666 réponses à ce sujet

[Galooba]

Pocketgb wrote...


But if the game is indeed balanced, then it should be proven the equal viability of each class/skilltree all on the same difficulty setting.

Why does that have to be true?

I just don't understand the whole balance discussion in a non competitve game. Does it really matter that a mage is better than a warrior?

I am playing a warrior in my playthrough and having a blast. Would it be easier if I was a mage, maybe. But my fun isn't dimished because I am suboptimal playing a warrior. In fact the thought has never even entered my mind.

Why is the game less fun because a warrior doesn't compare to a mage? (This is a serious questions, and if it sounds snarky that is not my intention, I am honestly curious for those that feel that way)

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

should i go back and find the hundreds of times you repeated yourself over the last week?

I will if you do, Dime.

F-C wrote...

if you take away from that trinity you will always increase the difficulty, the same can said for nearly any game of this style out there.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I just asked you.

I asked to see how each class is balanced with one another, how each skill tree is able to offer to the fight just as much as the other, etc.

Galooba wrote...

I just don't understand the whole
balance discussion in a non competitve game. Does it really matter that
a mage is better than a warrior?

I am playing a warrior in my
playthrough and having a blast. Would it be easier if I was a mage,
maybe. But my fun isn't dimished because I am suboptimal playing a
warrior. In fact the thought has never even entered my mind.

Why
is the game less fun because a warrior doesn't compare to a mage? (This
is a serious questions, and if it sounds snarky that is not my
intention, I am honestly curious for those that feel that way)

It's
because "fun" can be a pretty subjective thing. Yes I'm having a lot of
fun right now with the way things are currently set-up in hardcore mod.
But that's not really the point of what we're talking about here.

We
want Bioware to at least acknowledge issues and/or explain why they see
no need for changes. Saying "because we feel like it" isn't terribly descriptive, unfortunately.

Above all else, though, why should balance be discouraged?

AlphaMagnum wrote...

Hmm....I'm wondering if a simple
if-then check could be thrown in, ie, if our mana is at zero turn the
spell off. But that would entail discovering more functions in the
script editor. Bah!

I'll look into it later today, need to do some legit Calculus before committing the sin of having fun.

What nonsense! We know there's no such thing as "fun"!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:07 .

[AlphaMagnum]

Hmm....I'm wondering if a simple if-then check could be thrown in, ie, if our mana is at zero turn the spell off. But that would entail discovering more functions in the script editor. Bah!



I'll look into it later today, need to do some legit Calculus before committing the sin of having fun.

[Exodus]

I haven't read the entire thing but it started out like the beginnings of a Chantry witch hunt.



DISLIKE.

[Kahryl]

F-C wrote...

should i go back and find the hundreds of times you repeated yourself over the last week?

bitter little minds.

Wow, Hardcore Mod (currently at version 2.2) looks awesome.

It is, it's done very well.  Although I wish they would have made potions very expensive or with a long cooldown or stack only to 3 or something rather than stripping them from the game entirely.

[Schyzm]

Galooba wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...


But if the game is indeed balanced, then it should be proven the equal viability of each class/skilltree all on the same difficulty setting.

Why does that have to be true?

I just don't understand the whole balance discussion in a non competitve game. Does it really matter that a mage is better than a warrior?

I am playing a warrior in my playthrough and having a blast. Would it be easier if I was a mage, maybe. But my fun isn't dimished because I am suboptimal playing a warrior. In fact the thought has never even entered my mind.

Why is the game less fun because a warrior doesn't compare to a mage? (This is a serious questions, and if it sounds snarky that is not my intention, I am honestly curious for those that feel that way)

balance has always been a consideration to making good games.  even single player ones.  dnd considers balance, because balance provides a better experience and allows players who want to delve into the tactics and strategy of the game a rich and interesting environment.  instead of having the place littered with broken mechanics that reward creativity and intelligence with ruining combat.

[Sevitan7]

AlphaMagnum wrote...

Question: Are there any spells which *do* work the way Shimmering Shield is supposed to work?

i.e., mana-draining modal abilities which deactivate when you're out of mana?

I'd like to mod the scripts to get that working, which is doable if I know where to start.

Haste and Cleansing aura come to mind.

Momenutm isn't a spell, but it also works in a similar manner.

Modifié par Sevitan7, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:08 .

[F-C]

Pocketgb wrote...

I will if you do, Dime.

do you want to have a little internet pissing contest?
total waste of time and serves no purpose other than to satiate your need to troll a forum.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I just asked you.

I asked to see how each class is balanced with one another, how each skill tree is able to offer to the fight just as much as the other, etc.

the game is balanced around group combat, bioware even told you that on the other forum.

he was actually picking on you guys about your whines about this and saying things like "we just hate rogues and warriors" because you are being so ridiculous.

does none of that sink in?

