211 réponses à ce sujet

[BaladasDemnevanni]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

The argument that is being made here is similar to saying that scientists should not seek knowledge because they will never know everything.  Well, sure, that's true, but that doesn't mean that there isn't value in improving one's knowledge.

Very well put.

[mrwizeguy]

xtorma wrote...


You can debate without being a jerk.

Yea sorry , lol , that i am , i dont have good communication skills , but my point is far from clear jerk or not..

[xtorma]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Cellar_Cat wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal.

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not.

If the word were used in such a black & white manner as that, nothing would ever be balanced anywhere.

He's just being deliberately obtuse.

No , actually your first post was berating the op for not using fallacy correctly, when he was correct.

[GodlessPaladin]

ABjerre wrote...
Source: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/343/index/12648909
Look under Javelin, Saber and Wraith. Noone is giving you any credit beyond what you guys take credit for.

  Those are all buffs.  Huh.

Being able to guess the changes, which if you look at the sticky thread dedicated to them, are quite standardized, is not an art, nor does it mean that your suggestions were implemented.

  I have a PM from Eric Fagnan saying he liked my changes and would implement some of them.  There's also a similar posting by him in my discussion group.  But I guess that means I just guessed the changes. 

Is there nothing you won't just make up?  I mean, my very last response to you caught you in a lie (where you claimed that a video wasn't of Platinum to try to discredit Feneckus despite a banshee, atlas, and geth hunter being present at the same time).

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 10:59 .

[xtorma]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Cellar_Cat wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal.

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not.

If the word were used in such a black & white manner as that, nothing would ever be balanced anywhere.

He's just being deliberately obtuse.

did you just call me stupid? why?

[steverw1975]

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

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.

Wait so people were getting kicked for not being a GI. Every lobby had to be 4 GIs right? No never was.


It is job done then. I've used every character and have never been kicked. I have used unpowered weapons to try them out. I even did poorly with pirahna my first few games. Tinkered with mods and synergized with it better getting a feel for the range. Typhoon I don't get the excitement on that. It seems to take much longer to kill things than many other options. I'll take harrier or saber X any day though if I ever get to X maybe that will change.

People actually being kicked for not using the top one or two builds would be an extreme case, and the fact that it doesn't seem to happen indicates that bioware is doing a decent job keeping things balanced.

The closest I've come to it was probably being hassled for bringing a raptor into a gold match, but they never actually kicked me.

Another time I was trying out a paladin in a public gold match alongside a guy using a destroyer with piranha. We wiped on wave ten due to a tough objective on jade, and when we got to the scoreboard, the guy had about double my score (I was in second place.) He started ranting at everyone about how bad we were and put kick votes next to our names. That annoyed me so I switched to a GI to show him its more due to potential damage output than skill, but the dude insisted "I doubled your score. You suck. Get out of my lobby." He ended up leaving.

Later that day I used my piranha GI in a few matches, and had some successful gold extractions where I had about double the score of the guy in second place, something that never happens when I use other builds (usually if I'm that far out ahead of everybody we're probably not going to make it to extraction.)

I'd like to congratulate you on posting a perfect example of the post-hoc fallacy. In other words, you seem to be assuming that just because one thing follows another that it's caused by the other. The fact that people aren't constantly being booted for not having what you consider to be the optimal build does not prove that the characters and weapons are perfectly balanced. When I do random games I don't expect that everyone in the group will be as good of a player as I am. That's not arrogance, that's experience playing random games. Some players are every bit as good or maybe they even know a few things I don't yet. Some are less effective but still good enough. Some are just bad players, regardless of what their n7 rank might be. I'll stick around if they seem capable of contributing to the match on the given level. I base that on a mixture of what their n7 level is, what kind of weapons they have selected and what level they are, and how smart they are when selecting gear/equipment. By the way, weapon selection isn't always about how powerful the weapon is. Sometimes it's about whether or not the weapon should be used by that character. Actually saw a guy using a level 19 adept and putting a black widow 1 and typoon 1 on it.

