216 réponses à ce sujet

[We Tigers]

Kronner wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...


A few things:

...

So in other words, because you can't score X points with class Y, but you can do it with class Z, class Z needs to be nerfed.

You are just not seeing the big picture. You totally ignore players that can't handle Gold with any class. You throw away statements with no source. You try to enforce your biased vision on everyone's game. 

You talk about OP classes and weapons WHILE you actually link to Salarian Infiltrator guide and Hurricane-based builds.

All in all - Bravo. ROFLMAO.

Kronner is right on here.  ATOB, you're suggesting that there are certain classes that "average players" can use to score 130k on gold.  The community for this game is vastly larger than the supergamers here on the board.  

[Pho Kadat]

One of the biggest misconceptions I've seen in this thread is that by balancing, everything needs to be virtually the same with only the illusion of difference. Perhaps that is partial due to the term "balance," implying that all things should be equal across all situations. This, in fact, would create the bland and boring gameplay mentioned previously. Gameplay elements such as weapons and powers need to perform differently and at differing levels of effectiveness. Sometimes this difference needs to be situationally vast.

Unfortunately, if you make an item superior across all situations, you drive player behavior towards that gameplay item. Make something sufficiently superior, then when the majority of player move towards using that item, gameplay becomes bland and boring because almost everyone is doing the same thing. So, when you "balance" gameplay, you are actually attempting to balance player behavior to a near equal level of item usage. There are some exceptions, of course, especially regarding items that are intended to be difficult to obtain or use effectively. There does need to be some level of reward, so there is no clear-cut way to balance behavior and reward without sacrificing a little of either.

Now, examining ME3's MP system specifically we find that scoring has become the golden standard of judging gameplay item effectiveness. Despite being a co-op game, gamers are competitive by nature and seeing past the score and realizing that only winning matters is difficult for even the best team player. Everyone wants to feel that they contributed equally, and thus we turn to the score to rate our own effectiveness (or lack there of). When a player feels ineffective (i.e. scores low) with a particular gameplay item, they move away from using that item and into something more widely used and considered effective. Therefore, scoring is the motivating factor that drives player behavior.

While across all gameplay types, ME3 seems to achieve great diversity in class and weapon selections. However, looking at Gold play only, that diversity dwindles significantly. Depending upon your outlook overall or specifically on Gold, player behavior is either very balanced or not very balanced at all.

While I cannot dictate how much game/behavior balancing ME3 MP still requires, I can state with confidence that game balancing is essential to all games regardless whether they're PVP, PVE, single-player, or any combination in-between.

Modifié par Pho Kadat, 28 mai 2012 - 12:06 .

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote..
So in other words, because you can't score X points with class Y, but you can do it with class Z, class Z needs to be nerfed.

No. As I wrote: the problem is that certain classes are too /easy/ to hit high numbers with.

kronner wrote...
You are just not seeing the big picture. You totally ignore players that can't handle Gold with any class. You throw away statements with no source. You try to enforce your biased vision on everyone's game.

Actually, I think my view is pretty panoramic in comparison to your own. Not only did you misquote a simply explained idea above, but everything you just wrote in the above quotation either makes no sense or is a lie.

How do I ignore those types of players?

Which throw away statements require sources? If you like, I can back up pretty much all I've written with screens, video, and numerical evidence. Ask me specifically, I'll fetch links.

My opinion is not biased. I have zero personal investment in this idea. This is an objective view based on correlated data.

kronner wrote...
You talk about OP classes and weapons WHILE you actually link to Salarian Infiltrator guide and Hurricane-based builds.

All in all - Bravo. ROFLMAO.

What has my usage of these things to do in the slightest with the objective view that there needs to be better balance?

Cheap shots aren't called that because they leave you enough change for credit...

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 12:34 .

[Prodicus]

Pho Kadat, that was a lovely and lucid post. Your points are well made.

EDIT: With your avatar, it's pretty funny to picture Grunt articulating that

Modifié par Prodicus, 28 mai 2012 - 12:50 .

