220 réponses à ce sujet

[Tekman9]

well yeah i picked healer for the bonus also. I could have left the spec uninvested. I wouldnt say thats a positive tho

[Lord_Saulot]

Here are my opinions:

More specs is, all things equal, better than fewer specs. All things are never equal. I would prefer the three detailed specs in DA2 to the four less fleshed out specs in DAO (though they were less fleshed out partially because of the different ability structure). That said, one spec would be too few, no matter how fleshed out.

2/4 was ok. 3/6 (in Awakening) was ok. 2/3 is a problem. 1/3 would have been better in DA2 for two reasons; 1) Even though the total number of choices would have been identical, (3 combinations per class), having 2/3 specializations makes the specs feel less special because you have most of the ones for your class. The illusion of perception that Mr. Barrett mentioned earlier plays a big role here. I don't want to have the majority of specializations every game - I want to feel like I am making a significant choice of what abilities to access, not the less significant choice of which abilities to exclude. Choosing one specialization to have would feel more weighty than choosing one not to have.

The other reason is 2) All companions in DA2 (w/ certain exceptions) have only one specialization. Hence, having two for your main character feels inconsistent. In DAO, a consistent set of specializations and spec rules applied to all your characters (once again w/ a few exceptions). This made the world feel more consistent, and thus, produced a greater suspension of disbelief.

Finally, I would prefer you have to unlock the specializations. Having them all unlocked at level 7, while making things simpler, was a huge disappointment. Honestly, I was hoping you would either keep the DAO system, or better yet, make it so that you had to learn the specialization in story each game you used it. Once again, this would make the specialization choice feel weightier. Personally, I find the argument that specializations should be available to players who want to act contrary to them uncompelling. Making specialization a purely mechanical choice, without connection to the story, breaks suspension of disbelief. In order to promote suspension of disbelief, mechanics should 1) remain as consistent as possible across the setting, and 2) interface consistently with the story elements.

[Knal1991]

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?

- 4 Specs would be around right, with more depth (complexity)... as in it takes longer to complete it and variety in moves ...
 
EDIT: I would like to note that providing an offensive spec would be the best as 4th, and I like to recommend something like Keeper (Druid)... Cause All three are not offensive..

- in regard to previous answer, if it's four choices and are more deep the current ones, one spec per character would be best however it depends on what the threshold is regarding completion... (Maybe grant another spec point if one spec tree has a certain amount of points in it? )

- I admit story wise it didn't offer much, what you could do however, is to receive a spec point... then choose which you want to follow.... and it opens up a quest (instead of the tree itself) regarding getting the spec... (This allows for story immersion, Avoids being forced to do something in a main quest like your grace example, removes the hassle of searching every place and makes it overall more fun..)

Modifié par Knal1991, 07 avril 2011 - 03:46 .

[silver-crescent]

Tekman9 wrote...

well yeah i picked healer for the bonus also. I could have left the spec uninvested. I wouldnt say thats a positive tho

Well it's just different really. In DA:O specs took 4 skill points, so there was no reason not to take them. In DA2 they take 10+ points, so it's not always the best idea to just completely focus on 2 specializations, sometimes 1 spec + another basic skill tree works better.

[Urazz]

Edit: bleh double post.

Modifié par Urazz, 07 avril 2011 - 04:13 .

[Urazz]

I thought the rogue specs were fairly well done as they all were appealing and made it a hard choice to choose.

For the mage, the only real choice felt like the Force Mage tree. Spirit Healer does have some use but since healing was deemphasized in DA2, it felt like a weaker choice. The Blood Mage tree felt weak as well as I didn't want any of the talents in it.

For the Warrior, I felt all 3 trees seemed a bit subpar. The only tree that you could even want to invest in at all was the templar tree. The Reaver was poorly designed as you didn't really want to get any of the skills beyond the first 2 really. The Beserker tree just didn't look appealing at all when compared to the baseline warrior trees.

[Edge2177]

I'd have like to have seen the third spec unlocked at level 21. I'd also like to see more specializations like Awakenings that unlocked sub sub classes.

