19 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

One of the things about ME3 MP was that while having the best guns or a high level character was certainly valuable, it didn't have too much of effect.  It's fundamentally a shooter, and someone who is good at shooting can do well with a level one character and a pretty basic gun.

 

But, as what might be called a more traditional RPG, Dragon Age isn't like that.  Characters in Dragon Age are, at least in the games we've played before, are very much limited by their equipment and level.

 

So will DAMP be like that?  Or will something be done to flatten the power curve and keep characters at least similar in effectiveness?

 

If not, isn't there a risk that the player base will be effectively split, as the people willing to spend a bundle on micro-transactions or do a lot of grinding get a lot more powerful than people with less time or money to spare?  Will the system based on micro-transactions still not feel too "pay to win" with Dragon Age systems?

 

(Is this the right forum?  I'm not sure it fits, but I'm not sure where else it could go.  I guess I could have lumped it in the big thread in scuttlebutt, but if we've got an MP forum it seems like I should use it.)

[Althix]

how much money did you spend on me3mp store?

[Zehealingman]

Only thing that would make characters stronger are weapons and promotions (+1 attribute point). Armors are only cosmetic/unlocking new character.

But I can imagine that there is a biiiiig difference. Sure, there'll be different numbers if you have a sweet new staff, but probally not that much.

 

And thanks for using the MP forum!

[Wulfram]

how much money did you spend on me3mp store?

 

Nothing.  ME3 MP worked well, I'm just wondering if DA MP will work as well with a similar system given it's different gameplay

[Alan Drifter13]

One of the things about ME3 MP was that while having the best guns or a high level character was certainly valuable, it didn't have too much of effect.  It's fundamentally a shooter, and someone who is good at shooting can do well with a level one character and a pretty basic gun.

 

 

I strongly disagree with this. Going with the best weapons was a big difference. And if you played with a highly power-dependent character (eg most adepts and engineers), a high level also made a big difference.

 

Which difficulty did you play? Gold/Plat with level 1 characters and common weapons was MUCH harder than lv20 characters with Harriers, Arc Pistols, Black Widows, etc.

[cronshaw]

There are a couple things going on with your question

first there is always going to be a continuum of skill level with any game, and while DAMP isn't a shooter, you can't pause

so the skill set is going to shift more to making quick decisions, awareness and having a good head for tactics

Aim, one of the big limiters in shooters won't be as much of a factor for most classes.

Second if people are willing to put time and/or money into the game they should have better stuff

my guess is, like ME3MP, the cost of unlocking everything super quickly will be so prohibitively expensive that it won't really be much of an issue.

That is to say the number of people who are capable of and want to just unlock everything day one is going to be miniscule.

[NextArishok]

I don't think it will be very hard.  The dumbing down of the game from DA:O to DA2 makes me feel like that even more.  All games have been dumbed down and casualized to a level that is really kind of insulting....even if I had never played a game in my life....the way some of these games hold your hand or even give you an "i win button" for when you get into trouble would annoy me.

 

This is not a DA trend...it is not a Bioware trend....its a video game industry trend.  I see little to no evidence in it stopping anytime soon either.  Demon's souls sequels are even more proof of this.  And that was supposed to be the one that was going to break through this garbage trend.

[Wulfram]

Only thing that would make characters stronger are weapons and promotions (+1 attribute point). Armors are only cosmetic/unlocking new character.

 

That's interesting, could you (or someone else) maybe point me to where you learnt this?

 

I strongly disagree with this. Going with the best weapons was a big difference. And if you played with a highly power-dependent character (eg most adepts and engineers), a high level also made a big difference.

 

Which difficulty did you play? Gold/Plat with level 1 characters and common weapons was MUCH harder than lv20 characters with Harriers, Arc Pistols, Black Widows, etc.

 

I played on Silver or Gold, depending on whether I was looking for something relatively relaxing or a challenge.

 

Perhaps I overstated things - you're certainly right that it depended on class, and good weapons certainly make things easier - but I do think that gear has a lot less of an impact in ME than it does in an RPG such as Dragon Age

[kiltysue]

That's interesting, could you (or someone else) maybe point me to where you learnt this?

 

 

I played on Silver or Gold, depending on whether I was looking for something relatively relaxing or a challenge.

 

Perhaps I overstated things - you're certainly right that it depended on class, and good weapons certainly make things easier - but I do think that gear has a lot less of an impact in ME than it does in an RPG such as Dragon Age

Gear had a huge impact on the single player ME2 gameplay for the most

challenging game mode.  Less so for ME3s most challenging single player

game mode, but still significant.

 

As for the ME3 multiplayer...  Silver/bronze, a skilled player could do well

with very limited gear.  At the game onset, this was less true for silver, as

most people (barring a few that participated extensively in the beta), did

not understand the enemy spawn algorithms.  As time passed and more

people became familiar with effective ME3 strategies, a weak player could

easily be carried in a pug silver/gold group.  "Weak player" would be, limited

gear, or knowledge.

 

A platinum group absolutely required optimal gear and strategy at its advent.

Late in the game, you had a small subset of players that could actually solo

platinum.  An absolutely miniscule set of players actually succeeded at ME3

platinum runs with level1 characters using the weakest available low level

weapons.  That was a reflection of the players extreme strategic knowledge

of how to beat the enemy spawns.

[Cyonan]

Gear had a huge impact on the single player ME2 gameplay for the most

challenging game mode.  Less so for ME3s most challenging single player

game mode, but still significant.

 

As for the ME3 multiplayer...  Silver/bronze, a skilled player could do well

with very limited gear.  At the game onset, this was less true for silver, as

most people (barring a few that participated extensively in the beta), did

not understand the enemy spawn algorithms.  As time passed and more

people became familiar with effective ME3 strategies, a weak player could

easily be carried in a pug silver/gold group.  "Weak player" would be, limited

gear, or knowledge.

 

A platinum group absolutely required optimal gear and strategy at its advent.

Late in the game, you had a small subset of players that could actually solo

platinum.  An absolutely miniscule set of players actually succeeded at ME3

platinum runs with level1 characters using the weakest available low level

weapons.  That was a reflection of the players extreme strategic knowledge

of how to beat the enemy spawns.

 

Platinum never required optimal gear and strategy, and you had people soloing it from day 1.

 

It was certainly easier to use the best characters and weapons, but far from "absolutely required".

[kiltysue]

Platinum never required optimal gear and strategy, and you had people soloing it from day 1.

 

It was certainly easier to use the best characters and weapons, but far from "absolutely required".

These comments gave me a good laugh!  I immediately imagined day 1 platinum,

hordes of people solo rampaging platinum with a nerfed level 1 asari wielding a

level 1 eagle!

 

So yes, gear and character level/choice mattered for the most difficult game modes

early on.

[Cyonan]

These comments gave me a good laugh!  I immediately imagined day 1 platinum,

hordes of people solo rampaging platinum with a nerfed level 1 asari wielding a

level 1 eagle!

 

So yes, gear and character level/choice mattered for the most difficult game modes

early on.

 

People already had decent gear once Platinum showed up =P

 

Your choices and level mattered but there is a big difference between them mattering and optimal setups being "absolutely required".

[Wulfram]

I'm not saying that gear didn't matter, but it didn't matter too much.  If it really didn't matter that would be an issue since it provides a lot of the sense of progression. 

 

But it doesn't compare to the impact in something like Dragon Age 2, where you'll do 1/8th the damage with a starting weapon compared to an end game one (ignoring other stats), and it has a lot more room for variation because of skill which also dampens the effect of gear and levels

[Beerfish]

Platinum never required optimal gear and strategy, and you had people soloing it from day 1.

 

It was certainly easier to use the best characters and weapons, but far from "absolutely required".

I think you re being coloured by the quality of player on the bsn forums.  The vast majority of players got or would get whomped with anything less than great gear and good strategy.

[Jugger nuggss]

Characters in Dragon Age are, at least in the games we've played before, are very much limited by their equipment and level.
 
So will DAMP be like that?

Yep.

[KalGerion_Beast]

Holy Necro Batman!

[Jugger nuggss]

[Zehealingman]

Oh wow

[Ghost Of N7_SP3CTR3]

[scene_cachet]

The attributes system is worse than community splitting map packs. 

 

It will pretty much take most players around 6 months to be able to play the same difficulty as me and survive. 

It really works against the game and splits the community.