229 réponses à ce sujet

[niko20]

NSGM wrote...

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!...


slow firing weapons will still do more damage since they have a higher damage in the first place. the key to defeating armor period is a high power heavy hitter. and rapid fire weapons are not that.

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.

[niko20]

Even if they changed the modifiers to percentages slow firing weapons will still do more damage because they have more base damage anyway. More armor requires a heavy hitting weapon and rapid fire weapons just wont cut it no matter what. Thats why i dont believe you can make it so its possible to use any weapon. Even in the real world you cant go up againt a tank with an SMG. 

its one thing to say you cant use a certain weapon on gold because its not effective. its another to state that the weapon should be buffed so it will work on gold. that doesnt make sense to me when the whole point of gold is enemies witb heavier armor and shields. you cant use small rapid fire against that. now i would agree though that rapid fire should take shields down faster.

Modifié par niko20, 29 mars 2012 - 02:35 .

[SgtGrumbles]

Gold is all about dem bio explosionz son. W/e, surprised it hasn't been nerfed yet but they nerf the falcon lol.

Modifié par SgtGrumbles, 29 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[Sjrv]

Games should be balanced down, not up. If balance keeps making everything more powerful, soon everything will be just too easy. Like it happened e.g. to WoW. If some stuff is OP, it shouldn't be treated as a reference for balancing other stuff so it reaches the same level of OP-ness. Nerfing the OP is a better solution.

[Aerius]

SgtGrumbles wrote...

Gold is all about dem bio explosionz son. W/e, surprised it hasn't been nerfed yet but they nerf the falcon lol.

This is untrue as well. You can easily win gold with 4 infiltrators or any number of engineers/infiltrators as well ("easy" in comparison to other lineups). Without a single biotic skill.

[leewells]

Atheosis wrote...

Game balance should not be determined by the lowest common denominator. Most of the issues that exist on Gold exist on all difficulty levels, they're just magnified because of the fact that enemies are "cranked up". AR's don't do as much damage as they should on any difficulty. Human soldiers are weaker than all the other classes on any difficulty. And so on. If Gold becomes better balanced that does not hurt Silver and Bronze. If anything it improves them as well.

By the way, most powers are not pointless on Gold. A few are, but most are still perfectly viable. Weapons have issues though, but again those issues exist on all difficulties (sniper rifles and pistols are the best guns on Bronze just as much as on Gold, and AR's and SMG's are clearly second class citizens for the most part across difficulties as well). The weapon balance is just wonky in this game. Period.

You are not suggesting that SR's should be weaker than AR's are you?  I hope not because their purpose is just that -- one shot, one kill (Hooah!).

[Atheosis]

Sjrv wrote...

Games should be balanced down, not up. If balance keeps making everything more powerful, soon everything will be just too easy. Like it happened e.g. to WoW. If some stuff is OP, it shouldn't be treated as a reference for balancing other stuff so it reaches the same level of OP-ness. Nerfing the OP is a better solution.

They can always just buff the enemies if it gets too easy.  Nerfing things causes discontent amongst players for obvious reasons.  

[Atheosis]

leewells wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

Game balance should not be determined by the lowest common denominator. Most of the issues that exist on Gold exist on all difficulty levels, they're just magnified because of the fact that enemies are "cranked up". AR's don't do as much damage as they should on any difficulty. Human soldiers are weaker than all the other classes on any difficulty. And so on. If Gold becomes better balanced that does not hurt Silver and Bronze. If anything it improves them as well.

By the way, most powers are not pointless on Gold. A few are, but most are still perfectly viable. Weapons have issues though, but again those issues exist on all difficulties (sniper rifles and pistols are the best guns on Bronze just as much as on Gold, and AR's and SMG's are clearly second class citizens for the most part across difficulties as well). The weapon balance is just wonky in this game. Period.

You are not suggesting that SR's should be weaker than AR's are you?  I hope not because their purpose is just that -- one shot, one kill (Hooah!).

Their sustained DPS should be lower yes, but I'm not advocating nerfing sniper rifles, just buffing assault rifles (especially the fully automatic assault rifles which almost all have ****** poor DPS for some reason).

[Samerandomscreennameidontcareabout]

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

Sooner or later, you will find yourself playing gold, because silver offers no challenge anymore. So, from my point of view: Stop referring to bronze and silver matches, ESPECIALLY if you are one of those "The M-37 Falcon is still a good weapon" guys.

Gold should be the official reference to anything in ME3 MP. If you are talking about bronze and silver, state it in your thread. Otherwise accept, that most people WILL talk about Gold in terms of tactics and weapons.

[stribies]

Silvair wrote...

Trakarg wrote...

So, what, should we use bronze as a standard? Lol.

Bronze is the other extreme.  use silver, because it's the average, the standard.

Bronze is easy
Silver is normal
Gold is hard.

You never use Easy or Hard as points of reference, because they are variations of the standard, Normal.

Silver is stupidly easy too. Anything that works on gold will work even better on silver. That's why the hardest difficulty is usually the standard  in any game.

[Hyunsai]

Silver will always be a challenge if the vast majority of the games are pick up and random teams.

And if you've got no friends available to play this game, you can just forget Gold.

Hard to balance something played by an extreme minority of people.

[SgtGrumbles]

Aerius wrote...