As for the "score", who cares? It's meaningless and in many cases misleading. How sad is it if talking trash about a meaingless score to someone you don't actually know is considered a real achievment for someone?  If someone wants to brag too much about a score, I'm not likely to play with them again. It's not that I'm overly sensitive about the score. It's that they're more likely to be the kind of person that will put their teammates in bad situations so they can try to run up their score. Oh, and if the score is what someone cares about, there are a lot of ways to run it up. You don't need to use the piranha. A demolisher can run the score up quite a bit if they have powers added to their grenades. The bursts really boost those points. The shadow can do quite a job with electric slash too. There are any number of ways to run up the score. It doesn't mean their character or their weapons are "OP". It just means they know how to maximize point bonuses. I can't tell you how many times the highest scorer was the least valuable member of the team. Then again, most of those cases involve vanguards that kept getting themselves killed.

[Tyeme Downs]

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?

Please, make paragraphs.  Shoving 5 ideas into one wall of text just causes the reader to move on.

Look up the word balance.  It has more than one definition.  When folks say they want the game balanced, they are usually talking about bringing it closer to a state of equilibrium.  They are not saying that everything needs to be the same.

A bar of lead and a stack of feathers are very different.  We can bring them into a state of balance on a scale by adjusting the weight of one or the other, or both.  The same concept applies to the game.  The QFE doesn't seem to bring as much to the table or weigh the same as other characters, like the GI.  How they are brought into balance or equilibrium depends on the scale and what it measures.

One of the problems might be the game gives us a scale to measure by, the scoreboard at the end of the match.  It doesn't count immobilizations, lifts, knockdowns, or any controls.  It measures kills mostly.

When people say something is overpowered or underpowered, they are saying it is throwing off the equilibrium.  They are saying that that aspect of the game is outside their concept of balance.  They are not saying that the aspect need to be exactly the same as all other aspects.  It's ok if gun A does less damage than gun B if gun A is "balanced" in some other way (like lighter weight or freezes targets).  It's not ok if gun A is like gun B in every other way and does less damage.

[Jay_Hoxtatron]

its THAT guy wrote...

Jay_Hoxtatron wrote...

its THAT guy wrote...

Good job at using common sense OP. This nerfing to the ground of so many guns in this game is becoming increasingly annoying as Bioware seems intent on putting nearly every gun in the game on par with the avenger. Personally I blame GodlessPaladin and the rest of his nerf brigade, but w/e, the whining nerfers can make their voice heard, I'm sure the opposite can be held true for the rest of us as well that DON'T want super soaker 2000's after every balance change.

Only the Krysae was nerfed into the ground, as far as I know. The first nerf was justified, given that you had absolutely no reason to take another sniper rifle, but I'll admit that the 2nd nerf was imho too harsh and not needed.

So you can't say that 'This nerfing to the ground of so many guns in this game is becoming annoying', it happened once. And BioWare could always roll the changes to the Krysae back to what is was, pre-2nd nerf.

You're forgetting what led to the Krysae becoming the supposed "OP only viable sniper rifle on gold/platinum diffuclty" in the first place. It wasn't that it did so much damage, it was that all the other snipers had been indirectly nerfed at one point or another to make them all together irrelevant as opposed to the Kyrsae on harder difficulties. Remember the tatical cloak nerf? The removal of headshots from bosses? Coupled together, these two changes drastically reduced the effectiveness of all other sniper rifles on harder difficulties greatly which, along with the already annoying shieldgate, left the Krysae as the only REALLY viable sniper rifle to use on these difficulties. Which, rememeber, was because of direct and indirect nerfs caused BY Bioware.

While I think Sniper rifles are still viable on Gold/Plat, it certainly is less efficient than shotguns. I agree with you on that. I think Godless Paladin's Balance All the Things group suggested a 15% buff on SRs.

I'd also like a sniper rifle mod that allows for partially bypassing shieldgate (would definitely make the single shot snipers, and mainly theJavelin worthy of the UR title.)

As for the TC nerf, I don't think it's a bad thing. Choosing duration is now as viable as damage. Before, choosing duration was [completely] useless. Mass Effect is all about choice, why propose a choice that is pointless right?

[Grunt_Platform]

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal. 

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc. 

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not. 

Nobody's using the word "balance" for the literal, dictionary definition. GodlessPaladin didn't choose the word. It's the word used in gaming comunities, and among game designers to describe the concept.

If two options are balanced in a game it means they are equally valid decisions. In a game with incomparables like ME3 has weapons and characters don't have to do equal damage to be equally effective. For example: By pure damage output the Falcon is a terrible weapon, even if you account for its blast radius. But it has unique properties that offset its poor damage.

There are tolerances here—the Vindicator doesn't have to be exactly equal to the Revenant in utility for them to be balanced. There are too many ways the guns can't be directly compared. However, if they are both effective enough to be worth choosing for a character build on Gold, that's balanced enough. Right now, both are thoroughly outclassed by other guns, but the list of guns that beat the Revenant at its job is shorter than the list for the Vindicator. And that's not touching on the way the boss spam on Platinum heavily favors the builds that use guns like the Revenant over builds that want something like the Vindicator.

Modifié par EvanKester, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:12 .

[GodlessPaladin]

xtorma wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Cellar_Cat wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal.

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not.

If the word were used in such a black & white manner as that, nothing would ever be balanced anywhere.

He's just being deliberately obtuse.

did you just call me stupid? why?

No, I said you were being deliberately obtuse.  I said that because I feel like you are deliberately trying to make communication more difficult by obfuscating the intended meaning of what someone is saying.  I explain to you what people mean when they talk about balance in game design jargon, and you go and complain about the word used as if I made up the jargon myself.

Moreover, your objection is still wrong.  In common english terms (e.g. the particular definition of balance you cherrypicked to fight over)  equilibrium, equality, et cetera doesn't need to be exact.  You can talk about "greater equality" for example, and that's not actually incorrect.  You can talk about achieving equilibrium between things that are not literally the same objects and, against, not be incorrect.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:13 .

[Podboq]

mrwizeguy wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

mrwizeguy wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

mrwizeguy wrote...
Yea u got a buddy to support you know, whats up cant u handle this on your own?

You might actually want to respond to my direct questions.

  No, I don't feel a need to respond to someone who uses loaded questions... such as the sentence "Yea u got a buddy to support you know, whats up cant u handle this on your own?"

Whats up did i hurt you?

Or did i start to expose what you really on ?

  See, those are loaded questions right there.

If you don't know what the problem with a loaded question is, that's on you, not me.  I edited to provide a helpful link for you to explain it.

Start answearing to my whole post will ya , you are avoiding the juicy parts ha

I did not make any loaded q's , i provided your complete quote unless you have eddited it on your other post as well already.

Just a hint, try to stay calm and actually think about the words you are about to type before you type them.
I feel like I have to tell you that you're making yourself look like an idiot, because I don't think you realise it.

[Imp of the Perverse]

steverw1975 wrote...

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

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.

Wait so people were getting kicked for not being a GI. Every lobby had to be 4 GIs right? No never was.


It is job done then. I've used every character and have never been kicked. I have used unpowered weapons to try them out. I even did poorly with pirahna my first few games. Tinkered with mods and synergized with it better getting a feel for the range. Typhoon I don't get the excitement on that. It seems to take much longer to kill things than many other options. I'll take harrier or saber X any day though if I ever get to X maybe that will change.

People actually being kicked for not using the top one or two builds would be an extreme case, and the fact that it doesn't seem to happen indicates that bioware is doing a decent job keeping things balanced.

The closest I've come to it was probably being hassled for bringing a raptor into a gold match, but they never actually kicked me.

