182 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyeme Downs]

DVS27t wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...
Problem solved right?

Your screen name is apt.  You are clearly blind to the purpose that balance serves in an RPG or what people who want balance want from balance.

What people want from balance is to not be outscored and to be able to kill as many enemies as the next guy if not more.

Hit the nail on the head.... It HAS to be the weapon or loadout, the other player can't just be better than them.

Is this a balance vs skill thread, or a socialism vs capitalism thread in disguise?  hmmm

[InfamousResult]

Balance =/= Everything being the same.

Different, but equal. That's balance. That's what we want.

If I put a bag of apples on one scale, and put a bag of oranges on the opposite scale, and they weigh the same.. That doesn't mean the apples suddenly became oranges, or that the oranges suddenly became apples. There's still a bag of apples. There's still a bag of oranges. But they're balanced.

Just like guns should be. Just like classes should be.

[Adhok42]

Blind2Society wrote...

@Adhok42: Damn, turns out I missed a bunch. The fallout would have been catastrophic.

No worries! Just happy to help. Glad I caught that in time!

[Blind2Society]

InfamousResult wrote...

Different, but equal

So what do we do when someone is a crap ton better than you? We should nerf their keyboard or something right? Because you are not equal.

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 12:06 .

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

InfamousResult wrote...

Balance =/= Everything being the same.

Different, but equal. That's balance. That's what we want.

If I put a bag of apples on one scale, and put a bag of oranges on the opposite scale, and they weigh the same.. That doesn't mean the apples suddenly became oranges, or that the oranges suddenly became apples. There's still a bag of apples. There's still a bag of oranges. But they're balanced.

Just like guns should be. Just like classes should be.

Couldn't put it better myself.

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

Blind2Society wrote...

InfamousResult wrote...

Different, but equal

So what do we do when someone is a crap ton better than you? We should nerf their keyboard or something right? Because you are not equal.

We're talking about the game here, not the people playing it.

[InfamousResult]

Blind2Society wrote...

InfamousResult wrote...

Different, but equal

So what do we do when someone is a crap ton better than you? We should nerf their keyboard or something right? Because you are not equal.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, or the topic at-hand.

"LOOK OVER THERE" only works in cartoons. Try staying focused when you're talking to somebody.

Modifié par InfamousResult, 13 juin 2012 - 12:09 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Blind2Society wrote...

^ Uh oh, we got ourselves a badass up in herr.

And we've got a willfully ignorant mudslinger over here who cannot do anything but make mockeries of straw effigies rather than actually responding to a legitimately presented position.    All you've done is fabricate a weak position that people don't actually support and attack it, then claim victory over people who are saying something completely different than what you just argued against.  Nobody here wants everything to be the same.  Many don't care about score.  Those are just things you attribute to a nebulous "them" that isn't really out there, Blind2Society.

But we do care about balance.  We care about balance in competitive games, cooperative games, and single player games.  In fact, some form of balance is valuable in just about every kind of game.  People care about balance because balance does a lot of really beneficial things from a game design point of view.  People care because it creates meaningful choices, adds layers of depth, creates a dynamic of risk vs reward, enhances gameplay flow, facilitates a wider variety of playstyles, rewards experimentation, extends replay value, provides a rewarding sense of mastery, and more.  All of these things are important to engaging players and making the experience as fun as possible.

For example, just one thing that balance does is make the "build a character" mental challenge (a core part of the "fun" formula for RPGs since the very first RPGs) actually matter rather than making the best choice obvious to any dullard.

Your argument creates a false dilemma.  The idea you're promoting results from a misunderstanding of what balance does.  The opposite is actually true:  Differences exist independently of balance.  While balance does not necessarily create differences, balance causes differences to stand out and become more meaningful.

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

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

There is absolutely nothing about balance that causes sameness in any respect other than *incentive to use a choice.*  And if the incentive to use choices are all on a comparable footing, differences become more meaningful and variety is encouraged and rewarded rather than reduced.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 12:18 .

[smyss]

Blind2Society wrote...

Let's start by making all classes and characters have the same health/shields and the same damage output/effect regardless of power. That's step one.

Now let's make all weaponds have the same damage output, range, fire rate, and all that as well regardless of weapon class.

Now for the enemies. All enemies have the same health/shields and damage output as the players. There will only be 4 enemies per round, well, maybe 8 since we have brains and they don't. On waves 4, 7, 9 they have to complete objectives.

Now for the final piece of the balance puzzle. All characters are only allowed to kill their fair share of the enemies. Given 8 enemies per round, eahc person is allowed to kill 2 enemies and no further damage can be dealt by that player. This way point distibution is "balanced". This is probably the most important part.

