Dragon Age: Inquisition's co-op is all about loot. Here's everything you need to know: http://trib.al/OiovymJ pic.twitter.com/Nln16YkgW
Multiplayer FAQ:
http://www.dragonage...multiplayer-faq
Dragon Age Multiplayer Mode...
http://www.dragonage...-mode-announced
It could be interpreted that way. Loosely connects could also mean it feeds back into SP in some way. I'd prefer they explicitly state that MP has no effect on SP. We will see as info shakes out.
It's loosely connected in that in the SP game, you send your soldiers and the like out on missions and whatnot. The MP is basically putting the players in situations like those missions.
I understand if some have reservations because of ME3 and the like, and fully expect some people will simply need to wait until release to be convinced. Which is fair.
Yeah, I heard that before.
About 2 and a half years ago.
Your best of course may be to wait and see if you're not sure. It will ensure you won't get burned, and if response is positive it's not like the game won't be available to you.
Cheers.
Guys, did I mishear, or did they say the IGN video that we could go to Tevinter?
You may send agents of your Inquisition there, but no I do not believe the SP game takes you to Tevinter.
Yep. This is most likely the reason why warriors cannot dual wield anymore, why warriors cannot use bows, why rogues cannot use swords, why we have Focus, why healing and support magics are gimped, why the abilities are locked and only allowed up to 8 for consoles (won't be surprised if this holds true to PC as well)....
As for restricting the classes to make them unique...Why is it that armors are not restricted (you can technically wear any armor) but weapons are ?
DA2 had the same weapon restrictions and had no Multiplayer.
Healing and Support magics have been changed because we wanted to add a strategic component to the exploration aspect that made health a resource to be managed. This was stated as a goal internally probably as early as late 2011.
Armors are not restricted while weapons are because most of the abilities/feats feed into weapon types. We'd have to make the ability trees for each class overlap (which we didn't want to do) or create custom abilities for the types (i.e. bow skills for a warrior).
You know what's funny? Plenty of people actually complained about the lack of MP in DA:O.
I remember when DAO was intended to have a unique MP and SP campaign mode!
The first thing I thought after reading the FAQ was that you missed a question: Why wasn't there multiplayer support in Origins (as was originally intended)?
Tell me why!
I wasn't actually on the project when MP existed in any capacity. I actually heard that casually while playing board games with someone way back in like, 2005? He happened to work at BioWare at the time. So I mostly just know "it was a thing."
Also, a quick question: The FAQ mentions crafting. Will the MP crafting work the same as the SP crafting? Interesting that crafting made it into MP.
The crafting system is very similar, yes.
IMPORTANT QUESTION:
During one of the demos we saw missions on the war table that had you send agents, etc that had timers on them. We were told that the time passes even if you don't play the game, but that there are ways to speed up their completion.
Are the ways to speed up their completion playing Multiplayer matches with those agents?
The Multiplayer does not have any impact on the single player game. This doesn't speed up advisor missions.
The latter part is where I disagree a bit, as I know I often utilized S&S for my AW in DAO by choice, even though there are no offensive Talents. And there are those that have played Rogues utilizing 2H weaponry, though no Talents were used there either. Leaving the Player the options of choice sometimes is preferable over insuring that they make the recommended selections.
But I am guessing that this is meant to be about better balancing for co-op, so lesser choices are abandoned. Still, I miss having choices beyond the set type.
That's fair, but it's independent of Multiplayer since it was an issue with Dragon Age 2 as well.
So MP 100% optional to install and doesn't have to be installed if you don't play MP at all? I haven't been really following this much since I am in the middle of playing games and watching movies.
Both game modes exist in the same installation and are not separate, just like Mass Effect 3. The optional part is if you press the Multiplayer menu option.
So what is the goal of MP? Doesn't affect SP (good), Items gained in MP don't transfer to SP, No MP achievements etc.. Is the whole purpose of MP just so people can play with friends? If MP has no point other than playing with friends why not do it as a DLC or Expansion.
The goal is to have fun.
What feedback are they providing, how encounters work in MP and what is fun in MP. how does applying what is fun and works in MP to SP game which has different maps and environments that need encounters especially designed for them improving the SP game.
The abilities exist in both SP and MP. As a result, we simply have more eyes on those features (i.e. people hired to work on the multiplayer that otherwise wouldn't have been hired/assigned) and combat mechanics in the game. As such, more iteration can occur and someone from the SP or MP team are just as capable of fixing bugs in these systems.
What does mp have to do with making anyone skeptical, it has no integration with sp. I would understand this 6 month back when we barely had any info on dai. Why does mp make the difference with a 200+hour sp game?
Their skepticism exists because at the release of ME3, it was impossible to get the breath scene without doing something to improve galactic readiness.
