Barrett's comments suggest that we can't WASD in Tac Cam.
But it could also work like ME3's cover mechanic.
I was hoping to just use Tac Cam all the time, but I love WASD over point click for exploration (in combat then obviously point click is more precise and doesn't require supervision).
Everone but the selected character. He is giving him orders directly (read:controling him).
Controled character won't follow his tactics.
They will auto-attack until told to do something else and if the player switch they will start to use their tactics.
lol i think collectively we know less now than we did at the start of this thread.
They will auto-attack until told to do something else and if the player switch they will start to use their tactics.
Yes that is true and I knew that.
But you said
You don't control any character in particular in Tac Cam, you distribute orders and let them play out (or let the AI play out). I don't think jump is a possible order.
Which is not true, since you always do control at least one character. That selected character won't do anything by his own (apart from repeating the basic attack: auto-atack) no matter what camera mode you are at the moment.
I fail to see how repetitive clicking is even slightly interesting. In the real world, we automate processes like that because they're dull amd they're more work than they need to be.
If I know now that I want my character to attack this enemy until something else happens, it's way less annoying to be able to give that command once, rather than having to give it once per second.
All right, then. I can understand that you might have an opposing point of view. That's fine. It doesn't make either of us correct or one of us more correct than the other. I find auto-attacking dull because it excludes me from doing something that I enjoy -- namely, interacting with the game. I would much rather play a game than automate it.
If you're watching television, would you like to be able to set the channel once and then enjoy the program, or would you prefer that the television forced you to confirm your viewing choice every 30 seconds? If you don't respond in time, it turns itself off
How is that better?
Also, this is not at all analogous to gaming, unless you mean to suggest that you would rather watch your game than play it.
All I really mean to say is this:
I would much rather be in control of my character than have my computer take the reins. If you don't feel the same, then so be it.
Edit:
That, of course, is when I'm not in tactical mode.
And if you want, you certainly can create a macro for your mouse that will simulate an auto-attack toggle.
Guest_E-Ro_*
I fail to see how repetitive clicking is even slightly interesting. In the real world, we automate processes like that because they're dull amd they're more work than they need to be.
If I know now that I want my character to attack this enemy until something else happens, it's way less annoying to be able to give that command once, rather than having to give it once per second.
I think this is why I don't use auto attack or understand the people that do. Imo, left clicking is not work. Especially when playing a game.
If you're watching television, would you like to be able to set the channel once and then enjoy the program, or would you prefer that the television forced you to confirm your viewing choice every 30 seconds? If you don't respond in time, it turns itself off
How is that better?
Only this isn't a movie or a tv show. Its a video-game, which is supposed to be interactive.
Again, If auto attack was in the game that would be great for the people that want it.
The interactivity comes from the strategy of moving your party member(all of them) and choosing their abilities to use in combat (for all characters). People play for different aspects. I can't stand playing just one character in a party based game. Clicking a button for a basic attack is little more than trying to give the player something to do to keep them 'occupied' if they are only controlling one character. It takes no skill to keep hitting a button or holding down a trigger. In the end, it isn't even as efficient since human error will inevitably mean time is wasted in between attacks.
The "skill" in a squad based tactical game is the tactics. Recognizing and moving characters to choke points, exploiting weaknesses, getting better ground, effective use of defenses, etc. That is where the interactivity comes in.
If you are playing a game of chess, do you expect the skill to be in thinking out the strategy or from the ability to physically move the piece on the board?
Personally, I am going to wait and see how the tactical cam is indeed implemented on PC. I feel fairly reassured at the moment that it operates like the camera we are used to in the previous games. Its actually the 'diablo'-cam which is new to the series this game and if its in an entirely separate mode, I won't necessarily need it for a party combat game.
When I'm not actively making decisions, I would. Watching the action, looking for opportunities to do something, learning about my opponents' strengths, weaknesses, and tactics.Also, this is not at all analogous to gaming, unless you mean to suggest that you would rather watch your game than play it.
I do feel the same. We're both in control. We both have our characters doing exactly what we want and nothing else. Our levels of control are identical.All I really mean to say is this:
I would much rather be in control of my character than have my computer take the reins. If you don't feel the same, then so be it.
I was hoping to just use Tac Cam all the time, but I love WASD over point click for exploration (in combat then obviously point click is more precise and doesn't require supervision).
