220 réponses à ce sujet

[steelfire_dragon]

never cared for the bloodmage... or the templar.

[Merced652]

3 Specs are fine, unless 90% of those three specs are comprised of passive boosts to stats, auras, or abilities. Which i'm pretty sure 90% of them were. DAO had this same problem, but of 4 abilities i'd kind of expect better than half of them to be passive in nature. Personally i didn't really like my options as a 2h warrior. I didn't want to go templar for RP reasons and was nearly equally as dissuaded from reaver and zerker for the same reasons. Ultimately i only went a short ways in to reaver and got zerker for the passive boost.

[Klimy]

For me there were too many skills trees (had no issue with current design). I would rather prefer have less but more complexed. Maybe where specializations are integrated in the existing skill trees. But I just don't like to spread things around and rather keep everything grouped in one place, thus it's my personal opinion.

[0Sion0]

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
I'd like to keep three and add more depth to 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)
Personally I didn't mind having to pick 2 out of 3. But for some classes I felt out of those 3 only 1 was appealing enough to invest in. So more depth to specs might make me feel inclined to invest in others. 

On a sidenote; I found it odd that I had a 'good/law abiding' Hawke running around with the Reaver or Beserker as secondary spec. Neither really fit the character at the time


- 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?
Sidequests and other means, then having them unlocked from that point on for every character you create. The Origins way of handling it. Why? Because it felt more like RPing - being rewarded for seeking out certain sidequests or getting to know partymembers well enough for them to 'trust' you and let you in on their nifty little bag of tricks.

[Morroian]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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

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

1. I like the depth of the specs but I'd rather have more than 3, if this mean maybe reduce the number of talents in each spec to say 8 to add in another spec then so be it. The specs can be used to add variety to the classes, something that is lacking in DA2 but which wasn't in DAO eg. for rogues having a ranger class, for mages maybe having a shapeshifter or summoning class and for warriors maybe a special warrior duelist class.

2. 2 specs in the main game is fine with me with maybe an additional one via DLC.

3. Having them unlock via sidequests eg the example you gave of Grace would be a good idea IMHO.

[AngryFrozenWater]

The new trees are overrated. There are way too many upgrades to spells and talents. To be able to use advanced features like the combos or make spells and talents work effectively you have to upgrade at least some of them. In the end you'll end up with less spells or talents than in DA:O. This is often a problem because of the cool down times. It is true that you got spells in DA:O that you didn't need to get to one you did like, but the same is true in DA2. Some require you to spend a certain amount of points in the tree. In that case I had to select some crappy spell or talent as well, just to get to the good stuff.

[Morroian]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The new trees are overrated. There are way too many upgrades to spells and talents. To be able to use advanced features like the combos or make spells and talents work effectively you have to upgrade at least some of them. In the end you'll end up with less spells or talents than in DA:O. This is often a problem because of the cool down times. It is true that you got spells in DA:O that you didn't need to get to one you did like, but the same is true in DA2. Some require you to spend a certain amount of points in the tree. In that case I had to select some crappy spell or talent as well, just to get to the good stuff.

This is irrelevant to this actual thread given its about specs but oh well, I had more crappy spells that I never used in DAO than in DA2. The worst one was getting mind blast at the beginning I eventually specced that to get  glyph of repulsion.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Morroian wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The new trees are overrated. There are way too many upgrades to spells and talents. To be able to use advanced features like the combos or make spells and talents work effectively you have to upgrade at least some of them. In the end you'll end up with less spells or talents than in DA:O. This is often a problem because of the cool down times. It is true that you got spells in DA:O that you didn't need to get to one you did like, but the same is true in DA2. Some require you to spend a certain amount of points in the tree. In that case I had to select some crappy spell or talent as well, just to get to the good stuff.

This is irrelevant to this actual thread given its about specs but oh well, I had more crappy spells that I never used in DAO than in DA2. The worst one was getting mind blast at the beginning I eventually specced that to get  glyph of repulsion.

I cannot discuss one without the other. The number of specs is less important to me. To me it is about what specializations do for the gameplay and what talents and spells are in them. And then I end up with what I wrote above. Sorry about that. There is even one playthrough in which I've spend the last spec point at the very end of the game, because I had no use for it before.

Edit: And about your example... I obviously don't agree with you. To me the situation is just as bad because of the point requirements and upgrades within a tree. Now the trees aren't linear anymore, but no worries... We have created other obstacles for you that give the same handicap.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 07 avril 2011 - 07:42 .

