150 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

I would like to know if it is possible to have a whole fight in tactical view, so far we have seen them pause the game issue a few orders and then return to the action style of combat or even if you have to hold a button to keep the game paused.

 

I would like to know if the dragon fight is possible in Tactical View when it flies away from the player and off the screen. Would the rolling mechanic be usable in Tactical or even be usable in the tactics you can apply to your party.

 

I suppose my main problem is why the Tactical View has to be a totally separate mode from the normal game, why must you press a button to go into Tactical and why has it got different systems in just that mode. Origins Isometric View was just that a different view you could zoom out too, the game played identically no matter how far you were zoomed out. To have the Tactical Mode a separate system says to me that the game was created as an action game with all the features that brings with it, and that the Tactical Mode was added after with different systems because it did not work with what they had already made.

 

Remember that all we see is console gameplay. The "press a button for tactical view" that they are talking about is about implementing something that never existed in the console DA games before. 

 

We know that you can't switch input from M/KB to controller on the fly, because the UI is fundamentally different. This means PC gameplay won't look like console gameplay. 

We haven't seen PC gameplay, and given the design trends, everything points to the PC gameplay being like DA:O. 

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

Looks alright to me. Though I'll have to see how it works on PC before making any real judgements. 

[Wulfram]

What example can you give of a boss fight where each hit off the boss, in an RPG mind you, not an action game with real time dodge, does 10-25% of the HP total? Because that's what it would mean not to have asymmetrical HP. A boss dead in 4-10 hits. 

 

Some of the mage enemies in BG2 probably qualify.  They've got a ton of protective spells of course.

 

edit:  It's true that it's tough to have solo bosses vs a party without giving the boss a ton of hitpoints.  But I think we could do with less solo bosses and more party vs party fights.  And yeah, Dragons and stuff should have loads of HP because they're huge.

[Provi-dance]

What example can you give of a boss fight where each hit off the boss, in an RPG mind you, not an action game with real time dodge, does 10-25% of the HP total? Because that's what it would mean not to have asymmetrical HP. A boss dead in 4-10 hits. 

 

You really can't think of ways to make a particular enemy more challenging other than HP bloat? All right, let me help you.

 

-increased accuracy (hits more often)

-increased defense (harder to hit - note: this is not damage resistance)

-increased resistance to magical effects

-on-hit effects (e.g. your character needs to make a resistance check or be weakened/stunned for a period of time)

-increased damage

-special attacks

-smarter prioritizing of targets

 

All within reason, of course, but when combined it produces a challenging single enemy.

1000% or 2000% more HP is not within reason, for example.

 

Anyway, more HP doesn't necessarily make an enemy more challenging, it simply prolongs the fight.

[In Exile]

You really can't think of ways to make a particular enemy more challenging other than HP bloat? All right, let me help you.

 

-increased accuracy (hits more often)

 

A boss will still be obliterated in seconds. 

 

-increased defense (harder to hit - note: this is not damage resistance)

 

So now we're talking about the same thing as HP bloat, except I'm missing 50% of the time instead of hitting 100% of the time. 

 

-increased resistance to magical effects

 

So now we're talking about the same thing as HP bloat, 50% of my spells don't have an effect instead of 100% of my spells whittling down HP. 

 

-on-hit effects (e.g. your character needs to make a resistance check or be weakened/stunned for a period of time)

 

So we're back to first to nuke wins. 

 

So now we're talking about the same thing as HP bloat, 50% of my spells don't have an effect instead of 100% of my spells whittling down HP. 

 

-increased damage

 

First to nuke still wins. 

 

-special attacks

-smarter prioritizing of targets

 

This just all goes back to first to nuke. 

 

All within reason, of course, but when combined it produces a challenging single enemy.

1000% or 2000% more HP is not within reason, for example.

Anyway, more HP doesn't necessarily make an enemy more challenging, it simply prolongs the fight.

 

When you combine the features, all you have are 2 features that are identical to HP bloat (missing), except that there's an RNG involved. But it's just "hack away at it more until it dies". 

 

None of the damage mods, or accuracy mods, or attacks, or disabilities, matter at all unless either (1) the fight is scripted so the boss hits you first so that you're gimped or (2) the boss is durable enough to attack. Otherwise, first to nuke wins. 

 

All of the things you suggest are the same thing as HP bloat. 

[In Exile]

Some of the mage enemies in BG2 probably qualify.  They've got a ton of protective spells of course.

 

edit:  It's true that it's tough to have solo bosses vs a party without giving the boss a ton of hitpoints.  But I think we could do with less solo bosses and more party vs party fights.  And yeah, Dragons and stuff should have loads of HP because they're huge.

