229 réponses à ce sujet

[HolyAvenger]

Gold with public lobbies is more and more doable. My completion rate on public gold matches is probably over 50% in the last few days as compared to 10% a week or so ago.

Gold is becoming the standard. Bronze and silver feel like super-easy and easy-mode rather than easy and normal...

Balancing around gold makes sense to me.

[R1cky Da Man 19]

MartialArtsSurfer wrote...

Wynne wrote...

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

The things that make gold a walkover 

Please tell me what you are doing that makes Gold a walkover! Seriously. No sarcasm. I just started playing Gold the last few days and I'm curious. Cerberus with a vanguard/drell adept felt pretty hard, and I've often topped the charts with those characters on Silver. That has not been the case on Gold. 

Tell me how to own, o swami! (Goofy, but still not sarcastic.) I want to make back the million credits or so that I lost in the buggy store, so any sort of strategy recommendations are welcome. It's hard to go back to Silver once you see how many credits you get from succeeding at the mission in Wave 10.

hireuin wrote...

gold is stupidly easy if you have a team that knows what they're doing... so many gold game failures are because 1 or more player in the group couldn't even get 25 kills when you managed to get >50, in effect they were worthless. but that's besides the point...

Are you sure about that? I've had games where a person watched the others' backs and kept me from getting a sword in mine while I was blissfully killing things in front of me not noticing the phantoms that had crept up (so yeah, usually asari adepts); some people always jump on the revives and missions and all of that... obviously killing is important, but it's not the only thing that matters. Distraction/mission time can also matter a lot. 

Plus, if a person gets 24 or 49 kills, does the game register that? What if they get 75 assists? Saying that a person couldn't hit 25 kills and that means they were worthless seems harsh. Maybe it's fair, though... granted, I can't recall ever not getting 25 kills, even on Gold. 

Wynne, good Gold strategy guides & game mechanics by helpful posters that will double your success rates at least & have you earning hundreds of thousands of credits per hour in my sig links below

Gold gives 70-75,000 credits per mission (about 20-25 minutes).. good incentive

Gold reveals nuances because every little bit matters.. on Bronze/Silver, you can afford to have crappy strategies, bad skill choices, bad weapon choices, & still survive.... if a game doesn't reward better strategies, intelliget choices, then it goes from a deep game (chess, strategy games, RPGs) to simple unbalanced CalvinBall or TicTacToe

Bronze/Silver is for messing around with crazy weapon & skill choices, like a fun pickup game of volleyball at the beach or flag football at a picnic

Gold is professional sports where you're playing for keeps-75,000 credits per mission or 150,000-225,000 credits per hour signing bonuses where every tiny statistic & detail, percentages, averages, etc matters (check out the stats page for any NBA, NFL, or MLB player

you lost all credibility the moment you compared players who dogold runs to over-rated american sport stars...

[Nocturnalfox]

A lot of people who go to gold are scrubs.
Or randoms.
That is a fact.
Gold is not hard anymore if you got a proper team, if you don't then it can be a struggle.

[brummbrumm]

gold should be the standard because on all other difficulties, it does not matter whether or not you play as a team.

[Chrumpek]

Nocturnalfox wrote...

A lot of people who go to gold are scrubs.
Or randoms.
That is a fact.
Gold is not hard anymore if you got a proper team, if you don't then it can be a struggle.

durrrr

"A lot of people who go to gold are (...) randoms
    
    gold is not hard anymore if you got a proper team"

HURRR

[zhk3r]

I'm sorry, but no.. Gold is not hard. Get some friends together and work as a team (like intended) and Gold is easy. BioWare seriously needs to add further difficulties.

[Aerius]

brummbrumm wrote...

gold should be the standard because on all other difficulties, it does not matter whether or not you play as a team.

This pretty much. For Silver, you don't need Strategy, you don't need Teamwork, hell, you don't even need a Team. A Salarian Infiltrator can easily solo silver, hell, even with a human adept I made it up till wave 8 orso. And you want this to be a benchmark?
Gold is the only relevant difficulty because it's the only challenge level where things you use and do actually matter.

