage dead
Fireball near Zevran = Melee knocked down, your one warriro can play clean-up
Group Heal = Everyone back to full HP
Fireballs on the archers = they die

Game over. Terrain is meaningless in DA:O when you have mages. 

I did mention that tactics can become unnecessary with certain abilities and builds. You can enter that battle with a single or even no mage without any of those spells. If you're using multiple mages, you're likely powergaming instead of role playing, and Bioware clearly doesn't  balance their games for powergamers.

Modifié par sickpixie, 19 août 2013 - 01:09 .

[In Exile]

nihiliste wrote...

I agree that DA:O was not necessarily all that tactical which is why its troublesome that DA2 was even much less so. I talked about it earlier in the thread but the type of tactical play they're describing (get around a guy with a big shield and stab him) is not what interests me in RPGs vs having a variety of enemies and encounters that you need to approach with completely different methods from a party perspective (ranged vs melee, certain spell types being effective, aggressive vs defensive, blunt vs sharp weapons, holy vs arcane magic etc). In DA you can choose to play whichever way you want, but the game rarely, if ever, forces you to a particular approach through its genuine challenges. Ultimately you can bash pretty much anything over the head with a sword until it dies, including fade creatures like the demons, which to me is disappointing.

I can't see how DA2 was less tactical than DA:O, because that implies there was some level that DA:O was tactical  one. That's just not true. 

[leaguer of one]

nihiliste wrote...

I agree that DA:O was not necessarily all that tactical which is why its troublesome that DA2 was even much less so. I talked about it earlier in the thread but the type of tactical play they're describing (get around a guy with a big shield and stab him) is not what interests me in RPGs vs having a variety of enemies and encounters that you need to approach with completely different methods from a party perspective (ranged vs melee, certain spell types being effective, aggressive vs defensive, blunt vs sharp weapons, holy vs arcane magic etc). In DA you can choose to play whichever way you want, but the game rarely, if ever, forces you to a particular approach through its genuine challenges. Ultimately you can bash pretty much anything over the head with a sword until it dies, including fade creatures like the demons, which to me is disappointing.

Wait, DA2 is not less tactical then DAO. It's focus with tactics is just different. DAO is about misdirecting your enemies and picking them off. DA2 is about crowd control and set ups which every class can do.

[The_11thDoctor]

Makers breath! I had no idea a new video came out before the 19th! I was wandering how everyone was thinking to comment on 2 sec of combat from the first video not realizing a new COMBAT vid was posted... I just watched it and now I have some new incite. Well... THis hopefully will change, but all the characters are walking around like they have led in there boots and it reminds me of old PS1 - Ps2 walk cycles where they look like their slide walking and not walking. It disturbed me greatly not only animation wise, but timing and pace wise as well. Kind of reminded me of DAO a bit as well and DAO combat was terrible... I was hoping theyd keep DA2 combat speed but make it more tactile combat. I thought the mechanics needed some adjusting, not the speed, but.... not sure what to think of this. Hopefully he was moving so slow due to wearing heavy armor or something... I hope. Its still pre alpha so things can and will change i suspect before the game ships. Ill expect the worst and hope for the best.


edit: Im sure itll be fine before it ships.

Modifié par aang001, 19 août 2013 - 01:12 .

[In Exile]

sickpixie wrote...
I
did mention that tactics can become unnecessary with certain abilities
and builds. You can enter that battle with a single or even no mage
without any of those spells. If you're using multiple mages, you're
likely powergaming instead of role playing, and Bioware clearly doesn't
balance their games for powergamers.

How is using multiple mages power-gaming? 

Yes, I suppose I could have a band of all warriors, give them absolutely no equipment, have no healing potions, and try to punch Zevran to death on nightmare, but intentionally gimping myself doesn't make the game tactical. 

Edit:

And actually, that wasn't my powergaming build. I'd rock that encounter with a single mage and 3 bags of flesh, because if I power game I don't need more than 1 mage plus meatshields. 

Not to mention that Wynne and Morrigan aren't that useful since you have to eat their comically sub-optimal leveling. 

Modifié par In Exile, 19 août 2013 - 01:11 .

[leaguer of one]

In Exile wrote...

sickpixie wrote...
I
did mention that tactics can become unnecessary with certain abilities
and builds. You can enter that battle with a single or even no mage
without any of those spells. If you're using multiple mages, you're
likely powergaming instead of role playing, and Bioware clearly doesn't
balance their games for powergamers.

How is using multiple mages power-gaming? 

Yes, I suppose I could have a band of all warriors, give them absolutely no equipment, have no healing potions, and try to punch Zevran to death on nightmare, but intentionally gimping myself doesn't make the game tactical. 

Crowd control and knock backs are tactic. It just that their not very complex tactics.

[In Exile]

leaguer of one wrote...
Crowd control and knock backs are tactic. It just that their not very complex tactics.

But there's no other tactic in an RPG. No one wants to design an RPG that is something other than just making your number go up faster than the other guy's number, while using healing for subtraction every so often. 