EDIT: Oh yes, I forgot to add, at the end all players will be tied for first place. Because we all know what can happen when only one person comes in first.

What say you, balanced?

I LOVE THIS . its brilliant and the only solution left for this game. its perfect. its "balanced" its boring and no one could possibly be better than you even though they're much more skilled !!!! win !!! especially if no one is allowed to have fun !!!

[Blind2Society]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...

^ Uh oh, we got ourselves a badass up in herr.

And we've got a willfully ignorant mudslinger over here who cannot do anything but make mockeries of straw men rather than actually responding to a legitimately defended position.  Nobody wants everything to be the same.  Many don't care about score.  Those are just things you attribute to a nebulous "them" that isn't really out there, Blind2Society.

But we do care about balance.  People care about balance because balance does a lot of really beneficial things from a game design point of view.  People care because it creates meaningful choices, adds layers of depth, creates a dynamic of risk vs reward, enhances gameplay flow, facilitates a wider variety of playstyles, rewards experimentation, extends replay value, provides a rewarding sense of mastery, and more.  All of these things are important to engaging players and making the experience as fun as possible.

For example, just one thing that balance does is make the "build a character" mental challenge (a core part of the "fun" formula for RPGs since the very first RPGs) actually matter rather than making the best choice obvious to any dullard.

None of the things you nerfers have called for affected those things. Are you saying because the Krysae was good at killing stuff, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities? It most certainly did not. It was a powerful gun but I still played a multitude of different classes and experimented all the time. If you couldn't get past having to pick the best weapon/setup rather than changing it up and experienceing different things then that's your problem. And apparently most people I've seen didn't have a problem either. Because I rarely see these, so called, "overpowered, unbalanced" setups.

EDIT: Let me shorten that for you. So you're saying, before today's "balance" changes, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities you have bolded?

And by the way, who the hell are you to tell me what is and isn't fun?

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 12:18 .

[pyroboy2290]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...

^ Uh oh, we got ourselves a badass up in herr.

And we've got a willfully ignorant mudslinger over here who cannot do anything but make mockeries of straw effigies rather than actually responding to a legitimately presented position.    All you've done is fabricate a weak position that people don't actually support and attack it, then claim victory over people who are saying something completely different than what you just argued against.  Nobody here wants everything to be the same.  Many don't care about score.  Those are just things you attribute to a nebulous "them" that isn't really out there, Blind2Society.

But we do care about balance.  We care about balance in competitive games, cooperative games, and single player games.  In fact, some form of balance is valuable in just about every kind of game.  People care about balance because balance does a lot of really beneficial things from a game design point of view.  People care because it creates meaningful choices, adds layers of depth, creates a dynamic of risk vs reward, enhances gameplay flow, facilitates a wider variety of playstyles, rewards experimentation, extends replay value, provides a rewarding sense of mastery, and more.  All of these things are important to engaging players and making the experience as fun as possible.

For example, just one thing that balance does is make the "build a character" mental challenge (a core part of the "fun" formula for RPGs since the very first RPGs) actually matter rather than making the best choice obvious to any dullard.

Your argument creates a false dilemma.  The idea you're promoting results from a misunderstanding of what balance does.  The opposite is actually true:  Differences exist independently of balance.  Balance causes differences to stand out and become more meaningful. 

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

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

There is absolutely nothing about balance that causes sameness in any respect other than *incentive to use a choice.*  And if the incentive to use choices are all on a comparable footing, differences become more meaningful and variety is encouraged and rewarded rather than reduced.

You make a very good point GP, and in terms of CHARACTER/class balance I really can't disagree with you, the classes need to be balanced so that the only reasons for choosing a class should be what enemy you're facing and what your personal preferance is. In terms of WEAPON balance however, that's something that isn't really achievable in a game such as ME3. Look at the automatic weapons, because of armor damage reduction all but 2 or 3 automatic weapons are terrible. With the myraid of variables that affect weapons there is no real way to balance them while allowing them to retain their individual characteristics. There are SUPPOSED to be obviously good weapons (rares and UR's) and weapons that you only use until you get better ones (the starting weapons.)

[Adhok42]

If you seriously think this thread tastes Legit, you must be nerfed because you are OP.

[Chealec]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

So, Chaelec what are your balance suggestions for this game? What would make it balanced?

