Posted May 20, 2011
frenrihr
New User
Registered: May 2011
From Mexico
archaven
New User
Registered: Apr 2011
From Malaysia
Posted May 20, 2011
@frenrihr
You have to understand what you feel as bad does not means the same for everyone. What you suggest as to be the perfect combat won't work as there is no perfection in life. What you feel is the best probably someone will hate it. Got it?
You have to understand what you feel as bad does not means the same for everyone. What you suggest as to be the perfect combat won't work as there is no perfection in life. What you feel is the best probably someone will hate it. Got it?
kookueb
New User
Registered: May 2011
From Netherlands
Posted May 20, 2011
I agree with you about the combat fenrihr
frenrihr
New User
Registered: May 2011
From Mexico
Posted May 20, 2011
You have to understand what you feel as bad does not means the same for everyone. What you suggest as to be the perfect combat won't work as there is no perfection in life. What you feel is the best probably someone will hate it. Got it?
Well this is a prove that are more people that think like me, yes i know there are people that dont, but thats why say the devs need to improve the combat for anyone.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by frenrihr
Itkovian
New User
Registered: May 2011
From United States
Posted May 20, 2011
Well this thread is going south, hopefully it can be salvaged:
Keep in mind that you CAN win without exploiting a single tactic or two. You do not have to drop Yrden signs all over, or lob bombs all the time. And it DOES get easier as you level up and gain skills. Take a look at the first few swordmanship skills, and take those.
I personally only rely on dodging and parry/riposte, as well as Aard from time to time (mostly to keep one guy back while hitting someone else). Only used bombs twice so far (granted, I haven't finished act 1 yet). Never used Yrden yet, in fact, at all.
It makes for fun, dynamic combat, where the game does not "dumb down" the enemies just because you are outnumbered. It is up to _you_ to figure out how to deal with crowds, rather than crowds suddenly deciding to attack one by one when they have you surrounded.
But, it is clear that the combat is much more "twitchy" than most RPGs, including the Witcher 1 (where a group style would often knock back crowds). If you do not like action-RPG, this is not the game for you, even less so than The Witcher 1, and it is understandable if it upsets some people.
Personally, I understand players who are taken aback by TW2's combat far better than those who were by DA2. TW2 is very twitchy, definitely action-oriented (but still great, within that style), whereas DA2 was still clearly pause-and-play tactical combat (a faster tempo does not change that at all).
Thank you.
Itkovian
Keep in mind that you CAN win without exploiting a single tactic or two. You do not have to drop Yrden signs all over, or lob bombs all the time. And it DOES get easier as you level up and gain skills. Take a look at the first few swordmanship skills, and take those.
I personally only rely on dodging and parry/riposte, as well as Aard from time to time (mostly to keep one guy back while hitting someone else). Only used bombs twice so far (granted, I haven't finished act 1 yet). Never used Yrden yet, in fact, at all.
It makes for fun, dynamic combat, where the game does not "dumb down" the enemies just because you are outnumbered. It is up to _you_ to figure out how to deal with crowds, rather than crowds suddenly deciding to attack one by one when they have you surrounded.
But, it is clear that the combat is much more "twitchy" than most RPGs, including the Witcher 1 (where a group style would often knock back crowds). If you do not like action-RPG, this is not the game for you, even less so than The Witcher 1, and it is understandable if it upsets some people.
Personally, I understand players who are taken aback by TW2's combat far better than those who were by DA2. TW2 is very twitchy, definitely action-oriented (but still great, within that style), whereas DA2 was still clearly pause-and-play tactical combat (a faster tempo does not change that at all).
Thank you.
Itkovian
kookueb
New User
Registered: May 2011
From Netherlands
Posted May 20, 2011
lol @ people comparing DA2 to the witcher 2:P
cloud8521
Know it all
Registered: Sep 2010
From Russian Federation
Posted May 20, 2011
i say that we dotn need to do away with the system just ADD to it
1)get rid of the whole Vigour to block. it makes no sense at all. give it its own bar meant for blocking only. and is not tied to anything else but blocking.
stronger enemies will then be able to take larger chunks out of the bar making defence have a new strategy. the bar can be visible all the time or be toggled when you go into a defensive stance. the blocking can also have a subsystem where it only defends in the direction you press on the keyboard defaulting to frontal. when an attacker strikes from behind you must be holding the back button. this means not all sides can be protected at once any attacks that get though damage the vitality like a normal attack.
if implemented the obvious thing is to somehow make a subsystem to limit counters so it is not abused assasins creed like.
