280 réponses à ce sujet

[Saphyro]

surrealitycheck wrote...

Saph, the classes the complement each other best are, er, mages.

Shatter combos are pretty much the only inter-class combos. The other combos are most easily done with more than one mage. For example, entropic death can be done 3 times in about 3 seconds with 3 mages in your party, more than one storm of the century at a time, etc.

Yes. But I don't have three mages. My party consists of characters that correspond well to my main's ideals/point of view. Despite playing a fighter, I also can't imagine going for "one-stat development" or "everything into combat skills". This games offers much, much more.

I understand what you're trying to say mate and I do not claim that at this moment every possible class/specialization/ability/spell is incredibly-well thought etc. All I am saying, is that the crpg community has changed so much during the last few years. Honestly, I can't - and I really tried - remember a situation where people were complaining via forums on bards not being equal in power to warrior/mage [BG? BG II?].


I can't remember a situation where people were complaining  about Dak'kon being OP in comparison to pure fighter Nameless or Nameless mage owning Nameless fighter. People simply did not give a flying pepper about it.

Please, answer me this - how can one sum up "game mechanics/classes/abilities" based on how powerful specific classes/builds are. This is not Diablo, nor a respected mmorpg where class balance is crucial for people who love pvp and want to participate in it with more/less equal chances. DA world was created from scratch [well, mostly, there's a Rome Total War soundtrack piece in one tavern :P ]. DA world is a place stripped of balance because there is no such thing as balance. I play fighters in almost every crpg I come by. It's just the way I like it. But it's simply beyond my understanding to demand equal class power when compared to a spellcaster. How would that work? What's the roleplaying logic behind this? And since when "class solo-this-game-and-bleed-them-all ability defines the content?

But maybe that's just me, being old and grumpy. All in all, great game. Great game

[Raxxman]

WillieStyle wrote...

Saphyro wrote...

There is no flaw in making a certain class excel at some things while being poor at others. It was, is and should be a rule when it comes to single player crpgs.

This is true. However, this doesn't describe Dragon Age.
In Dragon Age, mages excel at everthing (except opening locks) and are poor at nothing (except opening locks).
Great story draws you in, but poor game design and balance really hurts replay value.

How to make Dragon Age unsoloable for a mage:

Dwarf 1> Yeah Warden the item you seek to unite the Dwarves is right there, right behind that door, it's locked mind and I broke the key, but the lock is poorly designed, and you should be able to pick it no bother.

Warden>

[WillieStyle]

Saphyro wrote...

Please, answer me this - how can one sum up "game mechanics/classes/abilities" based on how powerful specific classes/builds are. This is not Diablo, nor a respected mmorpg where class balance is crucial for people who love pvp and want to participate in it with more/less equal chances. DA world was created from scratch [well, mostly, there's a Rome Total War soundtrack piece in one tavern ]. DA world is a place stripped of balance because there is no such thing as balance. I play fighters in almost every crpg I come by. It's just the way I like it. But it's simply beyond my understanding to demand equal class power when compared to a spellcaster. How would that work? What's the roleplaying logic behind this? And since when "class solo-this-game-and-bleed-them-all ability defines the content?

Do I have to link to comments by Bioware Devs stating explicitly that they tried to balance abilities and spells in this game?

[Raxxman]

 

Saphyro wrote...

surrealitycheck wrote...

Saph, the classes the complement each other best are, er, mages.

Shatter combos are pretty much the only inter-class combos. The other combos are most easily done with more than one mage. For example, entropic death can be done 3 times in about 3 seconds with 3 mages in your party, more than one storm of the century at a time, etc.

Yes. But I don't have three mages. My party consists of characters that correspond well to my main's ideals/point of view. Despite playing a fighter, I also can't imagine going for "one-stat development" or "everything into combat skills". This games offers much, much more.

I understand what you're trying to say mate and I do not claim that at this moment every possible class/specialization/ability/spell is incredibly-well thought etc. All I am saying, is that the crpg community has changed so much during the last few years. Honestly, I can't - and I really tried - remember a situation where people were complaining via forums on bards not being equal in power to warrior/mage [BG? BG II?].


I can't remember a situation where people were complaining  about Dak'kon being OP in comparison to pure fighter Nameless or Nameless mage owning Nameless fighter. People simply did not give a flying pepper about it.

