399 réponses à ce sujet

[Bolo Xia]

Malanek999 wrote...

Bolo Xia wrote...
the same could be said about cheaters, i have only ran into 2 cheaters throughout my entire play time.

so then we shouldnt worry about cheaters either i suppose or at least i shouldnt then?

true it is such a small amount of people with extra stuff, but fair is fair.

btw if there was only 10 people that knew how to do a missile glitch or any other glitch that is considered cheating, is it ok then that they "get away with it?".
especially for argument sake that if bans are being handed out for other cheats regularly.

i know that is kind of a stretch argument there, but it is the principle of the matter at hand.

It's a small problem with a very difficult solution. Cheaters are a problem (not really sure how big) with an easy solution - you ban them.

very true, especially a difficult solution to all of the content covered in this thread.

there is usually more to every issue than just simple black and white.
i am mostly just here to try to establish well thought or thought provoking arguments to the side of "this isnt fair" of the debate.

hopefully ihave  acomplished that in my posts anyway.

also i do see the point of the other side as well, i try to remain open minded.
but as it stands, i see it as technically a blurred line on this subject of what is fair and what isnt, sure we all had the same opportunity, but that opportunity was also random generated success.

it could be compared to the lottery, but only those that bought tickets in the 1st hour had the better odds and therefore had an advantage.

i could be wrong in all my arguments and if that is so, then i want to be shown why.
plus not only if i am wrong it will show others why they should change their position as well.

[Counter_Mixture]

 No is my response to OP.

[JLoco11]

jlee375 wrote...

The difference, however, is in the absolutes. In your hypothetical situation, the outcome is binary: hurricane or no hurricane. That is not the case with the consumables, we all have them. The players who have these upgrades did do something specifically, they started playing earlier and were rewarded for it. Yes, it was based off a RNG and the store, however, that is simply the nature of the Item system in MP. 

The fact that it is random has little relevance to the actual issue, in my opinion. The fact of the matter is they played earlier than pretty much anyone else, and were rewarded for it, in much the same way as pre-orders reward people for investing earlier. And given how trivial the reward is, I don't understand why people are so angry/think its completely unfair/imbalanced. 

Randomness of the store is where the problem lies... it's not a matter of opinion and that is the point of relevance.  Opinion can be on how trivial the reward is (not a big reward we can agree on, but also not debated that those with more rockets do have an advantage).

The store rewarded certain players with that item.  There are plenty of other players who played during that same time frame that didn't receive the reward.  It's not like the capacity was available in a traditional store where players can select that particular upgrade and didn't happen to select it. 

It was given at random, to a select few.  Those who played from day fell mercy to the randomness of a store. 

And in the case of a hurricane being a binary option, the example can be easily changed to the hurricane being available for 5 weekends and then removed.  Some get multiple upgrades, some only have 1, some never getting it.  In the end, players don't want to feel like another player has something they will NEVER receive because a lottery system of a store didn't bend in their direction. 

If everyone had access to directly receive it (and missed out on it) so be it.  But that's now how it was rewarded.

Modifié par JLoco11, 14 février 2013 - 08:36 .

[jlee375]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

jlee375 wrote...

_only1biggs_ wrote...

it's concerning that people are just ignoring what bryan johnson said, about there not being an unfair advantage due to the game being co-op. if this is the case, they should not have nerfed anything, weapons OR powers.
if people only want to use pre nerf krysae, so what? it's their game, they can play as they wish. if someone wants to only use a GI or destroyer with pre nerf piranha, again, their choice.
when these weapons were available as shipped, i didn't use them all the time, because i like a bit of variety. i didn't come to a forum and complain about said weapons being "over powered" in a co-op game. if things were dying, i was happy.

so again, if there is no unfair advantage in a co-op game, then all powers and weapons should be reverted back to their shipped states.

http://social.biowar...ndex/14681282/1

A great explanation for why balance exists in a co-op game. That being said, we should return to the original topic. 

well done, you completely missed the point. also, i won't be reading that

I am not quite sure how I missed your point. You are arguing that no balance is needed in a cooperative game because 1. There is no unfair advantage, and 2. People can play how they want.

My argument was simply that neither of these reasons are valid and that balance exists for entirely different reasons. 

Btw, I am not trying to be hostile or antagonistic. I do respect your opinion, I happen to disagree, however. 

[FateNeverEnds]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

it's concerning that people are just ignoring what bryan johnson said, about there not being an unfair advantage due to the game being co-op. if this is the case, they should not have nerfed anything, weapons OR powers.
if people only want to use pre nerf krysae, so what? it's their game, they can play as they wish. if someone wants to only use a GI or destroyer with pre nerf piranha, again, their choice.
when these weapons were available as shipped, i didn't use them all the time, because i like a bit of variety. i didn't come to a forum and complain about said weapons being "over powered" in a co-op game. if things were dying, i was happy.

so again, if there is no unfair advantage in a co-op game, then all powers and weapons should be reverted back to their shipped states.

