Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Redesigning DA combat

Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
6,933
So, Dragon Age's combat system sucked, to the point that combat could be said to be DAs biggest flaw. Which is a shame, since I had looked forward to a decent non-D&D game. While the system felt pretty good in the beginning, with interesting abilities for warriors and rogues as well as mages, I quickly realized that

* Mages are ridiculously OP
* Archery is UP for a player character, and OP for enemies once they get scattershot (although less so than mages)
* Warriors run out of interesting choices once all talents on the combat tree are taken
* The stats aren't balanced at all, there is typically one that is the clearly superior choice for your character and which you will end up putting all your points in
* Also, all enemies (with the exception of the ogre?) are variations of the same three types: Rogue, tank or mage. Thus, all encounters can be fought with the same tactic.
* Level scaling made the bandit mobs of Denerim a fiercer opponent than a dragon.
* With the exception of coercion, combat tactics and traps/poison/herbalism for one of your party members, skills were useless.

Now, assume for a moment that Dragon Age has not yet been published, and you are a Bioware employee working on the Dragon Age combat system. You quickly realize that it is shit. How do you fix it?
 

spectre

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
5,427
I would start with askingpreliminary questions, like, why the fuck bother.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
Even if the combat was somehow made interesting, we would also have to fix the bad story, boring art and design, and the overwhelmingly bland characters. So just make a new game.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,418
Location
Copenhagen
phelot said:
Even if the combat was somehow made interesting, we would also have to fix the bad story, boring art and design, and the overwhelmingly bland characters. So just make a new game.

Trying too hard.

As for the question: Make it turnbased, obviously. Also: Drop letting devs design rulesystems.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
Grunker said:
phelot said:
Even if the combat was somehow made interesting, we would also have to fix the bad story, boring art and design, and the overwhelmingly bland characters. So just make a new game.

Trying too hard.

You really think the story is good? The idea of evil Darkspawn interests you? You don't recall hearing this story elsewhere? You think that having a sexy sorceress is new? How about a pet dog? Or a wisecracking guy? Morrigan and Allistair are interesting names to you? You still think tribal tattoos are cool?

About the only thing going for the story and characters is that they are written coherently which, unfortunately doesn't hide the fact that they're boring. Though, of course that's a matter of opinion.

I would have forgotten about this game by now if I didn't have to hear about how supposedly wonderful it is. If it had been released a decade or so ago, no one would have batted an eye.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2008
Messages
6,927
Grunker said:
phelot said:
Even if the combat was somehow made interesting, we would also have to fix the bad story, boring art and design, and the overwhelmingly bland characters. So just make a new game.

Trying too hard.

Not trying hard enough.
 

sheek

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,659
Location
Cydonia
I don't think it needs deep redesign, the theory is fine like you said it's mostly balance. And also, uninteresting enemy AI, but there's not much that can be done about that.

Personally I would get rid of all level scaling, and change the plot so that the player is not encouraged to not care which order he does quests in (let the player try but make it very difficult). But that goes beyond the combat system.

I would also make wound effects much more significant and persistent (it's a dumb gimmick, when you can teleport to camp any time you want and have them all instantly disappear). I would allow companions to die if they accumulated enough wounds. I would nerf regeneration and limit healing/resting to specific locations. But then we are talking of a totally different imaginary game, not DA.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
The system is pretty good overall. It suffers from weak penalties, weak effects of secondary stats, and filler combat that drowns memorable encounters.

The injury system can be the best thing since sliced bread if the penalties are more severe (more on that in my review), injury kits are more rare, the wounds heal slowly (10 real time minutes after applying a kit?), and the camp has no effect on healing at all.

phelot said:
Morrigan and Allistair are interesting names to you?
Bitching about names now?
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
Vault Dweller said:
phelot said:
Morrigan and Allistair are interesting names to you?
Bitching about names now?

Why not? It's part of the story and setting isn't it? Alone, perhaps it's ok, but coupled with all the other boredom, it might have been nice if DA had at least interesting names
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,418
Location
Copenhagen
phelot said:
Vault Dweller said:
phelot said:
Morrigan and Allistair are interesting names to you?
Bitching about names now?

