787 réponses à ce sujet

[Blastback]

aldien wrote...

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..

I'd like for each companion to have one fighting style that they are most effective in.  Where they get unique skills and the like.  But I'd like to be able to make them use styles that they are less optimised for so I don't have to rely on a specific character to fill a role, or a character doesn't feel obsolite because their role is covered by my pc

[GearWolf]

Customization is great and all but as a mage player, just make sure my options isn't limited to dress, wooly coat, or mage skirt. I want my mage to be badass.

[Mike Laidlaw]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

What I feel it adds, on the follower front is recognizability and identity, two things which I think are important. I'm very aware that there are lots of folks (in this very thread, even), who would much, much rather have complete control over their party members' appearance than have them look distinct from one another, but there are others who feel that unique appearances for followers is a great thing, as it makes them more characterful, or simply prevents a party of warriors from looking same-ish.

I have to make a choice between those two, but it doesn't mean that I can't try to compromise, which is exactly what this proposal is attempting. It returns equipment to followers. It also provides visual feedback based on your actions, since their looks update based on what armor they're wearing.

But here's the thing: If them having unique looks doesn't hold any weight for you, then it simply doesn't, and I'm sorry that the decision isn't the ideal for your game experience. I really am.

Modifié par Mike Laidlaw, 14 avril 2012 - 01:01 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Sabariel wrote...
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?

I would also like to see this. I would say the odds are pretty good of it happening, but we wouldn't lose robes entirely.

[Amycus89]

Like I said before, I love this suggestion of armor customization. That being said, I would like it if there wasn't any class restriction.

I don't suppose that it would simply be possible to take for example  an armor concept like this:

as a light armor, and then just add any similar rogue outfit that you had already done for a specific rogue character and make it part of the same set?

(I can understand it if mages can't wear armor though, even though I partly miss my arcane warrior )

The only negative I can think of would be that there might be a light armor with the same look as a heavy armor on the same character. But I think most of us can live with that.

Heck, you could in a case like this just remove some of the plate covered parts and call it a new look.

Also, please consider adding something like proffiency points like BG2 had, so you can also specialize in things like axe/sword/hammer or light/heavy armor. Makes it more fun to plan our characters

Modifié par Amycus89, 14 avril 2012 - 01:11 .

[Mike Laidlaw]

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

[RosaAquafire]

I'd just like to say that as someone who greatly and without qualification PREFERRED DA2's method of armour to DA:O's, I think this is the sweet spot between the two that is better than each.

I absolutely hated how every single person in DA:O looked brown and grey and identical in your party. Your "choice" was either playing with an army of cloned D&D troops, or getting steamrolled because you were wearing bad armour.

Where in DA2, it was WONDERFUL having each character actually have a full character design and a visual identity, it added so much personality to them ... but getting an inventory full of armour you couldn't use sucked. Inventory management sucks, but it's also one of the funnest parts of an RPG, and you don't notice how much it adds to the experience until it's gone.

I still wish this had gone for a more JRPG style change equipment without visual feedback, but I realize I'm in a big minority there. I think this is the best compromise for everybody involved and I really hope this (or a very near version of this) makes it into the full version of DA3.

Can't wait to see more communication, guys. If this is how the whole dev cycle is going to be, this is going to be a fantastic game.

[Vaeliorin]

Blastback wrote...
I'd like for each companion to have one fighting style that they are most effective in.  Where they get unique skills and the like.  But I'd like to be able to make them use styles that they are less optimised for so I don't have to rely on a specific character to fill a role, or a character doesn't feel obsolite because their role is covered by my pc

This is definitely important.  There are fights in both DA and DA2 where having multiple melee characters is simply a bad idea (particularly with the healing restrictions in DA2.)  Until I got the mod that let my characters use both weapon types allowed by their class (which was still annoying...I don't see why warriors can't use bows), I felt like I was punishing myself by taking certain characters along.  Sure, Isabela was fairly useless with a bow, since she had all dual-wield talents, but I'd rather she stay back a plink away with a bow then get up in melee and put extra strain on healing or simply die in fights where a lot of short range AoE was going on.

[RosaAquafire]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

[*]
[*]Would going with this method compromise visual identity? I mean, if you have the resources to make every single armour look different and character-y on every single character regardless of class, that would be amazingly cool. But if we're getting back into DA:O style army of clones territory, I'd rather the less customization for the more identity.

[eyesofastorm]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Now there's a mutha****** compromise!  I don't care anything about the cosmetics.  You give me choice and I can deal with a strangely lumpy mage or whatever and though I am reluctant (not as much as I should be) to speak for my ilk, I think you'll find that attitude relatively prevalent among those for whom choice is king.  On the flip side, for folks who find the cosmetic angle very important, they can just choose to roll with the default as if the choice didn't even exist at all.  What?  Did we just become best friends?

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 14 avril 2012 - 01:22 .

[ScotGaymer]

I find this to be an acceptable compromise.

At first I liked the Iconic Looks, or so I thought, and I just didn't get the whole "ARGH!" thing people had with it. For me it was one of the more minor complaints I had with Dragon Age 2.

