134 réponses à ce sujet

[Sloth Of Doom]

Yah my bad beer, i was thinking of the Xbox release year not the 360, but the principal still applies. The PC I had when i bought my 360 was mid-ranged at the time and still better than the 360.

[Beertastic]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Yah my bad beer, i was thinking of the Xbox release year not the 360, but the principal still applies. The PC I had when i bought my 360 was mid-ranged at the time and still better than the 360.

Same here, my old rig was "pretty okay" for the time and still blew the Xbox 360 away. Now it can't even hold a candle to my new one.
And on top of that my PC didn't burn up and get a RROD after 3 years (though it does sit collecting dust now).

[PhantoMSouljaX]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

.....and I would do anything for love, but I wont do Zhev.......

Lmfao +1

[PhantoMSouljaX]

addiction21 wrote...

Still have not found an answer to the great waffle question.

I prefer homemade french toast any day of the week pal!

french toast>>>>waffles

[Avispex]

I have to say that your moronic interpretation of the mage balance issue is pretty pathetic for somebody whose life's ambition is to be queen of this forum. If you really think that the only reason people are concerned about class balance is in preparation for imaginary PVP you are a very, very limited thinker here.

[jackofall1]

Nobody here is ranting and raving. And as I said before, I will continue to voice my opinion, however small of an impact it might make.



I think the majority of forums goers would like to see some changes. And yes, amongst other things, class balancing.



Not because I prefer one class to another, but because I shouldn't feel like I'm gimping myself out by not playing as a specific class. That's the kind of balancing I believe is called for.



If you think the game is fine as is, and that we should just learn to live with it, then that's fine. But I don't. And so do a lot of other people. I would also hope that this acceptance of "this is the way things are" is not something you apply to real life.



Any and everything can be changed.

[Wuppie]

I fail to see how the class imbalance is a real issue.

Mages seem to be the most powerful, there are 2 mages in the game to recruit, you can recruit them both, you can also play as a mage.

Only Rogues can open locks and disarm traps. There are 2 recruitable rogues. You can play the main character as a rogue.

Warriors are the only class that has inbuilt threat generation for tanking (correct me if I am wrong). You can recruit 5 warriors (Alistair, Shale, Dog, Sten, Oghrem) 4 can be made into decent tanks. All can be made into decent dps machines. The protagonist can be a warrior.

The only imbalance in this game I "personally" dislike is the skew towards warriors. 1 less warrior and 1 each additional rogue and mage would have made party balance and diversity a much smoother ride.

As it is I tend to overuse Leliana and Morrigan. Their banter whilst hilarious at first is now stale.

However, this is the game we were presented with with far more content at a far higher level of complexity and polish than ANY game available since Fallout 3. Games of this size and depth are exceedingly rare. Even more unique is the fact its presented with an above average story (Mass Effect had a much better story* but that is easier to do with a smaller amount of content).

*Edit: In my opinion

Knowing all of this how can people really be annoyed at things like class imbalance?

DLC is optional. No stupid maths will prove one way or another if its "worth it". DLC is here to stay people. Fallout 3 so far has had the single best model for DLC over an 12 - 18 month life-cycle. Jumping up and down wont change that.

This wierd neurotic entitlement attitude that many seem to have about DLC makes me wish that a) I wasn't a gamer and that I could personally send each of you for councilling.

/sigh

Modifié par Wuppie, 24 novembre 2009 - 05:19 .

[MerinTB]

I'm going to just cut out the parts of my post you left as they don't really seem to apply, and address what you are saying.

jackofall1 wrote...

So you're saying that 90% of the posts are about the same issues? Ok. Then, by that logic, of the several hundreds if not thousands of posts a day on this forum, people are posting about the same issues?

I think that would lead one to believe that 90% is the majority. So 90% of the people posting on the forums are complaining about issues that your tired or hearing about?

First off, the OP was talking about topics - i.e. threads, not individual post in threads.  He never said posts, you did.  He said "content" and "topics" and while you can make an argument that what he said COULD be construed as meaning every single post, I seriously doubt he was trying to say that 90% of posts all say repetitious things.

