212 réponses à ce sujet

[whateverman7]

Cyonan wrote...

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.

point 1 - i know mutiple FOOs isnt unique to ME, i was just keeping the talk to ME since that's the game we talking about

point 2 - again, i'm keeping it ME specific...rather someone gets bored or not isnt something the devs can build for, that's individual....cause it's individual what people will use in the game

true, my points can be applied to all, but i was keeping it ME specific cause that's the game we talking about

i wasnt saying 'you' as you personally, i was talking in general...i apologize for the confusion

that's something devs cant do though...whether a player wants to get better/evolve at a game is up to that player...all devs can do is put out/support a product they believe in....

[Daxamite]

upinya slayin wrote...


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.

then players A and B need to grow up.

Maybe i shouldnt be in this thread though, im only a casual gamer, i just dont take it that seriously

[Cyonan]

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...
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...

Regardless of calling them noobs or not, I still think that punishing people for not doing well is a poor way of doing things compared to rewarding people for doing good.

The problem isn't so much the personal skill level being high enough, it's the other player's faith in you.

If I know that 3 failures in a row gets me temporarily locked out of gold, and that I can fail gold because of teammates, then naturally I'm going to want to play with a team that maximizes the chances of success so I don't get locked out of Gold. Since there is no measurement of skill, the default is going to end up being on N7 Rank, Challenge Points, and character/weapon being used.

If you join my lobby using a TGI + Harrier vs using a Vorcha Hunter with a Vindicator then I have no idea what your personal skill level is, but I do know that the TGI + Harrier has better potential and is easier to use, so I'm going to take that player over the one using the Vorcha Hunter.

[Zero132132]

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

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

Then who would ever have started playing Gold? ****, why even bother with Silver if you're more likely to lose money than make it?

You're basically talking about discouraging players from increasing their skill level, or if they're on higher difficulties, from trying new strategies. Why would anyone want that? Wouldn't a completely stagnant playerbase be REALLY boring?

[Ronnie Blastoff]

whateverman7 wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

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.

point 1 - i know mutiple FOOs isnt unique to ME, i was just keeping the talk to ME since that's the game we talking about

point 2 - again, i'm keeping it ME specific...rather someone gets bored or not isnt something the devs can build for, that's individual....cause it's individual what people will use in the game

true, my points can be applied to all, but i was keeping it ME specific cause that's the game we talking about

i wasnt saying 'you' as you personally, i was talking in general...i apologize for the confusion

that's something devs cant do though...whether a player wants to get better/evolve at a game is up to that player...all devs can do is put out/support a product they believe in....

Actually developers can control player proggression indirectly by implementing the "consequences" of not learning to adapt.

World of tanks for PC has a credit system that makes you pay for everything you do in the game, and also for losing and repairing your tank. If your a not so wise player, and are constantly making foolish mistakes losing your tank or getting parts of it destroyed, you'll almost never progress and be stuck using "free" items that the game gives "newcomers" by default.

Some games although flawed to a degree, reward playes with more "skill" as cyonan put it with more/better items for performing better than average or poorly. Now I can't see this being applied to ME3 with the scoreboard being anything but a indication of how much XP you get/don't get at level 20 (because thats all it is...when all the BS is put aside), but just pointing out there are definetly ways to "indirectly" make a player progress, or have them remain at "narrative" difficulty.

[whateverman7]

upinya slayin wrote...

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

those examples arent of crutch characters ruining the overall game...going off your examples:

so what if player A got his feelings hurt cause he got outscored by player B after talking trash?...should be lesson learned by player A not to talk trash unless you can back it up

most friends arent gonna use the same character/weapon combo...they usual just play for fun, not to prove points...as for grenades, again, most friends arent gonna step on each other toes with characters like that...if they do, since they friends, they can usually just say something

...i agree with your last point, it's all individual....just cause the characters ruin your experience, doesnt mean something is wrong and they are ruining everyone's experience (i'm talking in general, not specifically about you)...

[Rapidfire Widow]

I live in Australia so all the OP survivor characters are basically like playing Asari adepts on a good connection. I can only play Gold tbh if a character has above 1300 shields. I don't think the TGI for me is OP or even the Krogan Vanguard, infact I feel pigeon holed to use tanky bulky classes like the destroyer, BatGuard and TGI. I think it's a valid point that there should be some crutch classes so people in far away countries can still extract on Gold. It's to be weighed up against other things of course but it's a valid point nonetheless.

