211 réponses à ce sujet

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...

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.
  
  ith 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.

I agree with some of these (for example, I find some of the balance changes questionable, and notably melee is a complete dud. Melee fitness is a potentially interesting option for almost every character if the numbers got changed around a bit... and terrible on almost every character as is) and disagree with others, but this is getting pretty off topic.  I guess the relevant bit is that you're talking about what kind of changes you think should be made, which affirms that you think there's a purpose to balancing (even if you think it's being done wrong).

I mean, you're not actually arguing against the idea of balancing here. You're saying that you think the wrong balance changes are being made. And really, that's what you should be telling Bioware: What changes you think they should be making. 

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:00 .

[Tyeme Downs]

[quote]GodlessPaladin wrote...

[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.
[/quote]

In your opening you quoted "minor semantic errors" and at the end quoted "merely semantic".  Why?  Your implying those are my exact words you are replying to.  They are not.  Why do you need to construct this lie?

Second, you didn't construct your own argument against the OP.  Atleast as far as I could tell.  Instead, you tried to deconstruct his.  If you disagree, construct a counter argument.  You spend all your effort trying to tear others down instead of making a reasonable counter construct of your own ideas.

Tearing down others posts instead of presenting your own counter opinion seems to be your modus operandi.  It comes across as pretentious.  You spend alot of time arguing, create alot of text, but never really say anything.  How many people are you arguing with in this thread?  Is it about the OP's concepts?

Your responding to two lines and a small paragraph of mine.  Look at all those quotes and all that text you used.  Was all that really needed to respond to that little bit I wrote?  Again, it seems pretentious and arguing for arguments sake.

[steverw1975]

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

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.

Again, you're taking an example of a completely different circumstance and trying to claim if as proof of your completely diifferent assertion because you have no actual evidence to support your initial assertion. There is a huge difference between booting someone from a gold/platinum lobby because they're an n7 52 with a character that's level 3 and loaded up with an avenger II and no equipment and booting someone because they're not a GI.

[steverw1975]

gravitygroove wrote...

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.

Amen

[GodlessPaladin]

Tyeme Downs wrote...
In your opening you quoted "minor semantic errors" and at the end quoted "merely semantic".  Why?  Your implying those are my exact words you are replying to.  They are not.  Why do you need to construct this lie?

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. 

I deconstructed the core concepts and premises within the post, not just the semantics.   And your accusation of lying is just plain farfetched reaching for something to insult me with.  It's pretty obvious you have an unreasonable grudge against me that has nothing to do with how I act in this thread.

Second, you didn't construct your own argument against the OP.  Atleast as far as I could tell.  Instead, you tried to deconstruct his.  If you disagree, construct a counter argument.  You spend all your effort trying to tear others down instead of making a reasonable counter construct of your own ideas.

Tearing down others posts instead of presenting your own counter opinion seems to be your modus operandi.  It comes across as pretentious.  You spend alot of time arguing, create alot of text, but never really say anything.  How many people are you arguing with in this thread?  Is it about the OP's concepts?

Uhm, what?  That's how refutations work.   My opinion on the OP's statement is that he's wrong, and that his statement is a load of tripe filled with fallacies, contradictions, false premises, and errors.  Here's why.  The end.   Proper refutations deconstruct and tear down the basis for a conclusion.  That is how civil argument works.

Meanwhile, while I actually make a proper refutation, you just make personal attacks.  Real classy.

Your responding to two lines and a small paragraph of mine. 
Look at all those quotes and all that text you used.  Was all that
really needed to respond to that little bit I wrote?  Again, it seems
pretentious and arguing for arguments sake.

  And now apparently my problem is that I'm thorough.  You will use anything as an insult.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:24 .

[KalilKareem]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Second, you didn't construct your own argument against the OP.  Atleast as far as I could tell.  Instead, you tried to deconstruct his.  If you disagree, construct a counter argument.  You spend all your effort trying to tear others down instead of making a reasonable counter construct of your own ideas.

Tearing down others posts instead of presenting your own counter opinion seems to be your modus operandi.  It comes across as pretentious.  You spend alot of time arguing, create alot of text, but never really say anything.  How many people are you arguing with in this thread?  Is it about the OP's concepts?

Uhm, what?  That's how refutations work.   My opinion on the OP's statement is that he's wrong.  Here's why.  The end.   Proper refutations deconstruct and tear down the basis for a conclusion.  That is how civil argument works.

