216 réponses à ce sujet

[Kronner]

rmccowen wrote...

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

Yes, I don't feel like putting up a list of overpowered features of some classes would help make my point stand out better.

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.

He thinks. Key word thinks. Based on insufficient data and personal preferences.

Example: Salarian Infiltrator
-first class to record Gold solo game, ever (back in the demo days)
-clearly the best Infiltrator in the demo, and together with AA best class in the demo
-only got buffed between then and now

So perhaps not everyone can get most out of SI. Yet based on the logic OP is using, it should have been nerfed, because it has too much utility and "disrupts game flow". But BioWare knows better, because they see the big picture.

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:
..

No one denies that the game is imbalanced. It's just that it does not matter in a game like this. The fact that the game is imbalanced would matter if only the hardcore players remained (so teh casuals could be ignored) or there was only one difficulty. Or if it was PvP. The fact that SP is imbalanced is not a problem either. Actually, no Mass Effect to date has been balanced properly. Yet the game is still awesome.

Everyone can tailor the game as they see fit. Your "balancing" would only remove the options for most players.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 01:07 .

[astheoceansblue]

rmccowen wrote...

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.

Thanks mate. 

Thanks for reading my posts properly and understanding my intentions.

Replying to this thread was becoming frustrating to say the least.

[FrOoOstBite]

Of course it is.

-Captain Obvious

[astheoceansblue]

FrOoOstBite wrote...

Of course it is.

-Captain Obvious

Yeh, you would think so...

[rmccowen]

Kronner wrote...

rmccowen wrote...

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

Yes, I don't feel like putting up a list of overpowered features of some classes would help make my point stand out better.

It would go against your point... which is exactly the point.

He thinks. Key word thinks. Based on insufficient data and personal preferences.

You accused him of acting out of self-interest. My point was that it strongly appears that he's acting out of a genuine desire to make the game better.

No one denies that the game is imbalanced.

People (not you) have done so in this thread. It's worth pointing out that they're wrong.

It's just that it does not matter in a game like this. The fact that the game is imbalanced would matter if only the hardcore players remained (so teh casuals could be ignored) or there was only one difficulty. Or if it was PvP.

But there's already a difficulty setting designed to allow casual players to participate in and enjoy the game, and it's obvious: you have to set it when you host or search for a game, and there's an obvious progression of Bronze < Silver < Gold.

IMO, a big part of the problem with having a great deal of variance in the potential of characters--that is, in their relative efficiency at killing enemies--is that there's no obvious marker for which are "easy" characters and which are "hard". What if I've beaten all three games on Normal difficulty with an Engineer Shepard, and I think Quarians are cool... so I pick QE when I sign into multiplayer for the first time? (Ditto Krogan Sentinel, Human Adept, etc.)  There's no obvious hierarchy to the characters, and no indicator that should tell my hypothetical noob that he or she has just made the game harder than it would otherwise be.

And it's as bad on the high end. If I had 1000 credits for every low-N7 Novaguard and SI/GI I've met in Gold PUGs who thought he was God's gift to Mass Effect because he outscores everyone in Bronze, I'd be set for at least a couple of extra PSPs at the Rebellion launch.

Maybe the solution is, instead of balance, an explicit tier system for characters--that would at least get BioWare off the hook for figuring out how to balance the GI with... well, anything that doesn't have both TC and HM. But I can't agree that imbalance isn't a problem.

(Part of the reason I'm invested in this discussion is that it parallels one that's been going on in pen-and-paper RPGs for a decade or so. The company that owns Dungeons and Dragons is in the process of revising it for a new edition, and whether or not "system mastery" should be rewarded by the game mechanics--that is, whether there should be player options that are deliberately better and worse than others--is a current topic of debate. Now You Know!)

[Feneckus]

 How can someone even pretend the GI is not OP ?

I have outscored the rest of my team combined multiple times when playing with randoms, something I've never done with another class. They don't even have to be horrible for that to happen. It's just that the GI can take care of business so damn fast, your teammates barely have time to score points. They're just there to act as decoys. A good GI can solo gold in like 25 minutes, which is about the same time it takes for FOUR average gold players.

