80 réponses à ce sujet

[- Archangel -]

Razcalking1978 wrote...

Also, please add the option for me to not be affected by enemy spells or weapons.
Those who don't like that option simply don't have to use it.

Wow, that's a HUGE strawman you built all by yourself.  But congrats on being predictable, I knew someone would use pretty much that exact argument.

[scyld]

I'd love a feature that didn't consume potions when I use them to heal party members.



It's just an option, so why can't we have more options, right?

[Shadow_Viper]

Part of the higher difficulties is that friendly fire in enabled. If you don't want friendly fire, turn down the difficulty. Difficulty settings are good just the way they are. Great job Bioware!! 

IFSW(It's Fine, Stop Whining).

[- Archangel -]

S.Hall wrote...

This community is incredibly rude and closed minded to suggestions.

It's not unique to this community.  Pretty much any community has it's fanboys who don't want to change anything because the game is "OMG PERFECT !!!!1111" and the "Games must be as hard as possible so I can feel tougher" contigent.

[- Archangel -]

ReadNLearn wrote...

- Archangel - wrote...

It's always funny how there are some who try to convince people more options are a bad thing.

As a software developer, I can tell you that it is *absolutely* true. More options are OFTEN a bad thing. Here's a few reasons why:
1. Complicates the UI
2. Needs to be documented
3. Increases overall complexity in the software
4. Introduces bugs

There are actually several more reasons, but they become more specific based on target audience of the software, sophistication of the users, current complexity, etc.

Now, overall that's not to say features shouldn't be added, as there can be considerable value obviously in new features. Plus, a good feature can lessen the minuses listed above rather than add to them. My point is that there is a lot to take into consideration, and one should not blindly assume that it is always a good thing to be adding features.

Your argument is moot as the option is already built into the game and activated when the game is in easy mode.  This would just add one checkbox on the options panel...somehow I don't think that is going to clutter the UI to unuseable levels...probably take the UI team about 5 minutes to add it, and the coding team about the same length of time to link it to the switch that's already there.

[scyld]

- Archangel - wrote...

S.Hall wrote...

This community is incredibly rude and closed minded to suggestions.

It's not unique to this community.  Pretty much any community has it's fanboys who don't want to change anything because the game is "OMG PERFECT !!!!1111" and the "Games must be as hard as possible so I can feel tougher" contigent.

I'm not a fan boy, and I have criticized plenty of aspects of the game (some graphical aspects, the inclusion of an advertisement for Warden's Keep for those that have not purchased it, problems with the design of the Rogue class/the dagger bug, etc.)

However, what you're asking for is to selectively turn off and on some one of the aspects of the game that makes it challenging. That's silly and unprecedented in most RPGs.

If you don't like friendly fire, then play it on Easy. You're the one saying that people want the game to be hard only so they can brag, but here you want to make the game easier but still have it on the Hard setting. Why is that? Is it so you can tell people that you totally played it on Hard?

[MortalFoil]

ReadNLearn wrote...

- Archangel - wrote...

It's always funny how there are some who try to convince people more options are a bad thing.

As a software developer, I can tell you that it is *absolutely* true. More options are OFTEN a bad thing. Here's a few reasons why:
1. Complicates the UI
2. Needs to be documented
3. Increases overall complexity in the software
4. Introduces bugs

There are actually several more reasons, but they become more specific based on target audience of the software, sophistication of the users, current complexity, etc.

Now, overall that's not to say features shouldn't be added, as there can be considerable value obviously in new features. Plus, a good feature can lessen the minuses listed above rather than add to them. My point is that there is a lot to take into consideration, and one should not blindly assume that it is always a good thing to be adding features.

That is true of any change you make. All that is already taken into account as just part of doing business. Therefore, unless it's a total rehaul of a particular system, those things are considered, but don't affect whether you do it or not. Just the timeframe.

[Shadow_Viper]

- Archangel - wrote...

S.Hall wrote...

This community is incredibly rude and closed minded to suggestions.

It's not unique to this community.  Pretty much any community has it's fanboys who don't want to change anything because the game is "OMG PERFECT !!!!1111" and the "Games must be as hard as possible so I can feel tougher" contigent.

Pretty much any community has it's whiners that will cry/complain/nitpick/whine about the smallest things and demand that the game developers change the game perfectly to their likings. Should anyone disagree with them, they use labels like "troll," "fanboy," and/or "invalid," all three are example of what's called a CDM(Crybaby Defense Mechanism). 

[ziphnor]

I would never turn off friendly fire, but i can understand why some people want a more customizable difficulty level. If you take a look at http://dragonage.gul....php/difficulty you will see that a difficulty level is made up of 14 different settings. I wouldnt have any problems with allowing people to set a "custom" difficulty level where you could create your own difficulty level.



On the other hand, allowing such changes takes development time that could be used elsewhere. However, i suspect most of the time would be spend on the UI, so perhaps it would be an idea to have a file somewhere where a custom difficulty level could be set up? Or perhaps it can be done easily through the debugging console? ( http://dragonage.gul...doku.php/cheats )

[NotSoEager]

Razcalking1978 wrote...

Also, please add the option for me to not be affected by enemy spells or weapons.
Those who don't like that option simply don't have to use it.

Ha ha this is the perfect answer to the guy who thinks that more options would not be a bad thing.


I suggest Bioware recalls the game now and relaunches it with the following difficulty settings:
1. Brain, what is that?
2. I have not got a brain.
3. I am too lazy to play
4. I want to be baby sat through it.
5. Someone hold my hands.
6. Easy
7. Somewhat less easy
8. Slightly more difficult but should still be a walk in the park.
9. Challenge difficulty for  the retarded
10. Medium.
11. Medium Rare.
12. Somewhat hard.
13. A little harder.
14. Closer to hard but not really
15. ok just below hard
16. Now here is hard.
17. Hard.
18. Somewhat really hard.
19. Closer to really hard.
20. Really hard.
21. Harder than really hard.
22. Closer to Night mare.
23. Are we there yet?
24. Night mare.
25. Just woke up from nightmare.
26. Can you feel the heat?
27. Something is burning.
28. I can smell the sulphur.
29. I can see fire.
30. Is that hell?
31. Ok this is hell.
32. Ok this is really hell.
33. Hell.
34. I want my mummy now.

Modifié par NotSoEager, 06 novembre 2009 - 11:34 .

[Gvaz]

Having the option would be babying.

[MortalFoil]

NotSoEager wrote...

Razcalking1978 wrote...

Also, please add the option for me to not be affected by enemy spells or weapons.
Those who don't like that option simply don't have to use it.

Ha ha this is the perfect answer to the guy who thinks that more options would not be a bad thing.

No, not really since no one is asking for those things. So it doesn't have any relevance in this thread.

[MortalFoil]

GvazElite wrote...

Having the option would be babying.

If that's the case, why haven't you started any threads asking for the removal of all difficulties but Nightmare? That is quite hypocritical of you. According to your logic, any compromise to the difficulty of the game is babying. Everying lower than Nightmare is exactly that.

Modifié par MortalFoil, 06 novembre 2009 - 11:34 .

[Shadow_Viper]

MortalFoil wrote...

NotSoEager wrote...

Razcalking1978 wrote...

Also, please add the option for me to not be affected by enemy spells or weapons.
Those who don't like that option simply don't have to use it.

Ha ha this is the perfect answer to the guy who thinks that more options would not be a bad thing.

No, not really since no one is asking for those things. So it doesn't have any relevance in this thread.

Sure it does, it's requesting an addtional option to the difficulty settings, just as the thread title is doing. Seems like the perfect place to continue making such requests.  

[MortalFoil]

Shadow_Viper wrote...

MortalFoil wrote...

NotSoEager wrote...

Razcalking1978 wrote...

Also, please add the option for me to not be affected by enemy spells or weapons.
Those who don't like that option simply don't have to use it.

Ha ha this is the perfect answer to the guy who thinks that more options would not be a bad thing.

No, not really since no one is asking for those things. So it doesn't have any relevance in this thread.

Sure it does, it's requesting an addtional option to the difficulty settings, just as the thread title is doing. Seems like the perfect place to continue making such requests.  

No, that would be appropriate in it's own thread. This thread is about the option to remove friendly fire from higher difficulties. It's quite evident from the title if you'd take the time to read it. But you know what, if someone really did want that, I wouldn't mind in the least. I simply wouldn't use it.

