197 réponses à ce sujet

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

I was going to answer to this that if you don't have a warrior you don't have
tanking capabilities, and if you don't have a mage you lack healing
capabilities, and that is enough balance between classes. That is, if you don't break the system. But...

as for this one, my stance is that i separate actions into 2 categories:

in-battle actions and out of battle actions. so i won't mix the two together.

this is basically the reason why i think mages and warriors are lacking in this department as far as exclusive out of battle actions go.
that is my viewpoint and i'll stick to it.

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I was going to answer to this that if you don't have a warrior you don't have
tanking capabilities, and if you don't have a mage you lack healing
capabilities, and that is enough balance between classes. That is, if you don't break the system. But...

as for this one, my stance is that i separate actions into 2 categories:

in-battle actions and out of battle actions. so i won't mix the two together.

this is basically the reason why i think mages and warriors are lacking in this department as far as exclusive out of battle actions go.
that is my viewpoint and i'll stick to it.

Fair enough. I don't agree, for the reasons stated. You see in-combat and out-of-combat as separate entities to be balanced separately, I believe both should be taken into account for full class balance.
I will say though, that so far the designers seem to share my line of thought in regards to this aspect at least, as it has been mentioned that security bypass remains the sole province of rogues, and no out-of-combat utilities have been announced for Warriors and Mages (and when asked for the different support roles of the classes in the ask-a-dev thread, it was said that Mage support role was healing, so it seems to reinforce my point).

Modifié par Xewaka, 20 novembre 2010 - 12:11 .

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I was going to answer to this that if you don't have a warrior you don't have
tanking capabilities, and if you don't have a mage you lack healing
capabilities, and that is enough balance between classes. That is, if you don't break the system. But...

as for this one, my stance is that i separate actions into 2 categories:

in-battle actions and out of battle actions. so i won't mix the two together.

this is basically the reason why i think mages and warriors are lacking in this department as far as exclusive out of battle actions go.
that is my viewpoint and i'll stick to it.

Fair enough. I don't agree, for the reasons stated. You see in-combat and out-of-combat as separate entities to be balanced separately, I believe both should be taken into account for full class balance.
I will say though, that so far the designers seem to share my line of thought in regards to this aspect at least, as it has been mentioned that security bypass remains the sole province of rogues, and no out-of-combat utilities have been announced for Warriors and Mages (and when asked for the different support roles of the classes in the ask-a-dev thread, it was said that Mage support role was healing, so it seems to reinforce my point).

fair enough, it won't detract from my overall enjoyment of the game, just a mild annoyance.

[Aermas]

Maria, my whole argument is that ONLY the Rogue has access to non-combat abilities.



Xewaka, You do not need tanks or healers for full game completion. You do need a Rogue

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

Maria, my whole argument is that ONLY the Rogue has access to non-combat abilities.

Yes. And my reply is that this is a *good thing.*

class distinction is important. "The only class with access to unique non-combat abilities" is a meaningful distinction.

[Kileyan]

Aermas wrote...

Maria, my whole argument is that ONLY the Rogue has access to non-combat abilities.

Xewaka, You do not need tanks or healers for full game completion. You do need a Rogue

This full game completion thing is some xbox or ps3 trophy thing? If you want that, jump through the darn hoops. If you aren't willing to do what it needs, isn't that part of the special status of earning the full game completion?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand this whole 100% completion thing or its importance. If it is important, or some sort of status symbol, I would think you should do what is needed to achieve it, not demand the game be tuned so that you can do it with no effort.

[Selene Moonsong]

Aermas wrote...

Maria, my whole argument is that ONLY the Rogue has access to non-combat abilities.

Xewaka, You do not need tanks or healers for full game completion. You do need a Rogue

As I stated in my post in This topic :

...However, lock picking is a class-specific ability which is why I assume Lock-Picking was made a Talent in Origins as opposed to a Skill. The "Talents" are class-specific abilities and not every Talent is a direct combat ability; some are also utilitarian in nature, although most are combat related. Even lock picking can be combat related, such as a possible scenario where the party is engaged in combat, and the rogue sneaks off to open a chest the enemy was protecting...

