Heart
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: cardiaheart
PSN: Natigator1213
Posts: 43 Likes: 199
inherit
8971
0
199
Heart
43
July 2017
heart
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
cardiaheart
Natigator1213
|
Post by Heart on Sept 19, 2020 19:40:09 GMT
I'd prefer classes to stay as they are, personally. It adds to the replay value for me, to see narrative differences between like, a rogue vs a mage playthrough. I'd like to see more conversations/dialogue options based on your specializations too.
I can see the appeal of classless play, especially for those who only playthrough the game once, but as someone who plays through these games way too much it doesn't bother me to not have every skill/armor set/weapon available to me in one go.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
37,542
colfoley
19,300
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Sept 19, 2020 19:41:28 GMT
I'd prefer classes to stay as they are, personally. It adds to the replay value for me, to see narrative differences between like, a rogue vs a mage playthrough. I'd like to see more conversations/dialogue options based on your specializations too. I can see the appeal of classless play, especially for those who only playthrough the game once, but as someone who plays through these games way too much it doesn't bother me to not have every skill/armor set/weapon available to me in one go. I think I could get behind classes more if they did differentiate them in the story. |
|
inherit
168
0
14,267
Rascoth
4,264
August 2016
rascoth
|
Post by Rascoth on Sept 19, 2020 19:42:41 GMT
as someone who plays through these games way too much Blasphemy. There's no such thing as too many playthroughs 
|
|
inherit
1439
0
Dec 12, 2024 22:37:43 GMT
13,470
witchcocktor
4,291
Sept 6, 2016 10:00:37 GMT
September 2016
witchcocktor
Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by witchcocktor on Sept 19, 2020 20:02:03 GMT
I vote in favor of traditional classes - and by that, I mean DAO traditional, where warriors had access to archery and dual-wield. That system worked just fine. All it ever needed was a bit of tweaking and refinement. I would propose a single "elemental" tree, with maybe four basic spell-forms, for e.g, "Bolt", "Rune", "Wall" and "Blast/Storm", and then allow the player to toggle back and forth between "equippable" elements, to change the element and effect of the spell being cast. That function, at least on consoles, could be performed by the D-pad, lord knows it's not pulling its weight. That sounds overly complicated to me. Also, rogue should be split into rogue and archer/ranger, the two are not the same. Similarly warrior should be split into a two-hander and a shield/1hander classes. I'd prefer to not be limited to a specific weapon type. I'd like each class to have both melee and ranged options, a swappable secondary weapon set (ala DAO) and be able to change out either weapon set with something carried in inventory during combat. I said nothing about being limited to a weapon type. I'm thinking more in the lines of picking a class gives you some sort of bonus to using some sort of weapon, because a ranger should be more proficient using a bow than a mage or a 2-hander warrior. Not to say those two couldn't use a bow, but a ranger should be more adept naturally.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Sept 19, 2020 21:22:06 GMT
I disagree. Non-issues in DAO, that problem was introduced by BioWare's desire to further differentiate the classes in DA2. The fix is to return to DAO's foundation that allowed warriors archery and dual-wield, and also allowed rogues to wield heavier one-handed weapons. That enhanced mixing and matching could be mostly accomplished by returning to DAO's system. The Arcane Warrior spec even allowed mages to wear heavy armors and wield melee weapons. Again, I'd refer you to DAO. DAO offered clothing (mostly mage robes) plus 4 armor weights - light, medium, heavy, and massive (and tiers of all but clothing). The only thing that limited what armor your character could equip is number of points invested in the strength attribute, which was player controlled (also, restrictions on a few unique items). Arcane Warriors (mage spec) w/ the Combat Magic skill could substitute the magic attribute for strength for armor qualification. Heavier armor use was offset by increasing fatigue penalties (the rate at which mana/stam regen). OTOH, dexterity (DAO) or cunning (DA2) investments would increase characters' defense (sort of like THAC0, made them harder to hit). You could absolutely build a high-dex dual-wielding/bow-using warrior that uses light or medium armor and is just more difficult to hit. Want to change your warrior archer to a tank midway through the game? Use a respec potion and re-allocate the points (although since high dex also increases defense, you might not need to). I would also note that DAO offered a number of base class abilities not associated with any specific weapon and DA2 expanded them. Examples: Dirty Fighting, Stealth, Miasmic Flask, Vendetta - these talents were not dependent on what type of weapon was equipped. That meant there were fewer points spent in weapon-specific skills which made it much easier to create a build equally effective with different weapons. (DA2 also removed the secondary/swap weapon set, but you could still swap them by opening inventory.) Honestly, most of what you want to accomplish here could be done by returning to DAO's combat system mechanics - add some refinements, tweaks, improve the animations and offer a speed slider, maybe some specialization enhancements, and you'd be good to go.
