202 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...
1. The relevance to soldiers and CD is that I find it hilarious that you're implying you would be happy with AR if it prevented the soldier from casting powers he doesn't have.

I find it equally hilarious that you keep making stuff up and then expecting me to defend it. That implication is something you've pulled out of thin air, sino - what I've *actually* been saying is that the incredibly short cooldown isn't proportional to AR's power - it's got the same CD as Throw, for pete's sake, and yet, can be spammed to hell to a degree not shared by any other class power despite the effect it has on the soldier's performance.

2. It matters because for that downside that be in any way relevant<snip>

It only 'matters' because without it your argument makes no sense. When comparing powers, spells, abiltiies, anything in a game, it isn't normal to try and cloud the issue with 'oh but only crap players ever see that happen' or whatever. The power is balanced by a set of characteristics. No matter how much you desperately claim that situations under which they fail never occur or not, it is still an issue of player skill and judgement, NOT power and class balances. Even the best players can make mistakes or push themselves too far.

Sadly, the purpose of this debate is not to shore up your ego and hence I'm not going to bother arguing about something that is an entirely seperate argument altogether.

3. Essentially the same point. Even though you'd have to play like a poorly trained monkey to run into any issues with cloak or tech armor, (notice I didn't include charge, that ability actually has a downside) I'll accept it cause it's in the description.

As I said, if your only argument that something is balanced that you'd need, by your estimation, a poor player to fail then you effectively have no point. It makes as much sense to claim that a tree doesn't fall down in the forest if no-one is around to hear it.

4. You're once again putting words into my mouth.

I'm not the one claiming that AR needs to be so powerful to make up for the lack of other powers. There isn't really many ways this can be sensibly interpreted, sino. If you considered ammo powers to be the equal of casted powers then your assertion that AR has to make up for anything is nonsensical.

[Kronner]

Oh well, this is not going anywhere anyways.

Looking forward to LoTSB and can't wait to see what changes for an Adept are included. I think I saw a new biotic power in the trailer (looked a lot like biotic Charge, but it did not transport anyone and came from an enemy, not Shepard).

Modifié par Kronner, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...

The point is:

Soldier - shooting only class, so obviously Soldier must be best at it - lots of ammo powers and Adrenaline Rush

Adept - awesome crowd control, can still shoot - just not as good as Soldier at shooting things.

Actually, that isn't the point at all. I've no problem with the Soldier having a power that improves their shooting abilities, as befitting a specialist class.

The point is actually about relative balance.

Consider, for instance if the Adept had a similar 'focus' ability which allowed all their biotics to act on opponents as if they had no defences for the duration of the buff. That would be something similar in potency to AR, as it would act as a comprehensive upgrade to performance while still focusing on the class's MO.

'Course, such an ability doesn't exist. The balance is out of whack. That is the point.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[sinosleep]

So you managed to read all that and miss the point yet again? Really? Two words PLAYER ENGAGEMENT. Active powers engage the player, passive powers do not. That doesn't mean passive powers aren't effective, it means they aren't engaging. AR is the sole engaging power on a soldier, so it has to be awesome.

[sinosleep]

Kronner wrote...

Oh well, this is not going anywhere anyways.

Looking forward to LoTSB and can't wait to see what changes for an Adept are included. I think I saw a new biotic power in the trailer (looked a lot like biotic Charge, but it did not transport anyone and came from an enemy, not Shepard).

Threads that you know aren't going any where are good timesinks.
 

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...

So you managed to read all that and miss the point yet again? Really? Two words PLAYER ENGAGEMENT. Active powers engage the player, passive powers do not. That doesn't mean passive powers aren't effective, it means they aren't engaging. AR is the sole engaging power on a soldier, so it has to be awesome.

*sigh*

Player engagement. That's your explanation. Passive powers do not engage the player. So, what, are you saying that Inferno ammo doesn't CC whole groups of organics? That squad cryo doesn't turn the battlefield into a winter wonderland? That Disruptor doesn't stop enemies from shooting?

What exactly do you call the entire shooting element of ME2, huh? A cutscene?


If we're just going to start barking out random words then why don't you choose something a bit more intellectual? NO U perhaps?

[Kronner]

JaegerBane wrote...

Actually, that isn't the point at all. I've no problem with the Soldier having a power that improves their shooting abilities, as befitting a specialist class.

The point is actually about relative balance.

Consider, for instance if the Adept had a similar 'focus' ability which allowed all their biotics to act on opponents as if they had no defences for the duration of the buff. That would be something similar in potency to AR, as it would act as a comprehensive upgrade to performance while still focusing on the class's MO.

