268 réponses à ce sujet

[Richter Harken]

I was going to make an inflammatory post... then thought better of it.

My hat is off to you Pho Kadat, Apl_J and GodlessPaladin, for trying to hard to educate others with respectful and well written posts.

Also neteng101, while I disagree with almost everything you have said, I must also take my hat off to you for presenting your arguments in a civil and well written manner, when this subject is plagued with trolls from both sides.

[Mevanna]

Xaijin wrote...

 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.

Someone said it before, but it bears repeating at this point: the challenge variation should be in what difficulty you choose to play, not what weapon you use.

[Atheosis]

Mal3fact0r wrote...

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

I can categorically say that myself and a few others on this board would do a far better job at it than Bioware has done.

[Mal3fact0r]

Atheosis wrote...

Mal3fact0r wrote...

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

I can categorically say that myself and a few others on this board would do a far better job at it than Bioware has done.

No, you can't.

[whateverman7]

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.

I keep trying to expand on this point, but every time I do I just end up saying exactly what GodlessPaladin said. So count me in as another that finds appeal in having to make meaningful decisions.

i'm quote this person again cause his/her def of balance applies perfectly to this game, but yet he/she and others believe the game isnt balanced, how so?....

just cause people choose not to use everything the game offers doesnt mean the game isnt balanced....that's more a reflection of the community, not the game

[neteng101]

Apl_J wrote...

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

Its when you stoop down to the level of others and stop discussing the issue, that you totally start proving him and others that you're no different.  I really do think you meant well though, but these discussions do degenerate rather quickly unfortunately.

And so very few are even willing to step down from their high horses for a moment that some reasonable discussion can be had.  Was nice for the short while it lasted though.

Some days I think the best thing they could do is just remove the scoreboard.  Take ego out of the game first, then we can start having a sane discussion about balance.

[Apl_Juice]

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.

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.

Cool, insults.

No one yet has said why they can't have fun if the game was balanced.

Overpowered weapons are not needed if you played the difficulty level that best suited you. ITs people's addiction to credits and the fact that Gold gives the most that people are so obsessed with playing gold and using broken-tier weapon/character combinations. If balance were in play and credits weren't an issue, no one would complain about balance at all. If I'm an egotistic player obsessed with perfection (Im not, contrary to what everyone seems to think), then the other side is obviously deluded into thinking balance doesn't matter, or is addicted to an ingame currency so they can show off all their great weapons so they can pretend to be elite like the 'good' players. Oh, but that isn't true for everyone, is it? That's a maasive generalization, you say? So is the notion that a Pro-balance player wants balance because of some childish need to stroke his massive ego.


Again, for the umpteenth, time, can we remove the mud-slinging and insults?

[GodlessPaladin]

death_for_sale wrote...
So assuming that the god-mode weapon existed, one with no drawbacks and incredible damage, how does this effect you as a player? Tell me, does it change one iota of your individual gameplay experience unless you personally use the weapon?

  Yes, in fact, it does.

The simple FACT is that it doesn't. The multiplayer in this game might as well be a singleplayer experience with helpful (or not so helpful in some cases) bots, because there is literally no difference in the reward you get at the end of a match.

  Your argument is self-defeating.  If I was playing a single player game with bot helpers, whether or not they had one kind of weapon or another would affect the game experience for me.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:34 .

[Xaijin]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

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?  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

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.

It's not an ad hominem and moreover you fit the example perfectly. You're also using hyperbole wherein the hats already fits on your head perfectly, which only helps me make my point.

Good job.

I don't tell people how to play the game. I don't post videos telling people how to play the game. If they ASK me, I will offer an opinion IF I've been in a situation long enough to have a qualified answer. You on the other hand will blurt out an effectiveness opinion at the drop of a UDP packet, and you display your opinions on video to boot. Kettle != pot?

The fact that you're incorrectly telling me what my argument actually is via a junior high debate/wikipedia primer only helps my position further, because you're wrong on both counts.

Moreover I'm fairly certain people would literally pay money for a cain that shot infinite rounds, and have done so in other games in the past on an extremely reliable basis, which is why things like punkbuster exist at all. Again, context is king, and you not only missed the context of my point completely, you perceived it as hostile, which is pretty much furthest from the truth. I don't have an agenda, merely a point most have missed.

