268 réponses à ce sujet

[kr3g]

Apl_J wrote...

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.

In me2 locust have bigger damage.

Even with the same damage for both guns, they will have uses. (20 ammo vs 50?)

[Apl_Juice]

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.

If people put thought into buffing/nerfing, it wont become an excuse. Like I said, nerfing a weapon because someone 'beat' you is dumb and 9 times out of 10 is unfounded if you took your own feelings out of the picture.

[*]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.

[*]But every weapon is already inherently different. I'll use the Incisor as an example again. Its a cool gun, but its damage is far too much of a nerf when compared to the other guns. It may fire in 3 round bursts, but the damage still doesnt compare. If it were all about diversity, then why does the BW do less damage per shot than the Widow? It was for the sake of balance.[*]

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)?

[*]But the Falcon invalidated the entire AR weapon class. Why use any of the other Rare ARs when you had a Falcon? It was ridiculous, but it was nerfed too harshly. That is BioWares fault, I didnt ask for that.
[*]

I hate rock, paper, scissors type games.  A counter for everything.  Its far too one dimensional.

[*]Well, this has a lot more options and combinations than three, but I kind of understand.
[*]

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.

[*]When you pick the difficulty level is when the difficulty is decided. Your loadout shouldnt make the game easier directly, it gives you a set of tools that plays to your personal strengths and that of your character. At its most basic, the character is just a tool too that you use to play against the system at play.

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 05:43 .

[BYC]

Balance can always be achieved more closely. Absolute balance is bad, relative balance is good. I definitely like roles assigned to guns as well if possible.

These are just examples, nothing else.

Kishock - ignore shieldgate completely
Viper - good solid damage all the way around, semi-auto
Mantis - good solid damage all the way around, bolt action.
Raptor - burst fire or single fire mode, super fast reload
Incisor - doesn't recoil in the middle of shots, great at taking down shields, super high clip size
Widow - high damage, single shot, some AP
BW - weaker than Widow, less AP than Widow, 3 shots.
Javelin - high damage, some AP, some shieldgating allowed, shoots through thinner walls
Krysae - medium damage, no headshots possible, small clip, AoE damage + stagger
Indra - full auto, medium damage

More examples:

Shuriken - starter, good at taking down shields, not much recoil
Tempest - best all-around.
Locust - has AP
Hornet - extremely accurate, built in scope
Geth Plasma SMG - huge clip, great at stripping shields

More specific roles for guns are a good thing.

[dented_wheel]

This whole argument owes itself to human nature. We are a very competitive race. No one wants to lose and everybody wants to win. We all want to look good to our peers and prove ourselves worthy.

I have been playing video games for 35 years and I find that it is only fun to win after you have built yourself up from the bottom. The problem is that once you are on top it quickly becomes boring. The only option is to challenge yourself. If you only play GI with the Krysae sniper rifle and you are complaining about how boring this game is, I have a suggestion. Try Gold with a human adept (level 10 or less) and you will immediately feel far more satisfaction with a completed campaign.

Nerfing/Buffing. All lame arguments. There are far too many weapons and powers available in this game for anyone to complain about how boring it has become. Diversity is the spice of life. Bioware has done a good job pushing people to challenge themselves with the promotion option. It forces people to begin again and realize how challenging the game can really be. Don't lie and say that you don't feel some sense of accomplishment bringing a class from level 1 to 20.

I would offer one suggestion to Bioware, however. There shouldn't be just one leveling state for each class. Meaning, every race in every class should level up separately. I understand the promotion option becomes more complicated, but it certainly would extend my interest in leveling up characters. Also certain weapons should be locked until a certain level has been reached. Much like powers. Maybe common weapons in lower levels up to very rare at level 20. Nerf/Buff arguments would become moot if this was in effect.

I'm sure all of this has been said before. If so, I can now be accused of being another boring aspect of ME3.

