211 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyeme Downs]

Buckapocka wrote...

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.

Good post.  As a player, I can't tell what they are "balancing" to either.  It seems that reference point changes.

[Tyeme Downs]

darkblade 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.

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.

Nice.  However, if all you do is weaken their argument without making any counter argument, you have not accomplished anything but argued.  The weakened case stands unopposed.  Weakened, but unopposed.

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...
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.

I disagree with this idea.  The game has become easier since its inception.  Consider that in ye olden days, the Human Infiltrator with a Claymore was straight up one of the best things in the game.

Since then, what happened to him?

To copypasta/paraphrase from another of my posts...

1)  He got replaced by the superpowered version of the same thing... the Geth Infiltrator with a Claymore.  And this guy isn't just a little better... oh no.  This is a whole new league of character outfitted with a speed boost, more damage, wallhacks, accuracy buff, ROF buff, and his version of cryo blast can be set as a trap, deal fairly high damage and stagger in a wide area, hit through walls, and stack with itself.  He even gets a faster shield regen speed and higher base shields (remember Hunter Mode only substracts a flat number from shields, so this helps things like cyclonic modulator or stronghold package).
2)  Proximity Mine got a significant radius buff.
3)  Tech bursts and fire explosions got better, which benefits the GI quite a bit.
4)  Ammo consumables and cyclonic modulators get better, which benefits the GI more than most.
5)  Thermal clip packs got a mini adrenaline rush feature, ops packs got better, and missile launchers lost their delay.
6)  The gear slot was added, which is essentially a +15% weapon damage OR +30% shields OR +20% shields / +10% shield regen speed.  
7)  10% less TC damage.  7.5% less Hunter Mode damage.  Enemies get a bit more health.  All this is outweighed by the damage buffs. 
8)  Slightly less wallhack awareness.  Shorter tactical cloak duration means that you can't be quite as lazy with cloak but it still has amazing utility.
9)  New consumables which help him more than others (melee amp, shield regen, et cetera).

Or let's take another example.  The Batarian Soldier was pretty cool when he came out.
- Instant missiles.
- Better ops packs.
- Extra Adrenaline Rush for everyone via thermal clip packs.
- Level 4 ammo/armor powers.
- A better store that prevents you from ever running out of consumable equipment.
- Buffs to tons of weapon options and introduction of a new weapons that suit the Batarian Soldier well.
- Inferno Grenades now do about 6000 damage to armored targets and you have 7 of them.  And the explosions they prime do 50% more damage.  That's about a 56% increase to damage from the grenades themselves, 233% increase to capacity, on top of a 50% increase to combo damage when compared to the old BS build.
-Blade armor damage reduction increased 10%, encumbrance penalty reduced
10%, melee damage return increased 75%, melee damage returned cap
doubled.
- Great new weapon options that synergize with him, like the Harrier.
- Lost the Ballistic Blades radius glitch, but it wasn't really a big deal because it's still a 90 degree 18 meter cone that has a limited number of targets it can affect.

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

[Podboq]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

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.

That's true, but I don't think this is one of those arguments. I also don't think it's rude to point out the flaws in someone's argument. It is very easy to be mean on the internet though, so I'm sorry if I actually made anyone feel bad.

Still, I'm not going to sit by and say nothing when someone says something stupid like "games should not be balanced".

[Tyeme Downs]

@GodlessPaladin

I don't carry public disagreements on in private messages. I don't care how many friends you have. I stopped reading when you began making threats.

[The Waffle Cat]

 



This is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Power Creep has happened to this game and it will never end due to one thing : SKINNER BOX LOOT SYSTEM
http://en.wikipedia....tioning_chamber 

[SilentCO1]

I think weapons of certain rarity need to be balanced within themselves. Like the Incisor should be as good as the Mattock or Phalanx. The PPR should be as good as the Typhoon or Harrier, etc. And higher rarity weapons should be stronger than lower rarity ones.

[Manuel La Bor]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

@GodlessPaladin

I don't carry public disagreements on in private messages. I don't care how many friends you have. I stopped reading when you began making threats.

This seems quite serious, GP doesn't strike me as someone who threatens. 

