322 réponses à ce sujet

[durasteel]

...

We do know though. There's a 34 page thread with a dozen or more screenshots of the abilities screens for all three classes from the last few demos. We know the general layout, a ladder design, and number of skills per tree. They go in a 2x2x2x2x1 or 2 fashion active/passive/active/passive/active format, for the most part. Each tree has either 9 or 10 total abilities. Specializations seem to only be 7 abilities so far with what we've seen of Reaver and Knight Enchanter trees. Most trees also have at least a 3 upgrades for the active abilities, some have upwards of 6.

 

 

Clearly shows a level 9 warrior with 6 active abilities. Poor bastard can only learn 2 more before he'll have to start gimping himself. Huzzah.

[In Exile]

Clearly shows a level 9 warrior with 6 active abilities. Poor bastard can only learn 2 more before he'll have to start gimping himself. Huzzah.

 

Or it may be that upgrades have level restrictions, and then to hit the 8 limit you'd have to actively gimp yourself by not taking upgrades. 

[GipsyDangeresque]

Never played Guild Wars, no, but I'm slightly familiar with it--the original, anyway. As I understand it, that was a completely different system designed for different leveled characters to be able to play together, and where new abilities would render your old ones obsolete. In addition, I believe the selection of 8 abilities for your character (out of the hundreds upon hundreds you could choose from) defined your character for the instance in much the same way that character class defines your avatar in other games. You could have a different role from one instance to the next, as if you had changed class.

 

Again, I didn't play the game, I only read about it. Perhaps you could correct my misperceptions.

 

In Inquisition, you select a class, you select a spec tree, you pick your abilities. Then, it seems, you have to pick a few abilities to leave behind, as if you hadn't ever learned them. It seems to me that's one step too many. If we are going to be limited to 8 abilities, then what do we need role-defining classes for? We're not picking 8 abilities from among hundreds to define our character, we're just crossing off 4 - 6 abilities from our list because of a limitation which most seem willing to accept is completely arbitrary and not at all based on the number of buttons on an X Box controller, no not at all.

 

No, you were definitely locked into your class choice. There were 6 professions in the game initially. Your class choice determined the armor you used, your primary stat as well as your skill choices and stats. You would a little later on grab a secondary profession to try and mix other class skills with your own for more creativity, but you still could never build more than 8 abilities.

 

You're right in that while there are over 1000 skills in that game, many are redundant (Different kinds of sword slashes that hit 3 times, or 2 times, or disorient people that are hit while moving) to the point where some are in practicality strict upgrades to others but every ability is designed to scale from 1 to 20 and is (intended) to be usable for some purpose or situation.

 

 

The core of the matter is, they did not allow you more abilities as you leveled up, or when you got your second class. They continued to restrict you to 8 skills for the simple reason that this would breed creativity in builds and encourage diversity among the playerbase. A fire elementalist plays differently from an air/earth elementalist, plays differently then an elementalist that uses all four elements. A 2h hammer warrior uses different skills then an axe warrior... which uses different skills then a sword warrior.

 

 

There are many ways in which Dragon Age Inquisition's combat could be improved in my eyes. More spell trees, divided into their respective schools. More types of weapon sets. Larger specializations. Returning sustained abilities would be a plus. Mutually exclusive ability or upgrade choices, a la the branching evolutions in Mass Effect 3.

 

But keeping it to 8 or 10 talent slots? No. That seems like an intriguing idea with possible positive benefits to the combat systems that I've seen work to great effect before. If anything, I'd keep the number of activated abilities you can get similar to the number you can get in DA:2 and DA:O. 13 or 14 by the end, but you're still only using 8. It encourages you not to take 7 or 6 more abilities that already contribute to the same strategy and fighting style you already use, and instead to take very different skills so that switching them out is meaningful to your capabilities as a fighter.

[EnduinRaylene]

Clearly shows a level 9 warrior with 6 active abilities. Poor bastard can only learn 2 more before he'll have to start gimping himself. Huzzah.

It's a demo build, ability count, stats and everything else are wildly inconsistent and hardly reliable gauges of the final game's progression. 

 

One demo had a low level dev kill a dragon, despite the fact that dragons are meant to be high level enemies to be taken out during the end game, because the demo builds difficulty and everything are all out of whack compared to the actual game.

[RevanCousland]

in the console version of dao and da2 its possible so it should be possible in dai. to give an example:in dao (console) if  i put enemy clustered 3 use fireball but that mage doesn't have fireball on one of his/her 6 quick slots he/she would still use it anyway.

