It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
As with others who have posted, I'm inclined to be glad that XP isn't awarded for combat: It means that there isn't incentive to opt for combat over other approaches (and conversely--I would hope, at least--that it doesn't matter how you achieve a given quest goal--only that you do achieve it); and that there isn't the temptation to grind.

I do wonder how it will affect the progression of levelling.

(I very much hope that wizards are reasonably powerful in the final product...)
avatar
HeadClot: Question to people is this coming to GOG?
I pledged for a GOG key, so I would say yes.
avatar
Tallima: And lastly, I hate aggro. It's a terrible system. I'll see how engagement works. I prefer smart enemies who attack the strongest/most-vulnerable target just like you would. And, of course, dumb enemies who just attack whatever's hitting them. The whole "I'm beating my chest, so pay no attention to that weak mage standing right next to you blasting you with freaking meteors from the heavens" thing just breaks immersion for me.
Hating aggro has become a trendy thing to do. I don't see why, since that paragraph you wrote pretty well mirrors what everyone says, and also happens to be completely, tautologically self-defeating.

When you attack the thing that is holding aggro, you *are* attacking the strongest/most vulnerable target. Aggro has been a concept for a really long time. Some guy named Tzu wrote about it two and a half thousand years ago, and it's a core part of military tactics education in the modern day. If you have to fight, don't go all late middle ages Europe style about it. That's plain stupid. Be the threat, make your enemy turn its focus on you, and then have your buddy stab him right in the back. Once you've won, feel free to edit history to make yourself sound more honorable.
Are they still accepting pre orders?

EDIT: I know that this sounds dumb BTW.
Post edited October 04, 2014 by HeadClot
avatar
HeadClot: Are they still accepting pre orders?

EDIT: I know that this sounds dumb BTW.
SInce they are delaying it i imagine they will. But i cant see it being available by their website at this point...
https://eternity.obsidian.net/buy
Post edited October 04, 2014 by Niggles
avatar
Tallima: And lastly, I hate aggro. It's a terrible system. I'll see how engagement works. I prefer smart enemies who attack the strongest/most-vulnerable target just like you would. And, of course, dumb enemies who just attack whatever's hitting them. The whole "I'm beating my chest, so pay no attention to that weak mage standing right next to you blasting you with freaking meteors from the heavens" thing just breaks immersion for me.
avatar
OneFiercePuppy: Hating aggro has become a trendy thing to do. I don't see why, since that paragraph you wrote pretty well mirrors what everyone says, and also happens to be completely, tautologically self-defeating.

When you attack the thing that is holding aggro, you *are* attacking the strongest/most vulnerable target. Aggro has been a concept for a really long time. Some guy named Tzu wrote about it two and a half thousand years ago, and it's a core part of military tactics education in the modern day. If you have to fight, don't go all late middle ages Europe style about it. That's plain stupid. Be the threat, make your enemy turn its focus on you, and then have your buddy stab him right in the back. Once you've won, feel free to edit history to make yourself sound more honorable.
+1. Also, if his mage were actually raining meteors on the enemies, the mage would be generating threat and drawing aggro.

I love the threat/aggro system in DA:O. Battles actually make sense. Much more so than in the IE games at least.
avatar
OneFiercePuppy: Hating aggro has become a trendy thing to do. I don't see why, since that paragraph you wrote pretty well mirrors what everyone says, and also happens to be completely, tautologically self-defeating.

When you attack the thing that is holding aggro, you *are* attacking the strongest/most vulnerable target. Aggro has been a concept for a really long time. Some guy named Tzu wrote about it two and a half thousand years ago, and it's a core part of military tactics education in the modern day. If you have to fight, don't go all late middle ages Europe style about it. That's plain stupid. Be the threat, make your enemy turn its focus on you, and then have your buddy stab him right in the back. Once you've won, feel free to edit history to make yourself sound more honorable.
avatar
SeduceMePlz: +1. Also, if his mage were actually raining meteors on the enemies, the mage would be generating threat and drawing aggro.

