302 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

Yes, please. Have the rules that govern the PCs govern the NPCs as well. We need a game system that is internally consistent. Asymmetry tends to make consistency very hard, if not outright impossible, to achieve.

I understand that players want to see big numbers when they score hits, but that doesn't require asymmetry.

Imagine a sword that does 10 units of damage.  Swung against an opponent, 10 units might equate to 1000 hit points, while against the PC 10 units is only 10 hit points.  If the asymmetry is attached to the damage recipient instead of the damage dealer, then the asymmetry won't break friendly fire.

[the_one_54321]

Alternatively, the monsters can also just do huge amounts of damage.

[Direwolf0294]

What I hated about DA2's level and attribute system is that the combat didn't become really enjoyable until you were really far into the game and had unlocked a bunch of stuff. I absolutely hated how they teased us at the start of the game with this really fun combat and then just took it all away from us. By the time you did get all your cool abilities back so your character could do more then just stand in place auto attacking an enemy you still didn't feel as powerful as those first few minutes of the game because either your gear wasn't as good or because the creatures you faced had way too much health, defence etc.

DA:O didn't have that because the combat was generally boring no matter what level you were, unless you played a mage. In DA2 though it sucked big time.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

DA:O didn't have that because the combat was generally boring no matter what level you were, unless you played a mage.

I THINK THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO THAT: LOW LEVELS. THE FIRST FEW FIGHTS IN DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS (BASICALLY UP THROUGH THE OGRE) FELT INTENSE, GRITTY, AND DANGEROUS, WHICH IS THE FEEL I'D IMAGINE THEY WERE GOING FOR. THE FACT THAT CONSUMABLES WERE LIMITED AND A FEW BAD DECISIONS COULD COMPLETELY WRECK YOUR PARTY GAVE FIGHTS A LOT OF TENSION.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Alternatively, the monsters can also just do huge amounts of damage.

I got the impression that the huge damage numbers for the PC somehow had to stand out as bigger than the enemies' damage numbers.

Otherwise, yes, just make a symmetrical system with bigger numbers.

But if they need the PC to do more damage than his enemies do, they can still achieve that without asymmetry.  They just need to adjust the value on the defender-side rather than the attacker-side.

[Firky]

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

DA:O didn't have that because the combat was generally boring no matter what level you were, unless you played a mage.

I THINK THERE'S AN EXCEPTION TO THAT: LOW LEVELS. THE FIRST FEW FIGHTS IN DRAGON AGE: ORIGINS (BASICALLY UP THROUGH THE OGRE) FELT INTENSE, GRITTY, AND DANGEROUS, WHICH IS THE FEEL I'D IMAGINE THEY WERE GOING FOR. THE FACT THAT CONSUMABLES WERE LIMITED AND A FEW BAD DECISIONS COULD COMPLETELY WRECK YOUR PARTY GAVE FIGHTS A LOT OF TENSION.

That's totally true. There was an Emissary (?) on a bridge right near the beginning which was *really* tricky, from memory. Then, I struggled with Redcliffe and a couple of Denerim fights, but otherwise didn't feel particularly challenged in Origins. Which was a shame because it would have been really nice to experiment with the glut of abilities (and in Awakening.)

[Joy Divison]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Friendly fire would not obliterate the party if the damage scales were equal. Changing that was a mistake.

Nevermind, I misunderstood.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[Halberd96]

DA:O did a little of this kind of... I remember that at the front of Orzammar the enemies were really tough and even in the Deep Roads there were a lot of tough enemies and fights whereas Redcliffe and the Dalish Elf forests were easier. Also I remember Denerim had that blood mage base which you could get to early on in the game and it was really hard.

I wouldn't mind if they improve the scale of enemies a bit more (Fallout: New Vegas was pretty good at this, Skyrim almost did a good job but things got too easy too quick in the game.)

