212 réponses à ce sujet

[Grunt_Platform]

Anybody else bothered by how all the candidates for being FOO strategies,crutches or even training wheels are Rare or Ultra Rare?

The closest thing a player gets to an early crutch with only common and uncommon cards are things like Stasis Sniping, Novaguarding, etc. And those all have a rapid decline in power as you climb difficulty levels.

Unlocking on of the more potent gold card kits does make the transition to Gold a bit easier, though.

Modifié par EvanKester, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:25 .

[whateverman7]

*disclaimer - i'm commenting on the video, and video only, not you upinya lol*

while he makes a good point when it pertains to plaver vs player games, what he says doesnt apply to this game...reason? this game is co-op (player vs comp) with a 'spend credits in a random store to get better things' setup....so what if someone wants to use the same supposedly overpowered kit/weapon over and over to achieve the goal of obtaining credits? i know the devs might not like it, but that's that player's choice and it doesnt affect anyone else but that person....you dont like that person using said kit/weapon? that's cool, leave the lobby/game; kick that person...

side note: that's why i dont agree with a lot of the 'balance' talk thrown around on here....in most cases, it comes from people that didnt like the end results on the scoreboard...the min someone gets outscored, it must be a 'balance' issue and something has to be done about it....people: it's not a competitive game...if you get outscored/dont finish first, it doesnt matter, cause everyone gets the same amount of credits/xp....if it bothers you that much, play a game where scoreboard placement matters....also, that's why i dont agree with a lot of 'farming' talk on here either...the game is a farming game (it is rpg in origins)....

Modifié par whateverman7, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:45 .

[Cyonan]

SeitenHekireki wrote...

It was a very interesting video, but I have to disagree on the "noobs shouldn't use crutch classes" argument you raised. Not because you're wrong, but because it's (in my opinion) a bit unrelated to THIS game. Let me elaborate.

The video referred specifically to competitive MP games. In these games, if you rely on a "FOO", you WILL get squashed by better players at some time. At that point, you may quit the game etc., etc... ME3 is co-op, so a "noob" could be using the TGI or the Kroguard without ANY negative consequence EVER. Therefore, the video is not directly related to the "crutch character" argument.

To demonstrate, I'll use myself as an example. My first few successful gold matches were with the Kroguard, and soon after I changed to the TGI (after I'd been informed about build ideas). These matches were PUGs, so I dominated the scoreboard, with little skill required (my teammates were worse, but let's not go there ). Later on, I played with some bsn'ers, who were exceptional, still using my TGI. I was able to keep up with them and score quite well (of course not 1st). Scoring aside, I wasn't a burden to the team and the match went smoothly.

So, why should I change kits and stop using the TGI ???? I could be playing him forever and encounter no problem. After a while though, I did try other kits for variety, and I love it. However, even now, when I am undeniably better than back then, the TGI is still the kit that gets me my personal highest scores. Granted, I'm still not as experienced as some guys in here, but you get my point I hope.

2 points of the video can still relate to this game

> If a FOO character is ever nerfed, the ones who were only playing that are going to hit a brick wall of difficulty.
> If you only ever play that one character, the game will become repetitive and you'll probably get bored.

As you said, you tried other kits for variety so you probably started to see what EC was getting at with that second one.

That said, I don't think the TGI itself is a FOO strategy character.

[upinya slayin]

SeitenHekireki wrote...

It was a very interesting video, but I have to disagree on the "noobs shouldn't use crutch classes" argument you raised. Not because I think you're wrong, but because it's (in my opinion) a bit unrelated to THIS game. Let me elaborate.

The video referred specifically to competitive MP games. In these games, if you rely on a "FOO", you WILL get squashed by better players at some time. At that point, you may quit the game etc., etc... ME3 is co-op, so a "noob" could be using the TGI or the Kroguard without ANY negative consequence EVER. Therefore, the video is not directly related to the "crutch character" argument.

To demonstrate, I'll use myself as an example. My first few successful gold matches were with the Kroguard, and soon after I changed to the TGI (after I'd been informed about build ideas). These matches were PUGs, so I dominated the scoreboard, with little skill required (my teammates were worse, but let's not go there ). Later on, I played with some bsn'ers, who were exceptional, still using my TGI. I was able to keep up with them and score quite well (of course not 1st). Scoring aside, I wasn't a burden to the team and the match went smoothly.

