159 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

I wouldn't be against this. If they could truly differentiate the Mage and non-Mage experiences with this model and offer a wide variety of options and skills for each class that could make drastically different characters, despite being the same "class." But, on the other hand, I don't see Bioware doing that anytime soon.

I would argue that they basically did that with DAO's combat talents. They just needed to expand that into non-combat gameplay.

Of course, in DA2 they moved in entirely the wrong direction. Given its poor reception, they seem to realise the need to move back toward DAO's design in some resepects; I wonder why not this one.

[Fast Jimmy]

I would argue that they basically did that with DAO's combat talents. They just needed to expand that into non-combat gameplay.
Of course, in DA2 they moved in entirely the wrong direction. Given its poor reception, they seem to realise the need to move back toward DAO's design in some resepects; I wonder why not this one.

I think Bioware has wed themselves to a three-class system, so they feel he need to make the two most similar classes (rogue and warrior) as distinct as possible, while keeping the Mage class as roped off from the other two as possible. I think this is so they feel they can better control and predict the encounter setups. If they can predictably understand how someone would build a rogue, then they can design encounters that conform to these party layouts.

Essentially, they want to prevent players from making broken character buolss by offering to many choices. Because then a player can level themselves into a corner, so to speak. Which I know is something hat you don't think Bioware should be doing, but I believe that's the reason for the (somewhat artificial) segregation of the abilities and access to skills, both in combat and outside of it.

[Wulfram]

Non-combat mechanics aren't inherently bad, but there needs to be something more to them than just clicking to unlock things.

 

Of course they could have elaborated on stealth gameplay, rather than largely eliminating it.  But doing that right would change the game quite significantly, and the current set up is better than what was before.

 

(Though I'd rather have rogues be mobile, and make flanking have more impact, rather than having them do high damage in a head to head fight.  Basically, rogues are cavalry, warriors are infantry)

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think Bioware has wed themselves to a three-class system, so they feel he need to make the two most similar classes (rogue and warrior) as distinct as possible, while keeping the Mage class as roped off from the other two as possible. I think this is so they feel they can better control and predict the encounter setups. If they can predictably understand how someone would build a rogue, then they can design encounters that conform to these party layouts.

Essentially, they want to prevent players from making broken character buolss by offering to many choices. Because then a player can level themselves into a corner, so to speak. Which I know is something hat you don't think Bioware should be doing, but I believe that's the reason for the (somewhat artificial) segregation of the abilities and access to skills, both in combat and outside of it.

And yet, it was still entirely possible in DA2, to build an ineffective character, particularly if the player has pre-existing gameplay biases (like my strong preferences for self-sufficiency and versatility).

[Gtdef]

And yet, it was still entirely possible in DA2, to build an ineffective character, particularly if the player has pre-existing gameplay biases (like my strong preferences for self-sufficiency and versatility).

 

I don't understand what's stopping you from making self sufficient characters in DA2 that didn't stop you in DAO. The game is soloable on Nightmare. That's the epitome of self sufficient. I bet you have something else in mind but I can't understand what this it.

 

It's a different bias that prevents you from making these builds. Like for example having many utility skills as rogue, or the mage having to maximize spell and aoe damage instead of autoattacking. Which certainly go against a lot of preconceived notions but they don't bar you from making "versatile" builds. Even the more versatile builds have some semblance of specialization or at least a trick to use in most fights. Now if your build strategy is everytime you level to put a skill in a different tree, then yes, you will make a bad build. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't understand what's stopping you from making self sufficient characters in DA2 that didn't stop you in DAO. The game is soloable on Nightmare. That's the epitome of self sufficient. I bet you have something else in mind but I can't understand what this it.

It's a different bias that prevents you from making these builds. Like for example having many utility skills as rogue, or the mage having to maximize spell and aoe damage instead of autoattacking. Which certainly go against a lot of preconceived notions but they don't bar you from making "versatile" builds. Even the more versatile builds have some semblance of specialization or at least a trick to use in most fights. Now if your build strategy is everytime you level to put a skill in a different tree, then yes, you will make a bad build.

For example, I tend not to use abilities that make my character less good at something. So I didn't use Spirit Healer in DA2, because that character then can't do damage. In DAO, I wouldn't use sustained abilities that had drawbacks. So if something reduced my attack speed, or reduced my damage, or prevented me from moving, I wouldn't use it.

