322 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

No, you won't. You will always only have 8, and if you're in combat, you're only going to have the 8 on your bar, no switching in combat, remember. Now, if you metagame and know you can slot it, you are correct, but if you're trying to play a CRPG as an RPG, you're hosed, and if you can't play it as an RPG, why is it included in the RPG category?

 

Yes, I am sure BioWare will put nothing in the game to assist you in determining what abilities you are going to need for a dungeon or a castle or an area, despite the fact that being able to and rewarded for preplanning is their stated intent for the change.

[Il Divo]

No, you won't. You will always only have 8, and if you're in combat, you're only going to have the 8 on your bar, no switching in combat, remember. Now, if you metagame and know you can slot it, you are correct, but if you're trying to play a CRPG as an RPG, you're hosed, and if you can't play it as an RPG, why is it included in the RPG category?

 

Assuming I'm reading you correctly, why would this only apply to DA:I, however? Virtually every game in existence abides by the "players learn from their mistakes and do better" philosophy. The only way this doesn't work is if your character, for role-playing reasons, performs the same actions over again, which will likely still result in their death. But the notion of players using past failures to change their tactics is more than viable in RPG's, where equipment choices and merchant purchases are concerned. Hell, even old school DnD was probably the worst culprit of all, with its Vancian Casting. 

 

That said, I can't say I've ever found the idea of combat role-playing to be even worth the effort.

[robertthebard]

Yes, I am sure BioWare will put nothing in the game to assist you in determining what abilities you are going to need for a dungeon or a castle or an area, despite the fact that being able to and rewarded for preplanning is their stated intent for the change.

Once again, they have the ingame prima strategy guide for you to use. Simply mouse over the mob, get it's HP, Immunities, Vulnerabilities and level. You're free to metagame your way to success the whole game, based on what's been provided so far. Iconic heroes was their stated idea for the change in customization of companions in DA 2. I'm thinking that that didn't go over very well, considering the first concept art we got was, you guessed it, demonstrating a very alpha version of companion customization.

[robertthebard]

Assuming I'm reading you correctly, why would this only apply to DA:I, however? Virtually every game in existence abides by the "players learn from their mistakes and do better" philosophy. The only way this doesn't work is if your character, for role-playing reasons, performs the same actions over again, which will likely still result in their death. But the notion of players using past failures to change their tactics is more than viable in RPG's, where equipment choices and merchant purchases are concerned. Hell, even old school DnD was probably the worst culprit of all, with its Vancian Casting. 
 
That said, I can't say I've ever found the idea of combat role-playing to be even worth the effort.

I'm not trying to role play in Call of Duty. Combat is part of this game, but it isn't the total scope. I have taken suboptimal parties into situations because they were the party members that I liked. When I limit myself, it's role play, when the game limits me, it's BS.

[Altima Darkspells]

Yes, I am sure BioWare will put nothing in the game to assist you in determining what abilities you are going to need for a dungeon or a castle or an area, despite the fact that being able to and rewarded for preplanning is their stated intent for the change.

Let's be honest. In some of the resistances in DA2 and the majority of the Nightmare immunities, it was all random. It's almost as if BioWare decided to have a nature immune this because there hadn't been one in a while, and an electric resistant that just because.

[AlanC9]

Once again, they have the ingame prima strategy guide for you to use. Simply mouse over the mob, get it's HP, Immunities, Vulnerabilities and level. You're free to metagame your way to success the whole game, based on what's been provided so far.

They're said that the tooltip information is based on your experience with the creature. If using this is metagaming, then so is using an automap.

But what does this matter, really? You're just as offended by not being able to predict the optimal loadout for a fight as you are by being able to predict it.

[Scarlet Rabbi]

Context. I think we need more context before losing our sh*t. I have to admit, having just eight abilities during combat with the other ones locked out sounds god awful, but if the combat was designed around this limitation than maybe we won't even notice it. Maybe...Hopefully....

Still sounds awful. But DAI is a different beast that its two siblings so....I hope the devs address this in more detail soon.

