80 réponses à ce sujet

[kingthrall]

myth 2 is best game ever made, dragon age is like a 2 year old toddler compared to the constant patching and balances implimented alongside the massive user based imput of retextures

[Mahumia]

I would like to have an option to bring more party members along. Now I'm usually running around with the same party members, whilst an option for a 5th or even 6th party member would mean I can switch around some more. I mean... I feel a bit sorry for those who you recruit, just to leave them at camp and do your cooking for you

[Takrandro]

simply 1 more member to tag along would do wonders in playing the game, since your MC would't be forced in a role and spec like it is now, like, as a mage, u simply need frost and healing spells unless u let a 2nd mage tag along to get those while u try out other talents, witch limits your interaction with other members or forces u to take only the same warrior simply couse u wound't otherwise survive(shale or sten come to mind.

And maybe adding 1 or 2 exstra mages would be nice since 2 mages(not counting MC) only just sucks... not to mention Morrigans spec....

[AsheraII]

Shatter77 wrote...

Have to agree with Gecon here. It may not be absolutely impossible to play without a healer, but you'd have to be pretty crazy to go without on your first play through. Oh, and I've never played WoW. I would gladly sacrifice a little dialogue for more party members though.

I did on my first playthrough: I played rogue, Morrigan only knew DPS spells, and I killed Wynne when I met her in the tower. Impossible? Not at all. Yes, you need quite a stack of pots, but since my whole team was DPS heavy, opponents dropped a lot faster as well. Oh, and I didn't put a single point into potion making either, so all I could craft were the small pots. But the bigger ones dropped regularly enough anyway.
Having played BG years ago might have helped me keep control of the fights though. But just saying: it is possible to play without a healer. It's not even extremely hard. Just a little bit harder (but also faster!) than the standard setup.

[biowherewolf]

i'm playing without a healer now. It's not so bad.



As to the party members... why would adding more members mean adding more characters? All it means is that you can bring more with you and leave fewer in the camp.



Six would be good. Five, even, would be be better. Four is ok, but I agree with the OP. It seems rather random and a little too little.



--B. Where.

[deathwing200]

Bioware balanced the game to be able to be beaten without a healer to allow people to play the game without requiring a particular class. Sure, dedicated healer might make things easier, but it's not necessary on any difficulty.

[J.O.G]

There is no healer anyway, any mage can do healing, as can a potion. The Spirit Healer just makes things easier by being able to bring an unconscious tank back into the fight, at the cost of occupying a place in the party and thus making that tank indispensable in the first place.

As for "fun" chars. The Dog isn't really a fun char, he's a brute force damage dealer with crowd control and competes with Sten, Oghren and Shale for the same place in the party. It's also fun to roleplay your dog (i.e. mark your territory)

Modifié par J.O.G, 25 décembre 2009 - 01:55 .

[Baalzie]

Interesting that noone has picked up on the ropleplaying parts yet...

With 10 possible retainers *or companions if you so wish* They all don't get along well together... Why would Your char *not You as player but Your character* Want to force Morrigan and Leilana and Wynne and Zhevran together all the time?

Would frigging explode after just a few days...

Just because You want to force Wynne to heal while Morry freezes people, YOUR choice not hers mind You... And Zhevran to backstabpoison unaware toddlers while You beat their dads in the head with yer sheld...

I see possible personality crashes here don't You?



*Silly examples but meh! Gets the point across*



IF You wanted a 5 man party they would HAVE to add more possible companions, since more would need to fit together for Your playstyle,...

(Evil assassin/Reaver/Bloodmagetypes don't mix well with Wynne or Leli and Vice versa with Zhevran and Morrie, only total safecard is the doggie)



So uhm, 4 is enough... If they HAD made it for a 5 man party that'd been fine to, but uhm.... They didn't, so 4 is the best option for the game they actually made!

[Statue]

Agree with that sentiment Shatter77 - a decently challenging party-based tactical RPG should kind of entail that it requires the player makes sound tactical use of the differing roles and skillsets of available characters in an intelligent and co-ordinated way.

