You're trying to use our words against us. Is it because you feel persecuted for not having fun?

My advice was, "learn how to play something fun". I'm not trying to control how you play. I don't care how, or if you play. I'm not trying to "have it both ways". I just advised..find something fun to do in the game, play something else. If what you want to do is not fun...why do it?

There is quite a difference.

Playing as a Mage is an actual style of play. You deal damage, and deal with damage, in different ways than you do if you are a Warrior, or an Assassin, or an Archer. A Necromancer is not dealing damage in the same way that an Archer is and an Archer is not dealing damage in the same way as a Destruction Mage is.

Wearing Iron instead of Glass is not a style of play. You are simply changing the variables of what your particular style is based on.

Being only able to take 100 damage before death instead of 400, because you choose to wear Iron, is not anywhere near the same thing as having to approach a fight in a different manner because you're an actual different archetype or class.

A Warrior in Leather is still going to play as a Warrior. A Warrior in Daedric is still going to play as a Warrior.


And what I've been saying is we want one of the ways to play, that is provided to us, to be fun. But, again, you are telling us to do something. Our comments are not directed at you and your play style at all, they are directed at Bethesda. So why you are telling us anything is what gets us into these sometimes harsher debates.

To me, Skyrim is a very personal experience. If you want your character to be invincible, then by all means do so, but don't complain about it when it gets boring.

When I say I don't intend it, then you shouldn't take it that way. It's your fault. Not mine. I'm not trying to insult you. If you are going to be insulted, that's your fault, not mine

Right, because that's very logical.

"Now, I don't want to offend you, but you're a [racial slur here]."

Please say that to the next person of "ethnicity" you see.

Or

"Baby, I never intended to hurt you... but I just happened to sleep with your sister and your best friend."

I'm sure she'll totally understand.

They made Oblivion so it would scale with the player and be more difficult as you leveled. Gamers ripped Bethesda apart over it. They hated it. So they backed off that idea instead of making it better. Maybe if they had gotten more productive feedback instead of constant complaints they might have done something better instead of what we have now.

I see all of these complaints about the way the game works but I see no solutions being given. Where are the ideas on how to make it better? One of the first things I learned on the job from my manager years ago, was if you came into his office with a complaint you better bring a solution or don't even bother with the complaint.

I have written many, many ideas on how Skyrim could be balanced differently.

Including how enemy scaling could, or should, work.

You figured out how to be overpowered, and it's not fun anymore. Try to do it another way that is fun. Don't expect the company to continually alter the game so you still have fun achieving the state of "overpowered".

The problem is you can't please everyone. The people here complaining are complaining because the game isn't what they wanted it to be. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But were the game designed like they wanted, there would simply be another group of people complaining.

Here is the core and underlining problem:

In a properly balanced game, there is no such thing as "over" and "under" powered, because the game is balanced properly.

For everything creation there is a thing that counters it. That's what makes it balanced.

"...achieved it's aim." This is subjective. You are the one aiming the bow/gun. Don't expect the target to move itself toward your arrow/bullet so that you don't miss. We're trying to give you advice on how to aim, but you say "I shouldn't have to aim...the arrow should just hit right in the middle for me".

Except I'm not at all saying that.

I still want to aim, because I am the player. But when one goes to a shooting range the shooting range provides a means to alter the distance of the target. The shooting range does this, I'm not the one who has to move backward or forward.

Not to mention your anology is flawed considering that when in target practice you're only competing against yourself.

Unless you somehow found a shooting range that shoots back at you.

Adjusting my aim doesn't make the target's job any easier. Adjusting the target, the game, makes my job easier or harder.

If people are finding that they can still easily hit a target from 5 miles away with a pistol, there's something wrong with the pistol or the position of the target, not the person holding the gun.

It doesn't seem like you disagree completely. You said the game isn't challenging enough. I was saying "challenge yourself". That's not disagreeing completely..we're saying 2 different things

Challenge yourself if the game isn't challenging enough, or quit playing it and play something that is. I gave only a couple of examples how someone could challenge themselves. Do it any way you can think of.

Nice. Nothing condescending, sarcastic, or acidic about this post, either.

