666 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow_Viper]

addiction21 wrote...

Kahryl wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

Kahryl wrote...

F-C wrote...

these posts are just turning into bitter little men being angry lunatics now.

i doubt anyone will ever get through to them short of finding where they live and pulling them out of their moms basement to smack some reality into them.

Well personally I'm just frustrated that you are excusing Bioware for bad design.

It used to be considered a game flaw when one class was massively stronger than the others.  Now you have legions of fanboys that will excuse anything.

It's seriously annoying and troublesome to have to constantly restrict what spells I use if I don't want to make the game ridiculously easy.  I should be able to get a challenge with any mage build.

And here we see the CDM "Fanboy" label coming into play that I mentioned eariler.

If you believe the game to be broken, and it's that big of a deal for you, then don't play. Simple as that.

But whether you decide to play or not, neither choice requires running to the forums and crying.

You really don't know the purpose of player feedback?  The larger these topics are pointing out mages are broken (and thank you for contributing to them) the more likely Bioware is to get it thru their skulls that having 2/3 classes inferior is not a good thing.  And maybe their next game will have that fixed. Games don't fall out of the sky you know.

To bad the vast majority of these posts are not discussions but just flame wars. Take schyism/shadow_viper  for example. They are not helping their cause's any by berating and insulting the opposite side (just using them since they are most obvious and seems to be vocal ones in these threads).

Both sides are getting of acting like children on the playground fighting over the swing.  If your not going to discuss it then frankly you need to shut up and if there is someone trolling then why even respond to them? It does nothing but take it off track and then you get this very thread. 10 pages of "no your wrong" "nu uh your wrong and a poopy head also" and any constructive pertinent posts are lost in the flames.

It might be a shocker but there are more ways to discuss something other then to claim those with a opposing opnion are trolls, morons, fanboys, tards, etc etc etc...

I'm not insulting anyone, just stating my opinions and observations.

It's best not to go looking for insults.

After all, Don't go looking for snakes, you might find them.

[Shadow_Viper]

phordicus wrote...

Kahryl wrote...

It would be fine if mages were say, 3x as powerful as the other classes if they took 3 party slots or had some other similar disadvantage.  But they only take one slot.

think of it like this.

nothing obligates you to run four characters.  if you think a mage, perfectly built and controlled, is worth 3 party slots instead of 1, then take one mage with your PC and nothing else.

as it is, you can gimp yourself however you want to.  the game allows that.  it also allows for people who want to trample over every combat in less than 20 seconds by exploiting taunt+forcefield+kiting.  i for one would rather the game have that flexibility rather than forcing me to use one of 2 or 3 ideal party configurations.

so much of this seems to be about the challenge level.  if it's too easy because you rock with mages, then don't take one, much less 2 or 3 or 4.  one of my playthroughs now is trying to use an all-rogue, all-stealth party and even though i'm getting my ass kicked on occassion, it is, to quote a wise green cephalopod, funner than hell.  i don't want the option to do so taken away for the sake of making all classes equal.

QFE, well said.

Sadly it seems alot of individuals just like to whine, so they overlook the simple solutions to their issues.

Modifié par Shadow_Viper, 17 novembre 2009 - 11:37 .

[guru7892]

Shadow_Viper wrote...

The people whining about "balance" are really no different than the individuals on PVP MMORPG forums, who when getting defeated by a certain class, go running to the game's forums crying nerf, rather than learning to play their own class better.

the problem is nobody taught us to play our classes better. so the designers should've made things simpler or trained the players better. ( and don't blame people who are confused, its really frustrating to walk into a room with 3 mages, die in 2 seconds, and have no idea what you did wrong).

if people cry nerf, it means they arn't playing effectivly. designers failed in giving the player effective tools or giving the player the knowledge to use those tools effectively.

I know I've said this before but bioware didn't give us the knowlegde you need to use abilities effectivly. they assumed people would figure it out as they went along, or have played enough rpgs to know what they are supposed to do (or maybe they didn't even think about it at all). That was a bad idea that left players in the dark as to what they were supposed to do with the abilties they got.

Bioware made an incredibly deep and complex game, they just never explained it to anyone.

[Shadow_Viper]

surrealitycheck wrote...


