2061 réponses à ce sujet

[KoorahUK]

I'm sorry, but I cannot see how this is good enough. Especially when enemies just rip through it, as it seems they can easily do in much of the gameplay footage... not to mention the fact that, unlike Heal, which in DA2 only involved one spell and one upgrade, barriers seem to dominate the entire Spirit tree, thus implying that they'd be balanced around requiring far more ability points to use to their utmost effect than Heal; as such, it's not a spell you can just splash into an otherwise offensive mage as can be done with every non-Merrill mage in DA2, but something you have to invest in if you want to have any mitigation.

Actually, according to this http://imgur.com/a/DzqMh#BxylQRi Barrier takes up only 4 out of 11 abilities, two of which are passive and one is an oh sh*t personal barrier that doesn't need to be activated manually.

How much or how little you invest into Barrier will be a factor of your combat style. If you take Barrier and don't upgrade it, its like taking the heal spell and not upgrading it. Its useful, but not as useful as it could be - that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place in your overall battle strategy or isn't worth taking to supplement your mitigation tools. It may not last long without upgrades, but it does provide a brief period of protection, and - lets not forget - applies to multiple party members, where as your standard heal only helped one and was on quite a long cooldown (I think?)

If you are not investing in Barrier then you are investing elsewhere, possibly into more battlefield control spells, possible into more damage abilities. As a mage, instead of mitigating damage by helping your party absorb it, you are mitigating it by CC'ing the bad guys or taking them out of the fight quicker. If you have a warrior heavy party they build Guard which seems to be more powerful that Barrier on an individual level. Rogues can be built to evade and stealth to avoid getting hit altogether, plus Rogues have control abilities all of their own.

I think Barrier has been shown a lot in gameplay videos so far because its bloody useful. That doesn't mean essential by any means.

[sylvanaerie]

I'm not happy with it because it means a whole different mindset to my combat, but I'm hoping I can get the hang of it.  Limited regen up to 50% for easy mode (which is what I play on anyway since I'm more into the story than the combat) should be enough between fights to keep me going.  And if need be, I backtrack to camp and rest to full.

 

Haven't played it yet so I don't know how well I will do. Gameplay videos, while fun to watch, don't tell me much because the devs have been playing the heck out of their game and are pretty adept at what's going on.  Also they stop, chat a lot, show off different features and what not so it's not a good indicator of difficulty.  I think most of Mr Laidlaw's videos were on Hard difficulty anyway.

 

Well, only a few more weeks for the game and Keep Open Beta opens in 2 days so we'll see then.

[D3uZ]

What about people who loved to play as healers in dragon age origins and dragon age 2? they can't keep playing healer cuz of this new system.. Think you guys should re-think this choice OR make it an option that people can turn off and on. OR when they make new game they can pick (No healer) or something like that..

[Almostfaceman]

What about people who loved to play as healers in dragon age origins and dragon age 2? they can't keep playing healer cuz of this new system.. Think you guys should re-think this choice OR make it an option that people can turn off and on. OR when they make new game they can pick (No healer) or something like that..

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but you may want to consider trying the game out before you start complaining. It could happen that you actually like the way they've got it set up now. 

 

[D3uZ]

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but you may want to consider trying the game out before you start complaining. It could happen that you actually like the way they've got it set up now. 

 

 

Wasn't even a complaint. Was a suggestion. And i'm not wrong, people who used to be healers can't at least not on the information we got so far from bioware.

 

But if you want a complaint, please remove you're annoying men in black picture.

[Almostfaceman]

Wasn't even a complaint. Was a suggestion. And i'm not wrong, people who used to be healers can't at least not on the information we got so far from bioware.

 

But if you want a complaint, please remove you're annoying men in black picture.

 

You were complaining about not being able to play a healer. Whether it's true or not doesn't make it less of a complaint. I very politely suggested you try the new game mechanics out, before asking Bioware to change them back to something else.

 

And no, I'm not removing the gif. I like it. 

 

Also no, I didn't want a complaint. That was the point of my post. 

 

[KoorahUK]

What about people who loved to play as healers in dragon age origins and dragon age 2? they can't keep playing healer cuz of this new system.. Think you guys should re-think this choice OR make it an option that people can turn off and on. OR when they make new game they can pick (No healer) or something like that..

Not as simple as that. Combat has been competely redesigned and balanced around the concept that the party has a finite amount of healing available. Allowing healers would completely screw that. It sucks for people that like playing healers of course, but BW feel the improvements to combat design this change makes possible are worth the sacrifice.

[sylvanaerie]

 

You were complaining about not being able to play a healer. Whether it's true or not doesn't make it less of a complaint. I very politely suggested you try the new game mechanics out, before asking Bioware to change them back to something else.

