322 réponses à ce sujet

[Alodar]

They need to. If they can write a detailed post about the last 2 romances they should write one about a change of this magnitude, a change that appears to contradict their mantra for this game about customisation and choice.

I disagree.


As much as I dislike this decision BioWare doesn't owe us any explanation.
It is their game -- they can make whatever design decisions that they want.
If we don't like those design decisions we can choose to buy or not buy the game but they don't owe us anything.


BioWare bears the financial and creative risk with this project -- not us.
As such we don't get a seat at the table when it comes to decisions. We need not be consulted nor are we owed explanations.

What we can do is provide them feedback in these forums -- constructive feedback on why we don't like the decision or how it impacts our play.
If our arguments are constructive and well reasoned it might even impact the next game that they design -- it is far too late for this game.

I have stated my reasons for disliking this choice:

1) It is less strategic (Strategy is long range planning and this nullifies the strategy you employed when you picked your abilities.)
2) It is less tactical (It removes tactical options and is therefore less tactical by definition)
3) There is no in game reason why our characters would not use every ability they know to save themselves or a city or the world. (This is my biggest concern because I've come up with no way to roleplay this restriction.)

But that is all I can do.
BioWare doesn't need to explain or even acknowledge this thread.
It is their game.

To make an informed purchase I am however hoping for an answer to the original question:

Will the tactics system allow us to circumvent this restriction?

As it stands now, I'll have to wait until some clever forumite figures out how to mod Frosbite 3 and extend the current hotbar to enjoy this game. (I know this limitation is trivial to many, but verisimilitude is essential to my play style. With no in game reason for this I would have to stop playing as soon as I got my 9th active ability.)

If the tactics system allows me to get around this then I can work with that and enjoy this game from day 1.

So the question remains, what happens when we have tactics set up for an ability that is not on our hotbar?

[Morroian]

I disagree.


As much as I dislike this decision BioWare doesn't owe us any explanation.
It is their game -- they can make whatever design decisions that they want.
If we don't like those design decisions we can choose to buy or not buy the game but they don't owe us anything.

 

I'm not saying they have to just that it would be a good idea for them to do so.

 

 

I have stated my reasons for disliking this choice:

1) It is less strategic (Strategy is long range planning and this nullifies the strategy you employed when you picked your abilities.)
2) It is less tactical (It removes tactical options and is therefore less tactical by definition)
3) There is no in game reason why our characters would not use every ability they know to save themselves or a city or the world. (This is my biggest concern because I've come up with no way to roleplay this restriction.)

[...]
Will the tactics system allow us to circumvent this restriction?

 

I doubt it. If they do I actually wouldn't mind it so much.

 

As for your other points above, there is a strategic element in  choosing the right abilities for the situation but I agree it is less tactical and more importantly less fun. 

[In Exile]

1) It is less strategic (Strategy is long range planning and this nullifies the strategy you employed when you picked your abilities.)
2) It is less tactical (It removes tactical options and is therefore less tactical by definition)
3) There is no in game reason why our characters would not use every ability they know to save themselves or a city or the world. (This is my biggest concern because I've come up with no way to roleplay this restriction.)

 

That doesn't make sense. The greater the limitation, the stronger the focus on strategy - you have to plan in advance when your options are limited. You're certainly right about tactics, but the strategy criticism is off. 

[bazzag]

I can see how this may annoy people who are very into tactical gameplay, but from my own perspective, im not fussed over the decision (at the moment) as i generally just let the Ai give my companions their tactics and let them get on with it. I may add 1 or 2 things here and there but for the most part, i let em handle themselves.

[Alodar]

That doesn't make sense. The greater the limitation, the stronger the focus on strategy - you have to plan in advance when your options are limited. You're certainly right about tactics, but the strategy criticism is off. 

 

 

Strategy, by definition, is long range planning; what allies to build, what enemies to make, what alliances to forge,  and what resources to cultivate.

Tactics are the methods you use to achieve your over-all strategy.

