1807 réponses à ce sujet

[Northern Sun]

Trust is a currency that's hard to earn, yet easily spent.

 

Yeah, maybe it was a mistake, but it was one they assured us would not, could not happen.  And yet it did .

 

As Gandalf put it: "The burned hand teaches best.  After that advice about fire goes to the heart"

 

Can you blame people for being suspicious, even hostile to sticking their hand in there again?

I've been under the impression that the whole "no MP for best ending" fiasco was down to Bioware and fans having different definitions for "best ending". You didn't need MP for synthesis, but you did (at launch) for the destroy-Shep lives ending.

 

Anyway, I'm curious to see if the hypothetical MP would have any tie-in to SP. The most obvious way to do that would seem to be the granting of power and perk points used in the war table.

[HowlingSiren]

Trust is a currency that's hard to earn, yet easily spent.

 

Yeah, maybe it was a mistake, but it was one they assured us would not, could not happen.  And yet it did .

 

As Gandalf put it: "The burned hand teaches best.  After that advice about fire goes to the heart"

 

Can you blame people for being suspicious, even hostile to sticking their hand in there again?

 

No offense, but this is all very dramatic. It was a bug - not a betrayal. And it was fixed. It was an issue for 3 months - man, I wish all developers fixed bugs that quickly. 

[wright1978]

Trust is a currency that's hard to earn, yet easily spent.
 
Yeah, maybe it was a mistake, but it was one they assured us would not, could not happen.  And yet it did .
 
As Gandalf put it: "The burned hand teaches best.  After that advice about fire goes to the heart"
 
Can you blame people for being suspicious, even hostile to sticking their hand in there again?

Agree completely with this. Maybe it was a mistake but making a mistake and pretending it didn't exist wasn't good.
People are going to be suspicious about how any future mp will interact with sp experience even if it has it's own separate budget.

[SofaJockey]

Another interesting nugget from Pax East April 2012

(yes over 2 years ago)

 

was that IF MP would be adopted, then Baldur's Gate MP would be the place to look for inspiration.

 

http://www.gamespot..../embed/6370991/

 

Edit - date wrong in first post

[Deadmuskrat]

Anyway, I'm curious to see if the hypothetical MP would have any tie-in to SP. The most obvious way to do that would seem to be the granting of power and perk points used in the war table.

 

I think MP, if it's in, will tie into SP. Although not in the way most people think it will. I think SP will be used to unlock certain things in MP, like playable characters. Why do i think this? When I saw the Avvar we could recruit to the Inquisition:

 

I immediately thought that he looked far too fleshed out to be just a regular agent NPC. The fact that he has combat animations (in the IGN video) and he can be recruited makes me think that if they are announcing MP later this month, then the Avvar Barbarian is something that's going to be playable in it and unlocked by getting him recruited to the Inquisition through the SP.

[King Dragonlord]

Ok, revising my conditions here. Looking for a compromise. 

 

If I can play the single player game without ever being aware that it has a link to the multiplayer, I will be happy. As in, if there are no in game indicators like the one in the War Room in ME3 that constantly remind you that there's something in the multiplayer you should be doing. Having the multiplayer option on the title screen is fine. I can tune that out. Also, if there is not obviously something missing such that it leads me to investigate and discover that that thing can only be gotten through multiplayer. This includes:

 

1) Items/locations/whatever that are mentioned in single player dialog before you unlock them in the multiplayer (mentioning them after they're unlocked is fine)

1a) This includes things like items being listed in shops with some special icon to indicate they haven't been unlocked yet. 

2)  A key mechanic/ strategic asset/character/ thing affecting the end game that won't go above a certain level such that its obvious, leading me to discover that it can only be obtained/sufficiently boosted through multiplayer.

 

So if you want to reward multiplayers with unique but non essential items for the single player, thats fine. If you want to reward multiplayer grinding in a way that reduces the need for single player grinding, thats fine (as long as I can still get whatever it is through single player grinding). EDIT: Actually, that would be kind of neat. Something like a "Skip Fetch Quest" token or even a "Skip Towers of Hanoi" token. I guess the drawback being that it might tempt the devs to really pack in the fetch quests and towers of hanoi. 

 

I don't want another Levi Dryden and I don't want a perpetual 50% anywhere in the game. I don't want an advisor hanging out in my keep reminding me that I've neglected the [Insert BS Multiplayer mechanic]. Or anything like that.

[.shea.]

Another interesting nugget from Pax East April 2013

(yes over 2 years ago)

 

was that IF MP would be adopted, then Baldur's Gate MP would be the place to look for inspiration.

 

http://www.gamespot..../embed/6370991/

 

I'd absolutely love that, much better than another horde mode clone. I had loads of fun playing through BG/BG2 (and IWD) with my friends, but I could never get into ME3's MP.

[Iakus]

I've been under the impression that the whole "no MP for best ending" fiasco was down to Bioware and fans having different definitions for "best ending". You didn't need MP for synthesis, but you did (at launch) for the destroy-Shep lives ending.

 

Anyway, I'm curious to see if the hypothetical MP would have any tie-in to SP. The most obvious way to do that would seem to be the granting of power and perk points used in the war table.

It was also Bioware's repeated assurances both before and after release that there was absolutely all SP content would be available without any MP content. That MP was simply "another route to take".  This was one of the major suspicions about adding MP to the game.

 

Now if MP is announced, my first question will be "How much SP content is locked"?  "No seriously, I know you say 'none', but how much is that really?"

 

Plus anyone who didn't seriously think that the one outcome where the player character is even hinted to survive wouldn't be seen as the "best ending" by a substantial portion of the players has major connectivity issues with the base.

[Vandicus]

It was also Bioware's repeated assurances both before and after release that there was absolutely all SP content would be available without any MP content. That MP was simply "another route to take".  This was one of the major suspicions about adding MP to the game.

 

Now if MP is announced, my first question will be "How much SP content is locked"?  "No seriously, I know you say 'none', but how much is that really?"

 

Plus anyone who didn't seriously think that the one outcome where the player character is even hinted to survive wouldn't be seen as the "best ending" by a substantial portion of the players has major connectivity issues with the base.

It was as locked by multiplayer as it was by the spin-off app.

 

Should we be asking how much content is gated by Heroes of Dragon Age?

[Iakus]

 

I immediately thought that he looked far too fleshed out to be just a regular agent NPC. The fact that he has combat animations (in the IGN video) and he can be recruited makes me think that if they are announcing MP later this month, then the Avvar Barbarian is something that's going to be playable in it and unlocked by getting him recruited to the Inquisition through the SP.

That same demo also showed the Inquisitor battling a small horde of Avvar barbarians.

 

And I still think it would be bizarre to announce such a major feature for the first time less than a hundreds days from release.

[Iakus]

It was as locked by multiplayer as it was by the spin-off app.

I think buying an iOS device is more of a lock than MP.  Just saying.

[Vandicus]

I think buying an iOS device is more of a lock than MP.  Just saying.

The point is more to illustrate that the bug was related to the war asset system itself rather than the existence of multiplayer. So long as they had any kind of scaling war asset system, the bug could have occurred.

 

I think we can reasonably expect DA:I to have bugs. Some bugs may even lock out content. I recall a quest in DA2 was bugged, think it was Act 3, so as to be impossible to continue. 

Modifié par Vandicus, 16 août 2014 - 10:51 .

[Iakus]

The point is more to illustrate that the bug was related to the war asset system itself rather than the existence of multiplayer. So long as they had any kind of scaling war asset system, the bug could have occurred.

 

I think we can reasonably expect DA:I to have bugs. Some bugs may even lock out content. I recall a quest in DA2 was bugged, think it was Act 3, so as to be impossible to continue. 

 

All the more reason that MP and SP should not touch each other at all.  Especially when you make explicit promises as they did.  That bug should never have been possible to begin with.

 

I think I know the DA2 mission you're referring to.  Yeah an NPC didn't spawn where she was supposed to so the quest could continue.  But it was a minor side mission that didn't impact anything.  Least of all the ending.  

[Vortex13]

I think MP, if it's in, will tie into SP. Although not in the way most people think it will. I think SP will be used to unlock certain things in MP, like playable characters. Why do i think this? When I saw the Avvar we could recruit to the Inquisition:

 

I immediately thought that he looked far too fleshed out to be just a regular agent NPC. The fact that he has combat animations (in the IGN video) and he can be recruited makes me think that if they are announcing MP later this month, then the Avvar Barbarian is something that's going to be playable in it and unlocked by getting him recruited to the Inquisition through the SP.

