351 réponses à ce sujet

[K_O_513]

There's really no character that's 100% idiotproof. As much as people complain about PUGs on here you would think that they would realize that character choice is only 1/3 of the battle. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how bad or uninformed lots of players are. The casual fanbase is pretty big.

Besides, buffs and nerfs don't have to be huge to where the balance is significantly shifted. A lot of the buffs aren't even that noticeable unless it relates to a change in game mechanic or bug fix (ie. Rage Bonus or Freeze Combo).

[DullahansXMark]

I'll be fair: when people were calling nerfs for the Piranha, I tried to defend it. This WAS at a time where the Krysae and Typhoon were murdered, so naturally I assumed the Piranha would get murdered, too. But when I actually saw the changes, they weren't that bad. Would I kill things as fast? Of course not. Even after the second nerf, I still love the gun. I personally prefer the Raider though, honestly (it's my favorite shotgun now).

I myself am a user of the Destroyer. Not a whole lot, but he's seen frequent use by me. When he got nerfed recently, I just kinda rolled with it. Yes, a 60% increase in mag size was awesome, but that's just WAY TOO BIG. I mean, turning the 100-shot Typhoon into a 160-shot weapon? That's not even taking the Capacity Mod into account... I do wish that 2-shot weapons didn't get hit by this, but I can imagine they can find a fix for that (rounding up instead of down, maybe). The Destroyer's niche wasn't his mag size (that sounds dirty, lol), nor his multi-frags, nor his missile launcher, or his 57.5% weapon damage bonuses; it's a combination of ALL of these factors.

As for the Demolisher? She still kicks ass. I've been using her frequently lately, and she's still just as amazing now as she ever was.

[Asebstos]

Cyonan wrote...

No matter how balanced a team thinks their character is, no matter how much testing they did on it the community will almost always find something that the team just didn't think of. It's less "being incompetent" and more just a fact of making video games. It happens to the developers that are considered the best at balancing their games.

Gamers can be a rather clever bunch of people.

Not going to even touch the conspiracy theory argument.

I agree with you, but the original Krysae; you can't explain that.

[Distilled Poison]

My biggest problem with the care bear anti balance crowd is having to sift through 500 "OMG U RUINED MY class/GUN" threads for two weeks after a nerf. I still remember people saying the GI was useless after his nerf. It's cute for a few days, but it gets old quick.

To date, the only thing nerfed too much has been the Krysae, and even it was still usable. The Pirhana, GI, GE, Destroyer, and Demolisher are still top tier, for example, despite nerfs.

Also, while I'm at it, nerf the freaking Reegar.

[ErrorTagUnknown]

BuckshotSamurai wrote...

@ Leandro (and XMark): It was a good read and an especially well thought out and presented explanation. My point wasn't to be taken negatively and if it was, I apologise. I only meant that DXM is a very good writer and didn't need the smilies to illustrate his point. As an older gamer/poster, the use of smilies really does seem, maybe not childish, perhaps adolescent, and could somewhat lessen the mesage of an otherwise excellent topic opener.

Personally, I think we need more discussions like this but sadly it just isn't in the cards. Until such a day, I will continue to help those seeking it and hammerfisting the imbeciles.

ahh i liked the smileys... and i'm gonna be 30 in a couple months.   they kind of fit the explanation.  it was friggin adorable.

And i always found i couldn't see, let alone write, after enough DXM

[cuzIMgood]

Distilled Poison wrote...

My biggest problem with the care bear anti balance crowd is having to sift through 500 "OMG U RUINED MY class/GUN" threads for two weeks after a nerf. I still remember people saying the GI was useless after his nerf. It's cute for a few days, but it gets old quick.

To date, the only thing nerfed too much has been the Krysae, and even it was still usable. The Pirhana, GI, GE, Destroyer, and Demolisher are still top tier, for example, despite nerfs.

Also, while I'm at it, nerf the freaking Reegar.

Pretty much this.

[andrew688k]

Actually I like balance changes, it changes the game every week, buffs make under powered kits fun and viable, while nerfs does make me sad, it makes those kits more reasonable, and more diverse, so in some way, I actually enjoy it!
If you still don't understand, Deal with it.

