75 réponses à ce sujet

[BelgarathMTH]

I appreciate the skill with which the OP's "article" has been written, although in a few days, this whole thread will probably be 5 or 6 pages down in the forum, and therefore effectively dead.



I hate to see someone expend so much care, thought, hard work, and effort into such an ephemeral medium as a forum.

[Jordi B]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Jordi B wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...
snip

I think you're going in the completely wrong direction with this. I agree with your initial observation that it is the versatility that makes mages so awesome. For me, the most logical "solution" would be to make warriors and rogues more awesomer by making them more versatile and not to make mages less versatile.

Then the game really would be "too easy" if every class were as powerful and versatile as the mage and we would probably want to see numbers scaled back across the board.  I'm running a nighmare warrior right now and the game is about the same difficulty as my Hard mode run through.

I agree that this would indeed likely present a lot of balancing issues. It's just that if two things are created unequal, it always seems preferable to me to make the bad thing better rather than the best thing worse. If you would want to patch this game it is likely much easier to nerf mages (although that would also require some rebalancing for the people who struggle on Easy). However, if considered as general ideas, or perhaps suggestions for a next game, I would very much prefer if warriors and rogues are made more interesting, rather than mages less. Kind of like you're proposing below.

Faerell Gustani wrote...

However, I did have another thought to add versatiliy to Rogues and Warriors.
Introduce 3 new things.
1. A single weapon tree category.
This means 12 new abilities for both Rogues and Warriors that involves boosts for fighting with a weapon in 1 hand.  This tree should also have some disarm/grappling/takedown techniques.

2. Implement a new weapon type called "Hand and a Half" or "Bastard Swords".  Weapon that is the length between Greatswords and Longswords.  This weapon has versatility: the abiliy to be wielded one handed or two handed, but at the sacrifice of raw power.
*It should have an accuracy penatly when wielded one handed.
*it should have damage boost (but less than that of a Greatsword) when wielded in 2 hands.

This truly shines with the new single handed weapon tree.  Holding a single bastardsword, you can take your pick of 2-hander and single weapon techniques as you are able to use both simultaneously.

3. Dual weapon and Shield fighting synergy.
Fighting with 3 weapons is similar in many regards as fighting with a shield (I'm not talking about turtlers, but people who will bash you with there shield).  Allow shields to be considered an "off-hand weapon" and allow them to be used with Dual Weapon skills, but this is only possible if all Shield Sustained abilities are disabled (no turtling if you want to attack!)
Similarly, allow Dual weapon wielders to enter a "florentine" stance (replace one of the dual wielding mastery trees).  This sustained ability flips your off hand weapon into a reverse grip and treats it like a shield.  While in this mode you gain increased defense (not as good as a real shield) and can use Shield Talents.

How about that?

I agree that a single handed school/tree is sorely missing. I also like your other ideas. Especially the different modes/stances can make things very interesting. The only thing that might be a (tiny) problem is that this still limits warriors and rogues more than mages (I think), since mages never get their sustainables disabled. This could be remedied by making most sustainables very general or polymorphic. With polymorphic I mean that a talent might change depending on the weapons you wield. For instance, there could be a talent that protects against arrows. If you have a shield, it protects really well and you can still fight with your main hand. If you have just one weapon, it protects worse and you can't attack, because you use your weapon for arrow deflection. If you have two weapons, it protects a lot worse, since you have to deflect the arrows with your off-hand weapon, but you can still attack. This talent is now usable for everyone. It is better with a shield, but I'm not yet sure how I feel about that. In the worst case we would still have the same situation that we have now (that it's not really feasible to mix and match), but on the other hand, it would probably be boring if different weapon styles only have different animations and are the same otherwise (if taken to the extreme).

[kroosaydur]

Brian Chung wrote...

There's a toolset for the PC you can download and mod the game with.
You can change the whole combat system via script, including how stats affect damage and spells.

Have fun, let us know how it turns out!

lucky you have an excuse to be lazy with your game. bethesda does the same thing. though at least the way classes work in elder scrolls makes imbalance almost impossible.

[Kaosgirl]

kroosaydur wrote...

Brian Chung wrote...

