322 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

I'm confused, can someone explain what the OP is about?

[Alodar]

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.

The reason for my position is entirely logical based on the premises I put forth.

 

Please explain to me the logical reason for not being able to use abilities you have but can't use because they are not on your hotbar.

Please give me any in game reason why a character would not use all of its abilities to save their life or in this case the world.

Please give me any logical reason that they would design a tactics system that is either completely nullified by this restriction or bypasses it and nullifies the restriction.

 

I know of none.

Hence my claim that there is no logical reason for their very bad design decision.

If you can provide me with one I would be more than happy to modify my position.

[BubbleDncr]

I'm kind of bummed there's only 8 abilities at a time. I have to assume they designed all the skill trees with that in mind, with a larger emphasis on passives and upgrades than individual abilities. So hopefully it ends up working out pretty well - but honestly, this is the first piece of news about DA:I that makes me worry about the game. 

[DragonKingReborn]

I'm confused, can someone explain what the OP is about?

You have to choose 8 activated abilities per character before entering combat. You can also set up tactics that use a variety of abilities under certain circumstances. They are asking if tactic rule 1 uses an ability not in the chosen 8, will it fail and move on, essentially nullifying one of your tactic slots? Or will it execute meaning you get to use an ability not in your chosen 8?

[AlanC9]

The reason for my position is entirely logical based on the premises I put forth.

My impression is that your premises are what's being disagreed with.
 

Please explain to me the logical reason for not being able to use abilities you have but can't use because they are not on your hotbar.
Please give me any in game reason why a character would not use all of its abilities to save their life or in this case the world.
Please give me any logical reason that they would design a tactics system that is either completely nullified by this restriction or bypasses it and nullifies the restriction.

In order:
It's a game, not a simulation.
It's a game, not a simulation.
They thought this decision would make for better gameplay.

[BENIIICHAT]

In previous game I rarely use tactical, I love to manual command all of my team. Now I will force to choose 8 ability to use per battle? Please tell me they not force us to use tactical too???!

[DragonKingReborn]

In previous game I rarely use tactical, I love to manual command all of my team. Now I will force to choose 8 ability to use per battle? Please tell me they not force us to use tactical too???!

You are not forced to use tactical cam. You can play the entire game in third person, just as before, if you wish.

[In Exile]

My impression is that your premises are what's being disagreed with.
 

In order:
It's a game, not a simulation.
It's a game, not a simulation.
They thought this decision would make for better gameplay.

 

Bioware has always been very open about their gameplay being especially "game-y" for lack of a better word. There are lots of good reasons to criticize the 8 ability limit. This whole "not justified by the lore" approach is just not one of them. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

That's certainly true of me.  I loathe enforced roles based on class.  I like flexibility.  It makes each encounter much more interesting if I get to find out how to piece together my abilities to get through it.

 

The fewer abilities I have, the easier that puzzle is to solve, and the more often the solution will be identical.

 

I still think they should go classless.

[Sidney]

That's certainly true of me.  I loathe enforced roles based on class.  I like flexibility.  It makes each encounter much more interesting if I get to find out how to piece together my abilities to get through it.

 

The fewer abilities I have, the easier that puzzle is to solve, and the more often the solution will be identical.

 

I still think they should go classless.

 

 

The classless ship has sailed. This is a game with classes and as such you are going to have "roles" defined by those classes. That is really a strength/weakness of a class based game. 

 

Frankly you won't/can't come up with a lot of solutions to each encounter because frankly the answer to 90% of all the fights in the game are exactly the same because fighting darkspawn, undead, qunari and human guards isn't different at all. I will say that I just picked up Kingdom of Amalur and while that game is flawed one strength it has is that fighting different types of foes really does feel very different and demands a different approach. DA has never gotten to that point.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The classless ship has sailed. This is a game with classes and as such you are going to have "roles" defined by those classes. That is really a strength/weakness of a class based game. 

DAO didn't.  You could tank with Rogues.  Or just not use a tank at all.  You could defeat whole sections of the game without the enemies ever seeing you, or you could charge in with a sword and a battlecry.

 

DAO proves that a class-based system doesn't require enforced roles.  Enforced roles are just something this dev team seems to like, and I have no idea why.

[Sidney]

DAO didn't.  You could tank with Rogues.  Or just not use a tank at all.  You could defeat whole sections of the game without the enemies ever seeing you, or you could charge in with a sword and a battlecry.

 

DAO proves that a class-based system doesn't require enforced roles.  Enforced roles are just something this dev team seems to like, and I have no idea why.

 

Yes you can do those things but a class system is pretty strongly rigged to play to specific functions. Yes, I can make my rogue in DA2 even basically an unhittable aggro machine - and have several times. Does that mean she was a tank? Well depends on your definition.