[vonSlash]

As people have said before, balance doesn't mean making all weapons equally viable in all situations and on all classes - that's bland. Balance just requires that no weapon, power, or class be so much better than all the others that it renders some other weapon, power, or class useless in virtually all situations. The best way to do this is to nerf the most powerful weapons, powers, and classes while simultaneously buffing the weakest and most useless weapons, powers, and classes - but not to the point that the items being buffed are brought up to the same level that the items being nerfed are brought down to and vice-versa. (For example, we might nerf the GPS and buff the Katana. However, post-changes and with weight factored in, the GPS should still perform better than the Katana, just not as much better than it does now).

Ideally, you would make these changes by dividing up the weapons into several categories based upon their weight, type, and preferred range. After balancing, each category should be similarly efficient (if not exactly so). Weapons might be divided into categories like close-range heavy (Claymore, Revenant, etc.), long-range heavy (Widow, Saber, etc.), mid-range light (Carnifex, Locust, etc.), and so on, and each of these categories should, on average, be similarly efficient when weight is considered (mid-range heavy should be more powerful than mid-range light, but less powerful than close-range heavy, for example). Within categories, weapons should be roughly similar in performance, although rarer weapons should generally perform slightly better than uncommon ones, which in turn should perform slightly better than common ones.

Powers could be balanced in a similar way, except you'd need to consider recharge time instead of weight and would also have to take into account different ways that players might choose to evolve the powers, which would complicate the balancing process a bit.

[whateverman7]

astheoceansblue wrote...

A few things:

Soldier was usable before the buffs, but the class was completely out of line in terms of ouput in comparison to the higher tier classes. You could use it, but it just wasn't capable of the higher level output figures some of the other classes could hit.

Viable does not mean balanced, and even now, while the class is very good, to keep up with Infiltrators and adepts in terms of output you have to use equipment. The balance comes at an expense to the player, when it should be there by default.

Soldier is my favourite class, Turian specifically, I know the class and how to use it to its full potential and it packs utility and synergy in comparison to many classes, and is expensive to use at its full potential.

To respond to your points:

1. No one of sound mind or rational nature would call for classes to be more powerful than others if there were perfect balance. At that point it would be pure preference and player skill dictating things. Right now a few classes can be used by average players constantly to score 130k plus, with the average score on gold being around 80k (lower for classes such as the qe), and this shows a very clear imbalance.

2. People are saying the game is too easy now. They mostly say this because they run the easy class. I rarely see this complaint from people using teams of Turian Soldiers, Quarian Engineers, Human Infiltrators, etc...

We don't need these classes made into super powers, we need the super powees brought in line with them.

-

Regardless of what you say, certain classes are obviously too powerful as they are the only ones average players can use to score 130k and over. Certain classes are underpowered as even great players struggle to keep up in terms of contribution, or are simply too expensive with the constant equipment buffs they require.

The fact is this is shown all over the forums. All the data we see shows us which are the most powerful guns, and which guns are useless. We all know which classes are easy mode and which take skill to keep up with. And we're not talking about a vocal minority complaining, we're talking about all the data we see: bragging threads, build guides, speed clears, etc... all of this data shows us clearly the classes and weapons that stand out in terms of having too much power and utility.

You can try to argue the game is balanced if you like, but all evidence tells us otherwise.

your post just confirmed a couple things for me:

1. this isnt about balance, it's about ego...because what you just said basically is: a character you used got outscored by another character, so that made the character you used under powered and the game unbalanced....lol if you say so....all the characters/classes/weapons have pros/cons, which makes the game balanced....any class can dominate a game, it's all in how you use them...also, you cant play the same way with every character/class/weapon, you have to adjust....and i think that's the problem with a lot of people on here: they dont adjust how they play based on what they using...and when whatever A doesnt perform like whatever B, they get upset

2. yall care more about stats and data on spreadsheets then actually playing the game...like you said; it's all over the forum....instead of talking from experience, most of yall talk about what the info says about a dps, rof, etc., and take that as gospel.....and yes, the data can give you a general idea of everything, but that's for set conditions...that info is not from game conditions...and by that i mean: running around, evading banshees, being in a fire fight, seeing how quickly a weapon relaods, how it looks down the sights, how you react in game with said weapon, etc....if yall just played the game and experienced things for yallselves, yall wouldnt complain about a lot of the things yall do

3. just because people are sheepish and like to follow everything from builds, what weapons to use, etc. to make the game easier/score higher, doesnt make the game unbalanced...it just makes them sheepish....and it kinda goes with point 2...instead of experiencing and figuring things out for one's self, people are just following 'guides' so to speak...and to a lot of this forum: once something is said to be bad/good by certain people, then it must be true...lol if yall say so

you say the game's not balanced because of evidence from spreadsheets; i say it is because of experience from playing the game

[whateverman7]

vonSlash wrote...