[iamthedave3]

Balancing around Gold makes sense. Unfortunately, Gold is where the game looks obviously broken.

[Riot Inducer]

And this is why I don't bother trying to talk balance on forums. Only super elite types who apparently solo the hardest difficulty in their sleep post here, invariably skewing all input towards that end of the spectrum.

I guarantee you that the majority of the multiplayer population doesn't do Gold regularly, only the majority of forum posters.

So to everyone saying Gold is easy, I say to you, congratulations you are a very skilled and probably pretty hardcore gamer. You are not the average player, you are the elite, and as such you don't represent the majority of players.

More to the point this means that catering balances to your elite playstyles will have much more far reaching consequences for the majority of the population potentially greatly imbalancing the lower difficulties. So no, I'm sorry but Gold should very much not be the standard for balance.

[brummbrumm]

thats a bit harsh. I am an average player who would never dream of soloing gold and I prefer gold matches due to the forced teamplay ( and the 72k credits, of course ).

gold is not easy, its just more entertaining because you can not play it like a braindead person ( and I see those much more often in bronze and silver ).

If someone wants to play by himself, he or she shouldnt play online - online implies that there are other people playing alongside you.

[Woffen5]

Riot Inducer wrote...

And this is why I don't bother trying to talk balance on forums. Only super elite types who apparently solo the hardest difficulty in their sleep post here, invariably skewing all input towards that end of the spectrum.

I guarantee you that the majority of the multiplayer population doesn't do Gold regularly, only the majority of forum posters.

So to everyone saying Gold is easy, I say to you, congratulations you are a very skilled and probably pretty hardcore gamer. You are not the average player, you are the elite, and as such you don't represent the majority of players.

More to the point this means that catering balances to your elite playstyles will have much more far reaching consequences for the majority of the population potentially greatly imbalancing the lower difficulties. So no, I'm sorry but Gold should very much not be the standard for balance.

Pretty much this.

I daresay that the majority of the ME3 players that plays multiplayer does not find gold to be anywhere near easy, and alot of people certainly dont find silver a walk in the park.

[RiflemanUK]

Difficulties can easily be tweaked, it's just that gold exposes the weak areas because they don't matter in silver and bronze.

It's nothing to do with being the best player and finding it easy or being an elitist.

[xiaoassassin]

Woffen5 wrote...

Riot Inducer wrote...

And this is why I don't bother trying to talk balance on forums. Only super elite types who apparently solo the hardest difficulty in their sleep post here, invariably skewing all input towards that end of the spectrum.

I guarantee you that the majority of the multiplayer population doesn't do Gold regularly, only the majority of forum posters.

So to everyone saying Gold is easy, I say to you, congratulations you are a very skilled and probably pretty hardcore gamer. You are not the average player, you are the elite, and as such you don't represent the majority of players.

More to the point this means that catering balances to your elite playstyles will have much more far reaching consequences for the majority of the population potentially greatly imbalancing the lower difficulties. So no, I'm sorry but Gold should very much not be the standard for balance.

Pretty much this.

I daresay that the majority of the ME3 players that plays multiplayer does not find gold to be anywhere near easy, and alot of people certainly dont find silver a walk in the park.

Just because they don't find it easy doesn't mean they should dictate balance. If the average player finds Silver challenging then would you really honest to god defer to him if you wanted to balance the game? Balancing off of Gold has literally no downsides. It's not like players who run gold want to make asari adept, salarian engi/infil, human vanguard stronger. The fact that so many classes are abandoned in favor of other the few elite speaks to how **** the balance is now. 

The majority of the population won't give a **** about the game's balance because they're too busy having trouble with Silver. Balancing the classes/weapons to the point that more people start running Gold would be a success, not a failure.

[Head1essRooster]

I'm a casual ME3 MP player and I find Gold to be impossible to beat at the moment. Tried it once or twice and it was a desaster. It's too intimidating to try it again.