[whateverman7]

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

Actually developers can control player proggression indirectly by implementing the "consequences" of not learning to adapt.

World of tanks for PC has a credit system that makes you pay for everything you do in the game, and also for losing and repairing your tank. If your a not so wise player, and are constantly making foolish mistakes losing your tank or getting parts of it destroyed, you'll almost never progress and be stuck using "free" items that the game gives "newcomers" by default.

Some games although flawed to a degree, reward playes with more "skill" as cyonan put it with more/better items for performing better than average or poorly. Now I can't see this being applied to ME3 with the scoreboard being anything but a indication of how much XP you get/don't get at level 20 (because thats all it is...when all the BS is put aside), but just pointing out there are definetly ways to "indirectly" make a player progress, or have them remain at "narrative" difficulty.

even with things put in to reward/encourage players to get better at games, it's still up to the player to want to get better...if a player doesnt want to, he/she wont...they will get whatever level of enjoyment outta the game they want...if that's becoming great at the game, so be it...if that's staying simple/getting the basics, so be it too....

personally speaking - i consider myself a gamer, so i want to get the most outta games i can...i want to learn every lil thing i can when it comes to playing the game....but that only applies to me...i cant force that on the next person...that's why i say it's all individual

[Cyonan]

whateverman7 wrote...

point 1 - i know mutiple FOOs isnt unique to ME, i was just keeping the talk to ME since that's the game we talking about

point 2 - again, i'm keeping it ME specific...rather someone gets bored or not isnt something the devs can build for, that's individual....cause it's individual what people will use in the game

true, my points can be applied to all, but i was keeping it ME specific cause that's the game we talking about

i wasnt saying 'you' as you personally, i was talking in general...i apologize for the confusion

that's something devs cant do though...whether a player wants to get better/evolve at a game is up to that player...all devs can do is put out/support a product they believe in....

But the point is that it can apply to ME in the same ways that it can apply to every other game. Your argument isn't about ME specifically as much as it is about Extra Credits' entire point while saying Mass Effect afterwards, because the same arguments can be applied to any game.

BioWare(or any dev) can't plan for for a specific individual to not be bored, no. They can however, try to plan for most people to not be bored. The point that Extra Credits is making is that most people will be bored if the game is way too easy because they can push 1 button over and over and never fail. As I said before, this does not mean that absolutely everybody ever is going to be bored by such mechanics.

If a player is determined to not get better nothing can be done about that. A developer can encourage that they do so however, by rewarding them for evolving and getting better.

[Ronnie Blastoff]

Zero132132 wrote...

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

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

Then who would ever have started playing Gold? ****, why even bother with Silver if you're more likely to lose money than make it?

You're basically talking about discouraging players from increasing their skill level, or if they're on higher difficulties, from trying new strategies. Why would anyone want that? Wouldn't a completely stagnant playerbase be REALLY boring?

That would be the case if actually progressing in difficulty in this game were increasing "skills" as you say it, rather than increasing in enemy Lifebar/damage/frequency. There is no increasing skill going from bronze to platinum. You learn to play the game a "the right" way, and it will work THE SAME WAY on any difficulty. Only difference that really shows is the same the enemy shows to the player, which is how much damage you do.

(to name a few)
Taking cover at the right moment
Reviving a teamate at the right moment
Knowing when/how to get objectives that will get it done and the wave/game completed
Knowing enemy "reaccuring" AI.

These are all fundementals that can be aquired in BRONZE. Now the "intensity" is different sure. There are alot more enemies that do WAY more damage in platinum. Skillwise though... let me just put it this way.

*real life example*

a buddy of mine (combaticus for those who know my xbl account) played on my account a few times, and because I "have" level X everything and a biscut, he thinks he's pro because he can score high on the crapboard with a couple characters. This man hadent played a game of mass effect before in HIS FY*^&N LIFE and topped the scoreboard in NUMBEROUS random pug gold games. Now I told him what the buttons do and warned him about sync kills and whatnot, the juice of the game, but he still played the game, and better than people who'd been players longer. There wasn't any "skill" to his game, it was simply that I had the right high level weapons, and he applyed the fundementals I mentioned above.

