30 réponses à ce sujet

[Kurupt13]

AS ive been saying in my posts four party members doesn't leave very much group customization, if any ... One spot is for your tank, one is for your healer , one is generally single target dps, the other area ...   I  would really like to see a 6 man party, especially with better computers/consoles  that can handle more going on at once.. .  Obviously this could add a lot more to combats in general and the depth of combats and tactics... Then maybe there is some places where a 6 man party is just too much, like exploring houses, caves.  

[IllustriousT]

My concern would be the possibility that a larger party size may be detrimental to the banter system, and I would only like to see improvements with that.

 

 I would like to bring a larger party in events like killing an Archdemon (like they did in DAO) or Corypheus. I think when generally exploring, four is fine - for me anyway.

 

 I would like the see an improvement in the reasoning behind choices in party. At the moment, with the exception of a few boss fights in Nightmare mode (even then that is just strategy and not necessary), you can pretty much take whoever you wish to. I would like mission variables to be taken into account. For example, if my party is going to have to deal with proximity to Raw or Red Lyrium, then a dwarf or Seeker would be good options in the party, while other choices may be penalized - deal less damage for example, or actually take damage in the hit range. 

[Big I]

I may love Dragon Age, but I'm not that big a fan of it's approach to combat. I prefer Mass Effect's, where you could essentially take who you want on missions without worrying (too much) about role fulfillment. I'm not saying they should bring shooter mechanics into Thedas or anything, but if I want to run with three rogues or an all mage party, it'd be nice if that didn't completely nerf my ability in combat.

 

As for more people, it's hard enough directing a party of three or four. Any more than that and directing party members will take longer than the combat itself. I did like the mission in ME3: Citadel where everyone turned up though, that was fun.

[cJohnOne]

I find that a group of four is more cozy and easier to manage even though my style is to play the main character and let the other do their thing.  I usually use a tank, an off-tank and a healer.  Which leaves only one spot open. 

 

Anyway in DAI there wasn't a healer but a barrier setter. 

[GoldenGail3]

DA has a pretty large party... We don't really need a bigger one...

[Addictress]

They couldn't implement AI for three companions let alone more. When I run, they fall behind and become like cans dragged from the trunk of my car by strings, colliding and turning about like dumb ornaments dangling at the mercy of my PC.

[KaiserShep]

We've technically had parties of 6, of course 2 were quasi-followers, but I'm not sure how well it would work to actually have 5 fully functional companions in a combat group here. 

[GoldenGail3]

They couldn't implement AI for three companions let alone more. When I run, they fall behind and become like cans dragged from the trunk of my car by strings, colliding and turning about like dumb ornaments dangling at the mercy of my PC.

Very descriptive, Addictress...

[Jedi Comedian]

If they do it the game's gonna need a proper Tactical View like in DAO.

[Patricia08]

I am for a larger group i have played games where there were 8 party members and sometimes we were with 10 party members ( maybe 8 party members would be a little to much for DA ) and i loved it the more the better and i would love to see how Bioware would do that with for example the party banter you could get really funny conversations. 

[Melyanna]

They couldn't implement AI for three companions let alone more. When I run, they fall behind and become like cans dragged from the trunk of my car by strings, colliding and turning about like dumb ornaments dangling at the mercy of my PC.

 

Pathfinding is really hard to do.

Companions in DA:I very rarely obstruct the passage and overall they position themselves well. I really don't see why you would say that "they couldn't implement AI..."

Now, it would be nice to have the same option that BG had that let you pick a formation, but that's an entirely different thing that saying that the team couldn't implement the AI.

 

 

I may love Dragon Age, but I'm not that big a fan of it's approach to combat. I prefer Mass Effect's, where you could essentially take who you want on missions without worrying (too much) about role fulfillment. I'm not saying they should bring shooter mechanics into Thedas or anything, but if I want to run with three rogues or an all mage party, it'd be nice if that didn't completely nerf my ability in combat.

 

As for more people, it's hard enough directing a party of three or four. Any more than that and directing party members will take longer than the combat itself. I did like the mission in ME3: Citadel where everyone turned up though, that was fun.

 

I disagree. I think you can definitely bring three rogues or an all mage party in DA:I and kick ass in combat.
 

 

I believe that 3 party members is the perfect balance, though I wouldn't mind having an extra slot for a dog, and, as I mentioned above, the ability to change the party's formation.

[Patricia08]

I disagree. I think you can definitely bring three rogues or an all mage party in DA:I and kick ass in combat.

 

 

Oh you definitely can i have done that many times an all Mage party or an all Roque party and you can kick ass in combat.

[Big I]

I disagree. I think you can definitely bring three rogues or an all mage party in DA:I and kick ass in combat.
 

 

It's doable, but everything is harder without a tank.

[GoldenGail3]

It's doable, but everything is harder without a tank.

I could do a Mage, Mage, Warrior, Warrior team.

[Addictress]

Pathfinding is really hard to do.

Companions in DA:I very rarely obstruct the passage and overall they position themselves well. I really don't see why you would say that "they couldn't implement AI..."

Now, it would be nice to have the same option that BG had that let you pick a formation, but that's an entirely different thing that saying that the team couldn't implement the AI.

 

 

Oh trust me, I still bow down to the devs for coding what we have in DA:I.  It's all rocket science to me.

 

But DA:O and DA:2 had smoother companion AI in my opinion. And maybe I use the term "AI" too roughly. But little things like companions climbing up vertically on objects or walls when they shouldn't be, which is more of a mapping issue I guess. Or lagging way too far behind and then they re-populate next to you when you're ahead (like all the time, and absurdly obvious).

