80 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonRageGT]

It's fun exploring the possibilites of party formation. I like a lot a full melee party or a non-mage party like I had for my latest NM run, not the current when I'm "in love with Morrigan" again... last time was Leliana so she never left the party, specially with that perv Zerv loose in the camp!

My 2h, Alistair, Sten/Oghren and Leliana starred some cool movies... even the full melee party did it too.

And one can always use a console comand to have all possible party members too. I did it in BG after a solo run... used them more like pack mules though.. hehe

Modifié par RageGT, 25 décembre 2009 - 09:39 .

[Torias]

fantasypisces wrote...

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.

And completely false. Dragon Age had a 4 person party long before a console port was considered.

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

Just make it an viable option for the PC then... basically it cannot take to long creating X amount of triggers to load in more monsters as well as a beyond 4 player party limit it would for sure increase the gameplay for alot of us, complexity is what is needed for the PC... not kindergarten gameplay with lesser stuff to do as it is sadly enough, none offense meant to the console people by all this, no idea how this games work on a gamepad or whatever kind of control they got for them consoles.

[Neotribe]

Can someone from Bioware comment on how deeply coded the 4 character limit is? It would be nice to see it moddable in player created areas--the party selection screen would just show additional slots when you arrive in the zone.

While the main campaign has a lot of content when measured in hours, for me its replayability is limited as it always consists of the same identical encounters with the order shuffled around a little. There isn't enough variation/branching/etc. After the second playthrough, I'd even venture to say that it becomes downright *boring.* Whatever DLC Bioware develops will be completed within days of release. So long-term the more Bioware can do to help fans embellish the game, the better. Why not let modders try their hand at making 6-character friendly modules/campaigns? Hardware might be a barrier now, but that's a moving target. With every season, the average setup improves. The coming push to Win7 will also trigger a lot of upgrades (justified or not.) 

Even if this is a PC only feature, added down the road as DAO starts to age, it would be welcome--die-hard mod communities being PC-centric.

Modifié par Neotribe, 26 décembre 2009 - 02:26 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

My only problem with the party builds, Mr. Gaider, is that you guys put way too many warrior types and not enough rogues and mage types. Throughout the whole game only 2 mages and 2 rogues join the party with the rest being warriors. A lttle more variety in the classes would have been nice.

Alistair-  Warrior
Oghren-  Warrior
Sten-  Warrior
Shale-  Warrior
Dog-  Warrior
Loghain-  Warrior

Wynne-  Mage
Morrigan-  Mage

Leliana-  Rogue
Zavran-  Rogue

It is a bit unbalanced.

Modifié par Killian Kalthorne, 26 décembre 2009 - 03:46 .

[Fadook]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

My only problem with the party builds, Mr. Gaider, is that you guys put way too many warrior types and not enough rogues and mage types. Throughout the whole game only 2 mages and 2 rogues join the party with the rest being warriors. A lttle more variety in the classes would have been nice.

Alistair-  Warrior
Oghren-  Warrior
Sten-  Warrior
Shale-  Warrior
Dog-  Warrior
Loghain-  Warrior

Wynne-  Mage
Morrigan-  Mage

Leliana-  Rogue
Zavran-  Rogue

It is a bit unbalanced.

True, but also indicative of another problem with the game. There aren't enough classes. With greater variety in classes, the 4 member limit wouldn't seem as constricting.

[Statue]

Aye I think the design of classes was made so they are more multi-class/flexible than is typical in an effort to compensate for the 4 character limit. So instead of a wider range of purer-build classes like healers, buffers, etc. that you get where party sizes are bigger we have classes that can be built to perform multiple roles. The breadth of roles within each class makes sense in the context of the lower party size, though I'm not sure a smaller party with multi-roled characters allows for as strong a tactical challenge as a bigger party with more specialised characters.

[tomas819]

Personally, I like the party size as it is. The prospect of doorway and tunnel clogging with larger parties does not appeal to me at all. Moreover, the game has a lot more "replayability", imo, with different party members.

I have enjoyed playing larger (8-person) parties in Guild Wars and Dungeon Siege but really that is WAY too large and unwieldy a group for a rich, story-intensive game like DA:O, imo.

To add better party variety to this game, I wish Bioware had given *some* healing abilities to bards (sort of like minstrels in LotRO), some chest-opening abilities to melee classes (e.g., "break locks"), and some stealth/trap detecting and disarming abilities to mages (using something like the "mouse form" in the Circle quests), thus allowing players to "mix it up" more in their party compositions. Such "hybridizations" would help the game a lot, I think.

Rogue -- DPS/Healing (i.e., revitalizing songs)/Stealth/Locking-picking/Trap detecting and disarming
Mage -- DPS/Healing/Stealth/Trap detecting and disarming
Warrior -- DPS/Tanking/Lock- and doorbreaking

To me, this would address the issue of nearly always needing at least one rogue, one warrior, and one mage in a given party and hereby really open the game up to all sorts of interesting party combinations.