Now back to the topic on hand, I don't want to discourage anyone but people who want "OHH MORE MONEY" from playing gold, when they're selfish greed directs them into my game without the ability to handle whats comming at them. Costing me and my squad time/credits/peace of mind.

[Origin]

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 think your post is out of line and offensive. If this is your idea of a multiplayer game, then maybe you should stick to single player campaign only.

[Ronnie Blastoff]

whateverman7 wrote...

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

Actually developers can control player proggression indirectly by implementing the "consequences" of not learning to adapt.

World of tanks for PC has a credit system that makes you pay for everything you do in the game, and also for losing and repairing your tank. If your a not so wise player, and are constantly making foolish mistakes losing your tank or getting parts of it destroyed, you'll almost never progress and be stuck using "free" items that the game gives "newcomers" by default.

Some games although flawed to a degree, reward playes with more "skill" as cyonan put it with more/better items for performing better than average or poorly. Now I can't see this being applied to ME3 with the scoreboard being anything but a indication of how much XP you get/don't get at level 20 (because thats all it is...when all the BS is put aside), but just pointing out there are definetly ways to "indirectly" make a player progress, or have them remain at "narrative" difficulty.

even with things put in to reward/encourage players to get better at games, it's still up to the player to want to get better...if a player doesnt want to, he/she wont...they will get whatever level of enjoyment outta the game they want...if that's becoming great at the game, so be it...if that's staying simple/getting the basics, so be it too....

personally speaking - i consider myself a gamer, so i want to get the most outta games i can...i want to learn every lil thing i can when it comes to playing the game....but that only applies to me...i cant force that on the next person...that's why i say it's all individual

Aggreed, im just saying put players into games they need to be, (this would effect the blind-mid game joining thing btw as well) People will do what they want in games. With ME3 pugs however, a VERY LARGE % of them are in gold for credits, not able to handle gold to even poor levels a number of them. If those people were to lose credits for failing at gold, it would deter them from playing unless they knew for sure they were going to achieve success. Unless they enjoyed losing credits/grieving gold-platinum players. (which would be a rediculously small amount) Right now gold pugs have NOTHING TO LOSE, so going into gold and literally leeching is not a problem.

Speaking of, thats a perfect example of "consequence," people were LEECHING THE SHYT out of games before Bioware implemented the 2min kick option, now it wasn't foolproof, (the same people are still playing, just getting 10~20K on an U/U/G match because they are dieing and bleeding out every opportunity they can.) but since they added the "consequence" of not playing, afk leeching has been drasticly reduced. Thats my whole point. What is preventing people from getting better? There being nothing that rewards/ punishes them for getting better, and this doesn't work well in a game where "difficulty" is increased as intensly as ME3MP.

[Origin]

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...
 Costing me and my squad time/credits/peace of mind. 

LOL 

[IIFlash]

N7Dropout1 wrote...

I'm of the opinion the TGI is a noob class, but who really gives a ****. If you don't like it, don't play the class. 

Snipped the rest. I don't care if someone takes the same char/weapon every game. But I do have issue with them all playing TGI who is cloaking all the time dumping the aggro onto another player, one of the worst games I've had was when I dropped into a PUG with 3x TGI's on Hydra, my Destroyer with all his shields got dropped stupidly fast when I take all the aggro. I also had bad connection to host.

[rollblows]

good lord "crutch classes" whats next
this is geting out of ****ing hand
stfu and play the  game

Modifié par rollblows, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:18 .

[Origin]

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

 im just saying put players into games they need to be

And where do you need to be? Not in ME3 MP, that's for sure.

[IIFlash]

upinya slayin wrote...

BW gave eveyrone a harrier who dind't have one on 11/07/12. anyone who logged on taht day w/o a harrier got one.

Slayn Pls, this is not true. My 2nd profile got Particle Rifle and a friend new to the game also got Particle Rifle, neither have a Harrier.

[IIFlash]

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

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 "doesn't" matter.

If you were to LOSE credits for failing missions

Snipped quote.
I agree with the top part, the 2nd I partly agree. Losing credits makes no sense whatsoever, but gaining no credits I believe does, eg, Bronze/Silver you fail wave 6 or 10 you still get credits, Gold/Plat if you fail you do not get credits from any objective waves completed either. This means "noobs" would not risk wasting their time and people would be more inclined to use equipment/consumables.

