175 réponses à ce sujet

[Taleroth]

JamieCOTC wrote...

 A fire or frost spell on a chest or door should do something. Right?

And yelling shouldn't increase threat.

Class roles aren't about simulation.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So, it is not by being mistaken that Warriors and Mages miss out on loot
within locked chests; it is because it is programmed that way. If you
do not wish to have a Rogue in your party, you are punished by not being
able to obtain loot from locked chests. It is your choice, yes. But it
is not your choice to miss out on loot, that is made for you. Warriors
do not have such a special purpose. Neither do mages. It is benefical to
have such classes within your party, but it is not "near essential".
You can go through the whole game without just Rogues and Mages or
Warriors and Rogues, and you would not be at a disadvantage in obatining
anything. Rogues have been made "special" by being able to be the only
ones capable of unlocking a chest or disarming a trap.

Is the solution necessarily to allow warriors/mages to open locks, or would it be better to provide some level of unique utility to each of those classes?

No, as I stated on some other posts and hinted at (I guess, I thought it was clear, but apparently not), The main thing is to give either none of the classes a unique utility, or give them all a unique utility. My suggestion with the chest, as I have stated many times before, is because I do not want to suggest something that would require extensive time and effort to do. Doing the suggestion with opening chests shouldn't be as time consuming as giving each class something unique. I do not wish to suggest something just to have it thrown out because it would take time and effort better spent on other aspects of the game; story, combat, quests.. etc.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Taleroth wrote...

JamieCOTC wrote...

 A fire or frost spell on a chest or door should do something. Right?

And yelling shouldn't increase threat.

Class roles aren't about simulation.

Depends what you yell and at whom.

[Wulfram]

Why is it good gameplay to withhold loot from people with unconventional party make-ups?

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

But no, I disagree that I must take someone/some class, just so I can
open a chest. Greater things? Like taking them because of their ability
to heal (as you mentioned Wynne)? Yes, I agree. (But I must also point
out that in DA2 if a member was needed to be in the party for a quest,
it told you so and made it so they could not be removed.)

What is considered okay to be separate, and what is not?

Things that have more of a purpose. A chest does not have any other purpose but to contain loot that the player can make an effort to retrieve. It's not exactly something unique or profound. Now if there is a purpose, that goes beyond something as meager as obtaining loot, then yes. That would be suitable. Loot is a bonus to the game. A game could just as easiily have no loot at all and have your whole experience be the story and gameplay mechanics. Loot just adds more to the game. It's not something that should be classified as essential, just beneficial. That is extremely prevalent in Dark Souls and Demon's Souls. You can beat the whole game without loot, it is hard, but it is possible. Now don't misinterpet that as I want DA to be more like those game, certainly not. I merely wish to show that loot is an extra, not a main. Any other purpose, getting into an area, learning information/lore, getting to a boss. Yes, I can see the need to take someone I don't like just because they are able to accomplish such a thing. But not for something as minor as loot, especially when the loot is rarely anything worthwhile. It has to be worth something to bring someone I don't like. And there is no real easy way to determine what is worth it and what isn't, as everyone has their own tastes. But, come on. Having to take someone with me that I don't like just so I can obtain items that are pretty much useless to get anyway? No. Sorry, I don't see the appeal or point.

[ChandlerL]

Hmm. You could do a risk/reward. Given DA:I's more thoughtful exploration, limitations on health regen, etc, using a warrior or a mage to open a locked chest could be possible and you don't necessarily need a damaged goods mechanic. However, trap detection or, at least, disablement could remain the domain of rogues. In which case, as a warrior/mage-only party you'd be choosing the risk of potentially serious damage.

What concerns me is the way the game is in its current iteration, strewn traps throughout the world may already prevent you from excluding a rogue. Meaning the game may be made too hard without one.

Still interesting thread, folks.

For me it is more an issue of monotony.

