211 réponses à ce sujet

[darkpassenger2342]

Pitznik wrote...

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.

 you mean the words have multiple, different definitions??
 so they couldnt possibly be the same word???
groundbreaking!!!!!

[Sabbatine]

Podboq wrote...

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.

Quoting from the dictionary is condescension now?  Do you also believe reading is heresy and airplanes are fueled by witchcraft?

In the future when you make a point could you try a little harder to make it relevant to the discussion?  Your example is irrelevant in so many ways I almost don't know where to begin but I'll break it down into separate statements.

1.  I assume you read the OP at some point but given your arguments so far it's clear you didn't understand a word of it.  Please go read it again before responding to any more posts in this thread.  If you still do not understand what was said, ask for clarification, don't try to build a counter argument in spite of your ignorance.

2.   The OP is not arguing that all the weapons should have the same weight, nor is he arguing that they should all have different weights.  He is pointing out that the only way to achieve true balance is removing player choice.  Bioware could achieve near-perfect balance overnight if they removed the ability to choose a class and race, choose different weapons to use, removed the ability to earn and spend credits, and removed the ability to level up.  Every player would be a generalist using a predator, they would all have the same shield/barrier and health pools, have identical models.

Of course even then things aren't perfectly balanced so to account for the unfair advantage higher resolution grants some players they'd force the game to run at 1024x768 (this also balanced the unfairness of wide screen monitors).  They would also disallow the use of mouse and keyboard for pc gamers and the PS3 controller for PS3 players, everyone would have to use a 360 controller.  You would not be able to adjust analog stick sensitivity either because people who play with higher sensitivity have an unfair advantage over those who do not.  Furthermore wireless controllers will not be permitted, only wired controllers with a six foot cord  would be permitted.

Even then the game wouldn't be perfectly balanced... so they would then add a feature to the game that only allowsp layers to play for 30 minutes a day so people can't develop an unfair advantage by learning the game and those who do grow in skill will be banned if their score is ever 5% higher than the lowest scoring member of their team.  Additionally, an artificial 5 second delay on all actions would be added to ensure that people playing via dialup or other slower connections are not at an unfair disadvantage when playing with people who have high speed internet.

Even still balance has not been achieved.

If you want to talk about the weight of fruit, be my guest, but then we'd just be branching into yet another area you know nothing about.  Are apples balanced with oranges?  No.  If you had to pick one or the other, oranges are healthier.  They provide more calories, more vitamins, and more and minerals than an equivilent amount of apple would, however if a person is truly health minded, they will eat both.

A video game with multiplayer like ME3's should not be trying to be balanced, it should try to convey a sense of progression to the players.  We should feel more powerful the longer we play, not more powerful immediately after a DLC release, and less powerful two weeks later when everything gets nerfed.  If you want to use a human engineer that's fine, but there's no reason why you should expect it to be as good as every engineer released in the future.  It will remain viable even if it becomes less optimal as time passes.

[cuzIMgood]

InvincibleHero wrote...

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

No one is saying that...

InvincibleHero wrote...

I have to disagree highly that all things can be balanced. It will never happen in any game.

That means we shouldn't even try?  No.

You can have variety and balance at the same time.  This is a poorly thought out and useless thread. 

[Podboq]

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...

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.

Quoting from the dictionary is condescension now?  Do you also believe reading is heresy and airplanes are fueled by witchcraft?

In the future when you make a point could you try a little harder to make it relevant to the discussion?  Your example is irrelevant in so many ways I almost don't know where to begin but I'll break it down into separate statements.

1.  I assume you read the OP at some point but given your arguments so far it's clear you didn't understand a word of it.  Please go read it again before responding to any more posts in this thread.  If you still do not understand what was said, ask for clarification, don't try to build a counter argument in spite of your ignorance.

