174 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced652]

yo then liek y 4 da:o haz FF on nomal bro? wut?

[Echoes]

mintcar wrote...

I think friendly fire was entirely workable in the Baldur's Gate and even Dragon Age: Origins, but I can't imagine playing with friendly fire in this game. Characters are just too mobile, jumping all over the place. Naah. I think it'll be plenty strategic with the new ability to dodge behind cover and other more MMO-like features, but just don't think friendly fire would work that well.
Playing Baldur's gate, I would just place my tank at one position between the enemies and the rest of my party, then cast grease, tangle and loads of fireballs right in front of him so that the enemies had to walk through that. This was possible due to the slow pace, huge gameplay areas and the fact that the characters would stay in one place, hacking away at their foes.
In this game though, all areas are cramped by comparison, enemies are on you in seconds and characters are moving around when they fight. I wouldn't be so sure the game is easier or less strategic just because there is no friendly fire keeping all that in mind.
In fact, I think it might be a good idea to ballance the game around there not being friendly fire. That way everyone can act simultaniously to defeat foes, and if they ballance it correctly it should still be challanging. I guess it makes setting traps less crusial, though.

I have to respectfully disagree, granted all I have to go off of is the demo. But you go with what information you have right? The demo shows that you can be completely reckless and still do well provided you remember to click heal once in a while. I finished the demo with a rogue just clicking on attack, and clicking quick heal once in a while letting the AI do whatever it wanted. Set up a tactic so they'd heal themselves if below 25% health, besides having to heal myself once in a while I didnt really have to touch the game. It almost played itself. Granted the demo could be unbalanced so to not scare people off, it does seem unusually easy. But that's all I have to go off of, I'd rather not make judgement calls from gameplay videos alone. I hope your right, but with all due respect I don't think you are.

[FieryDove]

Cordyte wrote...

I have to respectfully disagree, granted all I have to go off of is the demo. But you go with what information you have right? The demo shows that you can be completely reckless and still do well provided you remember to click heal once in a while. I finished the demo with a rogue just clicking on attack, and clicking quick heal once in a while letting the AI do whatever it wanted. Set up a tactic so they'd heal themselves if below 25% health, besides having to heal myself once in a while I didnt really have to touch the game. It almost played itself. Granted the demo could be unbalanced so to not scare people off, it does seem unusually easy. But that's all I have to go off of, I'd rather not make judgement calls from gameplay videos alone. I hope your right, but with all due respect I don't think you are.

The devs have stated this game is harder than dao and that nightmare is well good luck I think was the reply. I will wait for the full game and judge myself. I will proably lose on normal with the speed of combat, but the demo was not hard or maybe I have been very lucky.

wowpwnslol wrote...

Friendly fire is a privilege for those players who play nightmare. Want FF? L2P and switch to NM mode. I am tired of scrubs crying about difficulty instead of learning to adjust.

Haha...nice try but no.

Modifié par FieryDove, 25 février 2011 - 04:58 .

[mintcar]

Cordyte wrote...

mintcar wrote...

I think friendly fire was entirely workable in the Baldur's Gate and even Dragon Age: Origins, but I can't imagine playing with friendly fire in this game. Characters are just too mobile, jumping all over the place. Naah. I think it'll be plenty strategic with the new ability to dodge behind cover and other more MMO-like features, but just don't think friendly fire would work that well.
Playing Baldur's gate, I would just place my tank at one position between the enemies and the rest of my party, then cast grease, tangle and loads of fireballs right in front of him so that the enemies had to walk through that. This was possible due to the slow pace, huge gameplay areas and the fact that the characters would stay in one place, hacking away at their foes.
In this game though, all areas are cramped by comparison, enemies are on you in seconds and characters are moving around when they fight. I wouldn't be so sure the game is easier or less strategic just because there is no friendly fire keeping all that in mind.
In fact, I think it might be a good idea to ballance the game around there not being friendly fire. That way everyone can act simultaniously to defeat foes, and if they ballance it correctly it should still be challanging. I guess it makes setting traps less crusial, though.

