79 réponses à ce sujet

[BlueMagitek]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't really see how force mage is a replacement for arcane warrior. They do totally different things.

It is both a replacement as a prestige class (instead of just completely removing it like Ranger or Shapeshifter) and I believe fits the role of a Warrior/Mage better with the amount of crowd control offered, as opposed to the Tank/Status_Mage that Arcane Warrior became.

[mousestalker]

Rune of Fortune would be a great idea for a game show on Thedas.

[esper]

Renmiri1 wrote...

esper wrote...

Saying, you are just selfish is not a good argument for why a feature so continue to be there. You are just as selfish to demand the continued existence of a feature that ruins the experience of another gamer.

I agree with Wulfram, the feature should not be included in the main game if it breaks the game.
Gimping my self purposely is not funny when I find it necessary to enjoy the game. I loathed the gift spam  in da:o, no matter if I used it or not. Its mere existence made the game less fun.

To take the the nightmare vs. casual example: If I have to play on nightmare (or whatever the highest difficulty is) to be challenged reasonably then the game is not designed well.

I should be reasonable challenged on normal.

We are not demanding, it is there in game already. You guys are the ones that have no self control and want mommy to take away the cake lest you eat it.

I don't agree on having my game gimped because you don't have discipline to play a game according TO YOUR OWN TASTE. Is not my fault, nor the developer's fault you fail at your own standards of game playing. 

Actually if you read my posts you would see that I am not arguin for the removal of Rune of Fortune and X-experience equipment.

I am arguing against your method of arguing which is quite frankly ruining the case for the continued existance of these things:

The argument went like this:
OP: I think that the exsitance of X, makes the game too easy, locks me out of content and drags down the overall experience of the game.

You; "OP selfish and wants to ruin our game"

I am sorry, Remini, normally I agree with your on lot things, but I can see who is being childsih, who is ganging up on the OP for no reason, and who is actually damining their own case instead of defending the feature they like.

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:13 .

[esper]

addiction21 wrote...

Casual and normal difficulty levels are to easy for me. The mere existence ruins the game for me. They should be removed and everyone else should be forced to play the game how I prefer. Remove these options because I am to tempted to use them.
Health potions break the game for me. I do not need them on X difficulty. They should be removed.

There have been and as far as I can see will always be some people that find something unbalanced for them. Others will find it is needed. Until someone can suggest some way that the game can be balanced on all difficulty levels between all the class combos, skills, builds, and items. For every possible type of player of all skill levels I see no reason to remove something that is optional that leaves it possible for each player to tailor the gameplay to their preferences.

Edit: Yes toggles for everything imaginable but that's just not going to happen and its just as easy to apply the "existence of these options is game breaking for me"

Then make a thread for the abolisment of casual, normal and nightmare. Or make a thread for the incresead diffuculty of the overall game. I would likely argue against you, but I would argue your arguments not your percieved selfishness and your attempt to ruin my game. Those argument would be moot, a personal attack and quite frankly if I would never have made a good case as to why those difficulty level have to exist, while you at least would have made a case as to why they didn't have to.

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:14 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

addiction21 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I don't really see how force mage is a replacement for arcane warrior. They do totally different things.

Both can be considered overpowered by different people so lets just cut them. Lets not leave that option open for anyone that for any reason would use them.
I find it overpowered so no one else should be allowed to use it.

Why not cut weapons? I can beat the game barehanded, so everyone else should have to!

[esper]

Sutekh wrote...

esper wrote...

To take the the nightmare vs. casual example: If I have to play on nightmare (or whatever the highest difficulty is) to be challenged reasonably then the game is not designed well.

I should be reasonable challenged on normal.

First, thanks for the reply 

The problem I have is a very simple one, really: What's challenging for [general] you might not be for me [yeah, general "me" too]. Maybe the game is perfectly challenging and balanced for me on normal. The solution would be to ask for an even higher difficulty (I've seen it, btw, can't remember which games, though), and that would be fine because that would be adding something. Removing is different; if that particular optional thing  you ask to be removed is something that fits my gameplay, then what?

On one hand, you've got something that you deem game-breaking, but are perfectly able not to use. It's not mandatory in any way. It might be game-breaking for you just to know it's there, but I might love it. So, in a perfect world, I use it in my game, you don't in yours, and all is well.

On the other hand, if you remove it, you have your better experience, without temptation or anything, but there's no way I can have mine anymore; while you can ignore something that exists, I can't make true something that doesn't, and it sounds very much like "my way or the highway".

