142 réponses à ce sujet

[Fisto The Sexbot]

AlexJK wrote...

Difficulty levels are a feature which rewards players (by making the game easier). Yet there is an accepted challenge in not using the easy levels, and playing on harder ones.

Repecs are a feature which rewards players (by letting them change their skills). Yet there is an accepted challenge in not using them, and sticking with one spec.

If respec potions are bad feature because they offer an optional reward, then so are difficulty levels. I think most players would agree that difficulty levels are a good feature, allowing players of different skill levels and play styles to enjoy the game. Respecs allow players who want to respec to do so, and don't force players who don't want to respec to do anything other than play as they normally would.

How could this possibly be considered bad design?

 I actually have my problems with difficulty levels, to be honest. But they can be a reasonable compromise since they're not a part of actual game content. The sequel to Dark Souls will apparently use difficuly levels, and not everyone is okay with it.

The guy working on Project Eternity:

"If we design a system that rewards resting every 5'[/b], the gamer isn't at fault for using it.  We put it in there!"

.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Femlob wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Why do you assume 'I can't stop myself from abusing it'?

Because you wouldn't be complaining about optional shit in a single player game if you could.

Optional **** is still ****. Do you also think I naturally play on the easiest difficulties available then? Because I don't.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Sutekh wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Creating a feature that rewards players and asking them not to use it if they don't want to is **** design.

That's a strange thought. How is giving people options a bad design?

There are lots of things in many games that "reward" players and one can use but choose not to for various reasons (consistent RPGing being one).

Plus, how is Maker's Sigh a "reward"? It's just an expensive potion hidden in an (optional / DLCish) store.

Yeah, I know, I do it. But that's not an excuse for having an insanely overpowered piece of armor. Like a lot of DLC armor actually is. Allowing you to respec. as many times as you want would create an optimal situation for your party whenever it is convenient; it's more or less the same as being able to max out every stat in Fallout 3.

It just doesn't matter as much since your builds don't affect Dragon Age 2 by a whole lot. It would be a disaster to have that in a game like New Vegas though (and yes I'm pretty sure I know there are some perks that allow you respec to some degree but they can only be used once IIRC.)

Fallout 3 got significant criticism because you could max out every stat eventually. But you could still roleplay as a medic. Does that mean maxing all your skills in Fallout 3 is good design? You actually have to build your character a certain way or ignore some perks to not create a master of all trades character.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 11 janvier 2013 - 11:28 .

[Sutekh]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Yeah, I know, I do it. <snip>

 You actually have to build your character a certain way or ignore some perks to not create a master of all trades character.

I haven't played Fallout 3, but that problem exists in other games. Not the point though.

The point is: If you don't like something but still have the possibility to play things as you like (i.e. not using the potion / über-equipment, not min-maxing etc...) then why don't you simply ignore what irks you and go on playing your way? Why do you care that it's there? Nothing compels you to use it; it's not mandatory in any way. So why is it so bad that some people whose game you'll never see use it?

Not mentioning that, as stated above, there are other reasons to respec than cheating the game by always having the right build for the right situation. Being one of those using respec mainly for RPGing purpose (along with the mirror), I'd be quite pissed if it wasn't available anymore just because someone has decided that its mere existence was an insult to gameplay (or something).

[Conduit0]

Ah, the old, "I want to ****** in everyone's wheaties because I hate breakfast cereal" argument, I've never seen that on the BSN before.
<_<

Its always a childishly stupid argument no matter the subject, but in this case its extra stupid. Without a way to respec a character you're left with two choices, continue playing with a build you dislike, or restart from the beginning. Games are meant to be fun and there is nothing fun about being forced to play in a way you dislike or giving up all the time you've put into the game so far. When a game ceases to be fun, that is the epitome of s*** game design.

[Althix]

we don't have a choice for starting talents. Like shield and sword discipline for Noble Origin or any given spell or talent in DA2 game.

So basicaly i buying respec potions for pc, varrik and fenris. And ravens for almost any Origin.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 11 janvier 2013 - 12:04 .

[Kidd]

The Maker's Sigh potion is an out-of-universe feature that lets the player directly interact with the mechanics if they need to. Out-of-universe features need no regulation. What's next, limiting how many times I can rearrange my powers on my hotbar?

