» Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:55 am Original thread at http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1335883-why-skills-wont-be-nerfed/
I'll start with how I was gonna reply to a previous poster:
Doesn't the problem with overpowered skills lie more within the playerbase than the game itself?
Think about it in a different way: Would the number of people who complain about this kind of thing be reduced if people would STOP telling each other/posting/reading all the best builds and exploits?
Honestly, I only look at the forums and the wiki to help me out of a tough spot or to see the new patches, maybe even to read a few story threads. People discovering balance issues is a good thing, usually, but I think a lot of people aren't realizing that they WILLINGLY exploited things. True, the ability to exploit things shouldn't necessarily exist in the first place, but you took it and ran with it, so it's your fault.
The company isn't going to tell you how/when to play your game, obviously. They aren't going to tell you not to grind your skill, but you did anyway. Perhaps that's the problem? Maybe playing the game more passively would help. Maybe only using smithing when necessary or enchanting when necessary would help out the people screaming "OP." You can argue this as a "handicap." I argue it as a design choice. I grinded smithing to 100 within a couple of hours and had some fun with it. Realistically, wouldn't it be less disappointing if I had gone out and killed things and gradually worked my way to 100, instead of forcing it all at one moment? The company probably did not intend for people to grind things to maximum as fast as possible.
Now, let's discuss challenge. Clearly you aren't understanding what skill level 100 implies. "Master" smithing. "Master" enchanting. You're playing the game on "Master." If you're a "master" of something, then that means you're either equally matched, if not better than your opponent. If you "mastered" enchanting and smithing and decided to make the most overpowered things you could imagine, doesn't that kind of mean you went out of your way(not so literally) to become the greatest? On top of that, your character is dragonborn... the ultimate dragon slayer. OF COURSE THE ANCIENT DRAGON IS GOING TO BE CAKE. It may be the hardest kind of dragon, but you're Dragonborn, and a master smith, and a master enchanter. How are you going to lose?
The game should be challenging, yes. Should it be this way without the player's input? Not necessarily. The "master" difficulty is hard, IF you play regularly and don't strive to become the best. Don't label that as handicapping, that's called being realistic. You're telling me that one person(your character) is some how so extraordinarily gifted that they mastered this, this, this, and that and is able to kill everything within days of his/her life? That's great, but not very realistic. Playing more like a roleplayer and less like a hardcoe powergamer might help?
Think about it in a different way: Would the number of people who complain about this kind of thing be reduced if people would STOP telling each other/posting/reading all the best builds and exploits?
Honestly, I only look at the forums and the wiki to help me out of a tough spot or to see the new patches, maybe even to read a few story threads. People discovering balance issues is a good thing, usually, but I think a lot of people aren't realizing that they WILLINGLY exploited things. True, the ability to exploit things shouldn't necessarily exist in the first place, but you took it and ran with it, so it's your fault.
The company isn't going to tell you how/when to play your game, obviously. They aren't going to tell you not to grind your skill, but you did anyway. Perhaps that's the problem? Maybe playing the game more passively would help. Maybe only using smithing when necessary or enchanting when necessary would help out the people screaming "OP." You can argue this as a "handicap." I argue it as a design choice. I grinded smithing to 100 within a couple of hours and had some fun with it. Realistically, wouldn't it be less disappointing if I had gone out and killed things and gradually worked my way to 100, instead of forcing it all at one moment? The company probably did not intend for people to grind things to maximum as fast as possible.
Now, let's discuss challenge. Clearly you aren't understanding what skill level 100 implies. "Master" smithing. "Master" enchanting. You're playing the game on "Master." If you're a "master" of something, then that means you're either equally matched, if not better than your opponent. If you "mastered" enchanting and smithing and decided to make the most overpowered things you could imagine, doesn't that kind of mean you went out of your way(not so literally) to become the greatest? On top of that, your character is dragonborn... the ultimate dragon slayer. OF COURSE THE ANCIENT DRAGON IS GOING TO BE CAKE. It may be the hardest kind of dragon, but you're Dragonborn, and a master smith, and a master enchanter. How are you going to lose?
