290 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaosgirl]

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.

Funny, that sounds more like what balance meant in a co-op MP game.  I was hoping to hear something different for what it might mean in a single player game.

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

Fun is subjective.  Some people like the kind of balance where everyone is doing the same thing and the only difference lies in the FX, though personally I find that dull.  Others enjoy picking at the game to find the character-build(s) that break the expected balance. 

Some people have more fun being constantly frustrated by a next-to-impossible scenario, others have their fun with cakewalk battles that let them play the part of Invincible Hero and focus on the story elements.

[Faerell Gustani]

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.

Ironically the argument used prior to the patch was "then go and create a mod".  Thus, I say to those of you having problems with the difficulty shoul just go out and create a mod that makes for "super easy" mode or something.  I don't necessarily agree that this is a correct logical argument, I just like using other people's arguments against them.  Rather I felt that Bioware should have made the difficulty settings more varied in actual difficulty.
I'm playing through in nightmare with the same effective party composition and I'm having a much easier time of the game interms of battles.  I didn't miss much in my Hard mode run through (92% completion).  For instance the Redcliffe battle...much easier.  I lost almost all of the militia in my Hard mode play through, and I lost nothing in the Nightmare version.

[Kaosgirl]

Schyzm wrote...

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.

New or not, it's rather hypocritical for you to **** about it when you're the one who first opened the door to that tactic.

[Murmet]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

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.

Ironically the argument used prior to the patch was "then go and create a mod".  Thus, I say to those of you having problems with the difficulty shoul just go out and create a mod that makes for "super easy" mode or something.  I don't necessarily agree that this is a correct logical argument, I just like using other people's arguments against them.  Rather I felt that Bioware should have made the difficulty settings more varied in actual difficulty.
I'm playing through in nightmare with the same effective party composition and I'm having a much easier time of the game interms of battles.  I didn't miss much in my Hard mode run through (92% completion).  For instance the Redcliffe battle...much easier.  I lost almost all of the militia in my Hard mode play through, and I lost nothing in the Nightmare version.

Care to explain how your post is related to the ones you cite?^^

[Faerell Gustani]

Murmet wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

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.

Ironically the argument used prior to the patch was "then go and create a mod".  Thus, I say to those of you having problems with the difficulty shoul just go out and create a mod that makes for "super easy" mode or something.  I don't necessarily agree that this is a correct logical argument, I just like using other people's arguments against them.  Rather I felt that Bioware should have made the difficulty settings more varied in actual difficulty.
I'm playing through in nightmare with the same effective party composition and I'm having a much easier time of the game interms of battles.  I didn't miss much in my Hard mode run through (92% completion).  For instance the Redcliffe battle...much easier.  I lost almost all of the militia in my Hard mode play through, and I lost nothing in the Nightmare version.

Care to explain how your post is related to the ones you cite?^^

You said "My impression is that just because some ppl can't restrict themself they call for changes that effects all of us."
In response, a common argument prior to the patch was "go create a mod".  Now the roles are reversed.

To me it's the same concept.  The status quo is one way, and a group of people want another way.  The group that is not happy wishes for an official change.  The group that is happy tells the other group to go and mod.

Again, I used the "go make a mod" argument to be ironic.  While it is a work-around, I don't believe it's an appropriate response.  And I'm pointing out that the crux of the problem is that Bioware failed to actually create noticable difference in their difficulty levels.

[Pocketgb]

Reading this thread seems to give you the impression that "balance = bad", which is pretty interesting.

I don't see much of a reason to keep the game balanced as is unless you really don't care about balance - in which case, why are you in this thread?

Slayer D wrote...

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.

The only reason balance is "less important" in single-player games is because there's no one to contend party slots with, so you have free reign to run some of the most gimped party compositions available.

In regards to the rest of your post, agreed 100%.

[Murmet]

Maybe I was a bit unclear... since I don't expect the changes to affect my type of game play I hardly see myself running to the forums complaing.

