143 réponses à ce sujet

[Indenter]

Because overpowered things take the word Co-op out of Co-op gameplay.

Why cooperate with other players when they solo the game? The only way I can cooperate there is to die constantly as I follow the prodood around.

[NathanW18]

People get beaten and ask for nerfs. It happens with every game.

[Sovereign24]

nuculerman wrote...

In my personal opinion, the people actually complaining, 90% of the time, can't make use of the OP mechanic. They get jealous when others they play with can, and thus cry for nerfs.

Best example is melee GI. It's fairly hard to be good with that build. Once you're good you can dominate all things, but most people I see trying it are terribad and die all the time. I posit that most people making threads complaining it's way OP (which, in their defense, it is) aren't actually any good playing a melee GI.

Really?

I've only tried it a couple of times, and both times I dominated the scoreboard and died the least (and I'm not elite or anything).  There's no skill involved in playing a melee GI. You just need common sense really.

Modifié par Sovereign24, 30 mai 2012 - 08:18 .

[Creighton72]

Cause they don't know how to play. You can be at the top on any leaderboard with any class, it just depends on you. The it's not fair garbage gets a little old. Just about every class has been on a vid soloing Gold, what more do you want? I play with people using GI all the time, they don't come in first as often as I hear about it. You know what makes a class or character overpowered? A really good player using a good mouse.

[StrawHatMoose]

sareth_65536 wrote...

Imagine a player who OHK any enemy in the game. When you play with him you can just stand and relax, he will easily solo any wave on any difficulty. Is it an interesting game?
That's why they complain

Except the player cant kill every enemy in the game because he can only be in one place at that time. And that gives other people the opurtunity to get kills. And there are only like 4 enemies in the game that can be one hit killed so your arguement is already invalid. Shall we continue? Also I would play with him because all of the toal xp is addedup and given to eahc player, so it doesnt matter that much because the xp gained at the end is generally the same. Also he will die because he can only focus on one enemy at a time, and he will be gangbanged by a phantoms and atlases, or banshees or geth primes

[Cyonan]

StrawHatMoose wrote...

Except the player cant kill every enemy in the game because he can only be in one place at that time. And that gives other people the opurtunity to get kills. And there are only like 4 enemies in the game that can be one hit killed so your arguement is already invalid. Shall we continue? Also I would play with him because all of the toal xp is addedup and given to eahc player, so it doesnt matter that much because the xp gained at the end is generally the same. Also he will die because he can only focus on one enemy at a time, and he will be gangbanged by a phantoms and atlases, or banshees or geth primes

Uh.. there are only about 4 enemies in the game that can't be one hit killed.

My Claymore cares not about your shield gating.

[paincanbefun]

Indenter wrote...

Because overpowered things take the word Co-op out of Co-op gameplay.

Why cooperate with other players when they solo the game? The only way I can cooperate there is to die constantly as I follow the prodood around.

respectfully: some people are very good.  if you're not, that's not their fault.  this isn't meant to be a dis, because if i took some classes into gold, i couldn't play them either.  but i can play on silver even with bad teammates and however good you are, i'm sure you can play on bronze even with bad teammates.

i agree that a good player who does not cooperate can seem like a liability to you, but there's a lot of ways bad teammates can be a liability and if this is a consistant problem for you, you can solve it by playing at an easier setting where teamwork is less important.

actually requesting that they be made less good seems unnecessary.

Modifié par paincanbefun, 30 mai 2012 - 08:23 .

[Apl_Juice]

paincanbefun wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

Uh, no. Most of the people who consistently argue for nerfs and buffs use hard data in their arguements for why something needs a buff/nerf. Contrary to popular belief, its not cause "we're jealous"; we'd rather see a game where all weapons can perform fairly.

1. this is most likely false.  your "hard data" is used to make subjective interperetations.  if you could produce an equation that determined a precise relationship between weight/dam/rof/rarity values then i agree, you could place data within an objective context, and say, for instance, that the damage per shot of the carnifex should be 10% lower.  to my knowledge no such hard context exists, so while you know what the damage per shot of all the guns is- your hard data- as far as interpereting it goes, all you can say is that it "feels like those numbers should fall in a different range"  which is totally subjective.  "it *just seems* like a gun with (hard data) weight should have (hard data) damage" is not an objective analysis, so the strength of each datum is irrelevant.