2.   The OP is not arguing that all the weapons should have the same weight, nor is he arguing that they should all have different weights.  He is pointing out that the only way to achieve true balance is removing player choice.  Bioware could achieve near-perfect balance overnight if they removed the ability to choose a class and race, choose different weapons to use, removed the ability to earn and spend credits, and removed the ability to level up.  Every player would be a generalist using a predator, they would all have the same shield/barrier and health pools, have identical models.

Of course even then things aren't perfectly balanced so to account for the unfair advantage higher resolution grants some players they'd force the game to run at 1024x768 (this also balanced the unfairness of wide screen monitors).  They would also disallow the use of mouse and keyboard for pc gamers and the PS3 controller for PS3 players, everyone would have to use a 360 controller.  You would not be able to adjust analog stick sensitivity either because people who play with higher sensitivity have an unfair advantage over those who do not.  Furthermore wireless controllers will not be permitted, only wired controllers with a six foot cord  would be permitted.

Even then the game wouldn't be perfectly balanced... so they would then add a feature to the game that only allowsp layers to play for 30 minutes a day so people can't develop an unfair advantage by learning the game and those who do grow in skill will be banned if their score is ever 5% higher than the lowest scoring member of their team.  Additionally, an artificial 5 second delay on all actions would be added to ensure that people playing via dialup or other slower connections are not at an unfair disadvantage when playing with people who have high speed internet.

Even still balance has not been achieved.

If you want to talk about the weight of fruit, be my guest, but then we'd just be branching into yet another area you know nothing about.  Are apples balanced with oranges?  No.  If you had to pick one or the other, oranges are healthier.  They provide more calories, more vitamins, and more and minerals than an equivilent amount of apple would, however if a person is truly health minded, they will eat both.

A video game with multiplayer like ME3's should not be trying to be balanced, it should try to convey a sense of progression to the players.  We should feel more powerful the longer we play, not more powerful immediately after a DLC release, and less powerful two weeks later when everything gets nerfed.  If you want to use a human engineer that's fine, but there's no reason why you should expect it to be as good as every engineer released in the future.  It will remain viable even if it becomes less optimal as time passes.

I realise after reading your post that my analogy was a bad one. I shouldn't have used weight as an abstract concept since it is already a factor in the game(weapon weight).
I didn't mean all weapons should weigh the same, obviously that's stupid.

I'll try again.
A Bugatti Veyron is extremely fast. This is its upside. Its downside is that it is heavy and not very maneuverable.
A Lotus Elise is extremely light and maneuverable. This is its upside. It's only 60% as fast as the Veyron though. This is the downside.

Both cars have areas in which they are better than the other car, but neither car can be said to be better than the other since they both have downsides.
This is balance. The cars are balanced, but not equal.

This is the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer, and indeed any game. Each weapon and character having advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they all share the same value. They should be be of the same value, but still unique. Balanced, but not equal.

-------------------
When I said you were being condescending I meant the overall tone of your post(which your latest post shares). It's very "I'm so much smarter than you and you're stupid", and it doesn't make your argument look any better.

[Sabbatine]

Podboq wrote...

I'll try again.
A Bugatti Veyron is extremely fast. This is its upside. Its downside is that it is heavy and not very maneuverable.
A Lotus Elise is extremely light and maneuverable. This is its upside. It's only 60% as fast as the Veyron though. This is the downside.

Both cars have areas in which they are better than the other car, but neither car can be said to be better than the other since they both have downsides.
This is balance. The cars are balanced, but not equal.

There one major problem with your argument.  You are comparing a vehicle that costs ~$1,700,000 to a vehicle that costs ~$70,000.  For ~5% the cost of a Bugatti Veyron people can get a really nice balanced car car, people willing to pay $1.7 million for the Bugatti aren't looking for a balanced car, they are looking for a fast car.

What you have demonstrated here is a desire or even a need for progression.  If we were to apply mass effect weapon rarity to these vehicles the Lotus Elise would be a rare while the Bugatti Veyron would be an ultra rare.  Rare weapons are somewhat more common than ultra rares but are also easier to use because you have more choices.  Ultra rares should be best in class at more specific roles while remaining viable in other roles.