If it is just as sail-through-able on all difficulty settings with loads of tactical role redundancy in the party (4 identically specced meatshield tank warriors for example) then it would imply that it isn't designed to tax that aspect of coordination in tactical play - which would be a shame since a lot of the fun and tactical challenge in party-based play for many is to have to thoughtfully co-ordinate characters developed for different but complimentary roles.

It's why chess is more of a rounded tactical challenge needing co-ordination of the different roles and characteristics of the pieces than it would be with 16 rooks or 16 of any other single piece type instead.

Love them or hate them, some of the MMORPGs do quite a good job of setting challenges needing such role co-ordination (specifically the higher level raid content in games like EQ2). Not all party-based tactical RPGs need to go so far as some of those do in requiring role co-ordination, but I think designing a party-based TRPG without an eye to requiring tactical co-ordination (and I'm not saying DAO has entirely neglected it, I'm speaking about a hypothetical party-based game that completely didn't require any sort of multi-role co-ordination) would be to design a game that misses out some of the enjoyment and challenge that can be derived from the player having to co-ordinate those roles, and would render the 'party-based' component of the game odd - after all, if there's no need for co-ordination of multiple characters, there's less point in gameplay terms of having a party as opposed to a single player controlled character.

That said, I do understand how the 4 party maximum can make for more rewarding repeat playthroughs.

Modifié par Statue, 25 décembre 2009 - 07:17 .

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

I agree with the op, would be nice to have 6 or 8 party members rather than just 4, it makes the game more interesting as well in many different ways as it is.

To be honest it feels like you are way to limited with your characters... and also being forced to travel with the same companions over and over again with the only difference is for doing it other ways is to play other professions yourself, such as rogue or mage or whatever.

[fantasypisces]

Erm, I would say on Easy difficulty you don't need a healer, but on normal and up I find a healer to be pretty necessary unless you use and abuse poisons/traps/line of site (i.e. you play like a tactical pro).

There have been multiple times with were/wolves in brecillion, and spiders in Deep roads where one of my characters gets overwhelmed. I rush over and either do or do not get there in time to knock the monster off, as soon as the character stands back up, but before being able to take any other action, he gets overwhelmed again, and boom dead. Without a healer, that character is toast, doesn't matter how many potions you have. With a healer it doesn't matter, let those monsters overwhelm him as much as they want.



Same can be said for the Dragons. The only characters I have that are really able to stand up to the bite/grab are the PC and Shale. PC because he has the gear and all the extra stats (fade etc). Shale because she can't be picked up for some reason. Without a healer/mage that character is toast. With a healer you can toss a heal and shrug your shoulders, or if things get really bad, just forcefield the character.



People that say you don't need to play this game without a healer, I think, are a bit crazy, the sort of dare-devil extreme people.

[David Gaider]

I believe the main problem with a larger party isn't the fact that we need to design more NPC's, but rather that the graphical load of party members is greater than for any other model on the screen. This is mainly due to the "segmented" nature of the armor. Perhaps if each party member had a unique appearance that you could only partially change (like Mass Effect) that load might be lessened? I don't know -- it's not my field.



At any rate, the idea was to leave as much room for enemies-on-screen as we could. That's not the only reason for the 4-person party (we balanced it this way, and built the levels to accomodate a smaller group -- pathfinding gets harder the more people you have flitting around behind you) but it was indeed a major concern. 6-person parties are fun, but sadly opportunities for banter aren't everything when it comes to game design.

[Norman Ellis]

i finished the game on my first play through without a healer. i had me (2H warrior), Alistair as tank, Morrigan and Leliana about 90% of the time. and last time i checked, no i'm not crazy. yet.

i'm on my second playthrough now and i'm trying to incorporate Shale and Sten into the party. (i'm a dual-wield warrior this time). so far it's going great, everything and everyone is falling down so fast that i again don't need a healer.

i played normal on my first playthrough and now i'm playing on hard.

since 6 in a party is too much, why not compromise and have 5?

Modifié par Norman Ellis, 25 décembre 2009 - 04:43 .

[SleeplessInSigil]

I like the 4-member limit just fine, nothing lost, or really gained with 2 more.

