91 réponses à ce sujet

[Ophir147]

Varric has passive 100% crit chance by lvl 10 if he wants to and has a 30% crit damage passive increase while shadow has the extra 50% only when obscured (which requires varric spamming chameleon on you) and much less crit chance passive. Hawke becomes better after he gets assassin because of the double cun bonus to crit damage, this me

Also you didn't even touch on what I said about access and gear. Give Varric access to assassin and he laughs at pc archer. Only reason Hawke wins is because the gear is so retarded that you can reach 100% crit chance and 400% crit damage passive. I've played a dw rogue shadow assassin with dlc gear and I was autoattacking for 1300 damage at lvl 20. Poor Meredith melted like butter, one assassinate did 33k+17k. Fun times.

 

The reason Varric's talents are so overpowered were by design; he has to have them to make up for the fact that he can't have gear(even less than other companions, as you can't change his weapon), and have him be useful despite of it. If you are trying to prove that "Varric stronk" then congratulations, but if you are trying to prove the combat wasn't designed to be PC-centric then you're doing a pretty poor job of it.

 

We're getting pretty off topic, but if you would like to continue this line on discussion in private then feel free to PM me.

[Xerxes52]

I support it. I would like to see how well my team does purely on the tactics I've set for them.

[Gtdef]

The reason Varric's talents are so overpowered were by design; he has to have them to make up for the fact that he can't have gear(even less than other companions, as you can't change his weapon), and have him be useful despite of it. If you are trying to prove that "Varric stronk" then congratulations, but if you are trying to prove the combat wasn't designed to be PC-centric then you're doing a pretty poor job of it.

 

We're getting pretty off topic, but if you would like to continue this line on discussion in private then feel free to PM me.

 

I made a huge post addressing what you said and you only had to say something about the Varric vs archer Hawke even failing to understand the point because you obviously don't have enough knowledge of the game. If you are going to talk about design, make sure your info is correct.

 

So let me make myself perfectly clear. You said that the game is balanced around the pc. I said that there is nothing inherently superior to the PC using the same abilities as any other companion. The only difference is access (which changes from the DA2 model in the next game as the developers have stated and it was free for all in DAO). Thinking that the PC is important and getting some optional plot bonuses is irrelevant to the design. Gear is irrelevant to the design. Any companion would have approximately the same benefit from gear and plot bonuses. Just because you prefer to load them on the pc or the game doesn't allow any other option doesn't change the design but all it proves is that the pc may potentially reach higher levels of power using limited resources. This is different than what you are saying and it doesn't even have to be this way in DAI like it wasn't for DAO.

 

You quoted me to advocate that the pc is more rewarding to be played actively and claimed that the Flanking ability of shadow spec is indicative to this. What I said is that your example is weak because 100% critical chance is a triviality for the rogue class and if you are forced to use this ability then you are doing more bad than good for your damage output. By making a more "uncomplicated" build for your rogue you perform better. Also there are other companions that benefit greatly by being played active. Sebastian (which the tactics can't use his chain ability well, nor do decoy combos), all mages, especially bethany in legacy who is a force mage. Archer Hawke in higher levels only thing that needs is a "target next->attack" plus ccc tactics and he is the picture of efficiency, unless you are playing a more involved build like walking bomb. That's only for nightmare due to friendly fire and the only thing he needs to do is plant a decoy.

 

So what exactly do you mean "balanced around the pc". Do the companion abilities scale according to the pc's power? Are you forced to tie your tactics to the pc or does it get any special treatment? The game numbers are balanced based on a generic character or party that has x gear and y skillset. The math aren't different for Hawke. They are exactly the same. What you want to say is that the game is better played when the party reacts to the actions of the controlled character, and since the player character can get stronger because of gear and plot bonuses is usually the best to use manually. But these are different things and what you are saying has nothing to do with balance. While I don't disagree with you on this, it's not important enough to define how someone should play and that's why the op makes a good point. 