'Course, such an ability doesn't exist. The balance is out of whack. That is the point.

If Soldier's AR is so much better than anything Adept has, why do some people think Soldier sucks compared to all other classes? (I disagree with that, but nevertheless, some people really think so) AR is incredibly powerful, yes. It is also the only good active power Soldier has (except for CS). Singularity is very comparable to AR in terms of effectiveness, they just do different things. Adept requires "more thinking", for sure. Soldier is easier to play at first, Adept has steeper learning curve - I fully agree with that. But once you get the playstyle down, I think all classes are more or less equal when it comes to effectiveness.

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...

Oh well, this is not going anywhere anyways.

Hopefully the discussion would have encouraged some devving attention, at least - that is the point behind the forum, is it not?

Looking forward to LoTSB and can't wait to see what changes for an Adept are included. I think I saw a new biotic power in the trailer (looked a lot like biotic Charge, but it did not transport anyone and came from an enemy, not Shepard).

I'm still waiting to see whether any Adept changes are in at all - keep in mind that Adept upgrades have been implied but not confirmed

[sinosleep]

See you're talking about effectiveness while quoting text that specifically points out they aren't ineffective. Way to go High Brow.

Modifié par sinosleep, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:01 .

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...
If Soldier's AR is so much better than anything Adept has, why do some people think Soldier sucks compared to all other classes?

Why do some people like beetroot or caviar? I'm not really debating what people's relative opinions are, all I've ever been doing is comparing stats and relative skillsets.

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...

See you're talking about effectiveness while quoting text that specifically points out they aren't ineffective. Way to go High Brow.

What's your next one? Your dad is bigger than my dad, perhaps?

Modifié par JaegerBane, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:05 .

[sinosleep]

Says the guy who posted this, after quoting something and them imprinting the opposite of what was quoted on it

If we're just going to start barking out random words then why don't you choose something a bit more intellectual? NO U perhaps?

That's rich.

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...

Says the guy who posted this, after quoting something and them imprinting the opposite of what was quoted on it
 

*chuckles*

So effectively, because you haven't got anything else to say, it becomes a mud-slinging match?

If you've got nothing else to add the debate then it might be better to just not bother, as this is starting to feel like that bar argument in Good Will Hunting.

[sinosleep]

I pointed out how silly it was of you to continue to talk about implied ineffectiveness when using a quote in which said powers were deemed effective. That's something to say.

Modifié par sinosleep, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:15 .

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...

I pointed out how silly it was of you to continue to talk about implied ineffectiveness when using a quote in which said powers were deemed effective. That's something to say.

For what it's worth sino, I haven't got slightest clue as to what you're banging on about - anything I quote I'm generally answering with my response. I'm not sure at what stage the direction of my response is constrained by what I've quoted, but hey, if you simply must feel you gotten some kind of victory, I suppose you gotta take what you can get.

Of course, it seems that you've missed my point sino - you're nitpicking quoting styles as if it's impotant, or even relevant. As I said, if you've got something to add to the debate, do so. If all you've got left is insults then feel free to post, just don't expect a response.

[sinosleep]

@JaegerBane

IF I quote you saying "red cars are beautiful but but I like yellow cars better" and and then I go ahead and reply with "red cars aren't ugly!" it wouldn't make any sense would it. That's essentially what you did and why I brought it up.

With regards to the shooter aspects of ME 2, I'd think it'd be fairly obvious that ME 2 isn't your standard shooter. Simply shooting is enough to engage a player in Call of Duty or any other straight shooter, but ME 2 clearly isn't a straight shooter. Every class has active powers that differentiate ME 2's gameplay from the field. The soldier unfortunately only has one such active power that's worth using and that's AR. It's part of the reason I feel AR and player engagement are important.

Modifié par sinosleep, 05 septembre 2010 - 06:30 .

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...

@JaegerBane

IF I quote you
saying "red cars are beautiful but but I like yellow cars better" and
and then I go ahead and reply with "red cars aren't ugly!" it wouldn't
make any sense would it. That's essentially what you did and why I
brought it up.

 

As I said, I'm not really sure where I 'claimed that red cars are ugly', so to speak, and hence, I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Are you even talking about a response to you, or Kronner?

sinosleep wrote...

With regards to the shooter aspects of ME 2, I'd think it'd be fairly obvious that ME 2 isn't your standard shooter. Simply shooting is enough to engage a player in Call of Duty or any other straight shooter, but ME 2 clearly isn't a straight shooter. 

