268 réponses à ce sujet

[Apl_Juice]

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.

a whole bunch of people ARE obsessed with credits. People like that are out there. I didn't say that anyone in this thread was. Not that it matters, everyone is currently hung up on making the opposition look stupid, instead of actually discussing the issue.

[Mal3fact0r]

Atheosis wrote...

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.  

You can claim anything you want on the internets. Put it in practice, make a game and back it up. Otherwise you're just the same as every football fan who thinks they could coach better, play better, run the team better etc.

You know the game and it's mechanics better than those who designed it? You've seen all the code, design docs and math behind it all? Please.

[GodlessPaladin]

death_for_sale wrote... Tell me, does it change one iota of your individual gameplay experience

death_for_sale wrote... Please explain how other players using weapons you consider to be non balanced affects your reward at the end of the match.

You're changing goalposts here.  I pointed out that it changed at least one iota of my gameplay experience.  I didn't say it changed my reward at the end of the match.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:56 .

[Apl_Juice]

Xaijin wrote...

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.

-I'm still not seeing how balance hurts the true player base. Most people don't even realize the game gets weekly updates at all unless they specifically look for information on the game on the internet. 

-Its already established that value is subjective. That's in the OP, its why balance is so difficult. What I don't see is why having value parity is wrong.

[Xaijin]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

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?

discounting someone's argument

No such thing has occurred. I have discounted logic behind a flawed subjective premise used, and nothing more. The one reading hostility and dismissal is you, probably because I used the same one sided and dismissive language you did, which was kinda my goal in the first place.

Modifié par Xaijin, 01 juin 2012 - 09:59 .

[Pitznik]

death_for_sale wrote...
And you are skipping the issue, it does not afffect your reward at the end of the match. Please illustrate your yes in fact response further, because it is the equivalent of "i'm rubber, you're glue" at this point. What exactly does it change, what does it do to affect you?

I don't play for reward (well, not only), I play for an experience, a challenge and enjoyment of beating it. People using weapons/classes/builds that trivialize that challenge make my games boring, tedious, not fun to play in general. That is one thing. Second thing, I like it when I know something will make me more effective, but there is a cewrtain skill barrier I have to overcome first. That motivates me to get better. When I can achieve same results with no effort, it spoils my satisafaction, makes it worthless.

Modifié par Pitznik, 01 juin 2012 - 10:00 .

[whateverman7]

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

yes i am...everything in the game has pros/cons and can be used to beat the game...also, everything in each class category compares to others in said class, i.e. common vs common, rare vs rare, ultra rare vs ultra rare, etc.....there is an abundance of variety for the player to choose from....if players choose to not use what's available, and stick with the same cookie cutter builds, weapons, etc. cause they are deemed best, that's on them...but just cause they choose to, doesnt mean the game isnt balanced

[GodlessPaladin]

death_for_sale wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

death_for_sale wrote... Tell me, does it change one iota of your individual gameplay experience

death_for_sale wrote... Please explain how other players using weapons you consider to be non balanced affects your reward at the end of the match.

You're changing goalposts here.  I pointed out that it changed at least one iota of my gameplay experience.  I didn't say it changed my reward at the end of the match.

I'm done with you. You are skipping every point and or question I put out unless you can answer it in the most vague way possible. If you want a real discussion and not forum 'spin' doctoring, feel free to anwer some of the examples and questions I put forth. Then I will be glad to debate with you instead of dancing around the issues.

There is nothing vague about my response.  I was very specific.  You asked me to tell you one thing, then complained because I didn't tell you something *completely different* from what you asked me to tell you.

[neteng101]

Apl_J wrote...

a whole bunch of people ARE obsessed with credits. People like that are out there. I didn't say that anyone in this thread was. Not that it matters, everyone is currently hung up on making the opposition look stupid, instead of actually discussing the issue.

