75 réponses à ce sujet

[Skemte]

oblivionenss wrote...

kroosaydur wrote...

who ****ing cares what the goddamned lore says its a game and should be balanced as a game

I do, it is the lore that sets the prerequist for the story ahead of you.

Lets say for example, making an extreme example:

Neverwinter is getting obliterated 5 years before the main story, and, suddenly you begin in Neverwinter 5 years after.

It how it feels if the lore doesnt make any sense of the actual world.

 
  Fail.. You can clear out the mage tower area with 4 melees something the entire circle mage tower fell too and you have to save their asses..  The real game doesn't agree with you.. Furthermore where is this lore? People constantly cite they are so powerful thats why the chantry watches over them.. WRONG WRONG WRONG..  No where have I ever seen where it says that WHAT so ever.. They do it because mages or people with magical abilities have the possibility of getting possessed and becoming an abomination a very powerful creature (regardless of the mages power)..  OR they go down the blood magic which summons demons as well as do other heinous things.. No where does it say about mages being too powerful in lore I have read.

[Marek_Kail]

Wolff Laarcen wrote...

kroosaydur wrote...
who ****ing cares what the goddamned lore says its a game and should be balanced as a game

While not worded very well, this is a good point.

A game should be balanced around gameplay, not lore.  Story, Roleplaying and 'immersion' aside, the gameplay experience is the primary faccet of any game: mechanics, features, synergy, responsiveness of control and depth for example.  Ignoring these essential areas then just saying 'its because of Lore!' only makes for a bad game.

Maybe, but in most cases the gameplay complaints around here are "Mages are OP."

You can beat this game on any difficulty with any character class.  The mechanics that way are thus balanced. Will it be easier for a mage heavy group? Absolutely. The game is much easier, IMHO, if you burn the skill points on Coersion as well. 

Just because the character you envision as the protaganist is not as easy to play, doesn't mean it is truly unbalanced from a gameplay mechanic. 

Course you are talking to someone who had the most fun playing Mass Effect as an engineer, which according to the forums is horribly broken from a gameplay perspective.

[Skemte]

Marek_Kail wrote...

Wolff Laarcen wrote...

kroosaydur wrote...
who ****ing cares what the goddamned lore says its a game and should be balanced as a game

While not worded very well, this is a good point.

A game should be balanced around gameplay, not lore.  Story, Roleplaying and 'immersion' aside, the gameplay experience is the primary faccet of any game: mechanics, features, synergy, responsiveness of control and depth for example.  Ignoring these essential areas then just saying 'its because of Lore!' only makes for a bad game.

Maybe, but in most cases the gameplay complaints around here are "Mages are OP."

You can beat this game on any difficulty with any character class.  The mechanics that way are thus balanced. Will it be easier for a mage heavy group? Absolutely. The game is much easier, IMHO, if you burn the skill points on Coersion as well. 

Just because the character you envision as the protaganist is not as easy to play, doesn't mean it is truly unbalanced from a gameplay mechanic. 

Course you are talking to someone who had the most fun playing Mass Effect as an engineer, which according to the forums is horribly broken from a gameplay perspective.

...  This is flawed logic..  I have seen challenge runs in games like Final Fantasy 10 where a person completes it with only one character or no sphere grid.... Its hard as hell but it can be done.. Was it balanced to do that?  Did the creators expect and design the game around it? Hell no.

[Cowboy_christo]

ReggarBlane wrote...

If you choose to play easy, then you face the consequences of that choice whether desired or not. They have an easy mode as an option and apparently in more ways than one. Playing as a mage I suppose is one of them.
If this was a multiplayer competition, then yes. They would need to do something, but it's not. It's your choices and your choices alone that determine how easy their game is to play.
If you think that the availability of a choice to make things less fun for you is the same as you choosing it and making it less fun, then you have an issue of your own willpower.
It's like the person who keeps their thumb on the previous page of a CYOA book, kept turning back when they didn't like the outcome and then complains that it was too easy.
The choice is yours. The option is simply there. Shoot yourself in the foot or put that cannon away.

