175 réponses à ce sujet

[T04stm4n]

Mgamerz wrote...

Can't tell if op is more upset than people who disagree with my political views and post about it on facebook.

Haha I got a lol.  Im not upset with anyone though I did use the term "pissed off".  i am frustrated with Biowares never0ending campaign to "balance" a game.  Yes they know what makes balance.  No they dont always take into account player fun.  Why?  Real money to buy packs.  Cant make it too easy to subvert the credit card.

I jsut find the OCD nature of this dev team unecessary and this forum explodes every week and it seems like they have had their balancing time and the game is shaped well.  Next project please!

Modifié par T04stm4n, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Cyonan]

T04stm4n wrote...

Don't you get tired of getting used to the environment just to have it changed on you?

i enjoy the anticiaption of seeing weekly changes just like anyone.  But every week, I miss the previous week more.

Even PvP games like CoD and Halo dont get gun damage buffs and nerfs at such frequency.  I feel like it comes down to the store and not wanting credits to be easily earned but I have no proof.

OP cannot exist in this game becuse real money is involved.

I'm used to adjusting to constantly changing environments(gaming and RL), so it doesn't really get tiring. It might require an adjustment of strategy, but one way or another I'll find a way, and the N7 Destroyer(which seems to be the big point of discussion for this weeks nerfs, poor Demolisher) is still a very strong character.

I don't play console so I can't comment on those games(and we don't seem to give a damn about CoD on PC), but most PC games get pretty regular balance changes.

Though I was talking highly competitive PvP games that end up in tournament play. A game like League of Legends needs to be very tightly balanced when they're running tournaments worth 2 million.

People like to throw around the "They're doing it because money" but as you said you have no proof and nobody ever has proof. Their actions do not support that line of thinking, as the best way of earning credits has always been glacier speed run farming, and that has not been knocked out like camping was.

[T04stm4n]

Cyonan wrote...
People like to throw around the "They're doing it because money" but as you said you have no proof and nobody ever has proof. Their actions do not support that line of thinking, as the best way of earning credits has always been glacier speed run farming, and that has not been knocked out like camping was.

But lets be honest, NO other console game has a microtransaction model like ME3 yet.  It is the first of its kind to have a random store system where you can use in-game currency or REAL money.  It literal is simulating a slot machine from a casino.  Why do you think the DLC is free?

And no other console dev behaves towards balance the way these folks are.  They do correlate.  They argue the Destroyer is the most played character.  So what!?  That means that people enjoy him... so they enjoy your game.  He doesnt break your game Bioware.  Nothing since launch has been game-breaking.  OP...yes.  But so is up, up, down, down, left, right, lef,t right, a, b, start.  We dont have cheat codes Bioware and your game isnt broken!

There are no tourneys, no championships and no sponsors for this game.  It isnt in MLG.

A vast majority of the playerbase doesnt even come to this forum.  Bioware even said its a mostly bronze/silver played game.  Us hardocre folkds who are trying to max the inventory are a minute percentage.

These other people dont even know balance changes are occuring. They just sign on every week to some random stat being changed without knowing haha.

Modifié par T04stm4n, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:18 .

[najzere]

Totally agree with you OP, I feel like we're in an experiment for BioWare's thesis on "an ideally balanced online multiplayer environment." They should focus on player enjoyment instead of trying to practice their rudimentary grasp of game theory. In what world would making a class enjoyed by many less enjoyable create a better game?

Modifié par najzere, 24 octobre 2012 - 08:03 .

[Cyonan]

T04stm4n wrote...

But lets be honest, NO other console game has a microtransaction model like ME3 yet. It is the first of its kind to have a random store system where you can use in-game currency or REAL money. It literal is simulating a slot machine from a casino. Why do you think the DLC is free?

And no other console dev behaves towards balance the way these folks are. They do correlate. They argue the Destroyer is the most played character. So what!? That means that people enjoy him... so they enjoy your game. He doesnt break your game Bioware. Nothing since launch has been game-breaking. OP...yes. But so is up, up, down, down, left, right, lef,t right, a, b, start. We dont have cheat codes Bioware and your game isnt broken!

