268 réponses à ce sujet

[THE NOOBIE NOOB WHO TYPES IN CAPS]

When BW hears the word nerf, they immediately slash a weapon's effectiveness by at least 50%, but when they hear buff, they increase it by about 20%, and make it weigh 50% more.

People who want weapons buffed generally have a good reason. The Eagle is an n7 pstol and has THE LOWEST DPS of most pistols in the game, due to its rarity, it should be better, or just as good, not worse.

Most people who want weapons nerfed have had either a bad day or have been outscored by someone with that weapon many, many times.
Who cares if that infiltrator got 50k more score than you with a Kryase as host. Get over it, people will beat you everywhere, why should this game be different and if everyone wins, then who loses?

I agree with your point about balancing weapons in relation to difficulty, totally. Bronze should be totally casual, silver normal and Gold Hard. As it stands, shield gate makes most snipers (excluding auto and 3-shot) useless against non-boss/elite enemies. I am against this but at the moment, there is no solution to this other than SI or other weapon groups.

[Magicman10893]

The reason I am opposed to nerfs (and by extension "balance") is because when Bioware nerfs something they nerf it into oblivion. The Falcon was cool, then they nerfed it so hard the only way to get any use out of it was to equip it with Disrupter/Cryo ammo. The nerf combined with the glitch that made it fire blanks made it almost completely obsolete.

The Quarian Infiltrator was awesome with her Sabotage, then the AI hacking portion of it got nerfed into being virtually useless. The backfire and bonus to tech damage was nice and people started going back to QI, but then they nerf that side of it to.

The recent patch turned the Kishok into a waste of space, granted that was more of a bug fix rather than an actual balance update, but you can still see the trend here.

[sliverofamoon]

neteng101 wrote...

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.

[*]VERY well said, and I think I agree on every point made here.

[kevchy]

Magicman10893 wrote...

The reason I am opposed to nerfs (and by extension "balance") is because when Bioware nerfs something they nerf it into oblivion. The Falcon was cool, then they nerfed it so hard the only way to get any use out of it was to equip it with Disrupter/Cryo ammo. The nerf combined with the glitch that made it fire blanks made it almost completely obsolete.

The Quarian Infiltrator was awesome with her Sabotage, then the AI hacking portion of it got nerfed into being virtually useless. The backfire and bonus to tech damage was nice and people started going back to QI, but then they nerf that side of it to.

The recent patch turned the Kishok into a waste of space, granted that was more of a bug fix rather than an actual balance update, but you can still see the trend here.

And as a result of "balacing", we see the same damn class over and over again with the same damn weapons loadout with the same damn build.

It's already boring enough as it is.

Bioware needs to realise that everytime they try to balance something, it gets ruined. In fact, they need to buff things instead. Make certain guns more viable again. Thats when we can see more variety.

Modifié par kevchy, 01 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Apl_Juice]

So basically, it would seem that personal feelings are the issue, as always.

If people took themselves out of the equation, there'd be a lot less flaming and more progress. Most people who ask for nerfs seem to want to maliciously neuter others, and the anti-nerf people are too attached. Then we have the few who actually debate and use reason (like the people in this thread ).

It still bothers me a little when someone vehemently denies the need for balance, especially when they're deadly serious and well informed about it, but now I understand your stance a bit better.

[Team-JL]

Thanks Apl_J for starting a meaningful thread.

One thing I want to add is that people need to truly understand a weapon before talking about nerfing or buffing it.

Take Krysae, for example. Yes, it has good AoE damage, is light and easy to use. But do people know that it does poorly against armor? Against Pyros or Prime, the widow is definitely a better choice. Krysae is a situational weapon that looks very good because it can kill lots of low-ranking enemies quick. And that's about it.

Personally I do not support weapon nerfing, because even if all guns perform on a similar level the game is still "imbalanced". Why? Because weapon is only one way to deal damage. How about powers? If all guns are equal, I can argue that adepts will be OP because they don't even need guns to do well. There are just too many ways to attack in this game (which is great btw). Do you want to nerf GI melee then? How about Vanguard charges?

Weapon is only a small piece of the puzzle. Even if this game only has one gun, it will still be imbalanced in some people's mind. There's a reason why Bioware never want to implement PvP - this game is too rich in options for it to be truly balanced.

