268 réponses à ce sujet

[Apl_Juice]

Say what you will, but its a hot topic at the moment.

Here at BSN, we have a pretty well defined schism: people who want weapons balanced and those who dont. Personally, I see a lot of ignorance and undue aggression on both sides of the argument. Basically, I'm posting this thread to explain the rationale behind the argument in favor of balance, so we all can have a grown up discussion. Aditionally, it should be noted that I only speak for myself on the matter.

1. The idea of balance (both 'nerfing' and 'buffing').
-I think what makes this topic so heated is that balance itself is incredibly difficult to achieve, especially in a game like Mass Effect where you have so many options. Guns can shine in one field and falter in another, so how does one compare those separate fields and attach the optimal numbers?

The most obvious example I can think of to illustrate is the Tempest vs. the Locust. Both guns personify the idea of the typical SMG well; light, with a high rate of fire. The Tempest, for one, shines in its damage, which it exchanges for accuracy. The Locust, on the other hand, is very accurate, but has low damage. However, we can all agree that the Locust is trash-tier, no? This is where balance is hard: how much damage can the Locust get without being better than the Tempest? Now, apply this conflict to other weapon types that have many more different variables: for instance, the Krysae vs. the Widow. Where exactly can we put the Krysae's damage so that its other advantages (AoE damage, weight, less emphasis on aim while maintaining full damage, multiple round clip, ignoring shield gate) stack up so that its comparable to the Black Widow's straightforward, single-target damage? Its a trick question: this is an impossible calculation, we can only get a relative comparison. Guns have so many variables, and none of them are equal.

How big a role does Rarity play in a gun's effectiveness? How much damage should a gun with a huge clip deal, in comparison to one with a small clip? How does weight factor in? And what about sustained fire: its riskier, shouldn't it be rewarded? But if its rewarded too much, high 'burst damage' weapons could become moot. These are all points that need to be considered!


Its daunting, no doubt. And this leads into my next point: Why is this all even necessary?


2. Why is balance necessary?
-ME3's MP is a cooperative horde mode, where everyone gets roughly the same amount of experience and credits. The most commonly given argument against is 'If we're on the same team, it doesn't matter when your teammates are stronger than you'. I, for one, think this is a moot point. When you put a gun in a game, its meant to be used. This may seem obvious to you, but how many of you use your Eagles and Incisors? Why are they even there, then? When I present this idea, many would say: 'Well, buff them, don't nerf.' Well, here's where the biggest misconception about the pro-balance guys lies: Everyone wants these guns buffed. Yes. I do, the nerfcryers do, GodlessPaladin does, and Stardusk does.

If that's out of the way, what's the problem? Well, here's the thing: if every gun is as effective as the best gun, where does that leave game difficulty? When new guns are released and they're better, do all the other guns get buffed up? No, that isn't a good idea; BioWare would need to buff the enemies too, in order to keep Credits valuable. How about instead, we establish a baseline: Balance weapons so that every gun makes Bronze easy, Silver moderate, and Gold difficult? You know, how its supposed to be. A sniper rifle that steamrolls Gold is simply going to get Infiltrator picked more. This leads to stagnant gameplay, and everyone gets bored faster. Who wouldn't want to play a game where everyone is playing a fresh class, instead of seeing GIs, SIs, and AAs with the same cookie cutter builds?

3. 'If you don't like it, don't use it' / 'This isn't pvp'.
-Section two encompassed this idea, but I feel it deserves its own section. If you want the game to be difficult, then restrict yourself. Well, this has two problems.

• If I restrict myself, how am I helping? - This is a co-op game. Everyone, no matter where you stand, hates when a leecher sits in on their game. Fighting with 3 instead of 4 is tougher and more time consuming, not to mention that leecher is going to get full credit for your work (which, again, is more substantial than if he played). Take a look around: how many threads are there complaining about others not pulling their weight? If I restrict myself, how is that helping anyone? If anything, applying your own rules to a public game is selfish.
• If you want something nerfed because it kills you in pvp, you don't understand game balance. - People who truely value balance don't ask for nerfs because they're salty about getting killed. In actuality, its best to pull your own preferences and skills out of the equation when discussing balance. When a skill, gun, class, or whatever is so powerful that it has no weaknesses, or its weaknesses fall short to sufficiently counter its strengths is when it should be considered to be nerfed. Example: The Hornet is very effective as far as light weapons go, but its kick is a solid counter to its strengths. The Avenger is an easy gun to max, has a solid clip size and weight, but falls short in higher difficulties. Its ease of use and unlocking is its strength, and its low DPS is its weaknesses.

