DA2 Dragon Age 2 Play thread

Ovenall · April 1, 2011

How about a mod that makes your character a chronic migraine sufferer? Maybe there's perks as well as drawbacks to these? After a crippling migraine, you get temporary psychic abilities? A mod where you can be manic depressive, unable to leave your house for several days, then are gifted with a haste-type effect for a day or two?

Realism! Immersion!

More seriously, this is why I never like too much "realism" in RPGs, because my default is to immediately work around it. For instance, playing Fallout 3 I always kept up with Repair skill, and can't imaging NOT doing so. And in RPGs with speech skills -- why would you NOT take those? Do you really want to lock yourself out of content you wouldn't see unless you put points into it?

I think part of my issue with this is that I don't get much time to play these games, usually less than 6-8 hours per week. So I don't replay games all the way through very often, and therefore I try to experience as much content as I can in one playthrough.

ChienAboyeur · April 1, 2011

Ovenall said:
And in RPGs with speech skills — why would you NOT take those? Do you really want to lock yourself out of content you wouldn't see unless you put points into it?

I think part of my issue with this is that I don't get much time to play these games, usually less than 6-8 hours per week. So I don't replay games all the way through very often, and therefore I try to experience as much content as I can in one playthrough.

Probably.

A game connecting content and speech skills should offer distinct content for gift of the gab characters and inarticulated characters.

Classes etc come with different requirements which do not mean that a specific class can not tackle a specific issue. Each class should be provided a corresponding approach to solving the issue.

Investing on speech skills should lock you out of content reserved to inarticulated characters. A bit as it was done in Vampire, the Masquerade: blood lines, where vampires lines weak on social skills had access to a different manner to approach the issue.

Dasale · April 1, 2011

sakichop said:
Neither one of you really like crafting, so it's no surprise that you don't mind if it's nerfed or eliminated all together...

Lol you get a point here, Ok I have one example, a single one where I enjoyed overall, the global crafting and collecting system. G2+NOTR, that's it no other, not even like Morrowind or Drakensang RoT.

But I don't think I ever craft a single standard potion, only those with permanent increase of characteristics, plus obviously crafting swords. There's many reason for that special case: Very limited collecting with high level goals, extreme tuning of collecting setup to make it a sort of smart hidden object game perfectly merged to the global gameplay. Adn honestly the crafting itself was just a little detail, not boring enough to reject it and then admit it as a minor contribution to global mood of the game.

And no matter what you think and that for you it's not a crafting system, DA2 system is for me second.

sakichop · April 2, 2011

Dasale said:
Lol you get a point here, Ok I have one example, a single one where I enjoyed overall, the global crafting and collecting system. G2+NOTR, that's it no other, not even like Morrowind or Drakensang RoT.

I enjoyed it in g2 but I have to say the witcher was my favorite crafting in a game. For the main reason that on higher difficulties it was almost a necessity. That gave it much more meaning and felt like it helped even the score against monsters and didn't unbalance the game.

Dasale said:
But I don't think I ever craft a single standard potion, only those with permanent increase of characteristics, plus obviously crafting swords. There's many reason for that special case: Very limited collecting with high level goals, extreme tuning of collecting setup to make it a sort of smart hidden object game perfectly merged to the global gameplay. Adn honestly the crafting itself was just a little detail, not boring enough to reject it and then admit it as a minor contribution to global mood of the game.

I can understand why people wouldn't want to craft things it can be tedious at times. I used to be in that camp but it has grown on me and now I really enjoy it. but you do need to police yourself or it can really unbalance a game.

Dasale said:
And no matter what you think and that for you it's not a crafting system, DA2 system is for me second.

I respect your opinion but also have to respectfully disagree.

DoctorNarrative · April 2, 2011

The combat in this game is definitely a lot better when used as intended. What I mean by that is setting up tactics (or using the default tactics personalities) and controlling just Hawke, running around and whacking stuff to death. Compared to my first play-through where I managed everyone constantly this one is more fun simply because you can tell the game was designed with this play-style in mind.