Why not? It's part of the story and setting isn't it? Alone, perhaps it's ok, but coupled with all the other boredom, it might have been nice if DA had at least interesting names

I lol'd.

Also; VD, man, we're supposed to be on the same side, but you keep overestimating this game.

Both sides on the 'dex could gain from trying the whole "nuanced opinion"-thing.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
sigh... laissez faire I suppose. "It's good for what it is" and all that.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,250
Location
Ingrija
herostratus said:
Now, assume for a moment that Dragon Age has not yet been published, and you are a Bioware employee working on the Dragon Age combat system. You quickly realize that it is shit. How do you fix it?

I visit a brain surgeon and undergo lobotomy to have every trace of world of warcrap erased from my memory. Then play some Dark Sun, Pools of Darkness, Prelude to Darkness or TOEE, and rip off their combat mechanics.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
Grunker said:
Also; VD, man, we're supposed to be on the same side, but you keep overestimating this game.
I'm too old to care about sides. I played the game, shared my initial impressions, and then wrote a review. The review reflects my opinion, not that of any group on the Codex. If someone disagrees, that's absolutely fine with me. That's what the Codex is for after all.

phelot said:
"It's good for what it is" and all that.
My "it's good for what it is" comment in regard to FO3 referred to the fact that it was a sandbox game and measuring it against the original game was idiotic and pointless.
 

Phelot

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
17,908
You said that? You know it's taken on a life of it's own...
 

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,600
Location
Deutschland
herostratus said:
So, Dragon Age's combat system sucked, to the point that combat could be said to be DAs biggest flaw. Which is a shame, since I had looked forward to a decent non-D&D game.

First of all it wasn't the combat system that sucked, it was the encounter design.
The character system is actually pretty good, especially for Warrior/Rogues compared to DnD (and I say that as a DnD fan). In DA I played a rogue and enjoyed it, I would never ever consider playing non-casters in DnD, except for party based games where you play the whole party anyway, but even there I would prefer casters. A typical ToEE party would look like this: 2x Fighter/Cleric, Fighter/Druid, Sorcerer, Rogue/Wizard.

What I didn't like was the spell system. The fact you could never swap your spell plus the sad fact that you have to take spells that are useless (or that you will never use because they don't fit your playstyle) just to qualify for the spells you actually want. The result is spamming the same few spells again and again throughout the whole game which - despite being very effective - becomes boring eventually.

It could be worse - see Divinity 2, where you also choose spells at level up, but are furtherly obliged to improve said spells in subsequent level ups, otherwise they will quickly become obsolete (you wouldn't want to attack 2000 HP critters with a 20 dmg Fireball). So you really end up with 3-4 spells and use them exclusively, yawn.

So the character system is not that bad for a first try, but imo it needs to be expanded. More classes, or at the very least more different specialisations with more than just 4 abilities. The spell system I'd rework completely if I had any say in it.

* Mages are ridiculously OP
there's nothing wrong with magic being powerful, until you are fairly high level you're often just a staff shooter, inbetween casting your 2-3 spells

* Archery is UP for a player character, and OP for enemies once they get scattershot (although less so than mages)
yes scattershot really gets annoying when you face 6 enemy archers that circle through it, the fact that it unerringly hits however far apart your partymembers are doesn't help either

* Warriors run out of interesting choices once all talents on the combat tree are taken
There should be more than just 4 talents to pick for a spec, that would adress this problem

* The stats aren't balanced at all, there is typically one that is the clearly superior choice for your character and which you will end up putting all your points in
that's true for mages where maxing magic is clearly superior, not so much for rogues or warriors

* Also, all enemies (with the exception of the ogre?) are variations of the same three types: Rogue, tank or mage. Thus, all encounters can be fought with the same tactic.
that's a problem of the character system - only 3 classes - and the encounter design

* Level scaling made the bandit mobs of Denerim a fiercer opponent than a dragon.
Another problem of the spell system is that there are spells which are clearly superior to the rest of the spells, sleep, walking nightmare, mass paralyze, the hexes, the curses & death cloud. If you have them also these encounters are a cakewalk on nightmare difficulty, if not it can be quite tricky, of course there are also the *I win lolz* combos

* With the exception of coercion, combat tactics and traps/poison/herbalism for one of your party members, skills were useless.
yes

Now, assume for a moment that Dragon Age has not yet been published, and you are a Bioware employee working on the Dragon Age combat system. You quickly realize that it is shit. How do you fix it?
any suggestions?
 

