43 réponses à ce sujet

[wxman]

Just wanted to add some of my personal do's and dont's feed back for the Dev's

DO's

• DA: O style finishing moves... supposedly removed because you would be stuck
  watching the finishing move when you wanted to be doing something
  else... was really only a problem with ogres in my opinion, and
  cutting them out took a lot of the excitement out of combat for DA 2
• Realistic looking combat:
  Not everybody will agree with me I'm sure but I liked that DA:O
  combat seemed much more realistic, DA 2's combat, though much
  quicker paced seemed kind of cartoonie, more suited to Final
  Fantasy, then Dark Fantasy.
• Skills: Missed them in DA 2, having skills allows us to build characters with a bit
  more depth then just their combat abilities.
• Allow characters to equip any weapon like in DA: O: Call me crazy, but I like how I
  could have a mage or a rogue using a sword or a warrior using a
  dagger or bow in DA: O. Again this is a CRPG not an MMO, so you
  don't need to force me it to an archetype.
• Simple and straight forward combat mechanics:
  Okay the armor mechanic wasn't perfect in DA : O, but overall the
  armor/defense and attack mechanics of DA: O were straightforward and
  easy to understand. DA 2's combat mechanics were just stupid MMO
  rip-off mechanics that had no place in a CRPG.
• Enemies that follow the same rules as the player character
  In DA: O the enemies you fought (human types at least) were essentially warriors,rogues and mages that more
  or less followed the same rules you did and drew from the same listof combat skills *added, credit to wsandista *
• Ability Combo's: The Spell combo's in DA:O were cool and I also liked the cross class combo's of DA2. For DA3 though I would like to see classes be able to execute their own combo's when it makes sence. There is no good reason why Stone Fist can't shatter a frozen enemy, and no good reason while an attack that does extra damage to a "staggered" ememy wouldn't also do extra damage to a "dazed" ememy or visa vesa

DONT's

• Don't Re-use the same levels: I know this is a no brainer that
  they are already addressing but it bears mentioning again
• Don't have attributes requirements that don't make sense: Okay...
  I get heavy armor having a strength requirement but most of the
  other stat requirements seemed lame and artificial. A cunning
  requirement to equip leather armor? Don't make me gag. This is not
  an MMO, please don't throw in arbitrary stat requirements just to
  force me to wear a certain type of gear.
• Don't tie Spell damage to staff/weapon damage:
  It at least makes some sense for weapon abilities... but for spells
  it makes no sense at all. Please return to DA:O's system of tying
  spell damage to "Spellpower" rather then base damage.*edited*

That's all for now, I'll add more later if I think of them. Other players feel free to add your do's and dont's below.
 

Modifié par wxman, 30 avril 2012 - 10:33 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

I agree with all Do's and Don't. I was actually thinking about the finishing moves the other day. They could implement them without them causing too much trouble. Just have finishing moves possible for humanoid enemies. At the very least they should bring back finishing moves for boss type enemies. The finishing moves made combat in Origins feel satisfying. 

Exploding bodies wasn't satisfying.

The Witcher 2 had finishing moves and hell even Skyrim had finishing moves and I consider that game the very definition of an action-RPG. I also support the return of skills. It allows for more interesting leveling and allows us to difference two characters with the same class (I know you can still difference two characters with the same class but skills would you to do so even more).

Realistic animations is a must. They must get rid of those ninja style animations.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 29 avril 2012 - 08:31 .

[wsandista]

I agree with everything here, but I have to add a few things.

Make the enemies follow the same rules as the PC. This really bugged me about DA2, I mean in DAO when you fought anything, except for "monsters"(creatures without a class), you were fighting a warrior, mage, or rouge that use abilities that your party would use. In DA2, the enemies didn't follow the same rules like you did. This goes with #5 on your do list, but I think it needs to be stressed heavily.

Also If there is one thing DA2 did right it is having bonuses from abilities like Berserk be in % instead of static amounts. I thought that this helped certain abilities not degrade as you leveled up.

We should also go back to tiers for equipment, and only have specific equipment (like Chasind Great Maul, Spellward, or Wade's DragonBone) have special abilities, I disliked how i would collect a great set of armor in DA2, only to find generic pieces that had better stats.

Finally I would like the visuals to resemble DAO more than DA2. I thought that the way characters in DA2 looked was cartoonish, and the mood felt too "bright" compared to DAO, which had a grittier/darker feel to the backgrounds.

[Orian Tabris]

Elton John is dead wrote...

I agree with all Do's and Don't. I was actually thinking about the finishing moves the other day. They could implement them without them causing too much trouble. Just have finishing moves possible for humanoid enemies. At the very least they should bring back finishing moves for boss type enemies. The finishing moves made combat in Origins feel satisfying. 

Exploding bodies wasn't satisfying.

The Witcher 2 had finishing moves and hell even Skyrim had finishing moves and I consider that game the very definition of an action-RPG. I also support the return of skills. It allows for more interesting leveling and allows us to difference two characters with the same class (I know you can still difference two characters with the same class but skills would you to do so even more).

Realistic animations is a must. They must get rid of those ninja style animations.

I reckon finishing moves would work well in Dragon Age 3. Though, I think BW should design it so that they don't affect the rest of the batte, unless the enemy being defeated automatically ends or halts combat. I'm pretty sure, mind you, that DA2 had finishing moves. It's been a while since I've played.

Exploding bodies were satisfying, on rare occasions. For me, it was only with my 2-handed warrior Hawke using Scythe or something, or my mage Hawke killing an enemy afflicted by her Walking Bomb spell. The latter of which, was hard to see the exploding bodies, but made it look cooler.

They really should tone down the fast animation. I think players having completed DA: O, hearing that DA2 would have faster-paced combat, expected it to flow better, rather than move at extreme speeds. One of the main reasons people didn't like DA2, I think.

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 29 avril 2012 - 09:52 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

No. DA2 didn't have finishing moves unfortunately (if it did then I must be blind) but I will admit that the Templar ability Holy Smite was satisfying to use.

[MagmaSaiyan]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

I agree with all Do's and Don't. I was actually thinking about the finishing moves the other day. They could implement them without them causing too much trouble. Just have finishing moves possible for humanoid enemies. At the very least they should bring back finishing moves for boss type enemies. The finishing moves made combat in Origins feel satisfying. 

Exploding bodies wasn't satisfying.

The Witcher 2 had finishing moves and hell even Skyrim had finishing moves and I consider that game the very definition of an action-RPG. I also support the return of skills. It allows for more interesting leveling and allows us to difference two characters with the same class (I know you can still difference two characters with the same class but skills would you to do so even more).

Realistic animations is a must. They must get rid of those ninja style animations.

thats one thing i truly missed was the exploding body parts, i probably would have gotten sick of it were to happen every battle, but they should of done it more often at the most, with certain talents used and the enemy was in critical state, as far as combat pace goes, if they could some how make so that classes were different paces, such as 2h warrior will obviously be slow but not Origins slow, and rogues can be quick, like they were in DA2, mage can be the same

I reckon finishing moves would work well in Dragon Age 3. Though, I think BW should design it so that they don't affect the rest of the batte, unless the enemy being defeated automatically ends or halts combat. I'm pretty sure, mind you, that DA2 had finishing moves. It's been a while since I've played.

Exploding bodies were satisfying, on rare occasions. For me, it was only with my 2-handed warrior Hawke using Scythe or something, or my mage Hawke killing an enemy afflicted by her Walking Bomb spell. The latter of which, was hard to see the exploding bodies, but made it look cooler.

They really should tone down the fast animation. I think players having completed DA: O, hearing that DA2 would have faster-paced combat, expected it to flow better, rather than move at extreme speeds. One of the main reasons people didn't like DA2, I think.

[LolaLei]

I think having our character and companions running around towns/cities between quests without their weapons would be a good idea for DA3 (like ME3 did where you ran around the citadel in off duty clothing unarmed) if they had taken that approach in DA2 then at least the Templars could have been forgiven for thinking Apostate Mages like Anders, Merrill and Mage Hawke were just regular people lol... The massive staffs on their backs should have been a dead give away lol. On the off chance that they get ambushed in town then they could still have small concealed weapons like the murder knife etc with them, just to keep it slightly more believable.

[wsandista]

@Filament

One difference is that in DA2 your mage HAD to use a staff to use magic, while in DAO you could perform magic without using a staff. The other difference is that staffs in DAO boosted spellpower to affect damage, while damage in DA2 was determined mostly by the staff(basic attack). This transforms the mage from the kind I'm used to playing where they have weak basic attacks and devastating spells in games like DAO or NWN, to a new class that has relatively high damaging basic attacks(am I the only one who thought it was real stupid that rouges and mages both generally had higher basic attack damage than warriors BTW) and less impressive spells.

Modifié par wsandista, 30 avril 2012 - 04:29 .

[wxman]

wsandista wrote...

Make the enemies follow the same rules as the PC. This really bugged me about DA2, I mean in DAO when you fought anything, except for "monsters"(creatures without a class), you were fighting a warrior, mage, or rouge that use abilities that your party would use. In DA2, the enemies didn't follow the same rules like you did. This goes with #5 on your do list, but I think it needs to be stressed heavily.

I definatly agree with this as well. It was another irritant to me when I played as well. "Really this guy, has 10K Hp but hits for only 25% of the damage I'm dishing out, am I playing Final Fantasy?"

[wxman]

Filament wrote...quote]

[*]DAO staves did affect spell damage. Each staff had an innate spellpower that changed depending on the quality of the material. Adding that spellpower (from 1 to 7) and any other spellpower bonuses (staves often had bonus spellpower too) to your innate spellpower (Magic - 10) determined the strength of spells in terms of damage, duration, overcoming resistance.

It's true that DA2 leans more heavily on the staff than DAO. DA2 got rid of spellpower in favor of base damage and force effects. Force effects are tied to the base damage, which is the damage of the staff itself (the best non-scaled staff has 48) + (magic - 10)/2. So you can see, the effect of magic is halved and the effect of the staff is much greater, for determining effective "spellpower" in DA2.

Still, it's inaccurate to say DAO staves have no relation to spell damage. Plus, it makes sense that the staff should have some effect, thinking of it like a conduit of sorts.

The way they did it in DA: O made a lot more sence though. Your staff added to your spellpower, your spellpower was you magic attribute -10, plus your staff or other spell power bonuses. And your spell damage was calculated off your spellpower, fireball damage equals spellspower times two for example (not an exact game calculation).

Contrast this with DA 2 were spell damage was simply calculated as weapon damge times 3, or timers 6, depending on the spell. If you used a mod to let you equip a bow you would suddenly become "Uber Mage" because the bow (or other rogue weapons) did a ton of damge.

[wxman]

Filament wrote...
It's one thing to not like the percentages or what-have-you, but how does that make it "MMO"? Your other uses of "MMO" at least tied it to some notion of enforcing rigid archetypes on the classes.

Well in DA you had a weapon that did X amount of damage and you had attack and defence values that were more
or less static, yes they got higher as you leveled and your equipment got better but they didn't take off into the stratosphere. If you had a low level character in DA that had a  high dex, then you would have good attack and defense and would probably be able to hit a high level charcter (though probably not very hard), and that same high level character would have a hard time hitting you. Also if you had an item that say added +12 to defense it was very straight forward what it did and would likely be useful for a long time.

Contrast this with DA 2 which has numbers that are similar to an MMO (though not quite as ridiculous). You attack and defense values that are "good" at level 10, are absolutely worthless at level 25. My 200 attack rating at level 10 gives my 100% chance to hit a standard enemy and I could dodge there attack 50% of the time (an example, not real game values), but those same numbers might only give you a 10% chance to hit at lvl 25, while your dodge is the standard 5%. Also the same +12 defense item might give you a small boost now, but will definitely be useless in 5 levels or so, etc.

Modifié par wxman, 30 avril 2012 - 09:23 .

[wxman]

Filament wrote...
Spell damage is your base damage times a multiplier. Your base damage is your weapon damage plus (magic - 10)/2, as previously stated. So no, it does take magic into account.

Fine "base damage", "attack damage" whatever you want to call it... you weapon damage is FAR more important then your magic attribute in calculating spell damage.

[wxman]

Filament wrote...

They're roughly equal in importance at the end of the game if you're using Final Thought and pushed Magic to 100. And it's not just a matter of switching interchangeable terms around... "base damage" is the only correct term to use there. Using "weapon damage" implies magic is not part of the equation, which is wrong.

Okay then. Edited original post.

[Bonanza16]

For me, it's very simple.

Do DA:O!

Don't do DAII.

[wsandista]

Bonanza16 wrote...

For me, it's very simple.

Do DA:O!

Don't do DAII.

While I would like to see refinements from the DAO system, another expansion for DAO would 've been better than what DA2 was. Speaking of which DA:A is selling for $30 while SA2 is going for $20, i think that can tell you how DA2 is recieved.

[Loc'n'lol]

Honestly I think the way spellpower worked in DAO was pretty bad, and was one of the causes of class imbalance in the game. So I can totally understand them wanting to put everyone on similar mechanics when it comes to damage.

This is (very roughly, and arguably) how classes evolved in power in DAO based on their attributes, new abilities & equipment.

Mages : gain a lot of power from getting a new tier of spell. After unlocking a tier 4 spell (which happens at fairly low-level because of no level requirements on spells...), power creep comes to a halt, and rogues and warriors will very slowly catch up.  Very little reward from better equipment and the magic attribute : each point of spellpower adds only 1% to the base damage of the spell. Slightly more effective on save-or-die based spells, but you didn't need to max it out to overcome regular resistances most of the time. Spell resistance cant be countered.

Rogues : Im assuming dual-wield style because archery sucks (except for some exploit that involved a buged DLC item so Im not taking this into account here). The gain from attributes (dexterity or strength) is minor, but more important than for mages. Weapon damage makes a big difference, especially with damage runes and critical damage enhancing stuff, due to the very fast attack speed. Unlocking momentum gives a one-time tremendous power increase with no serious downside.

Warriors : assuming they're not dual-wielding or 'archering' (if they do, see : rogues), gain by far the most benefit to damage from their strength attribute. Weapon damage matters slightly less than for rogues because the attack speed is slow (in particular, damage runes aren't as useful because of it). They have the slowest power progression of all classes but also the most potential in theory.

TLDR : mages grow very very quickly then very very slowly, warriors grow constantly but slowly, rogues are somewhat in-between.


In DA2, all classes behave more or less like the DAO warrior in terms of progression. Your character constantly gets better, at a controlled pace. Sure there might be some game-changing abilities, but it's nothing as bad as in DAO (well, at least after the patches), and you cant really shortcut your way to the top.

                                        

Now onto what DAO combat rules did right and DA2 didnt :

One of my main gripe with the DA2 combat rules is the way defense works. In DAO defense was largely considered overpowered, as a maxed defense rogue or warrior could essentially become invulnerable to most physical attacks. This was the preferred way of tanking. In DA2, defense as a stat is nearly useless, requiring constant investment in the cunning stat and specific talents, and being overall far less effective than active dodging. Active dodging was bad. Enemies attacks need to connect faster, the game shouldn't be balanced around my ability to dance around an opponent when there is a defense stat for that. The game is either twitch-based, or stat-based, but it shouldnt try to be both.

Another one that was better done in DAO combat : consistent numbers between PCs and NPCs. I really don't like how throwing a fireball at an enemy makes them lose maybe about 10% of their health, but does enough numerical damage to kill one of my party members 10 times. Return to something that makes sense. If the average PC has between 100 and 300 health, then their damage should also stay within those boundaries and not grow exponentially. also it's nice because it means you can have balanced friendly fire.

Also didn't like the nightmare immunities, well at least when they don't make perfect sense. A dragon being immune to fire I can live with. A random bandit being immune to cold does not compute.

[Pedrak]

DON'T... Mandatory stealth sections. Stealth should be an option, an alternative, and one present for many quests and to be used when the player wants. Not a gimmick for one quest, never to be seen again.

Modifié par Pedrak, 30 avril 2012 - 03:37 .

[Bonanza16]

wsandista wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

For me, it's very simple.

Do DA:O!

Don't do DAII.

While I would like to see refinements from the DAO system, another expansion for DAO would 've been better than what DA2 was. Speaking of which DA:A is selling for $30 while SA2 is going for $20, i think that can tell you how DA2 is recieved.

With the recent PAX event and David Gaider interview,  
http://dragonage.wik...s_fan_questions 

I fear DAII is going to be VERY very similar to DAIII like ME3 was similar to ME3? ME1 wasn't very good in the first place though but DA:O? DA:O is different. DA:O was near perfection. 

[LeBurns]

I think I can agree with everything the OP listed.

Add exploding bodies and enemies raining from the sky. I would love to be able to actually place out my character and have a strategic battle once in a while.

[wsandista]

Bonanza16 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

For me, it's very simple.

Do DA:O!

Don't do DAII.

While I would like to see refinements from the DAO system, another expansion for DAO would 've been better than what DA2 was. Speaking of which DA:A is selling for $30 while SA2 is going for $20, i think that can tell you how DA2 is recieved.

With the recent PAX event and David Gaider interview,  
http://dragonage.wik...s_fan_questions 

I fear DAII is going to be VERY very similar to DAIII like ME3 was similar to ME3? ME1 wasn't very good in the first place though but DA:O? DA:O is different. DA:O was near perfection. 

Looks like the chances of me buying DA3 just decreased a bit.  At least theres always Obsidian......(sigh). You think after how DA2 fared they would realize that DA2 was in the wrong direction. Still though we can always hope they'll make it like DAO.

Modifié par wsandista, 01 mai 2012 - 04:34 .

[Orian Tabris]

wsandista wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Bonanza16 wrote...

For me, it's very simple.

Do DA:O!

Don't do DAII.

While I would like to see refinements from the DAO system, another expansion for DAO would 've been better than what DA2 was. Speaking of which DA:A is selling for $30 while SA2 is going for $20, i think that can tell you how DA2 is recieved.

With the recent PAX event and David Gaider interview,  
http://dragonage.wik...s_fan_questions 

I fear DAII is going to be VERY very similar to DAIII like ME3 was similar to ME3? ME1 wasn't very good in the first place though but DA:O? DA:O is different. DA:O was near perfection. 

Looks like the chances of me buying DA3 just decreased a bit.  At least theres always Obsidian......(sigh). You think after how DA2 fared they would realize that DA2 was in the wrong direction. Still though we can always hope they'll make it like DAO.

Only time... and testing (players not staff members) will tell.





I agree with DeBurns. Instead of just being surrounded by enemies - like if you start a fight during conversation, in DA: O - or having your party bunched together, they should allow for strategic planning/placement. It doesn't have to rewrite the whole combat system, just let the player spread out their characters. Maybe if the healer ends up getting in front of the PC, they could be pulled back a bit, or a tank placed in front.

There's always the option of telling party members to pull to certain positions, as a rule for the start of each battle. Like if you wanted your mage to stay towards the back of the party, rather than grouped next to everyone else, you'd choose the option to stay further back. Or a warrior to stay close to the PC. Either as soon as the battle commences, or all the time, even when there is no battle on. Yeah! Then the healer could just stand still until the PC moves far enough away. Instead of the PC moving 3 steps forward, and having the whole party try to follow.

[Pappi]

DO:

Make us Cry - this is the number one DO. DA2 ddn't make me cry as much as one, heck it barely had many sad moments. If the game isn't make me depessed, it isn't doing it right.

DON'T

Give me a huge map and only let me go to the same city over and over...mass effect 3 did this as well. I want level design, I want to explore. I like to explore.

DO

Use characters from dragon age one - like Jowan, HINT HINT HINT. There is a lot of potenial there

DON'T

Give my female protagnist such a posh voice...hawke's voice sounded too mary poppins for me. When the hard decsions came into play, there wasn't the sense of urgency that jennifer hale's voice had. Male version was better, I actullay like my male hawke better.

DO
Show emotion on NPC characters faces, I can't stand faraway convos where you can't see the facial expressions. It is okay for fetch quests but for important quests I want to see facial expressions please! Mass Effect 3 had too much of this!

DON'T
Forget the fade! It is a very interesting plot piece that was used well in origins and barely touched in DA2--so much can be done with the fade.

DO
Give us a party member that challenges us. There was no....sten, HK47/Shale/Legion/Javik--well you get my drift in DA2 except for the qunari Kretogen--why the heck wasn't he a party member? Interesting backstory, different design--one of the best quests...cut short. I still don't get this, I think the game would have been vastly improved with his inclusion.

DON'T overdo abombinations, there was so many in 2...it felt like they were coming from everywhere. Why even have a fade veil. They are scary because they can't get through. If they wander the streets frequently they start to loose their forbidden edge.

DO include day and night quests, I liked those.

DONT include icons on the dialogue wheel, OR INCLUDE AN OPTION TO TURN THEM OFF. Having the picture means not having to read the response and just thinking--well I know that that is funny, or peaceful or violent. I like having to think about my responses. I know you still have the higher-lower branches as a postive or negative response, but even so--you still have to read and pick carefully.

While I understand some liked the options...heck keep the romance icon or the START A FIGHT icon but it would be nice to have an option to turn to them off...because to me, it feels like I have the easy setting on. Give the players a choice to turn them off.

Modifié par Pappi, 01 mai 2012 - 09:09 .