27 réponses à ce sujet

[Avalonica]

Hello and thanks for reading my suggestions regarding the Co-op multiplayer in Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

Co-op multiplayer is a good thing, but alas if poorly implemented it will cease to work when the "external servers" stop to support the game. How will players be able to experience Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age: Inquisition's "multiplayer" when the servers are shut down (How many games "multiplayer part" died over just one night when Gamespy closed the doors?).

 

Look on the fantastic game "Borderlands 2" (PC version) and it's multiplayer options, and please notice the "LAN" support! With any proper (Tunngle, Hamachi et cetera) solution the "multiplayer part" will still be accessible in the future.

 

Developers have to take a stance here: will you make the game's "multiplayer part" playable without external EA servers?

 

 

How to make Dragon Age: Inquisition "future compatible":

• Include a "single player only/LAN/direct IP" option to access the co-op game/maps without any EA sever involvement. (PC version).

Mass Effect 3 is a perfect example on a butchered multiplayer part:

• Galactic Readiness affecting the SINGLE PLAYER GAME!!! Epic fail!
• No option whatsoever for a player to access the "multiplayer" maps in OFFLINE mode
• No "direct conect" (IP address) or LAN features for "multplayer", everything must go trough EA server.

So, in the future how will the "multiplayer" part work in Mass Effect 3 without EA servers? The "short term" profit totally KILLS the game on the "future compatible" list. Please do not make the same misstake with Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

[Wolfstryder]

I second this motion. I would really love LAN support. I'm stuck with satellite internet as my only internet choice and if I'm forced to play over the internet the ping time would make it terrible to play. Me and my partner have PCs just a few feet from each other and I plan to get two copies of DA3. LAN support would be perfect for us. I don't mind logging in to a server to verify things or buy DLC or whatever else may be needed. Just don't force us to play over the internet when we play in the same room of the house.

[Chiramu]

LAN support? Who does that anymore? Even at competitions like the GSL you have to connect via the Battle.net servers. 

[Shapeshifter777]

This is what I always say.  I have a collection of games that I no longer can enjoy the multiplayer portion of including Dead Space 2, Max Payne 3, Batman Arkham Origins and a lot more, just cause no one else wants to play them any more or the servers are down.  As such, I refuse to buy any more games for multiplayer if they do not have the option to play offline with bots.  I hate having a huge collection of useless games.

[Lyrandori]

This is what I always say.  I have a collection of games that I no longer can enjoy the multiplayer portion of including Dead Space 2, Max Payne 3, Batman Arkham Origins and a lot more, just cause no one else wants to play them any more or the servers are down.  As such, I refuse to buy any more games for multiplayer if they do not have the option to play offline with bots.  I hate having a huge collection of useless games.

 

Bots... boooooots...

 

Man, I miss playing multiplayer modes with bots (offline, usually)... that's so Lando, that's so two decades ago, and it was amazing back then (well not just during the 90's, but also early and mid 2000's... and maybe some more recent "modern" games have bots that I can't think of right now).

 

Which games have bots nowadays?

 

By bots I don't really mean just "enemy A.I." like in... say... the Total War games (or most RTS games). I'm referring to third-person or first-person games (mostly FPS games obviously). But, let's take Mass Effect 3 for example, it does have enemy A.I. (Reapers, Collectors, Geth and Cerberus) but there's no actual "bots" per say, you know, ones that play with you in offline mode (for instance, having 3 A.I. bots with you in your team as you'd be playing any multiplayer map in offline mode). What I really like(ed) when playing with bots in older games was the absolutely absence of 1) Lag and 2) Immature teenager voices. Aahhh good ol' days... good ol' days indeed.

 

Hey BioWare, feel like programming bots for your Inquisition MP mode? That would totally send me back a decade (when I think of bots I immediately think of Unreal Tournament, and when I think of UT I think of UT2004, man that game was amazing with bots).

[Avalonica]

Well,

 

LAN support? Who does that anymore? Even at competitions like the GSL you have to connect via the Battle.net servers. 

 

LAN support by itself is worthless, but with 3rd party solutions you can "fake" a LAN on the Internet as long LAN support exist in a game. But to cover another aspect regarding your statement on the "absolute need" for Battle.net servers et cetera: The really popular mmorpgs attract/have attracted somewhat unwanted attention in the form of "emulation". Any person with basic knowledge of JAVA and MySQL can today run "out-of-the-box" emulators (i.e. private servers) for most of the popular mmorpgs locally/LAN or internet mode.

