322 réponses à ce sujet

[Jester]

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.

Mark of Death was actully crucial for one shooting annoying Lieutanants and Elite Assassins in DA2. So I used it in like every second fight. 

I play DA only on Nightmare, and using all of your abilities is often crucial. 

 

I don't really care for Tactics limitation, as I don't use Tactics (I hate the idea, that characters may use the ability on thier own, and not in the very precise moment that I want them to), but it would make the "8 slots system" even more riddiculous. 

 

The main argument I see here, is that this a a deliberate gameplay design, meant to improve combat. From what information I have about the game, and taking into consideration 2 previous titles I have to disagree with that assessment. 

The combat system does not seem to be different from two previous games. It still looks like a party based, tactical combat system with active pause. Considering the number of talents that they promised, I struggle to understand why devs thought that it'll be a good idea. It would be nice to get a video clarifying this particular strange design decision. 

[Boss Fog]

I've seen people say that we can't use abilities through tactics that aren't on our hotbar but they have failed to site a source.  Mike said very specific things on twitter but I don't believe this was one of them.  Has this issue not been addressed specifically by the developers?

[robertthebard]

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.

Yep, so you'll be spending a half hour or so before you move from location to location resetting everything you reset a couple of hours ago. That's definitely more fun that actually playing the game would be. That's supposed to be sarcasm, btw, but I happen to know for a fact that there are some people that may indeed find that bit more fun. Unfortunately for me, I'm not one of them. So I'll be forced to swap out skills and tactics, presumably, any time circumstances call for it, instead of relying on soundly built tactics to carry me through. None of the challenges that I should have to adapt to should include amnesia, unless it's in the story, anyway, and skills that the character knows, that won't work because they're not on a hot bar equates to amnesia. It also creates a needless timesink, this isn't an Korean Grinder MMO where I pay by the hour to play, adjusting skills and then adjusting tactics to suit the skills that are actually on the hot bars.

[Lady Shayna]

I've seen people say that we can't use abilities through tactics that aren't on our hotbar but they have failed to site a source.  Mike said very specific things on twitter but I don't believe this was one of them.  Has this issue not been addressed specifically by the developers?

 

Not that I have seen anywhere, no.  It could go either way, I think, based on what they have said.  Personally, I lean towards the likelihood that tactics will NOT be limited by what's currently on your hot bar, but I have no source for that either.  

[Alodar]

I've seen people say that we can't use abilities through tactics that aren't on our hotbar but they have failed to site a source.  Mike said very specific things on twitter but I don't believe this was one of them.  Has this issue not been addressed specifically by the developers?

We don't know. That's the purpose of this thread.

Wwe are asking if the arbitrary restriction in active abilities affects the tactics that you've set up.

[robertthebard]

I've seen people say that we can't use abilities through tactics that aren't on our hotbar but they have failed to site a source.  Mike said very specific things on twitter but I don't believe this was one of them.  Has this issue not been addressed specifically by the developers?

I can neither confirm nor deny it. However, as someone else stated, if they're going to artificially limit what we know by the hot bars during combat, does it make sense to lift that restriction via the tactics screen? Not that limiting what we know via 8 slots makes much sense, barring that 8 active skills are the entirety of every class/spec make up. That could be the case, I suppose, but really, what do we know about the class/spec trees? Not much? Next to nothing? All we have to go on is what we see, after all.

[dutch_gamer]

The main argument I see here, is that this a a deliberate gameplay design, meant to improve combat. From what information I have about the game, and taking into consideration 2 previous titles I have to disagree with that assessment. 
The combat system does not seem to be different from two previous games. It still looks like a party based, tactical combat system with active pause. Considering the number of talents that they promised, I struggle to understand why devs thought that it'll be a good idea. It would be nice to get a video clarifying this particular strange design decision.

I have to disagree with your assessment. By taking into account that all classes have been rebuilt from the ground up you just can't compare it with DAO and DA 2. BioWare reexamined every single ability instead of just implementing them all. Also, based on one of the of the latest posts from Allan Schumacher in the first look at the UI thread we won't even be getting that many abilities. A lot of the new stuff is either an upgrade of an already existing ability and there don't seem to be any sustained abilities either. This already makes combat vastly different and not really comparable with DAO nor DA 2. Not to mention you don't need rows and rows of abilities per character for good combat. I still fail to see why so many people on this forum need that many abilities which pretty much gives them access to a 100 or more abilities per party.

