1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

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.  

Can your warrior aoe nuke from range and heal? I'm fairly sure they can't, and you're using very narrow definition of "everything" that includes merely two things.

The DW warrior can not "cast heal" on other characters, but he can heal himself better than any spell can, faster, and more efficiently.

My DW warrior can use a Bow and Arrow and any type of arrow, which have the same effects as any nuke.
No, the DW warrior can not "cast nukes" but he can effectively do the same thing, range attacks w/ spell effects.

tmp7704 wrote...
And yet you are arguing for game to be better this should be limited even furtther and have any given character to be capable of doing just one thing proper...

Nope, I am arguing that the classes of DAO are not distinct enough and too many of them are redundant.  I'm not arguing for only 1 thing proper.  I'm arguing for a defined role?

What is the role of a DW Warrior?  In DAO it's DPS/Damange sponge, aggro manager, self healer, poisoner, debuffer, AOE, crowd control ... what else do you need?

Cone of cold?  Maybe, but that is so over powered I only used it when in the toughest fights.

My argument is that perhaps it's a tad unbalanced to be the king of DPS and Tanking and AOE and crowd control all in one build.

[Haexpane]

Addai67 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

In general, the majority of gamers want a game that is challenging.   Pushing balance onto the user and saying, hey you can be a god class or a chump, up to you  = 99% of users playing a god class and finding the game too easy.

And whining about it on forums, yes.  As if Bioware sent people to their house to beat them up because they weren't making enough Arcane Warriors or Legion Scouts.

I think I had Morrigan spec'd to ARcane warrior for a bit.  She solod the first dragaon in the game while my archer was KO'd. 

Yep, Morrigan, AW build in a ROBE and with a STAFF no armor, solo'd the Mountain Dragon.  I was able to solo that dragon w/ a 2H warrior as well but it took a long time and a tonne of potion chugging.

DW warrior cuts through everything like butter.

[Akka le Vil]

David Gaider wrote...

And this, I assume, is bizarre Sylvius Logic -- the kind of logic which trumps all manner of resources, gameplay and balance for the sake of... what, exactly? We do not adhere pedantically to the setting except where it suits us. The fact that there are no horses evident in the game doesn't mean they don't exist in the setting. And the fact that the Warrior class in DA2 doesn't allow dual wielding doesn't mean there aren't small-w warriors in the setting that use two weapons. Are they Rogue class? Are they Warrior class? Does it matter?

Gameplay and setting are not completely divorced, but neither are they married. I know they are in your mind, but I doubt you're going to convince us anytime soon that your particular tastes are what we're interested in. Or what most people are interested in. Or what might be wise to pursue.

I know you won't take that personally-- you've certainly made that evident enough with your posts-- and I don't mean it personally. But there you go.

I'm pretty sure that a game is based on settings, and that gameplay is drawn from the settings. From the obvious - you don't see tanks and machinegun in Thedas, it would just feel completely idiotic and destroy the game - to the more subtle - mages are feared and hit points don't depend on magic.

"making sense" is always a good thing for a game. "suspension of disbelief" is acceptable, but it's always better to have something that is organically evolved from the premises than something arbitrary. I hope we do agree on this point.

From this, it seems that design decisions that have some utility and that makes sense are better than design decision that have the same utility and doesn't make sense. The point here is then to take design decisions that brign the utility you need, while making sense at the same time.
We understand that you wanted to make rogues and warriors more distinctive. Then you decided that this was best served by putting some arbitrary limits on what rogues and warriors could do so that they wouldn't overlap. The desired effect was "differenciating rogues and warriors" (with the goal being more "personnality" for the classes I suppose) ; the drawbacks were that these limits are arbitrary (hence doesn't "make sense"), contradict the lore and restrict the possibilities of playing ; the "attenuating circumstances" are that some part of these limits are following a general theme (rogue => dexterity and 1v1, warriors => strength and AoE).

The thing is, for many persons, the design decision taken on this point are, simply said, "bad". As in : the goal they have doesn't justify the "bad points" they bring. Contradicting the lore and not making a lot of sense make it harder to accept the restriction of gameplay (the advantage of "making sense" is that it's more logical, immersive and acceptable).
Worse, the fact that you redefine "rogues" and "warriors" as "light fighter" and "heavy fighter" ends up going completely against the very concept that was the reason you redefined them  (making classes "more distinct").
Not to add that many people actually aren't convinced by the very idea that having strictly separate classes is fun to begin with.

