86 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Do we really need classes?

I can't say that they are strictly requierd to have a good role playing experience, but I prefer to have them. They outline a template of uses and limitations that make character creation and application quicker and easier while still being effective.

Maybe, or it can work the other way as you have to figure out three times "what's effective for warrior?" and "what's effective for rogue?" and "what's effective for mage?"

Or, if you play DDO, you have to figure this out TWELVE times (soon to be THIRTEEN when druid comes out this summer).  AND you can multiclass. Granted, it's an MMO, they want you to play forever and ever and ever and ever.  Having a billion and one potential character builds is one way to keep it interesting.

I think that classless systems work well in non-party-based games, where you as the PC kind of do need to (at least potentially) have access to everything.  In a game that's designed with the idea of you having a party in mind, the class system works quite well.  It isn't ALL about what your PC can do.

Now, I wouldn't mind if they allowed a little more overlap in roles between classes.  I love me some mage tank and rogue/warrior CC.  But I don't think the class system itself is going to get thrown out.

[H. Birdman]

Seems like this would involve sacrificing believable characters for what would, admittedly, be an intriguing gameplay mechanic.

"Hi, I'm Steve from Orlais. I'm a 35 year old thief. I've never visited a mage's circle, much less been in one, but it seems I now have the ability to shoot fire from my hands." You can do that in KOA or Skyrim because nobody cares about the characters or the story. In a BioWare game, not so much.

I'd prefer keeping classes but allowing more leeway in what they can eventually learn to do. Arcane Warrior allowed a mage to become a passable tank. Why not have a high-level specialization that lets a rogue become a passable healer? Or lets a sword and shield warrior learn some brutal one-on-one criticals?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Look at Obllvion.

Yehch. No thank you.

I hope you actually read my comment, rather than thinking I was suggesting Oblivion's design was something to be copied.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Look at Obllvion.

Yehch. No thank you.

I hope you actually read my comment, rather than thinking I was suggesting Oblivion's design was something to be copied.

I did. You were talking numeric curves and the comparison between combat ability and level scaling.

[Sharn01]

I still believe level scaling is a bad design regardless, there is no reward for gaining levels if everything scales with you. The only time I ever had a level scaling system that I thought was pretty good was when enemies had a set level, and when the player outleveled them they would gain additional levels at half the rate of the player, this still allowed them to be dangerous but allowed the player to feel like they where becoming more powerful. Of course this only works in a system where a level 15 enemy can actually be dangerous to a level 20 character.

[Mclouvins]

Sharn01 wrote...

I still believe level scaling is a bad design regardless, there is no reward for gaining levels if everything scales with you. The only time I ever had a level scaling system that I thought was pretty good was when enemies had a set level, and when the player outleveled them they would gain additional levels at half the rate of the player, this still allowed them to be dangerous but allowed the player to feel like they where becoming more powerful. Of course this only works in a system where a level 15 enemy can actually be dangerous to a level 20 character.

In any stat driven rpg level scaling comes with the territory. Whatever game you were thinking of still used it but it may not have been as noticable because the character prgoression wasn't as severe. The disparity between a  Hawke of level 20 compared to a level 1 vs. a level 20 to 1 Revan is greater and as such things like enemy scaling become more noticable. The only other ways to provide difficulty balance would be to either do a massive amount of work to AI's or to increase the number of enemies encountered, both of which in a non-linear game would seem to be incredible undertakings and the latter would make the game akin to Dynasty Warriors by the end.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mclouvins wrote...

In any stat driven rpg level scaling comes with the territory. Whatever game you were thinking of still used it but it may not have been as noticable because the character prgoression wasn't as severe. The disparity between a  Hawke of level 20 compared to a level 1 vs. a level 20 to 1 Revan is greater and as such things like enemy scaling become more noticable.

You're still comparing games made in the last 10 years.  Go back farther, and scaling disappears entirely from some games.

Some games still used scaling.  The original Might & Magic would present a high-level party with an encounter of 99 enemies.  And Ultima IV, considered by many the greatest CRPG of all time, withheld many high-level enemies from wandering encounters until the PC had reached certain milestones.

But not all of the game was scaled.  The dungeon rooms in U4 were fixed encounters.  If you met 5 dragons in a particular room, you always would have met 5 dragons in that room, regardless of when you reached it.

And even the wandering monsters were not so tightly scaled as to render each encounter of similar difficulty.

You're only looking at recent games, so you're not seeing how earlier games handled this problem.  Ultima Underworld was entirely unscaled, but it was also heavily gated (in ways that made sense within the game's reality).

Modern CRPGs have adopted features which have become default positions in the minds of designers and gamers alike, but that doesn't mean they're good features.

[astreqwerty]

i want classes

[LegendaryBlade]

Yes, we do

[G00N3R7883]

In my mind, the solution is to have MORE classes.

Take a look at how many classes there are in the likes of Baldurs Gate or NeverWinter Nights. Okay we might not be able to use those class names because of the D&D licence. I agree that the DA system of "warrior, rogue, mage" is very limited but I wouldn't want to go totally classless. Other games make it work, but I don't think it suits DA.