You don't really want a full answer, it would be very, very long - but in short, since you asked a reasonable question, I'd look out how it pans out in teamplay, weapon/class synergy and even how certain classes work well together and the trade off between firepower and cooldown (which is why I think the lightening of certain heavy pistols in the recent update is a good thing).

In essence, it's a team game so...

Things that generally promote teamplay, with the strengths of certain classes (and loadouts) balancing out the weaknesses of others - and vice versa - are good things. You know when you've got a good biotic team, for instance, plenty of BE goodness all round - chuck in an infiltrator to snipe out Marauders/Ravagers and do point capture objectives and, odds are, you'll have a good game... you've got the bases covered with classes playing to each other's strengths and weaknesses (as long as you're not stuck with a team of complete numpties).

Things that destroy teamplay by being, overall, either too weak or too strong are bad things - the Krogan Soldier, before the Incendiary Grenade buff was one of the least useful classes on gold... now it kind of has a role but is still a little on the weak side overall; you'll still see very, very few Krogan Soldiers in gold games. Turians could just do with a little sidestep similar to Quarians or Salarians but perhaps without forward/backwards rolls - something to give them just a little mobility to make up for the lower health/shields than other low mobility classes. Maybe the Reegar shouldn't be compatible with armour piercing mods/ammo - keep it as an anti-shield weapon where it's strong, whilst ensuring it's weak against armour.

There are plenty of little tweaks that could be done to try and "balance" the relative strengths and weaknesses of all sorts of things without making the game beige.

[Mozts]

They are getting worst everyday.

[GodlessPaladin]

Blind2Society wrote...
None of the things you nerfers have called for affected those things.

  Ah yes, "you nerfers."  As if I actually agree with most of the people here.  How about you actually read the posts I made rather than throwing me in with some imagined "them" hive mind?

Are you saying because the Krysae was good at killing stuff, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities?

You know, there are values besides "has it" and "doesn't have it."  For example, there isn't just "bad" and "good."  There's "better" and "worse" and a whole range of values.

ME3 MP is not perfect and therefore room for improvement exists.  For example, let's look at Tactical Cloak.  One of the things I mentioned is having meaningful choices exist in the "create a character" mental challenge inherent to play of most RPGs.  To quote a designer friend, "when you can feel the indecision between two options, that's balance, right there."  Now, how much indecision do you feel when having to choose between Evolution 1 and Evolution 2 of Tactical Cloak (40% damage vs 40% duration)?  Probably not too much.  This is because 40% damage is pretty obviously a better choice than tacking on a coupla extra seconds to an effect that already has more than enough duration for most anything you could want to use it for. 

The fact that it's obvious which is better means there's not much of a mental challenge when it comes to character optimization, and it detracts from that aspect of the fun for players who like being engaged by character build optimization.  If you don't care about that, then that's fine, whatever, different people derive fun from difference places, but the reality is that many people do and this affects how much fun they're having. 

This is just one type of fun that is affected by balance, and one small step that could be taken to improve it would be making Tactical Cloak Evolution 1 better in comparison to Evolution 2.  This is actually one of the things I addressed in my suggested balance changes.  But then you say something silly like this despite pretty clearly having not read my posts.

Blind2Society wrote...
None of the things you nerfers have called for affected those things.

Blind2Society indeed.

And by the way, who the hell are you to tell me what is and isn't fun?

Oh this is rich.  I'm not telling you what you think is fun.  I'm telling you what people who want balance say they think is fun... arguments you've completely ignored in favor of accusing them of only caring about score when what they actually care about is fun.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 12:35 .

[hihey54]

Blind2Society wrote...^ Uh oh, we got ourselves a badass up in herr.@Adhok42: Damn, turns out I missed a bunch. The fallout would have been catastrophic.

You clearly missed the whole point of his post.

[smyss]

Blind2Society wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...

^ Uh oh, we got ourselves a badass up in herr.

And we've got a willfully ignorant mudslinger over here who cannot do anything but make mockeries of straw men rather than actually responding to a legitimately defended position.  Nobody wants everything to be the same.  Many don't care about score.  Those are just things you attribute to a nebulous "them" that isn't really out there, Blind2Society.

But we do care about balance.  People care about balance because balance does a lot of really beneficial things from a game design point of view.  People care because it creates meaningful choices, adds layers of depth, creates a dynamic of risk vs reward, enhances gameplay flow, facilitates a wider variety of playstyles, rewards experimentation, extends replay value, provides a rewarding sense of mastery, and more.  All of these things are important to engaging players and making the experience as fun as possible.

For example, just one thing that balance does is make the "build a character" mental challenge (a core part of the "fun" formula for RPGs since the very first RPGs) actually matter rather than making the best choice obvious to any dullard.

