17 réponses à ce sujet

[crimsontotem]

 One thing that really took a replayability for me for DA2 was that my warrior hawke couldn't be a badass like my Warden in DA:O where he was able to duel wield with 1-hand swords. 

same with my rogue warden... in DA2, my rogue could only hold dagger-looking like swords while in DA:O he could carry whatever he wanted too... 

feel like DA2 had too much restriction on weapon style of choice as well as companion appearance... 

please remove those restriction in Inquisition thus giving more freedom to users. 

[SpunkyMonkey]

I think that touches on a greater point which Bioware missed with DA:2 - the journey to discovery is half of the fun.

Yes we all know duel-wielding cunning based daggers is the way to go for a rogue, but the journey learning that was fun and they just need to give a few alternatives to that now so we can undertake that journey again - e.g. in this game add something like a "balance" system which means it's about finding the bealance between weapons to match the player's strength and balance both weapons out (so if you have 20 strength, you could split that on a 5-weight dagger and 15 weight bastard sword - or alternatively on two 10-weight short swords).

Want to weild 2 5-weight daggers? Then you get a +10 bonus to attack speed. Simple.

It's not hard, they just need a bit of creativity.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 20 septembre 2012 - 09:44 .

[Plaintiff]

I'd rather all three classes be as distinct from each other as possible. It was bad enough that DA:O shortchanged rogues the way it did in terms of development options. Giving two thirds of the rogue skills to warriors on top of that was just totally crap. DA2 was vastly better.

An acceptable compromise, for me, would to separate 'Weapon' and 'class' skills entirely and have them develop independantly of each other (with perhaps some overlap). Then everyone can equip everything and still retain the unique aspects of the individual classes.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 20 septembre 2012 - 10:11 .

[snackrat]

DAO handled it well, from what I remember. In DAII I didn't see a difference between swords and maces beyond visual - unless they hid the stats from us (Bad. Bad devs. Naughty.) - but in DAO each weapon had its own role. Maybe a mace does less damage but crushes armour better.

As for daggers versus swords, well, swords do more damage but daggers swing faster. A sword hits harder with more force but is more easily blocked.  Swords do stronger executes (seeing someone getting 'brutally stabbed' with the very tip of a dagger or decapitated from, what, the slipstream? was a little weird in DAO) but daggers get a backstab bonus.
For other weapons, maybe maces and hammers cannot backstab at all, but do more damage all-round if forced in a face-to-face engagement (because 'stabbing' with a blunt mace IS funny but for the wrong reason). Stuff like that!

Modifié par Karsciyin, 20 septembre 2012 - 10:03 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

We need multi classing, albeit nothing like rogues with warrior like HP and no warriors being dual-wielders of death.

Modifié par Biotic_Warlock, 20 septembre 2012 - 10:15 .

[hexaligned]

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

[Plaintiff]

relhart wrote...

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

Ugh, no. Why does every game have to be Skyrim?

Besides which, it's established DA lore that mages are born, it's not a skill you can learn.

[snackrat]

relhart wrote...

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

"Crossroads of Form: Leather to Feather. I don't even know where to start." ~ Hawke

[Biotic_Warlock]

Plaintiff wrote...

relhart wrote...

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

Ugh, no. Why does every game have to be Skyrim?

Besides which, it's established DA lore that mages are born, it's not a skill you can learn.

In that case they need to be renamed as sorcerers
Mages learn magic from books, sorcerers have natural power (but seems that DA lore is broken so that everyone makes that mistake). The literal correct name for spellcasters in DA is sorceror.

[hexaligned]

Plaintiff wrote...

relhart wrote...

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

Ugh, no. Why does every game have to be Skyrim?

Besides which, it's established DA lore that mages are born, it's not a skill you can learn.

Then everyone who has magic ability was obviously born with it?  That doesn't restrict them to only using magic, or at least it shouldn't.  I get you disagree with my taste in game mechanics, it's fine.  I got bored with DA2's class system within the first hour, and ended up not purchasing it, I was simply giving some feedback what I like in my RPG's, it wasn't meant to make you feel threatened.  Or to say you were wrong in wanting what you want.

[Genuine UK]

crimsontotem wrote...

 One thing that really took a replayability for me for DA2 was that my warrior hawke couldn't be a badass like my Warden in DA:O where he was able to duel wield with 1-hand swords. 

same with my rogue warden... in DA2, my rogue could only hold dagger-looking like swords while in DA:O he could carry whatever he wanted too... 

feel like DA2 had too much restriction on weapon style of choice as well as companion appearance... 

please remove those restriction in Inquisition thus giving more freedom to users. 

i agree you could even be a Mage Arcance Warrior with Swords or Staff in the DAO

[Plaintiff]

relhart wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

relhart wrote...

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

Ugh, no. Why does every game have to be Skyrim?

Besides which, it's established DA lore that mages are born, it's not a skill you can learn.

Then everyone who has magic ability was obviously born with it?  That doesn't restrict them to only using magic, or at least it shouldn't.  I get you disagree with my taste in game mechanics, it's fine.  I got bored with DA2's class system within the first hour, and ended up not purchasing it, I was simply giving some feedback what I like in my RPG's, it wasn't meant to make you feel threatened.  Or to say you were wrong in wanting what you want.

I'm not threatened, just frustrated, because I see this opinion a lot.

Skyrim-style levelling mechanics are fine in and of themselves. I just don't want every single game to use them.

[Wolf_in_the_Meadow]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

relhart wrote...

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

Ugh, no. Why does every game have to be Skyrim?

Besides which, it's established DA lore that mages are born, it's not a skill you can learn.

In that case they need to be renamed as sorcerers
Mages learn magic from books, sorcerers have natural power (but seems that DA lore is broken so that everyone makes that mistake). The literal correct name for spellcasters in DA is sorceror.

You sir, are making the mistake that Dunegons and Dragons uses the literal meaning for words. It does not. 

A mage is whatever the setting says it is 'cos magic isn't real.

But lets play the literal game:

http://www.etymonlin...hp?term=sorcery

and http://www.etymonlin...x.php?term=mage leading to http://www.etymonlin...x.php?term=magi

[Plaintiff]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...
In that case they need to be renamed as sorcerers

Um... why?

Mages learn magic from books, sorcerers have natural power (but seems that DA lore is broken so that everyone makes that mistake).

What mistake? Dragon Age Mages still learn from books, anyone can study magic, but the knowledge is useless without the capacity to use it, which is something you're born with.

The literal correct name for spellcasters in DA is sorceror.

I'm not certain that any character in DA has even used this word. 

[hexaligned]

Plaintiff wrote...

relhart wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

relhart wrote...

Get rid of classes all together, or have some hybrid options. Make leveling stat and ability based, rather that class based. You lose nothing, if someone wants to play a dex based stealth character, they just build one. If someone wants to play a buffing magic using archer, they can do that as well, it's win win. It's not like either of the previous two games were balanced in the slightest, you might as well open up the RP options.

Ugh, no. Why does every game have to be Skyrim?

Besides which, it's established DA lore that mages are born, it's not a skill you can learn.

Then everyone who has magic ability was obviously born with it?  That doesn't restrict them to only using magic, or at least it shouldn't.  I get you disagree with my taste in game mechanics, it's fine.  I got bored with DA2's class system within the first hour, and ended up not purchasing it, I was simply giving some feedback what I like in my RPG's, it wasn't meant to make you feel threatened.  Or to say you were wrong in wanting what you want.

I'm not threatened, just frustrated, because I see this opinion a lot.

Skyrim-style levelling mechanics are fine in and of themselves. I just don't want every single game to use them.

Fair enough, I would counter with "Why does every game have to be WoW?"
But that would just be to bump an actual decent thread to keep it on the front page, admist the sea of LI and porn threads.
In any case, work awaits.

[snackrat]

I think the word 'sorcerer' has been used maybe once, or twice, but it was actually used as a synonym for mages with negative connotations. (Y'know, like the different between 'underweight' and 'scrawny'.) If they use the word 'sorcerer', they use it as an insult for a manipulative mage.

Pretty sure Morrigan received it from someone; wish I could remember whom. (Probably Sten.)

Modifié par Karsciyin, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:30 .

[ManOfSteel]

Plaintiff wrote...

I'd rather all three classes be as distinct from each other as possible. It was bad enough that DA:O shortchanged rogues the way it did in terms of development options. Giving two thirds of the rogue skills to warriors on top of that was just totally crap. DA2 was vastly better.

An acceptable compromise, for me, would to separate 'Weapon' and 'class' skills entirely and have them develop independantly of each other (with perhaps some overlap). Then everyone can equip everything and still retain the unique aspects of the individual classes.

That would be great actually. I'd welcome something like this.

[Plaintiff]

DoomHK wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I'd rather all three classes be as distinct from each other as possible. It was bad enough that DA:O shortchanged rogues the way it did in terms of development options. Giving two thirds of the rogue skills to warriors on top of that was just totally crap. DA2 was vastly better.

An acceptable compromise, for me, would to separate 'Weapon' and 'class' skills entirely and have them develop independantly of each other (with perhaps some overlap). Then everyone can equip everything and still retain the unique aspects of the individual classes.

That would be great actually. I'd welcome something like this.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

You could even have special "combination" skills that require the character to be sufficiently skilled in both their weapon and a specific area of their class.

For example, an Elemental Mage with points in Archery could learn "Fire Arrow" or "Ice Arrow", while a Rogue with the same level of Archery skill, but with points in Sabotage or Subterfuge could learn "Poison Arrow" or a special shot that guarantees a critical hit. Warriors could use their massive strength to fire arrows that stun, knockback, or cause bleeding damage.