322 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

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

 

It is in one of the UI threads, but some of those got closed. There were too many of them, I would think

[durasteel]

...
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.

 

You mean, other than the number of buttons on an X Box controller, of course.

[Icy Magebane]

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

This is pretty much the bottom line for me.  I realize that we have less active abilities to choose from this time, and that they've apparently removed sustained modes entirely, but this still feels like a big step back.  There's absolutely no excuse for not being able to use every ability that a character has learned during combat.  I didn't like this system back when I thought we could still swap mapped abilities during combat... now that it seems we have to wait until a fight is over, I really don't like it.

 

I was hoping to use the tactics menu to get around this, but based on what I've been reading in this thread, that may not be as obvious a solution as I thought...  the devs might be pretty set on limiting our possible abilities to 8 per battle on each char, and I'm starting to think that they will have found and closed any loopholes we might have used to circumvent this.

[The Elder King]

You mean, other than the number of buttons on an X Box controller, of course.

Yeah, it's not like previous DA version had the ability of using every talents with he radial menu or anything.

[InfinitePaths]

I think the design mechanic is fantastic.

 

It adds the element of choice and building special builds for each fight.

 

Do I need shield slam against a behemonts or should I perhaps take shield block?

[Rawgrim]

Long bossfights might be a real issue. If you only have 8 abilities\spells, you will pretty much be spamming and spamming all through the fight.

[Rawgrim]

I think the design mechanic is fantastic.

 

It adds the element of choice and building special build for each fight.

 

Do I need shield slam against a behemonts or should I perhaps take shield block?

 

You can make even more choices if you arn't limited to 8 abilities.

[durasteel]

Long bossfights might be a real issue. If you only have 8 abilities\spells, you will pretty much be spamming and spamming all through the fight.

 

Just keep mashing the awesome button.

[InfinitePaths]

You can make even more choices if you arn't limited to 8 abilities.

 

Without the limits the choices aren't important because you can use whatever you want in the fight.

 

Limitations can be a good thing.

[durasteel]

Yeah, it's not like previous DA version had the ability of using every talents with he radial menu or anything.

 

Of course they did. Then it became a priority to make sure that hyperkinetic button-mashing TPS-style gameplay would be possible, so abilities were removed from the radial. We've been over this.

[Rawgrim]

Without the limits the choices aren't important because you can use whatever you want in the fight.

 

Limitations can be a good thing.

 

There are limits. Spellpoints running out fast, friendly fire, casting time, how to use the spell most effectively.

[durasteel]

Without the limits the choices aren't important because you can use whatever you want in the fight.

 

Limitations can be a good thing.

 

When people say they want their choices to matter, they aren't talking about screwing around with their toolbars. Choices that should matter are who lives and who dies, not Fireball vs. Cone of Cold going on your freakin' toolbar.

[Alodar]

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.

 

What lore am I dismissing?

Please explain how my arguments or preferences are not well though out?

Is there some sense motive feature on the forums that I'm unaware of that you think you have an insight into my psyche?

 

I have no idea why they would implement such an arbitrary restriction but  please, feel free to enlighten me.

 

Again can you give me any in game justification for any character not using an ability they used last battle to save themselves, their friends, or the world just because it's not an a hotbar.

 

As for your "reasoning" whether or not tactics would work, that implies a constancy that is not evident thus far with BioWare's design decisions. (And it would be a huge blow to gameplay because that would mean every time you switched out an ability on the hotbar you would have to go in and reconfigure your tactics)

[ShaggyWolf]

I can think of a few reasons for why the active ability limitation could be a good thing.

 

- When building your character, it makes you think about what abilities you really want to have. You can only slot 8 so there's not much point in speccing into too many more. It helps encourage the player to specialize.

 

- It increases the value of ability upgrades. In DA2 many abilities had additional upgrades that you could spend ability points on. I know that in quite a few of the Hawke builds I ran, those upgrades were sometimes ignored in favor of expanding my ability set. Since it's only practical to expand your ability set to a certain point now, these ability upgrades become a lot more valuable simply because the alternative is less viable.

