The stats might be entertaining to you, but in reality every Dragon fight boils down to - wait til it lands, wail on it, neck potions if you get low health, use Dragonrend if you have it, It's dull.SajuukKhar said:
Does TES need an overhaul of combat?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd like that sort of thing. It's all about the number of buttons and actions you have. The combat clearly needs more actions, whether we're talking magic or melee. Combining buttons gives you more actions available with the same buttons.s69-5 said:
How it currently works, say you're dual-wielding Fireballs. You've got LMB and RMB doing exactly the same thing for a start, and the dual-cast LMB + RMB input just does a powered up version. So that's three inputs and only two (or really one and a half) actions. Whenever you've got LMB and RMB doing unique things, i.e. with two different spells equipped, then they don't even make use of the LMB + RMB input. So it's ass backwards.
Same deal with melee dual-wielding; there's no benefit to having LMB and RMB both doing basic attacks (not while they have no other purpose besides damage anyway), and you can easily condense the power attacks into one button. The one positive addition in Skyrim was the bashing, which is basically along these lines; attack and block are both extant actions, so combine them for a new action (this time with a unique benefit). That dash button is going unused a lot of the time; they had block + dash = dodge in Oblivion, only they cocked it up in the delivery. If the movements were a bit more relevant to the kind of attacks you saw it'd be a decent addition (and this is where I think more of a third-person emphasis could help a lot; I won't say it'd be impossible in first-person, but it'd be a lot harder to pull off). And how about that for magic users? Say each spell had a alternate version cast while dashing; again it's increasing the available actions using only extant inputs. I'd love some sort of knockdown blast on my Telekinesis spell. It'd give mages some use for Stamina also.
Is your avatar Rin!?evilneko said:
OT: I think TES combat is fine. I mostly play a melee character and thecombat doesn't bother me at all. Sure it isn't fun by any definition but it isn't the worst thing to ever take a dump on the game industry. But the big draw for me in TES games is simply exploration and acquiring sexy loot.
*shrug*
Why don't you try using bows or magic to kill it in the air?endtherapture said:
Or not use potions?
Or not use Dragonrend?
Or actively try to block the dragons attacks with our shield instead of letting it wail on your while you wail on it?
He was making a joke based off of the dialog of the Easter egg character Miaq the Lair.s69-5 said:
http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:M%27aiq_the_Liar
Power attacks while moving in different directions cause you to power attack in a visibly different way.WoW Killer said:
Furthermore, both the one handed and two handed skill trees have perks that change the power attacks based on what direction you are moving
One handed
-Critical Charge: Can do a one-handed power attack while sprinting that does double critical damage.
-Paralyzing Strike: Backwards power attack has a 25% chance to paralyze the target.
Two handed
-Sweep: Sideways power attacks with two-handed weapons hit all targets in front of you.
-Great Critical Charge: Can do a two-handed power attack while sprinting that does double critical damage.
One handed changes you forward and backwards power attacks, while two handed modifies sideways and forward power attacks.
And both have the perk Savage Strike/Devastating Blow which alter s your default standing power attacks by giving them +25% damage, and a chance to decapitate your enemies.
I think the main problem with the combat is the fact that it just doesn't feel meaty at all. You might as well be swinging your sword through butter...
Actually, I think that's the issue. Skyrim is too easy to get through, and requires little in the way of skill. You can get through it by walking up to an enemy, spamming left click, then walking off. Worst case, carry a couple of potions on you - even without buying/making them you can find them fast from dungeon loot.Leonardo Huizar said:SO, in conclusion: Skyrim is not that hard to get through as here are a variety of ways to deal with the enemy NPCs, AND if thats not good enough you can either remember all the stuff i mentioned, play it on a harder setting, or play it on an easier setting
Sure you could impose arbitrary restrictions on yourself - i.e: No using potions - but that's just like going into an RTS and saying your not going to build the basic unit. Yeah, it makes it more challenging, but its a poor way of doing so that doesn't change a lot. The game just fails to balance itself properly if you have even half of an idea what your doing, and is incredibly easy to cheese. IMO that's where the majority of the problem lies in the combat system, but I don't think I've actually seen anyone complaining that Skyrim is too hard.