Or just make all weapons' DPS the same. Only difference being sound, animation, fire rate and thus feel. If we're all gonna cooperate we're gonna do it in equal conditions.

Also I'd like to stick to my point. The game rewards solo runs, so these 2 or 3 players do have an advantage we mortals don't.

[jlee375]

JLoco11 wrote...

jlee375 wrote...

The difference, however, is in the absolutes. In your hypothetical situation, the outcome is binary: hurricane or no hurricane. That is not the case with the consumables, we all have them. The players who have these upgrades did do something specifically, they started playing earlier and were rewarded for it. Yes, it was based off a RNG and the store, however, that is simply the nature of the Item system in MP. 

The fact that it is random has little relevance to the actual issue, in my opinion. The fact of the matter is they played earlier than pretty much anyone else, and were rewarded for it, in much the same way as pre-orders reward people for investing earlier. And given how trivial the reward is, I don't understand why people are so angry/think its completely unfair/imbalanced. 

Randomness of the store is where the problem lies... it's not a matter of opinion and that is the point of relevance.  Opinion can be on how trivial the reward is (not a big reward we can agree on, but also not debated that those with more rockets do have an advantage).

The store rewarded certain players with that item.  There are plenty of other players who played during that same time frame that didn't receive the reward.  It's not like the capacity was available in a traditional store where players can select that particular upgrade and didn't happen to select it. 

It was given at random, to a select few.  Those who played from day fell mercy to the randomness of a store. 

And in the case of a hurricane being a binary option, the example can be easily changed to the hurricane being available for 5 weekends and then removed.  Some get multiple upgrades, some only have 1, some never getting it.  In the end, players don't want to feel like another player has something they will NEVER receive because a lottery system of a store didn't bend in their direction. 

If everyone had access to directly receive it (and missed out on it) so be it.  But that's now how it was rewarded.

So then it seems like your argument is more focused on the fact that among the players who were early adopters, the system wasn't fair? Please explain to me if I am interpreting it wrong, I hope that I am not. 

In that case, it is simply a function of the store. I don't really see how that makes it unfair to anyone. The store has always been random and will always be random. It simply means that some of them got lucky and some didn't. Yes I know that since it is no longer available, that means that some people, even those who did start earlier, can never get those upgrades. However, that is simply the nature of RNG. It wasn't a guaranteed reward, but it was still there and potentially available for everyone at that time. 

[psyede360]

Isn't this what armored compartments, survivor loadout and responder loadout are for? Sure you trade off damage and powers but you get extra missiles, extra ops packs, or extra medi-gel. and be honest how many people out there actually played the shiz out of the demo to having 9 missiles/ops/gels. probably very few.

[Bryan Johnson]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

my point had nothing to do with balance. forget that. my concern is that bryan johnsons statement of "there is no unfair advantage, it's a co-op game", completely dumps on the idea of their being balance in the game.
i don't care either way about balance as i will play whatever character/weapon i feel like. just because alot of people chose to play THEIR game how THEY wanted, everyone says "nerf this" and "nerf that".

Your point stems from the singular argument that the only reason to do balance changes is in result to being fair/unfair. Just like I can use the same argument to say that we should half all weapon and power damage, since it is fair.

You also made the statement it is the person's game to do with as they please, while I am not going to get into this huge debate, but that is also not true.

[jm2207]

If you had 10 missiles 10 medigels 10 ops packs 10 ammos and 3 friends who had the same, wouldn't it be fun to do 6 minute platinums whenever it struck your fancy?

[JLoco11]

[quote]jlee375 wrote...

[/quote]

So then it seems like your argument is more focused on the fact that among the players who were early adopters, the system wasn't fair? Please explain to me if I am interpreting it wrong, I hope that I am not. 

In that case, it is simply a function of the store. I don't really see how that makes it unfair to anyone. The store has always been random and will always be random. It simply means that some of them got lucky and some didn't. Yes I know that since it is no longer available, that means that some people, even those who did start earlier, can never get those upgrades. However, that is simply the nature of RNG. It wasn't a guaranteed reward, but it was still there and potentially available for everyone at that time. 

[/quote]

Yes, that is more to the point...

But with a random store (the guns, characters etc), the logic is that if I play long enough, i will eventually receive all the content the store can offer, especially if I play from the same time period, in the same amount of time as another user.

But if you take away certain content from the store so that nobody can receive it AND leave those with the content untouched, you create the imbalance.  Bioware created the imbalance, and left it. 