And I tended not, in DA2, to spend points on upgrading abilities,, because there was often little direct benefit (the primary benefit was enabling cross-class combos, which conflicts with my self-sufficiency objective), and once an ability was upgraded you could no longer use the "lesser" version, even if it was useful (like the smaller radius Fireball).

[Gtdef]

I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote.

 

And I tended not, in DA2, to spend points on upgrading abilities,, because there was often little direct benefit

 

That's wrong, the benefit is actually huge most of the time. All rogue upgrades for heavy hitters increase the solo damage a lot to the point that some skills (like explosive strike) are very weak before the upgrade. Better keep the chain 20% crit chance than break it to do spike damage that doesn't even oneshot a normal mob. There are very few upgrades that only worth it for ccc and that's mainly mage which has tree masteries that increase the damage of all the spells anyway so the result is mage becoming very strong solo character but actually having to get some levels first unlike DAO.

 

Warrior for example doesn't even need cross class assistance to be effective. Instead he can get cleave upgrade and add a stagger rng that when applied you can have a party mage do a chain lightning for some extra damage. It's nice to have, but the 5 second duration increase is more damage than a super powered chain lightning hit.

 

But you are right in the sense that DA2 has a lot of fillers.

 

So I didn't use Spirit Healer in DA2, because that character then can't do damage.

 

I don't see the same restrictions that you see for spirit healer. The main playstyle of a mage in DA2 is to blow his load and then stick to autoattacking and kiting till he can do it again. Keeping healing aura active from the start of the fight is the less optimal way to play the build. And the cooldown is a mere 10 seconds for the more prolonged fights. It's not spammable but it's not restrictive either. The inherent problem with that specialization is that it doesn't scale and doesn't provide any control, not that it doesn't allow you to cast spells. The 30% sustain cost is enough to create that problem by itself and if you try the obvious workaround you make an obviously weaker character, that being stacking willpower.

 

Now as far as "self sufficient" goes, I don't even see the point on this specialization. Potions are way more effective than any exclusive spirit healer spell for the main character in both games.

 

Also I don't really understand your problem with precise striking. Unless you have a specific encounter in mind where activating precise striking doesn't allow you to sidestep the boss efficiently or something other abstract thing like that, your damage increases. Plus if I recall right, in case you have a mage with haste in the party, you can't stack momentum+haste because of the well known attack speed bug, but precise striking allows it because it decreases attack speed enough to not trigger the bug. That's boring technical talk, but you want to tell me that this has anything to do with self sufficiency and versatility? It sounds to me like the bias I described about "how things should be". Counter intuitive doesn't mean less versatile.

 

Generally speaking I'm really impressed by how DA2 handled talents and specializations. If the enemies had the same level of quality and care the game would have a lot more replayability but they took many shortcuts and when you beat the game once, all subsequent runs are easy.

[adorkable-panda]

I would also like if they went with old RPG concept where a warrior could bash the lock to open a chest, but as a consequence, some of the contents were destroyed or something like that. Overall, I don't mind since I think a balanced party should at least have one of every class + Quizzy. 

[Gtdef]

Original sin has a good idea. If you bash the chest or door you lose weapon durability. But it's really easy to repair so it has no real consequence. It's still a solid idea to build upon. Like keeping extra weapons for bashing.

[TheChris92]

Sera: Inquisitor, here's a lockpick. It might be handy if you, the master of unlocking, take it with you.

[Riknas]

Pretty sure this is there to act as a bonus for people that play rogues, and acts as an incentive to try a rogue at some point.

 

Only reason I can see against it is that there's no equivalent incentive for other classes anymore. As a counter-suggestion, I think we should give some thought to treasures/activities that would be available just to Mages and Warriors.

[Eralrik]

Dynamix had this game called Betrayal at Krondor it's one of my all time favorite's, they had an unusual method to locked chests that no one else ever did.

Anyone could unlock the chest providing you could solve the Riddle Locks!

 

Example riddle for a locked chest:

 

Two legs it has, And this will Confound"

Only at Rest, Do they touch the ground.

[Realmzmaster]

Dynamix had this game called Betrayal at Krondor it's one of my all time favorite's, they had an unusual method to locked chests that no one else ever did.

Anyone could unlock the chest providing you could solve the Riddle Locks!

 

Example riddle for a locked chest:

 

Two legs it has, And this will Confound"

Only at Rest, Do they touch the ground.

