211 réponses à ce sujet

[InvincibleHero]

I have to disagree highly that all things can be balanced. It will never happen in any game. We have different classes, powers, guns, mods, and abilites for a reason. People get to choose their own path. Some things are going to be more effective than others.

You are flat out saying all characters and weapons need to put out the same DPS. Some abilites cannot be measured in DPS like stasis. Every class can be used with varying effectiveness and players of skill have soloed gold with everyone. Yes some do better than others but that doesn't mean they are broken.

Just like the quarian female engineer turret people complained it was too weak. I could care less at the damage it gets brutes and banshees to stop and get whacked easily. That is priceless. That does not get measured in the balance of the ability and people don't look deep at other things either.


People are always eager to say take this down a notch when you don't have to use it at all. Yet go back to reload cancelling claymores for the most DPS output using vanilla loadouts and cookie cutter builds to maximize DPS/utility and then procede to nuke spawns and generally abuse the AI of the game for easy victories.


Of course people that min/max are going to find the best combos and if they have better than average skills they are going to exceed with a set-up that seems OP.

Try using the pirahna on a level 1 engineer in gold with no mods and see how far that gets. The fact it needs gears or ability synergies with certain classes to make it great does not make it OP. I agree with Redjohn on that. It is great when you hit things with it but sometimes even close you do next to nothing with just a smart choke. Sometimes you don't have time to line up a perfect shot. Yes spamming shots can save you with it if they are within 5-20 meters.


I think the only adjustment it needs is adding weight.


We got variety. They are not all meant to play the same way or be equal in utility. There are three factions and each class fares better or worse depending what abilities they have. Yes infs and soldiers fare strong against all because DPS buff is always helpful. To balance all is to kill diversity as everything has to be similar to be fair. What good would two powers with the same range and dps be? You might as well just paste the same thing on everyone and call it a day.


Yes some are obviously weak (destroyer missiles) and some are strong (grenade powers) taken alone but the rest of their powers or overall health/shields speed etc are already taken into account. I have fun with some of the weaker classes and have used them in gold. Maybe you can't top the scoreboard with them against quality players, but you can do your share and get at least 80K with any class. I don't care if a drell adept spamming reave outscores me. I haven't played with them much because it doesn't play to my style. I don't scream it is OP because one of the people in my list that I play with can top 160K with it against me. I will contribute by detonating giving him BEs. With other classes I am good at I can get the 160K score. We all win.


Skill is not equal. People's manifests are not equal. The classes have different abilites that should not be made equal to everything else. I want to play characters that feel different. To overbalance is to kill diversity. It will make things bland. We have different guns for a reason. If you want a challenge pick a weaker one. Nothing says you have to use the best set-up. There is always going to be imbalance and that is a good thing as long as there are no extremes.


If everything was balanced there would be no need for variety. The playstyle of whole clasess and even characters within those subsets can be wildly different. There is no way you can balance things in an accepted manner. you cannot put a number value on some powers and abilities. If you asked people for say 5 worst and 5 best character lists they will not be identical. If you went top ten you'd get a bigger dichotomy.

Is it balance they want or their favorite weapons and, builds, and strategies to maintain their top dog status quo?

I recommend enjoying the game for all it's varied gameplay and trying everything out. There is plenty to explore and leave the balancing to the people that made the game. There is no need to homogenize the experience.

Modifié par InvincibleHero, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:13 .

[Holy-Hamster]

So you're saying developers shouldn't ever try to balance their game and leave broken guns / weapons and characters as they are? Okay.....

You just argued that no game in entire video game history should ever try to be balanced?

I'm not sure what to say other than....

lol

[darkpassenger2342]

i think you are misconstruing the word "balanced" with the word "equal".

[heybigmoney]

Leaving an imbalanced game and its community to its own devices is a surefire way to completely ruin it. See Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2.

[ABjerre]

In order to keep people spending money in the store, it needs to have good and bad weapons mixed together. You'll never see a standardization as long as there is an economic insentitive to keep some guns more attractive than others.

[ASmoothCriminalx]

I like the cut of your jib.

[mrwizeguy]

ABjerre wrote...

In order to keep people spending money in the store, it needs to have good and bad weapons mixed together. You'll never see a standardization as long as there is an economic insentitive to keep some guns more attractive than others.

Ha , well said

[Lambda_00]

heybigmoney wrote...

Leaving an imbalanced game and its community to its own devices is a surefire way to completely ruin it. See Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2.

Counterpoint:
See ArmA Series, See DCS A-10C, See Quake 3.

[InvincibleHero]

Holy-Hamster wrote...