[FedericoV]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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

Complexity. Moreover, I think that a charachter should not have access to more than one specialization in a playthrough. I would prefer to have a "second tier" level of specializations opened by the first one.

- 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)

I don't know for the other classes, but for mage it's nearly impossible to develop deeply more than one spec. It's different than a warrior or a rogue where the sinergies are pretty clear and you can invest deeply in 3 threes + some utilities and you're done . For mages, every three has allways something to offer even at a late levels and you allways need one more regular spell.

(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)

Honestly, I do not think so. First of all because having sinergies bewtween specs does not make a lot of sense (since they are specs that in theory should be avaible only to a handfull of selected individuals).

The point is that specialization should offer something unique for that class that is not avaible with regular building. I think that Mages spec's (especially Blood Mage and Spirit Healer) are redundant with the Entropy and Creation three respectively. Force Mage is wonderfull since it offers you real controll of the battlefield. But it's still crowd controll and it's so effective that it's a no brainer, it should not have been a specialization imho but a regular three. Instead, I would like specs that offer you the possibility to acquire talents and utilities that are good for the situation were the mage is generally weaker and less usefull (boss battles and so on, unique target damage etc.).

- 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?

No. Specs should be accessible only during quests (levels should only be a prereq to start skilling). Most important, specs should have a repercussion in game. If I choose to be a Spirit Healer, I want to be a "good abomination" just like Wynne. If I choose Blood Magic, I want to be considered a nasty Blood Mage. Specs should be powerfull tools and have consequences in game.

[alexmasterson123]

"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."

I think the advantage to tying specialisation to the plot isn't that users don't miss the opportunity to access a spec, but that it ties the user's choice into gameplay. It gives them a choice and reason behind the decision to develop their character, rather than simply allocating a point and suddenly becoming a bloodmage in the middle of the Viscount's Keep (for example).

Edit: Also, in DA2 there is a slight issue in the way points were balanced as a mage. Three specialisations - Force, Spirit Healer, and Blood Mage. If you give the player 2 specialisation points for their character, you're basically saying 'use these'. We're gamers; we're not going to waste a point. However, if you don't want to spec your mage as a healer, you're ending up with the vast majority of mages as blood mages. In terms of lore (especially as approached in DA:O and DAII), that's a big point (blood magic = woah there!) but the action of becoming a blood mage has no effect on the game world, so the game's conflict and key concept becomes weakened as a result.

Modifié par alexmasterson123, 07 avril 2011 - 10:45 .

[Crocodiles]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Morroian wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The new trees are overrated. There are way too many upgrades to spells and talents. To be able to use advanced features like the combos or make spells and talents work effectively you have to upgrade at least some of them. In the end you'll end up with less spells or talents than in DA:O. This is often a problem because of the cool down times. It is true that you got spells in DA:O that you didn't need to get to one you did like, but the same is true in DA2. Some require you to spend a certain amount of points in the tree. In that case I had to select some crappy spell or talent as well, just to get to the good stuff.

This is irrelevant to this actual thread given its about specs but oh well, I had more crappy spells that I never used in DAO than in DA2. The worst one was getting mind blast at the beginning I eventually specced that to get  glyph of repulsion.

I cannot discuss one without the other. The number of specs is less important to me. To me it is about what specializations do for the gameplay and what talents and spells are in them. And then I end up with what I wrote above. Sorry about that. There is even one playthrough in which I've spend the last spec point at the very end of the game, because I had no use for it before.

Edit: And about your example... I obviously don't agree with you. To me the situation is just as bad because of the point requirements and upgrades within a tree. Now the trees aren't linear anymore, but no worries... We have created other obstacles for you that give the same handicap.

I totals agree with you!!

[Wyndham711]

My idea for the specs would go much deeper than just unlocking an extra tree. I'd like specialization to be the single most important gameplay related choice after choosing the general class. I'd like specializations to be so important that it would essentially be almost like choosing a new class for your character. And it shouldn't be at all meaningless in terms of storyline either. Things such as companion reactions to the PCs spec decision should be vital.

Meaning that if I happen to spec into being a templar as a warrior (hopefully after an involving quest line focused on my training as a templar) basically all my warrior skills would thereafter have a templar theme to them. Shield bash would now silence enemies, assault would drain mana and deal spirit damage, taunt would have no range limit vs fade creatures etc. Those in addition to unlocking a deep templar tree where I can unlock templar specific abilities and improve/add to the innate effects to the general warrior skills that being a templar has.

