Hate to say it but its the hardest difficulty that the most difficult to get right. And the one that should be focused on. If gold is balanced silver and bronze will follow.
The balance really is just another sign of how rushed ME3 was.
People need to stop referring to Gold for stats...
Débuté par
Silvair
, mars 29 2012 05:49
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:06
GGW KillerTiger
-
- Members
- 4 565 messages
No Bioware sees something that makes gold "easy" for certain players and they super nerf that and super buff the enemies just to make sure gold stays next to impossable to play ..... So uh yea they suck at balancing because they just balance the niche of stuff the players get so they don't do anything anymore.xiaoassassin wrote...
Gold tells BW how poorly balanced the game is right now. If Silver/Bronze was used as a benchmark then nothing would change. Balancing from the top is the way games get fixed.
#53
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:09
Waykam
-
- Members
- 75 messages
BW needs to change the way weapons are upgraded to force diversity. Make it so you can change the weapons level (within the levels you have unlocked) as you do the mods, so you can choose to have a level V or level X weapon equipped.
The reason for this is that the weight of the weapon should not go down as it gets more powerful. It defeats the object of having different classes if you can have a Carnifex X on an AA and still have 200% CD, you should have to make a compromise for biotic power over weapon damage/accuracy/clip size....
It would make the Soldiers grenades a lot more attractive as they could carry 2 X level weapons and still use their abilities effectively.
The reason for this is that the weight of the weapon should not go down as it gets more powerful. It defeats the object of having different classes if you can have a Carnifex X on an AA and still have 200% CD, you should have to make a compromise for biotic power over weapon damage/accuracy/clip size....
It would make the Soldiers grenades a lot more attractive as they could carry 2 X level weapons and still use their abilities effectively.
#54
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:22
NSGM
-
- Members
- 211 messages
Weapon Imbalance: How and Why...
The reason that many weapons are considered weak, or powerful for that matter, in ME3 MP is maily due to how they perform versus armor. This is because armor is the major defense mechanic seen on any tough enemy. Armor has a very odd damage reduction system at the moment, atleast IMO. It's damage reduction system places a flat penalty on each bullet or power which hits it. This obviously makes slower firing weapons less penalized than faster firing weapons because the percentage of bullet damage reduced is entirely dependant on the strength of said bullet.
WALL OF TEXT INCOMING (SCROLL DOWN FOR TL;DR):
Here's what actually happens:
First we'll look at an SMG and Sniper Rifle on Bronze versus armor:
(Numbers are not actual in game numbers outside of damage reduction figures)
Our SMG does 50 damage per bullet. It fires 5 bullets per second, over 4 seconds it does 1000 damage.
Our Sniper Rifle does 500 damage per bullet. It fires 0.5 bullets per second, over 4 seconds it does 1000 damage.
On face value it appears that these two weapons will perform similarly, given perfect operating conditions. However, when we factor in armor's damage reduction system, things start to change.
Damage Reduction takes 15 damage from each bullet/power that hits the target.
Our SMG is losing 15 damage per bullet, 75 damage per second, over 4 seconds it loses 300 damage.
Our Sniper Rifle is losing 15 damage per bullet, 7.5 damage per second, over 4 seconds it loses 30 damage.
Now, we see that the SMG loses more damage because the damage reduction applies to each bullet. In essence, the SMG is now doing 700 damage in those 4 seconds, the Sniper Rifle is now doing 970 damage. A 270 damage differential on Bronze.
On Gold the system takes 50 damage per bullet/power that hits the target. Now, the SMG only does 50 damage so you'd think it'd do nothing, but the system requires that each bullet do a minimum of 5 damage per bullet.
So, while the Sniper Rifle loses 100 damage at 50 per bullet, the SMG is now losing 45 damage per bullet, it effectively loses more damage than the sniper rifle in 3 bullets. In total, the Sniper Rifle now does 900 damage, the SMG now does 100 damage.
TL;DR:
The solution to armor's lopsided damage reduction system is one of two things:
1) Change some powerful enemies to use shields or barriers instead of armor, give rapid fire weapons damage bonuses versus said defenses.
