146 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

Roleplayers come to an RPG game with a picture in their head of what their charecter is. What it looks like, what are her opinions and preferences, etc. Do you even understand how unappealing it is when an RPG developer tells you that our vison is wrong? That we can't roleplay our charecter the way we want? For the record, I'm not even that interested in playing a duel wielding warrior. I'm much more of a 2 handed kind of guy. It's the principle of the thing.
And obviously I don't want to feel like a moron every time I meet some archers on the high ground and can't even throw an axe at them...

[philippe willaume]

Solmanian wrote...

Roleplayers come to an RPG game with a picture in their head of what their charecter is. What it looks like, what are her opinions and preferences, etc. Do you even understand how unappealing it is when an RPG developer tells you that our vison is wrong? That we can't roleplay our charecter the way we want? For the record, I'm not even that interested in playing a duel wielding warrior. I'm much more of a 2 handed kind of guy. It's the principle of the thing.
And obviously I don't want to feel like a moron every time I meet some archers on the high ground and can't even throw an axe at them...

Same here 
though to be fair I think that CaptainBlackGold is kind of saying the same thing coming from the rogue side of the argument.

IE  I understand that  he would like his rogue to be more rogue-ish not so much ninja (or pirate) ranger killing machine (ie light armoured dext based warriory types).
I don't think he is saying that DW should be a specific fighter light class and not part of the Warrior set.
In DA:0 the rogue could stealth out for recon and lay traps and pick pocket.

For Da:I I would like the rogue class to be more like DA:O as as well be able to find alternative route to get into places, (being able to get over walls or in through windows, or get a set of different set of information when talking to a NPC). it does not need to have a thief like mode. :-)

 
That being said, there is always going to be character concept that will kind of being cross purposes. so you have the  light armour/dex fighter and the more fighting orientated rogue.


From a game mechanic stand point
Provided that any point inverted in dex, strength, cunning is taken in account in the attack base score calculation. (either by default or taking talents, skill/perks)


I think warriors should have a damage on a normal hit and critical.
Ability to control space (ie reducing the enemy mobility)
Giving buff to allies when in defensive mode (and having a better space control)
Fear type of debuff  to enemy when in an attack mode

 

and rogue should have a greater chance of critical
increased damage on critical, with a diminishing return  the bigger the weapon/ or limited to thrusting
weapons. the idea that the critical damage output for small weapon is greater than the critical damage output for warriors with the same weapons, about the same for one handed weapon and slightly lower for two handed.

Aility to limit or bypass the effect of controlled space and difficult  terrain. 
Manipulate agro to the enemy to be either totally ignored  in offensive mode or having a distracting
effect in a defensive mode.

So you have a DW rogue and a DW warrior that will play differently and be about as efficient as each other


Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 18 mars 2013 - 12:59 .

[Bond]

So, are DW Warriors back ?

[Cainhurst Crow]

"So, why can't Dragon Age have elements common to two different classes, that yet perform different roles?"

 

Because mass effect had those mixed classes have access to their own powers and abilities that were completely unique and separate from the other classes, and in mass effect one where they didn't have that, the same problem you described with rogues and warriors was present.

 

So unless bioware creates entirely unique skill trees and abilities only accessible to mixed classes, they won't feel like anything other then a water down version of the full package.

 

As for dual wielding, I think that debate has long since past, to be honest. Your solution might be good but will still lead to the same tired "Well why can't my rogue have full dual wielding" or "why can't my warrior have precision" and "why can't mages have weapons" debates that always happens when you give concession. Creating new weapon varieties for all classes would be the best solution, giving warriors dual wielding, rogues a new weapon tree, and giving mages new means of combat, so that way everyone feels like they got something in the new deal.

[Mornmagor]

You guys understand you responded to a thread from over a year ago right?

 

This is the second thread that is necro'ed for the same issue.

[Clat1]

What do you think of this kind of combat styles:

 

Warrior:
1) 2H weapon;
2) dual wield (with large weapons, more damage but slower than small weapons);
3) weapon and shield.

 

Rogue:
1) dual wield (small weapons, less damage but faster);
2) archery (single target, high individual damage);
3) AoE weapons (bombs, traps, etc.: lower individual damage but with a large area of effect).

 

Mage:
1) Healer (heal, buff, debuff);
2) Summoner/Necromancer;
3) Damage dealer (elemental attacks, etc.)

[DumSheeps]

It is perfect. 

[n7stormrunner]

no, I want like da: o. the same tree... everything else provides enough difference. you want proof go play  a DW warrior in massive plate and compare it to a DW rogue in light or med armour. and thats ignore the difference between being able to stealth and not, and back stabs. and the difference between the different specs.

[metatheurgist]

The idea that range attacks is a rogue niche is mind-boggling.

Seems more like warriors have been undermined to provide rogues with some kind of functionality in combat heavy games.

[Gtdef]

The reason why classes are more specialized in DA2 than they were in DAO is because combat design is more important than class design. That means that the limitations of DA2 classes were necessary.

 

DAO was a different game. Combat was more traditional and generic and the most basic way to play it was Tank to pull enemies into position and rest of the party to deal the damage and throw a defensive spell to the tank. The difference between difficulties is pretty much choosing skills in the most efficient order. So they used a version of the dnd system where party members are limited by their role and not by their class. Rogue DEX DW and Warrior DW differences in the party perform exactly the same combat role. Same thing with rogue archer and warrior archer. Exact same combat role.

 

DA2 has a very different and more specialized combat design. You need to decide on the main character of your setup and then make the whole party compliment him. You want to play a warrior, you need someone for threat manipulation so you can focus on dealing damage instead of chasing people around. You play rogue you need a lot of brittles and someone to keep you obscured. Also the way the enemies appear in waves and the assassin elites make the glass cannon setups with big cooldowns way less effective.

 

Personally I think that most people complain for the aesthetics. DW warrior with swords its the most cool looking thing in rpgs.

 

 

 

everything else provides enough difference, you want proof go play  a DW warrior in massive plate and compare it to a DW rogue in light or med armour

 

Funny you'd make an arguement about armor since High DEX rogue build is as much durable (more in my experience) as dw warrior altough warrior can tank easier while rogue requires some micromanagment. But really other than the superior solo ability of rogue in Nightmare, in a party they perform the exact same role. Actually I think that if rogue had better looking gear everyone would prefer rogue dw to warrior dw.

 

 

 

As for DAI I think the class system is going to be exciting. This is of course speculation, but taking a look at the specializations, they seem to want classes to specialize into different roles instead of more damage or more defense. A functional magic melee class sounds both awesome and useful. A rogue with aoe controlling abilities too. Also terrain manipulation and such. I never really though DA2 combat was going to be anything special. It's a good idea poorly implemented. But for some reason I'm hyped for DAI combat.

[DumSheeps]

I believe each sequel should be with LESS limitations and MORE possibilities. Look at the most successful franchises - call of duty, TES, halo etc.... Every new installment offers new tactics, ways of play, many more weapon variety and styles of play.......I have never hear Bethesda or Bungie stating they want the distinct weapon feel (replacing classes in the sentence) by limiting your ways to play. They put as many things as possible and balance them without much complaining. This is why Bungie is Bungie and gets the biggest budget for Destiny.

[Nohvarr]

I believe each sequel should be with LESS limitations and MORE possibilities. Look at the most successful franchises - call of duty, TES, halo etc.... Every new installment offers new tactics, ways of play, many more weapon variety and styles of play.......I have never hear Bethesda or Bungie stating they want the distinct weapon feel (replacing classes in the sentence) by limiting your ways to play. They put as many things as possible and balance them without much complaining. This is why Bungie is Bungie and gets the biggest budget for Destiny.

Dragon Age Inquisition has more possibilities than the previous ones. We're no longer stuck in one country, we now run an up and coming organization, combat has been expanded to allow people to either take direct control of a character or back out and play a more tactile style, and their are three 'wheels' we can use to intereact with the other characters.....how does that equate to more limitations?

[DumSheeps]

Three wheels ? These so called wheels are distinct only to the developers... Action wheel is the equivalent of DA2 decision making wheel which did not feature the usual icons. The tone wheel is the usual one. And the emotional wheel in DA2 was when you lie/romance etc... You did not expect three different wheels every time did you ? Or some completely different mechanics. It is the same mechanic but now when the situation vary (choice, regular dialogue, romance/emotions with companions they call the wheel differently).

And yes, Inquisition is more limited to DAO. I mentioned already that  dual wielding warriors are not in the game, rogues cant wield swords, 3 specs instead of 4, less tactical approach etc.. Sure they made some improvements like the open world, races and graphics but this was because of many other things that happened. New engine, year delay and much more...

[Kantr]

Where is the evidence about what rogues and warriors can and cannot do (dont know why I care actually. I'm buying the game and playing as a mage)

[Shadow Fox]

The idea that range attacks is a rogue niche is mind-boggling.

Seems more like warriors have been undermined to provide rogues with some kind of functionality in combat heavy games.

Have you ever seen an archer in plate armor?

[DumSheeps]

Also, archery is the same for rogues and warriors. I am for dual wielding swords in general, not only for warriors. I prefer warrior, but i can live with rogue too. 

[Shadow Fox]

Three wheels ? These so called wheels are distinct only to the developers... Action wheel is the equivalent of DA2 decision making wheel which did not feature the usual icons. The tone wheel is the usual one. And the emotional wheel in DA2 was when you lie/romance etc... You did not expect three different wheels every time did you ? Or some completely different mechanics. It is the same mechanic but now when the situation vary (choice, regular dialogue, romance/emotions with companions they call the wheel differently).

And yes, Inquisition is more limited to DAO. I mentioned already that  dual wielding warriors are not in the game, rogues cant wield swords, 3 specs instead of 4, less tactical approach etc.. Sure they made some improvements like the open world, races and graphics but this was because of many other things that happened. New engine, year delay and much more...

I disagree that removing clone skillsets makes the game more limited.

[Mirrman70]

Have you ever seen an archer in plate armor?

 

no but maybe a crossbowman in partial plate.

[Shadow Fox]

no but maybe a crossbowman in partial plate.

Crossbows for Warriors I could get behind.

[Nohvarr]

I disagree that removing clone skillsets makes the game more limited.

 

Agreed

 

Bioware learned something from Mass Effect 1's leveling system. Having a bunch of cloned options for different character classes doesn't do anything to make those classes feel different. This is a problem in a party based RPG, which Skyrim and Witcher series are most certainly not. Now with DA: I they've worked it so the classes (like members of the Qun) fulfill a role and then give players a variety of options to determine how said characters will evolve in that role to aid their party. What you chose to master and how you apply it to the situations you find yourself in is, in my opinion, better than slapping two long swords in a characters hands.

 

Three wheels ? These so called wheels are distinct only to the developers... Action wheel is the equivalent of DA2 decision making wheel which did not feature the usual icons. The tone wheel is the usual one. And the emotional wheel in DA2 was when you lie/romance etc...

 

Prove it, really, I want you to provide the evidence that this is the case.

 

3 specs instead of 4,

 

Fair trade, since your specialization will now be recognized in story, so it's no longer just about adding in some new abilities and balancing them within the gameplay.

 

less tactical approach

 

Again, prove it, I want you to tell me how everything you currently know about DA:I proves that the combat system is less tactical than previous games and provide supporting evidence.

[DumSheeps]

I can not prove it, yet for the wheel thing, David Gaider basically said it himself in other topic around here... His exact words were "From the player perspective they are barely recognisable". For the second part about the tactical approach.....they basically said that they try to fuse dao and da2 "strenghts" so that mean the combat is mix of the two which means dao>inquisition in terms of tactics. Also they implemented the hawk eye camera later in the development cycle because it was a hot wanted feature among us. They recognised it, i hope they recognise the need of dual swords too.

 

[Nohvarr]

For the second part about the tactical approach.....they basically said that they try to fuse dao and da2 "strenghts" so that mean the combat is mix of the two which means dao>inquisition in terms of tactics. Also they implemented the hawk eye camera later in the development cycle because it was a hot wanted feature among us. They recognised it, i hope they recognise the need of dual swords too.

 

 

I don't know how you made that leap...at all. I mean you said it's going to mix the strengths of DAO and DA2 and immediately assume that means DAO's system is more tactile.....how? How does taking the strengths of two games in a series immediately equal being worse than the original?

