1120 réponses à ce sujet

[falconlord5]

Gimping a UI being portrayed as a good thing..I think I've seen it all now. 

 

I object to the idea that is a 'gimped' UI. It's streamlined, efficient, with easy to read icons and mapped controls.

 

All the information you require is there, readily accessible. That you have to put a little more thought into your loadouts and tactics does not a 'gimped' UI make.

[Sylvius the Mad]

as to clear up the confusion about the abilities for eight slots, that's only to keep the whole UI looking nice and clear from the perspective of a player. you can change your abilities while you're out of combat, but not in the combat.

the tab offers you a list of items and maps etc etc to bring up while outside of combat. that's why it's so clean and neat. and I'm saying this as a player. don't blame the consoles for that, this was also designed to play with controllers for PC, so they will be same as on Consoles. the UI layout for PC and on consoles are going to be very similar.

This is Based on Knights of The Old Republic's old RPG Mechanics and its Eight Slots. they are bringing back the old RPG setup that made BioWare famous for.

KotOR was famois for its UI? The UI that didn't scale with screen resolution? The UI wherein we did actually have access to all of our abilities during combat?

How is this like KotOR's? The 8 ability restriction (or any ability restriction) wasn't in KotOR.

[aaarcher86]

We've seen the Inquisitor fighting a group of mages and templars fighting each other

They've told us of seeing even wild animals in the same location sometimes fighting each other

In the recent demos they fought avaars and demons, tevinter fighters and demons and mages

Good luck trying to find a perfect combo for such encounters, which shouldn't be rare unless of course enemies suddenly got a restriction order to not approach other enemies while the player is fighting them

 

And several of those encounters you had prior knowledge of what you were going up against.  They weren't chance encounters. 

 

Hell, the Fallow Mire we had our scout tell us about the undead, Redcliffe castle we knew we were going to fight off crazed mages, and crestwood I have no idea if we knew the red templars were there in advance but we certainly did when we saw the boats which gave us enough time to equip the desired abilities.

[SofaJockey]

Also, back to Mike Laidlaw quote that the party has 32 skills.

 

In DA2, I know many people mainly played their main character and the other three ran around and did some AI hitting/casting.

 

The abilities of the whole team (including the cross-class combos) now become much more important.

[AresKeith]

Yeah, I was really sad when I read the tweet from Mike. It's like an old friend died or something.

 

 

Ah, the overreaction of certain gamers

[In Exile]

They HAVE explained why. They HAVE justified it.

It's because they wanted to make DA:I into a more tactical game where you have to really think about strategy and how you go about combat.

The problem isn't that they haven't explained it.

The problem is you simply DON'T LIKE their explanation.

And... to that there's nothing to say other than then either get over it or don't buy the game. Raging at the devs isn't going to get them to magically change their minds and rebuild the entire game the way you want them to.

They haven't explained it. They said it.

They didn't tell us about any abilities. They didn't show us mechanics. We don't know what kind of builds are possible. We haven't seen how we can switch for an encounter.

All Bioware said is that this change is for the sake of making something more tactical.

[seraphymon]

Because there's only so many resources to put into the game. Because maybe two people used a 2-handed sword wielding rogue, so BioWare looked at that and said "That's something we can cut, so that we can focus on ______". Because people didn't like the wave mechanic of DA2, so they took that feedback and decided to try something different in DA:I.

 

Because you will never - NEVER, NOT EVER, NOT EVER EVER EVER - make "everyone" happy.

Duh thats the excuse for everything. Its very true. Same as not being able to make everyone happy. But I feel that given the resources, they dont make the best implementation choices. You cant judge how many people used a two handed rogue or dual wield warrior. The only reason they limited it was DA2s budget and the avoidance of overlapping. DAI there was no excuse for it except for perhaps because of MP.

[ianvillan]

@__@ 

 

I really can't explain it any plainer.  Whether it's against templars, undead, or bandits... a basic go to group of attacks should suffice to survive.  It doesn't mean it's optimal, which is why the planning comes in.  If you can't piece together that a group of templars with swords and shields will require different overall thinking than a group of mercs with dual wielding daggers and archer combos, I can't help you.  It doesn't mean that the basic attack set won't work, but differently. 

 

If you know you're going to Redcliffe to fight mages, equip accordingly. 

 

What about Red Templars that turn into Abominations, two very different types of enemy that need two different types of tactics and abilities.

[aaarcher86]

What about Red Templars that turn into Abominations, two very different types of enemy that need two different types of tactics and abilities.

 

Do we even know that exists?

[Chari]

@__@ 

 

I really can't explain it any plainer.  Whether it's against templars, undead, or bandits... a basic go to group of attacks should suffice to survive.  It doesn't mean it's optimal, which is why the planning comes in.  If you can't piece together that a group of templars with swords and shields will require different overall thinking than a group of mercs with dual wielding daggers and archer combos, I can't help you.  It doesn't mean that the basic attack set won't work, but differently. 

 

If you know you're going to Redcliffe to fight mages, equip accordingly. 

As I said before, we'll definitelly fight diffirent types of enemies at the same time from time to time. Maybe there will be like a minute of walking from one group to another, but I ain't going to change my slots every time. That's just ****** annoying

 

If you're really worried about surprise encounters and ambushes, go for a broad skillset. Make sure each companion has a weapon with a different elemental effect.

But what if I want to have specific characters with me? For story reasons? It's already annoying to always have a rogue with you... now this, ugh

 

YOU used a dragon battle as an example.  A group of bandits could be a surprise encounter.  I don't think the larger enemies like a dragon will be a surprise, but if they are, you have the ability to disengage. 

