128 réponses à ce sujet

[Fire Snake]

As someone who has yet to play the game I am unable to reconcile the many complaints I've read (and seen) regarding the tac-cam with Sylvius' account of it.

 

I do like the idea of a free-roaming camera, which would be objectively superior to the previous games' cameras in terms of mobility and the extent of control possible. However, I am concerned that this necessitates far greater camera management, which may be found annoying. More to the point, I am not convinced that the tac cam as currently implemented is adequate (not just for myself, but for consumers in general). I am also doubtful that the tac cam in its current state with the segregated action mode is superior overall to the camera and control system from Origins (or even DA2), particularly for my own playstyle.

 

Assuming a greater level of camera management wouldn't bother me personally and leaving aside the issue of segregation between the action and tac-cam modes, what concerns me about the tac cam are things like the camera getting stuck on objects, losing camera control with the camera centring to each character selected, the lack of zoom distance to easily survey the battlefield at a glance, the inability to zoom out indoors/through ceilings and the inability to tilt the camera to look up. I would love to know how Sylvius (or anyone for that matter) can play the game extensively in tac cam without these issues bothering them, as it would give me greater confidence that I would actually enjoy the game enough so I might buy it. 

 

According to the Patch 2 notes Bioware have already "Added an option to enable / disable tactical camera on mouse wheel scroll out" which is a good start to making the tac cam more functional.

 

Sylvius, if I might ask, do you use the cheat-engine hack for the tac-cam or do you find it unnecessary? Also, what improvements, if any, would you like to see made to the tac-cam?

[Sylvius the Mad]

i mean he's making an issue out of something that isn't an issue... complaining that there wasn't that function when there was never a need for it because of how the game was designed; being that the camera could already zoom out a fair distance, and you could see enemy details on the minimap... both of which make it possible to look more than enough ahead and plan appropriately

I like to attack from range. The longer the better. In DAO, the Tactical Camera was no good for, because it wouldn't look at targets far away. To select them, I had to change camera modes, and thus the camera had to be tethered to a character.

That's what I'm talking about, and in this respect the DAI camera is superior.

DAI's camera also needs to be superior to compensate for other aspects of DAI''s design. Since DAO allowed auto-attack regardless of camera mode, switching cameras was simply an inconvenience. DAI does not, so having to switch cameras now would make the game nearly unplayable (for me).

My point was that the increased zoom of which people keep lamenting the lack is also moot, as the increased range of motion of DAI's camera makes that zoom unnecessary.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd say he's just needlessly nitpicking and pretending he doesn't understand.
The problem is rather clear and obvious, I don't really see how playing dumb is useful.

If it were clear and obvious, I wouldn't have drawn attention to the error.

To a lurker reading the thread, my response is the only thing stopping him from concluding that the game lacks auto-attack. The people commenting in the thread are not the thread's only audience.

[Razir-Samus]

I like to attack from range. The longer the better. In DAO, the Tactical Camera was no good for, because it wouldn't look at targets far away. To select them, I had to change camera modes, and thus the camera had to be tethered to a character.

i understand your complaint but i never had the problem myself... the last playthrough i had in DA:O was a ranged rogue, bows had a max range and that range was almost always below the point of the where the mobs i knew i'd be engaging were stacked up, and even if it wasn't, i could send my team and stay back anyway... you are not alone in these games, and you don't need a mile between you and a mob before you can effectively attack from range

 

and in DA2... well, i don't pick an issue with it in this either but i see where you're coming from, being that many encounters will only begin when you get near specific locations as the mob spawns trigger, it makes it hard to begin an engagement from range when you are already swarmed

 

maybe it's another issue that the console crowd have to deal with and the pc crowd don't, but all i can offer is perspective

 

 

 

to add to the main topic: if the tactical camera functioned like it did in DA:O instead of having the consolized control method and various other quirks, i'd happily stay in it instead of using the equally cumbersome "action mode"

[Sylvius the Mad]

As someone who has yet to play the game I am unable to reconcile the many complaints I've read (and seen) regarding the tac-cam with Sylvius' account of it.

I do like the idea of a free-roaming camera, which would be objectively superior to the previous games' cameras in terms of mobility and the extent of control possible. However, I am concerned that this necessitates far greater camera management, which may be found annoying. More to the point, I am not convinced that the tac cam as currently implemented is adequate (not just for myself, but for consumers in general). I am also doubtful that the tac cam in its current state with the segregated action mode is superior overall to the camera and control system from Origins (or even DA2), particularly for my own playstyle.

Sylvius, if I might ask, do you use the cheat-engine hack for the tac-cam or do you find it unnecessary? Also, what improvements, if any, would you like to see made to the tac-cam?

Sure.

There are two answers to that question.

As the camera is, I'd like to be able to control its elevation and tilt independently (not currently possible), and I'd like to be able to look up. And having the camera snapping to a selected character needs to be more predictable.

But the camera could be improved more with a fumdamental change. As it is, the Action Cam chases the selected character, while the Tac Cam roams. Except it doesn't really. The Tac Cam chases an invisible character who can't jump or climb. And that invisible character gets stuck on stuff. That also means that the movement of the camera is always relative to the specific piece of ground on which the invisible character is standing.

This causes substantial problems in areas with ladders, or other significant topography. It's not possible to move the Tac Cam up a ladder. The best you can do is send one character up the ladder, and then try to get the camera to snap to that character.

I would much rather an actual free-roaming camera that wasn't tied to that invisible character. Or, if that invisible character is required by the engine, instead of having it move around the terrain, instead have it move around the floor of the level (which is well below the terrain) and let us control its height manually.

I don't know what difficulties they had with the engine, but having the camera attached to this invisible character is fairly clumsy.

[Fire Snake]

Sure.

There are two answers to that question.

As the camera is, I'd like to be able to control its elevation and tilt independently (not currently possible), and I'd like to be able to look up. And having the camera snapping to a selected character needs to be more predictable.

But the camera could be improved more with a fumdamental change. As it is, the Action Cam chases the selected character, while the Tac Cam roams. Except it doesn't really. The Tac Cam chases an invisible character who can't jump or climb. And that invisible character gets stuck on stuff. That also means that the movement of the camera is always relative to the specific piece of ground on which the invisible character is standing.

This causes substantial problems in areas with ladders, or other significant topography. It's not possible to move the Tac Cam up a ladder. The best you can do is send one character up the ladder, and then try to get the camera to snap to that character.

I would much rather an actual free-roaming camera that wasn't tied to that invisible character. Or, if that invisible character is required by the engine, instead of having it move around the terrain, instead have it move around the floor of the level (which is well below the terrain) and let us control its height manually.

I don't know what difficulties they had with the engine, but having the camera attached to this invisible character is fairly clumsy.

 

Thank you for that, though I had gathered this much. I was more interested in hopefully getting some insight into your playstyle that enables you to enjoy this camera more than Origins, considering that many people report the opposite. Those who are outright praising the tac cam seem rare. At this point I can only conclude that differences in playstyle are key in causing this discrepancy in people's experiences, as I find it hard to believe that all the people complaining about the camera are merely unable to adjust or lacking proficiency in its use. 

 

It seems to me that (for whatever reason(s)) the freedom the tac cam provides is more valuable to you than the issues it has detract from your experience. Obviously the opposite would be true for those complaining. I would like to understand why this is.

 

Do you use the cheat-engine hack for the tac cam or do you consider it unnecessary? I understand that the tac cam has more mobility than Origins' camera, however I struggle to see how this makes up for not being able to see a larger area of the battlefield at once.

 

***

 

On a side note, I just really love those screenshots from the cheat engine hack. I love the look and feel of the isometric perspective, and being able to peruse a location as a picture.

[Akka le Vil]

If it were clear and obvious, I wouldn't have drawn attention to the error.

To a lurker reading the thread, my response is the only thing stopping him from concluding that the game lacks auto-attack. The people commenting in the thread are not the thread's only audience.

 

Arguing in bad faith doesn't convince the guy in front of you and it makes you look disingenuous. What's the point ?

 

If you were just honestly trying to clear a possible misunderstanding, you would have said "actually, the tac-cam has auto-attack, it's the third-person view which lacks it".

 

Instead, you just played dumb by pretending not to understand the problem. It's not correcting a mistake, it's trolling.

[AlanC9]

....even if it wasn't, i could send my team and stay back anyway... you are not alone in these games, and you don't need a mile between you and a mob before you can effectively attack from range

What if he wants to keep the whole party back? The camera shouldn't stop him from doing so.

[AlanC9]

SurAs it is, the Action Cam chases the selected character, while the Tac Cam roams. Except it doesn't really. The Tac Cam chases an invisible character who can't jump or climb. And that invisible character gets stuck on stuff. That also means that the movement of the camera is always relative to the specific piece of ground on which the invisible character is standing.

I'm coming around to the idea that this really is an engine problem

[Sylvius the Mad]

Arguing in bad faith doesn't convince the guy in front of you and it makes you look disingenuous. What's the point ?

If you were just honestly trying to clear a possible misunderstanding, you would have said "actually, the tac-cam has auto-attack, it's the third-person view which lacks it".

Instead, you just played dumb by pretending not to understand the problem. It's not correcting a mistake, it's trolling.

I made true statements. Anyone who draws false conclusions from that is on his own.

I will admit to having a Socratic conversation style. I find that people are more willing to accept new ideas if they think they found them on their own, so I'd rather just raise questions than tell people what they should think.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Thank you for that, though I had gathered this much. I was more interested in hopefully getting some insight into your playstyle that enables you to enjoy this camera more than Origins, considering that many people report the opposite. Those who are outright praising the tac cam seem rare. At this point I can only conclude that differences in playstyle are key in causing this discrepancy in people's experiences, as I find it hard to believe that all the people complaining about the camera are merely unable to adjust or lacking proficiency in its use.

It seems to me that (for whatever reason(s)) the freedom the tac cam provides is more valuable to you than the issues it has detract from your experience. Obviously the opposite would be true for those complaining. I would like to understand why this is.

Do you use the cheat-engine hack for the tac cam or do you consider it unnecessary? I understand that the tac cam has more mobility than Origins' camera, however I struggle to see how this makes up for not being able to see a larger area of the battlefield at once.

I don't use the cheat engine hack, though I don't fault people who do, and it would be awfully handy in hilly terrain.

I suspect part of the reason I like the camera is because I'm familiar with the controls for the camera. In Tac Cam mode, you're actively driving the camera around. I do it almost exclusively with the RMB held down to allow mouselook and strafing. It's a control scheme I know well (Total War's camera is very similar), and I find it really easy to use if I lower the camera all the way so it's basically the first-person perspective of that invisible character. It's also much easier to avoid getting stuck on terrain that way.

And I'm an obsessive pauser. If I'm using the Tac Cam, I don't do anything in real time. I don't issue commands, and I don't move the camera. I pause to do all of that. So there's never any pressure on when I'm moving the camera, so any minor annoyances get ignored because there's no urgency.

Also, I've noticed that BioWare has designed their levels with lots of little sloped outcroppings here and there. I put the invisible character there, and that raises my camera to give it a better vantage point.

I never thought the DAO camera zoomed out far enough. Just as the BG camera was also too close. You couldn't see anything like a useful archery range with either one. So the slightly shorter zoom in DAI doesn't bother me because it went from being inadequate to still being inadequate. There's no material difference. But for people who thought the DAO zoom was sufficient, I can see why the lesser zoom now would be irritating.

But BioWare hasn't given us a camera that can look down and see far enough since NWN. So while I think DAI's camera is probably BioWare's best camera, it's certainly their best camera since NWN.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm coming around to the idea that this really is an engine problem

I can't think of any other reason why they would have tied the camera to an invisible character. That's just not something they would choose, all else being equal.

So all else must not be equal.

[Akka le Vil]

I made true statements. Anyone who draws false conclusions from that is on his own.