So you're saying developers shouldn't ever try to balance their game and leave broken guns / weapons and characters as they are? Okay.....

You just argued that no game in entire video game history should ever try to be balanced?

I'm not sure what to say other than....

lol

Did you read at all? Creating a nice strawman. I said extremely OP things need reigned in. With the weak things not so much because people will gravitate to the beter things anyway, but really underpowered things should be lifted up. In the case of starter stuff maybe not at all. There always will be a best in class for weapons or even characters. What can vary is someone might prize a melee character more and so on. They will pick what plays to their strengths. It isn't obvious what is best either.  Everything will never be balanced. It is impossible yet people propose things that suit their preferences. Do you think they propose to nerf their favorite guns? Very few would.


Developers try to have it fairly balanced at release. They weigh more variables than everyone proposing nerfs here do. Their intent is maybe to get people to stop using the weapon they dislike for the most part or to deflect attention from other OP weapons they use (claymore with its highest DPS almost never gets mentioned). BW should not want that to happen. I think all classes are viable sure you can't top score with every one, but that is unimportant in the big scheme of things. I know some people think that is the only thing.

[GodlessPaladin]

Okay, first off, you're using the word fallacy wrong.  Go look up what it means, you might learn a thing or two.  Second off, you're committing a few fallacies yourself.

Here's one of them.

InvincibleHero wrote...
You are flat out saying all characters and weapons need to put out the same DPS.

Who is this "you?"  I haven't heard anyone say anything like that, ever.  You're responding to no one.  You're setting up a poor argument, attributing it to a nonexistant opponent, then arguing with that instead of the positions anyone is actually putting forward.  This is called a straw man argument and is a logical fallacy... unless you can actually find me this "you."

But that's not the only problem with your argument nor even the most significant one.  To give another example, you're creating a false dilemma.

You are confusing with "sameness" with "balance."  To use an analogy, two things can weigh the same and be completely different objects which do entirely different things.  A car can weigh the same as a crate of turnips, and one would be as insane to call them similar to each other as they would be to call them unbalanced on the scale of weight.  Balance in game design is similar.  Nothing about balance means that game elements need to be the same as as each other.  In fact, balance causes differences and tradeoffs between game elements to become emphasized and more meaningful, encouraging variety rather than detracting from it.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:22 .

[megabeast37215]

Still mad about the Cry-sae bro?

[InvincibleHero]

heybigmoney wrote...

Leaving an imbalanced game and its community to its own devices is a surefire way to completely ruin it. See Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2.

Never stated that. I said you cannot balance everything nor is that an admirable goal. There are going to be differences and that is the beauty of the experience.

People with thier big lists when most is perfectly functional. Like they know what is best proposing slight nerfs to this or that or slight buffs that will have little impact. Fix the big problems and don't tinker with what isn't broke.

Each weapon and each power and whole classes were designed with specific intent by Bioware. People here do not know half of what they think. They only argue raw numbers that do not tell the whole story.

There is a difference between saying hey this is a pretty strong weapon maybe OP or this is what you should do take rate of fire down 15% and take away 20% ammo etc etc. Hubris it is.

[steverw1975]

Could someone please explain the merits of "balancing", and more specifically all the calls by players to nerf this or that? If this were PVP it would make all the sense in the world. Balancing would keep the competition as equal as possible, with the players' abilities being the primary deciding factor. With ME3, however, the multiplayer is completely co-op. Asking for a character or weapon to be nerfed is asking for someone who you might need to revive you or complete a mission so you can get credits and xp to be made weaker. In other words, you're arguing against your own best interests. Why? The only thing it can possibly affect is the "score" at the end of the game, and that score is completely meaningless. It doesn't get you any extra credits or xp. Those things are determined by group performance, most likely to discourage some players from focusing so much on racking up a high score that they leave their team out to hang. The results are so-so, but better than a lot of games. Anyway, not only is the final score meaningless, it can be completely deceptive at times. I've had a number of times when the player with the highest score was the same player that the rest of us had to constantly revive to keep them from bleeding out. They didn't kill the most enemies, nor did they contribute the most to team objectives. They simply went out of their way to make sure their kills racked up maximum points. Did the rest of us marvel at their skill? No, we mocked that player and booted them because we were tired of carrying them.

Are all the characters and weapon equal? No, nor should they be. If a weapon or character can only be obtained by buying spectre/psp or as a reward for completing weekend objectives, it should be better than a weapon or character that can be obtained simply by buying a veteran pack. Someone complaining that an ultra-rare is OP in relation to a silver weapon is making a ridiculous argument in my opinion. It's like saying that grenades +5 is OP because it gives a player 3 more grenades than grenades +2. Of course it should be better. It's a higher level gear. Seriously, what's the point of having weapons classified as common, uncommon, rare, and ultra-rare if you're just going to nerf the rare or ultra-rares until they're no better than the uncommon weapons?

