268 réponses à ce sujet

[Mal3fact0r]

capn233 wrote...

 It is a positive outcome if you are Bioware and just want to keep the bulk of casual players interested in multiplayer.

This is the most important thing for BioWare, as a business. Think $$, who would you rather alienate, the small % of top players who may grow bored, or the vast majority who keep playing and , more importantly, paying your salaries? It's why most games, unless they are aiming for a niche, are not balanced around the top players, but aiming for the average Joe.

[Jjynn]

Apl_J wrote...

But let's apply that to Tactical Cloak. No if, ands, or buts about it, we all agree that the damage evolutions FAR outweigh the alternatives. 40% duration is inconsequential; if you need to do something while cloaked, the rank 3 duration bonus is plenty of time to do a activate objective, revive someone, or get to a risky ammo crate. Both rank 5 evolutions are worthless on a sniper build, but on a GI, the melee bonus far exceeds the recharge bonus, since Infiltrators don't care about weight in order to do what they have to do. The final rank 6 is a no brainer. On a non sniper, you don't even need this rank at all, saving you 6 points. On a sniper, you take sniper damage, thanks to the power, aim, shoot you can do while still keeping Cloak. The bonus power evolution is useless to all but the most niche builds (which, if I may, arent as effective). 

Everyone else has to weigh options in their builds except the Infiltrators. Their Tactical Cloak has a no questions optimal build in every situation you need it in, from support to attack.

That's probably because Infiltrators are unique in that they all get Tactical Cloak.  It literally is their class defining ability.  Every other class changes along racial lines in some way.

Just look at Soliders.  Humans get Adrenaline Rush, Concussive Shot and Frag Grenades. Krogan Soldiers dont' get Concussive Shot, Turian Soldiers don't get AR.  Batarians and Vorcha got their invites to the party late and got custom suits made for them.

Engineers don't all share one unique ability that is the same across the class.  And don't say they all get drones/turrets, because they all function distinctly separate from each other.

Sentinels are probably the closest to Infiltrators with Tech Armor, but the results are practically diamectically opposed, but because until recently, it was common enough for many Sentinels not to spec into TA at all.

I'm wracking my brain, but I can't think of any other classes that all have one ability across all raical variants.  Its probably part of what leads many to feel as though Infiltrators are so OP.  (I like 'em though, they res me plenty of times    )

Edit:  Just remember'd Biotic Charge. So I guess have the classes half unique class defining powers.

I was going to suggests something like a class power that was the same for every class with maybe variations on how those powers evolve changing from race to race.  But even as I was typing it out, I could see how some versions could be favored over others, and that could lead to certain races/class combos being kicked or viewed as unplayable.

This really is quite puzzle.  I can't say I have any definitive answers.  But the discussion certainly helps to think about it.

Modifié par Jjynn, 01 juin 2012 - 11:12 .

[whateverman7]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Well he did specify that these were his opinions at the start.

You should have made that more clear. It seemed like you were making a sweeping generalization about people who would like balance. Such statements don't do you much favor if you do not naunce them. 

They are still faulty off course. By the same logic that I can't call balance-haters people who are solely obsessed by the reward of a match. I can't easily determine another one's motivation for an opinion, especially over the Internet, much less everyone/the majority who view things the same.

true, he did, but in the same post, he switched talking in general

did you see my first post in response to the thread? i was clear and talked in general about the topic, not him specifically....also, my thoughts were in regards to the numerous threads/posts talking about balance....

true, you cant really determine one's opinion over the internet...the only thing i can determine is mine, and i speak my opinion on how i feel, not just to be contrary/bandwagonish...if my opinion is the same as the masses, so be it...if not, so be it...either way, i state what i think, and i'm willing to have a discussion to explain why i think said way

[Jjynn]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

BTW, did you see the edited part of the message you just replied to?  It adds a bit more clarification.

Noticed it just now, and I couldn't agree with you more.  

