159 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragon Age1103]

still don't understand why you're not seeing your damage from your spells if this is the same post, don't care enough to read it. If i cast a spell I get floating numbers showing my damage.

[SheffSteel]

soteria wrote...

SheffSteel, you generally make intelligent posts, but this isn't one of them.  Also, you probably shouldn't comment about WoW.  Actually, most people probably shouldn't talk about how WoW ruined things when what they mean is MMOs made RPGs more popular.

Hey, I don't mind if you want to voice your opinion here, but if I criticise your intelligence you can be pretty sure I'll follow it up with a rationale. Please do me the same courtesy. What you've done, instead, is disagree with my opinion and provided your own by way of contrast. That's fine as part of a discussion but not as the basis for insults.

Back on topic... this thread wouldn't be necessary if people were more childlike and less childish. Every one of us, I'm sure, used to enjoy learning through play, without a compulsion to win getting in the way.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 11 novembre 2009 - 02:26 .

[-CastorTroy-]

+1 to the comment of the OP

[arcueid22]

maybe bioware wants us to focus and enjoy the battle, tactics,and story thus we don't need to focus on numerical things.

but i agree we need more details !!! (since i'm a micro-manager type too )

[kal_torak]

Back on topic... this thread wouldn't be necessary if people were more childlike and less childish. Every one of us, I'm sure, used to enjoy learning through play, without a compulsion to win getting in the way.

Challenge has nothing to do. I am doing totally fine in the game. I stil prefer casting a spell that does X, for Y time with a Z chance of... run out of letters, than a game where you cast a random spell X which you only know a vague definition about.

Or if I do a big hit, I want to know what happened. Not to make it easier, but because its fun to know this things instead of them beeing... random.

[CrillanK]

I disagree.



It's more fun to use each spell and see how they work in combat than to crunch numbers. The basic descriptions of the spells are good enough to figure out what they do. Using them in battle helps you figure out the nuances of each spell. Sort of like real training of any skill right? If you were Wynn or Morrigan, you wouldn't be doing math in your head to figure out which spell to use or which spell to learn next. You use the spells that fit your style or personality.

[Sp0gg]

Glad I am not the only one who thought this. We are nerds, we want to know numbers!

[Sceptic83]

CrillanK wrote...

I disagree.

It's more fun to use each spell and see how they work in combat than to crunch numbers. The basic descriptions of the spells are good enough to figure out what they do. Using them in battle helps you figure out the nuances of each spell. Sort of like real training of any skill right? If you were Wynn or Morrigan, you wouldn't be doing math in your head to figure out which spell to use or which spell to learn next. You use the spells that fit your style or personality.

What's wrong with numbers? I dont think you are so disappointed when damage dealt is displayed or when you must put points in stats. Really people i cant get your point.

[CrillanK]

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

still don't understand why you're not seeing your damage from your spells if this is the same post, don't care enough to read it. If i cast a spell I get floating numbers showing my damage.

^^
This is a good point as well.

[SheffSteel]

Numbers are great as a descriptive tool but less so as a prescriptive one. I don't think you'll find a single poster in this thread who will complain about the damage numbers being shown when you attack. Where we differ is that some of us think that's enough information. I don't want to see all twelve* factors that affected the damage my enemy took; I just need to know how much damage was done (and what type, if appropriate).



*Not an exaggeration, to my knowledge.

[CrillanK]

Sceptic83 wrote...

CrillanK wrote...

I disagree.

It's more fun to use each spell and see how they work in combat than to crunch numbers. The basic descriptions of the spells are good enough to figure out what they do. Using them in battle helps you figure out the nuances of each spell. Sort of like real training of any skill right? If you were Wynn or Morrigan, you wouldn't be doing math in your head to figure out which spell to use or which spell to learn next. You use the spells that fit your style or personality.

What's wrong with numbers? I dont think you are so disappointed when damage dealt is displayed or when you must put points in stats. Really people i cant get your point.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with anything.  I'm saying the way the game is now is good whereas the original poster is saying there's something wrong with the game.  My point is, the numbers aren't necessary to learn the game yourself and have fun.  And if you really need the numbers, they are shown over the enemy's head in combat as pointed out above.  Just play with the spells and see how different they are.

Also, as someone else pointed out, it's not always the damage that matters.  Spell combinations are more potent than a single spell's damage and that is something you have to learn in the game, numbers or not.  That's intended.

Modifié par CrillanK, 11 novembre 2009 - 03:46 .

[Sceptic83]

Your point would be reasonable if you had the possibility to go back and change your spells. Cause from the descriptions their real effects are unpredictable. If i choose a spell thinking that it can be casted self and then it wont, I'll be disapionted...that's why they are sufficient as you 2 say. And please dont answer "you can load back", that's not funny.
Anyway, if Bioware decided to give us only generic descriptions there must be a reason. And the only one i can think is that they didnt want to show their new d20 system, maybe scared by the possibility of stealing by some other software house... 

Modifié par Sceptic83, 11 novembre 2009 - 03:59 .

[kal_torak]

Sceptic83 wrote...

Anyway, if Bioware decided to give us only generic descriptions there must be a reason. And the only one i can think is that they didnt want to show their new d20 system, maybe scared by the possibility of stealing by some other software house... 

The reason is they don't have fixed values. They scale each battle to be exactly as difficult. Same mistake oblivion did.
I mean, why can I go and do this part of the game at level 1, and with another char I come at lvl 16 and its as difficult. Oblivion syndrome.

[Sceptic83]

kal_torak wrote...

 
aas

Sceptic83 wrote...

Anyway, if Bioware decided to give us only generic descriptions there must be a reason. And the only one i can think is that they didnt want to show their new d20 system, maybe scared by the possibility of stealing by some other software house... 

The reason is they don't have fixed values. They scale each battle to be exactly as difficult. Same mistake oblivion did.
I mean, why can I go and do this part of the game at level 1, and with another char I come at lvl 16 and its as difficult. Oblivion syndrome.

 Ok, now i understood this whole thing...well I'll take this game as it is than. Good story. Very good dialogues and moral choices, average-arcade combat system :innocent:

(And no, this is not the spiritual successor to baldur's gate saga)

Modifié par Sceptic83, 11 novembre 2009 - 04:09 .

[HemisH]

/signed for the better description on skills and abilites. I can leave without a combat log.

[Cbowsin]

-1



I'm just the opposite. I would rather they took out what numbers they did provide like on stats, weapons and armor. I would like beefing up my stats but not concerned with reaching a certain level to accomplish something. If I want to equip a dagger instead of it saying I need 26 dexterity to equip so i count to 26 in stats that just seems dumb to me. I'd rather try to equip the item and have a message saying I fumble when trying to use the dagger. Thus I must beef up my dexterity.

[Tehuto]

I haven't read the 6 pages of posts, but /agree with the OP.

[Tehuto]

+1



I haven't read the 6 pages of posts, but /agree with the OP about more specific spell descriptions with hard numbers. This would open the game up to theorycrafting.



I personally don't care about a combat log too much. If one was added, I might use it sometiems to check my damage. But if we never got a combat log, I wouldn't cry.

[lensirot]

Agree.

I'd like to see the duration and effect of spells in description

[zzenn]

/signed



I want numbers for what goes on during combat.



If I were really a mage in Ferelden I would know the power of my spells, not merely have a vague idea that they do some kind of damage

[Beertastic]

Signed. As someone who loves number crunching and figuring out the most efficient way to play the game, I really want some more detail added to ability descriptions.

[Worloch]

While we it has been stated there is no level limit, and thus, no limit on the amount of talents you can take, it has also been stated that most players will fall in to the level range of 20-22 or so by the time they finish the game.



Taking 20 as our final level number, we get 22 Talents total, with 1 chosen for us, for a total of 21 Talent picks.

http://www.gamebansh...cementtable.php



Given that many talents are in a series that require you to take them in order, and that choosing talents is a fairly permanent decision (to change, requires reloading a previous save, or using the console), I would like to spend my resources in a manner that is both pleasing to me as a development of my characters personality and effective in gameplay. More detail is truly needed for me to really enjoy leveling up my character and developing him.



To those who don't like details, don't look at them. Your argument against more detail strikes me as similar to another argument I have heard against having windows in a house. You see, this person didn't like seeing the view from these particular windows, and wished the house did not have them. I responded that they could simply close the blinds or curtains, or even just not look, while still having the option available to those who didn't mind or even enjoyed that view.



Their counter was that if the windows were there, they wouldn't want to cover them up, by closing the curtains or blinds, or ignore them. They would be compelled to look out, despite not enjoying the view, so rather than keeping the option in, they insisted the house would be better off without the windows at all.



Can you really not enjoy the house with the windows in it for those who like looking out? Can you not just ignore them, or perhaps utilize an option to close the curtains or blinds? Do you really need to board them up or have a builder remove them?





Some of us like more detail (not every detail, just more than we currently have [short duration means what?]) and would like to have the option to see it. If you prefer not to see it, then just don't look at it. How hard is that?

[SSGv2]

+ 12% approval.

Maybe this will be done in a patch?

[DSWDalish]

Game is about immersion. Not math.

[jadedjim]

could it have been more specific? sure. with the announcement of the PnP game,hopefully then we will get a more detailed explanation.it almost seems to me that they really wanted to make this a D&D game,but could not obtain the license for it from WotC. know what i mean?