159 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Sir JK wrote...
I suppose in a way it's tied to my general desire to see things besides combat actually being interactable and require player input. I'm tired of non-combat being so abstracted to the point that it's more or less decided in the character creation/level up system whether you'll succeed at something or not.

In a sense... I want crafting to be more than a button on a ui screen. Until I can get that, I prefer the DA2 approach. Probably because it does not even pretend it's crafting.

There are limits to interactivity in combat, too - the toons do a lot of animations at the press of a button.  The rogue's backstab and vendetta were a couple of pretty significant examples of this.  Really, all we do is move them to a location, select a target, and press a button - and they swing swords, smash shields, twirl staffs, dodge and weave, flip, etc.

I think that somehow needing to control every step of a crafting process could become very tedious and monotonous, although I suppose it depends on how it's done.  I suppose they could add animations for crafting, but if you want to make quite a few of something, that could also get very monotonous.

Other than making it more visually alive by adding animations, I don't have any other ideas that might make it more palatable for you.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 10 février 2014 - 02:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

I suppose in a way it's tied to my general desire to see things besides combat actually being interactable and require player input. I'm tired of non-combat being so abstracted to the point that it's more or less decided in the character creation/level up system whether you'll succeed at something or not.

Do you feel the same way about persuasion?  Because I have very similar objections to persuasion (though for different reasons).

[Sir JK]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

There are limits to interactivity in combat, too - the toons do a lot of animations at the press of a button.  The rogue's backstab and vendetta were a couple of pretty significant examples of this.  Really, all we do is move them to a location, select a target, and press a button - and they swing swords, smash shields, twirl staffs, dodge and weave, flip, etc.

I think that somehow needing to control every step of a crafting process could become very tedious and monotonous, although I suppose it depends on how it's done.  I suppose they could add animations for crafting, but if you want to make quite a few of something, that could also get very monotonous.

Other than making it more visually alive by adding animations, I don't have any other ideas that might make it more palatable for you.

If combat was as abstracted as non-combat is, the only input you'd get at all would be the question "Do you want to fight X?" after which you'd be told whether you succeeded or died. You'd have no abilities, no chance to manouver, no selecting of targets. Maybe whether you carry enough potions could affect things. Maybe.

Combat in all rpgs require significant player input, often on tactical or strategical levels.

You're right though, that controlling every single step of a crafting process would probably not work. In all honesty, I'm not too sure how to solve it myself either.

Pure speculation: Maybe if ingedients had properties and you use "abilities" (derived from your crafting skill) to enhance some properties while diminishing others. For example, a healing potion needs you to enhance healing to X but reduce toxicity to 0. You can use whatever you want to achieve that but have only a finite number of tries before you waste the ingredients.
I wonder how that'd work. Elder Scrolls has a similar idea, I know.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you feel the same way about persuasion?  Because I have very similar objections to persuasion (though for different reasons).

Yes. Very much so. Stealth too, but usually that's slightly less abstracted (the stealth part in Mark of the Assassin I enjoyed greatly. It wasn't perfect but steps in the right direction in my meaning).

[Realmzmaster]

Anomaly- wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
DAO's crafting system was not entirely optional. The side quest Exotic Methods requires a Herbalism: Rank of 4 to make the Dwarven Regicide Antidote. The side quest fortunately is optional and can be declined, but the gamer will not know the requirements until it is accepted. The character does not get the recipe until then.

Once accepted it would have to remain an uncompleted quest (unless one of the characters has a herbalism rank of 4), because there is no way to buy the antidote.

Like Sylvius said, since it's a side quest then it's still totally optional. Besides, weren't people saying they wanted class/specialization specific quests?

This quest was not class or specialization specific. It was optional, but the gamer did not know that it required Herbalism 4 until the quest is accepted. The only good point was that it was optional and could be ignored, but it still left an open quest. 
The rogue quests given by Slim was different because he only gave quest that the protagonist or someone in the party had the skill. 
If I know the quest is class or specialization specific then I can ignore them if my party does not have the class or specialization.

[Realmzmaster]

Aaleel wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

DAO's crafting system was not entirely optional. The side quest Exotic Methods requires a Herbalism: Rank of 4 to make the Dwarven Regicide Antidote. The side quest fortunately is optional and can be declined, but the gamer will not know the requirements until it is accepted. The character does not get the recipe until then.

Once accepted it would have to remain an uncompleted quest (unless one of the characters has a herbalism rank of 4), because there is no way to buy the antidote.

But it's an optional quest.  So not only do you not have to take it, but you also don't have to complete it even if you do take it.

So crafting remains optional.  Even if you accept the quest, you're still never forced to do any crafting.

I stated in the post it was optional and did not have to be completed, but for a completionist (which I happen to be. If I start a warden or Hawke I must finish all the available quests) it is annoying.

Then the entire game must have annoyed you because there are a plethora of quests and other things in the game that require you to put points into skills on the Warden or a companion, Lockpicking, stealing, Survival, Traps just to name a few. 

But honestly this is how it should be.  There should be some benefit to putting points and time into a skill as long as it doesn't affect the main storyline.  Items or weapons that can only be acquired through a skill, skills needed to complete certain quests, etc.

