200 réponses à ce sujet

[Veruin]

Raven489 wrote...

As for no health regen, I expect to die a lot! I suck at video games in general, I just play for the story and characters! 

That's why they have casual difficulty.  Which is basically "Story mode."

[Raven489]

Veruin wrote...

Raven489 wrote...

As for no health regen, I expect to die a lot! I suck at video games in general, I just play for the story and characters! 

That's why they have casual difficulty.  Which is basically "Story mode."

Yeah, I know that. But I also haven't seen where it was confirmed that certain difficulties will or will not have full regeneration. It doesn't matter either way, I was just making a statement. 

Modifié par Raven489, 24 janvier 2014 - 01:36 .

[Veruin]

Raven489 wrote...

Yeah, I know that. But I also haven't seen where it was confirmed that certain difficulties will or will not have full regeneration. It doesn't matter either way, I was just making a statement. 

I thought they stated that differernt difficulties will have different health thresholds?  Hard 40%, Normal 60%, easy 80%, casual 100%, etc.

[Raven489]

Veruin wrote...

Raven489 wrote...

Yeah, I know that. But I also haven't seen where it was confirmed that certain difficulties will or will not have full regeneration. It doesn't matter either way, I was just making a statement. 

I thought they stated that differernt difficulties will have different health thresholds?  Hard 40%, Normal 60%, easy 80%, casual 100%, etc.

I've only seen the people on here talk about it, I haven't actually seen a direct quote from someone at Bioware. But that might be true, I'm not sure. 

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
How would you propose making the game challenging in a game that allows people to fully regenerate health and mana with zero cost? HP bloat and enemy waves? Because any other tactic - improved AI, resistances to certain attacks/elements, unqiue attacks/effects such as environmental or creature specific - will disappear when a player can just drop the difficulty down to Casual. 

How is that a problem?

People play on casual because they don't want a challenge.

Jaison1986 wrote...

I wonder if mana regenerates fully.

It does.

Wulfram wrote...
If it is like that, then what is this design choice doing except wasting our time?  And more or less forcing you to take a healer mage, I guess.

It no more 'forces' you to take a healer mage than it 'forces' you to play on the lowest difficulty.

seraphymon wrote...

If this is there way of trying to make it more strategic.. they've already failed. As has been discussed, getting around this feature would just be wasting time waiting for healing spells or so.

You realize that taking a healer with you is a strategic decision, right? For all we know, there's only one companion with a heal spell.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 24 janvier 2014 - 02:22 .

[Martyr1777]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yet if you took Coercion, you sacrificed Tactics slots (which did suck) and also Combat Training skills, meaning you would do less damage and (if you were a mage) increase the chance of interupts.

It had the potential to be interesting, but the game had to be designed for situations in which these skills had any real value. Stealth was worthless except for the few times when it was critical. Same for things like Survival or Poisons. 

I'd rather see a system devoted to fleshing these systems out more holistically. But the value for a developer to do this only stands to work if the standard, default response can't always be combat. Or, if you choose combat every time, it will make the game much harder... just like if you tried choosing Stealth as an option every time, it would be harded (read as, completely impossible). 

Make the game punishly difficult to play myopically - that includes combat as your sole option - and suddenly you've got a game that forces the developer to make non-combat skills just as refined and interdependent to gameplay as combat.

It sounds good and all, but if as common as it is for video games to become a failures even without adding this difficult balancing act, I doubt that a game like this will work as intended. It will simply become frustratingly difficult.

That said, I would be interested in playing a game that made something like this happen.

Look up Age of Decadance, combat is stupidly hard (especially with only two combat based classes) and you have to really be careful about when you pick your fights. But you can also play like 90% of the thing with all combat or non-combat choices.

And have to say RPGs arent defined by combat or they would be CPGs. We are playing a role and living out a story. I like me some good strategic combat, but many fights in DAO and DA2 jut felt like a useless aste of time blocking that next juicy story sequence.

[CybAnt1]

A system that let's players choose other methods over combat may intrigue people who don't like combat. Just because someone hates the tedium of RPG combat doesn't mean they might hate setting up effective traps and choke points, where you never even have to draw a sword. Or using a combination of magic and a rogue's snearkery to create a distraction and get the whole party by.

If you make the very concept of combat hard, with non-regening health and mana, then people will actually explore the idea of "hey, maybe I shouldn't run up and pick a fight with every single creature that the game allows me to." 

Personally, the reason I like having non-combat options available is I like playing a protagonist who tries to resolve situations without combat. It's why I like Doctor Who. He faces down Daleks, but often deals with them with no laser pistol. Just a sonic screwdriver, and ingenuity. I don't really discuss at what difficulty level I play the game at (but I am not afraid to say my goal is not to reach the pinnacle of difficulty, either), nor do I apologize for doing what some people call cheating (i.e. using the console codes - or gameplay mods), because frankly I'm not into the whole trash-talking thing in an RPG and in the end don't give a **** about their opinion. But I will just say I'm the type of guy who might choose a non-combat option not because I'm deeply worried about getting my arse kicked, but rather because I like to try different things, ways, paths. 

I do agree with another point made in the thread, too. Many games stink in that they offer non-combat options, but there's almost no way to gain XP without killing things. That is what often forces you into melee early and often. The better option is to have boku quest XP for completing quests regardless of how you do it. I.e. if the quest is "bring back that guy's amulet," give me boku XP whether I steal it, kill him and take it, or get him drunk and passed out and take it that way. 

Incidentally, there is a way to use stealth both ways in a party based game.

Plenty of times, I tell the rest of the party to stay, while I, the rogue, go into stealth and set up a few things. Lay a few traps, prepare some strategery, close the right doors, then walk up to the leader and stab him in the back with an assassinating poisoned blow, set up so nicely, so that if he ain't dead then, he will be soon. Then I lift the stay/hold on everybody else, and let the fun begin. I will say it really sucks when before I get there this sneakery is blown to smithereens by a tedious auto-activating cutscene where the leader declares his megalomania, and suddenly combat is starting, with my cloaking device being deactivated. That is bad RPG mechanics. At that point, screw your cinematics, let me do my stealth. I heard his megalomaniac speech in the last playthrough. 

As for avoiding combat entirely, well, it's quite simple. EIther bring a party of all rogues  ... or ... give the rogue a special activated stealth ability that cloaks the entire party. Walk by your adversaries. Done. Of course, most RPGs these days don't have objectives where doing that can get you what's necessary to finish a quest. 

[CybAnt1]

That's my argument for more "hardcore" combat systems. Because they open the door not only to prodding the player to explore to combat mechanics a little more closely, but they also can be used to create and nurture countless other systems and tactics outside of dropping the enemies health number down to zero faster than he can do the same to you.

I get your point, FJ. But ... in reality, I'd really just rather have non combat options there, just to have non combat options there. Variety is the spice of life. 

Frankly, the difficulty of combat - for me - wouldn't modify how often I do or don't choose them. And it seems IE & I may not always agree on much, but I confess I don't get turning combat difficulty to 11 for everybody as a way to FORCE players to do it more often. Some will, some won't.

P.S. while I love being told I suck & fail because I got everybody in the party majorly wounded in that boss encounter on dungeon level 2, I personally do not give a **** about their opinion. RPGs are an experience for each player, not a competition ("Well, I cleared that boss and didn't get a scratch!" Good for you, and if you're just some annoying ahole on a forum, how do I know you're telling the truth anyway?) (It's also why I don't give a flying **** about "achievements" either.) I tend to think it's just because of crap in that encounter. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 24 janvier 2014 - 04:10 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
How would you propose making the game challenging in a game that allows people to fully regenerate health and mana with zero cost? HP bloat and enemy waves? Because any other tactic - improved AI, resistances to certain attacks/elements, unqiue attacks/effects such as environmental or creature specific - will disappear when a player can just drop the difficulty down to Casual. 

How is that a problem?

People play on casual because they don't want a challenge.

I simply meant it, in no way, incentivies any other action other than combat. A system that puts genuine obstacles or even roadblocks to direct combat constantly opens the possibility to the player that all-combat may be a bad approach.

It, ironically, could get the people who don't like combat to try and go through the game and use methods other than combat to overcome the game's obstacles.

[Sentinel358]

CybAnt1 wrote...

That's my argument for more "hardcore" combat systems. Because they open the door not only to prodding the player to explore to combat mechanics a little more closely, but they also can be used to create and nurture countless other systems and tactics outside of dropping the enemies health number down to zero faster than he can do the same to you.

I get your point, FJ. But ... in reality, I'd really just rather have non combat options there, just to have non combat options there. Variety is the spice of life. 

Frankly, the difficulty of combat - for me - wouldn't modify how often I do or don't choose them. And it seems IE & I may not always agree on much, but I confess I don't get turning combat difficulty to 11 for everybody as a way to FORCE players to do it more often. Some will, some won't.

P.S. while I love being told I suck & fail because I got everybody in the party majorly wounded in that boss encounter on dungeon level 2, I personally do not give a **** about their opinion. RPGs are an experience for each player, not a competition ("Well, I cleared that boss and didn't get a scratch!" Good for you, and if you're just some annoying ahole on a forum, how do I know you're telling the truth anyway?) (It's also why I don't give a flying **** about "achievements" either.) I tend to think it's just because of crap in that encounter. 

There were actually plenty of those options where you can avoid combat in DA:O (not sure about DA2) but im sure there will be plenty of those options in inquisition 

[tybert7]

They could just make it so that you could only heal while in combat with a mage healer.

Actually, let's pool our collective intellect to figure out how they would do this. (frightened at the potential results)

[CybAnt1]

Whenever I see someone saying "Why can't we go back to the good old Baldur's Gate days" I always think "What does that even mean?" I looked up when the first Baldur's Gate game came out and I was only 4, so I of course know nothing about that game. 

While I understand your comment, completely, let me just point out you can play BG1 and BG2 TODAY ... OK, it will require a Mac/PC, or an iOS/Android device, like various tablets. Alas, I will confess, not on a gaming console. It was never written to be adaptable to play on one. 

Available right now at this moment are the Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 Enhanced Edition, to play on TODAY's machines. Those Enhanced Editions mean legions of fan-modders worked on tweaking and modding the game a bit beyond the way developers first provided. And the scary thing is, they're even charging money for doing this, and apparently, collecting some from people willing to pay for these games first released in the hoary & ancient antideluvian epoch before the Xbox.

May I finally humbly submit that if you try out the Enhanced Editions of these games, you will have two reactions.

1. Wow this crap is dated. The graphics suck, it's 2D isometric, spell animations are twinkly sprites, characters onscreen are teeny ragdolls, don't expect to see any character's face move when they speak, all you'll see is their portrait, and hear their VA. 

So then you'll be puzzled by why on Earth someone would try and re-release these games in 2013/4. 

2. Playing it may or may not not convince you of this, but read what people liked about them with an open mind, and what they did right, and then think why, for at least a while, "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" was a marketing slogan used by Bioware that really tugged some <3 strings of those who HAD played it to lure them to the Dragon Age series, and you may just get it.

Or not. So be it. I get it. 

[n7stormrunner]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Whenever I see someone saying "Why can't we go back to the good old Baldur's Gate days" I always think "What does that even mean?" I looked up when the first Baldur's Gate game came out and I was only 4, so I of course know nothing about that game. 

While I understand your comment, completely, let me just point out you can play BG1 and BG2 TODAY ... OK, it will require a Mac/PC, or an iOS/Android device, like various tablets. Alas, I will confess, not on a gaming console. It was never written to be adaptable to play on one. 

Available right now at this moment are the Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 Enhanced Edition, to play on TODAY's machines. Those Enhanced Editions mean legions of fan-modders worked on tweaking and modding the game a bit beyond the way developers first provided. And the scary thing is, they're even charging money for doing this, and apparently, collecting some from people willing to pay for these games first released in the hoary & ancient antideluvian epoch before the Xbox.

May I finally humbly submit that if you try out the Enhanced Editions of these games, you will have two reactions.

1. Wow this crap is dated. The graphics suck, it's 2D isometric, spell animations are twinkly sprites, characters onscreen are teeny ragdolls, don't expect to see any character's face move when they speak, all you'll see is their portrait, and hear their VA. 

So then you'll be puzzled by why on Earth someone would try and re-release these games in 2013/4. 

2. Playing it may or may not not convince you of this, but read what people liked about them with an open mind, and what they did right, and then think why, for at least a while, "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate" was a marketing slogan used by Bioware that really tugged some <3 strings of those who HAD played it to lure them to the Dragon Age series, and you may just get it.

Or not. So be it. I get it. 

yep point one is spot on, I have played bg 1 without mods, now I've played games with worst graphic and enjoyed it. I've played games with worst gameplay and enjoyed it. I could not play it, I got passed the mine once. 

it wasn't "strategtic" or "tactical" it was just slow and awkward. true I ddn't have to worry spells mostly cause at that point even the wizards had so few casts they were barely more then really bad warriors. in less of couse I rested after every fight... and didn't get get jumped, I don't what was so great about about it, maybe I'm just not "hardcore" enough or something

oh and on topic I don't like the limited health regen ether, but as long as mana still works the same it will not be even a reason slow down much. if it does work diffently... I play on casual most of the time anyway.

[CybAnt1]

I wouldn't say BG2 love (which is a more powerful emotional dementia for many old-timers than BG1 love) comes from the combat, primarily.

But it was brought up in this thread.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Yet if you took Coercion, you sacrificed Tactics slots (which did suck) and also Combat Training skills, meaning you would do less damage and (if you were a mage) increase the chance of interupts.

No. Coercion was relevant for only one character, there were many bonus skill books, and tactics were not only actively irrelevant, but actualy harmful depending on how you used them. DA:O is a game that you can crush with little damage to your party purely on pausing w/o tactics. 

There was no justfiable need to require either, and you had more than enough skills to both level up Coercion *AND* combat training by level 20. You could just max out your "warrior" or "rogue" tier earlier. 

Beyond that, combat training was irrelevant for mages. You were doing it wrong if your mage was being touched, must less interrupted.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Or those battles (and dungeon crawls overall) will simply require more planning and forethought, like in games with Vancian casting systems.

No, they require psychic powers. If you know the dungeon, then there's no challenge. If you don't know the dungeon, then you're just going to hoard. 

[Nightdragon8]

Can we have FAQ for these sort of questions, cause really.. knowing its been 1.5 weeks just based on the question is kinda sad...

Regan in going to be based on diffculty level or toggliable full info hasn't been released.

[seraphymon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You realize that taking a healer with you is a strategic decision, right? For all we know, there's only one companion with a heal spell.

Essentially that is just recreating DA2 problems with only Having anders as a healer if you weren't a mage. Its basic strategy of mage having some sort of healing spell for these types of games. Assuming there is more than one mage with a healing spell all this would do is waste time is what people are saying, in order to bypass a gimmick. I mean I don't know exactly why they chose it but I do admit it doesn't look like the best way to add difficulty, just adds frustration.  I mean to me it doesn't really matter since if it sucks there will be a mod to fix it im sure., but still. Lowering difficulty I feel is insulting. People want proper challenges.. not having to lower the difficulty and then be bored, and much worse have a major blow dealt to their pride.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

No, they require psychic powers. If you know the dungeon, then there's no challenge. If you don't know the dungeon, then you're just going to hoard.

Hoarding is the rational approach.  Then you use the minimum resources for each encounter.

That's the forethought.  You need to consider not just the effectiveness of casting a spell now, but also the cost associated with doing so.

All decision-making is the application of cost-benefit analysis.  This is no different.

[Sylvius the Mad]

CybAnt1 wrote...

While I understand your comment, completely, let me just point out you can play BG1 and BG2 TODAY ... OK, it will require a Mac/PC, or an iOS/Android device, like various tablets. Alas, I will confess, not on a gaming console. It was never written to be adaptable to play on one. 

Available right now at this moment are the Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 Enhanced Edition, to play on TODAY's machines. Those Enhanced Editions mean legions of fan-modders worked on tweaking and modding the game a bit beyond the way developers first provided. And the scary thing is, they're even charging money for doing this, and apparently, collecting some from people willing to pay for these games first released in the hoary & ancient antideluvian epoch before the Xbox.

I actually think the Enhanced Editions look more dated than the original games, by virtue of that clunky equipped weapon graphic in the UI.

BG and BG2 didn't need enhancement.  I'd recommend the originals, available from GOG.com.

[CybAnt1]

Yeah, the Vancian system in a CRPG basically comes down to that.

The approach they've taken in D & D 4E is..... interesting. It's an all-cooldown system. For spells and feats/abilities.

Some you can use only once per turn, some only once per encounter, some once per hour, some only once per day. Obviously, in order, they tend to be minor, normal, major, and epic abilities.

And once per day means once per day. You can't sleep/rest twice in a day to get them back.

... Oddly, I don't think anybody's rushing to adopt 4E rules for a CRPG, other than one MMO, I think, that uses a fraction of them (the 'new' Neverwinter), despite the fact that an all-cooldown system seems perfect for one, as long as it has a gameclock mechanic that knows one hour/day from the next.

[CybAnt1]

I'd recommend the originals, available from GOG.com.

Won't disagree, but they may not run on many modern PCs. 

Also, you'll be stuck at a resolution a lot lower than many monitors can handle.

But other than that, sure. 

You can disagree with the other modifications, sure, but the two that might be most 'impactful' are being rewritten so as to run without crashes on modern hardware, and at a resolution that looks less funky on a 2014 monitor. 

[Maria Caliban]

Martyr1777 wrote...

Look up Age of Decadance, combat is stupidly hard (especially with only two combat based classes) and you have to really be careful about when you pick your fights. But you can also play like 90% of the thing with all combat or non-combat choices.

How do you know combat is stupidly hard if the game isn't out yet?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Hoarding is the rational approach.  Then you use the minimum resources for each encounter.

No. Hoarding is only rational when you are so afraid of incuring a huge cost in the future, and so unaware of when that cost will come, and so aware that the current situation is negligible, that you will not act. It's just paralysis. 

Which is how JRP players end up with 99x potion, never ever using it while a character is even seriously hurt, beacuse it might be needed later. 

That's the forethought.  You need to consider not just the effectiveness of casting a spell now, but also the cost associated with doing so.

Forethought is impossible. There is no way to predict any future encounter, or the costs of it. Everything is hidden from you. The cost of using 100% of your mana when future encounters = 0 is differnet from using 1% of your mana when future encounters = 10000. The nature of the dungeon crawl is that you will never know, at first instance, what lies at the next door. 

All decision-making is the application of cost-benefit analysis.  This is no different.

Cost benefit requires information about the future. Which RPGs refuse to give in dungeon crawls. 

[Magdalena11]

All I know is that I'll be seeing a lot of the "Your journey ends..." screen. I'll try normal but don't know how long that will last. I remember seeing somewhere that regen will be complete with resting at camp/keep.

It occurs to me that with only partially regenerating health that only fully returns at camp, all injuries are going to heal like KO injuries without the loss of consciousness. This, of course, leads to the question: How are KOs being treated? Will there be further health reserve or ability point losses? Will it just mean that the KO'd character is out for the fight but comes back with no extra damage?