216 réponses à ce sujet

[Eire Icon]

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

[Ah yes "Co-op game", a style of gameplay that emphasizes teamwork rather than individual efforts. We have dismissed that claim. 

Lets be honest here, I'm sure there are plenty of players out there who feel the same way. An example, a salarian engineer gets an atlas down to 1 bar of armor by himself and then an asari swoops in with a warp and gets credit for it. That's not right. There isn't an "I" in team, but there certainly is a "me". 

What I'm trying to say is that the scores of the game should reflect who put the most work in. Not who was in the right place at the right time to steal credit from someone else. I'm all for being a "teamplayer" but when my teammates go to captilize on something that I worked on by myself. We have a problem. 

Completely disagree

If the game was done that way, then the best players get the majority of credits, which gives them the better guns, which means that the gap between the better players and the other players just continues to grow. Kill stealing will be on the up, people won't revive their team mates, and newbies will be stuck with bad weapons and no help. Eventually more casual players will stop playing

Think about what your actually suggesting.

I like how you say "I'm a team player but..................."

You are clearly not a team player. I've whittled down an Atlas before to have someone finish it with the final shot as well and do you know what, I don't care. Its dead, objective completed

This credit they get, what is that exactly? All credits and XP are split between people so whoever takes the shot everyone gets the credit.

If you want all the credit for your work go solo

[astheoceansblue]

o

whateverman7 wrote...

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

Ok, well you've just proved beyond reasonable doubt that you're not reading and understanding posts before you reply. The entire quoted section goes into detail and clearly expresses the idea that balance can be achieved without a monotonous sweep, yet you still reply claiming the poster wants everything to perform the same.

Also, let's take a slightly poetic view: weapons have a personality of sorts. The Falcon feels completely different to fire than the Saber, the Phaeston is an entirely separate experience to the Mattock, the Scorpion is unique, and so on.

Bringing the Locust up to speed with the Hurricane for example (and not so it does exactly the same damage, but so it doesn't lag so far behind) would not change the fact that it's a long range smg and the Hurricane's for cqc. These guns would still feel unique to use even if they all did decent amounts of damage in relation to one another. Variety shouldn't be about huge differences in overall potential, variety should be about being able to choose the gun that suits your playstyle and not having to be concerned that you're gimping your output.

Balance isn't about making everything the same, it's about making everything worth cosidering in relative terms.

[DHKany]

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

Distilled Poison wrote...

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

debate properly

I wasn't aware this was a debate. And this is coming from the guy whose opinion of "team work" is "Stop stealing my kills, those are my points."

Again dude, Call of Duty is clearly the game for you.

The only reason you are even 'irked' by my comment is because you know that I'm correct. It's the elephant in the room. Everyone is guilty of it, whether they want to admit it or not. When other people are killing an enemy and they don't need help I DON'T JUMP IN. It's not a difficult concept. Surely if a "Call of Duty Dude" can get it, so can you. 

It's proper etiquette. In ANY game mode. That's the problem with these people, they have no manners or a basic sense of decency. 

Btw, what you do have against Call of Duty? Too competitive for you?

*facepalm. 

MW=M16A4/ frag fest
MW2= noobutbe fest
Black Ops= Famas fest 
MW3= Type95 fest
All Cod= 0 recoil guns and at least 1 overpowered weapon that everybody uses.

real competitive eh?

and so what if they steal your kill? I think you're a bit butthurt that you aren't saturating the killfeeds on Gold like you do on Bronze.

[Fortack]

Whereto wrote...

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.

Maybe you've lived under a rock for the last couple weeks, but the Human Soldier is insanely powerful these days. Claymore + ARush + grenade spam on groups makes them dmg monsters on gold. The reason why you see so many Infiltrators in pubs has little to do with how powerful they are (sure, they are strong just like many other classes) but everything to do with the ability to play a co-op game in SP mode. The fact that many people go for the route of least resistance has nothing to do with class potential which unfortunately is what this topic is all about.

[astheoceansblue]

Fortack wrote...

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.