You do not have to refute. You can also respond to an argument by means of counter-argument. In this example the OP claimed that balance is impossible and undesirable. By construting an argument why balance is possible and desirable you can counter the OP without dissceting and deconstructing each of his arguments. This method is almost always more efficient and generates a lot less conflict (no one likes having their arguments deconstructed). 

[Vlta]

Before this thread gets locked or dies, I gotta say +1 to the thread and the amount of arrogance running through it, especially GP (because it always seems to respond with a holier than thou response). Damn people take the internet and their games way too seriously.

[steverw1975]

I have to say Godless, reading your posts on this thread is like watching a boxing match where one of the competitors is less concerned with landing a punch than he is avoiding being punched. It can be effective at times (especially if you frustrate your opponent), but it really doesn't do much for the sport or its popularity. Perhaps the OP could have worded things better, but you knew what he was trying to say. Instead of debating the merits (or lack thereof depending on your opinion) of his post, you launched into a debate on the meaning of the words fallacy and balance that reminded me more of discussion I had in my Metaphysics class in grad school than a debate over BW's attempts to balance the multiplayer mode of ME3.

[neurovore]

gravitygroove wrote...
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.

See, this is where the OP (and others like him/her) fails, and the reason why threads like these get so much flak. They make an absolute claims that define "nerf herders" as a bunch of people who want every weapon to deal 0 damage. To them, any nerf is the end of the world. Even if they often admit to nerfs and buffs being sometimes needed. But I guess that's different, somehow...

They relish on strawmen. When someone points out that try are incorrect and why, they either ignore it entirely, fail to come up with a sustainable defense or resort to ad hominem attacks, instead to admitting any kind of exaggeration, overreaction or error on their part. They then make more strawmen to support the original claim, and when someone again points out that this isn't true either, the same thing happens over and over.

[Chealec]

steverw1975 wrote...

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.

It's a barrier to entry insofar as, should URs be significantly more powerful than rares, as in so much so that higher difficulties are considerably harder without URs, then those difficulties are effectively restricted only to people who have been playing for a long, long time.

Admittedly it's a hypothetical situation as there are rares which are at least as powerful as URs (Piranha vs Wraith for instance) - what URs really do is provide diversity not vastly superior firepower... Black Widow and Harrier notwithstanding.

The Talon, Paladin, and Scorpion aren't massively more powerful than the Carnifex but they do perform differently and provide variety ... strangely, I don't think the Carnifex is massively more powerful than the Phalanx owing to the Phalanx's faster fire rate.

So the higher tier weapons don't need to be hugely more powerful, just provide variety to open up more viable play-styles.

For instance, until you've got a Black Widow, your most effective sniper/infil build on gold will probably be a Salarian with either a Mantis or a Widow (or perhaps a GI with a Viper/Raptor - though the GI is, of course, rare) - once you've levelled the Black Widow up some it opens up more play-styles.

Actually, gear achieves the same thing as well...

[GodlessPaladin]

KalilKareem wrote...By construting an argument why balance is possible and desirable

And here I could have sworn I had a post a few pages long on that.  I don't generally repost my opinions over and over.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:28 .

[Imp of the Perverse]

steverw1975 wrote...

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

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.

Again, you're taking an example of a completely different circumstance and trying to claim if as proof of your completely diifferent assertion because you have no actual evidence to support your initial assertion. 

It's not completely different. In both cases, you're in the same lobby situation, in the same game, looking at a random player's character and weapons and trying to decide if they're going to be a liability. 

That "there is a huge difference between booting someone from a gold/platinum lobby because they're an n7 52 with a character that's level 3 and loaded up with an avenger II and no equipment and booting someone because they're not a GI" is exactly my point. There isn't a large enough disparity between the various characters, or between the various mid to high level weapons, to warrant a kick, in a game where players frequently demonstrate a willingness to kick people based on their predicted proficiency.

[LennethValkyrie]

I wish I had enough patience to read all these walls of thext..

[BlackbirdSR-71C]

KalilKareem wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Second, you didn't construct your own argument against the OP.  Atleast as far as I could tell.  Instead, you tried to deconstruct his.  If you disagree, construct a counter argument.  You spend all your effort trying to tear others down instead of making a reasonable counter construct of your own ideas.

