Lets say we only have 7 active abilities by level 16. That is pretty damn limited by itself. In comparisson, in BG2, you have about 50 spells at least by that level + special abilites.
But that's BG2. It was balanced and designed to have a lot of spells. If DAI is balanced correctly it won't matter that there are far fewer because they will be powerful and versatile enough for the enemies and combat in that game.
Intense use of tactics could effectively bypass the 8 abilities limit. For example if you set a tactic to automatically use an armor debuff on elites and bosses, then there is no point having that ability mapped = you effectively have 9 abilities.
The armour debuff you set up in tactics won't work if its not one of your 8 slots.
The armour debuff you set up in tactics won't work if its not one of your 8 slots.
Sorry. I was commenting on the title of the topic. I should have began my comment with "if you were able to set a tactic for an ability that's not part of the chosen 8, then..."
But that's BG2. It was balanced and designed to have a lot of spells. If DAI is balanced correctly it won't matter that there are far fewer because they will be powerful and versatile enough for the enemies and combat in that game.
I am sure they will be powerful enough. But it limits the combat choices close to a zero compared to DA:O and DA2.
I think, overall, the most important thing that needs to be addressed is cooldown length.
I think, to keep combat involved and your options open, cooldowns overall need to be shorter than they've been in the past if each character is limited to 8 abilities per fight.
The 6, 8, 12 second ones are fine. But I think a long, hard look should have been taken at the 30 second cooldown abilities, to really decide if it's worth having a dead slot eaten up for half of a combat when there's only 8 of them to go around.
Lets say we only have 7 active abilities by level 16. That is pretty damn limited by itself. In comparisson, in BG2, you have about 50 spells at least by that level + special abilites.
Dragon Age Inquisiiton is not Baldur's Gate...unfortunately.
In other words Tactics is utterly useless in this game, since it will only use the 8 mapped abilities anyway.
You mean unlike before, when we got literally an infinite number of tactics slots and thus had no limitations of any . . . oh wait.
This hysterical freakout is wearing on my nerves. "Not infinite" != "zero flexibility". "Some limitations" != "useless". This is the equivalent of saying that you cannot make dinner because you "only" have 8 ingredients on hand, so you'll just have to STARVE. I just made a perfectly acceptable dinner with THREE. It's eight abilities, not the End Times.
You mean unlike before, when we got literally an infinite number of tactics slots and thus had no limitations of any . . . oh wait.
This hysterical freakout is wearing on my nerves. "Not infinite" != "zero flexibility". "Some limitations" != "useless". This is the equivalent of saying that you cannot make dinner because you "only" have 8 ingredients on hand, so you'll just have to STARVE. I just made a perfectly acceptable dinner with THREE. It's eight abilities, not the End Times.
And if the dinner you are making requires 15 ingredients?
I think, overall, the most important thing that needs to be addressed is cooldown length.
I think, to keep combat involved and your options open, cooldowns overall need to be shorter than they've been in the past if each character is limited to 8 abilities per fight.
The 6, 8, 12 second ones are fine. But I think a long, hard look should have been taken at the 30 second cooldown abilities, to really decide if it's worth having a dead slot eaten up for half of a combat when there's only 8 of them to go around.
Cooldown will matter on this because I don't know how many slots can be "wasted". The other are sustains, are they in the bar? I would hate to have a sustain like elemental shield that I cast and leave running eating up a slot.
My thing is that in most fights, the 95% of the fights vs trash mobs the limit won't matter. You didn't need and likely didn't have time to use more than 8 abilities. Where the 8 will become an issue are for boss fights. Something in DA2 like Mark of Death wasn't worth wasting on generic bandit #64615241 but it was very much worth using on the big main bad guy. I wasn't mapped to anything but was in the radial menu. It is one thing to create a limit to force proper selection it is another to have some odd metagaming thing where you reload to get the spells you actually need to fight a boss you didn't expect to be in the next room.
Now, the other thing is if the abilities are different. This could mean more "evolutions" of the powers so instead of getting chain lightning and lightning bolt the former is an evolution of the latter. 2 abilities and only one slot needed for both. There could also be a lot more sustains and passives built into the tree. There may not be as many "active" spells to select from so the limit won't feel as "tight".
But that's BG2. It was balanced and designed to have a lot of spells. If DAI is balanced correctly it won't matter that there are far fewer because they will be powerful and versatile enough for the enemies and combat in that game.
Well and in BG2 even if you had 50 spells you could only memorize X number of them so it was immaterial how many spells you knew only how many you could cast - much like DAI is doing except in BG2 you had to account for how many times you would cast each spell so it was even more restricted.
Guest_Puddi III_*
The armour debuff you set up in tactics won't work if its not one of your 8 slots.
Let's wait till a dev says it before assuming such.
You didn't need a reason for ability cooldowns, did you?
I'd like one, yes.
Wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the 8 ability limit in the first place?
I don't think I know what that purpose is.
If the goal is to force forethought and planning, programming the Tactics screen would certainly qualify.
If the goal is to avoid offering advantages to pause&play over action combat, this still works.
