188 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

Dave of Canada wrote...

You're the one who brought up roleplay, which should be separated from gameplay mechanics. If you want to roleplay with game mechanics, do so and leave it off the mechanics thread. Saying you don't use a tank because of roleplay, personally, makes as much sense to me as saying you don't like clothes so you fight naked and that you don't like people so you have no companions and the game should still be possible to beat on nightmare.

The trinity is a mechanic of itself, if you wish to ignore it then you'd have to choose between what mechanic you want the most; Friendly fire or tanking.

I don't see how anything is "fanboy"esque and it's pathetic that it's one of the first things you say when I come into this thread, if you don't want to be called out on being dismissive then don't do it.

Hey, you're the one who said it was pathetic to play without a tank, so don't come at me for being dismissive. I only brought it up to show why I personally thought it was important that options which were completely viable in DA:O not disappear, narrowing what was possible. Frankly, I never dreamed that doing so would cause debate on whether it was a valid view to hold, as I wouldn't dream of calling other people's playstyles invalid in the first place.

And yeah, it seemed like over the top defensiveness to me, since I feely acknowledged that it may not prove to be a problem and we don't have all the information.

Modifié par errant_knight, 05 février 2011 - 05:57 .

[Harid]

In Exile wrote...

Harid wrote..
This works with any use of Blood Magic, though.  It's not really a bonus to Spirit Healer.  It's a bonus to being a Blood mage.

Right. What Group Heal does is let you feed off the 4th party member while keeping their health at max, essentially letting you get away with criminally low wis & con and just pumping mag.

You can do this (i.e. pump the MAG stat). . .with any spec combination of Blood Mage.  This isn't a benefit to playing Spirit Healer.  It's a benefit to playing Blood Mage.

This is like when I used to play FFXI and people who played RDM would dance around the fact that RDM was broken by blaming the subjob attached to it, when that job could do everything ignoring that subjob and with other subjobs.  The issue is the main job's benefits, and you are subscribing those benefits to the secondary job.  I digress, but you recall poultices work better with higher MAG as well, yes?

Modifié par Harid, 05 février 2011 - 06:03 .

[Dave of Canada]

errant_knight wrote...

Hey, you're the one who said it was pathetic to play without a tank

I didn't call you pathetic for not playing with a tank, I said if the game was balanced around not having a tank then the game would be pathetically easy. Which is true, because when a tank isn't necessary that would mean that your teammates aren't taking much damage so when a tank comes along it trivializes everything.

Though you see what you want to see, right?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 05 février 2011 - 05:59 .

[errant_knight]

Dave of Canada wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Hey, you're the one who said it was pathetic to play without a tank

I didn't call you pathetic for not playing with a tank, I said if the game was balanced around not having a tank then the game would be pathetically easy. Which is true, because when a tank isn't necessary that would mean that your teammates aren't taking much damage so when a tank comes along it trivializes everything.

Though you see what you want to see, right?

So I'm guessing you thought that DA:O was pathetically easy then?

[Dave of Canada]

errant_knight wrote...

So I'm guessing you thought that DA:O was pathetically easy then?

Quite, solo and with a group. Player damage was too great that you could just burst down enemies and shrug off the damage easily, if anything something bad happened then Mages had every set of tools in the game and just use it to make the situation back in my favor.

Never did I think "god dammit, I need to think of what to do!".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 05 février 2011 - 06:08 .

[In Exile]

Harid wrote...

You can do this (i.e. pump the MAG stat). . .with any spec combination of Blood Mage.  This isn't a benefit to playing Spirit Healer.  It's a benefit to playing Blood Mage.

Of course you can. Like I said: the benefit is in using the 4th party member as an infinite mana pool by healing him and then using blood sacrifice to refill your mana pool ad infinitum.

The issue is the main job's benefits, and you are subscribing those benefits to the secondary job.  I digress, but you recall poultices work better with higher MAG as well, yes?

Yes, as do lyrium potions. I just never had as many consumable drops, I suppose.