As people have said before, balance doesn't mean making all weapons equally viable in all situations and on all classes - that's bland. Balance just requires that no weapon, power, or class be so much better than all the others that it renders some other weapon, power, or class useless in virtually all situations. The best way to do this is to nerf the most powerful weapons, powers, and classes while simultaneously buffing the weakest and most useless weapons, powers, and classes - but not to the point that the items being buffed are brought up to the same level that the items being nerfed are brought down to and vice-versa. (For example, we might nerf the GPS and buff the Katana. However, post-changes and with weight factored in, the GPS should still perform better than the Katana, just not as much better than it does now).

Ideally, you would make these changes by dividing up the weapons into several categories based upon their weight, type, and preferred range. After balancing, each category should be similarly efficient (if not exactly so). Weapons might be divided into categories like close-range heavy (Claymore, Revenant, etc.), long-range heavy (Widow, Saber, etc.), mid-range light (Carnifex, Locust, etc.), and so on, and each of these categories should, on average, be similarly efficient when weight is considered (mid-range heavy should be more powerful than mid-range light, but less powerful than close-range heavy, for example). Within categories, weapons should be roughly similar in performance, although rarer weapons should generally perform slightly better than uncommon ones, which in turn should perform slightly better than common ones.

Powers could be balanced in a similar way, except you'd need to consider recharge time instead of weight and would also have to take into account different ways that players might choose to evolve the powers, which would complicate the balancing process a bit.

that's the thing though: everything in this game has pros/cons...there is nothing that makes something else usless....just because you or others dont like how something performs in comparison to something else, doesnt mean it's useless...all the weapons arent suppose to perform the same....the same goes for classes, characters, and powers....yall want everything to perform so similar that they're basically gonna be the same....and that would kill the game

[krknight]

how did this become six pages? anyway, i didn't read the pages so sorry if i cover what anyone else has said.

you want to know what happens when a game gets balanced? the whole thing plays like a bronze match. that's balanced and fair for you. any 10 year old kid can pick any character they want, equip whatever they want and play through a gold match without any problems.

with a "complete" balance of any game, there has to be a standard from which to work from. the majority of players don't play that much of multiplayer. you have to pick the common denominator that fits the largest amount of the player base and that would be those who do not play gold matches regularly. now if you balance all characters so that the casual player can complete gold matches with any character, the whole thing will play like bronze.

i know this isn't what people are arguing for when they want "balance" in a co-op game, but it is what would happen.

[Xaijin]

Blissey1 wrote...

you know, something else that bugs me about threads like this are how so many people seem to think balance = nerfing. Nerfing is only one half of the equation, the other half being buffs. But you never see anti-balance people talk about buffs...

That's because the only people who don't balance by nerfing and reduction are Namco (tekken) and Relic (DoW2), for most companies it's simply more cost effective to so in some cases. With ME's data driven "state-machine + effect" set up, it's lot easier to go one way or the other. It's also harder to buff if new things have to be added to a layered set up as is present in MEMP. Four players, four kits of varying specialty, etc etc.

[Xaijin]

Balance should never equal homogenization.

[Feneckus]

whateverman7 wrote...

.any class can dominate a game

That doesn't mean the game is balanced. You have to be pretty damn good to dominate as a Quarian Engineer or Drell Vanguard. Whereas dominating as a Geth Infiltrator is nothing special.

[whateverman7]

Feneckus wrote...

That doesn't mean the game is balanced. You have to be pretty damn good to dominate as a Quarian Engineer or Drell Vanguard. Whereas dominating as a Geth Infiltrator is nothing special.

if you can dominate( by that i mean come out on top scoring wise) in a game with any class, it does mean the game is balanced....you can do it easily with QEs just as you can with GIs, it's all in how you use them....

