883 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlebloodmage]

Vilegrim wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...


so the 'compromise' is to turn tactics into twitch based dodging and a skorpion harpoon? That isn't a compromise.....

Like I said, I'm a bit worried about the dodging mechanism, but a harpoon could be interesting. The idea of tactic is very subjective. Choose the right movement to attack or exploit the enemies' weakness could also be considered tactics and seem like something Bioware is going for. We need to see how these abilities work out when we're being attacked by a hoard of enemies. 

If 'choose the right moment or exploit weakness' are tactics then Steet Fighter is a tactical game, if you par the definiton back that far it looses all meaning.

If you're too set on a certain notion of Old School tactics then I guess this game wouldn't fit into that definition. It's a very subjective topic, like I said.

Modifié par Battlebloodmage, 19 août 2013 - 07:35 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

I don't see how the dodge mechanism is much different from the "move your player the hell away from standing there auto-attacking" from DAO/DA2. Though I think this board seems to automatically assume that anything but "click and forget" is "twitch combat".

[Deverz]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

I don't see how the dodge mechanism is much different from the "move your player the hell away from standing there auto-attacking" from DAO/DA2. Though I think this board seems to automatically assume that anything but "click and forget" is "twitch combat".

Some people fear change and want a DA:O clone. Personally I'm happy they're changing the combat to be more like realtime and tactical like Dark Souls. I've always thought combat was a bit of a weak point in both DAO and DA2. It's time for a change, in my opinion.

[Vilegrim]

Deverz wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

I don't see how the dodge mechanism is much different from the "move your player the hell away from standing there auto-attacking" from DAO/DA2. Though I think this board seems to automatically assume that anything but "click and forget" is "twitch combat".

Some people fear change and want a DA:O clone. Personally I'm happy they're changing the combat to be more like realtime and tactical like Dark Souls. I've always thought combat was a bit of a weak point in both DAO and DA2. It's time for a change, in my opinion.

Where as I do not like Dark Souls (probably doesn't help that the pc port was badly done mind.)

[Deverz]

Vilegrim wrote...

Deverz wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

I don't see how the dodge mechanism is much different from the "move your player the hell away from standing there auto-attacking" from DAO/DA2. Though I think this board seems to automatically assume that anything but "click and forget" is "twitch combat".

Some people fear change and want a DA:O clone. Personally I'm happy they're changing the combat to be more like realtime and tactical like Dark Souls. I've always thought combat was a bit of a weak point in both DAO and DA2. It's time for a change, in my opinion.

Where as I do not like Dark Souls (probably doesn't help that the pc port was badly done mind.)

Well, I hope they can manage creating a combat system we can all enjoy.

[Vilegrim]

Deverz wrote...


Well, I hope they can manage creating a combat system we can all enjoy.

It looks like, admiteedly very early impression, a combat system I will turn down to super easy and get over as quickly as possible to get to the story.   If the story looks strong and intersting enough ofc.

[blaidfiste]

 Looks good, as long as the enemies also use harpoons and aren't slow as molasses

[Vilegrim]

blaidfiste wrote...

 Looks good, as long as the enemies also use harpoons and aren't slow as molasses

Slow? Stupidly fast more like. (Until he bugs them out on the landing)

Modifié par Vilegrim, 19 août 2013 - 07:57 .

[Monica83]

Vilegrim wrote...

Deverz wrote...

Sopa de Gato wrote...

I don't see how the dodge mechanism is much different from the "move your player the hell away from standing there auto-attacking" from DAO/DA2. Though I think this board seems to automatically assume that anything but "click and forget" is "twitch combat".

Some people fear change and want a DA:O clone. Personally I'm happy they're changing the combat to be more like realtime and tactical like Dark Souls. I've always thought combat was a bit of a weak point in both DAO and DA2. It's time for a change, in my opinion.

Where as I do not like Dark Souls (probably doesn't help that the pc port was badly done mind.)

I love when people bring in the fear to change phrase... This is the thing why i hated the DA2 marketing campaign.. Is also sad see how some people repeat what pr or dev says like  parrot

[Sylvius the Mad]

azarhal wrote...

You could still go through all the charaters while on pause to issue orders, does the exact same thing as selecting more than one and telling them to do the same thing. It's not like going through 3 characters take a long time.

But you could only give individual commands like that (they would abandon queued actions if left alone), and it only worked for commands given through the combat interface.  You couldn't make them move unless you were controlling them directly in real time (thus leaving the other characters to misbehave), and you couldn't make them do nothing without controlling them directly in real time (thus leaving the other characters to misbehave).