Placing restrictions on yourself is kinda the point of the game, it is meant to be played how you want, either super easy via potion spam, or super hard by not using potions etc.Joccaren said:
In a way, its kinda like Garrys Mod, the game offers you tons of easy ways to build things, but many people choose to do it the harder way because it is more rewarding when you pt more effort into it.
Its SUPPOSED to be a game that can be either a super easy cake walk, or a brutally hard unfair game, based on how YOU want to play it.
I somehow doubt that, seeing as they slowly patch out some exploits like the infinite enchanting and alchemy exploit that could net you a sword which kills everything in the game 1 hit - its your way of playing, so why patch it out?SajuukKhar said:
Its meant to have some form of balance to the play, however by trying to spread itself to numerous styles it fails in doing so, instead monotonising the game into a left click spam fest for most play styles.
I'd also debate that it becomes more rewarding by imposing arbitrary restrictions on yourself. I can challenge myself to using only my fists for the whole game, but that doesn't make it more rewarding for me when I finish a fight. It just makes me more bored as it has all but turned the enemies into HP soaks.
IMO the notion of having the player choose their difficulty in the way they play the game is flawed. What if I want to have a challenge as a stealth ranger? I can't, its too OP and easy if you level it. Differences in challenge and difficulty are what difficulty levels are for, not your player. Having each difficulty slightly alter the mechanics so that they are more of a challenge, rather than simply turning enemies into HP soaks with high damage, is something I can get behind. Skyrim at least simply adds HP, damage and a tiny bit of aggressiveness, then tells you its harder. Really, its just more time consuming.
As an example of difficulty levels changing things, potions on Easy regen instantly, and are relatively cheap. Potions on normal regen instantly, and are somewhat expensive. Potions on Hard regen over time at a moderate rate and are normally priced, with special potions that regen instantly but are as if not more expensive than a horse. On Master, potions regenerate your stats slowly over time, so they are of little use in a fight, except for the few instant regen potions that are as expensive as a house.
Something like this unlocks new avenues of play not available in vanilla Skyrim, and in the process makes the game more challenging. Combine that with an AI intelligence increase at each level, and a few other modifications, and it would be a harder game, with difficulty tied to the difficulty setting rather than the player's actions, and offers something more than a stat increase with each difficulty setting. These are also things a player cannot impose on themself in Vanilla Skyrim, as it is a part of the game's system that changes to increase difficulty, rather than only stats.
I don't think that every game has to strive to be the same as other games.
Personally I like the TES games world openness and the ability to play as first person. If they had to sacrifice the openness of the world to improve the combat, I wouldn't want it, because I don't play the game just for combat, I play it for everything it has to offer.
I would say they have continued to improve the combat with every game, and in someways that means they sacrificed a lot of other really cool features that were used in previous games.
For example, I would say that Skyrim plays much more like an Action game than Morrowind, but it is also a hell of a lot simpler for the novice TES player.
IF you want to play dark souls combat, then play dark souls the game. I hate when designers just mimic the combat/gameplay of whatever is hot at the time. Then we just get a whole bunch of clones, instead of originality of different studios.
I like that TES is different and don't want them to be something their not.
Personally I like the TES games world openness and the ability to play as first person. If they had to sacrifice the openness of the world to improve the combat, I wouldn't want it, because I don't play the game just for combat, I play it for everything it has to offer.
I would say they have continued to improve the combat with every game, and in someways that means they sacrificed a lot of other really cool features that were used in previous games.
For example, I would say that Skyrim plays much more like an Action game than Morrowind, but it is also a hell of a lot simpler for the novice TES player.
IF you want to play dark souls combat, then play dark souls the game. I hate when designers just mimic the combat/gameplay of whatever is hot at the time. Then we just get a whole bunch of clones, instead of originality of different studios.
I like that TES is different and don't want them to be something their not.
Because I don't want to play differently and limit myself to make an interesting battle by changing my Orc barbarian character because the game only makes certain builds viable/fun.SajuukKhar said:
As we know, stealth is broken, magic is underpowered, and melee is overpowered late game, so why, early game, am I going to play a magic character to defeat an enemy when I know he'll be useless after a few levels?
Vanilla Skyrim's combat is hideously broken, after 10+ years of making RPGs they should've learned.
Yabu said:
Way to not read my OP.endtherapture said:
As opposed to an FPS, where combat is "aim at enemy and left click"?Zhukov said:
I think the combat in TES is fine, because it USED TO need help, and they hit a sweet spot in the last one. It can only get better, and if you you have to bring it's combat into question - then I have to ask "what have YOU played?" that's spoiling you so much.
I would hope there is something similar, but better, than anyone bringing up this argument would point out.
Side question: does Chivalry have a single-player campaign like MnB, or is it online lobby-play only?
I liked Skyrim, but like so many other games recently, I haven't completed it, nor have played it properly for a while, baring getting a 1/4 of the achievements.
There's probably something to be said of the combat being responsible for that, but I'm also thinking of Dark Souls going the same way, as I've bought the Prepare to Die edition recently, but that's more due to me losing 80 000 souls so far >.<
There's probably something to be said of the combat being responsible for that, but I'm also thinking of Dark Souls going the same way, as I've bought the Prepare to Die edition recently, but that's more due to me losing 80 000 souls so far >.<
I agree that Elder scrolls games could use a combat redesign. Its always been the weakest part of the series IMO. However making the weapons as varied as Dark souls is a very tall order and one that will take a long time to implement. To be fair, having the more weighty combat would be more engaging for me but I think its asking a bit much for the next Elder scrolls game (maybe the one after that)
Still I do think they could make the next elder scrolls have more precise hit boxes on vulnerable areas and non-vulnerable areas. Kind of how war of the roses does. I mean if I can shoot a guy through the eye socket of his helmet in a multiplayer game why cant we do the same with a single player AAA release thats several years down the road?
Still I do think they could make the next elder scrolls have more precise hit boxes on vulnerable areas and non-vulnerable areas. Kind of how war of the roses does. I mean if I can shoot a guy through the eye socket of his helmet in a multiplayer game why cant we do the same with a single player AAA release thats several years down the road?
Personally, I think the idea behind the combat mechanics in "Skyrim" was vastly superior to that in previous games in "The Elder Scroll" series.
Having a "Block" button (which did appear in "Oblivion") enabled the player to get into a good strike-block-counter type rhythm...a definite improvement over "Morrowind" where blocking is automatic and dependent on your level in the "Block" skill.
And being able to dual-wield or use spells in conjunction was a good addition as well.
It seems the tried to have the weapons have different feels in "Morrowind" where the player could chop and stab with a sword or bludgeon with a mace. But the execution was just clunky.
However, once they reduced the weapon skill tress to "One Armed" and "Two Armed" in "Skyrim" instead of specific classifications (i.e. Long Blade, Mace, Short Blade, etc...) they pretty much neutered the chance of that.
Not sure how they could do it, but it wold be interesting to actually somehow cripple an enemy and have their effectiveness reduced. Imagine being able to bash someone's legs or hack off a limb ("'Tis but a scratch!") and have that turn the tide of battle instead of just reducing the hit points to zero.
But honestly, if the series were to overhaul anything, I'd want it to be the gameplay. Give me back the freedom and near limitless choices I had in "Morrowind", vary the environments and give the enemies some actual differences that require the player to do more than (as Yahtzee put it) "Run up and hit things"
Having a "Block" button (which did appear in "Oblivion") enabled the player to get into a good strike-block-counter type rhythm...a definite improvement over "Morrowind" where blocking is automatic and dependent on your level in the "Block" skill.
And being able to dual-wield or use spells in conjunction was a good addition as well.
It seems the tried to have the weapons have different feels in "Morrowind" where the player could chop and stab with a sword or bludgeon with a mace. But the execution was just clunky.
