399 réponses à ce sujet

[Kalas Magnus]

Deerber wrote...

To the OP.

I'd just like to say... If you got "inspired" to make this thread by Link... Just know that you wouldn't be able to do what he does even with 50 missiles.

ouch >.<

[BrownStreaks]

Edit: Picture of Dale with quote "How do you intend to placate me?!?"....but turned into a wall of text...my bad...

Modifié par BrownStreaks, 14 février 2013 - 07:25 .

[HolyAvenger]

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

A few of the arguments here are quite heavy on the subjective. The one below has really got me scratching my head...

WTF Argument - "I'm a true fan who did single player first, so why did I get punished?"
Since when was there a "true fan" system implemented that rewards people for campaign play? You have imbued yourself with a false sense of entitlement. It might be best to put the controls down and reevaluate this line of thinking. You're not being punished, the developer has simply made a change to the gameplay that helped curb some balancing concerns.

 

This one is truly bizarre.

So is the overall sense that the entire balance of gameplay should change based around soloing<_<

[NuclearTech76]

TODD 5184 wrote...

So me reporting n7 Link won't do a damn thing?!

I been playing ME3 since demo, how come my max gears are 5 and 6 and this kid can hold 10 to 15?! I call bull, even if you call jealousy.

So much for balancing gameplay.

Why would you report a player who you know is doing nothing wrong? I get the argument that it isn't fair but why the hell are you directing it at a player who is just taking advantage of what BW gave him?

And again let me reiterate I don't agree with certain players having an unfair advantage and I get what Bryan is saying it is intended to be coop so they/BW doesn't see it as an advantage. I don't think anything should be done but I don't agree with Brojo on this one. I think all players should be on equal footing or at least have an opportunity to get there.

[jlee375]

Cyonan wrote...

jm2207 wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Outside of speed runs, how many of you complaining actually use all of your missiles in a match(wave 11 doesn't count) and would still use another 5 missiles?

Not often. But I can think of several times (to be generously conservative) that it would have come in handy. I love it when people make arguments consisting of "because the number is small/insignificant it is pointless to discuss the principle at hand". This goes for the "I bet only 12.65 people are still around who have 10 missiles" people too. I'd love to see how they arrived at their number.

But if your matches that you would have used all 10 missiles are so infrequent then what does it matter?

No it's not fair to the people who joined after the cap was lowered or people who played SP first and didn't get above the cap(like me).

Would it be fair to take away those extra consumables from the people who played a ton in the first week to get them?

They already mentioned that they think 52 potential missiles trivializes the game, so they aren't going to give everybody a 10 missile cap.

This.

I was also one of those who bought the game first day and played SP for the first few months. However, quite honestly, not having the extra consumables makes absolutely no difference in how I play. This issue seems rather trivial. 

Also in my opinion, the extra consumables would really only ever be useful when you are soloing. If you are worried about PUGs, then take Armored Compartments, same effect. 

[Zjarcal]

Deerber wrote...

To the OP.

I'd just like to say... If you got "inspired" to make this thread by Link... Just know that you wouldn't be able to do what he does even with 50 missiles.

Lol...

Sucking up to Link much?

On topic... no, 5 is already more than enough (probably too much in the case of missiles).

Modifié par Zjarcal, 14 février 2013 - 07:28 .

[jm2207]

Cyonan wrote...

jm2207 wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Outside of speed runs, how many of you complaining actually use all of your missiles in a match(wave 11 doesn't count) and would still use another 5 missiles?

Not often. But I can think of several times (to be generously conservative) that it would have come in handy. I love it when people make arguments consisting of "because the number is small/insignificant it is pointless to discuss the principle at hand". This goes for the "I bet only 12.65 people are still around who have 10 missiles" people too. I'd love to see how they arrived at their number.

But if your matches that you would have used all 10 missiles are so infrequent then what does it matter?

No it's not fair to the people who joined after the cap was lowered or people who played SP first and didn't get above the cap(like me).

Would it be fair to take away those extra consumables from the people who played a ton in the first week to get them?