 

- It helps distinguish duplicate classes more. By the end of DA2, it would be very hard to tell the difference between a 2h Warrior Hawke and Fenris, simply because they would've unlocked so many of the same powers. Because of this, it wasn't really an optimal approach to bring 2h warrior Hawke and Fenris in the same party. If we took this scenario into DA:I, a 2h Warrior Inquisitor and 2h Iron Bull could be a lot more viable in the same group, if the player specializes them into complementing ability sets. There is much less overlap between party members if ability choice is approached this way.

 

- From a design standpoint, it lets you create abilities that have a much greater impact, since players are limited in how many they can use in an encounter.

 

I'd like to point out that arguments against this design choice are made under the assumption that we will have many ability points to spend which would result in a lot of unused abilities. It's entirely likely that they are moving back to a level progression model which resembles DA:O, where you only got an ability point every x levels. It's very likely that a max level Inquisitor would only realistically have under a dozen abilities at their disposal, as opposed to the huge quantity that a max level Hawke could achieve. Additionally, they wouldn't create a rule like this and then make encounters that demand more than 8 abilities per party member. Enemy encounters will be balanced around this 8 ability limitation, so as long as you know what you're doing, you'll be able to make it work.

[deuce985]

I hope this is not true. It would limit the tactics system. The only reason I could see this design decision is more balanced combat encounters. Instead if using anything the AI has access they're limited at 8. I'd assume that's a balance decision. I don't think I'll like it though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

You know what makes for better gameplay?

Simulation.

[ShaggyWolf]

You can make even more choices if you arn't limited to 8 abilities.

 

Perhaps. But in a situation like DA2 where you could unlock more abilities than you'd ever need (You could unlock the majority of each character's kit, iirc), what are you really choosing? Dragon Age Awakening was the same way with specializations, you could choose all but 2 at the 35 level cap, iirc. So at that point I was essentially choosing which 2 specializations I didn't want, instead of focusing my choice on the 1 I really did. Choosing one specialization out of eight is a lot more meaningful than choosing seven out of eight. Choosing 10 abilities out of 100 is a lot more meaningful than choosing 90 out of 100. I think that principle is part of what guided the decision to create this 8 ability limitation. Of course it's not going to satisfy if you personally disagree with that principle.

[Caelorummors]

You mean, other than the number of buttons on an X Box controller, of course.

 

Don't be ridiculous. You could use any ability at any time in DA on the consoles, too. Your quick bar was limited to six, not your spells/abilities. Whatever fantasy that you have about it being "because of  consoles" is plain idiotic.

[Caelorummors]

You know what makes for better gameplay?

Simulation.

 

How in the world is that true? It isn't at all. Magic literally doesn't exist in "simulation."  Shooting someone in a FPS game, then having your character limp around and slowly bleed to death doesn't make gameplay better. It isn't a necessary component. Jesus the amount of fannytroubled nonsensical hate on this board is beyond anything I've ever seen.

[Caelorummors]

What lore am I dismissing?

Please explain how my arguments or preferences are not well though out?

Is there some sense motive feature on the forums that I'm unaware of that you think you have an insight into my psyche?

 

I have no idea why they would implement such an arbitrary restriction but  please, feel free to enlighten me.

 

Again can you give me any in game justification for any character not using an ability they used last battle to save themselves, their friends, or the world just because it's not an a hotbar.

 

As for your "reasoning" whether or not tactics would work, that implies a constancy that is not evident thus far with BioWare's design decisions. (And it would be a huge blow to gameplay because that would mean every time you switched out an ability on the hotbar you would have to go in and reconfigure your tactics)

 

I haven't ready anything you've written since the first page, so the only thing I know about your arguments are: "If I don't agree with it, then it's just bullshit and not actually the case at all." (In reference to the "difficulty" discussion). I'm not pretending to know why you are doing what you're doing. I'm just pointing out what you are, in fact, doing.
 

By the very fact that you say the "restrictions" and "limitations" are arbitrary, you admit to having no respect for the decision. To ever have a meaningful conversation about it, you would have to have at least respect enough to listen. It is clear you do not.
 