I will admit to having a Socratic conversation style. I find that people are more willing to accept new ideas if they think they found them on their own, so I'd rather just raise questions than tell people what they should think.

 

Socratic style is about philosophy and making people question their own asumptions by laiding the fundamental bare, pushing them to expand their thinking.

You just played dumb by purposedly ignoring the meaning to nitpick on the formulation.

 

It's at best pretentious, more likely plainly dishonest, to claim both are the same. Trolling trying to make pass itself as philosophy ? Yeah, right...

[Brogan]

Since DAO allowed auto-attack regardless of camera mode, switching cameras was simply an inconvenience. DAI does not, so having to switch cameras now would make the game nearly unplayable (for me).

Huh? You just got done trying to explain to everybody it does have auto-attack. Now it doesn't?

I gotta say, I have yet to play the game so I've just been a lurker reading the thread and as far as I can tell, my conclusion is the game doesn't have auto-attack and from all descriptions in this thread, sorely needs it.

Thank you Sylvius for explaining your position. It was confusing me (them).

[Marika]

The game has no auto attack you HAVE to hold down LMB, R, or whatever button you have it set to using a controller.

 

The no auto attack is just one of the things they screwed up on another is that they removed the auto nav to a lootable item.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Huh? You just got done trying to explain to everybody it does have auto-attack. Now it doesn't?

I gotta say, I have yet to play the game so I've just been a lurker reading the thread and as far as I can tell, my conclusion is the game doesn't have auto-attack and from all descriptions in this thread, sorely needs it.

The game does have auto-attack. It also has action combat. There are two modes of play.

In Action Mode, there is no auto-attack. Because it's Action Mode. Action Mode also lacks a free-roaming camera and any move-to-point commands. All movement in Action Mode is done in real time, using WASD driving commands.

In Tactical Mode, there is auto-attack. There is also a free-roaming camera and move-to-point commands. The WASD movement no longer works.

If you want auto-attack, use the Tactical Mode.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Socratic style is about philosophy and making people question their own asumptions by laiding the fundamental bare, pushing them to expand their thinking.
You just played dumb by purposedly ignoring the meaning to nitpick on the formulation.

It's at best pretentious, more likely plainly dishonest, to claim both are the same. Trolling trying to make pass itself as philosophy ? Yeah, right...

If the OP comes in and makes a false statement (claiming the game lacks auto-attack), I want him to clarify that point. That's what I was trying to cause him to do. If I just tell him he's wrong, then we're just arguing. But he's the one who made falsw statements to the audience, so I tried to get a correction.

The person to whom I'm speaking is not necessarily my primary audience, and he's rarely my only audience. As Brogan here demonstrates, this thread did actually convince someone that the game doesn't have auto-attack at all. That's what I was trying to avoid (because it's not true), and clearly my efforts were necessary.

I bring clarity.

[Sartoz]

There is a twitter response where Lailaw said Biodegradableware is supporting MP.

[Akka le Vil]

I bring clarity.

 

No.

 

=>

 

If you were just honestly trying to clear a possible misunderstanding, you would have said "actually, the tac-cam has auto-attack, it's the third-person view which lacks it".

Instead, you just played dumb by pretending not to understand the problem. It's not correcting a mistake, it's trolling.

 

[Sylvius the Mad]

No.

=>

I can't be trolling if I'm making objectively true statements.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can be (though I don't think you were), I'd argue, though that depends on the definition of trolling. I'm under the impression that trolling is making comments deliberately to get a volatile reaction from people.

I'm usually going for a "Wow, I said a dumb thing" reaction."

But I think they'd appreciate me not just calling them dumb. So I just point them in that direction.

[Akka le Vil]

I hardly think I'm going to change you, but it might be more...clear to point out the specific problem with the thread title and how it's incorrect.

"We actually do have auto-attack, in Tactical Mode.

Perhaps what you mean to say is that there's no auto-attack in Action Mode. That's a different statement."

 

(Incidentally, this is how I test out psychology and body language in real life)

 

Meh, basically you agree with me

You just give him more credit than I do.