351 réponses à ce sujet

[DullahansXMark]

Impulse and Compulse wrote...

What we also like to see is more buffs than nerfs.

This is the problem right here. Yes, it's awesome when something just becomes even better, but sometimes that's not for the best. Granted, right now we need to see a lot more buffs than nerfs, but the universal answer isn't to just buff everything up to the new standard. There's a certain point where the game started, and as it went on it's slowly risen (power creep). Not everything has to be perfectly balanced, but the high-finesse classes need to feel like they're doing something. And the ones that just sit on the other side of the map pressing one button every three seconds to double their damage output are just... I don't think anything should be done to them now, but it never should have gotten to that point in the first place.

Anyway, the overall issue here is, the only way to achieve equilibrium would be to heavily nerf Infiltrators (specifically Tactical Cloak) and make slight buffs to some of the other stuff (Infiltrators make it too easy, "other stuff" makes it too hard. Somewhere in the middle is that state of "just right"). However, at this point I don't think it's worth doing that. I just hope this isn't such an issue in Mass Effect 4.

Edit: Regarding the "obvious" issue that I conveniently snipped, believe it or not this concept is actually foreign to a few people. Way back in the day it was almost foreign to a majority of people.

Modifié par DullahansXMark, 02 mars 2013 - 02:31 .

[Grunt_Platform]

I think that's a poor summary of what broke Infiltrators, since, frankly, sniping is actually pretty well balanced right now. But those shotgun infiltrators, who pretty much ruled the game until new kits came out that could match their pace, and old kits were buffed... I think that problem exists entirely because the global cooldown was designed for single player, and the benefits of a kit being able to bypass that system in multiplayer, while others still feel its full effect, was not fully considered.

I think kits like the Fury, the post-buff Drell, Awakened Collector Adept, and Krogan Warlord show how BioWare is approaching this issue going forward. Multiplayer kits who aren't completely constrained by the GCD seem to be the rule now.

...But yes. You can't just keep raising the bar for overall power level. And thankfully, in ME3 MP that power level seems to have peaked with the post-nerf Geth Infiltrator, with more classes approaching that overall power.

Modifié par EvanKester, 02 mars 2013 - 02:55 .

[wrath425]

To all the nerfers in the Bioware community shut the hell up and go get hit by a bus,
if your saying the game is too easy choose a higher dificulty, if you jealous because someone is doing better than you get over it.
Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer has become much harder since release through buffing enemies and nerfing players, for example the Krysae has been nerfed into uselessness by the nerfers now it can't compete with any uncommon snipers or even the Mantis, the Mantis does more damage for the same rate of fire plus it has more spare ammo, as for characters the power classes like the Adepts,Engineers and Sentinels are underpowered so they struggle through silver and are almost useless on gold thanks to low damage and durability and don't say bring a powerful weapon like the Harrier because that defeats the purpose of a power class, you might as well just pick a Soldier or Infiltrator if your going to do that.

[Chi_Mangetsu]

 You didn't use the most apropos smiley of them all? 

I am disappoint, Dullypants.

[Grunt_Platform]

wrath425 wrote...

nerfers

There's a term I hoped was going to crawl into a ditch and die. Please read the OP more closely.

Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer has become much harder since release through buffing enemies and nerfing players, for example the Krysae has been nerfed into uselessness by the nerfers now it can't compete with any uncommon snipers or even the Mantis, the Mantis does more damage for the same rate of fire plus it has more spare ammo, as for characters the power classes like the Adepts,Engineers and Sentinels are underpowered so they struggle through silver and are almost useless on gold thanks to low damage and durability and don't say bring a powerful weapon like the Harrier because that defeats the purpose of a power class, you might as well just pick a Soldier or Infiltrator if your going to do that.

Try actually reading the balance change list. Or the forums.

Nobody asked for BioWare to do what they did to the Krysae. But they had to kill it to force people to use other weapons.

I'm getting the picture you're new to the game, or the forum, and thus don't actually remember that time very well. But you see... when a dominant strategy appears in a game, people will latch onto it. They subconsciously define it as "the way the game is played" and even nerfing that strategy won't be enough to stop people from gravitating to it. The only way to stop it, and reinject some variety into the game is to take that strategy out back and kill it.

And yes. The Krysae's dominance was toxic to the game. And no, Adepts, Engineers and Sentinels aren't in as bad a spot as you apparently think. But yes, the "use only powers and never shoot your gun" playstyle doesn't carry into Gold very well for most kits.