1. Granted we might be getting our terminology confused but the last thing I want is to return to Origins combat system. Seriously at this point I may dread that more then going always online. Still not a deal breaker but it might make me cry. And I don't understand why you find those mechanics so distasteful. I do understand that people had issues with the so-called "warden shuffle" and wanted livelier animations and an overall faster pace (though DA2 went too far imho) - but those things would be included in the tweaks and refinements I've mentioned. And the UI could be organized into trees instead of the rows presented in DAO. Weapon-specific talents would be widely available. DAO gave two-handed, weapon and shield, archery, and dual wield trees to warriors. Rogues had archery and dual-wield (which could actually include one-handed weapon and shield, although the shield was wielded like a dagger). Mages never had any weapon-specific talents, just spells, though DAO allowed them to equip and use melee weapons and bows, doing basic attacks. You could add another weapon class like fighting staff and make it available to all 3 classes. Mages could use their already-equipped magic staves for that melee style. Attribute points could be invested per the player's choice which provided a lot more flexibility in builds.
Class talents are things like stealth, taunt, threaten, and the like. Thing is, there's already some overlap between warrior and rogue. Warriors are assumed to function as tanks and are thus given abilities like taunt and threaten. Rogues have different ways to draw or redirect aggro, like goad or throw the gauntlet. Then there's other rogue skills like feign death or guardian angel designed to muck with enemy attention. But here's the thing: some of those talents were developed specifically to provide different ways to accomplish the same thing. There's not much (if any) difference between the warrior's taunt and the rogue's throw the gauntlet. What I'm suggesting is that there are a number of talents that mimic or duplicate other abilities, and the only reason for their existence is to offer the same or similar capability to another class. Frankly, I've often wondered how devs come up with so many different talents. Some of them become veritable must-haves, while others become unloved, unused, possibly because they're either ineffective or because players never figure out how to use them correctly. When I think about some rogue talents - like dirty fighting, below the belt, feign death - I feel that they provide a lot of flavor and characterization to a distinctive rogue fighting style and character. I wouldn't want them to be replicated in a warrior. I've no idea what you mean by this. Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with the combat-related threads you've been opening lately. I get the feeling that you've been playing other games you enjoy and want to bring some of the things you like about them into DA - but I'm not sure they'd fit. And I don't particularly want them to - I'm quite content with DAO/DA2 combat and enjoy finding different playstyles in different games. In any case, your "it might make me cry" above is might pretty closely capture how some of us feel about the changes made from DAO to DAI.
P.S. Be careful what you wish for. Changes don't always turn out as we might hope...
|
|
inherit
1033
0
37,542
colfoley
19,300
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Sept 19, 2020 21:34:52 GMT
1. Granted we might be getting our terminology confused but the last thing I want is to return to Origins combat system. Seriously at this point I may dread that more then going always online. Still not a deal breaker but it might make me cry. And I don't understand why you find those mechanics so distasteful. I do understand that people had issues with the so-called "warden shuffle" and wanted livelier animations and an overall faster pace (though DA2 went too far imho) - but those things would be included in the tweaks and refinements I've mentioned. And the UI could be organized into trees instead of the rows presented in DAO. Weapon-specific talents would be widely available. DAO gave two-handed, weapon and shield, archery, and dual wield trees to warriors. Rogues had archery and dual-wield (which could actually include one-handed weapon and shield, although the shield was wielded like a dagger). Mages never had any weapon-specific talents, just spells, though DAO allowed them to equip and use melee weapons and bows, doing basic attacks. You could add another weapon class like fighting staff and make it available to all 3 classes. Mages could use their already-equipped magic staves for that melee style. Attribute points could be invested per the player's choice which provided a lot more flexibility in builds.
Class talents are things like stealth, taunt, threaten, and the like. Thing is, there's already some overlap between warrior and rogue. Warriors are assumed to function as tanks and are thus given abilities like taunt and threaten. Rogues have different ways to draw or redirect aggro, like goad or throw the gauntlet. Then there's other rogue skills like feign death or guardian angel designed to muck with enemy attention. But here's the thing: some of those talents were developed specifically to provide different ways to accomplish the same thing. There's not much (if any) difference between the warrior's taunt and the rogue's throw the gauntlet. What I'm suggesting is that there are a number of talents that mimic or duplicate other abilities, and the only reason for their existence is to offer the same or similar capability to another class. Frankly, I've often wondered how devs come up with so many different talents. Some of them become veritable must-haves, while others become unloved, unused, possibly because they're either ineffective or because players never figure out how to use them correctly. When I think about some rogue talents - like dirty fighting, below the belt, feign death - I feel that they provide a lot of flavor and characterization to a distinctive rogue fighting style and character. I wouldn't want them to be replicated in a warrior. I've no idea what you mean by this. Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with the combat-related threads you've been opening lately. I get the feeling that you've been playing other games you enjoy and want to bring some of the things you like about them into DA - but I'm not sure they'd fit. And I don't particularly want them to - I'm quite content with DAO/DA2 combat and enjoy finding different playstyles in different games. In any case, your "it might make me cry" above is might pretty closely capture how some of us feel about the changes made from DAO to DAI.
P.S. Be careful what you wish for. Changes don't always turn out as we might hope...