In the end though it isn't gonna be something I'll be too critical of...the story of the game and the characters are still a lot of a bigger thing for me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Joy Divison wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Friendly fire would not obliterate the party if the damage scales were equal. Changing that was a mistake.

Perhaps I misunderatand your post...why is it exactly Anders's fireball should obliterate the party whereas the enemy mage's fireball should not?

the_one is saying the opposite.  He thinks (and I agree with him) that the change from DAO's more balanced design was a mistake.

[Joy Divison]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Friendly fire would not obliterate the party if the damage scales were equal. Changing that was a mistake.

Perhaps I misunderatand your post...why is it exactly Anders's fireball should obliterate the party whereas the enemy mage's fireball should not?

the_one is saying the opposite.  He thinks (and I agree with him) that the change from DAO's more balanced design was a mistake.

You're right, I misread that.  I can't for the life of me understand the appeal of an asymetric combat system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Joy Divison wrote...

You're right, I misread that.  I can't for the life of me understand the appeal of an asymetric combat system.

I suspect it makes the game easier to design, but I agree from the players' perspective there's no benefit at all.

[Sharn01]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

You're right, I misread that.  I can't for the life of me understand the appeal of an asymetric combat system.

I suspect it makes the game easier to design, but I agree from the players' perspective there's no benefit at all.

I dont see how making two completely different set of rules, one for enemies and one for players is easier then one set of rules that govern both.

The only game that this seems to work on is MMO's, and I would argue its not completely necessary for them if you balance the fights differently, its definately a drawback for single player games.

[MEBengal2008]

Jones7602 wrote...

Hi Allen. Please let me remark the following. High level abillities being essentially an upgrade to a low level abillity was one of the most annoying things in DA2 and to a certain extent in DA:O. Why? With the upgrade you get what the abillity should have been in the first place, e.g. a fireball doing some damage. From my point of view, either get rid of this system and create unique abillities, or tune the system in way that's enjoyable. One idea could be, besides powering the abillity up, to let the player chose one of several upgrades that really change the abillity. For example, one upgrade could be really powerful against single opponents, while another might do medium damage to several targets, or opening up the way to a CCC, or adding some crowd control.

I agree with you. In DAO a fireball had one upgrade and that was selecting the spell. In DA2 you had to select it and than upgrade it to make it useful. I believe you should have an ability tree, something between DAO and DA2, that each time you select ability you get something new or add a new permenant ability. I hope Bioware is able to combine the two styles and find something that satisfies the masses.

[AkiKishi]

Joy Divison wrote...

You're right, I misread that.  I can't for the life of me understand the appeal of an asymetric combat system.

Depends on the game, but in a game with friendly fire it's a very bad idea.

[Night Dreams]

Speaking of levelling up, I really hope the keep the new ability trees rather than the simple 'lines' that we had to follow in DAO. I especially liked the upgrades.

[AkiKishi]

Night Dreams wrote...

Speaking of levelling up, I really hope the keep the new ability trees rather than the simple 'lines' that we had to follow in DAO. I especially liked the upgrades.

well, you balance out that guy from earlier.... 

I'd rather a sort of hybrid myself. Otherwise I often find I'm buying skills for the sake of it rather than because I'm using them.

I'd also like something like Xenoblade does,which is very similiar to the CCC combos, but less restrictive.

Put simply if goes something like this.

1. Use a skill to cause a break state.
2. Use a skill to topple (knocks them over)
3. Use a skill to daze, stuns.
4. Use finisher which has % chance to insta kill a dazed foe. When they have 100,000 + hps that's very handy.

Of course some things are immune too.

While you gain skills on level up, the process for increasing them is points based.

[MichaelStuart]

I rather just have all the skills as soon as I pick my class.
I dislike any game that limits me in the begin.

[AkiKishi]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I rather just have all the skills as soon as I pick my class.
I dislike any game that limits me in the begin.

Good luck with that... I can't think of a single example of a roleplaying game where that has been the case.

