666 réponses à ce sujet

[F-C]

Kahryl wrote...
If the developers REALIZED that warriors and rogues were terrible
compared with mages there's be no need for this topic.  The fact that
they don't get it is the whole reason the topic exists in the first
place.

the reason this topic exists is because a few trolls such as yourself, schyzm, aberdash, and pcket just keep trolling about it all day every day and never let it go.

you think your opinion is more important than the developers which just shows what a ridiculous over-inflated sense of entitlement you have.

yet you want to be bitter and whine and cry. go you.

[Imryll]

SheffSteel wrote...

Nice that georg sees things to improve upon... for those who think the game is perfect.

How do you get from "I've not had a problem when not using multiple mages" to "The game is perfect?"

/blink

Personally, though, I see combining cleric and mage into a single slot as opening doors to different group make-ups, not closing them. Instead of needing a mage and a cleric, you can have a mage/cleric and three others.

[Schyzm]

DragoonKain3 wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

wynn with heal line+spirit healer line is .95 as good as you're ever gna get a healer, and has 12? extra spells or so to pick, thats 3 entire lines.  all I said was among some of the very good spells, like mass paralyze, fireball, waking nightmare, etc I didn't know which was better.  not that I was so ragingly dumb I thought your idiotic "support caster" was actually a good build.  you're trying to say because I admitted to not knowing, among the very good spells which ones are better that I somehow don't know anything about anything.  which is a silly and inane lie.

Yeah, heal line + spirit healer is all you need for HEALING. But what about other types of support, as healing is only ONE aspect of support?

Is not Haste a good spell that warrants use? Is grease not a useful CC spell, especially if she's paired up with a fire mage? Spellbloom not useful when there's another mage?  Are the Glyphs weak (hint no they arent)? What are you going to do if someone puts CC on your tank and you need to dispel it? What then?

Seriously, you can be a healer + nuke, healer + CC, or a healer + buff management.  You're suggesting one of the first two, but when I talk about support, I talk about the latter. And there are some buff management skills that GREATLY improve my survivability, much more so than hybridizing your support character to be healer/nuke or healer/cc focused, especially when you already have another mage that covers nuking/cc (ala wizard).

I've never heard of the discrepancy before.  if it actually does turn off in one and not the other then I guess one is bugged and the other isn't.  but considering the game was bulit for pc and ported for consoles are you really sure its the way you imagine it?  again, you seem to think its bugged just because you consider it an exploit, people have said that about numerous other mage spells, that their mere use is an exploit.  I just don't buy that considering how incredibly terrible the designers would have to be.

And the PC version can't have you cast Crushing Prison on your Force Fielded tank, while the consoles allows you to.  This made Shockwave useless in PC (why the heck would you free an enemy from a forcefield when Shockwave doesn't even damage them?), but extremely useful in the consoles since your tank is unharmed by shockwave. Yet another bug where it shows that the PC version is NOT infallible in terms of intention.

It's not that the designers are 'bad', its just that their QA team is not up to snuff. Sorry Bioware, whoever is reading, but that at least is true, considering there was the dexterity bug on top of all this. Not that I don't appreciate the hotfix given by Dom, far from it, but I call it as I see it.

you're just thinking about dragon age in a way the game wasn't designed.  mages don't have specific roles they go off and specialize in.  you don't have to say "well I'm a support mage so I have to take spells that are crappier but sound kinda like support spells."  you need to unweird your thinking.  I'm wondering if you've played the game any other way than the weird way you think the game exists in.  because doubling up on what you consider the good spells vastly increases the rate at which you can use them.  think 1 forcefield is good? try 3.  the game does not work based on the thinking "well I already have forcefield so no point getting it again."  or "gee I already have a mage that does damage, better make this mage support."

as for the PC game, you'd have to prove to me the PC game isn't by default the intention.  I can agree that the PC game's mechanics are sometimes less balanced than the consoles, but since the former was PORTED to the latter, I find it hard to believe it somehow holds the incorrect intention.  

[surrealitycheck]

Sorry was away at a lecture.

To Dragoonkain - I play on nightmare. I'm not sure what the discrepancy in our damages is due to, however I wonder if you use shale in buff pole mode (I do), as that's some extra spellpower, and if you are using affliction AND vulnerability hex, as they stack. Also, some mobs are more or less resistant to spirit damage - branka or the dragons are very vulnerable, but I know I hit much lower on some mobs.

