175 réponses à ce sujet

[nafnoid]

I've been a gamer since Atari and I personally find it incredibly refreshing that Bioware has put so much time and work investing in a product so long after its initial release. More game companies SHOULD follow suit. At $60, most games, while entertaining, aren't worth the price when one can play through it in a day or two then play online with friends until things get stale and outdated. With ME3, I feel like I really got my money's worth and more! While I may not like some of the "nerfs", I'm thrilled that Bioware is still updating the game and providing new multiplayer content (for free, mind you) and I dread the day that they announce they are done supporting and updating Mass Effect 3.

Just my overly sentimental opinion...

[T04stm4n]

Chris Schanche wrote...
Halo 3 doesn't change for the reason I mentioned before, they don't change because they can't. The patch cycle is prohibitive of that. I hope that Halo 4 includes a system like ours, that more and more other games also have now, that will let them more rapidly iterate on their multiplayer. (I'm not trying to toot our horn here, we're certainly not the first dev to be using this method, but there are quite a few who aren't yet.) Guild Wars 2 is already beginning to go through regular balance changes, like all MMOs do, and I suspect that will continue.

Valid point about new DLC causing new issues with balance.

I would also argue that Halo doesnt need so many changes because they never release new vehicles, items, gear, powers or weapons.  Maps get balanced before release so the FPS map pack dlc doesnt warrant as much attention.

[Zero132132]

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.

One thing I don't get, though... has anyone posted an explanation of why the Devastator mode clip nerf was made? I think most in the community are just baffled by it, although if you provide a concrete reason you might get more pissed off people trying to explain why it's wrong.

Honestly, though, I think a lot of us would be a bit less angry if we had some idea of why something that out-of-the-blue was done.

[count_4]

Chris Schanche wrote...
it was a really innovative way to push data in a way that let them make balance changes without a certification process.

In case you're still lurking this thread a little:

I always wondered how exactly you do the changes. Do you have the client temporarily download some balance files that override the coalesced/patch-bins or does the game get the new values from the server whenever a new match is created (overriding in-memory so to say)?

And, either way, why did you a) create completely new wave sets (by adding a 2 to the name) and some new enemy entries (again by adding a 2) instead of using the balance system with the retaliation patch? 

Thanks in advance.

[Kristen Schanche]

I think the Hawk missle launcher shield thing is the most "weird" balance change it's very painful it's just too big

Snip!  This one is a buff, not a nerf.  The changes from 25% at 40% at Evolve 1 means previously, when you purchased evolve 1, the shield penalty was 25% normal then base.  Now it means evolve 1 makes the penalty 40% lower then base.  Taking this evolution means that the Hawk is even less harmful to your shields then it was before.

Also thanks Volkai7, I had cheesecake at lunch though, I don't think I should have a chocolate bar right now!

[T04stm4n]

nafnoid wrote...

I've been a gamer since Atari and I personally find it incredibly refreshing that Bioware has put so much time and work investing in a product so long after its initial release. More game companies SHOULD follow suit. At $60, most games, while entertaining, aren't worth the price when one can play through it in a day or two then play online with friends until things get stale and outdated. With ME3, I feel like I really got my money's worth and more! While I may not like some of the "nerfs", I'm thrilled that Bioware is still updating the game and providing new multiplayer content (for free, mind you) and I dread the day that they announce they are done supporting and updating Mass Effect 3.

Just my overly sentimental opinion...

Please understand that I love the DLC still being released.  This game alongside a few others are my go-tos.

Its sad that the community gets excited for a build just to see it go away nearly every week.  I would appreciate some stability for once.  That is one thing this game has never had.  It flucuates too much.  Maybe that is my underlying point.  More time between balances I dunno.

[T04stm4n]

Zero132132 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.

One thing I don't get, though... has anyone posted an explanation of why the Devastator mode clip nerf was made? I think most in the community are just baffled by it, although if you provide a concrete reason you might get more pissed off people trying to explain why it's wrong.

Honestly, though, I think a lot of us would be a bit less angry if we had some idea of why something that out-of-the-blue was done.

