123 réponses à ce sujet

[Deflagratio]

I like what a lot of people have put here, and there's already been quite a bit of elaboration already so I'll keep it brief.

Definite:
Truly custom characters. Any Race/Class combination you want. Armor and weapons should follow the same rules as the Single Player game.

Greater match types, focusing on Co-Op (Personal preference). Just some arbitrary Ideas:
Keep Siege (Offense)
Keep Siege (Defense)
Expeditionary Force (Resource Intensive free roaming monster hunting mode across large maps)
Basic Horde
Boss Horde

Looting. Who doesn't like hording weapons and armor anyway?

[Nefla]

I would like to see it scrapped and the resources spent on making the SP better. >.>

[Deflagratio]

Nefla wrote...

I would like to see it scrapped and the resources spent on making the SP better. >.>

It's not as simple as that though. I think in the spirit of the debate (Because I too support Single Player focus) I assume that Multiplayer resources don't draw away from Singleplayer resources in any way. Maybe we can pretend the resources come from a bloated marketing budget??

It's even more true if Multiplayer components have already been iterated upon. It's not like selling a house, the time and money spent in one component didn't build equity and all of a sudden you can just put it in wherever you please.

There's also the possibility that Multiplayer components will improve singleplayer indirectly. For example, the multiplayer team could make a lot of gear items specifically for the multiplayer component, which then could be put in Single player.

[JoltDealer]

Deflagratio wrote...

Nefla wrote...

I would like to see it scrapped and the resources spent on making the SP better. >.>

It's not as simple as that though. I think in the spirit of the debate (Because I too support Single Player focus) I assume that Multiplayer resources don't draw away from Singleplayer resources in any way. Maybe we can pretend the resources come from a bloated marketing budget??

It's even more true if Multiplayer components have already been iterated upon. It's not like selling a house, the time and money spent in one component didn't build equity and all of a sudden you can just put it in wherever you please.

There's also the possibility that Multiplayer components will improve singleplayer indirectly. For example, the multiplayer team could make a lot of gear items specifically for the multiplayer component, which then could be put in Single player.

This particular point has been addressed in this thread a few times now.  The SP budget and MP budget are separate things.  Cutting one does not add it to the other, it merely removes it.  As for advertising, the general rule, if I recall, is at least half of your total budget accounts for advertising.  The more money they spend on a game, the more people they need to advertise and appeal to.  

Multiplayer is a purely beneficial addition from a practical point of view.  The only way multiplayer hurts a game is through either poor quality, but then again, one is not typically forced to play it unlike in Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par Crimson Sound, 05 janvier 2014 - 08:28 .

[ghostzodd]

Crimson Sound wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

Nefla wrote...

I would like to see it scrapped and the resources spent on making the SP better. >.>

It's not as simple as that though. I think in the spirit of the debate (Because I too support Single Player focus) I assume that Multiplayer resources don't draw away from Singleplayer resources in any way. Maybe we can pretend the resources come from a bloated marketing budget??

It's even more true if Multiplayer components have already been iterated upon. It's not like selling a house, the time and money spent in one component didn't build equity and all of a sudden you can just put it in wherever you please.

There's also the possibility that Multiplayer components will improve singleplayer indirectly. For example, the multiplayer team could make a lot of gear items specifically for the multiplayer component, which then could be put in Single player.

This particular point has been addressed in this thread a few times now.  The SP budget and MP budget are separate things.  Cutting one does not add it to the other, it merely removes it.  As for advertising, the general rule, if I recall, is at least half of your total budget accounts for advertising.  The more money they spend on a game, the more people they need to advertise and appeal to.  

Multiplayer is a purely beneficial addition from a practical point of view.  The only way multiplayer hurts a game is through either poor quality, but then again, one is not typically forced to play it unlike in Mass Effect 3.

Thats not true, what your saying is pure conjecture. Unless you work for Bioware or EA , then you do not know how the budget works. It might all be one thing or it might be seperate, we do not know, we can only assume.

[Genshie]

ghostzodd wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

Nefla wrote...

I would like to see it scrapped and the resources spent on making the SP better. >.>

It's not as simple as that though. I think in the spirit of the debate (Because I too support Single Player focus) I assume that Multiplayer resources don't draw away from Singleplayer resources in any way. Maybe we can pretend the resources come from a bloated marketing budget??

It's even more true if Multiplayer components have already been iterated upon. It's not like selling a house, the time and money spent in one component didn't build equity and all of a sudden you can just put it in wherever you please.

There's also the possibility that Multiplayer components will improve singleplayer indirectly. For example, the multiplayer team could make a lot of gear items specifically for the multiplayer component, which then could be put in Single player.

This particular point has been addressed in this thread a few times now.  The SP budget and MP budget are separate things.  Cutting one does not add it to the other, it merely removes it.  As for advertising, the general rule, if I recall, is at least half of your total budget accounts for advertising.  The more money they spend on a game, the more people they need to advertise and appeal to.  

Multiplayer is a purely beneficial addition from a practical point of view.  The only way multiplayer hurts a game is through either poor quality, but then again, one is not typically forced to play it unlike in Mass Effect 3.

Thats not true, what your saying is pure conjecture. Unless you work for Bioware or EA , then you do not know how the budget works. It might all be one thing or it might be seperate, we do not know, we can only assume.

And goes that Bioware has mentioned this several times over that resources are not a combined deal. Resources spent on MP do not equel resources that would/could be used on SP. The budget/resource statement is literally beating a dead horse kind of statement.

[badboy64]

If they want to include MP then their should be a option to install it because most people will be playing the game for the SP only including me.

Modifié par badboy64, 05 janvier 2014 - 02:31 .

[Luckywallace]

As long as it has no effect what so ever on the single-player campaign I don't care.

I don't think I'd really enjoy Dragon Age's type of combat without pause-and-play and that's obviously not possible in co-op so to the void with it.

[ManOfSteel]

I'd rather not see multiplayer at all, however I'm up for checking out whatever game mode(s) are on offer, should multiplayer be included. As long as it has minimal/no bearing on the campaign, I'll be happy.

If multiplayer is a must, I'd like it to take place during the main campaign, but take the form of co-operative "quests", independent from what the Inquisitor is doing. In terms of gameplay, I'd like to see something similar to the Flashpoints in The Old Republic. Linear quests/missions sprinkled with either their own individual stories, or a connective arc. Encounters could be broken up by conversations with NPCs, or story conversations with other player characters. What I don't want to see is another take on the wave defence game mode, and I absolutely don't want to see campaign co-op.

[archav3n]

I for one hope for no multiplayer as i would want a full immersive single player experience. If there has to be multiplayer, 5v5 PvP with minor leveling (some sort of like DOTA2?). And as for PvE, co-op play that force everyone to co-operate would be nice rather than Rush To Win.

[Magdalena11]

The only kind of MP I want to see is one that affects SP gameplay in no way. I don't want experience to carry over or achievements to be unlocked, for instance.

Modifié par Magdalena11, 05 janvier 2014 - 05:08 .

[Magdalena11]

Sorry, double post.

Modifié par Magdalena11, 05 janvier 2014 - 05:08 .

[JoltDealer]

ghostzodd wrote...

Thats not true, what your saying is pure conjecture. Unless you work for Bioware or EA , then you do not know how the budget works. It might all be one thing or it might be seperate, we do not know, we can only assume.

It's not conjecture.  The same thing has been said on multiple occasions by Bioware devs here on the BSN.  On top of that, I also have my own knowledge of production budgets from being a Multimedia Major.  I study film, television, radio, video games, and web content.  Single Player budgets and Multiplayer budgets are separate things.  This is not an assumption, it is a fact.

[Malanek]

Crimson Sound wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Thats not true, what your saying is pure conjecture. Unless you work for Bioware or EA , then you do not know how the budget works. It might all be one thing or it might be seperate, we do not know, we can only assume.

It's not conjecture.  The same thing has been said on multiple occasions by Bioware devs here on the BSN.  On top of that, I also have my own knowledge of production budgets from being a Multimedia Major.  I study film, television, radio, video games, and web content.  Single Player budgets and Multiplayer budgets are separate things.  This is not an assumption, it is a fact.

I wish people wouldn't try to sound so sure of themselves, so specific and so extreme. I broadly agree with you but the fact is that there are too many shared assets to say that these are 100% seperate. Some development time will/has been already taken by the devs and designers which will never be put on a MP budget. They have talked about how they have looked at ways to do it without even having a MP budget set at the moment. If they did start to implement it, there would be a period where the multiplayer team would need ongoing help from the single player team to work with the engine. They may even get one or more devs with experience in the engine reassigned.

[ghostzodd]

Malanek999 wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Thats not true, what your saying is pure conjecture. Unless you work for Bioware or EA , then you do not know how the budget works. It might all be one thing or it might be seperate, we do not know, we can only assume.

It's not conjecture.  The same thing has been said on multiple occasions by Bioware devs here on the BSN.  On top of that, I also have my own knowledge of production budgets from being a Multimedia Major.  I study film, television, radio, video games, and web content.  Single Player budgets and Multiplayer budgets are separate things.  This is not an assumption, it is a fact.

I wish people wouldn't try to sound so sure of themselves, so specific and so extreme. I broadly agree with you but the fact is that there are too many shared assets to say that these are 100% seperate. Some development time will/has been already taken by the devs and designers which will never be put on a MP budget. They have talked about how they have looked at ways to do it without even having a MP budget set at the moment. If they did start to implement it, there would be a period where the multiplayer team would need ongoing help from the single player team to work with the engine. They may even get one or more devs with experience in the engine reassigned.

Bingo:D

[Red Panda]

I'd love to see PvP Multiplayer Arenas with the Cave map from DA2 making a return.


Make it so PvP gives bonus items to singleplayer to enhance your gameplay experience, but are not needed at all.





See, everyone wins?

[vandalDX]

OperatingWookie wrote...

I'd love to see PvP Multiplayer Arenas with the Cave map from DA2 making a return.

Make it so PvP gives bonus items to singleplayer to enhance your gameplay experience, but are not needed at all.

See, everyone wins?

Can.  You.  Imagine?  I'd never come back to the forums.  For fear of what I'd find.

[JoltDealer]

Malanek999 wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Thats not true, what your saying is pure conjecture. Unless you work for Bioware or EA , then you do not know how the budget works. It might all be one thing or it might be seperate, we do not know, we can only assume.

It's not conjecture.  The same thing has been said on multiple occasions by Bioware devs here on the BSN.  On top of that, I also have my own knowledge of production budgets from being a Multimedia Major.  I study film, television, radio, video games, and web content.  Single Player budgets and Multiplayer budgets are separate things.  This is not an assumption, it is a fact.

I wish people wouldn't try to sound so sure of themselves, so specific and so extreme. I broadly agree with you but the fact is that there are too many shared assets to say that these are 100% seperate. Some development time will/has been already taken by the devs and designers which will never be put on a MP budget. They have talked about how they have looked at ways to do it without even having a MP budget set at the moment. If they did start to implement it, there would be a period where the multiplayer team would need ongoing help from the single player team to work with the engine. They may even get one or more devs with experience in the engine reassigned.

At that point you're getting into semantics.  Having the two teams share assets or work with one another does not mean that they share money and resources (i.e. their budgets).  They merely share the results of the work they accomplish using their budget in order to help the other team.  At that point, it's a mutually beneficial relationship, but the multiplayer budget is still separate from the single player one.  Do the two dev teams share assets?  Of course.  Mass Effect 3 is a huge example of this.  Character models made by the single player team were tweaked and used in multiplayer.  The multiplayer maps were tweaked and used as locations for side missions in single player.  However, if the single player team makes something, it was done with the single player team's budget.

When I say the two budgets are separate, I mean that if one is removed or cut, it is gone.  Budget X is separate from Budget Y.  Removing multiplayer does not mean that the money and resources that were originally allocated for it are suddenly added to the single player budget.  The budgets are separate.  Are the dev teams separate?  Sometimes, but usually there's some overlay between the two (usually a few people at most and some don't help the other team until their original team is mostly finished with their part of the game).  However, the people they usually hire for the multiplayer teams typically have pre-existing experience with the engine or with something similar.

If I sound sure of myself, it's because I am.  As for me sounding "specific and extreme"? I am dead tired of explaining it to people.  It is a bleeding fact, confirmed by several devs and it matches up with my own knowledge of production budgets.  I'm no professor of course, but I know enough to pass my tests with flying colors.  Devs have explained it, others have explained it, and I have explained it on multiple occasions on this site alone, but we still get people who say, "Just cut multiplayer and use the extra resources to make single player better."  It really does not work that way and even if you explain why logically, you still get people who say, "Nah, you're wrong."  No explanation or proof behind it, just plain ignorance.

So again, it's not conjecture.  It is fact.  While the assets and game elements made by the multiplayer and single player development teams may not be mutually exclusive, their budgets are still separate things.

[JoltDealer]

OperatingWookie wrote...

I'd love to see PvP Multiplayer Arenas with the Cave map from DA2 making a return.


Make it so PvP gives bonus items to singleplayer to enhance your gameplay experience, but are not needed at all.





See, everyone wins?

I personally feel that having the Cave Map return would cause countless bloodmaps by inciting pure rage at the repetitiveness.

Also, I like the idea of multiplayer benefitting single player rather than vice versa.  Would they be mostly cosmetic weapons or armor?

[vandalDX]

Crimson Sound wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

I'd love to see PvP Multiplayer Arenas with the Cave map from DA2 making a return.


Make it so PvP gives bonus items to singleplayer to enhance your gameplay experience, but are not needed at all.





See, everyone wins?

I personally feel that having the Cave Map return would cause countless bloodmaps by inciting pure rage at the repetitiveness.

Also, I like the idea of multiplayer benefitting single player rather than vice versa.  Would they be mostly cosmetic weapons or armor?

Going beyond that would be problematic for those who will not play the MP regardless of its quality, or who cannot play the MP.  If story outcomes are affected by the MP, then that almost forces completionist world-builders and hardcore SPs into playing a game mode they have no interest in.

To have it work the other way around--for the SP to benefit the MP--might be interesting, cosmetic or otherwise.  Gold for different approaches.  The more you see in SP, the more access you have to upgrades, etc. in the MP.

It's safe to say that the story is keyed up for multifaction MP battles a-la ME3, but some players would just rather not participate in MP.

[JoltDealer]

valhallaVANDAL wrote...

Going beyond that would be problematic for those who will not play the MP regardless of its quality, or who cannot play the MP.  If story outcomes are affected by the MP, then that almost forces completionist world-builders and hardcore SPs into playing a game mode they have no interest in.

To have it work the other way around--for the SP to benefit the MP--might be interesting, cosmetic or otherwise.  Gold for different approaches.  The more you see in SP, the more access you have to upgrades, etc. in the MP.

It's safe to say that the story is keyed up for multifaction MP battles a-la ME3, but some players would just rather not participate in MP.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there.  There should definitely be some cross promotion going on between single player and multiplayer at least in terms of unlocks.  It would have to be cosmetic items mostly to avoid people complaining that you need to play one or the other in order to "get the best ending" or "win."  As far as single player unlocking MP items, I think gold rewards for completing more of the story would work rather well.  Add in the ability to unlock new armor or weapons in MP and I think it'd be nice.  I actually knew some people who only played ME3 for the multiplayer, which was really surprising to me.

Perhaps we could have there be items that you can unlock in both modes through single player or multiplayer achievements?  For example, let's say you want dragon plate armor for your Inquisitor and/or Avatar.  To unlock it, you have to beat a high dragon X amount of times in either single player or multiplayer.

[Deflagratio]

It's probably a bit too ambitious for Dragon Age: Inquisition, but what about a separate event-driven narrative framing the multiplayer mode?

By that I mean, using the metric data in multiplayer, in conjunction with scripted events (Like we saw in Mass Effect 3) to craft an emergent story?

[JoltDealer]

Deflagratio wrote...

It's probably a bit too ambitious for Dragon Age: Inquisition, but what about a separate event-driven narrative framing the multiplayer mode?

By that I mean, using the metric data in multiplayer, in conjunction with scripted events (Like we saw in Mass Effect 3) to craft an emergent story?

It may be ambitious, but I'll be damned if it doesn't sound good.  I really liked that part of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer.  Honestly, I'd be disappointed if Bioware, who is known for their great stories, didn't have some kind of narrative behind their multiplayer.