Review claims that you never miss in Dragon Age...Uh mainstream media where are you?

MasterChief892039

New member
Jun 28, 2010
631
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
I was too busy having fun to fucking notice!
Quoted for truth. Seriously, if you're going to discount the whole game because they changed one stat, you're probably too much of a tight-ass to have enjoyed it in the first place.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
Azrael the Cat said:
And your extensive experience of sword warfare comes from where?

Other than your imagination, that is.

Do you seriously think that when your life is at risk (even putting aside that in reality, one swipe/stab is going to kill you (medical attention being a fair way off, and infection being a serious risk), you're going to be so suicidal as to not dodge or control your range? We're talking about trained, professional fighters - fencing is as close a comparison as you can get. If the formation is so broken that you've got guys facing 3-4 opponents, the battle is well and truly over - isn't exactly representative of sword-fighting.

If you want to make the Greek comparison, let's base it on what the Spartans actually did for tactics, rather than what you made up after watching 300. Firstly, Spartans used spears as their preferred military weapon, not swords (good one-on-one or small-group weapons aren't the same as good military formation weapons). Secondly, they used a series of lines, which were subdivided into pairs of soldiers. The pairs would consist of an older soldier and his ward, who he was responsible for training - the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Sparta and their views on women (at the time, 'romantic love' was thought to apply only between men, with heterosexual relations only there to increase the Spartan population) meant that these soldier/ward pairings were often also lovers, making them very strongly bound. Their war tactics leveraged that emotional bond, as the ward was responsible for 'covering' the soldier. Basically, their attack pattern was to thrust, then parry diagonally down. They'd stagger it so that whenever one soldier was thrusting, the ward to the right would be clearing the weapon aimed at that soldier (i.e. instead of parrying weapons aimed at themselves, they'd be parrying to protect the guy to the left of them). Similarly, the ward would be protected from the soldier to the right of him, who would be clearing diagonally down at the same time that the ward was thrusting.

You can see that the whole tactic is arranged around defence - with the wards responsible for protecting the soldiers that they are most strongly emotionally bound to, and the more experienced soldiers responsible for protecting whichever ward was to their left.

Now I'm not sure what you've got in your head, but that kind of standard military tactic for the time was always going to lead to (1) many many more blocks than successful hits, and (2) an absence of scenarios where one guy is fighting 3.

I don't know where you've got this idea of trained soldiers charging into each other like some bad action flick. Military formations are designed to prevent that, and have been for as long as organised warfare have existed. Why do you think battles could last all day, when there's only a few hundred participants? Given that one decent thrust is fatal (armour during that period was far inferior to the weaponry), don't you think they'd all run out of soldiers pretty quickly if they hadn't developed tactics to stop that?

So: if you're taking your queues from small-group combat, you're going to get a lot of dodging in and out of range, because getting cut will kill you and it's amazing how people don't like that happening to them. If you're taking your notions from military combat - like the Spartans - then you're going to get WAY less hits than misses.

Are you sure you didn't get your idea from a movie?
It's irrelevant. I'm arguing that when your target is standing perfectly still or is 10 times bigger than you are, completely missing your target is absolutely retarded. I brought in the Spartans because they were good at their job. And even in the movie 300, they used their spears quite a lot.
 

Oroboros

New member
Feb 21, 2011
316
0
0
McNinja said:
Azrael the Cat said:
And your extensive experience of sword warfare comes from where?

Other than your imagination, that is.

Do you seriously think that when your life is at risk (even putting aside that in reality, one swipe/stab is going to kill you (medical attention being a fair way off, and infection being a serious risk), you're going to be so suicidal as to not dodge or control your range? We're talking about trained, professional fighters - fencing is as close a comparison as you can get. If the formation is so broken that you've got guys facing 3-4 opponents, the battle is well and truly over - isn't exactly representative of sword-fighting.

If you want to make the Greek comparison, let's base it on what the Spartans actually did for tactics, rather than what you made up after watching 300. Firstly, Spartans used spears as their preferred military weapon, not swords (good one-on-one or small-group weapons aren't the same as good military formation weapons). Secondly, they used a series of lines, which were subdivided into pairs of soldiers. The pairs would consist of an older soldier and his ward, who he was responsible for training - the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient Sparta and their views on women (at the time, 'romantic love' was thought to apply only between men, with heterosexual relations only there to increase the Spartan population) meant that these soldier/ward pairings were often also lovers, making them very strongly bound. Their war tactics leveraged that emotional bond, as the ward was responsible for 'covering' the soldier. Basically, their attack pattern was to thrust, then parry diagonally down. They'd stagger it so that whenever one soldier was thrusting, the ward to the right would be clearing the weapon aimed at that soldier (i.e. instead of parrying weapons aimed at themselves, they'd be parrying to protect the guy to the left of them). Similarly, the ward would be protected from the soldier to the right of him, who would be clearing diagonally down at the same time that the ward was thrusting.