[WaffleCrab]

Imho, the only balance people need is the lump between their shoulders. The key factor to any build/character/weapon to work is the person using it. Also the prospect of weapon balancing as you suggested it, would demean the whole uncommon/rare/ultra rare system, and it would demean atleast 1 if not 2 classes who rely on weapons more than others, So a foolhardy suggestion at best. Also Bioware is already doing micro balancing all the effing time. Yeah we got weapons that can steam roll gold. but did you think that they sacrifice power damage for the sake of getting that weapon up to the level hes using it. Also, I say this again, its all about whos using and what. I just played a game today in FBGla/R/G and we had 2 geth infs. other with valiant other with BW, i was using my quarian male engy as a utility character. but despite those 2 snipers. some guy with a lv 18 Kroguard just destroyed the reapers I dont think we need heavy nerfing or buffing of anything. Which brings me back to my point, the whole MP in ME3. is build so that if you as a player dont know how to use something to its full potential, you inevitably feel like something needs a buff/nerf. Hell i got an eagle 3 from my last com pack, and i dont feel that bad, as i have a build that uses that weapon I personally, cant name a single worst or best character/weapon/race They are all what they are depending how you utilize them

Modifié par WaffleCrab, 01 juin 2012 - 11:09 .

[Apl_Juice]

Mal3fact0r wrote...
You really hate Infiltrators don't you lol. Every class has power evolutions that are far, far better than the alternatives. Some Biotic builds are equally, if not more, powerful than Infiltrators, Human Vanguards (if specced and played right) are all but invincible (in fact they are during invincibility frames) and can utterly dominate a match leaving the other 3 teammates bored senseless, and yet post after post you harp on Infiltrators. If you want to call for balance, then it absolutely must apply to each and every class, not just the ones you personally have a problem with.

If that's not the case, then I apologize, but it sure seems that way when all you talk about for "balance" is 1 class.

I play Infil frequently, actually. I only use it as an example because I have experience with it and it makes my point come over more poignantly.

Human Vanguards are incredibly risky. I've yet to see a HV that can work on his own without help in a Gold match to the degree that an Infil can. In addition, everytime someone points out Claymore with Adren Rush or HV being equally as powerful, the part where I explain how TC is safer than both, more damaging than both, and more supportive than both gets skipped over. Yes, a damage spec'd Adren Rush matches a TC Claymore build in DPS, but you give up Hardening. TC allows you to waltz up to everything to use that Claymore, and Adren Rush doesnt. Without hardening, reviving someone in the middle of the battlefield is suicide, whereas with TC it isnt. AR doesn't help with objectives either. All that can be applied to Charge too.
If you get melee'd while you charge that Geth Prime, you're going to die from the stagger. Meanwhile, a TC is already behind cover before the Prime targets him, or he's hundreds of feet away sitting on cover.

[WaffleCrab]

Mal3fact0r wrote...

capn233 wrote...

 It is a positive outcome if you are Bioware and just want to keep the bulk of casual players interested in multiplayer.

This is the most important thing for BioWare, as a business. Think $$, who would you rather alienate, the small % of top players who may grow bored, or the vast majority who keep playing and , more importantly, paying your salaries? It's why most games, unless they are aiming for a niche, are not balanced around the top players, but aiming for the average Joe.

gotta agree with you, and this is why i think what the OP said about balance would be silly, since it would work only for a diminishing majority of the people playing this.

Modifié par WaffleCrab, 01 juin 2012 - 11:14 .

[Apl_Juice]

WaffleCrab wrote...

Imho, the only balance people need is the lump between their shoulders. The key factor to any build/character/weapon to work is the person using it. Also the prospect of weapon balancing as you suggested it, would demean the whole uncommon/rare/ultra rare system, and it would demean atleast 1 if not 2 classes who rely on weapons more than others, So a foolhardy suggestion at best. Also Bioware is already doing micro balancing all the effing time. Yeah we got weapons that can steam roll gold. but did you think that they sacrifice power damage for the sake of getting that weapon up to the level hes using it. Also, I say this again, its all about whos using and what. I just played a game today in FBGla/R/G and we had 2 geth infs. other with valiant other with BW, i was using my quarian male engy as a utility character. but despite those 2 snipers. some guy with a lv 18 Kroguard just destroyed the reapers I dont think we need heavy nerfing or buffing of anything. Which brings me back to my point, the whole MP in ME3. is build so that if you as a player dont know how to use something to its full potential, you inevitably feel like something needs a buff/nerf. Hell i got an eagle 3 from my last com pack, and i dont feel that bad, as i have a build that uses that weapon I personally, cant name a single worst or best character/weapon/race They are all what they are depending how you utilize them

I already said rarity should play a role into a weapons strengths.

