181 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Maias227 wrote...

Try some of Paradox's latest games and tell me they've dumbed down anything. Just the freaking turtorial takes an hour and barely covers half!

I'm still playing EU3 to this day
(trying to take over the world as Denmark, which isn't that easy as I got careless due to having taken a break and grabbed too much land too fast before I remembered about infamy, making everyone despise me )

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Eh... are you saying that a sniper rifle played the same as a pistol?

Or are you saying that there weren't mods for the weapons that tailored to different playstyles (target specific ammo, sprayer or hardhitter, accuracy etc.)

Cause getting higher level weapons in any lootgame means higher level damage. That's not restricted to ME1.

Absolutely incorrect. Even games with tiers don't work that way.

So for example,


Tier I
Weapon A (
Type I ), Weapon B (
Type II) , Weapon C (
Type III)

Tier II
Weapon D (Type I), 
Weapon  E (Type II), 
Weapon  F (Type III)

In Tier Game #1.

Weapon D may be worse in some aspects than A, but it is greatly better in other aspects than it. Same goes for E-B, F-C.

However, Weapon A is better in only some aspects than B and C, With B being better in other aspects than A and C, and the same goes for C with A and B.

In Tier Game #2

Weapon D better in all aspects than A, but not compared to B,C and of course E,F.
Weapon E > B, but not compared to A,C,D,F
Weapon F > C, but not compared to A,B,D,E.

In Mass Effect 1

A<B<C<D<E<F

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...
Child, please.  Everything after that brat Alexander the Great ''solved'' the Gordian knot  everything else was dumbed down...

Of course, if you consider sitting in front of a puzzle for hours and ending up with slashing it to bits with a sword as smart, it is logical that you consider ME1 an intellectually demanding game as well.

Just to point something out.

If his action solved the issue, and nobody else had been able to solve the issue so far, it certainly was smarter than what everyone else could come up with

That said, that particular scenario has more to do with 'thinking out of the box' than 'raw intelectual power'.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

ashwind wrote...

One of the reasons games are... "less", especially CRPG is because developers did not have to worry about making a game that would fit into a console. There is only so much a console can take before it explodes with its seriously dated hardware. So, games are dumb down because they have to fit into less than sufficient hardware.

ROGUE FITS ONTO A FLOPPY DISK. I CAN'T THINK OF ANY ELEMENT THAT IS RELATED TO AN RPG BEING GOOD THAT AN XBAWKS WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME HANDLING FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE. THERE'S THE TEXT DISPLAY ISSUE, BUT THAT'S MORE OF A TV PROBLEM THAN A CONSOLE PROBLEM.

[Aifell_Ellion]

Phaedon wrote...

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
ait. Wasnt it like that:

-snip-

Um, I hope it wouldn't be.

For starters, ME2 alone, regardless of the price or the difficulty in gaining each weapon, had varying stats.
The Avenger wasn't better in all situations that the Vindicator, etc. Even the weapons from the Collector Ship had disadvantages in comparison to more basic weapons.

it seems to me that you've unlocked all weapons in ME1 and spent all the time with that HMGA X or however the wunderwaffe was called in ME1, because as i recall, the difference between weapons existed in ME1 even more than in ME2, and the variety of weapons was also better, and you had mostly weapons of same level.
And the only disadvantage of collector ship's weapons in ME2 was widow's low ammo capacity (slightly a disadvantage) and that claymore had only 1 shot in its load. And this all would hardly matter for adept/engineer/sentinel and only slightly for infiltrator/vanguard

Modifié par Aifell_Ellion, 20 mai 2012 - 03:32 .

[Phaedon]

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...
I THINK IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IT'S VERY COMMON IN RPGS (OR ACTION GAMES WITH RPG ELEMENTS) FOR ITEMS OF A PARTICULAR TYPE AND SUBTYPE TO BE STRAIGHT UPGRADES. 

I DON'T SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME1'S "HEY, THIS GUN BY MANUFACURER X IS BETTER THAN THE GUN BY MANUFACTURER X I ALREADY HAVE IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY!" AND MORROWIND'S "HEY, THIS DAEDRIC LONGSWORD IS BETTER THAN THIS IRON LONGSWORD IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY!"

