220 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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.

(...)

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?

Like I said earlier, I prefer having less specialisations on my character in the end. It makes it more of a "specialisation", you know? Makes my character more unique. Of course that also gives you all the burden of making more unique skills in total. Cause I doubt that would've gone over well with the specialisations as they look today (however much better than DAO's they may indeed be =))

What I don't like about the quest example you just gave is that depending on the situation you may very well pick against your own class. If you felt the mage was in the right as a warrior, you may very well side against the templars and miss out on your specialsation. If you play a mage who feel her fellow mages have gone beyond the past of redemption, you may turn on your brethren. This isn't odd at all, and it will happen even more often when the conflict isn't so obviously coloured as "mage vs templar".

Hence why I feel a more generic quest would be a better idea. People shouldn't have to miss out on specialisations due to simply not knowing about them even though they finish every quest they find, or find that they have to act a certain way just to unlock it.

[Serpieri Nei]

Multiple paths should exist for each class, and the ones that were seen in previous games should not have been removed but instead implemented with abilities that provide a different gaming experience. I found the three specs in DA2 to be limited. When in combat I spent most of my time using the auto attacks instead of the spells/skills that were unlocked. Origins/Awakenings offered many new specs to the base class, many of which seem to have fallen off the face of Thedas with no explanation for the loss. There seems to be enough passive skills to go around but not enough active combat skills which may be due to sped up combat/cooldown of the skill which seemed more like an MMO using white hits as fillers. More variety is also needed for the Mage; add more spells to each tree. People would like to create a mage that specializes in Necromancy, Fire, or Ice, Witch/Warlock or some new school of magic like the force tree that was added in DA2.

New abilities that can be used to counter an enemy’s ability to fight, heal, buff etc. For example, a ranger may have an ability to shoot potions before they are drunk, a Bard/thief can steal them before they are used, or a warrior can toss a dagger. More tactical choices, creates several outcomes on how they fight may have been won or lost. Another example, when an ogre rushes a shield warrior can brace for the impact stopping or slowing the charge down, a mage can cast a sheet of ice on the path, a rogue can swing up and ride the bull.


Some of these specializations need to be unlocked, learned from some source in the game like in Origins since they are not of the norm like Blood Magic, Arcane Warrior, or Shapeshifter. Once unlocked they are available for other playthroughs. The unlocks for the specializations should be kept at the same levels requiring experience in their current class before they can branch out. The amount of specializations that a player can use at one time should be based on their level. Example: a lvl 21 warrior can have skills out of three specializations that were unlocked at lvl 7, 14, and 21. Now this is entirely depended on how much content is in the game, how far you can level up on said content.

Modifié par Serpieri Nei, 06 avril 2011 - 09:08 .

[Big_Chief]

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?

Just thought I'd chime in as well.

-I'd rather have complexity over variety. It felt like the specializations had a greater impact on gameplay in DA2 compared to Origins, and I'd like to see that continue, or even increase.

-I'm undecided. It felt a little odd to have access to 2 out of the 3 specializations (in a way, it felt less specialized), but it does allow for the specializations to compliment each other in interesting ways.

-I think I'd prefer sidequests, but with the caveat that I wasn't hugely fond of those in Origins for a couple of reasons. Specializations felt like an important part of gameplay, but several were hidden away in random stores and such, making it possible that you would never find them. Similarly, there's a problem, in my mind at least, if I want to play as a nice character, but my playstyle would compliment reaver or bloodmage. I would have to do pretty morally questionable things to earn those in Origins. I'm not sure how you would remedy that, and ultimately maybe it's neat that I have to ask myself whether I'd sell my morality for power. I dunno. At the very least, I'd prefer if they were in a separate sidequest that opens up once you hit the right level, rather than being tied to main plot events.

[Blacklash93]

Brockololly wrote...


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.

What if your character absolutely has to do something completely out of character to learn it?

I didn't like the way blood magic was taught in Origins, for example. Mages, lore-wise, can learn blood magic from demons any time.