[errant_knight]

Dave of Canada wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

So I'm guessing you thought that DA:O was pathetically easy then?

Quite, solo and with a group. Player damage was too great that you could just burst down enemies and shrug off the damage quite easily.

And yet, many people found it too hard and can't get past normal. That wasn't the case for me, and I thought nightmare should have included more and stronger enemies, but if the game is significantly harder than DA:O, a lot of people are going to be left in the dust. That's probably an important point. I find myself thinking that In Exile is right, and it won't actually be that much harder, which makes me think that my concerns about being forced to use a tank may be moot. Nightmare in DA:O could have been quite a bit harder, and I still wouldn't have had to use a tank. It depends entirely on exactly what the shift to allow real time, action oriented combat entails.

Modifié par errant_knight, 05 février 2011 - 06:16 .

[Meltemph]

errant_knight wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Hey, you're the one who said it was pathetic to play without a tank

I didn't call you pathetic for not playing with a tank, I said if the game was balanced around not having a tank then the game would be pathetically easy. Which is true, because when a tank isn't necessary that would mean that your teammates aren't taking much damage so when a tank comes along it trivializes everything.

Though you see what you want to see, right?

So I'm guessing you thought that DA:O was pathetically easy then?

Hell yes, specially with a tank and mages.  Coupled by the fact that you could fix your camera so you can see around corners way before you get there and create startegies for something where there is no way your played characters could see.  

The holy trinity can be maintained and at the same time allow flexibility, but without the trinity, imo, battles become either; a mess because of a lack of cohesion or an incredibly easy, red-roaver style, difficulty becasue you can lock down everything.  

I personally, would think that trinities make creating difficulty easier. 

Modifié par Meltemph, 05 février 2011 - 06:16 .

[HolyAvenger]

DAO's difficulty level was a little low, but not too low. Some people HERE complain about it being too easy, but they are a small minority of the entire audience of the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I don't use AI exploits.

Not that it matters, but I dispute that there are such things.

Dave of Canada wrote...

You're the one who brought up roleplay, which should be separated from gameplay mechanics.

I strongly disagree with this.  Especially now with the ability to roleplay in conversations being drastically reduced, the mechanics are one of a dwindling number of areas where we can.

I can see errant_knight's point.  I've long maintained that staying out of melee range is always the superior defensive tactic, given the option.  I tend to eschew melee combat because I can't imagine why any character would want to get hit as part of his combat role.  And many BioWare games have supported an exclusively ranged party.  BG did.  NWN did.  DAO did.

Letting somebody hit you is dumb, because getting hit is unpleasant.  If you can avoid it, do so.

[Sylvius the Mad]

errant_knight wrote...

And yet, many people found it too hard and can't get past normal. That wasn't the case for me, and I thought nightmare should have included more and stronger enemies, but if the game is significantly harder than DA:O, a lot of people are going to be left in the dust.

And I'm one of them, especially since I absolutely will be playing with FF active.

I DAO was about as difficult as I ever want combat to be, and I played on hard (again, for the FF).  I suspect I would have found Normal too easy (though that wouldn't be a huge problem), and Nightmare too difficult (I can't imagine defeating Jarvia on Nightmare).

[Nighteye2]

HolyAvenger wrote...
DAO's difficulty level was a little low, but not too low. Some people HERE complain about it being too easy, but they are a small minority of the entire audience of the game.

Those other people can play on easy or normal. Nightmare is not for them.

[Alodar]

I personally don't understand the meta-gaming aspect of things like taunt and threaten.

My mage was the most dangerous character on the field, and it only makes sense that the computer should always be targeting me.
I play the same way, kill the mages first.

After the first playthrough, I tend towards Nightmare solo play anyhow so the concept of tank, dps, healer completely eludes me.

To me it's all about choosing spells carefully and controling the battlefield.  Some combination of Waking NIghtmare, Glyph of Repulsion, Glyph of Paralysis, Misdirection Hex was usually enough to keep me from harm while I took on the bad guys.

I just hope the crowd control spells in DA II are as flexible.