Soulforged

Scholar
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
209
I'm working on a balancing mod and I address some of the points you raise. Lets see:
herostratus said:
* Mages are ridiculously OP
Agree. One of the things I noticed is that fights drag for too long and defense is too low (that's more hit points less defense). But they also drag for a long time due to the damage output of an average character, given that critical hits are nerfed to some extent a fighter or thief will have a hard time when compared to a mage who can deal lots of damage sometimes in a short period, not to mention that the damage is inflicted on a group of enemies. To remedy that I've already modified the abilities script's (that includes all talents and spells) so that they can be easily modified by INI entries (this will facilitate my tuning afterward). I've also increase the critical hit modifier for all weapons. This should give me the necessary tools to make mages less overpowered at least. I've also given all creatures less starting hit points (about %60 less of what they received), the same goes for stamina/mana and I've increased their starting defense rating. Hit points do not go up per level and neither does mana, so if you reach a mage or able to hit him with an arrow then you could probably end the fight in one or two hits. Of course this will force me to add spells that can be used strategically to avoid such problems (similar to Protection against missiles of the Dungeons & Dragons setting).
* Archery is UP for a player character, and OP for enemies once they get scattershot (although less so than mages)
This is true. I think I'll be able to modify this in the same way as noted, if not I'll have to touch it specifically.
* Warriors run out of interesting choices once all talents on the combat tree are taken.
Well I can see how that's possible for a level 25 character, but I've already capped the experience points so you can only reach level 20 at most.
* The stats aren't balanced at all, there is typically one that is the clearly superior choice for your character and which you will end up putting all your points in
I do not agree with this. They're not perfectly balanced, but any character needs good defense, stamina and health (at least) so there you have three distinct corresponding stats which govern them (Dexterity, Willpower and Constitution). Then strength, dexterity and cunning are vital for rogues specifically, for example. On the other hand we've Magic, which of course you'll say that only serves mages, but that's not correct, the more Magic a character has the more beneficial magic affects him and the more his spell resistance increases (though I'm not so sure about the last). Of course, given that you need to focus on some attributes to get access to the best equipment, spending points on other attributes might be counter-productive.
* Also, all enemies (with the exception of the ogre?) are variations of the same three types: Rogue, tank or mage. Thus, all encounters can be fought with the same tactic.
I think that the main reason that all enemies can be fought using the same tactics (if you want to call them that) is because there's not a single resistance that they possess that you cannot break with enough persistance, immunities to some things for some enemies could remedy this (but I'm not about to touch it any time soon). I also suspect that making the battles shorter (because they're lethal) will prevent you from being so persistent. There's also another factor which I can say for sure that influences the sameness on battle approach across the game: you're almost always fighting against greater numbers, so the first thing you're going to do is either to lure them into an ambush so you can pick them one by one (of course this is not always possible since the encounters are sometimes designed to keep you in one place) or using your mages to manage the groups with area of effect spells.
* Level scaling made the bandit mobs of Denerim a fiercer opponent than a dragon.
Again this is due to number of opponents, not so much quality. All the high dragons you fight are at least level 20 and those bandits might be level 20 if you enter their area for the first time being level 23-24. I've also made the level scaling a little less rampant, enemies inside an area wont scale further or lower than a two fold range (10-12, or 5-7, and so on).
* With the exception of coercion, combat tactics and traps/poison/herbalism for one of your party members, skills were useless.
Yes. I was thinking of using survival ala Fallout, giving you an opportunity to avoid a random encounter if you've enough ranks, however the way random encounters work is a little obtuse (from the scripting perspective at least), so I left it for later. Beyond that I think that coercion could also have its uses inside combat now that you mention it, such as being able to intimidate enemies and inflict a fear effect on them, thanks for the tip. As for tactics I really thought that the system was well crafted, but the options are still too few and the fact that you've to buy ranks on it to do something basic as giving directives is not kosher.
How do you fix it?
Of course it will take a lot more of what I'm doing to "fix it" if such a thing can be said. I'll really like it to be turn based, alas, that's not possible without messing with some engine nuances.