[AlphaMagnum]

Kahryl, you can easily modify spell/item cooldowns and mana/stamina costs through the ABI_base.xls file found in your C/Program Files/Dragon Age/tools/Source/2DA/ folder.



Copy it to your desktop or someplace else, find the relevant info you want to change, and change it.



Then, copy the Excelprocessor.exe file from C/Program Files/Dragon Age/tools/ResourceBuild/Processors to wherever you saved your version of ABI_base.xls.



Drag and drop your modified spreadsheet onto the Excelprocessor.exe file and 3-ish .GDA files will be generated in the same place.



One of those, called ABI_base.GDA, is the one you want.



Cut it and paste it into My Docs/Bioware/Dragon Age/packages/core/override and your changes will become effective.

[Kahryl]

AlphaMagnum wrote...

Kahryl, you can easily modify spell/item cooldowns and mana/stamina costs through the ABI_base.xls file found in your C/Program Files/Dragon Age/tools/Source/2DA/ folder.

Thanks! Though first I'll have to find out how to turn off the hardcore mod's complete disabling of pots.

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

do you want to have a little internet pissing contest?

No, merely pointing out that by your own standards, we're both "insane" : )

Besides that, you're still ignoring what I asked in my post.

Example: Tell me how Archery is just awesome as the other good builds in the game, how 2H isn't largely lackluster to DW, what other Rogue specs compare just as favorbly to DW , and how it's impossible to solo the game.

If you can't answer even one of those, then the game is not balanced. You don't have to care if it's imbalanced, you just have to know.

Kahryl wrote...

AlphaMagnum wrote...

Kahryl,
you can easily modify spell/item cooldowns and mana/stamina costs
through the ABI_base.xls file found in your C/Program Files/Dragon
Age/tools/Source/2DA/ folder.

Thanks! Though first I'll have to find out how to turn off the hardcore mod's complete disabling of pots.

The only thing I could want more in a mod right now is more Leliana flirtage, and an option to turn of character shadows. Oh man, no shadows would be a godsend for me...

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:18 .

[Galooba]

Schyzm wrote...


balance has always been a consideration to making good games.  even single player ones.  dnd considers balance, because balance provides a better experience and allows players who want to delve into the tactics and strategy of the game a rich and interesting environment.  instead of having the place littered with broken mechanics that reward creativity and intelligence with ruining combat.

DnD isn't a single player game though. It is most certainly a multiplayer game. And even then I would say there is a definitely classes that are superior to others even in the base 10 or 12 or how ever many there are, which is why Rule 0 is invoked as often as it is

[F-C]

F-C wrote...

the game is balanced around group combat, bioware even told you that on the other forum.

he was actually picking on you guys about your whines about this and saying things like "we just hate rogues and warriors" because you are being so ridiculous.

does none of that sink in?

[Pocketgb]

Yes F-C I'm very well aware you're ignoring my post, no need to be persistent. You don't want to become even more insane!

Galooba wrote...

DnD isn't
a single player game though. It is most certainly a multiplayer game.
And even then I would say there is a definitely classes that are
superior to others even in the base 10 or 12 or how ever many there
are, which is why Rule 0 is invoked as often as it is

Why would balance be bad in a single-player game, though? And I think there might be a pretty big difference in saying "it doesn't matter" and saying "most just don't care".

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:22 .

[Kahryl]

Galooba wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...


But if the game is indeed balanced, then it should be proven the equal viability of each class/skilltree all on the same difficulty setting.

Why does that have to be true?

I just don't understand the whole balance discussion in a non competitve game. Does it really matter that a mage is better than a warrior?

I am playing a warrior in my playthrough and having a blast. Would it be easier if I was a mage, maybe. But my fun isn't dimished because I am suboptimal playing a warrior. In fact the thought has never even entered my mind.

Why is the game less fun because a warrior doesn't compare to a mage? (This is a serious questions, and if it sounds snarky that is not my intention, I am honestly curious for those that feel that way)

It's a good question and the answer is this:

When I'm at the beginning of a dungeon in a really good RPG and I think about what I expect to find in it, the thoughts running through my head should be flat-out tactical.  What equipment should I bring?  Do I want to have a lot of support characters for a beat-them-by-attrition strategy or delicate burst damage for hit-them-before-they-can-react?  Should I bring the tank that's best at surviving one total badass or a tank that's best at holding the attention of a whole swarm of midgets?  Should I bring the frost mage or the fire mage - what are the enemies in here likely to be vulnerable to?  Simply put I should be able to engage my mind and put my heart into strategic decisions without worrying that I'm accidentally going to trip over GOD MODE.

In DA:O the question at the start of every dungeon is this: "How easy to I want to make this for myself?"  Should I bring two mages, one mage or no mages?