Tearing down others posts instead of presenting your own counter opinion seems to be your modus operandi.  It comes across as pretentious.  You spend alot of time arguing, create alot of text, but never really say anything.  How many people are you arguing with in this thread?  Is it about the OP's concepts?

Uhm, what?  That's how refutations work.   My opinion on the OP's statement is that he's wrong.  Here's why.  The end.   Proper refutations deconstruct and tear down the basis for a conclusion.  That is how civil argument works.

You do not have to refute. You can also respond to an argument by means of counter-argument. In this example the OP claimed that balance is impossible and undesirable. By construting an argument why balance is possible and desirable you can counter the OP without dissceting and deconstructing each of his arguments. This method is almost always more efficient and generates a lot less conflict (no one likes having their arguments deconstructed). 

So you shouldn't prove him wrong by showing him that he makes false assumptions, you should prove him wrong by ignoring that he makes false assumptions, taking them for real, and countering them?

That's lying.

[steverw1975]

Chealec wrote...

steverw1975 wrote...

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.

It's a barrier to entry insofar as, should URs be significantly more powerful than rares, as in so much so that higher difficulties are considerably harder without URs, then those difficulties are effectively restricted only to people who have been playing for a long, long time.

Admittedly it's a hypothetical situation as there are rares which are at least as powerful as URs (Piranha vs Wraith for instance) - what URs really do is provide diversity not vastly superior firepower... Black Widow and Harrier notwithstanding.

The Talon, Paladin, and Scorpion aren't massively more powerful than the Carnifex but they do perform differently and provide variety ... strangely, I don't think the Carnifex is massively more powerful than the Phalanx owing to the Phalanx's faster fire rate.

So the higher tier weapons don't need to be hugely more powerful, just provide variety to open up more viable play-styles.

For instance, until you've got a Black Widow, your most effective sniper/infil build on gold will probably be a Salarian with either a Mantis or a Widow (or perhaps a GI with a Viper/Raptor - though the GI is, of course, rare) - once you've levelled the Black Widow up some it opens up more play-styles.

Actually, gear achieves the same thing as well...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think people brand new to the game should be playing platinum. At least I don't want them in my group. I thought that BW designed platinum as an extra difficult level for experienced players, especially with all the pre-release discussion of how a lot of people at Bioware couldn't extract. So, let the brand new players get a little experience at the lower levels so that they actually learn how best to use their powers and abilities, and so that they know what their enemies will be capable of. While they're gaining that experience, they'll also be buying packs and getting better weapons and gear. As for a long, long time, I saw an n7 72 the other day with the Typhoon. Unfortunately he had it and a widow (or black widow, i forget) on his adept...and no, his adept wasn't at such a low level that regeneration time didn't matter.

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

I guess the relevant bit is that
you're talking about what kind of changes you think should be made,
which affirms that you think there's a purpose to balancing (even if you
think it's being done wrong).


I mean, you're not actually arguing against the idea of
balancing here. You're saying that you think the wrong balance changes
are being made. And really, that's what you should be telling Bioware:
What changes you think they should be making.

I'm just looking at it from a totally rational viewpoint - balance as a tool, and how it is being used by Bioware to achieve their goals.  If I understand their goal correctly, then they indeed seem to be doing it wrong, plus not using other tools such as fixing bugs via actual patches (granted, it takes far lot more effort to do this but using a hammer to drive a screw in is just plain wrong).

The game is far too complex to simply tweak by balance alone...  thus why all the other tools such as patches and changes introduced in DLCs must also be utilized.  Even then, power reuse between characters means there's often unintended consequences.

The latest Krysae nerf indicates that they've exhausted their available options...  it was the Krysae GI that caused the trouble, first they mess with a token weapon nerf, Hunter Mode which affected the GE, Tactical Cloak which affected a whole class of characters, and then reduce the weapon that started the big problem to insignficance thereabouts.  Clearly a case where they really stretched balance changes too far.

I propose a more realistic approach, one that doesn't strive for nearly the relative perfection that you and Bioware seem to be looking for.  By carefully buffing certains powers and characters, like how they made QFE changes, you don't turn knobs that totally change how the game plays.  It does make the QFE more viable/playable though some say you can go further with this even.  The only complains were that they didn't do enough (which means, people actually cared for these changes, and the interest in that particular character was raised).

The Proximity Mine buff...  more for the Turian Soldier really, shouldn't have happened, given power reuse.  Powers like Incinerate and Cyro Blast can still be worked on.

This gentle approach to balance may not achieve near perfection, but it doesn't upset people the way nerfs do.  It still promotes greater replayability if that is BIoware's intended goal.  Producing more bug fixes and gameplay changes like making melee actually viable on harder difficulty levels plus reducing the game's sensitivity to lag issues further enhances the gaming experience and longevity.

This is an actual win-win approach.  Bioware doesn't have to alienate/upset part of their playerbase, and the community wouldn't be full of the strive and conflict we see everyday on these forums.  But they're close to the point of no return now...  the 2nd Krysae nerf if anything reflects the failures of Bioware's current approach to balancing.

[Tyeme Downs]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Tyeme Downs wrote...
In your opening you quoted "minor semantic errors" and at the end quoted "merely semantic".  Why?  Your implying those are my exact words you are replying to.  They are not.  Why do you need to construct this lie?

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. 

I deconstructed the core concepts and premises within the post, not just the semantics.   And your accusation of lying is just plain farfetched reaching for something to insult me with.  It's pretty obvious you have an unreasonable grudge against me that has nothing to do with how I act in this thread.

Second, you didn't construct your own argument against the OP.  Atleast as far as I could tell.  Instead, you tried to deconstruct his.  If you disagree, construct a counter argument.  You spend all your effort trying to tear others down instead of making a reasonable counter construct of your own ideas.

Tearing down others posts instead of presenting your own counter opinion seems to be your modus operandi.  It comes across as pretentious.  You spend alot of time arguing, create alot of text, but never really say anything.  How many people are you arguing with in this thread?  Is it about the OP's concepts?

Uhm, what?  That's how refutations work.   My opinion on the OP's statement is that he's wrong, and that his statement is a load of tripe filled with fallacies, contradictions, false premises, and errors.  Here's why.  The end.   Proper refutations deconstruct and tear down the basis for a conclusion.  That is how civil argument works.

Meanwhile, while I actually make a proper refutation, you just make personal attacks.  Real classy.

Your responding to two lines and a small paragraph of mine. 
Look at all those quotes and all that text you used.  Was all that
really needed to respond to that little bit I wrote?  Again, it seems
pretentious and arguing for arguments sake.

  And now apparently my problem is that I'm thorough.  You will use anything as an insult.

Jesus, stop arguing for a second a listen to what I'm trying to tell you.  Your point is NOT being made other than you disagree with the OP.  Why you disagree is being lost.  I assume you have a REASON for disagreeing with the OP, but I don't know what it is exactly. 

Your losing the reader!  Not all, but enough of them that it matters if your trying to reach them.  If your not trying to reach them, what's the point of posting other than arguing for arguments sake? 




Misquoting someone is creating a lie.  Saying "your accusation of lying is just plain farfetched reaching for something to insult me with" is muddying the waters with a counter accusation.  You misquoted me and created a lie through misrepresentation.  I called you on it.  A reasonable person would atleast admit they shouldn't have misquoted me.

Modifié par Tyeme Downs, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:45 .

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...

I'm just looking at it from a totally rational viewpoint - balance as a tool, and how it is being used by Bioware to achieve their goals.  If I understand their goal correctly, then they indeed seem to be doing it wrong, plus not using other tools such as fixing bugs via actual patches (granted, it takes far lot more effort to do this but using a hammer to drive a screw in is just plain wrong).

  Keep in mind, Bioware has clarified that different teams work on weekly balance changes and patches.  Balance changes are not coming to us at the cost of focus on patches.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 02:03 .

[KalilKareem]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

KalilKareem wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Second, you didn't construct your own argument against the OP.  Atleast as far as I could tell.  Instead, you tried to deconstruct his.  If you disagree, construct a counter argument.  You spend all your effort trying to tear others down instead of making a reasonable counter construct of your own ideas.

Tearing down others posts instead of presenting your own counter opinion seems to be your modus operandi.  It comes across as pretentious.  You spend alot of time arguing, create alot of text, but never really say anything.  How many people are you arguing with in this thread?  Is it about the OP's concepts?

Uhm, what?  That's how refutations work.   My opinion on the OP's statement is that he's wrong.  Here's why.  The end.   Proper refutations deconstruct and tear down the basis for a conclusion.  That is how civil argument works.

You do not have to refute. You can also respond to an argument by means of counter-argument. In this example the OP claimed that balance is impossible and undesirable. By construting an argument why balance is possible and desirable you can counter the OP without dissceting and deconstructing each of his arguments. This method is almost always more efficient and generates a lot less conflict (no one likes having their arguments deconstructed). 

So you shouldn't prove him wrong by showing him that he makes false assumptions, you should prove him wrong by ignoring that he makes false assumptions, taking them for real, and countering them?

That's lying.

There is no particular need to prove anyone wrong unless it is just an argument you are after. In almost all debates and discussions valid arguments can be made for both sides. By focusing on making your own arguments as strong as possible you shorten the time to reach conscesus and reduce the risk for conflict.

[GodlessPaladin]

Tyeme Downs wrote...
Jesus, stop arguing for a second a listen to what I'm trying to tell you.  Your point is NOT being made other
than you disagree with the OP.  Why you disagree is being lost.  I assume you have a REASON for disagreeing with the OP, but I don't know what it is exactly. 

It really should not be so hard to grasp.  Maybe false premises, false assumptions, contradictions, and obvious fallacies aren't reason enough for you to disagree with an argument, but they are for me.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:51 .

[Miniditka77]

InvincibleHero wrote...

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

No.  Nobody is saying this.  If you think anyone is saying this, then you are listening to whiners who either aren't smart enough to understand the balancing argument, don't even try to understand it, or do understand it and are intentionally spouting misinformation.  Nobody wants everything to put out the same DPS.  The goal of balancing is to try to make a variety of different play styles equally viable, and to not have one play style be clearly superior.  DPS is only one aspect of viability.

Modifié par Miniditka77, 31 juillet 2012 - 01:52 .

[KalilKareem]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

KalilKareem wrote...By construting an argument why balance is possible and desirable

And here I could have sworn I had a post a few pages long on that.  I don't generally repost my opinions over and over.

Well, thats great! Do you notice how those opions are not creating a lot of bickering and arguing about arguing? But how your clever and witty decunstruction of the OP argumentation is? Maybe we can even agree that arguing semantics in this thread may even have served to obscure your own arguments on the topic at hand? 

[TMB903]

I love the post where it's suggested removing scoreboard..great idea

[steverw1975]

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

steverw1975 wrote...

Imp of the Perverse wrote...

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.

Again, you're taking an example of a completely different circumstance and trying to claim if as proof of your completely diifferent assertion because you have no actual evidence to support your initial assertion. 

It's not completely different. In both cases, you're in the same lobby situation, in the same game, looking at a random player's character and weapons and trying to decide if they're going to be a liability. 

That "there is a huge difference between booting someone from a gold/platinum lobby because they're an n7 52 with a character that's level 3 and loaded up with an avenger II and no equipment and booting someone because they're not a GI" is exactly my point. There isn't a large enough disparity between the various characters, or between the various mid to high level weapons, to warrant a kick, in a game where players frequently demonstrate a willingness to kick people based on their predicted proficiency.

Ok, this is my last post on this specific discussion because if this keeps up I might have to slam my head off the nearest wall. I point out the ridiculousness of your comparison, and you pretty much come back at me (again) with "see, like I said, there's a comparison" (note: this is simply to point out the idea, not a claim that you made this exact statement). The only similarity between booting someone for being a complete newbie trying to join in an advanced game and booting someone for not having one of what you consider the two best builds is that in both cases someone ends up booted. The biggest differnce between the two? Simple. There's abundant evidence of my circumstance and none of yours. So, you're trying to use evidence of a non-related occurrence to prove your assertion. Quite simply, there is no evidence that there would be mass bootings of all but two (or even 4) specific class builds had Bioware not nerfed certain classes or weapons.

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Keep in mind, Bioware has clarified that different teams work on weekly balance changes and patches.  Balance changes are not coming to us at the cost of focus on patches.

Still doesn't change the reality that some things they try to do with balance changes really needed actual patches.  They buffed Shockware, and Krogan Rage, but patches are necessary here.  I'm still lost on Rage - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but most seem to think its still not working as intended?

Its not a question of resource allocation...  you just can't use the wrong tool and try to sweep problems under the carpet.

Modifié par neteng101, 31 juillet 2012 - 02:10 .