Also, have you seen any fighting game tournaments? Bad characters have a myriad of weaknesses with one or two redeeming maneuvers, and good characters have the opposite. Skill plays into it, but it only goes so far, especially in a shooter where avoiding hits or bad situations is sometimes functionally impossible.

The character and weapons are tools that are used to beat the system in play. In order to balance them, skill isn't a factor when debating. You may be able to keep your reticule on a enemies head at all times 100% no matter what you're doing with perfect response times, but that says nothing for the fact that the Eagle is a bad gun. If that player picked up any other gun, he'd do better. We always assume a base skill level when comparing tools, that's the only way you can balance them.

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 11:20 .

[Mal3fact0r]

WaffleCrab wrote...

Mal3fact0r wrote...

capn233 wrote...

 It is a positive outcome if you are Bioware and just want to keep the bulk of casual players interested in multiplayer.

This is the most important thing for BioWare, as a business. Think $$, who would you rather alienate, the small % of top players who may grow bored, or the vast majority who keep playing and , more importantly, paying your salaries? It's why most games, unless they are aiming for a niche, are not balanced around the top players, but aiming for the average Joe.

gotta agree with you, and this is why i think what the OP said about balance would be silly, since it would work only for a diminishing majority of the people playing this.

I'm sure they'd love to make everyone happy, as impossible as that is, but they simply cannot sacrafice the enjoyment of the many for the enjoyment of the few.  Business is business, and it's not like the average player, even with the new weapons, is waltzing through Gold matches without a care in the world, and there are no guns or classes that I've encountered in the game that will make a bad player good, it's simply the power of these new weapons (or some classes, like Infiltrators and Biotic users with BE spam) can make the game appear a cakewalk to those who already have zero issues with Gold.

[Docwagon1776]

Not every gun should be viable in every difficulty. If they are all the same power-wise there is no sense of progression, no sense of excitement to finally unlock something new and cool. If its just a differently skinned Avenger, who cares?

Not every gun should be viable for every class or every skill level.

Where you should see balance is among classes of weapons. Blue weapons should be on par with other blues, silvers with silvers, etc. Each should be progressive stronger. You aren't supposed to start this game in Gold. You use Bronze to build up your manifest to play Silver and then on to Gold. In a game where leveling up is easy and quick, weapon "balance" needs to support that.

Black Ops needs weapon balance. You can buy whatever you want and you are playing other players who have a legitimate desire to be competitive. ME3 is more like Diablo, random items that are meant as a reward used vs a computer controlled enemy. The rarer they are, the better they should be.

I also don't buy the "everyone will use it and lobbies suffer" argument. Be the guy who's different if that bothers you. Honestly, playing with randoms I seldom see everyone using the same class or weapon or even using the most efficient weapons for their class. Play how you want, let others do the same.

[Gamemako]

Docwagon1776 wrote...

Not every gun should be viable in every difficulty.

I agree. Every gun should be viable in the maximum difficulty level only; everything else is moot.

Oh, that wasn't what you were saying?

[InfamousResult]

Docwagon1776 wrote...

Not every gun should be viable in every difficulty. If they are all the same power-wise there is no sense of progression, no sense of excitement to finally unlock something new and cool. If its just a differently skinned Avenger, who cares?

Look at balanced weapons in other games that are unlockables.. weapons that have trade-offs that make them different to play with, but not necessarily "better" or "worse" through stats. Just that they suit a certain style of play or player. Such games have had great commercial success. You can't just say "it wouldn't be exciting, people don't like that".