When pondering whether a class needs nerfed or not. It's best to
remind one's self that:  It's Fine, I just need to Learn To Play. 

In short, IFL2P. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

That's interesting. You managed to read a post in which I specifically said that mages SHOULDN'T be nerfed, and that warriors and rogues should have their moveset expanded, and you interpret it as a question of nerfing! Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time reading?

It was a general observation/advice/suggestion.

Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time reading? 

[Hurra_asbest]

Schyzm wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

No, this game doesn't need any rebalancing. The classes are all useful, and most importantly they are different from each other. The result of class balance is usually that all classes have a range of abilities that are basically the same only with varying names and sparkly bits. The classes also fit the setting. I remember some character talking about how the chantry only allowed 7 mages to help in Ostagar, but that they should make a difference even so. Dragon Age is a party-based RPG, so you can bring characters of all classes with you. It's fine as it is.

"all useful" is a terrible lie.  mages are the only class that actually makes a difference, everyone else is fodder.  It'd be one thing if you could pick between bringing say, 15 warriors or 1 mage.  but that's not how it is, the party is only 4 ppl no matter how many useless warriros and rogues u stuff in it, or how many god mages u stuff in it.  and that creates a very adverse and unpleasant combat environment.

Interesting rethoric. It's not a lie, it's my assessment. Mages are more powerful, yes. It fits the setting. The other classes are most definitely useful too. Warriors are naturally great meatshields, but you can spec them to do a lot of damage, or have limited crowd control as well. Rogues are the only ones who can pick locks (and pockets). They are great for removing traps too. They can be specced to do a lot of damage in combat, and have their unique flavour thanks to backstabbing and such. I could agree to a certain degree that not every specialization is equally useful though, but the classes as such don't need rebalancing. They live up to the most important demands in a party-based RPG: They all have interesting and unique abilities that the other classes don't have, they are all useful (see above) and they fit the setting.

[surrealitycheck]

It was a general observation/advice/suggestion.

Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time reading? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

Ah, so you made an irrelevant response because you had nothing to say to my argument?

Excellent, I do so love it when people admit their ignorance!

[Shadow_Viper]

guru7892 wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

The people whining about "balance" are really no different than the individuals on PVP MMORPG forums, who when getting defeated by a certain class, go running to the game's forums crying nerf, rather than learning to play their own class better.

the problem is nobody taught us to play our classes better. so the designers should've made things simpler or trained the players better. ( and don't blame people who are confused, its really frustrating to walk into a room with 3 mages, die in 2 seconds, and have no idea what you did wrong).

if people cry nerf, it means they arn't playing effectivly. designers failed in giving the player effective tools or giving the player the knowledge to use those tools effectively.

I know I've said this before but bioware didn't give us the knowlegde you need to use abilities effectivly. they assumed people would figure it out as they went along, or have played enough rpgs to know what they are supposed to do (or maybe they didn't even think about it at all). That was a bad idea that left players in the dark as to what they were supposed to do with the abilties they got.

Bioware made an incredibly deep and complex game, they just never explained it to anyone.

This is after all a tactical RPG, should someone rush into a room with three enemy mages, they'll likely die.

Instead of crying nerf, those people should be spending their time playing around with the game and trying different things/tactics.

Do you really expect Bioware to hold everyone's hands?

[Skemte]

... Mages have a advantage over the two other classes for reasons outside of their actual power.. They have far more choices, they do not have to worry about weapon specilizations like rogues and warriors do.. They can branch out as they please.. They only have to worry about 2 to 3 stats, while the warrior rogue has to worry about 4 tto possibly 5 stats.. Warriors and rogues automatically have to take Combat training to get any where, a mage does not.. There are only two mage npc's in the game, 5 warriors, and 2 rogues.. To get a balanced party of sorts a mage has much more choices than a warrior or rogue ever will have..



Why idiots are even bringing up mmos is beyond me.. This is a singleplayer game, but one would hope that choices would be some what balanced in that there is being no correct or wrong choice.. Because as it stands the mage gets the richest gameplay decisions with choice in not just skills and stats, but party members much more than warriors or rogues.. You would think people woudl understand this..