I just was a bit annoyed that ppl were complaining about an issue that they could easily resolve by themself without the need of any mod or balanche patch.

[Elystia]

Ironically, the song "Why can't we be friends"  by WAR is in my head right now. 

[Mishkabob]

Why are you annoyed about the complaining? Since it doesn't effect your game play why should you even care?



In fact, for all those people who say "balance doesn't matter," why are they even participating in a "balancing thread?" That's like anti-gun people participating in a "what hunting rifle should i get?" thread.



Me, since I want *changes*, I don't like it when it seems like half the "balance THIS!" threads are taken over by people who say "it's a single player RPG, who cares?" I don't agree with some of the playerbase's oft-voiced concerns, but there is little point in countering their arguments when people just go "blabla single player RPG blabla."

[Skellimancer]

Mishkabob wrote...

Why are you annoyed about the complaining? Since it doesn't effect your game play why should you even care?

In fact, for all those people who say "balance doesn't matter," why are they even participating in a "balancing thread?" That's like anti-gun people participating in a "what hunting rifle should i get?" thread.

Me, since I want *changes*, I don't like it when it seems like half the "balance THIS!" threads are taken over by people who say "it's a single player RPG, who cares?" I don't agree with some of the playerbase's oft-voiced concerns, but there is little point in countering their arguments when people just go "blabla single player RPG blabla."

Logic is not welcomed here.

[Murmet]

Mishkabob wrote...

Why are you annoyed about the complaining? Since it doesn't effect your game play why should you even care?

In fact, for all those people who say "balance doesn't matter," why are they even participating in a "balancing thread?" That's like anti-gun people participating in a "what hunting rifle should i get?" thread.

Me, since I want *changes*, I don't like it when it seems like half the "balance THIS!" threads are taken over by people who say "it's a single player RPG, who cares?" I don't agree with some of the playerbase's oft-voiced concerns, but there is little point in countering their arguments when people just go "blabla single player RPG blabla."

nearly... it is like anti-gun people participating in a "what hunting rifle should EVERYBODY get?" thread.

[Elystia]

Murmet wrote...

Mishkabob wrote...

Why are you annoyed about the complaining? Since it doesn't effect your game play why should you even care?

In fact, for all those people who say "balance doesn't matter," why are they even participating in a "balancing thread?" That's like anti-gun people participating in a "what hunting rifle should i get?" thread.

Me, since I want *changes*, I don't like it when it seems like half the "balance THIS!" threads are taken over by people who say "it's a single player RPG, who cares?" I don't agree with some of the playerbase's oft-voiced concerns, but there is little point in countering their arguments when people just go "blabla single player RPG blabla."

nearly... it is like anti-gun people participating in a "what hunting rifle should EVERYBODY get?" thread.

LOL!  You can never go wrong with a Winchester...


My husband has the T.V. and is playing Star Wars unleashed...so I'm stuck with the computer for now.
So...don't mind me..I'm just reading for entertainment purposes.

Modifié par Elystia, 09 décembre 2009 - 03:05 .

[Faerell Gustani]

Murmet wrote...

Maybe I was a bit unclear... since I don't expect the changes to affect my type of game play I hardly see myself running to the forums complaing.
I just was a bit annoyed that ppl were complaining about an issue that they could easily resolve by themself without the need of any mod or balanche patch.

What resolution would that be?  To simply ignore any mechanics deemed "broken"?
Sorry, but I'm not an osteridge.  I don't do this (http://www.melih.com...11/ostridge.jpg) when I run into problems.  I seek out solutions to fix them or try to design those of my own.

Checking on the community, it seemed pretty evenly divided as to whether or not these changes are necessary.  While I read reasonable argument for the changes, most of the "no changes" arguments devolve to "it doesn't mattter"...in which case we do have that issue of "if it doesn't matter why are you against it?"
And I think my signature explains what I think of "But the lore says..." arguments.

So what I saw were arguments for the nerfing, arguments why it doesn't matter, but no arguments against.