[robertthebard]

It's a demo build, ability count, stats and everything else are wildly inconsistent and hardly reliable gauges of the final game's progression. 
 
One demo had a low level dev kill a dragon, despite the fact that dragons are meant to be high level enemies to be taken out during the end game, because the demo builds difficulty and everything are all out of whack compared to the actual game.

Which would mean, to me, that it's worthless for the sake of this conversation. All, or none of what we see there may apply to the actual game, so we're right back at "we know nothing except that we're limited by the UI".

[CronoDragoon]

You are clinging to the concept that accommodating a game controller had no part in limiting your action bar to 8 slots. I do not feel that yours is a reasonable belief. 

 

I don't have to cling to anything, because it's no concern of mine if it was to accommodate game controllers or not. If it was, I'd consider it a reasonable sacrifice that may also bring benefits. If it wasn't, then that's in line with their overall design philosophy for Inquisition that they have stated many times over.

 

I am just pointing out that your stated reasons for how this was to accomodate controllers don't match up with how Origins and DA2 played.

[EnduinRaylene]

 

Which would mean, to me, that it's worthless for the sake of this conversation. All, or none of what we see there may apply to the actual game, so we're right back at "we know nothing except that we're limited by the UI".

Not really. It's quite reasonable to believe that the actual trees themselves won't change much since we've seen them several times now throughout several different demo builds and the they are uniform across all classes and trees. Even if the demos are skewed to show off the game while not actually following the actual progression in terms of enemy health, number of abilities and so on that shouldn't affect how the ability trees are shown. Especially because a bunch of them show high level skills active without the preceding abilities purchased.

[I WANT MOD]

8 slot in PC only a joke

[Altima Darkspells]

Clearly shows a level 9 warrior with 6 active abilities. Poor bastard can only learn 2 more before he'll have to start gimping himself. Huzzah.

Don't forget that the Inquisitor has her own unique skills (that whole...murder every demon in the AOE skill, for example). So it's entirely possible that you will be building around six abilities anyway.

[robertthebard]

Not really. It's quite reasonable to believe that the actual trees themselves won't change much since we've seen them several times now throughout several different demo builds and the they are uniform across all classes and trees. Even if the demos are skewed to show off the game while not actually following the actual progression in terms of enemy health, number of abilities and so on that shouldn't affect how the ability trees are shown. Especially because a bunch of them show high level skills active without the preceding abilities purchased.

It's no more reasonable than believing I'll be spending nearly as much time "rebuilding" my party as I am playing the game. If Class and spec abilities wind up being double what's available to slot, we're going to have to scout, lay out skills, then lay out tactics. When our scouting shows that the current set up party wide won't be effective, or as effective, we're going to have to do it again, and yet again, and all it takes is mobs that are highly resistant to what we're using, and we're starting over.

At the lower levels, this will be moot, since we, in all likelihood, won't have the abilities to even fill the bar, let alone deal with whatever the game throws at us. The middle game, based on past experience within the franchise, is where we start having to pick and choose, and we're not just picking and choosing skills. It makes no sense to leave the skills functional in the tactics, if they're truly trying to limit us via the hot bar. So, skills you haven't slotted won't be available for tactics, so you're going to have to revamp them as well.

What this leads to is very static game play. Due to the amount of time it may take to revamp your entire party for specific parts of the game, the mobs will very likely conform to "this is the best set up to use for this area". There will be no surprises, no "if only I had room for skill B in this set up" style encounters, because that would cause havoc here. So the game, as pretty as it is, including the UI, which I do actually like, if not the limitations set out in it, will be pretty boring in that, no matter what happens, they can't throw a monkey wrench in your works. Ambushes will be you ambushing enemies, so that you have time to set up the skills you need, and change your tactics around to suit the skills you're currently using. All of which will become very stale, very fast, all in the name of making the game more tactical?

That's where we need to be clear, there is nothing tactical about this scenario. It is all metagaming to get the best outcomes, and while that may be strategic, it's not tactical. Tactical would be going in blind, with all the skills you have at your disposal available for use, and finding what works for what you're fighting and rolling with it. If you're tactics aren't working out, you can then switch them off, and go Tac cam and give orders accordingly. Under the current system, if your tactics and skills are wrong, you're reloading; hello metagame.

[Thandal N'Lyman]

I've played-through DAO/DAA/GoA/WH/DA2 so many times I've lost count.  Over all those games I've noticed that, presuming passive abilities aren't part of the "Magic 8" and that inventory items have their own "quick-slots", eight should be plenty! 