Wait your saying that if we play mage its our choice to make the game easier? What if we want to have some kind of difficulty and play a mage at the same time. Your argument is retarded. 

[Titanmike357]

Right, so either I am playing a different game, or my mage build for morigan sucks, and my dual wield STR/DEX rogue is god like, or maybe its only a few people who are having this problem.



my PC rogue can take 3 mobs at once, kill one, and get the other to 50% with out ever harming my party members, while it takes shale, sten and morigan longer to kill one single white mob.



My rouge also manages to do 49% of my party's damage, and thats impressive considering that I have a mage and a 2hander warrior with me, and shale.



Mages are good at what they do, but a rogue is just as good at single target dps, a warrior has the skills and talents to live longer, a mage brings CC and healing.



Oh, by the way, I managed to finish the entire game ( on normal ) with out a healer ( besides the tower ) and I never had any problems, my rouge looks to be a cake walk.





Yeah, a mage can wear massive and heavy armor, but it comes at a price, and with out dex tey are not going to be hitting much.



Warrior tank>mage tank wanna be.

[scyld]

Skemte wrote...
  Fail.. You can clear out the mage tower area with 4 melees something the entire circle mage tower fell too and you have to save their asses..  The real game doesn't agree with you..

Haha, yes, exactly... when people complain that certain aspects of the game "break immersion" for them, I like to point out that a rag-tag band of 4 heroes can do what significantly larger forces lead by veteran combatants cannot.

Furthermore where is this lore? People constantly cite they are so powerful thats why the chantry watches over them.. WRONG WRONG WRONG..  No where have I ever seen where it says that WHAT so ever.. They do it because mages or people with magical abilities have the possibility of getting possessed and becoming an abomination a very powerful creature (regardless of the mages power)..  OR they go down the blood magic which summons demons as well as do other heinous things.. No where does it say about mages being too powerful in lore I have read.

Exactly. Templars watch over the mages for fear of them becoming abominations or maleficars, not because mages are "so powerful."

Titanmike357 wrote...

Yeah, a mage can wear massive and heavy armor, but it comes at a price, and with out dex tey are not going to be hitting much.

Warrior tank>mage tank wanna be.

Arcane warriors do not need dexterity, or at least they do not need much. Combat Magic and Aura of Might give them significant bonuses to attack.

The thing they lack is aggro control: they have no Taunt nor do they have threat-generating abilities aside from raw damage. It could be enough if your Arcane Warrior is a DPS machine.

Modifié par scyld, 16 novembre 2009 - 09:58 .

[Schyzm]

Titanmike357 wrote...

Right, so either I am playing a different game, or my mage build for morigan sucks, and my dual wield STR/DEX rogue is god like, or maybe its only a few people who are having this problem.

my PC rogue can take 3 mobs at once, kill one, and get the other to 50% with out ever harming my party members, while it takes shale, sten and morigan longer to kill one single white mob.

My rouge also manages to do 49% of my party's damage, and thats impressive considering that I have a mage and a 2hander warrior with me, and shale.

Mages are good at what they do, but a rogue is just as good at single target dps, a warrior has the skills and talents to live longer, a mage brings CC and healing.

Oh, by the way, I managed to finish the entire game ( on normal ) with out a healer ( besides the tower ) and I never had any problems, my rouge looks to be a cake walk.


Yeah, a mage can wear massive and heavy armor, but it comes at a price, and with out dex tey are not going to be hitting much.

Warrior tank>mage tank wanna be.

you simply know nothing about the actual power of mages.  it'd be nice if ppl who haven't really seen the crazy obscene stuff mages do to at least temper their comments a little based on lack of knowledge.  but I'm sure your rogue auto attacking and his using his what? 4-5 abilities before he's out of stamina is totally the equal of a mage w/ endless cc, healing, massive damage and an unlimited resource pool.....

[Haexpane]

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

oblivionenss wrote...

It is the DM that has made the lore, and it is also DM that has decided that mages is powerful but has drawbacks, like friendlyfire,. The Dm is in this case Bioware, and It is always ALWAYS the DM that has the last word, in P & P atleast and it should be so in computer RPGs to, sure the players could come with bug reports but not gamebreaking changes and balance suggestions, wich is not needed in a single player game like this or in a P & P cause there you test the system before you play with it, if you dont you are just a bad DM.