EDIT: So for some ranges: 1075 damage on a random shambling corpse in redcliffe just now just to check, about 800-900 on the high dragon about 3-4 levels ago, top hit of 1250 on a hurlock alpha.

Modifié par surrealitycheck, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:04 .

[chizow]

DragoonKain3 wrote...

chizow wrote...
Again, *ANY* fantasy-RPG game in the past had clear archetypes that offered numerous alternatives choices for each.


Healer class, you have clerics, priests, paladins, bards, minstrels, red mages, white mages, etc.
Debuff class, you had another mage class, rogue, shaman, witch doctor etc.
Tank class, you had warrior, paladin, ninja, whatever
DPS class, you had rogue, thief, dark/death knight, 2H, DW, whatever.The problem is, the Mage class in this game provides all of those functions in a single class *better* than every other class.[/list]

Emphasis mine.

The bolded part is SO NOT TRUE.

Warriors outtank mages outside of shimmering shield (which is bugged), and mages can't hold aggro at all.

Rogues has single target DPS that only mages can dream of.

As such, mages here are the best at two classes, because the developers intended to combine both classes into a single class. Good thing they put limitations though (too less talent points), as you won't be as effective in a certain aspect of the mage (cleric or wizard) without sacrificing the other aspect's spells. So while you might be an excellent debuffer or an excellent support, you can't be excellent at both at the same time.

Re: Tanking.  Again, very debatable given AW with just combat mastery + rock armor will have more Armor than a Warrior and with a few other buffs, like Arcane Shield, Aura of Might, and Heroic Defense they can get their Defense rating up to similar levels without putting a single point in DEX.  Also, the need to hold hate disappears when the target you're trying to hold hate off of does more damage,  takes less damage and requires less healing than the tank does. In most games, this is a red flag that usually signifies a glaring imbalance.

Re. Rogues.  Mages can completely trivialize the need for single target DPS as they can destroy entire roomfuls of enemies with 2 spell combos without ever getting hit.  For bosses that use magic...Mana Clash can 1 shot them.  For other bosses simply rotating Cone of Cold and Winter's Grasp  with any of the AoE's running in the background offers competitive single target DPS, especially since you don't have to worry about missing, only being resisted.  Alternatively you can go for better single target DPS with combos like Death Hex + Death Cloud or Crushing Prison etc.

Overall a mage can be effective and essentially wear numerous "hats" as you can simply pick and choose which branch in a tree you decide to spec in.  You won't get all the Heal spells, buff/debuff spells, or all the CC spells, or all the AoE/dps spells, or all tanking spells, but you can typically get enough in each to the point you're still more effective than any other class comparably. 

Modifié par chizow, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:05 .

[SheffSteel]

F-C wrote...

SheffSteel wrote...

Nice that georg sees things to improve upon... for those who think the game is perfect.

its interesting you cherry picked out the one line that supports your trolling.


if you will notice the section above that :
the combat system is quite good, not broken.
things are balanced how they want them.

thats the real point there.

It's interesting that you think I'm trolling when none of my posts have attacked anyone else here and have been focussed mainly on improving the game and secondly on discussing perceived problems with an open mind.

Georg can accept that the game isn't perfect. If you can too, then reasonable discussion is possible. That is the real point here.

[Kahryl]

F-C wrote...

Kahryl wrote...
If the developers REALIZED that warriors and rogues were terrible
compared with mages there's be no need for this topic.  The fact that
they don't get it is the whole reason the topic exists in the first
place.

the reason this topic exists is because a few trolls such as yourself, schyzm, aberdash, and pcket just keep trolling about it all day every day and never let it go.

you think your opinion is more important than the developers which just shows what a ridiculous over-inflated sense of entitlement you have.

yet you want to be bitter and whine and cry. go you.

Amazing you can close your eyes to the many, many topics about this filled in by many many people.  When someone does a pro and con list for DA:O the imbalanced classes are always on the con.

I have to ask, why is it so important to you that people not talk about this?  You keep complaining about the mere existence of negative feedback over and over like it's a problem.  Do you have stock in Bioware or what?

[chizow]

F-C wrote...

chizow wrote...
You do realize that statement by Georg Zoeller just invalidated all of your apologies and justifications to-date right?  It seems your function and raison d'etre for posting on these forums just disappeared. lol.

here is my reply already typed out for you.