Secondly, I didn't put forth the 90/10 numbers, OP did.  I doubt he did any real number crunching, so I don't think he even believes it's close to 90/10 one way or the other.  His point, however, was that a large number, perhaps majority, of new threads are rehashing topics of MANY existing threads.  Is it as bad as 90/10?  I dunno at all.  If you want to call him on those numbers, I can't argue with you.

I can, however, point out your extremely flawed logic.  Follow that, like OP, I am throwing out numbers as examples and not as statements of fact - but let's put down some basic premises and you can agree or disagree with them:

A - Most people who visit the forums do not start new threads
B - A thread may have only one starting poster but can have MANY people responding - and more people by far respond to posts than start them.  Point of fact - not one thread started by me on this forum, I am fairly certain, but I respond in quite a few.
C - Many (if not most) new threads are started by people fairly new to the forums and/or new to posting/reading the forums because a new game or patch or DLC or whatever was jut released
D - The ratio of thread starters to thread responders is pretty lopsided towards the latter.
E - The ratio of thread responders to lurkers is at best equal and at worst lopsided towards the latter.

We can debate the above, but for me I think A-E are most likely true.  I will happily be proven wrong by anyone who actually takes the time to run the numbers.  But I think almost everyone can agree that the exact opposite of A-E is not likely, and at worst we might actually be looking at some midway between what I put forth as A-E and what is the opposite of it.

Assuming that A-E are close to the truth of things (for most forums, generally, I'd argue) then assuming that just because 90% of new threads (using that number as an example) are about already covered questions does not equate to 90% of forum members agreeing with 90% of threads.  Let's not even try and go into whether 90% of posts agree with 90% of topics or anything that ridiculous.

Seriously, the statement "I think that would lead one to believe that 90% is the majority. So
90% of the people posting on the forums are complaining about issues
that your tired or hearing about?" is so wrong on so many levels I probably wasted an absurd amount of time trying to reason with you if you got your response out of the OP.

I'm not going to argue symantics with you.

Honestly, I don't even think you are arguing with me at all - you rarely, if ever, even come close to responding to actual things I said.

On mages: Rogues and warriors are classic cookie cutter designs. I don't know if its just me, but I don't pick inferior classes just because. If the mage can perform nearly every group function (save for lockpicking), then why wouldn't you play a mage? You'd have to be insane not too. People could take heart in picking a warrior or a rogue, if they were all on equal playing fields. But they are not. And no matter how you spice it, mages are hands down the easiest class, and the most thought out class in this game. Its NOT that I don't like mages. I hate that rogues and warriors are inferior. And when we cry foul, people say "Play a mage." That's not the answer.

Again, you are responding to arguments you are having outside of this thread.  If you want MY opinions, they are as follows:

1 - Mages don't feel overpowering to me, but I'm only using Morrigan and I'm fairly certain any even mediocre min-max'er would cringe at how I have her built.  Hint - shapeshifting and cold almost exclusively.
2 - My main character is a rogue, and I never play rogues or thiefs.  I also have very few combat skills (you can check out my profile) with half in archery and half in dual blades on a cunning heavy build with a good dex but often in close fighting, tad a bard tossed in.  Definitely not going for the gold on maximizing my combat potential.  And other than taking a few tries at each glass phial revenant, I'm finding the game pleasantly challenging.
3 - I don't need to classes in a single-player game that allows you to build a party of 4 members to be balanced. I need each class to be effective at what it is intended to do.  I am quite happy with what I have in the game.  Oh, and I'm playing at normal difficult if that matters.

My opinions are no more or less valid than yours, but yours are stated as if they are definitive facts.  According to you, I am insane because I didn't pick a mage.  You state, again as if by royal decree, that mages are the "easiest class."  What do you mean?  Easiest to win in combat with?  Easiest to build out?  Easiest to understand?  I'm sorry, but without walkthroughs and forums and strategy guides, how do you even know what spells work with what and how "easy" or "hard" something is? 