[leaguer of one]

In Exile wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
Crowd control and knock backs are tactic. It just that their not very complex tactics.

But there's no other tactic in an RPG. No one wants to design an RPG that is something other than just making your number go up faster than the other guy's number, while using healing for subtraction every so often. 

There are other tactics, it just that you have to play as with other classes to see them. You like to use knock backs in DAO. I use ambuses and traps. We both use meat sheilds but our concept of attack is different.
You like to rain down fire ball while I like to stab people in the back of the head.

[In Exile]

leaguer of one wrote...
There are other tactics, it just that you have to play as with other classes to see them. You like to use knock backs in DAO. I use ambuses and traps. We both use meat sheilds but our concept of attack is different.
You like to rain down fire ball while I like to stab people in the back of the head.

In my ideal RPG, traps would be valuable. In fact, I think a gritty RPG wouldn't have any spells like we see in DA:O/DA2, but rather things more akin to the Quen (sp?) sign in TW2. 

Magic should be all about manipulating the environment to create choke points, having traps, etc. 

My point is just that it seems silly to predent that DA:O had "tactics" to it when - to create any real sort of tension - you have to actively avoid using a single class to its full potential. 

[leaguer of one]

In Exile wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...
There are other tactics, it just that you have to play as with other classes to see them. You like to use knock backs in DAO. I use ambuses and traps. We both use meat sheilds but our concept of attack is different.
You like to rain down fire ball while I like to stab people in the back of the head.

In my ideal RPG, traps would be valuable. In fact, I think a gritty RPG wouldn't have any spells like we see in DA:O/DA2, but rather things more akin to the Quen (sp?) sign in TW2. 

Magic should be all about manipulating the environment to create choke points, having traps, etc. 

My point is just that it seems silly to predent that DA:O had "tactics" to it when - to create any real sort of tension - you have to actively avoid using a single class to its full potential. 

But it has tactics ,it just differs based on class and how you play. Sure you can solo dao, just like any of the bw rpg's. That does not mean it has no tactics in the game.  
Tactics in it defination is the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end. It matters not if it's complex or not. If you are using simple action to get to an end you are using simple tactics. It still a tactic.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 19 août 2013 - 01:40 .

[sickpixie]

In Exile wrote...

How is using multiple mages power-gaming? 

Yes, I suppose I could have a band of all warriors, give them absolutely no equipment, have no healing potions, and try to punch Zevran to death on nightmare, but intentionally gimping myself doesn't make the game tactical. 

Edit:

And actually, that wasn't my powergaming build. I'd rock that encounter with a single mage and 3 bags of flesh, because if I power game I don't need more than 1 mage plus meatshields. 

Not to mention that Wynne and Morrigan aren't that useful since you have to eat their comically sub-optimal leveling. 

It's telling how you said "three mages" instead of "up to three mages." As if the idea of not being a mage is unthinkable.

Morrigan and Wynne have conflicting personalities and night and day reactions to your decisions. I suppose you could be role playing someone who enjoys inter-party drama, or someone who prefers the company of mages to non-mages, but it seems to me as though your primary motivation is making the combat easier.

It's unlikely someone would want to role play an incompetent warrior. One could role play a mage-hating warrior who tells Morrigan to take a hike and slaughters Wynne and the entire circle. Fortunately there are traps, poisons, bombs, and other consumables to make this character concept viable.

"Comically sub-optimal" is munchkin talk.

[andar91]

leaguer of one wrote...

Ziegrif wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There are issues with how the targeting system is working right now, and it's a bit more accented because at this time you can use abilities (any of them) without a valid target.

That's a good feature.  Keep that in.

What Sylvius said.
Any skill.
Anywhere.
Anytime.
*Shield bashes the Grand Cleric*

This is not bulder's gate.

I agree, and I do not expect that feature to stay in as Sylvius wishes. I'm not surprised he wants it, but...I don't think it's going to happen.

As for my earlier comment regarding difficulty levels, I was referring to statements made about the difficulty but were not obvious in the game. The developers (Mike Laidlaw, I think) said that Normal was an action rpg setting and Hard was appropriate for those who wanted a more traditional rpg experience with party control and such. If that's their approach, I think they should change the titles to something along the lines of Story Mode (Casual), Light RPG (Normal), Hardcore RPG (Hard), and Nightmare. Or something like that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Terrain is meaningless in DA:O when you have mages.

As it should be.  Mages are awesome.

leaguer of one wrote...

Ziegrif wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

There are issues with how the targeting system is working right now, and it's a bit more accented because at this time you can use abilities (any of them) without a valid target.

That's a good feature.  Keep that in.

What Sylvius said.
Any skill.
Anywhere.
Anytime.
*Shield bashes the Grand Cleric*

This is not bulder's gate.

I am not asking it to be.  I'm not saying anyone should be abkle to be hit by these abilities.  Untargettable enemies should probably be immune to these attacks, regardless of how they're employed.

But being able to target any location, even if there's not a valid enemy there, could come it really handy under some circumstances.