273 réponses à ce sujet

[Raxxman]

Honestly mate, coming here looking for intelligent conversations is like going to the desert to get a drink.

[Shockwave3000]

Paxsis wrote...

Well, as a warrior, I can safely say that some points don't seem to be made for anything but mages. It can be insanely hard to survive sometimes, even on normal

This I completely agree with.  Also as a warrior, I dont care if there are 4 people beating me down, I'm running towards that mage to kill him/her.  Nothing hurts more than getting hit the 7-8 times from that darn lighting bolt they send out.

[JaegerBane]

thisisme8 wrote...

I think it's getting close to an "End of line" from Mr. Woo. I feel it.

Jaeger and Schyzm, I'm pretty sure neither of you are going to relent, can we just let this thread die?

I'm afraid I only give as good as I get, thisisme

MerinTB wrote...
I know, right?

And does she seem to have the personality that she'd stand down, fade into the background, play it safe-
or
would she show off as flashy as she can and try and out-fight the rest of the party to prove her superiority?

Precisely. My Morrigan basically just cheeses out over the whole Primal line. She didn't seem creepy enough to be a Entropy girl but I couldn't see why she'd bother learning anything that didn't kill everyone, either

I basically used her as an Artillery piece.

[Shockwave3000]

SheffSteel wrote...

People whining about overpowered builds destroyed Diablo 2 for me.  The devs solution in that case was to nerf everything and then soup up nightmare and hell difficulties to the point where you were FORCED to play multiplayer if you wanted to get anywhere.

I found the difficulty in this game to be appropriate and I feel that no fix is needed.

While I completely agree with this when you start the game, you have to admit, the Amazon was absolutely a beast when you got her up high.  I mean you could pretty much do Hell cows without even having to move or see the cows on the screen before they died.

Modifié par Shockwave3000, 25 novembre 2009 - 08:24 .

[Dex1701]

I agree that it would be nice for warriors to have some more valuable abilities. I also agree that AW shouldn't be able to so easily outshine a warrior when it comes to melee and tanking...they should really have to invest points to be able to do that.

Outside of AW, though, I think mages are fine. I mean, yes, they are very versatile and have powerful spells, but they're fragile (outside of AW), and this is how mages are treated in most western RPGs.

They could probably be alleviated by making the skill trees longer and placing the more powerful abilities at the end, so you have to spend more points in a tree leading up to getting the really powerful abilities. It would also be cool if some of those abilities had tougher pre-requisites, and perhaps if the effectiveness of abilities in a certain tree was effected by how many total points you'd invested into said tree. For example, Flame Blast would become more effective if you'd invested in Fire all the way up to Inferno.

That said, I really don't understand why people feel that single-player games don't need to be balanced. It's important to make all of the classes important and fun to play. Why is this so difficult for some of the "single-player games don't need balance" people to understand?

Anyway, I don't think the balance issues are as bad as some make them out to be (perhaps outside of AW/BM), but there are some issues that would make some classes more fun to play.

Modifié par Dex1701, 25 novembre 2009 - 08:21 .

[MerinTB]

Schyzm wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

About the truck-in-living-room analogy.
If you see a problem, the solution is not to avoid the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. Saying "if you think mages are broken, don't play mages" is to me the equivalent of saying, "if you're bothered about your living room having been destroyed by a truck, don't go in the living room". I don't want to abandon a third of the playable classes any more than I'd want to abandon a room in my house.

...

except your house is your property and someone not only damaged it but left their vehicle parked there.  This is breaking the law.  Probably the biggest investment of your life, the place you live, was just wrecked.  This is a big deal.

DAO is a luxury item - a game.  And you can play the mage if, as I've seen many people say, "you are insane if you don't!"  No one is stopping you from playing it or not.  No one is stopping you from having 3 mages or no mages in your party.  The game doesn't suddenly block any more content by you not playing a mage than it does if you don't play a dwarf or if you don't play a rogue.

Honestly, it is a horrible analogy.

It's like comparing the holocaust to health care reform, or a schoolyard bully to Hitler, or having a headache to having cancer.

Worse, it's like comparing someone having a better selection of Magic the Gathering cards in his deck than your deck to someone stealing your car.

actually I thought it was a very apt analogy, and accurately conveys how people who don't want to "just not use it" feel about the vapidity and insipidness of that line of argument.  

Yes, because property damage is what everyone thinks of when discussing options in a video game.

Go to someone who's had a truck run into their house and try telling them "I know what you are going through - this is exactly like how mages are overpowered in this video game I play."

That'll go over real well.

Do you even understand what an analogy is?

It's not "getting an F on a test" is bad and "having your whole family - wife, son, newborn daughter, die in a drunk driving accident" is bad therefor you can use one to compare to the other.

