787 réponses à ce sujet

[eyesofastorm]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

GearWolf wrote...

While in theory this concept seems great, wouldn't this result in less overall customization?
The designers would have to make each armor piece different for the male/female playable character
as well as alternates looks for each viable companion rather then focusing on a broad array of armor.

Yup.

But if you follow that argument to its end, and your only goal is to have the maximum customization possible it sounds like, "In order to have the widest variety of armor available to the main character, we have decided to cut female PCs," and that is obviously not acceptable.

So we build our systems, pick our battles and build accordingly, in this case, the changes are smaller than a new set of armor, but they are also more modular, which results in a much higher number of combinations than would be possible if full armor suits were created.

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

edit:  And it pains me greatly to do this because I really despise meta-discussion, but isn't that what they call a strawman?

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 13 avril 2012 - 11:50 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...

GearWolf wrote...

While in theory this concept seems great, wouldn't this result in less overall customization?
The designers would have to make each armor piece different for the male/female playable character
as well as alternates looks for each viable companion rather then focusing on a broad array of armor.

Exactly my point.  Your choice won't be whether to put your warrior in chain, scale, or plate but whether to put her in level 7 plate or level 8 plate.  It's not really even a choice, but a very faint illusion of choice and I suspect that the only people who will be or are happy about this "compromise" are the ones that were, at worst, ok with the way things were done in DA2.  

I'm confused. Are you assuming that our armors will not have any customization beyond "level?" Because, man, have I got some surprises for you, later.

[The dead fish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My sweet baby jesus, this is just awesome. The concept looks great. I love it.

Why, O why did you show me that pic ? Please tell me, they aren't random guys. T_____T 
I don"t care, now there must be a Grey Warden and a Seeker among my companions !

And Bioware has to put those armors in the next game !

About Isabela's iconic look, etc. I don't care, because I think this time, we will be able to change and pick other options different enough. That was the only issue for me. The iconic look was a part of her personality.

[MattH]

I think the argument of shaped armor would be entirely dependent on the character it was put on, regardless of gender.

Aveline in that chest plate would most likely look similar to what she wears now, a standard, reliable and sturdy looking piece of armor, because that reflects Aveline. But put it on a character like Isabella and you're going to get some curves thrown at you, because Isabella is a different personality. I think fitting the pieces to the characters themselves is a brilliant idea. Customization without taking away that sense of personal identity. I hated how washed out my companions became in DAO.

I don't know if it's feasible, but perhaps a piece of armor could be applied to any class, just that it would reflect that classes stats differently; such amount of mana for a mage to equip, such amount of strength for a warrior etc and then look different dependent on that class. Only less skirts for my mages guys, seriously.
(side note- the concept art is really stunning, the artists did a great job)

Modifié par MH19, 14 avril 2012 - 12:02 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. So far we've only talked about the cosmetic parts, but maybe you could tell me an armor system that isn't "only cosmetic" so I can compare/contrast?

[eyesofastorm]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

GearWolf wrote...

While in theory this concept seems great, wouldn't this result in less overall customization?
The designers would have to make each armor piece different for the male/female playable character
as well as alternates looks for each viable companion rather then focusing on a broad array of armor.

Exactly my point.  Your choice won't be whether to put your warrior in chain, scale, or plate but whether to put her in level 7 plate or level 8 plate.  It's not really even a choice, but a very faint illusion of choice and I suspect that the only people who will be or are happy about this "compromise" are the ones that were, at worst, ok with the way things were done in DA2.  

I'm confused. Are you assuming that our armors will not have any customization beyond "level?" Because, man, have I got some surprises for you, later.

Like I said, so far, you take things I love and give me back things I don't want.  I truly hope whatever you got curls my toes, but I'm not holding my breathe.  

[eyesofastorm]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. So far we've only talked about the cosmetic parts, but maybe you could tell me an armor system that isn't "only cosmetic" so I can compare/contrast?

Say what?  Ok.  A chainmail for example doesn't provide the same straight up protection that plate does, but it allows for more maneuverability.  It's a tradeoff... what I like to call a choice.  Not cosmetic at all.  

ps - Apologies if I didn't keep my snark levels low enough.  I REALLY tried.

[Sutekh]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
But when you've got classes, you've got class restriction in a way or another anyway, or what would be the point?

Choice.  