In the end, the problem is that it's quite dubious that the decisions are actually benefiting the game : they give a lot of drawbacks, are actually self-defeating in quite a bit of cases, and the eventual positive they bring in the end is not really that convincing (of course, all this is somehow subjective, but it seems that the many discussions show that there is at least some reasons to think it may be the case).

[Akka le Vil]

David Gaider wrote...

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 argument never convinced me (just like "fun trumps realism"), because it presuposes a conflict happens and a design solution can't be found that actually allow both. And I've yet to see how it's an impossibility.

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

The DW warrior can not "cast heal" on other characters, but he can heal himself better than any spell can, faster, and more efficiently.

Still, can't heal others. That hardly sounds like character who can do "everything".

My DW warrior can use a Bow and Arrow and any type of arrow, which have the same effects as any nuke.
No, the DW warrior can not "cast nukes" but he can effectively do the same thing, range attacks w/ spell effects.

Are these AoE attacks, like i specifically asked about? Or to put it simpler -- can your DW warrior do the same aoe attack/cc spells your mage can?

Nope, I am arguing that the classes of DAO are not distinct enough and too many of them are redundant.  I'm not arguing for only 1 thing proper.  I'm arguing for a defined role?

However you are complaining that your warrior can do two things well, and claim it is too much, and that they should be forced to choose. If you take away from two things you're left with either one, or none at all. That's most basic math and i'm surprised to see you don't even realize what exactly the things you are asking for actually mean, if they were to be implemented in the very way you ask for.

Modifié par tmp7704, 16 septembre 2010 - 09:11 .

[Haexpane]

Akka le Vil wrote...
 
Not to add that many people actually aren't convinced by the very idea that having strictly separate classes is fun to begin with.

 The most popular RPGs in gaming have class systems.  the most highly rated RPGs in gaming have class systems.  A few of RPGs in gaming have hybrid/open/make ur own class sytems and are highly rated.

Bioware games have traditionally NOT been an open class system. Somehow they managed to get great ratings and sales.  So to say people don't think a class based system is fun, should instead be a MINORITY of Bioware fans are of this mind.

Even Oblivion has a class system, although it's very open.  The best Final Fantasy games have a class system (FF Tactics)

The most successful MMOs are class based.

BG2, KOTOR, KOTOR 2, DAO, DAOA, ME1  all class based.  

The best RPG in recent memory I can think of with an "open class" system is Demon's Souls.  But even that game is about "builds".  You are not restricted from anything... as long as you have the pre-req stats for it.

Which is another way of presenting a class based system.

In fact w/ Demon's Souls, you do pick a starting class, but it just offers starting gear, spell and stats.  If you start mage, you can end w/ a Tank.

However, the build you make, essentially becomes a class.   Yes a tank warrior type can still cast spells in that build, but the balance is there.  You can't have stats to be great at both builds. You have to choose.

Name me a game in recent memory with No class system?

I'm starting to believe most of the people who "hate being forced to use a class" have never even played such a game, it's one of those "the game in my head that I will never make and no one will ever make is better than this AAA software in front of me" delusions

PnP does not count in this discussion.

[Haexpane]

tmp7704 wrote...

 
Still, can't heal others. That hardly sounds like character who can do "everything".

why "heal others" when they just slow you down.  Every member of the party can, and does chug potions.  That is the core of the healing system in DAO.

Let me ask  you this, how did you play? DId you rely on Mage heals or did you chug pots?

tmp7704 wrote...
 
Are these AoE attacks, like i specifically asked about? Or to put it simpler -- can your DW warrior do the same aoe attack/cc spells your mage can?

Not sure what CC is (cubic centimeters?)  but YES A WARRIOR HAS MANY AOE ATTACKS!  In fact some of the more powerful warrior abilities are AoE.  I forget the names but there are abilities like "Nuke greens" and "weaken everyone"  "strengthen your party"  "taunt everyone"  

I rarely used AOE for my mages because of Friendly Fire

 

tmp7704 wrote...
However you are complaining that your warrior can do two things well, and claim it is too much, and that they should be forced to choose. If you take away from two things you're left with either one, or none at all. That's most basic math and i'm surprised to see you don't even realize what exactly the things you are asking for actually mean, if they were to be implemented in the very way you ask for.

That's not math, that's artithmatic   I am not counting 2 things.  I'm counting many more.

