290 réponses à ce sujet

[Haexpane]

It's quite simple actually, the nerd exploiters and "dont nerf my OP toon" crowd insist "balance doesnt matter in Single Player" are ignoring the basics of game design.

"Balance" means each class has something to contribute, something to make them a worthwhile choice, and does not have abilities to make them the "best" choice in all scenarios.

Exactly how that is balanced is up to the game design.  From there, it's all about *intent*.  What was the *intent* of the AW?   I *think* it was so people could try something cool and be all "ooh mage in plate"  not *best tank, best caster in the game period*

So Bioware has final say on whether or not XYZ is "balanced" and considering the patches, I would suggest they also disagree with this NuRage idea that "balance only matters in WoW!" urban myth that has been spreading like meth face in der der der country.

Balance always matters, the worse the balance, the less fun a game becomes. 

Here is another example, MVP Baseball.  One version had the "lefty glitch"  in that top spin ball physics were overly done on left handed batters.

That meant any LH hitter would hit fewer HRs and all fly balls would travel less and line drive more.   The NuRage crowd here would say "don't use a LH hitter then, what do you care?"  I don't think I need to explain why it mattered.

EA patched that glitch too...

[Fryce]

Haexpane wrote...

It's quite simple actually, the nerd exploiters and "dont nerf my OP toon" crowd insist "balance doesnt matter in Single Player" are ignoring the basics of game design.

"Balance" means each class has something to contribute, something to make them a worthwhile choice, and does not have abilities to make them the "best" choice in all scenarios.

Exactly how that is balanced is up to the game design.  From there, it's all about *intent*.  What was the *intent* of the AW?   I *think* it was so people could try something cool and be all "ooh mage in plate"  not *best tank, best caster in the game period*

So Bioware has final say on whether or not XYZ is "balanced" and considering the patches, I would suggest they also disagree with this NuRage idea that "balance only matters in WoW!" urban myth that has been spreading like meth face in der der der country.

Balance always matters, the worse the balance, the less fun a game becomes. 

Here is another example, MVP Baseball.  One version had the "lefty glitch"  in that top spin ball physics were overly done on left handed batters.

That meant any LH hitter would hit fewer HRs and all fly balls would travel less and line drive more.   The NuRage crowd here would say "don't use a LH hitter then, what do you care?"  I don't think I need to explain why it mattered.

EA patched that glitch too...

Yeah generalizing a whole group of people with a differing opinion from yours into "Nerd Ragers" helps the whole situation so much. Why should they care for your entire post if clearly you do not for their opinions

I do agree however that balancing means a much more diverse party which will in turn create a much more diverse story and gameplay for everyone though.

Modifié par SharpneI, 08 décembre 2009 - 07:35 .

[Slayer D]

The biggest thing is that you should be able to play whatever class you enjoy most and get the same challenge out of the game. The play through will, of course, need to be a different experience. But the game shouldn't be 5x easier or harder because you picked a gimped or overpowered class.

And it's not like picking a mage in the beginning of the game is some kind of super secret that only an elite few know about. It's just another class.

I'm with you 100%

Only a fool would think that balance doesn't mean anything in single player.  It may be slightly less important than in an MMORPG with pvp built in.  But, it's still a core component of the game.

Modifié par Slayer D, 08 décembre 2009 - 07:35 .

[Haexpane]

Slayer D wrote...

The biggest thing is that you should be able to play whatever class you enjoy most and get the same challenge out of the game. The play through will, of course, need to be a different experience. But the game shouldn't be 5x easier or harder because you picked a gimped or overpowered class.

And it's not like picking a mage in the beginning of the game is some kind of super secret that only an elite few know about. It's just another class.

I'm with you 100%

Only a fool would think that balance doesn't mean anything in single player.

Thank you for that level headed approach.   "DIFFERENT But ABOUT THE SAME DIFFICULTY" is what classes are for.  

The whole "class X is supposed to be slower/harder/" is an old D&D thing from the past.

