237 réponses à ce sujet

[TheGusWho]

I admit to being equally baffled.

[omnitremere]

Okay, so a programmer saw me talking in this thread and helped get me some info.

 

• It's completely offline, and just uses system clock.
• Some of the times I mentioned may not be accurate as they're being tweaked.  Really short stuff might not exist.
• Anything that opens up a new piece of content to be experienced in the game is done instantly
• Your advisors are still available to talk despite being "on mission." In context, this often makes sense because many of these missions describe a larger scale organizing event rather than, for example, Cullen stating "i'm definitely going to go there myself, specifically, to spend the next X hours talking to the person."
• Some of them are done to help with resource acquisition (Mike hinted at this), be it gold, crafting materials, and so forth.  There may be flavour differences between advisors, and some advisors may be better than others at certain tasks (usually shorter time, but hey, if Josie is on something else it may be worth sending Cullen instead even if it takes 30 minutes longer)
• Most interestingly (to me), is that some of them have story narratives to them.  Some missions are only available to certain PCs, and how you choose to proceed with the missions (or rather, how the advisor you send deals with it) can lead to different consequences/paths for these more story heavy missions.  Upon completion of these missions, a new mission will be unlocked if appropriate to continue that story arc.*

 

 

* Note that the last point I haven't seen in game, so hopefully I didn't recall that wrong.  i.e. safety language in case I made a mistake but I'm pretty certain I didn't.

 

So then does that mean these missions are essentially unfailable? Or will there sometimes be a wrong choice in how to handle them? I love Leiliana and I would really want to make her the main person I utilize but I"m scared that will make my Inquisition seem like untrustworthy spies and assassins everywhere we go.  Not the worst thing in the world I guess.

[Milan92]

[*]Some of them are done to help with resource acquisition (Mike hinted at this), be it gold, crafting materials, and so forth. There may be flavour differences between advisors, and some advisors may be better than others at certain tasks (usually shorter time, but hey, if Josie is on something else it may be worth sending Cullen instead even if it takes 30 minutes longer)

Soo.. are you saying that; the advisor who takes the least amount of time for a certain mission; is often the best choice?

[Iakus]

So then does that mean these missions are essentially unfailable? Or will there sometimes be a wrong choice in how to handle them? I love Leiliana and I would really want to make her the main person I utilize but I"m scared that will make my Inquisition seem like untrustworthy spies and assassins everywhere we go.  Not the worst thing in the world I guess.

Sounds like for a given value of "failable".  Sounds like there are potential consequences for how some of the more story-based missions get handled.

[Allan Schumacher]

Soo.. are you saying that; the advisor who takes the least amount of time for a certain mission; is often the best choice?

 

No, I'm not.  It's an example and one that is easy to demonstrate.

[Wulfram]

What "experience" do people think they're missing, here?

 

The ability to complete as many missions during the game, without having to dawdle or wait for them to finish.

 

Of course the times could be set such that this isn't an issue because there'll be enough time to finish all the missions in any reasonable playthrough.  Though in that case the people who tend to do short sessions seem like they'd tend to run out quickly.

[Milan92]

No, I'm not. It's an example and one that is easy to demonstrate.

Ah, I see!

[Iakus]

The ability to complete as many missions during the game, without having to dawdle or wait for them to finish.

 

Of course the times could be set such that this isn't an issue because there'll be enough time to finish all the missions in any reasonable playthrough.  Though in that case the people who tend to do short sessions seem like they'd tend to run out quickly.

But it sounds like aside form assigning the adviser, there is no involvement on the part of the Inquisitor.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

What "experience" do people think they're missing, here?

 

I have no idea either. heh. Someone said:

 

"Oh, wait... are you assuming that the system is balanced around many short sessions, with the timers expiring during the overnight? My understanding of the system from the posts here is that the player is meant to experience the delays while playing."

 

I was questioning why the game would be designed to play a certain way. Why am I 'meant' to be playing a game for 4 hours straight when I have other things to do with my life? It doesn't make sense to me. If I decide to play 1 hour per day for a week instead of playing 7 hours on the weekend all at once, why would the devs care? Why should anyone expect that I would have a different experience from the person who played for 7 hours straight?

 

Personally I don't understand why we need a 4 hour delay for a single player mission in the first place. This isn't an MMO. I hope it isn't in place simply to make the game drag out more like an MMO would.However if we must have it, there appear to be 2 design choices. Have the timer run based on system time whether the game is running or not, or to stop the timer when the game stops.

