268 réponses à ce sujet

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Game balance is an essential aspect of good game design which makes games more fun and mechanically interesting, for numerous reasons already explained in depth throughout these discussions and indeed throughout the entire field of the study of game design.  We want balance because we want to have more fun.

I just don't buy it.  I've read our arguments plenty.  I might buy the OP's arguments, but not yours.  I might be wrong here, but you want balance because you want the game to challenge everyone in certain ways.  But you are not the designer of the game, and you are not the only player they're making the game for.  You're talking about balance, but you are trying to impose your world view of how the game should be designed.

You're willing to kill the fun for everyone else, because its not the way you want things.  It is out of selfish self interest, even if its not the score that bothers you here.

Btw what makes you a so called expert of game design, if I might ask?

[Apl_Juice]

*sigh*

Yes, keep convincing yourselves that we want balance because we're selfish egotists. It says a lot when the only way people are arguing now is to throw mud on my damn motivations / telling me why I want what I want.

I don't understand how people who don't want balance all of a sudden can't have fun if there's balance. The Krysae, if balanced correctly, will still wreck all the mooks. The BW will still be the go to weapon for damage. The Reegar will still eat shields.

I don't understand.

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 08:46 .

[Miniditka77]

BYC wrote...

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.

I like specific roles for guns too.  It makes things more interesting and puts more emphasis on strategy.  I think the game has done a decent job of that, but could be better.  The most unbalanced weapons I have used are the heavier pistols (Carnifex and Paladin), because they pack so much punch and have such little weight.  I haven't used the new weapons yet though, and there are a lot of good guns I haven't used (Valiant, BW in MP, Saber, Hurricane).

I think most of the problems with balance could be fixed pretty easily, such as making some powerful weapons heavier and giving the AR's a little better damage.  Rapid fire AR's should be heavier and more powerful versions of SMG's, and semi-auto AR's should be heavier and more powerful versions of heavy pistols.

[Pitznik]

neteng101 wrote...

Yes - mix up all the stats you want.  What GodlessPaladin is asking for is basically for a level playing field.  You can tweak every one of those knobs if you'd like, but it still results in the same thing.  Every weapon and every character and every class being perfectly and equally viable and balanced.

You've just killed all the fun in the game.  That sort of balance is totally uncalled for.  It removes all sense of accomplishment gained from mastering a class or power or weapon, because a lot of the balancing and compensating has already been done for you courtesy of the great "balance".

No weapon will feel special anymore, because they're all equally viable.  No characters will feel special anymore, because they're all equally viable.

Having lots of weapons to choose from, each with its drawbacks and strengths make every weapon special. It doesn't remove sense of accomplishment, it actually gives it. For me perfectly designed weapon is Graal Spike Thrower. It has delay between firing shot and hitting target, which is very annoying at first, but it has very strong damage. It can't ever pierce anything, but it ignores armor dr and it is very accurate. You have weapon with drawbacks, which can be overcomed, and when you learn how to use it it gives you great results. Same with Kishock, at least prefix.

On the other hand we have weapons which are easy to use, but yielding great results - seems like a nobrainer choice, everyone will use them. What is special about this? What is to master about it?

Weapons equally viable doesn't mean they would be the same for everyone - they would be great for someone willing to put time and effort to learn to use it and to find the correct build for it, and they would be mediocre or just bad for everyone else.

[Killahead]

Apl_J wrote...

*sigh*

Yes, keep convincing yourselves that we want balance because we're selfish egotists. It says a lot when the only way people are arguing now is to throw mud on my damn motivations / telling me why I want what I want.

Exactly. It's downright upsetting how everything seems to boil down to this nowadays.


Great OP, btw. I fully agree with you.

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote... I might be wrong here, but you want balance because you want the game to challenge everyone in certain ways.

  You're wrong here.  Go back and read why I said balance was a good thing in games in general.  Especially the longer post I made on the subject.  I think balance is a good thing because it creates meaningful choices, adds layers of depth, creates a dynamic of risk vs reward, enhances gameplay flow, facilitates a wider variety of playstyles, rewards experimentation, extends replay value, provides a rewarding sense of mastery (something you yourself claimed to want), and more.  All of these things are important to engaging players and making the experience as fun as possible.

You're willing to kill the fun for everyone else, because its not the way you want things.  It is out of selfish self interest, even if its not the score that bothers you here.

  This is a completely ironic and hypocritical statement, seeing as you are just fine with changing the game to suit your own interest at the expense of the fun of everyone who thinks balanced games are more fun, which psychology says is most people.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:07 .