4. What exactly pro-balance players ask for.
- There seems to be a convulated opinion as to what we want. No, I don't want everyone to use the Black Widow. I don't want more Falcons and Eagles. And no, I'm not jealous that new Krysae outscored me, score doesn't matter (Defense Bubble, Tac Scan, I'm looking at you). What I want to see is everything having a use, to have options. Quarian Engineers and Human Adepts should be getting picked, not kicked; they should have a useful role on a team that isn't completely eclipsed by the others. There shouldn't be end-all, best options in every situation; they all should have a useful role.


So, there's my dissertation opinion, now onto the discussion. Now that you understand my opinion, I want to understand yours: why don't people want balance (and by extension, nerfs) to happen? Is it just out of fear of weapons becoming like the Falcon? Do you disagree that specific weapons need nerfs? Or is there something I'm missing?

[cuzIMgood]

Best thread I've seen on here in a while.

[Apl_Juice]

thanks, but I was more looking to get comments. More understanding on both sides is the only way to get BioWare to actually look at the arguments with any sort of serious deliberation.

[lexiconicle]

I don't see any great problem with most of the weapons, as they stand. There's enough range in effect that nothing's really superior to anything else in every case. I understand that certain class/weapon pairings are uniquely potent, but I don't feel that everyone else who use the class or weapon should be penalised for those who combine the two.

I do see that there's a flaw in that a sizeable chunk of the Ultra Rares and N7's are generally less reliable than the rares or even certain uncommons, but it's too late now to play around with the stats of most of the possible armoury to reflect rarity.

Also, loving the co-operative function of male Quarian infiltrators. It's a great class for proving infiltrators aren't as antisocial as they're stereotyped as being, and I use it often (as a bonus, if members of your team have bled out, it helps them understand where you stand in respect to the health of the tougher enemies around you, so perhaps they're not prepared to quit as readily).

[waltervolpatto]

Just give everyone a BFG9000.......

on topic: excellent analysis....

[Dr Derp]

I have a feeling that when they nerf the Krysae, it is going to go obsolete

[X Alastar X]

Im an anti nerf guy so nerf you (kidding) i do generally disagree with nerfs because all i have seen truly is cirmstance arguments. You know the type "well on this character this weapon owns everything" Granted weapons are more effective on certain classes personally i think thats how it should be. But also i see many people saying x weapon is broken it destroys the game. I have yet to see any weapon completely dominate a match. The BW has come very close however i chalk that up to player skill as i chalk up every so called "broken" weapon.

[Crashingvanity]

I'm trying to understand why none of your questions haven't been solved since day 1. Every game including multiplayer has developers who specialize in balance of specific traits, weapons, and items. I believe that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer was a somewhat rushed aspect of the game due to lack of proper testing (ie: Vanguard glitch, credit glitch, freezing issues on wave start, EA server maintenance, etc).

They were already done with the campaign of the game and needed some way to delay the release of the title in order for a more successful commercial launch. This is why they made multi-player and this is why it has all the problems that it has post-launch and why Bioware now has to constantly monitor what they add to the game and how to balance them out because of the amount of broken features of the multi-player.

[Apl_Juice]

I don't see any great problem with most of the weapons, as they stand. There's enough range in effect that nothing's really superior to anything else in every case. I understand that certain class/weapon pairings are uniquely potent, but I don't feel that everyone else who use the class or weapon should be penalised for those who combine the two.

I do see that there's a flaw in that a sizeable chunk of the Ultra Rares and N7's are generally less reliable than the rares or even certain uncommons, but it's too late now to play around with the stats of most of the possible armoury to reflect rarity.

I disagree. As long as they don't change a weapon's rarity, you can adjust the stats. The Incisor is rare, it should be better than the Mantis, which is common. So should the Viper. Mantis still sees use as the Widow Jr. until yuo move up to the big boy weapons.

Also, loving the co-operative function of male Quarian infiltrators. It's a great class for proving infiltrators aren't as antisocial as they're stereotyped as being, and I use it often (as a bonus, if members of your team have bled out, it helps them understand where you stand in respect to the health of the tougher enemies around you, so perhaps they're not prepared to quit as readily).

oh, no doubt. QME/QMI are great to have around. The only problem is that ME3 doesn't score like Battlefield 3. In BF3, I can top the scoreboard without firing a shot. I can keep up with my friends who are focused on killing, like how its supposed to be.

[IAMREALITY]

For the most part, BioWare has already created balance. Some are supposed to be stronger, some are supposed to be support. And the argument is faulty to begin with. Because we DONT see the strongest gun overwhelmingly used nor the strongest class. Until we do, there really isn't a problem.

[WYLDMAXX]

Instead of Nerfing weapons why not assign certain weapons to the level of play so Krysae or Black Widow users can't walk into a Bronze match and own the game.

[Apl_Juice]

X Alastar X wrote...

Im an anti nerf guy so nerf you (kidding) i do generally disagree with nerfs because all i have seen truly is cirmstance arguments. You know the type "well on this character this weapon owns everything" Granted weapons are more effective on certain classes personally i think thats how it should be. But also i see many people saying x weapon is broken it destroys the game. I have yet to see any weapon completely dominate a match. The BW has come very close however i chalk that up to player skill as i chalk up every so called "broken" weapon.

See, I happen to think the BW is fine. It requires headshots to be effective. Its a problem when Infils use it. Tactical cloak is the best suppost skill, best objective skill, and the best attacking skill, all at the same time. The nerfs I and most people with a brain want aren't even substantial; just a little nudge, like a bit of weight or a small damage decrease or heigher cooldown.

I mean really. I think a Sniper that fires tiny bombs is AWESOME. A flamethrower that sprays lightning is awesome. I just dont want them to eclipse everything else in practice.

[Apl_Juice]

IAMREALITY wrote...

For the most part, BioWare has already created balance. Some are supposed to be stronger, some are supposed to be support. And the argument is faulty to begin with. Because we DONT see the strongest gun overwhelmingly used nor the strongest class. Until we do, there really isn't a problem.

So you don't believe Infiltrators dominate Gold? You don't believe an Infiltrator is simultaneously better at weapons than the soldier while still being the best class to complete objectives and revive with?

[lexiconicle]

Apl_J wrote...

I don't see any great problem with most of the weapons, as they stand. There's enough range in effect that nothing's really superior to anything else in every case. I understand that certain class/weapon pairings are uniquely potent, but I don't feel that everyone else who use the class or weapon should be penalised for those who combine the two.

I do see that there's a flaw in that a sizeable chunk of the Ultra Rares and N7's are generally less reliable than the rares or even certain uncommons, but it's too late now to play around with the stats of most of the possible armoury to reflect rarity.

I disagree. As long as they don't change a weapon's rarity, you can adjust the stats. The Incisor is rare, it should be better than the Mantis, which is common. So should the Viper. Mantis still sees use as the Widow Jr. until yuo move up to the big boy weapons.

Also, loving the co-operative function of male Quarian infiltrators. It's a great class for proving infiltrators aren't as antisocial as they're stereotyped as being, and I use it often (as a bonus, if members of your team have bled out, it helps them understand where you stand in respect to the health of the tougher enemies around you, so perhaps they're not prepared to quit as readily).

oh, no doubt. QME/QMI are great to have around. The only problem is that ME3 doesn't score like Battlefield 3. In BF3, I can top the scoreboard without firing a shot. I can keep up with my friends who are focused on killing, like how its supposed to be.

I can see where you're coming from, but from what I've picked up, the weapon balancing has sort-of cascaded. You edit one weapon in respect to another, and suddenly a third one you never thought about looks mismatched because of the earlier edit. You'd have to subtly tweak the whole class to ensure the balance is universal, which may give knock-on effects by comparison to other weapon classes, which now seem more powerful or lacklustre. At the end of the day, it might take a thorough rethink of almost every weapon, by which time it's a whole different game you're playing. The balance issues should have been thought through before they were so... ingrained?

And I wouldn't know, I've never played battlefield 3. People say I'm missing out, but "realistic" shooters were never my thing.

[X Alastar X]

Oh no dont get me wrong im not saying the BW needs to be hit with the nerf bat lol i was only bringing it up in the capacity as a game dominator and again thats to do with player skill just like (as i see it) every other weapon in the game. {Except that damn dirty Eagle =P

[Lango Tango]

I agree on the black widow, and I personally think that most of the games balance issues come not from the guns (though there are plenty there) but from the maps and enemies, as well as the player class powers. I appreciate the geth buffs of late in trying to balance that out (but people have not quite realized that geth are a little tougher now), although Firebase White is still just the easiest map, and that is a big problem. I think black widow is fine as is, and while I haven't used the Krysae much, it feels like its also okay to me. It is also a problem that infiltrators and adepts are just sort of the best. The biotic combo nerf helped even the field a bit, and engineers in general are also fairly good, as is the human sentinel. Vanguards and Soldiers are just noncompetitive with the other classes in most situations I have found, barring a dedicated biotic team with a nova vanguard. I haven't seen much of the new classes yet so I do not know how they compare (I've mostly been unlocking weapons and old stuff so far, so none for me yet), but it seems the Vorcha soldier is okay at least.

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

WYLDMAXX wrote...
Instead of Nerfing weapons why not assign certain weapons to the level of play so Krysae or Black Widow users can't walk into a Bronze match and own the game.

