2061 réponses à ce sujet

[sylvanaerie]

Hey, I got your first analogy.  And I like this one even better.  Lots more appealing.

 

One question though.  What's a budgie?  

 

And I still want chocolate.  *wanders off to kitchen*

[Elhanan]

Sigh.. Sometimes I forget this is the internet.
 
Yes the examples were ones that no one in their right mind would want. There were used to illustrate how one glaringly superior option has the effect or removing all choice from an equation. I just assumed people could make the mental leap if i used really easy to understand examples by making a set with 4 bad choices and one good choice. So lets see if it works wit hall good choices. (Sigh one can hope)
 
1) Get a free puppy
2) Get a free kitten
3) Get a free goldfish
4) get a free budgie
5) Get $1000000
 
Here we have 5 choice but one choice is obviously superior. In an honest pool almost everyone would pick 5 for good reason. Getting a million dollars is simply better than the other 4 options. There really isn't a choice anymore because picking the first 4 puts you at a disadvantage compared to the people who picked option 5. Because combat is balanced for all players picking an option that puts you at a disadvantage means you wont being having fun because you are getting frustrated.
 
Remove one option...
 
1) Get a free puppy
2) Get a free kitten
3) Get a free goldfish
4) get a free budgie
 
Which one do you pick? People will have different answers for different reasons, By removing one option you suddenly had more choices.
 
Obviously  the above choices have nothing to do with combat or gaming they're used to illustrate how an OBVIOUSLY superior option especially in combat, will narrow your practical choices. Yet by eliminating the obviously superior option and suddenly those glaringly inferior choice become viable. You go from one choice to 4 by the elimination of one choice.
 
better?

No. All subjective choices. The puppy and kitten may have been lost, the fish may have been the last of it's specicies, and the cash may have been stolen (and the tax rates and paperwork increase; bleah!). If a budgie is for hair; will likely pass on all lists.

Opinions differ, but the facts are that one list had fewer options, which notably allowed for the likelihood of more free baubles.

[Gothfather]

Hey, I got your first analogy.  And I like this one even better.  Lots more appealing.

 

One question though.  What's a budgie?  

 

And I still want chocolate.  *wanders off to kitchen*

 

http://upload.wikime...male_budgie.jpg

[xkg]

Sigh.. Sometimes I forget this is the internet.

 

Yes the examples were ones that no one in their right mind would want. There were used to illustrate how one glaringly superior option has the effect or removing all choice from an equation. I just assumed people could make the mental leap if i used really easy to understand examples by making a set with 4 bad choices and one good choice. So lets see if it works with all good choices. (Sigh one can hope)

 

1) Get a free puppy

2) Get a free kitten

3) Get a free goldfish

4) get a free budgie

5) Get $1000000

 

Here we have 5 choice but one choice is obviously superior. In an honest pool almost everyone would pick 5 for good reason. Getting a million dollars is simply better than the other 4 options. There really isn't a choice anymore because picking the first 4 puts you at a disadvantage compared to the people who picked option 5. Because combat is balanced for all players picking an option that puts you at a disadvantage means you wont being having fun because you are getting frustrated.

 

Remove one option...

 

1) Get a free puppy

2) Get a free kitten

3) Get a free goldfish

4) get a free budgie

 

Which one do you pick? People will have different answers for different reasons, By removing one option you suddenly had more choices.

 

Obviously  the above choices have nothing to do with combat or gaming they're used to illustrate how an OBVIOUSLY superior option especially in combat, will narrow your practical choices. Yet by eliminating the obviously superior option and suddenly those glaringly inferior choice become viable. You go from one choice to 4 by the elimination of one choice.

 

better?

 

 

No simply no. "More" has defined meaning.

1st = 5 choices

2nd = 4 choices

 

5 is more than 4

 

5 choices > 4 choices

 

Learn to differentiate things. 

 

Muspade was spot on here

 

Lessen's option so that It may improve upon the weaker ones. 

 

It is his opinion and it is all right, I repect that.

At least he is not trying to prove that less is more. This is not poetry.