In addition, the choice of spec should unlock a series of specialization specific sidequests. For a 'freelance templar' those would possibly deal with chantry affairs and apostate hunts, etc. In addition, templars should have their specific persuasion/intimidate options - especially useful when discussing with mages.

[silver-crescent]

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 rather have more specs. The ones we have right now are fine as they are I think
- 2/3 is better than 1/3 certainly, but if we got 2/4 instead, there'd be a good reason to replay the game with the same class, to try the 2 other specs.
- Yes, it's much more practical this way. Some of the DA:O specs ended up being unlocked way too late in the game/or took a lot of work and saving/reloading to obtain (like blood mage and reaver).

Modifié par silver-crescent, 07 avril 2011 - 11:55 .

[Rykoth]

I want the specs to be earned via quest. Secondary quest depth, not side quest depth.

IMO, Templar should have been unlockable by the time Act 2 rolled around, via doing some stuff, depending on how you interacted with them in Act 1, and through a quest in Act 2.

Blood Mage should have been available the moment you start the friendship path with Merrill or something along those lines.

Force Mage is the only one I could see auto-unlocking.

That's just my take on a few of them.

I do think they should have been recognized though by companions and NPCs. My mage is a Spirit Healer, I think it would be cool if say, people were in slight awe of his power, especially since unlike Anders, he aint' so double sided.

[Wompoo]

DA2 talent trees are a little shallow and lack diversity. I miss being able to basically sculpt a build to my liking, they are just plain bland now. DA:O had problems wont argue there, but it would of been better to have fixed them and expanded on them... and not served up a pitful ME2 style re-run imo.

[AngryFrozenWater]

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?

Thanks for doing this. Much appreciated.

1) I would love to have more specs (like every 7th level, so also at level 21), but some classes won't benefit from that, Especially an archer, because most of the rogue specs are based on blades.

2) The current system? I had no problem with it, but I rather wished there was an unlock quest for each.

3) I love to have quests for the unlocks. It's also meaningful content. The reward is super cool, so the quests should have prominence.

I also wish that the rogue specializations had more to offer for archers. Maybe it is best to give archers their own class. It's too limited now, because a lot of specializations seem to be geared towards blades. Maybe things would be different when we could easily switch between two weapon sets, but that's not implemented right now (* silent sigh *). Besides, I rather invest in one weapon type.

Edit: My current Hawke is a blood mage. It's odd that every mage in Thedas and their grand mother can summon demons, but Hawke (the Champion of Kirkwall - Champ for friends) can't even resurrect a dead rabbit. And yes, it may be powerful, but other games have included necromancers (the best equivalent I could think of) successfully too.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 07 avril 2011 - 01:36 .

[SilentK]

Hmm... I really like the new system with talents. Love being a mage. Being able to pick and choose more as I please is a great win in my book. That said, I would prefer if the task of getting a specialization was somehow tied to the story or a quest. Playing my first warrior now and I was looking at the reaver one but:

"A true reaver has tasted the ritually prepared blood of a dragon. It is more than a state of mind. These fearsome warriors revel in death, regaining energy from the suffering of their foes."

The only dragon I've seen sofar was the one in the deep roads and I don't remember drinking any ritually prepared blood at that point =) it just feelt a bit odd. Or the templar one, my Hawke kills all blood mages on sight but she still sees that Meredith is out of line. Well, she's going to side with the templars so when did she pic up the templar spec.

If I could find someone, a gnarled old man sitting in the hanged man. "If you get my stolen trinket/ book/ item back from that sodded dragon I'll show you how do drink it's blood and draw great power". Something like that and I've would be very happy =) I'm sure you guys can fix it in a much more fun q than that.

[Kimberly Shaw]

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

It depends on if you let us choose one spec or two. Personally I think only one specilization makes sense, so in that case, keep 3 but expand 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 think this totally limits the nature of a specialization. We should pick ONE spec, not two, that's silly. And the ONE spec should be cemented in for that play through and have plot implications and side quests available for it. It should matter. It shouldn't just be "buttons of awesome" cool abilities. If I'm a Blood Mage (extreme example) I am not also a Spirit Healer. That doesn't make any sense. And I should get treated like a Blood Mage and have a Blood Mage quest or two.

- 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?

Tricky question. DA:O was a bit more cool and immersive to have them found and unlocked. I think they should be quest based or book based, but they shouldn't be overly difficult to find and all should be available by level 7.