Honestly, there are some optional features in many games that I find absolutely atrocious, game-breaking and kicking down the balance to the Ninth Circle of Hell and beyond, but it wouldn't cross my mind to ask for their removal. They don't break my game because I ignore them, and that's all that matters to me.

The only exception to that would be if the game was actually designed with the assumption that this feature will always be used. In this case, it ceases to really be optional, since you have to use it to play the game as intended by its designers (whatever that means).

Plus, for runes and xp boost, this is not the case, IMO. As I said, I didn't notice that much difference, and my gameplay experience was roughly the same whether I used them or not. I do remember buying that fabulous cold wand that's only available in Act II without using RoF.

First off: I do not see why we should have sacred cows in this forum.
I don't see what is wrong with arguing for the removal off a feature as long as you do it without attacking those who like the feature.
We all come here to discuss a game, we come here with our hopes and our dreams for da:I, currently.

Arguing the removal of a feature is just as valid as arguing the inclusions after all there is limited 'zots' and if something only gets in the way, I cannot see why it is wrong to suggest it removed. Bioware is only going to do it if they acutally agree that the feature is pointless and doesn't bring anything good to the table or prevents the game from being played the way they imagined it.

Gift spam in da:o was thankfully removed, yet somebody missies it, but had I been of the forum in when da:o come out I would still have argued for their removal even if I completely ignored them in my game. I do not see the difference. In fact, Fast Jimmy I think, express that he disliked this rune feature because of it being lorebreaking, which was exactly the argument I would have used for gifts spam in da:o. Is he wrong to ask for the features removal too, if no why is he less wrong.

Indeed, cold blooded can be bought without Rune of Fortune, the difference is how quick which is why I estimated a 20-30 gold over two act. 20-30 gold is not much. And I completely agree with your argument that the boost both features bring is so little that it does not tip the balance. Furthermore in my first posts in this argument I said that I think that the trade off between better combat runes and Rune of Fortune or running around with sup-par equipment when using x-perience boost was fair. I could give Aveline a better shield, but I don't because I like her as an experienc booster.
^
This however was not what most was discussing, most was busing calling the OP selfish when he requested and came with scaressly less arguments for the Rune of Fortune than he did against. It bordered on personal attack. Personally I think it is sad that you have to thank me for my very rough estimate of what those actually brings to the table when I know there exist people out there who has studied this to depth. Basically I think that resorting to call the OP selfish, means you have alreay thrown in the towel and given up arguing that it is a good feature. (And I know you are not the culprit in all this, you are being very reasonable).

I know I am derailing the thread too, and to the OP I apologize. But if we have come to the level where we can't even discuss the including/removal features without resorting to name calling on the very first page. (And calling the OP selfish and more and less accusing him of wanting to ruin your game is name calling) then BSN have truely sunk low.

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:15 .

[addiction21]

esper wrote...


Then make a thread for the abolisment of casual, normal and nightmare. Or make a thread for the incresead diffuculty of the overall game. I would likely argue against you, but I would argue your arguments not your percieved selfishness and your attempt to ruin my game. Those argument would be mood, a personal attack and quite frankly if I would never have made a good case as to why those difficulty level have to exist, while you at least would have made a case as to why they didn't have to.

I do not need another thread because that is not what I am arguing. I have just applied the OP's (and others) reasoning to the difficulty levels.

There is nothing "perceived" about this. Asking for something that is totally optional and in no way actually breaks the game on a mechanical level to be removed because "I do not like it and it should not be available for anyone else" is selfish.  A level or a new weapon over the course of the game? That is not broken. That is the benefit of choosing to take advantage of these ruins.

It is in no way different then "my attempt to ruin your game" because I find the different difficulty levels broken and they should be removed "because I don't like it"

I do not actually want the difficulty levels removed and even though I do not use these particular runes in question I do not want to see them removed because I know of those that use them. My argument is to keep such options open to as many as possible. To provide the options for each player to be able to tailor the game to suit their own wants.

[Kajagoogoo3]

Knight of Dane wrote...

Not like = not use, would be my opinion..

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[esper]

addiction21 wrote...

esper wrote...


Then make a thread for the abolisment of casual, normal and nightmare. Or make a thread for the incresead diffuculty of the overall game. I would likely argue against you, but I would argue your arguments not your percieved selfishness and your attempt to ruin my game. Those argument would be mood, a personal attack and quite frankly if I would never have made a good case as to why those difficulty level have to exist, while you at least would have made a case as to why they didn't have to.

I do not need another thread because that is not what I am arguing. I have just applied the OP's (and others) reasoning to the difficulty levels.