Sure, some people may be farming credits.  But what does that really have to do with game balance?  It doesn't require anything OP to do FBWGG...  you realize how ridiculous you sound if you're suggesting anyone needs OP stuff to do that?  Aside from Cobra missiles, there's nothing OP required, even if they are obsessed with credits.

And you're losing your objectivity...  please go read Xaijin's original message.  It has a lot of good stuff in there.  I'm not even sure why you felt insulted and offended by it?

[GodlessPaladin]

Xaijin wrote...
No such thing has occurred.

  Technically, it's not actually necessary for it to have occurred for my statement to be true.

Funny, here I thought my original statement said "if" and "it would be" in order to establish the ultimate irrelevance of establishing people's agendas to begin with.  Apparently you cannot differentiate that from an accusation of a dismissal. And of course responded with more mudslinging.

I wrote... it would be a logical fallacy (ad hominem argument, poisoning the well) to discount their
arguments on the basis of their supposed sinister ulterior motives.

Despite this, I could easily say that yes you did use it as a dismissal because the fact that you said the only possible motivation for making such a statement could be selfishness, which directly implies either that A)  You believe that their position is false or   You believe that their position is true, but that there is no possible positive motivation for suggesting beneficial changes to the game.  And I don't suspect that you believe B or expect that anyone else does.

If you want to say that you are not trying to dismiss people's arguments, but rather think that it's impossible for someone to have a positive motivation to provide beneficial changes to the nature of the game, then I will accept that that's your position and respond to that.  Is that what you are saying?

Xaijin wrote...The one reading hostility and dismissal is you

Or, you know, the other people who responded to your statements too.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:41 .

[Killahead]

Balance would still matter even if score and credits were removed. It is as simple as that. Balance is already a crucial part of the game experience, it is founded on it, and how someone can claim that it is not important, like it is a feature that's not already a big part of the game, is beyond my understanding. Of course it would affect my individual game experience if had teammates running about with nuclear missile launchers.

And can people stop questioning each other's motivations. See the bigger picture, remove yourself and your personal sentiments from the equation, that's the first thing to do in a discussion like this and something Apl_J has been trying to enforce, bless him.

[twxabfn]

Those of you saying that balance/nerf proponents are all egotists are sort of right. The problem with ME3 MP in particular is that doing damage is a zero-sum game - meaning that any damage one player does to an enemy is damage that nobody else gets to do to that enemy, and as there are only so many enemies, there's only so much damage to go around. (That's why this balance argument applies to a co-op PVE game, by the way.)

If one person ends up doing the lion's share of the damage because of an OP mechanic, then that means that the other players have less that they can do and are then possibly having less fun. (Coincidentally, this is reflected in the scoreboard.) At that point, it's kind of human nature to go "Well, if that person is having all that fun by using that mechanic, then why don't I do it too? That way, *I'll* get to have the fun!" And thus they start using it in their next game, which means that somebody *else* has nothing to do in that match and does the same thing, and so on and so on until you end up with the majority of the playerbase all doing the same thing.

What balance does is make sure that nothing is so OP that it's the only thing worth using and that nothing is so UP that it's not worth using by anyone, anytime, in any situation. That's the whole "strengths vs. weaknesses" thing I was talking about earlier.

Now, is ME3 MP completely unbalanced? Of course not. There's nothing so OP that one player could get every kill in a match with it, and nothing so UP that it has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But it's not perfectly balanced, either.

I think that every player in every match wants to feel like a vital part of the team, and if there's one or more guys using a weapon, character, or combo that vastly outclasses theirs for whatever reason (his is UP, the other guy's is OP, whatever) then that feeling is lost and there's nothing that he could do about it.

Is calling for balance with that as the motivation selfish or egotistical?