Again, you lash out instead of discuss, in regards to my "reasoning." Nothing says you have to switch out the tactics, the game would simply skip over that tactic and move to the next one as if it were on cool down, for example. If you ever want to discuss something, I would love to. I'm not going to sit around and waste my time writing up anything about the design choice while I still feel you're going to ignore/dismiss it without a second thought.

[durasteel]

Don't be ridiculous. You could use any ability at any time in DA on the consoles, too. Your quick bar was limited to six, not your spells/abilities. Whatever fantasy that you have about it being "because of  consoles" is plain idiotic.

 

This game emphasises real-time action. To use "any ability" on a console requires the radial menu, which pauses the game. In Inquisition, the radial menu is largely limited to tactical tools, which you can completely ignore if you're playing this as a third-person shooter. It is the effort to accommodate that style of play, particularly on consoles, that brought about the limitation.

 

If you want to talk about idiotic fantasies, we can discuss the notion that the developers arrived at the 8 slot limitation independant of any platform limitation just because they imagined it would introduce a fun new tactical element. Yeah...

[ShaggyWolf]

This game emphasises real-time action. To use "any ability" on a console requires the radial menu, which pauses the game. In Inquisition, the radial menu is largely limited to tactical tools, which you can completely ignore if you're playing this as a third-person shooter. It is the effort to accommodate that style of play, particularly on consoles, that brought about the limitation.

 

If you want to talk about idiotic fantasies, we can discuss the notion that the developers arrived at the 8 slot limitation independant of any platform limitation just because they imagined it would introduce a fun new tactical element. Yeah...

 

The limitation does introduce a few interesting choice elements, at least on paper. You're just opting to ignore them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

How in the world is that true? It isn't at all. Magic literally doesn't exist in "simulation." Shooting someone in a FPS game, then having your character limp around and slowly bleed to death doesn't make gameplay better. It isn't a necessary component. Jesus the amount of fannytroubled nonsensical hate on this board is beyond anything I've ever seen.

Simulation isn't necessarily realistic simulation. I'm asking for a simulation under the rules of the setting. And the setting's rules say that some can survive being stomped by an ogre. Just as many shooters' rules say that gunshot wounds aren't fatal (or even particularly damaging).

How do you go from "simulation" to "realism"?

[robertthebard]

I can think of a few reasons for why the active ability limitation could be a good thing.
 
- When building your character, it makes you think about what abilities you really want to have. You can only slot 8 so there's not much point in speccing into too many more. It helps encourage the player to specialize.

I already do this in every game I play with assignable abilities, on the level up screen. Why do I, or should I have to do this every time I change areas where enemy types may change? Why do I, or should I have to change my tactics set up? Why do I, or should I have to limit what my character can do, within the limits of it's class, to meet an arbitrarily selected number of abilities?
 

- It increases the value of ability upgrades. In DA2 many abilities had additional upgrades that you could spend ability points on. I know that in quite a few of the Hawke builds I ran, those upgrades were sometimes ignored in favor of expanding my ability set. Since it's only practical to expand your ability set to a certain point now, these ability upgrades become a lot more valuable simply because the alternative is less viable.

To what end? What possible reason can there be to tell us that we can only build a specific way, only to tell us that we can only build a different specific way in the next area, because enemies will be resistant to the way we trained in the last one? You see, if I'm going to build a specialist, then I'm expecting that specialist to be good at what I train them to do. I don't expect to change the nature of their specialization every couple of hours(no matter how long it really is, that's an arbitrary timeframe)because enemies are now highly resistant, or immune to what they previously learned. With the comps you can leave them in camp and take somebody else, but what happens when the Inquisitor is now irrelevant?
 

- It helps distinguish duplicate classes more. By the end of DA2, it would be very hard to tell the difference between a 2h Warrior Hawke and Fenris, simply because they would've unlocked so many of the same powers. Because of this, it wasn't really an optimal approach to bring 2h warrior Hawke and Fenris in the same party. If we took this scenario into DA:I, a 2h Warrior Inquisitor and 2h Iron Bull could be a lot more viable in the same group, if the player specializes them into complementing ability sets. There is much less overlap between party members if ability choice is approached this way.

