Dragon Age 2

[sorophx]

If you mean the optional revenant fights, I thought they were one of the best things in the game.

I encountered most of them in the very beginning, and they were very hard. I didn't feel like kiting one mob for 30 minutes so I skipped it. and when I decided to go back and do them, turned out I couldn't. the armor guardians were a little easier but still not what I'd call a good battle.

 

one that I did like (but couldn't beat on my first attempt) was that guy in a storage facility, who turn into some demonic entity and summon a pack of minions. probably the most intense moment of the whole game for me, your whole party trapped in a small room with a dozen enemies, one of them a powerful mage.

[Gromnir]

@ Enoch;

Did we play the same DA:O? Cause despite the loading screens claiming it works as you said, enemies in my DA:O pretty much went after the guy that hit them first/was seen first. You know, the way AI worked in BG1 and 2 and IWD1 and 2 and PST etc.?

So mostly my archer and mage thus, desperately avoiding my warriors (sure, I could use the powers you told me about. But why should I?)

They did fall down pretty much every heavy battle :D. Or run around faster than the enemy, casting a spell once in a while when there was distance.

 

am thinking you is both right/wrong. in our experience, enemies INITIALLY prioritize enemies based on armour. this means that when battle first begins your mage can wander 'bout the battlefield unimpeded almost as if he were invisible to foes. however, once your mage damages a foe, he sudden becomes recognizable as a threat.

 

...

 

am suspecting that if your mage never utilized an area-effect spell (or focused solely on healing/buffing spells,) he or she coulds go through a majority of the game safe-from-harm and able to choose individual opponents on the battlefield. is indeed wacky ai, but for folks who start off every battle with a spam o' area effect spells by their mage, the wackiness is gonna be largely unrecognizable. if your mage attacks Every foe at the start o' battle, then the ai wackiness can be going unnoticed as hordes o' recently fireball'd darkspawn will run direct to the mage.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

"but for folks who start off every battle with a spam o' area effect spells by their mage"

 

to clarify, the aforementioned were not meant as a criticism. it is an effective tactic to spam area effect spells at the start o' battle. makes enemies run through multiple layers o' area effect spells before they can get close enough to your party to attack? is smart. however, doing so largely obviates the salient ai stoopidity.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hassat Hunter]

My mages mostly are deliberator builds (horror, weakening spells), not damaging. Still they attack.

So maybe it's just 'attacked'...

[Gromnir]

My mages mostly are deliberator builds (horror, weakening spells), not damaging. Still they attack.

So maybe it's just 'attacked'...

 

 

doesn't really matter. enoch's point is still valid. enemy ai works in reverse o' "intelligent player" tactics. at mid-to-high levels, we invariably target mages first, and archers second. mages and archers (with scattershot) can seemingly cripple our entire party in an instant... if we allow them to do so. enemy ai, 'cause o' armour focus, works in reverse o' the way you or enoch or Gromnir would play... which is damned stoopid.

 

*shrug*

 

am recalling that such ai silliness were a "fix" resulting from playtesting... folks who played through game with mage using original/non-retarded ai were killed easily and often at lower levels. game were not fun for mage players. so biowarians fix in a simple manner by tweaking ai to works reverse o' intelligent. were an easy fix that cured problem, but it made enemies seems universal moronic for anybody who were paying attention.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nepenthe]

I dunno, targeting the heaviest armored and armed guy first seems kind of logical to me - especially when the aggro moves to whoever causes major damage contrary to the initial assumption. I'd hate the AI to metagame and attack my mage when he hasn't showed his magical ability yet.

 

So I think that the theory at least is fully sound. I don't think it worked too well, but...

[Gromnir]

I dunno, targeting the heaviest armored and armed guy first seems kind of logical to me - especially when the aggro moves to whoever causes major damage contrary to the initial assumption. I'd hate the AI to metagame and attack my mage when he hasn't showed his magical ability yet.

 

So I think that the theory at least is fully sound. I don't think it worked too well, but...

 

like it or not, figuring out who is the dragon age mages before they cast an offensive spell is not a matter o' metagame... is a simple matter o' observation. anybody reading this board ever have difficulty figuring out who were the magic tossers? target the tank first makes complete sense... in a world w/o mages, magic and scattershot archers. sorry, but nep logic is only logical if one ignores some very obvious realities 'bout da:o gameplay. again, the enemy ai were changed to make mages more playable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

I dunno, targeting the heaviest armored and armed guy first seems kind of logical to me - especially when the aggro moves to whoever causes major damage contrary to the initial assumption. I'd hate the AI to metagame and attack my mage when he hasn't showed his magical ability yet.