 

And, as has probably already been discussed-to-death in this topic (didn't read it all) the decision to limit the number of at-hand abilities was a deliberate one to force the player to actively consider what might be needed for the current/next situation.  It was a "style of the game" issue, not a technical one. 

 

If one doesn't like it, fine.  That's a valid opinion.  But there's no need to go looking for "Consoles First - PCs After" conspiracies to explain it.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

I found myself beginning to get in an argument so I took a break. We all have our opinions and can really only wait for more information or the game itself. Until the 8 mapped abilities bit I was happy with everything else I've seen so I am not going to let myself get upset over something when so far I don't know the entire context. My son informed me that this was a trend in games and can sometimes work out really well. Don't ask me which games he's referring to because I haven't a clue. Since I only play a few games I never ask because I don't understand the frame of reference and usually forget them shortly after he says the name. Nor do I expect to like every aspect of the game (hair, anyone?) so . . . *shrug*

[davidselite737]

Doesnt bother me, Im the Inquisitor and the only ability i need is.... Swing this massive S word... 

[Rawgrim]

Doesn't the missions you send you agents out to, take up to 8 hours of real time? The missions uses our clock, not in-game hours, after all. Does this mean we have to wait up to 8 hours before we can get the info we need to pick abilities?

[Sylvius the Mad]

You really need to let go of this complaint. It's nonsense. Might as well complain that Alistair and Morrigan are fireproof because they can survive dragon fire breath without even a burnt hai

I take that as evidence that the visuals presented to us are an abstraction of what's really happening.

Of course, that renders cinematics entirely pointless.

[Alodar]

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.

 

Wow.

Go away for a weekend and much nonsense gets posted.

 

So you haven't read my posts but know exactly what I'm thinking and what my true meaning is? Uh-huh.

Honestly, am I missing the Freudian analysis button on my version of the forums? -- because so many of you seem to be able to intuit so much from what is typed.

 

Although I'm certain you won't read this either like you didn't read  my other posts, even though without reading them you somehow thought you sensed both my intent and characterized my tone, I will respond to your misconceptions just the same:

 

1. I do not dismiss opposing points of view, unless of course those points of view are claiming to know what I think or what my intent is -- those are easy to dismiss.
2. I do however challenge the assertions that people make. If people can't logically back up those assertions they don't have much of an argument
3. Anyone on this board could change my point of view simply by pointing out flaws in my arguments -- that has yet to happen on this subject.
4. Characterizing my posts as lashing out or ignoring/dismissing is very amusing considering the overly aggressive tone of your posts
5. I don't need to respect BioWare's design decisions prima facie, while I admire and respect the fine folks who work at BioWare, they have shown themselves more than capable of making bone-headed design decisions. This is one of those times.

 

So we are back to where we started:

 

• Folks that are ambivalent about the number of abilities they use per character can't figure out what the fuss is all about, because to them this does not change their play style in the slightest.
• Folks that enjoy using more than 8 abilities per character find this arbitrary limitation both restrictive and frustrating because it hampers their preferred play style.
• Folks who like verisimilitude in their game find it doubly frustrating because there is no in game reason you wouldn't use the perfect ability, that you've already learned, to defeat the creature before you just because it's not on your hotbar.

 

And of course the main question of this thread remains unanswered:

 

If you have your tactics set up to use an ability that is not part of the arbitrary 8 will they still fire or will they be skipped forcing you to redo your tactics every time you switch out a spell on your hotbar, which IMHO would make for very tedious micromanaging.

[AlanC9]

Wow.
Anyone on this board could change my point of view simply by pointing out flaws in my arguments -- that has yet to happen on this subject.

How would one point out a flawed premise by argument, though?

Actually, you haven't really been in the business of making logical arguments in this thread. You've been expressing your conclusions and your tastes plenty, but you haven't presented much argument. I'm assuming that I'm disagreeing with your premises because that's nicer, but I could very well be guessing wrong about that.

 Folks that do use more than 8 abilities per character find this arbitrary limitation both restrictive and frustrating because it hampers their preferred play style.

This is just silly. I use more than 8 abilities when playing DAO, but that has no bearing on how I feel about playing DAI. I don't have a DAI playstyle yet since I haven't played DAI.

Folks who like verisimilitude in their game find it doubly frustrating because there is no in game reason you wouldn't use the perfect ability, that you've already learned, to defeat the creature before you just because it's not on your hotbar.[/*]

Agreed. Sucks to be you, I guess.

[Sidney]

Folks that don't use more than 8 abilities per character can't figure out what the fuss is all about, because to them this does not change their play style in the slightest.

