787 réponses à ce sujet

[hussey 92]

will this system let you put heavy armor on mages?

[Atakuma]

hussey 92 wrote...

will this system let you put heavy armor on mages?

Doubtful

[Sylvius the Mad]

hussey 92 wrote...

will this system let you put heavy armor on mages?

Maybe.

If they resist the urge to move to class-limited armour, (and instead stick with the stat-limited armour from the first two DA games), then yes, but it probably won't look like heavy armour.

[eyesofastorm]

@ Biodevs - So... have we reached our discussion and compromise ceiling for DA3? I just ask because it seemed like we did so well there for like... 20 minutes. But we haven't seen hide nor hair of you in three weeks. You weren't hoping we'd refuse to compromise at all thereby freeing you to throw up your hands and say, "Oh well... we *did* try," and continue down the compromise free path of your choosing were you? Not that I think that's what happened at all, but... you know...

edit:  Not that you have to compromise with us in any way at all.  I reconize that there is a sizable portion of the audience whose money you are ok with not getting.  But you guys did say that you wanted to be all open and free with DA3 and whatnot.  So that's why I was wondering.  

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 03 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[Vovea]

hussey 92 wrote...

will this system let you put heavy armor on mages?

I don't think so:

I then find a piece of plate armor, the “Sterling Breastplate”. Normal class restrictions apply, but in this case both followers are Warrior class and can wear this plate armor. I can place it in their chest slot

Unless it becomes attribute restriction instead.

(Still wearing my heart on my sleeve for Arcane Warrior as well).

Modifié par Vovea, 03 mai 2012 - 11:16 .

[YohkoOhno]

eyesofastorm wrote...

@ Biodevs - So... have we reached our discussion and compromise ceiling for DA3? I just ask because it seemed like we did so well there for like... 20 minutes. But we haven't seen hide nor hair of you in three weeks. You weren't hoping we'd refuse to compromise at all thereby freeing you to throw up your hands and say, "Oh well... we *did* try," and continue down the compromise free path of your choosing were you? Not that I think that's what happened at all, but... you know...

edit:  Not that you have to compromise with us in any way at all.  I reconize that there is a sizable portion of the audience whose money you are ok with not getting.  But you guys did say that you wanted to be all open and free with DA3 and whatnot.  So that's why I was wondering.  

All this thread was to plug a blog-post David Gaider made.  

I think they are soliciting some feedback but this isn't "design by committee" and you're not getting a vote in every decision.  I think they are just busy working on things now.  As some fans here went off into a tangent I think the feedback was less useful to Bioware.

[Rawgrim]

I like the idea, but at the same time its also abit immersion-breaking. the piece of armour just magically changes shape depending on who wears it etc. Still its a vast improvement from DA2. Lets hope they also let us equip different weapons and such on followers. Being forced to use Aveline (the only tank) all the time in DA2, because nobody else could equip a shield, got boring fast.

[JeannaFace]

I think this idea would be amazing! I can't wait to see if this actually happens for DA3.

[TEWR]

Vovea wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

will this system let you put heavy armor on mages?

I don't think so:

Unless it becomes attribute restriction instead.

(Still wearing my heart on my sleeve for Arcane Warrior as well).

To be fair, Mike Laidlaw also started discussing removing class restrictions as a possibility and returning to stat dependancy.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

1) Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
2) We make sure that works with the player, but if you go "out of class" on a follower, it looks "okay" but not as one-to-one as if you stuck with the intended class.
3) So: You take a bunch of strength with your mage, and you move plate onto your mage. His armor looks pretty "heavy" but doesn't look necessarily like plate. It still has all the stats that platemail has, though.
4) If you moved that armor onto a warrior, it would look closer to how it looks on your player. (Since you'd be back in the expected space for that character's class)

Better? Worse? I ask because something like this might very well be possible.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 07 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[Atakuma]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Vovea wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

will this system let you put heavy armor on mages?

I don't think so:

I then find a piece of plate armor, the “Sterling Breastplate”. Normal class restrictions apply, but in this case both followers are Warrior class and can wear this plate armor. I can place it in their chest slot

Unless it becomes attribute restriction instead.

(Still wearing my heart on my sleeve for Arcane Warrior as well).

To be fair, Mike Laidlaw also started discussing removing class restrictions.

I see class restrictions remaining the way they are. Getting rid of them would mean that they would have to create a version of every armor for every companion.

Modifié par Atakuma, 07 mai 2012 - 04:01 .

[Maverick827]

I like the thought, but I think you're making things unnecessarily too restricted and complicated. When you're developing these sorts of mechanics, you need to ask yourselves if your players will bend over backwards to make mods to get around them. If the answer is yes, perhaps (if it is feasible) you should just offer the option from the start.

I think the best system for items in RPGs can currently be seen in Star Wars: the Old Republic. There, we have what are called "custom" or "orange" items (the color of their rarity is orange, hence the name). These items have no stats of their own, but can instead be modified and augmented with various components to achieve their full amount of stats. The "shell" item obviously contains the model and texture.

