246 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

If we did balancing the game would be horribly balanced.

It's much harder to balance a game well than a lot of the people on the BSN think.

 

Well if the guys like you and Pedro and Corlist and a few others were involved it woudn't be that hard. Pure math. No feelings. 

That doesn't work all that well actually, I already tried it in single-player =P

The problem is that balance is a subjective thing. You cannot objectively say that the Revenant is better than the Argus. The only time you could say something like that is when the other gun is an upgrade in every single area and in some cases 99.9% of people are probably going to agree with you(like saying Harrier is better than the Avenger). You run into subjective questions though such as:

> How much does weight count for DPS?
> How much does low ammo count?
> How much does poor accuracy count?
> What is a good top end DPS?
> Should it assume full consumables?
> Should the game be balanced to Silver(this is where the majority of people play apparently), Gold, or Platinum?
> Should the game be balanced around the average player or the top end players?
> Is a weapon balanced if it's good on a weapons user but terrible on a caster? The reverse?
> How tight does the balance need to be in the game?
> How hard should each difficulty be to the average player?

None of those have an answer you can math out, and it's disagreeing on those kinds of questions that caused most of the nerf wars we had.

There are some things we'd all mostly agree on. I don't think many of us will try to argue that Decoy doesn't need a buff, but you'll run into a lot of issues on the rare/ultra-rare guns and of course everybody's favourite nerf topic Tactical Cloak.

The last two in particular would cause a lot of disagreement. I even once said to somebody "If I were balancing and trying to make it very tight balance, I'd probably nerf almost every ultra-rare in the game". I don't think that Mass Effect 3 needs that tight of balance, though, so I don't think they should actually be nerfed.

[Ziegrif]

Air Quotes wrote...
The ammount of crazy people left that still play this game is way lower than when it was in the beginning. But yeah. Some are completely unreasonable. 

Like me.
BUFF THE SYNC KILL RATIOS!

[Alijah Green]

Air Quotes wrote...

Alijah Green wrote...

End of Line

what is this all about anyway......what is hurting you still that you feel "something/anything" still needs a change

 

Your posts were always not on topic. ALWAYS. 

how so something is still missing for you as far as MP goes, right?   

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Democracy doesn't mix well with some things. I think Video Games fall under the "not mixing well" category.

I wouldn't trust BSN with something like this. I can remember a play in high school using democracy to determine who would play the lead role. The top three spots were "Mickey Mouse" "Woody Allen" and "Homer Simpson."

Plus, there are probably only 30 or 40 Posters on BSN I would comfortably say have both the knowledge and objectivity to vote on such things. I would probably be comfortable leaving it in the hands of a team composed of those individuals, but I wouldn't trust the rest of us with the power.

I, for example, would end up giving the Shadow a OSK eye-beam laser thing, or something like that. Clearly, I cannot be trusted with power. :innocent:

[Ziegrif]

Air Quotes wrote...
I still think we can do better than Bioware. I mean they released GI, TGI, AIU and Reegar and Krysae. How much worse can we do? 

Ziegrif wrote...
Like me.
BUFF THE SYNC KILL RATIOS!

A lot.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 29 avril 2013 - 05:17 .

[RedJohn]

I sincerely think it would be bad if the community gets the responsibility for balances.

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

I still think we can do better than Bioware. I mean they released GI, TGI, AIU and Reegar and Krysae. How much worse can we do? 

That's because they have different answers. They obviously think that low ammo is more of a down side than I do.

Notice how people always defend those things when you talk about nerfing them, however. Also note how people have actually said the Harrier needs a buff because of the low ammo capacity. Those people get a vote just the same as people like me or Peddroelmz.

Hell I'd probably even defend the GI as being made out of tissue paper when in the hands of the average player(which is more towards where I think the game should be balanced rather than the top players). The one nerf I'd actually want to make to him I wouldn't be able to do without a patch, because it would be trying to negate Cyclonic Modulators getting around Hunter Mode's reduction.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Air Quotes wrote...