2. even if you could plot a precise relationship between these many variables showing you *exactly* where a given gun's values should fall (and if you can, i take back my first statement, but i've never seen or heard about this), it's still missing the point- which is to have fun.  bioware nerfing a gun because it makes it too easy for me to get their credits makes sense.  you claiming that my "op" gun actually causes you to have less fun in a way that you can't problem solve on your end is silly.  don't like krogans?  don't play with them.  don't like the carnifex?  don't use it.

the game being "fair" means that all players have access to the same equipment.  it does not mean that the measureable data for all equipment conforms to your (or anyone's) subjective expectations.  it is fortunate in this case that bioware has their own motivations for their tweaks and that "hard data" pro-nerf clammor (and my criticism of it, and most of our other opinions) is safely irrelevant.

1. Balancing itself is a subjective idea, everyone knows that. In any game that has options, true balance is impossible, but you still want to work towards it. Just because those interpretations are subjective doesn't make them valueless.

2. I keep hearing the "I want this gun nerfed because it makes me have less fun when people use it" argument. That isn't the case at all, some weapons are so overpowered that they de-value other similar weapons. Example: Paladin vs. Sabre. The Sabre is weaker, heavier, slower, less accurate Paladin. Its only advantage is ammo capacity. In that sense, The Paladin devalues the Sabre. It may be a co-op game, but when playing with others there's always a bar you need to achieve regardless. Now, look at the Scorpion vs. the Falcon; 2 more guns with similar functions. The Scorpion is all-around better, but its an ultra rare, which is a significant nerf. They're better balanced. Another example: The Tempest. The Tempest is an Uncommon SMG, yet outperforms every automatic AR bar the Harrier. What, then, is the point of the Revenant, Phaeston, Avenger, GPR? The Tempest invalidates all of them.

You may say "Why use X if you don't like it?".

I say "Why is X in the game if it serves no function?"

Game balance is just as much about proper design as it is fairness. Why do guns like the Eagle, Locust, etc. etc. exist in the game if they're so grossly outperformed? Balance them or remove them.

[neteng101]

Cyonan wrote...

People who are pro-balance(Not just nerf all the things or buff all the things) tend to want more diversity in the game. We're tired of seeing 90% of the casters using a Carnifex(Or Paladin if it's a high enough rank).

So I guess if wanting to get people to feel like they can use the gun they like the most and still be competitive with it makes me selfish, then I'm an incredibly selfish person.

Diversity is having a choice of good/bad weapons.  By your logic, you'll just end up with a game of bad weapon choices, that are pretty much balanced ie. sameness, and the only diversity is that they operate differently but have the same end results.

In case you didn't notice, there are good and bad weapons in real life.  Plus given a choice, most people will pick the best thing they possibly can.  People come up with builds/strategies, and yes, that results in some things looking OPed because they've found the best way to beat the system pretty much.

But yes you're being selfish, because you're actually trying to dictate that people play the game differently.  You don't want to see everyone using the best builds, and not everyone does, but you don't want the people who do to continue doing that.

The part about diversity that is nice is having a choice of weapons.  Yeah people rave about the Claymore but I couldn't care less for it.  Not everyone works for everyone, and we all have different playstyles.  So yes, you people should stop trying to dictate how everyone else plays the game.  If you have me as an infiltrator in your game, don't worry, I won't be near the top of the scoreboard and steal that 1st stop from you.

[John123453242]

They need to compensate for lack of skill.

[Cyonan]

neteng101 wrote...

Diversity is having a choice of good/bad weapons. By your logic, you'll just end up with a game of bad weapon choices, that are pretty much balanced ie. sameness, and the only diversity is that they operate differently but have the same end results.

In case you didn't notice, there are good and bad weapons in real life. Plus given a choice, most people will pick the best thing they possibly can. People come up with builds/strategies, and yes, that results in some things looking OPed because they've found the best way to beat the system pretty much.

But yes you're being selfish, because you're actually trying to dictate that people play the game differently. You don't want to see everyone using the best builds, and not everyone does, but you don't want the people who do to continue doing that.

The part about diversity that is nice is having a choice of weapons. Yeah people rave about the Claymore but I couldn't care less for it. Not everyone works for everyone, and we all have different playstyles. So yes, you people should stop trying to dictate how everyone else plays the game. If you have me as an infiltrator in your game, don't worry, I won't be near the top of the scoreboard and steal that 1st stop from you.

No, diversity is having a choice of multiple good weapons that function in different ways yet still have equal relative power. It's not impossible to have that. It's not easy to get it, but I never said it would be.

I also don't really care about real life guns in a futuristic game with space magic. Video games are not real life, and game mechanics ALWAYS trump realism if you want a half way decent game. People will also only pick the best to a point. You'll never stop the true min/maxers from doing this so let's just ignore them for now. The average player will use the setup they enjoy the most if they don't feel gimped with it. Even if it does 1% less dps than another setup, they don't care because it's just not a big enough gap.

