110 réponses à ce sujet

[mr_afk]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Patch 1.03 KILLED MY DOG.

mine too

Modifié par mr_afk, 16 juin 2011 - 01:07 .

[erynnar]

mr_afk wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Patch 1.03 KILLED MY DOG.

mine too

It would have killed my cat, but she has nine lives, is a cat (so she's perfect--she tells me so) and since I am her slave would insist I take the death blow from the patch, only after securring another set of walking opposable thumbs to open cans of tuna for her before I did so.

[Fieryeel]

I like 1.03 actually. It's given me a reason to replay.

[erynnar]

Same here Fieryeel. : )

[TheAwesomologist]

I finished a play through after 1.03 with my femhawke 2H Warrior. Some fights took longer, other shorter. The biggest loss was my stagger combos with Merril forcing me to use Anders even more than I wanted to. Berserker is better, Reaver lost a little luster, could still care less about Templar since for the most part I still kill mages pretty quickly anyways. (NOTE: I play on Hardcore because I find friendly fire in these types of games to be more annoying than anything else.)
It's not a huge difference and didn't really break my normal build beyond me putting more points into Berserker and fewer into Reaver. Only thing I liked really was Bethany getting the Forcemage tree.

If anything it's too little too late and the patch didn't fix the crappy story in Act 3.

[Blessed Silence]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Alright, I'm going to have to look into what this patch does that upset you so much.

As for why the forums are dead...maybe many people are like me. I've said my peace. I've moved on to other games, better games at that, and I only pop in here to see if they've announced the expansion set yet or not.

Otherwise I head right over to the Mass Effect boards and mostly lurk. ME3's going to dominate next year.

Same here.  I visited a ton before the game came out for all the tidbits and fun, but not much for me now except to come back for announcements.  Been dealing with RL and college.

As for the new patch.  Yes, some of the spells were awesome, like using lightning at the end of the game in my first playthrough.  But I'm not panicking in my second one.  Still sailing along quite nicely in Act II.

OP, here's an umbrella. I think your ceiling is falling.

[Morroian]

mr_afk wrote...

I think the problem is that this isn't an mmorpg and we should be getting the 'finished' product from the outset (with the exception of dlc etc). The gameplay mechanics thus should be polished enough to provide the balance and challenge that was intended. Bugs are understandable, and patches are there to fix them, but the core mechanics are not 'bugs' that need to be fixed.

Is balancing part of the core mechanics? 

You guys obviously don't play games from Relic, every patch for the Dawn of War series has changed the balance.

[In Exile]

AreleX wrote...

Suboptimal experience how? Too easy? Then TURN UP THE DIFFICULTY, don't complain and ruin things for others. Too hard? Play casual, or come over to the gameplay forums and learn something. Can't use what you really want to? Too bad, because the patch actually made for less variation ability-wise, if you want to do well and be successful.

But the combat sucks. It has nothing to do with the difficulty, and everything to do with the system as designed being unfun. You keep misunderstanding the problem.

And what does "want to do well," and "be succesful" actually mean? Speed-runs?

I've said over and over and over that I'm aware people like myself are a very small percentage, a percentage that they will freely alienate if necessary. I get it. I understand.

No, you don't get it. I only play on nightmare. But I didn't enjoy the previous nightmare gameplay, because of the extent to which it dependend on very specific exploits. They've left one exploit in place - the assasin - but otherwise allowed for more variance on nightmare.

Why are people not getting that my frustrations with the patch stem from a bunch of pointless nerfs to things that I enjoyed? That it has very little to do with the actual difficulty of the game? Even if I *DID* play on normal difficulty, I would still have a lot of the same complaints if they screwed with a bunch of things that I enjoyed for absolutely no reason. The difficulty I play has no bearing on that.

Because they did like the patch, and appreciate the nerfs, and think the game playing different is a good thing. You're too focused on the way you used to play the game. That's what you like. Well, some people just outright didn't like the mechanic and your enjoyment isn't as relevant as their enjoyment.

And what are you saying about Assassin? You can play Duelist/Shadow just fine, nobody is/was forcing you to play Assassin. Hell, Assassin/Shadow was already the best combo pre-patch, and they made it even BETTER by giving Shadow a ridiculous and unnecessary buff, while Duelist, which was already the worst, got basically nothing.

No. I'm saying picking Hawke who is a rogue is in itself no longer as neccesary as before, because the game's been nerfed across the board to allow for more workable combinations because of the comparative reduction in knockback.

I just feel like no matter what I say, none of the posters here are going to get that I'm NOT stepping down from my high-horse and being an elitist, saying 'wow, this patch caters to the terrible players that can't play higher than normal', or ANYTHING like that. The gameplay/bugs fixes are welcome. A few of the changes to gameplay are welcome. What is not welcome, however, is nerfing a bunch of things that players on ALL difficulties enjoy, and will cite as a reason that they continue to play an overall very subpar and mediocre game.

But nerfing things on all difficulties is exactly what changes the gameplay experience.

What you're saying is that the game should play the same. But the counter-argument is precisely that the game shouldn't play the same because that was the problem.

Look, I'm not trying to deride how you enjoy the game. I'm just telling you that the game is more enjoyable now, for me, than it was before.

[AreleX]

1. "The combat sucks" and was "unfun" isn't descriptive in the least bit.

2. It has nothing to do with speed runs. It has everything to do with not spending hours or days on the same fight, and struggling through the game.

3. What 'exploits' do you speak of?

4. "Understanding" has nothing to do with "agreeing". I can understand WHY people like the patch just fine, even though I don't share their feelings. I'm not saying they AREN'T allowed to enjoy the patch. What irks me is people heaping the wrong reasoning upon ME for not liking it, when I think I've explained it pretty damn clearly, several times.

5. It was never necessary at all, to any degree.

6. I'm not saying the game should play the same. I'm saying that they set out with a noble goal and didn't execute it as well as they could've, IN MY OPINION.

Modifié par AreleX, 18 juin 2011 - 05:02 .

[In Exile]

AreleX wrote...

1. "The combat sucks" and was "unfun" isn't descriptive in the least bit.

It is. It's a subjective valuation. If the problem with the game is that, irrespective of how the combat system works, a majority of users do not enjoy it, and a dramatic redesign will make them enjoy it, then that's a design decision that has to go forward.

As for what was 'unfun' about DA2, it was (largely) the incredibly knockback capacity of enemies and the inability of toons to remember their previous action after a knockback. This led to a focus on micromanagement, and created lots of stagger deaths (especially by demons or abominations).

When you remove this mechanic, you completely change the dynamic of combat. Reduce knockback and knockdown means that the party can deal more damage more quickly, and the absence of 'amnesia' allows you to finish fights quicker.

So now the entire combat system potentially requires an overhaul to perform as intended.

2. It has nothing to do with speed runs. It has everything to do with not spending hours or days on the same fight, and struggling through the game.

Well, I've just said: I find 1.03 DA2 to be significantly easier on nightmare. The only fights that are this frustrating are boss fights without an assasin.

So what makes you feel the game takes longer, now?

3. What 'exploits' do you speak of?

It depends on what you consider an exploit. I think 2-H warrior stagger city + upgraded chain lightning combos were a boring rinse/lather/repeat approach to combat that trivialized every encounter on difficulties below nightmare.

The idea behind the CCC system was to have a varied party to take advantag of multiple effects to deal damage. But in practice there was only really one major combination that could apply to all possible encounters, except for the qunari and profane.

4. "Understanding" has nothing to do with "agreeing". I can understand WHY people like the patch just fine, even though I don't share their feelings. I'm not saying they AREN'T allowed to enjoy the patch. What irks me is people heaping the wrong reasoning upon ME for not liking it, when I think I've explained it pretty damn clearly, several times.

You've disagreed fundamentally with the reasons people have put foward for liking the patch, e.g. for example making the combat more varied. So that's where the issue comes from.

5. It was never necessary at all, to any degree.

Unless you wanted to have 2hr boss fights, assasins were your go-to damage dealer.

6. I'm not saying the game should play the same. I'm saying that they set out with a noble goal and didn't execute it as well as they could've, IN MY OPINION.

You said:

" This patch took just about all the things that made playing the game fun, and shat all over them."

That's not the same thing as you're saying above.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 juin 2011 - 05:10 .

[AreleX]

This thread gives me a headache.

The things you are listing (knockback chains, forgotten tactics when interrupted) are things I have no problem with being changed. At all.

I was not saying that the game took longer, where the hell did you get that from? You asked me for my definition of 'being successful', and instantly, like every other poster in this thread discussing my opinion, assumed it had to do with uber awesome min-max speed running. What I meant was that my basic criteria for others 'doing well' isn't as stringent as people are thinking.

It really doesn't make the combat more varied. Instead, in most cases, it pigeonholes you down a predetermined path even further and faster if you don't want a s**tty build/party/etc.

example: Anders/Merrill/Varric was the best party for ANY class Hawke before the patch. The changes only further push this party onto you, with the nerfing of staggers and cleave, and there still being zero need to have a tank in your group, etc etc.

I've never had 2 hour boss fights as any class. Period. That's just user error and bad play on your part.

alright then, let me rephrase:

The patch could've done much better in the goal it set out to accomplish. Rather than gutting whole classes and their respective strengths, why not beef EVERYTHING up, so all your stuff is really good? It's a much more enjoyable time when you don't know what to choose between two things that are good, as opposed to choosing which one sucks less. I could detail exactly how I would do this, and what I would change, but it very likely will amount to nothing.

You like the patch. I'm glad you like the patch. I'm glad the patch has made its target audience happy. In another thread, I said that if the patch does please the people they set out for it to (since it obviously isn't me or the other players in the gameplay/builds forums), then I could live with it. I can live with it. That doesn't mean I shouldn't make my opinion heard for the future, because if they decide to give me the finger again, I at least know I said my part about it.

Modifié par AreleX, 19 juin 2011 - 07:38 .