156 réponses à ce sujet

[Iosev]

Game balance is important for me because I enjoy being challenged while playing a game, which the Dragon Age franchise ultimately is. For example, if I play a class that takes very little effort to get through the game, even on the highest difficulty, it would ruin my personal experience. Just as there are people who enjoy the power fantasy of outclassing everything in a game, there are others who relish in in the struggle to succeed, which is why I think balance is important, even in a single-player game.

While I agree that there should be a certain amount of freedom to role-play within combat, I do not agree that game balance should be ignored.

Modifié par arcelonious, 25 juin 2013 - 05:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And I care about class balance in the game because it's just that, a game.

That's where we differ.  I don't think roleplaying games are games at all.

Class balance means there is no wrong way to play the game, vs a right way to do it. This sound's counter-intuitive but think about it for a second; if your class has strengths and weakness, you can exploit the other classes by preying on their weaknesses. A mage fighting a rogue can come up with two or three strategies in dealing with rogues, just as they can come up with strategies for dealing with mages and warriors in a combative situation.

You just described the "right way" to do it, though.  There shouldn't be just two or three ways to deal with a Rogue.  There should be a vast array of options, some of which will work and some of which won't.  But a character who wants to attack only at range shouldn't be prohibited from being a Warrior.  By giving each class pre-set strengths and weaknesses, you're building the "right way" to play right into the mechanics.

I am not talking about non-combat, because while that would be a nice option which I hope they add more of in future games, the class system is designed for RP-combat and ability scenarios; your shield rogue is an example of non-combat RPings I presume. Very rarely were traits like say cunning or intelligence, were used outside of combat. Now that is an easy fix by adding more outside parameters for the traits, but thats a different argument here. In terms of class-specific abilities and traits, it is all geared toward combat, and the restrictions allow balance between the classes so combat is not favored by one or the other

I don't recognise the distinction.  All decisions are roleplaying decisions, both in combat and out of combat.

Do you not roleplay combat?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 25 juin 2013 - 05:10 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

And I care about class balance in the game because it's just that, a game.

That's where we differ.  I don't think roleplaying games are games at all.

Class balance means there is no wrong way to play the game, vs a right way to do it. This sound's counter-intuitive but think about it for a second; if your class has strengths and weakness, you can exploit the other classes by preying on their weaknesses. A mage fighting a rogue can come up with two or three strategies in dealing with rogues, just as they can come up with strategies for dealing with mages and warriors in a combative situation.

You just described the "right way" to do it, though.  There shouldn't be just two or three ways to deal with a Rogue.  There should be a vast array of options, some of which will work and some of which won't.  But a character who wants to attack only at range shouldn't be prohibited from being a Warrior.  By giving each class pre-set strengths and weaknesses, you're building the "right way" to play right into the mechanics.

I am not talking about non-combat, because while that would be a nice option which I hope they add more of in future games, the class system is designed for RP-combat and ability scenarios; your shield rogue is an example of non-combat RPings I presume. Very rarely were traits like say cunning or intelligence, were used outside of combat. Now that is an easy fix by adding more outside parameters for the traits, but thats a different argument here. In terms of class-specific abilities and traits, it is all geared toward combat, and the restrictions allow balance between the classes so combat is not favored by one or the other

I don't recognise the distinction.  All decisions are roleplaying decisions, both in combat and out of combat.

Do you not roleplay combat?

In a tabletop sense, I do role-play combat in some respects, I describe what my character would do while in combat. 

For a game, I don't do that because it doesn't fit. Its a dissonane between the game and RPing, something thats been in all video game RPGs save maybe Planescape Torment for some instances. 

As for the "right way" of doing things, I named vague examples without going into details. There are more ways to kill a rogue as a mage or warrior, part of the fun is experimenting to find it of course. That's literally the same thing you are talking about, the difference is its in the combat RP parameters, which are sperate in this case. you bring up ranged for the Warrior again and i'm all for that of course, but to make it distinct it should be a different weapon or style of fighting that plays to the warrior's strength as the type of warrior they are, which differentiates itself  from the Rogue more.