Again, I'm merely using the scoreboard to reference obvious markers, there's plenty of other data I've used in my assessment including: player videos, build guide discussions, my own in game usage of every class, raw statistics such as weapon damage data, etc...

The scoreboard is simply a very easy, quick reference point to highlight an obvious imbalance. I'm using it to further a point for ease, not base my entire argument on.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 09:39 .

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...
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.
 

 

Points scored =/= contribution to the team.

There are way too many intangibles that are not reflected on the scoreboard in the end of a game.

For example, since you mentioned QE, she can debuff armor by 20%. Everyone reaps the benefits. This is not reflected on the scoreboard.

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!".

 
What is your sample size? How many players did this? Context. You are missing it.
I've played too many random games to know that GI is not a magical class that turns a bad player into a killing machine.

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.

If you have no problem being outscored, why do you base your whole argument around the score? Makes no sense. Score is heavily biased towards kills, not assists, debuffs or buffs etc.

TBH to me, your posts imply that score is extremely important to you.

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.

No. The problem is your score obsession. If BioWare removed the scoreboard altogether, would you even have a case? I don't think so.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 09:49 .

[Seifer006]

*Fixed

Kronner: No. The problem is your score obsession. If BioWare removed the scoreboard altogether, would you even have a case? I don't think so.

[/quote]


@OP

LMAO oh man. That sums it up in a nutshell

I'm done. There's better things to focus energy on.

Modifié par Seifer006, 28 mai 2012 - 09:55 .

[Seifer006]

Hope there's a trailer for the Rebellion DLC

enjoyed the Resurgence Trailer

[silencekills]

 Nope. Well, if we're talking about something being better than something else.

In PvP something unbalanced might be working against you.
In PvE something unbalanced is always working in your overall favor.

I doub't there is as much complaining about things that help you out than there is about things that are hurting you.

A looooong time ago when I was only around N7 40, there was this Krogan...something with a Geth Plasma Shotgun who killed EVERYTHING before I could get anywhere near it. Was I upset/bored? You bet, but eventually I figured that this just means that our team has got a good heavy hitter. Eventually, I adapted to this new power and found a new killing ground. Then it just felt like a shorter than usual game. 

Also shows another important thing that clouds the illusion of balance. Player preference. I hate the Geth Plasma Shotgun and don't do nearly as well if I choose to use it. There's also the fact that a player can be skilled with a character. HIghly skilled. I am terrible with Vanguards, human especially. That's the one class I haven't gotten to 20 once yet. Other players hop in and wreck face with them though. I've seen players rocking Human Soldiers and abusing that instant reload for a good game.

Basically, there will always be variability in a PvE game. 

[krknight]

the game is already balanced. it allows you to mix and match however you like to create whatever team you feel would be balanced so that everyone contributes whatever. it is also unbalanced for those who don't want it to be.

yes, a level 20 AA, SI, or what have you is a very strong character, but you don't have to play it at that level. you don't have to use a BW with an infiltrator. the AA doesn't have to have warp and throw maxed out. it is possible for a sniper to use one of the other long range rifles. you're allowed to mix and match pieces however you want.

on the other hand, people who want to breeze through the waves also has a game to play, as does those who want to keep things interesting for themselves. if there is "balance" to the game, two very important player types would be neglected: those that play casually (the largest demographic by the way) and those that play relentlessly who need constant challenge.

it would seem there's enough of those who want a "balanced" game to get together and create a "balanced" game. either you take the copious amounts of pieces available to you and create whatever it is you want ascertained, or you find a different game to play. otherwise, you'll just be cutting off other people who also enjoy the game because the meaningless score at the end bothers you.

[Neegs]

Relix28 wrote...

inb4sh!tstorm *grabs a bowl of popcorn*

inmidsh!tstorm *shares popcorn*

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote...
Points scored =/= contribution to the team.

There are way too many intangibles that are not reflected on the scoreboard in the end of a game.

For example, since you mentioned QE, she can debuff armor by 20%. Everyone reaps the benefits. This is not reflected on the scoreboard.