2) give back the frontal flip that the game is known for along with the sidestep, rolls should still be activated with the space bar.
3)give us the ability to toggle a cross hair and disable the auto target system.
4) give us group style but unlike the first game, do not make it sweep everyone around us make it so we can quickly change targets via the the direction we hold during the attack.
this would mean that its not easier but still allows attackers to get blows in if you are not very careful.
1)get rid of the whole Vigour to block. it makes no sense at all. give it its own bar meant for blocking only. and is not tied to anything else but blocking.
stronger enemies will then be able to take larger chunks out of the bar making defence have a new strategy. the bar can be visible all the time or be toggled when you go into a defensive stance. the blocking can also have a subsystem where it only defends in the direction you press on the keyboard defaulting to frontal. when an attacker strikes from behind you must be holding the back button. this means not all sides can be protected at once any attacks that get though damage the vitality like a normal attack.
if implemented the obvious thing is to somehow make a subsystem to limit counters so it is not abused assasins creed like.
2) give back the frontal flip that the game is known for along with the sidestep, rolls should still be activated with the space bar.
3)give us the ability to toggle a cross hair and disable the auto target system.
4) give us group style but unlike the first game, do not make it sweep everyone around us make it so we can quickly change targets via the the direction we hold during the attack.
this would mean that its not easier but still allows attackers to get blows in if you are not very careful.
Itkovian
New User
Registered: May 2011
From United States
Posted May 20, 2011
2 -Block cost you mana... i dont need to explain this because its a joke, maybe the gratest warriors of the world have hidden abilities and use "mana" too... ridiculous.
3-Evading is BAD... ok geralts roll... and he cant just make a sidestep?, rolling to evade every damm atack its stupid, you cannot do that, and even the animation its wrong when he rolls he DOSENT SEE HIS OPONENTS,so that means he roll with no consiusness of his enemies and every enemie can use this oportunity to get close and kill him (yeah thats on a reality escenario) but in the game we can pass that wrong animation, but the fact that he can only roll to evade its wrong, even in the first witcher you can sidestep...
4 -Enemies do TONS of damage... the enmies do very large quantities of damage and geralt recovers so slow.. even with potions, and the stupid hard atack its unusable, its a joke to use that when you know another enemie will atack you from behind, and the game fights are always with large groups...
5 -STUN LOCK... that is wrong too, if you get hit you can always react, and if you are supoused to be a warrior and you have experience in combat, a hit dosent sent you to a pain state like that, thats stupid.
So the game combat needs a review,because now the game has no combat.
1- If you were a "real" warrior, I can say that as an SCA Heavy Fighter you would probably be finished in the first fight for the ballista. Being alone against many is _really_ bad. You are pretty much done for (2 against 4 is not so bad, if you know what you're doing and ank targets quickly, however).
So in reality, if any human fighter just stood firm and focused as you mention, you would die. You'd be attacking one way, opening yourself, and another would gank you. This is how it works.
Fortunately, Geralt is not a human. He has extraordinary speed and agility and strength and awareness and what-have-you. That's why he can win, and the way he manages to survive being ganged up on is by dodging around and moving with superhuman speed.
You're not using a warrior, or an olympic runner. You're using a WITCHER.
2- This is a game mechanic, and you are essentially using concentration. I agree that having a limited amount of parries is a bit strange, but I think it work as a game mechanic. But it is very gamey, and difficult to argue about in terms of realism.
That said, it is not mana, and using signs does not require some magical pool or energy. Geralt is a Witcher, not a Witch. :)
3- If all Geralt did is sidestep, he'd get ganked by groups. Sidestepping is of limited usefulness in such situation.
