276 réponses à ce sujet

[Ortaya Alevli]

Okay, I just hafta post this again.

This is how non-rogues should open locks in Dragon Age.

The entire top ten list is hilarious, though.

[Apollo Starflare]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Lord_Caledore wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

...it doesn't even cost talent points to improve lockpicking anymore....

Has this been confirmed? I hadn't seen that tidbit before but that definitely removes one of the big gripes I had with lockpicking in DA:O.

yes, it's been confirmed i think and it's dependent on the cunning stat if i read correctly

Nightcobra is correct, it'll work off your cunning stat now (for rogues).

[Ziggeh]

DSerpa wrote...
What if I think that Leliana is a holier-than-thou **** and Zevran is an impertinent twit? What if I think that Varric is a supercilious ****** and Isabella is a pain in the ass?

What if you're not playing a mage, and think morrigan is a whiney bint and wynne's a boring old hag?

No one's actually forcing you to take them, the game just presents you with a consequence to your decisions. Asking you to make calculated decisions is what the game is for.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 06:19 .

[Ziggeh]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

 as i said before i don't mix combat skills with non-combat skills.

I'm still not getting why that is. Not that I have to, but it does seem to be critical to the discussion.

[nightcobra]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

 as i said before i don't mix combat skills with non-combat skills.

I'm still not getting why that is. Not that I have to, but it does seem to be critical to the discussion.

to me the ideal solution would be having all classes having the same number of non combat and combat abilities while at the same time being distinct from each other.

my proposition was a pretty much a way i thought of how to do that.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 10 décembre 2010 - 06:24 .

[Ziggeh]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

to me the ideal solution would be having all classes having the same number of non combat and combat abilities while at the same time being distinct from each other.

So it's literally just symmetry?

[nightcobra]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

to me the ideal solution would be having all classes having the same number of non combat and combat abilities while at the same time being distinct from each other.

So it's literally just symmetry?

more or less

more like, symmetry in quantity, asymmetry in fuction/type

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 10 décembre 2010 - 06:28 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

DSerpa wrote...

What is the point of having so many companions to choose from if you bring people based upon their class and not their character? Why not simply have one warrior, one rogue, and one mage and eliminate party customization? When there is content that can only be accessed if you bring a [class] with you, most people feel compelled to reserve a spot for that [class]. What if I think that Leliana is a holier-than-thou **** and Zevran is an impertinent twit? What if I think that Varric is a supercilious ****** and Isabella is a pain in the ass? Either I drag along a character I don't like or I don't have anyone to disarm traps and unlock chests/doors. It's an annoying vestige from earlier RPGs designed solely to make rogues stand out from warriors. But if rogues can't stand  apart from warriors through combat alone, they aren't different enough from warriors to warrant a new class.

Or maybe some of us still assume that Dragon Age is a party-based series and thus is expected to emphasize the strengths of party-based gameplay such as teamwork, coordination and team member diversity? Bringing different specialists from different classes to utilize their different skills in different situations?

Think of it like this: What if you have to share the forum with people who dismiss other's ideas with a condescending attitude and annoying pictures before thinking them through? Yeah, you just grin and accept it. Or stop using the forums. No different in here, no different in the game.

[Ziggeh]

nightcobra8928 wrote...
more or less

more like, symmetry in quantity, asymmetry in fuction/type

That's fair enough, but as there isn't an inherent quality to symmetry it places the discussion into the realm of personal preference at which point I need to put on my Massive Pedant Trousers and start pointing out language problems like the use of "should be" and "needs to be" when folk mean "I would prefer it if".

[nightcobra]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...
more or less

more like, symmetry in quantity, asymmetry in fuction/type

That's fair enough, but as there isn't an inherent quality to symmetry it places the discussion into the realm of personal preference at which point I need to put on my Massive Pedant Trousers and start pointing out language problems like the use of "should be" and "needs to be" when folk mean "I would prefer it if".

i did state my proposition as a "what i'd like to see" type of proposition in my post. i realize other people may have different views on the matter and i can respect that. i'm not demanding anything, just throwing ideas up in the air;)

[Ziggeh]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i did state my proposition as a "what i'd like to see" type of proposition in my post. i realize other people may have different views on the matter and i can respect that. i'm not demanding anything, just throwing ideas up in the air;)

Aye, I saw, I just mean generally. They're very comfortable trousers.