I shouldn't be cheated out of the spec just because I don't want to turn a child into an abomination in one particular situation.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 06 avril 2011 - 08:59 .

[Alex Kershaw]

Blacklash93 wrote...

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.

Oh ho - you found the one example where it could have been possible. Just replace 'blood magic' with 'templar' or whatever...

[Solo80]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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?

I don't really have a strong viewpoint either way on the depth vs. variety discussion, but regarding the specialisations...

In an RPG, it's hopelessly immersion breaking to suddenly wake up as a Blood Mage or a Reaver without any explanation OR reaction from your surroundings. Speccing Wynne as a BM in Origins was wonderfully ironic and funny, but did nothing for suspension of disbelief.

Ideally, the specs should be unlocked via a quest - not necessarily one of the most difficult quests in the game, but there should be some sort of feeling of achievement when unlocking a specialisation and becoming something more than your average, run-of-the-mill warrior, rogue or mage. It should feel like a big step forward for your character, and ideally there should be some sort of acknowledgment from your companions as well.

TL;DR: Unlock specs via quests, have companions acknowledge your spec.

[legitimatebusiness]

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 prefer complexity over variety

- I liked having that available, mixing and matching certain specs was deadly

- Unlocking them was cool, but I think I prefer just having them available from the start.

[Galad22]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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?

I'd like if specs worked something like this yes.

edit. Also I didn't even like that those specs unlocked to every other walkthrough you played in origins.

They should only be available on walkthroughs where you have unlocked them.

I realize I am most likely in a minority here.

Modifié par Galad22, 06 avril 2011 - 09:05 .

[Alex Kershaw]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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?

I personally think you should have to 'work' for the spec. In Origins, for the Blood Mage spec you had to let the kid turn into an abomination. You maybe had to make certain decisions that don't particularly agree with to get someone's approval high enough for them to teach you the spec (in theory, although the gift system made this fail). Morrigan's was especially good with you having to ask her BEFORE you get her approval too high. I think if you were to tie it to a decision rather than a companion, you'd have to make that decision have a downside so it's balanced rather than just remembering that you have to click a certain option to learn a spec.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

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.

[Blacklash93]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

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.

Oh ho - you found the one example where it could have been possible. Just replace 'blood magic' with 'templar' or whatever...

No, a mage should be able to contact a demon in their sleep to learn blood magic. A mage can pact with a demon at any time. Or learn it by other means.

[Rune Lai]

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) My gut instinct is that I'd rather have more specs.  It feels like there's a better chance there will be a specialization fitting my perception of my character.  It's just a personal thing for me.  When I create a character for a Dragon Age game, they are generally based on a pre-existing character idea I have, and I try to fit them as much as possible to the limitations of the game.  More specializations make it more likely something will fit.

2) I don't like having two of the three specializations chosen on a single play through because it feels like there is actually less specialization going on.  If I do two playthroughs as a mage and always pick two specializations, one of my specializations will overlap.  There's no getting around it.  It makes the mages feel closer to being the same character, even if I only pick a second specialization for fluff and don't put points in it.

3) I liked the side quests to be honest.  It makes it more like the specializations are a part of who my character is rather than who anybody has the potential to be.

[am_victory]

Luke Barrett wrote...
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?

Honestly, I'm on the fence.  On the one hand, I don't like the idea of having to be evil to unlock blood mage.  On the other hand, my mage Hawke isn't a blood mage right now because I'm RPing her as being anti-blood magic (it's evil and icky).  So I've self-imposed a restriction, if that makes sense?

[Alex Kershaw]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...


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.

What if your character absolutely has to do something completely out of character to learn it?

I didn't like the way blood magic was taught in Origins, for example. Mages, lore-wise, can learn blood magic from demons any time.

I shouldn't be cheated out of the spec just because I don't want to turn a child into an abomination in one particular situation.