[Muspade]

Learn to differentiate things.

Spoiler

[sylvanaerie]

 

http://upload.wikime...male_budgie.jpg

 

awww he's so pretty.  *Sigh* my cats would turn him into a chew toy though    I'd have to pass on that lil guy.

[Elhanan]

awww he's so pretty.  *Sigh* my cats would turn him into a chew toy though    I'd have to pass on that lil guy.

Eventually, so would the cat...

*Sorry*

[sylvanaerie]

Eventually, so would the cat...

It actually took me a few seconds to get that.  You're a horrible, horrible man

[Gothfather]

No. All subjective choices. The puppy and kitten may have been lost, the fish may have been the last of it's specicies, and the cash may have been stolen (and the tax rates and paperwork increase; bleah!). If a budgie is for hair; will likely pass on all lists.

Opinions differ, but the facts are that one list had fewer options, which notably allowed for the likelihood of more free baubles.

 

Choice is always subjective.

 

It doesn't take any mental processing power to know which option of...

 

1) Get a free puppy
2) Get a free kitten
3) Get a free goldfish
4) get a free budgie
5) Get $1000000

 

... is the superior choice. Sure anyone of them could have concequences but the vast, vast, vast, majority of people will be able to ken that a million dollars is better than the other four. You can not tell me that given this choice people are not going to pick the money at vastly higher rates than the other 4 combined. You can factually proved how 5 is superior just by pointing out that with option 5 you can get the other four options by buying them.

 

I don't know if the game will be fun or that the combat even works as i have not played it but it is factual that some options can be so superior to other options that they do in fact have the effect of eliminating choice. We don't all choose to have outhouses, indoor plumbing is superior. We only resort to an outhouse when in door plumbing isn't an option. Which is why you never see plans for an outhouse for a new house in an urban enviorment because the option for indoor plumbing is there. There is no choice.

 

Why do I get the impression I am either being trolled or that people are being willfully obtused just because they don't like the choice bioware has made on the subject?

[xkg]

Spoiler

Spoiler

[Elhanan]

Choice is always subjective.
 
It doesn't take any mental processing power to know which option of...
 
1) Get a free puppy
2) Get a free kitten
3) Get a free goldfish
4) get a free budgie
5) Get $1000000
 
... is the superior choice. Sure anyone of them could have concequences but the vast, vast, vast, majority of people will be able to ken that a million dollars is better than the other four. You can not tell me that given this choice people are not going to pick the money at vastly higher rates than the other 4 combined. You can factually proved how 5 is superior just by pointing out that with option 5 you can get the other four options by buying them.
 
I don't know if the game will be fun or that the combat even works as i have not played it but it is factual that some options can be so superior to other options that they do in fact have the effect of eliminating choice. We don't all choose to have outhouses, indoor plumbing is superior. We only resort to an outhouse when in door plumbing isn't an option. Which is why you never see plans for an outhouse for a new house in an urban enviorment because the option for indoor plumbing is there. There is no choice.
 
Why do I get the impression I am either being trolled or that people are being willfully obtused just because they don't like the choice bioware has made on the subject?

Actually, simply by observation of this thread, what some consider obvious is not accepted overall. Personally, I have no troubles with the new Healing system, as healing magic will fall under Specializations (am guessing multiple ones). But there are evidently some that dislike the changes here, and others like myself that dislike reduced options elsewhere.

And speaking of Spells, I will really miss Sustains; even added a mod in Skyrim that used them. Now DAI goes to the Skyrim model. *sighs*

No trolling; simply trying to indicate that if the system removes what is considered the obvious choice, there will be some friction at being forced to choose the lesser remaining choices. Based on opinions, of course.

[Muspade]

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[xkg]

Spoiler

Spoiler

[Almostfaceman]

No. All subjective choices. The puppy and kitten may have been lost, the fish may have been the last of it's specicies, and the cash may have been stolen (and the tax rates and paperwork increase; bleah!). If a budgie is for hair; will likely pass on all lists.

Opinions differ, but the facts are that one list had fewer options, which notably allowed for the likelihood of more free baubles.