So, why should I change kits and stop using the TGI ???? I could be playing him forever and encounter no problem. After a while though, I did try other kits for variety, and I love it. However, even now, when I am undeniably better than back then, the TGI is still the kit that gets me my personal highest scores. Granted, I'm still not as experienced as some guys in here, but you get my point I hope.

i do get your point, but in this game its the balance. what if the TGI was hit with a huge nerf? and it became a crap class (like the krysea) then what can teh noob do but be a burden eevyr game ebcause he never learned anything else?

[Catastrophy]

You gotta pay a lot more attention to balance and exploits in competitive MP for fairness reasons. Experienced players who know about some ins and outs of the game engine can dominate new players, handing out quite a level of frustration and limiting accessibility. You can mitigate that a bit by offering a playground to allow new ones to gain map knowledge and some basic mechanics but bots and SP can never simulate a competitive MP environment.
I bet there are lots of examples where players figure out gamey tactics that even the devs weren't aware of. Give players a toy and someone figures out how to break it.

[SeitenHekireki]

It is true I forgot to account for the nerf. In that case, the video does make a legitimate point.

[Ronnie Blastoff]

As long as there is no consequence for something, you can expect the public to take a (large) advantage of it everytime. There is nothing that prevents people from using "crutches" so they will use them.

I don't mind crutch characters as much as it "empowering" people who have no business in gold-plat to think they have what it takes to be there. But since there is no (solid) form of knowing if your playing with a pro or a joke, (no consequence) it "doens't" matter.

EXAMPLE (please don't respond if this offends you)

If someone were to lose 3 gold matches in a row, (because w.e reason) causing their account would be locked from gold-platinum until they beat 3 silver, you would see NO NOOBS in gold.

or

If you were to LOSE credits for failing missions, you would see NO NOOBS in gold and platinum.

END OF EXAMPLES

Right now there is no "prevention" of anything. Nothing is lost if you lose (especially if you don't use consumables, which is another problem with pugs in general) So by playing extremely difficult games, even with crutch characters, and somehow winning, you only gain.

Unless a person decides to get better, they wont, and since there is no lost appon refusing to, you will always have noobs.

Not so much an issue of balancing as much as "not enough punishment."

[Feneckus]

SeitenHekireki wrote...

a "noob" could be using the TGI or the Kroguard without ANY negative consequence EVER.

Such a short-sighted view of things that is unfortunately shared by the vast majority.

[ISHYGDDT]

Feneckus wrote...

SeitenHekireki wrote...

a "noob" could be using the TGI or the Kroguard without ANY negative consequence EVER.

Such a short-sighted view of things that is unfortunately shared by the vast majority.

I assume he meant in-game consequence.

[RGB]

The video was instructional and made me think about how abilities are balanced, but the problem with this game - a co-op game - versus competitive games is pretty simple. What is the incentive for someone to learn better tactics? Soft cover, kiting, spawn-nuking - these are all fairly advanced tactics that come with learning the maps to some degree and from watching other people do it better.

Yet I can't help feeling when I play in some PUGs that the guy who goes down every wave doesn't have much incentive to get better. In matches that I play on Gold I typically play with at least one friend, and even if the match runs long, we are going to extract. The reward for increasing skill is increasing victory - but if someone is getting the same credits whether they extract or not, whether they have 100k or 20k in a Gold game, what reason other than pride would they have to get better?

I don't have a check-in program where I look back on the people who've played badly in games with me. I can't follow up to see if they got better. Maybe some of them did, and maybe some of them didn't. I honestly have no idea. But when I see some of the same names putting up the same scores in PUGs where the map and enemy vary so wildly, it honestly makes me think that personal pride isn't an issue.

What's their motivation to get better? The real crutch of this game is the fact that you might (and probably will) end up playing with someone who's better than you; the likelihood of this is determined by your own skill set. Yet if you frequently play with someone who's better than you and they clutch a few waves, make the extraction, you don't have a lot of reason to feel like you need to improve.

