290 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Wolfva2 wrote...

I'm going to repeat my bottom line.  Just play the game and have fun.  If you find mages to god awesomely overpowered that the game is child's play, then gimp your mage.  "But..but..I shouldn't HAVE to do that!!!!"  Well, you shouldn't 'have' to make him so awesome either.

Balance leads to a lot of things that you'd be an idiot to shun as a developer. It leads to increased depth, which in turn leads to more replayability, which then follows through into longevity. If a dev told me to do these things myself - "why don't YOU make the game better!?" - then I'd be completely dumbfounded at the fact that they just admitted to not wanting to improve their own game.

Of course most people don't care about balance (see:thread), which is why Bioware won't have much to worry about. Saying balance as a whole is irrelevent, though, is completely ignorant, since there are indeed quite a few people who care about it.

Kaosgirl wrote...

Sucks to be you, then.
To me, this
still parses as "I want a party composed of enough raw power that any
compensating disadvantages they have are rendered irrelevant, but I
still want a challenge."

That's what the difficulty settings should be doing, not party configuration. Balance FOR ME is when all the routes I can take end up at the same place but via different means.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 décembre 2009 - 08:50 .

[Tirigon]

Nice idea, but its nearly impossible to make things equally strong when they are fighting entirely different. And I rather have imbalanced, but different classes than everything all the same.

[Kaosgirl]

Pocketgb wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

I'm going to repeat my bottom line.  Just play the game and have fun.  If you find mages to god awesomely overpowered that the game is child's play, then gimp your mage.  "But..but..I shouldn't HAVE to do that!!!!"  Well, you shouldn't 'have' to make him so awesome either.

Balance leads to a lot of things that you'd be an idiot to shun as a developer. It leads to increased depth, which in turn leads to more replayability, which then follows through into longevity. If a dev told me to do these things myself - "why don't YOU make the game better!?" - then I'd be completely dumbfounded at the fact that they just admitted to not wanting to improve their own game.

I keep repeating this, but...  It depends on how it's done.  

You can achieve perfect balance by eliminating all but the aesthetic differences between the classes, but that's going to *decrease* replayability and depth in the long run.

As soon as there's a functional differentiation between the classes, there's going to be some level of imbalance.  "Different but equal" is a paradoxical phrase.

Pocketgb wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Sucks to be you, then.
To me, this
still parses as "I want a party composed of enough raw power that any
compensating disadvantages they have are rendered irrelevant, but I
still want a challenge."

That's what the difficulty settings should be doing, not party configuration. Balance FOR ME is when all the routes I can take end up at the same place but via different means.

Adjusting the difficulty settings will ultimately never do anything more than change how much room for error you have in optimizing your strategical and tactical decisions.

Party configuration just happens to be one of those strategical decisions.  What you're asking for is the elimination of that decision. 

Or to 'force' it into one of the traditional configurations:
If Warrior, then Must Take Mage and Rogue + Option.
If Mage, then Must Take Rogue + Warrior + Option
If Rogue, then Must take Warrior + Mage + Option.

At which point your only choices are whether you want the Self-Centered members of the Altruistic members of each class filling out your ranks.

Modifié par Kaosgirl, 09 décembre 2009 - 10:00 .

[Pocketgb]

Tirigon wrote...

Nice idea, but its nearly impossible to make things equally strong when they are fighting entirely different. And I rather have imbalanced, but different classes than everything all the same.

Played Street Fighter?

Sure it's not perfectly balanced, but rarely has there been an instance where I've blamed the result of my defeat on the player using Sagat.

[Pocketgb]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Adjusting the difficulty settings will ultimately never do anything more than change how much room for error you have in optimizing your strategical and tactical decisions.

Party configuration just happens to be one of those strategical decisions.  What you're asking for is the elimination of that decision.

I'm asking for things like Archery and 2H to actually be even considered viable, for Mage to be able to cover less ground, and for a higher skill threshold. While it's wholly obvious that there will never ever be a "perfectly" balanced game, sometimes I feel that Bioware didn't even try with DA. It's good to see them at least attempt to do so in the latest patch.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 décembre 2009 - 10:06 .