Therefore, I stick mostly to Bronze and play the occasional Silver game. Even Silver games are pretty difficult to beat when not playing with at least one friend. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't take Gold as a standard. Works for me, I'm happy sticking to the Bronze and Silver games.

Though sometimes it just feels like there should be something between Bronze and Silver.

Oh, and Bioware really should map the Revive option to another button. It's ridicolous how many times a team mate of mine had to die just because my character rather moves to cover instead of actually reviving. But I know, that's not the subject of this thread.

Modifié par Head1essRooster, 29 mars 2012 - 09:56 .

[Abael]

As per the statistics bioware posted, less than 1% of successful games (extraction) are gold. It amazes me how everyone in the forum seems to be in that less than 1% and even more so how they think it's easy and then go on posting screenshots of an all adept team against reapers, or their salarian/quarian eng/inf team against geth and variations of those and then argue that the game should be made more difficult, do you want the game to be more difficult? stop stacking the deck in your favor and play different classes or random enemys, lets see that quarian inf x3 set up against reapers and then post a screenshot of your full extraction.

To the point of the post, i don't think the game should be balanced around gold, they should tweak gold obviously to make more classes/weapons viable there but center on silver when thinking about overall game balance.

[Aerius]

Abael wrote...

As per the statistics bioware posted, less than 1% of successful games (extraction) are gold. It amazes me how everyone in the forum seems to be in that less than 1% and even more so how they think it's easy and then go on posting screenshots of an all adept team against reapers, or their salarian/quarian eng/inf team against geth and variations of those and then argue that the game should be made more difficult, do you want the game to be more difficult? stop stacking the deck in your favor and play different classes or random enemys, lets see that quarian inf x3 set up against reapers and then post a screenshot of your full extraction.

This is a basic misassumption on your side. I doubt any of the regular gold players want to nerf salarians or asari. Quite the contrary, most of the gold players I encountered want to buff the other classes, those, that have a hard time on gold simply because they aren't effective there.
The same applies to weapons and skills, I doubt anyone in their right mind wants to nerf the good ones. Balance goes in both ways. But better assault rifles would benefit the game.

[RiflemanUK]

Yeah I don't know where his idea that balancing around gold means making the game harder.

[Keldaurz]

Silvair wrote...

NOTHING is as it should be on Gold.  With gold, only a few things are "very" effective.

And most people don't play gold because of that.  They have to drop everything and just do the "most" effective.  Most weapons are pointless, most powers are pointless, because enemies are cranked up so high.


Please, stop using Gold as a point of reference for how weapons/powers should work.  It is an extreme, not the standard.

Truth is what works well on gold, works well on silver. And whatever doesn't work on gold, you start to see it a bit lackluster on silver.

So your point is null.

[Keldaurz]

Abael wrote...

As per the statistics bioware posted, less than 1% of successful games (extraction) are gold. It amazes me how everyone in the forum seems to be in that less than 1% and even more so how they think it's easy and then go on posting screenshots of an all adept team against reapers, or their salarian/quarian eng/inf team against geth and variations of those and then argue that the game should be made more difficult, do you want the game to be more difficult? stop stacking the deck in your favor and play different classes or random enemys, lets see that quarian inf x3 set up against reapers and then post a screenshot of your full extraction.

To the point of the post, i don't think the game should be balanced around gold, they should tweak gold obviously to make more classes/weapons viable there but center on silver when thinking about overall game balance.

You know people just die after wave 10 for the creds, right ?

[Aranha]

TSCIGAR wrote...

I would think that the idea that you have to play with certain things on gold would be indicative that gold is where things need to be balanced.

[Lynx7725]

Aerius wrote...
This is a basic misassumption on your side. I doubt any of the regular gold players want to nerf salarians or asari. Quite the contrary, most of the gold players I encountered want to buff the other classes, those, that have a hard time on gold simply because they aren't effective there.
The same applies to weapons and skills, I doubt anyone in their right mind wants to nerf the good ones. Balance goes in both ways. But better assault rifles would benefit the game.