Also, I have to nitpick at your choice of words.  Avoiding the broken mechnics does not "resolve" anything because it's not a "resolution".  It's a "work-around".

And just to be clear, if the situation were reversed and the posts were primarily about how weak mages are, I would be pushing for buffs to mages rather than telling people to just not play mages or to go make a mod.  My reaction to "problems" is to find a resolution, not a work-around.  A work-around is what I do when no resolution can be found.

[Inarai]

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.

[Murmet]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Murmet wrote...

Maybe I was a bit unclear... since I don't expect the changes to affect my type of game play I hardly see myself running to the forums complaing.
I just was a bit annoyed that ppl were complaining about an issue that they could easily resolve by themself without the need of any mod or balanche patch.

What resolution would that be?  To simply ignore any mechanics deemed "broken"?
Sorry, but I'm not an osteridge.  I don't do this (http://www.melih.com...11/ostridge.jpg) when I run into problems.  I seek out solutions to fix them or try to design those of my own.

Checking on the community, it seemed pretty evenly divided as to whether or not these changes are necessary.  While I read reasonable argument for the changes, most of the "no changes" arguments devolve to "it doesn't mattter"...in which case we do have that issue of "if it doesn't matter why are you against it?"
And I think my signature explains what I think of "But the lore says..." arguments.

So what I saw were arguments for the nerfing, arguments why it doesn't matter, but no arguments against.

Also, I have to nitpick at your choice of words.  Avoiding the broken mechnics does not "resolve" anything because it's not a "resolution".  It's a "work-around".

And just to be clear, if the situation were reversed and the posts were primarily about how weak mages are, I would be pushing for buffs to mages rather than telling people to just not play mages or to go make a mod.  My reaction to "problems" is to find a resolution, not a work-around.  A work-around is what I do when no resolution can be found.

Maybe it becomes clear for me if you can state exactly what kind of party you use. The examples I saw so far were parties with 2-3 mages and when ppl complain then the game is getting to easy so yes, using less mages solve the the "problem" (the one I still don't see at all ) from my point of view and I just see no need to fix anything
that isn't broken just for the sake of it.

This game give you the freedom to choose. Why don't you make use of it and insist on the devs forcing something on you (or all of us for that matter)?
Mage spec X should only contain spells from school Y? Just let your chars train just these.
2-3 mages make the game to easy? Use less.
That way you play your way without forcing it on everybody else. I totaly fail to see why you insist on forcing it on everybody else.
If you try "fixing" the stuff you think is broken, it will just broke it for somebody else.

I'm totaly comfortable with using just 1 mage or none at all if you are in for the challenge but think there are also quite some folks out there who are into many big explosions/storms and why not if they like it that way.

But complaining that by using multiple chars of the strongest class (by design) the game becomes to easy is beyond me.

Modifié par Murmet, 09 décembre 2009 - 10:49 .

[WillieStyle]

If you pick a mage as your main character, you can't have either Morrigan or Wynne in your party.

If you don't pick a mage as your main character, you can only have Morrigan or Wynne in your party, not both.



If you like both Morrigan or Wynne: sucks to be you.

If you like the party banter that arises from having Morrigan and Wynne in your party at the same time: sucks to be you.

If you want to romance Morrigan as a mage and don't want to leave your girlfriend in camp: sucks to be you.



For the upteenth time, "if you don't like it don't use it" is not, and has never been, a solution to any problem ever.

The joke where the doctor says, "so don't do that," is just a joke. A real doctor who said that would get dumped by his patient in a heartbeat.

[WillieStyle]

Oh and a bunch of spells trivialize the game even if you have only 1 mage. It only takes one mana clash to kill [putative toughest boss in the game].

[WillieStyle]

Murmet wrote...
But complaining that by using multiple chars of the strongest class (by design) the game becomes to easy is beyond me.

Sigh! Since Bioware is now changing these spells either:
-Their original power was not "by design"
or
-Bioware has since changed its mind on design decisions.