[Sabbatine]

Holy-Hamster wrote...

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

No, he just doesn't think developers should try and balance their game based on uninformed complaints from people like you.

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

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

Two questions:

1.  Do you know what a thesaurus is?
2.  Do you know what a synonym is?

If yes, then you already know your statement is silly.  If no, check out a dictionary.

Modifié par Sabbatine, 31 juillet 2012 - 03:53 .

[Podboq]

Sabbatine wrote...

Holy-Hamster wrote...

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

No, he just doesn't think developers should try and balance their game based on uninformed complaints from people like you.

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

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

Two questions:

1.  Do you know what a thesaurus is?
2.  Do you know what a synonym is?

If yes, then you already know your statement is silly.  If no, check out a dictionary.

A synonym is a word that is similar, not exactly the same. The point that balanced is not the same as equal stands.

[RottenBerries]

ITT: OP doesn't know what balancing means.

[CitizenThom]

Holy-Hamster wrote...

CitizenThom wrote...

Holy-Hamster wrote...

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

'broken' is in the eyes of the beholder. His point being that variety is more important that having perfect equity... and that perfect equity is impossible, I think is a good one.

Variety is good.  But that variety becomes pointless when one weapon is waaaaaaaaaaay better than the others.  Hence the need to balance the game.  It's not that hard to understand.  If X gun does 500 dps per second, and all the rest do 50 then everyone chooses gun X.  You can have all the variety you want between the guns but people will still choose gun X.  

That was my problem with the Krysae (besides being stupidly easy to use).  That was my problem with the pre-nerf falcon.  That's my problem with the Pirahna now.  I'll admit the last change to the krysae may have been a little overboard.  But it did need a nerf the first time, badly.  

No game will ever achieve perfect equality, that's impossible.  However to say that you shouldn't even try and balance things to be "close" is ridiculous and stupid.  

I used the Pirahnna once and had fun with it. I don't use it anymore, because I don't want to be disappointed when it gets nerfed.

In the end, balance would be better served right now by providing a multitude of satisfying alternative ways to kill bad guys in my opinion, not by making sure that all guns are equally ineffective. The Saber is better than the Raptor, does that mean the Saber needs to be nerfed? Or does it mean that the two guns are simply different guns with different strengths? I think the OP's point is that The Saber and Raptor don't need to have identical stats.

[Holy-Hamster]

Sabbatine wrote...

Holy-Hamster wrote...

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

No, he just doesn't think developers should try and balance their game based on uninformed complaints from people like you.

darkpassenger2342 wrote...

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

Two questions:

1.  Do you know what a thesaurus is?
2.  Do you know what a synonym is?

If yes, then you already know your statement is silly.  If no, check out a dictionary.

You cut me deep bro.  Real deep 

[Zso_Zso]

Weapons should not be equal, that's true. In fact a common weapon should be weaker than an uncommon, and a rare should be better, and an ultra-rare should be outright OP.

Unfortunately, this is not the case at all. Several UR weapons are outclassed by some rare ones and even some common ones are pretty solid (e.g. mantis), while you can find some garbage in rare or UR category (e.g. the post-nerf krysae with lower dps than the shuriken).

So the "balance" equation SHOULD take into account the rarity of the guns, bat that does not seem to be the aim of weekly balance changes...

[Schneidend]

Some key points:

For the thousandth gorram time, Balance =/= Homogeneity

For the millionth gorram time, nobody asking for nerfs wants the game to not be fun, they simply want a greater variety of weapons to be useful. This doesn't happen if there's a sniper rifle that can kill and entire spawn in two clips that are aimed vaguely in the direction of the enemy.

Personally, I don't want nerfs. I just want things to be buffed to be somewhat useful compared to the top tier weapons. We shouldn't have mediocre weapons. Every weapon should be good for something. Currently, the only common weapon even close to worth using is the Mantis, while the only Uncommons worth using are the Mattock, Phalanx, Locust, and Eviscerator, and even some of the Rares are pitiful, such as the Disciple.

I don't really care how many credits you've spent. I don't really care about weapon rarity. I don't really care if you think having the Avenger be a decent weapon would "threaten" the value of your Harrier. Weapon rarity is a purely Multiplayer concept, and should not be a factor in weapon performance.

