86 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

ohmaaan wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...
Which sounds great, but isn't going to solve the mage-identity thing, and it is a pretty significant factor in the setting.

That's actually very easy to solve. You just assign a point system for buying abilities, and you have to spend a number of points to open the mage tree up. That makes you a mage.

Not sure if serious or trolling...

I don't see anything wrong with giving the PC mage potential, whether or not they choose to use magic or ignore it. It's not exactly to the lore,but PCs are like that..

IF you looked at my AW in DA you would see someone in heavy armour using a sword. Nothing really screams out MAGE!!! unless you catch them in pre-combat buff.

People should react to the actions you take, not to your "class" that's just silly in many cases.

[andar91]

the_one_54321 wrote...

andar91 wrote...
To quote Wynne, "People don't become mages, they are born mages." You either have magic or you don't

Again, very easy to address. Limit mage to a level one ability selection.

Fair enough. It sounded like you meant you could just unlock the mage stuff on a level up. I think that's what the others were thinking as well.

Anyway, I prefer the class system personally. 

[AkiKishi]

andar91 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

andar91 wrote...
To quote Wynne, "People don't become mages, they are born mages." You either have magic or you don't

Again, very easy to address. Limit mage to a level one ability selection.

Fair enough. It sounded like you meant you could just unlock the mage stuff on a level up. I think that's what the others were thinking as well.

Anyway, I prefer the class system personally. 

As the PC you just give one point in each of the talent trees , the PC has the potential to be anything. I'm sure lot's of people have latent magic talents , but it only needs 1 to be a PC.

[TheJediSaint]

In KOA, you were, quite simply, a one-man army. Dragon Age has always been about party-based gameplay. If the PC can fill any role he or she wants, then specialized companion characters tend to lose their utility.

Which is why classes are here to stay. When you choose a class for your player character, what you're choosing is the role that you character is going to play during combat. So Warrior is AOE DPS/ Tank, Rogue is single-target melee/ranged dps, and Mage is Crowd Control/ Nuker/ Healer.

Now I wouldn't be against having hybrid specializations that somewhat blur the lines between classes, so long as they serve the established roles of each class. So Templar would be Warrior with a dash of mage, Duelist would be a Rogue with dash of warrior, and Arcane Warrior would be a mage with a dash of Warrior.

[Maria Caliban]

You know, if we got rid of the party and combat...

[the_one_54321]

It's a complicated but not impossible matter to create your own classes through ability sections, and thus fill out the tactical party combat applications. classes make this less variable, but much easier.

[AkiKishi]

TheJediSaint wrote...

In KOA, you were, quite simply, a one-man army. Dragon Age has always been about party-based gameplay. If the PC can fill any role he or she wants, then specialized companion characters tend to lose their utility.

Which is why classes are here to stay. When you choose a class for your player character, what you're choosing is the role that you character is going to play during combat. So Warrior is AOE DPS/ Tank, Rogue is single-target melee/ranged dps, and Mage is Crowd Control/ Nuker/ Healer.

Now I wouldn't be against having hybrid specializations that somewhat blur the lines between classes, so long as they serve the established roles of each class. So Templar would be Warrior with a dash of mage, Duelist would be a Rogue with dash of warrior, and Arcane Warrior would be a mage with a dash of Warrior.

Party members already had specialised skills that forced them into certain roles. Hawke was always better at that role than any one party member. That will still be the case if you focus your points in one role, rather than spreading them out. Points + respec simply removes the straightjacket, there are very few actual changes.

It's an easy way to embrace the casuals without actually compromising much of anything.

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...
It's an easy way to embrace the casuals without actually compromising much of anything.

I think a class system is much more casual than a classless system. It's much easier to build a numerically broken character with a classless system.

[TheJediSaint]

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
It's an easy way to embrace the casuals without actually compromising much of anything.

I think a class system is much more casual than a classless system. It's much easier to build a numerically broken character with a classless system.

^ This, even a sub optimal warrior is going to be a pretty good warrior.  In a classless system, your character will either be a gimp if you don't know how to min-max, or a god of war is you do.

[philippe willaume]

The problem with classes arise only when the skill/talents/perks they get are not linked to game play but linked to visual effect. (ie weapon, skill/talent restrictions and iconic look)

That has for effect to have a much more monolithic and stereotyped char which end up with less options both in combat and in RPG.

