220 réponses à ce sujet

[Sericenthe]

Considering Ranger and Bard were two of my favorites from Origins I'm not massively happy.

3 per was fine. My biggest issue is there should be another class entirely. Maybe a monk, or cleric class. An Archer specialization would have been a good idea.

Also, where's Shale? I miss that blue aura.

[Luke Barrett]

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

Modifié par Luke Barrett, 06 avril 2011 - 08:09 .

[Sericenthe]

If I can't have another class entirely then I think I'd prefer a 4th specialization to deeper trees.

Personally I think having more than one specialization is too many, but that's just me. (4) choices while only able to be one of them would be my preference. Makes the character more unique then.

Seeking them out I didn't like. But having a quest to choose the specialization would be kind of fun.

[Zjarcal]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

Oooh, collecting player feedback!!

- I liked how the specs in DA2 felt a lot more complex than the specs from Origins. Personally I wouldn't want to give that up. It would be very nice to get a fourth spec nevertheless, but if the depth of the spec was sacrificed, I prefer to stay with three.

Of course that carries the issue that if somone just doesn't like a certain spec, that's a big loss for them. 

- Hmm... given how many players are complaining about restrictions and such, I don't think limiting players to one spec would please anybody. But being able to acquire 66% of the available specs was a bit odd.

- I wouldn't mind having the sidequests and such stuff being brought back for unlocking specs. It was a nice element from Origins that gave the specs some better RP flavor. But that was usually a non issue on any playthroughs were the spec had already been unlocked so...

[ZeshinX]

My responses, answered in the order asked:

1. Three specs are fine, but make them different. I honestly found little difference between the Reaver and Berserker. Reaver: cost health for more damage. Berserker: cost stamina for more damage. Bonkers considering if you want to deal damage, you play a Rogue.

2. I like the system, but only if there is significant difference among the specs (see above for example).

3. This is tricky. Some made sense to be unlocked from the start, some made sense to seek them out. I think have one of the specs available off the bat (attached to a character origin perhaps), then the remaining must be unlocked through training or and old tome.

[Forst1999]

1. I really like the depth of the new specs. So if more specs would mean less complexity, i'd like to stick to 3.
2. I don't really care. I only use one spec usually. That's what a specialization is about (for me at least).
3. I liked the easy access. The build of a character is pretty crucial, and it's good to be able to make it as you wish from the beginning.

[Galad22]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

It's nice you are seeking feedback.

My opinion is that more specs would be better than depth.
I think that 2 specs is good enough even if there is more of them.
And I would like to seek those specs out. Like in origins. It just strikes me as odd that you can learn blood magic without speaking to any demon or blood mage about it. It is just so badly against lore.

[Alex Kershaw]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

1) Complexity > Variety as long as there are 3+ specs and they are more powerful (see response 2)
2) 2/3 is fine especialy since you also have the choice of which other spells/abilities you take... It's more of a decision of which spec you CAN'T have, so I personally see 3 as enough, but think they should be more powerful than they currently are. The Origins Rogue specs are the best - 4 of them all of which are amazing.
3) No, the system was lazy, immersion-breaking, and 10+ other negative adjectives. I think it's pretty obvious that in a deep RPG, saying that you just learnt blood magic overnight is silly. Unlocking specs adds complexity to the game. For example, you don't like character X but they've hinted that they might teach you a certain spec. Should you maybe break what you would morally want to do just to please them and maybe get a chance at that spec? These are the sort of questions that the player should have running through his mind, and which worked so well in Origins.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 06 avril 2011 - 08:20 .

[Statulos]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

Let's go!

-I liked the way DA:O worked. You could combine reaver with berserker to maximize damage or with champion to give support and deal damage. Do not force us to get uberspecilized if we do not want to or favor particular combinations of specs.
-An interesting approach would be taking prerequisites. Do you want to be X kind of specilist? Fine! Be sure to be capable of doing Y+Z to begging with.
-Unlocks should be part of the plot, IMO. You do not suddenly wake up and know how to be a berserk, you need to know how to get in trance. In the case of Reavers it is even more evident since you need to consume dragon blood. For mages, kind of the same, certain things need to be tought by practicioners (and they're scarce) or from non-common sources.

[Melca36]

Please Please Keep Force Mage spec in the next game!!! 

While I can only give the game a 7/8 I had alot of fun as a Force Mage! 

[Hunter Boris.0]

Better to hav to seek out and unlock specs

[Melca36]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

I actually loved the choices....

More depth would be nice though.

I did miss the Ranger spec for a rogue but I can understand why it was removed. 