Podboq wrote...

This is the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer, and indeed any game. Each weapon and character having advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they all share the same value. They should be be of the same value, but still unique. Balanced, but not equal.

No, this statement is patently false.  Weapons should be balanced against other weapons of their rarity, not against all other weapons of all rarity categories.  Take the Viper sniper rifle for example.  It is an excellent but under rated weapon however it is completely outclassed in every meaningful way except thermal clip capacity and weight.  This is how it should be because both weapons fulfill the same fundamental purpose. 

The other type of sniper rifle is the single shot "bolt action" styled rifle.  The Mantis is overshadowed by the Widow and the Javelin increases damage even further.  It is up to the player to decide which weapon they want and because high damage weapons that aren't shotguns (or aoe) are extremely poorly balanced so it doesn't follow the same progression as the other subcategory in actual value, but does in terms of damage done per shot.

Podboq wrote...

When I said you were being condescending I meant the overall tone of your post(which your latest post shares). It's very "I'm so much smarter than you and you're stupid", and it doesn't make your argument look any better.

My tone reflects my opinion of your flawed argument.  I do not need to adopt a tone to make you or anyone else more receptive to my argument because my argument speaks for itself.

Modifié par Sabbatine, 02 août 2012 - 05:24 .

[neurovore]

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...
This is the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer, and indeed any game. Each weapon and character having advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they all share the same value. They should be be of the same value, but still unique. Balanced, but not equal.

No, this statement is patently false.  Weapons should be balanced against other weapons of their rarity, not against all other weapons of all rarity categories.  Take the Viper sniper rifle for example.  It is an excellent but under rated weapon however it is completely outclassed in every meaningful way except thermal clip capacity and weight.  This is how it should be because both weapons fulfill the same fundamental purpose.

...which leads to people only using Ultra-Rares. Now tell me how this is good for variety. Or are you in favor of variety to begin with?

That said, I don't have a problem with some weapons being slighly better than others. But to a point where the others are so much weaker that they're not ever worth using? Not good for the longevity of a game that already has such precious little of it.

Sabbatine wrote...
high damage weapons that aren't shotguns (or aoe) are extremely poorly balanced...

So, um, help me out here. Do you want something to be done about this or not? Do you want something to be buffed, or something else to be nerfed? Or wouldn't you care even if a few weapons outshone all the rest?

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...
When I said you were being condescending I meant the overall tone of your post(which your latest post shares). It's very "I'm so much smarter than you and you're stupid", and it doesn't make your argument look any better.

My tone reflects my opinion of your flawed argument. I do not need to adopt a tone to make you or anyone else more receptive to my argument because my argument speaks for itself.

You might be a god and hold the absolute truth, but condescension will make people less likely to agree with you. The argument doesn't speak for itself, because it is thrown into other people's face covered with dung.

But you're not a god either. I'm fairly sure you have not studied linguistics, and as such are making a lot of ad hoc assumptions about how language works. Therefore, you resort to quoting a dictionary, while not really paying attention to what you're quoting. For example, Dictionary lists happy, joyful and elated as examples of synonyms, but if you look them up, they aren't really synonyms in a way you want them to be. On the other hand, as you accuse your opponent of ignoring the fact that balance and equal can mean the same thing, you're obstinately refusing to acknowledge the fact that they don't have to mean the same thing, and that no one is advocating such a use in this context.

Give it up. You're just defending someone else's strawman.

EDIT: This forum editor is horrible.

Modifié par neurovore, 02 août 2012 - 10:33 .

[Podboq]

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...

I'll try again.
A Bugatti Veyron is extremely fast. This is its upside. Its downside is that it is heavy and not very maneuverable.
A Lotus Elise is extremely light and maneuverable. This is its upside. It's only 60% as fast as the Veyron though. This is the downside.