I have to respectfully disagree, granted all I have to go off of is the demo. But you go with what information you have right? The demo shows that you can be completely reckless and still do well provided you remember to click heal once in a while. I finished the demo with a rogue just clicking on attack, and clicking quick heal once in a while letting the AI do whatever it wanted. Set up a tactic so they'd heal themselves if below 25% health, besides having to heal myself once in a while I didnt really have to touch the game. It almost played itself. Granted the demo could be unbalanced so to not scare people off, it does seem unusually easy. But that's all I have to go off of, I'd rather not make judgement calls from gameplay videos alone. I hope your right, but with all due respect I don't think you are.

...Yet alot of people have complained about the demo being too hard. I think Bioware was very careful about how difficult they made this demo; possibly also the normal difficulty in the final game. But if you're posting in this thread you're playing on at least hard anyway right? And we can't say anything about that yet.

Modifié par mintcar, 25 février 2011 - 04:59 .

[Echoes]

FieryDove wrote...

Cordyte wrote...

I have to respectfully disagree, granted all I have to go off of is the demo. But you go with what information you have right? The demo shows that you can be completely reckless and still do well provided you remember to click heal once in a while. I finished the demo with a rogue just clicking on attack, and clicking quick heal once in a while letting the AI do whatever it wanted. Set up a tactic so they'd heal themselves if below 25% health, besides having to heal myself once in a while I didnt really have to touch the game. It almost played itself. Granted the demo could be unbalanced so to not scare people off, it does seem unusually easy. But that's all I have to go off of, I'd rather not make judgement calls from gameplay videos alone. I hope your right, but with all due respect I don't think you are.

The devs have stated this game is harder than dao and that nightmare is well good luck I think was the reply. I will wait for the full game and judge myself. I will proably lose on normal with the speed of combat, but the demo was not hard or maybe I have been very lucky.

The demo was on normal, and the speed of combat isn't really all that fast. It's faster than DAO but in my opinion its not exactly unmanageable. Like I said I hate to make a judgement based solely on the demo, but everything thus far shows that this game is leagues easier than DAO so I'm hoping DA2 nightmare is like DAO hard. Judging by what I've seen and played, that's probably the case. But I'm not gonna make any final judgements till I can play the full game. But the demo, while still enjoyable, is not what Id call difficult. The demo says its in normal difficulty, so if it's a reflection of normal than normal is easy. So yeah...

[FieryDove]

Cordyte wrote...

The demo was on normal, and the speed of combat isn't really all that fast. It's faster than DAO but in my opinion its not exactly unmanageable. Like I said I hate to make a judgement based solely on the demo, but everything thus far shows that this game is leagues easier than DAO so I'm hoping DA2 nightmare is like DAO hard. Judging by what I've seen and played, that's probably the case. But I'm not gonna make any final judgements till I can play the full game. But the demo, while still enjoyable, is not what Id call difficult. The demo says its in normal difficulty, so if it's a reflection of normal than normal is easy. So yeah...

I have to agree with that.

As far as speed of combat...the controls for PC is not very good. Targeting can be a pain, and when playing a mage trying to fire off an aoe and not being able to because of the cluster of mobs annoys me to no ends. Maybe I'll get the hang of it. Then again maybe not and I won't play mages. At least until a camera mod arrives.

[Haussier]

Cordyte wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Cordyte wrote...

I have to respectfully disagree, granted all I have to go off of is the demo. But you go with what information you have right? The demo shows that you can be completely reckless and still do well provided you remember to click heal once in a while. I finished the demo with a rogue just clicking on attack, and clicking quick heal once in a while letting the AI do whatever it wanted. Set up a tactic so they'd heal themselves if below 25% health, besides having to heal myself once in a while I didnt really have to touch the game. It almost played itself. Granted the demo could be unbalanced so to not scare people off, it does seem unusually easy. But that's all I have to go off of, I'd rather not make judgement calls from gameplay videos alone. I hope your right, but with all due respect I don't think you are.

The devs have stated this game is harder than dao and that nightmare is well good luck I think was the reply. I will wait for the full game and judge myself. I will proably lose on normal with the speed of combat, but the demo was not hard or maybe I have been very lucky.

The demo was on normal, and the speed of combat isn't really all that fast. It's faster than DAO but in my opinion its not exactly unmanageable. Like I said I hate to make a judgement based solely on the demo, but everything thus far shows that this game is leagues easier than DAO so I'm hoping DA2 nightmare is like DAO hard. Judging by what I've seen and played, that's probably the case. But I'm not gonna make any final judgements till I can play the full game. But the demo, while still enjoyable, is not what Id call difficult. The demo says its in normal difficulty, so if it's a reflection of normal than normal is easy. So yeah...

Dao hard was easy.
Anyway I imagine nightmare will be harder this time around what with rogues and warriors capable of FF now. 
Not to mention the lose of the tactical camera means that we will be having trouble with aiming aoe abilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amioran wrote...

That's not the problem. It's very easy to do a mod that changes abilities behaviour to include FF. The problem is that if you do this you will have unpredictable results on the difficulty of encounters. This a serious modder must take in consideration. You cannot post a mod that actually breaks gameplay for those using it.

It wouldn't break gameplay, it would just make the difficulty unpredictable.  And I think everyone knows that (I also think unpredictable difficulty is a positive feature).

I think the biggest reason it would screw up difficulty is because of the way that glancing blows do more damage at lower difficulty levels.  At Nighmare, glancing blows do 10% damage, but on Casual they do 75% damage.  Since melee FF is primarily glancing blows, that would make the FF far more dangerous at low difficulty levels.

But again, as long as the modder documents that, I don't see a problem.  I'd happy release that mod.

[F4d3s]

FieryDove wrote...

Cordyte wrote...

The demo was on normal, and the speed of combat isn't really all that fast. It's faster than DAO but in my opinion its not exactly unmanageable. Like I said I hate to make a judgement based solely on the demo, but everything thus far shows that this game is leagues easier than DAO so I'm hoping DA2 nightmare is like DAO hard. Judging by what I've seen and played, that's probably the case. But I'm not gonna make any final judgements till I can play the full game. But the demo, while still enjoyable, is not what Id call difficult. The demo says its in normal difficulty, so if it's a reflection of normal than normal is easy. So yeah...

I have to agree with that.

As far as speed of combat...the controls for PC is not very good. Targeting can be a pain, and when playing a mage trying to fire off an aoe and not being able to because of the cluster of mobs annoys me to no ends. Maybe I'll get the hang of it. Then again maybe not and I won't play mages. At least until a camera mod arrives.

agree..i found the controls on PC very frustrating compared to Xbox.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FieryDove wrote...
At least until a camera mod arrives.

Based on the demo, the camera is dreadful.

But it's also not behaving entirely how it did in the gameplay videos we've seen, so I wonder if we're not seeing it as it actually is.

In the videos, the camera moves to a higher position above the caster when placing an AoE targeting circle, but in the demo this doesn't happen.

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

FieryDove wrote...
At least until a camera mod arrives.

Based on the demo, the camera is dreadful.

But it's also not behaving entirely how it did in the gameplay videos we've seen, so I wonder if we're not seeing it as it actually is.

In the videos, the camera moves to a higher position above the caster when placing an AoE targeting circle, but in the demo this doesn't happen.

Those were xbox demo's. The camera doesn't move as far or detach when casting an aoe in the PC demo as the xbox one does. I have no idea what the retail version will be like.

[AtreiyaN7]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Ah, well that might explain it. Considering the blood magic research, I didn't trust Avernus because of the visions and the notes, so I decided to keep my options open and play along with Sophia for a bit.

I never thought my opinion of Avernus had much to do with it.  Sophia was still dangerous either way.  I killed her before deciding to let Avernus live.

And he couldn't be equally as dangerous? At the time, I had that information about his grisly experiments and his failed attempt to summon and control demons to go by. One demon, while dangerous, might not be as dangerous as an insane demon-summoning blood mage with a tendency to experiment on his own people. *shrug* Of course, later on I found out he wasn't totally bonkers (also managed to get him to consider the fact that what he'd done was morally reprehensible), so I ended up killing Sophia - heh.

[FieryDove]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

[And he couldn't be equally as dangerous? At the time, I had that information about his grisly experiments and his failed attempt to summon and control demons to go by. One demon, while dangerous, might not be as dangerous as an insane demon-summoning blood mage with a tendency to experiment on his own people. *shrug* Of course, later on I found out he wasn't totally bonkers (also managed to get him to consider the fact that what he'd done was morally reprehensible), so I ended up killing Sophia - heh.

I always exiled him. It was conflicting because he seemed liked he wanted to help (remove bad from taint and thus help all wardens), but the way he went about it...his methods. He really was no better than whatever was possesing Sophia. imho

[Sylvius the Mad]

FieryDove wrote...

Those were xbox demo's. The camera doesn't move as far or detach when casting an aoe in the PC demo as the xbox one does. I have no idea what the retail version will be like.

Apparently (I just learned this in another thread), the camera will be free-roaming when casting AoE spells in the PC version.

[Sereaph502]

Everybody here complains about how X difficulty was too easy, or how the game is being "dumbed down" because a certain feature that not everybody likes isn't forced on everybody, yet give them the choice between combining the "oh so common" complaints of "too easy!" and "I want FF" together? You get people crying about how it's not fair or how they shouldn't have to play on a certain difficulty.



Yeah? Well we people who don't like FF shouldn't be forced to play on casual mode, either. How about that?



People whined about the hardest difficulty in DA:O being too easy, so now DA2's hardest mode is brutal. You got what you wished for, and now you still complain. Hypocrites.

[Echoes]

Sereaph502 wrote...

Everybody here complains about how X difficulty was too easy, or how the game is being "dumbed down" because a certain feature that not everybody likes isn't forced on everybody, yet give them the choice between combining the "oh so common" complaints of "too easy!" and "I want FF" together? You get people crying about how it's not fair or how they shouldn't have to play on a certain difficulty.

Yeah? Well we people who don't like FF shouldn't be forced to play on casual mode, either. How about that?

People whined about the hardest difficulty in DA:O being too easy, so now DA2's hardest mode is brutal. You got what you wished for, and now you still complain. Hypocrites.

Please refrain from making gross generalizations. Also "DA2's hardest mode is brutal" has yet to be seen. All we have to go on is what the devs say, so none of us can really say anything about that. All we can do is assume, I agree that if you dont like FF you shouldnt have been forced to play on casual. But just because you felt cheated last time doesnt mean it should swing back the other way. That's just petty, again all this can be solved with the FF toggle. So everyone can get the difficulty they want with or without FF. There might be someone who wants the hard monsters and bosses of nightmare but not the FF. Just as there might be someone who wants easy monsters but may still want to concider FF, making the strategy for him about not killing himself with AOEs instead of the monsters themselves.

For the record I never complained about the difficulties in DAO, I was fine with them as they were. So refrain from generalizing and calling every pro FF person in this thread or on these boards a hypocrite.

Regards

Cordyte

[Temaperacl]

Sereaph502 wrote...
People whined about the hardest difficulty in DA:O being too easy, so now DA2's hardest mode is brutal. You got what you wished for, and now you still complain. Hypocrites.

Of course, it is not possible that the people who complained about DA:O being too easy are not the same ones complaing about lack of Friendly Fire, is it?

People might not want FF because it makes it easier or harder, but they want it because they like the mechanics better than the "Invincible to your own part" mechanics.

[Echoes]

Temaperacl wrote...

Sereaph502 wrote...
People whined about the hardest difficulty in DA:O being too easy, so now DA2's hardest mode is brutal. You got what you wished for, and now you still complain. Hypocrites.

Of course, it is not possible that the people who complained about DA:O being too easy are not the same ones complaing about lack of Friendly Fire, is it?

People might not want FF because it makes it easier or harder, but they want it because they like the mechanics better than the "Invincible to your own part" mechanics.

I struggle to understand why people think the same people who complained about DAO being easy and the people who are complaining about the FF settings now are mutually inclusive.

[Merced652]

Cordyte wrote...

Temaperacl wrote...

Sereaph502 wrote...
People whined about the hardest difficulty in DA:O being too easy, so now DA2's hardest mode is brutal. You got what you wished for, and now you still complain. Hypocrites.

Of course, it is not possible that the people who complained about DA:O being too easy are not the same ones complaing about lack of Friendly Fire, is it?

People might not want FF because it makes it easier or harder, but they want it because they like the mechanics better than the "Invincible to your own part" mechanics.

I struggle to understand why people think the same people who complained about DAO being easy and the people who are complaining about the FF settings now are mutually inclusive.

Because its a logically fallacy to assume anything, let alone that your assumption is even remotely correct?

[andakmar]

This is a game. Adding or removing friendly fire means nothing to how hard the game is.



No one seems to be complaining that archers can't hit their allies. No one is complaining that giant swipes of the sword don't hit allies right next to the warrior. Hint: in real life the Romans used short thrusting swords so as not to hurt their pals.



Why are spell casters unfairly singled out?



It's a game and as such it's goal is to be FUN. Think about what happened in DA1. We chose spells like mass paralysis. It couldn't hit the party, but made massive brawls winnable. It also slowed down the game and contributed to Orzimmar being 50K hours long. Not fun. Make fights faster and less slog worthy. Making bad guys die faster is more fun. Combat is best when it's short, intense, and deadly. That makes it challenging, but not boring. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that.



Fireballing the tank's feet is weird but so is the archer shooting through him at the mutant dwarf on the other side. As long as combat is fun I can get over weird.

[Echoes]

andakmar wrote...

This is a game. Adding or removing friendly fire means nothing to how hard the game is.

No one seems to be complaining that archers can't hit their allies. No one is complaining that giant swipes of the sword don't hit allies right next to the warrior. Hint: in real life the Romans used short thrusting swords so as not to hurt their pals.

Why are spell casters unfairly singled out?

It's a game and as such it's goal is to be FUN. Think about what happened in DA1. We chose spells like mass paralysis. It couldn't hit the party, but made massive brawls winnable. It also slowed down the game and contributed to Orzimmar being 50K hours long. Not fun. Make fights faster and less slog worthy. Making bad guys die faster is more fun. Combat is best when it's short, intense, and deadly. That makes it challenging, but not boring. Familiarity breeds contempt and all that.

Fireballing the tank's feet is weird but so is the archer shooting through him at the mutant dwarf on the other side. As long as combat is fun I can get over weird.

I always assumed friendly fire meant everyone, not just spell casters. I'd expect friendly fire to mean archers and warriors. Meaning I'd have to make sure my warriors werent clumped together and tagging each other, or my archer doesnt rain arrows on my head.

So whenever I talked about friendly fire, I meant for everyone not just the mages.

[nicodeemus327]

Ha. I've been playing the demo the whole time assuming friendly fire was turned on. I guess it won't take too much adjustment.

[FieryDove]

Sereaph502 wrote...

Everybody here complains about how X difficulty was too easy, or how the game is being "dumbed down" because a certain feature that not everybody likes isn't forced on everybody, yet give them the choice between combining the "oh so common" complaints of "too easy!" and "I want FF" together? You get people crying about how it's not fair or how they shouldn't have to play on a certain difficulty.

Yeah? Well we people who don't like FF shouldn't be forced to play on casual mode, either. How about that?

People whined about the hardest difficulty in DA:O being too easy, so now DA2's hardest mode is brutal. You got what you wished for, and now you still complain. Hypocrites.

Um yes, since everyone here must have complained about too easy that is why the dao patches made the game easier? I don't follow but ok.

Cordyte said it best so no need to repeat.

[soteria]

andakmar wrote...

This is a game. Adding or removing friendly fire means nothing to how hard the game is.

Untrue. Removing friendly fire makes the game significantly easier as it allows you to use powerful aoe attacks indiscriminately. For example, paralysis explosion caused friendly fire and would have been far more powerful without it. Keeping enemies inside an AOE and allies outside of it takes thought--that's where the increased difficulty comes in.

No one seems to be complaining that archers can't hit their allies. No one is complaining that giant swipes of the sword don't hit allies right next to the warrior. Hint: in real life the Romans used short thrusting swords so as not to hurt their pals.

Actually, as I understand it, warriors do hit allies now with glancing blows if they're in the way. It's true that archers don't hit allies with normal attacks, but contrary to what you seem to be saying, implementing that would also increase the difficulty of the game (at least, if you were playing an archer).

[Ares_mito]

Friendly fire is one of the most hated and most amusing thing in strategy mode, it gives a taste of reality.