 

Finally to answer the post I quoted I'll just ask you a question. Why not make Isabela and Fenris overpowered as well if the point of the design is to compensate? After all Varric has a weapon that scales. Isabela and Fenris will always fall behind unless you spend half your gold buying them weapons. What you are saying is inconsistent with the design of all other companion specializations. And you pretty much got it backwards as far as gear is concerned. Varric will always have a good weapon, so giving him the best autoattacking specialization simplifies things cause he can have respectable damage and can still specialize in the support trees. It has to do with "ROGUES SUCK, LOCKPICKING BOTS" that is a thing with DAO. He is the jack of all trades and also the most compelling character in the game so you have an incentive to bring him with you. Being better than archer Hawke seems more like an oversight on how they designed the pc specializations. After all I doubt that they set out to make a game that only thing that matters when optimizing your character is stacking critical modifiers. Rogue is so stupidly overpowered due to the double dip in this game that it's not even funny. At least in DAO he was OP because he could reach 100% evasion chance against normal enemies, not 3 shot every boss in the game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is silly. For people that aren't interested in the combat (I mean, the combat side instead of stats and math and whatnot), I could see this being useful, but if the combat is easy enough to have tactics completely control all of the action, then there is something wrong with the game (unless they have something like Narrative mode in DA:I as well which wouldn't surprise me at this point). 

 

And I disagree that the character you are playing is a mindless puppet. The game was balanced around controlling the main character (be it the Warden, Hawke or the Inquisitor) because they are, by virtue of being the MC, stronger than their companions and more capable of turning the tide of combat. So if you happen to be controlling the main character and you aren't giving interacting with the game, it makes sense that your representation in-game would do the same, and when you control the companions, this is ostensibly happening because your MC has ostensibly given them orders that override their previously defined combat tactics. If they are standing still and doing nothing, it is not because they are stupid but rather because you have given them an order to cease doing anything, and they are complying even if they think it is an unwise decision.

 

For the record, I am a huge fan of the tactics system, but if it ever becomes sophisticated enough to enable you to beat the game with zero personal input, then perhaps we need to re-examine what we want out of the game.

What I want out of the game is to craft characters and set them lose in the world to see what they do.  If they can select targets when I'm controlling someone else, why is my control over someone else required for that to be the case?  Why can't Anders pick a new target unless I'm actively controlling one of the other party members?

 

If the fight is effectively over, and I've pulled back the camera to enjoy my handiwork, I'd rather my characters not simply stop fighting when their current targets die.  I want them to select a new target, without my input, just like the unselected party members do.

 

Again, this is just like how BG worked.

 

All that would be required is to have the number of party members selected expanded from 1-4 to a possible 0-4.  That's all.  The code already exists for the characters to at autonomously.  The code already exists for us to stop controlling any given character.  I'd just like the option to control one fewer.

[TurretSyndrome]

I agree with this. I have asked time and time again for this option to be present, no response from Bioware so far. It should be a very simple option to include. Playing as a commander supervising the group and chipping in whenever needed is a sound play-style. There is no reason to be strictly against this request unless you use the "should be played as intended" which is an idiotic argument to use, in my opinion.

 

Bioware should really consider adding this option into the game. It only enhances the game and prolongs the game's life for players. This, and Solo playthrough(although the latter has always been there as a mechanic in the previous games).

[Zjarcal]

That would be the most boring thing ever but hey, options for those who want em are always nice.

[DadeLeviathan]

Oh look, Sylvius has come up with another great idea that probably won't be in the game. This is the exact reason why I have in the advanced tactics mod installed in my copy of DAO and have 'allow tactics on controlled characters' selected. Hopefully Inquisition will be easy enough to mod that if the option isn't included, that something similar to the advanced tactics mod will be made by somebody. 

[Deflagratio]

I have no feelings about this either way. Sure I could wax philosophically about how it seems counter-intuitive to the whole "Game" part of the game, but what's the point?

[Sylvius the Mad]

does that involve getting rid of the action queue or at least making the use of it optional?? If yes, i support it.

I'm not sure what you mean. We can't queue actions in DA (I wish we could).

[Ophir147]

What I want out of the game is to craft characters and set them lose in the world to see what they do.  If they can select targets when I'm controlling someone else, why is my control over someone else required for that to be the case?  Why can't Anders pick a new target unless I'm actively controlling one of the other party members?

 

If the fight is effectively over, and I've pulled back the camera to enjoy my handiwork, I'd rather my characters not simply stop fighting when their current targets die.  I want them to select a new target, without my input, just like the unselected party members do.

 

Again, this is just like how BG worked.

 

All that would be required is to have the number of party members selected expanded from 1-4 to a possible 0-4.  That's all.  The code already exists for the characters to at autonomously.  The code already exists for us to stop controlling any given character.  I'd just like the option to control one fewer.

 

This sounds more like a cinematic camera than anything else. It sounds pretty cool, and if it would kick in at the end of the fight (where the outcome has pretty much been decided at that point) then that wouldn't bother me. What I am against is putting the game on autopilot and being rewarded for doing so.

