156 réponses à ce sujet

[Maclimes]

Honestly, I would be fine with combining the Warrior + Rogue class into one "Non Magical" class, and instead make the differences in specs and talent trees.

Let the "non combat" stuff be universal (and unrelated to combat). The implication that a mage or warrior can't learn to pick a lock is silly.

[Beerfish]

It's much more difficult to balance things the more variables you add. It goes back to the early days of table top DnD. The reasoning is sound as well because it assumes to be a good user of a weapon or power you have to train diligently for it. If there were trade offs it could be workable.

The example of a mage with a bow. You can use your bow but one school of magic is removed from you.

You want to dual wield as a mage? something else needs to go.

I have no problem with weapon restrictions myself.

[Plaintiff]

Why does a game have any restrictions at all? Why doesn't Chess allow me to move all my pieces right up to the other side of the board and kill the King immediatly?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

It's much more difficult to balance things the more variables you add. It goes back to the early days of table top DnD. The reasoning is sound as well because it assumes to be a good user of a weapon or power you have to train diligently for it. If there were trade offs it could be workable.

Except D&D didn't actually prohibit you from using those weapons.  They just added penalities for doing so.

That's the difference.

In DAO, anyone can use a shield.  Only a Warrior can learn relevant combat talents, so by using a shield Rogues are denying themselves access to combat talents (as their combat talents require dual-wield or archery), and wizards have to spend stat points of strength rather than Magic or Willpower, thus making them less effective mages.

That's why stat limitations are good, and class-based combat abilities are good, but there's simply no reason to prohibit a class from using a specific weapon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Why does a game have any restrictions at all? Why doesn't Chess allow me to move all my pieces right up to the other side of the board and kill the King immediatly?

This isn't about a game.  This is about a world.  It doesn't make any sense for a Rogue to be unable to pick up a sword just because he's a Rogue.

[Fuggyt]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Why does a game have any restrictions at all? Why doesn't Chess allow me to move all my pieces right up to the other side of the board and kill the King immediatly?

This isn't about a game.  This is about a world.  It doesn't make any sense for a Rogue to be unable to pick up a sword just because he's a Rogue.

Sure it does.  Can you imagine Zev hoisting Yusaris and flailing at a hurlock?  The first swing and miss would screw him into the ground.  Sten and Oghren would probably be incapacitated by uncontrollable laughter.

There's a reason Rogues are Rogues and Warriors are Warriors.  That's true in the real world.  Ever seen combat demonstrations at a Ren Faire?  Some people are heavy weapons fighters and some are fencers, and it's usually not difficult to see why.  Speed and power are trade-offs everywhere.

If anything, I felt there was too much similarity in DAO between Rogues and Dual-Wield Warriors.  They could end up using the same weapons and the same skill tree until the Rogue just turns into a Stealthy Warrior Lite.  Besides, my Dual-Wield Human Noble Warrior, with Starfang in one hand and Duncan's Sword in the other, was a human Mixmaster.  Zev, or any other Rogue for that matter, wielding those same weapons looks clunky, top-heavy, disproportionate.  A Rogue is not a Mixmaster.  A Rogue is a Cuisinart.  A little subtlety is required.

I thought DA2 did a better job distinguishing the two classes, including a jazzier set of martial arts moves for the Rogue.  But daggers and hand-axes suit the class better, so I don't have any problem whatsoever with restrictions.  I didn't mind the DAO method.  Sure, your mage can wield a bow or your rogue a shield if you want, but you'd be silly to do it.  

Having said that, I get it.  It might be cool to develop a mage archer who could cast Exploding Arrow onto his quiver and fire a drone strike into a passing Ogre.  We all love the smell of burning Ogre in the morning, but that would be a different game.  I'm with Plaintiff on this one.     

[Plaintiff]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Why does a game have any restrictions at all? Why doesn't Chess allow me to move all my pieces right up to the other side of the board and kill the King immediatly?

