169 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

I'm starting to think the people saying "balance in single-player is irrelevant" really mean "I don't care about balance in single-player". It's hard to disagree with a patch that made Rogues and Warriors as interesting and fun to play as a Mage, yes?

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 novembre 2009 - 05:05 .

[cheeseslayersmu]

Using "it's singleplayer" is a terrible argument because you need balance in singleplayer games too. You can't avoid mages in the story; there are enemy mages, and it's ridiculous to tell them not to play a mage, which is 1/3 of the game's possible classes.



However, I simply don't think mages are overpowered. I think some of their spells (forcefield and cone of cold) are overpowered, but as an overall class, they're not.



It really depends what you are looking for in a class. If you want your warrior to be a jack-of-all trades, you're better off picking another class. If you want an intensely high amount of damage and don't mind being a little bit squishy, pick a rogue or mage.

[cheeseslayersmu]

Using "it's singleplayer" is a terrible argument because you need balance in singleplayer games too. You can't avoid mages in the story; there are enemy mages, and it's ridiculous to tell them not to play a mage, which is 1/3 of the game's possible classes.

However, I simply don't think mages are overpowered. I think some of their spells (forcefield and cone of cold) are overpowered, but as an overall class, they're not.

It really depends what you are looking for in a class. If you want your warrior to be a jack-of-all trades, you're better off picking another class. If you want an intensely high amount of damage and don't mind being a little bit squishy, pick a rogue or mage.

[Mordaedil]

What is so un-fun about playing a rogue? After I got my "stab-stabbity-stab!" power, it really is a lot of fun. More of those kinds of attacks would be fun too.

[Wolfva2]

Ah, the age old arguement.

Warrior: "Mages are OP! Nerf mages!"

Mage: "Archers are OP! Nerf archers!"

Archer: "WTF?!? Another nerf?!? SHEESH!"



Ok, let's take a look at the mage. Here we have a person who has learned how to control the very forces of nature. He can spray a column of fire from his hands, burning all in its path. In the real world, we have things that do that as well. They're called 'flamethrowers'. Funny...if you have a flame thrower you can wipe out a squad of men no problem. By yourself. Unless, of course, they see you coming and shoot you first. Ah...the mages dilemma! Great firepower...but easy to kill. THAT is the balancing issue with the mage.



So, you want mages nerfed to be more like warriors? Ok. But lets nerf warriors as well; their armor is WAY to strong! Why, my mage is easily taken down with 3, 4 hits in melee. But my Dalish elf warrior could take out 3 guys in solo combat. Obviously warriors are OP.

[Pocketgb]

It's less that mages feel "overpowered" and more that they really feel that they were "made for the game". They just have more tools, choices, and versatility than the other two classes (both of whom share two trees, mind you).

[Zarenthar]

Mages are indeed OP but the problem has nothing to do with recalibrating their effectiveness towards other classes... The GAME itself is too easy for the sheer power and domination the mage offer. So the solution is to crank up the mobs and encounters not tone down mages.

[Pocketgb]

You're going to have to explain a bit more about that, Zarenthar, since I feel like toning up the difficulty of the game would make Mages *more* favorable. Unless you mean to change how the encounters are designed?

[Elanareon]

The problem is everyone wants to do what a mage can... The thing is Warriors and Rogues are already fun to play! TBH my favorite class in all RPG game are mages but im finding it more fun to play as a rogue and warrior in this game. Those people who say that warriors are useless or rogues are useless are dumb or doesn't know how to play.

[Kaosgirl]

Mardererer wrote...

its a single player game... there is no such thing as Over Powered... besides as far back as fantasy goes magic is always powerfull,

Traditionally, but not always.  One of the distinctions between high fantasy and low fantasy is not just how prevalent magic is, but how powerful it is as well.  

[lenkeith]

This is becoming like those arguments one would find in a MMORPG forum.

[Dagganoth_]

yer people only see mages as "OP" because they have 2x more ability's to chose from and that theres no stamina potions (theres an add-on for that i think)

[Rainen89]

Mages aren't "OP" in relation to a well specced rogue or dual wield warrior but mana clash should not work on bosses nor cone of cold or misdirection hex. One-two shotting caster bosses = not fun.

