94 réponses à ce sujet

[Ludica]

dnaxv wrote...

 I recently completed a Gold run with some friends. There were two Asari Adepts, an engineer (forget which race he was running as that game) and myself (human shotgun infiltrator). We were on the white map and had an interesting strategy. The two Asari's watched the helipad above, and the engineer and infiltrator watched the tunnels below. We were doing every bit as well as they were. At no point did our duo feel underpowered, even as we delt with numerous Atlases, Phantoms, and Centaurians/Guardians/Nemesises at once. Not saying to try and brag or anything, but even though we were "inferior" classes, we were able to hold our own just as well as two "OP" classes.

You wouldn't do so well if there were two human adepts holding the helipad. They'd die and let you deal with being surrounded. You are not using inferior classes in this setup at all.

[UK Wildcat]

The problem with over-poweredness / under-poweredness and this being a demo is not a simple issue.

1) OP / UP is only game-breaking assuming player skill has plateaued (meaning skill is at the highest level it could be at) as superior-skilled players can be more effective with 'inferior' classes against players with less talent.

2) There is no way to know if the retail version is balanced in multiplayer

3) OP/UP only matters if there is a demonstrable tangible benefit to playing a certain class or certain race/class combinations in MP. Bioware can easily track this by advanced metrics measuring average game success % and average game time % and average difficulty completion %

4) Although I see various other concepts inter-related, I'd like to again emphasize that the game's MP component should only be balanced around the highest-level of performing players, because attempts to balance around the masses inevitably results in the most skilled players being able to figure out methods of breaking the game (which trickles down when shared anyway). In other words, I hope bioware tracks the most successful players, and beta tests based on their experiences / input / statistics.

[Lycidas]

Ludica wrote...

1)Well if you insist on assuming adepts can be tanks, i won't argue with you. To me, it seems incredibly misjudging of adept's purpose.

I never said that. No 250 more HP do note enable you to tank but it will very well be the difference between killing that enemy that has been flanking you or not, getting into cover the last moment or not. Not always but now an than for sure.
Survivability is by far not as unimportant as you are trying to make it look like. Look at what people ask for the Drell Vanguard. Tell them 250 HP don't matter anything.

Ludica wrote...
2)I'm sorry, but when you target for a nerf a strategy that is good, but doesn't make the class better than the others(human sentinel has warp + throw. So? Sure, she does a better job at biotics than human adept, but everybody does.), why do you tell me i know little? Just like Warp + Throw doesn't make human sentinel overpowered, it's not a target to be nerfed here.

The Sentinel does not have Stasis and Warp to explode last time I checked. Plus, Warp + Throw is the way the Asari handles anything that cannot be handled with Stasis and thus the reason it does have so little weaknesses.

[TexasToast712]

UK Wildcat wrote...

The problem with over-poweredness / under-poweredness and this being a demo is not a simple issue.

1) OP / UP is only game-breaking assuming player skill has plateaued (meaning skill is at the highest level it could be at) as superior-skilled players can be more effective with 'inferior' classes against players with less talent.

2) There is no way to know if the retail version is balanced in multiplayer

3) OP/UP only matters if there is a demonstrable tangible benefit to playing a certain class or certain race/class combinations in MP. Bioware can easily track this by advanced metrics measuring average game success % and average game time % and average difficulty completion %

4) Although I see various other concepts inter-related, I'd like to again emphasize that the game's MP component should only be balanced around the highest-level of performing players, because attempts to balance around the masses inevitably results in the most skilled players being able to figure out methods of breaking the game (which trickles down when shared anyway). In other words, I hope bioware tracks the most successful players, and beta tests based on their experiences / input / statistics.

^^^^^^^^
The above post is elitism at it's finest. One of the reasons I can no longer stand the Epic, Bungie, and 343i forums.

"Listen ONLY 2 teh GoOd PlayAs!"

[Ludica]

Lycidas wrote...

Ludica wrote...

1)Well if you insist on assuming adepts can be tanks, i won't argue with you. To me, it seems incredibly misjudging of adept's purpose.