There are no tourneys, no championships and no sponsors for this game. It isnt in MLG.

A vast majority of the playerbase doesnt even come to this forum. Bioware even said its a mostly bronze/silver played game. Us hardocre folkds who are trying to max the inventory are a minute percentage.

These other people dont even know balance changes are occuring. They just sign on every week to some random stat being changed without knowing haha.

Again I don't know console games since my Xbox is little more than a really expensive paper weight right now. We do use the model fairly often on PC however, mostly in free to play games.

I already knew that DLC was free because it was being supported by microtransactions, as that's how the model works. You provide free content that is paid for by optional purchases. In a game such as Mass Effect 3 this provides you with one major benefit: You don't fragment the community by releasing new content since it's free and expected that the vast majority of players will pick it up(even though some still haven't).

I could probably go back and forth and argue points that are for them doing it because money and points that are against them doing it because money. I could go back and forth with myself for hours coming up with points that fit into both categories probably. It's something that's never going to be settled unless Bioware comes out and says they did it because money(they can say the opposite but people wont believe them).

I am aware that CoD/Halo don't do this, but that's because their community is so incredibly large that fragmentation isn't going to be the death of those games. It very well could have been for a game like ME3 which has a smaller community.

I never said they were trying to balance this game like it's in MLG. ME3 is nowhere near as tightly balanced as high end competitive PvP games are. Blizzard recently flat out deleted a unit from their SC2 expansion because they didn't feel it could be balanced enough. The ME3 team is not in the same league as Blizzard when it comes to balancing their games, which is fine since ME3 isn't a PvP game, much less a high end tournament play one.

[Star fury]

[Kristen Schanche]

Most console game right now don't have the ability to iterate balance as fast as we do, which is why it hasn't been seen much. The first one that started doing the thing that we're doing now was, I believe, Monday Night Combat, and it was a really innovative way to push data in a way that let them make balance changes without a certification process.

I think we'll probably start seeing this kind of heavy balance tweaking more frequently now though as more and more games pick up that it can be done this way. As for the PvP vs PvE argument, we still think that a balance environment is the most fun environment to play in, even if you're not playing against other players. Seeing every player play the same kit with the same gun in every game isn't fun for most people.

And we never nerf based solely on 'this kit is getting played too much' but that is a nice indication that maybe there's something out of balance with it that we should assess. If that happens then we spend some time having a serious look at that kit, assessing the numbers, testing against other kits, and deciding if some of those numbers are a bit higher then we should have initially set them. All our nerfs are in the interest in making sure the game is fun for more then just the people using the strongest kits.

And as a final point, I can assure you that the weekly balance changes have no impact on any future projects.

[MajorStupidity]

I have found that the buffs have vastly outweighed the nerfs. Many of the characters/weapons/powers that started out terrible have become quite good. They have only really nerfed a few weapons and characters and everytime they do it causes a sh**storm of people whining on the forums about how BW is ruining ME3.

@Chris: Monday Night Combat was great for the balance changes thanks for brining it up.

Modifié par MajorStupidity, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:39 .

[T04stm4n]

Star fury wrote...

YESS!! I was hoping we would get that in here!  I saw a thread where someone complained they saw it too many times!

My goal was to bring a different point of view to the table.  I see a few agree with me and others dont.  As is everything in life.  I jsut felt like discussing it because when I purchased this game, I didnt expect to have to constantly change strategies do to balancing.  Was ME1 and ME2 treated like this with tweaking?  I dont remember.

[T04stm4n]

Chris Schanche wrote...
And as a final point, I can assure you that the weekly balance changes have no impact on any future projects.

Well that is good to know  Thanks for the post also!

Chris Schanche wrote...