 

Naturally there are many forms of "emulation", however, many "games" that claim that they need constant access for "insert bogus reason here" are in many cases not telling the truth. It was "emulation" that made it possible to play Sim City 2013 that EA claimed could not be played without being connected to their servers, and even a modern Prince of Persia game had the same issue i.e. the door/platforms functions where run server-side but a hacking group simply made a "emulator" for the features and forced the game to connect locally and so was that problem solved. 

 

So, yes, technically some sort of emulation can be made for any game, but my question is again: - is really the short term profit with "micro transactions" worth the price to pay for a quality brand after the EA servers go down, and trust me on this: one day EA will pull the plug on Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age: Inquisition, and in one strike the entire "multiplayer part" is history (unless someone made a multiplayer emulator...)

[Hizoku]

Bots... boooooots...

 

Man, I miss playing multiplayer modes with bots (offline, usually)... that's so Lando, that's so two decades ago, and it was amazing back then (well not just during the 90's, but also early and mid 2000's... and maybe some more recent "modern" games have bots that I can't think of right now).

 

ahh bots, that brings back memories but playing with bots just seems so lonely to me now.. 

[Wolfstryder]

LAN support? Who does that anymore? Even at competitions like the GSL you have to connect via the Battle.net servers. 

 

All the Neverwinter Nights games had LAN support. But for modern games that have LAN support a couple examples are the new Borderlands coming out and Divinity: Original Sin. I guess you feel playing with someone you really want to play a game with in your own home with 0 latency is silly or something. Not everyone in the United States has access to decent internet. My 12mbps satellite connection isn't great for gaming with a ping of 700ms-950ms.

[Eralrik]

I would support a LAN support as my wife and sister like to game, my sister an I used to LAN our computers and play together. She won't do MP as there are way to many sexist people out there just ruins her fun.

 

Could easily connect my wife's, sons and sisters computer for some fun that I haven't experienced in a long time.

 

Would be great if DA:I had this option, would also be cool if they setup some kind of option for offline play for ME3 as most of the people on there now use cheats to solo Gold level.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If I could play the MP content with bots instead of other players, I'd give it a shot.  Who knows?  I might like it.

 

But I'm not going to play with other people.  I can't relax and enjoy myself if I'm aware I'm being observed.

[phantomrachie]

I never understood playing multiplayer solely with bots. Having some bots like in Unreal Tournament I understand but the whole point of multiplyer is to play with other people not with the AI.

 

I thought the ME3 multiplayer was great, I spent a lot of time with it and while I would have loved local co-op or LAN it didn't ruin it for me.

[Kantr]

They've said that it's not going to be Lan as there are things that need server side authentication. They have said they plan to support it for a long time, so probably by the time they do stop running the servers we might be on Dragon age 10

[Avalonica]

They've said that it's not going to be Lan as there are things that need server side authentication. They have said they plan to support it for a long time, so probably by the time they do stop running the servers we might be on Dragon age 10

 

Do you have a source for the information? But presuming what you say is correct then we must understand that the wordings "plan to support for a long time" literally means "when EA pulls the plug in some years from now on DA:I co-op multiplayer is totally dead".

 

Regarding "as there are things that need server side authentication" is just like with Sim City 2013 (feel free to goggle up the EA controversy). Hmm..., so here we are... Presume you have a really bad internet or none at all, how do you "alone" play the co-op multiplayer maps in DA:I?

 

Dependencies on external servers for ANY game (or part of it) is like a "cancer", yes, a person can untreated live it it for a while, but sooner or later it consumes you whole. It's sad that so many good games with "multiplayer parts" has to "die" just because "short term greed". As a sidenote, nothing "greater good" ever comes out from "dependency" on others to "access" a part of a game; Microsoft can with a press of a button BRICK any XBOX 360/ONE console (i.e. make it worthless/not able to be used online).

 

Naturally, anything with time and effort can be "emulated" so this whole matter might be solved down the road (hopefully) in the spirit of Sim City 2013.

[dutch_gamer]

At some point a temporary feature, which is what DAMP is, should be allowed to die. EA and BioWare created DAMP as a temporary product and not as something that they expect people to play or be able to play whenever until the end of times.