I never said that. No 250 more HP do note enable you to tank but it will very well be the difference between killing that enemy that has been flanking you or not, getting into cover the last moment or not. Not always but now an than for sure.
Survivability is by far not as unimportant as you are trying to make it look like. Look at what people ask for the Drell Vanguard. Tell them 250 HP don't matter anything.

Ludica wrote...
2)I'm sorry, but when you target for a nerf a strategy that is good, but doesn't make the class better than the others(human sentinel has warp + throw. So? Sure, she does a better job at biotics than human adept, but everybody does.), why do you tell me i know little? Just like Warp + Throw doesn't make human sentinel overpowered, it's not a target to be nerfed here.

The Sentinel does not have Stasis and Warp to explode last time I checked. Plus, Warp + Throw is the way the Asari handles anything that cannot be handled with Stasis and thus the reason it does have so little weaknesses.

1)Those 250 HP won't matter anything when i'm being flanked by a full barrier Phantom i have nothing to hit effectively with. While with an asari i just calmly stasis it and blow it's guts to hell(does it have guts?).
2)You were talking about Warp + Throw. Not stasis/warp/throw. Well... what cannot be handled with Stasis? Atlas and turrets. That's about it. 

[UK Wildcat]

TexasToast712 wrote...

UK Wildcat wrote...

The problem with over-poweredness / under-poweredness and this being a demo is not a simple issue.

1) OP / UP is only game-breaking assuming player skill has plateaued (meaning skill is at the highest level it could be at) as superior-skilled players can be more effective with 'inferior' classes against players with less talent.

2) There is no way to know if the retail version is balanced in multiplayer

3) OP/UP only matters if there is a demonstrable tangible benefit to playing a certain class or certain race/class combinations in MP. Bioware can easily track this by advanced metrics measuring average game success % and average game time % and average difficulty completion %

4) Although I see various other concepts inter-related, I'd like to again emphasize that the game's MP component should only be balanced around the highest-level of performing players, because attempts to balance around the masses inevitably results in the most skilled players being able to figure out methods of breaking the game (which trickles down when shared anyway). In other words, I hope bioware tracks the most successful players, and beta tests based on their experiences / input / statistics.

^^^^^^^^
The above post is elitism at it's finest. One of the reasons I can no longer stand the Epic, Bungie, and 343i forums.

"Listen ONLY 2 teh GoOd PlayAs!"

That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying when it comes to game balance, if you want balance at all, the only way to ensure game balance is to level the playing field.  The best way to do that is to track the 'best players' and balance the game based on that. 

Games with competitive, decently balanced multiplayer systems do it this way, rather than balance it from the ground up, because people at the higher ranges will find the exploits / best classes / cheap strategies and abuse them, then they will share them, then all of the playerbase suffers.

[stysiaq]

I agree with the OP.

I am one of those lucky guys to get Asari on the starter pack. When I tried playing other classes I realised that its a lot tougher to be a human Soldier, so I got back to playing the asari adept.

Currently the balance is broken in favor of asari adepts/salarian infiltrators/human engineers.

I doubt that different types of enemies will change much.
If, for example, all husks were armored, engies still rock with incinerate, and asari have warp.
Infiltrators will forever be able to solo bronze/silver(?) challenges because cloak is too godlike power, with Salarians probably still being no.1 due to energy drain.
Quarian infiltrators will probably dominate Geth challenges.

MP needs reworking for sure. As for the moment I can't imagine challenges that would favor melee fighters or gunfight in general.

[UK Wildcat]

stysiaq wrote...

I agree with the OP.

I am one of those lucky guys to get Asari on the starter pack. When I tried playing other classes I realised that its a lot tougher to be a human Soldier, so I got back to playing the asari adept.

Currently the balance is broken in favor of asari adepts/salarian infiltrators/human engineers.

I doubt that different types of enemies will change much.
If, for example, all husks were armored, engies still rock with incinerate, and asari have warp.
Infiltrators will forever be able to solo bronze/silver(?) challenges because cloak is too godlike power, with Salarians probably still being no.1 due to energy drain.
Quarian infiltrators will probably dominate Geth challenges.

MP needs reworking for sure. As for the moment I can't imagine challenges that would favor melee fighters or gunfight in general.

