220 réponses à ce sujet

[Sauronych]

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

1 additional spec + a little more depth in all of them.

- 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?)

I don't think it was a good idea. That's the problem with having only 3 specs. At least 4 are needed IMO.

- 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?

Quests and other means.

[Brockololly]

Master Shiori wrote...
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).

But so long as you have the choice, then you're getting your consequence right there too- don't want to spoil Andraste's Ashes? Fine, then you won't get the Reaver spec. Deal with it- thats your choice. Maybe they offer some sort of alternate spec in that case, but I'm fine with having things held back- thats as much a consequence to your actions as anything and makes the specs feel more meaningful in the game than just having them tossed at you all at once with no context other than magically opening up at level 7.

One of the big problems in DA2 is how its not reactive to your PC and having a spec like Blood Mage gained via no in game mechanic just serves to cheapen the setting, IMO.

Modifié par Brockololly, 06 avril 2011 - 09:21 .

[DraCZeQQ]

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?

- three well though different but balanced complex specs are better then more of them
- i would prefer only one spec per playthrough (or this better synergy thing w/e it is)
- nah automatic unlock doesnt make sense ... i would prefer some epic quest (that got some serious branching and the choices made in the quest would affect which spec is unlocked) + definetly no unlocking on account! (you wanna be blood mage, you damn make some deal with demons!)

Modifié par DraCZeQQ, 06 avril 2011 - 09:24 .

[Kajan451]

Luke Barrett wrote...

Basically tying all the specs to a decision from a core quest in Act 1. Would that be a 'best of both worlds' scenario?

To be honest... it would be a step into the right direction, but only if you would actually take the specialisation past that point into account. AND... this would be very important:

You do not end up having to make plot choices based on the knowledge that you might end up with a Spec you are unsatisfied with.


Example... if in DO:O helping the Elves made me a ranger and thus preventing me for becoming an Assassin, it wouldn't have bothered me on my Dalish Rogue Playthrough, because i was playing Archer Rogue already and Ranger was in my opinion one of the more useful choices. On the other hand.. if the same thing had happened on my Dwarf Commoner playthrough, i had been incredibly pissed, because... i was playing Dual Blades and Ranger kind of was one of the worst option.

So.. if you'd tie it to special decisions, i'd love to see them having more diversity and giving something to all the possible options.

I mean... to stick to the above example... if the Ranger Spec would have some abilities to aid melee as well, giving some nifty bonuses, which might be a pointless spec for an Archer, but are really cool for Melee... then i would like if i would become a Spec by a Quest decision.

And if it would be that... i would love to have it matter. Unlike the current situation where, when you spec Blood Magic you act like Blood magic is pure evil and basically condemn its uses, while you are a Blood mage yourself. So it would be nice if your Spec would be taken into account.

I would want to be able to talk to bloodmages for example, if i am playing a bloodmage, and having the unique option to maybe talk them into hiding or something. A whole conversation that does only take place if you are actually a Bloodmage.

Same goes for Assassin spec or something else. There could be special vendors and people offering you some kill missions or something. Varric might be like "we need to kill that guy, but since i know your an Assassin, Hawk, that must be right up your alley" or something like that. Just have the world react to the spec you have taken.

And personally if all specs are good and valid choices for our characters, no matter what we play (of course with their own unique abilities - for example i could imagine Assassin to get a second arrow of slaying talent which does, if its unable to kill, paralyze the enemy or something) then i would only need a single Spec... if that means the spec actually plays a part in the story and doesn't get swept beneath the rug as it is currently the case.

[Comrade Bork]

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?

More Specs, definately variety in my case. I loved Spirit Warrior, Arcane Warrior, Bard, Legionaire Scout (but less over powered), Keeper (or something similar), Battlemage,  etc. and to see those return as specialties would be awesome.

I think allowing them to have 2/3 specs was a good idea, but if more specs were to be added like say 5 total per class, then 3/5 would be a good example.