SgtGrumbles wrote...

Gold is all about dem bio explosionz son. W/e, surprised it hasn't been nerfed yet but they nerf the falcon lol.

This is untrue as well. You can easily win gold with 4 infiltrators or any number of engineers/infiltrators as well ("easy" in comparison to other lineups). Without a single biotic skill.

Yeah.... but they don't win in 15 minutes.  I'll have won two games before you finish one.

Modifié par SgtGrumbles, 29 mars 2012 - 03:07 .

[robarcool]

Troll thread

[jonal11]

 I think Ron Paul would approve of the Gold standard. 

[GodlessPaladin]

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.

To the contrary, Gold is easily the best judge of the effectiveness of weapons and powers because it provides the most strenuous conditions.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 29 mars 2012 - 03:43 .

[Aerius]

Hyunsai wrote...
And if you've got no friends available to play this game, you can just forget Gold.

I only play gold nowadays and I only play randoms. And, oh god forbid, I finish rounds. Not as "carrying my team", but in equal balanced and often well-played coop matches.

[Your Denden]

My opinions about the subject:

• Gold delivers the most strenuous conditions
• The conditions Bioware are making do not help much with some aspects in the game. The result is the "weak" classes and weapons.
• The conditions are lacking.

For me, the solutions either of these are:

• Fix the bullet resistance of enemies to cater around balance between differing weapon types
◘◘ by making different conditions per weapon instead of using the same conditions on every weapon (e.g. instead of reducing flat 50 on all bullets, reduce flat 50 per sniper bullet, but 5 per smg bullet - this is merely an example not the desired value)
◘◘ by making bullet resistance percentage based rather than a flat value
◘◘ by completely removing this condition and instead cater around increasing the numerical values of other objects of interest

• Buff the weaker classes that are almost always not viable in Gold
◘◘ by improving abilities that will level themselves with the current standard (e.g. making Adrenaline Rush ignore bullet resistance conditions)
◘◘ by adding conditions in each difficulty that will cater around making said classes be easier to play (not suggested, but either way a solution)
◘◘ by rebuilding the class from scratch (change abilities)

• Nerf classes that are observed to be too strong even in Gold
◘◘ by reducing effectiveness of abilities - but not to the same extent of the buffs of the classes too weak for Gold.
◘◘ by adding conditions that make enemies gain greater resistance against their abilities existing only in some difficulties, or just Gold (such as reduced Biotic Explosion efficiency)

These solutions may or may not work. And if they are viable, the numerical values set for them may or may not suite the case. If we permit Bioware to experiment instead of complaining in every patch they throw to us, maybe they won't be discouraged to introduce something that might potentially fix something - or even break it; but that's the point of experimentation.

We need a separate "BETA" version, so that BW can introduce extreme or unorthodox patches to it and see if it would work or not.

[mrcanada]

Cyonan wrote...

Gold should still be the standard that Bioware balances around. As long as things are viable in gold, they'll generally be considered viable in everything else.

This, end thread.  This sounds like it's from someone that hasn't played a lot of Gold.  No offense.

Gold has to be the standard of how the game is balanced.

[Hyunsai]

Aerius wrote...

Hyunsai wrote...
And if you've got no friends available to play this game, you can just forget Gold.

I only play gold nowadays and I only play randoms. And, oh god forbid, I finish rounds. Not as "carrying my team", but in equal balanced and often well-played coop matches.

If you case reflects the majority, no problem.

[hammyhamstersy]

mrcanada wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Gold should still be the standard that Bioware balances around. As long as things are viable in gold, they'll generally be considered viable in everything else.

This, end thread.  This sounds like it's from someone that hasn't played a lot of Gold.  No offense.

Gold has to be the standard of how the game is balanced.

totally agree that gold should be the standard.  Cus anything will work on bronze and silver if it works in gold.  and also eventually everyone moves to gold.it offers the the best reward and challenge

[Aerius]

Hyunsai wrote...
If you case reflects the majority, no problem.

Neither one of us has a clue what the majority of the player base is doing.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

TBH I agree with you OP, but in modern day, like the case was with Starcraft II, the game was balanced around the highest tier of play, the result is unbalanced play in lower tiers.

Being this is a CO-OP game though, balance in gold is feasible, and perhaps recommended.

[bloodDragon80]

Samerandomscreennameidontcareabout wrote...

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

Sooner or later, you will find yourself playing gold, because silver offers no challenge anymore. So, from my point of view: Stop referring to bronze and silver matches, ESPECIALLY if you are one of those "The M-37 Falcon is still a good weapon" guys.

Gold should be the official reference to anything in ME3 MP. If you are talking about bronze and silver, state it in your thread. Otherwise accept, that most people WILL talk about Gold in terms of tactics and weapons.

i generally don't like challenge which is why i have never beat a gta game with out cheats yes i could do it but i want to feel relaxed while playing so i play bronze-silver gold to me feels like there is so much pressure to do well and i'm sure i am not alone on this.

[Hyunsai]

Aerius wrote...

Hyunsai wrote...
If you case reflects the majority, no problem.

Neither one of us has a clue what the majority of the player base is doing.

Well, the 1% of games finished in Gold should help, so we have to wait for Bioware to reveal more stats on it.

[Looper128]

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.

+1