That justification only works for games with global cooldowns, not ones where you can use a different spell immediately after the first.
No I can justify that as well.
If you do the same exercise too many times in a row you can pull a muscle.
I can imagine that the magical energies create stress on a pathway in your brain.
To use the same spell again immediately could cause brain damage.
To me that's easily justifiable.
Not using an ability because it's not on your quick bar has no rationalization whatsoever.
No I can justify that as well.
If you do the same exercise too many times in a row you can pull a muscle.
I can imagine that the magical energies create stress on a pathway in your brain.
To use the same spell again immediately could cause brain damage.
To me that's easily justifiable.
Not using an ability because it's not on your quick bar has no rationalization whatsoever.
What if it was back to the old D&D logic of memorization - not saying it is but people accepted that logic for a long time? Truthfully that made even less sense because if you memorized magic missle why could you only throw it twice in a day? You forgot it after the second casting?
Guest_Puddi III_*
Now that I think of it I don't see much justification for cooldowns either. We already have mana limiting the amount of dakka we can spam. So what if I cast all five memorized IGMS in a row? That didn't break the game, it just showed how potent magic could be if you chose to slam everything you have into your opponent at once.
For that matter I'd also like to use all my mana on a single fireball to just blow up everything forever.
I guess this is getting to be a bit of a tangent.
What if it was back to the old D&D logic of memorization - not saying it is but people accepted that logic for a long time? Truthfully that made even less sense because if you memorized magic missle why could you only throw it twice in a day? You forgot it after the second casting?
If it worked like actual Jack Vance stories (hence Vancian casting) then yeah actually you forgot it, lol. Well, it's more accurate to say you never really memorized it so much as stored the incantation in your head, which caused mental strain hence limiting the amount of spells a wizard could put in his head at once.
You mean unlike before, when we got literally an infinite number of tactics slots and thus had no limitations of any . . . oh wait.
This hysterical freakout is wearing on my nerves. "Not infinite" != "zero flexibility". "Some limitations" != "useless". This is the equivalent of saying that you cannot make dinner because you "only" have 8 ingredients on hand, so you'll just have to STARVE. I just made a perfectly acceptable dinner with THREE. It's eight abilities, not the End Times.
Hot button issues always go like this.
Those that the issue is important to express their displeasure.
Those that the issue doesn't matter to can't understand why others are freaking out.
To me playing a mage is avoiding mass damage spells and carefully choosing situational spells so I always have a good choice regardless of what is thrown at me.
This design decision entirely submarines my preferred play style.
And your recipe analogy is poor.
What if you made a meal for friends and it turns out one of them is a vegetarian.
You've got all the ingredients to quick make them a meal but can't use them because you can only use the 8 ingredients that you put on the counter before you knew who was coming.
They've made a bad design decision and I'm expressing my displeasure.
You don't have to agree with me or like it.
If I have ingredients in the fridge I want to be able to use them if I need them.
Guest_Puddi III_*
It's eight abilities, not the End Times.
Let's compromise and call it the Penultimate of Times.
Hot button issues always go like this.
Those that the issue is important to express their displeasure.
Those that the issue doesn't matter to can't understand why others are freaking out.
To me playing a mage is avoiding mass damage spells and carefully choosing situational spells so I always have a good choice regardless of what is thrown at me.
This design decision entirely submarines my preferred play style.
Your preferred playstyle represents the jack-of-all-trades character, which mitigates the usefulness of party roles, which is in opposition to true synergy of party-based dynamics.
Look, if you like being able to do everything, then that's fine. I'm not going to argue personal preference. Trying to posit that you are using logic to come to your conclusion while there is none on the other side is disingenuous.
Your preferred playstyle represents the jack-of-all-trades character, which mitigates the usefulness of party roles, which is in opposition to true synergy of party-based dynamics.
Look, if you like being able to do everything, then that's fine. I'm not going to argue personal preference. Trying to posit that you are using logic to come to your conclusion while there is none on the other side is disingenuous.
Disingenuous how exactly?
Which of my premises are you disagreeing with?
Please explain the flaw in my logic.
How does my conclusion not follow.
You seem to have a narrow view of how good parties work together.
I have no such limitations.
They've set up a system that places artificial restrictions for no purpose.
The tactics system that they've set up is either completely nullified by this decision or if it ignores the limitation makes the limitation even more pointless.
If people choose to think that my position is somehow hysterical or without merit then I will continue to point out the flaws in their arguments.
I don't need your permission to dislike this.
I don't need you to understand my playstyle.
They've made IMHO a very bad design decision and I am presenting my feed back.
But that's BG2. It was balanced and designed to have a lot of spells.
Disingenuous how exactly?
Saying that your position is logical while there is no logical reason for what they are doing is what is disingenuous, not your preferred playstyle in itself.
They've set up a system that places artificial restrictions for no purpose.
There's a purpose. You just don't like it.
If it worked like actual Jack Vance stories (hence Vancian casting) then yeah actually you forgot it, lol. Well, it's more accurate to say you never really memorized it so much as stored the incantation in your head, which caused mental strain hence limiting the amount of spells a wizard could put in his head at once.
Retour en haut