By the way, I ALWAYS play Geth Engineer with the Hurricane. Unbeatable, except when I am beaten.

[dented_wheel]

Sorry clicked twice. I'm old, what are you going to do?

Modifié par dented_wheel, 01 juin 2012 - 05:47 .

[Apl_Juice]

kr3g wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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.

In me2 locust have bigger damage.

Even with the same damage for both guns, they will have uses. (20 ammo vs 50?)

Continuing the example: The Tempest winning out against a Locust that has more bullet damage in just the field of clip capacity isn't enough to make it a match, especially when the Locust has a practically non-existant reload time. Clip Capacity really doesn't hold the same value as DPS.

[gaminazn]

Apl_J wrote...

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.

You obviously haven't gotten it to level 7 yet. You can literally body shot OHKO all trash mobs without equipment (2025 damage). With equipment, you can strip shields off phantoms and pyros without HS.

Yet, its so rare that barely anyone has one at that level. The Krysae OTOH...

Probably the only reason people are calling for the nerf.

I think BW intended the Krysae to miss just like the Kishok. However, it seems to follow netcode or whatever it's called that makes sure your bullets hit.

[Jjynn]

I think part of the confusion is that there is an expectation that all weapons should be viable at all diffculties. The Avenger is a starting weapon. Its there to help players get started. I don't believe the Avenger was ever intended to be a mainstay weapon after rare weapons were unlocked an upgraded.

Not every weapon can be viable up to Gold. Some weapons will just be better than others as we get more and better weapons.

And I"m ok with that.

[X Alastar X]

No i dont have my BWVII

[Apl_Juice]

dented_wheel wrote...


Nerfing/Buffing. All lame arguments. There are far too many weapons and powers available in this game for anyone to complain about how boring it has become. Diversity is the spice of life. 

Except Gold is hardly diverse. I played many games today; each one had at least one SI or GI in it. Most of them had numerous. If we balance, then everything would have a use other than "I think X is the coolest class, but I can't really help as much as I could with Z class.

[kr3g]

Apl_J wrote...

kr3g wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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.

In me2 locust have bigger damage.

Even with the same damage for both guns, they will have uses. (20 ammo vs 50?)

Continuing the example: The Tempest winning out against a Locust that has more bullet damage in just the field of clip capacity isn't enough to make it a match, especially when the Locust has a practically non-existant reload time. Clip Capacity really doesn't hold the same value as DPS.

I can only tell you that even if locust will currently have the same damage as tempest, tempest still would be superior.

[Apl_Juice]

kr3g wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

kr3g wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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.

In me2 locust have bigger damage.

Even with the same damage for both guns, they will have uses. (20 ammo vs 50?)

Continuing the example: The Tempest winning out against a Locust that has more bullet damage in just the field of clip capacity isn't enough to make it a match, especially when the Locust has a practically non-existant reload time. Clip Capacity really doesn't hold the same value as DPS.

I can only tell you that even if locust will currently have the same damage as tempest, tempest still would be superior.

Except it wouldnt. Clip capacity doesnt matter to a gun that has instant reloading. If locust had the same dps as the tempest, the tempest wouldnt matter anymore, plain and simple.

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 05:58 .

[neteng101]

Apl_J wrote...

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

To be honest, I'm not even sure why they bothered with SMGs, the are that irrelevant in this game.  Only use I've found is shooting at Swarmers.  Note - I don't have a Hurricane.

If I want a lightweight sidearm, I turn to the Phalanx now.  Packs enough of a punch, fires quickly, and just has that very nice semi-auto pistol feel to use.  Takes down bosses too (well, used to more, before we got the Prime headshot nerf...  no fun left in killing Primes anymore now).

Buffing Proximity Mines was a bad move, it helps the Turian soldier but did too much for infiltrators...  they should have buffed Concussive Shot instead, which seems a rather irrelevant power.  I have CS 3 on my Turian soldier, and between Marksman/Proximity Mine, I find I don't even use CS once.