2) Re-vamp armor's damge reduction system to take a percentage of each bullet/power instead of a flat value. I.E. On Bronze, instead of having a penalty per bullet of 15 damage have a penalty per bullet of 10%. This would shift the damage penalties from 30% on the SMG and 3% on the Sniper Rifle to 10% flat. On Gold it would shift penalties from 90% on the SMG and 10% on the Sniper Rifle to 30% or whatever percentage works.
Essentially, full auto guns need need to function properly versus the hardened enemies (Brutes, Banshees, Ravagers, Primes, Pyros, Atlases, etc) Otherwise, no one taking this game seriously will use these weapons on higher difficulties. The current system actually promotes the use of the slowest, hardest hitting weapon you can find.
EDIT: The reason that Gold is used as the standard for most in-depth strategic discussion on this forum is easily explained. The majority of people posting said "strategy" on these forums are dedicated ME3 gamers. Dedicated ME3 gamers progressively get better and better at ME3 MP. As you get better, you play the harder difficulties. Therefore, reading about how to maximize your effectiveness and how things work on Bronze, or even Silver for that matter, aren't as relevant to the majority of strategists on this forum. Using gold as the standard allows people to figure out what works best, and you can be 95% sure that if it works well on Gold, it'll work on Silver and Bronze. So don't think of it as people being elitist, instead think of it as advice from the people that play the game the most and use the information as you see fit.
The reason that many weapons are considered weak, or powerful for that matter, in ME3 MP is maily due to how they perform versus armor. This is because armor is the major defense mechanic seen on any tough enemy. Armor has a very odd damage reduction system at the moment, atleast IMO. It's damage reduction system places a flat penalty on each bullet or power which hits it. This obviously makes slower firing weapons less penalized than faster firing weapons because the percentage of bullet damage reduced is entirely dependant on the strength of said bullet.
WALL OF TEXT INCOMING (SCROLL DOWN FOR TL;DR):
Here's what actually happens:
First we'll look at an SMG and Sniper Rifle on Bronze versus armor:
(Numbers are not actual in game numbers outside of damage reduction figures)
Our SMG does 50 damage per bullet. It fires 5 bullets per second, over 4 seconds it does 1000 damage.
Our Sniper Rifle does 500 damage per bullet. It fires 0.5 bullets per second, over 4 seconds it does 1000 damage.
On face value it appears that these two weapons will perform similarly, given perfect operating conditions. However, when we factor in armor's damage reduction system, things start to change.
Damage Reduction takes 15 damage from each bullet/power that hits the target.
Our SMG is losing 15 damage per bullet, 75 damage per second, over 4 seconds it loses 300 damage.
Our Sniper Rifle is losing 15 damage per bullet, 7.5 damage per second, over 4 seconds it loses 30 damage.
Now, we see that the SMG loses more damage because the damage reduction applies to each bullet. In essence, the SMG is now doing 700 damage in those 4 seconds, the Sniper Rifle is now doing 970 damage. A 270 damage differential on Bronze.
On Gold the system takes 50 damage per bullet/power that hits the target. Now, the SMG only does 50 damage so you'd think it'd do nothing, but the system requires that each bullet do a minimum of 5 damage per bullet.
So, while the Sniper Rifle loses 100 damage at 50 per bullet, the SMG is now losing 45 damage per bullet, it effectively loses more damage than the sniper rifle in 3 bullets. In total, the Sniper Rifle now does 900 damage, the SMG now does 100 damage.
TL;DR:
The solution to armor's lopsided damage reduction system is one of two things:
1) Change some powerful enemies to use shields or barriers instead of armor, give rapid fire weapons damage bonuses versus said defenses.
2) Re-vamp armor's damge reduction system to take a percentage of each bullet/power instead of a flat value. I.E. On Bronze, instead of having a penalty per bullet of 15 damage have a penalty per bullet of 10%. This would shift the damage penalties from 30% on the SMG and 3% on the Sniper Rifle to 10% flat. On Gold it would shift penalties from 90% on the SMG and 10% on the Sniper Rifle to 30% or whatever percentage works.
