105 réponses à ce sujet

[Mendelevosa]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We prefer not to nerf weapons or abilities, but some strategies just become too dominant which hurts replayability. We want to make as many strategies as possible viable on all difficulty levels so the game stays fresh. The vast majority of balance changes have been attempts to bring up weaker strategies so they can compete with the stronger ones.

Thank you for the response. This reply should definately be added to the balance change sticky thread so people will be able to understand the reasoning for balance changes.

Modifié par Mendelevosa, 14 juin 2012 - 03:58 .

[molecularman]

Mendelevosa wrote...

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We prefer not to nerf weapons or abilities, but some strategies just become too dominant which hurts replayability. We want to make as many strategies as possible viable on all difficulty levels so the game stays fresh. The vast majority of balance changes have been attempts to bring up weaker strategies so they can compete with the stronger ones.

Thank you for the response. This reply should definately be added to the balance change sticky thread so people will be able to understand the reasoning for balance changes.

Agreed. Nice to see the guys at BW have common sense unlike most people here

[Killahead]

molecularman wrote...

Mendelevosa wrote...

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We prefer not to nerf weapons or abilities, but some strategies just become too dominant which hurts replayability. We want to make as many strategies as possible viable on all difficulty levels so the game stays fresh. The vast majority of balance changes have been attempts to bring up weaker strategies so they can compete with the stronger ones.

Thank you for the response. This reply should definately be added to the balance change sticky thread so people will be able to understand the reasoning for balance changes.

Agreed. Nice to see the guys at BW have common sense unlike most people here

Fagnan's view on this should be plastered on a banner that pops up whenever someone logs in on BSN. This is exactly what a lot of us have been saying all the time, only to be met with completely arbitrary accusations.

[UKStory135]

I didn't like the direction of the nerf at first, but now I think it was the best way to go. They Krysae is still a beast on Silver, can kill quickly on bronze, and is a great, but not the only option on gold. I still think that the best use of the gun is with the SE or SI and making tech bursts with disruptor ammo and energy drain.

[Serkevan]

I honestly think BW balances things around silver; the Krysae nerf still allows it to roflstomp Silver decently, while taking away the OP damage it sported on Gold (accounting for the AoE, mind you, and the fact that you don't need to hit). Perhaps rebuffing damage and making it explode on impact, like a heavy Striker? Some already suggested that, but I am afraid it would render said weapon obsolete. To compensate, give Striker a 50% ammo increase, both in mag and spare?

[DNC Protoman]

MrScottBear wrote...

I still think the best balance would have been 1 shot clips. Takes away it's brokenness in Inf. hands but keeps it a viable gun.

viable for infils only in that case.  Horrible idea.

[MinatheBrat]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We prefer not to nerf weapons or abilities, but some strategies just become too dominant which hurts replayability. We want to make as many strategies as possible viable on all difficulty levels so the game stays fresh. The vast majority of balance changes have been attempts to bring up weaker strategies so they can compete with the stronger ones.

What are the variables you look at when determining changes? Is it solely numbers gleaned from feedback or do you also take into account player(s) opinions from the forums? Even more? This is one of the things I've been curious about since the changes started to be posted here.

We look at a variety of sources including these forums, game stat-tracking, and of course our own internal playtests.

Thanks for the response Eric. I appreciate the information and your taking the time to post.

Understanding where you're coming from helps me to understand why you guys do what you do which helps me to just roll with the changes. I'm all for replayability! 

Modifié par MinatheBrat, 14 juin 2012 - 04:29 .

[robarcool]

The thread seems like it has been created with a lot of hysteria. A 10% de buff hardly affects the weapon imo.

[Malditor]

DNC Protoman wrote...

MrScottBear wrote...

I still think the best balance would have been 1 shot clips. Takes away it's brokenness in Inf. hands but keeps it a viable gun.

viable for infils only in that case.  Horrible idea.

I actually agree here, making it 1 shot would make it pretty horrible without sr bonuses.

[paincanbefun]

i use the reegar on CD classes, and it is still fine.  that's not much more weight.
honestly, for what it does, i'm still surprised that it's not as heavy as the claymore.

the kryase is an AOE weapon.  if it takes a 3 round clip to kill a cluster of 5 geth, that is just fine by me.  it was only a 10% nerf, anyway.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Josh.de wrote...
Well if the Krysae feels the same to you, then I don´t know, because the Krysae went from usable and useful weapon to: useless crap weapon, like a car without weels and engine.

I would like to be able to just delete this weapon out of my "weapon´s list".

Would you like to continue your actual living with a body, legs, arms, hands or prefer to live just with your head connected to some machines???
Probably not, so, it would have been the better choice to let the Krysae untouched at all, because right now it´s like the human living without a connected body.

