334 réponses à ce sujet

[A1x2e3l]

IMHO OP’s question (in the more general form – what game company such and such should learn from a game “X”) has no sense: game developers should “learn” from ALL available games/game engines (including their own older games) and create a unique product(game) based on their professional skills, personal preferences, tastes, market evaluations, available recourses, etc. Bioware definitely “learned” a lot: potentially prolonged game shelf life due to the possibility to mod (NWN, Morrowind, Oblivion); DLC/game points “borrowed” from “free-to-play” MMORPGs; romancing/mature content (it is not a secret that such games always have better sales); aggressive and unfair advertising campaign, T-shirt bazaars; and so on.

It is obvious that it is not possible to please every gamer (one likes “immersion”, another brutal combat, etc.). Are DAO developers successful with their version of the “compromise”? At the end of a day that’s a question to Bioware department of finance, but from my personal point of view as a customer/player the answer is – Nope! DAO per se is an ordinary “play-once-and-forget” game. It is much easier for me to say what I like in DAO: general story line (not those disgusting “immersion” night rituals) and some 3D models (e.g. FaceFX implementation). That’s a lot but that’s all! The only reason that I still have some interest is – there are no new moddable fantasy RPGs. Unfortunately, Bioware did not “learn” a good lesson from e.g. Bethesda that it is necessary to spend some time and reprogram(simplify) a Tool Set (construction set, sandbox, level designer) for the broader use (not all of us have sufficient skills in C++ programming). “Time” seems to be the main problem of DAO developers: the game is too buggy, graphics (3D models, textures, animations, etc.) are not “polished”, “new” technical solutions are cheap and clumsy (e.g. primitive outdated game terrain collision detection).



Just “few”remarks about DAO combat system “improvements”. DAO combat system of a player controlled character is straightforward and widely used in MMORPGs: select a target/start attack; use hot keys for buffs (first person games use another combat system: gamer controls every character hit/combo). The “novelty” is that it is possible to pause, switch between party members that are identical in respect of the number of controlled options: usually (in other games) player controlled pets or summoned creatures have significantly less combat features compared to the main character. Transformations (bees, bear) are really dull and not efficient – golem, dragon that could be a transformation.

“MORE IS NOT BETTER!!!!” is also valid for numerous redundant and often even useless game options: zillions of buffs, runes, portions, tactics tweaking slots, character specializations, etc. Basically there are only three classical character types in DAO: tank, healer/mage, rogue (ranged weapons/locks/traps (btw, the later are so weak that can be ignored)). IMHO the game characters are badly balanced as team members: it should be NOT possible to play the game on ANY difficulty level WITOUT a certain character type (or feature) e.g. healer. But when you have enough healing portions/kits it is possible to kill any game boss just with four tanks; ranged weapons/combat spells (rogue/mage) are also not that “unique” - there should be enemies that a tank for instance cannot catch/reach. Weapons could be destructible, that creates sense for repair/enchantment skills. Poisoning could be constant and be cured only with certain healer/alchemist skills. And so on. So, there should be crucial qualitative differences, not the usual for DAO often simple and minor quantitative improvements. The later overload the game with pseudo details creating a false impression of numerous freedoms of choice.

I think in the end the reason so many of those things don't seem that effective is because they're meant to be optional so that you don't have to use them if you don't want to.

I would agree with that, but there are too many things that I do not want to use and important things are missing e.g. “stay ground”/”do not let anybody to enter”/”block the way” tactical orders.



I have expected to find in DAO new interesting technical solutions (alas) e.g. modern level of blend of genres, something like in the old and very good “Wars and Warriors: Joan of Arc” (2004)

http://www.enlight.c...o_features.html

(btw, it is possible in this first person game to have a team of companions (switch between them), control war machines and big armies, ride a horse).



I spent some time “digging” in few DAO game engine details: I do not like it. I am afraid that it is simply not possible to realize many of our suggestions in the frame of this buggy, awkward, overcomplicated, and outdated in many respects home-made “unique” RPG engine.

[Upper_Krust]

Tirigon wrote...

So, that´s all nice and interesting, but it´s not really fitting to DAO I think.

Can you be specific? Which bits were not fitting?

Genlocks attacking with wolves? Already in the game.
Genlock rogues? Already in the game.
The term Genlock Forgemaster - implies what exactly?
Genlock trappers? They already set traps in the game, just prior to combat.

The thing is that I think the overall concept of DAO is very good, with only a few balance changes required to make the combat perfect.

The overall concept is good, I'm just talking about the execution of the concepts.

You are inventing bunches of new stuff and trying to change the entire concept, but that´s just not necessary.

On the contrary, I'm trying to give genlocks and hurlocks a seperate identity while making each type play differently.

It would, however, be good for your own game or a custom campaign or something. Just not for DAO.

Sorry it never appealed to you, though I wonder if the DAO developers themselves had come up with the same ideas would you have loved them.

[Upper_Krust]

AlanC9 wrote...

So you'd prefer it if, for instance, all the spell combinations were given in the manual?. I'm not quite clear where you're going with this.

Not, not at all. But it would be nice if they showed you 'A' spell combo in the game, informing you of such a thing.

[Upper_Krust]

A1x2e3l wrote...

IMHO OP’s question (in the more general form – what game company such and such should learn from a game “X”) has no sense: game developers should “learn” from ALL available games/game engines (including their own older games) and create a unique product(game) based on their professional skills, personal preferences, tastes, market evaluations, available recourses, etc.

I disagree. I don't think studying FIFA 2010 will be of much use when designing Dragon Age 2.

Bioware definitely “learned” a lot: potentially prolonged game shelf life due to the possibility to mod (NWN, Morrowind, Oblivion); DLC/game points “borrowed” from “free-to-play” MMORPGs; romancing/mature content (it is not a secret that such games always have better sales); aggressive and unfair advertising campaign, T-shirt bazaars; and so on.

 
So they have improved their games by studying other RPGs.

It is obvious that it is not possible to please every gamer (one likes “immersion”, another brutal combat, etc.). Are DAO developers successful with their version of the “compromise”? At the end of a day that’s a question to Bioware department of finance, but from my personal point of view as a customer/player the answer is – Nope! DAO per se is an ordinary “play-once-and-forget” game. It is much easier for me to say what I like in DAO: general story line (not those disgusting “immersion” night rituals) and some 3D models (e.g. FaceFX implementation). That’s a lot but that’s all! The only reason that I still have some interest is – there are no new moddable fantasy RPGs. Unfortunately, Bioware did not “learn” a good lesson from e.g. Bethesda that it is necessary to spend some time and reprogram(simplify) a Tool Set (construction set, sandbox, level designer) for the broader use (not all of us have sufficient skills in C++ programming). “Time” seems to be the main problem of DAO developers: the game is too buggy, graphics (3D models, textures, animations, etc.) are not “polished”, “new” technical solutions are cheap and clumsy (e.g. primitive outdated game terrain collision detection).

Arguably, but we don't know what resources were available for its creation.

Just “few”remarks about DAO combat system “improvements”. DAO combat system of a player controlled character is straightforward and widely used in MMORPGs: select a target/start attack; use hot keys for buffs (first person games use another combat system: gamer controls every character hit/combo). The “novelty” is that it is possible to pause, switch between party members that are identical in respect of the number of controlled options: usually (in other games) player controlled pets or summoned creatures have significantly less combat features compared to the main character. Transformations (bees, bear) are really dull and not efficient – golem, dragon that could be a transformation.

