66 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

Action queues are nice people. Too bad they don't do those any more. 
 
Favorite part of KOTOR combat; being able to tell party-NPCs what their next 3-5 actions would be, in sequence. That way I both have micromanaged control AND can focus on the actions of the main PC. 
 
Unfortunately, for people who like action-RPGs, ironically, they seem to hate action queues. And so they are gone. 
 
I gotta say I really hate what I call the "latency thing" in DA2. I tell X companion to drink a healing potion, because, well, he's close to dying. Problem is he's executing some AI stuff, and ignores my request to drink the potion. He of course dies before executing what I told him to do.

Yea potion drinking is an ability that doesn't overwrite the current action. This was normal. It was only really noticeable during the AA finishing moves (most notably the mage staff ground slam), and I agree it was irritating that I couldn't stop an auto attack to move when I needed to (Corypheus memories).

Tactics are arguably better than action queues as they are automatic. Well-made thorough tactics essentially take over most of what you would normally queue, leaving a couple of manual controls to the player (running out of a line of fire or exploding ball etc..)

[razmatazz]

Tactics exist mostly to streamline combat so your allies don't stand around doing nothing as you control your main character, not to make your party do all the work for you as you control one character only.

 

You aren't companion-sitting them, you're playing the game as it was intended...

 

 

Yep, only things I ever use tactics for is to keep the characters I'm not directly controlling using their normal attacks and maybe some emergency healing.  Otherwise, I actually kinda like having as much control over all four characters as possible.

[Heimdall]

I prefer micromanaging to fiddling with tactics personally.  Granted, I usually stick to normal difficulty so not much is needed.

[ReadingRambo220]

Does anyone forsee problems with the new engine and tactics? I'm not sure how complex tactics are to fit into an engine.

[upsettingshorts]

I used Tactics near exclusively - on high difficulty levels - and never had the problems described in the OP.  That said, I'm not going to oppose any requests for more functionality from the Tactics system.

[10K]

But then everyone will complain about not being able to micromanage their companions and tactics.

I wouldn't. Even though I like the tactics. I would love a DA game where I didn't have to switch from companion to companion. I think it breaks immersion so much; and would love just to use my main character.

[mopotter]

 

^This.

 

Setting tactics for AoE damage spells is a little tricky in both games (not much of a problem for me as I rarely use those anyway). But for single-target, CC and debuffing spells and talents tactics work pretty well IMO.

 

One thing from DAII tactics that I miss when I come back to DA:O is the "use current condition for next tactics" line. It's really useful.

 

Also this.  

 

Though I actually liked switching so I controlled the others once in a while, just because I like doing it, but I had no problems with my team fights.  Shoot my biggest headache was doing the Benny Hill Arishok dance.

[upsettingshorts]

Tactics exist mostly to streamline combat so your allies don't stand around doing nothing as you control your main character, not to make your party do all the work for you as you control one character only.

 

You aren't companion-sitting them, you're playing the game as it was intended...

 

If you wish to only control one character, then you can lower the difficulty to casual.

 

[Citation needed]

[Remmirath]

In a party-based RPG I very much want to be able to control all of the companions as well as my character. That's part of the fun. Granted, when it is a party filled with NPCs and not with my own characters, I'll often stick to controlling my character most of the time -- but tough fights, I believe, should require actually managing all the characters.

The main thing I want, tactically speaking, is to be able to spread characters out further and not have them follow each other so much. Also, being able to actually block entrances. I'd like to be able to circle around opponents from different sides, or send a rogue far on ahead while the rest of the party hangs back, or that kind of thing.

I do like the tactics settings for getting the NPCs to do simple tasks. I dislike playing healers, so I consider being able to set them to just heal and not have to deal with it is an advantage, and not having to force people to drink potions all the time also is. That's really the extent of what I use the tactics system for. More responsive potion drinking would be a nice thing, in general... it is rather frustrating when a character dies while you've been trying to get them to drink a healing potion for the last minute or two.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Learn to micromanage. Otherwise, play on lower difficulty.

 

*shrug*

 

I play on Nightmare - never played any other setting for DA2, since I insist on friendly fire - and use the Tactics system extensively. It's a matter of play style. The only thing I routinely do myself is place AOE effects. (Unless I'm playing DA2 with Isabela in the party. She requires more supervision than I usually give, since she's all squishy and likes to be in melee.)

