80 réponses à ce sujet

[Dakota Strider]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The problem is that in combat you never ran out. If you were an archer you would run through a quiver of arrows. In the other games you had to make every arrow count or use up inventory slots to carry more. Crafting arrows would have been interesting. At least it could not be as tedious as making runes in Awakening.

It could be done, but you did need to keep an eye on it and make sure you had a big supply of the enchanted arrows / bolts.

I think a multiple-stage arrow / bolt crafting could be really interesting.  The first stage would be making the basic arrow, then also have a mage-only crafting skill where the mage could enchant them with special elemental damage bonuses or something.

Fun to think about.

ETA:  Also, multiple levels of the skill could give you armor-piercing bonuses, etc...

I also enjoyed managing inventories and resources such as arrows.  Of course, even if DAO had made you keep track of normal arrows, it would be hard to run out, when you had the travelling Walmart in your camp.    I would love to see the reaction of some of those that prefer the more modern style of game, if something was introduced like weapon and/or armor breakage.   I know that is unlikely to ever happen, but it is one way to keep the characters running around with full armories and treasuries.

[Realmzmaster]

Unfortunately, some gamers think that would be to much micromanagement. Weapon breakage, miscasting spells, fumbling weapons at low levels, non-regenerating health and mana, party members that can die and inventory management. I guess I will look to the indies for games that I can sink my time into.

[TEWR]

Realmzmaster wrote...

non-regenerating health and mana

Weapon breakage

The former I definitely want, as I've often posted how the combat needs to be refined where that would be part and parcel to the refinement.

The latter is something that I wouldn't mind, but would ultimately not care about either way. I do enjoy it in the Fire Emblem series. And if it was in the DA games, I would prefer it only apply to basic weapons like "Longsword" or "Axe".

Specially named weapons shouldn't break, but then again I say that because I'm a hoarder of special items.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 25 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[Realmzmaster]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

non-regenerating health and mana

Weapon breakage

The former I definitely want, as I've often posted how the combat needs to be refined where that would be part and parcel to the refinement.

The latter is something that I wouldn't mind, but would ultimately not care about either way. I do enjoy it in the Fire Emblem series. And if it was in the DA games, I would prefer it only apply to basic weapons like "Longsword" or "Axe".

Specially named weapons shouldn't break, but then again I say that because I'm a hoarder of special items.

A magical weapon should be harder to break, but if you do not take care of it (like taking it to the smithy to get the nicks taken out) then the possibility of breakage should increase. Also if you try to repair it yourself without the proper level in smithing. (If there is a smithing skill.) The other question is should a sword break if hit forcefully enough by a mace or hammer?

[cJohnOne]

I don't know about buying arrows being a good idea. I remember having to buy bundles of arrows in NWN2 and Special Acid arrows for special monsters. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble, but it would be more realistic.

[Pasquale1234]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Unfortunately, some gamers think that would be to much micromanagement. Weapon breakage, miscasting spells, fumbling weapons at low levels, non-regenerating health and mana, party members that can die and inventory management. I guess I will look to the indies for games that I can sink my time into.
.
.
.

A magical weapon should be harder to break, but if you do not take care of it (like taking it to the smithy to get the nicks taken out) then the possibility of breakage should increase. Also if you try to repair it yourself without the proper level in smithing. (If there is a smithing skill.) The other question is should a sword break if hit forcefully enough by a mace or hammer?

I'd say yes to that. It would give much more meaning to the specific types of weapons used. As it stands, the biggest difference (other than damage) seems to be armor penetration.

The things we're bringing up here are some of the reasons why some of us feel that DAO was the compromise, and DA2 went too far.

[Jessihatt]

Ranger is the only thing I like about DA rogues.
In DA:O I found rogues really difficult to keep alive and in DA2 it's just too stabby and dance-like for me.

I played the Dragon's Dogma demo yesterday as a rogue and I was prepared for disappointment but it was great.

If in DA3, rogues are like that I could do a full play through as one finally! Adding in the ranger specialisation again could make it my favourite class.

I really want to like playing as a rogue!