Hell, you could even have just 2 members.

[fantasypisces]

Yeah, five would be my optimum size as well. Six is pushing it, for reasons Mr. Gaider stated, but five would have been perfect.

I did my first playthrough without a healer as well. I was an archer, which is already gimping the group a bit, and I did mostly easy with some normal and it was very difficult at time. My second playthrough (all normal), and my third playthrough (some normal, some hard, some nightmare), I did with a healer and it felt easier than on easy without one.



And I wasn't calling you crazy, I think I just worded it bad, I meant people that like crazy challenges.



heck, I'm (trying) to play a 4th playthrough doing another archer (because my first was boned), I'm on easy right now just because I want to get through the game, not deal with anything, and My character was taking a ton of damage in lothering, and Alistair has been dying right and left (i'm trying not to use any poultices, so I can save them up), and that's on Easy!

Really makes me dislike Archer (my dw warrior was practically soloing normal by level 3) and really makes me want healing again.

[heronice1]

4 is more than enough imo.



1 main tank (sten)

1 off tank (alistair)

1 crowd control (mage+healer)

1 dps (rogue)

[fantasypisces]

heronice1 wrote...

4 is more than enough imo.

1 main tank (sten)
1 off tank (alistair)
1 crowd control (mage+healer)
1 dps (rogue)

Out point is you are locked into that build, there isn't much room for variety if you want a balanced group. With five people, that 5th person becomes flaver, whatever would fit each individual's play-style.

[Pennoyer]

David Gaider wrote...

I believe the main problem with a larger party isn't the fact that we need to design more NPC's, but rather that the graphical load of party members is greater than for any other model on the screen. This is mainly due to the "segmented" nature of the armor. Perhaps if each party member had a unique appearance that you could only partially change (like Mass Effect) that load might be lessened? I don't know -- it's not my field.

At any rate, the idea was to leave as much room for enemies-on-screen as we could. That's not the only reason for the 4-person party (we balanced it this way, and built the levels to accomodate a smaller group -- pathfinding gets harder the more people you have flitting around behind you) but it was indeed a major concern. 6-person parties are fun, but sadly opportunities for banter aren't everything when it comes to game design.

Sounds like something to blame on consoles.

[fantasypisces]

Pennoyer wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I believe the main problem with a larger party isn't the fact that we need to design more NPC's, but rather that the graphical load of party members is greater than for any other model on the screen. This is mainly due to the "segmented" nature of the armor. Perhaps if each party member had a unique appearance that you could only partially change (like Mass Effect) that load might be lessened? I don't know -- it's not my field.

At any rate, the idea was to leave as much room for enemies-on-screen as we could. That's not the only reason for the 4-person party (we balanced it this way, and built the levels to accomodate a smaller group -- pathfinding gets harder the more people you have flitting around behind you) but it was indeed a major concern. 6-person parties are fun, but sadly opportunities for banter aren't everything when it comes to game design.

Sounds like something to blame on consoles.

Haha, so true.

[imikedoyle]

David Gaider wrote...

 That's not the only reason for the 4-person party (we balanced it this way, and built the levels to accomodate a smaller group -- pathfinding gets harder the more people you have flitting around behind you) but it was indeed a major concern. 6-person parties are fun, but sadly opportunities for banter aren't everything when it comes to game design.

Even with 4 players, two of whom are rangers with pets (my PC and Leliana), the path-finding gets a little strange sometimes. One or both the summoned bears get left behind quite easily.

This is a _great_ game. I played through first time as a warrior (sword and shield)
Almost done with my second play-through as a dual-wield rogue. This time I've added a couple of Mods to make things easier (the re-spec mod to further customise my companions, and the pocket-plane mod), but I plan to remove them again before I begin my third play-through as a Mage.

[Dieover]

geez.. the game is already made to be Ez-Mode already when you got a mage in your party that spec CC line, like Ice cone and other aoe stun... at lvl 15, i left my mage and tank out and just bring 2 of my companion (rogue and war dog while my main is a healer) to spic thing up and i'm luving it so far. Lots of benefits of doing that and I'm always welcome a good challenge even on nightmare mode.