Sheesh.

no one is hurt in the room nor in the game, they are both merely unacceptable situations.  what are you? the analogy ****?

One is a real world situation where your property is damaged and there's a huge object left on your property preventing you from getting the damage fixed.
The other is a video game.
One will cost money, time, and emotional anguish to the person who owns the home.
The other is a video game.
One is something that can cause law suits, insurance premiums to go up, be a real issue in the dead of winter, may have wrecked cherished furniture, family heirlooms, expensive home entertainment equipment.
The other is a video game.
One you have to deal with - the city would not allow you to leave your house with a truck parked in it.
The other is a video game.

Both are unacceptable situations?
I don't think anyone would argue that it's good the truck didn't wreck the house.
I have seen MANY disagree that there even IS a situation with the game, and then there are plenty who might agree that some part of the situation does exist (i.e. mages MAY BE more powerful than other classes) but who do not have an issue with it.

One is a tragedy that I don't think anyone would say was a good thing or would deny happened.
The other is something that some people are upset about, other people aren't upset about, and still other people don't think the something exists.

The two things are not comparable.

[MerinTB]

Dex1701 wrote...

I agree that it would be nice for warriors to have some more valuable abilities. I also agree that AW shouldn't be able to so easily outshine a warrior when it comes to melee and tanking...they should really have to invest points to be able to do that.

Outside of AW, though, I think mages are fine. I mean, yes, they are very versatile and have powerful spells, but they're fragile (outside of AW), and this is how mages are treated in most western RPGs.

They could probably be alleviated by making the skill trees longer and placing the more powerful abilities at the end, so you have to spend more points in a tree leading up to getting the really powerful abilities. It would also be cool if some of those abilities had tougher pre-requisites, and perhaps if the effectiveness of abilities in a certain tree was effected by how many total points you'd invested into said tree. For example, Flame Blast would become more effective if you'd invested in Fire all the way up to Inferno.

That said, I really don't understand why people feel that single-player games don't need to be balanced. It's important to make all of the classes important and fun to play. Why is this so difficult for some of the "single-player games don't need balance" people to understand?

Anyway, I don't think the balance issues are as bad as some make them out to be (perhaps outside of AW/BM), but there are some issues that would make some classes more fun to play.

I agree that classes need to be balanced for "fun" and "playability" -
which are completely different animals than "X class does uber-damage compared to Y class."

I believe "fun" and "playability" are two different things that can intersect, and "damage dealing" is the same.

Fun to play can include many non-combat things - this isn't Diablo or Counterstrike or Command and Conquer - this is a story-driven role-playing game.

[SirGCal]

Skellimancer wrote...

SirGCal wrote...

oYOSSARIANo wrote...

My first play through I was a rogue. My top damage dealt was 87 during the game. I started a new game as a mage last night and I have already done 110 damage with one spell. They do seem powerful.

My lvl 8 rogue has a 660 pointer already... On nightmare...

Try mana clash on a group of casters.

It can dish out well over 2k damage in all... On nightmare..

using aoe's sure... We're talking single target here...

[Schyzm]

MerinTB wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

About the truck-in-living-room analogy.
If you see a problem, the solution is not to avoid the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. Saying "if you think mages are broken, don't play mages" is to me the equivalent of saying, "if you're bothered about your living room having been destroyed by a truck, don't go in the living room". I don't want to abandon a third of the playable classes any more than I'd want to abandon a room in my house.

...

except your house is your property and someone not only damaged it but left their vehicle parked there.  This is breaking the law.  Probably the biggest investment of your life, the place you live, was just wrecked.  This is a big deal.

DAO is a luxury item - a game.  And you can play the mage if, as I've seen many people say, "you are insane if you don't!"  No one is stopping you from playing it or not.  No one is stopping you from having 3 mages or no mages in your party.  The game doesn't suddenly block any more content by you not playing a mage than it does if you don't play a dwarf or if you don't play a rogue.

Honestly, it is a horrible analogy.

It's like comparing the holocaust to health care reform, or a schoolyard bully to Hitler, or having a headache to having cancer.

Worse, it's like comparing someone having a better selection of Magic the Gathering cards in his deck than your deck to someone stealing your car.

actually I thought it was a very apt analogy, and accurately conveys how people who don't want to "just not use it" feel about the vapidity and insipidness of that line of argument.  

Yes, because property damage is what everyone thinks of when discussing options in a video game.

Go to someone who's had a truck run into their house and try telling them "I know what you are going through - this is exactly like how mages are overpowered in this video game I play."

That'll go over real well.

Do you even understand what an analogy is?