Having them all unlock was helpful, but really broke suspension of belief. If it were tied into a characters friendship/rivalry or a quest. For example siding with the Templars on issues repeatedly might gain their trust, and they would teach you some tricks, therefore learning the specialization. This could work with certain mage groups or a group of dwarves, or the elves, it can all be usd as miniature quests, or cumulative decision rewards.

Anyhoo, just my thoughts on that.

EDIT: Oh and as far as unlocking Specializations on an account, I'm a little mixed. If a NG+ option were added, I would say no, as someone could unlock all the specialties on a character through multiple playthroughs. If no NG+ is added, then I would support account-wide unlock so as it would not become a chore to get your favorite specialization on a character (for example maybe berserker can be unlocked right near the beginning, that's great for people who like berserker, but maybe templar is only able to be unlocked in the final third of the game, this would really hurt people who like playing as this specialization).

Modifié par Comrade Bork, 06 avril 2011 - 09:33 .

[Dubya75]

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 would say so, yes. Makes it more relevant to how you're playing the game. Could make for some very interesting spec choices...

[Luke Barrett]

My example was merely off the top of my head. Regardless of the game (be it, DA2, DA3, some DLC ...etc) there will (presumably) always be core quests that are mandatory to advance the plot so by tying these specs to we can insure that users can't miss the opportunity to access a spec. Ideally we wouldn't want to alienate those of you who want to play as a non-evil Bloodmage or perhaps a mage-aiding Templar so we'd have to carefully consider how to weave those in to the plot (or perhaps give you a few oppurtunities). Also, could always have quests that you can't possibly miss that are always available such as a bed in Gamlen's House in act 1 that lets you sleep and enter the fade to make a deal with a demon for blood magic.

Obviously, I'm just spitting ideas to get a clearer understanding of exactly what people did and didn't like.

On a side note, I'll make special mention of the importance to having reactivity based on spec choices as this seems like a key selling point for this system.

Modifié par Luke Barrett, 06 avril 2011 - 09:36 .

[avantoreon]

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)

3 or 4 is fine. I like the idea of more depth to the specs, though---right now, picking up a specialization feels basically the same as picking up a new line of abilities. Specializations should provide new abilities, but I wish they would provide more than just that.

- 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?)

Allowing users to have two specializations seems good to me. I would go even a little further perhaps---make the one you pick at level 7 a "primary" specialization, and then the one at level 14 a "secondary" one. You generally end up favoring one spec over the other already, I think, so it would be interesting if the choice of which one to get first had more to it than just 'which abilities do I want first?'

- 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?

There should be sidequests associated with gaining each specialization, in recognition of the fact that you're doing more than just picking up some extra talents. I also think that there should be sidequests that only open to you after you gain your specialization.

For example, if you become a blood mage, well, maybe your sidequest to get the specialization involves you making a deal with a demon, and then maybe your resulting sidequest later in the game involves you fighting off demonic possession or something. (And maybe the reward for completing this final bit is that you gain a bonus to your powers in this specialization, or something)

That being said, I like the idea of the player being able to access all of the sidequests granting specializations at level 7, so you still get to pick your first specialization at level 7 (or w/e), but it's more a question of "which quest do I want?" than just checking a box and all of the sudden you're a Templar.

[CerebraLArsenaL]

Wow. I go to one class, and my itty bitty thought is a 4 page thread. Thanks everyone for the input. As for Luke's questions:

I think Id do fine with 1-2 more specs w/the DA 2 trees....I dont want 8 watered down trees, I want a few viable trees. as I mentioned, why duelist/shadow on a archer? So every time I have an archer play, itll have assassin, and a splash of shadow for decoy, critical passive, and incognito(or whatever) DW you can play around more, but you should be able to make more than 1 style for all types.

Keep the # at 2 please...2-4/5 would give me curiosity as to how to use the others in a new build

I think they should be unlocked, but a mission that opens when you take it would be cool, and youd get a free ability in that tree maybe. Say I take Assassin. I get a letter to do something one of the night gangs... Theyve heard I have raw skill and want to help me hone it. Then you have freedom, and story relevance

Edit: Idea ninja'd lol:ph34r:

Modifié par DuelingBardElf, 06 avril 2011 - 09:38 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

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) Both!  But if I have to chose, I would like more specs.

