26 réponses à ce sujet

[Dunii Lo'Cerlyn]

In DA:I, you can only map 8 abilities, even though you can potentially learn far more. What I'm wondering is if this was intentional or a very poor design oversight?

Coming from Origins (I couldn't bring myself to replay the terrible DA2), I feel like combat is a huge step backwards. The tactical camera nearly useless thanks to its unusable camera angles. Switching characters shouldn't center the camera on them, especially after painstakingly moving the camera to a view that you feel gives you the most tactical insight or when you wanted to move that character somewhere very specific. Why does changing angle change the camera zoom level? Tactical camera should just be a zoomed out view to give you the best look of the battlefield, and not the cumbersome wreck it currently is.

But this post isn't about the tactical camera – sorry, I was side tracked. What happened to the USEFUL radial menu of Dragon Age: Origins? Holding it open allowed you to pause, scan the battlefield, and easily issue commands. This was especially useful when selecting combat abilities to use since you didn't have to remember the very different hotkey layouts of every single NPC. I only ever mapped my most frequently used attacks and used the wheel for everything else.

And didn't Origins have auto attack? I don't see how me constantly smashing a button is supposed to he more fun for me. Especially when I was trying to get used to the PC controls and would often just hit air. By the way, this game is nearly unplayable with mouse and keyboard. I had to buy a wired Xbox 360 controller before I was finally able to enjoy and appreciate the game.

I guess I'm kind of going off all in different directions here, but I just wish the combat was closer to that of Origins. I feel that game offers more tactical freedom whereas Inquisition offers next to none and feels more like I'm playing a game like Dynasty Warriors.

[Wulfram]

Yes, it's intentional.

 

Considering the final boss is like level 19 max it barely seems to matter.

[AlanC9]

And didn't Origins have auto attack? I don't see how me constantly smashing a button is supposed to he more fun for me. Especially when I was trying to get used to the PC controls and would often just hit air. By the way, this game is nearly unplayable with mouse and keyboard. I had to buy a wired Xbox 360 controller before I was finally able to enjoy and appreciate the game.

Were you able to play Skyrim? I don't see melee in the two games as being all that different.

[Dunii Lo'Cerlyn]

Were you able to play Skyrim? I don't see melee in the two games as being all that different.

I must have missed the part where Skyrim had you control an entire party and boasted its tactical combat system.

[AlanC9]

I don't follow that. You were complaining about having to hit a button to strike. Surely at any given moment you're only trying to do that with one character.

[Kantr]

In skyrim you hit the mouse buttons to hit.

 

In origins you right clicked, and then just pressed assorted numbers from 1 - 0 (or clicked on them)

 

In Inquisition. You aim and target then press r all the time while also pressing 1-8

[AlanC9]

I could've sworn left-click also attacked. (Can't check ATM since this PC won't run DAI.) Or are you saying you prefer holding "r."

[Kantr]

I could've sworn left-click also attacked. (Can't check ATM since this PC won't run DAI.) Or are you saying you prefer holding "r."

I prefer r oddly enough.

 

But yea left click attacks as well.

[Sartoz]

My view?

It came from a console design with Multiplayer in mind. In a MP environment, were quick action = survival, 16-24 skills to choose from doesn't cut it. Look at ME3 Multiplayer design. Simple, easy to understand.

 

Fantasy games are really not suited for multiplayer action unless you place limits on a character's skill set.

 

 

[Dunii Lo'Cerlyn]

I don't follow that. You were complaining about having to hit a button to strike. Surely at any given moment you're only trying to do that with one character.

When cycling through characters or abilities, auto attack makes more sense, at least to me. In any case, my post was more about being limited in your ability use rather than the lack of an auto attack. Manual attacking is not so bad with a game pad, but I feel like auto attacking is definitely a lot more useful for those unfortunate enough to use keyboard and mouse. Plus tactical view has auto attacking if I really need it, but I may hate the camera and stick to manual.

My view?
It came from a console design with Multiplayer in mind. In a MP environment, were quick action = survival, 16-24 skills to choose from doesn't cut it. Look at ME3 Multiplayer design. Simple, easy to understand.

Fantasy games are really not suited for multiplayer action unless you place limits on a character's skill set.

Okay, this makes A LOT of sense, thanks. I almost forgot this game had a multiplayer compliment. And wasn't it supposed to be multiplayer only at first? I haven't played ME3 yet to compare.

I'm sure once I get even more time in, I'll be more used to the controls and combat. I've had it since launch and only managed about 30 hours so far. Still, I'll forever miss the combat from Origins which I still feel is easily better.

[b10d1v]

Yes, 8 are supposed to make you think before you go into battle, but in practice it's not too effective, especially with enemies with various immunities and appear to change and animation models that are sub-par.  (that is being kind!)

 

Glad to hear that you got a controller to work in DAI, it doesn't even even sense mine - had to check the light to see if it was plugged in.  Not surprised with the random reset of the controlling character and those times when the keyboard and mouse "just halt" -the hardware controller in DAI is a mess!