...Not that I would oppose BioWare buffing the Krysae back up to relevance now.

Modifié par EvanKester, 02 mars 2013 - 03:08 .

[DullahansXMark]

EvanKester wrote...

I think that's a poor summary of what broke Infiltrators, since, frankly, sniping is actually pretty well balanced right now. But those shotgun infiltrators, who pretty much ruled the game until new kits came out that could match their pace, until old kits were buffed to match their pace... I think that problem exists entirely because the global cooldown was designed for single player, and the benefits of a kit being able to bypass that system in multiplayer, while others still feel its full effect, was not fully considered.

I think kits like the Fury, the post-buff Drell, Awakened Collector Adept, and Krogan Warlord show how BioWare is approaching this issue going forward. Multiplayer kits who aren't completely constrained by the GCD seem to be the rule now.

...But yes. You can't just keep raising the bar for overall power level. And thankfully, in ME3 MP that power level seems to have peaked with the post-nerf Geth Infiltrator, with more classes approaching that overall power.

I suppose you're right on the mark there. This whole issue, ultimately, stems from the fact that this was meant to be a single-player game. Those don't have quite the same balance issues as a multiplayer game does (they do have balance issues nevertheless), so Tactical Cloak was perfectly legit in SP. In the early days of MP, back before we discovered the usefulness of a shotgun Infiltrator, they were still perfectly balanced. They were snipers. Not close-range fighters. The idea was to do lots of damage from afar, but if the enemies got close you were kinda screwed. And then shotguns entered the fray, and the Claymore's sniper potential did not help this at all. Now we have Infiltrators running all over the place with shotguns doing everyone's jobs. Recent multiplayer expansions, as you said, have been trying to bring other classes up to the same standard (and they have), which is good.

I think Tactical Cloak's biggest problem isn't itself; the vanilla Infiltrators were legit. The Salarian was kinda OP, but still mostly fine. The problem enters when you give Infiltrators skills that synergize too well with Cloak. Hunter Mode? Overload? Snap Freeze? Stimulant Pack? Repair Matrix? Tactical Cloak needed to be shut off more from other powers, and it wasn't. Hence the huge shift in power. Remember the vanilla classes? Human, freeze, Cloak, and shoot. Salarian, Cloak, Drain, and shoot. Quarian... umm... shoot? Turian, Cloak, Overload, NUKE. Again though, there are still plenty of classes that can do about the same levels of damage. There is still a small balance left. (Though the Havoc is still underperforming)

[DullahansXMark]

Chi_Mangetsu wrote...

 You didn't use the most apropos smiley of them all? 

I am disappoint, Dullypants.

Galaxy of Fantasy's dev team deemed him much more OP than Copper, so they cancelled his DLC.

[Grunt_Platform]

I honestly think Cloak's fine (or near fine). Repair Matrix + Cloak might be a bit much right now.. but anyway, the non-infiltrators are doing a better job catching up. Even the likes of the Turian Sentinel, who early on was kind of dopey (except when used by the people who figured out the incendiary + warp trick early on)... he's keeping pace with Infiltrators pretty well now.

Being able to stand and fight for more time is catching up to brief damage spikes better.

At the very least, I no longer feel like I need to bring an Infiltrator to keep pace with people on higher difficulties.

EDIT: And to clarify...

One of the key reasons Cloak is more balanced in single player than multiplayer is that huge damage spikes and bypassing the GCD don't matter as much in single player. Shepard in single player will almost always have two squadmates, with separate cooldowns. Shepard can always get off a string of power combos in a matter of seconds, meaning the non-infiltrator Shepards have plenty of room to deal huge truckloads of damage to entire groups of enemies.

Infiltrators are only better off in the brief moments of working alone. Unfortunately, the teamwork in Multiplayer isn't that well coordinated, and so... that balance doesn't translate well.

Modifié par EvanKester, 02 mars 2013 - 03:32 .

[Cyonan]

DullahansXMark wrote...
I suppose you're right on the mark there. This whole issue, ultimately, stems from the fact that this was meant to be a single-player game. Those don't have quite the same balance issues as a multiplayer game does (they do have balance issues nevertheless), so Tactical Cloak was perfectly legit in SP. In the early days of MP, back before we discovered the usefulness of a shotgun Infiltrator, they were still perfectly balanced. They were snipers. Not close-range fighters. The idea was to do lots of damage from afar, but if the enemies got close you were kinda screwed. And then shotguns entered the fray, and the Claymore's sniper potential did not help this at all. Now we have Infiltrators running all over the place with shotguns doing everyone's jobs. Recent multiplayer expansions, as you said, have been trying to bring other classes up to the same standard (and they have), which is good.