I have no problem with skills being needed to compete a quest as long as I know up front what is required. I can then just ignore the quest. The Exotic Methods quest does not tell you that Herbalism 4 is needed to complete the quest until after acceptance. So even though it is optional if I want to finish it I must put points in Herbalism for the protagonist or companion to bring him/her up to 4 or leave the quest unfilled.

Some quests only appear if a certain skill has been obtained like Slim Couldry Crime Wave quests. If the warden never gets stealing or stealth the quests do not appear because there is no Slim.  Most of the other quests can be sloved a different way. The only other one like Exotic is Enora's Halla where two pints in Survival are necessary, but that can be sloved in another way. Exotic Methods can only be solved one way.

[Realmzmaster]

Sir JK wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you feel the same way about persuasion?  Because I have very similar objections to persuasion (though for different reasons).

Yes. Very much so. Stealth too, but usually that's slightly less abstracted (the stealth part in Mark of the Assassin I enjoyed greatly. It wasn't perfect but steps in the right direction in my meaning).

I feel that way about persuasion and stealth. Persuasion was too much of I Win button.  There was no chance of failure once the protagonist got the highest rank. Stealth was wrong in both DAO and DA2. Mark of the Assassin came closer to what stealth should be. Stealth means moving in the shadows to appear to be invisible. It does not mean that the person is invisible.

I mean in DAO a person can walk into the kennel in the castle under stealth and the dogs do not detect the person?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't want player skill to be relevant, so in that respect I do care a lot about the choices you make when levelling your character, but I do recognise that without asking for player input during the execution phase the game risks becoming dull.

[Pasquale1234]

Sir JK wrote...

If combat was as abstracted as non-combat is, the only input you'd get at all would be the question "Do you want to fight X?" after which you'd be told whether you succeeded or died. You'd have no abilities, no chance to manouver, no selecting of targets. Maybe whether you carry enough potions could affect things. Maybe.

Combat in all rpgs require significant player input, often on tactical or strategical levels.

You're right though, that controlling every single step of a crafting process would probably not work. In all honesty, I'm not too sure how to solve it myself either.

As far as abstraction levels - are they really so very different?

There are animations for unsheathing and resheathing equipment, but that's as far as equipment prep / maintenance goes.

A battle typically requires the use of a series of different attacks, talents, spells, by multiple characters to take out multiple enemies - so, yeah, there's a lot of interactivity for the player.

If we want to use, for example, Pinning Shot, we select a target, push a button, and the character does the rest without any additional input from the player.  We don't need to manage the character pulling an arrow from the quiver, nocking it, assuming the proper stance, drawing, aiming, or releasing.  In terms of the UI, all of those steps are a single interaction by the player.

Pure speculation: Maybe if ingedients had properties and you use "abilities" (derived from your crafting skill) to enhance some properties while diminishing others. For example, a healing potion needs you to enhance healing to X but reduce toxicity to 0. You can use whatever you want to achieve that but have only a finite number of tries before you waste the ingredients.
I wonder how that'd work. Elder Scrolls has a similar idea, I know.

I suppose there could be unique skills for enhancing or purifying ingredients, and the ingredient quality would then impact the quality of the finished product.  Then we might see quality tiers, similar to DAO's potion tiers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sir JK wrote...

If combat was as abstracted as non-combat is, the only input you'd get at all would be the question "Do you want to fight X?" after which you'd be told whether you succeeded or died. You'd have no abilities, no chance to manouver, no selecting of targets. Maybe whether you carry enough potions could affect things. Maybe.

Much like the combat in Crusader Kings II, one of my all-time favourite games.

[Sir JK]

Pasquale1234 wrote...
As far as abstraction levels - are they really so very different?

There are animations for unsheathing and resheathing equipment, but that's as far as equipment prep / maintenance goes.

A battle typically requires the use of a series of different attacks, talents, spells, by multiple characters to take out multiple enemies - so, yeah, there's a lot of interactivity for the player.

If we want to use, for example, Pinning Shot, we select a target, push a button, and the character does the rest without any additional input from the player.  We don't need to manage the character pulling an arrow from the quiver, nocking it, assuming the proper stance, drawing, aiming, or releasing.  In terms of the UI, all of those steps are a single interaction by the player.

It's your third paragraph that highlights the difference between combat and non-combat. Both are abstracted, yes. neccessarily so even as you neatly demonstrate in your fourth paragraph here. Combat is abstracted, we do not need to control every single muscle of our characters. But we do need to decide which spells to use and when, when to use that melee ability, determine when healing is needed and apply it in time and move our characters out of danger.
The tactical side of combat is entirely in and dependent on the player's hand and skill.

But in the creation of any object, or for that matter the persuasion of any individual, it's dependant only on previous investment and choosing to engage in the task. You can't even fail intentionally if the skill level is high enough, merely choose not to do it.

This isn't equalient of choosing to use pinning shot in a fight. It's the equalient of entering combat at all.

I suppose there could be unique skills for enhancing or purifying ingredients, and the ingredient quality would then impact the quality of the finished product.  Then we might see quality tiers, similar to DAO's potion tiers.

That's certainly one approach with a more in-depth crafting system. One I wouldn't mind at all.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Much like the combat in Crusader Kings II, one of my all-time favourite games.

Yes, CK2 does handle combat like that. Though numbers, terrain and technology are other means to control the outcome. The game puts a great deal more emphasis on how to raise your character. The complexity normally seen in combat is there actually applied to character creation instead (which also is a on-going process throughout the game).