Please, answer me this - how can one sum up "game mechanics/classes/abilities" based on how powerful specific classes/builds are. This is not Diablo, nor a respected mmorpg where class balance is crucial for people who love pvp and want to participate in it with more/less equal chances. DA world was created from scratch [well, mostly, there's a Rome Total War soundtrack piece in one tavern :P ]. DA world is a place stripped of balance because there is no such thing as balance. I play fighters in almost every crpg I come by. It's just the way I like it. But it's simply beyond my understanding to demand equal class power when compared to a spellcaster. How would that work? What's the roleplaying logic behind this? And since when "class solo-this-game-and-bleed-them-all ability defines the content?

But maybe that's just me, being old and grumpy. All in all, great game. Great game

You're also talking about a well established rule system that was around a lot lot longer than the BG games. The issues with mages being more powerful than fighters had already been well established and talked over many a table top. As had the problem of multiclassing/dual classing.

DA had a new system and pretence to produce a new exciting balanced combat engine. Here it failed.

Are RPGers so desperate for games that they'll happily accept anything RPG wise warts and all. I mean I know the market is barren, and you can count RPG releases over the last few years on one hand (Well almost), but this acceptance of mediocrity is just depressing.

[Saphyro]

I don't think that by "balance" they ment 20 level fighter having the same destruction capability as a 20 level mage.

[Spura]

eastoreispos wrote...

stamina system is garbage, you can either A) use your passive abilities
and auto-attack, or use less passive abilities and use 1-2 combat
abilities FOR THE ENTIRE FIGHT, or C) use no passive abilities and spam
chug stamina potions.

How is that any different for mana? I don't understand. (notice he has stamina potions mod)

[-Solrek-]

Hyunsai wrote...

BlackVader wrote...

Well, auto-attack from a warrior or rogue is WAY more effective that auto-attack from a mage. A mage is almost useless without mana, a backstabbing rogue is still devestating even without stamina.

Edit: Typo.

It would be true if mages, in dragon age, COULD be out of mana.

Some good points.

I think mana potions should have far longer cooldowns and using one potion should bring up cooldowns for all potions.

As for auto-attack being better, I think that points to a design flaw in the combat system. If we are better off using auto-attack then the devs wasted time developing skills and the players lose the chance to develop skill based combat tactics.

Also, yes the stamina system sucks. I think combat should be reliant on skill usage tactics and not auto-attack / heal.

[F-C]

Saphyro wrote...

I don't think that by "balance" they ment 20 level fighter having the same destruction capability as a 20 level mage.

it isnt. the game is balanced around tactical group combat and the game being fun to play.

they did no balance the game on class vs class, or ability vs ability basis, even Georg has said that before in one of his various quotes, and has said its not meant to be, and that people who wanted that really just wanted a different game.



in my opinion most of this balance talk is just MMO whiplash, though most posters are quick to deny it and start blathering on about some other single player game they played, i still think its just denial.

the idea that all classes need to be perfectly balanced against each other is ridiculous and really only has a valid arguement in an MMO where you have to compete against other people to get a group slot, raid slot, or in pvp.

in a single player game classes should not be perfectly balanced against each other because it pretty much ruins the replayability of the game imo. if i make a group of different classes it should require different tactics and present new challenges to deal with. that is the fun of doing a second playthrough.


if the game was balanced on a class vs class and ability vs ability basis as some of these mmo-heads want to happen, then there would be little point to bothering with a second play through or using alternate classes. it would be the same as the first playthrough, no difference in tactics or challenge, the only difference would boil down to 'i hit him with a sword instead of casting a spell' which would be so very boring.

Modifié par F-C, 21 novembre 2009 - 05:00 .

[thisisme8]

I keep hearing this one thing over and over: DPS.



If all you care about is DPS, then maybe everything is broken.



Regarding stamina, I have never once run out after 2-3 moves, and never found it a problem.



Regarding the awesomeness of mages, it's your party and you can create your characters how you want them. If one spell or spell group is OP, don't pick it. You can always Role-Play. I'm playing on Hard with a team full of utility specialists and having a great time. Each character specializes in something per their class with optimal synergy to the team. Works great, and guess what? Even Shape-shifting is useful. It's actually fun too.



Here's my lineup:

Alistair: Sword and Shield/Temp (only heavy+ armor wearer)

Leliana: Poison/Arch/Bard (Light Armor)

Morrigan: Glyphs/Shapeshifting (not Arcane Warrior=Robes only!)

Me: 2Handed sword/Dual Daggers. (Med Armor)



They aren't OP, but they mix pertty well, and can adapt decently, but most important, it's fun.



I am Thisisme8 and I make characters based on concepts, not min/maxing.

[thisisme8]

F-C wrote...

Saphyro wrote...