[Taritu]

Everything is not still viable. If you do not take the Krysae or the Reegar you are underperforming what you could be performing. The Reegar is straight up better than the Claymore, and it requires essentially no skill. The Krysae is also a no skill weapon. It has higher base damage than a Black Widow and an AOE. The Krysae invalidates AA and HS's except against a few armored bosses. By the time you get your BE set up, a Krysae user would have already killed the mob group you were after.

These weapons are stupidly overpowered, to the point where I have largely lost interest in playing, and I used to play every day, at least a few hours. I'll go back to playing regularly once they're nerfed, if they aren't, I guess I'll have to find a new game.

[Apl_Juice]

Docwagon1776 wrote...

Not every gun should be viable in every difficulty. If they are all the same power-wise there is no sense of progression, no sense of excitement to finally unlock something new and cool. If its just a differently skinned Avenger, who cares?

Not every gun should be viable for every class or every skill level.

Where you should see balance is among classes of weapons. Blue weapons should be on par with other blues, silvers with silvers, etc. Each should be progressive stronger. You aren't supposed to start this game in Gold. You use Bronze to build up your manifest to play Silver and then on to Gold. In a game where leveling up is easy and quick, weapon "balance" needs to support that.

Black Ops needs weapon balance. You can buy whatever you want and you are playing other players who have a legitimate desire to be competitive. ME3 is more like Diablo, random items that are meant as a reward used vs a computer controlled enemy. The rarer they are, the better they should be.

I also don't buy the "everyone will use it and lobbies suffer" argument. Be the guy who's different if that bothers you. Honestly, playing with randoms I seldom see everyone using the same class or weapon or even using the most efficient weapons for their class. Play how you want, let others do the same.

I agree. Rarity should play a role, as I've posted a few times. BioWare even agrees, just look at what happened to the Katana; its worthless in Gold. But here's the thing, sometimes that rarity gets in the way. Take the Sabre for example. Its an Ultra Rare, but its heavier, less accurate, and less damaging than the Paladin, a pistol. In fact, when you consider how hard it is to unlock, it isn't all that more valuable than the Carnifex, which is easier to max out and isn't that much weaker.

Also, to everyone else, I'm glad the discussion is back on track. It got a little messy in the middle there, and I admit some of the fault

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 11:35 .

[Mal3fact0r]

Taritu wrote...

Everything is not still viable. If you do not take the Krysae or the Reegar you are underperforming what you could be performing. The Reegar is straight up better than the Claymore, and it requires essentially no skill. The Krysae is also a no skill weapon. It has higher base damage than a Black Widow and an AOE. The Krysae invalidates AA and HS's except against a few armored bosses. By the time you get your BE set up, a Krysae user would have already killed the mob group you were after.

These weapons are stupidly overpowered, to the point where I have largely lost interest in playing, and I used to play every day, at least a few hours. I'll go back to playing regularly once they're nerfed, if they aren't, I guess I'll have to find a new game.

No offense, but that is rather silly. Why not simply create your own lobbies with people who don't use them? After the first day, I don't run into lobbies full of Krysae and Reegar users on random/random Gold anyways. The "taking my ball and going home" attitude hurts no one but you.

[january42]

The way you make balance is to give each object it's own "niche", so it's good for some classes/uses and not others.

I think there are two problems with that in ME3MP however.

1)There is a huge disincentive aganst niche weapons. Because of the way the weight system works,  it's not practicaly for most classes to carry two effective weapons. This is because the weights are added together, despite the fact that you can only use one weapon at a time.  As a result, those who carry two decent weapons basicly can't use powers much.

The restult of this is that everyone tends to gravitate to general purpose weapons.   similarly, because there is a bonus for "unkown/unknown"...any setup that is disadvantege against certian maps or enemies falls out of use.

2)There arn't really enough niches considering how many guns there are. Even if you go by class, there are 16 gold weapons.   Are there really 16 weapon niches? Ehhhh...