Essentially, full auto guns need need to function properly versus the hardened enemies (Brutes, Banshees, Ravagers, Primes, Pyros, Atlases, etc) Otherwise, no one taking this game seriously will use these weapons on higher difficulties. The current system actually promotes the use of the slowest, hardest hitting weapon you can find.
EDIT: The reason that Gold is used as the standard for most in-depth strategic discussion on this forum is easily explained. The majority of people posting said "strategy" on these forums are dedicated ME3 gamers. Dedicated ME3 gamers progressively get better and better at ME3 MP. As you get better, you play the harder difficulties. Therefore, reading about how to maximize your effectiveness and how things work on Bronze, or even Silver for that matter, aren't as relevant to the majority of strategists on this forum. Using gold as the standard allows people to figure out what works best, and you can be 95% sure that if it works well on Gold, it'll work on Silver and Bronze. So don't think of it as people being elitist, instead think of it as advice from the people that play the game the most and use the information as you see fit.
Modifié par NSGM, 29 mars 2012 - 11:30 .
#55
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:23
niko20
-
- Members
- 410 messages
MartialArtsSurfer wrote...
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 belowWynne wrote...
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.Liana Nighthawk wrote...
The things that make gold a walkover
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.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.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...
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.
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
Wut? For one thing Gold games take forever, the last gold game I played we took like 30 minutes, I don't think it's always worth it, the extra stress, when I could just play two silvers in the same amount of time and know I can win without being swarmed nearly as bad.
It's also my opinion that we shouldn't use Gold as the standard either, it's known as insanity for a reason. In fact I thought I had read that bronze was normal, silver was hardcore, and gold was insanity.
-niko
#56
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:30
niko20
-
- Members
- 410 messages
NSGM wrote...
Weapon Imbalance: How and Why...
The reason that many weapons are considered weak, or powerful for that matter, in ME3 MP is maily due to how they perform versus armor. This is because armor is the major defense mechanic seen on any tough enemy. Armor has a very odd damage reduction system at the moment, atleast IMO. It's damage reduction system places a flat penalty on each bullet or power which hits it. This obviously makes slower firing weapons less penalized than faster firing weapons because the percentage of bullet damage reduced is entirely dependant on the strength of said bullet.
WALL OF TEXT INCOMING (SCROLL DOWN FOR TL;DR):
Here's what actually happens:
First we'll look at an SMG and Sniper Rifle on Bronze versus armor:
(Numbers are not actual in game numbers outside of damage reduction figures)
Our SMG does 50 damage per bullet. It fires 5 bullets per second, over 4 seconds it does 1000 damage.
Our Sniper Rifle does 500 damage per bullet. It fires 0.5 bullets per second, over 4 seconds it does 1000 damage.
On face value it appears that these two weapons will perform similarly, given perfect operating conditions. However, when we factor in armor's damage reduction system, things start to change.
Damage Reduction takes 15 damage from each bullet/power that hits the target.
Our SMG is losing 15 damage per bullet, 75 damage per second, over 4 seconds it loses 300 damage.
Our Sniper Rifle is losing 15 damage per bullet, 7.5 damage per second, over 4 seconds it loses 30 damage.
Now, we see that the SMG loses more damage because the damage reduction applies to each bullet. In essence, the SMG is now doing 700 damage in those 4 seconds, the Sniper Rifle is now doing 970 damage. A 270 damage differential on Bronze.
On Gold the system takes 50 damage per bullet/power that hits the target. Now, the SMG only does 50 damage so you'd think it'd do nothing, but the system requires that each bullet do a minimum of 5 damage per bullet.
So, while the Sniper Rifle loses 100 damage at 50 per bullet, the SMG is now losing 45 damage per bullet, it effectively loses more damage than the sniper rifle in 3 bullets. In total, the Sniper Rifle now does 900 damage, the SMG now does 100 damage.
TL;DR:
The solution to armor's lopsided damage reduction system is one of two things:
1) Change some powerful enemies to use shields or barriers instead of armor, give rapid fire weapons damage bonuses versus said defenses.
2) Re-vamp armor's damge reduction system to take a percentage of each bullet/power instead of a flat value. I.E. On Bronze, instead of having a penalty per bullet of 15 damage have a penalty per bullet of 10%. This would shift the damage penalties from 30% on the SMG and 3% on the Sniper Rifle to 10% flat. On Gold it would shift penalties from 90% on the SMG and 10% on the Sniper Rifle to 30% or whatever percentage works.