1. Oh I know the careful what we wish for. All of my suggestions are just that and I trust the dev team to know how to make combat best for Dragon Age. 2. My objective is to try and see where the pulse of the fandom is on these issues and state my opinion on them as well. And to see if and how compromise might be possible while keeping in mind point 1. 3. I guess I did not dive that deeply into the Origins tree but I think you could be onto something here. I guess come to realize my only real objective is I want all classes to have melee and range options for combat... again. 4. As I suspected we were getting into a disagreement over definition. I put Classes in RP, not combat. Anyways I do agree with all your refinements...which was essentially DAI, imo. |
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Sept 19, 2020 21:41:16 GMT
I vote in favor of traditional classes - and by that, I mean DAO traditional, where warriors had access to archery and dual-wield. That system worked just fine. All it ever needed was a bit of tweaking and refinement. That sounds overly complicated to me. I'd prefer to not be limited to a specific weapon type. I'd like each class to have both melee and ranged options, a swappable secondary weapon set (ala DAO) and be able to change out either weapon set with something carried in inventory during combat. I said nothing about being limited to a weapon type. I'm thinking more in the lines of picking a class gives you some sort of bonus to using some sort of weapon, because a ranger should be more proficient using a bow than a mage or a 2-hander warrior. Not to say those two couldn't use a bow, but a ranger should be more adept naturally. Well - you said this: Also, rogue should be split into rogue and archer/ranger, the two are not the same. Similarly warrior should be split into a two-hander and a shield/1hander classes.So it sounded to me like you want classes that to have specific weapons. Maybe you meant weapon proficiencies? So the one-hander could use a two-handed weapon or bow, but would be naturally better with a one-hander?
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Sept 19, 2020 22:08:40 GMT
And I don't understand why you find those mechanics so distasteful. I do understand that people had issues with the so-called "warden shuffle" and wanted livelier animations and an overall faster pace (though DA2 went too far imho) - but those things would be included in the tweaks and refinements I've mentioned. And the UI could be organized into trees instead of the rows presented in DAO. Weapon-specific talents would be widely available. DAO gave two-handed, weapon and shield, archery, and dual wield trees to warriors. Rogues had archery and dual-wield (which could actually include one-handed weapon and shield, although the shield was wielded like a dagger). Mages never had any weapon-specific talents, just spells, though DAO allowed them to equip and use melee weapons and bows, doing basic attacks. You could add another weapon class like fighting staff and make it available to all 3 classes. Mages could use their already-equipped magic staves for that melee style. Attribute points could be invested per the player's choice which provided a lot more flexibility in builds.
Class talents are things like stealth, taunt, threaten, and the like. Thing is, there's already some overlap between warrior and rogue. Warriors are assumed to function as tanks and are thus given abilities like taunt and threaten. Rogues have different ways to draw or redirect aggro, like goad or throw the gauntlet. Then there's other rogue skills like feign death or guardian angel designed to muck with enemy attention. But here's the thing: some of those talents were developed specifically to provide different ways to accomplish the same thing. There's not much (if any) difference between the warrior's taunt and the rogue's throw the gauntlet. What I'm suggesting is that there are a number of talents that mimic or duplicate other abilities, and the only reason for their existence is to offer the same or similar capability to another class. Frankly, I've often wondered how devs come up with so many different talents. Some of them become veritable must-haves, while others become unloved, unused, possibly because they're either ineffective or because players never figure out how to use them correctly. When I think about some rogue talents - like dirty fighting, below the belt, feign death - I feel that they provide a lot of flavor and characterization to a distinctive rogue fighting style and character. I wouldn't want them to be replicated in a warrior. I've no idea what you mean by this. Yeah, I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish with the combat-related threads you've been opening lately. I get the feeling that you've been playing other games you enjoy and want to bring some of the things you like about them into DA - but I'm not sure they'd fit. And I don't particularly want them to - I'm quite content with DAO/DA2 combat and enjoy finding different playstyles in different games. In any case, your "it might make me cry" above is might pretty closely capture how some of us feel about the changes made from DAO to DAI. P.S. Be careful what you wish for. Changes don't always turn out as we might hope...
1. Oh I know the careful what we wish for. All of my suggestions are just that and I trust the dev team to know how to make combat best for Dragon Age. 2. My objective is to try and see where the pulse of the fandom is on these issues and state my opinion on them as well. And to see if and how compromise might be possible while keeping in mind point 1. 3. I guess I did not dive that deeply into the Origins tree but I think you could be onto something here. I guess come to realize my only real objective is I want all classes to have melee and range options for combat... again. Yes, that's something I think a lot of us have been wanting since they took it away in DA2. That, and for classes to not be limited to a couple of types of weapons. No, it really wasn't. And that's not an "imo", it's objective fact. Not only did DAI not have a hot-swappable secondary weapon set (ala DAO), it didn't even let you go into inventory and change weapons during combat (but DA2 did). Like DA2, it limited warriors to s/s or two-handed weapon skills. DAI was the first in the series: -- That did not allow players to invest attribute points -- That did not provide user-programmable tactics -- That took away healing magic also introduced massive health pools with the guard/barrier nonsense, etc. As for RP, some of us include combat in our role-play. It's not just for dialogue.
