787 réponses à ce sujet

[Mike Laidlaw]

aldien wrote...

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.

Makes total sense. Negatives can work just fine, as can staring at two armors with very different purposes and having to choose which of their benefits you can't get, because, presumably, layering just doesn't work with enchantments.

[Iakus]

Going to need more details before I say for sure if this is a great thing or not, but it definitely looks like it's headed in the right direction. So, cautiously optimistic.

[Vaeliorin]

I have to admit, I'm liking everything except the class restriction bit (possibly because I really like the concept art.) If I want to put leather on my warrior or plate on a rogue, I feel like I should be able to, assuming they meet the stat requirements.

Say, for example, I want to go with a non-standard warrior build and focus on Dex for crit, with the bare minimums in Str. With class restrictions on armor, I'm at the mercy of the devs, hoping they created some crit focused warrior armor (which I don't recall existing in DA2) while without class restrictions, I could use any armor, including that "rogue" leather I found with great crit bonuses.

That being said, my compliments again to the concept artists. Those images are excellent.

[Dave of Canada]

Could this system still allow people to comment on the appearances of companions? I notice there's some pretty significant changes between the armors despite them retaining their unique appeal and I'm curious.

Hypothetically, if Isabela returned, would she always keep her (fabulous) boots and thus allow for things like Merrill's comments about her boots to remain?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 14 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[CuriousArtemis]

Okay, IF some of the alterations would REALLY change how the character looks ... for example, adding a new breastplate to Isabela suddenly gives her pants, or gets Fenris out of those silly tights ... then I'm all for it

Gosh, all the gamer talk is making my eyes go fuzzy xD I don't know half the terms you guys are using.

[meanieweenie]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I'd be down with this idea. 95% of the time I'm playing rogue but rarely use stealth. Just wish I could hit harder or maybe use a sword and dagger combo.

[BubbleDncr]

motomotogirl wrote...

Okay, IF some of the alterations would REALLY change how the character looks ... for example, adding a new breastplate to Isabela suddenly gives her pants, or gets Fenris out of those silly tights ... then I'm all for it

Gosh, all the gamer talk is making my eyes go fuzzy xD I don't know half the terms you guys are using.

I think you mean changing Isabella's pants would give her pants?

Or maybe she just joined your pary without any pants equipped, and now you just have to give her some.

[meanieweenie]

BubbleDncr wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

Okay, IF some of the alterations would REALLY change how the character looks ... for example, adding a new breastplate to Isabela suddenly gives her pants, or gets Fenris out of those silly tights ... then I'm all for it

Gosh, all the gamer talk is making my eyes go fuzzy xD I don't know half the terms you guys are using.

I think you mean changing Isabella's pants would give her pants?

Or maybe she just joined your pary without any pants equipped, and now you just have to give her some.

+10 Pants of Preventable Chaffing

[CuriousArtemis]

BubbleDncr wrote...

I think you mean changing Isabella's pants would give her pants?

Or maybe she just joined your pary without any pants equipped, and now you just have to give her some.

Or maybe one of her gifts could be pants?

Isabela:  Aww, Hawke, you shouldn't have!

Hawke:  Just ... please put them on.  Please.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

With all due respect Mike that you seem so set on limiting player choice in that matter in regards to allowable armor is troubling. Especially after all the outcry in regards to static looks in DAII. I just don't see a reason for it from a design standpoint aside of forcing a particular style/look for companions. Or not having enough development time to do it.  It imo certainly doesn't add anything to the gameplay and rather takes things away along the lines of player agency and customization and choice on the whole.

[eyesofastorm]

Had to come back for one more post...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Again, as noted above, I want to "broaden" the experience of playing the classes some, but they will still have hard lines between them. 

Why?  I'm figuring that you are working from the same platform you were pre-DA2 when you said that the classes should feel distinct.  I can see that viewpoint... I can.  But the question I have is this:  is that distinctness really worth the loss of choice?  Based on your metrics or fan feedback or DA2 backlash or whatever?  I realize I don't have the whole picture, but in the piece of it that I can see, I've seen a lot more people complaining about loss of choice than I have about warriors and rogues bleeding into eachother.  So is it worth it?  Or is there another reason that I don't see?

[Blastback]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I think the other thing that eyeofthestorm is worried about is customising our companions roles in combat.  In Origins, when I got Alistar, I could let him be a sword and board defender the way he was set up initially, but I could also equip him with a greatsword or let him dual wield for DPS.  Or even a ranged DPS.  Same in Baldur's Gate.  And KotOR.  It let me balance the party to fit the role of my PC.

But in DA2, Aveline was pretty locked into tanking, while Isabela was always melee DPS.  And if I was either one of those, it rendered the other one pretty much obsolite and pointless to take along, at least in my experiance. 

I'd like to see each companion have unique skills and gear that provide incentive for the player to use them in their intended role, but for us to be allowed to customise them differently.

[Iakus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Could this system still allow people to comment on the appearances of companions? I notice there's some pretty significant changes between the armors despite them retaining their unique appeal and I'm curious.

Hypothetically, if Isabela returned, would she always keep her (fabulous) boots and thus allow for things like Merrill's comments about her boots to remain?

Good point.  Though some things should probably be up to the player to change as well, like her wearing pants

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The issue of class distinction wouldn't be a problem if you focused more on distinct talent variety and specialization. Like stealth as means of bypassing combat as part of normal gameplay instead of a specific section or pickpocketing and reverse pickpocketing to have possible quest relevance.

If you require the item system to be apart of making classes distinct for anything outside visual purposes, it simply means that you've failed to make them distinct enough through character customization.