[astheoceansblue]

whateverman7 wrote...

You can do it easily with QEs just as you can with GIs, it's all in how you use them....

No you can't.

Gis can hit 150-200k consistently. Average Gold payers can do this using the class.

QEs can not do this.

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

No. As I wrote: the problem is that certain classes are too /easy/ to hit high numbers with. 

 

So again, you obviously care about the score a lot. Sucks for you. In addition, you have this never ending BS line that using one class is super easy AND it gets you 200k points, but using some other takes 1337 skillz. LOL
Newsflash - the game is easy with any class.

Actually, I think my view is pretty panoramic in comparison to your own. Not only did you misquote a simply explained idea above, but everything you just wrote in the above quotation either makes no sense or is a lie.
 

  

How did I misquote? I quoted your whole post. Actually, your posts are full of lies and blatant BS.

 How do I ignore those types of players?

 

Because you throw around terms like "averge player" "200k". You are using these terms in a general sense. But you have nothing but your biased experience to go on. Show me an average player who is average with all classes, but can score 200k with a GI. Please.

  Which throw away statements require sources? If you like, I can back up pretty much all I've written with screens, video, and numerical evidence. Ask me specifically, I'll fetch links.

  

Show me an average player. Who is it? What mode does he play? What class? And please state your source.

 My opinion is not biased. I have zero personal investment in this idea. This is an objective view based on correlated data.

 

On the contrary. All your post imply that you hate being outscored. For that reason you want to "balance" the game by nerfing classes that have higher score potential than some other classes. At least that's what your posts tell me.

What has my usage of these things to do in the slightest with the objective view that there needs to be better balance?

Because YOU enforce your own vision - what is broken and what is still fine. Better balance is a subjective term.
SI is beyond OP in the right hands. So is KV. AA. GI. HV...pretty much any class. 

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 07:37 .

[astheoceansblue]

whateverman7 wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

A few things:

Soldier was usable before the buffs, but the class was completely out of line in terms of ouput in comparison to the higher tier classes. You could use it, but it just wasn't capable of the higher level output figures some of the other classes could hit.

Viable does not mean balanced, and even now, while the class is very good, to keep up with Infiltrators and adepts in terms of output you have to use equipment. The balance comes at an expense to the player, when it should be there by default.

Soldier is my favourite class, Turian specifically, I know the class and how to use it to its full potential and it packs utility and synergy in comparison to many classes, and is expensive to use at its full potential.

To respond to your points:

1. No one of sound mind or rational nature would call for classes to be more powerful than others if there were perfect balance. At that point it would be pure preference and player skill dictating things. Right now a few classes can be used by average players constantly to score 130k plus, with the average score on gold being around 80k (lower for classes such as the qe), and this shows a very clear imbalance.

2. People are saying the game is too easy now. They mostly say this because they run the easy class. I rarely see this complaint from people using teams of Turian Soldiers, Quarian Engineers, Human Infiltrators, etc...

We don't need these classes made into super powers, we need the super powees brought in line with them.

-

Regardless of what you say, certain classes are obviously too powerful as they are the only ones average players can use to score 130k and over. Certain classes are underpowered as even great players struggle to keep up in terms of contribution, or are simply too expensive with the constant equipment buffs they require.

The fact is this is shown all over the forums. All the data we see shows us which are the most powerful guns, and which guns are useless. We all know which classes are easy mode and which take skill to keep up with. And we're not talking about a vocal minority complaining, we're talking about all the data we see: bragging threads, build guides, speed clears, etc... all of this data shows us clearly the classes and weapons that stand out in terms of having too much power and utility.

