Ce sujet est fermé
Maybe it's not possible to get ambushed in Inquisition. Or maybe the game auto-pauses whenever your hotbar isn't full.
It's not at all unusual in tabletop games, which is usually my basis for comparison.
It was not that way when I played DnD. I had a spell book and could memorize only a certain number of my total spells per day before resting. I had a huge spell book and I could use only a handful of them through most of the time we played.
Ah, this is the first time I've heard tabletop gamers referred to as the master race.You do realize we get RPGs like this at all, because the 'master race'?
Oooooh shiny
as for the 8 abilities, since i dont play mages i usually dont even have 8 abilities to choose from 
I am disappointed with the limit of 8 abilities. That's generally a good number for warrior and rogues, but unless they seriously changed how they designed the mage skill trees - to be more passives and upgrades instead of just new spells, like in previous DA games - it is worrisome to me.
I feel like this is part of their move to make it easier for them to design tactical gameplay - along with limited healing.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
The latter, surely. Pausing while on the character build screen is pretty nearly universal in Bio games, and you usually pause on inventory access too. Unless the design goal is to make you handle ambushes without optimized abilities, in which case they might want switching abilities in combat to be suicidal.
I'm pretty sure Sylvius isn't talking about when you're in a menu, but rather when the fight STARTS.
If your hotbar is not full, will the game push you into a fight without letting you modify it as the encounter begins? If so, then it's a huge problem.
I'm reminded of In Exile's comments about BG and the trial-and-error combat of that series. This sounds like the same thing, and it sounds terrible (at least, as far as I understand, that sort of had an in-universe explanation--you need scrolls or something. This version is completely unfounded).
I'm pretty sure Sylvius isn't talking about when you're in a menu, but rather when the fight STARTS.
If your hotbar is not full, will the game push you into a fight without letting you modify it as the encounter begins? If so, then it's a huge problem.
I'm reminded of In Exile's comments about BG and the trial-and-error combat of that series. This sounds like the same thing, and it sounds terrible (at least, as far as I understand, that sort of had an in-universe explanation--you need scrolls or something. This version is completely unfounded).
Well at least now you can flee /disengage from fights...
So yeah in case things turns sour , and you don't have the right spells in your quickback , you run away , redo your quickbar , re engage the fight.
IMHO that's not strategy , it's just a waste of everyone's time but whatever.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
It was not that way when I played DnD. I had a spell book and could memorize only a certain number of my total spells per day before resting. I had a huge spell book and I could use only a handful of them through most of the time we played.
I remember this as well.
I'm reminded of In Exile's comments about BG and the trial-and-error combat of that series. This sounds like the same thing, and it sounds terrible (at least, as far as I understand, that sort of had an in-universe explanation--you need scrolls or something. This version is completely unfounded).
BG's "in-universe explanation" is just as weak. You need scrolls, then you spend a night reading the scroll and memorizing the spell. You have a finite amount of memorization slots, and each spell can only be cast a certain amount of times per day. If you want to learn different spells, you need to "forget" old spells. Even dumber is that if you want to have more casts of the same spell, you need to use up multiple memorization slots.
I don't know why people need an in-universe explanation for every gameplay mechanic, because many of them have no realistic explanations. They're purely a gameplay thing.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
BG's "in-universe explanation" is just as weak. You need scrolls, then you spend a night reading the scroll and memorizing the spell. You have a finite amount of memorization slots, and each spell can only be cast a certain amount of times per day. If you want to learn different spells, you need to "forget" old spells. Even dumber is that if you want to have more casts of the same spell, you need to use up multiple memorization slots.
I don't know why people need an in-universe explanation for every gameplay mechanic, because many of them have no realistic explanations. They're purely a gameplay thing.
An in-universe explanation can help people get past the "it's stupid" aspect of a design decision.
There's no in-universe explanation for this one, so I'm finding it difficult to get past that aspect, myself.
I'm reminded of In Exile's comments about BG and the trial-and-error combat of that series. This sounds like the same thing, and it sounds terrible (at least, as far as I understand, that sort of had an in-universe explanation--you need scrolls or something. This version is completely unfounded).
At worst it'll be trial and error the first time or two you fight a mob, then you'll know its weaknesses and how to fight it. Since it appears Inquisition will warn you what enemies frequent what zones, I don't think this'll be a huge issue.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
At worst it'll be trial and error the first time or two you fight a mob, then you'll know its weaknesses and how to fight it. Since it appears Inquisition will warn you what enemies frequent what zones, I don't think this'll be a huge issue.