 

[Almostfaceman]

Why do I get the impression I am either being trolled or that people are being willfully obtused just because they don't like the choice bioware has made on the subject?

 

You're not the only one getting that impression.

[Almostfaceman]

No simply no. "More" has defined meaning.

1st = 5 choices

2nd = 4 choices

 

5 is more than 4

 

5 choices > 4 choices

 

Learn to differentiate things. 

 

Muspade was spot on here

 

 

 

It is his opinion and it is all right, I repect that.

At least he is not trying to prove that less is more. This is not poetry.

 

[Gothfather]

Actually, simply by observation of this thread, what some consider obvious is not accepted overall. Personally, I have no troubles with the new Healing system, as healing magic will fall under Specializations (am guessing multiple ones). But there are evidently some that dislike the changes here, and others like myself that dislike reduced options elsewhere.

And speaking of Spells, I will really miss Sustains; even added a mod in Skyrim that used them. Now DAI goes to the Skyrim model. *sighs*

No trolling; simply trying to indicate that if the system removes what is considered the obvious choice, there will be some friction at being forced to choose the lesser remaining choices. Based on opinions, of course.

[Bold added by me.]

 

That you will get no argument from me. i don't deny that options were removed and options that were loved. I do however maintain and I think I have clearly shown the factual truth of "in SOME cases the elimination of options has the effect of increasing choice because some options are far superior."

 

I don't try and pretend that the choices made by Bioware are better or will result in a better experience. i don't have any experience with or access to metrics from combat to make that claim. I had my party all planned out based on mage healing. Now I have to scrap that but i'm not willing to say Bioware is wrong UNTIL i try to play the game and try to adapt my tactics to the new realities of combat.

[xkg]

 

 

Spare me from your pity images. That's all you can post, as far as I noticed.

Ignore me completely. Thank you.

[Heimdall]

That's what they tried in the Baldur's Gate series, and my god it was ****. If your gameplay is basically just fighting crap, then anything which keeps players from fighting crap detracts from the game experience.

And if attrition really is a thing, then you are essentially requiring players to have to save and reload before and after each fight because they took too much damage.

I don't really see the similarity wih Baldur's Gate, but then I never really liked D&D system. If your here purely to "fight crap", you're playing the wrong genre. I don't see why this would keep anyone from fighting though.

There's absolutely no reason why that must be the case.

[sylvanaerie]

I get the analogy.  Remove the best option, and the 4 you wouldn't consider open up. It's not 'more' options, it's more viable options because the one everyone would pick is removed from the equation.  Where previously you had 1 best option and 4 not as good, the best would be the one you'd want.  With that gone, you have to choose from among the ones you have left.

 

I love healing and being a healing mage.  That's my preferred roleplay choice.  But that option is removed from me so I'm having to turn to a secondary choice.  Maybe I'll love it.  Maybe I'll hate it.  I won't know till I play.  I'm having to rethink how I do the RP but it's still going to be there. Instead of people, my Inquisitor will heal rifts.  She will be the only one in her world that can.  

And that's pretty damn unique enough for me.

[Elhanan]

[Bold added by me.]
 
That you will get no arbument from me. i don't deny that options were removed and options that were loved. I do however maintain and I think I have clearly shown the factual truth of "in SOME cases the elimination of options has the effect of increasing choice because some options are far superior."
 
I don't try and pretend that the choices made by Bioware are better or will result in a better experience. i don't have any experience with or access to metrics from combat to make that claim. I had my party all planned out based on mage healing. Now I have to scrap that but i'm not willing to say Bioware is wrong UNTIL i try to play the game and try to adapt my tactics to the new realities of combat.

But it does not increase choice; it simply forces the Players to utilize the other ones.

And going to another prior example, the GM was curious as to why I chose for my PC to be shot in the head. I smiled, as he had forgotten that he gave me a device that allowed for Invulnerability to head wounds. It was not a popular choice, but I had my reasons to select it.

[Gothfather]

But it does not increase choice; it simply forces the Players to utilize the other ones.

