949 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

It's "But Balder's Gate did it this way."

That is because the entire game was in isometric view so therefore the combat was..

[Ariella]

That is because the entire game was in isometric view so therefore the combat was..

 

I know, but for a lot of people that's become the definition of tactical combat. I think it's silly, personally, but there it is.

[In Exile]

That is because the entire game was in isometric view so therefore the combat was..

Let's use DAO as an example. I hated the full isometric camera because it took away my view of the horizon and archers could still snipe at me from outside the FOV. I could scroll over but I would lose sight of my own party.

So I used the highest level of zoom before the tactical cam because it allowed for depth perception. This was not substantially higher than the maximum height in DA2... except in DA2 the camera couldn't pass through obstacles so it was often at less than its maximum possible height.

I don't think how I played DAO disqualified it from being tactical.

[Realmzmaster]

@Fast Jimmy

 

The war grognard in me must take issue with one of the assumptions you have made. You assume that you have to see the entire battlefield for it to be tactical. That is not the case. At the squad based level line of sight dictates how much of the battlefield can be seen. Therefore the squad can only see what line of sight allows . Therefore tactics such as unit placement is constricted by that line of sight.

 

DAO simply did it wrong if you consider that the party should only be able to see what their eyes can visualize.

[In Exile]

I miss fog of war. I suppose that makes me a grognard too?

[AlanC9]

Let's use DAO as an example. I hated the full isometric camera because it took away my view of the horizon and archers could still snipe at me from outside the FOV. I could scroll over but I would lose sight of my own party.
So I used the highest level of zoom before the tactical cam because it allowed for depth perception. This was not substantially higher than the maximum height in DA2... except in DA2 the camera couldn't pass through obstacles so it was often at less than its maximum possible height.
I don't think how I played DAO disqualified it from being tactical.

My solution to this problem was a little different. Except when placing AoEs, I keep pretty close to the PC with a low angle. If she can see an enemy, then I can. If she can't, I can't.

[Ariella]

I don't think how I played DAO disqualified it from being tactical.

 

It doesn't, nor should it. My thinking on tactical is simple: if you can pause and manipulate your companions, dictate what they do, it's tactical. How much or how little one uses the tactical options available (like camera zoom is it is) is up to them, but that's game play preference and no one has a right to tell anyone else that they aren't playing the game "right". 

[Fast Jimmy]

What I can't grasp is how the camera angle impacts whether or not something is "tactical".

It's a matter of the effectiveness of the tools.

You could go through each paraphrased response in DA2 and properly map out the actual words spoken to avoid issues of voiding a character you had created. That doesn't mean that DA2 was excellent at providing player agency or telegraphing the intent with the paraphrases.

The same with the camera in DA2 (and, to a lesser extent, DA:I). It's possible to drag the camera around the entire battlefield to see where enemies were and what the area offered in terms of choke points, unit flow and threats to target... but it's like dredging a river every few moments if you try and do this on a continuous basis.

You are making the same mistake Bioware did - looking at it in a snapshot, instead of thinking of how someone who uses this type of feature constantly throughout an experience that has dozens of hours of combat... "does the system do it?" is not nearly as important to "can the player use the system to do it in a sustainable and useable fashion?"

And to that question, the answer is no for DA2. You can't move your units without them changing their mind, you can't survey the area without spanning around every nook and cranny (instead of seeing a cohesive picture of everything all at once) and even if you could, unit speed and Attacks are all so fast that it doesn't matter for any of that anyway... an enemy can run past party members and swarm you in a matter of seconds, so there is no tactical reason to not just kite the entire time and spam cooldowns until everything is dead.

[Fast Jimmy]

@Fast Jimmy

The war grognard in me must take issue with one of the assumptions you have made. You assume that you have to see the entire battlefield for it to be tactical. That is not the case. At the squad based level line of sight dictates how much of the battlefield can be seen. Therefore the squad can only see what line of sight allows . Therefore tactics such as unit placement is constricted by that line of sight.

DAO simply did it wrong if you consider that the party should only be able to see what their eyes can visualize.

If there were some way we could easily see through the eyes of each of our companions equally and simultaneously, or some system for us to be "alerted" by a companion of a threat (such as an archer) appearing on their scope, I would agree. But I haven't seen a system that can mimic that in real time. Unless you are playing as one character continually, you won't be able to monitor what they see from all the angles they are able to see it.

