407 réponses à ce sujet

[thendcomes]

afigadumdumbranch wrote...
I am thoroughly confused - looking around the forums, you see a great deal more complaints regarding the recycling of areas and the somewhat lacklustre storyline than gripes about the combat.

This forum and the class build forum are for improving your characters and your game.  The rest of the forums are filled with whiners, RPers, and people who care more about modding a new robe for their Merrill than getting better at the game.  

afigadumdumbranch wrote...
In my opinion, the overhaul is completely unnecessary (save for the few bugfixes like Disorienting Shot).

The overhaul fixes a lot of imbalances in the game talents and seems to be straying from burst damage.  If your opinion is that broken (overpowered or underpowered) talents are fine, then your opinion makes no sense.  I'd say play the new patch before you complain about the direction they're taking regarding removing burst.

afigadumdumbranch wrote...
If the objective was to make encounters less monotonous, why not change enemies? I think it would be a lot more fun if humanoid enemies were given some of the same abilities as the party (especially lieutenants - with the new patch, you're just going to be watching them standing around swinging their swords for longer as one-hit killing is removed).  

It's a patch.  Adjusting numbers for balance takes much fewer resources than drawing and coding new abilities for enemies. 

Modifié par thendcomes, 31 mai 2011 - 06:39 .

[AreleX]

weren't you NOT supposed to be able to hold both sustains at the same time (bm/sh)? wasn't that the original intention? i suppose it's possible to think of this as a 'nerf', but to me, it just sounds like things actually working the way they were meant to, as far as the modal system goes

Modifié par AreleX, 31 mai 2011 - 06:41 .

[SuicidalBaby]

LobselVith8 wrote...

SuicidialBaby wrote...

it's an issue of opinion.

no, its an issue of exploiting a work around.

It's not an issue of opinion that some fans like Spirit Healers, and others like Force Mage?  

I tried Force Mage, I didn't like it. It's merely an issue of opinion and personal preference, it's not the end of the world. I was thinking about trying Spirit Healer when the developers finally fixed the story problems, but it looks like that's going to happen the same time "Jowan's Intention" is fixed.

No one is saying you cant go SH/BM

[IanPolaris]

AreleX wrote...

weren't you NOT supposed to be able to hold both sustains at the same time (bm/sh)? wasn't that the original intention? i suppose it's possible to think of this as a 'nerf', but to me, it just sounds like things actually working the way they were meant to, as far as the modal system goes

It was never clear to me in the slighest.  I note that in DAO and existing lore, there was no reason why blood couldn't be used to power SH spells (such as group heal) like any other (and indeed that was a potent combination in DAO).  The SH aura says that it prevents damaging spells from being case, but the bloodmagic mode is not in of itself damaging.

-Polaris

[SuicidalBaby]

AreleX wrote...

werent you NOT supposed to be able to hold both sustains at the same time (bm/sh)? wasn't that the original intention? i suppose its possible to think of this as a 'nerf', but to me, it just sounds like things actually working the way they were meant to, as far as the modal system goes

Previous to this patch.
Activate Healing Aura first -- cant active Blood Magic
Healing Aura prevents all hostile magic. Blood Magic is by its function hostile to the user.

Activate Blood Magic first -- then Healing Aura
You cant use further Hostile magic but can cast infinate support spells and sustains

IanPompous wrote...
...but the bloodmagic mode is not in of itself damaging.

Wrong.

Modifié par SuicidialBaby, 31 mai 2011 - 07:59 .

[ezrafetch]

SuicidialBaby wrote...

No one is saying you cant go SH/BM

Exactly.  Running both at the same time was an exploit of a game mechanic.  Being able to do that was utterly superfluous and it made no sense regardless of any way you approach it.  The changes restore BM to its original function as a secondary casting source rather than a cheap "oh hai letz stakkkk buffz" enabler.

[thendcomes]

Polaris, you're using lore to support your claim. SuicidialBaby, you're using game mechanics to support yours. Can you guys drop it? It's just adding many non-useful posts.

[SuicidalBaby]

I was actually explaining how it worked to Arelex.

[afigadumdumbranch]

thendcomes wrote...

This forum and the class build forum are for improving your characters and your game.  The rest of the forums are filled with whiners, RPers, and people who care more about modding a new robe for their Merrill than getting better at the game.

 

Perhaps you are right, but I mainly read these forums and I just don't see a lot of complaints about imbalances. Do you have a different impression?

The overhaul fixes a lot of imbalances in the game talents and seems to be straying from burst damage.  If your opinion is that broken (overpowered or underpowered) talents are fine, then your opinion makes no sense.  I'd say play the new patch before you complain about the direction they're taking regarding removing burst.

My opinion is entirely subjective and based on my own experiences with the game; some abilities certainly are better than others, but I find playing on Nightmare quite reasonable. If I do something stupid or set up tactics wrong, I usually have to reload. If I play it right, I make it through the encounter OK. I could see the game as too easy for someone who is hell-bent on optimising and always brings the best party members for an encounter (like the speed runs, which I find rather impressive). It's just not the approach I take with the game, and hence I find the difficulty level very fitting. 

I'm not really complaining about the removal of burst specifically, I just don't really see the point of the change. Do you think it will give combat the variation it is meant to? 

It's a patch.  Adjusting numbers for balance takes much fewer resources than drawing and coding new abilities for enemies. 

I don't know how many resources you have to devote to giving a Slaver enemy wielding a sword and shield the ability to use e.g. Assault. I wasn't expecting such a change in any case, only expressing a desire for it. 

[Sabotin]

thendcomes wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I'm more concerned that they spent their time making these changes instead of addressing the story problems that transpired months ago - it doesn't seem that DA2 is going to recognize that Vigil's Keep was upgraded or that the Architect is dead, for instance.

I hope these were fixed as well.  It's a problem with the import flags in general.  I thought I had seen something that decisions made in prior games, including romances, were going to be properly implemented.  I can't seem to find it however.

Those are mostly issues with DA:A, not DA2. So the only way to solve it is either somehow manually set them in the savegame you'll import or replay DA:A once they fix it there (There's supposed to be a patch coming eventually, though mostly centered on fixing DLC).
And these aren't the full patch notes, just the gameplay section. There's plenty of other fixes in the other departments also.

Modifié par Sabotin, 31 mai 2011 - 07:29 .

[thendcomes]

afigadumdumbranch wrote...
Perhaps you are right, but I mainly read these forums and I just don't see a lot of complaints about imbalances. Do you have a different impression?

These forums are actually quite dead compared to the others.  Everyone knows some talents, eg. Cleave, to be broken since release, it's just not discussed much.  It's actually pretty enjoyable.  By comparison, WoW forums used to be, and probably still are, non-stop crying about broken talents and classes.  

afigadumdumbranch wrote...
My opinion is entirely subjective and based on my own experiences with the game; some abilities certainly are better than others, but I find playing on Nightmare quite reasonable. If I do something stupid or set up tactics wrong, I usually have to reload. If I play it right, I make it through the encounter OK. I could see the game as too easy for someone who is hell-bent on optimising and always brings the best party members for an encounter (like the speed runs, which I find rather impressive). It's just not the approach I take with the game, and hence I find the difficulty level very fitting.

It's hard to respond to this.  I personally do try to optimize everything and have found the game to be challenging but ultimately everything can be beat through preparation and a good strategy.  I finished a solo archer on NM recently and am coasting through with my solo mage at the moment.  

In general, I do believe in balance in game design, where the goal is to make all abilities, classes, and specs equal in power.  More specifically and for example, I think CCCs were grossly overpowered and a crutch to many, which is why I'm happy they were being "balanced."  Someone who does rely on them to get them through the game would find that change an unwarranted nerf.

I guess my view overall is that if someone wants to play on a harder setting, but insists on using a non-optimized party or tactics, they are looking to have their cake and eat it too.  The increased difficulty should enforce some sort of restriction on the way you play in order to beat it.  Eg. if you want to play on NM, then you can't use 3 warriors.  If you want to use 3 warriors, then you can't play on NM.  That being said, I can totally see the counter argument that says the challenge can and should be increased in different ways that are not so restrictive to the player.  It's a balancing act.

afigadumdumbranch wrote...
I'm not really complaining about the removal of burst specifically, I just don't really see the point of the change. Do you think it will give combat the variation it is meant to?

