40 réponses à ce sujet

[EIveon]

One thing that I disliked about DAO was that it kinda felt empty travelling with just 4 people. They should make it like BG and limit it to 6.

What do you guys think?

[caradoc2000]

Or make it like Jade Empire and have a single party member.

[Bobad]

Party balance is good with four and works, I would like six only so long as mobs and bosses required that level of butt kickery.

[Spazztik]

More characters does equal more awesomeness, but I think it was plenty of work personally just managing 4 party members

[PendragonV]

Bobad wrote...

Party balance is good with four and works, I would like six only so long as mobs and bosses required that level of butt kickery.

Party size should be determined by the level of difficulty. No point having 6 super fighters for a small mob, unless the AI is maximised, with mobs that have dealier skills.

[Altima Darkspells]

With DAO, I felt the party was somewhat stretched thin. You had to bring a rogue for locks, you had to bring a mage for healing (at least), you had to bring a tank...



With the way it is now, certain characters lose out on a lot of playtime. Dog and Shale, in particular, lag far behind towards the later portions of the game.



I think five would have been a great, all-around number to keep the maximum amount of characters in a party to balance both combat ability with sub-par characters and the out-of-combat banter.

[GodWood]

I think 5 would suit DA more, not too many, not too few.

[Maverick827]

Four is fine where it is. I mostly play with three or less; I can't think of a single piece of fantasy that I have enjoyed where six or more companions travel together at all times.

When you get into those high numbers, you get into the "terrible anime" danger zone. You know, the ones with thirty-seven characters, twenty-four of which are protagonists, ten of which are anti-heroes who constantly switch sides, and the rest are the villains.

[gotthammer]

I'd rather that the player can decide how big his party could be. Whether it's going at it alone, or bringing everyone he or she has ever recruited along (and w/ banter still activating ).



I for one found it a bit weird, whether it's in DA:O or ME/ME2, that I had to leave folks in a camp (or ship) behind while I travel to some of the most perilous locales in the setting.

Sure there are arguments for small party = stealthy, but, I dunno, if bigger party = bigger risk/more opposition, at least it's still an option.

[joriandrake]

EIveon wrote...

One thing that I disliked about DAO was that it kinda felt empty travelling with just 4 people. They should make it like BG and limit it to 6.

What do you guys think?

I agree 6 atleast, would be better if there were no limit

[nikki191]

sigh I miss the days when RPG's had 6 characters as standard

[flixerflax]

I constantly had situations where I wanted five party members, not for combat but for the sake of their reactions/interactions in different situations. I usually wanted me, Morrigan, Shale, Sten, and Zevran, all the really evil heartless bastards together at once.

[Koremark]

Reckon it still be four or less , do to the Consoles controls , Gosh Gee willy-winkers Consoles drag games down.

[joriandrake]

well, I also worry that it may not be more but only 3 this time

[Loerwyn]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

You had to bring a rogue for locks

Not if you're on the PC

Altima Darkspells wrote...
With the way it is now, certain characters lose out on a lot of playtime. Dog and Shale, in particular, lag far behind towards the later portions of the game.

I think that's because they've got such limited gear choices, and also not a lot of skills to choose.

Altima Darkspells wrote...
I think five would have been a great, all-around number to keep the maximum amount of characters in a party to balance both combat ability with sub-par characters and the out-of-combat banter.

Certainly.

Six is pushing it a bit far, really. A four person party can feel quite limited in terms of what you can or can't do, whereas a six can be pushing it in terms of management and gearing up.

[Lord Gremlin]

Koremark wrote...

Reckon it still be four or less , do to the Consoles controls , Gosh Gee willy-winkers Consoles drag games down.

A very stupid suggestion. 

[Bruno Hslaw]

2 is daft as you will not have the chance for each class to include what do you drop a mage a rogue of warrior? If you go as a rogue what do you have with you a mage or a warrior? not really workable is it.



3 would allow all class but what about using a tank or a battering ram for a warrior?



4 seems to allow all class options and a personal preference. I usually go with a warrior a mage and a warrior and just change my own character each play through. Except on rogue where I have 2 warriors.



5 well nice, but due to the fact this game will run on PC and console and they already had to jiggle battles to have the console game having small waves I think this would be unmanageable.