Both cars have areas in which they are better than the other car, but neither car can be said to be better than the other since they both have downsides.
This is balance. The cars are balanced, but not equal.

There one major problem with your argument.  You are comparing a vehicle that costs ~$1,700,000 to a vehicle that costs ~$70,000.  For ~5% the cost of a Bugatti Veyron people can get a really nice balanced car car, people willing to pay $1.7 million for the Bugatti aren't looking for a balanced car, they are looking for a fast car.

What you have demonstrated here is a desire or even a need for progression.  If we were to apply mass effect weapon rarity to these vehicles the Lotus Elise would be a rare while the Bugatti Veyron would be an ultra rare.  Rare weapons are somewhat more common than ultra rares but are also easier to use because you have more choices.  Ultra rares should be best in class at more specific roles while remaining viable in other roles.

Podboq wrote...

This is the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer, and indeed any game. Each weapon and character having advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they all share the same value. They should be be of the same value, but still unique. Balanced, but not equal.

No, this statement is patently false.  Weapons should be balanced against other weapons of their rarity, not against all other weapons of all rarity categories.  Take the Viper sniper rifle for example.  It is an excellent but under rated weapon however it is completely outclassed in every meaningful way except thermal clip capacity and weight.  This is how it should be because both weapons fulfill the same fundamental purpose. 

The other type of sniper rifle is the single shot "bolt action" styled rifle.  The Mantis is overshadowed by the Widow and the Javelin increases damage even further.  It is up to the player to decide which weapon they want and because high damage weapons that aren't shotguns (or aoe) are extremely poorly balanced so it doesn't follow the same progression as the other subcategory in actual value, but does in terms of damage done per shot.

Podboq wrote...

When I said you were being condescending I meant the overall tone of your post(which your latest post shares). It's very "I'm so much smarter than you and you're stupid", and it doesn't make your argument look any better.

My tone reflects my opinion of your flawed argument.  I do not need to adopt a tone to make you or anyone else more receptive to my argument because my argument speaks for itself.

I'm glad that that's the only problem you have with my analogy. 
Obviously a rarer weapon should be better. If this were not the case there would be no reason to implement a rarity system.

You say your argument speaks for itself, but I honestly don't know what it is. I think we pretty much agree about balance.. Your sentence structure though is full of fluff(although it got a lot better in your latest post, mostly) and I don't really see any points other than, "Balance is exactly the same as equal". And I think we've dispelled that one, have we not?
We can't see into your mind. If you don't explain your points properly we can't have a real discussion.
Sorry if that offends you, I'm just telling you what I see.

EDIT

I'd like to add that while rarer weapons can be better(it's not always the case), they have bigger drawbacks. So I'd still argue that they're balanced with lower rarity weapons.
For example the paladin does more damage than the carnifex, but it's clip and spare ammo are tiny. When the drawbacks don't directly affect dps, it gets nebulous, and this is where groups like balance all the things come in handy.

EDIT AGAIN

Also I don't agree that the bugatti and the elise must be of different rarities. The elise may be slower, but my point is that its' drawbacks make up for the lack of speed. 
I might equate it to a hurricane, while the bugatti would be a sabre.

Modifié par Podboq, 03 août 2012 - 10:56 .

[Sabbatine]

neurovore wrote...

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...
This is the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer, and indeed any game. Each weapon and character having advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they all share the same value. They should be be of the same value, but still unique. Balanced, but not equal.

No, this statement is patently false.  Weapons should be balanced against other weapons of their rarity, not against all other weapons of all rarity categories.  Take the Viper sniper rifle for example.  It is an excellent but under rated weapon however it is completely outclassed in every meaningful way except thermal clip capacity and weight.  This is how it should be because both weapons fulfill the same fundamental purpose.

...which leads to people only using Ultra-Rares. Now tell me how this is good for variety. Or are you in favor of variety to begin with?