You can try to argue the game is balanced if you like, but all evidence tells us otherwise.

your post just confirmed a couple things for me:

1. this isnt about balance, it's about ego...because what you just said basically is: a character you used got outscored by another character, so that made the character you used under powered and the game unbalanced....lol if you say so....all the characters/classes/weapons have pros/cons, which makes the game balanced....any class can dominate a game, it's all in how you use them...also, you cant play the same way with every character/class/weapon, you have to adjust....and i think that's the problem with a lot of people on here: they dont adjust how they play based on what they using...and when whatever A doesnt perform like whatever B, they get upset

2. yall care more about stats and data on spreadsheets then actually playing the game...like you said; it's all over the forum....instead of talking from experience, most of yall talk about what the info says about a dps, rof, etc., and take that as gospel.....and yes, the data can give you a general idea of everything, but that's for set conditions...that info is not from game conditions...and by that i mean: running around, evading banshees, being in a fire fight, seeing how quickly a weapon relaods, how it looks down the sights, how you react in game with said weapon, etc....if yall just played the game and experienced things for yallselves, yall wouldnt complain about a lot of the things yall do

3. just because people are sheepish and like to follow everything from builds, what weapons to use, etc. to make the game easier/score higher, doesnt make the game unbalanced...it just makes them sheepish....and it kinda goes with point 2...instead of experiencing and figuring things out for one's self, people are just following 'guides' so to speak...and to a lot of this forum: once something is said to be bad/good by certain people, then it must be true...lol if yall say so

you say the game's not balanced because of evidence from spreadsheets; i say it is because of experience from playing the game

And your post absolutely confirms a few things:

1. You didn't read what I wrote. Not one thing in the quoted section suggests what you claim. I was referencing player feedback and data as much as empirical evidence, and I purposely avoided referencing my own ability directly to leave ego out of the equation.

2. See above. When I say "correlated data" I mean empirical evidence as well as collected information from the forums.

3. I think most of us have played enough online gaming to know for a fact that when players realise min-max potentials, a good number will gravitate toward the easiest and most powerful builds. Again, empirical data as much as anything.

Oh, and about this ego thing... please stop projecting. Cheers!

[Whereto]

Balance should be so that one gun is not directly better than the other, and no class is directly better than the other. Salarian infiltrator or human soldier on gold? Sure both are viable, but there isn't much competition when it comes to which one is better.

[Seifer006]

I'll be PISSED if Bioware falls for this type of BS and starts nerf'n all classes so people stop with there BS

these posts are pointless. If you're good at one class, then stay with it. MP isn't about high scores it's Co-OP and get that through your brain.

[Seifer006]

nicethugbert wrote...

Disagree. You have choices. Pick the one that best suits you. I do not care if someone can clear a map faster or slower than me. I don't care if another class is more powerful. I play AA most of the time. It is not the most powerful. I could play more powerful classes. But I do not care to. I have fun with AA despite that fact that a claymore or javelin geth could do it faster.  I score better with AJA, but, I don't feel like playing all the time.

Whatever you call balance matters to you, not me. So don't try to pass off your opinion as universal truth because it is not.

This. BTW - well said. I grow tire of these posts always ending up on news feed...

I wonder if people even enjoy ME3: MP because of all the complaints........

[Lukeman1884]

Whereto wrote...

Balance should be so that one gun is not directly better than the other, and no class is directly better than the other. Salarian infiltrator or human soldier on gold? Sure both are viable, but there isn't much competition when it comes to which one is better.

To be honest, you aren't supporting your own point, since both play differently. Sure, the SI is probably going to get a higher score more often than not, but as many people who play HS can tell you, their main strength doesn't come from getting lots of kills. They're both trying to do different things on the way to winning, so you CAN'T really say whether or not one is DIRECTLY better than the other.

What annoys me is where there are weapons/classes which just straight up do exactly what another one does, but better. Or are similar enough that it doesn't matter much. This issue doesn't really crop up in ME3, so I don't have a problem with the balance of this game. The various weapons and classes are all distinct enough so that you can't REALLY say that one is just straight up better than another.

[Dormiglione]

Balance is one thing, but you have to take also skill in the equation. A skilled player can do more damage with basic equipment than a less skilled player with Level X equipment.

Even in a shooter where everybody has the same health, same armor, same weapon you will find player who wipe the field on their own. So how is this possible, everything is balanced. Yes, on the paper it is, but skill always rules.

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

No. As I wrote: the problem is that certain classes are too /easy/ to hit high numbers with. 

