103 réponses à ce sujet

[Upper_Krust]

HI soteria!

Always enjoyed your instructional videos.

soteria wrote...

This just isn't true. Watch this video if you don't believe me. Small changes in positioning can make the difference between success or failure in a number of fights.

I sort of agree and disagree. Choke-points can be used to make a difference but in 95% or more of battles you won't need to take advantage of them to win comfortably and since you are never forced to fight multiple waves one immediately after the other (the exception being in two boss battles), so you never have to plan for more than the current battle.

In another of your videos you show the benefits of spell combos. Again I agree they are an effective tactic, but I disagree that its one you'll need to employ to win.

But it seems to me if you bring these SAME tactics to Dragon Age you will win comfortably everytime.

Let me ask you this, in your opinion, if someone's general tactics are to:

A. Catch the enemies at choke points where possible and get them to bunch up
B. Block/Slow the enemies (Traps, Glyphs, Taunt etc.)
C. Unleash your best (current) AOE spells (not even necessarily spell combos)

...will they ever be beaten by 99.9% of Dragon Age fights? (I'm thinking High Dragons might be the wildcard here).

Personally I don't think there is enough diversity in the enemies strategy or tactics to force players to change their tactics. If you have something that works once, it will work just as good in the next hundred battles.

[Upper_Krust]

Edit: Just added a sixth idea.

Sylixe wrote...

Welcome to your first experience with a single player MMO.  Companies do not release games in the RPG genre anymore that require much thought beyond spamming one or two abilities in combat.  If you want something more tactical you are going to have to go for the strategy games to get any real strategic depth.

That may be the end result of all this, but surely it can't be the fundamental goal of the designers?

While I understand the need to accomodate the casual gamer (with regards difficulty) or lowest common denominator (with regards puzzles), surely that doesn't preclude inventive enemy strategies, tactics and unique abilities that scale up with the difficulty level?

I have expounded on this theory in other threads and maybe its worth repeating.

Krusty's Top Six Tips for Improving Dragon Age Combat

1. Unique Enemy (Type) Identity

Far too many enemies 'feel' the same, have the same tactics (or non-tactics). Give each broad category some sort of unique 'schtick'. Here are some examples:

General Groups

a. Humanoid Leaders (Lieutenants or better) can use potions they carry
b. Remember Demons can possess other creatures, we may not know these people are possessed, when you kill them you set the demon free.
c. Unholy Areas/Necromancers could reanimate fallen enemies (or allies, including the PCs) as Undead. 
d. Packs of Beasts would have shaky morale and try and escape when their numbers drop below 50%...any who escape may show up added to another encounter.

Specific Group Example: Undead

a. Corpses Inflict Injuries as well as damage
b. Ghouls Drain Energy from Enemies (Inceasing their own Health)
c. Can't Heal/Regenerate the Damage done by a Ghost until you lay it to rest.
d. Skeletons cannot be permanently destroyed, they rise back up (after 10 seconds) unless you slay the Necromancer that animated them or destroy the unholy artifact that powers the area. 

2. Enemy Strategies

Just to clarify the difference between a strategy and a tactic (or at least for the purposes of making this point). A strategy is having an overarching 'game plan' before any combat that works to your strengths. In the game I would handle this with situational statistical bonuses. Here are some examples:

a. While the Standard Bearer is still standing, all Skeletons gain a bonus to Defense/Armour.
b. For each Ghost you lay to rest, the remaining Ghosts all gain a bonus to Attack/Damage.
c. If a Ghoul downs one of your characters it gains a rank (normal would become a Lieutenant).
d. When a Rage Demons Health reaches 75%, 50% and 25% it gains a (Strength) Attack/Damage bonus.

3. Enemy Battle Formations

Where the game could really use some help is in enemy attacking patterns. At the moment, they either rush at you or hang back (archers and spellcasters)

a. Column formation would give a large Physical and Mental Resistance bonus (more difficult to knock down or mind effect - Remember the retreating soldier in the Ostagar battle when his colleague behind him stopped him from retreating)
b. Line Formation good for defending a second line of ranged allies (archers/spellcasters)
c. Square Formation would give a large bonus to Armour/Defense
d. Wedge Formation would give a large bonus to Attack/Damage
e. Skirmish (Loose) Formation prevents too many from being caught in the same AOE spell.
f. Testudo formation would give a massive bonus to Armour/Defense but also a penalty to Attack/Damage (allies are so tightly packed you don't have full room to swing)

4. Enemy Group Composition

Far too many groups consist of: 

Normals (either Grunts or Archers) + Leader (either Mage or Alpha).

The way to break that up is with more varied encounter groups. With 5 different ranks of enemies (the Official Prima Bestiary lists 7 but there are no entries for two of the ranks) there are a finite number of possibilities: From the top: Elite Boss, Boss, Lieutenant, Normal, Weak. Its difficult to gauge but my guesstimate is that each higher rank is worth maybe 3 of the next lowest rank (obviously Bioware would have more accurate data on that).