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Sutekh wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Yeah, I know, I do it. <snip>

 You actually have to build your character a certain way or ignore some perks to not create a master of all trades character.

I haven't played Fallout 3, but that problem exists in other games. Not the point though.

The point is: If you don't like something but still have the possibility to play things as you like (i.e. not using the potion / über-equipment, not min-maxing etc...) then why don't you simply ignore what irks you and go on playing your way? Why do you care that it's there? Nothing compels you to use it; it's not mandatory in any way. So why is it so bad that some people whose game you'll never see use it?

Not mentioning that, as stated above, there are other reasons to respec than cheating the game by always having the right build for the right situation. Being one of those using respec mainly for RPGing purpose (along with the mirror), I'd be quite pissed if it wasn't available anymore just because someone has decided that its mere existence was an insult to gameplay (or something).

I'm not against people playing however they want to. I just think balance is still important to some extent, even if 'it's a single-player game'. If I were against people doing whatever they want in their own game I'd have to think cheat codes are heresy.

Bobbleheads and perks allow you to create a perfect character in Fallout 3. You don't have to pick them up though. I think we can agree that a game should provide an incentive for the player to do something, and be rewarded if the player follows up on it.

So I can decide not to use overpowered equipment for my character. Usually when I play an RPG I don't even give a damn which is the most uber awesome armor in the game. I just think incentives should be properly balanced, provided I want to use that piece of equipment.

[Wulfram]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

The Maker's Sigh potion is an out-of-universe feature that lets the player directly interact with the mechanics if they need to.

Except you pay in universe money to an in universe guy for an in universe potion.

Personally I think full re-spec should be counted as a "cheat", not a regular part of the game, even if it's a cheat that's made readily accessible.  While limited re-spec should be available through in universe stuff.

Though ideally the system would be designed so there's a limited ability for people to totally screw up their characters.

[Gazardiel]

If Maker's Sigh potions were 1 copper in price, then I might agree that some limitation could be appropriate. But since they aren't inexpensive, I have limited myself to one round of respecs for my party to try a more focused build because I'm a miser and want to save my money for other exploitative, game-breaking game features, like stabby things.

While I may like to try more types of builds, the cost is actually putting me off from that - I'm not complaining, just suggesting that there is an inherent limit already that avoids most of the ridiculousness that could possibly be a concern.

I wouldn't, for example, want to see respecs become a required part of some encounters - where you'd have to use one build for one boss, then respec to beat the next one immediately after.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Filament wrote...

Rerolling badly built characters in a singleplayer RPG is a fossil and I'll be happy if I never see it again.

  Then what's the point of building characters if you can metagame at any time?

[deatharmonic]

Celene II wrote...

Some people respec because they made a mistake accidentally putting points into abilities they did not want to and wish to remove them.

Others repsec because their ideas did not pan out and now their character is broken

Both of those would seem to only need at most 2 potions oof respec. Because people would learn after 2. Allowing instant and unlimited respec just makes any thought about how you will build your character moot.


And a lot of people will abuse unlimited respec by creating a damage mage for this section then a healer for this cave, then a crowd control mage for this cave. Destroying any sort of replay.


So i implore you -  If you have a maker's sigh potion or anything like it either make only 2 of them or only have enough material to craft two of them. Anything more really takes all thought and skill in character building out of the game.

As people have already mentioned, I'm not sure why your so concerned with what people do in their game. You play your game the way you like and adhere to what you believe in. Let others play the way they like. For something that is completely optional this seems like such a draconic request.

[Aeowyn]

addiction21 wrote...

How does what someone else does in their own singleplayer game effect you at all?

And why are you moaning about what other people could possibly do that would never affect you in any way?

I was wondering the same thing. Not to mention that a large chunk of the community love to think out builds and strategies, write guides etc. so adding a limit to the Maker's Sigh potion would kill that.

[Kaidan Fan]

addiction21 wrote...

How does what someone else does in their own singleplayer game effect you at all?

And why are you moaning about what other people could possibly do that would never affect you in any way?

Most definitely this.

[Sutekh]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

I'm not against people playing however they want to. I just think balance is still important to some extent, even if 'it's a single-player game'. If I were against people doing whatever they want in their own game I'd have to think cheat codes are heresy.

Not very fond of cheat codes personally, but hey, to each their own. It would never cross my mind to ask for their removal or limitation, in a single player game.