[Xewaka]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...
more or less

more like, symmetry in quantity, asymmetry in fuction/type

That's fair enough, but as there isn't an inherent quality to symmetry it places the discussion into the realm of personal preference at which point I need to put on my Massive Pedant Trousers and start pointing out language problems like the use of "should be" and "needs to be" when folk mean "I would prefer it if".

There is an additional point to symmetry and it is class balance. Since we are accepting a class-based system, every class should be equally useful in a party makeup. Ideally, the party should be at its peak effective when incorporing at least one of each class, as it allows maximum diversity in function. The fact that people complain that they *have* to "drag a rogue for lockpicking* points that the rogue is seen as a deadweight when his utility role is not needed, and that his effectiveness outside utility needs to be increased, not that their utility has to be removed.

Then again, as AngryPants pointed at the thread start, I'd rather have a skill-based system. It's what I prefer on tabletop, anyway.

[Xewaka]

DSerpa wrote...

The sets of consequences are not exactly equal. That is the point I'm trying to make. To make them equal, either a rogue's utility needs to be exclusively in-combat, or mages and warriors need out-of-combat utility. I'm arguing for the former. I think the latter would just coerce people into bringing one of each class, thus limiting their choice in party composition.

The problem is that we have a class-based system and a party-based game. This requires specialization on classes to avoid making them redundant. This means that each class must have unique abilities. You believe having classes with exclusive skills limit the party composition choices. However, there is no point in having classes if all are reduced to the same basic roles. I'd rather have to have one of each and thus maximum party efficiency than making the choice a cosmetic one.

Mind you, I'd rather have them do away completely with the class system and have a skill-based system. But if we're forced to play with classes, let's at least not make the class choice cosmetic.

Modifié par Xewaka, 10 décembre 2010 - 07:15 .

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

There is an additional point to symmetry and it is class balance. Since we are accepting a class-based system, every class should be equally useful in a party makeup.

I'm not sure that second part is true, provided the classes are distinct enough to provide functionality that would be missing otherwise (which is what you say after that). For example, bringing a rogue along will help more with single large bosses than a two hander warrior, but they don't need to be nessacarily as effective overall.  I think this is balance rather than symmetry.

Xewaka wrote...
The fact that people complain that they *have* to "drag a rogue for lockpicking* points that the rogue is seen as a deadweight when his utility role is not needed, and that his effectiveness outside utility needs to be increased, not that their utility has to be removed.

I'd say that's partially a perception problem, because it's not like they weren't pulling their weight damage wise. Well, actually, that's not true, archers blew pretty hard before they got fixed, but that's an implementation issue rather than systemic.

Even then, I still maintain that sacrificing in combat function for out of combat is a complex and intelligent decision, something the game should be doing more of as opposed to less. Maybe it would be more satisfying to both own and eat the cake (I've always thought that is a terrible metaphor, it should be used ironically, not straight), but you are placed in control of that choice, it's not one forced on you.

Xewaka wrote...
Then again, as AngryPants pointed at the thread start, I'd rather have a skill-based system. It's what I prefer on tabletop, anyway.

Understandable, but I made the point earlier that I think this causes several problems that further class distinction actively resolve: party dynamic and overall combat balance.

[Ziggeh]

DSerpa wrote...]

• Consequences of not bringing a warrior:
• ...Uhm....yeah...

You've not put tanking on that list. You can remove it arbitrary and say it's not as important, provided you understand that including the others is just as arbitrary rendering the whole exercise rather meaningless.

As for dps warriors, yes, I've already mentioned that. Mages without heals and rogues without lockpick skills are in the same boat. It's not perfect but can never be within the tank/heal/dps dynamic.

DSerpa wrote...]
The sets of consequences are not exactly equal.

Nor do they need to be to provide the same function.

DSerpa wrote...]I think the latter would just coerce people into bringing one of each class, thus limiting their choice in party composition.

This isn't a counter point to my position, this is literally my position. This is what I think the system should be doing.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[Xewaka]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

There is an additional point to symmetry and it is class balance. Since we are accepting a class-based system, every class should be equally useful in a party makeup.

I'm not sure that second part is true, provided the classes are distinct enough to provide functionality that would be missing otherwise (which is what you say after that). For example, bringing a rogue along will help more with single large bosses than a two hander warrior, but they don't need to be nessacarily as effective overall.  I think this is balance rather than symmetry.

This discussion about class roles already happened, but I'll restate my points to make my arguments more clear. Accepting a class-based system, each class should have and equal number of roles. We will asume all classes have a damage role and they are roughly equivalent in that role (on each specific situation, one class will have a higher damage output than others, but let's stay general). We will assume that all classes have a second role: Warriors are give damage soaking and aggro management (tanking), mages are given in-combat support (healing and buffing), and rogues receive out-of-combat utility (security bypass).
Each class has a general role shared by all and a specific role only its class can perform. This would mean that the ideal party would have one of each and a fourth member for flavor.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
The fact that people complain that they *have* to "drag a rogue for lockpicking* points that the rogue is seen as a deadweight when his utility role is not needed, and that his effectiveness outside utility needs to be increased, not that their utility has to be removed.

I'd say that's partially a perception problem, because it's not like they weren't pulling their weight damage wise. Well, actually, that's not true, archers blew pretty hard before they got fixed, but that's an implementation issue rather than systemic.

Even then, I still maintain that sacrificing in combat function for out of combat is a complex and intelligent decision, something the game should be doing more of as opposed to less. Maybe it would be more satisfying to both own and eat the cake (I've always thought that is a terrible metaphor, it should be used ironically, not straight), but you are placed in control of that choice, it's not one forced on you.

Continuing with the explanation above, both roles on each class would share the same point allocation, essentially requiring the choice you explain. I agree on that. I intentionally gimped my rogue character when starting to have access to the extra stuff, when I could be choosing combat skills. The same way a warrior has to choose between soaking or dishing damage, and a mage (theoretically) has to choose between support or damage.

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Then again, as AngryPants pointed at the thread start, I'd rather have a skill-based system. It's what I prefer on tabletop, anyway.

Understandable, but I made the point earlier that I think this causes several problems that further class distinction actively resolve: party dynamic and overall combat balance.

Yes. The game is made with a party-based class system in mind. Trying to alter the character build system from class to skillbuy without adjusting the rest of the game design parameters would destroy the party dynamic and combat balance as we expect it now. That doesn't mean the classes in Dragon Age are well chosen.

Modifié par Xewaka, 10 décembre 2010 - 07:33 .

[nightcobra]

xewaka, since now lockpicking is based on the cunning stat (it's also the one that changes evasion/defense rate this time around) it kinda takes away the "gimping" the rogue suffered for not picking combat talents on origins.

[Ortaya Alevli]

DSerpa wrote...

Yes, this synergy should exist in-combat. In-combat synergy promotes tactical consideration when selecting a party. Out-of-combat exclusivity just forces you to drag along a character to be the lock-picking ****.

Synergy limited to combat pretty much means gameplay limited to combat. Not everyone favors gameplay to be limited to combat. Either there's no reason to go "headdesk" against Maria's comment, or it'd be perfectly justified for me to go headdesk against this post of yours.

-cute kitty pic-

Why take it personally? *whistle*

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

Each class has a general role shared by all and a specific role only its class can perform. This would mean that the ideal party would have one of each and a fourth member for flavor.

It seems we largely agree, apologies if I was misreading you to the contrary, I blame the trousers.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 07:38 .

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

xewaka, since now lockpicking is based on the cunning stat (it's also the one that changes evasion/defense rate this time around) it kinda takes away the "gimping" the rogue suffered for not picking combat talents on origins.

If it is stat-based, it should remain so across all classes. Unless other classes have stat-based exclusive abilities.

And by stat-based, I mean it requires no skill investment, only raw attribute.

Modifié par Xewaka, 10 décembre 2010 - 07:41 .