 

@Gtfdef Please drop it. I'm not interested in comparing dick sizes until this thread gets locked. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

This sounds more like a cinematic camera than anything else. It sounds pretty cool, and if it would kick in at the end of the fight (where the outcome has pretty much been decided at that point) then that wouldn't bother me. What I am against is putting the game on autopilot and being rewarded for doing so.

If you haven't set up your tactics well, you'd get penalised for doing so.

And on lower difficulty settings, this would just make it easier for people who don't like combat to sit back and not take part.

No one suffers as a result of including this feature.

[TurretSyndrome]

If you haven't set up your tactics well, you'd get penalised for doing so.

And on lower difficulty settings, this would just make it easier for people who don't like combat to sit back and not take part.

No one suffers as a result of including this feature.

 

I think that's what the person is against. He/she feels that people should not be able to set the game to full on tactics-reliant and that they should atleast control one party member.

[The Hierophant]

I like this feature. I'd use it in FFXII to see how well coordinated my party's Gambits were in relation to one another.

[spacediscosaurus]

I think that's what the person is against. He/she feels that people should not be able to set the game to full on tactics-reliant and that they should atleast control one party member.

 

But on low difficulties, the most anyone has to do is click the next target. I don't see why it would such a big deal to remove that unnecessary step and save time in battles. 

[Gtdef]

But on low difficulties, the most anyone has to do is click the next target. I don't see why it would such a big deal to remove that unnecessary step and save time in battles. 

 

Same thing happens on Nightmare as well. I bound "next target" to a mouse button and just spam this the whole game, pausing only when an elite spawns to do a ccc. Game is very gear based, and if you do the macro well, micro needs minimal effort.

 

@Gtfdef Please drop it. I'm not interested in comparing dick sizes until this thread gets locked.

 

Oh I can drop it, but I'm neither offtopic, nor I'm interested in comparing dick sizes. I bothered cause I think you are wrong saying that the game is balanced around the pc and then you misinterpreted my post and tried to make a point with it, not because I want to show my grasp of game mechanics. If you quote my post and answer with something that I think it's wrong, then I'm compelled to make a counter argument. If you feel that I'm offensive or I post something inappropriate feel free to report me. But don't make me look like the bad guy that tries to get the thread locked.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think that's what the person is against. He/she feels that people should not be able to set the game to full on tactics-reliant and that they should atleast control one party member.

It is not our place to tell each other how to play.

I'm proposing a low-cost feature that opens up a new playstyle. People who don't enjoy that playstyle don't have to use it. So why would it matter to them if I do?

[CronoDragoon]

Agreed. As someone who always controls the PC, this doesn't affect me whatsoever. As such, if it's something they can fit into the game, then why not? It's a neutral addition for those like me and a positive addition for everyone else.

[Araceil]

The game can be 100% micromanaged pausing after every turn to make sure things are going as planed and assigning new commands, or you could ignore all that and do perfectly fine playing the game as a hacky-slashy action game, so why shouldn't you be able to rely entirely on tactics. We already have 2 out of 3 extremes so why not add in the last.  Its not like doing that will remove any skill requirement either seeing as you still have to come up with solid tactics and builds that will work throughout a variety of different encounters. 

[Ophir147]

I should probably clarify that adding the feature into the game is not the sticking point, but rather that, with the playstyle that the feature provides, then the game may be balanced to accommodate for that.

 

It is not our place to tell each other how to play.

I'm proposing a low-cost feature that opens up a new playstyle. People who don't enjoy that playstyle don't have to use it. So why would it matter to them if I do?

 

Neither is it our place to ask the developers to implement a feature that flies in the face of one of the game's core concepts, which is control of four (or, at the very least, one and three AI controlled companions) characters and having them apply their skills thoughtfully toward advancing a goal, be it in combat or in dialogue.

 

If the combat isn't fun for you (which is ok, since a lot of people play the game for other reasons) I see no reason why the game shouldn't allow for a Narrative Mode (like ME3) in which your companions doing all of the work with basic tactics would be enough to defeat any encounter while you take a java break or whatever.

[spacediscosaurus]

I should probably clarify that adding the feature into the game is not the sticking point, but rather that, with the playstyle that the feature provides, then the game may be balanced to accommodate for that.

 

 

Neither is it our place to ask the developers to implement a feature that flies in the face of one of the game's core concepts, which is control of four (or, at the very least, one and three AI controlled companions) characters and having them apply their skills thoughtfully toward advancing a goal, be it in combat or in dialogue.

