220 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

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 - Keep 3 but have more depth.

2 - Yes I think 2/3 was a good idea. If you think of it in terms of what "specialization" means, it makes sense that you might develop more time and study to learning healing or force spells, or becoming a blood mage.

3 - Yes and No. For some, like force mage it just seems like something you should be able to choose. But for templar or blood mage, those are significant steps in character development and story because of the backgrounds of those types of skills. I wouldn't mind seeing some quests or special training for them. My warrior took a templar specialization by just putting in 2 points at level 7. Anders never said a word even while using those skills in his presence. It seemed rather lame.

[LadyJaneGrey]

1) It all depends on how much the skills in a spec overlap with another. Another very distinct spec would be welcome if it isn't giving the same types of effects under different names.
2) Yes
3) Some specs should have to be earned while others should be tied to quests, relationships, or decisions - and impact how the game reacts to you. A blood mage automatically unlocking in game and never being noticed by NPCs feels peculiar. (Though I will admit speccing Wynne as a blood mage is always good for a chuckle.)

[Jman5]

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?

This will bother some people, but I believe that limiting a player to a single "specialization" would be more appropriate and let players define their characters more clearly. Instead of being a Force/Bloodmage hybrid, you choose to be either a Blood Mage or a Force Mage. Of course this means that each specialist trees would need to be much more unique, complex, and fun. It also opens the game up much more to replayability. (if you can pull off making the specialization feel different)

This also gives you the freedom to create tailored made quests specific to whichever specialization you choose.

As it is now, it's hardly different than a normal skill tree.

[Tereval]

I'd like to see more depth in the specializations. Give us the option to spend that second specialization either on another specialization or on deeper skills within the same one.

As another possibility Instead of my character potentially being a Spirit Healer Blood Mage have the two chosen specs create a third combined (Blood Healer?) effect that you can only obtain that way.

For example the previously mentioned Blood Healer being able to use their health to heal companions, the opposite of a normal Blood mage but a reasonable outcome of the two specs.
A Demonic Force mage, being able to use more demonic formed attacks.

In either case give it a bit more depth, make me feel my spec instead of just a few mini-max bonuses.

Modifié par Tereval, 06 avril 2011 - 11:47 .

[Blacklash93]

Brockololly wrote...

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.

I have to disagree. Just because I don't want to be a douche shouldn't mean I'm cut from a significant gameplay feature. There should be multiple ways to get a spec or at least a morally decent way. Story can shove it in that regard, as it gets in the way of fun if requirements are too strict.

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.

Mages can mingle with demons at any time in their dreams, thus they can make a deal to learn blood magic whenever they like. It can happen off-screen or not... Though I agree it is kind of cheap for uncommon specs like Templar and Reaver.

Besides, it's quite easy to learn blood magic in Kirkwall, to be Captain Obvious.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 06 avril 2011 - 11:57 .

[Loc'n'lol]

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 think the depth level of DA2 specs is good (was lacking in DAO), more specs is good but not too many either (because then it becomes a mess to plan out a character, even if you don't plan too far ahead). I think up to 6 specializations would be good.

In 3 playthroughs I've never developped more than 1 spec (taking only 0 or 1 talent from the second one), but I can see the appeal of taking 2 specializations to get a very 'special' character build, since none of the companions have access to Hawke's specializations (though they get very close sometimes).

I think it would be best if you had to unlock some specializations, so that there is a trade-off. You can't just be a reaver and drain life force from people and emit waves of spirit damage just like that, that's almost being a mage, there has to be something that you did to gain those abilities, *in the current playthrough*.
I don't know if these should be along the main plot, though (aka defile the urn, make a deal with Connor's demon...). Maybe simply secondary quests, so that you may actively seek them out when you need them. But I like the idea that if you want to get a specific specialization, there should be at least minor consequences on the story.
Buying a book is kinda lame tough, better to have them automatically than having to just buy a book.

EDIT: one more thing, the bonus you get for just taking a specialization feels out of place to me (in the current form). For example in my mage playthrough I took blood mage as a second specialization just for the +25 health, but I didn't take any blood mage talent at all. So it was like, I'm not actually a blood mage, but I'll take the free health. If you have to actively seek out a specialization, then the bonus makes more sense, you do something, potentially harmful, and you get an instant reward. Of course the DA2 mage is also a good example of why you need more than 3 specializations if you can have 2, what if don't want to consort with demons or have a spirit -no matter how benevolent- merge with me ? Do I stick to force mage and leave the other spec point unspent ?

Modifié par _Loc_N_lol_, 07 avril 2011 - 12:08 .

[Fntsybks]

Having only three specs is fine - I don't see the point in having 5 specs, but only using two of them in a game. Once you have more than two specializations, they really don't feel like specializations - so 3 specs is fine.

