177 réponses à ce sujet

[Zero132132]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

Personally, I think people that call for nerfs fall into 2 types. The first type are the hatefuls. They just want to be mean and ruin/destroy everything along their path in life. The second type are the can't do's. The can't do's are unable to play whatever they are calling to have nerfed to it's full potential or just don't like playing it. In both cases, they are negative people and often like to argue for arguements sake.

Admittedly, there are times when something so outclasses everything else that it needs to be nerfed. I usually identify those instances by a) is the item/class used by a much higher rate than should be expected, and if everything else was raised to the same level of effectivness would the game be utterly easy/broken.

Developers prejudices always show in gameplay. There will always be balance issues because comparisons are often qualitative (perception) rather than quantative (a = . However, the positive gamer asks for weaknesses (such as the QFE) to be buffed, rather than the strong (such as the GI) to be nerfed.

Have you actually READ any of the balance threads? Most of them are started by or participated in by some of the most capable players on the forums, and most of the same players DO call for the weaker weapons and classes to be buffed.

[ISHYGDDT]

Eh, I'm more or less happy with the balance state of this game. Sure, there are outliers like the Reegar Kroguard, but it's not like average players do particularly well with it.

There are generally about ~5 people who ask for nerfs on the forums now, 3 are trolls and 2 are simply very, very good at this game having exceeded the skill cap by a huge amount at this point. Frankly, neither of these parties has a perspective with much relevance when it comes to balancing.

[DeathScepter]

Well If i gave an elite player a stick of gum and a toothpick, i am sure that they could out score me.

[JLoco11]

ISHYGDDT wrote...

Eh, I'm more or less happy with the balance state of this game. Sure, there are outliers like the Reegar Kroguard, but it's not like average players do particularly well with it.

There are generally about ~5 people who ask for nerfs on the forums now, 3 are trolls and 2 are simply very, very good at this game having exceeded the skill cap by a huge amount at this point. Frankly, neither of these parties has a perspective with much relevance when it comes to balancing.

And one of the finer points missed is that most of the balance changes are buffs, compared to the minority of changes that were nerfed.

But the nerfs get people's attention more often.

[Bob Garbage]

I play to have fun. As long as that's happening I'm in like Huck Finn.

[Shampoohorn]

I guess the key word in your question is "still". All I can really give you is a shrug and my perspective that there are "still" ways that Bioware can make this game better with minimal changes: some balance changes, some that might require a patch.

Even the most feverish discussions these days are much more relaxed than those of earlier cycles. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but the main one is that most of the bigger imbalance and bugs have been adequately dealt with.

That said, we've got a new DLC incoming and lots of opportunities for balance -- given Bioware's track record when it comes to new MP content. *cough* reegar.GI.krysae.ghost.piranha.ishouldgo *cough*

[Shampoohorn]

ISHYGDDT wrote...

Eh, I'm more or less happy with the balance state of this game. Sure, there are outliers like the Reegar Kroguard, but it's not like average players do particularly well with it.

There are generally about ~5 people who ask for nerfs on the forums now, 3 are trolls and 2 are simply very, very good at this game having exceeded the skill cap by a huge amount at this point. Frankly, neither of these parties has a perspective with much relevance when it comes to balancing.

I'm in neither of those groups, but have advocated for guns like the Reegar to be balanced.  And I still think TC is unbalanced, though much better than it was.:innocent:

[HinDae]

Because having any weapon hald decent for longer than 2 weeks is BAD. All good weapons must feel the indifferent sting of the mighty and terrible nerf bat!

[MsLub]

Because things like biotic explosions are OP, and take no skill. I am tired of people taking my kills using biotic explosions, or biotics in general.

[ISHYGDDT]

Shampoohorn wrote...

ISHYGDDT wrote...

Eh, I'm more or less happy with the balance state of this game. Sure, there are outliers like the Reegar Kroguard, but it's not like average players do particularly well with it.

There are generally about ~5 people who ask for nerfs on the forums now, 3 are trolls and 2 are simply very, very good at this game having exceeded the skill cap by a huge amount at this point. Frankly, neither of these parties has a perspective with much relevance when it comes to balancing.

I'm in neither of those groups, but have advocated for guns like the Reegar to be balanced.  And I still think TC is unbalanced, though much better than it was.:innocent:

That's why there's a tilda next to the 5.










My opinion on balance below:

A significant part of this game is designing effective builds.  Yes, this can be trivialized by searching for builds on BSN, just like you can buy a prima strategy guide which completely trivializes some single player games, but engineering a character for maximum effectiveness is for me an enjoyable process.  Making some combinations better than others is sort of a good thing, as it rewards players for being good at that part of the game.  

The problem becomes when one build strategy is so dominant that it represents the obvious solution to any problem.