 

And no, I'm not removing the gif. I like it. 

 

Also no, I didn't want a complaint. That was the point of my post. 

 

 

Well, I have to admit the damn flashy gif is annoying.  And potentially dangerous to someone with Epilepsy.  I wouldn't mind seeing that one taken off the post.

[Almostfaceman]

Well, I have to admit the damn flashy gif is annoying.  And potentially dangerous to someone with Epilepsy.  I wouldn't mind seeing that one taken off the post.

 

This isn't up for a vote. And it's far less dangerous to folks with Epilepsy than the game itself.

[sylvanaerie]

This isn't up for a vote. And it's far less dangerous to folks with Epilepsy than the game itself.

 

Yea, I didn't think pointing out something that might not have occurred to the poster would be effective.  This is the internet, after all.

 

And games come with warning lables, your post does not.

[Shahadem]

Not as simple as that. Combat has been competely redesigned and balanced around the concept that the party has a finite amount of healing available. Allowing healers would completely screw that. It sucks for people that like playing healers of course, but BW feel the improvements to combat design this change makes possible are worth the sacrifice.

 

From what I've seen of the combat, it really doesn't appear to have been redesigned with lack of healing spells in mind.

 

If anything, it looks like they actually struggled with balancing combatless healing. That's why they removed injuries. They realized that your companions are going to be getting killed constantly with this new system, which suggests that it really doesn't work.

[Shahadem]

I think this will be ok.  In Mass Effect there was no healing "spell", and medi-gel was limited.  It all worked out fine IMHO

 

Except each Mass Effect game had a completely different combat system (cover based third person shooter with regenerating shields).

 

In Mass Effect 1, you were actually capable of making yourself completely invincible.

 

In Mass Effect 3, a high level Vanguard was essentially invincible.

 

In Mass Effect 2, the sniper was able to kill everything before it could get more than a few shots off.

[Muspade]

From what I've seen of the combat, it really doesn't appear to have been redesigned with lack of healing spells in mind.

 

Except it was.

That's why they removed injuries. They realized that your companions are going to be getting killed constantly with this new system, which suggests that it really doesn't work.

They removed injuries because it was already punishment enough that you wouldn't regenerate your health. Anything to complain about not getting your precious healing though, right?

[Almostfaceman]

Yea, I didn't think pointing out something that might not have occurred to the poster would be effective.  This is the internet, after all.

 

And games come with warning lables, your post does not.

 

Folks with Epilepsy probably will not be frequenting this forum, because the product we're talking about will possibly give them seizures. Logic. It's okay if you don't like the image, but I'm not taking it down on the very, very, very remote chance it may give someone a seizure. That would be silly. If the person is that sensitive, they don't need to be surfing the web, since flashies are hardly rare. 

[Shahadem]

So instead you just spam heals after every battle? Part of the point of the new design is to make attrition a factor. They can design encounters to wittle down party HP over a series of encounters. Your challenge is in preserving as much HP as possible without running back to the nearest camp (Though you can if you really want to spend the time backtracking) before you finish the quest.

Adding out of combat heals defeats the purpose of the new design.

 

That's what they tried in the Baldur's Gate series, and my god it was ****. If your gameplay is basically just fighting crap, then anything which keeps players from fighting crap detracts from the game experience.

 

And if attrition really is a thing, then you are essentially requiring players to have to save and reload before and after each fight because they took too much damage. 

[LonewandererD]

From what I've seen of the combat, it really doesn't appear to have been redesigned with lack of healing spells in mind.

 

If anything, it looks like they actually struggled with balancing combatless healing. That's why they removed injuries. They realized that your companions are going to be getting killed constantly with this new system, which suggests that it really doesn't work.

Really? We must be watching different vids, I actually got the idea the game was suddenly easier

 

-D-

[sylvanaerie]

Folks with Epilepsy probably will not be frequenting this forum, because the product we're talking about will possibly give them seizures. Logic. It's okay if you don't like the image, but I'm not taking it down on the very, very, very remote chance it may give someone a seizure. That would be silly. If the person is that sensitive, they don't need to be surfing the web, since flashies are hardly rare. 

 

And I couldn't just be someone's parent checking out the forums here to see what people have to discuss about the product I may be purchasing for my kid's Christmas present?  You don't know who is looking at the forums.  The winking guy gif is not offensive.  

I'm not objecting to the gif itself, it's the flashing light in the gif.  

 

I only mention it because there is a feature on the boards that allows you to imbed something inside a spoiler tag.  If someone wants to see it, they can open it. 