This isn't a stealth argument for dividing credits based on score and it's not a PUG brag, either. There have been plenty of times I haven't clutched all the way to extraction, and there have been plenty of times I haven't NEEDED to clutch to extraction because our team of randoms without mics came together and put boot to a**. Those are extreme ends of a very wide spectrum though, with most matches falling somewhere in the range of "they didn't hurt but they didn't help, and they still got their credits and EXP".

[Cyonan]

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

As long as there is no consequence for something, you can expect the public to take a (large) advantage of it everytime. There is nothing that prevents people from using "crutches" so they will use them.

I don't mind crutch characters as much as it "empowering" people who have no business in gold-plat to think they have what it takes to be there. But since there is no (solid) form of knowing if your playing with a pro or a joke, (no consequence) it "doens't" matter.

EXAMPLE (please don't respond if this offends you)

If someone were to lose 3 gold matches in a row, (because w.e reason) causing their account would be locked from gold-platinum until they beat 3 silver, you would see NO NOOBS in gold.

or

If you were to LOSE credits for failing missions, you would see NO NOOBS in gold and platinum.

END OF EXAMPLES

Right now there is no "prevention" of anything. Nothing is lost if you lose (especially if you don't use consumables, which is another problem with pugs in general) So by playing extremely difficult games, even with crutch characters, and somehow winning, you only gain.

Unless a person decides to get better, they wont, and since there is no lost appon refusing to, you will always have noobs.

Not so much an issue of balancing as much as "not enough punishment."

I would argue that punishing people for being noobs is a poor way of doing things.

Instead games should try to reward people for being skilled.

All that punishing people for failing is going to do is result in more people using crutch classes that have a lower chance of failure and more kicking of people who aren't using the "best" setups. That just hurts everybody.

Modifié par Cyonan, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:48 .

[Daxamite]

SeitenHekireki wrote...

It is true I forgot to account for the nerf. In that case, the video does make a legitimate point.

Must admit this is my thought, initially i thought the video was good but not entirely applicable to MP, but yes if the kits get nerfed then weaker players are going to be in for a major shock. 

Having said that, I was v thankful to be using the TGI for first time on gold a few days ago, otherwise i would never have survived my awful PUG match with two PUGs who just camped next to a demolisher pylon and never moved and hence died every wave. I could just stand there with one bar of health and chew down stimpaks and laugh at enemy bullets. But i do rotate between kits so i dont think im reliant on a single character. 

Modifié par PhoenixUK, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:49 .

[whateverman7]

Cyonan wrote...

2 points of the video can still relate to this game

> If a FOO character is ever nerfed, the ones who were only playing that are going to hit a brick wall of difficulty.
> If you only ever play that one character, the game will become repetitive and you'll probably get bored.

As you said, you tried other kits for variety so you probably started to see what EC was getting at with that second one.

That said, I don't think the TGI itself is a FOO strategy character.

i disagree with your 2 points relating to the game..

as for point 1 - if the FOO thing ever got nerfed, all that player would do is go to the next FOO thing....we've seen it happen plenty of times already in this game

as for point 2 - how a player chooses to play/what he/she finds fun in the game is individual...if a player finds it fun to use the samething over and over, that's cool...you may not, but you're not playing the game for him/her

...besides having fun/enjoying one's self, the point of the game is to get credits to spend in the store to get better stuff...how a player goes about doing that is all on the player....you have the right to disagree with their strategy, but they have the right to that strategy

[N7-RedFox]

The dude in the video sounded like a Salarian

[Blaine Kodos]

So apparently I'd made this progression naturally and didn't even realize it.

I fell out of playing classes a lot of people consider super powerful, or at least playing them different ways (i.e. Saber sniping Ghost with only three points in stims as a safety net when in trouble) fairly quickly. I don't look down on people who use them, but they're just.. not enjoyable to me anymore. I get more enjoyment from other more exciting playstyles like Vorcha and Batarians which reward more high risk tactics.

This applies to foo strategies pretty directly. It's very easy to play classes that barely need to move or have many damage boosting abilities such as the Geth Infiltrator. He's not a bad class, but he's really more of an entry point than anything else in my opinion. Effective yes, but not nearly as much fun to play as other options.