An anology is a metaphor, designed to provide anolysis of a situation. It is subjective. It can't be flawed. There is nothing to flaw. It is a metaphor. You think it's not a good metaphor. Fair enough. I'll try to be more clear and not rely on symbolism and metaphor.

If you are not having fun...that is your fault. Not the game's. Do something else. Don't try to make the company change the game...because they won't. Some have tried to give you advice on how they think the game is still fun, to help you out. But you don't like their advice, and keep saying that the game should change to make you feel better, and that because it doesn't, it's a bad game.

You won't hear what we're saying. You just keep crying "I'M RIGHT", when we not trying to prove you wrong

Bolded part one: It appears I am right, since they are looking into changing balance.

Bolded part two: Yes, you're telling us how we should play. How we have to change. By doing this you are creating an "us vs. you" situation when, what we are doing, is an "us vs. Bethesda" discussion. The advice you are giving is "try playing it my way," the issue is we want to play our game, not yours.

Bolded part three: Yes, the game should change and already does. That's what difficulty settings are. When I am changing the game from Novice to Master, I am changing the game, not changing myself. When I change to Iron instead of Daedric I am changing myself, not the game. It is a "bad game" because there is no way to change the game so that I can still use Daedric and still be challenged.

It's funny that you claim that "we don't hear what you are saying" when you are doing the exact same thing.

I am NOT telling you how to play I don't care how or if you play I was advising how I found the game fun, because you and others didn't seem to be having fun. It is YOU who created the "Me vs. You" in YOUR mind

And again you shout "I AM RIGHT!" You can't be wrong. How could you be wrong about whether or not your are having fun? I was never trying to tell you that you are wrong. I said how I have fun. Do whatever you want

We are trying to. That's why we're talking about this in the first place. We want to play how we want to play (or at least how the game allows us to play) and what we want with that is to be challenged.

I want to be able to make the perfect Assassin, but I still want an opponent that can go toe to toe with me without having to leave my Daedric Dagger at home so they stand a chance.

By saying "try not sneaking" that means we can't play as a sneak, which is what we want.

Well, we agree that there is a sandbox aspect to the game, but we disagree about what should be done about challenge, or the lack thereof. It's the developers' responsibility to make sure the game presents a challenge, not the players'.

Imagine if there were a chess game on the market whose AI was so poor that you had to essentially handicap yourself in order to have a challenge. Would that not seem utterly absurd? It might have been one thing back in 1980 or something when possibly the average desktop computer would have been hard-pressed to have the processing power to run a really smart chess AI, but nowadays, it would be inexcusable, and nobody would play it. Skyrim's problems aren't nearly so extreme, but apparently there are aspects of the game that are not properly balanced - in other words, the player has to handicap themselves by not doing certain things and not trying as hard as possible to win, in order for the game to retain a challenge.

And lest somebody get their panties in a bunch about my use of the word win, yes, I know, there's no end to the game where you "win" and take the princess home to Toadstool Castle or whatever. You certainly "win" whatever little challenges you set yourself, however, like clearing out a bandit stronghold or leading one side or the other to victory in the civil war, or whatever. If you win those things too easily, then the game's level of challenge is out of kilter for you and you need to raise the difficulty level. If you raise it to Master and these challenges still present no - well, no challenge, then the developers need to rebalance whatever it is that made it too easy.

And it sounds like there's a very strong argument to be made that some skills and perks need some re-evaluation, surely. From what many, many people have said, either smithing, alchemy or enchanting, or the three in concert, are simply too powerful and need rebalancing. Whether that rebalancing takes the form of weakening the effects of one or all three of the skills, or whether it takes the form of simply reducing the rate at which you level those skills, something likely needs to be done. Ditto for some of the sneak perks; when people talk about leather-clad thieves one-shotting giants and ancient dragons on Master difficulty with no smithing, enchanting or poisons involved, either they're full of prime-grade organic fertilizer or else, again, the developers need to do some re-evaluation of the relevant perks.

As I say, I understand the toy aspects (or "sandbox" aspects, if you prefer) that are certainly part of Skyrim, and they're part of the undeniably awesome appeal of the game. But let's not forget the game aspects to the game, shall we?