If your character has to do something out of character to learn a specialisation, than surely that's just as bad as using a specialisation that's out of character? Having a 'good' character learn blood magic/reaver surely makes less sense than ensuring only 'bad' characters learn them by tying them to a 'bad' decision? I used 'good' and 'bad' to ultra-simplify things...

[Sammyjb]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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?

THIS, 100%. But then you would have one in 3 or 4 different core quests, I assume. And what could rogues get from this situation? I guess Assassin for killing both of them 

[Wulfram]

The main annoyance for me is the flavour of the fighter specs. The only one which fits a disciplined fighter is Templar, and that has a specific flavour of it's own. It's also annoying that all my Mages are going to end up as Force/Spirit mages of some type simply because I can't justify using Blood Magic when it's totally devoid of plot impact.

The way I'd do it is to have 2 or 3 fairly generic and easily available specs, and then 1 or 2, like Templar and Blood Mage, which are more specific and require unlocking.

[Master Shiori]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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

I'd prefer more specs over adding depth to current 3. Having less complex specs allows the players to spread ther talent points across multiple ability trees.

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)

Imo, it was a good idea since having access to 2 specs in one playthrough adds to the customization options. This is something I'd like to see carried forward into future content and DA titles.

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 prefer having all 3 specs available from level 7, since then I don't have to save points while looking for a way to unlock the spec I plan to use. This can be particularly problematic if the spec is unlocked by completing a sidequest that isn't available until later on in the game. 
Also, unlocking specs through choices or sidequests like it was in DA:O, means that some people may not get the desired spec unless they follow a certain path or make certain choices (like despoiling the Ashes or making a deal with the desire demon). Besides, once they're unlocked the specs are available in future playthrough right off the bat, which pretty much brings us back to how things are in DA2.

[Comrade Bork]

I want Spirit Warrior back! Wahh! Berserker is just bleh, and Reaver is just ewww. I liked the effects from reaver, but it is just so evil sounding that I couldn't take it.
As far as rogues go, the last game favored non archer based rogues as well, so I expected the same out of that. I liked duelist in this game a whole lot better however.
Mages were done really well, but I have trouble taking BM for the same reason I have trouble taking Reaver. Force Mage was so-so, and Spirit Healer was amazing.

[Mykel54]

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

Complexity, otherwise specializations are just colourful talent points, they need to be meaningful and look like choices that you make for your character, ex. do i become a blood mage and gain a lot of power, but annoy some of companions?

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)

No, i don´t think it was a good idea, but then i didn´t like the origins system either. I think the player should be allowed only a single specialization, but that one should be meaningful. To put in another way, to me specialization should be like picking a subclass (remember ME1 subclasses?): i could be a warrior/reaver or a warrior/templar, those two would have different playstyle, because they are the same class yes, but they have different specs. This would add a great deal to replayability.

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 much better how DAO handled it, in my opinion specs, as anything else in the game, should be tied to the main story. Many companions in DA2 get their own specs, but they are tied to the story (ex. merrill is a special type of blood mage which harms herself instead of others, fenris is a lyrium infused elf-templar). These companions have meaningful specs that tie to the main story, when you look at Fenris and see his talents you say "this makes sense", when with Hawke you are a blood mage, your spec is not recognised by the game plot, you are just some mage casting some spells.

There is a lot of room for improvement, and i personally would go towards less but deeper specializations, akings to picking a sub-class for your main class, that would give you a sense of choice (the character has a single purpose on which he excels, and is not some over-powerful "i can do everything better than you") and in my opinion add more depth and replayability to the game.

[PirateT138]

The specs themselves were fine but having them all unlocked from the get-go was lame.

Kinda like, "Oh hey guys, FYI: Found some dragon blood, drank it, now I'm a Reaver, no biggie."

Same goes for any of them, how did the character MAGICALLY learn it!?

I mean, the implementation of the books (in Origins, for Ranger and one or two others, I think) wasn't much better but most of the specs had a reason you knew them.

A quest (a real one, not a damn delivery) to unlock each one would have been nice.