Either way, complaining about design features one doesn't like in the game has proven useful several times. How can this possibly be "beyond you."

Look I'm beginning to suspect that there are 3 types of people who argued against mage nerfs:

1)  Reflexive Bioware defenders.  They saw complaints about game inbalances as attacks on Bioware/DA and took them personally.  These people basically just defend the status quo and so won't care about the patch.

2) People who liked mages being much more powerful than other classes, either because it made an otherwise too difficult game manageable for them, or just because they like their favourite class being more powerful than others.  I get this. I really do.  But if this is your position, be honest about it.

3) A group of people who are either completely irrational or really bad at articulating their positions.

[Dreogan]

It's a single player game, so balance doesn't come into play as it would in multiplayer. I've played through on a two-handed warrior (first run), arcane warrior, and I've gotten about halfway through on my rogue. I can safely say the arcane warrior might be a touch strong, but I always had the option to bump the difficulty if things got way too easy.



I also don't give a rat's ass which spells or spec is the "best" for my character; I pick what I feel like picking, since I'm not competing with anyone.



So in short: the game can provide me with a decent challenge no matter what class I play. Stuff can be tweaked, but I really don't care about balance here like I'd care in an MMO or MP game since there's no one to compete with.

[Murmet]

How about don't max out dam on both mages? Like Wynne just support/healing and Morrigan the pain.

Again, getting a party full of the stronges class by design IS giving your some advantage... as it is supposed.



And regarding the joke with the doctor... if you get sick because you live an unhealthy life I'm pretty sure you have to change some habbits in order to stop getting sick. The best doctor can't cure a patient who instist of " just getting fixed" instead of doing his part in staying well.

[Wolfva2]

Haexpane wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

I think they should write a mod that would introduce completely balanced play. Every character type will do the exact same damage, no matter what. Every weapon, the same damage. Every spell, the same damage. Just different names. SO, a mage can have 'cone of cold' that freezes everyone in front of him, a warrior will have 'shout' that paralyzes everyone in front of him, a rogue will have 'sneaky rogue ability' that stops everyone in front of him, an archer will have 'cone of stunning arrows' that well you get the idea.
 

Did you copy and paste that from 1998?   No one said balance = everyone the same.  Please try reading some posts next time before you copy and paste an old rant from Everquest 1999

Wow, you remember that post?  Sheesh, I wasn't even posting under the same name <ROTFLOL>.  Seriously, did YOU try reading what I said, or did you immediately decide to go on the attack in an attempt to dismiss what I said since you have no good rejoinder?  Rhetorical question of course.  You already answered it.  Anyways, *I* said balance=same.  Thank you for calling me a nobody, but hey, if you have to demean others with differing viewpoints that's your problem.  But, not just I said it.  Dictionaries all over the world say it as well.  Now, did I go to the extreme?  Why yes.  It's called 'exageration for effect' to show just how ludicrous an idea can be.  However, my main thesis stands.  Namely, how about playing the game the way YOU want to, and leave OTHERS to play the game the way THEY want to, instead of insisting that YOUR way is the only way?  Mmmkay?

SheffSteel wrote...

Wolfva2 wrote...

I think
they should write a mod that would introduce completely balanced play.
Every character type will do the exact same damage, no matter what.
Every weapon, the same damage. Every spell, the same damage.

Straw man alert!
Game balance is not about making everything identical. It is about giving the player meaningful choices
- different routes through the map, different classes to play,
different approaches to puzzle solving. If one of those choices is much
easier or harder than the others, the choice is not a good one, and the
designer didn't do a good job of balancing the game.

I gotta respectfully disagree with you Sheff.  Game balance has nothing to do with meaningful choices; those choices already exist.  Game balance means balancing classes.  What
I said isn't a straw man arguement atall.  But if you can find an
official dictionary definition of balance meaning what you said, I'll
be willing to alter my view.

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.