True. But then again, if you're going to pick the soldier in a shooter RPG, what do you expect? if you wanted to cast powers don't pick the class that specialises in shooting.

What has this go to do with the point of discussion, anyway? I don't think anyone is saying that the soldier shouldn't have any powers or whatever...

Modifié par JaegerBane, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:08 .

[sinosleep]

I expect a class that functions the way it does in ME 2. It doesn't have a ton of active abilities and that's fine, cause the one that it has is awesome and on a short CD so I still feel engaged just as I do when I'm using a better variety of active powers on the other classes.

It goes back to what I've been saying all along, AR works the way it does because being the lone active ability in a game that revolves around active abilities necessitates it. I think we can all agree that the class specific powers are the most powerful powers for each class, the soldier's has to be even more so due to the fact that by design they won't be doing much anything else.

With regards to the CD balancing went into the decision to not allow it to be affected by CD reduction of any type (only power in the game that functions that way except for fortification which was balanced for Grunt in the same way and in part charge which is only affected by vanguard passive but not by biotic research CD) but at the same time the small CD indicates we're meant to use it early and often.



http://social.biowar...index/1227505/3

link to fortification post by Christina Norman that CD reduction doesn't apply in order to balance Grunt, NOT the PC. Which leads me to believe that that is how all bonus powers are balanced, not for the PC but for the NPCS that use them.

Modifié par sinosleep, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...

I expect a class that functions the way it does in ME 2. It doesn't have a ton of active abilities and that's fine, cause the one that it has is awesome and on a short CD so I still feel engaged just as I do when I'm using a better variety of active powers on the other classes.

It goes back to what I've been saying all along, AR works the way it does because being the lone active ability in a game that revolves around active abilities necessitates it. I think we can all agree that the class specific powers are the most powerful powers for each class, the soldier's has to be even more so due to the fact that by design they won't be doing much anything else.

This is just it, though. Throughout this entire debate you've constantly attached a huge amount of importance to the simple arbitrary fact that the soldier does not have anything else to cast, and is therefore due some sort of compensation for such a situation.

The only argument you've offered for the importance of casting a power is some vague point about player engagement, apparently without realisation that your own feeling of engagment is ultimately meaningless in terms of overall balance. You're playing a class that is supposed to exemplify the shooting aspect of ME2 - the expectation that you need casting powers 'just because' isn't a good enough explanation by anyone's standards.

Hell, numotsbane offered a significantly more insightful argument for your own point about the issue of being able to cast and fight. The only major problem his argument had was the simple fact that it failed to explain why it only applied to the soldier and not any other class who didn't have both ammo and cast powers. But even so, it was a hell of a lot more sensible than some wishy-washy irrelevance about whether you feel 'engaged'.

With regards to the CD balancing went into the decision to not allow it to be affected by CD reduction of any type (only power in the game that functions that way except for fortification which was balanced for Grunt in the same way and in part charge which is only affected by vanguard passive but not by biotic research CD) but at the same time the small CD indicates we're meant to use it early and often.



http://social.biowar...index/1227505/3

link to fortification post by Christina Norman that CD reduction doesn't apply in order to balance Grunt, NOT the PC. Which leads me to believe that that is how all bonus powers are balanced, not for the PC but for the NPCS that use them.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, here. What do bonus powers and grunt have to do with whether AR is balanced or not?

Modifié par JaegerBane, 06 septembre 2010 - 03:25 .

[sinosleep]

@JaegerBane

1. It's not "just because", it's cause powers are what this game revolves around and what sets it apart from other the shooters. The very fact that they gave AR a 3 second CD only reinforces this fact. It's not in any way arbitrary, it's the way the game was designed. If you don't take that into account then what DO you take into account?

2. What I'm getting at is they went out of their way to class AR in a way that it's not affected by CD reductions, not from Shepard and not from research. It's in a very select group of powers that aren't. It's not a glitch, it's done for balance. The secondary note I was making was that if any of the powers in this game are up for being OP it's the bonus powers, since they aren't balanced with the PC in mind.

Modifié par sinosleep, 06 septembre 2010 - 04:06 .

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...

@JaegerBane

1. It's not "just because", it's cause powers are what this game revolves around and what sets it apart from other the shooters. The very fact that they gave AR a 3 second CD only reinforces this fact. It's not in any way arbitrary, it's the way the game was designed. If you don't take that into account then what DO you take into account?

Are suggesting that the entire game revolves around powers that are cast?

How does the 3 second cooldown of AR bear any kind of relevance whatsoever to the concept of use of powers in ME2?