[Caelorummors]

I'd rather have 8 meaningful, impactful abilities that make me feel powerful than 16 abilities that I just have to use to get through a fight.

[Alodar]

It isn't nullifying a strategic choice. Choosing a 9th ability that you can only use with preparation is a strategic choice in itself - it is just a different choice from choosing a 9th ability that is always available to you. 

 

 

Yes it is nullifying a strategic choice.

 

Strategy, by definition, is long range planning. Who to attack, who to befriend and what resources to cultivate.

Tactics are the methods you use to achieve your over-all strategy.

 

Part of building those resources occurs when you choose abilities for you characters. The strategy you use to choose those abilities determines what and who your characters can be effective against. For example if your strategy was to choose only fire spells for mages, then that strategy would fail if your forces encountered fire resistant creatures. A very effective strategy would be to choose many different kinds of damage and many different kinds of crowd control so your forces would always have winning tactics available to them.

 

The limitation of 8 usable abilities per encounter does not offer any additional strategy whatsoever.

 

The choice of should I fight with one eye closed or one hand behind my back is not a strategic choice. Choosing to not use the tactics that are available to you is not a tactical choice.

 

If you have 12 abilities but are arbitrarily restricted  from using 4 of them, then you are simply choosing to fight with your eyes closed.

[SetecAstronomy]

This one time I read a 9-10 page thread where the same 5-6 people were saying the same 2-3 things to each other over and over and oh crap that's this  thread, isn't it?

 

Seriously guys, no one is going to change their minds on either side of this.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They're said that the tooltip information is based on your experience with the creature. If using this is metagaming, then so is using an automap.

Depends on the automap.

 

If I fight a creature, but use no fire abilities on him, do I learn of his vulnerability to fire?  How about if I do?  How can I tell that something is vulnerable to fire?

 

I would hope that we at least have to see the enemy exposed to fire to learn such a thing, and ideally we'd need to see it exposed both to fire and to two other things, so we can see their relative effectiveness.

[Alodar]

This one time I read a 9-10 page thread where the same 5-6 people were saying the same 2-3 things to each other over and over and oh crap that's this  thread, isn't it?

 

Seriously guys, no one is going to change their minds on either side of this.

 

There is always hope that people will pause from re-iterating their chosen stance and listen to reason. If someone can point out a flaw in my reasoning I am always open to changing my position.

 

However this thread is still alive because the original question has yet to be answered:

 

BioWare has confirmed that there is a complex tactics system that can be set to allow control over the behaviour of your party.

BioWare has confirmed that there is a an arbitrary limit of 8 active abilities in any given battle.

 

What we don't know is what happens if the tactics that you set up call for an ability that is not currently on your hotbar?

Would that action be skipped in your tactics forcing you to reset each and every characters tactics every time you change the abilities on their hotbar (which would add a layer of tedious micro-managing to an already bad design choice)

Or does it circumvent your hotbar making the 8 ability restriction only a minor nuisance.

[durasteel]

The original question remains, as far as I can tell, unanswered. We still don't know what happens when your tactics refer to an ability that isn't on your hotbar, do we?

[NRieh]

The original question remains, as far as I can tell, unanswered. We still don't know what happens when your tactics refer to an ability that isn't on your hotbar, do we?

We don't. Probably, someone should twit them for an answer? It's a simple question, after all, and it has no additional spoilers.

At worst they're going to reply with 'sorry, we can't answer yet' 

[Sylvius the Mad]

We don't. Probably, someone should twit them for an answer? It's a simple question, after all, and it has no additional spoilers.

At worst they're going to reply with 'sorry, we can't answer yet' 

Several people already have.  No response.

[Gtdef]

There is no winning by answering this question. If it's yes then people will complain that the game is even more limited than they thought. If it's no then they will complain that the design was due to consolenoobs.

 

On the other hand, to find out ourselves we will have to be midway into the game cause 8 abilities require a lot of levels.

[Maria Caliban]

Assuming I'm reading you correctly, why would this only apply to DA:I, however? Virtually every game in existence abides by the "players learn from their mistakes and do better" philosophy.