 

Your mouse remark is closer to the truth, the absurd "clicks" do put wear and tear on the mouse.  Almost like another "study" in human behavior to see how purchases for hardware might change.....

 

Pausing DAO would allow you to look over the battle and change tactics, just did not have the "broken" bells and whistles. DAO also had none of the "world space" issues that plague the player field of vision.

 

My character hit 20 some time ago doing every quest, often following someone's bug to see if I can duplicate it, and the loot has nearly gone to zero, the difficulty has dropped tremendously- there seems to be a design issue here ....

 

Good luck and congratulations - incase an achievement bugged out 

[Setz]

In skyrim you hit the mouse buttons to hit.

 

In origins you right clicked, and then just pressed assorted numbers from 1 - 0 (or clicked on them)

 

In Inquisition. You aim and target then press r all the time while also pressing 1-8
 

This is what I don't understand. You're keyboard only does 1-0, and there's 14 spots on the quickbar for DAO. 2 for potions, since you don't have the potion radial menu they do now. So 12 spots on the quickbar. Your passive skills were sustained. So basically you had 2-4 slots of sustainable abilities that weren't active attacks. That leaves you with maybe 8-10 actives. Not a huge step down just to make it 8, plus you get tonics and grenades from your second radial bar.

Do you really miss those MAYBE 2 abilities? Assuming you didn't have 4 sustainable. 

You're telling me you have no tactical choices anymore because you're 2 abilities short? Abilities you wouldn't have really even noticed in DAO until the very end of the game. Even though now they give you tonics and grenades to adjust each character specifically. If you're characters dying easily, get them a rock armor tonic. If you want more attack, get them a mighty offense potion. Not to mention every character can get an AOE heal with healing mist, or attack with antivan fire, jar of bees, Pitch grenade.

So you trade off 2 active attacks, and you get any combination of 2 tonics/grenades you'd like. 

I know it seems like you have less, but that's just because you have more choices. With passives you recieve bonuses without having to sustain them, and there's ALOT of passives in this game. In DAO you didn't get many passive, mostly just sustainable skills. 

If you're complaining about having to click to attack, well then I don't know what to say to you that people already haven't. Many rpgs are going the way of action rpgs, because auto attack is BORING as hell. That obviously is IMO. Some people might not like it, obviously the majority do.

[Kantr]

This is what I don't understand. You're keyboard only does 1-0, and there's 14 spots on the quickbar for DAO. 2 for potions, since you don't have the potion radial menu they do now. So 12 spots on the quickbar. Your passive skills were sustained. So basically you had 2-4 slots of sustainable abilities that weren't active attacks. That leaves you with maybe 8-10 actives. Not a huge step down just to make it 8, plus you get tonics and grenades from your second radial bar.

Do you really miss those MAYBE 2 abilities? Assuming you didn't have 4 sustainable. 

You're telling me you have no tactical choices anymore because you're 2 abilities short? Abilities you wouldn't have really even noticed in DAO until the very end of the game. Even though now they give you tonics and grenades to adjust each character specifically. If you're characters dying easily, get them a rock armor tonic. If you want more attack, get them a mighty offense potion. Not to mention every character can get an AOE heal with healing mist, or attack with antivan fire, jar of bees, Pitch grenade.

So you trade off 2 active attacks, and you get any combination of 2 tonics/grenades you'd like. 

I know it seems like you have less, but that's just because you have more choices. With passives you recieve bonuses without having to sustain them, and there's ALOT of passives in this game. In DAO you didn't get many passive, mostly just sustainable skills. 

If you're complaining about having to click to attack, well then I don't know what to say to you that people already haven't. Many rpgs are going the way of action rpgs, because auto attack is BORING as hell. That obviously is IMO. Some people might not like it, obviously the majority do.

You could have more than 10. you just had to click on them.

[Setz]

When cycling through characters or abilities, auto attack makes more sense, at least to me. In any case, my post was more about being limited in your ability use rather than the lack of an auto attack. Manual attacking is not so bad with a game pad, but I feel like auto attacking is definitely a lot more useful for those unfortunate enough to use keyboard and mouse. Plus tactical view has auto attacking if I really need it, but I may hate the camera and stick to manual.

You realize that the computers AI will continue to keep the characters attacking even if you're not actively commanding them right? So essentially every character you are not, is auto attacking.

[Setz]

You could have more than 10. you just had to click on them.

Ah gotcha.

[b10d1v]

In skyrim you are largely alone until you mod it!

 

The number of companion mods and behavior models says a lot about what people want in a story.  Some of the quests are like completely new games within the framework - except things like when the Normandy crew crash in skyrim.  Even a heavily modded Skyrim is more stable than DAI, not that it does not take work to keep it that way.

There are three major issues in DAI and should have curbed their decision to launch:

1. Communication issues between Frostbite and the RPG elements (Game stalls and processor stress -not direct a video issue)
2. Hardware scanning issues (controls drop out or change at random)
3. Incomplete RPG elements (Too big to discuss here)

(3) includes issues like not returning the player to the original worldview after an animation, generally poor character models and missing incomplete and simply wrong items, among other things.

