All I see here is your inability to set your ranged characters to a ranged tactic setting.
What ranged character? It happened to my main warden, with me not switching to play another character. He'd just pull back an arrow, stop and walk ahead a few steps, aim, put his bow down, walk ahead a few more steps, with me pressing the attack button and getting more pissed off by the second.
What ranged character? It happened to my main warden, with me not switching to play another character. He'd just pull back an arrow, stop and walk ahead a few steps, aim, put his bow down, walk ahead a few more steps, with me pressing the attack button and getting more pissed off by the second.
Sounds like a bug or something wonky with the controls. Never happens to me.
DA:O definitely had an annoying handling if you tried to shoot someone from out of LoS as I recall. You could avoid it by making sure you had LoS before shooting, but that could be a big hassle on some occasions when the elevations made it hard to get the right angle.
The thing with that arrangement is, it feels much like just bullying bunch of preschoolers for their lunch money -- sure, it can be done and easily so, but it's hardly an accomplishment... and imo the game really doesn't gain anything by having gangs of thugs roaming around with numbers literally into hundreds, each of them too stupid to tie their own shoes.I think it's fine to deal with large amounts of enemies as long as those enemies are of a lower rank than you and your companions.
Sounds like a bug or something wonky with the controls. Never happens to me.
It happens every single time with me. It happens to my mages to. My rogues will constantly shuffle to face the enemy head on when I walk behidn an enemy and press the attack button, and sometimes activated talents simply do not activate when pressed, even with the right level of mana/stamina and no cooldown on them, you press them and it does nothing. Though that is more a too many enemies on the screen at once issue then anything else.
Played on Xbox 360 before switching to PS3 and getting the game on that, and this problem occured on both. So yeah, in my experience, DAO combat is as bad as penn and tellers desert bus.
Console then?
I believe it had some issues that weren't on the PC.
Most likely yeah, but I'm a cheap scape and I'm not buying the game a third time just to play it on a PC.
Also steam doesn't put DA2 on sale, so it maeks the whole thing pointess from that point on.
Slaughtering hordes of humanoid enemies feels kind of bad to me. But zombies and spiders and non-sentient darkspawn are OK.
Though no type of combat design is good if it's over-used.
As I stated, the main reason I like ASC is that it lets me deal with large groups of enemies in a reasonable time.
but you see the problem is, that in DA2 combat mechanics, simple mobs do not pose any threat. their only purpose is to give you xp and some crap loot. they are not a force to reckon with, they are just a hindrance. and with all honesty these mobs just could be removed from the game and nobody will notice.
In order to save time, maybe it is better to just skip all the walking and get to the boss. who cares anyway? visual novell.
but no you have to cleave your way to the boss through waves of good for nothing fodder, which only makes your eyes roll. And even on Nightmare difficulty, mini bosses, like the ones who can move in stealth and backstab you to death (oneshot you) are the only ones who actually can kill you. aside from bosses of course. Such mechanics is not a challenge or difficulty. It's just bad game design. Simple as that.
In DAO at least some groups of the enemy could actually kill you, if you do things wrong, because encounter is designed that way. But even then, two hasted rouges will destroy any opposition in mere seconds, no matter how many mobs of the map. But that's another story.
Point is, when a developer replacing designed encounters with a waves of boring mobs who can't actually kill you, unless they oneshot you. That is clearly a sign that something is really wrong. And in DA2 everything is wrong about the combat. Except for cross combos those are good, but not with the design of the enemy's behavior.
And problem is, DAI have the very same mechanics of combat that DA2 have. Combat mechanics are inherited from the previous game. Maybe there is no airborne mobs from a nowhere (well judging by the video they now dropping down from the rifts 'yay!'), but their interaction with the character is the same. No crashing prisons or death hexes for us. Not anymore. No overwhelm. No threat, only boring slaughter.
That's the problem. Lowering speed of combat for a character, will not solve anything. It's like bf4 you know? they slow it down a little bit, but net code is still horrible. With DAI combat the very same situation, characters maybe fighting at slower rate, but what's the purpose of it when each of their attacks are staggering mobs and they can't do anything about it. but only to walk to their death which will soon follow.