 

 

This is what I thought as well.

 

I would love to see MP and SP interaction wherein the SP is the one that is affecting the MP. Batman: Arkham Origins did this (somewhat) with a specific single player side quest rewarding the player with that game's MP version of a Premium Spectre Pack. I think it would be awesome if, as the player incorporates more factions and agents into the Inquisition, the more unlocks that the MP could receive. The game may have to limit the unlocks to a one-time deal to prevent people from spamming multiple play through choices though. 

 

That being said, I do hope that the MP has a method of 'promoting' our MP characters similar to ME 3; albeit with more player control (i.e. the player chooses which save they want the promoted agent to go to) and the ultimate result being a 'model swap' of one of the faceless, vanilla, human agents with the player's promoted character (no bonus stats or extra 'agent points').

 

The most ideal form of this could be (IMO) a combination of the two above ideas. The choices made by the Inquisitor in SP; such as the Avvar Barbarians in the Gamescon videos; unlock the option of playing as the barbarians in MP. Then when the player promotes their created Avvar Barbarian MP character, they would see him/her show up in their SP world state. 

[Vandicus]

All the more reason that MP and SP should not touch each other at all.  Especially when you make explicit promises as they did.  That bug should never have been possible to begin with.

 

I think I know the DA2 mission you're referring to.  Yeah an NPC didn't spawn where she was supposed to so the quest could continue.  But it was a minor side mission that didn't impact anything.  Least of all the ending.  

The bugs don't really take into consideration the importance of the content in which they interfere.

 

I think its a stretch to say MP and SP shouldn't touch each other at all. If it were online co-op, allowing one to carry over items and progression from SP to MP or vice-versa I think would be nice.

 

I agree that the fashion in which it was done in ME3(tying the MP to the war score system) was a bad idea.

 

One providing generic rpg bonuses such as gold or items(especially with the more randomly customized drop system it looks like DA:I will have) to the other is not something that I'd find problematic.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Another interesting nugget from Pax East April 2013

(yes over 2 years ago)

 

was that IF MP would be adopted, then Baldur's Gate MP would be the place to look for inspiration.

 

http://www.gamespot..../embed/6370991/

 

2013 is 2 years ago? Did I sleep through 2014??

[Adhin]

So, I always kinda thought the conversations they where doing for some side stuff with the whole not-stuck in a cutscene? That was one of the reasons they mentioned for not doing MP in past games was how to handle the other players in a cutscene. I always thought 'who cares, im willing to watch what my friend does'. But a lot of the stuff we've seen recently has shown that not-cutscene style conversations. Still get the wheel and all that but your not tied down so heavily like when they do the cutscene style conversations.

 

Between the 'we'd look at BG way of doing it' and the heavy focus on the new less restrictive conversation thing (from a player being able to move stand point). That... I mean im not crazy in thinking that seems to support story co-op right? Cause I really, really hope that line of thinking on their end was all due to this co-op stuff. Or at least partially fueled by the idea of 'if we can do conversations like this, we can make co-op work'.

 

Story co-op is just kinda seeming more and more plausible for the direction they're taking it, if this is the game they add it in finally.

 

-edit-

Also, Mike had a super 'lol we're totally doing this but I can't say' expression but then he always has that anytime hes talking about something he finds interesting even when they're not so that's not helpful. Damn his playful nature in conversations.

[King Dragonlord]

The bugs don't really take into consideration the importance of the content in which they interfere.

 

I think its a stretch to say MP and SP shouldn't touch each other at all. If it were online co-op, allowing one to carry over items and progression from SP to MP or vice-versa I think would be nice.

 

I agree that the fashion in which it was done in ME3(tying the MP to the war score system) was a bad idea.

 

One providing generic rpg bonuses such as gold or items(especially with the more randomly customized drop system it looks like DA:I will have) to the other is not something that I'd find problematic.

That's a better version of my "multiplayer grinding replaces single player grinding, but you can still do it with single player grinding" idea. As stubborn as I am, I'm not unsympathetic to those who feel like they should have something to show for their time in multiplayer in the single player game. I think your idea or mine would be a good way to do it without forcing people who only want to play single player to join in the multiplayer. 

