182 réponses à ce sujet

[Sinapus]

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.

Odd, I just want to complete the mission and get through it. (Which might explain my general disdain for the "THIS MUST BE NERFED" cries.)

Maybe I should stop pausing to look for flankers while everyone else is concentrating on killing whatever is in front of them. Except I'd lose their ability to draw fire and the enemy would shoot at me. Nevermind...

[sliverofamoon]

MrFuddyDuddy wrote...

 Welp looks like we'll be seeing alot more Salarian Infiltrators again.

*nods* But then again, after the QI Sabo. nerf (s), this was already becoming more prominent.

Edit: Sorry........ should have been plural, since it got hit more than once...

Modifié par sliverofamoon, 13 juin 2012 - 12:56 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Blind2Society wrote...
Ok maybe you're not, but you are saying who's fun is more important.

  I didn't say that either.  I said that you're attributing motives and arguments to people ("you nerfers") that are clearly different from their actual motives and arguments.

[Orca_]

Balance, as Cheleac and GodlessPaladin and others have already more eloquently stated, is about making choices meaningful, and making *more* choices meaningful. If the answer is "you should always equip the Carnifex/GPS/Black Widow/Valiant/Reegar/Krysae", that's not balanced. If you always take 6 fitness instead of even 1 point in Shockwave, that's not balanced.

Ideally, all guns and builds would be viable.

I doubt we'll see it (too many permutations, too many of them mutually exclusive, and players are too skilled at sniffing out optimal builds), but it'll make the multiplayer last longer for as long as they try to reach that goal.

[Blind2Society]

Doc-Jek wrote...

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.

I'll say it again. If you can't bring yourself to use anything than the most powerful gun then you really don't want the choice now do you. That's your problem, other choices still exist. It's not our, nor the guns fault you can't choose one of them.

[GodlessPaladin]

Blind2Society wrote... Because one choice on an ifiltrator build was easy, the game lacks choice and the crucial element of an RPG.

Another straw man argument. You really do have trouble with actually responding to what people say, or apparently recognizing what they're saying to begin with (as evidenced from your OP onwards). The very first thing I said in the post you quoted and responded to was that I didn't think that.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 01:03 .

[smyss]

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?

no because its still less than what it originally was especially with mods added. and by the same as everything else I meant damage wise. its aoe is a bit different (but not that different from a falcon) but still takes the same amount of shots to drop targets as a bw or valiant.

Doc-Jek wrote...

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.

 honestly cant agree with this. for example people complaining the krysae was too powerful and people would push to only using that weapon is false. I know plenty of people with a krysae x that would still perfer their BW V over it anyday. its all about personal experience and play style. again firm believer in don't put something out if you'll have to change it later. especially weapons

[Blind2Society]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Blind2Society wrote... Because one choice on an ifiltrator build was easy, the game lacks choice and the crucial element of an RPG.

Another straw man argument. You really do have trouble with actually responding to what people say, or apparently recognizing what they're saying to begin with (as evidenced from your OP onwards). The very first thing I said in the post you quoted and responded to was that I didn't think that.

It's not a straw man argument, you apparently have trouble seeing the context. So you disagree that most classes still provide that "mental challenge" when setting up the class? I feel that most if not all classes still provide that. Your example (the only one you provided, therefore the only one I can respond to. God you are so manipulative) is one of very few if not the only evidence of what you're trying to argue. I don't feel that them adding one class that is only supposed to be good at one thing detracts from what you value in a game at all.

Again, this whole argument boils down to what you and I feel needs to be changed to make the game more fun. The ironic part is that we more than likely agree on most of them.

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 01:11 .

[Orca_]

smyss wrote...

again firm believer in don't put something out if you'll have to change it later. especially weapons

Name me a single multiplayer game that was well balanced the day it came out.

I'll wait.

[Blind2Society]

^ true, but perhaps they could test games longer to make sure?

[Doc-Jek]

Blind2Society wrote...
I'll say it again. If you can't bring yourself to use anything than the most powerful gun then you really don't want the choice now do you. That's your problem, other choices still exist. It's not our, nor the guns fault you can't choose one of them.

I personally chose not to use it, because I didn't see much fun in watching everything explode into red mist without any real aim required. However, it was starting to get to the point where I couldn't find a game without at least once person running around with a Krysae (usually it was 2-3). 

I'm not against some guns being more powerful than others to a certain extent, this will always exists. However, leaving weapons as blatently overpowered as the Krysae just causes people to get bored with the game, and ultimately stop playing. I personally had to constantly leave lobbies until I was able to find one without several infiltrators with Krysaes, so that I could actually enjoy the game. (Note, this enjoyment isn't about points, it's about actually having some challenge in the games, and having something to kill that isn't already turned into red mist). Gold difficulty exists to give players a challenge, and Krysae was taking away that challenge. If people want the game to be easy, play bronze. 

Edit: I'm seeing a lot of arguments saying the Krysae was only overpowered on infiltrators. I agree entirely. I don't think the nerf it was given accurately addresses the issue. Removing the 40% sniper rifle damage from tactical cloak when using the Krysae would be a better way of balancing it. 

Modifié par Doc-Jek, 13 juin 2012 - 01:15 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Blind2Society wrote... Your example (the only one you provided,
therefore the only one I can respond to. God you are so manipulative) is
one of very few if not the only evidence of what you're trying to

LOL, I'm "manipulative" because I gave an illustrative example?  Your mudslinging is becoming even more senseless with each post.

Meanwhile, you keep putting words in people's mouths and then attributing those words to large groups of people.  I doubt you could find even one person who actually wants weapons to all be the same or for skill to be a non-factor.  In fact, I'm pretty sure most of the "nerfers" you act like you're calling out would tell you the exact opposite.  One of the common complaints about the Krysae, for example, was that it doesn't require much skill to use it to its potential due to its proximity explosion feature and excellent scope.  (Oh snap an example, how manipulative!)

Blind2Society wrote...
It's not a straw man argument, you apparently have trouble seeing the context. So you disagree that most classes still provide that "mental challenge" when setting up the class?

  Read your first sentence.  Then read your second sentence.  Then look at the previous posts where I clarified my opinion regarding what the second sentence is asking about.  Twice.

You keep turning "can be improved" or "can have more" to a dichotomy of "doesn't have any or has some." 

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 01:28 .

[Orca_]

Blind2Society wrote...

^ true, but perhaps they could test games longer to make sure?

If not a single multiplayer computer game to date has managed it, what makes you think Bioware is different?

We're talking games that were explicitely designed at the outset for multiplayer too, like Call of Duty, Quake, Battlefield 2, etc.

Starcraft is fairly balanced.  You know why?  They've been patching it for 10 years, tweaking this, that, and the other thing.

And all they have are 3 races and a limited number of units.

Contrast WoW, which despite patching and balancing all the time, is still retarded when it comes to PvP combat.  It's better than it was at the beginning, but it sure ain't good from what I've read.

[Lord Thornos]

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?

pretty much the mentality of people

[WARMACHINE9]

Chealec wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...

Yes "balance". What could be more balanced than what I proposed?

Nothing, by definition, as you've made everything identical - this is not what balance is about in games, it's about having a variety of options, each with their own unique strengths and weaknesses which are better, or worse, in different situations, it's about having classes and .... oh, sod it, I really can't be bothered - you win.

Wow sounds like the game as it is WITHOUT nerfs.

[Blind2Society]

Doc-Jek wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...
I'll say it again. If you can't bring yourself to use anything than the most powerful gun then you really don't want the choice now do you. That's your problem, other choices still exist. It's not our, nor the guns fault you can't choose one of them.

I personally chose not to use it, because I didn't see much fun in watching everything explode into red mist without any real aim required. However, it was starting to get to the point where I couldn't find a game without at least once person running around with a Krysae (usually it was 2-3). 

I'm not against some guns being more powerful than others to a certain extent, this will always exists. However, leaving weapons as blatently overpowered as the Krysae just causes people to get bored with the game, and ultimately stop playing. I personally had to constantly leave lobbies until I was able to find one without several infiltrators with Krysaes, so that I could actually enjoy the game. (Note, this enjoyment isn't about points, it's about actually having some challenge in the games, and having something to kill that isn't already turned into red mist). Gold difficulty exists to give players a challenge, and Krysae was taking away that challenge. If people want the game to be easy, play bronze. 

First off I don't understand why you care that one person in the match is using a particular gun? Did he steal your kill or something?

Also, I have gotten into plenty of games with no one using a Krysae, more games than not. Many games I have used the Krysae myself and with most of them, if I hadn't, the team would have wiped.

In fact if you play on PC, you can add me and we'll play a couple matches and I'll use my MQI with Krysae. You will see that I can work as a team and not everyone that uses it is an obnoxious jackass.

[Shock n Awe]

There's still a problem, some weapons are still superior due to their cooler sounding names.

Therefore, I propose that all weapons' names must be changed to the exact same name.

Modifié par Shock n Awe, 13 juin 2012 - 01:26 .

[BoomDynamite]

The verdict:
GP HAS WON!

[Blind2Society]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Blind2Society wrote... Your example (the only one you provided,
therefore the only one I can respond to. God you are so manipulative) is
one of very few if not the only evidence of what you're trying to

LOL, I'm "manipulative" because I gave an illustrative example?  Your mudslinging is becoming even more senseless with each post.

Meanwhile, you keep putting words in people's mouths and then attributing those words to large groups of people.  I doubt you could find even one person who actually wants weapons to all be the same or for skill to be a non-factor.  In fact, I'm pretty sure most of the "nerfers" you act like you're calling out would tell you the exact opposite.  One of the common complaints about the Krysae, for example, was that it doesn't require much skill to use it to its potential due to its proximity explosion feature and excellent scope.  (Oh snap an example, how manipulative!)

Blind2Society wrote...
It's not a straw man argument, you apparently have trouble seeing the context. So you disagree that most classes still provide that "mental challenge" when setting up the class?

