247 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well...see...the thing of it is, staying alive is pretty darned important when it comes to killing an enemy. Can't kill a danged thing when your laying on the ground.

No one is claiming that the companion AI is good. Why are you arguing with me as if I was defending it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

That would be pretty cool.

I know, right? Then programming the AI would become like a game in itself, and our only limits would be our creativity. And we could swap code online. It would be awesome!

[Sylvius the Mad]

It does work. The enemy AI is simply put, better than the companion AI. The enemy AI is trying just as hard to kill you, they just have the good sense to get out of the way before trying to cast another spell.

If you retreat to a chokepoint, what does the enemy AI do?

Because that's basically the problem the companion AI is trying to solve. When it can't reach an enemy, what does it do? It runs forward to find a line of sight, and that's where the problems arise.

Does the enemy AI not do that?

[Mykel54]

I´m curious how people who use the tactical camera deal with all the problems: characters getting stuck, LOS depends on moving one invisible guy, characters going around instead of jumping over small obstacle, camera resets after each conversation, no way to drag select several characters, no real tactics system like past games - so they do whatever they want unless you babysit them.

 

I´ve set Varric to hold on safely on a hill, and then changed character only to shortly see him move down to the melee, as if he wants to shoot Bianca in the enemies face (wouldn´t blame him).

 

Honestly this game´s controls are just terrible compared to previous games, anything other than "everyone attack and use abilities as soon as they´re ready" is too difficult for the AI to handle.

[Jester]

Honestly this game´s controls are just terrible compared to previous games, anything other than "everyone attack and use abilities as soon as they´re ready" is too difficult for the AI to handle.

I wonder if it's a matter of them switching to Frostbite.

I mean, it's a gorgeous looking engine for sure, but it was developed with first person shooters in mind, not party-based action RPGs. 

 

Origins and DA2 used a different engine, one I think developed for making RPGs (and created by BioWare themselves?) and those games didn't have many (if any) control or AI problems. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

characters getting stuck

I don't have this.

LOS depends on moving one invisible guy

That's a bit weird, but I wouldn't call it a problem. If you lower the angle of the camera all the way, you basically get the first-person perspective of that invisible character. Put him on a hill (or just away from the action a bit) and his view is pretty good.

I move the camera a lot when I'm actually doing things (like targeting AoE spells or positioning my characters), but once the battle is on I tend to leave the camera in a good vantage point and just watch.

characters going around instead of jumping over small obstacle

That we can't jump in Tac Cam is dumb. That said, I don't jump much, and the AI pathfinding will generally find a way to get to the enemy such that attacking is actually possible (something I can get wrong if I'm jumping down cliffs).

camera resets after each conversation

I tend not to explore with the Tac Cam much, because it can't look up (the Tac Cam's biggest failing, I think), and conversations don't often lead directly into combat. And if they do, combat always begind with me pausing and finding somewhere to out the camera anyway, because where I want it is always dependent on the terrain.

no way to drag select several characters

This is an idiotic omission. Being able to select some but not all of the party solves so many control problems. For example, selected characters don't move unless you tell them to, so if you need 2 characters to stand still you can just have those 2 selected while the clock runs.

no real tactics system like past games - so they do whatever they want unless you babysit them.

It's not babysitting; it's playing.

I would prefer to have a robust tactics system, but I also enjoy controlling all the characters at once.

Also, the nesr universal lack of difficulty in DAI means that there's little need to control everyone or have them behave effectively, so the cost of the bad AI and lack of Tactics is quite small.

Honestly this game´s controls are just terrible compared to previous games, anything other than "everyone attack and use abilities as soon as they´re ready" is too difficult for the AI to handle.

The camera controls are, I think, better than in previous games.

But the lack of programmable tactics and multi-select is a huge negative.

[BlauPauh]

I completely agree with you. I would even say it's my favourite combat system of all games I've played and I have played both, complete action based, and complete strategy based. They combined the two in a way I couldn't imagine getting any better and I want to play more of it!

[thewatcheruatu]

It's a party based game but most people, I think, choose their character because that is the one that they want to play.  When I want to play a warrior, I make a warrior.  When I want to play a mage, I make a mage.  I don't want to have to play every character in my party, I want my party to be able to handle itself.  Clearly, they don't in DA:I. 

 

You know, another thing I found recently that's really sad, but the enemy AI is actually a lot better than your companion's AI.  When I charge an enemy archer or mage, they have the intelligence to try and get the heck out of the way.  Archers will move, mages will blink or teleport away.  My archers and mages though?  When an enemy gets up on them, they just stand there and take it while continuing to pluck away with their bow or staff.