On the same note, being able to spec into two talent trees feels natural, especially since they are spaced out - you get used to one before being able to branch out. That said, I enjoyed having to seek out specializations in DAO - you could not just become of blood mage without instruction in DAO. In DA2, you just became a reaver or whatever- but without access to the dragon blood that is supposedly required to become one.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I'd like to see lore based quests to unlock certain specializations. As others have noted, reaver just popping up with no effort was a bit odd. Blood magic would seem fairly common in Kirkwall, so shouldnt be hard to find but it still could have a quest associated with it. Same with Templar. I'd like to actually join the templars to get the spec, or something along those lines. You could still play a pro mage templar, like Thrask was.

I like the idea of NPCs reacting to your spec choices, especially companions. Fenris never notices you using blood magic? Anders never notices you becoming a templar?

[Jaldaen]

I might be in the minority, but if you keep to 3 spec choices, then I'd prefer to only gain 1 spec during the game. However, if you have 4 to 6 spec choices, then I'd like to have 2 spec choices.

With the current game I feel like I "have to" choose a second spec just because I have that second spec point... even if the spec doesn't fit my character.

As for how to gain the specs... I like the idea of finding them. Some as parts of quests, others through companions. It adds a bit more depth to the process. However, the specs should be available around level 7 (or 14).

Another idea that might be interesting is have two-tiers of specs. 3 of them available at 7th level and 3 more at 14th level. (With the option to choose a second 7th level spec if you'd prefer).

[KennethAFTopp]

I didn't mind the amount do specs as I thought they were actually well done, but I do fell that it's then silly to have the 2 specilization option and then leave one out in the cold, in the end the second spec point doesn't really matter, and if you only got one your choice matters more. If there had been more specializations, I think 2 points would've been fine.

[Sen4lifE]

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 specials, and then more with DLC expansions.  While more specs are nice, they're not nice right away.  Releasing new trees and new levels to get them makes for new things to explore when we play the DLC rather than just what we already have.  However, depth is always a plus.

- Two specs only was a sensible idea.  If you mean you could only access part of the spec line in one playthrough, no.  If you mean what I'm thinking would be lovely, if you could access 2 in one playthrough then can access the last in the next playthrough (or DLC playthroughs?), perfect idea!  As far as synergy, what about cross-spec combinations?

-Unlocking by levels again made sense, but I'd much rather finding them like in DA:O.  Trying to earn the trust of your companions to get them or meeting strange people (like Isabela) or quests.  I thought that was a lot better of a method for a "specialization."  Perhaps you get the specialization point at a certain level but you find them still?  Which in this case would mean the spec points should come at a lower level, so you don't find a spec later in game and have no points to spend on it.


That's my feedback.  Hope you get to read it. ^^

Edit:

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 disagree and agree with
you!  Reaver seemed almost useless in DA:O and Beserk was real nice,
but in DAII, even though Templar is great, I'd get it last. 
Reaver+Beserk=Overpowered combination.  I feel like a monster with them
both: in a good way.  I'm a DPS two-handed warrior.  The boosts from
Vangaurd, Beserk and Reaver (with me being able to take most hits in the
group [I don't use Aveline] and gaining from each time I get hit) only make me stronger.   I feel like my stamina and health draining is a good thing, but with that I feel like I have to be cautious.  It's
a great feeling.  Oh and Battlemaster skills, some are a need if
you're a Beserker, given how much you have to rely on stamina.

It makes for really interesting playstyles. ^^

And I do not think specs should rely on a choice that would only let you get one.  Perhaps, for an example, if you side with them, you can become a Blood Mage if you are a mage or a Reaver if you are a Warrior (since Reaver is pretty much the equivalent of Blood Mage for warriors, if I'm not mistaking) or Templar if you side with them.  Then, say you sided with the Blood Mages and unlocked Reaver, you later get the opportunity to unlock Templar by another quest in which that opportunity wouldn't be present if you sided with the Templars yet there would be another way to become a Reaver.  This way, your choices decide when you can learn them, but doesn't mean you have to change the story just to get specs (since our choices will affect a sequel, wink wink.)

Modifié par Sen4lifE, 07 avril 2011 - 01:38 .

[pwnjuicesucka]

 I'd rather have greater depth to the current specs.   Especially being I prefer the Rogue I can't imagine what new spec you would add other then Ranger which probably wouldn't get played that much Regardless.  So unless you are going to Add NINJA as a spec I'd say make the current ones deeper and take off some of the limitations given to them by making us pick skills we don't want to get to what we do

[Morgora]

Personally, I would have loved more points to spend on specializations (and the class in general). I found myself skipping upgrades because I needed to fill out other trees that gave an added useful ability.

Having the specializations unlock at level 7 without doing anything is very convenient. Unfortunately, that also ruins the story immersion because I didn't do anything to get them. I just automagically knew the specializations.  I'd prefer any story driven quest type (that can't be missed) in order to unlock a specialization.

[Peck7]

I think it should be...

Spec 1 at 7
Spec 2 at 14
Spec 3 at 21

Most people are finished with the game by around level 20 anyway, so allowing for a 3rd and final spec really late game I think feels right. It would give you the sense that your character has really become a master.

[Mekah]

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

3 specs are fine but they should be more significant, like classes unto themselves, not just another 3 or 4 talents. Give them 2 or 3 talent trees each instead of one and have armor and weapons that can only be used by certain specs (like Templar armor in DAO could only be used by Templars).

- 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 they're expanded, one is better.

- 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?

Seek them out. 

[neubourn]

I think the 2 out of 3 Specs was fine, and the levels 7/14 were spaced out properly.

However, there should be different Specs added later perhaps in DLCs...especially in the Rogue tree...the 3 specs are fine if you are dual wielding, but Archers seem shafted by spec choices in particular. I believe the Mage Specs are fine, adn havent done a warrior class yet so i dont know about those.

[Loc'n'lol]

neubourn wrote...

but Archers seem shafted by spec choices in particular.

Err... why ?

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

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)

I'd keep three but add depth. I thought three worked fine, but that's just me.

- 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?)

Not being able to access all three specs didn't bother me at all when I played warrior or mage. I used 2 with mage and none with warrior--the latter for roleplaying reasons rather than combat advantages (see next question/answer).

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?

To be honest, when playing warrior, I found it jarring to have access to all specs at level 7 considering the origins of the abilities. Reaver - drink the ritualistically prepared blood of a dragon? Templar - closely guarded skills of the Chantry's military arm? Berserker - ok, this one could be picked up 'accidentally', but wasn't right for my character.

In DAO you learned the skills from a source. Now I don't expect that to happen with every sequel, ESPECIALLY if the spec trees are the same, but I do like it when specialisations that have a basis in lore make sense in terms of accessibility. Maybe some specs should be locked until learned from a source and others be freely available to 'skilled' individuals.

[sepir]

I think I would prefer to have a quest to get them. You already have quests being sent to your writing desk, why not incorporate that into it. It could either be a specialisation based on your play style to that point, or when you "accept" the letter you have to make a choice.

On having 1/3 or 2/3, I am undecided. Templar and Champion were the only things that felt appropriate for my sword and shield warrior in DA:O, and none of the three was really appropriate in DA2. I just chose them for the bonuses. If you only get 1, I'd think it would need to be deeper, perhaps more powerful, and obtained at a later level. With 2 I think the current depth is appropriate, even though the background doesn't mesh with how the character is played.

[legitimatebusiness]

I think a good way to allow the unlocking of all the specializations with quests is to have a "good guy" and "bad guy" quest for each spec. For example, if you are a mage sympathizer and you help Thrask save some mages and he teaches you to be a templar, or if you're an anti-mage you help Cullen (or some other templar) destroy a bunch of escaped mages and he makes you an honorary templar and teaches you some moves. That way you can unlock templar (or whatever spec it might be) as early as you want and be able to be the sort of hero (or villain) you want to be. But that is just my opinion.

[taine]

Personally, I'd rather have more. It often felt like certain builds were pointless to play due to the lack of more than one specialization for them (Archer, Tank). Honestly, I'd rather see more base classes too, but that probably isn't going to happen.

Also, I really, really think that the specializations should be unlocked as in DA:O. I don't care so much about them being available universally after being unlocked, though they probably shouldn't be.

[Shadowlit_Rogue]

I'd personally like more classes to avoid the unnecessary overlap between specs. One more ranger-type class, at least.

But, as is, I'd like something more story-based as a way to obtain specializations. Even in DA2, I'd love the idea of going to the Templars for training, the Malificarum, etc. If you decide to go forward with Hawke or a voiced protagonist (meh), going through the game and choosing your path (specs) would make up for a lack of origins. Getting assassin training from the Crows, berserker training from the dwarves, ranger training from the Dalish, templar training from the Chantry, etc. I'd love that, but almost anything would be better than being able to know blood magic (the harbinger of doom throughout DA2) without a word for it.

[Dasher1010]

I'd like to see four specs. Hopefully when the expansion hits, we'll get one more spec per calss. I'd like to see Battlemage, Bard and Champion return.

[neppakyo]

Arcane Warrior FTW.

[AKOdin]

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. As long as there are enough specs that the choice is meaningful, I think the balance is good. I think the depth added in terms of talents/passives worked well.

2. Having 2 out of 3 was good, especially as it gave another reason to look forward to levels 7 and 14. They became moments you could really alter your character/playstyle if you wanted.

3. I really, really, really  preferred the "seek them out with sidequests" option. If they represent special knowlege, make the character take special actions aside from just leveling up! Others have mentioned the bizzare lack of commentary from party members to specing templar/reaver/bloodmage, so I'll just note that it also felt jarring to me as well.

Modifié par AKOdin, 07 avril 2011 - 06:11 .