211 réponses à ce sujet

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...
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.

Also worth noting, power creep does upset and alienate player bases.  This is a well known issue throughout gaming.

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

[Podboq]

KalilKareem wrote...

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.

Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.
If someone's argument is faulty, you should point it out. Not wanting to hurt someones feelings is not a good enough reason to not tell them they're talking ****. If they can't handle any conflicting points, they shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

[ryanshowseason3]

DHKany wrote...

Balance and sameness are two different things.

This. Balance changes are not out to homogenize the game. I'm not sure how you came to that brilliant conclusion.

Also yah it would be so much better if BW comepletely ignored the game and let rocket glitchers and krysae be the end all be all options. That would have been fabulous.

[Tyeme Downs]

steverw1975 wrote...

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.

I would have to disagree somewhat here.  While generally, new players don't have the skillset to compete at the highest difficulty, some do.  Should they be barred from the highest difficulty only because they are new.  At what point are they no longer considered new?

Secondly, if UR are going to be significantly stronger than common weapons, should players who have them be barred from lower difficulties?  After all, they have a significant advantage over "new" players.  If new players are taking away from veteran players at the highest difficulty because they are under equipt, isn't the reverse true?  Aren't veteran players with UR's taking away from the new players experience at lower difficulty?

So, BW setting benchmarks to bar players from certain difficulties would, imho, be bad policy.  It would cause far more problems than it solved.  Allowing players to decide who they want to play with based on their own criteria is probably best.

[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...

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.

There's another similarity. In both cases the player is booted because they look like they're going to be a liability.

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Also worth noting, power creep does upset and alienate player bases.  This is a well known issue throughout gaming.

The
question here is how much of the player base then.  Power creep is an
unfortunate necessity...  because of the store unlock system, Bioware
needs carrots.  It might come down to picking between casual gamers who
might be more apt to pay to unlock something really cool since they
don't play as much, vs. a small percentage of hardcore gamers, who are
far less likely to engage in micro transactions.  The right decision
(for Bioware) would be to cater to the shareholders of EA first, ie.
maximize profits.

And a reasonable approach here is to limit
power creep but not eliminate it entirely.  If they had relabeled the
Krysae to an Assault Rifle, a lot of the issues would have gone away. 
People that supported the Tactical Cloak nerf because they didn't want
to see the Krysae nerfed on other characters, would still have a more viable weapon to use on
non-Infiltrators today too.  The Krysae is proof positive that their
approach today is flawed and the end results is far worse than what a
more resonable approach would have resulted in.

[GodlessPaladin]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

KalilKareem wrote...
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.

It's definitely not very productive.  You can't have much of a discussion before you get past fallacies, false assumptions, and self-contradictions.  Especially straw man arguments, since they're not actually responding to a real person.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 02:17 .

[david_demos484]

Your title to the thread is "Why having everything baklanced is a falacy." In your post you gave numerous reasons why.. then you said

InvincibleHero OP wrote...

I think the only adjustment it needs is adding weight.

I stopped reading.. if balacing is a falacy then why are you giving balance advice for the pirahna?

[Thaxor]

Just going to leave this here for you OP...

http://penny-arcade....ode/power-creep

Basic elements of game balanced explained by cartoons, ya!

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Also worth noting, power creep does upset and alienate player bases.  This is a well known issue throughout gaming.

The question here is how much of the player base then.  Power creep is an unfortunate necessity...  because of the store unlock system, Bioware needs carrots.

You know, I can think of a few games that have carrots without power creep.  The guy in the linked Extra Credits video likes League of Legends as an example.  So... I reject the premise that power creep is a necessity.

New and interesting content is a fantastic carrot... it's just not as easy to make.  But that shouldn't stop you from demanding it as a consumer instead of settling for power creep. 

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 02:28 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

I would have to disagree somewhat here.  While generally, new players don't have the skillset to compete at the highest difficulty, some do.  Should they be barred from the highest difficulty only because they are new.  At what point are they no longer considered new?

Secondly, if UR are going to be significantly stronger than common weapons, should players who have them be barred from lower difficulties?  After all, they have a significant advantage over "new" players.  If new players are taking away from veteran players at the highest difficulty because they are under equipt, isn't the reverse true?  Aren't veteran players with UR's taking away from the new players experience at lower difficulty?

So, BW setting benchmarks to bar players from certain difficulties would, imho, be bad policy.  It would cause far more problems than it solved.  Allowing players to decide who they want to play with based on their own criteria is probably best.

