232 réponses à ce sujet

[Father Alvito]

Roninraver wrote...

Actually, it does.  When you're not working in the sciences...

You aren't addressing a scientific body.  You aren't doing science.  You are on a videogame message board, talking about a videogame.  Therefore, common English usage is the standard.

Viable means possible.  Doable.  Workable.

Which, in a strategic environment with multiple actors, does not solely mean 'possible'.

The meanings 'doable' and 'workable' in this context imply a certain level of efficiency that 'possible' just doesn't convey.  In short, 'viable' can be construed to mean 'doesn't suck', to use a highly technical term.

Where we draw the line on 'doesn't suck' may well differ, but it should be possible to agree that viability implies a level of effectiveness above that of a Batarian Soldier shooting a Geth Pulse Rifle at an Atlas on Gold.

Atheosis wrote...

All definitions, no matter how arbitrary, still rely on language to function (in this case English).  You said the English language had very little to do with operational definitions, when the truth is no type of definition can even exist without language.

We can define the concept with mathematics and eschew language entirely...

Modifié par Father Alvito, 17 avril 2012 - 08:21 .

[Cyonan]

Schneidend wrote...

Cyonan wrote...
If you buff all weapons to be on par with power spam, you would just see power spammers bringing those weapons in addition to their power spamming. It happened already with the Falcon pre-nerf which was a moderately heavy rifle.

They need to just buff Soldiers so they can use weapons as effectively as Infiltrators can, if not more so since they are supposed to be the masters of weaponry.

Nerf the base weight capacity values of the Adept, Engineer, and Sentinel into the ground where they belong.

They would still be taking weapons, they would just stick to the ones that are a little bit lighter.

You also still wouldn't have solved anything because now Infiltrators are laughing at everyone while they 1 shot Geth Primes because of their massive levels of damage modifier stacking that a Soldier can never hope to even come close to, much less beat.

[GroverA125]

Javelin will recieve a minor debuff to make up for the geth bonuses. Carnifex will recieve a 10-20% damage decrease. Striker will have it's damage per shot reduced by 35%. GPS will have it's damage reduced by 45%. Major debuffs to all new classes.

But hey, a 10% damage increase to all automatic weapons!

*End of Contribution*

[TSCIGAR]

YuenglingDragon wrote...

I want the game to be harder for a decent team to complete. If I'm in a team that has complementary classes of any flavor and the players know how to use them, then we'll usually beat Gold. That's too easy in my opinion. Of course, I also think most of the weapons are viable on Gold, because I have seen skilled players perform well with them (and sometimes do it myself- my soldier with a much maligned falcon can do wonders, as long as the ammo I choose to bring isn't a relative waste on the enemy, like cryo against geth or disruptor against reapers. Find it's best to go incendiary on random/random).

I think what you really want is a Platinum Difficulty, not a nerf bat.  A group of decent folks at the level cap should be able to reliably beat Gold any map, any enemy.  They should be challenged greatly and fail frequently on a new, yet harder difficulty.

Right now, a team of the "good" classes will tear through White/Geth/Gold.  A group of the "bad" classes will have a much lower win percentage, with the percentage increasing the more "good" classes are mixed in.  But something like Reapers at Glacier or Reactor?  I donm't want your soldier no matter what level you gun is.  It's not a substitute for biotics and tech powers.  That's how you know guns and the classes that need them are underpowered.

Geth White Gold shouldn't be considered for balance. Getting that out of the way right now. A team of mostly "bad" classes and one "good" class can do that. And I don't want a nerf bat. I want most things buffed significantly with some things nerfed somewhat. If you do nothing but buff, then the game will eventually become too easy, so they'll buff the enemies, which will reveal new balance disparities. I want their approach to balancing to be balanced in itself.

And you're underestimating that soldier. Reapers on Glacier with Warp/Incendiary is a great match for him (probably incendiary for the fire explosion).

EDIT: To clarify a position. I do not agree that a decent group of players should be able to reliably beat gold. I think a GOOD group of players should be able to reliably beat gold. We have fundamentally different understandings of what the hardest difficulty should be. You say add a new level of difficulty, I say why. We're not going to agree on this point.

You're talking to a man who has no problem dying before he reaches Minetown in half of all Nethack games he plays. That's HARD. If I want to reliably win, I will play on a lower difficulty- that is why they are there. I want the hardest difficulty to tax my abilities and those of my team to the utmost. I want us to fail unless we work fluidly as a team and capitalize on each other's strengths. That is hard to me. If a "decent" group can reliably do it, then it's not hard.