A sidequest getting a spec would have definitely added depth to the game. I really liked the info about the Force Mage.  It would have been nice if we could have saved a mage from the Kirkwall Circle and they rewarded us with that spec.

[Heather Cline]

I would have liked an archer spec for the archer kind of rogue. as for warrior... a more sword and shield spec for that class. Only Templar was good for sword and shield.

Still enjoyed the game over all.

[ToJKa1]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

I want to specialise instead of generalise, so i'd prefer more depth to the specialisations, though having a fourth option wouldn't hurt either.

For DA2, 2 out of 3 seems good, you get enough ability points to fully gain two talent and two special trees with upgrading some skills (speaking of level 23 which is the highest i've reached). As a side note on possible DLC/expansion gained extra levels: higher levels (or more skill books availble) more upgrades or skills on existing trees would be needed to specialize further, not "generalize" the character. I still have nightmares about Broken Steel DLC of Fallout 3 that completely destroyed what little balance the game had

And i liked Origns method more, for example learining Blood Magic from Merril would have made more sense than just automatically knowing it, and could've added some nice storyline elements too


My current mage character has both Blood Mage and Spirit Healer specializations, those two work together pretty nicely. Spirit Healer spec's increased health and regenration practically offset the health cost of casting speels when using Cold Blooded and some Blood Magic enhancing accessories. Force Mage on a  previous character was great for it's crowd control spells too, though the Fist of the Maker seemed pretty weak (didn't upgrade it, though)

My archer Rogue uses Assassin and Shadow (many thumbs up for allowing Assassin skills to work with bows unlike in Origins IIRC) those two work together very nicely too.

For my 2h warrior i've only used Templar, it seemed to do it's job adequatly, but i wasn't exactly on awe. Though that applies for the whole class.

So yes, i'm quite happy with the specializations.

Modifié par ToJKa1, 06 avril 2011 - 08:35 .

[Dark83]

Having multiple, shallow trees allow for greater customization. I support the idea of variety.

[Herr Sovereign]

 - Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)

More depth would be nice. I always thought the Force Mage was too underwhelming since most of its abilities cannot account for the various enemy types, considering some of them were not humanoid and the Maker's Hammer would only slam humanoid targets anyways. 

- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)

It was a great idea, it just felt limiting considering that upgrades had to be bought with regular ability points. It would be nice to have upgrade points every once in a awhile or have a different system of upgrading your abilities. But once again, it is all about balance issues. 

- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

I LOVED the new approach. Having to find a particular specialization was counter-productive considering that some were easily missable if you did not check properly. For instance, the blood mage specialization for DA:O had to be unlocked through the deal with the Desire Demon, so in retrospect, many "good-willed" players would have missed out. However, for the love of Andraste, have our specializations affect the perspective of NPC's around you. Being a blood mage should instill fear and contempt from fellow Chantry priests and worshippers.  

Modifié par Herr Sovereign, 06 avril 2011 - 08:35 .

[Blacklash93]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

3) No, the system was lazy, immersion-breaking, and 10+ other negative adjectives. I think it's pretty obvious that in a deep RPG, saying that you just learnt blood magic overnight is silly.

Actually, a mage technically should be able to learn blood magic overnight by seeking a demon in the fade and making an offer. Any mage can do it at any time.

The whole "allow a demon to posess a child in order to learn blood magic" thing in Origins felt kind of cheap with that fact in mind. I like making blood mages who aren't complete dicks.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 06 avril 2011 - 08:42 .

[Kidd]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

- As the system looks today, I want more of them
- As the system looks today, yes
- A compromise might be best, I think. Make us fight for our specialisations, but don't hide them all over the world (say that I want to make a certain specialisation available to me but I happen to not take the exact path that gives me that specialisation etc, meaningless hassle). Some quest that anyone could do that would give you a specialisation point would be great, to me. Similar to the Moon mission in ME1, but perhaps tie in the fact you're getting a lot stronger from this quest reward instead of just giving us a new skill tree magically like ME1 did.
EDIT: I just realised it'd have been pretty cool to get a specialsation point after finishing the Deep Roads Expedition. Of course the levels are all wrong since DA2 wasn't designed around that, but a similar thing in the future would be awesome.

What I'd love to see myself though, really, is deeper skill trees and us getting access to only one. That way, I'd be a mage, and then I'd be a spirit healer. Or perhaps I'm a rogue, and later an assassin. By making the specialisations deeper than in current DA2, and keeping us knitted to but one specialisation, it'd make the specialations feel so much more special and would help differentiate two characters of the same class even further.