 

Of course I break out the micromanagement to beat the Harvester or the High Dragon at the Bone Pit or Malvernis, but most of the time I let my companions handle themselves. I prefer spending a lot of time tinkering with the AI routines to get them just right over micromanaging everyone in combat. The fact that DA accommodates this preference is one of the main reasons it's my favourite franchise.

[Navasha]

I just want to point out that I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY disagree 100% with the OP.   

 

I definitely want us to have to pause the action and issue order frequently.   No AI (future tech not withstanding) is going to be able to compete with human intelligence.   I want to be able to control my party.    To me, baby sitting is when you are fighting the AI for control of your characters to get them to do what you want.    Perfect example is the Cory fight.

[Iosev]

I'm one of the people that spent hours customizing tactics, so while it wasn't perfect, I was still able to get through many parts of each game on nightmare with minimal pause-and-play.  Still, I would love to see non-controlled party members be able to at least move out of the way of spells and attacks on their own, as encounters like the wyvern in Mark of the Assassin became incredibly tedious on nightmare.

[Lebanese Dude]

[Citation needed]

Sorry didnt realize I was writing a research paper while discussing basic game design principles.

[Xewaka]

Sorry didnt realize I was writing a research paper while discussing basic game design principles.

 

Well, considering that during PAX Prime 2013 Laidlaw has stated that all playstyles supported by the game are intended to be equally viable, sourcing where you got the counter is kind of required, since it goes against the game's Creative Director statements.

[Rainbow Wyvern]

I'd just like it if my companions would freaking listen to their tactics. Especially with healing potions, or healing spells.

Irritating to put 'Self - health at or less than 50% - use item health potion' and then they die because they didn't listen and took spike dmg. Even when I manually clicked the health potion.

 

More on topic, not having to babysit them would be appreciated. On Nightmare I expect to have to micromanage most -if not all- of what they do, but on hard I should at least be able to play the protagonist a bit more. I feel like my companions, in both games, were like children with all that micromanagement. 

Especially when their default tactics has them basically blow all cooldowns within three seconds of the fight. *facepalm*

[BubbleDncr]

I really liked all the different conditions they put in DA2's tactics system. It was detailed enough that I could automate Ander's switching stances and using the appropriate spells during those stances - which the DA:O system was definately not detailed enough to do. It also was lame that you had to use skill points to unlock tactics in DA:O.

 

But yea, there are two fights I can think of - the Archdemon in DA:O and the Corypheus fight in Legacy that were a real pain in the butt for tactics - basically had to go into every character's tactics and manually switch them to defense and then back to normal tactics sooo many times, it felt like you were spending more time in menus than actually fighting. If they want to keep designing fights like that, it would be nice if they just put like, a "follow" stance on the circular menu that you could quickly switch on and off, and when they were in follow it would completely override all their tactics and they would do absolutely nothing but follow. Or was that already in the game and I'm just an idiot who missed it?

 

But yea - keeping DA2's system or adding even more options to that is good enough for me.

[theflyingzamboni]

Wait, wait. People used the tactics? I always turned them off so my companions wouldn't use abilities when I didn't want them to. THAT is irritating. Want to set up an ability/spell combo? Too bad! Your companion thought it was a great idea to use that priming ability 8 seconds ago, and now it's still on cooldown!

Pause and micromanage for the win!

 

Although if I have to micromanage to the level of that Ancient Rock Wraith again, positioning everyone precisely behind columns every 30 seconds, desks will be flipped.

 

Out of curiosity, what's the highest difficulty that's feasible controlling only your PC and leaving all of your companions to tactics?

[upsettingshorts]

Well, considering that during PAX Prime 2013 Laidlaw has stated that all playstyles supported by the game are intended to be equally viable, sourcing where you got the counter is kind of required, since it goes against the game's Creative Director statements.

 

Indeed, thank you.

 

Likewise, though this is anecdotal, the playstyle which was described as violating "basic gameplay design" and implied to be implausible on any difficulty above Casual, is the method through which I've conquered Nightmare in both games. 

 

Everyone's got their preferred approach of course, but let's not dirty up threads requesting a better implementation of one style with comments attempting to disparage their viability.

 

 

Out of curiosity, what's the highest difficulty that's feasible controlling only your PC and leaving all of your companions to tactics?

 

Nightmare.