The game should be challenging, yes. Should it be this way without the player's input? Not necessarily. The "master" difficulty is hard, IF you play regularly and don't strive to become the best. Don't label that as handicapping, that's called being realistic. You're telling me that one person(your character) is some how so extraordinarily gifted that they mastered this, this, this, and that and is able to kill everything within days of his/her life? That's great, but not very realistic. Playing more like a roleplayer and less like a hardcoe powergamer might help?
Master level should be a challenge no matter how you play the game. There should be no way to powergame enough to make Master level easy. It shouldn't be easy even if you had every perk, every spell and ever skill jacked up to 100. That's what a hard skill level is supposed to do - challenge even the best players. Apparently this is not the case with Master skiil level.
And sorry if this seems horribly, horribly egotistical, but I'm also going to quote what I said on page 2, because I think I hit the heart of the matter with this. Feel free to ignore it if it annoys you:
Again, some people are missing the point. People want the game to be a challenge no matter which way they play it. They don't want to have to handicap themselves to manufacture a challenge, they want it to be a challenge period.
Let me give a couple examples of what I am talking about, with other games as examples.
There is a difference between a game and a toy. Take a look at one of the most successful games of the past several years, Spore. It sold extremely well for a PC game. But, the fact is - Spore is a really, really crappy game. Take note of what I said - it's a crappy GAME. It's a fantastic toy. The game itself is shallow, largely easy, and would get boring if it weren't for the fact that it tends to change stages fairly quickly. The cell stage is a decent little time-waster, but there are equivalent webgames available on the internet for free. The creature stage is a little interesting but not very much so, and the tribal stage is a snoozefest. The Civilization stage is a very bad ripoff of 4X turn-based strategy games, just in a sort-of RTS mold. The space stage can be interesting for a bit because of the exploration aspect, but it becomes a boring-ass grind after not very long, not to mention the constant fetch missions and "please save our asses from the pirates" missions get very old very quickly.
But as horribly poor a game as Spore is, it's one of the best toys to be developed for the computer in a long time, quite possibly ever. Have you ever seen the stuff that people create with 3D modeling software? Did you ever wish you could create a spaceship or car or tank or plane that looked as cool as what you see in your head? Did you then get your hands on a free piece of modeling software, then toy around with it for a week, then abandon the whole project because "I don't have time to earn a Bachelor's in computer modeling"? Spore is your thing, then. The creature and vehicle creators can be played with by themselves, without messing with the thoroughly underwhelming game. They're simple to use, and yet the more experienced modelers can create some amazing-looking things with some fairly simple tools. It doesn't take years to learn to be a competent modeler with the creators in Spore, it takes maybe weeks to become competent and produce things you enjoy looking at.
Skyrim, however, is not really a toy. As fun as it is to simply run around and look at the environment - I've done it, as has everybody - we want things to do in Skyrim. And the fact is, people want a challenge. You can say "It's single-player, so I think challenge should be optional. Just don't use parts of the game that remove the challenge." Well, that leads me into my next point:
People don't want to have to handicap themselves, and they shouldn't. As I said before, when given the choice of two chess opponents, one who is so far behind your level that you'd have to give up a queen and a bishop to be challenged, and one who plays on your level and provides a challenge without a handicap, which would you choose? You'd choose the player on your level, of course, as would any person actually interested in playing a game. Let's look at another computer game as an example - Supreme Commander 2, which is an excellent RTS game and a sequel to probably the best RTS ever, Supreme Commander. I could sit around playing on the Easy skill level forever, winning constantly. Well, if they had provided only Easy skill level, I'd be pretty annoyed, because I'd have to constantly handicap myself to get a challenge - 3 opponents against me, restricting myself from using nukes or Experimentals, not doing anything for the first minute of the game, or something. And I'd be annoyed with having to handicap myself just to get a challenge, and I'd be right to be annoyed. Fortunately they provided enough skill levels that I can get opponents who are a real challenge without handicapping myself.
