2061 réponses à ce sujet

[KoorahUK]

BG2 didn't have an 8 ability limitation. To me the biggest issue is this limitation combined with the lack of healing which it appears will make certain abilities mandatory which essentially further reduces those 8 abilities and also leads to a reduction in the ability to experiment with abilities and different party make ups.

This gets said a lot in here but I need a clarification...

How is feeling obliged to use some of your limited slots on Barrier and Group Heal in this system any different from being obliged to take Heal, Group Heal and Restoration under the old?

[PhroXenGold]

that would be false consoles had them all before, it would be a mutiplayer limit.

 

Given that multiplayer is limited to 4 abilities, I'm going to guess that the 8 ability limit is actually because Bioware felt it would make a more enjoyable, tactical game. And they're not alone is that kind of thinking. I've seen several other games take a similar "limited action set" approach.

[KoorahUK]

makes more sense than consoles since consoles had everything before now no one does. which is another change that makes little sense.

No it doesn't make any more sense than blaming consoles. Both are invalid arguments that seem to be based on personal prejudice.

I think, if there is an external influence on the decision to limit abilities to 8, it is more likely to make life easier for Controller users, which these days is a platform agnostic control method. Thats just speculation though as nobody who doesn't work for BioWare can really claim to know why.

[Catastrophy]

Given that multiplayer is limited to 4 abilities, I'm going to guess that the 8 ability limit is actually because Bioware felt it would make a more enjoyable, tactical game. And they're not alone is that kind of thinking. I've seen several other games take a similar "limited action set" approach.

Sometimes less is more? It worked out for Mass Effect MP and I'd personally like to see similar dynamic gameplay in DAMP.

[KoorahUK]

Given that multiplayer is limited to 4 abilities, I'm going to guess that the 8 ability limit is actually because Bioware felt it would make a more enjoyable, tactical game. And they're not alone is that kind of thinking. I've seen several other games take a similar "limited action set" approach.

Agree. I think this is more to do with trying to make the combat more streamlined, as well as adhering to the over arching design brief of asking the player to prepare for whats ahead.

[n7stormrunner]

This gets said a lot in here but I need a clarification...

How is feeling obliged to use some of your limited slots on Barrier and Group Heal in this system any different from being obliged to take Heal, Group Heal and Restoration under the old?

 

 

you still have everything in the old it's just behind a menu but you can use it any time. now need the one heal didn't slot it. lol sucks to be you.

 

 

Given that multiplayer is limited to 4 abilities, I'm going to guess that the 8 ability limit is actually because Bioware felt it would make a more enjoyable, tactical game. And they're not alone is that kind of thinking. I've seen several other games take a similar "limited action set" approach.

 

 

I have as well, and I'm really starting to lose my temper with all the miss use of the word tactical. I'm just going to leave it a that.

 

 

 

No it doesn't make any more sense than blaming consoles. Both are invalid arguments that seem to be based on personal prejudice.

I think, if there is an external influence on the decision to limit abilities to 8, it is more likely to make life easier for Controller users, which these days is a platform agnostic control method. Thats just speculation though as nobody who doesn't work for BioWare can really claim to know why.

 

 

I like multiplayer, I'm glad it's here. don't confuse me for you. reducing tactical choices because... reasons make no sense at all. were as the fact you can pause in mutiplayer makes some.

[steamcamel]

I'm fine with this. To me, it felt like progression in Origins and DA2 was impossible on harder difficulties without a healer. And I felt like I was forced to bring along companions that I didn't like (Wynne and Anders).

Besides, there's way too much hand-holding in games nowadays. If the elimination of heal spells will make Inquisition challenging, I welcome it.

[KoorahUK]

you still have everything in the old it's just behind a menu but you can use it any time. now need the one heal didn't slot it. lol sucks to be you.

No, try again. Thats the difference between being limited to 8 slots vs not. What I'm asking is why, given that we ARE limited to 8 slots do some people feel that being obliged to take spells that prevent damage is any different from being obliged to take spells that heal damage. I'm just asking someone to explain why being obliged to take barrier is any different from being obliged to take heal.

I like multiplayer, I'm glad it's here. don't confuse me for you.

I'm guessing you can't see my sig on your phone. I apologise for making an assumption. Doesn't change the fact that 8 slots has zero to do with mp.