[MichaelStuart]

What about having all basic skills, then picking a upgrade when leveled.

[Fast Jimmy]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I rather just have all the skills as soon as I pick my class.
I dislike any game that limits me in the begin.

I could get behind this idea, if and only if the abilities started out in an "infant" form that could all be grown and advanced with more skill points and become more varied. For instance, it doesn't really make sense that I would have access to the Primal Skill Tree as a mage and know how to cast cold spells on level one, but not know how to cast fire and lightning spells until, say, level 6 just because I didn't choose those skills until later.

Any mage that has undergone any training knows how to cast an ice spell just as much as they woudl know a fire one. Its just a matter of deciding which spell type you'd like to become more adept in.

For instace, I think we should start out with the lowest level skills or spells of every tree as soon as it is unlocked. Then as we spend more skills to unlock things further down that branch, they become more powerful and varied. 

As is, DA2 trees really only reward players starting out who focus exclusively on a certain set of skills. I picked an ice spell attack my first level. Now with my next skill point, should I choose a more powerful ice spell, or a beginner fire spell? The answer is pretty simple (except for the level limitations for when you can choose skills, which I can respect, but the concept is still the same - I'd like a suite of beginnign level skills and powers to build off of, rather than not having any of these skills as an option until I've spread my skill points all over the various trees. 

It would be a great way to see from the beginning if various skill trees would be beneficial to your play type without having to invest large amounts of levels and skills into them and risk leveling yourself into a corner with a poor build because you were experimenting.

[AkiKishi]

MichaelStuart wrote...

What about having all basic skills, then picking a upgrade when leveled.

Skill progression is part of the learning curve of the game. Give someone 20 skills and they will have no idea whats going on. Give them 3 or 4 then add the other 16-17 and they learn as the game progresses.

Adding skills can also mix up the gameplay and stop it getting stale.

[MichaelStuart]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Skill progression is part of the learning curve of the game. Give someone 20 skills and they will have no idea whats going on. Give them 3 or 4 then add the other 16-17 and they learn as the game progresses.

But you don't need 20 skills that do nothing. All you need is about 6 good ones.

I got threw Dragon age 2 using about 5 skills per charater, just that most of the useful skills were unlocked after the useless ones. 

Modifié par MichaelStuart, 26 avril 2012 - 11:08 .

[Wulfram]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Skill progression is part of the learning curve of the game. Give someone 20 skills and they will have no idea whats going on. Give them 3 or 4 then add the other 16-17 and they learn as the game progresses.

Adding skills can also mix up the gameplay and stop it getting stale.

Though I do wish we could be allowed to start out a little higher level when we're replaying the game and don't need our hands held.  Or maybe if we're importing, if nothing too dramatic has been changed.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

MichaelStuart wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Skill progression is part of the learning curve of the game. Give someone 20 skills and they will have no idea whats going on. Give them 3 or 4 then add the other 16-17 and they learn as the game progresses.

But you don't need 20 skills that do nothing. All you need is about 6 good ones.

I got threw Dragon age 2 using about 5 skills per charater, just that most of the useful skills were unlocked after the useless ones. 

The problem is you don't know what this 6 good ones players want to use. Defining only 6 skills for every player to use kill gameplay diversity. You may like fireball and it's trees but what if I want to play ice cone and it's branching? You get what you want while I don't get what I want.  

[AkiKishi]

Wulfram wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Skill progression is part of the learning curve of the game. Give someone 20 skills and they will have no idea whats going on. Give them 3 or 4 then add the other 16-17 and they learn as the game progresses.

Adding skills can also mix up the gameplay and stop it getting stale.

Though I do wish we could be allowed to start out a little higher level when we're replaying the game and don't need our hands held.  Or maybe if we're importing, if nothing too dramatic has been changed.

Common feature in new game plus. No reason not to ask.

Don't think importing will work since it's a different character and there will be enough differences from DA2 in the core system rebalancing to make what you learned in DA2 less useful.