This would be a fair point if the Gi and Si do this far more effectively while also reaping the kills for themselves.

Kronner wrote...
What is your sample size? How many players did this? Context. You are missing it.

Do you read the forums often? There's plenty of feedback to show how OP some classes are in relation to others, and none to support the idea that the game is absolutely balanced aside from player claims.

Kronner wrote...
I've played too many random games to know that GI is not a magical class that turns a bad player into a killing machine.

When did I claim this? I didn't say anything about bad players, I referenced self-confirmed average players who have shown 200k scores with the Gi.

Players from this forum who are average are clearly a cut above the average random pub player.

I would have thought these things would be a given.

Kronner wrote...
If you have no problem being outscored, why do you base your whole argument around the score? Makes no sense. Score is heavily biased towards kills, not assists, debuffs or buffs etc.

TBH to me, your posts imply that score is extremely important to you.

Well you're reading them wrong.

Stop pretending scores show us nothing in relation to balance. I'm not saying a player topping the charts shows imbalance, I'm saying a class that can be used by so many people to hit 200k when no other classes can be used this consistently (or at all) shows an imbalance.

The scoreboard is being referenced against one specific point because it's quick and easy and shows an obvious divide between the highest efficiency and the next best.

And yes it is biased towards certain scores, but when the divide is [t]this[/i] large there's obviously something wrong.

It's not an absolute marker by any means, but when correlated with player feedback in the form of videos, build discussions, and all the other things I've mentioned countless times now, it does show us the imbalance is there.

Kronner wrote... 
No. The problem is your score obsession. If BioWare removed the scoreboard altogether, would you even have a case? I don't think so.

Gis would still have too much utility, The Eagle would still be UP, the scoreboard simply helps point out how these things effect a game.

Please stop tryuing to use my use of the scoreboard as a reference point against me, my posts clearly reason why I chose to use it and that it's not my only source of information. 

If you really want me to provide some data to supoprt my arguement then ask me for something specific and I will. I just assumed that someone who was so invested in the debate would be properly read up on these things.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 11:09 .

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

This would be a fair point if the Gi and Si do this far more effectively while also reaping the kills for themselves.

 

For themselves? This right here shows your score obsession.

They kill for the whole team.

Do you read the forums often? There's plenty of feedback to show how OP some classes are in relation to others, and none to support the idea that the game is absolutely balanced aside from player claims.

 

Oh the forums. You do realize that only very small percentage of players post here? Of course the game is not balanced. There are OP things. But that is not a problem. No one forces you to use them. 

I love using the Claymore. Is it optimal for all classes? No. Could I have scored better with a different weapon? Yes. Does it bother me? No. Why? Because I play to have fun.

It's that simple.

When did I claim this? I didn't say anything about bad players, I referenced self-confirmed average players who have shown 200k scores with the Gi.

Players from this forum who are average are clearly a cut above the average random pub player.

I would have thought these things would be a given
.

 

How many people did this? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Be specific. Don't generalize when you clearly lack the necessary data.

Well you're reading them wrong.

Stop pretending scores show us nothing in relation to balance. I'm not saying a player topping the charts shows imbalance, I'm saying a class that can be used by so many people to hit 200k when no other classes can be used this consistently (or at all) shows an imbalance.

 

And we again come to the same question - why does it matter? Because it makes the game quicker? Easier? Who forces you to use that class? Or even play with players who enjoy that? I do not see your point.

 he scoreboard is being referenced against one specific point because it's quick and easy and shows an obvious divide between the highest efficiency and the next best.

And yes it is biased towards certain scores, but when the divide is [t]this[/i] large there's obviously something wrong.

It's not an absolute marker by any means, but when correlated with player feedback in the form of videos, build discussions, and all the other things I've mentioned countless times now, it does show us the imbalance is there.

 

What's wrong with that? What is the ultimate goal - to win the game. If someone outscores a less powerful class by a large margin, how does that make the game any less enjoyable?

I ask again, would it still bother you if you did not see the result on the scoreboard? Honest answer please.

