147 réponses à ce sujet

[Icy Magebane]

Do enemies even drop potions anymore?  Again, wouldn't that just nullify the impact of the limit in all combat situations outside of boss fights?

[AlexiaRevan]

Adios my Potions hoarding days ! 

[robertthebard]

Fast travel might not be available except in base camps and towns. So when in the field you still might need to walk to these safe zones in order to fast travel. That and just fast traveling back and forth constantly is time consuming no matter how fast it is and so that's kind of a drag and deterrent itself, unless you're that much of a lazy/bad gamer, so you might as well just play on easy. There's no guarantee you'll have the resources or cash to constantly waste it on potions and other consumables. We've so far seen that we're back to collecting ingredients ourselves and not just finding sources for them like in DA2, so you might be expelling as many or almost as many potions fighting mobs while running around collecting ingredients as you are making them so you'll just end up wasting more of your time on top of having to constantly travel back and forth between the field and camps/towns. Plus BioWare has already stated that resources are somewhat finite, so if you collect all the elfroot in an area it will likely take some time before any grows back.
 
I think the biggest thing is that it's just removing that crutch some people rely on during battles instead of playing correctly and thinking about their tactics, especially boss battles and larger encounters. You'll only have 8 potions to help you out, after that you'll need to be smart about positioning your party, what abilities you use and how you manage aggro on weaker members.

They went to a specific location to Fast Travel in the video you linked to me yesterday.

However, what does "Playing correctly" mean? If I'm playing MP, I expect it means that I'm to fulfill my role, which is what it means in MMOs. However, I have no clue what you mean for a SP game. None of what you list here is any different from any of the other titles in the franchise, or any other party based SP games I have played, nor, as I indicated, in MP. Playing SP meant that I could play it however I liked, even if that meant with all the cheat codes on, pushing Y to kill everything so I could speed run a world state for the Keep.

[Maria Caliban]

I think limited ability slots mesh poorly with a system where you are already limited by class, talent selection, and specialization.

The Vanican magic system is the only time it worked, but that was because the spells were incredibly versatile and powerful at higher levels. And I'd argue it worked horribly for class balance.
 

I don't understand how the four highlighted limitations will be effective if we are allowed to fast travel at any time.

I believe fast travel is only available at camps and cities.

[SofaJockey]

Correction: The devs have been testing this for a year or more in MP mode. The tactics never came under scrutiny there, since, in MP, it's four PCs. This means that they can't really tell us the impact either, since they tested and balanced in MP. You can peruse the MP Q&A for documentation of this, if you wish.

 

I don't think your assumptions are correct, though good to discuss.

 

Looking at the multiplayer FAQ (which highlights the value of multiplayer rather than giving an overview of game development ) , BioWare say:

 

"Was multiplayer (MP) mode created by the same team that made single-player (SP)?·        

MP and SP were developed side by side. The multiplayer environment gave us a perfect opportunity for testing combat, creatures, and encounter design, and since the two environments are near-identical, every improvement spread to both parts of the game."

 

This does not say that the single player gameplay was left untested and only tested within the multiplayer engine.

The private E3 demo a year ago showed the single player game in action.

The devs and writers have tweeted repeatedly about the process of testing and bug fixing the game by testing and playing it over many playthroughs.

 

Hence the devs have been play-testing the single-player gameplay mechanics for at least a year or more on all platforms.

The multiplayer testing gives additional insight (think of it like a beta stress-test),

but clearly does not test the tactical pause/play element which will have been extensively tested in single player mode.

 

This is not a gameplay mechanic that BioWare have cobbled together in an afternoon.

If the single-player tactics were broken this game would not be released like this.

[EnduinRaylene]

They could do better than an artificial limit.

They could restrict access to potions. You can carry as many as you find or make, but that won't be many.

They could have potions offer diminishing results. This was actually planned for DAO, but the feature was cut.

But telling that we just can't carry more than 8, even though we could carry 5 more suits of plate armour, that's absurd.

At least I hope they've removed the dynamic loot table thing where potions would only drop if you had space for them.

Sure they could do that, but it's easier to do it this way. It's a matter of diminishing returns. It's takes a lot of time and effort to implement either of those systems compared to just a carrying cap, and while doing so would be cool, the overall effect is rather limited and not overly appreciated by players. Some would like it a lot but most would not even notice. So those resources are better used elsewhere.

Same for the armor, weapons and other equipment. They put a limit on your inventory but it's not a serious one. Just enough to discourage being a serious pack rat.