 

It baffles me why anyone would care whether I experience delays while playing or not, but if that's what is intended, why not stop the timer? If that isn't what's intended, then why would anyone make it an issue?

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The ability to complete as many missions during the game, without having to dawdle or wait for them to finish.

 

Of course the times could be set such that this isn't an issue because there'll be enough time to finish all the missions in any reasonable playthrough.  Though in that case the people who tend to do short sessions seem like they'd tend to run out quickly.

 

I'm ok with that. If I choose to play one hour per day instead of 3 hours per day, it will take longer for me to finish the game, regardless of the hours long delays imposed on the advisors missions.

 

It's entirely possible we are all overthinking this and it really won't be an issue either way.

 

I'm wondering about the shorter missions actually. I'll start a 15 minute mission and go out exploring. I'l have barely got started when the timer dings and I'll feel obligated to go back to the keep to deal with the completed mission.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm wondering about the shorter missions actually. I'll start a 15 minute mission and go out exploring. I'l have barely got started when the timer dings and I'll feel obligated to go back to the keep to deal with the completed mission.

 

The times I stated I learned weren't final.

[AlanC9]

I have no idea either. heh. Someone said:

 

"Oh, wait... are you assuming that the system is balanced around many short sessions, with the timers expiring during the overnight? My understanding of the system from the posts here is that the player is meant to experience the delays while playing."

 

I was questioning why the game would be designed to play a certain way. Why am I 'meant' to be playing a game for 4 hours straight when I have other things to do with my life? It doesn't make sense to me. If I decide to play 1 hour per day for a week instead of playing 7 hours on the weekend all at once, why would the devs care? Why should anyone expect that I would have a different experience from the person who played for 7 hours straight?

 

That was me. My point was that this system will play differently for different playstyles. If you play one quest and call it a night, you're unlikely to even notice the timers since they're going to expire while you're offline. Differentiating between 3.5 and 4 hours only makes sense if you assume that a player might actually be playing when the 3.5 hour interval ends.

[pastabender]

Ya'll need to calm down and take a step back and look at it objectively. This definitely isn't as big of a deal as you seem to think it is - Allan has already said you need to actively be trying to not make any choices and delay yourself for you to be stuck at all.

I think once the game is out (most) people will realise how cool this addition is and how it also doesn't diminish your gameplay experience at all really. Of course people still expect games to be tailored to suit their own personal needs and wants, and everyone's passion can lead them to be negative and critical on here, but from piecing all the info together on this thread, you aren't going to suffer at all.

(Just mess with the clock if you for some reason can't deal with this anyway)

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

That was me. My point was that this system will play differently for different playstyles. If you play one quest and call it a night, you're unlikely to even notice the timers since they're going to expire while you're offline. Differentiating between 3.5 and 4 hours only makes sense if you assume that a player might actually be playing when the 3.5 hour interval ends.

 

This is true. The obvious solution, if one is needed at all, is to make the timer stop when the game is turned off, ie don't reference system time at all. Personally I'm fine with it either way.

[Allan Schumacher]

Why am I 'meant' to be playing a game for 4 hours straight when I have other things to do with my life? It doesn't make sense to me. If I decide to play 1 hour per day for a week instead of playing 7 hours on the weekend all at once, why would the devs care? Why should anyone expect that I would have a different experience from the person who played for 7 hours straight?

 

 

So lets back up here.  What is it, precisely, that you're worried about?  I literally don't understand.  What *cost* do you think this implementation has for you?  How do you expect your gameplay experience to be negatively impacted by this?  Bonus if you can quantify the level of impact you think this might mean for you?

[Chron0id]

Didn't much like the gold-earning system in Fable 2.  Sounds like this system could prove to be just as tedious and painfully uninteractive.  But we'll just have to wait see.  I'm still hopeful this will turn out okay.  One thing I know will happen though is that if there are eventual exploits to bypass this, BioWare will just patch them because God forbid we have the prerogative to cheat in single-player games that don't affect anyone else but ourselves.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

So lets back up here.  What is it, precisely, that you're worried about?  I literally don't understand.  What *cost* do you think this implementation has for you?  How do you expect your gameplay experience to be negatively impacted by this?  Bonus if you can quantify the level of impact you think this might mean for you?

 

It was a question for Alanc9, and he responded above. His comment was referring to the apparent 45 minute difference in the demo between Leliana's take on the mission and Josephines. IE, Why have time differences if all players have to do is start it and go to bed for 8 hours?