However, once they reduced the weapon skill tress to "One Armed" and "Two Armed" in "Skyrim" instead of specific classifications (i.e. Long Blade, Mace, Short Blade, etc...) they pretty much neutered the chance of that.
Not sure how they could do it, but it wold be interesting to actually somehow cripple an enemy and have their effectiveness reduced. Imagine being able to bash someone's legs or hack off a limb ("'Tis but a scratch!") and have that turn the tide of battle instead of just reducing the hit points to zero.
But honestly, if the series were to overhaul anything, I'd want it to be the gameplay. Give me back the freedom and near limitless choices I had in "Morrowind", vary the environments and give the enemies some actual differences that require the player to do more than (as Yahtzee put it) "Run up and hit things"
Wrong, they made it into more of an action game which got some criticisms, but the numbers are still ultimatly the driving force, if they aren't on your side, you will fail in combat even if the "twitch" would imply success, such as an outright failure to penetrate and do signifigant damage. This is however somewhat mitigated by the fact that the game is broken in favor of the player so it's difficult to actually run into anything OPed compared to the player to see it in action. The biggest "arcade" aspect of the game has been the way they handle blocking in real time, as opposed to making it the passive function of a skill.Anthraxus said:WAT ??Therumancer said:This would of passed if you were talking about Morrowind, Daggerfall..earlier ES games. But they went to twitch/action gameplay with Oblivion. So yes, it is an action game with RPG elements.
What the OP suggests would make it flat out an action game, by making you react in real time and use specific situational moves constantly and basic results off of that. In Skyrim as it is now mostly it comes down to "the attack" and if it goes in the right place it's all about the numbers rather than some kind of relational move/coutermove, which is why there are comparitively few attack moves, the variations largely being present to represent specific special abillities. Likewise things that your abillity to insta-kill and such are based around the RNG where you have so much of a chance of something happening when you strike, which is why not every move is a deathblow, you don't have to line up a fancy decapitation for example, if you hit and you have the right skills and a good "roll" it happens.
It hasn't?Joccaren said:
No really, the alchemy and enchanting exploits are still in the game, they have never been patched out.
wellJoccaren said:
1. You can play a stealth ranger with challenge, just don't use a OP bow.
2. Most of the other things you talked about can be added via mods, they shouldn't be in the base game because that forces people to play a harder game then they want. that is why Bethesda supporting modding, they know not everyone likes their gameplay mechanics, and so hey let people mod the game to suit their needs.
All builds are viable in skyrim, to say otherwise is 100% false.endtherapture said:
Funny enough, I am level 81, and use magic all the time, and mop the floor with everything but dragons, and even then, they aren't too difficult on anything but master difficulty.
Illusion, Conjuration, Restoration, Enchanting, and Alterations are terribly OP, only destruction magic is underpowered, and even then, it isn't that hard to use dual casting +impact to permanently stun lock enemies.
the only people who can say magic is underpowered in Skyrim are people who have never tired to use anything but destruction magic to damage things.
That statement is not even generally true. The determination between combat being defined as largely a linear affair or a circular one is largely based upon a few factors:j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
1) How readily one can transition from attack to defense
2) The level of inherent protection one's garb offers.
Most smaller weapons easily meet that first point as there is generally a secondary device used for defense (a shield of some sort). It is largely in the case of the latter that you'd tend to find anything approaching a circular combat style.
The reason for this preference is incredibly simple: you can attack (or move at all) forward more readily than in any other direction. To that same end, attacks are, by and large, linear. Indeed, the only cases where you tend to find a circular style being the default involves both combatants wearing little armor while simultaneously using a weapon that does not readily transition from attack to defense. There are two weapons of note in that regard - the rapier (not the three foot pointy object most people associate with the name but rather the 5 foot long weapon of similar construction) and the katana.
Combat by it's nature is linear when dealing with formations (in other words, an actual battle) of troops. When dealing with individuals in say a duel, then (and only then) would you tend to reliably find something that approaches circular.