Modifié par TSCIGAR, 17 avril 2012 - 08:45 .

[Atheosis]

Father Alvito wrote...

We can define the concept with mathematics and eschew language entirely...

Oh that's cute.  Please define viability with mathematics alone, using no language to define your variables.  That should be amusing...

[bloodDragon80]

carnifex needs a little nerf right now there is no disadvantage when using it i think they should switch the paladin and carnifex's stats around keep there damage the same but make the carnifex heavier but not quite as heavy as the paladin and maybe take the carnifex damage down a little or take away ammo but its not like ammo is hard to get so that won't affect much and other weapons need a buff

[Schneidend]

Cyonan wrote...

They would still be taking weapons, they would just stick to the ones that are a little bit lighter.

You also still wouldn't have solved anything because now Infiltrators are laughing at everyone while they 1 shot Geth Primes because of their massive levels of damage modifier stacking that a Soldier can never hope to even come close to, much less beat.

Nerf Tactical Cloak damage buffs, or drastically increase all Soldier weapon damage passive buffs.

[InstaShark]

Schneidend wrote...

Nerf Tactical Cloak damage buffs

[capn233]

Indenter wrote...

capn233 wrote...

Adrenaline Rush grants +200% base weapon damage to Avenger.

what?

Sorry, that was supposed to be a joke about a new buff for Adrenaline Rush.

[Cyonan]

Schneidend wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

They would still be taking weapons, they would just stick to the ones that are a little bit lighter.

You also still wouldn't have solved anything because now Infiltrators are laughing at everyone while they 1 shot Geth Primes because of their massive levels of damage modifier stacking that a Soldier can never hope to even come close to, much less beat.

Nerf Tactical Cloak damage buffs, or drastically increase all Soldier weapon damage passive buffs.

You see where I'm going with this though?

You're nerfing everything in the game that isn't a Soldier or a gun. They could just go straight to buffing Soldiers use of weapons, and a couple really weak weapons and save everyone crying that you just nerfed everything that isn't a Soldier/gun.

Then you can make a new platinum difficulty for the most skilled players, package it in with a few other features, and call it the next free DLC.

[InstaShark]

Every weapon is replaced with an airsoft version.

[Roninraver]

Father Alvito wrote...

Roninraver wrote...

Actually, it does.  When you're not working in the sciences...

You aren't addressing a scientific body.  You aren't doing science.  You are on a videogame message board, talking about a videogame.  Therefore, common English usage is the standard.

Viable means possible.  Doable.  Workable.

Which, in a strategic environment with multiple actors, does not solely mean 'possible'.

The meanings 'doable' and 'workable' in this context imply a certain level of efficiency that 'possible' just doesn't convey.  In short, 'viable' can be construed to mean 'doesn't suck', to use a highly technical term.

Where we draw the line on 'doesn't suck' may well differ, but it should be possible to agree that viability implies a level of effectiveness above that of a Batarian Soldier shooting a Geth Pulse Rifle at an Atlas on Gold.

Atheosis wrote...

All definitions, no matter how arbitrary, still rely on language to function (in this case English).  You said the English language had very little to do with operational definitions, when the truth is no type of definition can even exist without language.

We can define the concept with mathematics and eschew language entirely...

No, stop.  Do not pass go.  Do not collect $200.

You aren't going to argue the definition of a word with me.  You want to argue about it?  Call Oxford.  Or Webster.


I give less ****s than you could possibly imagine about how you'd like to use the word, or what you'd like the word to mean.
It doesn't, period.

That Batarian Soldier with the GPR against the Atlas IS viable.  He CAN kill it.  It IS possible.  Workable.  Doable.

It's certainly not efficient.  Or competitive with the alternatives.  Or "not sucky" to use your technical term.
We already have words to mean those things, and viable isn't them.

If you want to incorrectly use a word, fine.  If you want to overuse the word "viable" to mean all kinds of things it doesn't, and empower it with some special meaning that only makes sense to you, whatever.
No skin off my back.

But this exchange is over.

Modifié par Roninraver, 17 avril 2012 - 08:38 .

[Father Alvito]

Atheosis wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

We can define the concept with mathematics and eschew language entirely...

Oh that's cute.  Please define viability with mathematics alone, using no language to define your variables.  That should be amusing...

