AddictionX wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

AddictionX wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

AddictionX wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Silver_Strider wrote: »

Lysette wrote: »

Silver_Strider wrote: »

While I don't believe ESO is as huge a success as I'd have liked it to be and that I feel ZOS is slowly failing their audience as time goes on, I don't think DB will be the nail in the coffin should it prove to be successful or not. For me, it is how well they balance everything out in the end that will determine whether or not I officially quit the game.

Balance of the game is just terrible. 2h is practically required for PvP if you're stamina, High Elf is the hands down greatest race for magic with the lone exception being Dunmer DKs in terms of DPS, all points into 1 stat for optimal DPS. It's all so stupid and has really dulled my enjoyment of the game over the course of time.

I did enjoy the TG and it gave me some degree of hope that ZOS would improve but not enough to sway my opinion that they are slowly killing what could have been an amazing game

And what is so surprising that Altmer is the perfect race for magic?- It always was this way in all of the TES games. It was to be expected.

It's not about being the perfect race for magic, it's about being the hands down best race for magic period. Other than Dunmer DK, All magic based characters are gimped if it is not a High Elf and that is terrible for a balance perspective. Breton is the closest in terms of being good magic chararcters however, you lose both damage and better sustain going Breton over Altmer because Altmers will always do more elemental damage as well as having 9% regen vs the Bretons laughable 4% cost reduction. The only time a Breton might be better than an Altmer is if they are a magic tank build and even that is questionable at best.

We have 3 magic races in the game but apart from 1 lone exception, playing anything but an Altmer gimps you and I don't feel that is balanced at all.

This is where PvP collides with role play. Balance. Classes and races are there to create an imbalance in the first place. If that is not wanted, why have classes and races in the first place. Altmer were always those with the highest talent for magic. Like other races are best suited for normal combat. If there is no variety, but balance, then races and classes are pretty pointless. But this is Elder Scrolls, those races are important and they should be different in their talents and they are. The request for balance is what is weird in a role playing game - and this is an online RPG, like Mr. Firor stated in an interview lately.

I just could not help to comment on this unless you bought all any race any alliance naturally you're going to have to choose the faction you want because of the racial passives... Racial passives believe it or not do play a big role in balance, not limited to class, or class line skills, but population imbalances. This in return amplifies classes imbalances.

Balance should not be that all are basically the same with similar abilities just other names for those skills. This is not interesting to play in an RPG - it might be that what FPS player want, because they prefer to use player skills over character skills - but that is what role play is about. To have interesting character traits and live with imbalances, strengths and weaknesses of a character and make the best out of it. That is why there are different races and different skill sets - they should not be similar to each other, but diverse and unique to the races and classes, do different things, not all with more or less the same tool set, just with different names and different animations. The request for balance takes the fun out of an RPG.

What I am understanding from your response is that you're mistaking balance for homogenization of races(maybe classes and skills?).

What you claim to be not interesting to play in a RPG may perhaps be true to some of us.... but at the very same time.... to some of us ......balance does kinda matter for it to be interesting game in the first place. Then you tell me something about Role playing.... but I do not see where I mentioned role playing at all. So that needs clarification.

I think you're confusing Imbalances with class "perks" as they should be. An example of perks would be how an argonian can swim 50 percent faster. That has no real numerical sensible value that could help with the over all platform of your character to achieve an unfair edge because it needs no counter towards it. I realize thats a horrible explaination but race should not be all-in-one super character for this or that(especially since some of the passives do not really make sense or considered weak compared to others of the same nature), while it should have advantages that others do not they must also lack something powerful as well. Say this race has Maximum "stat" then another race should have the "maximum" cost reduction or another have the "maximum regeneration" but not all-in-one while the other races do not. If that is the case those "stats" should be next to nothing at all where people can still enjoy more or less equal player base across 3 factions. Currently race gives a very noticeable difference toward the building of any character and anyone who is not playing said race is already at a disadvantage in numerical terms... not to mention it could actually affect your end game just because you wanted to be "said" race.

Strengths and weaknesses as you put it does not constitute how one race can be the best choice to be top tier of everything for magicka or stamina. It could be "better" suited for the thought out role, but not hands down the best. That does not sound right.

Do not confuse balance with homogenization of the races. Thats using ambiguity of the term and as you very well know intrinsically misleading.

I guess I cannot make you understand if you think in terms of "top tier" and see this as a goal. This is not the goal, a hero is not that guy, who has the best gear and the best skill sets and the best stats. If that guy wins, that was to be expected, that is not a heroic act at all. A hero is someone, who is not the best and has not the best gear and not the best stats, but has a heart and courage and risks something and achieves it against all odds - that is a hero - a normal guy with courage. For that it does not take balance, for that it takes the qualities of a hero, who can make it happen against all odds even he is otherwise just mediocre. Real heros are normal people, who had the courage to do the right thing at the right moment against all odds.

This is why I do not see that the game has to be balanced, the game needs real heroes, not those who win because they are top tier, where it is to be expected that they win. That is no achievement, but just to be expected.

Hero ... some one.. some where is singing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJlIGDImiU he can be your hero. He even whispers it in the beginning.

Anyway(sorry thats what came to my mind u.u) .... I'm just wondering what does hero in the romantic and emotional sense as you describe it have anything to do with numerical values, unfair advantages, and balance. "I guess" if you cannot present it why its ok for some classes to have "bad" passives and others "good" passives ...you'll appeal to pathos.

You tell me that "top tier" is not the goal however, that could be restated as "end game" as you renamed my use of the word balance. I am sure its well known that before a game releases like an mmo balance is the core design for its basis otherwise by your very same rationalization we should all be "david" and the selected few should be "goliath"(we're the "hero" who always wins because it is to be expected). For the record peoples "goals" differentiate in general from person to person but this specific "goal" as you renamed it is known as "balance" in an mmo and not any particular to any singular dude.

You realize I could pose the same rationale you presented for murder being natural and that natural is good (just like idk some healthy vegie because its "natural").... Many 'natural' things are also considered 'good', and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn't make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as very natural, but that doesn't mean it's good or justifiable. That's a red herring....

Also I still need clarification on where you previously randomly mention role playing and how it relates to my post.

I mean we are talking about balance i thought and not what a hero is to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SL1A2d2e7M