In any case, it's always good to chat at'cha.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
37,542
colfoley
19,300
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Sept 19, 2020 22:32:58 GMT
1. Oh I know the careful what we wish for. All of my suggestions are just that and I trust the dev team to know how to make combat best for Dragon Age. 2. My objective is to try and see where the pulse of the fandom is on these issues and state my opinion on them as well. And to see if and how compromise might be possible while keeping in mind point 1. 3. I guess I did not dive that deeply into the Origins tree but I think you could be onto something here. I guess come to realize my only real objective is I want all classes to have melee and range options for combat... again. Yes, that's something I think a lot of us have been wanting since they took it away in DA2. That, and for classes to not be limited to a couple of types of weapons. No, it really wasn't. And that's not an "imo", it's objective fact. Not only did DAI not have a hot-swappable secondary weapon set (ala DAO), it didn't even let you go into inventory and change weapons during combat (but DA2 did). Like DA2, it limited warriors to s/s or two-handed weapon skills. DAI was the first in the series: -- That did not allow players to invest attribute points -- That did not provide user-programmable tactics -- That took away healing magic also introduced massive health pools with the guard/barrier nonsense, etc. As for RP, some of us include combat in our role-play. It's not just for dialogue.
In any case, it's always good to chat at'cha.
indeed I do appreciate these conversations.  which may make my next point awkward  Because I disagree with those being objective facts. - healing magic was certainly a thing with at least two spells, plus healing enchantments on things like rings, plus healing that you could craft on your armor. Plus talents like poisoned weapons. Honestly given all the ways to heal I find it a little amusing that this complaint persists. -attribute points... a little less ground to stand on and I do want them to go back to the DA2 way...or maybe go for a Fallout or Greedfall approach...but you could still dictate your character attributes via crafting. User programmable tactics- I'd say they limited them but didn't get rid of them entirely. Also I preferred them in Inquisition then the last two. Granted they may be able to improve them further but it's fine right now. -massive health pools via barrier and guard- they certainly seem far less massive in Inquisition then in Origins where encounters would resolve a lot faster in the former. And in 2 ditto but with the massive waves. This is probably my two biggest complaints about the previous 2 games combat. Inquisition was just right. Mob sizes were usually in the squad level and they didn't have massive reserves of health. |
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
26,120
phoray
Gotta be kiddin me
13,303
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by phoray on Sept 19, 2020 22:35:21 GMT
I kinda think the sort that hang out on this forum are going to be into the RP more than the smoothness of the mechanics. Being classed and the options for specializations are going to support that more than "wee, I can do anything because this is SKyrim/I have a SAM in my head" because than the writers can allow for them in Dialogue.
I mean, my stint with Skyrim was a short one, but I think at most the dialogue to support that you were a vampire was that you looked pale? or that you were werewolf, that you smelled like a dog? But mostly what lost my interest in Skyrim entirely was that I became head of the Thieve's guild only for no one in the universe to recognize that fact outside of a "oh, hey boss" from the NPCs within the guild building. There was no special end specilization adventure where I broke into the King's castle and stole his ancient sword or anything. I just was because they couldn't invest too much time and cinematics into any one thing when they had provided a wide but shallow ocean of experiences.
Since I also mentioned Andromeda, I'd like to point out that saying you'd always been biotic from birth, which should have been uber dramatic stuff to angst over, got what, two lines of dialogue from anyone in the game? while Cora got to go on about it constantly.
Classless makes the game less responsive to your character narratively, not more responsive. It's the tradeoff you have to make between freedom and narrative. I have yet to play any game that disabuses me of this notion.
|
|
Polka Dot
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 679 Likes: 1,207
inherit
10957
0
Feb 14, 2019 20:07:41 GMT
1,207
Polka Dot
679
Feb 14, 2019 18:50:29 GMT
February 2019
polkadot
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Polka Dot on Sept 19, 2020 23:27:37 GMT
Yes, that's something I think a lot of us have been wanting since they took it away in DA2. That, and for classes to not be limited to a couple of types of weapons. No, it really wasn't. And that's not an "imo", it's objective fact. Not only did DAI not have a hot-swappable secondary weapon set (ala DAO), it didn't even let you go into inventory and change weapons during combat (but DA2 did). Like DA2, it limited warriors to s/s or two-handed weapon skills. DAI was the first in the series: -- That did not allow players to invest attribute points -- That did not provide user-programmable tactics -- That took away healing magic also introduced massive health pools with the guard/barrier nonsense, etc. As for RP, some of us include combat in our role-play. It's not just for dialogue. In any case, it's always good to chat at'cha.
indeed I do appreciate these conversations.  which may make my next point awkward  Because I disagree with those being objective facts. - healing magic was certainly a thing with at least two spells, plus healing enchantments on things like rings, plus healing that you could craft on your armor. Plus talents like poisoned weapons. Honestly given all the ways to heal I find it a little amusing that this complaint persists. -attribute points... a little less ground to stand on and I do want them to go back to the DA2 way...or maybe go for a Fallout or Greedfall approach...but you could still dictate your character attributes via crafting. User programmable tactics- I'd say they limited them but didn't get rid of them entirely. Also I preferred them in Inquisition then the last two. Granted they may be able to improve them further but it's fine right now. -massive health pools via barrier and guard- they certainly seem far less massive in Inquisition then in Origins where encounters would resolve a lot faster in the former. And in 2 ditto but with the massive waves. This is probably my two biggest complaints about the previous 2 games combat. Inquisition was just right. Mob sizes were usually in the squad level and they didn't have massive reserves of health. Just when you think you've finished a conversation.  My "refinements" were basically something in-between DAO & DA2. That warriors cannot equip a bow in DAI is objective fact. That mages lack healing spells in DAI is objective fact. That you cannot swap weapons during combat in DAI is objective fact.