Have you played multiple, multiple builds of the mage through a majority of the game and compared that to multiple, multiple builds of the other two classes to see which is most effective, or are you taking other player's words for it?  The game has been out for roughly 3 weeks - I doubt anyone in that time has had the time to play enough builds of the mage to even judge if the class, as a whole, is "easy" (whatever you mean by that - I'm assuming "winning in combat")
And by enough builds, remember there are 4 subclasses of which you can choose 2, and just there alone, without any other stat or skill or spell choices (let alone equipment), you'd need to play the mage through 11 times to get every possible combination you could try (including taking none or just one subclass.)
Even choosing roughly the same spells (with the only variations being based on subclasses but trying to keep those as similar as possible), and using the exact same party members as back up who themselves are built exactly the same way each playthrough, and playing the game only through half the game using strategy guides so you can maximize your speed AND using a save after level 7 to not have to replay the beginning part of the game over and over again (since making the choice of first subclass being your FIRST point of deviation) and effectively skipping the parts of the game that will be exactly the same until that point of deviation AND ignoring the probable fact that you most likely don't have access to all the subclasses at level 7 (maybe there's a way to do it, I dunno), you are still looking at a good 10 hours of game play per each of 11 as near identical builds as possible equalling about 110 hours in 3 weeks.
And all that'd get you is the variations of subclasses ALONE, no comparision to other spell choices, party member, or (gasp) other classes.

No one outside of Bioware should have had time to really judge class balance by this point, period.  Having even played through the game once as each class (which I'm sure is possible by this point) wouldn't give you a fair comparision of all the options each class has to offer.

If there are places (I'm sure there are) that list the killer builds / combos of spells to take to ALWAYS WIN, and you only choose more or less those builds / combos, well, yes, it'll seem ridiculously easy to you.  As will the game if you use the strategy guide your first time through.

AND ALL OF THAT IS IRRELEVANT - you are declaring that of course the classes should be balanced and of course if one is stronger that means it is overpowered.
The former isn't yours to declare as fact, just your opinion.
The latter I cannot believe is even possible to gauge at this point outside of Bioware's playtesters and designers.

Splitting off  the second half to another post as this is already monster long.

Modifié par MerinTB, 24 novembre 2009 - 05:51 .

[Quagga-esque]

Great list - however you need to add something to reflect the howls of outrage around Morrigan donning her grandmother's underwear before fully succumbing to the player's charms.



Something along the lines of - Yes we know you're physically an adult, yes we know certain people in the US frown on nudity (although Bioware is a Canadian company) and we also appreciate that this type of underwear doesn't match what people wore when they waved those type of swords around in real life. Deal with it, and if you're extremely upset, nude mods are only a quick search away.

[Xover]

 Sorry I LMAO at this post.

OP very good idea.

[Kaosgirl]

jackofall1 wrote...
Not because I prefer one class to another, but because I shouldn't feel like I'm gimping myself out by not playing as a specific class.

That's you choosing to feel that way.  Just like me choosing to feel like I'm exploiting a broken system by playing as that specific class.  Curiously, both lead to the same end: wanting a bit more balance.

jackofall1 wrote...
If you think the game is fine as is, and that we should just learn to live with it, then that's fine. But I don't. And so do a lot of other people. I would also hope that this acceptance of "this is the way things are" is not something you apply to real life.

Some things, yes:  I accept that i cannot fly by flapping my arms really fast, for example

And I accept that every RPG game (or really, any game with character customization) is going to launch with an overpowering setup or two hidden within it.  It's like an easter-egg.  And in fantasy RPGs, it almost always involves a spellcaster.  They're usually 'nerfed' eventually (at which point, a whole different subset of players comes out crying about the nerf,) and a new 'best method' rises to the top.

This is just life.

[addiction21]

jackofall1 wrote...


Not because I prefer one class to another, but because I shouldn't feel like I'm gimping myself out by not playing as a specific class. That's the kind of balancing I believe is called for.

But if you play a warrior then you have 4 warriors, 2 rogues, and 2 mages to pick up and balance out your "PARTY"

See that big word in qoutations?  It is not a diablo/torchlight (just picked up the later a day ago its fun) type game where you only get 1 character to play thru. If your gimping your party because you refuse to take along a certain class then that is your fault and not the designers fault.

Chugging lyrium potions for unlimited mana and (I have not played with it a lot yet) the arcane warrior being a killing machine could use some tweaking, but then this is not the thread to be debating it in since there are dozens of others...

[MerinTB]

jackofall1 wrote...

On PC's vs. Consoles: Limitations = Inferior product.