I have not noticed any significant difference using the Krysae on my GI, so... yeah.

[Kalas Magnus]

Jay Leon Hart wrote...

Josh.de wrote...
Well if the Krysae feels the same to you, then I don´t know, because the Krysae went from usable and useful weapon to: useless crap weapon, like a car without weels and engine.

I would like to be able to just delete this weapon out of my "weapon´s list".

Would you like to continue your actual living with a body, legs, arms, hands or prefer to live just with your head connected to some machines???
Probably not, so, it would have been the better choice to let the Krysae untouched at all, because right now it´s like the human living without a connected body.

I have not noticed any significant difference using the Krysae on my GI, so... yeah.

Yep, finally got the hang of it and got considerably more than the rest of the team combined. It is because it bypasses shield gate.

[A Wild Snorlax]

The krysae was ridiculous pre nerf on infiltrators, you could solo gold in less than 30 minutes with that thing without breaking sweat.

I haven't tried it post nerf but the numbers look reasonable. Thy nerfed it by around 10%, it's still going to own on gold I think. To be honest they probably could have done even more and it would still be very good, not that I would want that. I'm happy they didn't pull a falcon on it.

[Rokayt]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

For that reason I don't agree that nerfing in a co-op game is not necessary.

Nerfs are absolutely necessary when one tactic becomes an everytactic. I do hope that we get another difficulty on so the game isn't trivialized in the long run.

[Xerorei]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

For that reason I don't agree that nerfing in a co-op game is not necessary.

I have a question for you Eric, do you believe BUFFING in a co-op game isn't necessary?

No really, how come every AR except the semi-auto and the harrier (barring the explosive ones) have to do so little damage that you go through more than half the entire ammo supply just to kill one thing on gold?

The problem WASN'T with the two guns you guys nerfed, it was the fact that the other guns did too little damage period, could you perhaps next time think about buffing the other weapons vs nerfing the ones people were crying about?


Just a thought.

[VladImpalerIII]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We prefer not to nerf weapons or abilities, but some strategies just become too dominant which hurts replayability. We want to make as many strategies as possible viable on all difficulty levels so the game stays fresh. The vast majority of balance changes have been attempts to bring up weaker strategies so they can compete with the stronger ones.

I'm glad that BW prefers not to nerf weapons and abilities but I've not seen any configuration so dominate it hurts replayablity.  However, they are in a much better position to make this call and nothing we say will likely make a significant difference because we can't see the bigger picture.  Nevertheless, I'm not clear on what is so dominate that replayablity is affected.  Balance should not mean everything needs to be more equal but rather balance should offer very powerful configurations as well as weaker ones and for this reason it would seem the current nerfs should not have been implemented. 

It's good and balanced to be able to configure a very powerful configuration that allows an easier and perhaps more relaxing experience as well as the option to configure a much more difficult configuration.  Powerful configurations also allows one to transition from lower to the higher difficultly levels and this should be encouraged.  For this reason alone I think it's fantastic these new powerful weapons were introduced.  I know elitists don't like them, but I well remember what it was like before I could solo Gold and I think the power to people uber weapons/abilities is a good thing.

I doubt the validity of a statement that holds because a configuration is so powerful it will be the only one used or detrimentally affects anyone else's experience.  In fact I think the opposite is true because the continued use of one configuration becomes boring and because there are some many different configurations offered, most who play this game with any frequency will use/try other characters/configurations.  For instance, it's great fun to experience three or four Krogan head-butting and tag-team meleeing a boss or the synergy with an adept, engineer, solider/sentinel and glass cannon infiltrator working together.  Dominate configurations do not necessarily need to be nerfed and lesser configurations buffed.

These nerfs came out way too soon.  Of course many people will use new powerful configurations and will greatly enjoy them.  Perhaps for several months and perhaps longer.  So what?  If BW looks at just the recent stats and considers peoples rants (it should take such hearsay with a grain of salt), and makes nerf's too soon does that really create balance?  I would submit it does not.  If the guiding principle "not to nerf weapons and abilities" is true then the nerfs came much too soon.  I can only assume any introduction of new weapons and abilities was thoroughly considered before their introduction and given that, shouldn't a longer-term review of their use in the game after introduction be a better approach?  Additionally, I hope they continue to offer and maintain the ability to configure very powerful configurations as well as weaker ones.  It's not "balance" to, more or less, make all things equal.  Who wants a world (or game) where everyone has similar capabilities?

[UKStory135]

A Wild Snorlax wrote...

The krysae was ridiculous pre nerf on infiltrators, you could solo gold in less than 30 minutes with that thing without breaking sweat.