It's not "getting an F on a test" is bad and "having your whole family - wife, son, newborn daughter, die in a drunk driving accident" is bad therefor you can use one to compare to the other.

Sheesh.

no one is hurt in the room nor in the game, they are both merely unacceptable situations.  what are you? the analogy ****?

One is a real world situation where your property is damaged and there's a huge object left on your property preventing you from getting the damage fixed.
The other is a video game.
One will cost money, time, and emotional anguish to the person who owns the home.
The other is a video game.
One is something that can cause law suits, insurance premiums to go up, be a real issue in the dead of winter, may have wrecked cherished furniture, family heirlooms, expensive home entertainment equipment.
The other is a video game.
One you have to deal with - the city would not allow you to leave your house with a truck parked in it.
The other is a video game.

Both are unacceptable situations?
I don't think anyone would argue that it's good the truck didn't wreck the house.
I have seen MANY disagree that there even IS a situation with the game, and then there are plenty who might agree that some part of the situation does exist (i.e. mages MAY BE more powerful than other classes) but who do not have an issue with it.

One is a tragedy that I don't think anyone would say was a good thing or would deny happened.
The other is something that some people are upset about, other people aren't upset about, and still other people don't think the something exists.

The two things are not comparable.

I r analogy ****!  ur analogy r unacceptable!  rar!  

[CitizenThom]

I haven't played through on Warrior, but I'm curious if they have anything like the force pull of certian enemies in the game. For my mage playthrough, the early levels were tough. With Spirit Healer, and then Arcane Warrior, it gets easier, but not until you have all four skills purchased for Arcane Warrior. Once you do the latter, it gets a lot easier. The stamina regeneration increase from some armor sets seems to help mana regen as well... which makes it easier too.



The game hasn't become cakewalk yet for me, but I imagine if stamina regen on armor sets was a different variable in the game than mana regen, it might nerf the arcane warrior a little bit. The only other nerf would be to reduce the melee damage for Arcane Warriors, so that their output of damage was still mana dependent.



But to be honest, I think it's just a matter of not taking Arcane Warrior if it breaks the game for you. On the other hand, I wish Archer Rogues could hit for damage similar to Mage's staffs at least, I always wanted to make my party two warriors and two mages to make sure that the damage output is there when I was going through the deep roads, but you need the Rogue for trap detection. When I playthrough with Warrior, Templar's definately going to be the first specialisation, so that I have a chance against enemy mages, but I'll probably miss the bag of tricks that you can have with mages or rogues, and it doesn't seem like the damage and defense are enough greater to make up for not having as many tricks, judged on the NPC's in my party anyways.

[CitizenThom]

...

Modifié par CitizenThom, 25 novembre 2009 - 08:38 .

[CitizenThom]

double post...

Modifié par CitizenThom, 25 novembre 2009 - 08:37 .

[MerinTB]

Schyzm wrote...

I r analogy ****!  ur analogy r unacceptable!  rar!  

And when arguments fail, some people resort to this sort of thing.

As Jay Novella would describe it, it's basically saying "Oh, yeah?!?" to something you cannot factually dispute.

I think I'm done trying to reason with Schyzm here.

[Dex1701]

MerinTB wrote...
I agree that classes need to be balanced for "fun" and "playability" -
which are completely different animals than "X class does uber-damage compared to Y class."

I believe "fun" and "playability" are two different things that can intersect, and "damage dealing" is the same.

Fun to play can include many non-combat things - this isn't Diablo or Counterstrike or Command and Conquer - this is a story-driven role-playing game.

Sure, but you don't want a player to be disappointed with their character because that character is impotent compared to other classes.  You also don't want the player to feel like the abilities of the class they chose are a lousy subset of another class's abilities.  I think if warriors were tweaked to be ever-so-slightly more powerful and AW builds were more costly (upgrade-point-wise) the classes would be balanced fairly well.

[addiction21]

MerinTB wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

I r analogy ****!  ur analogy r unacceptable!  rar!  

And when arguments fail, some people resort to this sort of thing.

As Jay Novella would describe it, it's basically saying "Oh, yeah?!?" to something you cannot factually dispute.

I think I'm done trying to reason with Schyzm here.

"Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

[Schyzm]

MerinTB wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

I r analogy ****!  ur analogy r unacceptable!  rar!  

And when arguments fail, some people resort to this sort of thing.

As Jay Novella would describe it, it's basically saying "Oh, yeah?!?" to something you cannot factually dispute.

I think I'm done trying to reason with Schyzm here.

I don't want a 3 page argument with someone who has a bizarre hangup on a pretty standard use of an analogy.  I explained how I thought it captured the feeling accurately and rebutted your hysterical objections to it(there is no violence in the analogy yet you kept comparing it to the holocaust or rape or murder and other absurdist crap).