 

All that said, I've run non-mage or non-fighter parties in both DA2 and DAO and you can rather easily beat the game with both setups. Party composition is almost 100% irrelevant in the game in terms of combat.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

My first reaction upon hearing this was disappointment. I admit I don't understand this limitation. Perhaps if more information were released it would make more sense. I have some questions (some of which might have been mentioned already):

1. Is it true there are no sustained spells? For instance, rock armor. In both the first games this had to be actively cast to be used. Is this now a passive if you invest in it? {please note, I am using this as an example. I have no idea if it is a spell or not. The same could be said of Rally.} Or will this be replaced with gear, be it by upgrade, material or enchantment?
2. I have always enjoyed setting up tactics so I don't have to switch between characters unless I want to do so. For instance, I might have my mage's tactics set up for buffs, single target spells, or sustainables. I almost never included blizzard as a tactic because that was a spell I wanted to control the exact when and where I used it. So, do we still set up tactics for each companion? I assume so but I would appreciate confirmation.
3. Assuming we can set up tactics, can we use non-mapped abilities in them and have them be implemented?
4. If the answer to the above is yes: This would then mean, to me, that the mapped abilities are mapped for convenience if you decide to take over for that character and therefore the limit is less onerous. And I could see why you wouldn't be able to remap the keys during battle under these conditions.
5. In DA2 we saw a move to many upgraded abilities as opposed to separate abilities. Winter's Grasp and Pommel Strike could be made more powerful (I believe two upgrades for each) resulting in one ability you spent 3 points on. Even so a mage still has access to over 20 abilities (not including sustained ones or the specialty trees like blood mage). This allowed you to build either a highly specialized mage or one with an wide array of skills. Is this continuing further so that there are fewer overall abilities but more upgrades?

Initial disappointment aside ​I'm going to restrain from forming an opinion until I know more. This could end up being a very interesting and enjoyable change. I'm certainly hoping this is the case.

[dlux]

BioWare confirmed there was a tactics system but will the tactics fail if the abilities are not amongst the Console Port Chosen 8 for PC?

link pls for maximum butthurt.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes you can do those things but a class system is pretty strongly rigged to play to specific functions. Yes, I can make my rogue in DA2 even basically an unhittable aggro machine - and have several times. Does that mean she was a tank? Well depends on your definition.

Tanking is just crowd control.

All that said, I've run non-mage or non-fighter parties in both DA2 and DAO and you can rather easily beat the game with both setups. Party composition is almost 100% irrelevant in the game in terms of combat.

As it should be.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Assuming we can set up tactics, can we use non-mapped abilities in them and have them be implemented?

If we can, this 8 ability limit hardly matters.

 

And that would be terrific.  Then, we can automate the regular abilities (which is, those abilities that always get used) and save the hotbar slots for situational abilities.

[Ghostjs]

1. Is it true there are no sustained spells? For instance, rock armor. In both the first games this had to be actively cast to be used. Is this now a passive if you invest in it? {please note, I am using this as an example. I have no idea if it is a spell or not. The same could be said of Rally.} Or will this be replaced with gear, be it by upgrade, material or enchantment?

 

I'm not sure, but from what I have seen it looks like there are no sustained spells this time. This is only a guess, but I think they took all of the sustained abilities and added a time limit to them making them into active abilities that you have to activate every so often.

[GipsyDangeresque]

 

 

All that said, I've run non-mage or non-fighter parties in both DA2 and DAO and you can rather easily beat the game with both setups. Party composition is almost 100% irrelevant in the game in terms of combat.

 

 

As it should be.

 

Technically, that's wrong. It's not irrelevant (as they said and you agreed.) It effects HOW you play the game, what strategies you use, what abilities and sustains you employ (and how many poultices you're going to be using!)

 

It's semi-irrelevant to your party's potential viability, but relevant to the combat in general.

 

I say semi-irrelevant, because some compositions might be generally easier to manage than others and can thus compensate for the player's lack of proper strategy or skill.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Technically, that's wrong. It's not irrelevant (as they said and you agreed.) It effects HOW you play the game, what strategies you use, what abilities and sustains you employ (and how many poultices you're going to be using!)

 

It's semi-irrelevant to your party's potential viability, but relevant to the combat in general.

 

I say semi-irrelevant, because some compositions might be generally easier to manage than others and can thus compensate for the player's lack of proper strategy or skill.

Yes, you are correct.  You can succeed or fail with any party construction.

 

Instead of irrelevant, perhaps immaterial would be more accurate.

[robertthebard]

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.

If it's wearing on your nerves, why are you reading it? Creating stress for yourself isn't healthy. However, to touch on your point; limiting what I can do, despite what I have trained the characters to do is limiting. It does detract from flexibility, and it does create a situation where, when you do have to swap skills out on your hot bars, you also have to spend time changing tactics to make sure you don't have companions, or a PC if you take control of a companion, standing around staring at their navels in the middle of combat. So, depending on the encounter, you could literally spend a half hour paused while you reassign skills and tactics to every member of your party. So no, technically, it isn't limiting at all, it's just really time consuming to make sure you have an adequate set up for every possible encounter in a given area.

What part of "I have sixteen active skills, but can only use 8" isn't limiting? I'm glad you could make a reasonable dinner with three ingredients, but how many times can you go to the well with bread, bologna and cheese? It's going to get really old after a while, isn't it? Isn't the point of this kind of game to make me want to tell my friends about it? How am I supposed to approach my friends with what we have now and say "See, this is a great game, except that when you go from area to area you may have to spend a half hour or so resetting your skills and tactics so that your party isn't admiring your handiwork for the entirety of the area because the skills you may have to change won't function because they "forget" them when you remove them from the hot bars"? This is what tactics failing to fire due to skills not being on the bar equates, after all, forgetting them, thus limiting what I can and can't do with what may be a solid tactics set up otherwise.

I'm sorry that these facts stress you out, but I couldn't make this crap up. These are the cards we're dealt, and while I still intend to play the game, I'm not pleased with this set up, as presented to date. They could have saved themselves a few headaches, and the mods as well, had they simply released the skill trees and specializations at the same time so that those of us that are puzzled on how the lack of customization in combat is a good thing could see what we're really working with before we react to what they've deigned to show us, but your stress aside, it's not our faults. We can only react to what we're shown, and what we're shown is a system that, based on the previous titles in this series alone, doesn't make any kind of sense. Especially with the backlash from DA 2 concerning customization.

[SofaJockey]

In the past I have not set tactics for my primary Player Character because I have played dominantly as the PC.

I control my PC and through basic tactics, and my party members largely do their own thing via AI.

 

The only times I would typical take over another character is when I (my PC) or the other party member was about to die (to quaff a potion or heal).

 

Until we can see the tactical options, I would not like to dismiss them out of hand.

I remember reading that you could set very precisely, for example, at what point party members take potions,

so I would not assume that the tactical dashboard is exactly as it has always been.

 

Clearly you can still use that approach, but in DAI, you appear to be rewarded by being much clearer about what your whole party is doing.

 

For that reason, I will making sure that I set tactical guidelines for my Inquisitor as I will not be wanting them to behave randomly
whilst I am actively taking control of the battle elsewhere.

[Alodar]

My impression is that your premises are what's being disagreed with.
 

 

Which is fine. But in order to change my opinion if you disagree with my premises you need to state why.

In order:
It's a game, not a simulation.
It's a game, not a simulation.
They thought this decision would make for better gameplay.

In order:

Both DAO and DA2 were games and not simulations. Neither had that restriction. Not a logical reason.

 

In-game means a reason from your characters point of view. Unless that you are insinuating that because of how little sense this makes and how often you'll have to fiddle with your hot bar it will break immersion so often that you'll never try to take your character's point of view.

 

We don't know that they thought this would make better gameplay. The reason could be they wanted Identical game play between console and PC. Standardization is not logic.

[Alodar]

Until we can see the tactical options, I would not like to dismiss them out of hand.

I remember reading that you could set very precisely, for example, at what point party members take potions,

so I would not assume that the tactical dashboard is exactly as it has always been.

 

 

 

What we don't know is how the tactics work with this new 8 ability limitation.

What if your tactics call for an ability that's not on your hotbar?

Will that ability still fire or because of the arbitrary limitation would the character just stand there or skip to the next ability that's hot barred?

[Darvins]

There is absolutely no reason for this limitation on PC.

There is absolutely no in-game explanation why a character would restrict themselves to 8 abilities for a combat.

 

The challenge business is BS.

They wanted an identical playing experience on console and PC -- that is the only reason for this limitation.

 

There are plently of reasons for the change, it makes you have to stop and think before you go somewhere, and decide 'Okay looking at my party and given the expected foes I'll be meeting here, what abilities do I have on this party that sync well?' You have to think more instead of just doing everything on the fly, having to think more about it in advance is to be frank a more tactical experience and a greater challenge, than having access to everything all the time. Limits on what you can and can't do, impose challenges that you need to adapt to.

 

Overall I think it sounds like the better choice.

[robertthebard]

In the past I have not set tactics for my primary Player Character because I have played dominantly as the PC.
I control my PC and through basic tactics, and my party members largely do their own thing via AI.
 
The only times I would typical take over another character is when I (my PC) or the other party member was about to die (to quaff a potion or heal).
 
Until we can see the tactical options, I would not like to dismiss them out of hand.
I remember reading that you could set very precisely, for example, at what point party members take potions,
so I would not assume that the tactical dashboard is exactly as it has always been.
 
Clearly you can still use that approach, but in DAI, you appear to be rewarded by being much clearer about what your whole party is doing.
 
For that reason, I will making sure that I set tactical guidelines for my Inquisitor as I will not be wanting them to behave randomly
whilst I am actively taking control of the battle elsewhere.

You could set tactics for potions in both previous installments already. In fact, it was a bit more detailed in Origins with "Least Powerful/Most Powerful" options for them. I have set tactics on the PC since about my second playthrough of Origins to allow for "Unforeseen Cirmcumstances" arising, such as assuming control of the rogue to open a chest, and having a mob wander onto us, or having that aforementioned mob wander onto the group while I was scouting ahead in Stealth mode on the rogue. Now, it seems, we may be spending even more time doing so if we have to swap out skills that are referenced in tactics.