48 réponses à ce sujet

[SLPr0]

Mordaedil wrote...

So, how many people would pay for it? How much resources do you really believe goes into circumventing the engine to change it's general purpose without exploiting the flow of battle?

You say you are a developer yourself, but your request lacks the insight valued to giving you more credence than someone who has only worked on flash games.

What exactly is your experience so you can better educate Bioware on how they carry their business and invest their resources so they can make the perfect game for you?

I'm an experienced XNA/XUI/XML/SQL/PHP developer. I do have a licensed copy of Flash CS4, but I've never used it outside the creation of interactive web elements.

I've done UI mods for just about every XML editable game there is including World of Warcraft.

I currently run and have run for the last 5 years or so, a hybrid proprietary scripting language game in a virtual world environment bridged to a MYSQL/PHP external server interface that I built myself that services around 90,000 players in real time every day. And I make a pretty fair independent living doing so.

I've already looked over the config files for DA:O and determined that their XUI is expandable but unfortunately the class definitions for expanding their key map are not a moddable resource, that is something their XUI development team would have to do. But I also know its something their XUI development team could do in 24 - 72 hours as its not exactly bleeding edge development, its been done in hundreds of other games, this is a simple patch that hardly does anything but utilize developers that are on hand for this project right now and are simply not doing all that much except sitting around playing ODST while the creative team is busy with DLC development.

Seriously with BioWare's resources, if I was involved, I could have this patch done....today, and in QA by tommorrow morning.

You're acting like I'm asking for them to "change the game" in the same tone of voice someone would use in concurrence with "part the Red Sea", all I'm asking them to do is have one of their XUI devs crack open the XUI class files and expand the key mapping var definitions, then write an updated config file. This is like....childs play for the people they have working for them. Theres probably a guy in their interface division that could do it while eating a sandwich on his lunch break in between beta sessions of SWTOR.

[Avispex]

Let's just say, for argument's sake that the game is absolutely excellent as is, and id just like the designers wanted. GRRRRRRRRRREAT!
There is absolutely nothing about adding additional options to the game that changes it from exactly what it is today for those who like exactly that. There are already plenty of options built in because, guess what? Yes, that's right, the developers and designers already recognize and respect the fact that different people like to play the game in different ways and that ever player brings their own preferences and tastes to the experience. Now, if only the fanbois on this freaking forum could have at least that level of emotional security so they weren't in constant guard dog mode.

Modifié par Avispex, 29 novembre 2009 - 05:22 .

[orpheus333]

I'm not sure what you want to implement SLPr0 would make DA:O significantly better. Nor given its current combat mechanics make it particularly useful. Having the ability to create more key bindings that basically produce the effects available in the tactics menu on demand is just adding functionality that already exists to a certain extent through the tactics interface. Infact the tactics system is better in this case in that all characters when not active will select targets automatically without the need for a hotkey.

I like the idea in general (scriptable hot keys for specific tactics would be useful) i just don't think its really relevant in this case. You're just adding controls for something that already exists through the tactics system. DA:O can be played with a more action orientated approuch through sophisticated tactics and AI selections and having played it that way myself the it works very well.

Your points about the combat system being unresponsive and unable to keep up just don't ring true for me. The reason that pause can be necessary is that i can't keep up with the flow of combat. I need that pausing time to descide what is coming next and what needs to be done about it. Not because the system itself doesn't give me the option to act quickly and efficiantly of the cuff.

Having said that i do think they could have made tactics far more user-friendly to set up and use.

Modifié par andyr1986, 29 novembre 2009 - 05:40 .

[SLPr0]

These controls do exist via the tactics system but are not relevant to a controlled character.

Yes I can tell a character to attack the nearest target via tactics, but if I'm in control of that character I have to fish around with the pointer and find the target I'm looking for in the mass of targets I'm dealing with, its inefficient, it slows down party DPS, in some cases I've actually completely missed the target clicking the ground somewhere behind them and my total addition to party damage goes completely in the toilet for the few seconds I'm busy running to the new position for absolutely no reason...then I have to reorient my camera, find the target again and click on it properly to get back involved.

What reasonable realistic explanation for this is there in "strategy"? Why would a highly trained Grey Warden bumble aimlessly across 10 meters of a battlefield for no reason other than the presence of a targetting mechanic that is inefficient for the fast and furious battles that occur?

It would be far simpler, especially playing in third person mode, if I could hit Q and select the nearest target or cycle through targets, then hit E and attack the selected target, then use my hotkeyed abilities in the usual button mashing fashion....the foot circle cursors are already there, all you need is to either highlight the selected circle target or remove the circles entirely except for your selected target (more immersive imho).

I lose far less time that way my contribution to party damage is more accurate and it allows me to utilize keys that aren't being used for anything that could allow me to play the game more smoothly without the need for constant pausing...especially if I've set up my NPC tactics fairly efficiently and they don't need my constant oversight to ensure they're not doing something idiotic...like...casting VWB or Fireball into a mass of enemies containing me and Alistair for example.

So as stated, this isn't a gigantic change to dynamics this is simply a refinement of functions already present and in use, just inefficiently propagated in the interface.

Its basically the giving the option, in Game Options to "Use NWN Style Interface/Use FPS style Interface/Use MMO style interface".

Giving players options is not a bad thing, its a good thing, options = more players, more players = more money.

And everyone likes money.

[orpheus333]

SLPr0 wrote...

These controls do exist via the tactics system but are not relevant to a controlled character.

Yes I can tell a character to attack the nearest target via tactics, but if I'm in control of that character I have to fish around with the pointer and find the target I'm looking for in the mass of targets I'm dealing with, its inefficient, it slows down party DPS, in some cases I've actually completely missed the target clicking the ground somewhere behind them and my total addition to party damage goes completely in the toilet for the few seconds I'm busy running to the new position for absolutely no reason...then I have to reorient my camera, find the target again and click on it properly to get back involved.

What reasonable realistic explanation for this is there in "strategy"? Why would a highly trained Grey Warden bumble aimlessly across 10 meters of a battlefield for no reason other than the presence of a targetting mechanic that is inefficient for the fast and furious battles that occur?

It would be far simpler, especially playing in third person mode, if I could hit Q and select the nearest target or cycle through targets, then hit E and attack the selected target, then use my hotkeyed abilities in the usual button mashing fashion....the foot circle cursors are already there, all you need is to either highlight the selected circle target or remove the circles entirely except for your selected target (more immersive imho).

I lose far less time that way my contribution to party damage is more accurate and it allows me to utilize keys that aren't being used for anything that could allow me to play the game more smoothly without the need for constant pausing...especially if I've set up my NPC tactics fairly efficiently and they don't need my constant oversight to ensure they're not doing something idiotic...like...casting VWB or Fireball into a mass of enemies containing me and Alistair for example.

So as stated, this isn't a gigantic change to dynamics this is simply a refinement of functions already present and in use, just inefficiently propagated in the interface.

Its basically the giving the option, in Game Options to "Use NWN Style Interface/Use FPS style Interface/Use MMO style interface".

Giving players options is not a bad thing, its a good thing, options = more players, more players = more money.

And everyone likes money.

Ahh you see I play with a more party based view. I never normally stick with one character during combats and so never have that experiance really. Switching alot gives the tactics system a chance to actually work while i do more important things that can't be achieved with tactics alone. Positioning spells etc. 

You're right for how you play and others as well i'm sure a system like the KoToR games in the third person camera would be beneficial. For me in this case its a mod/patch i wouldn't see being necessary. I was abit surprised that they didn't have a KoToR style targetting system. Only it actually irritated me in KoToR that i couldn't have an isometric view, personally i thought it lacked finesse.

[SLPr0]

andyr1986 wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

These controls do exist via the tactics system but are not relevant to a controlled character.

Yes I can tell a character to attack the nearest target via tactics, but if I'm in control of that character I have to fish around with the pointer and find the target I'm looking for in the mass of targets I'm dealing with, its inefficient, it slows down party DPS, in some cases I've actually completely missed the target clicking the ground somewhere behind them and my total addition to party damage goes completely in the toilet for the few seconds I'm busy running to the new position for absolutely no reason...then I have to reorient my camera, find the target again and click on it properly to get back involved.

What reasonable realistic explanation for this is there in "strategy"? Why would a highly trained Grey Warden bumble aimlessly across 10 meters of a battlefield for no reason other than the presence of a targetting mechanic that is inefficient for the fast and furious battles that occur?

It would be far simpler, especially playing in third person mode, if I could hit Q and select the nearest target or cycle through targets, then hit E and attack the selected target, then use my hotkeyed abilities in the usual button mashing fashion....the foot circle cursors are already there, all you need is to either highlight the selected circle target or remove the circles entirely except for your selected target (more immersive imho).

I lose far less time that way my contribution to party damage is more accurate and it allows me to utilize keys that aren't being used for anything that could allow me to play the game more smoothly without the need for constant pausing...especially if I've set up my NPC tactics fairly efficiently and they don't need my constant oversight to ensure they're not doing something idiotic...like...casting VWB or Fireball into a mass of enemies containing me and Alistair for example.

So as stated, this isn't a gigantic change to dynamics this is simply a refinement of functions already present and in use, just inefficiently propagated in the interface.

Its basically the giving the option, in Game Options to "Use NWN Style Interface/Use FPS style Interface/Use MMO style interface".

Giving players options is not a bad thing, its a good thing, options = more players, more players = more money.

And everyone likes money.

Ahh you see I play with a more party based view. I never normally stick with one character during combats and so never have that experiance really. Switching alot gives the tactics system a chance to actually work while i do more important things that can't be achieved with tactics alone. Positioning spells etc. 

You're right for how you play and others as well i'm sure a system like the KoToR games in the third person camera would be beneficial. For me in this case its a mod/patch i wouldn't see being necessary. I was abit surprised that they didn't have a KoToR style targetting system. Only it actually irritated me in KoToR that i couldn't have an isometric view, personally i thought it lacked finesse.

And I completely understand your style of play, I have no problem with the multi-character approach, I just tend to play with a focus on my "hero" and I set up my party as mostly NPC support unless something vital comes up that I need to take direct control of them for.

The proposed XUI additions would simply allow for "hero centric" play which is more efficient, which is what a lot of fantasy RPG players are used to, which would expand the titles overall market appeal and draw in more and more people to the title and its future licensed releases. And leaves intact the ability for multi-character management play to still be more than viable with the tools currently on hand.

So I'm not asking to change how you play the game, I'm simply asking for the game to be a bit more flexible to a players given style of play, thusly making it more accessible to all kinds of players.

Thats not a bad thing...especially if they really ride the Dragon Age horse as far as I hope they'll ride it, which is well past a sequel.

[SLPr0]

I think the largest problem with the social site is the lack of credence a post that proposes a non-argumentative positive idea has in the face of a post from an obvious troll.



I mean not that it really makes a gigantic difference to me but you'd think people that actually cared about the game would be discussing topics like this one and other constructive suggestions rather than throwing 1800 replies at someone who simply insults everyone that responds to them.



But thats the internet, and forums for you, I guess, I hope someone at BioWare at least gets a dump of good suggestions, or, would, in time, potentially put in a suggestions forum which weeds through the variant ideas and opinions everyone has.



Free ideas are money in the bank if they're feasible and don't divert a project's focus.

[Seclus]

Bioware had to scrap the queue as it was not functioning smoothly as they wanted causing unneeded frustration. I wish I had the link to the thread for this part.



I do agree with the UI improvements. If it can not be modded by people of the comunity maybe Bioware should release a toolset to help modders fix this or make a possible patch/mod for poeple who would this style of play. I would perfer having a hotkeyed target button. and a multi toolbars would be make organization on each bar more efficent.

[Inarai]

So, suddenly the ARPG subgenre is the only way RPG's can be?



That's ridiculous.

[Inarai]

So, suddenly the ARPG subgenre is the only way RPG's can be?



That's ridiculous.

[SLPr0]

Seclus wrote...

Bioware had to scrap the queue as it was not functioning smoothly as they wanted causing unneeded frustration. I wish I had the link to the thread for this part.

I do agree with the UI improvements. If it can not be modded by people of the comunity maybe Bioware should release a toolset to help modders fix this or make a possible patch/mod for poeple who would this style of play. I would perfer having a hotkeyed target button. and a multi toolbars would be make organization on each bar more efficent.

To all my observational evidence at this time the XUI elements that would need to be modifable to make these changes at the community level are not, as stated, modifiable.

Which is why I'm sort of bouncing this ball back towards BioWare, its not something a "modder" can do with a toolset.

[Key Bindings]
SelectPartyMember1_0=Keyboard::Button_F1
SelectPartyMember1_1=(UNASSIGNED)
SelectPartyMember2_0=Keyboard::Button_F2
SelectPartyMember2_1=(UNASSIGNED)
SelectPartyMember3_0=Keyboard::Button_F3
SelectPartyMember3_1=(UNASSIGNED)
SelectPartyMember4_0=Keyboard::Button_F4
SelectPartyMember4_1=(UNASSIGNED)
SelectPartyMember1Inclusive_0=Shift + Keyboard::Button_F1
SelectPartyMember1Inclusive_1=(UNASSIGNED)
SelectPartyMember2Inclusive_0=Shift + Keyboard::Button_F2
SelectPartyMember2Inclusive_1=(UNASSIGNED)
SelectPartyMember3Inclusive_0=Shift + Keyboard::Button_F3
SelectPartyMember3Inclusive_1=(UNASSIGNED)
SelectPartyMember4Inclusive_0=Shift + Keyboard::Button_F4
SelectPartyMember4Inclusive_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleFullPartySelect_0=Keyboard::Button_Equals
ToggleFullPartySelect_1=Control + Keyboard::Button_A
SwapWeaponSets_0=Keyboard::Button_Z
SwapWeaponSets_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleCharacterRecord_0=Keyboard::Button_C
ToggleCharacterRecord_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleJournal_0=Keyboard::Button_J
ToggleJournal_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleInventory_0=Keyboard::Button_I
ToggleInventory_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleSkills_0=Keyboard::Button_K
ToggleSkills_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleSpellsTalents_0=Keyboard::Button_P
ToggleSpellsTalents_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleMap_0=Keyboard::Button_M
ToggleMap_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleWorldMap_0=Keyboard::Button_N
ToggleWorldMap_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleMainMenu_0=Keyboard::Button_Escape
ToggleMainMenu_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleTactics_0=Keyboard::Button_Backslash
ToggleTactics_1=(UNASSIGNED)
TogglePause_0=Keyboard::Button_Space
TogglePause_1=(UNASSIGNED)
QuickSave_0=Keyboard::Button_F5
QuickSave_1=(UNASSIGNED)
QuickLoad_0=Keyboard::Button_F9
QuickLoad_1=(UNASSIGNED)
HighlightObjects_0=Keyboard::Button_Tab
HighlightObjects_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot1_0=Keyboard::Button_1
ActivateQuickslot1_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot2_0=Keyboard::Button_2
ActivateQuickslot2_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot3_0=Keyboard::Button_3
ActivateQuickslot3_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot4_0=Keyboard::Button_4
ActivateQuickslot4_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot5_0=Keyboard::Button_5
ActivateQuickslot5_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot6_0=Keyboard::Button_6
ActivateQuickslot6_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot7_0=Keyboard::Button_7
ActivateQuickslot7_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot8_0=Keyboard::Button_8
ActivateQuickslot8_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot9_0=Keyboard::Button_9
ActivateQuickslot9_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ActivateQuickslot10_0=Keyboard::Button_0
ActivateQuickslot10_1=(UNASSIGNED)
Screenshot_0=Keyboard::Button_Sysrq
Screenshot_1=(UNASSIGNED)
OpenConsole_0=Keyboard::Button_Grave
OpenConsole_1=(UNASSIGNED)
HideMainInterface_0=Keyboard::Button_V
HideMainInterface_1=Alt + Keyboard::Button_Z
PanCameraUp_0=Keyboard::Button_Up
PanCameraUp_1=(UNASSIGNED)
PanCameraDown_0=Keyboard::Button_Down
PanCameraDown_1=(UNASSIGNED)
PanCameraLeft_0=Keyboard::Button_Left
PanCameraLeft_1=(UNASSIGNED)
PanCameraRight_0=Keyboard::Button_Right
PanCameraRight_1=(UNASSIGNED)
RunCharacterForward_0=Keyboard::Button_W
RunCharacterForward_1=(UNASSIGNED)
RunCharacterBackward_0=Keyboard::Button_S
RunCharacterBackward_1=(UNASSIGNED)
RunCharacterLeft_0=Keyboard::Button_Q
RunCharacterLeft_1=(UNASSIGNED)
RunCharacterRight_0=Keyboard::Button_E
RunCharacterRight_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ToggleRunWalk_0=Keyboard::Button_X
ToggleRunWalk_1=(UNASSIGNED)
MoveCameraLeft_0=Keyboard::Button_A
MoveCameraLeft_1=Shift + Keyboard::Button_A
MoveCameraRight_0=Keyboard::Button_D
MoveCameraRight_1=Shift + Keyboard::Button_D
PanCamera_0=Mouse::MiddleClick
PanCamera_1=(UNASSIGNED)
ZoomIn_0=Mouse::WheelUp
ZoomIn_1=Keyboard::Button_Next
ZoomOut_0=Mouse::WheelDown
ZoomOut_1=Keyboard::Button_Prior
ToggleHoldParty_0=Keyboard::Button_H
ToggleHoldParty_1=(UNASSIGNED)
TeleportPlayer--DEBUG_0=Keyboard::Button_T
TeleportPlayer--DEBUG_1=(UNASSIGNED)

This is the keybinds config, its defined functions I believe are locked in the daoriginsgdf.dll, and I'm not even sure of that as yet to be honest but I know that this config is not XML editable, there is no way to edit or add to these functions that is directly accessible to someone that knows what they're looking for. So these vars have to be defined in game dll format which is not going to be easily modified by a 3rd party at all, and is why BioWare would have to consider this as an expansion of their control scheme and not look to modders to develop it for them.

Simple facts are this XUI is not even a true XUI its built in Adobe Air which is like arcane magic at this point to modders and XML developers...also a program I don't have and I should probably get.

[SLPr0]

Inarai wrote...

So, suddenly the ARPG subgenre is the only way RPG's can be?

That's ridiculous.

You haven't read the post at all.

What I'm saying is DA:O can do both, with a minimal investment of time and resources on BioWare's part.

Right now its attempting to do both, but the ARPG element is clunky and frustrating, and the SRPG element is only barely living up to its name since all its play is reactive, not strategic, in nature.

[Inarai]

SLPr0 wrote...

Inarai wrote...

So, suddenly the ARPG subgenre is the only way RPG's can be?

That's ridiculous.

You haven't read the post at all.

What I'm saying is DA:O can do both, with a minimal investment of time and resources on BioWare's part.

Right now its attempting to do both, but the ARPG element is clunky and frustrating, and the SRPG element is only barely living up to its name since all its play is reactive, not strategic, in nature.

Did you or did you not say that the RPG world was moving towards being more action-oriented?

Dragon Age is designed to be a Tactical RPG.  It is fairly good at that - could be better, certainly (Combat has always been a bit of a weak point for Bioware), but the point stands.  It is not, and should not be an Action RPG, even if as you say it could be both.  Trying to serve bother would consume time that could be better spent on new content or improving it's core elements.

[SLPr0]

Inarai wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

Inarai wrote...

So, suddenly the ARPG subgenre is the only way RPG's can be?

That's ridiculous.

You haven't read the post at all.

What I'm saying is DA:O can do both, with a minimal investment of time and resources on BioWare's part.

Right now its attempting to do both, but the ARPG element is clunky and frustrating, and the SRPG element is only barely living up to its name since all its play is reactive, not strategic, in nature.

Did you or did you not say that the RPG world was moving towards being more action-oriented?

Dragon Age is designed to be a Tactical RPG.  It is fairly good at that - could be better, certainly (Combat has always been a bit of a weak point for Bioware), but the point stands.  It is not, and should not be an Action RPG, even if as you say it could be both.  Trying to serve bother would consume time that could be better spent on new content or improving it's core elements.

Serving both is a days work for their interface team. You don't understand the miniscule scale this adaptation would take, the elements are already there they just need new keymap definitions written in the dll thats handling the UI and a new keyconfig file. This is not world shaking, bleeding edge development we're talking about.

And its most definitely trying to be both an action and tactical RPG, as you admit the tactical side could be better, I am simply saying the action side could be better too.

As stated further back in the thread, in a question about 2 handed warrior development thread, a BioWare dev specifically stated that the intention of the 2 handed dynamic was not to work off auto-attacks and strategy but to build a 2 handed warrior based around strength and willpower so you could spam your special attacks as fast as your cooldowns would allow for. That to me is confirmation of the game attempting to do both.

And in my opinion, right now, its doing neither very spectacularly. Both are....adequate, attempting to reuse the same tools for both styles, the problem is, the click to attack/pause and queue/top down view stuff is all adequate for the tactical RPG element, but, leaves the action RPG element attempting to manage the game with the same tools.

As someone else said, its like trying to play WoW with a broken interface, in regards to the ARPG side of the game, and for the tactical side of the game, its like playing a game in stop motion video due to the one action queue.

So, its not doing either side well, and all it takes its some focus on BioWare's part to ensure that it addresses both and thusly makes the game accessible to all styles of players under the same title.

Which as I've argued, is hardly a bad thing. More players = more money = faster development. Everyone wins from small adjustments like this.

[Inarai]

Ah, but, here's the thing: If they make a point to make the game have more of an ARPG side, suddenly when they try improving things they have to serve both, splitting their time - and nobody wins.



You're not thinking long term. This goes beyond immediate implementation. And I

[Inarai]

Ah, but, here's the thing: If they make a point to make the game have more of an ARPG side, suddenly when they try improving things they have to serve both, splitting their time - and nobody wins.



You're not thinking long term. This goes beyond immediate implementation. And I know the post of which you speak, that was a mod and not a dev. Big difference. So, your "confirmation" is worth nothing.



There isn't an ARPG side of the game beyond the incidental fact that it isn't turn-based. In fact, it doesn't WORK on the harder difficulties. It should tell you something that they said that if you want to play that way you should play easy.



My main concerns though, are as follows:

- Long term support: You can't just implement something and leave it.

- Expectations: If they implemented your suggestion, we can assume that ARPGers would expect the game to cater to them, which it is not designed to do. Changing that would be bad for the tactical audience it's meant to cater to.



It's more than just the immediate, you have to look down the road.

[SLPr0]

Inarai wrote...

Ah, but, here's the thing: If they make a point to make the game have more of an ARPG side, suddenly when they try improving things they have to serve both, splitting their time - and nobody wins.

You're not thinking long term. This goes beyond immediate implementation. And I

Seems you hit enter a bit early.

This splits no ones time. An experienced UI dev that knows the Adobe Air suite could have this done on their lunch break and in QA by close of business.

As stated the tactical RPG tools are there, the problem with tactical play is there are no tactical situations, everythings played out in shoeboxes where the agro mechanic or cinematic trumps all pre-planning, so the tactical play is simply reactive pausing and queuing abilities and hoping all goes well.

But the tools are there and they're adequate for tactical RPG play.

The keybind functions needed for ARPG play are not there, and are not a gigantic endevor to enable, the functions are already there in the code classes they just need to be minorly modified propagated to the keymap config.

[Inarai]

Not sure what the hell happened there, there's a non-cutoff post following it.



And you're missing the central point entirely.

[Jordi B]

SLPr0 wrote...

I think the largest problem with the social site is the lack of credence a post that proposes a non-argumentative positive idea has in the face of a post from an obvious troll.

I mean not that it really makes a gigantic difference to me but you'd think people that actually cared about the game would be discussing topics like this one and other constructive suggestions rather than throwing 1800 replies at someone who simply insults everyone that responds to them.

But thats the internet, and forums for you, I guess, I hope someone at BioWare at least gets a dump of good suggestions, or, would, in time, potentially put in a suggestions forum which weeds through the variant ideas and opinions everyone has.

Free ideas are money in the bank if they're feasible and don't divert a project's focus.

I think your main problem is that not everybody may understand what you want very well. I consider myself to have a pretty firm grasp of the English language (even though it's not my own), but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying in some of your posts (including the one I'm quoting, although I get the gist). This might be further exacerbated by the fact that most people likely don't know what XUI elements are and what you want to do with them etc. Also, I feel like this topic is relatively troll-free, but you seem to overreact slightly to anyone that disagrees with you. It might just be me though.

Anyway, if I understand correctly, what you are asking for is not actually a game patch, but a toolset patch. You want to mod the changes you're talking about yourself, but BioWare didn't make everything moddable, so you're stuck. What you are asking for is for BioWare to make more aspects of the game moddable, effectively making the toolset more powerful. Or did I misunderstand again? If this is what you are truly asking for, then maybe phrasing it like you ask for an increase in toolset power, rather than for a patch to the game, might have gotten you more sympathy. In any case, I don't think the changes you want to make are necessary and I wouldn't use them, but I see no harm in BioWare opening up the game more for mods, so if they do that for you, then great!

I would also like to respond to your observation that more (WoW) players = more money. I think this is part of what scares a lot of players. It seems like BioWare is pretty much the only studio that makes these tacticalish RPGs (and it doesn't matter that it's not full-on 100% tactical, because for a lot of people this seems to be pretty close to the perfect blend). Most RPGs nowadays are action RPGs. Probably that's where the money is. The problem now is that if BioWare starts making patches that cater to this larger audience in order to get more money (which is a perfectly valid business incentive), then what is to stop them from making WoW 2 instead of Dragon Age 2? Or maybe it's less dramatic, but next time they'll put in the action-enhancing gameplay you seem to want from the start and the game will be designed around that and (even) less around tactical play. We have waited many years for an RPG like this and in the mean time there have been lots of action RPGs. I think that's why the mentality towards change in this community is often somewhat hostile. "If you want to play an action RPG, play one of those other gazilion games, but leave the one game/developer alone so in the future we can still get games like this one." Whether this concern is legitimate is debatable, but it is my explanation.

[SLPr0]

Inarai wrote...

Ah, but, here's the thing: If they make a point to make the game have more of an ARPG side, suddenly when they try improving things they have to serve both, splitting their time - and nobody wins.

You're not thinking long term. This goes beyond immediate implementation. And I know the post of which you speak, that was a mod and not a dev. Big difference. So, your "confirmation" is worth nothing.

There isn't an ARPG side of the game beyond the incidental fact that it isn't turn-based. In fact, it doesn't WORK on the harder difficulties. It should tell you something that they said that if you want to play that way you should play easy.

My main concerns though, are as follows:
- Long term support: You can't just implement something and leave it.
- Expectations: If they implemented your suggestion, we can assume that ARPGers would expect the game to cater to them, which it is not designed to do. Changing that would be bad for the tactical audience it's meant to cater to.

It's more than just the immediate, you have to look down the road.

Uh whats wrong with the game catering to both? The ARPG audience is a much larger audience than the tactical RPG audience.

Do you really think BioWare wants to peddle this IP to a niche game demographic? I sure wouldn't, if I was part of the development leads on this project I'd be looking at every way I could to bring in every RPG player demographic I could, especially if I intended to use this IP as a long term profit platform.

The game is already catering to ARPG audiences in a fashion its just not giving them the tools they need to play in their style very well. The simple addition of control variants in the PC version, is hardly a diversion of resources that would be wasted, nor would it do much harm other than making the title even better than it already is by making it easy access to differing styles of RPG player.

You're not thinking long term. If things remain as they are the games appeal will eventually wane once the new wears off, and there will be the hardcore Baldur's Gate Worshippers that will stick around and the ARPG crowd will wander off else where, taking their money with them. And thats not good for DA, BioWare, EA or any of the players that are wanting to see this IP flourish and be one of the most epic games of all time.

Allowing for control schemes to cater to variant play styles simply allows the title to be open to players that enjoy variant genres under the same title. Which to me is a great achievement and cements the titles marketability into the future.

And keymap expansion hardly requires long term support. Once its there, its there, you can opt to use it, or not, depending on how you want to play. Tactical RPG players lose nothing, but gain the ARPG audience and its money to help support a title they're so ardently attempting to defend in a rather strangely territorial fashion.

[Inarai]

The problem there is that you split resources. This game was designed to cater to the TacRPG crowd. You may not get the logic of it, but it's actually a smart move, given that this sort of game has not been around for a while. Not that that is at all relevant to this discussion.



You seem to think games are developed solely as profit engines - but when that does happen, the near-inevitable result is a bad game and no profit.



I also think you're wrong about the relative size of the markets, but that's a different story. Keep in mind, though, that most players aren't exclusive to one sub-genre or another, whatever preferences they may have, and at the end of the day quality will do more than just about anything else to bring in players.



But you act like somehow the game either gets ARPG-exclusive players(and come on, how many of those can there be?) and succeeds, or doesn't and fails, which simply isn't the case. Catering to the TacRPG crowd will work for many reasons, one of which being that eing exclusive to a sub-genre is a very rare thing.



And yes, I am thinking long-term - about the support and work it would take to keep two rather different play styles running in parallel in this and future iterations.

[Ghandorian]

Oh I understand just fine. A /target next is a common request seen uncounted times in many games boards.



It is a way to simplify target selection in combat where you are generally not concerned about loosing. The tactical combat in DAO comes in when you stand a pretty good chance of loosing a fight if you do not manage EVERONE moderately well for a given situation. If you CAN get away with using /target next while the rest of your party is running on tactics then things are getting too easy.



This is also the reason why you see a trend beginning in games for Manual Aiming. Removing not only auto targeting but auto attacking as well. The UI in wow oversimplified combat to the point of meaningless UI monitoring. It's more like a flight simulator than combat. Very NOT stimulating.

[Seclus]

i think more key binding is a good thing. many people dislike to use a mouse while playing games. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. He is willing for them just to make the xui avaliabel just so he could mod it himself. Also additional keybindings could make this easier to be played on laptops too. I don't think this is a bad idea.

[dlavizzo]

andyr1986 wrote...

What you don't get is that all the rpgs you have been playing are bad and this one is good. You have been retrained by bethesda to wonder around a pretty canvas bashing clumsily designed things with equally clumsily designed things in a combat mechanic that takes as much skill as headbutting a wall.

No changes leave the game as is. Its perfect. The flow  of combat is simply more satisfying than any rpg i have played in the past 10 years. Including BG2.

Seeing as World of Warcraft - a MMO....RPG....is the "holy grail" of not only MMOs, but gaming in general, in terms of just about every possible way a game can succeed, saying that "every other rpg is bad and this one is good" is a little trite. Building on what worked before is a smart business model in just about every field; gaming is no different. If you have a segment of your users that want keybinding and spell queuing, and a segment that wants the pause-and-play style, and implementing both is as easy as the original poster makes it sound, it seems to me like it would be in your interests both monetarily and technically to go ahead and implement that functionality. 

You were right in saying that people have been trained over the past ten years by fantasy games such as EverQuest, WOW, and Oblivion. However, might I point out a tiny little franchise called Final Fantasy that manages to fuse team-based combat with action oriented play and deep menu systems, and still not take you out of the battle with pause-and-play style gaming? 

Further, you're completely oversimplifying pretty much all of Bethesda's combat systems. So far as I know, walls don't move or fight back, so butting your head against them is - by default - exponentially easier than any of Bethesda's combat systems. It has been a while since I attacked a wall though, so things may have changed. Fallout 3, for example, uses a very intuitive and elegant solution to the "pause-and-play" problem, making that "pause" time far more interactive and meaningful than the "pause" time in Dragon Age: Origins. 

If you think the combat in Dragon Age: Origins is "perfect", your standards and mine are somewhat different. Maybe its like you said and I've been trained by MMOs that tanks are supposed to be able to generate threat on demand, but after having large groups of enemies train straight to my mage on his first spell-cast when my tank has been beating on them relentlessly for 20-30 seconds does not in my mind equate to "perfect". The Dex, backstab, and "useless stealth" problems do not equate to a "perfect" combat system in my mind, either.  

I won't speak to satisfaction, since that is a personal assessment only you can make, based on your experience playing and your standards. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the game and I think you're right, it's probably one of the best RPGs to come along that doesn't require an internet connection and a monthly payment, but "perfect" - that's a ways off, in my opinion.