80 réponses à ce sujet

[NoForgiveness]

legbamel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
[snip]
Sure, in some instances enemies shouldn't respawn. But that doesn't mean it should be that way all the time. The Deep Roads are supposed to be filled to bursting with Darkspawn, yet by the time Orzammar's main quest is over there are no more.

That's just as immersion breaking.

You're supposed to be helping reclaim the Deep Roads for the dwarves.  There not being any darkspawn in the tunnels you cleared and the Legion guarded behind you made me feel like I actually accomplished something there.

Edit for quote fail.

no... Your supposed to be finding branka.... They never say anything about retaking the deep roads

[TEWR]

legbamel wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
[snip]
Sure, in some instances enemies shouldn't respawn. But that doesn't mean it should be that way all the time. The Deep Roads are supposed to be filled to bursting with Darkspawn, yet by the time Orzammar's main quest is over there are no more.

That's just as immersion breaking.

You're supposed to be helping reclaim the Deep Roads for the dwarves.  There not being any darkspawn in the tunnels you cleared and the Legion guarded behind you made me feel like I actually accomplished something there.

Edit for quote fail.

No you're not. You're looking for Branka. You're taking the most direct path to finding her, but you're not killing every Darkspawn in the thaigs between the Anvil of the Void/Bownammar and Orzammar. There are more thaigs besides the few we explore in-game.

Securing the Deep Roads and reclaiming them involves a lot more fighting then just taking down a few here and there on one main quest.

If every time I went to the deep roads all the darkspawn were back, it would feel like not matter what I do, there's always Darkspawn there, so why bother? 

Because roleplaying. Why should the game tell you you're making a difference for you to believe your character is making a difference?

As it stands, having the Deep Roads be completely empty of both Darkspawn and Dwarves after a quest is done is immersion breaking. If they're secured -- which in DAO, isn't the point of the trek -- I should see Dwarven soldiers and citizens trying to rebuild it.

If they're not secured, I should see Darkspawn in there enough to convey that they're not secured and the Darkspawn are still out there.

And in DAO, they weren't secured. You're told by the Wardens, the Dwarves, and other sources that the Darkspawn have a ****load of numbers on their side. So having maybe a hundred or so Darkspawn in the entirety of the Deep Roads we explore when there are tens of thousands out there is mind-boggling.

I don't need the game to tell my character he's making a difference for me to believe he's making a difference. But I would like it to remain consistent with its established criteria -- the Deep Roads are filled with Darkspawn.

Even if in DAO Alistair says they're safer during a Blight, the key word there is safer. He's not saying they're completely safe or easy to move through, only that they're easier to move through. You're still going to encounter Darkspawn no matter what.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 décembre 2012 - 03:20 .

[Direwolf0294]

I hope they introduce respawning enemies into DA3. Grinding sucks, but a lack of it really hurt DA:O. In most RPGs you'd come across a challenge you couldn't face, you'd go off and get stronger and then you'd go back and face the challenge. This didn't happen in DA:O, at least not in a good way. Because there was no trash mobs to grind on you had to go kill mobs in other quest areas and then go back to the original quest you were on, which meant the story could often start to feel fractured as you'd randomly abandon one mission to pick up another instead of seeing a quest through to the end. The lack of a reliable way to earn experience also meant you had to kill every single monster in an area, had to alter your playstyle to one that would earn you the most xp, and that's just not a fun way to play.

[BlackGrifon]

I have alredy stated that i want a form of respawing enemies be it time based or having new enemies in a previously emptyed area. The guys at Bioware did a small thing like this only in the Brecilian Forest near the entrence to the werewolfs lare/cave whatever, in the area where u find the thomestone. If you go there later in the game there is a mob of darkspowns to kill and they are elite, champion or some higher level anyway and thus a chalenge. I want more of this.

[freche]

milena87 wrote...

I was actually hoping to see less combat in future Dragon Age titles

Please this, less but harder (more strategical) combat.

[BlackGrifon]

[quote]milena87 wrote...