 

I think rock paper scissors fights from BG2 are even worse than HP bloat bosses, but YMMV. 

The same with party vs. party fights. Take what you get in DA:O with the side provings (where you fight parties). Those battles are pure jokes, which you can easily curmbstomp because the enemies just aren't durable. 

[deuce985]

Looks like a mix of Dragon's Dogma, Dark Souls and Dragon Age Origins. I think it looks great. Not only did they bring the tactical camera back but they also vastly improved it based on the demos I've seen. That's more than I could've asked. As far as tactical systems go, it's hard to judge a quick demo where you're showing things to the press. I'm sure they'll market both sides for us later. Give us demos where it's purely tactical and ones where it's leaning to action. It's pretty much a guarantee if you crank this game up on difficulty it will be more tactical. Even DA2 was more tactical on nightmare than some admit it was just different kinds of tactical combat.

 

Party combat has always been a strength and weakness to Bioware games. They've always struggled to find a perfect balance for it and DAI is trying to be something between DA2/DAO.

[Gtdef]

You really can't think of ways to make a particular enemy more challenging other than HP bloat? All right, let me help you.

 

-increased accuracy (hits more often)

-increased defense (harder to hit - note: this is not damage resistance)

-increased resistance to magical effects

-on-hit effects (e.g. your character needs to make a resistance check or be weakened/stunned for a period of time)

-increased damage

-special attacks

-smarter prioritizing of targets

 

All within reason, of course, but when combined it produces a challenging single enemy.

1000% or 2000% more HP is not within reason, for example.

 

Anyway, more HP doesn't necessarily make an enemy more challenging, it simply prolongs the fight.

 

 

In theory you are right sure, but here it's a whole other story. Increasing effective hp instead of base hp is a bad idea because there are too many damage sources with different properties that go through most conventional defenses. You can't drop the health of an enemy for extra defense without making him completely immune to magic for example. Otherwise he will become irrelevant really fast by just hitting him with an average power aoe spell. 

 

For that to work they have to cut down player damage by 90% first, then drop enemy health accordingly and only then care to create diverse enemies. But I guess they aren't too big on balancing numbers. They prefer numbers that are easier to comprehend. If your autoattack hits for 4-5 damage and your spell for 20, it's hard to see if your new gear makes any difference. If it hits for 40-50 and 200 it's easier.

 

World of warcraft had the same problem with numbers. In vanilla classes would do around 1k dps, after 2 expansions it would go up to 11-12k and now they do 1.5 million dps while their relevant power is the same. Scaling's a ******.

 

 

The best you can hope for in DAI, is for your damage to start at 20 and stop at 80 with full gear. If it's like the other 2 games where you start at 1 and end at 150 for DAO and 800 for DA2 then whatever.

[Russian Berserker]

Enemies act retarded. Their speed is slow. They seem confused. They are weak.....cmon

[KaiserShep]

Enemies act retarded. Their speed is slow. They seem confused. They are weak.....cmon

And I will crush them, have then driven before me, and hear the lamentation of their women.

[deuce985]

Enemies act retarded. Their speed is slow. They seem confused. They are weak.....cmon

 

I like feeling like a god in RPGs personally. It adds substance to how you progress your character through stats and gear.

[hexaligned]

I like feeling like a god in RPGs personally. It adds substance to how you progress your character through stats and gear.

That's what easy difficulty is for.  I have no problem with that being a thing, that exists.  The harder difficulties should offer resistance to well geared and well balanced parties though.  The "problem" with the DA games difficulty has always been the ineptitude of the AI, both in the abilities and strategies it has access to, and can competently pull off.  No amount of stat bloat fixes that.  It is fixable, but it requires more development focus than I get the impression they want to devote to it.

[Russian Berserker]

"Glitches, glitches everywhere...."

[Deflagratio]

 

 

 

There is friendly fire, but most abilities don't have it. XCOM is a humans vs. aliens game, so you don't really have any kind of comparison between your troops and enemy troops, but you're basically not on an even platform when it comes to the higher difficulties (plus the RNG is basically chained in a very favorable way to the player on lower difficulties). 

 

There are some weapons that are class locked as far as I recall - rocket launchers and snipers - but others aren't (like pistols/rifles). 

 

But the basic gameplay is all about facing a dice that are very heavily loaded against you in terms of your dmg output, HP, durability, numbers, etc. You're not on an even playing field at all. 

 

 

HP asymmetry is basically necessary to have boss fights. Mooks, not necessarily, but if there's no assymetry then you basically have to have endless waves, because the player is just way, way better at the game. 

 

 

Yeah, I couldn't really agree with your points against Provi-Dence more to be honest. I just want to reiterate that I don't think it's occurring to him that the HP"Bloat" or HP Asymmetry is really just a superficial thing in the context of his solutions. Something you point out in a few other posts.

