87 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Tlazolteotl wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...




yes the PC should have X2 HP compared to say a cobold mook...and a common feral animal should not be treated as if wearing a chainmail just to make it harder to hit...harder fights should involve higher level foes...not skewed mooks and percentages....but we will never agree on this.

Of course we disagree on this.


What exactly is the difference between "higher level foes" and "common mooks" ... ?


If you're going to say AC, hit points, and damage output, I'm going to smack you upside the head.




You only think they are "mooks" because you've been playing easy mode.




Regardless of how "high level" a general is, or how good his gear is, a single lucky arrow fired by a peasant will kill him.


That's how a properly balanced game ought to play.


You win with by virtue of timing and tactics, not by having higher stats.

in a game that is based off dnd preconcepts sadly that is the main difference...a lucky arrow from a paesant will do double damage at best an will be shrugged off by the lvl 20 warrior...in a game like the nwod where there are no HP and a lucky arrow can torpor a 500 years old vampire not so much.


The point is that rather than adding enemy numbers and more liutenents they just gave defenses to all including to things and people who could never have had them. And please enough with the "insaity is the real difficulty setting planned by the devs, everything else is dumbed down" routine. The devs stated that the baseline gameplay experience is Normal (just like bungie stated that the baseline halo experience is Heroic). Even Christina in the old Forum said Insanity was worked on late for balancing issues and the game itself suggests you play hardcore before insanity again underlining that that is not the baseline. If you want to think otherwise fine...I just hope that with a return to rpg elements the difficulty handling will also change and the devs will not take the easy way out.

[Tlazolteotl]

I did not say insanity was the real difficulty planned by the devs, I said it's the only difficulty that makes sense 'cos everything else is too imbalanced.

Look, it's fair enough if a game is made so most people can enjoy it. It's the same deal with save points.

I think games can do fine without a save feature, from street fighter to puzzle pirates, it's just, once again, RPG players having been "spoiled." If Shepard dies, you lose, game over, galaxy gets reaped, end of story. It makes no sense to reload, none at all.

Yes, I'm saying it's the FAULT of the people who aren't experts at shooters that caused normal to be a baseline.

[Pacifien]

Tlazolteotl wrote...
I did not say insanity was the real difficulty planned by the devs, I said it's the only difficulty that makes sense 'cos everything else is too imbalanced.

I believe Hardcore/Insanity are the imbalanced difficulties. Sure, I can do them easily enough, but ease of play doesn't equate to balanced play.

Tlazolteotl wrote...
Look, it's fair enough if a game is made so most people can enjoy it. It's the same deal with save points.
I think games can do fine without a save feature, from street fighter to puzzle pirates, it's just, once again, RPG players having been "spoiled." If Shepard dies, you lose, game over, galaxy gets reaped, end of story. It makes no sense to reload, none at all.
Yes, I'm saying it's the FAULT of the people who aren't experts at shooters that caused normal to be a baseline.

I remember being able to save my game when playing Space Quest. It's not an RPG.

I also remember not being able to save my game when playing MUDs. Talk about marathon playing.

Also couldn't save my game while playing Rogue, which is why I never found the... thing I was supposed to find.

Not a lot of people have time to restart from zero if they died at the 40 hour.

If the game is more satisfying by not using the save feature, you actually don't have to use it. But it's kind of bull**** to expect others not to for a whole multitude of reasons beyond "it makes the game too easy."

[Tlazolteotl]

I don't expect others to be 1337.

Frankly, if games were to be written for the likes of me, they'd sell maybe 2000 copies rather than 2 million.

That's not the point. The point is, there are imbalanced and implausible game "features" because people suck at games.

[Pacifien]

Well, if you acknowledge you're not the norm in player ability, then I think it would be difficult for you to grasp what is considered balanced play for the majority market.

In my mind, balanced gameplay allows for every ability and weapon of the game to have similar viability no matter the difficulty. What should change in difficulty is the improvement of the AI and tactics, which is where I think ME2 failed. I don't know how else to explain it except maybe using Harbinger as an example: no matter the difficulty, his tactic and powers were the same in the game whereas they should have changed dramatically on the Insanity setting.

Modifié par Pacifien, 14 mai 2010 - 02:00 .

[crimzontearz]

Dimitto Auriculas......



that is all



a cookie tho whoever understands



Tlazolteotl, you are the god of gaming and your 1337ness is matched only by your awesomeness the size of your virtual manhood



with that said Pacifen, I totally Agree

[Tlazolteotl]

Pacifien wrote...