 

 

I'm sure I use more than 8 powers albeit not on a fight to fight basis -- the real issue is to gripe about "only 8" implies that currently you understand how powers are distributed, leveled and used in the game. There are plenty of ways that the powers might only marginally bump up against that limit.

 

Plus, all sorts of games have limits on your casting/powers. BG1/2 had a limit on spells you could cast AND how often you could cast them (daily memorization).  TW2 had what only 5 total spells at all anyways. KoA had a max of 4 mapped skills. Bioshock had was it 2 total mapped plasmids?  Are all of those bad games because of those limits? Were you horribly constrained by them?

[robertthebard]

I'm sure I use more than 8 powers albeit not on a fight to fight basis -- the real issue is to gripe about "only 8" implies that currently you understand how powers are distributed, leveled and used in the game. There are plenty of ways that the powers might only marginally bump up against that limit.
 
Plus, all sorts of games have limits on your casting/powers. BG1/2 had a limit on spells you could cast AND how often you could cast them (daily memorization).  TW2 had what only 5 total spells at all anyways. KoA had a max of 4 mapped skills. Bioshock had was it 2 total mapped plasmids?  Are all of those bad games because of those limits? Were you horribly constrained by them?

http://forum.bioware...9#entry17239718

According to some here, BG was horribly broken due to mages being imbalanced. The same rules applied to NWN too, and it was also horribly broken because mages were imbalanced, according to some people, anyway. So what's it matter how many skills are on the bar? 8 or 80, somebody is going to cry about someone else being too strong and their class being too weak, and some of those have probably already posted in one version or another of this thread.

[AlanC9]

So what's it matter how many skills are on the bar? 8 or 80, somebody is going to cry about someone else being too strong and their class being too weak, and some of those have probably already posted in one version or another of this thread.

OK. So where does that leave us? You say you want more skills on the bar because you just like having more skills on the bar, Sidney says he doesn't give a damn as long as the game plays well and.... we end the thread?

[durasteel]

OK. So where does that leave us? You say you want more skills on the bar because you just like having more skills on the bar, Sidney says he doesn't give a damn as long as the game plays well and.... we end the thread?

 

It's difficult to have a really insightful on-point discussion when the only real answer to the question in the OP is "I don't know."

[robertthebard]

It's difficult to have a really insightful on-point discussion when the only real answer to the question in the OP is "I don't know."

QFT.

[Alodar]

 

How would one point out a flawed premise by argument, though?

Actually, you haven't really been in the business of making logical arguments in this thread. You've been expressing your conclusions and your tastes plenty, but you haven't presented much argument. I'm assuming that I'm disagreeing with your premises because that's nicer, but I could very well be guessing wrong about that.

You keep on using the word logic. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

If a deductive argument is valid, then that means that the reasoning process behind the inferences is correct and that no fallacies have been committed. If the premises of such an argument are true, then it is impossible for the conclusion not to be true. Conversely, if an argument is invalid, then the reasoning process behind the inferences is not correct.

If a deductive argument is sound, then that means that not only are all the inferences true, but the premises are also true. Hence, the conclusion is necessarily true. Here are two examples to illustrate the differences between a valid and a sound argument:

1. All birds are mammals. (premise)
2. A platypus is a bird. (premise)
3. Therefore, the platypus is a mammal. (conclusion)

This is a valid deductive argument, even though the premises are both false. But because those premises are not true, the argument is not sound. It is interesting to note that the conclusion is true — this demonstrates that an argument with false premises can nevertheless produce a true conclusion.

1. All trees are plants. (premise)
2. The redwood is a tree. (premise)
3. Therefore, the redwood is a plant. (conclusion)

This is a valid deductive argument because its form is correct. It is also a sound argument because the premises are true. As explained above, because its form is valid and its premises are true, we are guaranteed that the conclusion is also true.

 

To show an argument is unsound you simply need to show that the premises are false.

 

 

This is just silly. I use more than 8 abilities when playing DAO, but that has no bearing on how I feel about playing DAI. I don't have a DAI playstyle yet since I haven't played DAI.

 

 

Here you are absolutely correct. I have amended my argument noting that those who are ambivalent about using more than 8 abilities in the game will be ambivalent about the restriction and those who enjoy using more than 8 abilities in a game will be frustrated by this restriction. Thank you for pointing out this flaw in my argument!

 

 

Agreed. Sucks to be you, I guess.

 

Actually it's great to be me. The only thing that sucks here is BioWare's decision to limit the number of available abilities in any combat to 8.

 

And of course that we still don't know what the ramifications of this decision are to how the tactics system will operate.