There's no way a Quarian Engineer can do that, even if you gave her 10 missiles.

The GI is the most offensively gifted character, the most durable because he can see trouble coming a mile away and engage enemies on his terms while being the best team player (invisibility, great running speed, debuff, can warn teammates of incoming threats if he has a mic). How is that balanced ?

[DHKany]

and yet he is the most defensively crippled character. One stun streak of a prime, one stagger from a brute, one warp hit from a banshee and your f***ed.

[Kronner]

rmccowen wrote...

It would go against your point... which is exactly the point.

  

It wouldn't. Asari Adept, for example, is just as OP, only in a different way. She may not have such a huge scoring potential, but her skills are good in any situation. You don't even have to aim. You only need to look in a general direction and press a button. How is that kind of OPness ok, but GI is not? Points scored, right? And we're back.
Personally, while I always score most points with a GI, I would not say that SI + Black Widow (example) is any less OP. Scores less points? Sure. But it is just as good anyway.

You accused him of acting out of self-interest. My point was that it strongly appears that he's acting out of a genuine desire to make the game better.

I may have read that wrong, but his never ending score mentions lead me to belive that's the fundamental problem he's having.

People (not you) have done so in this thread. It's worth pointing out that they're wrong. 

Fair enough.

But there's already a difficulty setting designed to allow casual players to participate in and enjoy the game, and it's obvious: you have to set it when you host or search for a game, and there's an obvious progression of Bronze < Silver < Gold. 

That does not mean that nerfing a class "in order to bring it back it line" works. It stills spoils the game for certain players. Not really fair. That's why devs dislike introducing the nerfs..because it inevitably pisses off someone.

IMO, a big part of the problem with having a great deal of variance in the potential of characters--that is, in their relative efficiency at killing enemies--is that there's no obvious marker for which are "easy" characters and which are "hard". What if I've beaten all three games on Normal difficulty with an Engineer Shepard, and I think Quarians are cool... so I pick QE when I sign into multiplayer for the first time? (Ditto Krogan Sentinel, Human Adept, etc.)  There's no obvious hierarchy to the characters, and no indicator that should tell my hypothetical noob that he or she has just made the game harder than it would otherwise be. 

Because that's a very subjective ranking. While the consensus on BSN is that Infiltrators are the most OP class, there are people who can't play that class for whatever reason. Different people excel at different roles. Someone needs to be "the man", someone wants to be a support player etc. What comes easy to you might be hard for someone else etc.

 

 And it's as bad on the high end. If I had 1000 credits for every low-N7 Novaguard and SI/GI I've met in Gold PUGs who thought he was God's gift to Mass Effect because he outscores everyone in Bronze, I'd be set for at least a couple of extra PSPs at the Rebellion launch.
 

 

This is what I mean. You nerf the class they enjoy and they will not even sniff gold anymore.

 

 Maybe the solution is, instead of balance, an explicit tier system for characters--that would at least get BioWare off the hook for figuring out how to balance the GI with... well, anything that doesn't have both TC and HM. But I can't agree that imbalance isn't a problem.
 

 

Again, that would be very subjective ranking/tier system. Imbalance is not a problem, because everyone can pick what they like. Say you really enjoy class A, but class B has much higher scoring potential. Why should that make you stop playing class A? Makes no sense to me.

Feneckus wrote...

How can someone even pretend the GI is not OP ?

 

Of course it's OP, in the right hands. So is at least a dozen of other classes/builds. How is that a problem? GI is the only class behind the mythical "OP line"?

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 02:22 .

[Prodicus]

Ultimately, I think there's more consensus here than it appears. We all seem to agree that some classes are more powerful than others. The issue seems whether or not this is such an issue that those classes need to be nerfed (or the others buffed). It comes down to, I think, personal preference, experience, and play style.

I, for one, think the game and its current "balance" (whatever that really means lol) is fine. But that's just my opinion. If the OP disagrees, well that's his opinion, too.

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote...

It wouldn't.