I think we'll probably start seeing this kind of heavy balance tweaking more frequently now though as more and more games pick up that it can be done this way. As for the PvP vs PvE argument, we still think that a balance environment is the most fun environment to play in, even if you're not playing against other players. Seeing every player play the same kit with the same gun in every game isn't fun for most people.

And this actually worries me.  Perhaps it is just the generation gap.  But I like my games to generally stay the same from ship dates.  WIth online patch systems, devs, whether consciously or not, have an allowance for error because of modern update systems.  But then the arguemnt of scope enters.  Mass Effect 3 requires consideraby more resources, management and coordination than say, a game from 2 generations previous for instance.

Chris Schanche wrote...
All our nerfs are in the interest in making sure the game is fun for more then just the people using the strongest kits.

I believe you here.  There would be no reason to make changes in an effort to actively ruin fun That is what I would call poor business practice haha.

Modifié par T04stm4n, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:49 .

[Father Superior]

I agree with you that Bioware is ruining their game with needless balance changes (that the apologist/loyalist fan-boys defend to the death for no good/logical reason). However, I think you need to spend a little more time on the story forums. Short of making the right decision (something BW doesn't seem to excel at) and going with IT, there is no conceivable way for Bioware to make a ME4 successfully (post-ME3 outcomes are too diverse to condense into one without alienating the fan base or setting it too far into the future for it to even seem like part of the ME universe anymore, the enemy being weaker than the Reapers would not incite any feeling of danger or suspense/doubt, making them stronger would make the Reapers seem even less powerful than they became over the course of the trilogy, a prequel would suffer from the same Reaper power struggle problems as well as Leviathan Syndrome, the feeling of pointlessness you get when playing Leviathan/any DLC without a major effect on the ending, etc).

[whateverman7]

1. they probably already are working on me4

2. i agree to an extent about the balancing...they dont need to stop completely, but the game isnt so broken/unbalanced, that they need to do it weekly...it feels more like they are trying to dictate how we play more so then 'balance' the game

Modifié par whateverman7, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:52 .

[Beerfish]

As usual there is a hue and cry over a nerf that 'kills' the class just like the weapons, just like things like TC. Last I looked infils were still being used a lot.

I would imagine their data looked like this.

Destroyers are played a bit more than other solider classes....lets look at their damage out put and rankings....Whoa! In groups that have a destroyer they lead the score board in 58% of games while the other soldiers are at about 40%.

These balance changes, as painful as they are when they happen keep the game from being a 4 or 5 class game and keep more classes being viable. sucks when it happens to a persons fav class or weapon though that is for sure.

[HellishFiend]

I disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of this thread, OP. You are posing your opinion as fact and acting like you speak for all of us. My opinion is the complete opposite of yours.

[whateverman7]

Chris Schanche wrote...

Most console game right now don't have the ability to iterate balance as fast as we do, which is why it hasn't been seen much. The first one that started doing the thing that we're doing now was, I believe, Monday Night Combat, and it was a really innovative way to push data in a way that let them make balance changes without a certification process.

I think we'll probably start seeing this kind of heavy balance tweaking more frequently now though as more and more games pick up that it can be done this way. As for the PvP vs PvE argument, we still think that a balance environment is the most fun environment to play in, even if you're not playing against other players. Seeing every player play the same kit with the same gun in every game isn't fun for most people.

And we never nerf based solely on 'this kit is getting played too much' but that is a nice indication that maybe there's something out of balance with it that we should assess. If that happens then we spend some time having a serious look at that kit, assessing the numbers, testing against other kits, and deciding if some of those numbers are a bit higher then we should have initially set them. All our nerfs are in the interest in making sure the game is fun for more then just the people using the strongest kits.