[TG XTerminatorX]

You forgot about the "EA and Bioware wanting you to buy packs" basis.

[Blarg]

 OP, that is probably the most reasonable argument I have ever read in the Nerf/Buff War. I dare say it's the best argument ever made in the ME3 MP forums.

I still maintain my neutrality and indifference towards nerfs and buffs, though.

[DSxCallOfBooty-]

The argument I've been trying to convince people of since release. Thank you.

I'd add a section on guns though. While your text implies the same principles to them as to anything else, I'd be sure to mention your stance on guns, as well as whether or not you think UR/P > R > U > C in terms of overall effectiveness, or UR/P = R = U = C.

[Volatile Device]

Melgrimm wrote...

Why even release the "copper" chracter if the point is to keep the game all even steven? Why not release balanced characters that don't put all others to shame? OP's version of events makes it seem that Bioware is incompetent.

Or. . .

They are just releasing powerful characters to get people to dump money into purchases, then nerfing those characters after they've made their profit so that people want to dump money into the next big thing. Either way its shaky to defend these predictable cycles of nerfing. I understand that there are some things that the programmers don't foresee, and I don't mind a little evolution, but its a bit aggravating if you've worked hard or paid money to get something that then is worthless in a week.

I really agree with your second paragraph. DLC weapons and characters feel so... bait and switch. Bait being releasing a powerful kit/weapon and pack sale going up so people can get and use it for a week or two, then the switch being the nerf to keep balance seekers happy. For Bioware, one helps the other. People realize it will be nerfed soon, so they quickly try to get it (PSP sales probably spike at this time), then use it as much as they can while they can. This brings the thing in question to the forefront of balance-seekers' focuses, hastening the thing's effective demise.

[-Shroomerz420]

They say ignorance is bliss. You sure are a blissful bunch.

~In My Opinion~

Nerfs = Putting a stop to easy credit acquisition. I'm positive they have data on what guns/levels/characters are used and those are "balanced" in their favor, not ours.

Buffs = Makes the players feel as if their voice was heard. Essentially a slight of hand trick. Was severely under powered before and new content made it obvious to all. Gives useless stuff a new shelf life and everyone is happy.....for now. Haha

It's a continuous cycle that keeps the half players content while frustrating the others. All the while they fight amongst themselves instead of uniting for a common cause. We have so much influence over this industry yet do nothing. WHY?

The fact no one wants to admit is that the MP store affects every aspect of this game. If you think about it logically, you'd be unable to reach any other conclusion. It is a cancer that ruins an otherwise healthy game.

I want to think BioWare/EA really cares about us the fans, but look around. I find them to be insulting on multiple levels. Not just with ME3.

Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist, but I am rarely wrong. Also, it's never a bad thing to be skeptical and question everything that's supposedly true. We need less sheep and more independent thinkers around here. Maybe then we'll stop be taken advantage of.

[N7Kopper]

-Shroomerz420 wrote...

Maybe I am a conspiracy theorist, but I am rarely wrong. Also, it's never a bad thing to be skeptical and question everything that's supposedly true. We need less sheep and more independent thinkers around here. Maybe then we'll stop be taken advantage of.

The whole point of this thread is to question. Just because we don't necessarily agree with the most cynical theory our questioning posits doesn't make us sheep. Or tl;dr: skepticism =/= cynicism.
Oh, and to be brutally honest with you, I can think of more times in my personal experience that BioWare has done something good for the fanbase (just because making money comes into it as a pragmatic reason, doesn't mean there's not any kind of love there) than I've found people attractive. Now, "personal experience means nothing" as the Fire Emblem community puts it (when it comes to character growths and tiers) but on inherently subjective issues like corporation and company integrity, there's not much else to go on.

Or, as XKCD puts it:



and @OP: Ah, my thoughts exactly. You're just better at vocalising them.

Modifié par N7Kopper, 27 octobre 2012 - 04:31 .

[CrutchCricket]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

@Crutch Cricket

I guess there's no need to buff anything, because we can all choose whatever we want to play right?

