1380 réponses à ce sujet

[The Masked Rog]

Monica83 wrote...

In terms of roleplay dear David don't exist any explanation of why a warrior can't learn to use a bow o dual wield weapons.. When the gameplay will broke roleplay features then maybe isn't the right choice to do...
In fact this is a roleplay game in in every roleplay game classes are not only a name but the way of life of your character and cut off roleplay feature like cusomization of classes for gameplay don't helps.. It made only thing much more static not distinct...

Why if i have a woman character i must forcet to be a muscolar one or if i want be a faster fighter i must forced to be a rougue? No explanation for that..
For me and for many many other this is a stepback and a kick on the face of rpg playability..
The new definition of distinct class are much more static even if you add upgradable skills they will be static in terms of roleplay.. You can made distinct class in many other ways but you prefear cut off half ability of warriors only to give to rogue roguish animations....

I want the animations. And I kind of tire people imagining that firing a bow is any kind of easy feat. it isn't, I assure you. Being any close to proficient in it (as in fire it in middle of battle against moving target) takes years of learning. Warriors train in melee weapons. Rogues dual-wield and use arcehry. That's what they were trained for. I can still have a muscolar rogue using a bow (essentially a fighter) or a lite and quick warrior (dexterity points) going SnS. I do disagree that animations should be sacrificed for RPG. I do disagree that classes shouldn't be made more distinct in order to allow for excentric combinations. 

[bzombo]

David Gaider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Seb Hanlon wrote...

The game does indeed obey the limitations of the setting.

And that the technical designers think this is important means a lot to me.  Thank you.

Let me point out the caveat there, however: when it comes to a conflict between the setting and gameplay the resolution is generally an easy one: the setting must bend or change.

And I don't mean a casual conflict. Tech Designers are going to accomodate the setting whenever they can, just as Seb pointed out. But if there's an issue where the game design needs to change and the only thing standing in the way is the fact that X has been stated in the setting at some point-- well, that's not a good enough reason. The idea that setting logic should trump everything else simply doesn't exist, despite how important the setting might be to me or any fans of the lore.

Ideal? No, but that's simply how it is.

this almost sounds like what happened with the qunari from dao to da2.

[bzombo]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
As for the whole making things more unique- if thats the intent, then why are we giving mages melee attacks if they're supposed to be the field artillery?

Because holding your staff at your armpit and going "pew pew" is not cool. At least, I sure don't think it is.

No one said that mage melee attacks were particularly good, just that you don't look lame while you do them.

for comic relief, it would be very cool to have a character who fights by actually saying "pew pew".

[Aradace]

Ok, if we look at this again in terms of DnD (and yes, I know BioWare doesnt use DnD rulesets lol) maybe since both Archery and DW'ing are being restricted to "Rogues" this time around, perhaps they are treating them as "Rangers" in a sense in that Rangers were kind of DWing experts who were also great archers? (because they started off with the feat)

[Monica83]

WHen you create a character you chose a class and you must be able to customize it... In DA i maked a dual blade warrior with a medium armor... I don't find any roleplay explanation why rougues must be the only trained to use bows and dual weld this is just silly... Its a true stepback from origins as i sayd you can find different ways to keep classes distinct without ruin them of be static... Limit our option of customize character only for animation its silly.. After all Dragon age is an rpg not a stupid hack and slash ala diablo or a japanese mmo.. When gameplay limitation limit the roleplay make a roleplay game have no sense im sorry but this is the truth... I can understeand if a mage can't use swords maces or axes because him spend the entire life to study and learn to use magic powers.. A warrior is a warrior and must know how to use blade or bows.. A rogue isn't only a title or a name of class is a way of life of the character you only have to check in the dictionary what the word rogue means.. Now those decision they maded about cut half ability of warrior don't have any logical sense or roleplay sense yes now classes are much more... distinct... but also much more static in terms of roleplay so this is a stepback after all this is a roleplay game right? and the roleplay factor must be the most important.. when you create a character the character is your you decide how to interact in the world what weapon and what style use this is the strong thing in roleplay games...If you make roleplay much more static applyng nosense limitation like the one from rogue and warrior you ruin the roleplay.. thats all

[The Masked Rog]

Monica83 wrote...