[Kronner]

It all comes down to the player anyway. If you know what to do, any class is very good on Gold, especially when you play with friends. Sure, some classes are easier to play and have higher scoring potential, but that is not a problem at all.
The game is not challenging at all (speaking of Gold, obviously).

The enemy AI is really stupid, and poor controls (stuck at cover when you want to run, anyone), bugs (Vanguard Char...off the map), cheesy instakills (phantom instakilling you the second you use medigel, Banshee killing you because your Charge was in line next to her), and stunlocks (geth love that) are the main cause of fail of some kind, at least for me anyway.

Sure, some weapons are crap (though most of the Rares and Ultra Rares are good or great), some attacks are over the top (geth melee should really be toned down), but that does not bother me.
I play to have fun, and I could not care less if I score less points because I am using this class or that weapon. I really enjoy the Geth Infiltrator with the Claymore shotgun. I do realize that if I used melee in combination with Claymore, I would have killed faster and scored more points. But I do not enjoy the geth melee, so I do not use it. I really like krogans, so I play them even though a Salarian Infiltrator with Black Widow is easily more powerful.

Bottom line: unless something really sucks (Eagle), or is being abused en masse (Reegar and Krysae Sniper Rifle now), I do not see any reasons for significant buffs or nerfs. Small tweak here and there does not hurt, but drastically changing how things work in the game will only lead to annoyed fanbase that is not even that large.

Modifié par Kronner, 01 juin 2012 - 08:53 .

[Pho Kadat]

This is my post from another balancing thread.

One of the biggest misconceptions about balancing is everything needs to be virtually the same with only the illusion of difference. Perhaps that is partially due to the term "balance," implying that all things should be equal across all situations. This, in fact, would create the bland and boring gameplay. Gameplay elements such as weapons and powers need to perform differently and at differing levels of effectiveness. Sometimes this difference needs to be situationally vast.

Unfortunately, if you make an item superior across all situations, you drive player behavior towards that gameplay item. Make something sufficiently superior, then when the majority of players move towards using that item, gameplay becomes bland and boring because almost everyone is doing the same thing. So, when you "balance" gameplay, you are actually attempting to balance player behavior to a near equal level of item usage. There are some exceptions, of course, especially regarding items that are intended to be difficult to obtain or use effectively. There does need to be some level of reward, so there is no clear-cut way to balance behavior and reward without sacrificing a little of either.

Now, examining ME3's MP system specifically we find that scoring has become the golden standard of judging gameplay item effectiveness. Despite being a co-op game, gamers are competitive by nature and seeing past the score and realizing that only winning matters is difficult for even the best team player. Everyone wants to feel that they contributed equally, and thus we turn to the score to rate our own effectiveness (or lack there of). When a player feels ineffective (i.e. scores low) with a particular gameplay item, they move away from using that item and into something more widely used and considered effective. Therefore, scoring is the motivating factor that drives player behavior.

While across all gameplay types, ME3 seems to achieve great diversity in class and weapon selections. However, looking at Gold play only, that diversity dwindles significantly. Depending upon your outlook overall or specifically on Gold, player behavior is either very balanced or not very balanced at all.

While I cannot dictate how much game/behavior balancing ME3 MP still requires, I can state with confidence that game balancing is essential to all games regardless whether they're PVP, PVE, single-player, or any combination in-between.

[Shampoohorn]

[quote]GodlessPaladin wrote...

[quote]neteng101 wrote...
[*]I like the diversity and variety in the game.  Too much balance to me leads to sameness and uniformity...[/quote]  This idea results from a misunderstanding of what balance does.  The opposite is actually true:  Balance causes differences to stand out and become more meaningful. 

Balance creates meaningful choices and promotes a variety of playstyles and encourages the use of all weapons, since they would each present their own unique tradeoffs and each maintain a useful role.  By contrast, imbalance means that you never see anyone using Eagles or Incisors. 

There is absolutely no reason that a gun cannot maintain a unique niche while still being comparably effective to other weapons.  By contrast, if weapons are unbalanced, guns often lose their niche due to being completely overshadowed by other options, removing meaningful choice.

[/quote]
[/quote]

^^^^^^^^^
This is exactly the truth of it all.

OP: Good thread.  Good effort.

[Pitznik]

TheSevered wrote...

Without reading all the preceding post except for the OP.

What about the player element here? There are several different skill levels out there so whats wrong with having a 'noob' gun? Don't argue that there are different difficulties cause there's always people that will wonder out of there skill range whether by accident or choice. Especially, when the higher difficulties offer higher rewards.