I would propose a system in which every item in the game is merely a shell made up of the runes we already have in the Dragon Age universe. When you get a new item you can either use the item itself, upgrade your existing item, or combine the best features of both to get the perfect outcome you desire.

Let's say you kill a dragon and loot a new sword. Let's say this sword has a lot of history behind it; perhaps you were led to it from a codex entry or quest. If your character is one to revere "legendary" items, then you can replace your current sword entirely. Perhaps your character wishes to keep using the family sword that he or she has been using since the start of the game, so you simply swap out the runes, because they are better than what you currently have. Or, lastly, perhaps you want to use the new sword, but have already augmented your current sword with a rare rune from another quest line. Good news, you can just move it over to the new weapon!

With such a system in your toolbox, you could open all armors to companions but still offer a few "shell" armor sets per companion for those who wish to maintain their defining styles. For those that wish to have some sort of conformity or drastically change the way one character looks, then that would already be handled.

In the end, all of this comes down to implementing some sort of technology that the players interact with. Common programming practices include the reuse of common functions wherever applicable. Why should the design go out of its way to ignore these sound principals established by the development?

[deuce985]

I love this concept personally. I want my companions to have distinct looks for their personality.

But if I had to choose, I'd rather more customization over less customization.

This system will no doubt cut down on the amount of customization in the game because you have to give armor pieces--say 5 different looks instead of one. That's a problem in my eyes.

Now, if you put a system in place where stats on armor is more customizable or even allowing us to dye+change the looks entirely on armor...then I can see it working.

Because one thing about DA is the amount of builds you can do. Itemization has to support all these customized builds and the stats have to reflect it. If you're cutting down on the amount of customization you get, then you're going to have a balance problem in itemization. So, you need a system to reinforce this. As I mentioned...perhaps letting you modify stats easier on certain armors? If you don't like the look...dye the color or maybe even "borrow" the texture from another armor piece completely.

I'm not sure how resource intensive that would be but I know personally, if I find a armor piece that is ugly and has amazing stats...I don't use it. I don't know how many people do the same but a armor piece for me in these games has to look good AND have stats to reinforce my build. It would seem like a problem but for the most part, DA's itemization is fairly good at supporting a player like me.

DA2 seemed to give good variety in the looks of armor. Something for everyone. It would be nice to see if we could customize the look of our armor more how we want. Possibly completely restricting the companion armors but only allowing you to customize your PC's armor looks? I think this makes sense and would probably help resources by only allowing you to change out the looks or "dye" them on certain pieces for your PC. I can't tell you how many times I wanted to use the Mage Champion set look on some of the dresses DA2 made me wear...

Why does every fantasy game have to follow the cliche Mages are in dresses and robes? The Champion set was a awesome change of pace and it looked cool too...heck, I wear that set over some armor that gives me better stats...

Modifié par deuce985, 09 mai 2012 - 09:54 .

[DreamerM]

And now for something completely different:

IF EA EVER has the bright idea of removing David Gaider from the Dragon Age series FOR ANY REASON, I will find a cute little puppy and kick it.

....Just had to get that off my chest.

Thanks for listening.

[Nerdage]

I wonder if the same could be applied to the player character.. If there were a slot on the player character to apply the kind of themes companions have.

Hmmm..

[AkiKishi]

This iconic look thing is for merchandising. EA are finally getting to where Square Enix and co. have been for 2 decades.

As long as you can still equip things I don't really care whether or not they have iconic looks. Realism is a non starter even in DA:O when it comes to armour and how it would equip between characters.
There are games with sized armour, but most of the time it's more tedious than anything.

Mages and armour, that depends on magic. Seems like in DA magic is all about the stick you carry (would explain why you cant cast spells as an AW while using a sword). As such wearing gauntlets which inhibit finger movements don't matter. In other systems it would prevent spell casting as would the reverb of a full plate helm.

I'd do away with the stats stuff and have skill branches which give the characters access to the armour skills as part of advancement. Sticking a martial tree in the Mage class and a heavy tree in the Rogue class advancements deals with it in a straightforward manner.

[_Aine_]

I personally am satisfied with this "new" approach.  It would have been what made logical sense for DA2 in the first place, frankly, if they wanted an "iconic" sort of approach to the whole deal. 

I think it was a cut corner due to resources and perhaps (even minutely) in reaction to a pet-peeve also   But, it DID feel like your followers never progressed along with our charcters, becoming more caricatures than characters in the end and not only limited roleplay (who REALLY wears the same thing for 7+ years? How do you logically roleplay this for an otherwise *normal* (and hygenic hopefully) individual? ) but was just another factor that made the game feel cookie-cutter to me (personally). 

There was much done right in DA2, but they were things (mostly anyway, like the variations of dialogue) that were not obvious unless you liked the game enough to give it multiple playthroughs.   What went wrong, was very visual and obvious.   Strictly in terms of aesthetics, I think this is a good "middle" ground and a step in the right direction to allowing gamers to *own* their own gameplay a bit more.   Especially when it treads in RPG waters (even when it tries to escape them ) 

I personally don't get why they care if we make Morrigan (for example) an arcane warrior and wear plate once the game is in our sweaty hands.  Why the investment in how we approach and develop OUR experiences of the game and how we develop our characters anyway?    Why restrict fans from playing your game, our way?   Maybe on the second or third playthrough we will want to play that character differently anyway.   It increases replay value, certainly.

I understand artistic license and wanting to keep the story "pure" to your best intentions, but I think, personally, that you are slightly off-base if that is the case.   Once it is released, it doens't really stay just "your" story anymore.  That story becomes, for no better or worse, whatever the experience of the player ends up being.     As a writer I suppose that would be harder than maintaining that it is "just" a game, and when it is done, it is done and on to the next thing, because there is more (perhaps, i'm not married to this idea though) of yourself invested in who those characters are...but in general I think it would be wiser to acknowledge that once money has changed hands, the games "ownership" is kind of a middle ground.   one provides the groundwork and framework for the story and hopefully the mechanism to experience it in its best (purest?) form, but the player is the one who interprets and plays with that to create their own experience in the end. 

Must be a hard balance, I admit.  This step looks like a good middle ground aesthetically for all involved.   It won't make everyone happy *snark* but its a nice nod to the community frustration with the DA2 model in general. 
 

Modifié par shantisands, 17 mai 2012 - 04:11 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Why do the developers want to customize the characters' outfits in the first place instead of just letting the players choose the armor and style? Sounds like you are going to an awful lot of work for no reason. Just throw in beaucoup styles and let the players have fun.

edit:  And to reiterate what was said up above, allow for dying outfits different colors sort of like what Fable III did.  That was cool.

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 17 mai 2012 - 11:40 .

[Autolychus]

I have never understood the obsession over customization of the companions. Over my own character, absolutely. The more customization the better. But, in the game these are supposed to be separate characters, with their own identity and style. I prefer letting the writers (and artists) shape their characters, allowing me to react to a more consistent personality. You know, just a tad more like real life. Not that these games are real life, but still.

The "middle way" Bioware has suggested sounds great to me. Much more important is to allow as full a customization as possible on my own character.

[Tumak]

I think that this follower customization system is great compared to DA:O and DA2. I really like this idea. But I think that there should be no class restriction for armor, only restriction should be strenght like in DA:O. And it will be great if mages will get more armors like the champion of kirkwall mage armor instead of a dress.

[Jerrybnsn]

Autolychus wrote...

I have never understood the obsession over customization of the companions. Over my own character, absolutely. The more customization the better.

Because it gives more control to the player to do the customization of all the characters, not just the main character, and that's fun.  Less control is less fun.

[Phex]

This sounds like a happy medium between the two systems used in DA1  and 2. I think companion appearance is very important, but being able to slightly tweak and customise that appearance would be a fun thing to do as well.

As for the player character, I would like to see no restrictions on the armor types, similar to what they have in The Elder Scrolls games. I love finding new armor and knowing that if I wanted to, I could wear it. To me, armor in Skyrim defines my character in more ways that just the armor rating, and I think that is the most fulfilling thing about gear in single player RPGs.

Modifié par Sefferz, 18 mai 2012 - 12:57 .

[Apathy1989]

 My first thought was "oh no, they are going to lose the character styles by having everyone use the same armour". I was one of the (few apparently) people who like the DA2 companions having armour sets that defined them.

But then I was like 

Fantastic idea. I really hope it is done.

Modifié par Apathy1989, 18 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[Spedfrom]

I think this is a great compromise and I do hope you guys manage to implement it. It's an excellent way of having our companions keep their unique look, but still being able to customize it further, visually (and functionally as well, thank the Maker). But please, no class-limited armour!

Also, please bring back the feature where I can immediately inspect and equip looted armour on the loot screen by pressing square (on a PS3), removing the annoying need of going into the main menu and then the inventory screen to equip my characters everytime time I get a new shiny toy.
It was in DA:O but you removed it for DA2. Removing simple and functional features when they're already implemented? Not cool and not smart Bioware.

Modifié par Spedfrom, 19 mai 2012 - 11:06 .

[SimonSays]

I think the companions should just have set item looks depending on item tier and type, like cloth/leather/mail/plate and 1-3 tiers for each of them (starter, half-way and end tier)

So 4-12 different looks and maybe some color customizations (dye items). If character has multiple different type/tier gear, looks take from which you have most.

[brushyourteeth]

Autolychus wrote...

I have never understood the obsession over customization of the companions. Over my own character, absolutely. The more customization the better. But, in the game these are supposed to be separate characters, with their own identity and style. I prefer letting the writers (and artists) shape their characters, allowing me to react to a more consistent personality. You know, just a tad more like real life. Not that these games are real life, but still.

The "middle way" Bioware has suggested sounds great to me. Much more important is to allow as full a customization as possible on my own character.

*high five*