Bioware could make maps that are very open, or maps that are urban streetfighting style to provide opportunties for certain builds to shine. 

There could be different game types with scripted events; enemies erupt from the floor IN melee range and your party has to move as a unit to escort a certain NPC or you lose (forcing snipers into melee), or that you have to assassinate valuable targets from long-range within a very narrow time limit AND if you fail several large melee mobs fly to you on top of your building.

An easier/cheaper solution would be just to give certain enemies bonus resistance to certain types of damage.

[Gnarlesee]

We can only define balance in the demo. But remember demo balance =/= retail balance.

Fx salarian and quarian infiltrator are godly for infiltrator class, but vs non-synthetics without shields, they suddently arent. Well have to see when retail comes.

[Lycidas]

Ludica wrote...
1)Those 250 HP won't matter anything when i'm being flanked by a full barrier Phantom i have nothing to hit effectively with. While with an asari i just calmly stasis it and blow it's guts to hell(does it have guts?).

Off-course you bring up the one thing that shields matter nothing against and the HA is infect pretty helpless against. Way to oversimplify your point to make it look more valid...
More hitpoints won't obviously matter in every single situation but saying they don't matter at all is laughable.

Ludica wrote...
2)You were talking about Warp + Throw. Not stasis/warp/throw. Well... what cannot be handled with Stasis? Atlas and turrets. That's about it.

Yeah, you're right Atlases and turrets are nothing to worry about anyways...

[Ludica]

Lycidas wrote...

Ludica wrote...
1)Those 250 HP won't matter anything when i'm being flanked by a full barrier Phantom i have nothing to hit effectively with. While with an asari i just calmly stasis it and blow it's guts to hell(does it have guts?).

Off-course you bring up the one thing that shields matter nothing against and the HA is infect pretty helpless against. Way to oversimplify your point to make it look more valid...
More hitpoints won't obviously matter in every single situation but saying they don't matter at all is laughable.

Ludica wrote...
2)You were talking about Warp + Throw. Not stasis/warp/throw. Well... what cannot be handled with Stasis? Atlas and turrets. That's about it.

Yeah, you're right Atlases and turrets are nothing to worry about anyways...

1)Way to ignore all the prior points... please, that's not going anywhere. Shields matter nothing against Nemesises too, for example, and they just run away from HA that has nothing to stop it(assuming HA plays like you suggest and goes super-close all the time). Have you seen the damage every enemy does on Gold? Why do you so cling to that petty extra bit of HP when it does absolutely nothing? It's pointless. And in no way an advantage.
2)Because i'm not going to be close to them. I'm not a Vanguard, i don't have to be near turrets all the time. I can provide long-range support, and if i have to, eventually pin down Atlas. I did that even with HA all the time.

[UK Wildcat]

Gnarlesee wrote...

We can only define balance in the demo. But remember demo balance =/= retail balance.

Fx salarian and quarian infiltrator are godly for infiltrator class, but vs non-synthetics without shields, they suddently arent. Well have to see when retail comes.

Gnarlesee I think you know its time for us to play some MP again.

[TeaL3af]

TexasToast712 wrote...

UK Wildcat wrote...

The problem with over-poweredness / under-poweredness and this being a demo is not a simple issue.

1) OP / UP is only game-breaking assuming player skill has plateaued (meaning skill is at the highest level it could be at) as superior-skilled players can be more effective with 'inferior' classes against players with less talent.

2) There is no way to know if the retail version is balanced in multiplayer

3) OP/UP only matters if there is a demonstrable tangible benefit to playing a certain class or certain race/class combinations in MP. Bioware can easily track this by advanced metrics measuring average game success % and average game time % and average difficulty completion %

4) Although I see various other concepts inter-related, I'd like to again emphasize that the game's MP component should only be balanced around the highest-level of performing players, because attempts to balance around the masses inevitably results in the most skilled players being able to figure out methods of breaking the game (which trickles down when shared anyway). In other words, I hope bioware tracks the most successful players, and beta tests based on their experiences / input / statistics.

^^^^^^^^
The above post is elitism at it's finest. One of the reasons I can no longer stand the Epic, Bungie, and 343i forums.