[InvincibleHero]

ABjerre wrote...

In order to keep people spending money in the store, it needs to have good and bad weapons mixed together. You'll never see a standardization as long as there is an economic insentitive to keep some guns more attractive than others.

Yeah but at least you can't outright buy OP stuff like in some games. Oddly though many of the "best" guns are gold not UR.

[Holy-Hamster]

I don't think you know what the word balance means.......

[DHKany]

Balance and sameness are two different things.

[Imp of the Perverse]

steverw1975 wrote...

Could someone please explain the merits of "balancing", and more specifically all the calls by players to nerf this or that? If this were PVP it would make all the sense in the world. Balancing would keep the competition as equal as possible, with the players' abilities being the primary deciding factor. With ME3, however, the multiplayer is completely co-op. Asking for a character or weapon to be nerfed is asking for someone who you might need to revive you or complete a mission so you can get credits and xp to be made weaker. In other words, you're arguing against your own best interests. Why? The only thing it can possibly affect is the "score" at the end of the game, and that score is completely meaningless. It doesn't get you any extra credits or xp. Those things are determined by group performance, most likely to discourage some players from focusing so much on racking up a high score that they leave their team out to hang. The results are so-so, but better than a lot of games. Anyway, not only is the final score meaningless, it can be completely deceptive at times. I've had a number of times when the player with the highest score was the same player that the rest of us had to constantly revive to keep them from bleeding out. They didn't kill the most enemies, nor did they contribute the most to team objectives. They simply went out of their way to make sure their kills racked up maximum points. Did the rest of us marvel at their skill? No, we mocked that player and booted them because we were tired of carrying them.

Are all the characters and weapon equal? No, nor should they be. If a weapon or character can only be obtained by buying spectre/psp or as a reward for completing weekend objectives, it should be better than a weapon or character that can be obtained simply by buying a veteran pack. Someone complaining that an ultra-rare is OP in relation to a silver weapon is making a ridiculous argument in my opinion. It's like saying that grenades +5 is OP because it gives a player 3 more grenades than grenades +2. Of course it should be better. It's a higher level gear. Seriously, what's the point of having weapons classified as common, uncommon, rare, and ultra-rare if you're just going to nerf the rare or ultra-rares until they're no better than the uncommon weapons?

I'll admit I didn't read more than the first line of that wall of text, but the reason for balancing is to keep as many things viable as possible. If one or two weapons or builds clearly dominate all others, there'll be pressure to use only those builds, or to kick people from lobbies when they're not using those builds. That prevents people from being able to enjoy the full variety of content.

[InvincibleHero]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Okay, first off, you're using the word fallacy wrong.  Go look up what it means, you might learn a thing or two.  Second off, you're committing a few fallacies yourself.

Here's one of them.

InvincibleHero wrote...
You are flat out saying all characters and weapons need to put out the same DPS.

Who is this "you?"  I haven't heard anyone say anything like that, ever.  You're responding to no one.  You're setting up a poor argument, attributing it to a nonexistant opponent, then arguing with that instead of the positions anyone is actually putting forward.  This is called a straw man argument and is a logical fallacy... unless you can actually find me this "you."

But that's not the only problem with your argument nor even the most significant one.  To give another example, you're creating a false dilemma.

You are confusing with "sameness" with "balance."  To use an analogy, two things can weigh the same and be completely different objects which do entirely different things.  A car can weigh the same as a crate of turnips, and one would be as insane to call them similar to each other as they would be to call them unbalanced on the scale of weight.  Balance in game design is similar.  Nothing about balance means that game elements need to be the same as as each other.  In fact, balance causes differences and tradeoffs between game elements to become emphasized and more meaningful, encouraging variety rather than detracting from it.

Sorry you can never balance all things hence it is fallacious. There will always be significant differences.

Every thread on pirahna mentions DPS. Almost any nerf is going to impact DPS. That is just basic logic. If weapons are balanced then the only real impact in the game is DPS output. There are minor utility perks to adjust but that is the main impact of the weapon. It is the heart of the argument.

If you say this gun needs buffed you mean DPS needs to go up to compete with the better guns. People try to obfuscate their whole agenda. That is what gets raised and lowered period.