Well you can shapechange into a golem in parts of the game.

Dragon might be too powerful.

“MORE IS NOT BETTER!!!!” is also valid for numerous redundant and often even useless game options: zillions of buffs, runes, portions, tactics tweaking slots, character specializations, etc. Basically there are only three classical character types in DAO: tank, healer/mage, rogue (ranged weapons/locks/traps (btw, the later are so weak that can be ignored)).

 
Its clear that, prior to Awakening at least, Mages > Warriors > Rogues.

IMHO the game characters are badly balanced as team members: it should be NOT possible to play the game on ANY difficulty level WITOUT a certain character type (or feature) e.g. healer.

Thats an interesting idea however, I wonder if you force certain classes upon people do you go further and then force certain spells (you mention healing).

But when you have enough healing portions/kits it is possible to kill any game boss just with four tanks; ranged weapons/combat spells (rogue/mage) are also not that “unique” - there should be enemies that a tank for instance cannot catch/reach. Weapons could be destructible, that creates sense for repair/enchantment skills. Poisoning could be constant and be cured only with certain healer/alchemist skills. And so on. So, there should be crucial qualitative differences, not the usual for DAO often simple and minor quantitative improvements. The later overload the game with pseudo details creating a false impression of numerous freedoms of choice.

More diversity and choices with bigger consequences then?

I would agree with that, but there are too many things that I do not want to use and important things are missing e.g. “stay ground”/”do not let anybody to enter”/”block the way” tactical orders.

That could be handled by making combat circles unable to overlap (except for rogues, making them relevant again).

I have expected to find in DAO new interesting technical solutions (alas) e.g. modern level of blend of genres, something like in the old and very good “Wars and Warriors: Joan of Arc” (2004)
http://www.enlight.c...o_features.html
(btw, it is possible in this first person game to have a team of companions (switch between them), control war machines and big armies, ride a horse).

One of those game you might have to play to get a feel for.

I spent some time “digging” in few DAO game engine details: I do not like it. I am afraid that it is simply not possible to realize many of our suggestions in the frame of this buggy, awkward, overcomplicated, and outdated in many respects home-made “unique” RPG engine.

Which suggestions cannot be realised do you think?

[Tirigon]

Upper_Krust wrote...


Sorry it never appealed to you, though I wonder if the DAO developers themselves had come up with the same ideas would you have loved them.

That might be; as said I don´t think your ideas are bad.

BUT!!!

To make them really what you want and not just new models, you would require a far more complex combat system than what you have now. I, however, like the combat in DAO. That doesn´t mean I wouldn´t like a more complicated system; after all I don´t play just one type of games. An analogy: I loved Rome - Total War RTS game, but I wouldn´t want DAO to play like that.

I want DAO like it is, and the other, more complex combat system you propose in another game.

However, even then I would hate the stealing part. That just sucks. If I have something I want to keep it until I drop or sell it voluntarily.

[Velvetmeds]

LO is fail.

[A1x2e3l]

Well, e.g. variety of body shapes (creatures and humanoid NPC including body shaping sliders for PC customization that are widely used in modern MMOs). There are no common skeletons (for instance race specific, they should be stored in separate files) in DAO engine: every mesh (body, clothes, armor) contains information about bones used by separate animation files. Morph modifiers are practically not used (heads/faces are mainly animated with numerous bones, not with morphs). There is no support of such techniques like flex, skin gizmos, and game physics (animated hair (DAO hair/beard meshes are simply skinned to the main body skeleton bones)). Usually first person view cameras are attached to such (common) skeletons. Hence, variety of this kind can be achieved only by creating complete new sets of meshes with corresponding animations, and not by changing game engine settings/scripts. Just try to use an elven head on a human. Moreover, Bioware refused to release an official Max exporter (they used an old 3ds Max8 for creating artistic game asserts, note that Max2011(Max11) was recently released). This definitely creates a serious obstacle for modders (available at the moment Blender/Max importers/exporters are only partially functional). The complexity of the Tool Set explains the situation with DAO mods: zillions of face morphs, several nudes, some great tints, and nearly no quest mods.
Another example- world/terrain/terrain features (like water, lava, animated trees, SpeedTree). Modern game world requires serious game engine support of sophisticated collision detection/propagation for static as well as for dynamic game objects (PC, NPCs, creatures) objects. Usually that consumes a lot of computer recourses and should be foreseen at the very beginning of engine programming. DAO is a relatively big game (HD space) with numerous different file formats (just for a head we have ..chr, .mop, .mor, .mhr plus textures files). I can speculate that DAO developers decided to sacrifice this part and simplify it to the limits.
Combat combos (let’s say without modern eye candies like Havok Behavior, Morpheme, EMotion FX) require additional animations for PC/companions and “victims”; new hot keys, scripts. That is doable but I do not think that Bioware is going to implement this typical for the first person games feature, they have chosen a cheaper way – more buffs with special effects.

This is exclusively my personal opinion, others can have very different ones and with their own valuable arguments. We are different people, players, moddes with different preferences and skills. DAO is a good game and it’s a pity that Bioware did not make the game modder-friendly in all aspects: simplified Tool Set, released exporters and examples of game objects in native 3D format. Check how many interesting ideas, story lines have members on the Fanfiction Forum but they cannot realize them in game mods. The vary fact that such subforum exists clearly demonstrates how complex DAO Tool Set is.

When a scientist starts to work on a new project he/she reads first related scientific literature (that’s not “stealing”), otherwise he/she is in danger to reinvent a wheel and there will be no progress.

BTW, What is LO?

Modifié par A1x2e3l, 17 avril 2010 - 08:49 .

[uberdowzen]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Ok, so this post will probably be a bit of a mess. In no particular order:[/quote]

Don't worry about that.

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I take light issue with Genlocks being called the games Goblins. Don't think that was approach Bioware was going for.[/quote]

Well if the approach was for Genlocks and Hurlocks to be all but identical (which they are) then I favour my idea which gives them both stronger self-identity.[/quote]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Now this is going to seem like nerdy nitpicking, but the Darkspawn are meant to be like ants, not like intelligent humans who just happen to have parts of their faces missing.[/quote]

But intelligent enough to make their own weapons and armour (or is the term Forgemaster meant to mean something else?).[/quote]

Well this is the thing I've never been totally sure the Darkspawn do make their own weapons. For the sake of argument let's assume they do, although looking at them they're pretty basic.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The whole idea of having a cowardly Darkspawn I think personally kind of goes against the whole idea of darkspawn.[/quote]
 
The genlocks would be cowardly because they would be constantly bullied by the hurlocks.[/quote]

IMO, that assumes the Darkspawn really interact all that much. I think we have to agree to differ on this.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

And going with the LOTR anology for a minute, if hurlocks are like uruk-hai wouldn't Genlocks be more like the orcs?[/quote]

Orcs in LotR ARE 'Goblins', Uruk-hai, while nominally 'high-orcs' are effectively what the default fantasy Orc has become.[/quote]

Yeah I (after having done a quick wikipedia search) remembered that in the Hobbit that the Orcs are called Goblins.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Just changing the subject for a minute, wouldn't it be awesome if someone made a Dragon Age style RPG based on the Lord of the Rings? That'd be awesome.[/quote]

Could be interesting. Didn't they make a 3rd person action game based on LotR? Did anyone play that - I wonder what it was like?[/quote]

