364 réponses à ce sujet

[Blessed Silence]

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.

Really?  I swore Hawke was getting burned bad in teh end with his sis's fireball.

[Amioran]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Why can't it simply be a toggle ?

Easy in theory, difficult in practice. An rpg is not an FPS, parameters changes on the root alters dramatically balance of gameplay, simply because difficulty is not tied *only* to player skill (in fact the less those parameters are tied to player skill the more they increase/decrease exponentially). Now, for example, a normal difficulty balanced without FF with it turned ON will become probably harder than a Nightmare difficulty without FF, and so on.

It has never be done for RPGs and it will never be done simply because people will complain to no end that their normal difficulty with FF on (supposing is disabled by default) become too difficult to beat. Things on a certain range are plausible, when they go outside that then people become angry, and it would also be reasonable. FF has always been at max tied with difficulty for an rpg, in this way gameplay balance is preserved. A toggle will destroy everything.

So, in little words: impossible to balance properly.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:09 .

[The Lyons]

The "toggles need to work for everyone" is a vey polite way of saying that you expect much of your fanbase to be full of idiots. Reminds me of the Mac commercials with people saying "I couldn't turn on my PC?!" I cant imagine it being anything other than insulting.

[TucoBenedicto]

David Gaider wrote...
Yeah, I don't think "YOU ARE SUCH A NOOB LOL" is really a response that's going to work.

Toggles need to work for everyone, and we need to balance accordingly. An option that's more for advanced users is the kind of thing you'd stick in as an .ini file setting, I'd suspect. Feel free to ask for something different, but I think there's more affected by such a change than you'd think.

For advanced users? A toggle for friendly fire?
How can it be confusing for anyone?
Jesus, can't you guys stop for at least one minute thinking your audience is full of retarded people?

That's mostly how you are acting:
http://tvtropes.org/...iewersAreMorons

[Amioran]

The Lyons wrote...

The "toggles need to work for everyone" is a vey polite way of saying that you expect much of your fanbase to be full of idiots. Reminds me of the Mac commercials with people saying "I couldn't turn on my PC?!" I cant imagine it being anything other than insulting.

Or maybe if you read a bit between the lines you will understand what David is referring to. Never thought about trying to use more than 1% of your brain for a time instead of just replying without pondering? Pause a moment and try to understand what he is talking about, maybe you will comprehend that he wasn't insulting intelligence (either if somebody had it) or anything similar, quite the contrary, in fact.

Little hint: read my post above, read it again, try to comprehend it, then re-read David post and try to make the very simple connection therein if you are able.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[aaniadyen]

Doesn't really affect me at all. I'll be playing nightmare anyway, so it's full FF for me.

[TucoBenedicto]

Amioran wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Why can't it simply be a toggle ?

Easy in theory, difficult in practice. An rpg is not an FPS, parameters changes on the root alters dramatically balance of gameplay, simply because difficulty is not tied *only* to player skill (in fact the less those parameters are tied to player skill the more they increase/decrease exponentially). Now, for example, a normal difficulty balanced without FF with it turned ON will become probably harder than a Nightmare difficulty without FF, and so on.

It has never be done for RPGs and it will never be done simply because people will complain to no end that their normal difficulty with FF on (supposing is disabled by default) become too difficult to beat. Things on a certain range are plausible, when they go outside that then people become angry, and it would also be reasonable. FF has always been at max tied with difficulty for an rpg, in this way gameplay balance is preserved. A toggle will destroy everything.

So, in little words: impossible to balance properly.

You clearly have no clue of what you are talking about. 
Beside the fact that it has be done many times... That's exactly the point: maybe I don't want my enemies to be twice as long to beat down but still I want play with friendly fire on and take care of my strategy in a proper way, without just nuking everything AOE.

[Ziggeh]

You'd happily accept a game that had difficulty settings they knowingly didn't balance?

[Amioran]

TucoBenedicto wrote...
You clearly have no clue of what you are talking about. 
Beside the fact that it has be done many times... That's exactly the point: maybe I don't want my enemies to be twice as long to beat down but still I want play with friendly fire on and take care of my strategy in a proper way, without just nuking everything AOE.

A) I know perfectly of what I'm talking about, thanks. You obviosly don't on the contrary, and everybody knowing the argument will understand it immediately. You know, words can sometimes mask things, sometimes reveal them much too well. What you think it's your case? Difficult bet...
Quote either one *RPG* (with more than one controllable party member) where it has been done before, please, I'm curious. Please, do so. Waiting eagerly... (please beware of not doing a worser figure quoting that famous title.)
C) Taking care of your strategy has NOTHING (or indeed little) to do with game balancing in an RPG. As I said, you obviously have no clue of what you are talking about. Rpgs root parameters don't concern only the player. A little knowledge sometime will do you good, don't you know?

EDIT: Added "more than one controllable party member" in point B since some smart guy can quote some action rpg where a single character is concerned. While I think that neither there it has been done in the past I cannot be sure, but I'm sure that naturally it was not the sort of game I was referring to.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:24 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Toggles need to work for everyone

Doesn't that defeat the whole point of a toggle?

You install a toggle when one option doesn't work for everyone.  Requiring that any feature work for everyone simply requires that some players simply not play your game.

[The Lyons]

Amioran: no, just no. Thanks for the condescension, though.

[Amioran]

The Lyons wrote...

Amioran: no, just no. Thanks for the condescension, though.

Yes, because you say so. Again: reread my post another time. Retry to comprehend. Try to use the brain to do a connection. Failed again? I'm so sorry... for you.

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Toggles need to work for everyone

Doesn't that defeat the whole point of a toggle?

I think he means both states need to work.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Doesn't that defeat the whole point of a toggle?

You install a toggle when one option doesn't work for everyone.  Requiring that any feature work for everyone simply requires that some players simply not play your game.

What David is saying is that a toggle cannot dramatically alter the gameplay experience in an unpredictable way. An unbalanced FF toggle could make hard with FF easier than normal with FF.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

What David is saying is that a toggle cannot dramatically alter the gameplay experience in an unpredictable way. An unbalanced FF toggle could make hard with FF easier than normal with FF.

Sure it could, but that's only relevant to the player if the overall difficulty level is relevant to the player.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sure it could, but that's only relevant to the player if the overall difficulty level is relevant to the player.

It will always be (or better, it would never be, referring to your sentece), for everybody, since you cannot define the specific in a common aspect as a toggle. As I said you can tolerate a variation on a range (also changing from player to player) but when going over you will complain against the devs that weren't able to balance the game in that range, and rightly so. Since these ranges varies from person to person, as I said, how can you insert something that cannot be defined "a priori"?

A balance would be in theory possible in the case the range was similar for all individuals. Since this is obviously not the case (and I should also add thankfully so) the problem will always pertain to everybody.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:35 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

It will always be, for everybody, since you cannot define the specific in a common aspect as a toggle. As I said you can tolerate a variation on a range (also changing from player to player) but when going over you will complain against the devs that weren't able to balance the game in that range, and rightly so. Since these ranges varies from person to person, as I said, how can you insert something that cannot be defined "a priori"?

A balance would be in theory possible in the case the range was similar for all individuals. Since this is obviously not the case (and I should also add thankfully so) the problem will always pertain to everybody.

Hence the need to allow the player to customise his own gameplay experience.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hence the need to allow the player to customise his own gameplay experience.

But how can you do it properly since the toggle is for everyone when you cannot make a range plausible for everyone? I would for example either accept a default normal without FF to become more challenging than default nigthmare with the a toggle to enable FF, another individual will become mad at it.

How can you balance a game taking care of that range, with a toggle, that can be plausible for all players? You cannot. Changing difficulty will not help, but instead only aggravate things, since on an increased step the increase in the range will double the one before (or either more), so it is not a proper way to calculate that range properly (and so create an artificial range with changes in levels).

And anyway the problem is either more complex than this, since either if you (in a miracle) could create a sort of balance way between levels to do a plausible range increase within a toggle, it probably will not work consistently in all situations, on all levels and with all encounters.

Modifié par Amioran, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:44 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Sure it could, but that's only relevant to the player if the overall difficulty level is relevant to the player.

I don't think it's uncalled for that players would want the difficulty slider to not lie to them. Certainly some might not care, but Bioware has to ensure that gamers can accurately predict difficulty and change it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

But how can you do it properly since the toggle is for everyone

but the toggle isn't for everyone.  The toggle is only for those players who want to fiddle with that particular aspect of the game's design.

I hope BioWare's telemetry includes details like how many players ever looked in the options menu, because that would place an absolute ceiling on the number of players they could expect to switch a FF toggle.

In Exile wrote...

I don't think it's uncalled for that players would want the difficulty slider to not lie to them.

Then don't let it.  Instead of offering one-word labels (like Hard, or Normal), instead actually tell the players what changes with the different settings.  Then they'll know what the consequences will be.

[Big Blue Car]

Has anyone said 'Think like a General,' ironically yet? I'd like to say Think like a General ironically but don't want to step on anybodies toes.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then don't let it.  Instead of offering one-word labels (like Hard, or Normal), instead actually tell the players what changes with the different settings.  Then they'll know what the consequences will be.

But that could be meaningless for players. If you give them a list of the stastical changes that occur from difficulty to difficulty, they may very well have no way to quantify what that might mean. One-word labels provide important information if you assume the source is credible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

One should never assume a source is credible.

Anyway, that would only be meaningless for players who didn't care to investigate that meaning.  And they're not fiddling with the settings anyway.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 décembre 2010 - 11:53 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

One should never assume a source is credible.

Let's not confuse our is and oughts again. Whatever you think about credible sources, most people take certain sources as credible. This information is valuable to them, and a game drops in quality when it fails to convey such.

Anyway, that would only be meaningless for players who didn't care to investigate that meaning.  And they're not fiddling with the settings anyway.

What does this have to do with the original problem of the need to balance the toggle?

[TucoBenedicto]

The whole thing about "friendly fire being hard to balance" is just bull****.
There are not different balance settings with FF on and off. You don't have to. You have just to balance a game to work properly with FF ON and then put an option to disable it for people who want an easy mode. That's all.

Balancing different difficulty settings around the FF being on or off is just a wrong way to design/balance a combat system.
And it doesn't matter how pompous Amioran sounds advocating this joke of an argument, He's simply and plainly wrong.

Modifié par TucoBenedicto, 18 décembre 2010 - 12:07 .