It's also easier. While I died a lot in hard mode managing my whole party I have only died a couple times managing just Hawke. That might have to do with Hawke being a support mage though and me mastering the control spells.

ChienAboyeur · April 2, 2011

I played first run on hard with the imperative of no one is hurt( no one fall injured) Nightmare run, this demand condition was removed.

It would be nice if the tactics box does not behave weirdly or is not bugged.

The whole thing is supposed to be sequential but an instruction that does not suit the tactics box, ruins the whole execution of the routine.

A small example for a tank (non literal) coming from multiple tests to understand what was going on:

1-enemy: elite or higher:jump to 4
2-self:any:bolster
3
4-enemy: elite or higher: shield bash
5
6-enemy: elite or higher:assault

This set of instruction works and produces the expected execution: the tank engages the elite or higher over the rest of enemies with a shield bash, later assault etc Once the elite enemy killed, the tank uses bolster (at this point, it has to be added that it exhibits the auto attack instruction hidden somewhere as the tank does not only perform bolster but also attack)
It was tested during various battles and repeatedly (the same battle was fought several times to see if the characters follow the routine every time)
Runs fine.

Now the nice part, a "wrong" instruction ruins the whole set of instructions. One could think that as it is sequential, the wrong instruction would only matter when it is about to be executed. Nope, it ruined the whole set of instructions. This is what led me to perform tests because it was not that obvious.

Lets fill the gaps (that was done alternatively and simultaneously)

3- self:any: wait
5-enemy:elite or higher: taunt

At this point, the tank behaviour becomes erratic. The sub routine is simply ignored. The tank freezes at start of the battle, and engages the closest enemy while ever using shield bash or assault.

3 is hard to tell but is wrong in one way or another. 5 is tricky. Taunt is a self centered action and works with instructions like ally:attacked close range
Looked as if as long the condition is true the action is performed but no, it does not work like that.

Removing every other instructions to keep only this one and the tank never used taunt and kept acting weird

Now, the fix
3-
5-self:any:taunt

Works again as expected.
Self:surrounded by x enemies: taunt works.
For some reasons, while one could think the instruction is correct, it is simply not.
And what is best, it ruins the whole.

Now maybe the best bit. Using bolster anytime is a waste so
2-mana/stamina<25pc:bolster
Now, as this trigger can be false, the box will go down until finding a true condition before reset

So lets protect the sub routine with an exit before it

3-self:any:jump to 20

Again, ruined set of instructions, the tank behaves erratically.

An instruction like
3-enemy:any:attack the closest works to protect the loop.

Protection of subroutine matter if you want to preserve special abilities. As nightmare is most about exploiting elemental weaknesses and cross class combos…

Several remarks:
an instruction, valid and ready to apply, can be skipped for no obvious reasons. As I ran tests, the tank could shield bash, skip taunt, assault then taunt (no issue of stamina)
Another point is the the game looks for potential targets randomly. A battle begins but with at least two elite enemies or higher. The game chooses one target, the tank engages the target and suddenly, the tank starts to run accross the battlefield to take another elite, breaking combat with the previous elite. Can go on and on, the tank switching targets.
So if the game is paused to point at a specific elite, in hope the tank sticks to that target, no. No distance hierarchisation. It can be solved at the expense of an additional instruction.

Etc

SAGO · April 4, 2011

ChienAboyeur said:
I played first run on hard with the imperative of no one is hurt( no one fall injured) Nightmare run, this demand condition was removed.

It would be nice if the tactics box does not behave weirdly or is not bugged.

The whole thing is supposed to be sequential but an instruction that does not suit the tactics box, ruins the whole execution of the routine.

A small example for a tank (non literal) coming from multiple tests to understand what was going on:

1-enemy: elite or higher:jump to 4
2-self:any:bolster
3
4-enemy: elite or higher: shield bash
5
6-enemy: elite or higher:assault

This set of instruction works and produces the expected execution: the tank engages the elite or higher over the rest of enemies with a shield bash, later assault etc Once the elite enemy killed, the tank uses bolster (at this point, it has to be added that it exhibits the auto attack instruction hidden somewhere as the tank does not only perform bolster but also attack)
It was tested during various battles and repeatedly (the same battle was fought several times to see if the characters follow the routine every time)
Runs fine.

