61 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I generally prefer classless systems because they give the llayer tremendous power to build the character he wants. I'd like to be able have a character concept in mind before I ever see the rules, and reading the rules is required only to find out how to build what I want - not to find out what I can build.

The main downside of classless systems is that combat balance is not really possible without a human GM --- hell, it's difficult for a human GM to keep a lid on a Champions game. Not a problem for you personally, of course, since you're not looking for balance in the first place.

[Cyonan]

Well this is Mass Effect.

 

So each class will have about 6 or 7 abilities with a few passives and you'll get enough skill points by the end of the game to max almost everything out. The only difference is going to occur in evolutions of abilities, and I would hope they're all competitive with the one they're opposing.

 

It's kind of silly when my choice is A. A 50% multiplicative damage increase to armour/barrier and 25% more armour sundering or B. 35% faster recharge speed that stacks additively.

 

They also need to better document what things do. 100% increased damage to already lifted targets doesn't sound all that amazing until somebody points out that it actually means 100% increased damage to targets primed for biotic explosion. Or Biotic Charge just flat out doesn't mention that it grants 50% damage reduction for 4 seconds.

[FKA_Servo]

I'd like for them to make the MP abilities available in SP. If it's anything like ME3, then many of them are pretty situational, many of them are super fun to use. It would be good to be able to include those in our builds as well.

[SpunkyMonkey]

It's threads and mindsets like these which are responsible for some of the awful gameplay we get.

Stop putting stupid rules, brackets and restrictions on what should/shouldn't be and let Bioware just concentrate on making a great, fun game.

How it works is irrelevant, so long as it works well and is fun.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The main downside of classless systems is that combat balance is not really possible without a human GM --- hell, it's difficult for a human GM to keep a lid on a Champions game. Not a problem for you personally, of course, since you're not looking for balance in the first place.

Leave the balancing to the player. Note how in DAI, there was plenty of content available, and you could retreat from threats that were beyond your current ability to handle.

Your party's abilities are best known to you, not the designers, regardless of the mechanical system being used. This is because your party's effectiveness is limited by your knowledge of your abilities and your chosen tactics and a great many other things that you control and the devs don't.

No one is better able to determine an appropriate encounter difficulty for your party than you are.

[The Heretic of Time]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I do think we should have the ability to specialize our character's class and make our own build and I do think each type of build should be (equally) viable.

However, I don't think that every possible build should automatically be viable. If someone just picked a bunch of random perks and traits that have no correlation or synergy with each other than that person obviously shouldn't be able to blast through the game as easily as someone like me who carefully thought-out his builds.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I agree with you there too.

The issue is again when it is intentional, which is poor design in a nutshell and leads to tryhards pushing for full on optimization.

Does it matter whether it's intentional? What matters is how the rules work, not why they work that way.

And if people want to optimize, let them. We have no reason to care how they play.

[CDR Aedan Cousland]

My character has goals. I don't. Playing my character well could well result in him failing to achieve his goals.

I'm not trying to make my character succeed. He is, but I'm not. I just want him to behave authentically given the personality I designed.

 

Now that I can finally see and understand your perspective, I'm starting to respect it a great deal.

[LinksOcarina]

Does it matter whether it's intentional? What matters is how the rules work, not why they work that way.

And if people want to optimize, let them. We have no reason to care how they play.

 

It does, because if the rules work a certain way through the choice of the designers, they are expecting players to follow suit in their way of thinking. Hence the determinist nature of games and RPGs.

 

Tabletop games a bit more flexible, but some things added or subtracted from the rules become annoying based upon players who abuse the said system. This is also apparent in a party-based game with other players. 

 

How someone plays does kind of matter in the end, and how the rules are written, with their intention, is pretty important because it shapes how people actually play.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It does, because if the rules work a certain way through the choice of the designers, they are expecting players to follow suit in their way of thinking. Hence the determinist nature of games and RPGs.

Tabletop games a bit more flexible, but some things added or subtracted from the rules become annoying based upon players who abuse the said system. This is also apparent in a party-based game with other players.

How someone plays does kind of matter in the end, and how the rules are written, with their intention, is pretty important because it shapes how people actually play.

It shapes how they can play. Inevitability, some players will play in a way the designers never foresaw.

I want to maximize the extent to which the rules allow that.

Every RPG is, fundamentally, a sandbox. In it, you can do what you like.

[DarthLaxian]

RPGs with few exceptions (dark souls) try too hard to make sure every character build can be useful. this means people cant be stung for making bad choices, which is not good imo. game play is about challenging a persons skills, so why should character building be exempt from this?

 

No way - that was bad back when you couldn't re-spec in Diablo II and it's still a bad mechanic (why include useless skills? (just so you can laugh at people who fail to spend hours and hours theory-crafting? - Which makes you a pretty crappy person BTW!) - The devs have more important stuff to worry about IMHO!)

 

greets LAX

[DragonsDream]

No way - that was bad back when you couldn't re-spec in Diablo II and it's still a bad mechanic (why include useless skills? (just so you can laugh at people who fail to spend hours and hours theory-crafting? - Which makes you a pretty crappy person BTW!) - The devs have more important stuff to worry about IMHO!)

 

greets LAX

yup, this. Skills should be there to help you play the game. ME has RPG elements, but ultimately, is a story telling shooter. Why include skills that don't work in the story being told?

 

My wife will spend hours with characters in Diablo II or Neverwinter Nights, computing how a single skill point can best be used to increase her DPS and which sword is best. Me? I put a point in the skill that seems most fun to use. My characters are rarely "optimal" since to me, that is just gaming the system - it's playing a math game rather than the game the designers intended, plus I just don't find all that work fun.

 

However, both ways are valid and neither type of player should be "punished" by the game.