Jeremiah wrote...

I, for example, would end up giving the Shadow a OSK eye-beam laser thing, or something like that. Clearly, I cannot be trusted with power. :innocent:

 

But you woudn't be able to, cos that requires patch. So the power is limited. Sorry Palpatine - it is. 

I'd find a way. 

Seriously, though, I think a team of the right people would probably do quite a good job, and the occasional mistake would probably be quickly corrected. But anyone on that team would inevitably face a lot of rage over every decision. I would be happy to have people working on it, but they'd need thick skin.

(Edit: quite the quote fail, on my part... fix'd now, mostly... )

Modifié par Jeremiah12LGeek, 29 avril 2013 - 05:25 .

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

Again. If we're smart, we would not start from GI's or Harriers. 

We would start from the buffs to things that DEARLY need them. And GI or Harrier do not fit the profile. 

That's a hell of an assumption you're making =P

Who is to say what needs it dearly?

Does the Reegar need it more than Decoy?

AIU or Sentry Turret?

TGI or Disciple?

Let's even say you pick the AIU on that list. What should be nerfed on her? How much should it be nerfed by? Is it okay to do a change that changes the way the character is played?

I for one don't really like changes that alter the core essence of the thing, in the case of something like giving the Revenant better accuracy. That's not what the gun is about but a lot of people have mentioned wanting it to happen.

[Belahzur]

Air Quotes wrote...


We would start from the buffs to things that DEARLY need them.

Buff all the garbage weapons to make them as accurate/powerful as the top weapons in each weapon class.

Make every assult rifle into Harrier.
Make every shotgun into Claymoar

Problem solved?

[parico]

RedJohn wrote...

I sincerely think it would be bad if the community gets the responsibility for balances.

[Cyonan]

Air Quotes wrote...

Again. We do not start with that. How about starting with freaking explosive rounds? 

That's one thing, you said 5 per month =P

There isn't really 5 things in this game that are on the level of Explosive Rounds kind of bad, so you're going to have to hit the AIU/TGI vs the lower end weapons pretty fast.

[WaffleCrab]

Air Quotes wrote...

WaffleCrab wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

WaffleCrab wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

TBLKNIGHT wrote...

How many Scrubs visit the Forums?

 

I dunno. But if they care about the game they can vote. And their vote and opinion is equally as powerful. 1 vote per person to prevent abuse. 

You know there is this silly thing going around the interwebs, that some people call "doing a 4Chan on a vote" even if it is 1 vote per person, it could easily be a coalition of people doing stupid ****, like "lets vote a 10% buff on harrier for 10 weeks in row" or other silly things like that. Trust, giving reigns on balance to the community, would be the last nail to the coffin for this game.

 

We could also prioritize. Does Harrier needs 10% buff more than a Phaeston? No? Well Phaeston gets it first. And then no balance change for a month for the heads to cool off. 

how would you prioritize if you let people vote on it, as long as there is this much influence from community side, things can go easily and fast to the crapper. And if there would be someone over riding the vote results, it would kinda make the whole voting pointless.

 

Make a list. 

7 balance changes this month: 

1. 10% buff to Avenger 
2. 10% buff to Phaeston 
3. 300% headshot modifier to Valiant 
4. 5% nerf to Reegar  
5. 5% nerf to Harrier
6. 10% buff to Explosive rounds 
7. 5% nerf to Acolyte 

5 gets picked on the most votes casted. 

This is just an example. 

You keep dodging my question, how would that help against a mass of people who decide to be dicks. Simple answer. it does not.

[Azul]

parico wrote...

RedJohn wrote...

I sincerely think it would be bad if the community gets the responsibility for balances.

Agreed.  

OP, I can understand where you're coming from, but I think the best way for someone to influence balance changes in ME4 would be to apply for a job on the ME4 MP development team.

[cgtrfghj7]

Nah. The MP section already has enough butthurt, gif spammers, whiners, nerfer/buffer arguments, and all kinds of toxicity in it already this would've only added to it.