Making sure that your party members didn't trigger mines during KotOR's combat was basically impossible.

[Il Divo]

Nashiktal wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Can I ask you a simple question? In the video, Laidlaw say that what sets Dragon Age apart from the competition in terms of gameplay is party based combat. I agree. But what's the point of making it a "party-less" game at normal level making the experience less "pure" for the vast majority of the player base who plays on normal?

Because even if the player is able to focus on just playing their own character, it's still a party based game with party combat.

If you'd prefer, we could just deactivate party AI and force the player to do everything. I suspect that that wasn't what you were thinking, however.

There's a poster in this very thread that is very much into DA series for its party based, tactical combat, and he's specifically saying that his ideal is one where the party members can still be set up to behave properly so that his input is no longer required. To the point where he says he hates the moments in DAO when his inputs are required.

I saw this and it made me think of how I view party based combat.

Personally I love to leave the AI to do most of the work themselves. When I play the game I want to control MY character and letting the AI control my party helps to further immerse me into the game as I can look at, say, Varric knocking someone back who is attacking me as saving my life while if I order him to do it I feel like I am controlling puppets...  If that makes sense.

That was one thing I loved about DA2. I could preprogram my party's combat behavior so I could focus less on controlling a group and more on being the "champion" of Kirkwall. This helped me further see my party as individuals and less like puppets or automatons.

Not to mention I don't do well micromanaging multiple characters in fast paced combat so this gives me less to worry about while playing even if I sacrifice some efficiency while doing so.

Agreed.

[The_11thDoctor]

i hope they allow humans to take over a party member and join you if you choose to play with friends. Just like how you can have AI take over party members, have a controller take over them when detected and selected for the party member.

[blaidfiste]

Il Divo wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Can I ask you a simple question? In the video, Laidlaw say that what sets Dragon Age apart from the competition in terms of gameplay is party based combat. I agree. But what's the point of making it a "party-less" game at normal level making the experience less "pure" for the vast majority of the player base who plays on normal?

Because even if the player is able to focus on just playing their own character, it's still a party based game with party combat.

If you'd prefer, we could just deactivate party AI and force the player to do everything. I suspect that that wasn't what you were thinking, however.

There's a poster in this very thread that is very much into DA series for its party based, tactical combat, and he's specifically saying that his ideal is one where the party members can still be set up to behave properly so that his input is no longer required. To the point where he says he hates the moments in DAO when his inputs are required.

I saw this and it made me think of how I view party based combat.

Personally I love to leave the AI to do most of the work themselves. When I play the game I want to control MY character and letting the AI control my party helps to further immerse me into the game as I can look at, say, Varric knocking someone back who is attacking me as saving my life while if I order him to do it I feel like I am controlling puppets...  If that makes sense.

That was one thing I loved about DA2. I could preprogram my party's combat behavior so I could focus less on controlling a group and more on being the "champion" of Kirkwall. This helped me further see my party as individuals and less like puppets or automatons.

Not to mention I don't do well micromanaging multiple characters in fast paced combat so this gives me less to worry about while playing even if I sacrifice some efficiency while doing so.

Agreed.

Same here, that's the one thing that carried me through 6 DA2 playthroughs.  I controlled Hawke 90% of the time, Isabella was always right next to my warrior Hawke attacking my target and taking advantage of STAGGERED.  I can't accomplish that without tactics.  Merrill is off doing her blood magic thing and will drop blood magic and teleport to me whenever she's in trouble.  Then Isabella, who is always nearby, will taunt whoever is attacking Merrill.  Anders is also auto switching back and forth between Vengence and Panacea as necessary.  Sometimes I'll turn off Hawke related tactics, stand back and watch my handiwork.  Good times. 

[Allan Schumacher]

The debate has a poiint because it is pre-alpha and nothing is set, if this was beta, their would be no chance of a change that central,.

The debate is a red herring because people have their own definition of what an RPG is. I don't want people to get into a debate over whether or not it's an RPG because people will argue from a variety of different angles and they're all going to believe they are not incorrect in their assessment.

Someone can see the combat video and still imagine it being an RPG. Other people will see it and say that this cannot be an RPG. Since there is no agreement on what an RPG is, getting boiled down in what is or is not an RPG is not particularly productive, since the things you feel (pre-alpha or not) are required for an RPG may not be what other people feel are required.