LMB+RMB over wasd 24/7 
And at least we know that is confirmed.
If you are playing a game of chess, do you expect the skill to be in thinking out the strategy or from the ability to physically move the piece on the board?
Wow, perfect analogy. I think Papa and E-Ro need to reply to this, as it highlights exactly what I think their statements were trying to address in terms of the kind of strategy that's involved here.
edit: Slyvius's television comment is also spot on, because of the pause feature. That's what makes it work. You select your channel (tell your party what to do and who to attack), and then watch the show (un-pause to see if your plan worked or failed miserably)
Guest_E-Ro_*
But actually controlling the attack does not make it faster then auto attack. So I don't think it makes the game about button mashing.Wow, perfect analogy. I think Papa and E-Ro need to reply to this, as it highlights exactly what I think their statements were trying to address in terms of the kind of strategy that's involved here.
My last post got cut off at the end, idk how that happened, but anyway. But actually controlling the attack does not make it faster then auto attack. So I don't think it makes the game about button mashing.
I'm on my phone, so maybe I misread this. I'll be back later.
Not talking so much about which is faster, but what level of interactivity is actually involved in the 2 approaches you were talking about.
Well it`s not a big problem for me, i prefer not to autoattack, it feels more alive to me, especially when i don`t want to attack (rogue or warrior) . But i understand the complaints, and should be an option available, not a forced one.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I was thinking no tactics. Just a purely basic combat situation. But that also brings up questions.
If you were on a fighter and had him attacking an enemy Mage, then switched to a diff character but the fighter you just left had a tactic dictating he always is to engage the closest enemy melee target, he would leave the Mage and go after someone else the second you switch off?
So you would have to go into the tactics menu, in the middle of the fight, and change it so he doesn't.
That's a joke.
That's no different from normal. Tactics don't actually normally do that, it's the behaviors that typically say "go after closest enemy." You can SET it to do that, but there's never been a preset tactical option to attack the nearest enemy. They'll stay with the enemy they've been attacking until it's overridden by another tactic.
Which is not true, since you always do control at least one character. That selected character won't do anything by his own (apart from repeating the basic attack: auto-atack) no matter what camera mode you are at the moment.
I badly explained what I meant and I looped Tactics with default AI (that's a brain fart).
What I meant by "you aren't directly controlling the character" is that in tactical mode you use click-to-move to tell the character where to go, then unpause to see them move there (they will move to that spot even when selected).
In the tactical cam mode, the selected character will do these things on his own:
- move to target (i.e. close in on the target selected to auto-attack it or execute a queued skill on it)
- auto-attack target until death
- pursue target if it moves
and if it works like in DAO
- fight back if attacked (via auto-attacks)
- I also remember selected characters auto selecting an alive nearby target if they have none currently, but that might have been a mod forcing tactics to work on selected characters.
If you are playing a game of chess, do you expect the skill to be in thinking out the strategy or from the ability to physically move the piece on the board?
I'll give this a shot because I think this raises a great point. Obviously, in chess I would expect that strategy, not the nimbleness of one's fingers, should determine skill .
Videogames are different from chess, though. With chess, you don't necessarily have to worry whether a piece can change combat dynamics -- pieces can only perform very specific, simple actions. In videogames, this isn't always the case.
Inquisition offers the player two ways to fight, and the player may switch between these two fighting styles at will. One, the tactical approach, is the one that we're used to. It's still there, it still has toggle auto-attacks, and it still works, as far as we both can tell, much like DAO's combat system. The other system is an over-the shoulder mode, perhaps similar to Mass Effect's, though it looks more like a hack'n'slash that allows you to juggle party members at will. It doesn't have an auto-attack.
This is an old video, but I think it's a pretty good indicator of where BioWare wants to take the over-the-shoulder combat mode:
Strategy in this game isn't restricted to the tactical mode, nor is action restricted to the over-the shoulder camera. Perhaps what frightens people most is that the exclusion of auto-attack may indicate that the over-the-shoulder view is a hack'n'slash. What then of the tactics we loved in DAO? I don't think we have to worry. It still looks like we get our tactical system from DAO, and it also looks like we get something completely new that might add fun elements to the game. I like both types of games, and I think both modes will offer players intriguing, albeit quite different, strategies and tactics to invent and employ.