[Schyzm]

Hurra_asbest wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

No, this game doesn't need any rebalancing. The classes are all useful, and most importantly they are different from each other. The result of class balance is usually that all classes have a range of abilities that are basically the same only with varying names and sparkly bits. The classes also fit the setting. I remember some character talking about how the chantry only allowed 7 mages to help in Ostagar, but that they should make a difference even so. Dragon Age is a party-based RPG, so you can bring characters of all classes with you. It's fine as it is.

"all useful" is a terrible lie.  mages are the only class that actually makes a difference, everyone else is fodder.  It'd be one thing if you could pick between bringing say, 15 warriors or 1 mage.  but that's not how it is, the party is only 4 ppl no matter how many useless warriros and rogues u stuff in it, or how many god mages u stuff in it.  and that creates a very adverse and unpleasant combat environment.

Interesting rethoric. It's not a lie, it's my assessment. Mages are more powerful, yes. It fits the setting. The other classes are most definitely useful too. Warriors are naturally great meatshields, but you can spec them to do a lot of damage, or have limited crowd control as well. Rogues are the only ones who can pick locks (and pockets). They are great for removing traps too. They can be specced to do a lot of damage in combat, and have their unique flavour thanks to backstabbing and such. I could agree to a certain degree that not every specialization is equally useful though, but the classes as such don't need rebalancing. They live up to the most important demands in a party-based RPG: They all have interesting and unique abilities that the other classes don't have, they are all useful (see above) and they fit the setting.

mages are better meatshields.  I"d say warriors have taunt and rogues can pick locks.  that's about it.  that's up against mages, who have almost literally every good ability in the game, and cast those amazingly powerful abilities from an infinite resource pool.  How a locksmith and a single taunt ability are competitive is beyond me.

warriors and rogues in terms of usefulness, power, versatility or any other consideration are a joke.  

[Shadow_Viper]

Hurra_asbest wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

No, this game doesn't need any rebalancing. The classes are all useful, and most importantly they are different from each other. The result of class balance is usually that all classes have a range of abilities that are basically the same only with varying names and sparkly bits. The classes also fit the setting. I remember some character talking about how the chantry only allowed 7 mages to help in Ostagar, but that they should make a difference even so. Dragon Age is a party-based RPG, so you can bring characters of all classes with you. It's fine as it is.

"all useful" is a terrible lie.  mages are the only class that actually makes a difference, everyone else is fodder.  It'd be one thing if you could pick between bringing say, 15 warriors or 1 mage.  but that's not how it is, the party is only 4 ppl no matter how many useless warriros and rogues u stuff in it, or how many god mages u stuff in it.  and that creates a very adverse and unpleasant combat environment.

Interesting rethoric. It's not a lie, it's my assessment. Mages are more powerful, yes. It fits the setting. The other classes are most definitely useful too. Warriors are naturally great meatshields, but you can spec them to do a lot of damage, or have limited crowd control as well. Rogues are the only ones who can pick locks (and pockets). They are great for removing traps too. They can be specced to do a lot of damage in combat, and have their unique flavour thanks to backstabbing and such. I could agree to a certain degree that not every specialization is equally useful though, but the classes as such don't need rebalancing. They live up to the most important demands in a party-based RPG: They all have interesting and unique abilities that the other classes don't have, they are all useful (see above) and they fit the setting.

QFE, well said.

[Skemte]

Hurra_asbest wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

No, this game doesn't need any rebalancing. The classes are all useful, and most importantly they are different from each other. The result of class balance is usually that all classes have a range of abilities that are basically the same only with varying names and sparkly bits. The classes also fit the setting. I remember some character talking about how the chantry only allowed 7 mages to help in Ostagar, but that they should make a difference even so. Dragon Age is a party-based RPG, so you can bring characters of all classes with you. It's fine as it is.

"all useful" is a terrible lie.  mages are the only class that actually makes a difference, everyone else is fodder.  It'd be one thing if you could pick between bringing say, 15 warriors or 1 mage.  but that's not how it is, the party is only 4 ppl no matter how many useless warriros and rogues u stuff in it, or how many god mages u stuff in it.  and that creates a very adverse and unpleasant combat environment.

