398 réponses à ce sujet

[Aermas]

Xewaka wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Aermas wrote...

No it's not, you could make everyone roughly the same but have them do different things in battle. Why in the world would a four man team go into battle & let one of them be surrounded by enemies?

To control damage.

Aermas wrote...
If you are that eager to replace Hp, why not use a tiered system. With every hit you take you chance going down a tier unless a behind the scenes randomizer + Con was higher than the damage output

Still doesn't create a synergy (and is pretty much hp with avoidance)

I don't believe letting one teammate take fire from every enemy is in any tactical handbook

It's called baiting.

Bait draws attention, not enemy fire. If a sargent let a marine walk out in the open & get shot at so that his squadmates could attack the T-34, he would be fired

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...
Bait draws attention, not enemy fire. If a sargent let a marine walk out in the open & get shot at so that his squadmates could attack the T-34, he would be fired

It's rare that I literally facepalm. It involves taking off my glasses.

[Wicked 702]

Aermas wrote...

Bait draws attention, not enemy fire. If a sargent let a marine walk out in the open & get shot at so that his squadmates could attack the T-34, he would be fired

I've been playing Battlefield wrong all this time....

Go figure. *joking*

[Aermas]

Wicked 702 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Bait draws attention, not enemy fire. If a sargent let a marine walk out in the open & get shot at so that his squadmates could attack the T-34, he would be fired

I've been playing Battlefield wrong all this time....

Go figure. *joking*

It is tactically unsound to have one member of your party surrounded by enemies & soaking their attacks. Yes he has the ability to get their attention, but he does not have the ability to take their attacks

[Xewaka]

Aermas wrote...
It is tactically unsound to have one member of your party surrounded by enemies & soaking their attacks. Yes he has the ability to get their attention, but he does not have the ability to take their attacks.

Okay, you'll have to redefine to me the objective of the conversation because each of your posts moves it further from what I'm expecting we're debating. And we're way offtopic.

[Aermas]

If you are on a battlefield, you do not tell one man to charge the enemy so that the rest of your soldiers can focus on a single target.

[In Exile]

HP makes no sense. But HP encourages nonsesical tactics like having on person hit repeatedly.

A better system is an endurace + injury system. Characters can avoid some level of hits, which slowly regenerates on its own, but you can get quickly overwhelment and 2 hits are fatal. No healing items or options. Your only hope is regeneration.

[IRMcGhee]

Aermas: That's pretty much what Shermans had to do to fight Tigers, and they expected to lose up to three out of the five in the platoon if the tactic actually worked.

Most of this stuff you've been coming up with over the last couple of days really would only work if you're dealing with units of troops fighting in formation, not really applicable to the fairly loose battles in DA for the most part.

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:14 .

[Wicked 702]

I was sort of talking about my annoyance with the, how did Ziggeh put it?, class trinity or something.

Then Ziggeh and Aermas were debating hp mechanics and the idea of a traditional (now apparently) TANK class and how Aermas thinks it's unrealistic to have one character take on that role.

And then I jumped back in with the ol' "oh, video games are supposed to be real, didn't know that" remark. Hence my reference to Battlefield since it's a totally unrealistic, realistic war shooter. Oh boy...

Modifié par Wicked 702, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:20 .

[Xewaka]

IRMcGhee wrote...

Aermas: That's pretty much what Shermans had to do to fight Tigers, and they expected to lose up to three out of the five in the platoon if the tactic actually worked.

Most of this stuff you've been coming up with over the last couple of days really would only work if you're dealing with units of troops fighting in formation, not really applicable to the fairly loose battles in DA for the most part.

They're not battles. They're gangfights. Involving about a dozen people, tops.

[Aermas]

The fact is, if you got rid of the thrice blasted trinity it would allow for more realistic Hp system & for more realistic combat roles

[Ziggeh]

Wicked 702 wrote...

I was sort of talking about my annoyance with the, how did Ziggeh put it?, class trinity or something.

Can't remember where I picked up the term. I think classically the "trinity" is tank/dps/healer, but it's a useful phrase to describe the system, and it roughly applies.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:28 .

[In Exile]

Aermas wrote...

The fact is, if you got rid of the thrice blasted trinity it would allow for more realistic Hp system & for more realistic combat roles

Not really. Did 2nd ed. D&D have this problem?

We need to remove HP and then we will lose the trinity. HP is the problem.

[Xewaka]

Aermas wrote...
realistic Hp system

That's an oxymoron.

& for more realistic combat roles

And which of these realistic combat roles is the one who gets to shoot lighting out of his arse?

Seriously though, see if you can find a copy of the Star Wars D6 tabletop roleplaying system. I think you'll find there what you're looking for.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:29 .

[Aermas]

In Exile wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The fact is, if you got rid of the thrice blasted trinity it would allow for more realistic Hp system & for more realistic combat roles

Not really. Did 2nd ed. D&D have this problem?

We need to remove HP and then we will lose the trinity. HP is the problem.

True enough, though I see it more like a "chicken or the egg cycle" of blame

[IRMcGhee]

Xewaka wrote...

IRMcGhee wrote...
snip.