And now I guess I'll say what it is that I didn't want to say because it sounds pretty terrible:
Who would want auto-attacking in Dark Souls or Skyrim or The Witcher? Would anyone want it in Fable (I didn't really dig the combat in Fable, myself)? BioWare is trying to appeal to the gamers who enjoyed those games, just as they hope to hold the attention of those of us who enjoy tactical gameplay. Inquisition is Bioware's attempt to redefine Dragon Age's combat system and make it unique to the series. This isn't Origins, this isn't DA2, and this most certainly isn't chess; it's something different and new, though it hopefully retains some of the better elements of those games.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Barrett's comments suggest that we can't WASD in Tac Cam.
But it could also work like ME3's cover mechanic.
Wait, what?
Now I'm hopelessly confused.
Edit: ME3?
Frostbite is not just an FPS engine - you just see a lot of games developed with it as FPSes. Frostbite was touted as an engine with a highlight on shading, animation, and a lot of toolset integration for dynamic and changing assets, such as destructibles, etc. And this is not counting all the other toolset tools that aren't told about, but can be observed in the other Frostbite engine games. I haven't seen much of the other Frostbite engine games in detail, but a glance can tell that there might be a lot more under-the-hood awesomeness that enables all, if not most of the Frostbite capability while having some modicum of efficiency on lower-performance tiers.
There's also DA:I probably having much more complex hit detection and attack physics than the previous two games, with having projectile redirection as a game aspect. That's over having multiple axii of motion available - for example, you can choose to jump down a ledge instead of just pathing down using the stairs to take a shortcut.
I just wish you can have information in your UI on what mode you're using, and perhaps a quick switch toggle to swap between tac-cam and action cam. With the multiple mode addition, on PC having space as an omni-toggle to pause and play might be counter-intuitive with multiple modes in play. Without additional information about how the pause command works for the game as a whole, a lot of misinformation can be seen - an example would be a scenario posted earlier - if you're playing with only the Inquisitor in the party, sending a command to attack a target while paused and unpausing makes characters not do the command they were told to, i.e the assumption that action mode overrides commands sent in tactical mode while there are no commands being sent.
What I do hope is just that pause changes combat to tac-cam and unpausing makes it stay there, and to drive back towards action-cam, you use a keybind/controller command, OR zoom back down to default camera levels. The downside to this might be added complexity on how to swap between two styles of play, but it'll be really appreciated if this was the implementation.
Putting auto-attack in action mode might be tricky given that auto-attacks have hit-detection built to them, and each weapon has different strike positions, but a solution would be changing auto-attack hold to simply a toggle, continually auto-attacking if it's turned on, regardless of position and movement direction. It would function the same was as the new sustain skills in the game, such as the shield warrior block skill, or the knight enchanter spirit sword skill. It feels cohesive, in a sense, but I think it runs against consistency in action mode. At least, with the current implementation, you don't run in DA:O and DA2 weirdness such as chasing after a target before attacking, and that you can enable attack on the move.
That also reminds me - being able to attack on the move's a different change compared to the previous implementation of staying still while attacking, and it does lend to a certain fluidity in combat. Also, I think it might be part of a problem - if you do enable auto-attack on, it runs aground with toggle/sustain skills, given that some of the skills here have activatable combat effects with animations, as compared to previous games where it adds just adds a passive buff at you, unless of course, when you turn on a toggle, other similar, animation locking toggles get turned off.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more point and click command style's just outdated if a game tries to integrate combat in motion, alongside with dynamic environment and multiple movement axii. With what Bioware's doing, it's probably something really interesting, since it seems they did manage to pull it off, albeit with some limitations - the streams didn't show or mention contextual command detection of destructible objects, such as in-world barriers (barricades, tables, low walls or destructible walls different from passage-way blocking) and in-combat spawnables (I did hear something about creating walls of ice to impede movement, not just as a skill effect, but as an honest to god ice wall). Given that the AI can detect and do something about it, there might be some manner of context detection for actions towards objects, but I don't really think movement support's a part of it. It's better if I was mistaken, though, because it really lends a lot of complexity towards the game's pathfinding.
Edit 1: Bolded some things to take note of.