Interesting rethoric. It's not a lie, it's my assessment. Mages are more powerful, yes. It fits the setting. The other classes are most definitely useful too. Warriors are naturally great meatshields, but you can spec them to do a lot of damage, or have limited crowd control as well. Rogues are the only ones who can pick locks (and pockets). They are great for removing traps too. They can be specced to do a lot of damage in combat, and have their unique flavour thanks to backstabbing and such. I could agree to a certain degree that not every specialization is equally useful though, but the classes as such don't need rebalancing. They live up to the most important demands in a party-based RPG: They all have interesting and unique abilities that the other classes don't have, they are all useful (see above) and they fit the setting.

  Please explain how mages being extremely powerful fitting the setting? No where does it talk about their power.. Not even the chantry templars.. The reason why they watch them is because they can get possessed by demons becoming abominations or go down the forbidden blood magic.. No where does it say that the mages are too powerful that they would all take over..

[surrealitycheck]

Why idiots are even bringing up mmos is beyond me.. This is a
singleplayer game, but one would hope that choices would be some what
balanced in that there is being no correct or wrong choice.. Because as
it stands the mage gets the richest gameplay decisions with choice in
not just skills and stats, but party members much more than warriors or
rogues.. You would think people woudl understand this..

Nono, you don't understand! Warriors should have fewer abilities, because all parties should be as similar as possible.

Wait, I'm not doing this right :/

Let's try again. Mages should be vastly more powerful in every respect than other characters because it has the beneficial effect of... uhh... I don't know! I guess I should learn to play my warrior, so that he, too, can hit for 1300 in one hit! Or CC entire rooms of mobs instantly. I guess I should also get a bit better at playing so his 5-6 active skills suddenly turns into 15-20 active skills, like a mages. And I should also think a bit harder and invent and code in some ability comboes, so my warrior has the extra cool gameplay options that a mage already comes with!

Modifié par surrealitycheck, 17 novembre 2009 - 11:49 .

[Shadow_Viper]

surrealitycheck wrote...

It was a general observation/advice/suggestion.

Perhaps you should spend a little bit more time reading? ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

Ah, so you made an irrelevant response because you had nothing to say to my argument?

Excellent, I do so love it when people admit their ignorance!

If you feel it was irrelevant, I invite you to take a reading comprehension class.

On another note, here we see two CDMs:  Irrelevant(which is quite simular to the "invalid" label), and Ignorant/ignorance labels.

[Shadow_Viper]

Schyzm wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

No, this game doesn't need any rebalancing. The classes are all useful, and most importantly they are different from each other. The result of class balance is usually that all classes have a range of abilities that are basically the same only with varying names and sparkly bits. The classes also fit the setting. I remember some character talking about how the chantry only allowed 7 mages to help in Ostagar, but that they should make a difference even so. Dragon Age is a party-based RPG, so you can bring characters of all classes with you. It's fine as it is.

"all useful" is a terrible lie.  mages are the only class that actually makes a difference, everyone else is fodder.  It'd be one thing if you could pick between bringing say, 15 warriors or 1 mage.  but that's not how it is, the party is only 4 ppl no matter how many useless warriros and rogues u stuff in it, or how many god mages u stuff in it.  and that creates a very adverse and unpleasant combat environment.

Interesting rethoric. It's not a lie, it's my assessment. Mages are more powerful, yes. It fits the setting. The other classes are most definitely useful too. Warriors are naturally great meatshields, but you can spec them to do a lot of damage, or have limited crowd control as well. Rogues are the only ones who can pick locks (and pockets). They are great for removing traps too. They can be specced to do a lot of damage in combat, and have their unique flavour thanks to backstabbing and such. I could agree to a certain degree that not every specialization is equally useful though, but the classes as such don't need rebalancing. They live up to the most important demands in a party-based RPG: They all have interesting and unique abilities that the other classes don't have, they are all useful (see above) and they fit the setting.

mages are better meatshields.  I"d say warriors have taunt and rogues can pick locks.  that's about it.  that's up against mages, who have almost literally every good ability in the game, and cast those amazingly powerful abilities from an infinite resource pool.  How a locksmith and a single taunt ability are competitive is beyond me.

warriors and rogues in terms of usefulness, power, versatility or any other consideration are a joke.  