I don't think I can change any mindset here, so all I'll do is put forth my opinion, see what comes out of it. Probably won't respond any more.

The issue with buffing stuff up in Gold is that Gold meta is fundamentally different from Silver and Bronze. A lot more different. Because basic class abilities does not appear to be able to tweak by difficulty levels (e.g., weapons damage is consistent throughout all three levels and cannot be individually tweaked), improving a class abilitiy for Gold would mean a substantial improvement in other levels. 

For example, if the much-asked-for AR damage is upped to a level that ARs are effective in Gold (e.g., Revenant damage to up from the current 70s to say, 90 per shot), in Bronze it'll just slaughter through the enemies. Silver will also be impacted but to a lesser extent.

Yes, you can say that Bioware can tweak Bronze and Silver enemies stats accordingly, but fundamental differences in gameplay put a limit to what can be done. Yes, you can say that the increase in effectiveness in lower levels will drive players to take on harder levels, but it can also drive players away. The majority of players are casual, for-entertainment people. Gold is hard work and rewards accordingly, but these people don't necessarily want to work that hard -- a bit of challenge and they are happy. Slaughter-house isn't going to work. The upshot of it is that it's likely that the playerbase will start to shrink at that point. 

The reason why I don't like Gold as a balance standard is that I feel that move will push players out of the MP game. Since I like ME3 MP, I don't see why I should support a move that will limit my ability to enjoy the MP aspects in the future. 

===============

There's also one other interesting footnote. We've seen Bioware issue 4 balance tweaks, consisting of:

• Sideways shuffling of some class ability.
• Improvement to certain classes (Drell, but one off only).
• Weapons adjustments, typically to nerf, not to improve. At best is "tradeoffs". Exception in AR, which got 2 improvements but stopped this week.
• Increasing Silver and Gold difficulty (Geth; supposedly in response to the ease of farming them).
• Corresponding decrease in Sabotage ability.
• Increase in specific mob stats.

4 to 6 weeks of data is fairly decent basis, especially through 2 event weekends. What we can see -- and this is my interpretation -- is that there were a couple of initial mistakes in balance (ED and Drell), and some continuous monitoring and tweaking, and a major power shift to address a play problem (Geth Farming).

There is however no direct nerf or buff to cater for an specific difficulty level.

Which is a sign (IMO) that Bioware considers that whatever they have right now matches their intended designs. 

Which means Gold is intended to be heavily biased for certain classes and weapons loadout. Some classes may inherently has a handicap in Gold.

Which means weapons that are underpowered now are designed to be underpowered. Or to be used in a way other than direct damage dealing. And won't get a buff in the near future.

Which also means, any drastic change to "balance for Gold" is likely to bring things outside these design parameters, and that likely means going into "imbar" territory elsewhere. Is that good or bad? No way to tell, really, other than trying. Making a mistake here can be costly. 

That's my two credits. I don't expect to change minds. This forum is heavily overran by Gold people, so the mentality is very Gold focussed. I can accept that -- I just ignore those blatantly Gold threads and don't get involved in those discussions. But if we are to suggest changes to BW, we should also think in terms of the whole system, through all the difficulty levels, from recruitment of new players through retention and improvement. 

[Kamlol]

I'm playing gold most of the time with Human Engineer and Phalanx and I finish everytime on top. Is it too hard to get for everyone?!

You can play gold without having Asari Adept/Salarian Engineer/Salarian Infiltrator......

Bronze and silver can be done by a single good player and 3 others afk.

[Alkasyn]

Woffen5 wrote...

Riot Inducer wrote...

And this is why I don't bother trying to talk balance on forums. Only super elite types who apparently solo the hardest difficulty in their sleep post here, invariably skewing all input towards that end of the spectrum.

I guarantee you that the majority of the multiplayer population doesn't do Gold regularly, only the majority of forum posters.

So to everyone saying Gold is easy, I say to you, congratulations you are a very skilled and probably pretty hardcore gamer. You are not the average player, you are the elite, and as such you don't represent the majority of players.

