211 réponses à ce sujet

[GodlessPaladin]

ABjerre wrote...
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.

  I didn't know you corrected it, I didn't check back.  But fair enough.  The thing is that all I've ever seen you doing in recent memory is speculating about the possibility of people being disingenuous on shoddy grounds (such as ignoring the Feneckus's video entirely.  I don't see how you could actually watch the vid and not recognize it as Platinum).  Just like you continue to do in the rest of your post, this time suggesting that Eric Fagnan is disingenuous and trying to manipulate customers for marketing purposes.  Cmon man, that's three times in a row you've pulled that.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:50 .

[steverw1975]

Tyeme Downs 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?

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.

First of all, please don't try to play me like GP did the original poster by focusing on semantics as opposed to the actual argument. I know full well what the word balance means, and I never equated it to everything being the same. My argument was that BW created different classifications for weapons and characters, and made some of them more difficult and/or costly to obtain. That being the case, the more difficult and/or costly weapons and characters should be better than the others.

Will some people whine about others who have played the game much more having better weapons or characters? Of course, but they're going to complain about something anyway. People who have played the game more should have better characters or gear. If not, why would many people feel the need to play as much? When you first start the campaign, do you have all the powers, weapons, and mods you do at the end? Of course not. You have to play the game and earn those things. I don't see why the multi-player mode should be any different.

Now, as for the score, you made a great point. It's an incomplete measure at best. That being the case, again I ask, who cares about the score? If all someone cares about is running up their own score, then I don't want to play with them. They're likely to be a hindrance or no help when it comes to team objectives or providing support for their teammates when they're in need.

Finally, please don't just claim that these weapons ruin the equilibrium of the game (or say that others are saying that in order to make the argument without having to say you're personally making the argument). Would you mind explaining how this is the case? I've played numerous games with players using the Piranha. My games didn't fall apart, nor was I just sitting there twiddling my thumbs. If a weapon or a character build helps a teammate better contribute to the team's success, then great. I don't care if he ends up with twice the "score" I have. As long as I know we both contributed to the team's success, then I'm fine with it.

[Tyeme Downs]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

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.

You guys are not even addressing to OP any more, your just bickering.

I disagree with the OP.

GP's line by line argument against the OP spent more time arguing the semantics of the OP than the concept(s) within the post.  While I disagree with the OP, I felt that GP's argument was more for the sake of arguing than making any conceptual argument.

Stating "something is either equal, or it is not" is being deliberately obtuse.  (Geez I hate agreeing with GP)  Your oversimplifying a concept.  If we are using only one property at a time to measure with than the statement would be true.  However, we are using multiple and dissimilar properties at the same time.  That's why the equilibrium definition of balance is more fitting.

Modifié par Tyeme Downs, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:54 .

[Draining Dragon]

Yes, but the goal is not for it to be perfectly balanced. The goal is for it to be nearly balanced.

Example: Someone who dislikes the Infiltrator playstyle should not be able to kick ass with it. Being good should require using a playstyle that suits you, not just using a playstyle which is significantly more powerful.

I tried a Krysae infiltrator once, and I didn't like it, but it made the game alot easier than it should have been.

[Grunt_Platform]

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

It is different—The usage in the OP is incorrect and based on a poor understanding of the concept. Correcting him and showing him the underlying meaning and correct usage should hopefully improve the quality of discourse. Also, if the underlying concept of "game balance" is founded on sound logic, it is not a fallacy, whether or not the terminology is misleading. The word fallacy doesn't mean "misleading term," and the underlying concept is important enough to get it right.

Perhaps harping on the word choice would be unfair, but that was not even remotely what GP did, nor anyone else here.

Modifié par EvanKester, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:16 .

[Podboq]

Pitznik wrote...

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.

exactly. mrwizeguy, you haven't made one good arguement. Scratch that, you haven't even made an argument, period. All you've done is personally attack people.

EDIT
typo

Modifié par Podboq, 31 juillet 2012 - 11:53 .

[KalilKareem]

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.

You don't need to take any "suggestions into account", because believe it or not no one cares what you think about game balance. Your inflamatory and immature posting style along with an absolute lack of meaningful contribution only serves to increase the dispartity between "your opinion" and "caring". 

