216 réponses à ce sujet

[Prodicus]

GGW KillerTiger wrote...

 Balance is important in PvE as in player charachters versus enemie everything not as in how each playable charachter stacks to one another.

In other words -> Each class has a role to fullfill but with the current set up of playable toons versus enemies some of the toons become utterly useless even at the role they are meant to play.

I agree with your first point about balancing the various classes to the enemy... but I don't really think any classes are useless. Again, there's fun to be had playing even those "weaker classes" - am I alone in thinking this?

Modifié par Prodicus, 27 mai 2012 - 02:36 .

[Nereithr]

Prodicus wrote...

GGW KillerTiger wrote...

 Balance is important in PvE as in player charachters versus enemie everything not as in how each playable charachter stacks to one another.

In other words -> Each class has a role to fullfill but with the current set up of playable toons versus enemies some of the toons become utterly useless even at the role they are meant to play.

I agree with your first point about balancing the various classes to the enemy... but I don't really think any classes are useless. Again, there's fun to be had playing even those "weaker classes" - am I alone in thinking this?

No, i like this too.

But be honest, isn't it frustrating  that you have to dump an entire clip of headshots with your phaeston to kill something , while you only need a few snapshots from carnifex.

[rmccowen]

My perspective on balance comes from playing pen-and-paper RPGs for... well, longer than I care to admit. That's basically the definition of PvE, but there are certainly balance concerns. Everyone wants to play a powerful character, or at least an interesting one, but very few people are perfectly happy playing Alfred when someone else at the table gets to be Batman.

That's the concept of balance that really applies in this case. It doesn't necessarily mean that every class has an equal probability of getting every kill, or that every weapon is equally effective all the time. But it does mean that--as an ideal at least, if not as an achievable goal--no weapon or character should be so good as to crowd out others (or so bad as to be crowded out; I'm looking at you, Eagle.) 

I should be able to have fun and pull my weight on a team regardless of what set of choice appeals to me.

The alternative proposition, as noted upthread, is a fully-automatic Claymore with pin-point accuracy and a bottomless magazine, along with a Shepard class that gets twice as many skills as other MP characters plus a selectable bonus skill.

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

LOL you can't even argue like an adult, you're such a cute little tike!

It's "tyke", actually. Insulting other people's intelligence is more convincing when you remember to spell check.

Modifié par rmccowen, 27 mai 2012 - 02:41 .

[Descy_]

Feneckus wrote...

 The fact that everybody gets the same amout of XP/Credits is irrelevant.

We're supposed to have fun. That's why we play this game. Is it possible to have fun when you're a Quarian Engineer with two Geth Infiltrators on your team who murder everything in sight before you even have time to do anything ? If you can, you have a weird definition of fun.

Actually, Yes.

Was playing a game yesterday with some great people from this forum, I was QE spamming Incinerate/Cryo Blast while they went in and stomped on everything.

Wanna know why? Because playing with friends is fun.

Try it.

[Distilled Poison]

FlamboyantRoy

When other people are killing an enemy and they don't need help I DON'T JUMP IN.

I really, really think you don't understand what CO OPERATIVE means.

It means you WORK TOGETHER to kill the enemy. Jeeze, people like you are the reason I only played private bronze matches until I was ready for silver. You cry about points in a game where points mean nothing. You are the epitome of a bronze hero. Whining and complaining about people working together in a co op game. Why do I get the feeling you've quit matches because someone knocked you out of first?

You honestly don't have the experience to criticise how people play, how points/exp should be distributed, or how the game should be balanced. Come back here when you actually know what team work is.

[LoboFH]

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

You definitely didn't understand this game yet...

[Prodicus]

Hmm Nereithr that's a good question. No, honestly, not really. I find it most satisifying to see if I can find a way to make that phaeston work for me (ah, marksman) - getting less "OP" setups to be effective seems to me more enjoyable than topping the board. Heck, even failing miserably with a weird build can be a blast with the right mindset.

Modifié par Prodicus, 27 mai 2012 - 02:49 .

[astheoceansblue]

Neither, sorry but class balance us equally as important as weapon balance.

And no, Gi damage output is not balanced by lack of shields as it has wallhack and invisibility which together negate more damage than the best shields in the game can absorb.

And the point that balance somehow equates to monotone is absolutely absurd. it's the feel of a weapon, its utility, the way different guns suit different builds and playstyles... its personality if you will. All these things remain after balancing and keep variety intact.