Modifié par neteng101, 01 juin 2012 - 06:00 .

[kr3g]

Apl_J wrote...

kr3g wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

kr3g wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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.

In me2 locust have bigger damage.

Even with the same damage for both guns, they will have uses. (20 ammo vs 50?)

Continuing the example: The Tempest winning out against a Locust that has more bullet damage in just the field of clip capacity isn't enough to make it a match, especially when the Locust has a practically non-existant reload time. Clip Capacity really doesn't hold the same value as DPS.

I can only tell you that even if locust will currently have the same damage as tempest, tempest still would be superior.

Except it wouldnt. Clip capacity doesnt matter to a gun that has instant reloading. If locust had the same dps as the tempest, the tempest wouldnt matter anymore, plain and simple.

I didn't use both of these SMG for a long time, but tempest have more ROF. And not bad accuracy.

[nicethugbert]

Balance means nothing. There is no standard and there cannot be because it's all opinion. People hide their preferences behind "balance".If the entire player base wanted balance, they still could not agree on what they want. They would attack each others favorite classes, weapons, etc.

Nobody has ever or will ever create a sucessful game with balance as the priority. What takes priority is consistency with design goals, having a theme and sticking to it.

[Apl_Juice]

neteng101 wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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

To be honest, I'm not even sure why they bothered with SMGs, the are that irrelevant in this game.  Only use I've found is shooting at Swarmers.  Note - I don't have a Hurricane.

If I want a lightweight sidearm, I turn to the Phalanx now.  Packs enough of a punch, fires quickly, and just has that very nice semi-auto pistol feel to use.  Takes down bosses too (well, used to more, before we got the Prime headshot nerf...  no fun left in killing Primes anymore now).

Buffing Proximity Mines was a bad move, it helps the Turian soldier but did too much for infiltrators...  they should have buffed Concussive Shot instead, which seems a rather irrelevant power.  I have CS 3 on my Turian soldier, and between Marksman/Proximity Mine, I find I don't even use CS once.

Yes, exactly! SMGs pale to compare to Pistols since they require unsafe behavior. With a Carnifex, I can pop out and blow someone's head off and be back in cover before my shields break. With a Tempest, I have to stand out and shoot. As it is now, sustained fire loses to quick, powerful damage.

And Prox Mines. They don't help TSo as much, because of cooldowns. A Infil can cloak, fire the mine, and then shoot. The TSo has to either throw the mine OR use Marksman. Personally, I feel that some skills should have cast times instead of cooldown times; Prox Mine just doesn't mesh well with TSo.

[Zero132132]

My problem with 'balance' is that it decreases the effectiveness of actually thinking through what weapons you'll use, what's good with what class. If this game were purely combat-oriented, I would get it, but the series is supposed to be an RPG at its root. Taking away the effectiveness of thinking through and planning what you'll use in a match with a given class or enemy takes away from the RPG feel. If nothing's better/worse than anything else, then why bother with messing around with your equipment at all? Why bother buying packs, hoping to get weapons that are objectively better than the ones you have?

Not saying some stuff shouldn't be nerfed and some stuff shouldn't be buffed, or that balance isn't a good goal, but all weapons shouldn't be equally effective. That's unrealistic, and it decreases the amount of thought people need to put into making specific builds. You could make the opposite argument, that if there are weapons that are clearly better than others, there's no decision being made either, but most people aren't going to already know what's best and what isn't. A lot of people won't look at online guides to decide what weapons to use. Most people will tinker around with various builds before settling on one that works. If everything's equally effective, then people largely wouldn't bother.

That's just my take on it. I think that the range on the Reegar Carbine makes it very difficult to use effectively, and using armor piercing ammo is still a tactical decision by the player, so its lack of effectiveness against armor is a genuine hindrance. The Krysae seems to be **** against armor whenever I try it, and since it isn't hitscan, it has problems if you're not hosting, but it should probably do less damage to basic health, since presently, you can turn groups of 3-5 baseline enemies (Cannibals/Husks, Assault Troopers, and Geth Troopers) to mush with one or two well-placed shots. I just think that people desiring perfect balance are misguided.