[Kaosgirl]

Pocketgb wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Adjusting the difficulty settings will ultimately never do anything more than change how much room for error you have in optimizing your strategical and tactical decisions.

Party configuration just happens to be one of those strategical decisions.  What you're asking for is the elimination of that decision.

I'm asking for things like Archery and 2H to actually be even considered viable,

They already are, from the reports I've seen.
Perhaps you've confused "less than the best" with "completely unviable?"

Pocketgb wrote...
for Mage to be able to cover less ground,

I don't mind the mage having the capacity to fill in for multiple roles, but I wouldn't argue with it taking a bit more investment on his part.

Pocketgb wrote...
and for a higher skill threshold.

A guy who thinks archery and 2h aren't "viable" when many other players have finished the game making heavy use of both probably shouldn't be asking for a higher skill threshold quite yet

As an aside:
I never did play Street Fighter, but I used to play Soulcaliber.  I could finish the SP game no problems with Ivy and fare well against the average player with her, but couldn't get past the second or third fight with any other character - and had no chance at all against another player.  Yet I never felt the urge to rant about how Ivy was overpowered and makes the game unchallenging while every other character is not-viable...  I just figured her 'style' was more intuitive to me.

[Wolfva2]

Pocketgb wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

I'm going to repeat my bottom line.  Just play the game and have fun.  If you find mages to god awesomely overpowered that the game is child's play, then gimp your mage.  "But..but..I shouldn't HAVE to do that!!!!"  Well, you shouldn't 'have' to make him so awesome either.

Balance leads to a lot of things that you'd be an idiot to shun as a developer. It leads to increased depth, which in turn leads to more replayability, which then follows through into longevity. If a dev told me to do these things myself - "why don't YOU make the game better!?" - then I'd be completely dumbfounded at the fact that they just admitted to not wanting to improve their own game.

Of course most people don't care about balance (see:thread), which is why Bioware won't have much to worry about. Saying balance as a whole is irrelevent, though, is completely ignorant, since there are indeed quite a few people who care about it.

Kaosgirl wrote...

Sucks to be you, then.
To me, this
still parses as "I want a party composed of enough raw power that any
compensating disadvantages they have are rendered irrelevant, but I
still want a challenge."

That's what the difficulty settings should be doing, not party configuration. Balance FOR ME is when all the routes I can take end up at the same place but via different means.

But is it 'improving' the game?  Improving for whom?  Should the devs 'improve' the game for the elite godlike players who breeze through nightmare as if it was childs play?  Then what about the poor SOBs who are having trouble on easy?  

You can NOT balance all the characters in a game.  As has been mentioned ad nauseum, once a class can do something another can't, then it's out of balance.  Balance is synonymous with equal. Don't take my word for it, look it up.  Change the definition all you want, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. So, how do devs balance the game?  They make mages extremely powerful, but also extremely squishy.  They make warriors extremely durable, but not so strong then can wipe out a room of enemies.  They make rogues semi squishy and semi strong, but give them stealth and sneaky abilities.  THIS is how developers balance classes. 

But we aren't really talking about that, are we?  We're talking about people who excell at the game who are demanding that the game be changed to make it harder for them and the hell with anyone else, when all THEY have to do is stop using the very powers they want nerfed or removed.  But rather then do that, they lazily sit on their haunches and demand, like Dionysious at the bachanal, that others 'fetch me some grapes, and do away with these parts of the game I personally don't like because I care ONLY about MYSELF and couldn't care less about anyone else!  Let the company go out of business for all I care as long as MY Needs are fulfilled!"  There is NO NEED for that. 

The devs are in a hard place.  They have to make a game that is appealing to as many people as possible to make enough money to pay off creditors, lenders, employees, and maybe make a profit so they can design another game.  To make people happy, they institute a difficulty slider.  Some people though are better gamers then most, and find even the hardest setting easy.  It does NOT makes sense for the company to cater to THEIR will alone.  Because that is a small number of players, and they will ONLY make money by appealing to the larger base. 