I think this comes down to Bioware not being decisive about how they choose to implement multiplayer.

There's nothing wrong with either a tier system, where a player has to work his way to the hardest difficulty through the acquisition of experience/gear, or an open system, where any player can start at the bottom or the top.

But in keeping with this, there have been mistakes along the way. For example, that we can see another player's class/weapon, but not their spec (which I consider to be more informative) is a huge flaw in game design. Once  a player passes a certain N7 ranking, I generally don't give a crap about their rank. Mass Effect 3 also appears to promote a tier system based around gear, but the player acquiring gear/classes through an RNG system doesn't do much to promote skill. This isn't trading cards, we should be able to view our acquisitions before they're made.

[neurovore]

KalilKareem wrote...
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).

The OP is basically paraphrasing these so-called "nerf herders". When he's asked to point out a single person who has suggested making the kinds of claims he accuses these nerf herders of, he cannot produce one. Not one. His arguments are fueled by assumptions, but when he's asked to provide evidence to support his claims, he just accuses people of something else. It doesn't matter what you tell people like this. If you try to reason with them, they just ignore you, so tearing them apart might be more entertaining. Dunno. I try to avoid it myself, but having written at least one long post in this thread that no one has commented on, I can definitely see how proper argumentation becomes just frustrating.

[steverw1975]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

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.

Wow. Again, you either miss the point or ignore it completely. Maybe the OP could have worded things better. Fine. If that bothers you so much correct his errors in the first paragraph. Then, transition into the 2nd with something like:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you meant to say was such and such. If so, then this is why I disagree or think you're wrong.

What's so difficult about that? You make your point about his use of language, and then you make your counter argument concerning the actual point he was trying to make. Instead, it's post after post doing nothing but dismissing the argument as a whole based on poor wording. In other words, you're trying to dismiss the argument by dismissing someone making the argument. Your method adds little, if anything, to the real debate that seems to be dominating this forum.

[KalilKareem]

Podboq wrote...
Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Maybe you are right. But I have yet to see any great results emerging from conflict on a message boards about computer games.

Podboq wrote... 
If someone's argument is faulty, you should point it out. Not wanting to hurt someones feelings is not a good enough reason to not tell them they're talking ****.
 

  

Why should I neccessarily point of faulty arguments? It is more efficient to prove myself right. And infinitely more convincing to the assumed public I am trying to win over on my side.

Podboq wrote...  
If they can't handle any conflicting points, they shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

Maybe you are right. But who are you and I to dictate who gets to express an opinion on a public forum? When an expression of opinion and the discussion thereof turns into an argument is up to the participants. Often it starts by a careful and slightly meanspirited deconstruction of arguments.

[GodlessPaladin]

steverw1975 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...
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.

Maybe the OP could have worded things better. Fine. If that bothers you so much correct his errors in the first paragraph. Then, transition into the 2nd with something like:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you meant to say was such and such. If so, then this is why I disagree or think you're wrong.

What's so difficult about that?

I think he meant to say just what he said. There is no way I can think of to twist what he said into something that is not fundamentally based on false assumptions. I disagree and think he is wrong because his argument is based on a core of false assumptions and fallacious reasoning. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 31 juillet 2012 - 02:26 .

[atum]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

neteng101 wrote...
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.

Also worth noting, power creep does upset and alienate player bases.  This is a well known issue throughout gaming.

And profit margins.  Nerfs + consumables = more packs sold.  (oversimplification, but you get my point I'm sure)

Ever notice that power creep is like a rollercoaster in this game?

I find it hard to believe that they didnt forsee an exploding AOE sniper rifle as being over powered before they released it.

Anyways, I'm all for balance, but BW has more at stake than a balanced game.  So I dont see the need to come down on either side of the argument.  Bioware can fight their own battle with what gets nerfered or buffed with the masses.

I just wanted to point out the not often mentioned aspect of the being a 'freemium' game is definitely something that has an effect on what weapon gets what stats.  The exact amount, and to what end, is hard to speculate however.  But it seems naive to work from the assumption that they even want balance.


/Also lol@ the OP's fallacy arguments.  Ironical.

[Buckapocka]

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.
• 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.

[Buckapocka]

@neteng101 sorry, but I can't quite properly on my phone...

But, You sir have the pure truth! I completely agree with your post and that is exactly what I'm thinking!