[PhroXenGold]

I have as well, and I'm really starting to lose my temper with all the miss use of the word tactical. I'm just going to leave it a that.

 

No, go ahead, I'd love to head why you think "tactical" is being misused.

[n7stormrunner]

No, go ahead, I'd love to head why you think "tactical" is being misused.

 

 

because it doesn't mean this is good. it means how you carry out a strategic objective  i.e. choose between using regular heals or barriers to deal with dmg would be tactical. limiting options because loltactics!!! doesn't have anything  to that at all.

 

just to be clear I don't you personally are misusing it but the forum in gerenal has a problem with it. whether or not you're happy with that answer I'm not saying more on the subject my post on it is likely to get me banned and most days I like this forum.

[LexXxich]

8 potions limit in combat I can understand, prepared for easy access or whatever. But what about backpack? Why can't Inquisitor store additional potions there and replace spent bottles between fights? Bringing additional supply counts as preparation, yes?

[nightscrawl]

A lot of people are picturing trying to play DAO/2 with no heals. Of course that wouldn't work, those games weren't balanced for that. But how well were they balanced with heals, really? I'm not a numbers guy, but I like a good fight. And here's what made it make sense for me.

There's a very simple reason why this is a good decision, and it's also why the balance in DAO/2 was all over the map. It's in the question "How many health points does a player have?" Because we need to know this before we can design an encounter and know how balanced it is.

...

Now in Inquisition, by reducing healing, by actually defining HP to a range that can have real numbers in it, we can better balance encounters. And no, players can't rely on chaining potions. So what do they get instead?

Abilities/gear/choices that actually have an effect on the battle that is greater than infinite health on your belt. And because your greatest ability isn't chugging potions, we need less effects that shut you down. You spend more time in control of your characters making more varied decisions to have a greater effect on the flow of the battle. You have regen from spells and potions and gear. You have effects you can craft that grant health on enemy deaths. You have damage mitigation through abilities and buffs and crafting. Limiting health and balancing enemies accordingly makes more tactical choices viable while keeping the challenge.

Does this make it more difficult? On Nightmare, Well, you asked for a challenge, and you'll have one that you can overcome in many more viable ways than previously possible.

But what about Easy? Well, last weekend, on Easy/Casual, starting the game with a mage and me not saying a word, my seven year old played for two hours that included many battles, including rifts and beating the crap out of a low level Pride demon. No party wipes. I covered his ears once.

I think you'll be fine.

Thanks so much for explaining this so thoroughly! That last bit is especially quote worthy for those that are concerned about difficulty.

I've seen similar types of responses from the World of Warcraft devs when talking about healing changes. It basically amounts to having healing structured a certain way forced the devs to a certain type of encounter design: "Currently, as healers and their allies acquire better and better gear, the percentage of a player’s health that any given heal restores increases significantly. As a result, healers are able to refill health bars so fast that we have to make damage more and more “bursty” in order to challenge them."

 

I do realize that a giant MMO and a SP game with a hard limit on party size and class variety are very different. However it seems that the mental process behind various changes is basically the same on the part of the developers, which I find interesting. I can say that this worked to varying degrees of success and player happiness. Some were pleased with the added challenge and some switched to their damage specs because it was too frustrating to deal with.

 

That said, I am pleased to see that Easy is actually easy. I fully expect myself to be increasing the difficulty level over time, but I will certainly be starting at the lowest so I can thoroughly learn and enjoy the story and new shininess without the constant threat of death from some minor mistake while I was ogling the scenery.

 

Here is a silver lining. If there is no healing class or spec, that means we don't have to worry about not bringing along whichever companion with those abilities, or being forced to spec into those ourselves. In DA2 it was pretty easy to find yourself without any type of healer at the end of the game. That is no longer a worry because healers don't exist.

 

 

As an aside, I must say that, from a story stand point, it seems a bit odd. We're going to have three mage followers and not ONE of them can throw out a heal? That is some pretty bad luck right there to be leading the Inquisition and get stuck with three mages who couldn't care less about learning some healing spells. Honestly, every mage everywhere should learn some creation magic, if only to heal themselves. In the Anders short story he simply brushes away a headache. How awesome is that?! I'm rather hoping that there may be some jokey party banter about it.

[The Elder King]

You know, these are two different issues. The 8 abilities limitation is made thanks to consoles, a resource management is introduced to make the game more challenging.

