70 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

. I look at it like the V.A.T.S system in Fallout 3 and NV. The gamer can choose to use it or not use it, but it is an option for the gamer. I believe options are good. It allows those who wish to see the entire engagement and position their party that opportunity.

 

Whether the combat will be difficult enough is immaterial. The tactical view allows for a playstyle regardless of difficulty. Someone may wish to play all combat in that mode. Just like some on this forum play all combat in Fallout 3 and NV in V.A.T.S.

[Sylvius the Mad]

. I look at it like the V.A.T.S system in Fallout 3 and NV. The gamer can choose to use it or not use it, but it is an option for the gamer. I believe options are good. It allows those who wish to see the entire engagement and position their party that opportunity.

Whether the combat will be difficult enough is immaterial. The tactical view allows for a playstyle regardless of difficulty. Someone may wish to play all combat in that mode. Just like some on this forum play all combat in Fallout 3 and NV in V.A.T.S.

Exactly. In NV, I went so far as to use a mod to instantly refill my action point allotment so I could use VATS for everything.

[Nerevar-as]

. I look at it like the V.A.T.S system in Fallout 3 and NV. The gamer can choose to use it or not use it, but it is an option for the gamer. I believe options are good. It allows those who wish to see the entire engagement and position their party that opportunity.

 

Whether the combat will be difficult enough is immaterial. The tactical view allows for a playstyle regardless of difficulty. Someone may wish to play all combat in that mode. Just like some on this forum play all combat in Fallout 3 and NV in V.A.T.S.

 

It is a matter of difficulty. If you beat any combat by controlling just one character and leaving the other 3 on their own, either they have brilliant AI or when you control the 4 of them and make them fight coordinated they´ll be much more effective, making encounters much easier. I don´t see how you can make a fight designed against one character work against four. Middle ground here isn´t likely to work.

[Realmzmaster]

It is a matter of difficulty. If you beat any combat by controlling just one character and leaving the other 3 on their own, either they have brilliant AI or when you control the 4 of them and make them fight coordinated they´ll be much more effective, making encounters much easier. I don´t see how you can make a fight designed against one character work against four. Middle ground here isn´t likely to work.

 

One must also take into account the skill level and ability of the gamer playing the game. Just because an encounter is made to be beaten by controlling one character  and leaving the other three on their own does not mean that the person playing can do that. The tactical view may give that person the advantage that person may need in playing the game.

 

The assumption is the tactical view needs to be tied to difficulty which is not necessary. No more than it is necessary for the V,A,T.S system in Fallout 3 and NV to be tied to difficulty. Fallout 3 and NV does not tie the use of V.A.T.S to the difficulty I see no reason why the tactical view needs to be tied to difficulty.

[In Exile]

One must also take into account the skill level and ability of the gamer playing the game. Just because an encounter is made to be beaten by controlling one character  and leaving the other three on their own does not mean that the person playing can do that. The tactical view may give that person the advantage that person may need in playing the game.

 

The assumption is the tactical view needs to be tied to difficulty which is not necessary. No more than it is necessary for the V,A,T.S system in Fallout 3 and NV to be tied to difficulty. Fallout 3 and NV does not tie the use of V.A.T.S to the difficulty I see no reason why the tactical view needs to be tied to difficulty.

 

That said, FO:NV did actually nerf VATS. 

[Realmzmaster]

That said, FO:NV did actually nerf VATS. 

That is true when comparing NV to Fallout 3, but V.A.T.S works the same in either  normal (easy) or hard mode. The difficulty does not matter. Even in Fallout 3 V.A.T.S is not tied to the difficulty level.

 

The tactical view does not have to be tied to difficulty level to be useful. It can be useful at all levels.

[aTigerslunch]

I remember it being said that can't keep using the same tactics, AI learns to some degree. Not sure what was meant exactly or how that will go, will have to see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I remember it being said that can't keep using the same tactics, AI learns to some degree. Not sure what was meant exactly or how that will go, will have to see.

The AI should only learn if we're facing the same opponent multiple times.

Why would this group of bandits learn from the failure of a different group of bandits they didn't witness?

[aTigerslunch]

I agree with that, just quoting what has been said by Devs. It could of changed by now, and honestly. I will use tactics in some fights and some fights I wont.