"Listen ONLY 2 teh GoOd PlayAs!"

Every succesfully balanced game has been based around the best players. Balance doesn't matter that much to the unwashed masses, anyway.

[darkblade]

TeaL3af wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

UK Wildcat wrote...

The problem with over-poweredness / under-poweredness and this being a demo is not a simple issue.

1) OP / UP is only game-breaking assuming player skill has plateaued (meaning skill is at the highest level it could be at) as superior-skilled players can be more effective with 'inferior' classes against players with less talent.

2) There is no way to know if the retail version is balanced in multiplayer

3) OP/UP only matters if there is a demonstrable tangible benefit to playing a certain class or certain race/class combinations in MP. Bioware can easily track this by advanced metrics measuring average game success % and average game time % and average difficulty completion %

4) Although I see various other concepts inter-related, I'd like to again emphasize that the game's MP component should only be balanced around the highest-level of performing players, because attempts to balance around the masses inevitably results in the most skilled players being able to figure out methods of breaking the game (which trickles down when shared anyway). In other words, I hope bioware tracks the most successful players, and beta tests based on their experiences / input / statistics.

^^^^^^^^
The above post is elitism at it's finest. One of the reasons I can no longer stand the Epic, Bungie, and 343i forums.

"Listen ONLY 2 teh GoOd PlayAs!"

Every succesfully balanced game has been based around the best players. Balance doesn't matter that much to the unwashed masses, anyway.

Thats half true because it only applies to games that are strictly shooters where the only determinat factors in victory are the player, the gun, the skill, and the game mechanics. However once you add RPG elements, powers and stats become a key factor.

And this is when you have to look at the performance of good players with X class and bad players with X class.
ME is that kinda a game.

Lets say that a good player plays these classes and ends each match with these scores. 

Human Soldier : 75,000 pts
Asari Adept : 96, 000 pts 
Human Vangaurd: 120, 000 pts

Lets say a Bad player plays the same difficulty lvl with the same classes gets these scores.

Human Soldier: 25, 000 pts
Asari Adept: 75, 000 pts
Human Vangaurd: 30, 000 pts

One class has made the bad players contribution as large as a good players...and thats imbalanced. Its the same thing issue people had with wow's Death Knight class. Any idiot could pick that class and and out DPS vets or compete with them and a competant vet could steamroll. 

Personally the only power i think thats OP is stasis and only because it ignores defense.

[P1G V3n0m]

I shoot everything with my carnifex. My don't really help me kill too much faster or easier, they just help me in tight situations. Going invisible, using Adrenaline Rush to regen half my shields instantly, using a drone to distract groups of enemies, they all save my butt, but they don't help me kill too much faster, with the exception of Overload and frags.

I am usually in the top 2 spots after a silver/gold match. I can see how some powers are extremely helpful, but I've noticed a power that's useful to me may be ignored by others.

Modifié par P1G V3n0m, 27 février 2012 - 11:12 .

[P1G V3n0m]

darkblade wrote...

TeaL3af wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

UK Wildcat wrote...

The problem with over-poweredness / under-poweredness and this being a demo is not a simple issue.

1) OP / UP is only game-breaking assuming player skill has plateaued (meaning skill is at the highest level it could be at) as superior-skilled players can be more effective with 'inferior' classes against players with less talent.

2) There is no way to know if the retail version is balanced in multiplayer

3) OP/UP only matters if there is a demonstrable tangible benefit to playing a certain class or certain race/class combinations in MP. Bioware can easily track this by advanced metrics measuring average game success % and average game time % and average difficulty completion %

4) Although I see various other concepts inter-related, I'd like to again emphasize that the game's MP component should only be balanced around the highest-level of performing players, because attempts to balance around the masses inevitably results in the most skilled players being able to figure out methods of breaking the game (which trickles down when shared anyway). In other words, I hope bioware tracks the most successful players, and beta tests based on their experiences / input / statistics.

^^^^^^^^
The above post is elitism at it's finest. One of the reasons I can no longer stand the Epic, Bungie, and 343i forums.

"Listen ONLY 2 teh GoOd PlayAs!"

