[quote]Allan Schumacher wrote...
[quote] Could you, strictly mechanically, do these things in either DA game? Things like a warrior who's focus is purely on combat, a rogue build that accomplishes more through stealth skills than through direct fighting? A Mage that can do almost no attacking, but provides an invaluable support to the overall party? Sure.
But the underlying foundation of DA games, in my perspective and experience, is creating various builds that create a truly unique party, that compliment and work off one another. If you limit this to one character, you risk building for single utility, which allows you to operate as a single unit, rather than building for more speciality or for helping other players. Which hampers build experimentation, especially in terms of support or the suggested non-combat roles.[/quote]
I am not sure I see how build experimentation would be hampered.
Especially if you're playing with friends. I didn't find it an
issue with ME3's MP, though the skill selection is definitely smaller
than what we get with DAO's SP. [/quote]
Perhaps hampered may have not been the right word, then. A system that has other players deciding who they want (or even just who they prefer) to be in their match is one that will lead to prejudice or off-hand dismissal. Get burned once because your primarily-mage-group picked up a warrior with a Templar spec and was next to worthless in that instance? Then any player with a Templar spec suffers your scorn or derision. Then MP balancing comes in and there are complaints about other classes being nerfed to make the "useless" Templar class bearable, etc. One need only peek one's head over into the ME3 MP forum to see the various types of hierarchies people have for the different, pre-set classes to see this behavior.
Which isn't a real concern, unless the same mechanics begin affecting the SP. I feel that DA2 already went down this road too much and it didn't even have MP. The fact that using a sword skill and using a nuke spell like Firestorm did the same (rough) damage a HUGE gameplay/lore segregation and view it, personally, as an attempt to mirror the combat design of MMO games like WoW, who do similar conceits and hand waving in their combat design/character builds. Give me squishy mages that can launch a nuke once or twice in a DUNGEON (not twice a fight, but a DUNGEON) and give me warriors that can cleave open a single enemy, but who pale in comparison to damage dealing on a large scale compared to a mage. Etc., etc., etc.
[quote]
[quote]Lastly, a DA MP, even if all of the above are done right, still isn't in the same vein. Because a party-based RPG is all about creating, building and managing a party. Incentivizing players to work together as a party may work well to create an engaging experience, it still is not managing a party... it is about creating a character build that would result in the least amount of rejections by other players and rewards communicating with other players, not directing the chars gets together yourself. [/quote]
Eh, I think this is a bit narrow in its perspective. The majority of ME3 MP time is not played beyond Bronze level. Sure, some of the more intense and more hardcore people may get snobbish, but you aren't obligated to play with them and many people play the ME3 MP simply because it's fun to play with some friends. I don't think the fact that some people will hardline for various gear and builds is a very good reason to not do something.
Though it seems I misunderstood you, since you seemed to be implying that MP would change how SP played as well. No doubt mp would lend itself to being a different experience than just single player (simply as in, it wouldn't be a 100% identical experience), but earlier you had said the following (emphasis mine):
"This is the concern. The MP becomes, in nearly all aspects, a different game. And where does the line begin between "making the MP and SP components more similar to share alike resources" and "turning the entire experience into something that is not DA?
I'm not saying it is impossible to do a MP component... I am simply
saying it is not wise to do so.
It will turn the series into something
fundamental different, something it is not.""
The MP experience may not be entirely identical to SP, but you stated
turning the entire experience into something that is not DA.
It's interesting the different perspective. You seem to be trying to make scenarios that fit your conclusion that it can only change the entire direction of the franchise, while I saw your examples as being additional impetus to reintroduce non-combat skills into the game which in my opinion would also enhance the single player experience. [/quote]
I am simply saying that an MMO, which encourages party play (many dungeons/instances even require it) but deals with a player controlling a single player and a DA game, which relies on party CONTROL, are different beasts. If you create an additional MP system that behaves like a small scale MMO, then there is a risk that the SP portion will become more MMO/action like as well, instead of remaining true to the party-based RPG roots.
I can see that we don't see eye-to-eye on that, and that's fine. But I don't feel like I'm moving the goal posts by trying to reiterate that point in different ways.
[quote]
[quote]In addition, you would need 100% transparency in the other players in your "party" if you wanted to have true success in effective cooperation. I would want to know if the warrior on my team is a sword-and-board tank, 2H dmgdealer, or a Templar designed to neutralize certain enemy types (such as Mages and demons) but is not as effective against others, such as Darkspawn. But that leans itself to either boring character sheet comparisons before a matchup (nothing says EXCITING MP MATCH! like checking out a dozen people's skill trees) or discriminate boots because "LOLZ Templars are lamezors."[/quote]
Unless this information can be discerned at a glance (and if it's even necessary - ideally there's a viable strategy for every mix and match of party makeup). [/quote]
I'm not sure of how such a system would be easy to view "at a glance," in all honesty. Given that people are booted or met with derision. Again, just take a look at posts made in the ME3 MP forum in the past few minutes, where I can see someone who has a Level 1 kit being labeled a "scrub." If you wanted to try out a new character build and are a quite experienced and talented player... but are using a sub-optimal build or a less developed character, suddently you are a terrible n00b no one wants to play with.
While not every MP match will play out like this, the fact that such a mentality exists in nearly all MP games I have experienced or heard about is not shocking, but it does mean that even the most easy-to-view/access info systems about your fellow players many times results in quick dismissal or booting. But that's something that could be addressed with the UI, possibly, so not worth too much theoretical discussion.
[quote]
In any case, I did say I'd respond to your questions as well, so here goes. I'll also touch on some of your later points [DISCLAIMER: This is my own thoughts. This is neither confirmation nor denial of any sort of MP component, and is done simply to facilitate discussion about how MP could be implemented without fundamentally changing the game itself, nor the single player).
[quote]How will you handle the party-driven experience of the DA games?[/quote]I'm not entirely sure precisely a "party-driven experience" necessarily is, and how it would differ from party based games that have multiplayer in them (ME3, Baldur's Gate 1/2, Icewind Dale 1/2, even MMOs like WoW...), I will make an assumption that you mean "a group of characters with a degree of symbiosis between the party members" I'd say by making each member of the MP game a capable contributor to the party with a unique flair based upon the class. This is somewhat vague, though I find the question to be vague as well.
[/quote]
A game that let's you directly control an entire party is what I was going for. As a conceit, we both have already agreed that a MP component would not be able to support well.
[quote][quote]
Will it require other human players to don support roles?
[/quote]
No, it will not
require other players to don "support roles." Characters that play in a support role, however, would still be a valid character, and I may even place a level of encouragement through a reward scheme by rewarding the party for working together. Bonus XP, for simplicity.
[/quote]
This could work... but I, personally, would discourage an XP system for MP. It is another mechanism that discourages build experimentation, since it can punish players who want to start a new character (ESPECIALLY a character that is outside the normal ranges of what would be considered the most effective builds). I would suggest an item kit system like ME3's MP for EVERYTHING. Weapons, armors, class variations, races, etc. And accomplishing certain achievements either in MP or SP could unlock these (for instance, playing as a rogue on Nightmare SP and doing X,Y and Z could unlock high end kits for the rogue MP classes). These kits could be transferable across old and new characters (unequip a stealth kit from my high end rogue, put it on my brand new, experimental short-range crossbow/sneak attack rogue).
To elaborate further, a rogue could always have standard combat and non-combat skills, but the way kits are used can enhance or create new uses altogether for this class. However, only a certain number of kits can be equipped at one time, to avoid ridiculous stacking. So a player could equip nearly all slots with sneak and trap kits and could be quite effective in a non-combat role, but would be next to worthless if discovered and had to fight. Similarly, a rogue could have kits that focused on a dual-wielding, DPS role, but wouldn't be able to sneak for squat, let alone lay any traps or get past any locked doors in MP encounters.
[quote][quote]
If so, I can see problems with that. Who would want to build a
character that relies on other characters (outside of their control)
being built right? In an MMO, it is easier, since you can Look For
Group or even be part of a guild. With a MP component, it is far
trickier to just hop in a match if you can't count on the right support
skills.[/quote]
I see any distinction that any sort of matchmaking being in an "MMO" to be easier to be imaginary, especially since (for better or worse) the combat system of DA (especially DAO) shows itself to be rather heavily influenced by MMOs. Warriors tend to be tanks or damage dealers, rogues tend to be backstabbers that focus heavily in DPS, and a mage's strength comes with AOE damage and crowd controls.
I don't see any basis for "it's far trickier to just hop in a match if you can't count on the right support skills." Ideally if it's designed well, any permutation of characters would be able to complete the objectives by utilizing the strengths that the characters bring to the table. [/quote]
Or, conversely, players could rage/quit the second they see the system has assigned them a Templar build character to their squad.
I don't think the Templar is a bad spec in SP, BTW. I'm just using it as an abstraction. People will behave in emotional, childish ways when you make their success based on others skill and ability. Not all people... but a number of people.
[quote]As for "who would want to build a character that relies on other characters being "built right" it would depend on what you mean by built right. I would not make the game paused, and as such to keep skills manageable I would take a subset of the skills from the SP, and not allow any character to have too many of them. If you envision 4 characters with 20 active skills each running around, then you run into problems. If you envison 4 characters with 6 active skills, it's easier to manage and it's easier to predict what level of skill discrepancy a character may have. Since the permutation of skills is less extreme, this also allows for the UI to allow for an "at a glance" skill assessment and can provide a synopsis for what the character build's strengths are.[/quote]
I think having a small number of active skills would be best. And, as I mentioned a few pages back, what are "sustained" abilities/spells in DA:O/DA2 could better be served to be equipable kits, just for simplicity's sake. No one is going to turn off their Crti Chance bonus sustained boost to the party in the middle of a MP match, so better to just make it an "Always On" bonus that is equiped instead of activated for MP.
[quote]
[quote]Also, a large portion of the draw of MP is the action. Sniping enemies, throw grenades, using biotics... how will that work in a game like DA, whose auto-attack requires a lot of just standing and swinging?[/quote]
Keeping each combat encounter smaller would help minimize this. I'm also not sure it's a problem (maybe on the PC where the attack is literally automatically done). Though it wasn't a deal breaker for me in the Infinity Engine games or in Neverwinter Knights. Other things like party positioning can be emphasized to make the combat more than just attacking, with things such as flanking attacks providing additional attack opportunities.
I think a large portion of the draw of MP is also simply working together and accomplishing challenging goals together. It's certainly why I enjoy multiplayer.[/quote]
And, again, if there are non-combat objectives and significant worth to having character builds who may not wind up killing a single enemy in a MP match, this could be circumvented. Combat should be a means to an end... non-combat skills should not be a means to more combat.
[quote][quote]
So, in light of that, you will need to keep support roles, otherwise you slant the overall mechanics to constant, twitch combat.
(Underlined emphasis mine)[/quote]
I don't think you would *need* to keep support roles, although I do find the suggestion to be something more interesting than just combat. Though I'd expect combat to still be a very common event, and I don't think that it needs to be "twitch" combat either. Both DAO and DA2 have combat as the primary "gameplay" aspect of the game. [/quote]
Something I hoped they would tone done going from DA:O to DA2. Unfortunately, for my own personal tastes, they went the complete opposite direction.
[quote][quote]
This means that you would, instead, need to focus on MP gameplay not directly tied to combat.
[/quote]
Not sure why there would *need* to be a focus on gameplay that isn't tied to combat, but I do agree it'd be more interesting.
How could we do this? You had some good general suggestions, and if we try to stick to using skills from DAO I'll hypothesize some potential ways this might be able to be done.
Warriors: Skills represent brute strength, and the ability to breakthrough obstacles. Warriors with the "Powerful" ability have the ability to break through barriers and leverage their strength in context specific situations.
Rogues: Stealth tree. A rogue specc'd in stealth is able to sneak past various encounters, either opening up an alternate path for the party allowing a combat to be bypassed, or by compromising the hostiles in some way making the ensuing combat much easier
Mages: Shapeshifter - a mage with various shape shifting abilities can leverage different forms to gain access to areas no other player character can reach. This can include advantageous (and safe) positions for a combat, or leveraging the environment in a way to avoid/trivialize combat. This would probably mean changing up what the mage can specifically shapeshift into, but I was certainly thinking of the mouse from The Fade as being an avenue to exploit. A wolf could possibly double as a "hidden" character if in the outdoors. Admittedly this is where I need to change the rules somewhat, though I will try to still use base abilities/creatures that existed in DAO so it's not a ton of design work.
Rodent: Can get through small spaces, and will not be targeted if no hostiles know this is a shapeshifted mage (i.e. if first encounter is as a rodent, it's stealthed)
Wolf: Speed increase and a fast attacker. Can CC a target through a Maul ability.
Bear: Heavy armor with an ability to invoke fear in the target. Though I'm not really looking to replicate Horror, I figure we can apply the disorient effect.
I agree that the levels should be objective based, but I would still expect the principle challenge in the level to still be various combat encounters, which I find is the case in BIoWare games anyways. [/quote]
I would prefer many more non-combat objectives, solutions and options, in either SP and MP (I'll even concede that it would be easier to come up with less contrived uses of non-combat skills in a MP setting, now that I think about it), but I do agree that the DA games, and Bioware games in general, do place a large predilection on combat and fighitng.
[quote]Lets see if we can take the first Darkspawn encounter from the Korcari Wilds, and make an interesting MP encounter without making huge, wholesale changes to the situation.
Lets make an assumption: Combat tactics and abilities used can also be used in the single player as well, so if I make any stipulation about a bonus or penalty, assume that those benefits propagate to single player as well. As such, I'll try to not do anything that I don't think would provide interesting gameplay mechanics in single player as well.
Situation: Some (2) Hurlocks are on the lower ground, with some (3) Genlocks on the high ground with bows.
Possible avenues player builds can take:
Warriors: Warriors can look to be tank, or general damage dealers. With the Powerful ability, they are able to knock down the pillars to control the space where the Hurlocks can approach, while leveraging the toppled pillar as cover from the arrows. Other party members can then leverage this cover bonus for arrow protection, allowing the party to divide and conquer the Hurlocks and Genlocks, by allowing relatively safe area for the Hurlocks to be attacked, and even cover for the archers/mages to stand behind when eventually attacking the Genlocks.
Rogues: Archer or Melee damage is viable, but additionally stealth can be used to sneak past the hurlocks to allow the rogue to get the jump on the Genlocks.
Mages: Standard AOE, direct damage, and CC attacks are all stuff we're familiar with. Ways they can utilize their shapeshifting is to apply versatility, perhaps allowing some level of surprise by using a non-threatening form as a type of stealth, or perhaps using a Bear to substitute in as a tank. Some more interesting variations could be if we modified the bear to influence morale failures, and that seeing a Bear running at them may induce a degree of fear in either the Genlocks or even the Hurlocks.
I'll now take a hypothetical combat encounter from this. One that may even be considered "suboptimal" as I'm not going to have a pure tank. I will have one warrior, a melee rogue, and archer, and a shapeshifting mage.
The Mage shapeshifts into a rodent, while the melee rogue employs Stealth. Both slip past the Hurlocks, and prepare themselves for the Genlocks.
Once in position, the Warrior opens the combat by toppling the pillar. This falls across the path, allowing the archer and the warrior cover from the Genlocks while the wait for the Hurlocks to charge in. Warrior being the first spotted creature and initiator of the combat has the attention of all the darkspawn at this time.
Now that combat has started, the rogue opens up on one of the Genlocks while the Mage shapeshifts from a rodent into a wolf, mauling another Genlock. Back at the pillar, the Archer uses pinning strike on one of the Hurlocks, then helps focus fire on the mobile Hurlock with the warrior.
The rogue's melee ability is able to take advantage of the Genlock with a bow, and can dispatch that foe one on one, while the Mage shapeshifts into the Bear once the wolf's Maul expires. The Mage can continue focusing on the original Genlock, or draw aggro on the second if the Archer/Warrior are having problems.
The rogue helps clean up the genlocks with the mage, while the warrior and archer are able to take care of the hurlocks down by the pillar. Whichever group wins their encounter goes and helps the other group clean up.[/quote]
Rock and roll. This sounds awesome. However...
[quote]And in my opinion, all of these tactics remain perfectly valid, and interesting, if this situation played out in the single player game. Does anyone disagree? I actually think that most of the tacitcal combat fans would enjoy executing the combat in this way within single player.
I can see there being concerns of "Well good luck coordinating that with a bunch of random noobs" but I think that's just being a bit dismissive and sidesteps what this exercise looked to explore, which is whether or not MP gameplay can be created alongside SP gameplay without compromising the SP gameplay.
[/quote]
And again, we are back to the same difference in viewpoint.
I feel that an MMO-style gameplay of having a bunch of individual characters controlled by invidual players that can work together in concert is not at all the same type of game as one where the player controls the entire party directly. Not giving out squad commands (ME), but direct companion control. And I feel that having such a radical difference in that perspective will make the game not a DA game at all and could move the entire experience more towards the MMO slant (instead of a classic RPG feel) than the series already is.
I'd like to point out that this is how I FEEL. I FEEL that the SP is going to be compromised. Even if every single one of my concerns is addressed, there may be dozens more that I am not thinking of that may still wind up validating that feeling when I pick up and play DA3. Even if I was to be successfully convinced that an MMO-style gameplay is the same (or the rough equivalent) to what I enjoyed about the DA series, I would still have class balancing concerns, I would still have schedule concerns (having servers/staff/etc. at the ready for a finished MP portion that eat up resources when the SP portion is delayed and not ready, but it being pushed out the door as a financial move, for example). As well as others that I am not even considering right now, since I don't know what type of MP is even really on the table.
I'm not stating any of my feelings as fact. Unless it is the fact that it is how I feel. That is undeniable.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 avril 2013 - 02:56 .
Retour en haut