WHen you create a character you chose a class and you must be able to customize it... In DA i maked a dual blade warrior with a medium armor... I don't find any roleplay explanation why rougues must be the only trained to use bows and dual weld this is just silly... Its a true stepback from origins as i sayd you can find different ways to keep classes distinct without ruin them of be static... Limit our option of customize character only for animation its silly.. After all Dragon age is an rpg not a stupid hack and slash ala diablo or a japanese mmo.. When gameplay limitation limit the roleplay make a roleplay game have no sense im sorry but this is the truth... I can understeand if a mage can't use swords maces or axes because him spend the entire life to study and learn to use magic powers.. A warrior is a warrior and must know how to use blade or bows.. A rogue isn't only a title or a name of class is a way of life of the character you only have to check in the dictionary what the word rogue means.. Now those decision they maded about cut half ability of warrior don't have any logical sense or roleplay sense yes now classes are much more... distinct... but also much more static in terms of roleplay so this is a stepback after all this is a roleplay game right? and the roleplay factor must be the most important.. when you create a character the character is your you decide how to interact in the world what weapon and what style use this is the strong thing in roleplay games...If you make roleplay much more static applyng nosense limitation like the one from rogue and warrior you ruin the roleplay.. thats all

Then why have classes at all. classes are sets of proficiencies. What you are describing is a Rogue. That's it. That you could call it a Warrior in no way improved roleplay. Yes, we are losing some customization. But it is for the sake of class distinctivness (you will be able to tell warriors and rogues apart) and gameplay. Plus it allows for some cool animations. For me it is a great payoff because I loose almost no customization and gain more distinct classes and better gameplay.

[Aradace]

@ Monica -You dont know if its a "step back" until you've played DA2 Monica. Dont start passing off your "opinions" as "facts" again here like you did in the other thread. I understand how you feel it's a bad thing but again, this is an opinion and not a fact. You cant make a factual statement about it being a "step back" or whatnot until you've actually played the game. Wait until you've played it, then judge it. For all you know, it could actually be a good thing that they've done this depending on how distinct they make the other classes.

Modifié par Aradace, 15 septembre 2010 - 10:48 .

[Monica83]

im sorry but when i look DAO fratures and i compare them with the one in the gameplay post.. i dont see many features i see only many cut features.. If you make a game and in the sequel you start to cut down things you can call them features i call them stepback because is more logical.. In the past is already happened with nwn2 many people says taths bad thats horrible and people call them doomsayers.. When nwn2 was released its full of bug unplayable the toolset didin't work and saves will be broken many times the game become better fater the first expansion so maybe the people who complain have reason after all..... Now i say i only see less features in DA2 the only nice feature i say is:

Better graphic design

Nice animation

Vo character...



Then stop... and for me isn't enought compared with the first game

[The Masked Rog]

Monica83 wrote...

im sorry but when i look DAO fratures and i compare them with the one in the gameplay post.. i dont see many features i see only many cut features.. If you make a game and in the sequel you start to cut down things you can call them features i call them stepback because is more logical.. In the past is already happened with nwn2 many people says taths bad thats horrible and people call them doomsayers.. When nwn2 was released its full of bug unplayable the toolset didin't work and saves will be broken many times the game become better fater the first expansion so maybe the people who complain have reason after all..... Now i say i only see less features in DA2 the only nice feature i say is:
Better graphic design
Nice animation
Vo character...

Then stop... and for me isn't enought compared with the first game

What features do you see cut. I see new features or improved ones:

• Better distinction between classes
• Smoother, faster combat system
• Ability trees instead of linear progression

Missed anything?

[Monica83]

Better distinction: static classes=not so great improvement

Smoother,faster combat system=its ok

Ability trees instead of linear progression= i can't say nothing..