Sure, we could have had a minor dodge for when we are one on one, and the big "I need to get out of here" roll for when we are getting surrounded, but they probably stuck with the single type of dodge for simplicity's sake.
4- GOOD. This is a good thing. Don't get surrounded. Move about. Fight like a Witcher, not like a tank. You'll notice Geralt does not wear full plate, either. Fighting like a Knight was never his style, in the books or movies (heck, read The Last Wish, look for the fight where he became The Butcher of Blaviken. You'll see).
5- That's a good point in certain circumstances, yes. It is a convention that getting hit has a knockback effect, though, and I like that they did not give us a special advantage by making us immune to it.
Is it realistic? not really, but then hit points are not realistic. When I fight and get hit where there's armour or take a light shot, I can keep fighting without interruption. But if I were to get actually injured, I imagine I'd miss a beat or two (though, admittedly, adrenaline might have something to say about that).
The combat does not need reviewing IMO. It is more action and twitch oriented, but that is clearly a conscious choice on their part. If it turns out to be less liked than TW1, then they will probably backtrack a little... but for now I rather like the melding of deep RPG elements and frenetic action.
Itkovian
baosen
New User
Registered: Jul 2009
From Norway
Posted May 20, 2011
I also find the combat a bit clunky. It is basically rolling all the time, since blocking with the sword leaves you vulnerable.
I hope they could remove the aiming and change it with point, click, attack from an overview instead, since I feel the combat was more designed and fit to be that way.
I hope they could remove the aiming and change it with point, click, attack from an overview instead, since I feel the combat was more designed and fit to be that way.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by baosen
cloud8521
Know it all
Registered: Sep 2010
From Russian Federation
Posted May 20, 2011
2 -Block cost you mana... i dont need to explain this because its a joke, maybe the gratest warriors of the world have hidden abilities and use "mana" too... ridiculous.
3-Evading is BAD... ok geralts roll... and he cant just make a sidestep?, rolling to evade every damm atack its stupid, you cannot do that, and even the animation its wrong when he rolls he DOSENT SEE HIS OPONENTS,so that means he roll with no consiusness of his enemies and every enemie can use this oportunity to get close and kill him (yeah thats on a reality escenario) but in the game we can pass that wrong animation, but the fact that he can only roll to evade its wrong, even in the first witcher you can sidestep...
4 -Enemies do TONS of damage... the enmies do very large quantities of damage and geralt recovers so slow.. even with potions, and the stupid hard atack its unusable, its a joke to use that when you know another enemie will atack you from behind, and the game fights are always with large groups...
5 -STUN LOCK... that is wrong too, if you get hit you can always react, and if you are supoused to be a warrior and you have experience in combat, a hit dosent sent you to a pain state like that, thats stupid.
So the game combat needs a review,because now the game has no combat.
1- If you were a "real" warrior, I can say that as an SCA Heavy Fighter you would probably be finished in the first fight for the ballista. Being alone against many is _really_ bad. You are pretty much done for (2 against 4 is not so bad, if you know what you're doing and ank targets quickly, however).
So in reality, if any human fighter just stood firm and focused as you mention, you would die. You'd be attacking one way, opening yourself, and another would gank you. This is how it works.
Fortunately, Geralt is not a human. He has extraordinary speed and agility and strength and awareness and what-have-you. That's why he can win, and the way he manages to survive being ganged up on is by dodging around and moving with superhuman speed.
You're not using a warrior, or an olympic runner. You're using a WITCHER.
2- This is a game mechanic, and you are essentially using concentration. I agree that having a limited amount of parries is a bit strange, but I think it work as a game mechanic. But it is very gamey, and difficult to argue about in terms of realism.
That said, it is not mana, and using signs does not require some magical pool or energy. Geralt is a Witcher, not a Witch. :)
3- If all Geralt did is sidestep, he'd get ganked by groups. Sidestepping is of limited usefulness in such situation.
Sure, we could have had a minor dodge for when we are one on one, and the big "I need to get out of here" roll for when we are getting surrounded, but they probably stuck with the single type of dodge for simplicity's sake.