I wish some specs were reworked though.

The Spirit Healer is not a very exciting spec. Maybe make the aura do something else useful along with the healing or let the healer chose to target undead to harm them with the healing energy. Second Chance only eliminates the need for injury kits but injury kits are not at all hard to come by. That is a good candidate for a different talent. Some people might like to play buffer characters but that is not for me.

The Force Mage spec has too much redundancy and only one damage spell. 

Blood mage: Blood Splatter doesn't work on Nightmare. Blood Slave duration is too short. Sacrifice is much superior to Grave Robber.

2) Yes, allowing users 2 specs is a good idea. Force Mage is almost a requirement for  any mage because mages get pimp slapped all over the battle field without it unless they are a blood mage (high constitution.)

3) I like them all to unlock at level 7. I want to be able to play the specialization I want to play for as much of the game as possible.

[Inarai]

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?

One of the things I thought was actually quite good in DA:O is that you couldn't get all the specializations in one playthrough, at least not easily, nor were they all easily obtained.  You had to do a mage playthrough to make anyone a blood mage, for example.  I'd remove manuals, though - it should be purely quest based.  Relatedly, many of the companion trees have some relation to specializations - maybe you have to unlock the specialization to unlock the companion tree, or it's unlocked seperately.  It would help, too, to have at least 2 trees for the companions.  Creates more configurations, and they could be solidly tied to the friendship/rivalry system in some cases:  Merril goes Blood Magic on Friendship, (much improved) shape shifter or some sort of druid/spirit summoner on rivalry?  I'm not sure what you do about someone like Isabella here, though.  I could see Fenris getting a templar style tree, for characters who agree with his anti-mage views.  Anders is probably divided between Spirit Healer and Vengeance.  Aveline would be the difference between a wall and a boulder, maybe.  Don't know anything about Sebastian, and I can't think of anything for Varric.

Of course, new companions can be written around this...

[TAJ4Life]

DuelingBardElf wrote...

 I liked all the specs alone. I just felt a bit limited by the three in certain situ's. Why take duelist/shadow on an archer? Beside the threat reducers on the latter, didnt seem to fit. So theres assasin. Why take Reaver/Zerker on a Tank? The only class I thought the specs meshed well was Mage. There I felt versatile.There was a reason to take the others if you had one that fit your style. Spirit Healers could take Force for more control while they heal, BM so they can pump con and become a MagicTank....Im going to run a mage that doesnt spec, cause i think the base trees can work well together...cant really do that w/other classes

By the same token, party seems limited too. Must take a rogue, must take anders if not a spirit healer. People hated needing a certain party in me1, cant understand why they went this path in DA

DA1 was bigger and better in every way, more choices and more areas to go to, better story better everything.

DA2 is a very good game I mean I can't say its bad considering how I have put over 150hrs into the game and played it around 5times but its still missing the feel of DA1.

[We Tigers]

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?

If we're talking mods to DA2, I'd like a little more variety in specs versus complexity, simply because of the limited number of skill points available and the already-deep trees.  It's hard to make much of an investment in more than one of them.  That said, I thought the specs in DA2 were way cooler and a much bigger part of combat than they were in DA:O.  Force Mage totally changed the way you played as a mage, and was really cool.  Only Arcane Warrior and Blood Mage had that type of impact in the first game.

Access to multiple specs was good, but like I said, a bit unnecessary; none of the specs are terribly complementary, so it feels like you do best to pick one and focus on it.  Having access to the Maker's Sigh potion made it easy to play around and see what I liked best.

