187 réponses à ce sujet

[Dokteur Kill]

Cyonan wrote...
I agree that while they fall into the same category they're mechanically different.

I think we have a slightly different definition of "mechanics".

The Argus and Valkyrie are similar in terms of mechanics, they just have different parameters. Some times, that is enough to make them sufficiently distinct, some times it's not. Personally, I have the Argus on my "would scrap" list, but I'm not going to disagree 100% with you either.

But saying the Argus is the same as the Vindicator is like saying the Revenant is the same as the Collector Assault Rifle. They're both full auto assault rifles, but the Revenant handles much differently.

To be honest... in its current form I'd probably scrap the Revenant as well. It really doesn't feel like it has a role that isn't filled just as well by other weapons (not necessarily assault rifles, mind you). I would prefer it to be reworked and kept, for nostalgic reasons.

[Fortack]

Cyonan wrote...

BSN also should stop calling a gun garbage just because it's not good on every single character with no consumables, which we have a habit of doing.

Unfortunately, the vast majority is garbage on every single kit - with or without consumables. There is no point whatsoever to waste precious design time on stuff that is outclassed in every imaginable way by something else.

[Tokenusername]

Air Quotes wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

I'm sorry, but the weight mechanic PREVENTS me from playing my Fury with a Javelin and Claymore at the same time and reworked ME1 mechanics prevent me from unleashing all powers at once. That's NOT FUN for me.  

And RNG store prevents me from FUN.

Weight mechanic doesn't prevent you from doing anything. It balances the effectiveness of weapon strength and power strength. You can bring Javelin and Claymore on the Fury, and you would be very quick with your powers, but you would have immense weapon capabilities to compensate. This isn't an optimal strategy, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

There is a difference between guidelines and punishment. As a designer, you provide the player with a set of tools, which they can choose to use in creative ways to accomplish the goal you've given them. As a matter of balance, and for the purpose of not having to make every possibility possible since it would not work on any time schedule in the universe, certain guidelines are put in place to steer players away from actions that will be detrimental. Something like placing level boundaries isn't stiffing exploration, it prevents players from seeing that nothing actually exists beyond that hill and ruining their immersion. Limiting power usage with a universal cooldown doesn't disallow the player to use their preferred powers, it makes them choose and use them in moderation to prevent unreasonable offensive outputs.

You don't deny that your proposal would be a punishment to the player, and you should never punish the player for their choice in playstyle.

 

The same way the Fury is punished if she goes with Javelin and Claymore, the same way you would be punished with going to battle with the same weapon all the time if you can't maintain it. For example - you can still use it, but it deals 25% less damage and has a chance to jam or malfuction when reloading.  

If you can - go ahead.

I just explained to you why why weapon choice isn't a punishment. Compromise. Weapon degradation is a strait negative consequence.

[Polo StA]

Takes long enough to unlock all the UR as it is.

I don't need another useless thing to throw money at.

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
Well the WHOLE COMBINATION. 

Damage, weight, 3 shots vs 2, the spread, the recoil, the accuracy, refire.

And the question is, do these differences actually make a difference when it comes to how the weapon performs? Is there a good reason for picking the Vindicator over the Valkyrie, beyond it being the cheap option? Would the game lose anything if you got rid of the Vindicator and made the Valkyrie a rare weapon? Ok, you'd have to click a bit faster, but that's really the only significant difference, other than that the Valk is the better option.

When several weapons basically use the same mechanics with slightly different parameters, and don't have any special abilities, that's when you have to start asking whether or not one of those weapons is superfluous, and if you could get the same gameplay abilities out of just tweaking one of those weapons a bit and getting rid of the rest.

[stysiaq]

Air Quotes wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

N7 Dynames wrote...

 I was under the impression you were meant to play videogames for fun, I don't see how your implementation would add a fun factor. It would just deter from actual gameplay. I'm not sure why everyone here worries about balance so much, it's a team based game and if your teammates can perform better I don't see the problem. 

 

I play for fun and variety. Both in my game and in teammate game. Seeing nothing but Reetard Carbines and Carriers gets massively boring. 

Not everybody wants to use variety though.

It's fine to encourage it, as it typically keeps people playing longer, but having durability on your guns just starts punishing those who don't like to use a variety of things. It's less encouraging and more trying to force people.

Trying to force people away from a play style because you personally find it boring is poor design.

 

I think you sometimes need to kick people in the nuts a little bit. Or else the nerfs will never stop. 

No. As I said earlier, using different guns should be rewarded instead of punishing people for not doing it.

