710 réponses à ce sujet

[Joshuajet]

I'm fine whether there is or isn't multiplayer. However I don't want the singleplayer to rely on the multiplayer like it did in ME3. Maybe it could be the opposite of ME3 multiplayer and the singleplayer could affect the multiplayer in some way. I would prefer that much more.

[ElitePinecone]

Vortex13 wrote...
all the store really needs is an option to get excatly what your looking for.

Totally agree!

This was actually the biggest frustration I had with ME3's system, the randomness of the unlocks made progression about luck rather than choice. 

I don't really understand the mindset behind the microtransactions and unlock system, but surely giving every separate item a price in credits (or "gold" for DA), and making better items more expensive in either credits or real-world money would earn just as much as having a random system. Maybe it might earn even more, if people decide to spend $1 or $2 on a character or item they really want, rather than having to play for an hour to get it.

Then again, I'm sure there was some rationale behind a random system like ME3 used - it just didn't seem as fun or satisfying as being able to buy things individually. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

I'm not opposed to MP being present so long as it does not encroach upon the SP experience (co-op excepted, obviously), and so long as resources aren't wantonly siphoned away from SP production.

[errant_knight]

I don't mind it being there as long as it's completely separate from the single player game, as in never the twain shall meet. On the other hand, I think it's a bad idea. They'd be better off making a DA mmo and leaving the single player games alone.

[Fast Jimmy]

Schneidend wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

So if I clicked once on an enemy, my character would keep on attacking them without stopping in Diablo? No? Then how fast you click determines how much damage you do. Yes, there is an upper limit to that speed, but the fact that there is no Auto Attack means the player's skill is what drives click fests like the Diablo series. 

Actually, if you hold down the mouse button, your character will attack your target as fast as they possibly can.

I really didn't want to get bogged down in the finer details, since this is a thread about the DA series, not about Diablo...

But regardless, that option still shifts from one point I was making (player skill) to another (single character control), since you would not be able to easily switch between other characters or survey the larger battlefield (not something you need to do in Diablo, but something you'd need to do to manage a party effectively). In addition, you can still outrun fireballs and other activities in Diablo that make it a large amount of player skill instead of primarily character, which is, agaIn, the entire point I'm making.

Diablo is a hack n' slash game, that's why it's MP system works. Changing DA to a hack n' slash series just to accommodate a MP feature would be a poor choice.  

[Fast Jimmy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...
all the store really needs is an option to get excatly what your looking for.

Totally agree!

This was actually the biggest frustration I had with ME3's system, the randomness of the unlocks made progression about luck rather than choice. 

I don't really understand the mindset behind the microtransactions and unlock system, but surely giving every separate item a price in credits (or "gold" for DA), and making better items more expensive in either credits or real-world money would earn just as much as having a random system. Maybe it might earn even more, if people decide to spend $1 or $2 on a character or item they really want, rather than having to play for an hour to get it.

Then again, I'm sure there was some rationale behind a random system like ME3 used - it just didn't seem as fun or satisfying as being able to buy things individually. 

I think the reason for having a random item acquired when you bought something in the store was to prevent exactly what you are mentioning here, actually. The option for someone to go into the store on their first day, drop down $100 dollars and then have the best gear in the game. If you spent $100 in ME3's store, you could have some of the best gear in the game... or you could have a ton of low grade, Common items. 

On one hand, it helps balance things out, so there is no clear "pay to win" option that tips the scales in favor of those who shell out large sums of money. On the other hand, it reduces the entire experience into virtual gambling, where the gamer is no longer buying a commodity, but is risking real world money for the chance for a virtual good... the quality of which the player does not know. 

That is, in my opinion, a much more dire situation than allowing players to "pay to win" but I can definitely sympathize with the developers in trying to come up with a system that prevents players from looking at it and saying "well, if I spent $X dollars, I could have Elite items and be at the top of the leaderboards... those greedy guys at Bioware!"


I think, ideally, a system that only allows cosmetic or temporary boosts to things like item drops or increased credits might be a better system, since it still allows players to know what they are buying, but it doesn't let them leap frog the entire population directly. 

[ElitePinecone]

That's true, I hadn't considered the balance issues in players being able to buy all the best gear.

I was also thinking that limiting real-money payments to cosmetic changes or upgrades would be one way of ensuring fairness. Though, I guess that defeats the point of having microtransactions, since people would probably spend significantly less money on making their character look shiny than they would buying new gear or entire classes.

Maybe a better system would be that all classes and weapons started out relatively equal in terms of effectiveness, and upgrades are handled through experience or as loot from actually playing and winning matches? It'd allow players to buy their favourite character/class combination, but they'd have strengths and weaknesses that mean none are significantly better than any others until they start getting upgrades. (Or if they are 'better', it's in certain areas or battlefield roles.)

(Another issue that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is unique weapons and customisability in any DA multiplayer - everyone is used to iconic or legendary weapons and I'd be interested to see how that could be implemented.)

[Estelindis]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I was also thinking that limiting real-money payments to cosmetic changes or upgrades would be one way of ensuring fairness. Though, I guess that defeats the point of having microtransactions, since people would probably spend significantly less money on making their character look shiny than they would buying new gear or entire classes.

Not necessarily.  From what I understand, Bioware makes quite a lot of money selling purely cosmetic items in SW:TOR.  I'm not saying that an MMO and a multiplayer mode are the same thing, but it seems reasonable that there'd be some overlap.

[Kidd]

A neat thing about the random store is that you can be all fired up and curious what you're gonna get. As long as buying packs is a much cheaper option than buying items directly, I think randomised boosters have a place even next to direct-to-item shopping.
I could also see one buying things that aren't strictly items in an MP shop. You could get bonuses akin to the ME1 achievement bonuses. Unlocking small bonuses that affects all your characters in the current and future can feel very rewarding.

[ElitePinecone]

Estelindis wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I was also thinking that limiting real-money payments to cosmetic changes or upgrades would be one way of ensuring fairness. Though, I guess that defeats the point of having microtransactions, since people would probably spend significantly less money on making their character look shiny than they would buying new gear or entire classes.

Not necessarily.  From what I understand, Bioware makes quite a lot of money selling purely cosmetic items in SW:TOR.  I'm not saying that an MMO and a multiplayer mode are the same thing, but it seems reasonable that there'd be some overlap.

Yeah, I'd forgotten that SWTOR's store deals mostly with cosmetic stuff. 

I guess that the very detailed character models in Frostbite does expand the field of possible cosmetic options. Mike has already talked about *singleplayer* customisation of armour that could involve colours, materials, fabrics, lighting, textures (as in, how it "feels" to the touch)... which could all be valid in an MP mode if they were to do it. 

Paying for something like unique heraldry/banners or cosmetic armour pieces that had no effect on stats could actually work quite well, especially if it's things that people would really want.

[Estelindis]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Paying for something like unique heraldry/banners or cosmetic armour pieces that had no effect on stats could actually work quite well, especially if it's things that people would really want.

Indeed!  I hope that it does work out this way, if Bioware chooses to implement multiplayer.  There's always going to need to be some revenue from it (said expectation of revenue being the reason why multiplayer can get extra development, as opposed to taking resources form singleplayer), so it seems wise to focus on ways of generating revenue that don't unduly imbalance combat.

[Vortex13]

ElitePinecone wrote...

That's true, I hadn't considered the balance issues in players being able to buy all the best gear.

I was also thinking that limiting real-money payments to cosmetic changes or upgrades would be one way of ensuring fairness. Though, I guess that defeats the point of having microtransactions, since people would probably spend significantly less money on making their character look shiny than they would buying new gear or entire classes.

Maybe a better system would be that all classes and weapons started out relatively equal in terms of effectiveness, and upgrades are handled through experience or as loot from actually playing and winning matches? It'd allow players to buy their favourite character/class combination, but they'd have strengths and weaknesses that mean none are significantly better than any others until they start getting upgrades. (Or if they are 'better', it's in certain areas or battlefield roles.)

(Another issue that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is unique weapons and customisability in any DA multiplayer - everyone is used to iconic or legendary weapons and I'd be interested to see how that could be implemented.)

Well technically the 'buy what you want' feature would be a 'pay to win', for such players that have the money to spend on such items, I don't think that it would nesseassrily unbalence the game.

If you look at the MP characters for ME 3, an Awakened Collector might be more 'elite' in terms of rarity, but an 'out of the box' Human Engineer can still mop the floor with him if the player is unskilled. And even if the two players were of equal skill, the 'elite' characters weren't godlike compared to the other kits out there. Plus the game was co-operative in nature so even having one character given a slight edge wouldn't have to spell the end of game balence, since the players were working towards a common goal.

One refinment to the store; if we were to have a similar feature in DA:I or future Bioware games; would be to prevent, or at least tone down, the amount of repeat items that it gives players. If I have maxed out my Engineer Class, I don't want to keep unlocking the basic human engineers. Likewise, if I have 75 Warp ammo IV consumables in my inventory, then the priority of unlocking MORE Warp Ammo should be non-existent, and those weapons I have yet to unlock shoud be given higher priority.

A good way to ensure balence and/or power creep (IMO) among the characters in MP would be to have a baseline kit (Warrior for example) and then once selected, players are given a choice of race to play as, within that class, and then once the class and race has been selected the player is given a pool of ALL the powers available to said class.

A dwarf warrior would have access to the same talents and abilities as a human warrior, with specialites like Templar, or Reaver, being tied to rare/ultra-rare unlocks. Giving all of the basic powers and talent trees to player at the start of character creation would prevent power creep because all characters would have access to (mostly) the same power pools, unlike ME 3 where three powers where locked to a specific kit. Players can pick and choose which powers or talents to bring to battle, allowing for more customization between multiple players chosing warriors.



Uniqueness and variety could come in the form of specilaizations specific to certain character types. For example, the Tevinter Magister DLC character would be the only one with access to the Magister specialization tree, but everything else would be shared among the Mage class.

You could also have varitety in the form of 'specialty characters', playable kits that have a unique talent tree, but have limited customization options. A werewolf character, for example, could function as a specialty character because of its unique playstyle and talent tree, but would be limited in terms of what types of powers to bring to the table, and would be limited to a specific archatype like a 'unique rogue'. Powers and talents available to such 'speciality characters' would lock them to a particular role on the battlefield, a werewolf can really only be a special rogue, its power pool wouldn't allow for players to really play as a warrior or mage werewolf.



In regards to player customization, I would like to see an expansion beyond simply color swaps and other cosmetic changes. I would love to see players be able to mix and match armor peices; complete with differing stats; to be able to forge and create their own weapons and armors. Maybe the recipe to create a specific chestplate is an unlockable, and once a player has the means to create the armor they can customize it with runes, and other magical items. Likewise weapons could start out as a simple sword and shield, but as the player advances and puts more and more upgrades into them, he/she could have items that have power comparable to the legendary items.

Speaking of the legendary weapons and armor, I think it would be best to have such peices as unlockable rewards via the store, items that have very good baseline stats, but lack the customization of the player made items. Sure a player could spend real world money and unlock the armor of the destroyer, but that legendary item is the best that it can be, there is no further improvments to be made; so while he might have the awesome looking armor, a player who stuck with his basic armor, but poured all of his time into upgrading it, would be on a similar level with the legendary armor set. 

[ElitePinecone]

Vortex13 wrote...

In regards to player customization, I would like to see an expansion beyond simply color swaps and other cosmetic changes. I would love to see players be able to mix and match armor peices; complete with differing stats; to be able to forge and create their own weapons and armors. Maybe the recipe to create a specific chestplate is an unlockable, and once a player has the means to create the armor they can customize it with runes, and other magical items. Likewise weapons could start out as a simple sword and shield, but as the player advances and puts more and more upgrades into them, he/she could have items that have power comparable to the legendary items.

I definitely support mixing and matching armours, ME3's generic appearances (especially for the human classes) made it difficult to feel connected to a multiplayer character, and unless players chose zany colour schemes it was hard to seem distinctive. 

Crafting is something that would be nice to include, I guess it depends on how deep they would take the upgrade and customisaton system - it's apparently very comprehensive for singleplayer so I don't see why something couldn't be done for any multiplayer mode. 

(And if high-level armours/robes/whatever are gated behind unlocks, wearing them also attaches an element of prestiege that would appeal to the sort of player that wants to show off their accomplishment or time invested.)

[Fast Jimmy]

One refinment to the store; if we were to have a similar feature in DA:I or future Bioware games; would be to prevent, or at least tone down, the amount of repeat items that it gives players. If I have maxed out my Engineer Class, I don't want to keep unlocking the basic human engineers. Likewise, if I have 75 Warp ammo IV consumables in my inventory, then the priority of unlocking MORE Warp Ammo should be non-existent, and those weapons I have yet to unlock shoud be given higher priority.

Perhaps one way to do this is to have a "smarter" item pick system if a player pays, whole a totally random system if they bought it with in-game credits...? This would give a little more weight and value to the microtransactions without being ENTIRELY one sided.

[Vortex13]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

One refinment to the store; if we were to have a similar feature in DA:I or future Bioware games; would be to prevent, or at least tone down, the amount of repeat items that it gives players. If I have maxed out my Engineer Class, I don't want to keep unlocking the basic human engineers. Likewise, if I have 75 Warp ammo IV consumables in my inventory, then the priority of unlocking MORE Warp Ammo should be non-existent, and those weapons I have yet to unlock shoud be given higher priority.

Perhaps one way to do this is to have a "smarter" item pick system if a player pays, whole a totally random system if they bought it with in-game credits...? This would give a little more weight and value to the microtransactions without being ENTIRELY one sided.

I would be willing to accept such a feature as long as it wasn't only for paying players. Paying real world money should give an increased priority for rare items, I will agree, but a person who has unlocked all of the lower level items without paying money should eventaly have his or her store start to give them higher priority for rare unlocks.

A person that pays money should be able to unlock such items faster, but paying money should not be the only means of achieving higher percentage chances of unlocking items.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Agreed. Sorry if that did not come through in my first response.

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Totally agree!

This was actually the biggest frustration I had with ME3's system, the randomness of the unlocks made progression about luck rather than choice. 

I don't really understand the mindset behind the microtransactions and unlock system, but surely giving every separate item a price in credits (or "gold" for DA), and making better items more expensive in either credits or real-world money would earn just as much as having a random system. Maybe it might earn even more, if people decide to spend $1 or $2 on a character or item they really want, rather than having to play for an hour to get it.

Then again, I'm sure there was some rationale behind a random system like ME3 used - it just didn't seem as fun or satisfying as being able to buy things individually. 

...

So how many people know what a Skinner box is?

Momma's got a Skinner box, daddy never sleeps at night!

Wait, no... that's not right. 

[CaptainBlackGold]

EntropicAngel wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Totally agree!

This was actually the biggest frustration I had with ME3's system, the randomness of the unlocks made progression about luck rather than choice. 

I don't really understand the mindset behind the microtransactions and unlock system, but surely giving every separate item a price in credits (or "gold" for DA), and making better items more expensive in either credits or real-world money would earn just as much as having a random system. Maybe it might earn even more, if people decide to spend $1 or $2 on a character or item they really want, rather than having to play for an hour to get it.

Then again, I'm sure there was some rationale behind a random system like ME3 used - it just didn't seem as fun or satisfying as being able to buy things individually. 

...

So how many people know what a Skinner box is?

Ninja'd! Excellent point - can we all say "intermittent reinforcement?"

The rationale for randomization of items is the same underlying principle that make slot machines so addicting; provide random reinforcement which increases the likelihood of the desired behavior - which in this case is "give us your money."

Look, people can play the slots all they want - free country and all - but we should also remember "The House always wins."

Personally, I refuse to be a pigeon - and that pun is fully intended.

[Vortex13]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Totally agree!

This was actually the biggest frustration I had with ME3's system, the randomness of the unlocks made progression about luck rather than choice. 

I don't really understand the mindset behind the microtransactions and unlock system, but surely giving every separate item a price in credits (or "gold" for DA), and making better items more expensive in either credits or real-world money would earn just as much as having a random system. Maybe it might earn even more, if people decide to spend $1 or $2 on a character or item they really want, rather than having to play for an hour to get it.

Then again, I'm sure there was some rationale behind a random system like ME3 used - it just didn't seem as fun or satisfying as being able to buy things individually. 

...

So how many people know what a Skinner box is?

Ninja'd! Excellent point - can we all say "intermittent reinforcement?"

The rationale for randomization of items is the same underlying principle that make slot machines so addicting; provide random reinforcement which increases the likelihood of the desired behavior - which in this case is "give us your money."

Look, people can play the slots all they want - free country and all - but we should also remember "The House always wins."

Personally, I refuse to be a pigeon - and that pun is fully intended.

True, the micro-transaction system is designed to make people spend money; its what they were designed to do; but ME 3's system wasn't designed with "The House Always Wins" mindset (at least IMO).

A player could play and unlock everything the MP had to offer without spending a cent of real money so the system wasn't implemented with the only avennue of progression being the use of micro-transactions. Paying customers and those using in-game currency had equal opportunity in unlocking items.

As long as the systme isn't designed in such a way as to make it impossible to achieve success without spending money, then I don't really see the issue with it; especially if having it means that all subsequent DLC and add-ons are free of charge.

[ElitePinecone]

Relevant:

[Twitter user writing to Mike Laidlaw]
@Mike_Laidlaw If there's gonna be a DAI multiplayer please make it have no impact on story if u don't play it.

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
@user That’s a pretty common request, yes. Thanks for the note.

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 12 novembre 2013 - 06:16 .

[Vortex13]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Relevant:

[Twitter user writing to Mike Laidlaw]
@Mike_Laidlaw If there's gonna be a DAI multiplayer please make it have no impact on story if u don't play it.

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
@user That’s a pretty common request, yes. Thanks for the note.

I actually wouldn't mind a little impact on my story.

Allow me to clarify, I don't want MP to be required for the good ending, and I don't want to have to play MP in order to get access to all the hidden relic rooms in SP. But I do think it would be cool if SP and MP made little nods to each other.

For example, lets say the end game of DA:I is similar to DA:O or ME 3 in that you have to gather your allies together to confront the big bad, and his forces. I think it would be a nice touch if one of your 'promoted' MP characters showed up in a cutscene, or appeared as an NPC on the battlefeild. This wouldn't be anything along the lines of: "You promoted enough MPCs so you can now access the 'good' ending." just a simple model swap.

I personally would find it enjoyable if that dwarf warrior in hot pink armor I had been playing as in MP showed up for the final battle. 

Likewise, I think it would be cool if the SP could effect MP in certain ways. Not only in practical ways, such as unlocking the DA:I equivelent of Premium Specter Packs for doing certain side missions, but also in matters of how a person plays their SP game.

For example, it would be awesome if a MP battlefield took place in a Keep and the look of the castle was based off of the host's keeps. The look, the heraldry, the upgrades; I think it would be cool if the two modes could interact with each other.

Again not in a "You must play this to succeed at this", kind of way but more of "These two elements take place within the same universe" kinda way.

[Fast Jimmy]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Relevant:

[Twitter user writing to Mike Laidlaw]
@Mike_Laidlaw If there's gonna be a DAI multiplayer please make it have no impact on story if u don't play it.

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
@user That’s a pretty common request, yes. Thanks for the note.

I understand why he didn't, given the uncertainty of things in development, but the fact that he didn't say "it won't" there still has me leery. 

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Relevant:

[Twitter user writing to Mike Laidlaw]
@Mike_Laidlaw If there's gonna be a DAI multiplayer please make it have no impact on story if u don't play it.

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
@user That’s a pretty common request, yes. Thanks for the note.

I understand why he didn't, given the uncertainty of things in development, but the fact that he didn't say "it won't" there still has me leery. 

Well, to unlock romance scenes you have to get so far in multiplayer. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Relevant:

[Twitter user writing to Mike Laidlaw]
@Mike_Laidlaw If there's gonna be a DAI multiplayer please make it have no impact on story if u don't play it.

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw 
@user That’s a pretty common request, yes. Thanks for the note.

I understand why he didn't, given the uncertainty of things in development, but the fact that he didn't say "it won't" there still has me leery. 

Well, to unlock romance scenes you have to get so far in multiplayer. 

A minimum of 69 kills.