 

 

Part of building those resources occurs when you choose abilities for you characters. The strategy you use to choose those abilities determines what and who your characters can be effective against. For example if your strategy was to choose only fire spells for mages, then that strategy would fail if your forces encountered fire resistant creatures. A very effective strategy would be to choose many different kinds of damage spells and many different kinds of crowd control so your forces would always have winning tactics available to them.

 

 

The artificial limitation of 8 active abilities per encounter does not offer any additional strategy whatsoever.

 

 

The choice of should I fight with one eye closed or one hand behind my back is not a strategic choice.

[AlanC9]

The choice of should I fight with one eye closed or one hand behind my back is not a strategic choice.

Right. It's a tactical choice, going by your own terminology.

Did you maybe mean to say that it isn't a tactical choice?

[In Exile]

Strategy, by definition, is long range planning; what allies to build, what enemies to make, what alliances to forge,  and what resources to cultivate.

Tactics are the methods you use to achieve your over-all strategy.

 

 

Part of building those resources occurs when you choose abilities for you characters. The strategy you use to choose those abilities determines what and who your characters can be effective against. For example if your strategy was to choose only fire spells for mages, then that strategy would fail if your forces encountered fire resistant creatures. A very effective strategy would be to choose many different kinds of damage spells and many different kinds of crowd control so your forces would always have winning tactics available to them.

 

 

The artificial limitation of 8 active abilities per encounter does not offer any additional strategy whatsoever.

 

 

The choice of should I fight with one eye closed or one hand behind my back is not a strategic choice.

 

You're completely wrong. Take the real world: you can't carry an infinite number of guns with you. You can't carry infinite ammunition. And yet the choices that you make in respect of arms and armour are most certainly strategic. 

 

The notion that a limit on the number of things you can use somehow obviates strategy is just pure nonsense. 

 

Your (strategic) choices simply have to balance one more decision variable: that you have a limited carry limit and will have to trade off abilities in the future, none of which are available once you've completed you've engaged in combat. 

 

The fact that you can't choose between every single DPS ability and every single CC ability means that you must make strategic choices as to whether or not to specialize, what other characters to pair with to cover for weaknesses, etc. 

[Avaflame]

You're completely wrong. Take the real world: you can't carry an infinite number of guns with you. You can't carry infinite ammunition. And yet the choices that you make in respect of arms and armour are most certainly strategic. 

 

The notion that a limit on the number of things you can use somehow obviates strategy is just pure nonsense. 

 

Your (strategic) choices simply have to balance one more decision variable: that you have a limited carry limit and will have to trade off abilities in the future, none of which are available once you've completed you've engaged in combat. 

 

The fact that you can't choose between every single DPS ability and every single CC ability means that you must make strategic choices as to whether or not to specialize, what other characters to pair with to cover for weaknesses, etc. 

This. I'm not saying I approve or like the direction they've taken, but you can't viably say that it makes your planning less strategic, because it's simply not true. You're going to have be more careful with what abilities you collect and which ones you use for which fight, which is going to force to be more strategic in the way you approach encounters. I personally don't like this change, but it doesn't change what it is.

[KoorahUK]

If you could use tactics to circumvent the design choice of an 8 ability limit, there woud be absolutely zero point of enforcing an 8 ability limit. For the sake of Biowares own credibility, I hope tactics cannot bypass it because if it does it means that the design was purely to make actually playing the game physically more difficult that just letting AI do it.  

 

Honestly, I feel some ambivalence to this change. I initially reacted with a "wut?" like most folks, but then I learned how drastically they had overhauled the combat mechanics and thought "well maybe it makes sense, until I play I can't tell"

 

I'm not going to make sweeping judgements about whether it improves or stifles tactical or strategic gameplay without playing the game and looking at ALL the mechanics, limited healing and abilities included, holistically. Taking one aspect of gameplay design choice, comparing it to how it would have affected gameplay in other games, and assuming that gameplay is detrimentally affected in this game as a result is a flawed premise in my opinion. 