[deathwing200]

Wolfva2 wrote...

 Ah...the mages dilemma! Great firepower...but easy to kill. THAT is the balancing issue with the mage.

Mages easy to kill? You've lost all credibility with that post. Thanks to CC mage has better survivability than warrior. Your flamethrower analogy sucks. If you really want to compare mage to warrior in real life if would be like this:

You see a guy coming towards you, so you shoot him. All your bullets magically miss or are deflected by his shields. The guy points a finger at you and reduces you and several city blocks to cinders.

[Pocketgb]

Elanareon wrote...

Those people who say that warriors are useless or rogues are useless are dumb or doesn't know how to play.

Wee-hah, auto-attacking sure is fun.

lenkeith wrote...

This is becoming like those arguments one would find in a MMORPG forum.

Well, to be a bit honest, it does play a bit like an off-line MMO...

[Elanareon]

deathwing200 wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

 Ah...the mages dilemma! Great firepower...but easy to kill. THAT is the balancing issue with the mage.

Mages easy to kill? You've lost all credibility with that post. Thanks to CC mage has better survivability than warrior. Your flamethrower analogy sucks. If you really want to compare mage to warrior in real life if would be like this:

You see a guy coming towards you, so you shoot him. All your bullets magically miss or are deflected by his shields. The guy points a finger at you and reduces you and several city blocks to cinders.

AH! My ideal mage... I wonder when will it get implemented...

[DragonRageGT]

Your topic is missing the "In my opinion" part, sir.

Biggest issues are not what you point out, for me. For me those are irrelevant.



I want Combat Screen information back and multiplayer capability for Permanent worlds. Until then I'll have to put up with the best game I've played in years and totally hipnotized by it, keep tubing my movies of it like I've never did for anything else before.

[Maria Caliban]

Pocketgb wrote...

I'm starting to think the people saying "balance in single-player is irrelevant" really mean "I don't care about balance in single-player". It's hard to disagree with a patch that made Rogues and Warriors as interesting and fun to play as a Mage, yes?

Not to mention that there are two NPC mages with radically different views in the game.

My first playthrough was on normal with a sword and shield human warrior. My options were as follows:

1. Ignore the concept of role-playing and keep Morrigan in the party, plying her with gifts and compliments to make sure she's happy.
2. Bump the difficulty to easy and kick her from the party.

With no other class, did I feel the need to do this. I could kill zevran and leave Leliana at Lothering and I'd be fine going through the game without a rogue. Their main use is disarming traps and opening locks. Between Sten, Shale, Alistiar, Dog, Oghran, and Loghain, I had was guaranteed to have a warriors that fit my PC’s viewpoint.

Spellcasters were powerful in BG as well, but there were more than two of them. Imagine if your only choices were Viconia and Imoen.

I know someone will just say ‘bump the game to easy’ but the thing is that I like tactical combat. Moreover, I shouldn’t have to pick between RPing and lowering the difficulty. Okay, if I were RPing a raging sociopath or the warrior version of Saint Teresa, I would understand, but character was a fairly pragmatic and good person.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 30 novembre 2009 - 06:00 .

[Elanareon]

If you're only auto-attacking you doing something very, very wrong....

[Deception_2112]

So bioware should patch and entire game for balance simply because a minority of users want it?



You can't please everyone, best you should hope for is for someone to produce a mod that balances it as you like.



I would hate a patch that nerfed mages and it forced me to use it for future DLC content.



That would be abysmal.

[Pocketgb]

Deception_2112 wrote...

So bioware should patch and entire game for balance simply because a minority of users want it?

They should do what'll net the most cash. Given that most players could  give less of a crap about balance, they'll gain very, very little in balancing the game.

Elanareon wrote...

If you're only auto-attacking you doing something very, very wrong....

Massive DPS through awesome DW sustains is doing it wrong?

[Wolfva2]

deathwing200 wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

 Ah...the mages dilemma! Great firepower...but easy to kill. THAT is the balancing issue with the mage.