And as a final point, I can assure you that the weekly balance changes have no impact on any future projects.

ok, that's what i dont understand: why does it seem yall are getting upset with the choices people are making in regards to playing the game? by that i mean what characters/weapons are used, what factions they fight against, etc....isnt that the point of choice? wasnt that the reason yall gave us so much variety? to let us decide what we wanted to use and how we used it?....

you say yall dont wanna see the same kits/weapons being used so yall make changes, but that doesnt make sense either...reason being, that isnt happening....i've put a lot of time into public games (95%+ of the time i've played this game has been in public games), and what i've seen is the opposite of that...i've seen many variations of kit/weapon combos....that's another reason i dont understand the changes for 'balancing' purposes

[8 Bears]

Chris Schanche wrote...

Most console game right now don't have the ability to iterate balance as fast as we do, which is why it hasn't been seen much. The first one that started doing the thing that we're doing now was, I believe, Monday Night Combat, and it was a really innovative way to push data in a way that let them make balance changes without a certification process.

Incredible game by the way ^

Modifié par 8 Bears, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:54 .

[TommyNg]

So they want us to stop using that character over and over again , encourage us to use other character ?

[T04stm4n]

HellishFiend wrote...

I disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of this thread, OP. You are posing your opinion as fact and acting like you speak for all of us. My opinion is the complete opposite of yours.

No I pose my opinion as sensible until a counter arguemnt is made.  Some have done this well.  You havent yet.

Balancing is an essential part of game development obviously.  But as technology gets more advanced, devs trade their pre-release balance development into post-release development.

I think that this particular game has an umwarranted AMOUNT of change.  Im not arguing against change altogether.  More the frequency.

Modifié par T04stm4n, 24 octobre 2012 - 07:55 .

[oO Stryfe Oo]

Chris Schanche wrote...

...I can assure you that the weekly balance changes have no impact on any future projects.

/thread.

[Taritu]

Blah, blah, blah. Sadly predictable. Most balance changes are needed. The crying is predictable and tiresome. There are a lot of classes, play something else, then come back and realize that Destroyer is still high dps and still has stagger immunity.

[Kristen Schanche]

whateverman7 wrote...

Chris Schanche wrote...

Most console game right now don't have the ability to iterate balance as fast as we do, which is why it hasn't been seen much. The first one that started doing the thing that we're doing now was, I believe, Monday Night Combat, and it was a really innovative way to push data in a way that let them make balance changes without a certification process.

I think we'll probably start seeing this kind of heavy balance tweaking more frequently now though as more and more games pick up that it can be done this way. As for the PvP vs PvE argument, we still think that a balance environment is the most fun environment to play in, even if you're not playing against other players. Seeing every player play the same kit with the same gun in every game isn't fun for most people.

And we never nerf based solely on 'this kit is getting played too much' but that is a nice indication that maybe there's something out of balance with it that we should assess. If that happens then we spend some time having a serious look at that kit, assessing the numbers, testing against other kits, and deciding if some of those numbers are a bit higher then we should have initially set them. All our nerfs are in the interest in making sure the game is fun for more then just the people using the strongest kits.

And as a final point, I can assure you that the weekly balance changes have no impact on any future projects.

ok, that's what i dont understand: why does it seem yall are getting upset with the choices people are making in regards to playing the game? by that i mean what characters/weapons are used, what factions they fight against, etc....isnt that the point of choice? wasnt that the reason yall gave us so much variety? to let us decide what we wanted to use and how we used it?....

you say yall dont wanna see the same kits/weapons being used so yall make changes, but that doesnt make sense either...reason being, that isnt happening....i've put a lot of time into public games (95%+ of the time i've played this game has been in public games), and what i've seen is the opposite of that...i've seen many variations of kit/weapon combos....that's another reason i dont understand the changes for 'balancing' purposes

The main thing I was trying to make clear now is that too many people using it is /not/ the reason we balance it.  If everyone is using something, and it turns out the reason is just because it's fun, not because it's too much better then a lot of other kits, we'll leave it the way it is.

But a lot of people playing something does give us a good reason to take another look at a kit and decide if it's so popular because it's just the best option.  The goal is not to leave any kits in a state where someone goes 'I want to be a shooty guy...well, I could play the human soldier because I like their skill set, but accept that I'll be doing less damage then if I played a Destroyer.'