As always, Extra Credits makes great points in easy to understand terminology.

[Catastrophy]

So, what's the point of balance in a coop-game?
You either make every character have the same skills (or none - L4D comes to mind) or offer a variety of classes to choose from. That's a tricky one. Why would you do this if you expect players to only use the OP kit with a FOO strategy.
My guess is: More variety allows for more "shelf-life". More shelf-life equals potential income and people sticking to the game which might pay off for future products.
So things that threaten variety need to be adressed. In the long run repetitive playstyles would harm the game. The upside for players is: More variety means more challenge and more entertainment delivered by the game.
In ME3 terms: It's fun to run an all-batarian match, no need of variety in every match. But if we start seeing things are overused that's a signal it should be looked into. I wouldn't want every match to see the same kits and weapons all over again.

In this context the shop might also be a way to hinder players to access the "most wanted" kits and weapons immediately. By forcing players to unlock stuff, you have them get along with what they access first. Same goes for the challenge system - it's for many people an incentive to use different stuff. Think about the "200 waves"-threads and "most painful weapon challenge" complaints. Since I finished my challenges I started focussing on a handful of kits again, though now there are more Gold kits for me than before.

[xtorma]

I posted this vid before saying the same thing.

[Cyonan]

whateverman7 wrote...
i disagree with your 2 points relating to the game..

as for point 1 - if the FOO thing ever got nerfed, all that player would do is go to the next FOO thing....we've seen it happen plenty of times already in this game

as for point 2 - how a player chooses to play/what he/she finds fun in the game is individual...if a player finds it fun to use the samething over and over, that's cool...you may not, but you're not playing the game for him/her

...besides having fun/enjoying one's self, the point of the game is to get credits to spend in the store to get better stuff...how a player goes about doing that is all on the player....you have the right to disagree with their strategy, but they have the right to that strategy

The entire point that EC was making relies on the idea that there are not multiple FOO strategies. The argument was often made on the WoW PvP forums that if the current flavour of the month class got nerfed, players would just move to the next one. It's not unique to Mass Effect.

Point 2 is an argument that can be made for all games. They're saying as game designers that it causes a large number of people to quit the game out of boredom. Some people can turn god mode on and it will never get old for them, but most people will get bored after a while because you literally cannot fail at that point(I'm not saying the TGI is god mode, but rather using an extreme example).

Both of your counter-points can be applied to the video as a whole, and not just to Mass Effect specifically.

At no point have I said they do not have a right to their strategy. I have even defended camping(which everyone incorrectly calls farming) maps like Firebase White on these forums.

The point of the Extra Credits video was not to remove the strategy, but rather for games to encourage people to evolve as a player.

Modifié par Cyonan, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:07 .

[upinya slayin]

whateverman7 wrote...

*disclaimer - i'm commenting on the video, and video only, not you upinya lol*

while he makes a good point when it pertains to plaver vs player games, what he says doesnt apply to this game...reason? this game is co-op (player vs comp) with a 'spend credits in a random store to get better things' setup....so what if someone wants to use the same supposedly overpowered kit/weapon over and over to achieve the goal of obtaining credits? i know the devs might not like it, but that's that player's choice and it doesnt affect anyone else but that person....you dont like that person using said kit/weapon? that's cool, leave the lobby/game; kick that person...

side note: that's why i dont agree with a lot of the 'balance' talk thrown around on here....in most cases, it comes from people that didnt like the end results on the scoreboard...the min someone gets outscored, it must be a 'balance' issue and something has to be done about it....people: it's not a competitive game...if you get outscored/dont finish first, it doesnt matter, cause everyone gets the same amount of credits/xp....if it bothers you that much, play a game where scoreboard placement matters....also, that's why i dont agree with a lot of 'farming' talk on here either...the game is a farming game (it is rpg in origins)....

i agree in a co-op game it doens't really matter, but in the same sense its the poeple who are unaware. forinstance player A is a dcent player. can do gold with a TGI but other then that not really. Player B is a good player who does gold with about anything. A takes his TGI harrier and B takes his volus eng with claymore. Player A outscores player B and talks trash. SO player B feels compelled to return teh favor. he doens't wan to but takes the GI to prove a point. both are now using the TGI. player B utscores player A this time and player A rage quits after the game (or even during) cause his e-peen was hurt. so player B played a character he idn't want to to prove a point and player A just wasted his time competing for no reason before cycling again to someone else.