Adding more party members than the original limit is like asking for  a "super very easy in difficulty mode"

Modifié par Dieover, 25 décembre 2009 - 06:34 .

[Statue]

Being concerned over the impact to difficulty is somewhat missing the point. People suggesting some advantages of a larger party size aren't suggesting it as something to make the game easier at all, and it wouldn't per se result in that if it was done as part of the overall design process; if they had designed DAO to have 6 characters they would have upscaled the challenge accordingly. Additionally, were the number/toughness of enemies upscaled alongside the increase to party size, there'd actually have been more scope to increase the difficulty by requiring a broader tactical approach, demanding even more co-ordination of specialized roles (in the same way that it's harder to have to co-ordinate all the differently functioning pieces in chess compared to co-ordinating the same number of pieces in draughts, and the same way that it was harder in MMORPG raids when the bosses required a broader range of classes within the raid group). If in a party-based TRPG you *have* to consider how best to employ a healer, a tank, dps classes, buffers, debuffers, mana-pumps, stamina-pumps, off-tanks, etc to overcome an encounter, it can be more tactically challenging than only having to consider how to employ a small subset of those specialised units (again assuming that the enemy being faced was scaled appropriately to reflect the party size, which I'd say it would have to be).

Yes, many do find DAO a little easy as is (I certainly do), but you can't really dismiss arguments in favour of a hypothetically larger party size merely by reference to that making the game easier, because whilst it would if it was the only adjustment made to the overall design, it sensibly wouldn't be - precisely to retain some challenge.
 
Design decisions like "how many party members should we have" and "how many enemies shall we throw at the player" and "what level bad guys should we throw at the player" aren't made in total isolation from each other - if they were we'd never get a game with a reasonably set challenge.

Modifié par Statue, 25 décembre 2009 - 08:10 .

[Tirigon]

Takrandro wrote...

simply 1 more member to tag along would do wonders in playing the game, since your MC would't be forced in a role and spec like it is now, like, as a mage, u simply need frost and healing spells unless u let a 2nd mage tag along to get those while u try out other talents, witch limits your interaction with other members or forces u to take only the same warrior simply couse u wound't otherwise survive(shale or sten come to mind.
And maybe adding 1 or 2 exstra mages would be nice since 2 mages(not counting MC) only just sucks... not to mention Morrigans spec....

The "necessary" warriors you mention show why this argumentation is wrong. According to most other posts, Sten is the most useless member eva, and Shale is disliked by many (including me) too.  Yet you take them as example for members you definitely need. What does this show us?
Right. What is necessary and what not is only personal opinion, not implemented in the game.

[simonc4175]

Shatter77 wrote...

Of course I'm not original with this gripe, but hey. Why is it that unlike older D&D games, everything new that comes out has a party limit of just 4 characters. It frustrates me because it makes party compositions so very predictable and fixed,
boring even. There is no room for 'fun' party members, like Dog. Of the utmost importance is to fill the Tank, Rogue, Mage (crowd control) and Healer roles which leaves zero room for anything else. To make a long story short: this sucks!

Once you completed the game and know the strats to bosses then you can be more flexible next time.

Think of DA:O like a MMO where you need the Tank, Healer as main classes but the third can really go to anyone when you know what to do.

Sten as sush is a bit useless untill he can pick Reaver etc.  On my current playtrough I got Ogren earlier and he so far has tanked both the Dragons,  before I used Shale for her defence.

I always try to mix and match to liven things up though.

[Dieover]

Statue wrote...


Yes, many do find DAO a little easy as is (I certainly do), but you can't really dismiss arguments in favour of a hypothetically larger party size merely by reference to that making the game easier, because whilst it would if it was the only adjustment made to the overall design, it sensibly wouldn't be - precisely to retain some challenge.

You find that easy that's because you got a full party, that to me already mean running on handicap mode to have that much players to fight a bunch of scripted AI regardless of their size.

If for instance I tactically able to beat a very tough boss with only 3 in Nightmare mode, imagine what I would accomplish with 4 that's isn't a mage and tank heavy?