 

The problem is that some gamers do not like riddles or puzzles. The riddles or puzzles require that the gamer solve them not the character. So if the gamer is roleplaying a character with low intelligence that character should not be able to solve the riddle even if the gamer can.

 

Edited to correct spelling.

[Fast Jimmy]

The problem is that some gamers do not like riddles or puzzles. The riddles or puzzles rquire that the gamer solve them not the character. So if the gamer is roleplaying a character with low intelligence that character should not be able to solve the riddle even if the gamer can.

Not to mention such things become trivial in today's world. A riddle that is too easy is considered not challenging by players. And a riddle that is too hard will just be looked up online for the answers, with complaints about "games putting stupid riddles in" by many people. Puzzles equally so (the picture puzzles with Duke Garspand just were absolute time wasters for almost no real return).

I like games wih riddles and puzzles, but I think many gamers find them incredibly arbitrary. And, as Realmzmaster said, it tests the player's intelligence and knowledge, not the character's.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The problem is that some gamers do not like riddles or puzzles. The riddles or puzzles rquire that the gamer solve them not the character. So if the gamer is roleplaying a character with low intelligence that character should not be able to solve the riddle even if the gamer can.

The player has the option to choose the wrong answer.

The danger is that a less capable player won't be able to get his intelligent character through the puzzle.

The player always has the option to underperform for RP purposes. Problems arise, though when the character is held back by the player's deficiencies. I complained extensively about the change to the aiming system in ME2 that made Shepard only as good a shot as the player (luckily, you could still aim while paused).

[Realmzmaster]

The player has the option to choose the wrong answer.

The danger is that a less capable player won't be able to get his intelligent character through the puzzle.

The player always has the option to underperform for RP purposes. Problems arise, though when the character is held back by the player's deficiencies. I complained extensively about the change to the aiming system in ME2 that made Shepard only as good a shot as the player (luckily, you could still aim while paused).

 

That is just it what if the gamer cannot solve the riddle or puzzle while playing a high intelligence or cunning character? The character is held back by the player. Or the designer makes the puzzle or riddle so simple that there is really no purpose in having them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That is just it what if the gamer cannot solve the riddle or puzzle while playing a high intelligence or cunning character? The character is held back by the player. Or the designer makes the puzzle or riddle so simple that there is really no purpose in having them.

I was agreeing with you, and trying to strengthen your argument.

[In Exile]

That is just it what if the gamer cannot solve the riddle or puzzle while playing a high intelligence or cunning character? The character is held back by the player. Or the designer makes the puzzle or riddle so simple that there is really no purpose in having them.

 

But that's true for every part of an RPG. The story might be about a tactical genius, but a player who is terrible at turn-based tactics would still get obliterated every encounter. The idea that RPGs aren't exclusively about player skill is wordplay. The truth is that RPGs are less about reflexes than other games, but that's only because they engage different skills. 

[Realmzmaster]

I was agreeing with you, and trying to strengthen your argument.

I am also agreeing with you.

[Realmzmaster]

But that's true for every part of an RPG. The story might be about a tactical genius, but a player who is terrible at turn-based tactics would still get obliterated every encounter. The idea that RPGs aren't exclusively about player skill is wordplay. The truth is that RPGs are less about reflexes than other games, but that's only because they engage different skills. 

 

That is true, but tactical combat usually has difficulty levels from Story mode to Nightmare rarely (if ever) do riddles and puzzles have the same difficulty levels.

[Fast Jimmy]

That is true, but tactical combat usually has difficulty levels from Story mode to Nightmare rarely (if ever) do riddles and puzzles have the same difficulty levels.

Not to mention they often disadvantage those who are playing a game not in their native language or the one they are the most familiar with for various references or concepts that riddles often play into. The character should understand these, but a player picking up the game in English when their native tongue is, say, Aramaic, will likely have issues.

[Realmzmaster]

Not to mention they often disadvantage those who are playing a game not in their native language or the one they are the most familiar with for various references or concepts that riddles often play into. The character should understand these, but a player picking up the game in English when their native tongue is, say, Aramaic, will likely have issues.

 

I agree. Riddles and puzzles also have to be timeless. As Fast Jimmy notes if the riddle or puzzle references a particular time or is a pop culture reference it will be lost on many people.