Except it does, see below...

Kronner wrote...
Asari Adept, for example, is just as OP, only in a different way.

No, she's not. The points you raise do not show the class is OP in the same way the Gi is.

Let's ignore Score for a second and focus on utility:

AA can do a few things:
Debuff
Set up explosions
Explode things
Freeze things in place

Yes, she's powerful at her given roles, but that's ALL she can do. The Gi is given far more utility and he excells at all of them.

Gi can:
Turn invisible - this allows it to revive and hack objectives better than any class.
Wallhack
Debuff crowds
Stagger crowds
Gets a huge weapons boost
Gets a huge movement boost
Has a super powered melee

He's like the best support class and the highest damage class in one. 

No comparison there. The problem as I've mentioned a few times now is that the Gi is a team unto itself, and has too much internal synergy. It doesn't need a team to bond with to reach its potential, and this allows and actively encourages the player to run around ignoring synergy in favour of individual gain.

Kronner wrote...
I may have read that wrong, but his never ending score mentions lead me to belive that's the fundamental problem he's having.

No, what you did was ignore all the points I made the showed I was interested in fair balance, and focused on any mention of score. You selected sections of my posts to respond to.

Kronner wrote...

That does not mean that nerfing a class "in order to bring it back it line" works. It stills spoils the game for certain players. Not really fair. That's why devs dislike introducing the nerfs..because it inevitably pisses off someone.

So It's selfish of me to ask for the game to be balanced so team synergy and the underdog classes win out, yet it's not selfish for you to claim other players who rely on the power of the Geth to enjoy Gold should keep that power so their game isn't ruined?

Surely overall balance is more important than a few players relying on a powerful class to compete?

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 04:42 .

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

No, she's not. The points you raise do not show the class is OP in the same way the Gi is.

Let's ignore Score for a second and focus on utility:

AA can do a few things:
Debuff
Set up explosions
Explode things
Freeze things in place

Yes, she's powerful at her given roles, but that's ALL she can do. The Gi is given far more utility and he excells at all of them.

Gi can:
Turn invisible - this allows it to revive and hack objectives better than any class.
Wallhack
Debuff crowds
Stagger crowds
Gets a huge weapons boost
Gets a huge movement boost
Has a super powered melee

He's like the best support class and the highest damage class in one. 

No comparison there. The problem as I've mentioned a few times now is that the Gi is a team unto itself, and has too much internal synergy. It doesn't need a team to bond with to reach its potential, and this allows and actively encourages the player to run around ignoring synergy in favour of individual gain. 

 

Of course comparing classes directly makes no sense because they never face each other. It's like comparing two ice-hockey teammates - a defenseman and a forward and their contribution to the team. One guy prevents goals, the other scores them. Comparing the two is stupid.

Asari Adept is OP compared to what the game throws at her. She renders the most dangerous enemy in the game harmless, for the whole team.

GI is OP as well, obviously.

Different tools, different job. GI can obviously kill faster and score more points, Asari easily wins in CC. Not possible to compare directly.

No, what you did was ignore all the points I made the showed I was interested in fair balance, and focused on any mention of score. You selected sections of my posts to respond to.
 

  

Responded to all parts of your post(s). You may call it fair balance, but even you actually admitted that score does not accurately reflect the contribution to the team. Yet you still kept using it as the main point of your argument.
Then you said that GI disrupts flow of the game for you, which in other words means "someone is stealing MY kills".
You also mentioned stuff like "individual gain" "kills for himself" etc., which clearly imply that you care about the score.

So It's selfish of me to ask for the game to be balanced so team synergy and the underdog classes win out, yet it's not selfish for you to claim other players who rely on the power of the Geth to enjoy Gold should keep that power so their game isn't ruined?

Surely overall balance is more important than a few players relying on a powerful class to compete?

Yes, it's selfish to change something for the worse, when it is clearly enjoyed by people, just because someone thinks it's too OP or whatever. I still do not see your problem. You apparently hate what GI does to your games, but you can easily avoid that class altogether. Other people may enjoy the class as is. 
BioWare changes the class. You are happy. Someone else is pissed off. 
Where does the balancing stop? If GI is so OP it needs to be changed then surely other classes must be changed as well. For fair balance's sake, of course.