There's a toolset for the PC you can download and mod the game with.
You can change the whole combat system via script, including how stats affect damage and spells.

Have fun, let us know how it turns out!

lucky you have an excuse to be lazy with your game.

:roll:

We should consider ourselves lucky that they even bothered to provide toys which let us tweak the game to our tastes.  

[Laceit]

Hell, I would just like to see the ruleset laid out, CLEARLY.

[Jormungand3r]

you could tweak the skills and attributes system til the end of time and someone would be unhappy with something. there are tons of imbalances in dragon age but they really dont detract from th

[Stronghold II]

Brian Chung wrote...

There's a toolset for the PC you can download and mod the game with.
You can change the whole combat system via script, including how stats affect damage and spells.

Have fun, let us know how it turns out!

 My God I love you Bioware people.

[SamuraiWindu]

 

Brian Chung wrote...

There's a toolset for the PC you can download and mod the game with.You can change the whole combat system via script, including how stats affect damage and spells.

Have fun, let us know how it turns out!

For the record, I have already started turning these ideas into a mod.

BelgarathMTH wrote...

I appreciate the skill with which the OP's "article" has been written, although in a few days, this whole thread will probably be 5 or 6 pages down in the forum, and therefore effectively dead.

I hate to see someone expend so much care, thought, hard work, and effort into such an ephemeral medium as a forum.

Getting lost in the dribble is the eventual outcome of any well written post.  However, this was never my concern as this forum was not the original audience the article was written for.  I posted it here in the hopes that somebody may find it useful.

I do not wish to pick on any one individual by quoting them, but I will say this:  Those that lack the attention span or the mental acuity to read and understand the original post have nothing to contribute to this thread and would do everyone here a favor by not burdening the rest of us with their incompetence.

Modifié par SamuraiWindu, 07 décembre 2009 - 03:36 .

[Stronghold II]

HA He thinks you are all incompetent!!



Take that people that are more dumber than he is!!



Take it!!!

[Cream_Poof]

I'm with Bioware's response. If you don't like the game as it is then change it to how you want to play it!

[JackDresden]

I started to read this up until the point magic got replaced with intelligence, once I realised how unorigional the posters first big innovation was I couldn't be bothered to read the rest. I mean why should magical ability be a function of intelligence?

[Magic Zarim]

JackDresden wrote...

I started to read this up until the point magic got replaced with intelligence, once I realised how unorigional the posters first big innovation was I couldn't be bothered to read the rest. I mean why should magical ability be a function of intelligence?

Exactly! Clearly mages that call forth deamons and get possessed by them lack the intelligence for basic risk assessement! Clearly dwarves being incapable of magic are intelligent enough to create a marvelous underground city and build anvils that give life to Golems!

[Jordi B]

SamuraiWindu wrote...

Getting lost in the dribble is the eventual outcome of any well written post.  However, this was never my concern as this forum was not the original audience the article was written for.  I posted it here in the hopes that somebody may find it useful.

Could you elaborate on what you did write it for? Some interesting site with lots of articles like this, I hope?

SamuraiWindu wrote...

I do not wish to pick on any one individual by quoting them, but I will say this:  Those that lack the attention span or the mental acuity to read and understand the original post have nothing to contribute to this thread and would do everyone here a favor by not burdening the rest of us with their incompetence.

I used to think that too, and for many topics I still do. However, since lots of people won't want to read a long post such as this and the ones that do take a long time, topics like this are likely to fall off the front page extremely rapidly. This prevents interested people from reading them as well. So I found that it helps to just think of these non-contributing posts as bumps for an otherwise interesting topic.

Great that you're making this into a mod by the way! Let us know how it turns out!

[StuBurn]

With regard to the Combat Tactics skill, this is to give ADDITIONAL Slots. the characters naturally gain slots as they level anyway so these are to represent your ability to give orders to people, their own ability in combat increases through experience so I think this skill is anything but useless.

[Titanmike357]

Well, god job on the write up, I read most of it. Twas a good read.

[Jordi B]

StuBurn wrote...