That said, I don't have a problem with some weapons being slighly better than others. But to a point where the others are so much weaker that they're not ever worth using? Not good for the longevity of a game that already has such precious little of it.

Why do you have a problem with some weapons being significantly better than others?  That's how it works in reality, there are some truly bad firearms out there, some of these bad firearms have been (or even still are) used by various militaries around the world, there is no reason to assume that every weapon in mass effect is pretty good over all with the high end weapons being only slightly better.

Having an actual sense of progression is very good for variety because players get experience using the lower ranking generalist weapons which guides them into the more specialized rare and ultra rare weapons that they'll enjoy using the most.  There is absolutely no reason why the Mantis should be "balanced" against the Widow or Javelin.  The Mantis should be inferior to both of the rarer sniper rifles that share the same specialty.

neurovore wrote...

Sabbatine wrote...
high damage weapons that aren't shotguns (or aoe) are extremely poorly balanced...

So, um, help me out here. Do you want something to be done about this or not? Do you want something to be buffed, or something else to be nerfed? Or wouldn't you care even if a few weapons outshone all the rest?

No.  Read the post I was responding to if you want proper context.

neurovore wrote...

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...
When I said you were being condescending I meant the overall tone of your post(which your latest post shares). It's very "I'm so much smarter than you and you're stupid", and it doesn't make your argument look any better.

My tone reflects my opinion of your flawed argument. I do not need to adopt a tone to make you or anyone else more receptive to my argument because my argument speaks for itself.

You might be a god and hold the absolute truth, but condescension will make people less likely to agree with you. The argument doesn't speak for itself, because it is thrown into other people's face covered with dung.

I don't care if people agree with me or not because their agreement is an irrelevant factor when determining whether something is true or untrue.

neurovore wrote...

But you're not a god either. I'm fairly sure you have not studied linguistics, and as such are making a lot of ad hoc assumptions about how language works. Therefore, you resort to quoting a dictionary, while not really paying attention to what you're quoting. For example, Dictionary lists happy, joyful and elated as examples of synonyms, but if you look them up, they aren't really synonyms in a way you want them to be. On the other hand, as you accuse your opponent of ignoring the fact that balance and equal can mean the same thing, you're obstinately refusing to acknowledge the fact that they don't have to mean the same thing, and that no one is advocating such a use in this context.

Give it up. You're just defending someone else's strawman.

Speaking of straw men...

I have made no claims about my education.

The person I responded to attempted to claim that the words used by the original poster meant something other than their definition and attempted to dismiss his argument based on that rather than offering an opposing viewpoint.  The simple fact of the matter is that balance and equality are synonyms and mean the same thing most of the time, though though only time that matters in this case is the time it was used in the original post. 

Modifié par Sabbatine, 03 août 2012 - 04:07 .

[Sabbatine]

Podboq wrote...

This is the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer, and indeed any game. Each weapon and character having advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they all share the same value. They should be be of the same value, but still unique. Balanced, but not equal.

Uh... no.  This is not the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer.  Last time I checked there were far too many weapons and characters to make them all both unique, and equally capable.  Only an idiot would even attempt to do something like that and only a fool would advocate it.  This is why higher tier weapons should be superior that lower tier weapons of the same class.

Podboq wrote...

I'm glad that that's the only problem you have with my analogy. 
Obviously a rarer weapon should be better. If this were not the case there would be no reason to implement a rarity system.

If you agree with the original poster and my own statements why have you adopted an adversarial tone?

Podboq wrote...

We can't see into your mind. If you don't explain your points properly we can't have a real discussion.
Sorry if that offends you, I'm just telling you what I see.

You see things in a very unusual way.  You tell us you can't read minds yet the only reason I responded to your post to begin with was because you were telling the original poster what he was thinking... Specifically, trying to dismiss his argument based on the differences in meaning between two words that can be and often are used interchangeably.  You didn't seek clarification on what he meant, you attacked him and told him he misconstrued the meaning despite his use of the words being accurate.