Alodar

Modifié par Alodar, 05 février 2011 - 02:48 .

[lazuli]

Alodar wrote...

I personally don't understand the meta-gaming aspect of things like taunt and threaten.

My mage was the most dangerous character on the field, and it only makes sense that the computer should always be targeting me.
I play the same way, kill the mages first.

Taunt skills are reactive forms of aggro management.  I employ them frequently in all of my playthroughs, but I do think there is a better way to handle it all.  If the frontline fighters had more skills for stopping enemies in their tracks then taunting to pull their attention wouldn't be necessary.  Enemies shouldn't just be able to ignore warriors and walk past them to get to the juicy tidbits waiting in the wings.  Because they can, though, we have need of skills like Taunt.

A better solution, in my opinion, would be to give the warrior more location control.  As enemies attempt to pass through the range of his melee attacks, they should be punished and stopped, forcing the enemies to use more creative methods to get to the succulent morsels in the back.  Of course the limitations of AI make this a difficult option to include.

Edit: Additionally, I'd much rather have Taunt than no aggro management skills at all.  NWN2 was an example of a game in need of better aggro management.  As a Sorcerer, I spent almost half my spells shielding myself from harm, as enemies would just breeze right past the idiotic dwarf at the front to pummel me into dust.

Modifié par lazuli, 05 février 2011 - 02:59 .

[Ensgnblack]

Mr. Thomas,

All due respect, Tanking in DAO was broken. Warrior runs in, taunts, and can at that point cease being controlled...for the remainder of the fight. Taunt was so overpowered a single initial application made me good for the entire encounter.



I usually ran with Alistair for story, but a tank was by no means necessary for almost any fight. The dragons and some bosses were made MUCH easier with one, but I wold lovesome change to taunt to make it less ridiculous.

[Alodar]

lazuli wrote...


Edit: Additionally, I'd much rather have Taunt than no aggro management skills at all.  NWN2 was an example of a game in need of better aggro management.  As a Sorcerer, I spent almost half my spells shielding myself from harm, as enemies would just breeze right past the idiotic dwarf at the front to pummel me into dust.

But that is exactly what I would do. If I were encoutering your party, I would ignore the Dwarf at the front and go after the mage. That makes perfect sense. If the Dwarf wanted to stop me the Dwarf would have to intercept me, which isn't always possible, especially if the Dwarf were far away from my sorcerer. If the Dwarf could stay close and try to use his abilities to knock down things that were attacking the mage, then that makes sense to me.

But just using a taunt ability to tell the computer to ignore the mage, doesn't.
I kill the mages first, so, IMHO, should the computer AI. (And I say this as a player who only plays mages)

Alodar

[Adhin]

That's kind of the point though, in most situations 'ignoring the guy in front' means getting gutted horribly before you GET to the person behind. CRPG have a horrible habit of not allowing people and things to actively 'stop' stuff outside of whats directly in front of them. And even then sometimes AI will awkwardly port monsters around people (NWN did this a few times, daily...so irritating).

Unless your on an open battlefield, with a lot more charging then your self, your not going to just 'get past' that warrior up front. And trying to do so will get you cut down like the idiot said person is being. Now you got 2 others with you, 1 can make it past as long as your not in close quarters, once you are that becomes nearly impossible again.

Why I agree with Iazuli and why I like aggro-management skills. Untill they get AI that deals with some kind of AoE blocking field each person has based off weapon reach, there mobility, and how many targets they're currently dealing with thats the closest you can get.

And keep in mind just cause they have an aggro system doesn't mean ALL units have to follow it exactly. They could make specific rogue-style units that constantly refresh there aggro bar or don't follow the rules for it 'at all' so they always go for mages. But as a general rule of thumb for most stuff it makes sense, allowing certain units rules outside of it to add depth/challenge to it is always nice though.

[Rimfrost]

It brings up good points. I would like to see taunt replaces by something more physical so that if someone tries to run by a fighter he gets an automatic free attack (I think D&D does that) and perhaps it could be upgraded to stun or push back the opponent and perhaps the range could be upgraded too.