With regard to the Combat Tactics skill, this is to give ADDITIONAL Slots. the characters naturally gain slots as they level anyway so these are to represent your ability to give orders to people, their own ability in combat increases through experience so I think this skill is anything but useless.

The problem is not that the skill is useless, but that people see the number of available tactics slots as an interface issue. Like the number of slots you can have on your quickbar, or as mentioned in this topic, the sensitivity of the mouse. I tend to agree with them because of the AI and how Tactics play out in this game.

Looking at it in another way though, I can definitely see why BioWare went this route and I think the idea of experience/training helping characters make better tactical decisions is very interesting.

[CrnaOvca]

I read it all



Some nice suggestions there, but I do not agree with some. Biggest one I do not agree with is changing the attributes. Mages get more mana already because they put points into willpower, while fighters and rogues need dexterity, strenght and constitution and cannot afford willpower.



I think this is already balanced enough.

[Gecon]

Stats are about choices. If you want stats being choices, you would want to have something like (for Mages):

- Strength: Spell Casting Speed, Resist Casting Interrupts by Damage
- Dexterity: Mana Regeneration, Effectivity of Mana Potions, Power of beneficial Spells (Heals/Buffs/Shapeshifts)
- Willpower : Mental Resistance, Basic cost of Spells
- Magic : Power of Offensive Spells
- Cunning: Prereq of higher level Spells, Manacost for higher Spells, Recast timer duration (should reset out of combat btw)
- Constitution: Mana Pool Size

Now I would actually have a choice to make on a Mage. I can be good in one field, but then I lose in others. Which route will I take ? Will I just focus on one stat ? How will I compensate for shortcomings in one field ?

The changes the OP did look rather random and chaotic to me. He just blurrs the stats to no useful end, making it less important what stat you actually level. But choices should matter - they should give clear advantages and come with clear sacrifices.

Since the player only has control over the main character’s dialog,
obviously the player would not want to invest skill points in Coercion
with other characters.  But this means that the main character must
sacrifice skill points just to gain control over plot options. 
This just seems silly to me.

Instead, Persuade and Intimidate options should rely solely on cunning and strength respectively.

Agreed on the 100% silly part about the main character has to invest into Coercion. But thats a very old argument and the way its suggested here it is no fix, as the player has now to invest in Coercion / Strength. This is just as silly because now Mages stand no chance to ever get good social skills, while Twohanded warriors and Lethality Rogues have a very easy time with it.

It should be possible for the player to decide if he wants to be more social. And if he wants to, then he should gain some combat advantages from it.

So Coercion should be kept, but taking it should give the player also some "leadership" advantages in battle. Something like a general bonus on attack and defense, for example. Even better would be the possibility to pick up special "commands" during the course of the game, where the effectivity depends upon your Cunning Skill and your level in Coercion. An example would be the basic command "All out !" and the group would increase its damage dealt by lowering defense, attack and crit chances. Or a "Fall back!" that is a very short time total immunity buff - cant deal damage, wont take any either - that lasts only 10 seconds on a long recast timer. Maybe then theres 10 different commands and you can pick one every 5th level (and one first level).



The whole issue of skills ... meh. They definitely suck big time in DA. Having only 4 steps in them means you cannot have all the skills at level 1. Which is a major suckage for any Rogue who is supposed to be skill specialist ... no ? D&D did that extremely much better, IMHO. You can invest in Int to get more skills. You can have all skills at the start.

But your suggestions only make the problems worse. Yes Stealth and Traps should be skills. But this doesnt resolve the central issue that a level 1 Rogue cannot do what he should have been training for. And that the Rogue, of all characters, is the one that cannot buy Coercion because he needs so dearly other skills. Also, as I found out recently, without Coercion you're even losing every dialogue no matter how high your Cunning is.

The whole issue sucks big time and I cant think of a good way to fix it.



Talents and spells obviously need some hefty redesign too.

[Rolenka]

Brian Chung wrote...

There's a toolset for the PC you can download and mod the game with.
You can change the whole combat system via script, including how stats affect damage and spells.

Have fun, let us know how it turns out!

Haha. I think that's dev speak for "NO U."

[Jordi B]

I like Gecon's attribute proposals. They would make for nice an tough choices and more variety, although I think some of the effects don't really 'fit' with the attribute name, but oh well...



