491 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sabariel wrote...

The loot drops are already terrible. No real loss there

That's my point though.

If you like iconic armour, you get stuck in garbage for long periods of time (under your proposed system) or you're forced to switch out. 

[Reno_Tarshil]

I still don't see the issue with having various iconic looks per companion while having the option to equip gear you pick up and having the stats added.

[guardian of hades]

AL-istaria wrote...

I don't mind iconic looks, but why can't a character have several iconic looks?

During DA:2 I just kept thinking about how much the NPC's clothes must stink after 7 years. Anybody messing with them would just drop dead from passing downwind.

Thats basically the idea behind the compromise.  You have the choice of choosing between different iconic looks (skins) - without penalty - while still being able to get the statistical boost from the armors.

[Eollodwyn]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Eollodwyn wrote...

Out of curiosity, Fandango, how would you feel about the system that Laidlaw said was being considered, where equipped armor would have an effect on the look of the iconic armor?



Edited for spelling.

This is going to sound like a complete copout I know, but it really would depend on how well Mike’s system was implemented. In any case, as someone who is actually icon ambivalent, my preference would always be for an Origins style system (I just didn’t enjoy the restriction of choice in DA2). I am (just about) open minded enough to be persuaded otherwise, but any system would have to make me (and not Bioware) the absolute arbiter of my partys aesthetic.


EDIT: Given the option, would you have changed the Iconic appearance of at least one of your party members in DA2?

No, it's not a copout.    It's still very early on and we haven't seen it in action, so it is hard to form a definite opinion.  Personally, I think that if they managed to do it well it would be the best compromise.  I wonder if any of the other pro-visual customization people would be more amenable to that system.  Anyone?

Honestly, there wasn't a single companion whose look I would have changed.  That's not to say I liked all their looks.  The piece of chainmail on Bethany's abdomen struck me as more cumbersome than useful, and Isabela's outfit was laughable.  But even if I disliked the outfit I never wanted to change it.  Once a character has an image in my mind I can't stand to change it; they just don't feel the same.  That's why in Origins I let Morrigan go with substandard armor nearly the whole game just to keep her look.  None of the other characters had that in DA:O.


That said, I was disappointed when armor upgrades had no visible effect on the armor in DA2. 

[GodWood]

Go go strongly negative !

[Dianjabla]

That's a compromise I'm more than happy to live with. I'd like more than one option per act - even if it was less than two. I particularily like this part:

Mike Laidlaw said....

Followers will have their equipment slots restored and armor you equip in those slots will have the expected statistical impact on the follower, including enchantments, bonuses and base armor stats, along with requirements to wear the armor applying. As per above, adding armor pieces to these slots will not impact the follower's appearance directly, only their statistics.

Additionally, we are experimenting with armor equipped to the followers having some additional visual impact on the follower's iconic appearance, but we'll dig deeper on that as we get closer to a final implementation. As a general rule, you should expect that any deviation from the ideas outlined above would be towards more visual customization, rather than less.

[Reidbynature]

Reno_Tarshil wrote...

I still don't see the issue with having various iconic looks per companion while having the option to equip gear you pick up and having the stats added.

It could end up feeling a bit cheap (but still not as bad as DA2's system).  I think the potential drawback of the new proposed system could be that there are only a few possible changes per companion with the iconic looks and couple that with unlocking them under special circumstances (if that's how they're acquired), then they may feel as token as DA2's few changes in looks.

I still think that this problem would be solved if they stopped with the cloning of armour sets that both previous Dragon Age games used a lot and actually have a whole range of varied armour designs.  Although I'm not against having the armours look different on your companions than they do on your player character.  That way they could give companions a somewhat iconic look, but keep their armour equipping ability.

[kingjezza]

This is like going from being poked in the eye to poked in the chest, yes being poked in the chest is better than being poked in the eye but considering I wasn't being poked at all originally then I have a hard time seeing how it's any sort of step forward.

[willholt]

There's one percent missing on the poll?

It reads 48% positive ... 44% negative ... and 7% neutral .... That's 99%

OK, own up, who stole the 1%?  

[Eollodwyn]

willholt wrote...

There's one percent missing on the poll?

It reads 48% positive ... 44% negative ... and 7% neutral .... That's 99%

OK, own up, who stole the 1%?  

A wizard did it? 

[Maconbar]

Eollodwyn wrote...

willholt wrote...

There's one percent missing on the poll?

