364 réponses à ce sujet

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

That would simply make it more powerful, it wouldn't remove it from all balance considerations. Especially as you have a number of crowd control spells that are specifically for the purpose of holding people in place. The rogue even has an aoe one now, they use it this way in the gameplay video.

I watched the combat vid a few times and you have me stumped. I thought the Rogue had a skill that scattered people. Something like that might help enemies defend against the tactic. My point wasn’t that the spell would make mages overpowered. That’s another issue. My point was that the only way to prevent the tactic from being overpowered is to make aoe spells or skills if the rogue has bombs costly so you cant spam them, provide AI that avoids getting sucked together and bombed, or to keep ff on.

I don't see how that negates balance, if they assume you won't use it, and you do, then it would definitely be a problem, but if they assume you will and balance the enemies health and resistance accordingly, it's no longer a balance problem, but a part of the balance.

Whats the point in having an aoe spell that does crap damage because everything is resistant and has a ton of hp? So we are to spam aoe spells against hp sponges? Yuck. Sounds like DOA 1. I guess you are making some sense out it. Not good sense.

[Ziggeh]

Piecake wrote...

I'm more concerned with "able"

What does that mean exactly? Mathematically possible, a highly skilled player, or an average player? If its an average player, it doesnt sound too difficult.

Haha, that was my question! Totally blame the hour, man.

[Piecake]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Piecake wrote...

I'm more concerned with "able"

What does that mean exactly? Mathematically possible, a highly skilled player, or an average player? If its an average player, it doesnt sound too difficult.

Haha, that was my question! Totally blame the hour, man.

*Flexes*

[Ziggeh]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

I watched the combat vid a few times and you have me stumped. I thought the Rogue had a skill that scattered people. Something like that might help enemies defend against the tactic.

Hawke knocks a bunch of them over, slowing down their ability to react to Varric's AOE, and so increasing their time inside it. (I can't actually remember if they tried to move or not, but that was what the VO suggested was the tactic.)

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
My point was that the only way to prevent the tactic from being overpowered is to make aoe spells or skills if the rogue has bombs costly so you cant spam them, provide AI that avoids getting sucked together and bombed, or to keep ff on.

Ah, Okay. I disagree with this too, as stated, but what you said in that initial post was that it only affects balance under those circumstances, which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
Whats the point in having an aoe spell that does crap damage because everything is resistant and has a ton of hp? So we are to spam aoe spells against hp sponges? Yuck. Sounds like DOA 1. I guess you are making some sense out it. Not good sense.

I wasn't suggesting it was good or bad, merely that it didn't automatically exclude balance. Not being keen on that seasons jib based fashions are again, fish/kettle related.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 19 décembre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

I wasn't suggesting it was good or bad, merely that it didn't automatically exclude balance. Not being keen on that seasons jib based fashions are again, fish/kettle related.

To clarify, I think you might be right. That worries me because that makes for boring, repetitive, predictable, combat. Not that I had high expectations. I wasn’t a fan of DA:O but I thought it had potential and I liked the new combat video.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Gill Kaiser wrote...

Can't you put 50% friendly fire on Hard, or something? I don't want to lose friendly fire just because I don't want to have to play my entire party optimally all the time.

Indeed.  I find suboptimal designs to be a lot of fun.  And they're an important part of learning the game, but if the game ecomines punishingly difficult when I play suboptimally, then I can't learn anything.

In Exile wrote...

The issue is that designers approach difficulty as a matter of gameplay in the sense that I use the word, i.e. as distinct from story and there solely for the players enjoyent vis a vis the challenge.

They've tied a feature I find enjoyable to a feature a genuinely dislike.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 décembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Indeed.  I find suboptimal designs to be a lot of fun.  And they're an important part of learning the game, but if the game ecomines punishingly difficult when I play suboptimally, then I can't learn anything.

Me three. I have a habit of randomly generating my character. The only thing I pick is hair styles and class and I limit class to three choices based on background. I even randomly generate my name. This was great in Storm of Zehir where you make 4 characters. I ended up with a real set of freaks that I had fun molding into an effective team.

You are right they are tying power gaming which you need to beat a difficulty called nightmare to immersion/realism when it doesn’t really go together. People that play on hardcore/realistic modes aren’t necessarily doing it for the challenge or difficulty.