And the Sim City analogy is bogus. Sim City was a game that was only playable online and no other way, whereas that is not the case with DAI itself. So in the spirit of Sim City nothing needs to change considering DAI is already playable without an internet connection.

If you have a bad connection or no connection at all multiplayer wasn't made for you.

[Shapeshifter777]

 

 

Which games have bots nowadays?

 

 

The entire Gears of War series, Evolve will have offline with bots  (even if you want to be the monster vs four human AI), Fable Legends will have bots (even if you want to be the villain against 4 heroes), Call of Duty always has bots, even the new ones and every other game I have bought for the last year.

 

 

I never understood playing multiplayer solely with bots. Having some bots like in Unreal Tournament I understand but the whole point of multiplyer is to play with other people not with the AI.

 

I thought the ME3 multiplayer was great, I spent a lot of time with it and while I would have loved local co-op or LAN it didn't ruin it for me.

 

To me that is like you're saying, "I never understood the point of playing a single player campaign against bots."  It's the same idea.  Multiplayer is just an alternate game mode to single player and if a single player game against all AI controlled enemies doesn't bother you, what is wrong with playing the multiplayer modes against the same?

[Avalonica]

At some point a temporary feature, which is what DAMP is, should be allowed to die. EA and BioWare created DAMP as a temporary product and not as something that they expect people to play or be able to play whenever until the end of times.

And the Sim City analogy is bogus. Sim City was a game that was only playable online and no other way, whereas that is not the case with DAI itself. So in the spirit of Sim City nothing needs to change considering DAI is already playable without an internet connection.

If you have a bad connection or no connection at all multiplayer wasn't made for you.

 

Reminds me a bit about the pre-marketing for Microsoft XBOX ONE where the console would not allow "used games" to be played on it unless "re-bought" for a smaller sum, and that the console itself "DEMANDED" constant online access. Well, we all know how much of that "changed".

 

Trust me on this: you are NOT making a good sales argument for DI:I about "If you have a bad connection or no connection at all multiplayer wasn't made for you", but of course, it would be fun to see your statement on any site that sell DA:I

 

Why should not a player with no internet access be able to play any co-op maps? You know, whatever functions that are used "server side" to make "co-op" works for DA:I is not more complex than it can be put into the game. Why the game HAS to be run server side is mainly because the "micro transactions" (pay to win or what you care to call it).

 

The point of the matter is: co-op multiplayer IS a part of DA:I and any customer without INTERNET is barred from "half of the product". A good compromise would be to sell two versions of DA:I, one copy WITH multiplayer co-op and one without for a reduced price. Why should customers with no internet have to pay for something they cant use in the first place?

[Kantr]

Do you have a source for the information? But presuming what you say is correct then we must understand that the wordings "plan to support for a long time" literally means "when EA pulls the plug in some years from now on DA:I co-op multiplayer is totally dead".
 
-Snip-

Yes, just like in Mass Effect 3.

You will use the DA Multiplayer matchmaking service.

Reading you example a few times, I understand more clearly what you are asking. DA Multiplayer will need to talk to the game servers. We won't have an option for "offline" multiplayer on a private network. A bunch of our multiplayer has server-side functionality and we don't support the servers not being available. This is not a DRM thing, but an architectural decision.

Yes, these are the things that happen on the server and not the client and why we don't support "offline" multiplayer like this.

As for the supporting it a long time. Info from various articles/twitter

[phantomrachie]

 

To me that is like you're saying, "I never understood the point of playing a single player campaign against bots."  It's the same idea.  Multiplayer is just an alternate game mode to single player and if a single player game against all AI controlled enemies doesn't bother you, what is wrong with playing the multiplayer modes against the same?

 

 

It doesn't bother me, I just never saw the point because I've always seen multiplayer as a way to play a game with my friends. I've little interest in playing a multiplayer mode by myself

[AshenEndymion]

To me that is like you're saying, "I never understood the point of playing a single player campaign against bots."  It's the same idea.  Multiplayer is just an alternate game mode to single player and if a single player game against all AI controlled enemies doesn't bother you, what is wrong with playing the multiplayer modes against the same?

 

 

Meh.  Multiplayer using only bots may as well be a single-player game.

 

I'm all for removing multiplayer from games in general, but I see no reason for making multiplayer the exact same thing as the single-player....  Which is, essentially, what I see advocated when I see "multiplayer against only bots"...