  
Players could use every abilites on console in the previous games, with a tool that it's still present on console.

Given that multiplayer is limited to 4 abilities, I'm going to guess that the 8 ability limit is actually because Bioware felt it would make a more enjoyable, tactical game. And they're not alone is that kind of thinking. I've seen several other games take a similar "limited action set" approach.

Probably.

[Maeshone]

because it doesn't mean this is good. it means how you carry out a strategic objective  i.e. choose between using regular heals or barriers to deal with dmg would be tactical. limiting options because loltactics!!! doesn't have anything  to that at all.

 

just to be clear I don't you personally are misusing it but the forum in gerenal has a problem with it. whether or not you're happy with that answer I'm not saying more on the subject my post on it is likely to get me banned and most days I like this forum.

Definition of tactics: 

 

A ) the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat

 

B ) the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end

 

Healing is no longer an availible means. The game is still based around tactics.

 

Having an ability that basically resets your party betwen each fight is detrimental to a tactical experience. Sure, each fight may still be tactical on it's own, as you need to consider when and where to employ a heal, but after each fight you can just heal up to full and be on your merry way. Limited resources and health regeneration forces you to think about how you engage any given situation, as you can't just heal up to full after every fight without having to backtrack frequently.

[PhroXenGold]

because it doesn't mean this is good. it means how you carry out a strategic objective  i.e. choose between using regular heals or barriers to deal with dmg would be tactical. limiting options because loltactics!!! doesn't have anything  to that at all.

 

just to be clear I don't you personally are misusing it but the forum in gerenal has a problem with it. whether or not you're happy with that answer I'm not saying more on the subject my post on it is likely to get me banned and most days I like this forum.

 

When I, and I suspect the devs, use the phrase "more tactical", it's short hand for "making the tactical decisions you have to make more relevant and meaningful". Simply having more options does not make for gameplay that is "more tactical" in this sense. In fact, often is can lead to less tactical gameplay - the more options you have, the more likely there is a clear cut best solution. In which case, to all intents and purposes, there is no choice, no decision making. You just take the best option.

 

And healing is the best option when it is effectively unlimited as it was in previous DA games. Yes, in DA2 it had long cooldowns, but over time, you could just keep healing. Once combat ended, you were back to full health. As long as you could survive the battle, you had full health. And once out-of-combat health regen is removed, healing must also go, or it trivialises the entire idea of removing regen.

 

Now, that isn't the case. Your ability to restore health is limited. Which puts you in a position where you have to make tactical decisions. You have to trade off taking damage now in the process of winning this fight with maintaining enough health to last through future fights. You have to think much more carefully about how you are going to mitigate damage, because, while there are indeed less options for doing so, there is no longer a clear cut best option for doing so so the choice you have is more difficult and meaningful.

 

Or, at least, that's how it will be if this is implented well. I just hope Bioware can do so.

[Monster A-Go Go]

8 potions limit in combat I can understand, prepared for easy access or whatever. But what about backpack? Why can't Inquisitor store additional potions there and replace spent bottles between fights? Bringing additional supply counts as preparation, yes?

One of the rewards for a wartable quest was listed as tempered glass, which allows you to carry more potions without risk of breakage.

 

So that's how they explain the limit in game terms and let you carry more with investment.

 

Of course, the answer behind the curtain is: gameplay.  Having too many potions upfront could force them to reevaluate and recalibrate combat difficulty.  8 potions is where they landed for a reason.

[Rawgrim]

 None of them are. The worst offender is D&D. Order of the Stick does a great job showing how a world where the D&D lore matched up with the gameplay and ruleset. We've got people who view death as meaningless (if annoying) because of resurrection, people outwardly encouraging murder because of their awareness of how XP works, etc. 

 

D&D is pretty broken, yes. But I meant most crpgs. Fallout, Might and Magic, Krondor, Ultima (to some degree), Drakensang, The Elder Scrolls. All of these have gameplay that fits the lore very very well.

[Maeshone]

D&D is pretty broken, yes. But I meant most crpgs. Fallout, Might and Magic, Krondor, Ultima (to some degree), Drakensang, The Elder Scrolls. All of these have gameplay that fits the lore very very well.

