174 réponses à ce sujet

[Amioran]

haroldhardluck wrote...
However I will admit that taking it away makes the battles a whole lot easier. My mage can now drop a fireball on himself when surrounded and walk away.

However it is only apparently easier. Encounters difficulty willl be tailored on that context, in fact. Now, if you had encounters tailored with a gamplay with FF and you would remove it then naturally the difficulty will be much much lower. For this a toggle independent from difficulty it's very difficult to do. But this is not the case.

Modifié par Amioran, 24 février 2011 - 11:29 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

dearlyblvd wrote...

Jesus. The only point of friendly fire is to increase the game's difficulty and force you to make less mistakes.

No, the point of friendly fire is to have the game make sense.

If I drop a fireball in a crowd of people, everyone in that crowd should get burned.

[F4d3s]

dearlyblvd wrote...

Jesus. The only point of friendly fire is to increase the game's difficulty and force you to make less mistakes. Just play on nightmare and stop complaining.

how bout realism and common sense?

Modifié par F4d3s, 24 février 2011 - 11:32 .

[F4d3s]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I expect many people will come back after the game is out and say that they beat it on Nightmare and that it was dumbed down.

Indeed, but I suspect that the OP won't be one of them. I could be wrong though.

oh please..

[AtreiyaN7]

F4d3s wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I expect many people will come back after the game is out and say that they beat it on Nightmare and that it was dumbed down.

Indeed, but I suspect that the OP won't be one of them. I could be wrong though.

oh please..

What? I think Nightmare will be a challenge and that you're wrong, but like I said, go right ahead and try it. You can report your findings at a later date.

[Kromex]

Nightmare is the new Easy.

Kind of ironic statement regarding the new generation of players.

[F4d3s]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

F4d3s wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I expect many people will come back after the game is out and say that they beat it on Nightmare and that it was dumbed down.

Indeed, but I suspect that the OP won't be one of them. I could be wrong though.

oh please..

What? I think Nightmare will be a challenge and that you're wrong, but like I said, go right ahead and try it. You can report your findings at a later date.

im not saying nightmare wont be a challenge, im just referring to your commentary about player skills and playing on nightmare, which as nothing to do with with my original point.

[Amioran]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If I drop a fireball in a crowd of people, everyone in that crowd should get burned.

And on what do you base this notion? On reality? On common sense? Both have little to do with complexity of gameplay. There are many things in an rpg gameplay that are not based on those two and all of those who can complain on FF are accustomed to and either think them perfectly logic on the usual rpg gameplay context.

I used the work "accustomed" for a motive, that I've already explained a message or two before.

Modifié par Amioran, 24 février 2011 - 11:50 .

[zazei]

Going to play on Nightmare at first if I can unless it's locked until second play through but the problem seem to be that everything from level one uses AoE and fires are everywhere. First talent spell can be a fireball after all. Probably means friendly fire is going to result in everyone being damaged by everything from time to time.

I just hope friendly fire includes enemies damaging themselves on nightmare as well. Would be stupid if we have to try hard to avoid it while enemy mages spam seas of fire all over the place as usual.

I prefer the old system though. Mages shouldn't be able to cast spells of mass destruction from level 1 just like warriors shouldn't kill 3 enemies at once at start.

Modifié par zazei, 24 février 2011 - 11:51 .

[AtreiyaN7]

F4d3s wrote...


im not saying nightmare wont be a challenge, im just referring to your commentary about player skills and playing on nightmare, which as nothing to do with with my original point.

You used the phrase "dumbed down," not me, in reference to the loss of friendly fire at lower difficulty levels. Since friendly fire s still available, albeit on Nightmare, I hardly think that's accurate, but we can keep arguing over it for the next century if you want. Was I being snarky? Most definitely, and it's because I detest seeing that phrase thrown around all the time as a lazy description.

[Maconbar]

zazei wrote...

Going to play on Nightmare at first if I can unless it's locked until second play through but the problem seem to be that everything from level one uses AoE and fires are everywhere. First talent spell can be a fireball after all. Probably means friendly fire is going to result in everyone being damaged by everything from time to time.

I just hope friendly fire includes enemies damaging themselves on nightmare as well. Would be stupid if we have to try hard to avoid it while enemy mages spam seas of fire all over the place as usual.

I prefer the old system though. Mages shouldn't be able to cast spells of mass destruction from level 1 just like warriors shouldn't kill 3 enemies at once at start.

Nightmare isn't locked.

[Alseif]

I think, they should have a separate option to turn on/off friendly fire no matter what difficulty it is, and just make it so if its on for easy its like 20% damage, normal its 50% damage, Hard its 100% and nightmare full 100% damage and cannot be turn off or somewhere along those line. this why people get to enjoy the hardness/easiness of the difficulties and if they want they can turn FF on or off. of course this will make easy, normal, hard more harder but hey its a choice.

[F4d3s]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

F4d3s wrote...


im not saying nightmare wont be a challenge, im just referring to your commentary about player skills and playing on nightmare, which as nothing to do with with my original point.

You used the phrase "dumbed down," not me, in reference to the loss of friendly fire at lower difficulty levels. Since friendly fire s still available, albeit on Nightmare, I hardly think that's accurate, but we can keep arguing over it for the next century if you want. Was I being snarky? Most definitely, and it's because I detest seeing that phrase thrown around all the time as a lazy description.

ok..ill rephrase then..it seems less cerebral, over simplified and trivialised. The basis of my commentary is that realism and difficulty levels are not correlated, as they weren't in DAO, and they are in DA2, that is all. And I have no problem with people choosing to play whichever way they want, im just hoping its an option across the board.

[F4d3s]

Alseif wrote...

I think, they should have a separate option to turn on/off friendly fire no matter what difficulty it is, and just make it so if its on for easy its like 20% damage, normal its 50% damage, Hard its 100% and nightmare full 100% damage and cannot be turn off or somewhere along those line. this why people get to enjoy the hardness/easiness of the difficulties and if they want they can turn FF on or off. of course this will make easy, normal, hard more harder but hey its a choice.

i think that would make alot of sense and i hope you are right.

Modifié par F4d3s, 25 février 2011 - 12:06 .

[FieryDove]

Alseif wrote...

I think, they should have a separate option to turn on/off friendly fire no matter what difficulty it is, and just make it so if its on for easy its like 20% damage, normal its 50% damage, Hard its 100% and nightmare full 100% damage and cannot be turn off or somewhere along those line. this why people get to enjoy the hardness/easiness of the difficulties and if they want they can turn FF on or off. of course this will make easy, normal, hard more harder but hey its a choice.

They can't do that. It would be no different than a toggle if so many people turn it on not knowing what it does, die repeatedly and quit the game.

[Melness]

F4d3s wrote...

ok..ill rephrase then..it seems less cerebral, over simplified and trivialised. The basis of my commentary is that realism and difficulty levels are not correlated, as they weren't in DAO, and they are in DA2, that is all. And I have no problem with people choosing to play whichever way they want, im just hoping its an option across the board.

Never heard how sarcasm isn't easily detectable in the internet?

There's always misunderstanding in discussions here and there, are those people less cerebral?

And how can you tell, for sure, that you didn't read a DA:O line's intent wrongly?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

And on what do you base this notion? On reality? On common sense?

Hopefully on the in-game explanation of how the Fireball works.

If the Fireball only burns peopple selectively, how are those targets chosen?  By the Fireball?  They're certainly not chosen by the caster, because I wasn't asked.

[errant_knight]

After seeing the way they've done combat, I'm wondering if playing with friendly fire might be next to impossible. I'd planned to play on nightmare just to get that, and the ease of 'normal' didn't disuade me, but I'm thinking that combat might be too fast to even allow it, especially since mage area effects seem to be targeted at the ground instead of individual enemies, and the enemies too numerous. It's pretty clear why they got rid of it. The sheer number of enemies mean that all classes are spamming area effects that doen't touch their allies in an equally unbelievable way.

[F4d3s]

Melness wrote...

F4d3s wrote...

ok..ill rephrase then..it seems less cerebral, over simplified and trivialised. The basis of my commentary is that realism and difficulty levels are not correlated, as they weren't in DAO, and they are in DA2, that is all. And I have no problem with people choosing to play whichever way they want, im just hoping its an option across the board.

Never heard how sarcasm isn't easily detectable in the internet?

There's always misunderstanding in discussions here and there, are those people less cerebral?

And how can you tell, for sure, that you didn't read a DA:O line's intent wrongly?

they made the game less cerebral...READ.

[AtreiyaN7]

F4d3s wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

You used the phrase "dumbed down," not me, in reference to the loss of friendly fire at lower difficulty levels. Since friendly fire s still available, albeit on Nightmare, I hardly think that's accurate, but we can keep arguing over it for the next century if you want. Was I being snarky? Most definitely, and it's because I detest seeing that phrase thrown around all the time as a lazy description.

ok..ill rephrase then..it seems less cerebral, over simplified and trivialised. The basis of my commentary is that realism and difficulty levels are not correlated, as they weren't in DAO, and they are in DA2, that is all. And I have no problem with people choosing to play whichever way they want, im just hoping its an option across the board.

Much better - I approve of the rewording, even though I still disagree. What I think, in all seriousness, is that it would be nice to have a toggle so that people at any level can turn it on or off, but because friendly fire is present on the (supposedly) most difficult and challenging difficulty level, it's still available as an option for anyone who wants it.

I, for one, like friendly fire. However, there were situations in which you had no control over "friendly" NPCs such as Avernus at Soldier's Peak. Most of the time, he ended up nuking my party because there wasn't much room to maneuver and get out of the way during the Sophia fight. Now if there are any situations like that in DA2, then I'm fine with FF being limited to Nightmare because it ticked me off to have an uncontrollable but "friendly" NPC kill my whole party. Again, I would certianly like them to put a toggle in, and maybe you'll see that in the future (they finally did give us a helmet toggle after all).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 25 février 2011 - 12:19 .

[F4d3s]

errant_knight wrote...

After seeing the way they've done combat, I'm wondering if playing with friendly fire might be next to impossible. I'd planned to play on nightmare just to get that, and the ease of 'normal' didn't disuade me, but I'm thinking that combat might be too fast to even allow it, especially since mage area effects seem to be targeted at the ground instead of individual enemies, and the enemies too numerous. It's pretty clear why they got rid of it. The sheer number of enemies mean that all classes are spamming area effects that doen't touch their allies in an equally unbelievable way.

i agree..maybe it is impossible but maybe also this is where (working) tactics such as defensive, passive, ranged, etc would come in? I stress 'working' because obiding by tactics seemed a bit faulty in DAO from what I recall.

[Joy Divison]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

I honestly never saw the appeal with friendly fire; it just seemed to make things unnecessarily harder. I always had it disabled.

I think it has to do something with sharp break from reality that a raging inferno would fry the bad guys and not so much as cause the good guys from breaking a sweat.

[F4d3s]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

F4d3s wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

You used the phrase "dumbed down," not me, in reference to the loss of friendly fire at lower difficulty levels. Since friendly fire s still available, albeit on Nightmare, I hardly think that's accurate, but we can keep arguing over it for the next century if you want. Was I being snarky? Most definitely, and it's because I detest seeing that phrase thrown around all the time as a lazy description.

ok..ill rephrase then..it seems less cerebral, over simplified and trivialised. The basis of my commentary is that realism and difficulty levels are not correlated, as they weren't in DAO, and they are in DA2, that is all. And I have no problem with people choosing to play whichever way they want, im just hoping its an option across the board.

Much better - I approve of the rewording, even though I still disagree. What I think, in all seriousness, is that it would be nice to have a toggle so that people at any level can turn it on or off, but because friendly fire is present on the (supposedly) most difficult and challenging difficulty level, it's still available as an option for anyone who wants it.

I, for one, like friendly fire. However, there were situations in which you had no control over "friendly" NPCs such as Avernus at Soldier's Peak. Most of the time, he ended up nuking my party because there wasn't much room to maneuver and get out of the way during the Sophia fight. Now if there are any situations like that in DA2, then I'm fine with FF being limited to Nightmare because it ticked me off to have an uncontrollable but "friendly" NPC kill my whole party. Again, I would certianly like them to put a toggle in, and maybe you'll see that in the future (they finally did give us a helmet toggle after all).

now here is a great example of getting to a common agreeable ground without having to sling mud

I agree with you and I can see how it can be an issue. Id be happy with even minimal FF damage as someone suggested, im not such a purist that a misplaced fireball will disentegrate my party, i just liked another thing to consider during my battled such as peeking at my tank's health bar for example before nuking the entire area. I also liked having to consider putting points in Dexterity (i think thats it) which kept my tank grounded, etc. It just gave me more elements to consider overall..

[Sylvius the Mad]

errant_knight wrote...

It's pretty clear why they got rid of it.

I think the loss of a free-roaming camera is the bigger impediment.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I, for one, like friendly fire. However, there were situations in which you had no control over "friendly" NPCs such as Avernus at Soldier's Peak.

I don't recall Avernus actually fighting anything.  He just closed the veil while I fought things, and after everything was dead he reported that the veil was now closed.