 

It's a moot point anyway since the other poster quoted you and it's kind of locked on the thread anyway, so I'll just drop it here.

[Gothfather]

I have the distinct feeling that part of removing healing has everything to do with trying to really force the cross-class combo.  Freeze+Mighty Blow.  Rinse Repeat.  It's also why they have given you limited spells and abilities.  What I am gathering from this, and I could be wrong, is that Bioware wants you to play a certain way, and that way is combo/buff/combo.

And my feeling is that this is an RPG and people should be able to play how they want.  Not switch to "EASY" like so many people keep suggesting.  Taking away healing reduces choice. And I doubt it's only healing that's gone.  Part of the fun of this franchise is mixing and matching your companions, not just to maximize their abilities, but for role playing purposes.   Part of the fun, for me, is the diversity that comes with building your party and the different ways you can PLAY THE GAME.

My hype level went from 10 to like a 6.  I'm really bummed.  It's easy to get over things like romance or hair choices.  (The rage at that seems silly).  But they've changed the very mechanics of gameplay.  And, to be honest, I think it DOES have something to do with multiplayer.  Because multiplayer, as they've hinted, is all about cross class combos.

Also, as I've mentioned in other posts about difficulty, many people that I know bought Origins quit playing at Ostagar. Why?  The game was too hard. I head that over and over again.  And I haven't been able to convince them to come back to the Dragon Age franchise.  Watching Cameron Lee, a guy who designed the game, get stomped through half the map and wiping out his party on Normal, is not reassuring.  If Origins was too hard and caused people to rage quit, what will this do?  Remains to be seen, I suppose.  But I got a bad feeling..

 

 

That is a false position that taking away healing reduces choice. It assumes that all of the tactical choice were equal therefore losing one equal option means that your choice is reduced. But that wasn't the case.

 

When a couple of tactics are clearly superior you actually have minimal choice because the game gets balanced along the these tactics not along the inferior tactics. These means that all though you have an illussion of choice in reality you are very limited. Healing was teh key to servral tactics that were head and shoulders above any others. Healing through potions or spells.

 

Eliminating or reducing these requires players to use the other tactics available. Other tactics that until the obviously superior tactic was eliminate you'd never look twice at. Suddenly with no heal spell you have to look at other tactics to win battles. And suddenly these other tactics are viable that is an increase of choice.

 

The games is balanced with minimal healing which means there are lots of different ways to win a battle that doesn't always resolve in maintaining a heal rate greater than the enemy's damage rate.

[sylvanaerie]

That is a false position that taking away healing reduces choice. It assumes that all of the tactical choice were equal therefore losing one equal option means that your choice is reduced. But that wasn't the case.

 

When a couple of tactics are clearly superior you actually have minimal choice because the game gets balanced along the these tactics not along the inferior tactics. These means that all though you have an illussion of choice in reality you are very limited. Healing was teh key to servral tactics that were head and shoulders above any others. Healing through potions or spells.

 

Eliminating or reducing these requires players to use the other tactics available. Other tactics that until the obviously superior tactic was eliminate you'd never look twice at. Suddenly with no heal spell you have to look at other tactics to win battles. And suddenly these other tactics are viable that is an increase of choice.

 

The games is balanced with minimal healing which means there are lots of different ways to win a battle that doesn't always resolve in maintaining a heal rate greater than the enemy's damage rate.

 

This is kind of...the opposite of 'increase of choice'.  If those tactics were there all along, just not used because it was easier to heal, then how does removing healing (removing a choice) increase your choices--when those other tactics were there all along?

Hey, I hate that I've had the option to heal removed.  There went my favorite aspect of roleplay out the window.  But I've accepted that it's how they are going to roll with the game this time.  I applaud that they are having the guts to try something new.  It may turn out to be a lot more fun than people expect.  It may be this comes back to shoot them in the foot.  I think regardless of what happens, they will consider it a learning experience and make the next game (whatever it may be) even better. They aren't going to change the combat system they've been working on all this time this late in the game.  Those people just finding out about it are going through the grief process of the loss.   

 

But telling me hot chocolate is the same as coffee, doesn't make the hot chocolate turn into coffee.  It's still hot chocolate.  Just saying.

[Gothfather]

What about people who loved to play as healers in dragon age origins and dragon age 2? they can't keep playing healer cuz of this new system.. Think you guys should re-think this choice OR make it an option that people can turn off and on. OR when they make new game they can pick (No healer) or something like that..

 

Tough.

 

Bioware never promised you could play what you wanted. What they said is they were making a game and they have INVITED you to play. A game similar too but not exactly like their past games.