There is nothing "perceived" about this. Asking for something that is totally optional and in no way actually breaks the game on a mechanical level to be removed because "I do not like it and it should not be available for anyone else" is selfish.  A level or a new weapon over the course of the game? That is not broken. That is the benefit of choosing to take advantage of these ruins.

It is in no way different then "my attempt to ruin your game" because I find the different difficulty levels broken and they should be removed "because I don't like it"

I do not actually want the difficulty levels removed and even though I do not use these particular runes in question I do not want to see them removed because I know of those that use them. My argument is to keep such options open to as many as possible. To provide the options for each player to be able to tailor the game to suit their own wants.

But all option CANNOT be open. It is as simple as that. Some limits has to exist in the game. And I do not see why we cannot discuss which limits we like without name calling.

And it is percieved. I do not see how you demanding that the OP suffering through the existance of a feature is less selfish than the OP wanting it to removed. Expect, you know the OP actually made an argument for why he thought the feature was.was damnining for the game.
You didn't make an argument for why it wasn't, which was my whole point.

You could say why you like the feature. What good it does. Calling the OP selfish just leaves his argument about the feature untouched and uncountered.

Edit, and I did not find that you attempted to ruin my game by the calling diffuclty levels in question. Did you not see the 'Not'. My whole point was that I would be arguing against your argumenst for the abolistment, not for the percieved attempt to ruin my game. Notice the 'NOT' in the sentence. It sorta makes the whole point.

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:32 .

[n7stormrunner]

... so your saying what the op wants is more important then those who disagree. "because I don't like something no one should get them" is not less self than "no thats selfish" their about the same level of selfishness. however as others have said the op and ones who don't use em, can not use if they are in the game but those who want to use them can't use them if they are not in the game.

[Renmiri1]

esper wrote...

But all option CANNOT be open. It is as simple as that. Some limits has to exist in the game. And I do not see why we cannot discuss which limits we like without name calling.

And it is percieved. I do not see how you demanding that the OP suffering through the existance of a feature is less selfish than the OP wanting it to removed. Expect, you know the OP actually made an argument for why he thought the feature was.was damnining for the game.
You didn't make an argument for why it wasn't, which was my whole point.

We don't need to provide an argument to keep it because it IS in the gaming and is not  game breaking. 

No, a game can not be made with every single option open, but a game will also not be made just for you. Games are made for a wide variety of players and they have flexible difficulty and flexible settings so that it INCLUDES people of all kinds from the teenager  that plays all day and has good reflexes to the 30+ that works all day and have little time / opportunity to practice game combat. Or to gather gold. 

I myself don't use that rune for gold but there was a time when my kids were smaller that I used it since my free time to relax was minimal. 

And yes, trying to remove something that makes other people appreciate the game IS selfish. It is bad, even for the OP or you. The more people who enjoy DA3, the more dlc we get, the longer BW makes DA sequels and DA books and content. By trying to restrict this game to people like him / her the OP is shooting him / herself in the foot and weakening the franchise.

 Let Bioware worry about "zoots" and make the case for what you want, instead of trying to restrict people from getting in your clubhouse. You and I can not afford a tripleA gamehouse doing games just for us, so let us learn to get along and respect that the game BW makes will NOT BE JUST FOR US.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:55 .

[esper]

n7stormrunner wrote...

... so your saying what the op wants is more important then those who disagree. "because I don't like something no one should get them" is not less self than "no thats selfish" their about the same level of selfishness. however as others have said the op and ones who don't use em, can not use if they are in the game but those who want to use them can't use them if they are not in the game.

I am not saying that the OP is right or more important. I am saying he is making a damn better argument because he does not accuse anyone for wanting to 'ruin others games'. The OP was very detailed with why the feature, ruined his gaming experience. That is fair critque and was not meant as an attack on other people

And just because a feature exist doesn't mean that it is a good one. A bad feature might be dragging the whole game down. The OP doesn't go *Feature X is stupid and those who use is a damn casual, hurr hur hurr', he was very reasonable.

I am simply saying they should come up with a better argument than: 'OP is selfishand and wants to ruin my game'.

Heck even the argument 'I don't think the majority off players have the OP's problem and thus the feature should stay since it is harming no one' is better than that. And it was really not that hard to come up with.

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:56 .

[Renmiri1]

esper wrote...

Heck even the argument 'I don't think the majority off players have the OP's problem and thus the feature should stay since it is harming no one' is better than that. And it was really not that hard to come up with.

Lots of people said "don't like it, don't use it" where the "is harming no one" is implied but the OP and some others said it is harming them

And it is silly and selfish because it is very easy to not get the rune at a store. Alas, they can not get themselves to not use it. They are the ones "harming" themselves by using a feature they hate. And all have to pay for that ?