None of the things you nerfers have called for affected those things. Are you saying because the Krysae was good at killing stuff, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities? It most certainly did not. It was a powerful gun but I still played a multitude of different classes and experimented all the time. If you couldn't get past having to pick the best weapon/setup rather than changing it up and experienceing different things then that's your problem. And apparently most people I've seen didn't have a problem either. Because I rarely see these, so called, "overpowered, unbalanced" setups.

EDIT: Let me shorten that for you. So you're saying, before today's "balance" changes, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities you have bolded?

And by the way, who the hell are you to tell me what is and isn't fun?

seriously !! agreeded blind2society. especially the krysae. all it did was provide a fresh and different experience with different classes but now it just feels the same as everything else. even before the nerf thats not all I used and still experimented with various other builds/chars/weapons but I loved the fresh experience the krysae provided. now its just the same as everything else. -.-

[GodlessPaladin]

EDIT: Let me shorten that for you. So you're saying, before today's "balance" changes, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities you have bolded?

No, that's pretty clearly not what I said.

[Chealec]

smyss wrote...

seriously !! agreeded blind2society. especially the krysae. all it did was provide a fresh and different experience with different classes but now it just feels the same as everything else. even before the nerf thats not all I used and still experimented with various other builds/chars/weapons but I loved the fresh experience the krysae provided. now its just the same as everything else. -.-

Ummm what? They took away ~10% of its damage whilst retaining every other one of it's unique qualities and now it's "just the same as everything else"? Really?

You know you can get that 10% back with Sniper Rifle gear or equipment right?

[Creakazoid]

Chealec wrote...

smyss wrote...

seriously !! agreeded blind2society. especially the krysae. all it did was provide a fresh and different experience with different classes but now it just feels the same as everything else. even before the nerf thats not all I used and still experimented with various other builds/chars/weapons but I loved the fresh experience the krysae provided. now its just the same as everything else. -.-

Ummm what? They took away ~10% of its damage whilst retaining every other one of it's unique qualities and now it's "just the same as everything else"? Really?

You know you can get that 10% back with Sniper Rifle gear or equipment right?

Hehe, I agree with you. So many people on here just plain, flat-out see the word nerf and enter rage mode. It's like the Red Scare on here where saying "nerf' is akin to being a Communist.

Case 1:
1. Make things "underpowered" compared to median..
2. Buff them to some arbitrary degree
3. People approve, maybe even satisfied

Case 2:
1. Make things "overpowered" compared to median.
2. Nerf them to some degree.
3. People disapprove and rage.

The
two cases may result in everything ending up at the same baseline, but
one involves a lot of testosterone being flung. People always like the
"sale" over the underpriced item being repriced.

[MrFuddyDuddy]

Well at least the Krysae X is about powerful as the Krysae III use to be, which is probably going to translate into it sucking on almost anything not an infiltrator. Thanks Nerf herders you've made a decent weapon even more mediocre, and why nerf Hunter Mode honestly there's almost no more reason to take it all, can't even get a damage buff from it past 20%, and they nerfed the wall hack effect. Welp looks like we'll be seeing alot more Salarian Infiltrators again.

[Doc-Jek]

It's almost unbelievable how childish these threads are getting (I've counted at least a half dozen threads bashing "nerfers" in the past hour or so). The idea of balance isn't to make everything the same, it's to make things different. Leaving a single weapon remarkably more powerful than the rest doesn't promote diversity, it pushes everyone to the same damn weapon. The ignorance that must be present here for people to just completely block out all attempts at a legitimate argument, and instead devolve into shamelessly insulting everyone that disagrees is outright pathetic.

Grow up guys, seriously.

[smyss]

[quote]Are you saying because the Krysae was good at killing stuff, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities?[/quote]
You know, there are values besides "has it" and "doesn't have it."  For example, there isn't just "bad" and "good."  There's "better" and "worse" and a whole range of values.

ME3 MP is not perfect and therefore room for improvement exists.  For example, let's look at Tactical Cloak.  One of the things I mentioned is having meaningful choices exist in the "create a character" mental challenge inherent to play of most RPGs.  To quote a designer friend, "when you can feel the indecision between two options, that's balance, right there."  Now, how much indecision do you feel when having to choose between Evolution 1 and Evolution 2 of Tactical Cloak (40% damage vs 40% duration)?  Probably not too much.  This is because 40% damage is pretty obviously a better choice than tacking on a coupla extra seconds to an effect that already has more than enough duration for most anything you could want to use it for. 