Back to the start line.

Just for the record, I do agree that there are OP classes (not just GI, many more). However, I do not agree that it's a problem.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 05:03 .

[Fortack]

Let's go back to the OP:

astheoceansblue wrote...

Especially when it's co-op team based play as it is with ME3 MP.

This entire game is built around team balance. If a player isn't carrying their weight, the game can feel like it's lacking pace, if someone is using a class or build that kills too quickly there's no sense of team achievement or challenge.

Next time you think to write "Over-powered doesn't matter, this is co-op", please think a little harder.

Nobody sane is saying that balance isn't an import feature in games, regardless whether it's SP, MP, Co-op or whatever. Nobody isn't saying that the GI is not (relatively) OP. However, the problem is not stating the obvious, it's about putting forth ideas how to "fix" the issue. It's incredibly easy to say balance isn't perfect, but it's insanely hard to get it right esp in the broader context. Anyone who has ideas should share em, if not please stop complaining.

[FlamboyantRoy]

DHKany wrote...

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.

Their excessively large player base would disagree with you.  AT least CoD is overtly competitive, as soon as a player boots up the game they know the drill. In ME3 multiplayer you're told that teamwork rules all.. Yet we have threads where people post screenshots of them 'ownin' it up and being #1. We have eltists who will kick a low N7guy from silver because god forbid they might have to try. And last but not least there's the overly aggressive players who will rocket a guardian in order to climb the point chart. 

Bottomline, the point chart encourages selfish play. Some players are able to look past it and work together cohesively, others are willing to murder their mothers to "win" the point chart game. 

Don't fool yourself, this multiplayer isn't so different in terms of competition in regards to good ole CoD. 

Modifié par FlamboyantRoy, 28 mai 2012 - 05:54 .

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote...
Different tools, different job. GI can obviously kill faster and score more points, Asari easily wins in CC. Not possible to compare directly.

No, you can and I did and you ignored the main point:

Gi has too much utility, and becomes a team unto itself. It can - and indeed is actively encouraged by its skill-set - to ignore the rest of the team and run around playing a solo mission.

The problem with the Gi is it actually disrupts team based play because of its set up. The other classes that are OP don't as they still require a degree of synergy to reach anywhere near the same kind of out-put potential.

Fortack wrote...


Nobody sane is saying that balance isn't an import feature in games, regardless whether it's SP, MP, Co-op or whatever. Nobody isn't saying that the GI is not (relatively) OP. However, the problem is not stating the obvious, it's about putting forth ideas how to "fix" the issue. It's incredibly easy to say balance isn't perfect, but it's insanely hard to get it right esp in the broader context. Anyone who has ideas should share em, if not please stop complaining.

This is the problem. The Gi shouldn't have been given so much power in the first place. P.mine was a bad idea, he should have had a much lesser power like a grenade. P.Mine is too much on top of TC, HM, and the Geth's passives. The only way to really fix it would be to remove P.Mine and offer something else, imo, otherwise you get into too much of a juggling act between all the various damage bonuses offered by the aforementioned powers.

I'd like to read some ideas on how to buff the QE that would be reasonable, too.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 05:50 .

[Drummernate]

The Geth Infiltrator is only overpowered for those that know how to spec and use them.

The Geth Engineer can be just as overpowered with damage spec'd Overload spam!

The Turian Soldier is the most OP of all with incredible DPS out of any weapon + the ability to debuff a target for EVEN MORE damage.

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

No, you can and I did and you ignored the main point:

Gi has too much utility, and becomes a team unto itself. It can - and indeed is actively encouraged by its skill-set - to ignore the rest of the team and run around playing a solo mission.

 

Only if you play him that way. I've met GIs that ignore PM, for example.

And no, you can't compare AA and GI. Let's say GI clears a spawn point full of Troopers and a couple of Guardians. 
AA catches 3 phantoms in a Bubble. GI gets a lot more points. Who actually contributed more? How is GI any more OP than AA? Comparing two classes is not accurate and pointless.