This is true.  Dev to community communication however, doesn't occur often.  Usually because they are too busy working to talk to us constantly.  I dont work in video games but the track record of community management and PR in general makes this case.

They can easily post changes but explaining the reasons takes a lot longer to write out.  Bigger fish to fry.

Im surprised Chris has responded this much.  Don't get fired for surfin' the web! Haha

[Kristen Schanche]

Zero132132 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.

One thing I don't get, though... has anyone posted an explanation of why the Devastator mode clip nerf was made? I think most in the community are just baffled by it, although if you provide a concrete reason you might get more pissed off people trying to explain why it's wrong.

Honestly, though, I think a lot of us would be a bit less angry if we had some idea of why something that out-of-the-blue was done.

A big part of it was the fact that the ammo buff on the Destroyer was just too strong.  One of the levers we can pull when designing and balancing a gun is clip size.  While we already have to plan around the assault rifle capacity mod, the Destroyer was a whole extra layer.  Whenever a new gun was being blanced, or an old one reassessed, we have to balance it both against the Destroyer's potential massive clip size, as well as against every other kit.

This could easily lead to making a gun either too good on him, or not good enough on a lot of others.  We have plenty of other balance levers to pull on guns, but we weren't happy with how strongly the Destroyer forced our hands on this one.  We still like the unique flavor of massive clips on him, and in internal playtesting, he still feels pretty great with the lower total mag bonuses.  But this change brings him a bit more in line, as well as allowing us to be more free with our weapon design.

[Kristen Schanche]

count_4 wrote...

Chris Schanche wrote...
it was a really innovative way to push data in a way that let them make balance changes without a certification process.

In case you're still lurking this thread a little:

I always wondered how exactly you do the changes. Do you have the client temporarily download some balance files that override the coalesced/patch-bins or does the game get the new values from the server whenever a new match is created (overriding in-memory so to say)?

And, either way, why did you a) create completely new wave sets (by adding a 2 to the name) and some new enemy entries (again by adding a 2) instead of using the balance system with the retaliation patch? 

Thanks in advance.

Roughly, it involves using .inis to store certain data on the server, that forces the game to query and replace the base game ini files while in multiplayer.  I don't know a whole lot about how it works exactly, but that's part of the reason it's MP only, we can't garuntee that players playing single player are going to connect online, and we'd like the experience to be fairly consistant for all of them.

[Volkai7]

Justinmiles19 wrote...

Chris Schanche wrote...

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.

Ok then heres what I see as the issue. The human soldier is not a rare card. The destroyer is a rare card. Most people have the logic that if "A" is harder to obtain than "B" then "A" should have some advantages. Why even include a rarity system if all the characters will be balanced down to the same level? The same thing goes for guns. There are a number of guns that out damage and out class their Ultra-rare counterparts. I think at the core of the issues with people not enjoying the balances is that idea of certain classes and weapons needing more power.

Lore comes into play as well. A Krogan for example is one of the most feared and strongest warrior races in the mass effect universe. That being said he should have clear damage advantages over other soldiers in his class. Yet I can jump on a turian, or human soldier and do just the same damage as him. So he doesnt really feel like the powerhouse he should be.

These are not my opinions, but this seems to be the trend I see on BSN posts. Ultra-rares need to be powerful beacuse they are hard to get. Balancing down everything makes them lose their sense of power and rank among other weapons that are rare, uncommon, and common. 

I like the balance but i do feel in regards to weapons they need that "It Factor" That would make manke me want to bring that specific weapon to battle and work to upgrade it over a rare one I already have fully upgraded and ready to go. 

Just my thoughts on the matter  Cheers all. 

My understanding is that with the exception of Common Items (not Characters but Stuff) most items are designed to be sidegrades, not upgrades. Possibly more powerful in a niche capacity but rarely or never stronger overall.