Again, why should the devs alter the game to appeal to the small percentage who find the game easy when all those people have to do is STOP PURPOSELY MAKING THEIR MAGES SO STRONG.  Heck, make a mage with high strength instead of high magic and pick all first and second tier spells.  Because it is YOU who are making the mages strong; all Bioware did was give you the tools.  Stop blaming them for what you make with those tools.

[Tirigon]

Pocketgb wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Nice idea, but its nearly impossible to make things equally strong when they are fighting entirely different. And I rather have imbalanced, but different classes than everything all the same.

Played Street Fighter?

Sure it's not perfectly balanced, but rarely has there been an instance where I've blamed the result of my defeat on the player using Sagat.

No, I didnt. But you say yourself that it isnt perfectly balanced, so it doesnt really oppose my opinion.

other question: Ever played DotA?
There are heroes that focus on autoattack, which are considered to be the best by noobs, and in a noobgame they will always win. But if you have ever seen a wellplayed casterhero, which is considered to be useless by noobs, because he IS useless if you cant play him, you will see things different. In my best times I did once manage to defeat 4 enemy heroes together with such a caster, including some of the "overpowered" heroes. And as soon as you are skilled enough, you will see that there are no overpowered or underpowered heroes, but only good and bad players. I´ve seen heroes with which I play like sh!t decide entire games, and I have seen the in my opinion strongest heroes played so badly they were completely useless.

[Marionetten]

Pocketgb wrote...

Played Street Fighter?

Sure it's not perfectly balanced, but rarely has there been an instance where I've blamed the result of my defeat on the player using Sagat.

Most tournaments ban certain characters. I know for a fact that Akuma was banned from the U.S. tournaments of Super Street Fighter II Turbo due to most characters not being able to beat him.

Complete balance can never be achieved unless everything is made identical. This is why overbalancing is a very bad thing to get into. 

[Tirigon]

Wolfva2 wrote:
Again, why should the devs alter the game to appeal to the small
percentage who find the game easy when all those people have to do is
STOP PURPOSELY MAKING THEIR MAGES SO STRONG.  Heck, make a mage with
high strength instead of high magic and pick all first and second tier
spells.  Because it is YOU who are making the mages strong; all Bioware
did was give you the tools.  Stop blaming them for what you make with
those tools.

I do fully agree to that. I would even go so far as to say that a game that DOESNT allow you to become overpowered with the right build is poorly balanced. After all, you want to get a reward for finding out the best builds and spellcombos, dont you? If not, you could as well remove every spell, class etc and take a hero who hits with x damage, has y attackspeed and z hp, and 3 other heroes who have exactly the same stats. Then you would have great balance, and noone would be stronger than someone else. Do you really want that?
I dont.:sick::sick:

Modifié par Tirigon, 09 décembre 2009 - 10:32 .

[Pocketgb]

Kaosgirl wrote...

They already are, from the reports I've seen.
Perhaps you've confused "less than the best" with "completely unviable?"

It was a bit unclear from my part indeed.

More of what I was getting at is that they're not equal routes, which is the point I'm getting at. Of course if they're different skilltrees they shouldn't be equal, but I don't think "less efficient" should also be included in there.

If they're going to keep 2H and Archery as is then they need a disclaimer (in bold letters saying "NOT AS AWESOME AS DUEL-WIELDING), as it might be one of the many things causing players to think that this is the hardest game ever.

Wolfva2 wrote...

But is it 'improving' the game?

When should a higher skill threshold be discouraged?

In
regards to those "poor SOBs having trouble even on easy", how are you
able to assume what exactly they're having trouble with, and if what
we're asking for will impact their play?

Wolfva2 wrote...

They
make mages extremely powerful, but also extremely squishy.  They make
warriors extremely durable, but not so strong then can wipe out a room
of enemies.  They make rogues semi squishy and semi strong, but give
them stealth and sneaky abilities.  THIS is how developers balance
classes.

Hence why prior to 1.02 it was in a MUCH more awfully
balanced state than it is now. Mages had some of the best defensive
tools in the game. While this was a bit remedied there are still quite
a few issues out there, but that's not to neglect the fact that I truly appreciate the devs listening to balance feedback.

Wolfva2 wrote...