So if the enemies evaluate roughly as follows:

Weak Enemy = 0.33
Normal Enemy = 1
Lieutenant = 3
Boss = 10
Elite Boss = 30

Then we set out what we see as Easy, Standard, Tough, Very Tough, Deadly and Very Deadly Encounters

Easy = 5
Standard = 10
Tough = 15
Very Tough = 20
Deadly = 25
Very Deadly = 30

Then we set out Frequency

Easy = 21%
Standard = 42%
Tough = 21%
Very Tough = 10%
Deadly = 5% (1 in 20 encounters, such as the battle at the end of a Dungeon)
Very Deadly = 1% (1 in 100 encounters, such as the battle at the end of a series of linked Dungeons)

Then we are left with composition, lets take the example of a Very Tough encounter and see what variety we can have:

a. 2 Bosses
b. 1 Boss + 3 Lieutenants (possible enemy party?)
c. 1 Boss + 10 Normals
d. 1 Boss + 33 Weak Enemies (now technically I think the game engine handles about 16 enemies onscreen at once so this would only work if the additional weaker enemies were reinforcements when the others are slain)
e. 1 Boss + 2 Lieutenants + 3 Normals
f. 1 Boss + 1 Lieutenant + 6 Normals
g. 6 Lieutenants
h. 1 Lieutenant + 15 normals (keeping our cap at 16)
etc. You get the picture

5. Enemy Reinforcements

When playing on Hard difficulty, have battles every so often (maybe 1 in 10?) where the PCs have to fight two encounters simultaneously. In Nightmare difficulty have battles where you also have to fight three encounter groups simultaneously.

I use the terms Vanguard and Rearguard to better explain what I mean.

Lets say we have three seperate encounters in a dungeon. Lets call these groups the Vanguard (first), Main Force (second) and Rearguard (third). On easy or normal difficulty, I would always battle these groups seperately. But on Hard I would fight the Main Force with either the Vanguard or Rearguard simultaneously, while on Nightmare I would fight all three forces simultaneously.

If you remember my point #4. This idea allows us to have more 'Deadly' and 'Very Deadly' encounters*. But means we don't make the game harder for those playing on Easy or Normal.

*As well as actually exceeding those limits should we want to.

6. Characters Cannot Move Through Another Characters Space (ie. Red Circle)

I don't think Bioware can 'push' the relevance of terrain too much until they instigate some sort of auto-blocking for character space (with certain classes such as Rogues or enemies such as Ghosts; immune to this).

When I stand my two warriors in a doorway I don't want the entire horde of hurlocks to run THROUGH them to attack my mage. If they simply disallow overlapping character space circles then the game would be much better.

Characters could still be bypassed in certain circumstances.

a. The blocking character is Knocked Down
b. The the blocking character is Killed (obviously)
c. A Rogue could walk through another creatures Space while Stealthy.
d. Certain Enemies could walk through another creatures Space (Ghosts spring to mind, as do Swarms)
e. Certain Spells could enable characters to 'Ghost Walk' or become Swarms (the latter already exists).
f. The blocking character is teleported
g. The blocking character is picked up (such as by an Ogre)

I think that makes the Knock Down all the more relevant.

Modifié par Upper_Krust, 12 février 2010 - 04:47 .

[soteria]

Glad you like them, Upper_Krust.

Let me ask you this, in your opinion, if someone's general tactics are to:



A. Catch the enemies at choke points where possible and get them to bunch up

B. Block/Slow the enemies (Traps, Glyphs, Taunt etc.)

C. Unleash your best (current) AOE spells (not even necessarily spell combos)

No, you're right, and I'm not arguing that the game isn't too easy and that one or two general strategies won't get you through 90%+ of all fights. Another strategy that almost always works is to just have a tank in massive armor with high dexterity run in first, backed up by a spirit healer. I agree that the combat could use some diversity, but I disagree with the OP's assertion that you can't use terrain to your advantage.

[Centis]

Upper_Krust wrote...

Sylixe wrote...

Welcome to your first experience with a single player MMO.  Companies do not release games in the RPG genre anymore that require much thought beyond spamming one or two abilities in combat.  If you want something more tactical you are going to have to go for the strategy games to get any real strategic depth.

That may be the end result of all this, but surely it can't be the fundamental goal of the designers?

Great post. Your first point here is especially salient as the most common defense of DA:O's problems is the 'it's not that type of game and therefor your complaint is invalid' line of argument. Your counter-argument to that is spot on.

I especially liked your constructive criticisms and outlining examples of how to fix the combat system. Part of the role-playing experience is the fighting, in fact a large part of it is. Shouldn't the combat therefore be as interesting and varied as possible to add to the experience. Some of the changes/additions you've proposed are really intriguing and I'd love to see something like this incorporated in the future.

[LightSabres]

attackfighter wrote...

There is a Jon Irenicus (villians we love to hate) in this story. In
fact their are two similar characters - Arl Howe, Loghain (to different
extents)

You barely got to see Howe at all and Loghain was somewhat decent until [MINOR SPOILER AHEAD] his sudden 'enlightenment' at the end [SPOILER OVER]. Both villains were rather generic, and niether their roles or voice acting made them very memorable.

How can anyone voiced by Tim Curry (Howe) not be memorable?

Seriously though - Your opinion obviously differs from mine but I truly enjoyed killing Howe.  My only complaint was it was over too quick I knew I should have fought him left handed   I would have liked to disembowel him and watch the life leave his eyes as he tries to stuff his entrails back in his stomach.  That guy from the City Elf origin deserved the same fate too.

That's two characters that got more of a reaction from me than Jonny boy did.  We'll see how I feel again when I get to BG2 (playing through them both again right now)

Jon Irenicus never had that reaction with me.  Sure I despised the guy for what he did to me but If you play the Noble origin then Howe doesn't just mess with you - he robs you of everything you ever had!  in BG2 you didn't have much to start with so it was kind of an "oh well - it's a pity I lose Drizzts swords but at least I get to kill things now' moment for me.

[Upper_Krust]

soteria wrote...

Glad you like them, Upper_Krust.

You're a gentleman and a scholar soteria. Your videos are informative and interesting - keep up the good work sir.

No, you're right, and I'm not arguing that the game isn't too easy and that one or two general strategies won't get you through 90%+ of all fights. Another strategy that almost always works is to just have a tank in massive armor with high dexterity run in first, backed up by a spirit healer. I agree that the combat could use some diversity, but I disagree with the OP's assertion that you can't use terrain to your advantage.

I don't think Bioware can 'push' the relevance of terrain too much until they instigate some sort of auto-blocking for character space (with certain classes such as Rogues or enemies such as Ghosts; immune to this).

When I stand my two warriors in a doorway I don't want the entire horde of hurlocks to run THROUGH them to attack my mage. If they simply disallow overlapping character space circles then the game would be much better. Maybe that should become #6 on my list....?

Characters could still be bypassed in certain circumstances.

1. The blocking character is Knocked Down
2. The the blocking character is Killed (obviously)
3. A Rogue could walk through another creatures Space while Stealthy.
4. Certain Enemies could walk through another creatures Space (Ghosts spring to mind, as do Swarms)
5. Certain Spells could enable characters to 'Ghost Walk' or become Swarms (the latter already exists).
6. The blocking character is teleported
7. The blocking character is picked up (such as by an Ogre)

[worksa8]

The game had some of the best banter I've ever seen in a game, so I enjoyed it very much.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there Centis!

Centis wrote...

Great post.

Thanks...we can only hope someone brings it to the attention of the devs and maybe some of my ideas strike a chord.

Your first point here is especially salient as the most common defense of DA:O's problems is the 'it's not that type of game and therefor your complaint is invalid' line of argument. Your counter-argument to that is spot on.

The easy retort (which is also the lazy option) is for someone to simply say "Play a higher difficulty" or "Play a strategy game instead". But neither of those goes any way to improving Dragon Age and while improving the game might mean different things to different gamers (nicer looking mage gear, more romantic options etc.) for those who enjoy the tactical aspect of the game it means improving combat.

The trick is of course not to scare casual gamers. When I posted similar comments in a thread last week, the casual gamers were all "Don't increase the difficulty - I play on Easy and its still a tough challenge". Then some hardcore gamer comes in and says "Nightmare difficulty is too easy, we need more difficulties". So you have to draw a balance. 

I think you can break the players down into two groups; Casual and Hardcore, then do the same for the games difficulties. Keep Easy and Normal for the Casual players and Hard and Nightmare for the Hardcore players. From there, we can tailor any changes so that statistically things like enemy strategies won't really impact the difficulty on Easy or Normal.

For instance, if we have a group of Dwarves in Square Formation, they might gain a bonus to Armour/Defense and Resistances for each adjacent ally of:

Easy = +0.5 Armour/Defense and +2% Resistance
Normal = +1 Armour/Defense and +5% Resistance
Hard = +2 Armour/defense and +10% Resistance
Nightmare = +4 Armour/Defense and +20% Resistance

On easy that won't make much difference, whereas on Nightmare you are really going to want to attack the soldiers on the corners of the Square Formation, since they gain the least bonuses.

I especially liked your constructive criticisms and outlining examples of how to fix the combat system. Part of the role-playing experience is the fighting, in fact a large part of it is. Shouldn't the combat therefore be as interesting and varied as possible to add to the experience.

Absolutely.

Some of the changes/additions you've proposed are really intriguing and I'd love to see something like this incorporated in the future.

Me too. I really enjoyed Dragon Age but I think we can definately improve the combat side of things massively - primarily from the enemies point of view. I think the fundamentals of the PCs are more or less okay.

[Sylixe]

The fundemental problem Upper is that companies making RPG's today see what they did in DAO as an IMPROVEMENT. Now i know that's hard to believe but in this genre the MMO style of combat design has show that the more simplistic it is the more players you will get. Which in turn means they will get more money out of the product.

You can take it one step further and see how they have adopted the extensive downloadable content to the game. Free to play MMO's are becoming the most cost effective persistent world games now. They hook you with the free stuff and suck you so that in order to get more enjoyment you must spend real money.

All they will say to your suggestions, which i believe are solid, is that you can just mod the game to make it difficult for yourself. To me that's just a lame exscuse for cutting corners and catering to the lazy crowd of players. I have accepted this though and i play more strategy games now that make me actually have to think. Contrary to the people who like mindless slaughter because they have a tough real life. I prefer to actually have to think when playing a game just like when i am doing my real life activities.

You have a huge up hill battle convincing a major publisher to make games difficult anymore. They are looking at the bottom line and are accountable to the investors who just want more money. The only way they are going to get those huge unit sales and keep the cash rolling is to make a game as simplistic as possible and keep people paying more money into the game down the road.

Modifié par Sylixe, 12 février 2010 - 09:29 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

attackfighter wrote...
I brought up BG2 because:
1. It's in the same genre.
2. The devs referenced it as an inspiration.
3. DA was advertised as BG2's spiritual successor.
4. Despite what you may think, they are very similar games.

No.

DA was billed as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, not Baldur's Gate 2.  Big world of difference.

[plastic golem]

You have a huge up hill battle convincing a major publisher to make games difficult anymore. They are looking at the bottom line and are accountable to the investors who just want more money. The only way they are going to get those huge unit sales and keep the cash rolling is to make a game as simplistic as possible and keep people paying more money into the game down the road.

As game development budgets continue to increase into Hollywood blockbuster territory, this is only going to get worse. When games were made with small budgets, and even a hit game would only sell a modest number of copies due to the small number of computer gamers in existence, developers could afford to take chances to try something new. When you're spending millions on a game and need to sell hundreds of thousands of copies just to break even, you tend to get conservative and, like Hollywood, only want to invest in games that are guaranteed to make money, which means making something pretty much exactly like the last game that made lots of money, but with more stuff or better graphics. At some point, the stakes get so high that no one can afford to be creative or original.

I think that it is inevitable that, as an industry matures and starts to become profitable, creativity and risk-taking will give way to producing slick but formulaic products.

[Sylixe]

plastic golem wrote...

You have a huge up hill battle convincing a major publisher to make games difficult anymore. They are looking at the bottom line and are accountable to the investors who just want more money. The only way they are going to get those huge unit sales and keep the cash rolling is to make a game as simplistic as possible and keep people paying more money into the game down the road.

As game development budgets continue to increase into Hollywood blockbuster territory, this is only going to get worse. When games were made with small budgets, and even a hit game would only sell a modest number of copies due to the small number of computer gamers in existence, developers could afford to take chances to try something new. When you're spending millions on a game and need to sell hundreds of thousands of copies just to break even, you tend to get conservative and, like Hollywood, only want to invest in games that are guaranteed to make money, which means making something pretty much exactly like the last game that made lots of money, but with more stuff or better graphics. At some point, the stakes get so high that no one can afford to be creative or original.

I think that it is inevitable that, as an industry matures and starts to become profitable, creativity and risk-taking will give way to producing slick but formulaic products.

Absolutely.

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

attackfighter wrote...
I brought up BG2 because:
1. It's in the same genre.
2. The devs referenced it as an inspiration.
3. DA was advertised as BG2's spiritual successor.
4. Despite what you may think, they are very similar games.

No.

DA was billed as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, not Baldur's Gate 2.  Big world of difference.

That was an all encompassing staement that they made though.  Saying BG is as good as saying BG 1 and 2.   Splitting hairs isn't going to change the fact that DAO is not a spiritual succesor to the BG series because the BG series was and is much better.

Modifié par Sylixe, 13 février 2010 - 03:50 .

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Sylixe!

Sylixe wrote...

The fundemental problem Upper is that companies making RPG's today see what they did in DAO as an IMPROVEMENT. Now i know that's hard to believe but in this genre the MMO style of combat design has show that the more simplistic it is the more players you will get. Which in turn means they will get more money out of the product.

I understand that, but the difference between say WOW and DAO is that the latter has four levels of difficulty, whereas I think I am correct in saying (and I have only a peripheral familiarity with WOW) that the only 'difficulty' is character level in Warcraft.