I love the threat/aggro system in DA:O. Battles actually make sense. Much more so than in the IE games at least.
I would love to see Dragon Age Origins on GOG.com with its toolset :)
avatar
Tallima: And lastly, I hate aggro. It's a terrible system. I'll see how engagement works. I prefer smart enemies who attack the strongest/most-vulnerable target just like you would. And, of course, dumb enemies who just attack whatever's hitting them. The whole "I'm beating my chest, so pay no attention to that weak mage standing right next to you blasting you with freaking meteors from the heavens" thing just breaks immersion for me.
avatar
OneFiercePuppy: Hating aggro has become a trendy thing to do. I don't see why, since that paragraph you wrote pretty well mirrors what everyone says, and also happens to be completely, tautologically self-defeating.

When you attack the thing that is holding aggro, you *are* attacking the strongest/most vulnerable target. Aggro has been a concept for a really long time. Some guy named Tzu wrote about it two and a half thousand years ago, and it's a core part of military tactics education in the modern day. If you have to fight, don't go all late middle ages Europe style about it. That's plain stupid. Be the threat, make your enemy turn its focus on you, and then have your buddy stab him right in the back. Once you've won, feel free to edit history to make yourself sound more honorable.
Judging by the description given, I think that what Tallimais referring to is "taunt" abilities, or what one might call "artificial aggro": an ability (whether active or passive) that inclined enemies to focus on a specific character, regardless of actual threat.

For example, in Dragon Age: Origins I recall being able to activate a warrior's "taunt" ability, use a mage spell to render him entirely invulnerable and inactive, then have my mages pummel the area with powerful spells. Enemies end up ignoring the actual source of damage, attempting to attack a harmless, unreachable foe just because he "taunted" them. This can look especially silly when applied to powerful, ostensibly-intelligent bosses.
avatar
Thaumaturge: Judging by the description given, I think that what Tallimais referring to is "taunt" abilities, or what one might call "artificial aggro": an ability (whether active or passive) that inclined enemies to focus on a specific character, regardless of actual threat.
Taunting is psychological manipulation. Shouts, threats, insults, gestures, distractions, etc. Makes sense that both humanoids and animals would be affected. Heck, even the undead often respond to people making a racket in movies and other fiction. And if significant threat is generated by another party member, an enemy might ignore the taunting character and attack the greater threat.

The threat/aggro system itself is fantastic. Sometimes the balance is off, but that doesn't invalidate the basic mechanics.

avatar
Thaumaturge: DA:O Force Field strategy/exploit
That is a well-known strategy or exploit (called differently depending on who you ask). It doesn't invalidate the basic mechanics of the game.

Bioware probably should have made Force Field reduce the threat generated by the target by half or perhaps cause its threat to lower gradually over time while the spell is active (simulating enemies coming to realize the target is invulnerable after a few hits). That aside, one can create/download a mod to change the spell or simply choose not to use the strategy (or to use it only in dire need, against dragons, etc).
Hmm... Perhaps. I'll concede that a "taunt" feature can be implemented well--but I do think that it's something to be careful with, because a poor implementation can, as stated, end up looking somewhat silly. (Whether that silliness is bad will likely depend on the game, of course.)

Note, however, that my previous post was, I believe, primarily clarifying Tallima's, and adding a point against OneFiercePuppy's post, which indicated that "aggro" involved the AI "attacking the strongest/most vulnerable target" (and went on to say (emphasis mine) "Be the threat, make your enemy turn its focus on you, and then have your buddy stab him right in the back")--which is not necessarily the case with "taunt" abilities (as my example illustrated).