I don't think that by "balance" they ment 20 level fighter having the same destruction capability as a 20 level mage.

it isnt. the game is balanced around tactical group combat and the game being fun to play.

they did no balance the game on class vs class, or ability vs ability basis, even Georg has said that before in one of his various quotes, and has said its not meant to be, and that people who wanted that really just wanted a different game.



in my opinion most of this balance talk is just MMO whiplash, though most posters are quick to deny it and start blathering on about some other single player game they player, i still think its just denial.

the idea that all classes need to be perfectly balanced against each other is ridiculous and really only has a valid arguement in an MMO where you have to compete against other people to get a group slot, raid slot, or in pvp.

in a single player game classes should not be perfectly balanced against each other because it pretty much ruins the replayability of the game imo. if i make a group of different classes it should require different tactics and present new challenges to deal with. that is the fun of doing a second playthrough.


if the game was balanced on a class vs class and ability vs ability basis as some of these mmo-heads want to happen, then there would be little point to bothering with a second play through or using alternate classes. it would be the same as the first playthrough, no difference in tactics or challenge, the only difference would boil down to 'i hit him with a sword instead of casting a spell' which would be so very boring.

The reason I like this statement, is because if you had a 4 mage party, it would only prove the Chantry right.  I'm just saying.  As a matter of fact, I might just do that.  Create a mage and use Morrigan, Wynne, and Alistair.  Alistair will be my pet.  Ha-HA!!!

[konfeta]

if the game was balanced on a class vs class and ability vs ability basis as some of these mmo-heads want to happen, then there would be little point to bothering with a second play through or using alternate classes.

This is quite possibly the most uninformed statement I ever read.



Balance kills replayability. Really? Balance doesn't mean identical gameplay unless you still live in 1990's.

[WillieStyle]

Saphyro wrote...

I don't think that by "balance" they ment 20 level fighter having the same destruction capability as a 20 level mage.

Neither am I.
If mages were really good at damage but poor at other things, that would be fine.
If mages were really good at crowd control but poor at other things, that would be fine.
If mages were good at healing and buffing allies but poor at other things, that would be fine.
If mages were good at debuffing enemies but poor at other things, that would be fine.

But mages are good at everything (except opening locks) not just dps.  They are poor at nothing (except opening locks).  Hell, a mage spec can tank better than sword and shield warrior. 
DPS isn't the only reason why mages are broken; not by a longshot.

[0mar]

Saphyro wrote...
I understand what you're trying to say mate and I do not claim that at this moment every possible class/specialization/ability/spell is incredibly-well thought etc. All I am saying, is that the crpg community has changed so much during the last few years. Honestly, I can't - and I really tried - remember a situation where people were complaining via forums on bards not being equal in power to warrior/mage [BG? BG II?]

If you had ToB, you could have warriors drop a dragon in a single round with improved whirlwind attack and a good weapon.  10 attacks in a round is no joke.




Also, balance means that every class contributes nearly equally in a fight.  In Dragon Age, your warriors are just there to make the enemies group up so you can nuke them from orbit.  If the warrior didn't exist, all it would do is maybe extend the battle 10 seconds or so.

Modifié par 0mar, 21 novembre 2009 - 05:11 .

[-Solrek-]

thisisme8 wrote...

Regarding the awesomeness of mages, it's your party and you can create your characters how you want them. If one spell or spell group is OP, don't pick it. You can always Role-Play.

We all know we are capable of gimping our characters to increase challenge, but is that good game design? Good game design would challenge me to think hard about my skill selection in making my characters good enough to beat the game, *not* challenge me to think of ways to gimp my characters to make the game more challenging.

[FlatCat]

People keep tossing around the word, tactical, but they never attempt to really lockdown what that MEANS in Dragon Age. The reason why DPS keeps getting stressed is because DPS is the only thing that ultimately matters in DA. Oh look you knocked down one guy for half a second! Meanwhile the other 10 are stabbing you in the butt. The simplest of tactics, blocking a door way with physical classes can't be done because characters are always sliding around each other. There's no zone of control. Only the mages have the toolbox necessary to really succeed at the game without the use of cheeseball tactics.

Edit: And no cheeseball tactics is not a REAL tactic.  Because the AI is too stupid to keep from being pulled into bite size chunks is not a valid excuse for it's use.

Modifié par FlatCat, 21 novembre 2009 - 05:22 .

[thisisme8]

-Solrek- wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Regarding the awesomeness of mages, it's your party and you can create your characters how you want them. If one spell or spell group is OP, don't pick it. You can always Role-Play.