Becuase noobs shouldn't be achieving great results. They should have their butt kicked so they realize "ok, I need practice, maybe I should look up the boards to find better build, maybe I need some more levels in that gun". This isn't luck based game, but skill based game, and that means person with better ability to play, putting more effort should always have better results. In any other case playing the game becomes just a formality, playing becomes only about spending time, not actually about winning.

[UKStory135]

Firesteel7 wrote...

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.

I also agree on this stance as far as balancing goes.  I think that each group of weapons is individually balanced well, but that SMG's and Assault Rifles aren't nearly as useful as they should be.

I do think it is funny that the two weapons that I've heard the most calls for nerfing for ignore headshot damage, can't penetrate armor, and have lag.

[whateverman7]

Apl_J wrote...

Way to falsely label two different groups.

I've said this I don't know how many times:

-People who want nerfs or buffs for selfish reasons will always get de-bunked with hard data and logic EVERY TIME.
-I and many others don't care about score.
-Antibalance people use score to give false weight to their opinions too. I've heard "Well I can outscore so-and-so with an Eagle, so its perfectly balanced. <<<<That is wrong, and doesn't lend ANYTHING to the argument AT ALL.
-Why do people say that I can't adapt? Last time I checked, I can use the Krysae just fine. Ability to adapt has NO bearing on balance.

i didnt falsely label anything, the evidence is there for the labels....the balance threads always boil down to ego....you say it doesnt, but everything they say, says it does....seriously, how is said player asking for balance because of something said player did, not about ego?....it gets all eyes on said player, ego boost...it's bragging about something said player did, ego boost....it's bragging about said player's skills to achieve whatever he/she did, ego boost....the fear that others might be able to do it, ego threat....

you may not care about score, but it seems others do...that's one of the main points people use to show anything in this game...as for anti-balance people using score, that's cause it all ends up back there by both sides...everyone gets the same amount of exp and money, but for some reason people care about their individual score and placement at the end of the game....

[whateverman7]

whateverman7 wrote...

twxabfn wrote...

As far as it applies to video games, balance means that everything has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal proportions. That leaves it up to the individual gamer which strengths they want to bring to the fight, and which weaknesses they either can a) deal with themselves or leave up to their teammates.

all that is present now in the game...everything has pros/cons and  it boils down to player's choice what they wanna use.....with that being the case: why are people saying the game isnt balanced?

[UKStory135]

Pho Kadat wrote...

This is my post from another balancing thread.

One of the biggest misconceptions about balancing is everything needs to be virtually the same with only the illusion of difference. Perhaps that is partially due to the term "balance," implying that all things should be equal across all situations. This, in fact, would create the bland and boring gameplay. Gameplay elements such as weapons and powers need to perform differently and at differing levels of effectiveness. Sometimes this difference needs to be situationally vast.

Unfortunately, if you make an item superior across all situations, you drive player behavior towards that gameplay item. Make something sufficiently superior, then when the majority of players move towards using that item, gameplay becomes bland and boring because almost everyone is doing the same thing. So, when you "balance" gameplay, you are actually attempting to balance player behavior to a near equal level of item usage. There are some exceptions, of course, especially regarding items that are intended to be difficult to obtain or use effectively. There does need to be some level of reward, so there is no clear-cut way to balance behavior and reward without sacrificing a little of either.

Now, examining ME3's MP system specifically we find that scoring has become the golden standard of judging gameplay item effectiveness. Despite being a co-op game, gamers are competitive by nature and seeing past the score and realizing that only winning matters is difficult for even the best team player. Everyone wants to feel that they contributed equally, and thus we turn to the score to rate our own effectiveness (or lack there of). When a player feels ineffective (i.e. scores low) with a particular gameplay item, they move away from using that item and into something more widely used and considered effective. Therefore, scoring is the motivating factor that drives player behavior.

While across all gameplay types, ME3 seems to achieve great diversity in class and weapon selections. However, looking at Gold play only, that diversity dwindles significantly. Depending upon your outlook overall or specifically on Gold, player behavior is either very balanced or not very balanced at all.

While I cannot dictate how much game/behavior balancing ME3 MP still requires, I can state with confidence that game balancing is essential to all games regardless whether they're PVP, PVE, single-player, or any combination in-between.

If scoring is the big deal, instead of nerfing or buffing weapons, they should give points for support actions, such as drawing aggro, restoring health, putting up defenses, etc. instead of nerfing weapons that already have decent balance.  The falcon needed to be nerfed, though I would have lowered it's ammo instead of it's fire rate, but there is no dominant weapon out there right now.