I don't give specifics in that post because such an opportunity did not present itself in Origins to my knowledge. But, the possibility of such a scenario is still valid.

Is it unreasonable for the player to required to have a character of the appropriate class to perform a specific task in a single instance? No, the intended game design is that you surround yourself with friends and followers to defeat the Darkspawn. Anything else is the player's preference and must suffer appropriate consequences.

I seriously doubt that you will ever see a Warrior or Mage receive the pick locks Talent in DA II, it has already been stated by Mike Laidlaw that the Talent is solely the realm of the Rogue...

As I have suggested previously, I wouldn't mind seeing 'bashing' included, within certain limits, that would be a good thing.
 
However, being able to complete every possible quest in the game with a Warrior and a Mage follower... and it is not possible to do so with just a Rogue. As a player, you cannot experience the full spectrum of possibilites in the game with a single character class in a single play through; you need to play through every race and gender and class to do so; that is the only way you can achieve the full effect of the game and earn all the Achievement points. Even then, much will also depend on the choices you make in the game. But it will be a bit easier in DA II with only one race to choose from...

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 20 novembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[Aermas]

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.



& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

[Aldandil]

Aermas wrote...

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.

& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

Wouldn't giving all classes Out of combat-abilities "force" you to take all classes with you? I don't have a problem with it, but you seem to be bothered about it.

I agree that you are "forced" to play a rogue under certain circumstances in DA:O, but only if you feel you have to make a completionist run (this is not obligatory) and refuse to bring one of the two rogue companions available in your party of four. That doesn't limit you much, to be honest. You can play without rogues and miss some XP/loot, you can play with one of the rogue companions or you can make a rogue PC. There are options in DA:O, and a similar approach in DA2 wouldn't really ruin the game.

[ProfessionalPirate]

I'd love to see a bloodmage have some special conversation options. Lore states that bloodmages can use their magic to influence a person. I know its specialization specific rather than just mage class, but when I played a bloodmage I was severely dissapointed that I couldnt use that during cconversations

[Aermas]

Aldandil wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.

& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

Wouldn't giving all classes Out of combat-abilities "force" you to take all classes with you? I don't have a problem with it, but you seem to be bothered about it.

I agree that you are "forced" to play a rogue under certain circumstances in DA:O, but only if you feel you have to make a completionist run (this is not obligatory) and refuse to bring one of the two rogue companions available in your party of four. That doesn't limit you much, to be honest. You can play without rogues and miss some XP/loot, you can play with one of the rogue companions or you can make a rogue PC. There are options in DA:O, and a similar approach in DA2 wouldn't really ruin the game.

Yes but for the game to reward so much to one class is bias towards having Assassin/Ninja Thief Characters, & I do not like to be forced to have one class jammed down my throat. If all classes had utility then I would not feel like one class was superior & that I must play an Asssassin/Ninja Thief to be able to get the most experience out of a game.

[Eveangaline]

Aermas wrote...

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.

& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

You also could miss on quest items and rewards if you don't have high enough coercian, or be restricted from quests if you choose to do a different questline that makes them ungetable. There are lots of things that can be restricted regardless of your class. It doesn't mean you're not experiencing the full game.

If you want to open the locked boxes so much, you don't have to be a rogue, just bring one.

[Xewaka]

Aermas wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.

& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

Wouldn't giving all classes Out of combat-abilities "force" you to take all classes with you? I don't have a problem with it, but you seem to be bothered about it.

I agree that you are "forced" to play a rogue under certain circumstances in DA:O, but only if you feel you have to make a completionist run (this is not obligatory) and refuse to bring one of the two rogue companions available in your party of four. That doesn't limit you much, to be honest. You can play without rogues and miss some XP/loot, you can play with one of the rogue companions or you can make a rogue PC. There are options in DA:O, and a similar approach in DA2 wouldn't really ruin the game.