So we get
subpar graphics, controls, camera angles. Ok. But then the product we
do get isn't 100%. And there's no "quick fix" for console users, which
probably...and I say probably because I don't have the numbers, but can
get them, constitute the majority of the sales for the title.

It may be the majority of sales, but this is like trying to blame Blu-ray discs and players for the fact that you aren't getting 100% picture quality hooking the player up to a non-HD TV.

The consoles get a toned down game JUST LIKE players on older PCs have to turn down graphics settings and effects due to video card and/or RAM and/or processor limitations.  Or how games ported from PC to MAC or back sometimes don't have all the same features, largely due to the different OS's.

That's not Bioware's fault.  The only way to make this "fair" would be to remove the aspects that a PC can do that 360's and PS3's cannot - and since the game was built for PCs for years and then, effectively at the last minute, ported, that would mean UNDOING work already done and releasing a product below what it already was.  You think people are complaining about DLC right now...

Do
not claim to have a helpful post, then blindside those who are not 100%
satisfied with the product with the indirect message of "Shut up and
deal." That's a BS attitude.

Strawman.

The OP said nothing about "those who are not 100%
satisfied with the product" having to "shut up and deal."  Yes, that is a BS attitude - but misrepresenting what someone says is dishonest.  And you know what - you were replying to me, and I'm pretty certain I've never put forth this idea ever.  The closest I think I've ever gotten to this is saying -

You can dislike it.  It can be "overpowered" in your opinion, as in
your opinion is that there must be the balancing rules I asked about -
but that is strictly your opinion (and maybe the opinions of others,
too) and the only "say" you have on it is your right on the forum to
say "the classes should be balanced and therefore the mage is
overpowered" AND you have the right to not play the game, not buy the
game, or sell the game -  but you cannot, by fiat, declare the mage is overpowered

- which I feel is fairly clear in giving someone who dislikes an aspect of something far more options than "shutting up and dealing."

Maybe I want to roleplay as a
band of warriors. Can I? Absolutely, if I enjoyed spamming potions and
spending the majority of my play time reading the load screen. What
about a full band of rogues? No? Wait, what about 4 mages??? Ah, I can
have one set to tank with AW, a designated healer, and two throwing out
dps? Win? Exactly.

I think I mostly responded to this in the previous reply I made to your post.  But I'll reiterate and adjust -
if you read the forums, strategy guides, walkthroughs, whatever, and find the killer builds for a PC and the killer party combo (how do you get 4 rogues (or 4 mages, for that matter) in DAO, btw) and builds for your party, will the game seem far easier than if you play it by yourself without having read the manual or codecs and just willy-nilly build your part without any sense of balancing your party's strengths and weaknesses nor towars what would be effective builds for the characters you use, yes there will be a WORLD of difference - and any range inbetween those two extremes will correspondly be harder or easier respectively.

One addition - I prefer 4th ED D&D over 3.5 BECAUSE the classes and builds are MMO-style balanced.  But that's a table-top RPG where you have other players, and if one party member is far more or less effective in combat than the rest of the party, then the challenges for that out-of-synch player are either too easy or too hard (or, if for whatever reason the DM is catering to the odd-man-out player, the rest of the players will find the combat too easy or too hard) -
so where you can nerf or min/max in 3.5, everyone has to min/max or else the game loses fun for either one person or all but one person, the balance in 4th ED helps assure that the only way one player should outshine others will be by his decisions in-game and not his build.

In a single-player CRPG, this really isn't an issue - or at least really shouldn't be.  If this kind of game doesn't do it for you, then it probably isn't made for you.  That isn't saying "shut up and deal."
I don't like the storyline/crime elements of GTA at all, but I'm not going to try and force Rock Star to allow me to play an honest cop trying to bring down the criminals as an option to the game or else it sucks - I accept that GTA isn't for me.  I don't like Call of Duty since I'm not a miltary game fan and I don't particularly like FPS, but I don't go to Activision and demand they add an action/adventure style mystery for me to solve during WWII in the game since I prefer that kind of gaming.
If there are aspects of DAO that you don't like that you think SHOULD be like how other games are, maybe those other games are more your speed.  AGAIN - this is not telling you that your opinion is wrong or that you should shut up.  Sheesh.

And equality should have been intended. If
there was a warning saying "You cannot play this game without
absolutely having a mage in your party.", I would have second guessed
my decision to purchase this title.

Opinion.  Personal preference.  For what reason do you have that "equality should have been intended"?

I want to play either a mage or dwarf warrior next time through, and I want Wynne in my party next time through, as those options are where I'm desiring to go and have fun - but I'd bet good money that, on normal level, I could play through the game with no mage (well, after you no longer are forced to use Morrigan and Wynne at those points in the game.)  I know other people say they have.  I'm fairly certain the disclaimer you wished is completely unnecessary as the premise behind it is untrue.  I have no heal spells, and at least a third of what Morrigan does for me is shapeshift so - yes, I have some magic, but other than ocassionally having to fall back on a cone of cold to buy my guys some time the magic has never been the game breaker.  Alistair attracting the damage and my dog's Howl of Doom prove far more effective for me - plus Dirty Fighting or pegging from long range with my bow always helps.

I'm not going to attack
anyone's persona anymore. But when in the first paragraph you come
across as a certain way, what kind of responses do you expect to get?
Really?

If I find something that displeases me, come to the
forums and find that a very large number of other players also say my
OPINION, then I will continue to voice it.

Mine was "Your ad hominem attack shows weakness in your argument.  Name calling
is the last resort of people who don't have legitimate points to make." in direct response to your "You could start of your thread by being less of a bitc*. Your attitude
of "If you don't like it, then you can  just GET OUT.", obviously stems
from both intolerance and ignorance."

I guess I could rightly expect an ad hominem attack on myself?  More logical fallacies, such as the tu quoque displayed in "But when in the first paragraph you come
across as a certain way, what kind of responses do you expect to get?"

I have no idea how much you played the game, but I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you did not play it through even 11 times - maybe you made it through 3 times, trying each class?  Maybe you didn't even make it through one play.  In anycase, on your own, I fail to see how you'd have enough personal experience to actually judge whether the mage is really unbalanced compared to other classes.

I am going to make another assumption

EITHER
- while playing the game, you either found some combats too hard and weren't playing a mage / using a mage in your party / your party's mage wasn't being effective, OR saw how effective doing something with your mage or a party-member mage compared to non-mage party members,  OR you started play as a warrior or thief (maybe finishing the game, maybe not) and then restarted as a mage and found the game easier (something along these lines)-
and then you came to the forums and latched onto people either complaining about mages or people talking about killer builds / combos for mages, or some such
OR
- you were on the forums first and read about killer mage builds / combos and played according to such builds and found the game ridiculously easy, or used a strategy guide for similar results.

In short, the assumption being your views were shaped by the forums and / or strategy guides/walkthroughs/etc. and NOT on having played the game anywhere near enough to make such a judgement call entirely on your own.

Modifié par MerinTB, 24 novembre 2009 - 06:08 .

[metatrans]

wow this thread turned into serious business in a hurry.

[MerinTB]

metatrans wrote...

wow this thread turned into serious business in a hurry.

Sorry - I just get my response switch stuck in "verbose", and liberal dashes of "pedantic" often overwhelming my posts.

[Godeshus]

 It seems that Sloth of Doom has found all the answers. We must simply shut up and deal with it if there are parts of the game that we would like to see changed, modified, or removed. And if we don't agree with Sloth's opinions, we are clearly below average intelligence or lower.

Sloth you had a good idea and your heart was in the right place when you started this thread. I think you got carried away in the process, though. When talking about what to post in which forums, this is accurate and no one can argue with you over that. But calling people stupid for their opinions is mean. There is no reason to pull yourself up by pushing others down.

[Kolaris8472]

Oh look, all the forum's pretentiousness and condescending attitude boiled  ino one post

[Godeshus]

Kolaris8472 wrote...

Oh look, all the forum's pretentiousness and condescending attitude boiled  ino one post

This post sounds pretentious and condescending in its own rights. I can't be reading it right.

[jackofall1]

Huge wall of text there.



Here's the quick version of the story:



I think certain things need to be fixed.

Clearly you do not.

I doubt we can reconcile these differences.