More to the point this means that catering balances to your elite playstyles will have much more far reaching consequences for the majority of the population potentially greatly imbalancing the lower difficulties. So no, I'm sorry but Gold should very much not be the standard for balance.

Pretty much this.

I daresay that the majority of the ME3 players that plays multiplayer does not find gold to be anywhere near easy, and alot of people certainly dont find silver a walk in the park.

Pretty much +1. Plus many people find credits farming on gold boring. The game is not my work, I play it for fun and not to be shoehorned into being an engineer because they kill Geth the fastest on gold.

[MartialArtsSurfer]

R1cky Da Man 19 wrote...

MartialArtsSurfer wrote...

Wynne wrote...

Liana Nighthawk wrote...

The things that make gold a walkover 

Please tell me what you are doing that makes Gold a walkover! Seriously. No sarcasm. I just started playing Gold the last few days and I'm curious. Cerberus with a vanguard/drell adept felt pretty hard, and I've often topped the charts with those characters on Silver. That has not been the case on Gold. 

Tell me how to own, o swami! (Goofy, but still not sarcastic.) I want to make back the million credits or so that I lost in the buggy store, so any sort of strategy recommendations are welcome. It's hard to go back to Silver once you see how many credits you get from succeeding at the mission in Wave 10.

hireuin wrote...

gold is stupidly easy if you have a team that knows what they're doing... so many gold game failures are because 1 or more player in the group couldn't even get 25 kills when you managed to get >50, in effect they were worthless. but that's besides the point...

Are you sure about that? I've had games where a person watched the others' backs and kept me from getting a sword in mine while I was blissfully killing things in front of me not noticing the phantoms that had crept up (so yeah, usually asari adepts); some people always jump on the revives and missions and all of that... obviously killing is important, but it's not the only thing that matters. Distraction/mission time can also matter a lot. 

Plus, if a person gets 24 or 49 kills, does the game register that? What if they get 75 assists? Saying that a person couldn't hit 25 kills and that means they were worthless seems harsh. Maybe it's fair, though... granted, I can't recall ever not getting 25 kills, even on Gold. 

Wynne, good Gold strategy guides & game mechanics by helpful posters that will double your success rates at least & have you earning hundreds of thousands of credits per hour in my sig links below

Gold gives 70-75,000 credits per mission (about 20-25 minutes).. good incentive

Gold reveals nuances because every little bit matters.. on Bronze/Silver, you can afford to have crappy strategies, bad skill choices, bad weapon choices, & still survive.... if a game doesn't reward better strategies, intelliget choices, then it goes from a deep game (chess, strategy games, RPGs) to simple unbalanced CalvinBall or TicTacToe

Bronze/Silver is for messing around with crazy weapon & skill choices, like a fun pickup game of volleyball at the beach or flag football at a picnic

Gold is professional sports where you're playing for keeps-75,000 credits per mission or 150,000-225,000 credits per hour signing bonuses where every tiny statistic & detail, percentages, averages, etc matters (check out the stats page for any NBA, NFL, or MLB player

you lost all credibility the moment you compared players who dogold runs to over-rated american sport stars...

LOL, then you don't comprehend the ANALOGY THAT THEY'RE BOTH GAMES

and that it goes from casual games that require no thought to games that earn you credits that people take in-depth strategizing with in-depth deep statistics & deep strategy..

Modifié par MartialArtsSurfer, 29 mars 2012 - 10:54 .

[Aerius]

Lynx7725 wrote...
lots of text

I agree on certain parts with you, but the main issue, "it's like this by design", you're speaking of, is what the main problem actually is. If you are right with that, if BW actually want gold to heavily favour certain classes and Loadouts because by design they want to have the balance as it is at the moment, the design is just plain bad. Even if this might be a "working as intended", the intention is just... well. Bad. Of course this is highly a matter of taste, but denying the most challenging (and most rewarding) difficulty to a wide array of classes and weapons is just something, that is wrong, if it's made on purpose.