Another time I was trying out a paladin in a public gold match alongside a guy using a destroyer with piranha. We wiped on wave ten due to a tough objective on jade, and when we got to the scoreboard, the guy had about double my score (I was in second place.) He started ranting at everyone about how bad we were and put kick votes next to our names. That annoyed me so I switched to a GI to show him its more due to potential damage output than skill, but the dude insisted "I doubled your score. You suck. Get out of my lobby." He ended up leaving.

Later that day I used my piranha GI in a few matches, and had some successful gold extractions where I had about double the score of the guy in second place, something that never happens when I use other builds (usually if I'm that far out ahead of everybody we're probably not going to make it to extraction.)

I'd like to congratulate you on posting a perfect example of the post-hoc fallacy. In other words, you seem to be assuming that just because one thing follows another that it's caused by the other. The fact that people aren't constantly being booted for not having what you consider to be the optimal build does not prove that the characters and weapons are perfectly balanced. When I do random games I don't expect that everyone in the group will be as good of a player as I am. That's not arrogance, that's experience playing random games. Some players are every bit as good or maybe they even know a few things I don't yet. Some are less effective but still good enough. Some are just bad players, regardless of what their n7 rank might be. I'll stick around if they seem capable of contributing to the match on the given level. I base that on a mixture of what their n7 level is, what kind of weapons they have selected and what level they are, and how smart they are when selecting gear/equipment. By the way, weapon selection isn't always about how powerful the weapon is. Sometimes it's about whether or not the weapon should be used by that character. Actually saw a guy using a level 19 adept and putting a black widow 1 and typoon 1 on it.

As for the "score", who cares? It's meaningless and in many cases misleading. How sad is it if talking trash about a meaingless score to someone you don't actually know is considered a real achievment for someone?  If someone wants to brag too much about a score, I'm not likely to play with them again. It's not that I'm overly sensitive about the score. It's that they're more likely to be the kind of person that will put their teammates in bad situations so they can try to run up their score. Oh, and if the score is what someone cares about, there are a lot of ways to run it up. You don't need to use the piranha. A demolisher can run the score up quite a bit if they have powers added to their grenades. The bursts really boost those points. The shadow can do quite a job with electric slash too. There are any number of ways to run up the score. It doesn't mean their character or their weapons are "OP". It just means they know how to maximize point bonuses. I can't tell you how many times the highest scorer was the least valuable member of the team. Then again, most of those cases involve vanguards that kept getting themselves killed.

So, which comes first, the balancing or the not being kicked? They're both happening continuously, I don't see how my post could be seen as a "this comes first, therefore it causes that" kind of a statement. I've already explained my reasoning behind why having gross imbalances could lead to people being kicked.

And it does happen in this game, though not exactly due to weapon imbalances. People with low N7 ratings and/or low level, common weapons are kicked from gold and platinum games all the time. They're bringing builds that have low damage output and being kicked because of it. If most UR weapons had the same pathetic damage output as a level 1 predator, you'd see people being kicked for not using the few exceptions.

[xtorma]

EvanKester wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal. 

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc. 

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not. 

Nobody's using the word "balance" for the literal, dictionary definition. GodlessPaladin didn't choose the word. It's the word used in gaming comunities, and among game designers to describe the concept.

If two options are balanced in a game it means they are equally valid decisions. In a game with incomparables like ME3 has weapons and characters don't have to do equal damage to be equally effective. For example: By pure damage output the Falcon is a terrible weapon, even if you account for its blast radius. But it has unique properties that offset its poor damage.

There are tolerances here—the Vindicator doesn't have to be exactly equal to the Revenant in utility for them to be balanced. There are too many ways the guns can't be directly compared. However, if they are both effective enough to be worth choosing for a character build on Gold, that's balanced enough. Right now, both are thoroughly outclassed by other guns, but the list of guns that beat the Revenant at its job is shorter than the list for the Vindicator. And that's not touching on the way the boss spam on Platinum heavily favors the builds that use guns like the Revenant over builds that want something like the Vindicator.