IT'S A QUESTIONABLE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY, BUT THAT'S RPGS FOR YOU.

I specifically referred to this phenomenon already, I am afraid.
Even with an 'upgrades' system, there are still tiers, the weapons of which still have advantages or disadvantages towards one another. Hell, even ME1 has tiers. But every single in every tier can be compared to one another as 'better' or 'worse'.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Just to point something out.

If his action solved the issue, and nobody else had been able to solve the issue so far, it certainly was smarter than what everyone else could come up with

That said, that particular scenario has more to do with 'thinking out of the box' than 'raw intelectual power'.

Yeah, except that solving a knot by definition means that you have one intact rope able to form a straight line. When you cut it to pieces, you have multiple ropes, most of which not able to form a straight line.

It had nothing with thinking out of the box. It's just one of the things that Aristotle would scold Alexander about.

[SNascimento]

They have not dumbed down... what they did is improving the games.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
Eh... are you saying that a sniper rifle played the same as a pistol?

Or are you saying that there weren't mods for the weapons that tailored to different playstyles (target specific ammo, sprayer or hardhitter, accuracy etc.)

Cause getting higher level weapons in any lootgame means higher level damage. That's not restricted to ME1.

Absolutely incorrect. Even games with tiers don't work that way.

So for example,


Tier I
Weapon A (
Type I ), Weapon B (
Type II) , Weapon C (
Type III)

Tier II
Weapon D (Type I), 
Weapon  E (Type II), 
Weapon  F (Type III)

In Tier Game #1.

Weapon D may be worse in some aspects than A, but it is greatly better in other aspects than it. Same goes for E-B, F-C.

However, Weapon A is better in only some aspects than B and C, With B being better in other aspects than A and C, and the same goes for C with A and B.

In Tier Game #2

Weapon D better in all aspects than A, but not compared to B,C and of course E,F.
Weapon E > B, but not compared to A,C,D,F
Weapon F > C, but not compared to A,B,D,E.

In Mass Effect 1

A<B<C<D<E<F

I disagree. Plenty of games were were weapon A is better than B that is better than C that is better than D and so on.

As someone else pointed out, any of the elder scrolls games basicly follow this formula. My character always goes through basicly the same string of upgrades in each game before arriving at daedric weapons.

Diablo games. Tons of loot drops and I can easy see wether a weapon is an upgrade or not. I never carried around 'different setups' because one setup would be better than another in certain scenarios. a weapon would either be an upgrade or not (haven't played diablo3, though, so unable to tell if that is the case there as well).

Quite frankly, I find your claim that ME1 is unique in its loot handling a bit stretched. The interface for handling the loot in inventory could be sad to be 'uniquely bad', as I haven't seen any other game handle it that bad, though.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...
Child, please.  Everything after that brat Alexander the Great ''solved'' the Gordian knot  everything else was dumbed down...

Of course, if you consider sitting in front of a puzzle for hours and ending up with slashing it to bits with a sword as smart, it is logical that you consider ME1 an intellectually demanding game as well.

Just to point something out.

If his action solved the issue, and nobody else had been able to solve the issue so far, it certainly was smarter than what everyone else could come up with

That said, that particular scenario has more to do with 'thinking out of the box' than 'raw intelectual power'.

YEAH, I SUSPECT THAT SOMEONE WHO SAYS "HEY, IF ALEXANDER THE GREAT REALLY WAS A SMART DUDE, HE WOULD HAVE UNTIED THE KNOT THE HARD WAY" MAY BE MISSING THE POINT OF THAT STORY IN THE CONTEXT OF WHY ALEXANDER WAS SUCCESSFUL AS A CONQUERER.