Podboq wrote...

I'd like to add that while rarer weapons can be better(it's not always the case), they have bigger drawbacks. So I'd still argue that they're balanced with lower rarity weapons.
For example the paladin does more damage than the carnifex, but it's clip and spare ammo are tiny. When the drawbacks don't directly affect dps, it gets nebulous, and this is where groups like balance all the things come in handy.

This discussion isn't about how things are or how things can be, but how things should be... or actually how things shouldn't be.

Until recently very few of the ultra rare weapons were best in category over the rare alternative.  Your paladin example isn't very good, in fact at low ranks it isn't better than the carnifex at all because it is too heavy.  Clip capacity is irrelevant to most pistol users as they rely on powers (which is why weight is relevant) and they are unlikely to burn through a whole thermal clip.  Spare ammo capacity is irrelevant to any player because you can't walk more than ten yards without tripping over an ammo cache.  The paladin is a good example of a terribly balanced ultra-rare... but it is better than most.

Podboq wrote...

Also I don't agree that the bugatti and the elise must be of different rarities. The elise may be slower, but my point is that its' drawbacks make up for the lack of speed. 
I might equate it to a hurricane, while the bugatti would be a sabre.

Really, you don't think cost correlates with rarity?

If you want to put things in mass effect terms, the Elise is an avenger and the Bugatti is a harrier.

You have kind of missed the point.  In your example, if someone wants to race against a bugatti and be competitive, they aren't going to buy an elise.  They aren't comparable even if the elise is more manueverable it is in a different class entirely.

[Podboq]

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...

This is the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer, and indeed any game. Each weapon and character having advantages and disadvantages in such a way that they all share the same value. They should be be of the same value, but still unique. Balanced, but not equal.

Uh... no.  This is not the ideal state of ME3 multiplayer.  Last time I checked there were far too many weapons and characters to make them all both unique, and equally capable.  Only an idiot would even attempt to do something like that and only a fool would advocate it.  This is why higher tier weapons should be superior that lower tier weapons of the same class.

Podboq wrote...

I'm glad that that's the only problem you have with my analogy. 
Obviously a rarer weapon should be better. If this were not the case there would be no reason to implement a rarity system.

If you agree with the original poster and my own statements why have you adopted an adversarial tone?

Podboq wrote...

We can't see into your mind. If you don't explain your points properly we can't have a real discussion.
Sorry if that offends you, I'm just telling you what I see.

You see things in a very unusual way.  You tell us you can't read minds yet the only reason I responded to your post to begin with was because you were telling the original poster what he was thinking... Specifically, trying to dismiss his argument based on the differences in meaning between two words that can be and often are used interchangeably.  You didn't seek clarification on what he meant, you attacked him and told him he misconstrued the meaning despite his use of the words being accurate.

Podboq wrote...

I'd like to add that while rarer weapons can be better(it's not always the case), they have bigger drawbacks. So I'd still argue that they're balanced with lower rarity weapons.
For example the paladin does more damage than the carnifex, but it's clip and spare ammo are tiny. When the drawbacks don't directly affect dps, it gets nebulous, and this is where groups like balance all the things come in handy.

This discussion isn't about how things are or how things can be, but how things should be... or actually how things shouldn't be.

Until recently very few of the ultra rare weapons were best in category over the rare alternative.  Your paladin example isn't very good, in fact at low ranks it isn't better than the carnifex at all because it is too heavy.  Clip capacity is irrelevant to most pistol users as they rely on powers (which is why weight is relevant) and they are unlikely to burn through a whole thermal clip.  Spare ammo capacity is irrelevant to any player because you can't walk more than ten yards without tripping over an ammo cache.  The paladin is a good example of a terribly balanced ultra-rare... but it is better than most.

Podboq wrote...