1. Right click chest
2. Rogue pipes up: "I can do that for you."
3. Change selection to rogue character
4. Right click chest again
5. Take out goods
6. Switch back to main

ad nauseum

Adding intelligence to the above event would be best

1. Right click chest using any active character
2. Closest rogue automatically approaches and opens chest while saying, "I can do that for you."

Regards,

C

Modifié par ChandlerL, 13 septembre 2013 - 07:51 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

Having to take someone with me that I don't like just so I can obtain items that are pretty much useless to get anyway? No. Sorry, I don't see the appeal or point.

Can you imagine why someone else who has different tastes might find it appealing?

[Redwolf Skydragon]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

Having to take someone with me that I don't like just so I can obtain items that are pretty much useless to get anyway? No. Sorry, I don't see the appeal or point.

Can you imagine why someone else who has different tastes might find it appealing?

No I cannot. I am not simply stating my own opinions and tastes. I am thinking of the game over myself. I ask myself, "What would make this game better?" I do that with practically everything including movies and books. I think about the product objectively without bias. I think about what they are trying to achieve, what is the main purpose of doing such a thing. Then I think if there is anything that I would change to make the message they wish to deliver, more effective. If you have multiple classes, a point you are obviously trying to point out is cooperation. I imagine that most people, myself included, travel with a Rogue anyway, because of their combat skills as well as ability to open chests. But, the fact that so many people are commenting that "That's a Rogue's job" or "There's no point to locked chests, as it just forces you to bring a Rogue" These are the things that the game itself would benefit from being changed. I cannot imagine why someone would find it appealing to bring someone they don't like along. The only exception is if only they can accomplish a certain task of meaning. Getting loot that rarely has any value other than to sell for a meager amount of currency, is not meaningful in anyway. I just cannot comprehend why you would take someone you don't like along, just to obtain these, pretty much, useless items.

If you can enlighten me, please do. I really cannot understand such a thing. Like I stated above in other posts, if it was more meaningful (the task of the person you do not like) then I can understand it. But not for loot.

[hoorayforicecream]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

Having to take someone with me that I don't like just so I can obtain items that are pretty much useless to get anyway? No. Sorry, I don't see the appeal or point.

Can you imagine why someone else who has different tastes might find it appealing?

If you can enlighten me, please do. I really cannot understand such a thing. Like I stated above in other posts, if it was more meaningful (the task of the person you do not like) then I can understand it. But not for loot.

What if the player in this case really wanted to see the difference between rogues and warriors? This hypothetical player loves striking from the shadows, finding, setting, and disarming traps, picking locks, picking pockets, and doing generally rogueish things. But when it comes to a game like Dragon Age, the differentiation between rogues and warriors is basically just what talents they use in combat. Everyone can use poisons. Everyone can use grenades. Warriors can dual wield too. Warriors can do all of this, *and* use two-handed weapons and shields. It isn't fair. The one thing that rogues can do, this player feels, that warriors can't is unlock doors and chests. It's one of the few things remaining that makes this player feel like his or her character is really a rogue and not just a lightly armored warrior. And now you're asking for them to take it away, because it's "just loot" to you.

Now I'll ask a few more questions.

1. Can you see things from this hypothetical player's perspective? Can you acknowledge that such a perspective can exist?
2. Who's opinion is more valid: this hypothetical player's or yours?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 13 septembre 2013 - 08:35 .

[Wulfram]

Anyone who doesn't think their opinion is more valid than other peoples doesn't have an opinion. At least that's my opinion.

And even if I thought rogues were insufficiently distinct, I wouldn't focus on the "click once extra on boxes" part of their gameplay, because that's the most worthless part of being a rogue. Give 'em stuff that's actually fun, rather than holding loot hostage to punish people who choose a different party. So, no, I can't see things from this player's perspective.

[ev76]

Maybe they can make chests be locked in different ways. Some with locks, some with spells, etc. you can even have a combination of locks on some. That way there is variety.

