20 réponses à ce sujet

[Boss Fog]

So, this idea has been stirring in my dome for too long and now that there's a direct and obvious place for me to express my will I'm going to take that opportunity.  Even though I'm highly certain this idea will never take root.

 

After playing through ME3 I took notice of the different difficulty settings that BW included for the differing play styles of anyone playing the game.  RPG, Action, and story.  I'm not going to review what these selections actually mean as anyone who hasn't a clue can just look it up.  I wholeheartedly believe we need a "Lore" difficulty setting to satiate the people who want a challenging playthrough without relying on the nightmare or Insane difficulty settings which basically just makes all enemies hit harder, toss more grenades than usual and gives them an extra 500 hp.  Why should the casuals or people who don't give a damn about the story be catered to but the people who want a robust and interesting gameplay experience be left out? 

 

This setting would in a sense equalize the stats across the board for the PC, companions, and enemy NPCs.  Stats could be increased or decreased depending on the class of the NPC or PC; but overall the outcome should be as close to what would actually happen in the gameplay if it were not a game but a movie or book.  Instead of giving enemies an extra 500 hp, they could for example decrease the cooldown on particular abilities or have a unique and fine tuned tactics setting.  

 

To be clear, I am not advocating for a one-shot kill everything that walks with your weapon type combat.  What I'm essentially asking for is a difficulty setting that is as close to the established lore as can be without actually breaking the gameplay.  I've had several people over the passed few months tell me this isn't feasible because RPGs aren't designed for "good combat" in mind.  It baffles me as to how people are sometimes incapable of thinking outside the box.  As if because the game is a RPG then it must have sh*tty combat as a prerequisite.  

 

I encourage all types of feedback on this topic if it interests you in the slightest but please don't come in here and say that my idea is sh*t because gameplay in RPGs is sh*t.  RPG combat has so much potential and if you fail to see that, then I don't want to hear from you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I have long argued for someting similar - a level playing field where the rules of the setting apply equally to everyone.

[Boss Fog]

Thanks for the support Sylvius.  I'd just like to add even if you're the only person watching this topic that I'm also not advocating for a clone of the 3.5 D&D system; even if that is the closest form of gameplay to what I'm suggesting.  I'm simply asking that all NPCs and even the PC are bound by the same rule set with modifications where they are lore appropriate.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No one is suggesting that we use any specific ruleset, D&D or otherwise.  Just that whatever ruleset we do use make sense within the setting, and be applied universally such that each entity within the setting is at least plausible within that setting.

[Wulfram]

That seems like it'd require a whole lot more work than other difficulty systems.  Though I'm not really sure what's being asked for..

 

I'd probably rather they spent the time getting the main game working properly than fiddling around with some weird mode.

[Mes]

I think I sort of understand what you're saying. In any case a more creative difficulty setting would be cool instead of just MORE darkspawn etc.

[Boss Fog]

That seems like it'd require a whole lot more work than other difficulty systems.  Though I'm not really sure what's being asked for..

 

I'd probably rather they spent the time getting the main game working properly than fiddling around with some weird mode.

For DA2, I was able to create something very similar (within the circumstances of DA2's weird scaling system) to what I am describing with GDApp.  It is as simple as changing values for enemies across the board  with only a few exceptions.  Essentially I was able to create a unique difficulty setting that represented the world as the lore more or less intends in a few hours.  

 

Also, how does this contradict going against getting the 'main game' working?  I'm not asking for a car without the body frame.  I would assume that getting the game itself up and writing is priority #1.  That doesn't make my request weird as you put it.  For a universe that's supposed to have lore and story as one of its main focus; it'd be nice for a change to experience the verisimilitude of that world in the gameplay for once.  Or are you labeling the idea as weird because you would simply never use it? 

[Dr. Doctor]

Dark Souls employed a similar system to what you're suggesting. NPCs played by the same rules that governed the player.

If enemies had access to the same general skills/powers that PCs had and similar vulnerabilities then I'd be seriously interested in such a difficulty option. IMO the Arishok fight was annoying because quite a few abilities just straight up don't work against him.

[Boss Fog]

Dark Souls employed a similar system to what you're suggesting. NPCs played by the same rules that governed the player.

If enemies had access to the same general skills/powers that PCs had and similar vulnerabilities then I'd be seriously interested in such a difficulty option. IMO the Arishok fight was annoying because quite a few abilities just straight up don't work against him.

Look at who you're talking to, lol.

[Ieldra]

I think this is a very interesting suggestion worth thinking about for developers. However, it is limited not so much by general balance considerations than by the artificial concept of leveling.

Think about this: according to lore, a low-level party should have next to no chance against a single abomination. I wouldn't have a problem with that, but how believable is it then that just a few in-game-weeks later you can mop the floor with them? To avoid such problems, you would need to rebalance character leveling and enemy progression throughout the whole game, and I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

Thus, my question: what exactly would you expect from this new difficulty? I don't think we'll see it in DAI, but it's something to keep in mind for future games.

[abnocte]

I must be the odd one because it blows my mind that things aren't actually like that.

 

I mean for me that should be the Normal difficulty just like in BG when you played on Normal the game ( enemies and party ) would follow the D&D rules: two level 15 warriors with the same stats, especializations, and equipment would have the very same probabilities to hit a target, to get wounded, etc, regardless of if it being a party member or an enemy.

 

And from a programming point of view it is easier to code, since the behaviour doesn't change from entity to entity.

 

An in all, I fully support symmetrical combat.

 

@Ieldra I remember reading that DAI will handle enemies levelling differently, as in we will have to retreat because our party is no match for a certain enemy. The party will have to get experience facing weaker enemies before triying stronger ones, for me this makes absolute sense even if it is a few in-game weeks later ( our party will be fighting all day long most probably, for weeks... will learn to work as a team making encounters easier... )

[Ieldra]

@abnocte:
The request was not for symmetrical combat, but for lore-compliant combat. As I see it, that's mostly a matter of making combat gameplay follow the worldbuilding. It would mean much fewer trash enemies (since that's unrealistic in almost all scenarios), more enemies refusing to engage because of reputation, ramping up the difficulty with things like abominations, and the occasional enemy group that mops the floor with you if you go to certain places.

DAI's enemies will adapt less to the player level and that's a step in right direction. However, symmetrical combat is not a necessary principle since you can always tweak combat by reducing enemy levels if you want even if that principle is in effect. And if your goal is to make an encounter difficult because that's what the lore says, it absolutely doesn't matter if the enemies play by the same rules.

[Wulfram]

I label it weird because I don't really get what you're asking for.

If what you're asking for is a symmetrical rule-set, then that's a fair enough request.  But I think it'd make more sense to ask for the game to be designed that way, rather than having them split their resources between two different game modes that don't give much added utility to the player because in the end they play rather similarly.

 

But you're first request talks about a whole lot of things that have absolutely nothing to do with whether the rule-set is symmetrical, and seems to be asking for a whole new game, basically.

[Laughing_Man]

Leveling the playing field stat-wise, has the potential to make real time combat very difficult and frustrating - depends on how it is executed.

 

However, I will point out that turn-based games like XCOM and Shadowrun Returns, are somewhat similar to the "Lore" difficulty you requested.

In these games you can compensate with strategy and tactics against sometimes overwhelming enemy power. (which is more difficult when using real-time mechanics)

[abnocte]

@Ieldra

 

I reread the OP and I certainly jumped to conclusions, still, I equate lore to symmetrical combat. Lets see if I can explain.

 

Lore says that "a low-level party should have next to no chance against a single abomination", but why? because its magical abilities? because it is immune to certain types of damage? or just because?

 

Lore and gameplay should go hand in hand, meaning that if a low-level party is going to be wipped by a single abomination, that abomination better have stats, immunities, spells and the like to back it up. And when a high-level party runs into the same abomination, it will still have the same stats, immunities, spells and the like and the reason the high-level party is the one wipping the floor with the abomination should be because the party has equipment/abilities that allow them to overcome it.

[Ieldra]

@Ieldra
 
I reread the OP and I certainly jumped to conclusions, still, I equate lore to symmetrical combat. Lets see if I can explain.
 
Lore says that "a low-level party should have next to no chance against a single abomination", but why? because its magical abilities? because it is immune to certain types of damage? or just because?
 
Lore and gameplay should go hand in hand, meaning that if a low-level party is going to be wipped by a single abomination, that abomination better have stats, immunities, spells and the like to back it up. And when a high-level party runs into the same abomination, it will still have the same stats, immunities, spells and the like and the reason the high-level party is the one wipping the floor with the abomination should be because the party has equipment/abilities that allow them to overcome it.

That's the problem with leveling, actually. This should be possible if and only if the lore says that there are squads that can mop the floor with an abomination. In other words, the ability progression of characters needs to be limited by lore considerations. This is not so much a problem with the major enemies of the story, since the world is built around them and there are unlikely to be inconsistencies, but with what you get in-between.

I'm not saying this isn't desirable. It may be hard to implement though.

[abnocte]

This is my opinion but I think BG achived that well enough.

 

The problem I see it is not in its actual implementation but in developers having a perfectly defined ruleset for DA, something that, after playing both DAO and DA2, may not be the case... I mean its not set in stone... thats the feeling I got...

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd probably rather they spent the time getting the main game working properly than fiddling around with some weird mode.

I would suggest that this is how the main game should be designed, and then every other mode should stem from it.

 

The mechanics should be consistent with the setting's lore.

[Pasquale1234]

I believe what is being requested here is to integrate gameplay with lore - in other words, to do away with the lore / gameplay separation that has been prevalent in this franchise thus far.  I certainly support that notion, and feel that it would make the experience much more immersive.

 

I think a successful implementation would require not only that the combat systems were designed specifically to eliminate that separation, but also the individual encounters would need to be designed accordingly.  A party of 4, no matter how awesomesauce they've become, should not be able to mop up a room full of abominations, shades, revenants, arcane horrors, and a demon.

[Boss Fog]

I believe what is being requested here is to integrate gameplay with lore - in other words, to do away with the lore / gameplay separation that has been prevalent in this franchise thus far.  I certainly support that notion, and feel that it would make the experience much more immersive.

 

I think a successful implementation would require not only that the combat systems were designed specifically to eliminate that separation, but also the individual encounters would need to be designed accordingly.  A party of 4, no matter how awesomesauce they've become, should not be able to mop up a room full of abominations, shades, revenants, arcane horrors, and a demon.

 

I would just like to build on this.  I wouldn't try to coax the developers to redesign the game from scratch; that is unrealistic and rather selfish from my standpoint.  But I would like to see future games steer down this road.  If I can spend 5 minutes adjusting my companion's tactics, how hard can it be to adjust the tactics settings for enemy AI?  I mean, you create a blanket tactic setting for each class; I assume there aren't an overwhelming amount of differing enemy classes.  Hell, in DA2 the enemy classes basically boiled down to soldier, 2 hander, explosion mage, blood mage, commanders, assassins and archers.  Perhaps asking that differing factions have different tactics is over-reaching; but I would find that to be a worthy goal nonetheless even if that's not what I was asking for in the OP.  Especially for a game that doesn't base its core basis on combat.

 

I will admit, I highly doubt anything even close to this will come to fruition for DA:I.  But I seriously hope Bioware chooses to approach a route more similar to the one I'm describing than their current model which boils down to: enemies are way dumber and have less abilities, but they have 100x more health than you.

[Boss Fog]

@abnocte:
The request was not for symmetrical combat, but for lore-compliant combat. As I see it, that's mostly a matter of making combat gameplay follow the worldbuilding. It would mean much fewer trash enemies (since that's unrealistic in almost all scenarios), more enemies refusing to engage because of reputation, ramping up the difficulty with things like abominations, and the occasional enemy group that mops the floor with you if you go to certain places.

DAI's enemies will adapt less to the player level and that's a step in right direction. However, symmetrical combat is not a necessary principle since you can always tweak combat by reducing enemy levels if you want even if that principle is in effect. And if your goal is to make an encounter difficult because that's what the lore says, it absolutely doesn't matter if the enemies play by the same rules.

 

The first bolded part was something I didn't have on my mind.  Would be nice to have it though.  I'm just talking about a system where everyone starts with the same stats depending on their class.  Doesn't matter if they're a companion or enemy lieutenant.  Things like tactics would definitely be a huge plus because if enemies don't have superior stats then the only alternative to making them challenging is the AI which addresses the second point I highlighted.  Fine tuning enemy tactics menus and possibly cooldown timers on certain abilities would be a step in the right direction.

 

@Ieldra

 

I reread the OP and I certainly jumped to conclusions, still, I equate lore to symmetrical combat. Lets see if I can explain.

 

Perhaps you did jump to conclusions; I wouldn't necessarily say they were the wrong conclusions though.