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 19 décembre 2010 - 08:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

Me three. I have a habit of randomly generating my character. The only thing I pick is hair styles and class and I limit class to three choices based on background. I even randomly generate my name. This was great in Storm of Zehir where you make 4 characters. I ended up with a real set of freaks that I had fun molding into an effective team.

It's like rolling 3d6 in order for D&D stats and just living with whatever you get.  The hardship itself isn't what's fun; it's adapting to that hardship that is fun.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 décembre 2010 - 09:36 .

[jack_f]

Will the classes be as imbalanced as they were in DAO, leading to greatly varying difficulty depending on who was on your team, or will at least some attempt be made to balance the game this time around?

That is what I'm worrying about. I've long come to accept that Bioware caters to the lowest common denominator, so nightmare + FF is the only hope for any challenge at all.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then there can never ever be toggles for anything, or the abilty to mod the game, or edit .ini files, or anything of the sort.  The only way that the whole game is open to everybody is if the whole game is immutable and everyone gets exactly the same game.

It's different in this case. Toggles make you alter some specific of the game to your liking, but they usually never let you change the contexts of the gameplay. A toggle for FF changes the context, not the specific. THIS is the difference.

Now, you can argue that FF must be on from a realism pow, you can say that it's better and more dynamic to play with FF, but still if you include a toggle for people to remove it indipendently from difficulty then you must consider that some will use it. So you MUST care that the gameplay for these people is not broken. You cannot say "they don't understand anything so who cares?". This doesn't make any sense. You are asking a toggle for freedom and yet you don't care about that freedom, nor care if the gameplay for those that will use it will be broken or not. This is pure nonsense from a dev pow, maybe not from a player one, but still you must consider everything. 

If you give an option it must work and within a range. In the case of a toggle that changes the CONTEXT of the gameplay, indipendently, that's not possible for everyone, or at the very least a nightmare to implement properly.

Modifié par Amioran, 19 décembre 2010 - 10:35 .

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
That's a terrible argument.  With that logic, you should also remove all the advanced graphics options, because they don't work for everyone.  Just have a slider with poor/mediocre/good/great.  And heaven forbid that your operating system should have advanced user options, and maybe even a command prompt (where you can do all kinds of damage to your installation, and there's nothing to stop you!)

That's not the argument, though. Both your analogies miss the central crux, which is that an FF toggle could actively lie to users, in a way that graphical inequalities or the command promp can't. For one, the command prompt has an obvious baseline expertiese requirement that people that use computers would be aware of. The graphical fidelity has a hardware requirement people are roughly aware of.

But hard with FF being easier than normal with FF? That's not something people expect.

You're missing the point of my analogy, however.  I'm simply claiming that there's no reason not to include advanced options that might not necessarily be something that everyone should be changing.  I personally don't care if hard with FF is somehow easier than normal with FF (though I doubt such a thing would occur) because I feel that if people want to mess around with the advanced options, they always do so at their own risk.  The point is to give people who are more experienced with the system/comfortable messing around with it options that aren't necessarily options that less experienced users should be playing around with.  To be fair, you can already (on PC) mess around with the friendly fire options as much as you want, it's simply a pain in the butt to do so.  I'd like to be able to do it without having it be such a pain in the butt, and while at it, allow that functionality to the console users as well.

At some point, you have to stop trying to protect people from their own stupidity.  If someone were to turn on a friendly fire toggle and find it made the game too hard, it's not like they couldn't go back and turn it off (or turn down the overall difficulty to compensate.)  It's not a crime to give people options, and there's no reason that every option has to work for everyone (do the different difficulty options work for everyone?  Aren't Nightmare and Easy specific things for a specific audience?)

People are reducing things to this, but that's not the problem. If FF just made the game much harder, anyone could just go from nightmare no FF to easy FF, even if that was an inordinate difficutly jump.

Like I said, the problem is that FF changes the relatively difficulty between each setting, and that's what you need to balance. The issue comes from how AI mook bands behave and how resistances work, as well as what statistics the enemis have available.

As I mentioned above, I don't think such a thing is relevant in what would be labeled as an advanced user option.  If people who aren't advanced users mess with something labeled as being for advanced users, and as a result cause themselves some grief, they have noone but themselves to blame (though, of course, knowing our society they will, in fact, blame everyone except themselves.)

