59 réponses à ce sujet

[Magdalena11]

I'm hoping that they don't do MP, personally. If they do, I hope it's optional and unrelated to my progress in DAI.

[Jaulen]

As I've said on other threads related to the possibility of MP in DA:I

I'd rather not have it.

If they do add in MP
1) Have no impact on the progression of the SP campaign/characters.

2) Only MP type play I'd be interested in would be the type of player group vs player group waypoint sidegames from SW:TOR. Those were fun.

[TeamLexana]

Vortex13 wrote...

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).

The problem with letting peeps straight out buy what they want would lead to peeps only buying "Harriers" and the like which would force more hardcore nerf it to the ground moves on their part to get peeps to buy other packs to get more weapons/gear/characters. 

The troll store is troll but at least it is possible to get everything eventually, all you have to do is play and the peeps who pay for packs with real money aren't guarenteed to outclass you with gear right out of the gate unless the either get really lucky and/or they spend ALOT of money - which to me is fine cuz they are paying for my MP so it can be free for me, lol.

[BouncyFrag]

Objectively I see how a co-op mode would probably be the way to go, but a mage vs templar mode would be a lot of fun.

[Vortex13]

TeamLexana wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

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).

The problem with letting peeps straight out buy what they want would lead to peeps only buying "Harriers" and the like which would force more hardcore nerf it to the ground moves on their part to get peeps to buy other packs to get more weapons/gear/characters. 

The troll store is troll but at least it is possible to get everything eventually, all you have to do is play and the peeps who pay for packs with real money aren't guarenteed to outclass you with gear right out of the gate unless the either get really lucky and/or they spend ALOT of money - which to me is fine cuz they are paying for my MP so it can be free for me, lol.

I am with you on the whole min/max and 'pay to win' methods that a lot of micro-transaction heavy games employ. I want a player who never spends a penny in real world money to have the same 'access' to everything the game has to offer vs. a paying player. The only difference being that a person who spends real world money will get their stuff faster.

Balanceing in ME 3's mp was (IMO) well done; for the most part; nothing was grossly overpowered, and even common weapons or characters could give ultra rares a run for their money if being used by an experienced player.

That being said, the ability to actually unlock what you want would be most welcome in future mp modes. To offset the player agency you have an increased cost, and you could also limit such purchases to the inital unlock. You can specifically get the Harrier, but you can't use such a feature to max out your Harrier, for example. 

[Killdren88]

I hoping the extent of the online piece of DA:I is what they did in Origins. Simple story updates you can share and even those you can opt out of. But of course that is wishful thinking. If there is any form of MP I want it to leave me alone and not be forced to play it in any capacity at all.

[TeamLexana]

Vortex13 wrote...

*snip*

I am with you on the whole min/max and 'pay to win' methods that a lot of micro-transaction heavy games employ. I want a player who never spends a penny in real world money to have the same 'access' to everything the game has to offer vs. a paying player. The only difference being that a person who spends real world money will get their stuff faster.

Balanceing in ME 3's mp was (IMO) well done; for the most part; nothing was grossly overpowered, and even common weapons or characters could give ultra rares a run for their money if being used by an experienced player.

That being said, the ability to actually unlock what you want would be most welcome in future mp modes. To offset the player agency you have an increased cost, and you could also limit such purchases to the inital unlock. You can specifically get the Harrier, but you can't use such a feature to max out your Harrier, for example. 

That could be cool. I think alot of peeps would still take to using their level one "Harrier" over most other of the common/uncommon weapons though, especially if they didn't take the time to max those weapons and learn how to use them effectively on certain classes. Personally, it doesn't bother me since I don't feel the need to police how peeps play but if others cry that something should be nerfed on the biases that it gets used alot and BW actually listens, ugh.... makes me SO MAD! GRRRR! lol

[ElitePinecone]

Vortex13 wrote...

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.

I totally forgot about the combat rolls! 

[ElitePinecone]

TeamLexana wrote...

The problem with letting peeps straight out buy what they want would lead to peeps only buying "Harriers" and the like which would force more hardcore nerf it to the ground moves on their part to get peeps to buy other packs to get more weapons/gear/characters. 

The troll store is troll but at least it is possible to get everything eventually, all you have to do is play and the peeps who pay for packs with real money aren't guarenteed to outclass you with gear right out of the gate unless the either get really lucky and/or they spend ALOT of money - which to me is fine cuz they are paying for my MP so it can be free for me, lol.

That's true, and weapon/character balancing is an issue in any MP context.

I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but I think if they tried to avoid a situation where there was a Harrier-esque weapon in the game, that would stop people rushing to buy that particular weapon. Or they could do pricing tiers, but that's more controversial (especially if it leads to accusations of paying to win). 

I guess the idea is that if the system is designed so that no character and no weapon has any real advantage over any other - they all just do different things in different roles - that would allow people to buy them based on personal preference, rather than trying to get a combat advantage. 

Then again, I totally didn't expect ME3's MP community to become so insanely detailed in their analysis of weapon strategies and whatever, so maybe I'm underestimating how far people will go to work out which weapons/items/characters are "the best". 

[Plato]

TeamLexana wrote...



The problem with letting peeps straight out buy what they want would lead to peeps only buying "Harriers" and the like which would force more hardcore nerf it to the ground moves on their part to get peeps to buy other packs to get more weapons/gear/characters. 

The troll store is troll but at least it is possible to get everything eventually, all you have to do is play and the peeps who pay for packs with real money aren't guarenteed to outclass you with gear right out of the gate unless the either get really lucky and/or they spend ALOT of money - which to me is fine cuz they are paying for my MP so it can be free for me, lol.

This is certainly true, it would introduce a Pay2Win aspect.
I will however say that IF MP was Co-op, I wouldn't mind at all if it meant the store would allow you to buy what you wanted rather than the RNG way.
Maybe this is because I'm so unlucky with RNG, I get what I don't want most of the time, and then when the moon is blue, the planets are aligned and pigs fly across the sky, I might get what I wanted.
In a Co-op multiplayer I would prefer a store where I could buy the staff, armor, sword, etc. that I actually wanted. Let the "better" weapons have a high price so you'd have to consider whether to progress slowly, and buy smaller upgrades first or be weak for a longer time then get the powerful stuff. Then, of course, since Microtransactions will most likely be in the game, allow the purchase of gold for bioware points.

[AltanIV]

Magdalena11 wrote...

I'm hoping that they don't do MP, personally. If they do, I hope it's optional and unrelated to my progress in DAI.

That.

[Afro_Explosion]

I'd like if they do a multiplayer with its own story like halo 4 but that probably won't happen.

[TheExtreamH]

if they do Multiplayer, i hope for a co-op mode not related to SP. I don't really see PVP working for Dragon Age.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

As said in other versions of this thread, if they do MP I'd like to see something like Star Wars: Battlefront. Have the sides be Templars and Mages, provide a few classes per faction, and fight for objectives. The winner claims the fort, pass, etc. Just have the places be areas we don't go to in SP so the constantly shifting ownership of those areas does not affect SP directly.

[ghostzodd]

Baldur's Gate style CO-OP, Not some crappy Horde mode

[Morroian]

ScreechingViolence wrote...

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

This. I'd like it but with with no effect on the single player game.

[ThatGnome]

I didn't mind the RNG when it was giving me new characters; those weren't getting any great advantage from extra picks that wouldn't come from playing them anyway (more experience, so what?). What I didn't like was the gear, where regardless of how "cool" a piece of equipment was, when you first got it at Level 1 you probably weren't going to find it better than a higher level item, even one from a lower category. I don't imagine DA:I would take that approach, as the "lore" hasn't involved upgrading items, instead replacing them with better ones of the same type - Dragonbone, ultimately, instead of Iron, or Grandmaster runes rather than Apprentice ones.

I could see two possible approaches to handling this. One, fairly similar to the ME3 system, where you got a cash reward at the end of every mission. Then you'd go to the Store screen, and could either spend it requesting a new recruit (and someone random would turn up in my preferred system) or you'd but items directly (but what was available would be pretty random). That way you wouldn't be getting things you didn't want in terms of items, but wouldn't be guaranteed the best either.

The other, while there'd be some cash reward there'd also be a "Loot" phase after every mission/round, where players would roll off for recovered items of loot - no  more than four items at a time, if MP had four players, and once oyu had one you'd be disqualified from bidding on others. Higher grades of opposition in this case would give better loot, of course. It could be combined with the first approach to a store, as well, so that there'd be some loot from every mission, even if you'd need to save longer for particular store items.

[Deflagratio]

You have to figure out the answer to another question before really addressing the concept of a Multiplayer component in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

Does the Multiplayer aspect exist solely (Or even just mostly) to monetize the game as a service instead of a product? As much as I liked Mass Effect 3's Multiplayer, and never once bought a Reinforcement pack for the couple of months I played it, I still found it distasteful in how it was obviously a creation of economics as opposed to inspiration.

Maybe that's just a bias I have because I'm aware of the psychological trappings in place within the Reinforcement pack model, much like a Collecting game like Rage of Bahamut, though Mass Effect 3 was nowhere near that bad.

[Iakus]

ghostzodd wrote...

Baldur's Gate style CO-OP, Not some crappy Horde mode

No profit in it.

[ghostzodd]

iakus wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

Baldur's Gate style CO-OP, Not some crappy Horde mode

No profit in it.

you mean Microtransactions?

[Iakus]

Ayup

[vandalDX]

Deflagratio wrote...

Maybe that's just a bias I have because I'm aware of the psychological trappings in place within the Reinforcement pack model, much like a Collecting game like Rage of Bahamut, though Mass Effect 3 was nowhere near that bad.

I appreciated that those who wanted to pay for packs had that opportunity, and those of us who genuinely enjoyed the teamwork and experience could grind for credits and buy the PSPs.  I for one enthusiastically support a ME3-like MP component to DA:I, with no preference either that that it affect the SP campaign (which seems to be the chief concern from forum posts here).  I would be in opposition to a PvP, as the nature of certain powers would promote the kinds of things that make non-competitive gamers avoid multiplayer components.  That was the greatest strength of the MP component of ME3: it was not competitive.  All players benfitted from their time spent, regardless of their skill level.

The variety of difficulty levels accomodated themselves perfectly with the investment of players exactly where they wished to be--a person looking to drive up galactic readiness, for example, could spend a few hours playing Bronze matches and still gain the same boost to GR as a group of friends building a party to play Gold matches.  As a participant of the latter, I never once spent a MS point for packs.  Not once, and I have a completed manifest.  I could still play competently even if I hadn't put in the hours I did, and the thought of partying up with like-minded players and taking down three varterrals and a high dragon on the Gold difficulty is really, really exciting.

Would non-MP players be more receptive to an MP inclusion if it did not affect the keep-readiness or SP campaign?  What if the relationship between the MP and the SP was identical to that of ME3?

[Vortex13]

valhallaVANDAL wrote...

I appreciated that those who wanted to pay for packs had that opportunity, and those of us who genuinely enjoyed the teamwork and experience could grind for credits and buy the PSPs.  I for one enthusiastically support a ME3-like MP component to DA:I, with no preference either that that it affect the SP campaign (which seems to be the chief concern from forum posts here).  I would be in opposition to a PvP, as the nature of certain powers would promote the kinds of things that make non-competitive gamers avoid multiplayer components.  That was the greatest strength of the MP component of ME3: it was not competitive.  All players benfitted from their time spent, regardless of their skill level.

The variety of difficulty levels accomodated themselves perfectly with the investment of players exactly where they wished to be--a person looking to drive up galactic readiness, for example, could spend a few hours playing Bronze matches and still gain the same boost to GR as a group of friends building a party to play Gold matches.  As a participant of the latter, I never once spent a MS point for packs.  Not once, and I have a completed manifest.  I could still play competently even if I hadn't put in the hours I did, and the thought of partying up with like-minded players and taking down three varterrals and a high dragon on the Gold difficulty is really, really exciting.

I agree 100%. Co-operative mp fosters a more fluid gameplay mechanic; as powers and abilities do not have to be balanced, tweaked, and ultimately diminished in the name of competitive play. You also would lose the sheer variety in possible character, class, and race selections for a PvP game mode. I am quite positive that we would never had seen kits like the Geth Juggernaut, or Volus, or Jetpack Turian (name escapes me atm), or any of the Earth DLC classes if the mp was built around competitive play.

The use of ME 3's micro-transactions was (IMO) one of the very few 'good' examples of how such features could be implemented into games. A player could have access to the entire selection of weapons, gear, and characters that paying customers have, and paying customers did not have some unfair advantage compared to non-paying players. Also the fact that no one had to pay for ANY of the mp DLC meant that the community was not divided by paywalls; I know that I would gladly have a ME 3 style micro-transaction system in DA:I mp if it meant that we would get all subsequent content for free.

valhallaVANDAL wrote...

Would non-MP players be more receptive to an MP inclusion if it did not affect the keep-readiness or SP campaign?  What if the relationship between the MP and the SP was identical to that of ME3?

Personally, I would be okay with a MP system that affected SP, albeit in a more personalized manner. If I could actually see (and interact with) my promoted characters in the form of Agents, or as a call-in; a la DA:O final battle; that would be an engaging feature, and one that would help contribute to a more personalized play through.

Though I don't see why such sp/mp interaction has to flow from the co-operative gameplay into the solo narrative; why not have it the other way around? I know that Batman: Arkham Origins had a side quest in sp, that once completed would give the player several versions of that game's mp packs.

[vandalDX]

Vortex13 wrote...

I agree 100%. Co-operative mp fosters a more fluid gameplay mechanic; as powers and abilities do not have to be balanced, tweaked, and ultimately diminished in the name of competitive play. You also would lose the sheer variety in possible character, class, and race selections for a PvP game mode. I am quite positive that we would never had seen kits like the Geth Juggernaut, or Volus, or Jetpack Turian (name escapes me atm), or any of the Earth DLC classes if the mp was built around competitive play.

The use of ME 3's micro-transactions was (IMO) one of the very few 'good' examples of how such features could be implemented into games. A player could have access to the entire selection of weapons, gear, and characters that paying customers have, and paying customers did not have some unfair advantage compared to non-paying players. Also the fact that no one had to pay for ANY of the mp DLC meant that the community was not divided by paywalls; I know that I would gladly have a ME 3 style micro-transaction system in DA:I mp if it meant that we would get all subsequent content for free.

Nearly bi-monthly free DLC content + incentivized, fun weekend challenges + weekly balance changes + N7/trophy leaderboards for friendly competition =/= rehashed horde mode.  The sheer fairness and comraderie that ME3MP fostered, minus a few glitchers (I seriously met someone missile glitching the other day...still) was unlike anything that I've ever come across in cooperative or competitive gameplay.

As a former CoD player who enjoyed XBL play but wearied of the negative, racist and homophobic language common in matchmaking lobbies when wins and losses (and K/D ratios, and killstreaks, and quickscoping, and noob tubing, etc...) are "at stake", I was thrilled when I found that my favorite developer had created a brand of online multiplayer that featured a blend of both the best elements of online play (XBL parties, banners, rankings, upgrades, etc.) and the ever-more-excellent RPG/shooter gameplay of Mass Effect.  I couldn't get enough for the first two years, and I'll still play until DA:I comes out, hopefully with something similar and suited to the party-build dynamic of the DA franchise.

Personally, I would be okay with a MP system that affected SP, albeit in a more personalized manner. If I could actually see (and interact with) my promoted characters in the form of Agents, or as a call-in; a la DA:O final battle; that would be an engaging feature, and one that would help contribute to a more personalized play through.

Though I don't see why such sp/mp interaction has to flow from the co-operative gameplay into the solo narrative; why not have it the other way around? I know that Batman: Arkham Origins had a side quest in sp, that once completed would give the player several versions of that game's mp packs.

All of these ideas seem like terrific ways for BioWare to continue to build their identity as a top developer, obviously with regard to RPG narrative, but also to extend the online experience and multiplayer content to players who thoroughly enjoy their games, and would like to cooperate with friends who likewise enjoy their products.

*sigh* is it "Fall 2013" yet 

Modifié par valhallaVANDAL, 04 janvier 2014 - 06:25 .