 

That's hilarious--I've noticed that too. My tank is always chasing after enemy archers, yet Sera and Varric will just sit there and take it in the face when they get targeted by melee.

[thewatcheruatu]

Shouldn't that be up to you, though? To have them act more offensively or defensively?

 

I've read that you can make them act that way by setting their behavior to have them defend themselves. I haven't tried it, though, because I had enough problems as it is trying to get them to attack targets before I gave in and just set them to always follow the controlled character.

[Neoideo]

From the first day I also felt combat was better than the previous 2 installments. The only critic I could give is the excess of beams and lights for regular melee attacks, as well as the lack of slots in the action bar.

[Jester]

That's hilarious--I've noticed that too. My tank is always chasing after enemy archers, yet Sera and Varric will just sit there and take it in the face when they get targeted by melee.

Which is riddiculous, as in both DA:O and DA2, your ranged characters would try to escape melee range. 

[BansheeOwnage]

I've read that you can make them act that way by setting their behavior to have them defend themselves. I haven't tried it, though, because I had enough problems as it is trying to get them to attack targets before I gave in and just set them to always follow the controlled character.

I wish I had a better understanding of what those options do. I tried setting them up in for defense at first, but then my companions still just sit there not attacking anything. It's frustrating! I just have them all set to follow themselves now without really knowing if that's good. Or maybe I set them to follow controlled like you. I don't remember.

[Eelectrica]

They really were on the right track with DA2's Tactics system. The next step should have been to give us a full API for programming the AI.

Agreed and that would be awesome. Of all the problems with DA2, it's tactics system wasn't one of them.

Right now I'd settle for even being able to tell my characters to take certain actions when being attacked, and prioritize certain targets. Hopefully next time.

[Darkly Tranquil]

Agreed and that would be awesome. Of all the problems with DA2, it's tactics system wasn't one of them.
Right now I'd settle for even being able to tell my characters to take certain actions when being attacked, and prioritize certain targets. Hopefully next time.

The most immediately needed tactics commands are "When Being attacked by a Melee Attack:" (escaping attackers), "Target nearest visible X" (target mages/archers), and "Surrounded by X enemies:" (controlling when AoE attacks go off). Lots of other commands would be useful, but these are most critical ones.

[CronoDragoon]

The most immediately needed tactics commands are "When Being attacked by a Melee Attack:" (escaping attackers), "Target nearest visible X" (target mages/archers), and "Surrounded by X enemies:" (controlling when AoE attacks go off). Lots of other commands would be useful, but these are most critical ones.

I'd put groups of enemies in there as well. Having Static Cage or Pull of the Abyss automatically cast at the beginning of combat in the spot where it'd hit the most # of enemies (and only if there are X or more so cooldowns aren't wasted) would be quite the relief.

[Darkly Tranquil]

I'd put groups of enemies in there as well. Having Static Cage or Pull of the Abyss automatically cast at the beginning of combat in the spot where it'd hit the most # of enemies (and only if there are X or more so cooldowns aren't wasted) would be quite the relief.

Yeah, I almost mentioned "X Enemies clustered:" alongside "Surrounded by X enemies:" as they have similar functionality in controlling the use of AoE. Seeing Iron Bull do Whirlwind against a single enemy always irritated me; it constantly reminded me how poor the tactics controls were.

[Wolven_Soul]

No one is claiming that the companion AI is good. Why are you arguing with me as if I was defending it?

 

Because you were making excuses for it, and those excuses were not working.

[bondari reloads.]

I completely agree with you. I would even say it's my favourite combat system of all games I've played and I have played both, complete action based, and complete strategy based. They combined the two in a way I couldn't imagine getting any better and I want to play more of it!

Agreed. I feel like they had to find the middle ground on a lot of issues, but they got that right.

The "When x then y" tactics are the only thing I really miss from DAO, however.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because you were making excuses for it, and those excuses were not working.

I wasn't making excused for it. I was pointing out how the criticisms of it, being based on flawed comparisons, were not persuasive.

That says nothing about my opinion regarding thr AI itself.

[Lady Ishtar]

It's not babysitting; it's playing.
 

As much as I like your posts, I'm a little too radical these days.
This is precisely the problem, playing the game. When I play D&D I speak and it happens, I do not need to swing a sword, or react quicky to the GM throwing a paper ball on me. I just say "my character did this", and it's done. Again, if I wanted to play strategy I have Starcraft, if want action I have Demon's Soul, I wanted RPG, which is restricted to indies and kickstarters now, it seems.
Of course Bioware was wrong from the start with their RPGs, they had way too much action since BG, also too much exploration. But back then and untill DA2 I could still pause, issue commands, and watch the show. Not possible anymore.
So, I know my opinion is not popular, I mean, no one hates action as much as I do, but from what I read A LOT of people would rather play issuing orders and managing tactics than actually taking control of the combat and swinging weapons around.