EDIT: totally forgot you could call your Mabari into battle in DA2. Ranger isn't needed then I guess! Unless you can have your Mabari AND a wild animal at the same time.

Modifié par CommanderJessica, 25 avril 2012 - 06:20 .

[Kail Ashton]

Did ranger do anything besides have animal super friends? (yes it had some measly stats, not the point ) and even then the pets stole your exp (til patched eventually), can't say i missed that one at all

I preferred the killing of two birds with one stone fix in DA2, take the useless companion slot stealing dog and combine it with the semi useful ranger pet summons and bam! you're set for win, this is easily the best aproach & one i hope continues in DA3 (allbeit with a diffrent model mabari or some kinda new pet)

[WardenWade]

I'd love for ranger to return...IMO it seemed to be a wonderful spec for an archer, as you get melee and ranged damage at once.

As an aside, I'd also really like to see bard (as we'll very likely be in Orlais in DA3), spirit warrior and arcane warrior make a comeback.

Modifié par WardenWade, 26 avril 2012 - 12:18 .

[Dakota Strider]

I seem to recall, that in DAO, if you had a ranger in the party, you might have the chance to recognize tracks in a few places. That was a nice touch, but I would like to see more of that sort of thing.

Recall how you could ask the "worldly" bard Leliana about different places you were at, and she may have stories about them? In a similar fashion, I think that you should be able to gain information about flora and fauna in different areas, as well as other type of survival information depending on the area you are in, if you have a ranger in your party.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 26 avril 2012 - 12:43 .

[OMTING52601]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Unfortunately, some gamers think that would be to much micromanagement. Weapon breakage, miscasting spells, fumbling weapons at low levels, non-regenerating health and mana, party members that can die and inventory management. I guess I will look to the indies for games that I can sink my time into.

I'd be one of those gamers. LOL, I break my RPG games into three different groups: open world, non-linear tactical, and action/adventure with RPG elements. I don't want all of those different subsections melding into one. When I first bought DA:O, I did it because it wasn't open world, I wouldn't have to flip through seven to ten different screens to manage my character(s) and their stuff, and I wouldn't have to worry about wide-shotting spells or arrows. When I'm in the mood for that, I pick a different game.

Though I may be in the minority, I liked the combat system much better in DA 2 over DA:O. That said, I didn't like picking up a ton of junk I had no use for(playing DW rogue, no need for mage gear) and I couldn't use any of it to change the look of my companions. I don't understand why that aspect of game one was cut out of game two and would like to see it's return, though from what I've read that isn't likely to happen. Too bad.

I don't want to see things like having to build my own weapons and armor or weight restrictions either. The thing is, IMO FWIW, BW games are RPG's that focus on story and characters - not roving the countryside aimlessly or spending hours trying to find petal of the green lotus to make that last piece of armor.

And while BW may have fumbled a bit in both aspects of what I expected from them, again IMO, that's what drew me to BW in the first place. I can't honestly say I'll definitely buy, on release, future BW products without seeing them first. I can say that if the DA franchise chooses to become more like Elder Scrolls or Fable and less like DA:O, I wouldn't buy the game.  

[Dakota Strider]

OMTING52601 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Unfortunately, some gamers think that would be to much micromanagement. Weapon breakage, miscasting spells, fumbling weapons at low levels, non-regenerating health and mana, party members that can die and inventory management. I guess I will look to the indies for games that I can sink my time into.

I'd be one of those gamers. LOL, I break my RPG games into three different groups: open world, non-linear tactical, and action/adventure with RPG elements. I don't want all of those different subsections melding into one. When I first bought DA:O, I did it because it wasn't open world, I wouldn't have to flip through seven to ten different screens to manage my character(s) and their stuff, and I wouldn't have to worry about wide-shotting spells or arrows. When I'm in the mood for that, I pick a different game.

Though I may be in the minority, I liked the combat system much better in DA 2 over DA:O. That said, I didn't like picking up a ton of junk I had no use for(playing DW rogue, no need for mage gear) and I couldn't use any of it to change the look of my companions. I don't understand why that aspect of game one was cut out of game two and would like to see it's return, though from what I've read that isn't likely to happen. Too bad.

I don't want to see things like having to build my own weapons and armor or weight restrictions either. The thing is, IMO FWIW, BW games are RPG's that focus on story and characters - not roving the countryside aimlessly or spending hours trying to find petal of the green lotus to make that last piece of armor.

And while BW may have fumbled a bit in both aspects of what I expected from them, again IMO, that's what drew me to BW in the first place. I can't honestly say I'll definitely buy, on release, future BW products without seeing them first. I can say that if the DA franchise chooses to become more like Elder Scrolls or Fable and less like DA:O, I wouldn't buy the game.  

As "the_one' " stated in another thread  "DAO was the compromise" between true rpg's and the action/arcade style game.  Many of us rpg fans believe that DA2 got way too far away from the Bioware rpg roots, and we would like to pull them back to a DAO style, or better yet, towards even more rpg orientated games like they have made in the past.

[Pasquale1234]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I seem to recall, that in DAO, if you had a ranger in the party, you might have the chance to recognize tracks in a few places. That was a nice touch, but I would like to see more of that sort of thing.

Recall how you could ask the "worldly" bard Leliana about different places you were at, and she may have stories about them? In a similar fashion, I think that you should be able to gain information about flora and fauna in different areas, as well as other type of survival information depending on the area you are in, if you have a ranger in your party.

I'd love it if a ranger could help you find rare crafting materials and track down NPCs you might be looking for.

Those are the kinds of improvements I was hoping we'd see in DA2 - what we got instead is everything watered down and many things removed entirely.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 26 avril 2012 - 04:19 .

[Direwolf0294]

I've found myself really hating the ranger, or ranger like, class in
rpgs because it's almost always the only bow using class and it's always
focused on pets, traps and general wilderness stuff. I was so disappointed in DA:O when I learned
the ranger was all about summoning animals and not about shooting
things with a bow. I just want a pure bow using class for once, damn it!
None of this animal companion scouting through the woods laying traps
stuff. Have that class, sure, but also give me a class strictly based on bow use that gives me things like a general buff to my damage with ranged weapons and the ability to use things like fire arrows and has no animal companions or traps or animal tracking abilities.

[Dakota Strider]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

I've found myself really hating the ranger, or ranger like, class in
rpgs because it's almost always the only bow using class and it's always
focused on pets, traps and general wilderness stuff. I was so disappointed in DA:O when I learned
the ranger was all about summoning animals and not about shooting
things with a bow. I just want a pure bow using class for once, damn it!
None of this animal companion scouting through the woods laying traps
stuff. Have that class, sure, but also give me a class strictly based on bow use that gives me things like a general buff to my damage with ranged weapons and the ability to use things like fire arrows and has no animal companions or traps or animal tracking abilities.

What you want is a warrior that specializes in a bow, not a ranger.  Warriors in almost all systems, get the best attack bonuses.  And if you make the warrior a dex based character, instead of strength, that sounds like what you are looking to play.    Or, you could just make a straight rogue, that is a stealth specialist, that gets extra damage by firing from ambush.   In Neverwinter Nights, which was based on the AD&D 3rd edition rules, it was possible to make a warrior that specialized in a bow.  You could also dual class that character with rogue, to get warrior attack stats, mixed with rogue sneak attack damage, and stealth, to make a very deadly sniper type character.   And the ultimate bow warrior from that game was the Elven Arcane Archer.  The requirement was being able to have a class that could cast arcane magic, and have certain bow skills before you could gain this prestige class.  But then you had an archer that could use archery that had a mix of magic.

But a ranger, is meant to be a character that does "wilderness stuff".   I do not believe a ranger should be the only class that can use a bow, and until DA2, all Bioware fantasy rpg's that I can recall, allowed warriors and rogues to use bows.  But the other skills you mention, definitely falls into what would be considered domain.  Rangers certainly belong as a choice, and should not be a default bow user, as rangers can be made into potent melee warriors too, if built correctly, depending on the game system.   I do not think it necessary to make them summon animals, and to be honest, summoning is just a lazy game mechanic.  Animal companions should be real live animals, like the Mabari in DAO (not DA2).  A ranger in Dragon Age, should not have some magical power to summon things out of mid air. 

[Realmzmaster]

The inspiration for the ranger class includes several sources from Aragorn and the Rangers of the North from Tolkien, Robin Hood,Orion, Diana (goddess of the hunt). Tolkien had rangers as warriors who used tracking and hunting skills to hunt their enemies. The hunting skills included the use of the bow. Drizzt Do'Urden influenced the use of dual weapons. The idea of the companion appearing from thin air comes from Do'Urden calling his companion (Guenhwyvar) from the Astral Plane by setting down a figurine of the panther that he carries.

I would have preferred this method in DAO and have a quest related to gaining an animal companion.

Rangers have always been wilderness folks much like the Druids in that regard. Ranger is a specialization of the Rogue class because they can use many of the same skills to achieve thier goals..

[Dakota Strider]

Realmzmaster wrote...
(snip)
Rogue class because they can use many of the same skills to achieve thier goals..

DAO was the first game I have played where ranger was the subset of the rogue class.  Prior to that, it had always been a warrior subclass.  I suppose they believed they had too many warrior subclasses already in DAO, and wanted to give more choices to the rogue.   But since rangers are generally assumed to be hardier/healthier than the average character, due to their ability to survive in harsh wilderness conditions, I think they would be a better fit as a warrior.

[Realmzmaster]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
(snip)
Rogue class because they can use many of the same skills to achieve thier goals..

DAO was the first game I have played where ranger was the subset of the rogue class.  Prior to that, it had always been a warrior subclass.  I suppose they believed they had too many warrior subclasses already in DAO, and wanted to give more choices to the rogue.   But since rangers are generally assumed to be hardier/healthier than the average character, due to their ability to survive in harsh wilderness conditions, I think they would be a better fit as a warrior.

True, but I do not think you would call a rogue an average character especially an assassin who is skilled at the ambush which could occur anywhere. Putting the Ranger in the rogue class allowed for the combination of Ranger/Assassin. D & D first edition put the Ranger in the fighter class and that is where it is in regards to D & D. The reason I think that Bioware put Ranger in the Rogue class is because AD & D (2nd edition)  added thieflike abilities to the class (move silently and hide in shadows) which were not in the first edition ruleset.

[Lamepro]

Ranger class you get to summon a wolf .

Modifié par Lamepro, 27 avril 2012 - 03:56 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Dakota Strider wrote...

As "the_one' " stated in another thread  "DAO was the compromise" between true rpg's and the action/arcade style game.  Many of us rpg fans believe that DA2 got way too far away from the Bioware rpg roots, and we would like to pull them back to a DAO style, or better yet, towards even more rpg orientated games like they have made in the past.

Well, that all depends on the exceptionally varied definition of what exactly constitutes a "true rpg."

Be careful using such definitions as I am already inclined to disagree with the notion of the "true rpg"   (i.e. it's pretty subjective).

The idea that DAO is the compromise between BG and games like DA2 is still fair though.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

As "the_one' " stated in another thread  "DAO was the compromise" between true rpg's and the action/arcade style game.  Many of us rpg fans believe that DA2 got way too far away from the Bioware rpg roots, and we would like to pull them back to a DAO style, or better yet, towards even more rpg orientated games like they have made in the past.

Well, that all depends on the exceptionally varied definition of what exactly constitutes a "true rpg."

Be careful using such definitions as I am already inclined to disagree with the notion of the "true rpg"   (i.e. it's pretty subjective).

The idea that DAO is the compromise between BG and games like DA2 is still fair though.

One of my greatest pet peeves is when people insist that a game can't be called an rpg unless the combat is turn based, the interface is clutered and you need a calculator to work out all the stats and abilities that are thrown at you. I'm so glad BioWare can see beyond all that nonsense and understand what truly makes an rpg an rpg, the characters, story, world and your interaction with those things.

And yes I know the irony of bemoaning that some people say a true rpg is one thing and then going ahead myself and saying a true rpg is actually something else.

[Dakota Strider]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

As "the_one' " stated in another thread  "DAO was the compromise" between true rpg's and the action/arcade style game.  Many of us rpg fans believe that DA2 got way too far away from the Bioware rpg roots, and we would like to pull them back to a DAO style, or better yet, towards even more rpg orientated games like they have made in the past.

