221 réponses à ce sujet

[Aremce]

Both have their advantages. But I think for DA, where tactics, and preparing, and managing the whole party is a thing I prefer auto attack ... One hit - one blow fits better for more action oriented games, imho.

[Realmzmaster]

On a somewhat-related topic, how do you folks feel about actively dodging attacks?

I have no problem with dodging as long as it is automatic. I have no interest in actively dodging because that requires more twitch skill and timing. If dodging is a skill/ability/feat that I can put points (for both the protagonist and companions) into then I all for it. Otherwise no.

[AlanC9]

That's my feeling too. But I get the feeling that I was severely gimping myself by not running the tank manually in DA2.

[LPPrince]

Depends on the game. I dunno what I'll do in Inquisition.

[JeffZero]

On a somewhat-related topic, how do you folks feel about actively dodging attacks?

I like both, actually. Really depends. I think DA should keep it developmental and ME should obviously keep it reactionary.

[Dabrikishaw]

Button mashing for consoles. Clicking that many times on a mouse gets irritating for me.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

If the combat is fun, button mash.

 

If the combat isn't fun, auto-attack.

[The Spirit of Dance]

I prefer to mash a button every single time I attack, but I play mostly on consoles.

[CybAnt1]

On a somewhat-related topic, how do you folks feel about actively dodging attacks?

 

Don't like, but I have a feeling you could have guessed that.   Of course, I prefer that the game checks the character's dodge skill, dexterity, saving throw, or whatever is the operative stat/attribute, maybe to see if they take full, half, or no damage. 

 

It's interesting, WoW has started increasingly incorporating "active avoidance mechanics" every since MoP, which basically means "things appear on the ground when fighting certain enemies, and you'll take damage if you (the player) don't actively move your character out of the way". Like many of the Mogu; they appear to be able to create spikes and rumbling rifts in the ground underneath your feet. You'll see the ground under your feet roil for around 2 seconds or so, and if in that time you the player don't move your character out of the way, you'll take big damage. 

 

... This has not been universally loved by fans (see the other B forums), although of course as always some people seem OK with challenging what I may lovingly call the Central Dogma of RPGism (game should test character skill in combat, not player skill) ... since it, like almost all other MMOs, always has you controlling only 1 character at a time. If you're in a group/party of characters, they're all being controlled by other players. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

If the combat is fun, button mash.

 

If the combat isn't fun, auto-attack.

 

Basically. Something should be put in only if there's a point to it. Will there be any POINT to timing your attacks? Can you just swing you sword and damage whoever it hits, instead of highlighting enemies then using powers?

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

On a somewhat-related topic, how do you folks feel about actively dodging attacks?

 

 

Don't like, but I have a feeling you could have guessed that.   Of course, I prefer that the game checks the character's dodge skill, dexterity, saving throw, or whatever is the operative stat/attribute, maybe to see if they take full, half, or no damage. 

 

It's interesting, WoW has started increasingly incorporating "active avoidance mechanics" every since MoP, which basically means "things appear on the ground when fighting certain enemies, and you'll take damage if you (the player) don't actively move your character out of the way". Like many of the Mogu; they appear to be able to create spikes and rumbling rifts in the ground underneath your feet. You'll see the ground under your feet roil for around 2 seconds or so, and if in that time you the player don't move your character out of the way, you'll take big damage. 

 

... This has not been universally loved by fans (see the other B forums), although of course as always some people seem OK with challenging what I may lovingly call the Central Dogma of RPGism (game should test character skill in combat, not player skill) ... since it, like almost all other MMOs, always has you controlling only 1 character at a time. If you're in a group/party of characters, they're all being controlled by other players. 

I think the lastest trend with incessant rolling is a bit silly, but there should be some interactivity like allowing players to block if they want to. Saying everything should rely on characters stats and the player should do nothing is absurd. If that's the case then every combat scenario would just play out like a cutscene. Why should the player tell people where to go and what powers to use? The characters should use their own intelligence and tactics. This sort of system is fine for rts or god games because that's what you are, but in an rpg you're supposed to be playing one of the characters, not a general or god in the sky.

 

Furthermore why can't you attempt to block when you want to? Fine you can have how successful it is based on a stat for blocking skill, but what's actually stopping the player from carrying out the action? You don't need any skill to try something, just a working connection from your brains to your limb.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

We already know what players can take cover from projectiles, I just hope it doesn't still do that stupid thing where a sword will still hit you if you're 5 miles away, just because the enemy "started" the attack.

[AlanC9]

I think the lastest trend with incessant rolling is a bit silly, but there should be some interactivity like allowing players to block if they want to. Saying everything should rely on characters stats and the player should do nothing is absurd. If that's the case then every combat scenario would just play out like a cutscene. Why should the player tell people where to go and what powers to use? The characters should use their own intelligence and tactics. This sort of system is fine for rts or god games because that's what you are, but in an rpg you're supposed to be playing one of the characters, not a general or god in the sky.

So on the one hand the characters should use their own intelligence and tactics, but on the other hand the player should control blocking? What do the characters I'm not controlling do?

I don't have a big problem with dodging attacks. But I don't think this works well with the aggro system. If I'm managing aggro effectively, then most of the attacks come at the tank. Unless the tank dodges attacks as effectively without me in control as she does with me in control, I'm hurting the party if I play any other character. This is a serious problem if I prefer to play my PC rather than the tank.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

So on the one hand the characters should use their own intelligence and tactics, but on the other hand the player should control blocking? What do the characters I'm not controlling do?

I don't have a big problem with dodging attacks. But I don't think this works well with the aggro system. If I'm managing aggro effectively, then most of the attacks come at the tank. Unless the tank dodges attacks as effectively without me in control as she does with me in control, I'm hurting the party if I play any other character. This is a serious problem if I prefer to play my PC rather than the tank.

I'm not saying they should, I said IF that was the case, where we rely completely on character stats.

 

I guess players you're not controlling can block themselves? Like enemies? Artificial intelligence yo

[CybAnt1]

If that's the case then every combat scenario would just play out like a cutscene. (1) Why should the player tell people where to go and what powers to use? The characters should use their own intelligence and tactics. This sort of system is fine for rts or god games because that's what you are, but in an rpg you're supposed to be playing one of the characters, not a general or god in the sky. (2)

 

Furthermore why can't you attempt to block when you want to? (3) Fine you can have how successful it is based on a stat for blocking skill, but what's actually stopping the player from carrying out the action? You don't need any skill to try something, just a working connection from your brains to your limb.

 

(1) Uhhh, I guess, except unlike in a cutscene, I'm telling the PC, and sometimes the other 3 party members, what targets they should be selecting, and what activated and sustained abilities they should be using (usually several in succession, and I might be looking for "combos" that synergize what they are doing with other characters), and most notably with mages where to target those abilities if they're AoEs - although yes even me as mr. micromanagement does often let the other 3 party members "run" on AI. One thing I am certainly not arguing for is complete and total "auto-combat" although I do notice some people have asked for the ability for the PC to run on AI at all times (the game only uses AI for the PC while you're directly controlling a different party member.) 

 

(2) I find this amusing. You know why? DAII was described in marketing as "Think like a general, fight like a Spartan". 

 

NWN1 did not allow you to control companions in single player mode (of the OC, or for that matter any other module/campaign). This was widely hated by fans. Mostly for the perennial reason I keep noting: AI at that time for them sucked. Hard. As a result, it was a big feature addition for NWN2 (although, as you know, that was not done by Bioware, but by Obsidian.) Until AI gets perfected (maybe in about 50 years from now), players are going to want party control. I will repeat what I've said -- the AI in DA2 finally reached acceptable levels (it still sucked sans the Advanced Tactics mod in DAO, although that mod created its own ... issues) ... but it still could use some improvement. 

 

(3) I'll answer that. If what you mean is to block with your shield (or parry with your sword), the player needs to time the block/parry with their shield by hitting the "block button" so that it happens at the same moment as the enemy's sword attack, well, you are testing the player's hand eye coordination (which many games, of course, do do.) I presume, then, for the block to succeed, timing of hitting the "block button" matters. 

 

Thing is, what if the character has a Block skill of 95 (out of 100), but he keeps failing at blocking because the player didn't "time" the block properly. Then the character's skill suddenly stops mattering. The character is a master shieldsman/defender, a lord of shielding, a tank of all tanks who is now a level 20 guardian/defender, but he keeps failing at blocking because the player isn't able to time well when he hits the block button? That now defeats the purpose of building the character's skill.

 

And this is the same point Fast Jimmy made a while back about why archery in Skyrim sucks. Same principle. 

 

A master archer character should not miss with bows because the player is a klutz who futzes up aiming a reticule.

A master swordsman should not miss with sword hits for the same reason. 

IMHO auto-attack means simply one thing: PC/character, keep hitting or firing at what you've been hitting or firing at until I tell you to target something else. 

And a master guardian/defender should not fail at blocking with a shield because the player is a klutz, either. 

[AlanC9]

I'm not saying they should, I said IF that was the case, where we rely completely on character stats.
 
I guess players you're not controlling can block themselves? Like enemies? Artificial intelligence yo

I don't have a problem with that myself. But how good at blocking should the AI be? Ideally the AI controlling characters should have the same blocking skill that I have, but I don't think that's realistic

[Enshaid]

I come from a background of DMC, God of War, and the like, so just watching a character do the fighting for me makes me want to eat my own hands from boredom, even with all the tactical shenanigans going on. It just makes me feel disconnected from the combat. 

 

Edit: And it doesn't help that it reminds me of WoW. Eww.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

What I meant though, if the character's mind and decisions are one thing the player DOES control, the decision to block should be just as much up to the player as the decision to attack.

 

Sure it might reduce the reliance of building the character skill, but no one's that terrible that it becomes pointless. That's like saying if a player isn't good at positioning and using abilities the characters will die too, despite their skill. At the end of the day it's a game, and you ARE playing it. And I guess you could let the AI control the tank if you hate it so much?

 

I do agree about Skyrim's archery. The character's skill should play a part on accuracy, much more so than damage. But so can the player. So the player aims and then there's a deviation on where you meant it to go, vs where it actually goes, based on skill, just like real life.

The problem is everyone hated this, it was actually the system used in Morrowind, and the first Mass Effect too I believe (though it was pretty poorly implemented to be fair- arrows went through things and you could still miss at point blank)

[CybAnt1]

Enshaid, at the end of the day, I agree with people that it depends on your gaming experiences. 

 

Many of us come from a background of Bioware (and non Bioware) games like NWN1/2 (though 2 was not per se Bioware's), BG1/2, KOTOR 1/2, and maybe even others like Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc, etc, etc. 

 

All I can say is, for us, no the combat of DAO did not feel too slow, too awkward, or too 'disconnected' (personally I find thinking about selecting abilities and tactics, then sitting back and watching those execute "active" and "engaging") ... neither of us can make the other have the other's experiences, but hopefully as I keep mentioning this point, the two tribes of gamers who argue over the combat in these games can understand the other's perspectives. 

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

I don't have a problem with that myself. But how good at blocking should the AI be? Ideally the AI controlling characters should have the same blocking skill that I have, but I don't think that's realistic

 

that just comes down to balancing and the developers, maybe difficulty levels too.

 

 

don't get me started on how much I hate difficulty levels based on simply increasing enemy health.
 

[Enshaid]

Enshaid, at the end of the day, I agree with people that it depends on your gaming experiences. 

 

Many of us come from a background of Bioware (and non Bioware) games like NWN1/2 (though 2 was not per se Bioware's), BG1/2, KOTOR 1/2, and maybe even others like Icewind Dale, Planescape Torment, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc, etc, etc. 

 

All I can say is, for us, no the combat of DAO did not feel too slow, too awkward, or too 'disconnected' (personally I find thinking about selecting abilities and tactics, then sitting back and watching those execute "active" and "engaging") ... neither of us can make the other have the other's experiences, but hopefully as I keep mentioning this point, the two tribes of gamers who argue over the combat in these games can understand the other's perspectives. 

Very true. It is a matter of personal preference. Which is why the implementation of a toggle for auto-attack is a very good thing indeed. 

[CybAnt1]

What I meant though, if the character's mind and decisions are one thing the player DOES control, the decision to block should be just as much up to the player as the decision to attack.

 

 

OK. So, if I want Aveline (say) to focus on defense, I activate abilities for her like Stonewall, Turn the Blade, the ability Shield Defense, or Immovable from her unique Guardian spec. All these abilities increase her defensive capacity and make her more likely to block attacks or reduce incoming damage.

 

However, I still will think she can handle the actual timing of when to block with her shield.   Yes, I can "assist" in this process by choosing what abilities she uses in conjunction with defending herself with her shield, but yes, it's still her that's 'doing' the block when it happens. 

 

And yes, I don't think the PC should be any different, if say he was a Sword & Board warrior/tank. 

[CybAnt1]

Very true. It is a matter of personal preference. Which is why the implementation of a toggle for auto-attack is a very good thing indeed. 

 

Problem is, Bioware hates toggles. Well, a lot of the time, anyway. They make them push puppies out windows. (Cuz they increase the time for beta testing.) 

 

Players love them, devs hate them. We agree it's good auto attack has a toggle. So I can use it, and you won't. 

 

We don't know much about how combat's going to be done exactly in DA:I yet. All we have are pre-alpha videos from last year, and speculation about them. 

 

I only raise this because there may be other 'combat features' coming soon the 'gaming tribes' will not agree about, and I suspect there may NOT be toggle options for them. We can hope, though, it might save a lot of coming arguments here.