There should be reprecussions for picking a specialization, too.  Playing a blood mage should illicit SOME reaction (or any mage but apparently having people recognize the PC as a mage was just TOO hard, whatever).

But I guess that's a little too complex for Button=awesome, hunh? 

Modifié par PirateT138, 06 avril 2011 - 09:14 .

[Giltspur]

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?

A to Q1 and Q2
No need for tons of specs as you can always just add extra abilities to class-wide trees.  I like for a spec to help identify a character.  So a rolodex of specializations sort of waters the character down.  So I'd rather see more complexity to a few specs with the player selecting 1 or 2 specs.  I'd probably prefer 1 *if* there was more consequence to it.

A to Q3
It depends on the sidequest.  Blood magic is supposed to be some forgotten art that you have to make sacrifices to learn.  But it's not like that in the game, and that's a lost opportunity.  It would be cool if there was a quest tied to your specialization and if there was some potential for feedback on it for the game.  Of course, the need to do this with specializations could go down if you have a game with class-specific quests and reactions.  In general though, I'd like for class decisions to impact more than just combat--be that via the parent class or via the specialization.

[Kidd]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

If your character has to do something out of character to learn a specialisation, than surely that's just as bad as using a specialisation that's out of character? Having a 'good' character learn blood magic/reaver surely makes less sense than ensuring only 'bad' characters learn them by tying them to a 'bad' decision? I used 'good' and 'bad' to ultra-simplify things...

Thing is, few specialisations are truly out of character for most characters. You don't have to be evil to use Blood Magic for instance, since that's the favourite example here. At least I never thought Jowan was a bad person - at the very least, not before he got entwined in other things later. He was a blood mage, but that was also all there was to it. In DAO, you cannot create a character similar to Jowan, since there's no way the Jowan we knew in the Circle would have sacrificed a child.

And blood mage is one of the most extreme examples. It's very difficult to make sure that specialisations will unlock for people who want them if they're all found via sidequests like that. How many missed out on Arcane Warrior just because they didn't sit around to bargain with the mysterious being before leaving it or simply doing what it asked right away?

[TJSolo]

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

I feel that archer rogues are missing a complementary spec like Bard or Ranger.  

- 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?) 

If the classes only derived their abilities from those specilaizations I would say open all 3 but the classes also have a large selection of general class abilities to pick from while leveling up. 1/3 from the perspective of how I play rogues is out of the question.  1 spec and the assortment of overlapping general abilites in the rogue class would mean a lot of wasted ability points or me just not spending ability points past a point. 

- 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 would rather see a trainer/mentor early on that is able to teach the player a certain specializations as long as the level requirement is met.

Modifié par TJSolo, 06 avril 2011 - 09:33 .

[Madkipz]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...


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.

What if your character absolutely has to do something completely out of character to learn it?

I didn't like the way blood magic was taught in Origins, for example. Mages, lore-wise, can learn blood magic from demons any time.

I shouldn't be cheated out of the spec just because I don't want to turn a child into an abomination in one particular situation.

If your character has to do something out of character to learn a specialisation, than surely that's just as bad as using a specialisation that's out of character? Having a 'good' character learn blood magic/reaver surely makes less sense than ensuring only 'bad' characters learn them by tying them to a 'bad' decision? I used 'good' and 'bad' to ultra-simplify things...

See? these sort of discussions are why we cant have nice things.
One side says BUT BIOWARE!  I WANT BLOODMAGICSS UUUU!
Other side says, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE RPG IN OUR RPG?

Cheated out of a spec? Wooow. Is this peoples rationale? Im sure they could just do something akin to Origins where you could simply save, get said specialisation and reload your other save and then have those who did the deal with the demon be treated as ACTUAL BLOOD MAGES. While the rest of you can run around spewing blood and be "good guys".

I very much like the DA 2 system but i would like for more complexity within those branches and no level requirements on spells.

Modifié par Madkipz, 06 avril 2011 - 09:23 .