You can take it one step further and see how they have adopted the extensive downloadable content to the game. Free to play MMO's are becoming the most cost effective persistent world games now. They hook you with the free stuff and suck you so that in order to get more enjoyment you must spend real money.

 
I have no qualms about companies wanting to make money, whether through sold games or DLC.

All they will say to your suggestions, which i believe are solid, is that you can just mod the game to make it difficult for yourself. To me that's just a lame exscuse for cutting corners and catering to the lazy crowd of players. I have accepted this though and i play more strategy games now that make me actually have to think. Contrary to the people who like mindless slaughter because they have a tough real life. I prefer to actually have to think when playing a game just like when i am doing my real life activities.

I have always found that a challenge is more rewarding than a 'pushover'. While I imagine some won't agree, I can't envision the majority wouldn't agree with me.

You have a huge up hill battle convincing a major publisher to make games difficult anymore. They are looking at the bottom line and are accountable to the investors who just want more money. The only way they are going to get those huge unit sales and keep the cash rolling is to make a game as simplistic as possible and keep people paying more money into the game down the road.

I am not necessarily trying to get them to make the game more difficult, I'm primarily saying that the combat should be more laterally varied (vis-a-vis the enemies and their tactics). This will make the game require more thought, BUT, we can make the situational statistical differences accompanying enemy strategies or tactics have a very minimal effect on Easy difficulty and have a very major impact on Nightmare difficulty. Thus the game does not require more thought on Easy difficulty. In effect it caters to all styles of play.

[Sylixe]

There's nothing difficult in WoW anymore and anyone that tells you otherwise is just lying to themselves to justify continuing a pointless subscription to a game. However DAO is not anymore difficult either as you can technically use a mod and turn the game leveling off and still beat the game as a level one.



My own feelings are that RPG's should still be chaptered with a concluding fight in each chapter in order to progress to the next chapter. It might not be a 100% free form world but i mean really aren't there enough games out there doing that already? I expected Bioware to buck the system and go with old school style game. Especially since there's no Multiplayer support and they tried to tie the game to the BG series.



I can illustrate my point about people wanting easy games over harder games in a simple way. How many subscribers does WoW have? How hard is that game? Why do people continue to play it when it is so absurdly easy and mind numbingly repetitive? The answer is that the MMO generation that has grown up since the MuD's went to a graphical base system are not interested in a challenge. They want everything right in front of them as soon as possible with as little effort as needed. I once joked on a forum years ago that i saw a day where they would just put vendors up in a patch and charge you straight money for any top end gear you want. That day is here and people still are so addicted and lazy that they take it and don't question why there was no challenge in obtaining it? Where is the fun in everything being handed to you? Is it so beyond anyone to believe that if they buy a game they might NOT beat it? There are console RPG's from back in the 80's that are harder to beat than most game out today. Legend of Zelda anyone??



As far as game tactics go the AI would need a major overhaul because it can be "exploited" in so many ways. I use the word exploit loosely though as tactics like "Pulling" are a staple of games htese days and anyone in Q&A will show you how to exploit that immediately. LoSing through a wall is another example and there are many more. However as i said they are all basic tactics that can be coded to handle but theyjust never did. The fact that "Bring a Friend" was never in the coding is absurd.

[Kalfear]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Stippling wrote...

I find it strange that you essentially say that the game is bad and yet spend the time to tell the games community why it is bad. If I ever play a game and just don't like it, the last thing I want to do is waste more time with it by typing out a review on how awful it was.

1. Not everyone is you.

2. It's possible to see flaws in a game and think it's good and/or enjoy it.

(sighs) I gotta admit Im really getting the impression as of late around here that its simply not possible to see flaws in a game/company with out getting needlessly attacked by the mindless drones around here.

People post their dislike of ME2 (ALOT OF PEOPLE) and the same 40-50 fill every thread up with senceless attacks and insults at those trying to articulate their displeasure so Bioware doesnt make same mistakes in ME3.

Earlier today I posted that I have joined the "just say no to DLC side" until Bioware makes the DLCs larger and match the $1.00 per hour ratio that they employed in DA:O box game.

Suddenly im under attack (LOL, by some of the same names in the ME2 side of attacks) for saying Im against Bioware making a profit and am demanding untold and unreasonable expectations (not sure where they get that from but what ever).

Think we the mature posters of Bioware Edmonton forums just have to admit there is a sub culture of teenagers here that simply cant understand you dont have to like/support every little aspect of a game/company to be a fan. For what ever reason this concept has totally escaped their understanding!

Personally I see nothing wrong with what OP wrote. I dont agree personally but disagreeing no reason to attack and flame and insult like said subculture doing so commonly as of late.

[AlanC9]

Kalfear wrote...
People post their dislike of ME2 (ALOT OF PEOPLE) and the same 40-50 fill every thread up with senceless attacks and insults at those trying to articulate their displeasure so Bioware doesnt make same mistakes in ME3.