 

What if I wanted to play a jedi who crash lands on Thedas and shows the people of this backward planet they are falling into the darkside. Why doesn't Bioware create an option for people who want to play that story?

 

Bioware is making THEIR game they hope you like it but they are under ZERO obligation to make a game you like.

[Muspade]

But telling me hot chocolate is the same as coffee, doesn't make the hot chocolate turn into coffee.  It's still hot chocolate.  Just saying.

 

Your analogies are still as inaccurate and badly made as ever.

Chocolate is still chocolate, whether it's light chocolate or dark chocolate.

[Gothfather]

This is kind of...the opposite of 'increase of choice'.  If those tactics were there all along, just not used because it was easier to heal, then how does removing healing (removing a choice) increase your choices--when those other tactics were there all along?

Hey, I hate that I've had the option to heal removed.  There went my favorite aspect of roleplay out the window.  But I've accepted that it's how they are going to roll with the game this time.  I applaud that they are having the guts to try something new.  It may turn out to be a lot more fun than people expect.  It may be this comes back to shoot them in the foot.  I think regardless of what happens, they will consider it a learning experience and make the next game (whatever it may be) even better. They aren't going to change the combat system they've been working on all this time this late in the game.  Those people just finding out about it are going through the grief process of the loss.   

 

But telling me hot chocolate is the same as coffee, doesn't make the hot chocolate turn into coffee.  It's still hot chocolate.  Just saying.

 

Okay here is an example how a reduction in an option creates more choice. You have five choices...

 

1) Get shot in the foot

2) Get shot in the hand

3) Get shot in the knee

4) Get shot in the elbow

5) get $5 towards your next purchase of chocolate

 

There is only one choice here 4 of them are so obviously bad that there is only ONE real choice. In an honest poll 5 would win by a landslide for good reason.

 

Remove the obviously superior choice..

 

1) Get shot in the foot

2) Get shot in the hand

3) Get shot in the knee

4) Get shot in the elbow

 

Which one do you pick? People will have different answers for different reasons, By removing one option you suddenly had more choices.

 

Obviously no one wants the above choices there are used to illustrate how an OBVIOUSLY superior option especially in combat, will narrow your practical choices. Yet by eliminating the obviously superior option and suddenly those glaringly inferior choice become viable. You go from one choice to 4 by the elimination of one choice.

[LonewandererD]

Sometimes boundaries can paradoxically provide us with freedom (a cookie for anyone who gets this reference). By limiting healing they could be leading us to more strategic though instead of "jump here, smash that, quash potion". You know have to measure your risk versus reward, if your guy can't heal on a whim now should you charge headfirst into a mass of enemies. No? Well, then how do you overcome this challenge?

 

-D-

[sylvanaerie]

Okay here is an example how a reduction in an option creates more choice. You have five choices...

 

1) Get shot in the foot

2) Get shot in the hand

3) Get shot in the knee

4) Get shot in the elbow

5) get $5 towards your next purchase of chocolate

 

There is only one choice here 4 of them are so obviously bad that there is only ONE real choice. In an honest poll 5 would win by a landslide for good reason.

 

Remove the obviously superior choice..

 

1) Get shot in the foot

2) Get shot in the hand

3) Get shot in the knee

4) Get shot in the elbow

 

Which one do you pick? People will have different answers for different reasons, By removing one option you suddenly had more choices.

 

Obviously no one wants the above choices there are used to illustrate how an OBVIOUSLY superior option especially in combat, will narrow your practical choices. Yet by eliminating the obviously superior option and suddenly those glaringly inferior choice become viable. You go from one choice to 4 by the elimination of one choice.

 

I like your analogy  .   It makes sense to me, I suppose when put this way.

 

I've accepted it.  Knowing that Bioware going in and redoing all they did would only back up the release to...sometime in such a far flung future as to make it miserably too long to wait has helped me accept that this is what it's going to be.  That's not going to happen anyway.  So, the only real options here for players are 'roll with it, accept it, get the game and enjoy it' or 'don't buy it till I do more research--ie check out what others think after they play it' or 'don't buy it at all'.

 

That said, I'd still love the 5$ toward a chocolate...YUM!  Maybe after I beat the game I'll celebrate with one!

[Gothfather]

Sometimes boundaries can paradoxically provide us with freedom (a cookie for anyone who gets this reference). By limiting healing they could be leading us to more strategic though instead of "jump here, smash that, quash potion". You know have to measure your risk versus reward, if your guy can't heal on a whim now should you charge headfirst into a mass of enemies. No? Well, then how do you overcome this challenge?

 

-D-

 

There was something about, "freedom is just a word without limits" in the disc world series by Terry Pratchett. Thats similar but not exact.