In lieu of that, being able to see the entire field is the next best thing. It allows our party to act as a unit, where we can metagame assume communication is happening between the party about what they can each see and what is visible, allowing them to focus their efforts where it is most appropriate. A camera system that stays fixed on one character means needing to constantly rotate the camera around and then scanning the area around each companion to "see" what they see.

This is such a menial task that many don't do it (or even think of doing it) and find it easier to play as one character and not pay attention to the party until their health bars begin plummeting (which means enemies have engaged and the time for tactics and unit placement is mostly moot).

[Fast Jimmy]

<snip>

...except in DA2 the camera couldn't pass through obstacles so it was often at less than its maximum possible height.

A mistake they made again in DA:I, it might be worth mentioning.

[Realmzmaster]

I miss fog of war. I suppose that makes me a grognard too?

 

Yes!

[Fast Jimmy]

I miss fog of war. I suppose that makes me a grognard too?

Fog of war was/is great. If you could couple an overhead cam that took into account what each companion was/was not able to see, that would be a great example of gameplay.


But then you'd probably have trouble taking in far off background scenes and landscapes.

[AlanC9]

The same with the camera in DA2 (and, to a lesser extent, DA:I). It's possible to drag the camera around the entire battlefield to see where enemies were and what the area offered in terms of choke points, unit flow and threats to target... but it's like dredging a river every few moments if you try and do this on a continuous basis.

You are making the same mistake Bioware did - looking at it in a snapshot, instead of thinking of how someone who uses this type of feature constantly throughout an experience that has dozens of hours of combat... "does the system do it?" is not nearly as important to "can the player use the system to do it in a sustainable and useable fashion?"

Is "mistake" really the right concept there? This would imply either that Bio cares enough about your playstyle to support it, or that it would be objectively in Bio's interest to support your playstyle even though they don't seem to care much for it themselves. Am I right that you're positing the latter?
 

And to that question, the answer is no for DA2. You can't move your units without them changing their mind, you can't survey the area without spanning around every nook and cranny (instead of seeing a cohesive picture of everything all at once) and even if you could, unit speed and Attacks are all so fast that it doesn't matter for any of that anyway... an enemy can run past party members and swarm you in a matter of seconds, so there is no tactical reason to not just kite the entire time and spam cooldowns until everything is dead.

Hmm. I don't check you on any of this. I didn't have much problem with moving party members where I wanted them. If I'm not letting them run under AI control, I'm probably directly controlling all their actions anyway. And in my position the hold position command worked fine. I take it you were trying some sort of semi-control, and that didn't work? I'm personally happier if I can only see what my PC can see -- I come from wargaming, and inadequate fog-of-war is something that's always bothered me in tactical-scale games. Obviously YMMV, but this doesn't make a game less tactical, just different from what you like. And I also didn't have any problem coping with the speed.

[AlanC9]

Ah, I see there's more FoW stuff.
 

In lieu of that, being able to see the entire field is the next best thing. It allows our party to act as a unit, where we can metagame assume communication is happening between the party about what they can each see and what is visible, allowing them to focus their efforts where it is most appropriate.

The metagaming part of this has never worked for me. It's always been obvious to me that when I'm playing the party, I've changed roles. I'm now some super telepathic gestalt hive-mind. Of course, once you go all-in on simulation, your natural destination is unpaused ME3 with a Kinect attached.

I also don't see how "until their health bars begin plummeting (which means enemies have engaged and the time for tactics and unit placement is mostly moot)" is actually true.

[Realmzmaster]

If there were some way we could easily see through the eyes of each of our companions equally, or some system for us to be "alerted" by a companion of an archer appearing on their scope, I would agree. But I haven't seen a system that can mimic that. Unless you are playing as one character continually, you won't be able to monitor what they see from all the angles they are able to see it.

In lieu of that, being able to see the entire field is the next best thing. It allows our party to act as a unit, where we can metagame assume communication is happening between the party about what they can each see and what is visible, allowing them to focus their efforts where it is most appropriate. A camera system that stays fixed on one character means needing to constantly rotate the camera around and then scanning the area around each companion to "see" what they see.

This is such a menial task that many don't do it (or even think of doing it) and find it easier to play as one character and not pay attention to the party until their health bars begin plummeting (which means enemies have engaged and the time for tactics and unit placement is mostly moot).

 

Then that is the player not paying attention to the party and focusing on one character.  The player should have no more knowledge of the battlefield than any of the party members. If the player is focusing on one party member then the player would not be using tactics anyway.

 

The other issue I have with tac cam is the information provided and I want Bioware to improve on it. The tac cam should provide only the information known to the party. If the party has never encountered a red templar guard then no information should be provided in tac cam other than being able to position the party member. The party can then note what attacks where successful against the red templar. If the party has engaged red templar guards before then the known information can be presented. (The exact amount of hit points and hit points remaining should never be presented IMHO.)

 

The information (especially dragons) can be gleaned from scouting, observation or other people;'s knowledge. For example Frederic tells the Inquisitor about the locations of various dragons. The Inquisitor should be able to ask what type of dragons are they (flame, electrical, spirit or frost). Therefore the party can prepare for the encounter. Or the party can scout out the dragon and observe it from a distance to find out its type.

[Fast Jimmy]

Is "mistake" really the right concept there? This would imply either that Bio cares enough about your playstyle to support it, or that it would be objectively in Bio's interest to support your playstyle even though they don't seem to care much for it themselves. Am I right that you're positing the latter?

I suppose my main complaint is that they cleaned so much house staffing-wise after DA:O that hey didn't even realize they were making the game non-tactical. That they truly believed they were delivering the experience equally to players of both stripes is the problem. If they just said they wanted to go a different direction and become a fully action based or even single-character based, I think that would have been preferable to them doing something that betrays just how little they understand the type of gameplay itself, let alone if they like it or not.

Hmm. I don't check you on any of this. I didn't have much problem with moving party members where I wanted them. If I'm not letting them run under AI control, I'm probably directly controlling all their actions anyway.

And in my position the hold position command worked fine. I take it you were trying some sort of semi-control, and that didn't work?

That is what I am referring to - pausing the game, giving movement orders to multiple companions and expecting them to actually move (or hold) where I told them. Obviously, there is no problem with taking direct control of a companion and moving them, as it works mechanically the exact same as moving the PC (for the purposes of that section of gameplay, the companion IS the PC).

I'm personally happier if I can only see what my PC can see -- I come from wargaming, and inadequate fog-of-war is something that's always bothered me in tactical-scale games. Obviously YMMV, but this doesn't make a game less tactical, just different from what you like. And I also didn't have any problem coping with the speed.

Only seeing what your PC sees is not party-focused gameplay, it's single-character gameplay. Single character gameplay can be tactical (nearly all tabletop RPGs are controlling one character), but if you are controlling your entire party equally, you should be able to see what they see equally as well without bending the controls to the breaking point trying to get an accurate picture of what everyone in your party can, in concept, see clear as day.

[Fast Jimmy]

Ah, I see there's more FoW stuff.


The metagaming part of this has never worked for me. It's always been obvious to me that when I'm playing the party, I've changed roles. I'm now some super telepathic gestalt hive-mind. Of course, once you go all-in on simulation, your natural destination is unpaused ME3 with a Kinect attached.

I see it as a resource issue, I suppose. Do they want to record hundreds of lines of dialogue talking about encroaching enemies, different threats, direction of said threats... then shout out orders instead of issuing commands? Would spells that silence then become capable of drastically changing the field of battle? To me, it makes more sense to just step back and say "you know what, my companion can easily see that in character, so the player can easily see that in game."

Ialso don't see how "until their health bars begin plummeting (which means enemies have engaged and the time for tactics and unit placement is mostly moot)" is actually true.

Not true? For anyone? At any time?

"Not true" is a very loaded statement to apply in this case.

[Fast Jimmy]

Then that is the player not paying attention to the party and focusing on one character. The player should have no more knowledge of the battlefield than any of the party members. If the player is focusing on one party member then the player would not be using tactics anyway.

The other issue I have with tac cam is the information provided and I want Bioware to improve on it. The tac cam should provide only the information known to the party. If the party has never encountered a red templar guard then no information should be provided in tac cam other than being able to position the party member. The party can then note what attacks where successful against the red templar. If the party has engaged red templar guards before then the known information can be presented. (The exact amount of hit points and hit points remaining should never be presented IMHO.)

The information (especially dragons) can be gleaned from scouting, observation or other people;'s knowledge. For example Frederic tells the Inquisitor about the locations of various dragons. The Inquisitor should be able to ask what type of dragons are they (flame, electrical, spirit or frost). Therefore the party can prepare for the encounter. Or the party can scout out the dragon and observe it from a distance to find out its type.