What I don't get is the balance thing. A balance prob is when say, a class (or race, or faction, depending) is blatantly superior / inferior to another. Or you have to wear some gear that's radically too bad or too good. When the unbalance forces you to play in a way you don't enjoy, because otherwise it's too difficult / easy. I've encountered such a problem recently in a game where the class I wanted to play (archer) proved unplayable due to the (not so good) combat system. I bit the bullet and played anyway, but I wasn't happy.

The respec potion being optional, and very expensive, it has no effect whatsoever on balance if I don't want it to. You seem to think everyone would abuse it to fit their build, but there are so many reasons to use it (experimenting, changing a build that's bad, or doesn't match your way of playing, RPGing...) that I don't see why those who don't should be "punished". And even the people who abuse it should be able to do so if they want. Their game, not mine.

Same goes for DLC armors and the like. If they're too powerful and unbalance the game (which is usually the case, unfortunately), I don't use them, unless they look so good I can't resist (I'm shallow).

I'm not even discussing the merits and flaws of respeccing. As it is, you and the OP are asking something that would result in less enjoying the game for others - while you can easily avoid using it and go on enjoying your game the way you want - just because you don't like it. I'm sorry, but it sounds a tad self-centered.

And what do you mean by "incentive"? How is Maker's Sigh an incentive?

[Wulfram]

If respec is an assumed part of the game, that does effect the balance. Or at least it should, if the designers aren't taking a "meh, single player game, who cares" attitude.

It would potentially make the game easier, because it allows the player to build strictly for the end game, without having to worry about how effective the character will be on the way up. So the content should be made harder to compensate.

Though it might be benificial if there's less requirement to keep the difficulty down in order to accomodate the people with the really rubbish build.

edit:  It also changes things if the player can respec for specific adversaries or sets of adversaries.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 janvier 2013 - 01:55 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Filament wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Filament wrote...

Rerolling badly built characters in a singleplayer RPG is a fossil and I'll be happy if I never see it again.

  Then what's the point of building characters if you can metagame at any time?

To make a build that is enjoyable to play and be able to experiment without worrying about gimping my character and having to start over and spend countless hours to fix a mistake I couldn't have known was a mistake without actually trying the ability first.

 Countless hours.  

Then what's the point of choosing your abilities in the first place instead of having them all handed out to you? How is that not essentially giving the player access to all content regardless of character build?

[Fast Jimmy]

If money was tied into the plot in a much bigger way or into different decisions, it wouldn't matter how many times you could buy the Maker's Sigh. But it would make gold a premium, so you'd be sacrificing being able to buy premium gear from vendors or being able to use gold as a way to solve problems (charity donations, bribes, investments, etc.). There would be no artificial barrier, it would just be an incentive to use your gold elsewhere.

Even with the worst builds, you can still drop it down to Casual and beat the game without problem. If you created a terrible build and have too much pride to drop it down to Casual, then fork over the gold... but just know it would come with a price.

[Fiacre]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Filament wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Filament wrote...

Rerolling badly built characters in a singleplayer RPG is a fossil and I'll be happy if I never see it again.

  Then what's the point of building characters if you can metagame at any time?

To make a build that is enjoyable to play and be able to experiment without worrying about gimping my character and having to start over and spend countless hours to fix a mistake I couldn't have known was a mistake without actually trying the ability first.

 Countless hours.  

Then what's the point of choosing your abilities in the first place instead of having them all handed out to you? How is that not essentially giving the player access to all content regardless of character build?

I honestly don't see the problem with that -- you already have a limited number of talent/stat/specialization points, so it's not like you can give a character everything -- you still have to decide what build you want to use. I can't make my character be a dual wielder/archer hybrid and be as profcient a dual wielder as Isabela or as good an archer as Varric or Sebastian, simply because of the limited amount of talent points.

And sure, I can be an archer for one mission and dual wield for another, but what is the problem with that? If I feel the desire to spend all that money on potions, all the time on constantly choosing different builds and having to get used to the new one, then, really, I don't see why that is bad?

And that the game might be easier by abusing respec isn't a reward in itself. Plenty people like a challenge, so making the game (even) easier, is, I should think, not a reward for them. there's your incentive to not abuse Maker's sigh or overpowered DLC armour -- it makes things easier and you don't want it to be easier, so you don't use things desinged for people that don't care about difficulty, aren't good at the game or just want to experiment.

