116 réponses à ce sujet

[GipsyDangeresque]

If they're not game changers nor are they sparsely usable, I would not be choosing to spend ability points in any of them. No sane person taking building their character seriously would.

Instead I'd be spending my points on passive abilities or sustainable modes that benefit members of my team all of the time, of else on activated abilities that would at least play an important factor in every fight. What's the use of an ability that I can't use more than 30 minutes at a time?

Or are you saying the ability IS useful. Well in that case it IS necessary by definition. There can be no powerful, crazy-usefull ability that doesn't end up making itself necessary, unless it is overpowered and trivializes encounters it appears in. It is inherent in the definition of the ability being so incredibly useful to you in the fight that you will always want it and the monsters you fight will have to always be able to take it, for the combat to be balanced. Which means hello going afk for 30 minutes at a time before important events and boss fights. I'm sure I can watch TV or read a book while I wait, or maybe alt+tab and play a game that doesn't use broken concepts like Long-Term cooldown abilities.


It worked in a persistant world, in MMORPGs, but they are a very very different beast from a single player RPG like a Dragon Age game. In MMORPGs, you can go for hours fighting only incredibly trivial fights that mean absolutely nothing and only when you need to solo some elite and powerful enemy do you use those cooldowns. The amount of time between combat, spent doing other things is much greater than I expect there ever to be in Bioware's games.

Modifié par Atemeus, 25 octobre 2012 - 02:48 .

[milena87]

Atemeus wrote...

If they're not game changers nor are they sparsely usable, I would not be choosing to spend ability points in any of them. No sane person taking building their character seriously would.

Instead I'd be spending my points on passive abilities or sustainable modes that benefit members of my team all of the time, of else on activated abilities that would at least play an important factor in every fight. What's the use of an ability that I can't use more than 30 minutes at a time?

Or are you saying the ability IS useful. Well in that case it IS necessary by definition. There can be no powerful, crazy-usefull ability that doesn't end up making itself necessary, unless it is overpowered and trivializes encounters it appears in. It is inherent in the definition of the ability being so incredibly useful to you in the fight that you will always want it and the monsters you fight will have to always be able to take it, for the combat to be balanced. Which means hello going afk for 30 minutes at a time before important events and boss fights. I'm sure I can watch TV or read a book while I wait, or maybe alt+tab and play a game that doesn't use broken concepts like Long-Term cooldown abilities.

Bear with me, English is not my first language.
A necessary ability is one that you need to use in order to win a fight. I don't think that necessary abilities should exist. Any fight should be winnable without using a particular ability.
A useful ability is one that you do not need in order to win, but it makes the fight much easier.

Of course you could wait until that ability becomes available again, but it's not necessary. There were indeed some people in DAoC that wouldn't engage in combat without all their abilities avaiable (and being an 8-persons party, it could take a while); I never understood this.

[TheRealJayDee]

nightscrawl wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

What should definitely be considered when it comes to spells is a better friendly fire mechanic. Spamming powerful spells is one thing, spamming them in the middle of ongoing melee combat without any consequence for your allied warriors and rogues is... weird.

So play on Nightmare if you want FF to be a real issue. YOU have the option. You don't however, have to mess with the way I like to play the game while not having to worry about FF, which is the specific reason I play on lower difficulties.

Yeah, nothing wrong with having no FF on the low difficulty, I don't want to take that away from you. Thing is, I don't want to play on Nightmare, that's not my thing. I want FF, or at least the option of FF, on lower difficulties than just the highest one. DA:O (at least on PC) already had FF on Normal, so that's kind of what I was expecting for the sequel (then again, I stopped my mage playthrough some time into Act 1, because of how the world ignored me being a mage). My point is, I don't want FF to be a "real issue", but I do want it to be a factor in combat.

Ideally there would just be a way to turn FF on or off on Normal and higher difficulties, but that's not something Bioware wanted to do on DA2, because it would screw the balancing (and providing the option nonetheless would inevitably result in players switching it on 'accidentily' and being frustrated and sad because of it - like with all toggles).

[tmp7704]

mickey111 wrote...

No, I'm not going to do my own balancing of the gameplay by roleplaying and pretending to be restricted even though I'm not.

Nowhere in my post i've suggested the player should themselves "pretend" to be restricted, so i don't know why you'd read it that way. I meant mechanical restrictions, already used by some games -- be it either different monster types being unaffected by certain spells, or building up some sort of 'rage' resource, abilities only unlocking below certain hp threshold (either own or companion's) or whathaveyou.

[UrgentArchengel]

Nah.