We all know we are capable of gimping our characters to increase challenge, but is that good game design? Good game design would challenge me to think hard about my skill selection in making my characters good enough to beat the game, *not* challenge me to think of ways to gimp my characters to make the game more challenging.

It's all about mindset.  You see picking certain skills as gimping.  I see picking certain skills as roleplaying.

[F-C]

-Solrek- wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Regarding the awesomeness of mages, it's your party and you can create your characters how you want them. If one spell or spell group is OP, don't pick it. You can always Role-Play.

We all know we are capable of gimping our characters to increase challenge, but is that good game design? Good game design would challenge me to think hard about my skill selection in making my characters good enough to beat the game, *not* challenge me to think of ways to gimp my characters to make the game more challenging.

i suppose you could argue that the developers expecting you to have some modicum of self control and to want to play the game in a manner you saw fit to present yourself with new challenges to deal with and tactics to use could be called bad design.

i guess they should force everthing down your throat and make you play in a certain way?


if i want to use spell lines that are less than the best in the game, but i think are fun to use, to see how the game will play using those and what tactics i will need to use in order to win battles, i have the choice to do so.

if i want to use the most powerful spells and play the game in a way that makes it as simplified as possible then i have the choice to do so as well.

if i want to take a melee heavy group and play the game using those tactics and face those challenges then i have the choice to do so.

if i want to solo the game i have the choice to do so.

if i want to change the game from the developers vision into something totally new, i even have the toolkit to do so if i choose to.



i guess having choices is a bad design decision.

what were they thinking.

Modifié par F-C, 21 novembre 2009 - 05:27 .

[FlatCat]

A bad choice isn't a real choice. Once you figure out the "trick" that it's a bad choice you never have to pick it again and it ceases existing as a real option. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me....you can't get fooled again." As someone once said.

[TileToad]

Ultrazennn wrote...

surrealitycheck wrote...

Actually, using the combat abilities reduces your dps if you have good gear and a good build. So you wouldn't even want to use them, even if you had the stamina

This is actually a bigger problem.  My question would be, why are you even bothering to try and use the abilities in the first place, as they lower your DPS?

This problem is 2 fold.

1.  Resource usage in general is way out of whack given the number of enemies you face in most of the game.

2.  Actually *using* any  of those abilities will lower your DPS, not raise it.

The combat system for melee in general is a mish mosh of really poorly implemented things that look good in the character description, but don't play out in the engine.  In almost every single case, using one of these abilities *cost* you DPS.  Activating flurry on a rogue for example, you will cut your DPS by at least 33% vs just standing behind a mob auto attacking.

Given how quickly you go through resources in this game, and how many mobs you face at a time in a typical encounter, activating *any* skill, ought to outright kill everything around you in a 5 foot radius.  There is such a disconnect between the way fights actually play out, especially in the 2nd half of the game, vs the game mechanics for abilities.  It really feels like every test they ran was with a full party against 1 group of maybe 5 mobs, and in that sense, the game *is* pretty balanced.....well except for the lowering of DPS on ability use.

/shrug.  It's easy to fix through itemization, and I've made a mod for myself with a series of weapons and armor that compensate for the issues.  It is a single player game after all, with a free toolset.  I love the freaking editor lol.

You said it, man!
Luckily there are ways to change it through use of the editor, but, by default, I too miss the abilities that can make an actual difference.
As it stands, all fighter classes seem to be lacking in power when faced with dozens of enemies. The abilities, as they are, don't change that one bit. Personally I prefer it when my lvl15 (or higher) fighter, that uses a powerfull ability, can actually kill a weak enemy with one blow. It just feels so.. satisfying.

[F-C]

FlatCat wrote...

A bad choice isn't a real choice. Once you figure out the "trick" that it's a bad choice you never have to pick it again and it ceases existing as a real option. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me....you can't get fooled again." As someone once said.

if you see the easiest choice as the only choice in a single player game, that is a personal problem, not a fault with the game.

the only person holding you back is you.

[thisisme8]

FlatCat wrote...

A bad choice isn't a real choice. Once you figure out the "trick" that it's a bad choice you never have to pick it again and it ceases existing as a real option. "Fool me once shame on you. Fool me....you can't get fooled again." As someone once said.

How is roleplaying not a real choice?  Sorry, a bad choice?  What if I want to play with 3 shapeshifting only mages?  What if I want to play as a Daelish Elf warrior that refuses to wear anything but Daelish armor?  What if I want to play a human noble who won't go into battle with anyone but their dog?  What if I want to play as the most powerful mage in the history of Ferelden?

