364 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

TucoBenedicto wrote...
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.

And apparently doing so causes a problem due to the increases in party AoE damage. You can call them filthy liars, but given that they're the ones who have been balancing the game, I for one am inclined to trust them over you.

[TucoBenedicto]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
And apparently doing so causes a problem due to the increases in party AoE damage.

How is this relevant to any level?
If you're playing with FF on, you just don't want to be catched in an ally AOE, if you have it turned off you just don't have to care about it.

Anyway, I can't really say I would praise the balancing expect in any of previous Bioware games, so I'm still thinking it's mostly bollocks.

P.S. I must point the fact that I would probably play the game to the hardest settings anyway, so I don't really care on a personal base... I just think all this mambo jambo about "FF being hard ot balance as a toggle" is ridicolous. 

Modifié par TucoBenedicto, 18 décembre 2010 - 12:38 .

[The Lyons]

Amioran: Yes, I understand how smart and clever you think you are. It is quite charming And I would love to hear more on this subject.

[Tiax Rules All]

FF being on would defeat the whole grab one guy and smash buttons till things are dead mentality of this game. Oh and I DID se the combat video. I just think that the focus and true intent of this game is to hack and slash while pause and play is there because they felt they would doom the game if it wasnt.



TURN FF BACK ON or I will be demanding it in a patch from release date on..

[Ziggeh]

TucoBenedicto wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
And apparently doing so causes a problem due to the increases in party AoE damage.

How is this relevant to any level?

You have a class that, as we understand it, does little else than AoE. If they give you a toggle they might as well label it the "don't bring a two handed warrior" button, having one may profoundly effect difficulty. That's pretty bad design. Clearly with nightmare they're less interested in balance, which is sort of what we asked for.

You might no see that as a problem, and indeed I can see Sylvius' perspective, that the difficulty being in the hands of the player is viable, but that's not the structure that modern games employ, and so would seem outlandish to many.

TucoBenedicto wrote...
Anyway, I can't really say I would praise the balancing expect in any of previous Bioware games, so I'm still thinking it's mostly bollocks.

So you don't think changing things to help them balance would be a good idea at all?

TucoBenedicto wrote...
"FF being hard ot balance as a toggle" is ridicolous.

I'm not sure anyones said that. It's probably not all that hard. It has it's problems, as I mentioned above, but the key element is that it doubles the number of difficulty states and thus the workload. Half the number of options on the difficulty slider would perhaps be an option, but that leaves you with several that have the warrior balance problem and fewer ranges to cover playstyles and ability.

So no, not because "it's hard", but because it's not as simple as turning it off and on.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 18 décembre 2010 - 12:51 .

[In Exile]

TucoBenedicto wrote...

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.

FF is very hard to balance if you want to offer more than one non-FF difficulty setting. Yes, if you wanted to make FF the default and give only one non-FF setting, it would be easy. In fact, it would be exactly the opposite of what DA2 did.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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

It eliminates that need.  The problem with an unbalanced toggle, as you've said, is that the difficulties can then surprise the player.  i'm saying we can avoid that problem by not reducing the different difficulty settings to one-word descriptions, but instead actually enumerating the changes involved in switching from one to the other.

And since I want that enumeration regardless of whether there's a FF toggle, I'm not even adding any design complexity.

[Xewaka]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It eliminates that need.  The problem with an unbalanced toggle, as you've said, is that the difficulties can then surprise the player.  i'm saying we can avoid that problem by not reducing the different difficulty settings to one-word descriptions, but instead actually enumerating the changes involved in switching from one to the other.

And since I want that enumeration regardless of whether there's a FF toggle, I'm not even adding any design complexity.

So something a la Heroes IV, you mean? Where each difficulty explains the amount of handicap the player is given compared to the computers, and which had a toggle for roaming monsters?
I think heroes IV is also an example that difficulties + extra feature toggle works pretty well. It sets a precedent, at least.

[Tiax Rules All]

the Baldurs Gate games had very good descriptions of difficulty settings, Bioware already has done it

[Ziggeh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The problem with an unbalanced toggle, as you've said, is that the difficulties can then surprise the player.  i'm saying we can avoid that problem by not reducing the different difficulty settings to one-word descriptions, but instead actually enumerating the changes involved in switching from one to the other.

It's definitely workable, it just strikes me that professionally they may not want to release something that they may have to place a "gameplay untested" warning on the toggle, or indeed have states that could feasibly be trivial or obscene tricky.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It eliminates that need.  The problem with an unbalanced toggle, as you've said, is that the difficulties can then surprise the player.  i'm saying we can avoid that problem by not reducing the different difficulty settings to one-word descriptions, but instead actually enumerating the changes involved in switching from one to the other.

That doesn't help at all. That just makes each difficulty unclear to the player. You would then require the player to translate something like 20%+ enemy HP into a meaningful relative standard of difficulty, and so long as you have an ordinal ranking, even if you aren't labelling them easy - hard players will assume they are of an order, since features tend to be logically structured in that way.

The only way your system would work is if you have several independent toggles and so the player essentially comes up with their own difficulty.

Of course, this would still need balancing. You can't escape the industry need to create playable content, regardless of what your personal threshold is.

And since I want that enumeration regardless of whether there's a FF toggle, I'm not even adding any design complexity.

...

Since the design does not include the feature and the feature is complex, how does it not add complexity?

[Tiax Rules All]

In Exile wrote...
That doesn't help at all. That just makes each difficulty unclear to the player. ...

Then the player is too dumb to be playing video games.... they should go back to licking toads and stop ruining our gaming

[In Exile]

Tiax Rules All wrote...
Then the player is too dumb to be playing video games.... they should go back to licking toads and stop ruining our gaming

It's good that we have ubermensch like you to point the way.

[Tiax Rules All]

In Exile wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...
Then the player is too dumb to be playing video games.... they should go back to licking toads and stop ruining our gaming

It's good that we have ubermensch like you to point the way.

Its been done before in popular games, what does everybody insist now that people wont understand it.?

my answer.... console gaming.

EDIT: ok im not 100% serious just like 75% serious...

Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 18 décembre 2010 - 02:03 .

[TheCreeper]

Personally I never turned it on so I really can't say I mind the change.

[Gvaz]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

ErichHartmann wrote...

It would be the players fault for flipping on the toggle, lol. 

Furthermore, if a player is too goddamn stupid to realize that he clicked friendly fire on in the options, he should probably not play videogames.

[Ryzaki]

^Honestly if they're that damn stupid they need to sterilze themselves. We have enough morons as is. We don't need people who can't read simple directions polluting the genepool.

Okay that was mean. But still! Come on you really think gamers are that stupid BW? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 18 décembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[Maria Caliban]

Wow, you people are ***hats. There are tons of RPGs and games where there's no friendly fire. It's not as though this is an everyday term and I seriously doubt DA 2 will come with a manual that explains all these things.

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.

Good documentation is good. Civilization gives you a wide range of options under the advanced user screen, but only half of them are actually documented. Do you want your world to start at 5 billion, 4 billion, or 3 billion years of age?

Outside of someone who's majored in earth sciences, I can't imagine anyone would know what to expect when playing with that toggle.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 18 décembre 2010 - 05:50 .

[The Lyons]

"Friendly fire" is a term that is familiar to anyone who has played a FPS and anyone who is playing a RPG should also be familiar with this. Hell, even people who are not gamers and have spent two seconds watching anything about the military should understand the term. It is less confusing than invert Y axis and that has been included in every first person game since the dawn of time. I have yet to hear the cries of outrage as gamers' worlds are turned over and up becomes down and Jesus Christ what is this madness?!



Apparently Bioware really is aiming this game toward complete morons if this is the logic behind the decision.

[The Lyons]

"Friendly fire" is a term that is familiar to anyone who has played a FPS and anyone who is playing a RPG should also be familiar with this. Hell, even people who are not gamers and have spent two seconds watching anything about the military should understand the term. It is less confusing than invert Y axis and that has been included in every first person game since the dawn of time. I have yet to hear the cries of outrage as gamers' worlds are turned over and up becomes down and Jesus Christ what is this madness?!



Apparently Bioware really is aiming this game toward complete morons if this is the logic behind the decision.

[The Lyons]

"Friendly fire" is a term that is familiar to anyone who has played a FPS and anyone who is playing a RPG should also be familiar with this. Hell, even people who are not gamers and have spent two seconds watching anything about the military should understand the term. It is less confusing than invert Y axis and that has been included in every first person game since the dawn of time. I have yet to hear the cries of outrage as gamers' worlds are turned over and up becomes down and Jesus Christ what is this madness?!



Apparently Bioware really is aiming this game toward complete morons if this is the logic behind the decision.

[Crilloan]

TucoBenedicto wrote...

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

consolification ?

C

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Good documentation is good. Civilization gives you a wide range of options under the advanced user screen, but only half of them are actually documented. Do you want your world to start at 5 billion, 4 billion, or 3 billion years of age?

Outside of someone who's majored in earth sciences, I can't imagine anyone would know what to expect when playing with that toggle.

Anyone who remembers Alpha Centauri well would have a pretty good guess.

But yes, that should have been documented.

[omghithere]

4 pages and people still dont get that ff goes with the difficulty of the setting.