I think Tactical Cloak's biggest problem isn't itself; the vanilla Infiltrators were legit. The Salarian was kinda OP, but still mostly fine. The problem enters when you give Infiltrators skills that synergize too well with Cloak. Hunter Mode? Overload? Snap Freeze? Stimulant Pack? Repair Matrix? Tactical Cloak needed to be shut off more from other powers, and it wasn't. Hence the huge shift in power. Remember the vanilla classes? Human, freeze, Cloak, and shoot. Salarian, Cloak, Drain, and shoot. Quarian... umm... shoot? Turian, Cloak, Overload, NUKE. Again though, there are still plenty of classes that can do about the same levels of damage. There is still a small balance left. (Though the Havoc is still underperforming)

I feel like the idea was that damage wasn't going to be the only thing that mattered, like much of the BSN thinks so.

Adepts are supposed to have good AoE damage and CC. Engineers are anti-defence with some CC. Soldiers mix durability and damage, Sentinels are tanks, Vanguards are high risk tanks, and Infiltrators are long range massive damage dealers.

Only hard CC doesn't work on armour, which is problematic on Gold where you have a lot of armoured mobs spawning and the insane amounts of damage being pumped out meant even Tech Armour couldn't hold up to make you all that tough. It became burst down the enemy before they burst down you.

The Adepts held out on their AoE DPS but then we figured out shotgun Infiltrators, our weapons started hitting level X and we were getting higher ranked URs and then they became DPS machines, because that's what they were designed to do from day 1.

Then we got an Infiltrator with ops packs and  this example stopped making sense =P

We've since gotten our characters that don't die and go where they please, though I think in Mass Effect 4 I would like to see CC play a bigger role. Make our Infiltrators lack the ability to control a crowd, and make them feel uncomfortable if they don't have an Adept there to help with that.

[Offender_Mullet]

DullahansXMark wrote...

"Tckthuhuluwapphffffuputututu!" (which is a translation of the above into an ancient and forgotten language)

I wouldn't call it a dead language, seeing as there are plenty of nonsense-filled threads on BNS which use it.

[Chi_Mangetsu]

Honestly, I think the AIU is legit (lorewise, anyway), mostly because it was kind of EDI's plan all along to mass produce the Eva body for Alliance use. Since BW didn't give us Defense Matrix, they gave us something even more powerful, and that's how EDI improved upon the system.

Modifié par Chi_Mangetsu, 02 mars 2013 - 03:42 .

[Draining Dragon]

Why do my threads attract all the dumb people?

Seriously, this thread seems to be primarily composed of coherent thought.

WTF is this. Such clear thinking never happens when people respond to my threads.

Modifié par Draining Dragon, 02 mars 2013 - 03:46 .

[sc_ajk29]

My main problem with nerfing in ME3 is more the hypocrisy on BW's part of being more than happy to nerf the players when even a small number of people want it, but when it comes to the many OP things about the enemies (Geth stunlock, Phantom hand cannon, Scion grenades, Geth Pyro range, enemy stomping frequency, no CD on Bomber taser or Dragoon Smash, Praetorian butt lasers and lasers going through walls, etc) these just get ignored, even when pointed out over and over to death. When I start to see these issues being addressed, rather than "these are low priorities right now" as some devs have said, then maybe I'll be more privy to further nerfs on the players.

[Grunt_Platform]

sc_ajk29 wrote...

My main problem with nerfing in ME3 is more the hypocrisy on BW's part of being more than happy to nerf the players when even a small number of people want it, but when it comes to the many OP things about the enemies (Geth stunlock, Phantom hand cannon, Scion grenades, Geth Pyro range, enemy stomping frequency, no CD on Bomber taser or Dragoon Smash, Praetorian butt lasers and lasers going through walls, etc) these just get ignored, even when pointed out over and over to death. When I start to see these issues being addressed, rather than "these are low priorities right now" as some devs have said, then maybe I'll be more privy to further nerfs on the players.