But if those are the only features isn'still enough

[tmp7704]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Warriors train in melee weapons. Rogues dual-wield and use arcehry. That's what they were trained for.

Which would be pretty dumb in a setting where large part of battles between the professionals (warriors) happen not at melee range but with one side shooting the other with ranged weapons from the city/castle walls and similar fortifications. Or even in regular battles where it makes simple sense to rain arrows on enemy who attempts to close in. Like it's actually shown in the prologue of DAO.

Honestly, trying to bring logic to decisions which aren't based on it but purely on gameplay concern is a waste of time.

[addiction21]

Monica83 wrote...

In terms of roleplay dear David don't exist any explanation of why a warrior can't learn to use a bow o dual wield weapons.. When the gameplay will broke roleplay features then maybe isn't the right choice to do...

First please gve us this definition of "roleplay" not your own subjective and predifined definition but one everyone can agree on.
Second the reasons have been made clear to you. You can accept them or not accept them but they have been given to you. Clearly they are not acceptable to you so I doubt they could ever give you one you would accept.
What are these features? And why are the "roleplay"?

Monica83 wrote...

In fact this is a roleplay game in in every roleplay game classes are not only a name but the way of life of your character and cut off roleplay feature like cusomization of classes for gameplay don't helps.. It made only thing much more static not distinct...

Yes class = Archetype. It is a pattern. A general idea. It is not a how to guide or definition set in stone. In every RPG it has always been up to the creators of said game to decide how their class in their game works. Take it or leave it but it does not make it less of an rpg. Just one that does things in the ways you do not prefer them to be done.
That customazation will still be there but from the many posts of yours I have read it does not matter what they are or that they have as many skills and skill trees as the other archetypes. It only matters that you cant duel wield. Again that does not make it less "roleplay" it just does it in a different way then you want it to be done.
DAO  archetypes were as static as DA2's archetypes will be.  I do not think you actually know what that word means in the way you are using it.

Monica83 wrote...


Why if i have a woman character i must forcet to be a muscolar one or if i want be a faster fighter i must forced to be a rougue? No explanation for that..

Care to clarify a bit? Do you mean a warrior has to look muscluar to be a fighter or are you talking about that stats?

Monica83 wrote...

For me and for many many other this is a stepback and a kick on the face of rpg playability..

Subjective knee jerk reaction. It is still up in the air if it is a stepback or not for the franchise. Your problem is that it is not what you want so you argue that it is not "rpg playability" very poor logic.

Monica83 wrote...

The new definition of distinct class are much more static even if you add upgradable skills they will be static in terms of roleplay.. You can made distinct class in many other ways but you prefear cut off half ability of warriors only to give to rogue roguish animations....

So if you know how to make the class's more "distinct" please give us a example. Other then them sharing over half of same skill trees and abilities.
It has more to do with animations but the rogue is not the only one getting new animations.

[Monica83]

i already gaved some example benhind

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I'm still hoping for a leap to a build-your-own-class style of character creation system. Keep the attribute requirements, keep the skill and talent trees with their requirements, ditch the character class names and restrictions. You could still have Origins, even for a mage with low magic. Maybe the character isn't a promising pupil? That would make the Origin more fun if your character, not Jowan was under threat of being made Tranquil. Then, as the mage traveled, advanced, you could say the character might pick up archery and it's talents or maybe learn to pick locks? Why not? Either would be useful to a traveler, or the character could go back to practicing magic and find more mastery over advanced powers. I think Dungeon Siege had a system like this, where your character advanced in a weapon or skill the more you used it. I never played that game, but the concept sounded promising.



It would be easy to keep all specializations too and their stories with an open, classless system. I'm not sure what a class label and it's restrictions does for any kind advancement in a game anymore.

[TMZuk]

The Masked Rog wrote...