[Xaijin]

Apl_J wrote...

*sigh*

Yes, keep convincing yourselves that we want balance because we're selfish egotists. It says a lot when the only way people are arguing now is to throw mud on my damn motivations / telling me why I want what I want.

I don't understand how people who don't want balance all of a sudden can't have fun if there's balance. The Krysae, if balanced correctly, will still wreck all the mooks. The BW will still be the go to weapon for damage. The Reegar will still eat shields.

I don't understand.

That's because you're dealing with absolutes, and the nerfers are selfish; that's not even up for debate. Asking for a strong weapon to be nerfed because you don't like the level of challenge variation it presents directly implies that you think everyone who plays mass effect multiplayer should play at your level of skill. This means outright patently that you are, in face, an ****. There's no way around it, and you are.

I can tell you by almost exclusively playing pubs and letting players with low N7 numbers in my gold games and leaving games with my friends to private status that the skill range in this game is absolutely enormous. It's larger than most fighting games, it's larger than most click-per-action games.

More than half the people that play this game are people who play RPGs, and have relatively little skill in 3/FPS domination. The simple fact is they need strong weapons and strong characters to be able to play with people whom have high twitch and aim skills. It's not subjective, and no matter how much you tell yourself every player should play like you, it's never going to happen.

People don't have the time, they don't have the energy, they don't have the youth, they don't have the OCD enthusiasm, and they should not be constrained to another player's version of effective.

As someone who is now in games design who came from the pro fighting game circuit, the gulfs between pro and capable and median are enormous, and the weapon and class range reflect this.

Every person should have chance to play at their best level and have a weapon that reflects a synergy with their level of ability and understanding of the game. The forums, in most cases, do not reflect the average player and BW has had the metrics to prove this for years, and have actually done so in the past.

The elephant in the room that no one is talking about is those players whom purchase weapons because they don't have the time to invest in mindless farming. The simple and stark truth is most of the players posting up youtube videos of their |33+ skills haven't spent a dime on this game other than the purchase price. They shouldn't have a louder voice than those whom are willing to support BW financially, and that's simply the bottom metric. The top 1%, of which I am a part of I will readily admit, have no right to dictate how the rest of the public plays the game.

Are there imbalances? Yes. Krogan are awful, that's simply a fact. They have no synergy except for KG and very little utility. For a race that is supposed to be the pinnacle of martial combat with the exception of geth ranged prowess, it doesn't make much sense that they are bottom tier and have to rely on consumables and generic grenades boosts to be as remotely effective as they are supposed to be.

Is the quarian engineer bad? Oh yes. Any class you HAVE to take a broken or strong weapon with to maintain survivability is bad.

Are infiltrators top tier? Oh yes, not even a debate. the reasons why and how the game's mechanics make it that way are in plain sight and not really up for debate.

Is incinerate the worst power in the game? Yes, yes it is.

Is tac cloak the best power in the game? Yes.


There are things that could use modification to be sure.

What's missing from this equation is CONTEXT. Balancing changes must make sense both thematically and mechanically, and most people here don't get it.

Balance and variety and almost never friends. It's very hard to have one or the other. Personally, I prefer variety.

Balance does not equal homogenization.

Balance in this instance should also fit lore. Surprisingly enough, the new weapons do fit lore.

BioWare has to take more than forum goers into account when making these decisions, that's simply how it is, and that's why they have all the feedback tools they have.

Modifié par Xaijin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:17 .

[Apl_Juice]

whateverman7 wrote...
i didnt falsely label anything, the evidence is there for the labels....the balance threads always boil down to ego....you say it doesnt, but everything they say, says it does....seriously, how is said player asking for balance because of something said player did, not about ego?....it gets all eyes on said player, ego boost...it's bragging about something said player did, ego boost....it's bragging about said player's skills to achieve whatever he/she did, ego boost....the fear that others might be able to do it, ego threat....

you may not care about score, but it seems others do...that's one of the main points people use to show anything in this game...as for anti-balance people using score, that's cause it all ends up back there by both sides...everyone gets the same amount of exp and money, but for some reason people care about their individual score and placement at the end of the game....

Wow. No one is bragging. If there was game balance, everyone would have unique builds. How is that making everyone look at me? And how does scoreboard placement factor into anything I've said in this thread? Ive said score doesn't apply to the argument, so has everyone else in the thread. Where is this coming from?

Nevermind, you'll just convince yourself that I'm an narcissist anyway.