[In Exile]

That is true when comparing NV to Fallout 3, but V.A.T.S works the same in either  normal (easy) or hard mode. The difficulty does not matter. Even in Fallout 3 V.A.T.S is not tied to the difficulty level.

 

The tactical view does not have to be tied to difficulty level to be useful. It can be useful at all levels.

 

You're entirely right, of course. My point was only that from FO3 to NV, VATS was altered on the basis of difficulty balancing (with the view that VATS may have made the game too easy overall). So it's not impossible for Bioware to see the persistence of the tactical view as something that adds (or takes away) from difficulty. 

 

The AI should only learn if we're facing the same opponent multiple times.

Why would this group of bandits learn from the failure of a different group of bandits they didn't witness?

 

It would only make sense if enemies retreated (then we would have incentives to stop them from retreating). Now that I think about it, I would like to see this feature: the AI learns but only if enemies survive for it to learn. 

[Realmzmaster]

It would also make sense if the party is being spied upon by someone whose duty is to inform on the power and composition of the party. That someone could be employed at a keep, a party member or someone paid to shadow the party. If that were the case there should be opportunities to discover the mole.

[In Exile]

It would also make sense if the party is being spied upon by someone whose duty is to inform on the power and composition of the party. That someone could be employed at a keep, a party member or someone paid to shadow the party. If that were the case there should be opportunities to discover the mole.

 

That's true. It would also work if a party member is a traitor (perhaps moreso for enemies you face when he or she is around?). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

My point was only that from FO3 to NV, VATS was altered on the basis of difficulty balancing (with the view that VATS may have made the game too easy overall). So it's not impossible for Bioware to see the persistence of the tactical view as something that adds (or takes away) from difficulty.

It does, but people don't necessarily choose to use it for that reason (much like with VATS). If a player wants more (or less) difficulty, that's what the difficulty settings are for.

I was really annoyed by the changes to VATS in NV, because I wanted to use VATS all the time regardless of what it did to difficulty. For some players, using VATS may well make combat more difficult, not less.

While features like these can affect difficulty, that doesn't mean that difficulty dominates the decision-making surrounding them. Developers need to stop assuming the reasons we do things.

[In Exile]

It does, but people don't necessarily choose to use it for that reason (much like with VATS). If a player wants more (or less) difficulty, that's what the difficulty settings are for.

I was really annoyed by the changes to VATS in NV, because I wanted to use VATS all the time regardless of what it did to difficulty. For some players, using VATS may well make combat more difficult, not less.

While features like these can affect difficulty, that doesn't mean that difficulty dominates the decision-making surrounding them. Developers need to stop assuming the reasons we do things.

 

I fully agree with you (both in general and regarding VATS). Removing (or otherwise reducing the utility) of features for the sake of altering the difficulty is the result of a very confused approach. The proper thing to do is to add features and then alter the math behind abilities. 

[Nerevar-as]

With the isometric view i can see what's going on in combat all of the time and can react immediately, i can't do this with over-the-shoulder in practice (in theory lots of things work, in practice they do not). In the BG series against opponents who could level-drain, paralyze, kill with one hit i do not see how that works without the isometric view in reality. If i'm the only one in this thread who thinks so then so be it.

 Just think how well over-the-shoulder would work against Saarebas or Arcane Horrors from DAII - not that the camera from DAII was any better, Saarebas would spawn out of sight and 1HK you anyway. Hoping they´ve improved encounter design.

[Realmzmaster]

Difficulty level should not affect features that do not need to be tied to it. I understand why Obsidian nerfed V.A.T.S in NV. I do not agree with it. For example. in Fallout 3 while in V.A.T.S the protagonist would only take 10% of damage and enemies are significantly slowed. Obsidian changed that in NV to 75% damage taken and only the enemy target is significantly slowed.

 

Some of the changes were positive, but were far outweigh by the negative changes.

 

The encounter design in DAI should not be tied to the use or non-use of tactical view. Requiring tactical view for the harder levels does not make sense. That would be punishing a playstyle for those who prefer not to use tactical view with no real apparent gain.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Certainly. Whether to replace a disused option with another option is a discusion worth having.

But never to simply remove it.

 

 

I guess I should clarify this point: yest say out of a million gamers, zero never ever use a feature for whatever reason, does that feature become useless?  

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would disagree that no one is using it. No one is selecting it, but by being an option it has value. I would argue that the option gets used every time a relevant decision is made, regardless of which option is chosen.