4- GOOD. This is a good thing. Don't get surrounded. Move about. Fight like a Witcher, not like a tank. You'll notice Geralt does not wear full plate, either. Fighting like a Knight was never his style, in the books or movies (heck, read The Last Wish, look for the fight where he became The Butcher of Blaviken. You'll see).
5- That's a good point in certain circumstances, yes. It is a convention that getting hit has a knockback effect, though, and I like that they did not give us a special advantage by making us immune to it.
Is it realistic? not really, but then hit points are not realistic. When I fight and get hit where there's armour or take a light shot, I can keep fighting without interruption. But if I were to get actually injured, I imagine I'd miss a beat or two (though, admittedly, adrenaline might have something to say about that).
The combat does not need reviewing IMO. It is more action and twitch oriented, but that is clearly a conscious choice on their part. If it turns out to be less liked than TW1, then they will probably backtrack a little... but for now I rather like the melding of deep RPG elements and frenetic action.
Itkovian
2) the system can change and it may be for the best if it does. just because something is, does not mean we cant think up new ways for them to be.
3) sidestepping allows you to keep your sights on a particular enemy while creating an opening for attack against that enemy, and avoiding attacks from a certain side.
4) they could do Slightly less damage, but overall a punishing damage keeps you on your toes. no complaints, but tweaking can never hurt.
5no comment, stun lock can sort of use a little bit of tweaks but i like the system overall.
I hope they could remove the aiming and change it with point, click, attack from an overview instead, since I feel the combat was more designed and fit to be that way.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by cloud8521
Itkovian
New User
Registered: May 2011
From United States
Posted May 20, 2011
But seriously, this does NOT mean they can just stand there and take shots from 9 people at once. That's not how Geralt ever fought.
The battle at Blaviken is a perfect example: He bounces and runs around like a hyperactive Doom Bunny. :)
Itkovian
cloud8521
Know it all
Registered: Sep 2010
From Russian Federation
Posted May 20, 2011
But seriously, this does NOT mean they can just stand there and take shots from 9 people at once. That's not how Geralt ever fought.
The battle at Blaviken is a perfect example: He bounces and runs around like a hyperactive Doom Bunny. :)
Itkovian
but the point is he can do it and not get hit. its was actually described in the last game
i already said i like damage how it is, so when did that make you think i meant that he should stand there getting thwacked and still live with 5 enemies. i mean he should be able to take them on in swordplay alone, no bullshit running away.
but that's where blocking should come in but it does not.
Post edited May 20, 2011 by cloud8521
Itkovian
New User
Registered: May 2011
From United States
Posted May 20, 2011
but the point is he can do it and not get hit. its was actually described in the last game
Secondly, it certainly does not match anything I have seen in the books. Sure, TW1 could pop blizzard and dodge anything around him since he gained a huge bonus to dodge and parry, but I personally think that TW2 is closer to the source material.
Itkovian
cloud8521
Know it all
Registered: Sep 2010
From Russian Federation
Posted May 20, 2011
but the point is he can do it and not get hit. its was actually described in the last game
Secondly, it certainly does not match anything I have seen in the books. Sure, TW1 could pop blizzard and dodge anything around him since he gained a huge bonus to dodge and parry, but I personally think that TW2 is closer to the source material.
Itkovian
but still in the material is he really that much of a pushover against a few lowly guards?
Itkovian
New User
Registered: May 2011
From United States
Posted May 20, 2011
but that's where blocking should come in but it does not.
Though I do grant that the limited blocks are rather annoying. I would have prefered something more character skill-based (like a block % or some such, which you can improve).
Itkovian
but still in the material is he really that much of a pushover against a few lowly guards?
That said, I don't think in the game he was a pushover. We were. :)
I know I was still learning how to fight. If I were to do that fight again now that I've got 10+ hours in, it would be far easier than that first try.
Heck, now I run into fights with similar numbers and make short work of them (it gets easier as you level up, too, as you learn abilities that mitigate the problems with being surrounded and such).
Itkovian
Post edited May 20, 2011 by Itkovian