Yeah there were several third person action games. I've got the Return of the Kind one (got it for free) and the first third is good but then the pacing and balancing goes down the toilet.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I think the fleeing mechanic is OK, but the turning up later part would require careful balancing to stop the encounter they turn up in later becoming too hard.[/quote]
 
We can easily tweak the numbers of the 'Coward' mechanic. While they run if outnumbered. Higher rank allies may count as more than one ally for this purpose.[/quote]

The problem I see with that is you'd have to like define battleground areas which couldn't have anymore then a certain number of enemies. That's just getting complicated.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The problem I see is that a bad player would probably have more escapees meaning that they would have a harder battle later on, as opposed to the good players who probably wouldn't have any leftovers making later fights easier.[/quote]

True, at first. But it will educate bad players making them better.[/quote]

Yeah, but Dragon Age is already pretty hard and I think the learning curve doesn't need to be steeper.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

What possible use to the darkspawn is stealing one potion? That doesn't even really disadvantage the warden except in boss encounter's or similar.[/quote]

Yes and no. My thinking for the game overall is to make potions far more important. Firstly by imposing a 60 second cooldown on potions. So the onus will be on the player to craft/buy fewer, stronger potions rather than just have half a dozen of each strength. So when the genlock steals a potion we can always have it be the strongest type the player carries. The genlock could then try to pass that potion on to the leader of that encounter group (if they were still alive), where it will make a difference.[/quote]

I'll come back to the idea of completely changing the balance later.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I do quite like the grenade idea, that'd add some interesting tactic, the only issue I see is that the AI for that could be quite complicated. I do like that idea though...[/quote]

Shouldn't be too complicated. All that needs added to the tactics are a friendly fire mechanic. Then we can specify that the genlock will always try and hit as many enemies in the blast radius while catching as few allies as possible. The choice of grenades could be tailored to the encounter. So that fire grenades would work well in encounters featuring the Forgemaster or Forgeborn. Poison grenades could be a special gas that has little or no effect on darkspawn (or could be used in tandem with undead who would be immune). etc.[/quote]

That is probably fairly complicated but not impossible

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

...except for honey grenades. That doesn't work for me on any level. For starters, bees are attracted to nector not honey (they make honey) and I'm pretty sure that they are only attracted to that because of colourful flowers etc. And you're a Grey Warden, what are bees going to do? You can shrug off being hit with a giant sword the size of your own body, I don't think you're going to mind a few bees.[/quote]

A swarm of bees could be a deadly opponent, especially to warriors. They would be hard to hit and even harder to damage.

My initial idea for this would be Wild Sylvans who would have bee's
nests in their branches. When hit, the nest would be shook free and fall
to the ground. The angry bees attacking those other than plants.
[/quote]

A bee sting hurts like hell, but I think if the choice was between being dismembered or getting a few bee stings, I'd choose the stings. I mean the worst that could happen is you have some bad allergic reaction.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

How do the trappers goad the heroes to attack them? If the enemy is called a Genlock Trapper you know that to counter them all you need to do is watch them performing their set trap animation. I personally think that traps work better as preset things, I mean even I don't use them during combat.[/quote]

Firstly, get away from the notion that all genlocks are going to be openly named and health barred. If necessary I'd just name all similar looking genlocks 'as' "Genlock".

So the Trapper would not be named Genlock Trapper, nor would he look any different to a normal genlock running about. He might stop from time to time but unless he is onscreen and you are specifically watching that genlock you won't notice his antics or where he stops.[/quote]

I'll come back to this when I get to talking about the balance

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The poison thing could work except that you do need to have an item or spell to counter it. That could work though.[/quote]

Anti-venom potions, or any healing potion or any healing spell could work for this.[/quote]

Yep perfectly reasonable

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I still have the problem with the weapon thing that this essentially means that you a) lose your best weapon which is no fun and unless you carry around a whole crapload of weapons means you could be without a way of fighting back.[/quote]

Well it would only be a temporary loss. Secondly, you could prevent it. Thirdly, you typically always have a laundry list of weapons in Dragon Age. Fourthly, you could always pick up a weapon from a fallen enemy in that encounter. Fifthly, we could have an unarmed combat tree and getting robbed of a weapon could switch you to the basic punching attack.[/quote]

The unarmed combat tree wouldn't work. You would have to choose between that or getting all your main weapon talents. No one is going to lose that for the occasional loss of their weapon.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Also if they're as effective as they sound, you're going to lose one weapon every 10 seconds or so. In a good run you could lose 6 weapons a minute![/quote]

Not necessarily. Firstly, they have to hit your flank. What we could do is impose a time limit (unseen to the player, this is just for the AI) that the sneak has to attack every 20 seconds or so. So if you cover your flanks it will still get a stab in, but not at your flank. So it won't be able to steal (which it can only do after a successful flank attack.

Secondly, as noted, it has to hit. It might not always hit. When it attacks (whether it hits or not) it comes out of stealth.[/quote]

Seems reasonable

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

How are Bombardiers any different than Grenadiers?[/quote]

1. They are Lieutenant Rank, and thus have more health
2. They have more grenades
3. When they get to 25% health they charge the greatest concentration of enemies and blow themselves up in a big explosion.[/quote]

Fine.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I think emissaries are actually fine as they are.[/quote]
 
I disagree, they are too weak and don't have any real signature spells.[/quote]

They are weak but if you don't kill them quickly they'll murder you.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Telekinesis has no counter[/quote]

It would be versus a characters spell resistance. So it wouldn't always work.[/quote]

Reasonable

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

and is only useful if there are other enemies about.[/quote]
 
Or traps, or allies.[/quote]

So wait can you have allies slammed together and stuff?

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

It seems with this one you've actually removed a tactic from the game where you charge Mages to stop then decimating your party.[/quote]

I don't think so.[/quote]

I do.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The Forgemaster sounds interesting, but do Darkspawn make their own weapons? I've never been sure on that.[/quote]

Why else would he be called a Forgemaster? Being derived from dwarves, genlocks may have some minor talent for weapon/armour smithing.[/quote]

Yeah, but that's something you made up...

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Nit picking again but, I think the Hammers with anvils on the end would make repairing the fake golems (I'll get to them in a minute) very difficult.[/quote]

Its a visual gimmick.[/quote]

But that's my point. Dragon Age is a game where the combat is cartoony or anything. In fact Bioware went out of there way to get rid of anything that made the game cartoony. No one could carry two hammers with anvils on the end.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The fake golems aren't doing it for me. Darkspawn are barely more than animals, how could they work out how to make Golems when it has alluded all but a few of the dwarves for centuries?[/quote]

Very simple. Genlocks are (for all intents and purposes) tainted dwarves. They come from dwarven stock. Its not unthinkable that they could have some sort of innate talent for smithing passed down to them.[/quote]

Actually I think it is. There are very few dwarves who can make Golems and by the looks of it the Darkspawns crafting abilities come down to being able to make some crude weapons.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

These Golems also sound more powerful than the dwarves so they've actually created something better than the originals.[/quote]

1. They are only Level 3, Boss Rank.
2. You haven't seen my golem ideas yet. [/quote]

Ok they're not more powerful but they still managed to make Golems which seems unlikely.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

You've only marked the golems as needing a new model. The others may not need an entirely new model (except for the forgemaster) but it's going to be irritating for the player having to either hold tab or mouse over the new genlocks to see how they need to fight them.[/quote]

The forgemaster would need a new texture on the front, though not necessarily a new model.