It's tied to camera mode. In Action mode (3rd person cam) it's always manual, in tac cam it's always auto. On all platforms.
Okay thanks. I kind of wish it wasn't tied to the camera modes but that's okay.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I just wish you can have information in your UI on what mode you're using, and perhaps a quick switch toggle to swap between tac-cam and action cam. With the multiple mode addition, on PC having space as an omni-toggle to pause and play might be counter-intuitive with multiple modes in play. Without additional information about how the pause command works for the game as a whole, a lot of misinformation can be seen - an example would be a scenario posted earlier - if you're playing with only the Inquisitor in the party, sending a command to attack a target while paused and unpausing makes characters not do the command they were told to, i.e the assumption that action mode overrides commands sent in tactical mode while there are no commands being sent.
What I do hope is just that pause changes combat to tac-cam and unpausing makes it stay there, and to drive back towards action-cam, you use a keybind/controller command, OR zoom back down to default camera levels. The downside to this might be added complexity on how to swap between two styles of play, but it'll be really appreciated if this was the implementation.
This really isn't an issue. Sending a command adds to the queue. The character does the action. Then, depending on whether you're in tactical view or not, the character auto-attacks or doesn't.
At no point does pausing affect anything. There was never any information to suggest so, to my knowledge.
That's the misconception - when I say attack order, it implies moving to a target, sticking to that target and auto-attacking continually as a continuous, non-stop event in the queue until target dies or is turned off by a skill command. What I can gleam from what people are trying to say is that reverting back to action mode overrides this command and turns it off.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
That's the misconception - when I say attack order, it implies moving to a target, sticking to that target and auto-attacking continually as a continuous, non-stop event in the queue until target dies or is turned off by a skill command. What I can gleam from what people are trying to say is that reverting back to action mode overrides this command and turns it off.
There is no reverting back to action mode, because pause doesn't pull you out of action mode (are we really calling it that now?). Pause is part of action mode which means you do what you normally do in action mode: go to the enemy, attack once, then nothing happens.
At least, I think so. Saying that out loud, combined with your phrase "action mode," I feel less sure of myself. But they've said nothing to indicate otherwise, have they?
That's the misconception - when I say attack order, it implies moving to a target, sticking to that target and auto-attacking continually as a continuous, non-stop event in the queue until target dies or is turned off by a skill command. What I can gleam from what people are trying to say is that reverting back to action mode overrides this command and turns it off.
That is correct with some clarification.
You issue an attack command to your currently controlled character while in Tac Cam. You then unpause and return to OTS view (or return first then unpause the order is unimportant)
1) Your character will still move to target
2) Your character will still make an attack on the target
3a) If you remained in Tac Cam your Character will continue attacking
3b) If you switched to OTS / 3rd person view then your character WILL NOT continue attacking.
The difference lies in step 3 between remaining in Tac Cam and returning to 3rd Person view.
There is no reverting back to action mode, because pause doesn't pull you out of action mode (are we really calling it that now?). Pause is part of action mode which means you do what you normally do in action mode: go to the enemy, attack once, then nothing happens.
At least, I think so. Saying that out loud, combined with your phrase "action mode," I feel less sure of myself. But they've said nothing to indicate otherwise, have they?
I believe they mean 3rd person view by saying Action Mode.
That is correct with some clarification.
You issue an attack command to your currently controlled character while in Tac Cam. You then unpause and return to OTS view (or return first then unpause the order is unimportant)
1) Your character will still move to target
2) Your character will still make an attack on the target
3a) If you remained in Tac Cam your Character will continue attacking
3b) If you switched to OTS / 3rd person view then your character WILL NOT continue attacking.
The difference lies in step 3 between remaining in Tac Cam and returning to 3rd Person view.
Wait, is that really what people think about? I was really under the impression that an attack command isn't just a single attack, but a continual attack on a target, i.e not a single action but an interruptible sustained effect. If that's really what's implemented, then I think it would probably be best for them to change attack commands towards interruptible sustained effects. If we take into account the AI manager as well, make it so that the manager can interrupt it on it's own leisure, as demanded of the tactics set.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I believe they mean 3rd person view by saying Action Mode.
I recognize what they mean, it's just a little part of me deep deep inside is sad when I hear the phrase "action mode" used for DA and realize it's disturbingly applicable.
Retour en haut