 

You just have to think ahead and be aware of the system's limitations - and benefits - and build your team appropriately.

 

It's an altogether different approach that requires altogether different planning.  To get the most out of Tactics it's not really something you can only dabble in and expect it to get you through anything more demanding than clearing trash.  Just as pause and play doesn't work if you're just picking abilities at random.

 

Here's an example.

[esper]

I loved the tactics and hope they expan on them (I also find them more tactical than micromaning since it is planning and strategizing how best to use your abilities beforehand. My only complain is that i need more than 20 slots for my mages (espically if things like modes and sustained abilities comes back). I did switch around control with my companions on nightmare in da2, but that was mostly to position them (since my main team in da2 was all ranged, I kinda needed that.).

 

Anyway it is my favorite part of combat in da so I hope they expand on it and makes it even more detailed.

[nightscrawl]

I hope to god there's never another fight like Corypheus ever again.

 

I'm sorry I can't "like" this post more than once.

 

Difficult fights don't bother me. Avoiding certain damage at certain times, controlling mobs, when to use heals and CC, all those things are fine. Running through the damned maze on that fight by controlling all four characters and only moving a few feet at a time was beyond irritating.

 

 

[edit]

Aside from that fight, and the maze specifically, I really like that DLC. I just dread getting to the end of it.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 10 mars 2014 - 07:34 .

[nightscrawl]

[Citation needed]

 

Actually, the difficulty descriptions within DA2 suggest this as well:

 

Casual difficulty is best suited to players who are new to role-playing games or expect to play combat in real-time, rather than pausing often to plan tactics.

 

Normal difficulty is the recommended setting for players familiar with role-playing games, providing a good balance of challenge and survivability. It requires moderate use of tactical pausing to plan actions during combat. You will generally only need to control your main character, and can allow the game to control your companions.

 

Hard difficulty provides a considerably greater challenge than normal difficulty. To survive most fights, you will need to make sophisticated use of tactical pausing as well as clever combinations of spells and talents, controlling each of your party members in turn.

 

Nightmare difficulty is intended for tactical geniuses who found hard difficulty too easy. Aim carefully: At this setting, errant spells and attacks will harm your allies as easily as your enemies.

 

I understand that you were able to get the tactics to work well for you, but the actual game does suggest controlling each of the party members on higher difficulties. I tend to think this is really only needed in Nightmare mode to avoid accidental friendly fire. With correct tactic implementation and good use of CCCs I don't think it's necessary on Hard.

[Wulfram]

You don't need much in the way of complicated tactics to be able to leave the AI to mind most of it's business.  The vast bulk of my tactics basically boil down to

 

Health less than 25% then Drink Potion

Enemy [combo condition] then [combo finisher]

Enemy clustered then [AoE]

Enemy targeted by Hawke then [Attack talent]

Enemy targeted by Hawke then Attack

 

It's just a bit of a pain to put that in for all the various talents

[upsettingshorts]

Actually, the difficulty descriptions within DA2 suggest this as well:

 

 

I understand that you were able to get the tactics to work well for you, but the actual game does suggest controlling each of the party members on higher difficulties. I tend to think this is really only needed in Nightmare mode to avoid accidental friendly fire. With correct tactic implementation and good use of CCCs I don't think it's necessary on Hard.

 

Fair enough.  Though I would suggest that difficulty level descriptions are by their nature extremely conservative in their estimates.  Further, my point about derailing threads requesting improved features for a certain playstyle with statements about that playstyle's general lack of viability are, at best, off-topic.

[esper]

"Nightmare difficulty is intended for tactical geniuses who found hard difficulty too easy. Aim carefully: At this setting, errant spells and attacks will harm your allies as easily as your enemies."

 

 

Actually, the difficulty descriptions within DA2 suggest this as well:

 

 

I understand that you were able to get the tactics to work well for you, but the actual game does suggest controlling each of the party members on higher difficulties. I tend to think this is really only needed in Nightmare mode to avoid accidental friendly fire. With correct tactic implementation and good use of CCCs I don't think it's necessary on Hard.

 

I am sorry, but nowhere does it say that you need micromanaging in the description of nightmare. As far as I understand it, it simply means that you can't rely on the default tactics, but actually understand and master the system yourself (and rely less on ao:e's).

 

Anyway, micromangement is definitly there in da:I. So your playstyle while be aviable. I just hope they expand the tactics for those of us who like that.