That is a specific example of how it can be expanded. That is also something different though, because even expanding upon it it needs to be unique and balanced to work. Adding more is the easy fix to all of this, but it needs to be balanced to make it work or else adding more bloats the system. 

Also...

That's where we differ.  I don't think roleplaying games are games at all.

you need to explain that one to me...are we talking about RPGs in general, or video game ones? 

[AresKeith]

I do hope they bring back Arcane Warriors, and make Bladed Bows so Archers can handle CQC

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

In a tabletop sense, I do role-play combat in some respects, I describe what my character would do while in combat.

For a game, I don't do that because it doesn't fit. Its a dissonane between the game and RPing, something thats been in all video game RPGs save maybe Planescape Torment for some instances.

The question is about how you choose what your character does in combat.  Do you make those choices from his point of view, or from yours?

you need to explain that one to me...are we talking about RPGs in general, or video game ones?

I'm talking about all roleplaying games, CRPGs included.

CRPGs are a subset of roleplaying games.

[Bleachrude]

Here's a question...

If mages get to use swords, shouldn't there be an option for warriors to use staffs and actually be all "Little John" with them.

What I find with non class restrictions is that unless balanced, the non-mages get the shaft.

Personally, I'm open to this but in that case, mages should have been forced to give up a lot more than what they did in DA:O.

On nightmare, Wynne, Morrigan and Warden mage all specced to arcane warrior (throw in leliana to unlock chests and disarm traps) would trounce the game. The game simply went over in the corner and cried.

If for some reason you tried to do that with the warriors (same specialization), you're getting your butt handed to you (quite rightly as your party would be considered unbalanced)

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

In a tabletop sense, I do role-play combat in some respects, I describe what my character would do while in combat.

For a game, I don't do that because it doesn't fit. Its a dissonane between the game and RPing, something thats been in all video game RPGs save maybe Planescape Torment for some instances.

The question is about how you choose what your character does in combat.  Do you make those choices from his point of view, or from yours?

you need to explain that one to me...are we talking about RPGs in general, or video game ones?

I'm talking about all roleplaying games, CRPGs included.

CRPGs are a subset of roleplaying games.

You need to still explain that...why do you consider them to not be games?

As to choices from point of view, my own.  In a game I do that all the time and its designed for that to begin with.

For a table top, the difference is either minute, or non-existant. 

[Ravnemesteren]

I dont mind certain classes/combinations/specilazations being over powered so to say in a single player game. But it shouldnt just be the class itself that is over powered, there should be some way (not obvious) to build an over powered character with the right gear and specializations (A Kensai/Mage in BG2 was alot of fun). But I also like systems that allow you to create really under powered characters.

I think it adds replayability. Especially if you have the highest difficulty being something that really requires you to create super powerful characters just to have a chance. So when you have played the game a couple of times, and maybe figured out how to create some really powerful characters you can go for it.

All this requires in depth character customization when it comes to skills and gear. So letting classes use most types of gear (Anyone can wield a staff, but the magical stats on it doesnt really benefit a straight up warrior for example). Armor requiring a certain level of strength etc is fine, and logical. But more freedom is nice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

You need to still explain that...why do you consider them to not be games?

Because games challenge the player.  Roleplaying is an activity, having more in common with stamp collecting than with games.

Roleplaying is something you do, not something you win.

As to choices from point of view, my own.  In a game I do that all the time and its designed for that to begin with.

Roleplaying, to me, involves perceiving the world through someone else's eyes.  You see and interpret things differently from how you do it, instead perceiving things as your character would.  So, even though you might do something different, and even though you might want your character to do something different, you have your character do what he would do, not what you would have him do.

That's what I think roleplaying is.  That's how I play conversations.  That's how I play combat.

[Enigmatick]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's how I play combat.

Do you do that with the companion characters in combat as well?

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Enigmatick wrote...

[/quote] Do you do that with the companion characters in combat as well?[/quote]
Of course.  I see no other way to do it without damaging the coherence of the setting by inserting my own preferences.

Naturally, this means that I do exert some control over those characters' personalties from playthrough to playthrough, but since I maintain that all of the companions are player characters (merely pre-generated player characters) I don't mind doing this.

Ideally, though, I'd like the option to create the entire party myself.