Making a good inventory system that balances all this stuff realistically and a that benefits the gameplay is really hard. I'm struggling to think of many games that do it well.

[Fetunche]

I'd prefer DAI to be an RPG not an RTS.

[EnduinRaylene]

They went to a specific location to Fast Travel in the video you linked to me yesterday.

However, what does "Playing correctly" mean? If I'm playing MP, I expect it means that I'm to fulfill my role, which is what it means in MMOs. However, I have no clue what you mean for a SP game. None of what you list here is any different from any of the other titles in the franchise, or any other party based SP games I have played, nor, as I indicated, in MP. Playing SP meant that I could play it however I liked, even if that meant with all the cheat codes on, pushing Y to kill everything so I could speed run a world state for the Keep.

I can't check now but I'm pretty sure they fast traveled while the town of Redcliffe, not in the field itself.

Playing correctly is admittedly not worded well since it implies not doing so is wrong. Playing as the developer intended is more appropriate. You can play however you want to but there is still an intended way to play the game. If you enjoy cheating, I do myself in certain games, or using mods that's fine. You bought the game and are free to enjoy it however you like.

But as I said before a game like BG2 was intended to be played without constantly sleeping between battles to regain health and cheat the spell
restrictions. Many purists don't abuse that system or save scumming, while others myself included used both a lot. It was too easy and tempting not to.

That's likely why BioWare is restricting potions and is most definitely why Obsidian are restricting camping supplies in Pillars of Eternity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Making a good inventory system that balances all this stuff realistically and a that benefits the gameplay is really hard. I'm struggling to think of many games that do it well.

For individal character inventory: NWN

For shared party inventory: Wizardry 8

[fchopin]

yeah anything that happens in this game that is not well received is prolly to do with mp it is a well known fact.

I can not think of any other reason for limiting abilities apart for MP, if you can then tell me the reason.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't check now but I'm pretty sure they fast traveled while the town of Redcliffe, not in the field itself.

Playing correctly is admittedly not worded well since it implies not doing so is wrong. Playing as the developer intended is more appropriate. You can play however you want to but there is still an intended way to play the game. If you enjoy cheating, I do myself in certain games, or using mods that's fine. You bought the game and are free to enjoy it however you like.

But as I said before a game like BG2 was intended to be played without constantly sleeping between battles to regain health and cheat the spell
restrictions. Many purists don't abuse that system or save scumming, while others myself included used both a lot. It was too easy and tempting not to.

That's likely why BioWare is restricting potions and is most definitely why Obsidian are restricting camping supplies in Pillars of Eternity.

It's not cheating. You cannot cheat in a single-player game.

And I don't think developers should care how we play. While I really like what Obsidian is doing with most of Pillars of Eternity, I don't like the restricted camping supplies at all. It is not their job to tell us how to play their game.

Like save scumming. Why such a pejorative term? It's just reloading - that's a much more neutral term that describes exactly the same thing. And sometimes I do it a lot. Why? Because I enjoy it.

Isn't that the point of games? That we'll enjoy them? If you didn't want to "cheat", as you put it, you wouldn't have done so. So why should it matter to BioWare or Obsidian or any other players of you do it?

[robertthebard]

Sure they could do that, but it's easier to do it this way. It's a matter of diminishing returns. It's takes a lot of time and effort to implement either of those systems compared to just a carrying cap, and while doing so would be cool, the overall effect is rather limited and not overly appreciated by players. Some would like it a lot but most would not even notice. So those resources are better used elsewhere.

Same for the armor, weapons and other equipment. They put a limit on your inventory but it's not a serious one. Just enough to discourage being a serious pack rat.

Making a good inventory system that balances all this stuff realistically and a that benefits the gameplay is really hard. I'm struggling to think of many games that do it well.

The reason you're struggling with it is because players ultimately control their inventory. If they're packrats, nothing a dev does short of weight restrictions/cap limit on specific items will do anything to make it more manageable, and even then, players will carry the maximum amount of stuff they can, at all times, to be sure they're up for whatever comes.

Since the script to control how many potions one has in one's inventory can also be used to control how many they can craft, or how many they can loot, it's not that hard, since the groundwork is already laid: the script is written. An inventory call is an inventory call, and most scripters have a set of scripts that are premade for things like that. They plug in variables, and put it in. In fact, since we're discussing limits on what you can carry, I'll assume that's verified information, and put this out there: Those scripts are already in game to enforce that limit. The only thing missing is how they're used. Now, I have never scripted in Frostbite 3, but in both NWN games, the application of a script to an object was in a drop down menu, where you could select it and use it. That's not very complicated at all, since the script is already written.