I'm not really telling people they have to play the game differently. I'm giving them the option to do so. In my theoretical scenario the Carnifex would still be a good weapon for a caster, but they would also be able to use something like the Eagle without feeling like they've gimped themselves. If you preferred the Carnifex I'm not telling you "No, you don't get to use that gun now".

Some guns are going to favour certain class mechanics, and that's fine. Tactical Cloak is always going to favour a slower firing weapon just by the mechanics of the ability. That doesn't mean we should just leave OP things OP and weak things weak.

Modifié par Cyonan, 30 mai 2012 - 08:38 .

[paincanbefun]

Apl_J wrote...

1. Balancing itself is a subjective idea, everyone knows that. In any game that has options, true balance is impossible, but you still want to work towards it. Just because those interpretations are subjective doesn't make them valueless.

2. I keep hearing the "I want this gun nerfed because it makes me have less fun when people use it" argument. That isn't the case at all, some weapons are so overpowered that they de-value other similar weapons. Example: Paladin vs. Sabre. The Sabre is weaker, heavier, slower, less accurate Paladin. Its only advantage is ammo capacity. In that sense, The Paladin devalues the Sabre. It may be a co-op game, but when playing with others there's always a bar you need to achieve regardless. Now, look at the Scorpion vs. the Falcon; 2 more guns with similar functions. The Scorpion is all-around better, but its an ultra rare, which is a significant nerf. They're better balanced. Another example: The Tempest. The Tempest is an Uncommon SMG, yet outperforms every automatic AR bar the Harrier. What, then, is the point of the Revenant, Phaeston, Avenger, GPR? The Tempest invalidates all of them.

You may say "Why use X if you don't like it?".

I say "Why is X in the game if it serves no function?"

Game balance is just as much about proper design as it is fairness. Why do guns like the Eagle, Locust, etc. etc. exist in the game if they're so grossly outperformed? Balance them or remove them.

1. i have no problem with that.  yes, i agree that in theory ballance serves a purpose and actually exists even if it can't be rigidly defined.

2. ok, i agree.  it would just never occur to me to make good guns worse, only to make bad guns better.  the incisor, in my opinion, has no function.  even playing a turian during marksman, the gun seems like a waste of the slot.  i agree that every weapon should be meaningful.  (honestly, even ultra rares should be ballanced, in my opinion, they should just do interesting and different things, not clearly superior things.  i know not everyone agrees with this)

so i aknowledge that you have a point, but firstly, that is truly not what i take away from most "nerf this" posts and secondly, it is my overwhelming prefference to ballance up if possible instead of ballancing down.  this is completely subjective too, of course.

[paincanbefun]

Cyonan wrote...

We're tired of seeing 90% of the casters using a Carnifex(Or Paladin if it's a high enough rank).

in a nutshell, this is my instinctive, emotional objection to pro-nerf arguments.  i agree that guns should be ballanced, but i would phrase that "every one of the guns that *i* have should be useful to *me* to make *my* game more interesting".  what 90% of other casters do is not my business.

seriously.

there is an element in what you are saying that i agree with- all guns should be useful, thus "ballanced"- but the way this line of reasoning focuses on changing *other people's* game play so that they display more variety really rubs me the wrong way.

Modifié par paincanbefun, 30 mai 2012 - 08:58 .

[Mal3fact0r]

"True" balance is virtually impossible to achieve without homogenization, that is, unless they make every weapon essentially the same there will  always be a "best" gun or set up for different situations. Then add in the huge spectrum of player skill and what may seem overpowered to the top 0.01% may seem just useable or have a somewhat equalizing effect on the average player. It's a very tough balancing act and I beleive the small (for the most part) incremental changes that BioWare makes is the way to go.

Let's not kid ourselves here, the players that really want balance are few and far between. The vast majority of the whining and complaining on these boards about weapons and classes is due to 1 thing, and that is being outscored.

[taomang]

nuculerman wrote...

In my personal opinion, the people actually complaining, 90% of the time, can't make use of the OP mechanic. They get jealous when others they play with can, and thus cry for nerfs.

Best example is melee GI. It's fairly hard to be good with that build. Once you're good you can dominate all things, but most people I see trying it are terribad and die all the time. I posit that most people making threads complaining it's way OP (which, in their defense, it is) aren't actually any good playing a melee GI.

I couldn't have put it better myself. One weapon beats their favorite gun >>> go to forums scream it's OP.