Dude.  That sounds very much like my patented 'Players definition of balance in MMOs" which goes thus:

Anything which enables you to barely eke out a hard won victory against me is horribly overpwered and must be nerfed IMMEDIATELY or else the game is doomed!
Anything which enables me to effortlessly obliterate you is working as intended, and if anything is underpowered.

[Wolfva2]

Mishkabob wrote...

Why are you annoyed about the complaining? Since it doesn't effect your game play why should you even care?

In fact, for all those people who say "balance doesn't matter," why are they even participating in a "balancing thread?" That's like anti-gun people participating in a "what hunting rifle should i get?" thread.

Me, since I want *changes*, I don't like it when it seems like half the "balance THIS!" threads are taken over by people who say "it's a single player RPG, who cares?" I don't agree with some of the playerbase's oft-voiced concerns, but there is little point in countering their arguments when people just go "blabla single player RPG blabla."

Easy answer?  Because if the devs listen to the people who insist on nerfing whatever class they personally don't like then it WILL effect other people's games.  Some people like to be overpowered; heck, I've seen several posts since the game went gold from people asking how to turn on godmode.  The interesting thing is, there are already tactics in the game that people who think someone is overpowered can use to balance things out.  For instance, an 'overpowered spell' doesn't need to be used.  Same with a class.  You can tweak the dificulty level.  You can allocate points differently...I mean, c'mon.  How overpowered would a mage who puts all their points into cunning be?  See, the problem is there are people who want the game changed to fit what THEY want.  The hell with everyone else.  

[Murmet]

WillieStyle wrote...

Murmet wrote...
But complaining that by using multiple chars of the strongest class (by design) the game becomes to easy is beyond me.

Sigh! Since Bioware is now changing these spells either:
-Their original power was not "by design"
or
-Bioware has since changed its mind on design decisions.

Either way, complaining about design features one doesn't like in the game has proven useful several times. How can this possibly be "beyond you."

Look I'm beginning to suspect that there are 3 types of people who argued against mage nerfs:

1)  Reflexive Bioware defenders.  They saw complaints about game inbalances as attacks on Bioware/DA and took them personally.  These people basically just defend the status quo and so won't care about the patch.

2) People who liked mages being much more powerful than other classes, either because it made an otherwise too difficult game manageable for them, or just because they like their favourite class being more powerful than others.  I get this. I really do.  But if this is your position, be honest about it.

3) A group of people who are either completely irrational or really bad at articulating their positions.

I just don't act surprised when it turns out that multiple chars of the strongest class are... strong. It is something you should expect
And while complaining about unliked features has proven often successfull it wasn't always for the better. So yes, I oppose fixing when I can't see the problem.

That mages are supposed to be the strongest class should be obvious after reading the codex and why Bioware did change the balance I can only guess. My two favorites are them are looking into multiplayer stuff or they got sick about ppl complaining. ^^

[fchopin]

The game is unbalanced for some of the fight missions and the only way to get past them is to cheat basically, use mage with some of the silly powers just to get passed the silly mission.



It should be possible to play the game using any class without abusing some of the spells.



I had to stop playing my first play through because I chose to play as a warrior and did not use a mage in my team and also put points in the wrong place.



I am now on my 3rd play having beaten the game 2 times but I am forced to play the game in a different way than I would like just because I know what is needed to beat some of the challenges in the game.



It should be possible to beat the game using any class without having to go to these extremes just to get passed a few silly fights. I can do the fights but I have to use some of the cheat methods and it is not fun.



Normal should be normal and hard should be for the harder levels.



I am using the 1.2 patch now so will see if some of the unbalanced fight missions are more balanced.

[flamingdts]

Those who are against the change is against the fact that Mages will become a more challenging class and have a more difficult time getting around the HARDEST difficulty of the game. Ironically, they claim balance is not an issue, so if that's the case the argument stops at that".



This patch is made by Bioware and Bioware addresses the overpowered-ness of the Mages. If they want to make a change to make the game more of a challenge, it's their choice. If you want to play OP mages, then get an easy nightmare mode mod or something.