This isn't about a game.  This is about a world.  It doesn't make any sense for a Rogue to be unable to pick up a sword just because he's a Rogue.

No, the game is about a world. This is about a game.

Chess is supposed to be a battle simulator. It doesn't make sense for pawns to move one square at a time just because they are pawns. The rules are an abstraction, just like the rules in Dragon Age. Specific roles perform specific functions.

[Wozearly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

(non combat gameplay) is, I think, the more important aspect of the game.  Because the fruits of (non combat gameplay) impact (combat being a huge focus of gameplay).  If the non-combat gameplay produces better gear, or more information, that affects how combat plays out.  If you pay the combat penalty of having a rogue in the party, perhaps your warrior will be more powerful because he'll have better gear.  Or you'll know better which enemies to fight and which to avoid.

I don't disagree at all. If you only differentiate the classes in their flavour of combat performance / role / effectiveness then sooner or later the temptation is going to be to apply arbitrary weaponry or armour restrictions to ensure differentiation and balance - such as the delightfully bizarre balancing in Warhammer Online where chaos warriors were masters of sword and axe work, but physically incapable of picking up and using spears - one of the most straightforward, simple and ancient weapons invented by man. Go figure.

Differentiating them in non-combat terms is tougher for a developer, because you now have two competing aspects of the game requiring thought and content that need to be balanced against each other, as well as balancing any areas involving mandatory use of one or the other where the player brings a party with the 'wrong' members. Or it becomes a case of "attempt with default party. Agh, this bit requires two rogues. Reload. Bring extra rogue. Progress."

Of course, the fact that its more difficult doesn't mean it isn't a worthy goal.


On your other point about combat balancing, I agree that every DA:O class worked pretty well individually (with the arguable exception of the warrior archer and the healer mage, who tended to have a slightly ropey experience in solo sections) and all sorts of combinations were viable as a result - only a few sections actually required a more formulaic and defined tactical approach.

The lack of differentiation between warriors and rogues wasn't necessarily a problem, and I agree that a few tweaks to class skills or creating class-specific weapon skills could have done the trick for encouraging rogues to approach the same weapon build in a roguey way, and warriors in a warriory way. And either to be able to pick up a sword and shield should the situation require it, even if they lacked the skills of someone who was truly trained in their use.

[Wozearly]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Why does a game have any restrictions at all? Why doesn't Chess allow me to move all my pieces right up to the other side of the board and kill the King immediatly?

This isn't about a game.  This is about a world.  It doesn't make any sense for a Rogue to be unable to pick up a sword just because he's a Rogue.

No, the game is about a world. This is about a game.

Chess is supposed to be a battle simulator. It doesn't make sense for pawns to move one square at a time just because they are pawns. The rules are an abstraction, just like the rules in Dragon Age. Specific roles perform specific functions.

Dare I even enter this argument? I suppose I do...

The rules in chess are an abstraction to ensure that the game is effective and balanced as a game. Its value as a 'battle simulator' in its historic past is that honing skills such as prediction, planning ahead, counteracting opponents and the principle that different martial elements had different strengths and weaknesses.

The DA rules exist similarly, to ensure that the game is effective and balanced as a game. So some of them will be abstract. But unlike chess, DA:O (as with many RPGs) also presents itself as a simulation of a world and environment.

In this context, rules that are purely abstract can appear arbitrary. Such as rogues being physically incapable of picking up shields.

If its valuable to keep a strong illusion of credibility in simulating the world, then stat requirements are a far better solution for balancing weapon use, because they ensure trade-offs occur without arbitrarily enforcing that the player must always choose one specific trade-off.

Modifié par Wozearly, 21 juin 2013 - 06:54 .

[AresKeith]

You know it would be cool if Archers had Bladed Bows

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

It's much more difficult to balance things the more variables you add. It goes back to the early days of table top DnD. The reasoning is sound as well because it assumes to be a good user of a weapon or power you have to train diligently for it. If there were trade offs it could be workable.

