312 réponses à ce sujet

[The Loyal Nub]

I have to see how it plays out on my own. If I can swap out abilities for my mages as they advance it might not be such a big deal cause that way I might be taking along someone who has all of the top abilities and spells that their level allows. In my play throughs of the earlier games it's not like the mages I took used all abilities either. I set it up so they were only using the most powerful ones anyway so that in any given combat that might mean only 2-4 spells tops were being used. Again. I have to see how it plays first for myself before I consider this a failure on Bioware's part. So far I don't see a cause for alarm.

[Patchwork]

You can't spam potions considering you only have 8.

 

Sure you can, use up 8 potions, fast travel back to camp and get more for free.

 

Spamming.

[Lunatic Pandora]

First, IMO having only 8 abilities at one time increases the need for good tactics and planning, not diminishes it. You have to think ahead now, not just carry everything with you. Second, I've always played mages. Always. And I love what I've seen so far of the abilities. I play a mage to hurl fireballs and call down lightning, now instead of having to cast a spell to make enemies flee in terror, they run in terror after I set them on fire. As it should be

[Elevon]

I have to see how it plays out on my own. If I can swap out abilities for my mages as they advance it might not be such a big deal cause that way I might be taking along someone who has all of the top abilities and spells that their level allows. In my play throughs of the earlier games it's not like the mages I took used all abilities either. I set it up so they were only using the most powerful ones anyway so that in any given combat that might mean only 2-4 spells tops were being used. Again. I have to see how it plays first for myself before I consider this a failure on Bioware's part. So far I don't see a cause for alarm.

 

 

I hate spamming three or four spells makes the game boring,having fine selection of different spells makes it more interesting and less boring in combat for mages,it's called fun not a spambot zombie.

[The Loyal Nub]

I hate spamming three or four spells makes the game boring,having fine selection of different spells makes it more interesting and less boring in combat for mages,it's called fun not a spambot zombie.

 

Groovy for you. 

[Elevon]

First, IMO having only 8 abilities at one time increases the need for good tactics and planning, not diminishes it. You have to think ahead now, not just carry everything with you. Second, I've always played mages. Always. And I love what I've seen so far of the abilities. I play a mage to hurl fireballs and call down lightning, now instead of having to cast a spell to make enemies flee in terror, they run in terror after I set them on fire. As it should be

 

To be fair you can argue having less restricts how many options you have ,so you  have less to think  about spell wise,obviously having more gives you more options and tactics and you  can also argue more fun spell wise rather then spamming more of the same ones when you have less choice.

[Keroko]

Can someone tell me why Bioware is advertising that there are over 200 spells in some of their previous videos?
 
I've avoided looking much at the game itself to avoid spoilers but this thread caught my eye.
There is obviously a big difference between 17 and 200.
 
P.S. I double checked at it's across all classes but still it would seem the division would be
more balanced.
https://twitter.com/...758092131348481

They're counting all talents, including upgrades and passives. In that respect, it's pretty balanced. Warriors have 85, rogues have 85, mages have 84. All unique, for a total of 254 talents.

Primarily because Bioware's been hiding everything to keep fans from finding out. They just keep parroting "tactical!" while removing whole swaths of character options that people have to find out about through scouring streams and dodgy Twitter messages.

That's because gameplay mechanics are subject to major overhauls up until very late in the development cycle.

Blizzard tried the "show everything we got years before release" approach with Starcraft 2. When the devs then changed those mechanics later in development, the outcry was enormous.

[Elevon]

Groovy for you. 

 

It's about having fun ,my mage was not in that tower for many years just to  learn a few spells only .

[Meltemph]

To be fair you can argue having less restricts how many options you have ,so you  have less to think  about spell wise,obviously having more gives you more options and tactics and you  can also argue more fun spell wise rather then spamming more of the same ones when you have less choice.

Sure but more spells dont mean better gameplay, just like less spells dont mean better gameplay. However if the gameplay is better, then the gameplay is better, and them balancing the game around less spells will have seemingly helped them. If the gameplay isnt as enjoyable as other games, then it didnt help, and less spells didnt help them. However, so far from everything I have seen, the gameplay looks more enjoyable then the 1st 2 games.

