59 réponses à ce sujet

[phoenix fang55]

 Honestly, after the (surprise) success of ME:3:MP, I don't see how they can't put multi in for dragon age, sure its a bit of a different beast, but a lot of the mechanics are similar, heck, they're putting guardians in, of a sort, one of the modles they showed in a video, the way he held his shield, how he moved, that was a guardian, and warriors will have a chain that can pull the shield away, so honestly, a lot of the mechanics are similar.

I would really like to see this, though definately they need to refine a few things, I'd like to see a more in depth characther building process, ME:3 made your characters for multiplayer expendable, sure you could build each one a couple different ways, but it was finite, higher level cap and more skills to choose from, not to mention armor and weapons, let us build a char more like we do in single player.

[The Qun & the Damned]

As long as they don't cow us into using multiplayer to get more strength for the Inquisition, I'm happy.

[phoenix fang55]

lol, understandable, though at least they know they can't make it a key part, ME:3 it was there, but you didn't need it, just made it easier. Though I'd rather have another GR again then the RNG packs for getting new weapons and such

[superdeathdealer14]

As in competitive multiplayer or something like a online co-op

Modifié par superdeathdealer14, 02 janvier 2014 - 10:29 .

[phoenix fang55]

mp co-op, me:3 is a good model, its the most in line with the spirit of the game. And lets face it, gears 2 hit a jackpot when they came up with horde, and the way bioware worked it in ME, well I could see them doing something simular for DA:I

[superdeathdealer14]

I wouldn't mind a team death match game type imagine: 12 inquisiton soldiers fighting off 12 venatori soldiers where we all beat each other senseless till one side gets the most kills.

[ElitePinecone]

The last we heard was from Aaryn Flynn at E3, he said singleplayer was their focus for the moment.

If they do end up doing an MP component, I agree that more customisation would be a great thing - and I'm also not the biggest fan of the RNG/pack system for earning new content.

(On your point about the gameplay mechanics looking broadly similar to ME3, this struck me as really interesting at the time - it's good for singleplayer party combat, too, but my first thought was that it looks a lot like something which would be used in MP.)

[phoenix fang55]

ME:3 was, was largely single player based, they showed a lot of single player before they even touched on multiplayer, and lets face it, the Sp was a lot more polished then MP, but the mechanics they're building in for sp, open DA:I to more easily having a horde type multiplayer, and from the beginning, the mechanicx of both games have been very similar, main difference being fps for mass effect, heck one the first things I head about dragon age was how it was mass effect with swords.

[SofaJockey]

The success of ME:MP was clear.

I was even online myself yesterday with my Krogan - and we are now pushing 2 years since that game released and I wasn't waiting long for a game either... (for Tuchanka... roarrrrr....)

Anyway.

A well structured co-operative MP along the lines of the multi-party game - using ME:MP as a starting point, but addressing some of the (extremely comprehensively documented) grumbles and we would have another winner.

By comparison most other games have let-down multiplayer modes or modes only for the most motivated PvPers.

[Spanish Inquisition]

It seems any game needs to have multiplayer nowdays...

Anyway, as long as it has no impact on the SP experience and a different team is in charge of the development (hopefully not reducing time spent on the SP game) I guess I have no reason to be against it.

[Ziegrif]

If they're going Co-Op like ME3.
I have a wishlist. >.>

1. Completely optional. Does not affect SP at all.

2. Faster bug fixes. ME3MP is still bugged to hell and the patches that we got were very far between. It was nerve racking. Most of it was due to Sonys and Microsofts patch policies but holy hell was it annoying.

3. Longer support than 12 months. ME3MP needed longer support from the devs. It did not get it and It shows.

4. Do not skew the progression to prop up microtransactions. It takes 700-1300 hours to max everything in ME3MP. It's insane to newer players especially now that nothing new will come up and bug fixes are over.

5. If you can have a beta version when pushing out new content so the general populace can test them for bugs. TF2 has a Beta version for example.

6. Having MP DLC as free would be nice as the MP community would not get split up behind paywalls.

[Garadex]

Given they usually have separate teams working on sp and mp I doubt it will effect the single player in the way people are thinking

As long as it's good quality and, if possible, has a PvP mode I will play it quite happily.

Also hope it does not have the mass effect 3 feature where the more missions you do affects how many resources you have in the final battle. I liked ME3 multiplayer a lot but that particular feature... Not so much

[funmachine]

As long as there's no troll store, I'd be willing to give MP a try. RNG made me cry like a baby many times.

Also, like many others said, multiplayer shouldn't have an effect on the singleplayer campaign.

[Garadex]

Oh yeah. The mass effect rng upgrade store.....

I hated that thing. Giving us the ability to choose what upgrades we wanted would have gotten them a lot more love than having it so you could buy a pack and get an upgrade for a weapon you never fricking used. It's like playing Russian roulette and having bullets in all the chambers so everybody wins!

Please do NOT do this on Inquisition. It would make no sense whatsoever

[Vortex13]

The Shielded enemy did draw some immediate parallels to the Guardians for me as well. Also in the PAX demo, when the Inquisitor is fighting the Behemoth under the besieged keep, we can see the controlling player preforming what appears to be a combat dodge/roll.

I agree that the mechanics for a DA:I MP are possible, especially when Bioware can use the feedback generated from ME 3 and the founding principles therein. Granted, a DA:I mp will be a tad slower paced then ME 3's run and gun style; a heavy emphasis on melee combat will slow things down a bit; but it wouldn't be anything that would demand two different modes of gameplay between the SP and MP.

As far as mp type, I would be perfectly fine with another co-op survival mode; one that addresses the issues from ME 3's mp, obviously. I am not too keen on a competitive mp mode though, as PvP scenarios tend to limit player choices as everything has to be balanced to promote fair play.

A refined co-op horde mode would work best (IMHO), one where we can customize our characters to a greater depth then in ME 3; race options, facial features, armor pieces (with varying stats), different and unique play styles etc. An in game store with more player control over what we purchase; maybe something like a guaranteed item of a player's choosing, but at a substantial increase in cost compared to the random packs.

[ElitePinecone]

Garadex wrote...

Oh yeah. The mass effect rng upgrade store.....

I hated that thing. Giving us the ability to choose what upgrades we wanted would have gotten them a lot more love than having it so you could buy a pack and get an upgrade for a weapon you never fricking used. It's like playing Russian roulette and having bullets in all the chambers so everybody wins!

Please do NOT do this on Inquisition. It would make no sense whatsoever

I never purchased a pack for ME3's multiplayer, but I probably would pay $1 or $2 for a preferred character/weapon/whatever, depending on how they structured it (and if it even exists, I guess!). 

The RNG might've been a good way of keeping people playing, but it was also really frustrating. The ability to save up credits or pay real money and get exactly what you want would be much better than having to roll dice with no guarantee of satisfaction.I wouldn't mind if something took five hours of matches to unlock with credits, as long as we can actually unlock it and not have to rely on random packs.

(And maybe I'm not thinking this through, but surely saving up for a desired character is as strong an incentive to keep playing as a random number generator, if not more so - players have a guaranteed goal to work towards, rather than a chance at getting what they want.)

[Vortex13]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Garadex wrote...

Oh yeah. The mass effect rng upgrade store.....

I hated that thing. Giving us the ability to choose what upgrades we wanted would have gotten them a lot more love than having it so you could buy a pack and get an upgrade for a weapon you never fricking used. It's like playing Russian roulette and having bullets in all the chambers so everybody wins!

Please do NOT do this on Inquisition. It would make no sense whatsoever

I never purchased a pack for ME3's multiplayer, but I probably would pay $1 or $2 for a preferred character/weapon/whatever, depending on how they structured it (and if it even exists, I guess!). 

The RNG might've been a good way of keeping people playing, but it was also really frustrating. The ability to save up credits or pay real money and get exactly what you want would be much better than having to roll dice with no guarantee of satisfaction.I wouldn't mind if something took five hours of matches to unlock with credits, as long as we can actually unlock it and not have to rely on random packs.

(And maybe I'm not thinking this through, but surely saving up for a desired character is as strong an incentive to keep playing as a random number generator, if not more so - players have a guaranteed goal to work towards, rather than a chance at getting what they want.)

Exactly. The option to purchase exactly what you want should be available to players. It can be offset by an increased cost; maybe 300% - 500% more expensive for the one particular item then for a random pack; but giving players the ability to get what they want will improve replayability.

Keep the RGN store, if that means that we can get free MP DLCs, and updates; but please give us an option to purchase specifically what we want (with both real world money and in-game currency).

[SomeoneStoleMyName]

Only multiplayer Id like to see would be ranked and unranked 1v1,2v2,3v3 arena matches. Not likely to happen I guess.

[Veruin]

phoenix fang55 wrote...

 Honestly, after the (surprise) success of ME:3:MP, I don't see how they can't put multi in for dragon age, sure its a bit of a different beast, but a lot of the mechanics are similar, heck, they're putting guardians in, of a sort, one of the modles they showed in a video, the way he held his shield, how he moved, that was a guardian, and warriors will have a chain that can pull the shield away, so honestly, a lot of the mechanics are similar.

Maybe I don't know enough about ME, but...one is a Sci-Fi shooter RPG and the other is a medieval fantasy RPG.  How are the mechanics at all similar?

[Deflagratio]

I'm picturing an Inquisitor horde mode personally. I'm not sure what to think about any potential Single Player tie-in though. Mass Effect 3's Tie-In was poorly handled to be sure, but discounting the possibility of Singleplayer gains through multiplayer is a bit rash and shortsighted I hope most people would agree.

Without knowing anything about the various systems in place for Dragon Age: Inquisition, supposition on potential Singleplayer benefits nestled within multiplayer is dubious at best. Even something as benign as in-game currency rewards transferred over to Singleplayer can have blowback that hurts the experience.

I guess if I can play the cornucopia card, I'd say an ideal Singleplayer tie-in would be loot that you can either keep for your MP character(s) or transfer (Once) to a singleplayer save. Crafting bits, armor, weapons or whatever. Again, I stress that cornucopia scenario, meaning a flawless implementation with no extrinsic ramifications to the game. Entirely unrealistic expectations, but there's no shortage of that on these forums.

[Vortex13]

Deflagratio wrote...

I'm picturing an Inquisitor horde mode personally. I'm not sure what to think about any potential Single Player tie-in though. Mass Effect 3's Tie-In was poorly handled to be sure, but discounting the possibility of Singleplayer gains through multiplayer is a bit rash and shortsighted I hope most people would agree.

Without knowing anything about the various systems in place for Dragon Age: Inquisition, supposition on potential Singleplayer benefits nestled within multiplayer is dubious at best. Even something as benign as in-game currency rewards transferred over to Singleplayer can have blowback that hurts the experience.

I guess if I can play the cornucopia card, I'd say an ideal Singleplayer tie-in would be loot that you can either keep for your MP character(s) or transfer (Once) to a singleplayer save. Crafting bits, armor, weapons or whatever. Again, I stress that cornucopia scenario, meaning a flawless implementation with no extrinsic ramifications to the game. Entirely unrealistic expectations, but there's no shortage of that on these forums.

Well as far as tie-ins are concerned, I would be okay with a simple model swap of one of my Agents being my 'promoted' MP character. Say I had a dwarf templar in hot pink armor, I promote her, and then one of my Agents is a dwarf in hot pink templar armor.

A more substantial impact would be fine with me, but I realize that most players are still a little jaded from the Pre-EC impact that ME 3's mp had. Though I don't know why a tie-in would have to be from mp into sp, why not have it the other way around?

Complete a ceretain portion of the sp story? Get a bonus of in-game currency for MP. Have an imported save from previous titles? Then you can unlock a specialty class depending on your past choices; Werewolf for sideing with them in DA:O, free mage specialization unlocked for siding with them in DA 2, etc.

[ElitePinecone]

Veruin wrote...

phoenix fang55 wrote...

 Honestly, after the (surprise) success of ME:3:MP, I don't see how they can't put multi in for dragon age, sure its a bit of a different beast, but a lot of the mechanics are similar, heck, they're putting guardians in, of a sort, one of the modles they showed in a video, the way he held his shield, how he moved, that was a guardian, and warriors will have a chain that can pull the shield away, so honestly, a lot of the mechanics are similar.

Maybe I don't know enough about ME, but...one is a Sci-Fi shooter RPG and the other is a medieval fantasy RPG.  How are the mechanics at all similar?

For me it was the sense of class-specific enemy weaknesses and the use of positioning - plus, intentionally or not, the enemy with the tower shield looked awfully similar to ME3's Guardian. Aside from the fact that the Inquisitor had a sword and not a gun, and the fact that the game could be paused, it seemed practically identical to an ME3 Soldier's strategy for fighting a Guardian. Ditto with Cassandra and the Rock Monster thing - the player needed her shield bash to break the armour, otherwise the enemy seemed impervious. 

ME and ME2, for the most part, had enemies that could basically be killed by just shooting at them long enough, no matter what the player's class or weapon. But ME3 introduced several specific enemy archetypes that *required* teamwork, good positioning, or selective weapon choices to defeat - to my mind it seemed that this was done with MP in mind. The new enemy varieties did benefit the singleplayer, but the way they were designed seemed to fit best with the multiplayer action - even down to each faction having basically the same number of enemies, in the same roles (weaklings, humanoid soldiers, elites and boss-type enemies). 

When the Inquisitor staggered the shield bearer with a chain, I was *strongly* reminded of the Guardian archetype in ME3 - an enemy that required the same tactic to defeat, and often the use of multiple party members or co-op teammates. It wasn't that an MP group with no soldiers *couldn't* defeat a Guardian in ME3 MP, but they'd need to try outflanking it, or something. Often multiple classes could fulfill the same role using different means (for example, a soldier would expose a Guardian by forcing it to stagger, while a biotic adept would pull the shield away with space-magic, and a third class like the Interceptor would force the enemy off balance by crashing into it). 

That might be a premature connection to make - especially since Bioware have said for ages that they want to emphasise positioning and teamwork in the combat - but introducing enemies that only certain classes can deal with effectively was a hallmark of ME3's MP system. It definitely engenders teamwork in a multiplayer context, and the development of specialised roles or strategies for handling different enemy types.

[Vortex13]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Veruin wrote...

phoenix fang55 wrote...

 Honestly, after the (surprise) success of ME:3:MP, I don't see how they can't put multi in for dragon age, sure its a bit of a different beast, but a lot of the mechanics are similar, heck, they're putting guardians in, of a sort, one of the modles they showed in a video, the way he held his shield, how he moved, that was a guardian, and warriors will have a chain that can pull the shield away, so honestly, a lot of the mechanics are similar.

Maybe I don't know enough about ME, but...one is a Sci-Fi shooter RPG and the other is a medieval fantasy RPG.  How are the mechanics at all similar?

For me it was the sense of class-specific enemy weaknesses and the use of positioning - plus, intentionally or not, the enemy with the tower shield looked awfully similar to ME3's Guardian. Aside from the fact that the Inquisitor had a sword and not a gun, and the fact that the game could be paused, it seemed practically identical to an ME3 Soldier's strategy for fighting a Guardian. Ditto with Cassandra and the Rock Monster thing - the player needed her shield bash to break the armour, otherwise the enemy seemed impervious. 

ME and ME2, for the most part, had enemies that could basically be killed by just shooting at them long enough, no matter what the player's class or weapon. But ME3 introduced several specific enemy archetypes that *required* teamwork, good positioning, or selective weapon choices to defeat - to my mind it seemed that this was done with MP in mind. The new enemy varieties did benefit the singleplayer, but the way they were designed seemed to fit best with the multiplayer action - even down to each faction having basically the same number of enemies, in the same roles (weaklings, humanoid soldiers, elites and boss-type enemies). 

When the Inquisitor staggered the shield bearer with a chain, I was *strongly* reminded of the Guardian archetype in ME3 - an enemy that required the same tactic to defeat, and often the use of multiple party members or co-op teammates. It wasn't that an MP group with no soldiers *couldn't* defeat a Guardian in ME3 MP, but they'd need to try outflanking it, or something. Often multiple classes could fulfill the same role using different means (for example, a soldier would expose a Guardian by forcing it to stagger, while a biotic adept would pull the shield away with space-magic, and a third class like the Interceptor would force the enemy off balance by crashing into it). 

That might be a premature connection to make - especially since Bioware have said for ages that they want to emphasise positioning and teamwork in the combat - but introducing enemies that only certain classes can deal with effectively was a hallmark of ME3's MP system. It definitely engenders teamwork in a multiplayer context, and the development of specialised roles or strategies for handling different enemy types.

Also consider how the Inquisitor was doing combat rolls/dodges in the gameplay footage we have seen. ME 3 was the first of it's series to introduce that mechanic, and it appears that DA:I is following a similar progression.