Also I don't agree that the bugatti and the elise must be of different rarities. The elise may be slower, but my point is that its' drawbacks make up for the lack of speed. 
I might equate it to a hurricane, while the bugatti would be a sabre.

Really, you don't think cost correlates with rarity?

If you want to put things in mass effect terms, the Elise is an avenger and the Bugatti is a harrier.

You have kind of missed the point.  In your example, if someone wants to race against a bugatti and be competitive, they aren't going to buy an elise.  They aren't comparable even if the elise is more manueverable it is in a different class entirely.

Not true at all. It depends on the track. In a drag race, the bugatti will obviously win. But on a track with lots of twists and turns, the elise will win.
This is what I'm trying to say, balance means things are better at different things, they have advantages and disadvantages.

Progression is fine, but we should not progress to one single weapon at the top of the pile. That was how it was with the krysae, or the typhoon, and that was why they were nerfed. They were the only sniper and AR worth using, and that's bad.
If we instead form a better group of weapons, which all have unique properties, we have a better game.

And mass effect atm is doing pretty well at this. We have low rarity weapons that are still effective, like the vindicator or mattock. The rarer weapons get, the greater their drawbacks become, like the saber or paladin.

If we simply had weapons that got better and better with no drawbacks, there would be no reason to use the lower rarity weapons, and that's terrible design. It's an mmo thing, where you simply get a new weapon that has better stats. It's called power creep, and it's bad.

We don't want 'end game gear' in me3 multiplayer.


> Obviously a rarer weapon should be better. If this were not the case there would be no reason to implement a rarity system.

When I said this I should have made something clear. Rarer weapons should have higher advantages, but they must also have high disadvantages in the form of weight, ammo capacity, fire rate, etc.
They need to be balanced.

EDIT
fixed some derpy formating

Modifié par Podboq, 04 août 2012 - 12:23 .

[Sabbatine]

Podboq wrote...

Not true at all. It depends on the track. In a drag race, the bugatti will obviously win. But on a track with lots of twists and turns, the elise will win.
This is what I'm trying to say, balance means things are better at different things, they have advantages and disadvantages.

What you don't seem to understand, and frankly I don't understand why you aren't getting this, is that someone who buys a Bugatti isn't buying it to take it to a track with lots of twists and turns.  It is a more specialized vehicle with very obvious strengths.  The Bugatti Veyron is one of the fastest cars in the world (if not the fastest), the Lotus Elise probably isn't even in the top 50... I am not a car expert though, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

When someone is willing to buy a Veyron they don't really care about how manueverable the car is because there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that offer greater manueverability and would buy one of those if that was what they were interested in.


To put this comparison in mass effect terms lets return to sniper rifles.  We'll say the Bugatti is a Javelin and the Lotus is a Viper.  The person using the Javelin uses it because it does a lot of damage per shot but knows that it can only do as much damage as the target has hp.  The person using the Viper uses it because it is a versatile weapon that allows them to butcher the rank and file enemies very efficiently.  The person bringing the Javelin into the game isn't doing so planning on spending the whole game killing low level trooper enemies.  The person bringing the Viper into the game isn't doing so planning on spending the whole game killing Banshees and Atlas mechs.

They are both sniper rifles but they simply cannot be compared based soley on that factor.  Is the viper superior to the javelin?  Sometimes... but only an idiot would try and use the javelin the same way they'd use a viper.

Podboq wrote... 

Progression is fine, but we should not progress to one single weapon at the top of the pile. That was how it was with the krysae, or the typhoon, and that was why they were nerfed. They were the only sniper and AR worth using, and that's bad.

I never said we should progress to one single weapon at the top of the pile, I said we should progress into increasingly specialized weapons.

Have you looked at the multiplayer manifest lately?  At the lowest level we have five common weapons.  These should be versatile and teach people the basics.

Those then branch into 11 uncommon weapons.  These should still be fairly generalist in concept, but begin separating into various specialties within the weapon types... in sniper rifles we have single shot, low rate of fire weapons versus high rate of fire, low damage per shot rifles and hybrids between the two.