[GodlessPaladin]

[quote]Tyeme Downs wrote...

[quote]GodlessPaladin wrote...

[quote]xtorma wrote...

[quote]GodlessPaladin wrote...

[quote]Cellar_Cat wrote...

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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

He's just being deliberately obtuse.

[/quote]

did you just call me stupid? why?
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

You guys are not even addressing to OP any more, your just bickering.

I disagree with the OP.

GP's line by line argument against the OP spent more time arguing the semantics of the OP than the concept(s) within the post.  While I disagree with the OP, I felt that GP's argument was more for the sake of arguing than making any conceptual argument.[/quote]  I identified a number of logical fallacies and contradictions.  Those are not "minor semantic errors."  Even one completely invalidates an argument.  In addition I pointed out the falsehood or irrelevance of a number of the premises.  You can't actually get a much more direct argument to the core concepts of a post.

Here's the refutation again, which you brush off as not disagreeing with the base concepts.  I'm posting it again because there was the exact same issue when I replied to your thread and you refused to scroll up and continually insisted that I didn't respond to something that I had quoted and addressed... until like 7 other people agreed with me.

I wrote...

Let's comb through this tripe that claims to establish a general logical principle.

[quote]InvincibleHero wrote...

I
have to disagree highly that all things can be balanced. It will never
happen in any game.[/quote]   Symmetrical games like, say, Basketball
are perfectly balanced.  Therefore, your statement is wrong.  <--Step one, completely falsify the entire argument for a general principle by introducing a counterexample.

[quote]You are flat out saying all characters and weapons need to put out the same DPS.[/quote]  Who is "you?"  I've never seen any advocate of balance suggest anything like this in 15 years of being involved in discussions about game design.  This is just you arguing against an obviously wrong position you set up yourself instead of refuting any argument people are actually using.

<---Step two, identify a serious fallacy, wherein he's not actually addressing the issue.

[quote]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.[/quote]  All of these are moot points we can agree on.  None of them actually support your case that "having everything balanced is a fallacy" and are therefore irrelevant.


[quote]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.[/quote]  You are simply dealing with a false premise here e.g. that balance only takes into account DPS.  In fact, your assertion is also fallacious because your own statements prove that it is a false premise, since your own assertion is measuring the usefulness of an ability (Sentry Turret) in terms other than DPS (making your claim that such a measurement is impossible self-contradictory).

<--Identifying a false premise and proving its necessary falsehood by mapping it to a contradiction contained within the argument itself.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

"It's overpowered only in conjunction with other elements, so it's not overpowered at all ever" is self-contradictory.

"The Geth Infiltrator Krysae build with Disruptor Ammo is overpowered." 
"No it's not, because the Geth Infiltrator is using it."
^--See
the problem?  The objection doesn't establish that nothing in the
equation of "Geth Infiltrator Krysae Build with Disruptor Ammo" is
overpowered.  So your argument here is doing nothing to establish that
observing balance issues are a fallacy or anything of the sort.

^---Another contradiction.

[quote]I think the only adjustment it needs is adding weight.[/quote]
  Interesting how you suggest a nerf while you're arguing that balancing in general is a fallacy. 
Seems like doublethink to me.  Since you suggested that a nerf is
necessary (indeed, you used the word "needs"), you are now a nerfer,
congratulations.

^---Pointing out hypocrisy and doublethink.
[quote]To balance all is to kill diversity as everything has to be similar to be fair.[/quote]Two things can be comparably useful without being the same. 

^---Rejecting the core concept entirely.

[quote]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.[/quote] 
You're not establishing balance as a fallacy here.  All you're doing is
alleging that things are already balanced to an acceptable degree. 

And the rest is basically just you repeating yourself and making tinfoil
hat accusations about people's supposed shady motives.  Nowhere in here
do you establish any argumentational form as fallacious, and I suspect
that's because you don't actually know what the word fallacy means.

___

How is that "merely semantic" Tyreme?  There is no argument left at all from the OP.  The only defense given to this was about semantics (e.g. the definition of the word balance), so of course the following arguments by me were addressing semantics.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:09 .