Modifié par Zero132132, 01 juin 2012 - 06:08 .

[Apl_Juice]

nicethugbert wrote...

Balance means nothing. There is no standard and there cannot be because it's all opinion. People hide their preferences behind "balance".If the entire player base wanted balance, they still could not agree on what they want. They would attack each others favorite classes, weapons, etc.

Nobody has ever or will ever create a sucessful game with balance as the priority. What takes priority is consistency with design goals, having a theme and sticking to it.

That's why the best balance comes from taking your own preferences out of the equation. The argument threads on BSN now are all opinionated. People don't want their classes/guns nerfed cause they play them. I play Infil, but I feel they deserve a nerf still. Never said it was for everyone.

Balance lends to design, actually. Like I said before, useless things in a game = waste of developer resources. Ask anyone in the Game Industry. Wasting resources is the worst mistake you could make in making a game. People get hired just to prevent it from happening.

[Firesteel]

Very intelligent. My gripe is how horrible 99% of the automatic weapons are. Yes they can (kind of) ignore shield gate, but once they do, they have nothing going for them. This game is ruled by burst damage, not sustained because of how fragile the player is compared to the enemies.

I would ask for a better balance between the automatics and the semi-autos and single shot guns.

I completely agree with your statement that the weapons need to be balanced based on difficulty too, since everything works on bronze, and only a few things are popular and highly effective on gold.

[Apl_Juice]

Zero132132 wrote...

My problem with 'balance' is that it decreases the effectiveness of actually thinking through what weapons you'll use, what's good with what class. If this game were purely combat-oriented, I would get it, but the series is supposed to be an RPG at its root. Taking away the effectiveness of thinking through and planning what you'll use in a match with a given class or enemy takes away from the RPG feel. If nothing's better/worse than anything else, then why bother with messing around with your equipment at all? Why bother buying packs, hoping to get weapons that are objectively better than the ones you have?

Hmm. I definitely see what you're saying here, I didn't think of this before and I'm glad to have read it.


I guess I can say that if it were balanced, it would come down to personal preference and team cohesion. Having someone that can eliminate bosses quickly would be well complimented by someone who can keep the mooks at bay. After all, you still have an objective to beat the enemy. Solo'ing now is only really useful for bragging rights and showing off a class, you still have to work together to beat the enemy (or at least, you should on Gold). And then theres the fact that the enemy factions are all different with strengths and weaknesses. For example, I like having Armor Pen and Stasis support against Cerbs, and against Reapers Flamer and Biotic Explosions are king. Geth fall to Disruptor damage. There's still prep required.

[neteng101]

But every weapon is already inherently different. I'll use the Incisor as an example again. Its a cool gun, but its damage is far too much of a nerf when compared to the other guns. It may fire in 3 round bursts, but the damage still doesnt compare. If it were all about diversity, then why does the BW do less damage per shot than the Widow? It was for the sake of balance.

Some level of balance no doubt.  But that's the charm of having different weapons that do different things at different levels of effectiveness.  I'll use the Incisor for fun too...  and I actually do quite well with the Incisor.  Vs. the one shot Widow, which I just absolutely can't stand, no matter how much damage it does.  Incisor does get you through shield gate, which is infnitely more valuable.

Should the Incisor get a buff?  Should the Widow be nerfed?  Nope, I do agree there is balance, and the balance in the game is just fine.  There are people that argue the Widow is infinitely superior to the BW, so should the BW get buffed because its an Ultra Rare?  Nope, once again, its all about preference.  Just about every sniper in the game is relevant.  The Krysae just does things differently, its your sniper for dummies rifle.  Look at its base damage stats, does it measure up to even the BW?  Nope.