Finally...consider Bioware's record.  When they buff things...they seem to have done ok. When they nerf things.....you get the falcon.

I have much more confidence in biowares ability to buff the weak stuff than their abilty to nerf the strongest elements without destroying them. 


Also, there is a bit a a preference thing here.  I think everyone realizes that you'll never get perfect balance. So how much of a difference between the strong and weak is ok?

Assuming a gold game with 4 random people using "strong" classes...does anyone thing the game is to easy now? I've played with 4 infiltrators before. It wasn't THAT easy.

I'd rather bring the weak elements up to, say 90% of the strongest.  This way, you arn't raising the overall power level, (assuming everyone is only using "teh best" now), but you are expanding choices and bringing more diversity.

[InfamousResult]

Actually, people have been kicking players using the Krysae lately.

.. then those players come here, complain about getting kicked, and for some reason, the same people who suggested "hey, just don't play with people using Krysae" act like the kickers are being unreasonable. Even though they suggested kicking them. Funny how that works.

[Xaijin]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

Contrary to popular belief (as shown rather handily in this very thread) Nerfing != Balance, or even a form of balance. It's one tool amongst many.

The fact that you're using the word "wrong" in first place is directly germane to the actual point I'm making; you and others of specific intent (in this thread) are already polarized and predisposed towards both a specific model and in this particular case a specific method. A method that has already been shown to have negative effects on the player base.  (Kishok, Falcon) You've already set your stance that rebalancing and upgrading other weapons to have parity is a negative action, and therefore only one satisfactory result remains, ie making say, the Reegar and Krysae suck while essentially completely ignoring the positive impacts these weapons may or may not have had on the player base as a whole.

Yeah, that's not what he said.
What he has said is that downward adjustments (or nerfing as people like to call it) are as much part of this process as buffing and that it's a silly thing to expect every adjustment to be upward only. 

If three snack machines in a batch of hundred grant two snacks by a fault, would you fix it by making all of them grant two or would let the three machines grant one. 
If as a result these machines sometimes grant nothing than they should be fixed, but it's still less work and easier than changing all to do two and than asking for double the money to balance all things out.

The Kishock wasn't actually nerfed, btw. It was fixed. It's a shame, but it's not a nerf.
Also it's funny how everyone always notes the few that went to far (Falcon, Sabotage) while seemingly everything else somehow is of no matter to their track record. 

And finally you exagerate by making any downward balance change to a weapon as making them completely suck. Hint not every nerf was unaccompanied by a buff and not every nerf turned thier gun into a peashooter. 

Nope. I said nerfing was a tool out of many based on the presented example of "nerfing the Krysae is logistically correct". 

Whether it's correct or not is to be determined by BW and then evaluated by the voting-with-time-and-dollars public.

Moreover whilst your model sounds correct on paper, a caveat: some years ago, AMD (then ATI) had a situation much like you presented: a specific production line of their mid-range card could be safely bios flashed to perform to within near spec to their top range card. Predictably, the self appointed experts pointed out the terrible folly of such a colossal mistake. Economic ruin for ATI, their top of the line cards will lament in dust on shelves, woe to them blah blah blah. When ATI returned their inventory turnover analysis, not only had they sold out on mid-range cards, they had also sold out on their high end cards. Next time they did it on purpose, with the same results.

Say three super vocal self appointed experts leave BSN and stop playing MEMP because the krysae offends their delicate and finely honed sensibilities. Gloom and doom, the forums lament the "millions" of players leaving because the terrible "broken guns", and everywhere there is gnashing of teeth and placing of back of hands to foreheads...

Meanwhile 100 or so casual players saw a youtube video or a friend play with the "crazy ass exploding sniper rifle" and go out and buy me3, and then money on BPs so they can get the crazy ass exploding sniper rifle and use it. food for thought.

The rest of the continual balance changes aren't germane to my point and your attempting to bring them up as a defense really isn't remotely topical.