It reads 48% positive ... 44% negative ... and 7% neutral .... That's 99%

OK, own up, who stole the 1%?  

A wizard did it? 

No. It's just another example of BW cutting corners knowing that the sheeples won't mind.

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

And how many times do we have to point out that Aside from Avernus's Robes (which Morrigan can wear if she wants!) there ISN'T any armor in DA:O that helps blood magic anyway, so I don't understand that gripe.

1) Blood magic depends on CON. It is the blood mage mana pool. Items that pump CON (i.e. Reaper's Vestments) increase the mana pool of your blood mage. As well, since you cast from health, DMG resistance becomes important. Robes that increase armour (i.e. Reaper's Vestments) become great.

So just because you have some very narrow outlook on how to build a character for an RPG does not mean that this system is not brutally restrictive.

Narrow, outlook, eh?    Maybe it's not a narrow outlook so much as it is me actually realizing that it's always  been rather easy to build a really *good*  Bloodmage  (or any type of mage)  regardless of how many  bonus Con points  (or whatever) a piece of armor bestows upon you.

It's called accurately distributing your stats every level up.  Which has nothing to do with your  mage's Armor.... or at least it didn't in DA:O.  DA2, of course,  introduces a ridiculous system whereas mage robes have a Magic And Willpower requirement in order to equip.    Which is another silly, forced limitation to  character customization, but I digress...   lets resolve  the iconic gear issue  before   moving on to the other 10,000 flaws that DA2 introduces

In Exile wrote...
2) Saying that she can "just wear the robes" is really insulting. Because the whole point is that those of us who want iconic looks want Morrigain to keep her iconic apperance independent of the statistics.

 
You mean  independent of specific properties that  a  given mage robe will bestow... and regardless of whatever  specific type of build we have in mind for that character.

I would think that the devs  would be smart enough to make a character's iconic gear be a little bit more statistically customizable, while at the same time,  litter the game with decent alternative equipment for the rest of us who happen to DISLIKE the iconic look.

Or is that too insulting for you, Exile?

In Exile wrote...

And it doesn't matter anyway.  Builds are made optimal in both games  by amulets, rings, Belts,  weapons and talents....

Exactly. So it's optional whether or not you actually will design any character but Aveline to be a tank. Does it bother you that everyone but Aveline doesn't look like a front-line fighter? Then don't design them that way!

But the system  Laidlaw is proposing doesn't give us that choice!  Regardless of  of their stats, or what you equip on them, your characters will not change their looks. 

[Zeevico]

I don't mind if, say, the companions had jewellery or what have you, or some distinctive part of their wardrobe that stuck no matter what armour they wore. But changes in armour= changes in look.
Just imo.

[Siven80]

I support it.

Iconic looks to companions is fantastic, with the added bonus of being able to equip other loot for stats too.

It's a win win for me as long as the companions have several outfits to choose from as i vastly prefer iconic and unique looks for companions to help them stand out from the crowd and become known outside of the game also.

I do admit that i would prefer companion specific items and item sets available from shops and loot drops rather than just equiping the random loot you find around for stats, but as long as the iconic looks stay i'll be happy.

Modifié par Siven80, 02 septembre 2011 - 01:50 .

[Blastback]

In Exile wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
Sounds to me like this specific gripe of yours has everything to do with the loot drops themselves, and absolutely nothing to do with  whether  or not customization is better than set iconic  gear (what we're discussing).

It certainly has a lot do with iconic looks. Because so far, the "ideal" compromise you talk about is DA:O with an iconic outfit for each character.

But  since these two issues arn't mutually exclusive, the plainly simple solution is to  Allow for complete companion customization, then create better drops.  Problem solved.

No, not "problem solved". Because "better drops" doesn't begin to cover the problem. Even if you somehow ensure that there is a level appropriate item in each dungeon at the pace of other loot, so that you can constantly keep the outfit updated (or just make it level up with your character) you still have a problem of the quality of the loot. 

And how many times do we have to point out that Aside from Avernus's Robes (which Morrigan can wear if she wants!) there ISN'T any armor in DA:O that helps blood magic anyway, so I don't understand that gripe.

1) Blood magic depends on CON. It is the blood mage mana pool. Items that pump CON (i.e. Reaper's Vestments) increase the mana pool of your blood mage. As well, since you cast from health, DMG resistance becomes important. Robes that increase armour (i.e. Reaper's Vestments) become great.

