WARMACHINE9 wrote...
It's been a while since I've posted but the pure stupidity of this post brought me back. Let's go over your "points" on what's killed the game and see where your credibility lies at the end.USIncorp0 wrote...
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm watching the game slowly dying.
i've been wondering about what killed it the most.
I have a few choices that i've narrowed it down to.
1) The AIU, one of the dumbest design decisions i've ever seen in a game.
2) The Reegar Carbine, so obviously broken yet nothing was done.
3) Juggernauts, all these fools who don't deserve to play silver thinking they can play Gold. It deeply saddens me every time I see one in a lobby.
4) Consoles. No offense to anyone who plays on a console, you guys are great, but rather the companies. Making it nearly impossible for Bioware to release new content for the game. And Bioware's policy of keeping the game consistent across all platforms means that the game never truly could reach it's full potential.
In closing, I want to say that this is nothing against Bioware, or the game, it just sadens me that this game which I have grown to love end in such a way. But all things must end, and all things must move on.
Oh and this isnt a goodbye either, im still playing, just not nearly as frequently and for as long time spans.
1) No single character has ever killed a game. period. They even nerfed her*. Strike one to your credibility.
2) You could have inserted Harrier, or Claymore, or Hurircain**, or any of half a dozen weapons into that point but you miss a very simple fact: this is a co-op game and OP weapons don't have the same effect as in a PvP game.Arguments of a weapon being OP are usually made by people who are pissy because somebody out scored them with said weapon*. Strike two to your credibility.
3) Repeated argument of point one, just added human element to it. If you've ever spent any time playing gold PUGs you would know that most of the people playing it are playing above their skill level. Not all of them are playing Juggs. To add to your complaint people have pissed and moaned about classes since the beta. Not one has killed the game. Strike three for numerous reasons.
Now at this point your credibility is pretty ****** poor but then you insult two thirds of the community with point four. Real bright there sparky. As to point four,
4) Mass Effect came out on CONSOLE FIRST. Just be glad it wasn't another console exclusive and you got to join us on this wonderful adventure. Blaming a platform for something wether PC or console makes you look like a tool. Plus you don't think Bioware and EA would've taken some serious flak for offering things on PC not available on consoles? We're already pissed you get to look around when you run and can rebind your keys while we're stuck with what we got.
In conclusion your "points" aren't whats "killing" the game. People leaving for other great games, lack of support, and no more weekend challenges are what is SLOWING down the game but these are all signs of a games age***. This happens to all games. I mean you don't even bother to back up any of your points with fact or at the very least opinion. People still play and will most likely be playing till they kill the servers or ME 4 comes out. Get over yourself.
Always so combative when a face is not associated with an idea.
People.
Anyway, points are highlighted and such for your convenience
1. They nerfed her, true, but she is still free medgel, and trivializes an aspect of the game (needing a rez to punish rash behavior). That is for the most part what spawns the whole "OP" thing. AIU is still OP because she does not heavily punish stupid antics, or is a lot gentler about mistakes depending on your point of view
2. *Hurricane. Please do not misspell the name of a type of storm, it makes me cringe a little bit for humanity.
3. There is a reason "You just got outscored by it, n00b" is not an argument taken seriously. Balance is about making all weapons and characters equally viable, but fit different roles or niches. Different, but not objectively more effective. There are many who do not like where the Reegar is at, and many of those could show you a thing or two about the game. I am quite sure for instance that most, if not everybody, in SPECTRE thinks that it is OP. You going to bring that flawed argument to them?
In the case of the Lancer and the Harrier (On Gold), the Harrier is objectively better. There is nothing the Lancer can do that the Harrier does not do better, that is a problem. Do we want the Lancer to be the standard, or the Harrier.
The Reegar is not working how the devs intended it to work. It is not being used as a shield-stripper, they somehow managed to not test it with shredder mod and/or AP ammo and see that it *trivializes* bosses with such setups. The Reegar is at a much higher power level than other weapons.
So I have a question for you, if we moved all the weapons to balance around the Reegar's power level, would this game be difficult. The answer is a resounding *NO*, it would be mindnumbingly easy. That is not a good thing. If you had your manifest and consumables maxed, would you then play Bronze exclusively? If the answer is "no", then you do not want all the weapons to be balanced on the Reegar's power level.
4. It is true that many Gold PUGs are playing above their skill level, but the Juggernaut like the AIU does not punish for lack of skill as much as almost any class before it. Even the Kroguard is less forgiving, and he was the tank before the Juggernaut came around and the Warlord.
The problem is that his threshold to not die with him is very low, and it takes a lot of skill to make him actually effective. Almost any fool can take a juggernaut to Gold and not go down all the time, and not learn a damn bit of skill required to play Gold with any other class. They are stuck with the juggernaut, because they *need* that sync-kill immunity and the massive amount of shields, and learn to not live without it.
5. He already mentioned that he was not peeved at the console market as much as he was at the devs.
Consoles are holding PC games back, especially in the AAA market.
The biggest sales are coming out on 7.5 year old tech, that is holding everything back development wise. The reason PC players are pissed about getting these games backwashed from the console market is because we are in effect getting sloppy seconds. Many, many games are guilty of this. Come out with a game, then halfass the port to PC instead of porting it from PC to console Battlefield 3 for most of its development was being developed PC first, console second, then halfway through development switched point of view, which made them unable to make good on half the promises they made (moar destructible enviroments, anyone?)
Also, thank you for affirming PC superiority.
Hope that clarifiies a few things (though I know it won't)
Retour en haut