As to unlocks, I'd like a mix, though getting to the first unlock in the first 1/4 or so of the game is encouraged.  You should have to do something or talk to someone to get the specs, but they should also be very, very obvious, or things you simply can't miss on the core story path.  One of the things I hated about DA:O was not being able to be a blood mage.  A friend had told me it was cool, but I didn't want to spoil myself, so I completely missed the opportunity to get it.  If specs are going to have as huge an impact on combat as they do in DA2, they need to be accessible to all players pretty easily.  I also disliked that there was no way to be "good" and get the Reaver spec; you couldn't just lie to them, intimidate them into teaching you the ritual, and say "you know what, screw your ash-defiling," and then slaughter them.  Isn't that a Reavery thing to do? 

Modifié par We Tigers, 06 avril 2011 - 09:48 .

[Eudaemonium]

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 haven't read others' response, and I hope I'm not too late to offer feedback.

To start with, I much preferred the actual specs in DA2 to DAOs - I thought the way they were implemented gameplay-wise was much better. As such, onto my comentary.

1) Less is more, as they say. I would much prefer less more detailed specialisations. I think 3 was a sensible number to have variety but without much skill overlap. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing specialisations like Ranger and Shapeshifter appear again in future, albeit with a workover - ones that would implement unique styles.
 - As an aside, I think giving the companions their unique specialisations was a great decision and I hope to see it continue.

2) Number of Specialisations. Personally, I would actually prefer a limit of 1 per character, but I might be in a minority. I think being able to specialise in more than one area is kinda silly from an RP perspective, even if it works in gameplay. I also think this would add to replay value and maybe bring the PC in parity with the party characters - since group dynamics are important in DA, requiring a higher reliance on party compostion and tactics. Not that i didn't love my Force Mage/Spirit Healer.

3) Definitely unlocked them via quests/plot decisions. You can grant specialisation points at 7 as usual, but definitely tie the unlocking to quests and decisions. Getting Blood Mage and Reaver in DAO required making some very particular decisions a character might not want to, and that made them meaningful.

There is actually a mod for DAO entitled 'Improved Immersion - Specialisations' which I used frequently in my later playthroughs which did this well (although it was broken in allowing you to have every spec if you played correctly - though you still needed the talent points). Note, this also put (some of) the Awakening specialisations in Origins. Some of my favourite examples used in that mod were:
- Protecting Redcliffe village with *every* villager surviving earned Warriors the Guardian spec.
- Completing Slim Couldry's final quest without being detected by any guards earned the Shadow spec for Rogues.
- Blood Mage was earned the usual way (deal with Connor's demon), whereas killing the demon and saving him earned you Spirit Healer.
- Champion was only earned if you completed Redcliffe with *both* Isolde and Connor alive. Alternatively, the character who dueled Loghain would also get it (if a Warrior).
- In the Dalish quest, siding purely with Zathrian would get you Keeper, whereas curing the Werewolves gave you Ranger. I am unsure if killing the Dalish got you anything.

While this was far from perfect, I felt that it added to the experience of gaining specialisations for specific tasks and plot decisions.

[Aratark]

I'd actually like to see more of a change. You can take one sp ecialisation, which would have even more depth than now, but taking it blocks off access to some of the vanilla skills. For example, Blood Mage would lose access to a lot of the creation tree. (Might need to make a few changes with regard to some of the skills and where they sit, ie haste) If a Blood Mage is all about magic through the spilling of blood, then they shouldn't be able to heal using it. Maybe even make the changes to the character more obvious, have a spec that turns a DW rogue into more of a martial artist, for example.

These are just some stream of conciousness ideas that would need some thought put into them, but I think they may be viable.

[Scnew]

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'd much rather have more specs.   It gives you more incentive to retry the game as the same class when there are more things to try. For me, the more customization options I have, the better.  Sort of like the perks in Fallout 3 or New Vegas--there's just so many of them that even playing a gun-using character twice, you might pick different options. 

It's certainly not a major problem with the game, but I preferred the sidequests/conversation/etc. method of DAO. Unlocking stuff in games is just fun. 