A) There haven't been really that many player-side nerfs. Most of them have had nothing to do with player requests either (the Tactical Cloak nerf is the only one that  was influenced by player input. The intent was to increase the value of Duration builds as much as nerfing Damage builds). Sometimes the nerfs have followed player callout, but that's mostly because the players are responding to similar signals as the devs. If a minority of the playerbase could get things nerfed that easily, the Reegar would've been nerfed into the ground by now.

Most of the issues you mentioned can't be fixed without a patch, as they are caused by bugs, or are intended behaviors that got out of hand in the multiplayer context. That they haven't fixed these issues is a matter of pragmatism, not preference. And insisting they "fix" these things before cutting back on over-centralizing weapons or kits is... well. Read the OP again.

C) The few issues that could be fixed with balance changes (Phantom gun, stomping speed, etc.) are matters of opinion as much as anything. Plus, things like nerfing the phantom's handgun would call for bigger changes than you might expect, as has been discussed in countless threads.

Modifié par EvanKester, 02 mars 2013 - 04:19 .

[sc_ajk29]

EvanKester wrote...
A) There haven't been really that many player-side nerfs. Most of them have had nothing to do with player requests either (the Tactical Cloak nerf is the only one that  was influenced by player input.

Actually, so were the Krysae, Piranha, and Typhoon nerfs. And then there's the Vindicator nerf, which was a total "OMGWTF?"

EvanKester wrote...
If a minority of the playerbase could get things nerfed that easily, the Reegar would've been nerfed into the ground by now.

Been seeing a lot of people defending the Reegar (including on this thread) so...I dunno.

EvanKester wrote...
Most of the issues you mentioned can't be fixed without a patch, as they are caused by bugs, or are intended behaviors that got out of hand in the multiplayer context. That they haven't fixed these issues is a matter of pragmatism, not preference.

Fair enough. Still, some things (such as Geth stunlock) have been issues since launch, so yeah, my point still applies to those. And the fact that patches tend to come like ever 5 months doesn't help matters much either. Guess I was going for more of a DR approach, at least temporarily. If Praetorian lasers have the amazing ability to shoot lasers through solid walls then yes, I would expect their damage to be lowered to compensate.

EvanKester wrote...
And insisting they "fix" these things before cutting back on over-centralizing weapons or kits is... well. Read the OP again.

Well, when we've had the opposite happen constantly and consistently since launch, why wouldn't I want them to fix the enemies as well? There are two sides to balance here, you can't just weaken the players and expect balance.

EvanKester wrote...
C) The few issues that could be fixed with balance changes (Phantom gun, stomping speed, etc.) are matters of opinion as much as anything. Plus, things like nerfing the phantom's handgun would call for bigger changes than you might expect, as has been discussed in countless threads.

Meh, not all opinions have equal credibility. If someone claimed that the Shruiken and Inscior are OP, I doubt that that many people would take that claim seriously.

Gues my main point is that I don't mind nerfing itself per se, just the overemphasis on fixing the imbalances on the players' side and ignoring the imbalances on the enemies' side.

Modifié par sc_ajk29, 02 mars 2013 - 05:50 .

[Mindfane]

In ME1 and ME2 the class system was pretty rigid. ie each class had a known playstyle. Infiltrators mostly used Sniper rifles and preffered long range engagement, while vanguards ran in close and used their Shotguns. However in ME3 SP and MP this has changed and any kit can use any weapon. I like this flexiblity but it has affected the game design. A Shotgun weilding Infiltrator is much more deadly than a sniper infiltrator (unless he has very good aim).

I do not like to see BioWare restrict weapon selection based on class. But what if there are bonuses for sticking to a class and its specific weapons. ie Infiltrators get bonus point (or damage as it si now) for all Sniper rifles. And similar bonus for each class so that it is better to use their assigned wepons. I do not want to see a penalty for using a wepon that is not of your class. But a bonus. Do you think that will encourage players to use Sniper Infiltrators over Shotgun inflitrators? And similar bonus for other classes as well? will it work?

From an ME1 and ME2 perspective it would be better if each class stiks to their own weapons. But the problem is unless your team has a mix of different classes whci complement each other, this could result in a difficult match. Just a thought.

[RoundedPlanet88]

Draining Dragon wrote...

Why do my threads attract all the dumb people?

Seriously, this thread seems to be primarily composed of coherent thought.

WTF is this. Such clear thinking never happens when people respond to my threads.

Meh, cause you come off as sarcastic?
Clear reasoned OP`s generally lead to clear reasoned responses. Meh, who am I kidding, clear reasoned OP`s sometimes lead to clear reasoned responses.

