162 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

crimzontearz wrote...

played Ars MAgica for YEARS

and the NWoD system is pretty much the very same

1 roll (aside for a VERY FEW exceptions) and you are done

I dunno. I never found WoD setting appealing. Well, it would be more precise to say that I hate Vampire with a passion, and neither Werewolf, Mage nor Hunter have enough appeal to offset Vampire.
Back to topic... Chris said there will be zoom-out (with a nondescript vertical reach), but what about free roaming? It'd be bad to have it gone.

[crimzontearz]

as it is right now.......no free roam, sorry Xewaka, but it will not Detract THAt much from the experience I believe



also



the "N"WoD was Much better than the "O"WoD (Vampire the Requiem as opposed to Vampire: the Masquerade and whatnot...single setting.single set of rules....multichronicle friendly and so on and so forth)

[Sylvius the Mad]

crimzontearz wrote...

as it is right now.......no free roam, sorry Xewaka, but it will not Detract THAt much from the experience I believe

Mike Laidlaw disagrees with you.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I have always felt that the key to tactical play was actually freeing your camera from the character you're controlling to issue precise orders

Source

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 décembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[crimzontearz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

as it is right now.......no free roam, sorry Xewaka, but it will not Detract THAt much from the experience I believe

Mike Laidlaw disagrees with you.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

I have always felt that the key to tactical play was actually freeing your camera from the character you're controlling to issue precise orders

Source

read earlier quotes from this thread.....they say it is attached to the selected character

[MIke_18]

So he condratics himself?

I've noticed a lot of that in the previews too.

Modifié par MIke_18, 08 décembre 2010 - 01:12 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

MIke_18 wrote...

So he condratics himself?

I've noticed a lot of that in the previews too.

No. Rather, plans change.

[MIke_18]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

So he condratics himself?

I've noticed a lot of that in the previews too.

No. Rather, plans change.

But how are we gonna think like a general without the key element ?

[Ortaya Alevli]

MIke_18 wrote...

But how are we gonna think like a general without the key element ?

I don't know. I don't like it any more than you do, but if that's what they decide, that's what's gonna happen.

Besides, plans may change again.

Modifié par Ortaya Alevli, 08 décembre 2010 - 01:20 .

[Ziggeh]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
No. Rather, plans change.

gang aft agley

MIke_18 wrote...

But how are we gonna think like a general without the key element ?

I rather disagree with his statement. The key element is the precise orders that the free camera leads to, not the camera itself. One would hope they've found another way to implement that. Or maybe they traded it in for a '75 dodge charger. It's a whole lot of car.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 08 décembre 2010 - 01:22 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
No. Rather, plans change.

gang aft agley

auld lang syne

[PsychoBlonde]

MIke_18 wrote...

But how are we gonna think like a general without the key element ?

I don't recall having heard of many generals who have access to a pause button and a perfect godlike perspective of hte battlefield.  I was thinking that this in the promos meant that we'd have situations where we had to make complex decisions with far-reaching consequences to mass battles without having good information as to what the results would be.  I didn't interpret it as "you'll be able to move the camera around so much that it takes you 3 minutes to figure out where the eff your party has gotten to".

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

FF is not an easy toggle at all. It dramatically changes difficutly because enemy statistics might be scaled to no FF. Adding a toggle for FF might screw-up the difficutly and make a hard balanced for no FF harder than a nightmare balanced for FF.

They already did have to make sure the hard game with no FF isn't harder than the nightmare with FF. Given at the moment everything but the nightmare has the FF off.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
They already did have to make sure the hard game with no FF isn't harder than the nightmare with FF. Given at the moment everything but the nightmare has the FF off.

You misunderstand. They have to balance every difficulty against each other as a matter of course. Adding a toggle means you double the balance you do, because you have to essentially scale what each diffculty with FF means versus its equivalent with no FF, and then that each jump in difficulty is not inordinate or otherwise impossible.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

crimzontearz wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Unknown Username wrote...

While I find the insistence on toggles on this board very odd, I do agree that Friendly Fire could work and definitely would be nice to have as a toggle -- at least on easier difficulties. Perhaps you could toggle whether or not friendly fire would occur up until hard or nightmare, where it was always on.

FF is not an easy toggle at all. It dramatically changes difficutly because enemy statistics might be scaled to no FF. Adding a toggle for FF might screw-up the difficutly and make a hard balanced for no FF harder than a nightmare balanced for FF.

Yet this was never an issue before with the D&D  games. Now its all of a sudden a nightmare to balance. Go fig. Toggles are a good thing, more options is a good thing, it'd be great if Bioware would move back in that direction, rather than lets streamline the **** outta everything for the hell of it.

streamlining is good oftentimes, point is Sarah, and I have proven this to you before, you are beginning to complain for the sake of complaining, shall we start that argument again? because we know how it's going to end.....

No doubt, there IS however a middle ground that can at least even remotely, be reached to please both audiences. Bioware however seems like they'd rather just go the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Ziggeh]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

No doubt, there IS however a middle ground that can at least even remotely, be reached to please both audiences. Bioware however seems like they'd rather just go the opposite end of the spectrum.

The middle ground would be making it pretty much the same on all platforms, no?

[crimzontearz]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Unknown Username wrote...

While I find the insistence on toggles on this board very odd, I do agree that Friendly Fire could work and definitely would be nice to have as a toggle -- at least on easier difficulties. Perhaps you could toggle whether or not friendly fire would occur up until hard or nightmare, where it was always on.

FF is not an easy toggle at all. It dramatically changes difficutly because enemy statistics might be scaled to no FF. Adding a toggle for FF might screw-up the difficutly and make a hard balanced for no FF harder than a nightmare balanced for FF.

Yet this was never an issue before with the D&D  games. Now its all of a sudden a nightmare to balance. Go fig. Toggles are a good thing, more options is a good thing, it'd be great if Bioware would move back in that direction, rather than lets streamline the **** outta everything for the hell of it.

streamlining is good oftentimes, point is Sarah, and I have proven this to you before, you are beginning to complain for the sake of complaining, shall we start that argument again? because we know how it's going to end.....

No doubt, there IS however a middle ground that can at least even remotely, be reached to please both audiences. Bioware however seems like they'd rather just go the opposite end of the spectrum.

yes, which, as I explained to you before, is being done but you will not believe until you actually have the game in your hands and are playing it...

until then you are assuming the worst possible scenario in spite of people (like me) pointing out the flaws of that mentality, which in turns leads you to be dismissed as a doomsayer. I like you sarah but you have got to calm down, take a breather and realize Bioware is not gonna serve you a "Ninja Gaiden in Thedas"

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

You misunderstand.

Perhaps. The way you put it, i got the impression the concern is that game with the FF toggle in one position can turn out to be harder than a game with FF toggle in opposite position while the difficulty labels for these two games would suggest something opposite. And in order to avoid it extra balancing would need to be done.

And it's just something i personally don't consider to be a big deal nor such extra balancing to be necassary -- since the toggle essentially makes it like switching between apples and watermelons, and it strikes me as rather silly to expect a "big apple" to be larger than "medium watermelon" because one is labelled as big while other is named just medium. So to speak.

[Sylvius the Mad]

crimzontearz wrote...

read earlier quotes from this thread.....they say it is attached to the selected character

Yes, I know.  The relevant part of that quote was where Mike said the free-roaming camera was critical to tactical gameplay.

You said having the camera locked won't make much difference.  Clearly Mike disagrees with you.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
Perhaps. The way you put it, i got the impression the concern is that game with the FF toggle in one position can turn out to be harder than a game with FF toggle in opposite position while the difficulty labels for these two games would suggest something opposite. And in order to avoid it extra balancing would need to be done.

That is what I am claiming. But Bioware doesn't have to do this if they do not add a toggle.

And it's just something i personally don't consider to be a big deal nor such extra balancing to be necassary -- since the toggle essentially makes it like switching between apples and watermelons, and it strikes me as rather silly to expect a "big apple" to be larger than "medium watermelon" because one is labelled as big while other is named just medium. So to speak.

It isn't a cross class thing. If you buy the large watermelon online and in fact, in all cases, it's smaller than the medium watermelon, that's a problem.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

MIke_18 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

So he condratics himself?

I've noticed a lot of that in the previews too.

No. Rather, plans change.

But how are we gonna think like a general without the key element ?

Me already fight like Spartan, this good. Me eat stem cells each day to think gooder, me think like general soon!

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

It isn't a cross class thing.

I believe we simply see it differently. To you it isn't a cross class thing, to me it is. If BioWare sees it the way you do then yes, that would involve extra work for them. If they don't, then there's no such work required.

[AlanC9]

It's not like Bio's any good at balancing combat anyway.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

FF is not an easy toggle at all. It dramatically changes difficutly because enemy statistics might be scaled to no FF. Adding a toggle for FF might screw-up the difficutly and make a hard balanced for no FF harder than a nightmare balanced for FF.

That's why they should hide the toggle in an .ini file so users can't change it without knowing that they risk breaking the game.

The Total War series has often been good for this.  For example, in Medieval II: Total War, there was an .ini file that controlled all manner of variables - which factions were playable, what unit costs were, and how long each turn was.  There was basically a line that said:

Turn length = 2

And that value, 2, was measured in years.  The player could edit it manually and replace that two with any rational number and the game would still work, but the balance would be greatly affected.  If he changed it to read:

Turn length = 0.5

that would mean that each year would include 2 turns (which also meant that half of the turns happened in the winter, which would never occur using the default setting).  The result of that change was that technological advancements - which were tied to calendar years - would happen much more slowly relative to gameplay turns, so by the time gunpowder was intriduced each faction would already have fully upgraded pre-gunpowder buildings and units, and much larger armies.  And a less fun game, in my opinion, but at least it was something the player was easily able to fiddle with if he wanted to try some things out.

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...
It's not like Bio's any good at balancing combat anyway.

I've never agreed with you more.