 

If the combat isn't fun for you (which is ok, since a lot of people play the game for other reasons) I see no reason why the game shouldn't allow for a Narrative Mode (like ME3) in which your companions doing all of the work with basic tactics would be enough to defeat any encounter while you take a java break or whatever.

 

Except, this is a feature that existed in Baldur's Gate, which has a core concept of controlling six party members. Even with the character that you are currently selecting, they will continue to attack enemies without your input. This is all we're asking; to reinstate this feature. Not to dumb down the gameplay, not to make the game play itself.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If the combat isn't fun for you (which is ok, since a lot of people play the game for other reasons) I see no reason why the game shouldn't allow for a Narrative Mode (like ME3) in which your companions doing all of the work with basic tactics would be enough to defeat any encounter while you take a java break or whatever.

I like combat (well, in DAO I did - I found DA2's combat really dull). I keep asking for more options to control the party (I found the ability to select 3 companions while leaving the fourth under AI control extremely helpful for enforcing positioning, for example). I tend to play all of the party members at once.

But as such, I don't wany any special preference given to the one my cursor happens to be sitting on. That's a change in game behaviour based solely on the state of the UI, and I'd rather that not happen.

Also, on balance, recall that DA2's difficulty levels were described I terms of how many characters you were expected to control. Given that, I doubt this would cause a problem.

[Realmzmaster]

For my purposes it has nothing to do with not liking combat. I love combat which is why I make extensive use of the tactics screen to define how my party members react to combat. I cannot focus on seeing how those tactics work (individually and collectively) if I have to constantly control a party member. By deselecting all the party members and allowing the tactics program I set up for each character to run the character I can see how well the tactics will work. I can then modify each character's tactics based on what I have seen including the PC. 

 

The ability to do so is in the programming. Bioware uses it for testing purposes. The request is to make it available to the gamer who wants to use it. It basically requires no additional programming from what I can see.

[Ophir147]

Except, this is a feature that existed in Baldur's Gate, which has a core concept of controlling six party members. Even with the character that you are currently selecting, they will continue to attack enemies without your input. This is all we're asking; to reinstate this feature. Not to dumb down the gameplay, not to make the game play itself.

 

It is not fair to compare the amount of challenge level that the games seek to provide. Infinity Engine games are meant to be front-loaded with difficulty, and after a specific point in the game (with sufficient planning) the rest of the game is very easy. DA:O had this problem, but it was mainly because some very overpowered skills were gated behind prerequisite stats and levels. DA:2, despite its shortcomings, had an arguably superior challenge progression, with the game actually getting harder as you progress instead of easier. I personally have given up on Dragon Age being a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate series a while ago. You are not talking about a feature that has ever been in Dragon Age, and I doubt that Bioware would have taken away a feature from the series they were trying so hard to ape unless it was against the design philosophy of the series they were trying to make.

 

 

I like combat (well, in DAO I did - I found DA2's combat really dull). I keep asking for more options to control the party (I found the ability to select 3 companions while leaving the fourth under AI control extremely helpful for enforcing positioning, for example). I tend to play all of the party members at once.

But as such, I don't wany any special preference given to the one my cursor happens to be sitting on. That's a change in game behaviour based solely on the state of the UI, and I'd rather that not happen.

 

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you asking for more control over the party, or less? I'll also take the time to remind you that, if you are in complete control of a character, the responsibility for the behavior of he character is yours as well, and giving you the option to release control of all characters is the only state in which game behavior is based solely on decisions the game makes for you (through tactics).

 

 

Also, on balance, recall that DA2's difficulty levels were described I terms of how many characters you were expected to control. Given that, I doubt this would cause a problem.

 

Could you elaborate on this a bit?

[spacediscosaurus]

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you asking for more control over the party, or less? I'll also take the time to remind you that, if you are in complete control of a character, the responsibility for the behavior of he character is yours as well, and giving you the option to release control of all characters is the only state in which game behavior is based solely on decisions the game makes for you (through tactics).

 

Allowing us to let all our units operate on tactics actually opens up MORE control for us. More control over all party members, almost like an RTS if you will (though drastically different, I understand). If I no longer have to babysit my selected character and manually click their next target, this frees me up to be able to observe the whole battlefield and make better tactical decisions. No one here has argued that they literally want to sit back and never make any input in the game, except to test how well they can set up their tactics. If this feature was open for me, I'll be just as vigilant while playing as I always am, but I'll be able to move my attention else where, instead of stuck on one character. I don't think of myself as my player character in a battle, I think of myself as the tactician monitoring every move.