It might well turn out to be correct, but I want to experience the game first before making judgements.

[Alodar]

You're completely wrong. Take the real world: you can't carry an infinite number of guns with you. You can't carry infinite ammunition. And yet the choices that you make in respect of arms and armour are most certainly strategic. 

 

The notion that a limit on the number of things you can use somehow obviates strategy is just pure nonsense. 

 

Your (strategic) choices simply have to balance one more decision variable: that you have a limited carry limit and will have to trade off abilities in the future, none of which are available once you've completed you've engaged in combat. 

 

The fact that you can't choose between every single DPS ability and every single CC ability means that you must make strategic choices as to whether or not to specialize, what other characters to pair with to cover for weaknesses, etc. 

 

Strawman argument is strawman -- it is never a choice between every single DPS spell and every single CC ability in the game and 8 you are limited to per battle.

 

 

That you don't like the definition of strategy is not something I can help you with.

Strategy is what it is: the long range building of resources. Those resources can be allies or land or crafting materials or abilities.

On level up when you pick your abilities you are building resources and consequently determining what tactics will be available later on.

Knowing that your  strategic choices will be arbitrarily unavailable in any given combat doesn't make picking them any more strategic in any way shape or form.

 

The forced removal of available tactics does not make a given combat any more or less strategic.

You don't use long term planning, ie strategy, in any given battle.

You use the tactics available to achieve your strategy.

The forced removal of available tactics simply makes it a less tactical experience.

 

The arbitrary restriction of 8 available abilities can make an encounter more challenging, however so can playing with your eyes closed so you can't see what you are clicking on.

 

Neither of those options makes any sense in game.

[AlanC9]

@ In Exile: you want to take the shot?  What the hell; I'm here already.

Strawman argument is strawman -- it is never a choice between every single DPS spell and every single CC ability in the game and 8 you are limited to per battle.

This doesn't make much sense. Why isn't it a choice between letting you use every ability and  letting you use only some of them? I thought Bio making that choice is what's getting your panties in a bunch.
 

That you don't like the definition of strategy is not something I can help you with.
Strategy is what it is: the long range building of resources. Those resources can be allies or land or crafting materials or abilities.
On level up when you pick your abilities you are building resources and consequently determining what tactics will be available later on.
Knowing that your  strategic choices will be arbitrarily unavailable in any given combat doesn't make picking them any more strategic in any way shape or form.

I'm not sure what point you're arguing against here, but it isn't the one that In Exile actually made. The argument was that a limit on the number of abilities doesn't reduce the strategic nature of the choices made when levelling up. I'll grant that this is an argument against a point that you didn't intend to make, but that's your fault for not being able to keep your own definitions of "tactical" and "strategic" straight, as I pointed out upthread.
 

You use the tactics available to achieve your strategy.
The forced removal of available tactics simply makes it a less tactical experience.

By "less tactical" you mean "having fewer abilities available"? Well, yeah, that's true; it's a tautology, no? I don't see the significance.
 

The arbitrary restriction of 8 available abilities can make an encounter more challenging, however so can playing with your eyes closed so you can't see what you are clicking on.
 
Neither of those options makes any sense in game.

You really shouldn't rely on "arbitrary" so much. All of the rules are arbitrary. If someone feels really bad about the limit I guess shouting "THIS IS ARBITRARY" can have some emotional force for him, but that bit of rhetoric's got no force if someone isn't already bothered by the limit.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

Strawman argument is strawman -- it is never a choice between every single DPS spell and every single CC ability in the game and 8 you are limited to per battle.

 

 

That you don't like the definition of strategy is not something I can help you with.

Strategy is what it is: the long range building of resources. Those resources can be allies or land or crafting materials or abilities.

On level up when you pick your abilities you are building resources and consequently determining what tactics will be available later on.

Knowing that your  strategic choices will be arbitrarily unavailable in any given combat doesn't make picking them any more strategic in any way shape or form.