[GodlessPaladin]

Xaijin wrote...
That's because you're dealing with absolutes, and the nerfers are
selfish; that's not even up for debate. Asking for a strong weapon to be
nerfed because you don't like the level of challenge variation it
presents directly implies that you think everyone who plays mass effect
multiplayer should play at your level of skill. This means outright
patently that you are, in face, an ****. There's no way around it, and
you are.

So if someone thought, for example, that the quality of the game design would not be improved by a rapid firing infinite ammo M-920 Cain, you would say that they were selfish @#$%s?  <_<

Moreover, even if what you said about people's egos wasn't a crock of BS, it would still be a logical fallacy (ad hominem argument, poisoning the well) to discount their arguments on the basis of their supposed sinister ulterior motives.  No amount of speculation about people's motives for making their arguments actually constitutes a refutation of their arguments, and therefore such speculation is a waste of time.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:20 .

[whateverman7]

Apl_J wrote...

Wow. No one is bragging. If there was game balance, everyone would have unique builds. How is that making everyone look at me? And how does scoreboard placement factor into anything I've said in this thread? Ive said score doesn't apply to the argument, so has everyone else in the thread. Where is this coming from?

Nevermind, you'll just convince yourself that I'm an narcissist anyway.

you are cause you managed to make a general discussion about you.....you started a thread to talk in general about the balance topic, which i have been talking in general about....but for some reason, everything i say you're taking it as i'm talking only about you....

so yea, nevermind

[GodlessPaladin]

whateverman7 wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

Wow. No one is bragging. If there was game balance, everyone would have unique builds. How is that making everyone look at me? And how does scoreboard placement factor into anything I've said in this thread? Ive said score doesn't apply to the argument, so has everyone else in the thread. Where is this coming from?

Nevermind, you'll just convince yourself that I'm an narcissist anyway.

you are cause you managed to make a general discussion about you.....you started a thread to talk in general about the balance topic, which i have been talking in general about....but for some reason, everything i say you're taking it as i'm talking only about you....

so yea, nevermind

Yet again proving Apl_J right.

[Atheosis]

Apl_J wrote...
This is where balance is hard: how much damage can the Locust get without being better than the Tempest?

It's not hard at all.

Currently the Locust does 314.42-392.33 DPS while being relatively accurate.  The Phalanx, another accurate uncommon of similar weight, does 478.33-597.92 DPS while also being significantly better against armor.  So it's actually pretty simple.  To bring the Locust up to par, you simply need to buff it's damage to the 450-550 DPS range.  That wouldn't even make the gun anything more than average.  But at least people using it would no longer be fighting with one arm tied behind their back.

Really, most of the balance issues in this game would be easy to fix for anyone with sense for such things.  Unfortunately the people BW have doing this stuff clearly don't have a sense for such things.

[Firesteel]

UKStory135 wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

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.

I also agree on this stance as far as balancing goes.  I think that each group of weapons is individually balanced well, but that SMG's and Assault Rifles aren't nearly as useful as they should be.

I do think it is funny that the two weapons that I've heard the most calls for nerfing for ignore headshot damage, can't penetrate armor, and have lag.

Yes, it feels like each weapon group was balanced individually then thrown into the pot. None of the ARs are significantly better than the others until you get to gold. The Avenger is still as viable as the Mattock due to the weight difference and the Mattock's effect of tiring your finger after hours of clicking as fast as you can.

As a way to balance out the high power/low ROF with the low power/high ROF, I would give the autos either bonus damage against shields/barriers or change shields a little to favor automatics (similar to how armor favors single-shot).

[Mal3fact0r]

I'm just thankful no one on these boards is in charge of balancing the game.

[whateverman7]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

whateverman7 wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

Wow. No one is bragging. If there was game balance, everyone would have unique builds. How is that making everyone look at me? And how does scoreboard placement factor into anything I've said in this thread? Ive said score doesn't apply to the argument, so has everyone else in the thread. Where is this coming from?

Nevermind, you'll just convince yourself that I'm an narcissist anyway.

you are cause you managed to make a general discussion about you.....you started a thread to talk in general about the balance topic, which i have been talking in general about....but for some reason, everything i say you're taking it as i'm talking only about you....

so yea, nevermind

Yet again proving Apl_J right.

so, pointing out what someone is doing is me convincing myself of something? lol if you say so

[Pitznik]

Mal3fact0r wrote...

I'm just thankful no one on these boards is in charge of balancing the game.

Opinions posted on boards affect what developers change in the game. Just check patchnotes and weekly balancing.