[Phaedon]

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
it seems to me that you've unlocked all weapons in ME1 and spent all the time with that HMGA X or however the wunderwaffe was called in ME1, because as i recall, the difference between weapons existed in ME1 even more than in ME2, and the variety of weapons was also better, and you had mostly weapons of same level.
And the only disadvantage of collector ship's weapons in ME2 was widow's low ammo capacity (slightly a disadvantage) and that claymore had only 1 shot in its load. And this all would hardly matter for adept/engineer/sentinel and only slightly for infiltrator/vanguard

I didn't touch the wunderwaffe until I unlocked it. Every time I unlocked a new weapon, I would check if it was better or worse than the one I had already equipped and equipped it. It was that simple. All the stats would progress at the same time, so I would just pick the one with the highest number.

As for the difference, no, here you are just plain wrong. Switching from Weapon A to Weapon B of the same tier caused a single-digit difference in stats.

And this all would hardly matter for adept/engineer/sentinel and only slightly for infiltrator/vanguard 

Are you trying to say that different weapons favour different builds?

[SalsaDMA]

Aifell_Ellion wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
ait. Wasnt it like that:

-snip-

Um, I hope it wouldn't be.

For starters, ME2 alone, regardless of the price or the difficulty in gaining each weapon, had varying stats.
The Avenger wasn't better in all situations that the Vindicator, etc. Even the weapons from the Collector Ship had disadvantages in comparison to more basic weapons.

it seems to me that you've unlocked all weapons in ME1 and spent all the time with that HMGA X or however the wunderwaffe was called in ME1, because as i recall, the difference between weapons existed in ME1 even more than in ME2, and the variety of weapons was also better, and you had mostly weapons of same level.
And the only disadvantage of collector ship's weapons in ME2 was widow's low ammo capacity (slightly a disadvantage) and that claymore had only 1 shot in its load. And this all would hardly matter for adept/engineer/sentinel and only slightly for infiltrator/vanguard

I missed that one.

In ME2 I always ended up with a specific loadout. As far as I saw it, there WAS a 'best weapon' in each slot for ME2. Plasma shotgun for shotgun, mattock for AR, Locust for SMG... Can't remember the handcannon name, but the one with lasersight. Can't remember the sniper rifles now either, but there too were best in slots in my opinion.

[Methaluan_Sylver]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Methaluan_Sylver wrote...

People are getting spoiled with to much easy stuff in general. In a few years shooter will have auto target and a record voice that every five second say "you are the best player of nowdays, buy the DLC to be the best of all time".

I thought this was already true on consoles and poor ports?

Heck, the voices already started back when I was playing Unreal Tournemant I seem to recall... Or was it Quake that brougth those? It has been a while...

Honestly, I dont know much about it, but maybe you are right. I play mostly for good story and freedom in the game and Mass Effect series as both and few others keep my intresset. I remeber playing some games on friends console systems in the 90, when the dlc was a alien stuff for not pc players. Back them most people got stuck multiple times a game because of a hard boss or puzzle, now is rare and if it happens most people rush to the internet for a quick way around or have  "the easy mode button and press to win". 

[Phaedon]

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...
YEAH, I SUSPECT THAT SOMEONE WHO SAYS "HEY, IF ALEXANDER THE GREAT REALLY WAS A SMART DUDE, HE WOULD HAVE UNTIED THE KNOT THE HARD WAY" MAY BE MISSING THE POINT OF THAT STORY IN THE CONTEXT OF WHY ALEXANDER WAS SUCCESSFUL AS A CONQUERER.

Alexander was a great diplomat and the best strategist to live and walk on Earth. Getting pissed and cutting the rope just proved that he sometimes could lose self-control and that he wasn't puzzle-savvy enough to solve the knot. There is nothing smart about what he did. In fact, it went against everything Greek education had taught him.

The indigenous people were too essentially 'intimitated' with him to not accept that he solved the knot. You know why? Otherwise, that meant that they didn't accept him as ruler of Asia.

So yes, it means that Alexander wasn't puzzle savvy enough.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
Just to point something out.

If his action solved the issue, and nobody else had been able to solve the issue so far, it certainly was smarter than what everyone else could come up with

That said, that particular scenario has more to do with 'thinking out of the box' than 'raw intelectual power'.