And their reasoning and excuses (as others have shown in the thread) is contradictory to how they have approached balance and "fairness" in the game.  We all have something, or we all DON'T have something.  It's never been "well these select few can have it because they were special, and the rest of you can't have it".

[Cyonan]

jm2207 wrote...

I have no idea how often I run into players with 10. They might only use 5, but the fact that they have 5 in reserve almost certainly affects their gameplay. 

It is not theoretically unfair because it exists and IS unfair.

What do I want them to do? Either one. Or admit it's unfair.

It's theoretical because you don't even know if you've played with a player who had 10 missiles. You're complaining on the off chance that you might play with one, and that would be unfair to you.

They aren't going to trivialize the game by giving us 13 missiles each, and it's just as unfair to take away those missles from the people who got them. Admitting it's unfair wouldn't actually do anything unless they took some kind of action around it.

Bolo Xia wrote...

the same could be said about cheaters, i have only ran into 2 cheaters throughout my entire play time.

so then we shouldnt worry about cheaters either i suppose or at least i shouldnt then?

true it is such a small amount of people with extra stuff, but fair is fair.

btw if there was only 10 people that knew how to do a missile glitch or any other glitch that is considered cheating, is it ok then that they "get away with it?".
especially for argument sake that if bans are being handed out for other cheats regularly.

i know that is kind of a stretch argument there, but it is the principle of the matter at hand.

also, dont confuse my counter arguments with me being hostile or a direct attack, not accusing you of thinking so either.
just sayin, since im strongly arguing the other side of the topic.

plus the line has to be drawn somewhere on the "fairness" debate, as to why is it ok for 10 people to get or have something but the rest are not allowed to have the same thing, especially when we all start on the same playing field.

add: ignore my grammar errors, i have already seen a few flawed words in there that i used, i dont proof read and working on my 1st cup of coffee still when i 1st entered this landmine thread 

As you said it's a stretch of an argument. Once you start comparing to cheaters the argument begins to fall apart =P

If the missile glitch was only known by 10 people it would be a non issue since we'd most likely not even know about it.

No matter what they do it either A. wont be fair to somebody or B. will trivialize the game in this case. It's equally unfair to take away those 5 extra missiles from the people who played a lot early on to get them, and giving everybody 10 missiles will make the game way too easy for groups using their missiles.

Fixing the missile glitch didn't take anything away from anybody, except the ability to cheat =P

[parico]

I'd like to see missiles brought to 6 like everything else. Having 10 missiles,ops packs, medigel and thermal clips for everyone would be just ridiculous. It'd make platinum easy and gold a joke.

[HolyAvenger]

jm2207 wrote...

If you had 10 missiles 10 medigels 10 ops packs 10 ammos and 3 friends who had the same, wouldn't it be fun to do 6 minute platinums whenever it struck your fancy?

 

Nope, sound incredibly boring. I'd quit post-haste if this was what the game was like. 

[cronshaw]

10 missiles for everyone is absurd and should not be done
I also don't think anyone should have 10
and frankly while how many people have 10 missiles or whatever consumable may be relevant from a game-play standpoint,
It is completely irrelevant from a fairness standpoint.

[jm2207]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Your point stems from the singular argument that the only reason to do balance changes is in result to being fair/unfair. Just like I can use the same argument to say that we should half all weapon and power damage, since it is fair.

No just half all weapons to Level V for the people who haven't gotten them yet.

[stromguard555]

As OP stated, it is the 99% that has the cap at six. So only 1% has more than the cap and probably only about a quarter of them still play. So I'm not sure why everyone is upset about the .25% of the ME3MP population having the ability to bring more consumables into matches. If you are complaining because one of your friends has more than you, just stop playing with them, and take the hit to your credit income. Good players learn to not rely on crutch consumables like missiles, and get the job done the traditional way.

[Lives Must Die]

I agree with general idea of OP... I think we should be able to get more of certain items since other people have them. It's not that I didn't play the game since launch... I have, but I didn't have a ton of time to play as much as many others did, and it does give them an... "advantage", even if that word doesn't make too much sense here because it's a competitive game. but if they can get through solo matches and pub games easier because they have a few more rockets, why can't I? And no, I don't want to use gear, that's ridiculous. The other people get the benefit of increased consumable amount without relying on gear. In other words, they get increased consumables, and more gear. In short, they are OP, and no, it is not fair to many other players who have to try that much harder to succeed.

[ryoldschool]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

_only1biggs_ wrote...

my point had nothing to do with balance. forget that. my concern is that bryan johnsons statement of "there is no unfair advantage, it's a co-op game", completely dumps on the idea of their being balance in the game.
i don't care either way about balance as i will play whatever character/weapon i feel like. just because alot of people chose to play THEIR game how THEY wanted, everyone says "nerf this" and "nerf that".