Yes but for the game to reward so much to one class is bias towards having Assassin/Ninja Thief Characters, & I do not like to be forced to have one class jammed down my throat. If all classes had utility then I would not feel like one class was superior & that I must play an Asssassin/Ninja Thief to be able to get the most experience out of a game.

Would you use a rogue if they had no security bypass (lockpicking and trap disarming) when mages and warriors can do as much damage as rogues and perform other roles in combat (that rogues can't? Utility is given to rogues to balance, to make up for their loss of combat utility. If you give the other classes off-combat utility, what additional combat role do you give to rogues to balance their lower overall utility?

[In Exile]

ProfessionalPirate wrote...

I'd love to see a bloodmage have some special conversation options. Lore states that bloodmages can use their magic to influence a person. I know its specialization specific rather than just mage class, but when I played a bloodmage I was severely dissapointed that I couldnt use that during cconversations

Originally, blood magic was supposed to give dialogue bonuses, but this was somehow dropped.

[Aermas]

Xewaka wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.

& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

Wouldn't giving all classes Out of combat-abilities "force" you to take all classes with you? I don't have a problem with it, but you seem to be bothered about it.

I agree that you are "forced" to play a rogue under certain circumstances in DA:O, but only if you feel you have to make a completionist run (this is not obligatory) and refuse to bring one of the two rogue companions available in your party of four. That doesn't limit you much, to be honest. You can play without rogues and miss some XP/loot, you can play with one of the rogue companions or you can make a rogue PC. There are options in DA:O, and a similar approach in DA2 wouldn't really ruin the game.

Yes but for the game to reward so much to one class is bias towards having Assassin/Ninja Thief Characters, & I do not like to be forced to have one class jammed down my throat. If all classes had utility then I would not feel like one class was superior & that I must play an Asssassin/Ninja Thief to be able to get the most experience out of a game.

Would you use a rogue if they had no security bypass (lockpicking and trap disarming) when mages and warriors can do as much damage as rogues and perform other roles in combat (that rogues can't? Utility is given to rogues to balance, to make up for their loss of combat utility. If you give the other classes off-combat utility, what additional combat role do you give to rogues to balance their lower overall utility?

Yes, because they fulfill a different role in combat. Single target DPS

[Aermas]

Eveangaline wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.

& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

You also could miss on quest items and rewards if you don't have high enough coercian, or be restricted from quests if you choose to do a different questline that makes them ungetable. There are lots of things that can be restricted regardless of your class. It doesn't mean you're not experiencing the full game.

If you want to open the locked boxes so much, you don't have to be a rogue, just bring one.

Non of this is class related, stopping someone from doing something because of there class is not beneficial, unless all classes have a similar gimmick. It's all about access, Rogues just have more access than any other class & this showcases a bias to play Assassin/Ninja-Thieves. Like only mage characters entering the Fade at Redcliffe. If they had more of that mages would be more unique. & if they added instances where being a warrior actually mattered then they would have a reason to be in your party. As it stands now a Rogue can access everything a Warrior can & more

[Aldandil]

Aermas wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I don't want the other classes to Lockpick, I see it as a Rogue only ability. BUT I want something unique for the other classes especially warrior, I feel that it gets overlooked a lot.

& it's that fact that you are limited if you do not play a rogue. If they limited another aspect of the game from rogues then it would make sense but they do not. It's not really a 100% Completion/Get all Achievements problem it's a "I want to experience the full game & not be restricted from a quest & items & areas just because I wanted to play a Mage or Warrior, instead of the Rogue.

Wouldn't giving all classes Out of combat-abilities "force" you to take all classes with you? I don't have a problem with it, but you seem to be bothered about it.

I agree that you are "forced" to play a rogue under certain circumstances in DA:O, but only if you feel you have to make a completionist run (this is not obligatory) and refuse to bring one of the two rogue companions available in your party of four. That doesn't limit you much, to be honest. You can play without rogues and miss some XP/loot, you can play with one of the rogue companions or you can make a rogue PC. There are options in DA:O, and a similar approach in DA2 wouldn't really ruin the game.