They're not battles. They're gangfights. Involving about a dozen people, tops.

I originally wrote skirmishes rather than battles, but Aermas would have jumped on that since I was using the colloquialism rather than the military definition

Back OT: I think the Drakensang combat system might be more to Aermas's taste. You've still got HP, but criticals and certain other special attacks cause wounds. Take too many wounds (IIRC 5) and you drop, regardless of HP, and each wound reduces your ability to fight. Also, allowed combat skills for each character are also more based on stats rather than class and any non-combat skill can be learned by any class (you do have to pay for the initial training).

Modifié par IRMcGhee, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:59 .

[Aermas]

Xewaka wrote...

Aermas wrote...
realistic Hp system

That's an oxymoron.

& for more realistic combat roles

And which of these realistic combat roles is the one who gets to shoot lighting out of his arse?

Seriously though, see if you can find a copy of the Star Wars D6 tabletop roleplaying system. I think you'll find there what you're looking for.

The real & the unreal are not innately separate concepts, they have the same root, in a FPS you know that you must put a target in your cross hairs to do damage instead of just pulling the trigger regardless of aim. That is a realistic function.

&I have seen the StarWars d6 system.

[Xewaka]

Aermas wrote...
The real & the unreal are not innately separate concepts, they have the same root, in a FPS you know that you must put a target in your cross hairs to do damage instead of just pulling the trigger regardless of aim. That is a realistic function.

&I have seen the StarWars d6 system.

First, the italiced part: They're antonyms (the un means opposite), so they can't coexist togheter in the same place. Second: In an FPS I disable the crosshair (if at all possible) and use the iron sights (when available), precisely because the crosshair is unrealistic. It's a spot of game UI right in the middle of the game scene.
The Star Wars system has no definite classes (thus no holy trinity) and levels of damage rather than hitpoints, that's why I'm saying you should look at it. If you already know it, then you know that HP and classes are not the only option in the market.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 décembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[Aermas]

Xewaka wrote...

Aermas wrote...
The real & the unreal are not innately separate concepts, they have the same root, in a FPS you know that you must put a target in your cross hairs to do damage instead of just pulling the trigger regardless of aim. That is a realistic function.

&I have seen the StarWars d6 system.

First, the italiced part: They're antonyms (the un means opposite), so they can't coexist togheter in the same place. Second: In an FPS I disable the crosshair (if at all possible) and use the iron sights (when available), precisely because the crosshair is unrealistic. It's a spot of game UI right in the middle of the game scene.
The Star Wars system has no definite classes (thus no holy trinity) and levels of damage rather than hitpoints, that's why I'm saying you should look at it. If you already know it, then you know that HP and classes are not the only option in the market.

Since we have no knowledge of the unreal we cannot attempt to create it unless we influence it with our knowledge of the real. Pegasi are not real but they are made by real elements;in example  they fly because they have wings, they do not fly just because they can.

Exchange crosshairs with iron sights & reread what I posted.

[WidowMaker9394]

Xewaka wrote...

WidowMaker9394 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

WidowMaker9394 wrote...
Who were supposed to teach you the specialization anyways?

In the Elven ruins there was a phylactery with a spirit you could free. In exchange, it would teach you the specialization.

I meant in Dragon Age II. I've picked the specialization many times.

Don't you know that mystical ancient elven ruins containing trapped souls of long forgotten elite specialist sect members are dime a dozen?

Yes, I know about the phylactery in the ancient elven ruins.

What I meant was that there's no one to teach you how to become an Arcane Warrior in DA2. The Spirit is gone and your Warden is dead or ten other things.

[Thicos]

I hope to Keeper maybe in a expansion.



Maybe Force Mage has some plant magic.



Force Mage, is for elemental attacks?



Psychic powers are good too in another specialization.

[Heretical]

I dont feel like the spec ever really worked. The transition time from melee to cast was painfully long. It was cool to wear armor but I wouldnt miss it.

[AlexXIV]

Don't know, but elves wearing metal armor always disturbed me. And the whole 'elven metal' thing as well. To get metal elves would have to dig in the earth or mountains like dwarves and use smithies or at least forges.

[Kangaxx628]

So AW's are toast, well no preorder for this fellow. To those griping about balance, say it with me single player game, no team of ninjas forcing you to play an AW. I despised having to lug a rogue around to pick locks now, I need to keep 2-3 companions around if I want to cross the street. As for complaints about lore, if only in DA2 you were to encounter an ancient creature w/ centuries of knowledge and magical lore(works for Shapeshifter too, though it was useless). But w/out AW interest falls from get it 1st day to, wait and see if the force mage makes the game unlame or hope DA3 doesn't suck.

[In Exile]

Heretical wrote...

I dont feel like the spec ever really worked. The transition time from melee to cast was painfully long. It was cool to wear armor but I wouldnt miss it.

The build wasn't overpowered because it could switch between melee and casting. It was overpowered because with a sword + armour you could have a mage with armour so high it was largely unkillable.

You don't even need to bother with ever activating combat magic. You can just take the specialization to wear massive armour and have a character with 50 armour due to rock skin.