Yeah, except that solving a knot by definition means that you have one intact rope able to form a straight line. When you cut it to pieces, you have multiple ropes, most of which not able to form a straight line.

It had nothing with thinking out of the box. It's just one of the things that Aristotle would scold Alexander about.

Really...

I'm curious where you got that definition from. Can you point me to somewhere that states that to solve a knot it has to result in "one intact rope able to form a straight line" ?

How do you deal with knots tied by multiple ropes?

Or... Are you just pulling a random statement out from somewhere dark and foreboding?

I tried googling "solve a knot" just to test it, and all I got was translations to various languages or hits on the gordian knot...

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Phaedon wrote...

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...
I THINK IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IT'S VERY COMMON IN RPGS (OR ACTION GAMES WITH RPG ELEMENTS) FOR ITEMS OF A PARTICULAR TYPE AND SUBTYPE TO BE STRAIGHT UPGRADES. 

I DON'T SEE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME1'S "HEY, THIS GUN BY MANUFACURER X IS BETTER THAN THE GUN BY MANUFACTURER X I ALREADY HAVE IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY!" AND MORROWIND'S "HEY, THIS DAEDRIC LONGSWORD IS BETTER THAN THIS IRON LONGSWORD IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY!"

IT'S A QUESTIONABLE DESIGN PHILOSOPHY, BUT THAT'S RPGS FOR YOU.

I specifically referred to this phenomenon already, I am afraid.
Even with an 'upgrades' system, there are still tiers, the weapons of which still have advantages or disadvantages towards one another. Hell, even ME1 has tiers. But every single in every tier can be compared to one another as 'better' or 'worse'.

ALSO NOT A NEW THING FOR RPGS OR ARPGS. THE DIFFICULTY OF CREATING A SET OF GEAR CHOICES THAT OFFER MEANINGFUL VARIATION WHILE AT THE SAME TIME AVOIDING A SITUATION WHERE A CERTAIN GEAR SET-UP IS 100% OPTIMAL FOR A CERTAIN BUILD IS A KNOWN PROBLEM.

[Heather Cline]

To answer the OP's question. They want to cater to the casual gamer and people who play FPS games. This is why the games got more and more simplified after ME1. This is why they are simplifying and dumbing down games. They want their games to cater to every joe schmoe out there.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
I disagree. Plenty of games were were weapon A is better than B that is better than C that is better than D and so on.

As someone else pointed out, any of the elder scrolls games basicly follow this formula. My character always goes through basicly the same string of upgrades in each game before arriving at daedric weapons.

Diablo games. Tons of loot drops and I can easy see wether a weapon is an upgrade or not. I never carried around 'different setups' because one setup would be better than another in certain scenarios. a weapon would either be an upgrade or not (haven't played diablo3, though, so unable to tell if that is the case there as well).

Quite frankly, I find your claim that ME1 is unique in its loot handling a bit stretched. The interface for handling the loot in inventory could be sad to be 'uniquely bad', as I haven't seen any other game handle it that bad, though.

Well, I haven't played Diablo in a while, but TES doesn't work like that at all.

Maybe you missed the part where 'Types' refer to different types of weapons (arrows, crossbows) than uses? (close range, long range). Especially in ME1 you can't equip or unequip a  weapon of a specific group. In ME3 you can. 

It doesn't matter if Sniper Rifles have any difference with pistols. They have separate progression. Pistol A is always worse than Pistol B. ME1 doesn't even have different 'types', really.

[SalsaDMA]

Methaluan_Sylver wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Methaluan_Sylver wrote...

People are getting spoiled with to much easy stuff in general. In a few years shooter will have auto target and a record voice that every five second say "you are the best player of nowdays, buy the DLC to be the best of all time".

I thought this was already true on consoles and poor ports?

Heck, the voices already started back when I was playing Unreal Tournemant I seem to recall... Or was it Quake that brougth those? It has been a while...