This is what some are complaining about with Skyrim - that they have to handicap themselves by restricting themselves from certain parts of the game to get a challenge. There should be nothing in the game that can make the game unchallenging. Nothing at all. As I said, this assumes that you've raised the skill level as far as you can before complaining about being OP. But, if you've genuinely raised the skill level as far as it can go, and you've genuinely found that certain skills or perks, alone or in combination, can STILL make even the hardest skill level too easy and without challenge - then yes, you've got a valid complaint about the game balance, and one that the developers should address and fix.
-------------
In conclusion: The hardest skill level should definitely present a challenge, no matter how you play the game. If it does not, then the developer either needs to rebalance the game or else they need to provide another, even harder skill level.
Let me give a couple examples of what I am talking about, with other games as examples.
There is a difference between a game and a toy. Take a look at one of the most successful games of the past several years, Spore. It sold extremely well for a PC game. But, the fact is - Spore is a really, really crappy game. Take note of what I said - it's a crappy GAME. It's a fantastic toy. The game itself is shallow, largely easy, and would get boring if it weren't for the fact that it tends to change stages fairly quickly. The cell stage is a decent little time-waster, but there are equivalent webgames available on the internet for free. The creature stage is a little interesting but not very much so, and the tribal stage is a snoozefest. The Civilization stage is a very bad ripoff of 4X turn-based strategy games, just in a sort-of RTS mold. The space stage can be interesting for a bit because of the exploration aspect, but it becomes a boring-ass grind after not very long, not to mention the constant fetch missions and "please save our asses from the pirates" missions get very old very quickly.
But as horribly poor a game as Spore is, it's one of the best toys to be developed for the computer in a long time, quite possibly ever. Have you ever seen the stuff that people create with 3D modeling software? Did you ever wish you could create a spaceship or car or tank or plane that looked as cool as what you see in your head? Did you then get your hands on a free piece of modeling software, then toy around with it for a week, then abandon the whole project because "I don't have time to earn a Bachelor's in computer modeling"? Spore is your thing, then. The creature and vehicle creators can be played with by themselves, without messing with the thoroughly underwhelming game. They're simple to use, and yet the more experienced modelers can create some amazing-looking things with some fairly simple tools. It doesn't take years to learn to be a competent modeler with the creators in Spore, it takes maybe weeks to become competent and produce things you enjoy looking at.
Skyrim, however, is not really a toy. As fun as it is to simply run around and look at the environment - I've done it, as has everybody - we want things to do in Skyrim. And the fact is, people want a challenge. You can say "It's single-player, so I think challenge should be optional. Just don't use parts of the game that remove the challenge." Well, that leads me into my next point:
People don't want to have to handicap themselves, and they shouldn't. As I said before, when given the choice of two chess opponents, one who is so far behind your level that you'd have to give up a queen and a bishop to be challenged, and one who plays on your level and provides a challenge without a handicap, which would you choose? You'd choose the player on your level, of course, as would any person actually interested in playing a game. Let's look at another computer game as an example - Supreme Commander 2, which is an excellent RTS game and a sequel to probably the best RTS ever, Supreme Commander. I could sit around playing on the Easy skill level forever, winning constantly. Well, if they had provided only Easy skill level, I'd be pretty annoyed, because I'd have to constantly handicap myself to get a challenge - 3 opponents against me, restricting myself from using nukes or Experimentals, not doing anything for the first minute of the game, or something. And I'd be annoyed with having to handicap myself just to get a challenge, and I'd be right to be annoyed. Fortunately they provided enough skill levels that I can get opponents who are a real challenge without handicapping myself.
This is what some are complaining about with Skyrim - that they have to handicap themselves by restricting themselves from certain parts of the game to get a challenge. There should be nothing in the game that can make the game unchallenging. Nothing at all. As I said, this assumes that you've raised the skill level as far as you can before complaining about being OP. But, if you've genuinely raised the skill level as far as it can go, and you've genuinely found that certain skills or perks, alone or in combination, can STILL make even the hardest skill level too easy and without challenge - then yes, you've got a valid complaint about the game balance, and one that the developers should address and fix.
-------------
In conclusion: The hardest skill level should definitely present a challenge, no matter how you play the game. If it does not, then the developer either needs to rebalance the game or else they need to provide another, even harder skill level.