Any arbitrary alphabet will do for this one:

A > B

where B is whatever arbitrary level of DPS we agree is a sufficient contribution from a team member to call it 'viable'.  B can easily be defined through pure mathematics if you so desire.

InstaShark wrote...

Can we get back to the issue at hand, please?

If you're too stupid to understand how this stuff matters to the topic, I'm too impatient to explain why it matters.

Modifié par Father Alvito, 17 avril 2012 - 08:44 .

[InstaShark]

Roninraver wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Roninraver wrote...

Off topic

Off topic

Where we draw the line on 'doesn't suck' may well differ, but it should be possible to agree that viability implies a level of effectiveness above that of a Batarian Soldier shooting a Geth Pulse Rifle at an Atlas on Gold.

Atheosis wrote...

Off topic

Off topic

Novel of off-topic crap.

Can we get back to the issue at hand, please?

Modifié par InstaShark, 17 avril 2012 - 08:43 .

[Atheosis]

TSCIGAR wrote...

YuenglingDragon wrote...

I want the game to be harder for a decent team to complete. If I'm in a team that has complementary classes of any flavor and the players know how to use them, then we'll usually beat Gold. That's too easy in my opinion. Of course, I also think most of the weapons are viable on Gold, because I have seen skilled players perform well with them (and sometimes do it myself- my soldier with a much maligned falcon can do wonders, as long as the ammo I choose to bring isn't a relative waste on the enemy, like cryo against geth or disruptor against reapers. Find it's best to go incendiary on random/random).

I think what you really want is a Platinum Difficulty, not a nerf bat.  A group of decent folks at the level cap should be able to reliably beat Gold any map, any enemy.  They should be challenged greatly and fail frequently on a new, yet harder difficulty.

Right now, a team of the "good" classes will tear through White/Geth/Gold.  A group of the "bad" classes will have a much lower win percentage, with the percentage increasing the more "good" classes are mixed in.  But something like Reapers at Glacier or Reactor?  I donm't want your soldier no matter what level you gun is.  It's not a substitute for biotics and tech powers.  That's how you know guns and the classes that need them are underpowered.

Geth White Gold shouldn't be considered for balance. Getting that out of the way right now. A team of mostly "bad" classes and one "good" class can do that. And I don't want a nerf bat. I want most things buffed significantly with some things nerfed somewhat. If you do nothing but buff, then the game will eventually become too easy, so they'll buff the enemies, which will reveal new balance disparities. I want their approach to balancing to be balanced in itself.

And you're underestimating that soldier. Reapers on Glacier with Warp/Incendiary is a great match for him (probably incendiary for the fire explosion).

I've got to agree that a couple weapons probably need a bit of a nerf, even though I'm generally not a fan of nerfs. 

Carnifex needs its weight increased from 1.0-0.5 to 1.25-0.7.  This would actually make speccing for weight reduction mean something with this gun at rank X, at least on most builds.  Presently it's pretty much unnecessary.

GPS and Graal need their weight increased from 2.0-1.4 to 2.25-1.75.  Along with some buffs to other shotguns, this would help to make the shotgun group much more varied (*gasp* people might actually start using pellet shotguns other than the Claymore), and would make it less appealing to roll with a GPS on a power-based class (which right now can get rather silly).

Unfortunately, people will throw **** fits with any nerf, even when it's deserved (as the two above very much are).

Modifié par Atheosis, 17 avril 2012 - 08:44 .

[Atheosis]

Father Alvito wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

We can define the concept with mathematics and eschew language entirely...

Oh that's cute.  Please define viability with mathematics alone, using no language to define your variables.  That should be amusing...

Any arbitrary alphabet will do for this one:

A > B

where B is whatever arbitrary level of DPS we agree is a sufficient contribution from a team member to call it 'viable'.  B can easily be defined through pure mathematics if you so desire.

You just used language to define your variables.  Try again.

Modifié par Atheosis, 17 avril 2012 - 08:46 .

[Schneidend]

Cyonan wrote...

You see where I'm going with this though?

You're nerfing everything in the game that isn't a Soldier or a gun. They could just go straight to buffing Soldiers use of weapons, and a couple really weak weapons and save everyone crying that you just nerfed everything that isn't a Soldier/gun.

Then you can make a new platinum difficulty for the most skilled players, package it in with a few other features, and call it the next free DLC.

I like the sound of this. I've never been opposed to Soldier buffs, but even if Soldiers of all races suddenly became amazing in one glorious patch I still think power spam and biotic detonations would yet remain overpowered.