DW warrior can

DPS
Soak Damage
AoE
Debuff
Buff
Crowd Control
Range DPS / effects
In close DPS / effects
Heal self
poison
fire
freeze
lightning

that's more than 2!  ANd your 'math' up there suggests 2-1=[1]or[0]   OR?

[Akka le Vil]

Haexpane wrote...

The most [...] in this discussion.

I wasn't giving my opinion on this point (I like both classes and class-less system, actually), I was just pointing some facts - that classes aren't necessarily considered a big positive, and for many it's actually a negative.

Your rant is unwarranted, less knee-jerk reaction please.

And your second rant on the "overpoweredness" of DW warrior is not convincing, as everything you listed could actually be done by a rogue, with all the perks and utilities of a rogue AND also backstab.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 16 septembre 2010 - 10:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Note that classless systems tend to be balance nightmares.

Less so if the encounter content isn't scaled to match the PC.

If we shallow-out the power curve across the whole game, this also becomes less of a problem, and this is something I've been advocating for some time.

[tmp7704]

Haexpane wrote...

why "heal others" when they just slow you down.

How does having more people (who combined deal more damage meaning they mow the enemies down faster) "slow you down"?

Let me ask  you this, how did you play? DId you rely on Mage heals or did you chug pots?

Focused mostly on going through battles without using either, more fun this way. I don't really like the potion spam since it basically grants everyone unlimited health + mana which well, removes any kind of challenge the game could be posing otherwise.

Not sure what CC is (cubic centimeters?)  but YES A WARRIOR HAS MANY AOE ATTACKS!  In fact some of the more powerful warrior abilities are AoE.  I forget the names but there are abilities like "Nuke greens" and "weaken everyone"  "strengthen your party"  "taunt everyone" 

CC = crowd control. And i see. It starts to seem that everything the classes can do in the game is either "too powerful" or "too much". Even abilities which add +5 or so to characters defense/attack? Really, now.

That's not math, that's artithmatic   I am not counting 2 things.  I'm counting many more.

Considering arithmetic is branch of math that's like saying "it's not a fruit, it's a banana"   And i was talking specifically of what you said in your earlier posts -- yes, the warriors can do more things than just two but you were talking of just two of them (soaking damage and dealing damage) and claimed that was too much and the character should be forced to choose.

that's more than 2!  ANd your 'math' up there suggests 2-1=[1]or[0]   OR?

My math suggests that 2 - (1 or more) = 1 or less.

Modifié par tmp7704, 16 septembre 2010 - 11:45 .

[Obadiah]

Makes sense. Warriors are more tanks, and my DW warrior just got constantly knocked down and stunned. Almost no point to having a warrior be a DW - he might as well have BEEN a rogue.



Loss of warrior versatility though.

[Tirigon]

Haexpane wrote...

Name me a game in recent memory with No class system?

I'm starting to believe most of the people who "hate being forced to use a class" have never even played such a game, it's one of those "the game in my head that I will never make and no one will ever make is better than this AAA software in front of me" delusions

PnP does not count in this discussion.

Oblivion with the mod that allows you to distribute your attribute points as you want, no matter which skills you levelled.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Haexpane wrote...

PnP does not count in this discussion.

Why not?

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

Gonna through my two cents in on the effectiveness of DWW(Dual Wielding Warriors).





A DWW will never have the solo power of a rogue or mage even with Templar spec. Shimmering Shield and Combat Stealth will outclass anything a DWW can do ever. The only thing a DWW is best at on DA:O is aoe damage; single target damage cunning rogue, survivability arcane warrior, utility goes to 2h warrior.



Compared to other classes/builds I don't think a DWW on it's own is overpowered, but I would say it has the best synergy in a party among any class/party combo. It also seems to have more longevity in stat scaling than the other classes since it is an ability spammer style. Compared to a dagger rogue and arcane warrior being more of an auto attack type of style.

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Note that classless systems tend to be balance nightmares.

Less so if the encounter content isn't scaled to match the PC.

If we shallow-out the power curve across the whole game, this also becomes less of a problem, and this is something I've been advocating for some time.

Shallower power-curve would help, as would better encounter design.  When you need a wide range of abilities to defeat an encounter, you can't just focus on the "best" abilities, but instead have to build characters who complement one another.

[Lokanaiya]

Haexpane wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...


This may sound mean, but if you're having too easy a time and something seems "overpowered," there's a simple solution:

Turn up the difficulty, or maybe even don't make a DW warrior.