But we aren't really talking about that, are we?

It's what I'm talking about, at least.

Tirigon wrote...

other question: Ever played DotA?

Used to but no longer, for the same reason you mentioned: carries are terribly implemented (that and denial, so retarted). I much more prefer League of Legends even though there's not as much player skill involved. Carries in that game can indeed be pretty devastating but not to the point of troll or the other bullcrap agil heroes.

Marionetten wrote...



Most tournaments ban certain
characters. I know for a fact that Akuma was banned from the U.S.
tournaments of Super Street Fighter II Turbo due to most characters not
being able to beat him.

A few Brawl tournaments ban Metaknight for the same reason, but people have been able to adapt quite a bit to him and he's no longer the annoyance he was. In fact a Luigi player just won a massive tournament around here, it was pretty intense to see.

That said, even just a bit of balance is a good thing to see. In DA I don't feel like the devs really tried too hard in this regards, although they are taking to light a few issues nowadays, so that's good.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 09 décembre 2009 - 10:46 .

[SheffSteel]

Yes, if all the characters and classes were identical, they would be balanced.

That's the easy solution.

It's by no means the only solution, unless you're terminally lazy or something.

[Elystia]

Maybe they should just make an online Dragon Age PVP arena?
And lets settle this! 

It would be really awsome to make an online town for everyone to meet up, show off our goods and then go off and fight each other.....lol.

[WillieStyle]

Why do people insist on making the perfect the enemy of the good.

It may not be possible to create a perfectly balanced game. However, it is certainly possible to take a game and, through incremental changes, make it marginally more balanced. This is what good developers do. Then don't throw up their hands and say since perfection is impossible, improvements are irrelevant.



Bioware: good developer.

Folks complaining about balance changes: bad developers.

[Faerell Gustani]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

The notion of "just not using it" is inversely prohibitive.
I WANT to be able to play an all mage party.  I like mages.  I think they're interesting.  However it seems that Pre-patch, I was unable to play them and still have the game be challenging.

Sucks to be you, then.
To me, this still parses as "I want a party composed of enough raw power that any compensating disadvantages they have are rendered irrelevant, but I still want a challenge."

I want to play a party of warriors who aren't dependant on magic and/or elite gear and have the game not be impossible.  I've yet to see any kind of game where that's possible, though:  warriors with basic gear just die in the endgame, if not sooner.

Really, the only way to make an all-mage party viable - that is, neither too godlike nor too fragile, such that the entire game is a 'fair challenge' for them  - is to make them so bland that they practically become just archers with magic FX instead of bows.

Otherewise, you inevitably hit the binary syndrome.  Every encounter is either too easy or too hard; you either wipe the enemy almost immediately, or find you can't do a damn thing to them before you're all dead.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
Likewise, I also like the idea of a cold mage.  Loved it since Diablo 2.  I would like to be able to play one without having encounters become meaningless, and yeah, CoC and Blizzard really did make encounters meaningless when you can freeze opponents indefinitely.

That must be mid to late game or something, when the min/maxing for overcoming resistances has started paying off.  I'm still in early game, and finding too much resistances to get that 'indefinate stun-lock.'

Why does mage have to be synonymous with "raw power"?  Why can't mages just be an alternative artillery class with an emphasis in crowd control?  Conceptually the new patch makes this more-so the case rather than having mages be OP.
As for the indefinite stun lock, well, you really don't need any stats other than Magic as a mage, so it's prety easy to overcome resistances by the time you've leveled once or twice as Morrigan.

[Kaosgirl]

Pocketgb wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

They already are, from the reports I've seen.
Perhaps you've confused "less than the best" with "completely unviable?"

It was a bit unclear from my part indeed.

More of what I was getting at is that they're not equal routes, which is the point I'm getting at. Of course if they're different skilltrees they shouldn't be equal, but I don't think "less efficient" should also be included in there.

If they're going to keep 2H and Archery as is then they need a disclaimer (in bold letters saying "NOT AS AWESOME AS DUEL-WIELDING), as it might be one of the many things causing players to think that this is the hardest game ever.