But if Bioware thinks it is fit to change something in the game more to their liking we cant stop them, but it is most rant threads out there now, and you could see this one as one to if you like.

And one more thing, the Darkspawns have alot of mages because........their powers arent from the world where Ferelden is in.

Wrong, the DM is bound by the rulebook.  Allowing DMs to change the rules is bogus nerd nonsense.

The bottom line is if mages don't need STR or DEX but can use STR or Dex gear w/ AM skills, why have any tanks at all?

"bound by the rulebook"?

Sorry but that is a very reductive take on pen and paper RPG. I've played many games and I can tell you that if you start worrying about the rules so much that it actually stifles or restricts your imagination in any way you are probably not having fun anymore.

Remember what Gary Gygax used to say: "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

That's the same school of thought behind Twighlight Fan Fiction.

THe idea that "fans know better than the writers" has been given it's chance.  Portal and Counterstrike are some of the only "Fan art" projects to ever make it.

The idea that "i know better than the 30 people who made this rulebook and lore" is almost always proven false.

When you play basketball do you allow double drible and travel because it's "More fun"?  Rules exist  in games because they have been tested and researched.   Fans are not bound by consumer criticisms.   IF they really knew better, they'd make their own rulebook and it would be a top seller.

That's just a pipe dream, the reality is 99.9% of fan art and fan projects blow high chunks of garbage.

I don't get why you're quoting my post since your reply doesn't even respond to what I've posted.

RPGs are not meant to be played one way. Any DM worth his salt has a set of house rules that may be more or less complicated or comprehensive than what the rulebook provides. I use the verb provide because that is what rulebooks do, they provide a Game Master (or Dungeon Master) with options. Rules are not meant to be Holy Scripture.

An RPG is about imagination and storytelling, the rules are just a means to an end, nothing more. DA is a perfect example of fine storytelling in a CRPG.

I believe that house rules are a good thing in pnp RPGs and that mods can be as useful when it comes to a CRPG. By the way, games are patched all the time because of bugs or issues that need rebalancing. Would you consider a patch to be wrong because it changed the rules of the game? 

By the way, no offense but your comparisons are not adequate. Fan fiction and basketball don't have much in common (even less in common with role playing games). But if we were to take your comparison one notch ahead we'd have to say that rugby was invented by people who weren't opposed to house rules.
 

 

No, a patch and "house rules" are nothing alike. A patch is an officially released software update. "House rules" = nerds who like to cheat.

Unofficial mods (that are unbalanced) are more like house rules,  if the publisher gave you all the source material.

Again if people think they can do better, then go for it.  Fan Fiction/Fan made games fail 99.99% of the time.  BUt they always insist they "know better" than award winning professionals.

[Skemte]

... I can't help you are calling people nerds who decide how they want to play in a pnp game.. That being said in every pnp dnd book I have ever seen in the first few pages it has always said these are guide lines rather than set in stone rules.. Afterall its your game you choose what aspecs you may like and may want to change to better fit your gameplay style.. This isn't hard to understand..

[Haexpane]

Schyzm wrote...

 

alistairs abilities:
hit someone w/ shield once
hit someone w/ shield twice
hit someone w/ shield three....oh wait outta stamina.

This is sadly true.  Many other abilities are like this

increase your hit rate, but no crits!  (worthless)
increase your crits, but hit less (worthless)
lose health over time for minor damage increase (worthless because the animation is annoying)

the list goes on and on

Mage abilities are like this
pwn everyone constantly
wear plate like a warrior, cast like a mage, basically be every class in the game at once
stop enemies from doing anything at all
drain enemy health from a distance
drain enemy mana from a distance
buff everyone
heal everyone
kill everyone
weaken everyone
freeze everyone
burn everyone
shock everyone
poison everyone...

[oblivionenss]

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Kalcalan wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

oblivionenss wrote...

