Ce sujet est fermé
Mike Laidlaw @Mike_Laidlaw 28s
Ability count clarity: DAI is about roles, planning ahead and making tactical decisions. Potions, ability choice, gear, party composition.
Oh dear I hope they didn't come up with some weird version of vancian magic. For me, magic wasn't fun to play in NWN because of that.
You don't need to but it's three goddamn months before release.
Like, it's kinda the opposite of trying to spring a surprise on people.
Mike seems very "look how we're nice we're telling you beforehand" when people were asking them for months if the PC UI would bet the console treatement, and no answer was given.
So no, I won't thank them.
I'm more upset that they have made my main character mentally disabled in combat and only can remember how to do 8 of the abilities I have worked hard to level and teach.
A smart leveler in DA:I will only take 8 active abilities on his trees, and focus on upgrading those and taking passives for the remainders. It's a new kind of leveling. Not saying it'll be better, but that's the strategy now.
Physical damage is *resisted* by enemies. You mean that some enemies in Origins and DA2 were potentially IMMUNE to certain damage types (which was a problem). Granted, there were weapons in DA2 that converted melee and ranged damage into a magical damage type, so you could also run up against that problem on a non-mage.
If the *immunity* problem isn't there (and they don't have situations where you're fighting 6 different types of enemies all of which are immune or highly resistant to a different damage type), then it shouldn't be a big deal. You set your loadout when you get to the area, run the area, get to a new area, reconnoiter, reset your loadout. Sounds like actual fun to me.
Now, if they wanted to be REALLY awesome they'd let you save several different loadouts so that switching would be just a matter of picking one from a list . . .
It'll be annoying if there isn't a UI "save this loadout" option, yes. Having to manually select your loadout every dang time will suck. Being able to pre-make several different ones could actually be a lot of fun. I love optimizing things like that--as long as they're "set and forget". If I have to fiddle with it EVERY SINGLE TIME then I will get annoyed.
Yep, yep, yep
My OCD isn't going to make it any easier for me
*clickclicklickclickclickwhyclickstopalreadyclick*
Guest_Doctor Whom_*
This is honestly ridiculous.
I'll buy your game in a bargain bin a year from now after someone figures out a mod that fixes this bs.
Exactly, after people had already placed their pre-orders.
So cancel it whats the big deal. I don't like the decision but they clearly have a marketing plan that is more circumspect than previous games, no need for conspiracy theories.
Mike seems very "look how we're nice we're telling you beforehand" when people were asking them for months if the PC UI would bet the console treatement, and no answer was given.
So no, I won't thank them.
And we're not asking you to.
But you do seem very upset over this. And I kinda wonder why. BioWare's told you what it can, when it can.
Considering mages were overpowered in the previous games, I don't see a problem with nerfing mages a bit.
I said "leaning more toward" action RPG. Moreso than the past titles. That doesn't make it a pure action RPG, but they designed the game so you can play it that way much more easily if you want to than DA2 or DA:O.
Agein, not really. Action rpgs are based around player skill over stats. Stats are very passive in what they do in an action rpg. DA2 does not even begin to do that. How effective an attack, ability, and how you resist or avoid attacks is 100% based on stats. It would only start to let toward an action rpg in some of the thing stats controlled where put in the hands of the player to control, like chances of hitting the target. It has not.
You can hate the reasoning and the explanation (which is fine). But it's not some grand conspiracy.
You're right, it's just bad design.
It restricts gameplay options and has no logical in-game explanation; it's bad.
Guest_Puddi III_*
This is part of the challenge of explaining things. Mike did explain it. The original implementation was actually more restrictive about where/when you could change your abilities.
You can hate the reasoning and the explanation (which is fine). But it's not some grand conspiracy.
He explained it in his clarification tweet, but the original response of "32 is a lot" doesn't really get to the heart of the question people wanted to know. We wanted to know why it was reduced, not be given a reassurance to look on the bright side.
Ability restriction in combat but not out of combat just does not make any sense.