Yes but for the game to reward so much to one class is bias towards having Assassin/Ninja Thief Characters, & I do not like to be forced to have one class jammed down my throat. If all classes had utility then I would not feel like one class was superior & that I must play an Asssassin/Ninja Thief to be able to get the most experience out of a game.

In the post you quoted, I just pointed out the extremely marginal benefit for making a rogue character, which is getting some expendable items and XP without having to bring one out of two possible companions. That hardly constitutes "jamming something down your throat". There are, as I clearly stated, ways of getting around the issue, and still get the same experience, if you can call it that.

[nightcobra]

 

Aldandil wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...


as i said before i don't mix combat skills with non-combat skills.
i don't have a beef with rogue having lockpick, what i'd like to see is for warriors and mages to be as useful as the rogue is in non combat situations in different ways.

reposting my proposition:

locked chest/doors that can be opened by rogues and is dependant on cunning stat.

magical locks and barriers that can be dispelled by mages (like how the spirit form in the fade did with transparent doorways) and is dependant on magic stat.

and large obstacles like boulders or toppled statues that can be destroyed by warriors (like how the golem form in the fade was able to burst open through heavy doors) and is dependant on strenght stat. 


if you think that leaves the rogue lacking in combat skills, then add some more of those to rogue as well.

I like your suggestion, but it won't solve the problem of people feeling forced to bring a rogue. On the contrary, they'll suddenly feel forced to bring a character of each class. I'm with you, though.

i'm fine that it would make people bring one of each class to dungeons (and you still have a free slot for a 4th party member) in which you bring a party of characters of classes that complement each other.
really what i was trying to convey with my proposition is to make all characters useful in and out of combat, which in turn also allows for some more intricate dungeon designs where you can pick a path based on what class you have can do.

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'm fine that it would make people bring one of each class to dungeons (and you still have a free slot for a 4th party member) in which you bring a party of characters of classes that complement each other.
really what i was trying to convey with my proposition is to make all characters useful in and out of combat, which in turn also allows for some more intricate dungeon designs where you can pick a path based on what class you have can do.

I'd say tanking and healing are reasons enough to want to bring one of each to a dungeon, but we already had that argument before.

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'm fine that it would make people bring one of each class to dungeons (and you still have a free slot for a 4th party member) in which you bring a party of characters of classes that complement each other.
really what i was trying to convey with my proposition is to make all characters useful in and out of combat, which in turn also allows for some more intricate dungeon designs where you can pick a path based on what class you have can do.

I'd say tanking and healing are reasons enough to want to bring one of each to a dungeon, but we already had that argument before.

yes, we already had this discussion. but i still stand by wanting to see warriors/mages more than just combat only classes.
you said that would leave the rogues to a disadvantage on a combat-level, so i say, add something to the rogues combat-wise to even things out, what exactly though i have no idea at this point but it should be something to consider at least.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:27 .

[Aermas]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'm fine that it would make people bring one of each class to dungeons (and you still have a free slot for a 4th party member) in which you bring a party of characters of classes that complement each other.
really what i was trying to convey with my proposition is to make all characters useful in and out of combat, which in turn also allows for some more intricate dungeon designs where you can pick a path based on what class you have can do.

I'd say tanking and healing are reasons enough to want to bring one of each to a dungeon, but we already had that argument before.

But you are operating on the fact that in Origins the Rogue was "weaker" as a combat class. This is subjective & is hard to prove. As for saying that Aggro control &/or Healing is equal to bonus content, that makes no sense.

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

yes, we already had this discussion. but i still stand by wanting to see warriors/mages more than just combat only classes.
you said that would leave the rogues to a disadvantage on a combat-level, so i say, add something to the rogues combat-wise to even things out, what exactly though i have no idea at this point but it should be something to consider at least.

I could work with that. You could expand their trap disarming skills into battlefield layout preparation, and add higher crowd control capacities to the rogue, inutilizing some enemies while dealing with others, and giving him a support combat role (funneling and control).