It is the DM that has made the lore, and it is also DM that has decided that mages is powerful but has drawbacks, like friendlyfire,. The Dm is in this case Bioware, and It is always ALWAYS the DM that has the last word, in P & P atleast and it should be so in computer RPGs to, sure the players could come with bug reports but not gamebreaking changes and balance suggestions, wich is not needed in a single player game like this or in a P & P cause there you test the system before you play with it, if you dont you are just a bad DM.

But if Bioware thinks it is fit to change something in the game more to their liking we cant stop them, but it is most rant threads out there now, and you could see this one as one to if you like.

And one more thing, the Darkspawns have alot of mages because........their powers arent from the world where Ferelden is in.

Wrong, the DM is bound by the rulebook.  Allowing DMs to change the rules is bogus nerd nonsense.

The bottom line is if mages don't need STR or DEX but can use STR or Dex gear w/ AM skills, why have any tanks at all?

"bound by the rulebook"?

Sorry but that is a very reductive take on pen and paper RPG. I've played many games and I can tell you that if you start worrying about the rules so much that it actually stifles or restricts your imagination in any way you are probably not having fun anymore.

Remember what Gary Gygax used to say: "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

That's the same school of thought behind Twighlight Fan Fiction.

THe idea that "fans know better than the writers" has been given it's chance.  Portal and Counterstrike are some of the only "Fan art" projects to ever make it.

The idea that "i know better than the 30 people who made this rulebook and lore" is almost always proven false.

When you play basketball do you allow double drible and travel because it's "More fun"?  Rules exist  in games because they have been tested and researched.   Fans are not bound by consumer criticisms.   IF they really knew better, they'd make their own rulebook and it would be a top seller.

That's just a pipe dream, the reality is 99.9% of fan art and fan projects blow high chunks of garbage.

I don't get why you're quoting my post since your reply doesn't even respond to what I've posted.

RPGs are not meant to be played one way. Any DM worth his salt has a set of house rules that may be more or less complicated or comprehensive than what the rulebook provides. I use the verb provide because that is what rulebooks do, they provide a Game Master (or Dungeon Master) with options. Rules are not meant to be Holy Scripture.

An RPG is about imagination and storytelling, the rules are just a means to an end, nothing more. DA is a perfect example of fine storytelling in a CRPG.

I believe that house rules are a good thing in pnp RPGs and that mods can be as useful when it comes to a CRPG. By the way, games are patched all the time because of bugs or issues that need rebalancing. Would you consider a patch to be wrong because it changed the rules of the game? 

By the way, no offense but your comparisons are not adequate. Fan fiction and basketball don't have much in common (even less in common with role playing games). But if we were to take your comparison one notch ahead we'd have to say that rugby was invented by people who weren't opposed to house rules.
 

 

No, a patch and "house rules" are nothing alike. A patch is an officially released software update. "House rules" = nerds who like to cheat.

Unofficial mods (that are unbalanced) are more like house rules,  if the publisher gave you all the source material.

Again if people think they can do better, then go for it.  Fan Fiction/Fan made games fail 99.99% of the time.  BUt they always insist they "know better" than award winning professionals.

I  really feel sorry for you if you think that house rules is cheating, rules in P & P is just to have a something to stand on, and change the things the DM want to change and believe me, those that i have roleplayed with changed it for something harder than the primary rules.

Modifié par oblivionenss, 16 novembre 2009 - 10:05 .

[Skellimancer]

Haexpane wrote...

Schyzm wrote...

 

alistairs abilities:
hit someone w/ shield once
hit someone w/ shield twice
hit someone w/ shield three....oh wait outta stamina.

This is sadly true.  Many other abilities are like this

increase your hit rate, but no crits!  (worthless)
increase your crits, but hit less (worthless)
lose health over time for minor damage increase (worthless because the animation is annoying)

the list goes on and on

Mage abilities are like this
pwn everyone constantly
wear plate like a warrior, cast like a mage, basically be every class in the game at once
stop enemies from doing anything at all
drain enemy health from a distance
drain enemy mana from a distance
buff everyone
heal everyone
kill everyone
weaken everyone
freeze everyone
burn everyone
shock everyone
poison everyone...

Yes, its frustrating.

I love the tier4 Critical Talent for two handed. It costs huge stamina, can miss and IF it hits does a critical hit as if you auto attacked. joy..