I still don't see how GI can bother you in the slightest. You apparently dislike the class, so why should you care how others play it?

Even if I assumed that everyone plays GI like you do, isn't it good that not all classes are pretty much the same thing in a different coat? Why shouldn't I have the option to play as a lone robot with a bunch of organics? Because it "disrupts" your game, it should be taken away from everyone else? Get serious.

astheoceansblue wrote... 

The problem with the Gi is it actually disrupts team based play because of its set up. The other classes that are OP don't as they still require a degree of synergy to reach anywhere near the same kind of out-put potential.

Really? My SI couldn't care less about synergy. It can do anything the geth can, minus the wallhack. "To compensate", the Salarian gets the ability to refill shields WHILE cloaked. Nerf?

GI does not disrupt team based play. GI is still part of the team. It contributes to the whole team. You might not like that contribution, but that is your own problem.

Human Vanguard can be a lone wolf too. Only (s)he does not need to be invisible, because of Charge-Nova spam and the invincibilty frames. Nerf?

That guy camping with a Black Widow is outdamaging my Katana. And he does not get fired at. I do. Nerf?

Anyway, it comes down to the fact that "nerfing" is always unpopular and rarely actually improves the game. If that was not the case, a number of classes (yes, GI is one of them) would have been nerfed a long time ago. Fortunately, BioWare knows better.

Drummernate wrote...

The Geth Infiltrator is only overpowered for those that know how to spec and use them.

The Geth Engineer can be just as overpowered with damage spec'd Overload spam!

The Turian Soldier is the most OP of all with incredible DPS out of any weapon + the ability to debuff a target for EVEN MORE damage.

 

^ ^

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[astheoceansblue]

Kronner wrote...
I still don't see how GI can bother you in the slightest. You apparently dislike the class, so why should you care how others play it?

I've explained this...

The skillset of the GI actively encourages solo play. And while not every player will spec this way, almost every single Gi I've met does.

Kronner wrote... 
Why shouldn't I have the option to play as a lone robot with a bunch of organics?

 

Co-op game.

Kronner wrote...  
Because it "disrupts" your game, it should be taken away from everyone else? Get serious.

See, arguments like these show me you're not really thinking about your responses.

I'm arguing for the co-op nature of the gamer to be balanced more so every player recieves the benefit. 

You keep suggesting that if this balance happens, then those who enjoy to play a more solo style in a co-op game would suffer? And this makes me selfish?

Kronner wrote... 
Really? My SI couldn't care less about synergy. It can do anything the geth can, minus the wallhack. "To compensate", the Salarian gets the ability to refill shields WHILE cloaked. Nerf?

The Si is a little OP too, yes. Again, too much utility on one class. It's not as bad as the GI, but it's close in terms of lone potential.

Kronner wrote... 

Anyway, it comes down to the fact that "nerfing" is always unpopular and rarely actually improves the game. If that was not the case, a number of classes (yes, GI is one of them) would have been nerfed a long time ago. Fortunately, BioWare knows better.

Nerfing activley improives the game at times, just as buffs do. To say it doesn't merely shows you've not been a part of many communities with rolling balance changes. 

Drummernate wrote...

The Geth Infiltrator is only overpowered for those that know how to spec and use them.

The Geth Engineer can be just as overpowered with damage spec'd Overload spam!

The Turian Soldier is the most OP of all with incredible DPS out of any weapon + the ability to debuff a target for EVEN MORE damage.

 

See, the Turian is balanced in a few ways: it has to select which power to use and then wait for the CD to finish before using another. It has mad DPS, but it also has no roll. It really beenfits from full fitness as it lacks mobility, so you have to pick and choose your skills carrefully.

Si and gi can ignore fitness. 100% unrequired. This lets you max out everything else. In essence, they beocme the two classes who can have maxed out everything.

Si doesn't need fitness as it has invisi mode and a situational yet infinite special ops pack.
Gi doesn't need fintess as it has invisi mode, super-speed, and wallhack and can predict enemy movement negating mroe damage than any shields can absorb.