As per the post above, I don't believe anyone has ever said that BioWare made a statement about tactics. I believe that they are simply looking at it from the point of view that it doesn't make much sense to allow tactics to fire off for abilities which aren't even on your bar. This would allow players who use tactics to completely bypass the 8-ability limit. It pretty much makes tactics mandatory if you don't want the limit. It is clear the whole game is designed with 8 abilities per character in mind so it stands to reason the tactics are based around this as well.

[durasteel]

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.

 

Maybe you like getting into minutiae of game systems, but I mostly find it annoying. I hate filling my inventory with trash loot and then having to sell it. I hate having to min/max with stats and talents. I would really hate having to re-do my ability bars and tactics for the whole party every time I go into a different area or start fighting a different type of enemy.

 

I want a good story, attractive graphics, engaging characters, and exciting combat. I don't want to take a few minutes to do my taxes before moving on to the next bit of the game. If that's what this new system calls for, I might just dial the difficulty down and spam the awesome button instead of bothering with it.

 

How about an option to not actively control a party member during combat? Let all 4 of them run on the tactics set up for them, so that I don't even have to spam the awesome button. Combat auto-pilot. There always seem to be a few ADHD types who want to "spacebar" past conversations and story bits to get to the combat and loot... how about letting me "spacebar" past the combat and loot to get to the story and exploration bits?

 

Yes, I'm exaggerating. Hopefully my hyperbole illustrates how elements that some might find "tactical" and "challenging" might be annoying and tedious to others. Combat in games is at its most exciting (and heroic) when something nasty and unforeseen jumps out at you, and you have to react to it "on the fly." When you're planning everything out ahead of time, it necessarily becomes a lot more predictable and starts to look a lot more like work.

 

AlanC9 made the observation "it's a game, not a simulator." I would counter with "it's a game, not TurboTax."

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I can neither confirm nor deny it. However, as someone else stated, if they're going to artificially limit what we know by the hot bars during combat, does it make sense to lift that restriction via the tactics screen? Not that limiting what we know via 8 slots makes much sense, barring that 8 active skills are the entirety of every class/spec make up. That could be the case, I suppose, but really, what do we know about the class/spec trees? Not much? Next to nothing? All we have to go on is what we see, after all.

There is a difference between the hot keys and the tactics AI you've set up. I am hoping that the abilities I set up in tactics will fire off whether they are hot-keyed or not but, I may very well want to take control of different companions which would bypass the tactics AI and limit what I can do in that moment. In this case I want to make sure the abilities I think I will want to use are hot-keyed. Although I suppose mapped is the correct term.

 

Why wouldn't I want the tactics I set up to rule? A) Timing is one reason. I may not want to wait for my archer to cycle through to Bursting Arrow. So I take control and do it when I think it would be the most helpful. B ) Perspective is another. If I move my guys to different places I may want to see what they see. I like the tactical camera but sometimes I see things better from the personal view. I'm not as old as Wynne but neither am I as young as Morrigan, ha ha. C) Health. I have found it easier for me to take control of another character when my health is low, allowing my tactics to get me that potion. Otherwise I can forget. DAO is the first game I've obsessed over and it took a few playthroughs before I was decent at watching my health and mana levels. D) Fun. I don't usually play a warrior but there is satisfaction in going 'wham, bam, you're dead ma'am.'

 

Edit: Maybe limiting your mapped abilities to 8 is a way encourage you to set up your tactics thoughtfully? I have always set up custom tactics for my people and companions.

[Darvins]

Maybe you like getting into minutiae of game systems, but I mostly find it annoying. I hate filling my inventory with trash loot and then having to sell it. I hate having to min/max with stats and talents. I would really hate having to re-do my ability bars and tactics for the whole party every time I go into a different area or start fighting a different type of enemy.

 

I want a good story, attractive graphics, engaging characters, and exciting combat. I don't want to take a few minutes to do my taxes before moving on to the next bit of the game. If that's what this new system calls for, I might just dial the difficulty down and spam the awesome button instead of bothering with it.

 

How about an option to not actively control a party member during combat? Let all 4 of them run on the tactics set up for them, so that I don't even have to spam the awesome button. Combat auto-pilot. There always seem to be a few ADHD types who want to "spacebar" past conversations and story bits to get to the combat and loot... how about letting me "spacebar" past the combat and loot to get to the story and exploration bits?