Everquest tried that w/ "Hybrids are supposed to level slow because they get the benefit of warrior + spells" and EQ stuck to that for more than a year.  It was proven to be a nice idea, but IMPOSSIBLE to balance in a game.  They tossed it out and never looked back.

There are a few games left that still use this idea that "class X is supposed to stink" but they are not very common.

Bioware games were never designed with that in mind.  Sure there are things like "Rogues are suitable for advanced players" and such but in reality BW games are designed on the idea of a "balanced party, mix and match as you see fit but in general its nice to have caster/tank/other"

[NetBeansAndJava]

I'm going to play devil's advocate, though I too welcome balance. First of all, that glitch you write of is just that -- a glitch. Balance is not about fixing bugs and glitches, it's about changing what is already WAI.

I believe most people who say balance doesn't matter believe this for two reasons:

1) If bugs exist in the game, then they would rather see patches fix bugs that balancing issues that do not break the game. By break I mean crash, freeze, etc., not balancing.

2) You can use self-restraint to not run into balancing issues. If you think mages are OP, then don't play them. Easy as pie.

You mention that balancing is about making other choices worthwhile... you thus imply that underpowered classes are not worthwhile playing. This is a silly notion, however. If you're playing the game only to feel powerful, then it's much easier to just cheat.

Modifié par NetBeansAndJava, 13 décembre 2009 - 10:42 .

[Faerell Gustani]

I definitely agree with everything the OP said here. It's been my stance from the beginning.

[Slayer D]

And what if you really like to play mages? Should you have to research what spells are too powerful and intentionally gimp yourself to get satisfying game play?



The biggest thing wrong about your #2 is that it's the game designer's JOB to balance the classes. Not the consumer's. Simple as pie.

[Aidunno]

Single player balance = have fun no matter which class you play. In truth I'd prefer not to have "classes" or "levels". So long as you can have enjoyment playing anything does it really matter about balance. What you do not want happening is creating class "X" and playing party member "D" because they are class "Z".

[Haexpane]

NetBeansAndJava wrote...

I'm going to play devil's advocate, though I too welcome balance. First of all, that glitch you write of is just that -- a glitch. Balance is not about fixing bugs and glitches, it's about changing what is already WAI.

I believe most people who say balance doesn't matter believe this for two reasons:

1) If bugs exist in the game, then they would rather see patches fix bugs that balancing issues that do not break the game. By break I mean crash, freeze, etc., not balancing.

2) You can use self-restraint to not run into balancing issues. If you think mages are OP, then don't play them. Easy as pie.

You mention that balancing is about making other choices worthwhile... you thus imply that underpowered classes are not worthwhile playing. This is a silly notion, however. If you're playing the game only to feel powerful, then it's much easier to just cheat.

No not really.  "self retraint to avoid broken balance" is the same old "dont nerf my toon" argument.

The game has a difficulty slider, so this idea that "using underpowered classes is more challenging" does not apply.

If your arm hurts when you lift it, if the doctor told you not to lift it anymore, would that be A-OK with you? :O:O:O:O

[Inarai]

Mind you, that's a bit different than balance as it's usually meant these days...



But I'd actually argue that by and large, the sort of balance you're talking about is here. For example, Rogues basically do better single target damage than anything, if built for it, allowing them to serve VITAL roles(IE, they're the one's you'll usually want to use to kill whatever simply has to die, right then). 2-handed fighter serve as highly effective lockdown-tanks(they succeed in a tank-type role by locking down the enemy, rather than standing there and getting hit. Very effective strategy if used right. Toss on Champion for more of that fun.), and sword'n'boarders are a good mix of defensive and offensive ability who can hold their own inmass groups of enemies.

[Titanmike357]

Game is PvP Yes_____No______



Game is played with or against other people Yes_____No_____



Hmmm, lets see here, so because I can finish the game with any class, and any build, that game needs balance?



No, thats not right.



So, because some classes are better at some things and worse at others the game is not balanced?



No thats not right either.



So because class A can cast spells and can CC really good , but class B can do insane damage but has little to no CC and class C can survive 3-4 mobs at once and has some CC, but all of the classes can finish the game and while they lack the feature of class X they make up for it because they do Y better.