But after completing the game several times I got bored and began poking about for mods. I found a wonderful mod called Diversified Followers Armour; and installed it and started up a new play through.

And do you know what?

It made me realise that I true despise iconic looks, once I had the option of customisation, of outfits that actually changed as the game progressed. It sunk in just how much I was actually merely tolerating the iconic looks in the face of the games other failings.
I was often seen using this arguement when people attacked the Iconic Looks.

"Well at least it isn't like the nonsensical lore breaking looks that the Companions wear in Mass Effect 2. The DA2 looks actually contextually make sense! Example Isabela is a Saucy Pirate Wench so she is dressed like a Saucy Pirate Wench..." Also Mass Effect 3 was nearly as bad on that front too.

After playing ME3 and falling across its horrific ending I found myself once again vigorously defending DA2, in the ME3 forums. People saying Bioware was dead because both DA2 and ME3 was terrible. Saying that both endings were horribly bad, and what not.
And I found myself using the exact same arguement about the DA2 ending vs the ME3 ending that I used about the DA2 iconic looks versus the ME2 iconic looks; that even if the Dragon Age 2 ending sucked (and it did suck - sorry Mike) at least in spite of bad it was, it still actually contextually made sense and did not rip giant holes i the lore of the universe it is set in.

I say this not to get a dig in at you guys, but because it (combined with playing DA2 with the DFA mod) made me realise just how bad that arguement was; because I was effectively forcing myself to "like" something that I do not like, that I actually fundamentally hate.
And why? Pretty much because it could have been worse. It could have been Miranda running around in a skin exposing skin tight catsuit complete with impractical high heels in a combat situation in a space station with no atmosphere, or a planet with a poisonous atmosphere.

That was pretty much what my arguements boiled down to. And it is not a good arguement.

And I feel this way because I feel that Dragon Age is not the type of game that "Iconic" looks ala Final Fantasy, or La Noire lend itself well to. Having played DA2 now with DFA, and realised why the arguements I made in favour of the iconic looks were in actual fact very poor; I realise that "Iconic looks" just do not fit in the type of game that Dragon Age is.

So like I said at the beginning of this lengthy post. Giving each character a fully customisable "unique" look is an acceptable if resource expensive compromise.

If you really feel you can not just give all the companions unique looks ala Morrigan but allow them full control as in DAO; then I really do hope that you guys have the time, and resources to implement this.

It marries both "sides" of the coin in an acceptable if not ideal way.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 14 avril 2012 - 01:21 .

[Vaeliorin]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

IMO, Mike, this would be excellent.  Stat customization is more important to me than visual consistency (honestly, I'm happy with BG era visuals as long as I can rotate the camera.)  I would like to think this would be a best of both worlds approach that would satisfy most people.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

That'd be a massive improvement over what's being discussed, yes.

Of course, if you want to ramp it up a little more (according to my tastes), you'd remove Attribute restrictions on non-magical/special armors and simply have effectiveness scale according to stats. Then create different streams of armors that speak to various playstyles (Chainmail = Strong v Swords, Weak v Bows; Plate = Strong vs Swords, Strong v Bows, slower movement/attack speed).

And in an ideal world, you'd apply this philosophy to Weapons, too. Dual Wielding Warriors, Warrior Archers, Rogues with Swords, or even Staves (no magical effects).

Still, that's a pretty solid proposal.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 14 avril 2012 - 01:24 .

[Amycus89]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

[*]That would be really, really great. Scratch that, it would we fantastic.[*]
[*]When I first read about the effect of the different stats in DA2 (prior to its release) I was thrilled, since all stats suddenly seemed more or less useful for all classes (-->which leads to more experimenting on what makes the character as bgood as possible). Unfortunately, due to the way equipment was handled in DA2, only 2 stats were relevant for each class, which didn't leave room for much customization stats wise. Instead it was basically just the talents aquired that differed one PC from another of the same class.[*]
[*]Edit: And last but not least, it gives us the choice to either plan on going with light or heavy armor - or robes if you are a mage. Choices choices, wonderful choices. And as an added bonus, you manage to shut up some of the whining from us RPG fanatics:devil:

Modifié par Amycus89, 14 avril 2012 - 01:26 .

[CENIC]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

Better as long as it doesn't mean that I can't have less-robey-looking outfits with Magic/Wisdom requirements.

[Dave of Canada]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

As one who considers the unique appearences as a positive, I'd consider this a very strong compromise between Origins and 2. Ultimately, it would have to fall upon how it's done (depends how much resource is spent on making every piece look tailored to the character), however it would be fascinating to see how... say, Merrill would look in personalised heavy armor.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

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.

What I feel it adds, on the follower front is recognizability and identity, two things which I think are important. I'm very aware that there are lots of folks (in this very thread, even), who would much, much rather have complete control over their party members' appearance than have them look distinct from one another, but there are others who feel that unique appearances for followers is a great thing, as it makes them more characterful, or simply prevents a party of warriors from looking same-ish.

I have to make a choice between those two, but it doesn't mean that I can't try to compromise, which is exactly what this proposal is attempting. It returns equipment to followers. It also provides visual feedback based on your actions, since their looks update based on what armor they're wearing.