I have no problem (and would be quite excited to play a game) with any of these features.

I still would say that the inability for the player to easily see what other party members see (either through a Tac cam or through some alternative system) makes behaving tactically and utilizing the party's aspect of gameplay difficult to the point of being sub-par.



Maybe I should change my statement to saying "Bioware significantly changed the DA series by removing the tactical gameplay element" to "Bioware significantly changed the DA series by terribly implementing the tactical gameplay element."

[AlanC9]

I see it as a resource issue, I suppose. Do they want to record hundreds of lines of dialogue talking about encroaching enemies, different threats, direction of said threats... then shout out orders instead of issuing commands? Would spells that silence then become capable of drastically changing the field of battle? To me, it makes more sense to just step back and say "you know what, my companion can easily see that in character, so the player can easily see that in game."

OK. I just haven't had a problem with the amount of information I can get in any of the DA games with the POV I'm actually using. It means that I'm surprised by stuff, but I should be surprised by stuff.

Not true? For anyone? At any time?

"Not true" is a very loaded statement to apply in this case.

Yes. It is. But I'm standing by it until you can explain how the need for tactics and unit placement goes away once units engage.

[Fast Jimmy]

OK. I just haven't had a problem with the amount of information I can get in any of the DA games with the POV I'm actually using. It means that I'm surprised by stuff, but I should be surprised by stuff.

Should you be surprised by an archer shooting at you from ten feet away? Multiple times? Where, despite an arrow sticking out of a part of your body, you don't know what direction they are coming from?

Because that can easily happen in a system where the camera centers immediately over one character.

Yes. It is. But I'm standing by it until you can explain how the need for tactics and unit placement goes away once units engage.

Are you speaking of being true for DA2? Or all cases of combat in general?

In all cases, you are right - you can still arrange, move, adapt and control units to handle engagement with the enemy, even at close range.

In DA2, where all humanoid enemies moved at the same speed, there was no cost to disengage with the enemy via movement, where running in circles prevented an enemy from coming in contact with you, where jumping up in the air and slamming down on the ground was a legitimate way to control enemy movement rather than something like standing in front of someone with a shield... then no, the alternatives once close combat began in DA2 involved kiting or special abilities that might blast enemies back, however temporarily.

Aside from Nightmare's friendly fire for AOE, I'm struggling to think of one instance where positioning would matter in DA2 (outside of the Zelda-esque Rock Wraith boss fight).

[Hiemoth]

A mistake they made again in DA:I, it might be worth mentioning.

 

It's not really a mistake, it's a question of resources. Laidlaw commented that in DAO they had build each level twice in order for the tactical map to ignore the obstacles in the map. That was one of the reasons they switched to the limited view in DA2 and the reason why the tactical map in DAI reacts to obstacles. They saw fit to use to resources otherwise.

 

Aside from that, reading your comments, I would argue that most of your argued "mistakes" are design questions, with the developers having different priorities and focuses than what you would desire in a game. That doesn't make them mistakes.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's not really a mistake, it's a question of resources. Laidlaw commented that in DAO they had build each level twice in order for the tactical map to ignore the obstacles in the map. That was one of the reasons they switched to the limited view in DA2 and the reason why the tactical map in DAI reacts to obstacles. They saw fit to use to resources otherwise.

Aside from that, reading your comments, I would argue that most of your argued "mistakes" are design questions, with the developers having different priorities and focuses than what you would desire in a game. That doesn't make them mistakes.

I'd say they mistook how people would react to it, then.

Just like they mistook how people would react to the limited maps, enemy waves and dominant tone in DA2 (all design choices Bioware has stated were unpopular with fans, some even infamously so), the same can be said of their surprise at people's reaction to the Tac cam and PC UI. They seemed so surprised by it that patches and fixes to address the issue took months for even rudimentary fixes. And you can pretend like I'm the only one who has complaints on these items, but anywhere where people talk about what's wrong with the game, these items come up repeatedly in reviews, articles and other feedback.

Your confusing mistakes for accidents. Just because Bioware did them on purpose doesn't stop making them mistakes.

[Hiemoth]

I'd say they mistook how people would react to it, then.