Those then branch into 18 rare weapons.  Here we should have very few generalist weapons left and instead have highly specialized weapons and niche weapons like the Falcon or Krysae.

From there, we go into ultra rare weapons.  There aren't many more specializations that can be introduced as the rares did that job, instead we should have weapons that represent the paragon of each specialization.  The javelin is a good example of this because it does the most damage per shot out of all the sniper rifles... unfortunately this is a rather weak specialization due to other game mechanics, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

It is up to the player to decide if they want a high degree of specialization, or if they would prefer something lower on the tier, like the widow in the case of single shot sniper rifles.

[Podboq]

Sabbatine wrote...

Podboq wrote...

Not true at all. It depends on the track. In a drag race, the bugatti will obviously win. But on a track with lots of twists and turns, the elise will win.
This is what I'm trying to say, balance means things are better at different things, they have advantages and disadvantages.

What you don't seem to understand, and frankly I don't understand why you aren't getting this, is that someone who buys a Bugatti isn't buying it to take it to a track with lots of twists and turns.  It is a more specialized vehicle with very obvious strengths.  The Bugatti Veyron is one of the fastest cars in the world (if not the fastest), the Lotus Elise probably isn't even in the top 50... I am not a car expert though, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

When someone is willing to buy a Veyron they don't really care about how manueverable the car is because there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that offer greater manueverability and would buy one of those if that was what they were interested in.


To put this comparison in mass effect terms lets return to sniper rifles.  We'll say the Bugatti is a Javelin and the Lotus is a Viper.  The person using the Javelin uses it because it does a lot of damage per shot but knows that it can only do as much damage as the target has hp.  The person using the Viper uses it because it is a versatile weapon that allows them to butcher the rank and file enemies very efficiently.  The person bringing the Javelin into the game isn't doing so planning on spending the whole game killing low level trooper enemies.  The person bringing the Viper into the game isn't doing so planning on spending the whole game killing Banshees and Atlas mechs.

They are both sniper rifles but they simply cannot be compared based soley on that factor.  Is the viper superior to the javelin?  Sometimes... but only an idiot would try and use the javelin the same way they'd use a viper.

Podboq wrote... 

Progression is fine, but we should not progress to one single weapon at the top of the pile. That was how it was with the krysae, or the typhoon, and that was why they were nerfed. They were the only sniper and AR worth using, and that's bad.

I never said we should progress to one single weapon at the top of the pile, I said we should progress into increasingly specialized weapons.

Have you looked at the multiplayer manifest lately?  At the lowest level we have five common weapons.  These should be versatile and teach people the basics.

Those then branch into 11 uncommon weapons.  These should still be fairly generalist in concept, but begin separating into various specialties within the weapon types... in sniper rifles we have single shot, low rate of fire weapons versus high rate of fire, low damage per shot rifles and hybrids between the two.

Those then branch into 18 rare weapons.  Here we should have very few generalist weapons left and instead have highly specialized weapons and niche weapons like the Falcon or Krysae.

From there, we go into ultra rare weapons.  There aren't many more specializations that can be introduced as the rares did that job, instead we should have weapons that represent the paragon of each specialization.  The javelin is a good example of this because it does the most damage per shot out of all the sniper rifles... unfortunately this is a rather weak specialization due to other game mechanics, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.

It is up to the player to decide if they want a high degree of specialization, or if they would prefer something lower on the tier, like the widow in the case of single shot sniper rifles.

Most of that is fairly reasonable. 
You seemed to be arguing against balancing, but now I don't know what your stance is.

In the case of a specialised weapon the advantage is what makes it good at something, and the disadvantage is what makes it bad at everything else. 
My point is that we have to balance these pros and cons so no one weapon outshines the others. That's the point of balancing, making sure a weapon doesn't take too big a share of advantages.