I haven't tried it post nerf but the numbers look reasonable. Thy nerfed it by around 10%, it's still going to own on gold I think. To be honest they probably could have done even more and it would still be very good, not that I would want that. I'm happy they didn't pull a falcon on it.

The only thing it does with infiltrators is it makes you more careful with cloaking.  Instead of being cloaked all of the time, I now only cloak right before a fire.

The weight also took the Reegar out of my Phoenix Vanguards hands, so I had to promote it to get a different build since I burned all of my respec cards to give SR's back to my Infiltrators when the Krysae was released.

Modifié par UKStory135, 14 juin 2012 - 06:47 .

[YuenglingDragon]

I'm not overly hurt by the Krysae nerf. If it appeases the pro-nerf crowd and gets some of those threads to go away, I'm happy with it. The nerf bat could have hit much harder. As it is, just going from Krysae III to Krysae IV seems to have brought the gun back up to where it was for me.

[UKStory135]

Serkevan wrote...

I honestly think BW balances things around silver; the Krysae nerf still allows it to roflstomp Silver decently, while taking away the OP damage it sported on Gold (accounting for the AoE, mind you, and the fact that you don't need to hit). Perhaps rebuffing damage and making it explode on impact, like a heavy Striker? Some already suggested that, but I am afraid it would render said weapon obsolete. To compensate, give Striker a 50% ammo increase, both in mag and spare?

It should balance around Silver, and for the most part it is pretty well balanced at Silver.  It is also much more balanced now than it was at the beginning.  With the exceptions of the the Shotgun Infiltrators on Gold being OP, the Phoenix classes being too vulnerable, and the SMG's being a waste of weapon cards and space on my monitor.  Every single class can be effective against at least one of the types of enemies on Silver missions, not very many games have 36 differnet classes that are all as effective as these. Bioware deserves some credit for that.

[Rodia Driftwood]

Wow, 3 posts from Eric Fagnan. OP, you lucky!.

I disagree, as well. Balanced gameplay in a Co-Op game is very important. If one strategy(class, weapons, powers) was so powerful, there wouldn't be a need for teamplay as one player could just win everything for the rest.

[Sacrificial Bias]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

justgimmedudedammit wrote...

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We prefer not to nerf weapons or abilities, but some strategies just become too dominant which hurts replayability. We want to make as many strategies as possible viable on all difficulty levels so the game stays fresh. The vast majority of balance changes have been attempts to bring up weaker strategies so they can compete with the stronger ones.

What are the variables you look at when determining changes? Is it solely numbers gleaned from feedback or do you also take into account player(s) opinions from the forums? Even more? This is one of the things I've been curious about since the changes started to be posted here.

We look at a variety of sources including these forums, game stat-tracking, and of course our own internal playtests.

Alrighty then, please let me know when you conclude that Singularity is still useless like the other 99% of the player base.  Nice touch on Smash btw.

[RGFrog]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We look at a variety of sources including these forums, game stat-tracking, and of course our own internal playtests.

Sure wish that internal playtesting would've caught the ULM issue before signing off on it.

As it stands, though, X level weapons are supposed to be OP. Why debuff them when there are so many other things that need changed?

[neteng101]

Eric Fagnan wrote...

We prefer not to nerf weapons or abilities, but some strategies just become too dominant which hurts replayability. We want to make as many strategies as possible viable on all difficulty levels so the game stays fresh. The vast majority of balance changes have been attempts to bring up weaker strategies so they can compete with the stronger ones.

This is so the right approach!  Kudos on looking into the QFE amongst whatever else you might be looking into.  And the Shockwave and Smash changes.

I just wish people here would stop with all the nerf calls out of selfish desire, it would be far more constructive for us to work on improving the weaker options instead.

[molecularman]

UKStory135 wrote...
The weight also took the Reegar out of my Phoenix Vanguards hands, so I had to promote it to get a different build since I burned all of my respec cards to give SR's back to my Infiltrators when the Krysae was released.

Still owns if you take the passive rank 6 weight reduction

[InfamousResult]

Xerorei wrote...

The problem WASN'T with the two guns you guys nerfed, it was the fact that the other guns did too little damage period, could you perhaps next time think about buffing the other weapons vs nerfing the ones people were crying about?

Just a thought.

There's been a lot more Buffs > Nerfs in the Balance Changes of the past. While I agree that there are several guns that are way too weak ( and I wouldn't use them, subjectively ), it's up to Bioware which one is more important to take care of right away. And I think saying that they don't think about Buffs as well as Nerfs is pretty silly, since.. Well, like I said, there's been more Buffs than Nerfs.