Dragon Age Cooldown Versus Vancian

[Mangoose]

I've never played DA2. Didn't buy it.

Odd. Because your observations are valid for DA2 but in DAO I never saw the same issue. I can even quote a review:

The camera moves along what has been described as a "J-Axis," referring to the way the camera zooms out and then up, forming a path that roughly resembles a letter 'J.' At its closest (the neck of the J), the camera gives an over-the-shoulder third person view of the action. Zooming out from there, the camera backs away from the character of focus for a progressively wider view. On the PC version, there is one additional level of zoom (the hook of the J), in which the camera jumps high off the ground, assuming an approximation of an isometric view of the battlefield, reminiscent of the fixed isometric view of Infinity Engine games. In this pseudo-isometric view, the camera is not locked on to the currently selected character; instead, allowing free scrolling over the battlefield within a distance limit from the currently selected character.

http://www.giantbomb.com/dragon-age-origins/3030-20738/

 

[Mangoose]

Cooldowns or Vancian, it doesn't really matter providing there are restrictions that balance out the nature of both systems.

Oh god, finally you realize that the context of the discussion is about the general mechanic, and not whether a specific game does it right or wrong due to bad restrictions.

Origins balances cooldowns by throwing more enemies at you in sustained encounters, which require constant adjustment and re-evaluation. On Nightmare difficulty (which all IE vets should play, right off the bat), Origins throws more enemies at you, buffs them in myriad ways, and increases their AI (lieutenants will favor their more powerful abilities, more often).

This is a good argument. So from what I gather, DA:O spells are not so much the low-impact, multiple-use that I described, but moreso a moderate balance between low-impact and high-impact spells. That is not so bad.

However, my concern extends also to the non-mage classes. In DA:O I remember Fighters and Rogues had a lot of short cooldown, non-situational, low-impact abilities. That part of the gameplay did not seem interesting to me, and required tedious micromanagement. Now, at the same time, you could also build them more passively with sustained stances and the like. I think that latter type of gameplay is more interesting than the former. Finally, I don't remember having many high-impact, situational active skills, which I would have liked. To be honest, I was thinking of Fighters and Rogues when I first mentioned short-cooldown, low-impact abilities, but I got sidetracked and I that's my fault entirely.

In the context of my playthrough, I only played with one Mage and I built my physical characters balanced, and not specifically around the sustained stances. So, the way my party was built, I had a lot of spammy low-impact abilities to micromanage. Ignoring the fact that I could have built my party differently, this experience gave me the general conclusion that spammy low-impact attacks are not fun when controlling 4 characters in real time. I'm tempted now to replay with two mages, and physical characters NOT built around those short-cooldown abilities, and see how it plays.

Now again, whether I am right or wrong about a specific game or a specific aspect of a game, it's fine to say I'm wrong, but let's not digress too much into the specifics after that. Go back to the general argument: whichever game does it better, how would you take these lessons and design the game mechanics in PoE (or another hypothetical RTWP game)?

In conclusion, I still don't believe that having low-impact, easily spammable abilties is a good idea in RTWP. High-impact spells that are restricted by long cooldowns or large mana use or limited spells per day or per encounter, on the other hand, I do like. I also like high-impact abilities that are only useful in certain situations, where the restriction is not mechanical but based on the state of a specific encounter (again the only example here I can think of is Wild Sprint in the PoE demo). Moderate attacks/abilities/spells also are good but I feel these types are hardest to balance. Stances and sustained abilities are also welcome. On the other hand, almost completely passive fighters a la non-subclass physical classes in IE, I think are too non-active to be fun in an RTWP (in PNP this is less an issue because melee mechanics are more complex, with stuff like 5-foot-step, Charging, Disarms, etc.)

This previous paragraph is the point of my arguments, rather than whether they were done right in this game or that game. So would you disagree with any of those conclusions I made, and why? Or do you agree with some of those conclusions, and why? Would you add any features I've missed, and why?

 

[Mangoose]

Because, let's be honest here, in majority of cases we're, again, not talking about principles of the Vancian/Cooldown systems, but basically about some kind of extreme (overkill) manifestation of the latter.

Both examples of the systems are extreme for the sake of ease of discussion.

Why I think sawyer did it right: First, we're talking about systems with basic attack plus unique "abilities" here (feats, spells all of that shit - some are unique because they're powerfull, some for their usefulness in specific situations). I'll make it short; besides Mages (and variations), there's not a single class with useless basic attack (ok, let's consider Sneak attack as basic attack - so it's clear "abilities" are defined by their scarcity in encounter) besides Mage. Why? There's not a single reason for that. Class with high impact abilities doesn't imply absence of utilization for the entire fight/rest restricted area. It's a manner of balancing the system, sure, but it's not fundamentally impossible (again, because one does not imply the other).

You make a lot of statements and claims without much supporting argument. What is the benefit of having both high impact abilities and low impact abilities? If it is beneficial, then what is the correct balance? Should there be more high impact abilities or should there be more low impact abilities, and why? After that, how does adding low impact abilities help minimize the necessity for pausing? Or, if you think pausing a lot is a good thing, then explain why that is the case.

The only "reason" you cite is that "there is no reason not to have both other than artificial boundaries," which does not add to the discussion. I'm not trying to "win" or "lose" an argument here, I'm trying to promote a discussion.

Okay you're right, let's take it from different angle. Things we might dislike and why: 1) There's a party member without low impact abilities - I don't like that because he's useless after he's done with his thing (or even worse, he's useless the entire fight because of the previous encounters). Solutions: a) giving him low level abilities b) making him useful without giving him low level abilities. 2) I don't like pausing frequently in my game - I don't like that because of flow/dynamic etc. of combat... Solutions: Absence of low level abilities and creating some kind of a) stances/auras/basic scripts etc.(passives). b) useful basic attacks

Now I don't think arguments why something deserves a "problematic tag" or not are the real problem here, but solutions are... It's all highly subjective, that's the point. I don't mind frequent pausing at all, yet I have absolutely no problem with "fixing" it without damaging the other aspects of the whole system (those aspects, of course, might only be important for me). If you're gonna fix that shit with keeping Wizard without low level abilities, I won't like that. So for example Sawyer doesn't like some of the more traditional stuff. Good for him. But what I really care about (unless those likes/dislikes are completely retarded) is how well he's gonna implement it. The criteria is changing that particular aspect without "doing too much damage" to the core concept of that system.

This is all just a preparation for the discussion - more like initial setup of chess figures, not playing itself (yes yes, I know, we're not trying to win an argument here, it's just an innocent comparison). I just felt it had to be done... Simply because I think instead of discussions whether this or that is more problematic than something else (what "deserves" to be changed) we should try to come up with "harmless" solutions. Especially because that kind of game we're discussing here is made for a vast audience (fundamentally).

EDIT: Shit, I hope you read this after I'm done with editing. I excel in writing like a retard today...

Honestly, bro, I have a huge trouble understanding what you are saying. I think there is a language barrier that's making us misunderstand each other. If I were to guess, you want a moderate balance in terms of the impact and usage of spells. If that's the case, I agree for the most part and don't have much to add.

 

[Sensuki]

In DA:O I remember Fighters and Rogues had a lot of short cooldown, non-situational, low-impact abilities. That part of the gameplay did not seem interesting to me, and required tedious micromanagement.

Yeah this was another one of the things I hated about the combat. I have no problem with short cooldown abilities that are cool but christ, combat to me was pretty much this:

Knock Down, Knock Down, Knock Down, Knock Down, Knock Down, <insert longer duration ability that came off cool down>, Knock Down, Knock Down

The game was definitely designed for use with an action queue - and thus we get constant repetitive ability use. Decline.

 

[Mangoose]

In DA:O I remember Fighters and Rogues had a lot of short cooldown, non-situational, low-impact abilities. That part of the gameplay did not seem interesting to me, and required tedious micromanagement.

Yeah this was another one of the things I hated about the combat. I have no problem with short cooldown abilities that are cool but christ, combat to me was pretty much this:

Knock Down, Knock Down, Knock Down, Knock Down, Knock Down, <insert longer duration ability that came off cool down>, Knock Down, Knock Down

The game was definitely designed for use with an action queue - and thus we get constant repetitive ability use. Decline.

Yup. Still at the same time, it seems possible to build Fighters and Rogues around sustained abilities. I just want to mention this before someone else says BUT BUT BUT YOU CAN DO THAT, since you only quoted a small part of my paragraph, and then the argument digresses into irrelevant specifics.

 

[Lilura]

There were three melee weapon talent sets in Origins: Weapon & Shield, Dual-weapon, Two-handed. Discounting Awakening expansion, each talent consisted of four trees, which consisted of four talents which could be either active, sustained or passive.

Weapon & Shield was largely passive and sustained-based, with only four actives each with a 20sec cooldown. This is the tank build.
Dual-weapon has half of it's talents as actives, which sort of makes sense for an agile, unpredictable character. Most of the cooldowns are 30-40sec. This is the DPS build.
Two-handed is the weak link, half of the talents are active and cooldowns are 10-60, most around 20. This is the AoE and shit build.

But considering the conditional tactical framework Origins employs that (fairly) intelligently auto-executes these, I fail to see how the cooldowns are "spammy".

And really, if PoE implemented something similar to this I couldn't care less. Providing it throws enough enemies at me and keeps 'em coming.

This sort of setup is more engaging than IE combat, in IE melee your guys just auto-swing (opposite end of spectrum) and you activate a special ability or, in ToB, you're busy "spamming" obscenely over-powered HLAs which can't be reliably scripted.

NWN had clicky feats like power attack, disarm, knockdown and passive feats like Great Cleave. It was playable enough.

 

[Nikaido]

It's quite simple really, you can only select a single character at a time in combat in isometric mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Z5d6oiQos98#t=109

ORLY

 

[Lilura]

I hope that vid shows marquee select, ie., dragging a box over one or more unit? I can't be bothered watching it, but marquee select = monocled.

 

[eremita]

What I was trying to say is that I have no idea what limitation you're talking about. I could control multiple characters in DA:O/2 just fine.

Well for me, not being able to control multiple units at once combined with the shitty locked POV camera gives a fairly awful feeling to the game. To be honest I did not really have a problem with KotOR1/2 in this fashion though. I think this was handled much better in KotOR even if the combat amounts to click on enemy and queue up the same shit. I prefer KotOR combat to DA:O tbh, even though there's "less to do" and it's a yawn.

You can control multiple characters in isometric perspective. Unless you're playing on console...

 

[Sensuki]

Okay sorry I have indeed misremembered. The thing that annoyed me was the game camera always centered on the character you had selected (which I don't think you could disable). For many people the implementation of the camera and controls in DA:O may have been passable but I thought it was a shit hybrid kneecapped by being a console game.

Marquee select is indeed monocled.

 

[eremita]

That thread name is a cheap shot...

 

[Mangoose]

Weapon & Shield was largely passive and sustained-based, with only four actives each with a 20sec cooldown. This is the tank build.
Dual-weapon has half of it's talents as actives, which sort of makes sense for an agile, unpredictable character. Most of the cooldowns are 30-40sec. This is the DPS build.
Two-handed is the weak link, half of the talents are active and cooldowns are 10-60, most around 20. This is the AoE and shit build.

Okay, so I assume we are in agreement that we don't want something like Two-Handed, but Weapon & Shield and Dual-Weapon are designed well.

But considering the conditional tactical framework Origins employs that (fairly) intelligently auto-executes these, I fail to see how the cooldowns are "spammy."

And really, if PoE implemented something similar to this I couldn't care less.

Well, whether PoE will have a similar tactical framework is a big if. I have not read anything that says they will or they won't. I'm slightly assuming they won't, because it seems like a complex system that would have been an early design choice, and a prominent design choice that would have been announced by now. But again, I'm just assuming; this is actually a good question to ask Sawyer. In any case, if there is no intelligent scripting, then something like Two-Handed will be spammy in PoE, no?

I see two choices here: (1) Add a tactical framework, or (2) Simply avoid an implementation like DA:O's Two-handed, while implementing class mechanics that play more like DA:O's Weapon & Shield and Dual Weapon, perhaps biased even more towards sustains and less actives for Dual Wielding.

To me, (1) and (2) seem equally valid choices.

This sort of setup is more engaging than IE combat, in IE melee your guys just auto-swing (opposite end of spectrum) and you activate a special ability or, in ToB, you're busy "spamming" obscenely over-powered HLAs which can't be reliably scripted.

