237 réponses à ce sujet

[frylock23]

I guess whether or not 4 hours is going to disrupt your game play depends on whether or not the mission you send your advisor on is necessary to unlock the next area for you to play in and whether or not the playtesting for this was so bad they never ran into trouble with this kind of log jam happening.

[Maria Caliban]

I suspect that missions which unlock new areas or are required to move the plot forward are those the Inquisitor herself takes part in.

[Wulfram]

Can someone venture to suggest why they would be using real time?

 

I mean, if it was an MMO I'd say it's a way to push the player into logging regularly, but I don't see why a single-player game should feel the need to do that.

[Vandicus]

Can someone venture to suggest why they would be using real time?

 

I mean, if it was an MMO I'd say it's a way to push the player into logging regularly, but I don't see why a single-player game should feel the need to do that.

Probably to avoid grinding of the missions. Assuming that they're largely non-plot relevant things, like a return in gold or items, they're just there to help the player along.

[spacediscosaurus]

I have a feeling these missions aren't as important as they may seem right now. They might only be resource gathering, whereas the actual quests your Inquisitor takes part in are what advance the plot/open new areas up. Then the time limit would make sense, to prevent grinding for resources.

 

It also helps to disincentivize save scumming and reloading when an outcome isn't favorable. For example, say sending Josephine for something would result in gaining a large amount of resources, whereas sending Cullen or Leliana on the same mission could potentially have you lose resources.

 

I think that would be interesting, since I'm extremely guilty of save scumming when things go south. Perhaps this will force me to actually live with my poor decisions!

[hexaligned]

What? No one has suggested yet that there will be micro-transaction to reduce the amount of time these missions require?  Slacking BSN, slacking.

 

If it's only the adviser missions then I don't think it really matters, there might not be enough of them to fill out the game otherwise.  It's no different than them being gated behind specific plot events (which I'm sure is also a thing).

[Icy Magebane]

I have a feeling these missions aren't as important as they may seem right now. They might only be resource gathering, whereas the actual quests your Inquisitor takes part in are what advance the plot/open new areas up. Then the time limit would make sense, to prevent grinding for resources.

I suppose that makes sense, but there are also "perks" related to the three advisors... I'm wondering how they are related to these missions... do we gain points towards perks based on who we send on such missions?  If so, then I think it might be best to do all of them to unlock the most perks... but that's just speculation.  Perks may be gained a different way...

[Wulfram]

What? No one has suggested yet that there will be micro-transaction to reduce the amount of time these missions require?  Slacking BSN, slacking.

 

That's already been denied by Mr Laidlaw.

 

edit:  I wonder if we can fool it by changing the time on our computer

[spacediscosaurus]

I suppose that makes sense, but there are also "perks" related to the three advisors... I'm wondering how they are related to these missions... do we gain points towards perks based on who we send on such missions?  If so, then I think it might be best to do all of them to unlock the most perks... but that's just speculation.  Perks may be gained a different way...

 

The PC Gamer UK article said something about points for perks being earned through completing quests and gaining influence. So I think we mainly gain these through regular questing, but it's likely that these advisor missions can also increase our influence. I think the time limit is in place to prevent people power gaming and gaining all of these perks right off the bat.

[Maria Caliban]

Can someone venture to suggest why they would be using real time?
 
I mean, if it was an MMO I'd say it's a way to push the player into logging regularly, but I don't see why a single-player game should feel the need to do that.

1) It reduces save scumming.
2) It paces out the content.

[Icy Magebane]

edit:  I wonder if we can fool it by changing the time on our computer

That's rather clever...  I'll be sure to try that as well.  No matter what rules they try to make me follow, I'm not letting them stop me from powergaming (if possible).

[Wulfram]

1) It reduces save scumming.
2) It paces out the content.

 

They could achieve the same objectives using something more in-game, though.  Like having them last a certain number of missions or something

[Iakus]

That's already been denied by Mr Laidlaw.

 

edit:  I wonder if we can fool it by changing the time on our computer

Possibly.  But seems like a lot of work.

 

But you could also probably send people out on missions, log off for a few hours, go to sleep, work, etc, and log on later to completed missions too.

[Vandicus]

That's already been denied by Mr Laidlaw.

 

edit:  I wonder if we can fool it by changing the time on our computer

Someone will probably put out a mod for PC, or a trainer if you're looking to avoid limitations imposed by gold, crafting resources, or the power resource.

[Shadowson]

This really isn't that big a deal, this is pretty much what Assassins Creed has had for a while now and you really do not notice it. You send your scouts off to do the mission, then head off and do your own missions or explore for a bit, come back and they are done. And as for the longer missions, the ones that take a few hours, they can be assisted by friends and speeded up and that would give DA its multiplayer aspect.

[Shadowson]

@vandicus It's pretty much guaranteed that within the first week of release there will be some form of trainer, editor for resources, gold, power points etc.

[Iakus]

Any sort of resource gathering is a time sink.

 

At least this way we can be doing other stuff, in game or irl, in the meantime.

[AlanC9]

Things take time. 'Allocation' suggests that there's only a finite amount of total time available and each action takes from that pool. As you can spend as many hours as you desire in Inquisition, that's not the case.

I had an implicit assumption there, yep. Most Bio games advance time in the game game-world by completing major plot points, if they track time at all. For instance, in ME2 the Collectors arrive at Horizon when you've completed the first four recruitment missions. I was thinking that DAI would be advancing time by, um, advancing time. Game time, not real time. After so many days on the campaign map event A happens, after some more days event B happens, and so forth.

Frankly, it never occurred to me that real time would be used. If it is... eww? Have to see the implementation first, I guess.

[Iakus]

I had an implicit assumption there, yep. Most Bio games advance time in the game game-world by completing major plot points, if they track time at all. For instance, in ME2 the Collectors arrive at Horizon when you've completed the first four recruitment missions. I was thinking that DAI would be advancing time by, um, advancing time. Game time, not real time. After so many days on the campaign map event A happens, after some more days event B happens, and so forth.

Frankly, it never occurred to me that real time would be used. If it is... eww? Have to see the implementation first, I guess.

My understanding is that day and night cycles will work pretty much like they did in DA2.  Passage of time isn't really going to be a factor (though I could be wrong)

 

Unless time is a finite resource, I don't see a big problem here.

[AlanC9]

I'd actually prefer time to be a finite resource. The real-time delay we're discussing just seems kind of cheesy. It probably won't have any actual effect me at all since I'll just have the cooldowns expire while I sleep, but this means that there isn't any difference between different time requirements, assuming that the times in the video are typical.

[Iakus]

I'd actually prefer time to be a finite resource. The real-time delay we're discussing just seems kind of cheesy. It probably won't have any actual effect me at all since I'll just have the cooldowns expire while I sleep, but this means that there isn't any difference between different time requirements, assuming that the times in the video are typical.

Well, it can affect the availability of characters.  Send Josphine on a diplomatic mission, and you can't talk to her for a few hours.  Send a companion (can you send companions on these?) and you can't use him/her for a while.  It sounds like you'll have to establish a pattern of how you want to get these done and how quickly you want them completed.  

 

Also, it may be possible that choices in the game may open/close new missions you can do.

[SirGladiator]

I really like the idea of making time a factor, it could really add a whole new layer of awesomeness in ways we haven't even imagined yet.  Also, is it just me or did that mission they displayed, where they showed the time, look exactly like the one from the demo where Leliana gets captured?  The description mentions 'Virellius', that he's a mage, in a cult, etc. and Leliana's option involves sending an agent to kill him.  Perhaps that mission has more than one part to it?  Like, maybe this time you're not actually sending Leliana, you're just sending a regular agent.  They fail, so next time you have the option to send Leliana herself?  So many interesting possibilities!  But if that really is 'the' mission we saw in the demo, that means that even pretty important missions are timed, which is very cool also.  I really like this whole time thing, I can't wait to learn more!  One thing I'd like to know is, whether that's actually 4 days or 4 hours, that seems like an important piece of information worth clarifying . 

[Maeshone]

There's really nothing that says we send our advisors on these timed missions. I think it's far more likely that you'll just send an/a few agents from the corresponding group that you choose, like a few assassins or a squad of soldiers. Kind of exactly the way ACIV does it. You never have anyone important go on the trade missions, just random mooks from Kenways Fleet.

 

Advisors are probably only sent on the big, plot important missions rather than lock you out of progression for hours at a time.

[Deflagratio]

I'm assuming that the Time Limits exist to limit the amount of resources we can pull in, more so than anything.

 

It also has the advantage of creating a lapse of time where our Advisers are actually out doing things, giving a sense of continuity to the world outside of the places the camera is rendering.

 

I can see some people taking issue with these forced time limits though, mainly by dictating the flow of content. A lot of games actually do this though, however DA:I is just doing it in a more transparent way.

[Shadowson]

  One thing I'd like to know is, whether that's actually 4 days or 4 hours, that seems like an important piece of information worth clarifying . 

I would reckon its more than likely 4hrs. 

Im sure they are pretty aware of the backlash from the fans if they attempt to add any mission that could possibly take upto 4 days to complete. The forums would probably actually melt under the volcanic eruption of hate and "see we told you they would f it up" comments that would be posted.