Wesus, we're not asking for commons to be on par with URs, but if you can't see the importance of higher end weaponry being viable in comparative terms then there really is no point debating with you.

And to everyone else: my friends and I run with the underdog classes a lot if the time as we're bored of the obvious choices. We're all good players who can score well, clear gold on the most difficult combinations of maps in under 20 minutes, etc...

We like building means for synergy and having everyone fulfil a role. I used to love Si, but when I run him now UR makes the game too eadt, makes the team feel imbalanced when others are running certain, classes. etc..

Yes, we can compensate by selecting certain classes, but this decreases variety. If we have to balance certain classes out by limiting our choice, isn't this obvious?

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 27 mai 2012 - 02:55 .

[Nereithr]

Prodicus wrote...

Hmm Nereithr that's a good question. No, honestly, not really. I find it most satisifying to see if I can find a way to make that phaeston work for me (ah, marksman) - getting less "OP" setups to be effective seems to me more enjoyable than topping the board. Heck, even failing miserably with a weird build can be a blast with the right mindset.

That's what i'm currently doing actually. Phaeston feels like a peashooter to me, so i use vindicator/avenger, which strangelyt DON't Seem like peashooters to me.

[Feneckus]

Descy_ wrote...


Was playing a game yesterday with some great people from this forum, I was QE spamming Incinerate/Cryo Blast while they went in and stomped on everything.

Wanna know why? Because playing with friends is fun.

Try it.

I tried. I really want to like the Quarian Engineer, her powers are fun, but you're just so useless. You can't do **** against shields/barriers. Depressing.

Might be fun if there's a guy with Overload next to you though.

[FlamboyantRoy]

Distilled Poison wrote...

FlamboyantRoy

When other people are killing an enemy and they don't need help I DON'T JUMP IN.

I really, really think you don't understand what CO OPERATIVE means.

It means you WORK TOGETHER to kill the enemy. Jeeze, people like you are the reason I only played private bronze matches until I was ready for silver. You cry about points in a game where points mean nothing. You are the epitome of a bronze hero. Whining and complaining about people working together in a co op game. Why do I get the feeling you've quit matches because someone knocked you out of first?

You honestly don't have the experience to criticise how people play, how points/exp should be distributed, or how the game should be balanced. Come back here when you actually know what team work is.

Oh you really mad! I really, really think you need better reading comprehension skills. It's fine to work together, it's great to cooperate. If we get split up on objective rounds and my teammate is having no trouble in dispatching enemies, I don't jump in. If anything that teammate is drawing in aggro making it easier for the rest of the team to complete the objective. If we're targeting the same enemy, save a boss, it's counterproductive outside of tech/biotic tag teams. Bottom line.  You don't like it? Deal with it. 

I don't give a vorcha's ass what you think about my experience or this and that. I've played all game modes enough times to be able to tell when something is out of whack, i.e. people like you. Keep coastin' on other peoples skills, freeloader.

[Kronner]

Good player will make pretty much any class overpowered. If you don't like a certain class, don't play it. If you can't handle that someone of equal skill is using a more powerful class and outscoring you/"stealing" your kills, don't play with them. Find yourself friends who like the way you play.

Perfect balance (or perfect anything, pretty much) is too expensive to achieve. Not worth it.

Also LOL @ PvP and PvE comparison. Totally different games.

And for the record, when I play with friends, I also generally use the "less powerful" classes (i.e. no Infiltrator). I enjoy those games. But sometimes I just wanna boot up my Claymore wielding geth so I either play solo, or with one more player, or a random game etc.

It's all up to you. I just hate when shortsighted people, like the OP, try to dictate how others should play. Trying to "balance" the game to their liking. Take a chill pill.

Modifié par Kronner, 27 mai 2012 - 03:06 .

[Prodicus]

astheoceansblue wrote...

And to everyone else: my friends and I run with the underdog classes a lot if the time as we're bored of the obvious choices. We're all good players who can score well, clear gold on the most difficult combinations of maps in under 20 minutes, etc...

We like building means for synergy and having everyone fulfil a role. I used to love Si, but when I run him now UR makes the game too eadt, makes the team feel imbalanced when others are running certain, classes. etc..

Yes, we can compensate by selecting certain classes, but this decreases variety. If we have to balance certain classes out by limiting our choice, isn't this obvious?

Okay, point taken. I just don't see how what you seem to be asking for can be achieved without flattening out the differences between the classes - nerfing or buffing - and I find that this isn't such a problem that I don't enjoy the game. But I see what you're saying.