Mages easy to kill? You've lost all credibility with that post. Thanks to CC mage has better survivability than warrior. Your flamethrower analogy sucks. If you really want to compare mage to warrior in real life if would be like this:

You see a guy coming towards you, so you shoot him. All your bullets magically miss or are deflected by his shields. The guy points a finger at you and reduces you and several city blocks to cinders.

Oh, I'm sorry.  Was I credible to you before?  Oh ALAS!  I have lost credibility with a complete stranger on an anonymous forum!  I shall throw myself off a bridge, for I can...not...LIVE with such an ignobility on my soul that..that...<scrolls up to see name> Deathwing200 finds me lacking credibility!  For we ALL know just how great and wise HE is, we all cater to earn HIS attention!

Ok, sarcasm aside, yes mages are easy to kill.  Mage starts casting, archer with DISTRACTING SHOT or Pining shot for that matter hits him before the spell is finished casting.  Guess what?  Dead mage.  Or, he gets hit with Crit shot, or Deathblow.    

My analogy was good for lower leveled mages who use flameburst.  All you did with YOUR analogy was up the level.  So, now instead of being an infrantryman with a flamethrower, your mage is a jetfighter.  So yes, a squad of infrantry on the ground firing at a jet fighter with rifles won't do much.  BUT:  Over there you have an 'archer' with a SAM.  Now how good is that jetfighter.

Bottom line, classes depend on the situation.  A mage on a tower looking down over an open field is terrifying.  A mage in a twisting maze who turns the corner into a bunch of darkspawn?  He's lunch.  

[Elanareon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

I'm starting to think the people saying "balance in single-player is irrelevant" really mean "I don't care about balance in single-player". It's hard to disagree with a patch that made Rogues and Warriors as interesting and fun to play as a Mage, yes?

Not to mention that there are two NPC mages with radically different views in the game.

My first playthrough was on normal with a sword and shield human warrior. My options were as follows:

1. Ignore the concept of role-playing and keep Morrigan in the party, plying her with gifts and compliments to make sure she's happy.
2. Bump the difficulty to easy and kick her from the party.

With no other class, did I feel the need to do this. I could kill zevran and leave Leliana at Lothering and I'd be fine going through the game without a rogue. Their main use is disarming traps and opening locks. Between Sten, Shale, Alistiar, Dog, Oghran, and Loghain, I had was guaranteed to have a warriors that fit my PC’s viewpoint.

Spellcasters were powerful in BG as well, but there were more than two of them. Imagine if your only choices were Viconia and Imoen.

I know someone will just say ‘bump the game to easy’ but the thing is that I like tactical combat. Moreover, I shouldn’t have to pick between RPing and lowering the difficulty. Okay, if I were RPing a raging sociopath or the warrior version of Saint Teresa, I would understand, but character was a fairly pragmatic and good person.

Hmm, I dunno i finished the game with 1 mage... In fact my first 2nd playthrough only used 1 mage, 2 melee dps, and a rogue. MY 3rd is the same. Only used different mages each time. It's not that undoable. Its alot of work compared with 2 mages but yeah its still doable.

[Elanareon]

Why yes. My rogue currently is DW and i must say Im not just auto-attacking much. TBH i can say that rogue or warrior has the spammable AOE's that are OP. Well mages can use them as well but they have their spells...

[Pocketgb]

Wolfva2 wrote...

Ok, sarcasm aside, yes mages are easy to kill.  Mage starts casting, archer with DISTRACTING SHOT or Pining shot for that matter hits him before the spell is finished casting. 

Agreed if nearly all Archer attacks did not have such a nasty start-up time. Cancel spell, Winter's Grasp, cast big spell, victoly

Wolfva2 wrote...

Bottom line, classes depend on the situation.  A mage on a tower looking down over an open field is terrifying.  A mage in a twisting maze who turns the corner into a bunch of darkspawn?  He's lunch. 

That's what Cone of Cold and being a Grey Warden's for ; p

Elanareon wrote...

Why yes. My rogue currently is DW and
i must say Im not just auto-attacking much. TBH i can say that rogue or
warrior has the spammable AOE's that are OP. Well mages can use them as
well but they have their spells...

Mobs drop way too quick with momentum on to ever warrent wasting stam on an ability.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 novembre 2009 - 06:13 .