  Read your first sentence.  Then read your second sentence.  Then look at the previous posts where I clarified my opinion regarding what the second sentence is asking about.  Twice.

I've said what I have to say in response to what you have said and you just completely ignore it over and over and call me a mudslinger. I'm done with you.

[GodlessPaladin]

Blind2Society wrote...
I've said what I have to say in response to what you have said and you just completely ignore it over and over

You haven't actually responded to what I have to say.  You put words in my mouth that I didn't say and then argue with your own words, not with me.  I clarify, repeatedly, what my actual position is and you never actually respond to it because you are either disingenuous or having a reading comprehension problem. 

I say that a given thing can be enhanced by a particular principle, and then you claim to refute that by talking about whether a given game has any of that thing to begin with or not.  It's not a sensible refutation.

and call me a mudslinger.

  You call people "manipulative" for giving you illustrative examples.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 01:35 .

[smyss]

Orca_ wrote...

smyss wrote...

again firm believer in don't put something out if you'll have to change it later. especially weapons

Name me a single multiplayer game that was well balanced the day it came out.

I'll wait.

 thats my point though. they put things out because they know even if its unfinished people will still buy it and since they do, they can therefore finish it at a later time.(patch) 100% of games are rushed due to money issues theres no such thing as putting out a truly finished game at launch anymore. than theres dlc. theres no reason to change something later on for dlc. none

[xtorma]

Orca_ wrote...

Balance, as Cheleac and GodlessPaladin and others have already more eloquently stated, is about making choices meaningful, and making *more* choices meaningful. If the answer is "you should always equip the Carnifex/GPS/Black Widow/Valiant/Reegar/Krysae", that's not balanced. If you always take 6 fitness instead of even 1 point in Shockwave, that's not balanced.

Ideally, all guns and builds would be viable.

I doubt we'll see it (too many permutations, too many of them mutually exclusive, and players are too skilled at sniffing out optimal builds), but it'll make the multiplayer last longer for as long as they try to reach that goal.

If all weapons are equally viable, then what would be the difference between a common and an n7? What is the point of buying psp's if you can get just as much use out of a weapon you can max buying recruit packs. Should a predator be just as viable as a paladin?

[Cyonan]

Orca_ wrote...

Name me a single multiplayer game that was well balanced the day it came out.

I'll wait.

Warcraft 2!

Every unit was basically just a copy of the other faction's unit.

[Chealec]

Blind2Society wrote...
...

Also, I have gotten into plenty of games with no one using a Krysae, more games than not. Many games I have used the Krysae myself and with most of them, if I hadn't, the team would have wiped.

...

That's kinda the point though - if there's a halfway competent infiltrator on the team with a Krysae it's almost impossible to wipe; I got synch killed by Banshees 4 times (twice as soon as someone ressed me) in a game on Reapers/Reactor/Gold once while I was playing as a Vorcha Soldier (yeah, not one of my better games)...someone else actually tried to Falcon Punch Brutes - there is NO way we should have completed that game - but yup, there was a level 13 Geth Infintrator with a Krysae - so we made full extraction.

If there's no chance of failure, there's no satisfaction in winning IMO.

[xxHiDa SuFixx]

Sorry ... couldn't read everything ... but a few points I feel are important

1. some people are really serious about their video games
2. some people do not get the humor in this thread, yet will not let the people who do enjoy it
3. some people find aspects of this game to be "unbalanced" thus taking away from their "fun" so to fix that they want the game "balanced" to make it fun for them

From a gist of what I read some people's version of balanced is
-different but equal
-more choices
-mental challenge of choosing from multiple choices

however I see that some others view balanced as equal because same.
completely level the playing field

As for the different but equal people ... its impossible. Get over it. There will always be some weapon/power/build that will be better in some way or another to give enough of a difference that everyone who wants to "power game" will use it. People have been min/maxing since the beginning of games. Why? Because games are meant to be won by someone ... and they're usually more fun when they're won by you correct?
The developer cannot play test completely to figure out what the collective mind of 3.5 million players can come up with while still giving them 12 viable options (I say 12 because 6 classes, 2 builds per class .... a minimum of 12 balanced builds).

THUS, people like Blind2Society and I are supporting a true balance. Where the only reason possible for someone to outscore another is through actual player skill. (well actually we did joke that there should be no way to outscore so that everyone can be winners).

Any of you play counterstrike?
If you did ... have you ever played on AWP maps?
Basically it was a bare bones flat map with a few obstacles ... one team on each side of the field
Every player is only equipped with the AWP sniper rifle.
Totally balanced ... right? Only player skill determines the winner?
nope ... people still moaned and whined about latency and ping and accused people of cheating


TL:DR
true balance (a minimum of 12 builds) is impossible for a developer with limited time and resources because the 3.5million players that bought this game will inevitably think of something the developers did not. (thats how many copies were shipped according to Joystiq)

Even if they did some how get close to this mythical true balance ... player skill will still make it feel unbalanced. (see above counterstrike example)