EDIT: Magic, not Spellpower.
 

quasimodo

Augur
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
372
If they would throw out the filler combat and let the camera zoom out far enough to view the whole battle field it would be a whole lot better. Its still RTwP though which is pretty much like herding cats when compared to TB.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
VentilatorOfDoom said:
First of all it wasn't the combat system that sucked, it was the encounter design. The character system is actually pretty good, especially for Warrior/Rogues compared to DnD (and I say that as a DnD fan)....
Completely agree. Pretty much everything in DA is well designed but then ruined by a fear to go too far and make the game too challenging for the casual market and by filling the game to the brim with filler combat.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,418
Location
Copenhagen
Vault Dweller said:
Grunker said:
Also; VD, man, we're supposed to be on the same side, but you keep overestimating this game.
I'm too old to care about sides. I played the game, shared my initial impressions, and then wrote a review. The review reflects my opinion, not that of any group on the Codex. If someone disagrees, that's absolutely fine with me. That's what the Codex is for after all.

That comment was tongue-in-cheek, VD.

The serious part was that I feel you're overestimating parts of the game in a reaction towards the idiots that call all of it stupid. Well, I'll read your review, when it comes, then I can tell for sure.

The system is a good example though. It's so complete in its simplicity, you can tell what abilities work well and what abilities aren't worth your time, and it what ways they work, in one playthrough. Playing around with character system loses all fun after playing through the game a maximum of two times, because it is so fucking simple.

Usually, it's only worth it to spend points in one stat, and there are spells that make all other spells completely irrelevant. I can blast my way through the hardest setting fireballin' and stun-locking.

Bleh. My opinion of the game is that it's way better than any of the other crap we've seen lately, but it is in no way a "gem," such as Bloodlines.
 

sheek

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,659
Location
Cydonia
Re: Stats, I also disagree. I think the only one you can neglect totally is Magic as a Warrior/Rogue.

My warrior was forced to go up to 26 Dex for his ability tree, as well as the obvious Constitution and Strength (for hitpoints, heavier armor and knockdown resistance). I took Cunning for my Coercion skills to be worthwhile, which now gives me a nice Critical Strike advantage (very useful, since I use Cone of Cold often).

The only stat I didn't touch apart from Magic was Willpower, until I realized it was the main stat for Stamina, which explained why I ran out of energy so quickly in battle, so I started increasing that.

On the whole that's quite balanced, 5 attributes out of 6 were of some use.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
Grunker said:
The serious part was that I feel you're overestimating parts of the game in a reaction towards the idiots that call all of it stupid. Well, I'll read your review, when it comes, then I can tell for sure.
I sent it to DU yesterday. I assume it will be posted in a few days.

The system is a good example though. It's so complete in its simplicity, you can tell what abilities work well and what abilities aren't worth your time, and it what ways they work, in one playthrough. Playing around with character system loses all fun after playing through the game a maximum of two times, because it is so fucking simple.
Simple doesn't necessarily mean bad.

Usually, it's only worth it to spend points in one stat, and there are spells that make all other spells completely irrelevant. I can blast my way through the hardest setting fireballin' and stun-locking.
Which doesn't make the other spells useless. I can blast my way through using a different set of spells. Gareth used a completely different set of spell as well. Etc.

Bleh. My opinion of the game is that it's way better than any of the other crap we've seen lately, but it is in no way a "gem," such as Bloodlines.
Then we're in agreement.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
Vault Dweller said:
phelot said:
"It's good for what it is" and all that.
My "it's good for what it is" comment in regard to FO3 referred to the fact that it was a sandbox game and measuring it against the original game was idiotic and pointless.

Because original game is a corridor shooter!

Vault Dweller said:
Simple doesn't necessarily mean bad.
Primitive doesn't necessarily mean simple.

mondblut said:
Then play some Dark Sun, Pools of Darkness, Prelude to Darkness or TOEE, and rip off their combat mechanics.

You forgot another tabletop-to-PC - RoA. It shows how the party-based top-down combat should be done.

Of course compared to them combat in DA sucks hard but it's good for what it is because nothing else came out in 2009 and before that games didn't exist.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom