237 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

But that's the thing. It doesn't go away.

 

If you send Josie on a 4 hour mission, then turn the game off because you have to go somewhere, come back after 8 hours; nothing will have changed. 

 

The only thing that has happend is that the time has finnisihed. You'll then get a mission report most likely from Josie about how the mission went.

 

Nothing else will happen while the game is turned off. 

 

Only the time.

You're misunderstanding me. Say I am gone for a weekend. In that time, one of those timer missions starts, their timer runs out, and they end. I have missed content by not being able to get on. 

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

How is that possible if the mission timer continues to count down even when not playing the game? Do new missions not come up until you turn the game on again? 

This was answered, but raises another interesting question. That timed mission in Crestwood, if we quit the game before the timer runs out, I hope the clock stops til we restart the game.

 

 

 

 

You're misunderstanding me. Say I am gone for a weekend. In that time, one of those timer missions starts, their timer runs out, and they end. I have missed content by not being able to get on. 

 

I think maybe we are asking the same thing. I would expect that Josie's mission quest (the topic of this thread) would finish and you would see the results of the quest when you logged back in.

 

In the timer quest 2 things will happen: Either you save the game and come back with the timer set to when you saved, or they would make you repeat the quest again from the beginning (to avoid save scumming). I'd be interested in hearing which it is.

 

Second edit. Oh wait, lol, I see what you are asking. The timed missions don't just start without you. They start after you accept them.

[Milan92]

You're misunderstanding me. Say I am gone for a weekend. In that time, one of those timer missions starts, their timer runs out, and they end. I have missed content by not being able to get on. 

 

No, missions don't start automatically while the game is off.

[Wulfram]

I don't really see the big deal people have with this.
 

 

Because it makes no sense in terms of in-universe logic.  And because it arbitrarily favours some schedules over others.

 

I mean, I don't think it'll be a huge deal, but I still think it's silly.

[SardaukarElite]

You're misunderstanding me. Say I am gone for a weekend. In that time, one of those timer missions starts, their timer runs out, and they end. I have missed content by not being able to get on. 

 

I don't think that's how it works.

 

You start a mission, that's an active choice you make. Each mission has a time it takes to complete, this passes in real world time, once the time passes the mission is finished. When you are next in game the mission will complete and you see the consequences. The only content you'll miss is a clock ticking down.

 

It strikes me as stupid and unnecessary, but I don't think you'll miss anything because of it.

[Wulfram]

I don't think that's how it works.

 

You start a mission, that's an active choice you make. Each mission has a time it takes to complete, this passes in real world time, once the time passes the mission is finished. When you are next in game the mission will complete and you see the consequences. The only content you'll miss is a clock ticking down.

 

It strikes me as stupid and unnecessary, but I don't think you'll miss anything because of it.

 

If the time needed to complete all missions is shorter than the time you'll complete the game, then missing the opportunity to launch missions means missing some missions.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No, missions don't start automatically while the game is off.

Do we know that new missions don't pop up with the range of availability like "Do in the next 4 hours" while the game is off? Because if they do, then it doesn't matter if they start or not because you still miss it. 

[Wulfram]

They've talked about an App, I believe.  I wonder if that would let you run missions?

 

Do we know that new missions don't pop up with the range of availability like "Do in the next 4 hours" while the game is off? Because if they do, then it doesn't matter if they start or not because you still miss it. 

 

I really doubt they'll do that, particularly when the game isn't actually running

[SardaukarElite]

If the time needed to complete all missions is shorter than the time you'll complete the game, then missing the opportunity to launch missions means missing some missions.

 

Yes, I should have covered that. Though I'd be surprised if it was balanced that way.

 

 

Do we know that new missions don't pop up with the range of availability like "Do in the next 4 hours" while the game is off? Because if they do, then it doesn't matter if they start or not because you still miss it. 

 

No, but that would be an obnoxious way to do it. I assume they're tied to story progress. If they can expire that is also tied to story progress.

[Milan92]

Do we know that new missions don't pop up with the range of availability like "Do in the next 4 hours" while the game is off? Because if they do, then it doesn't matter if they start or not because you still miss it. 

 

I really don't think so.

 

Only the timer that tells you when the mission is done while run offline.

 

You have to remember that the game is turned off. A game can't make any choices on its own when its turned off.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Do we know that new missions don't pop up with the range of availability like "Do in the next 4 hours" while the game is off? Because if they do, then it doesn't matter if they start or not because you still miss it. 

 

This isn't an MMO. There is no server running your game somewhere that is popping out missions independently of your computer.

[Allan Schumacher]

How is that possible if the mission timer continues to count down even when not playing the game? Do new missions not come up until you turn the game on again? 

 

The only timer that exists is the one that ticks if someone is assigned to a mission.  No new missions come up (the missions themselves are only unlocked by you playing the game).  Missions that haven't had someone assigned to them don't have a timer.  They simply wait until you assign someone to them, at which point there's a timer to simulate the person being "busy" on that mission.

It's in large part flavour where you can help dictate our your Inquisition spreads its influence, providing a bit of extra lore/story and a variation in rewards and power growth for your Inquisition.

 

 

Alan, could you please confirm for me that this is not an online requirement? As in, I don't need to be online to either accept the mission or to check it's completion?

 

As far as I know, no.  It's simply done because it'd be silly (and less interesting) if I could just go "pew pew pew Josephine does everything all at once."  Granted, if you *really* wanted to game the system and assign her to a mission and turn off come back, narratively you could then say "well everything all happened instantly" but at that point the player is kind of sabotaging their own gameplay to obstinately prove a point.

 

I *like* the idea of going "I have 3 missions available, and 3 advisors.  Which advisor would be best for each!"  It's fun and the timer existing in game is there to help give some context of "This is an involved task."

 

 

That timed mission in Crestwood, if we quit the game before the timer runs out, I hope the clock stops til we restart the game.

That would be a different system and gameplay mechanic, and I would consider that a bug if the timer still elapsed for any mission that the Inquisitor is undertaking.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

If the time needed to complete all missions is shorter than the time you'll complete the game, then missing the opportunity to launch missions means missing some missions.

 

I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting here. How do you picture missing an opportunity to launch a mission? I can only think of one way. Choices you make prevent you from accessing some area where a mission would take place.

[Arakat]

Eh, this is not a huge problem for me, but it sounds a tad annoying regardless. I don't know how to explain this, but I kinda want Thedas to only "exist" when I'm playing the game. I don't live in Thedas, so Thedas time being tied to my real-world time seems weird. Yeah, I know nothing actually happens when the game is turned off, besides a clock ticking off, but it just bothers me. I'd much prefer an in-game "clock" tied to the number of completed quests, like ME2 (but maybe something more transparent).

 

And as someone who doesn't even own a smartphone, I'm not too thrilled about a possible companion app to this system.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The only timer that exists is the one that ticks if someone is assigned to a mission.  No new missions come up (the missions themselves are only unlocked by you playing the game).  Missions that haven't had someone assigned to them don't have a timer.  They simply wait until you assign someone to them, at which point there's a timer to simulate the person being "busy" on that mission.

It's in large part flavour where you can help dictate our your Inquisition spreads its influence, providing a bit of extra lore/story and a variation in rewards and power growth for your Inquisition.

Ah, okay. That puts me at ease. Thank you. And thank you to the others who tried to do so as well.

[SardaukarElite]

As far as I know, no.  It's simply done because it'd be silly (and less interesting) if I could just go "pew pew pew Josephine does everything all at once."  Granted, if you *really* wanted to game the system and assign her to a mission and turn off come back, narratively you could then say "well everything all happened instantly" but at that point the player is kind of sabotaging their own gameplay to obstinately prove a point.

 

I *like* the idea of going "I have 3 missions available, and 3 advisors.  Which advisor would be best for each!"  It's fun and the timer existing in game is there to help give some context of "This is an involved task."

 

I also like the idea of things taking time, and you needing to manage assignments, but I would rather that mission time is tied to the flow of time in the story. At a simple level missions could be completed each time the player completes a quest in the field or something.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The only timer that exists is the one that ticks if someone is assigned to a mission.  No new missions come up (the missions themselves are only unlocked by you playing the game).  Missions that haven't had someone assigned to them don't have a timer.  They simply wait until you assign someone to them, at which point there's a timer to simulate the person being "busy" on that mission.

It's in large part flavour where you can help dictate our your Inquisition spreads its influence, providing a bit of extra lore/story and a variation in rewards and power growth for your Inquisition.

 

 

 

 

 

As far as I know, no.  It's simply done because it'd be silly (and less interesting) if I could just go "pew pew pew Josephine does everything all at once."  Granted, if you *really* wanted to game the system and assign her to a mission and turn off come back, narratively you could then say "well everything all happened instantly" but at that point the player is kind of sabotaging their own gameplay to obstinately prove a point.

 

I *like* the idea of going "I have 3 missions available, and 3 advisors.  Which advisor would be best for each!"  It's fun and the timer existing in game is there to help give some context of "This is an involved task."

 

 

 

 

That would be a different system and gameplay mechanic, and I would consider that a bug if the timer still elapsed for any mission that the Inquisitor is undertaking.

 

 

Thanks Alan!