Tier2 mage spells are better.

Modifié par Skellimancer, 16 novembre 2009 - 10:05 .

[Haexpane]

Skemte wrote...

... I can't help you are calling people nerds who decide how they want to play in a pnp game.. That being said in every pnp dnd book I have ever seen in the first few pages it has always said these are guide lines rather than set in stone rules.. Afterall its your game you choose what aspecs you may like and may want to change to better fit your gameplay style.. This isn't hard to understand..

So if the game is D20, do you swap it out for  a 52 deck of cards? Or a coin flip instead?  Why even use dice, ask the dog whether or not you scored a hit....

They aren't "guidelines"  AD&D 3.5 etc... are RULEs for a GAME.  Games require rules, otherwise it's nonsense and chaos.

No one is dictating what you do in your spare time.  But if you take a AD&D 3.5 set, and ignore the AD&D rules, you aren't playing AD&D, you are playing some made up game that only you and your friends care about.

But lets stick to the context of DAO and videogames pls, that is way off topic.  You can play by 1 set of rules in DAO, the Bioware rules.   or you can mod in your own rules/cheats/exploits whatever.. but at that point, you are no longer playing the same game.

[Skemte]

Haexpane wrote...

Skemte wrote...

... I can't help you are calling people nerds who decide how they want to play in a pnp game.. That being said in every pnp dnd book I have ever seen in the first few pages it has always said these are guide lines rather than set in stone rules.. Afterall its your game you choose what aspecs you may like and may want to change to better fit your gameplay style.. This isn't hard to understand..

So if the game is D20, do you swap it out for  a 52 deck of cards? Or a coin flip instead?  Why even use dice, ask the dog whether or not you scored a hit....

They aren't "guidelines"  AD&D 3.5 etc... are RULEs for a GAME.  Games require rules, otherwise it's nonsense and chaos.

No one is dictating what you do in your spare time.  But if you take a AD&D 3.5 set, and ignore the AD&D rules, you aren't playing AD&D, you are playing some made up game that only you and your friends care about.

But lets stick to the context of DAO and videogames pls, that is way off topic.  You can play by 1 set of rules in DAO, the Bioware rules.   or you can mod in your own rules/cheats/exploits whatever.. but at that point, you are no longer playing the same game.

... Why would you be bothered by that if the person likes how its played that way more power to them..

[Marek_Kail]

Skemte wrote...

Marek_Kail wrote...

Wolff Laarcen wrote...

kroosaydur wrote...
who ****ing cares what the goddamned lore says its a game and should be balanced as a game

While not worded very well, this is a good point.

A game should be balanced around gameplay, not lore.  Story, Roleplaying and 'immersion' aside, the gameplay experience is the primary faccet of any game: mechanics, features, synergy, responsiveness of control and depth for example.  Ignoring these essential areas then just saying 'its because of Lore!' only makes for a bad game.

Maybe, but in most cases the gameplay complaints around here are "Mages are OP."

You can beat this game on any difficulty with any character class.  The mechanics that way are thus balanced. Will it be easier for a mage heavy group? Absolutely. The game is much easier, IMHO, if you burn the skill points on Coersion as well. 

Just because the character you envision as the protaganist is not as easy to play, doesn't mean it is truly unbalanced from a gameplay mechanic. 

Course you are talking to someone who had the most fun playing Mass Effect as an engineer, which according to the forums is horribly broken from a gameplay perspective.

...  This is flawed logic..  I have seen challenge runs in games like Final Fantasy 10 where a person completes it with only one character or no sphere grid.... Its hard as hell but it can be done.. Was it balanced to do that?  Did the creators expect and design the game around it? Hell no.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that balance is more than just being able to win? At that point we are no longer using an objective term, but instead speaking to what you consider balance. Why should it be just as easy playing a tank as a mage, or as a rogue? 

Balance should be about the lowest common denominator, name can you win the game with any build that is available to the game. Anything more than that in a single player game is only opinion. 

Your arguments have some merit in an MMO, but then only an MMO where PVP is unavoidable.