Its not the only reason Mr Schumacher - for basically all of Dragon Age's development (going back to Origins) there has been a constant, please don't introduce multiplayer. Heck we even had it with Mass Effect. this group will feel betrayed.
Please don't quote me out of context and reply to that. I was referring to those that have skepticism towards whether or not single player content will be gated in any way by multiplayer.
DA2 there was a lack of time and budget and it seems people were trying new things. For one, the goal seemed to be the avoidance of overlapping; But I see nothing wrong with giving a warrior unique bow or DW skills. It adds more uniqueness and styles to play.
This is a request for more content though. Everyone always wants more content. You're perfectly correct that adding unique bow skills for warriors would be interesting and there's nothing wrong with that.
We have to stop adding content eventually, however.
And now BW staff and some forumites wonder/are perplexed why people like me dont belive what they say. Go figure.
No one at BioWare is perplexed about the skepticism. It was literally stated by myself towards those that were flabbergasted by the skepticism why people are skeptical about my (or any other's) claim that SP won't be affected by MP.
If you'd prefer, we could say nothing along those lines. I don't think it'd be very convincing. The reality is for people that don't feel we learned from that mistake, the only thing that is going to change their mind is seeing it in the game themselves.
That thread is specifically for collecting information - this thread is about multiplayer, so we should discuss multiplayer.
Really the people who have been discussing Bioware's older games and something about toys (??) should probably take it somewhere else, as their arguments are both uninteresting and going in circles.
This.
Allan are you or one of the other devs at liberty to say what kind of DAMP DLC characters we will get?
I do not have any idea at this point. I don't work directly on the Multiplayer and have only spent a couple of hours in it, myself.
I see four unlocked topics on the front page about multiplayer.
Which one are we allowed to express concern in?
Are there new concerns that you wish to express? To be clear, you don't get more votes for stating the same thing repeatedly.
The reason I say is that I am finding it unproductive, and frustrating, to see the same small handful of posters dominating the discussion by arguing back and forth over the yay-nay of MP by stating the same thing. And I'm not just picking on the naysayers here - there's two sides doing it and I've been tempted to just mass hide dozens of posts because most of them contain nothing new aside from "This is my opinion, I disagree."
The reality is the game has the MP mode that is has. If this makes the game less desirable for you, that's fine. No one here is able to tell you what features you should or should not find appealing. This goes for everyone. Maybe the game's not for you? Maybe you'll still like it? Things that won't really be known until release and people get their hands on it.
The thing is, I'm starting to see the discussion getting constantly derailed because of it. So I guess I can ask "What exactly is it that you want to achieve?" I recognize that you're not a fan of multiplayer. I recognize that you feel betrayed by BioWare. I recognize that based on ME3's prerelease and how we dealt with MP integration you've no faith in us since you feel we can't be trusted in this regard. I recognize that it's mere inclusion represents a lot of what you don't like about BioWare, and AAA games in general. I recognize that you feel it's completely wasted content that doesn't appeal to you in the slightest. I recognize that me saying "MP doesn't affect SP' does nothing to assuage your concerns.
So I'm not sure what more you're hoping to express that you haven't already expressed several times over? Is it to make sure others know we shouldn't be trusted? Are you trying to help out other posters by engaging in this discussion further? I'm not sure what your intentions and goals are by remaining in this thread.
If that were the only concern, that would be just fine - but now several questionable announcements from the Combat Q&A have been put into greater light thanks to this. The SP is being influenced by MP - as has been announced by the MP FAQ - in terms of combat design. Combat between a purely real-time horde mode and a real-time with pause tactical game should not be that compatible. We've got concerns about the skill limits, the UI, and other major things that just happen to nicely tie into the MP.
I think there are a lot of people who can - and will - write off criticism by virtue of "Oh, they just don't like MP, they're grognards who want SP only games". That can't be any further from the truth - I think you'll find a lot of us like MP plenty. The problem lies in the execution and how it influences the SP (and it is), and about that, there are concerns. Just take a gander at the thread below about "The impact of multiplayer upon single player design".
Yes, they share systems. To take an extreme example: imagine if we created all new textures and art assets just for the MP, to ensure that MP things didn't have any effect on SP.
"Combat between a purely real-time horde mode and a real-time with pause tactical game should not be that compatible"
Why not? Upon what do you base your assumption here? Because when I watch our single player game, I have no problems imagining how it would play if the companions were all controlled by my friends. (I would be absolutely tickled pink if the game had campaign co-op. Campaign co-op is a force multiplier for me).
At the same time though, how productive is the talk? If I say "Yes these are for MP" does it help? If I say "No, there are other reasons we made this choice" do you believe me? It's not going to change. So is it about educating people? What is it exactly?
Retour en haut