"Do this and that and I'll give you a cookie" is a better approach than "If you won't do this or that you will get spanked". The goal is the same, but only one of these methods works.

Imagine weeked challenges that result in loosing a random gun unlock if you don't complete it.

[N7 Dynames]

Air Quotes wrote...

N7 Dynames wrote...

 I was under the impression you were meant to play videogames for fun, I don't see how your implementation would add a fun factor. It would just deter from actual gameplay. I'm not sure why everyone here worries about balance so much, it's a team based game and if your teammates can perform better I don't see the problem. 

 

I play for fun and variety. Both in my game and in teammate game. Seeing nothing but Reetard Carbines and Carriers gets massively boring. 

Alright then lets say your idea was implemented. Now you have less informed players using weaker weapons alongside an already confusing interface, you would have to deal with less able players being even worse off and in a team based game thats not going to help you in the slightest. 

Your argument is also very self centred for a game based on teams, you complain about what other people use yet as long as they play well it doesn't affect you in the slightest. The nicknames your using tells me a lot about you too, not only are you being selfish but your also acting immature. 

There are plenty of skilled weapons to use such as the Mattock and Saber, if you want to make yourself feel superior to other players "simply" top the scoreboards with these weapons. Everyone wins.

[suthelly]

Air Quotes wrote...

suthelly wrote...

Being reliable is just fluff. Plenty of time to maintain the most high maintenance gun while you flit from planet to planet for 22 minute battles.

 

Time - sure. Cost - not really. 

Still fluff not at all relevant to gameplay.  Pretty sure the Normandy had an expense account for such things.  Soldiers don't shoulder their own maintenance requirements.

Cigarettes, sure.  Cleaning oil, not so much.

[FeralJester616]

Luyza wrote...

Lemme put on my Shuriken and let's play some Platinum. Thank you but no, thank you. Adding expenses to maintain weapons that take hundreds of hours to even unlock is not the best idea.

This is only a good idea if (and only if) we get a proper store where we get to pick what we buy and maintain.

With the random BS that we are forced to put up with to play at the moment, you have come up with the worst idea for improving balance, ever.

"Yea! I just unlocked the Saber! time to give it a try..."
After 1 game: "Well that was fun, so do I now spend my credits trying to unlock new stuff or shall I try to repair my Saber to use it again? Oh the choices..."

This is what you propose and it is bad, you should feel ashamed...

Modifié par FeralJester616, 03 mai 2013 - 06:38 .

[Dokteur Kill]

Air Quotes wrote...
LOL. That is all. Okay then. Lets have Predator, Katana, Mantis and Tempest. There. Oh weait. Let's not have SMG's at all like in ME1. Cuz you know, they are like small assault rifles.

Yes. That's exactly what I said <_< Because, it's not as if the enemies in this game have different defenses, and different weapons can have different damage multipliers against those defences or anything.

[Cyonan]

Fortack wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

BSN also should stop calling a gun garbage just because it's not good on every single character with no consumables, which we have a habit of doing.

Unfortunately, the vast majority is garbage on every single kit - with or without consumables. There is no point whatsoever to waste precious design time on stuff that is outclassed in every imaginable way by something else.

Most weapons are actually not bad, they're just not as good as the Harrier. Just because it's not optimal doesn't make it garbage.

[BattleCop88]

Air Quotes wrote...

BattleCop88 wrote...

No. Just no, OP. Don't give EA any ideas. That just opens a window for price gouging.

This is worse than any nerf thread.

 

If it lets you do things with in game creds - I don't care. They can monetize everything. 

It's not that simple though. Knowing EA, they will make the number of in-game creds absurdly high either directly, or progressively (i.e. each breakdown gets more costly). Or they would introduce a mechanic that permanently repairs your gun, but is available for purchase by cash.

This means only players with enough time or disposable income will get any choice in their weapons. I see a high potential for abuse here. To draw maximum profits, I can see them making the progression prohibitively grinding.

I tend to agree with you Air Quotes, but I'm staunchly against video game monetization, and I'm sure most gamers agree.

[TheKillerAngel]

Air Quotes wrote...

Dokteur Kill wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...
Annoying - maybe. Forcing them to freaking stop abusing same things might also be nice.

Weapon "abuse" is only a thing if the balance isn't there in the first place.

 

No game has balance. Not even PVP. Not COD, not Battlefield, not Unreal or CS. There are some better choices. And once you get them - you can roll with the indefinetely.  

I'll disagree. I think the balance in the original SoulCalibur was extremely tight and while the characters had varying degrees of difficulty in mastering, they all had roughly the same damage potential. Likewise, the original StarCraft has extremely tight balance among the three factions.