[The Loyal Nub]

To be fair you can argue having less restricts how many options you have ,so you  have less to think  about spell wise,obviously having more gives you more options and tactics and you  can also argue more fun spell wise rather then spamming more of the same ones when you have less choice.

 

How many are you really going to use? Really? Your really going to fight a combat where you use a ton of spells. It's an odd notion too that having to use 10-15 spells equals more fun when there are so many other factors to a fight and how it can be approached. I think you're all bummed out about something that's probably going to be minor if it is indeed a drawback and it is too early to say it is. NO it really is too early to call this limit a drawback. 

[Paul E Dangerously]

They're counting all talents, including upgrades and passives. In that respect, it's pretty balanced. Warriors have 85, rogues have 85, mages have 84. All unique, for a total of 254 talents.


That's because gameplay mechanics are subject to major overhauls up until very late in the development cycle.

Blizzard tried the "show everything we got years before release" approach with Starcraft 2. When the devs then changed those mechanics later in development, the outcry was enormous.

 

There's a bit of a difference in the ultra-competitive RTS scene and (what should be) a single-player RPG. When we're not sure about the most basic mechanics and gameplay elements this far into the release cycle, there's a problem. Just look at how they were trying to dodge the Attribute reveal, or what's going on with the tactics system.

[The Loyal Nub]

It's about having fun ,my mage was not in that tower for many years just to  learn a few spells only .

 

Ok so they will learn a lot of spells but how many of those will be useful say in the later stages of the game? I am sure there will be several you stop using because they no longer work or you have better ones. Those better ones may even be more fun.

[janddran]

They're counting all talents, including upgrades and passives. In that respect, it's pretty balanced. Warriors have 85, rogues have 85, mages have 84. All unique, for a total of 254 talents.
 

 

Thanks Keroko. I thought it might be something like that and not as bad as is being made out. It may be different but that is fine too. I think if the combat was the same far more would complain or become bored with it.

[Elevon]

How many are you really going to use? Really? Your really going to fight a combat where you use a ton of spells. It's an odd notion too that having to use 10-15 spells equals more fun when there are so many other factors to a fight and how it can be approached. I think you're all bummed out about something that's probably going to be minor if it is indeed a drawback and it is too early to say it is. NO it really is too early to call this limit a drawback. 

 

I use to have my hotbar maxed out left to right full of different spells in DAO/DA2  etc,that is what a mage is to me,covers all situations skill wise.

 

Yes you can argue I have to wait until I'm playing the game to fully judge the changes,but does not mean I'm happy with it at the moment.

 

I hope it's not a spam fest of same magic  skills,time will tell.

[Elevon]

Ok so they will learn a lot of spells but how many of those will be useful say in the later stages of the game? I am sure there will be several you stop using because they no longer work or you have better ones. Those better ones may even be more fun.

 

Well yes fireball against fire demon does not work so out comes the ice spell,I like to change combat magic  skills all the time rather then spam same ones over and over,it's about having more  choice then less,having more choice does not effect those that only use three spells max,but less   effects those that do use more spells.

[ManOfSteel]

Nope. Playing a Warrior.

[Stinja]

For what it's worth I will be playing a mage come release.

 

Me too, a female Qunari mage. Looking forward to it.

 

 

Me too +1.

However I, for one, welcome our warrior overlords.

 

 

I agree. I want more options. 

 

I wanted to be a blood mage. D:<

 

DLC... 

 

[Keroko]

There's a bit of a difference in the ultra-competitive RTS scene and (what should be) a single-player RPG. When we're not sure about the most basic mechanics and gameplay elements this far into the release cycle, there's a problem. Just look at how they were trying to dodge the Attribute reveal, or what's going on with the tactics system.

If the people on this board care less about the change in gameplay than the Starcraft crowd does as you say, then we would not be talking in this thread right now. We care just as much about change as the starcraft crowd.

That's also the reason they were dodgy about the attribute reveal: That stuff wasn't completely nailed down yet, so rather than saying A and coming back later to say they turned it to B then yet again go back and say they went with C instead, they just waiting until the design was nailed down before revealing it.

Fun fact: When designing a game, any game, basic mechanics are subject to change all the way up to the moment the game goes gold (and sometimes even after that). This is not "a problem", this is the norm.