Essentially, full auto guns need need to function properly versus the hardened enemies (Brutes, Banshees, Ravagers, Primes, Pyros, Atlases, etc) Otherwise, no one taking this game seriously will use these weapons on higher difficulties. The current system actually promotes the use of the slowest, hardest hitting weapon you can find.
The reason that people talk about gold, atleast in regard to this particular issue, is due to the fact that the rapid fire weapons literally become worthless versus armor in gold. They are penalized in Bronze/Silver, but as the math above shows, they are just plain junk in gold. So, fix gold, fix the rest.
The problem with this is then Gold doesn't really become any different than the other difficulties - the only difference would be the enemies have *more* armor than usual?
It seems that instead of just upping the HP and armor numbers they instead muck around with the bullet damage. But I'm thinking both methods will have the same effect.
For example, if you did percentages, wouldn't the guns perform close to the same as they do now on Silver/Bronze? So what is the change in difficulty then if your weapons can still function? If an enemy has lots of armor I don't expect an SMG to be able to do much!...
#57
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:32
EwEs2
-
- Members
- 155 messages
So, basically what you are saying (gold as standart guys) is that gold is so easy with sertant characters and build-ups and practically impossible with others. So your solution is to buff these impossible characters and build-ups so they would be viable, and thus make gold easy with everything. Am I right?
#58
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:39
bloodDragon80
-
- Members
- 685 messages
it shouldn't be easy with anything but all classes should be equally effectiveEwEs2 wrote...
So, basically what you are saying (gold as standart guys) is that gold is so easy with sertant characters and build-ups and practically impossible with others. So your solution is to buff these impossible characters and build-ups so they would be viable, and thus make gold easy with everything. Am I right?
#59
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:44
EwEs2
-
- Members
- 155 messages
bloodDragon80 wrote...
it shouldn't be easy with anything but all classes should be equally effectiveEwEs2 wrote...
So, basically what you are saying (gold as standart guys) is that gold is so easy with sertant characters and build-ups and practically impossible with others. So your solution is to buff these impossible characters and build-ups so they would be viable, and thus make gold easy with everything. Am I right?
Yes Yes, I get that, but people is saying that it is easy with 4 X AA and impossible with even one soldier in lobby, and then saying soldiers are supost to be buffed up, but so, that it is still a challenge.
I don't get that. Why not nerf AA just a bit and buff soldier just a bit. Why buff soldier all the way to the level the AA is?
#60
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:45
NSGM
-
- Members
- 211 messages
niko20 wrote...
The problem with this is then Gold doesn't really become any different than the other difficulties - the only difference would be the enemies have *more* armor than usual?
It seems that instead of just upping the HP and armor numbers they instead muck around with the bullet damage. But I'm thinking both methods will have the same effect.
For example, if you did percentages, wouldn't the guns perform close to the same as they do now on Silver/Bronze? So what is the change in difficulty then if your weapons can still function? If an enemy has lots of armor I don't expect an SMG to be able to do much!...
They actually do both, they up HP and Shields/Armor numbers, and armor's damage reduction number increases as well. It goes from 15 on Bronze to 50 on Gold. If the system was changed to flat percentages, Full Auto weapons would function more closely to how they function on silver and bronze yes, they would do more damage. However, slow firing weapons would obviously get a decrease in damage. Right now the damage penalty to a shot from a Widow with no damage modifiers is only 5% on gold. The damage penalty to a shot from pretty much any full auto weapon is close to 90%. 90% Regardless of whether its an SMG or an Assault Rifle, simply because its damage is spread across multiple bullets.
Anyway, if they changed the system, the penalties would be the same regardless of firing speed and you could therefore use either an Assault Rifle or a Sniper Rifle on Gold and still be able to damage armor. It would still be more difficult because the sniper wouldn't be doing the crazy damage they do now, they'd be doing less.
I understand and symphathize with your worry, that Gold then doesn't become any more difficult than other difficulties. But is the difficulty in gold really that certain weapons are worthless?