Skill plays into it, but it only goes so far,

Completely incorrect, especially in light of your fighting games example. The last World SFIV tournament was won with a D tier character. Skill matters a great deal, especially in swaying opinion, especially in regards to whom possesses it in great quantities and whom does not, and how the two can coexist amicably.

Modifié par Xaijin, 01 juin 2012 - 11:54 .

[GodlessPaladin]

InfamousResult wrote...

Actually, people have been kicking players using the Krysae lately.

.. then those players come here, complain about getting kicked, and for some reason, the same people who suggested "hey, just don't play with people using Krysae" act like the kickers are being unreasonable. Even though they suggested kicking them. Funny how that works.

Whoo, hypocrisy and doublethink.  

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 11:51 .

[Taritu]

Mal3fact0r wrote...

Taritu wrote...

Everything is not still viable. If you do not take the Krysae or the Reegar you are underperforming what you could be performing. The Reegar is straight up better than the Claymore, and it requires essentially no skill. The Krysae is also a no skill weapon. It has higher base damage than a Black Widow and an AOE. The Krysae invalidates AA and HS's except against a few armored bosses. By the time you get your BE set up, a Krysae user would have already killed the mob group you were after.

These weapons are stupidly overpowered, to the point where I have largely lost interest in playing, and I used to play every day, at least a few hours. I'll go back to playing regularly once they're nerfed, if they aren't, I guess I'll have to find a new game.

No offense, but that is rather silly. Why not simply create your own lobbies with people who don't use them? After the first day, I don't run into lobbies full of Krysae and Reegar users on random/random Gold anyways. The "taking my ball and going home" attitude hurts no one but you.

Unfortunately, thanks to the new matchmaking system I usually have only two lobbies to choose from at any time.  If I create a lobby it takes forever to fill up.  At any given time the pool of players for me at N7-300 seems to be somewhere between 6 and 10 for either Gold or Silver.  Under the old system I could have just bounced around till I found a setup I liked.  (In the old days, if I really wanted to play an adept, I might bounce out of lobbies with too many tech users, that sort of pickiness is not possible right now.)

If they fix the matchmaking system I may take your advice.

Modifié par Taritu, 01 juin 2012 - 11:52 .

[WaffleCrab]

Mal3fact0r wrote...

WaffleCrab wrote...

Mal3fact0r wrote...

capn233 wrote...

 It is a positive outcome if you are Bioware and just want to keep the bulk of casual players interested in multiplayer.

This is the most important thing for BioWare, as a business. Think $$, who would you rather alienate, the small % of top players who may grow bored, or the vast majority who keep playing and , more importantly, paying your salaries? It's why most games, unless they are aiming for a niche, are not balanced around the top players, but aiming for the average Joe.

gotta agree with you, and this is why i think what the OP said about balance would be silly, since it would work only for a diminishing majority of the people playing this.

I'm sure they'd love to make everyone happy, as impossible as that is, but they simply cannot sacrafice the enjoyment of the many for the enjoyment of the few.  Business is business, and it's not like the average player, even with the new weapons, is waltzing through Gold matches without a care in the world, and there are no guns or classes that I've encountered in the game that will make a bad player good, it's simply the power of these new weapons (or some classes, like Infiltrators and Biotic users with BE spam) can make the game appear a cakewalk to those who already have zero issues with Gold.

sorry brainfart, meant to say diminishing minority, stupid me xD

[Taritu]

Xaijin wrote...

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

Contrary to popular belief (as shown rather handily in this very thread) Nerfing != Balance, or even a form of balance. It's one tool amongst many.

The fact that you're using the word "wrong" in first place is directly germane to the actual point I'm making; you and others of specific intent (in this thread) are already polarized and predisposed towards both a specific model and in this particular case a specific method. A method that has already been shown to have negative effects on the player base.  (Kishok, Falcon) You've already set your stance that rebalancing and upgrading other weapons to have parity is a negative action, and therefore only one satisfactory result remains, ie making say, the Reegar and Krysae suck while essentially completely ignoring the positive impacts these weapons may or may not have had on the player base as a whole.