The thing is that instead of being a limiting factor the “class” should be a flavouring factor.

If we take
Warrior being heavily armoured combatant
Reduces movement penalties than every one gets when using light /medium or heavy armour/weapon

Rogue being lightly armoured sneaky combatant
Reduced movement penalties when sneaking

Mage being usre of mystical forces.
From favoured school/phylum reduced mana cost

It should not be a matter of what class can do what but how each class do what.

For example sneaking (every class cant take it)
According to armour and weapons
Speed reduction, penalties to be discovered and stamina cost.

For the warrior taking sneak would mean that he can reduce the detection chance in heavy amour
For mage taking sneak would mean that he use spells to make it less likely to be discovered
For the rogue other than class bonus, can use penalties reduction for any weapons from a know weapon style

[philippe willaume]

TheJediSaint wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
It's an easy way to embrace the casuals without actually compromising much of anything.

I think a class system is much more casual than a classless system. It's much easier to build a numerically broken character with a classless system.

^ This, even a sub optimal warrior is going to be a pretty good warrior.  In a classless system, your character will either be a gimp if you don't know how to min-max, or a god of war is you do.

no not really either is just as broken to that same effect. 
cf mage in DA:0. Suboptimal char in DA:2 are super tedious to play and ultimate build are zipping through the game.
phil

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
It's an easy way to embrace the casuals without actually compromising much of anything.

I think a class system is much more casual than a classless system. It's much easier to build a numerically broken character with a classless system.

That's why I suggested putting respec in. In DA2 it was all to easy to build a gimp character and not have a way back.
A tooltip suggesting that beginers focus on one tree is all you need.

[AkiKishi]

PurebredCorn wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

People should react to the actions you take, not to your "class" that's just silly in many cases.

Not really. Bloodmages or mages in general should get a reaction from people who see your character using their powers... a very negative one given the general opinion on magic in Thedas.

Thats what I said.. If they see you using magic they react. If they just see you wearing a robe and carrying a staff they don't.

[TheJediSaint]

BobSmith101 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
It's an easy way to embrace the casuals without actually compromising much of anything.

I think a class system is much more casual than a classless system. It's much easier to build a numerically broken character with a classless system.

That's why I suggested putting respec in. In DA2 it was all to easy to build a gimp character and not have a way back.
A tooltip suggesting that beginers focus on one tree is all you need.

DA2 already had a repec system, just drink a potion and all your stats were refunded.

[the_one_54321]

philippe willaume wrote...
no not really either is just as broken to that same effect. 
cf mage in DA:0. Suboptimal char in DA:2 are super tedious to play and ultimate build are zipping through the game.
phil

It's much easier to end up with a suboptimal character in a classless system. There are many more options that are suboptimal paths.

BobSmith101 wrote...
That's why I suggested putting respec in. In DA2 it was all to easy to build a gimp character and not have a way back.
A tooltip suggesting that beginers focus on one tree is all you need.

You're still expecting them to do numerical building with a higher probability of taking a suboptimal path. It's always going to be harder when you take the rails away and let people roam free. People screw things up when they make their own decisions. Unless they are hard core into numerical character building.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're still expecting them to do numerical building with a higher probability of taking a suboptimal path. It's always going to be harder when you take the rails away and let people roam free. People screw things up when they make their own decisions. Unless they are hard core into numerical character building.

The problem was more in the stats than the skills anyway.

[Sharn01]

mutermath wrote...

ohmaaan wrote...
 I also heard someone mentioning that when you're a bloodmage people will know it instead of just saying nothing, as was the case in DA2...I think thats a big improvement.

Really? that happens? i never noticed, have to play the game again

I am not sure what game he is referring to, but games usually fall into one of two catergories when it comes to classes and both are slippery slopes.  Your character has no sign over his head telling the world what class he is, classes in and of themselves are not actually job titles and do not exist in the actual game, they are a game mechanic for the benefit of the players.  A rogue or warrior could be called a warrior by townspeople when they  see someone walking around town with weapons, even a mage could be called a warrior in many circumstances, anyone can be called a rogue if they have a reputation for doing rougish activities.  No one can identify a mage by sight, let alone a blood mage even if they see them casting spells. 