[Hypertion]

Balancing the Krysae properly would require a 20-30% drop in its base damage.

at that level it will still be very good and in many situations better than a Valiant yet other guns would still be good options to have over it.

now i love the Krysae but the fact that does AOE damage with slightly higher base damage per shot over a Black Widow is what makes it over powered.

and if you think a 20-30% drop in damage per shot on the Krysae would make it suck lets look at the Valiant...

the Valiant does 40% less damage per shot over a Black Widow... yep that right. and yet those who have a Valiant often Prefer it over the Black Widow because of its Fast ROF and utter Lack of Recoil.

so you see the Krysae even at a 30% damage Drop would be a VERY POWERFUL weapon thanks to its AOE. Remeber Infiltrators get a total of 130% additonal damage with just tactial Cloak ALONE. Geth can get even more...

while i love the Krysae as it is... i dont see it maintaining its current power with all the outcry about it.


Ironic considering NO ONE WAS EVEN GIVING THE NEW SNIPER RIFLE A SECOND GLANCE BEFORE THEY RELEASED THE DLC.....

i seemed to be the only one who looked forward to the Krysae being added to the game.

[swjobson]

Apl_J wrote...

swjobson wrote...

What's the point of putting ultra rare weapons in "balance" with rare or uncommon weapons? It renders top tiers irrelevent. Ultra rares are hard to come by for a reason, the reason being that they're better than other weapons.

It's a really bad idea to put things like the Mattock on the same level as the Harrier, or the Widow to be as good as the Black Widow, simply because you don't want stuff to be outclassed by weapons that are literally part of a higher class. I'd like an explaination from BioWare about why promotionals like the N7 Eagle is still worse than uncommon SMGs.

I never said this. I definitely said that rarity should play a role in balance in OP and as a response to someone else.

"Balance weapons so that every gun makes Bronze easy, Silver moderate, and Gold difficult? You know, how its supposed to be."

That is exactly what you said. What that quote means is that you want all weapons to be roughly the same in terms of overall effectiveness. If all weapons have the same effect on a given difficulty then they're not allowed to be better than others overall. You are contradicting yourself. 

[Pitznik]

death_for_sale wrote...

Ah, so now we get a true response from someone. Thank you at least for having the courage to get to the meat of the issue.

You find the game to be not fun when other players make the game too easy. So you need a higher difficulty that challenges you as a player. Additionally you do not like using class/weapon combos that are not challenging.

So, the answer is, create a higher difficulty mode for players such as you and if you find a class/weapon combo to be too easy, don't use it

Again, thanks for being the first to step up and illustrate this instead of dancing around.

I am a silver player. It was a best difficulty for me, I felt comfortable enough there, but not bored. This is no longer the case - I can either equip Reegar and trivialize the game myself, or someone else will do it for me with Krysae, GI or something equally powerful. I could of course move to gold for more challenge, but should it be that way? Should addition of two guns, and few more changes before that really are supposed to make a player go one tier higher? Tbh I think not, that is why I strongly believe some things should be balanced, through buffs, which everyone will be ok with, but also through nerfs.

[Apl_Juice]

Sure, some people may be farming credits.  But what does that really have to do with game balance?

A lot of the arguments against it come from those who want easy credits. Its obvious by the sheer amount of FBW/G/G lobbies. I was just throwing that out there as another topic of discussion. It actually wasn't some kind of accusatory remark.

And you're losing your objectivity...  please go read Xaijin's original message.  It has a lot of good stuff in there.  I'm not even sure why you felt insulted and offended by it?

I read it many times; yea it does have good info. I felt offended because aggressive language and tone was used.

[neteng101]

Apl_J wrote...

-Its already established that value is subjective. That's in the OP, its why balance is so difficult. What I don't see is why having value parity is wrong.

Maybe you don't play RPGs very much?  All RPGs have this element of variety, and there is no such thing as value parity.  The idea is to unlock/find/obtain the best items/characters/weapons/powers/skills/etc...  that is a very basic gameplay element in RPGs.  Of course the Sword +5 Flame Blade is going to be better than your Sword +2, and once you get the Sword +5, you totally stop using/sell off/whatever the stuff that was made useless.