 

Example Family Guy is known for its pop culture references. One ending has Stewie with backpack on the road trying to tumb a ride as the music from The Hulk TV show plays. Some people did not know there was a Hulk TV series so that reference will elude them that Stewie is making like Bruce Banner (Bill Bixby) as he leaves another city,town or village.

 

I like puzzles and riddles but not everyone does. That is why I suggested that puzzles and riddles never be on the main quest line. If the main quest or side quest has a puzzle or riddle there should be an alternative way of reaching the same objective.

[Realmzmaster]

Having or not having a rogue in the party for lockpicking (and other skills) is a choice. If the gamer chooses not to have one then the gamer is making the choice that opening of locked and/or trapped chests and doors will not be possible.

 

As to giving warriors the ability to bash open chest or doors I am fine with that as long as trapped doors or chests due sufficient damage to both the warrior and any party members nearby. Also if a chest is bashed there is a chance to break any fragile items or damaging magical devices.

 

If the mage is given a spell like lock melt then a spell like find and disable traps must also be given. One spell to find and disable any traps on doors or chests. The other spell to actually open them. If the chest or door has been warded by mage of a level greater than the party member then there must be a percentage chance of failure based on the difference between levels of party mage and warder.

[Fast Jimmy]

Having or not having a rogue in the party for lockpicking (and other skills) is a choice. If the gamer chooses not to have one then the gamer is making the choice that opening of locked and/or trapped chests and doors will not be possible.

 

As to giving warriors the ability to bash open chest or doors I am fine with that as long as trapped doors or chests due sufficient damage to both the warrior and any party members nearby. Also if a chest is bashed there is a chance to break any fragile items or damaging magical devices.

 

If the mage is given a spell like lock melt then a spell like find and disable traps must also be given. One spell to find and disable any traps on doors or chests. The other spell to actually open them. If the chest or door has been warded by mage of a level greater than the party member then there must be a percentage chance of failure based on the difference between levels of party mage and warder.

 

I think the second part of the statement is the problem - the devs could give lock bash, but then that opens up Mage's to also having utility spells... and once that pigeon flows the coop, then Mages will be the most broken of classes. Because of a need for Mage's to be combat-equivalent to warriors, they would have all the benefits of spell combat, PLUS the ability to magically (LITERALLY) do anything else in the world. At which point... why WOULDN'T you roll a majority-Mage (or even all-Mage) party?

 

I don't agree with it 100%, but Bioware is trying to make all classes unique, both in terms of combat and in terms of non-combat utility. So rogues are the only ones that can lockpick, Mages are the only ones that can construct bridges out of nothingness and warriors will be able to do some type of wilderness tracking or some other such thing. A well built, diverse party will be the best to address the most issues. If you bring a party that isn't class balanced, you will suffer the consequences - which, in past games, essentially just means losing out on loot on par with what you would find in an abandoned barrel.

[Realmzmaster]

I think the second part of the statement is the problem - the devs could give lock bash, but then that opens up Mage's to also having utility spells... and once that pigeon flows the coop, then Mages will be the most broken of classes. Because of a need for Mage's to be combat-equivalent to warriors, they would have all the benefits of spell combat, PLUS the ability to magically (LITERALLY) do anything else in the world. At which point... why WOULDN'T you roll a majority-Mage (or even all-Mage) party?

 

I don't agree with it 100%, but Bioware is trying to make all classes unique, both in terms of combat and in terms of non-combat utility. So rogues are the only ones that can lockpick, Mages are the only ones that can construct bridges out of nothingness and warriors will be able to do some type of wilderness tracking or some other such thing. A well built, diverse party will be the best to address the most issues. If you bring a party that isn't class balanced, you will suffer the consequences - which, in past games, essentially just means losing out on loot on par with what you would find in an abandoned barrel.

 

I agree with you. I want each class to be unique if Bioware is going to use a class system. In a single character game like Skyrim or Kingdoms of Amalur it makes sense to have all the skills available to choose. I see no reason for it in a party based game. Each member of the party is suppose to bring skills that complement the other party members strengths and skills that make up for any weaknesses.

 

The rogue brings Stealth skills (lockpicking etc) to the party. The mage brings the magic. The warrior brings the strength, the ability to absorb punishment and dish it out.

 

If a gamer wants to have an all mage party or all warrior party or all rogue party then there are consequences and benefits to those parties. 

 

It appears that some gamers want all the benefits but none of the consequences inherent in party selection.