F-C wrote...

its interesting you cherry picked out the one line that supports your trolling.


if you will notice the section above that :
the combat system is quite good, not broken.
things are balanced how they want them.

thats the real point there.

i guess trolls will refuse to face reality even when they are being smacked in the face with it.

i personally would assume most the imperfections could be labeled "bugs" such as the shimmering shield and other buffs not shutting off properly.


he said he likes the current balance.

he said its not broken.


yet you still want to pick out one line and be like "OMG OMG SEE!!" while ignoring the important section.

Actually he clearly acknowledges the game is not perfect and acknowledges room for improvement, which directly contradict your continued apologies and justifications to the contrary.  As for trolls/trolling lol, again, its clearly obvious his statement has completely invalidated all of your previous apologist remarks and excuses, there's really no reason for you to continue trolling.

[Unbroken Lineage]

Imryll wrote...
Personally, though, I see combining cleric and mage into a single slot as opening doors to different group make-ups, not closing them. Instead of needing a mage and a cleric, you can have a mage/cleric and three others.

Indeed, as do I.

Modifié par Unbroken Lineage, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:11 .

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

ive never been upset with the game, before he even made a post.

Really. Then how can you care about balance?

Back to Georg's comment: bug fixes = likely, class buffs = maybe!

boogie tyme

Unbroken Lineage wrote...

Imryll wrote...
Personally,
though, I see combining cleric and mage into a single slot as opening
doors to different group make-ups, not closing them. Instead of needing
a mage and a cleric, you can have a mage/cleric and three others.

Indeed, as do I.

I wish rogues/wars had the same kind of flexibility, unless someone has been able to make a split-build while I wasn't looking?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:14 .

[Excirial]

Unbroken Lineage wrote...

[*]The problem is, the Mage class in this game provides all of those functions in a single class *better* than every other class.  Again, my intent is not to nerf mages, as that would simply increase reliance on mages further, the intent should be to buff other classes or change fundamental imbalances in the way dependencies for those classes are implemented, like Stamina. 

True, i noticed this when playing my first character, a full primal mage. I noticed several aspects that made them near invincible when compared to melee classes, and in a lesser degree bow based classes.

One of the problems is that the AoE spells don't require any line of sight. Hence, i can cast it trough a wall, meaning that i can literally AoE the hell out of a room with a closed door. The combination of an earthquake, and blizard is enough to prevent anything regular from comming out (Also holds true for most yellows) while inferno and blizzard makes short work of their HP. Worse, sometimes the enemies don't even seem to understand they are in the middle of an AoE which means they will wander or stand about in it without even trying to reach the mage.  (Also, they don't aggro without a LoS so stuffing your party members at the sides of a door allows you to see everything and cast trough the wall without them even checking the door).

*** SPOILER WARNING - DO NOT READ IF YOU DIDN"T COMPLETE THE GAME YET! ***
Furthermore, primal mages have the upper hand in some fights, making them incredibly easy. At the Brood mother fight man can just run up the ledges and AoE her trough the wall till shes down. Some minor bosses such as Caithlin The one arresting you after killing loghains advisor) will just stand in an AoE till dead without aggro - same for the assasin master near the final battle.

If anything, i would say that melee classes are at a gross disadvantage. All three dragons in the game (Flemmeth,  High Dragon and Demon Lord) can easily be nuked with ranged attacks, while even a mage can tank the dragons ranged retributal. Close combatant have to deal with faster and more damaging attacks, along with the need to actually chase the dragon. Hence, i gave Alistar a crappy bow for these fights as he was actually more effective with it then with his sword and shield - while also requiring less healing.

Finally. the last fights needs to be more difficult. I found that a ranged rogue and two mages could use only their basic attacks to end the demon without a hitch (Not a single damage dealing skill on them was used, and neither did i use the balista's). I didn't need any potion at all during this - natural regen and Welynn's regeneration talents provided mana for the few heals she needed to cast. Most of the time the dragon was busy chasing after the dwarves i summoned in the first place anyway. Final result? Dead dragon, with 23 out of 50 dwarves dead. No injuries on the party, and 43 redclif soldiers, 50 elves and 12 mages still in reserve. If anything, it didn't deem it a challenge whatsoever - the regular darkspawn groups before the final fight were actually more difficult.

*** SPOILER END ***

[chizow]

Unbroken Lineage wrote...

chizow wrote...
So again, if you want actual game names, any AD&D title going back as far as SSI Gold Box Forgotten Realms including all Bioware titles, BG1, BG2, NWN.  Any FF title, offline, online, or console.  Any other cRPG that uses a class-based system.  No other title allows for a single class to dominate in every aspect of the game, its really that simple.  Your argument for requiring a "nuclear family" type group completely falls apart when the game is designed in a matter that completely rewards mage-centric groups and penalizes alternative playstyles.

