99 réponses à ce sujet

[Leoroc]

I actually loved the original Everquest's "vancian" style. Your hotbar was limited to 8 spells and you couldn't change them mid-fight, but you could cast them as much during the fight as you had mana. Made it a bit more tactical.

[Quething]

Vancian casting is completely impossible to balance. Which is why 4E D&D doesn't use it. Limiting stupidly powerful casts to "one per day" doesn't make them rare and awe-inspiring moments; it means players stop and rest eight hours after every single fight to get their spells back, or if you instill a mechanic to prevent that behavior, end up never using their nukes ever because they're saving that one potent spell just in case they need it later. Have you seen dev comments on this very board about trying to get players to use medi-gel? Medi-gel isn't even that useful and the game hands out refills like candy! But it's a limited resource and players Do Not Spend limited resources. Imagine how much worse it is with your one single level 9 spell.

And there is absolutely no ability in the world that you can give to a thief or soldier to compensate for their inability to toss off five save-or-dies per encounter plus fireballs that are functionally save-or-dies for all the mooks left after.

It's true that a wizard doesn't really feel like a wizard if he can't toss off the occasional Disintegrate or screw over the whole campaign with a poorly-worded Wish. But that's a fair trade-off for the ability to actually feel like you're contributing as a rogue or warrior or, in fact, to actually play a remotely balanced game at all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Quething wrote...

Vancian casting is completely impossible to balance. Which is why 4E D&D doesn't use it. Limiting stupidly powerful casts to "one per day" doesn't make them rare and awe-inspiring moments; it means players stop and rest eight hours after every single fight to get their spells back, or if you instill a mechanic to prevent that behavior, end up never using their nukes ever because they're saving that one potent spell just in case they need it later.

Speak for yourself.
I never had that problem with vancian casting system.

It's true that a wizard doesn't really feel like a wizard if he can't toss off the occasional Disintegrate or screw over the whole campaign with a poorly-worded Wish. But that's a fair trade-off for the ability to actually feel like you're contributing as a rogue or warrior or, in fact, to actually play a remotely balanced game at all.

No, it's not.
It's s***. I never flet any of my other classes were not contributing.

[Quething]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Speak for yourself.
I never had that problem with vancian casting system.

Bully for you, but you are a distinct minority. I'm not speaking for myself or for you, I'm speaking from the last two or three deacdes of evidence gathered by all sides of the gaming industry, from tabletop to video to CCGs.

When a particular trait is really really common to the design of a product, there's usually a reason.

[Yrkoon]

Quething wrote...

It's true that a wizard doesn't really feel like a wizard if he can't toss off the occasional Disintegrate or screw over the whole campaign with a poorly-worded Wish. But that's a fair trade-off for the ability to actually feel like you're contributing as a rogue or warrior or, in fact, to actually play a remotely balanced game at all.

I clipped off the first part  of your post because I agree with it, even if I, too, am part of the distinct minority.  But this part isn't right.  I've never heard anyone who's played the old D&D games  complain that one class isn't contributing like another.  The exact opposite was often the case.  They'd say that their  Mage is overpowered,   Or their Warrior is unkillable juggernaut, or that they were able to solo their Rogue through the entire game without getting hit a single time,  - Or-  that their Party is perfect enough to handle any situation that it comes across, with ease. 

And this has nothing to do with 9th level, once per day spells or whatever.  Mages are all about the 50-60 spells they get before that.  There are multiple Nuke spells in every level, from 1-8.  And when they're not busy nuking  the battlefield, Mages are Summoning, or crowd-controlling with mind effecting spells etc.   In the D&D games, if you don't feel that your ;mage is contributing like your warrior, then either you're blind, or you suck at playing mages.

Me personally, I don't want equality.  The whole point in having a party is for  diversity, not sameness.  I want radically different options on the table for me.  I want to be able to muscle my way through an encounter, or nuke my way through it, or stealth my way through it.  Oh and w/ regards to  "balance",  As long as the enemy has the same abilities that I do, then there's balance, or at least, that's the only balance that I care about..

Modifié par Yrkoon, 01 septembre 2012 - 10:19 .

[Mr Fixit]

Quething wrote...

It's true that a wizard doesn't really feel like a wizard if he can't toss off the occasional Disintegrate or screw over the whole campaign with a poorly-worded Wish. But that's a fair trade-off for the ability to actually feel like you're contributing as a rogue or warrior or, in fact, to actually play a remotely balanced game at all.

I'd say 4E balance sheet wants to have a word with you.

WotC's quest for The Balance is one of the primary reasons 4E looks like Coventry in late 1940.

[Wozearly]

AmstradHero wrote...

Moving away from a DPS model and more into a model of controls, counters, and unique options would make for a far more interesting and varied experience.

Completely agree with the principle, but I think its about more than just DPS. Its about a mix of flexibility and unique roles both inside and outside of combat.

If you take the vancian system, its the bane of flexibility. It looks like it promises huge variety, but in reality its very constraining and encourages (and rewards) metagaming in video games where there is no DM to make sure that no character is completely useless or far too useful. And as stated earlier, a lot of players will hoard or overstock non-regenerating resources to the point of idiocy...they then feel that said resources were 'worthless' once the game is over, because they didn't really use them. Don't ask for logic, this is just human nature at work.

DA:O had a good crack at class flexibility - not least for allowing a mage tank. Sadly, it created too much similarity between some of those options; warrior archer was fundamentally no different to rogue archer, and generally vastly inferior. Rogue dual-wielder was vastly more effective than a warrior dual-wielder (with the exception of damage mitigation, but as the rogue had far better threat management and evasion this was somewhat irrelevant). Mage tank was far superior to warrior tank at taking damage and had the ability to lash out high DPS (at least for a short while) - the only gripe was holding aggro on enemies....which is actually a somewhat odd gripe to attach to a tank class.

Outside of combat, rogues could pick locks, pick pockets and stealth to scout ahead and...well, actually, they were the only class with any meaningful class-linked non-combat abilities.

DA2 could have gone with diversifying the classes to the point where a warrior archer and rogue archer would complement one another, rather than have you assessing which one was best and leaving the other at home. One of the tank classes could have shifted into an off-tank hybrid role that would complement the main tank and healers, and not completely sacrifice DPS output, etc.

They could have looked at what unique non-combat skills warriors and mages would bring to the field. And then considered what benefit there would be for leaving out one of the class types from your party, rather than automatically making this a drawback.

Instead we had a shift towards each class having a specific battlefield role in principle, with no real fixing to the out-of-combat side of things. On top of that, the massive boost to DPS output across the board led to some bizarre decisions around wave combat and elite / boss enemies with ridiculous health pools and/or the ability to use mechanics that grief the player and force metagaming tactics; lieutenant rogues stealthing and then two-shotting the healer, forcing an almost guaranteed wipe on harder difficulties springs to mind.

So yes, I agree that the DPS needs to be calmed down a bit so that there's more opportunity and benefit from utility options, and meaningful variation for non-combat roles by class. And the classes either need;

a) Truly unique roles that automatically complement one another (bit contrived, not much chance for player input),

The game mechanics need to be arranged to force the player to adopt flexibility . Jade Empire's "these enemies are immune to one of your 3 attack types" and DA2's cross-class combo's spring's to mind - I personally dislike this approach, as its even more contrived than the previous option and leads to metagaming.

c) A sensible look at rebalancing the areas of overlap between class (e.g. warrior, rogue) and specialisation (e.g. tank, range DPS) combinations so that clear strengths and weaknesses emerge not just compared to other specialisations, but also compared to other classes adopting the same specialisation. These need to be able to be complementary to one another, rather than competing...and it would also allow the reintroduction of the variety we saw in DA:O with Arcane Warriors, dual-wielding warriors, etc.


It won't surprise you that I feel very strongly that c) is the preferable answer.

But I think Bioware have come down quite clearly on the side of a), with elements of to prevent it being completely railroaded. A backwards step, IMO.

[Emzamination]

Yrkoon wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry pausanias but this is the New school and that's not how we do things anymore.Those rules were great regarding Technological Dark age games like Baldurs gate and Nwn but that time is past and it's never coming back.

We're getting this  from a console gamer?    Really?

Hahaha.  Call me when your method of gaming  technology advances past 2006.  Because as far as I can see, THAT's what's holding the  entire industry back.  So much in fact, that  the 'tech-advanced' generation of today's gaming world play games on their phones and Facebook  when they want something fresh.

lol we're holding the industry back? We're the only thing keep gaming alive. Last time I cheked, it wasn't consoles that constantly had to modify and overclock their rig every time a new HD title hit the shelves.Try playing Crysis or Battlefield without overclocking to hide your glass cannons shame then you can say we're holding the Industry back. heh heh what nerve.Heh heh what nerve, I think all those major title scraps we keep throwing you is starting to go to your head.Call me the next time a publisher remembers your kind exist without a thousand whiny voices to remind them, gramps.

[Mr Fixit]

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry pausanias but this is the New school and that's not how we do things anymore.Those rules were great regarding Technological Dark age games like Baldurs gate and Nwn but that time is past and it's never coming back.

I don't know whether to




or

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 02 septembre 2012 - 04:15 .

[Yrkoon]

Emzamination wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

We're getting this  from a console gamer?    Really?

Hahaha.  Call me when your method of gaming  technology advances past 2006.  Because as far as I can see, THAT's what's holding the  entire industry back.  So much in fact, that  the 'tech-advanced' generation of today's gaming world play games on their phones and Facebook  when they want something fresh.

lol we're holding the industry back? We're the only thing keep gaming alive. Last time I cheked, it wasn't consoles that constantly had to modify and overclock their rig every time a new HD title hit the shelves.

I'd suggest you check again.  LOL


Console versions of games do not even offer the same settings.  And the technology itself is forced to stunt its own growth  in order to work on Xbox and PS3, which, again, are from the middle of the last decade.  They are the very definition of "Old School"

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:29 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Quething wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Speak for yourself.
I never had that problem with vancian casting system.

Bully for you, but you are a distinct minority. I'm not speaking for myself or for you, I'm speaking from the last two or three deacdes of evidence gathered by all sides of the gaming industry, from tabletop to video to CCGs.

When a particular trait is really really common to the design of a product, there's usually a reason.

Well please, then provide evidence of your claim that everyone either exends all spells immediately ro saves them and doesnt use them.
And also explain to me how is "witing for your mana bar to regenerate" superior in any way to "resting to re-gain spells"

[Wozearly]

Emzamination wrote...

lol we're holding the industry back? We're the only thing keep gaming alive. Last time I cheked, it wasn't consoles that constantly had to modify and overclock their rig every time a new HD title hit the shelves.Try playing Crysis or Battlefield without overclocking to hide your glass cannons shame then you can say we're holding the Industry back. heh heh what nerve.Heh heh what nerve, I think all those major title scraps we keep throwing you is starting to go to your head.Call me the next time a publisher remembers your kind exist without a thousand whiny voices to remind them, gramps.

Its fair to say that consoles are the lifeblood of a huge chunk of the AAA titles, but the modifying / overclocking argument is slightly off-key - not least because most PC players upgrade by choice, not by necessity. Consoles were (and are) primarily a more appealing game platform for players on price and simplicity, not technology. The reason consoles are good for the industry is the sheer volume of console players and the money they collectively bring.

But this also brings problems...

Consoles don't release with equipment superior to PCs - far from it. They usually release slightly behind the curve and then fall steadily further behind as time goes on. The option to mod-up the console to keep pace just doesn't exist - that's the curse of having a fixed piece of technology.

It does bring some advantages for developers when it comes to compatability checking, but often the graphics settings for consoles are more cut down and/or frankly inferior (unless the game doesn't bother optimising for PCs that could run it at higher settings, which is annoyingly common). If you only play on consoles, this is essentially invisible to the player...ignorance is bliss, 'n all that.

On a wider level, the console market has had a tendency to encourage a lot of developers to chase for AAA titles, which bears quite significant risks of the studio collapsing if something goes wrong. And is likely to be partly to blame for grumbles that the games are all attempting to copy each other, rather than attempt something different, because this is a classic risk-mitigation strategy for companies that can't really afford to fail.

Then there's the midly annoying issues from a PC perspective that all menu screens, loading approaches, selection, game mechanics, etc. are all optimised for someone with a limited number of buttons and no mouse.

However, that's not the only story. Even if we accept the premise that the AAA titles are designed for consoles and then ported (not always the case), consoles don't have the strength and variety of titles outside AAA level - but that's okay, since they're all well and thriving on the PC side - along with genres like MMOs, or grand strategies like Civilisation that are virtually non-existent on consoles.

I think the two will be co-existing for the forseeable future. I've no doubt we'll all get along fine, provided both sides refrain from attempting to claim the moral high ground over the other.

[jbrand2002uk]

 I cant believe it ! I'm actually agreeing with Yrkoon an Wozerly(slaps self twice for good measure) while most games are coded and designed on an actual PC if you load up a game like COD4 on an Xbox/PS3 and then load the same game on the PC using max settings its quite evident that the current next gen consoles are 3-5years behind a modern mid-range PC in terms of tech.

As I recall the PS3 had a half gig of graphics memory on PC's the industry standard is 1GB high ends now usually sport 2x3GB cards, most of the tech lagg could be attributed to a combination of available space inside the chasis need to make consoles affordable for the masses because lets not forget that generally 1 3GB graphics card can often cost more than a whole PS3/Xbox

In my particular case my PC cost me about £800-£1000 and it plays Skyrim etc in 1920x1080 on ultra settings with no Lagg though that price does not account for things like using both 500GB hard drives from my previous PC

[Wozearly]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

 I cant believe it ! I'm actually agreeing with Yrkoon an Wozerly(slaps self twice for good measure) while most games are coded and designed on an actual PC if you load up a game like COD4 on an Xbox/PS3 and then load the same game on the PC using max settings its quite evident that the current next gen consoles are 3-5years behind a modern mid-range PC in terms of tech.

I didn't realise that agreeing with me was considered a badge of honour.

As for Yrkoon, I didn't agree with his original baiting of Emza or his generic put-down towards console gamers, but if you just consider this particular page, Yrkoon has been spot on...and that's not a phrase I often find myself typing.

Modifié par Wozearly, 02 septembre 2012 - 05:09 .

[Yrkoon]

Wozearly wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

 I cant believe it ! I'm actually agreeing with Yrkoon an Wozerly(slaps self twice for good measure) while most games are coded and designed on an actual PC if you load up a game like COD4 on an Xbox/PS3 and then load the same game on the PC using max settings its quite evident that the current next gen consoles are 3-5years behind a modern mid-range PC in terms of tech.

I didn't realise that agreeing with me was considered a badge of honour.

Not so much a badge of honor as a rude awakening.  LOL

Anyway, I don't even know why we're discussing hardware/tech.  When the OP said "old school magic", I'm fairly certain he/she meant gameplay,  And he definitely meant "magic" in the literal sense, as in, SPELLS and spell systems that the old RPGs had.    And that  doesn't have anything to do with platforms, but rather, the games themselves.

Me Personally, I'll take Both.  There's something to be said for the illogical "memorization",  x-per-day system, and that fine line between depth and pointlessly complex that such a system seems to walk.  On the other hand,  I'm sure something can be done to make the modern system  less Boring and brainless, while still maintaining its convenience and ease of use.   But the only solution I can think of to marry the two systems is to have More spells, and more diversity in the spells.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:21 .

[LinksOcarina]

Maria Caliban wrote...

My suspension of disbelief tends to be strained when my mage can call down a rain of fire from the heavens but can't open a wooden door. Non-combat spells just make this worse because I want a rationale why magic can do a wide range of things, but not those things the game doesn't support. Why can't I turn invisible? Fly? Make giant statues spring to life? Breath underwater? Persuade people to give me all their money?

This is actually a general grumbling about how game systems (and many stories) treat magic.

Good game design has a bit of give and take for that, it needs to be grounded but fantastical in a sense to make it work. For example, instead of using magic to unlock doors, what if you had the power of Thaumaturgy and could "see" into a locked room if you had say a book on a shelf in the said room to touch and concentrate on? Or what if your attack spells were basically to confuse or berserk characters into fighting each other. At the same time, would it be fair if the NPC's did the same thing to do, controlling you or something like that.

Basically, work-arounds that don't break a game, but instead keep it balanced, are the way to in regards to magic. 

[Rawgrim]

The removal of non-combat spells (in most video games), is just another sympthom of games being dumbed down.

[Emzamination]

Yrkoon wrote...

Wozearly wrote...

jbrand2002uk wrote...

 I cant believe it ! I'm actually agreeing with Yrkoon an Wozerly(slaps self twice for good measure) while most games are coded and designed on an actual PC if you load up a game like COD4 on an Xbox/PS3 and then load the same game on the PC using max settings its quite evident that the current next gen consoles are 3-5years behind a modern mid-range PC in terms of tech.

I didn't realise that agreeing with me was considered a badge of honour.

Not so much a badge of honor as a rude awakening.  LOL

Anyway, I don't even know why we're discussing hardware/tech.  When the OP said "old school magic", I'm fairly certain he/she meant gameplay,  And he definitely meant "magic" in the literal sense, as in, SPELLS and spell systems that the old RPGs had.    And that  doesn't have anything to do with platforms, but rather, the games themselves.

Me Personally, I'll take Both.  There's something to be said for the illogical "memorization",  x-per-day system, and that fine line between depth and pointlessly complex that such a system seems to walk.  On the other hand,  I'm sure something can be done to make the modern system  less Boring and brainless, while still maintaining its convenience and ease of use.   But the only solution I can think of to marry the two systems is to have More spells, and more diversity in the spells.

Something to do with this

And here I was prepared to break out the Analysis and statiscal readings...Au well have it your way Yrkoon, I'll not derail this thread further.

[Yrkoon]

Aah, That's right. That technological dark age comment you made on page 1.

Way too easy to respond to.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 septembre 2012 - 12:02 .

[Emzamination]

Yrkoon wrote...

Aah, That's right. That technological dark age comment you made on page 1.

Way too easy to respond to.

No, thats wrong, my comment was pertaining to the game engine and mechanics, not the computer itself.

Modifié par Emzamination, 03 septembre 2012 - 12:11 .

[Yrkoon]

It was? Then you were even more off topic then I gave you credit for. Not a single person on this thread has asked Bioware to bring back the old Infinity engine. lol  Silly to even discuss such a thing.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 septembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[Emzamination]

Yrkoon wrote...

It was? Then you were even more off topic then I gave you credit for. Not a single person on this thread has asked Bioware to bring back the old Infinity engine. lol  It wasn't even remotely part of the discussion.

Tsk, I'm pretty sure I mentioned Baldurs gate and Never winter nights in my comment.Both games created with the Infinity engine and hosted venetian spell casting, effectively making it dark age tech.Not to mention that they were bioware's only games with that magic system, no?

[Yrkoon]

Emzamination wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

It was? Then you were even more off topic then I gave you credit for. Not a single person on this thread has asked Bioware to bring back the old Infinity engine. lol  It wasn't even remotely part of the discussion.

Tsk, I'm pretty sure I mentioned Baldurs gate and Never winter nights in my comment.Both games created with the Infinity engine and hosted venetian spell casting, effectively making it dark age tech.Not to mention that they were bioware's only games with that magic system, no?

NWN used the Aurora engine.

And Vancian casting  isn't "old school"..   it's the magic system that Skyrim uses a variation of, Genius.  You know, Skyrim.... the Newer, and vastly more popular  game than Dragon Age 2.

Fail Harder

Modifié par Yrkoon, 03 septembre 2012 - 01:10 .

[Emzamination]

Yrkoon wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

It was? Then you were even more off topic then I gave you credit for. Not a single person on this thread has asked Bioware to bring back the old Infinity engine. lol  It wasn't even remotely part of the discussion.

Tsk, I'm pretty sure I mentioned Baldurs gate and Never winter nights in my comment.Both games created with the Infinity engine and hosted venetian spell casting, effectively making it dark age tech.Not to mention that they were bioware's only games with that magic system, no?

NWN used the Aurora engine.

And Vencian casting  isn't "old school"..   it's the magic system that Skyrim uses a variation of, Genius.  You know, Skyrim.... the Newer, and vastly more popular  game than Dragon Age 2.

Fail Harder

Skyrim? Buggiest game of 2011, dragons flying backwards and all that? Yes I may of heard something of it.I can't believe your comparing 'powers' to the bg and nwn's venetian magic system.Tho I guess they are both equally useless I suppose...

Modifié par Emzamination, 03 septembre 2012 - 12:46 .