[Enigmatick]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

 Do you do that with the companion characters in combat as well?

Of course.  I see no other way to do it without damaging the coherence of the setting by inserting my own preferences.

Naturally, this means that I do exert some control over those characters' personalties from playthrough to playthrough, but since I maintain that all of the companions are player characters (merely pre-generated player characters) I don't mind doing this.

Ideally, though, I'd like the option to create the entire party myself.

So do you for instance decide to say not give any Entropy spells to Wynne because she wouldn't be the type to learn curses at the Circle or give Morrigan all shapeshifting spells even though they aren't really all that viable? Sounds like what I do.

I do wish they would have an option for creating party members that would at least allow for players who kill potential companions to not completely gimp themselves, I get that gimping themselves is the trade-off for getting to kill the character, but making an "adventurer hall" is a net positive imo

Modifié par Enigmatick, 26 juin 2013 - 12:22 .

[Fortlowe]

I'm fine with class specific weapons. I just wish there was context sensitivity involved in the combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Enigmatick wrote...

So do you for instance decide to say not give any Entropy spells to Wynne because she wouldn't be the type to learn curses at the Circle or give Morrigan all shapeshifting spells even though they aren't really all that viable? Sounds like what I do.

Specifically, no matter what I choose for each character I have to explain how that makes sense.  If Morrigan doesn't choose shapeshifting, I need a reason for that.  If Wynne becomes a Blood Mage, I need to reconcile that with her other behaviour (it makes her quite the hypocrite).

I do wish they would have an option for creating party members that would at least allow for players who kill potential companions to not completely gimp themselves, I get that gimping themselves is the trade-off for getting to kill the character, but making an "adventurer hall" is a net positive imo

Project Eternity.

[philippe willaume]

I wholeheartedly agree with silvius on role playing.

Weapon restriction outside role playing is just a cheap way to try to balance classes for gaming purposes.
and ultimately you end up in with crazy situation like DA:2 were dagger have a bigger damage base than a two handed sword.


@plaintiff
I would dispute that the medium (i.e. computer game) is a major factor in class-weapon restriction.
it is much simpler to have weapons restriction, but the same structure and mechanics can be applied and still have no other restriction on weapon/armour than role-playing ones.

the mechanism of the class itself should provide the flavour and gaming differences needed for class differentiation.
by that I mean the way the skill, talents and perk and the way they sinergise in a sort of same class combo should be what makes the class difference.

Phil

[Bleachrude]

Again, I'll point out the lifting of these restrictions tend to favour one class (mages) over another.

Simply put, if there are stat limited weapon/armour restrictions, you can NOT have a specialization like arcane warrior which makes a mockery of said restrictions.

Especially given that a warrior gains nothing from using a mage's weapons and armours.

[Nerdage]

Bleachrude wrote...

Again, I'll point out the lifting of these restrictions tend to favour one class (mages) over another. 

Simply put, if there are stat limited weapon/armour restrictions, you can NOT have a specialization like arcane warrior which makes a mockery of said restrictions.

Especially given that a warrior gains nothing from using a mage's weapons and armours.

In combat, yes, but isn't that how it should be? Mages are feared in this setting for a reason.

If there have to be drawbacks to balance mages and non-mages then they should be born of the setting; people should fear you, making it harder to earn money and avoid violence in some instances; maybe certain companions refuse to fight alongside certain kinds of mage; the kind of difficulties we've already seen mages dealing with.

Everything we're told about mages tells us they should be exceptionally powerful, but not only are mages not particularly dangerous when wielding magic in combat (no moreso than any assassin, perhaps less), they're not even allowed to wear armour or wield weapons for no other reason than they might then show up (let's be honest) common soldiers and thieves. If I were a mage in this setting I'd take every advantage because life as an apostate is dangerous enough; I'd live in at least light armour and I'd want something a bit more deadly than a staff for if someone got in my face.

I'd like it if there were no restrictions on weapons at all, including stats, which should only determine the effectiveness of a given weapon type / armour once I'm using it.

[Bleachrude]

Basic law of TTRPG balancing

Roll-playing advantages (measureable quantifiable stats) should never be balanced by role-playing disadvantages (how people treat you) since the latter is quite easy to argue can be a role-playing advantage (use of fear in negoations)

And DA:O already was vastly tipped in favour of mages.