 

I'm not worried about the gameplay mechanic, I was just asking for clarification (and received it) from Alanc9 about his comment.

 

They way the mechanic has been laid out does not worry me. I was wondering about the purpose of it, but it isn't a concern.

[JeffZero]

Allan, thanks a million for today's clarifications. I've gone from mildly concerned about the system to very much approving. I really like the idea of resource management in this flavorful regard, rather than my advisers being superheroically speedy.

[Allan Schumacher]

It was a question for Alanc9, and he responded above. His comment was referring to the apparent 45 minute difference in the demo between Leliana's take on the mission and Josephines. IE, Why have time differences if all players have to do is start it and go to bed for 8 hours?

 

I'm not worried about the gameplay mechanic, I was just asking for clarification (and received it) from Alanc9 about his comment.

 

They way the mechanic has been laid out does not worry me. I was wondering about the purpose of it, but it isn't a concern.

 

Okay cool thank you.  It just looked like similar words so I figured it was still directed to me.

 

Cheers.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Okay cool thank you.  It just looked like similar words so I figured it was still directed to me.

 

Cheers.

 

No worries. It's hard to express tone on a message board too. Maybe people are reading my posts like I'm upset or something. That isn't the case.

 

Cheers

[Sylvius the Mad]

In a singleplayer game, an incentive to save scum generally reflects poor design. Most commonly RNG either screwing or ludicrously rewarding the player.

I disagree.  Sometimes I'll save scum to avoid intended (but uncommon) consequences.  If I've overreached, and I know it, but I don't really want to go back to replay that section, I'll just save scum to get past something (it's not typically worth the effort if it involves more than 2 reloads), I'll just skip the manifestation of the lesson and call it learned.

 

It may well be that the developers would want to reduce the incentive to save scum, but they shouldn't do it b y punishing save scumming.  They should instead remove the game feature that makes such behaviour desirable (I'm not even sure that's possible).  Save scumming is the symptom, not the disease.

 

Reduced save scumming might be evidence of good design, but it should absolutely not be a design goal.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Agreed. But that's why I think LPPrince is overreacting a bit. Playing in infrequent long sessions means that you skip a small exploit, not that you're penalized

It looks like we can just fiddle with the system clock anyway and the problem is solved.

 

But I still don't get the rationale.

[Deflagratio]

It looks like we can just fiddle with the system clock anyway and the problem is solved.

 

But I still don't get the rationale.

 

Rationale behind the imposed time restrictions?

 

From what I gather it's a way to give some weight to the decision of which adviser to assign to a task as well as giving some continuity to the world by giving a buffer of time between actions, as we all know, instantaneous resolution isn't something that makes a whole lot of sense in the real world.

 

Without seeing the whole system in action, I really can't say if another solution is present. Fiddling with the system clock may be an option/exploit but it's a bit of a unobtrusive exploit. People are free to suck themselves out of the experience if they really feel the need to circumvent the system. So long as there's no severe content bottlenecking, I'm not altogether worried about it.

[Maria Caliban]

Most of those missions revolve around flavour and helping convey the image that your Inquisition is starting to make a name for itself on Thedas.  Picking different approaches can sometimes result in different consequences for the particular actions.  My FennecQuisition was when I first learned of these, and you can get some nice nods to fans as well.  One of the missions was a clear nod to fans of the first game, and I figured Cullen's approach was the best way to handle the job and it improved my Inquisition in a particular way.

Do the perks you unlock affect the timing or outcome of missions?

For example, I noticed Leliana has perks that increase the amount of XP you get and allow extra conversation options. If I grab a bunch of Secret Perks early on, will that make Leliana faster/better when it comes to sending her on missions?

[Iakus]

Rationale behind the imposed time restrictions?

 

From what I gather it's a way to give some weight to the decision of which adviser to assign to a task as well as giving some continuity to the world by giving a buffer of time between actions, as we all know, instantaneous resolution isn't something that makes a whole lot of sense in the real world.

 

Without seeing the whole system in action, I really can't say if another solution is present. Fiddling with the system clock may be an option/exploit but it's a bit of a unobtrusive exploit. People are free to suck themselves out of the experience if they really feel the need to circumvent the system. So long as there's no severe content bottlenecking, I'm not altogether worried about it.

Also it looks like an additional thing to consider when sending a particular adviser to handle a job.  You can't have just one doing everything (not without building up a backlog of such missions or playing with the system clock at least)