 

Yes, I'm exaggerating. Hopefully my hyperbole illustrates how elements that some might find "tactical" and "challenging" might be annoying and tedious to others. Combat in games is at its most exciting (and heroic) when something nasty and unforeseen jumps out at you, and you have to react to it "on the fly." When you're planning everything out ahead of time, it necessarily becomes a lot more predictable and starts to look a lot more like work.

 

AlanC9 made the observation "it's a game, not a simulator." I would counter with "it's a game, not TurboTax."

 

What makes you think at all that is what it will be like? Far more likely is well for a good while you'll have less than eight abilities then you'll have nine you'll have a core set and one you switch in when an area requires you to mix it up. Eventually you might reach say double that eight, of which some of them will be 'Core' abilities you use in almost every single situation so they never change. Then there will be abilities that sync really well with other companions so you always take them when that companion is in the party. Then there will be abilities that are useful in certain areas less so in others, those will get switched depending on where you go. I fully expect that by the time there is enough abilities that you need worry about switching them, the player has a pretty damned good idea of what works best when and will be used to switching it around on the fly.

 

I'll make a deal through if it does turn into Turbotax or whatever, I'll post my full and abject apology for doubting you. If it doesn't will you make a post apologising for doubting the devs? When you can use everything, then you need make no choices, your not adapting to the unforseen you forsaw everything in advance, adapting, true adapting is when you don't have the exact resources needed to win, and you pull it off anyway. 

 

What your talking about is not the same, having the option to use everything means having everything prepared in advance, at worst all you did wrong then was not leave it on your quick slots so instead you use your radial. 

 

I bet through that the two most satisfying wins will be where you worked out in advance the perfect combo of abilities that synced well with the rest of your party and blast a boss into dust, and those ones where you made a mistake, and your abilities where far from perfect, and yet somehow you pulled off the win anyway, through a combination of luck, skill and maybe just maybe a liberal use of healing potions.

[AlanC9]

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

I'm not interested in changing your premises or your opinion. What you like in a game is of no concern to me. All I'm doing is pointing out that your premises are not universally shared, and there's no reason they should be.

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

The point was that they don't need a "logical reason."

[Alodar]

I'm not interested in changing your premises or your opinion. What you like in a game is of no concern to me. All I'm doing is pointing out that your premises are not universally shared, and there's no reason they should be.

 

Which it makes it convenient because you weren't the poster I was discussing the issue with. Another poster was attempting to find fault with my argument. You pointed out they didn't agree with my premises. I pointed out that if they wanted to change my mind then they would need to explain why my premises were incorrect.

The point was that they don't need a "logical reason."

 

Ah so you made up poor and inaccurate reasons to emphasize the point that they didn't need a reason.

Got it.

Arbitrary game design is arbitrary.

[Rawgrim]

I'm not interested in changing your premises or your opinion. What you like in a game is of no concern to me. All I'm doing is pointing out that your premises are not universally shared, and there's no reason they should be.


The point was that they don't need a "logical reason."

 

They need a locical reason if they want to avoid the story and the lore taking a huge hit.

[In Exile]

They need a locical reason if they want to avoid the story and the lore taking a huge hit.

No, they don't. Vancian magic had no sensible justification and was obviously a gameplay contrivance. I really dislike this 8 ability limit, but this complaint is baseless. 

 

There is absolutely no need for gameplay to justify itself. That's like saying they need a lore reason for why Alistair doesn't have his sternum crushed the first time he's gripped by an Ogre (unlike Cailan) or why a character can be hit repeatedly with a fireball without even burning part of an eyebrow. 

[Rawgrim]

No, they don't. Vancian magic had no sensible justification and was obviously a gameplay contrivance. I really dislike this 8 ability limit, but this complaint is baseless. 

 

There is absolutely no need for gameplay to justify itself. That's like saying they need a lore reason for why Alistair doesn't have his sternum crushed the first time he's gripped by an Ogre (unlike Cailan) or why a character can be hit repeatedly with a fireball without even burning part of an eyebrow. 

 

 

So you are saying it makes sense that mages just "forget" spells before battle? When mages in the previous games didn't do that?

 

The ogre that killed Cailan was stronger than the others. There. Ok explanation.

 

That is just a graphics issue. Can't have a new character model for every kind of damage. If knocked out by a fireball, the character does get an injury you need to treat with a medkit though.

[The Elder King]

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.

  
They were already identical in this regard. Console users had access to the radial menu when they could use every talents. So I don't really see your point.

