290 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

We usually provide statistics and numbers for why we believe that mages are OP. You just provide an opinion without supporting evidence.

That's because he's saying he enjoys the game as it is. To demand that he show some sort of 'evidence' that he is enjoying the game is flagrantly absurd.

I mean, you claim he somehow has a weaker point because he lacks 'supporting evidence'. What precisely would you accept as evidence that he enjoys the game? A youtube video, perhaps? Written testimony from his family? A solemn oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God?

Wake up, man.

[Faerell Gustani]

The statistics generally aren't fabricated. The builds can easily be reproduced. That you choose not to believe or try them does not make them false.

For instance, an AW can achieve higher defense and armor than warriors and thus make better tanks. Go use the toolset and try it out rather than spending time whining about what you perceive as whining.

[Faerell Gustani]

JaegerBane wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

We usually provide statistics and numbers for why we believe that mages are OP. You just provide an opinion without supporting evidence.

That's because he's saying he enjoys the game as it is. To demand that he show some sort of 'evidence' that he is enjoying the game is flagrantly absurd.

I mean, you claim he somehow has a weaker point because he lacks 'supporting evidence'. What precisely would you accept as evidence that he enjoys the game? A youtube video, perhaps? Written testimony from his family? A solemn oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God?

Wake up, man.

Slight difference.  We claim that mages are overpowered and provide evidence.  He claims that our claims and evidence are fabricated and false.

I'm sure he does enjoy the game and he obviously does believe the game is fine as is.  However, to say that our claims are false will require some supporting evidence.

[Azreliam]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

The statistics generally aren't fabricated.

[JaegerBane]

Faerell Gustani wrote...
For instance, an AW can achieve higher defense and armor than warriors and thus make better tanks. Go use the toolset and try it out rather than spending time whining about what you perceive as whining.

I'm afraid that's the kind of thinking that has forced you down the path of waving the OP flag. Hell, you didn't even need to go that far - common sense would have told you that a guy wearing Massive armour and casting defensive spells will have better armour and defence than some guy just wearing Massive armour.

Is it powerful? Of course. Is it overpowered? No. Why? Because that's the point of the class.

I don't think I've ever played an RPG that had this mythical perfect balance everyone seems to be harping on about. In NWN2/MotB it was the warriors who were the more powerful ones, thanks to the 15d6 elemental blades of doom and the non-need to rest compared to Mages who had spells that capped out and needed to rest to do their things more than a few times.

I think that's what the guy is getting at. You're effectively telling him that because he can't stump up a lovely list of stats then he somehow isn't qualified to say he enjoys the game as it is, which is little more than sheer arrogance.

[JaegerBane]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Slight difference.  We claim that mages are overpowered and provide evidence.  He claims that our claims and evidence are fabricated and false.

I'm sure he does enjoy the game and he obviously does believe the game is fine as is.  However, to say that our claims are false will require some supporting evidence.

Actually, what you've done is provide evidence that they're powerful, not that they're overpowered. To do so would require you to pit the classes against each other in some sort of PvP environment. Without that all you're doing is stating your own opinion, which holds no more weight than his.

[Kavva]

You all have forgotten that in BG2 we had a super solo class - kensai/mage/and what not and no one ever complain about it to be op.

[kelsjet]

"What Balance means in single player"

Simple. I am 100% certain that for 99.9% of the people on these forums that QQ about "zomgbalaloldps", "class balance" for them can be summed up in these few simple sentiments:

"Any game where what you are doing is different from what I am doing and what you are doing allows you to be successful, that game is imbalanced (because what I am doing is the bestest and requires the most skill). Any game where what I am doing allows me to succeed and if you don't do exactly what I am doing then you will fail, is a balanced game."

A.k.a

"Any game where what you do makes you more powerful then me is an imbalanced game. Any game where what I do lets me beat you makes it a balanced game and makes me the most skilled player on the planet worthy of your worship. Any game that does not automatically let me win and have everyone else playing the game worship me as a god, is an imbalanced game."