Another thing I'd like to mention is that I liked being able to choose specializations for my companions in DAO. I do like they they each have their own special tree in DA2, but at the same time, I'd really like to be able to make Merril a healer or make Sebastian a melee guy if that's what I want to do. Suppose I'm playing a tank warrior and I don't recruit Isabella and Fenris for whatever reason--I'd like to be able to compensate for that lack of damage oriented melee by building Varric or Sebastian the way I want 'em.  In DAO, all the companions did have something they were obviously meant for when you recruited them in the form of whatever specs/spells they started with but there was nothing stopping you from making Oghren a decent sword and board warrior if you wanted to.

[abnocte]

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)

Sometime I felt a little fustrated with the trees, but I prefer complexity over variety( D&D prestige classes scarred me for life ) so work on what you have.

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?

DAO style please. I love it when gameplay and story are tied in such a seamless way, It helps a lot to immersion and adds replay value. Getting the Reaver and Blood Mage in DAO was great, getting the Duelist from Isabella and others from your companions was also nice, I don't even mind buying books to get them ( if it makes sense... no books about blood magic in stores, the ones in DA2 would have done the trick ).

[-Skorpious-]

I prefer complexity over variety. With that said, I absolutely love the idea of unlocking specs via quests. HOWEVER I am against the idea of "siding" with one particular faction in order to do so. For example, the Templar tree was my spec of choice, yet, I was pro-mage - should I lose the ability to play as a Templar in DA3 since my character believes that mages deserve the freedom that others take for granted?

I favor a system that allows ALL characters to spec as they choose, regardless of personal beliefs. Let me give an example - at level 7 Hawke unlocks "specialization" quests in his journal. Completion of these quests will allow Hawke to gain access to the desired spec, but only one quest can be completed at level 7 with the option of unlocking/completing another at level 14. Also, like I mentioned earlier, faction choices shouldn't factor in the unlocking of specs. Hawke could learn Templar talents from a retired Templar or from a key NPC (such as Alistair in Origins) via a questline. Example of such a scenario below (also assuming Hawke is a warrior/pro-mage) -

Hawke: "I took care of the apostates in Starkhaven and rescued the hostages. I attempted to talk them down, but they resorted to blood magic and became violent."
Knight-Captain Sigfried: "Thank you for your assistance in this matter Champion, it is appreciated. Despite our...opposing beliefs regarding the treatment of Mages, I believe a proper reward is in order. I pray to Andraste that you will one day realize how sacred and important of a duty we Templars abide by when dealing with mages, and when that day comes, I wish for you to be prepared - will you accept the privilege of learning select Templar abilities for the service you carried out for the Templars and the Maker himself?"
Hawke: "It would be an honor".

This option allows a Hawke of any alignment, loyalty, ect. to learn any of the three (or whatever number) of specializations without enforcing unnecessary restrictions.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 06 avril 2011 - 10:20 .

[NedPepper]

Certain spec unlocks should be plot based. Blood mage, reaver, maybe even Spirt Healer. You learn this stuff through means that are outside of the, what I'd gues are the typical specializations a regular warrior, mage, rogue would encounter.

The idea of going into the Fade to learn some of these specs and to make them plot based is a good idea. Learning them from your companions is pretty cool, too. I just felt like Merril and Anders could have taught me a few things mage wise. Most of the specs though should be available without having to search for them..

Maybe stick with the three spec and have one more for each class that has to be unlocked. And please keep Force Mage. Although, it's be nice if it had more punch at times. I want to see enemies flying all over the screen and bouncing off stuff. : )

I haven't played as a rogue, yet, but I'm really looking forward to it. There seem to be a lot of different ways to personalize your rogue and the improvement on Archers is a step in the right direction.

EDIT: I do miss the Ranger spec.  I know it may not have made sense in a city, but I like the idea that the ranger keeps a little place out back for his bear, wolf, what have you and they are HIS/HER personal companion.  Not missing the Bard.  Never ever used it.  It never made sense to me.

Modifié par nedpepper, 06 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[silentassassin264]

Personally I would much rather be limited to just one really deep specialization and have a larger variety of specializations to choose from. I would like to feel that choosing a specialization is a big deal that can change story implications (blood mage for example) than just getting some cool new moves.