[Nerdage]

I don't just mean NPCs being intimidated by a mage, I mean running away or attacking before any kind of negotiation can take place, or mages being blackmailed under threat of being revealed (probably doesn't apply to the PC if they have any sort of rank, but companions). Things which all basically come down to costing the player gold (quantifiable) and probably story opportunities, in-keeping with what we've seen of all mages in the setting, save the PCs (it would presumably open up some opportunities, too).

Maybe you prefer RPing in a situation like that, no reason why you shouldn't, but if RP is important then they're still drawbacks for your character aren't they? There's no reason different aspects of the game should be balanced in isolation from one another. I'd argue that it feels more like a coherent experience if what you gain in one area you lose somewhere else (if there has to be balance at all), particularly when the connections are formed from the game world's rules rather than just being made up to enforce balance in the face of what we hear in-game.

And when I say mages were no more powerful than the average assassin I mean in DA2. I much preferred DAO mages; non-mages had their niches but mages had the widest utility by far, which is closer to what I'd expect.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I completely agree with nerdage regarding the versatility of mages. Mages, depending on build, should be able to be useful in a wide variety of combat roles and a wide variety of circumstances.

[Maria Caliban]

JimmyRustles wrote...
Why do weapons have to be class specific?

They don't.

But DA's developers are invested in the three class system and are using a multitude approaches to making the classes unique.

1. Different armor selection.
2. Limits on weapons.
3. Different skills/abilities
4. Some differences in dialogue
5. Class based quests

This is so class feels like a meaningful decision.

[Nightdragon8]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

You need to still explain that...why do you consider them to not be games?

Because games challenge the player.  Roleplaying is an activity, having more in common with stamp collecting than with games.

Roleplaying is something you do, not something you win.

As to choices from point of view, my own.  In a game I do that all the time and its designed for that to begin with.

Roleplaying, to me, involves perceiving the world through someone else's eyes.  You see and interpret things differently from how you do it, instead perceiving things as your character would.  So, even though you might do something different, and even though you might want your character to do something different, you have your character do what he would do, not what you would have him do.

That's what I think roleplaying is.  That's how I play conversations.  That's how I play combat.

I would completely and untterly disagree, a good GM will challenge the players both in combat or in words. There are some EPIC PnP roleplaying where a player sucessfuly got the GM to do what he wanted to do and ended up getting one of the other players caught in the trap and not himself.

So roleplaying is a game, maybe you are thinking of cosplaying or "roleplay" for nookie, and even still it is a game, cause you have 'fun'

Think about what Felemteh did with Morgian when the templars where hunting them she made it a game she made running away for her lives fun for the little girl who would otherwise end up frozen stiff scared.

[Plaintiff]

philippe willaume wrote...
the mechanism of the class itself should provide the flavour and gaming differences needed for class differentiation.
by that I mean the way the skill, talents and perk and the way they sinergise in a sort of same class combo should be what makes the class difference.
Phil

That all sounds very nice but DA:O didn't do that, did it? Rogues and Warriors were hardly differentiated at all. Most of the skills in DA:O were inextricably bound up with weapons, and as a result, Rogues got completely shorthanded. Not only did they have less skills than any other class, two-thirds of their abilities were co-opted by Warriors.

I want to make one thing clear: I have nothing whatsoever against making all weapons available to all classes, but if Bioware does decide to take that route, I expect my character to be able to learn the associated skills of any weapon he equips.

"Skills"/"Talents"/"Abilities"/Whatever are an abstract representation of a character's growing proficiency. If my character uses a weapon, I expect them to get more proficient with it, and if they can't get more proficient with it, then they shouldn't be able to equip it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

1. Different armor selection. 

Have they done this?  Most (if not all) armour so far in the Dragon Age games has been stat-limited, rather than class-limited, hasn't it?

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

1. Different armor selection. 

Have they done this?  Most (if not all) armour so far in the Dragon Age games has been stat-limited, rather than class-limited, hasn't it?

Would you prefer it to be class limited or stat limited though?


For armors I don't mind the stat limits since it provides fair balance.