Welp, they called it a surprise encounter so I expected... a surprise encounter. Like dragons in Skyrim sometimes, appearing almost out of nowhere and sometimes just flying around like it's a mating season while you shiver and hide your pathetic hide under some tree in hope they don't notice you that's if you're not an archer or a mage, cuz then you just shoot them down like pigeons

[CronoDragoon]

What about Red Templars that turn into Abominations, two very different types of enemy that need two different types of tactics and abilities.

 

That require more than 32 abilities? Doubtful.

[falconlord5]

We've seen the Inquisitor fighting a group of mages and templars fighting each other

They've told us of seeing even wild animals in the same location sometimes fighting each other

In the recent demos they fought avaars and demons, tevinter fighters and demons and mages

Good luck trying to find a perfect combo for such encounters, which shouldn't be rare unless of course enemies suddenly got a restriction order to not approach other enemies while the player is fighting them

 

Depends on what their weaknesses are.

 

Do Templars and Mages share elemental weaknesses?

Do wild animals?

Do demons and Mages?

Or do they share them across groups, like all Avvar barbarians, regardless of class, share the same weakness?

Are they fighting close together? 'Cause a good AOE attack will settle that one right quick.

 

Of course, what I'd do is make sure that my team had reliable, effective abilities that can be used in a variety of situations, with weapons with different elemental abilities to cover each other's weaknesses.

 

Going back to Pokémon team-building 101. Which is good, 'cause my skills there are rusty.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maybe you didn't have a problem using the radial during combat without pausing, but it seems that they now are unwilling to make players use a radial menu in a circumstance where the game can't be paused.

But it can be paused. There's no single-player circumstance under which the game can't be paused.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Having 8 abilities is ridiculous to be able to plan properly and I don't know how Bioware can say it makes the game more tactical.

It does make it more tactical.

In the same way limiting us to two abilities would make it more tactical. Gotta think more and use all the strategeries available to get by!

The problem is that is the laziest way to make something more "tactical". Honestly the tactical excuse feels like an obvious spin explanation.

[falconlord5]

But what if I want to have specific characters with me? For story reasons? It's already annoying to always have a rogue with you... now this, ugh

 

Make sure you kit them out appropriately?

 

You do know that you can change a companion's weapons, right?

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's just one way to fight Red Templars optimally, which I don't find to be different than other strategic games. There's a preferred way and alternatives, just like this game.

So we'll switch among the alternatives between encounters.

That's a lot of switching.

[Chari]

And several of those encounters you had prior knowledge of what you were going up against.  They weren't chance encounters. 

 

Hell, the Fallow Mire we had our scout tell us about the undead, Redcliffe castle we knew we were going to fight off crazed mages, and crestwood I have no idea if we knew the red templars were there in advance but we certainly did when we saw the boats which gave us enough time to equip the desired abilities.

So from one extreme to another

In DA2 the sky literally pooped enemies at our heads

Now we'll know every enemy before we even know they're there

Ugh, that was crazy, this is boring

Why not like DA:O and ME in general? Enemies don't just appear out of nowhere but still can catch us unaware?

Sides, as I said before - I'm not going to change my slots every time I know a battle is coming. There will be lots of battles, and not with my OCD and general impatience

[aaarcher86]

As I said before, we'll definitelly fight diffirent types of enemies at the same time from time to time. Maybe there will be like a minute of walking from one group to another, but I ain't going to change my slots every time. That's just ****** annoying

 

 

But what if I want to have specific characters with me? For story reasons? It's already annoying to always have a rogue with you... now this, ugh

 

Welp, they called it a surprise encounter so I expected... a surprise encounter. Like dragons in Skyrim sometimes, appearing almost out of nowhere and sometimes just flying around like it's a mating season while you shiver and hide your pathetic hide under some tree in hope they don't notice you that's if you're not an archer or a mage, cuz then you just shoot them down like pigeons

 

I don't think you'll have to change your abilities up for waves of different enemies at the same time.  It's not impossible to work with the 8 mapped abilities.  It is harder.  You'll need to use your companions as well. 

 

The dragon was a surprise encounter because you didn't plan on seeing it.  You were on a mission to kill the dragon.  And then boom, there it was.  It doesn't mean the purpose is defeated because it isn't instant. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm sure there are multiple ways. But if you find that certain skills are the best route to killing them, I doubt you're going to map the second best skills.

I'll map the skills that are fun and interesting and in-character for my PC.

Optimal combat effectiveness is never my objective.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Duh thats the excuse for everything. Its very true. Same as not being able to make everyone happy. But I feel that given the resources, they dont make the best implementation choices. You cant judge how many people used a two handed rogue or dual wield warrior. The only reason they limited it was DA2s budget and the avoidance of overlapping. DAI there was no excuse for it except for perhaps because of MP.

There are reasons why. They've said reasons why. If you choose to ignore those reasons why, then that's your issue.

 

It's not because of MP. It's not because of consoles. It's because that's the design decisions they made for the games they are making. Weapons are more inherently tied to specific classes. Skills are more tied to those specific weapons. 

 

It makes sense. You simply don't like it. And that's FINE.

 

But stop pretending that they haven't told you why. Or that it's all MP's fault.

[Joseph Warrick]

I can't really find an in-game reason to make sense of the limitation.

 

"We need to distract that mage, Varric"

"..."

"Why don't you use your flasks or something?"

"I don't know, all I can think of at the moment is how to unlock doors!"

"Crap, I forgot to reprogram you after getting into the warrens!"

 

[CronoDragoon]

If they were honest it would be different. I just don't like having my intelligence insulted. If you're casualizing your game, just say that. At least then we wouldn't waste our time and then have our feelings hurt.

 

Casualizing the game would be turning an ability limited game into one where you could use all your abilities.

 

Oh my god they are dumbing down strategic encounters!