You seem to be trying to argue several arguments at once here. On the one hand you claim that the soldier has no other powers and therefore must have it's 'sole' power boosted (a claim that neither makes sense nor is it based on any kind of logic - the soldier specialises in guns, not powers);

On the other you make the claim that casted powers somehow 'set the game apart' and 'engage the player' despite the fact that the soldier has only one and has no need of other abilities, therefore the only effect the 3 sec AR cooldown has is to encourage spamming, therefore the idea that powers 'set it apart' is irrelevant;

You claim ammo powers are somehow not worth consideration for no more reason than that you insist that they're not;

The rest of it has been you banging on about this weird concept of buffs versus 'direct damage', how player skill affects power's balance, cooldown rates not affecting casters and all manner of weird and wonderful random concepts from ME2 that bear no relevance whatsoever to the debate.

Are you even trying to keep your argument consistent and relevant, or are you just content to spout enough random facts to conceal the fact that you do not have an objective reason for why AR is balanced by like it too much to admit it?
 
This debate started with you claiming that AR is a buff and therefore shouldn't be compared to Singularity, which was 'direct damage' i.e. cast. Now you're claiming that AR is so much like a cast power that the soldier needs it to 'engage the player'. Which is it, sino? You're arguing that you have two trees in front of you, and each is taller than the other.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 06 septembre 2010 - 04:56 .

[sinosleep]

1. AR is the sole active power on a soldier worth using

2. Encouraging spamming supports the active powers theory, you are encourage to spam AR

3. This is the "red cars aren't ugly" part of your argument. I've never claimed they aren't effective, useful, worthwhile, or put any negative connotation on them other than that they aren't active powers. And they aren't. And as such the soldier has to rely on spamming only one active power for the duration of the game. That power must be boosted to compensate for that. Why. because every other class in the game has active powers to cast at will. If active powers weren't important they would have given the soldier none and called it a day. Intead they gave him an extremely useful one that's spammable.

4. The buff versus direct power thing was in reference to how enemy defenses affect them and how AR continuing to be an answer for every defense when it's a buff makes all the sense in the world.

You're claiming these things aren't relevant based entirely on none of them helping your argument. All of those points are relevant here.

p.s. And I'll mention again, that AR is the ONLY power in the game balanced for the PC that isn't affected by CD reduction in any way. Not by Shepard's abilities nor any form of research. This is a clear show of balancing on the part of the devs. They clearly felt 3 seconds was a good fit, so do I.

Modifié par sinosleep, 06 septembre 2010 - 05:02 .

[Walker White]

JaegerBane wrote...

I'm still waiting to see whether any Adept changes are in at all - keep in mind that Adept upgrades have been implied but not confirmed

They have been unofficially confirmed as of yesterday on Christina Norman's twitter feed.  She says it is a bonus that will help all classes, but is biased to Adept.  She promised a blog post at launch.

[JaegerBane]

sinosleep wrote...
3. This is the "red cars aren't ugly" part of your argument. I've never claimed they aren't effective, useful, worthwhile, or put any negative connotation on them other than that they aren't active powers. And they aren't. And as such the soldier has to rely on spamming only one active power for the duration of the game.

And I think, with the above post, this argument has run it's course. I mean, now you're claimed that you've never 'put any negative connotation on them other than they aren't active powers' despite the fact that if that was true, your entire argument that the Soldier needs to have a badass activated power to compensate is effectively meaningless. If there's nothing wrong with them, why would you feel there is need to make up for not having cast powers? I feel like I'm debating with two different people sharing the same username but with different arguments.

Given that so far you've brought everything into this debate from confusion over cooldown effects to your own subjective requirements for what 'engages' you to some quote I made that doesn't follow your own sensibilities on quoting as 'reasoning', I'm not really sure you have the credit to stand up and talk to me about what is relevant and what is not. I'm not quite sure why spamming a single power 'sets apart ME2 from any other shooter' but, then, I'm not really sure about half you're points, so I guess that isn't new.

That said, I hope that this discussion has caught the dev's attention, at least.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 06 septembre 2010 - 06:32 .

[JaegerBane]

Walker White wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

I'm still waiting to see whether any Adept changes are in at all - keep in mind that Adept upgrades have been implied but not confirmed

They have been unofficially confirmed as of yesterday on Christina Norman's twitter feed.  She says it is a bonus that will help all classes, but is biased to Adept.  She promised a blog post at launch.

Heh. Heh heh heh. I like

I wonder if it's to do with piercing defences. I can't think of anything else that will help everyone but biased towards the Adept. That, or ME1's Adrenaline Rush has returned...