 

So again, you obviously care about the score a lot. Sucks for you. In addition, you have this never ending BS line that using one class is super easy AND it gets you 200k points, but using some other takes 1337 skillz. LOL
Newsflash - the game is easy with any class.

I'm referencing the scoreboard as it shows us something very clearly: if a class can consistently hit 150-200k with relative ease while every other class peaks around 130 we can see a potential balance issue. It's a quick and easy reference point that shows a clear divided and obvious imbalance in a particular case.

This isn't about how easy you find the game, and has nothing to do with my undying faith in the almighty scoreboard. Let's try to stay focused, please.

kronner wrote...
How did I misquote?

You took my quote, twisted its meaning, and used it to further your agenda. Quit that

kronner wrote...
Because you throw around terms like "averge player" "200k". You are using these terms in a general sense. But you have nothing but your biased experience to go on. Show me an average player who is average with all classes, but can score 200k with a GI. Please.

Firstly I wrote "an average player" not "the average player". I was referencing specific instances where players have shown 200k scoreboards with the Gi along side comments such as "I'm not even a great player and I managed this!".

We're discussing balance issues by referencing Gold standard, min-maxing, and data collected on these forums correlated with our own experiences. And aside from the fact I wad being specific, of course I wouldn't be referencing an average player across the entire game.

I didn't realise I needed to spell this out.

Show me an average player. Who is it? What mode does he play? What class? And please state your source.

See above. Stop concentrating on my choice of language and pay attention to the data. I'm ony phone right now so link hunting isn't possible, but I would have thought someone as invested in the debate as you would have done some data correlation and research in general.

On the contrary. All your post imply that you hate being outscored. For that reason you want to "balance" the game by nerfing classes that have higher score potential than some other classes. At least that's what your posts tell me.

Right, except that's not me implying it's you projecting/misreading. I honestly have no problem with being outscored. Believe what you want, but please stop trying to twist my points.

Because YOU enforce your own vision - what is broken and what is still fine. Better balance is a subjective term.
SI is beyond OP in the right hands. So is KV. AA. GI. HV...pretty much any class. 

The problem is it isn't subjective, it's maths.

And while a great player could take a QE and top the board in a pub, that doesn't tell us anything about the classes maximum potential in relation to other classes played by people with equal skill.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 09:07 .

[Seifer006]

^^^^^^^ I agree with Kronner. I don't understand how you can keep trying to "justify" yourself. You're digging yourself a grave....

[Fortack]

astheoceansblue wrote...

I honestly have no problem with being outscored.

The problem is it isn't subjective, it's maths.

LOL. You're having no issues with being outscored yet your view on class balance seems to be build entirely around it. It's also worth noting that the "math" in this game is terrible so I fail to see why it matters anyway.

[Whereto]

Lukeman1884 wrote...

To be honest, you aren't supporting your own point, since both play differently. Sure, the SI is probably going to get a higher score more often than not, but as many people who play HS can tell you, their main strength doesn't come from getting lots of kills. They're both trying to do different things on the way to winning, so you CAN'T really say whether or not one is DIRECTLY better than the other.

What annoys me is where there are weapons/classes which just straight up do exactly what another one does, but better. Or are similar enough that it doesn't matter much. This issue doesn't really crop up in ME3, so I don't have a problem with the balance of this game. The various weapons and classes are all distinct enough so that you can't REALLY say that one is just straight up better than another.

I think it does. I'm stating there is a clear discrepancy between the two characters. Roles for the human soldier class are fairly limited(above bronze, though at that level every class can do what the soldier does), so there is obviously an imbalance when there are very very few human soldiers out there, but a large amount of salarians. If it was balanced, you'd have a good balance of all different classes, though right now there isn't much point to a soldier when it's skill set is clearly out preformed by another skill set. And yes, the salarians skill set is far more conducive to the game at hand, as its skill set is far more in line with the gameplay style. For soldiers to be balanced, they really need to be worth something that no other class offers. Currently those benefits given to solider become fairly irrelevant on gold. This is not good balance.

[DHKany]

Damn. You are determined aren't you? I know what you want to nerf and to that I say NO. Simply because honestly, how many people do you see using the GI to its fullest potential? How many people do you see successfully pull off the Geth melee build?