You can see that the whole tactic is arranged around defence - with the wards responsible for protecting the soldiers that they are most strongly emotionally bound to, and the more experienced soldiers responsible for protecting whichever ward was to their left.

Now I'm not sure what you've got in your head, but that kind of standard military tactic for the time was always going to lead to (1) many many more blocks than successful hits, and (2) an absence of scenarios where one guy is fighting 3.

I don't know where you've got this idea of trained soldiers charging into each other like some bad action flick. Military formations are designed to prevent that, and have been for as long as organised warfare have existed. Why do you think battles could last all day, when there's only a few hundred participants? Given that one decent thrust is fatal (armour during that period was far inferior to the weaponry), don't you think they'd all run out of soldiers pretty quickly if they hadn't developed tactics to stop that?

So: if you're taking your queues from small-group combat, you're going to get a lot of dodging in and out of range, because getting cut will kill you and it's amazing how people don't like that happening to them. If you're taking your notions from military combat - like the Spartans - then you're going to get WAY less hits than misses.

Are you sure you didn't get your idea from a movie?
It's irrelevant. I'm arguing that when your target is standing perfectly still or is 10 times bigger than you are, completely missing your target is absolutely retarded. I brought in the Spartans because they were good at their job. And even in the movie 300, they used their spears quite a lot.
No soldier stays completely still and does not attempt to avoid an incoming attack he is aware of in some manner. This can be done by deflecting the incoming attack, dodging it, or blocking it. It is still possible to miss a opponent by misjudging distance, a sloppy lunge, enemy not reacting how you foresaw etc. Even a blow that connects can 'miss' by glancing off of a breastplate, etc.

D&D and it's games had separate armor and dexterity modifiers for 'Armor Class' that determined if an attack 'hit' or 'missed'. Missed being defined as dodged, parried, or deflected by armor.

The assumption that Spartans never missed is ridiculous. Why do you think Persian immortals carried those violin-shaped shields? to block enemy spears arrows, etc. The Spartans were so successful against them because their armor had much greater coverage then what the Persians had, meaning that the Persians had a much smaller target area to hit then the Spartans did, resulting in more 'misses' glancing off of spartan shields, helmets, etc.

Failing to hit a dragon can be excused as failing to cut/stab through its scales.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
Oroboros said:
No soldier stays completely still and does not attempt to avoid an incoming attack he is aware of in some manner. This can be done by deflecting the incoming attack, dodging it, or blocking it. It is still possible to miss a opponent by misjudging distance, a sloppy lunge, enemy not reacting how you foresaw etc. Even a blow that connects can 'miss' by glancing off of a breastplate, etc.

D&D and it's games had separate armor and dexterity modifiers for 'Armor Class' that determined if an attack 'hit' or 'missed'. Missed being defined as dodged, parried, or deflected by armor.

The assumption that Spartans never missed is ridiculous. Why do you think Persian immortals carried those violin-shaped shields? to block enemy spears arrows, etc. The Spartans were so successful against them because their armor had much greater coverage then what the Persians had, meaning that the Persians had a much smaller target area to hit then the Spartans did, resulting in more 'misses' glancing off of spartan shields, helmets, etc.

Failing to hit a dragon can be excused as failing to cut/stab through its scales.
Except that missing in DA: O was not defined as such, and enemies could also block and dodge in addition to you "missing," which is what pissed me off. Even if I'm wrong, a Hurlock General should not be able to block my (flanking) attack while under attack by two other melee party members.

Dodging and parrying and blocking are not "missing." They are "not hitting." There's a difference. One means you were retarded and swung in the completely wrong direction, and thus "missed" the target, and one means you aren't a moron, but your enemy managed to not get hit by your attack.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
McNinja said:
It's irrelevant. I'm arguing that when your target is standing perfectly still or is 10 times bigger than you are, completely missing your target is absolutely retarded. I brought in the Spartans because they were good at their job. And even in the movie 300, they used their spears quite a lot.
Mcface said:
It's a good thing.
Who the fuck misses a giant target 2 feet infront of them? i never liked that about most RPGs.
So McMuffins should treat everything in the game like its paralyzed by magic or its a giant creature in grappling range? Dont you see the obvious counter to that argument? Again just because something is 10 times bigger than you doesn't mean its easy to hit.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
McNinja said:
Except that missing in DA: O was not defined as such, and enemies could also block and dodge in addition to you "missing," which is what pissed me off. Even if I'm wrong, a Hurlock General should not be able to block my (flanking) attack while under attack by two other melee party members.
Why not? As long as he the "General" doesnt block two attacks at the same time. He might fear the flanker.