Every succesfully balanced game has been based around the best players. Balance doesn't matter that much to the unwashed masses, anyway.

Thats half true because it only applies to games that are strictly shooters where the only determinat factors in victory are the player, the gun, the skill, and the game mechanics. However once you add RPG elements, powers and stats become a key factor.

And this is when you have to look at the performance of good players with X class and bad players with X class.
ME is that kinda a game.

Lets say that a good player plays these classes and ends each match with these scores. 

Human Soldier : 75,000 pts
Asari Adept : 96, 000 pts 
Human Vangaurd: 120, 000 pts

Lets say a Bad player plays the same difficulty lvl with the same classes gets these scores.

Human Soldier: 25, 000 pts
Asari Adept: 75, 000 pts
Human Vangaurd: 30, 000 pts

One class has made the bad players contribution as large as a good players...and thats imbalanced. Its the same thing issue people had with wow's Death Knight class. Any idiot could pick that class and and out DPS vets or compete with them and a competant vet could steamroll. 

Personally the only power i think thats OP is stasis and only because it ignores defense.

Oh wow, made up numbers, that proves it <_<

[Ludica]

Gold solo'd by an infiltrator
Let that thread be a monument to all opinions on this game's balance and teamwork value.

And here i thought it's gonna be hard to prove. Now all claims of balance can be redirected to a nearby krogan to immediately be eaten.

Modifié par Ludica, 27 février 2012 - 11:55 .

[TeaL3af]

darkblade wrote...

Thats half true because it only applies to games that are strictly shooters where the only determinat factors in victory are the player, the gun, the skill, and the game mechanics. However once you add RPG elements, powers and stats become a key factor.

And this is when you have to look at the performance of good players with X class and bad players with X class.
ME is that kinda a game.

Lets say that a good player plays these classes and ends each match with these scores. 

Human Soldier : 75,000 pts
Asari Adept : 96, 000 pts 
Human Vangaurd: 120, 000 pts

Lets say a Bad player plays the same difficulty lvl with the same classes gets these scores.

Human Soldier: 25, 000 pts
Asari Adept: 75, 000 pts
Human Vangaurd: 30, 000 pts

One class has made the bad players contribution as large as a good players...and thats imbalanced. Its the same thing issue people had with wow's Death Knight class. Any idiot could pick that class and and out DPS vets or compete with them and a competant vet could steamroll. 

Personally the only power i think thats OP is stasis and only because it ignores defense.

High level balance is more important than low level balance. Especially in a co-op game. Ideally every class and race would be equally viable at all levels, but the priority should be the high levels stuff. If a game is unbalanced at low or mid levels, players will eventually get through to the high level stuff anyway. But if it's broken at high levels, then you're stuck with that **** once forever.

[jaDanger]

when maps are on a random rotation with more than are presently available, as well as enemy types then having a range of skills will be all the more valuable. If there were a level full of converging hallways with husks rushing in, my infiltrator with carnifex or rifle would suddenly love the company of a player with aheavy assault rifle to mow them down. Only so many headshots ina clip.
I can see some complaints of overpowering being valid, such as the asari bubble, but its hard to say how much the weight limitations will hold you back once new weapons pop in, amd new upgrades, like shooting through walls.
I do get ammoyed by the points sometimes, as players who take the easy perches profit more than those who take time to move around and flank. I smetimes play another class for big points, but know that in the end they aren't all that matters.

[redafro]

jaDanger wrote...

when maps are on a random rotation with more than are presently available, as well as enemy types then having a range of skills will be all the more valuable. If there were a level full of converging hallways with husks rushing in, my infiltrator with carnifex or rifle would suddenly love the company of a player with aheavy assault rifle to mow them down. Only so many headshots ina clip.
I can see some complaints of overpowering being valid, such as the asari bubble, but its hard to say how much the weight limitations will hold you back once new weapons pop in, amd new upgrades, like shooting through walls.
I do get ammoyed by the points sometimes, as players who take the easy perches profit more than those who take time to move around and flank. I smetimes play another class for big points, but know that in the end they aren't all that matters.

first off, +1

secondly, wy do the classes who go for the big points while you go flanking matter? you all get the same xp and money at the end of the match