Oh, please. The complaint threads fill up with the usual suspects posting against ME2. If anything, it's the opposition that's more repetitive.

[Upper_Krust]

Sylixe wrote...

There's nothing difficult in WoW anymore and anyone that tells you otherwise is just lying to themselves to justify continuing a pointless subscription to a game.

Don't know that much about it. Never played it. Watched a friend play it for 5 minutes, looked pretty but dull as dishwater. Still if thats what poeple want to play let them play it.

However DAO is not anymore difficult either as you can technically use a mod and turn the game leveling off and still beat the game as a level one.

On easy difficulty maybe, not on Nightmare I'd suspect.

My own feelings are that RPG's should still be chaptered with a concluding fight in each chapter in order to progress to the next chapter. It might not be a 100% free form world but i mean really aren't there enough games out there doing that already? I expected Bioware to buck the system and go with old school style game. Especially since there's no Multiplayer support and they tried to tie the game to the BG series.

Isn't that how Dragon Age already works (more or less). Chapters concluding in a boss fight that you need to defeat to finish that chapter...?

I can illustrate my point about people wanting easy games over harder games in a simple way. How many subscribers does WoW have? How hard is that game? Why do people continue to play it when it is so absurdly easy and mind numbingly repetitive? The answer is that the MMO generation that has grown up since the MuD's went to a graphical base system are not interested in a challenge. They want everything right in front of them as soon as possible with as little effort as needed. I once joked on a forum years ago that i saw a day where they would just put vendors up in a patch and charge you straight money for any top end gear you want. That day is here and people still are so addicted and lazy that they take it and don't question why there was no challenge in obtaining it? Where is the fun in everything being handed to you? Is it so beyond anyone to believe that if they buy a game they might NOT beat it?

I read an article that said some WOW gamers are paying other people to level up their characters for them. That to me says it all. These people are not having fun, its just some sort of addiction.

There are console RPG's from back in the 80's that are harder to beat than most game out today. Legend of Zelda anyone??

I'm an old skool gamer...started back in the day with Space Invaders and Pac Man. People nowadays don't know the meaning of the word difficult. I generally play games like God of War, Guitar Hero and Bayonetta (currently playing) on the highest difficulty. When I started playing Dragon Age I began at normal simply because I'd never played a game of this type before. I didn't actually know you could change characters until 10 hours in (which was my first TPK against Flemeth). Oh and I never paused the game once during my first playthrough (I'm on 360). But thats not the point, the point is the combat just is nowhere near as satisfying as it could be. The enemies are repetitive and don't make you 'think' to beat them.

But again I still think you could make the top two difficulties more laterally challenging, while retaining the simplicity of the bottom two difficulties.

As far as game tactics go the AI would need a major overhaul because it can be "exploited" in so many ways. I use the word exploit loosely though as tactics like "Pulling" are a staple of games htese days and anyone in Q&A will show you how to exploit that immediately. LoSing through a wall is another example and there are many more. However as i said they are all basic tactics that can be coded to handle but theyjust never did. The fact that "Bring a Friend" was never in the coding is absurd.

I disagree that it would need a major overhaul. Personally I think you could make all the necessary changes within one day.

I agree LoSing is basically cheating.
Being able to see enemy energy bars is also cheating.
Walking through another characters space is sort of cheating.

Beyond that, most of the necessary changes are very simple things you could do to enemy AI.

[Sylixe]

You would suspect Nightmare is more difficult but if you play it or read many posts about difficulty in game you will find out that in reality it's not more difficult than nightmare. This is more or less the biggest problem with the diffculty scale in the game. The mob AI doesn't get better as the game diffculty goes up. Instead they get a miniscule few more HP's and do a tad more damage. Your party takes more from AoE's but the difference is barely noticable.



DAO is not chaptered. You can tackle any of the so called bosses in game whenever you want. they are not a stepping stone to the next tougher one like in a chaptered RPG. I guess the best way to illustrate would be to look at a pen and paper RPG. Lets say your group is starting a new adventure and you learn the back story of a terrible demon rampaging the lands. So your group decides that they are all going to just go to the demon and kick his butt. The DM being a guy who lets you make all the decisions doesn't stop you. So you take a quick trip down the road to the demons lair and walk in and attack him as a level 1. What happens? Well you pretty much get owned in the face since the boss was a lot more powerful than you. Apply that same scenario to a free form RPG game where the monsters scale to the party. You walk into the demons cave and easily take him down because he can only scale to your level.



Chaptering the game obviously takes away your ability to go wherever you want but like i said before. Isn't there enough free form games out there right now? Is chaptering a game so far removed from the genre because everyone has to have some illusion of choice?



As for enemy AI i only pointed out a few of the surface issues. There are far deeper problems with the AI to list them all out. To make the AI even remotely more challenging you would need to do a whole recoding of AI's tactics and reactions to situations. On the very basic level the enemy AI should not use the same tactics that the players are using. Enemy AI should be vastly different and use a different situational trigger set.