[Amioran]

Vaeliorin wrote...
You're missing the point of my analogy, however.  I'm simply claiming that there's no reason not to include advanced options that might not necessarily be something that everyone should be changing.  I personally don't care if hard with FF is somehow easier than normal with FF (though I doubt such a thing would occur) because I feel that if people want to mess around with the advanced options, they always do so at their own risk. 

Again, you can think this way, but not ALL people will think this way. If you add a SUPPORTED option then that option must not break anything, either for one single person, or that person will complain. Now, as I already explained, it would be almost impossible to do an indipendent toggle for a context that will not break gameplay balance for all difficulty levels for all people playing it, so this must be taken in consideration by a dev.

The problem here is that you are looking at the issue with the frame of mind of a player, but you should look at it with the frame of mind of a dev. This way only will you understand the difference and why it's almost impossible to give that option (either advanced) properly.

For an .ini is a different thing, since the change is not supported, so everything changes.

Modifié par Amioran, 19 décembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[Behindyounow]

I'd like friendly fire to be an option seperate to difficulty also. I never found a use for the AOE spells without hurting my teammates, so I just went to Easy.

[Vaeliorin]

Amioran wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
You're missing the point of my analogy, however.  I'm simply claiming that there's no reason not to include advanced options that might not necessarily be something that everyone should be changing.  I personally don't care if hard with FF is somehow easier than normal with FF (though I doubt such a thing would occur) because I feel that if people want to mess around with the advanced options, they always do so at their own risk. 

Again, you can think this way, but not ALL people will think this way. If you add a SUPPORTED option then that option must not break anything, either for one single person, or that person will complain. Now, as I already explained, it would be almost impossible to do an indipendent toggle for a context that will not break gameplay balance for all difficulty levels for all people playing it, so this must be taken in consideration by a dev.

The problem here is that you are looking at the issue with the frame of mind of a player, but you should look at it with the frame of mind of a dev. This way only will you understand the difference and why it's almost impossible to give that option (either advanced) properly.

For an .ini is a different thing, since the change is not supported, so everything changes.

You're making quite the assumption.  Given that I am, in real life, a software programmer (though sadly not of games), I'm fully aware of the implications of including advanced user options in software.  The only thing that's necessary of a supported option is that it works as it states that it works.  Simply having the option labeled as "Friendly fire level.  May cause unexpected variations in difficulty." would be sufficient to warn players of the potential consequences.  This is no different than the config editor in Thunderbird telling me, when I click on it that "This might void your warranty!   Changing these advanced settings can be harmful to the stability, security, and performance of this application.  You should only continue if you are sure of what you are doing." Since a friendly fire toggle would be an advanced user option, it should only be used by users who have some awareness of how it will effect the game overall. 

Regardless, I reject your claim that it would break anything, because it would be an option that could be turned on or off at will.  While it might make a particular encounter much harder or much easier, I find the likelihood that it would make any encounter impossible highly unlikely, and if it did happen to make an encounter impossible, the player could simply change difficulty or the friendly fire toggle on the fly so as to make the encounter once again possible (though this might, horror of horrors, require a reload.)

The point is, that for those who would like the option, I see no reason not to add it as an advanced user option (essentially equivalent to modifying the .ini in my eyes, except less of a hassle and possible for people who are playing on consoles.)

[TucoBenedicto]

In Exile wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

So you have a tool tip on toggles that explains what it does. End of problem.

"Enabling this toggle will cause entirely unpredictable changes to your experience that were not at all playtested. Allows for friendly fire."

Sounds like a great idea. If I ever design a UI, I'm calling you.

Oh, come on, this bull**** again? How can the friendly fire be "impredictable" when it's been tested for the highest difficulty level already in the game and doesn't change *anything* in the math system behind the game? 
it's just a specious argument, you have to admit it.

Modifié par TucoBenedicto, 19 décembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[TucoBenedicto]

Amioran wrote...

Again, you can think this way, but not ALL people will think this way. If you add a SUPPORTED option then that option must not break anything

And again, how can it break anything?
You are ignoring tons of games which allow users to create custom difficulty level relegating all the options to toggles.
Or, to better say it, you are assuming people are too stupid to read what they are clicking, and that's the problem both with you and Bioware.

[FedericoV]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Friendly fire is only on Nightmare. There were discussions on it months ago (including toggles, having it not be toggle-able in certain modes, and even locked difficulty levels) and that was the decision that was reached.

For reference, here are our current goals for difficulty balance:

Casual - Able to be beaten playing a single character sub-optimally, with the rest of the party using default AI tactics.

Normal - Able to be beaten playing a single character optimally, with the rest of the party using default AI tactics.

Hard - Able to be beaten playing the entire party sub-optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics.

Nightmare - Able to be beaten playing the entire party optimally, either controlling directly or using custom AI tactics. Friendly fire active.

Well, I do agree with the general idea  that FF importance is overrated. As I've said before the result of FF in most RPG games is to loose time micromanaging your fighters with protection items that avoid the effects of friendly fire itself. It's circular and redundant imho. 

But I'm a little bit worried by the fact that you are balancing the difficulty in the game thinking that the large majority of your players will play the game sub-optimally. If someone can finish the game on hard, never learning how to control the party optimally, where is the challenge?

Well, I think that I will play the game on Nightmare and see if it's too punitive then.

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 décembre 2010 - 12:20 .

[TucoBenedicto]

FedericoV wrote...

Well, I do agree with the general idea  that FF importance is overrated. As I've said before the result of FF in most RPG games is to loose time micromanaging your fighters with protection items that avoid the effects of friendly fire itself. It's circular and redundant imho. 

Well, actually no... the point in friendly fire it's usually to force you to displace your men carefully and avoiding hitting them when you use spells with an area of effects. Not to give them protections and nuke mindlessly with AoE.

[FieryDove]

I would assume someone going into the settings/difficulty menu would be there on purpose. To either turn the difficulty up or down.



If (some) people just go into a game and start checking boxes or toggles without knowing or looking at what they are doing I would also assume they would not be able to play the game much less finish it. There is always a default setting to fall back on, make it all easy/easy and people will be fine.



I vote more toggles. (Kittens or no)

[Am1vf]

Kerovan_the_Forgetful wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
Why can't it simply be a toggle ?

Because it has a profound effect on the difficulty. Hence it being attached to the difficulty.

Or that, anyhow, is what I assume. Attaching things to toggles is great, but if someone flips that on and doesn't know that it will suddenly make their "Easy" game not quite so Easy anymore... well, that wouldn't be good.

So because some players may be retarded, all the others should be punished for their stupidity! That's some logic.

You shoul start to get used to it, it's where videogames are going... like movies.

[FedericoV]

TucoBenedicto wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Well, I do agree with the general idea  that FF importance is overrated. As I've said before the result of FF in most RPG games is to loose time micromanaging your fighters with protection items that avoid the effects of friendly fire itself. It's circular and redundant imho. 

Well, actually no... the point in friendly fire it's usually to force you to displace your men carefully and avoiding hitting them when you use spells with an area of effects. Not to give them protections and nuke mindlessly with AoE.

You would be right if in those game there would not be items and spells that protect you from each kind of elemental damage. Since those items are there, is more simple to protect your front liners properly and then ignore the effect of your AOE spells on your party. That's true in 99% party based RPGs I've played.

[FedericoV]

Sir Jools wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
[snip]

Well, I do agree with the general idea  that FF importance is overrated. As I've said before the result of FF in most RPG games is to loose time micromanaging your fighters with protection items that avoid the effects of friendly fire itself. It's cricular and redundant imho. 

[snip]

Your concept of "losing time" might be the whole point of the game for many people out there. That's what the real-time-with-pause is for: micromanagment of the fights.

Without FF, most people will just spam blizzards and fireballs all over the place and that makes the game kinda of dumb and dull, because it goes from being an RPG to being some kind of isometric action shooter set in a fantasy settings.

IMHO

I like to micromanage but only if the process has some depth. I do not see depth in that scenario because it only involves using the right combination of gear/items or just waiting before charging in to battle with your fighters. It would be more interesting without protection gear/items or adding some kind of stretegic depth to that kind of protections, maybe linking it to charachter development.

Btw, mana is there to avoid blasting fireballs and blizzard no stop all over the place.

Modifié par FedericoV, 19 décembre 2010 - 01:21 .