Iron Man playthroughs are a thing I enjoy. In my mind, there's a reasonable divide between situations that require specific prior knowledge and those that require general prior knowledge. There's also a difference between a situation where I can scout out and avoid a confrontation and a situation where I'm going to get jumped and there's no way of avoiding it.

BioWare's design almost always includes set-pieces where you can't avoid a fight, can't scout beforehand, and require tactics that are specific to that fight. Even better if it begins with a cutscene that leaves your PC out in the open while shutting off the exits behind you.

I don't think highly-scripted combats that require specific tactics are bad design. I do think they are moments when the game abandons any pretense of being an RPG where the PC is supposed to be an individual with a limited amount of knowledge who can't come back from the dead.

Say what you will about the Elder Scrolls games, but if things go pear-shaped, I can quaff an invisability potion, run all the way back to the exit, and return when I'm ten levels higher.

[schall_und_rauch]

BioWare's design almost always includes set-pieces where you can't avoid a fight, can't scout beforehand, and require tactics that are specific to that fight. Even better if it begins with a cutscene that leaves your PC out in the open while shutting off the exits behind you.

I don't think highly-scripted combats that require specific tactics are bad design. I do think they are moments when the game abandons any pretense of being an RPG where the PC is supposed to be an individual with a limited amount of knowledge who can't come back from the dead.
 

 

I think a battle which practically requires a very rarely used and so far absolutely nonessential ability and does not warn the character ahead of time in a game which limits the number of in combat usable abilities per character to 8 is bad design. If they introduce such a battle, I can understand that people will complain.

 

Let's try a specific example: Weapon choices in ME3 are a bit like this limitation.  Giving yourself "more options" in the weapons department effectively meant "less options in the power department". 

They counted for one mission, rather than one battle, but they didn't count for the rest of the campaign. So, again, they are somewhere in between strategic and tactical.

 

One person complained that his usual Vanguard-Shotgun build together with companions who didn't have overload made Grissom Academy Insanity almost impossible. In such a case, the obvious answer is: You didn't prepare well enough for the mission, had a huge open gap in respect to shields and turrets, didn't balance your team to even out your weakness, despite being warned ahead of time that you are fighting Cerberos, a very tech based enemy, and chose a difficulty level called Insanity. Learn from your mistakes and restart the mission!

 

However, if you would introduce an end boss of a mission which pretty much requires a sniper rifle without serious warnings, and making it sooooo much harder without a sniper rifle, then I'd say: Bad design. Because for many classes, Sniper rifles are usually a bad choice.

[Maria Caliban]

I don't think Mass Effect is a good starting point as their combat system and encounters are very different.

What about the Broodmother?

It was non-optional. It had tactics unique to that fight. You were cutscened into the fight and your ability to run away was removed. There was no way to know prior to the broodmother fight either what you were facing or what sort of vulnerabilities it might have.

We see that sort of encounter handling in Dragon Age II as well. The ancient rock wrath is designed to trap you in a highly unique scenario where you can't easily change your party, unless you want to replay the entirety of the Deep Roads. Even on normal difficulty, the game seems to assume you'll die once while you figure out the pattern and when to hide behind pillars, and what damage is effective.

Even before that, you have a dragon fight... and there's no way to know that you're going to fight a dragon in the Deep Roads. I'm still not sure how the damn thing got there.

This is something BioWare does, and they have been doing for over a decade. Again, it's not bad design, but it's design based around reloading and learning from death. For people who enjoy immersing themselves in a PC and trying react to things in-character, it can be irksome.

If I did something like that in a PnP RPG, I'd end up with a total party kill, and everyone would be rolling up new characters.

[Gtdef]

I think a battle which practically requires a very rarely used and so far absolutely nonessential ability and does not warn the character ahead of time in a game which limits the number of in combat usable abilities per character to 8 is bad design. If they introduce such a battle, I can understand that people will complain.