 

I'm not sure I follow your example, bolded above. If I'm playing at 10 pm, start Josephines quest, log for the night and resume the next day to find she is finished, how does that sabotage my game play? This would seem like normal gameplay to me. I must be missing your point?

[Milan92]

The only timer that exists is the one that ticks if someone is assigned to a mission.  No new missions come up (the missions themselves are only unlocked by you playing the game).  Missions that haven't had someone assigned to them don't have a timer.  They simply wait until you assign someone to them, at which point there's a timer to simulate the person being "busy" on that mission.

It's in large part flavour where you can help dictate our your Inquisition spreads its influence, providing a bit of extra lore/story and a variation in rewards and power growth for your Inquisition.

 

So, Allan, just to clarfy. The Redcliff mission that we saw in the E3 demo - where Leliana got send to, doesn't have a timer first, right?

 

You send one of the three advisors there and then you can start the mission?

 

I think you already answered it, but I guess I'd ask just for extra clarification

[Wulfram]

I'm trying to understand what you are suggesting here. How do you picture missing an opportunity to launch a mission? I can only think of one way. Choices you make prevent you from accessing some area where a mission would take place.

 

I mean simply that if you don't check in, then your advisors are effectively going to be sitting idle, and thus you'll get fewer missions done. 

 

Whether that's a significant impact depends on the frequency of missions compared to how long the game takes to complete.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

I mean simply that if you don't check in, then your advisors are effectively going to be sitting idle, and thus you'll get fewer missions done. 

 

Whether that's a significant impact depends on the frequency of missions compared to how long the game takes to complete.

 

Ah, I see. This does raise some game play questions for me. It appears that Skyhold is our 'Normandy', and we gain access to some areas, at least initially, from accessing them through the 'Galactic ma..', err War table. It makes me wonder how navigation is done in the game. In any case, this would be like visiting the Normandy and not talking to a companion when Kelly Chambers tells you to in ME2. In that case, if you haven't played Mass Effect, this means you missed out on a quest from that companion if you get past the point in the game where you complete it.

 

Not a great comparison but I get your point nonetheless.

[Amaror]

Thanks Alan!

 

I'm not sure I follow your example, bolded above. If I'm playing at 10 pm, start Josephines quest, log for the night and resume the next day to find she is finished, how does that sabotage my game play? This would seem like normal gameplay to me. I must be missing your point?

 

He means that if you assign someone to a mission, log of and log back on when it's done, then the 4 hours for the mission have passed, while no actual ingame time has passed, since you loaded a game, that was saved right after assignment of the mission.

[Allan Schumacher]

I also like the idea of things taking time, and you needing to manage assignments, but I would rather that mission time is tied to the flow of time in the story. At a simple level missions could be completed each time the player completes a quest in the field or something.

 

Sure.  I'd rather that too.  But it's a very minor thing for me and it's possible that the system provides an advantage to players that aren't like me.  It's not a hill I'm interested in dying on.

 

 

I'm not sure I follow your example, bolded above

 

Well, you didn't bold the entire sentence but I did miss a word.

 

Granted, if you *really* wanted to game the system and assign her to a mission and turn off come back repeatedly, narratively you could then say "well everything all happened instantly" but at that point the player is kind of sabotaging their own gameplay to obstinately prove a point.

 

 

If a player were to constantly assign a mission and turn the console off so that Josephine does all the missions and very little "in game" time passes, and then gets mad because of that, I think they've opted to sabotage their own game play for the purpose of being upset.  If a player chooses to play like that because they want Josie to do all the missions, it's not up to me to say it's not effective use of time if it's just fine for them.

 

 

So, Allan, just to clarfy. The Redcliff mission that we saw in the E3 demo - where Leliana got send to, doesn't have a timer first, right?

 

To be clear, I'm speaking exclusively about the timed side missions that advisors go on.  These do not have an in game gameplay component to them; they are managed exclusively through the war table.

 

Something like the Redcliffe scene would be handled away from the war table and use a different system.  I'm not familiar with the system so I couldn't say how it works, but I'd consider it a bug if you saved during this and when you loaded the timer had expired.

[Vilegrim]

I hope we can do the missions with one advisor, since I will be doing my damndest to kill Leliana and Cullen. Death to the maker cult.

[Deflagratio]

I hope we can do the missions with one advisor, since I will be doing my damndest to kill Leliana and Cullen. Death to the maker cult.

 

Seems a bit obstinate. How are you going to deal with the fact that you're the Herald of Andraste? Repeatedly jump off cliffs?

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

He means that if you assign someone to a mission, log of and log back on when it's done, then the 4 hours for the mission have passed, while no actual ingame time has passed, since you loaded a game, that was saved right after assignment of the mission.

 

I understood that, I just didn't see why that would be a problem if someone did this. However, he answered this already as well.