109 réponses à ce sujet

[Schyzm]

Awesome Brain Powers wrote...

Closet Gamer wrote...

It's very similar in a multitude of ways, yes. But that's no justification for developing a **** community. WoW's full of kiddies for its own reasons, I always assumed the BioWare community was a bit more mature.

For overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I direct you to a great deal of threads directly beneath (and, by the time I'm done writing this, above) this one.

For more evidence, for that matter, I direct you to a thread that takes terms (and childish behavior) that existed long, long before that game ever did, erroneously assumes that they belong solely to one specific part of one specific community, and then imprudently lumps "all that stuff I don't like" in with "that game I don't like". I'm fairly certain there's a thread like that here somewhere...

mad pwn.

[Closet Gamer]

daem3an wrote...

This is Ludacris.

No sir, this is mad pwnage

[tkioz]

Only thing wrong with WoW is the WoW players.

[Kelston]

tkioz wrote...

Only thing wrong with WoW is the WoW players.

Only people who failed out of junior high school will make a thread complaining about math and blaming WoW players for it.

Oh noeessss, WoW players graduated past algebra, oh noooooo.

[Pseron Wyrd]

Closet Gamer wrote...
It seems like the WoW community up and decided to come play DA:O and blow its forums up.

Sadly enough, some of the posts in this thread appear to prove your point.

[Timortis]

Here's a quick reality check. Go to Gamefaqs, look at the BG2 FAQs. You'll see tons of discussions and FAQs about optimal character builds, from 10 years ago. This is nothing new and it has nothing to do with WoW. For certain people, the strategic combat and character building aspect of these games is fun. It's always been this way, and has nothing to do with MMOs or WoW.

[TileToad]

Tonya777 wrote...
And yeah most anyone who would buy DAO has played an MMO at least at some point

Nope, never have and don't plan on it either.

I'm also quite confused about all these weird terms people throw around. An aggro, or nerf mage? Now WTF is a nerf mage?? A mage that gets on your nerves or something?
The term "tank" is also very hip it seems. What ever happened to warrior, fighter or melee character? Terms more appropriate to this genre game. A tank is more suitable for modern warfare.
Ah well..

[marshalleck]

TileToad wrote...

Tonya777 wrote...
And yeah most anyone who would buy DAO has played an MMO at least at some point

Nope, never have and don't plan on it either.

I'm also quite confused about all these weird terms people throw around. An aggro, or nerf mage? Now WTF is a nerf mage?? A mage that gets on your nerves or something?
The term "tank" is also very hip it seems. What ever happened to warrior, fighter or melee character? Terms more appropriate to this genre game. A tank is more suitable for modern warfare.
Ah well..

"Tank' is about how you use the character. Heavily armored, goes in first and draws all the fire onto himself so the troops coming in his wake don't get torn to shreds. It makes perfect sense. A rogue would also be called 'melee' but you wouldn't use him the same way...well, unless you wanted him to die.

Modifié par marshalleck, 18 novembre 2009 - 07:55 .

[Zephidel]

marshalleck wrote...

TileToad wrote...

Tonya777 wrote...
And yeah most anyone who would buy DAO has played an MMO at least at some point

Nope, never have and don't plan on it either.

I'm also quite confused about all these weird terms people throw around. An aggro, or nerf mage? Now WTF is a nerf mage?? A mage that gets on your nerves or something?
The term "tank" is also very hip it seems. What ever happened to warrior, fighter or melee character? Terms more appropriate to this genre game. A tank is more suitable for modern warfare.
Ah well..

"Tank' is about how you use the character. Heavily armored, goes in first and draws all the fire onto himself so the troops coming in his wake don't get torn to shreds. It makes perfect sense. A rogue would also be called 'melee' but you wouldn't use him the same way...well, unless you wanted him to die.

I thought they launch the missles first? mage nuke style, then the tanks.

Modifié par Zephidel, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:00 .