[esper]

Renmiri1 wrote...

esper wrote...

But all option CANNOT be open. It is as simple as that. Some limits has to exist in the game. And I do not see why we cannot discuss which limits we like without name calling.

And it is percieved. I do not see how you demanding that the OP suffering through the existance of a feature is less selfish than the OP wanting it to removed. Expect, you know the OP actually made an argument for why he thought the feature was.was damnining for the game.
You didn't make an argument for why it wasn't, which was my whole point.

We don't need to provide an argument to keep it because it IS in the gaming and is not  game breaking. 

No, a game can not be made with every single option open, but a game will also not be made just for you. Games are made for a wide variety of players and they have flexible difficulty and flexible settings so that it INCLUDES people of all kinds from the teenager  that plays all day and has good reflexes to the 30+ that works all day and have little time / opportunity to practice game combat. Or to gather gold. 

I myself don't use that rune for gold but there was a time when my kids were smaller that I used it since my free time to relax was minimal. 

And yes, trying to remove something that makes other people appreciate the game IS selfish. It is bad, even for the OP or you. The more people who enjoy DA3, the more dlc we get, the longer BW makes DA sequels and DA books and content. By trying to restrict this game to people like him / her the OP is shooting him / herself in the foot and weakening the franchise.

 Let Bioware worry about "zoots" and make the case for what you want, instead of trying to restrict people from getting in your clubhouse. You and I can not afford a tripleA gamehouse doing games just for us, so let us learn to get along and respect that the game BW makes will NOT BE JUST FOR US.

I am letting Bioware worry about zots, that is why I do not get my knickers in a twist over and attack on a feature I like.

I even tried to coutner the OP with, 'I think the trade off for using those Item are fair'.

You are the one wanting a game just for you and going 'OH people who don't like what I like are wanting a MOMMY to take take their cake.' And to top that you directed the comment former sentence was a paraphrase of at a person who is arguin for the inclusion of Rune of Fortune and x-perience boots and starting the sentece with 'People like you'.

^How is that a good defense for the contuinacion of keeping the items you want. How have you countered any arguments the OP has made about the Rune of Fortune and x-perience boost unbalancing the game and making rune equipment trivial?

You havn't. Instead you personal attacked the OP, personal attacked me, and sunk to the level of comments the anti-romancers uses against you, which I know frustrates you.

Da:I is going to be different than da:o and da2, some of these small features might very well be in dangers off going with or without the OP. Espically because Rune of FortuneIf, and experience boosting equipment is not a stable in the series yet. They might very well have been nothing more than an experience from bioware's side- If you want them to stay, you should be making a case for the items, not against the OP on a personal level. That is all any off us can do.

[esper]

Filament wrote...

It's getting awfully self-righteous in here I think. If people think the game is badly designed in a certain way, there's nothing wrong with them asking it to be changed or removed. No need to get on a high horse about how they're so selfish when they're just doing what everyone else on this forum is doing, asking for a game that would provide them with the most possible enjoyment. If badly designed items or abilities make them enjoy the game less, that is their prerogative.

Thank you. I know I am sort of leading a one-woman-crusade here and being awfully self-righteous myself, but that is why I will take the support I can get.

[esper]

Renmiri1 wrote...

esper wrote...

Heck even the argument 'I don't think the majority off players have the OP's problem and thus the feature should stay since it is harming no one' is better than that. And it was really not that hard to come up with.

Lots of people said "don't like it, don't use it" where the "is harming no one" is implied but the OP and some others said it is harming them

And it is silly and selfish because it is very easy to not get the rune at a store. Alas, they can not get themselves to not use it. They are the ones "harming" themselves by using a feature they hate. And all have to pay for that ?

Have I argued against the 'Don't like it, don't use it?" Don't remember that. I am attacking 'The OP is selfish and wants to ruin my game'.

Edit. I don't think that the don't like, don't use it is a good argument, but it is miles better than personal attacks.

And no it is not selfish. This is a gaming forum where we come to discuss the games, including the features we like and don't like included in the game. The OP has every right for not wanting this feature included.

We can agree that it is a harmless feature, but we cannot agree that the OP is selfish and wants to ruin our games just because he expresses dislike.

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 04:31 .

[n7stormrunner]

well I agree that argument is better and will add the one most are using. hell a good number have said they don't use the damned things or even dislike they exist and still don't think it should be removed.

fact is some are going to say a thought is selfness sometimes their right sometimes not, it is best not pay attention to them. I can respect that you want people to actually to have decent arguement but your not going get everyone to make one, more so, when it has already been made. please ether make an arguement about they should or should not be in the game or let this topic die.