If it's ok for you, fine. I just find it sad and boring.
I hope that the demos were played in casual difficulty or a dev modded one, but the pessimist in me is starting to doubt it.
Humanoid enemies being reduced to Putty tier annoyances don't sit right with me. I feel no satisfaction from completing the encounter since i can't shake the feeling that the enemies were handicapped. I can understand why DA2's humanoid enemies were given DAO attack animations in comparison to the pc (short dev cycle, and combat pacing being too fast) but i don't want to see another repeat of it since the tweaks used to balance the combat usually creates tedious battles of attrition.
What ranged character? It happened to my main warden, with me not switching to play another character. He'd just pull back an arrow, stop and walk ahead a few steps, aim, put his bow down, walk ahead a few more steps, with me pressing the attack button and getting more pissed off by the second.
Yep this happened constantly and was really bad with higher elevation maps/rooms. This is why I always had my rogues dual wield as a secondary and increase their dexterity to the point where they were tanks themselves.
I pray to god that we can use any weapon again instead of being forced to use one type. I would also love to have the secondary armor/weapon set option in the radial menu return. (This was a huge annoyance in DA2 since it forced me to go into my menu to dig out a weapon because said enemy is immune to fire or spirit. I find it hilarious that they made all the fire spells fancy when a good chunk of enemies in DA2 were immune to fire damage.)
Well, I never actually noticed any of that in DA2... so I'm going to have to say I don't really care too much.
I do remember they mentioned, though, that attacks will feel weighted in DAI, as opposed to DA2. So a warrior can't swing a double-handed sword around like it was nothing. I'm sure that is going to cut significantly into the amount of attacks that you can make in a second; regardless of whether or not Inquisition is going for flashy combat like 2 was.
As for what we saw in the demo - I'm still reserving my opinion, as they said they are still working on gameplay balance at the moment.
My second paragraph is directed towards the op's question about asymmetrical combat design, my experience and opinion on DA2's combat system.It was easy and gimped, did you actually watch it?
Abilities were unlocked arbitrarily it's late in the game but they are just level 7 they didn't die despite their HP depleting multiple times.
It was easy and gimped, did you actually watch it?
Abilities were unlocked arbitrarily it's late in the game but they are just level 7 they didn't die despite their HP depleting multiple times.
Ya it was on what is known as "press demo mode" where seemingly every game mechanic is there, except dying because that extends the demo.
As long as they coordinate as well as you do, striking as a team and luring your group into fields of aoe damage and such, yes. This may indeed call for some intelligent play, use of CC spells/abilities, making use of the pause and whatnot.
But that's basically exploiting the AI through kiting. In an RPG, you're not really in a position to ambush. To actually make this type of combat work, you'd have to totally rework the mechanics to be based primarily around stealth and alpha strikes.
It's pretty much a matter of preference, though. I'm really not a fan of having the PC and friends painted as some sort of demi-gods on the level of superheroes from the comic books, due to that mentioned "bunch of preschoolers" effect. But I realize this approach is popular with some (many?) players and it genuinely makes them feel powerful and special.
I think that's unavoidable in any RPG with an epic story. If the PC and friends are mediocre, average and comparable to town guards, then it is downright insane that four of them survive for more than a few seconds against an ogre (much less a dragon).
You may be misreading what I wrote there but no, I wasn't thinking of kiting there. If you position what looks like good target upfront and the enemies make beeline for them, clustering together in the process and rendering themselves as good target to drop aoe spell or rain of arrows, this allows you to take out multiple enemies effectively and there's no "kiting" involved. Similarly, focusing your entire team on enemies one by one and cutting them down fast this way, instead of everyone getting tangled in their own little duels for prolonged lengths of time. Finally, the 'divide and conquer' tactics of trimming down groups with CC abilities to allow you to tackle them in more manageable numbers, maybe even to the point where the number advantage is actually on your side. All this can be done in RPGs (it was certainly possible in DA:O) without use of stealth. Yes, it can be called "alpha strikes" but that's perfectly reasonable combat tactic, and it works. I don't consider using your heavy-hitting abilities from the onset to be any kind of "exploit".But that's basically exploiting the AI through kiting. In an RPG, you're not really in a position to ambush. To actually make this type of combat work, you'd have to totally rework the mechanics to be based primarily around stealth and alpha strikes.