There are a lot of reasons we don't just buff every other class up to that point either.  If we decide something is too good, then make everything else too good to meet it, then the enemies have to go up, and we have essentially done the same thing as nerfing it in the first place but with a lot more time and work.  That and it's really just not feesable to go through and rebalance every kit in the game up all at once.

[Eriseley]

T04stm4n wrote...

And this actually worries me.  Perhaps it is just the generation gap.  But I like my games to generally stay the same from ship dates.  WIth online patch systems, devs, whether consciously or not, have an allowance for error because of modern update systems.  But then the arguemnt of scope enters.  Mass Effect 3 requires consideraby more resources, management and coordination than say, a game from 2 generations previous for instance.

Oh man, really? I've been a gamer since the Atari 2600 and I am so happy with online updates. So many games shipped with completely broken stuff that would never be fixed, especially when RPGs started to come onto the scene. I remember Final Fantasy 1 was a complete mess, haha. They absolutely did not do a better job of balancing and making everything functional pre-release, except perhaps catching flat out game crashing.

Modifié par Eriseley, 24 octobre 2012 - 08:02 .

[Tymathee]

smh my god you guys whine constantly, it's a game, not your life. If you dotn like the changes, dont play, go smell the roses, walk the dog, play with your girl/boy friend, whatever. theres more to life than computer/video games.

Modifié par Tymathee, 24 octobre 2012 - 08:00 .

[Cyonan]

whateverman7 wrote...

Chris Schanche wrote...

Most console game right now don't have the ability to iterate balance as fast as we do, which is why it hasn't been seen much. The first one that started doing the thing that we're doing now was, I believe, Monday Night Combat, and it was a really innovative way to push data in a way that let them make balance changes without a certification process.

I think we'll probably start seeing this kind of heavy balance tweaking more frequently now though as more and more games pick up that it can be done this way. As for the PvP vs PvE argument, we still think that a balance environment is the most fun environment to play in, even if you're not playing against other players. Seeing every player play the same kit with the same gun in every game isn't fun for most people.

And we never nerf based solely on 'this kit is getting played too much' but that is a nice indication that maybe there's something out of balance with it that we should assess. If that happens then we spend some time having a serious look at that kit, assessing the numbers, testing against other kits, and deciding if some of those numbers are a bit higher then we should have initially set them. All our nerfs are in the interest in making sure the game is fun for more then just the people using the strongest kits.

And as a final point, I can assure you that the weekly balance changes have no impact on any future projects.

ok, that's what i dont understand: why does it seem yall are getting upset with the choices people are making in regards to playing the game? by that i mean what characters/weapons are used, what factions they fight against, etc....isnt that the point of choice? wasnt that the reason yall gave us so much variety? to let us decide what we wanted to use and how we used it?....

you say yall dont wanna see the same kits/weapons being used so yall make changes, but that doesnt make sense either...reason being, that isnt happening....i've put a lot of time into public games (95%+ of the time i've played this game has been in public games), and what i've seen is the opposite of that...i've seen many variations of kit/weapon combos....that's another reason i dont understand the changes for 'balancing' purposes

It's not so much that they're upset that people like the N7 Destroyer, it's that so many people like it that it throws a red flag that says "hey, you might wanna look into why this is so popular" and 99 times out of 100 the answer isn't that the character has really enjoyable mechanics but rather because it is just incredibly powerful.

[upinya slayin]

T04stm4n wrote...

Just release your DLC as scheduled and let it be.

You cant keep tinkering forever and anytime you nerf something alot of people get angry at you.
Not a good way to keep customer loyalty.

For every point you earn witha  good balance change, you lose 10 for a bad one.  You can't win.

This isnt an MMO and doesnt desrve such scalpel-like alterations.

Quit pissing us off we already like your game don't keep misjudging our enjoyment.

Edit:  If this game had PvP I would be much less adament because player versus player requires this sort of attention.

go make a sandwhich