36 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Phoenix]

Presumably, your dagger isn't impacting their plate and is actually sliding into their weak spots. That's the fluff on how DW rogues work, at any rate. Still prefer Archer Rogues, myself. More versatility in role there (they work equally well as a single-target scrapper as a multi-target nuke machine/controller). 
 
I will say I'm not a huge fan of the low single-target DPS of TH and SNS warriors, but I do enjoy laying low five hurlocks at once.

Yeah probably but DA2 still isn't logical in terms of attack damages. Daggers should do thrusting damage, swords should do slashing and hammers/maces should do blunt damage. Obviously these different types of damages (in an ideal party based game) will be more effective against different enemy types and armor.

 

For example, I believe dragon scales are quite impenetrable as far as thrusting attacks are concerned (if the lore is anything to go by but I could be wrong here) so logically, the first step would be break them to reveal the soft skin beneath which a blunt weapon would excel at. The Souls series does this where blunt weapons are more effective against heavily armed opponents and the like.

 

Basically, all I'm asking, is for attack types to be more logical and I think this could work well in a party based game like Dragon Age.

 

The only game on the market that I know of which features a logical system like this (i.e using different attacks to penetrate enemy armor) is Dragon's Dogma. The Living Armor enemies in the Dark Arisen expansion is the best example of this where physical attacks break its armor but magical attacks are required to hurt its inner spectral form. This approach lends itself well to the party-based system of DD where warriors and mages need to work together to destroy it (unless you're a melee-mage class then you can do it all by yourself but you're still mixing physical attacks with magic to destroy it).

 

(Since this topic is now more or less about the future games, perhaps I'll create a topic on "logical attacks" in the Inquisition form but for all we know, Bioware already have enemies like this planned)

[TomNickles]

Rogue with a bow is the most awesome class I have played. I destroyed people across the screen and loved every minute of it

[MagicalMaster]

Yeah probably but DA2 still isn't logical in terms of attack damages. Daggers should do thrusting damage, swords should do slashing and hammers/maces should do blunt damage. Obviously these different types of damages (in an ideal party based game) will be more effective against different enemy types and armor.

 

This isn't obvious at all.  A greatsword impact would do a considerable amount of "blunt" damage as you call it through sheer weight of impact, for example.

 

Nor is making certain party members useless against certain foes obvious.  Nor is making you carry about a bunch of different weapon types solely to switch between damage types obviously compelling gameplay.

 

I strongly get the feeling that you're heavily influenced by Dungeons and Dragons and think everything should be based on some of those ideas -- but the idea that a light hammer should do more damage to a skeleton than a greatsword cleaving/smashing through it is not logical whatsoever.

[Eternal Phoenix]

This isn't obvious at all.  A greatsword impact would do a considerable amount of "blunt" damage as you call it through sheer weight of impact, for example.

 

Nor is making certain party members useless against certain foes obvious.  Nor is making you carry about a bunch of different weapon types solely to switch between damage types obviously compelling gameplay.

 

I strongly get the feeling that you're heavily influenced by Dungeons and Dragons and think everything should be based on some of those ideas -- but the idea that a light hammer should do more damage to a skeleton than a greatsword cleaving/smashing through it is not logical whatsoever.

 

I don't know what you mean by "isn't obvious" but a greatsword wouldn't do blunt damage to a person wearing plate armor. There would be an impact but not the same amount as a mace smashing against plate. It's not like I was asking for immunity to these attacks if enemy wears certain armor either, just that a certain weapon should do more damage.

 

In a game with party members, this makes for more varied party formations as rather than having to switch to different weapons, you can simply have a second warrior focused on smashing through defenses with his particular weapon.

 

I think you misunderstood my post though and logically, a mace would do more damage to someone wearing plate than a greatsword.

[Eternal Phoenix]

i see more n more games moving away from your idea an i hope to the maker it stays that way tbh, i just prefer the flat out dmg and either slow high dmg or fast low dmg.

 

Hopefully aswell with DA:I Bioware finally does way with resists and FF on higher difficulties(or atleast a toggle) and actually makes the fights more tactical without the fear of FF or "did i bring the right weapon" both of which i consider nothing but an annoyance, the game can be highly tactical i believe without the need to just annoy the living hells out ppl

 

I see the contrary. Just look at The Witcher series, Souls series, Dragon's Dogma, Elder Scrolls etc. All big RPG's that are beginning to implement this feature (or had it implemented from the start).