Thanks to Dragon Age:  Origins, I can.

[WillieStyle]

thisisme8 wrote...

-Solrek- wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Regarding the awesomeness of mages, it's your party and you can create your characters how you want them. If one spell or spell group is OP, don't pick it. You can always Role-Play.

We all know we are capable of gimping our characters to increase challenge, but is that good game design? Good game design would challenge me to think hard about my skill selection in making my characters good enough to beat the game, *not* challenge me to think of ways to gimp my characters to make the game more challenging.

It's all about mindset.  You see picking certain skills as gimping.  I see picking certain skills as roleplaying.

That isn't roleplaying.  Roleplaying suggests picking spells because they fit the character concept you're going for.  You, and others, are suggesting picking or avoiding spells because of how powerful they are.  That's the oppossite of roleplaying.  A balanced system would encourage roleplaying by allowing you to pick whatever spells you wanted without having to metagame the system.
In Dragon Age, however, if you think specializing in cold and force magic is cool conceptualy, then you're likely to find mid way through that you've taken all the fun out of the experience.  Note that there's no way to know ahead of time how broken cone of cold, force field and crushing prison are, unless you come to the game play (spoiler) forums.  The tooltips are too vague. 

Not only do poorly balanced spells hurt roleplay in this way, but even if you choose to metagame so as to intentionally reduce your power, there are so many "landmines" you'd have to avoid that it's annoying.
You can't take the following:
Cone of Cold
Force Field
Crushing Prison
Blizzard
Tempest
Affliction Hex
Vulnerability Hex
Death Hex
Misdirection Hex
Death Clowd
Sleep and Horror
Glyph of Repulsion
etc.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 21 novembre 2009 - 05:40 .

[Saphyro]

Raxxman wrote...
[ I mean I know the market is barren, and you can count RPG releases over the last few years on one hand (Well almost), but this acceptance of mediocrity is just depressing.

Yes. If by "mediocrity" you mean choosing a crpg with great atmosphere / good main plot and plot non-related quests / very good idea for party members OVER a game where all classes do the same, than yes, I am mediocre all the way.

I also was mediocre when worshipping games like Fallout 1&2 [challange lastet till one specific perk and one specific weapon were grabbed], BG [where dual-class fighter/mage smashed everything], BG II [where Kensai using a very specific wooden stick killed everything that moved in just few seconds, despite the class being "sword-saint"] P:T [where using Morte with proper dmg resistance gear allowed you to beat high level challenges in a very easy way], KOTOR and bla bla bla.

In all these games balance was non-existant. But only when one wanted it to be non-existant. In other cases, people had great fun, completely unrelated to the "equality" of all available classes.

So yeah, I take these games overy some balance-polished crappy-plot thing any day.

All in all yeah. These "balance this/balance that" posts remind me so much about the famous mmorpg rant.

   

[FlatCat]

In an actual pnp game a good DM could cater to those needs by adjusting the campaign on the fly so you can have some good time in the spotlight compared to other players. But in a video game you are having to go through the games static content and while there is level scaling there is no content scaling. If say for instance the game could "eyeball" your power level and lower the number of enemies (in DA's case it would be counting the number of mages...) that would alleviate some of the problems. In DA, assuming you submit to the encounters normally, is not like Fable. The game pretty much demands you are powergaming to some degree or you will simply not survive whether it is through munchkinesque cheese like pulling and kiting or mage nukes.

[F-C]

it seems some people will never understand no matter how many times you rehash the same points over and over, so i dont see much point in arguing endlessly over it.

the only thing i would suggest to these players that perhaps an mmo game would suit your tastes more, where the developers spend years balancing classes because of the player competition with each other, and how certain playstyles are forced down your throat.

bioware has already stated they arnt going to spend the development time on major class rebalancing, and the game is live with people already playing characters they enjoy and love. the only class changes you will really see at this point are to fix things that are bugged, such as archery not being adjusted on shipment due to elemental effects being added in, or how 2hd abilities arnt adding in elemental effects properly. things like that.

they are not going to change dao to your personal vision and trying to change dao into your vision, while refusing to use the toolkit to do so, is a rather futile endeavor and only serving to waste your own time while clogging up the forums with needless complaints.

the developers have told you that the game is balanced on their vision of DAO based on the lore and the world, and if you dont like something to use the toolkit to change it to suit your personal needs.

trying to explain things to you is also obviously equally as futile, and thats the bottom line on the issue, so there it is.