436 réponses à ce sujet

[ErrorTagUnknown]

Madeline Lightning wrote...

I don't know why they even need a score at the end. Removing that would solve everything. We aren't in competition but allied against the AI, trying to win as one. Nothing should have ever been nerfed, only bad things buffed up. If people are doing good, that's a good thing. We want to win. Some of us don't play in groups and because you can start a game with one person in gold, it should be treated as a 1 to 4 player balance change, not a constant 4 player balance change Eric Fagnan keeps basing it all on. I have favorite races or classes I like, or actually just characters. Some are just not viable for soloing, but should be. Many years from now this shooter will go down as the most mishandled, mismanaged co-op game of all time.

it wouldn't solve anything?   seriously - how fun was it back during the pre-nerf krysae days.... when you'd be in a room with two geth infiltrators.... and they would nuke everything before you could even get a shot on it.   Yes we want to win.... but i could care less about the credits, or N7 ranking... or any of that.  I want to play the game and enjoy it.   it's occasionally fun to faceroll the enemy (or in this case watch two teammates just steamroller them while you sit there with your feet up sipping a mai tai)... but when it's damn near every lobby... it gets old, and the game loses any fun it had.   Plus, who wants to feel like there's only one gun they should choose?

[ErrorTagUnknown]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

cuzIMgood wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

When will the elite realize that not everyone has the ability to solo Platinum with an Avenger?

wtf does that have to do with anything?  Platinum should be hard and guns should be balanced.  There are different difficulties for a reason, go play which one suits you best.

Yeah, and never unlock anything.

Ever.

That is a different issue, one that I agree with. The rewards for Bronze and Silver should be much higher (at least double of what they currently are), so that low skilled players don't feel pressured to play Gold or Platinum just to be able to unlock stuff at a decent rate.

Regardless though, even if the issues are related by virtue of the really bad store system, when discussing gameplay and overall balance, credits and the store should not really be taken into consideration.

They should though, for the reason you just stated. Why do you think there's so many people complaining about nerfs? They have to play at higher difficulties to regularly unlock Rare weapons. Thus they gravitate to the more powerful things in the game, which continuously get knocked down a peg. After these things get knocked down a peg one of four things will happen.

1.) They'll move on to another strong thing, which will get knocked down a peg.
2.) They continue to play on too high of a difficulty resulting in wipes and needless frustration
3.) They move back down a level and don't unlock anything.
4.) They stop playing all together.

Is it fair to treat people of lesser skill like this?

I happen to agree with you guys big time on this.   (A) the elitism is annoying... and ( the credit balance is all out of whack with relative difficulty.   I've said it a bunch of times..... Gold seems about right for credits.... but Bronze 2x Silver 2x Gold (plus a little bit at each step) is the credit reward formula essentially.....  but that essentially says the difficulty jump between bronze and silver and between silver and gold are the same -- and they're not.   Silver is MUCH harder compared to bronze than Gold is compared with silver.  I was thinking something like 20k for bronze, 50k for silver, and the 70to75k for gold.l  that would seem a little more....  correct?

ANYWAY - i did want to address the assertion that you're forced to play gold to max thigns out at a decent rate.  I play gold (and occasionally plat) when i have people to play with as a team.   when i have to pug (which is a ton due to the hours i play) i generally stick to silver because gold pugs are so very very hit or miss.  i don't mind a challenge, i don't mind losing -- but i hate having to spend the whole game looking after people who (A) completely don't understand the game's mechanics and ( just do really stupid things... (once is fine, we all make a bad call in a game -- but when they do the same thing wave after wave after wave it's frustrating (case: today i was in one with a guy who died on the other side of the map on dagger... within the first 30-60 seconds of every single wave.   away from the team....  our fourth dropped out, and the second - who was ... okay - but at least grasped the basic concepts helped me try to limp the match along against the reapers until we eventually wiped on wave 5 or 6...))  
Why the long story?
Easy - check my manifest.   it's not stellar - but it's pretty good, all my rare weapons maxed, several levels of several black card weapons -- and that's from playing MOSTLY silver
--and before you make comments about not having all day to play the game .... i have kids.  and a job.   I get a couple hours a day, tops, to play in the morning before everyone else gets up and i've got to get ready for work.  it *IS* doable.  
Sorry - i'm not trying to come off as critical.  i agree with you entirely -- but it is doable.

[GodlessPaladin]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
What's your take on the treatment of players that have to stick to Bronze or Silver?

I don't quite see what this has to do with the subject of the thread.  I dislike the credit reward system on principle, but that's a new topic entirely.

[Grunt_Platform]

Would be nice to see the credit rewards for Silver upped, I've backed the threads arguing that. Bronze gives enough credits to max Uncommons at a decent rate, but Silver's garbage for getting Rares. And that's a serious, serious problem. It's like telling all the Silver players they don't get to have all the new toys. At least once you start getting uncommons Silver is easy enough.

But to bring this back on point... Just because Bioware has nerfed weapons that were so overpowered that they made Gold, or even Platinum a breeze, does not mean the nerfs have been more significant than the buffs. If these nerfs are primarily a problem because they're locking Silver players out of Gold, and thus forcing them to unlock weapons at a slower pace... then rather than protesting the nerfs (which are justified by Bioware's internal data), campaigning to improve the payouts for Silver seems preferable.

Especially if you can back it with logic and numbers.

This thread is more concerned with whether buffs are more prevelant/significant than nerfs or not. I would say the fact that the Claymore, Hurricane, and Talon are all the results of those buffs dethrones the "Nerfs are more significant" argument right there. The Phaeston and the Mattock both go to show that you don't need a maxed manifest for a decent gun.

Modifié par EvanKester, 09 août 2012 - 03:15 .

[ErrorTagUnknown]

oh and - here here to the other man with the flaming adept/sentinel

[Rokayt]

lightsnow13 wrote...

This kind of shows the SMGs need a buff.. especially the sustained dps of some of these dang things. (Shuriken, locust).

'

Join the locust olympics.

Like. It is my last bet at trying to get the point that it needs a buff across... <_<

Modifié par Rokayt, 09 août 2012 - 03:23 .

[Grogimus]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

I'd just like to point out that while I appreciate the premise of this thread, all these buffs do not excuse the overnerfing of weapons. Overnerfing is bad. Period. Just as overbuffing can be

I agree completely.  Everything should be buffed or nerfed just the right amount.

This thread does not address that issue.  This thread addresses the claims of the extremely vocal, hysterical, alarmist, tinfoil-hat-wearing types who make dozens of threads claiming that, among other things, every gun is being turned into garbage (causing the game to be ruined utterly), and that there are constant nerfs and only minor buffs.

Ironically, I think this is the prevalent attitude amongst those who promote balance.  As opposed to the stereotype portrayed on this forum. 

Thanks for the effort GP. 

Modifié par Grogimus, 09 août 2012 - 03:28 .

[GodlessPaladin]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...
What's your take on the treatment of players that have to stick to Bronze or Silver?

I don't quite see what this has to do with the subject of the thread.  I dislike the credit reward system on principle, but that's a new topic entirely.

So you understand why I'm against nerfs then? It adds an element that discourages players that have already been discouraged.

It essentially takes away tools from players who have difficulty in Gold. Which they force themselves to do because of the unlock system.

I understand your point of view; I just disagree with it.  "I want to unlock a reward without measuring up to the challenge required to earn the reward" is not a justification for adding a Win Button to this game any more than it is for any of a thousand games that give you powerful rewards for completing in-game challenges.  It isn't in good taste to ask for a magic button you can push to make the Lich King's head instantly explode just so you can farm him for unlocks effortlessly... even if you feel the unlock system is lame.  Trivializing the game's greatest challenges is not the answer.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 03:35 .

[Rokayt]

Grogimus wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

I'd just like to point out that while I appreciate the premise of this thread, all these buffs do not excuse the overnerfing of weapons. Overnerfing is bad. Period. Just as overbuffing can be

I agree completely.  Everything should be buffed or nerfed just the right amount.

This thread does not address that issue.  This thread addresses the claims of the extremely vocal, hysterical, alarmist, tinfoil-hat-wearing types who make dozens of threads claiming that, among other things, every gun is being turned into garbage (causing the game to be ruined utterly), and that there are constant nerfs and only minor buffs.

Ironically, I think this is the prevalent attitude amongst those who promote balance.  As opposed to the stereotype portrayed on this forum. 

Thanks for the effort GP. 

I fought tooth and nail for a Pirhana weight increase.

However, what Is my signature filled with? Buff threads.

