53 réponses à ce sujet

[RedLens37]

More armor options sounds like a good improvement. Character customization was one way in which ME3 multiplayer was lacking, so hopefully this will be a little better.

[Vortex13]

I really do hope that BioWare will implement some form of armor swapping in terms of individual pieces instead of a whole set.

 

I know that they said that armor won't have stats associated with them ( ), but I would really like to have the option to pick and choose individual parts of different armor sets to equip each DAMP character (like in SP).

 

I would like to be able to select Korbin the Dwarf Legionnaire, and then be able to decide if I want him to wear a helmet or not, to decide if I want a matching set of Legion of the Dead armor, or to pick dwarven chailmail to accompany qunari braces, human iron boots, and elven greaves (for example).

[simpatikool]

I really do hope that BioWare will implement some form of armor swapping in terms of individual pieces instead of a whole set.

 

 

Man...Me too! I want more options around adding a personal touch.

[schall_und_rauch]

Well if we're going to get technical, there are lots of terms to use though some will have regional variations...
 

I will craft a beautiful peen block for my sword to block your e-peen.

Useful, interesting picture that.

[Pistolized]

What bothers me is: in order to unlock a character you have to craft their armor, leading to the notion that there is only one armor per character.  However, there is a "Customization" forum, which leans towards multiple armors.  Hopefully there will be visual customization options, in addition to non-visual runes.

[snackrat]

The type of armour you equip will probably effect their silhouette. I imagine that, like MEMP. additional unlocks 'skins' will allow you to colour/tint progressively more of your character.

[Wirbelwind]

 

I thought I would repost this since it (almost) directly concerns the thread. Even if it's not about multiplayer. ^^"

 

OK, I f***** up but I don't want to remove it nonetheless.

 

Well, here it is, in all its glory !

[Shahadem]

As long as I am able to "cripple" myself with over-specialized modifications, I'm in.  For example, Critical chance +99% at the expense of everything else.  I don't care if it isn't mathematically optimal, thats what I want!

 

 No. This is multiplayer, not single player. You shouldn't be able to cripple your own character because that negatively affects everyone else.

[TheThirdRace]

 No. This is multiplayer, not single player. You shouldn't be able to cripple your own character because that negatively affects everyone else.

 

So you're telling me if I join a game and don't press any key then a bot will take over because otherwise that negatively affects everyone else... great logic!

[Shahadem]

So you're telling me if I join a game and don't press any key then a bot will take over because otherwise that negatively affects everyone else... great logic!

 

My logic is sound. Yours is not. Both examples you give are examples of players taking intentional actions that they know will detrimentally affect the other players. And my post is clearly directed at two very specific areas:

1) What actions Bioware can and thus should control

2) What actions players should avoid in MPer

 

Obviously your first post addresses (1) What actions Bioware can and thus should control (as well as a little bit of (2)), whereas your second example addresses (2) What actions players should avoid in MPer.

 

The main thrust of my post is essentially that you shouldn't be an idiot in multiplayer because you will negatively affect the experience of other players. If you want to be an idiot, then keep such actions within the single player portion of the game where they belong so that the only person negatively affected by your own act of intentional idiocy is yourself.

 

Bioware, who has some control over the game, and has direct control over the stats that will be on the gear, can and should exercise some degree of control by limiting a player's ability to gimp their own character in multiplayer. And there is some evidence that Bioware will in fact be taking such action. You have the fact that MPer characters will be limited to certain specializations with limited skill selection choices allowing Bioware to make every set of skils that a player could choose quite viable, thus preventing players from making skills choices that would result in gimping their characters. There is no reason to think that Bioware would fail to apply this same logic to character stats.

[TheThirdRace]

My logic is sound. Yours is not. Both examples you give are examples of players taking intentional actions that they know will detrimentally affect the other players. And my post is clearly directed at two very specific areas:

1) What actions Bioware can and thus should control

2) What actions players should avoid in MPer

 

Your answer is out of context. Your previous post was an answer to a guy saying he wanted to intentionaly get 999% crit. I replied in that context by making a ridiculous claim to show the underlining flaw of your logic.

 

I do agree Bioware should balance the game so every combination of skills + equipment should be somewhat effective, but I disagree when you say they should also prevent you from doing things that could render you ineffective. The first part (balance) is perfectly fine because they need to offer a "sandbox" into which we play, but the second part (freedom to be stupid) is another thing entirely.

 

For example, in ME3MP you were perfectly free to solo Platinum with a level 1 character sporting a level 1 Avenger. You'd be stupid to do so for anything else than challenge, but you could. You'd also be a detriment to your team if you didn't solo, but you could. This should never be blocked because you feel like it, it has a lot to do with the whole "freedom to be stupid" concept.