Because that's a huge restriction. It's like putting a level cap on who can play bronze or silver. It'd do more harm than good by turning off players.

[kr3g]

Why locust can't have more damage than tempest?

[Apl_Juice]

lexiconicle wrote...
I can see where you're coming from, but from what I've picked up, the weapon balancing has sort-of cascaded. You edit one weapon in respect to another, and suddenly a third one you never thought about looks mismatched because of the earlier edit. You'd have to subtly tweak the whole class to ensure the balance is universal, which may give knock-on effects by comparison to other weapon classes, which now seem more powerful or lacklustre. At the end of the day, it might take a thorough rethink of almost every weapon, by which time it's a whole different game you're playing. The balance issues should have been thought through before they were so... ingrained?

And I wouldn't know, I've never played battlefield 3. People say I'm missing out, but "realistic" shooters were never my thing.

Yep. No doubt about it, balancing is tough, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. Eh, I know the entire MP was sort of an expirement, but its still a game to be played, and they're making money from it. It should be supported if they like that money.

[neteng101]

Apl_J wrote...

why don't people want balance (and by extension, nerfs) to happen? Is it just out of fear of weapons becoming like the Falcon? Do you disagree that specific weapons need nerfs? Or is there something I'm missing?

Very valid questions you ask, and here are my reasons:

• I don't want to see balance being used as an excuse by those who primarily care about their score too much.  It is a co-op MP game after all, so score shouldn't matter than much.
• I like the diversity and variety in the game.  Too much balance to me leads to sameness and uniformity...  there should be great weapons, and lousy ones even.  This is the natural order of things in life...  equality is too often perpetuated by the envious lessers as an excuse to punish others.
• Making fun weapons less fun, is certainly a concern with any nerf.  Why would you want to remove the fun factor of weapons (like the Falcon)?
• I hate rock, paper, scissors type games.  A counter for everything.  Its far too one dimensional.
• Balance of a "crutch" type weapon just kills the whole intent of the weapon, ie. to provide some sort of alternative weapon for less skilled players.  Who is anyone of us here to judge other players?  Just let them have fun in the game too, and use a weapon that helps them if they feel they need to.

Does this mean there should be no balance at all?  No.  But so far it seems the weapons are just broken in the hands of exceptional players...  which means they're prefectly fine for an average joe/jane out there, so why nerf them?

I do think everything is still viable.  There is no reason people can't play classes that aren't optimal in the game or have to carry the best loadouts.  Its precisely the same folks who are too hung up about their own scores and themselves that care if you bring a lesser into their games.  I say its time we say no to the vocal minority that are ruining things for everyone else.

Modifié par neteng101, 01 juin 2012 - 05:34 .

[swjobson]

What's the point of putting ultra rare weapons in "balance" with rare or uncommon weapons? It renders top tiers irrelevent. Ultra rares are hard to come by for a reason, the reason being that they're better than other weapons.

It's a really bad idea to put things like the Mattock on the same level as the Harrier, or the Widow to be as good as the Black Widow, simply because you don't want stuff to be outclassed by weapons that are literally part of a higher class. I'd like an explaination from BioWare about why promotionals like the N7 Eagle is still worse than uncommon SMGs.

[Apl_Juice]

kr3g wrote...

Why locust can't have more damage than tempest?

Because its more accurate. If they weigh the same and have the same rarity, but the Locust all of a sudden had better accuracy and damage, then the Tempest would be irrelevant.

An irrelevant game mechanic is the worst thing a developer can put into a game and will be ignored by the playerbase.

[Apl_Juice]

swjobson wrote...

What's the point of putting ultra rare weapons in "balance" with rare or uncommon weapons? It renders top tiers irrelevent. Ultra rares are hard to come by for a reason, the reason being that they're better than other weapons.

It's a really bad idea to put things like the Mattock on the same level as the Harrier, or the Widow to be as good as the Black Widow, simply because you don't want stuff to be outclassed by weapons that are literally part of a higher class. I'd like an explaination from BioWare about why promotionals like the N7 Eagle is still worse than uncommon SMGs.

I never said this. I definitely said that rarity should play a role in balance in OP and as a response to someone else.

[X Alastar X]

@Neteng101 My faorite of your points is 5 +1 Ive already seen a substantial number of people say they wont be using it at all and personally i wont be using the krysae much or the reegar at all. Because theyre OP? No, because they lack utility in many circumstances. And many many +1's to your noticing they are broken in the hands of the excellent and they perform...acceptably in the hands of the avg player.

[CaptainAchilles]

"Balance weapons so that every gun makes Bronze easy, Silver moderate, and Gold difficult? You know, how its supposed to be."

This is by far the best thing you said. It is the essence of balance. All classes, guns, and powers should be tested versus this position.