It doesn't sound mean at all.  Although you are making the assumption that I am not already playing on a harder difficulty.  Or that I am not aware of a difficulty slider.  Which is a poorly thought out assumption.

"Hey, Dr.  my arm hurts when I do this..{lifts arm}" - Patient
"The cure is, don't do that" - Doctor

That old trope is not a solution for game balance

Lokanaiya wrote...

  Maybe you like it when you have to buy a hundred potions, craft a thousand more, and hope double that drops. Maybe there's someone out there who likes to just buy a couple and be done with it, who knows?

Blame the victim much?  Why is it the end user's fault that the game is based on potion healing? I don't like potions any more than anyone else.  It's one of my least favorite methods of RPG healing.  I didn't design DAO, if you want to bash Potion chugging, talk to Bioware.

Lokanaiya wrote...

Long story short: Since this isn't a MMORPG like WoW, you can change the difficulty, and can make entirely different characters if you don't like one, please don't cry for "nerf" like you do in later posts, since you can essentially do it yourself with difficulty and different characters.

Here we go again, why is it any time someone mentions balance, they assume they are a "WoW kiddie" I dont play WoW.  WoW is not the center of the universe, WoW did not invent balance.  WoW did not invent RPGs or classes or dual wielding

I'll ask for nerfs any damn time I please thank you very much.

Despite your poorly thought out assumptions, again WoW did not invent Nerf.  

First off, I'm sorry if I came off as bashing WoW or potions. I meant the potions as just an example for difficulty (not the best one, I admit) and "you" as anyone who happened to be reading this, and, really, couldn't think of another example that wouldn't sound offensive.

And as for WoW... I actually play it and do it more often than DAO since I have a love the social interaction. I had no idea that it was viewed as a "kiddie" game... I was simply using it because of the PVP example, by which I meant that classes have to be as close to perfectly balanced as they can be, so the playing field is close to equal there. Since there *is* no PvP here, and if you don't like a build you can say "screw this" and start over, my point is that nerfing isn't really necessary here, unless you get handed a DW warrior party member, for example, don't have one of those "respec DLCs" or whatever, andl you absolutely HAVE to use him.

But anyways:

With the doctor example, the main problem there is that if we want something else in a video game, like doing a different class and/or build, we can do it. The petient can hardly get a new arm can he?

As for the difficulty.... Well, do you play on the highest possible difficulty? The answer may be yes, but if it isn't, then it's not fair to ask for a nerf when other people may be enjoying it like this perfectly fine.

Once again, sorry if I came off offensive.

[Addai]

Haexpane wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...
 
Are these AoE attacks, like i specifically asked about? Or to put it simpler -- can your DW warrior do the same aoe attack/cc spells your mage can?

Not sure what CC is (cubic centimeters?)  but YES A WARRIOR HAS MANY AOE ATTACKS!  In fact some of the more powerful warrior abilities are AoE.  I forget the names but there are abilities like "Nuke greens" and "weaken everyone"  "strengthen your party"  "taunt everyone" 

Those are buffs.  Hardly AoE attacks.

Some warrior abilities hit multiple targets or knock them back, and warriors can get Poison skills.  That's the only AoE I can think of.

DW warrior can

DPS
Soak Damage
AoE
Debuff
Buff
Crowd Control
Range DPS / effects
In close DPS / effects
Heal self
poison
fire
freeze
lightning

that's more than 2!  ANd your 'math' up there suggests 2-1=[1]or[0]   OR?

So now you're adding runes as a warrior attack?  WTH?

You're really reaching.

[AlanC9]

Haexpane wrote...
That opinion is highly debatable and the core of this thread.  To say that balance is not an issue simply because it's single player ignores decades of game design and user feedback.

In general, the majority of gamers want a game that is challenging.   Pushing balance onto the user and saying, hey you can be a god class or a chump, up to you  = 99% of users playing a god class and finding the game too easy.

How would the 99% of users get their god class? Either by mastering the system or by reading build threads on a discussion board. Are you really saying that 99% of users do either of those for an SP game? I can see doing it in MP because you need to be competitive.

Anyway, I'm not sure it matters. Can you name an RPG that actually failed because it was too easy? DAO didn't fail and it was easy. NWN1 was easy; hell, you had infinite auto respawns through most of the OC. NWN2 was easy if you weren't too stupid to manage the SM in MotB or handle the OM in SoZ. The ME games were easy, though opinions vary as to which one is easier. The TES games already have an effectively classless system, and so are as easy as the player wishes. Fallouts too.