[GodlessPaladin]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...
What's your take on the treatment of players that have to stick to Bronze or Silver?

I don't quite see what this has to do with the subject of the thread.  I dislike the credit reward system on principle, but that's a new topic entirely.

So you understand why I'm against nerfs then? It adds an element that discourages players that have already been discouraged.

It essentially takes away tools from players who have difficulty in Gold. Which they force themselves to do because of the unlock system.

I understand your point of view, I just disagree strongly with it.  "I want to unlock a reward without measuring up to the challenge required to earn the reward" is not a justification for adding a Win Button to this game any more than it is for any other of a thousand games that give you powerful rewards for completing in-game challenges. 

Fair enough, I won't veer this thread off topic any more. You just don't understand the pain of people who rely on PUGs.

I don't need these weapons, but the majority of my team mates do.


Not that I'm saying I'm amazing at this game. I need a good team mate or two to extract on Gold.

If your answer to PuGs is to trivialize the greatest challenges in the game, what game does that leave for people with any degree of organization or competence?  Difficulty levels do not exist primarily so that players can say "how many credits do I feel like earning today?"  They exist primarily so that players can select from a variety of difficulty levels.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 03:40 .

[DHKany]

nice nice. But i don't think it will do anything to the vocal alarmists.

[samb]

 It's a nice attempt at being objective but there are some flaws. Your comment on the buffed Eagle can apply to most of the buffed guns; they still suck.  It also doesn't take into account crazy tracking missiles, increasing phantom and primes on the field or the magnet grab of the banshee. 

Still statistics is a good place to start. but as one person pointed out DSP makes more of a difference than straight percentages. Afterall, 10 is 100% higher than 1 but it's still a small number.  Percentage makes it seems big when in fact it isn't. 

Here are some stats that might say you are wrong though: 
Most geth and Cerberus got around a 10%-15%. But here are some that are rather signifigant. All calculations are for gold:
Atlas: 25% increase in shields and 10% in armor. Thing about this is that 10% here is nearly a 2000 point difference. It also shots out 33% more rockets increasing its damage by that much. 
Hunter: +50% increase on shields and 20% increase on health. They also run faster and shot faster. 
Pyro: +56% (!) increase shields and a 30% increase on damage. Let's not forget the increased attack range. 

Except for some mild decreases on dodging powers NONE of the enemies got a nerf. 

I know you have an agenda here but not including an enemy section makes you seem like you are performing selection bias. If anything which enemy we face has a better impact than weapons since we only have 3 to choose from. 

[GodlessPaladin]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
 The "I-win" weapons should be brought down to that good level rather than a mediocre or niche level.

This point of view (that some weapons should be reduced in effectiveness to some degree) is contradictory with the point of view of opposing nerfs in a wholistic sense, meaning you can't hold both without experiencing cognitive dissonance.  Moreover, I believe you would be hard pressed to find people who think over-nerfing is actually an ideal goal.

 the Samsh nerf.

Smash has not in fact been nerfed.  It got a considerable buff, then part of that buff was rolled back.  Nothing about Smash is worse than its original version.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 03:51 .

[Clayless]

Doesn't take into account things that should have been buffed by now, like the Destoyer's Missile Launcher.

Really, there's no excuse for that not being buffed.

[GodlessPaladin]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Doesn't take into account things that should have been buffed by now, like the Destoyer's Missile Launcher.

Really, there's no excuse for that not being buffed.

o_O  Uhm, what?

Yes, my list of changes that have been made does not list changes that I feel should be made, because that would be a different list entirely.

[Clayless]

In other words you're being selective, ignoring enemies and powers, and failing to mention everything that's underpowered.

[Rokayt]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

In other words you're being selective, ignoring enemies and powers, and failing to mention everything that's underpowered.

This is an objective list of buffs VS nerfs.

What strawman arguement is this?

He has a list of changes he would like to make.

Its called "Balance all the things"

Modifié par Rokayt, 09 août 2012 - 04:02 .

[Rokayt]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

You can't deny that Smash is less effective now than it was a week ago...

Its stronger then release day smash.

So it is technically in the black, not the red.

[Clayless]

For example take into enemies and you'll see the real "buffs" they gave these weapons.

That Paladin for example, a UR, is heavier and, with it's buff, does -35% of damage to an original Pyro.

Wait, it's heavier and still does -35% damage to the new Pyro as it would to the original? Wow what a buff.