If you want real choice, go with a classless system ala Skyrim or Divinity. The minute you've got categories (classes), you've got restrictions.

[Darkfal44]

This is definitely a step in the right direction and I appreciate the investment in the followers. They are, after all, responsible for a big part of the emotions in the game.

[yuncas]

See... I actually like this. Just don't be too restrictive with the choices relating to look and effects/buffs/detriments and I'm all aboard.

[beermat77]

Couple of quick questions.
1. Will the plugins be helmet,chestplate,gloves and boots?
2. How many armours sets would we be expecting?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Normal class restrictions apply

Ugh.

Well, I guess this will succeed in giving customization options while allowing everyone to be pretty and have iconic looks for cosplay. So I guess considering that's the goal, it's a step in the right direction.

Honestly, I'd be pretty happy as long as there's different types of armors in each class set that allows for different kinds of specialization. But then, the increase in variety would lead to a lot more time spent making companions pretty when they wear the armor.

So I'm worried that we'll get armor systems centered around the Tank/DPS/Mage stereotypes. It's what Dragon Age 2 did. Rather than say, differentiating Chainmail from Plate, Lamellar from Leather, or just having different streams of armors that focus on different bonuses (and negatives).

I guess I'm tired of Item Systems that are driven by stacking on numbers like a Diablo clone rather than more purposeful and logical sets of bonuses. I've always hated Armor that adds attack or Attributes. I mean, really wtf? And the class restrictions are one part of that, because it removes the potential for variety and versatility.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 avril 2012 - 12:11 .

[eyesofastorm]

Sutekh wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
But when you've got classes, you've got class restriction in a way or another anyway, or what would be the point?

Choice.  

If you want real choice, go with a classless system ala Skyrim or Divinity. The minute you've got categories (classes), you've got restrictions.

No, no!  You've got it all wrong.  The restrictions are the very things that make the choices matter.  

[Pasquale1234]

Sutekh wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
But when you've got classes, you've got class restriction in a way or another anyway, or what would be the point?

Choice.  

If you want real choice, go with a classless system ala Skyrim or Divinity. The minute you've got categories (classes), you've got restrictions.

Some systems - like DAO's armor - are stat-based (strength), not class-based.

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. So far we've only talked about the cosmetic parts, but maybe you could tell me an armor system that isn't "only cosmetic" so I can compare/contrast?

Say what?  Ok.  A chainmail for example doesn't provide the same straight up protection that plate does, but it allows for more maneuverability.  It's a tradeoff... what I like to call a choice.  Not cosmetic at all.  

ps - Apologies if I didn't keep my snark levels low enough.  I REALLY tried.

Okay, so, what you're looking for is multiple types of armor that have different effects on the character, and that are viable choices for a single class to wear? So in D&D terms, I might not want to wear a suit of field plate because I have higher than a +1 DEX modifier and the heavy armor would cap it?

Our approach, generally speaking, has been to provide multiple armors as drops with different focuses, so a set of leathers with higher crit boosts, or a heavier set with more armor, that kind of thing. In an ideal world, we'd be able to build these sets so that their appearances match the kind of advantages they give. In an EVEN more ideal world, you'd be able to craft armor that looks like how you want, and has the stats you want, but that might be crazy talk.

Now, to dive a bit deeper, I had a really neat discussion with someone at PAX who was asking why we haven't just gotten rid of classes entirely and gone more the Skyrim route where you can wear any armor, use any weapon and so on.

It's certainly tempting, and it offers a lot of freedom to the player, BUT, I also think that it's potentially damaging to a game where you have a party. I see the composition of your party, both in terms of personality and in terms of class, to be a very real and very tactical choice, and one that's made more interesting and engaging by having some limitations in what each class can do, so that the mixing and matching of their abilities creates a combat alchemy that matches your playstyle, and your chosen class of character. I also feel that, since we give you full control over your party (and intend to return their armor slots, as per this post), we're really letting you play up to all three classes at once.

And you've done a great job at not being snarky. Appreciate it. Sorry you aren't digging what you're seeing in all cases.

[aldien]

Sutekh wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
But when you've got classes, you've got class restriction in a way or another anyway, or what would be the point?

Choice.  

If you want real choice, go with a classless system ala Skyrim or Divinity. The minute you've got categories (classes), you've got restrictions.

The problem I see with that, with all due respect, is that your followers are not classless. To make them so would just turn out vanilla and deter from their personalities.

