229 réponses à ce sujet

[Mazandus]

niko20 wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

You can complete silver with any class against any faction and do very well if your skill is high enough.

The same does not apply to gold. *Cough* Krogan Vs Geth *Cough* *Cough*

and why should such a thing be viable? krograns meleeing things with uber armor? i mean it doesnt make sense. i just donr get this whole thing about weapons needing to be buffed because they suck on gold. of course they suck the enemies have tons more health/armor/shields! thats the point of gold! balancing weapons to work on gold would just make them overpowered on everything else. and then gold becomes the new silver . you just end up in a viscious cycle. 

I don't even know why I bother anymore. As with every other online experience I feel ilke half of you are screaming and hurling nonsense out of fear of "your build" getting nerfed and the other half are crying and ****ing out of some strange sense of leeeet gamer entitlement.

If you step back, and look at this objectively, you will find that all the assault rifles and sub machine guns are sub par to the pistols in combat performance. Couple that with the low weight of the pistol and you have a win-win-win situation. T

If you take a look at the classes, the Salarian and Quarians excel vs Geth, with the Salarians retaining that excellence vs reapers/cerb as well. The Quarian classes are much weaker vs reapers, but ****, anything with cloak and a widow will be a better teammate than some gimped soldier with a GPR. The Asara and Drell Adepts are good at everything. Sure a group of all soldiers can win at gold. Someone posted the vid yesterday I think, but that doesn't make them any less weak.

Whoever was in charge at BW for this part of the game clearly has a hardon for pistols and biotic explosions. That's as far as the depth goes. Some of you think this is great (probably because you unlocked a carnifex x + AA or SE on day 1) but for anyone whose ever thought about the health of a game, having classes and weapons filter out the higher the difficulty is not only assanine, but when we, the players are restricted to the random item generator, its just plain mean. A huge, dick, move.

[Waykam]

Mazandus wrote...

niko20 wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

You can complete silver with any class against any faction and do very well if your skill is high enough.

The same does not apply to gold. *Cough* Krogan Vs Geth *Cough* *Cough*

and why should such a thing be viable? krograns meleeing things with uber armor? i mean it doesnt make sense. i just donr get this whole thing about weapons needing to be buffed because they suck on gold. of course they suck the enemies have tons more health/armor/shields! thats the point of gold! balancing weapons to work on gold would just make them overpowered on everything else. and then gold becomes the new silver . you just end up in a viscious cycle. 

I don't even know why I bother anymore. As with every other online experience I feel ilke half of you are screaming and hurling nonsense out of fear of "your build" getting nerfed and the other half are crying and ****ing out of some strange sense of leeeet gamer entitlement.

If you step back, and look at this objectively, you will find that all the assault rifles and sub machine guns are sub par to the pistols in combat performance. Couple that with the low weight of the pistol and you have a win-win-win situation. T

If you take a look at the classes, the Salarian and Quarians excel vs Geth, with the Salarians retaining that excellence vs reapers/cerb as well. The Quarian classes are much weaker vs reapers, but ****, anything with cloak and a widow will be a better teammate than some gimped soldier with a GPR. The Asara and Drell Adepts are good at everything. Sure a group of all soldiers can win at gold. Someone posted the vid yesterday I think, but that doesn't make them any less weak.

Whoever was in charge at BW for this part of the game clearly has a hardon for pistols and biotic explosions. That's as far as the depth goes. Some of you think this is great (probably because you unlocked a carnifex x + AA or SE on day 1) but for anyone whose ever thought about the health of a game, having classes and weapons filter out the higher the difficulty is not only assanine, but when we, the players are restricted to the random item generator, its just plain mean. A huge, dick, move.

The main problem with making ARs and SMGs powerful enough to compete in Gold with the current system means that EVERYONE will be able to equip them. Once they are at X level most can give you 150%+ CD bonus so what exactly would be the point of equipping it on a Soldier class or Krogan anything when you can have biotic boom on your AA with plenty of pewpew at the same time.

The weapon weight system in this game is stupid, there's no point having a Krogan's weight capacity if there aren't  guns worthy of taking advantage of it. Want to carry a Widow, go ahead, carry a pistol as well if you want ON ANY class. What exactly is the point of weapon weights if most of the time levelling to X takes a lot of that encumberance away? In a few weeks/months everyone will have all the guns at X and everyone will be using a few different guns with the majority using Mantis/Widow/Black Widow/Carnifex in Gold.

[TexasToast712]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...
You seem to lack the comprehension.

...You answered his question with "nuh-uh" and a restatement of your original unsubstantiated conclusion.  I've never seen you actually provide logical support for your claims, and he's right to point out that you did not answer his full question (which considered other factors than just weapon damage).  Saying that you did indicates a lack of reading comprehension.