Well, that all depends on the exceptionally varied definition of what exactly constitutes a "true rpg."

Be careful using such definitions as I am already inclined to disagree with the notion of the "true rpg"   (i.e. it's pretty subjective).

The idea that DAO is the compromise between BG and games like DA2 is still fair though.

I am sure there are lots of definitions, as to what a "true" rpg is.  I played rpg's before there were computer games to handle the game mechanics and to give a visualization of what was going on, instead of the players imagination,   Baldur's Gate has probably been the very best at doing all what i feel is most important for an rpg.  Story matters, and not just a linear path that the player has no choice of getting off of, but multiple paths, with subpaths off of each main choice.   Multiple choices in dialogues, with consequences for your choices that matter.  Combat that has a sense of realism (yes, I know that magic is not real, but if it is used in a fantasy world, it has rules that need to be followed.)  Also, combat needs to give the player to the ability to use tactics and strategy, not just build a character to have the coolest combat moves that do the most damage, and then have a button mashing exercise, which benefits those with the largest percentage of fast twitch muscles.

I would say NwN also followed in the path of Baldur's gate, but just not as many choices for either companions, or plot paths, but the solo campaigns in the 3 game series, still were very well told.

DAO, is where I feel Bioware decided that they needed to add more style, flash and action to grab the attention of a wider range of gamer.  So, this was a hybrid of action/arcade style games, but it still maintained most of the principles of the Baldur Gate style rpg.  I think most of those that consider ourselves to be rpg fans, thought it was a fair compromise, and expected that as the DA team kept creating more games, they would figure out how to implement more of the features that it used in the BG/NwN series.  However, DA2 made a very big move in the opposite direction, to the point where it was a shadow of earlier Bioware rpgs.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 27 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[ChaosAgentLoki]

I want to see Rangers that are more in line with what Aragorn was in LotR. Having a wealth of knowledge on the world, wildlife and survival techniques was awesome and part of what made him my favorite character in that series. Summoning wild animals to help fight was never something I identified with the style of character and find hard to accept. I would like to see the specialization return for the next DA project. Just with some tweaks to make it more like a Ranger and less like a medieval Tarzan.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am sure there are lots of definitions, as to what a "true" rpg is. I played rpg's before there were computer games to handle the game mechanics and to give a visualization of what was going on, instead of the players imagination, Baldur's Gate has probably been the very best at doing all what i feel is most important for an rpg. Story matters, and not just a linear path that the player has no choice of getting off of, but multiple paths, with subpaths off of each main choice. Multiple choices in dialogues, with consequences for your choices that matter. Combat that has a sense of realism (yes, I know that magic is not real, but if it is used in a fantasy world, it has rules that need to be followed.) Also, combat needs to give the player to the ability to use tactics and strategy, not just build a character to have the coolest combat moves that do the most damage, and then have a button mashing exercise, which benefits those with the largest percentage of fast twitch muscles.

That's fair and I bet we probably see eye to eye on a good number of things. RPG is such a broad term, in my experience, that what someone considers to be the pinnacle is likely going to be close to the first experiences that brought them into the genre.

From what I look for in an RPG, The original Baldur's Gate actually falls short for me in a lot of ways. Baldur's Gate II and TOB get progressively better, and games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, and Ultima VII all duking it out for what I'd consider to be my "ideal" RPG.

But I digress, and will now attempt to bring the conversation back on topic with the following:

Does a Ranger as a warrior make more sense because they are closer to a warrior type in other cases (i.e. Strider), or because that's just sort of the way they've always been. I often relate Ranger to "Archer-like" in that they often have ranged weapon proficiencies, and tend to wear lighter (i.e. non-warrior) armors because of their agility and affinity with nature. So when it was a Rogue it didn't really bother me much.

Would increased HP (and stuff like that) for speccing as a Ranger help satisfy the hardiness criteria to make it easier to swallow as a subclass for rogues instead of warriors?

[Maria Caliban]

A ranger as a rogue makes more sense. They're a type of wilderness scout.