And you are still not going to answer my question about what kind of mechanic the dogde roll was? Talent, manuel, automatic?

I simply hadn't seen your question. I don't have the opportunity to read and respond to every post (and sometimes I straight up read posts too quickly and miss things in the post themselves)

In any case, it's an activated ability, at least at this time.

(Although a post like that does put me in an awkward position.  EDIT: Referring to encouraging people to make posts of that nature because I missed a question earlier.  There are better ways to repeat a question than assuming I'm being malevolent in my reasoning for not answering it)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 août 2013 - 09:59 .

[Maria Caliban]

I don't think we should treat Allan as an answer piñata.

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That's very much of a relief. Extremely so.

An activated ability implies, with high certainty (though I mention it because I realize it might not be certain), that it will be programmable in the tactics.

If that's so, I'm a happy penguin once again.

It's only useful to be programmable in the tactics if there's a useful trigger in there.  And I'm not sure what it would be for that.  I mean, if it also dumps threat then I suppose you might want to fire it off when your hitpoints get a touch low, but for it's actual dodging ability... I don't know.

[devSin]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think we should treat Allan as an answer piñata.

You just want all his candy for yourself.

[Navasha]

I think the only way I could ever conceivable allow the AI to completely run a character though is if they REALLY spend a lot of time on the AI and pathing.

There's few things more frustrating than watching a companion run right into a trap that your rogue had already discovered or charge head on into the flaming barrels of oil that you set up to defend Redcliffe

I like the combat rules system that DA has that will let us tailor a party member how we want them to play, it just needs to be a LOT more fine tuned to prevent the companion from doing totally stupid stuff occasionally.

[Nerevar-as]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It's only useful to be programmable in the tactics if there's a useful trigger in there.  And I'm not sure what it would be for that.  I mean, if it also dumps threat then I suppose you might want to fire it off when your hitpoints get a touch low, but for it's actual dodging ability... I don't know.

Hmm. True...

Still, it relieves me because it's not a manual action. Whether it's useful or not is a different question from whether it makes the game twitch or not, and for me personally the "non-twitch" part is more important.

There should be a tactic entry telling apart normal enemy attacks from their specials. Otherwise AI dodging isn´t going to be useful.

[Fast Jimmy]

devSin wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I don't think we should treat Allan as an answer piñata.

You just want all his candy for yourself.

Implications... unpleasant. 

[Galactus_the_Devourer]

I must admit the video didn't inspire confidence. The camera was too close (I really do prefer the RTS-style "birds eye view" to the over-the-shoulder view, especially as it maeks targeting AOE effects significantly less clunky, the only reason I can see to favour the latter would be in a game that is truly 3D, IE: Where positioning objects is important vertically as well as horisontally)

Honestly, ever since BG I've kinda lumped most of Bioware's games into the tactical-squad (or party I guess) based game, like X-COM, for instance. Sure, some games have departed radically from this (Jade Empire and Mass Effect, notably) but the rest (KOTOR; NWN, BG1, BG2, DAO, DA2) has at least to some extent followed that tradition.

There's also something a bit related than this that I've been pondering, I'm no really sure if I can explain this correctly, but let me try...

In the BG games there was a feeling that enemies were usually playing by the same rules as you were. (literally in this case, since it was 2nd. ed. D&D) I mean, they cheated (scripts to automatically raise spells for instance) and some creatures had special abilities (like eating your brain) that you didn't get. But while they might have less or more HP, different abilities, etc. they were still generally playing by the same rules (especially human enemies)

DAO still had enemies doing mostly the same things to you as you did to them (although they could do it harder or faster or nastier) DA2 however... Kind of broke that. It had mages using the same spells as you but with different effects, seemingly rule-breaking stuff like teleportation etc. And not in special encounters but just regular mooks.

Now to the Shield Mooks, my thought is immediately "So how does this work for us?" Do all shields work like that? Can we equip a pavise/tower shield and gain similar bonuses? Can enemies snatch our shields?

Part of this is also a problem of versimilitude. One of my big pet peeves in DA2 where the genlocks, who were rolling to attack you and well... They just felt for a lack of a better word "gamey": As in, they didn't make much sense outside of these particular encounters. (Do they roll like that to get food? Seems ungainly, etc.)

Am I just crazy or does anyone else get what I'm whining about?

[Wulfram]

Galactus_the_Devourer wrote...

Am I just crazy or does anyone else get what I'm whining about?

I get what you're saying, and agree.  But that's not necessarily good evidence of your sanity.