[Reaverwind]

Isn't that the point of games? That we'll enjoy them? If you didn't want to "cheat", as you put it, you wouldn't have done so. So why should it matter to BioWare or Obsidian or any other players of you do it?

 

Indeed - what made the older RPG's so much fun was the ability to come up with a number of creative and unexpected ways to defeat encounters (anyone recall the soloing challenges on the old BG forums?). Now, apparently, we're supposed to defeat enemies in a specific way with a specific party, and we're supposed to like it? 

[pdusen]

I am merely relaying what it says. You can bring up any issues you may have with that philosophy with them.

 

Except that isn't actually what it says. Try again.

[Aaleel]

I can not think of any other reason for limiting abilities apart for MP, if you can then tell me the reason.

 

I figure it's to make all versions of the game as similar as possible.  That would be my guess.  But the more stuff I read about the game the more I'm settled into waiting for a while after the game is out to decide when and if to purchase it.

[robertthebard]

Except that isn't actually what it says. Try again.

You're absolutely right, it says nothing about them balancing combat in MP, anywhere. It was a total figment of my imagination. In the future, before I post any information that I think I might have gleaned from information directly from BioWare, I will consult you to be sure it's accurate. After all, it's not like I speak fluent English, or can read or anything, so I'll defer to you, and you can come in and set me straight yet again.

MP and SP were developed side by side. The multiplayer environment gave us a perfect opportunity for testing combat, creatures, and encounter design, and since the two environments are near-identical, every improvement spread to both parts of the game."

Not sure how to explain this, but again, I'll leave reading comprehension to you, you seem to rock at it.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I think limited ability slots mesh poorly with a system where you are already limited by class, talent selection, and specialization.

The Vanican magic system is the only time it worked, but that was because the spells were incredibly versatile and powerful at higher levels. And I'd argue it worked horribly for class balance.
 

I believe fast travel is only available at camps and cities.

 

That's my real problem with it. I always disliked how MMO-ish the system for Dragon Age was, and now it's been whittled down more and more until it's pretty insane.

 

You now have two weapon choices per class - if you're lucky -, and only two have any range options at all (archer rogue, mage). As of DA2 you can't even equip a weapon that goes against class restrictions. Origins' lack of weapon restrictions, combined with the weapon slot/swap system gave you some pretty neat options, even if they weren't "optimal". You could switch to a bow to attack someone at range, or to a melee weapon for when something got close. Even if it was only an auto-attack, it was a nice thing to be able to do. Almost..tactical, you could say. Now, if you're the ranged character, that's it for you. No melee except for whacking things with your bow. Melee character? Good luck taking down someone at range. Better start running.

 

Now you're not only weapon restricted, you've got the specializations whittled down to 1/run (which admittedly, could work), and now you're limited to eight abilities in combat - total?

 

I really dislike this change. The pigeonholing of characters into absolute, concrete "roles" in DA2 was a bad change, and they haven't done anything at all to alleviate it.

[Giantdeathrobot]

You're absolutely right, it says nothing about them balancing combat in MP, anywhere. It was a total figment of my imagination. In the future, before I post any information that I think I might have gleaned from information directly from BioWare, I will consult you to be sure it's accurate. After all, it's not like I speak fluent English, or can read or anything, so I'll defer to you, and you can come in and set me straight yet again.


Not sure how to explain this, but again, I'll leave reading comprehension to you, you seem to rock at it.

 

Your claim was that they didn't test single-player. The paragraph says that they tested multiplayer alongside single-player because the two environments are pretty similar. Find me a paragraph that says ''We didn't test single-player encounters, because obviously only asocial tossers play that'' and then you might have a point.

[EnduinRaylene]

 

It's not cheating. You cannot cheat in a single-player game.

And I don't think developers should care how we play. While I really like what Obsidian is doing with most of Pillars of Eternity, I don't like the restricted camping supplies at all. It is not their job to tell us how to play their game.

Like save scumming. Why such a pejorative term? It's just reloading - that's a much more neutral term that describes exactly the same thing. And sometimes I do it a lot. Why? Because I enjoy it.

Isn't that the point of games? That we'll enjoy them? If you didn't want to "cheat", as you put it, you wouldn't have done so. So why should it matter to BioWare or Obsidian or any other players of you do it?

