182 réponses à ce sujet

[Chealec]

Cyonan wrote...

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.

Was that multiplayer? *scratches head* It was a long time ago...

[xtorma]

Cyonan wrote...

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.

sorry my old eyes read starcraft, have no idea about warcraft 2.

Modifié par xtorma, 13 juin 2012 - 01:36 .

[Cyonan]

xxHiDa SuFixx wrote...
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
)

Actually that was just the Counter-Strike way of doing things =P

Though I was a bit surprised to see the AWP make a return in CS:GO.

[Cyonan]

xtorma wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Warcraft 2!

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

Yea, The 5million terrans vs 4 protos and 3 zerg when it first came out. It wasn't balanced.

You do know I'm talking about Warcraft 2 and not Starcraft 2, yes?

Also I think you're overestimating the Zerg.

Edit: You apparently caught it =P

Warcraft 2 was an old Blizzard game with 2 factions where every unit essentially had an exact copy on the other faction, other than a couple of spells.

Modifié par Cyonan, 13 juin 2012 - 01:38 .

[GodlessPaladin]

@xxHiDa SuFixx

The point that perfect balance can't be achieved is meaningless. It's like saying that absolute proof doesn't exist in empirical science. It's true, but it doesn't devalue what science does... which is continually improve and refine our understanding of reality, even if it doesn't make it perfect. Likewise, balance can be improved even if it doesn't become perfect.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 01:39 .

[Blind2Society]

Seriously, you said balance provides this, this and this to the game. You provided one example that the game is unbalanced (more specifically something on our side that is overpowered) and I feel that is the only example you can come up with. I responded with exactly that, I feel that is the only thing that is overpowered (or limited in choice) on our side but I also stated why I feel it works.

You said that this affects balance and balance affects this. When I ask you if you think that there isn't enough choice elsewhere to make up for the fact that they intentionally left the choice out of one character you call me a mudslinger and say I put words in your mouth.

Basically I think you just keep going on about the OP and yes, the OP was mudslinging in a sense but it was meant for a bit of a laugh and I don't think anyone truly wants that. Even if that truly is the only way that people will ever stop calling for buffs/nerfs.

Again you haven't responded to any of my serious comments/questions on the subject and instead just keep avoiding them.

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 01:48 .

[Master Xanthan]

BlackbirdSR-71C 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.

Yep, know what that's called?

Fair chance.

Same reason everyone in a soccer match gets a fair chance. You don't just strap weights on everyone who's better, same reason why you wouldn't give an advantage to everyone who's worse - the real life equivalent to the Krysae before the patch.

Edit: I'm gonna say this one last time. I'm someone who called for a Krysae nerf. Every match I played, using the Krysae, I was ahead in terms of score. The reason I was calling for a nerf was certainly not because I couldn't bear being outscored by others, it was the other way around. I wann use this weapon and still have competition.

But the point of the game isn't to outscore everyone. The point is the defeat the enemy. Unless that's what you meant by having competition as in making enemies more challenging. If that's the case, then that would be understandable.

[xtorma]

Cyonan wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Warcraft 2!

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

Yea, The 5million terrans vs 4 protos and 3 zerg when it first came out. It wasn't balanced.

You do know I'm talking about Warcraft 2 and not Starcraft 2, yes?

Also I think you're overestimating the Zerg.

Edit: You apparently caught it =P

Warcraft 2 was an old Blizzard game with 2 factions where every unit essentially had an exact copy on the other faction, other than a couple of spells.

Yea, sorry i edited the post.

[Blind2Society]

xxHiDa SuFixx wrote...

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)

Yeah, the nail went in so fast and straight I didn't even see it go.

[Ghostfc3s]

Sorry I am late to this party, can someone point to a post that has a unified "we want balanced manifesto". Every post about nerfing this or that has 2 arguments, people can out score me using X Y Z setup and that makes the game unbalanced. If its not fixed before a forth night the servers will only have the XYZ setup that is way to OP.

First argument is petty and pointless in co-op game. It is also invalid in a gear drive MP setting elite items need to be stronger then the common that's the point of grinding for them!

I agree that there should be "balance" in each class of commons to elite. A elite AR X should do the same damage is a elite sniper rifle X for DPS assuming that an AR and sniper user can put the rounds on target 100% of the time. So say 10 AR round does the same as 1 sniper + reload animation time.

I find class ability next to impossible to balance. I play nova guard and adept, sniper classes do not interest me. As such I will never score as high with a GI as I would with my broken and glitched Novaguard. So the balance here is more about if the player can use each skill set to 100% of the classes potential.

Second argument is invalid as everyone has different play styles and will go with what meshes best with their own abilities.

[smyss]

I think people are missing the point to this sarcastic thread. this game is already quite balanced seeing as you can spec any class and character to play effectivley and differently on every level of difficulty bronze/silver/gold. its not to literally make things identical but it's just a sarcastic way to say that this game is fine and doesnt need these little fixes regardless how minute they may be because eventually in the long run it will ruin it. can we all agree that at this moment this game is fun? than it needs to be left alone. The only changes it could possibly use are aesthetic changes like ps3 users not seeing the spalsh screen for N7 weekends etc

[Blind2Society]

^^ that too. and that too^

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 01:47 .

[Orca_]

Didn't Warcraft 2 have some optimal build order and rushing problems? Unit balance was solved by making both sides have the same units just retextured, but that's only part of the issue.

[Master Xanthan]

smyss wrote...

I think people are missing the point to this sarcastic thread. this game is already quite balanced seeing as you can spec any class and character to play effectivley and differently on every level of difficulty bronze/silver/gold. its not to literally make things identical but it's just a sarcastic way to say that this game is fine and doesnt need these little fixes regardless how minute they may be because eventually in the long run it will ruin it. can we all agree that at this moment this game is fun? than it needs to be left alone. The only changes it could possibly use are aesthetic changes like ps3 users not seeing the spalsh screen for N7 weekends etc

This. All I want Bioware to do with the multiplayer is fix the game-breaking glitches, such as the vanguard glitch, the invincible enemies glitch, stuff like that.

[GodlessPaladin]

Blind2Society wrote...

Seriously, you said balance provides this, this and this to the game.

  Sure did.  And you've yet to refute any of those claims.

You provided one example that the game is unbalanced (more specifically something on our side that is overpowered) and I feel that is the only example you can come up with.

  That's some assumption, particularly considering my history of posts on this board.  Moreover, whether or not you pretend that Mass Effect 3 is perfectly balanced outside of that single instance is rather irrelevant to my statements about what balance does and why it's valued by players (e.g. not just because they're worried about score, as you claimed).

But here, here's a few more examples of no-brainer choices:
-Predator vs Shuriken.
-Eagle (especially pre-buff) vs Talon, Paladin, Hurricane, and Harrier.
-Proximity Mine slow vs damage taken evolution.
-Melee fitness tree on many characters.

You said that this affects balance and balance affects this. When I ask you if you think that there isn't enough choice elsewhere to make up for the fact that they intentionally left the choice out of one character you call me a mudslinger and say I put words in your mouth.

  No, I called you a mudslinger because you called me manipulative for giving you an illustrative an example as well as statements like "oh no we got a badass over herr."

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 01:55 .

[xxHiDa SuFixx]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

@xxHiDa SuFixx

The point that perfect balance can't be achieved is meaningless. It's like saying that absolute proof doesn't exist in empirical science. It's true, but it doesn't devalue what science does... which is continually improve and refine our understanding of reality, even if it doesn't make it perfect. Likewise, balance can be improved even if it doesn't become perfect.

No the point that perfect balance can't be achieved is not meaningless ... its the whole point.
There will never be an end to "Nerf all the things/Buff all the things/Balance all the things" topics.
So get over it and have fun with the game YOUR way and stop trying to make others enjoy it YOUR way.
The real complaints should be about broken things ...
ULM still not working
Justicar 5th power evolution
Weapons firing blanks
Sync skill magnet hands
etc.
Broken things ruin the fun because its not working as intended ... powerful things do not ruin the fun because they are working JUST as intended ... to be powerful.
Oh ... too powerful for you?  Then don't use it.
Don't like people using it in your games?  Then don't play with them.
Why take away the fun of these power weapons for everyone else because YOU feel its unbalanced?

I got the Krysae X on day 1 ... it didn't feel that powerful at first.
Then I respec'd ... looked at the classes, picked the best, examined the powers, chose the best to augment what I was looking for, equipped rank 3 consumables .... still felt weak ... couldn't take down the bosses as quick as my Claymore X.
Then the epiphany ... the learning curve was over ... don't shoot bosses.  Kill everything else.
After that I was amazed at the power of the gun and was having a BLAST!
However I got bored of that build and now don't use it because I want to have fun.
Instead of ruining the fun for anyone else ... I simply decided I didn't want to use it because it was no longer fun for me.
Many people haven't even unlocked the damn gun and its getting nerfed, they'll never get to experience the fun I had with it, how unfortunate.

What did I do when there was an infiltrator using a Krysae X in my lobby ... I made the game fun by trying my best to outscore them ... and truth be told it really wasn't that hard and without ruining their fun using that beastly cannon, I had fun along side them ... you know ... cooperatively.

TL:DR
Not being able to be perfectly balanced = people will continue to complain.
So stop worrying about balance, worry about broken.
Go have YOUR fun YOUR way and let others have THEIR fun THEIR way.

[Orca_]

It is in your best interests for things to be balanced, because that's what keeps people playing the game. The sooner they get bored with it--and in general, people will get bored with it when there's an optimal build out there that they feel obligated to use or be ineffective--the smaller the playing population will be.