TexasToast712 wrote...
Run out of logic so you resort to insults. I see how far your intelligence goes.[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

From a neutral outsider's point of view, it looks an awful lot like you started throwing insults first, and moreover were using them as if they somehow supported your arguments, which is a logical fallacy (argument ad hominem).

___

That said, this game designer's thoughts on the argument are basically thus:  When you can feel the indecision between two choices, that's balance, right there.  If one choice is clearly better than another, then it is imbalanced by definition.  What exactly do people think the word balance means if they make statements like "If one weapon is far worse than another, it's still balanced" (a sentiment I've seen multiple times on this thread)?  Said posters seem to throw around the word "balance" as if it was a magical buzzword for "the way I like it."  If you aren't talking about competitive viability of options, then what the heck does the word balance MEAN to you?

1. I answered his question.
2. He has no proof to back his claims either.
3. I didn't start the insults. He did with his claims that I lack reading comprehension.

[zephuurs]

TexasToast712 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...
You seem to lack the comprehension.

...You answered his question with "nuh-uh" and a restatement of your original unsubstantiated conclusion.  I've never seen you actually provide logical support for your claims, and he's right to point out that you did not answer his full question (which considered other factors than just weapon damage).  Saying that you did indicates a lack of reading comprehension.

TexasToast712 wrote...
Run out of logic so you resort to insults. I see how far your intelligence goes.[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

From a neutral outsider's point of view, it looks an awful lot like you started throwing insults first, and moreover were using them as if they somehow supported your arguments, which is a logical fallacy (argument ad hominem).

___

That said, this game designer's thoughts on the argument are basically thus:  When you can feel the indecision between two choices, that's balance, right there.  If one choice is clearly better than another, then it is imbalanced by definition.  What exactly do people think the word balance means if they make statements like "If one weapon is far worse than another, it's still balanced" (a sentiment I've seen multiple times on this thread)?  Said posters seem to throw around the word "balance" as if it was a magical buzzword for "the way I like it."  If you aren't talking about competitive viability of options, then what the heck does the word balance MEAN to you?

1. I answered his question.
2. He has no proof to back his claims either.
3. I didn't start the insults. He did with his claims that I lack reading comprehension.

You didn't answer my entire question because you didn't answer the underlined, bolded, italicized text.

 
So what build is this mythical soldier using and how is he able to kill....let's say an Atlas/Geth Prime as fast as the SI? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to be as good as a medic the SI can be? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to survive compared to a SI that can cloak and reposition?

 

Saying you lack reading comphrehension is not an insult, it is objective since you obviously didn't read my question entirely since you didn't answer all of it. Furthermore, you keep insisting that you read all of my question while at the same time not answering all of it.

You, on the other hand, result to the whole "you're bad if you don't agree with me" statement, which is more like an insult than a counterargument.

Modifié par zephuurs, 30 mars 2012 - 08:56 .

[TexasToast712]

zephuurs wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...
You seem to lack the comprehension.

...You answered his question with "nuh-uh" and a restatement of your original unsubstantiated conclusion.  I've never seen you actually provide logical support for your claims, and he's right to point out that you did not answer his full question (which considered other factors than just weapon damage).  Saying that you did indicates a lack of reading comprehension.

TexasToast712 wrote...
Run out of logic so you resort to insults. I see how far your intelligence goes.../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png

From a neutral outsider's point of view, it looks an awful lot like you started throwing insults first, and moreover were using them as if they somehow supported your arguments, which is a logical fallacy (argument ad hominem).

___

That said, this game designer's thoughts on the argument are basically thus:  When you can feel the indecision between two choices, that's balance, right there.  If one choice is clearly better than another, then it is imbalanced by definition.  What exactly do people think the word balance means if they make statements like "If one weapon is far worse than another, it's still balanced" (a sentiment I've seen multiple times on this thread)?  Said posters seem to throw around the word "balance" as if it was a magical buzzword for "the way I like it."  If you aren't talking about competitive viability of options, then what the heck does the word balance MEAN to you?

1. I answered his question.
2. He has no proof to back his claims either.
3. I didn't start the insults. He did with his claims that I lack reading comprehension.

You didn't answer my entire question because you didn't answer the underlined, bolded, italicized text.

 
So what build is this mythical soldier using and how is he able to kill....let's say an Atlas/Geth Prime as fast as the SI? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to be as good as a medic the SI can be? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to survive compared to a SI that can cloak and reposition?

 

Saying you lack reading comphrehension is not an insult, it is objective since you obviously didn't read my question entirely since you didn't answer all of it. Furthermore, you keep insisting that you read all of my question while at the same time not answering all of it.

You, on the other hand, result to the whole "you're bad if you don't agree with me" statement, which is more like an insult than a counterargument.

I answered your question. All of it. Saying I lack comprehension is an insult.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 31 mars 2012 - 04:59 .