You totally can cheat in SP game, it's just up to you to decide on whether or not it's wrong. Regardless I was speaking more to actual cheating, as in using trainers or cheat codes and mods, but even then you can cheat the system without such things. No game is perfect and there are always unintended exploits, that's my whole point, they are unintended. The devs created systems to be used in a particular fashion but other systems or flaws in them created other forms of gameplay. There isn't anything inherently wrong with using such exploits, many famous features of games were born from such unintended aspects. And it's especially not wrong if you still enjoy the game when using them, but it doesn't change the fact that many such exploits were not intentionally placed there and thus not meant to be used in the game. 

 

Save scumming is just save scumming, I've done it plenty of times. I didn't come up with the term, it's just what's used. There is a very big difference between save scumming and reloading. When I'm playing a game that has a dice roll for my success at lock picking, persuasion, or whatever and I have a low chance of success and I just keep reloading over and over again until I land on that 1/10 chance of success, that's save scumming. I'm cheating the system in order to benefit in a way the developer never intended me to. That's completely different from going into a fight, kind of winning, but reloading because I know I can do better, or accidentally messing up a quest or convo by selecting the wrong dialog option. This is why many devs put in systems that prevent save scumming like I described where the outcome of your success doesn't reset by reloading, so no matter what you do you will always fail or succeed. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it's up to the player to decide if they want to play that way, but I also don't begrudge devs from putting systems in place that help curb it.

 

It's like playing a game of golf where they accidentally don't specify how many Mulligans you can take. You might score 8 under par in the end, but it meant taking a Mulligan 40 times to do so, and however you like to spin it you played the game in a way that was not intended. Which again isn't wrong, though it's probably not a good way of getting better at the game, but if you still happened to enjoy yourself it's your choice. But you were cheating the system. There's no two ways about it.

 

Not cheating, as well, is not that easy. People really don't like losing. It can be quite addictive depending on how great an effect it has on gameplay. People give into temptation very easily and are very prone to developing bad habits and abusing systems like that. There are many games where I initially took the easy way out of things either through exploits in the game or using trainers, and only much later did I go back and play the games as they were intended and derived a lot more joy from them because I actually learned to use the systems correctly and won by my own skill and knowledge and not through other means that took the challenge out of it. Other games are just better when cheating, it all depends. So it's only natural that devs put systems in place to help curb that inclination and temptation, especially in more technical games, but that's all it is a curbing of it, not an all out prevention. They are trying to influence the player to playing how they intended, but they aren't stopping them outright from playing another way.

 

I'd get into the whole "Developers shouldn't care how we play," thing but that's way more philosophical and abstract than the current discussion of cheating and developer intentions and I don't care to get into right now, nor do I have the time. Suffice to say limits and restrictions are what make games possible, a dev who doesn't care about how their customers play their games are probably not very good at their jobs. I don't see what BioWare or Obsidian are doing is preventing people from playing games any other way, let alone forcing people to play the games in just one way only, "you will be this class with these abilities, used against these enemies in these ways and that's it." They aren't trying to railroad players into doing things exactly the same, they're simply trying to influence, or promote, players actions, not outright control them or stop them. If you really want to, and are determined to, use potions without moderation you can probably still get away with that, it will likely just take a bit more effort on your part to do so. And I see nothing wrong with that. It's not different from me save scumming a picking a lock, I might waste 15 minutes reloading again and again, but it's my choice to play the game that way, but that doesn't mean devs shouldn't put locks and lock picking mechanics in games, or come up with ways to give players a reason or another avenue to open them without circumventing the intended tools of the game.

[pdusen]

You're absolutely right, it says nothing about them balancing combat in MP, anywhere. It was a total figment of my imagination. In the future, before I post any information that I think I might have gleaned from information directly from BioWare, I will consult you to be sure it's accurate. After all, it's not like I speak fluent English, or can read or anything, so I'll defer to you, and you can come in and set me straight yet again.


Not sure how to explain this, but again, I'll leave reading comprehension to you, you seem to rock at it.

 

Considering that passage clearly says that MP allowed for more extensive testing of the combat system than SP alone, since MP and SP share the combat system, I have to assume at this point that you're being intentionally obtuse, so I will disengage. I apologize for feeding you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I just want the game world to make sense, and I have a hard time explaining the potion limit without appealing to metagame concerns.

I also don't begrudge devs from putting systems in place that help curb it.

I do.

I also don't agree that there are such a thing as exploits. There are merely features of the game. Whether they were intended does not matter, and may not even be knowable to the players. There might be an intended feature with an unforeseen use, and then the developers change it in a patch (this should be optional, by the way).