P.S. I also want to add that infiltrators are used very frequently in gold games because they can do objectives and revive teammates really well. It not just about the sniper weapon boost.

[OneTrueShot]

Long post by Apl_J

Completely off topic, but if you're AplJuice, we gamed last night together.

Also, I totally zoned out and briefly thought your avatar was of Scooby Doo.

True story.

Modifié par OneTrueShot, 01 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[sliverofamoon]

Magicman10893 wrote...

The reason I am opposed to nerfs (and by extension "balance") is because when Bioware nerfs something they nerf it into oblivion. The Falcon was cool, then they nerfed it so hard the only way to get any use out of it was to equip it with Disrupter/Cryo ammo. The nerf combined with the glitch that made it fire blanks made it almost completely obsolete.

The Quarian Infiltrator was awesome with her Sabotage, then the AI hacking portion of it got nerfed into being virtually useless. The backfire and bonus to tech damage was nice and people started going back to QI, but then they nerf that side of it to.

The recent patch turned the Kishok into a waste of space, granted that was more of a bug fix rather than an actual balance update, but you can still see the trend here.

Exactly, and after just giving my QI a try last night, her her effectiveness is worse than my QE. And why make the BW, which is extremely hard for an average player to level up to begin with, as obsolete as the the Kishok is now?

[Drawrof]

CaptainAchilles wrote...

"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.

However I disagree with "every gun" should be viable for all levels.  For example the avenger , predator , katana, mantis ? And shuriken are typically your first to X but they are common.  In no way should the mantis be equal to the rare widow.  There has to be incentive to acquire more arms and upgrades. 

Imho, time spent on new dlc, new, foe , and improving the ai goes a lot further than tinkering with weapon balance. 

[Apl_Juice]

kevchy wrote...

Magicman10893 wrote...

The reason I am opposed to nerfs (and by extension "balance") is because when Bioware nerfs something they nerf it into oblivion. The Falcon was cool, then they nerfed it so hard the only way to get any use out of it was to equip it with Disrupter/Cryo ammo. The nerf combined with the glitch that made it fire blanks made it almost completely obsolete.

The Quarian Infiltrator was awesome with her Sabotage, then the AI hacking portion of it got nerfed into being virtually useless. The backfire and bonus to tech damage was nice and people started going back to QI, but then they nerf that side of it to.

The recent patch turned the Kishok into a waste of space, granted that was more of a bug fix rather than an actual balance update, but you can still see the trend here.

And as a result of "balacing", we see the same damn class over and over again with the same damn weapons loadout with the same damn build.

It's already boring enough as it is.

But that's not what anyone asked for. Everything the usual pro-balance people asked for either was a slight buff (GodlessPaladin's Eagle thread comes to mind) or was ignored. As it is now, no one is getting what they asked for. 

Also, QI apperently did need a nerf. There was an oversight that allowed Sabatoge to stack. With 4 QIs, you could quickly deal tens of thousand points of damage. However, I do agree they did this in a way that hurts all the QIs.

[Apl_Juice]

OneTrueShot wrote...

Long post by Apl_J

Completely off topic, but if you're AplJuice, we gamed last night together.

Also, I totally zoned out and briefly thought your avatar was of Scooby Doo.

True story.

That would be me, yep

[Jjynn]

I balance my diet with TOTAL and FIBER ONE lol

[Beerfish]

classes have to be balanced more than the weapons. I see a bigger disparity of people getting high scores playing certain classes rather than people using certain weapons. Often it is a class that lets you make use of a certain weapon and that combo can make things look unbalanced weapon wise when in fact the class is just as much to blame.

[Beerfish]

Jjynn wrote...

I balance my diet with TOTAL and FIBER ONE lol

You must be a 'regular' poster.

[Ravenguild]

If someone really wants totals their lvl20 guy with black widow X into bronze for esteem boost or something who are we to stop them and also who are we to kill a cool new concept sniper that is very fresh just because it is strong AND easy to use. Respect biowares "artistic design" and enjoy the fireworks

[neteng101]

Apl_J wrote...

It still bothers me a little when someone vehemently denies the need for balance, especially when they're deadly serious and well informed about it, but now I understand your stance a bit better.

Your topic is most appreciated actually.