Except D&D didn't actually prohibit you from using those weapons.  They just added penalities for doing so.

That's the difference.

In DAO, anyone can use a shield.  Only a Warrior can learn relevant combat talents, so by using a shield Rogues are denying themselves access to combat talents (as their combat talents require dual-wield or archery), and wizards have to spend stat points of strength rather than Magic or Willpower, thus making them less effective mages.

That's why stat limitations are good, and class-based combat abilities are good, but there's simply no reason to prohibit a class from using a specific weapon.

They made it essentially prohibitive.  -13 to hit for a mage using a halberd or whatever with further penalties made it prohibitive.    When you apply a big enough penalty to use it becomes a prohibition in all but the mind of the mage trying to wield a 2 hander and chopping off his foot in the process.  (Also as you know a dungeon master could make it an absolute prohibition if he/she felt like it.)

The reason to make things totally prohibitive in a computer game?  The amount of resources needed to sort out all of the combinations and or penalties.  The more variables you add to a game the more chance for bugs and the tougher it is for the game maker to balance the game combat wise

[Chala]

I still miss being a mage that uses armor and swords instead of robe and staves.
It made no sense... But it was fun.

[Wulfram]

DnD didn't have to make special animations for people who were too silly to use the right weapons.

[Volus Warlord]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Why does a game have any restrictions at all? Why doesn't Chess allow me to move all my pieces right up to the other side of the board and kill the King immediatly?

This isn't about a game.  This is about a world.  It doesn't make any sense for a Rogue to be unable to pick up a sword just because he's a Rogue.

No, the game is about a world. This is about a game.

Chess is supposed to be a battle simulator. It doesn't make sense for pawns to move one square at a time just because they are pawns. The rules are an abstraction, just like the rules in Dragon Age. Specific roles perform specific functions.

Certain rules define the game. Others make it frustrating.

[Plaintiff]

Wozearly wrote...
In this context, rules that are purely abstract can appear arbitrary. Such as rogues being physically incapable of picking up shields.

When rogues were capable of picking up shields, they couldn't learn any of the shield-related skills, no matter how hard they trained. That was also arbitrary. In fact, the entire system by which the Dragon Age games allocate skills is completely arbitrary. There's no reason a warrior could not learn steatlh, or that a rogue could not learn a yell that stuns people. For that matter, there's no reason why a mage could not forego magic and learn to use "Warrior" or "Rogue" abilities instead. But that would be stupid, because the lore does not allow it to work both ways. You'd be weighting the game heavily in favour of one class and making the others substantially less fun to play.

But I have no problem with "arbitrary". What I do have a problem with is useless functions, like allowing a class to equip a weapon that it can't actually use in any effective way. I also have a problem with one class having less build options than another.

There are two possible solutions I will accept:

1) Keep the DA2 system: all three classes have clearly distinct roles, including the weapons they can use, and each class has an equal number of skill trees.

2) Make "weapon skills" a separate category from "class skills", and allow any class to equip any weapon. Have "weapon skills" and "class skills" level up independently of each other.

That way you can have a sword-wielding mage, or a bow-wielding warrior or a staff-wielding rogue, and each class will still possess "class skills" that make it distinct from the others. It would require a not-insignificant amount of work, but the level of customisability might be worth it.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 21 juin 2013 - 07:39 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

They made it essentially prohibitive.  -13 to hit for a mage using a halberd or whatever with further penalties made it prohibitive.    When you apply a big enough penalty to use it becomes a prohibition in all but the mind of the mage trying to wield a 2 hander and chopping off his foot in the process.  (Also as you know a dungeon master could make it an absolute prohibition if he/she felt like it.)

But that would be terrible DMing.  In an emergency, with no other available option, a mage should absolutely be able to pick up a sword and wave it around ineffectively.