IMO, It isn't, atleast not after your first gold game, because you understand at that point that rapid fire weapons just aren't worth taking alot. So, instead of making things more difficult, the system is really just forcing your to use slow firing weapons. Basically, the question is this: Does being able to use full-auto weapons make the game easier?
EDIT:
This whole change is predicated upon the fact that Bioware has decided to make armor the go-to defense on any tough enemy. If they were to change the high end enemy defenses to be more varied then the change would be unneccesary because full-auto weapons wouldn't be receiving high damage penalties on virtually every tough enemy.
When I say varied, I don't mean having shields on Atlas' and Primes and/or Barriers on Banshees with armor underneath. I mean having their entire defense system made up of shields or barriers and therefore implementing a similar damage reduction system for those defenses which promoted the use of rapid fire weapons. This would encourage players to bring a variety of weapons to the table as well as a variety of classes/powers.
Modifié par NSGM, 29 mars 2012 - 11:53 .
#61
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 11:48
bloodDragon80
-
- Members
- 685 messages
well if you ask me its because touching the AA at all nerf wise would make everyone go ape S*** crazyEwEs2 wrote...
bloodDragon80 wrote...
it shouldn't be easy with anything but all classes should be equally effectiveEwEs2 wrote...
So, basically what you are saying (gold as standart guys) is that gold is so easy with sertant characters and build-ups and practically impossible with others. So your solution is to buff these impossible characters and build-ups so they would be viable, and thus make gold easy with everything. Am I right?
Yes Yes, I get that, but people is saying that it is easy with 4 X AA and impossible with even one soldier in lobby, and then saying soldiers are supost to be buffed up, but so, that it is still a challenge.
I don't get that. Why not nerf AA just a bit and buff soldier just a bit. Why buff soldier all the way to the level the AA is?
#62
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 12:04
MatyrGustav
-
- Members
- 110 messages
Bioware balances the game around gold because the power, and gun effectiveness are noticeable in that mode.
If you have a weak and a strong power, how would you know which power needs balancing when they both kill the enemy in one shot?
If you have a weak and a strong power, how would you know which power needs balancing when they both kill the enemy in one shot?
#63
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 12:18
Chrumpek
-
- Members
- 458 messages
@niko20 you can't possibly tell me that 2 and a half silver is quicker then one gold run....
Also you say like silver is always super quick, no stress 100% success. It is if you got your friends, in which case you should just go for gold and earn more quicker.
With randoms silver is same length as gold and is deffo not 100% win.
Also you say like silver is always super quick, no stress 100% success. It is if you got your friends, in which case you should just go for gold and earn more quicker.
With randoms silver is same length as gold and is deffo not 100% win.
#64
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 12:28
kyles3
-
- Members
- 1 984 messages
xiaoassassin wrote...
Gold tells BW how poorly balanced the game is right now. If Silver/Bronze was used as a benchmark then nothing would change. Balancing from the top is the way games get fixed.
I don't have the skills to hang on Gold and probably never will, but I agree with this. Knowing that certain weapons and classes--or class, rather; hi, Human Soldier--have a "ceiling" tends to prevent me from using them even on lower difficulties where you can make almost anything work. Even if I never get to Gold, I don't want to play with weapons and/or classes that won't give me the option to get there.
#65
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 12:46
Waykam
-
- Members
- 75 messages
Which is why I think the weight system should be reversed. Carry a Black Widow X and you should have a very negative CD%. At the moment there is no point to the CD bonus as most weapons give you a positive CD bonus when you get it to level X.
The high damage bolt action sniper rifles should never give you a positive CD bonus, SMGs should hover 100-150% CD. AR -25 to +30% CD bonus and so on. Make the CD bonus something you have to balance.
The high damage bolt action sniper rifles should never give you a positive CD bonus, SMGs should hover 100-150% CD. AR -25 to +30% CD bonus and so on. Make the CD bonus something you have to balance.
#66
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 12:50
NotABot19
-
- Members
- 100 messages
MartialArtsSurfer wrote...
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 belowWynne wrote...
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.Liana Nighthawk wrote...
The things that make gold a walkover
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.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.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...
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.