[Wesus]

FlamboyantRoy

Your manifest and your joining date say enough about your experience. Please dont embarras yourself even more than you're doing now.

[whateverman7]

yes, some weapons/characters are more powerful then others, but that doesnt mean the game isnt balanced....the game is very balanced......those differences in the classes, characters, and weapons are there to provide variety and different gameplay experiences...which allows people to have fun in different ways....

on another note, all the characters/classes/weapons in the game have pros/cons, it's all about how you use them....if everything preformed the same, there would be a serious lack of variety and the game would become monotone and boring.....also, just because people are choosing to use the same builds/weapons shows more a sheepish mentality for the community then a lack of balance for the game

[Beerfish]

It's nice to have good class balance but it is only really relevant when you have people with like abilites, equipment and experience. I'm not a particulary expereinced or good player though I do try and try and avoid bone head moves. classes mean very little when I look at the board at the end of the game and I'm 3rd or 4th as usual even though I have a 19th leve player and the top two people are under level 5 but are very skilled at what they do and know what to do and where to go to get the mosty kills.

You could be me the premium over powered class and give a good experienced player with good equipment the worst class and be a much lower level and they will always out kill me.

[Wesus]

Wesus, we're not asking for commons to be on par with URs, but if you can't see the importance of higher end weaponry being viable in comparative terms then there really is no point debating with you.

Compare my list of weapons with eachother and wow you'll see not all of the weapons are the Same yet they're all good. You canncompare every single one of them and find out that i'm correct

Most weapons are good and balanced but there is no need to make the scimitar/katana as good as à gps or claymore.

[FlamboyantRoy]

Wesus wrote...

FlamboyantRoy

Your manifest and your joining date say enough about your experience. Please dont embarras yourself even more than you're doing now.

Yes, because it's entirely impossible that I have another account on another system. Hell, even if I didn't it wouldn't matter. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the 'complexities' of mass effect multiplayer. Btw, shouldn't you be dangling from ikilladbkilld's nuts?

[Feneckus]

I find it hard to believe that some people actually think the game is balanced. Maybe I have a different version or something.

[Yigorse]

Quite apart from being total flame-bait, OP is correct imo. Everyone should feel useful and be useful, and a balanced class system is the best way to achieve that. If you KNOW the class system is balanced and you're still the best player on your team, you can put it down to your personal skill right? Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?

[Prodicus]

Hey guys, this is an interesting conversation here. Let's keep it civil before the Abram smash comes down and locks the thread.

[Distilled Poison]

>Oh you really mad!
>Keep coastin' on other peoples skills, freeloader.

Wow, even I didn't think you were that stupid. I guess you showed me.

So, I guess I'll just ignore him from now on, and address the competent people.

To anyone asking for nerfs, why not just balance the class out yourself? Why not skip TacCloak on GI, for example?

I say this because any skilled player can have fun with any class. However less skilled players are more limited. I think buffs/fixes to poor classes such as QE and KS would be far more valuable than a nerf to GI for the sake of variety.

If all your looking for is a challenge, I don't doubt there a plenty of challenging builds for every class.

[Wesus]

All right personal insults while i'm trying to help you so you dont make yourself a complete idiot like ikilledkillab but if your going to throw personal insults in than you are be ow my league and you're probably not mature enough to have a mature / proper discussion.

That man is an idiot to the highest factor possible. Hè doesnt know how to play and thinks its good to be bragging about 108k in fbwgg, as well hè hates on infiltrators because he gets outscored by them.

[whateverman7]

aye, i get it now: this isnt about balance, it's about ego

[FlamboyantRoy]

Distilled Poison wrote...

>Oh you really mad!
>Keep coastin' on other peoples skills, freeloader.

Wow, even I didn't think you were that stupid. I guess you showed me.

So, I guess I'll just ignore him from now on, and address the competent people.

To anyone asking for nerfs, why not just balance the class out yourself? Why not skip TacCloak on GI, for example?

I say this because any skilled player can have fun with any class. However less skilled players are more limited. I think buffs/fixes to poor classes such as QE and KS would be far more valuable than a nerf to GI for the sake of variety.

If all your looking for is a challenge, I don't doubt there a plenty of challenging builds for every class.

Typical teenager. Too afraid to refute another person's argument so they back out because they don't have a rebuttal. So you're a freeloader and a p****? Interesting. 


Have a good day, Poison.