I was actually hoping to see less combat in future Dragon Age titles[/quote]Please this, less but harder (more strategical) combat.
[/quote]

I'm all for fighting strategicaly, taking advantage of choke spots ond whatnot but if u want less combat play on easy and you can stroll to the end. If you ment no more waves of mobes thats great, i like to be kept engaged at the edge of my char not walk for 3 minutes till i find something to kill. If the fan majority wants to keep it easy just so they can finish the game than have respawning as a feature for hard and nightmare difficulties and have diferent level caps depending on the difficulty.

Modifié par BlackGrifon, 18 décembre 2012 - 04:34 .

[TMZuk]

It's extremely depressing reading these threads, sometimes. Everyone speaks in absolutes, and don't even bother reading what arguments the other side has.

Try opening your eyes instead of bring out the worst examples you know. Most people who likes the idea of respawning enemies, agrees that...

1. They should not encourage grinding.

2. There should be a logical explanation, e.g. wolves feasting on corpses.

3. They don't have to be enemies. Just as long as ~something~ happens instead of the area lying fallow for the rest of the game.

4. It doesn't have to be each and every time you revisit the area. Have the respawns done by seasons or acts, rather than a timer.

And I would also like to see enemies flee. Wolves do not fight to last man... err.. wolf standing. In fact, in RL they would never attack a group of well armed people. And even in an RPG, it is allowed to have them flee when badly injured or several of their numbers are dead.

Modifié par TMZuk, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:40 .

[TMZuk]

[quote]BlackGrifon wrote...

[quote]milena87 wrote...

I was actually hoping to see less combat in future Dragon Age titles[/quote]Please this, less but harder (more strategical) combat.


I'm all for fighting strategicaly, taking advantage of choke spots ond whatnot but if u want less combat play on easy and you can stroll to the end. If you ment no more waves of mobes thats great, i like to be kept engaged at the edge of my char not walk for 3 minutes till i find something to kill. If the fan majority wants to keep it easy just so they can finish the game than have respawning as a feature for hard and nightmare difficulties and have diferent level caps depending on the difficulty.[/quote]

[/quote]

Because an RPG is all about fighting, fighting, fighting, yes?

No!

I know we have different preferences, but really, I don't understand why people who wants fighting every minute  play RPGs. Play Diablo. Play Torchlight. Play a shooter. RPGs are for roleplaying, not for fighting endless amounts of trash-mobs.

Modifié par TMZuk, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:41 .

[thats1evildude]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sure, in some instances enemies shouldn't respawn. But that doesn't mean it should be that way all the time. The Deep Roads are supposed to be filled to bursting with Darkspawn, yet by the time Orzammar's main quest is over there are no more.

You have a point, though I would note that the bulk of the horde is on the move by the completion of that quest. (A cutscene even shows them beginning to march.) What you fight is more like a token garrison left to guard their territory.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:50 .

[The Hierophant]

TMZuk wrote...

BlackGrifon wrote...

milena87 wrote...

I was actually hoping to see less combat in future Dragon Age titles

Please this, less but harder (more strategical) combat.


I'm all for fighting strategicaly, taking advantage of choke spots ond whatnot but if u want less combat play on easy and you can stroll to the end. If you ment no more waves of mobes thats great, i like to be kept engaged at the edge of my char not walk for 3 minutes till i find something to kill. If the fan majority wants to keep it easy just so they can finish the game than have respawning as a feature for hard and nightmare difficulties and have diferent level caps depending on the difficulty.

Because an RPG is all about fighting, fighting, fighting, yes?

No!

I know we have different preferences, but really, I don't understand why people who wants fighting every minute  play RPGs. Play Diablo. Play Torchlight. Play a shooter. RPGs are for roleplaying, not for fighting endless amounts of trash-mobs.

Because Fallout:New Vegas, TES(3 & 5),  consisted of mandatory level grinding, and endless amounts of trash mobs? You talk about both sides using absolutes yet you use them yourself?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 18 décembre 2012 - 05:58 .

[Dragoonlordz]

No they should not use continual respawn for entire game and likewise they should not have none for entire game meaning they should have some areas that would have respawns and some not. Logically some areas would be taken over by more of their kind over time, new creatures move in when old ones removed or moved out. The only thing need to do is apply logical sense to when and where respawns happen, no more and no less than that. Likewise apply logical sense to which battles use reinforcement system.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[Madmoe77]

For those against respawning enemies I propose* a concession. Once an area is cleared that has the potential to fit the respawn model; for example thinly veiled area, a dense forest or a deep road tunnel there should in that completion be the discovery of a safer route. If the number of respawn areas are few enough to make sense lore wise and allow for safe travel then we have a medium. There is no need for infighting about it.

These areas should be of a decent size to allow for safe travel with little to no chance of aggro. And for the people who choose to use the respawn paths maybe a balance in diminishing returns. These open areas could also allow for locations for Bioware's many fetch quests to not tie up resources for story elements. Solutions are usually found beyond the arguments, or at least should people choose to argue toward a solution.

Modifié par Madmoe77, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:51 .

[deuce985]

I actually quite like what's used in the DA games.

1.) You can't farm exp and money. Part of why I like the DA games is they have decent economy for a SP game. You have to break the bank for legendary items even for a completionist like myself. Very rarely do RPGs balance their economy for gamers like me. It's a welcome change and it's probably mostly contributed to the fact DA is story-driven without respawning enemies.

2.) It would likely force level caps and I loathe level caps in RPGs. A big part of them is continuing to improve my character and when I hit that cap, it's like I run into a brick wall. What's the point in playing the game if I can't improve my character?

3.) I like going through a story-driven game that doesn't constantly throw waves at me going through the same areas. It keeps you on the path of the story and simple. It's also more realistic but that's a minor point for me.

I think something like this could work. If Bioware was to do it, I'd prefer something like this exist AFTER you complete the main story. That gives you incentive to keep playing the game after you're done with it. All recent Bioware games kinda suffer in that they let you play after the story is over but you can't do much. So, keep it like they currently do going through the game. Once you beat it, then they start allowing the world to respawn and don't put level caps in the game. At this point, it doesn't really matter if you "break" the game since you're done with the story.

Ideally though, I'd rather them put so much content into the SP story that you'll want to start over and drive through that content again just to see different outcomes. I think that's where they would need to put their focus rather than beating a game and making it like Skyrim. Killing waves of enemies for no reason...

Modifié par deuce985, 18 décembre 2012 - 07:07 .

[The Hierophant]

Once again i'm in agreement with Dragoonlordz, and Madmoe77. A simple solution is to just keep respawning enemies away from areas where you'll have to backtrack multiple times like the main , side, companion quests locales, and places like towns/villages. 

[Madmoe77]

deuce985 wrote...

I actually quite like what's used in the DA games.

1.) You can't farm exp and money. Part of why I like the DA games is they have decent economy for a SP game. You have to break the bank for legendary items even for a completionist like myself. Very rarely do RPGs balance their economy for gamers like me. It's a welcome change and it's probably mostly contributed to the fact DA is story-driven without respawning enemies.

2.) It would likely force level caps and I loathe level caps in RPGs. A big part of them is continuing to improve my character and when I hit that cap, it's like I run into a brick wall. What's the point in playing the game if I can't improve my character?

3.) I like going through a story-driven game that doesn't constantly throw waves at me going through the same areas. It keeps you on the path of the story and simple. It's also more realistic but that's a minor point for me.

I think something like this could work. If Bioware was to do it, I'd prefer something like this exist AFTER you complete the main story. That gives you incentive to keep playing the game after you're done with it. All recent Bioware games kinda suffer in that they let you play after the story is over but you can't do much. So, keep it like they currently do going through the game. Once you beat it, then they start allowing the world to respawn and don't put level caps in the game. At this point, it doesn't really matter if you "break" the game since you're done with the story.

Ideally though, I'd rather them put so much content into the SP story that you'll want to start over and drive through that content again just to see different outcomes. I think that's where they would need to put their focus rather than beating a game and making it like Skyrim. Killing waves of enemies for no reason...

25 was the level cap in DAO. Beyond 25 it said no XP available or something. It went beyond this in the expansion but only in the expansions or DLC. DA2 it was increased. Respawn and waves are two separate animals though. Respawn is generally associated with a set environment that houses, holds or designates the existence for the things that spawn there. Waves like in DA2 were just a tool to not allow the screen to fill up to quickly and overwhelm the player yet turning up the length of the combat. 

From my point of view, level capping isn't fun and seems to be just a way for the dev's to get you to retool with respec potions or replay the game altogether to experience other talents and the like. Again it seems there is a notion that all players would be forced to 'kill two million pigs' Cartman style to enjoy the game after introducing respawn but there are games out there who have this feature and however much time you spend doing such a thing is entirely up to the player.   

[Tootles FTW]

Oh gawd, please no, I detest respawns. Different enemies appearing in the same area over a period of time, fine, but the SAME enemy? If you want to grind, just run around Kirkwall in "Night" mode.

[TEWR]

thats1evildude wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sure, in some instances enemies shouldn't respawn. But that doesn't mean it should be that way all the time. The Deep Roads are supposed to be filled to bursting with Darkspawn, yet by the time Orzammar's main quest is over there are no more.

You have a point, though I would note that the bulk of the horde is on the move by the completion of that quest. (A cutscene even shows them beginning to march.) What you fight is more like a token garrison left to guard their territory.

And yet there are Darkspawn all over Thedas' Deep Roads, not just in Ferelden. And the Archdemon commands all of the Darkspawn, not just the Darkspawn in its country of awakening.

So, logically, other Darkspawn would be coming in from the Deep Roads past Bownammar.

Filament wrote...

Yes, with the caveat that kiling enemies does not provide XP. (or at least, to be more reasonable, killing enemies who have respawned does not provide XP, or provides a ridiculously low amount like, say, 1 XP)

FFXII's system had it so that if you kept killing lower level enemies, you'd get less and less XP -- it depended on your level and their level. Eventually, it would be getting 1 XP or 2 XP if you kept going after Wolves, Cactoids, and other low level critters.

If you killed a higher level enemy, you got more XP then you would get if you were on roughly an equal level.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 décembre 2012 - 08:47 .

[The Hierophant]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

FFXII's system had it so that if you kept killing lower level enemies, you'd get less and less XP -- it depended on your level and their level. Eventually, it would be getting 1 XP or 2 XP if you kept going after Wolves, Cactoids, and other low level critters.

If you killed a higher level enemy, you got more XP then you would get if you were on roughly an equal level.

Good times. 

TEWR remember Xll's weather system? Dragon age seriously needs it.

[TEWR]

The Hierophant wrote...

Good times. 

TEWR remember Xll's weather system? Dragon age seriously needs it.

My god yes. The weather in that game was great. You'd go to a mountain and maybe have a normal snowstorm or a blizzard -- never knew which. You'd go to the desert and it'd either be clear, somewhat windy with sand, or a ****ing sandstorm would be raging.

The Giza Plains would alternate between the Dry and the Rains, creating a different map in the process because during the Rains the water would fill up the empty ravines.

Ozmone Plain during the Rains was always amazing. Didn't change anything, but the music and the rain just felt awesome.

[The Hierophant]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Good times. 

TEWR remember Xll's weather system? Dragon age seriously needs it.

My god yes. The weather in that game was great. You'd go to a mountain and maybe have a normal snowstorm or a blizzard -- never knew which. You'd go to the desert and it'd either be clear, somewhat windy with sand, or a ****ing sandstorm would be raging.

The Giza Plains would alternate between the Dry and the Rains, creating a different map in the process because during the Rains the water would fill up the empty ravines.

Ozmone Plain during the Rains was always amazing. Didn't change anything, but the music and the rain just felt awesome.

Plus the weather affected spell potency and creature spawns like Entites, and the Lindwyrm being found during cloudy weather.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 18 décembre 2012 - 09:18 .

[deuce985]

Madmoe77 wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I actually quite like what's used in the DA games.

1.) You can't farm exp and money. Part of why I like the DA games is they have decent economy for a SP game. You have to break the bank for legendary items even for a completionist like myself. Very rarely do RPGs balance their economy for gamers like me. It's a welcome change and it's probably mostly contributed to the fact DA is story-driven without respawning enemies.

2.) It would likely force level caps and I loathe level caps in RPGs. A big part of them is continuing to improve my character and when I hit that cap, it's like I run into a brick wall. What's the point in playing the game if I can't improve my character?

3.) I like going through a story-driven game that doesn't constantly throw waves at me going through the same areas. It keeps you on the path of the story and simple. It's also more realistic but that's a minor point for me.

I think something like this could work. If Bioware was to do it, I'd prefer something like this exist AFTER you complete the main story. That gives you incentive to keep playing the game after you're done with it. All recent Bioware games kinda suffer in that they let you play after the story is over but you can't do much. So, keep it like they currently do going through the game. Once you beat it, then they start allowing the world to respawn and don't put level caps in the game. At this point, it doesn't really matter if you "break" the game since you're done with the story.

Ideally though, I'd rather them put so much content into the SP story that you'll want to start over and drive through that content again just to see different outcomes. I think that's where they would need to put their focus rather than beating a game and making it like Skyrim. Killing waves of enemies for no reason...

25 was the level cap in DAO. Beyond 25 it said no XP available or something. It went beyond this in the expansion but only in the expansions or DLC. DA2 it was increased. Respawn and waves are two separate animals though. Respawn is generally associated with a set environment that houses, holds or designates the existence for the things that spawn there. Waves like in DA2 were just a tool to not allow the screen to fill up to quickly and overwhelm the player yet turning up the length of the combat. 

From my point of view, level capping isn't fun and seems to be just a way for the dev's to get you to retool with respec potions or replay the game altogether to experience other talents and the like. Again it seems there is a notion that all players would be forced to 'kill two million pigs' Cartman style to enjoy the game after introducing respawn but there are games out there who have this feature and however much time you spend doing such a thing is entirely up to the player.   

The caps weren't noticeable to me. Especially in DA2. I looted and did everything in that game. I believe I only hit the level cap in both games at the very end of the story, which was perfect. That was pretty good balance for a completionist. Most games don't balance themselves well for a player like me. Most of the time I find myself looking at money 1/3 the way through a game as useless. Because DA doesn't have respawning enemies, it allows them to balance their economy easier, IMO. That way I don't go around grinding for more money and making it useless halfway through the game like most games end up doing. Then I buy every legendary item on the market, make my character overpowered, and lose all challenge whatsoever in the game. I grabbed all item progression I could possibly get all at once because I have so much money. That's not something I want to do and often if the mechanics are in place for me to do something like that, I'm going to break the game.

You can tell me to resist the urge but I can't. That's why I like it when devs try to balance games a little better for players like me who break games...sometimes not intentionally...

Modifié par deuce985, 18 décembre 2012 - 09:18 .

[TEWR]

The Hierophant wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Good times. 

TEWR remember Xll's weather system? Dragon age seriously needs it.

My god yes. The weather in that game was great. You'd go to a mountain and maybe have a normal snowstorm or a blizzard -- never knew which. You'd go to the desert and it'd either be clear, somewhat windy with sand, or a ****ing sandstorm would be raging.

The Giza Plains would alternate between the Dry and the Rains, creating a different map in the process because during the Rains the water would fill up the empty ravines.

Ozmone Plain during the Rains was always amazing. Didn't change anything, but the music and the rain just felt awesome.

Plus the weather affected spell potency and creature spawns like Entites, and the Lindwyrm being found during cloudy weather.

Indeed. Though I'd say the Entites were the cause of the weather, rather then the weather being the cause of the Entite's appearance.

[The Hierophant]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Good times. 

TEWR remember Xll's weather system? Dragon age seriously needs it.

My god yes. The weather in that game was great. You'd go to a mountain and maybe have a normal snowstorm or a blizzard -- never knew which. You'd go to the desert and it'd either be clear, somewhat windy with sand, or a ****ing sandstorm would be raging.

The Giza Plains would alternate between the Dry and the Rains, creating a different map in the process because during the Rains the water would fill up the empty ravines.

Ozmone Plain during the Rains was always amazing. Didn't change anything, but the music and the rain just felt awesome.

Plus the weather affected spell potency and creature spawns like Entites, and the Lindwyrm being found during cloudy weather.

Indeed. Though I'd say the Entites were the cause of the weather, rather then the weather being the cause of the Entite's appearance.

I never thought of it that way, though once you aggro'd the Entites they were relentless in their pursuit of you especially the Earth Entite.