Your point stems from the singular argument that the only reason to do balance changes is in result to being fair/unfair. Just like I can use the same argument to say that we should half all weapon and power damage, since it is fair.

You also made the statement it is the person's game to do with as they please, while I am not going to get into this huge debate, but that is also not true.

wow, firstly, i didn't make a point about balance changes. i called into question your, "it's a co-op game, there's no unfair advantage" remark. if that's the case, then why bother with "nerfing" powerful weapons? i'm not saying anything about fair/unfair, you're putting words in mouth.

moreover, it is the persons game to do with as they please. if someone wants to ONLY use a Geth Infiltrator, that is their choice to do so; "they paid for the game, they can play it how they wish".

nice attempt at trying to twist my words, but you've just made yourself look incredibly stupid, at least to the enlightened

Insulting the bioware devs is a no-class move.

I doubt that you are getting bent out of shape because you care so much about score in a co-op game.  It seems you are more interested in arguing and insulting people.

[Bryan Johnson]

_only1biggs_ wrote...
wow, firstly, i didn't make a point about balance changes. i called into question your, "it's a co-op game, there's no unfair advantage" remark. if that's the case, then why bother with "nerfing" powerful weapons? i'm not saying anything about fair/unfair, you're putting words in mouth.

moreover, it is the persons game to do with as they please. if someone wants to ONLY use a Geth Infiltrator, that is their choice to do so; "they paid for the game, they can play it how they wish".

nice attempt at trying to twist my words, but you've just made yourself look incredibly stupid, at least to the enlightened

Nerfing is a balance change... So yes you did bring it up. I do not see at all how I am putting words into your mouth. I could argue that just because I make a statement about a certain thing it does not mean that statement is true of every scenario you could think of.

No it isn't a persons game to do with as they please, for example cheating. We have the right to ban people. Games are more defined as a service than a tangable product. 

And insults thrown to me and the community is not tolerated.

[Cyonan]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

wow, firstly, i didn't make a point about balance changes. i called into question your, "it's a co-op game, there's no unfair advantage" remark. if that's the case, then why bother with "nerfing" powerful weapons? i'm not saying anything about fair/unfair, you're putting words in mouth.

moreover, it is the persons game to do with as they please. if someone wants to ONLY use a Geth Infiltrator, that is their choice to do so; "they paid for the game, they can play it how they wish".

nice attempt at trying to twist my words, but you've just made yourself look incredibly stupid, at least to the enlightened

If I remember right, Eric Fagnan said that they balance to promote variety(and by extention replayability), not because it's "unfair" to people who don't have the powerful weapons.

If somebody wants to only ever use a Geth Infiltrator with a Krysae, they can still do so however.

[Grinch57]

Fair? This is a video game, not second grade.

A case could be made that many video games reduce us to acting like we are still in second grade, yet I digress.

The OT question has been asked and answered, not just in this thread, but in others like it, multiple times.

With so many other things that effect the quality of MP game play to consider, I hope BioWare has a focus on fixing those issues and not worrying about this tripe.

I don't begrudge early players for having more missiles than me, I don't ask that I get the same number and I don't ask that they get their larger missile cache reduced.

Life isn't fair, video games are not fair and the concept of "fair" rests in the eyes of the (envious) beholder.

tl;dr: Grow up.  Get a grip.

Modifié par Grinch57, 14 février 2013 - 09:02 .

[Computron2000]

_only1biggs_ wrote...
wow, firstly, i didn't make a point about balance changes. i called into question your, "it's a co-op game, there's no unfair advantage" remark. if that's the case, then why bother with "nerfing" powerful weapons? i'm not saying anything about fair/unfair, you're putting words in mouth.

moreover, it is the persons game to do with as they please. if someone wants to ONLY use a Geth Infiltrator, that is their choice to do so; "they paid for the game, they can play it how they wish".

nice attempt at trying to twist my words, but you've just made yourself look incredibly stupid, at least to the enlightened

No he didn't twist your words, merely read your implied meaning from the below post. You were already refering to balance changes in the phrase "shipped states" even if we ignore the entire "nerf" angle.

_only1biggs_ wrote...

it's concerning that people are just ignoring what bryan johnson said, about there not being an unfair advantage due to the game being co-op. if this is the case, they should not have nerfed anything, weapons OR powers. 
if people only want to use pre nerf krysae, so what? it's their game, they can play as they wish. if someone wants to only use a GI or destroyer with pre nerf piranha, again, their choice. 
when these weapons were available as shipped, i didn't use them all the time, because i like a bit of variety. i didn't come to a forum and complain about said weapons being "over powered" in a co-op game. if things were dying, i was happy.

so again, if there is no unfair advantage in a co-op game, then all powers and weapons should be reverted back to their shipped states.