Except this is a videogame and weapons are measured in numbers like you guessed it DPS. Damage rate of fire, relaod speed, ammo reserve, and all impact it. So they can make it weigh more and have more DPS, but if they did the opposite no one would use a heavy gun with poor DPS. There are only so many things you can do. You can have a laser or lightning gun or just bullets but it all comes down to how much DPS on target and is it worth the wieght. Period.

[Slother93]

Remember what Anakin did to bring balance to the force, as was prophecied.

[InvincibleHero]

Holy-Hamster wrote...

I don't think you know what the word balance means.......

Unique and balanced are polar opposites. The only difference would be a name and graphical effect while doing the same thing at an extreme of all balance. The more uniqueness the less balance you will have.

[InvincibleHero]

megabeast37215 wrote...

Still mad about the Cry-sae bro?

I could care less I have everything but eagle unlocked. It is just another gun I don't use like the claymore.

[Gladerunner]

I agree that something you have to earn should have benefits.

The only problem is that you either have an imbalanced game, where half the people are angry and half the people are content - But the game is still fun.
Otherwise the game is balanced, half the people are content, half the people are either nerf-unhappy or buff happy, but the fun is removed from the game.

Thus, there should be imbalance, but there should be buffs where they are deserved.

[The Waffle Cat]

Power Creep will be used in the next dlc all you can do is brace yourself for the nerfers

[Holy-Hamster]

The falcon is unique compared to the Harrier.

Harrier has far more dps, however the falcon has the ability to stagger. Both weapons are balanced imo for what they do.

Sniper rifles do high damage from long range, but are harder to aim up close. Shotguns are easier to aim up close, but don't have long range damage. That is balance.

Do you really not understand simple combat mechanics?

Granted, there's only so much you can do with a gun in a game like this to make it "unique" and different and personally I feel they're fast running out of ideas that are going to be worthwhile. They should start focusing on new enemies and game modes but I doubt that will happen.

I still think you're clueless when it comes to the word balanced.

[steverw1975]

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

steverw1975 wrote...

Could someone please explain the merits of "balancing", and more specifically all the calls by players to nerf this or that? If this were PVP it would make all the sense in the world. Balancing would keep the competition as equal as possible, with the players' abilities being the primary deciding factor. With ME3, however, the multiplayer is completely co-op. Asking for a character or weapon to be nerfed is asking for someone who you might need to revive you or complete a mission so you can get credits and xp to be made weaker. In other words, you're arguing against your own best interests. Why? The only thing it can possibly affect is the "score" at the end of the game, and that score is completely meaningless. It doesn't get you any extra credits or xp. Those things are determined by group performance, most likely to discourage some players from focusing so much on racking up a high score that they leave their team out to hang. The results are so-so, but better than a lot of games. Anyway, not only is the final score meaningless, it can be completely deceptive at times. I've had a number of times when the player with the highest score was the same player that the rest of us had to constantly revive to keep them from bleeding out. They didn't kill the most enemies, nor did they contribute the most to team objectives. They simply went out of their way to make sure their kills racked up maximum points. Did the rest of us marvel at their skill? No, we mocked that player and booted them because we were tired of carrying them.

Are all the characters and weapon equal? No, nor should they be. If a weapon or character can only be obtained by buying spectre/psp or as a reward for completing weekend objectives, it should be better than a weapon or character that can be obtained simply by buying a veteran pack. Someone complaining that an ultra-rare is OP in relation to a silver weapon is making a ridiculous argument in my opinion. It's like saying that grenades +5 is OP because it gives a player 3 more grenades than grenades +2. Of course it should be better. It's a higher level gear. Seriously, what's the point of having weapons classified as common, uncommon, rare, and ultra-rare if you're just going to nerf the rare or ultra-rares until they're no better than the uncommon weapons?

I'll admit I didn't read more than the first line of that wall of text, but the reason for balancing is to keep as many things viable as possible. If one or two weapons or builds clearly dominate all others, there'll be pressure to use only those builds, or to kick people from lobbies when they're not using those builds. That prevents people from being able to enjoy the full variety of content.

In short form then. My point was that there should be better weapons and characters. If BW is going to classify weapons and characters in various levels and make you work harder to get some of them, then those weapons/characters should be better. There are enough weapons in each of these levels to still leave us with any number of optimum builds (for instance, I never used sniper rifles with my infiltrator even before the Krysae was nerfed). As for characters, whenever they release a new multiplayer dlc, there's always a new member of each class. So, if the n7 characters are better than others, that's fine. I will concede that there should be a certain degree of balance amongst characters/weapons in each class, but imbalance is not only permissable, it's appropriate between characters/weapons listed in different levels.