Oh, I definitely agree here.

 

[Sensuki]

No it's not.

 

[Mangoose]

That thread name is a cheap shot...

You and Lilura need a sense of humor.

 

[ED-209]

That thread name is a cheap shot...

The Codex has a low tolerance for dumbfucks. Even I know that, and I'm a dumbfuck.

 

[Lilura]

The PoE topic is reserved exclusively for ignoramuses to spout their nonsense, led by Infinitron who thinks the jerk circle is some kinda family. Don't go in there with knowledge and common sense, you'll be lucky if the prickly pear ham-fist known as Infinitron doesn't maliciously rip-off your monocle and ram it down your throat.

 

[Infinitron]

Awww, c'mon. I'm not entirely without sympathy for you, Lilura. You are being very thorough and detailed, I guess.

But the whole "spammy cooldown combat is okay because you can automate it!" argument is kind of a non-starter. Even if it's strictly true, do you think that's the kind of combat people on this forum actually want to play?

You're basically setting up the comparison between the IE games and Dragon Age to be an apples vs oranges comparison, and if you're going to do that, what's the purpose of this thread?

 

[eremita]

Weapon & Shield was largely passive and sustained-based, with only four actives each with a 20sec cooldown. This is the tank build.
Dual-weapon has half of it's talents as actives, which sort of makes sense for an agile, unpredictable character. Most of the cooldowns are 30-40sec. This is the DPS build.
Two-handed is the weak link, half of the talents are active and cooldowns are 10-60, most around 20. This is the AoE and shit build.

Okay, so I assume we are in agreement that we don't want something like Two-Handed, but Weapon & Shield and Dual-Weapon are designed well.

But considering the conditional tactical framework Origins employs that (fairly) intelligently auto-executes these, I fail to see how the cooldowns are "spammy."

And really, if PoE implemented something similar to this I couldn't care less.

Well, whether PoE will have a similar tactical framework is a big if. I have not read anything that says they will or they won't. I'm slightly assuming they won't, because it seems like a complex system that would have been an early design choice, and a prominent design choice that would have been announced by now. But any case, if there is no intelligent scripting, then something like Two-Handed will be spammy in PoE, no?
again, I'm just assuming; this is actually a good question to ask Sawyer. In
I see two choices here: (1) Add a tactical framework, or (2) Simply avoid an implementation like DA:O's Two-handed, while implementing class mechanics that play more like DA:O's Weapon & Shield and Dual Weapon, perhaps biased even more towards sustains and less actives for Dual Wielding.

To me, (1) and (2) seem equally valid choices.

I think this is something they're testing now. You can't adjust stuff like these on design tables I assume. They walk through area and adjust cooldowns/numbers of enemies.

 

[Mangoose]

The PoE topic is reserved exclusively for ignoramuses to spout their nonsense, led by Infinitron who thinks the jerk circle is some kinda family. Don't go in there with knowledge and common sense, you'll be lucky if the prickly pear ham-fist known as Infinitron doesn't maliciously rip-off your monocle and ram it down your throat.

Lol, can someone add "Lilura hates Infinitron and all Jews" to the thread title?

 

[Mangoose]

But the whole "spammy cooldown combat is okay because you can automate it!" argument is kind of a non-starter. Even if it's strictly true, do you think that's the kind of combat people on this forum actually want to play?

Hm, I don't think it's a terrible idea as long that's not the only part of combat.

However I feel like it's just extra design overhead for not much benefit. You take one step back with spammy abilities, and then one step forward with configurable automation. You kinda end up with the same place, unless you specifically like the aspect of scripting/pre-configurating tactics (in which case you should play FFXII).

On the other hand, if you simply design the game not to have combat as spammy as DA:O's Two-Handed, then there is no need for automation, and you still end up in the same place as above.

In the final product, both methods will result in similar gameplay, and that's a good thing for both cases. But in terms of the design process I think the second method is simpler, and K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) is pretty important mantra in design.

 

[Sensuki]

The PoE topic is reserved exclusively for ignoramuses to spout their nonsense, led by Infinitron who thinks the jerk circle is some kinda family. Don't go in there with knowledge and common sense, you'll be lucky if the prickly pear ham-fist known as Infinitron doesn't maliciously rip-off your monocle and ram it down your throat.

lol u mad?