Balance is not a thing that most people are inherently opposed to, and some things still need fixing.  ARs becoming less relevant as you increase the difficulty level, given how armor works, is a prime example of something totally broken.  The less AR type AR rifles are more useful ie. something like the Saber.  No alternative for those that prefer auto-firing weapons.

We have the Cerberus Harrier, but its hard to obtain, and heavy, chews up ammo clips like candy, and that's about as good as it gets.

And you know - I think that other poster that said - sometimes, its just nice to feel overpowered, yeah, that too!  And fun times, when someone unwraps a Valiant or BW or some other weapon they really wanted in the game.  Bioware needs to throw a few carrots out there to keep people interested.

[OneTrueShot]

Apl_J wrote...

OneTrueShot wrote...

Long post by Apl_J

Completely off topic, but if you're AplJuice, we gamed last night together.

Also, I totally zoned out and briefly thought your avatar was of Scooby Doo.

True story.

That would be me, yep

I was the 2800+ N7 Krogan Sentinel tanking with the Claymore X and Saber VIII.

PM me if you want the tag!

[Apl_Juice]

920103db wrote...

neteng101 wrote...

• 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.

/thread

Why do people always try to throw mud the opposing side's motivations?

Anyone with any sense agrees SCORE DOES NOT MATTER. I swear, the only people who keep bringing up score are the ones who tell me not to worry about it so much. I don't care about being better than others. Hell, I don't even care if I have to work harder to aim my Graal and you can just use the GPS with its slight homing. 

As long as its balanced and everything is an option, I. Dont. Care.

[Apl_Juice]

Beerfish wrote...

classes have to be balanced more than the weapons. I see a bigger disparity of people getting high scores playing certain classes rather than people using certain weapons. Often it is a class that lets you make use of a certain weapon and that combo can make things look unbalanced weapon wise when in fact the class is just as much to blame.

I agree, I just used the weapons as an example since they're a tad more straightforward. They're also easier for BioWare to change, since they can do so without patching. Editing skills would take some hard code changes and a lot of work.

That said, Nerf TC pl0x. 

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 07:06 .

[IAMREALITY]

Apl_J wrote...

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?

You're not getting it. They are SUPPOSED to be better. That is their role. It would only matter if the game was competitive; i.e. I always kill you cause I'm an infiltrator and you're not. But that's not what this multiplayer is. This isn't cod. Instead we have a co-op game where there is a team of 4, each with potentially different and unique traits and capabilities, played by people with different skill sets, where the goal is to have the whole be greater than the sum of its parts.

Some may play a role as damage dealers, others as support, some as tanks, some as a component of a tag team aimed at decimating with biotic explosions, and others as protectors etc. Not all roles require the same traits or capabilities. They're not supposed to. They're specialized. Infiltrators have that damage because it is their role to cause it. It makes sense. But what really is the point is that if this objection you have was such a problem, then you would see an overabundance of a character or weapon, and the reality is you just simply don't. Why? Because people enjoy the game in different ways. Players are as diverse as the options available to them. People have the role they enjoy playing and pick a character and weapon to suit it. Your concern in reality has no merit.

And tell me, if this was so overpowering, then why are the fastest runs done often with biotics?

[Beerfish]

Apl_J wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

classes have to be balanced more than the weapons. I see a bigger disparity of people getting high scores playing certain classes rather than people using certain weapons. Often it is a class that lets you make use of a certain weapon and that combo can make things look unbalanced weapon wise when in fact the class is just as much to blame.

I agree, I just used the weapons as an example since they're a tad more straightforward.

Nerf TC pl0x. 

Yes I understand I wasn't trying to undermine your topic. 

My response is pointed at people that for instance always like to play and infiltrator and then rail about how over powered a certain sniper rifle may be and call for a nerf.  They may change their tune if BioWare said, 'yea we agree, time to nerf the infiltrator because our stats that regardless of sniper weapon they always top the boards.'

[Apl_Juice]

IAMREALITY wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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?

You're not getting it. They are SUPPOSED to be better. That is their role. It would only matter if the game was competitive; i.e. I always kill you cause I'm an infiltrator and you're not. But that's not what this multiplayer is. This isn't cod. Instead we have a co-op game where there is a team of 4, each with potentially different and unique traits and capabilities, played by people with different skill sets, where the goal is to have the whole be greater than the sum of its parts.