Not sure.  At the moment they've given a huge boost to Berserker and Shadow, 2 auto-attacking specs.  People won't know until they play the new patch and the best ways to play are collectively discovered.

afigadumdumbranch wrote...
I don't know how many resources you have to devote to giving a Slaver enemy wielding a sword and shield the ability to use e.g. Assault. I wasn't expecting such a change in any case, only expressing a desire for it. 

Gotcha.  

Modifié par thendcomes, 31 mai 2011 - 07:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wow, that looks like a completely different game.

In general, I think you've made good changes (except for removing Warrior AoE FF - I love that feature). But now I need to figure out which mods I no longer need (the secondary attribute requirement change is awesome - I'd already been modding that), and which mods no longer do what I want (I play with heavily modded difficulty settings).

[SuicidalBaby]

I already play as if DA2 was just another game unto itself and not a sequel to Origins in order to remove any assumptions I was suppose to have about what it should or should not be. And now I have what is basicly another new game.

Modifié par SuicidialBaby, 31 mai 2011 - 08:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's interesting that patch 1.03 contains a Warrior nerf. If I enjoyed playing a Warrior in DA2, I probably wouldn't install the patch.

DAO's patch 1.02 contained a big mage nerf, but since I really liked playing mages already, I didn't want to install the patch. And I didn't until someone wrote a mod to undo the nerf.

[Aradace]

I "love" how the RoV is essentially pointless now. Yea...thanks for that. Honestly, there was only a handful of these changes that I saw that I actually liked. Final Thought getting revamped, liked that. Enemies exploding less often is a plus. And rogues getting more sta back per attack. Beyond that. Not a big fan of any of the changes. *Sigh* Oh well. We'll see how they actually function once I actually get back to playing once the store is back up tomorrow.

As a side note, I'll probably not be installing this patch until I absolutely have to.

Modifié par Aradace, 31 mai 2011 - 08:17 .

[Kaylord]

The patch is not out yet. Any news on when it is coming?

[Aradace]

Kaylord wrote...

The patch is not out yet. Any news on when it is coming?

Wouldnt know lol....I havent played since the PSN went down over a month ago.  Been waiting for the PSN Store to come back up (which should be tomorrow) so that I can start playing again after DL'ing the item pack.

[ezrafetch]

Aradace wrote...

I "love" how the RoV is essentially pointless now. Yea...thanks for that.

I actually kind of like the change.  Getting up to +7 basically made gearing in this game pseudo-D2 with all the pre-buffing and post-buffing and future-buffing and past-buffing.  Being a single-player RPG, there's no real need for twinking out to the maximum.

[Aradace]

ezrafetch wrote...

Aradace wrote...

I "love" how the RoV is essentially pointless now. Yea...thanks for that.

I actually kind of like the change.  Getting up to +7 basically made gearing in this game pseudo-D2 with all the pre-buffing and post-buffing and future-buffing and past-buffing.  Being a single-player RPG, there's no real need for twinking out to the maximum.

To each their own I guess

[Wulfram]

+7 was ridiculous, particularly for something you find in some random pile of rocks on sundermount, +2 seems much more sensible.

[Aradace]

Wulfram wrote...

+7 was ridiculous, particularly for something you find in some random pile of rocks on sundermount, +2 seems much more sensible.

which is fine if that's your thing.  I just simply will not be installing the patch until I absolutely have to.  And not just because of this.  This is trivial in the grand scheme of things.  The overall nerfing of warrior as a whole and alot of other abilities is primarily why I wont be installing it.

Modifié par Aradace, 31 mai 2011 - 08:45 .

[SuicidalBaby]

patch is out for xbox(Worldwide) and ps3(Europe)

[Sabotin]

First thing I'm gonna do is another warrior play, just to see how much of a difference there is...

[thendcomes]

Aradace wrote...
I "love" how the RoV is essentially pointless now. 

It's still the best Armor Rune.