 

I don't know how fights can be that tactical if you remove resistances and weaknesses.

[MagicalMaster]

I don't know how fights can be that tactical if you remove resistances and weaknesses.

 

Movement, needing to stun/knockdown mobs at certain times, focusing certain adds, positioning, kiting, needing to keep certain enemies CCed continuously, group coordination, needing to use abilities at appropriate times, requiring well built characters and good execution, etc.

 

Here's an easy example of something with zero resistances and weaknesses, such as the fact that fire spells are being used against a giant fire elemental (note that this is a 25 person team that got the first kill on this boss in the entire world and it took them nearly 500 tries):

 

 

Different team, another boss (229 tries, again best in the entire world at the time):

 

 

Same team as the second one, another boss (272 tries):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jQYObKTIG8

 

For reference, less than 1% of the population of WoW beat those three bosses while current and it's not due to needing insanely fast reflexes or something -- nothing in WoW requires FPS style twitch reactions.  It's all about playing smart.

 

It's not like I was asking for immunity to these attacks if enemy wears certain armor either, just that a certain weapon should do more damage.

 

Did you notice my example of the skeleton?  In 3.0 DnD, as an example, skeletons have 50% immunity to slashing/piercing damage.  This means that whacking one with a carpenter's hammer (a light hammer) deals more damage than smashing through it with a greatsword because the light hammer deals bludgeoning damage while a greatsword deals slashing damage.

Does that make sense to you?

That's not even getting into the fact of how THIS is what a REAL warhammer would look like:

 

 

Notice how the head is tiny?  It's meant to put all the force into a specific point and PUNCH through -- more like a piercing weapon than anything else.  It is NOT this:

 

[Gtdef]

I disagree with the whole "make weapons more logical" and that resistances make the game tactical.

 

There isn't even one game that gets weapon physics and medieval combat right. Not rpgs like DA, witcher, dark souls, skyrim, or hack n slash like dmc, ninja gaiden, whatever else. Actually most of the games can't even get the names of the weapons right.

 

What they can do is make a good system based on class intention that promotes synergy and smart choices. Like for example the reason this thread started. There is a skill that drains your stamina slowly to do more autoattack damage depending on how much stamina you have left, and a skill that uses most of your stamina to do big damage. You can't possibly expect that these go well together. Or even that it's a good idea to play a 2h berserker since he adds static damage to attacks and 1h does same dps with faster attack speed. Sure traditionally 1h does less dps but it doesn't in this game. Or even spec berserker before reaver since your stamina pool at lvl 7 is too low.

 

Also the concept of numerical damage dealt can't be applied to more realistic situations. You either paralyze the hand and cut an artery or you just scratch. You either stab the heart or you don't. Either cut the head or you don't. Break the bone or don't. Scratching the enemy's hand can be painful but won't stop him from fighting or even hinder him with all the adrenaline. Slashing his hand off will make him unable to continue using the sword. Piercing a non vital spot won't stop him from fighting. Piercing the heart will most likely stop him. For numerical values to reflect that, most of the hits will have to hit for 1 dmg and add a bleeding effect and the good hits being outright kills or incapacitates with no recovery. And I'm not even going to go on the whole healing and magical creature thing. That would complicate things a lot more.

 

Asking for more immunities and weaknesses isn't a good idea. At best it's an annoyance, at worst is game breaking or exploitable. It hardly adds any "tactical" dilemma in DA2. You bring a spirit and nature weapon and hit almost everything for double damage at best, or buy a desdemona blade/use the dlc nature dagger and oneshot the arishok at worst. This doesn't spell "tactical" for me rather than "exploit" or "annoyance". Fetch a cold staff for the 4 dragon encounters and you are golden. Also the people that don't play on nightmare and ask for more "tactical" combat usually are the first to complain about "stupid immunities" on nightmare.