For example the Human Soldier, Turian Soldier, and N7 Destroyer are probably all designed to be equally powerful. Humans have Adrenaline Rush which increases weapon damage and can optionally provide damage resistance, melee damage, refill shields, or enhance the damage of a power. Turians have Marksman, which does not affect damage directly but increases weapon accuracy and firing rate in varying amounts as well as optionally increasing headshot-only damage. These two powers accomplish very similar goals by enhancing the character's weaponry, but do so in different ways - which also promotes their using different weapons. Similarly, the Destroyer has Devastator Mode. Devastator Mode might be slightly less powerful but it has the advantage of being an always-on power (unless you turn it off), meaning it's not something where you need to pay attention to when it wears off and when you can activate it again. While some players find that concern trivial, other players may drastically benefit from not needing to watch power cooldown timers in favor of focusing solely on their attack. In addition, Devastator Mode offers a once-again modestly-unique benefit. It potentially offers the benefits of both prior powers (increased damage, increased accuracy, shields bonuses, improved rate of fire) it also offers the unique benefit of increasing clip size.

It is worth noting that Devastator Mode, unlike Adrenaline Rush and Marksman, has an explicit negative - reduced mobility - but I feel this tradeoff is balanced by the cooldown timers the other two powers have, which prevent using other powers immediately after they wear off. Devastator Mode's power-use limitation only occurs when you turn it on. Unless you discard its always-on benefit by toggling it to refill your clip, this is a noteworthy benefit... and its 'refill clip when activated' benefit is noteworthy as well, if you choose to take that route.

As a result, solely looking at the weapon-enhancing powers of three Soldier kits of varying rarity, you can see how each is balanced to be similarly powerful, albeit in differing methods. You could perform a similar analysis to the three ktis burst-damage powers (Frag Grenade, Proximity Mine, and Multi-Frag Grenade) or their more stagger-oriented powers (Concussive Shot twice, and Hawk Missile Launcher)... but I feel one analysis is enough to make the point.

This idea of side-grades is accentuated by the presence of Volus as solely Ultra-Rare characters. By nature of their powers, abilities, and statistics they necessitate a different playstyle set than what other characters can use, but they are no less or more powerful than the rest - simply different.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Thanks for that explanation, Chris. Would you mind briefly explaining how a character such as the Geth Infiltrator factors into your weapon and character balancing?

[N7 Whiskey]

I love that they do balance changes every week. Its great fun to try new stuff and its awesome practice for the guys at BW so when ME4 comes out, there is less trial & error and more perfection. You gotta eep in mind that is thier first attempt at a MP like this and hopefully there will be a bunch more in the future.

[Zero132132]

Chris Schanche wrote...

A big part of it was the fact that the ammo buff on the Destroyer was just too strong.  One of the levers we can pull when designing and balancing a gun is clip size.  While we already have to plan around the assault rifle capacity mod, the Destroyer was a whole extra layer.  Whenever a new gun was being blanced, or an old one reassessed, we have to balance it both against the Destroyer's potential massive clip size, as well as against every other kit.

This could easily lead to making a gun either too good on him, or not good enough on a lot of others.  We have plenty of other balance levers to pull on guns, but we weren't happy with how strongly the Destroyer forced our hands on this one.  We still like the unique flavor of massive clips on him, and in internal playtesting, he still feels pretty great with the lower total mag bonuses.  But this change brings him a bit more in line, as well as allowing us to be more free with our weapon design.

I know this is a bit of a stretch, but what my brain is trying to convince me I heard is "Paladin clip size increase." 

[10bears]

T04stm4n wrote...

I understand that over the 30+ years that video games have existed a minor portion of them get this detail of treatment.

Ask any artist..you spend too much time rethinking your past decisions and you ruin your work.

This

[bendermac]

Chris Schanche wrote...
A big part of it was the fact that the ammo buff on the Destroyer was just too strong.  One of the levers we can pull when designing and balancing a gun is clip size.  While we already have to plan around the assault rifle capacity mod, the Destroyer was a whole extra layer.  Whenever a new gun was being blanced, or an old one reassessed, we have to balance it both against the Destroyer's potential massive clip size, as well as against every other kit.