[Borghal]

I've been thinking about this a bit... and I've arrived at the conclusion that while the overall number of variations will rise, the number of variations a player can create will actually be lower. I don't really see that as a good thing.

Say we have have ~30 armor sets in the game, each consisting of 5 individual pieces (150 pieces in all plus some rescaling for different sized characters). This makes for 30^5 combinations you can mix up for each character.

Now with the proposed system, assuming same development time, you get a lot less sets because essentially for each set and each character you have to make a unique set. With seven playable characters and the resources to create say 200 armor parts, you end up with six or seven armor sets, making the total number of combinations for any given character 5^7.

And while it's guaranteed the player will always be able to recognize the character based on their looks alone, they are limited quite a bit in their choice how the characters will actually look like.
If that's what you're going for, fine, I can live with that Just wish it was the other way around...

[eyesofastorm]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. So far we've only talked about the cosmetic parts, but maybe you could tell me an armor system that isn't "only cosmetic" so I can compare/contrast?

Say what?  Ok.  A chainmail for example doesn't provide the same straight up protection that plate does, but it allows for more maneuverability.  It's a tradeoff... what I like to call a choice.  Not cosmetic at all.  

ps - Apologies if I didn't keep my snark levels low enough.  I REALLY tried.

Okay, so, what you're looking for is multiple types of armor that have different effects on the character, and that are viable choices for a single class to wear? So in D&D terms, I might not want to wear a suit of field plate because I have higher than a +1 DEX modifier and the heavy armor would cap it?

Our approach, generally speaking, has been to provide multiple armors as drops with different focuses, so a set of leathers with higher crit boosts, or a heavier set with more armor, that kind of thing. In an ideal world, we'd be able to build these sets so that their appearances match the kind of advantages they give. In an EVEN more ideal world, you'd be able to craft armor that looks like how you want, and has the stats you want, but that might be crazy talk.

Now, to dive a bit deeper, I had a really neat discussion with someone at PAX who was asking why we haven't just gotten rid of classes entirely and gone more the Skyrim route where you can wear any armor, use any weapon and so on.

It's certainly tempting, and it offers a lot of freedom to the player, BUT, I also think that it's potentially damaging to a game where you have a party. I see the composition of your party, both in terms of personality and in terms of class, to be a very real and very tactical choice, and one that's made more interesting and engaging by having some limitations in what each class can do, so that the mixing and matching of their abilities creates a combat alchemy that matches your playstyle, and your chosen class of character. I also feel that, since we give you full control over your party (and intend to return their armor slots, as per this post), we're really letting you play up to all three classes at once.

And you've done a great job at not being snarky. Appreciate it. Sorry you aren't digging what you're seeing in all cases.

That is almost perfect Mike.  So close.  The one problem and unforunately, it is a HUGE one for me, is that you guys are retaining too much control over the party composition... seemingly at this point.  If you want to designate a given NPC as a warrior, that's fine.  But from that point, you have to let me decide whether that warrior will be heavy and slow or light and fast or maybe not realy great at anything but good at everything if you understand my meaning.  And I realize I'm making assumptions, but I feel like the assumptions are valid based on the things I've read that were between the lines.  

ps - I've got to sign off at this point though I am loathe to do so becaue *this* is one of the things that I have loved Bioware for over the years.  But alas... it is Friday night.  See you again soon!

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 14 avril 2012 - 12:18 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Borghal wrote...

I've been thinking about this a bit... and I've arrived at the conclusion that while the overall number of variations will rise, the number of variations a player can create will actually be lower. I don't really see that as a good thing.

Say we have have ~30 armor sets in the game, each consisting of 5 individual pieces (150 pieces in all plus some rescaling for different sized characters). This makes for 30^5 combinations you can mix up for each character.

Now with the proposed system, assuming same development time, you get a lot less sets because essentially for each set and each character you have to make a unique set. With seven playable characters and the resources to create say 200 armor parts, you end up with six or seven armor sets, making the total number of combinations for any given character 5^7.

And while it's guaranteed the player will always be able to recognize the character based on their looks alone, they are limited quite a bit in their choice how the characters will actually look like.
If that's what you're going for, fine, I can live with that Just wish it was the other way around...

