35 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, they were useful when they were the best spell/skill you had. But once you unlock the next level of skill, it became pretty obsolete

No.  Not at all.

Well, Fireball maybe became obsolete when you got Firestorm.  But that was because Fireball kind of sucked, and Firestorm was powerful.  Winters Grasp, Chain Lightning, Stonefist, Heal.  Those are all talents that remain very valuable throughout the game, and are better at what they do than anything in their tree.

The "nuke" spells were great for dealing with groups, but not so much single target enemies.  And they generally couldn't exploit CCCs.

[Fast Jimmy]

Yes, but Whirlwind and Cleave pretty much replace Pummel Strike or Shield Bash for Warriors. And Archer's Lance and Twin Fangs make Pinning Shot and Explosive Strike something you can just take off your skills menu.

I think DA2 could have done better with more actual skills for the Warrior or Rogue, rather than just more powerful attacks with different animations that replace your old skills. Just a personal preference, as the trees seem cluttered with passive skills or useless Talents which were just put there to "flesh things out" rather than to create a workable build.

[Wulfram]

Shield bash is great for setting up CCCs, Pummel strike gives you a reliable and quick stun which Whirlwind and Cleave don't. Neither are anything like obsolete.

Twin fangs is good, but on a fairly long cooldown, so you're likely not going to stop using the others - particularly not if there's a stagger for explosive strike to take advantage of. Pinning shot is again good for setting up CCCs, and Archer's lance is expensive in stamina, has a lengthy cooldown and only does spectacular damage against brittle enemies. Though to be honest I tended to skip both the weapon trees with rogues.

[Fast Jimmy]

Filament wrote...

No, that's not really true. You should acquaint yourself with the DA2 character building forum, they could tell you how useful pretty much every talent in the game can be.

Fair enough, I suppose. My original intent, though, was to discuss how the "nuke" spells or skills could be present, but avoided from being used all the time, in every fight, without a Vancian casting type of limitation.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:39 .

[Wulfram]

Adding drawbacks so that there could be some really powerful top level spells might be cool, though I suspect it would also be a real pain to balance.

Allowing combat to turn on the risky casting of a single spell seems like it might turn major combats into a coin toss.

Modifié par Wulfram, 17 janvier 2013 - 07:50 .

[nicethugbert]

Well, let's explore the boundaries and possiblilties. Have there been any non-combat RPGs?

[philippe willaume]

Wulfram wrote...

Adding drawbacks so that there could be some really powerful top level spells might be cool, though I suspect it would also be a real pain to balance.

Allowing combat to turn on the risky casting of a single spell seems like it might turn major combats into a coin toss.

then may be  we could use skill, tactics and terraing to mitigate the odds and make it less a coin toss. 
or you could ties them up with certain state of the victime.

For exemple, the warrior could have a super massive attack but that can only be deliver or creature/char that have a reduced mobility or conciousness.

Same for the rogue and on top of mobility and conciousness you could add awarness.

for a mage you could either have some spell that crete an effect and spells that take advantage  of that effect.
exactly in the same way the rogue and the warrior would do.
for exemple winters grasp and stone fist.

and instead of one nuke spell hyave speel combo, instead of fire storm you have grease+ fire ball or instead of cone of cold you have  mist +winter grasp.

ps 
i like the cross class combo in DA:2 but i did not like the way they were implemented. i prefer the CCC in DA:0

Modifié par philippe willaume, 17 janvier 2013 - 08:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

Adding drawbacks so that there could be some really powerful top level spells might be cool, though I suspect it would also be a real pain to balance.

Allowing combat to turn on the risky casting of a single spell seems like it might turn major combats into a coin toss.

Heavy risk, but the priiiiiize...


LOL Sorry, couldn't resist.

nicethugbert wrote...

Well, let's explore the boundaries and possiblilties. Have there been any non-combat RPGs?

There have been games that have allowed you to engage in combat only a few times (DE:HR, Thief, heck even Ultima 7 could be done by running through most enemy infested areas except for a few fights), but games that don't LET you fight are usually restricted to Adventure Games. I always like to plug the Quest for Glory games, as most of the game can done through avoiding combat. Sitting here thinking about it, I think you can beat the first game as a Mage or Thief without actually fighting anyone once. 