[joker_jack]

Modifié par joker_jack, 02 mars 2013 - 05:32 .

[Antaresss]

I read the first post and all that makes sense to me is:

"You just don't like being outscored!"

and

"It's a co-op game!"

[VaultingFrog]

I dont mind a nerf or two when it is needed, but who determines what should be nerfed and by how much is a problem however.

There are some people who do know many aspects of the game but when it comes down to it, a lot of nerfs that are called for are due to the players playing that character rather than the mechanics themselves. You cant nerf the person behind the controller. If they want to troll then they will troll, no amount of nerfing will ever change that.

The player themselves causes more problems than the game. More over due to it being a personal experience our own biases color said nerf requests and in essence call for changes that design a game that makes it better for you but not nessissarily better for everyone else.

It is a tricky business this nerfing.

Personally I would rather have nerfing done on a basis of data between the character models and their weapons vs the various enemies and their performances at each level. Averaging the damage tables between difficulties can give a rough estimate of where a weapon should be for a player in terms of dealing damage. Depending on the type it might be slightly higher or lower. Player health and shields/barriers being adjusted according to how much average damage output between all difficulties and racial benefits.

Keeping it in those terms helps prevent the majority of personal bias from influencing said nerfs and or buffs. They will still be there of course but not in such an overwhelming fashion.

But this is just me.

[MajorStupidity]

Antaresss wrote...

I read the first post and all that makes sense to me is:

"You just don't like being outscored!"

and

"It's a co-op game!"

The OP is a completely rational argument for one side, but instead of even acknowledging that people have different opinions you just stick with your ridiculous arguments which have been proven wrong yet keep showing up.

Most nerfers do not argue for nerfs because of score, and coop games need to be balanced just the same as SP games. Obviously the people who argue against nerfs have never played Dragon age 2 and seen the massive nerf everything got in that game with one patch. I am not even exaggerating they literally nerfed ~85% of the player classes and abilities in one patch.

[Lokiwithrope]

AresKeith wrote...

I have nothing against balancing characters and guns, but there were a couple that are questionable

[BattleCop88]

OP, I'm generally on the other side of the balance war, but I kinda like this thread. It seems the brilliant, mature people came to approach balance issues. Many other threads discussing nerfs involves thinly veiled bragging and calls for nerfs for the wrong reasons. There is a difference between those seeking balance and "nerfers", and that is for a different thread. If I read correctly, your enemy is a MP experience with little replay value, so is mine. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Balancing, especially nerfing, is a touchy subject for me. Lol that's why I joined BSN; to fight nerfs. Thing is, I would trust Bioware with balance if they didnt nerf weapons into the ground, and the metagame was seamless as opposed to being defined by glitches, bugs, and lag. In addition to that, I feel like some weapons have simply been left behind as the metagame changed, and need to be updated before we can even talk about nerfs.

[BattleCop88]

MajorStupidity wrote...

Antaresss wrote...

I read the first post and all that makes sense to me is:

"You just don't like being outscored!"

and

"It's a co-op game!"

The OP is a completely rational argument for one side, but instead of even acknowledging that people have different opinions you just stick with your ridiculous arguments which have been proven wrong yet keep showing up.

Most nerfers do not argue for nerfs because of score, and coop games need to be balanced just the same as SP games. Obviously the people who argue against nerfs have never played Dragon age 2 and seen the massive nerf everything got in that game with one patch. I am not even exaggerating they literally nerfed ~85% of the player classes and abilities in one patch.

Seriously? How bad was it?

[Kushiel42]

BattleCop88 wrote...

Thing is, I would trust Bioware with balance if they didnt nerf weapons into the ground,

Which weapons do you think they've nerfed beyond playability, other than the Krysae (which I think everyone can agree on)?

BattleCop88 wrote...

and the metagame was seamless as opposed to being defined by glitches, bugs, and lag.

Which of these do you think are problematic at this point? I feel like this used to be a much bigger issue, but other than Snap Freeze being inordinately good due to its bugs, I can't think of anything else that's unduly out of balance.

BattleCop88 wrote...

In addition to that, I feel like some weapons have simply been left behind as the metagame changed, and need to be updated before we can even talk about nerfs.

Like?

(Specific examples are always better for discussion than sweeping generalizations. )

Modifié par Kushiel42, 03 mars 2013 - 10:53 .