Also when you have a group of good firends andeveryone is using TGi harriers you know there isn't gonna be much for you to kill. and unless you use it as well your gonna be pretty bored all game. also lets say you use a MQE (those arc grenades) and player A keeps taking all you grenades so he can spam stim packs in the open and never take cover and not die. it can be annoying and ruin your fun.

For example during the speedruns one of my friends wound up in a spot where he didn't get to kill much. It bored him, so he wanted me to run a gold duo after that so he could actually have stuff to kill. so we did and we had more fun with it then we did on the 4 team run.

All in all in depends on your playstyle and your idea of fun, but crutch characters can ruin your experiance

[ValorOfArms777]

as a game maker for Board games invovlign dice this is exactly my ideal

Synergy (Skill)
Power

I offer good skill setups lots of them much mroe combined and powerful than section A

But I also have to Offer simple section A skills that are usually one shoters pretty good but get progression wise worse

the next step is evolutionary synergy with step A and B when One shoter becomes very meh eventually you find a skill that's a B move this B move could infact enhance the A skill one shot and make it a synergistic skill

a good example is

Stasis + Biotic Charge = cool

but if you set up stasis it's a 1 shot stop and the time it could take to BC could be extremely long and isn't really as effective...where in the grenades are much more plausable for a combo

sadly the grenades themselves require you to "share" or run to a box in inevitability

this makes the Asari Vangaurd a okay class but...it's nothing comparable to a much more potent class of simplicity like the Phoenix Vangaurd whom can prime explosion then back off and throw a BC out quicker

..oh and the Stasis power needs a buff as does the Justicar bubble

there's another forming of balance too though...our community is a growing establishment of class and power mixtures... while SOME things are a BAD mix...and aren't even a grand choice anymore due to "power creep" atm we have powers behind in the times of the power creep

Cryo Blast, Stasis, Biotic Sphere, Pull, and some partial parts of powers like Lash, Biotic Charge, Submission Net etc. within their skill point spend

now fixing them might be hard...it's understandable but at least we can PRAY for overhauls like Cuccusion Shot and Singularity

Now it's hard to balance a game based upon a Co-OP basis like ours cause it's not elitist vs noob it''s noobs/elitists vs Horde our noobs could ruin the expiernce for elites while the elites could sometimes overwhelm our "noobs" that's why I as a middle man usually try and teach some "noobs" once in awhile or direct them nicely

I just wish somedays I could go in and change every worthless "skill choice" and alter it to a more probable choice

even melee in our game is a bit out mod choice Expiernced/Noobs don't want to choose cause it's not even a risk/reward it's just too RISKY

Modifié par ValorOfArms777, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:21 .

[SeitenHekireki]

ISHYGDDT wrote...

Feneckus wrote...

SeitenHekireki wrote...

a "noob" could be using the TGI or the Kroguard without ANY negative consequence EVER.

Such a short-sighted view of things that is unfortunately shared by the vast majority.

I assume he meant in-game consequence.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I read the thread about "Crutch Characters" 1-2 days back Feneckus. I more or less see the point you made (about OP characters ruining the game) and I can't really offer a counter-argument, but on the other hand, I also can't completely agree.

[jakenou]

I think all that totally applies to a co-op game. The beginning of the video pointed it out pretty clearly - winning, or doing well, makes people feel better about the game and compelled to continue playing. It's not that we're winning over each other, but we're able to accomplish a match as a team. Sure there are plenty of people who are more concerned about score and rank, but those are the people who probably progressed more quickly to be able to achieve that.

People who play only a select few characters will indeed probably get bored and/or very frusterated when any part of their system gets nerfed - Hello Femgineer drone (and other pets) nerf-age!! I think one of the big reasons we have the challenge system now is to keep both newbs and vets interested to progress and try new tactics so they'll keep playing what is really a somewhat limited game.

Edited for "nerf-age" bc without the hyphen it got bleeped!

Modifié par jkthunder, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:23 .