Yeah, that's not what he said.
What he has said is that downward adjustments (or nerfing as people like to call it) are as much part of this process as buffing and that it's a silly thing to expect every adjustment to be upward only. 

If three snack machines in a batch of hundred grant two snacks by a fault, would you fix it by making all of them grant two or would let the three machines grant one. 
If as a result these machines sometimes grant nothing than they should be fixed, but it's still less work and easier than changing all to do two and than asking for double the money to balance all things out.

The Kishock wasn't actually nerfed, btw. It was fixed. It's a shame, but it's not a nerf.
Also it's funny how everyone always notes the few that went to far (Falcon, Sabotage) while seemingly everything else somehow is of no matter to their track record. 

And finally you exagerate by making any downward balance change to a weapon as making them completely suck. Hint not every nerf was unaccompanied by a buff and not every nerf turned thier gun into a peashooter. 

Nope. I said nerfing was a tool out of many based on the presented example of "nerfing the Krysae is logistically correct". 

Whether it's correct or not is to be determined by BW and then evaluated by the voting-with-time-and-dollars public.

Moreover whilst your model sounds correct on paper, a caveat: some years ago, AMD (then ATI) had a situation much like you presented: a specific production line of their mid-range card could be safely bios flashed to perform to within near spec to their top range card. Predictably, the self appointed experts pointed out the terrible folly of such a colossal mistake. Economic ruin for ATI, their top of the line cards will lament in dust on shelves, woe to them blah blah blah. When ATI returned their inventory turnover analysis, not only had they sold out on mid-range cards, they had also sold out on their high end cards. Next time they did it on purpose, with the same results.

Say three super vocal self appointed experts leave BSN and stop playing MEMP because the krysae offends their delicate and finely honed sensibilities. Gloom and doom, the forums lament the "millions" of players leaving because the terrible "broken guns", and everywhere there is gnashing of teeth and placing of back of hands to foreheads...

Meanwhile 100 or so casual players saw a youtube video or a friend play with the "crazy ass exploding sniper rifle" and go out and buy me3, and then money on BPs so they can get the crazy ass exploding sniper rifle and use it. food for thought.

The rest of the continual balance changes aren't germane to my point and your attempting to bring them up as a defense really isn't remotely topical.

Not a viable example.  Someone else having a good video card does not effect my enjoyment of my computer. 

I do not believe Bioware should make balance decisions based on a few people saying they'll leave, even if I'm one of those people.  They should make balance decisions based on what's best for the game.  What they think that is, we don't know. 

However, given that they have made balance changes, they probably do have at least some concern with balance.

[WizenSlinky0]

Balance is a tough topic for me. I like guns to be balanced in the sense of all having their niche uses that make them worthwhile. However, as soon as you throw in a ranking system like rarity it all goes out the window. I assume and expect higher level rarities to completely out-class the guns below them. It's hard to justify making a gun have increased rarity just because it does more damage (if a lower tier weapon has other benefits that still make it a good choice over the higher tier). Which is why I don't like the current system. It's mixing two very different philosophies.

Growth vs Balance. Growth assumes that weapons or characters will inherently get stronger and better overall as time goes on. Balance assumes that all weapons or characters will have some unique strength that makes them an obvious choice.

It's really hard to mix these philosophies and not have it blow up in your face. What's the point of unlocking ultra-rare new guns that aren't clearly superior? That just offer yet another variation on a play style or niche strength?

Meh. I don't find much reason to care about what gets nerfed/buffed. It doesn't effect when or how much I want to play the game. But I don't agree with the system currently in place.

[Mal3fact0r]

InfamousResult wrote...

Actually, people have been kicking players using the Krysae lately.

.. then those players come here, complain about getting kicked, and for some reason, the same people who suggested "hey, just don't play with people using Krysae" act like the kickers are being unreasonable. Even though they suggested kicking them. Funny how that works.

Creating private lobbies with like-minded players =/= kicking people from public lobbies where they aren't (and shouldn't be) subjected to people's arbitrary rules.

[Wolfsbladex]

Lol.