This could easily lead to making a gun either too good on him, or not good enough on a lot of others.  We have plenty of other balance levers to pull on guns, but we weren't happy with how strongly the Destroyer forced our hands on this one.  We still like the unique flavor of massive clips on him, and in internal playtesting, he still feels pretty great with the lower total mag bonuses.  But this change brings him a bit more in line, as well as allowing us to be more free with our weapon design.

i get what you saying but why did you nerf the demolishers pylon? increasing the time the pylon spits out new grenades makes no sense. this kit is based on grenades and the extra 5 seconds longer a pretty heavy... depending on your loadout this nerf is much much bigger.
also the nerf to reduce weapson damage bonus while standing in the pylon is another poor choice. yes, you get a bonus but for this bonus you have to become pretty much a camper. a tradeoff that worked good so far.

balancing is a very tricky thing and mostly you guys look at the wrong things to nerf.

the weapon bonus nerf on the pylon wont affect me as much because my girl is usually very mobile. however the grenade output from the pylon, that freaking hurts.

[Imp of the Perverse]

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.

I wish Skyrim had had something like this in place when it was first released, that game's balance was a mess when it first came out.

[cuzIMgood]

Don't listen to the few idiots who make threads like these Bioware. I love the weekly balance changes and appreciate you sticking with the game so long after release.

[Gr1zz Dawg]

Chris Schanche wrote...

Part of the reason we continue the balance changes is because we keep releasing new content, some of which throws that balance off. Things that may have been balanced in the previous multiplayer climate may no longer be in the current one. I suspect that sometime after we stop releasing new multiplayer content, the balance changes will probably slow and then stop, but we've got a bit yet even just considering the weeks of kits ahead.

The 10-15 of us here that make up the gameplay team, both devs and testers all put in extensive amount of time testing anything that we make. But it's just the reality of the situation that all of us testing these things every day is never going to expose as many problems as the number of active players in the game all the time will. We balance new content to the best of our abilities but there's no shame in us admitting that we don't always get it right the first time, and sometimes not the time after that.

Halo 3 doesn't change for the reason I mentioned before, they don't change because they can't. The patch cycle is prohibitive of that. I hope that Halo 4 includes a system like ours, that more and more other games also have now, that will let them more rapidly iterate on their multiplayer. (I'm not trying to toot our horn here, we're certainly not the first dev to be using this method, but there are quite a few who aren't yet.) Guild Wars 2 is already beginning to go through regular balance changes, like all MMOs do, and I suspect that will continue.

1. I hope you don't ever stop releasing multiplayer content (untill ME4 comes out??)
2. I think either ME3 MP or at least the N7 characters deserve their own game. IMHO they are by far the most interesting group of characters (especially the Fury).

Thanks for making this ME3 MP the reason I haven't played any other game for the last 5 months.

Oh and one other thing...the palette swapping (Kroguard -> Shaman). Stop it! Stop...it!

Modifié par Gr1zz Dawg, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:05 .

[megabeast37215]

I love the balance changes... especially when they are huge and sweeping. It's like getting a slightly new game every Tuesday... so OP... I think your whining is... wrong. Keep the balance changes coming... they've all been great for months on end now.

[upinya slayin]

Chris Schanche wrote...

T04stm4n wrote...

upinya slayin wrote...

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

I would..but a week later I'd realize I had too many slices of turkey and not enough cheese.  I would nerf the mustard content by 35% because I like mustard the most therefore it is OP.  Gotta balance that sandwich even though it was so delicious to begin with.

It may have been delicious but it probably wasn't healthy.  Cutting that mustard was a good call, you should probably assess the mayo too.

now he's gonna complain BW is telling him how to eat lol

[Gr1zz Dawg]

megabeast37215 wrote...

I love the balance changes... especially when they are huge and sweeping. It's like getting a slightly new game every Tuesday... so OP... I think your whining is... wrong. Keep the balance changes coming... they've all been great for months on end now.