But we aren't,

and you can win the entire game as any charcter class, with any specialization build. So that means the gameplay is balanced. 


Balanced is not necessarily fun either. If all classes were fully balanced (as in no class build was "better")  then it becomes boring, or impossible to program. See the current homoenization of WoW to see how boring classes become.

[KalDurenik]

The problem is the lack of more points to spend. (Feats) With feats you could change a class ALOT.

[Haexpane]

scyld wrote...

Arcane warriors do not need dexterity, or at least they do not need much. Combat Magic and Aura of Might give them significant bonuses to attack.

The thing they lack is aggro control: they have no Taunt nor do they have threat-generating abilities aside from raw damage. It could be enough if your Arcane Warrior is a DPS machine.

Wearing heavy/massive armor = taunting, not sure how much but yeah, Arcane Warriors even have that.  You're right, they don't need Dex.  So they get 95% of the pros of being a warrior, and 95% of the pros of being a mage, all in the same class.

Balanced?  About as much as Fox news

[oblivionenss]

Haexpane wrote...

Skemte wrote...

... I can't help you are calling people nerds who decide how they want to play in a pnp game.. That being said in every pnp dnd book I have ever seen in the first few pages it has always said these are guide lines rather than set in stone rules.. Afterall its your game you choose what aspecs you may like and may want to change to better fit your gameplay style.. This isn't hard to understand..

So if the game is D20, do you swap it out for  a 52 deck of cards? Or a coin flip instead?  Why even use dice, ask the dog whether or not you scored a hit....

They aren't "guidelines"  AD&D 3.5 etc... are RULEs for a GAME.  Games require rules, otherwise it's nonsense and chaos.

No one is dictating what you do in your spare time.  But if you take a AD&D 3.5 set, and ignore the AD&D rules, you aren't playing AD&D, you are playing some made up game that only you and your friends care about.

But lets stick to the context of DAO and videogames pls, that is way off topic.  You can play by 1 set of rules in DAO, the Bioware rules.   or you can mod in your own rules/cheats/exploits whatever.. but at that point, you are no longer playing the same game.

It looks to me you dont know anything about P & P the most DM change something in the rules and as he said it even reads in the begining of the rule books that it is only guidelines

but yeah lets keep P & P out of this discussion

[Schyzm]

Marek_Kail wrote...

Skemte wrote...

Marek_Kail wrote...

Wolff Laarcen wrote...

kroosaydur wrote...
who ****ing cares what the goddamned lore says its a game and should be balanced as a game

While not worded very well, this is a good point.

A game should be balanced around gameplay, not lore.  Story, Roleplaying and 'immersion' aside, the gameplay experience is the primary faccet of any game: mechanics, features, synergy, responsiveness of control and depth for example.  Ignoring these essential areas then just saying 'its because of Lore!' only makes for a bad game.

Maybe, but in most cases the gameplay complaints around here are "Mages are OP."

You can beat this game on any difficulty with any character class.  The mechanics that way are thus balanced. Will it be easier for a mage heavy group? Absolutely. The game is much easier, IMHO, if you burn the skill points on Coersion as well. 

Just because the character you envision as the protaganist is not as easy to play, doesn't mean it is truly unbalanced from a gameplay mechanic. 

Course you are talking to someone who had the most fun playing Mass Effect as an engineer, which according to the forums is horribly broken from a gameplay perspective.

...  This is flawed logic..  I have seen challenge runs in games like Final Fantasy 10 where a person completes it with only one character or no sphere grid.... Its hard as hell but it can be done.. Was it balanced to do that?  Did the creators expect and design the game around it? Hell no.

I'm not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that balance is more than just being able to win? At that point we are no longer using an objective term, but instead speaking to what you consider balance. Why should it be just as easy playing a tank as a mage, or as a rogue? 

Balance should be about the lowest common denominator, name can you win the game with any build that is available to the game. Anything more than that in a single player game is only opinion. 

Your arguments have some merit in an MMO, but then only an MMO where PVP is unavoidable.

But we aren't,

and you can win the entire game as any charcter class, with any specialization build. So that means the gameplay is balanced. 


Balanced is not necessarily fun either. If all classes were fully balanced (as in no class build was "better")  then it becomes boring, or impossible to program. See the current homoenization of WoW to see how boring classes become.

balance has always mattered in single player games.   and pvp is very avoidable in mmorpg's, there is no need to ever hit another player in an mmorpg.  

imbalanced, poorly made combat systems ruin the enjoyment of a great number of people.  people want an engrossing combat system that isn't littered with broken mechanics, yes, even in single player.  you're just going to have square yourself with this reality.

[Haexpane]

Skemte wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

Skemte wrote...

... I can't help you are calling people nerds who decide how they want to play in a pnp game.. That being said in every pnp dnd book I have ever seen in the first few pages it has always said these are guide lines rather than set in stone rules.. Afterall its your game you choose what aspecs you may like and may want to change to better fit your gameplay style.. This isn't hard to understand..

So if the game is D20, do you swap it out for  a 52 deck of cards? Or a coin flip instead?  Why even use dice, ask the dog whether or not you scored a hit....

They aren't "guidelines"  AD&D 3.5 etc... are RULEs for a GAME.  Games require rules, otherwise it's nonsense and chaos.

No one is dictating what you do in your spare time.  But if you take a AD&D 3.5 set, and ignore the AD&D rules, you aren't playing AD&D, you are playing some made up game that only you and your friends care about.

But lets stick to the context of DAO and videogames pls, that is way off topic.  You can play by 1 set of rules in DAO, the Bioware rules.   or you can mod in your own rules/cheats/exploits whatever.. but at that point, you are no longer playing the same game.

... Why would you be bothered by that if the person likes how its played that way more power to them..

I'm not bothered at all, I stated anyone can play however they want.  I forget now what the original point was, but someone was trying to say that house rules was "better" than official rules or something, in the context of DAO but now I can't remember LOL

[spool32]

scyld wrote...

Schyzm wrote...


alistairs abilities:
hit someone w/ shield once
hit someone w/ shield twice
hit someone w/ shield three....oh wait outta stamina.

For me, it's more like:

keep Threaten on
Taunt
hit someone with shield once
hit someone with shield tw... oh out of stamina

ur doin it rong:

Charge the enemy mage.
Dispel everything he cast.
Drain his mana while you hack him to bits.

Templar > mage.

[Schyzm]

spool32 wrote...

scyld wrote...

Schyzm wrote...


alistairs abilities:
hit someone w/ shield once
hit someone w/ shield twice
hit someone w/ shield three....oh wait outta stamina.

For me, it's more like:

keep Threaten on
Taunt
hit someone with shield once
hit someone with shield tw... oh out of stamina

ur doin it rong:

Charge the enemy mage.
Dispel everything he cast.
Drain his mana while you hack him to bits.

Templar > mage.

I don't find that to be very useful:
1)I need allister to absorb at least some damage from the melee trash in the fight, otherwise I mean lol why is he even there.
2)I can kill enemy mages very quickly from a great distance with my own mages, why bother sending someone running across the screen?

[Haexpane]

Marek_Kail wrote...
 

I'm not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that balance is more than just being able to win? At that point we are no longer using an objective term, but instead speaking to what you consider balance. Why should it be just as easy playing a tank as a mage, or as a rogue? 

Balance should be about the lowest common denominator, name can you win the game with any build that is available to the game. Anything more than that in a single player game is only opinion. 

Your arguments have some merit in an MMO, but then only an MMO where PVP is unavoidable.

But we aren't,

and you can win the entire game as any charcter class, with any specialization build. So that means the gameplay is balanced. 


Balanced is not necessarily fun either. If all classes were fully balanced (as in no class build was "better")  then it becomes boring, or impossible to program. See the current homoenization of WoW to see how boring classes become.

LOL of course balance is not about "can you win".  That's absurd.  Have you played MMOs before?  classes being "unabalanced" is all about feel, testing, combat logs and group dynamics.  

It's been proven thousands of times over that the only way to "balance" classes is through testing.  Back in the old days, like 1999 Everquest, the developers said anyone "complaining about balance LOL u suck at playing"

Then the players got serious, and we started showing combat logs, XP tables, gear spreadsheets.  It was PROVEN to the devs without a doubt which classes were gimped beyond intent, to the point of making XP gain slower for themselves, and the entire party.