 

The forced removal of available tactics does not make a given combat any more or less strategic.

You don't use long term planning, ie strategy, in any given battle.

You use the tactics available to achieve your strategy.

The forced removal of available tactics simply makes it a less tactical experience.

 

The arbitrary restriction of 8 available abilities can make an encounter more challenging, however so can playing with your eyes closed so you can't see what you are clicking on.

 

Neither of those options makes any sense in game.

Let me try and explain it to you this way. If you are facing a group of enemies (lets say 6 for arguments sake) and in your arsenal you have 4 fully loaded hanguns 3 sub machines guns fully loaded, a rocket launcher and 4 hand grenades, what do you think your overall strategy/ tactics are going to be? Fire as manty bullets as you can and hit them with absolutley everythying you have!

 

Now consider the same situation but you only have 1 handgun fully loaded 1 submachine gun fully loaded and 1 hand grenade. You canot tell me that this doesnt make your situation more difficult. You cannot use the same method for killing the enemy you did in the previous scenario. You have less ammo!

 

There was no real need for tactics in Dragon age origins. You just spammed every spell you had and chugged 15 potions untill either you or the other guy was dead. This time you cant do that. you have to pick and choose which spells you use. You have to use tactical planning. When to use a potion. Id rather have the second option than the first.

[Alodar]

The fact that you can't choose between every single DPS ability and every single CC ability means that you must make strategic choices as to whether or not to specialize, what other characters to pair with to cover for weaknesses, etc.

Strawman argument is strawman -- it is never a choice between every single DPS spell and every single CC ability in the game and 8 you are limited to per battle.

This doesn't make much sense. Why isn't it a choice between letting you use every ability and letting you use only some of them? I thought Bio making that choice is what's getting your panties in a bunch.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position and then argues against the distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version.

My actual position:
You should be able to use any skill that you picked at level up in every battle.


In Exile`s distortion/exaggeration/misrepresentation of my position:
The fact that you can't choose between every single DPS ability and every single CC ability means that you must make strategic choices


The game never hands you every single DPS ability and every single CC ability. It is never a choice between all spells in the game and the eight on your hotbar.

You must make strategic choices on level up as to whether or not to specialize, what other characters to pair with to cover for weaknesses, etc.

The arbitrary 8 restriction simply circumvents those strategic choices by forcing you to remove tactical options so you are less effective in battle.


 

I'm not sure what point you're arguing against here, but it isn't the one that In Exile actually made. The argument was that a limit on the number of abilities doesn't reduce the strategic nature of the choices made when levelling up.

It simply nullifies those strategic choices because it eliminates tactical options that employ them.
 

I'll grant that this is an argument against a point that you didn't intend to make, but that's your fault for not being able to keep your own definitions of "tactical" and "strategic" straight, as I pointed out upthread.

The definitions of strategy and tactics remain entirely unchanged.
Strategy is long term planning and building of resources.
Tactics are the methods you use to achieve that strategy.

When you choose what tactics aren't available due to the 8 active ability limitation it is not a strategic choice as it applies to the upcoming battle not long term.

It does nullify the strategy that you had when you built those resources but in and of itself is not a strategic choice.


 

By "less tactical" you mean "having fewer abilities available"? Well, yeah, that's true; it's a tautology, no? I don't see the significance.

By "less tactical" I mean having fewer tactical options available. Yes that is true. It is significant in that people are arguing that having less tactical options somehow makes it a more tactical experience. It is less tactical by definition.

 

You really shouldn't rely on "arbitrary" so much. All of the rules are arbitrary. If someone feels really bad about the limit I guess shouting "THIS IS ARBITRARY" can have some emotional force for him, but that bit of rhetoric's got no force if someone isn't already bothered by the limit.

That 8 is an arbitrary number is not a rallying cry for those that hate all things arbitrary. If it makes you feel better I'll switch up arbitrary with nonsensical from time to time.

 

As for those comparing this limitation to inventory limitations or carrying capacity limitations the circumstances are simply not analogous.