[Voxgizer]

Schneidend wrote...

Some key points:

For the thousandth gorram time, Balance =/= Homogeneity

For the millionth gorram time, nobody asking for nerfs wants the game to not be fun, they simply want a greater variety of weapons to be useful. This doesn't happen if there's a sniper rifle that can kill and entire spawn in two clips that are aimed vaguely in the direction of the enemy.

Personally, I don't want nerfs. I just want things to be buffed to be somewhat useful compared to the top tier weapons. We shouldn't have mediocre weapons. Every weapon should be good for something. Currently, the only common weapon even close to worth using is the Mantis, while the only Uncommons worth using are the Mattock, Phalanx, Locust, and Eviscerator, and even some of the Rares are pitiful, such as the Disciple.

I don't really care how many credits you've spent. I don't really care about weapon rarity. I don't really care if you think having the Avenger be a decent weapon would "threaten" the value of your Harrier. Weapon rarity is a purely Multiplayer concept, and should not be a factor in weapon performance.

Preach it, Goose. 

[gravitygroove]

The Waffle Cat wrote...

 



This is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Power Creep has happened to this game and it will never end due to one thing : SKINNER BOX LOOT SYSTEM
http://en.wikipedia....tioning_chamber 

STAND BACK, I'm GOING TO USE SCIENCE.

+1 for required reading. 

[Sabbatine]

Podboq wrote...

Sabbatine wrote...

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

No, he just doesn't think developers should try and balance their game based on uninformed complaints from people like you.

darkpassenger2342 wrote...
i think you are misconstruing the word "balanced" with the word "equal".

Two questions:
1.  Do you know what a thesaurus is?2.  Do you know what a synonym is?
If yes, then you already know your statement is silly.  If no, check out a dictionary.

A synonym is a word that is similar, not exactly the same. The point that balanced is not the same as equal stands.

Actually you are incorrect, your point is baseless and could only be made to appear standing by using clever camera angles designed to make the floor it is laying on look like a wall it is leaning on.
Since you couldn't be bothered to follow simple advice, I'll give you this lesson for free, you obviously need all the help you can get.

In the Dictionary:
syn·o·nym   [sin-uh-nim]noun
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning asanother in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.  A dictionaryof synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such asThesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.

e·qual   [ee-kwuhl] adjective, noun, verb,e·qualed, e·qual·ing or ( especially British ) e·qualled,e·qual·ling.adjective
1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to  or with ):The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the samerank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.
3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.

bal·anced   [bal-uhnst]adjective
1. being in harmonious or proper arrangement or adjustment,proportion, etc.

Oh my goodness, did you see that?  Balanced and Equal share a definition?  The definition of "equal" actually uses the word "balanced" in its definition?

Next time, follow my advice and you just might avoid posting nonsense.  You look a little silly coming into this thread and telling the OP that that he doesn't understand what the words he used in his post means when it's pretty clear that he did, and in fact you don't.

In the Dictionary
mis·con·strue   [mis-kuhn-stroo or, especially Brit.,mis-kon-stroo]verb (used with object), mis·con·strued, mis·con·stru·ing.to misunderstand the meaning of; take in a wrong sense;misinterpret.

I think a good example of this would be your understanding of what a synonym is along with your misguided notion that "balanced" and equal don't (or even can't) mean the same thing.

Modifié par Sabbatine, 31 juillet 2012 - 10:15 .

[vonSlash]

The idea behind balance is that common weapons/classes should be weaker than uncommon weapons/classes, which should be weaker than rare weapons/classes, which are in turn weaker than ultra-rare weapons (and UR classes, if those ever occur). However, none of the weapons/classes should be so much better than the other weapons/classes that using one of the weaker weapons/classes creates a significant handicap for a player or for a team. The way to achieve this is to nerf the strongest weapons/classes and simultaneously buffing the weakest weapons/classes while ensuring that the stronger weapons/classes are still better than the weaker weapons/classes post-balancing.

Bioware hasn't done an optimal job with this so far, but they are, on average, making progress in the right direction.

[Podboq]

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...