Doing quests to get specializations would make more sense because if the Antivan Crows are so secretive, it is counterintuitive for your character to just get the Assassin spec out of nowhere. Of course this is just an aesthetics issue to me. I don't care either way.

Thirdly, coupling with the first point, I would like more variety in specs. The warrior specs can be summed up as killing things with your health (reaver), killing things with your stamina (berserker), and killing magical things. I wouldn't have minded a champion-esque spec so my warrior could be more versatile than...killing things. The specs that were available were great, I just wanted more than three so I could have like a ranger spec or something.

Fourthly?, as far as the more in depth for each spec, if you allow us to become a dedicated blood mage again, please for the love of god let us summon demons as "pets". Every single blood mage in the game except you can summon demons. Now that is just unfair.

[DeathStride]

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

1) Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
2) 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?)
3) 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?

Firstly, YES! I love that you decided to do this. Can you take it even one step further and make it an actual multiple choice survey using a website or (if you must) the BW site polls? Also, can there be one or more official BW surveys? By "official" I don't mean Bioware, the company, has to put out one(although that'd be great)- any survey from a Dev like yourself is more than official enough.

The reason I ask for a multiple choice survey(which can still include a section for written explanations if the person feels necessary) is that I feel like the individual's posts (more specifically and selfishly: mine) get lost like the proverbial needle in a haystack in the pages and pages of posts that these threads have.

Anyway, to the topic at hand:
1) With how things stand now, definitely more specs. That's because I really don't think the "depth" that has been added to the game is really all that deep. More specifically, the upgrades to skills have all been boiled down to stats and calculations with the occasional CCC effect thrown in. That really isn't depth IMO.

One of my biggest qualms with the talents/skills/what have you in DA2 is that I feel my points are being wasted in these inane "upgrades" instead of diversifying my skill-set like they did in DAO- I loved the variety of abilities classes had in Origins, especially the Rogue. In DA2 everything seems to be about stats(up dmg) and effects(stagger, stun, confuse), very little actual weapon animation/action abilities, which makes me a sad panda.

2) If you mean as opposed to only 1, then in the current DA2 system I'd say make it 1 spec unlock- we just don't have anywhere near enough points to properly fill 2 specs, either that or give us more ability points each level. As you mentioned earlier, it'll provide the illusion that our ability points aren't falling into a bottomless pit. (dunno what you mean by "if synergy would help")

3)I LOVED the quest/story unlocks for specs in DAO- it was an awesome aspect to the game. I don't even think it's necessary to elaborate on why those were so great so I'll leave it at that.


I reeeeealy hope you actually read the whole post, but if you don't, I underlined the important parts 

Modifié par DeathStride, 06 avril 2011 - 11:27 .

[kaimanaMM]

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 would rather keep the 3 specs idea but give them more depth.  There's nothing wrong with narrowing the scope as was done.  If I'm going to spec into spirit healer (as I usually do with my mages) then I want a big reward for going full points into that spec.  Right now, it's more pick and choose.  I don't think I've spec'd into anything fully except for force mage,  templar and assassin on different chars / playthroughs.  

- Yes and no.  I would personally prefer to specialize in a specialization (I'm not a big jack of all trades, master of none player).  If I'm going to go assassin, then I would like to lock in as an assassin.  But, in so doing, I would love the skill tree to be a little more elaborate and rewarding than it currently is.  I would like to see maybe a talent within the assassin tree dealing with poisons / flasks with branches out of there for either faster cooldowns or more potent poisons / flasks or a talent for higher damage backstabs with upgrades at a given level.  If I'm going to spec spirit healer then I want to be the pinnacle of healing magic if I pour all my points into that tree.

