17 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonPogo]

Just another gripe I had with DA2.  I hated that I could not modify my companions to fit a role that I needed them in. Like if I was playing a sword and board Hawke I would NEVER use Avaline since I did not need her.  Yet if I had been able to re-speck her to be a two hander maybe I could have found a use for her.  Same with like Anders.  He is the only healer other than Hawke... (Bethany dose not count for spoilery reasons) would it really have been so hard to give us the option to speck out Merrill for healing if we did not want to use Anders?  So yes please just give us the freedom to play with the companions with in the framework of their class.

Modifié par JasonPogo, 20 mai 2012 - 01:06 .

[wsandista]

That isn't even changing a companions class, it is just having access to the full range if abilities for that class. It should've happened in DA2, if a player wants to make Merrill a healer, they should've had the ability to make her one, not just be stuck with Anders for healing needs.

[ReallyRue]

wsandista wrote...

That isn't even changing a companions class, it is just having access to the full range if abilities for that class. It should've happened in DA2, if a player wants to make Merrill a healer, they should've had the ability to make her one, not just be stuck with Anders for healing needs.

Though I liked DA2, I've never really understood why mages were locked out of certain trees. Locking say, Aveline, out of two-handed is one thing, but mages are more reliant on spells than warriors/rogues are on talents. Surely it would make more sense to have all spells available to them. Their personal spell tree already makes them unique.

[Windninja47]

I agree that you should be able to change what weapons to give people but not that you should be able to change a companion class- it wouldn't make sense to say "Fenris, you be a mage now 'kay?"

[Merlex]

JasonPogo wrote...

Just another gripe I had with DA2.  I hated that I could not modify my companions to fit a role that I needed them in. Like if I was playing a sword and board Hawke I would NEVER use Avaline since I did not need her.

I guess that would on how many party combos, you try. I have one pro-templar setup that uses S/S Reaver Hawk, Aveline, Isabela, and Bethany/ Anders/ Sebastian. It whips **** on nightmare. I think what limits non-Mage companions, is their lack of CCCs choices. Aveline can only take advantage of disoriented eniemies. Fenris only only brittle. Isabela only staggered, Varric only brittle (no Kickback doesn't count). If they gave them one in the other CCC, they would be more useful. 

...Same with like Anders.  He is the only healer other than Hawke... (Bethany dose not count for spoilery reasons) would it really have been so hard to give us the option to speck out Merrill for healing if we did not want to use Anders?  So yes please just give us the freedom to play with the companions with in the framework of their class.

I agree about Mage basic talent trees.

Modifié par Merlex, 20 mai 2012 - 12:22 .

[Dakota Strider]

An rpg should allow a player as many choices as possible. DAO allowed the player to tinker with companion training/specialties, and nothing that was done by individual players hurt the overall canon of the story. "My" Morrigan took healing, and took no shifting slots after what she began with. In DA2, would it have really hurt the canon/ official storyline, if Merrill had some access to healing, or if Isabella could pick up a shortbow? I say no. However, keeping Anders locked out of blood mage did make sense, because of the stance he takes on it.

I think that the players should have as much choice in this as possible, and the game should only lock specialties from companions when it absolutely goes against everything that companion believes in. More choice, means more ways that a player can interact with the game. That means more times a player is likely to replay the game. And Bioware/EA benefits, because more playthroughs, means that a player keeps interest in the game, and is more likely to purchase DLC that is produced after the release date.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 20 mai 2012 - 01:26 .

[Merlex]

Dakota Strider wrote...

An rpg should allow a player as many choices as possible. DAO allowed the player to tinker with companion training/specialties, and nothing that was done by individual players hurt the overall canon of the story. "My" Morrigan took healing, and took no shifting slots after what she began with. In DA2, would it have really hurt the canon/ official storyline, if Merrill had some access to healing, or if Isabella could pick up a shortbow? I say no. However, keeping Anders locked out of blood mage did make sense, because of the stance he takes on it.

I think that the players should have as much choice in this as possible, and the game should only lock specialties from companions when it absolutely goes against everything that companion believes in. More choice, means more ways that a player can interact with the game. That means more times a player is likely to replay the game. And Bioware/EA benefits, because more playthroughs, means that a player keeps interest in the game, and is more likely to purchase DLC that is produced after the release date.

I agree with most of what you said. I do not however, think that we should have any choice about companion specializations. That would weaken the companion's individual personalities. Isabela wouldn't need a bow, (not that she's lacking in combat, but options are nice) if they had thrown dagger talents.

Modifié par Merlex, 20 mai 2012 - 04:50 .

[Dakota Strider]

Merlex wrote...
I agree with most of what you said. I do not however, think that we should have any choice about companion specializations. That would weaken the companion's individual personalities. Isabela wouldn't need a bow, (not that she's lacking in combat, but options are nice) if they had thrown dagger talents.

The beauty of allowing the choices, is that individual players can determine if they want to follow the default path, if they think that suits the companion most.  But it also allows other players that do not believe the personality changes, because the companion is a little more versatile, to make levelling choices that suits the needs of the party they wish to build.

Unless we are being forced into a narrow track, that the DA team wants to lead us along, with no deviation, there is no right or wrong way, for individual people to play the game.  But when restrictions are made, there should be very important reasons why a player has had that choice taken away. 

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 20 mai 2012 - 05:01 .

[Merlex]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Merlex wrote...
I agree with most of what you said. I do not however, think that we should have any choice about companion specializations. That would weaken the companion's individual personalities. Isabela wouldn't need a bow, (not that she's lacking in combat, but options are nice) if they had thrown dagger talents.

The beauty of allowing the choices, is that individual players can determine if they want to follow the default path, if they think that suits the companion most.  But it also allows other players that do not believe the personality changes, because the companion is a little more versatile, to make levelling choices that suits the needs of the party they wish to build.

Unless we are being forced into a narrow track, that the DA team wants to lead us along, with no deviation, there is no right or wrong way, for individual people to play the game.  But when restrictions are made, there should be very important reasons why a player has had that choice taken away. 

The problem is that some companion's specializations are part of who they are. Fenris had lyrium tatoos carved into his body. That's why he has his specialization. Merrill was a Keeper in training, hence her tree. Maybe the two camps could find a middle ground. I don't unterstand why companions only get one specialization to begin with? They are capable of reaching 24th - 30th level, why not let the player choose a second specialization for them?

Modifié par Merlex, 21 mai 2012 - 02:05 .

[Vormaerin]

I think the idea that every mage is good at every school is dumb. Anymore than being a top notch swordsman must mysteriously mean you are a great archer.

If you want to go back to IWD and build your own party of blank toons for your imagination, that's fine. But I really don't want to see non player characters with distinct personalities and interests also be made out of playdoh. "Oh, that dashing swashbuckler/duellist who everyone talks about as being fast, sneaky, and fond of ships is actually a hulking brute in full plate with a great hammer?".... No thanks.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 22 mai 2012 - 01:13 .

[Merlex]

Vormaerin wrote...

I think the idea that every mage is good at every school is dumb. Anymore than being a top notch swordsman must mysteriously mean you are a great archer.

That's not likely, with only 22-30 talents. If you are talking specialization, i agree mostly. If you are talking basic talents, i couldn't disagree more. Just because a companion has access to all the basic trees, doesn't they will learn all of them. You just don't gain enough talents points for that.

What it does do is allow you to play the game with more combos. It really gets boring after a few runs, to play only 2 or so builds for the same companions. With more basic talents you can change a little, without changing who the companion is. Seriously if you're going to go that far; using a great maul is a completely different fighting style than a two-handed sword.

Allowing Isabela to use a bow, doesn't make her an expert. With my DW Rogue on the Deep Roads, there was plenty of times i pulled out a bow. As the Darkspawn were running toward us, i would get several shots off, and switch back. My DW Rogue never took any Archery talents. With Isabela she either just stood there waiting, or rushed in alone to get wiped (the hold button sucks, but that's another topic). It's just basic strategy

If you want to go back to IWD and build your own party of blank toons for your imagination, that's fine. But I really don't want to see non player characters with distinct personalities and interests also be made out of playdoh. "Oh, that dashing swashbuckler/duellist who everyone talks about as being fast, sneaky, and fond of ships is actually a hulking brute in full plate with a great hammer?".... No thanks.

Neither do i. My suggestion about a second specialization, was more like a minor to their major. Limited to 2 or 3 talents, allowed at 20th level. Isabela having Mark of Death and Bloodlust, or Pinpoint Precision and Disorienting Criticals, adds to her unique specialization. There could be companion quests, to unlock this minor. 

[MichaelStuart]

I would prefer characters play as themselves and not as I tell them.
Being able to change their abilities, would be me playing them.

[robertthebard]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Merlex wrote...
I agree with most of what you said. I do not however, think that we should have any choice about companion specializations. That would weaken the companion's individual personalities. Isabela wouldn't need a bow, (not that she's lacking in combat, but options are nice) if they had thrown dagger talents.

The beauty of allowing the choices, is that individual players can determine if they want to follow the default path, if they think that suits the companion most.  But it also allows other players that do not believe the personality changes, because the companion is a little more versatile, to make levelling choices that suits the needs of the party they wish to build.

Unless we are being forced into a narrow track, that the DA team wants to lead us along, with no deviation, there is no right or wrong way, for individual people to play the game.  But when restrictions are made, there should be very important reasons why a player has had that choice taken away. 

I have had no problem building the kind of party I want.  The options are available, if not in the characters some would prefer.  Varric is very effective for ranged, Isabela for in your back, and Aveline makes a great tank, if you need one.  However, Fenris is an excellent dps fighter, so you can park Aveline if you're going to tank, barring a few quests where she is required for plot reasons.  However, since they disposed of weapon swapping, for whatever reason, having melee use ranged, or viceversa would just be time consuming.

[Merlex]

MichaelStuart wrote...

I would prefer characters play as themselves and not as I tell them.
Being able to change their abilities, would be me playing them.

Do you auto level them?

[PinkShoes]

Yes!!
For the love of the marker yes.
Unless i was a mage i always used Anders because he could heal and he could deal out some damage. I want to be able to customise the party members as much as possible.

[Uccio]

Filament wrote...

I see those as two separate issues. I'm fine with them keeping their weapon preference. That's part of their identity.

Sure it is, "identity". Picture this: Varric is the last man standing, enemy is closing in from all around him. However, Varric will not resort to short sword/s for close combat because his identity prevents it. instead he tries to reload his crosbow and shove enemies further away with it. Also Varric is not wearing any armor besides his leather jacket with open chest because he has to retain his "iconic look".
And then Varric dies, because, crossbow (or a bow for that matter) is is not a close combat weapon, and leather jacket is not armor. But hey, "identity" and "iconic look", thats the way to go right?!

[Burnouts3s3]

Yes! I would love to customize a companion for his 2nd class.

Templar/Berserker Alistair was great.