[Lennard Testarossa]

nightscrawl wrote...

So play on Nightmare if you want FF to be a real issue. YOU have the option. You don't however, have to mess with the way I like to play the game while not having to worry about FF, which is the specific reason I play on lower difficulties.

DA 2 nightmare mode was retarded and obviously just tacked on at the very last minute. It did have FF, certainly, but it did not take into account that the scales of party dmg/party hp and enemy dmg/enemy hp were completely different.

The party had relatively little hp numbers, generally less than 500, but can easily deal 2000 or 3000 dmg, whereas enemies deal very little damage, but often have many thousand hp points. This resulted in spells that do not deal significant damage to even the weakest enemy instantly killing half your party. Playing on nightmare also meant having to contend with random immunities. Furthermore, avoiding FF in DA 2 was incredibly annoying due to the lack of tactical overview making positioning and accurate aiming agonizing and to your inability to turn of party A.I. making it impossible to position your party before a fight.

Given this, "YOU have the option." sounds almost insulting, 'cause we really don't. If a game is not designed for FF, adding it later isn't likely to work. People who do not want FF probably don't care about difficult combat anyway, so a lack of FF might as well be restricted to easy-mode.

Modifié par Lennard Testarossa, 25 octobre 2012 - 03:39 .

[ScarMK]

In regards to this FF relative to difficulty issue, FF toggle in options. Want Nightmare mode without FF? You got it. Easy/casual with FF? You got it!

[nightscrawl]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...

Given this, "YOU have the option." sounds almost insulting, 'cause we really don't. If a game is not designed for FF, adding it later isn't likely to work. People who do not want FF probably don't care about difficult combat anyway, so a lack of FF might as well be restricted to easy-mode.

Even if it was a crappy option, you still had it. I think there can be a balance between ridiculously stupid, face roll, easy mode like DA2 had with Casual mode and a Nightmare that wasn't balanced properly. I think everyone should be able to play at the difficulty that is comfortable or fun for them so they can focus on the aspect of the game that is most important to them, whatever that may be.

The way the initial post I was responding to phrased it seemed like he was advocating FF everywhere (which he later clarified,) which I don't want. I didn't want FF in DAO either, so yes, I DID play that on Easy and enjoyed nuking things with my mage immensely. My response is essentially true though: if they add FF to the entire game it won't be an option anymore, will it?

At any rate, this isn't really a big concern of mine, since I doubt they would do that anyway.

ScarMK wrote...

In regards to this FF relative to difficulty issue, FF toggle in options. Want Nightmare mode without FF? You got it. Easy/casual with FF? You got it!

While I agree, the devs don't like adding toggles for too many things. Also, with the balancing issues that Lennard mentioned above in DA2's Nightmare, it would have been made much worse if those same problems were brought into the other modes as well. He is right in that a setting, no matter what difficulty it is, has to be properly balanced with the FF in mind in order for it to work.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 25 octobre 2012 - 04:01 .

[garrusfan1]

So like final fantasy 7. Honestly I rather them do it like they have. And I have always played on consoles (except games like command and conquer type games cause those type games SUCK on console but are amazing on computer

[tmp7704]

nightscrawl wrote...

Even if it was a crappy option, you still had it.

If the option is "crappy" to the point it doesn't address/solve the problem then its existence is meaningless; a red herring. E.g. i have option for this forums to remember my login, but it routinely fails to work. End effect, the option may as well not be there.

Modifié par tmp7704, 25 octobre 2012 - 04:48 .

[Sejborg]

PinkysPain wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

What was wrong with the Origins system? The powerful spells took a while to activate/cast and you where vulnerable to interruption. And also some cooldown. Why not just use that again?

It worked because the game was slow ... if everything can close in less than a second those sort of mechanics don't work.

Really the only way to have a truly tactical real time game was to make it about as slow as Origins ... and while most people say they want a tactical game, they also say Origins was too slow. Sigh ... too many console gamers ruining it for the glorious master race.

I'm a console gamer and I prefer Origins pace any day over DA2's gameplay. So don't give me that bull****. 

[eyesofastorm]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

The is not 3.5 DnD were everyone worships the awe inspiring power of your staff.

I see what you did there.


Another idea (I know, I'm throwing out a lot of them) that could be both nasty and lore appropriate is for there to be a mechanic that if you overexert your mage, then a  demon from the fade comes out to possess them.  Somthing of a none-standard game over for PC mages.   Not sure that would be workable with companions, however.

I think this would be really interesting, but at the same time difficult to successfully execute to make sure it's fun.