[Avalonica]

co-op multiplayer in DA:I is technically a game against bots, but the issue of the matter I want to highlight is (and with my conveniently locked Dragon Age Keep tread) the following:

 

• There is NO technical reason whatsoever to NOT have offline co-op gameplay for a single player
• Micro transactions is THE ONLY reason why LAN/Direct connect is NOT in DA:I
• Dragon Age Keep could have been made into a DLC and used DIRECTLY INSIDE THE GAME (as something similar was done with Mass Effect 2) but in instead an external webpage, login and lots of fuss must be made.
• When EA pulls the plug on DA:I all co-op multiplayer and Dragon Age Keep will stop to function!

[phantomrachie]

 

co-op multiplayer in DA:I is technically a game against bots, but the issue of the matter I want to highlight is (and with my conveniently locked Dragon Age Keep tread) the following:

 

 

well in all fairness there is a HUGE Keep thread in Scuttlebutt already

 

 

• There is NO technical reason whatsoever to NOT have offline co-op gameplay for a single player
• Micro transactions is THE ONLY reason why LAN/Direct connect is NOT in DA:I
• Dragon Age Keep could have been made into a DLC and used DIRECTLY INSIDE THE GAME (as something similar was done with Mass Effect 2) but in instead an external webpage, login and lots of fuss must be made.
• When EA pulls the plug on DA:I all co-op multiplayer and Dragon Age Keep will stop to function!

 

 

A point by point response

 

You should've told me that you were a BioWare developer who was working on DA:I, otherwise I'd of taken your word for how the keep is going in work in your last thread  /sarcasm

 

As I said in your last thread there are numerous advantages to the Keep over DLC and if you remember the ME2 DLC only had the main choices it was very limited.

 

http://forum.bioware...dai/?p=17212297

 

The Keep is being used for all DA games not just DA:I and BioWare they are supported DA:I for a long time with new content, ME3 servers are still running.

 

 

Seriously did you not read anything anyone said in your Keep thread or watch the video that was given to you or read the updates on MP?

[Kantr]

-snip-

 

Seriously did you not read anything anyone said in your Keep thread or watch the video that was given to you or read the updates on MP?

Of course he didnt. He's a bonafide dev /sarcasm

 

It's unlikely that reasoning with him will change his mind. If he wants to think that let him and ignore him. Time will show if his viewpoint is right or not (unlikely).

[Avalonica]

well in all fairness there is a HUGE Keep thread in Scuttlebutt already

 

 

A point by point response

 

You should've told me that you were a BioWare developer who was working on DA:I, otherwise I'd of taken your word for how the keep is going in work in your last thread  /sarcasm

 

As I said in your last thread there are numerous advantages to the Keep over DLC and if you remember the ME2 DLC only had the main choices it was very limited.

 

http://forum.bioware...dai/?p=17212297

 

The Keep is being used for all DA games not just DA:I and BioWare they are supported DA:I for a long time with new content, ME3 servers are still running.

 

 

Seriously did you not read anything anyone said in your Keep thread or watch the video that was given to you or read the updates on MP?

 

I am new to the Bioware forums and noticed the link to the thread in Scuttlebutt today, but I don't see any reason at this stage to go in there since most important questions (on my mind) already have been answered in my own (now closed) Dragon Age Keep tread.

 

Regarding Dragon Age Keep there is no advantage whatsoever to have an lackluster external web based timed event service that goes dark the moment EA close down Dragon Age: Inquisition support.

 

Since you sarcastically called me a Bioware developer, let me on a serious note point out what I would have done (if that had been the case):

• I had included the vision of "Dragon Age Keep" into the game creation system as an advanced option (or a free DLC) and hinted it was for players of earlier Dragon Age games. It would have been the most simple way of doing things. That way any and all players (even in offline mode) would have been able to access it on any system (even in the future when EA pulls the support for DA:I).
• I had made co-op multiplayer playable in offline mode in a effort to make the function always accessible without external EA servers.
• I would have included a independent LAN and Direct Connect function for co-op multiplayer (see reason above)
• I would have implemented the "EA server dependent" co-op multiplayer with micro transactions as a "ALTERNATIVE" to the other ones.