[Rogue Roxy]

You just described me, hoorayforicecream! Thank you

~ (Rogue) Roxy
(EDIT:) As a rogue, I don't mind having a magic user cast a spell to open a locked chest as long as there's a huge chance they'll ruin something inside because they don't know what effect their spell will have on the contents.
Same with a warrior smashing it open, and suddenly the contents (vials, etc.) are now useless.

Takes a rogue's nimble fingers to open it without lessening the value of its contents.

Modifié par Roxy Ferret, 13 septembre 2013 - 08:55 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

Anyone who doesn't think their opinion is more valid than other peoples doesn't have an opinion. At least that's my opinion.

I disagree. I acknowledge that my preferences are my own, but as a designer it is important to recognize that the decisions you make aren't always necessarily to create the game you want to play. It's often about creating meaningful choices for players of all types.

And even if I thought rogues were insufficiently distinct, I wouldn't focus on the "click once extra on boxes" part of their gameplay, because that's the most worthless part of being a rogue. Give 'em stuff that's actually fun, rather than holding loot hostage to punish people who choose a different party. So, no, I can't see things from this player's perspective.

Your hypothetical lead designer has said that locked chests and doors are here to stay. You have been tasked with making it engaging. How would you make it more fun? Do you think it is an impossible task?

[Redwolf Skydragon]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

What if the player in this case really wanted to see the difference between rogues and warriors? This hypothetical player loves striking from the shadows, finding, setting, and disarming traps, picking locks, picking pockets, and doing generally rogueish things. But when it comes to a game like Dragon Age, the differentiation between rogues and warriors is basically just what talents they use in combat. Everyone can use poisons. Everyone can use grenades. Warriors can dual wield too. Warriors can do all of this, *and* use two-handed weapons and shields. It isn't fair. The one thing that rogues can do, this player feels, that warriors can't is unlock doors and chests. It's one of the few things remaining that makes this player feel like his or her character is really a rogue and not just a lightly armored warrior. And now you're asking for them to take it away, because it's "just loot" to you.

Now I'll ask a few more questions.

1. Can you see things from this hypothetical player's perspective? Can you acknowledge that such a perspective can exist?
2. Who's opinion is more valid: this hypothetical player's or yours?

First off, if this hypothetical person is judging Rogues and claiming their only unique talent is the unlocking of chest, then they are a sad person. But that is my opinion and cannot be used or put into condsideration when answering your question.

A Rogue is seperated from the other classes by their ability to do high damage with fast attacks. This is the primary purpose that they use daggers. They do not weigh much yet can inflict heavy damage. A Rogue's abilities focus on this aspect. They focus on flanking, ambushing (stealth attack, sneak attack.., w/e), and with evasion. These are the traits of any Stealth class. A Warrior is someone who has high strength and Constitution. They are able to wield Greatswords (Axes, Hammers) because of this. They also can use a single handed weapon, with a shield. This is for the purpose of more protection on top of all the defense and health that they already have. A Warrior's purpose in a fight is to be on the front line, drawing attention away from the weaker classes. A Mage's purpose is to use Magic. Magic can be anything. This game gives a little of everything, but by no means does it cover it all. It is widely understood that magic can do anything. This is because it is a fictional thing. Their primary purpose is to (in this game's case) heal and buff and deal AoE damage.

These are the core things that seperate the classes. Now, in your hypothetical...what's the word? Story? Example? w/e. In this writing, the person is being shallow (my own opinion), but their main concern seems to be, "What makes this class so much more unique or special from the others?" By going on your example's logic, that all combat is the same, just different abilities, and that a class should be judged based on what they can do outside of combat rather than what they can do in it. Then the answer is obvious. A rogue is special because it can unlock chests and disarm traps. But I ask this then: "What is so special about the other classes, based on this logic?" The answer is clear. They have nothing special about them outside of combat and equipment they use. This is an injustice to those classes.