Instead of just accepting that we have different opinions, you try to belittle my intelligence on an internet forum, which in and of itself is asinine. I can assure that however large you may believe the gap between our levels of intellect to be, it is not.



And for the record, I've been playing and loving RPG's for the better part of two decades. I've played, beta-tested, bug hunted, and lobbied for more changes to games than I could even remember. Do not make assumptions.



And also, I have no desire to argue with a computer screen. There are any number of faces I could picture hiding behind that screen, but the one that usually comes most to mind is the aging, bald fat-man, who has more time on his hands than sense.



But I am sorry that you have some unattainable need to always be right and hold yourself above me as some Paragon of truth.



And last but not least: I believe my opinion, based on my play experience and the observation of other peoples concerns, to be the correct one. Nothing you can say will change that. Ever.

[Godeshus]

jackofall1 wrote...

Huge wall of text there.

Here's the quick version of the story:

I think certain things need to be fixed.
Clearly you do not.
I doubt we can reconcile these differences.

Instead of just accepting that we have different opinions, you try to belittle my intelligence on an internet forum, which in and of itself is asinine. I can assure that however large you may believe the gap between our levels of intellect to be, it is not.

And for the record, I've been playing and loving RPG's for the better part of two decades. I've played, beta-tested, bug hunted, and lobbied for more changes to games than I could even remember. Do not make assumptions.

And also, I have no desire to argue with a computer screen. There are any number of faces I could picture hiding behind that screen, but the one that usually comes most to mind is the aging, bald fat-man, who has more time on his hands than sense.

But I am sorry that you have some unattainable need to always be right and hold yourself above me as some Paragon of truth.

And last but not least: I believe my opinion, based on my play experience and the observation of other peoples concerns, to be the correct one. Nothing you can say will change that. Ever.

Very well said.

Unfortunately I do not agree with Sloth of Doom so I was too stupid to come up with it myself.

[Kaosgirl]

Instead of just accepting that we have different opinions, you try to belittle my intelligence on an internet forum, which in and of itself is asinine.

Which explains why you so readily return fire...

And also, I have no desire to argue with a computer screen.

And yet, here you are doing exactly that.

[Godeshus]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Instead of just accepting that we have different opinions, you try to belittle my intelligence on an internet forum, which in and of itself is asinine.

Which explains why you so readily return fire...

And also, I have no desire to argue with a computer screen.

And yet, here you are doing exactly that.

I have no desire to make my bed in the morning, but I do.

[Mordaedil]

Pots meet kettle.



You all missed Sloth's real point to prove, which was not that you were of below intelligence, but that you had no sense of humor.



These arguments clearly support such because you defend with such fervor at a post which was written with a hint of spite and accuracy that you felt personally hit by it, as if it applied all too well to you, and thus you missed out on laughing at yourself by taking it as an actual attack.



All I can really say to this is that by arguing at all, you have lost all sensible credibility.



It's one thing to have an opinion, but there's something to be said about failing at logical reasoning so hard that it feels necessary to defend against a bit of what should be common courtesy. Taking topics to their appropriate forums isn't such a hard thing to do.



As for the mages argument, which is maybe the most likely to be of any valid discussion: Yes, they are powerful. Overpowered even, if you chose the right spells. Why does this matter? Because people should never play anything besides a mage? But then you're missing out on an entire origin and the entire POINT of the game: Game balance stretches to what content you uncover and the origins is part of that. Playing just one origin is all well and fine for most people, but it's hardly something worth screaming "bloody hell" over. You're still missing out on content.



Or maybe you just play each origin once and then play the mage origin. Twice. That's a valid playstyle, but I still don't see the problem. Aside from maybe that Arcane Warrior should have been dropped and a different style of magic adopted. I like the lore of it, but it's completely unfair in principle.

[Godeshus]

The reality is that the mage will be as overpowered as the player makes him. I personally feel that a mage SHOULD be overpowered. Anyone who can manipulate the raw stuff of the universe should be a force to be reckoned with. The balancing issue for me lies in the years, possibly decades, that the mage had to spend in study before the player takes the reins, so to speak.



This is something I have been waiting for for a long time and I sincerely thank Bioware for bringing it to us.



as a quick appendix, Bioware makes the games. They shouldn't be there to hold your hand while you play it.