What's that you say? Buffing certain classes makes things more enjoyable and opens up more gameplay options? Sure, let's buff some things. Oh look, now we're back at the power creep issue.

Wrong.

Buffing may be necessary if a particular build is literally unplayable (as in you'll almost certainly wipe or just make it by the skin of your teeth with all your consumables wasted).

Any buffs beyond this level aren't necessary. Though they are nice to have. No one's going to complain about player buffs because it gives something. Nerfing reduces or takes away. That's the fundamental problem, questions of balance aside.

And power creep is only an issue if the only enemy balancing you do is increasing hitpoints and damage. All Bioware does to "balance" is variable tinkering. And it's bloody annoying.

[CrutchCricket]

Eriseley wrote...

Conversely, you're not forced out of playing it when it's adjusted down. One would think if one were playing for preference, and gameplay remains essentially the same, one would not be particularly affected. I mean supposely you don't mind if your preference is weaker, much less simply balanced, so what's the problem?

Yet every week we see a flood of "no longer viable"/"ruined my fun"/"now I have to learn something else". I wonder why that is? I wonder why in so many of these discussions about balance, so many people say everything else in the entire game sucks and is useless except this one gun that's just "okay" and makes the game only "playable". That doesn't sound much like exploration of the game and development of preferences to me, it sounds like flocking to the flavor of the week and dismissing everything else as novelty, exactly as explained in the original post. That sounds like people hitting a difficulty level where preference takes a back seat to effectiveness.

If you want a good game that's going to last, you want players to hit that difficulty and still explore the game and use what they prefer in that difficulty. That requires balance, because most people clearly do feel swayed in what they use by what they think is effective, evidenced on these forums every single day.

Well for one thing, it's whining on the internet, what do you expect? Everything on the internet is RUINED FOREVER!!

For another, preference takes a back seat because we all need the credits for the bull**** RNG store. How else do you explain farming? That's certainly not "exploring the game" or playing according to preference. It's a damn grind, and each and every one of us will take whatever makes it easier/faster etc.

There are multiple things at play here.

On the one hand you have the supposedly "uberpro" players that start ****ing the second a build exists that allows what they percieve as noobs to keep up or even surpass them (this is still a co-op mind you)

On the other you have what I think is the majority of players just looking for the quickest way to max their guns (or at least a few particular guns they like)

And finally you have Bioware itself who'd love nothing more than for you to shell out precious cash for the chance to still fail at getting what you want. And all this of course just before they drop the nerfhammer on it anyway.

Do you see how none of this is helping prolong game enjoyment or promoting preference?  The "pros" will kick you if you're using a loadout they don't agree with (but it can't be too good otherwise you'll outscore them and then the ****ing and nerfing will begin). The grind, tedious enough as it is is made more ball-achingly frustrating by active opposition from Bioware and your own fellow players. And Bioware itself just wants to wring every last penny from this vicious cycle.

I'm not sure why we're even still playing this game.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 27 octobre 2012 - 04:55 .

[-Shroomerz420]

Baaaaahhh is all I read "N7Kopper" sorry. Was there a point you were trying to make because you lost me... :-)

Try reading my whole post...

[DullahansXMark]

DSxCallOfBooty- wrote...

The argument I've been trying to convince people of since release. Thank you.

I'd add a section on guns though. While your text implies the same principles to them as to anything else, I'd be sure to mention your stance on guns, as well as whether or not you think UR/P > R > U > C in terms of overall effectiveness, or UR/P = R = U = C.

My stance is that they should all cater differently. URs should have the most damage potential, but getting to that point requires a bit more work. For example, the Cerberus Harrier. All that damage doesn't mean a thing if you can't manage the ammo and recoil. PPR, doesn't mean much if you can't keep the beam at max power. Meanwhile, lesser-rarity weapons should be easy to handle, and high-damaging if you can get it down right. But not as much as URs at their max potential, I'd think (i.e. if someone is doing more damage to the enemy with a Viper than I am with my Black Widow, then I'm simply doing it wrong.).

Ultimately, it's a bit of a grey area with me, which is why I didn't include that. The way I would've balanced this game's weapons wouldn't work with the weapons we have, due to the overall "blandness" (for lack of a better term) of some of our UR weapons (Good example: Scorpion, bad example: Wraith. Not that the Wraith is a bad weapon at ALL, it's just that.. it's a shotgun. It's about as much of a shotgun as shotguns get).