etc. I wasn't really including item bonuses wrt my comment about healing magic, but DAO & DA2 also had them. The mage heal spell - available in DAO and DA2 - was a goner in DAI, as is full heal after each battle. DAO & DA2 also offered items with attribute bumps. DAI took away player-controlled attribute point investment. You are, of course, entitled to prefer whatever you think you could do with "tactics" in DAI, but they were not user programmable. You could pause and issue commands, but that's always been true. I'll continue to hope they return to DAO's foundation and go from there.
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
26,120
phoray
Gotta be kiddin me
13,303
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by phoray on Sept 20, 2020 0:08:35 GMT
Classless makes the game less responsive to your character narratively, not more responsive. It's the tradeoff you have to make between freedom and narrative. I have yet to play any game that disabuses me of this notion. This just reminded me of an article I'd read about a visual novel writer regarding protaganists. Do they pass the Lamp test? If the story changes drastically based off their choices, then they are a fully fleshed out protaganist. But if they are mostly locked into the role of observer with any level of reactionary dialogue that doesn't change anything, then they can be replaced with a lamp and hardly anyone would notice. Bioware has never been THAT bad, but the fact that Alistair's speech before the final battles changes based off your gender really meant something to me. That Cassandra connects during that one scene about both of you being strong women was important to me. So that's where gender reflection was represented. When I decided to play a Viv-type snooty mage who wasn't afraid to throw around threats, the fact that I was a mage made that man tremble in Redcliffe more than otherwise. I got to talk about Magic with Morrigan. I played a rogue my first PT of Origins, and Zevran and I got to exchange dialogue about that in base camp. I got to tell Leliana that she was a racist who sexually objectified elves as an elf too! Classless is going to remove that, just as the lack of Origins in DAI made it difficult to relate to anyone about anything. A noble person could say they understood Josie? You could be rejected by Iron bull as not being a true Qunari? Maybe some dwarfy comments if you were a dwarf? Most of the conversations revolving around the Dalish origin really related to religious differences, as DAI was a religious game. I want to be seen as a woman if I choose that. Seen as a dwarf if I chose that. And seen as a nimble rogue assassin if I chose that. And the more they move away from origins and classes, the more LAMP we will be. Because the game will have to be vague enough in it's dialogue to be able to function around the equivalence of a amorphous shadow of a person. |
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 2,027 Likes: 3,568
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,568
Noxluxe
2,027
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Sept 20, 2020 5:40:30 GMT
I feel like traditional classes with significant overlap between warrior and rogue worked really well in Origins, and that archery and dual-weapon fighting being strictly rogue disciplines in the other games just seemed weird and unnatural.
And that armor restrictions between classes have always been moronic in basically every single instance ever.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
37,542
colfoley
19,300
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Sept 20, 2020 8:35:51 GMT
indeed I do appreciate these conversations. which may make my next point awkward Because I disagree with those being objective facts. - healing magic was certainly a thing with at least two spells, plus healing enchantments on things like rings, plus healing that you could craft on your armor. Plus talents like poisoned weapons. Honestly given all the ways to heal I find it a little amusing that this complaint persists. -attribute points... a little less ground to stand on and I do want them to go back to the DA2 way...or maybe go for a Fallout or Greedfall approach...but you could still dictate your character attributes via crafting. User programmable tactics- I'd say they limited them but didn't get rid of them entirely. Also I preferred them in Inquisition then the last two. Granted they may be able to improve them further but it's fine right now. -massive health pools via barrier and guard- they certainly seem far less massive in Inquisition then in Origins where encounters would resolve a lot faster in the former. And in 2 ditto but with the massive waves. This is probably my two biggest complaints about the previous 2 games combat. Inquisition was just right. Mob sizes were usually in the squad level and they didn't have massive reserves of health. Just when you think you've finished a conversation. My "refinements" were basically something in-between DAO & DA2. That warriors cannot equip a bow in DAI is objective fact. That mages lack healing spells in DAI is objective fact. That you cannot swap weapons during combat in DAI is objective fact.