Hopefully so.
An in-universe explanation can help people get past the "it's stupid" aspect of a design decision.
There's no in-universe explanation for this one, so I'm finding it difficult to get past that aspect, myself.
There's no in-universe explanation for ability cooldowns, or why we can carry a crap ton of equipment that would be impossible in real life, or how we can survive attacks that would definitely kill you for real, or that we can apparently traipse around the country in hours. But no one complains about those...
It was not that way when I played DnD. I had a spell book and could memorize only a certain number of my total spells per day before resting. I had a huge spell book and I could use only a handful of them through most of the time we played.
I'm pretty sure Sylvius isn't talking about when you're in a menu, but rather when the fight STARTS.
If your hotbar is not full, will the game push you into a fight without letting you modify it as the encounter begins? If so, then it's a huge problem.
I'm reminded of In Exile's comments about BG and the trial-and-error combat of that series. This sounds like the same thing, and it sounds terrible (at least, as far as I understand, that sort of had an in-universe explanation--you need scrolls or something. This version is completely unfounded).
BG2 is all about knowing what kind of spells you need to beat the random assortment of wizard resistances that you end up seeing during the game.
DA:I sounds like it could be similar with an 8 ability limit - the [Insert Enemy Name]that can 1-hit KO someone is vulnerable to cold spells but only if dazed first and then hit by a "knockdown" physical attack but you ended up only bringing fire spells - which will be less about tactics/strategy and more about memory and save scumming.
One other interesting aspect of the limited slots is the variety it could lend to an unbalanced party (hmm, all rogue party perhaps 
). You could potentially have very different characters all within the same class, unlike DAO where you basically had archer and dual-wield melee. DA2 had a bit more variety, but I'm kind of intrigued by the prospect of setting up vastly different characters within the same class.
I'm pretty sure Sylvius isn't talking about when you're in a menu, but rather when the fight STARTS.
If your hotbar is not full, will the game push you into a fight without letting you modify it as the encounter begins? If so, then it's a huge problem.
It was not that way when I played DnD. I had a spell book and could memorize only a certain number of my total spells per day before resting. I had a huge spell book and I could use only a handful of them through most of the time we played.
That was true for some casting classes in some editions of that one particular game.
Or, we could look at tabletop game systems which didn't do that.
How would a player ever get himself into that situation, though? There's something I'm not following.
You've never misclicked something?
If I'm exploring, I might want different abilities handy. I might have accidentally removed some things while rearranging icons and haven't gotten around to fixing it yet (this happened all the time in DAO, but DAO let me repopulate the hotbar during combat, or cast spells straight from the talent page).
There's no in-universe explanation for ability cooldowns, or why we can carry a crap ton of equipment that would be impossible in real life, or how we can survive attacks that would definitely kill you for real, or that we can apparently traipse around the country in hours. But no one complains about those...
I do. Well, most of them.
I'd like gear to have both mass and volume. I'd like cooldowns explained. I don't care about the damage issue because this isn't real life - it's a fictional setting with its own rules. As long as those rules are applied consistently (which means no gameplay/lore segregation), I'm fine.
BG2 is all about knowing what kind of spells you need to beat the random assortment of wizard resistances that you end up seeing during the game.
DA:I sounds like it could be similar with an 8 ability limit - the [Insert Enemy Name]that can 1-hit KO someone is vulnerable to cold spells but only if dazed first and then hit by a "knockdown" physical attack but you ended up only bringing fire spells - which will be less about tactics/strategy and more about memory and save scumming.
You've never misclicked something?
If I'm exploring, I might want different abilities handy. I might have accidentally removed some things while rearranging icons and haven't gotten around to fixing it yet (this happened all the time in DAO, but DAO let me repopulate the hotbar during combat, or cast spells straight from the talent page).
I see the concern, but I think it's (sadly) unwarranted because it's unlikely we'll get exploration specific abilities. Abilities seem to be combat exclusive.
That is a valid concern. I had that problem more than once in DAO. I wonder if there is a way to temporarily lock the hotbar (there was in DAO) so that doesn't happen as much. I did still accidentally unlock it a delete something a couple to times, but it happened less when I remembered to lock it.
I see the concern, but I think it's (sadly) unwarranted because it's unlikely we'll get exploration specific abilities. Abilities seem to be combat exclusive.
They've gone on and on about how important exploration is in this game. Do they think exploration is just wandering around?
Retour en haut