[TheRaj]

I would like to see specialisations tied to a quest choice. Its more 'IC'. Actually I think DA:O didn't go far enough, I think you shouldn't unlock specialisations permanently, they should be a fully IC choice (no blood magic unless your character did a deal with the demon).

However, I would like to see more flexibility regarding blurring the lines between the core classes rogue, warrior and mage. I would like to build a warrior who can switch between bow and sword depending on situation, who while not being as good in either, is more flexible and perfectly viable. Or a rogue who can do a bit of confusion and invisibility magic. Or an apostate mage who has survived by picking pockets and picking locks. Or a warrior archer who sets traps ('ranger' type).

I think reactivity based on class choice should be on which skills you have been caught using in public, not which skills you can use. If you use *blood* magic in public its different than using magic in public which is different than not using any magic in public.

Similarly, it shouldn't be based on whether you *can* pick locks, but whether you got *caught* picking locks.

[DarthChicken]

I think that 2/4 is the way to go. But the specs should be VERY different from each other.

I loved the fact that in Origins I could completely miss some of the specializations if I didnt take the time to explore or I didnt do side-quests. The specializations felt cheapened in subsequent playthroughs because they were always unlocked no matter where I was in the story or what I did.

I would also like to specializations change the way the game is played (to a degree) maybe have say Reaver's first ability (a passive) decrease damage resistance but increases attack speed. That way the specialization becomes a more tactical choice, instead of just picking which one sounded coolest which I found myself doing on my first warrior playthrough.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Having access to fewer specs per character would be better if all of the characters has access to them. That the companions in DA2 have their own class designs I think breaks the spec system pretty badly.

[legitimatebusiness]

I'm not really understanding where people are coming from thinking "there is no archer spec". Every rogue spec that is available is good for archers (even duelist) if you are creative. I right now am a archer/shadow and it's probably the most fun I've had yet.

[TheRaj]

There isn't a viable archer build based on a warrior in DA2.

[187 Lifeless]

I just wanted to be a Ranger...that's all I wanted.... :/

[DeathStride]

187 Lifeless wrote...

I just wanted to be a Ranger...that's all I wanted.... :/

Aww:blush:

[sonsonthebia07]

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) Depth. 3 specs are good. Although (vaguely related) I would like to see healing/defensive magic become its own class and have more impact on gameplay.

2) I think so. I don't think only being able to access a third of it all would be enough, and I think being able to access them all would be over the top.

3) Hmmm. I liked having to seek them out like in Origins better than just accessing them from nowhere, but I would like to see your class choice have more impact on dialogue and possibly story if the situation warrants. Blood mage is a great example of something that people should react to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I like having them all unlock together, but I'd like an in-game explanation for why I can't learn those skills earlier.

[Gel214th]

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?

Thought the Specs were fine. Allowing the use of ALL specs would eliminate the need for any choice and decisions on the part of the player. Just having one would make a person feel that they are missing out. The Specs should synergise with one or more of the core specs. What I do find, though, is that the game should have some sort of tutorial or video to show how the specs play. It isn't a problem for me since I read forums....but I feel that the game should do more to really show what the effects of a player's choice is likely to be. This includes showing numbers based on a player's current stats, as well as perhaps a little video of the power or ability in normal play.

You would be amazed at how many players end up lost making these seemingly 'simple' decisions.

[Northern Sun]

Warrior specs were good, though I would have liked an in-game unlock similar to origins. Ser Thrask could teach a mage-sympathizer the Templar spec, but I can't think of where the other two could have come from.

[DiRally BSN]

Luke Barrett wrote...

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

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

1- I would prefer to have more specs instead of depth ( complexity in DA2 is enough for my taste)
2- Mostly i like it if a game gives me choices without restrictions. But the 2 out of 3 was ok.
     It's simply your call how you want to design your game.
3- Actually to gather the specs by learning them from characters in game let's me feel more connected with my 
     Character. At the same time i doesn't want to play near the end to meet the character i could learn a spec from.
     So it's good that with level 7 a spec tree can be unlocked soon enough.
     By the way, a little 'Rocky'-like cutscene in whitch the NPC and my character train that spec would be awesome.

