Try playing Planescape Torment. Put 18 on your charisma, inteligence, or wisdom score. Then try it while placing the points on your other stat instead. Yeah. Stats do define the character a lot in that game. The same goes for plenty others.
I have. Not so here.
On top of that, once the combat starts you can't pause and swap them. So you're stuck with the chosen 8 until the end.
The only way to change them is to disengage.
That actually sounds good. Here's why: In DAII, I would give all of my mages(often had 2 in the party at any given time) Dispel. So, if we were dealing with a magic user, they were dead almost imediately because they couldn't get a spell off because one of my mages would just dispell it while the other cooled their Dispell. Now, if I know there will be mages, or think there might, I have to think more critically about what spells I load up. So, I'm likely to only give Dispell to one mage.
It requires you to plan ahead more. Besides, in DAII, I only had around 8 abilites for a good chunk of the game, not counting sustainables. The amount of active sustainables in both games got ridiculous toward the end... Especially on my Arcane Warrior
No, that's not the right question, that's a stupid question, because there's no guarantee that you'll be able to make better armor that quickly either. Your need to min-max your character doesn't make the crafting system less optional. It may give you better bonuses, faster, but that's just an incentive to use it. You still don't have to.
Who said anything about min-maxing. I'm just concerned with completing the game. If you can't complete the game without crafting armor, then crafting is not optional. The only way to ensure that crafting is optional would be to ensure that there are enough armor pieces, in the open during the main quests, that allow for a character to beat the game without issue...
I haven't seen anything in the promotional material(gameplay trailers and the like), yet, that demonstrates that is true.
Did you read, I said from the math standpoint, not your opinion. I explained it in details before, seems I have to repeat myself.
In math:
Go here and look at the first example (5 elements)
http://www.sangakoo....hout-repetition
If you can chose 3 from set of 5 elements = 25 combinations (26 if you consider the empty set)
If you can chose 5 from 5 = 31 combinations (32 with empty set)
I am speaking from a math standpoint as well. I'm not considering the empty set, though, as it wouldn't apply to these circumstances.
If you have 16 abilities and can slot all 16, that is 1 combination.
If you have 16 abilities and can slot 8, that is multiple combinations.
Not to mention the effect passives have on making 1 ability many different combinations.
I said this. The "Did you read?" could just as easily apply to you. I'm speaking of math as well but as to the nature of combinations. The empty slot does not matter because it's not a choice that would be made in this situation.
I am speaking from a math standpoint as well. I'm not considering the empty set, though, as it wouldn't apply to these circumstances.
So, from the math standpoint, without the empty sets, it's still
31>25
If you have 16 abilities and can slot all 16, that is 1 combination.
If you have 16 abilities and can slot 8, that is multiple combinations.
No.
If you have 16 abilities and can slot all 16, that is 65535 combinations.
If you have 16 abilities and have to slot all 16, that is 1 combination.
This is the subtle difference
No.
If you have 16 abilities and can slot all 16, that is 65535 combinations.
If you have 16 abilities and have to slot all 16, that is 1 combination.
This is the subtle difference
But, in this context, all slots will be used. We are speaking of a practical application.
If you don't like it don't buy the game its that simple. You either deal with it and work with it or you don't buy the darn game. I personally prefer DAI crafting gear and stat system. If the game sells badly over time and one of the main complaints was the removal of stat points then bioware will change it in the future.
Lets actually try the game before we judge? Or read on the thoughts of others who played the game when it comes out.
But, in this context, all slots will be used. We are speaking of a practical application.
If you feel you have more tactical options, I have nothing against it.
But there is no such thing as practicality when it comes to pure math calculations. Numbers are numbers. They speak for themselves.
You talked about mathematics, combinations and numbers in your post to prove your point.
Don't use them. They prove you're wrong, not the other way around. I gave you the formula to do the math.
There is no point in derailng this thread any futher.
No.
If you have 16 abilities and can slot all 16, that is 65535 combinations.
If you have 16 abilities and have to slot all 16, that is 1 combination.
This is the subtle difference
Well... Okay. But, in this particular case that doesn't matter. You're really just confusing the issue. The math is still right so far as s/he is concerned, because there's an implied constraint that all slots must be filled
Well... Okay. But, in this particular case that doesn't matter. You're really just confusing the issue. The math is still right so far as s/he is concerned, because there's an implied constraint that all slots must be filled
There is not. You are free to fill your 16 slots, or just 5 or 7 or 11 of them. Haven't seen anyone saying you have to fill your entir bar.
Which one will your choose, is another topic.
There is not. You are free to fill your 16 slots, or just 5 or 7 or 11 of them. Haven't seen anyone saying you have to fill your entir bar.