So just because you have some very narrow outlook on how to build a character for an RPG does not mean that this system is not brutally restrictive.

2) Saying that she can "just wear the robes" is really insulting. Because the whole point is that those of us who want iconic looks want Morrigain to keep her iconic apperance independent of the statistics. 

Saying we have a choice between losing the iconic apperance and having better gear is, is just patronizing. 

And it doesn't matter anyway.  Builds are made optimal in both games  by amulets, rings, Belts,  weapons and talents....

Exactly. So it's optional whether or not you actually will design any character but Aveline to be a tank. Does it bother you that everyone but Aveline doesn't look like a front-line fighter? Then don't design them that way! Problem solved. And this isn't patronizing at all, because it's absolutely the same solution you'd offer, but with a better system for those of us who like iconic looks. 

How about this, take the basic system Yrkoon is proposing, and have the iconic outfits not only level up with the charater but react statisticaly to whatever build the player is constructing? 

Yes I realise this is likely totally unrealistic, but hey, it's nice to dream right?

[kingjezza]

willholt wrote...

There's one percent missing on the poll?

It reads 48% positive ... 44% negative ... and 7% neutral .... That's 99%

OK, own up, who stole the 1%?  

I think if we are going to have polls with more options than just positive, negative and neutral then they always need to be reported correctly, if you had just read your post then somebody might think most people had voted for positive when in reality most people have voted for strongly negative, I realise you're not trying to pass the result off as in someway positive yourself but others (those who agree with Mike Laidlaw and don't want full party customisation) might do.

Strongly Negative 38%
Strongly Positive 26%
Positive 18%
Negative 11%
Switzerland 7%

You're not losing your 1% now either, it's come back

Modifié par kingjezza, 02 septembre 2011 - 01:54 .

[willholt]

kingjezza wrote...

willholt wrote...

There's one percent missing on the poll?

It reads 48% positive ... 44% negative ... and 7% neutral .... That's 99%

OK, own up, who stole the 1%?  

I think if we are going to have polls with more options than just positive, negative and neutral then they always need to be reported correctly, if you had just read your post then somebody might think most people had voted for positive when in reality most people have voted for strongly negative, I realise you're not trying to pass the result off as in someway positive yourself but others (those who agree with Mike Laidlaw and don't want full party customisation) might do.

Strongly Negative 38%
Strongly Positive 26%
Positive 18%
Negative 11%
Switzerland 7%

You don't lose your 1% this way either

I actually made a mistake ... I should have said 48% negative, 44% positive and 7% neutral ... my mistake and apologies.

Oh, and for the record, I'm in the strongly negative camp... so it REALLY was a simple mistake.

... and someone already put the 1% back

Modifié par willholt, 02 septembre 2011 - 01:56 .

[kingjezza]

willholt wrote...

I actually made a mistake ... I should have said 48% negative, 44% positive and 7% neutral ... my mistake and apologies.

Oh, and for the record, I'm in the strongly negative camp... so it REALLY was a simple mistake.

... and someone already put the 1% back

Oh right, that teaches me for trusting your maths doesn't it

[Gotholhorakh]

Personally, I'm just not enthusiastic enough about this change to wholeheartedly support it.

I guess as a compromise, halfway to "what I don't want" (waaa) it works, and I can see that they want to make armour less modular for technical reasons, so I half-heartedly support it.

[Rockpopple]

Totally on board with this compromise.

[SoulRebel_1979]

Negativo good buddy.

[Il Divo]

This is *exactly* what I've wanted Bioware to do and I'm glad to see the idea is under consideration. It's the approach Obsidian took with Kreia in KotOR 2 and I think it represents the best possible outcome: iconic appearance, with statistical customization.

[Whatever42]

I support this.

In reality, I didn't care that much that I couldn't equip the party in all slots. However, whenever I got items unsuitable for my class that I couldn't equip in my party, I cursed the Bioware gods.

[Il Divo]

In Exile wrote...


2) Saying that she can "just wear the robes" is really insulting. Because the whole point is that those of us who want iconic looks want Morrigain to keep her iconic apperance independent of the statistics. 

Exactly. This was the case in KotOR (and other Bioware games). I like Canderous' initial outfit, which I thought fit him very well. However, it had absolutely no stats attached. Lo and behold, I discover Durasteel Body Armor, which provides a whopping 10 AC for my character. I'm forced to choose whether I want Canderous to appear different or to possess gameplay effectiveness, which I am not a fan of. What if I want him to possess both?