Just like they mistook how people would react to the limited maps, enemy waves and dominant tone in DA2 (all design choices Bioware has stated were unpopular with fans, some even infamously so), the same can be said of their surprise at people's reaction to the Tac cam and PC UI. They seemed so surprised by it that patches and fixes to address the issue took months for even rudimentary fixes. And you can pretend like I'm the only one who has complaints on these items, but anywhere where people talk about what's wrong with the game, these items come up repeatedly in reviews, articles and other feedback.

Your confusing mistakes for accidents. Just because Bioware did them on purpose doesn't stop making them mistakes.

 

No, I'd say they tried new things with variable of success. And what I find curious, and maybe telling, is that two of three examples you chose as mistakes for DA2 were actually results from the rushed development cycle. The DA team didn't go in to DA2 thinking that people would love to see the re-used map, but they didn't have time to create more maps and had to choose between sidequests or re-used maps. And is the honest argument here that what the players would have utterly loved is total of seven sidequests with unique maps? As for wave combat, it is actually a good idea as the point of it is to keep players constantly on their toes and have the battle be in constant change, but the difficulty they faced with it is that each encounter has to be individually crafted, which required time they obviously didnt' have. I have not heard much complaints for them in Legacy and MotA, which use the wave mechanics as it was meant to instead of the always three waves, as do actually several encounters in the first act before they started running out of time. As for dominant tone, it wasn't interesting experiment that faced issues which they dealt with the emotion wheel. The question I guess from your response is that apparently nothing new should be tried if there is any group of players who liked what was before.

 

As for Tac Cam, no matter how much ignore the issue, it is a question of resources and wanting to build each level twice, which is insane resource sink. And PC UI, I mean it was what it was as it had to be something. What baffles me more is that you feel those are the items that dominantly come up, as I can think of several other issues that have been mentioned.

[Fast Jimmy]

No, I'd say they tried new things with variable of success. And what I find curious, and maybe telling, is that two of three examples you chose as mistakes for DA2 were actually results from the rushed development cycle. The DA team didn't go in to DA2 thinking that people would love to see the re-used map, but they didn't have time to create more maps and had to choose between sidequests or re-used maps. And is the honest argument here that what the players would have utterly loved is total of seven sidequests with unique maps? As for wave combat, it is actually a good idea as the point of it is to keep players constantly on their toes and have the battle be in constant change, but the difficulty they faced with it is that each encounter has to be individually crafted, which required time they obviously didnt' have. I have not heard much complaints for them in Legacy and MotA, which use the wave mechanics as it was meant to instead of the always three waves, as do actually several encounters in the first act before they started running out of time. As for dominant tone, it wasn't interesting experiment that faced issues which they dealt with the emotion wheel. The question I guess from your response is that apparently nothing new should be tried if there is any group of players who liked what was before.

As for Tac Cam, no matter how much ignore the issue, it is a question of resources and wanting to build each level twice, which is insane resource sink. And PC UI, I mean it was what it was as it had to be something. What baffles me more is that you feel those are the items that dominantly come up, as I can think of several other issues that have been mentioned.

This conversation is now circling the drain.

You chastise me for picking features about DA2 that were a result of the rushed dev cycle (meaning not enough time/not enough money/other competing resources) but then point to the DA:I issues I bring up as there not being enough resources to fill those features (which is another way of saying not enough time/not enough money/other competing resources).

We're making no progress besides talking past on another and dismissing each other's points quibbling about defintions + qualifiers instead of having an actual discussion.

[Hiemoth]

This conversation is now circling the drain.

You chastise me for picking features about DA2 that were a result of the rushed dev cycle (meaning not enough time/not enough money/other competing resources) but then point to the DA:I issues I bring up as there not being enough resources to fill those features (which is another way of saying not enough time/not enough money/other competing resources).

We're making no progress besides talking past on another and dismissing each other's points quibbling about defintions + qualifiers instead of having an actual discussion.

 

While we are probably talking past each other, I don't really understand your point on the comparison. The DA2 features could not be fulfilled as planned because of the rush. They never intended there to be a total of four dungeons, but were forced to do so because of time constrains. The DAI feature you complain about was fulfilled as planned, but was always intended to be as it is because of limited resources. When they did the planning, they decided to stick with one map per level instead of two.

 

EDIT: To clarify, my objection against DA2 was that those were never things Bioware considered as good planning, but were forced to do, as opposed to the DAI tac map, which they saw a good solution since it left them with resources for other things.