I don't think it's insane at all. Yes, humans don't generally stand a chance against ogres, dragons or even bears or wolves when both sides fight unarmed. But that's why we use our ingenuity to even out the field -- why we clad ourselves in steel that protects us better than any hide protects our foes, why we bring weapons that can cut better than any claws. That's why, lacking the natural strength of much larger animals we again invent devices which can shoot projectiles with strength that can pierce not only hides of these animals, but even that steel we protect ourselves with. And if all that wasn't enough then in the fantasy settings we always can fall back on the convenient "the wizard did it".I think that's unavoidable in any RPG with an epic story. If the PC and friends are mediocre, average and comparable to town guards, then it is downright insane that four of them survive for more than a few seconds against an ogre (much less a dragon).
I'm not saying I like it, but... what alternative do you suggest? Considering the shortcomings of "Symmetrical Combat Mechanics" others have pointed out, which rpg do you think has nailed this down? I'm seriously asking, because I've never known one that does what you seem to be wanting correctly.
Baldur's Gate. Letho in TW2.
How is Baldur's Gate better? Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but... it's kinda bullshit.Baldur's Gate. Letho in TW2.
How is Baldur's Gate better? Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but... it's kinda bullshit.
Especially the midlevels of Shadows of Amn. Many of the encounters you face require specific protections and contingencies so you don't die instantly (and on higher difficulties die PERMANENTLY). Which, you know, could be okay, but there's no way to ****** know what to expect around the next corner, or what abilities and protections your enemy will have.
It's trial and error gameplay at it's absolute worst.
How is Baldur's Gate better? Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but... it's kinda bullshit.
Especially the midlevels of Shadows of Amn. Many of the encounters you face require specific protections and contingencies so you don't die instantly (and on higher difficulties die PERMANENTLY). Which, you know, could be okay, but there's no way to ****** know what to expect around the next corner, or what abilities and protections your enemy will have.
It's trial and error gameplay at it's absolute worst.
You can have a braod enough spell and item list to get around that, but yes not having a magic sword to face those vampires is frustrating..and it damn well should be, they are VAMPIRE not muggers, a major threat to the integrity of the city, not some random guys, they should require preparation, planning and proper execution to kill.
The bandits that are a major threat when they are the same or higher level than you get obliterated when you hit your stride, not because they got nerfed, but because they follow the same rules as you, and you have levelled past them, you do to them, what an NPC group of your parties power would have done to you, turn about is fair play. Also the dragons in that series still rank as the scariest dragons I have fought, intelligent, spell casting monstrosities that know how to defend themselves against pesky adventurers.
How is Baldur's Gate better? Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but... it's kinda bullshit.
Especially the midlevels of Shadows of Amn. Many of the encounters you face require specific protections and contingencies so you don't die instantly (and on higher difficulties die PERMANENTLY). Which, you know, could be okay, but there's no way to ****** know what to expect around the next corner, or what abilities and protections your enemy will have.
It's trial and error gameplay at it's absolute worst.
(You die permanently on all difficulty levels, in BG? Don't you? I suddenly realize I've never played the lower. Anyway, that's not BS, that's great. I like it a lot.)
I totally get what you mean by 'trial and error gameplay'. And that's generally bad IMO. However, I do not agree that BG represented trial and error at it's absolute worst. Far from it. The way it was used in the game, it didn't happen often, but when it did happen, you were forced to learn something new. To me, it was a learn and grow experience for the player.
Baldur's Gate. Letho in TW2.
Letho in TW2 was horrible, at least before they toned down the difficulty, I had to go from hard all the way down to easy to finish that fight. It was so bad I didn't want to repeat it so I let him go in the epilogue.
Retour en haut