DA:O's combat system doesn't change once you zoom out into Tac Cam. It's the same, you only get a better overview. I didn't find it necessary except for boss fights, since my companions were reliable thanks to working tactics and I only rarely had to intervene personally.
<snip>Then I find somewhere useful to put the camera so that it can see the whole battlefield and I start giving orders.<snip>
You've really been able to do this consistently? What's your secret? This, to me, is the primary problem with tactical mode. It's pretty much impossible to reliably position the camera so that you can see what you need to be able to see, especially when the terrain is not flat (i.e., most of the time).
It's pretty much impossible to reliably position the camera so that you can see what you need to be able to see, especially when the terrain is not flat (i.e., most of the time).
Or when you are in a cave, under a ceiling and in some cases even trees 
I never would've thought I will miss the crappy old memory-leak-ridden DAO engine or its heavily modified DA2 version...
You've really been able to do this consistently? What's your secret? This, to me, is the primary problem with tactical mode. It's pretty much impossible to reliably position the camera so that you can see what you need to be able to see, especially when the terrain is not flat (i.e., most of the time).
I did it exactly the other way around. Since the Tac Cam frustrated me to no end, I stayed in action cam for the entire game. It's not like there's anything tactical about the combat in the first place. I basically only controlled my Inquisitor and let my party do whatever they wanted. It worked out nicely. I treated this game as the action adventure it is and ignored its attempt to appear tactical.
I find manually controlling any melee character only gets him killed. I still have no idea how to make someone face the right direction when using Shield Wall.
The tactical camera isn't meant to be used top-down, because among other things this view is pretty useless. The best zoom - which admittedly it struggles with - is the DA:O "just before isometric" zoom, where it's a really far up 3/4 tilt camera.
I think the best zoom is all the way down (so it's looking straight ahead) and then you just back up the camera so it's adjacent to the action rather than in it.
You've really been able to do this consistently? What's your secret? This, to me, is the primary problem with tactical mode. It's pretty much impossible to reliably position the camera so that you can see what you need to be able to see, especially when the terrain is not flat (i.e., most of the time).
Flat terrain is the enemy of the Tactical Camera, I think.
Keeping in mind that the Tac Cam is tied to an invisible character identified by that entirely extraneous targeting reticle on the ground (with a controller, it takes the place of the mouse cursor, but with KBM is serves no purpose at all), you want to get that character to higher ground. Of course, it can't jump, so you'll have to find a piece of high ground that can be ascended without jumping. In my experience, these are all over. Then you can get the camera above the action (so it's zooming out from a point well above the combatants), while still letting you see forward.
When I started playing, I originally looked for the high ground so I could put my archers there (not knowing what a nightmare that proves for pathfinding), but that high ground is still useful for the camera. Unlike the characters, the camera doesn't move when you want it to stand still.
I find manually controlling any melee character only gets him killed. I still have no idea how to make someone face the right direction when using Shield Wall.
It is a pretty stupid mechanic, but you have to lock your target with right click and only then you can easily face the enemy with shield wall. But it won't protect you much from flanking attacks, against those you have to back away a bit so they won't hit you in your unprotected sides. Or you can switch the targets depending on who you want to face at that particular moment.
Key bindings and programmable mouse is such a insurmountable problem OMG! I am just reeling at your programming prowess. I mean to have any expectations that you stick to what has been done in all the games I have played from EA....silly me. I think 8 programmable keys may be excessive and causing a memory leak. Really a two button mouse should be all you need for everything but boss fights anyway. This started with origins making gaming history and ended with a substandard rip off of the Rifts MMO.
I think the best zoom is all the way down (so it's looking straight ahead) and then you just back up the camera so it's adjacent to the action rather than in it.
If the shot is wide enough I can see the tactical benefit; I'm just not sure I like how close the camera to the ground would be in that arrangement. For whatever subjective reason, I prefer an elevated camera.
Flat terrain is the enemy of the Tactical Camera, I think.
Keeping in mind that the Tac Cam is tied to an invisible character identified by that entirely extraneous targeting reticle on the ground (with a controller, it takes the place of the mouse cursor, but with KBM is serves no purpose at all), you want to get that character to higher ground. Of course, it can't jump, so you'll have to find a piece of high ground that can be ascended without jumping. In my experience, these are all over. Then you can get the camera above the action (so it's zooming out from a point well above the combatants), while still letting you see forward.