[Hillbillyhat]

I'll have to play the game to see how many spells their actually are, but I do remember DAO spells and there were just too many spells. I won't say they were mostly useless because I generally used a lot of them and for me that was the problem. Combat at that point became hilariously easy with that. There was little strategy or tactics only use X amount of spells to win. Their was a good reason why DAO mages especially Arcane Warrior or hell even a Blood Mage could be considered OP. At least from what I'm seeing in Inquisition your spells rely more on what battle your in and the environment. I would generally have to think more on what choke points I want to create, how to keep my team protected using barriers etc.

 

I feel like mages can actually be more tactical in DAI instead of I win buttons. We'll see when the game comes out.

[Elevon]

I'll have to play the game to see how many spells their actually are, but I do remember DAO spells and there were just too many spells. I won't say they were mostly useless because I generally used a lot of them and for me that was the problem. Combat at that point became hilariously easy with that. There was little strategy or tactics only use X amount of spells to win. Their was a good reason why DAO mages especially Arcane Warrior or hell even a Blood Mage could be considered OP. At least from what I'm seeing in Inquisition your spells rely more on what battle your in and the environment. I would generally have to think more on what choke points I want to create, how to keep my team protected using barriers etc.

 

I feel like mages can actually be more tactical in DAI instead of I win buttons. We'll see when the game comes out.

 

I play mages because its just more fun in general then melee,having defensive,offensive,AoE spells etc makes it more  tactical game anyway if you play it right.

 

I'll reserve final judgement  until after the game is released however,we all have concerns in one form or another it's only normal to do so.

[Meltemph]

If the people on this board care less about the change in gameplay than the Starcraft crowd does as you say, then we would not be talking in this thread right now. We care just as much about change as the starcraft crowd.

That's also the reason they were dodgy about the attribute reveal: That stuff wasn't completely nailed down yet, so rather than saying A and coming back later to say they turned it to B then yet again go back and say they went with C instead, they just waiting until the design was nailed down before revealing it.

Fun fact: When designing a game, any game, basic mechanics are subject to change all the way up to the moment the game goes gold (and sometimes even after that). This is not "a problem", this is the norm.

This is also ignoring, imo, that Starcraft did a hell of a lot more right in the gameplay department then Dragon Age(or any BW combat mechanics, outside of maybe Jade Empire). The disagreements on combat quality is going to vary a lot more wildly with a game like this, imo, because the gameplay just wasn't as solid as it was in Starcraft.

[bluebullets]

to all the people saying mages just got useless abilities in da;O... bull.

 

In da;o, i used all my arcane warrior abilities, and i used fireball -> blood magic -> the AoE thing -> turn off blood magic -> virulent walking bomb -> perhaps storm of the century, if not, chain lightning cone of cold, shatter, and when I'm not doing fancy stuff, winters grasp, lightning and arcane torrent.

 

thats just off the top of my head. My whole bar was full, almost from one end of my 32 inch monitor to the other. Anyone who thinks mages didn't have masses of useful abilities was playing wrong.

[Hillbillyhat]

I play mages because its just more fun in general then melee,having defensive,offensive,AoE spells etc makes it more  tactical game anyway if you play it right.

 

I'll reserve final judgement  until after the game is released however,we all have concerns in one form or another it's only normal to do so.

 

Playing it right is literally on Nightmare so you can't spam AOE and win everything.

 

At the very least I likely can't just do that in DAI which is great. I can even use a wall of fire to successfully run my enemies into Iron Bull depending on the location. That just sounds like fun.

[Nonoru]

That's true and I actually like the way CC and DPS are now more intertwined in DA:I. But I think there could've been more of the more unique spell effects, like in the previous games. Hexes, buffs, glyphs, force mage abilities and the like all made playing the mage more varied.

 

Those might be included in the specialization trees. I mean, I could easily imagine hexes and/or debuffs being somewhat included in Necromancer while buffs would be overall good for an Knight Enchanter. Rift mage description seems to tell us it might have some spells in common (or at least similar) with Force mage.

[The Loyal Nub]

Playing it right is literally on Nightmare so you can't spam AOE and win everything.

 

At the very least I likely can't just do that in DAI which is great. I can even use a wall of fire to successfully run my enemies into Iron Bull depending on the location. That just sounds like fun.

 

Now that sounds more like fun indeed!