But the Falcon invalidated the entire AR weapon class. Why use any of the other Rare ARs when you had a Falcon? It was ridiculous, but it was nerfed too harshly. That is BioWares fault, I didnt ask for that.

It only does that once again, if people are so hung up about their scores or using the best class/power/loadout all the time.  People complain about the GPR like its totally irrelevant yet I've made plenty good use out of it.  Phaeston too.  Revenant too.  If anything, all the Falcon nerf did was make the Falcon irrelevant, in the AR class, to an average player.

Irrelevance of weapons (except SMGs) only happens because some people get so caught up with being the best, using the best, scoring the highest.  What you need is a change of player attitudes, but you're not going to see those sorts change their skins anytime soon.

When you pick the difficulty level is when the difficulty is decided. Your loadout shouldnt make the game easier directly, it gives you a set of tools that plays to your personal strengths and that of your character. At its most basic, the character is just a tool too that you use to play against the system at play.

Loadouts should matter.  If anyone can pick any weapon and do well with anything, then there is no point in the unlock system, or choosing loadouts.  Might as well give everyone the same Model X, and be done with it.  And the higher the difficulty level, the more your loadout counts, that's also correct.

Note - I'm also ok with the Eagle being bad.  Rarity is just that, not necessarily how good a weapon is, but rather, how rare it is, ie. how hard it might be to obtain.  No idea if its really as bad as people say, I have a Crusader though, use it sometimes, its got its drawbacks and isn't the Valiant, but its gets it relevance being a sniper shotgun.

People that let carrying the perfect loadout and builds dictate how they play will constantly find themselves less challenged and probably end up having a lot less fun.

[A Wild Snorlax]

Most nerfs so far have been overkill. Thus I don't want more.

Also I'm finding the reegar and Krysae to be a lot of fun right now. I don't use them every game, it gets boring. But it's fun to have them as an option if I want to. Sure, they are very strong, but this game is very easy for me anyway.

I would much rather be able to pick from a larger variety of good weapons, than have more crap weapons that i'll never touch. I'm going to use weapons that are good anyway, now I have 3 more to choose from in addition to the 10 or so other good weapons.

[BYC]

Zero132132 wrote...

My problem with 'balance' is that it decreases the effectiveness of actually thinking through what weapons you'll use, what's good with what class. If this game were purely combat-oriented, I would get it, but the series is supposed to be an RPG at its root. Taking away the effectiveness of thinking through and planning what you'll use in a match with a given class or enemy takes away from the RPG feel. If nothing's better/worse than anything else, then why bother with messing around with your equipment at all? Why bother buying packs, hoping to get weapons that are objectively better than the ones you have?

Not saying some stuff shouldn't be nerfed and some stuff shouldn't be buffed, or that balance isn't a good goal, but all weapons shouldn't be equally effective. That's unrealistic, and it decreases the amount of thought people need to put into making specific builds. You could make the opposite argument, that if there are weapons that are clearly better than others, there's no decision being made either, but most people aren't going to already know what's best and what isn't. A lot of people won't look at online guides to decide what weapons to use. Most people will tinker around with various builds before settling on one that works. If everything's equally effective, then people largely wouldn't bother.

That's just my take on it. I think that the range on the Reegar Carbine makes it very difficult to use effectively, and using armor piercing ammo is still a tactical decision by the player, so its lack of effectiveness against armor is a genuine hindrance. The Krysae seems to be **** against armor whenever I try it, and since it isn't hitscan, it has problems if you're not hosting, but it should probably do less damage to basic health, since presently, you can turn groups of 3-5 baseline enemies (Cannibals/Husks, Assault Troopers, and Geth Troopers) to mush with one or two well-placed shots. I just think that people desiring perfect balance are misguided.

Absolute balance is bad.  Relative balance is good.