Modifié par G00N3R7883, 11 avril 2012 - 09:05 .

[AkiKishi]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

In my mind, the solution is to have MORE classes.

Take a look at how many classes there are in the likes of Baldurs Gate or NeverWinter Nights. Okay we might not be able to use those class names because of the D&D licence. I agree that the DA system of "warrior, rogue, mage" is very limited but I wouldn't want to go totally classless. Other games make it work, but I don't think it suits DA.

When you break it down a class is just a selection of skills. By getting rid of the classes, you can be any class you like. It's just a case of naming certain points combinations and giving them bonus abilities, not too different from specialisation.

[esper]

BobSmith101 wrote...

G00N3R7883 wrote...

In my mind, the solution is to have MORE classes.

Take a look at how many classes there are in the likes of Baldurs Gate or NeverWinter Nights. Okay we might not be able to use those class names because of the D&D licence. I agree that the DA system of "warrior, rogue, mage" is very limited but I wouldn't want to go totally classless. Other games make it work, but I don't think it suits DA.

When you break it down a class is just a selection of skills. By getting rid of the classes, you can be any class you like. It's just a case of naming certain points combinations and giving them bonus abilities, not too different from specialisation.

There is a lore distinction between mage and non-mage. It cannot be broken without your characther being a mage.

[AkiKishi]

Sharn01 wrote...

I still believe level scaling is a bad design regardless, there is no reward for gaining levels if everything scales with you. The only time I ever had a level scaling system that I thought was pretty good was when enemies had a set level, and when the player outleveled them they would gain additional levels at half the rate of the player, this still allowed them to be dangerous but allowed the player to feel like they where becoming more powerful. Of course this only works in a system where a level 15 enemy can actually be dangerous to a level 20 character.

Not all games scale, Xenoblades for example sticks level 70 creatures in the starting area.. They are in out of the way spots, but make go to the wrong place without paying attention and you are in a world of hurt.
Other than that, you really need scaling in non-linear games because the game will either force you down a linear path, or the difficulty will become a joke.
Scaling while not perfect does mitigate that, but there are probably ways around it in a non sandbox game.

[AkiKishi]

esper wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

G00N3R7883 wrote...

In my mind, the solution is to have MORE classes.

Take a look at how many classes there are in the likes of Baldurs Gate or NeverWinter Nights. Okay we might not be able to use those class names because of the D&D licence. I agree that the DA system of "warrior, rogue, mage" is very limited but I wouldn't want to go totally classless. Other games make it work, but I don't think it suits DA.

When you break it down a class is just a selection of skills. By getting rid of the classes, you can be any class you like. It's just a case of naming certain points combinations and giving them bonus abilities, not too different from specialisation.

There is a lore distinction between mage and non-mage. It cannot be broken without your characther being a mage.

There are a number of ways around that especially given the events in DA2. There are a number of "odd" things in the class systems like restrictions that don't really have a real world basis and are there purely as mechanics.

[Frankaidenryan]

I really want to keep the classes. What Bioware has done with DA is much more elegant than the multiclassing mess that was the norm in Neverwinter Nights, where a strategic build would require one level of 'monk' for instance. I loved the specialisations in Origins.

In fact, what was said at the DA panel at PAX, that specialisations would likely be limited to just one per character and have a much bigger impact on the game seems like a great idea.

[Clertar]

Frankaidenryan wrote...
In fact, what was said at the DA panel at PAX, that specialisations would likely be limited to just one per character and have a much bigger impact on the game seems like a great idea.

That really is great news.  I always thought specializations became too "cheap" when you could pick more than one. If you can choose only one, it becomes more important. In DA:O I ended up spending specialization points just because (by the end of DA:A I had given my mage the Shapeshifter and Blood Mage specs and he never activated their first ability; the same with the companions), and in DA2 I would also have done that if characters had gone up to 30ish level. One richer, "heavier" specialization tree like those of companions in DA2 would be nice, especially so if it has an impact in the story.

[Frankaidenryan]

I agree, and I also would love to see, for instance, talent tress that really branch out into epic power moves for later levels instead of having to take talent points into different talent trees just because there's little choice to spend it on anything else ( a problem my rogue frequently had, as he didn't like archery and didn't like stealth either. He was a brutal knife artist). A single specializatio tree could accomodate just that.

[Shared]

They could maybe remove the rouge/warr class, and just let you criss cross this. But in the DA universe you actually need to have at least two "classes" one that can use magic, and one that cant.

[Frankaidenryan]

Rogues and tanks are two very seperate entities and I would really want to keep it that way.

I was, however, dissappointed that I could not have Fenris or Carver switch to weapon/shield and Avaline couldn't use two handed weapons. Since I really favor customization, I would definitely want that option back.

Oh, and the finishing moves! I really miss those so much. An enemy just bursting into five parts is NOT a finishing move like the awesome ones we had in Origins.