These two classes can also carry any gun they want and not worry about weight (revive and objective encumbrance cost is negligable), and fire powers under cloak for mad bonuses and 3 sec CD.

All of this plus the aforementioned benefits.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 06:47 .

[DHKany]

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

DHKany wrote...

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.

Their excessively large player base would disagree with you.  AT least CoD is overtly competitive, as soon as a player boots up the game they know the drill. In ME3 multiplayer you're told that teamwork rules all.. Yet we have threads where people post screenshots of them 'ownin' it up and being #1. We have eltists who will kick a low N7guy from silver because god forbid they might have to try. And last but not least there's the overly aggressive players who will rocket a guardian in order to climb the point chart. 

Bottomline, the point chart encourages selfish play. Some players are able to look past it and work together cohesively, others are willing to murder their mothers to "win" the point chart game. 

Don't fool yourself, this multiplayer isn't so different in terms of competition in regards to good ole CoD. 

True true. I think they should just keep the kill feed and just get rid of the scoreboard, cause like you said , there are a lot of people willing to do anythin to get the 200 extra points to climb up to the top. As for the N7 thing its a touchy subject. I play with the ppl for a round and then decide whether to boot them or not. But the threads where ppl post pictures of them becoming #1 is usually to make a point such as how they had to carry the team throughout gold because of the weekend operations. 
I've met less annoying 12 year olds, but have met adult a-holes who think they're awesome. Don't know which ones worse. 
As for COD, its still a broken game. Noobtubes in MW2 made the COD series into a complete joke, and the dominance of the FAMAS and type 95 users doesn't put me in a competitive mood. How can you be competitive when you're getting spawn trapped by overpowered kill streaks and guns?

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...
See, arguments like these show me you're not really thinking about your responses.

I'm arguing for the co-op nature of the gamer to be balanced more so every player recieves the benefit. 

You keep suggesting that if this balance happens, then those who enjoy to play a more solo style in a co-op game would suffer? And this makes me selfish?

 

Of course. Because the current state of things was introduced by BioWare. People got used to it. You singled out one class and call for a nerf hammer. When in reality, it is not any more OP than already existing classes. That's what puzzles me. How do you justify nerfing GI*, but leaving biotic bombs intact? Or Charge? Or...

*one man army argument is invalid. A krogan or a slarian is one man army too.

The Si is a little OP too, yes. Again, too much utility on one class. It's not as bad as the GI, but it's close in terms of lone potential.

 

So, nerf? Cool, now we have 2 classes on the list. More to come I think.

Nerfing activley improives the game at times, just as buffs do. To say it doesn't merely shows you've not been a part of many communities with rolling balance changes. 

 

Of course it MAY improve the game. I would like to know, where do you stop though. We all know there are OP classes. Actually, I'd argue most of them are OP. Why single out GI? Score does not matter. It is not easier to play than say a Salarian or Asari.

See, the Turian is balanced in a few ways: it has to select which power to use and then wait for the CD to finish before using another. It has mad DPS, but it also has no roll. It really beenfits from full fitness as it lacks mobility, so you have to pick and choose your skills carrefully.

  

The geth has no roll either. You have to wait for CD reset too.

Si and gi can ignore fitness. 100% unrequired. This lets you max out everything else. In essence, they beocme the two classes who can have maxed out everything.

Fitness is not required on any class. It helps, though. 

 Si doesn't need fitness as it has invisi mode and a situational yet infinite special ops pack.
Gi doesn't need fintess as it has invisi mode, super-speed, and wallhack and can predict enemy movement negating mroe damage than any shields can absorb.

 

Assuming the player is actually able to take advantage of these perks. I've seen way too many bad GIs and SIs to know that's just not the case with many players. You nerf the GI, a good player works around it. A not so good player will not be able to play it. Who really wins here?

These two classes can also carry any gun they want and not worry about weight (revive and objective encumbrance cost is negligable), and fire powers under cloak for mad bonuses and 3 sec CD.

