77 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

Knight of Dane wrote...

I'd rather they put more work into detailing it.

[RedArmyShogun]

I read this as Abolish Amish, boy am I disappoint.

[marktcameron]

I want my attributes i don't like the skyrim leveling system.

Modifié par marktcameron, 04 octobre 2012 - 05:56 .

[goofyomnivore]

I think attributes are pretty pointless in Dragon Age. I would like for them to drastically improve the system rather than just abandon them like Skyrim did. Although with Dragon Age having three set classes with specific restrictions. The attribute system loses a lot of its value and a 'perk' system may be better.

Modifié par strive, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:00 .

[marktcameron]

attributes in dragon age O where ok if It gives more choice in makeing your character the way you want it to be. So be it i just want the choice to make it my way.

[philippe willaume]

there is no point of having attributes if only two of them are useful to you class.
attribute should be giving talents/perks/skills usable by all classes. so instead of spending 3 point in strength you are choosing talents/skills that depend of strength.


phil

[Iosev]

In my opinion, I think attributes are great in games that either have no classes or have extremely versatile classes. In games that do not have classes, attributes are what partially defines your character's gameplay (e.g., high vitality builds, high stamina/heavy weapon builds, pure magic builds, etc.). Similarly, games that feature highly versatile classes (i.e., classes that can be specialized to either deal damage, take damage, or heal) benefit from attribute-based systems because of the fact that each class can utilize different attributes for different functions.

Dragon Age, however, features more rigidly-defined classes (I'm assuming it's because the developers want to place emphasis on group composition). Since the classes aren't as flexible, it often leads to them only benefiting from a particular set of attributes (with the exception of weird specializations like the Arcane Warrior).

I would personally like to see some discussion on whether classes should become more versatile (and thus benefit from different attributes or talents), and if it would still allow for fun ways to build your party. On one hand, I would love to specialize companions into roles that I want (e.g., Isabela as a true, dueling tank on Nightmare), but at the same time, I imagine a party composed of a bunch of hybrids would be rather boring to build.

Modifié par arcelonious, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:52 .

[legbamel]

I love attributes, as long as there's incentive to make choices rather than dumping them into one main stat and constitution. If cunning affects persuade choices and strength increases damage for all melee, that makes for actually building a character.

Using a talent to give a chunk of health or strength in one go would feel fake to me. Attributes that you build incrementally over time, as you gain experience to move from Joe Schmoe to Eric Epic makes more sense, to me. That goes double for a system that offers real choices for varying characters even in the same general class.

[Loc'n'lol]

Well, maybe not abolish them, but looking at the way things worked in DA2 (and DAO to an extent, for mages in particular), the attributes could easily be reduced to 3 :
-primary (class-dependant name: strength, dexterity OR magic)
-willpower
-constitution
...and nothing of value would be lost. There would be a real choice to be made (do I raise a little everything ? Do I focus on offense ? Defense ? Ability spam ?), and you couldnt royally screw up by puting points in something that yields nothing in return.

"Defense" as in "chance to avoid incoming attacks" could come solely from abilities and equipment, which would avoid the awkward situations in both games so far (DAO: very high defense = invulnerable to most non-magic users, DA2 = actively dodging and just plain tanking are much more efficient than dumping points in cunning, unless you're a rogue ofc)

I don't think passive talents that improve your health or damage all the time are interesting. At all.
So I hope they'll avoid that.
If the bonus is conditional, that's different. A good example IMO : bravery from DAO, gives you a passive bonus to critical chance for being surrounded by many enemies, which emphasizes the tank role of the warrior and synergizes well with taunt.

As for the problem of ending up "5 times as strong as you started", well, stats don't have to represent a proportional increase, really. A score of 50 in strength doesnt necessarily mean the character is 5 times as strong as one with 10 in strength. A different scale can be used.
For example:
-In DAO, it takes a magic score of 110 to have spells twice as strong as a mage with a magic score of 10.
-In DA2, a rogue with a constitution score of 30 is twice as healthy as one with a constitution score of 10.
Although for the sake of clarity it would probably be better if the characer's bonus to health/damage/whatever was actually directly proportional to the attribute score, I can agree with that. That would imply starting with something somewhat higher than 10 or reducing the number of attribute points that are gained per level.

Modifié par _Loc_N_lol_, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:15 .

[igneous.sponge]

Nah, by eliminating attributes you're also dramatically limiting the potential for class build diversity, and thus reducing the complexity and interest of character development. What the devs should do, I think, is improve the cross-class usefulness of each attribute and relax the restrictions on equipment and talent/spell selection to allow greater freedom of choice.

[Joy Divison]

igneous.sponge wrote...

Nah, by eliminating attributes you're also dramatically limiting the potential for class build diversity, and thus reducing the complexity and interest of character development. What the devs should do, I think, is improve the cross-class usefulness of each attribute and relax the restrictions on equipment and talent/spell selection to allow greater freedom of choice.

I'd argue the opposite.  Skyrim has no attributes and you can create anything.  In DA2 my fighter cant even use a bow.

[Plaintiff]

Joy Divison wrote...
Skyrim has no attributes

Health. Magicka. Stamina.