In review, you don't get to tell me what weapon to play with, you don't get to tell me HOW to use it, and you also don't get to tell me how and under what context to post a discussion point.

Care to try again, this time with context and objectivity?

Modifié par Xaijin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:49 .

[Mevanna]

death_for_sale wrote...

So assuming that the god-mode weapon existed, one with no drawbacks and incredible damage, how does this effect you as a player? Tell me, does it change one iota of your individual gameplay experience unless you personally use the weapon?

Yes. Yes it does. I play because I enjoy the game, and not for the credits I get out of it, so even if it's only my teammates nuking everything, it still means I'll just be sitting there watching, and that does in fact remove any reason to play at all.

[GodlessPaladin]

Xaijin wrote...
It's not an ad hominem

  Yes, it is.  Discounting someone's argument on the basis of their supposed motivations for making said argument is an ad hominem argument. 

This is an example of an ad hominem argument:
"Ice cream tastes great!"
"Of course you would say that, you run an ice cream shop."

This is also an ad hominem argument:
"I think balance would make the game more fun."
"You're only saying that because you want to feel superior to others."

All of the mud slinging insults in the world or "exposing" of other people's supposed agendas will not constitute a refutation to any of anyone's points.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:52 .

[astheoceansblue]

dented_wheel wrote...

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.

I not lying. Promoting is tedious.

Playing with half levelled characters just makes the game feel drawn out, not anymore challenging in am enjoyable way.

[Xaijin]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Xaijin wrote...
It's not an ad hominem

  Yes, it is.  Discounting someone's argument on the basis of their supposed motivations for making said argument is an ad hominem argument. 

This is an example of an ad hominem argument:
"Ice cream tastes great!"
"Of course you would say that, you run an ice cream shop."

Again, assumption. I'm not discounting pro or con, and the only reason you're receiving personal treatment is you keep inserting personal material as a discussion metric.

Perhaps you should stop telling me what I'm thinking while you're way WAY behind.

[Atheosis]

Mal3fact0r wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

Mal3fact0r wrote...

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

I can categorically say that myself and a few others on this board would do a far better job at it than Bioware has done.

No, you can't.

LOL, yes I could.  Because I actually get how the mechanics of this game work better than the designers.  Probably because I've played it a lot more than they have.  I'm sorry if the thought bothers you, but I literally could write a multi-page post with all the balance changes I think the game needs, and if they implemnted them, the game would be many times more balanced than it currently is.  And this isn't even a boast.  I don't think I'm some balance genius.  I just think BW is utterly clueless when it comes to MP balance.  Seriously, just look at the stuff they've done:

1) Buff Proximity Mine when it was already a highly competitive power.
2) Nerf the Vindicator when it was merely an average gun.
3) "Balance" Sabotage so that it's better against organics than synthetics.
4) Ignore criminally underpowered powers and weapons for months, or merely give them meaningless buffs that have no real effect on their performance.
5) Give Tactical Cloak +130% damage and lowered aggro from the start, watch as nearly every match scoreboard is topped by Infiltrators, and do nothing.
6) Release new powers on Infiltrator variants that only exacerbate the Infiltrator power issue (Hunter Mode and Tactical Scan).
7) Release a sniper rifle and shotgun that even further exacerabate said issue (I don't think either gun is that bad on its own, but on Infiltrators they are silly).

There are more, but I think that illustrates my point.  I can say with 100% certainty that I could've done a better job than they have.  Whether or not you believe means nothing to me.  

[neteng101]

Apl_J wrote...

Overpowered weapons are not needed if you played the difficulty level that best suited you. ITs people's addiction to credits and the fact that Gold gives the most that people are so obsessed with playing gold and using broken-tier weapon/character combinations. If balance were in play and credits weren't an issue, no one would complain about balance at all.

You do realize you're really starting to lose your credibility here?  That's so totally wrong on every level...  you've just made an assumption of what motivates people to do certain things?

Even when I played gold games for credits, I didn't use broken tier weapons/character combinations to do it with.  I'd suck and be a drag on the team if I did that actually.  You just showed yourself in one quick moment that you're just another gold type elitist using false pretenses of balance to get what you want.  And I thought you really cared about balance for a moment there.