Balance is *good* for keeping folks playing the game. Unless you like playing with yourself.

[Blind2Society]

In all seriousness there are only a couple things I want changed in this game. My Turian Soldier needs to be able to roll and some particular geth units (enemy) need to be brough back in check.

Other than that I felt the game was fine as is and all the nerfing/buffing nonsense was unecessary. Hence why I created this satirical thread, to get that point across while providing a laugh.

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 01:56 .

[GodlessPaladin]

xxHiDa SuFixx wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

@xxHiDa SuFixx

The point that perfect balance can't be achieved is meaningless. It's like saying that absolute proof doesn't exist in empirical science. It's true, but it doesn't devalue what science does... which is continually improve and refine our understanding of reality, even if it doesn't make it perfect. Likewise, balance can be improved even if it doesn't become perfect.

No the point that perfect balance can't be achieved is not meaningless ... its the whole point.
There will never be an end to "Nerf all the things/Buff all the things/Balance all the things" topics.

  There will never be an end to the cycle of the scientific method either... that doesn't make it pointless.  Your argument is like saying there's no point to improving lifespans if you can't ever achieve actual immortality.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 02:04 .

[Haloburner]

Chealec wrote...

I'm sorry - but grow up.

Why are you so iffy on this topic of balance? You flip out on just about everyone who posts something about it.

[Orca_]

We've only doubled the average lifespan

gg doctors and scientists and engineers, way to fail

[sliverofamoon]

xxHiDa SuFixx wrote...

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)

I agree completely. "Balance" is a myth, and I've only seen it destroy games in the past 10 years, not add to the enjoyment of any of the players except for the Min/Maxers. If something is weaker than it should be buff it, don't detract from something else. If you don't find that you are having enough of a challenge, give yourself a challenge... only use common weapons, with no mods.

If you have a problem wtih all the PUG's you join... (and I havn't seen this problem myself, other than getting kicked because I chose not to switch from my QE in a R/R/G match before even being given a chance).... start your own group, made up with people who share the same idea's, instead of crying for this or that nerf that so many people just don't have a problem with.

I don't want to see ME3 MP "Balanced" into nothing, as I have seen so many times in the past.

[smyss]

how about saving credits/exp after every objective round so if you crash or lose connection @ wave 11 you still get your credits/exp and not feel like you wasted 20 mins of your life. now that would be a REAL fix/change

[GodlessPaladin]

Orca_ wrote...

We've only doubled the average lifespan

gg doctors and scientists and engineers, way to fail

I know right?  They couldn't make it perfect, so they keep complaining about the lifespan and trying to get it changed.  Darned lifespanners.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 13 juin 2012 - 02:05 .

[Blind2Society]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...

Seriously, you said balance provides this, this and this to the game.

  Sure did.  And you've yet to refute any of those claims.

That's because I wasn't trying to, apparently you missed that. What I said was the game already has that and all these proposed nerfs would only serve to hurt the game. I feel that any rational person who actually read my post would have seen that. I figured you rational person who actually read my posts and was just ignoring them on purpose. Which is why I felt you were being manipulative.

GodlessPaladin wrote...

You provided one example that the game is unbalanced (more specifically something on our side that is overpowered) and I feel that is the only example you can come up with.

  That's some assumption, particularly considering my history of posts on this board.  Moreover, whether or not you pretend that Mass Effect 3 is perfectly balanced outside of that single instance is rather irrelevant to my statements about what balance does and why it's valued by players (e.g. not just because they're worried about score, as you claimed).

I worded that wrong I admit. I didn't mean to say that was all you felt needed to be change, I meant to say (and the next sentence or so clarified this) that that was the only example I feel could be brought up.

GodlessPaladin wrote...
But here, here's a few more examples of no-brainer choices:
-Predator vs Shuriken.
-Eagle (especially pre-buff) vs Talon, Paladin, Hurricane, and Harrier.
-Proximity Mine slow vs damage taken evolution.
-Melee fitness tree on many characters.

I stand corrected, there are more examples. However, I still feel they fit in the same boat as the infiltrator evolution choice. They are not significant enough to say that they take away from the game.

GodlessPaladin wrote...

You said that this affects balance and balance affects this. When I ask you if you think that there isn't enough choice elsewhere to make up for the fact that they intentionally left the choice out of one character you call me a mudslinger and say I put words in your mouth.

  No, I called you a mudslinger because you called me manipulative for giving you an illustrative an example as well as statements like "oh no we got a badass over herr."

I clarified why I called you manipulative a few lines up in this post. However, you called me a mudslinger before that. Then again, you were more than likely refering to the and OP and in that I am guilty as charged. However, as many have caught, the OP was satirical, meant for a laugh and way  of me saying the game doesn't need these mass balance changes.

I hope this is all squared away now.

Modifié par Blind2Society, 13 juin 2012 - 02:08 .