So, there you go. Quest for Glory. It had classes, stat progression, combat and skills (it was also a Sierra point and click adventure game). So if that qualifies as an RPG instead of an adventure game with RPG elements, then there's one example I can think of.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 janvier 2013 - 08:30 .

[DraCZeQQ]

While reading this all i can think about is Vampire The Masquarade - Bloodlines and mainly its skill based / origin based dialogue system ... how I miss my Malkavian

[nicethugbert]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Adding drawbacks so that there could be some really powerful top level spells might be cool, though I suspect it would also be a real pain to balance.

Allowing combat to turn on the risky casting of a single spell seems like it might turn major combats into a coin toss.

Heavy risk, but the priiiiiize...


LOL Sorry, couldn't resist.

But, what kind of story does that tell?

Fast Jimmy wrote...

nicethugbert wrote...

Well, let's explore the boundaries and possiblilties. Have there been any non-combat RPGs?

There have been games that have allowed you to engage in combat only a few times (DE:HR, Thief, heck even Ultima 7 could be done by running through most enemy infested areas except for a few fights), but games that don't LET you fight are usually restricted to Adventure Games. I always like to plug the Quest for Glory games, as most of the game can done through avoiding combat. Sitting here thinking about it, I think you can beat the first game as a Mage or Thief without actually fighting anyone once. 

So, there you go. Quest for Glory. It had classes, stat progression, combat and skills (it was also a Sierra point and click adventure game). So if that qualifies as an RPG instead of an adventure game with RPG elements, then there's one example I can think of.

I think that it can work but you would have to look at what it is that people already favor and see if you can provide the same satisfaction through non-combat.

If combat is what people favor then the non-combat would have to share the same qualities that make combat attractive game play.  But, people complain about the combat too.  Some people say it's mostly filler that gets in the way of the story.  And, people complain about the story being shallow, choices not being eventful or meaningful.

I think that skills suffer from the same problem as combat does.  It's not well integrated into the game.  I like freche's suggestion.  I don't think there has to be skills per se.  Character class, actions, and history should indicate skill and should play a part during dialog and cutscenes.

One ofthe problem I have with non-combat is that if I have to resort to combat to accomplish the mission then the mission feels like a failure even though it was accomplished, and the game does not recognize this at all, let alone a meaningful or consequential way.

Where as, if I set about to succeed through combat, well, it's usually presented as not a choice.  If I don't have to kill my enemy, that is not such a bad thing necessarily.  Again, there is often no consequence other than less loot.  There really should be an option to spare your enemy at the price of taking his loot.

I prefered DA2 over DA:O.  I did not miss the skill system.  I think game elements should be done right or not done at all.  As a matter of fact, for a change, I would like to see.

As matter of fact, I would like to see a purely story driven game, heavily cinematic, where every action is done to advance a story
element. A game where, given the choices, you decide or discover what
your goals will be, how you will get there, who your friends, allies,
and enemies are.

No loot lying around, no generic items.
Anything of interest involves a story worth telling. You don't buy WMD
in shops where the merchants magically never get robbed even tho they
are easy pickings, as easy as beggers.

I would like to see the
same for the character advancement system. If the characters themselves
are to be WMD, then they have to discover how. Power should be
something worthy of a story, not just the accumulation of XP points for
doing stuff.

The character should in accordance with his goals
discover the obstacles to his goals, discover the path through or around
the obstacles to his goals, discover the tools necessary to achieve the
goals. Those tools could be information, allies, weapons, magic
powers, wealth, anything.

In this context, role matters. So
while you are busy with your companions doing missions and what not,
your rogue allies are gathering intel. Your mage allies are conducting
research and making magic items. Your warrior allies are protecting
them, etc. A lot of loyalties would have to be secured in order to make
sure noe of these people stab you in the back. and, who knows, maybe
someone will anyway.

The game will need a good checkpoint and save system, and fast reloads, because success may require some reloads.

Also, ...... difficulty sliders, because not everyone shares the same opinion on difficulty.