It's sad, but oh so very true.

[Schyzm]

kelsjet wrote...

"What Balance means in single player"

Simple. I am 100% certain that for 99.9% of the people on these forums that QQ about "zomgbalaloldps", "class balance" for them can be summed up in these few simple sentiments:

"Any game where what you are doing is different from what I am doing and what you are doing allows you to be successful, that game is imbalanced (because what I am doing is the bestest and requires the most skill). Any game where what I am doing allows me to succeed and if you don't do exactly what I am doing then you will fail, is a balanced game."

A.k.a

"Any game where what you do makes you more powerful then me is an imbalanced game. Any game where what I do lets me beat you makes it a balanced game and makes me the most skilled player on the planet worthy of your worship. Any game that does not automatically let me win and have everyone else playing the game worship me as a god, is an imbalanced game."

It's sad, but oh so very true.

what a hilarious strawman from a neurotically insecure fanboi.

[Murmet]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

We usually provide statistics and numbers for why we believe that mages are OP. You just provide an opinion without supporting evidence.

That's because he's saying he enjoys the game as it is. To demand that he show some sort of 'evidence' that he is enjoying the game is flagrantly absurd.

I mean, you claim he somehow has a weaker point because he lacks 'supporting evidence'. What precisely would you accept as evidence that he enjoys the game? A youtube video, perhaps? Written testimony from his family? A solemn oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him God?

Wake up, man.

Slight difference.  We claim that mages are overpowered and provide evidence.  He claims that our claims and evidence are fabricated and false.

I'm sure he does enjoy the game and he obviously does believe the game is fine as is.  However, to say that our claims are false will require some supporting evidence.

Actually he doesn't claim that mages are not powerfull.
He just says that since you have the freedom of choice you don't need to use a group with 3 mages if that makes the game to easy for you.

I also belong to the ppl who fail to see a problem with strong mages. The choice what you use is up to you. So why would you call for Bioware to force some restictions on all players?

[ChickenDownUnder]

All games need game balance, but what kind of balance that is depends on the genre of the game. Well, except for sports games, in those a measure of imbalance is important, since it adds a certain amount of realism. But, that's a discussion of another day. Personally I'm more of a fan of the DGB method.


When it comes to single player RPGs the most important thing is to make sure that there is a way to accomplish whatever the current goal in the game is depending on what skills/abilities the player-character has. Not all classes are created equal, but how a goal is accomplished needs to be.

[Shadowravyn]

But here is the problem with both sides of this argument.  Each side has their own viewpoints on why they are right and why the game should be changed (or not changed) because they feel that their way is not only the right way, but the only way.

My question, is simply this:  Why do pathces have to be an all or nothing situation?  When we see a patch being developed it usually encompasses many different issues all in one.  I'm not a programmer, but I have always wondered, especially in a single player game on a pc, why patches can't have a selection mode so you can choose the parts you want changed.

Let's put this simply, some people like the way the mages are in the game originally, some don't (I am using the mage part as this seems to be the major point of this particular argument).  The way things are set up, the patch address some issues that almost everyone agrees with, but it also contains parts that seem to seem to divide the community.  Is it too difficult to allow the actual player to choose which parts they wish applied?

What one person prefers and does in their own game does not affect anyone else but themselves.  Some here make blanket statements (e.g., overpowered characters make the game less fun).  That may be true for them, but others may like the feeling of having a superhero.  Some may not really be interested in the gameplay but rather more interested in the story.  To say that these people can just use the console is just as ignorant as saying that those who want more challenge can just nerf their characters manually or not use that class.  Both schools of thought are just as egostical as the other.

So the question remains,, if it was possible to choose which parts of the patch one wanted to install, how would that not be the best solution?

Just asking.

[kelsjet]

Schyzm wrote...
what a hilarious strawman from a neurotically insecure fanboi.