It's odd that I feel like Goldbox titles and FF titles make my point for me, that adding and subtracting spellcasters affects difficulty.  But whatever.  I'm pretty sure any team full of Mages would wreck any game.

Dragon Age has one Mage class with which to DPS, Debuff and Heal.

If it weren't for the Arcane Warrior's tanking ability, there'd be no problem I guess?

No, the examples I provided show other games offer clear gameplay alternatives that allow you to build a party in numerous ways.  Yes, most games typically require a tank/healer paradigm with your choice of how you want to implement dps (hearty melee, single-target dps, glass cannon mage or archer etc.) but as you can see and has already been clearly outlined, mage in DA:O largely invalidates the need for any diversification and does in fact lead to significant penalties to alternative playstyles.  Most notably, the significant increase in cost/upkeep with heal pots due to lack of heals, CC and AoE.

[RENEGADEXVIII]

egervari wrote...

OnesOwnGrief wrote...

Magic isn't that much of a problem. I run a Tank/Rogue/Magex2 group. DPS Mage and healer Mage. Been playing from Nightmare from the very beginning and strategy is something I just acquired from years on FFXI, Valkyria Chronicles, Turnbased Strategic RPGs, and stints of NWN as well as FFXII. The fact this game isn't that far removed from FFXII just made it that much more easier for me since both my mages are almost completely ran off of Tactics I set up myself. I keep control off my tank and the rogue pretty much backstabs everything without care.

I tend to also Taunt every enemy then charge headstrong into a mage and take it out while one the DPS mage sleeps the group on me. The game could be more difficult in my opinion on nightmare than it already is but I took down a dragon on my third attempt no problem without tons of fire resistance. Force Field is your friend and Taunt+ Threaten kept it on me majority of the fight.

Melee abilities in my opinion do not cost much either, problem is that your melees generally start out with low Willpower, Mages start with higher willpower. I went through most of the game with just Taunt and Shield Wall with no problems on my Stamina since after a few plays to get a feel for the game (about 5 restarts) I learned that Taunt was the Superior tanking ability rather than the sustained ability Threaten.

That's part of the problem. You and all the above posters who "don't have a problem" are running 2 mages. So basically in order to have all the tactical options available, you must run 2 or more mages? This is a design problem, especially since there are only 2 mages in the entire game you can pick from.... and loads of useless warriors.

In my last play through I ran with Wynn as the healer,Alister and Sten as tanks and my created character as a DW dagger DPS Rogue.The only problems that I really had resulted from big battles which included 2 enemy mages whom would continuously nuke my party at long range.So I tweeked Wynn to automatically immobilize the first mage in sight with petrify allowing me to live long enough to get to them and my problems were over.

[DragoonKain3]

Schyzm wrote...


you're just thinking about dragon age in a way the game wasn't designed.  mages don't have specific roles they go off and specialize in.  you don't have to say "well I'm a support mage so I have to take spells that are crappier but sound kinda like support spells."  you need to unweird your thinking.  I'm wondering if you've played the game any other way than the weird way you think the game exists in.  because doubling up on what you consider the good spells vastly increases the rate at which you can use them.  think 1 forcefield is good? try 3.  the game does not work based on the thinking "well I already have forcefield so no point getting it again."  or "gee I already have a mage that does damage, better make this mage support."

As I said, there are only two spells in the game that is a must have for every mage... Cone of Cold, and Force Field. Those are the exceptions, not the rule, and quite frankly should be nerfed because of how powerful they are if you stack them.

Everything else? Situational, and you certainly don't need more than 1 of it (or if you do, its not worth the talent points to get to it).

I mean, you don't need anymore AoE when you can execute  with two mages  Blizzard + earthquake --> Tempest to kill the trash off. Heck, you don't even need Spell Might to turn it into Storm, as that alone is enough to kill them.

You don't need more mass CC if you already have paralysis explosion combo on one mage, and blood wound on the other. Sure it would be nice to have another one, but worth the 3/4 talent points to get it? Not really.

Extra mass rejuv would be nice, but worth it to spend 4 talent points just to get mass rejuv? Not worth it when that could've been spent on the dispel magic line or something else that you're missing.

Heal? As I said before, its not optimal in higher difficulties to have multiple mages do heals, when you only need one dedicated healer.