etc. I wasn't really including item bonuses wrt my comment about healing magic, but DAO & DA2 also had them. The mage heal spell - available in DAO and DA2 - was a goner in DAI, as is full heal after each battle. DAO & DA2 also offered items with attribute bumps. DAI took away player-controlled attribute point investment. You are, of course, entitled to prefer whatever you think you could do with "tactics" in DAI, but they were not user programmable. You could pause and issue commands, but that's always been true. I'll continue to hope they return to DAO's foundation and go from there. Sorry.  I have been told numerous times I am stubbourn and have to have the last word  (also didn't realize you were trying to extricate yourself from the conversation) Classless makes the game less responsive to your character narratively, not more responsive. It's the tradeoff you have to make between freedom and narrative. I have yet to play any game that disabuses me of this notion. This just reminded me of an article I'd read about a visual novel writer regarding protaganists. Do they pass the Lamp test? If the story changes drastically based off their choices, then they are a fully fleshed out protaganist. But if they are mostly locked into the role of observer with any level of reactionary dialogue that doesn't change anything, then they can be replaced with a lamp and hardly anyone would notice. Bioware has never been THAT bad, but the fact that Alistair's speech before the final battles changes based off your gender really meant something to me. That Cassandra connects during that one scene about both of you being strong women was important to me. So that's where gender reflection was represented. When I decided to play a Viv-type snooty mage who wasn't afraid to throw around threats, the fact that I was a mage made that man tremble in Redcliffe more than otherwise. I got to talk about Magic with Morrigan. I played a rogue my first PT of Origins, and Zevran and I got to exchange dialogue about that in base camp. I got to tell Leliana that she was a racist who sexually objectified elves as an elf too! Classless is going to remove that, just as the lack of Origins in DAI made it difficult to relate to anyone about anything. A noble person could say they understood Josie? You could be rejected by Iron bull as not being a true Qunari? Maybe some dwarfy comments if you were a dwarf? Most of the conversations revolving around the Dalish origin really related to religious differences, as DAI was a religious game. I want to be seen as a woman if I choose that. Seen as a dwarf if I chose that. And seen as a nimble rogue assassin if I chose that. And the more they move away from origins and classes, the more LAMP we will be. Because the game will have to be vague enough in it's dialogue to be able to function around the equivalence of a amorphous shadow of a person. I don't entirely agree. Or really look at the problem from the opposite direction. Gaming conventions of the time, or at least the ones that BioWare were dealing with at the time, had classes be more of a prominent thing in RPGs then they are now. As with most nonsense gameplay restrictions they then had to come up with lore and backstory to support their decision. Granted they have done some pretty intersting things with it. However, it makes it difficult to unwrap that particular genie going forward but the issue was their mistake to begin with which has handicapped their options going forward. The whole biotic or mage issue is only such an issue because its been an issue with how they have gone about telling the story. Obviously, going forward such things will have to be accounted for...but that's also not an excuse to not try messing around with it (and indeed Valta getting magic powers in the Descent indicates they could already be thinking about going this way already.) As far as reactivity is concerned as a general concept whilst any reactivity is in general a good thing and while I would always hope for more rather then less (to a point)...on this issue BioWare has been already going the other direction. Your class already I do not believe really gets a mention if you are a warrior or a rogue other than Solas pointing out you are *not* a mage and thus the the Breach is not like any magic he knows of. Mages likewise only really gets a full...as does things like gender, race, specilization, its not something that really has ever effected the plot...though yes they should also try and avoid the Andromeda situation from happening which you cited. Regardless though, while again I am no expert on the programming or the writing side on this, I should think that it would at least be possible...especially since they already made the mistake with Andromeda...to throw in a few lines about your preffered playstyle or your 'class' just as easily as throwing in a few lines about your specilization in Inquisition. Say, just as a wild example, if you have a bow equipped they could go 'Archer eh?..." Edit: I mean again looking back on it the issue isn't really one in either franchise of a mage cannot be a warrior or a biotic can't be a tech person or a soldier but more the other way around. So in other words since all biotics or mages can also learn how to use a sword or a gun or an omni tool their uniqueness is bequeated to them at birth which provides one answer that being a mage could be something you could do the dreaded 'toggle' on during your Character creation. Which will then preserve that reactivity. Edit 2: Congrulations I think you poked a nerve . (kidding but I keep on thinking of new stuff) BioWare has not exactly been great at reactivity when in both Dragon Age...or in ME 3...you had multiple moments when you would have the wrong weapon in cutscenes, like the Avenger replacing my beloved Valkyrie...or my Archer Rogue Inquisitor annoying slashing the Archdemon with a dagger its like...why can't I have one of those in games? Now I just shrug my shoulders and accept that as a technical limitation and it does not strictly speaking bother me.
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,073
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Sept 20, 2020 8:45:41 GMT
Frankly I'm glad Andromeda was class-less because I would've picked a Tech class, got some ways in, realised tech skills suck and are useless, and would've had to start all over again.
