364 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
This might well be their first RPG where Friendly Fire is the exception rather than the norm.

Might also be the first game with the precise problems presented by DA2's combat.

If you mean the AoE happy Warrior, I'd actually expect him (the Warrior) to be able to avoid hitting his companions unless swinging wildly, and leave the Friendly Fire for the big 'splosions and deep sweeps (i.e. have the triggered abilities cause FF, not autoattack).
But they already went through the less challenging and less fun route.

Modifié par Xewaka, 20 décembre 2010 - 01:00 .

[crimzontearz]

Xewaka wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Why did it suddenly present a problem when the precedent points otherwise?

Precedent as in origins? The answer to that is that it's not Origins. It has different issues.

I didn't balance the game, so obviously, can't say exactly what the issues are, but given that even when it is on on Nightmare, it's at reduced capacity for certain abilities, it's clearly something they've considered. They haven't removed it wholesale, which suggests it's something at least someone there feels is important.

Also, what's the alternative? They removed it for the purpose of trolling?

Precedent as in Origins and the Infinite Engine based games. This might well be their first RPG where Friendly Fire is the exception rather than the norm. (I wouldn't call Mass Effect a RPG, but rather a TPS with a little RPG duct-taped on it).

V:TM:R did not have FF.....

Planescape Torment did not have FF (if I remember correctly)

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

If you mean the AoE happy Warrior

I don't, I mean the whole of the combat.

Don't misunderstand my position here, I'd prefer FF was on, for as many settings as possible. I just appreciate that difficulty balancing is a long, complicated, nuanced business and trust that they know more about it than we do. If they say it presented a balance problem, I assume they mean it presented a balance problem, and would rather they resolved problems than include elements purely for the sake of consistency or expectation.

[Xewaka]

crimzontearz wrote...

V:TM:R did not have FF.....

Planescape Torment did not have FF (if I remember correctly)

My memories of Vampire are fuzzy, as I don't even remember there were AoE effects. Planescape i think did have FF, at least with the pyromaniac mage.

[Xewaka]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

If you mean the AoE happy Warrior

I don't, I mean the whole of the combat.

Don't misunderstand my position here, I'd prefer FF was on, for as many settings as possible. I just appreciate that difficulty balancing is a long, complicated, nuanced business and trust that they know more about it than we do. If they say it presented a balance problem, I assume they mean it presented a balance problem, and would rather they resolved problems than include elements purely for the sake of consistency or expectation.

Yet the only difference in how AoE is implemented from Origins to 2 is the fact that now a class has AoE as an autoattack. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect it to be any harder to balance than Origins.
It seems as with most features which change from DA:O to DA2, we lose more than we gain in the tradeoff. FF is just another victim.

[crimzontearz]

Xewaka wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

V:TM:R did not have FF.....

Planescape Torment did not have FF (if I remember correctly)

My memories of Vampire are fuzzy, as I don't even remember there were AoE effects. Planescape i think did have FF, at least with the pyromaniac mage.

my memories of it are not fuzzy

Summon Lightning and Firestorm amonst others had an AOE

as for planescape the most powerful spells like ice spike  and death cloud did not haveFF (spammed them a lot)

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

Yet the only difference in how AoE is implemented from Origins to 2 is the fact that now a class has AoE as an autoattack.

And you're basing that on extremely limited information about the subject.

Xewaka wrote...
It seems as with most features which change from DA:O to DA2, we lose more than we gain in the tradeoff.

In this case, the trade off will presumably be more consistently balanced difficulty settings. And I don't think we can judge it's value until it's been played.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Xewaka wrote...


I wouldn't blame the genre. Baldur's Gate still gives me some pause these days.

Baldur's Gate is dead. This is todays RPG gamer.

Amioran wrote...

No, it would not, since anyway it's impossible to create a gameplay balance within a plausible range for everyone using it. "Unexpected variations in difficulty" is not what will happen, and people would complain to no end. 

Nah I kid. Really I dont think gamers have changed much. My guess is console gamers were so sick of spiky haired blob combat that they were willing to take anything that wasn’t turnbased and the developers misread their audience’s tolerance for anything that isn’t turnbased as a shot on strategy. If the market was never split in the late 90s and the masses got to play the infinity engine games we would never settle for such regression with Bioware.

[asaiasai]

David Gaider wrote...

deuce985 wrote...
I noticed in the new PC gameplay FF wasn't there. Is it removed? I really hope not...that is a pretty huge tactical part of the gameplay.

It's based on difficulty.

It was that way in DAO, i can not tell you how many times as a mage getting ready to stack Tempest and Blizzard on a room full of baddies having forgot to place the party on hold so that the tank Allistair, Shale or Sten would run into the room to thier deaths.

It is like when i play L4D2 and for some reason people think Asai banging away with a sniper rifle is lik a starter pistol. It seems to be a conspiracy where everybody has agreed that Asai is so leet that they need to give the baddies a chance and run interference for them by catching Asai's bullets. I will not take a 10, 15 , or 20 point hit because someone wants to catch my bullets.

So in the situation where Allistair runs right into my Storm of the Century  i will try and pull him out but usually i just hand him an injury kit while auto loot runs (some mods are just too kick ass). I keep trying to tell them do not go in there stupid, awww you went in there anyway oh well i  will tell you how it went when you wake up stupid. I know it is usually my fault for not putting them in hold mode but i still yell at them anyway.

Asai

[Taritu]

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.

Interesting.  I usually play on hard, and I must confess I wish it had FF.  It's less a difficulty issue than a realism issue, it breaks the frame for fireballs to hit only the enemy for me (yes, I suppose I can just go "it's magic", but...)

Even half strength FF would be good.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

biostarfan wrote...

damn it, I liked friendly fire and I can't imagine myself playing on nightmare...

Nightmare on DAO really wasn't hugely difficult.

That's my one ray of hope.  People say DAO's Nightmare wasn't very hard (though Hard was about as difficult as I ever want a game to be).  Hopefully DA2's Nightmare won't be excessive.

And since I insist on Friendly Fire, I'll be playing DA2 on Nightmare from day one.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's my one ray of hope.  People say DAO's Nightmare wasn't very hard (though Hard was about as difficult as I ever want a game to be).  Hopefully DA2's Nightmare won't be excessive.

And since I insist on Friendly Fire, I'll be playing DA2 on Nightmare from day one.

You have to consider playstyle, though. I find DA:O on nightmare to be comically easy because of the way I approach development. I min-max whatever particular build I decide on. You use RP to inform your characters in a radical way, and that might be at odds with an effficient build.

Still, I wouldn't expect DA2 to be as hard as DA:O, and would expect each difficutly to downgrade 1 from DA:O.

[Maria Caliban]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

Baldur's Gate is dead.

Yet its moldering corpse appears in thread after thread after thread.

[Crimson Invictus]

Nightmare appears to be the new black.

[Maria Caliban]

I want there to be an achievement for it so I can have the nightmare achievement and show other people my nightmare achievement that I got from beating the game on nightmare difficulty.

[Crimson Invictus]

Following on from Kind of a Big deal:



God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals.

[Matchy Pointy]

Seems I will have to go for Nightmare from the start here then, I usually do that for later playthroughs usually, but I'm a big friendly fire fan, not heving it removes much of the tactics involved in using magic.

Modifié par Matchy Pointy, 20 décembre 2010 - 06:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

This might well be their first RPG where Friendly Fire is the exception rather than the norm.

Friendly Fire was effectively removed from NWN in patch 1.03 (I think that's the number - BioWare doesn't seem to have the patch notes from those early patches anymore).

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

You have to consider playstyle, though. I find DA:O on nightmare to be comically easy because of the way I approach development. I min-max whatever particular build I decide on. You use RP to inform your characters in a radical way, and that might be at odds with an effficient build.

Often.

It's a roleplaying game.  It shouldn't surprise anyone that players do this, least of all BioWare.

Still, I wouldn't expect DA2 to be as hard as DA:O, and would expect each difficutly to downgrade 1 from DA:O.

That would be perfect, since DAO's Hard setting was exactly what I wanted.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 20 décembre 2010 - 07:26 .

[FedericoV]

I imagine that the reson behind the removal of friendly fire from Hard is the "fight like a spartan" and action/real time approach to combat. FF works better in chesslike/turnlike gameplay. Not in real time gameplay. They want warriors to rush in to battle from the get go and not to wait untill mages and archers have used their AoE abilities. They want mages and archers to use their top tier abilities whenever they feel the need and not only in certain situation (limit being mana and stamina).

While I still think that FF in most RPGs is redundant and "circular" because it only creates the need for protection items/spells/routines, it seems to me that when Peter Thomas talked about difficulty level and the optimal/sub-optimal management of the party, is talking about pause and play micromanagement. So, the only difficulty level that will require pause and play is Nightmare. Thus, we could come to the conclusion that the game is meant to be played in real time from the majority of players, just with some pause here and there.

My fear is that the game will be very easy if you micro-manage your party at hard. A constructive proposal to Bioware: why not 5 difficulty levels? I mean, you could add a 4th difficulty level between hard and nightmare that requires optimal management of the party but that it's not too punitive or unfair.

Modifié par FedericoV, 20 décembre 2010 - 08:36 .

[Piecake]

FedericoV wrote...
So, the only difficulty level that will require pause and play is Nightmare. Thus, we could come to the conclusion that the game is meant to be played in real time from the majority of players, just with some pause here and there.

My fear is that the game will be very easy if you micro-manage your party at hard. A constructive proposal to Bioware: why not 5 difficulty levels? I mean, you could add a 4th difficulty level between hard and nightmare that requires optimal management of the party but that it's not too punitive or unfair.

We dont really know that is true.  I think we need further explanation on what "able to" means

Does it mean mathematically possible, a highly skilled player, or an average one?  If 'able' means mathematically possible, hard mode is still freakin hard, but if it means average player, then hard mode doesnt sound very difficult at all

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

This might well be their first RPG where Friendly Fire is the exception rather than the norm.

Friendly Fire was effectively removed from NWN in patch 1.03 (I think that's the number - BioWare doesn't seem to have the patch notes from those early patches anymore).

Do KotOR grenades cause FF?

[FedericoV]

Piecake wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
So, the only difficulty level that will require pause and play is Nightmare. Thus, we could come to the conclusion that the game is meant to be played in real time from the majority of players, just with some pause here and there.

My fear is that the game will be very easy if you micro-manage your party at hard. A constructive proposal to Bioware: why not 5 difficulty levels? I mean, you could add a 4th difficulty level between hard and nightmare that requires optimal management of the party but that it's not too punitive or unfair.

We dont really know that is true.  I think we need further explanation on what "able to" means

Does it mean mathematically possible, a highly skilled player, or an average one?  If 'able' means mathematically possible, hard mode is still freakin hard, but if it means average player, then hard mode doesnt sound very difficult at all

Yep, I'm making an assumption. We don't know the difficulty of the game and maybe I'm wrong. But if you carefully read Mr. Thomas post, it's not so hard to see that they are balancing the game in action/real time mode for 3/4 of the difficulty levels (real time = sub-optimal control of the party). And then, it's not so out of context to imagine that if a game is balanced in real time, it will be way easier for the person who plays it with a pause and play style.

Modifié par FedericoV, 20 décembre 2010 - 09:21 .

[Piecake]

FedericoV wrote...

Yep, I'm making an assumption. We don't know the difficulty of the game and maybe I'm wrong. But if you carefully read Mr. Thomas post, it's not so hard to see that they are balancing the game in action/real time mode for 3/4 of the difficulty levels (real time = sub-optimal control of the party). And then, it's not so out of context to imagine that if a game is balanced in real time, it will be way easier for the person who plays it with a pause and play style.

That is true.  You are right, they should add another difficulty and balance nightmare just on pause and play

[Xewaka]

FedericoV wrote...

Yep, I'm making an assumption. We don't know the difficulty of the game and maybe I'm wrong. But if you carefully read Mr. Thomas post, it's not so hard to see that they are balancing the game in action/real time mode for 3/4 of the difficulty levels (real time = sub-optimal control of the party). And then, it's not so out of context to imagine that if a game is balanced in real time, it will be way easier for the person who plays it with a pause and play style.

Well, if that assumption is right, seems like playing on nightmare is the way to go. Let's just hope it's not too easy.