Also I suggest a new style of gameplay where how to fight enemies is not spoonfed to the player but instead, they actually work out how to best beat them through trial and error.[/quote]

Again will come back to this at the end...

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Quite a few of the variations are going to need a new model so they can recognized in a second (for example the grenadier's will need to have some grenades visible on their bodies.[/quote]

Just use the model for a grenade and stick a few to the Grenadier/Bombardier in a sort of bandolier.

It would be nice if the Wolfmaster had a wolf pelt as a cloak...maybe the player could take that when they win, it allows them to turn into a werewolf?[/quote]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I don't want to sound like I think these are all bad ideas, because I don't think they are.[/quote]

Thanks very much.[/quote]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

There are definetly some good ideas here, but how do any of them make the game better? None of these new enemies seem to require the player to do anything different than usual.[/quote]
 
Lets examine that notion.

1. The Forgeborn have two sides to them, meaning players can fight them in one of two different ways. Giving the player a CHOICE of how to attack, and those choices have actual consequences.
2. The Forgemaster is strong from the front, meaning flanking him is very important. Plus he has a symbiosis with the Forgeborn meaning players have a CHOICE of who to attack first, and those choices have actual consequences.
3. The Emissary is now not simply a visible target, and he can mess up a players plans even without personally dealing very much damage at all.
4. The Wolfmaster has a symbiosis with the Wolfpack. Again players are given a CHOICE of when and who to attack. If you attack the wolfmaster first he becomes a powerful and dangerous werewolf. If you leave the wolfmaster until later, the wolves are more powerful and also can be healed.
5. The Bombardier could really frighten players, especially depending upon how significant we make his suicidal explosion. I always remember the screaming bombers in Serious Sam and that was the inspiration behind these variants.
6. The Master Sneak adds a new dimension to the game. The ability to take away a players strongest weapon and use it against him! Even without that ability they give players something else to worry about by poisoning them.
7. The Trapper is sort of like a mine layer. The longer you leave him alive, the more perilous getting to the ranged attackers will be. So the CHOICE here is the time factor.
8. The Grenadier would punish players who grouped together for defense (perhaps to avoid flank attacks). So there is this great relationship between grenadiers and sneaks. With players second guessing on whether they should 'stick or twist' as it were. Stick together for defense against the sneaks or split up for defense against the grenadiers.
9. The Sneak would punish characters who run off on their own, exposing their flanks. They can steal potions which they give to their leader.

I honestly think every variant above gives something different.[/quote]

It's coming...

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Grenadier's for example still are countered in a very similar way to emissaries at the moment. Having items stolen is an inconvinience for the player except that I think that actually takes away some depth.[/quote]

If theres one thing players hate, its losing their items. Players do not fear death in these games. But threaten them with a stolen uber-sword and its squeaky bum time.[/quote]

Yeah and I love it when something horrible happens to me. That makes me want to keep playing.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Oh, and I forgot the wolf master. I quite like that idea except the wolves returning to master when they reach a certain amount of health. Seems like they'd be very very hard to defeat. Oh and why would the wolves flee if their master died. They're still in a frenzy they'd just keep on attacking. Maybe if they're master dies that just start attacking everything?[/quote]

Glad you like the idea. But interesting combat is all about choice and consequence. Wolves themselves would have Cowardly morale, so what we could do is treat them as an independent unit. So that when the Wolfmaster is defeated, if the remaining wolves are outnumbered (regardless of other darkspawn 'allies') they would flee.[/quote]

Ok so my main problem is that too many of the things you have suggested don't have counters. It's all very well adding heaps of new ways that the Darkspawn can beat the crap outta you, but that's not fun. These new tactics the darkspawn all have to require the played to do something new, or they might as well not be added. You pointed out things like some of the enemies have to be flanked from the sides. That's not a brand new tactic that just means you have to move your heroes to a slightly different positon. The emissaries new attacks don't change how you fight emissaries. You still just charge them and kill them before they punish you too much. And going back to the cartoony thing for a minute, you can't just hit something with a hammer to fix it. You have to like melt things and crap. You need a forge.

[uberdowzen]

soteria wrote...

I just think as a rule that developers have spent a lot of time and resources on these games and if you have an idea to improve something they a) have probably already thought of it and dismissed it because they can't do it or it doesn't work.

I don't think that's true at all. Otherwise, why bother with feedback? You would think that an author, after spending a lot of time on a book and getting several people, including an editor, to proof it, would be able to publish a flawless product, right? But you'll still find typos, plot holes, and other errors. Just because a group of skilled people work on something for a long time doesn't mean it can't be improved by suggestions from other people.

Yeah, and I think Dragon Age has a few minor issues. But your problems aren't a few minor issues you want to completely change the game.

[Cascadus]

Honestly, what BioWare needs to look into is the 'dreams' of Lost Odyssey. That shit was depressing. And for that, it was one of my favourite parts in the game.

And Jansen. Gotta have Jansen.

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all.



really pressed for time tonight (and over the next 3 days) but I'll try and get to replies (and hurlocks) tomorrow.

[DogKnight1337]

Lost odyssey was a awesome game but is no were near like DAO or DAOA, bioware made a ****ing badass game mind u there are bugs that ****** me off like no other , the game it self is in one word mother****ingtothelimitsbadass, so get off there ass about makeing it "better" why dont u people that **** about stuff on here make ur own damn game so the others can **** about important things......i am the DogKnight and i have spoken plz plz stop being 100% gay and dont ask them to make DAO or DAOA like a dif game, dif makers dif game get that in ur head.....thank you

[Urshakk]

DogKnight1337 wrote...

Lost odyssey was a awesome game but is no were near like DAO or DAOA, bioware made a ****ing badass game mind u there are bugs that ****** me off like no other , the game it self is in one word mother****ingtothelimitsbadass, so get off there ass about makeing it "better" why dont u people that **** about stuff on here make ur own damn game so the others can **** about important things......i am the DogKnight and i have spoken plz plz stop being 100% gay and dont ask them to make DAO or DAOA like a dif game, dif makers dif game get that in ur head.....thank you

Yea!!! You sure showed them!!!!............

Modifié par Urshakk, 19 avril 2010 - 03:20 .

[uberdowzen]

DogKnight1337 wrote...

Lost odyssey was a awesome game but is no were near like DAO or DAOA, bioware made a ****ing badass game mind u there are bugs that ****** me off like no other , the game it self is in one word mother****ingtothelimitsbadass, so get off there ass about makeing it "better" why dont u people that **** about stuff on here make ur own damn game so the others can **** about important things......i am the DogKnight and i have spoken plz plz stop being 100% gay and dont ask them to make DAO or DAOA like a dif game, dif makers dif game get that in ur head.....thank you

Wow. I do love a nice eloquent argument that clearly and politely sets out the arguments and declarative sentences in a precise and...oh wait.

Though I do agree with your argument (except the part where you call everyone who disagrees with you...

DogKnight1337 wrote...

100% gay

...or similar and the part where, well...

DogKnight1337 wrote...

a ****ing badass...mother****ingtothelimitsbadass...that **** about stuff on here...so the others can **** about important things

...yeah, those parts) I don't think swearing or actually, you know, debating about it rather than calling everyone who disagrees with you a...

DogKnight1337 wrote...

****

...is really the best way to get your point across. So, yeah. Awesome/incredibly offensive post though.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 19 avril 2010 - 03:24 .