Of course, I think most people wouldn't agree with my opinion anyway, they'd just feel I want you all to "dumb the game down", so whatevs~~ ^^

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 06 avril 2011 - 08:43 .

[Sammyjb]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

1. I would rather have 4 specs instead of 3. 3 felt like too little, but 6 in Awakening felt like too many
2. I think 2 out of 4 was a better system.
3. I would rather have to do side quests for each of them, like fully fleshed out side quests or main quests that had to do with the actual ability. Not like, "rescue my daughter, thanks here is blood mage spec" but more like "thanks for helping me escape the tower. I could teach you how I did it if you like"
4. I think that companions should have their own special tree and should be able to choose one of the four main specs.

[Luke Barrett]

To clarify, the reason I asked about the 2/3 vs. 1/3 is just the illusion of perception. It would seem like there is more variety if you could only get 1 spec per playthrough just in terms of relation to the total.

Seems fairly unanimous that the depth was much better in DAII but that we could have gone with one more for each class.

I would say every spec by itself is viable, all depending on your playstyle. I've seen many posts about Templar being the only useful warrior one for example even though personally I'll swear by Reaver.

As for the quest aspect, lets say, hypothetically, the end of act of mercy (the one with Grace and the Blood Mages) allows you to have an option to learn Blood Mage depending on the outcome or if you're a warrior and take the Templars side you learn the Templar spec. Basically tying all the specs to a decision from a core quest in Act 1. Would that be a 'best of both worlds' scenario?

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Luke, I think that maybe having more specs AND more depth would be awesome, not necessarily in that order. I think a sidequest that unlocks it would work if it was handled like in DA:O, or with quests that introduce the player to the mechanics of the spec, like say, Anders demonstrating how to contact a Spirit of Faith, or Merrill explaining how Blood-Magic is performed. for Warriors, maybe a quest where a Templar inducts you into the order, and shows you how to perform the techniques. As for Rogues, Shadow spec is self-taught lorewise, so that could be a legit auto-unlock.

[Running_Blind]

Dark83 wrote...

They should have had at least one more spec for each class.
With
the ability to take 2 specs and a choice of 3, there's essentially only
3 builds. Disliking a single spec limits you to one build only. Adding
just one would have doubled the combinations to 6, and if we disliked
one we'd still have 3 builds to choose from.

The specs
don't make the builds, they're just another option and for certain
builds they may not even be one of the routes you should take. You could
probably max out 3 trees, 3 out of 9, so there's more than just 3
builds.

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)

If the extra specs had the same amount of complexity as the DA:2 ones, then sure. I think the DA:2 ones did what (I imagine) they're designed for. Templar did a great job at shutting down talents, Assassin had the spike damage and Spirit Healer, well healed.

If by being more complex they just had another feather on their hat, like Bezerker having tank abilities, I'd rather have another tanking tree.

Luke Barrett wrote...
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)

Maybe if the trees were too synergistic it would coerce you into always taking two trees together? I think half the beauty of the DA:2 system is that if you have a playstyle in mind, almost any idea, you can go around cherry picking the the abilities that support it.

Luke Barrett wrote...
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

It was more rewarding, but without knowing what you have to build from I think it maymake it easier to gimp your character, especially with DA:2 more free system.

[Brockololly]

Luke Barrett wrote..
- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)

It would depend on what sort of depth it was- if its just "more AOE" or "more damage" then I'd probably want more diverse specs beyond 3 per class.

Luke Barrett wrote..
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)

Personally, I'd like 4 specs and unlock 2 per playthrough like Origins. Unlocking 2 out of 3 in DA2 felt a bit much and it limits my incentive to go back and try out the other one when I know I've already experienced the majority of them.

Luke Barrett wrote..
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)

It might be neat if there were certain abilities or skills which used between specs had some sort of new effect- not unlike a spell combo from Origins maybe.

Luke Barrett wrote..
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

I HATED HOW ALL SPECS UNLOCKED WITH NO PLOT RATIONALE.

Yeah, if my character wants to be a blood mage or Templar, it should have some rationale in the game as to how you're going about it. Thats what I loved in Origins- you had to make a deal with a demon to become a blood mage, you had to chat up Morrigan to become a shapeshifter or chat with Alistair to become a Templar. It grounded the world  and gave the specs a greater sense of significance, not just another throwaway skill tree that you don't really understand. Not to mention that in the cases like Morrigan or Alistair, that extra interaction with them to unlock the specs was a nice amount of extra interaction that added to their characterization.