They already mentioned that they think 52 potential missiles trivializes the game, so they aren't going to give everybody a 10 missile cap.

It matters for the matches that matter. It would make everything, especially soloing, faster and easier if I wanted it to be.

I am happy to see you admit that the current state of affairs are unfair to you.

It would be no less fair to take away the extra consumables than it would be to nerf a weapon that "people who played a ton in the first week to get" were trying for. And this has been done repeatedly. Compensate them with extra packs if need be. Or don't. 

52 missiles trivializes the game—agreed. Do they block 4 people with early-max caps from playing together? I'm not advocating lifting the cap unless they are unwilling to balance the game in another fashion.

[lazysundae]

HolyAvenger wrote...

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

A few of the arguments here are quite heavy on the subjective. The one below has really got me scratching my head...

WTF Argument - "I'm a true fan who did single player first, so why did I get punished?"
Since when was there a "true fan" system implemented that rewards people for campaign play? You have imbued yourself with a false sense of entitlement. It might be best to put the controls down and reevaluate this line of thinking. You're not being punished, the developer has simply made a change to the gameplay that helped curb some balancing concerns.

 

This one is truly bizarre.

So is the overall sense that the entire balance of gameplay should change based around soloing<_<

I think he's agreeing with your original point that 52 missiles among 4 people (i.e. not soloing) is about as unbalanced as you can get.

[HolyAvenger]

lazysundae wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

A few of the arguments here are quite heavy on the subjective. The one below has really got me scratching my head...

WTF Argument - "I'm a true fan who did single player first, so why did I get punished?"
Since when was there a "true fan" system implemented that rewards people for campaign play? You have imbued yourself with a false sense of entitlement. It might be best to put the controls down and reevaluate this line of thinking. You're not being punished, the developer has simply made a change to the gameplay that helped curb some balancing concerns.

 

This one is truly bizarre.

So is the overall sense that the entire balance of gameplay should change based around soloing<_<

I think he's agreeing with your original point that 52 missiles among 4 people (i.e. not soloing) is about as unbalanced as you can get.

 

I meant from the thread, not Tallgeese. 

The arguments are ridiculous. A handful of people have a few extra consumables. So f*cking what, honestly. 

[lazysundae]

HolyAvenger wrote...

lazysundae wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

A few of the arguments here are quite heavy on the subjective. The one below has really got me scratching my head...

WTF Argument - "I'm a true fan who did single player first, so why did I get punished?"
Since when was there a "true fan" system implemented that rewards people for campaign play? You have imbued yourself with a false sense of entitlement. It might be best to put the controls down and reevaluate this line of thinking. You're not being punished, the developer has simply made a change to the gameplay that helped curb some balancing concerns.

 

This one is truly bizarre.

So is the overall sense that the entire balance of gameplay should change based around soloing<_<

I think he's agreeing with your original point that 52 missiles among 4 people (i.e. not soloing) is about as unbalanced as you can get.

 

I meant from the thread, not Tallgeese. 

The arguments are ridiculous. A handful of people have a few extra consumables. So f*cking what, honestly. 

Ah yes, looks like I need more coffee with a splash of reading comprehension.  Totes agree on the "so f*cking what".

After coffee we'll see if I can put together a decent "early adopter" argument.

[FateNeverEnds]

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

A few of the arguments here are quite heavy on the subjective. The one below has really got me scratching my head...

WTF Argument - "I'm a true fan who did single player first, so why did I get punished?"
Since when was there a "true fan" system implemented that rewards people for campaign play? You have imbued yourself with a false sense of entitlement. It might be best to put the controls down and reevaluate this line of thinking. You're not being punished, the developer has simply made a change to the gameplay that helped curb some balancing concerns.

If I can't have the same amount of X item as others can, the game is unbalanced. Plain simple. Yes, it was a change that had to be done, so it should be applied to everyone equally as nerfs are. The idea is keep a balance, make the game the same for the whole playerbase. Give a few the chance to have moreof anything and you're no longer fair to the rest. Bryan stated it was technically not an advantage because anyone who engaged into the MP from day one had the capability of getting it. So they were "rewarded" for being early adopters. As for the rest, who played the main --if it can be still called that-- part of the game first, this happens to be the contrary to a reward. I'd call it punishment.