When I hear all promotion for Dragon Age Keep and EA server dependent co-op multiplayer it just sounds like snake oil salesmanship. Why am I as a customer not even interested if the Dragon Age Keep web service will support future games!? It's about the game Dragon Age: Inquisition "here-and-now", and in what way exactly is an EXTERNAL APPLICATION better than to have the functions INSIDE THE GAME right from the start on PC, PS3, PS4, XBOX 360 and XBOX ONE!? It's so counterproductive and sad...

 

As I now understand it, the sole reason why EA server dependency is integrated in the co-op multiplayer part is because of the "micro transactions". So, we are sold a game, and then to "get items faster" in co-op multiplayer we can FOR REAL MONEY buy a in-game currency called "Platinum". Well, that in my book is SCAMMING in its worst form!

 

Why shall people who BUY a product then have to BUY "in-game currency" for REAL MONEY to cheat!? When I want to CHEAT in a game I usually load "Cheat Engine" (feel free to goggle it up) and fix unlimited cash/hp or whatever, why must I now PAY for a fictive cheat-platinum-currency to get "items faster" in a game I already bought?! I am sure the forum trolls can find ample "legitimate" reasons and flame baits for this downright semi-criminal scam scram, but in all seriousness: - here you all have the main reason why co-op "offline mode", "LAN" and Direct Connect (trough IP-address) is not included into the game.

 

 

Regarding the posts that keep insisting on that Gibbed's save game editors dont' cut it, let me me again highlight the issue:

• Dragon Age Keep can only be used to create a "starting point" and from there lets the player download a savegame (probably with lots of strings attached).
• Gibbeds savegame editors (look on his Borderlands 2 editor for reference) lets the players create a "starting point", and here unlike Dragon Age Keep also lets the players "load in" a game in progress to change stuff and have the world change accordingly (Dragon Age Keep will NEVER support that).
• Gibbeds savegame editors usually support body, sex and racial makeover changes
• Gibbeds savegame editors (the modern ones) have an "advanced edit mode" that lets players access ALL content delivered in the physical game (even stuff the developers did not intend you to get access to unless reason X is fulfilled)
• Gibbeds savegame editors let you bypass the FORCED romance settings so you can be any race/sex.
• Gibbeds savegame editors often have a "item editor".

Dragon Age Keep is a plain "somewhat expanded" copy of Gibbeds Dragon Age 2 editor (it's very basic without the fluff you find in his Mass Effect 3 or Borderlands 2 editors), and my point of this whole matter is: let professional 3rd parties decrypt/analyze and make "savegame editors" while you (the game developers) focus on making a proper game with ALL game functions INSIDE THE GAME. For heavens sake, include "Dragon Age Keep" INSIDE YOUR OWN GAME AND NOT ON A WEBPAGE!!! Or maybe this is a new trend I am missing out on? We have to log onto a webpage to see the introduction movie? End movie? WOW... Why not include the old "copy-protection" systems from the DOS era too where the players get questions inside the game and have to look up the correct answer from the manual... oh my! Happy days sure are coming...

[Avalonica]

Of course he didnt. He's a bonafide dev /sarcasm

 

It's unlikely that reasoning with him will change his mind. If he wants to think that let him and ignore him. Time will show if his viewpoint is right or not (unlikely).

 

Please, in this case I would love to be wrong, really!

 

"Time" (as we know it) will sadly not be kind to games built up with the actual structure you now see. Any game (Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age: Inquisition as good example) will be hurt catastrophically when the EA server support go down. How will you access Mass Effect 3 multiplayer or DA:I co-op multiplayer then?

 

What I try (even if it's somewhat of already lost battle) is to have:

1. Dragon Age Keep INCLUDED inside the game DA:I from the very start (or as a free DLC) for PC, PS3, PS4, XBOX 360 and XBOX ONE for players that don't want to access such an important part of the game externally on a web page.
2. DA:I include "offline mode" co-op multplayer (for a single player or dual screen if its on a console)
3. LAN and/or Direct Connect (IP address) for players that don't want to "use EA services" (it also make the game future compatible)

Thats about it...

[Kantr]

Gibbed functions in those games is as a cheat editor.

 

There are lots more benefits to using the keep then gibbed and if there's a problem with the keep embedding in the game that requires a re-write or needs to support the next game. What then? Release a huge patch to everyone (who might not connect) and won't appreciate?

 

I recommend you go to pax and complain to the Dragon Age Keep team and tell them how wrong they are and what you would do.

 

Reading the scuttlebut thread bioware posts contains a lot of info not in the faq or other threads.