Just to touch on the easy mode of games and WoW for a minute. It's not so much 100% addiction although a part of it is. The biggest thing is that blizzard has gotten so many people so far invested into the game that walking away from it seems like a stupid idea. People have large investments in these characters in form of days and weeks of played time in game. The ease of the game just helps facilitate that and gets them returning customers.

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Sylixe!

Sylixe wrote...

You would suspect Nightmare is more difficult but if you play it or read many posts about difficulty in game you will find out that in reality it's not more difficult than nightmare. This is more or less the biggest problem with the diffculty scale in the game. The mob AI doesn't get better as the game diffculty goes up. Instead they get a miniscule few more HP's and do a tad more damage. Your party takes more from AoE's but the difference is barely noticable.

I think its a tad more different than that.

http://dragonage.gul....php/difficulty

But I agree you might be able to beat it at level 1 because of the level scaling, I thought you were talking about player level at Level 1 while the monsters continued to scale up.

DAO is not chaptered. You can tackle any of the so called bosses in game whenever you want. they are not a stepping stone to the next tougher one like in a chaptered RPG. I guess the best way to illustrate would be to look at a pen and paper RPG. Lets say your group is starting a new adventure and you learn the back story of a terrible demon rampaging the lands. So your group decides that they are all going to just go to the demon and kick his butt. The DM being a guy who lets you make all the decisions doesn't stop you. So you take a quick trip down the road to the demons lair and walk in and attack him as a level 1. What happens? Well you pretty much get owned in the face since the boss was a lot more powerful than you. Apply that same scenario to a free form RPG game where the monsters scale to the party. You walk into the demons cave and easily take him down because he can only scale to your level.

Yes but lets not forget that in Dragon Age you are on a set path until after Ostagar and again put back on a set path from the Landsmeet.

Its only the middle of the game that gives you a freedom to choose which Dungeon you tackle, and you cannot progress to the Landsmeet until you have all the allies.

Chaptering the game obviously takes away your ability to go wherever you want but like i said before. Isn't there enough free form games out there right now? Is chaptering a game so far removed from the genre because everyone has to have some illusion of choice?

I don't see how Chaptering offers any benefits here, unless you are talking about completely linear progression and levelling and thus the removal of the Level Scaling altogether. But who does Level Scaling really benefit - only the casual gamer. It wouldn't benefit nor hinder a hardcore gamer, because they will just tackle dungeons one at a time rather than retreat and come back when they have levelled up.

As for enemy AI i only pointed out a few of the surface issues. There are far deeper problems with the AI to list them all out. To make the AI even remotely more challenging you would need to do a whole recoding of AI's tactics and reactions to situations. On the very basic level the enemy AI should not use the same tactics that the players are using. Enemy AI should be vastly different and use a different situational trigger set.

 
I posted how this could easily work in another thread. Enemy AI doesn't need depth as such, simply variety (ie. Each monster has its own different tactics and strategies, rather than multiple tactics and strategies).

The game already has the framework for Companion AI/Tactics. If we apply that to monsters and add the suggestions I made earlier in this thread (which should be relatively simple) then improving combat would take less than a day in my opinion.

Just to touch on the easy mode of games and WoW for a minute. It's not so much 100% addiction although a part of it is. The biggest thing is that blizzard has gotten so many people so far invested into the game that walking away from it seems like a stupid idea. People have large investments in these characters in form of days and weeks of played time in game. The ease of the game just helps facilitate that and gets them returning customers.

I suppose there is also the social side of things (at least from an online perspective that is).

[Fumbleumble]

Huh?.... did I miss a meeting?

When did RPG's become all about the multiple wave, tactical combat?

I think you guys are playing the wrong genre....and would you try not to turn the genre that I like, in to the genre that you like.

The combat in an RPG is a MEANS, not an END...the only prerequisites for an RPG system is that it has the ability to deal with combat AND reflect the mulitutdes of talents needed to work your way through a series of senarios that include combat AND dialog, puzzles and other non-combat related situations.

In pnp RPG's, (the only reason you actually have 'crpg's today or the genre would be something else entirely, which is exactly where it's heading :<) the combat was certainly a fun part of the game, but it wasn't the be all and end all of it.

I would much rather that the powergamers and combat drones went and played an mmo to show off their leetness as opposed to coming to a well, loved but minority genre and ****ing and moaning about why they can't show their leetness in a genre that was never intended for that use.

Please, would you people just step away from the forum, you are ruining my genre.

Modifié par Fumbleumble, 14 février 2010 - 05:10 .

[plastic golem]

Sylixe wrote...

