Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 177
  1. #41
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Shocking new! Making something worse doesn't make the others things magically better, only make one thing worse.

    Now is the inquisitive turn, i don't like asking for nerf but if something needs to be dialed back, that's the sorcerer too

    Good players will always find a way, bad players will always be complaining on the forum.

    Deal with it.

  2. #42
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashlayna View Post
    Anymore? When was it ever? Not in the almost 9 years I've been here, that's for sure. It was close, and it had/has that D&D feel, but it was never D&D. "But the D20 system" or similar arguments are invalid, KotoR had the same system, how much D&D was it? Ranger AA? Not unless you splashed a level of Arcane somewhere in there. So we can quit with the "it's not D&D anymore", since it never really has been. It's got the settings/modules, and it's got the name, but the similarities stop there.
    It was the best D&D game before EDs.

    Even if not balanced.

  3. #43
    Community Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Near Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    530

    Default

    My problem with the nerf thing is this: they introduce an op class, or tree, or whatever and they KNOW people are gonna want to buy it, and after most people buy it and have fun with it for a while, out comes the nerf bat under the guise of "balancing". They've been doing this for years now. I know they need to keep the lights on but I simply dont like this "bait and switch" method of doing so. They could have made Inquisitor good, and a fun new option for playing without making it op. Hopefully the updated KOTC tree and thf updates wont be so op they'll be nerfing them again. That simply gets old, you have fun with something, then they take it away.

  4. #44
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nevergiveup356 View Post
    I have 5 inq builds atm, heroic, epic or legendary, r1 or 10 no matter what you play, inqs are dumb op in all of it.

    See the last newer raids, they are made for inqs.

    It is not a single player game like some players and SSG want to make it.

    Also this game is not D&D anymore.
    Still didn't answer my question. I keep asking, why does a build being op matter to anyone. We're not playing a competitive game that requires precise balance, we're playing a PvE game. The goal of said game is to finish the quest/raid and loot. If a build is OP as people claim, isn't that a GOOD thing? It's not like people are out there posting groups for "Inq Only, nothing else".

    And as it has always been, people will hate popular builds because it's good, "hurts build diversity" (btw that has NEVER been the case), and cry about it on the forums, get it nerfed, and move on to the next popular build they hate. Rinse and repeat.


    Karnasis (Human Wizard, Pale Master, Level 27), Taldall (Half-Orc, Monk- Perpetually abandoned)

  5. #45
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashlayna View Post
    Anymore? When was it ever? Not in the almost 9 years I've been here, that's for sure. It was close, and it had/has that D&D feel, but it was never D&D. "But the D20 system" or similar arguments are invalid, KotoR had the same system, how much D&D was it? Ranger AA? Not unless you splashed a level of Arcane somewhere in there. So we can quit with the "it's not D&D anymore", since it never really has been. It's got the settings/modules, and it's got the name, but the similarities stop there.
    That's a bit off.
    It's D&D because of the flavor behind it, not because of the ruleset in place.

    AD&D was and still is D&D.
    D&D 3/3.5? Yup, that's D&D alright!
    How about every other version of D&D out there?

    I count DDO's mechanics as another 'edition' of D&D.
    It has the same flavor, some reminiscence of the old mechanics, but comes with its own twists that makes it its own edition, and not just a balance change to an existing game, like 3.5 was to 3.

  6. #46
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strider1963 View Post
    My problem with the nerf thing is this: they introduce an op class, or tree, or whatever and they KNOW people are gonna want to buy it, and after most people buy it and have fun with it for a while, out comes the nerf bat under the guise of "balancing". They've been doing this for years now. I know they need to keep the lights on but I simply dont like this "bait and switch" method of doing so. They could have made Inquisitor good, and a fun new option for playing without making it op. Hopefully the updated KOTC tree and thf updates wont be so op they'll be nerfing them again. That simply gets old, you have fun with something, then they take it away.
    Their business model is bad, but they only keep doing it because ppl buy the power creep.

    Want to change it? Stop buying the power creep.

  7. #47
    Community Member Ashlayna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nevergiveup356 View Post
    It was the best D&D game before EDs.

    Even if not balanced.
    I predate the EDs, by a good amount of time. It has always been more D&D in name, than D&D. Balance had nothing to do with it. The entire concept of balance is a lie. The only way to balance games like this is to make everyone exactly the same, with no variation in characters whatsoever. Because if you have variations, someone will find a way to milk some extra DPS out of it, or some extra survivability, or both. That's why games like this have build forums, so that the people that do milk every possible advantage can, if they choose to, post the build for others to use. According to 3.5 rules, the set this game was supposed to be built around, AA requires Elf, and at least one level of an arcane class. Rangers are not arcane, and if you play ranger, you can take ranger AA regardless of race, and that also predates the EDs. It has always had a D&D feel, but it was never D&D.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    That's a bit off.
    It's D&D because of the flavor behind it, not because of the ruleset in place.