Aermas wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I'd say tanking and healing are reasons enough to want to bring one of each to a dungeon,
but we already had that argument before.

But you are operating on the fact that in Origins the Rogue was "weaker" as a
combat class. This is subjective & is hard to prove. As for saying that Aggro control &/or Healing is equal to bonus content, that makes no sense.

No. I'm operating on the fact that it has less combat roles, and gains offcombat role to compensate. If you give offcombat roles to Warriors and Mages, the rogue needs to gain additional combat roles to compensate, and mantain class utility balance.

Modifié par Xewaka, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:37 .

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

yes, we already had this discussion. but i still stand by wanting to see warriors/mages more than just combat only classes.
you said that would leave the rogues to a disadvantage on a combat-level, so i say, add something to the rogues combat-wise to even things out, what exactly though i have no idea at this point but it should be something to consider at least.

I could work with that. You could expand their trap disarming skills into battlefield layout preparation, and add higher crowd control capacities to the rogue, inutilizing some enemies while dealing with others, and giving him a support combat role (funneling and control).

yes, that could work. giving trap talents for rogues allowing it to be another type of role on the battlefield.

traps were a bit underrated in origins (at least to me) and integrating them more into another battle role could be interesting.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[Aldandil]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i'm fine that it would make people bring one of each class to dungeons (and you still have a free slot for a 4th party member) in which you bring a party of characters of classes that complement each other.
really what i was trying to convey with my proposition is to make all characters useful in and out of combat, which in turn also allows for some more intricate dungeon designs where you can pick a path based on what class you have can do.

I'd say tanking and healing are reasons enough to want to bring one of each to a dungeon, but we already had that argument before.

yes, we already had this discussion. but i still stand by wanting to see warriors/mages more than just combat only classes.
you said that would leave the rogues to a disadvantage on a combat-level, so i say, add something to the rogues combat-wise to even things out, what exactly though i have no idea at this point but it should be something to consider at least.

Apparently the roles of the three classes are being fiddled with in DA2, so that's already happening. I'd also like to say that a rogue wasn't really worse off than mages and warriors in DA:O, unless he focused on his out of combat skills. If you give all classes out-of-combat abilties, everyone would "be at a disadvantage", i.e. the relative power between the classes is balanced again.

Having warriors being able to clear a path through rubble would create the possibilty of rewarding players in more ways than finding locked chests, which really has been quite tedious since NWN. Clearing away rubble to open the way to a suit of armor on a stand is a lot more appealing than finding it in a locked chest or behind a locked door. Diversity would be a bit more entertaining. It should be added that this clearly is a case of "More is better": Wouldn't it be nice if there were more stuff in the game you could do?

[Aermas]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

yes, we already had this discussion. but i still stand by wanting to see warriors/mages more than just combat only classes.
you said that would leave the rogues to a disadvantage on a combat-level, so i say, add something to the rogues combat-wise to even things out, what exactly though i have no idea at this point but it should be something to consider at least.

I could work with that. You could expand their trap disarming skills into battlefield layout preparation, and add higher crowd control capacities to the rogue, inutilizing some enemies while dealing with others, and giving him a support combat role (funneling and control).

Aermas wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I'd say tanking and healing are reasons enough to want to bring one of each to a dungeon,
but we already had that argument before.

But you are operating on the fact that in Origins the Rogue was "weaker" as a
combat class. This is subjective & is hard to prove. As for saying that Aggro control &/or Healing is equal to bonus content, that makes no sense.

No. I'm operating on the fact that it has less combat roles, and gains offcombat role to compensate. If you give offcombat roles to Warriors and Mages, the rogue needs to gain additional combat roles to compensate, and mantain class utility balance.

ROGUES ARE BETTER IN COMBAT NOW!, In DA2 they will become more combat effiectient! YOU DO NOT NEED TO ADD MORE TO THE ROGUE class! We do need to add reasons for the warrior class to be useful beyond knocking heads