Honestly, I dont know much about it, but maybe you are right. I play mostly for good story and freedom in the game and Mass Effect series as both and few others keep my intresset. I remeber playing some games on friends console systems in the 90, when the dlc was a alien stuff for not pc players. Back them most people got stuck multiple times a game because of a hard boss or puzzle, now is rare and if it happens most people rush to the internet for a quick way around or have  "the easy mode button and press to win". 

I'm pretty sure I remember hearing stuff like "Multikill..." "Killing spray..." "Unstoppable..." and "GODLIKE..." in deep resonating voices back in the days, as 'rewards' every now and then when you fragged people.

and auto-aiming is more or less standard on consoles, to compensate for having to aim with a stick rather than a mouse. Some PC ports don't even bother taking out that thing of the code before compiling it

[FROST4584]

Games within the last 4 years are dumbed down because, gaming has become more mainstream. Devs and the big 3 consoles target non gamers. The last real generation for "gamers" was the PS2, Xbox , and Gamecube generation. Now in days you hear about games breaking yearly records, than previous years, it is because non gamers are now buying games.

This in turn has made companies more greedy because comanies like EA know those type of people will buy the " DLC" wasn't ready at the last minute of "going gold week" and people that will purchase 5 maps for $15, such as COD in games. Let's not forget about "forcing" people to play ME3's multiplayer to unlock "100%" of ME3 ending , which is a sneaky way of them wanting people to pay, real money for unlock random stuff in multiplayer.

Last generation they wouldn't DARE do this to "real gamers", with day 1 DLC , disc locked content (Capcom) ,and overpriced DLC. Now this gen is filled with so many casual gamers they know they can exploit people.

Companies like EA , shouldn't be mad because they are one of the many companies who will cause the gaming bubble to burst.

[Aifell_Ellion]

Phaedon wrote...

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
it seems to me that you've unlocked all weapons in ME1 and spent all the time with that HMGA X or however the wunderwaffe was called in ME1, because as i recall, the difference between weapons existed in ME1 even more than in ME2, and the variety of weapons was also better, and you had mostly weapons of same level.
And the only disadvantage of collector ship's weapons in ME2 was widow's low ammo capacity (slightly a disadvantage) and that claymore had only 1 shot in its load. And this all would hardly matter for adept/engineer/sentinel and only slightly for infiltrator/vanguard

I didn't touch the wunderwaffe until I unlocked it. Every time I unlocked a new weapon, I would check if it was better or worse than the one I had already equipped and equipped it. It was that simple. All the stats would progress at the same time, so I would just pick the one with the highest number.

As for the difference, no, here you are just plain wrong. Switching from Weapon A to Weapon B of the same tier caused a single-digit difference in stats.

 

Bull****. The ME1 weapons upgrade system was just as in any other rpg game.
Made me sure that you just ruined this part of gameplay for yourself, and now whining about it.
Therefore quite little argument is considered reasonable anymore.

P.S.

 

And this all would hardly matter for adept/engineer/sentinel and only slightly for infiltrator/vanguard 

Are you trying to say that different weapons favour different builds?

I am trying to say that only soldiers could actually use ANY of that weapons, so for them none of that disadvantages really was one. As well as for infiltrator there was no disadvantages in widow's low capacity, and for vanguard there was no disadvantages in claymore, compared to other shotguns.

[Palladin123]

It's not just a trend seen in RPGs, but rather all over the gaming landscape. Look at the strategy genre - 10 years ago it was one of the most vibrant game genres out there, with a large number of real-time and turn-based titles available. Today the genre's nearly dead. Apart from Starcraft, Total War and Sins of a Solar Empire, there's not a lot of choice.

Same thing with flight simulators. The classic simulators (Jane's F-15 etc.) needed one to go through 10 steps of toggling switches to fire one rocket. Today's simulators are basically arcade games with fancy graphics, and there's hardly one or two real simulators left on the market.

The common trend here is the need for instant gratification on the part of the audience. I don't think it's about this generation being 'dumber' than the one before it - they're probably smarter than we old timers are. What this generation lacks is patience - they want a game that's going to be exciting five minutes from the loading screen. They don't want anything that takes time to slowly build up into a satisfying and fulfilling experience. And why does this generation lack patience? - that's a whole other question for another topic.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
I disagree. Plenty of games were were weapon A is better than B that is better than C that is better than D and so on.