I'd call the IE games easy but it looks like not that many folks can remember enough stuff to make them so. Honestly, I can't remember a hard RPG since maybe Ultima V.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Less so if the encounter content isn't scaled to match the PC.

If we shallow-out the power curve across the whole game, this also becomes less of a problem, and this is something I've been advocating for some time.

Quite true. You'll still have synergy issues, but that's not much worse than DAO spell combos, except of course that those are on purpose. You'd need to keep a lid on this sort of thing if you really want a shallower power curve.

[Vaeliorin]

AlanC9 wrote...
I'd call the IE games easy but it looks like not that many folks can remember enough stuff to make them so.

The IE games only really present a challenge when you encounter overpowered enemies that have weird abilities that you can't possibly know about the first time you try and fight them.  Hence, playthroughs past the first aren't particularly hard.

Honestly, I can't remember a hard RPG since maybe Ultima V.

Wizardry 7 is hard, and not just in terms of combat.  The combat is particularly hard, however, as the enemies like to hit you with status effects, and, just like you can occasionally insta-kill them (only particular classes have this ability) they can insta-kill you.  Nothing sucks quite so much as a Gorn Ranger hitting your priest with an arrow that insta-kills them.

Wizardry 8 is also pretty hard on some fights, particularly if you don't overlevel everything (and even then, some of the fights are pretty tough...especially when you're fighting 30-40 enemies.)

I can, however, not think of a single truly challenging RTwP RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think the reason for that is that any real-time-with-pause combat system needs to accommodate those players who don't pause very often. In a turn-based game, players seem to understand that they need to make detailed sets of decisions over and over again, but as soon as pausing becomes optional they don't do it. They let combat race by as they watch their party get slaughtered.

And for this reason, I don't think we're going to see a genuinely challenging RTwP combat system in an RPG. I don't mind, particularly, as challenging combat isn't my primary gameplay objective, but I can see why players who specifically want challenging RPG combat are going to be consistently disappointed by RTwP games.

Even ME2, which is effectively just shooter combat, isn't that challenging for those of us who choose to pause incessantly. I'm terrible at shooters, and I might get killed once every three missions in ME2.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 septembre 2010 - 06:29 .

[nos_astra]

TMZuk wrote...
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.

QFT.

I couldn't agree more, especially with the yellow part. Heck, Alistair even had a special voiceover for the kisses if you two were the only one in the party. The benefits of travelling alone, indeed. Origins had hints of what I'd consider the right direction. Warrior and rogue class were close enough to ignore the class label, there were mods for a Dalish mage origin or a dual-wielding arcane warrior.

Everything that makes roleplaying more fun gets cut.  Awesome, thanks!

Modifié par klarabella, 17 septembre 2010 - 07:43 .

[Monica83]

I Agree also...

This is an RPG after all..Its ok with classes but they must fit the roleplay factor... An we have not valid roleplay reason to explain why a warrior can't use a bow or two blades..Only weak gameplay reason...

I don't like playing with static classess..I dont like to be forced to be a muscolar woman if i am a warrior..Exist many manners to make class distinct whitout ruin other classes..Bioware choice the most easy and bad one.. Even in D&D classes are distinct but they are not "Static".. And they are maded with roleplay explanations and not only for gameplay reasons... This manner to do things.. restrict and cut other class ability means we have static classess in terms of roleplay... Even if you update a skill to make more damage.. Even if all ability are upgradable they stay static...

And it's a shame a nice rpg serie like DAO follow that way..

[Aradace]

There is a minor point here that alot of people arent realizing which may be making all the difference as to why all these changes are being made. BioWare is teamed up with EA and if you pay attention it is EA's name that appears first in the opening of DA before BioWare's. EA is calling alot of the shots now. Which means, EA doesnt have the same "we cater to the fans" mentality that BioWare typically does. If EA guys walk in and say "We want to do this", BioWare usually has to suck it up and do it whether they want to or not. That or they have to "compromise" which in turn, still ends up disappointing "fans" of their games.



If BioWare was in 100% control of things still, Im sure that they'd probably make the game completely the way the fans want it I guess. But EA now gets to call some of the shots and we all know EA's checkered past with what was it, Westwood studios?

[Monica83]

this time i have to agree with you i puchased in past many westwood studios game so i know what you mean