934 réponses à ce sujet

[My Avatar is a turtle]

I like to have sex naked

[Grand_Commander13]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Mages should wear armor unless I hear something in the lore that prohibits them from doing so.

I think if light armor came with some of the enchantments the mage gear has you'd find many players kitting their mages with 20 STR and light armor.  Of course managing the tank prevents the mage from ever getting hit, but mages tend to get surrounded at the worst possible time anyway...

[maxernst]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Mages should wear armor unless I hear something in the lore that prohibits them from doing so.

Wearing armor generates fatigue, which cuts down on the spells you can cast. Not to mention you need a high strength to wear armor.

And don't tell me how wimps can wear armor in real life. In Thedas, you need to be able to bench press cows before you can wear massive armor.

It's because in Thedas, the massive armor has epaulets that look like they would weigh about 50 pounds each.

[tmp7704]

simfamSP wrote...

But Aveline, a female warrior, without any armour? I don't mind the rouge as much, since rouges are all about speed and dexterity, especially Isabella that's what she masters at. I worry for these designs. And I hope Bioware will make changes. The whole 'unique' outfit thing has gone downhil with Aveline.

The writer who's "in charge" of Aveline has explained that her lack of armour is supposed to be result of events which lead to her meeting with Hawke's group, and her being without proper gear is intended to be part of her story. She supposedly acquires some proper armour, eventually.

[Sir JK]

To counter the argument why our party is not just looting armour from the dead:



1. The entire system is a abstraction and tries to avoid things that could inconvenience you. Given that it also relies on a progressive gradual improvement it therefore provides you with new armour, sometimes from drops and sometimes not.



2. Any armour you'd be looting would be dented, cracked or even pierced. There'd be many pieces of it that would be plain unuseable due to damages sustained.



3. Armour is not "one size fits all". It's in fact closer to "one size fits almost nothing except you at the time it was made". All proper armour is customised after your body. Gaining or losing weight can be enough to render that armour improperly fitted, that's how presice it is. And no armour is better than poorly fitting armour. At least no armour won't be in your way... but one that is too large or too small will be.



So companion armour, given that it is semi-fixed, is going to be more thematical (which we have a Dev confirmation on) than mechanical. This means that as far as your companions are concerned armour is rare, expensive and will only fit them if it was made for them.

Wheras in your case it is more mechanical than thematical. You get to mix and match cheap one-size-somehow-fits-you to make your life in the game easier. For all intents and purposes companion armour operates under different premises and is closer to how the world actually works.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

Wheras in your case it is more mechanical than thematical. You get to mix and match cheap one-size-somehow-fits-you to make your life in the game easier. For all intents and purposes companion armour operates under different premises and is closer to how the world actually works.

This dichotomy breaks the setting.  They should all be the same.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This dichotomy breaks the setting.  They should all be the same.

We talked about this before. There is no reason to suppose the universality of any particular law. There is nothing illogcal or otherwise incoherent about having rules that apply only to classes of things.

[Sir JK]

I knew you were going to comment on that, Sylvius.



I'm not really sure how to comment on it. The dictomony exists because large parts of the game is abstracted (economy, equipment, combat, healing... probably more). There is a lot of concessions made for practicality for the player and to provide a sense of progression, some of so traditional they've existed since the dawn of roleplaying games themselves.

But they've always been concessions and abstractions... made to be easy and quick rather than accurate. They were never intended to simulate any form of reality, neither to describe the real world nor how the world functions ingame. They've never been accurate, just approximate. You were always intended to correct the mental image with your imagination. To see yourself climbing onto the back of the dragon, jump from ridge to ridge and then stab it between the eyes as opposed to standing by it's feet wittling down it's hp.



I know you dislike thinking of it that way and I've gathered that you really want internal consistency. I get it that you don't like it when internal consistency is sacreficed for the sake of practicality. I'm sorry to hear that you don't get what you would prefer.



However cutscenes, written accounts (books, codex), npc dialogue and now, to an extent, companion outfit represent what the world really is. All else is just the game. Because ultimately that is what it is, what it is designed to be and what it always will be: A game. Not a simulation.

[Ulicus]

I agree with Sylvius. They should all be the same. Hawke should only be able to equip custom made armor and clothing sets that he commissions from blacksmiths and tailors.



... well, I think it'd be fun, anyway. *pouts*

Modifié par Ulicus, 30 novembre 2010 - 02:01 .

[Sir JK]

To be honest Ulicus... so would I... But I understand that there'd be a lot of players who wouldn't want that, so it's not something I'll fight for.

[Wicked 702]

Nevermind....

....choice good.

...........

Also beer.

Modifié par Wicked 702, 30 novembre 2010 - 02:07 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

To counter the argument why our party is not just looting armour from the dead:

1. The entire system is a abstraction and tries to avoid things that could inconvenience you. Given that it also relies on a progressive gradual improvement it therefore provides you with new armour, sometimes from drops and sometimes not.
[/quote]

Taking a few seconds to put on better armor on your pary members is not an inconvience. Well, maybe it is for twitchy console players who aren't really into rpgs but even then most of them would still like to find and play with the better loot. If that is an inconvience then do away with stores to because shopping would be an inconvience as well.

[quote]
2. Any armour you'd be looting would be dented, cracked or even pierced. There'd be many pieces of it that would be plain unuseable due to damages sustained.
[/quote]

Eh, some would be, some not. But armor can be repaired. And any warrior would be somewhat skilled at repairing his gear.

Your argument works against a non player character always wearing the same suit of armor. His armor would become dented, ect in battle to. If looted armor can't be repaired neither can the suits the non-player party members are wearing.
[/quote]

[quote]
3. Armour is not "one size fits all". It's in fact closer to "one size fits almost nothing except you at the time it was made". All proper armour is customised after your body. Gaining or losing weight can be enough to render that armour improperly fitted, that's how presice it is. And no armour is better than poorly fitting armour. At least no armour won't be in your way... but one that is too large or too small will be.
[/quote]

Then there will be no armor sold in the stores, right?  Since it is all unusable unless custom made for someone.

In medieval times only military commanders and high ranking knights wore custom made armor.


[quote]
So companion armour, given that it is semi-fixed, is going to be more thematical (which we have a Dev confirmation on) than mechanical. This means that as far as your companions are concerned armour is rare, expensive and will only fit them if it was made for them.
Wheras in your case it is more mechanical than thematical. You get to mix and match cheap one-size-somehow-fits-you to make your life in the game easier. For all intents and purposes companion armour operates under different premises and is closer to how the world actually works.[/quote]

Armor can't be both extemely rare and not rare. If it is so rare that companions can't use it then it is too rare for the player to use. And again, I'd be willing to bet there will be lots of armor in stores.

The key in your paragraph was "theme" In other words, there is no actual reason in the game world for the decision.

Modifié par Grumpy Old Wizard, 30 novembre 2010 - 02:56 .

[mokponobi]

The reason probably came down to not wanting to design armor for multiple races since your main char is human, this saves time and resources, so instead of designing every piece of light armor to fit dwarves if Varric is the only dwarf you ever control...this is a waste of time and resources, same thing with elves and qunari.



So the solution is just to do this for humans meaning the main char, and stick everyone else, even the other humans with unique looks.



makes sense to me.

[AlanC9]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

Taking a few seconds to put on better armor on your pary members is not an inconvience.

Except that we're never talking about "taking a few seconds to put on better armor on." If a system has lots of loot, then there will be time equipping that loot, time picking up more loot, time evaluating the new loot to see if it's any better than the old loot, time seeing if our guy's old loot fits a second guy better than the second guy's old loot does now that you've put some new loot on the first guy, and so on. All in the service of a Red Queen's race.

[Ryzaki]

And that's not already going to happen with the rings and enchantments?

[Aermas]

Sir JK, most enemies will not drop armor as loot, this is because their armor is not serviceable. If an enemy does drop armor as loot that means the armor was spared any major damage, & is viable.

[Atakuma]

Aermas wrote...

Sir JK, most enemies will not drop armor as loot, this is because their armor is not serviceable. If an enemy does drop armor as loot that means the armor was spared any major damage, & is viable.

Which is not realistc at all after repeatedly whacking it with your weapon.

Modifié par Atakuma, 30 novembre 2010 - 03:27 .

[mokponobi]

well to be fair, you could have killed it with magic, thus the armor would be intact

[Aermas]

Atakuma wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Sir JK, most enemies will not drop armor as loot, this is because their armor is not serviceable. If an enemy does drop armor as loot that means the armor was spared any major damage, & is viable.

Which is not realistc at all after repeatedly whacking it with your weapon.

If I were to stab a guard in the face his cuiress, greaves, fauld, tasset, spaulders, pauldrons, chessus, gauntlets, & possibly his helm if it was open faced, could be perfectly intact.

[surfgirlusa_2006]

The devs could always go the Oblivion route (armor and weapons take damage and have to be repaired every so often). This would be more realistic, but I also found it annoying.

[Atakuma]

Aermas wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Sir JK, most enemies will not drop armor as loot, this is because their armor is not serviceable. If an enemy does drop armor as loot that means the armor was spared any major damage, & is viable.

Which is not realistc at all after repeatedly whacking it with your weapon.

If I were to stab a guard in the face his cuiress, greaves, fauld, tasset, spaulders, pauldrons, chessus, gauntlets, & possibly his helm if it was open faced, could be perfectly intact.

But thats not how it works in dragon age. You whack repeatedly untill it's dead.

[Aermas]

Atakuma wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Sir JK, most enemies will not drop armor as loot, this is because their armor is not serviceable. If an enemy does drop armor as loot that means the armor was spared any major damage, & is viable.

Which is not realistc at all after repeatedly whacking it with your weapon.

If I were to stab a guard in the face his cuiress, greaves, fauld, tasset, spaulders, pauldrons, chessus, gauntlets, & possibly his helm if it was open faced, could be perfectly intact.

But thats not how it works in dragon age. You whack repeatedly untill it's dead.

Oh yeah, it does work like whack-a-mole, you know except for the one shot kills in Awakening, having considerable damage to a target, characters having skill & precision...

Seriously? That can't be your argument. What's your real one?

Modifié par Aermas, 30 novembre 2010 - 03:40 .

[Archereon]

I think its best to stop saying realism, and start saying internal consistency and coherency, which is far more important for a non-realistic or historical setting. (Sci-fi and fantasy) Its important that there is an order to things, and that mundane (or at least, elements that aren't supposed to work through supernatural means, like elves and dwarves, which are, while not real, largely bound by reasonably realistic limitations and biologies) elements be presented in a believable manner.