[Cyonan]

paincanbefun wrote...

in a nutshell, this is my instinctive, emotional objection to pro-nerf arguments. i agree that guns should be ballanced, but i would phrase that "every one of the guns that *i* have should be useful to *me* to make *my* game more interesting". what 90% of other casters do is not my business.

seriously.

there is an element what you are saying that i agree with- all guns should be useful, thus "ballanced"- but the way this line of reasoning focuses on changing *other people's* game play so they display more variety really rubs me the wrong way.

It was more just a statement to get the point across.

If you see the vast majority of a class using a specific weapon in a game like this, that generally indicates that something isn't right. They're using that weapon because it has more damage than anything else in its' weight class, except for the Paladin.

I suppose you could say that *I* want *my* guns to be useful to *me*, but in general I also believe that all *your* guns should be useful to *you* as well(Even if you choose not to use them). People shouldn't feel like they should be using 1 gun because nothing else can really compete with it for your class. This isn't a game like WoW where you have very defined gear tiers and something of a higher tier is supposed to beat something of a lower tier. Yes we have the rarity system, but we all know that Ultra-Rares like the Wraith aren't out classing every other shotgun. It was thrown on top of the existing no tier system of SP so we could have some kind of progression in MP, and a RNG based store.

I also already refuse to use the Carnifex(and don't use the Paladin much) and do a lot of weird setups. I feel like a lot of guns are better than people give them credit for, but I still can't deny the sheer power of something like the Carnifex/Paladin on a caster over any other weapon.

Modifié par Cyonan, 30 mai 2012 - 09:03 .

[Feneckus]

Sorry but it's hard for me to have any fun when I'm invincible.

[WARMACHINE9]

DEATH TO THE NERF HERDER LEGIONS!!!! INTELLEGENT BEINGS OF THE UNIVERSE UNITE!!! Seriously though I've seen too many games ruined by nerf herders. If its so OP stop B#*^&$%G and USE IT.

[OGWS]

Technically, once everything is nerfed and terrible, there will be balance. Terrible, joyless balance

[sliverofamoon]

I HATE all the nerfs that keep popping up. Seriously. Nerf Sabo MORE! Really? Soooooooooo freaking annoyed at this. Like the QI needed more disadvantages? Seems like most people now are mainly playing the SI, or GI, and shelving everything else. And I don't blame them for doing so. The QI is getting nerfed so much they are becoming more and more useless in Silver or Gold compared to the other Infiltrators.

[sliverofamoon]

OGWS wrote...

Technically, once everything is nerfed and terrible, there will be balance. Terrible, joyless balance

Exactly.

[WARMACHINE9]

It will all be vanilla. no unique strategy no hope. imagination is strangled again by soulless feebs. If all the guns act the same WHY HAVE MULTIPLE GUNS? Think about that next time you ask for a nerf. Oh and the argument that ALL people using the same gun on the same class makes it OP is weak at best. Its called a BUILD and as much as they'd like us to believe it not every body using the same weapon builds they're class the same, Just most of them. Oh and don't knock it if it works.

[InfamousResult]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

If they scream about ______ being overpowered, it gets nerfed pretty fast. BW rewards the complaint.
If they scream about _______ being underpowered/useless, nothing happens. No reward/response.
If they scream about _______ game mechanic being broken, nothing happens. No reward/response.

There are lists about broken game mechanics that never get fixed (from ULM's to ammo boxes). The only safe assumption is that BW developers are children who can only break things.

Uhh, the Multiplayer Balance Changes for most of the game have been Buffs rather than Nerfs.
And they are attempting to fix the mechanics, in case you missed that part, too.

It sounds less like Bioware are children who only break things, and more like you're a child who can't read.

[WARMACHINE9]

InfamousResult wrote...

Tyeme Downs wrote...

If they scream about ______ being overpowered, it gets nerfed pretty fast. BW rewards the complaint.
If they scream about _______ being underpowered/useless, nothing happens. No reward/response.
If they scream about _______ game mechanic being broken, nothing happens. No reward/response.

There are lists about broken game mechanics that never get fixed (from ULM's to ammo boxes). The only safe assumption is that BW developers are children who can only break things.

Uhh, the Multiplayer Balance Changes for most of the game have been Buffs rather than Nerfs.
And they are attempting to fix the mechanics, in case you missed that part, too.

It sounds less like Bioware are children who only break things, and more like you're a child who can't read.

Lets ont fight now we're all on the same team... kindof. Name calling and hatred only lead to the BAN HAMMER oh, and the Dark Side.

[Core_Commander]

Because when an activity is about as challenging as picking your nose, it's also about as entertaining.

People whine but still play, having something overpowered nerfed isn't why people are leaving game. They leave when it's boring, and easy is boring.