 

So I think that the theory at least is fully sound. I don't think it worked too well, but...

 

like it or not, figuring out who is the dragon age mages before they cast an offensive spell is not a matter o' metagame... is a simple matter o' observation. anybody reading this board ever have difficulty figuring out who were the magic tossers? target the tank first makes complete sense... in a world w/o mages, magic and scattershot archers. sorry, but nep logic is only logical if one ignores some very obvious realities 'bout da:o gameplay. again, the enemy ai were changed to make mages more playable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Well I think it's only fair, since you are only allowed to have a 4 people team against a groups of over 10. There is no way to maneuver any kind of field tactics to protect your mages on the back lines. If we are talking realities the game always tips the scale against your favor, even to the point where they sarcastically refer to it on a random encounter (the one where you can choose to set an ambush for the first time) It makes no sense that a considerable portion of the warrior skills are dedicated to controlling aggro, it simply makes warriors sort of redundant.

[Gromnir]

Well I think it's only fair, since you are only allowed to have a 4 people team against a groups of over 10.

 

...

 

am gonna assume that da:o is NOT the first rpg orogun has played. if we is incorrect, then feel free to ignore the sarcasm we throws your direction, 'cause otherwise you would realize that you has described the realities o' virtual every pnp or crpg developed since the mid 1970's. our party o' 4-6 needs fight off a small army of goblins, orcs, darkspawn, sith, etc.? oh me, oh my. nevertheless, is da:o, and not rps as a whole, that needs to resort to an ai handicap to makes playable?

 

*snort*

 

am not doubting that the da gameplay needed tweaking based on game testing feedback, but the solution chosen were one of expediency rather than logic or elegance. crude.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

Well I think it's only fair, since you are only allowed to have a 4 people team against a groups of over 10.

 

...

 

am gonna assume that da:o is NOT the first rpg orogun has played. if we is incorrect, then feel free to ignore the sarcasm we throws your direction, 'cause otherwise you would realize that you has described the realities o' virtual every pnp or crpg developed since the mid 1970's. our party o' 4-6 needs fight off a small army of goblins, orcs, darkspawn, sith, etc.? oh me, oh my. nevertheless, is da:o, and not rps as a whole, that needs to resort to an ai handicap to makes playable?

 

*snort*

 

am not doubting that the da gameplay needed tweaking based on game testing feedback, but the solution chosen were one of expediency rather than logic or elegance. crude.

 

HA! Good Fun!

You are right, but tweaking the AI is a much quicker fix than tweaking the gameplay. Probably why it was implemented, what I don't understand is the need to scrap something that could had been fixed for DA2 making it a more enjoyable experience. Maybe it was the Dragon Effect; feel free to disregard that last comment.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

For a second there I thought I was reading a discussion about WoW combat. Which is sad when I realise it was actually about Dragon Age. Gotta admit, DA:O's combat bored me to tears.

[Gorth]

For a second there I thought I was reading a discussion about WoW combat. Which is sad when I realise it was actually about Dragon Age. Gotta admit, DA:O's combat bored me to tears.

There is just no accounting for taste

 

I found combat to be one of DA:O's redeeming factors, although the grind towards the end was indeed as boring as the Starforge grind in Kotor1. Who came up with the misconception that endless hordes, respawning or not, equals epic?!?

[Nepenthe]

like it or not, figuring out who is the dragon age mages before they cast an offensive spell is not a matter o' metagame... is a simple matter o' observation. anybody reading this board ever have difficulty figuring out who were the magic tossers? target the tank first makes complete sense... in a world w/o mages, magic and scattershot archers. sorry, but nep logic is only logical if one ignores some very obvious realities 'bout da:o gameplay. again, the enemy ai were changed to make mages more playable.

 

HA! Good Fun!

... Based on your metagame knowledge, you can observe who the mage is? Sure, I can tell who the mage is, you apparently can as well, but in a gameworld were mages are supposed to be sequestered in a tower somewhere (even though there's a rather considerable amount of them still traipsing around). I don't think it's necessary, or even particularly realistic, for every peasant to immediately realise that the unarmored guy with the walking stick can hit them with a firestorm.