Then why have classes at all. classes are sets of proficiencies. What you are describing is a Rogue. That's it. That you could call it a Warrior in no way improved roleplay. Yes, we are losing some customization. But it is for the sake of class distinctivness (you will be able to tell warriors and rogues apart) and gameplay. Plus it allows for some cool animations. For me it is a great payoff because I loose almost no customization and gain more distinct classes and better gameplay.

Indeed why? classes are a dated concept, and should be abandoned.

What really puts me off in this debate, is the developers talking of "more difference between classes", "tactical use of your party-members", "making the players use the talents of all three classes", and blah, blah blah. I couldn't care less.

If I want to play the game with three guys and girls who are all fighter/rogue/mages.... why can't I? Why do I have to be forced wasting my time "optimizing" my partymembers? What has that to do with roleplaying? I have never chosen partymembers from who the "best" one was. I have chosen them for whom the funniest was, the scariest, the most interesting, the sexiest... bringing Shale with my Warden  to the Deep Roads wasn't the "best" choise tactically, I am certain, but it sure as h*** was the only sensible choise from a roleplay persepective, from my characters viewpoint.

It doesn't sound as Bioware are developing a roleplaying-game, but rather a war-game or a shooter. A fantasy-version of half-life or something. Animations, tactical choises, weapon-restrictions, narrow, restricted classes and so on. The mere idea of a RPG where a warrior cannot use a bow, or hold a dagger in the left hand is so off-putting, such a huge step back to the bad old days of AD&D. Even worse, in fact, because I don't recall a single AD&D class that did not have access to some sort of missile-weapon.

[Haexpane]

distinguetraces wrote...

They made the right choice--warriors and rogues shared far too many of the same skills.

More importantly, DW warriors are extremely over powered, and remove the need for any other tank/melee in the party.

My most recent toon is a DW warrior elf, 100x easier than a 2H warrior

[Haexpane]

jollyorigins wrote...

  i made a legionnaire scout once and it was tanking just as well as my warrior was

I have to force myself to remember that Legion Scouts are rogues, not warriors.

Now we need to

No casitng spells in Half/Full plate ARmor, at all, any class

Dual Wield should have OFF HAND PENALTY even at max skill.  

2H weapons need a DAMAGE BONUS to make up for the slow swings

Neft DW crowd control skills.  Make Rogues good at AVOID and CONFUSE type skills, not epic swooshing of knocking down all enemies etc...

[Haexpane]

Monica83 wrote...

Better distinction: static classes=not so great improvement
Smoother,faster combat system=its ok
Ability trees instead of linear progression= i can't say nothing..

But if those are the only features isn'still enough

Better ability tree is a 1000000x improvement over linear blocks in DAO. 

classes vs. no classes is an ongoing battle.  Oblivion has a true "hybrid" system you are describing. YOu can pick a "class" but it really does nothing and you can custom build your own class.

That always leads to over powered characters.  Just like the DW warrior or Legion Scout or Arcane Warrior are over powered.

The point of classes is to make each party member important instead of redundant.  And to be "grounded" in that you train in plate and swords, you should not be just as good at DWing as a rogue who has trained in light armor/ DW for years.

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

More importantly, DW warriors are extremely over powered, and remove the need for any other tank/melee in the party.

Considering the tanking and melee damage is what the warriors are supposed to do, it'd be rather sad if the role actually required bringing extra people for it. It's like complaining a mage can actually heal and nuke and cc like they're supposed to, without any extra help.

[Haexpane]

TMZuk wrote...
 

Indeed why? classes are a dated concept, and should be abandoned.

First of all, why the love for "everything old should be crap canned"?  That doesn't have any logic behind it.  "Dated concept" is a negative implication, but a false one.  The idea that something is old, therefore dated, and therefore inferior is simply not backed up by fact.

Led Zep is an incredibly "dated" band.  Who is current?  Justin Bieber.  Which is better?  No doubt Led Zep is dated, open shirts, bell bottoms, over the top hotel destroying antics etc..

With that out of the way, classes or No classes are equal in their age.

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

More importantly, DW warriors are extremely over powered, and remove the need for any other tank/melee in the party.