Which one will your choose, is another topic.
That isn't what an "implied constraint" is. That's what an actual constraint is.
That isn't what an "implied constraint" is. That's what an actual constraint is.
Again no. He used "can" instead of "have to". And that implied ther are no constraints. There is no such thing in math as hidden meanings.
Even in content-based task, rules must be set clear to calulate it.
"x can be 1"
x = 0 TRUE
x = 1 TRUE
"x have to be 1"
x = 0 FALSE
x = 1 TRUE
Ok. I am done with math. Continue guys on the topic.
Do you like the limit of the attributes allocation or not ?
If you feel you have more tactical options, I have nothing against it.
But there is no such thing as practicality when it comes to pure math calculations. Numbers are numbers. They speak for themselves.
You talked about mathematics, combinations and numbers in your post to prove your point.
Don't use them. They prove you're wrong, not the other way around. I gave you the formula to do the math.
There is no point in derailng this thread any futher.
When you are doing math, you consider the practical applications in word problems, for example.
(obviously simplified example) If you give a student a problem like "There are 12 different meals cooked and 6 people to feed, how many meal combinations does this result in?" the possibility of someone not getting a meal is not accounted for. This is my point. You are clearly not interested in my point because you refuse to see past your own view of things.
In practical applications of math, leaving out the empty slot factor is entirely fine way of doing these kinds of calculations if it makes sense for the purpose of the calculation. Implied constraints are entirely reasonable and are absolutely a thing in math, at multiple levels, for multiple purposes, particularly when we are speaking of applied mathematics.
(obviously simplified example) If you give a student a problem like "There are 12 different meals cooked and 6 people to feed, how many meal combinations does this result in?" the possibility of someone not getting a meal is not accounted for. This is my point. You are clearly not interested in my point because you refuse to see past your own view of things.
Ok. If you insist, let's go back to math.
This problem of yours is not fully described. Can't be calculated without further elaboration. Do they all have to get equal amount of meals e.g. :
1st {a,b}
2nd {c,d}
3rd {e,f}
4th {g,h}
5th {i,j}
6th {k,l}
Or everyone has to be feed but it doesn't matter how much each one gets e.g. :
1st {a,b,c}
2nd {d}
3rd {e,f}
4th {g,h,i,j}
5th {k}
6th {l}
Ok. If you insist, let's go back to math.
This problem of yours is not fully described. Can't be calculated without further elaboration. Do they all have to get equal amount of meals e.g. :
1st {a,b}
2nd {c,d}
3rd {e,f}
4th {g,h}
5th {i,j}
6th {k,l}
Or everyone has to be feed but it doesn't matter how much each one gets e.g. :
1st {a,b,c}
2nd {d}
3rd {e,f}
4th {g,h,i,j}
5th {k}
6th {l}
In both cases, everyone got feed. In both cases number of combinations is different.See, just like that. All must be clear to calculate something.
Yeah, if you put it into a calculator. There's another obvious implied constraint. You know what s/he means. You're just being pedantic
Yeah, if you put it into a calculator. There's another obvious implied constraint. You know what s/he means. You're just being pedantic
No ther is not. In his content-based task he set only 3 rules.
If you give a student a problem like "There are 12 different meals cooked and 6 people to feed, how many meal combinations does this result in?" the possibility of someone not getting a meal is not accounted for.
Set = 12 different meals.
Number of students = 6
Everone has to be feed
As you can see, in my previous post, that can be done in vastly different ways.
There is nothing in his description, that implies how it should be done.
And there is nothing pedantic in this.
Go tell your teacher, that he is being pedantic, next time you fail to pass your exam.
No ther is not. In his content-based task he set only 3 rules.
If you give a student a problem like "There are 12 different meals cooked and 6 people to feed, how many meal combinations does this result in?" the possibility of someone not getting a meal is not accounted for.
Set = 12 different meals.
Number of students = 6
Everone has to be feed
As you can see, in my previous post, that can be done in vastly different ways.
There is nothing in his description, that implies how it should be done.
And there is nothing pedantic in this.
Go tell your teacher, that he is being pedantic, next time you fail to pass your exam.
Yes, in a strictly by-the-numbers way, you're right. The difference is, you know what they mean. That's the omplication we're talking about. Not any written implications, but situational implications.
No ther is not. In his content-based task he set only 3 rules.
If you give a student a problem like "There are 12 different meals cooked and 6 people to feed, how many meal combinations does this result in?" the possibility of someone not getting a meal is not accounted for.
Set = 12 different meals.
Number of students = 6
Everone has to be feed
As you can see, in my previous post, that can be done in vastly different ways.