Want it clearer? Why not let the nerfs be applied to new players only? After all, veterans had been given powerful Krysaes and Falcons, so they're entitled to them as they are to their 10's.

[HolyAvenger]

FateNeverEnds wrote...

If I can't have the same amount of X item as others can, the game is unbalanced. Plain simple. Yes, it was a change that had to be done, so it should be applied to everyone equally as nerfs are. The idea is keep a balance, make the game the same for the whole playerbase. Give a few the chance to have moreof anything and you're no longer fair to the rest. Bryan stated it was technically not an advantage because anyone who engaged into the MP from day one had the capability of getting it. So they were "rewarded" for being early adopters. As for the rest, who played the main --if it can be still called that-- part of the game first, this happens to be the contrary to a reward. I'd call it punishment.

Want it clearer? Why not let the nerfs be applied to new players only? After all, veterans had been given powerful Krysaes and Falcons, so they're entitled to them as they are to their 10's.

 

This would make some sort of sense if there was a huge power gap in the playerbase. There isn't. The overwhelming majority of veteran players also do not have these extra consumables (I started playing MP from week 1, by the way, and I am as much of a loyal fan as you and resent any implication other wise), so almost all the playerbase apart from a couple of individuals is on an even keel. 

These individuals are not affecting anyone else's MP experience. 


There is no argument for removing these consumables or increasing the cap to their level beyond idiotic entitlement. 

[Bolo Xia]

solo's

plus those people with more do not have to use their gear slot to attain more consumables.

new players or players that bought the game after the 1st week will never have the same opportunity.

i played the 1st week and got weapons more often than the consumables +1 cards, so in the long run those players still had an advantage.

it would be no different if BW added a super weapon today, since i have 8 mil saved and maxed manifest i could get it easily, then they disable it tomorrow.
sure it was available to everyone for 24 hours, but i would max it no problem and everyone who didnt would be screwed, even if they did or didnt know it was going to be disabled tomorrow.

the issue is not "boohoo for me" or "i need this to beat X difficulty" it is that there wasnt even a warning ahead of time and some people recieved an advantage the rest of the player's can never attain.

plus throw in the leader boards, now there is a publicly competetive board and anyone wishing to have a chance are at a disadvantage to those that have just for example:10 ops or medigel. (or more than 10 with gear)

but the same arguments could be made for those that did not claim their community pack for the operations that had +1 consumables, so it does make for a hard debate as to the fairness of this whole topic.


im not all butthurt about the whole thing, nor does it stop me from solo'ing, but in the end it is "the principle of the matter", what is fair and what isnt; reguarldess if i need those things or not.
also, ya life isnt fair, but all customers wish to be treated fair when they buy something, especially when balance is the one of the major modo's around here.


right or wrong that is my opinion on this subject.

[Domnuxx]

Yeees, give them to pugs. Maybe then they'll actually use their consumables in a game.

Actually no, pugs wouldn't use them even if they were unlimited.

[Cyonan]

jm2207 wrote...
It matters for the matches that matter. It would make everything, especially soloing, faster and easier if I wanted it to be.

I am happy to see you admit that the current state of affairs are unfair to you.

It would be no less fair to take away the extra consumables than it would be to nerf a weapon that "people who played a ton in the first week to get" were trying for. And this has been done repeatedly. Compensate them with extra packs if need be. Or don't. 

52 missiles trivializes the game—agreed. Do they block 4 people with early-max caps from playing together? I'm not advocating lifting the cap unless they are unwilling to balance the game in another fashion.

Those matches are not often however. You said it yourself.

Of course it's unfair, but this is an incredibly small thing that people are making a huge deal out of. I'm not saying it's not unfair, I'm saying it's such a small deal that it doesn't really matter.

It would be different because you're actually taking something away from those players. When my Typhoon got nerfed I still had the same level of Typhoon. This would be like if they randomly said "It's not fair that some people saved up 10+ million credits, so we're going to lower everyone's Typhoon rank back down to V if you have it at X".