Examples being some people love GPS, others love Eviscerator, some love Graal, and others love Claymore.  That's good.  But almost nobody says they love Katana, because it's terrible, and it's not even close to being in the same league.  Katana is even worse because it's not even the lightest shotty.  I don't know how Bioware could have possibly made both Scimitar AND Eviscerator lighter than Katana.  That's just bad design.

For sniper rifles, it's usually the same answers.  BW, Widow, maybe Valiant, maybe Javelin, sometimes Mantis.  Incisor isn't even on the same level.  Raptor gets some user occasionally.  Kishock was usable.  Indra is okay.  Krysae is instantly up there with the big boys.

There should be some choice based on map or enemy.  Like if Incisor is great against shields, then it's better against geth.  Or if another gun is great at AP, then it's better with reapers.  Instead, it's basically Krysae and Widow.  Mantis sometimes.  This is assuming no BW or Valiant, in which case they go ahead of everything.

Ultra-rares should be good, but they shouldn't automatically make everything else useless.  Bioware has actually done a pretty good job at not making URs dominate everything.  BW is like the only gun that's clearly better than almost all others.  Wraith, meh.  Sabre, good, but not the best.  Javelin, good, but not the best.  Indra is solid, but not best.  Talon is solid (I haven't used it that much, but not as good as Eviscerator X it seems).

[Apl_Juice]

A Wild Snorlax wrote...

Most nerfs so far have been overkill. Thus I don't want more.

Also I'm finding the reegar and Krysae to be a lot of fun right now. I don't use them every game, it gets boring. But it's fun to have them as an option if I want to. Sure, they are very strong, but this game is very easy for me anyway.

I would much rather be able to pick from a larger variety of good weapons, than have more crap weapons that i'll never touch. I'm going to use weapons that are good anyway, now I have 3 more to choose from in addition to the 10 or so other good weapons.

Yea, I agree. Falcon wasn't just a nerf, it was flat out repurposed to a supportive weapon.

But would you think the same way if the nerfs weren't overkill? Instead of choosing from 3 or 4 good shotguns, what if all of them had their inherent value?

I actually think the shotguns are pretty well balanced, Reegar not included (I havent used it enough to say).

Katana is Common. Easy to max out and great when learning the game. This was my go to gun early in the demo.

Disciple, Evis and Scimitar are great sidearms or Power Users' weapon when maxed. Evis is more heavy duty, while the disciple/scim can clean up the remnants of a Biotic Explosions or Fire Explosions really nicely.

Graal is a headshot machine, and the GPS is the baseline solid shotgun, with range, optional power/clip size trade-off at the cost of Shredder ammo disabled and no headshots.

Claymore is the heavy duty aggressive weapon. Good accuracy, damage.
Wraith is the same, but a bit more safe with its 2 shot clip.

Crusader is the only stand-out, but like many of the N7 weapons, they're a bit goofy inherently. (Crusader = Pistol, Eagle = SMG, Valiant = Rifle, Hurricane = Rifle)

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[Mevanna]

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?[*]

First of all, very well explained. It's relatively basic knowledge, but sometimes someone needs to take the time to lay it out in a simple and structured way.

Also, answer to question: 

As it looks, everybody wants buffs and vehemently argues against nerfs, and then there's always a few people who lurk around the forums throwing in the occasional 'stop complaining, everyone' .

Easy. People enjoy the kick they get from being good at the game. Overpowered weapons give them that kick, so they feel that this is a good weapon.
In other words, everyone will always be wanting to increase their damage output and make the enemies weaker because their brain is conditioned to feel good about success.

The other side of the argument are people who are skilled enough to be successful anyway so they don't need the kick and want to make the game more interesting instead. ie, make more classes viable, buff the underpowered weapons so they have more choice of builds without losing in performance.
Naturally, they get upset when something overpowered is introduced, because it takes out the variety, and makes easily available to everyone the sense of success and achievement they worked hard to get.

That's it, basically. Not as eloquent as yours, but still.