So sure, you can double up damage if you wanted to for your healer mage, but still note you have to sacrifice SOMETHING. And that something can save you from being wiped, while the doubling up the damage only makes you win faster a battle you've already won.

And for the record, wizard/cleric DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ON ONE MAGE, which you think I'm saying. You can have Wynne go Spirit + heal line to cover healing, while another mage can cover the buffs via Haste + Dispel Magic line, while both gets a mix of the offensive spells. Does not change the fact that having more than one iteration of a spell is either not effective and/or not worth the talent points to get to it, or the fact that in the end, if you total up the 'wizard' and 'cleric' spells together, you would still have 1 'wizard' and 1 'cleric' worth of spells between your two mages despite being them not being a 'true' wizard or cleric.

I'll show you an example of two different 2 mage party builds later, if you'd like.  But now, I must take leave for a good few hours.

[F-C]

chizow wrote...

Actually he clearly acknowledges the game is not perfect and acknowledges room for improvement, which directly contradict your continued apologies and justifications to the contrary.  As for trolls/trolling lol, again, its clearly obvious his statement has completely invalidated all of your previous apologist remarks and excuses, there's really no reason for you to continue trolling.

again i already responded to this here :

F-C wrote...

nothing in life is perfect, and as there are bugs in the current game saying it was perfect would be wrong so he wouldnt put himself in that situation.

however when someone said it was bad he replied with "its quite good"
then he goes on to say "unless you wanted a different game and dont like our balance"

you can interpret it however you want and have little delusions in your fantasy world, but its pretty clear what his stance on it is for anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together.

but i digress, its obvious that you guys are going to live in your fantasy land and ignore reality so there isnt much point in pounding it into you as you will never get it.

you will only see what you want to see and blindly ignore the rest.

they do say ignorance is bliss after all.

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

again i already responded to this here ...

Instead of repeating what we already responded to, why not responed to what we responded with?

Unless you have nothing else to offer besides saying "it's there I swear it!"?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:45 .

[F-C]

Pocketgb wrote...

Instead of repeating what we already responded to, why not responed to what we responded with?

Unless you have nothing else to offer besides saying "it's there I swear it!"?

i wasnt speaking to you in that response unless you are also that other poster, but i didnt think you were.

i havent seen anything youve posted worth responding to.

dont be so bitter.

you always have ignorance is bliss on your side.

[Schyzm]

DragoonKain3 wrote...

Schyzm wrote...


you're just thinking about dragon age in a way the game wasn't designed.  mages don't have specific roles they go off and specialize in.  you don't have to say "well I'm a support mage so I have to take spells that are crappier but sound kinda like support spells."  you need to unweird your thinking.  I'm wondering if you've played the game any other way than the weird way you think the game exists in.  because doubling up on what you consider the good spells vastly increases the rate at which you can use them.  think 1 forcefield is good? try 3.  the game does not work based on the thinking "well I already have forcefield so no point getting it again."  or "gee I already have a mage that does damage, better make this mage support."

As I said, there are only two spells in the game that is a must have for every mage... Cone of Cold, and Force Field. Those are the exceptions, not the rule, and quite frankly should be nerfed because of how powerful they are if you stack them.

Everything else? Situational, and you certainly don't need more than 1 of it (or if you do, its not worth the talent points to get to it).

I mean, you don't need anymore AoE when you can execute  with two mages  Blizzard + earthquake --> Tempest to kill the trash off. Heck, you don't even need Spell Might to turn it into Storm, as that alone is enough to kill them.

You don't need more mass CC if you already have paralysis explosion combo on one mage, and blood wound on the other. Sure it would be nice to have another one, but worth the 3/4 talent points to get it? Not really.

Extra mass rejuv would be nice, but worth it to spend 4 talent points just to get mass rejuv? Not worth it when that could've been spent on the dispel magic line or something else that you're missing.

Heal? As I said before, its not optimal in higher difficulties to have multiple mages do heals, when you only need one dedicated healer.

So sure, you can double up damage if you wanted to for your healer mage, but still note you have to sacrifice SOMETHING. And that something can save you from being wiped, while the doubling up the damage only makes you win faster a battle you've already won.

And for the record, wizard/cleric DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ON ONE MAGE, which you think I'm saying. You can have Wynne go Spirit + heal line to cover healing, while another mage can cover the buffs via Haste + Dispel Magic line, while both gets a mix of the offensive spells. Does not change the fact that having more than one iteration of a spell is either not effective and/or not worth the talent points to get to it, or the fact that in the end, if you total up the 'wizard' and 'cleric' spells together, you would still have 1 'wizard' and 1 'cleric' worth of spells between your two mages despite being them not being a 'true' wizard or cleric.

I'll show you an example of two different 2 mage party builds later, if you'd like.  But now, I must take leave for a good few hours.

if all your mages don't have heal you're doing it wrong.  it's one lousy point and there actually is quite a bit of cc in nightmare.  and again why would you get bad spells just because they sound like support spells and you want to make a "cleric" even in aggregate?  still seems pointless, not only practically but as a conceptual understanding of the game.  you're trying to force paradigms on the game that aren't there.

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Instead of repeating what we already responded to, why not responed to what we responded with?

Unless you have nothing else to offer besides saying "it's there I swear it!"?

i wasnt speaking to you in that response unless you are also that other poster, but i didnt think you were.

i havent seen anything youve posted worth responding to.

dont be so bitter.

you always have ignorance is bliss on your side.

I find it interesting how so much you post applies to yourself as well.

/shrug just an observation.

[SheffSteel]

F-C, what proprotion of a balanced party do you think ought to be mages? Another user has said that they think it's 1/2.

The proportion of NPCs that are mages is less than 1/4.

Do you think this situation is perfect?

[F-C]

Pocketgb wrote...

I find it interesting how so much you post applies to yourself as well.

/shrug just an observation.

im sure you would think that.

Modifié par F-C, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:53 .

[Sevitan7]

I do disagree that Forcefield and CoC are must haves. I have beaten the game twice on nightmare with various party composition, and never once went down the forcefield line past mind blast on Morrigan.



CoC is an amazing spell, and one of the best in the game, but it's hardly necessary. It's just in the top tier of spells.

[F-C]

SheffSteel wrote...

F-C, what proprotion of a balanced party do you think ought to be mages? Another user has said that they think it's 1/2.
The proportion of NPCs that are mages is less than 1/4.
Do you think this situation is perfect?

1 would be the minimum under most circumstances to at least fill the healer role.

2 would be the standard model used for the cleric and wizard roles standard to most RPG games.


if you want to argue that they should have had more mage NPC's that is not an imabalance with mages, but just a design decision you dont like.

[Pocketgb]

F-C wrote...

im sure you would think that.

I think that based on the fact that every time I asked how the game wasn't balanced you attempted to bypass that by attempting to shut it out. Same thing happened when I asked how you care about balance. Ignorance can *indeed* be bliss.

Then there's the instance where you mentioned insanity - and continually simply copy-paste replies/posts the first sign someone seems to evaluate and criticize what your saying.

Then there's the above passage, but I highly doubt you'd consider yourself  "ignorant".

Whatever goes, though. Incoming fixes and hopefully buffs.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 10:59 .

[chizow]

F-C wrote...

chizow wrote...

Actually he clearly acknowledges the game is not perfect and acknowledges room for improvement, which directly contradict your continued apologies and justifications to the contrary.  As for trolls/trolling lol, again, its clearly obvious his statement has completely invalidated all of your previous apologist remarks and excuses, there's really no reason for you to continue trolling.

again i already responded to this here :

F-C wrote...

nothing in life is perfect, and as there are bugs in the current game saying it was perfect would be wrong so he wouldnt put himself in that situation.

however when someone said it was bad he replied with "its quite good"
then he goes on to say "unless you wanted a different game and dont like our balance"

you can interpret it however you want and have little delusions in your fantasy world, but its pretty clear what his stance on it is for anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together.

but i digress, its obvious that you guys are going to live in your fantasy land and ignore reality so there isnt much point in pounding it into you as you will never get it.

you will only see what you want to see and blindly ignore the rest.

they do say ignorance is bliss after all.

LOL, you never cease to amaze me in your ability to completely contradict yourself and your position, often in the very same posting!

Its obvious the game isn't perfect, his reply isn't in reference to any bug, its directed at design decisions you've repeatedly apologized and justified as "working as intended" and "not going to change because Bioware said so." 

He's clearly stating he sees room for improvement for these very in-game systems, so there's really no need for you to keep posting the same counter-productive apologies/trolls/flames continuously.

Ignorance is only bliss for those who accept the status quo without question, as you clearly have repeatedly on this forum in every single one of your postings. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of DA:O fans do not agree with you and see improvement potential for the game, including the people most responsible for doing so: Bioware Devs.