    AD&D was and still is D&D.
    D&D 3/3.5? Yup, that's D&D alright!
    How about every other version of D&D out there?

    I count DDO's mechanics as another 'edition' of D&D.
    It has the same flavor, some reminiscence of the old mechanics, but comes with its own twists that makes it its own edition, and not just a balance change to an existing game, like 3.5 was to 3.
    It was, however, as mentioned in the snippet above, supposed to be based around 3.5. It never quite made that goal. As I said, it has the feel, but it's not D&D, and trying to argue that some class or enhancement tree makes it not D&D is circular, since it's never really been D&D to start with.
    Last edited by Ashlayna; 01-12-2020 at 03:11 PM.

  8. #48

    Default

    Love how everyone is talking about the nerfs to Inqui when no one actually knows what they are doing to it, and as far as spending so much time on that and not QOL, we do know there is lots of QOL in the next patch THW, Stealth, knight of chalice enhancements, Paladin overall and deity feats are all getting updates and that just what we know. I say stop the assuming whatever as we dont actually know anything in detail, at least moan when we have the facts, and give feedback constructively. As the next update has many game improvement so yet another moan for moan sake.

  9. #49
    Community Member Kinerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    5,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kabaon View Post
    But who cares if they are OP. How does it affect YOU that other people are having fun with an "easy" button.
    because there's only one designer for quests, and if they leave a player option in that trivializes content either players with those builds will be bored or content difficulty will be increased to the point where players without those builds are hopeless

  10. #50
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashlayna View Post
    It was, however, as mentioned in the snippet above, supposed to be based around 3.5. It never quite made that goal. As I said, it has the feel, but it's not D&D, and trying to argue that some class or enhancement tree makes it not D&D is circular, since it's never really been D&D to start with.
    5th edition was, too, supposed to be based around 3.5.

    I'm implying that your argument could be applied to any edition of D&D after the very first. Each edition after the very first is slight changes and modifications to the previous iteration, though some did go further than others.
    The jump from AD&D to 3.5 was a much bigger jump than the one from D&D to AD&D, for example.

    I say 5th edition was D&D to start with, just a version we weren't quite used to playing yet, and with rules that seem entirely alien to anyone that played any of the previous editions.

  11. #51
    Community Member Ashlayna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xgya View Post
    5th edition was, too, supposed to be based around 3.5.

    I'm implying that your argument could be applied to any edition of D&D after the very first. Each edition after the very first is slight changes and modifications to the previous iteration, though some did go further than others.
    The jump from AD&D to 3.5 was a much bigger jump than the one from D&D to AD&D, for example.

    I say 5th edition was D&D to start with, just a version we weren't quite used to playing yet, and with rules that seem entirely alien to anyone that played any of the previous editions.
    With the difference being that those editions were officially sanctioned, and this was put together the best way they could figure out around a specific edition. I played with the pamphlets, and I played a bit up to 4th edition. My dice are sitting right on the shelf, unused for a long time now. I may or may not like a specific edition, but, when that edition is released by the people that actually own it, and they put their seal of approval on it as an edition, instead of as an interpretation of an edition, that's what I run with. Had it been me, I'd have been contacting BioWare to inquire about their system for Neverwinter Nights. While it wasn't exactly faithful, it was really close.
    Last edited by Ashlayna; 01-12-2020 at 04:04 PM. Reason: spelling is hard...

  12. #52
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashlayna View Post
    With the difference being that those editions were officially sanctioned, and this was put together the best way they could figure out around a specific edition. I played with the pamphlets, and I played a bit up to 4th edition. My dice are sitting right on the shelf, unused for a long time now. I may or may not like a specific edition, but, when that edition is released by the people that actually own it, and they put their seal of approval on it as an edition, instead of as an interpretation of an edition, that's what I run with. Had it been me, I'd have been contacting BioWare to inquire about their system for Neverwinter Nights. While it wasn't exactly faithful, it was really close.
    DDO, at least at first, was sanctioned by WotC. There's even various rules in the game right now that are there simply to please those overlords (the hefty cooldown on the Key to Eveningstar coming to mind), and their designers at least helped work on the product.
    Wouldn't that count?
    The official seal was on the game's original box too, if that helps any.
    It might not have been flagged as an official 'edition', but, at first, neither was D&D Next, which became known to us players as D&D 5th edition.

