Dragon Age-style Tactics and other non-pause combat interfaces?

[aramk]

The DAO system at least had customisation that made it at worst exactly like the IE games combat scripts and at best meant you hardly needed to manage your group in certain combats.

 

Scripts don't overwrite your control, you can still pause at any time and tell someone to do something. If you don't want a character using a specific interrupt you could just leave the skill out of the AI script, which meant at any point you felt you could interrupt an enemy, you switch to that character and use the interrupt, at other times you could be commanding another character while the interrupter is still using a basic script to do things.

 

The one good thing over most AI scripts I've seen that DAO has is that scripts can be built per character. One fighter doesn't use his interrupts, the other does. The level of control is yours. You could build a basic combat script that would apply to any character if you want some automation, attack enemy, use potion etc or you could build a detailed script telling which priority to use abilities.

 

The DAO system had default Defender, Scrapper fighter scripts as well as melee/ranged subsets, offensive, defensive, supportive and healing scripts for casters, disabling scripts for rogues and mages.

 

I find it hard how anyone could say DAO scripting was done badly, there was so much variation ranging from Scripts Off to play my game for me and pretty much everything in between. You just had to spend some time getting to know the system to build what you wanted.

 

It was done badly because it was tied to a skill (tactics), and only became useful if you invested in tactics. I really don't think that spending character points for better AI is worth it. Secondly, I can write a much better script with routines and proper branching than I can do with DA:O system. For me (although I appreciate not for everyone), I'd rather have a powerful scripting system.

[jivex5k]

The scripting nerd in me loved the whole DA tactics game.

The gamer in me hated it.

 

If you do decide to include it please give us the option to completely turn it off. I want FULL CONTROL!

[Delterius]

The scripting nerd in me loved the whole DA tactics game.

The gamer in me hated it.

 

If you do decide to include it please give us the option to completely turn it off. I want FULL CONTROL!

 

That kinda goes without saying, I don't remember any of those AI customizations without the option to turn it off or minimizing the AI's action to 'auto-attack nearest since you're not doing anything anyway).

[DCParry]

I played DA:O I thought it was terribly flawed, despite some interesting ideas here and there. It's tactical combat, and I laugh to call it that, was not one of their interesting ideas. Outside of the Origins, I don't know why people bring up the game. It did so many things so badly, or, even worse, in such a mediocre or forgetable way . . . I don't get it. Don't even mention the spell combinations, spell combos were not a new thing no matter their dippy marketing that bordered on lies.

 

Spiritual successor to the BG series? What rubbish . . . DA2 was by far worse, but DA:O was just . . . shallow. Shallow customization. Shallow classes. Shallow skills and abilities. Choices that didn't matter a dull story that didn't even benefit from being original. Logan was the best thing about the story but it still managed to scoot around flat on its nose midway to nearly the end dear . . . whatever . . . why do people think this is something you want PE to be anything like? Why would you want to pull anything from this game when plenty of 'actually' good RPGs do it better?

 

I can't believe I'm reading that people actually thought that was tactical . . . how . . . low our expectation of challenging gameplay in modern RPGs (most of which don't even deserve to be called RPGs) have sunk for 'that' to be considered tactical.

 

I honestly don't see what this rant has to do with the topic.

 

He wanted to show he was one of the cool kids who hated DA:O.

[Umberlin]

I honestly don't see what this rant has to do with the topic.

 

. . .

 

There are games, actual tactically challenging games, that this game can actually pull from and Obsidian have already named such games themselves. Why would anyone here want to look to DA:O for anything . . . literally anything? Especially when it comes to the subject matter of this thread? DA:O and DA2 are prime examples of how dumbed down and simplified every aspect of modern RPGs are becoming. Why would you look to that when trying to make a better game, especially a game pulling from the RPGs Obsidian has mentioned?

 

The little good there was has been done better in other games, mostly older games. That's not something I'd glad of. It actually makes me quite sad, and it certainly doesn't make me feel that I, and others who share my opinion, are somehow better than those who do not.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Umberlin

[Ieo]

I honestly don't see what this rant has to do with the topic.

 

. . .

 

There are games, actual tactically challenging games, that this game can actually pull from and Obsidian have already named such games themselves. Why would anyone here want to look to DA:O for anything . . . literally anything? Especially when it comes to the subject matter of this thread? DA:O and DA2 are prime examples of how dumbed down and simplified every aspect of modern RPGs are becoming. Why would you look to that when trying to make a better game, especially a game pulling from the RPGs Obsidian has mentioned?

 

The little good there was has been done better in other games, mostly older games. That's not something I'd glad of. It actually makes me quite sad, and it certainly doesn't make me feel that I, and others who share my opinion, are somehow better than those who do not.

 

Project Eternity should learn nothing from DA:O except for its mistakes---"mistakes" only in the sense that it was marketed to be something it was not. I could have accepted the trash if it wasn't a poser game trying to be something else in order to rake in nostalgia cash. The sole link between PE and DA:O is that both mentioned "Baldur's Gate" in the pitch. And in the case of DA:O, that link should be severed completely and cauterized with Balor's tongue.