I really wouldn't count Elder Scrolls in that category. The amount of things that were missing between Morrowind and Oblivion (spears, crossbows, levitation and slowfall, to name a few) really puts it in the same position as Inquisition and it's lack of healing spells in that case.

[PhroXenGold]

D&D is pretty broken, yes. But I meant most crpgs. Fallout, Might and Magic, Krondor, Ultima (to some degree), Drakensang, The Elder Scrolls. All of these have gameplay that fits the lore very very well.

 

Any system with turn based combat makes far greater abstractions and gameplay/lore segregation than healing spells becoming less common in DA.

[Rawgrim]

Any system with turn based combat makes far greater abstractions and gameplay/lore segregation than healing spells becoming less common in DA.

 

Nope. That is how the combat plays out. Everything you can do in a Turn, is in sync with the Lore. Removing something from the game, with no in-game explanation is lore breaking.

[Maeshone]

Nope. That is how the combat plays out. Everything you can do in a Turn, is in sync with the Lore. Removing something from the game, with no in-game explanation is lore breaking.

Really? You don't find it abstract that people are literally taking turns to whack away at each other? Most games that feature turnbased combat also feature idle animations for the non-active characters, so they are obviously still in control of their bodies. You're telling me that my archers wouldn't take the chance to fire at someone who is walking towards them with the intent to bring them grievous harm?

 

The only game I've played that did turnbased combat in an immersive way is Frozen Synapse, because time actually froze in between turns in that game, allowing you to plan out your moves and try to predict what the enemy would do, and then watch it all play out at the same time.

[Catastrophy]

Nope. That is how the combat plays out. Everything you can do in a Turn, is in sync with the Lore. Removing something from the game, with no in-game explanation is lore breaking.

Meh, I throw lore out the airlock in buckets if the gameplay gets improved by changes.

[Rawgrim]

Really? You don't find it abstract that people are literally taking turns to whack away at each other? Most games that feature turnbased combat also feature idle animations for the non-active characters, so they are obviously still in control of their bodies. You're telling me that my archers wouldn't take the chance to fire at someone who is walking towards them with the intent to bring them grievous harm?

 

The only game I've played that did turnbased combat in an immersive way is Frozen Synapse, because time actually froze in between turns in that game, allowing you to plan out your moves and try to predict what the enemy would do, and then watch it all play out at the same time.

 

 

Turn based is usually decided by initiative. Each turn = six seconds. So when your archer can't fire at someone running towards him, its because he hasn't reacted yet. Most turn based games has an "ambush\attack of oppertunity feature" as well. Wich means you can order your archer to fire, automatically, at an enemy entering his line of sight. So yes...your archer would take the chance at firing at someone who walks towards him intending grievous harm. Its a common feature.

 

How combat works is a game mechanic. Nothing else. what you can do within combat, however, is tied to the lore. Would you think it was a good idea if your elf could summon a magical shotgun in DA, and blast your enemies? Or your mage could create The Death Star from Star Wars, and use it to nuke your enemies during combat?

[Rawgrim]

Meh, I throw lore out the airlock in buckets if the gameplay gets improved by changes.

 

Sure one could do that, by all means. But in the process it would render the Lore and the setting pointless.

[Maeshone]

Turn based is usually decided by initiative. Each turn = six seconds. So when your archer can't fire at someone running towards him, its because he hasn't reacted yet. Most turn based games has an "ambush\attack of oppertunity feature" as well. Wich means you can order your archer to fire, automatically, at an enemy entering his line of sight. So yes...your archer would take the chance at firing at someone who walks towards him intending grievous harm. Its a common feature.

 

How combat works is a game mechanic. Nothing else. what you can do within combat, however, is tied to the lore. Would you think it was a good idea if your elf could summon a magical shotgun in DA, and blast your enemies? Or your mage could create The Death Star from Star Wars, and use it to nuke your enemies during combat?

I know how turnbased combat works, and it also works and fits in flawlessly in tabletop RPGs, where every player acts within the same three/six/whatever-second span. But it doesn't work in PC games, and specifically HOMM, where it could take almost 6 seconds for a single zombie to move it's full move, while my characters are just standing around ,doing idle animations. That kind of takes me out of it.

 

As for your second part, I would undoubtedly consider it a good idea. That stuff would be hilarious.. I would also consider it utterly stupid as high technoloy doesn't exist in DA, but mages who can't heal do.