Does tactical cloak do that?  I would argue that it actually doesn't.  I have roughly equal killing efficiency playing either a geth infiltrator, or any class with decent grenades (on gold.)   

Does the Reegar do that? That, I'm not sure about .  It's obviously the best choice on certain maps and with certain characters, but (even if I liked it) I wouldn't put it on every character simply because while the time-to-kill is absurdly short with the Reegar, taking into account the time to close distance makes some ranged builds more powerful.  The synergy between the Reegar and vanguards is mainly what makes it overly powerful  (ignoring the warp-incendiary glitch here because BioWare supposedly doesn't balance around glitches.)

Modifié par ISHYGDDT, 19 février 2013 - 05:33 .

[Feneckus]

Because I hate that Infiltrators are the best soldiers.

Because I hate that infiltrators are the best engineers.

Because I hate that infiltrators are better melee fighters than freaking Krogans.

Because I hate that infiltrators cause legit kits/weapons to get nerfed.

Because I hate that infiltrators do not give a **** about cooldowns when 95% of other kits do.

Because I hate the fact that a Drell Infiltrator can spam recon mines while a Volus Engineer has to carefully think about it. Not to mention that the Drell's mine will always do more damage, even if the Volus has an Engineering Kit V and a Power Amplifier IV while the Drell can have no equipment and can be specced for weapon damage.

Because I'd like to see something else than infiltrators once in a while.

Now, I don't really want a TC nerf, it's way too late and too many people would be butthurt about it because they'd have no idea how to extract on Gold/Plat without one so they'd quit playing, which is not a good thing obviously.

[upinya slayin]

Zero132132 wrote...
**Snip**
The game is imbalanced, but it's not so imbalanced that thee's one single kit that makes all other possibilities so comparatively weak as to be pointless.

TGI + harrier says Hi :innocent:

[Dreamcleaver]

Because if you just kept buffing things that would leave to power creep and soon even plat wouldn't be a challenge.

So strong stuff needs to be nerfed as weak stuff is buffed.

Modifié par Dreamcleaver, 19 février 2013 - 05:44 .

[YouAreHorse]

Tyeme Downs wrote...

Personally, I think people that call for nerfs fall into 2 types. The first type are the hatefuls. They just want to be mean and ruin/destroy everything along their path in life. The second type are the can't do's. The can't do's are unable to play whatever they are calling to have nerfed to it's full potential or just don't like playing it. In both cases, they are negative people and often like to argue for arguements sake.

Admittedly, there are times when something so outclasses everything else that it needs to be nerfed. I usually identify those instances by a) is the item/class used by a much higher rate than should be expected, and if everything else was raised to the same level of effectivness would the game be utterly easy/broken.

Developers prejudices always show in gameplay. There will always be balance issues because comparisons are often qualitative (perception) rather than quantative (a = . However, the positive gamer asks for weaknesses (such as the QFE) to be buffed, rather than the strong (such as the GI) to be nerfed.

Mmmh, delicious generalizations and straw men with a dash of contradiction. Keep up the good work=]

[vonSlash]

xandax86 wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

xandax86 wrote...

Because people dont like being outscored when playing on their crappy builds.

That's absolute bull****. Most of the balance cries comes from the best players, not the worst.

You dont need to be a bad player in order to have crappy builds.

And the fact that some builds are so much worse than others is a good example of why the game still needs balancing.

[BjornDaDwarf]

vonSlash wrote...

And the fact that some builds are so much worse than others is a good example of why the game still needs balancing.

No kit should be *bad*, but there are characters who may lack in damage who make up for it in fun.

BatSent is my prime example.  I like Subnet, and enjoy using it.  I like hatesurfing with Shockwave.  A lot of people will argue that Subnet is one of the worst powers in the game, and that the Batsent is one of the worst kits.  But there are people like me who are effective enough, and who have a lot of fun with him.  He doesn't need to be a monster to be fun.  And if subnet or shockwave one shot killed mobs....that would actually take some of the fun out of him.  

[Arctican]

There's been more cry for buffs compared to cry for nerfs. For example, some of the AR's could stand to take a little bit more buff. Some gears needs to balanced better.

[BouncyFrag]

I'm at the point where I don't even care about the balance changes anymore. So this or that gun/power will get a baby buff or nerf. I never really noticed the changes anyways.

[vonSlash]

BjornDaDwarf wrote...

vonSlash wrote...

And the fact that some builds are so much worse than others is a good example of why the game still needs balancing.

No kit should be *bad*, but there are characters who may lack in damage who make up for it in fun.