Some may play a role as damage dealers, others as support, some as tanks, some as a component of a tag team aimed at decimating with biotic explosions, and others as protectors etc. Not all roles require the same traits or capabilities. They're not supposed to. They're specialized. Infiltrators have that damage because it is their role to cause it. It makes sense. But what really is the point is that if this objection you have was such a problem, then you would see an overabundance of a character or weapon, and the reality is you just simply don't. Why? Because people enjoy the game in different ways. Players are as diverse as the options available to them. People have the role they enjoy playing and pick a character and weapon to suit it. Your concern in reality has no merit.

And tell me, if this was so overpowering, then why are the fastest runs done often with biotics?

Infils don't have a role, they do EVERYTHING well, at the same time. Burst damage? check. Reviving support? check. Objectives? check. Where everyone else is useful for one job , they suck at others. The infil is great at all of them, and they'll be better than other classes' strengths then the class themselves.

Also, I guess you didn't see the 12 (yes, 12) minute Gold of 4 Krysae Infiltrators.

[Beerfish]

IAMREALITY wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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?

You're not getting it. They are SUPPOSED to be better. That is their role. It would only matter if the game was competitive; i.e. I always kill you cause I'm an infiltrator and you're not. But that's not what this multiplayer is. This isn't cod. Instead we have a co-op game where there is a team of 4, each with potentially different and unique traits and capabilities, played by people with different skill sets, where the goal is to have the whole be greater than the sum of its parts.

Some may play a role as damage dealers, others as support, some as tanks, some as a component of a tag team aimed at decimating with biotic explosions, and others as protectors etc. Not all roles require the same traits or capabilities. They're not supposed to. They're specialized. Infiltrators have that damage because it is their role to cause it. It makes sense. But what really is the point is that if this objection you have was such a problem, then you would see an overabundance of a character or weapon, and the reality is you just simply don't. Why? Because people enjoy the game in different ways. Players are as diverse as the options available to them. People have the role they enjoy playing and pick a character and weapon to suit it. Your concern in reality has no merit.

And tell me, if this was so overpowering, then why are the fastest runs done often with biotics?

And that is why you see 20 times more infiltrators being played as soliders it seems.  A point that is being made is about game weapons, in the hands of an infiltraotr sniper rifle A is over powered but in the hands of any other sniper it may be just about right.  The solution?  Nerf the gun so now no one ever uses it but an infiltrator.

[Firesteel]

IAMREALITY wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

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?

You're not getting it. They are SUPPOSED to be better. That is their role. It would only matter if the game was competitive; i.e. I always kill you cause I'm an infiltrator and you're not. But that's not what this multiplayer is. This isn't cod. Instead we have a co-op game where there is a team of 4, each with potentially different and unique traits and capabilities, played by people with different skill sets, where the goal is to have the whole be greater than the sum of its parts.

Some may play a role as damage dealers, others as support, some as tanks, some as a component of a tag team aimed at decimating with biotic explosions, and others as protectors etc. Not all roles require the same traits or capabilities. They're not supposed to. They're specialized. Infiltrators have that damage because it is their role to cause it. It makes sense. But what really is the point is that if this objection you have was such a problem, then you would see an overabundance of a character or weapon, and the reality is you just simply don't. Why? Because people enjoy the game in different ways. Players are as diverse as the options available to them. People have the role they enjoy playing and pick a character and weapon to suit it. Your concern in reality has no merit.

And tell me, if this was so overpowering, then why are the fastest runs done often with biotics?

The problem is on gold there are no tanks since even having 1500 shields and 50% damage resistance does not save you from a few rockets to the face or a large mob shooting you.
Soldier's biggest problem compared to infiltrators is they are entirely gear dependent, while an infiltrator can still make a mediocre sniper rifle or shotgun worth while. I would give soldiers a higher base damage bonus than other classes because that is their primary, and sometimes only, method for dealing damage.
Biotics can also dominate gold since they can stun large groups of enemies constantly. However, biotic characters who are built around explosion spam are usually far squishier than most other characters and without support will be flanked and killed. Biotic spam is powerful, but they are not as good for completing objectives because they have little in the evasion department and, as said before, are squishy.