So game must be broked right?



Want to compare to Wow and balance? fine then, mages do insane dmage but die if they get sneezed at, and warriors can take a beating but can't do as much DPS.



Don't even talk to me about the I win button paladins and Dk's ( unless they have changed )

[SheffSteel]

I've argued this point of view for a while now. A well designed game should be balanced, and the number of players does not alter that. Balance may be more of an obvious critical issue in multiplayer games - particularly games with competitive gameplay - but that does not mean that it is not an issue in any other game.



A good working definition of balance, in the context of DAO, is that assuming that my party contains a mage, warrior, and rogue, I ought to be able to put any character into the fourth slot without radically altering the game difficulty (which is quite properly a separate setting in the options menu).



I also don't like the argument that you should simply avoid things you don't like. That precludes ever identifying and understanding problems, much less solving them.

[Wyllowe]

Rarely do we encounter true balanced play, whether it's a game or live reality. In real life or a game, you either acknowledge and adapt to conditions... or you perish. Discounting it with a "ppppffftttt... it don't matter" attitude, is what leaves you bleeding out or dead.

The people dancing on your grave don't give a rat's arse whether you thought the fight was fair and balanced.

[Wolfva2]

Well, at the risk of being dismissed as a 'NuRager' for not agreeing with your opinion, the way I see it is your character is special. He's not just any ole person tripping down the lane. He was selected for a reason, and that reason was an ineffable quality about him that will cause him to succeed where mere mortals would otherwise fail. Whether he was picked by a senior Gray Warden who noticed this quality in him, or was the son of a horny god who left children all over the place, or an amnesiac prisoner in a cell somewhere is a non-issue. The bottom line? He's a hero. And heroes stand head and shoulders above the regular people.

[NetBeansAndJava]

Slayer D wrote...

And what if you really like to play mages? Should you have to research what spells are too powerful and intentionally gimp yourself to get satisfying game play?

The biggest thing wrong about your #2 is that it's the game designer's JOB to balance the classes. Not the consumer's. Simple as pie.

It's all a matter of what is "satisfying".  Some feel that being OP is satifying... as demonstrated by many who voiced their opinion against the patch.

As for whether or not it's the designer's job or the consumer's to balance classes... well ultimately it is the consumer's responsibility to make the choices that he/she feels will create the best gaming experience.  Should DLC armor, be removed b/c it's clearly OP for being something so easily obtained?  Some would say yes... others would say no.

[Faerell Gustani]

NetBeansAndJava wrote...

I'm going to play devil's advocate, though I too welcome balance. First of all, that glitch you write of is just that -- a glitch. Balance is not about fixing bugs and glitches, it's about changing what is already WAI.

I'll see your devils advocate and raise you some rebuttals.

NetBeansAndJava wrote...

I believe most people who say balance doesn't matter believe this for two reasons:

1) If bugs exist in the game, then they would rather see patches fix bugs that balancing issues that do not break the game. By break I mean crash, freeze, etc., not balancing.

While I agree that bug-fixes (crash/freeze) should be a priority, this does not exclude balance issues from ruining the fun for the game (for some people).
The problem here is that frequently those who argue against balance use this argument and push it to the extreme where they try to exclude balance.
Nothing says you can't have both.

NetBeansAndJava wrote...

2) You can use self-restraint to not run into balancing issues. If you think mages are OP, then don't play them. Easy as pie.

What if I like the concept of mages?  I also play the game for a tactical challenge.  Why should my play experience be ruined because the class I wish to play has overpowered mechanics built in?
The reasoning that my enjoyment is derived from being challenged by the combat encounters.

NetBeansAndJava wrote...

You mention that balancing is about making other choices worthwhile... you thus imply that underpowered classes are not worthwhile playing. This is a silly notion, however. If you're playing the game only to feel powerful, then it's much easier to just cheat.

My stance is the opposite.  I think that overpowered classes are not worthwhile playing because they make the game too easy.  No challenge == no fun.
You are right, if people want to feel powerful they can just cheat, they don't need a class to be inherently overpowered in order for them to feel powerful.
This brings us back to the earlier point...what if I like the concept of the class in question?  This is an RPG, I like all three of these sorts of characters, Warriors, Rogues, Mages.  I like them all, and I dislike having one be overpowered to the point where it trivializes the "challenge" part of the game.