I don't think at this stage it is something to worry about per se, I hope there are (at least) few dozen sets made up of many peices like you said each. I agree I think will take more time but I am hoping it is time they are willing to invest in such. One of the major issues that kept coming up (regardless of if true or not) was people feeling the title was rushed to retail. I do not know if was or not but I am sure they will do everything they can to give us as much as they can and I believe would be applicable to all areas and gameplay elements. I don't think they plan on shafting players with mere half dozen sets to collect and use through the game. It just does not seem logical to me a route they would go down.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 avril 2012 - 12:21 .

[aldien]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

But all of the combinations, be they in the millions, are essentially only cosmetic.  Is that correct?

I'm not sure what you mean. So far we've only talked about the cosmetic parts, but maybe you could tell me an armor system that isn't "only cosmetic" so I can compare/contrast?

Say what?  Ok.  A chainmail for example doesn't provide the same straight up protection that plate does, but it allows for more maneuverability.  It's a tradeoff... what I like to call a choice.  Not cosmetic at all.  

ps - Apologies if I didn't keep my snark levels low enough.  I REALLY tried.

Okay, so, what you're looking for is multiple types of armor that have different effects on the character, and that are viable choices for a single class to wear? So in D&D terms, I might not want to wear a suit of field plate because I have higher than a +1 DEX modifier and the heavy armor would cap it?

Our approach, generally speaking, has been to provide multiple armors as drops with different focuses, so a set of leathers with higher crit boosts, or a heavier set with more armor, that kind of thing. In an ideal world, we'd be able to build these sets so that their appearances match the kind of advantages they give. In an EVEN more ideal world, you'd be able to craft armor that looks like how you want, and has the stats you want, but that might be crazy talk.

Now, to dive a bit deeper, I had a really neat discussion with someone at PAX who was asking why we haven't just gotten rid of classes entirely and gone more the Skyrim route where you can wear any armor, use any weapon and so on.

It's certainly tempting, and it offers a lot of freedom to the player, BUT, I also think that it's potentially damaging to a game where you have a party. I see the composition of your party, both in terms of personality and in terms of class, to be a very real and very tactical choice, and one that's made more interesting and engaging by having some limitations in what each class can do, so that the mixing and matching of their abilities creates a combat alchemy that matches your playstyle, and your chosen class of character. I also feel that, since we give you full control over your party (and intend to return their armor slots, as per this post), we're really letting you play up to all three classes at once.

And you've done a great job at not being snarky. Appreciate it. Sorry you aren't digging what you're seeing in all cases.

What about not only considering the positive effect of an armor's attribute, but also, potentially having armor that can give you a negative effect? Make some of it have a trade-off?

Would it be possible to balance the armor with the abilities of the companion or PC? I love positive but I also enjoy the challenge of balancing my stats and not having every piece of armor suit every need. Just a thought.  Sorry if it doesn't make sense.

Modifié par aldien, 14 avril 2012 - 12:21 .

[BubbleDncr]

Borghal wrote...

I've been thinking about this a bit... and I've arrived at the conclusion that while the overall number of variations will rise, the number of variations a player can create will actually be lower. I don't really see that as a good thing.

Say we have have ~30 armor sets in the game, each consisting of 5 individual pieces (150 pieces in all plus some rescaling for different sized characters). This makes for 30^5 combinations you can mix up for each character.

Now with the proposed system, assuming same development time, you get a lot less sets because essentially for each set and each character you have to make a unique set. With seven playable characters and the resources to create say 200 armor parts, you end up with six or seven armor sets, making the total number of combinations for any given character 5^7.

And while it's guaranteed the player will always be able to recognize the character based on their looks alone, they are limited quite a bit in their choice how the characters will actually look like.
If that's what you're going for, fine, I can live with that Just wish it was the other way around...

Yea, my biggest fear has been how many resources will have to go into this setup.
As much as I loved the look of Hawke's Champion Armor, I really would have liked the option to have soemthing that was similar in value, but looked different. I just don't like the idea that all Hawkes end up looking pretty much the same.

So, I feel like for this sytem to work, they would have to have multiple sets of the highest tier armor, that all look diferent, that way you can give your companions all lots of good armor, and yourself, and not have them all match - much like Origins. But since each set will have to have at least 3 different sets of textures (one for PC, and 2 for companions that possibly share the PC's class), will that limit how many armor sets they have time/resources to make? Cos what in Origins would have been 3 different sets of Tier 7 armor to give to you and your 2 warrior companions, now becomes 9 different sets the devs have to make.

[Brockololly]

xScarecrowX wrote...

....The Grey Warden in the pics reminds me of Duncan for some reason. Oh, now I sad....   I'm still mourning!

Duncan after being on anabolic steroids and taking a detour through Gears or War and Warhammer is more like it. Does that guy have a kitchen table as his shield? Guh.


As for the proposed system, it looks decent in theory and would be leagues better than DA2, but thats not saying much. Looks promising, but like anything, I'll need to see it actually in the game. Especially considering that DA's concept art (whether it be DAO or DA2) doesn't seem to translate very well to the actual game.

I guess my issue is how this seems a bit "game-y" at a glance. Like, you're not actually picking up a breastplate but magical morphing armor that doesn't have any one fixed look. Not sure how I feel about that.

Then, I'd wonder with this system whether it wouldn't end up where there just isn't much loot in the game as a result? Since every piece of loot would hypothetically need to be customized to each companion?

Probably most concerning and annoying in that blog post was the fact that it seems class restrictions are back. I absolutely loathed that in DA2. Since its tied to armor use, it makes most of the stats completely pointless and destroys any notion that you're able to have any freedom in building up characters. Instead you're forced down a a linear path of character development if you want to be able to use any armor/gear.

As for keeping unique looks for characters, I don't know. Again, it kind of gets into the game being too game-y scenario. Somebody like Sten or Leliana when you meet them in Origins wouldn't make sense if they were in super personalized clothing/armor. Leliana was blending in with her normal Chantry robes and Sten was in normal clothes as a prisoner. Give the companions unique and distinct faces and I'm happy with that.



But I guess if armor is class restricted, that means no more Massive Armor Morrigan. BS, I say, BS.


I guess that gif sends Mike into a conniption fit since you cannot tell thats Morrigan anymore once you put armor on her. *sigh*

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 avril 2012 - 12:23 .

[yuncas]

Sutekh wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
But when you've got classes, you've got class restriction in a way or another anyway, or what would be the point?

Choice.  

If you want real choice, go with a classless system ala Skyrim or Divinity. The minute you've got categories (classes), you've got restrictions.

At this very moment I'm playing Skyrim. The classless system, to me, limits replayability. Knowing that my High Elf Legate battlemage can do the same exact thing as my Nord Stormcloak rogue can do the same exact thing as my neutral Orc warrior with no real barriers is a negative in my view.

DA2 overdid it regarding class restriction in my opinion. If you want to be a heavy armor/sword&board rogue, a heavy armor warrior archer, an arcane warrior, a light armor warrior, etc. why should you not be able to? You should however have to (reasonably) break your ass for it in my opinion.

[Mike Laidlaw]

eyesofastorm wrote...
That is almost perfect Mike.  So close.  The one problem and unforunately, it is a HUGE one for me, is that you guys are retaining too much control over the party composition... seemingly at this point.  If you want to designate a given NPC as a warrior, that's fine.  But from that point, you have to let me decide whether that warrior will be heavy and slow or light and fast or maybe not realy great at anything but good at everything if you understand my meaning.  And I realize I'm making assumptions, but I feel like the assumptions are valid based on the things I've read that were between the lines.  

So, you're looking for more variety within the class itself, be it through armor, skills, talent selection or what have you, and feel like there's a danger that if warriors are primarily plate wearers, there's no room for a dex-warrior?

Pretty valid concern, sure. I can tell you that I'd like to offer more variety in the "experience" of playing a warrior, but it may not go far enough for you if you really want the Dex warrior build, as I tend to think that if you want a dex-based melee character in lighter armor in the DA class system, you should be playing a rogue.

And yes, I understand that rogues are fundamentally different than warriors in a lot of people's minds, and that what you probably want is a kind of light-warrior/heavy rogue hybrid that sacrifices some of the rogue's stealth for heavier hits and some of the warrior's protection for mobility. Again, as noted above, I want to "broaden" the experience of playing the classes some, but they will still have hard lines between them. We may just end up not agreeing on where those lines should be drawn. Or maybe we will! Regardless, we will be doing our damndest to get that kind of information out before you have to even think about making a purchasing decision.

And thanks for taking the time to outline this. It's certainly food for thought.

[Most Definitely Sane]

I really like this idea.

Also, if that Grey Warden guy ends up being a companion, I want him to be romanceable. He looks like one of the most attractive men in the games