364 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Peter Thomas wrote...
For reference, here are our current goals for difficulty balance:

Sorry to ask a pedantic question (I might not have other kinds!): When you say "able to", do you mean "this is the difficulty we imagine you'll play on should you play this way" or more "in tests we've managed to do it using that method"?

[andar91]

Thank you for clearing that up, Peter. I'm a little disappointed that Friendly Fire isn't on at least Hard difficulty, but I can see why that would be so considering the way warriors deal AoE damage so easily now. It's good that those who want it can still have it on Nightmare; personally, I enjoy FF without the extreme difficulty of the higher levels, but I'll live.

[Peter Thomas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...
For reference, here are our current goals for difficulty balance:

Sorry to ask a pedantic question (I might not have other kinds!): When you say "able to", do you mean "this is the difficulty we imagine you'll play on should you play this way" or more "in tests we've managed to do it using that method"?

Both, though balancing is an ongoing process which usually lasts right up until release.

[Peter Thomas]

filaminstrel wrote...

Will the warrior's AOE arc damage have FF? That might make warriors a bit of a "Nightmare" to play, but not in a good way.

Warrior basic attacks will have FF on Nightmare, but against party members it will only deal glancing blows (1/10th damage).

[In Exile]

Peter Thomas wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Will the warrior's AOE arc damage have FF? That might make warriors a bit of a "Nightmare" to play, but not in a good way.

Warrior basic attacks will have FF on Nightmare, but against party members it will only deal glancing blows (1/10th damage).

Out of curiosity, what was the rationale for this? Did playtesting show that it was too hard for players to isolate their party members with melee AOE?

[andar91]

In regards to the difficulty, if you don't mind me asking, what variables affect each level respectively? I suppose what I mean is that in Origins, friendly fire was a major factor for difficulty. If FF is only active on one level, I'd assume that other things determine how difficult the game is and whether one needs to play one or all characters optimally or sub-optimally. So does the difficulty affect enemy A.I.? Life? Damage? You see what I'm saying (I hope).

[crimzontearz]

In Exile wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Will the warrior's AOE arc damage have FF? That might make warriors a bit of a "Nightmare" to play, but not in a good way.

Warrior basic attacks will have FF on Nightmare, but against party members it will only deal glancing blows (1/10th damage).

Out of curiosity, what was the rationale for this? Did playtesting show that it was too hard for players to isolate their party members with melee AOE?

too much micromanaging involved I guess...that means you'd never be able to keep 2  DPSers close in a fight or agaisnt a particular nasty non-gigantic boss

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Based on that description, none of the difficultly levels offer me the gameplay I want.

I want friendly fire because I want the game's setting to make sense, but I don't want the combat to be particularly difficult.  DAO's Hard setting offered me exactly what I wanted.

Is there a DA2 setting that has Friendly Fire but doesn't make the combat especially difficult and doesn't give the opponents bonuses (like reduced cooldowns) that are unavailable to the player?  It certainly doesn't look like it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Peter Thomas wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

Will the warrior's AOE arc damage have FF? That might make warriors a bit of a "Nightmare" to play, but not in a good way.

Warrior basic attacks will have FF on Nightmare, but against party members it will only deal glancing blows (1/10th damage).

What about enemies?  Will our opponents be subject to the same friendly fire rules we are?

[Ziggeh]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Both, though balancing is an ongoing process which usually lasts right up until release.

Hmm, I think my question was poorly worded (I'm going to blame the late hour), I'd meant to make the two states mutually exclusive, the second being more along the lines of "Well we had one guy manage it, so it's definitely actually doable. He might have been cheating though."

Not to worry though, I don't have much context to compare either case, was more a curiosity.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 19 décembre 2010 - 04:31 .

[Gill Kaiser]

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.

Sigh.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Based on that description, none of the difficultly levels offer me the gameplay I want.

I want friendly fire because I want the game's setting to make sense, but I don't want the combat to be particularly difficult.  DAO's Hard setting offered me exactly what I wanted.

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.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
it is by no means a complicated issue. Easy mode (presumably) still has dumber enemies, lower enemy stats and whatnot. It's just that with friendly fire on, your party can injure each other with AOE attacks. I see no need to consider anything further in regards to balancing given that FF is completely optional.

Lets say they've put in an encounter that throws spike damage at you. You occasionally have to react quickly to keep everyone on their feet as large amounts of damage comes in very quickly and eases off in cycles.

To make that challenging you need to carefully control that damage, ensure that it's enough to be problematic, but not too much to be overly lethal. Now turn on the toggle. Constant, unavoidable damage to everyone in melee. Suddenly your careful damage is too harsh, because the rate of damage is no longer controlled.

Not at all. For you see, in such a situation, the player would simply say to himself/herself  "I should avoid using AOE attacks, stick the ones which have minimal damage or simply use them cautiously; I should primarily stick to using normal attacks for the duration of this area, unless my part members are positioned outside of  the main combat area." The problem with your example is that it assumes without justification that there would be an area where the player HAD to use AOE attacks.

