268 réponses à ce sujet

[Mal3fact0r]

neteng101 wrote...

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.

A good point. If all weapons are equally effective, there is nothing really to care about unlocking /obtaining.

And for the record, I'm not against balance at all, in fact I'm a proponent of balance. But the devs have to balance the game in different ways, they have to balance class/weapons/powers with themselves and also with "fun" and they must balance all that with running a business. Take away that "wow I want that cool gun or class, can't wait to unlock it" and you take away potential $.  That doesn't mean they should add in a weapon that kills everything instantly, but that the way the game is balanced now (and they continue to make small-ish changes for the most part) with some things stronger than others, is the way to go IMO.

If you're making a PvP game like say, Quake or Unreal Tournament, then it's all about balance, where winning is all about player skill and there is no RPG factor to it, and more importantly, no microtransactions/revenue based on obtaining bigger and better things.

[Jjynn]

I saw this mentioned a few pages back, and its something I think needs more highlighting.

It was mentioned that all the classes are more or less the same, save that the Engineer is more easily defined as support compared to the generalization of "damage dealer" that the other classes have (on top of whatever unique abilities they bring to the group).

I think what is needed is that the classes need their roles to be defined. Or in someway allow for a way to let players define their roles.

As stated earlier, you see it most clearly in the Engineer. Depending on race, (I mostly play Human) you can work as crowd control (drone) / shield stripper (overload), or spec into a more damage-centric and aggressive role with points into Incinerate / Overload spam.

GE's have an even more clearly defined path choice through how they spec their turrets (infinitely better than the QE female version). Go for damage or actual shield heals, which actually has a dramatic affect on how that character plays.

These kinds of role define abilities to class are what is need. I feel as though the impression that the game lacks balance is because so many of the classes serve the same purpose even though they do it in different ways. The game would probably feel more balanced if there was a more tank-oriented class and/or spec for examle, as opposed to just improvising with the limited skill sets.

And what contributes to this sameness is the last two passive specs of every class / race. I can see it was set up to create a kind of "racial" ability, but they aren't different enough. Especially the last "health/shields".

In my opinion, it seems as though balance might be more easily achieved through greater diversity, not a quest for parity.

Modifié par Jjynn, 01 juin 2012 - 10:28 .

[GodlessPaladin]

@Mal3f4ctor:

Yes, and that's why I agree with having a gradual ramp up in power for degrees of weapon rarity (but not character rarity, for reasons I explained previously), and why no one's really calling for Avenger or Predator buffs.  However, I would note that a balanced weapon can still offer a lot of "coolness" without actually being overpowered.  Coolness is not only or even primarily determined by effectiveness.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:36 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Jjynn wrote...

I saw this mentioned a few pages back, and its something I think needs more highlighting.

It was mentioned that all the classes are more or less the same, save that the Engineer is more easily defined as support compared to the generalization of "damage dealer" that the other classes have (on top of whatever unique abilities they bring to the group).

I think what is needed is that the classes need their roles to be defined. Or in someway allow for a way to let players define their roles.

As stated earlier, you see it most clearly in the Engineer. Depending on race, (I mostly play Human) you can work as crowd control (drone) / shield stripper (overload), or spec into a more damage-centric and aggressive role with points into Incinerate / Overload spam.

GE's have an even more clearly defined path choice through how they spec their turrets (infinitely better than the QE female version). Go for damage or actual shield heals, which actually has a dramatic affect on how that character plays.

These kinds of role define abilities to class are what is need. I feel as though the impression that the game lacks balance is because so many of the classes serve the same purpose even though they do it in different ways. The game would probably feel more balanced if there was a more tank-oriented class and/or spec for examle, as opposed to just improvising with the limited skill sets.

And what contributes to this sameness is the last two passive specs of every class / race. I can see it was set up to create a kind of "racial" ability, but they aren't different enough. Especially the last "health/shields".

I don't think classes need to be shoehorned into oversimplified stereotypical roles such as "tank" or "DPS" in order to have distinct and interesting roles.

In my opinion, it seems as though balance might be more easily achieved through greater diversity, not a quest for parity.

  ^  As I've said, balance and diversity go hand in hand for asymmetrical games (which Mass Effect 3 is).

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:34 .

[Apl_Juice]

neteng101 wrote...

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.

But a shooter is functionally different than an RPG, especially eastern style rpgs. In an RPG, all you have is your stats and your strategy. In a classic JRPG, you cant move, dodge, or any of that. The only input you have is commands. ME3 is a shooter with RPG elements. Its tailored to appeal to shooter fans, we've all seen this gradually happen since ME1. In Multiplayer, if you miss, its not because you goofed a dice roll, its because you didn't aim well enough. In a JRPG, those stats that equipment give are ALL you have. And there's still balance in those too, when you look for it. There may be a definitive best weapon, but there isnt a skill you can use that will let you steamroll through the entire game. If a skill like this does exist, its a reward given for doing something that is challenging.

[SinerAthin]

The reason I don't want nerfs is because we have all seen what Bioware did to the Falcon and Kishok.

Either they don't touch the weapon, or they absolutely MAIM it, leaving it to rot in all eternity.


That's why I don't want to see nerfs, because weapons victim of these nerfs are doomed to become useless because Bioware hasn't shown themselves capable to create a 'middle ground'.

Whereas on buffing weapons, they do far better. Any weapons they have buffed up to date haven't become OP or any game breaking, which is why I'm pro buffs and against nerfs.


Also, should ease of unlocking count for a weapons strenght?
That would render weapons such as the predator and Avenger obsolete later in the game, and what's the point of putting these weapons into the game if you're not going to use them?

Avenger is also on the artwork of many Mass Effect illustrations. It would be silly to have the most iconic Mass Effect Assault Rifle be completely useless.
You'd think if it was such a horrible rifle, Sheperd would've never been issued one in the first place

Modifié par SinerAthin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:39 .

[Xaijin]

capn233 wrote...

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?

I've seen a lot more positive remarks as opposed to negative remarks on forums other than here. How much of the payer base that represents is unknown. Said forums also don't particularly care that they are new weapons and aren't grandfathered in like others are, which is apparently the complete opposite of here, particularly the grandfathered part. "I like to call it the "nothing can ever be more powerful or have more utility than the Black Widow from now until the end of time" effect.

The funny thing is, I remember a weapon pack by a company called BioWare for game called "Mass Effect 2" called the "firepower pack". I remember reading on the bioware social network forums about how broken this pack was, and how it completely destroyed the game's difficulty.

Imagine my surprise when a poll was called for Mass Effect 3 and the two most wanted weapons besides the widow were the GPS and the Mattock, even over the Revenant and Claymore.

:| Hmm. Conundrum.

As for good things, the two notes there are "Do you REALLY understand what you're asking for or are you just whining", and "exactly how do you go about making the suck classes not suck and still keep variety and depth".

[Jjynn]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

I don't think classes need to be shoehorned into oversimplified stereotypical roles such as "tank" or "DPS" in order to have distinct and interesting roles.

I concede, my example was probably an oversimplification, but the option to spec into a role for each class should be an option.  Or to spec a class to act as a kind of hybrid role, depending on how  player chooses to allot his/her points.  I think I personally prefer playing the Engineer class (regardless of race) because it feels as though I know what I'm supposed to do beyond "Red Box!  Shoot it first!"  

I play in a more support-oriented way most of the time anywho, regardless of class, so I'm probably biased in my assessment.  

But, it seems as though we both agree, some kind of diversificaton is needed for the classes.

[GodlessPaladin]

Jjynn wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

I don't think classes need to be shoehorned into oversimplified stereotypical roles such as "tank" or "DPS" in order to have distinct and interesting roles.

I concede, my example was probably an oversimplification, but the option to spec into a role for each class should be an option.  Or to spec a class to act as a kind of hybrid role, depending on how  player chooses to allot his/her points.

The ability to "spec into roles" emerges naturally from creating comparably useful build options with meaningfully distinct purposes.

Therefore, in order to accomplish this design goal, a game should try to create comparably useful build options with meaningfully distinct purposes.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:45 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Xaijin wrote...

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.

Yeah, that's not what he said.
What he has said is that downward adjustments (or nerfing as people like to call it) are as much part of this process as buffing and that it's a silly thing to expect every adjustment to be upward only. 

If three snack machines in a batch of hundred grant two snacks by a fault, would you fix it by making all of them grant two or would let the three machines grant one. 
If as a result these machines sometimes grant nothing than they should be fixed, but it's still less work and easier than changing all to do two and than asking for double the money to balance all things out.

The Kishock wasn't actually nerfed, btw. It was fixed. It's a shame, but it's not a nerf.
Also it's funny how everyone always notes the few that went to far (Falcon, Sabotage) while seemingly everything else somehow is of no matter to their track record. 

And finally you exagerate by making any downward balance change to a weapon as making them completely suck. Hint not every nerf was unaccompanied by a buff and not every nerf turned thier gun into a peashooter. 

[Apl_Juice]

Jjynn wrote...

I saw this mentioned a few pages back, and its something I think needs more highlighting.

It was mentioned that all the classes are more or less the same, save that the Engineer is more easily defined as support compared to the generalization of "damage dealer" that the other classes have (on top of whatever unique abilities they bring to the group).

I think what is needed is that the classes need their roles to be defined. Or in someway allow for a way to let players define their roles.

As stated earlier, you see it most clearly in the Engineer. Depending on race, (I mostly play Human) you can work as crowd control (drone) / shield stripper (overload), or spec into a more damage-centric and aggressive role with points into Incinerate / Overload spam.

GE's have an even more clearly defined path choice through how they spec their turrets (infinitely better than the QE female version). Go for damage or actual shield heals, which actually has a dramatic affect on how that character plays.

These kinds of role define abilities to class are what is need. I feel as though the impression that the game lacks balance is because so many of the classes serve the same purpose even though they do it in different ways. The game would probably feel more balanced if there was a more tank-oriented class and/or spec for examle, as opposed to just improvising with the limited skill sets.

And what contributes to this sameness is the last two passive specs of every class / race. I can see it was set up to create a kind of "racial" ability, but they aren't different enough. Especially the last "health/shields".

In my opinion, it seems as though balance might be more easily achieved through greater diversity, not a quest for parity.

I like this. I don't agree with all of it, but I like the ideas.

The balance I'm asking for is simple. To explain, i go to your GE example. GE's turret can give up their offensive capabilities for more frequent and potent healing. I like that you have to weigh options when you build the character and the fact that you can mix it up.

But let's apply that to Tactical Cloak. No if, ands, or buts about it, we all agree that the damage evolutions FAR outweigh the alternatives. 40% duration is inconsequential; if you need to do something while cloaked, the rank 3 duration bonus is plenty of time to do a activate objective, revive someone, or get to a risky ammo crate. Both rank 5 evolutions are worthless on a sniper build, but on a GI, the melee bonus far exceeds the recharge bonus, since Infiltrators don't care about weight in order to do what they have to do. The final rank 6 is a no brainer. On a non sniper, you don't even need this rank at all, saving you 6 points. On a sniper, you take sniper damage, thanks to the power, aim, shoot you can do while still keeping Cloak. The bonus power evolution is useless to all but the most niche builds (which, if I may, arent as effective). 

Everyone else has to weigh options in their builds except the Infiltrators. Their Tactical Cloak has a no questions optimal build in every situation you need it in, from support to attack.

[whateverman7]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

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. 

no, i'm not....my statements were talking in generalizations cause i was talking in general about the topic...i never once specified and said the threadstarter said or the threadstarter felt such and such way....i talked in general about the topic the whole thread....the threadstarter didnt do that...he talked in general sometimes, in others he talked about himself; which explains his last response to things i said

[GodlessPaladin]

As a designer I've always been bothered by the word "support" to define a role. It's far too vague. Everything everyone does provides some kind of "support" to accomplishing a gameplay goal (or is useless or counterproductive).

Always been a little pet peeve of mine >_>

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:47 .

[capn233]

Xaijin wrote...

I've seen a lot more positive remarks as opposed to negative remarks on forums other than here. How much of the payer base that represents is unknown. Said forums also don't particularly care that they are new weapons and aren't grandfathered in like others are, which is apparently the complete opposite of here, particularly the grandfathered part. "I like to call it the "nothing can ever be more powerful or have more utility than the Black Widow from now until the end of time" effect.

The funny thing is, I remember a weapon pack by a company called BioWare for game called "Mass Effect 2" called the "firepower pack". I remember reading on the bioware social network forums about how broken this pack was, and how it completely destroyed the game's difficulty.

Imagine my surprise when a poll was called for Mass Effect 3 and the two most wanted weapons besides the widow were the GPS and the Mattock, even over the Revenant and Claymore.

:| Hmm. Conundrum.

As for good things, the two notes there are "Do you REALLY understand what you're asking for or are you just whining", and "exactly how do you go about making the suck classes not suck and still keep variety and depth".

The mob likes win buttons and of course they are going to be "positive remarks" about a weapon like the Krysae which does a lot of damage, doesn't weigh a ton, is easy to use, has AOE and is a rare to boot.  I don't consider that a positive outcome as it relates to balance.  It is a positive outcome if you are Bioware and just want to keep the bulk of casual players interested in multiplayer.

The Mattock was indeed overpowered in ME2, at least under Adrenaline Rush, and somewhat under charge.  It was not much better than the Vindicator otherwise.  GPS was good for the squad due to the AI.  Really Incisor (which wasn't in the pack) was somewhat overpowered on the squad.  But of course you didn't have to equip your squad with those things if you didn't want to, nor was it a multiplayer game.  I am not surprised in the least that a poll of random people would indeed have wanted the Mattock because it did indeed make the game easier, and I am also not surprised that so many people cried that the Mattock was brought closer into balance in this game.

[Jjynn]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

The ability to "spec into roles" emerges naturally from creating comparably useful build options with meaningfully distinct purposes.

It seems to me (and I confess, I may not be aware of all the pertinent info here - these forums grow so quickly) that those build options are very limited.  Mayhaps the three combat abilities classes have could use more...  variety.  Its clear that the classes were designed along a kind of "Racial Combat Doctrine", until Rebellion was released and we were handed Cerberus (human) and Male Quarian class variants with differing abilities from their Original versions.

I'm probably just nitpicking at this point, but it seems like rather than make a whole new class, just allow for the player to spec the old classes (in this case, Human Adept / Vanguards & Quarian Engineers / Infiltrators) more abilities and the same amount of ability points.  

That would have resulted in greater diversity.   And BW could still then add Male Quarians and a new Human Armor set for even more variety.  

That's how I would have made Rebellion work (sans the glitchiness) if I were in charge.  Of course, I'm not, so its all just supposition on my part.

[GodlessPaladin]

Jjynn wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

The ability to "spec into roles" emerges naturally from creating comparably useful build options with meaningfully distinct purposes.

It seems to me (and I confess, I may not be aware of all the pertinent info here - these forums grow so quickly) that those build options are very limited.  Mayhaps the three combat abilities classes have could use more...  variety.  Its clear that the classes were designed along a kind of "Racial Combat Doctrine", until Rebellion was released and we were handed Cerberus (human) and Male Quarian class variants with differing abilities from their Original versions.

I'm probably just nitpicking at this point, but it seems like rather than make a whole new class, just allow for the player to spec the old classes (in this case, Human Adept / Vanguards & Quarian Engineers / Infiltrators) more abilities and the same amount of ability points.  

That would have resulted in greater diversity.   And BW could still then add Male Quarians and a new Human Armor set for even more variety.  

That's how I would have made Rebellion work (sans the glitchiness) if I were in charge.  Of course, I'm not, so its all just supposition on my part.

BTW, did you see the edited part of the message you just replied to?  It adds a bit more clarification.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 10:54 .

[Mal3fact0r]

Apl_J wrote...

Jjynn wrote...

I saw this mentioned a few pages back, and its something I think needs more highlighting.

It was mentioned that all the classes are more or less the same, save that the Engineer is more easily defined as support compared to the generalization of "damage dealer" that the other classes have (on top of whatever unique abilities they bring to the group).

I think what is needed is that the classes need their roles to be defined. Or in someway allow for a way to let players define their roles.

As stated earlier, you see it most clearly in the Engineer. Depending on race, (I mostly play Human) you can work as crowd control (drone) / shield stripper (overload), or spec into a more damage-centric and aggressive role with points into Incinerate / Overload spam.

GE's have an even more clearly defined path choice through how they spec their turrets (infinitely better than the QE female version). Go for damage or actual shield heals, which actually has a dramatic affect on how that character plays.

These kinds of role define abilities to class are what is need. I feel as though the impression that the game lacks balance is because so many of the classes serve the same purpose even though they do it in different ways. The game would probably feel more balanced if there was a more tank-oriented class and/or spec for examle, as opposed to just improvising with the limited skill sets.

And what contributes to this sameness is the last two passive specs of every class / race. I can see it was set up to create a kind of "racial" ability, but they aren't different enough. Especially the last "health/shields".

In my opinion, it seems as though balance might be more easily achieved through greater diversity, not a quest for parity.

I like this. I don't agree with all of it, but I like the ideas.

The balance I'm asking for is simple. To explain, i go to your GE example. GE's turret can give up their offensive capabilities for more frequent and potent healing. I like that you have to weigh options when you build the character and the fact that you can mix it up.

But let's apply that to Tactical Cloak. No if, ands, or buts about it, we all agree that the damage evolutions FAR outweigh the alternatives. 40% duration is inconsequential; if you need to do something while cloaked, the rank 3 duration bonus is plenty of time to do a activate objective, revive someone, or get to a risky ammo crate. Both rank 5 evolutions are worthless on a sniper build, but on a GI, the melee bonus far exceeds the recharge bonus, since Infiltrators don't care about weight in order to do what they have to do. The final rank 6 is a no brainer. On a non sniper, you don't even need this rank at all, saving you 6 points. On a sniper, you take sniper damage, thanks to the power, aim, shoot you can do while still keeping Cloak. The bonus power evolution is useless to all but the most niche builds (which, if I may, arent as effective). 

Everyone else has to weigh options in their builds except the Infiltrators. Their Tactical Cloak has a no questions optimal build in every situation you need it in, from support to attack.

You really hate Infiltrators don't you lol. Every class has power evolutions that are far, far better than the alternatives. Some Biotic builds are equally, if not more, powerful than Infiltrators, Human Vanguards (if specced and played right) are all but invincible (in fact they are during invincibility frames) and can utterly dominate a match leaving the other 3 teammates bored senseless, and yet post after post you harp on Infiltrators. If you want to call for balance, then it absolutely must apply to each and every class, not just the ones you personally have a problem with.

If that's not the case, then I apologize, but it sure seems that way when all you talk about for "balance" is 1 class.

[GodlessPaladin]

Saying that people who want balance want weapons to "suck" flies in the face of what the word "balance" means.

[Poison_Berrie]

whateverman7 wrote...

no, i'm not....my statements were talking in generalizations cause i was talking in general about the topic...i never once specified and said the threadstarter said or the threadstarter felt such and such way....i talked in general about the topic the whole thread....the threadstarter didnt do that...he talked in general sometimes, in others he talked about himself; which explains his last response to things i said

Well he did specify that these were his opinions at the start.

You should have made that more clear. It seemed like you were making a sweeping generalization about people who would like balance. Such statements don't do you much favor if you do not naunce them. 

They are still faulty off course. By the same logic that I can't call balance-haters people who are solely obsessed by the reward of a match. I can't easily determine another one's motivation for an opinion, especially over the Internet, much less everyone/the majority who view things the same.

[Prodicus]

I tend to agree, in general, with Godless Paladin's argument about balance. That is, an effective balance between classes, weapons, powers, etc. would result in more variety, player choice, and dynamic game play.

That being said, I think this otherwise superb thread has become slightly sidetracked due to consideration (and OT debate over, I think) the posters' motivations in their position. So, I'll come right out and state mine:

I want to take part in the game. I want to be an effective teammate. I enjoy playing adepts and engineers the most, and I want to feel as if I'm doing something during the match, contributing. I'm usually not the top scorer and I don't care. If I play with a GI who outscores me by 50k points, it's irrelevant as long as I felt as if I did something during the game, dropping bubbles, stripping shields, priming combos, something.

Up until this last DLC, that was my experience. I never (or very, very rarely) had a match where I didn't have a chance to participate, blow some things up, have fun. I have always thought the game was balanced enough for me to contribute with any class and with many different loadouts and builds. Sure, other players could dominate the scoreboard, but I got to play!

This last week, I've had more than a few matches where I could have just stood there while the Kyrsae snipers blew up everything. I didn't matter. My poor engineers ran around, desperately trying to strip shields or drop a drone on something before it died.

That is a problem for me. So... I'd like something to be a done, but I don't know what. I'd rather not have to avoid public matches, which I've thoroughly enjoyed up to this point, simply because the classes I enjoy playing most aren't as much fun anymore.

Because fun for me is taking part and mattering to the team. Not the score. But if that's ego, well, then, I'll own that.

Modifié par Prodicus, 01 juin 2012 - 10:59 .

[dented_wheel]

I'd like to refer to my post on page two of this thread. It's all Human Nature. Lots of people seem to be taking this very personally. It almost seems that one-upmanship is in full force in here.

I wonder how the major players in this discussion would feel if their name was the fourth in the summary list. It doesn't seem that anyone really cares if the game is fun for anyone else. They only care if it is fun for them personally. Balance or not, if it ruins the game for you, forget anybody else.

Someone's earlier post mentions the wide range of skill people have playing this game. I would like to point out how true this is. I have played as a Geth Infiltrator on Gold (with the Black Widow) and I have to publicly thank the other three players for reviving me what had to be a record number of times. Maybe I just don't get it. I did better with my female human Adept.

To make it fun for me (and, truthfully that's all that matters) I wish that everybody else sucked more. Then I could go to bed at night feeling like I am worth something.

[GodlessPaladin]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

whateverman7 wrote...

no, i'm not....my statements were talking in generalizations cause i was talking in general about the topic...i never once specified and said the threadstarter said or the threadstarter felt such and such way....i talked in general about the topic the whole thread....the threadstarter didnt do that...he talked in general sometimes, in others he talked about himself; which explains his last response to things i said

Well he did specify that these were his opinions at the start.

You should have made that more clear. It seemed like you were making a sweeping generalization about people who would like balance. Such statements don't do you much favor if you do not naunce them. 

They are still faulty off course. By the same logic that I can't call balance-haters people who are solely obsessed by the reward of a match. I can't easily determine another one's motivation for an opinion, especially over the Internet, much less everyone/the majority who view things the same.

This, but moreover speculating about people's motivations doesn't really accomplish anything.  No amount of speculation about someone's motivations for espousing their argument will actually constitute a refutation for that argument.   As such, that whole discussion is pointless and serves only to spread stereotypes, hostility, flaming, et cetera.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 01 juin 2012 - 11:01 .

[Apl_Juice]

Xaijin wrote...
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.

That's not my stance at all. I want to establish a baseline or zone. Bronze should be easy. Silver should be moderate, and gold should be tough. That includes nerfing and buffing. I think i said this in the OP, but if everything gets constantly buffed, difficulty loses meaning, and challenge is important in a game. I dont think I had to say this, but if everything gets nerfed, then Gold will become too difficult.

I dont want another Falcon or Kishock, I want good balancing. That's why I called the thread the Balance argument, not the nerfing argument. Nerfing is just one tool of many, just like you said. I dont want the Reegar or the Krysae to suck either. They should fill a role whose strengths don't overshadow everything else and whose weaknesses aren't negligible.

Ask far as skill goes, no, I don't care much about skilled input to a point. For example, the Graal and GPS. The Graal takes a lot more work, since you need to get headshots. The GPS doesn't need headshots and it has slight homing. I don't think people are bad because they use the GPS, I think they're playing to the GPS's strengths, which are that you don't have to worry as much about aim, which allows the player to stay out of hard-aiming which slows you down and limits range of vision. They're both fine weapons. Not 100% equal, but their strengths and weaknesses are in check with eachother.

Platinum is eh. It isn't needed. Instead of calcualting all the enemies again, they could just make Gold difficult. Platinum will just funnel everyone into specific cookie cutter builds even more than Gold, not to mention there would still be FBW/G/G abuse.

Modifié par Apl_J, 01 juin 2012 - 10:59 .