DAO is not chaptered. You can tackle any of the so called bosses in game whenever you want. they are not a stepping stone to the next tougher one like in a chaptered RPG. I guess the best way to illustrate would be to look at a pen and paper RPG. Lets say your group is starting a new adventure and you learn the back story of a terrible demon rampaging the lands. So your group decides that they are all going to just go to the demon and kick his butt. The DM being a guy who lets you make all the decisions doesn't stop you. So you take a quick trip down the road to the demons lair and walk in and attack him as a level 1. What happens? Well you pretty much get owned in the face since the boss was a lot more powerful than you. Apply that same scenario to a free form RPG game where the monsters scale to the party. You walk into the demons cave and easily take him down because he can only scale to your level.

Chaptering the game obviously takes away your ability to go wherever you want but like i said before. Isn't there enough free form games out there right now? Is chaptering a game so far removed from the genre because everyone has to have some illusion of choice?

There is another option: make combat only one way of overcoming obstacles. Look, for example, at the Ultima games, especially the second trilogy: Ultima IV, V, and VI (released 1985-1990). They didn't have chapters, and they also didn't have boss fights. There were certain things you had to accomplish before you could do certain other things, but you generally had the run of the land, including the ability to run off into dangerous areas that would get you killed right from the start. (However, Ultima also solved the death problem: dying imposed a penalty, but you were resurrected in Lord British's throne room, minus a level or so and whatever resouces you used up during the fight, and you continued on. You *never* had to reload a previously saved game, and there was only one save slot. At the same time, getting killed had real consequences because there was a material loss associated with it, unlike in the reload and try again scenario, where you lose nothing but your time.)

Second trilogy Ultima did have a lot of fighting. In IV and V you had to fight a lot because you had to get enough XP to reach level 8. In VI, you could actually finish the game with comparatively little fighting. The fights were highly repetitive, especially in IV and V, but not much less repetitive than many DA:O fights, and Ultima was of course limited by the fact that it was written in the 80s, mostly in assembler, and had to run on computers with 64KB of memory. There wasn't enough time, disk space, or RAM to store that many different kinds of encounters. Even the climax of the game does not involve sticking a sword in a BBEG, and yet the conclusion to Ultima VI was, I think, as or more satisfying than putting an end to Jon Irenicus in BG2.

These things can be done, and they were done more than 20 years ago using hardware and programming tools that were absolutely primitive compared to what developers today have access to. Of course, these games also had a lot of limitations and repetitive game play that were dictated by the limited resources of the time, but many of those limitations no longer exist. Those earlier CRPGs followed the spirit of the pen and paper RPGs of the day, which are a lot different from the pen and paper games of today from which modern CRPGs draw their inspiration. The RPG adventure you describe above is old school: a modern RPG like D&D 3/3.5/4th ed. is more likely to present an "adventure path" where the characters in fact are supposed to overcome a set of challenges in a more or less set order, and where obligatory set piece battles are the centrepieces of the game that either cannot or should not be avoided.

Modifié par plastic golem, 14 février 2010 - 05:09 .

[BuddyX]

 I couldn't agree more Fumbleumble. I wrote elsewhere on these forums that they nearly ruined Mass Effect 2 for me because of this push to embrace the "shooter" fans. They better not do it to DA. Story, character, inventory control, multiple skills to develope... those are what help to make a fine RPG. Not running from cover to cover, carefully metering your ammo, going for the headshot... if I had wanted to play Gears of War, I would have bought it. Bioware, please, listen to us. Keep the RPG in our RPG.

[Pocketgb]

Fumbleumble wrote...

Please, would you people just step away from the forum, you are ruining my genre.

A lot of these people are comparing the combat not to MMO's but to past Bioware games. There's always been problems with combat in all of Bioware's games, but DA:O feels like the biggest after-thought, imo.

BuddyX wrote...

 I couldn't agree more Fumbleumble. I
wrote elsewhere on these forums that they nearly ruined Mass Effect 2
for me because of this push to embrace the "shooter" fans.

I can kind of see that a bit in the combat, but the game will wholly punish those who don't roleplay or take their time to find out what's up with the story and their teammates. If a person goes pure "shooter" they'll get a terribly unsatisfying ending.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 14 février 2010 - 05:28 .

[soteria]

Pretty sure the game would be impossible to beat at level 1--too many of the elite bosses just wouldn't scale low enough. Not just that; you would never make it into Orzammar.

[Harcken]

The combat could use a few tweaks here and there, but it wasn't THAT bad, however, I completely agree with the second part in regards with the story and the characters. I never really liked any of the characters in DA:O (a few exemptions of course), especially Loghain, many just didn't seem realistic. My number one fatal flaw for DA:O was, as you said, how easily the story can be predicted. I learned nothing new about the main narrative for 60 hours. The side quests and the towns and villages were all fun and nice, but their stories always felt estranged from the main narrative, to the point they kind of overshadowed it. With all that said, I still loved DA:O, but I hope the devs take criticism to heart so that the sequel can be even better.