[Cultist]

Attributes shoul be removed. Attributes, dialogues and choices stand in the way os aswesome buttons! This blasphemous attributes force us to - just listen to this sacriliege - to plan, and to think.. We also should ad jump option, and be able to collect hearts to replenish out heath, and coins should be added so we can buy additional life.
Then and only then, Dragon Age will truly shine!

[aesir05]

I still say make it like diablo 3 so I can skip a rogue from my party and respec to open chests and/or intimidate on the fly !!!!!!

[Gibb_Shepard]

OP, you basically want ME2s system in DA3. All you're proposing is making attribute points less in number, and more in effect. All that does is limit the amount of variation you can have in your character, and limits the control of how skilled your character is in a particular stat.

An enormous "no" is my answer to this proposal. I want more control, not less.

[aesir05]

No to abolish attributes as well

[Wulfram]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

OP, you basically want ME2s system in DA3. All you're proposing is making attribute points less in number, and more in effect. All that does is limit the amount of variation you can have in your character, and limits the control of how skilled your character is in a particular stat.

An enormous "no" is my answer to this proposal. I want more control, not less.

I want more control, not less.  That's why I've proposed replacing fake control with real control.

The Attribute system produces boring cookie cutter characters.  The Talent system is where the real choice is.

[Gibb_Shepard]

From your description, there is only less. Choosing a passive ability that increases your constitution as opposed to putting attributes into it limits how much you wish to increase said constitution. Its just streamlining.

That said, attributes aren't the problem, it's DA2s implementation of them. Many other games do the system much better; one I'm playing at the moment is FONV.

[Wulfram]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

From your description, there is only less. Choosing a passive ability that increases your constitution as opposed to putting attributes into it limits how much you wish to increase said constitution. Its just streamlining.

It's removing the obligation to dump stuff into the primary attribute just to keep up.  It's giving you the choice of how you'll boost your toughness, rather than chaining you to just buying Health in 5 point increments.

That said, attributes aren't the problem, it's DA2s implementation of them. Many other games do the system much better; one I'm playing at the moment is FONV.

I'm not keen.  INT is king, CHA is useless.  And combat is too boring for me to really care about the rest of the stats.

But it's not really comparable anyway.  It's a classless, skill based system.  Dragon Age is not that and is never going to be that.

[Gibb_Shepard]

INT and CHA are but two categories out of seven. And that's just the base stats, the real diversity comes in with the 10+ skills you can invest in later.

Nevertheless, diversity just has to be added. In DAO there were various ways you could make a tank and a rogue character. DA2 eliminated any kind of diversity. DA3 just needs DAO attributes with even more diversity. It's honestly a really simple fix; one that doesn't require completely cutting it and replacing it with a simpler form of itself.

Your proposal can even be added in. ME1 essentially had traditional attributes, but at certain points your stat changed in a significant way (Such as recharging health, catching more enemies in the singularity etc.). Bioware just have to decide that adding build complexity is a good thing, as the attributes were indeed virtually pointless in DA2. Definitely the worst incarnation i've seen of the system.

[Wulfram]

You could get much more diversity in a far more interesting way by adding a "cunning" talent tree, in which the player may invest if they wish to increase their defence or criticals in a variety of interesting ways.

That would give the player all the meaningful choice, and more, that the DA:O system had, without having to drag along the broken and boring Diablo-esque Attribute rubbish.

[Joy Divison]

Plaintiff wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Skyrim has no attributes

Health. Magicka. Stamina.

If you want to call them attributes that is fine, but nobody called them attributes in oblivion, nobody calls them attributes in Dragon Age, the OP and nobody in this thread considers them attributes, and the fact that the player can directly raise them means their characters have even more flexibility.

[Wulfram]

You're already effectively directly raising your Health and Mana/Stamina with Constitution and Willpower.  There's no great divide with Skyrim there.

The problem is that in DA2 they're connected to the hamster wheel attack stats, that you have to dump points into just to stand still.

Modifié par Wulfram, 05 octobre 2012 - 01:27 .

[Joy Divison]

Wulfram wrote...

You're already effectively directly raising your Health and Mana/Stamina with Constitution and Willpower.  There's no great divide with Skyrim there.

The problem is that in DA2 they're connected to the hamster wheel attack stats, that you have to dump points into just to stand still.

Sure there is a great divide.  For the reason you list in your second paragraph.  And if I'm a fighter and I increase my willpower then I won't be able to wear that snazzy armor because it has ridiculously high pre-requisites for two attributes.

Raising attributes is a silly concept.  Adventurers don't get smarter, more dexterous, or healthier as they progress, they become more skilled at doing things.  We might think it is neat because our character is improving but this is a misleading illusion in many game systems.  In DA2 and DnD 4E you must raise your main attributes to maintain your level of combat effectiveness.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Wulfram wrote...

You could get much more diversity in a far more interesting way by adding a "cunning" talent tree, in which the player may invest if they wish to increase their defence or criticals in a variety of interesting ways.

That would give the player all the meaningful choice, and more, that the DA:O system had, without having to drag along the broken and boring Diablo-esque Attribute rubbish.

Replacing attributes completely with abilities makes for an inherently more limited build, unless they add an unrealistic amount. Especially when taking into account non combat abilities. 

It's ignorant to say that attributes have somehow been superseded, when they obviously offer a different and less limiting way to build a character; if done right.