There is nothing in his description, that implies how it should be done.
And there is nothing pedantic in this.
Go tell your teacher, that he is being pedantic, next time you fail to pass your exam.
First of all, I'm a woman. She. Not that you could have known, but I appreciate the poster who used he/she to appreciate the situation of not assuming gender. Second of all, I have no teacher, nor does the other poster necessarily, and that's a needlessly condescending thing to say.
The point is the assumed context of the problem. There is a lot of applied math with assumed context; you want to pretend there isn't, but that doesn't make it so. In today's mathematics, the analysis of context is becoming more and more necessary at both lower and higher levels. Rules no longer have to be explicitly stated; they have to be derived from what makes sense in the scenario.
The assumed context of a hotbar, especially in a conversation where you are huffing about having less spots, is that if you have the abilities, you will fill it. If someone is seriously complaining because they have less choice with 8 slots because they don't have the choice between 8 empty slots and 8 full slots, then they're being willfully difficult. Also I find it ironic that you say I'm bringing it back to math, yet you are the one who keeps saying you're not going to talk any more about math.
Yes, in a strictly by-the-numbers way, you're right. The difference is, you know what they mean. That's the omplication we're talking about. Not any written implications, but situational implications.
[/math]
This time, for good. No more.
[Back_On_topic]
I have a question for you.
Do you like the new system, and the restrictions to the manual allocation of attribute points ?
If you ask me, I don't. I would rather have more options. The new system + ability to manually distribute them + the option to auto allocate them for those who don't like this stuff.
I feel the new system - between the way skills adapt with passives to create different play styles, the way abilities or passives generate attribute points, the way gear generates stats, and the way abilities are also derived from Inquisition assets - gives me more options. I like this system because of all the options it gives you - you can even keep multiple sets of gear for different scenarios.
There are two new or strong re-envisioned ways to have very strong control over attributes - selecting passives/talents, major customization of gear - versus one old, stodgy way of just distributing a few points.
First of all, I'm a woman. She. Not that you could have known, but I appreciate the poster who used he/she to appreciate the situation of not assuming gender. Second of all, I have no teacher, nor does the other poster necessarily, and that's a needlessly condescending thing to say.
Ok. I am sorry Ms.
I didn't try to assume your gender, I just typed quickly. Usually, I use "Them/They".
About the "teacher" thing, that was ment to be joke. Not condescending in any way.
I said my piece about math, time to go back on topic.
My experience with gear-based stat allocation is that it allows you greater versatility.
Carry a few gear sets around and my characters can fulfill more roles, glass canon, tank, something more in between, focus more on sustain damage, focus more on burst damage.
Sure, you have greater freedom, but in terms of actually making choices, there's none. You use the no-brainer obvious best option. That's not choice. By limiting the number of abilities you have at any one time, it reduces the chances of having such a clear cut best option, thereby puting you in a position of having to chose between multiple non-optimal options.
And then of course, there's the fact that more choice is not always a good thing. To take your Scrabble example, it'd be pretty boring if you had all the tiles. By limiting those you have, it makes the game far more interesting to play.
*EDIT*
This statement and this statement don't make sense to me. There are not fewer choices for each encounter. There are more choices for each encounter because greater number of Talents & Spells, plus ways to customize them with Passives, and fewer number in the available loadout = more choices made and differing combinations mathematically for each encounter. There are more limits to what you can change and maybe where (I'm not sure if you have to go back to camp to change your load-out or not, actually) but that means that you're making more choices. What's really happening here is that encounters are much more likely to be different and faced differently because of these choices.
I'm not saying you have to like it, but "Fewer choices" isn't exactly right. There is more to choose from and an actual limit that provides combinations of choice; thus more choices and combinations. There are perhaps more limits in terms of the system asking you to strategically make your choices at a new point, but that doesn't mean fewer choices per se. It is an overly simplistic view to see it that way.
-------------
As to attributes, if you look at the actual effect they had mathematically vs. what our choices in gear and passives will have mathematically in DA:I, it's clear our choices have more impact now. I do understand some are apparently very attached to attribute points - the why I cannot fathom - and this is likely a problem for them. I remember a few friends being bummed about the changes in Skyrim, though it's clearly superior to Oblivion, and I know change always sparks some frustration in people. I'm sympathetic to that, but I think anyone who paints it as dumbing down the system (not saying this to anyone in particular) or restricting choice overall hasn't looked at the system as a whole. The system has to work together holistically; this is important. Sometimes limitations must be put in place in some areas to allow for greater customization in others and still retain game balance (which looks to be greater than ever - a massive improvement).
Retour en haut