Gis would still have too much utility, The Eagle would still be UP, the scoreboard simply helps point out how these things effect a game.

Please stop tryuing to use my use of the scoreboard as a reference point against me, my posts clearly reason why I chose to use it and that it's not my only source of information. 

If you really want me to provide some data to supoprt my arguement then ask me for something specific and I will. I just assumed that someone who was so invested in the debate would be properly read up on these things.

Your sources:
Scoreboard - useless
BSN forum posts - unknown sample size - you have yet to specify the actual number
Paper stats - LOL

Common sense dictates that the main goal of the game is to have fun and beat the enemy.

How you do that is up to you. I just think that "balancing" game to your liking does not account for large majority of players and their skill level. With your proposals, you also, perhaps unknowingly, take away the fun other players are having with some classes (yes, there are people with different preferences, imagine that). Just imagine that your most favourite class/weapon gets nerfed "because it was too OP". Would you like that?

Instead, it comes across as ego-centric score obsession. Just my impression anyway.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 11:26 .

[Fortack]

astheoceansblue wrote...

I'm not saying a player topping the charts shows imbalance, I'm saying a class that can be used by so many people to hit 200k when no other classes can be used this consistently (or at all) shows an imbalance.

The scoreboard is being referenced against one specific point because it's quick and easy and shows an obvious divide between the highest efficiency and the next best.

And yes it is biased towards certain scores, but when the divide is [t]this[/i] large there's obviously something wrong.

It's not an absolute marker by any means, but when correlated with player feedback in the form of videos, build discussions, and all the other things I've mentioned countless times now, it does show us the imbalance is there

I play with friends most of the time and most of em are very good players yet no one has ever scored 200k points. In PuGs most GIs I've played with sucked anyway. I don't think that one or two pics posted in this place showing a (reasonably) skilled player (who obviously played with morons at the time) scoring 200k says anything except about the bragging of the ones who posted those pics.

The score is useless b/c it is based on kills which is the only thing a GI is capable off. Those who debuff enemies get nothing, those who CC enemies get nothing, those who take the aggro (while the GI can walk around untouched) get nothing etc etc. You use a horribly broken system for your arguments which would - if it would take into account all the other important (teamwork) features - tell a different story altogether.

[astheoceansblue]

Fortack wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

I'm not saying a player topping the charts shows imbalance, I'm saying a class that can be used by so many people to hit 200k when no other classes can be used this consistently (or at all) shows an imbalance.

The scoreboard is being referenced against one specific point because it's quick and easy and shows an obvious divide between the highest efficiency and the next best.

And yes it is biased towards certain scores, but when the divide is [t]this[/i] large there's obviously something wrong.

It's not an absolute marker by any means, but when correlated with player feedback in the form of videos, build discussions, and all the other things I've mentioned countless times now, it does show us the imbalance is there

I play with friends most of the time and most of em are very good players yet no one has ever scored 200k points. In PuGs most GIs I've played with sucked anyway. I don't think that one or two pics posted in this place showing a (reasonably) skilled player (who obviously played with morons at the time) scoring 200k says anything except about the bragging of the ones who posted those pics.

The score is useless b/c it is based on kills which is the only thing a GI is capable off. Those who debuff enemies get nothing, those who CC enemies get nothing, those who take the aggro (while the GI can walk around untouched) get nothing etc etc. You use a horribly broken system for your arguments which would - if it would take into account all the other important (teamwork) features - tell a different story altogether.

Okay, so let's ignore scores for the moment...

How about the straight up argument that the Gi has too much utility?

Gi can:
Turn invisible - excellent for so many things: revives, objectives, neagting damage...
Wallhack to predict oncoming enemies.
-- both these thigns combined let it negate more damage than the best shields in the game can absorb if used right.

It can debuff and stagger crowds of enemies.
It gets a massive movement buff.
It gets a massive damage buff, especially when TC and HM are layered.

It is a team unto itself.

It has amazing internal synergy.
It can kill things faster than any other class.
It can support the team just as well if not better than specific support classes.