[FeralJester616]

suthelly wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

suthelly wrote...

Being reliable is just fluff. Plenty of time to maintain the most high maintenance gun while you flit from planet to planet for 22 minute battles.

 

Time - sure. Cost - not really. 

Still fluff not at all relevant to gameplay.  Pretty sure the Normandy had an expense account for such things.  Soldiers don't shoulder their own maintenance requirements.

Cigarettes, sure.  Cleaning oil, not so much.

You sir make an excelent point.
Even a decent merc outfit will pay for the maintinence on its troops weapons. Only way to make sure it gets done.

[Tokenusername]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

the original StarCraft has extremely tight balance among the three factions.

[Fortack]

Cyonan wrote...

Fortack wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

BSN also should stop calling a gun garbage just because it's not good on every single character with no consumables, which we have a habit of doing.

Unfortunately, the vast majority is garbage on every single kit - with or without consumables. There is no point whatsoever to waste precious design time on stuff that is outclassed in every imaginable way by something else.

Most weapons are actually not bad, they're just not as good as the Harrier. Just because it's not optimal doesn't make it garbage.

So what does make a weapon garbage in your opinion?

For me it's quite simple. Everything is garbage when - regardless the circumstances - something else is always miles ahead. Something doesn't need to be the most optimal option to be a worthwhile addition, but it does need to be pretty close in performance or at least have a clear advantage in some way.
Ideally the choice which weapon one's going to use should be personal preference and not about you rock or you suck like it is in ME3.

[BattleCop88]

I really hope EA isn't reading this thread. If they are, I've got a message for them: IF YOU IMPLEMENT THIS IDEA, YOU WILL GO BANKRUPT, EA!

[BattleCop88]

So what does make a weapon garbage in your opinion?

For me it's quite simple. Everything is garbage when - regardless the circumstances - something else is always miles ahead. Something doesn't need to be the most optimal option to be a worthwhile addition, but it does need to be pretty close in performance or at least have a clear advantage in some way.
Ideally the choice which weapon one's going to use should be personal preference and not about you rock or you suck like it is in ME3.

So much this. ME2 had almost perfect balance. Damage modifiers ensured no weapon was completely useless. We need that system back.

I think those changes were also due to monetization. Better weapons cost more time and money in ME3.

[The fool you should have eaten]

stysiaq wrote...

@AQ:

What I would suggest in place of the weapon maintenance would be a system that rewards you for playing with different guns. You proposed something that penalises players for using the guns they enjoy, and nobody likes being penalised for no apparent reason.

For example, let's say we call our system...

THE GUN POINTS

Gun points are the points you can spend for the packs that level up your guns. You can earn a limited amount of GUN POINTS every week, so it equals, lets say, 5 additional unlocks per week. The packs are availble in the store on weekends, to create suspense.

During the week, players gather their precious [color=rgb(153,51,0)">PUN ]GUN [/color]POINTS. For scoring 50k regular points with a gun (for example, Claymore) you get 500[color=rgb(128,128,128)"> pistoletas taškas , but if you use other guns, like the Avenger, the amount is bigger. This way, the players that use less powerful weapons (because they don't have any better alternatives) have easier time earning GUN ][b] GUN [/color]POINTS[b] for the weekly extra packs.

And you know what?  Possitive reinforcement is actually more effective than punishment.  So while people will still enjoy the game, they will also be motivated to use variety.  This idea also helps new players get stuff faster.  I like this idea a lot, even if I wasn't opposed to AQ's idea.
+1

[Cyonan]

Fortack wrote...

So what does make a weapon garbage in your opinion?

For me it's quite simple. Everything is garbage when - regardless the circumstances - something else is always miles ahead. Something doesn't need to be the most optimal option to be a worthwhile addition, but it does need to be pretty close in performance or at least have a clear advantage in some way.
Ideally the choice which weapon one's going to use should be personal preference and not about you rock or you suck like it is in ME3.

My idea of something being garbage or not depends on how effective it actually is at killing things, not how well it performs next to a Harrier or Reegar which are both too powerful in my opinion anyway. When I can kill a gold Ravager in 1 clip on my Vindicator(with consumables) then I don't call that garbage, even if my Harrier would have killed it faster.

The problem is that people complained their guns weren't killing really quickly when they were put on a caster. Having weapons that are really good on casters with no consumables creates balance issues because of weapon users, though.

and as we see right now, weapons are out performing most non grenade powers, and weapon users are all doing great because they're just taking those weapons that were simply good on a caster then making them OP with 80% damage boosts.