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
I'm sorry the comparison to professional sports made me laugh out loud. Gold is difficult but I think that analogy is blown way out of proportion. Maybe gold is that intramural league you created with your friends and actually take sorta seriously. C'mon, if I can beat Gold over 50% of the time with randoms using no mic, no super detailed coordinated strategies, etc. then it's not nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be. Gold is becoming the standard because every player who's played this game more than a week should be able to beat it. Sure you may beat it every time because you use coordinated teamwork, teamchat, and the optimal builds/strategies, but saying that doing that makes you similar to professional athletes is insulting how much effort they put into their respective sports.
#67
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 01:17
sideshow-
-
- Members
- 34 messages
A lot of people seem to be seeing half the picture: the difficulty level is only part of the input. The other is Enemy. If you're playing on Gold, but selecting which enemy to fight on a round-by-round basis then sorry: you're not pro. you're not leet: you're playing Easy Mode. A well balanced squad is one which can take on any Enemy faction, i.e. is designed for Random. Of course if you min/max your crew to fight Geth they will have a much easier time against them than a squad that can take on any enemy equally, but that same crew will fall over and die v Reapers.
Bare in mind this is what Bioware are aiming at: this is why they allow things like the Quarian Infiltrator - potentially completely broken v one faction, but at the same time extremely poor v another.
I'd be interested to hear from the posters who say Gold is a walkover with the right Squad loadout, if they are playing on Random Enemy. What do you think is OP in Gold? SI and AA are about the only ones I can think of, since they are great versus anything.
As to OP's point... ideally all three difficulties should be tweaked so that they are all balanced, but yes, I agree: Silver should be the main one to concentrate on.
Bare in mind this is what Bioware are aiming at: this is why they allow things like the Quarian Infiltrator - potentially completely broken v one faction, but at the same time extremely poor v another.
I'd be interested to hear from the posters who say Gold is a walkover with the right Squad loadout, if they are playing on Random Enemy. What do you think is OP in Gold? SI and AA are about the only ones I can think of, since they are great versus anything.
As to OP's point... ideally all three difficulties should be tweaked so that they are all balanced, but yes, I agree: Silver should be the main one to concentrate on.
#68
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 01:29
jimmyw404
-
- Members
- 748 messages
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.
I've played around 3 rounds of silver. I've played around 80 rounds of gold.
Why would I give two ****s about what someone says when they use silver as a metric? There's been many times when some badass comes in with a masterplan, only to submit later that he's 'never tried gold'. Honestly, if you're not talking about your experience with gold you shouldn't be posting your opinion.
Modifié par jimmyw404, 29 mars 2012 - 01:30 .
#69
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 01:31
Keldaurz
-
- Members
- 373 messages
EwEs2 wrote...
bloodDragon80 wrote...
it shouldn't be easy with anything but all classes should be equally effectiveEwEs2 wrote...
So, basically what you are saying (gold as standart guys) is that gold is so easy with sertant characters and build-ups and practically impossible with others. So your solution is to buff these impossible characters and build-ups so they would be viable, and thus make gold easy with everything. Am I right?
Yes Yes, I get that, but people is saying that it is easy with 4 X AA and impossible with even one soldier in lobby, and then saying soldiers are supost to be buffed up, but so, that it is still a challenge.
I don't get that. Why not nerf AA just a bit and buff soldier just a bit. Why buff soldier all the way to the level the AA is?
The most important thing is doing class nearly equal on usefulness and yet different, then you can start talking about if it's too hard or easy and workfrom that.
#70
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 01:32
jaydubs67
-
- Members
- 2 734 messages
Waykam wrote...
Which is why I think the weight system should be reversed. Carry a Black Widow X and you should have a very negative CD%. At the moment there is no point to the CD bonus as most weapons give you a positive CD bonus when you get it to level X.
The high damage bolt action sniper rifles should never give you a positive CD bonus, SMGs should hover 100-150% CD. AR -25 to +30% CD bonus and so on. Make the CD bonus something you have to balance.
I could see that helping, but I don't think that would really fix the balance by itself.
#71
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 01:34
Keldaurz
-
- Members
- 373 messages
sideshow- wrote...