That's quite an extreme example, but controlling throughput is very much a part of the balancing process, and randomly adding to it defenstrates much of that work. It's not as simple as throwing elements in and letting god sort it out. That's a recipe for poorly designed, inconsistent challenges.

If not for the fact that one doesn't need to constantly use AOE attacks (or use them at all for that matter) or even use them when party members are all clustered together (which will never happen if the player plays wisely), this would be a fine objection and reason to simply dismiss the addition of the toggle altogether.

And there is a reason they're not doing that, they've even given us that reason.

Unless situations like your example are going to be constant and AOE attacks are necessary and party members are constantly clustered together, I'm going to have to disagree with their decision. I've played other games which have had similar features (Halo 2, 3 and Reach. Skulls anyone?) (actually, I take that back as the features were intentionally unbalanced simply for the sake of giving hardcore players the challenge they wanted while simaltaneously pleasing the other part of the audience), so it's not as if the idea I'm favoring is unheard of..

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 19 décembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

David Gaider wrote...

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

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.

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

[In Exile]

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.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

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.

I respect you Mr. Thomas, but I don't like what I'm hearing. There's no reason players should actually have to manage their entire party only on the highest difficulty setting. In DAO, you pretty much had to do that on normal (well, until you figured out how to solo the game on any difficulty, using exploits or broken specializations ). Guess I'm starting the game on nightmare. Fortunately, it plays alot like Origins, so I won't have to worry about getting familiar with the game first. Straight to nightmare.

[mr_luga]

What I want to know if it will be able to tweak the game files to add friendly fire to normal mode/hard mode.



Becouse goodness forbid bioware adds it becouse someone on the planet might not understand what "turning on friendly fire" means, It would be nice if I could add it in by going into the game files.



I had to tweak so much on borderlands to make it playable on a PC, worst port ever.

[Ziggeh]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...]
If not for the fact that one doesn't need to constantly use AOE attacks (or use them at all for that matter) or even use them when party members are all clustered together (which will never happen if the player plays wisely), this would be a fine objection and reason to simply dismiss the addition of the toggle altogether.

Oi vay

And what I'm saying is that there is (apparently, Mike used wording earlier that was less definitive than previous statements on the matter) a spec that uses AOE as it's default attack and in melee, meaning that the option to not use it involves standing a quarter of your party in the corner, and that by definition would almost always use it in range of at least one other party member: the tank.

The player playing wisely involves leaving the dude with the big sword at home. That seems more of a problem than a lack of consistency.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

I'm not sure what you mean about ai, do you mean "doesn't move out of?" So, say, it's only a problem if someone is always in melee range, always doing aoe damage, and the dagger rogues don't realise that them standing in melee would be a bad idea?

If the AI realizes its being bombed by area spells and the people that they are fighting in melee are immune then they should scatter. If the AI doesn’t notice this then you can exploit them with any spamable aoe spell.

I'm probably being dense, but you mean spammable aoe? You're saying having spammable aoe and FF on is the only way to have balance?

Yes unless the AI scatters. It’s an obvious exploit that with the right spell would be an overpowered tactic that would probably trump every other tactic. It did in Fable. Fable had a similar aoe spell that wouldn’t harm any of your allies (escourts, hirlings, and the ocasional partner) or yourself. It didn’t burn too much Will power so you could spam it.

Think about it. You have an aoe spell that you can use often, it does good damage, and you can use it in a crowed, why cast anything else? Like Tuco said. Whats the point in having lighter spells that dont damage allies? You know the game is goig to have powerfull aoe spells.

Modifié par Dorian the Monk of Sune, 19 décembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[tmp7704]

Peter Thomas wrote...

playing (..) optimally

What exactly is the definition of that term when used for the balancing? Is it optimal in the sense of "min-maxed for the best available combination" or something along the lines of "sensible, without oddball broken builds and characters running in gear considerably below their level"?

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 décembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[Ziggeh]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
If the AI realizes its being bombed by area spells and the people that they are fighting in melee are immune then they should scatter. If the AI doesn’t notice this then you can exploit them with any spamable aoe spell.

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.

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
Think about it. You have an aoe spell that you can use often, it does good damage, and you can use it in a crowed.  Why cast anything else? Like Tuco said. Whats the point in having lighter spells that dont damage allies? You know the game is goig to have powerfull aoe spells.

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.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 19 décembre 2010 - 05:17 .

[Ziggeh]

tmp7704 wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...

playing (..) optimally

What exactly is the definition of that term when used for the balancing? Is it optimal in the sense of "min-maxed for the best available combination" or something along the lines of "sensible, without oddball broken builds and characters running in gear considerably below their level"?

Gosh, yes, that's a better question than mine.

[Piecake]

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.