Now the nice part, a "wrong" instruction ruins the whole set of instructions. One could think that as it is sequential, the wrong instruction would only matter when it is about to be executed. Nope, it ruined the whole set of instructions. This is what led me to perform tests because it was not that obvious.

Lets fill the gaps (that was done alternatively and simultaneously)

3- self:any: wait
5-enemy:elite or higher: taunt

At this point, the tank behaviour becomes erratic. The sub routine is simply ignored. The tank freezes at start of the battle, and engages the closest enemy while ever using shield bash or assault.

3 is hard to tell but is wrong in one way or another. 5 is tricky. Taunt is a self centered action and works with instructions like ally:attacked close range
Looked as if as long the condition is true the action is performed but no, it does not work like that.

Removing every other instructions to keep only this one and the tank never used taunt and kept acting weird

Now, the fix
3-
5-self:any:taunt

Works again as expected.
Self:surrounded by x enemies: taunt works.
For some reasons, while one could think the instruction is correct, it is simply not.
And what is best, it ruins the whole.

Now maybe the best bit. Using bolster anytime is a waste so
2-mana/stamina<25pc:bolster
Now, as this trigger can be false, the box will go down until finding a true condition before reset

So lets protect the sub routine with an exit before it

3-self:any:jump to 20

Again, ruined set of instructions, the tank behaves erratically.

An instruction like
3-enemy:any:attack the closest works to protect the loop.

Protection of subroutine matter if you want to preserve special abilities. As nightmare is most about exploiting elemental weaknesses and cross class combos…

Several remarks:
an instruction, valid and ready to apply, can be skipped for no obvious reasons. As I ran tests, the tank could shield bash, skip taunt, assault then taunt (no issue of stamina)
Another point is the the game looks for potential targets randomly. A battle begins but with at least two elite enemies or higher. The game chooses one target, the tank engages the target and suddenly, the tank starts to run accross the battlefield to take another elite, breaking combat with the previous elite. Can go on and on, the tank switching targets.
So if the game is paused to point at a specific elite, in hope the tank sticks to that target, no. No distance hierarchisation. It can be solved at the expense of an additional instruction.

Etc

truly, you are a patriot by putting that much effort into something that nobody is gunna read

ChienAboyeur · April 4, 2011

Probably right. But it was needed to illustrate that the tactics side of DA2 has various issues.

GothicGothicness · April 4, 2011

I read it.... so it wasn't pointless.

I don't even have the game.... but it was still interesting.

Dasale · April 4, 2011

ChienAboyeur said:
…
It would be nice if the tactics box does not behave weirdly or is not bugged.
…

Well so you seems have noticed wait doesn't work or that you don't understand how it works. So yes Wait is strange I used it once and couldn't understand what it was supposed to do so I never tried again, but apart Wait I didn't quote much problems, perhaps I didn't dig enough.

Here two better tricks to protect later tactics, so you your step 3 I think:

Enemy:Any => Attack // This one is working nicely and is logical, more than wait passively.
Self:Any => Skip tactics // This one works fine too.

Now about your problem for taunt, one action is defining a And with next tactic, so:

y : Enemy:Elite of Higher => And with next tactic
y+1 : Self:Any => Taunt

Y+1 will never be activated if y isn't true, so you should get what you want.

Third point if you want use a series of talents only if the enemy is above a rank, try instead :

Tactics for all ranks
Enemy:Normal or Lower => Skip Tactics (Attack should work too)
Tactics for Elite or Higher

This should work fine and save one slot.

If you want some tactics for Normal or Lower and some other for elite or higher, for example:

Enemy:Normal or Lower => Jump to z
Tactics for Elite or Higher
Enemy:Any => Attack or Skip Tactics
z: Tactics for Normal or Lower

Now if you wonder the difference between Attack and Skip Tactics I can admit I'm not sure and didn't tested enough. I think there's a little difference in some cases and depending of the tactics behavior you use. Myself I used almost only Attack when I could, but Attack is available only for some conditions so when it isn't available then Skip Tactics works fine.