[steverw1975]

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

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.

You wrote, and I'll quote it again so no one has to scroll up for it "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." If you're not stating it outright, you're at least very strongly implying that Biware's attempt to balance weapons and characters is why a lot more people aren't being booted from lobbies. My point was that you were implying causation when no real evidence of causation has been provided. That's a text book case of a post-hoc fallacy.

Additionally, your example of people in fact being booted is a really bad example. People with low levels and low level weapons/gear should be booted from gold/platinum matches...unless they're playing with friends. Like any other game, you need to work your way up, develop your character, and earn better gear on lower levels so that you'll be ready for higher levels. The people you mention aren't being booted because they don't have what you consier to be one of the two optimal builds (which is the discussion in question). They're being booted because they're inexperienced, their characters' powers aren't well developed, their weapons/gear are low level, and they're trying to bite off more than they're ready to chew. In other words, the other players don't want to do their share of the work while they reap the rewards. Playing a gold/platinum match with a grossly inferior or inexperienced players at best leaves you with one less person to provide significant assistance in beating the game, and at worst can get you killed if you actually try to revive them when they keep going down. As such, booting them is not being elitist, it's being rational.

[BiO]

Why do all BSN conversations end up with users insulting each other's intelligence, and completely ignoring the original topic?

[Podboq]

BiO_MaN wrote...

Why do all BSN conversations end up with users insulting each other's intelligence, and completely ignoring the original topic?

Human nature.
It's evolution baby.

[BiO]

Podboq wrote...

BiO_MaN wrote...

Why do all BSN conversations end up with users insulting each other's intelligence, and completely ignoring the original topic?

Human nature.
It's evolution baby.

More like human stupidity. Whoops.

[neurovore]

And this stupid pvp argument is getting old. I never liked pvp and yet, I see a need for _relative_ balance. Those who always use the most powerful setups do not understand why someone would want to play a less powerful one or why people would like to narrow down the chasm between the extremes. Not everyone enjoys playing powerhouse setups, and they shouldn't have to feel _too badly_ penalized for not playing one.

Note, and I feel sad that I even have to say this, but nowhere am I suggesting that everything should be equally powerful, only that the spectrum between good and bad wasn't quite as wide. I am also not saying nerf this or buff that. I don't care how that is eventually achieved, but I would hope that is the general direction. And that is what balance is about. It's a process towards a goal (that may not even be attainable), methods are irrelevant.

Modifié par neurovore, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:17 .

[DHKany]

reading through all this just gave me headache.
To the OP, I get what you're trying to say now, it's just that the way you're putting it across that made this thread turn into a huge argument thread.

[BiO]

neurovore wrote...

And this stupid pvp argument is getting old. I never liked pvp and yet, I see a need for _relative_ balance. Those who always use the most powerful setups do not understand why someone would want to play a less powerful one or why people would like to narrow down the chasm between the extremes. Not everyone feels like playing powerhouse setups, and they shouldn't have to feel too badly penalized for not playing one.

Note, and I feel sad that I even have to say this, but nowhere am I suggesting that everything should be equally powerful, only that the spectrum between good and bad wasn't quite as wide. I am also not saying nerf this or buff that. I don't care how that is eventually achieved, but I would hope that is the general direction. And that is what balance is about. It's a process towards a goal (that may not even be attainable), methods are irrelevant.

All of it can be fixed by removing the score-board.

[Chealec]

steverw1975 wrote...

My argument was that BW created different classifications for weapons and characters, and made some of them more difficult and/or costly to obtain. That being the case, the more difficult and/or costly weapons and characters should be better than the others.

Yes and no; I have no real problem with common weapons being, overall, very slightly worse than uncommon which in turn are very slightly worse than rares (rarity should be a factor in balancing, IMO, just a very small one).

However, Ultra Rares take a long time to unlock, which was fine when the game first came out... but, it IS a game and it's been out for a few months. Having URs being significantly better than rares is nothing more than a barrier to entry for new players - which is, I suspect, why many of the newer, powerful weapons have been rare rather than UR (Krysae, Reegar and Piranha).

steverw1975 wrote...