    NWN still is a nice system, but I don't think I'd have stayed and played it as long as I have DDO because of DDO's more action-driven gameplay.

    The creators of DDO wanted an edition of D&D loosely based around 3.5 that made active gameplay possible.
    The creators of D&D Next (5th edition) wanted an edition of D&D loosely based around 3.5 but wanted key changes to balance and lower numbers across the board.

  13. #53
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kabaon View Post
    I keep asking, why does a build being op matter to anyone. We're not playing a competitive game
    You could say we are playing a *cooperative* game. In fact, the major complaint these days is that there are not enough players left to group with.

    And In a cooperative game, your build matters. If you bring a gimp to the group and have to be carried, odds are you won't get invited back.

    But the reverse can also be true - if you bring a God-mode build and carry everyone else, you also may not get invited back.

    If there was no XP pen, would you be okay with some 20th lvls joining your group and running Waterworks R1 for you? All you got to do is sit back and watch....



    The goal of said game is to finish the quest/raid and loot. If a build is OP as people claim, isn't that a GOOD thing?
    No, finishing the quest is not everyone's goal. My goal is to have fun and play something that challenges me.

    It's why I no longer play AOE2 and CIV on the Easy settings, and t's why I never bothered to play Inquis.

    I don't want to win every game 45-0. That's boring. And I don't want you to win them 45-0 for me either.

    Now, if I had low self-esteem and was a loser, maybe the dopamine hit from Easy Button Wins would be appealing. At least until I grew up.



    And as it has always been, people will hate popular builds because it's good, "hurts build diversity" (btw that has NEVER been the case), and cry about it on the forums, get it nerfed, and move on to the next popular build they hate. Rinse and repeat.
    Geez, now you are making all kinds of assumptions based in ignorance. You could just as easily say that the anti-nerf crowd is all a bunch of spoiled brats, too dumb to see that Inquis would eventually get a balance pass, throwing a tantrum on the forums like a cheater upset his favorite exploit was taken away. That is also "as it has always been".


    (disclaimer: never played an Inquis, never called for it to be nerfed, still wondering how you span dual crossbows....)
    Last edited by Fenrisulven7; 01-12-2020 at 05:02 PM.

  14. #54
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashlayna View Post
    I predate the EDs, by a good amount of time. It has always been more D&D in name, than D&D. Balance had nothing to do with it. The entire concept of balance is a lie. The only way to balance games like this is to make everyone exactly the same, with no variation in characters whatsoever. Because if you have variations, someone will find a way to milk some extra DPS out of it, or some extra survivability, or both. That's why games like this have build forums, so that the people that do milk every possible advantage can, if they choose to, post the build for others to use. According to 3.5 rules, the set this game was supposed to be built around, AA requires Elf, and at least one level of an arcane class. Rangers are not arcane, and if you play ranger, you can take ranger AA regardless of race, and that also predates the EDs. It has always had a D&D feel, but it was never D&D.



    It was, however, as mentioned in the snippet above, supposed to be based around 3.5. It never quite made that goal. As I said, it has the feel, but it's not D&D, and trying to argue that some class or enhancement tree makes it not D&D is circular, since it's never really been D&D to start with.
    Nope, before they first revamp the enhances we had some balance.

    Since EDs with the power creep going out of control we lost it completely.

    It needs to be perfectly balanced? No but now we have only 3 classes and 3 races worth playing.

    I was going to say that it is the worst state of the game ever but SSG never stop to surprise me.

  15. #55
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    You could say we are playing a *cooperative* game. In fact, isn't it the major complaint these days that there are not enough players left to group with?
    Doesn't effect me, I specifically run solo most of the time, and my main I duo with my wife. But I see LFM's all the time so, that's not entirely true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    And In a cooperative game, your build matters. If you bring a gimp to the group and have to be carried, odds are you won't get invited back.
    Sure, but that either gets people to learn and evolve their builds, or they solo, problem solved

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    But the reverse can also be true - if you bring a God-mode build and carry everyone else, you also may not get invited back.
    Lol really, I have never seen anyone ever say "You are too good at this game, I don't want you in my party"