 

Trying to coerce anyone in being like you feel is never a good way to promote peace on Earth, the proof is all around history with all those pointless wars, especially religious ones (What!?! You don't believe in that supreme being I believe in but have no real scientific proof, then I'll purify you with fire to prove how wrong you are; because you know when you're dead you'll understand??? <--- I hope you understand why this is absolute non-sense).

 

The only thing Bioware should try to prevent is excessive trolling to avoid griefing. The rest is up to the players.

[Shahadem]

Your answer is out of context. Your previous post was an answer to a guy saying he wanted to intentionaly get 999% crit. I replied in that context by making a ridiculous claim to show the underlining flaw of your logic.

 

I do agree Bioware should balance the game so every combination of skills + equipment should be somewhat effective, but I disagree when you say they should also prevent you from doing things that could render you ineffective. The first part (balance) is perfectly fine because they need to offer a "sandbox" into which we play, but the second part (freedom to be stupid) is another thing entirely.

 

For example, in ME3MP you were perfectly free to solo Platinum with a level 1 character sporting a level 1 Avenger. You'd be stupid to do so for anything else than challenge, but you could. You'd also be a detriment to your team if you didn't solo, but you could. This should never be blocked because you feel like it, it has a lot to do with the whole "freedom to be stupid" concept.

 

Trying to coerce anyone in being like you feel is never a good way to promote peace on Earth, the proof is all around history with all those pointless wars, especially religious ones (What!?! You don't believe in that supreme being I believe in but have no real scientific proof, then I'll purify you with fire to prove how wrong you are; because you know when you're dead you'll understand??? <--- I hope you understand why this is absolute non-sense).

 

The only thing Bioware should try to prevent is excessive trolling to avoid griefing. The rest is up to the players.

 

My answer was in context. The guy in context wanted to intentionally cripple his character.

 

My argument, which you failed to understand, is that you should not knowingly take an action that would harm another person when that harm is the foreseeable consequence of your idiotic action and that Bioware should prevent players from being able to take such actions in the multiplayer portion of their game as the benefit to the individual from being able to be an idiot is outweighed by the harm that action causes for everyone else who gets put on the same team as that person.

 

Your counterargument would have to be that it is wrong to punish people for choosing to go to a bar to get drunk and then drive home while inebriated.

 

While there is nothing wrong with a person getting drunk, and indeed society should protect the rights of people to get drunk if they so desire, there is a great deal of wrong in allowing a person to get drunk and then drive a car in that condition. An action can be allowed, even protected, in one situation and prohibited in another.

 

Your example of forcing beliefs has nothing to do with the argument I am making which is focused on weighing the benefit to allowing an individual to be stupid in the multiplayer portion of a video game compared to the burden that places on the other individuals who get stuck with having to deal with the consequences of that stupid choice for twenty minutes. The fact that this particular player knows they are being stupid and knows that their stupid choice will have foreseeable detrimental consequences for other people weighs heavily in favor against allowing such stupidity in the multiplayer component of the game, especially because in the large majority of cases, players might not have been able to choose who they play with because of difficulty in identifying the player's stupidity as the cause of that player's failing (if it is hard to see another player's stats/skill choices) or because of the amount of time required to replace that player or leave the game and return to the same point of completion they were in before leaving.

 

You don't, and never had, an all encompassing freedom to perform any kind of stupid action you want.

[TheThirdRace]

Your counterargument would have to be that it is wrong to punish people for choosing to go to a bar to get drunk and then drive home while inebriated.

 

While there is nothing wrong with a person getting drunk, and indeed society should protect the rights of people to get drunk if they so desire, there is a great deal of wrong in allowing a person to get drunk and then drive a car in that condition. An action can be allowed, even protected, in one situation and prohibited in another.

 

This is exactly what you don't understand from my point. Take your example of a drunk driver. What is wrong in that example is not the fact the guy's inebriated or that he's driving per se, it's the combination of the 2 that is dangerous and thus we categorize it as "wrong". But let's think for a moment, as long as the guy isn't driving on public road or in proximity of someone, he's only dangerous to himself right? Doesn't he have the right to kill himself if he wants too? I really don't care what happens to the guy as long as he's not endangering the life of others. It's a subtle difference, but what is frown upon isn't drunk driving per se, but endangering the life of others.

 

And that's where my point kicks in. You assume having 999% crit is "wrong" without knowing what will be the consequences. The game isn't even out yet and you take for granted that it will very negatively affect his teammates. Maybe "crippled" isn't as bad as it sounds, ever think of that? It's not necessarily "wrong", it might just be less optimal. If Bioware was to block anything non-optimal, they might as well make only 1 upgrade path for your character and remove the non-optimal choices... Is that really what you want? (I don't think so)

 

People have a way to surprise you, a guy with 999% crit might be very good for all we know. He might be very bad too... But it all depends on his skills, it has nothing to do with his setup. In ME3MP, the golden rule was to use a level 20 on Platinum. Yet, countless times I've played with a level 8 and was about 10K from top score. Should Bioware stop me from playing with a level 8 character on Platinum because it could cause grief to my teammates? I had the skills to back my choices and some didn't, it's not Bioware's role to police that.

 

The point I originaly made was that I could "cripple" my team by not pressing any key and it's not Bioware's role to act on this. The fact is, I could very well be just bad at the game and they can't just boot me out for it.  I gave a ridiculous example (a bot taking my place to curb griefing) to show how pushing the idea you suggested could lead to pretty bad consequences and how bad the idea was.

 

Being bad at playing or non-optimal in your choices don't constitute griefing. And let's be real for a moment, it's not like people lives are at stake here, it's still just a game...

[PurpGuy1]

maybe they will have color pallettes for stuff like ME3

[onewitdaclown]

maybe they will have color pallettes for stuff like ME3

That would be a good idea in my book

[maddeninggamer]

No character customization, but the online characters actually do have banter. So give and take; I'd say it's an even trade off if you can eventually turn of the banter so it isn't the same two jeers between the necromancer and the knight enchanter the duration of the match.

[Reidbynature]

Would be nice if they had alternate outfits like singleplayer companions.  If there currently aren't then maybe they could add some in like Mass Effect did with companion outfit dlc's.

[GrommitSmit]

Would be nice if they had alternate outfits like singleplayer companions. If there currently aren't then maybe they could add some in like Mass Effect did with companion outfit dlc's.

Devs have confirmed, one of the things you can unlock through RNG or from finding in mission will be alternate character "skins". It is listed under Crafting here: http://forum.bioware...ource-library/. Hope that helps!

[Saboteur-6]

I'm expecting about as much customization as in the ME3 MP where you could adjust:

 

- Skin Tone

- Primary / Secondary Armor coloring

- Acessory (lights) coloring.

- Armor pattern coloring.

 

As has already been pointed out wearable armor has an aesthetic effect in DAMP so that's a pretty distinct difference.

[Madeline Lightning]

Well I'm happy I saw this thread. I was expecting some sort of customization for multiplayer and being able to choose the sex you want too. Looks like they learned nothing from Mass Effects 3's multiplayer.  At least with Origin (unlike Steam) you can cancel orders and I did. Finally Origin paid off.

[SofaJockey]

Well I'm happy I saw this thread. I was expecting some sort of customization for multiplayer and being able to choose the sex you want too. Looks like they learned nothing from Mass Effects 3's multiplayer.  At least with Origin (unlike Steam) you can cancel orders and I did. Finally Origin paid off.

 

Huh? The multiplayer characters are just that 'characters' individuals that it is suggested we may see walking around in the DA SP world (though not impacting the SP game). To ask for a sex change is no more logical than saying 'Blackwall has to be male - I can't change him to female, pre-order cancelled'. And because of this specific element that you don't like, you consider that BioWare have learnt nothing from MEMP, without even playing the game? Well, I'm not going to argue with your opinion as you clearly hold it, but that's one of most spurious reasons for a pre-order cancellation I've ever seen (and I've seen some pretty spurious ones).

[Saboteur-6]

Huh? The multiplayer characters are just that 'characters' individuals that it is suggested we may see walking around in the DA SP world (though not impacting the SP game). To ask for a sex change is no more logical than saying 'Blackwall has to be male - I can't change him to female, pre-order cancelled'. And because of this specific element that you don't like, you consider that BioWare have learnt nothing from MEMP, without even playing the game? Well, I'm not going to argue with your opinion as you clearly hold it, but that's one of most spurious reasons for a pre-order cancellation I've ever seen (and I've seen some pretty spurious ones).

 

Don't bother trying to reason with someone that's being so irrational. I'm actually looking forward to cutomization through 'Skins' and wearable gear drops. It's going to be deeper than the ME3 multiplayer customization so that's definitely some progression.

[SofaJockey]

I do like this clarification on DAMP characters in Skyhold:

 

[8:00]

 

• [James @Game Front]
  Does anything you do in that [the multiplayer] affect the world that you're controlling in single player?
• [Mark Darrah]
  We don't feed stuff back in, in terms of power for the Inquisition, but you will see as you prestige your specialists they will show up in your base and you'll be able to see them there.

[IronGuru]

The lack of full character customization , is the only thing that has really put a downer on DAMP for me.

I'm a multiplayer only kind of guy, and DAMP looks like my cup of tea , Lots of classes, skills ,weapons and mods for items to make the build i like. 

 But giving people a cookie cutter race gender class restrictions irks me. I'm slowly getting my head around it and hoping game play and team work will make up for it.

 I've tried to get some friends interested in DAMP and when i mention you can only be female for this class and only Dwarf for that class, they say  i don't want to be a Dwarf this or a female that. 

[Orochi]

Also mentioned 80 ish armor custimizations