So it wouldn't be a "nah nah nah-nah nah" event.



I would like that idea better and that's sort of how I thing about it when I play.

[Yrkoon]

distinguetraces wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...
In my Nightmare playthrough, I had ... a dual weapon/archer Hawke

So splitting your attention between talent lines in this way is viable this time? Or did you just want to test both weapon styles out?

The rogue hybrid actually sounds like a more fun build for my LadyHawke than the pure archer I had planned.

The archer/dual-wield hybrid build was quite viable in Origins/awakening as well, since you really only needed  to pump one stat to fuel the effects of both   (Dexterity).  The only problem was that  you didn't get enough talents points to fill out both trees to their completion.

But I am assuming that because DA2 will be using a 'web" system instead of a basic tree-line system,  doing  powerful hybrids is going to be easier.  Not to mention  that they raised the cap to level 50,  and that means alot more  potential talent points to be had.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 05 février 2011 - 06:25 .

[lazuli]

Adhin wrote...

That's kind of the point though, in most situations 'ignoring the guy in front' means getting gutted horribly before you GET to the person behind. CRPG have a horrible habit of not allowing people and things to actively 'stop' stuff outside of whats directly in front of them.

That was precisely my point.  Thank you.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I don't use AI exploits.

Not that it matters, but I dispute that there are such things.

Poor implementation happens. If you are going to talk about reasonable behaviour, attacking the clearly invincible immobilized target is incoherent behaviour. Of course, I know you want to say that whatever the ruleset of the world is, following that is reasonable, but that leads you to the following contradiction:

I can see errant_knight's point.  I've long maintained that staying out of melee range is always the superior defensive tactic, given the option. 

Except that if the ruleset is designed in such a and such a way, this option is inferior. That you happen to think it is more reasonable at a meta-game level is no reason for the game to accomodate you at all, by your own standard.

I tend to eschew melee combat because I can't imagine why any character would want to get hit as part of his combat role.  And many BioWare games have supported an exclusively ranged party.  BG did.  NWN did.  DAO did.

Your justification for this ought to be simple: there is no reason at all to suppose that someone wouldn't want to get hit in an RPG, since there exist only measurable and visible penalities (like injuries) for 0 HP. The actual difference between 1 HP and 999 HP is nonexistent.

Letting somebody hit you is dumb, because getting hit is unpleasant.  If you can avoid it, do so.

Except that, again, by your own standard there is no reason to suppose that getting hit has any measurable effect at all in-game beyond the at 0 HP effects.

[Nighteye2]

Rimfrost wrote...
It brings up good points. I would like to see taunt replaces by something more physical so that if someone tries to run by a fighter he gets an automatic free attack (I think D&D does that) and perhaps it could be upgraded to stun or push back the opponent and perhaps the range could be upgraded too.

Automatic attacks make no sense unless the warrior is not occupied in combat with another enemy, though.

It would be a realistic argument that enemies don't want to have your warrior of rogue striking at their backs while they're rushing your mage. But from the point of view of a group of enemies, it would still make the most sense for one or two of them to occupy your melee fighters while several of the other rush past to take out your mages.

[I Valente I]

Sigh...I wish that god awful trinity system would stay in mmo's...



Why must everything fit into a tank, healer or eps archetype? All this system does is limit creativity and actual strategy. Sorry guy, but it's hard to believe that those drakspawn are going to attack that massive armor clad behemoth just because he insulted their mothers, and ignore all the other squishy party members because they look less intimidating. It's a system born out of the exploitation of ai. No, I will prove that the dated and unimaginative trinity system is not at all necessary to be successful. The trinity system should no longer exist...it's ruining rpgs

[Ziggeh]

I Valente I wrote...
Sorry guy, but it's hard to believe that those drakspawn are going to attack that massive armor clad behemoth just because he insulted their mothers, and ignore all the other squishy party members because they look less intimidating. It's a system born out of the exploitation of ai.

It's an abstraction of positioning, in the same way health bars are an abstraction of survivability.