[Taleroth]

BobSmith101 wrote...

When you break it down a class is just a selection of skills. By getting rid of the classes, you can be any class you like. It's just a case of naming certain points combinations and giving them bonus abilities, not too different from specialisation.

Yes, a class is just a selection of skills. But it's a designed collection of skills. It's easier to give players synergistic packages than it is to overload them with options and hope they can parse what works well.

Ideally everything should be synergistic with everything else. But I'm not so sure they're prepared to tackle that particular wall.

That said, if they just took all of Dragon Age 1 or Dragon Age 2's skills and dropped the classes, that probably wouldn't be bad. Though the strongest synergies of that setup probably wouldn't be the most iconic ones.

Modifié par Taleroth, 11 avril 2012 - 02:28 .

[philippe willaume]

Frankaidenryan wrote...

Rogues and tanks are two very seperate entities and I would really want to keep it that way.

I was, however, dissappointed that I could not have Fenris or Carver switch to weapon/shield and Avaline couldn't use two handed weapons. Since I really favor customization, I would definitely want that option back.
.

That is the problem when talents selection strictly depends upon class that only have a mechanical effect  .There are no ways around it.

Now DA3 system, ideally, needs to cater for two types of player.
Either you want to play the char concept that you want or you want to maximize the char concept proposed.
So some like want to keep tank and rogue separated some want to play much more blurred char.
 
 
Fundamentally, you need to realise that class and mutually exclusive limited talents are really the same concept applied with a different presentation level.
Choosing mage class is equivalent to disabling mêlée and ranged weapons talents selection when choosing a type of magical talent.
 
The next things are that classes need to match player aspirations.
Ie a warrior is anything from fully armoured, awesome damage dealer against one opponent, to a tank proper, to a sneaky scout to a kensai.
 
So the warrior class should be able to use any weapons any armour and non combat stealth.
The rogue class could then be able to use light weapons, light armour and combat and non combat stealth
 
That leaves us with the problem that both rogue and warrior being combat class, there is clearly a damage dealing and damage taking issue.
There is way around that by using different directing attribute to drive defence and offense and altering the critical chance and critical damage
So you could get some of the more roguish warrior type falling into the rogue class.
A Kensai is really a rogue with a two handed sword or a scout is then a rogue that can use medium armour.
But a kensai will be more efficient than a normal rogue due to his two handed weapon (unless than the damage base of the rogue one handed weapons is actually bigger than two handed weapons but this is then reversing the problem)
 
Of the game is playable with suboptimal build that would not be so much of a problem though it is likely to be too easy for optimal build.
 
The way to get out of that is to have class’s talents/perks that are truly synergic and truly class defining.
And the rest of talent/perks to be usable by all class.
 
phil

[AkiKishi]

Here is a clip of the character creation from DW6. I'm posting it mostly because of the different animations you can get and how in DA2 it was fixed to classes.

[philippe willaume]

BobSmith101 wrote...

esper wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

G00N3R7883 wrote...

In my mind, the solution is to have MORE classes.

Take a look at how many classes there are in the likes of Baldurs Gate or NeverWinter Nights. Okay we might not be able to use those class names because of the D&D licence. I agree that the DA system of "warrior, rogue, mage" is very limited but I wouldn't want to go totally classless. Other games make it work, but I don't think it suits DA.

When you break it down a class is just a selection of skills. By getting rid of the classes, you can be any class you like. It's just a case of naming certain points combinations and giving them bonus abilities, not too different from specialisation.

There is a lore distinction between mage and non-mage. It cannot be broken without your characther being a mage.

There are a number of ways around that especially given the events in DA2. There are a number of "odd" things in the class systems like restrictions that don't really have a real world basis and are there purely as mechanics.

I do agree with you BobS101
but Esper point is that in Thedas "real world" mage have a special edcuation ie they do not have access to the same skillset as the rest of the population.

I.E choosing a magic connected skill/talents tree/perks should have an effect on the cost or the avaliability of non magical talent. ideally that should vary foe being an apostate or a good chantry boy/girl.

phil

[the_one_54321]

Did you all already forget that the only needed requirement is that you select mage at level 1? I said this only on the last page.

[Pasquale1234]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Did you all already forget that the only needed requirement is that you select mage at level 1? I said this only on the last page.

That would work for the PC, but I am wondering how you would envision such a system working for companions.

I guess I would assume there would be mage and non-mage companions just as there are now, but you don't meet all of them right away, and in the meantime they might need to be leveled up by the game.

I see a couple of likely possibilities:
1) The game has a pre-defined intention for the types of skills the character would have, and assigns them per schedule.
2) The player is allowed to assign all of the attribute skills when the companion joins the party, just as if the character had consumed a Maker's Sigh.

The companions' characterizations and backgrounds might be somewhat less defined if option 2 is taken.  For example, part of Isabela's characterization seemed to be that she loved to duel with daggers, and the Varric - Bianca relationship may have been nerfed.