BatSent is my prime example.  I like Subnet, and enjoy using it.  I like hatesurfing with Shockwave.  A lot of people will argue that Subnet is one of the worst powers in the game, and that the Batsent is one of the worst kits.  But there are people like me who are effective enough, and who have a lot of fun with him.  He doesn't need to be a monster to be fun.  And if subnet or shockwave one shot killed mobs....that would actually take some of the fun out of him.  

Ideally, class choice and class build should come down to playstyle preferences rather than innate efficiency differences. The strategy then wouldn't be about searching the forums for the best builds, but rather determining which class best fits the way you like to play the game, and classes should be balanced so that for a player who excels in all aspects of the game, all class builds will be equally effective.

You can't practically achieve the perfect balance I just described, but you can get closer to it than we currently are by buffing the exceptionally weak weapons/powers/whatevers and nerfing the exceptionally strong ones.

[Tyeme Downs]

Zero132132 wrote...

Have you actually READ any of the balance threads? Most of them are started by or participated in by some of the most capable players on the forums, and most of the same players DO call for the weaker weapons and classes to be buffed.

I have to say, your reply has me perplexed.  Your title asks "Why exactly do people still want nerfs?" and I replied to that question.  You response to my opinion is to defend threads that call for nerfs.  I have to wonder if your arguing for arguments sake.

Please clarify your thoughts so I can reasonably understand where your coming from.  You asked why people still want nerfs.  Your implying that nothing needs (in your opinion) nerfs from this point forward.  Your reply asks if I have read any of the balance threads.  Of course I have, but that is in the past.  Your question/title is about the present to future.  Why are you bringing up the past which is irrelevant to your statement?

Threads discussing balance are not the same as threads that call for nerfs (though there is some overlap).  Why are you bringing up balance threads in a reply to my opinion about people that still call for nerfs?  It doesn't make sense.  You go on to say "the same players DO call for the weaker weapons and classes to be buffed" in reference to capable players discussing balance.  Buffs are the opposite of nerfs.  Why are you defending nerf threads by bringing up calls for buffs?

So, as I said I'm perplexed by your reply.  Your OP/question was about nerfs in the present/future, and you reply to my post is about balance/buff threads in the past.  Reguardless, I'll attempt to reply to your confusing response.

Being a capable player does not exclude someone from being a hateful person.  It just excluded them from the can't do's.  People have all sorts of motivators when they post.  A complex, well reasoned arguement can be made about just about anything and still be wrong.  Hobbs Leviathan is a great example.  

I think my second paragraph lays out that there are legitimate times when something is so out of balance that it needs to be reduced (nerfed).  Balance threads often expose those times as people discuss the issue and reach reasonable concensus that a) there is a problem, and what should be done about it.  The developers don't always agree with the players.

It is up to the developers to sift the wheat from the chaff when making changes to the game based on player input.  There are far more nerf calls by the hateful and can't do's than legitimate problems with overpowered mechanics.  It's easier to identify the strong and tear them down than to identify weakness (often our own) and bolster it.

[DAN1EL86]

I think most of it comes down to e-peen. The forum nerfers cried when a gold weapon (Krysae) was boss because they were getting outscored by entry level newer players.

On the same note, the Harrier is every bit the same but most new players don't get that for quite awhile due to store trolling. The nerfers for whatever reason, defend the heck out of the Harrier.

In before low ammo balancing, blah blah. Tell me what helmet wearing scrub cannot locate an ammo box?

[jaydubs67]

Because I'm an optimizer.  Part of the fun I get from playing games is optimizing builds.  And when A and B are clearly better than Y and Z, I can't have as much fun.  It forces me to either always play A and B (which significantly decreases the variety in the game for me) or it forces me to play Y and Z just for variety's sake (which is less fun because I'm an optimizer).  

So I want balance, not just A and B not being roflstomp and Y and Z not being terribad.  I want A and B to be roughly equivalent to Y and Z.  

Sometimes balance is better achieved through nerfs than buffs, because if we just buff everything to be equal to the most effective build, the entire game becomes easier.  I don't want the game to become easier.  So that would require buffing every single enemy in the game.  It's much more efficient to just buff the less powerful things and nerf the more power things.  

Now, you can disagree with me because you would have more enjoyment from a different type of game balance.  But don't pretend this is an irrational or unreasonable point of view.  

Modifié par jaydubs67, 19 février 2013 - 06:24 .

[Epicawesomesauce]

I still ask for nerfs every Christmas because it's fun to shoot my kids with them. Christmas day nerf wars are great.

[capn233]

Apl_J wrote...

Why not? EC practically created the term First Order Optimal Strategy, and since then its used absolutely EVERYWHERE, both in the community members who take design seriously and in the developers. James Portnow knows what the hell he's talking about; if anyone ever wanted to get into game design theory, Extra Credits is the best place to start.

The biggest reason not to watch it is so that you don't have to listen to that annoying voice in the video.