And going to another prior example, the GM was curious as to why I chose for my PC to be shot in the head. I smiled, as he had forgotten that he gave me a device that allowed for Invulnerability to head wounds. It was not a popular choice, but I had my reasons to select it.

 

Yep I'm being trolled.

 

Forcing players to untilize choices they NEVER would have done before because almost EVERYONE would have picked the superior option is in fact creating more choice.

 

4 options does not automatically equal 4 choices.

 

I am not increasing your options I am reducing them but i am increasing your tactical choices by reducing them

[Revan Reborn]

There is not a basic heal, but there is one that requires focus.

 

Unless you are a dedicated healer, this is honestly the best choice BioWare could have made. Dedicated healing, as a role, has been an absolute detriment to RPGs for decades. It essentially defeats any challenge as you are able to heal through any encounter. Developers have tried to complicate this formula by having healers generate threat, certain debuffs that will actually cause healing to kill party members, etc. The major point is the issue of healing has never been truly resolved in RPGs. Developers, as a result, in more recent times have been looking for alternatives to the healing conundrum. Some have removed it from play outright (GW2). Some have made it where damage dealers and tanks have more support abilities for self-sufficiency (ESO). Old School Sandbox MMOs like Pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies, unlike Theme Parks such as WoW, GW2, and ESO, actually allowed people to customize and mix their roles however they liked, disregarding the need of a dedicated healer.

 

DAI seems to be going more of a Sandbox-route in terms of damage dealers and tanks having more support options, and lessening the reliance on the notion of a dedicated healer. This is good, because encounters will be more challenging and developers will not have to come up with solutions of undermining over-healing. It's also a bonus because classes have more flexibility and it will provide more opportunities to customize your group layout. As I stated before, the only ones who really lose in this direction are the dedicated healers themselves. However, even with the removal of standard health bar filling, there are still plenty of support abilities and ways of mitigating damage that a mage can still provide for the party. In other words, it's a different kind of "healing."

 

It may take some getting used to those who prefer a more traditional RPG experience. However, DAI is far from traditional and is making major efforts to really create a fun, challenging, and rewarding combat system, of which DA has always struggled with.

[Elhanan]

Yep I'm being trolled.
 
Forcing players to untilize choices they NEVER would have done before because almost EVERYONE would have picked the superior option is in fact creating more choice.
 
4 options does not automatically equal 4 choices.
 
I am not increasing your options I am reducing them but i am increasing your tactical choices by reducing them

No, as those were also choices before. Simply because one selection was considered superior, and may have been used quite a lot, does not mean the others were not viable.

The Player may not have wanted to take a Mage, or Healing spells of their own as a Mage. In DA2, I loathed Anders, and became good enough at the game mechanics to avoid using him. I often used these other choices because of this, and I am fairly certain I am not the only one to do so.

In Romance, Less may be More, but not in logic.

[xkg]

Yep I'm being trolled.

 

Forcing players to untilize choices they NEVER would have done before because almost EVERYONE would have picked the superior option is in fact creating more choice.

 

4 options does not automatically equal 4 choices.

 

I am not increasing your options I am reducing them but i am increasing your tactical choices by reducing them

 

You are not being trolled, you are being told that people have different opinions. That some choices are not viable to you doesn't mean it is the same for everyone else.

You are increasing your tactical choices not mine. I don't feel like having more of them.

 

For the last time I am gong try to explain it to you by using an example, but first I have to say something before doing that.

I have nothing against ss romances, people with diferent preferences. In fact I always supported them, and the act of adding content for them into the game.

 

Now, back to my example. Let's say you will take out the straight romance option out of the game. Do you believe you're giving me more choices?

That option was superior, for me personaly, now it's gone. So the truth is, by removing that option I am left with no choices at all.

 

I won't say more because it is very slippery example(that's why I had to do that preface).

You should figure out yourself now. why taking the options out, is not a viable option for everyone, and why it doesn't produce more choices for some people.

 

If you still can't ... *shrugs* then I am sorry. We will have to agree to disagree.