 

So yeah, it's entirely based on metagame knowledge, not in-character knowledge...

[Tigranes]

You don't think that peasants would say "hey, hang on, maybe we should target the lightly armoured target who is capable of attacking from range that also seems to be using powerful magic"....?

 

What I'd like to have seen was a simple AI category where animals and such attack randomly and also are likely to turn on wheover hits them, while organised humanoid enemies are trained a bit, so, for instance, their archers will target your mages. Oh well...

[Nepenthe]

You don't think that peasants would say "hey, hang on, maybe we should target the lightly armoured target who is capable of attacking from range that also seems to be using powerful magic"....?

No, that's exactly what I'm saying, and what they do. If you alpha-strike them with your mage, they will move their aggro to the caster. I, and I believe other people, were talking about the way the enemies initially prioritise the heaviest armoured fighters, instead of directly going after the unarmed and -armored guy.

[Enoch]

It's not just the initial enemy selection that bothered me. It's a combination of that, the "make everyone an idiot" button (i.e., the Taunt ability), and the fact that combatants can run right through lines of enemies like greased pigs to pursue their chosen targets. I couldn't help envisioning how great the combat could have been if tactical positioning had some consequences, and if, in place of Taunting, warriors had some more logical "Defend that Guy" abilities.

 

 

Tangent: My ideal system of RTwP small-group, pseudo-Medieval combat would be focused mainly on facing-- essentially, everyone gets Rogue-like sneak attacks when the opponent isn't focused on defending from them. For a non-heroic character, flanked essentially means dead. (And even Heroes have some trouble with it.) Set up a "Tactics" like system of called plays (line of battle, paired off back-to-back, outward-facing circle, etc.), and let each character class accrue abilities that reinforce this mechanic (broad sweeps, shield maneuvers, D&D-like evasion and AoOs, etc.). DA:O combat was just close enough to this for me to lament what was missing.

[entrerix]

i would love the combat enoch is describing. i would love it even more if their was an option for full turn based

[sorophx]

full turn-based wouldn't work in a game like this. even the japanese developers don't make full TB games, unless they have "TACTICS" attached to them.

[Orogun01]

full turn-based wouldn't work in a game like this. even the japanese developers don't make full TB games, unless they have "TACTICS" attached to them.

ehh, almost every JRPG is turn based. What are you talking about?

 

And since we are in the topic; I remember using a lot of the same strategies I use in JRPG while playing Dragon Age.

[Volourn]

"full turn-based wouldn't work in a game like this. "

 

Why not? With all the different combat options, turn based combat would work perfectly in a game like htis.

[sorophx]

ehh, almost every JRPG is turn based. What are you talking about?

a lot of jrpgs I've played recently had some sort of a hybrid real-time/turn-based combat, like FF's ATB. Breath of Fire, Wild Arms, Grandia, Radiata Stories, the Valkyrie Profile sequel. but these games are a couple of years old, so maybe the TB trend is back

Why not?

too slow for the modern gamer. also, the party's too small. while I think mixing strategy with role-playing is a great idea, giving orders to 4 characters and then waiting for a whole regiment of orcs to make their turn isn't very exciting.

[Volourn]

"too slow for the modern gamer. also, the party's too small. while I think mixing strategy with role-playing is a great idea, giving orders to 4 characters and then waiting for a whole regiment of orcs to make their turn isn't very exciting. "

 

The fact that the possibility players may not like it does not mean it could not work.

 

Besides, this is a BIO game we speak of. No doubt in my mind that if BIO makes a turn based game it would still sell a lot.

[sorophx]

ok, to paraphrase, it wouldn't work because Bio doesn't know how to do tactical combat. they have trouble designing encounters as it is, making them turn-based would destroyl it completely.

[HoonDing]

ok, to paraphrase, it wouldn't work because Bio doesn't know how to do tactical combat. they have trouble designing encounters as it is, making them turn-based would destroyl it completely.

Compared to whom?

[Volourn]

" it wouldn't work because Bio doesn't know how to do tactical combat. they have trouble designing encounters as it is, making them turn-based would destroyl it completely. "

 

Wrong. And, as the other V suggests, comapred to wholm? Very few if any other developer even comes close to BIO in these terms. certainly not Obsidian ior Betehsda or the guys who made the turd known as The Twitcher.

 

Even the Fallouts, which I love, have limited tatical combat options comapred top more than a few BIO games. *shruG*