A lot of people seem to be seeing half the picture: the difficulty level is only part of the input. The other is Enemy. If you're playing on Gold, but selecting which enemy to fight on a round-by-round basis then sorry: you're not pro. you're not leet: you're playing Easy Mode. A well balanced squad is one which can take on any Enemy faction, i.e. is designed for Random. Of course if you min/max your crew to fight Geth they will have a much easier time against them than a squad that can take on any enemy equally, but that same crew will fall over and die v Reapers.
Bare in mind this is what Bioware are aiming at: this is why they allow things like the Quarian Infiltrator - potentially completely broken v one faction, but at the same time extremely poor v another.
I'd be interested to hear from the posters who say Gold is a walkover with the right Squad loadout, if they are playing on Random Enemy. What do you think is OP in Gold? SI and AA are about the only ones I can think of, since they are great versus anything.
As to OP's point... ideally all three difficulties should be tweaked so that they are all balanced, but yes, I agree: Silver should be the main one to concentrate on.
SI , SE, AA and DA is quite a good take all comers party.
#72
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 01:57
Edalborez
-
- Members
- 1 401 messages
It's nice to wish for, but this is flawed. Perfect balance in a multi-class system is nigh-impossible to reasonably obtain. Some classes will be better than others. Others will be perceived as better because of a lower skill barrier, higher efficiencey, or exploiting behavioral patterns. Why? Perfect balance is boring, and that's not a bad thing.bloodDragon80 wrote...
it shouldn't be easy with anything but all classes should be equally effective
#73
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 02:00
sideshow-
-
- Members
- 34 messages
Keldaurz wrote...
sideshow- wrote...
A lot of people seem to be seeing half the picture: the difficulty level is only part of the input. The other is Enemy. If you're playing on Gold, but selecting which enemy to fight on a round-by-round basis then sorry: you're not pro. you're not leet: you're playing Easy Mode. A well balanced squad is one which can take on any Enemy faction, i.e. is designed for Random. Of course if you min/max your crew to fight Geth they will have a much easier time against them than a squad that can take on any enemy equally, but that same crew will fall over and die v Reapers.
Bare in mind this is what Bioware are aiming at: this is why they allow things like the Quarian Infiltrator - potentially completely broken v one faction, but at the same time extremely poor v another.
I'd be interested to hear from the posters who say Gold is a walkover with the right Squad loadout, if they are playing on Random Enemy. What do you think is OP in Gold? SI and AA are about the only ones I can think of, since they are great versus anything.
As to OP's point... ideally all three difficulties should be tweaked so that they are all balanced, but yes, I agree: Silver should be the main one to concentrate on.
SI , SE, AA and DA is quite a good take all comers party.
Would you say that squad makes Gold a cakewalk, do-able, or a challenge?
SE btw.
#74
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 02:13
Aerius
-
- Members
- 256 messages
sideshow- wrote...
Would you say that squad makes Gold a cakewalk, do-able, or a challenge?Keldaurz wrote...
SI , SE, AA and DA is quite a good take all comers party.
If the team has experience and plays well together it's do-able. If there are people in there that dunno what to do it's impossible, even with the best chars.
Also, with this squad, geth will be harder than cerberus, for example. If you switch out the Drell against another Salarian Infiltrator, Geth again will be a lot easier. However, against Reapers you definitely profit a huge lot from bringing two Biotics, assuming they know how to work together.
Gold is never a cakewalk. For example, The Hack-Bubble achievement on Reactor in the middle of the map where you have no cover and can be attacked from three sides is always a pain, especially against reapers, but also against the other fractions. Even if you have the best squad and the best teamwork, it's still hard.
In comparison, White is the easiest map (in general) and many sub-perfect lineups can work there.
Don't make it to easy. There are more factors than just the lineup, even if this is a huge issue.
Also, it's not all black and white. A very good squad can easily drag a soldier along on white against geth, for example. He just won't be very helpful in comparison to many, many other classes.
#75
Posté 29 mars 2012 - 02:13
hireuin
-
- Members
- 191 messages
zhk3r wrote...
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.
lmao i played with that sandiego guy last night and he was bugging through the floor, as vanguards occasionally do.
he was useful before he became useless
