183 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well and this is slightly off topic, Football Manager's system seems to work - but the way in which iy is different sets it apart in that the star rating evaluations are subjective in the sense they are based on what is more or less the evaluation of an ingame NPC with his own stats.

Football Manager's approach makes that rating system explicitly unreliable.  That's a much better idea, I think.

Including the equation in DA2 would do exactly the same thing.

[upsettingshorts]

I'd like to see that too, I'm just wondering if there wouldn't be a more interesting ingame way of manifesting that unreliability than simply showing us the math.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'd like to see that too, I'm just wondering if there wouldn't be a more interesting ingame way of manifesting that unreliability than simply showing us the math.

Something like the JE spirit merchant, perhaps, offering his opinions on what equipment you would like?

[upsettingshorts]

That'd work. I don't remember it specifically though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think the JE spirit merchant did anything of the sort, but he was pretty much always available, and he could credibly have detailed knowledge about everything you ever owned, so simply integrating a character like him into the inventory UI would produce a system very much like Football Manager's.

[FedericoV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Well and this is slightly off topic, Football Manager's system seems to work - but the way in which iy is different sets it apart in that the star rating evaluations are subjective in the sense they are based on what is more or less the evaluation of an ingame NPC with his own stats.

Football Manager's approach makes that rating system explicitly unreliable.  That's a much better idea, I think.

I would not say that it's unreliable since it all comes down to Assistant Manager stats. An assistant manager with 17-20/20 in all the relevant stats will allways be right about the absolute value of a player. Then, you could have different opinions because maybe in your system you need another kind of player even if his absolute value is somewhat lower. But mind, if you choose the best player following the AM's advise you are not doing any error, simply you are not making the optimal choice.

So, I suppose that the stars value in DA2 will be like an Assistant Manager with perfect value in all the relevant stats. You can trust his judgement when he say that a ring has 3 stars. Then, reading the description you could find out that for your build is better a ring with 2 stars, but it's not an error to wear the ring with 3 stars, it's simply not optimal.

Modifié par FedericoV, 08 novembre 2010 - 08:24 .

[KLUME777]

I have one request for the inventory screen:



Please let us zoom in and rotate the character around like you could in Oblivion, or like Resident evil 1 where you view objects?



I was disappointed that i couldn't do this.

[upsettingshorts]

FedericoV wrote...

I would not say that it's unreliable since it all comes down to Assistant Manager stats. An assistant manager with 17-20/20 in all the relevant stats will allways be right about the absolute value of a player. Then, you could have different opinions because maybe in your system you need another kind of player even if his absolute value is somewhat lower. But mind, if you choose the best player following the AM's advise you are not doing any error, simply you are not making the optimal choice.

They can still be wrong.  This is getting into FM's mechanics but there is a distinction to be made between the actual attributes of a player (like, Work Rate, Tackling, Dribbling, Passing) and their PA/CA (potential ability, current ability).  The star ratings are based on CA which is in turn based on a weighted - by player position - accumulation of attributes.  There is already enough room for error within this process even before your assistant - 20/20 in Judging Player Ability or less - enters the picture.   What if you simply don't agree with how CA is weighted?  Many do not.  Furthermore, it is hinted at by Sports Interactive that there is an element of unreliability inherent in all evaluations, as two scouts of equal skill can reach different conclusions about a player's ability or talent. 

This unreliability is an intentional feature of Football Manager because these evaluations are meant to represent the subjective judgments of simulated people.

FedericoV wrote...

So, I suppose that the stars value in DA2 will be like an Assistant Manager with perfect value in all the relevant stats. You can trust his judgement when he say that a ring has 3 stars. Then, reading the description you could find out that for your build is better a ring with 2 stars, but it's not an error to wear the ring with 3 stars, it's simply not optimal.

Sort of, but the way the stars are presented in DA:2 doesn't lead to an intuitive conclusion that they are potentially unreliable - even if they are - whereas Football Manager does.  By presenting them simply as part of the GUI, Bioware is ostensibly labeling them as objective if vague evaluations.  If they were to add a sprite that said, "Genie Mike says this item might not be good enough for you anymore, give it a second look."  That would - despite being totally cheesy - introduce a level of doubt in the mind of the player that might not otherwise exist.  That sense of doubt is an understood part of the Football Manager experience.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 08 novembre 2010 - 08:52 .

[Barrendall]

Ultimately in the end the stars aren't going to make much of an impact. Respectively a lower tiered item with a substantial bonus in stats will be a better fit to your character and can be used far longer than the star rating recommends. The only thing seeing fewer stars next to my item tells me is you might want to keep an eye out for something better. Here's the kicker though...there might not necessarily be anything better out there so you are better off not relying on the stars to choose your upgrades for you.

[ForceXev]

I don't think the the star feature is intended for you if you care enough to know the mathematical equation behind it. Obviously the whole point of the star feature is to avoid the math. For the type of player who finds it bothersome to look at an item's stats, he can simply pick the items with the most stars without ever having to think about numbers, and he should be able to play the game successfully. I know there are some die-hard RPG fanatics here who think it's blasphemy to imagine that a person can succeed in an RPG game without doing any math, but you're just going to have to swallow that one. There are actually people who play these games who have never even seen 20-sided dice in their life. Bioware wants to entice those novices to buy their RPG games, and we have to be OK with that because if they don't buy their RPG games, Bioware may have to stop making them and switch to making casual games for Facebook instead, which would suck.



For those of us who like the math, we'll want more information when comparing a 4-star item to a 5-star item. Maybe the 4-star item gives me more damage and the 5-star item gives me more defense, but I'm more interested in upping my damage so I'll use the 4-star item. I do think the stars will be useful though when it comes time to sell all the stuff I've collected. If I have a 5-star helmet on, it'll be a pretty safe bet that I can quickly sell off all of those zero-star and one-star junk helmets I've collected without having to look at the stats at all. So that's something.

[upsettingshorts]

I don't think that's quite on the nose, though.

There is something to be said for subtly encouraging new players to delve deeper, and implying that the star-ratings are somewhat unreliable - because they are might be as a matter of fact - would encourage curious players to question them.

Non-curious players just looking for a fun, simple experience, aren't really the concern as long as game difficulty is balanced on the assumption that simply using a certain starred item at a certain level will lead to an enjoyable experience.

But if the goal is indeed to encourage new players to dive move beyond "easy to learn" into "difficult to master" - than introducing implied unreliability might do that.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 08 novembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[Alexia89]

Why dont you add another 3 quick keys to console? in Origins you had 6, 3 to start then 3 more when you pressed LT(on xbox) You could add another key to swap in another 3.



You would have 9 assessable ability's while in real time, much better for a mage.

[soteria]

AlanC9 wrote...

Since rogues are bow-eligible this implies an actual lockout on all but one talent tree. As opposed to DAO where it was possible but typically not worth doing.

That's what I'm getting.

Sylvius wrote...

Neither do I. But maybe Mike does.

The only sensible reading I see is that we just don't know the answer yet.

I'm not sure I would call that "sensible" so much as "denial." They released the podcast to give information about how the inventory and talents work. Why would you say "...use the majority of their base class talents" when you meant "all"? Why would you bother saying "it's important to note that companions will stick with weapons they prefer," if that's not actually important at all because they'll use whatever weapon you want them to use?

In the cases where things work the same, Mr. Laidlaw was quick to say, "This is exactly the same as Origins" (Hawke's inventory). If he was trying to say that companions can be customized with any talent tree or weapon style just like they could in Origins, he did a catastrophically bad job of it. If that's true, it even goes against their goal of giving companions a (quote) "look and a character and a progression that all kinda hang together like one complete unit."

[FedericoV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sort of, but the way the stars are presented in DA:2 doesn't lead to an intuitive conclusion that they are potentially unreliable - even if they are - whereas Football Manager does.  By presenting them simply as part of the GUI, Bioware is ostensibly labeling them as objective if vague evaluations.  If they were to add a sprite that said, "Genie Mike says this item might not be good enough for you anymore, give it a second look."  That would - despite being totally cheesy - introduce a level of doubt in the mind of the player that might not otherwise exist.  That sense of doubt is an understood part of the Football Manager experience.

But that level of doubt would kill the meaning of the feature itself (even if I get what you mean). I do agree with Mr. Laidlaw. Having played RPGs for many years (videogames and pen&paper) I believe that accessibility is a big issue and that developers have not done a great service to the hobby designing overcomplicated, superficial and unrewarding systems. There is a point where RPGs stop being fun and became something like work.

In a game like football manager (that is quite complicated) soccer common sense save your butt most of the time. If you do not try LLM or do not play for too many seasons, there is not even a great need of the assistant manager. But in a fantasy RPG it's all new and abstract. So a little guidance like the stars system is a good thing, even if the curios player will find out in time the optimal way to approach how items works in the game.

[In Exile]

Accesibility is a major issue for RPGs. I bought NWN when it came out, right around when I was in middle school. The game was incomprehensible. It wasn't even an issue that the manual did or didn't explain talents. The very system of D&D was incredibly complicated. 2D6 damage? That wasn't even a notation that made sense to me. There was a tremendous amount of work required to understand D&D if you've never played an RPG before or heard of the genre. Not even knowing that this sort of work is required by the genre makes getting interested in it very hard.

I promptly shelved NWN for about 2 years, until I played KoTOR, got a much better appreciation for the system, and then gained the motivation to actually research how this game ought to be played.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

If he was trying to say that companions can be customized with any talent tree or weapon style just like they could in Origins, he did a catastrophically bad job of it. If that's true, it even goes against their goal of giving companions a (quote) "look and a character and a progression that all kinda hang together like one complete unit."

I agree.  But if he wanted to convey that particular piece of information, he could have been explicit about it.  He wasn't.  Given his role here, it seems likely he knows he wasn't explicit about it.

So why not?

Mike was demonstrably ambiguous on this point.  I'm asking for clarification.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Accesibility is a major issue for RPGs. I bought NWN when it came out, right around when I was in middle school. The game was incomprehensible. It wasn't even an issue that the manual did or didn't explain talents. The very system of D&D was incredibly complicated. 2D6 damage? That wasn't even a notation that made sense to me. There was a tremendous amount of work required to understand D&D if you've never played an RPG before or heard of the genre. Not even knowing that this sort of work is required by the genre makes getting interested in it very hard.
I promptly shelved NWN for about 2 years, until I played KoTOR, got a much better appreciation for the system, and then gained the motivation to actually research how this game ought to be played.

I wonder how you'd do with Ultima IV.  Have you seen that article Mike posted about a class of university students studying the history of video games who were unable to play Ultima IV because they didn't understand the game?

Your NWN experience reminded me of that.

[soteria]

I agree. But if he wanted to convey that particular piece of information, he could have been explicit about it. He wasn't. Given his role here, it seems likely he knows he wasn't explicit about it.
So why not?

Well, I like to think that he read my explanation of what he meant, and said, "Oh, Soteria's got this. No need to re-explain."

Actually, I'm not sure I care for my explanation that they can use other weapons but not pick up talents for them--not that I don't think it's accurate, but that I don't like the news. So, he's welcome to come along and tell me I'm wrong.

Also, after reexamining the screenies, I noticed that there's no weapon swap button.  It would be a shame if they removed that feature... maybe it's located over by the companion icons and is invisible in the inventory screen?  I'd have thought we'd be able to see it while in our inventory if ever.

Modifié par soteria, 09 novembre 2010 - 01:09 .

[Vaeliorin]

soteria wrote...
Also, after reexamining the screenies, I noticed that there's no weapon swap button.  It would be a shame if they removed that feature... maybe it's located over by the companion icons and is invisible in the inventory screen?  I'd have thought we'd be able to see it while in our inventory if ever.

I'm fairly certain I recall it mentioned in the mechanics thread that (I think) Peter Thomas had a month or so ago that the weapon swap button was gone.  I found this particularly annoying, as given that supposedly there are class specific talents that are usuable with either of the weapon types a class is allowed to use (meh...that really sounds so MMO'ish to say) so I might want to switch weapons based on the situation.

I'd have liked to have swapped weapons more in DA (I'm in favor of always opening with a ranged barrage when possible), but the long cooldowns on so many of the sustains led me to not do that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I'd have liked to have swapped weapons more in DA (I'm in favor of always opening with a ranged barrage when possible), but the long cooldowns on so many of the sustains led me to not do that.

My dagger+shield dwarf noble actually kept a 2-handed sword as his alternate weapon because Pommel Strike was quite a bit quicker (even counting the drawing of the sword) than waiting for Shield Bash to cool down.  If you want quick access to a single target stun, that was hugely useful.

[upsettingshorts]

What's your roleplaying justification for having a character have a spare two handed sword that he just keeps around for occasionally bashing people in the face with only to switch back to his primary weapons?



(I never do this, and my standards for roleplaying aren't nearly as strict as I imagine yours are. I can't justify my character ever doing that so I don't do that kind of thing, except in MMOs)

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

What's your roleplaying justification for having a character have a spare two handed sword that he just keeps around for occasionally bashing people in the face with only to switch back to his primary weapons?

It's faster, and it's always available (because he used it rarely, so it was never on cooldown when he needed it).

Do I need more justification than that?

The weapon-swap system was a bit strange (the new weapon instantly appears on your back), but those were the rules of the setting.  It makes perfect sense for the characters to adopt tactics that take advantage of the setting's characteristics.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's faster, and it's always available (because he used it rarely, so it was never on cooldown when he needed it).

Do I need more justification than that?

That strikes me as an OOC justification. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It makes perfect sense for the characters to adopt tactics that take advantage of the setting's characteristics.

Not to me it doesn't.  I see a clear distinction between mechanics and the internal believability of the character's world from their perspective.

Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread, that just struck me as something I should ask about.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I see a clear distinction between mechanics and the internal believability of the character's world from their perspective.

Why?

The setting has rules.  Do you think the characters who live in that setting are unaware of them, despite living there every day for their entire lives?

In DAO, the rules allow instantaneous swapping between weapon sets.  That's how the world works.  Why do you think this isn't true?