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
26,120
phoray
Gotta be kiddin me
13,303
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
|
Post by phoray on Sept 20, 2020 9:28:39 GMT
Me: blah blah narrative vs freedom. The bulk of ppl on this site don't want an amorphous shadow person colfoley : I love...lamp. Me:  Colfoley: I Love Lamp. I LOVE LAMP. Me: okay. Well. I like you well enough, but I hope you're as disappointed as Pessimistic panda is about wanting the veil to come down before we even start the game. I want more of the same as I've been given so far in the three games and you both want a mass departure. The reason that what we've gotten has been such a disappointment (regarding cutscenes wrong weapons or tech class sucking) is something they should work on, not problems they should avoid altogether by rewriting the entire world to circumvent them I got nothing left to say, as we are actively hoping for drastically different things in the DA4 product. |
|
inherit
1033
0
37,542
colfoley
19,300
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Sept 20, 2020 9:48:34 GMT
Me: blah blah narrative vs freedom. The bulk of ppl on this site don't want an amorphous shadow person colfoley : I love...lamp. Me: Colfoley: I Love Lamp. I LOVE LAMP. Me: okay. Well. I like you well enough, but I hope you're as disappointed as Pessimistic panda is about wanting the veil to come down before we even start the game. I want more of the same as I've been given so far in the three games and you both want a mass departure. The reason that what we've gotten has been such a disappointment (regarding cutscenes wrong weapons or tech class sucking) is something they should work on, not problems they should avoid altogether by rewriting the entire world to circumvent them I got nothing left to say, as we are actively hoping for drastically different things in the DA4 product. *frustrated sigh* Three things 1. I believe I mentioned I do not love lamp and in fact like reactivity. A. Just that technical limitations make non lamp very difficult and B. While reactivity is good it should not compromise other things, like telling an interesting story or having fun gameplay...and with those technical limitations in mind it's best to be cautious otherwise we risk getting ME 3. 2. I do not want a massive departure from the previous 3 games, at least in this regard...classless systems, yes, maybe a little but I am confident that bioware can, theoretically, put as much reactivity into a classless system as say picking Assassin in Inquisition. 3. Me and the panda of Pessimism disagree on when the Veil should come down, I argue it should be at the end if the game...if its coming down at all...and no we shouldn't get a say in the matter (again I reference ME 3) |
|
aeon
N1
Posts: 3 Likes: 4
inherit
9565
0
4
aeon
3
Nov 16, 2017 21:49:45 GMT
November 2017
aeon
|
Post by aeon on Sept 20, 2020 11:40:02 GMT
This discussion makes me think people lack imagination. How does a lack of fixed classes make a game less responsive? As if other stats couldn't be referred to by the narrative. Also I hate when gameplay conventions become part of the lore. I have seen fanfiction going on about rogue skills and how they can only take 3 other proper on missions.  At least hide them inside of a broad strokes backstory that makes sense: thief, templar, chevalier, farmer, grey warden, circle mage, free mage and let people find out how they play that. |
|
inherit
1033
0
37,542
colfoley
19,300
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Sept 20, 2020 19:15:57 GMT
This discussion makes me think people lack imagination. How does a lack of fixed classes make a game less responsive? As if other stats couldn't be referred to by the narrative. Also I hate when gameplay conventions become part of the lore. I have seen fanfiction going on about rogue skills and how they can only take 3 other proper on missions. At least hide them inside of a broad strokes backstory that makes sense: thief, templar, chevalier, farmer, grey warden, circle mage, free mage and let people find out how they play that. As someone who has written fanfiction for BW games it is pretty frustrating trying to get around some of their more video gamey aspects.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 2,027 Likes: 3,568
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,568
Noxluxe
2,027
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Sept 20, 2020 21:44:46 GMT
This discussion makes me think people lack imagination. How does a lack of fixed classes make a game less responsive? As if other stats couldn't be referred to by the narrative. Also I hate when gameplay conventions become part of the lore. I have seen fanfiction going on about rogue skills and how they can only take 3 other proper on missions.  At least hide them inside of a broad strokes backstory that makes sense: thief, templar, chevalier, farmer, grey warden, circle mage, free mage and let people find out how they play that. A tight framework can be really beneficial to roleplaying, which is the point of most pen-and-paper systems. Otherwise it can easily be too much work to draw up all the boundaries of your own character and their abilities by yourself and maintaining them throughout, risking people losing interest from the required mental busywork to keep a character consistent which is a common issue with class-less systems like the Elder Scrolls games. I wouldn't call it lack of imagination so much as lack of ...immersive discipline? I can go both ways. Classless systems allow for some really interesting and versatile and deep character building, both mechanically and RP-wise. At the same time, it can be very satisfying and a lot less intensive to work within the same "Rogue" class as everyone else, and figure out how to play it with your own special flair. And at this point I just feel like the Rogue/Warrior/Mage... trichotomy?... is part of the Dragon Age series. My OCD would rebel against a change. And yup, gameplay elements that become part of the lore is often weird and unnatural. It can work well, but usually doesn't.
|
|
Heart
N1
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: cardiaheart
PSN: Natigator1213
Posts: 43 Likes: 199
inherit
8971
0
199
Heart
43
July 2017
heart
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
cardiaheart
Natigator1213
|
Post by Heart on Sept 21, 2020 0:14:18 GMT
This is a genuine question, and I'm not at ALL trying to be sarcastic or pick a fight: For people who ask there to be more cross over between rogue and warrior (archer warrior, etc), why not just play a rogue that does have access to those skills? Why the importance of being a warrior who can also use daggers and bows?