[/quote]

I slightly disagree. in my experience everything is quite balanced if you take into consideration playing with random people or playing strategically  with friends or skilled teammates communicating . using tactical cloak for example; in a strategic game where you have a job or role lets say your an infiltrator solely meant to do objectives than you want the 40% duration for disarming or hacking. but if your a damage dealer meant to keep mobs at bay or playing with random people where you have no idea how skilled the people are than you might want the damage. all classes have this dilemma. same with the asari justicar's biotic sphere. spec it to be damage reducing if playing with random people or spec it for biotic damage if you will be playing with another asari adept. I'm just a firm believer in dont put something out if you feel you'll have to change it later.

[GodlessPaladin]

smyss wrote...
I slightly disagree. in my experience everything is quite balanced if you take into consideration playing with random people or playing strategically  with friends or skilled teammates communicating . using tactical cloak for example; in a strategic game where you have a job or role lets say your an infiltrator solely meant to do objectives than you want the 40% duration for disarming or hacking. but if your a damage dealer meant to keep mobs at bay or playing with random people where you have no idea how skilled the people are than you might want the damage. all classes have this dilemma. same with the asari justicar's biotic sphere. spec it to be damage reducing if playing with random people or spec it for biotic damage if you will be playing with another asari adept. I'm just a firm believer in dont put something out if you feel you'll have to change it later.

Except that 40% duration is even less useful if you're playing strategically with friends or skilled teammates communicating.

[Blind2Society]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Are you saying because the Krysae was good at killing stuff, ME3 MP lacked all those qualities?

You know, there are values besides "has it" and "doesn't have it."  For example, there isn't just "bad" and "good."  There's "better" and "worse" and a whole range of values.

ME3 MP is not perfect and therefore room for improvement exists.  For example, let's look at Tactical Cloak.  One of the things I mentioned is having meaningful choices exist in the "create a character" mental challenge inherent to play of most RPGs.  To quote a designer friend, "when you can feel the indecision between two options, that's balance, right there."  Now, how much indecision do you feel when having to choose between Evolution 1 and Evolution 2 of Tactical Cloak (40% damage vs 40% duration)?  Probably not too much.  This is because 40% damage is pretty obviously a better choice than tacking on a coupla extra seconds to an effect that already has more than enough duration for most anything you could want to use it for. 

The fact that it's obvious which is better means there's not much of a mental challenge when it comes to character optimization, and it detracts from that aspect of the fun for players who like being engaged by character build optimization.  If you don't care about that, then that's fine, whatever, different people derive fun from difference places, but the reality is that many people do and this affects how much fun they're having. 

This is just one type of fun that is affected by balance, and one small step that could be taken to improve it would be making Tactical Cloak Evolution 1 better in comparison to Evolution 2.  This is actually one of the things I addressed in my suggested balance changes.  But then you say something silly like this despite pretty clearly having not read my posts.

Did you ever stop to think that they inteded the infiltrators to simply be really good snipers and that's it? Look at all the other classes, that "mental challenge is present. If you can't bring yourself to pick anything other than an infiltrator simply because it is the most powerful then you really don't want that mental challenge do you?

I'll just ignore the fact that you failed to answer the question directly and reply to the fact that you used one evolution of one power of one class to justify ( i assume) answering with 'no'. Because one choice on an ifiltrator build was easy, the game lacks choice and the crucial element of an RPG. Let's just forget about all the other classes, options and setups. Basically, all the things you had bolded are qualities this game does not lack and having one or two really powerful weapons/classes doesn't detract from that in my opinion.

In reality this whole arguent boils down to the fact that we disagree on some of the changes we feel need to be made. And if I recall correctly there are many we agree upon.

GodlessPaladin wrote...

And by the way, who the hell are you to tell me what is and isn't fun?

Oh this is rich.  I'm not telling you what you think is fun.  I'm telling you what people who want balance say they think is fun... arguments you've completely ignored in favor of accusing them of only caring about score when what they actually care about is fun.

Ok maybe you're not, but you are saying who's fun is more important. And I feel like I'm repeating myself here but the way I see it, if someone is calling something "overpowerd" to be nerfed all they care about is how many kills they are getting/how high a score. If they are worried about me using something overpowered that is the only reason they could complain. If they are worried about them using it or there not being a reason for them to use anything else than they don't really want the choice then do they? Because the choice is there and people have proven that you don't need to use the simple, "overpowered" classes to do well.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for turning a fun thread into another frackin buff/nerf argument thread.

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 12:55 .