(As to your suggestion regarding the Force Field spell, I think that a lot may depend on just how the relevant components were designed and implemented, and what other components they may interact with. What you suggest may be a good suggestion; it may also have been feasible to simply adjust the amount of AI focus gained by "taunting", or how quickly the effect drains, especially since an active warrior would presumably generate focus by virtue of fighting, while an inactive one presumably wouldn't.)

avatar
SeduceMePlz: That aside, one can create/download a mod to change the spell or simply choose not to use the strategy (or to use it only in dire need, against dragons, etc).
That a given mechanic can be patched or modded out, or that a given strategy is optional, does not invalidate criticism of the design of that mechanic or strategy.
Post edited October 05, 2014 by Thaumaturge
avatar
Thaumaturge: Note, however, that my previous post was, I believe, primarily clarifying Tallima's, and adding a point against OneFiercePuppy's post, which indicated that "aggro" involved the AI "attacking the strongest/most vulnerable target" (and went on to say (emphasis mine) "Be the threat, make your enemy turn its focus on you, and then have your buddy stab him right in the back")--which is not necessarily the case with "taunt" abilities (as my example illustrated).
Right, but that's exactly the point of the taunt ability: to divert an enemy's attention away from actual threats and vulnerable allies. It's silly in your example only because a particular spell was somewhat poorly designed.

avatar
Thaumaturge: That a given mechanic can be patched or modded out, or that a given strategy is optional, does not invalidate criticism of the design of that mechanic or strategy.
Agreed, but my point was that the issue is limited to the way one specific spell interacts with the system and not a problem with the system itself.

The far greater problem in DA:O is that Scattershot doesn't cause friendly fire and thus more-or-less breaks the entire combat system when fighting groups with archers. ;)
Post edited October 05, 2014 by SeduceMePlz
avatar
Thaumaturge: Note, however, that my previous post was, I believe, primarily clarifying Tallima's, and adding a point against OneFiercePuppy's post, which indicated that "aggro" involved the AI "attacking the strongest/most vulnerable target" (and went on to say (emphasis mine) "Be the threat, make your enemy turn its focus on you, and then have your buddy stab him right in the back")--which is not necessarily the case with "taunt" abilities (as my example illustrated).
avatar
SeduceMePlz: Right, but that's exactly the point of the taunt ability: to divert an enemy's attention away from actual threats and vulnerable allies. It's silly in your example only because a particular spell was somewhat poorly designed.
True--but again, my post was more in answer to OneFiercePuppy, who answered a post that seemed to be about "taunting" with an answer about aggression accruing to the most damaging target.

avatar
Thaumaturge: That a given mechanic can be patched or modded out, or that a given strategy is optional, does not invalidate criticism of the design of that mechanic or strategy.
avatar
SeduceMePlz: Agreed, but my point was that the issue is limited to the way one specific spell interacts with the system and not a problem with the system itself.
That's fair enough, although I do think that it's a good example of how a taunt mechanic can go wrong: you don't need the spell interaction to get an effect similar to that, just that "taunt" be overpowered. Of course, as you say, this doesn't indict the entire mechanic--just, as I said, indicate how it can go wrong. It may not have been the best example, but it's the one that came to mind.

Again, I'm not saying that "taunting" is an unusable, inherently flawed mechanic, only that it's something that I think calls for rather careful balancing.

avatar
SeduceMePlz: The far greater problem in DA:O is that Scattershot doesn't cause friendly fire and thus more-or-less breaks the entire combat system when fighting groups with archers. ;)
Honestly, I don't recall to what degree I actually used archers in Dragon Age: I'm very much a mage player myself, and my party tended to include my own mage character, Morrigan and Alistair. I forget how many companions one could take (it's been a while since last I played), but I recall taking along Wynn and Sten at times. On top of that, Zevran was one the characters that I least enjoyed, so I tended to leave him behind...

(Were there ever enemy archers with that ability? I forget...)

Of course, if you want "overpowered" there's also the mages (especially two mages working together), but I don't intend to complain about that because it was so very, very fun... ;P

(Consider, for example, my tactic of using dual staggered Cons of Cold to stun-lock revenants while a warrior slowly whittled them down.)
Post edited October 05, 2014 by Thaumaturge