?
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Doesn't look like it. Can't have a strawman argument when I'am not even debating against a point. I.e to perform a strawman fallacy, you need to actually be participating in an argument with two distinct sides, not just passing a comment that is context agnostic. Sorry buddy, but logic > you.

Calling me a neurotically insecure fanboi doesn't really mean much coming from you I guess.

I mean seriously, just look at your posting history. 99% of your posts have been about how terrible this game is, how evil Bioware has been to "dupe" their fans and gamers alike. How DA:O is an abomination and how the whole world hates you. How you have personally been cheated and violated by playing the game yet how you are still not willing to leave the game's official forums. The other 1% is of you banging your chest and proclaiming to the world your intent of going on your one man crusade against "the man" that is Bioware.

To you, someone coming into these forums and making a post is automatically a "lol fanboi". Too bad you totally miss the irony of that.

Sad story really, but, carry on I guess. If nothing else, you serve as adequate amusement for the rest of us. Especially when you nerd rage, like you are doing so now.

[Lacan2]

Balance means nothing, since nobody is forced to do anything with their player. Pick up mods, the toolset.



I could make COC freeze duration 4x as long, just for the hell of it. It's your game, so stop ranting about "game balance." People can balance their games as they see fit, and I will continue to do so.

[rumination888]

Kavva wrote...

You all have forgotten that in BG2 we had a super solo class - kensai/mage/and what not and no one ever complain about it to be op.

Because its based on D&D rules. People complained all the time about how D&D rules sucked when translated into video games.

[Schyzm]

kelsjet wrote...

Schyzm wrote...
what a hilarious strawman from a neurotically insecure fanboi.

?
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Doesn't look like it. Can't have a strawman argument when I'am not even debating against a point. I.e to perform a strawman fallacy, you need to actually be participating in an argument with two distinct sides, not just passing a comment that is context agnostic. Sorry buddy, but logic > you.

Calling me a neurotically insecure fanboi doesn't really mean much coming from you I guess.

I mean seriously, just look at your posting history. 99% of your posts have been about how terrible this game is, how evil Bioware has been to "dupe" their fans and gamers alike. How DA:O is an abomination and how the whole world hates you. How you have personally been cheated and violated by playing the game yet how you are still not willing to leave the game's official forums. The other 1% is of you banging your chest and proclaiming to the world your intent of going on your one man crusade against "the man" that is Bioware.

To you, someone coming into these forums and making a post is automatically a "lol fanboi". Too bad you totally miss the irony of that.

Sad story really, but, carry on I guess. If nothing else, you serve as adequate amusement for the rest of us. Especially when you nerd rage, like you are doing so now.

ooo attacking me personally, what a new tactic for the fanboi legions.

[Schyzm]

kelsjet wrote...

Schyzm wrote...
what a hilarious strawman from a neurotically insecure fanboi.

?
Do you even know what a strawman argument is? Doesn't look like it. Can't have a strawman argument when I'am not even debating against a point. I.e to perform a strawman fallacy, you need to actually be participating in an argument with two distinct sides, not just passing a comment that is context agnostic. Sorry buddy, but logic > you.

Calling me a neurotically insecure fanboi doesn't really mean much coming from you I guess.

I mean seriously, just look at your posting history. 99% of your posts have been about how terrible this game is, how evil Bioware has been to "dupe" their fans and gamers alike. How DA:O is an abomination and how the whole world hates you. How you have personally been cheated and violated by playing the game yet how you are still not willing to leave the game's official forums. The other 1% is of you banging your chest and proclaiming to the world your intent of going on your one man crusade against "the man" that is Bioware.

To you, someone coming into these forums and making a post is automatically a "lol fanboi". Too bad you totally miss the irony of that.

Sad story really, but, carry on I guess. If nothing else, you serve as adequate amusement for the rest of us. Especially when you nerd rage, like you are doing so now.

ooo attacking me personally, what a new tactic for the fanboi legions.

