175 réponses à ce sujet

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Your hypothetical lead designer has said that locked chests and doors are here to stay. You have been tasked with making it engaging. How would you make it more fun? Do you think it is an impossible task?

Make lockpicking some sort of mini-game in which skills from all party members can play a part, though rogues probably have more and/or better relevant skills.  And most of the time try to place them in occasions where failure can have consequences (like time pressure, or setting off a trap that might destroy the loot), so it's not just a case of repeating endlessly until success.

(Disclaimer:  I really don't want minigames in DA:I, I'm just attempting to fulfil the brief)

Would lock picking be a group activity then? Is it an aggregate skill level for the entire group, or would it be a per-character basis? What sort of minigame would it be? 

What makes it fun and/or engaging? Aren't you assuming that a minigame is automatically fun and/or engaging?

Have lockpicking allow for tactical advantages in combat, rather than being a requirement to access loot.  You might be able to use it to avoid ambushes and things.

How would you reconcile this combat advantage to the players who enjoy role-playing from a lore perspective? I am not sure what you mean by allowing a tactical advantage in combat. Do you mean to make lock picking a selectable talent that not all characters (of a specific class) get?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 13 septembre 2013 - 10:37 .

[Maria Caliban]

I was going to defend my post but then Filament and hhh89 swooped in with explanations that were, if I'm honest, probably more detailed and helpful than what I would have come up with.

So, um, here's a picture of a duckling.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Filament wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

...just because it says "magic can be used to make bridges" does not mean that will be a Mage specific action. You forget that the Veil has been ripped. Perhaps it will end up being an item that you must use that uses magic. You are going off of assumptions. Until it has been directly declared, "Only Mages will be able to repair and make bridges; only Warriors will be able to break down doors; only Rogues will be able to unlock chests and disarm traps" then it is only an assumption. Perhaps it will be as you say, or perhaps they will change it to something else. I will not rely on assumptions. I believe the idea must be kept alive, so that they can see that this is something we want and this is how we want it.

There was an image they showed of a poster on their wall labeled "exploration skills" where rogues had something like lockpicking and traps, warriors had strength and bash, and mages had energize, dispel and creation. Whether they follow through on that concept remains to be seen, but it's more than an assumption, I'd say.

I was unaware of such a picture. Thank you for putting it to my attention. Though I'm afraid it still remains an assumption. It's just that the assumption has been granted a considerable about of credibility. But, I refuse to leave things to chance. I do not wish them to sit and think that they will be able to take things out or change them drastically, and still get away with no one disapproving. It has happened before. I do not wish to see it happen again, not to a game that I have an interest in.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I was going to defend my post but then Filament and hhh89 swooped in with explanations that were, if I'm honest, probably more detailed and helpful than what I would have come up with.

So, um, here's a picture of a duckling.

Why hello there little duckling.

I apologize if it seemed as if I was attacking your post, that is not and was not my intention. I merely wished to point out that it is an assumption and that until it is directly stated and declared that no matter what, this is how it will be, it remains an assumption. As I stated above this post, I do not wish to leave the matter to chance. No matter how small or unlikely it is.

[The Elder King]

@Redwolf Skydragon: what was changed drastically about lockpicking, or rogues skills out of combat? Or are you talking about something else?
Regardless, we already see the bash ability at work, and with the GI mention of the mage skill, there's no way exploration skills are an assumption. It's a feature that can change greatly, even without class restriction (doubtful) but they exist in the game.

Modifié par hhh89, 13 septembre 2013 - 10:56 .

[Wulfram]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Would lock picking be a group activity then? Is it an aggregate skill level for the entire group, or would it be a per-character basis? What sort of minigame would it be?

It would be a group activity.  Or at least potentially so, characters could attempt it alone if the situation called for it.

Minigame would maybe be something about using the right abilities in the right order, based on a interpreting some picture/diagram and using trail and error and logic to eliminate wrong approaches.

What makes it fun and/or engaging?

It would challenge the players skill and intelligence.  Hopefully

Aren't you assuming that a minigame is automatically fun and/or engaging?

I think it's got more chance of being engaging than clicking on a box and recieving loot because you're a rogue/have invested in a skill.  But it could end up being an annoying chore, that's always a risk with minigames

How would you reconcile this combat advantage to the players who enjoy role-playing from a lore perspective.  I am not sure what you mean by allowing a tactical advantage in combat. Do you mean to make lock picking a selectable talent that not all characters (of a specific class) get?

The tactical advantage would be stuff like being able to enter a building quietly and thus avoiding a tough fight on entry because the noise of knocking down a door attracted attention.  Or opening up an unexpected route to the enemy, thus meaning that rather than running into their tanks you'd start out near their squishy ranged enemies that would otherwise have been not easily accessible.  I don't know whether I'd make it selectable, I guess it would depend whether it ended up being used frequently enough to be worth it.

[JWvonGoethe]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...
I must disagree. My question is not "Why a warrior can't have a gameplay rogue based bonus?" It is why do only the rogues have an out-of-combat game based bonus?

That's not the case. Rogues can open locks, but warriors can bash down doors and mages can create bridges for you to walk over.

In fact, each class gets an exploration tree in DA:I.

In some ways this just exacerbates the problem.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of class-specific exploration trees, but they are just going to make people feel forced not only to bring along a rogue, but also to have to bring along a mage and a warrior as well.

Would adding in even more class-restricted exploration abilities really solve the problem?

Edit: sorry for picking on you specifically Maria, I realise you are echoing Allan Schumacher's opinion.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 13 septembre 2013 - 11:05 .

[Wulfram]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Why would adding in even more class-restricted exploration abilities alleviate the issue?

It could alleviate the issue if exploration skill points (if such exist) are in short enough supply that you need multiple characters of each to cover everything.  That way there'd always be a trade off, rather than there being a straight loss for not taking at least 1 of everything.

edit:  Though it risks creating an incentive for the player to engage in lots of backtracking with different groups to get everything, which could be tedious.

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 septembre 2013 - 11:09 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Wulfram wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Would lock picking be a group activity then? Is it an aggregate skill level for the entire group, or would it be a per-character basis? What sort of minigame would it be?

It would be a group activity.  Or at least potentially so, characters could attempt it alone if the situation called for it.

Minigame would maybe be something about using the right abilities in the right order, based on a interpreting some picture/diagram and using trail and error and logic to eliminate wrong approaches.

What makes it fun and/or engaging?

It would challenge the players skill and intelligence.  Hopefully

Aren't you assuming that a minigame is automatically fun and/or engaging?

I think it's got more chance of being engaging than clicking on a box and recieving loot because you're a rogue/have invested in a skill.  But it could end up being an annoying chore, that's always a risk with minigames

It sounds like you are suggesting something very much like ME1's lockpicking minigame. Is that accurate? How would your suggestion be different? 

How would you reconcile this combat advantage to the players who enjoy role-playing from a lore perspective.  I am not sure what you mean by allowing a tactical advantage in combat. Do you mean to make lock picking a selectable talent that not all characters (of a specific class) get?

The tactical advantage would be stuff like being able to enter a building quietly and thus avoiding a tough fight on entry because the noise of knocking down a door attracted attention.  Or opening up an unexpected route to the enemy, thus meaning that rather than running into their tanks you'd start out near their squishy ranged enemies that would otherwise have been not easily accessible.  I don't know whether I'd make it selectable, I guess it would depend whether it ended up being used frequently enough to be worth it.

This seems more like a reward for properly picking the lock on a locked door. You open a path that wasn't available before, and are afforded a new opportunity because of it. In this hypothetical game, would players never encounter locked chests? Wouldn't this go against the directive?

[JWvonGoethe]

Wulfram wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Why would adding in even more class-restricted exploration abilities alleviate the issue?

It could alleviate the issue if exploration skill points (if such exist) are in short enough supply that you need multiple characters of each to cover everything.  That way there'd always be a trade off, rather than there being a straight loss for not taking at least 1 of everything.

edit:  Though it risks creating an incentive for the player to engage in lots of backtracking with different groups to get everything, which could be tedious.

Ah, that's quite a neat solution actually, I could see this working.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 13 septembre 2013 - 11:14 .

[Redwolf Skydragon]

hhh89 wrote...

@Redwolf Skydragon: what was changed drastically about lockpicking, or rogues skills out of combat? Or are you talking about something else?
Regardless, we already see the bash ability at work, and with the GI mention of the mage skill, there's no way exploration skills are an assumption. It's a feature that can change greatly, even without class restriction (doubtful) but they exist in the game.

I do not understand the first part of your post? Is my discussion not clear enough? I am not discussing the Rogue at all. I am discussing the fact that a Rogue is made to be more "special", viable, useful out-of-combat than any of the other classes. As one poster has written, combat in this game isn't that great a way to distinguish what makes a class that class. So we must look at other factors. Rogues are able to pick locks and disarm traps. At this moment they are the only class that has any use outside of combat.

An assumption is an assumption until it is shown with unrefutable evidence that the assumption is either true or false. I tell you I have 5 dollars/Euros/yen/pounds w/e. Do I really have that 5 pieces of currency? Maybe. You do not know if I do or not. You must use inferences that I give you in order to form an assumption as to whether or not you believe me. It remains an assumption, and you do not know for certain if what I claim is true or false, until I show you otherwise or you steal my wallet and see for yourself. Until such conditions are met, your opinion as to whether or not I actually have that 5, remains an assumption. So until the product is released, you can not know for certain if what is claimed, will happen. Oh sure, the chances might be very high. But that does not change the fact that it is not a fact.

[The Elder King]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Redwolf Skydragon: what was changed drastically about lockpicking, or rogues skills out of combat? Or are you talking about something else?
Regardless, we already see the bash ability at work, and with the GI mention of the mage skill, there's no way exploration skills are an assumption. It's a feature that can change greatly, even without class restriction (doubtful) but they exist in the game.

I do not understand the first part of your post? Is my discussion not clear enough? I am not discussing the Rogue at all. I am discussing the fact that a Rogue is made to be more "special", viable, useful out-of-combat than any of the other classes. As one poster has written, combat in this game isn't that great a way to distinguish what makes a class that class. So we must look at other factors. Rogues are able to pick locks and disarm traps. At this moment they are the only class that has any use outside of combat.

An assumption is an assumption until it is shown with unrefutable evidence that the assumption is either true or false. I tell you I have 5 dollars/Euros/yen/pounds w/e. Do I really have that 5 pieces of currency? Maybe. You do not know if I do or not. You must use inferences that I give you in order to form an assumption as to whether or not you believe me. It remains an assumption, and you do not know for certain if what I claim is true or false, until I show you otherwise or you steal my wallet and see for yourself. Until such conditions are met, your opinion as to whether or not I actually have that 5, remains an assumption. So until the product is released, you can not know for certain if what is claimed, will happen. Oh sure, the chances might be very high. But that does not change the fact that it is not a fact.

You said that you're not going to let them take out something or drastically change it and get away with it. I thought this phrase was related to the topic of rogues' abilities outside combat.

Fair enough about the assumption part. Bioware seems to want to give each class a use outside combat, but its' true that until the game ships (or at least after Bioware directly confirms it, since they are trying to announce publically only the features that are locked inside the game) we can't be sure about it.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

hhh89 wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Redwolf Skydragon: what was changed drastically about lockpicking, or rogues skills out of combat? Or are you talking about something else?
Regardless, we already see the bash ability at work, and with the GI mention of the mage skill, there's no way exploration skills are an assumption. It's a feature that can change greatly, even without class restriction (doubtful) but they exist in the game.

I do not understand the first part of your post? Is my discussion not clear enough? I am not discussing the Rogue at all. I am discussing the fact that a Rogue is made to be more "special", viable, useful out-of-combat than any of the other classes. As one poster has written, combat in this game isn't that great a way to distinguish what makes a class that class. So we must look at other factors. Rogues are able to pick locks and disarm traps. At this moment they are the only class that has any use outside of combat.

An assumption is an assumption until it is shown with unrefutable evidence that the assumption is either true or false. I tell you I have 5 dollars/Euros/yen/pounds w/e. Do I really have that 5 pieces of currency? Maybe. You do not know if I do or not. You must use inferences that I give you in order to form an assumption as to whether or not you believe me. It remains an assumption, and you do not know for certain if what I claim is true or false, until I show you otherwise or you steal my wallet and see for yourself. Until such conditions are met, your opinion as to whether or not I actually have that 5, remains an assumption. So until the product is released, you can not know for certain if what is claimed, will happen. Oh sure, the chances might be very high. But that does not change the fact that it is not a fact.

You said that you're not going to let them take out something or drastically change it and get away with it. I thought this phrase was related to the topic of rogues' abilities outside combat.

Fair enough about the assumption part. Bioware seems to want to give each class a use outside combat, but its' true that until the game ships (or at least after Bioware directly confirms it, since they are trying to announce publically only the features that are locked inside the game) we can't be sure about it.

Ah, I was reffering to the fact that because they have released information via the photo of the skill tree, that until it is without a doubt certain that it has happened, I do not want to let the idea/discussion die. That way if they do end up changing something or not putting something in, even though they should that it was going to be, then they cannot claim it is because people did not want it or say that it wasn't worth the time and effort to accomplish. Because there are people who want the classes to be more equal and unique, so it's not just something they can dismiss lightly. (If they ever have plans to dismiss the feature).

[The Elder King]

@Redwolf Skydragon: I see, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Anyway.., seems Mr. Allan has left/lost interest in communicating. Mrs./Mr. hoorayforicecream seems to have either not seen my question or is choosing to ignore it. Think I'mma leave now. Maybe check up on this thread tomorrow or something, see if it has died or not.

BioWare: Please make the "Talkative Man" be in DA:I with more handsomeness, I think he should get a drink of water after knocking on the fourth wall.

Modifié par Redwolf Skydragon, 14 septembre 2013 - 12:18 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Allan, answer the more important question please.

Is The Talkative Man returning? Yes or no?

[Cyanide Disaster]

I have to disagree with the OP. A lot. And right now I am going to admit I did not read most of your walls of text, because the first few were just repeats of the last ones. Also, going off of DOA because DA2 was... DA2.

The fact is that things that usually apply to the "rogue" class such as: poison, trap-making/disarming, pick-pocketing, archery, duel wielding, etc., were already given to the other classes (something I have resented for a while). Which means that in this sense rogues are merely lightly-armoured fighters, other than their one merit: being able to open locked items and doors.

Sure, it might be somewhat of an inconvenience to have to bring along someone classified as a rogue, but you could armour them like a warrior and throw two weapons in your hands and BAM: lock-opening warrior who can also stealth if he really wants to.

That said, I like to play every class in every possible way just because I can't do certain things with certain characters and can with others. And I feel if we said "yeah, sure, let's let all classes be able to open locked chests (which don't have padlocks on them like I feel you're imaging, but instead an intricate inner-locking system)" then they may as well remove the rogue class. Because you could just as easily say "Why can't my mage go into stealth? Why can't my warrior? It's UNFAIR that I have to take a rogue along if I want to sneak around and lay traps."

This reminds me of an argument with someone on WoW. They said that a Protection Warrior (TANK) should do as much, if not more, damage than another specced Warrior. Which is just as silly as saying all classes should be able to lock-pick. Because that is not their utility! These warrior, for example, is in a specific spec so they are able to absorb the most damage. if they were also able to deal the most, it would be unfair to every other class and spec. Which brings me back to the lock-picking issue. If all classes are able to lock-pick, then it is unfair to that one class.

So in conclusion: I'm sorry that you don't like any of the rogue characters, but that's what they do. They sneak, they lock-pick, and the kill from behind. Warriors absorb damage with either heavy/massive armour or a shield. Mages can deal massive damage from far away, or provide healing spells.

Though, with that exploration tree I saw mentioned I feel that should very much even the scales for the out-of-combat usefulness. Because DURING combat rogues are merely lightly-armoured, agile fights. What sets them apart from other classes *IS* their out-of-combat uses.

[JerZey CJ]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Anyways, here goes.

What is the point of a locked chest, if a rogue can open it?

It
is even stated in DA2, among one of the loading screens: "Rogues are
the only class that can unlock locked chests you may have on your
travels. So, having a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality."

Does the loading screen actually say "having a a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality?"

In any case, for your question, the point of a rogue opening it is that it provides a degree of utility for that class.  They can provide something unique that another class cannot provide.

So, it is not by being mistaken that Warriors and Mages miss out on loot
within locked chests; it is because it is programmed that way. If you
do not wish to have a Rogue in your party, you are punished by not being
able to obtain loot from locked chests. It is your choice, yes. But it
is not your choice to miss out on loot, that is made for you. Warriors
do not have such a special purpose. Neither do mages. It is benefical to
have such classes within your party, but it is not "near essential".
You can go through the whole game without just Rogues and Mages or
Warriors and Rogues, and you would not be at a disadvantage in obatining
anything. Rogues have been made "special" by being able to be the only
ones capable of unlocking a chest or disarming a trap.

Is the solution necessarily to allow warriors/mages to open locks, or would it be better to provide some level of unique utility to each of those classes?

But no, I disagree that I must take someone/some class, just so I can
open a chest. Greater things? Like taking them because of their ability
to heal (as you mentioned Wynne)? Yes, I agree. (But I must also point
out that in DA2 if a member was needed to be in the party for a quest,
it told you so and made it so they could not be removed.)

What is considered okay to be separate, and what is not?

I think this would be the answer. You could just make different kinds of locked chests that only a certain class can open(ie. a "reinforced chest" for warriors and a "Warded chest" for mages). You could keep rogues as the only class that can pick locks, but maybe warriors can bash open some doors that can't be picked and mages could find hidden doors and chests.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think this would be the answer. You could just make different kinds of locked chests that only a certain class can open(ie. a "reinforced chest" for warriors and a "Warded chest" for mages). You could keep rogues as the only class that can pick locks, but maybe warriors can bash open some doors that can't be picked and mages could find hidden doors and chests.

An interesting, and frankly creative, approach to the problem actually!  Thank you for sharing

[In Exile]

JerZeyCJ2 wrote...
I think this would be the answer. You could just make different kinds of locked chests that only a certain class can open(ie. a "reinforced chest" for warriors and a "Warded chest" for mages). You could keep rogues as the only class that can pick locks, but maybe warriors can bash open some doors that can't be picked and mages could find hidden doors and chests.

What, then, would be the unique utility that the rogue provides? Traps?

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

All I know is, there's nothing cassandra can't open.

[JerZey CJ]

In Exile wrote...

JerZeyCJ2 wrote...
I think this would be the answer. You could just make different kinds of locked chests that only a certain class can open(ie. a "reinforced chest" for warriors and a "Warded chest" for mages). You could keep rogues as the only class that can pick locks, but maybe warriors can bash open some doors that can't be picked and mages could find hidden doors and chests.

What, then, would be the unique utility that the rogue provides? Traps?

They could still pick locks, Warriors and Mages would just have their own equivalent. But a class would not be able to unlock another class'. Thus, all classes have their own unique utility out of combat and Rogues are still the only class that can disarm traps.

[JerZey CJ]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think this would be the answer. You could just make different kinds of locked chests that only a certain class can open(ie. a "reinforced chest" for warriors and a "Warded chest" for mages). You could keep rogues as the only class that can pick locks, but maybe warriors can bash open some doors that can't be picked and mages could find hidden doors and chests.

An interesting, and frankly creative, approach to the problem actually!  Thank you for sharing

And thank you, Mr. Schumacher, for responding