When I started playing, I originally looked for the high ground so I could put my archers there (not knowing what a nightmare that proves for pathfinding), but that high ground is still useful for the camera. Unlike the characters, the camera doesn't move when you want it to stand still.
The tactical camera design makes somewhat more sense as a design (and a lot less sense in terms of implementation) when you try out DA:I with a controller. On the controller, the reticule is actually tied to the character you're controlling. The reason you see that pathfinding line is that it's being drawn as it you're tracing out the walking path; it's not a free camera in the same way. So the reason all those character-like limits are there is because, on console, the limits would be things your character would encounter. Of course this makes no sense on PC - there's no need to impose this limit and the camera isn't anchored to a character in the same way.
The tactical camera design makes somewhat more sense as a design (and a lot less sense in terms of implementation) when you try out DA:I with a controller. On the controller, the reticule is actually tied to the character you're controlling. The reason you see that pathfinding line is that it's being drawn as it you're tracing out the walking path; it's not a free camera in the same way. So the reason all those character-like limits are there is because, on console, the limits would be things your character would encounter. Of course this makes no sense on PC - there's no need to impose this limit and the camera isn't anchored to a character in the same way.
So the limitation feels more, um, organic to the design?
Something like that. I don't get why the PC camera - even with the silly limitation - can't go through obstacles. It's not like that would be hard to enable (at least in theory). I guess the worry is that you could then fly it off the map or shove it in a mountain side but I think most gamers would be OK with that part of it.
Flat terrain is the enemy of the Tactical Camera, I think.
Keeping in mind that the Tac Cam is tied to an invisible character identified by that entirely extraneous targeting reticle on the ground (with a controller, it takes the place of the mouse cursor, but with KBM is serves no purpose at all), you want to get that character to higher ground. Of course, it can't jump, so you'll have to find a piece of high ground that can be ascended without jumping. In my experience, these are all over. Then you can get the camera above the action (so it's zooming out from a point well above the combatants), while still letting you see forward.
When I started playing, I originally looked for the high ground so I could put my archers there (not knowing what a nightmare that proves for pathfinding), but that high ground is still useful for the camera. Unlike the characters, the camera doesn't move when you want it to stand still.
This does make sense, and is something I hadn't thought of as a strategy for tactical mode. I typically just try to get a decent view that will get me through the next set of actions (which is usually less than successful). I'll give it a go - thanks.
Still, I'm with In Exile on the implementation. It makes no sense with KB/M. Actually, I question the design decision even assuming a controller, since a true tactical mode should assume the ability to assess the battlefield holistically, not just from the perspectives available to the selected character. I see no good reason why it couldn't have been a character-independent flycam in either case; a bounding cube could still have been defined for outdoors to prevent the user from leaving the map. I can't think of any real advantages in the current implementation, and its many weaknesses are obvious. It's usable -- barely -- but that's the best I can say about it.
A bunch of PC games would take advantage of that controller, you would make its cost worthy in no time.
I don't disagree with you, if they improve the KB/M management more options for us, I am telling if you give controllers a shot you will save you a lot of dissapointments in the future and give yourself options. Try to play Dark Souls with a mouse, use a controller and have a blast.
Using "advantage" and "controller" in the same sentence clearly indicates that you have no concept of PC gaming - Using a Keyboard & Mouse.
So, just about the same for both games -- depending on what you mean by "combat system." The controls are a bit different, yep. But you don't need to intervene in either game, right?
I don't need to intervene in DA:O because the party does exactly what I want.
I don't need to intervene in DA:I because it doesn't matter if my party is alive or dead, I can just solo whatever I'm up against.
Cassandra never died past a certain level and usually got the aggro of most mobs while Solas reliably placed a barrier on the party. Varric probably did some damage, I guess?
I played as mage/KE. My standard tactic was laying a Fire Mine in the midst of the enemies which started combat and prompted Solas to put a barrier on the entire party, then rush through them with Fade Step which froze them in place on top of the mine, turn around and use Immolate on them. If there was still something alive after that attack, I'd switch to Spirit Blade and repeat that sequence ad nauseam. My party probably did some damage, too... not that I noticed.
The combat in both games is too different to be compared directly.
The camera might fall through the terrain then.Something like that. I don't get why the PC camera - even with the silly limitation - can't go through obstacles. It's not like that would be hard to enable (at least in theory). I guess the worry is that you could then fly it off the map or shove it in a mountain side but I think most gamers would be OK with that part of it.
The camera might fall through the terrain then.
Of course, I would prefer they'd just given us manual control over altitude rather than having it be always relative to the terrain beneath the reticle.
The camera might fall through the terrain then.
Of course, I would prefer they'd just given us manual control over altitude rather than having it be always relative to the terrain beneath the reticle.
I don't get why they had to go and build a completely separate tac cam to start with - this really baffles me...instead of just having it work the same way as DAO?
I mean > zoom out to a pre-determined value > which activates tactical mode > showing ground circles, and enemy info etc etc > still controlling your toon just like in action mode, or switch to companions > issue orders, pause the action and whatnot.
Job done!
This would work fine using a controller too, so what was the thinking?
Is not being able to click on the ground to move a toon into place the stumbling block?
I wonder if any other Frostbite games have had independent cameras. Because this one isn't actually independent; it's a chase cam for that invisible character.This does make sense, and is something I hadn't thought of as a strategy for tactical mode. I typically just try to get a decent view that will get me through the next set of actions (which is usually less than successful). I'll give it a go - thanks.
Still, I'm with In Exile on the implementation. It makes no sense with KB/M. Actually, I question the design decision even assuming a controller, since a true tactical mode should assume the ability to assess the battlefield holistically, not just from the perspectives available to the selected character. I see no good reason why it couldn't have been a character-independent flycam in either case; a bounding cube could still have been defined for outdoors to prevent the user from leaving the map. I can't think of any real advantages in the current implementation, and its many weaknesses are obvious. It's usable -- barely -- but that's the best I can say about it.
New engine. New restrictions. They had to build everything from scratch.I don't get why they had to go and build a completely separate tac cam to start with - this really baffles me...instead of just having it work the same way as DAO?
I mean > zoom out to a pre-determined value > which activates tactical mode > showing ground circles, and enemy info etc etc > still controlling your toon just like in action mode, or switch to companions > issue orders, pause the action and whatnot.
Job done!
This would work fine using a controller too, so what was the thinking?
New engine. New restrictions. They had to build everything from scratch.
Yeah, I get that. Just can't understand why it was apparently impossible to implement the click-to-move mechanic, which I assume is the restriction that gave birth to the current monstrosity of a tac cam.
Yeah, I get that. Just can't understand why it was apparently impossible to implement the click-to-move mechanic, which I assume is the restriction that gave birth to the current monstrosity of a tac cam.
Because Frostbite was initially developed by DICE to create (primarily) shooter games. Sure, it has been adapted to accommodate other genres since its initial incarnation (mostly first and third action shooters tbh) but for all we know, there might be certain limitations that the devs couldn't (or didn't have enough time) to overcome.
Stop using the engine as an excuse. It still very possible to do, its just the amount of effort involved. If they wanted to do it they would do it. The engine has been used for an FPS and a open world RPG.....how much more flexible do you need to be? Goat Porn anime? Seriously stop using that as an excuse.
Not everyone wants 'click to move' with the mouse,
I like wasd to move and click to attack.
If they did add that in, I would hope it'd be optional and I would be able to turn it off.
Not having a button to toggle sticky right mouse, and the constant zooming out when you unsheath weapons, is what bothers me.
I 'fixed' the sticky right mouse with a mouse config tool (xmousebuttoncontrol), but it should be bound to a button ingame by default.
If your going to make the game have an 'action' like combat (click to attack),
you should have that as well, otherwise it's just difficult to control.
Why the need to change the zoom whenever you attack something, just have the zoom stay wherever you put it, combat or not.
It's annoying, non-immersive, and quite literally nauseating.
I wouldn't mind the feature to press the loot button and your character runs to and pick whatever it is up, but it's not a deal breaker for me.
(really why take that out, you know that they can do it, since they had it before in the previous games)
Retour en haut