[Tirigon]

Dogknight you suck. Go get a life.

[Upper_Krust]

Tirigon wrote...

That might be; as said I don´t think your ideas are bad.

I appreciate the kind words.

BUT!!!

To make them really what you want and not just new models, you would require a far more complex combat system than what you have now.

I think thats a vast exaggeration. I think one or two minor changes (all of which would be beneficial) are all thats needed.

I, however, like the combat in DAO. That doesn´t mean I wouldn´t like a more complicated system; after all I don´t play just one type of games. An analogy: I loved Rome - Total War RTS game, but I wouldn´t want DAO to play like that.

 
Giving a game depth doesn't mean complicating the casual player. A casual player can play (and beat) a game like Street Fighter 4 easily enough. But its simplicity belies its depth.

Simplicity for casual players, depth (and challenge) for hardcore players.

I want DAO like it is, and the other, more complex combat system you propose in another game.

 
Its not more complicated, it just has more depth.

However, even then I would hate the stealing part. That just sucks. If I have something I want to keep it until I drop or sell it voluntarily.

Thats the whole point of having that it the game. Players would FEAR those sneaky gits. Players do not fear death in these games because they just reload. But take something away from them for 4-5 encounters and watch them squirm. 

Thinking about it, I loved the prison part of DAO and thought that could have been dragged out a bit longer by Bioware.

The key here is to give players things, then take them away (now and again) so they appreciate having them.

That doesn't need to be weapons. It might be a small anti-magic area (of a few encounters). It might be an area of immense evil where you cannot heal magically. It might be an area where you have to split the party into two groups.

[Upper_Krust]

A1x2e3l wrote...

Well, e.g. variety of body shapes (creatures and humanoid NPC including body shaping sliders for PC customization that are widely used in modern MMOs). There are no common skeletons (for instance race specific, they should be stored in separate files) in DAO engine: every mesh (body, clothes, armor) contains information about bones used by separate animation files. Morph modifiers are practically not used (heads/faces are mainly animated with numerous bones, not with morphs). There is no support of such techniques like flex, skin gizmos, and game physics (animated hair (DAO hair/beard meshes are simply skinned to the main body skeleton bones)). Usually first person view cameras are attached to such (common) skeletons. Hence, variety of this kind can be achieved only by creating complete new sets of meshes with corresponding animations, and not by changing game engine settings/scripts. Just try to use an elven head on a human. Moreover, Bioware refused to release an official Max exporter (they used an old 3ds Max8 for creating artistic game asserts, note that Max2011(Max11) was recently released). This definitely creates a serious obstacle for modders (available at the moment Blender/Max importers/exporters are only partially functional). The complexity of the Tool Set explains the situation with DAO mods: zillions of face morphs, several nudes, some great tints, and nearly no quest mods.
Another example- world/terrain/terrain features (like water, lava, animated trees, SpeedTree). Modern game world requires serious game engine support of sophisticated collision detection/propagation for static as well as for dynamic game objects (PC, NPCs, creatures) objects. Usually that consumes a lot of computer recourses and should be foreseen at the very beginning of engine programming. DAO is a relatively big game (HD space) with numerous different file formats (just for a head we have ..chr, .mop, .mor, .mhr plus textures files). I can speculate that DAO developers decided to sacrifice this part and simplify it to the limits. Combat combos (let’s say without modern eye candies like Havok Behavior, Morpheme, EMotion FX) require additional animations for PC/companions and “victims”; new hot keys, scripts. That is doable but I do not think that Bioware is going to implement this typical for the first person games feature, they have chosen a cheaper way – more buffs with special effects.

 
Well Bioware have stated that they are working on developing the graphical side of things significantly for Dragon Age 2. Whether that will impact future expansions is unlikely).

I agree the customization of the characters is lacking in certain areas (weight, hairstyles, actual attractiveness/ugliness etc.)

This is exclusively my personal opinion, others can have very different ones and with their own valuable arguments. We are different people, players, moddes with different preferences and skills. DAO is a good game and it’s a pity that Bioware did not make the game modder-friendly in all aspects: simplified Tool Set, released exporters and examples of game objects in native 3D format. Check how many interesting ideas, story lines have members on the Fanfiction Forum but they cannot realize them in game mods. The vary fact that such subforum exists clearly demonstrates how complex DAO Tool Set is.

When a scientist starts to work on a new project he/she reads first related scientific literature (that’s not “stealing”), otherwise he/she is in danger to reinvent a wheel and there will be no progress.

 
I think the community has made leaps and bounds, some of the facial mods are far in advance of Bioware's own.

BTW, What is LO?

Lost Odyssey, a Japanese RPG for Xbox 360.

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Well this is the thing I've never been totally sure the Darkspawn do make their own weapons. For the sake of argument let's assume they do, although looking at them they're pretty basic.[/quote]

Hence the reason I described the Forgespawn as a Rusting mess of twisted metal.

[quote]IMO, that assumes the Darkspawn really interact all that much. I think we have to agree to differ on this.[/quote]

We know they do interact though (and thats even before events of Awakening).

[quote]Yeah I (after having done a quick wikipedia search) remembered that in the Hobbit that the Orcs are called Goblins.[/quote]



[quote]The problem I see with that is you'd have to like define battleground areas which couldn't have anymore then a certain number of enemies. That's just getting complicated.[/quote]

Doesn't the game already have 'battleground' areas though?

[quote]Yeah, but Dragon Age is already pretty hard and I think the learning curve doesn't need to be steeper.[/quote]

Thats why easy difficulty would be easy, hard difficulty would be hard...etc.

[quote]A bee sting hurts like hell, but I think if the choice was between being dismembered or getting a few bee stings, I'd choose the stings. I mean the worst that could happen is you have some bad allergic reaction.[/quote]

I see the bees dealing slow but constant damage to anyone within the swarm. There are killer bees you know.

[quote]The unarmed combat tree wouldn't work. You would have to choose between that or getting all your main weapon talents. No one is going to lose that for the occasional loss of their weapon.[/quote]

I don't understand what you mean here? No one is forcing any choice. How is an unarmed tree any different from a Sword & Shield Tree or a Dual Weapon Tree? 

[quote]So wait can you have allies slammed together and stuff?[/quote]

You could use any character or object as a missile. So yes, you could slam one character into another.

[quote]Yeah, but that's something you made up...[/quote]

I made up the idea of the Forgeborn, but I didn't come up with the name Forgemaster.

[quote]But that's my point. Dragon Age is a game where the combat is cartoony or anything. In fact Bioware went out of there way to get rid of anything that made the game cartoony. No one could carry two hammers with anvils on the end.[/quote]

Its a two handed hammer with the head of it shaped like an anvil, I don't see that as much of a stretch.

Here is a google image search for anvils. I could envision a hammerhead shaped like one of those.

http://www.google.co...ql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[quote]Actually I think it is. There are very few dwarves who can make Golems and by the looks of it the Darkspawns crafting abilities come down to being able to make some crude weapons.[/quote]

Crude weapons and even cruder golems.

[quote]Ok they're not more powerful but they still managed to make Golems which seems unlikely.[/quote]

...next thing you know they'll be casting spells...DOH.
...I meant next thing you know they'll be talking...DOH.

[quote]Yeah and I love it when something horrible happens to me. That makes me want to keep playing.[/quote]

If you lose something, don't you try to win it back?

Did you switch DAO off in the Prison section?

[quote]Ok so my main problem is that too many of the things you have suggested don't have counters.[/quote]

They all have tactical counters.

[quote]It's all very well adding heaps of new ways that the Darkspawn can beat the crap outta you, but that's not fun.[/quote]
 
We already have loads of ways Players can kick the snot out of Darkspawn. My suggestions not only level the playing field, but make the players choice of attacks more relevant.

[quote]These new tactics the darkspawn all have to require the played to do something new, or they might as well not be added.[/quote]
 
Not exactly. Each Darkspawn type is designed as a different obstacle which have different ways to be overcome (some ways better than others). But they are not there to force players to do something new - I don't think that approach can work in a game like DAO where classes and abilities are optional.

For instance my revised Forgemaster can be attacked and injured from the front. But the smart player is rewarded by attacking it in the flank. On Easy difficulty the difference would be minimal (100% to 75% maybe), whereas on Nightmare it might be 100% to 10% or something like that.

Easy = 25% difference
Normal = 50% difference
Hard = 75% difference
Nightmare = 90% difference

[quote]You pointed out things like some of the enemies have to be flanked from the sides. That's not a brand new tactic that just means you have to move your heroes to a slightly different positon.[/quote]
 
True, but the difference is that in DAO, flanking really doesn't make enough of a difference to matter.

[quote]The emissaries new attacks don't change how you fight emissaries. You still just charge them and kill them before they punish you too much. [/quote]

Thats true (to a degree). I have been thinking that the Illusion Spell would be better served by creating a handful of duplicate images (rather than a single image). That means players have a choice of which to attack (or maybe cast a dispel magic spell to take away all the fakes).

[quote]And going back to the cartoony thing for a minute, you can't just hit something with a hammer to fix it. You have to like melt things and crap. You need a forge.[/quote]

So a MAGIC hammer, that I have already stated can create walls of fire wouldn't be able to reforge some rusty metal heap?

[Upper_Krust]

Dragon Age Monster Revision

Case Study #1 (continued) Darkspawn

1.2 Hurlocks

Hurlocks are in many ways the default enemies of the game. So they are probably the most vanilla of the types and subtypes we face. But we can still make them pretty varied.

Behaviour: Aggressive (unless otherwise stated)
Morale: Stubborn (will fight to the death)

1.2a Hurlock Warrior (basic hurlock) - Normal Rank, Level 8

Tactics: Defensive. The basic warriors would have crude swords and big shields. Multiple hurlock warriors could form a defensive line (gaining a bonus to armour/defense and physical resistance) for each adjacent ally in the line. Their goals would be to block the PCs from certain characters or areas, or even push the PCs back, into traps or walls of fire (see the Hurlock Emissary).

Variant - Hurlock Dragoon - Normal Rank, Level 8

Exactly the same creature in most respects to the Hurlock Warrior except it rides a Deepstrider. Deepstriders being larger versions of the Deepstalker. Deepstriders are resistant to fire attacks, but weak against cold attacks.

Tactics: Aggressive. They can overrun on a charge, but need a good distance to build up the pace needed for a charge. So they'll generally charge once then just melee. Those attacking Rider + Mount in melee must attack the mount first. Ranged attacks or spells can choose which they want to affect. Area of Effect spells target both, naturally.   

1.2b Hurlock Archer - Normal Rank, Level 8

Tactics: Ranged. My only change to the Hurlock Archer from the main game would be that a hit stops players in their tracks (for maybe 1-2 seconds). So simply charging at them may not always be the best policy.

1.2c Hurlock Berserker - Normal Rank, Level 8

Tactics: Aggressive. These warriors would carry two-handed weapons. The difference between these and the basic warriors is simple. These are better in attack/damage, while the warriors are better in armour/defense.

1.2d Hurlock Commander - Lieutenant Rank, Level 8

Tactics: Defensive. Upgraded version of the Hurlock Warrior, carries crude sword and big shield. The commander adds a new dimension to hurlocks as follows. If the commander is killed, all remaining (normal rank) hurlocks are demoralized (effect similar to being slowed). The exception to this is Hurlock Berzerkers who (in the event the commander is killed) become even more violent (effect similar to being hasted).

Variant - Hurlock Veteran - Normal Rank, Level 13

Tactics: Aggressive. Same as Hurlock Commander except his death has no effect upon any troops.

Variant - Hurlock Knight - Lieutenant Rank, Level 8

Mounted (on Deepstrider) version of the Hurlock Commander. Otherwise identical.

1.2e Hurlock Executioner - Lieutenant Rank, Level 8

Tactics: Aggressive. Wield massive two-handed battleaxes. These villains have a VERY dangerous attack that will do a serious amount of damage to a prone character (so in tandem with Deepstrider Knights these are deadly).

1.2f Hurlock Beastmaster - Lieutenant Rank, Level 8

Tactics: Cautious. The Beastmaster is much like a shepherd guiding a group of Deepstalkers. If the Beastmaster is slain, the Deepstalkers lose interest and run away.

1.2g Hurlock General - Boss Rank, Level 8

Tactics: Aggressive. Upgraded version of the Hurlock Commander. Again, crude sword and big shield. When killed his death affects all Hurlocks below Boss Rank.

Variant - Hurlock Marshal - Boss Rank, Level 8

Mounted (on Deepstrider) version of the Hurlock General. Otherwise identical.

1.2h Hurlock Emissary - Boss rank, Level 8

Behaviour: Defensive

Tactics: Ranged.
Spells: Fireball (for attack). Wall of Fire (for defense). Fiery Weapons (Bolster the troops), Animate Dead: Blazing Bones (new skeleton type based on Burning Man model).

1.2i Hurlock Horror - Boss Rank, Level 8 (NEW MODEL)

A cursed abortion from the womb of the Broodmother.

Tactics: These beings are like siamese twins and fight dual weapon style. Their cursed nature means that they attract all magic spells to them, but are themselves unaffected by magic. Only when slain does magic again work properly.

NEW ANIMALS

Deepstalker Variants:

All deepstalkers are resistant to fire and vulnerable against cold.

Deepstalker - Weak Normal Rank - Level 8

Generally the same animal we know.

Morale: Cowardly (will attempt to flee if outnumbered).

Deepstriders - Lieutenant rank - Level 8 (NEW MODEL)

Larger version of the Deepstalker, used as mounts by Hurlocks (and maybe PCs too?).

Morale: Normal (will attempt to flee if the last riderless deepstrider standing).

Tactics: Aggressive. Can overrun with a charge, but needs sufficient space to build up the momentum for an overrun/charge.

Deep Tyrant - Elite Boss Rank - Level 8 (NEW MODEL)

Huge version of the Deepstalker, much like a T-rex in many respects. Captured by Hurlocks and released against their enemies.

Morale: Stubborn (will fight to the death). 

Tactics: Aggressive. Can overrun/charge as with a Deepstrider. Can also swallow a character whole if it hits them with its bite and they have 25% health remaining or less. After the battle you can open it up and free the allies corpse then revive it. Will attack nearest enemies, including Hurlocks and even Deepstriders.

[uberdowzen]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Well this is the thing I've never been totally sure the Darkspawn do make their own weapons. For the sake of argument let's assume they do, although looking at them they're pretty basic.[/quote]

Hence the reason I described the Forgespawn as a Rusting mess of twisted metal.[/quote]

You're not getting my point. The Dwarves can't make any kind of Golem, not even a rusting mess of twisted metal. If the Dwarves can't make them the chances that Darkspawn could make them are basically zero.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

IMO, that assumes the Darkspawn really interact all that much. I think we have to agree to differ on this.[/quote]

We know they do interact though (and thats even before events of Awakening).[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah I (after having done a quick wikipedia search) remembered that in the Hobbit that the Orcs are called Goblins.[/quote]

[/quote]

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The problem I see with that is you'd have to like define battleground areas which couldn't have anymore then a certain number of enemies. That's just getting complicated.[/quote]

Doesn't the game already have 'battleground' areas though?[/quote]

No it doesn't. You can just load up an area and place some enemies and you're done.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, but Dragon Age is already pretty hard and I think the learning curve doesn't need to be steeper.[/quote]

Thats why easy difficulty would be easy, hard difficulty would be hard...etc. [/quote]

But you can't just change it like that. It's an enormous amount of work to make each difficulty level entirely different.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

A bee sting hurts like hell, but I think if the choice was between being dismembered or getting a few bee stings, I'd choose the stings. I mean the worst that could happen is you have some bad allergic reaction.[/quote]

I see the bees dealing slow but constant damage to anyone within the swarm. There are killer bees you know.[/quote]

Actually having done a quick wikipedia search for Killer Bees, I can only assume you are referring to Africanized bees, which kill 1-2 people a yeah. Also, that's definetly a heroic death. Killed by bees.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The unarmed combat tree wouldn't work. You would have to choose between that or getting all your main weapon talents. No one is going to lose that for the occasional loss of their weapon.[/quote]

I don't understand what you mean here? No one is forcing any choice. How is an unarmed tree any different from a Sword & Shield Tree or a Dual Weapon Tree? [/quote]

Your character can only choose 20 talents in DAO (35 in awakening). If I had the choice of focussing those talents on become better with, say, a sword and shield or taking some unarmed talents so that I could do well in the few sections when I have weapons stolen, I'd go for becoming better with sword and shield.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

So wait can you have allies slammed together and stuff?[/quote]

You could use any character or object as a missile. So yes, you could slam one character into another.[/quote]

Sounds reasonable.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, but that's something you made up...[/quote]

I made up the idea of the Forgeborn, but I didn't come up with the name Forgemaster.[/quote]

I know you didn't come up with the name Forgemaster. But you made the point yourself that genlocks might have some minor forging talent. You need to have major talent to even consider making a Golem.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

But that's my point. Dragon Age is a game where the combat is cartoony or anything. In fact Bioware went out of there way to get rid of anything that made the game cartoony. No one could carry two hammers with anvils on the end.[/quote]

Its a two handed hammer with the head of it shaped like an anvil, I don't see that as much of a stretch.

Here is a google image search for anvils. I could envision a hammerhead shaped like one of those.

http://www.google.co...ql=&oq=&gs_rfai=[/quote]

Anvils are massive. One incredibly strong person would have trouble picking one up. I think they'd end up breaking the handle. It's not just that they're big they're very heavy.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Actually I think it is. There are very few dwarves who can make Golems and by the looks of it the Darkspawns crafting abilities come down to being able to make some crude weapons.[/quote]

Crude weapons and even cruder golems.[/quote]

I'd envison Golems so crude that they don't even work.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Ok they're not more powerful but they still managed to make Golems which seems unlikely.[/quote]

...next thing you know they'll be casting spells...DOH.
...I meant next thing you know they'll be talking...DOH. [/quote]

Still think it seems unlikely. Talking and spellcasting are common abilities among humans. Making Golems is not a common ability among dwarves.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah and I love it when something horrible happens to me. That makes me want to keep playing.[/quote]

If you lose something, don't you try to win it back?[/quote]

In reality yes, but this is a game. I'd just get annoyed and go play something else.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

Did you switch DAO off in the Prison section?[/quote]

No, but that was a very short segment and the combat in those areas was easy. If you get your weapons stolen the combat isn't going to become easier, it's going to become harder. And assuming that you got your weapons stolen because you're not a very good player, while your weapons are getting stolen you're going to have cowardly genlocks fleeing to make later fights harder and you can't do anything about it because that Genlock emissary over there is smashing your party members into each other. And you're being attacked by bees. Oh no, I'm dead. Wonder if anything interesting has happened on Facebook...

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Ok so my main problem is that too many of the things you have suggested don't have counters. [/quote]

They all have tactical counters.[/quote]

Such as?

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

It's all very well adding heaps of new ways that the Darkspawn can beat the crap outta you, but that's not fun.[/quote]
 
We already have loads of ways Players can kick the snot out of Darkspawn. My suggestions not only level the playing field, but make the players choice of attacks more relevant.[/quote]

That's the point, beating the crap outta things and feeling heroic makes a game fun. The point is you're better than the darkspawn, that's how you're able to beat them. If it's an even playing field, I'm going to have to be even more alert to play than I am already. I already don't play DAO at night because I know I'll just get my ass kicked.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

These new tactics the darkspawn all have to require the played to do something new, or they might as well not be added.[/quote]
 
Not exactly. Each Darkspawn type is designed as a different obstacle which have different ways to be overcome (some ways better than others). But they are not there to force players to do something new - I don't think that approach can work in a game like DAO where classes and abilities are optional.[/quote]

So we come back to the point that essentially you have to have an accessible game or you have to have a game where your combat choices are what define the combat. You can't have both.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

For instance my revised Forgemaster can be attacked and injured from the front. But the smart player is rewarded by attacking it in the flank. On Easy difficulty the difference would be minimal (100% to 75% maybe), whereas on Nightmare it might be 100% to 10% or something like that.

Easy = 25% difference
Normal = 50% difference
Hard = 75% difference
Nightmare = 90% difference[/quote]

Sound great in theory but even legendary game designers like Sid Meier discover that what sounded like a great idea in their head actually doesn't actually work when you get it into the game. Also am I understanding this right you actually want flanking to cause more damage at higher difficulties?

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

You pointed out things like some of the enemies have to be flanked from the sides. That's not a brand new tactic that just means you have to move your heroes to a slightly different positon.[/quote]
 
True, but the difference is that in DAO, flanking really doesn't make enough of a difference to matter.[/quote]

Actually it does. Rogues back stabbing cause a lot more damage from the rear than from the front.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

The emissaries new attacks don't change how you fight emissaries. You still just charge them and kill them before they punish you too much. [/quote]

Thats true (to a degree). I have been thinking that the Illusion Spell would be better served by creating a handful of duplicate images (rather than a single image). That means players have a choice of which to attack (or maybe cast a dispel magic spell to take away all the fakes).[/quote]

Only works if you have dispel.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

And going back to the cartoony thing for a minute, you can't just hit something with a hammer to fix it. You have to like melt things and crap. You need a forge.[/quote]

So a MAGIC hammer, that I have already stated can create walls of fire wouldn't be able to reforge some rusty metal heap?
[/quote]

EXACTLY!!!! DAO isn't a magic heavy game. It goes out of it's way not to be too magicky. It's one of the things that is great about the game, the fact that they don't solve every problem by going "I know, let's use magic!".

I think we need to get a Bioware developer in here, to decide if your ideas fit into the lore and a game designer to decide if they'll work. I'm trying to fight your arguments with a rudimentry understanding of how the engine works. STANLEY WOO!!!! WE NEED YOU!!!!

Modifié par uberdowzen, 19 avril 2010 - 09:03 .

[Upper_Krust]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

You're not getting my point. The Dwarves can't make any kind of Golem, not even a rusting mess of twisted metal. If the Dwarves can't make them the chances that Darkspawn could make them are basically zero.[/quote]

What if the Forgemasters are the Genlock equivalent of Dwarven Paragons?

[quote][quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

Doesn't the game already have 'battleground' areas though?[/quote]

No it doesn't. You can just load up an area and place some enemies and you're done.[/quote]

...and how is that any different to what I am suggesting?


[quote]But you can't just change it like that. It's an enormous amount of work to make each difficulty level entirely different.[/quote]

I disagree.

The key is in setting the checks and balances (vulnerabilities and resistances).

I think this should be something like:

Easy = +/-25%
Normal = +/-50%
Hard = +/-75%
Nightmare = +/-90%

So if a monster is vulnerable to fire but resistant to cold, on Easy Difficulty it will take 25% less cold damage and 25% more fire damage.

Obviously the specific values would need to be playtested, but you get the basic theory.

[quote]Upper_Krust wrote...


[quote]Actually having done a quick wikipedia search for Killer Bees, I can only assume you are referring to Africanized bees, which kill 1-2 people a yeah. Also, that's definetly a heroic death. Killed by bees.[/quote][/quote]

What about when a character shapechanges into a swarm of bees?


[quote]Your character can only choose 20 talents in DAO (35 in awakening). If I had the choice of focussing those talents on become better with, say, a sword and shield or taking some unarmed talents so that I could do well in the few sections when I have weapons stolen, I'd go for becoming better with sword and shield.[/quote]

Exactly so wheres the problem? What I am saying is that all we need is a default unarmed attack, just like each weapon type has a default attack (not one of your specials). But we could also have an unarmed combat tree.

[quote]I know you didn't come up with the name Forgemaster. But you made the point yourself that genlocks might have some minor forging talent. You need to have major talent to even consider making a Golem.

I don't think its beyond the limits of the game to suggest it.


[quote]Anvils are massive. One incredibly strong person would have trouble picking one up. I think they'd end up breaking the handle. It's not just that they're big they're very heavy.[/quote]

I'm talking about a hammer head SHAPED like an anvil, not necessarily full anvil sized.


[quote]I'd envison Golems so crude that they don't even work.[/quote]

Nice idea, maybe they would break down every so often and need fixing.


[quote]Still think it seems unlikely. Talking and spellcasting are common abilities among humans. Making Golems is not a common ability among dwarves.[/quote]

Its a Genlock Paragon. In fact thats given me an idea for another creature, an Elite Boss Genlock.


[quote]In reality yes, but this is a game. I'd just get annoyed and go play something else.[/quote]

So if one of your characters temporarily lost their weapon you would throw a hissy fit and go play something else?

Did you switch off Awakening in that part of that game?

[quote][quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

Did you switch DAO off in the Prison section?[/quote]

No, but that was a very short segment and the combat in those areas was easy.[/quote]
 
You didn't know that at the time though, and you didn't switch off there.

...and you did lose all your items. Here I am only suggesting one for a handful of encounters.


[quote]If you get your weapons stolen the combat isn't going to become easier, it's going to become harder. And assuming that you got your weapons stolen because you're not a very good player, while your weapons are getting stolen you're going to have cowardly genlocks fleeing to make later fights harder and you can't do anything about it because that Genlock emissary over there is smashing your party members into each other. And you're being attacked by bees. Oh no, I'm dead. Wonder if anything interesting has happened on Facebook...[/quote]

It seems to me since both DAO and Awakening have sections like this, you are being a little bit hypocritical suggesting you or others would switch off and go play something else.

[quote][quote]Upper_Krust wrote...

They all have tactical counters.[/quote]

Such as?[/quote]

Such as whether to bunch up (strong vs. sneaks, weak vs. grenadiers) or spread out (weak vs. sneaks, strong vs. grenadiers).

Such as whether to attack the claw of the Forgeborn or the main body (attack the claw and its a longer fight but against a weakened foe).

Such as whether to attack the wolves or the wolfmaster (the latter is a tougher opponent, but his defeat scares away all the wolves).

etc.


[quote]That's the point, beating the crap outta things and feeling heroic makes a game fun. The point is you're better than the darkspawn, that's how you're able to beat them. If it's an even playing field, I'm going to have to be even more alert to play than I am already. I already don't play DAO at night because I know I'll just get my ass kicked.[/quote]

You read the part where I said Easy difficulty would still be Easy, etc?


[quote]So we come back to the point that essentially you have to have an accessible game or you have to have a game where your combat choices are what define the combat. You can't have both.[/quote]

Yes you can. You do it by varying the degree those choices matter for each difficulty. So for Easy, choices only make a tiny difference, while for Nightmare they make massive differences.


[quote]Sound great in theory but even legendary game designers like Sid Meier discover that what sounded like a great idea in their head actually doesn't actually work when you get it into the game.[/quote]

Absolutely. Its all well and good me reeling off some figures, but you would need to playtest the actual math. That said, there has to be a sweet spot in the math somewhere for each difficulty level.


[quote]Also am I understanding this right you actually want flanking to cause more damage at higher difficulties?[/quote]

In a roundabout way, as regards the Forgemaster, I'd make the difference between his heavily armoured front face and relatively unprotected flank greater on higher difficulties.

I'd certainly suggest playtesting with different flanking figures on different difficulties. Although that would probably be for monsters only.  


[quote]Actually it does. Rogues back stabbing cause a lot more damage from the rear than from the front.[/quote]

...and how often do they show up in the game to make a difference, 1% or so?

[quote]Only works if you have dispel.


[quote]EXACTLY!!!! DAO isn't a magic heavy game. It goes out of it's way not to be too magicky. It's one of the things that is great about the game, the fact that they don't solve every problem by going "I know, let's use magic!".[/quote]

Given the laundry list of magic items the PCs go through, I have no problem with the odd Darkspawn leader actually possessing one...most already do lets be honest. 

[quote]I think we need to get a Bioware developer in here, to decide if your ideas fit into the lore and a game designer to decide if they'll work. I'm trying to fight your arguments with a rudimentry understanding of how the engine works. STANLEY WOO!!!! WE NEED YOU!!!!
[/quote]

I'd love to have a chat with one of the Bioware guys working on monster design, just to pick their brains on the philosophies (behind the design) and the underlying mechanics of the game.

Modifié par Upper_Krust, 20 avril 2010 - 06:36 .

[uberdowzen]

Well let's stop arguing about it and get someone who actually worked on the game to explain the philosophy.

[Upper_Krust]

uberdowzen wrote...

Well let's stop arguing about it and get someone who actually worked on the game to explain the philosophy.

You'll probably find they are either too busy or too disinterested (or some combination of the two).

I have a proverbial bucketload of ideas for the monsters (I think I filled 80 pages of a notepad just brainstorming over the past 4-5 days - and that was on my freetime), but no point typing up any further ideas if they are to fall on deaf ears. Its not just Bioware developers who are busy.

Still, its been fun chatting. I wish the Bioware devs the best of luck in all future games.

[uberdowzen]

Yeah same to you. Maybe you should get the PC version and try out your ideas in the toolset?

[Upper_Krust]

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah same to you. Maybe you should get the PC version and try out your ideas in the toolset?

If I had tons of free time I probably would, just don't think I would have the time for that and keeping down two jobs. Still, you never know, maybe in a few months time...?

It'll also be interesting to see what Bioware cook up in the future.