Sabbatine wrote...

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

No, he just doesn't think developers should try and balance their game based on uninformed complaints from people like you.

darkpassenger2342 wrote...
i think you are misconstruing the word "balanced" with the word "equal".

Two questions:
1.  Do you know what a thesaurus is?2.  Do you know what a synonym is?
If yes, then you already know your statement is silly.  If no, check out a dictionary.

A synonym is a word that is similar, not exactly the same. The point that balanced is not the same as equal stands.

Actually you are incorrect, your point is baseless and could only be made to appear standing by using clever camera angles designed to make the floor it is laying on look like a wall it is leaning on.
Since you couldn't be bothered to follow simple advice, I'll give you this lesson for free, you obviously need all the help you can get.

In the Dictionary:
syn·o·nym   [sin-uh-nim]noun
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning asanother in the language, as happy, joyful, elated.  A dictionaryof synonyms and antonyms (or opposites), such asThesaurus.com, is called a thesaurus.

e·qual   [ee-kwuhl] adjective, noun, verb,e·qualed, e·qual·ing or ( especially British ) e·qualled,e·qual·ling.adjective
1. as great as; the same as (often followed by to  or with ):The velocity of sound is not equal to that of light.
2. like or alike in quantity, degree, value, etc.; of the samerank, ability, merit, etc.: two students of equal brilliance.
3. evenly proportioned or balanced: an equal contest.

bal·anced   [bal-uhnst]adjective
1. being in harmonious or proper arrangement or adjustment,proportion, etc.

Oh my goodness, did you see that?  Balanced and Equal share a definition?  The definition of "equal" actually uses the word "balanced" in its definition?

Next time, follow my advice and you just might avoid posting nonsense.  You look a little silly coming into this thread and telling the OP that that he doesn't understand what the words he used in his post means when it's pretty clear that he did, and in fact you don't.

In the Dictionary
mis·con·strue   [mis-kuhn-stroo or, especially Brit.,mis-kon-stroo]verb (used with object), mis·con·strued, mis·con·stru·ing.to misunderstand the meaning of; take in a wrong sense;misinterpret.

I think a good example of this would be your understanding of what a synonym is along with your misguided notion that "balanced" and equal don't (or even can't) mean the same thing.

In the interest of not looking like a douchebag I'm gonna ignore all your condescension.

An example, an apple and an orange might weigh exactly the same. They are balanced. They are not however the same thing. That's the difference between balanced and equal.
That's the point of balancing the game. We want everything to weigh the same, while still being different things.

[Holy-Hamster]

Oh snap, the dictionaries have been brought out.

We got ourselves a fight!

/popcorn

[Podboq]

Holy-Hamster wrote...

Oh snap, the dictionaries have been brought out.

We got ourselves a fight!

/popcorn

woooooooooooooo FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

oh wait.. I'm in the fight aren't I?

[joker_jack]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

@GodlessPaladin

I don't carry public disagreements on in private messages. I don't care how many friends you have. I stopped reading when you began making threats.

You know people can be banned for that. Might be a good idea to forawrd those to the mods.

[darkpassenger2342]

lol this guy is ridiculous..
just because the word balance is in the definiton of equal does not make them interchangeable..
The developers are TRYING to balance the game, hence "balance" changes.
that does not necessitate making things equal.
making them equal would imply they want everything to be the same.
it means making them similar in scale, for all the difficulties and classes.
yet they will all still be unique guns.
if you want to argue definitions further, perhaps you should petition bioware to change tuesdays to
"multiplayer similarity changes".
otherwise you are just ranting at way too many people, sabbitine.
and btw, when someone looks up and posts a definition on the internet, it is often because they did not know the definition themselves..
 we were all aware of the meaning of the words we used. and we used them correctly.
balance and equality are not the same word.
otherwise one wouldnt have multiple definitions while the other has a single.
 didnt they teach you in like first grade you cannot use a word to define itself??

Modifié par darkpassenger2342, 01 août 2012 - 11:29 .

[Pitznik]

I want my weapons to fit equal definition nr 3, which is the one using the word balanced. I certainly don't want my weapons to fit definitions nr 1 and 2.