But here's the thing: If them having unique looks doesn't hold any weight for you, then it simply doesn't, and I'm sorry that the decision isn't the ideal for your game experience. I really am.

But my question is why remove that option from the player? Putting Morrigan in Massive Armor for example affected no one's individual playthrough but one's own, and no one is forced to put a mage in heavy armor. One could leave her in her starter robes for a "iconic look" if they wished but had options and choice available to them. What is so wrong with that from a design standpoint?

But the option is there for those who want to go that route and turn that mage into a close combat specialist albiet at the penalty of having to put points into str above higher damage by putting points into magic.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

[*]Most excellent! That right there is a compromise I think both sides of the debate could be very content with! Please please please go this route!

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Well, I can tell you now you're going to upset the people who really like the eg. Grey Warden version of Sterling Armour and want to put it on their Seeker, but end up getting a completely different aesthetic when they do so. Or they want that closed helm but get open face. Or a face-shadowing hood but it's...not.

Others will simply find it immersion-breaking to have a piece of armour magically change to suit the style of a particular NPC.

I confess I prefer a system where what you see is what you get without all this artistic screwing around for the sole purpose of making NPCs look distinct, but I don't care enough about armour customisation to discuss the point much further. :/ I don't think what's been presented looks bad, but the whole iconic thing has started to irk me. I guess I don't understand why people keep saying Morrigan lost her identity as soon as you couldn't see her sideboob, and none of the other characters in DA:O had identity due to lack of vanity armour.

[Brockololly]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

That sounds better, although I'm not clear on what you mean by having the mage with plate armor equipped have a "heavy" look thats not necessarily plate?  Like a "heavy" variant of that companion's default look thats just not customized to the specific armor, but just generically "heavy"?

 

Modifié par Brockololly, 14 avril 2012 - 01:31 .

[Dave of Canada]

CrustyBot wrote...

[*]
Of course, if you want to ramp it up a little more (according to my tastes), you'd remove Attribute restrictions on non-magical/special armors and simply have effectiveness scale according to stats.

Personally, I don't understand the necessity of attribute restrictions on gear. A warrior building dexterity won't suddenly find himself fascinated in equipping the chest piece that requires strength and gives strength as a boost, he'd rather focus on the one which gives dexterity. Blood mages were heavily hurt in this regard for DA2 where you'd need to pump up some useless statistics to use gear which would contain somewhat useful stats.

[RosaAquafire]

Dave of Canada wrote...

[*]
Personally, I don't understand the necessity of attribute restrictions on gear. A warrior building dexterity won't suddenly find himself fascinated in equipping the chest piece that requires strength and gives strength as a boost, he'd rather focus on the one which gives dexterity. Blood mages were heavily hurt in this regard for DA2 where you'd need to pump up some useless statistics to use gear which would contain somewhat useful stats.

[*]Actually, I can agree with this. In DA2, stat requirements basically just felt like level checks, and they severely limited your options for stat allocation. I prefered Cunning to Dexterity on my archer Hawke, but I HAD to spend equal points in each to get her the best armours.
[*]I think strength makes sense in terms of "how strong do you need to be the wear this." Strength should be the only stat requirement. Everything else feels more restricting than helpful. If you're going to have stat requiremtsn other than strength, make them only one stat per, and alternate which stat. Like, +damage gear would require DEX and +crit gear would require cunning?
[*]EDIT: This is the most obnoxious pyrmaird quote ever.

Modifié par RosaAquafire, 14 avril 2012 - 01:33 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

I don't think there is a right way or wrong way on this issue, some prefer linked to class others prefer linked to stats. Simple preferences. I personally see nothing wrong with having it class based or stat based as long as the quantity of peices per character is large enough (subjective between how much is enough). The problem with stat based is you have to make all armours and all parts fit all characters yet maintain the individual identity you want because all characters can alter stats in that regard.

While it gives the player more freedom... Is it possible within the time constraints without sacrificing many additional sets and peices that could of been created if not all of them were forced to work with all characters and making every peice visually inline with being unique to each companion and main character? I am wondering if the trade off is worth it if indeed that is what occurs. If it not such a problem, as long as you can maintain the companions unique style with each set and peice and not sacrifice fairly large quantities of sets and peice then stat based just gives the player more freedom.

Then of course theres the do you alter stats to match who has each equiped or have set stats for the armour itself based on the armour type. This of course leading to yet more time in producing and balancing stats on the armours for all classes as opposed to the class specific variation. What would be sacrificed in order to accomplish this potentially within a set time frame of development?

Now if the answer to both those questions is no consequences of having stat based instead of classed and no negative effect on quantity and quality of sets and peices due to time invested in making all classes being able to use yet retain unique identity including allowing stats on the armour adapting to each class potentially placed it on vs armour having set in stone stats itself then the stat compared to class option would be better for the player.

I want the unique looks, I want freedom to chose who wears what within that framework as much as possible and I want the largest selection to choose from regarding sets and peices with clear visual differences.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 avril 2012 - 01:38 .