The reason to make things totally prohibitive in a computer game?  The amount of resources needed to sort out all of the combinations and or penalties.  The more variables you add to a game the more chance for bugs and the tougher it is for the game maker to balance the game combat wise

We're talking here about choices that make the characters less effective.  There's no need to balance for that.  The developers should not waste effort trying to protect us from ourselves.  Aside from it being vaguely insulting, it also defeats some of the point of making these sorts of choices.

My cowardly warden (I've mentioned him several times before) was a rogue who carried a shield.  He carried a shield because he wanted to maximise his defense - and a rogue with a shield has higher defense and armour scores than a rogue without a shield.  He, for roleplauying reasons, made a choise with a very small benefit and a huge cost (offensive ability) because the cost only affected an aspect of his life about which he didn't care.

Those sorts of choices should be available to us.  Not all PCs are the same.  Not all PCs want the same things.  Limiting the game's mechanics to make all the PCs behave similarly is a gigantic blow to roleplaying freedom.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

It's about a game world.

The characters in the world don't know it's a game.  They need to make decisions as if the world is real, but they can't do that if the world's rules are incoherent.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

DnD didn't have to make special animations for people who were too silly to use the right weapons.

Nor did DAO, and yet DAO still let anyone wield anything.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

Chess is supposed to be a battle simulator.

No it isn't.  It's a tool for learning tactics.  It's designed to mimic the sorts of decisions being made in battle, not the battle itself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wozearly wrote...

The rules in chess are an abstraction to ensure that the game is effective and balanced as a game. Its value as a 'battle simulator' in its historic past is that honing skills such as prediction, planning ahead, counteracting opponents and the principle that different martial elements had different strengths and weaknesses.

Agreed.

The DA rules exist similarly, to ensure that the game is effective and balanced as a game.

I don't think that's something DA should necessarily strive to do.

Roleplaying games don't have winning conditions.  You don't win at roleplaying.  You merely do it.

But unlike chess, DA:O (as with many RPGs) also presents itself as a simulation of a world and environment.

This facilitates roleplaying.  It's a lot easier to inhabit the mind of a character if you understand the rules of the world in which he lives.

In this context, rules that are purely abstract can appear arbitrary. Such as rogues being physically incapable of picking up shields.

It's not the arbitrariness that's the problem.  It's the nonsensicalness.

If its valuable to keep a strong illusion of credibility in simulating the world, then stat requirements are a far better solution for balancing weapon use, because they ensure trade-offs occur without arbitrarily enforcing that the player must always choose one specific trade-off.

Exactly.

[Wulfram]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

DnD didn't have to make special animations for people who were too silly to use the right weapons.

Nor did DAO, and yet DAO still let anyone wield anything.

(I assume you mean DA2 did)

It led to dumb and annoying stuff like putting away your sword whenever you tried to cast a spell with a sword in your hand.  Also IIRC it had fewer weapon independent talents, which would make things easier.

[Mike 9987]

Honestly, an exceeding amount of RPGs have been doing the "cross class" thing. It's almost becoming a non-unique feature. TBH, I like how bioware does it in DA and it should not change.

[Urazz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

It's much more difficult to balance things the more variables you add. It goes back to the early days of table top DnD. The reasoning is sound as well because it assumes to be a good user of a weapon or power you have to train diligently for it. If there were trade offs it could be workable.

Except D&D didn't actually prohibit you from using those weapons.  They just added penalities for doing so.

That's the difference.

In DAO, anyone can use a shield.  Only a Warrior can learn relevant combat talents, so by using a shield Rogues are denying themselves access to combat talents (as their combat talents require dual-wield or archery), and wizards have to spend stat points of strength rather than Magic or Willpower, thus making them less effective mages.

That's why stat limitations are good, and class-based combat abilities are good, but there's simply no reason to prohibit a class from using a specific weapon.

Here's a reason, it takes up resources for the game that can be better spent on something else.  Why even bother giving the false choice of allowing a class to use any kind of weapon if you make it unappealing to use said weapon in the first place?  Why allow rogues to use a shield when it gimps them anyways even when you do allow them to use shields?