SOE then spent MONTHS doing balanced testing after they were shown facts.  So this idea of "LOL balance is fine just go play" is an old argument that was debunked 10 years ago by the players themselves, using official game logs.

Balance isn't about "I beat the boss w/ 4 rogues, rogues R FINE u suck at playin!"   Balance is about - *does this class offer anything useful to the point of being a compelling choice for a group member*

Mages offer healing, CC, DD, DoT AND the ability to wear plate and use weapons.  That = extremely compelling choice.

Warriors can taunt and soak up damage... sounds great, but the balance is off.  Not enough damage sponging, too hard to heal w/ spells (potions work better)  Stamina drains, wasting "rejuv" from a mage on a warrior is pointless, doing DD or CC w/ the mage works better etc...

The list goes on and on as to why exactly warriors are not quote balanced.  Most of it boils down to the abilities are gimped, slow to recharge, and stamina does not recharge enough.  Too much cost for an ability to be even worth it.

Someone else mentioned the 2H skill tree, half of the skills are worthless.  Critical Hit?  the recharge is insanely slow for an extra 10pts of damage.  Shield bash is great .for the first skill, then it's "more shield bashing at more cost"...

Extremely boring.  Passive high tier skills like "no longer have such gimped out penalities for using a 2h"  yay?

What's better, not being so gimped at 2h or putting a mage in prison?  

[scyld]

spool32 wrote...

scyld wrote...

Schyzm wrote...


alistairs abilities:
hit someone w/ shield once
hit someone w/ shield twice
hit someone w/ shield three....oh wait outta stamina.

For me, it's more like:

keep Threaten on
Taunt
hit someone with shield once
hit someone with shield tw... oh out of stamina

ur doin it rong:

Charge the enemy mage.
Dispel everything he cast.
Drain his mana while you hack him to bits.

Templar > mage.

It's better to just CC the mage if possible with Crushing Prison, Petrify.... i.e. a MAGE spell. Otherwise, it's best to FF them down.

And I'm not sure how you "dispel everything he casts" given the 30 second CD on Cleanse Area as well as its terribly high stamina cost of 40.

Don't get me wrong: Alistair's Templar training is quite handy. It's just not as completely mage-destroying as you claim ;p

Modifié par scyld, 16 novembre 2009 - 10:34 .

[Haexpane]

scyld wrote...

spool32 wrote...

scyld wrote...

Schyzm wrote...


alistairs abilities:
hit someone w/ shield once
hit someone w/ shield twice
hit someone w/ shield three....oh wait outta stamina.

For me, it's more like:

keep Threaten on
Taunt
hit someone with shield once
hit someone with shield tw... oh out of stamina

ur doin it rong:

Charge the enemy mage.
Dispel everything he cast.
Drain his mana while you hack him to bits.

Templar > mage.

It's better to just CC the mage if possible with Crushing Prison, Petrify.... i.e. a MAGE spell. Otherwise, it's best to FF them down.

And I'm not sure how you "dispel everything he casts" given the 30 second CD on Cleanse Area as well as its terribly high stamina cost of 40.

Don't get me wrong: Alistair's Templar training is quite handy. It's just not as completely mage-destroying as you claim ;p

Exactly, and that is a perfect point about balance being off.

Intent - Templar is useful against a mage.  This is true

Gameplay - faster to use a Mage CC or debuffs on a mage rather than waiting for a slow templar to engage

That is how balance works.  The devs INTEND something, but during play, the players figure out  other things are far more efficient.

Balancing classes in  PVE RPG again started with Everquest (in ultima is was basically LOL griefers pwned you, ur class sux too bad).

This idea that 'single player does not need to be balanced" is some recent urban myth.  Balance does NOT mean "all classes are equal" it just means that all classes are VALUABLE and not just "not so bad" or "not bad enough to hurt the party that much"

If DAO were a MMO and people were forming groups for XP and they had a choice between Arcane Warrior or Warrior/Templar what would they pick 99% of the time?