 

DA:O was probably fine in itself, on its own, without any of the marketing links, being true to itself as different. That's where the current disgust comes from.

 

Liars.

 

 

Okay, Alistair was still better than Anomen by miles, I'm sure.

[AGX-17]

So I was thinking about this just now. A commenter (Starwars, in the 'spell cutscene' thread http://forums.obsidi...ell-cut-scenes/) said that "I hope something Project Eternity will do is to have as little interruptions to the gameplay as possible. No cutscenes or other things that constantly takes away control from the player."

 

This made me think. Although I love making chess-like tactics, I also love relatively simple ways of doing combat. As in: the pause button may be there, but if given the choice, I'd rather not use it if I could deal with the combat on-the-fly, to really be involved in-the-moment rather than being the floating observer in the sky pausing the action, thinking about my next move for half an hour, before ordering everyone perfectly (I exaggerate, but still...).

 

So I was wondering about whether or not it is possible to cater to both these play-styles, and if so, if that would be favored by most people.

 

My first thought:

 

Dragon Age Origins had this great mechanic of tactics where you could assign several orders to people that they would do if their trigger-conditions were met (example: if ally's health under 25%, do uber awesome heal, or: if 4 enemies in close proximity of each other, do the freezing area-of-effect spell to freeze them). That way you could issue your strategic orders without stopping the action with a pause and keeping the flow going. Plus, it added believability: characters were able to act relatively intelligently and independently from the player.

 

Then I got round to thinking about SWTOR and its combat interface: skills are bound to the hotkeys of 1 through 0 and has a highly customizable interface so that data and skills could be accessed without much trouble.

 

But then again, if there really ARE going to be parties with 4 through 6 (if I remember correctly this was mentioned somewhere?) members, then that would become quite the challenge to control without breaking the flow by pausing.. (though the aforementioned tactics could be interesting for the exact same reason).

 

So... Thoughts/opinions on this subject?

 

- Tim

 

Great mechanic? In theory it sounded good, but in practice it failed to account for 90% of the possible battlefield conditions. You've got tanks sitting there rapidly switching a sustained mode on and off, a mage using an AOE spell on a single enemy because the rest of the swarm moved to the tank but the target hasn't, a rogue using an attack that would deal triple damage to a stunned enemy right before the enemy is stunned, not that the warrior can stun anyone wasting stamina turning that sustained ability on and off...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I don't know if PE should use the DA tactics system, but they should have a complex AI for every party member, including the PC. Letting the game "play itself" should be an option.

[Umberlin]

Project Eternity should learn nothing from DA:O except for its mistakes---"mistakes" only in the sense that it was marketed to be something it was not. I could have accepted the trash if it wasn't a poser game trying to be something else in order to rake in nostalgia cash. The sole link between PE and DA:O is that both mentioned "Baldur's Gate" in the pitch. And in the case of DA:O, that link should be severed completely and cauterized with Balor's tongue.

 

DA:O was probably fine in itself, on its own, without any of the marketing links, being true to itself as different. That's where the current disgust comes from.

 

You're right. I will submit to the fact that part of my up front dislike of the game comes from its claim to be a successor to something once held dear, and delivering anything but said claim. That dislike, however, wouldn't make its various, very real, issues outside of that anything but what they were. So, while I concur, I'm not convinced that I'd have viewed it as fine had they not created those circumstances.

[Ieo]

Project Eternity should learn nothing from DA:O except for its mistakes---"mistakes" only in the sense that it was marketed to be something it was not. I could have accepted the trash if it wasn't a poser game trying to be something else in order to rake in nostalgia cash. The sole link between PE and DA:O is that both mentioned "Baldur's Gate" in the pitch. And in the case of DA:O, that link should be severed completely and cauterized with Balor's tongue.

 

DA:O was probably fine in itself, on its own, without any of the marketing links, being true to itself as different. That's where the current disgust comes from.

 

You're right. I will submit to the fact that part of my up front dislike of the game comes from its claim to be a successor to something once held dear, and delivering anything but said claim. That dislike, however, wouldn't make its various, very real, issues outside of that anything but what they were. So, while I concur, I'm not convinced that I'd have viewed it as fine had they not created those circumstances.

 

I posit that, were it not for that single particular pitch link, we would not be seeing as many Dragon Age threads on the PE forums as we do now, thus inviting fewer direct comparisons. It would be far easier to dismiss DA:O on its face as "That's a Bioware generic fantasy Action-Romance RPG, wut?"--which we still can now as a matter of mechanical fact among other things, but that stupid marketing link has sure messed things up. By virtue of that tenuous link, we have players who come here fully expecting there to be an actual relationship when there is none--and there cannot be any.

 

Never has the phrase "spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate" brought such evil.

[Umberlin]

Heh. True enough.