[DullahansXMark]

TG XTerminatorX wrote...

You forgot about the "EA and Bioware wanting you to buy packs" basis.

Because there's no basis there. Never once have they nerfed something just to get you to buy the new thing so you have something competitive. The only two "examples" of your point are the Krysae and the Typhoon. First of all, the Krysae needed that nerf, it was too powerful. Now it's voraciously slow, but they recently buffed its power, so that's something. It means they're looking at it. Second, the Typhoon was ridiculously powerful on release. I remember my friend got it release day and was literally mowing down everything in its path. He looked in that direction, and things happened. No more enemies! And it was only at Level I! The thought of that thing at X baffled me. I'll admit that now it's a hilarious paperweight at I, but that's easily fixed, and BioWare WILL take a look at it.

So no, your claim is wrong and you're wrong.

[Charaxan]

The problem is not in the nerf, it is it the edition of OP characters. It is systematics : new caracters are often OP.

But,

Balancing characters is easy for them, as you described it in your OP.

So,

You can see new characters are OP and there is a comercial biais in that. New characters OP mean more pack sold, and (hopefully) with real money.

It is a boost to the commercial activity. Nothing less.

I don't care that a Turian Ghost is nerfed. I ask myself why it is OP at the first place. They tested their game AND here, the problem is even easier to understand, as it is just mathematics : 4000 shield is not obscure and interpretive data.

They published the TG that way. As they did for Demolisher and Destroyer. As they did for the Typhoon, the piranha, etc.

All those things where OP when they went out, and then nerfed. ALL of them where commercial manoeuvre.

Nothing else and I must admit I understand the way, but it start to be verry frustrating to see it repeat itself at every DLC.

[N7Kopper]

-Shroomerz420 wrote...

Baaaaahhh is all I read "N7Kopper" sorry. Was there a point you were trying to make because you lost me... :-)

Try reading my whole post...

I did. I just replied to that bit. It was a managable chunk, plus an effective tl;dr for your whole post.
But I'm not arguing with you, because you would refute my point if you had a counterargument. (which is what you didn't do)

Modifié par N7Kopper, 27 octobre 2012 - 05:40 .

[cuzIMgood]

Charaxan wrote...

The problem is not in the nerf, it is it the edition of OP characters. It is systematics : new caracters are often OP.

But,

Balancing characters is easy for them, as you described it in your OP.

So,

You can see new characters are OP and there is a comercial biais in that. New characters OP mean more pack sold, and (hopefully) with real money.

It is a boost to the commercial activity. Nothing less.

I don't care that a Turian Ghost is nerfed. I ask myself why it is OP at the first place. They tested their game AND here, the problem is even easier to understand, as it is just mathematics : 4000 shield is not obscure and interpretive data.

They published the TG that way. As they did for Demolisher and Destroyer. As they did for the Typhoon, the piranha, etc.

All those things where OP when they went out, and then nerfed. ALL of them where commercial manoeuvre.

Nothing else and I must admit I understand the way, but it start to be verry frustrating to see it repeat itself at every DLC.

Still don't believe in these conspiracy theories but even if they are true well at least I'm getting free DLC out of it so I can't really complain.

[afb2271]

I agree completely OP.

[Cole Jones]

DullahansXMark wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

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

I agree. Sometimes things are taken too far. But the Destroyer nerf, for example, was fine. A slight mechanics change would fix everything that people had an issue with before (turning two-shottys into three-shottys, stuff like that), but a 60% extra clip size was just too much.

How so? It added 1 round per 3. Now for my Crusader it added 2 rounds totaling 6. On a Typhoon it added around 100 +. But wthat's teh deal with that? You now have a bigger clip and teh same ammo cap (Same with theHarrier/Mattoc and teh Widow/Black Widow)

[jaydubs67]

Bump. Because the "it's a co-op" argument is popping up all over again, and the first post is the most effective explanation I've seen on why balance is important in a co-op.

[Titus Thongger]

good points