 

Let me put it a way he might understand. If they didn't actually show the amount of HP as a definite number, and also hid the damage being dealt on screen, how would he know if there was a mechanical asymmetry?

 

I will concede the point that "BIG numbahs" as he so eloquently put it in a previous thread, only for the sake of "BIG numbahs" is patronizing and somewhat irritating. But not irritating enough for an entire series of threads on the subject. At least in my opinion.

[Provi-dance]

 

 

All of the things you suggest are the same thing as HP bloat. 

 

Increasing offensive capabilities, for starters, is obviously not the same thing as HP bloat (neither is the rest, but this detail should be more easy to comprehend).

Please, you've not repeated your interesting assumption that "first nuke wins" enough times, because it makes much sense, for realsies.. but I'm trying to understand something. If a nuke deals 25 damage and the enemy has 200 HP (both the enemy's nuke power and HP are comparable to the player's); is it still "first nuke wins"?

Let's try to imagine a combat system where things don't attack at the speed of light (it's preposterous to even suggest such a thing and reduce the amount of awesomeness, I know!).

 

I take it you're not aware of the effects of asymmetrical damage/HP systems on friendly fire, yes?

 

 

Anyhow, your posts are a textbook example of bloated HP. By atomizing posts you're trying to prolong the "battle", though it would be simple and easy to rend through all your "HP". It'd just be very very boring; a battle of attrition through your nonsense.

[In Exile]

Increasing offensive capabilities, for starters, is obviously not the same thing as HP bloat (neither is the rest, but this detail should be more easy to comprehend).

Please, you've not repeated your interesting assumption that "first nuke wins" enough times, because it makes much sense, for realsies.. but I'm trying to understand something. If a nuke deals 25 damage and the enemy has 200 HP (both the enemy's nuke power and HP are comparable to the player's); is it still "first nuke wins"?

Let's try to imagine a combat system where things don't attack at the speed of light (it's preposterous to even suggest such a thing and reduce the amount of awesomeness, I know!).

 

My point isn't that increasing damage is the same as HP bloat - my point is that increasing damage doesn't create boss fights, it just creates a race where the whole point of builds is to do a lot of damage really fast before the mook can attack. DA2 had lots of enemies like that - Sareebas, Blood Mages, Arcane Horrors, Assassins - all of them did absurd damage that could wipe out a full party, so the way to beat them was just to know exactly where they spawned and then unleash every attack in existence against them before they had a chance to do anything. 

 

If the enemy has 200 HP and deals 25 dmg/hit, and you have 200 HP and deal 25 dmg/hit, it is literally a race to see who attacks faster. Since the initial post was about giving bosses mook-level HP, and most RPGs have 1-3 hit KOs for mooks, I used that damage scale, but if you want to move the goalpost, be my guest. 

 

If suddenly the boss does 100 dmg/hit and you do 25/hit, and you have 4 people and the boss is alone, you're both doing 100 dmg/exchange even if the game is turn based. Since the party's pool would be 800 HP vs. the boss's 200, unless the boss has all AOE attacks that your party can't dodge, you're still winning the fight if you get to attack first. 

 

 

I take it you're not aware of the effects of asymmetrical damage/HP systems on friendly fire, yes?

 

Anyhow, your posts are a textbook example of bloated HP. By atomizing posts you're trying to prolong the "battle", though it would be simple and easy to rend through all your "HP". It'd just be very very boring; a battle of attrition through your nonsense.

 

So you've run out of actual ideas, and went straight to insults? Wow. 

 

Not to mention that this point about FF is irrelevant, since I never said "Man, asymmetry between mook HP and damage is great!" Instead, I said you can't have boss battles without HP assymetry. And you can't. Your own post has either substitutes for HP asymmetry, or things that wouldn't make an encounter a boss battle. 

[TheButterflyEffect]

I wonder if the programmers were high on cupcakes when coding mage combat. Seriously, if an enemy gets to close to a mage, all they do is pathetically poke it with their magic shtick until it is poked to death? SERIOUSLY?!

 

Glad this was fixed in DA2, with Hawke doing the realistic thing and wacking the crapola out of mooks when swarmed. Hoping that this little piece of awesomesauce will stay.

[PillarBiter]

I very much like the combat to be honest.

 

I played DA:o on console, and as much as I tried to play tactically, it was very difficult to do (input-wise) and almost never really brought any added value to the outcome, so instead i just played rush, which worked 95% of the time. I never really liked the animations in DA:o, they were unreal in that they seemed to be swinging in slow motion all the time. It seemed more like ballet then a fight. 