They're providing us with a toy. How can it possibly matter to them how we play with it? I can see why they'd be concerned with how well it works when being used as intended, but that's where their concern should stop.

[EnduinRaylene]

I just want the game world to make sense, and I have a hard time explaining the potion limit without appealing to metagame concerns.
I do.

I also don't agree that there are such a thing as exploits. There are merely features of the game. Whether they were intended does not matter, and may not even be knowable to the players. There might be an intended feature with an unforeseen use, and then the developers change it in a patch (this should be optional, by the way).

They're providing us with a toy. How can it possibly matter to them how we play with it? I can see why they'd be concerned with how well it works when being used as intended, but that's where their concern should stop.

The first part is just semantics and there's no point debating that since we clearly have different definitions of exploit or cheat. 

 

The second though is important, hypothetically you play a game where unintentionally a sleep spell which was supposed to succeed 1-100% of the time based on an enemies resistances, but due to an error it's now simply 100% of the time. You find this out early on and proceed to put every enemy to sleep in every fight and just wail on them until they die with little to no challenge from them. You then build your character's stats and abilities to focus on the highest DPS attacks only because what need of you of any other skill since you just put every enemy to sleep without fail.

 

So finally you come to late game boss who has, as many bosses do, an immunity to sleep. Now this game was intended to be hard, requiring the player to use buffs and debuffs, other various status attacks and abilities that influence the battle, but now all you have is a bunch of high dps abilities and as good as those seem you cannot for the life of you beat this boss. He's too strong, too tough and too big a challenge and you not only don't have the skills you need to defeat him, but you also lack all the experience and understanding of the ways of how combat works in the game to even mount an even passable offense. After attempting the fight a dozen times you quit the game out of frustration and never pick it up again. 

 

This is a bit extreme, but it's a theme that has occurred in many games and by many players in varying degrees. Where a useful trick or otherwise unintended feature removes all or most of the challenge from a game, but then at some point becomes null or ineffective compared to before, leaving the player unable to cope with the game in it's actual intended form and ultimately ruining their overall experience.

 

Few exploits ever become groundbreaking features like wavedashing or speeding up Space Invaders, most just harm the game like Dex not working forever in DAO. Others might not outright ruin the game, but they really don't add anything that worthwhile either, like duping exploits or infinite exp or money tricks. Same goes for less explicit bugs but rather tricks players learn like save scumming or loot spawn farming. Some of them should be removed from the game and or fixed, other's are just symptoms of bad design elsewhere in the game, very few ever reach a level where they should become an actual intended feature in the game.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I understand where Sylvius comes from, and as a single-player game (well, mostly), Inquisition shouldn't really try to balance things overmuch and limit the player in favor of that goal. I don't have much of a problem with limited health and healing supplies, but the 8 abilities better work in game or it will make it duller.

 

On the other hand, there also comes a point where the developper wants to craft something in particular, and has to stamp their foot and say ''no, you can't do that'' if the player can go overly off the rails and cheapen the experience. Even in old RPGs, there are tons of examples of this; in Fallout, you had 10 AP max no matter your agility or the drugs you used, and only 2 slots for item, anything else means paying AP to access in combat. Baldur's Gate had the Vancian magic system which is very limiting and had to be played around in order to be fun at all if you ask me. Planescape: Torment was extremely limiting in what item you could equip to whom, but in my opinion that only enhanced the experience and defined the characters.

 

Limiting the player is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, But the game had better be designed around that limitation, otherwise you're just taking away options for no real reason, and that's definitely a bad thing. I give Bioware the benefit of the doubt because it really seems like they designed their game with limitations from the ground up in order to offer a particular experience, and I might end up liking it tremendously.

 

One thing I won't fault Bioware for, however, is trying something new in the gameplay department. I don't want them to become complacent and just copy-paste Origins, even if I love that game to death. Inquisition should stand on its own, with its own design.

[Kall]

I can not think of any other reason for limiting abilities apart for MP, if you can then tell me the reason.

 

This is just my guess, but they way I see it, if you remove the limitation from the PC version, you've now broken every encounter in the game. It was designed based on the player having access to a set amount of abilities. If you remove that limitation, and let the player have every ability at their disposal, the difficulty takes a nose dive, and the game becomes a cake walk. The PC version would then have to balanced on it's own. It's much easier to work on balance when every platform has the same set limitations.

 

That's just my guess though.

[cjones91]

Meh....I can't say I like having artificial restrictions placed on me just to make the game challenging.It reeks of fake difficulty.