[ryoldschool]

Let me post from the point of view of somebody who does have an advantage due to the cap being changed. I bought some packs with real money right off the bat and I have 8 capacity on ammo packs.

This advantage was quite worthless until they released the grenade capacity gear.

But what would you have bioware do?
1) They could have removed the spare capacity from all of us that had extra
2) change the cap and let the few who had extra keep the capacity

I did not do anything illegal or unsporting, so if they had taken action 1) it would have been unfair to me. So would you have them compensate us by giving us those slots as ultra rare unlocks?

Btw, just because I have the capacity I do use all of it every time I play a grenade class, but I don't have anyone complaining that I out score them because I threw too many grenades. They are usually thankful that I tossed them at those banshees and phantoms.

This is a minor problem, IMO, but I think bioware handled it ok. When the cap change happened I sure would have preferred three additional UR unlocks.

[Deerber]

Zjarcal wrote...

Deerber wrote...

To the OP.

I'd just like to say... If you got "inspired" to make this thread by Link... Just know that you wouldn't be able to do what he does even with 50 missiles.

Lol...

Sucking up to Link much?

On topic... no, 5 is already more than enough (probably too much in the case of missiles).

To be honest, I've been watching this being brought up again and again and again in each Link's solo thread. I'm tired of it, of people having problems to admit that if someone is better than they are at something, maybe it's not only because he has an unfair advantage.

Yeah maybe I'm being a bit blunt. But as I said, I'm sick of it.

Call it suck up if you'd like, I'll call it an aknowledgment of the fact that it would take a more than average player to do what Link does, even if with 15 missiles as base. Let alone 6.

Modifié par Deerber, 14 février 2013 - 07:46 .

[lazysundae]

FateNeverEnds wrote...

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

A few of the arguments here are quite heavy on the subjective. The one below has really got me scratching my head...

WTF Argument - "I'm a true fan who did single player first, so why did I get punished?"
Since when was there a "true fan" system implemented that rewards people for campaign play? You have imbued yourself with a false sense of entitlement. It might be best to put the controls down and reevaluate this line of thinking. You're not being punished, the developer has simply made a change to the gameplay that helped curb some balancing concerns.

If I can't have the same amount of X item as others can, the game is unbalanced. Plain simple. Yes, it was a change that had to be done, so it should be applied to everyone equally as nerfs are. The idea is keep a balance, make the game the same for the whole playerbase. Give a few the chance to have moreof anything and you're no longer fair to the rest. Bryan stated it was technically not an advantage because anyone who engaged into the MP from day one had the capability of getting it. So they were "rewarded" for being early adopters. As for the rest, who played the main --if it can be still called that-- part of the game first, this happens to be the contrary to a reward. I'd call it punishment.

Want it clearer? Why not let the nerfs be applied to new players only? After all, veterans had been given powerful Krysaes and Falcons, so they're entitled to them as they are to their 10's.

Oh yay someone to start my early adopter argument for me!

Yes, early adopters are often rewarded, though with the downside of often being testers and sometimes having promised functionality removed when a company finds it was not a feasible offer after all.

Let's pick something else - a PS3.  I stood in line on day zero and paid $599 for the promise of giant enemy crabs, real time weapon change, and Ridge Racer (riiiiidge raacer!).  My friends laughed and laughed when the inevitable price drop and sales hit and they paid half of what I did.  I laughed and laughed when I had full backwards compatibility, a function that was removed for late adopters.

You're basically arguing that you should get full backwards compatibility without having to wait in line at wtf-time-is-it o'clock.  You had the opportunity to be in line but you chose to sleep in, you don't get early adopter perks for getting here late.

[Bolo Xia]

Cyonan wrote...

jm2207 wrote...
It matters for the matches that matter. It would make everything, especially soloing, faster and easier if I wanted it to be.

I am happy to see you admit that the current state of affairs are unfair to you.

It would be no less fair to take away the extra consumables than it would be to nerf a weapon that "people who played a ton in the first week to get" were trying for. And this has been done repeatedly. Compensate them with extra packs if need be. Or don't. 