We understand that you feel mages are extremely powerful. So rather than whining about it, play a mage and enjoy the game.

Or L2P the other two classes better.

[aberdash]

No need to worry about imbalance guys. Everything is "working as intended".



Unfortunately "working as intended" means even the strongest of bosses are made trivial by mages.

[Shadow_Viper]

Skemte wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

Hurra_asbest wrote...

No, this game doesn't need any rebalancing. The classes are all useful, and most importantly they are different from each other. The result of class balance is usually that all classes have a range of abilities that are basically the same only with varying names and sparkly bits. The classes also fit the setting. I remember some character talking about how the chantry only allowed 7 mages to help in Ostagar, but that they should make a difference even so. Dragon Age is a party-based RPG, so you can bring characters of all classes with you. It's fine as it is.

"all useful" is a terrible lie.  mages are the only class that actually makes a difference, everyone else is fodder.  It'd be one thing if you could pick between bringing say, 15 warriors or 1 mage.  but that's not how it is, the party is only 4 ppl no matter how many useless warriros and rogues u stuff in it, or how many god mages u stuff in it.  and that creates a very adverse and unpleasant combat environment.

Interesting rethoric. It's not a lie, it's my assessment. Mages are more powerful, yes. It fits the setting. The other classes are most definitely useful too. Warriors are naturally great meatshields, but you can spec them to do a lot of damage, or have limited crowd control as well. Rogues are the only ones who can pick locks (and pockets). They are great for removing traps too. They can be specced to do a lot of damage in combat, and have their unique flavour thanks to backstabbing and such. I could agree to a certain degree that not every specialization is equally useful though, but the classes as such don't need rebalancing. They live up to the most important demands in a party-based RPG: They all have interesting and unique abilities that the other classes don't have, they are all useful (see above) and they fit the setting.

  Please explain how mages being extremely powerful fitting the setting? No where does it talk about their power.. Not even the chantry templars.. The reason why they watch them is because they can get possessed by demons becoming abominations or go down the forbidden blood magic.. No where does it say that the mages are too powerful that they would all take over..

Try reading your codex

[Shadow_Viper]

aberdash wrote...

No need to worry about imbalance guys. Everything is "working as intended".

Unfortunately "working as intended" means even the strongest of bosses are made trivial by mages.

If you believe that is the case, then simply do not play a mage or have a mage within your party. Simple as that.

It's a shame that so many people overlook the simple solutions because they just like running to the forums and whining.

[aberdash]

"Don't use it" does not justify having an incredibly overpowered class.

[Kahryl]

Shadow_Viper wrote...
If you believe that is the case, then simply do not play a mage or have a mage within your party. Simple as that.

It's a shame that so many people overlook the simple solutions because they just like running to the forums and whining.

I'm supposed to restrict myself to 2 classes because Bioware couldn't be bothered to use game design on their game?

[Pocketgb]

surrealitycheck wrote...

If you believe Warriors and Rogues to be inferior, I would suggest
spending your time Learning To Play. Rather than wasting it needlessly
whining on the forums. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

Well....

Let me have a quick think.

They do less single target damage (using entropic death and a party of 3 mages, you can kill almost every boss in the game in between 5-6 seconds). They do less aoe damage (absolutely no comparison to blood wound + SotC). They do less CC. The comparison is just embarassing.

The question is, of course, not whether or not mages should be nerfed - but why it should be accepted that warriors and rogues have a vastly more boring set of skills, with fewer abilities, no combos and generally inferior capability. Why is this a good thing? The fact that something IS a certain way is not a reason - you have to give a positive reason why it should remain that way, when it is fairly evident on even a simple level that they lack the complexity and interest of mages. When you add in sharing about 45% of their abilities with another class, it just becomes a little sad.

This post is a deliciuos, tasty  meal full of much QFT and truth. Om nom nom.

PS: Where's Dime when you need him?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 12:14 .

[georage]

I have not read the entire thread, but if I was creating a mod (and I am) I would make lyrium scarce, script it so NPC mages tend to not like working together or with other mages, and create fewer locked chests but put something decent in them.



I would make most of the treasure boost archery and other gimped talents.

[Kahryl]

Pocketgb wrote...

surrealitycheck wrote...