This was a player distinction. If you have one fighter in the group working a specific tree, why would you work the same tree with Hawke? Did you build a sword and board fighter exactly like Aveline, or did you take different trees to maximize the effectiveness of your party?
 

- From a design standpoint, it lets you create abilities that have a much greater impact, since players are limited in how many they can use in an encounter.

"Hi, I'm Viv, and even though I only know 8 spells, I'm the most powerful mage you've ever met." vs whom? At what level? Because the Warden and Hawke would tend to disagree, under the existing lore.
 

I'd like to point out that arguments against this design choice are made under the assumption that we will have many ability points to spend which would result in a lot of unused abilities. It's entirely likely that they are moving back to a level progression model which resembles DA:O, where you only got an ability point every x levels. It's very likely that a max level Inquisitor would only realistically have under a dozen abilities at their disposal, as opposed to the huge quantity that a max level Hawke could achieve. Additionally, they wouldn't create a rule like this and then make encounters that demand more than 8 abilities per party member. Enemy encounters will be balanced around this 8 ability limitation, so as long as you know what you're doing, you'll be able to make it work.

I would like to point out that it's made under that assumption because all we have to go on are the previous titles. What have we seen, to date, that would counter this? You call down the naysayers for making assumptions, based on your own assumptions. What's the difference? That your assumptions support BioWare's decision? It's the same thing, either way, until they finally decide that they should unveil the Specializations and the actual skill trees.

So what you're essentially saying is "Yes, encounter design will be flat and boring since they have to stick to 'this is what they can do at any given point, and we have to dumb down encounters accordingly'". This means that, as I speculated earlier here, and in the first casualty of "Well, this is off topic" every encounter will be you see the enemies, and then may have to swap out skills on the bars and then tactics because you may be set up for something entirely different. This means that you're going to potentially spend almost as much time in the game redesigning your party as you do actually playing the game. This is based entirely on what we know, not what we assume to be the case because reasons... We have to go on what we know, not what we assume might maybe be the case. We didn't create this firestorm, they did by keeping the trees and the Specs under wraps to build up their MP reveal.

What I know, based entirely on past titles here, is that this set up arbitrarily gimps what you can do with what is arguably the best feature in this game for party combat; tactics. If we have more than 8 active abilities per character, anything that nullifies selected skills gimps tactics, since it removes skills that you may have learned from your arsenal by deactivating any tactic that may use it simply because it's not on the hot bar. What's next? Will your 2H warrior suddenly have to go sword and board because they "forgot" how to use that 2H axe you found in that last cave? I mean, weapons and skill choices are all that differentiates fighters from rogues, are we going to "forget" those too to make the game more "tactical"? I sure hope they didn't spend a lot of money on the "This attack didn't work" banters from the PC and NPCs in your party. This was, after all, the audio clue that your current set up wasn't working, and that you needed to change tack accordingly. Something that will be impossible in the current system, since you can't change those 8 skills in combat, making it a "tactical reload" to change them up.

Is this based on the assumption that we'll have active abilities comparable to the previous titles? Yes, it is. Why? Because that's what I have to go on. I have no information that states that in the current iteration of Thedas, a capped toon is now only as strong, active ability wise, as a level 10 character from the previous installment. Will this iteration's abilities be so much stronger that they can limit each and every spec, mage warrior or rogue to 8 active abilities? Well, we don't know, do we? In fact, we don't even know what the Specs are, at this stage, do we. We don't know how the skill trees actually look. All we know is that we're limited on what we can do by game mechanics, not gameplay mechanics mind, since we don't know that we won't have 16 active abilities per spec, but game mechanics, since there are only 8 slots to put active abilities in. It doesn't matter if we have 16 active abilities, or 9, if we can only use 8, we are artificially limited by the UI.

[robertthebard]

Without the limits the choices aren't important because you can use whatever you want in the fight.
 
Limitations can be a good thing.

This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with this whole idea. My choices aren't important. Because some of those choices will be moot when I have to change my quick bar set up. After all, choices I make for tactics are still choices that are now being tossed out the window because "Surprise, your skills don't work here".