[Sanunes]

I was going through my archive of Ask A Game Dev today and found a post just about pathfinding.  There are plenty of technical challenges to creating companions in the game and adding one makes it exponentially more difficulty.  Here is a link to his post.

 

Link

Modifié par Sanunes, 29 avril 2016 - 03:05 .

[Kurupt13]

Nonsense... Im not even gonnna read the link, as Bioware in 2000 developed a game called baldurs gate 2 which featured 6 man parties, was very popular, and they all followed well...  HELL even in baldurs gate one in what 95 ?  they followed well, and did their tasks well ... 16 years later bioware is saying they cant do it again ??  Shenanigans..  There was also something like 20 different NPS'c that you can choose to join your party ...  

 

 

Dragon age 1 was better, as you could mage tank, that was fun...   And of course you can beat the game with other groups, im just saying the typical set up you will have a tank healer area dps and single target dps,  four man parties don't leave much group customization. And if they went back to a dragon age 2 kinda thing where there was many useful skill trees to use on every class, a four man party felt way too small for what we were given, then inquisition the areas felt too small for a 4 man group...  

[Obsidian Gryphon]

Oh trust me, I still bow down to the devs for coding what we have in DA:I.  It's all rocket science to me.

 

But DA:O and DA:2 had smoother companion AI in my opinion. And maybe I use the term "AI" too roughly. But little things like companions climbing up vertically on objects or walls when they shouldn't be, which is more of a mapping issue I guess. Or lagging way too far behind and then they re-populate next to you when you're ahead (like all the time, and absurdly obvious).

 

Oddly, while they do get strung along like chicks or magically climbed an impossible ledge, I've had companions who ran ahead of me in a flanking position.   In one PT, I was gobsmacked when the mage ran so far ahead in the final boss fight. Come back here, you effin elf!

[Andraste_Reborn]

Nonsense... Im not even gonnna read the link, as Bioware in 2000 developed a game called baldurs gate 2 which featured 6 man parties, was very popular, and they all followed well...  HELL even in baldurs gate one in what 95 ?  they followed well, and did their tasks well ... 16 years later bioware is saying they cant do it again ??  Shenanigans..  There was also something like 20 different NPS'c that you can choose to join your party ...  

 

Pathfinding in an engine with an isometric view, like the Infinity Engine that the Baldur's Gate games were made in, is very different to pathfinding in an engine like Frostbite. The companions in BG were also a lot cheaper to make because they didn't have full voice acting and animation to worry about, and it's only in BG2 that they starting having more than half a dozen lines each and fully-developed personalities. Well, most of them. Let us not speak of Cernd.

 

You can already see the effect of investing more in individual characters in BG2 - there were twenty-five companions in Baldur's Gate, and only fifteen that you could finish the game with in BG2. (There's a sixteenth you unavoidably lose half way through, easily replaced with the companion that's been missing for most of the first half of the game. You also get another one in Throne of Bhaal. Still considerably less than the original roster of twenty-five.)

[Kurupt13]

So you say its too hard and it costs too much so why do it, people will buy it anyways ??   Lol...   That's the EA attitude right there ...

[Addictress]

Oddly, while they do get strung along like chicks or magically climbed an impossible ledge, I've had companions who ran ahead of me in a flanking position. In one PT, I was gobsmacked when the mage ran so far ahead in the final boss fight. Come back here, you effin elf!

Yeah that's happened a FEW times and it's a glorious miracle when it does.

[DarkAmaranth1966]

I think a four man team is fine for open world. Tank, ranged DPS, melee DPS, AOE/Control. I would like some full party dungeon or raid type events in the game where you have ALL possible companions in your party for a big fight but, that should be only for one or two elite boss fights in each zone. (like for capturing a keep, killing a dragon, etc...)

[Lezio]

Well, amongst all the specialization i wish they would bring back there is "explorer", which back in Origins allowed a rogue to summon a wolf/bear/spider. Plus, since Inquisition feels like a MMO anyway(in the exploration part), a "taming" mechanic would have fit quite awesomely with that particular specilization

 

I like 4 party members for the group, but reaching the 5/6 through animals always felt good in Origins

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Well, amongst all the specialization i wish they would bring back there is "explorer", which back in Origins allowed a rogue to summon a wolf/bear/spider. Plus, since Inquisition feels like a MMO anyway(in the exploration part), a "taming" mechanic would have fit quite awesomely with that particular specilization

 

I like 4 party members for the group, but reaching the 5/6 through animals always felt good in Origins

That or a Huntsman rogue class. A rogue that has animal companion that fight along side him and levels up, needs armor etc... At first he can only summon say a hog sized battle nug, then he gets the nug or a wolf, finally in the last 1/3 of the game he can choose nug, wolf or dragonling. Nug us good for melee dps (assassin type but not so strong as a humanoid. Wolf is good for tanking, but does little damage, just keeps the enemies attention. the dragonling is ranged AOE. The rogue can only be an archer.

 

I honestly wish they'd take a look at a game called Rift, the classes and advanced role options there are amazing. Every class has a role that lets them fill any position in a party but, you have to choose one role to start then, unlock a second later and, pay dearly for more than two. Any mage, Warrior, Cleric or, rogue can be a healer, melee DPS, ranged DPS, Support, Control or AOE focused.

[Force of the North]

Instead of a larger party, I would rather be able to split my group.  I really liked in the battle of Denerim when you switched and fought as the characters you left behind to guard the gate.  It would be easy enough, you have two missions you need to complete simultaneously so you have to form two parties.  Picking which 3 come with you and what 4 go on the other quest would be interesting.  Imagine putting Sera, Blackbeard, Bull, and Doorman in a party all together trying to blow up a bridge to block the escape of the Red Templars so you can ambush them.