[Ronnie Blastoff]

Cyonan wrote...

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

As long as there is no consequence for something, you can expect the public to take a (large) advantage of it everytime. There is nothing that prevents people from using "crutches" so they will use them.

I don't mind crutch characters as much as it "empowering" people who have no business in gold-plat to think they have what it takes to be there. But since there is no (solid) form of knowing if your playing with a pro or a joke, (no consequence) it "doens't" matter.

EXAMPLE (please don't respond if this offends you)

If someone were to lose 3 gold matches in a row, (because w.e reason) causing their account would be locked from gold-platinum until they beat 3 silver, you would see NO NOOBS in gold.

or

If you were to LOSE credits for failing missions, you would see NO NOOBS in gold and platinum.

END OF EXAMPLES

Right now there is no "prevention" of anything. Nothing is lost if you lose (especially if you don't use consumables, which is another problem with pugs in general) So by playing extremely difficult games, even with crutch characters, and somehow winning, you only gain.

Unless a person decides to get better, they wont, and since there is no lost appon refusing to, you will always have noobs.

Not so much an issue of balancing as much as "not enough punishment."

I would argue that punishing people for being noobs is a poor way of doing things.

Instead games should try to reward people for being skilled.

All that punishing people for failing is going to do is result in more people using crutch classes that have a lower chance of failure and more kicking of people who aren't using the "best" setups. That just hurts everybody.

my issue isn't so much as "punishing noobs" (I should have used better wording) as much as there needing to be some form of consqence or drawback from not performing, failing to perform, or even leeching to some degree.

As for the kicking of people resulting in more people going "crutch", as long as the difficulty isn't increased people who can still play gold reliably wont experience much, the "noobs" who when not carried or provided with a "blessed game" will be the ones who experience the problems, and ONLY if they are playing in difficulties they aren't ready for, or don't belong. (my point is that most gold-platinum players need to take a step down to the difficulty they "should" be instead of taking rides)

I guess this would require some form of notification to people 'in the game," so they could get the message about playing where they belong. But realisticly kicking is also an issue with no consequence, even unrealated to gameplay directly, its still something that will happen if "punishment" were implemented or not, unless its directly for kicking.

Just so we are on the same pages as well, I don't really see much of a "crutch class" in the way most people see them. If a person is a bad player im going to notice it if they are 100K + the 2nd player on the "crapboard" or playing GI with a pirhana or TGI with a harrier or not. Its something I aquired from playing with people who actually want to win rather than thinking the scoreboard has any effect on level 20 XP...

Modifié par Ronnie Blastoff, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:27 .

[UKStory135]

Personally, I prefer Drell and the Paladin on Platinum over the TGI. They excellent damage and debuffing output.

[Zero132132]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

Is it actually good? Should I be sad that I'm at work?

It's Extra Credits so I wouldn't discount it

The entire series tends to be pretty good

I was sad, because I'd seen it already.

Don't people often try to troll Bioware with those videos, though? I see people post stuff like this as a means of showing that Bioware sucks at game design.

Kind of provides an argument for the nerfing of BEs, though. Early in the game, people could roflstomp Gold using just biotic explosions without really needing to aim. Since the stagger effect had a wide area, enemies might not even be able to react in time. More interesting strategies might never become apparent to players.

The only thing is, because the multiplayer is basically a long horde mode, there aren't really opportunities to ween players off of strategies in the same way. There are also a lot of different characters, and each can have multiple, unique playstyles. Most people are still confused and think that Adepts/Vanguards/Sentinels/Engineers (mostly) are about power spam and Soldiers/Infiltrators are the weapons classes because, due to the weight system, as you first progress, new weapons are worse for power-heavy classes than weapons-heavy classes, so people shift from power-spam adepts to weapon-only infiltrators without having to stop anywhere in between.

Would you guys consider changing the weight system for ME4? I like the weapon rank up system in general, but spare ammo and damage (maybe some other effects like recoil or RoF in future games) is enough for ranking a weapon up to be useful. If weapons had the same weight at I and X, people might be encouraged to explore more strategies than 'power spam' and 'shoot all the things,' and there might be more people really exploring what the game has to offer.

...just a thought.

Modifié par Zero132132, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:33 .