EDIT: Well for taunt I'm surprised that this didn't worked:
Enemy:Elite or Higher => Taunt

I think it's the Wait that broke it but otherwise it should work and the And trick I suggested should not be necessary. Conclusion never use the Wait.

EDIT2: Well I don't remember well but I think that if you want test an elite enemy is around and then taunt, that this isn't possible. But I could be wrong because your tests seem indicate that a condition like "Enemy:Target is Elite or Higher" is working for that purpose. Well I'll let you investigate that!

Ovenall · April 4, 2011

You all have more patience than I do.

I've messed around with the automated tactics and I find it more frustrating than simply managing every party member. I set stuff up, and you can't "test" it until you get into a battle. If you didn't do it right, then the battle goes bad. The biggest problem to me is that the party burns through their abilities too quickly, then has to wait for the cooldown. This is especially bad with the many wave type attacks.

I simply don't have patience for it.

Dasale · April 4, 2011

Ovenall said:
You all have more patience than I do.

I've messed around with the automated tactics and I find it more frustrating than simply managing every party member. I set stuff up, and you can't "test" it until you get into a battle. If you didn't do it right, then the battle goes bad. The biggest problem to me is that the party burns through their abilities too quickly, then has to wait for the cooldown. This is especially bad with the many wave type attacks.

I simply don't have patience for it.

The biggest problem you highlight is for DAO not DA2.

Myself I like dig them a bit more as a complement to moderate manual controls. In that point of view apart one attempt with the Wait, i didn't had any problem to customize them moderately.

I don't think you can use them for playing the game, the problem is you must control a character and this character won't use tactics, or there's a way to do it that I don't know.

ChienAboyeur · April 5, 2011

I've messed around with the automated tactics and I find it more frustrating than simply managing every party member. I set stuff up, and you can't "test" it until you get into a battle. If you didn't do it right, then the battle goes bad. The biggest problem to me is that the party burns through their abilities too quickly, then has to wait for the cooldown. This is especially bad with the many wave type attacks.

I simply don't have patience for it.

One good way to implement a box tactics set is to keep a battle whose configuration is of interest to you. And then, work you tactics set on it repeatedly until you get the results you want.
It also allows to spot the irregular instructions that looked perfectly right.

For the cool down story, the best I managed to do is to implement a set of abilities that complement themselves. You go with a party of four, and depending on the battles, you might prefer to lead the battle as the rogue/mage/warrior members of the party.

The set has to be thought with a party triggering event to unleash a sequence of actions by party members.

For example, as a mage, you cast a glyph of paralysis, this triggers the rogues to use the chaos ability to confuse the paralysed group, then the other mage uses walking bomb, then the warrior uses a mighty blow on the target on the mage.

But you can initiate the battle as the warrior and the sequence of actions will change totally.

That is the best I managed to do: getting sets that complement each other and allow flexibility through the first input that is followed up by a sequence of actions by each party member. It allows to digest the wave issue as you go through the battle by leading from a different member.

Ultimately, it saves time as micromanaging is time consuming.

Dasale said:
Well so you seems have noticed wait doesn't work or that you don't understand how it works. So yes Wait is strange I used it once and couldn't understand what it was supposed to do so I never tried again, but apart Wait I didn't quote much problems, perhaps I didn't dig enough.

Here two better tricks to protect later tactics, so you your step 3 I think:

Enemy:Any => Attack // This one is working nicely and is logical, more than wait passively.

Self:Any => Skip tactics // This one works fine too.

The core of my lengthy post was that the tactics box behaves weirdly at best.
It was not about messing with it until you get results. Most of the points illustrated how a 'wrong' command ruins the whole routine in an unexpected way.

I stated a way (among others) to protect the loop. It was not about that but how the most logical solution, that is using an exit condition (self:any:jump to 20) ruins the whole routine. The grammar of the instruction looks right. Yet it ruins all the routine in the weird way I told.