(And people set their own priorities all the time, don't they? I thought a lot of warrior armours in DA2 looked terrible, but adored the Armor of the Fallen. Power wise, there wasn't any incentive for me to keep wearing it all trhoughout Act 2 and even parts of Act 3, but I preferred looks over stats and did just that. Just like someone else might prefer experimenting over diffciulty and the other way around.)

So i honestly don't see what the problem is -- imho, there's plenty of oncentive to not abuse Maker's Sigh or wear overpowered DLC armor. But for people that do enjoy these things, they're available -- while those who don't (and again, I don't see how that isn't enough incentove to refrain from using them) don't have to use them.

[Gazardiel]

The thing is that there is an opportunity cost for constantly respeccing - the gold that you spent on all of those potions could have gone towards upgrades for companions, better gear, consumables or runes (which offer some customizability between adventures in a measured way). Respeccing is not an "I Win" button by any means; it still means you need to research skills and specializations.

Using RoFs (also available via the optional addon Black Emporium) to get lots of gold to buy more of the "high-price" items is arguably more gamebreaking.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Sutekh wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

I'm not against people playing however they want to. I just think balance is still important to some extent, even if 'it's a single-player game'. If I were against people doing whatever they want in their own game I'd have to think cheat codes are heresy.

Not very fond of cheat codes personally, but hey, to each their own. It would never cross my mind to ask for their removal or limitation, in a single player game.

What I don't get is the balance thing. A balance prob is when say, a class (or race, or faction, depending) is blatantly superior / inferior to another. Or you have to wear some gear that's radically too bad or too good. When the unbalance forces you to play in a way you don't enjoy, because otherwise it's too difficult / easy. I've encountered such a problem recently in a game where the class I wanted to play (archer) proved unplayable due to the (not so good) combat system. I bit the bullet and played anyway, but I wasn't happy.

The respec potion being optional, and very expensive, it has no effect whatsoever on balance if I don't want it to. You seem to think everyone would abuse it to fit their build, but there are so many reasons to use it (experimenting, changing a build that's bad, or doesn't match your way of playing, RPGing...) that I don't see why those who don't should be "punished". And even the people who abuse it should be able to do so if they want. Their game, not mine.

Same goes for DLC armors and the like. If they're too powerful and unbalance the game (which is usually the case, unfortunately), I don't use them, unless they look so good I can't resist (I'm shallow).

I'm not even discussing the merits and flaws of respeccing. As it is, you and the OP are asking something that would result in less enjoying the game for others - while you can easily avoid using it and go on enjoying your game the way you want - just because you don't like it. I'm sorry, but it sounds a tad self-centered.

And what do you mean by "incentive"? How is Maker's Sigh an incentive?

Like Wulfram said it's pretty bad for encounter design. Let's pretend for a moment that combat abilities in Dragon 3 will require a lot of strategy and there are definite benefits and offsets to certain character builds. Certain mobs will probably have different strengths and weaknesses. If the player is given the possibility to adapt so easily to all these encounters, it could make even a complex design 

If people want to familiarize themselves with different character builds I imagine there have to be better ways than infinite potions of respec.

[bleetman]

Eh. Not that I've extensively tinkered with every aspect of every class, but it's not as if either Dragon Age games were the kind where you'd be required to engage in extensive ability setup metgaming or would significantly benefit from altering it between encounters. I suppose you might swap around a few abilities if playing the second game on nightmare mode to avoid the arbitrary elemental immunities it flung around, but other than that I don't see why you'd ever really need to. Or how somebody doing that is apparently a problem.

Wulfram wrote...

It would potentially make the game easier, because it allows the player to build strictly for the end game, without having to worry about how effective the character will be on the way up. So the content should be made harder to compensate.

I can't say I'm sure as to how 'end game' Dragon Age in either game is somehow mechanically distinct from the rest of it, to the point that what works in one doesn't equally so for the other. You hit guys with swords until they fall over, in much the same fashion as you hit everyone that came before them with swords until they fell over.

Modifié par bleetman, 11 janvier 2013 - 02:29 .

[AstraDrakkar]

No. Just no to the OP.

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 11 janvier 2013 - 02:51 .