575 réponses à ce sujet

[metatheurgist]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Not wanting to take any damage at all sounds more like obsessive compulsive behavior, than a flaw in game design per se.

If you were in a fight, would it be your objective merely to survive, or also to avoid being hurt?

That depends. Do I live in a universe with Clerics and Healing potions?

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Arguably, it could be a system where a player has a death five or ten times in the game and not experience one permanent injury. That's hardly beating down players who aren't good.

Or it happens the first time... or 3 times in a row. The problem with probability... sooner or later it happens no matter what you do. And delayed onset only hammers home how much this is a punishment and nothing else. It quite literally manipulates you to keep playing so that you'll be less inclined to reload. So not only is it a big "you suck"... but it trieds to hide that it is too.

Besides... couldn't I just stand still for the time period after each combat and then reload should the injury pop up. So patience would still be a way around it, this time just achieved by spending large periods of just idling and not playing the game.

I know I can't speak for anyone else... but a mechanic like this would make me absolutely furious and would lead to me abandoning a game. And not look back.

Which is why I suggested my "carrot" concept of giving bonuses for "hot streaks" or certain tactical actions. These could then result in permanent stat/skill BOOSTS if chance works out. This could INCENTIVIZE more creative builds, ones that maybe favor cross-class-combos over doing more base dmaage, as the characters could have a chance at getting great permanent stat boosts that more standard "highest DPS possible" party builds wouldn't have available to them. 

I feel like both sides of this coin would do well to push players to learn the mechanics, while also still encouraging overall creativity and innovative encounter and party design.

Hmm... this is slightly better... mind though... it'll make the game easier and easier for anyone that does really well.

I'd say, objectively? No. It didn't work. 

Because if  you didn't have a ressurect spell handy, you'd need to drag them back to town or a temple to get healed. Which was a pain. You can tell, because players of the newly released version of Baldur's Gate said they found it terribly annoying. 

Not to mention such spells were either high level or required by a scroll, which means a player could be dealing with a dead character for quite some time before they could get them back.

This affects story, as companions who could be "dead" cannot be interacted or scripted with for events. If Isabella died in a fight against some Blood Mages, it would require contrivances for her to suddenly be back up and taking the book of Koslun. If Anders died against some street bandits, it wouldn't make sense that he would be, behind your back (AS DEAD), planting the bomb at the Chantry.

So you can see the problems of having "dead" characters a la BG1. The alternative is to have characters never be "dead" but knocked out in combat, and then injured, like what we see in DA:O. But this leads to gross lack of consequence and, hence, we are where we are.

I was thinking out of a perspective of the gameplay creating tension... that character death causes narrative problems I agree is a big indication it's not coming back.

[Realmzmaster]

In Exile wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
I not just talking about death but also injury which does not have to occur at HP=0. If one is hit with Blindness have a chance that that character will later on develop an eye injury. For example the injury occurs in act 1. The character's eyesight returns, but later on in Act 2 the character experiences partial vision loss.

That seems like exactly the kind of system that would lead to rage-quitting. You've just devised a system that literally punishes players for playing the game. 

No more brutal than the systems found in TOEE (Temple of Elemental Evil), Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor , Realms of Arkania series and Drakensang. 

But, I have also played most if not all the Gold Box D & D games so maybe I have more patience than some and bleieve if you are going to request realism in a game that this is part of that realism. I guess it boils down to how much realism you want in your fantasy.

But then again the method can be used to create a quest where the party seeks a cure for the affected party member or a way of overcoming the injury.

[cJohnOne]

I used Raise Dead and Resurrection items in Pool of Radiance: ruins of myth drannor, though.

[Realmzmaster]

cJohnOne wrote...

I used Raise Dead and Resurrection items in Pool of Radiance: ruins of myth drannor, though.

True, but there was a penalty for using them either you had to have enough money to pay a cleric, have a cleric of a high enough level  (which meant using a spell slot) or find an item that could do the resurrection which were not readily available.

I guess it come down to what one considers punished or rewarded. I do not consider it punishment. I find it to be a challenge. I find enjoyment in the challenge and the present DA games do not provide the same challenge.

One of the reasons I like Kingdom of Amalur you could be dispelling a chest and fail. You are cursed with nullskill which substracts -3 from all the skills until you get to a healer. Yes, I could reload, but I found it to be a challenge to actually fight my way through the dungeon to the objective. 

In Alternate Reality an old series the character could be poisoned which could show up immediately or later. If it showed up later you had a certain amount of time to get to a healer. The posion would start to affect the character's stats. Enemies would see your weaken condition and attack. Finding ways to stay alive was a challenge. That to me was fun. Which ism probably why I like Hard, Nightmare, Ironman and Insanity modes. 

Unfortunately the Hard mode in Kingdoms of Amalur is not really hard in my estimation. The Hard mode in Fallout:New Vegas is fun.

[cJohnOne]

Oh, you used Ironman in Temple of Elemental evil? Ha, ha you play a lot better than I do.

[Fast Jimmy]

Besides... couldn't I just stand still for the time period after each combat and then reload should the injury pop up. So patience would still be a way around it, this time just achieved by spending large periods of just idling and not playing the game.

No, there would be no standing around. The permanent injury would not kick in until the temporary one was healed. Which means it might now show up until you get back to camp or used the injury kit, regardless of how long you stand around.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 21 mai 2013 - 03:30 .

[Jerrybnsn]

Official DJ Harbinger wrote...

I don't need a toolkit or modding, I just want a good story that parallels Origins' filled with hard decisions, emotion, re-play value, and creativity. Is that so hard to ask for?

I think that the toolkit is one of those things that are the "above and beyond" attributes.  Was the toolkit what made Origins great? No, but the toolkit made Origins better.  Because that was the type of company Bioware was that made its huge fan base, a company that went "above and beyond" with its games.  That's why I brought up CDprojekt and that they are still planning on toolkits for their Witcher III game coming out on the next gen-consols.

That's why Bioware may be losing their fans because they are following the new formula of paid dlc characters and mission that give the impression of going in the opposite direction of "above and beyond". ..."below and behind"?

Modifié par Jerrybnsn, 21 mai 2013 - 01:33 .

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

No, there would be no standing around. The permanent injury would not kick in until the temporary one was healed. Which means it might now show up until you get back to camp or used the injury kit, regardless of how long you stand around.

Right... so it might be applied instantly and it might be hours later. Depending on how injuries are treated.

I can't but to help wondering why it is so important to jump through so many hoops and then attach a non-removeable penalty on achieving non-perfect victories?

Why is it so incredibly important to attach this penalty to a character? Both the random application and the delayed onset essentially means it's very ineffectual to dissuade losing characters in battle. The permanent loss of combat ability increases the likelyhood of it happening again.
And even if we manage to ensure that players don't reload (and why anyone would want to prevent them from deciding for themselves whether they want to keep playing or not is beyond me), haven't we just incentivized the player from just swapping the partymember out and never using them again?

I can't see this as anything than a forceful way to make players play the game a certain way, regardless of whether they find it fun or not.

A though that struck me while writing this post though... you mentioned a reward mechanic for doing well earlier. What if the reward is the removal of the permanent penalty (among other things). So that if you lose a character in a fight, they gain the penalty and then in a subsequent fight you succeed perfectly and the penalty is removed as a reward? Thus actively pointing out that keeping the party alive is a good thing (and I imagine, not needing to touch saves at all).
What do you think about that?

[Sylvius the Mad]

metatheurgist wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Not wanting to take any damage at all sounds more like obsessive compulsive behavior, than a flaw in game design per se.

If you were in a fight, would it be your objective merely to survive, or also to avoid being hurt?

That depends. Do I live in a universe with Clerics and Healing potions?

Injuries you can heal still hurt.

[archangel1996]

After DA2 and ME3 i don't know if MAY HAVE LOST is a good way to explain the situation XD
As is see it, DA3 is their last chance to make, after years, things right

[Shaigunjoe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware forces the gameplay on them. Not me.

I am simply trying to find ways to let people get out of their own way and enjoy, at a deeper level, what they are going to be doing regardless.

If Bioware were to include ways to avoid combat, through stealth, speech or some other method where the player won't be forced to fight for 99% of the game's encounters, then someone could say there is ways around combat. Or if they included a "skip combat" button, but the devs have not been exactly receptive to that idea when it has been suggested previously.

But if players are going to be engaging in combat for hours of each playthrough, even if they are only doing it to get to the "good stuff," it still would benefit them to have a deeper understanding of its mechanisms. Who knows, they may even find they enjoy it when they are given encouragement to understand it.

No, BW actually does a good job of not forcing all elements of the game on people, something that you seem to disagree with, you just want everyone.

Would you prefer it that you can't skip cutscenes?  Have certain requirements so that you have to have a certain class in your party at a certain times so people are forced to play as all classes?

Sure, they may like it, but they also may not. The tools are already there for them to explore if they want to, I see no need, and there has been no compelling evidence suggested, that it should be required.

[Realmzmaster]

cJohnOne wrote...

Oh, you used Ironman in Temple of Elemental evil? Ha, ha you play a lot better than I do.

Yes, Ironman. I also include all the Circle of Eight modifications which help remove a lot of the game breaking bugs. I like the option to play in those modes.

[AlanC9]

And you actually got through it without hitting any game breakers?

[Hazegurl]

I don't need a toolkit to enjoy a game but it would be nice if the devs developed cheat codes that unlocks better weapons, armors, clothes, and so on. Not many games have cheat codes these days and I freaking miss them. I can't begin to count how many times I've played a GTA game because of the cheat codes for it.

And no I don't want to be punished for not being the best player. Who the heck would I be competing against that I would need to be the best fighter who never dies or take any injuries? Maybe in a multi-player I wouldn't want to die often and leave behind an embarrassing K/D ratio but in a role playing game I just want to relax and enjoy the story. I also wouldn't want to be forced into "enjoying" all aspects of the game. There should be content I miss due to the actions I take. It only increases replay value for me as I wouldn't mind role playing in a different way later.

[Fast Jimmy]

I can't but to help wondering why it is so important to jump through so many hoops and then attach a non-removable penalty on achieving non-perfect victories?

Why is it so incredibly important to attach this penalty to a character? Both the random application and the delayed onset essentially means it's very ineffectual to dissuade losing characters in battle. The permanent loss of combat ability increases the likelihood of it happening again.

I'd argue that it doesn't increase the likelihood of losing in future battles given the magnitude and frequency I have been talking about.

Why I'm endorsing it is because of this exact response. You hate it. Others hate it. You say "don't penalize me and then give me no good way to get out of it!"

A suitable deterrent must be something a large subset of people do not enjoy. Otherwise it is not an effective deterrent.

If you make the possibility of losing skills/attributes/what-have-you known to the player, then they will fear it, even HATE it... despite it not being bad at all. It is the aversion to it that gives it the efficacy of making people actively avoid falling in combat. Actually receiving the permanent injury later on down the line won't be the deterrent (or even really, a punishment)... it will be the KNOWLEDGE that such a thing could happen that will cause players to stand up and pay attention. Which is all that I am pitching for.

Not having companions die in combat is not "my way of playing the game." I'm not saying people must roll a tank in every party, or that a DW rogue is the optimum way to fight enemies... it is saying "hey, by hook or crook, you may want to look at trying to keep your companions alive as best you can." That isn't a terrible, mean or tyrannical concept of me to put forward. You can play with a party full of mages, if the game gives you the option. Heck, with more healing options, it might be a great party mix to avoid having someone fall.

Point being, if you are on Normal (let alone Casual) and you are having companions die enough to incur these multiple instances of these permanent injuries, chances are you probably aren't even using Potions, let alone the Tactics screen. And, again, if the chance of it happening is scalable to the Difficulty level so that a Casual will never see one, I don't see where the chance of someone who hates combat will feel abused and mistreated by such a remote possibility of even happening?

No, BW actually does a good job of not forcing all elements of the game on people, something that you seem to disagree with, you just want everyone.

Would you prefer it that you can't skip cutscenes? Have certain requirements so that you have to have a certain class in your party at a certain times so people are forced to play as all classes?

Sure, they may like it, but they also may not. The tools are already there for them to explore if they want to, I see no need, and there has been no compelling evidence suggested, that it should be required.

DA2 definitely tried to change the gameplay mechanics to encourage more balanced parties. Playing DA2 on Nightmare without using Cross class Combos was a challenge not worth pursuing (for all the wrong reasons, mind you). The gameplay was so rewarding to utilizing this mechanic (which was, in turn, best utilized by incorporating a working understanding of the Tactics menu) that it is nearly impossible for someone to claims Bioware wasn't trying to incentivize this behavior by rewarding those who utilized it (and, conversely, penalizing those who didn't).

What I am suggesting is not to get people to "play like me." It is to get people to play how the game was designed to be played. And, just like not playing on Nightmare would mean you'd likely never have to use a single Cross class Combo if you didn't want to, my suggestion scales the chance of permanent injury with difficulty, so a Casual player wouldn't see it at all.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 mai 2013 - 12:27 .

[AlanC9]

ShaigunJoe, the problem is that Fast Jimmy doesn't think other players are playing the game well enough. He's trying to get them to develop their skillz.

I'm not even sure I'm joking about that anymore.

And I still don't see how raising the difficulty of the game wouldn't accomplish the same thing.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 mai 2013 - 01:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

ShaigunJoe, the problem is that Fast Jimmy doesn't think other players are playing the game well enough. He's trying to get them to develop their skillz.

I'm not even sure I'm joking about that anymore.

And I still don't see how raising the difficulty of the game wouldn't accomplish the same thing.

Hmmmmm. Okay, first off, I'm not a big fan of your tone.

But moving past that... I'm not an uber-tactician who knows max/min builds off the top of my head like some of the real experts you'd find in the DA2 Strategy Forums.

If anything, I'm likely the exact player this strategy would be aimed at. I know my way around the Tactics screen, but am usually too lazy to do set up anything much more complex than some of the basic templates, except maybe to put a health potion chugging Tactic Slot in there. I pay cursory attention to how my party is coordinated and what abilities would work together. And, while I usually really enjoy comparing/contrasting equipment, DA2's bizarre, inconsistent Star Rating system made me want to skip most of that most times as well.

I would go through fights, using the Auto-Attack button, occasionally drink a potion and kite while a skill cool down was going on. Because the game didnt give me a reason to care any more than that. Aside from the ending parts of each Act, there are only the smallest handful of times when going directly to Hawke's house isn't a clear option at all times. So instant removal of injuries is never a problem. Those few times when you don't, like say the Deep Roads area, forces you to use your Injury Kits... of which the game gives you DOZENS, by sheer drop rate alone.

So I am a star culprit of someone who could engage the system more, but feels no need to.

Suddenly, if you tell me that instead of zoning out and just going through the motions in all but the least-mooky of mook fights, I would want to pay attention or suffer a permanent penalty? Then I'll be going at the game's system with a vengeance. No bandit, blood Mage or abomination would stand in my way. And I'd say that would be the exact 

response of many of you, as well.

Now, granted, some of that has to do with me not being particularly enthralled with DA2's combat. But even that aside... at what point did dying, even in DA:O, really play into the game's difficulty? I'd challenge someone to tell me their most hated injury penalty without looking it up. It is a hard question... because the injuries are usually so minimal that their particular status effects aren't usually worth noticing. That's hardly a reason to avoid a character falling in combat. 

[Sir JK]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'd argue that it doesn't increase the likelihood of losing in future battles given the magnitude and frequency I have been talking about.

Why I'm endorsing it is because of this exact response. You hate it. Others hate it. You say "don't penalize me and then give me no good way to get out of it!"

A suitable deterrent must be something a large subset of people do not enjoy. Otherwise it is not an effective deterrent.

If you make the possibility of losing skills/attributes/what-have-you known to the player, then they will fear it, even HATE it... despite it not being bad at all. It is the aversion to it that gives it the efficacy of making people actively avoid falling in combat. Actually receiving the permanent injury later on down the line won't be the deterrent (or even really, a punishment)... it will be the KNOWLEDGE that such a thing could happen that will cause players to stand up and pay attention. Which is all that I am pitching for.

Not having companions die in combat is not "my way of playing the game." I'm not saying people must roll a tank in every party, or that a DW rogue is the optimum way to fight enemies... it is saying "hey, by hook or crook, you may want to look at trying to keep your companions alive as best you can." That isn't a terrible, mean or tyrannical concept of me to put forward. You can play with a party full of mages, if the game gives you the option. Heck, with more healing options, it might be a great party mix to avoid having someone fall.

Point being, if you are on Normal (let alone Casual) and you are having companions die enough to incur these multiple instances of these permanent injuries, chances are you probably aren't even using Potions, let alone the Tactics screen. And, again, if the chance of it happening is scalable to the Difficulty level so that a Casual will never see one, I don't see where the chance of someone who hates combat will feel abused and mistreated by such a remote possibility of even happening?

See... I'm not hating a penalty as such. The consequence for losing a party member in combat is rather tame and I would not be averse to see some sort of incentive to keeping people alive.

My problem is with it's suggested application.
The random appliance means that, depending on it's occurance, over a thousand players... there will be a number that gets burdened with this the very first time they lose a party member. It will hit people who aren't really doing any systemic wrong but had a bit of bad luck in the last encounter and some people who constantly loses character might go completely free. All because of a RNG.
Now, if you wanted repeatedly losing partymembers to be punished, would not incremental increases be a better approach? That after x defeats the character fills their bar and voilá... permanent injury. That way it's directly tied to combat performance and not to a RNG activated by performance.

Then there's the delayed onset aspect. This I feel is an even greater problem. It's an outright manipulation in order to trick me into playing long enough that I won't be inclined to go back and redo the fight. It's quite frankly dishonest. A trick to ensure that I keep this "badge of shame" for the rest of my session.
And why? Why is it so increadibly important that I keep this penalty? Exactly how would this make the game any more enjoyable? Wanting to avoid the penalty... sure, I get that. But being manipulated into keeping it?

The permanent aspect I too have some problems with, but not nearly as much as those other two. Mostly because this thing won't really have true teeth until you've experienced it. Instruction is fine and all, but nothing beats experience. It also doesn't really teach you to play better as much as tell you to. Which is another problem.

Overall I'd say it's a very flawed aproach to solve a percieved problem.

[Realmzmaster]

AlanC9 wrote...

And you actually got through it without hitting any game breakers?

Yes, I actually got through the whole game with no game breakers. The Circle of Eight modifications are really very good. They also keep imroving the whole modification package.

[Shaigunjoe]

AlanC9 wrote...

ShaigunJoe, the problem is that Fast Jimmy doesn't think other players are playing the game well enough. He's trying to get them to develop their skillz.

I'm not even sure I'm joking about that anymore.

And I still don't see how raising the difficulty of the game wouldn't accomplish the same thing.

It wouldn't, if you want people to pay more attention in combat, make it so not paying attention results in a party wipe.  Shoot, just playing DA:O in normal mode, I would have situation where I need to pause and think things through, or die.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

StreetMagic wrote...

Anyone who quits "Bioware" as a whole because of one game probably shouldn't be catered to.

This. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ShaigunJoe, the problem is that Fast Jimmy doesn't think other players are playing the game well enough. He's trying to get them to develop their skillz.

I'm not even sure I'm joking about that anymore.

And I still don't see how raising the difficulty of the game wouldn't accomplish the same thing.

It wouldn't, if you want people to pay more attention in combat, make it so not paying attention results in a party wipe.  Shoot, just playing DA:O in normal mode, I would have situation where I need to pause and think things through, or die.

This isn't a bad idea, per se, but it does incentivize one way to play. If you make every match so hard that you might die if you don't give it your full attention, then you really push players to create the strongest party possible, meaning you max/min DPS to mana/stamina consumption. 

It doesn't allow a more open design for character builds or party makeups. 

I would say giving such a challenge that you can actively stifle variant gameplay and easily frustrate the player is dangerous. My way of just making a player experience avoidance behaviors is ever-present, like a more punshing difficulty/encounter design, but at the same time, gives the player the freedom to suffer these losses with a penalty that people would hate, but which would ,ultimately, have a negligible effect on success or failure.