This is exactly what the obession is with the unlocking of weapons is in ME3, and how it draws the RPG side of the base to keep playing.  They don't care about some stupid score, they just want to unlock the best stuffs so they could use it!  And use it they will.

Even then, there is some attempt to balance things, so balance is not an unknown concept.  A +5 Flame blade and a +5 Ice blade has different uses, but both make the +2 sword useless.  But you cannot have absolute value parity.  Then it just doesn't matter anymore to these folks, there's no more carrot to continue finding/unlocking new things.

I read it many times; yea it does have good info. I felt offended because aggressive language and tone was used.

Good to know.  Its why I've stopped trying to respond to some others on this topic myself.

Modifié par neteng101, 01 juin 2012 - 10:15 .

[Xaijin]

Apl_J wrote...

Xaijin wrote...

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.

-I'm still not seeing how balance hurts the true player base. Most people don't even realize the game gets weekly updates at all unless they specifically look for information on the game on the internet. 

-Its already established that value is subjective. That's in the OP, its why balance is so difficult. What I don't see is why having value parity is wrong.

Because the general metric as we discussed in the other balance thread was the word specifically addressed: nerfing.

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

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

The next most numerous word coming up is "skill".

hrm. Not hard to see where this is going, which is why I made my statement in the first place.

I'll also just throw out there that BW is currently mulling over a "platinum difficulty" and leave it at that.

You believe that their position is false or   You believe that there
is no possible positive motivation for making accurate statements about
the nature of the game.

Actually, that's what you apparently believe I said, because I used the same inflammatory diction you've been using throughout the thread. The more you keep using absolutes, the less tenable your stance is likely to be, which does happen to bring another really good point about balance, because absolutes and balance and the disparity thereof are pretty much at the heart of it.

Modifié par Xaijin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:22 .

[Dynamik78]

you know what? I am so fedup that I don't care either way...
just 1 thing:I started testing and I outscored already many times infiltrators using Krysae with my GI with GPS/Claymore and my SI with just WidowX or ClaymoreX
I think the balance should nerf much more things than just Krysae then

[Poison_Berrie]

whateverman7 wrote...

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

No. Your statements are all encompassing generalizations, thus you make it about him/us. 
When you say this is all down to people feeling outscored and there is no merit to those calling for balance, then you are indeed encompassing the thread starter and many others under the same category. 

death_for_sale wrote...

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.

Your arguments befall that at the end of the day all that matters in this game is the rewards reaped at the end of a match.
Strangely enough, I don't not play solely for rewards. Gasp what a strange man I must be.

When in a game I use a weapon that has little redeeming qualities (of the vast number of parameters available), then I would wish it balanced so it's more worhtwhile to use.
If I'm encountering lots of games in which everybody uses the weapons with big advantages and little or meaningless disadvantages and I'm left looking for the few targets not already blasted apart by them, I'm not enjoying the game. I'd want such weapons to be less worthwhile than they are at that moment, so that I'm not forced to use the same weapons in order to get some enjoyment out of the game. Because at that point I can play other games.

So no at the end getting the same reward isn't all that matters. To me at least it matters that I have fun during the game. If I'm not having fun, the rewards don't compensate.

I wonder though was the game not in need of balance? Because in that case I call for a rollback to day one.
I'm guessing many of the changes that have been implemented since then are things you wouldn't want rolled back. Yet the minute some suggest something might need to be toned down people jump on you for fear it will be turned into a peashooter. 

A few things aside their track record isn't that horrible.

[capn233]

Xaijin wrote...
 ie making say, the Reegar and Krysae suck while esentially completely ignoring the positive impacts these weapons may or may not have had on the player base as a whole. the next most numerous word coming up is "skill".

hrm. Not hard ot see where this is going, which is why I made my statement in the first place.

I'll also just throw out there that BW is currently mulling over a "platinum difficulty" and leave it at that.

What positive impact has occured from the release of the Reegar and Krysae exactly?

Is yet another difficulty level that renders even more classes and weapons useless under the current state of balance actually a good thing?