Dodging and parrying and blocking are not "missing." They are "not hitting." There's a difference. One means you were retarded and swung in the completely wrong direction, and thus "missed" the target, and one means you aren't a moron, but your enemy managed to not get hit by your attack.
I'm not talking about missing paralyzed or stunned targets I'm talking about missing something that is capable of blocking or dodging my attack. If you cant miss anything then everything is paralyzed or stunned.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
Kaanyr Vhok said:
McNinja said:
Except that missing in DA: O was not defined as such, and enemies could also block and dodge in addition to you "missing," which is what pissed me off. Even if I'm wrong, a Hurlock General should not be able to block my (flanking) attack while under attack by two other melee party members.
Why not? As long as he the "General" doesnt block two attacks at the same time. He might fear the flanker.


Dodging and parrying and blocking are not "missing." They are "not hitting." There's a difference. One means you were retarded and swung in the completely wrong direction, and thus "missed" the target, and one means you aren't a moron, but your enemy managed to not get hit by your attack.
I'm not talking about missing paralyzed or stunned targets I'm talking about missing something that is capable of blocking or dodging my attack. If you cant miss anything then everything is paralyzed or stunned.
.... Neither am I. I am talking about a fully aware and mobile enemy. Who is not facing me, and is in fact engaged with two other targets, which he is facing.
Kaanyr Vhok said:
So McMuffins should treat everything in the game like its paralyzed by magic or its a giant creature in grappling range? Dont you see the obvious counter to that argument? Again just because something is 10 times bigger than you doesn't mean its easy to hit.
Really? Go to a barn. try not to hit the broadside of it. Or find yourself a car. A nice big SUV. have it start moving slowly. Get 2 feet away from it. Try to hit it.

We don't have big dragons in real life, so I can't really provide an equal example.

And no. We shouldn't. All I've been saying for the past day is that you character should be so immensely stupid as to be standing 2 feet away from an enemy, then completely miss without the enemy moving. At all.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
McNinja said:
Neither am I. I am talking about a fully aware and mobile enemy. Who is not facing me, and is in fact engaged with two other targets, which he is facing.
If they are fully aware of you then it means you failed whatever sneak skill check you needed thus I dont see whats wrong with them spinning to block you.

Really? Go to a barn. try not to hit the broadside of it. Or find yourself a car. A nice big SUV. have it start moving slowly. Get 2 feet away from it. Try to hit it.

We don't have big dragons in real life, so I can't really provide an equal example.

And no. We shouldn't. All I've been saying for the past day is that you character should be so immensely stupid as to be standing 2 feet away from an enemy, then completely miss without the enemy moving. At all.
It seems like we have reached a general agreement. I agree that an unaware, paralyzed or a similar impaired opponent should be an automatic hit and in most systems it is.

A system that never misses is a senseless "fix". I would rather miss a dragon point blank than never miss anything ever. I can justify missing a dragon at that range by either the thickness of its scales or a reflexive block.
 

Tirrast

New member
Aug 20, 2010
48
0
0
im just gonna blaatently state you do miss ive played the entire game four times now. and i can claim swinging a sword or staff bolt and no damage happen at all. in fact ive even seen a staff bolt miss completely and hit a wall.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
Never noticed that. Still worth it. It is very worth it to up both your crit chance and your hit chance. Try it before you piss on it, OP.
 

Grottnikk

New member
Mar 19, 2008
338
0
0
Go into the options menu and turn on the misc. combat stats. I see the word "miss" over my head occasionally, along with "resisted" and such. Not sure if it's me missing or the enemy missing me. Either way, SOMEone is missing :)
 

Mcface

New member
Aug 30, 2009
2,266
0
0
Kaanyr Vhok said:
McNinja said:
It's irrelevant. I'm arguing that when your target is standing perfectly still or is 10 times bigger than you are, completely missing your target is absolutely retarded. I brought in the Spartans because they were good at their job. And even in the movie 300, they used their spears quite a lot.
Mcface said:
It's a good thing.
Who the fuck misses a giant target 2 feet infront of them? i never liked that about most RPGs.
So McMuffins should treat everything in the game like its paralyzed by magic or its a giant creature in grappling range? Dont you see the obvious counter to that argument? Again just because something is 10 times bigger than you doesn't mean its easy to hit.
No, thats what "parry" "dodge" and "counter" are for.
no one fucking "misses" targets unless you are firing a ranged weapon.