 

Making good builds and applying them is the most tactical decision you should have to do in DA games. Find a strong skill, play around it. Learn boss mechanics so you can anticipate how much healing you are going to need. If you tank the dragon, you are going to need 2 greater heals, barrier, resurrection potions. If you can sidestep the dragon you can get away just by keeping panacea active and one heal here and there. That's tactical, specialization and application. Forced into farming staves with multiple elemental types isn't tactical, it's boring. You shouldn't HAVE to do it. Because then you are forced into farming gold, and you search for exploits or other easy ways to do it. I'm not against removing weaknesses completely, it adds one more layer, but it should be more reasonable and the game balanced around it. Double damage is ridiculous especially when there are acts where the 90% of the enemies are weak to one particular element and there are modifiers in game like 100% critical and 400% critical damage. Autoattacking for 1400 dmg is retarded and the only way to counter it is making weakling enemies have over 2k health and normal 10k+.

 

Instead they can make elements have very strong side effects. Like for example you can bring cold staves on everyone so they will slow the attackspeed of enemies and your frontliners will take less damage so you can bring less healing and more damage. Or make fire element increasing the damage the enemies take from other sources, so you can make spike damage builds. This is a tactical advantage that you can choose to bring to the party. If you HAVE to then it's not tactical at all, it's mandatory.

[MagicalMaster]

Agreed on pretty much everything but special mention to the following:

 

Double damage is ridiculous especially when there are acts where the 90% of the enemies are weak to one particular element and there are modifiers in game like 100% critical and 400% critical damage. Autoattacking for 1400 dmg is retarded and the only way to counter it is making weakling enemies have over 2k health and normal 10k+.

 

On my second playthrough I made an archer Hawke.  Even versus a Desire Demon during end-game I was critting 100% of the time for about 1200 damage per shot without any modifiers like Mark of Death or using a non-physical weapon or Hex of Weakness or whatever.  In comparison, I had 145 health.

 

As a point of comparison, in WoW at max level you initially had like 300k health and do 30k damage per second.  With the best gear you had like 800k health and do 400k damage per second.  This is seen as a problem, especially for PvP, and steps are being taken to make sure defenses (armor/health/etc) scale evenly with damage.

In DA2, on the flip side, you go from doing like 20 damage per shot with 130 HP to 1200 damage per shot with 145 HP.  Slight scaling issue there.

 

Instead they can make elements have very strong side effects. Like for example you can bring cold staves on everyone so they will slow the attackspeed of enemies and your frontliners will take less damage so you can bring less healing and more damage. Or make fire element increasing the damage the enemies take from other sources, so you can make spike damage builds. This is a tactical advantage that you can choose to bring to the party. If you HAVE to then it's not tactical at all, it's mandatory.

 

Precisely.

 

One of the things that really annoyed me about my Nightmare rogue was the first fight in Kirkwall against the noble (working for mercenaries).  He and his thugs are immune to fire...for some reason.  Care to take a guess what the ONLY staff Bethany had available did as its damage type?  Hint: it starts with "F" and ends with "ire."

[zenrockoutkast]

In a party-based game classes aren't supposed to stack up to each other, they're supposed to complement each other.  Play however you want to play and use your squad to fill in the gaps.  It's true that Rogues are going to out-DPS every other class, but is the game unplayable as a Mage or Warrior?  Hell no.  So if you want to do DPS play a Rogue and if you want to wield a greatsword do a Warrior.  If you want to get caught up in what the absolute best build is and min-maxing and all that stuff then you shouldn't be worrying about what class you're playing as anyway, you should just be concerned about which class is going to dish out the most damage (part of why I never get involved with min-maxing, it takes all the fun out of playing an RPG IMO).

 

From critical attacks.

There's a difference between the basic attacks of the rogues and the basic attacks of the warrior.

The warrior would do far more powerful attacks in any position. The rogue only out-powered the warrior if she/he went behind an enemy or flanked them. DA2 made this incredibly easily (especially with the rogue's teleportation ability) and all the incredibly passive bonuses they gained.

Hopefully Inquisition puts more work into the classes this time because the rogue was still way over-powered however you look at it.

 

Ummmmm...Blood Wound+Coup de Grace=death everywhere without having to flank.  In fact, there are so many abilities that stun or incapacitate in Origins for every class that this should honestly never be a problem past early levels.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Ummmmm...Blood Wound+Coup de Grace=death everywhere without having to flank.  In fact, there are so many abilities that stun or incapacitate in Origins for every class that this should honestly never be a problem past early levels.

 

Blood Wound and Coup de Grace only work on stunned enemies. The warrior did more default damage when tackling an enemy head on.