710 réponses à ce sujet

[SlottsMachine]

[laudable11]

Multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 is great. At first when I heard about MP in Mass Effect 3 I was sceptical. But I played the demo before ME3 was released and I am still hooked.

[AmstradHero]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'll agree with the vast majority of your logic and assumptions. However... there is a giant flaw.

It assumes player awareness of the imbalance that you are talking about.

It assumes that the player knows about all of the Specializations (or, even, all to the classes) before they start playing. This assumes the player does a large degree of research before their first playthrough (including combat mechanics, build/attribute concepts, the concept of whether the various classes would have Specializations, etc.) or that they are completing multiple playthroughs. Both of which we can say for certain are not "the average player's" behavior, in terms of sheer numbers and volume based on what Bioware has stated.

I agree with you... for the specific example of arcane warrior / unlockable specialisations with otherwise unknown skills.  I was merely using this as an example to demonstrate the general principle.  Again, compare to DA2, where multiple specialisations were visible and the skills in each tree could be inspected beforehand. Players without doubt checked out those and went "which one of these sounds like it would be the best?" They are not guaranteed to make the best decision because they may not have studied the game mechanics in detal, but they'll most likely pick the one that looks the "best". (If there's no clear indication about which one that is, then they'll probably then defer to either "fun" or "cool".)

Gamers generally like to be given some indication of how "good" something is (even if it's just a power bar or the like)  in order to compare multiple options. DAO was unusually opaque for the average player in this regard.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
So is it really that important to balance classes in a SP? It isn't competition between players, as a MP would be, where players with sub-optimal builds are pitted against each other. The difficulty of encounters are both designed for a variety of difficulties as well as a difficulty level that can be modified. So, in that light, where a stronger class/build is better than another, but there is no strong penalty to have sub-optimal classes as well as a rather rare opportunity that players would have the knowledge to choose this class/build right from the get go, what is the problem?

The initial argument I was addressing was that "balance is unimportant", which I wholeheartedly disagree with. My argument is that there should not be a significant power imbalance, and specialisations and classes should be able to bring roughly the same amount of "power" to the table. Whether that's tankability, enable disable, support, dps, or whatever, I don't really care, but I feel that player choice and flexibility benefits if there isn't a power disparity between base choices. Again, I'm not saying someone should be able to build poorly and still be as effective as someone who picks skills that mix well, but it's about providing flexibility of choice to allow for different playstyles and strategies and still have them be effective.

As for adjustable difficulty... do you not recall the number of people that complained vociferously that "DAO IS TOO HARD" even when playing on normal difficulty? Players who see themselves as gamers don't like to drop the difficulty to easy. Many of them will (and did) quit before doing that. People using sub-optimal builds and strategies found themselves getting smashed - which again, DA2 addressed.

Also - key point if "there is no strong penalty to have sub-optimal classes". This is what balancing aims to avoid. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that a player getting a strong penalty simply because they picked the "wrong" specialisation or class is NOT fun.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 novembre 2013 - 01:31 .

[AmstradHero]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I may be wrong, but it appears Amstrad is commiting that most cardinal of sins (according to Sylvius anyway)--saying that Bioware should protect us from ourselves (by keeping balanced classes, because we're somehow innately bound to choose the OP classes once we learn of them).

By the Maker, don't mention his name! You'll draw him here! 

That said, no, I'm not asking BioWare to protect us from ourselves. I'm quite happy for people to be able to make stupid decisions (either to their benefit or detriment).

Reading this and your above posts, I think we're arguing two slightly different but importantly different points.

You're saying that you don't want every class in SP to be like a solo MP experience where all classes are roughly equal in power and have an equal chance to kill each other in a 1v1 situation.  On this point, I wholeheartedly agree. This was why I raised DOTA2.  Like DOTA2, DA is designed as a party game. You should have different classes (heroes) with different skills and strengths that complement each other in combat. I believe I stated previously that balancing for MP is NOT the same as balancing for SP, but that balance IS important for both styles of play.

Again, I want each class / specialisation to bring roughly the same amount of "power" to the table as any other, so that you don't get one that's grossly overpowered, or one that's pretty much useless, mainly because I'm greedy and I like to be able to pick between options without gimping (or whatever the opposite of gimping is) myself.

The form of that "power" will vary such that you couldn't just translate classes straight to a PvP MP experience. Some classes/specialisations will be support, some will be glass cannon, some will be crowd control, etc, etc. I just don't want a single class/specialisation that fulfills ALL the roles, or alternatively, none of them.

So, to clarify, I don't want the classes / specialisations to be balanced for 1v1 PvP and then dumped into the SP. I agree that would not be good. I'd rather that they be balanced for SP.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 novembre 2013 - 02:32 .

[AmstradHero]

EntropicAngel wrote...

And, since we're here, I'd like to thank you again for Alley of Murders, Amstrad. I felt that was a pretty fantastically designed mod (if a leeetle hard at times--especially Owen) that does the "Blood magic to fight the Blight" delimma far, far better than Warden's Keep ever did. A lot more grey than Saphra Dryden wanting demons to help her fight back kings, because...she wanted her little kingdom. Thanks.

Haha, thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!

One of these days, I'll eventually get The Shattered War out, and that will hopefully have more tough choices and fun for people.  Which reminds me... I should probably get back and do another test playthrough...

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 novembre 2013 - 02:34 .

[ElitePinecone]

someguy1231 wrote...

Vilegrim wrote...

As long as MP has no influence on, or interaction with single player, I have no issues with it being included. Meaning the combat system isn't changed in SP to work better in MP, no readiness score etc etc.

This is pretty much the only valid reason to object to MP.

Yeah.

Given how frustrating and annoying ME3's War Assets/Galactic Readiness systems turned out to be, I'd be greatly wary of a multiplayer system in DA3 that linked in to the singleplayer like that. It turned huge decisions into a numerical value, and the way the Readiness number influenced the ending was terrible.

[Heimdall]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Yeah.

Given how frustrating and annoying ME3's War Assets/Galactic Readiness systems turned out to be, I'd be greatly wary of a multiplayer system in DA3 that linked in to the singleplayer like that. It turned huge decisions into a numerical value, and the way the Readiness number influenced the ending was terrible.

While true, I should think that Bioware patched the need for Readiness to get any ending out would give you some hope on that front.

[DragonRageGT]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

And I want MP in Skyrim, as well. To be able to co-operatively adventure with my friends would be amazing.

The comparison to Battlefield is flawed. I don't think anybody here is asking for some kind of team deathmatch or capture the flag type of mode. Personally, I just want to be able to play through the single-player with friends. That's my dream multiplayer component in any party/squad-based RPG.

It is not flawed at all. The example is not intended as a would be mode for the MP in DA:I. Of course you know that. You just want to disagree. It's fine that you like MP in DA:I, but do not waste my time.

MP in DA:I....hmmm... DA3.. DiAblo 3... Nice game to play the campaign with friends... Maybe the should put an Action House as well as a Hardcore Mode... I only play Hardcore! Hopefully I'll have friends whom can give me 400 million GP and items worth over 1 billion when I die and start over...

[Schneidend]

DragonRageGT wrote...

MP in DA:I....hmmm... DA3.. DiAblo 3... Nice game to play the campaign with friends... Maybe the should put an Action House as well as a Hardcore Mode... I only play Hardcore! Hopefully I'll have friends whom can give me 400 million GP and items worth over 1 billion when I die and start over...

Your hyperbole is showing...and ugh, it looks really inane. You ought to have that looked at.

[durasteel]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

A general question:

What would your thoughts of ME3 be if the single player experience existed exactly as is, and there was no multiplayer component at all?  In fact, for those that see ME3's MP as the proof that it takes away from the Single Player experience, I ask you to ask yourselves "is it possible that BioWare just made a single player experience that I didn't care for?"

(snip)

If I may offer my answer:

I thought ME3 was, unfortunately, a whole that was less than the sum of its parts. I thought the opening sequence and the ending sequence both brought down the other story elements, which otherwise were individually superb (especially the Quarian/Geth resolutions in their splended variety.)

I thought the multiplayer was fun, but it was frustrating that I was compelled to take time away from Shepard to boost my rating before I went into the last bit. If you want my recomendation, it would be to make any multiplayer in Inquisition similar to that in ME3 in most respects. It should not involve the main character (the Inquisitor.) It should personalise the conflict ongoing in Thedas, making the reports the Inquisitor gets "from the front lines" more relatable. It should not, however, have any impact on the story of the Inquisitor.

Using the multiplayer game to unlock certain prestige items within the main game (like that Legends facebook game for DA2,) or even to provide a more tangible benefit like unlocking obscure spec trees, seem like good ideas to me. In the case of spec tree unlocks, I would strongly suggest that the multiplayer offer one of at least two possible ways to unlock the spec in question, even if the other way is to bring a big sack of gold to a vendor to buy the manual.

It should be possible, even at launch, to experience the campaign to its fullest extent without touching the multiplayer part of the game. If your multiplayer is fun, you don't have to force people to participate in it. If it isn't fun, you should cut it from the game.

Anyway, that's what I think.

[durasteel]

I also want to add this: any multiplayer elements of the game should be sufficiently separated from the main campaign that user generated mods, save editing, use of console commands, etc. may be used and abused without any kind of cheater policing being implicated. After my first playthrough, I'll be looking for different story outcomes and exploration opportunities, and will probably want to just mash the "awesome" button to get through the combat or hack myself a missing key or piece of an armor set (ancient elven boots, ahem.)

[SaintSant]

Personally, I don't think the pause-based tactical combat system would be as easy to translate to multiplayer as Mass Effect's cover-based style was. I have nothing against multiplayer in general, but I do think the budget (and the quality) of single player would suffer if money was allocated to multiplayer. Historically, Dragon Age has always been a single-player franchise; I see no compelling reason to change that. People who are looking for quality online play can easily turn elsewhere.

[ElitePinecone]

rupok93 wrote...

The point isn't whether we are gonna have fun or not, the point is what if it affects the singpleplayer and the quality of the game because they had to allocate resources elsewhere or try to dumb down singleplayer aspects so it fits better in mp. Is that so hard to get? Tbh we have seen that happen many times in the past with other games.

A few players are gonna have fun at the expense of most of us who want the best singpleplayer experiance as possible from a DRAGON AGE game, a freaking singpleplayer story driven Rpg.

Firstly, it's been said many times that if money is allocated for multiplayer it *does not* come from the singleplayer budget, and never would've been allocated to the singleplayer budget. It's extra money, because they think the presence of multiplayer will make more money. 

Secondly, who are you to speak for all fans? How do you know "most of us" like the story? You like Dragon Age as a singleplayer story-driven RPG, other people play it for the combat, the tactics or the special effects of blowing enemies up with fireballs and ice storms. 

Dismissing what other people enjoy about a game because it's not the one specific aspect you find interesting is a bit short-sighted. 

[ElitePinecone]

Aaleel wrote...

I have less confidence in this than you.  What they did in ME3 was deliberate.  They wanted MP to be successful and needed to get people in it early.  What better way to do that then tie the ending of players 5 year three game journey to it.  Once they saw it was off to a good start, they patched it and lowered the requirements.

I wouldn't put it past Bioware to do the same thing with DA:I or something like it that gets people playing it in the beginning. 

This does seem true, unfortunately.

I'm not usually one for conspiracies but it beggars belief that it was a "mistake" when the maximum possible War Assets available in a playthrough was less than the amount required for every ending. If nobody genuinely noticed that before it shipped, then they seem pretty incompetent. That it took so long to fix, with no proper explanation given, just made the whole thing worse. The ridiculous thing is, they shot themselves in the foot by doing it - *especially* after promising for months and months that players wouldn't need to touch multiplayer to experience everything in the singleplayer. 

If they wanted to find a way to antagonise every fan who was suspicious of multiplayer when it was first announced, making it practically mandatory in order to see the SP endings, after guaranteeing that this very thing wouldn't happen, was the perfect way to do it.

At best it was a horrible mistake, but at worst it was a deliberate reversal of something they promised never to do.

[Iakus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

This does seem true, unfortunately.

I'm not usually one for conspiracies but it beggars belief that it was a "mistake" when the maximum possible War Assets available in a playthrough was less than the amount required for every ending. If nobody genuinely noticed that before it shipped, then they seem pretty incompetent. That it took so long to fix, with no proper explanation given, just made the whole thing worse. The ridiculous thing is, they shot themselves in the foot by doing it - *especially* after promising for months and months that players wouldn't need to touch multiplayer to experience everything in the singleplayer. 

If they wanted to find a way to antagonise every fan who was suspicious of multiplayer when it was first announced, making it practically mandatory in order to see the SP endings, after guaranteeing that this very thing wouldn't happen, was the perfect way to do it.

At best it was a horrible mistake, but at worst it was a deliberate reversal of something they promised never to do.

And people wonder why I'm willing to walk away from DAI if it turns out it does in fact have multiplayer...<_<

[AppealToReason]

I am not opposed. I play with myself often enough. I want to play with others too.

[Maria Caliban]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I'm not usually one for conspiracies but it beggars belief that it was a "mistake" when the maximum possible War Assets available in a playthrough was less than the amount required for every ending. If nobody genuinely noticed that before it shipped, then they seem pretty incompetent.

DA II shipped for consoles without auto-attack.

BioWare makes mistakes. No, it doesn't mean they're incompetent, it means that making a game includes fixing millions of issues and even if you catch 99% of them, you won't get them all.

[ElitePinecone]

Edit: this is a reply to iakus
Well, just because it happened once doesn't mean it would happen again - especially after the backlash and feedback.

I'm certainly not opposed to multiplayer on principle, but the intersection with singleplayer *is* the area that would cause concern. ME3's MP was fun on its own, but the War Assets system (actually, more so that MP necessitated having War Assets in the first place) was a terrible disappointment. I'd much rather a multiplayer mode that wasn't integrated with the main story, than one where the presence of the MP has bad consequences for how the singleplayer progression works.

(A tangent, but ME3's MP negatively affected the entire structure of the singleplayer campaign by making the ending dependent on an arbitrary number instead of reflecting our choices as we'd mad them. Priority: London was annoying in this respect, and just didn't measure up to the potential of something like the Suicide Mission.)

If Inquisition hypothetically ships with something like an 'influence" system that's increased by singleplayer actions or playing a hypothetical multiplayer mode then, yes, I'd be pretty alarmed.

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 10 novembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[Schneidend]

iakus wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

This does seem true, unfortunately.

I'm not usually one for conspiracies but it beggars belief that it was a "mistake" when the maximum possible War Assets available in a playthrough was less than the amount required for every ending. If nobody genuinely noticed that before it shipped, then they seem pretty incompetent. That it took so long to fix, with no proper explanation given, just made the whole thing worse. The ridiculous thing is, they shot themselves in the foot by doing it - *especially* after promising for months and months that players wouldn't need to touch multiplayer to experience everything in the singleplayer. 

If they wanted to find a way to antagonise every fan who was suspicious of multiplayer when it was first announced, making it practically mandatory in order to see the SP endings, after guaranteeing that this very thing wouldn't happen, was the perfect way to do it.

At best it was a horrible mistake, but at worst it was a deliberate reversal of something they promised never to do.

And people wonder why I'm willing to walk away from DAI if it turns out it does in fact have multiplayer...<_<

All of this could easily be avoided if they just do Baldur's Gate-style MP and don't even worry about extra mechanics like this. Simple and clean.

[JJDrakken]

For me, Multiplayer means "forced Origin Client requirement" That's something I do not want. That's the reason, I've never bought or played Mass Effect 3.

My experience of ME series ended at 2. Had you continued to use method you had before(just log in while in game), without an Origin Client requirement, I would of bought the game.

That's why I am normally against you guys putting in MP in a game.


JJ