52 missiles trivializes the game—agreed. Do they block 4 people with early-max caps from playing together? I'm not advocating lifting the cap unless they are unwilling to balance the game in another fashion.

Those matches are not often however. You said it yourself.

Of course it's unfair, but this is an incredibly small thing that people are making a huge deal out of. I'm not saying it's not unfair, I'm saying it's such a small deal that it doesn't really matter.

It would be different because you're actually taking something away from those players. When my Typhoon got nerfed I still had the same level of Typhoon. This would be like if they randomly said "It's not fair that some people saved up 10+ million credits, so we're going to lower everyone's Typhoon rank back down to V if you have it at X".

there-in lies the problem still, everyone is affected accept for those that that already have it.
under your example, everyone would have a lvl 5 typhoon or whatever, so everyone would still be on equal playing field.

if they changed the cap to lvl 5 typhoon and didnt reset your weapon to 5 then you still retain an advantage over everyone else who didnt get it above 5 before the "balancing".

so in the end those people with more still retain an unfair and unachieveable advantage.

[NuclearTech76]

Would anyone have a problem with it if it were a small advantage like one or two OPs packs instead of four more?

[HELLHOUND_ROCKO]

WTF - did not know or even dreamed about this crap - i am getting penalized for having spent the first two weeks of my pre-ordered collectors edition with the single player mode???
and BroJo calls this beeing "not unfair"??????
ohhh, i guess he thinks that Arthur Dent has beeing treated "not unfair" either when they suddenly stood in front of his house to wreck it for making place for another road in the Douglas Adams novels... .

seriously, i complained about a lot of balance details about certain stuff in ME3-MP - but if i had known that the game and the devs are that weird - i would not have dreamed to compell about such comparatively meaningless details - i hereby officially announce to halt all and every furthermore balance discussion participation by mine because of two things:

1.: jah, jah, sure to do you all a favour - so that at least one good comes outta this for you, keep talkin' - i know about the massive amounts of joke potential when someone makes a serious and grief fatalistic announcement nobody really cares about..., sure... .

and 2.: because of this consumable-hyper-cap crap makes any appealing to the devs about changing stuff for balances/ fairnesses sake about completely meaningless!!!

[HolyAvenger]

Advantage accrued by a handful of people that does not directly affect your gameplay (lolleaderboards, does any take those seriously? If they do, they should get a life) is pretty meaningless.


Like I said, if it was like 20% of the playerbase had 10 missiles and everyone else 5, then I can understand it being a problem, But it is not like that. So really, who cares.

[JLoco11]

Simple solution... split the difference:

Put everyone at 7 for each item (or 8 and lower the Gear bonus to only a +2 increase to capacity), including those who played early enough.

Nobody gets 10 initially, nobody will ever be allowed to get up to 13, players can get more allied weekend events to get the increases and speed runners still prosper.

Since Bioware makes a point there are few with the 10 capacity, then those few losing a bit of capacity will cry far less than those who will be happy with an increase. Those stating "Well I have 10, but I never find a situation I use them" can put their money where their mouth is in that argument.

[Cyonan]

Bolo Xia wrote...

there-in lies the problem still, everyone is affected accept for those that that already have it.
under your example, everyone would have a lvl 5 typhoon or whatever, so everyone would still be on equal playing field.

if they changed the cap to lvl 5 typhoon and didnt reset your weapon to 5 then you still retain an advantage over everyone else who didnt get it above 5 before the "balancing".

so in the end those people with more still retain an unfair and unachieveable advantage.

But at the end of the day if they did it right after Earth came out would it really matter if the same number of people who have 6-10 missiles had a Typhoon VI - X? You'd almost never actually play with these people.

Do people run into players with 10 missiles that often or are we just complaining for the sake of complaining about something that is theoretically unfair but that we don't ever actually see in-game?

[HolyAvenger]

No thanks, even that takes us to a possible 40 rockets a game. That's virtually every single latter half spawn nuked.

DO NOT WANT.