[J-Reyno]

I'd like to have five, personally. I'd be okay with six too, of course, but I think five is a great number to have for a party. 

[Rubbish Hero]

Bobad wrote...

Party balance is good with four and works, I would like six only so long as mobs and bosses required that level of butt kickery.

Dragon Age was about as unbalanced a game as you can get.

[Maverick827]

Rubbish Hero wrote...

Bobad wrote...

Party balance is good with four and works, I would like six only so long as mobs and bosses required that level of butt kickery.

Dragon Age was about as unbalanced a game as you can get.

Elaborate, chronic doomsayer.

[MaaZeus]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

With DAO, I felt the party was somewhat stretched thin. You had to bring a rogue for locks, you had to bring a mage for healing (at least), you had to bring a tank...

With the way it is now, certain characters lose out on a lot of playtime. Dog and Shale, in particular, lag far behind towards the later portions of the game.

I think five would have been a great, all-around number to keep the maximum amount of characters in a party to balance both combat ability with sub-par characters and the out-of-combat banter.

I also think 5 is perfect. 4 is too thin. With 5 you can have two warriors of different kind (heavy hitter and defender), a necessary rogue for locks and mage/healer. 4 is an annoying number where you have to do compromises on your party setup. Choose heavy hitter or heavy defender? Or leave out rogue so you can get both but miss the possibly good treasure on the way?

So please Bioware, increase it to 5.

[triggerhappy456]

4 works, IS balanced, and means all fronts can be covered

6 would be too many to run on a console, and would make your group larger than most of the groups of enemies you encounter, unless they just threw loads of weak enemies on the screen

3 does not really seem like it would work in a game where the talents can extend to more than just combat abilities

im not sure about 5 myself haha

[Maverick827]

MaaZeus wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...

With DAO, I felt the party was somewhat stretched thin. You had to bring a rogue for locks, you had to bring a mage for healing (at least), you had to bring a tank...

With the way it is now, certain characters lose out on a lot of playtime. Dog and Shale, in particular, lag far behind towards the later portions of the game.

I think five would have been a great, all-around number to keep the maximum amount of characters in a party to balance both combat ability with sub-par characters and the out-of-combat banter.

I also think 5 is perfect. 4 is too thin. With 5 you can have two warriors of different kind (heavy hitter and defender), a necessary rogue for locks and mage/healer. 4 is an annoying number where you have to do compromises on your party setup. Choose heavy hitter or heavy defender? Or leave out rogue so you can get both but miss the possibly good treasure on the way?

So please Bioware, increase it to 5.

Good maths?

Heavy hitter
Defender
Rogue
Mage/Healer

That is 4.

Any Rogue requirements could be easily solved with spells of unlocking and lock bashing (two of my favorite mods for this game).  I wouldn't be surprised if one or both are in Dragon Age 2.

[MaaZeus]

Maverick827 wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

Altima Darkspells wrote...

With DAO, I felt the party was somewhat stretched thin. You had to bring a rogue for locks, you had to bring a mage for healing (at least), you had to bring a tank...

With the way it is now, certain characters lose out on a lot of playtime. Dog and Shale, in particular, lag far behind towards the later portions of the game.

I think five would have been a great, all-around number to keep the maximum amount of characters in a party to balance both combat ability with sub-par characters and the out-of-combat banter.

I also think 5 is perfect. 4 is too thin. With 5 you can have two warriors of different kind (heavy hitter and defender), a necessary rogue for locks and mage/healer. 4 is an annoying number where you have to do compromises on your party setup. Choose heavy hitter or heavy defender? Or leave out rogue so you can get both but miss the possibly good treasure on the way?

So please Bioware, increase it to 5.

Good maths?

Heavy hitter
Defender
Rogue
Mage/Healer

That is 4.

Any Rogue requirements could be easily solved with spells of unlocking and lock bashing (two of my favorite mods for this game).  I wouldn't be surprised if one or both are in Dragon Age 2.

Ooops. I forgot the dog out of the equation. I always want to keep that rascal in my party, leaving one out of the essentials. Though techinically he is a heavy hitter, I do not consider him as such. Thank god for mods that enable dog be in my party without taking space from other characters.

Modifié par MaaZeus, 25 juillet 2010 - 12:10 .