When the player is asking "how easy should I make this for myself" in the middle of the game, the designers have failed.  I TOLD the game how easy it should be when I selected the difficulty.  It is the designers job to then provide that difficulty. I should be able to go in with a whole variety of group compositions and expect about the same difficulty, only tackled in different ways.  I should be able to choose the party members I like the most personally rather than the ones that will fit the difficulty I want and that the game should be giving me in the first place.

the game is balanced around group combat, bioware even told you that on the other forum.

he
was actually picking on you guys about your whines about this and
saying things like "we just hate rogues and warriors" because you are
being so ridiculous.

does none of that sink in?

They, and you, have the developer/player relationship completely backwards

If the developer says "this is working as intended" and the players say "this is bollocks" then it is, objectively speaking, bollocks.

Modifié par Kahryl, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:28 .

[Haexpane]

H4rdL0v3 wrote...

btw, for everyone saying they play on hard or nightmare without having to scale the difficulty down, i'd love to see some vids of your big fights on those difficulties, I would not mind seeying how you guys do it, post youtube link or whatever.

I dunno about nightmare but on normal the boss fights are usually like this for me

get ambushed
pause, buff everyone
press X
wait 10 seconds,
pause, chug healing or mana potions.. usually mana
resume
wait 20 seconds
pull Zev off the wrong mob, put him on right mob backstabbing
resume
re-hex
pause - more healing or mana
resume
spam melee abilities on mages or reds or yellows
resume
check my blackberry
oh snap mage almost died
pause - heal
resume
pause, put everyone on boss

Not worthy of a youtube vid way too boring

The dragon fight was even worse, the "hold/move" was getting the mage and rogue killed, so I solod him w/ health potions and starfang
That fight was basically
Move away from the mouth, attack from side
get "picked up" gimp cheap non breakable animation
survivive cheap attack w/ 15% health, chug potions
resume circle strafing.

Basically if you played a FPS before and know circle strafing, you can beat the bosses on normal

[Haexpane]

Galooba wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...


But if the game is indeed balanced, then it should be proven the equal viability of each class/skilltree all on the same difficulty setting.

Why does that have to be true?

I just don't understand the whole balance discussion in a non competitve game. Does it really matter that a mage is better than a warrior?

I am playing a warrior in my playthrough and having a blast. Would it be easier if I was a mage, maybe. But my fun isn't dimished because I am suboptimal playing a warrior. In fact the thought has never even entered my mind.

Why is the game less fun because a warrior doesn't compare to a mage? (This is a serious questions, and if it sounds snarky that is not my intention, I am honestly curious for those that feel that way)

Competitive has nothing to do with it.  Balance was started on single player RPGs, Baldur's Gate 2 was patched for balance multiple times.

If you don't notice unbalanced gameplay, that is fine.  But to say "single player games don't need balance" is a trollish opinion.

Balance in an RPG is when one character slows things down or is noticably less effective than another, in almost all battles.   Of course you can stil have fun, but after a while it gets annoying when certain classes/builds are worthless and slow compared to others.

Balance means ALL classES have good points and bad points, strengths and weaknesses.  The balance is broken in DAO because mages have no drawback.

Mages are always better than any other class, especially AW build.   In a balanced RPG you would *need* a mage and a warrior and a rogue for most situations.

In DAO you can go 4 mages and plow through the game like a hot knife through a dead frog.  There are no examples I can think of where I needed a warrior or a rogue or when either melee toon was better than a mage.. none, not even boss fights.

I use a rogue and a warrior anyway because that's what I prefer, but a simple patch could balance things up a bit.

It's annoying to realize how much slower everything is w/ my warrior.  I intentionally do NOT use most of the over powered mage abilities just so I can have more fun w/ my PC.

I should not have to "pretend" a spell or build doesnt exist because it's too overpowered.

This response people always give of "your arm hurts when you do that? don't do that" is just trolling.

[F-C]

Kahryl wrote...

They, and you, have the developer/player relationship completely backwards

If the developer says "this is working as intended" and the players say "this is bollocks" then it is, objectively speaking, bollocks.

no the issue is that a few people such as yourself, schyzm, pocket, and aberdash have this over-inflated sense of entitlement and think what you dont like is broken and needs to be changed.


the reality is the game is balanced how the developers envisioned it to be, based on the lore and world of the game.

they have provided you with the toolkit to change something if you dont like it.

[Schyzm]

Galooba wrote...

Schyzm wrote...


balance has always been a consideration to making good games.  even single player ones.  dnd considers balance, because balance provides a better experience and allows players who want to delve into the tactics and strategy of the game a rich and interesting environment.  instead of having the place littered with broken mechanics that reward creativity and intelligence with ruining combat.

DnD isn't a single player game though. It is most certainly a multiplayer game. And even then I would say there is a definitely classes that are superior to others even in the base 10 or 12 or how ever many there are, which is why Rule 0 is invoked as often as it is

you didn't ask for purely single player.  you asked for non-competitive, whcih dnd is.  single player games are balanced for the same reasons dnd considers balance.  I answered your question there's no need to be nitpicky with me.  

[Unbroken Lineage]

Kahryl wrote...
I should be able to choose the party members I like the most personally rather than the ones that will fit the difficulty I want and that the game should be giving me in the first place.

Where does this expectation come from?  In what games have you had this experience?  In what party-based fantasy RPGs have you had the experience that you could just put together any old party build combination and have the same experience (of difficulty, tactics, fun and so on) as any other party build combination?

I know I've asked this question before, but no one has answered it.  I believe no one has answered it because there are no such games.  I believe this expectation is completely unreasonable, and completely at odds with 25+ years of party-based fantasy RPGs.  I don't know where this expectation comes from, but it certainly does not come from playing party-based fantasy RPGs.

[Unbroken Lineage]

Haexpane wrote...
It's annoying to realize how much slower everything is w/ my warrior.  I intentionally do NOT use most of the over powered mage abilities just so I can have more fun w/ my PC.

I should not have to "pretend" a spell or build doesnt exist because it's too overpowered.

This response people always give of "your arm hurts when you do that? don't do that" is just trolling.

Hey, that's what I do.  Looks like we're both having fun, playing the way we'd like to play.  Why is this a problem?

[DragoonKain3]

Schyzm wrote...


because I"m not a powergamer.  I couldn't tell you if mass paarlyze is better or worse than fireball, I know they're both amazingly awesome.  why do you demand I know to the exact spell what all the best spells are?  including differentiating between bunches of amazingly powerful spells?  I'm sorry but I do not.  I guess you are a superior powergamer to me, I bow to your supreme awesome exactness.

So then how exactly can you tell me then that certain spells in the buiild I offered are 'bad', or that certain spells are 'the best spells that they can reasonably get their hand on'?

And that's exactly what I'm getting at. You're not a power gamer, so you can NOT tell me which spells are suboptimal and which ones are optimal. Even the concept of tradeoffs seems to be lost on you, since you seem to be under the impression that a mage can do everything well, everything at once, which is hardly the case at all considering they're under serious constraints of talent picks.

That's the reason why I keep on saying that a mage can only be a truly good wizard, or a truly good cleric, or something in between, but not truly good at both at once, since they don't have the talent points to get all the spells. Which btw, is the main topic we're currently arguing about, since it was you who refuted such claims in the beginning, and I am confident that my original claim still stands since you, not being a powergamer, cannot refute it.

"shimmering shield exploits" indeed another mage spell so powerful its mere use is called an exploit.  I think you using the word exploit on a mage spell should give you a hint as to how crazy mages are.

Shimmering Shield is an exploit because it does NOT turn off when you run out of mana. It's very powerful in its own right, but as it is right now its only limitation is entirely bypassed.  And no its not intentional, as EVERY OTHER SUSTAINED SPELL/TALENT that drains mana/stamina, turns off when you run out of mana/stamina.

[SheffSteel]

Haexpane wrote...
press X

I think it just became obvious why you're finding it so easy.

[Schyzm]

Unbroken Lineage wrote...

Kahryl wrote...
I should be able to choose the party members I like the most personally rather than the ones that will fit the difficulty I want and that the game should be giving me in the first place.

Where does this expectation come from?  In what games have you had this experience?  In what party-based fantasy RPGs have you had the experience that you could just put together any old party build combination and have the same experience (of difficulty, tactics, fun and so on) as any other party build combination?

I know I've asked this question before, but no one has answered it.  I believe no one has answered it because there are no such games.  I believe this expectation is completely unreasonable, and completely at odds with 25+ years of party-based fantasy RPGs.  I don't know where this expectation comes from, but it certainly does not come from playing party-based fantasy RPGs.

I've had much more balanced multi party composition fun in every other party based rpg I've ever played.  the absurdity of mages being defended based on bizarre parsing of questions is somewhat offensive.  there's no good game design reason to give mages every good ability in the game and then give them an infinite resource pool and leave warriors and rogues god damn auto attacking.  the fanboi defenses should come down to earth.

[Kahryl]

Unbroken Lineage wrote...

Kahryl wrote...
I should be able to choose the party members I like the most personally rather than the ones that will fit the difficulty I want and that the game should be giving me in the first place.

Where does this expectation come from?  In what games have you had this experience?  In what party-based fantasy RPGs have you had the experience that you could just put together any old party build combination and have the same experience (of difficulty, tactics, fun and so on) as any other party build combination?

I knew this line would be trouble, let me qualify it 

I fully expect to get my ass handed to me if I run in with any old party composition, like 4 rogues.  But the formula to a GOOD party composition should include more than "how many of this one class do I have?"