- I like the idea of both unlocks through quests as well as normal unlocking.  I liked that you had to look a demon in the eye and make a deal to learn blood magic in DA:O.  I like that you had to defile some dead woman's ashes to learn the Reaver spec.  I liked that you had to best Isabela at a game of cards to have her give up her Duelist secrets.   Some specs however, I think should be 'normal'.  I'd imagine most mage circles teach the spirit healer spec or that most warriors can seek training as a Templar.  Having said that, I'd love to see a return of the bard spec which I was sad to see gone in DA2 as I think it was a spec with great syngergy within the rogue class and its talents.

[Maverick827]

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to say whether or not I would want more variety or more complexity, as the value of each is highly dependent on implementation.

I enjoyed the way specializations worked in DA2 much more than I did in Origins, though I can't help but feel this is due, in part, to many of Origins' specializations simply being underpowered (most notably Shapeshifter).

I have in the past also enjoyed character systems in which a "base" class "promotes" to an "advanced class," in this sense only having one specialization, albeit a more complex one. I think both have their merits and, like I said, I'd have to see the exact implementation before I could say for certain if I liked it or not.

Having two out of three specializations was fine, though obviously having two out of four or two out of six or two out of n choices would always offer more diverse character builds.

My only comment would be that the specialization trees were often too restricted due to level requirements. A Rogue intent on becoming an Assassin is basically railroaded into taking Mark of Death > Bloodlust > Pinpoint Strikes > Assassinate at 7 > 8 > 9 > 10 before having any choice. While all talent trees had similar restrictions, since there were so many of them per class it didn't appear as egregious to me. Because of this, it didn't seem like the number of specializations mattered much; level seven to level 14 was linearly filling up one specialization, and then level 14 and on was filling up the second.

As far as learning specializations through quests is concerned, I can see both viewpoints equally. I greatly enjoy the "flavor" of learning abilities from characters in the world, but I also believe that "talent trees" are like "attribute points" and "dice rolls," and are merely a bridge between game and story which should be, by definition, divorced from the story whenever possible. I feel like the character builder in me hates being restricted, but the roleplayer in me pines for more flavor.

Personally, a happy medium would be that certain abilities might be unlocked by story events, but the basic components of the specialization are always open. Imagine on a DA2 ability tree various abilities or upgrades floating off on their own with the text: "Restriction: Must learn this ability from someone else" in a red font.

This allows the player to "get the ball rolling" but still offer more depth down the line.

After all, it makes sense that one is able to dabble in Blood Magic, but it might take guidance to learn more complex spells, such as summoning demons. This could also be impacted by certain imported decisions: perhaps Zevran, if alive, could have taught Hawke-Assassin a thing or two he or she couldn't have learned alone?

I think the absolute worst-case scenario is to have the player either take no specialization at the time he or she wishes - because it has not yet been unlocked - or take a specialization that might not fit his or her character because it's the only one that is currently unlocked. This should be avoided at all costs, in my opinion.

[Chromie]

[quote]abnocte wrote...

[quote]Luke Barrett wrote...

[quote]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?
[/quote]

DAO style please. I love it when gameplay and story are tied in such a seamless way, It helps a lot to immersion and adds replay value. Getting the Reaver and Blood Mage in DAO was great, getting the Duelist from Isabella and others from your companions was also nice, I don't even mind buying books to get them ( if it makes sense... no books about blood magic in stores, the ones in DA2 would have done the trick ).


[/quote]

Immersion I swear it's the only word anyone on this forum people use to justify everything. I prefer having them unlocked. Having to play nice with someone to get a specialization dictates how you play. I got tired of having to suck up to Morrigan or Alistair just to unlock a spec I never modded the game to give me the specs reguardless. It was only with the feastday pranks did it become a non-issue but to actually have to pay real money to add approval was annoying.

[Taxonomy]

You can put me in the "good depth, 4 specializations please" camp. The DA2 skill trees were excellently executed.

I would LOVE to see specializations tied into the storyline. It's always struck me as odd the way that nobody reacts to your use of Blood Magic, when everywhere else it's treated as the pinnacle of evil magehood.

That said, I don't want the player to completely rule out potential specializations by their actions; we've all had that point where we say "Actually, I hate the way I've built this character; let's respecialize."