56 réponses à ce sujet

[beancounter501]

TBastian wrote...

Perhaps they could implement better AI in the PC-version DA:O. I don't think the console players would enjoy such changes.

Nah, for all of the console-bashing you see on the internet, they are actually some of the better players skill wise.  Probably cause they are young, have faster reflexs and more zits as Soteria would say!   Lol, that was a joke.  But seriously, it is usually the console people who what a tough fight and screaming for more harder fights

Modifié par beancounter501, 08 mars 2010 - 04:52 .

[soteria]

Yes you are. Thank you.

The AI in civilization IV was so good because the devs learned what strategies most good players used in previous games and tried to implement them. In the end the game was much more difficult and challenging. And the strategy/tactics in Civ is a whole LOT higher then DA.

Yes, but the difference is the amount of processing power required in real time. My argument is the AI will be easily tricked no matter what with the current engine, tactics or no, and if we're going for more realism then processor requirements will go up steeply. The more realistic we try to make combat (since taunt is unrealistic) the more power required to run the game.

Compared to Dragon Age, where the AI uses very little tactics. Iinstead the game is made more challenging by throwing large numbers of monsters at the player. Which is the easiest way to increase difficulty. Taunt/disengage is a poor gameplay mechanic because it is something that no player would be affected by. It is a player only ability. And for everyone complaining about there mages being overrun - well what stops you from overruning the enemy mages? Nothing, but the player gets some super ability that prevents any monster from not attacking the highest defense character. It is just a poor design decision.

This is the thing: what is smart for the player to do is not automatically smart for the AI to do. The best move a player can make is have everyone kill an enemy mage first, and then cycle through the enemies, killing them one at a time. Conversely, if the AI did the same thing, it would be dangerous to a low-level PC, but less and less so as time goes on until that's exactly what you would want the AI to do. Even at low levels, the only difference between using taunt and determining targeting via tactics is that with taunt the player chooses who the target will be. Players can dynamically react to any situation, so if I see everyone attacking my mage, I'll do something about it. As far as I can tell, the AI doesn't have any way to react to that kind of situation.



You used the example of Civ IV before. Another difference between the Civ series and DA:O is that Civ IV is the fourth game (plus expansions and spinoffs) in a series spanning some 12 years with essentially the same game engine, whereas DA:O is the first game with this engine. Although it is similar to game like NWN and BG, it has different abilities, stats, and gear. I don't think they expected a lot of things players have done...



Before release, we were told that players would need to invest in almost every stat if they wanted to be effective. I remember seeing Chris Priestly's rogue with some 26 str, 36 dex and 34 or so willpower and assuming that was a good way to build a character. I just don't think there's any way they could have anticipated the way we would play. I mean, look at the description for Nightmare... things should get better in future games. Remember Civ II, with zero corruption for democracy/communism, letting you build 100+ city empires easily? They squashed that in Civ III.

[beancounter501]

Man, I loved Civ II. That was a blast, railroad howitzer attacks. To be honest I am not sure why the devs did not anticpate what the players did. For instance, on stats it is quite apparent that some stats such as con or will are extremely low value. LOL, the staff/play testers at Bioware must be role players. They need some heavy power gamers over there. But I still disagree about the AI CPU time. The AI is very simple, and some very minor changes would make the game much better. Swiching to ranged if your target is in a Glyph of Repulsion, switching targets if you can not hit something, switching targets if some rogue is backstabbing you. Nothing fancy.



How about this thought. What if the tables were reversed and the player could be taunted. Lets say that you HAD to attack the tank monsters first. That you could not attack the mage until every warrior was dead. That you could not even turn around when a rogue is sitting there backstabbing you. Would you complain about how stupid the mechanic was then?

[soteria]

They need some heavy power gamers over there. But I still disagree about the AI CPU time. The AI is very simple, and some very minor changes would make the game much better. Swiching to ranged if your target is in a Glyph of Repulsion, switching targets if you can not hit something, switching targets if some rogue is backstabbing you. Nothing fancy.

The AI *is* very simple, and I'm not even sure it's smart enough to be able to figure out glyph of repulsion. There's no way to set a tactic for something that *isn't* happening, unless Advanced Tactics does that. Plus, the AI can't switch targets until it finishes processing an attack, making it even dumber.

How about this thought. What if the tables were reversed and the player could be taunted. Lets say that you HAD to attack the tank monsters first. That you could not attack the mage until every warrior was dead. That you could not even turn around when a rogue is sitting there backstabbing you. Would you complain about how stupid the mechanic was then?

It depends. I've done encounters that were actually kinda like that in WoW. They do it more elegantly than you describe, though. For example, some monsters will enrage when a nearby ally dies, increasing attack speed and damage dramatically. Typically they have high health and armor and you wouldn't normally kill them first, but you're kinda forced to in certain situations. When it's done right, I enjoy the challenge, and I wouldn't mind if the AI had a better way to protect the "squishies."



On the other hand, I think the player should have some sort of tactical control over the battle. The fact is, targeting is the hardest part for the AI to get right, and given a choice between always having to react to the enemy's ultimately predictable actions and having the ability to force them to react to me, I'll choose the latter.

[Timortis]

The problem is, taunt allows you to make the enemy always attack the target who for them is by far the worst choice. The typical tank deals the lowest damage of all characters and takes the least damage, he poses the least threat on the battefield to the enemy, but the enemy is programmed to always attack him, if you should so choose. The AI would be much better off attacking random targets from their perspective. Taunt simply makes the game easier, nothing else.

[beancounter501]

Back when I actually had more free time I worked on modifying the AI scripts in Kotor. It is not that hard to write a couple of scripts that checks what effects the player has active and then program a series of reactions. In NWN a lot of people wrote out custom AI that was better then Biowares. The game becomes a lot more difficult when the enemy mages start to dispel your AW with a ton of sustains. Instead, the AI usually just rolls a random number and then decides what to do based on that. Beyond simple.



But Timortis really hit the nail on the head. Taunt just makes the game easier.

[Timortis]

Everyone agrees that Taunt+Forcefield is major cheese and shouldn't even be allowed to work the way it does but there's actually very little difference between Taunt+Forcefield and Taunt+Defensively built Champion/Templar with 100% spell resistance. Barring autohit monster attacks, they're essentially the same thing, and a 4 person party can easily deal with those special attacks without breaking a sweat to the degree that they don't really pose a threat either.