Can I understand them based on your example given? Yes. But you have given me an example of someone I find shallow. But I can understand from this point of view why the idea I have presented, would be a blow to them. And though I wish it were otherwise, I can aknowledge that such people exist and think this way. I don't like it, but I can at least understand it.

For your second question: I do not believe you have written it as you intended. I read it and it seems as if you are daring me to say my opinion is more valid. Which is false. But so it saying that another person's opinion is more vaild. All people are entitled to opinions, thoughts, feelings, w/e. No one person is better than another.

That last sentence brings me to my final point. I have never once said that Rogues would lose their ability to unlock chests. And I have never once said that Warriors and Mages should have the ability of a Rogue. Unlocking a chest is not a class specific trait. It is an action. The class specific trait everyone is referring to and seem to confuse with what I say, is lockpicking. THAT is a class specific ability/trait in the stealth class. Unlocking a chest does not mean lockpicking it. That is just ONE way that it can be done. The whole purpose of my mentioning a penalty is because you DO normally expect a Rogue or another Stealth class, to be able to open the chest. BUT. If I do not wish to have a rogue in my party (Perhaps I want my character to be Aveline, and thus do not allow lockpicking or stealing) then I should not be penalized from obtaining loot, simply for a preference of choice. I should be able to have my own things I can do to obtain just as much loot, as I would if I had a rogue in the party. A Rogue need not fear being replaced, as it is still MORE viable to have a rogue unlock the chest, than any other class. They should take pride in that fact. They should not sit here and say that only they are able to do such a task. They should say, "I am far superior at doing the task."

[hoorayforicecream]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

A Rogue is seperated from the other classes by their ability to do high damage with fast attacks. This is the primary purpose that they use daggers. They do not weigh much yet can inflict heavy damage. A Rogue's abilities focus on this aspect. They focus on flanking, ambushing (stealth attack, sneak attack.., w/e), and with evasion. These are the traits of any Stealth class. A Warrior is someone who has high strength and Constitution. They are able to wield Greatswords (Axes, Hammers) because of this. They also can use a single handed weapon, with a shield. This is for the purpose of more protection on top of all the defense and health that they already have. A Warrior's purpose in a fight is to be on the front line, drawing attention away from the weaker classes. A Mage's purpose is to use Magic. Magic can be anything. This game gives a little of everything, but by no means does it cover it all. It is widely understood that magic can do anything. This is because it is a fictional thing. Their primary purpose is to (in this game's case) heal and buff and deal AoE damage.

Are you saying that the any difference in class should end when combat ends? I would think that there are many players who would disagree.

These are the core things that seperate the classes. Now, in your hypothetical...what's the word? Story? Example? w/e. In this writing, the person is being shallow (my own opinion), but their main concern seems to be, "What makes this class so much more unique or special from the others?" By going on your example's logic, that all combat is the same, just different abilities, and that a class should be judged based on what they can do outside of combat rather than what they can do in it. Then the answer is obvious. A rogue is special because it can unlock chests and disarm traps. But I ask this then: "What is so special about the other classes, based on this logic?" The answer is clear. They have nothing special about them outside of combat and equipment they use. This is an injustice to those classes.

I suggest you reread what Allan wrote. The second question he asks in particular.

Can I understand them based on your example given? Yes. But you have given me an example of someone I find shallow. But I can understand from this point of view why the idea I have presented, would be a blow to them. And though I wish it were otherwise, I can aknowledge that such people exist and think this way. I don't like it, but I can at least understand it.

Then we've made progress. In your previous post, you admitted you couldn't comprehend such a viewpoint. So I'll ask you more questions:

Can there exist a solution where both this shallow, yet equally valid person, and you are both satisfied? What do you think that solution is?

[Maria Caliban]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...


I must disagree. My question is not "Why a warrior can't have a gameplay rogue based bonus?" It is why do only the rogues have an out-of-combat game based bonus?