There was so much good in Xaijin's post that you fail to recognize.  I think the best part was the note made that a large majority of players don't even play FPS that much and are RPG players.  The only reason I bother with ME3 MP is because its co-op MP, if it was PVP, I'd pass totally.  That's the beauty of ME3 MP...  "co-op"...  which it seems a lot of the FPS type players fail at understanding.  Which is why some of us keep telling you its a co-op game, score doesn't matter!

Again, for the umpteenth, time, can we remove the mud-slinging and insults?

You're just labeled a whole bunch of people as obsessed with credits.  Yeah I think it would be nice to remove the mud-slinging, please lead the way by example.

Modifié par neteng101, 01 juin 2012 - 09:48 .

[GodlessPaladin]

death_for_sale wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

death_for_sale wrote...
So assuming that the god-mode weapon existed, one with no drawbacks and incredible damage, how does this effect you as a player? Tell me, does it change one iota of your individual gameplay experience unless you personally use the weapon?

  Yes, in fact, it does.

The simple FACT is that it doesn't. The multiplayer in this game might as well be a singleplayer experience with helpful (or not so helpful in some cases) bots, because there is literally no difference in the reward you get at the end of a match.

  Your argument is self-defeating.  If I was playing a single player game with bot helpers, whether or not they had one kind of weapon or another would affect the game experience for me.

Please illustrate your yes in fact response further.

I already did, with the bots example.  Or do you dispute that having different kinds of bot helpers changes a game experience?

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[Atheosis]

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.

I keep trying to expand on this point, but every time I do I just end up saying exactly what GodlessPaladin said. So count me in as another that finds appeal in having to make meaningful decisions.

i'm quote this person again cause his/her def of balance applies perfectly to this game, but yet he/she and others believe the game isnt balanced, how so?....

just cause people choose not to use everything the game offers doesnt mean the game isnt balanced....that's more a reflection of the community, not the game

I'm sorry.  Are you saying the game is currently balanced? 

[Apl_Juice]

death_for_sale wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

Cool, insults.

No one yet has said why they can't have fun if the game was balanced.

Overpowered weapons are not needed if you played the difficulty level that best suited you. ITs people's addiction to credits and the fact that Gold gives the most that people are so obsessed with playing gold and using broken-tier weapon/character combinations. If balance were in play and credits weren't an issue, no one would complain about balance at all. If I'm an egotistic player obsessed with perfection (Im not, contrary to what everyone seems to think), then the other side is obviously deluded into thinking balance doesn't matter, or is addicted to an ingame currency so they can show off all their great weapons so they can pretend to be elite like the 'good' players. Oh, but that isn't true for everyone, is it? That's a maasive generalization, you say? So is the notion that a Pro-balance player wants balance because of some childish need to stroke his massive ego.


Again, for the umpteenth, time, can we remove the mud-slinging and insults?

The problem is, you see things your way and refuse to accept the root point of the entire issue. The simple fact is that no matter what examples you put forth, you cannot illustrate how a weapon changes your individual enjoyment of the game. If you find the Krysae and Carbine overpowered, the do not use them. People who do not find them overpowered will. At the end of a game, both of you will get the same reward and it won't change your enjoyment one bit. If you say it will, please tell me why it will affect you and you alone at the end of the game.

:|

I explained this already in the OP. I'm not playing to get credits, Im playing to shoot things and throw space magic at robots and pseudo zombies. The lack of balance is a big problem, but the obsession with credits is another. If credits werent an issue, Gold would be played less. People would have less reason to use and defend OP weapons. I'm trying to sympathize with both sides, but all I'm seeing on the other side is that Im a ****** for wanting everything to have a value.

[Xaijin]

Because that's what you choose to see. The other sides of the coin are do the forums accurately reflect the total players base, should the actions and mechanics employed by a few people influence the entire customer base, and does experience necessitate change simply for change's sake.

Value is a completely subjective experience. Asking for value parity in an asymmetrical-by-design game is a slippery slope.

[Killahead]

I too give credit to Apl_J and GodlessPaladin for their attempts to educate. I see the arguments coming from the other side in this thread and I go "sigh, I don't have the patience for this".

[GodlessPaladin]

Xaijin wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote... Discounting someone's argument on the basis of their supposed motivations for making said argument is an ad hominem argument. 

This is an example of an ad hominem argument:
"Ice cream tastes great!"
"Of course you would say that, you run an ice cream shop."

Again, assumption.

What is the problematic "assumption" in the quoted statement?

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:54 .