All of this plus the aforementioned benefits.

Same goes for any Infiltrator.That's just the nature of the class.

I think you should propose Vanguard nerf too. I mean recharging shields every 3-4 seconds, free 50% DR for 4s after charge? Way too OP. Vanguards can aslo be lone wolfs. No place in a co-op game.

And how about those pesky Engineers. Chain Overload LOL time. Way too OP.

And how about ..

/sarcasm

I don't know how yours or mine definition of OP stuff actually translates into this argument, but when you stop "balancing down", it's a very slippery slope that will most likely lead to a less enjoyable game for most people. I.e. I like sniping with the Black Widow. Is it OP? You bet. If they halved the damage to make it "balanced" I'd stop using it and be pissed off because my favourite weapon got nerfed. The fun factor should come first.  

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 07:30 .

[astheoceansblue]

You know, this debate is absolutely pointless because the crux of your argument is that we shouldn't balance because balancing requires both buffs and nerfs, and some players are reliant on the currently overpowered classes so it wouldn't be fair on them.

I'm honestly finding it tiring arguing against such a silly idea.

And if you really can't see how a class such as the Gi that has the utility of an entire team in its skill set and is the master of each aspect is a bad thing for a co-op game, well, we're just going to go in circles forever.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Kronner]

astheoceansblue wrote...

You know, this debate is absolutely pointless because the crux of your argument is that we shouldn't balance because balancing requires both buffs and nerfs and some players are reliant on the currently overpowered classes so it wouldn't be fair on them

  

I agree with that. However, you either go all the way or not at all. Singling out one (any) class makes no sense. If you risk pissing off your customers, at least do it right. Balance the whole game. Weapons, classes..everything.

astheoceansblue wrote... 
And if you really can't see how a class such as the Gi that has the utility of an entire team in its skill set and is the master of each aspect is a bad thing for a co-op game, well, we're just going to go in circles forever.

 

I can see that GI has that. I do not see a problem with that though. Especially when SI can do the same.

astheoceansblue wrote... 
Let's just agree to disagree.

Ok.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 08:46 .

[dgumb]

Oh look, another astheoceansblue thread that turns into a (very thinly) veiled nerf GI thread offering anecdote and opinion as evidence. How unusual.

Here's a question that I've been thinking about while reading this thread.

When we look at weapon balance, everyone concedes that UR weapons should be better than commons, to justify their rarity and relative difficulty in obtaining upgrades, i.e. the tiered system dictates that as weapons go up a tier in rarity, there should be a concurrent increase in effectiveness or utility.

However, characters are tiered similarly. A human soldier for example is a common card, everyone starts with this class. However a GI or an SI or an AA are all gold "rare" cards. Does not the tiered system also dictate that characters increase in effectiveness or utility as their relative rarity increases? Is this not the major incentive to unlock those characters? Otherwise, what is the point of tiering player cards/classes?


EDIT: that last paragraph was intended to be read as me thinking out loud, rather than a direct challenge to the idea of balance in general.

Modifié par dgumb, 28 mai 2012 - 08:42 .

[Prodicus]

Don't worry; the nerf-the-OP-vorcha sentinel thread is only days away

[Bleachrude]

I'm kind of shocked that people think "average" players can score over 120k on gold with a GI. This past weekend for example, I actually played over 10 hours worth of gold (mix of FBWGG and others) which was easily over 25 games (not all were successful)., but I ever once saw an infiltrator rack over 110k ...

Only ones that did it were a tag teaming asari pair-justicar and adept....(played a few games with them and those two obviously worked before together...definitely a good team)

Its' weird but all of the "good" builds and weapons we talk about?

I say only in 10-15% of my gold matches do I see people actually using them....no geth infiltrator with claymore, no hurricane builds...

Most people on gold don't seem to actually accept the "wisdom" of what's best....

[dgumb]

Just to make my previous point in a more pithy manner:

Everyone agrees that it makes sense for the claymore (rare) to be better than the katana (common), but no one comes to the same conclusion with the human infiltrator (common) and the geth infiltrator (rare), for example.

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