I hope that somebody at Bioware reads that, and spreads the good words amongst these poor souls lost in the forest of endless "balancing" issues!

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

You know, I can think of a few games that have carrots without power creep.  Like League of Legends.  Has kept the game going much longer than ME3 multiplayer has, hasn't it?

New and interesting content is a fantastic carrot... it's just not as easy to make.  But that shouldn't stop you from demanding it as a consumer.

I don't know much about LoL, but in the context of ME3, power creep has happened on both the player and horde ends.  At the end of the day, it does seem like the game is actually a bit harder today, and more boring too (as a result of horde balance/patch changes).  The 4-GI Krysae is a corner case example...  the real issue is that difficulty has been added in cheap ways by horde balance changes/patches, which further limits the viability of some builds over others.

Given the balance changes today, the end result is actually harder ME3, not easier...  power creep on the player end is being stamped out, while power creep on the horde side make them tougher opponents.  Difficulty increase in the game is resulting in actually less diversity as certain strategies/builds make an even greater difference now as difficulty rises.

If I understand Bioware's motivations, I'd have to say they're going about thing in all the wrong ways.  The balance nerfs doesn't align to their goals.

[steverw1975]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

steverw1975 wrote...

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.

I would have to disagree somewhat here.  While generally, new players don't have the skillset to compete at the highest difficulty, some do.  Should they be barred from the highest difficulty only because they are new.  At what point are they no longer considered new?

Secondly, if UR are going to be significantly stronger than common weapons, should players who have them be barred from lower difficulties?  After all, they have a significant advantage over "new" players.  If new players are taking away from veteran players at the highest difficulty because they are under equipt, isn't the reverse true?  Aren't veteran players with UR's taking away from the new players experience at lower difficulty?

So, BW setting benchmarks to bar players from certain difficulties would, imho, be bad policy.  It would cause far more problems than it solved.  Allowing players to decide who they want to play with based on their own criteria is probably best.

Players can decide who they play with, and I'm all for that. I'm not talking about barring people from any level. If they have friends who are willing to help them out, or find randoms willing to do the same, more power to them. I've invited new players into gold matches I've started many times because they were friends of friends. What I was saying is that I don't want to play gold/platinum matches with new players I don't know or who don't have friends I know to vouch for them.

Now, if this were PvP, then yes, I'd say bar leveled up players from bronze since it's highly unlikely that new players could compete with them. Since it's co-op, however, a leveled up player would simply make victory easier for lower level players. So, in this case, no I wouldn't bar them.

As for having the right skill set, when is that ever enough? I've played quite a few RPGs, and I'm quite good at them. That doesn't mean that when I start a new RPG my character should be at max level and I should have the best gear in the game. I'm a firm believer in earning your character development. If a new player has the skills to take on a gold match with a low level character and low level gear, more power to him. I'd certainly be willing to give him/her the proverbial pat on the back (or what passes for that online). Other than that scenario, however, this isn't HALO. If the developers programmed the game so that you had to earn xp to level up your character and fully unlock their abilities, and they made it so that you had to play the game to earn credits so that you could buy packs to get better weapons and gear, it seems pretty clear that the intention was to make the player earn their development just like they have to in the campaign.

[Tyeme Downs]

KalilKareem wrote...

Podboq wrote...
Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Maybe you are right. But I have yet to see any great results emerging from conflict on a message boards about computer games.

Podboq wrote... 
If someone's argument is faulty, you should point it out. Not wanting to hurt someones feelings is not a good enough reason to not tell them they're talking ****.
 

  

Why should I neccessarily point of faulty arguments? It is more efficient to prove myself right. And infinitely more convincing to the assumed public I am trying to win over on my side.

Podboq wrote...  
If they can't handle any conflicting points, they shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

Maybe you are right. But who are you and I to dictate who gets to express an opinion on a public forum? When an expression of opinion and the discussion thereof turns into an argument is up to the participants. Often it starts by a careful and slightly meanspirited deconstruction of arguments.

Also, taking quotes out of context often changes their meaning.  Often, this can make parts or all of a line by line deconstruction a lie.

[Podboq]

KalilKareem wrote...

Podboq wrote...
Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Maybe you are right. But I have yet to see any great results emerging from conflict on a message boards about computer games.

Podboq wrote... 
If someone's argument is faulty, you should point it out. Not wanting to hurt someones feelings is not a good enough reason to not tell them they're talking ****.
 

  

Why should I neccessarily point of faulty arguments? It is more efficient to prove myself right. And infinitely more convincing to the assumed public I am trying to win over on my side.

Podboq wrote...  
If they can't handle any conflicting points, they shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

Maybe you are right. But who are you and I to dictate who gets to express an opinion on a public forum? When an expression of opinion and the discussion thereof turns into an argument is up to the participants. Often it starts by a careful and slightly meanspirited deconstruction of arguments.

Of
course OP should be aloud to express his opinion, noone is saying
otherwise. We should also be aloud to express our opinions. My opinion is that his argument is BS.

"Why should I neccessarily point of faulty arguments?"
If someone is saying something untrue, I'm gonna call them on it. It's as simple as that.
Not disputing a faulty argument is a tacit agreement that that argument is sound. When in this case the argument is most definitely not sound.

As others have said, he invalidates his own point in the OP.
He says he thinks balancing is pointless, then he goes ahead to tell us how he thinks the piranha should be balanced.

[Tyeme Downs]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

neteng101 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Also worth noting, power creep does upset and alienate player bases.  This is a well known issue throughout gaming.

The question here is how much of the player base then.  Power creep is an unfortunate necessity...  because of the store unlock system, Bioware needs carrots.

You know, I can think of a few games that have carrots without power creep.  The guy in the linked Extra Credits video likes League of Legends as an example.  So... I reject the premise that power creep is a necessity.

New and interesting content is a fantastic carrot... it's just not as easy to make.  But that shouldn't stop you from demanding it as a consumer instead of settling for power creep. 

I would agree than power creep is NOT a necessity.  For example, new character costumes do not add to character creep.  New doesn't have to be more powerful or "better".  The fact that it is new content will usually be enough to be a carrot.

[Tyeme Downs]

Podboq wrote...

KalilKareem wrote...

Podboq wrote...
Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Maybe you are right. But I have yet to see any great results emerging from conflict on a message boards about computer games.

Podboq wrote... 
If someone's argument is faulty, you should point it out. Not wanting to hurt someones feelings is not a good enough reason to not tell them they're talking ****.
 

  

Why should I neccessarily point of faulty arguments? It is more efficient to prove myself right. And infinitely more convincing to the assumed public I am trying to win over on my side.

Podboq wrote...  
If they can't handle any conflicting points, they shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

Maybe you are right. But who are you and I to dictate who gets to express an opinion on a public forum? When an expression of opinion and the discussion thereof turns into an argument is up to the participants. Often it starts by a careful and slightly meanspirited deconstruction of arguments.

Of
course OP should be aloud to express his opinion, noone is saying
otherwise. We should also be aloud to express our opinions. My opinion is that his argument is BS.

"Why should I neccessarily point of faulty arguments?"
If someone is saying something untrue, I'm gonna call them on it. It's as simple as that.
Not disputing a faulty argument is a tacit agreement that that argument is sound. When in this case the argument is most definitely not sound.

As others have said, he invalidates his own point in the OP.
He says he thinks balancing is pointless, then he goes ahead to tell us how he thinks the piranha should be balanced.

"Not disputing a faulty argument is a tacit agreement that that argument is sound."  I don't believe this at all.  Some arguments are just not worth responding to.

[darkblade]

KalilKareem wrote...

Podboq wrote...
Conflict isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Maybe you are right. But I have yet to see any great results emerging from conflict on a message boards about computer games.

Podboq wrote... 
If someone's argument is faulty, you should point it out. Not wanting to hurt someones feelings is not a good enough reason to not tell them they're talking ****.
 

  

Why should I neccessarily point of faulty arguments? It is more efficient to prove myself right. And infinitely more convincing to the assumed public I am trying to win over on my side.

Podboq wrote...  
If they can't handle any conflicting points, they shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

Maybe you are right. But who are you and I to dictate who gets to express an opinion on a public forum? When an expression of opinion and the discussion thereof turns into an argument is up to the participants. Often it starts by a careful and slightly meanspirited deconstruction of arguments.

From what I know they only do that in the hood and its called outlouding people. Trying to win an arguement by simply trying to make yourself more right is almost always the most lengthy time consuming method. 

How did you win an argument if the opponents point was right, and your point was right but you just keep adding data to your own argument? His argument didnt get any weaker. I'd like you to link me to an important debate where the parties didnt pick at faults in the others logic to strengthen their own case.