[Dunii Lo'Cerlyn]

You realize that the computers AI will continue to keep the characters attacking even if you're not actively commanding them right? So essentially every character you are not, is auto attacking.

And you realize that you, the player, are not automatically continuing an attack when you cycle to another character, right? No [expletive for feces], your non-player controlled characters will continue to attack automatically.

And, again, this post is more about why we aren't allowed to use our complete arsenal of abilities in battle and not about a gripe I had with auto attacking. My preference for an RPG where I can issue commands strategically and watch the action unfold in real time rather than an action RPG like Skyrim or Mass Effect is not where I meant this discussion to go. If the tactical camera wasnt so poorly implemented, I would have never even made that comment in the first place.

[b10d1v]

I must have missed the part where Skyrim had you control an entire party and boasted its tactical combat system.

Correct, team mates is a mute point, you had companions.  Even with a PC and the ability to mod the game, you had limited tactics, other than pausing the game. 

One item that gets at your mouse issues was tactical spell casting -the animation ran for several seconds and is basically like a mage in DAI, however, the 4 or so animated casting poses are just 1 mouse click and it always returns you to the original "worldview", not some random position - so you see my take on the poor animation.  There was another that allowed different sequences, so one click and the mage went to town.  Archers had similar mods.

The other class was Behaviors and idles and here you could tell companions what target to follow, hell you could send them out shopping, to cook ,make potions or or hunting for food and supplies.  This gets at the evolution of the team mate or generic NPC, they become largely independent.  Sera's developer was clearly trying to capture this behavior.  Several of us sent him the IP rites along with any mods we described, no doubt that DAI would have been a VERY different game if he had achieved that goal.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I know it seems like you have less, but that's just because you have more choices. With passives you recieve bonuses without having to sustain them, and there's ALOT of passives in this game. In DAO you didn't get many passive, mostly just sustainable skills.

 

No, you really don't. Given the way the game is geared to focus on guard/barrier, every character that can do so has to have those abilities mapped to one of the eight skill slots, meaning they're essential. Without it, you'll just get murdered.

 

It's actually lessened the builds I can pull off because of things like that combined with the ability limit.

[b10d1v]

People have been complaining about the cloud losing their saved games - I just lost the feed had to reload the page 3 times to get the history.  Server issues?

 

Anyway thanks for the chat - I'm going to see if my broken game can be completed, as the loot has largely failed, really no sense in doing any more side quests in this condition.

[Setz]

And you realize that you, the player, are not automatically continuing an attack when you cycle to another character, right? No [expletive for feces], your non-player controlled characters will continue to attack automatically.

And, again, this post is more about why we aren't allowed to use our complete arsenal of abilities in battle and not about a gripe I had with auto attacking. My preference for an RPG where I can issue commands strategically and watch the action unfold in real time rather than an action RPG like Skyrim or Mass Effect is not where I meant this discussion to go. If the tactical camera wasnt so poorly implemented, I would have never even made that comment in the first place.

A: You're already manually attacking from character A. Switching to character B requires you to "continue" pressing the attack key. Not that hard.

B: At level 24, and done the game, I have 11 active abilities. Including my inquisitor ability and abilities I took just for con+. So I'm missing out on having 3 abilities not on my bar. What 3 extra actives do you need to have that would make all the difference in your gameplay? 

[Setz]

No, you really don't. Given the way the game is geared to focus on guard/barrier, every character that can do so has to have those abilities mapped to one of the eight skill slots, meaning they're essential. Without it, you'll just get murdered.

 

It's actually lessened the builds I can pull off because of things like that combined with the ability limit.

And yet in DAO you're required to have the whole shield tree to have a proper defender, but being required to have 1 guard ability is horrible because?... And I'm not sure what you mean by every character that can do so needs to. You need 1 defender, and 1 mage with barrier. If you had 2 warriors, and 2 mages, only 1 warrior would need taunts and guard, and only one mage would need barrier. If you want to double it that's fine, but definitely not necessary. 

[Paul E Dangerously]

And yet in DAO you're required to have the whole shield tree to have a proper defender, but being required to have 1 guard ability is horrible because?... And I'm not sure what you mean by every character that can do so needs to. You need 1 defender, and 1 mage with barrier. If you had 2 warriors, and 2 mages, only 1 warrior would need taunts and guard, and only one mage would need barrier. If you want to double it that's fine, but definitely not necessary. 

 

See how quickly a warrior with no guard bites it. Iron Bull is a good one here, if you don't build him properly.

[Setz]

See how quickly a warrior with no guard bites it. Iron Bull is a good one here, if you don't build him properly.

I played a warrior with no guard. It was fine. Games done, level 24 all dragons down...

[b10d1v]

May not be able to complete the game, just left the Knights tomb was grabbing a marker and 3 giants 7 brontos 6 red templars and a dragon attacked -got to be a bug!  Its normal and most had shields!  This game can get very odd at times, especially if you have broken quests.