I've done my part.  your analogy ****ness simply isn't interesting enough to enlighten you forever.

[SheffSteel]

MerinTB wrote...
a lot of emotional stuff about crime and property damage

If you can't see past the emotional impact, try to think of a neutral, non criminal problem that would make your living room unlivable. Okay? Now, would you rather address the problem or resolve never to use your living room again?

If you still can't get past the analogy, ignore it.  For your convenience, here's what you're left with:-
If you see a problem, the solution is not to avoid the problem and pretend it doesn't exist.

[andorman01]

Don't play an AW?



It's not an MMO, so you're not stuck competing with overpowered classes if you don't want to.

[JaegerBane]

MerinTB wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

I r analogy ****!  ur analogy r unacceptable!  rar!  

And when arguments fail, some people resort to this sort of thing.

As Jay Novella would describe it, it's basically saying "Oh, yeah?!?" to something you cannot factually dispute.

I think I'm done trying to reason with Schyzm here.

Aren't we all?

[SheffSteel]

andorman01 wrote...

Don't play an AW?

It's not an MMO, so you're not stuck competing with overpowered classes if you don't want to.

Brilliant! I cannot fault your logic.


Oh wait, I somehow mis-spelt the word "follow".

[andorman01]

SheffSteel wrote...

andorman01 wrote...

Don't play an AW?

It's not an MMO, so you're not stuck competing with overpowered classes if you don't want to.

Brilliant! I cannot fault your logic.


Oh wait, I somehow mis-spelt the word "follow".

It's one specialization of one class, obviously made for those who want an easy playthrough.  Get over it.

Of course I wouldn't expect anyone who compares real life tragedy to video game balance to follow any sort of logic.

[Kaosgirl]

Schyzm wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

About the truck-in-living-room analogy.
If you see a problem, the solution is not to avoid the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. Saying "if you think mages are broken, don't play mages" is to me the equivalent of saying, "if you're bothered about your living room having been destroyed by a truck, don't go in the living room". I don't want to abandon a third of the playable classes any more than I'd want to abandon a room in my house.

...

except your house is your property and someone not only damaged it but left their vehicle parked there.  This is breaking the law.  Probably the biggest investment of your life, the place you live, was just wrecked.  This is a big deal.

DAO is a luxury item - a game.  And you can play the mage if, as I've seen many people say, "you are insane if you don't!"  No one is stopping you from playing it or not.  No one is stopping you from having 3 mages or no mages in your party.  The game doesn't suddenly block any more content by you not playing a mage than it does if you don't play a dwarf or if you don't play a rogue.

Honestly, it is a horrible analogy.

It's like comparing the holocaust to health care reform, or a schoolyard bully to Hitler, or having a headache to having cancer.

Worse, it's like comparing someone having a better selection of Magic the Gathering cards in his deck than your deck to someone stealing your car.

actually I thought it was a very apt analogy, and accurately conveys how people who don't want to "just not use it" feel about the vapidity and insipidness of that line of argument.  

Yes, because property damage is what everyone thinks of when discussing options in a video game.

Go to someone who's had a truck run into their house and try telling them "I know what you are going through - this is exactly like how mages are overpowered in this video game I play."

That'll go over real well.

Do you even understand what an analogy is?

It's not "getting an F on a test" is bad and "having your whole family - wife, son, newborn daughter, die in a drunk driving accident" is bad therefor you can use one to compare to the other.

Sheesh.

no one is hurt in the room nor in the game, they are both merely unacceptable situations.  what are you? the analogy ****?

I'm financially hurt by the vehicle smashed through my wall.
I'm... er... what am I supposed to feel about an overpowered character/class in a SINGLE PLAYER, PARTY-BASED game system again?  Retarded for not being as quick to exploit it as others, guilty over having exploited it and thus played through the game on a hidden 'easy mode', gimped because I chose to play something else?

It's a nuisance, at best.  Claiming it's as unacceptable as a truck smashed through your living room really does seem like claiming the kid you pantsed you in Junior High is a megalomaniac genocidal monster.  Sure, they're both jerks... but the scale is way, way off.

[MerinTB]

andorman01 wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

andorman01 wrote...

Don't play an AW?

It's not an MMO, so you're not stuck competing with overpowered classes if you don't want to.

Brilliant! I cannot fault your logic.


Oh wait, I somehow mis-spelt the word "follow".

It's one specialization of one class, obviously made for those who want an easy playthrough.  Get over it.

Of course I wouldn't expect anyone who compares real life tragedy to video game balance to follow any sort of logic.

My apologies to all for this brief break in decorum but...

ZING!