Meh.  "Awesome" is qualitative, and hence subjective.  Obviously the defenders of 2H weapons think it hasa few awesome qualities as it stands.  Massive DPS is just not one of them, and I think the problem is that this is kind of counter-intuitive for a lot of people.

One would expect the 2H field to be the massive-damage one.  Sword-and-board would be the obvious damage-soaker tank, and then traditionally 2wf would be the 'control' or hybrid (depending.)  What actually happened was that 2wf and 2H got swapped, and I think this threw people.  It wasn't what they were expecting (like the first time I ever tried smoked salmon) and so "it sucked."

Pocketgb wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

But is it 'improving' the game?

When should a higher skill threshold be discouraged?

Playing Chess against Gary Kasparov is no fun, unless you're part of the elite top 1% that can pretend they've got a chance.  I would say that a "higher skill threshhold" should be discouraged well before it becomes analagous to that point.

Pocketgb wrote...
In regards to those "poor SOBs having trouble even on easy", how are you
able to assume what exactly they're having trouble with, and if what
we're asking for will impact their play?

I can't speak for them, but...
Mage is the only class I got wiped with in my origin.  It's the only one I struggle through the early game with, which could be either
a) build issues
tactics issues
c) micromanagement issues.
d) mage 'working as intended' according to the traditional means of balancing spellcasters in RPGs:  insufferably weak at low levels, renders the rest of the party irrelevant at high levels.
(In fact, as some of the chief offending spells usually have friendly-fire issues, 'the rest of the party' is almost a hindrance by that point...)

Pocketgb wrote...
That said, even just a bit of balance is a good thing to see. In DA I don't feel like the devs really tried too hard in this regards, although they are taking to light a few issues nowadays, so that's good.

I think they worst you could honestly say about it is that they underestimated the ability of the masses to bypass some of the drawbacks meant to balance out some of the more powerful spells, whether that was a few gurus figuring out the trick and then spreading it via forums or it just not being as 'obvious' to people immersed in the design process as it was to people outside.

That, and SS not shutting off properly was a known and admitted bug on the PC from the moment I got here.

[Kaosgirl]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

The notion of "just not using it" is inversely prohibitive.
I WANT to be able to play an all mage party.  I like mages.  I think they're interesting.  However it seems that Pre-patch, I was unable to play them and still have the game be challenging.

Sucks to be you, then.
To me, this still parses as "I want a party composed of enough raw power that any compensating disadvantages they have are rendered irrelevant, but I still want a challenge."

I want to play a party of warriors who aren't dependant on magic and/or elite gear and have the game not be impossible.  I've yet to see any kind of game where that's possible, though:  warriors with basic gear just die in the endgame, if not sooner.

Really, the only way to make an all-mage party viable - that is, neither too godlike nor too fragile, such that the entire game is a 'fair challenge' for them  - is to make them so bland that they practically become just archers with magic FX instead of bows.

Otherewise, you inevitably hit the binary syndrome.  Every encounter is either too easy or too hard; you either wipe the enemy almost immediately, or find you can't do a damn thing to them before you're all dead.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
Likewise, I also like the idea of a cold mage.  Loved it since Diablo 2.  I would like to be able to play one without having encounters become meaningless, and yeah, CoC and Blizzard really did make encounters meaningless when you can freeze opponents indefinitely.

That must be mid to late game or something, when the min/maxing for overcoming resistances has started paying off.  I'm still in early game, and finding too much resistances to get that 'indefinate stun-lock.'

Why does mage have to be synonymous with "raw power"?  Why can't mages just be an alternative artillery class with an emphasis in crowd control?

Er... because "artillery" is somewhat synonomous with raw (and often indiscriminate) power as well?  
It's like you're asking for a tactical nuke that's "balanced" against a shotgun.  The only way to do that is to include a good chance of blowing yourself and/or your team-mates up as well...  or make the nuke so weak that it might as well just be another shotgun with different FX.

And then you want to add in crowd-control capabilities, eliminating the friendly-fire risk as well - on top of the question of what to do if someone gets close...