InstaShark wrote...

Because dropping aggro and getting a 90% multiplicative damage buff on top of any passives is totally comparable to not dropping aggro and a 65% damage buff, amirite?

[Roninraver]

Atheosis wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

We can define the concept with mathematics and eschew language entirely...

Oh that's cute.  Please define viability with mathematics alone, using no language to define your variables.  That should be amusing...

Any arbitrary alphabet will do for this one:

A > B

where B is whatever arbitrary level of DPS we agree is a sufficient contribution from a team member to call it 'viable'.  B can easily be defined through pure mathematics if you so desire.

You just used language to define you variables.  Try again.

I didn't think he'd actually take the bait.  I was sure he'd see the tarp!


Well played, sir.

[Father Alvito]

Atheosis wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Any arbitrary alphabet will do for this one:

A > B

where B is whatever arbitrary level of DPS we agree is a sufficient contribution from a team member to call it 'viable'.  B can easily be defined through pure mathematics if you so desire.

You just used language to define you variables.  Try again.

We can do it in pure mathematics if you want, though I strongly doubt if you can follow it.

Point being, it doesn't matter whether we name 'B' Beta or Bravo.  Language becomes irrelevant when we strip the discussion down to mathematical concepts that are (by definition) intersubjective.

[TLK Spires]

the carnifex. i can't wait to lap up all of the tears.

[TSCIGAR]

Atheosis wrote...

TSCIGAR wrote...

YuenglingDragon wrote...

I want the game to be harder for a decent team to complete. If I'm in a team that has complementary classes of any flavor and the players know how to use them, then we'll usually beat Gold. That's too easy in my opinion. Of course, I also think most of the weapons are viable on Gold, because I have seen skilled players perform well with them (and sometimes do it myself- my soldier with a much maligned falcon can do wonders, as long as the ammo I choose to bring isn't a relative waste on the enemy, like cryo against geth or disruptor against reapers. Find it's best to go incendiary on random/random).

I think what you really want is a Platinum Difficulty, not a nerf bat.  A group of decent folks at the level cap should be able to reliably beat Gold any map, any enemy.  They should be challenged greatly and fail frequently on a new, yet harder difficulty.

Right now, a team of the "good" classes will tear through White/Geth/Gold.  A group of the "bad" classes will have a much lower win percentage, with the percentage increasing the more "good" classes are mixed in.  But something like Reapers at Glacier or Reactor?  I donm't want your soldier no matter what level you gun is.  It's not a substitute for biotics and tech powers.  That's how you know guns and the classes that need them are underpowered.

Geth White Gold shouldn't be considered for balance. Getting that out of the way right now. A team of mostly "bad" classes and one "good" class can do that. And I don't want a nerf bat. I want most things buffed significantly with some things nerfed somewhat. If you do nothing but buff, then the game will eventually become too easy, so they'll buff the enemies, which will reveal new balance disparities. I want their approach to balancing to be balanced in itself.

And you're underestimating that soldier. Reapers on Glacier with Warp/Incendiary is a great match for him (probably incendiary for the fire explosion).

I've got to agree that a couple weapons probably need a bit of a nerf, even though I'm generally not a fan of nerfs. 

Carnifex needs its weight increased from 1.0-0.5 to 1.25-0.7.  This would actually make speccing for weight reduction mean something with this gun at rank X, at least on most builds.  Presently it's pretty much unnecessary.

GPS and Graal need their weight increased from 2.0-1.4 to 2.25-1.75.  Along with some buffs to other shotguns, this would help to make the shotgun group much more varied (*gasp* people might actually start using pellet shotguns other than the Claymore), and would make it less appealing to roll with a GPS on a power-based class (which right now can get rather silly).

Unfortunately, people will throw **** fits with any nerf, even when it's deserved (as the two above very much are).

Thank you, Atheosis. The only problem I have with just a weight nerf on the GPS and Graal is that it largely doesn't affect an infiltrator. You can argue though that learning how to properly charge your weapon before cloak and shooting it twice in time to take advantage of the cloak cooldown's unique properties is an application of player skill, so I wouldn't argue the point too much.

The answer to every balance issue , in my opinion, is not buff everything to be competetive with it. There are times when nerfs are necessary and valid. I didn't enjoy the Falcon before it was nerfed, because it was just too easy for me. Now I don't have a problem with it at all.

It's probably unfair, but I get the impression that people who want everything buffed up want an all around easier game, and I don't see much point in playing the hardest difficulty if you want an easier game.