[Cutlass Jack]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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

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

1. I'd like the specs to have more depth to them. Specifically I'd like picking a single spec to nearly transform the focus of the class. For example I don't create a Rogue, so much as I plan to create a duelist. A duelist rogue should be entirely different than playing an Assassin rogue. Perhaps the most logical difference being a Duelist rogue might actually be able to fence. With swords. (or rapiers). In case you folks decide to do the bonehead 'only daggers' approach again.
 

2. 66% is fine. I don't even need the second one most times. That said I'd like more spec possibilities than 3 to allow more replayability. I just don't need them on one playthrough.

3. I'm mixed on this. I don't mind a quest to unlock a spec. In fact I like quests. But I want that quest immediately available when its time to specialize. I don't want to have to search the entire game looking for it and not get my specialization in a timely fashion.

So given a choice between immediate unlock like DA2's and DAO's scavenger hunt, I'd prefer the former. But if at specialization time you get to go to a trainer, tell him what path you want, and then he sends you on a quest to meet that trainer, and unlock training that's good stuff.

I hope that makes sense.

[ms_sunlight]

Thing is, in DA:O it's broken because once you've unlocked the specialisations once, they're unlocked for all future playthroughs, making it just as simple as the DA2 system.  By the time you're playing through DA:A and your character is level 30+ you have multiple "specialisations" and they just aren't special any more.

I strongly concur with the people that think that specialisations should be unlocked in-game, and that they should have consequences.  I would add that they should have to be unlocked for each playthrough, and should be mutually exclusive in some way.

Even if there are no specialisation-exclusive extra quests (I do understand that adding extra content is expensive for developers) I feel very strongly that your companions and family should care about your choices.  For example:

- Fenris would have some harsh words to say about a blood mage and how mages always succumb to temptation
- Anders would be disappointed that you become a templar
- Aveline might be alarmed and disturbed at your becoming an assassin
- Isabella would be amused - and competetive - towards a fellow duelist
- Varric might have something to say about berserkers - after all, it's a dwarfen speciality and one he is the antithesis of
- Merrill would have a problem with a reaver.  She's a blood mage so she understands the danger of losing yourself in the power...

There should be conversations, and friendship / rivalry points, possibly even companions choosing to leave if you don't handle them right, based on your choices.

[Kimberly Shaw]

On rethinking, if they make the 3 available spec trees very deep, on level 14 we can get a chance to open a new spec, or we can use that extra point at level 14 on our old spec for an extra ability. If they are really deep you'd only see abilities in the one spec tree by limiting to one spec, while also providing 2 specs for people who want that (as I said, I think it cheapens the idea of a specializiation to be able to choose 66% of the 'specializations" with one character, kind of insane, but I realize that there are people who don't care about that and just want to metagame their characters *sigh*...why you encourage them I don't know)

[TyDurden13]

Although of course my general ROT is the more specializations/variety, the better, the DA2 spec system was mostly OK to me. the one thing I really miss is the Arcane Warrior (or Spellsword, or whatever you want to call it) spec. That's my favorite spec to play in RPGs.

[Tekman9]

My experiences. Im running with a Mage, who is primarily elemental (sigh), basically just focused on damage. I took force with my first spec. Then lvl 14 roles around. Do i Take healer? I dont have any healing spells... It doesnt fit into my character. Blood Mage? Well no I dont really wanna be a blood mage, especially since ive been putting points into willpower for the previous 13 levels.

So im stuck having to pick Spirit Healer, even tho I dont plan on healing at all with my character.

So.... No, I was not satisfied with 3 specs.

[Kimberly Shaw]

The extra spec point at level 14 should be used to unlock higher tier specialist abilities OR give you another specialization, at the player's discretion. More choice is good.

[silver-crescent]

Tekman9 wrote...

My experiences. Im running with a Mage, who is primarily elemental (sigh), basically just focused on damage. I took force with my first spec. Then lvl 14 roles around. Do i Take healer? I dont have any healing spells... It doesnt fit into my character. Blood Mage? Well no I dont really wanna be a blood mage, especially since ive been putting points into willpower for the previous 13 levels.

So im stuck having to pick Spirit Healer, even tho I dont plan on healing at all with my character.

So.... No, I was not satisfied with 3 specs.

Actually I felt that this time around, picking a spec just for the sake of the passive bonus is the best choice sometimes. If you're gonna complete 2 whole spec trees, you end up with very few points to spend on other skills.

For example, with my warrior, I went 2H/Vanguard/Reaver, and picked Berserker as second spec just for the sake of the stamina regen boost.