 

 

 

Also they implemented the hawk eye camera later in the development cycle because it was a hot wanted feature among us. They recognised it, i hope they recognise the need of dual swords too.

 

And right here you admit that they are in fact listening to fans and implementing some of the things they want. However because they haven't implemented what you want, we get threads like this and claims that the game will be less complex based on shaky reasoning.

 

yet for the wheel thing, David Gaider basically said it himself in other topic around here... His exact words were "From the player perspective they are barely recognisable".

 

From: http://news.softpedi...ed-429541.shtml

 

 

Most BioWare titles have featured dynamic dialog systems, allowing players to choose what their heroes say when talking to other non-playable characters, and in most recent games, this system used a dialog wheel mechanic.

In Dragon Age: Inquisition, said dialog wheel makes a return, but there are some key changes made to the recipe seen in Dragon Age 2, according to lead writer David Gaider.

In a post on the BioWare Social Network, he says that Inquisition will no longer feature a dominant tone to the voice of the player character. You can select a tone each time you use the dialog wheel, but it won't transition into further statements of that character or in cut scenes where automatic dialog is added by the game.

Speaking of auto dialog, Gaider believes that there's the same amount of it like in Dragon Age 2, and it's always neutral-toned. These automatic statements are mostly used in situations where the player character says something innocuous that doesn't require a dialog prompt, like "Go on" or "What is that?"

Certain situations will also see the arrival of a reaction wheel, in which players can choose how their characters will react to a situation, not just say something about it. Standard options such as Stoic, Sad, Confused, Enraged, or Surprised are present in these situations.

While the dialog wheels will once again display a short paraphrasing of the actual statement that is uttered by the character, if you hover on some of them, these will get detailed. The full statement, however, won't be displayed in any case.

In Inquisition, there are three major tones to the responses offered by players, in the form of Noble, Clever, and Direct. These replace the tones from Dragon Age 2, which were Diplomatic, Humorous, and Aggressive, largely because they didn't exactly convey what the player was going to say in a situation, according to Gaider.

In many situations, the dialog wheel will once again "break out" into a new set of choices when players pick the Investigate option. These will include various conditional things and elements that require a certain race, gender, or back story to be chosen by players at the beginning of the game.

[Nohvarr]

I had assumed everyone had seen this but just in case:

 

[Gtdef]

I can not prove it, yet for the wheel thing, David Gaider basically said it himself in other topic around here... His exact words were "From the player perspective they are barely recognisable". For the second part about the tactical approach.....they basically said that they try to fuse dao and da2 "strenghts" so that mean the combat is mix of the two which means dao>inquisition in terms of tactics. Also they implemented the hawk eye camera later in the development cycle because it was a hot wanted feature among us. They recognised it, i hope they recognise the need of dual swords too.

 

So what are the superior tactics of DAO?

 

If anything, DAO offers better strategic options because mages are so strong that you can literally beat whole chapters by just bringing the right spell (which is a symptom). But I hardly think the terrain manipulation and better positioning options of DAO make it a vastly more tactical game because it's due to spells like blood wound and fireball covering the whole screen.

 

Take a double warrior+rogue+healer setup in DAO and compare it to the same setup in DA2. How many actions do you need to efficiently execute the party tactics in each game? I bet whatever you want that it will be a lot more in DA2 than DAO. Then take a triple mage setup in DAO and compare it to DA2. In DAO you effectively need 2 skills. Blood wound and fireballs (and forcefield in NM). In DA2 you need all your cooldowns to aoe a single group, and then you have the second wave and assassin npc that oneshots your mages in higher difficulties. And since most of the groups are half half melee and ranged and spell diameters are way smaller, you have a way harder time.

 

DAO took a generic system that every turn based rpg uses, and made it more fluid and way better looking due to better technology and engine.

 

So essentially, if you want to fuse the strengths of the two games, take DA2 system, allow for better camera control and make positioning and terrain advantage a thing.

[metatheurgist]

Have you ever seen an archer in plate armor?

I have seen a warrior in light armor before. According to people who know, Plate Armor barely restricted mobility so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.