These abilities are skills that you know not things that you carry. In game if there is a demon attempting to kill a child what possible reason do you have that a fighter would not leap over to stop the demon just because his gap closer is not on his hotbar.

There is absolutely no in game reason why characters would not use all the skills that they have learned to save themselves or a village or the world.

 

Which brings me back to the point of this thread:

Can I use tactics to circumvent this nonsensical limitation?
If not what happens when a character has tactics set up for an ability that is not on his hotbar?
If they do nothing or the tactics are just skipped what is the interface for the micro-managing we will have to employ to re-configure the tactics for each NPC every time we switch out an ability from the hot bar?

[In Exile]

Strawman argument is strawman -- it is never a choice between every single DPS spell and every single CC ability in the game and 8 you are limited to per battle.

 

Neither of those options makes any sense in game.

 

It's not a strawman. At worst, it's poor grammar. I should have said (to be clear), choosing between every single DPS spell that you have and every single CC ability that you have. I didn't, and to the extent you misunderstood because I was unclear, I apologize. 

 

But the point stands: the fact that you have a pool of total abilities you can pick from, but you have only access to some of those abilities, does not somehow obviate strategy. That is the very essence of strategy. 

 

The act of choosing between them - predicated on your knowledge of future encounters, the composition of your party, the relative trade-offs between the abilities themselves - is the literal definition of strategy. 

 

Strategy is what it is: the long range building of resources. Those resources can be allies or land or crafting materials or abilities.

On level up when you pick your abilities you are building resources and consequently determining what tactics will be available later on.

Knowing that your  strategic choices will be arbitrarily unavailable in any given combat doesn't make picking them any more strategic in any way shape or form.

 

And on "ability selection" you pick the abilities you have immediately available, determining what tactics you have later on. There's absolutely no distinction here. 

 

 

The forced removal of available tactics does not make a given combat any more or less strategic.

You don't use long term planning, ie strategy, in any given battle.

You use the tactics available to achieve your strategy.

The forced removal of available tactics simply makes it a less tactical experience.

 

The arbitrary restriction of 8 available abilities can make an encounter more challenging, however so can playing with your eyes closed so you can't see what you are clicking on.

 

Neither of those options makes any sense in game.

 

 

Again, this position is gibberish. The more restrained and limited your options, and the more levels of choice that there are, the more of an emphasis there is on long-term planning and informed decision-making. 

[In Exile]

My actual position:You should be able to use any skill that you picked at level up in every battle.

 

That's not your position. Your position is that it is less strategic if these abilities that you picked are not all simultaneously available in combat. That's the position I attacked: that a second level of choice between level-up and combat does not reduce strategy, any more than choosing to build a certain proportion of tanks and airplanes is made less strategic by the fact that you only have the military resources to actively deploy a subset of that total proportion built at any time. 

[Alodar]

My actual position :You should be able to use any skill that you picked at level up in every battle.

That's not your position. Your position is that it is less strategic if these abilities that you picked are not all simultaneously available in combat. That's the position I attacked: that a second level of choice between level-up and combat does not reduce strategy, any more than choosing to build a certain proportion of tanks and airplanes is made less strategic by the fact that you only have the military resources to actively deploy a subset of that total proportion built at any time.

I'm pretty sure it is my position, because, you know, it's my position.

Along they way folks have argued against this position by claiming that this limitation is more strategic or tactical and I have countered with the actual meaning of the words, and pointed out how it is neither.

You are using strategy to mean something different than its definition.

Strategy is long term planning.
The tactics you choose to employ in an upcoming battle are tactical choices, not strategic.

Your military analogy is about stuff, not skills. Building extra stuff is a good strategy because that stuff can be damaged or destroyed. Learning things that you are arbitrarily prevented from using circumvents the strategy that you employed when chose to devote resources to learning those things.

 

It would be the equivalent of learning to be fluent in German, Russian and Japanese and then meeting a Japanese person and being unable to talk to them because you didn't put that language on a hotbar.