Will some people whine about others who have played the game much more having better weapons or characters? Of course, but they're going to complain about something anyway. People who have played the game more should have better characters or gear. If not, why would many people feel the need to play as much? When you first start the campaign, do you have all the powers, weapons, and mods you do at the end? Of course not. You have to play the game and earn those things. I don't see why the multi-player mode should be any different.

See above... the game's been out a while, introducing a high barrier to entry for new players will just put them off.

steverw1975 wrote...

Finally, please don't just claim that these weapons ruin the equilibrium of the game (or say that others are saying that in order to make the argument without having to say you're personally making the argument). Would you mind explaining how this is the case? I've played numerous games with players using the Piranha. My games didn't fall apart, nor was I just sitting there twiddling my thumbs. If a weapon or a character build helps a teammate better contribute to the team's success, then great. I don't care if he ends up with twice the "score" I have. As long as I know we both contributed to the team's success, then I'm fine with it.

To be honest I think BioWare have, at least in part, learnt from the Krysae - nothing in the Earth DLC is anywhere near as overpowered as that was at launch.

The Piranha isn't as OP as that but it is still slightly off whack - especially if you compare it to a Disciple which is sort of the closest pre-Earth equivalent - granted the Disciple could use a little buff to ensure it staggers reliably, then it would good.

I've no idea why they buffed the damage on the Piranha... but to reign it in a little I think a huge weight increase would be a bad idea as that would relegate it to only being useful on Destroyers and Demolishers primarily. Reduce the RoF slightly, increase the recoil significantly (and make it climb maybe), increase the shot spread further and effectively reduce the range... that way you would end up with something more like an anti-armour version of the Reegar.

Make the Reegar incompatible with armour piercing mods/ammo and you'd have 2 fairly well balanced guns that performed opposite roles in the same weapon slot... not every gun should be good against every opponent.

[Tyeme Downs]

steverw1975 wrote...


First of all, please don't try to play me like GP did the original poster by focusing on semantics as opposed to the actual argument. I know full well what the word balance means, and I never equated it to everything being the same. My argument was that BW created different classifications for weapons and characters, and made some of them more difficult and/or costly to obtain. That being the case, the more difficult and/or costly weapons and characters should be better than the others.

Will some people whine about others who have played the game much more having better weapons or characters? Of course, but they're going to complain about something anyway. People who have played the game more should have better characters or gear. If not, why would many people feel the need to play as much? When you first start the campaign, do you have all the powers, weapons, and mods you do at the end? Of course not. You have to play the game and earn those things. I don't see why the multi-player mode should be any different.

Now, as for the score, you made a great point. It's an incomplete measure at best. That being the case, again I ask, who cares about the score? If all someone cares about is running up their own score, then I don't want to play with them. They're likely to be a hindrance or no help when it comes to team objectives or providing support for their teammates when they're in need.

Finally, please don't just claim that these weapons ruin the equilibrium of the game (or say that others are saying that in order to make the argument without having to say you're personally making the argument). Would you mind explaining how this is the case? I've played numerous games with players using the Piranha. My games didn't fall apart, nor was I just sitting there twiddling my thumbs. If a weapon or a character build helps a teammate better contribute to the team's success, then great. I don't care if he ends up with twice the "score" I have. As long as I know we both contributed to the team's success, then I'm fine with it.

Play you?  I wasn't trying to play you.  I was trying to tell you that the way you,wote is confusing to the reader because your not breaking it down correctly.  You can't get your message out if the reader is confused or doesn't read what you wrote.  (someone did make a comment about not reading it for that reason)

I might have been able to reply better had your post been easier to read.  However, you seem very hostile.  I don't think I will make any effort to reply to you any more.

[MrFuddyDuddy]

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

Spoken like a true nerf herder, he is saying that if something is slightly better that something else it shouldn't be balanced so that they are made to be exactly the same. While you guys are the kind of people that would prefer a Hurricane X be about as useful as a Locust X, and its thought process's like that that ruin any kind of diversity, so we may as well throw our Krysae's Typhoon's and Piranha's in the garbage because people are going to cry and whine untill they're turned into another Viper, Avenger, and Scimitar. No F**kin thank you.