[Renmiri1]

Yes, people wanting to REMOVE romance frustrate me the same way people wanting to REMOVE a feature that helps casual gamers annoys me. To me demanding the removal of a feature that enhances the enjoyment of the game for some and is harming no one because is completely optional is bad

It is selfish and shortsighted. Remove all you don't like and only the very few people exactly like you will buy / play the game. And instead of having a strong franchise with thousands of fans from all ages and backgrounds you will have a small niche game that will not be continued.

@Filament
I love action and fast paced combat and the slow combat of DAO drove me up a wall. To me pausing in a battle is immersion breaking so - guess what - I don't use the pause button. It is there but it doesn't break my game because I have enough self control to not take advantage of features that bother me.

Pause in combat is bad design. No combat was ever made where you can say "excuse me Ser Dragon, I gotta pee" or "I gotta tell my rogue to come stab you in the back, can you sit still for a moment Meredith ?" Is absurd, lore breaking and really a legacy of older game consoles where the performance was so bad the combat had to be turn based. There is absolutely no need for it.

Do you see me asking for the removal of the pause ? Nope you won't. I can appreciate some people play for the story and don't have good reflexes or just don't enjoy fast combat while they are relaxing with a game. Why would I want to break the game for them, if it is so easy for me to ignore the pause button ?

It comes to what is easier: ignore the pause button or the gold rune OR have to take a lot longer to move through the game story because there are no ways to make it easier for you since they all got removed ?

Making a game feature takes a lot longer than ignoring an optional feature.

PS: The person who talked about "ruining a game" was the OP esper . I never said it.

 - All this time I'm being berated for  saying someone is "ruining my game" and the person berating me was the one who said it. 

Modifié par Renmiri1, 20 janvier 2013 - 04:36 .

[esper]

n7stormrunner wrote...

well I agree that argument is better and will add the one most are using. hell a good number have said they don't use the damned things or even dislike they exist and still don't think it should be removed.

fact is some are going to say a thought is selfness sometimes their right sometimes not, it is best not pay attention to them. I can respect that you want people to actually to have decent arguement but your not going get everyone to make one, more so, when it has already been made. please ether make an arguement about they should or should not be in the game or let this topic die.

I have made that argument. Three times. I can do it a fourth just for you.

I think the trade off is fair. It is a choice between better weapon and better gaining, but the gaining boost is so insignificant that I don't think it unbalances the game.

As for the other subject, no I won't let it rest untill my opponnets give op and/or a mod locks the thread. It is personal flaw of mine. If can't let up once my self rightousness gets burning.

[Renmiri1]

esper wrote...

As for the other subject, no I won't let it rest untill my opponnets give op and/or a mod locks the thread. It is personal flaw of mine. If can't let up once my self rightousness gets burning.

We should make a thread asking BW to remove disagreements from the fourm, since we can't stop ourselves from getting entangled in them 

I yield. You won't change my mind but for the sake of a better forum for all of us I'll cut it out with the "selfish" name calling.

[esper]

Edited out because no longer necessary.

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 04:57 .

[n7stormrunner]

oddly enough I can respect that kind of stubborness probably cause I'm stubborn. so now the question is should start a betting pool about which will happen first


note to self: learn to spell

[esper]

Renmiri1 wrote...

esper wrote...

As for the other subject, no I won't let it rest untill my opponnets give op and/or a mod locks the thread. It is personal flaw of mine. If can't let up once my self rightousness gets burning.

We should make a thread asking BW to remove disagreements from the fourm, since we can't stop ourselves from getting entangled in them 

I yield. You won't change my mind but for the sake of a better forum for all of us I'll cut it out with the "selfish" name calling.

Oh... you yield. Oh..

Back to Rune of Fortune then.

(I don't think bioware can stop the disagreements even if they tried.)

Modifié par esper, 20 janvier 2013 - 04:57 .

[Renmiri1]

Ya, was a joke 

Rune of fortune is a time saver. For people who chase a toddler all day and have to fit their gaming sessions int the toddler's nap schedule anything that saves time from "grinding" is a godsend. People in UNI on their exams period, people who work long hours, teenagers who parents control gaming time are also in the list of gamers who would happily use the rune, so they can progress with the fun bits (story/ graphics/ music) while rushing through the rest.

I think it is necessary for some and I'd hate to see it removed

Modifié par Renmiri1, 20 janvier 2013 - 05:04 .