8 réponses à ce sujet

[Brodoteau]

When I played Baldur's Gate, I hated traps.  They meant that #1 I had to bring a thief along, who would probably need protection or die very quickly because he/she had terrible hit points.  #2 it meant that I would be reloading a lot or using a lot of health potions or have to suffer with the death of one of my companions.
I can remember the bloody Firewine Bridge in BG that I still detest to this day (not least because of the stupid kobolds and their flame arrows).  There are levels of Durlag's Tower that I still hate.  There is a trap in BG2 when you are underneath Spellhold and being chased by Bodhi that aggravating would crush and perma-death party companions.  I hate traps but I was so glad when I detected one. 

But now, when I play DAO and DA2, traps are no longer a major issue.  If I set one off, I curse that I have just missed experience points.  They are inconvieniences.  They are not particularly deadly  (even the spider web ones) or particularly threatening.  In DA2, after you have cleared out all the bad guys, traps are annoying but they don't do any permanent damage.  Who cares if I sit in the flame thrower trap, I step out of it and I am instantly healed! 

So I would say to you Bioware that you have a trap problem.  The way I see it, traps are set by people to alert them that something is going on or protect things while people are not there.  They are not something that exclusively are used to aid someone in a battle. 

So here is my proposal.  Make traps deadly again.  Maybe make it so that traps can knock your team-mates unconscious for the entire dungeon or level.  Make traps something that have a consequence. 

And finally, since it is a Bioware game, we know that you will have a family member die in DA3.  Maybe that family member can die via trap.   

[Wulfram]

The vast majority of traps should not exist. There's no reason for them to be ubiquitous.

When they do exist, they should be interesting. I think the first step to making them interesting is removing the connection to rogue skill checks - having them pop up when the rogue searches and then disabling them is just boring make work.

[Foolsfolly]

I've thought about this subject before and I have no real answer.

If you remove them then... well I guess I may miss them somewhat. If you keep them they don't really do anything against you.

I think the way I'd handle it is by having traps be a part of tactically viable locations (ambush sites, chokeholds, big boss battles) where the threat of the trap is that it does constant damage or entangles a character in an instance where you really do need to manage everyone. In a fever pitched battle having your tank entangled (and lose all their threat) could be very devastating indeed.

But I have no strong opinion in either direction.

[Sir JK]

In my meaning, traps should be a real enviromental hazard. A challenge just like combat. Puzzles to be solved before you can move on. I'd love a trap that means I have to figure out how to move across the floor, which wires to cut to disable it, where to hang weights to hold the construct in place and so on. A puzzle combining the enviroment and how to move around it with the complexities of it's engineering. A place where the rogue can truly be given a chance to shine.

You shouldn't need a rogue of course, it should be perfectly possible to attempt without one. The core of the mechanic should be interactable, skill/abilities only increasing the likelyhood of success. Not determing it.

[Brodoteau]

I don't disagree with Sir JK. But, that problem with a puzzle-format is that there is no real danger. If you look at the gauntlet in DAO, the bridge puzzle was neat and interesting, as was "walking through the fire" but, overall, there was never any real danger there. It just took me longer to get through the dungeon. What I want is your "environmental hazard" idea with a real consequence. If people can get "knocked out" during battle for prolonged periods, what can't traps do that?

So taking your above scenario: What happens if your rogue screws up? Wouldn't it be more challenging if you you lost him/her? And yes, I know this will just cause a lot of people to reload, but you can't structure things around that... people always reload.

[Sir JK]

Hmmm... yes...some sort of resource expediture needs to be included for the idea to work. Succeed and you may proceed, fail and the resource is lost. It could be as simple as treating them the same as combat. Fail and the character is knocked out, Fail with all characters and it's game over.

Or perhaps incur a status effect on the character, either one that lowers total HP/stamina/mana or one that affects the attributes (or one of the derived values). One that cannot be removed short of leaving the dungeon/area alltogether (coupled with the resetting of all encounters/traps in the area).

Either would work. Knocking characters out is of course far more effectful.

[Arthur Cousland]

I wouldn't mind traps that could possibly instantly kill a player (not permanently), or cause a party-wipe, but I would hope that traps would be easier to detect than they were in DA2, where many traps wouldn't be discovered until the player was right on top of them.

It would also be nice if simply having a rogue in the party was enough to be able to disarm the traps without having to actually switch players. I always found this annoying, and in the previous games I always preferred playing as rogues out of convenience.

[Nerdage]

Wulfram wrote...

When they do exist, they should be interesting. I think the first step to making them interesting is removing the connection to rogue skill checks - having them pop up when the rogue searches and then disabling them is just boring make work.

I definitely agree with this.

Some of the traps in DA2 feel like the NPCs are cheesing the game mechanics to spite the player, like laying out a really obvious line on pressure plates in a narrow area because "Hey, even if Hawke does see them he can't step over them!". If I notice a trap I shouldn't be forced to eat it just because I don't have a rogue who can disarm it.

Even if only rogues can disarm them, I think clicking on a trap as a warrior or mage ought to let you step over it, but the act of stepping over it still takes time (as part of an animation I guess). So, using them as a part of the encounter design, only the player's clumsiness is going to set off traps, but they're still a tactical consideration beyond "If I want to get from A to B I'm going to take damage from a trap I know is there but still can't avoid", forcing the player to choose between wasting time stepping over the trap (perhaps more than once for multiple characters); just charging though it and risking the effect (knockout, damage, draws more enemies?) to get there sooner; or bringing a character with the required skill (not necessarily a rogue, perhaps?) over to disarm it.

Also, it shouldn't be translucent and unusable until then (or how else would you ineract to step over?), but I don't mind if a companion with the required skill calls out "there's a trap here!" when they approach one.

[Rawgrim]

I want traps to really HURT if i step in them. The Baldur`s Gate games did this really well, if I remember correctly. Most games after that mostly just have annoying traps. Take kotor for instance. You step on a mine and you just get a little bit of damage. Should have lost a character or at least gotten severely injured by it.