[wrexingcrew]

Tonya777 wrote...

And yeah most anyone who would buy DAO has played an MMO at least at some point

I don't think that's a particularly valid assumption - I'm not trying to pick on you here, I just see evidence to the contrary.  Plenty of people here have said their RPG experience is limited to KotOR and on, or even to just Mass Effect.  In my case, while I've played every Bio game except NWN, the only MMO I've played is EVE, which hardly seems like a predictor for DA:O interest.

And to OP: it was a bit ugly at first, but I already see it calming down.  Plus, I'm not sure how responsible WoW types are for any ugliness - as a number of people have suggested, new (and particularly well-received) games tend to attract an initial wave of trolls.  Since I don't have any first-hand experience with WoW, I wouldn't be able to tell one way or the other, but I just see the classic game forum pattern playing out.  Take a look at the ME2 forum on the old site if you think this activity is unusual for a BioWare game.

[Pocketgb]

How does "tanking" make sense, really? I never understood why the first thing anyone would want to try to kill is the thing with the *most* armor, and in most cases the least damage.

As a sidenote, I find it interesting people hating so much on people referencing MMO's when DA:O plays a lot like one: tank, heal, dps, move out of way of nasty aoe attacks - just like a raid dance.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:02 .

[TileToad]

marshalleck wrote...

"Tank' is about how you use the character. Heavily armored, goes in first and draws all the fire onto himself so the troops coming in his wake don't get torn to shreds. It makes perfect sense. A rogue would also be called 'melee' but you wouldn't use him the same way...well, unless you wanted him to die.

That's not what I mean. From a mechanical point of view I understand fully why people use the term. It's just that I get these terrible associations of metal vehicles with rotating turrets in a medieval setting.

[marshalleck]

Pocketgb wrote...

How does "tanking" make sense, really? I never understood why the first thing anyone would want to try to kill is the thing with the *most* armor, and in most cases the least damage.

As a sidenote, I find it interesting people hating so much on people referencing MMO's when DA:O plays a lot like one: tank, heal, dps, move out of way of nasty aoe attacks - just like a raid dance.

I guess the idea is that when someone steps up and caves in your face with a shield slam to the head, you consider them the more immediate threat to your well-being than the guy in a robe standing in a far corner of the room.

It's certainly a limitation to AI routines, but not entirely unjustifiable I think.

[andybuiadh]

Aye, I noticed the MMO themed threads the other day. "DA:O would be great if it was multiplayer...", "I can play this game on nightmare, you can't thus you're a noob".



I played WoW for three years before finally kicking the habit in the summer. I'm hoping that the WoW'ers will lose interest in this game once they realise they're not going to get any more epic items.

[marshalleck]

TileToad wrote...

That's not what I mean. From a mechanical point of view I understand fully why people use the term. It's just that I get these terrible associations of metal vehicles with rotating turrets in a medieval setting.

Because 'tank' has a very precise definition and tactic attached to the term. "Fighter" doesn't cover it, because a fighter can be used defensively or offensively. A tank and a DPS (Or berserker or whatever term you wish for a damage-dealing offensive melee combatant) are both fighters, but they are built differently for different purposes. The generic fighter label is inadequate for a discussion of tactics.

Might as well wonder why an apple is called an apple and not something else, I guess. Tank is a useful term and it has thus gained accceptance.

Modifié par marshalleck, 18 novembre 2009 - 08:12 .

[Draelith]

Tonya777 wrote...

And yeah most anyone who would buy DAO has played an MMO at least at some point

Never played an MMO, never will.

[Zephidel]

Pseron Wyrd wrote...

Closet Gamer wrote...
It seems like the WoW community up and decided to come play DA:O and blow its forums up.

Sadly enough, some of the posts in this thread appear to prove your point.

agree.

[Pocketgb]

marshalleck wrote...