[TMB903]

There will never be true "balance"...If that's really what the goal is give everyone Avengers,Shurikens,Predators and Katanas and be done with it

[Grunt_Platform]

BiO_MaN wrote...

neurovore wrote...

And this stupid pvp argument is getting old. I never liked pvp and yet, I see a need for _relative_ balance. Those who always use the most powerful setups do not understand why someone would want to play a less powerful one or why people would like to narrow down the chasm between the extremes. Not everyone feels like playing powerhouse setups, and they shouldn't have to feel too badly penalized for not playing one.

Note, and I feel sad that I even have to say this, but nowhere am I suggesting that everything should be equally powerful, only that the spectrum between good and bad wasn't quite as wide. I am also not saying nerf this or buff that. I don't care how that is eventually achieved, but I would hope that is the general direction. And that is what balance is about. It's a process towards a goal (that may not even be attainable), methods are irrelevant.

All of it can be fixed by removing the score-board.

Not really, it would just be harder to see. The power gap between the strong and weak weapons is immediately apparent without score. I make a point of trying to use guns that are fun or different, rather than sticking with just the top-tier weapons.. but the power gap between even the "OK" guns and the godly guns is painfully obvious.

[steverw1975]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

steverw1975 wrote...


First of all, please don't try to play me like GP did the original poster by focusing on semantics as opposed to the actual argument. I know full well what the word balance means, and I never equated it to everything being the same. My argument was that BW created different classifications for weapons and characters, and made some of them more difficult and/or costly to obtain. That being the case, the more difficult and/or costly weapons and characters should be better than the others.

Will some people whine about others who have played the game much more having better weapons or characters? Of course, but they're going to complain about something anyway. People who have played the game more should have better characters or gear. If not, why would many people feel the need to play as much? When you first start the campaign, do you have all the powers, weapons, and mods you do at the end? Of course not. You have to play the game and earn those things. I don't see why the multi-player mode should be any different.

Now, as for the score, you made a great point. It's an incomplete measure at best. That being the case, again I ask, who cares about the score? If all someone cares about is running up their own score, then I don't want to play with them. They're likely to be a hindrance or no help when it comes to team objectives or providing support for their teammates when they're in need.

Finally, please don't just claim that these weapons ruin the equilibrium of the game (or say that others are saying that in order to make the argument without having to say you're personally making the argument). Would you mind explaining how this is the case? I've played numerous games with players using the Piranha. My games didn't fall apart, nor was I just sitting there twiddling my thumbs. If a weapon or a character build helps a teammate better contribute to the team's success, then great. I don't care if he ends up with twice the "score" I have. As long as I know we both contributed to the team's success, then I'm fine with it.

Play you?  I wasn't trying to play you.  I was trying to tell you that the way you,wote is confusing to the reader because your not breaking it down correctly.  You can't get your message out if the reader is confused or doesn't read what you wrote.  (someone did make a comment about not reading it for that reason)

I might have been able to reply better had your post been easier to read.  However, you seem very hostile.  I don't think I will make any effort to reply to you any more.

I'm not all that hostile. If anything, I tend to joke around a lot. I responded the way I did because I felt insulted. I'm a well educated individual and I really didn't appreciate being talked to (or written to in this case) in the manner one would do to a child. I wrote the original post in two paragrahs because I felt I had two main points and the rest expanded on or explained those points...and because the writing I normally do tends to require me to be a little wordier. I did get your point about splitting up the paragraphs, however. This is an internet forum, not a scholarly journal.

[neteng101]

Bioware's Fallacy - Balance will keep replayability value high by ensuring no class or weapon isn't viable, thus providing more gameplay options by keeping the game fun and fresh.

Reality - Balance, gameplay changes and patches have actually reduced the fun factor from the game, and BUGS continue to make some classes/powers unusable.  Power reuse across characters is also another problem that makes balance changes have unintended consequences...  since changing A affects B, C and D, etc.