[Pseron Wyrd]

Shadowravyn wrote...
I have always wondered, especially in a single player game on a pc, why patches can't have a selection mode so you can choose the parts you want changed.

That's an excellent point. Those of us who play Oblivion are familair with the fan-made Unofficial Patch. It comes with an installer that allows the player to choose which features they would like to install. If modders can mange do find a way to do it, it seems to me that such a thing can surely be done by professional game studios.

I would like to see it happen. I'd love to get bug fixes in updates and have the option to not install balance changes.

Modifié par Pseron Wyrd, 09 décembre 2009 - 01:13 .

[kelsjet]

Schyzm wrote...
ooo attacking me personally, what a new tactic for the fanboi legions.

Lol!
That's right, the 'legion of fanbois' are attacking you personally. They are the massive hurdle in your crusade against 'the man'. Whatever will you do? You poor man, left all alone to fight against the tide of fanbois. How brave you are to take up this Holy War!

/rollseyes

[Skellimancer]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Skellimancer wrote...

If anything Mages seem to be aimed at beginners and the less skilled who have trouble with easy mode.

Maybe its good that they have an overpowered crutch to fall back on.

Ideally though, that "crutch" is supposed to be called "easy mode".

True.

But then the average "easy" player still has trouble pressing keys to activating moves once every 10 seconds or so to win.

[WillieStyle]

I'm not sure I understand the position of those arguing against balance changes.



If your position is that balance is irrelevant, then why do you care about balance changes?

[Murmet]

WillieStyle wrote...

I'm not sure I understand the position of those arguing against balance changes.

If your position is that balance is irrelevant, then why do you care about balance changes?

While I indeed could care less about the balance changes I still think they were not needed.
My impression is that just because some ppl can't restrict themself they call for changes that effects all of us.

Since I fail to see the problem with strong mages I also don't get the reasoning in arguing for the changes. I don't like playing mages by myself and have not played much with a mage so far but unless a single mage on his own is already game  breaking and provides no challange for any ppl who likes playing them, I still fail to see a need for changes.

Modifié par Murmet, 09 décembre 2009 - 01:39 .

[WillieStyle]

Murmet wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

I'm not sure I understand the position of those arguing against balance changes.

If your position is that balance is irrelevant, then why do you care about balance changes?

While I indeed could care less about the balance changes I still think they were not needed.
My impression is that just because some ppl can't restrict themself they call for changes that effects all of us.

Since I fail to see the problem with strong mages I also don't get the reasoning in arguing for the changes. I don't like playing mages by myself and have not played much with a mage so far but unless a single mage on his own is already game  breaking and provides no challange for any ppl who likes playing them, I still fail to see a need for changes.

Fine. You find the changes unnecessary. But do you object to them? Do you think Bioware was wrong to implement them?

Is the only argument here one of oppurtunity cost (ie. that Bioware could have used that time to do something else)? Or would people still object to these balance change even if they cost the developers no resources to implement at all?

[Elystia]

Unbalanced = Challenge. 

Makes me work harder! "RAWR!" ..."C'mon all you wanking sobs! Come at me! I don't care if you can fart louder! I'm still gonna cut your kidney and see you fall like a rock!"
That's all I have to say about balance.
Except it doesn't work well for me after a few dwarven beers.



Balance v.s. Unbalanced= Its been a long standing argument in gaming history...
But when all is said and done, you choose your own destiny on how well you play that character.
Your character will triumph or fall depending on your strategy. And this is what DA is all about. Strategy! 

"I need to go find me a pair of darkspawn kidney"

Rogue Out...

[Murmet]

Basicly my point of view is " If it isn't broken, don't fix it"

I don't oppose the changes as such since I can't see how it will affect my game play yet (guess it wont have a big effect if any at all) but to call for a change that will affect everybody because of a problem I can't see is a bit over the top though