I guess the idea is that when someone steps up and caves in your face with a shield slam to the head, you consider them the more immediate threat to your well-being than the guy in a robe standing in a far corner of the room.

It's certainly a limitation to AI routines, but not entirely unjustifiable I think.

The only thing about that is that the guy wearing a robe is a much more squishy target - plus, he's likely to be the one who's going to be doing the most damage to you.

Now what I could understand is the fact that this tank is always making sure you never get to the guy dealing the most damage, and under those circumstances I could understand why you'd want to fight the tank: everytime you try to move away from him, he'll always be keeping you in check.

"Taunting", on the other hand, never made too much sense. I could expect it to work on a few dim-witted enemies, but on *every enemy in the game?* NO one can ever be *that* offensive.

"Tanking" and "threat" as game mechanics have just always felt so incredibly cheap and lifeless to me.

[rawkus2112]

My 4 person party would pwn ur 4 person in arena.

[vhatever]

I think a better quetion is how a dumb ass post like this gets 5 stars?

[TileToad]

marshalleck wrote...

Because 'tank' has a very precise definition and tactic attached to the term. "Fighter" doesn't cover it, because a fighter can be used defensively or offensively. A tank and a DPS (Or berserker or whatever term you wish for a damage-dealing offensive melee combatant) are both fighters, but they are built differently for different purposes. The generic fighter label is inadequate for a discussion of tactics.

Might as well wonder why an apple is called an apple and not something else, I guess. Tank is a useful term and it has thus gained accceptance.

I think the real reason for its popularity is that it's a relatively short term compared to say a full plated warrior, or vanguard. If it were the only way to cover it you might wonder how people managed before the term got used..

[marshalleck]

Pocketgb wrote...

The only thing about that is that the guy wearing a robe is a much more squishy target - plus, he's likely to be the one who's going to be doing the most damage to you.

Now what I could understand is the fact that this tank is always making sure you never get to the guy dealing the most damage, and under those circumstances I could understand why you'd want to fight the tank: everytime you try to move away from him, he'll always be keeping you in check.

"Taunting", on the other hand, never made too much sense. I could expect it to work on a few dim-witted enemies, but on *every enemy in the game?* NO one can ever be *that* offensive.

"Tanking" and "threat" as game mechanics have just always felt so incredibly cheap and lifeless to me.

Well I agree on the last two points really. I never claimed the system was innovative, but it has been proven to work in many titles so that's why they stick with it. There's certainly a danger of alienating your intended audience if you try to break with tradition or expectations too much. Some games do adjust the formula and have met with varying degrees of success and failure.

[ZDPhoenix]

Closet Gamer wrote...

It seems like the WoW community up and decided to come play DA:O and blow its forums up. Just when you thought you could escape the first 10 posts I read....

"L2this, best DPS setup, TPS this, quit whining, calculations that...." People should just be having fun/roleplaying fun characters and messing with things that aren't so cookie cutter, I think that's where most of the enjoyment is being stripped from. Great game, doesn't need to be turned into a single player World of Warcraft community wise...

Do they realize this is a story-driven single player RPG and not a competitive raid driven gaming environment? I'm all for collaboration and sharing ideas/tips but ego stroking and going on and on about your single player domination is pathetic. Is anyone else as nauseated by this as I am?

Seriously, you are showing everything I hate about the complaining habits of modern day CRPG'ers.

So elite that new ideas aren't allowed to permeate the surface. You think that there's only room for one type of gamer in these games.

While I appreciate the story of DAO and have no clue what % of Strength gives me Attack or How many Stamina I get per point of willpower, I find it childish of people like yourself to be so immediately unaccepting of people who prefer tactical roleplaying. Don't read the topic if it nauseates you so much.

Unless... you like being nauseated. Then by all means please continue.

[CHRiTTeR]

wow is an rpg?! lol



*runs away... fast*

[Fredericol]

Some people love number, comparing them etc... let them do it