+1

[blaster1 112]

before they should leave:

-give me an Harrier & a particle rifle (spent 35 million Cr and i still don't have them)
- make the incisor, Raptor useful
- nerf dragoons walking speed.
- make geth Primes NOT stun you. the fact that their drone does is bad enough.
- make Phantoms & Banshee's not go for as many sync kills as possible. (my entire team got sync killed by 1 Banshee that survived 3 Cobra missiles.
- Buff the Wraith to a point where it is actually worth it's UR status.
- make the Typhoon as it started (i don't mind the .25m penetration though it can stay).
- delete the Nerf on the destroyer it was perfectly balanced.
- same as above for the supply pylon. (or make the regular ammo boxes drop grenades faster).
- make the Scorpion and the Locust stronger as well. (tried scorpion on silver: it takes 4 body shots on a Centurion to kill him (with adrenaline rush active specced for damage on a BF3 soldier).
- Create a game mode with just Husks and (possesed) Abominations.

edit: destroyer is now useless compared to the BF3 Soldier or the Turian Soldier because their Adrenaline Rush and Marksman give them an instand reload and either an damage or RoF boost and accuracy. Herefore Devastator mode is a lot worse now. and with those 2 chars (and the normal humans) you can still dodge as well. so you are faster and stronger. however you do need to watch the weight a little bit.

Modifié par blaster1 112, 24 octobre 2012 - 09:10 .

[ErrorTagUnknown]

Chris Schanche wrote...

T04stm4n wrote...

upinya slayin wrote...

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

I would..but a week later I'd realize I had too many slices of turkey and not enough cheese.  I would nerf the mustard content by 35% because I like mustard the most therefore it is OP.  Gotta balance that sandwich even though it was so delicious to begin with.

It may have been delicious but it probably wasn't healthy.  Cutting that mustard was a good call, you should probably assess the mayo too.

i have to disagree with you on this mr. Schanche --  The mustard really only affects the 'flavor' of the sandwhich and  is going to have little to no affect on the overall 'health economy' of the sandwhich.   Depending on whether or not he's applying a "lean" mod to the turkey he may need a significant nerf to the turkey.   The Cheese should stay were it's at, any more and it would probably throw the health economy severaly out of whack.
Though i have to agree on the mayo.  depending on how it's being applied, it could be a serious cuplrit to this sandwhich being significantly op against his waistline.

[Renku]

Chris Schanche wrote...
  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.

A player somewhere in the world plays one kit more than others. How can you tell that reason behind the choice is a) because the kit is OP or the kit is fun? Space Magic?

[upinya slayin]

Chris Schanche wrote...

Zero132132 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.

One thing I don't get, though... has anyone posted an explanation of why the Devastator mode clip nerf was made? I think most in the community are just baffled by it, although if you provide a concrete reason you might get more pissed off people trying to explain why it's wrong.

Honestly, though, I think a lot of us would be a bit less angry if we had some idea of why something that out-of-the-blue was done.

A big part of it was the fact that the ammo buff on the Destroyer was just too strong.  One of the levers we can pull when designing and balancing a gun is clip size.  While we already have to plan around the assault rifle capacity mod, the Destroyer was a whole extra layer.  Whenever a new gun was being blanced, or an old one reassessed, we have to balance it both against the Destroyer's potential massive clip size, as well as against every other kit.

This could easily lead to making a gun either too good on him, or not good enough on a lot of others.  We have plenty of other balance levers to pull on guns, but we weren't happy with how strongly the Destroyer forced our hands on this one.  We still like the unique flavor of massive clips on him, and in internal playtesting, he still feels pretty great with the lower total mag bonuses.  But this change brings him a bit more in line, as well as allowing us to be more free with our weapon design.

60% was pretty strong for ARs but now that it is below 50 we no longer have a 3 shot wraith so the destroyer wraith build got a hugue nerf losing its extra shot and its ROF increase (which the wraith sorely needs) so the way i used it took a big hit becuase of the way other people used it. But luckily i'm not the complaining type

would have been nice to maybe nerf the zie for ARs only and leave it for teh shotguns and snipers taht needed the extra rounds. either way its no big deal.

It is nice to have BW feedback on questions. people here complain too much. BW has done way more for us on ME3 MP then any company iv've seen do on any game.