|
|
inherit
1033
0
37,542
colfoley
19,300
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Sept 21, 2020 0:33:41 GMT
This is a genuine question, and I'm not at ALL trying to be sarcastic or pick a fight: For people who ask there to be more cross over between rogue and warrior (archer warrior, etc), why not just play a rogue that does have access to those skills? Why the importance of being a warrior who can also use daggers and bows? Well two reasons for me: 1. At least in Inquisition we could not actually do that. We could not actually switch weapons or be a full on dagger rogue and a bow rogue we had to be one or the other, warriors were stuck as a melee fighter, and mages were stuck at range. Now as others pointed out it might be far more simpler and beneficial...and have their cake and eat it to...to just go back to Origins with refinement and allow warriors to have ranged options and mages to have melee options and rogues to also swap between the two which gives the combat a lot of fluidity in its actions and does not pigenhole anyone. 2. On a more personal note, I just want to play as more of a warrior rogue anyways.
|
|
inherit
7671
0
1,195
NotN7
1,165
Apr 15, 2017 17:34:16 GMT
April 2017
notn7
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by NotN7 on Sept 21, 2020 0:34:13 GMT
This is a genuine question, and I'm not at ALL trying to be sarcastic or pick a fight: For people who ask there to be more cross over between rogue and warrior (archer warrior, etc), why not just play a rogue that does have access to those skills? Why the importance of being a warrior who can also use daggers and bows? I cannot speck for the others but myself I was spoiled by DAO where I had the ability to switch from a push of a key such as a warrior could equip. a crossbow while waiting for the bad guys to get close before switching to sword and board, rouge wise you could switch between bow and daggers (sorry but I cannot remember what mages could do) as for daggers for warriors? I think that is a Hollywood movie/Manga thing? but I'm sure my peers will correct me DA2 we didn't have that option if I remember correctly nor did we have that in DAI  hope that helps.
|
|
inherit
11247
0
1,639
Buckeldemon
Now stealin' more kidz.
1,200
July 2019
buckeldemon
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Buckeldemon on Sept 21, 2020 2:55:53 GMT
This is a genuine question, and I'm not at ALL trying to be sarcastic or pick a fight: For people who ask there to be more cross over between rogue and warrior (archer warrior, etc), why not just play a rogue that does have access to those skills? Why the importance of being a warrior who can also use daggers and bows? For bows, it is a bit of hard sell in DAO, as no warrior specialisation really fits well with it. Rogues have it easier, but Assassin passives are pointless (bows cannot backstab) and Duelist needs an workaround for Pinpoint Strikes to apply to archery. That's in the base game though. Awakening has Spirit Warrior archery, which is pretty ouch, even though the addon has a handful of enemies immune to spirit damage. For dual-wielders, well while rogues have backstab and the Assassin+High Cunning+Lethality+Song of Courage combo for making maxDamage glass cannons... warriors have Berserk. The damage bonus of the berserker sustainable is a flat +8, making it more useful for fast attacks as opposed to what Oghren does.
|
|
Noxluxe
N4
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 2,027 Likes: 3,568
inherit
10359
0
Mar 14, 2019 16:10:11 GMT
3,568
Noxluxe
2,027
Jul 21, 2018 23:55:09 GMT
July 2018
noxluxe
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Noxluxe on Sept 21, 2020 3:29:24 GMT
This is a genuine question, and I'm not at ALL trying to be sarcastic or pick a fight: For people who ask there to be more cross over between rogue and warrior (archer warrior, etc), why not just play a rogue that does have access to those skills? Why the importance of being a warrior who can also use daggers and bows? For my part it's a roleplaying and realism thing. A Warrior should be able to wield a sword and dagger, or an axe and dagger, or a mace and dagger if that was their preferred fighting style. And archery is historically firmly a soldier's discipline. It requires good physical strength and durability to sustain any kind of respectable firing rate, and lots of time and discipline to master. Which doesn't seem particularly 'Roguish' to me. If Warrior archers used longbows and Rogues used crossbows(a popular weapon for ambushes, assassination and short skirmishes) then that would make some degree of sense. Even moreso though, there's no reason in the world why a Rogue would travel around using two daggers for combat even in wide open spaces where there'd be no advantage whatsoever in doing so. A main hand weapon with more heft and reach would be preferable pretty much all the time, and a shield in place of an off-hand dagger could be a pretty significant trade-up as well. I like playing practical characters, and dislike being made to play impractical and inefficient ones. I once played through Origins and all associated DLC as a sword-and-board Rogue(Marcus Cousland), and had a blast, and about one in three of my Origins characters have been strength-based Rogues wielding sword/dagger or axe/dagger and wearing heavy armor. And I haven't played a non-archer Rogue in any DA game since because they're silly as fuck, and look silly as fuck, fighting like super ninjas in a silly attempt to distinguish them from Warriors rather than just making them Warriors with different tactical priorities. Inquisition has a scene of two characters dueling one-handed with rapiers. Where the hell does that fit into the class trichotomy, and why isn't rapier/dagger an option for rogues specifically? And besides all that, rogues like Duncan and Riordan wield(ed) swords, and warriors like Loghain are expert archers lore-wise. It's dumb that our characters get pigeonholed into one of two fighting styles based on class while NPCs get to be deeper and more versatile.
|
|
which may make my next point awkward 
which may make my next point awkward 
I have been told numerous times I am stubbourn and have to have the last word 
(also didn't realize you were trying to extricate yourself from the conversation)
hope that helps. 