I think Coercion is just supposed to give you the equivalent of 25 Cunning/Strength when it comes to dialog options, so having just high Cunning should also do the trick in some situations (although 25 is of course a lot).

[SamuraiWindu]

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

SamuraiWindu wrote...
Consider the following set of attributes: Power, Accuracy, Defense, Energy, Perception, and Health.  It is bluntly obvious as to the utility that they provide any character, and in a strictly mechanical sense this attribute scheme might prove superior. 

 I cannot consider your proposal since you didn't specify what those attributes would do. Their names might seem self-explanatory but the same goes for Constitution, Magic and Willpower. All of them have different content in each game so without specification, the proposal cannot be assessed.

You are absolutely correct.  Since you bring it up, I will clarify.  Power contributes to raw damage of weapons and talents, and spellpower.  Accuracy represents attack score.  Defense is defense score.  Energy grants stamina or mana.  Perception grants armor penetration and mental resistance.  And health grants hit points and physical resistance.
This attribute scheme would simplify the attribute roles significantly.  But this is a purely hypothetical attribute scheme, which ultimately would not suit Dragon Age: Origins.  This argument was admittedly a tangent which I included to give perspective.  It has no direct influence on the attribute scheme I suggested.

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...
As far as I know, Spellpower = Magic - 10. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Spellpower also gains bonuses from all staves, certain specializations, and certain spells, which would raise it higher than the bonus granted by Magic.

Johohoho.Ehehehe wrote...

SamuraiWindu wrote...
Another related issue is that Animals do not have access to any skills.  I feel that they should definitely be able to learn Survival and Combat Training. 

Why?

Survival implies a connection with nature and relies on the senses.  I think of animals (specifically the Mabari War Dog) as having a connection with nature and excellent senses.  Combat Training represents practice and expertise in combat.  I would think any creature, including animals, would be capable of such training.

[VanDraegon]

A nice post OP. Looks like you put a lot of thought into it. Give the toolset a try and try out your ideas.

kroosaydur wrote...

Brian Chung wrote...

There's a toolset for the PC you can download and mod the game with.
You can change the whole combat system via script, including how stats affect damage and spells.

Have fun, let us know how it turns out!

lucky you have an excuse to be lazy with your game. bethesda does the same thing. though at least the way classes work in elder scrolls makes imbalance almost impossible.

So, since they dont cater to the every complaint of anyone with a disagreement about the way they designed their game they are lazy? rofl.

The tools are there to remake the game, given away free by the designers, to mod the game as anyone sees fit. Instead of callying them lazy, make something better yourself. If you are capable. If not, best keep the insult in check.

We will be waiting with baited breath....

Modifié par VanDraegon, 08 décembre 2009 - 01:06 .

[onefutui2e]

what i got from reading this:

DA:O is like a watered-down NWN or BG in terms of gameplay such as character creation, itemization, etc., but is on par in terms of storyline (two of the main branches i use to determine games, you may have more). if that summation works for you, then i totally agree. for starters, 3 races + 3 classes is like a drop in the bucket compared to the older games. sure, you can branch out, but that's a very narrow range of options regardless (i.e. i can't be a warrior + blood mage). i also remember when playing a mage was probably the most complex and tactical thing you could do.

but the game is watered down to appeal to the mass public. while i don't really mind spending two hours creating a character in NWN (conservative estimate) and maybe 10 minutes on each subsequent level-up, there are many people who don't want to be THAT involved in what they would see as minor details. to them, they just want to play the game and enjoy it. unfortunately, gone are the days of small studios churning out awesome games. EA is a publicly traded company and as such is profit-driven. they would rather lose a few niche players (or deal with their subsequent forum rants) than turn away a larger overall market.

BUT, that being said, i think this is a good compromise. it pales in comparison to NWN and BG, but it still beats most other games on the market now.

Modifié par onefutui2e, 08 décembre 2009 - 01:19 .

[Gecon]

Jordi B wrote...

I like Gecon's attribute proposals.

Well, it wasnt really a proposal, more a demonstration. For a proposal, I would have to spend more thoughts on the whole issue.