[Haplose]

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. Three are fine. More depth would be welcome though. Particularly reactions from companions and NPC's should reflect those choices. Especially a Blood Mage playtrough should look completly differnet from other ones. And I don't just mean a few lines of dialog altered. Impossible to keep some party NPCs, access to some quests, merchants, areas locked out, some other new quests available (perhaps more... dark and bloody and demonic, as you pursue your dark side). Many of these changes could be somewhat similar if you choose the Reaver path.

2. I think in order for specializations to have even more meaning, acess to only 1 would have been fine. Having multiple specializations really waters down any atmosphere and focus they bring into the game. One suggested solution was to be able to use the second specialization point to unlock 2nd tier talents in a specialization... or dip into another - never reaching the advanced Talents though. I actually like this idea a lot.

3. Both systems have flaws. At least the books are gone - good riddance. Buying specialization books at merchants was a simply horrible design. As was sharing specialization unlocks account-wide. Really spoiled the atmosphere. So in that regard I see DA2 system as an improvement.

Given the choice however, I would make the specialization system quest based... or rather faction and story based. And mutually exclusive. You must join the Templar ranks to become a Templar for example. You must consort with demons and other blood mages to become a Blood Mage. Join a dark cult to become a Reaver. Join the Circle to learn the secrets of Force Mage. Antivian Crowns to become an Assasin. Coterie for a Shadow. Perhaps some pirate group for Duelist. Berserker and Spirit Healer... none really fits. Perhaps add some barbarian tribe with Berserkers who could teach you how to awaken your inner Rage, as well as shamans, who tech you how to commune with spirits in your dreams and how to make a pact with them. Or maybe Legion of the Dead faction for Berserkers (they could have some berserkers in their ranks). Could also be some good-aligned cult worshipping fade spirits for Spirit Healer.

This should be strongly tied to the main plot. In fact, choosing your faction should determine your main quest path path and available story options.

[Inarai]

Perhaps if the account-unlock is pulled, I would suggest being able to have NG+ unlocks of one or two isn't a bad idea - maybe that has to be earned as well.

[wikkedjoker]

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?

Well honestly I the only problem I had was the fact that everything was given to you. I preferred learning them- And Arcane Warrior needs to return. 

[Big I]

I don't mind specs unlocking at level 7, as long as there's an in-story reason for that to happen. What I really wanted was specilization specific quests, e.g a quest you can only do as a Templar, and/or specilization conversation options.

[Astranagant]

I liked the Rogue specializations (missed bard for the Song of Courage buff, though,) but was pretty underwhelmed by the mage and warrior specializations. But I was pretty underwhelmed by the mage and warrior specializations in DAO, too.

I would have liked to see something for warrior that focused on the physical or martial aspects of combat rather than the psychological or spiritual aspects that are the focus of the warrior specializations.

And I always felt like duelist sounds like a warrior specialization, not a rogue one. The only time rogues challenge people to duels is when they want to set up an ambush.

People wouldn't be rogues if they were honorable, after all. And a duel is an issue of honor.

LookingGlass93 wrote...

I don't mind specs unlocking at level 7, as long as there's an in-story reason for that to happen. What I really wanted was specilization specific quests, e.g a quest you can only do as a Templar, and/or specilization conversation options.

It would have been interesting if you learned specializations from masters of a given form or technique during the timeskips (as though you spent those years training to become that specialization rather than it suddenly coming to you from the ether.)

Modifié par Astranagant, 08 avril 2011 - 11:06 .

[aduellist]

I don't like any of the warrior specs. None of them fit the character I want to develop. Templar/Reaver? Your brain would leak out your ears from the inbuilt contradictions. If I want to be the classical "chivalrous knight" or Paladin, none of them fit. Having multiple "specializations" seems contradictory. "Specialized" means "focused on one thing". Having more than one makes one a "Generalist", not a "Specialist". I'm also not entirely fond of the unlocking thing.

Here's an heretical thought. One "specialization", which is chosen at character creation.