TBH, I can't honestly see how to balance the kind of mage you're asking for without either turning him into a binary character (auto-win or auto-lose with nothing in between), or turning him into a half-gimp who does too many things poorly.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
As for the indefinite stun lock, well, you really don't need any stats other than Magic as a mage,

If you're playing it as a pure strategy game, sure.  And maybe nightmare should have been balanced according to that assumption, where dumping everything into Magic is mandatory in order to get better than a 50% shot at bypassing resistances.  

But if one does that, then one *has* to play a CC focused mage in order to not get PWNed by archers taking advantage of your (pre-AW) lack of defense and low HP, when putting some points into dex or con might have given you enough survivability to look at other options.  Or rely on aggro-drawing tanks to keep them off your back, in which case...  the mage is only being "overpowered" because the tank is doing his job.  

And if one's playing with roleplaying sensibilities, there's a temptation to dump into Cunning, which isn't all that useful mechanically but is fitting with the traditional Wizard archetype in terms of flavor.  Probably more sensible in the PnP version of the game, where you'll get a bit more utility out of it than some extra conversation options.

Would you perhaps like a stat-reworking where Cunning affects spell damage, Magic affects resistances and Willpower affects durations?  Or would the required stat-splitting in order to do effective CC and artillery gimp your mage too much?

[Kaosgirl]

WillieStyle wrote...

Why do people insist on making the perfect the enemy of the good.
It may not be possible to create a perfectly balanced game. However, it is certainly possible to take a game and, through incremental changes, make it marginally more balanced. This is what good developers do. Then don't throw up their hands and say since perfection is impossible, improvements are irrelevant.

Bioware: good developer.
Folks complaining about balance changes: bad developers.

People asking for tactical nuke capability balanced against shotguns, and then ****ing about it being "too powerful" because they've overcome or bypassed any drawbacks used to create that balance:  unrealistic.

[Pocketgb]

Kaosgirl wrote...

One would expect the 2H field to be the massive-damage one.  Sword-and-board would be the obvious damage-soaker tank, and then traditionally 2wf would be the 'control' or hybrid (depending.)  What actually happened was that 2wf and 2H got swapped, and I think this threw people.  It wasn't what they were expecting (like the first time I ever tried smoked salmon) and so "it sucked."

At first inspection it feels like an "in-between" spec of S&B and DW. The problem there is that I get more damage and decent survivability going DW for the massive Dex boost, while S&B provides decent CC and survivability while still offering some DPS through 1h.

The only thing I've found to be in 2h that really sticks it out is Indominable. I've had far more devastating results with DW stacking numerous sustains. I've had similar DPS results to 2h with S&B with far more survivability and utility. 2H is hella fun, yeah, but that comes at a price, which it shouldn't.

Kaosgirl wrote...

Playing Chess against Gary Kasparov is no fun, unless you're part of the elite top 1% that can pretend they've got a chance.  I would say that a "higher skill threshhold" should be discouraged well before it becomes analagous to that point.

It's going to be near impossible to gauge how they should go about this. That or Bioware never really intended for the combat to actually be "deep".

Kaosgirl wrote...

I can't speak for them, but...
Mage is the only class I got wiped with in my origin.  It's the only one I struggle through the early game with, which could be either
a) build issues
tactics issues
c) micromanagement issues.
d) mage 'working as intended' according to the traditional means of balancing spellcasters in RPGs:  insufferably weak at low levels, renders the rest of the party irrelevant at high levels.
(In fact, as some of the chief offending spells usually have friendly-fire issues, 'the rest of the party' is almost a hindrance by that point...)

Again I've had the opposite experience. I've actually found the mage origin to be the most straight-forward. Winter's Grasp is king, no matter what.

Kaosgirl wrote...

I think they worst you could honestly say about it is that they underestimated the ability of the masses to bypass some of the drawbacks meant to balance out some of the more powerful spells, whether that was a few gurus figuring out the trick and then spreading it via forums or it just not being as 'obvious' to people immersed in the design process as it was to people outside.

That, and SS not shutting off properly was a known and admitted bug on the PC from the moment I got here.

The whole class design in general is pretty iffy. Both Rogue and Warrior share two of the same trees, only having specialzations and two unique classes to define them. Add-in the complete inflexibility of the trees and there's really not much class choice for both of the classes.