Modifié par MortalFoil, 06 novembre 2009 - 11:36 .

[- Archangel -]

*sigh*



It's a shame this forum has been infested with morons since release.



It was nice while it lasted.

[Kenobi_a]

NO, Bioware please don't. I feel that even having that option in there defeats the challenge this game should have and is contrary to the fan base. Let the modders take care of it if one is so inclined.

You know it's normal to get hit with an area effect in "normal" mode. and "hard" mode and "nightmare" mode

Its easy to not get hit with an area effect in "easy" mode.

Modifié par Kenobi_a, 07 novembre 2009 - 03:01 .

[- Archangel -]

So, how does giving other people the option affect YOU ?

[Kelston]

ReadNLearn wrote...

- Archangel - wrote...

It's always funny how there are some who try to convince people more options are a bad thing.

As a software developer, I can tell you that it is *absolutely* true. More options are OFTEN a bad thing. Here's a few reasons why:
1. Complicates the UI
2. Needs to be documented
3. Increases overall complexity in the software
4. Introduces bugs

There are actually several more reasons, but they become more specific based on target audience of the software, sophistication of the users, current complexity, etc.

Now, overall that's not to say features shouldn't be added, as there can be considerable value obviously in new features. Plus, a good feature can lessen the minuses listed above rather than add to them. My point is that there is a lot to take into consideration, and one should not blindly assume that it is always a good thing to be adding features.

Except this is friendly fire. This isn't a huge change to the game. This isn't about adding better pathing options or adding more complicated tactics options. Friendly Fire is very much an on/off switch that has no bearing on anything else.

Friendly Fire doesn't change the UI. Friendly Fire doesn't need to be documented. Do you really need a page long entry on what Friendly Fire is? Friendly Fire does not increase software complexity if it's already in there. Turning Friendly Fire on and off introduces no bugs because it is not a special circumstance effect. Friendly casted abilities either affect friendlies or it does not.

It is fanboyism to blindly defend BioWare or shooting down every suggestion. Throwing out ridiculous arguments like "I want to turn on invincibility" is stupid and you're clearly looking to flame rather than add to the discussion.

It's ironic that you people will complain about the quality of the forum posters when fanboys are the most guilty of ruining discussions by throwing completely illogical statements into it and causing 3 page tangents that are completely unrelated to the discussion.

If pathing and collision detection in DA:O was better, i'd have no problem with friendly fire. But it's not so it removes inventive tactics like offensive aoe traps in many situations.

And the final question really is: How does it affect you?

There is no achievement for nightmare mode. It is a single player game that will never have multiplayer. So how does having an option to remove friendly fire have an affect on your enjoyment of the game? Why are you nerdraging over something that does absolutely nothing to you? You act as though someone suggesting it killed your father and burned down your house with the amount of illogical garbage you use to try and justify not having it.

So really, why does it matter to you? You don't like the option, don't use it.

Modifié par Kelston, 07 novembre 2009 - 03:38 .

[Mad Method]

I'm all for this suggestion. A friendly fire option would be good.

[lordhugorune]

This option has no purpose other than trivialising the tactical aspect of the game - and if you want to do this for any reason, casual difficulty is the way to go.

[- Archangel -]

Stand by to have the 'tards tell you how horrible the idea is because it's not what THEY want the devs to work on.

[Mythgaard]

This is a rather amusing sideshow...I'm not really clear on where the opposition's stance is coming from...are you all afraid that if the option is there that someone will *suspect* you use it and it will somehow shrink your e-peen? Seriously, get over yourselves.



I'd probably use it, were it an option. Oh no! Am I not internet elite and a hardcore gamer?!



My life is over!



/golfclap for the wankerbrigade

[Sereaph502]

Theres nothing wrong with more options.



Or does everybody here feel soo threatened by an OPTION to turn off friendly fire that wouldn't ever affect them?

[lordhugorune]

- Archangel - wrote...

Stand by to have the 'tards tell you how horrible the idea is because it's not what THEY want the devs to work on.

The challenge levels are set the way they are for a reason.

If you find that a normal challenge setting is too much for you, there are two very good options available to you already:
a) improve your tactics
adjust your challenge setting to casual, which eliminates friendly fire.

There are real issues for devs to work on, they shouldn't waste their energy solving problems that don't exist.