 

[Telengard]

A QUICK 3 ISSUES
1) In an extended fight that is meant to tax all of your resources, if you have limited resources and spam them, thus wasting them, then you run out and you're dead. With cooldowns, in contrast, there's no such thing as limited resources, so even if you're dumb and spam all your attacks uselessly, you just have to avoid dying for a while, and then start the damage dealing all over again. Thus, in extended fights, limited resources punishes being dumb. Cooldowns never punish being dumb. Unlimited resources are, after all, unlimited.
2) In a triple-series chained fight with limited resources (that's three fights, one right after the other), you have to save enough resources through the first two fights to carry you through the third. Because if you don't, then you're out during the third, and you're dead. With cooldowns, it doesn't matter how many battles are chained, 3, 10, 1000, you face them all at full strength, always, because you have unlimited resources. Thus, a chained fight with limited resources punishes dumbly spamming all your attacks in the first fight. Cooldowns never punish being dumb.
3) In a single fight against a tough opponent with limited resources, bad placement of your one bestest attack means you lose out on that attack, and the battle thereafter becomes much harder than planned. With cooldowns, you just have to wait until your one bestest attack re-readies. Thus, a single fight against a tough opponent punished dumb use of resources. Cooldowns never punish being dumb.

Cooldowns are the bridge that allows even babbys to win tough fights. Because it hands you unlimited resources, you can just keep using them and using them and using them and using them until you happen to chance to stop using them dumbly and win.

 

[Shaewaroz]

The PoE topic is reserved exclusively for ignoramuses to spout their nonsense, led by Infinitron who thinks the jerk circle is some kinda family. Don't go in there with knowledge and common sense, you'll be lucky if the prickly pear ham-fist known as Infinitron doesn't maliciously rip-off your monocle and ram it down your throat.

I basically disagree with everything you've said on this thread about DA and BG, but I have to agree that you have been mistreated by a moderator in a way that boggles my mind. What you do is not trolling so there is no excuse for such behavior.

 

[eremita]

A QUICK 3 ISSUES
1) In an extended fight that is meant to tax all of your resources, if you have limited resources and spam them, thus wasting them, then you run out and you're dead. With cooldowns, in contrast, there's no such thing as limited resources, so even if you're dumb and spam all your attacks uselessly, you just have to avoid dying for a while, and then start the damage dealing all over again. Thus, in extended fights, limited resources punishes being dumb. Cooldowns never punish being dumb. Unlimited resources are, after all, unlimited.
2) In a triple-series chained fight with limited resources (that's three fights, one right after the other), you have to save enough resources through the first two fights to carry you through the third. Because if you don't, then you're out during the third, and you're dead. With cooldowns, it doesn't matter how many battles are chained, 3, 10, 1000, you face them all at full strength, always, because you have unlimited resources. Thus, a chained fight with limited resources punishes dumbly spamming all your attacks in the first fight. Cooldowns never punish being dumb.
3) In a single fight against a tough opponent with limited resources, bad placement of your one bestest attack means you lose out on that attack, and the battle thereafter becomes much harder than planned. With cooldowns, you just have to wait until your one bestest attack re-readies. Thus, a single fight against a tough opponent punished dumb use of resources. Cooldowns never punish being dumb.

Cooldowns are the bridge that allows even babbys to win tough fights. Because it hands you unlimited resources, you can just keep using them and using them and using them and using them until you happen to chance to stop using them dumbly and win.

Well, in codex's beloved Dragon Age 2, some fights were indeed extended (beloved waves!) and you were punished for being dumb. You had your abilities with long cooldowns and unique abilities (useful in certain situations) and combinations of these across the classes - cross class combos (which makes all of them even more situational). If you spammed all your shit during the first wave, you were fucked because the next wave raped you immediately. You had to think if you really need to use this or that in current situation (with current enemies) or should keep it.

I always thought that DA2's combat was actually pretty interesting and could even be well done if not for random positioning of next waves. But think about it in general guys. It's basically what Lilura said; if you keep enemies coming fast enough, then there's basically no difference between Vancian and Cooldowns in terms of punishing wrong strategy (multiple fights in no-rest dungeon are basically equal to multiple waves in one encounter).

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fucking gamists.