Now, none of this breaks my game as such, but it does make me feel a little useless when I decide to take my QE for a spin, especially if there's a Gi on the team.

I play with some of the best players form this forum. We use classes such as the Drell Vanguard, Turian Soldier, Human Infiltrator, Quarian Engineer, Turian Sentinel, etc... much more often than we run Sis, or Gis, or AAs simply because we're bored of how easy they make the game. Yes, the game is still easy in that we're experienced and know how to build an efficient team, but we shouldn't have to be forced to ignore/choose certain classes to balance the teams and the pace of the game for ourselves.

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

Okay, so let's ignore scores for the moment...

How about the straight up argument that the Gi has too much utility?

Gi can:
Turn invisible - excellent for so many things: revives, objectives, neagting damage...
Wallhack to predict oncoming enemies.
-- both these thigns combined let it negate more damage than the best shields in the game can absorb if used right.

It can debuff and stagger crowds of enemies.
It gets a massive movement buff.
It gets a massive damage buff, especially when TC and HM are layered.

It is a team unto itself.

It has amazing internal synergy.
It can kill things faster than any other class.
It can support the team just as well if not better than specific support classes.

Now, none of this breaks my game as such, but it does make me feel a little useless when I decide to take my QE for a spin, especially if there's a Gi on the team.

 

You can create a very similar list using almost any class.

astheoceansblue wrote... 
I play with some of the best players form this forum. We use classes such as the Drell Vanguard, Turian Soldier, Human Infiltrator, Quarian Engineer, Turian Sentinel, etc... much more often than we run Sis, or Gis, or AAs simply because we're bored of how easy they make the game. Yes, the game is still easy in that we're experienced and know how to build an efficient team, but we shouldn't have to be forced to ignore/choose certain classes to balance the teams and the pace of the game for ourselves.

Same here. Except for the last part (bolded). That's exactly what should happen. Because simply said not all players are equally good. Unlike you, I do realize that I (and my friends) are not the only ones playing the game. When I wanna have fun with my GI, I play solo.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 12:11 .

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote...

You can create a very similar list using almost any class.

No you can't, which is the point.

Well, the list would be similar, but the Gi is a master of each of these whereas every other class would be a master of one or two and okay at the rest.

Ergo: imba.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 12:15 .

[Seifer006]

@OP

what happens if the classes got "nerf'd" to your liking...yet you still got outscored by someone else?
would you still be pissed?

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

No you can't, which is the point.

  

Yes, you can. I can't be bothered to compile a list, but anyone who's played the game can see that there are some super powerful classes. You can argue their usefulness and contribution to the team, but they are still clearly OP in the right hands. I am stressing the "right hands" part. I hope you do understand not everyone is able to turn the GI into a killing machine, but they still wanna have some fun.

Forcing us to play solo with a certain class is not balanced. I've no idea why anyone whould think this is a good thing.

That's the fundamental problem you are having. No one is forcing you. No idea where you get that. Your biased experience says that you do not enjoy playing GI on a good team. Or QE on a team full of GIs. That's your own problem. Changing the game for others just because YOU don't like the current state is incredibly selfish.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 12:17 .

[Fortack]

astheoceansblue wrote...

I play with some of the best players form this forum. We use classes such as the Drell Vanguard, Turian Soldier, Human Infiltrator, Quarian Engineer, Turian Sentinel, etc... much more often than we run Sis, or Gis, or AAs simply because we're bored of how easy they make the game. Yes, the game is still easy in that we're experienced and know how to build an efficient team, but we shouldn't have to be forced to ignore/choose certain classes to balance the teams and the pace of the game for ourselves.

I agree that the GI is very powerful. Maybe they are a little too powerful. But the most important thing (for me) is to have a wide selection of characters who all have their own playstyle. I personally don't like the GI b/c I hate Hunter mode vision and also don't like playing the same class all the time (that gets old really fast). The problem I have with balancing claims is it nearly always results in less variety which is bad news. A diverse selection of classes >>>> a bland but balance set (especially in a PvE game). My fav ME2 class was the Adept, not the easiest or deadliest class but tons of fun and a wide variety of powers. All the "biotics don't work through defenses" whiners have made BW change biotics into a mindless bomb fest which lacks any kind of variety. I passionately dislike this "balance" act.

The few times I join a PuG and there are 2 GIs and one SI in the lobby I leave b/c (for me) that's going to be a boring game. But when people enjoy playing like that I don't see why I should bother as long as there are classes and teams to satisfy my needs I am fine.

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote...


Yes, you can. I can't be bothered to compile a list, but anyone who's played the game can see that there are some super powerful classes. You can argue their usefulness and contribution to the team, but they are still clearly OP in the right hands. I am stressing the "right hands" part. I hope you do understand not everyone is able to turn the GI into a killing machine, but they still wanna have some fun.

Look, the only way to test balance issues is to min-max. None of this matters to Bronze or Silver for obvious reasons, and the majority of Gold games either end in failure or are super-inefficient becasue your average joe doesn't care about synergy. 

So of course we're going to be using players who can max potential as a marker, and I'll assume from your comments that the teams you run with complete Gold in around 20 minutes on average with well set-up teams using whatever classes you feel like much like myself and my friends do.

Ok, so, if three of us decide to take the following: Quarian Engineer, Drell Adept, Truain Sentinel, then the last player decides he wants to play Gi... the game's pace gets thrown because the Gi can contribute so much more than the others. As mentioned, it's a team unto itself with so much internal synergy, and it disrupts the flow of the game.

Taking a Human Infiltrator would make the team feel more balanced and the pace just right, but why should be forced to limit our choice like this to make the game feel better to play?

All we're asking for is the clases to be brought in line with each other so this limitation ddoesn't exist. If this would happen if wouldn't affect the players you claim I'm ignoring at all as they would still run whatever class they liked effectively. We already know that every class is Gold viable, so why would it matter if we nerfed the Gi a little to keep it in line with everything else? 

The only arguement I see is "I like the gi as it is" which doesn't support the idea of balance and seems to suggest that people like being over powered.

Fortack wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

I play with some of the best players form this forum. We use classes such as the Drell Vanguard, Turian Soldier, Human Infiltrator, Quarian Engineer, Turian Sentinel, etc... much more often than we run Sis, or Gis, or AAs simply because we're bored of how easy they make the game. Yes, the game is still easy in that we're experienced and know how to build an efficient team, but we shouldn't have to be forced to ignore/choose certain classes to balance the teams and the pace of the game for ourselves.

I agree that the GI is very powerful. Maybe they are a little too powerful. But the most important thing (for me) is to have a wide selection of characters who all have their own playstyle. I personally don't like the GI b/c I hate Hunter mode vision and also don't like playing the same class all the time (that gets old really fast). The problem I have with balancing claims is it nearly always results in less variety which is bad news. A diverse selection of classes >>>> a bland but balance set (especially in a PvE game). My fav ME2 class was the Adept, not the easiest or deadliest class but tons of fun and a wide variety of powers. All the "biotics don't work through defenses" whiners have made BW change biotics into a mindless bomb fest which lacks any kind of variety. I passionately dislike this "balance" act.

The few times I join a PuG and there are 2 GIs and one SI in the lobby I leave b/c (for me) that's going to be a boring game. But when people enjoy playing like that I don't see why I should bother as long as there are classes and teams to satisfy my needs I am fine.

 

I'm not sure where this idea of balancing has to mean monotone comes from. 

There are plenty of ways that certain clases could be brought in line with others without making everything the same or things too simple.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 12:42 .

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

So of course we're going to be using players who can max potential as a marker, and I'll assume from your comments that the teams you run with complete Gold in around 20 minutes on average with well set-up teams using whatever classes you feel like much like myself and my friends do.

 

Yes. 20 minutes is not very special. Cerberus Glacier is done under 15 easily, for example.

astheoceansblue wrote... 
Ok, so, if three of us decide to take the following: Quarian Engineer, Drell Adept, Truain Sentinel, then the last player decides he wants to play Gi... the game's pace gets thrown because the Gi can contribute so much more than the others. As mentioned, it's a team unto itself with so much internal synergy, and it disrupts the flow of the game.
 