Well, if you acknowledge you're not the norm in player ability, then I think it would be difficult for you to grasp what is considered balanced play for the majority market.

In my mind, balanced gameplay allows for every ability and weapon of the game to have similar viability no matter the difficulty. What should change in difficulty is the improvement of the AI and tactics, which is where I think ME2 failed. I don't know how else to explain it except maybe using Harbinger as an example: no matter the difficulty, his tactic and powers were the same in the game whereas they should have changed dramatically on the Insanity setting.

Taking multiplayer games as an example, you do not compensate for one team's ability (or lack thereof) by giving them more HP.
You simply give them a ranking, and make sure they don't end up in games against the national champions of sweden or somesuch.

However, it is imperative that the mechanics of all sides start off on a level playing field.
If your foes take no time at all to kill, and are chronically susceptible to effects that render them helpless, their only purpose in life being to flail helpless at you until you kill them, that is not the least bit balanced.

Why can't your foes lift you off the ground, rendering you helpless while they shoot you til you're dead?
It's ridiculously cheap, that's why.
Why do their drones only hit once before disappearing? Why don't they have snipers that only duck out of cover momentarily and blow your head off?
These are abilities against which there is no defense.

If you can't act, it's irrelevant how many keys you can press in a minute, or how accurately you can judge a time window to get into cover. You're already dead.

Do you mean, by saying some abilities don't work as well, that biotics are somehow ineffective?
There's a 3s cooldown on pull ... if you can just pull field most everybody, that's downright broken.
But wait ... guns kill faster than pull. What's the deal with that?
Having foes with the constitution of a paper cutout does not a balanced game make.

[Tlazolteotl]

crimzontearz wrote...

Dimitto Auriculas......

that is all

a cookie tho whoever understands

Tlazolteotl, you are the god of gaming and your 1337ness is matched only by your awesomeness the size of your virtual manhood

with that said Pacifen, I totally Agree

Let me put it this way.
There's a possible rules change in the game of tennis, and the brass that decides on these things are seeking opinions.

2 groups of people have opinions, a local tennis club vs a bunch of professional tennis players.
Experts in a field are just that. Experts in a field.

The average joe on the street is affected by policy of everything from economics to law, and they will **** about it, but would you let anyone who isn't an expert in the field decide policy? That would be as retarded as Conroy deciding internet legislation.

I'm saying computer games have coddled their players too much.
You don't have a "I'll win no matter what, gimme everything from reloads to a bunch of extra lives" in any other form of recreation, do you?
Do you get reloads in scrabble, or chess, or tennis?
Heck, do you get reloads in your english exam, or your driving test, or roulette at the casino?

What happens when everybody wins, all the time, and it doesn't matter what you do?
People aspire to mediocrity, that's what. Or communism. I'm not sure which.

It's no accident that games such as chess and bridge have a decent reputation, whilst videogames are "for children."
Well, duh ... when the playerbase is immature, what else can you expect?

[crimzontearz]

sorry, no point dragging this on given your statements...

[Pacifien]

I am not arguing whether normal setting should have actually been called super easy setting while insanity should have been called normal. I am trying to describe what makes for balanced gameplay across all difficulties and what makes for effective increased difficulty. In Mass Effect 2, gameplay is not balanced across all difficulties and the changes they do make with increased difficulty are not what I'd call effective changes.

Decrying the maturity level of video gamers does not magically make Mass Effect 2's insanity difficulty balanced or improved in comparison to the other difficulties of the game. Nor does ranting about the poor state of affairs of games in general. If you'd like to argue that the gameplay is balanced from casual to insanity difficulty in Mass Effect 2, by all means. If you'd like to argue that the developers somehow stumbled upon perfection in the design of the insanity difficulty, again, let's argue that. I've already stated how I think the insanity difficulty should have been implemented, but I'm willing to revisit that if you missed it the first time or would like to argue a specific point about it.

[javierabegazo]

crimzontearz wrote...

sorry, no point dragging this on given your statements...

So may I lock this now?

[Pacifien]

javierabegazo wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
sorry, no point dragging this on given your statements...

So may I lock this now?

............fine.

[crimzontearz]

javierabegazo wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

sorry, no point dragging this on given your statements...

So may I lock this now?

lol Jav I said it was ok 2 pages ago