Then you have games where the reverse is true, (DA2) where you can literally call down a firestorm from the sky in front of templars and they wont take notice.  Of course Templars can teleport, materialize from thin air and drop from the sky so who knows?  Sarcasm of course with the last sentence for those who didnt catch it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's much easier to end up with a suboptimal character in a classless system. There are many more options that are suboptimal paths.

I don't see this as much of a problem at all.

It would also encourage lesser use of encounter and loot scaling, and perhaps even a shallower power curve, so that makes it an even better idea.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't see this as much of a problem at all.

Maybe not for you or I, but in keeping the game playable for a wider audience, it could potentially be a huge problem.

[CuriousArtemis]

I think for DA the only stipulation should be mage or non-mage. Mage means you can use magic; non-mage means you can't.

Both characters should be able to utilize other forms of fighting, if the player chooses to build them up in that way.

I'd love to have a mage who could fight with his staff in addition to wielding magic, for example, and maybe also wield a bow.

[philippe willaume]

the_one_54321 wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...
no not really either is just as broken to that same effect. 
cf mage in DA:0. Suboptimal char in DA:2 are super tedious to play and ultimate build are zipping through the game.
phil

It's much easier to end up with a suboptimal character in a classless system. There are many more options that are suboptimal paths.

BobSmith101 wrote...
That's why I suggested putting respec in. In DA2 it was all to easy to build a gimp character and not have a way back.
A tooltip suggesting that beginers focus on one tree is all you need.

You're still expecting them to do numerical building with a higher probability of taking a suboptimal path. It's always going to be harder when you take the rails away and let people roam free. People screw things up when they make their own decisions. Unless they are hard core into numerical character building.

 
 
Yes I see where you are coming from. in the absolute you are correct.

The caveat is that my warden in DA:O  and in fact all the companion were sup-optimal but closer to what I wanted to play. As opposed having to play a THW vanguard/berseker/reaver in DA:2
what I am getting at is that is if the systems let you play to the "strength" of the build, a vast number of suboptimal build will be viable. Usually classless systems are better at that,
 
Now let’s bring Oblivion up and we have a very good example of the point you are making. But equally DA:2 without optimal built makes you loose the will to live.
I think the pain threshold of suboptimal build/RPG build is mitigated by the game system itself.
So it is not necessarily only inherent to classes or non-classes


phil

[the_one_54321]

philippe willaume wrote...
I think the pain threshold of suboptimal build/RPG build is mitigated by the game system itself.
So it is not necessarily only inherent to classes or non-classes

I see what you're saying. The playability of the game will be judged by the numeric value of the obstacles vs the numeric value of the party. So, in a game you could still have playability with the worst possible numeric value of the party so long as the the numeric value of the obstacles is still lower.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't see this as much of a problem at all.

Maybe not for you or I, but in keeping the game playable for a wider audience, it could potentially be a huge problem.

Not if the game doesn't require dramatic increases in character effectiveness throughout the game.

Look at Obllvion.  Obvliion had a classless system, and it also had extreme level scaling.  But it also had an easily breakable levelling mechanic.

As designed, an Obvlivion character would grow more powerful and gain levels at the same rate, so that the scaled content (which was scaled to the character's level) would remain appropriate.

As you correctly describe, a badly built character (but one that didn't break the levelling mechanic) would grow more powerful much more slowly than it gained levels, thus causing the scaled content to become far too powerful far too quickly, rendering the game unplayable.  This is a classic gimped character.  And this is what people think of when they deride classless systems.  They imagine players buidling characters badly and being punished by the game for it.

But it need not be so.  A character in Obvlivion could (even accidentally) break the levelling mechanic.  This allowed the creation of some badly built character who gained levels rarely if ever.  Those characters would grow powerful very slowly, but the content would scale with them very slowly.  This produced a balanced game with a shallower power curve.

Also, an Oblivion character would be well built while still breaking the levelling mechanic (I did this by accident with my very first Oblivion character).  This character grows more powerful at something close to the rate intended by the designers, but rarely if ever gains character levels.  Since the character doesn't level-up, the content does not scale with him, and he quickly becomes vastly more powerful than most things he might encounter.

This teaches us that a classless system need not punish bad builds.  Either tie the scaling system to something that actually represents character ability, or employ a shallower power curve such that no creature is ever vastly more powerful than another, no matter how well or badly designed they are.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Look at Obllvion.

Yehch. No thank you.