If you believe Warriors and Rogues to be inferior, I would suggest
spending your time Learning To Play. Rather than wasting it needlessly
whining on the forums. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wink.png

Well....

Let me have a quick think.

They do less single target damage (using entropic death and a party of 3 mages, you can kill almost every boss in the game in between 5-6 seconds). They do less aoe damage (absolutely no comparison to blood wound + SotC). They do less CC. The comparison is just embarassing.

The question is, of course, not whether or not mages should be nerfed - but why it should be accepted that warriors and rogues have a vastly more boring set of skills, with fewer abilities, no combos and generally inferior capability. Why is this a good thing? The fact that something IS a certain way is not a reason - you have to give a positive reason why it should remain that way, when it is fairly evident on even a simple level that they lack the complexity and interest of mages. When you add in sharing about 45% of their abilities with another class, it just becomes a little sad.

This post is a deliciuos, tasty  meal full of much QFT and truth. Om nom nom.

Sign my name on this post as well

[Raxxman]

I think the fundamental issue is that the combat part of the game simply isn't very good.



The AI isn't very good

The Balance isn't very good

The Combat skill choices for warriors/reds aren't very good



Once you accept that this is the core issue you can move on to the solution.



Note, just because it's not very good doesn't mean it's not fun, but if this game was branded as a tactical combat simulator and had the rp elements taken out of it, it would be panned.

[Shadow_Viper]

Kahryl wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...
If you believe that is the case, then simply do not play a mage or have a mage within your party. Simple as that.

It's a shame that so many people overlook the simple solutions because they just like running to the forums and whining.

I'm supposed to restrict myself to 2 classes because Bioware couldn't be bothered to use game design on their game?

Whether or not you continue to use mages is up to you. However, neither choice requires running to the forums crying.

[CgSquall]

Oh, weird note, I figured out a pretty interesting build that's basically a "mage killer"



Warrior - Archer - Templar.



If you haven't guessed yet, The tremendous amount of flexibility the game provides is interesting to me. I have something like 12? characters now, each built differently to some extent, trying ridiculous builds because I think it's fun.



Fyi, i abhor playing a mage. I've never found it fun to cast spells from a distance and watch them blow things up.



So really, what's the point in complaining about warriors/rogues not being equal to mages? Realistically, they shouldn't be. The problem isn't in the fact that their damage output is different, it's that you can't figure out how to take them down when faced with them.



See the above combination, have Alistair use a crossbow, shortbow or longbow, bam, mages neutralized very easily. Or create a custom Wariror Archer Templar build specifically for taking out mages. Sure, in combat against normal people you'll end up with a person who is "sub-optimal", but for the actual HARD confrontations(against multiple mages) you'll end up with your favorite person, able to one or two-shot mages, and if they can't kill them that quickly, they can make them useless by draining all the mana.



Really, this argument is annoying and simplistic. It's a SINGLE PLAYER GAME. Play it however you want, so long as you're having fun doing it.



If you're having trouble facing the enemies and you're losing, chances are it isn't your character choice, it's your tactics choice. Just to prove a point, I played through the "Redcliffe stuff" as I'm going to call it, and also did a dragon fight,all on Nightmare as both a PC Warrior, Rogue and Mage, and tried almost every combination of groups possible Dog, Warrior, Warrior, Warrior, i tried 3x Mage, Tank, I tried the "standard"(Tank, Off-Tank, DPS, Healer).



I can not emphasize this sentence enough: I only wiped ONCE.(against the dragon as Dog, Warrior, Warrior, Warrior, AoE was dreadful). Yes, it took a LOT of health potions as dog/war/war/war, but i could still do it. Yes, some situations were easier(personally i found Tank, off-tank, dps, healer to be the easiest by far, requiring the least micromanagement with good tactics setup), but every single setup i tried worked.



So stop blaming you losing on the game not being balanced towards warriors/rogues. The game is fine, your tactics might need reworking, or you may just need to bump down a difficulty. I completely understand when it comes to RPGs, I am very good at tactics, I've been playing MMO's and Rpgs for close to ten years now, if Dragon Age is one of your first tactical rpgs, you may want to play on Easy or Normal, there's nothing to be ashamed of in doing so.