[Cyonan]

Schneidend wrote...

I like the sound of this. I've never been opposed to Soldier buffs, but even if Soldiers of all races suddenly became amazing in one glorious patch I still think power spam and biotic detonations would yet remain overpowered.

It would largely depend. Given the setup of the Soldier's powers, they would need to deal among the best single target damage in game, both burst and sustained, since they have such poor utility. Every Adept has some kind of CC, even though Pull is admittedly pretty weak CC. They also do AoE dps via biotic combos.

Then you would need to have a set damage vs utility for the classes for balance. Of course this would require a new difficulty tier or massive buffs to enemies since boosting Soldiers above biotics in terms of effectiveness at killing would just make gold as easy aas FBW/Geth on every map.

[AremihcO]

What time have they tended to update the balance change post?

[Atheosis]

TSCIGAR wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

TSCIGAR wrote...

YuenglingDragon wrote...

I want the game to be harder for a decent team to complete. If I'm in a team that has complementary classes of any flavor and the players know how to use them, then we'll usually beat Gold. That's too easy in my opinion. Of course, I also think most of the weapons are viable on Gold, because I have seen skilled players perform well with them (and sometimes do it myself- my soldier with a much maligned falcon can do wonders, as long as the ammo I choose to bring isn't a relative waste on the enemy, like cryo against geth or disruptor against reapers. Find it's best to go incendiary on random/random).

I think what you really want is a Platinum Difficulty, not a nerf bat.  A group of decent folks at the level cap should be able to reliably beat Gold any map, any enemy.  They should be challenged greatly and fail frequently on a new, yet harder difficulty.

Right now, a team of the "good" classes will tear through White/Geth/Gold.  A group of the "bad" classes will have a much lower win percentage, with the percentage increasing the more "good" classes are mixed in.  But something like Reapers at Glacier or Reactor?  I donm't want your soldier no matter what level you gun is.  It's not a substitute for biotics and tech powers.  That's how you know guns and the classes that need them are underpowered.

Geth White Gold shouldn't be considered for balance. Getting that out of the way right now. A team of mostly "bad" classes and one "good" class can do that. And I don't want a nerf bat. I want most things buffed significantly with some things nerfed somewhat. If you do nothing but buff, then the game will eventually become too easy, so they'll buff the enemies, which will reveal new balance disparities. I want their approach to balancing to be balanced in itself.

And you're underestimating that soldier. Reapers on Glacier with Warp/Incendiary is a great match for him (probably incendiary for the fire explosion).

I've got to agree that a couple weapons probably need a bit of a nerf, even though I'm generally not a fan of nerfs. 

Carnifex needs its weight increased from 1.0-0.5 to 1.25-0.7.  This would actually make speccing for weight reduction mean something with this gun at rank X, at least on most builds.  Presently it's pretty much unnecessary.

GPS and Graal need their weight increased from 2.0-1.4 to 2.25-1.75.  Along with some buffs to other shotguns, this would help to make the shotgun group much more varied (*gasp* people might actually start using pellet shotguns other than the Claymore), and would make it less appealing to roll with a GPS on a power-based class (which right now can get rather silly).

Unfortunately, people will throw **** fits with any nerf, even when it's deserved (as the two above very much are).

Thank you, Atheosis. The only problem I have with just a weight nerf on the GPS and Graal is that it largely doesn't affect an infiltrator. You can argue though that learning how to properly charge your weapon before cloak and shooting it twice in time to take advantage of the cloak cooldown's unique properties is an application of player skill, so I wouldn't argue the point too much.

The answer to every balance issue , in my opinion, is not buff everything to be competetive with it. There are times when nerfs are necessary and valid. I didn't enjoy the Falcon before it was nerfed, because it was just too easy for me. Now I don't have a problem with it at all.

It's probably unfair, but I get the impression that people who want everything buffed up want an all around easier game, and I don't see much point in playing the hardest difficulty if you want an easier game.

The issue with the GPS/Graal on an Infiltrator is more about Tactical Cloak than the weapons.  My idea is more about simply bringing the power/weight ratio of the GPS/Graal to where it should be relative to other weapons.  Right now they are both too light considering their crazy damage.  Coupled with all around buffs of every pellet shotgun not named Claymore, that would really fix the uneven shotgun group in my opinion.  

[KroganSmash]

This week in mass effect! Due to much complaining we have replaced all weapons with sticks and rocks. Happy hunting!