Personally,

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.

just confirms my fears:

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 (or D&D on drugs) rather than more purposeful and logical sets of bonuses.

Because really, who gets to wear the leathers and who gets to wear the heavy armor?

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 avril 2012 - 12:48 .

[Lux]

It's good. Do it!

[Blastback]

iakus wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Could this system still allow people to comment on the appearances of companions? I notice there's some pretty significant changes between the armors despite them retaining their unique appeal and I'm curious.

Hypothetically, if Isabela returned, would she always keep her (fabulous) boots and thus allow for things like Merrill's comments about her boots to remain?

Good point.  Though some things should probably be up to the player to change as well, like her wearing pants

Please, by the maker, let me pants her!                                        

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

Dex warrior = Dual. Wield. Warrior. Make it happen, Mike. You know you want to.

As to eos' point, I'd like more flexibility within class too. Like in DA2, I hated Anders as a character and wished I never had to take him with me. But he was the only healer. Whereas in DAO, I had the flexibility to make Morrigan a healer so I could could keep bringing her along and not have to bother with Wynne. So it was nice to have that flexibility.

Of course, if we had an extra one or two party slots, that would help open up greater party flexibility too...

It would be nice if we had the ability to lessen the problems of choosing companions for gameplay versus roleplaying reasons via either opening up more party slots or having some more flexibility in developing characters in their respective classes. So maybe give warriors and rogues some means to heal, albeit in some sort of warrior or rogue like way? Same as having the freedom to build a dex based warrior or a strength based rogue and so forth.

Or sort of having some kind of system like Amalur's destiny system, letting you mix and match mage/rogue/warrior into unique classes. Maybe thats what specializations can sort of amount to?

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[CENIC]

Blastback wrote...

I think the other thing that eyeofthestorm is worried about is customising our companions roles in combat.  In Origins, when I got Alistar, I could let him be a sword and board defender the way he was set up initially, but I could also equip him with a greatsword or let him dual wield for DPS.  Or even a ranged DPS.  Same in Baldur's Gate.  And KotOR.  It let me balance the party to fit the role of my PC.

But in DA2, Aveline was pretty locked into tanking, while Isabela was always melee DPS.  And if I was either one of those, it rendered the other one pretty much obsolite and pointless to take along, at least in my experiance. 

I'd like to see each companion have unique skills and gear that provide incentive for the player to use them in their intended role, but for us to be allowed to customise them differently.

I can agree with this.

In DA2, I felt forced to always have Aveline and Anders in my party at all times, because they were the most efficient tank/healer, respectively. In that regard, my party composition was being railroaded.

[Blastback]

Brockololly wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
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.

Dex warrior = Dual. Wield. Warrior. Make it happen, Mike. You know you want to.

YES!!!

Modifié par Blastback, 14 avril 2012 - 12:51 .

[aldien]

Blastback wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

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.

I think the other thing that eyeofthestorm is worried about is customising our companions roles in combat.  In Origins, when I got Alistar, I could let him be a sword and board defender the way he was set up initially, but I could also equip him with a greatsword or let him dual wield for DPS.  Or even a ranged DPS.  Same in Baldur's Gate.  And KotOR.  It let me balance the party to fit the role of my PC.

But in DA2, Aveline was pretty locked into tanking, while Isabela was always melee DPS.  And if I was either one of those, it rendered the other one pretty much obsolite and pointless to take along, at least in my experiance. 

I'd like to see each companion have unique skills and gear that provide incentive for the player to use them in their intended role, but for us to be allowed to customise them differently.

Are you talking about customizing their armor or weapons? Armor is one thing, weapons another, but both requires different skills. Is it more realistic to have someone who is obviously portrayed with swordskill then to switch to a bow? I liked how the companions had a core skill. I'd be up for allowing them to switch up if it came with a negative effect i.e. a swordsman wouldn't get as much damage from a bow etc..

Modifié par aldien, 14 avril 2012 - 12:53 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Jasmine96 wrote...

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.

Thankyou for sharing! This makes me happy
I loved how DA2 had more armor variations appearence wise than the first game, my favorite part about this is that you guys talked about doing armor in more peices rather than just full body suits. My only concern is about how much resources this could cost, but I'm sure you guys know much more about that than I do.

I have a question if anyone can answer, will we be able to equip armor on all classes again? Or will some of the armors still be restricted to certain classes only? I ask because I usually play mages so I don't get to see over half the armors on my character

All armors will be restricted by class. Well okay, we don't know that for sure. But it seems that's the way they're heading.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 avril 2012 - 12:54 .

[Forsakentale]

It seems they're trying to fit the customization with the identity of the companions. That's and splendid idea. I mean, I love DAO, but some characters were so........ bleh and un-epic with silly hats and silly gowns like every other peasant or mage out there.
Morrigan has such a badass look by herself that it was a pity I covered it all with a beige/pink dress just because it had better defense.

So I'll bee very happy if I buy this awesome +5 headpiece and it looks like a badass headpiece for my guy companion and something else entirely for my girl companion. You know, like they actually bought the stuff or asked a blacksmith to do it to their taste. It will not only look nice, but it adds personality.

[Sabariel]

Although I will miss the ability to put my followers in ugly robes when they displease me, this does sound much better than DA2... where only Aveline changed her pants after 10 years.

A small, hopeful request... could mages in DA3 maybe be able to wear some type of light armor or chainmail-y robes and not just cloth robes/ugly pantsuits? Please?

Modifié par Sabariel, 14 avril 2012 - 12:52 .