------

I also wish they had included one more mage and/or rogue companion character, instead of so darned many warriors.

Finally, I really think Dog should have been gained (via quest) as a "summonable" pet (costing stamina or mana, like the ranger's wolf, bear, etc.), only the ability could ONLY be acquired by the player character. From a lore standpoint, you could say that Dog was always in the party; he just likes to "wander off" now and again. (He would differ from the ranger pets, however, in that he would be nameable and have customizable talents and stats.)

Modifié par tomas819, 26 décembre 2009 - 05:30 .

[Ibian]

Lughsan35 wrote...

twelfthMonkey wrote...

My biggest problem with the party limitation is that I feel I'm missing out on creative content the developers worked hard on.
The honest truth is, if I devote 50 or 75 hours to playing a game, I'm probably not coming back to it any time soon once I've completed the story.... unless it's an absolute classic. I'm going to guess that most people are the same.
So with only 4 slots, I'm missing out on some interesting characters, like Sten, and Dog. I'm playing without Morrigan, too, because I'm playing a mage.
Two more party slots, like the original BG had, would be perfect. Sure, you have to draw the line somewhere, but 4 means I'm missing out on a lot of hard work that the devs put into the game.

That is precisely the reason why the limit is there.. if you need variety you can get it in your next playthrough.. I for the very first time did a complete second playthrough immediately after the first one...

I have never done that in any single player RPG...ever, and I have been playing them for 30 years :blink:

This strikes me as a bad argument. With 6 (or 8, or even 10) party slots, if the game is worth playing again, it will be played again. There is no reason we should have to play through it FOUR times just to hear all the npc banter. Frankly i find the very idea insulting.

[4bs.zer0]

Baalzie wrote...
(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)

In my playthrough, Wynne didn't have any problem with my main character being a blood mage. In fact, she didn't have a problem with herself and Morrigan being ones as well.

[Nightsoul1]

I like the way the party system is set up. My only complaine is not being able to have dog along all the time. I dont really feel he should be counted as a party member, cause after all. dogs folllow you around no matter what

[4bs.zer0]

fantasypisces wrote...
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.

There's really no rule that says you have to go with tank/healer/cc/dps setup. Fifth party member who's only purpouse would be to provide "flavor" wouldn't _really_ affect "your individual play-style". I mean - what's so different between "tank/healer/cc/dps" and "tank/healer/cc/dps/flavor" setup, in terms of play style?

Instead, why not make a "flavor/flavor/flavor/flavor" setup and really meet your individual play-style? 4 slots is enough, imo.

My first playthrough - I did Shale,Wynne,Morrigan and MC was full primal blood mage. No, Shale wasn't really tanking - he was only there to give Stone Aura while mages aoed the entire game (not much fun, btw).

My second playthrough, I'm going for Alistair,Sten,Oghren, and MC 2h warrior.

[4bs.zer0]

Fadook wrote...
True, but also indicative of another problem with the game. There aren't enough classes. With greater variety in classes, the 4 member limit wouldn't seem as constricting.

I find 4 slots quite alright, but  I agree - really poor variety of npcs.

Also, mage is like 3 classes crammed into one. Having only 2 joinable mages only makes it worse.

[Dieover]

well said zero.



My first playthrough consisted of Dog as my tank, Rogue my dps and my main a spirit healer. Loving it! it give so many challenge in so many area without playing on Ez-mode aka a full party consist of tank and long range dps.



some of you should try it and tell me what yall think

[4bs.zer0]

tomas819 wrote...
Rogue -- DPS/Healing (i.e., revitalizing songs)/Stealth/Locking-picking/Trap detecting and disarming
Mage -- DPS/Healing/Stealth/Trap detecting and disarming
Warrior -- DPS/Tanking/Lock- and doorbreaking

For the locks, there are a couple of mods that deal with exactly what you're saying:

http://www.dragonage...file.php?id=157
http://www.dragonage...file.php?id=301

Problem with locked chests is that there is never, ever anything interesting in them. :-)

[blaalindorm]

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.

Get a better graphics card?

[stillnotking]

It is absolutely not the case that you "need" a dedicated healer and tank.  Nor do you "need" a rogue for chests, as previously mentioned (though it does help with money).  You can beat this game on NM with NO tank and NO healer, and not even much potion spam except on some boss fights.  With good use of tactics and abilities you take very little damage.  It amazes me how few people seem to realize how useful traps and poisons can be, for example, or that you don't necessarily have to fight everything right where it stands.  But I digress.

The real problem with not having a mage isn't a lack of healing, anyway, it's a lack of ranged CC, which makes caster-heavy enemy groups a good bit more difficult.  But again, there are ways around this.