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    If there was no XP pen, would you be okay with some 20th lvls joining your group and running Waterworks R1 for you? All you got to do is sit back and watch....
    Depends if I actually needed help in a quest I wouldn't have an issue with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    No, finishing the quest is not everyone's goal. My goal is to have fun and play something that challenges me.
    It's why I no longer play AOE2 and CIV on the Easy settings, and t's why I never bothered to play Inquis.
    Good for you I guess? I mean if you want a challenge you can do that without nerfing classes. Just build janky builds, or less than min-maxed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    I don't want to win every game 45-0. That's boring. And I don't want you to win them 45-0 for me either.
    And I wouldn't be, as I don't join many groups as it is.... I prefer to play solo/duo. That's how I find challenge (and no I'm not currently an inquisitive on my main, just alts)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    Now, if I had low self-esteem and was a loser, maybe the dopamine hit from Easy Button Wins would be appealing. At least until I grew up.
    By that logic, if you don't want that easy button, no one should have it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    Geez, now you are making all kinds of assumptions based in ignorance. You could just as easily say that the anti-nerf crowd is all a bunch of spoiled brats, too dumb to see that Inquis would eventually get a balance pass, throwing a tantrum on the forums like a cheater upset his favorite exploit was taken away. That is also "as it has always been".
    I've been around a long time as far as DDO goes, it's not ignorance, it's fact. EVERY time something good or powerful comes along. Bam, nerfed. Why? Because people on the forums go and whine about how they can't do something in the game because of X class/build.

    The folks who don't see why in a game where the point is to have fun and reach the end of the quest are the ones wondering why the build they worked on getting gear for and are having a blast on is getting nerfed. Making the whole point of getting the gear pointless. I am not sure why anyone bothers gearing up their characters when all it takes is one good forum push to get something nerfed to the ground is beyond me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    (disclaimer: never played an Inquis, never called for it to be nerfed, still wondering how you spam dual crossbows....)
    Magic...


    Karnasis (Human Wizard, Pale Master, Level 27), Taldall (Half-Orc, Monk- Perpetually abandoned)

  16. #56
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kabaon View Post
    Lol really, I have never seen anyone ever say "You are too good at this game, I don't want you in my party"
    I'm sure that's true for you. But it's obvious we aren't communicating here. Come back in a few years.

  17. #57
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    I'm sure that's true for you. But it's obvious we aren't communicating here. Come back in a few years.
    Lol, or maybe you aren't understanding my thought process.

    I don't think ANY build needs nerfing simply because we aren't competing with each other. If you don't like being carried, that's fine. That's your choice, you can split off and run some other quests with like minded folks. The point I'm trying to make is that whatever build I RUN without anyone else, doesn't, and shouldn't effect YOUR fun in any way. That's why nerfing things like inquisitive (or literally any other top tier build in the last 13 years) never will make sense to me.


    Karnasis (Human Wizard, Pale Master, Level 27), Taldall (Half-Orc, Monk- Perpetually abandoned)

  18. #58
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kabaon View Post
    Lol, or maybe you aren't understanding my thought process.

    I don't think ANY build needs nerfing simply because we aren't competing with each other. If you don't like being carried, that's fine. That's your choice, you can split off and run some other quests with like minded folks. The point I'm trying to make is that whatever build I RUN without anyone else, doesn't, and shouldn't effect YOUR fun in any way. That's why nerfing things like inquisitive (or literally any other top tier build in the last 13 years) never will make sense to me.
    So your thought process is that nerfing Inquis makes no sense because you only run it on solo?

  19. #59
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenrisulven7 View Post
    So your thought process is that nerfing Inquis makes no sense because you only run it on solo?
    Partially, but I'm not only talking Inquisitve. Literally every build that has been nerfed in the last 13 years is because of forum complaints.

    To me as long as I am doing the thing my build was designed for, I don't care what other people play. NO ONE should care about what others play. If it somehow negatively impacts your experience, either don't run with that person, or get over it and move on. I've been in groups with Inquisitves and been fine with their OP status. If I was bothered by it I would have dropped group and moved on. If I threw up a group I didn't say "No Inquisitives". At the end of the day I got stuff done and didn't worry so much about what people are running.

    If it bothers you that much, maybe it's time to take a break.


    Karnasis (Human Wizard, Pale Master, Level 27), Taldall (Half-Orc, Monk- Perpetually abandoned)

  20. #60
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    27,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaeveTuohy View Post
    I see it frequently.
    Who and where. Id love to talk to some of these folks in game.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaeveTuohy View Post
    Yes, IQs are suboptimal against undead. But pointing out that fire spells are better at killing undead is not much of an argument, is it?
    Like half the leveling is against undead. Its a pretty solid point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaeveTuohy View Post
    And yes, they also need to nerf the classes that cast those.
    They should stop nerfing single entities and determine a benchmark first, then nerf/buff the entire game to that benchmark. Until then, the nerf = balance position is null and void as it it not being made from any particular vantage point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    We are no more d000m'd then we were a week ago. Note - This was posted in 10/2013 (when concurrency was ~4x what it is today)

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload