194 réponses à ce sujet

[Gordo Schumway]

InfamousResult wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...

I did read your whole post and just paraphrased it for you. Sorry you didn't understand what you wrote but that's what it boiled down to.

Wrong.

HE said fun was the only thing that mattered. MY counter-argument was "why should your fun trump my fun"? The argument can go both ways, but he's the one that brought it up.. Not me. On top of that, though, he- and you- are both ignoring the argument of Game Balance. He ignored it because he just didn't think it was important enough when compared to his own fun, and you ignored it because you're trying to be too big for your britches.

Sorry you didn't understand what I wrote. But hey. Next time, don't paraphrase.

But by arguing for a nerf, you are not allowing him to have fun the way he wants to with the gun at the power he wants it. By arguing that you should join a private match, that doesn't eliminate your ability to have fun. It might inconvience you by making you have to jump through a few hoops (or make you wait longer to play a game) but it doesn't completely negate your ability to do it. I did understand the whole conversation--trust me, I am an English rhetoric professor and can understand basic english and understand the heart of an argument. The argument boiled down to you thinking your way of having fun (balance) was superior to his (whatever that is, but probably feeling powerful with little risk). You then proceeded to mock that way of having fun by saying that if a player needed such a powerful gun to beat gold, then maybe they should play a lower level. Maybe he likes getting more credits for his time?

As far as balance is concerned, the game has never been and never will be balanced even with months of nerf/buffs. Sorry, but I am not going to take an eagle instead of a carnifax or paladin if I want to feel like I am doing something to kill enemies. That fact hasn't made the game less fun for me. Keep in mind that I do think that the Krysae is extremely overpowered (with a sniper mostly) and don't really use it all that often unless I am doing speed runs. But I still do not want it nerfed for the sake of some imaginary "balance" because I would still like the option to use a ridiculously op gun now and then and would think myself presumptuous to tell other people how they should or should not have fun playing the game.

[InfamousResult]

Gordo Schumway wrote...

But by arguing for a nerf, you are not allowing him to have fun the way he wants to with the gun at the power he wants it. By arguing that you should join a private match, that doesn't eliminate your ability to have fun. It might inconvience you by making you have to jump through a few hoops (or make you wait longer to play a game) but it doesn't completely negate your ability to do it. I did understand the whole conversation--trust me, I am an English rhetoric professor and can understand basic english and understand the heart of an argument. The argument boiled down to you thinking your way of having fun (balance) was superior to his (whatever that is, but probably feeling powerful with little risk). You then proceeded to mock that way of having fun by saying that if a player needed such a powerful gun to beat gold, then maybe they should play a lower level. Maybe he likes getting more credits for his time?

As far as balance is concerned, the game has never been and never will be balanced even with months of nerf/buffs. Sorry, but I am not going to take an eagle instead of a carnifax or paladin if I want to feel like I am doing something to kill enemies. That fact hasn't made the game less fun for me. Keep in mind that I do think that the Krysae is extremely overpowered (with a sniper mostly) and don't really use it all that often unless I am doing speed runs. But I still do not want it nerfed for the sake of some imaginary "balance" because I would still like the option to use a ridiculously op gun now and then and would think myself presumptuous to tell other people how they should or should not have fun playing the game.

I had a Grand Slam today, and it was delicious.

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
But by arguing for a nerf, you are not allowing him to have fun the way he wants to with the gun at the power he wants it.

This sentence would be no more or less sensible if you replaced the word "nerf" with "buff." 

Now while I could nitpick and say that the wording makes the statement patently false (for instance, arguing for a nerf does nothing to affect what the player is allowed to do), I'll pretend Gordo actually meant to say something slightly less silly and said that if a nerf is IMPLEMENTED it would prevent X player from having fun the way X player
wants if the power level he needs to have fun is different from the post-change level.  The problem is that this is essentially a tautology.  It doesn't actually say anything useful about the world and doesn't support an argument for or against a nerf.  It's just saying "if a player likes the status quo then said player likes the status quo."  Well great, so what?

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 03:40 .

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
But by arguing for a nerf, you are not allowing him to have fun the way he wants to with the gun at the power he wants it.

This sentence would be no more or less sensible if you replaced the word "nerf" with "buff."

Agreed. I got the impression he liked it just the way it was.

[Gordo Schumway]

InfamousResult wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...

But by arguing for a nerf, you are not allowing him to have fun the way he wants to with the gun at the power he wants it. By arguing that you should join a private match, that doesn't eliminate your ability to have fun. It might inconvience you by making you have to jump through a few hoops (or make you wait longer to play a game) but it doesn't completely negate your ability to do it. I did understand the whole conversation--trust me, I am an English rhetoric professor and can understand basic english and understand the heart of an argument. The argument boiled down to you thinking your way of having fun (balance) was superior to his (whatever that is, but probably feeling powerful with little risk). You then proceeded to mock that way of having fun by saying that if a player needed such a powerful gun to beat gold, then maybe they should play a lower level. Maybe he likes getting more credits for his time?

As far as balance is concerned, the game has never been and never will be balanced even with months of nerf/buffs. Sorry, but I am not going to take an eagle instead of a carnifax or paladin if I want to feel like I am doing something to kill enemies. That fact hasn't made the game less fun for me. Keep in mind that I do think that the Krysae is extremely overpowered (with a sniper mostly) and don't really use it all that often unless I am doing speed runs. But I still do not want it nerfed for the sake of some imaginary "balance" because I would still like the option to use a ridiculously op gun now and then and would think myself presumptuous to tell other people how they should or should not have fun playing the game.

I had a Grand Slam today, and it was delicious.

I attempted to explain it as simply as possible and address your points; if you don't want to read it and just want to troll that's fine by me. I don't want to get in the way of your fun.

[JiceDuresh]

I'd have fun with a nuke with unlimited ammo that allows me to just click two buttons to end a round and collect all the points. Bioware should make it happen, it's co-op, no one else will be effected cause it's to thier benefit right? Think how fast we can make credits to buy weapons and characters we will never need again. That'll be hours and hours of fun I'm sure.

Infamous, I agree with everything you've said so far, but you're trying to use a rational argument in an irrational conversation. The whole basis for their argument is 'we like that it's overpowerd' which is personal in basis and not really an arguemt at all. You might as well try and and argue that their favorite colour isn't blue.

For the record though, 'we like it like this,' is not a basis for which decisions should be made. I like drinking at a bar all night then driving home, other seem to think there's a problem with this though, so they made this stupid law about me not being able to do it. Ruin my fun.

[InfamousResult]

Gordo Schumway wrote...

if you don't want to read it and just want to troll

Irony.

[UKillMeLongTime]

Just lower the ammo as it's too much

[GodlessPaladin]

InfamousResult wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...

if you don't want to read it and just want to troll

Irony.

Indeed...

[bd2eazy]

i think this gun is fine... until you have 2 circumstances.

1. it reaches higher levels... VII-X
2. its used by and infiltrator.


aside from that situation its not a big deal to me...
it gets annoying sometimes... but so do grenade spammers...
and lash users.... and GPS geth infiltrators... and human vanguards.

Point is... its something u just get used to and it doesnt bother you
as much after awhile.

But alas.. ppl cry, bioware will give this gun the nerf..
and more ppl will cry. whatever happens.. im now at
a place where im indifferent.

[SilentCO1]

Reduce to two shots and make it an assault rifle (so it won't get the extra 40% bonus that snipers can get from TC), but keep the current damage the same.

[RinShepard]

This gun is ridiculously powerful for how easy it is to use. I'm having a lot of relaxing fun with it and I'd be a little sad if it were nerfed, but I'd understand.

[CitizenThom]

Is Krysae the gun that keeps turning all the bad guys into blobs? I've seen it used, haven't unlocked it yet. I would in general say that all AOE weapons should be shotguns... i.e. no scope mod, no ammunition mod available... but the falcon and the striker are both assault rifles (the striker at least behaves something like the other assault rifles). But I think if you take away the scope and limit the ammo, the krysae isn't that unbalanced. It's the ability to scope in on enemies that makes it a bit uber I'm thinking.

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
But by arguing for a nerf, you are not allowing him to have fun the way he wants to with the gun at the power he wants it.

This sentence would be no more or less sensible if you replaced the word "nerf" with "buff." 

Now while I could nitpick and say that the wording makes the statement patently false (for instance, arguing for a nerf does nothing to affect what the player is allowed to do), I'll pretend Gordo actually meant to say something slightly less silly and said that if a nerf is IMPLEMENTED it would prevent X player from having fun the way X player wants if the power level he needs to have fun is different from the post-change level.  The problem is that this is essentially a tautology.  It doesn't actually say anything useful about the world and doesn't support an argument for or against a nerf.  It's just saying "if a player likes the status quo then said player likes the status quo."  Well great, so what?

You got me on the "impletmented" point. Yes, arguing one way or the other prevents nothing. However, the concept I was shooting for there (which is exactly as you put it) certainly does imply an argument and the point is made more explicitly further down in the post. I would not presume to advocate for a nerf/buff if that means somebody else's way of playing how they want would be eliminated.

Off topic: sorry about mistaking you for someone else earlier (the whole nerf duck thing).

[Immortal Strife]

I believe this battle has already been won; Bioware specifically stated that they were looking into changing the Krysae. I understand many don't want the Krysae altered to uselessness. Honestly, I don't think Bioware will break their newest sniper. Based on their track record with previous weekly balance changes, we can expect the Krysae to remain as one of the best guns, even after some minor tweaks.

Modifié par Immortal Strife, 11 juin 2012 - 03:07 .

[C.M Liu]

kr3g wrote...

Soon will be new balance changes, and i remember devs said they will look into it.
Now, i don't really like this gun, but i hope they will not nerf it too much.
IMHO - damage should be the same, but instead reduce clip capacity from 3 to 1. Thats perfect solution, don't you think?

Or you guys have something else in mind?

I will try it again if they try to "balance" this weapon.  If it is bad as Falcon (I have it level 10), I will let it to collect dust.

[Leisure Muffin]

Taking it from 3 shots to one will render it pretty useless by comparison. Now, don't get me wrong, I actually don't use or like the gun because it makes things too easy. But I still don't believe in nerfing things into oblivion. It wouldn't take a big change to normalize the Krysae. 2 shots per clip, and slightly less splash damage would probably get it into the butter zone.

[macarius5]

ssxpro wrote...

I only just unlocked it, and many won't have the chance to use it for quite a while yet. It'd be nice if most gamers had a chance to try these things before it was declared good or bad and simply balanced to be the same as every other gun. It'd be a bit depressing if you're always behind the curve and only ever unlock stuff that has been balanced to be exactly the same as your current kit, but with a new name.

I completely agree, some members of the forum might not have the chance to unlock this weapon yet.  So leave it as it is for now.

[MrFuddyDuddy]

People cry nerf it but, don't grasp what there doing to it across the board, maintaining damage and vastly reducing clip size would ruin the weapon for any one other than an infiltrator. As always look at the Falcon, gun is so infrequently used I only see it when I use it.

[Gordo Schumway]

macarius5 wrote...

ssxpro wrote...

I only just unlocked it, and many won't have the chance to use it for quite a while yet. It'd be nice if most gamers had a chance to try these things before it was declared good or bad and simply balanced to be the same as every other gun. It'd be a bit depressing if you're always behind the curve and only ever unlock stuff that has been balanced to be exactly the same as your current kit, but with a new name.

I completely agree, some members of the forum might not have the chance to unlock this weapon yet.  So leave it as it is for now.

Next time you see someone make the nerf argument so adamantly, take a look at their manifest. Most have played the game quite a bit (with the Krysae at X) and are probably pretty good because of it. It certainly does seem like a competition to many of them and they get irate with the idea that less skilled players can now hold their own.

Modifié par Gordo Schumway, 11 juin 2012 - 03:29 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Gordo Schumway wrote...
You got me on the "impletmented" point. Yes, arguing one way or the other prevents nothing. However, the concept I was shooting for there (which is exactly as you put it) certainly does imply an argument and the point is made more explicitly further down in the post. I would not presume to advocate for a nerf/buff if that means somebody else's way of playing how they want would be eliminated.

Off topic: sorry about mistaking you for someone else earlier (the whole nerf duck thing).

The problem with your reasoning here is that it justifies any state of the game, ever.   Since your position always supports the status quo, no matter what it is, how would you CREATE a game to begin with?  You have to have some concept of X feature > Y feature to have any concept of how to make a game "fun" to begin with.  And once you have that, you can argue how to make a game more or less fun according to given standards.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 11 juin 2012 - 03:45 .

[macarius5]

Gordo Schumway wrote...

macarius5 wrote...

ssxpro wrote...

I only just unlocked it, and many won't have the chance to use it for quite a while yet. It'd be nice if most gamers had a chance to try these things before it was declared good or bad and simply balanced to be the same as every other gun. It'd be a bit depressing if you're always behind the curve and only ever unlock stuff that has been balanced to be exactly the same as your current kit, but with a new name.

I completely agree, some members of the forum might not have the chance to unlock this weapon yet.  So leave it as it is for now.

Next time you see someone make the nerf argument so adamantly, take a look at their manifest. Most have played the game quite a bit (with the Krysae at X) and are probably pretty good because of it. It certainly does seem like a competition to many of them and they get irate with the idea that less skilled players can now hold their own.

I really can't understand the insecurities if one gets outdone "in score" by their squad mates, it is co-op.  If my team mate can effectively terminate enemies with this weapon, it is very welcome for me.  There are plenty of enemies particuarly in Gold which requires everyone's attention, if that is not enough, I do not know how they play the game.  They might be so effective that the only thing they think of is where is next banshee, atlas, brute, geth prime, oh it has been taken care of. already? that soon? just to exaggerate the point  

[JiceDuresh]

Gordo Schumway wrote...

 the idea that less skilled players can now hold their own.

Ballence should be defined as: Players of equal skill level being able to achieve equal results based on thier preferences of play (weapons they like).  What you're saying is that it's alright that a bad player can achive the results of a good player because of his choice of weapon.  Ok fine, it's co-op all the better for them, but in essence you're punishing skilled players for not using the stronger weapons because they'd like the good reward to be a challenge to get.

The gold difculty level should be based on skill, not the ability to choose the right load out. That's the defenition of dificulty.  If a weapon makes something easy, then it's not hard dificulty anymore, it's easy with better rewards, which you'd have to be stupid to pass up on. 

I'm all for people using the Krysae if it gets them into gold, but don't pretend that it's skill getting you there and don't start getting down on others who have the actual skill to be there, and lastly don't start thinking that you deserve to be there just cause you can pick the right weapon. And if you use it in bronze on a GI, you're still an ass.

(all instances of the word 'you' are metaphorical in nature and not directed at a single individual)

Modifié par JiceDuresh, 11 juin 2012 - 04:11 .

[Gordo Schumway]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...
You got me on the "impletmented" point. Yes, arguing one way or the other prevents nothing. However, the concept I was shooting for there (which is exactly as you put it) certainly does imply an argument and the point is made more explicitly further down in the post. I would not presume to advocate for a nerf/buff if that means somebody else's way of playing how they want would be eliminated.

Off topic: sorry about mistaking you for someone else earlier (the whole nerf duck thing).

The problem with your reasoning here is that it justifies any state of the game, ever.   Since your position always supports the status quo, no matter what it is, how would you CREATE a game to begin with?  You have to have some concept of X feature > Y feature to have any concept of how to make a game "fun" to begin with.  And once you have that, you can argue how to make a game more or less fun according to given standards.

I would not create a game to begin with and did not create this one. I have no problem if Bioware decides to ultimately nerf the Krysae. They have the stats about how the gun is used and the effect it has had on the game and if this effect is making the game lose players out of boredom. I don't have those stats, so I would not presume to say nerf this or buff that. I would guess that as soon as the game became so imbalanced so as to make it boring for most people and Bioware started losing players en masse, then they would attempt to correct the problem pretty quickly. They want to protect their product, after all.

The problem I really have is that the elite players (and I will call you one because I have seen some of your videos...and damn I wish I could play like that) who have the gun at X are the most vocal about nerfing a gun that the majority either like as is (I am basing this on the various polls out there, which admittedly isn't very scientific of me) or haven't even gotten the gun yet. If the game were changed to let the elites have their way, ultimately those would be the only people who could play the game (it makes logical sense; you want a challenge too). For that reason, I am all for adding another difficulty level--accomodate as many players and skill levels as possible.

[Gordo Schumway]

JiceDuresh wrote...

Gordo Schumway wrote...

 the idea that less skilled players can now hold their own.

Ballence should be defined as: Players of equal skill level being able to achieve equal results based on thier preferences of play (weapons they like).  What you're saying is that it's alright that a bad player can achive the results of a good player because of his choice of weapon.  Ok fine, it's co-op all the better for them, but in essence you're punishing skilled players for not using the stronger weapons because they'd like the good reward to be a challenge to get.

The gold difculty level should be based on skill, not the ability to choose the right load out. That's the defenition of dificulty.  If a weapon makes something easy, then it's not hard dificulty anymore, it's easy with better rewards, which you'd have to be stupid to pass up on. 

I'm all for people using the Krysae if it gets them into gold, but don't pretend that it's skill getting you there and don't start getting down on others who have the actual skill to be there, and lastly don't start thinking that you deserve to be there just cause you can pick the right weapon. And if you use it in bronze on a GI, you're still an ass.

(all instances of the word 'you' are metaphorical in nature and not directed at a single individual)

I actually agree with pretty much everything you said here and think that the only reason mediocre players would choose to use the gun in a difficulty level that doesn't reflect their ablitiy is because they want some of the better weapons in the game. Had Bioware implemented their store differently (like say using a traditional store system instead of an RNG), then a lot of this talk would die down and players would have to play the lower difficulty levels before they could afford that big shiny gun that would allow the higher levels to be playable. That would also mean they are learning in the process and presumably getting better so when they use that big shiny new gun, they are at the level of difficulty that would suit them.

It almost seems like Bioware decided to replicate the idea behind a RPG for the store system where the skill of a player isn't all that important, but rather tweaking the build based on the rules of the game. Think Final Fantasy or Diablo or to a lesser extent, Fallout--those games don't really require "skill" per se but rather an understanding of the game's mechanics and time for leveling up gear. The problem is this doesn't really work with a multiplayer shooter as well.

Modifié par Gordo Schumway, 11 juin 2012 - 05:06 .