In that regard, I liked DAII a lot more. The combat was fast and actiony (sue me, I like that stuff, berserker-reaver-2 hander all the way!), and at least it actually felt like I was doing magic, or cleaving a man in half. Tactics, other than cross-class combos were totally needless here though. 

 

DAI does actually look like it is going to be a perfect blend of the two.

- the attacks look powerful when they need to be(I also like colorful visuals, and I really REALLY dont get why people have an issue with a sword cleaving the ground, but not meteors from the sky. It boggles the mind.), and weighty otherwise.

- strategy actually looks as if it would pay off this time, definately since there is a lot less healing. I like that thinking from bioware So I'm very interested in trying that this time around. And it doesn't look like it's turning into an RTS, which is good.

 

So to me, the game looks absolutely perfect. I'm having it really difficult sometimes to wait for this I petitioned the gf to come and break into bioware HQ with me, but it was a no go, she wouldn't provide the alibi

[The Serge777]

From what I've seen, I think this game is going to combine and improve upon both DAO and DA2's combat styles.  You'll get the additional tactical aspect along with the more fast-paced action that's pretty customary for Bioware games since the last gen consoles.  I approve of the continued sensational melee attacks, although I'm glad they appear "meatier" than in DA2.   

 

I also have to say that I like the dragon combat.  Although I understand the criticism regarding the wings, frankly I think that the decision to not make those targetable was probably because that's the first (and likely only) think folks would target.  Part of me also wonders if the inability to target the wings is because only two of the three standard classes -- rogues and mages -- have access to ranged weapons (unless they've done us a solid and returned ranged options to warriors). To me, what would have been a decent alternative would have been to make you take out a number of other areas first before the wings. 

[Rawgrim]

Way too flashy. Looks like Soul Calibur, or something like that.

[Joseph Warrick]

****** hell this thread is worse than rpgcodex.

[Provi-dance]

*picks random nonsense to respond to*

 

 

 

If the enemy has 200 HP and deals 25 dmg/hit, and you have 200 HP and deal 25 dmg/hit, it is literally a race to see who attacks faster. 

 

Not at all. It can literally depend on other factors. 

Like.. debilitating on-hit effects or miss chance (which has apparently become so horribly frustrating for the average Bioware snowflake that it needed to be eliminated). 

 

Also, I said it needs to be reasonable and COMPARABLE, not EQUAL. Could be, e.g., 40 damage/hit and 400 HP for a boss if it makes sense for that creature.

I do hope you're at least able to notice the difference between 200 HP (player mage) vs 5 000 HP (enemy mage) and 250 HP (player warrior) vs 500 HP (big monster enemy).

[craigdolphin]

I also have to say that I like the dragon combat. Although I understand the criticism regarding the wings, frankly I think that the decision to not make those targetable was probably because that's the first (and likely only) think folks would target. Part of me also wonders if the inability to target the wings is because only two of the three standard classes -- rogues and mages -- have access to ranged weapons (unless they've done us a solid and returned ranged options to warriors). To me, what would have been a decent alternative would have been to make you take out a number of other areas first before the wings

Interesting speculation. I was thinking the reasons might have been to do with reconfiguring the dragon AI to deal with the loss of a main form of movement.

Your point that the targeting of wings would be the first thing a player would do makes sense to me. It's logical to limit the dragon's abilities. That's exactly why I'm disappointed not to have the option to do so. Not a huge deal, obviously. But it just seems like a strange limitation on an otherwise nice addition to the combat mechanics. Would be nice to know the reasoning from Bioware about why it wasn't permitted. Just curiosity

[In Exile]

*picks random nonsense to respond to*

 

 

Not at all. It can literally depend on other factors. 

Like.. debilitating on-hit effects or miss chance (which has apparently become so horribly frustrating for the average Bioware snowflake that it needed to be eliminated). 

 

Also, I said it needs to be reasonable and COMPARABLE, not EQUAL. Could be, e.g., 40 damage/hit and 400 HP for a boss if it makes sense for that creature.

I do hope you're at least able to notice the difference between 200 HP (player mage) vs 5 000 HP (enemy mage) and 250 HP (player warrior) vs 500 HP (big monster enemy).

 

Okay, now you're talking about nerfing the actual damage that the player does, all of which just effectively increases the HP of the so-called boss (because now that you're missing 95% of the time, his 200 HP becomes an effective 4000HP) or whatever. 

 

Regardless of how you play around with the math, all of your ideas come down to the same thing: turning the fight into an endurance contest. 

[Elhanan]

For speed, my thought was that 2H weapons should have the speed, feel, and look of the Sunder talents in DAO. The blades still seemed to have weight and heft, and avoided the lengthy wind-up of the default speed. I enjoy feeling as if I was wielding a true blade; not only a virtual weapon.