 

Disrupts the flow of the game..for you. Again. Back to the starting line.

astheoceansblue wrote... 
Taking a Human Infiltrator would make the team feel more balanced and the pace just right, but why should be forced to limit our choice like this to make the game feel better to play?
 

 

Again, you are not forced by the game. You are forced by your biased views and preferences. Your problem.

astheoceansblue wrote...  
All we're asking for is the clases to be brought in line with each other so this limitation ddoesn't exist. If this would happen if wouldn't affect the players you claim I'm ignoring at all as they would still run whatever class they liked effectively. We already know that every class is Gold viable, so why would it matter if we nerfed the Gi a little to keep it in line with everything else? 
 

  

Case in point - you nerf the GI a bit. A good player can still dominate anyway. A not so good player suddenly can't play Silver, even though he used to do well and enjoyed it. 

Nerf GI - nothing's changed, maybe SI gets bumped up as the top dog again. Play a game with a great sniper (i.e. Sp3c7er) and you will be ****ing pissed because he will "disrupt the game flow for you". What's changed? You tell me.

Why even single out the GI anyway? At least GI is dynamic class. Boring power spam classes that can sit behind cover for 20 minutes are even more OP and take virtually no skill to play efficiently.

astheoceansblue wrote...  
The only arguement I see is "I like the gi as it is" which doesn't support the idea of balance and seems to suggest that people like being over powered.
 

  


The only argument you have presented is: GI is way too good in the right hands. It destroys my game. Nerf!
I tried to point out that you are not the only one playing the game and that changing it to your liking may destroy the game for someone else. Is that fair? I didn't think so.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 12:51 .

[rmccowen]

I can't believe this thread is still running.

Kronner wrote...

You can create a very similar list using almost any class.

astheoceansblue wrote...

No you can't, which is the point.

Kronner wrote...

Yes, you can. I can't be bothered to compile a list...

You can't be bothered to do something that you're presenting as trivially easy?

Changing the game for others just because YOU don't like the current state is incredibly selfish.

He's arguing for the general existence of changes to the game because he thinks it would make the game better, which isn't selfish at all. He appears to have mentioned the GI because it's broadly recognized that the GI is at least very good.

Moreover, he's reacting to an argument that's been made multiple times around here that it's a co-op game, so nothing can ever be imbalanced. (I'm paraphrasing the OP.) Most of the negative responses have focused on the following points:

1) We have bad data or no data, so no one can ever talk about what an "average" player can and can't do on the scoreboard. This is a very silly claim; we can only speculate based on our own experience, but of course BioWare can aggregate results and look at central tendencies. Whether or not astheoceansblue has a good idea of what an average player looks like, the people mining the game data do. There are even mathematical models that can account for effectively random variables like player skill.

2) Scores don't matter, because the scoreboard doesn't reflect every aspect of in-game performance. This is true, up to a point: everyone gets the same experience at the end of the match, and there are lots of ways to contribute to a game's success without racking up points. But the scoreboard does do a very good job of objectively evaluating relative efficiency at killing enemies. It's a noisy and incomplete system, but look at what astheoceansblue is saying: if there's a class that players who usually get moderate to poor scores suddenly score well with, that's a flag for potential problems with that class.

3) Anything is good in the right hands, so the game is balanced. This is another jaw-dropper: if you can beat me at chess despite handicapping yourself by taking your queen off the board, that doesn't mean that removing one player's queen results in a balanced game.

4) Anything is good in the right hands, so balance isn't necessary. This is tougher to rebut, and it's the only one of these three claims that's actually on-topic, so discussing it is probably a good idea. I'll note again, however, that the idea of balanced player choice in a co-op game is much older and exists far outside the context of ME3 multiplayer.

[molecularman]

I can't understand how this can even be up for debate

[Fortack]

What do you propose should change then? I think Cloak and Hunter Mode are out of the question b/c they are race/class defining. What 3rd power do you have in mind?