As someone else pointed out, any of the elder scrolls games basicly follow this formula. My character always goes through basicly the same string of upgrades in each game before arriving at daedric weapons.

Diablo games. Tons of loot drops and I can easy see wether a weapon is an upgrade or not. I never carried around 'different setups' because one setup would be better than another in certain scenarios. a weapon would either be an upgrade or not (haven't played diablo3, though, so unable to tell if that is the case there as well).

Quite frankly, I find your claim that ME1 is unique in its loot handling a bit stretched. The interface for handling the loot in inventory could be sad to be 'uniquely bad', as I haven't seen any other game handle it that bad, though.

Well, I haven't played Diablo in a while, but TES doesn't work like that at all.

Maybe you missed the part where 'Types' refer to different types of weapons (arrows, crossbows) than uses? (close range, long range). Especially in ME1 you can't equip or unequip a  weapon of a specific group. In ME3 you can. 

It doesn't matter if Sniper Rifles have any difference with pistols. They have separate progression. Pistol A is always worse than Pistol B. ME1 doesn't even have different 'types', really.

huh?

Now you are talking nosense to me.

ME1 had pistols, shotguns, sniper rifles and assault rifles. The different weapon types had strengths in different areas and different classes could specialize in different weapons. Everyone could equip every weapon, but unless they specced in it, they wouldn't be very precise with it (and I have to state here, that I feel they set the bar for precision too low considered the training the characters should have had.. Ok, maybe Tali and Liara were perfect as not being able to hit the broadside of a barn to start with, but not peeps like Garrus, Shepard or Ashley).

You seem to be jumping back and forth between stances now. You said the opposite about weapontypes in an earlier response to me, so I am starting to think you are just making stuff up now

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Really... 

I'm curious where you got that definition from. Can you point me to somewhere that states that to solve a knot it has to result in "one intact rope able to form a straight line" ?

How do you deal with knots tied by multiple ropes?  

Or... Are you just pulling a random statement out from somewhere dark and foreboding? 

I tried googling "solve a knot" just to test it, and all I got was translations to various languages or hits on the gordian knot...

 
Sure, you also win Monopoly if you print fake greenbacks from your computer and burn everyone else's money. It's not against the rules, there in fact is no mention of it in the rulebook. And yet, by your logic, you still win.

The purpose of untying your shoes is to be able to maintain the number of 'ropes' you had initially and having them able to form a (relatively, obviously) straight line.

The purpose of Monopoly is to acquire everyone else's in-game money by buying in-game lots. The inclusion of foreign elements such as the fake greenbacks defeats the purpose of the game. Therefore, you don't win.

Alexander 'lost' the game by both inserting foreign elements and failing to reach the initial objective.

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Phaedon wrote...

MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES wrote...
YEAH, I SUSPECT THAT SOMEONE WHO SAYS "HEY, IF ALEXANDER THE GREAT REALLY WAS A SMART DUDE, HE WOULD HAVE UNTIED THE KNOT THE HARD WAY" MAY BE MISSING THE POINT OF THAT STORY IN THE CONTEXT OF WHY ALEXANDER WAS SUCCESSFUL AS A CONQUERER.

Alexander was a great diplomat and the best strategist to live and walk on Earth. Getting pissed and cutting the rope just proved that he sometimes could lose self-control and that he wasn't puzzle-savvy enough to solve the knot. There is nothing smart about what he did. In fact, it went against everything Greek education had taught him.

The indigenous people were too essentially 'intimitated' with him to not accept that he solved the knot. You know why? Otherwise, that meant that they didn't accept him as ruler of Asia.

So yes, it means that Alexander wasn't puzzle savvy enough.

YEAH, IF HE WAS SMARTER, HE WOULD HAVE PLAYED BY THE IMPLICIT RULES, JUST LIKE HE DID THROUGHOUT HIS MILITARY CAREER. THEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE IN CHARGE OF PHRYGIA!