[BlauPauh]

Agreed. I feel like they had to find the middle ground on a lot of issues, but they got that right.

The "When x then y" tactics are the only thing I really miss from DAO, however.

Ah, yeah, I read that in other comments too. For me that just wasn't an issue because I played Inquisition before the other two, but after playing all three I get why people would miss that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As much as I like your posts, I'm a little too radical these days.
This is precisely the problem, playing the game. When I play D&D I speak and it happens, I do not need to swing a sword, or react quicky to the GM throwing a paper ball on me. I just say "my character did this", and it's done. Again, if I wanted to play strategy I have Starcraft, if want action I have Demon's Soul, I wanted RPG, which is restricted to indies and kickstarters now, it seems.
Of course Bioware was wrong from the start with their RPGs, they had way too much action since BG, also too much exploration. But back then and untill DA2 I could still pause, issue commands, and watch the show. Not possible anymore.

So you'd like to initiate combat, set your tactics, and just watch?

That's spectacular! I stopped asking for that years ago because I wasn't getting any traction.

My point about babysitting was that I don't acknowledge the distinction between the controllable characters from a gameplay perspective. I generally think I'm playing all of them, rather than just one, and when people talk about babysitting they're usually objecting to having to devote as much attention to the companions as they do to the PC.

But that's not what you were saying, is it? You're using babysitting to describe the excess attention required by any character. And I completely agree with you. That characters will no linger oney instructions when not directly controlled is a huge negative. That we can't queue multiple actions (something BioWare hasn't actually allowed since KoTOR, and even then if you selected a different character the first would forget his queue) is another big negative.

If DAI were as difficult as BG (or even DAO), these failings would be fatal.

I basically want RPGs to play like turn-based strategy games. To simulate that, I usually let the game run for less than 2 seconds between pauses. I never make decisions or give orders in real time. And I use the Tac Cam in every encounter.

[Wulfram]

I do think melee characters require too much attention to function adequately in DA:I.

In your RTwP tactical combat, there is a point where needing to do too much with each character gets frustrating. In DA:I I reach that point as soon as I have more than 1 melee character.

Baldur's Gate, back in the day, had warriors be extremely simple. This was criticised quite a lot, because it was seen as making them more boring than other characters. But I think that there was virtue in this, because it allowed combat to proceed more smoothly, rather than "round by round" input with every character.

[Elhanan]

Enjoy the pacing in DAI the most of the series. However, would prefer more Abilities, Spells and more Quickslots.

[ApocAlypsE007]

I use tactical cam for precision Pull of the Abyss placements and rift dispels. It's a shame you can't micro like in Starcraft 2, like you can't issue different movement orders at the same time like you could in DAO and DA2, spreading against AOE, easy focus firing and such. It is the most jarring in JoH where the maul guys are actually really strong and can bring your entire team down if not careful.

 

As for controlling the characters, I actually most of the game control the tank, because the AI doesn't use Shield Wall well and the 1st thing I must take care of is keeping the party alive, it is more important than optimal damage skill order. Only in the endgame I can focus on correct damage skill placement and ordering after Blackwall or Cass are unkillable with multiple defensive Fade Touched materials.

 

That said outside of the bugs that render some skills useless I enjoy playing DA:I on Nightmare. The fights aren't as easy as DAO and I don't need to counter cheap with cheap as in DA2 (and the color pallet  is so much easier on the eyes than DA2's shades of brown).

 

I do think melee characters require too much attention to function adequately in DA:I.

In your RTwP tactical combat, there is a point where needing to do too much with each character gets frustrating. In DA:I I reach that point as soon as I have more than 1 melee character.

Baldur's Gate, back in the day, had warriors be extremely simple. This was criticised quite a lot, because it was seen as making them more boring than other characters. But I think that there was virtue in this, because it allowed combat to proceed more smoothly, rather than "round by round" input with every character.

 

LOL 40 APM Bronze League n00b learn to play
Just kidding. In my 2H Templar playthrough it was pretty evident. I had to go to very high APM's to keep both of my warriors alive (sadly 2H warriors can't tank, unlike DAO and DA2 where I didn't even play with Aveline in my party, Fenris tanked well enough), so you are pretty much forced to go 1 warrior 1 rogue 2 mage party.