This is personal opinion only.

[Ronnie Blastoff]

Aekshin wrote...

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

 im just saying put players into games they need to be

And where do you need to be? Not in ME3 MP, that's for sure.

mad that you fall into the category of people who suck at this game? I would be as well, look on the bright side though....actually I don't suck and can't really give you an idea of a bright side of sucking.

Now if you wanna post something to oppose my argument besides stupid one liners and spam in need of reporting, I'll be glad to have a discussion with you about why I feel the way I do, but for now, your on the ignored list.

Magic!

[IIFlash]

BryceH wrote...

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".

I always thought how fast the mission was completed should effect credits earned, within reason though since everyone missiling spawns on half the waves IMO is boring as hell,
But make it worth so that people attempt to play the game the way you want (from BioWare's perspective) who have stated they don't like people camping as this is not how they intended people to play the game.

[ISHYGDDT]

IIFlash wrote...

N7Dropout1 wrote...

I'm of the opinion the TGI is a noob class, but who really gives a ****. If you don't like it, don't play the class. 

Snipped the rest. I don't care if someone takes the same char/weapon every game. But I do have issue with them all playing TGI who is cloaking all the time dumping the aggro onto another player, one of the worst games I've had was when I dropped into a PUG with 3x TGI's on Hydra, my Destroyer with all his shields got dropped stupidly fast when I take all the aggro. I also had bad connection to host.

That has more to do with the entire map having a sightline on you over most of Hydra, and Destroyer being slow like turtle.

Just saying.

[IIFlash]

PhoenixUK wrote...

upinya slayin wrote...


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.

then players A and B need to grow up.

Maybe i shouldnt be in this thread though, im only a casual gamer, i just dont take it that seriously

So what if player A wants to kick player B for not scoring as high? and if every game has a least one person as a TGI........

[MP-Ryan]

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

So Bryan, why aren't BioWare's developers listening to some of Extra Credits other posts, like their take on taking away player control i.e. stunlock, hrmmmmm?

[Ronnie Blastoff]

IIFlash wrote...

Ronnie Blastoff wrote...

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 "doesn't" matter.

If you were to LOSE credits for failing missions

Snipped quote.
I agree with the top part, the 2nd I partly agree. Losing credits makes no sense whatsoever, but gaining no credits I believe does, eg, Bronze/Silver you fail wave 6 or 10 you still get credits, Gold/Plat if you fail you do not get credits from any objective waves completed either. This means "noobs" would not risk wasting their time and people would be more inclined to use equipment/consumables.

This is personal opinion only.

I thought about the 0 credits idea as well, but realized that with that situation only things pugs would be playing the same way they are in platinum now, losing by wave 2 and not even making it to objective roudns. This wouldn't stop them from "attempting" as much as losing credits would either. Not to discredit your point btw, just saying, its really imo unfair that someone should be forced to endure a 25+ minute game or worse, carry and entire team to victory due to 1~3 players being unfit for the difficulty. A few games I've played, unfortunetly, I could have actually done faster if I'd soloed instead of "entrusted" a group of randoms.

I know now though, that random just means 100% chance to *(^$ your game up until your at extraction. At least thats what is needed for me to endure opening up a lobby to public. When I play with randoms, I only use characters and classes I know I can solo gold with if the situation came about.
*and no its not an INF class, usually its one with grenades or some other mass enemy reducing power combo*

[IIFlash]

Rapidfire Widow wrote...

I live in Australia so all the OP survivor characters are basically like playing Asari adepts on a good connection. I can only play Gold tbh if a character has above 1300 shields. I don't think the TGI for me is OP or even the Krogan Vanguard, infact I feel pigeon holed to use tanky bulky classes like the destroyer, BatGuard and TGI. I think it's a valid point that there should be some crutch classes so people in far away countries can still extract on Gold. It's to be weighed up against other things of course but it's a valid point nonetheless.

I also live in Australia and have a slow internet connection as well, I pretty much always play on US host, and I have no issue extracting on Gold with any class. Your argument is invalid since it pertains to player skill not connection quality, you just need to adapt.
And yes I also understand that there will always be exceptions to every case.