Enemy:elite or higher:taunt looks right too.

Dasale · April 5, 2011

You proved nothing apart that you don't understand what "Wait" is supposed to do. I agree Wait behavior isn't clear.

All other points show nothing. For setting something that jumps to a tactic that defines nothing you are really looking for troubles. When used to jump to a real tactic it always worked perfectly well for me.

Benedict · April 6, 2011

JDR13 said:
If that's what it takes for them to expand dialogue options, then I say yes. I've yet to play a game that was made great due to voice acting.

I don't think pure text is necessary though. They could use a combination.

Does everyone need to do that though? Isn't there room for Bioware to make big epic cinematic stuff with voice acting, Spiderweb & iron tower to make detailed branching games with text, Obsidian to make a random selection of stuff that's brilliant but flawed, Bethesda to knock out big empty sandboxes without enough depth for either voice acting or branching text and Peter Molyneaux to make ludicrous pronouncements about changing rpgs forever before releasing the world's most elaborate farting simulator?

Takes all sorts to make a world.

Benedict · April 6, 2011

Nerevarine said:
I can see where you're coming from in terms of the removed skills, and in my argument about skills I made the point that they weren't implemented very well to begin with. However, let me ask you this: Are you happy with the skills being gutted entirely, or would you have rather had the skills improved in order to make them function better within the game? Both options are valid depending on your perspective, but I would personally much rather go with the second option; removing gameplay elements and failing to replace them with something worthwhile in return does not seem like a valid "improvement" to me.

Do you not see shorter development cycles for the same content volume as being anything worthwhile in return? And arguably the ability to voice act everything is the "something worthwhile" that's the trade off for not having dialogue that corresponds to speech skills

Don't get me wrong, I'm always very open minded to developers really trying to come up with gameplay mechanics that genuinely add to the feel of a game. I was very impressed with some of the things Obsidian tried out for Alpha Protocol for example.

More often than not a lot of things are a huge pain in the arse though. Crafting for example always tends to work out with me carrying around ridiculous amounts of reagents and potions and other stuff that I never really get round to using but hate to throw away, causing me issues with the inventory management minigames instead.

ChienAboyeur · April 10, 2011

Dasale said:
You proved nothing apart that you don't understand what "Wait" is supposed to do. I agree Wait behavior isn't clear.

All other points show nothing. For setting something that jumps to a tactic that defines nothing you are really looking for troubles. When used to jump to a real tactic it always worked perfectly well for me.

In the example, the wait instruction is not part of the jumped to subroutine.

Dasale · April 10, 2011

ChienAboyeur said:
In the example, the wait instruction is not part of the jumped to subroutine.

So you really pretend that this isn't working?
=> <<3-self:any:jump to a tactic>>

I used it many time and never get any erratic problem. I suggest you reinstall the game, your installation is obviously corrupted.

Quote I didn't use any mod, with DAO sometimes a mod could break surprising things.

JDR13 · April 10, 2011

Benedict said:
Does everyone need to do that though? Isn't there room for Bioware to make big epic cinematic stuff with voice acting, Spiderweb & iron tower to make detailed branching games with text, Obsidian to make a random selection of stuff that's brilliant but flawed, Bethesda to knock out big empty sandboxes without enough depth for either voice acting or branching text and Peter Molyneaux to make ludicrous pronouncements about changing rpgs forever before releasing the world's most elaborate farting simulator?

Takes all sorts to make a world.

Nowhere did I say that *every* game needs to have a book-load of dialogue. I'm a variety guy myself so I completly agree that all games should be different. I just don't like the fact that Bioware games seem to be getting dumber as time goes on.

Dasale · April 10, 2011

I wonder what's so "undumb" in games like NWN1, Jade Empire, ME1, and even Kotor?

I don't remember they was quotable for their puzzles, tactical depth, exploration tricks, quest solving complexity. But it's really a question, why an idiot player couldn't play them but could play DA2?

DA2 Dragon Age 2 Play thread

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

sakichop

Guest

Patroling Written Words

SasqWatch

Typical RPGWatch user

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch