1807 réponses à ce sujet

[Adhin]

Yeah Burricho, I'd agree more if paying money let you actually 'pick' weapons. But it doesn't, it was still kinda garbagy. I generally believe microtransactions should mostly be for cosmetics, more so if the game already cost money to buy. Finding out all the DLC was 'free' was the tipping point for me being ok with the pay for packs honestly. That and some folks just don't have the time to spend, but have the disposable income to throw at packs like that. If it speeds up getting some gold weapons to rank 10 so they can keep up with their friends who can?

 

Honestly, I think it's more a product of weapons actually having 10 ranks to upgrade that was also random that was the biggest grind. If it was %chance to get the base item and we could dump creds to just upgrade it past that I'd probably of been happier with the way those packs where setup and never being ensured you got ultra rares, EVEN if you have 'everything else' completely maxed.

 

Meh, I think they where walking that grey line either way.

[King Dragonlord]

The ME3 multiplayer is fun, when i am in the mood for multiplayer (which is hardly ever). i absolutely agree that it was well designed. whoever is working on it deserves credit for a job well done. that much is clear from listening to everybody.

it doesn't matter. this is a single player game. when i fire it up, i want to play single player but sometimes i have to play multiplayer (or had to before the extended cuts, but still, a 50% number staring you in the face that you know you can't change without switching over to multiplayer is really really annoying. like a gnat buzzing in your ear. like levi dryden trying to sell you DLC in your camp). The only way they could have made it worse is with popup ads (and someone at EA is saying "Hey what about pop up ads" right now i just know it. they probably contemplate that one 3 or 4 times a day)

As for the 'we don't know whos responsible for the multiplayer'. Some of these devs could be lied to. they aren't managers. we know that ea likes to use multiplayer and microtransactions, we know that an EA vp bragged about never greenlighting a game without multiplayer (or an online component). We know they've made other statements about multiplayer being the wave of the future and disparaging remarks about people who play single player. We know that Bioware has traditionally released singleplayer games (there was talk about Baldurs Gate having one but it never happenes. note that even then multiplayer is the first thing they cut, whereas with EA it would likely be the last.) We know Bioware has lied to us before about multiplayer (when they said you'd be able to get all the endings without multiplayer, that wasn't true until months after release.) I have every reason to reject the official statement and arrive at this conclusion. Bioware and EA need to earn my trust again if they want it (and I suspect most of them don't care. Probably some do, especially among the ones that actually visit the forums. but for most I'm just another angry guy on the internet).

The problems i have with multiplayer are fundamental. I want to play alone. I want to be able to pause my game whenever i want without getting kicked out of it. I want to play challenges balanced for one human player. i don't want to compete with other people for kills and loot. i want to play my own methodical way luring enemies to ideal positions rather than being forced into a mad scramble because the other players rush ahead and kill everything. I don't want to deal with server lag or the powers it gimps. This is why i don't need to know what the multiplayer is like because i already know it will have all these issues by virtue of being multiplayer.

[CronoDragoon]

An alternative is to leverage Inquisition's crafting system to keep a certain amount of randomization while still letting the player generally decide the progress of their character.

 

An example would be to somewhat randomize components that drop at the end of a stage (ie, this chest always drops a certain type of hilt, but it may be a str+ hilt, it may be a vit+ hilt, it may be a stamina+ hilt, or whatever) that you can then put into crafting that 2-handed weapon the recipe for which you bought with coins gained from MP. The potential downside to this is the player outleveling that hilt trying to get it.

[King Dragonlord]

When Shepard says "we're doing everything we can" and Anderson says "we're fighting the good fight" but Galactic Readiness perpetually sits at 50%, it kind of kills the mood you know?

[King Dragonlord]

CronoDragon, thats an interesting idea, firefall i believe does something like that. But check out the Extra Credit video, the JCPenney Effect, for an interesting and concise (as always) examination of that idea and its problems

Basically, JC Penney discovered that while people say they want fair, when they tried to do honest pricing (instead of huge markups and perpetual sales to make people think they were scoring deals) people stopped shopping there. They didn't want to buy 30 dollar pants for thirty dollars. They wanted to feel like they were buying 60 dollar pants for 30 dollars. Extra Credits sees similar problems with these types of crafting systems. While its more fair, its also less exciting.

[aaarcher86]

It would be a bigger issue this time around simply based on how wildly successful the ME MPer was. In this case I am certain it will sell extra copies.

 

Which is probably true, but I'd still doubt that it would be enough to make it the sole purpose for adding it.  Anyone buying it for just MP I'd think would be looked at as more of a perk.  Obviously, MP will bring in DLC money, etc... it's got to have some financial gain to put it in.

[CronoDragoon]

CronoDragon, thats an interesting idea, firefall i believe does something like that. But check out the Extra Credit video, the JCPenney Effect, for an interesting and concise (as always) examination of that idea and its problems

Basically, JC Penney discovered that while people say they want fair, when they tried to do honest pricing (instead of huge markups and perpetual sales to make people think they were scoring deals) people stopped shopping there. They didn't want to buy 30 dollar pants for thirty dollars. They wanted to feel like they were buying 60 dollar pants for 30 dollars. Extra Credits sees similar problems with these types of crafting systems. While its more fair, its also less exciting.

 

I can see the logic in that, but my experience in Final Fantasy XI online told me there's plenty of people who enjoy both types.

 

Originally, FFXI used the "strong monster drops equipment at super-rare rates" paradigm for MMO loot design. This essentially turned of all but the hardcores that grouped into super elite linkshells to monopolize the monsters and therefore the loot. Eventually, after FFXI's population began to drop off, they introduced new expansions with a loot system that I consider to be perfect: you spawn mini-bosses that have a chance of dropping items that you gather a certain amount of to turn in and get a piece of equipment. The mini-bosses you killed drop items that you can use to spawn harder bosses, which in turn drop items that let you upgrade the equipment you got into a +1, and eventually into a +2 for the next tier.

 

While this is less exciting than getting a drop in full, it also eliminates the frustration of wasting hours trying to get something you may never get, and turned out to be hugely popular with that subset of gamers that are more than casual but less than hardcore. I believe the most important thing is to provide the player with a sense of 1) continually progressing while 2) always making them feel like there's more to get. By randomizing parts of weapons that, once assembled, you can use to make the weapon you want 100% of the time, you provide the satisfaction of progression while also appealing to that addictive quality of gambling where the player is continually saying, "Maybe the next chest. Maybe the next chest."

 

So I do think there's a middle ground to be had here. It would also satisfy one of the benefits of ME3's randomization system, wherein you could get an item not currently useful, but perhaps something you can use in a later build. By the time you level your warrior to 30 (or whatever) you may have an excellent build for a low-mid level archer. So now you'll want to play an archer to make use of your loot that you earned, and the cycle continues.

[King Dragonlord]

They do say its supposition on their part and that they hoped they were wrong. Looks like they might have been (or FFFXI might just have found a way to make it feel sexier that ffire fall. Who knows(stupid phone can't handle rich text areas so please pardon the typos.)

[ElitePinecone]

 We know that Bioware has traditionally released singleplayer games (there was talk about Baldurs Gate having one but it never happenes. note that even then multiplayer is the first thing they cut, whereas with EA it would likely be the last.)

 

This isn't true at all. Casey said they wanted to include multiplayer in every ME game, but it was only possible to do it in ME3, with the right context.

 

Allan said in this very thread that the devs have pretty much wanted to put multiplayer in most of the games they've made. Yes, it got cut from most of them, but that doesn't make their intention any less valid:

 

As far as I'm aware multiplayer was on the plate for pretty much every game.  I think MDK2 might be the exception.  Apparently Baldur's Gate almost shipped with a PvP deathmatch mode!

 

And again, if the multiplayer is optional, why are you getting so worked up about it? Just don't play it.

 

If the singleplayer alone is impressing you at this point (and you're posting on an internet forum three months before launch, so you must be interested), then you should feel fine with buying the game and ignoring the multiplayer entirely.

[CronoDragoon]

I do hope people at least give MP a shot. I think the main impediment might be having to deal with dickwads online, but I'm planning to post on the BSN to make a party of BSNers and hope others do the same.

[King Dragonlord]

If I'm forced to be there I will be one of those dickwads; as much of one as I can be without getting banned.

[Vortex13]

I can see the logic in that, but my experience in Final Fantasy XI online told me there's plenty of people who enjoy both types.

 

Originally, FFXI used the "strong monster drops equipment at super-rare rates" paradigm for MMO loot design. This essentially turned of all but the hardcores that grouped into super elite linkshells to monopolize the monsters and therefore the loot. Eventually, after FFXI's population began to drop off, they introduced new expansions with a loot system that I consider to be perfect: you spawn mini-bosses that have a chance of dropping items that you gather a certain amount of to turn in and get a piece of equipment. The mini-bosses you killed drop items that you can use to spawn harder bosses, which in turn drop items that let you upgrade the equipment you got into a +1, and eventually into a +2 for the next tier.

 

While this is less exciting than getting a drop in full, it also eliminates the frustration of wasting hours trying to get something you may never get, and turned out to be hugely popular with that subset of gamers that are more than casual but less than hardcore. I believe the most important thing is to provide the player with a sense of 1) continually progressing while 2) always making them feel like there's more to get. By randomizing parts of weapons that, once assembled, you can use to make the weapon you want 100% of the time, you provide the satisfaction of progression while also appealing to that addictive quality of gambling where the player is continually saying, "Maybe the next chest. Maybe the next chest."

 

So I do think there's a middle ground to be had here. It would also satisfy one of the benefits of ME3's randomization system, wherein you could get an item not currently useful, but perhaps something you can use in a later build. By the time you level your warrior to 30 (or whatever) you may have an excellent build for a low-mid level archer. So now you'll want to play an archer to make use of your loot that you earned, and the cycle continues.

 

 

I hope that MP will include the crafting system for weapons and armor, since it gives the player a greater degree of freedom when grinding for gear. Being able to decide on what particular piece of equipment you want to get; and assuming the player has the required ingredients; and then crafting the exact item will be a great way to alleviate the annoyance of the RNG giving a mage character a piece of warrior equipment.

 

I don't mind micro-transactions being used for resource packs like sword hilts, or armor materials, but I would prefer that BioWare keep the same level of balance that we had in ME 3's MP. What I mean is I don't want the super ultra rare resource drops to be only available by purchasing them from the store, and I also don't want to see such packs giving paying players a higher drop rate for rare materials. I am fine with a person spending real world money to get a resource drop and (essentially) skip the dungeon fight that non-paying customers have to go through, but I am not okay with the paying customer getting a 15% drop rate for the super ultra purple items, while the non-paying players only get a 0.01% drop rate.

 

 

 

As a side note, I would really like to see DA:I MP break away from the character 'kits' that we had in ME 3. I would much rather see players having access to a pool of all the class's skills and powers; but only being able to slot in six of them for a game; instead of being restricted to a pre-set sub class. Not only would it give players more freedom to create the characters that they want to play as, but it would allow for a greater degree of variety in groups comprised of the same character class. 

[Adhin]

@King Dragonlord: While I agree with most of what you said, I was one of the ones who keeps mentioning Baldur's Gate having multiplayer. Not sure if you meant it 'but it never happened' or happens. In either case both are wrong. Original Baldur's Gate (made by BioWare, 1998) had full multiplayer mode. BG2 continued with that, and NWN heavily expanded on it. As for their very next game, Knights of the Old Republic, it was released in 2003 on the original Xbox which didn't have its network up and running at the time (but was next year for Halo 2 in 2004). Jade empire ultimately followed suit and the ball kinda kept rolling with MP not 'fitting' how they would want it.

 

Original Dragon Age not having MP as a spiritual successor to BG ultimately meant it was lacking features the original series had, and plenty of people back then where hoping/expecting it to be there. But it is what it is, hasn't been in any BG games since NWN (for the most part) up till ME3. With that being such a big success I would love it if they kept that up, and if they have with DAI it would seem like they can handle it with out skimping on single player game content.

 

-edit-

Ahh scrap that about Xbox Live. It was active in 2002, the year after the consoles launch. Knew it was related, got messed up on the date so KotOR technically could of capitalized on it. Not sure if they ever considered it for that game, may of dropped the idea early on the grounds it was their first real console RPG.

[dutch_gamer]

The main impediment is indeed having to deal with people who love to insult you over anything. It is one of the reasons that even though I still play MMOs I no longer do dungeons or raids or PvP. I am done with the bad apples always having to insult you over whatever, be it having the wrong stats or missing one beat of a rotation. Personally I haven't had to deal with the brunt but my wife has and her getting mistreated like that makes it personal. I do have experience with MP in such a way that players have zero patience, everything has to be done as fast as possible just to max out whatever. I am a player who likes to take it slow and a single player game allows me to just play my way.

Anyway, at the same time I have no issues with the implementation of multiplayer as long as it doesn't affect the single player experience at all. At the same time I don't understand the hatred towards having multiplayer when it doesn't have an impact on single player by some. I can understand not liking multiplayer, because I don't like it that much either, at least not anymore as back in the day with Dark Age of Camelot but I do believe some people who hate multiplayer with a passion and don't want to play a game with optional multiplayer behave in almost the exact same way as some multiplayer gamers do when you face them in a multiplayer game. If something is optional it is not going to affect you if they indeed won't have multiplayer impact the single player game.

Even though I am not interested in multiplayer I still believe it is going to happen for this game. I can't think of a single reason as to why BioWare would comment that they have nothing to say about this feature at current time unless it is actually in the works. If a feature like this is not in they would have said no by now.

[Beerfish]

As far as blatant bad behavior and trolling is concerned it has been minimal in ME mp.  If you play enough games you will meet people you don't care to play with again but the nature of the game and how it was set up in ME for the most part has lead to positive coop experiences.  Also one just has to be able to ignore the minority of bad experiences. 

[Killdren88]

I do hope people at least give MP a shot. I think the main impediment might be having to deal with dickwads online, but I'm planning to post on the BSN to make a party of BSNers and hope others do the same.

 

If there is MP and I have to do for so much as one  thing in the MP for the SP I will make no promises that I won't be one of those people.

[CronoDragoon]

If I'm forced to be there I will be one of those dickwads; as much of one as I can be without getting banned.

 

 

If there is MP and I have to do for so much as one  thing in the MP for the SP I will make no promises that I won't be one of those people.

 

...What? You're going to purposefully be dicks to other Dragon Age fans?

[Killdren88]

...What? You're going to purposefully be dicks to other Dragon Age fans?

 

That tends to happen when people are forced to do thing s they want no part of.

[King Dragonlord]

Adhin. You're absolutely right about the multiplaye. I didn't think about that because its different from the type of multiplayer I'm thinking of. Inviting your friends to replace squad mate AI and control individual characters in the single player is something iI could support. As long as I can still play solo and let AI run my squad mates. That's different from the ME3 sstyle. ts

[ElitePinecone]

That tends to happen when people are forced to do thing s they want no part of.

 

This makes you sound like a four year old having a tantrum.

[Vortex13]

As far as blatant bad behavior and trolling is concerned it has been minimal in ME mp.  If you play enough games you will meet people you don't care to play with again but the nature of the game and how it was set up in ME for the most part has lead to positive coop experiences.  Also one just has to be able to ignore the minority of bad experiences. 

 

 

Yeah co-operative MP is generally a more friendly environment than a competitive one; which is what I hope that DA:I has. 

 

Sure you might run into the odd troll, who purposely tries to hinder the team, or the unyielding perfectionist who screams at newer players for dying or not being pros at the game, but those are few and far between in my experience. 

 

DA:I looks like it could reinforce the co-operative aspect with the Focus mechanic showcased at E3. If this mechanic was present in MP then we could see players working towards playing as a unit rather than a handful of lone wolves. Even newer players, not confident in combat, could befit the team with this mechanic, by sticking close to the other players and providing support with healing or defensive powers and buffs.

[Killdren88]

This makes you sound like a four year old having a tantrum.

 

Maybe so. No one would want me as a team mate. So logically you don't force that kind of person into a group setting. Is it a perfect solution? Not at all. But it dose seem to be effective.

[CronoDragoon]

DA:I looks like it could reinforce the co-operative aspect with the Focus mechanic showcased at E3. If this mechanic was present in MP then we could see players working towards playing as a unit rather than a handful of lone wolves. Even newer players, not confident in combat, could befit the team with this mechanic, by sticking close to the other players and providing support with healing or defensive powers and buffs.

 

The nature of Dragon Age's combat in general will also eliminate lone wolves. Fantasy RPG parties are much more dependent on other roles in a party, as opposed to ME3 where every build is by design self-sufficient.

[ElitePinecone]

I found ME3's community to be excellent. 

 

I was an average player and mostly stuck to the lower difficulties, but I never had a single instance of annoying people, or abuse.

 

The gameplay encourages teamwork - if people are being serious about playing the game, there's no time or reason to be nasty to other players. 

[ElitePinecone]

Maybe so. No one would want me as a team mate. So logically you don't force that kind of person into a group setting. Is it a perfect solution? Not at all. But it dose seem to be effective.

 

You could try playing the game and seeing if it's fun, rather than literally acting like someone kicked over your sandcastle. 

 

That is one of the most petulant attitudes I've ever seen.