You know what really boggles my mind?
The people who take it upon themselves to argue with, or insult, anyone who "complains" about a game (or a movie, or a TV show, or a band, or pretty much anything else about which people form opinions).
Why? What does it gain you? Do you have some sort of personal stake in the game? Have you declared yourself to be such an ardent fan that a slight against the game is identical to a slight against you?
I just don't get it. Okay - sure - maybe there are some people who just want to complain. Why not just let them? What difference does it make?

And note - this isn't directed exclusively to you. There are more examples of this sort of thing on this thread alone than I could possibly cite in a single post.

Meh, i'll just go with the tried and true "masochistic difficulty rebalance mod" route

Omg. i wish I would've seen your signature before. Look everybody. Bethesda agrees. The game has balancing issues and they're gonna fix it!:

Complaining is a complete waste of time and effort... just like this thread.

The funny thing about the complaints in this thread regarding difficulty, balance, exploits, and the like, os that all the fixes are in the hands of the players. Many just flat out refuse to accept or acknowledge that.

Bethesda created a game where every player has the ability to create and develop any type of character that one could want.

And people complain about that?

Wow.

That's all.

Kind of like you coming back to this thread and posting in it if I'm not mistaken.

Thank you, sincerely, for gracing us with time enough just to put people down.

But to be on topic, we acknowledge we can "gimp" ourselves. We don't think we should have to. Your personal gaming experience, jpo, will not be hindered whatsoever if a "God" difficulty was implemented. You yell at us when we are asking, discussing, and debating things that won't even change your gameplay.

ok i cant believe this thread is yet continuing but ill go ahead and add in what alot of people's opionion on why when ur lvl blah blah with such and such perks, ur OP and pretty much breeze thru everything.

1. I spent all this time lvling up, honig this skill lets say 1handed that when i get it maxxed out, i pretty much better do soem damn dmg with it and be a killing machine. I spent all this time lvling up and honing my sneak that i better be able to sneak around whoever i want and steal the trousers off soemone before thye even know it. I speant all this time lvling and honing my skill with heavy/light armor that i better not be gettign the same dmg from bandits/etc etc as i use to when i first started learnig how to wear and maximize where the mob its me. Etc etc

2. I spent all this time lvling and honig my skill that the average nah ALL of skyrim's foes better not be on par with me, the common rabble better not be able to do the same dmg as me or etc etc or why else did i spend all this time training when it didnt make better at what i was doing to everyone else?

3. If mobs are lvling with me, hitting harder, taking even more hits in thier fur armor, and im forced to take the extra dmg perks to stay on par with the mobs, then what about the people who are not placing points in those perks? Then they will have to change and be forcedinto a playstyle.

4. If im lvl 1 and i go up against a giant thats lvl 32 and i get 1 shotted, thats what we expect and no one complains, but if im 32 lvls above the giant and spent allthis time honing my skills and i oneshot a giant and the tables are turned with me being higher lvl and such...thats ot expected?

5. Bethesda gave us certain perks that are OP because there are people out there that what thier toon to be OP. Using said perks is fine, but when overly using a perk that we all know will get us outta combat whenever we want to...i mean cmon we knwo its gonna make te game easier for us. If mobs could take multiple sneak dagger atks, then thats gonna place the people who didnt put points in certain perks not be able to complete or have to run away and may deter that experience for them because they would be forced to play a certain way.

6. And i do agree that SOME areas i thegame need to addressed, mainly dragons. Thats about it. The rest is all about self control on those Op perks and abilities. u wanna use them, hey no ones sayign not to, theres just people saying that by using said Op perks and abilities, u knwo whats it does and its there to make it easier for u. i really hopee rebalancing aint at higher lvls, certain reg npcs mob are able to oneshot u situation because i like it it adds flare.

7. I want to be challenged also, but i also know that my playstyle aint always gonna be like every ones elses. Bethesda didnt please eeryone with this game, but im pretty sure that the majority aint 100% happy with it, they are satisfied with a bit of it.

again, its ur money. as far as the tag i really hope they do fix the exploits and that the rebalancing aint for lower lvls goign into higher lvls and gettign stomped. I really hope they do add some difficulty to higher levels, but i the mean time, people on here were basically giving suggestions on how to play the game with difficulty in its current situation.