So you don't get where i am coming from.

[Podboq]

xtorma wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Cellar_Cat wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal.

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc.

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not.

If the word were used in such a black & white manner as that, nothing would ever be balanced anywhere.

He's just being deliberately obtuse.

No , actually your first post was berating the op for not using fallacy correctly, when he was correct.

The sun revolves around the earth.
This is a fallacy.

OP missused the word.
The title should have been something like:
Why having everything balanced is an unnobtainable goal.

Note that I don't agree with this title. I'm just trying to make OPs original title actually make sense.

[mrwizeguy]

Podboq wrote...


Just a hint, try to stay calm and actually think about the words you are about to type before you type them.
I feel like I have to tell you that you're making yourself look like an idiot, because I don't think you realise it.

I dont need any advice thanks.
Idiots are players like you being members of the "balance all the things" group.

So , i ask you both , you and your bf you r supporting , what qualifies you as balancers and why should i take into serious account both of your suggestions. Both your manifests are clearly weak for all i know , so what qualifications do you have.

[Grunt_Platform]

xtorma wrote...

EvanKester wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal. 

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc. 

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not. 

blah blah blah

So you don't get where i am coming from.

Apparently not? There's nothing misleading about discussing game design, and game elements using the terminology that's generally accepted in the communities that discuss game design.

If you disagree with that usage of the word that's semantics, it doesn't mean the logic it's describing is unsound.

EDIT: If you're saying the word implies precision then... Well. It doesn't. Even the engineers who need to keep a structure balanced don't aim for perfect precision. If the guy who needs to keep a car from tumbling over in every turn doesn't mean absolutely perfect balance... then a guy comparing two fictional weapons in a video game doesn't need to either.

if you mean it can't apply because of the incomparables in the game then.. I brought up the Falcon for a reason. You can find ways to compare the Falcon and the Revenant, for example, and those guns are pretty damn different from each other. You could even compare them to the Paladin pistol.

Modifié par EvanKester, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:38 .

[Podboq]

mrwizeguy wrote...

Podboq wrote...


Just a hint, try to stay calm and actually think about the words you are about to type before you type them.
I feel like I have to tell you that you're making yourself look like an idiot, because I don't think you realise it.

I dont need any advice thanks.
Idiots are players like you being members of the "balance all the things" group.

So , i ask you both , you and your bf you r supporting , what qualifies you as balancers and why should i take into serious account both of your suggestions. Both your manifests are clearly weak for all i know , so what qualifications do you have.

So basically, people who don't agree with you are idiots, and I'm gay because I happen to be arguing against you while gp is arguing against you.




[If you're trolling, well played, but the manifest comment gave it away]

[mrwizeguy]

Podboq wrote...

mrwizeguy wrote...

Podboq wrote...


Just a hint, try to stay calm and actually think about the words you are about to type before you type them.
I feel like I have to tell you that you're making yourself look like an idiot, because I don't think you realise it.

I dont need any advice thanks.
Idiots are players like you being members of the "balance all the things" group.

So , i ask you both , you and your bf you r supporting , what qualifies you as balancers and why should i take into serious account both of your suggestions. Both your manifests are clearly weak for all i know , so what qualifications do you have.

So basically, people who don't agree with you are idiots, and I'm gay because I happen to be arguing against you while gp is arguing against you.




[If you're trolling, well played, but the manifest comment gave it away]

did i suggest something that someone didnt agree on? u on drugs man?

You are the ones making them with big fancy groups and threads , all i ask is what qualifies you , weak manifest implies you havent played the game enough .

[ABjerre]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

ABjerre wrote...
Source: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/343/index/12648909
Look under Javelin, Saber and Wraith. Noone is giving you any credit beyond what you guys take credit for.

  Those are all buffs.  Huh.

Being able to guess the changes, which if you look at the sticky thread dedicated to them, are quite standardized, is not an art, nor does it mean that your suggestions were implemented.

  I have a PM from Eric Fagnan saying he liked my changes and would implement some of them.  There's also a similar posting by him in my discussion group.  But I guess that means I just guessed the changes. 

Is there nothing you won't just make up?  I mean, my very last response to you caught you in a lie (where you claimed that a video wasn't of Platinum to try to discredit Feneckus despite a banshee, atlas, and geth hunter being present at the same time).

As suggested, you really should start quoting entire posts, instead of taking things out of context, or leaving out parts that are important to understanding the general meaning of the post.

What part of my post was an actual lie, i am wondering? You are correct that i doubted that it was actually a platinium vid -  you did however fail to mention that i subsequently corrected my post.

The groups and messages that you mention are private, which severly limits the possibilty of browsing them. Regardless of content, i would be suprised if BioWare implemented something that wasn't in scope already, solely because it was suggested by a mere forumite, no matter how active said forumite is.

A quick look at your profile leads me to belive that your main proficiencies are in design more than actual marketing, so let me give you share something with you:

Identifying key users of a given product, or in this case active forum users, and influencing them is an extremely cost efficient way of customer retention, as the general user is more likely to listen to his peers than he is to listen the producer of said product.
This is just a thought, and i may be completely wrong, but it made you feel like a valued member of the community when BioWare messaged you, right?
Regardless of how it made you feel, if BioWare says that they like ideas, input or your contribution it is because they want their users to feel valuable, and do exactly what you are doing here: Telling others that BioWare / EA care about their customers and appreciate them. Why?

Because a good relationship with ones customers is part of the foundation for repeat business. And repeat business is a lot more profitable than one time transactions.

Modifié par ABjerre, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:38 .

[neurovore]

Okay, first of all. How many of these "nerfers will ruin the game omglolwtf"-people are capable of admitting error? Are you sure you're really just trying to argue a point, or are you just trying to win an argument regardless of whether you're right or not? One person tried the latter and got banned for trolling (ie. they made a strawman argument and kept repeating it and ignoring the fact that it was a strawman). Another person tried to argue the same point, but after tons of flaming, he finally came up with a level-headed response where he admitted that I was in part right, part wrong, but never took the time to explain in which part, as seems to be the trend for these posters.

You're basically trying to convince a moderate audience that your wildly exaggerated, totally unfounded claims are in fact The Truth. That is a strawman, and is known as one of the very basic mistakes made in an argument. You're not arguing against a counterpoint, but a perversion of it. You forget the fact that many of those who call out for nerfs also call out for buffs, but you only look at one side of the coin, the one that seems to offer more substance to your nonexistent opponent.

No one has suggested that everything has to be nerfed to the ground (or buffed to the skies?) As such, you're just making an assumption. And assumption is the mother of all... Well, you know how it ends. Taking any suggestion that all weapons be made reasonably viable on all difficulties for a call to make everything the same is just hysteria.

Face it. You're creating an imaginary enemy and arguing against them. The best part is that this mirage of yours says exactly what you want him to say, and anyone who isn't singing your song must be agreeing with the mirage, verbatim. There are no degrees in disagreement.

PS. I also love it when people use a turret's ability to CC enemies as a balancing factor. It is a glitch. As much has been admitted by a dev in another thread. The jist of it is that turrets and decoys etc. have no collision model. That means they can't be meleed and anyone who tries just wigs out.

[Ranger3bn]

I believe most of the comments as far as balance are being made under the premise that ME3 is a PVP game I. have even seen a few comments that made references to Call Of Duty, Quake, and BF3. To me that takes the whole validity out of their arguments as the comparison is not adequately represented.

Now, if ME3 WAS as PvP rather than a Co Op game the argument could be made however, seeing it is not I am finding it illogical to continue to flood the forum with the mass amount of post on the subject matter. While I can understand some people's passion about the game what is lacking is the substance to continue the argument for balance. In my honest opinion UR weapons and characters should trump lesser common ones. It would only make sense to reward those who've put in the time and effort to aquire. To support my opinion I even taken the time to review a few of the players' manifest and that a little over half of the people (6 out of 10) that are complaining do not even possess any of the weapons or characters they are complaining about. That fact in itself is reason enough to discount their arguments. Additionally, a lot of the issues players are complaining about could be remedied by playing the game with the understanding it was built around the Co Op framework. As such, like most Co Op gaming it is best to be played with friends and people you know. The fact that this argument has yet to be addressed by those who are continually debating the OP subject only gives more credit to it being the great equalizer to their argument.

While I am always open to people having different opinions and the right to express those said opinions ( I gave 10 yrs to protect freedom of speech) what I am not open to is the mass amount of threads about the same subject matter. I believe it would be best to make one thread and commit all comments to that one thread.

[Podboq]

mrwizeguy wrote...

Podboq wrote...

mrwizeguy wrote...

Podboq wrote...


Just a hint, try to stay calm and actually think about the words you are about to type before you type them.
I feel like I have to tell you that you're making yourself look like an idiot, because I don't think you realise it.

I dont need any advice thanks.
Idiots are players like you being members of the "balance all the things" group.

So , i ask you both , you and your bf you r supporting , what qualifies you as balancers and why should i take into serious account both of your suggestions. Both your manifests are clearly weak for all i know , so what qualifications do you have.

So basically, people who don't agree with you are idiots, and I'm gay because I happen to be arguing against you while gp is arguing against you.




[If you're trolling, well played, but the manifest comment gave it away]

did i suggest something that someone didnt agree on? u on drugs man?

You are the ones making them with big fancy groups and threads , all i ask is what qualifies you , weak manifest implies you havent played the game enough .

I didn't know having most gold weapons at 10 was considered weak, but whatever.
It's a moot point anyway, skill and knowledge of the game has nothing to do with how much you've unlocked.

For the record, I've never proposed that anything be nerfed or buffed. Not because I'm against the idea, balancing the game is a good goal. I 'd just prefer to play the game and have fun. Dissecting the frog kills it imo.

To answer your question, you said, "Idiots are players like you being members of the "balance all the things" group."

I took that to mean you think that all members of the balance all the things group are idiots.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how it came across.

[xtorma]

EvanKester wrote...

xtorma wrote...

EvanKester wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal. 

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc. 

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not. 

blah blah blah

So you don't get where i am coming from.

Apparently not? There's nothing misleading about discussing game design, and game elements using the terminology that's generally accepted in the communities that discuss game design.

If you disagree with that usage of the word that's semantics, it doesn't mean the logic it's describing is unsound.

It's no different than berating someone for thier use of the word fallacy.

[Podboq]

xtorma wrote...

EvanKester wrote...

xtorma wrote...

EvanKester wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Balance ...each side being equal. you need to come up with another word, because using balance implies that both sides are equal. 

a state of equilibrium or equipoise; equal distribution of weight, amount, etc. 

there will never be equality in this game ,so arguing that balance is achieveable is fallacious IE... misleading. Balance is equal , so there is no such thing as "perfect balance", something is either equal, or it is not. 

blah blah blah

So you don't get where i am coming from.

Apparently not? There's nothing misleading about discussing game design, and game elements using the terminology that's generally accepted in the communities that discuss game design.

If you disagree with that usage of the word that's semantics, it doesn't mean the logic it's describing is unsound.

It's no different than berating someone for thier use of the word fallacy.

He was berated because he missused the word. I don't see a problem.

[Pitznik]

mrwizeguy wrote...


So , i ask you both , you and your bf you r supporting , what qualifies you as balancers and why should i take into serious account both of your suggestions. Both your manifests are clearly weak for all i know , so what qualifications do you have.

You don't have to. Arguments they present are for everyone to see and comment, if they're so weak, just feel free to counter them. Godless Paladin has no authority, he only has good ideas and knows how to present them.