In other words Tactics is utterly useless in this game, since it will only use the 8 mapped abilities anyway.

Where it was stated that in the tactics you can put only the eight mapped abilities ?

[Rawgrim]

  
They were already identical in this regard. Console users had access to the radial menu when they could use every talents. So I don't really see your point. Where it was stated that in the tactics you can put only the eight mapped abilities ?

 

Tactics will only use from the 8 mapped abilities pool. If you have one in tactics that is not one of the 8 you have prepared, the tactics will skip that ability and go on to the next one.

[The Elder King]

So you are saying it makes sense that mages just "forget" spells before battle? When mages in the previous games didn't do that?
 
The ogre that killed Cailan was stronger than the others. There. Ok explanation.
 
That is just a graphics issue. Can't have a new character model for every kind of damage. If knocked out by a fireball, the character does get an injury you need to treat with a medkit though.

I disagree on the ogre's explanation. It still means the Warden and company have a super durablembody body, since the aumont do force used by the ogre should kill them, considering how it was shown in-game that humans and other races can be easily killed by less powerful weapons.
Still, how you explain Andraste or Flemeth using you as a chewing gum?

[The Elder King]

Tactics will only use from the 8 mapped abilities pool. If you have one in tactics that is not one of the 8 you have prepared, the tactics will skip that ability and go on to the next one.

I understood what you meant. I'm asking where it was stated.

[Rawgrim]

I disagree on the ogre's explanation. It still means the Warden and company have a super durablembody body, since the aumont do force used by the ogre should kill them, considering how it was shown in-game that humans and other races can be easily killed by less powerful weapons.
Still, how you explain Andraste or Flemeth using you as a chewing gum?

 

The type of armour can be a factor of course. But you have to remember that it is a hitpoint based system.

 

A combat animation not really fitting with logic. No explanation for it.

 

Just being blocked out of abilities and spells you know, just because the devs wants to simplify the game even more, is different.

[Rawgrim]

I understood what you meant. I'm asking where it was stated.

 

Someone linked a tweet in a different thread yesterday.

[Alodar]

No, they don't. Vancian magic had no sensible justification and was obviously a gameplay contrivance. I really dislike this 8 ability limit, but this complaint is baseless.

There is absolutely no need for gameplay to justify itself. That's like saying they need a lore reason for why Alistair doesn't have his sternum crushed the first time he's gripped by an Ogre (unlike Cailan) or why a character can be hit repeatedly with a fireball without even burning part of an eyebrow.

Actually Vancian magic did have an in game justification. You weren't really memorizing the spells but were writing them on your mind much like you would write them on a scroll. Once you cast them they were gone until you wrote them on your mind again.

As for Alistair some injuries kill some people while the same injuries are survived by others. Perhaps the ogre that got Cailan was an Alpha or Cailan wasn't as well trained as Alistair. 

 

Regarding fireballs I always play with friendly fire on otherwise there is no verisimilitude.

I am looking for any in game rationalization for using only 8 abilities per combat. Anything that makes sense for a DA character not to use the perfect spell for a given situation that they may have used last battle just because it's not on the hot bar.

And of course I would like to know the answer to the original question in this thread:

Does tactics bypass the arbitrary 8 spell only limitation or does 8 spell only limitation neuter tactics as well.

[The Elder King]

The type of armour can be a factor of course. But you have to remember that it is a hitpoint based system.
 
A combat animation not really fitting with logic. No explanation for it.
 
Just being blocked out of abilities and spells you know, just because the devs wants to simplify the game even more, is different.

Even considering the hitpoint system, the ogre and dragon animation weren't still necessary.negata the difference with the combat animation you dislike, like the earth Shattering ability or the gate bashing? They both show feats impossible for mortals.
I'm glad they were present in DAO (or the other ridicoloustalent animations) in the end. I can accept what they did in DA2 and what they're doing in DAI, since my immersion was broken from the first game.
To be clear, I wasn't exactly comparing the two situations, but debating on the combat animations.

[The Elder King]

Someone linked a tweet in a different thread yesterday.

Understood . I'll see if I can find it.

[Caelorummors]

Alodar, you would dismiss any in game lore as quickly and with as little thought as you have the "difficulty and balancing" thought. This isn't about you understanding the decision, this is about you being mad at and trying to discredit the decision.

As for, will tactics allow use of skills not in the 8: Why the hell would they still work? IF you could just use tactics for other abilities, then there is literally no point in putting a cap on abilities. That should be obvious.