If you are stand still in front of me, and you dont parry, or dodge the blow, there is no way i can miss you. Missing is a stupid mechanic.
 

Mcface

New member
Aug 30, 2009
2,266
0
0
Kaanyr Vhok said:
McNinja said:
Except that missing in DA: O was not defined as such, and enemies could also block and dodge in addition to you "missing," which is what pissed me off. Even if I'm wrong, a Hurlock General should not be able to block my (flanking) attack while under attack by two other melee party members.
Why not? As long as he the "General" doesnt block two attacks at the same time. He might fear the flanker.



Dodging and parrying and blocking are not "missing." They are "not hitting." There's a difference. One means you were retarded and swung in the completely wrong direction, and thus "missed" the target, and one means you aren't a moron, but your enemy managed to not get hit by your attack.
I'm not talking about missing paralyzed or stunned targets I'm talking about missing something that is capable of blocking or dodging my attack. If you cant miss anything then everything is paralyzed or stunned.
if its CAPABLE of blocking the attack then call it BLOCK, if he fails to block the attack, then i hit him. I don't even see how how can argue this. again, if you are standing still, how the hell am i going to miss you? IF YOU MOVE, ITS NOT ME MISSING, ITS YOU DODGING.

pay attention to the caps, please.
 

MercurySteam

Tastes Like Chicken!
Legacy
Apr 11, 2008
4,950
2
43
This is the lowest form of nit-picking possible. The Escapist has reached a point where putting down DA2 will make us look like we have nothing better to do. How bloody sad.

EDIT: I was just playing and had turned on the battle numbers (damage taken, crits, etc) and I defiantly saw some misses. Dunno who it was exactly, but they were defiantly there.

And a word of advice to the OP; don't bag-out a game if you haven't tried the full thing yet. It's demeaning for both you and us (well, mostly you).

MasochisticMuse said:
Daystar Clarion said:
I was too busy having fun to fucking notice!
Quoted for truth. Seriously, if you're going to discount the whole game because they changed one stat, you're probably too much of a tight-ass to have enjoyed it in the first place.
Both comments QFT.
 

Kaanyr Vhok

New member
Mar 8, 2011
209
0
0
Mcface said:
if its CAPABLE of blocking the attack then call it BLOCK, if he fails to block the attack, then i hit him. I don't even see how how can argue this. again, if you are standing still, how the hell am i going to miss you? IF YOU MOVE, ITS NOT ME MISSING, ITS YOU DODGING.

pay attention to the caps, please.
I got news for you. If you get into a fight and someone ducks and slips your punches you cant save face by saying he dodged them. Muthafuka you missed. Its the same thing. DA 2 doesnt have AI that avoids attacks, it doesnt have a Morrowind style attack rolls, and it doesnt have Origin's dodge animations. So either you dont miss or missing is so rare that it took almost 3000 views before someone confirmed that on rare occasions you might actually miss someone.
 

Valiance

New member
Jan 14, 2009
3,823
0
0
If you've ever played Diablo II, it's just like having a melee char with high attack rating.
 

McNinja

New member
Sep 21, 2008
1,510
0
0
Kaanyr Vhok said:
McNinja said:
Neither am I. I am talking about a fully aware and mobile enemy. Who is not facing me, and is in fact engaged with two other targets, which he is facing.
If they are fully aware of you then it means you failed whatever sneak skill check you needed thus I dont see whats wrong with them spinning to block you.

Really? Go to a barn. try not to hit the broadside of it. Or find yourself a car. A nice big SUV. have it start moving slowly. Get 2 feet away from it. Try to hit it.

We don't have big dragons in real life, so I can't really provide an equal example.

And no. We shouldn't. All I've been saying for the past day is that you character should be so immensely stupid as to be standing 2 feet away from an enemy, then completely miss without the enemy moving. At all.
It seems like we have reached a general agreement. I agree that an unaware, paralyzed or a similar impaired opponent should be an automatic hit and in most systems it is.

A system that never misses is a senseless "fix". I would rather miss a dragon point blank than never miss anything ever. I can justify missing a dragon at that range by either the thickness of its scales or a reflexive block.
Then why not call it a deflect? It would make more sanse than a miss, because you hit, but the part you hit was too scaly or thick to do any damage.