That's not the case. Rogues can open locks, but warriors can bash down doors and mages can create bridges for you to walk over.

In fact, each class gets an exploration tree in DA:I.

[Wulfram]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I disagree. I acknowledge that my preferences are my own, but as a designer it is important to recognize that the decisions you make aren't always necessarily to create the game you want to play. It's often about creating meaningful choices for players of all types.

Preferences aren't opinons.  But I'll drop the semantics.

Your hypothetical lead designer has said that locked chests and doors are here to stay. You have been tasked with making it engaging. How would you make it more fun? Do you think it is an impossible task?

Make lockpicking some sort of mini-game in which skills from all party members can play a part, though rogues probably have more and/or better relevant skills.  And most of the time try to place them in occasions where failure can have consequences (like time pressure, or setting off a trap that might destroy the loot), so it's not just a case of repeating endlessly until success.

(Disclaimer:  I really don't want minigames in DA:I, I'm just attempting to fulfil the brief)

and/or

Have lockpicking allow for tactical advantages in combat, rather than being a requirement to access loot.  You might be able to use it to avoid ambushes and things.

But I'd rather dump it.  I don't like throwing good money after bad.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Let me first ask: Have you even read everything I have posted throughout this forum? Your questions seem to suggest that you have not. I have already made a reply to Mr. Allan. I have already explained in my post on page 3, the purpose of what I am trying to achieve. Yet you are debating an idea that has long since been explained as a, apparently, misunderstanding. I am not fighting for Warriors and Mages to open chests, it is an idea. I have put it forth, thus I will defend it. I owe it that much for using it. But it is not a definite view of something I believe or want to happen. It was apparently a poorly phrased suggestion to achieve an ultimate end. But that being said, I am of course going to defend it, as it is an idea that has merit. But, I implore you to go read everything I have posted so you can gain an understanding of my position on the matter. Perhaps you already have but are unable to understand it, if so I ask that you aknowledge so, so that I may find a better way of explaining it.

[Trafalgar-Law]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I can't really answer definitively (or even really speculatively) on what we'll be doing for DAI, as that is outside of my coverage, but it did lead me to a question.

If all classes have the ability to unlock locked items, is there much value in even having locked chests?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

It makes sense that the Rogue is the only class capable of opening the chest. Think about it. If a mage tries to blow up the chest or a Warrior tries to smash it open, they'll destroy or damage the contents inside the chest, thus defeating the purpose of looting the chest in the first place.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...


I must disagree. My question is not "Why a warrior can't have a gameplay rogue based bonus?" It is why do only the rogues have an out-of-combat game based bonus?

That's not the case. Rogues can open locks, but warriors can bash down doors and mages can create bridges for you to walk over.

In fact, each class gets an exploration tree in DA:I.

...just because it says "magic can be used to make bridges" does not mean that will be a Mage specific action. You forget that the Veil has been ripped. Perhaps it will end up being an item that you must use that uses magic. You are going off of assumptions. Until it has been directly declared, "Only Mages will be able to repair and make bridges; only Warriors will be able to break down doors; only Rogues will be able to unlock chests and disarm traps" then it is only an assumption. Perhaps it will be as you say, or perhaps they will change it to something else. I will not rely on assumptions. I believe the idea must be kept alive, so that they can see that this is something we want and this is how we want it.

[The Elder King]

Maria is talking about a GI video where on a board there were three papers that described the classes exploration skills. Rogues were the only one with lockpicking.

[The Elder King]

Filament wrote...


There was an image they showed of a poster on their wall labeled "exploration skills" where rogues had something like lockpicking and traps, warriors had strength and bash, and mages had energize, dispel and creation. Whether they follow through on that concept remains to be seen, but it's more than an assumption, I'd say.

Rogues have agility instead of traps in the board, and warriors have toughness other than strenght and bash.

Modifié par hhh89, 13 septembre 2013 - 10:30 .

[The Hierophant]

QQ, does lockpicking still grant xp?