• Shockwave...  still bugged at least on the PC side.  You can't count on it working when you need it, seems to not work at times, why bother?
• Biotic Charge...  I think its better now, but still terribly lag sensitive.  Forcing hosting as the only option to use a power properly limits a whole class of characters playability.
• Staggering...  still the big issue with some Krogans and Batarians vs. Geth.
• Prime headshots/Atlas cockpit...  used to be something that added a bit more to gameplay.  Now you just shoot aimlessly at them till they go down?  Why not max out DPS, cause otherwise its just a boring waste of time trying to take them down.
• Krysae/Falcon nerfs...  pretty drastic nerfs that make them speciality weapons, when they used to be amongst the best weapons that could be used.  It actually reduces the pool of really good and viable weapon options.
• Hunter Mode nerfs...  a case of power reuse where the weaker Geth Engineer is really the one that gets hit harder, when its the Geth Infiltrator that has all that power.
• Tactical Cloak nerfs...  where a whole class of weapons was made less feasible because of ONE weapon!  Snipers are far less viable.

By nerfing the few good things in the game, there's definitely been unintended consequences, collateral damage, and a reduction in the effectiveness of fun to play classes/weapons.  Thus a reduction in overall fun, but unless the other classes and playstyles are made really viable, then the intent of balance changes and the results indicate the changes are a total failure.

CQC is still far more limited on Gold/Platinum...  a Krogan especially non Vanguard can't just go meleeing all things.  There's times I'd have an enemy right in front of me and my heavy melee goes right past them like they were made of air.  You could give the Krogan 10,000 shields, but even then, instakill units still limit what you can do at times.

It seems like Bioware is chasing an elusive goal, because the design of the powers/characters/weapons, gameplay elements (melee for eg.), power reuse between characters and other differences just doesn't allow for easy balance changes.  They just keep shifting the marks around, but never actually achieve relative balance.

And the fun factor is constantly diminished, the replayability value has gone down because its less fun for the more casual gamers (the hardcore seem to welcome the new challenges to an extent).

So the question I have for Bioware - really, are you meeting any of your intended goals by these balance changes?  You can change preferences of the min/maxers to something else, but that doesn't equate to balance really, its just shuffling the deck.

If your real intent is replayability value and fun, you'd do a lot better just focusing on buffing the lesser used options vs. trying to change the behavior of a group that will never change their playstyle, they'll just find the next best thing to use.  Better to focus on fixing bugs, and stop making the game hard in a cheap manner that lessens the gameplay experience.  And buffing the lesser used options so they are more viable, for the crowd that actually bothers and wants to play all classes/characters/weapons.
[*]Balance if you want - but please make all things GOOD!  Instead of taking the good away by turning it into crap.

Modifié par neteng101, 31 juillet 2012 - 12:44 .

[steverw1975]

Chealec wrote...

steverw1975 wrote...

My argument was that BW created different classifications for weapons and characters, and made some of them more difficult and/or costly to obtain. That being the case, the more difficult and/or costly weapons and characters should be better than the others.

Yes and no; I have no real problem with common weapons being, overall, very slightly worse than uncommon which in turn are very slightly worse than rares (rarity should be a factor in balancing, IMO, just a very small one).

However, Ultra Rares take a long time to unlock, which was fine when the game first came out... but, it IS a game and it's been out for a few months. Having URs being significantly better than rares is nothing more than a barrier to entry for new players - which is, I suspect, why many of the newer, powerful weapons have been rare rather than UR (Krysae, Reegar and Piranha).

steverw1975 wrote...

Will some people whine about others who have played the game much more having better weapons or characters? Of course, but they're going to complain about something anyway. People who have played the game more should have better characters or gear. If not, why would many people feel the need to play as much? When you first start the campaign, do you have all the powers, weapons, and mods you do at the end? Of course not. You have to play the game and earn those things. I don't see why the multi-player mode should be any different.

See above... the game's been out a while, introducing a high barrier to entry for new players will just put them off.

steverw1975 wrote...

Finally, please don't just claim that these weapons ruin the equilibrium of the game (or say that others are saying that in order to make the argument without having to say you're personally making the argument). Would you mind explaining how this is the case? I've played numerous games with players using the Piranha. My games didn't fall apart, nor was I just sitting there twiddling my thumbs. If a weapon or a character build helps a teammate better contribute to the team's success, then great. I don't care if he ends up with twice the "score" I have. As long as I know we both contributed to the team's success, then I'm fine with it.

To be honest I think BioWare have, at least in part, learnt from the Krysae - nothing in the Earth DLC is anywhere near as overpowered as that was at launch.

The Piranha isn't as OP as that but it is still slightly off whack - especially if you compare it to a Disciple which is sort of the closest pre-Earth equivalent - granted the Disciple could use a little buff to ensure it staggers reliably, then it would good.

I've no idea why they buffed the damage on the Piranha... but to reign it in a little I think a huge weight increase would be a bad idea as that would relegate it to only being useful on Destroyers and Demolishers primarily. Reduce the RoF slightly, increase the recoil significantly (and make it climb maybe), increase the shot spread further and effectively reduce the range... that way you would end up with something more like an anti-armour version of the Reegar.

Make the Reegar incompatible with armour piercing mods/ammo and you'd have 2 fairly well balanced guns that performed opposite roles in the same weapon slot... not every gun should be good against every opponent.

How is it a barrier to entry, let alone a high barrier to entry? I can't think of many games that I've gone into without knowing that I was going to have to put in some work to level up. In my opinion that's not a barrier to entry, that's a goal to play towards. It gives you something to achieve, and rewards you with obvious benefits the more you play. If I spend millions of credits to get a level 1 ultra rare, then I want it to be more than slightly better than a weapon I can get to level 10 by buying 10 veteran packs. I don't want it to be so powerful nothing can ever threaten me, but I want it to be noticeably better than something I was using the first week I started playing.

[Imp of the Perverse]

steverw1975 wrote...

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

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.

You wrote, and I'll quote it again so no one has to scroll up for it "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." If you're not stating it outright, you're at least very strongly implying that Biware's attempt to balance weapons and characters is why a lot more people aren't being booted from lobbies. My point was that you were implying causation when no real evidence of causation has been provided. That's a text book case of a post-hoc fallacy.

Additionally, your example of people in fact being booted is a really bad example. People with low levels and low level weapons/gear should be booted from gold/platinum matches...unless they're playing with friends. Like any other game, you need to work your way up, develop your character, and earn better gear on lower levels so that you'll be ready for higher levels. The people you mention aren't being booted because they don't have what you consier to be one of the two optimal builds (which is the discussion in question). They're being booted because they're inexperienced, their characters' powers aren't well developed, their weapons/gear are low level, and they're trying to bite off more than they're ready to chew. In other words, the other players don't want to do their share of the work while they reap the rewards. Playing a gold/platinum match with a grossly inferior or inexperienced players at best leaves you with one less person to provide significant assistance in beating the game, and at worst can get you killed if you actually try to revive them when they keep going down. As such, booting them is not being elitist, it's being rational.

So we both agree that low N7 players are frequently booted from public games because the other players doubt they'll be able to pull their own weight. The fact that this happens shows that people in public servers are willing to boot people that aren't going to be able to do their part. In my experience though, if you're using a level 20 character with a rare, ultra-rare, or high level uncommon weapon, nobody in the lobby is going to reject you, unless your build is completely nonsensical. This implies that those builds are all viable enough to be acceptable. So bioware has succeeded in creating reasonably balanced builds.

[gravitygroove]

Here here to whomever said it but,

Nerf the scoreboard.

It's a co-op game, balance is silly. balance is relative and means different things to different people, (at least in terms of the RESULTS of balancing efforts..) The idea the OP was trying to relay is still valid, even if not expressed with unreasonable levels of precision. Not everyone has to have a masters degree in english to attempt to convey an idea. I feel as though godlesspaladin would be well served to consider that. Condescending to everyone does not contribute to meaningful exchanges.

Address ideas as they are, do not ruthlessly nitpick, say "i get what you were trying to say, here's why i think it's a bad idea..." Not a slightly more lofty equivalent of correcting the posters of the idea's punctuation... Just saying.

Also remember, balance requires a ubiquitous opinion, both on what it means, and what actions need to be taken to achieve it.....and that is just... too idealistic for me to take anyone who attempts "perfect balance" seriously.

Also, fun is more important to me in a co-op game then balance, so lets just remove the scoreboard so no one get's their frail little egos wounded by this and that.