I think gaming, or at least gaming as I enjoy it, has suffered for the concern over "fun".  Consequences aren't supposed to be fun... they are supposed to suck.  Consequences that suck add to the "fun" for me because they force me to make difficult decisions at critical times to achieve victory while hopefully escaping these consequences.  The "fun" part is pulling it off successfully and I think that you guys have lost touch with that particular concept of "fun".  Just sayin'.

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 25 octobre 2012 - 05:24 .

[PsychoBlonde]

NUMBERED LIST TIME!!!

Ways to limit Big Impressive Spells

1. Vancian style magic system where you get so many slots per rest. Upside: spell utilization is extremely limited. Downside: casters are extremely rest-bound.

2. Mana Pool + rest system where you get so much mana back per rest. Upside: can spam favorite spell until you run out of juice. Downside: Can feel like you're playing an accountant instead of a wizard.

3. Mana pool that refills at end of combat system. Upside: Tackling every fight fresh. Downside: Attrition? What's that?

4. Lengthy cooldowns on "big" abilities. Upside: limits how often you can throw the whammy. Downside: sitting around waiting for whammy to recharge probably least fun game mechanic EVAR.

5. Something I suggested elsewhere: Fatigue + resting system. At end of combat and when you use a big ability, you pick up stacking Fatigue debuff that makes you less and less effective until you rest. Upside: limits casting without being too intrusive. Downside: suspect it'd feel extremely strange to get weaker and weaker as you get closer to end fight. With free resting, system is pointless. Limited resting lacks margin for error.

6. Variable Casting Time: The bigger the spell, the longer the setup to use it--and the greater chance of it being interrupted. Upside: does limit spell casting. Downside: makes combat crazy random since you lose ability to track what's going to go off when or whether it's going to go off at all.

7. New suggestion: spells need to charge up. The longer you go between castings, the more powerful they are (up to a point). This could be done in such a way that your whammies are simply charged versions of basic spells. Would probably need to have limits on what you could charge when--for instance, you can't maintain full charge on all spells while running around the dungeon. Upside: some interesting tactical applications. Downside: distinctly favors casters who have many different spells. Probably some other crazy issues I'm not seeing currently.

[DPSSOC]

eyesofastorm wrote...
I think gaming, or at least gaming as I enjoy it, has suffered for the concern over "fun".  Consequences aren't supposed to be fun... they are supposed to suck.  Consequences that suck add to the "fun" for me because they force me to make difficult decisions at critical times to achieve victory while hopefully escaping these consequences.  The "fun" part is pulling it off successfully and I think that you guys have lost touch with that particular concept of "fun".  Just sayin'.

Ah yes that inexplicable surge of enjoyment when you've been through the mangler, half your group's dead (dead dead not unconcious they'll get better dead), and you're probably missing body parts BUT you survived.  I agree about the consequences that suck adding to the fun because it makes you work harder to avoid them and makes actually avoiding them an accomplishment.

If nothing can go wrong the fact that nothing does is unremarkable, but if something can go horribly wrong, if you can screw up hard, then nothing going wrong is an achievement.

[Allan Schumacher]

eyesofastorm wrote...

I think gaming, or at least gaming as I enjoy it, has suffered for the concern over "fun".  Consequences aren't supposed to be fun... they are supposed to suck.  Consequences that suck add to the "fun" for me because they force me to make difficult decisions at critical times to achieve victory while hopefully escaping these consequences.  The "fun" part is pulling it off successfully and I think that you guys have lost touch with that particular concept of "fun".  Just sayin'.

I think we're still using the same definition of the word fun.

Consequences can exist, which make the game more enjoyable.
Consequences can also exist, which do not make the game more enjoyable.

[Reznik23]

 I had this idea a while back:
http://social.biowar.../index/13985294
I still think it could be tuned in & made to work...

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

I think gaming, or at least gaming as I enjoy it, has suffered for the concern over "fun".  Consequences aren't supposed to be fun... they are supposed to suck.  Consequences that suck add to the "fun" for me because they force me to make difficult decisions at critical times to achieve victory while hopefully escaping these consequences.  The "fun" part is pulling it off successfully and I think that you guys have lost touch with that particular concept of "fun".  Just sayin'.

I think we're still using the same definition of the word fun.

Consequences can exist, which make the game more enjoyable.
Consequences can also exist, which do not make the game more enjoyable.

To add to this, "fun" or even "enjoyment" is subjective. I've seen posts on here from people who want elaborate crafting systems, which I would not consider "fun" at all. However, I can appreciate that someone else considers it fun.