It is like saying a martial artist can only use 8 martial art moves in fighting. It is like saying an archer can only use 8 methods to fire their arrows and move around. It is like saying that sword and shield fighters can only use 8 block and parry moves when fighting. It is like saying a spellcaster can only use 8 spells out of the ones they learned. It is like a saying a student studied their arse off for a test and then somehow during the test, can only remember 8 facts and 8 equations.
What the hell ?
What kind of a foolish idiot would spend their time training, learning and mastering their chose combat styles, be it spell or sword or bow, only to forget all of them except 8 when fighting ?
What were Bioware genuinely thinking when they made this decision ? Were they even thinking at all ?
I'm more upset that they have made my main character mentally disabled in combat and only can remember how to do 8 of the abilities I have worked hard to level and teach.
If you choose to play a mentally disabled Inquisitor, that's your prerogative.
I choose to play a more strategic Inquisitor who simply brings the tools he or she needs to to a fight instead.
One would assume that with the design choice of 8 abilities the mages were rebuild from the ground up to work with this system. And BioWare even confirmed before that no ability from the past games was guaranteed to be in DAI as they looked at every ability and basically rebuild the classes.This could be really painful for mages, especially.
Which for KB+M is three months before release apparently, even though we started seeing controller gameplay a full year ago.
We saw footage but we didn't know we couldn't select anything from the radial menu until a week ago or so.
DAO mages would be equally OP if limited to 8 spells. It wasn't the # of spells but rather their effects that made mages so OP.
I know that, but this was in response to someone who thinks this, in addition to focus, is to gimp mages. I personally think they'll still be crazy powerful, so I don't see that logic at all, but yeah.
Ugh. If I wanted to quibble over a team sheet before a game I'd play Football Manager or Total War. This has tedium and min-maxing written all over it.
I wouldn't be so angry if it wasn't three months away from release and only noticed as a footnote on a single screenshot.
This is potentially the biggest gameplay change from the previous games to many players, and we haven't been told about it whatsoever.
The game doesn't come out for another three months. You have lost nothing. Calm down, get a good night's sleep, and then decide if the game is for you or not.
This is part of the challenge of explaining things. Mike did explain it. The original implementation was actually more restrictive about where/when you could change your abilities.
You can hate the reasoning and the explanation (which is fine). But it's not some grand conspiracy.
I understand what you're trying to achieve here, but... having to swop out abilities between fights to tailor them to specific oppositions sounds like it could get tedious after a while. Not to mention I just don't see the logic in it.
I simply don't see the benefits outweighing the way it was handled in previous games.
The issue isn't the UI itself, it looks fine. The issue is all the screen size and we're supposed to believe that this limitation was neccessary across all platforms? This was a design decision. A terrible one. And I want to know why.
They've explained why, its still a poor game decision decision so criticise it on that basis.
Mike seems very "look how we're nice we're telling you beforehand" when people were asking them for months if the PC UI would bet the console treatement, and no answer was given.
So no, I won't thank them.
What kind of console treatment have you been asking about for months? Consoles just found out that they're limited to 8 as well.
Looks great, I love the feeling of it being strategy turn-based. The character rings are a nice touch too, reminds me of Origins, definitely. The 8 hot slots is good enough for me, as I imagine you will still be able to go into a tactics tab and select other abilities right? And if not, I guess that is what mods are for... Also please tell me that holding down the tab key to highlight objects is not back... my biggest pet peeve in Origins.
He explained it in his clarification tweet, but the original response of "32 is a lot" doesn't really get to the heart of the question people wanted to know. We wanted to know why it was reduced, not be given a reassurance to look on the bright side.
The joys of working with 140 characters.
This is honestly ridiculous.
I'll buy your game in a bargain bin a year from now after someone figures out a mod that fixes this bs.
You keep on saying this kind of thing but you still haven't stated a reason other than 'Grr, I'm angry about this one thing'. Why is that enough to cancel a pre-order?
Retour en haut