 

Let's try a specific example: Weapon choices in ME3 are a bit like this limitation.  Giving yourself "more options" in the weapons department effectively meant "less options in the power department". 

They counted for one mission, rather than one battle, but they didn't count for the rest of the campaign. So, again, they are somewhere in between strategic and tactical.

 

One person complained that his usual Vanguard-Shotgun build together with companions who didn't have overload made Grissom Academy Insanity almost impossible. In such a case, the obvious answer is: You didn't prepare well enough for the mission, had a huge open gap in respect to shields and turrets, didn't balance your team to even out your weakness, despite being warned ahead of time that you are fighting Cerberos, a very tech based enemy, and chose a difficulty level called Insanity. Learn from your mistakes and restart the mission!

 

However, if you would introduce an end boss of a mission which pretty much requires a sniper rifle without serious warnings, and making it sooooo much harder without a sniper rifle, then I'd say: Bad design. Because for many classes, Sniper rifles are usually a bad choice.

 

What you are describing is something that happens when a person doesn't have the skill required to beat the game. I've done the fight with multiple classes, Shotgun Vanguard being one and it was perfectly doable as long as you don't charge the turrets like an idiot. The only different thing you are required to do from the rest of the game as this particular class is stay behind cover and wait for the enemies to come to you. Then spam charge-nova in melee and kill everything with eyes closed.

 

That's not bad game design. You are not required to have preemptive knowledge of the fight mechanics to beat it but there are ways to make it easier. The fight is one of the more difficult in the game and while a sniper helps, it's moderately hard for any class without sabotage, as is any Cerberus encounter. If you have sabotage the turrets kill everyone while you eat popcorn.

 

This fight is a stereotypical Cerberus fight on a larger scale. If you've fought them once, you know pretty much everything they do. This is consistent for the whole game.

 

Bad game design is the Ancient Rock Wraith, cause everything till then is a breeze and doable naked while ARW is a massive gear check, literally not beatable without optimization on Nightmare.  It's a mathematics problem. You can't avoid taking damage like with the dragons for example. So unless you can kill it fast enough you will take damage, if not from the boss itself then from the ranged adds. Potions are limited. If you lack the damage to kill it before they end there is nothing you can do.

 

On the other hand if you have optimized your skill loadout, have 95% electric resistance and a few spirit weapons, you kill it in 20 seconds. Literally.

 

To be fair though, the chances of 8 skill limitation causing something like this are virtually zero.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There is no winning by answering this question. If it's yes then people will complain that the game is even more limited than they thought. If it's no then they will complain that the design was due to consolenoobs.

They could use their planning and forethought argument either way.

On the other hand, to find out ourselves we will have to be midway into the game cause 8 abilities require a lot of levels.

We could find out right away by leaving the hotbar empty. Unless it autofills and we can't remove things. But that would be needlessly irritating.

[Gtdef]

We could find out right away by leaving the hotbar empty. Unless it autofills and we can't remove things. But that would be needlessly irritating.

 

Right, how didn't I think of this. lol

[LexXxich]

I'd still prefer to get the answer before the release date.

[schall_und_rauch]

What about the Broodmother?

It was non-optional. It had tactics unique to that fight. You were cutscened into the fight and your ability to run away was removed. There was no way to know prior to the broodmother fight either what you were facing or what sort of vulnerabilities it might have.

 

What about it?

Yes, it had different mechanics from what was seen before, but it didn't require any radical abilities. I don't see how this encounter would be majorly impacted by an 8 ability restriction.

Gaxkang would be a very different issue. Having a "if you have mana clash in your 8 abilities, you win easily" enemy in DA:I would be bad design.

 

I don't think the rock wraith encounter is all that great. Way too long, and too much relying on twitch reaction.

[TeamLexana]

I like the Rock Wraith fight because of the player reaction. I hate boss fights that are all like "we're dump a large aoe damage on you - that you 100% can't avoid - and now you just have to deal with it". To be fair, it's been a long time since I've fought the Rock Wraith though, lol. I do remember it being pretty easy to avoid most of the big attacks, the length of the fight could be annoying but doable.