To summarize:
I play for 2 reasons, Story and Challenge.
I don't think Story and Challenge should be mutually exclusive, and the overpowering of a class makes them mutually exclusive.

[Haexpane]

Titanmike357 wrote...
 

Want to compare to Wow and balance? fine then, mages do insane dmage but die if they get sneezed at, and warriors can take a beating but can't do as much DPS.
 

No I don't want to compare to WoW, I don't play WoW and it has nothing to do w/ DAO.

Your other faulty premise of "only Multiplayer needs balance" NuRage urban myth has already been debunked 1000X over.

[Haexpane]

Inarai wrote...

Mind you, that's a bit different than balance as it's usually meant these days...

But I'd actually argue that by and large, the sort of balance you're talking about is here. For example, Rogues basically do better single target damage than anything, if built for it, allowing them to serve VITAL roles(IE, they're the one's you'll usually want to use to kill whatever simply has to die,

right then). 2-handed fighter serve as highly effective lockdown-tanks(they succeed in a tank-type role by locking down the enemy, rather than standing there and getting hit. Very effective strategy if used right. Toss on Champion for more of that fun.), and sword'n'boarders are a good mix of defensive and offensive ability who can hold their own inmass groups of enemies.

"Lockdown tank" is a great example of balance, although not the way you think.  Yes that can be an effective strategy, and that is indeed how balance was INTENDED> and shows furthermore that Bioware is indeed concerned about balance.

Why it is NOT BALANCED currently (pre latest patch?) is because you absolutely don't need a tank for that, and using a AW or another mage or a Rogue you can do the "tank's job" better and faster than he can.

It's hard to say "see that is balanced" it's easier to see an unbalanced mechanic.  In multiplayer it's even easier because of group selection.

In single player you actually have to try every class out yourself to even notice the balance issue.  In DAO you can notice it by how often you die and how quickly fights end.

Not every fight should be the same speed etc.. however when you notice that EVERY FIGHT IS FASTER EASIER w/ a bunch of mages.. .that indicates a balance issue.

When a non tank can do a tank's job, that is a clear balance issue.

[Titanmike357]

Why do I even bother to come here?

I remember why I quit coming here, so I am a Nurage ( WTF is that ) person because I think that the classes are fine as they are?

When a non tank can tank is not a balance issue, there is more to tanking than having a sheild and high HP/armor.
Why is it a balance issue when you can pump out gobs of DPS /healing and CC by using three mages?
More DPS and CC than the mobs can handle?

As it is apparent that 3 tanks would do just as good of a job, yet slower because they put out less DPS, as it is that 3 rouges would be amazing mostly because rogues if DW tow full weapons can AOE dps like no other and ot damage a mage.

In short,

I think its fine, I post my thoughts and reasons.

You think its not, so you resort to calling me names and classifying me as a Nurage ( really explain this to me? ) saying that what you think means more than what I and others think?

Modifié par Titanmike357, 08 décembre 2009 - 08:19 .

[Titanmike357]

http://social.biowar...&game=dragonage

Hi there, I do 51% of my parts damage, that party includes a mage and a shale and a two hander DPS warrior, yet I still manage to do 50+% over all!

I also have the most kills and no K/O's!

and BTW, I can tank 2-3 mobs at once because I can avoid there attacks and stun them, and I do two AOE attacks ( WW and DWS ) and I have 9 sources of damage across both weapons, I can kill three white mobs at once easily, I chew through red/orange mobs like a termite through wood.

I have 2 stuns, and on top of those 9 sources of damage at once i can add poisons!

Main hand + three runes
off hand + two runes
bleed effect,
DLC tainted blood effect
Poisons!

The only thing that can match me is when sten scores a massive hit and knocks back a entire group of mobs and stuns them and does 1/4 to 1/2 of there health bar worth of damage! ( two hand sweep )

Mages= not so Op as you might thnk.

game balance = not broken o me.

Modifié par Titanmike357, 08 décembre 2009 - 08:27 .

[Faerell Gustani]

Titanmike357 wrote...

Why do I even bother to come here?

I remember why I quit coming here, so I am a Nurage ( WTF is that ) person because I think that the classes are fine as they are?

When a non tank can tank is not a balance issue, there is more to tanking than having a sheild and high HP/armor.
Why is it a balance issue when you can pump out gobs of DPS /healing and CC by using three mages?
More DPS and CC than the mobs can handle?

As it is apparent that 3 tanks would do just as good of a job, yet slower because they put out less DPS, as it is that 3 rouges would be amazing mostly because rogues if DW tow full weapons can AOE dps like no other and ot damage a mage.

In short,

I think its fine, I post my thoughts and reasons.

You think its not, so you resort to calling me names and classifying me as a Nurage ( really explain this to me? ) saying that what you think means more than what I and others think?

I don't believe you specifically are being classified as NuRage.
According to the OP, NuRage is a classification for people who:
-Claim balance doesnt matter in Single Player
-balance only matters in multiplayer/WoW

You have done neither.  You merely claim that for you, the classes are balanced in that you can achieve the same (or similar) difficult in combat using any class.  Unfortunately, the majority of posters feel that Mages are overpowered and have a much greater success in combat with mages due to overpowered abilities.  These posters also tend to back up their claims with numbers and damage calculations.
While I respect your opinion and your argument, and I would not classify you as what the OP calls "NuRage", I also disagree since I too find that mages (pre-patch) tended to dominate everything.

[Bluesmith]

These threads are pointless. Bioware already knows that this game is unbalanced. Anyone with two braincells can tell this game is unbalanced. I don't think anyone is arguing for anything else. The two sides are "fix it" and "leave it alone." 1.02 took a stance, and it was the former. It is my suspicion that 1.03 and beyond will follow. I can't think of any modern, mainstream game companies that intentionally leave their games broken. How can anyone legitimately believe that Bioware will become the exception to this trend once they see people complaining on the forums about how P-O'd they'll be once their "I win" mages are brought in line?

Difficulty is adjusted via difficulty slider, not via intentionally refraining from the use of certain abilities...

[Wyllowe]

Hey 'Titanmike357' ..... when all is said and done, what matters is whether YOU enjoy the game... not what the rest of us say.

[Faerell Gustani]

Titanmike357 wrote...

http://social.biowar...&game=dragonage

Hi there, I do 51% of my parts damage, that party includes a mage and a shale and a two hander DPS warrior, yet I still manage to do 50+% over all!

I also have the most kills and no K/O's!

and BTW, I can tank 2-3 mobs at once because I can avoid there attacks and stun them, and I do two AOE attacks ( WW and DWS ) and I have 9 sources of damage across both weapons, I can kill three white mobs at once easily, I chew through red/orange mobs like a termite through wood.

I have 2 stuns, and on top of those 9 sources of damage at once i can add poisons!

Main hand + three runes
off hand + two runes
bleed effect,
DLC tainted blood effect
Poisons!

The only thing that can match me is when sten scores a massive hit and knocks back a entire group of mobs and stuns them and does 1/4 to 1/2 of there health bar worth of damage! ( two hand sweep )

Mages= not so Op as you might thnk.

game balance = not broken o me.

I've found that Damage and effectiveness is dependent on who you control.
In fights where I controlled my rogue,  I did more damage with my rogue as I was able to position for backstabs.
In fights where I controlled Morrigan, I did more damage with Morrigan as I was able to make optimial use of he AoE abilities and time Hexes and damage spells properly.

[Sam -stone- serious]

Game balance has more to do that simply class balance alone. The difficulty of the encounters, the way the battles are held and this balance extend to more than simply combat altogether. I dont even understand why some people automatically assume that when someone is talking of balance in a game is talking about class balance.



Get over yourselves the lot of you who only think as such. A balanced game is balanced in ALL AND EVERY of its aspects, not just the combat and class design and execution. This is NOT an MMO.