Throughout the whole game only 2 mages and 2 rogues join the party with the rest being warriors. A lttle more variety in the classes would have been nice.

One of the names you posted is a pretty big spoiler.

Anyway, Dog and Shale are not "warriors", they have unique abilities.  You're also overlooking talent builds, which make a dramatic difference in how the character plays.  It's not like Leilana and Zev have comparable roles in a fight (unless you use a respec mod or waste a ton of points).

[FireWynd]

Having played BG & BG2 and NWN2 - I definitely prefer a 6 person party. Four to me is very limiting.



I do recognize that having 6 would likely increase system requirements (as has been pointed out earlier). But this obviously was not a concern / problem for BG, BG 2 and NWN 2 (possibly others that I have not played).



Despite what some have said, I believe that it was limited to 4 likely because of consoles (every RPG that bioware has done that was released to console has 4 player limit or less), and possibly due to development time. If find this disappointing, and would like to see more classes, more class depth (see NWN 2), and larger parties (along with the ability to control party formations and party member ordering).



However despite what I would consider some faults - the game is overall the best RPG I've played since NWN 2. I like it much better than Mass Effect which was very very repetitive and tedious (land, explore another planet in land rover... rinse & repeat 100x).



Anyway great game. Would love to see 6 party members in say DAO 2?

[Valkrist]

Four party limit is nonsense and  f*ing lazyness by the dev team, explain how the f*ck you get attacked on the road by bandits as your WHOLE PARTY IS TRAVELING AND FOUR PEOPLE DEFEND AGAINST A HUGE GROUP OF ENEMY while what? The rest of your merry band is jerking off in the tent? Mass Effect 2 was a masterpiece DAO is garbage.  Traps in stupid places, or how about this, you kill every merc in camp and none of them carry the keys to their own chests? Who's the genius behind this logic?

Modifié par Valkrist, 31 mars 2010 - 06:43 .

[Johnson45]

Valkrist wrote...

Four party limit is nonsense and  f*ing lazyness by the dev team, explain how the f*ck you get attacked on the road by bandits as your WHOLE PARTY IS TRAVELING AND FOUR PEOPLE DEFEND AGAINST A HUGE GROUP OF ENEMY while what? The rest of your merry band is jerking off in the tent? Mass Effect 2 was a masterpiece DAO is garbage.  Traps in stupid places, or how about this, you kill every merc in camp and none of them carry the keys to their own chests? Who's the genius behind this logic?

You say that a four party limit is nonsense and then say that ME2 was a masterpiece... ME2 only allows you to have a party of 3...

[k9medusa]

I like the 4 party members idea, it forced one to think about how to use their skills / class. Also, it will get more mileage out of the game (aka replays) -- This I do it, 1st time I play the game, I used the same party (more or less) for the whole game. On my 2nd (where I am now), I never used those party members, thus I make a total different party makeup and add new ideas to some of the old ones -- ie shank things up a bit. For example, this time around, I am using Sten and where I do my 3rd time around, i will be using dog, not Sten -- therefore after all 6 stories, I will have used all the party members at once for a good chuck of the game.

[Speakeasy13]

So this thread is official resurrected huh? Nice.



Flamer aside, I do agree that 6 should've been the proper limit to party size, simply because THAT WAS SUCH A STAPLE IN THE INFINITY ENGINE GAMES. It would've brought tears to my eyes if I were to ever get my hands on another game that plays and feels the same way, the nostalgic value will be overwhelming.

[CybAnt1]

I'd settle at the moment for a pseudo 5th "slot" which could be a temp slot. In other words, you'd have four "perm" slots for perm companions, and a 5th slot that could be used for pets (like Dog), summons, illusions, and various redshirts/temps. You should be able to set tactics for whatever's "inhabiting" that slot, though, and level it up, if it can be levelled up, and assume full control. (The current Dog Slot mod only "borrows" a summons "faux" slot.) Basically the 5th slot should be for things without approval bars. (Yes, Dog had an approval bar, but it was pointless and unmoveable.)



I'd also like a fourth class, it would make the choice of "who to bring" in your 4 slots a more interesting one.



BTW, I would argue Dog and Shale are essentially warriors - just differently done ones - Shale gets warrior abilities and Dog also gets them on console. I never did get why Shale didn't have skills, though, although I understand Dog not having them. (Although he could have had Find Bone and Annoy Companion skills.)

[CybAnt1]

BTW, when I experimented with using the "addparty" console code, which lets you break the 4 char limit (you can have other chars appear, but they get no icons on the side) -- and tested running around with 6 just for the heckuvit -- I can tell you that some battles went awful slow, it was sometimes like watching fights through molasses. So I believe the argument about how 6 onscreen 3D chars are pushing the edge of current graphics.

[AlainNagel]

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.

Maybe this problem would be a great solution for people who find the game too easy: if you leave out companions or would go all by yourself , you automatically get more enemies.