 

Once you have 8 active abilities selecting new abilities on level up becomes not a choice of what additional resources do I add to maximize my tactical effectiveness or even what's cool and something I'd like to use, it's a choice of which of my current skills do I have to stop using or is this really worth putting on my hotbar which nullifies the choice altogether.


It is not a more strategic decision, just a more frustrating one.




 

[LexXxich]

I hope everyone remembers that abilities are not "guns" or anything that's in any way physically limited. They are results of training, symbolised by level-up process. You warrior learns to straight jab, and to hook, and to uppercut. But then UI comes out and says :"You can use only two of your 3 learned strikes in any given fight. Because not using the full arsenal of tricks you learned is tactical, even if it gimps your combat efficiency".

[Alodar]

Exactly one month before release.

Has any of the videos showed the tactics yet?
Do we know how characters will behave if they are set up to use an ability that is not on their hotbar?

[Morroian]

Exactly one month before release.

Has any of the videos showed the tactics yet?
Do we know how characters will behave if they are set up to use an ability that is not on their hotbar?

 

I would be very surprised if they work, which is probably why there has been no response yet.

[DiscoGhost]

its never been like that so idk why they would change it now. 

[Avaflame]

 

I'm pretty sure it is my position, because, you know, it's my position.

This was not your position, not in terms of what you and In Exile were debating about. For me the 8 ability limit is my absolute least favourite design change for Inquisition and I completely agree that it is arbitrary. The encounters themselves should (and probably will) engender a more strategic and tactical approach. Assessing the situation and planning out your party's actions. I did the same thing in Origins and DA2 anyway. The idea of having to physically go into the menu every time I want to change something I find extremely tedious and for me personally, it will actually probably limit my strategies purely for not being bothered.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that just because that's how I (and it seems most others, at least on this board) will react to it, that the limitations aren't by definition forcing you to be more strategic, which is what In Exile (I believe) was arguing. It is arbitrary, tedious, frustrating and perhaps in the end counter-productive to their intention, but it doesn't change that it IS 'forcing you to be more strategic'. Simply due to being limited in your choices and therefore having to put more thought in the choices they do allow. It's an argument over semantics.

 

If I could change one thing, it would be the 8 hotkeys limit. It's ridiculous.

[AlanC9]

I hope everyone remembers that abilities are not "guns" or anything that's in any way physically limited. They are results of training, symbolised by level-up process. You warrior learns to straight jab, and to hook, and to uppercut. But then UI comes out and says :"You can use only two of your 3 learned strikes in any given fight. Because not using the full arsenal of tricks you learned is tactical, even if it gimps your combat efficiency".

Sure. The question is whether you care about that, not whether you remember it.

[In Exile]

This was not your position, not in terms of what you and InExile were debating about. For me the 8 ability limit is my absolute least favourite design change for Inquisition and I completely agree that it is arbitrary. The encounters themselves should (and probably will) engender a more strategic and tactical approach. Assessing the situation and planning out your party's actions. I did the same thing in Origins and DA2 anyway. The idea of having to physically go into the menu every time I want to change something I find extremely tedious and for me personally, it will actually probably limit my strategies purely for not being bothered.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that just because that's how I (and it seems most others, at least on this board) will react to it, that the limitations aren't by definition forcing you to be more strategic, which is what InExile (I believe) was arguing. It is arbitrary, tedious, frustrating and perhaps in the end counter-productive to their intention, but it doesn't change that it IS 'forcing you to be more strategic'. Simply due to being limited in your choices and therefore having to put more thought in the choices they do allow. It's an argument over semantics.

 

If I could change one thing, it would be the 8 hotkeys limit. It's ridiculous.

 

That's my point, yes. I actually am totally with you that the limit is stupid. It's terrible design. But it's more strategic. It's just that most strategy is aggravating busy work, not fun, related to logistics, etc. BG2 is not less strategic because of Vancian magic, even if it is aggravatingly stupid.