 

But I would actually play at least once if there was something like a "Skip that one puzzle room in The Guantlet" token. 

[SofaJockey]

2013 is 2 years ago? Did I sleep through 2014??

 

Sorry, the Pax interview was 2012 - (fixing...)

[Iakus]

 

One providing generic rpg bonuses such as gold or items(especially with the more randomly customized drop system it looks like DA:I will have) to the other is not something that I'd find problematic.

I'd find it quite problematic, as it has the potential to screw up the balance of one or both modes

 

"Gee, I need more gold/potions/gear to proceed.  Better grind some more MP"

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

It was also Bioware's repeated assurances both before and after release that there was absolutely all SP content would be available without any MP content. That MP was simply "another route to take".  This was one of the major suspicions about adding MP to the game.

 

Now if MP is announced, my first question will be "How much SP content is locked"?  "No seriously, I know you say 'none', but how much is that really?"

 

Plus anyone who didn't seriously think that the one outcome where the player character is even hinted to survive wouldn't be seen as the "best ending" by a substantial portion of the players has major connectivity issues with the base.

 

Personally, I don't believe for a second that it was a bug. I think at one point one dev acknowledged there was not enough SP war assets to get that last scene. I'm sure some of the devs were honestly mistaken in saying that there were. Others may have thought the idea was a cool way to promote MP and went into damage control mode when they saw the huge negative reaction. I suspect the ending cutscene was there as an MP reward and was intended to be shown only if someone had played MP enough to reach the required readiness.

 

Regardless, that was not the biggest fumble that MP brought us in ME3. Everything in SP that was tied to Multiplayer was designed to encourage people to play MP and keep playing MP. (Gotta love those micro transactions). Sure you could play a few games, get your readiness up a few percent.. but then in a few days it disappears. Why? Because they wanted us to keep playing MP. To me this was far worse than missing a 2 second cutscene.

 

This discussion is getting away from the thread topic however. I do hope the DAI team does not try these tactics to get us to play MP. By all means include some sort of multiplayer, but leave SP alone.

[Vandicus]

I'd find it quite problematic, as it has the potential to screw up the balance of one or both modes

 

"Gee, I need more gold/potions/gear to proceed.  Better grind some more MP"

Well I'm thinking we can grind missions with our minions for that in SP.

 

What balance are you expecting to exist that could potentially be screwed up?

 

Item power? Looks at DA:O and DA2(and especially Awakening)

Amount of money? Looks at DA:O again. DA 2 actually didn't have an infinite money making chain afaik and was significantly more limited in funds overall.

 

But really, I'm not terribly bothered by the idea of players being able to acquire as much gold as they want or grind for more powerful weapons, in MP or SP. Its not like there's some kind of game economy  or exclusivity of powerful items(like in an MMO) that I'd be worried about preserving.

 

When it comes right down to it, some players will god-mode cash, items, or even both. And I don't have a problem with that.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Another interesting nugget from Pax East April 2012

(yes over 2 years ago)

 

was that IF MP would be adopted, then Baldur's Gate MP would be the place to look for inspiration.

 

http://www.gamespot..../embed/6370991/

 

Edit - date wrong in first post

 

How did Baldur's Gate co-op work anyway?

[Iakus]

Well I'm thinking we can grind missions with our minions for that in SP.

 

What balance are you expecting to exist that could potentially be screwed up?

 

Item power? Looks at DA:O and DA2(and especially Awakening)

Amount of money? Looks at DA:O again. DA 2 actually didn't have an infinite money making chain afaik and was significantly more limited in funds overall.

 

But really, I'm not terribly bothered by the idea of players being able to acquire as much gold as they want or grind for more powerful weapons, in MP or SP. Its not like there's some kind of game economy  or exclusivity of powerful items(like in an MMO) that I'd be worried about preserving.

 

When it comes right down to it, some players will god-mode cash, items, or even both. And I don't have a problem with that.

 

 

Those games had level scaling.  DAI will not.  And we will have to manage resources, as certain items will be limited

 

I don't care about players god-modding.  What concerns me is that the game (or subsequent dlcs) will be balanced for that in mind.  Therefore, forcing me to.

[Iakus]

How did Baldur's Gate co-op work anyway?

Let's just say romances have the potential to be a whole lot more awkward...