Considering the tanking and melee damage is what the warriors are supposed to do, it'd be rather sad if the role actually required bringing extra people for it. It's like complaining a mage can actually heal and nuke and cc like they're supposed to, without any extra help.

Well mages healing and nuking is absurd, at least in terms of how a toon can be epic in both Healing and Nuking.

Ditto for warriors Soaking and DPSing.  You should have to choose and balance.  The fact is my DW Warrior in DOA can soak dmg, and DPS like a madman.

There is no balance, my DW warrior can do everything but open chests that contain worthless lewt.  

You should have to choose, do you want to be good at healing and nuke on the side or be a nuker who can heal a little?  w/ some builds in DAO, you can do it all, and crowd control while you're at it.  

A well built AW can solo the bosses, ditto for a DW warrior etc...

The point is balance, challenge and having a party.

If you want to have a super hero character that can do it all, we already have The Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy X

[Morroian]

TMZuk wrote...
It doesn't sound as Bioware are developing a roleplaying-game, but rather a war-game or a shooter. A fantasy-version of half-life or something. Animations, tactical choises, weapon-restrictions, narrow, restricted classes and so on. The mere idea of a RPG where a warrior cannot use a bow, or hold a dagger in the left hand is so off-putting, such a huge step back to the bad old days of AD&D. Even worse, in fact, because I don't recall a single AD&D class that did not have access to some sort of missile-weapon.

I don't remember half life or any other shooter having classes. D'nD has restrictive classes, just a lot of them. Look I agree warriors and rogues should be 1 fighter class, but for all intents and purposes a rogue is a warrior just a dex based warrior.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Haexpane wrote...



The point of classes is to make each party member important instead of redundant.  And to be "grounded" in that you train in plate and swords, you should not be just as good at DWing as a rogue who has trained in light armor/ DW for years.

What is a class but a bundle of skills and restrictions? Why could you organize weapon training along certain parameters of concept, a tree of basic weapons leading to more specialized ones? Why would this not also work with armor? I'm not suggesting that you just pick and choose skills willy nilly at first level to have a mage at second level who is proficient in plate mail and claymores. Attributes of strength, dexterity, constitution, willpower, magic and cunning would still also regulate what abilities and items a character could use. Each party member would progress towards filling a "job" in the group, I don't see where there is an arguement that classes fill any void. If someone makes a party of redundant fighters and wants to play that way...maybe it's possible? Those who want a balanced class will pick or choose people with different skillsets that the characters have been working towards. A character who has advanced in skills using two weapons along a tree doesn't have to be a rogue, it could be a mage at the cost of focusing in magic, but the end result could make for an interesting story and it would fill a specialist niche in the party, just as any combination of skills might.
 
Why can't a mage pick locks? Why must a fighter or a rogue fight with certain weapons or styles? There's no story or logical explanation for it so why adhere to the mechanic? The party would only end up being redundant if there were very basic skills that anyone could purchase too soon (bad game design) or if the player intentionally made all the characters the same way. As long as skill and spell trees are well thought out, a system like this could make traditional warriors, rogues, mages, or any combination a player can think of.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Morroian wrote...

TMZuk wrote...
It doesn't sound as Bioware are developing a roleplaying-game, but rather a war-game or a shooter. A fantasy-version of half-life or something. Animations, tactical choises, weapon-restrictions, narrow, restricted classes and so on. The mere idea of a RPG where a warrior cannot use a bow, or hold a dagger in the left hand is so off-putting, such a huge step back to the bad old days of AD&D. Even worse, in fact, because I don't recall a single AD&D class that did not have access to some sort of missile-weapon.

I don't remember half life or any other shooter having classes. D'nD has restrictive classes, just a lot of them. Look I agree warriors and rogues should be 1 fighter class, but for all intents and purposes a rogue is a warrior just a dex based warrior.

System Shock had classes and so did Hexen...they are both FPSes. Oh...and didn't the Cavalier from AD&D have a vow not to use missle weapons?