In regards to the "nuke" example: that's where I'd ask why the hell they thought it would be a good idea to add it to the game.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 10 décembre 2009 - 01:43 .

[Shadow_Viper]

Inarai wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

There is no such thing as a "balanced" game.

If you believe something to be "unbalanced" then do not use/play it. Simple as that.

Whether or not you decide to use/play the thing in question(class, item, etc), the choice does not require you to go running to the forums and whining needlessly.

IFSW

But the class should be available*.  And if a class breaks the game's challenge, then it's not.

*: Available might not be the right word...

The class is still available. Whether you decide to use/play it or not is up to you. For example: If I found a class unbalanced I simply would choose not to play it or use it in a way that was more challenging. If someone always decide sto use the tactics that make the game less challenging, then they should not be surprised when they find the game too easy. I wouldn't run to the forums and cry/whine about it "Wahhh bioware Mages are OP, nerf them now!!! OMG how dare u guys put that in the game!!!!!11!!!!!!11!1!elven!!!!!!!".

IFSW, and IFL2P.

As I said, available might be the wrong word...  Fun would be a good one - and the game is designed to be fun from a CHALLENGE standpoint.  Where is that in an AW/BM?

If you do not find those two classes fun, and it's that big of an issue for you. Don't use/play them. Simple as that.

The Arcane Warrior is a class model that I love to play.  Really, my absolute favourite - and it's been done wrong.  It breaks the intended challenge of the game, from which most players derive fun.  So, you can shut up about your non-solution, because "don't play it" doesn't change the damn problem.  You're asking me to choose between a character type I find incredibly fun and interesting (often referred to as a "gish" in DnD parlance - characters with both casting and melee combat abilities), or being challenged.  That choice fundamentally takes fun out of the game.

You could also create a mod that changes the Arcane Warrior more to your liking.

But, despite whichever choice you make, neither requires coming to the forums and whining.

IFSW.

Modifié par Shadow_Viper, 10 décembre 2009 - 03:07 .

[Pocketgb]

Yeesh, I sure wish someone made a mod that nerfed Cone of Cold, Force Field, Crushing Prison and Blizzard.



;p

[Faerell Gustani]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Er... because "artillery" is somewhat synonomous with raw (and often indiscriminate) power as well?  
It's like you're asking for a tactical nuke that's "balanced" against a shotgun.  The only way to do that is to include a good chance of blowing yourself and/or your team-mates up as well...  or make the nuke so weak that it might as well just be another shotgun with different FX.

And then you want to add in crowd-control capabilities, eliminating the friendly-fire risk as well - on top of the question of what to do if someone gets close...

TBH, I can't honestly see how to balance the kind of mage you're asking for without either turning him into a binary character (auto-win or auto-lose with nothing in between), or turning him into a half-gimp who does too many things poorly.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
As for the indefinite stun lock, well, you really don't need any stats other than Magic as a mage,

If you're playing it as a pure strategy game, sure.  And maybe nightmare should have been balanced according to that assumption, where dumping everything into Magic is mandatory in order to get better than a 50% shot at bypassing resistances.  

But if one does that, then one *has* to play a CC focused mage in order to not get PWNed by archers taking advantage of your (pre-AW) lack of defense and low HP, when putting some points into dex or con might have given you enough survivability to look at other options.  Or rely on aggro-drawing tanks to keep them off your back, in which case...  the mage is only being "overpowered" because the tank is doing his job.  

And if one's playing with roleplaying sensibilities, there's a temptation to dump into Cunning, which isn't all that useful mechanically but is fitting with the traditional Wizard archetype in terms of flavor.  Probably more sensible in the PnP version of the game, where you'll get a bit more utility out of it than some extra conversation options.

Would you perhaps like a stat-reworking where Cunning affects spell damage, Magic affects resistances and Willpower affects durations?  Or would the required stat-splitting in order to do effective CC and artillery gimp your mage too much?

Your solution of enforcing Willpower and Cunning as useful stat for mages is an excellent one.  It makes a good amount of sense RP-wise and it forces a diffrentiation between a CC based mage and a damage based mage much like how warriors must decide on how their defenses work...do they want Con/Armor to soak, or do they want Dex to dodge?  They need Str for offense already, so they're looking at a Tri-stat selection where they can go evenly and be well rounded, or they can emphasise in one or the other.

If this were the case, I think rogues may need a slight adjustment when we consider the Lethalty talent in conjunction with the dagger/dex fix.  Rogues are required only 2 stats (dex/cunning) and a definitive secondary stat of Str which is only bumped a bit for armor requirements.  The more hideous part is that Rogues can go pure dex to max out damage dealing, hit, and defense.  For a dagger rogue, dex is everything and I feel that there's something wrong with that.  How would you fix rogues so that they don't have a mono-stat option?
One of the problems with dual wielding is that Momentum is too effective.  The only abilities to use are Momentum and 2 weapon Sweep.  Maybe, if we adjusted Dex such that you don't get bonus Dex to regular swings, but the dex based damage is only applied when using a special ability.
This would encourage the use of crappy abilites like flurry, and it would encourage higher Willpower so that abilities could be use more frequently.

Thoughts?

[Aspar_Hruk]

I can't understand how there can be ppl defending lack of balance. On my first playthrough i used a 2h warrior and played on normal. Thought the game was just that, normal on difficulty. Felt ok with my warrior though a bit lacking, too slow and...while damage and CC seemed ok, it was not alaways a walk in the park, just as it should be. The party was me, Al, Lel and Mori.

On the second playthrough i started a mage with the same companions in the party, just pushed Morigan more into healing and support.

Started on normal, i can't express how trivial, boring and easy the game suddenly became. I can just obliterate everything with my mage before even my tank reaches the target. Switched to hard...not much change, just a little more than a fireball.

I now see how gimped the 2h warrior is compared to a mage. They are completely unbalanced. The first seems so poor and clumsy now, compared to the mage, with which i spread mayhem all over the battlefield in Nightmare that it's ridiculous. I don't even know if i need all specializations. I just put everything into magic and every mob dies before it can realize what really happens. I did put everything in STR on my 2h warrior and though he did very big hits, he was so slow that especially at the end a lot of mobs died from my party members fire, before i can do significant damage to them.

This game badly needs balance.

[voad]

Shadow_Viper wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Shadow_Viper wrote...

There is no such thing as a "balanced" game.

If you believe something to be "unbalanced" then do not use/play it. Simple as that.

Whether or not you decide to use/play the thing in question(class, item, etc), the choice does not require you to go running to the forums and whining needlessly.

IFSW

But the class should be available*.  And if a class breaks the game's challenge, then it's not.

*: Available might not be the right word...

The class is still available. Whether you decide to use/play it or not is up to you. For example: If I found a class unbalanced I simply would choose not to play it or use it in a way that was more challenging. If someone always decide sto use the tactics that make the game less challenging, then they should not be surprised when they find the game too easy. I wouldn't run to the forums and cry/whine about it "Wahhh bioware Mages are OP, nerf them now!!! OMG how dare u guys put that in the game!!!!!11!!!!!!11!1!elven!!!!!!!".

IFSW, and IFL2P.

As I said, available might be the wrong word...  Fun would be a good one - and the game is designed to be fun from a CHALLENGE standpoint.  Where is that in an AW/BM?

If you do not find those two classes fun, and it's that big of an issue for you. Don't use/play them. Simple as that.

The Arcane Warrior is a class model that I love to play.  Really, my absolute favourite - and it's been done wrong.  It breaks the intended challenge of the game, from which most players derive fun.  So, you can shut up about your non-solution, because "don't play it" doesn't change the damn problem.  You're asking me to choose between a character type I find incredibly fun and interesting (often referred to as a "gish" in DnD parlance - characters with both casting and melee combat abilities), or being challenged.  That choice fundamentally takes fun out of the game.

You could also create a mod that changes the Arcane Warrior more to your liking.

But, despite whichever choice you make, neither requires coming to the forums and whining.

IFSW.

You could do the same instead of coming to this thread and whining. STFUAH, guess what that stands for?