409 réponses à ce sujet

[galaxygrunt]

RoundedPlanet88 wrote...
Yes, those of us who used the pre-singularity overhaul human adept, without any of the new amazing weapons which can make it a beast, without acyolte, or reegar, or harrier, without gear bonuses, or hurricanes, and without the I-win buttons of the TGI, AIU, and Juggernant obviously had it "easier", "before the nerfs" . Overall, player power has increased by a huge factor, so please, don`t pull that argument, the first of us learned to play with currently sub-optimal kits/builds/weapons/consumables. Think on that before you rant.

Think on that?

2851 games played--I just missed a few of the first weekly challenges because I was busy playing and re-playing the campaign.  I've been a die-hard since the days of the first Mass Effect.  I only gingerly entered the waters of MP as a way to increase my galactic readiness.  Obviously I got hooked.

I don't want to get in to a pissing contest, but I will say this...

Has it occured to you that if you had the opportunity to hone your skills with "sub-optimal" weapons that, by the time better weapons came along, they could well be "OP" in your hands, while not being OP in less skilled hands (such as mine)? 

Has it occured to you that, having started earlier, when it was MUCH easier to max out the available weapons/gear/classes, that you would acquire and max out the new weapons earlier than newer and/or less skilled players--thereby making it easier to earn more credits and exagerrating the effect even more?

Has it occured to you that, even if what you say were 100% correct, it shouldn't matter to you?  Why should it bother you that someone else is having an easier time with their "I-win" buttons? I've yet to find such a button for myself by the way, and am content to run my vanilla T-Sent with Saber (and yes I loved the buff his passives got).  You can choose what you use.  You can choose who you play with.  How does it affect your fun?  Why should my position offend you so--unless you are one of those to whom I alluded.  This isn't a zero-sum game.

Think on that.

[galaxygrunt]

Dunvi wrote...

galaxygrunt wrote...

In short, I think the nerfs were based on a skewed sample,

it's really amazing how irrationally emotional people are about the balance changes. if you actually look at the balance change history, the changes were severely balanced towards benefiting new and ****ty players. 

the number of nerfs in the game history is astoundingly small actually, and in almost every case it was very much obviously a situation of even the dumbest, ****tiest players managing ridiculous amounts of power. all of the cases of a weapon being hilariously overpowered in the hands of a player who can aim or understands game mechanics (reegar, harrier, black widow, wraith, talon, original/current acolyte, for some) have been frustratingly ignored.

I believe I saw someone mention earlier in the thread that you are the most skilled player in ME3.  I'll assume he wasn't being sarcastic.

It's really amazing how irrationally out-of-touch with the hoi polloi the elite of BSN are.  Over 800 hours played in this game, and I've yet to rise to the level of dumbest or ****tiest.  At least, I have to assume as much from your statement, as I haven't been able to achieve such levels of hilarity--either pre or post nerf/buff.

As I said in another response above, why should it matter to you?

I can see why it would matter to BioWare (can't have people earning credits too easily afer all!), but why would it matter to anyone else?

[Titus Thongger]

this entire topic is irrelevant because balance changes have stopped

/thread

[Grun7mas7er]

Personally I'd like to see the common and uncommon weapons buffed. Reason for this is that the way it is now, it's hard to play with some of my friends who are new to ME3. Gold is too difficult for them with their limited manifests, but I don't really want to play Silver just to accommodate them.

But...not gonna happen anyway. Why did I waste my time typing this out...

[galaxygrunt]

Grun7mas7er wrote...

Personally I'd like to see the common and uncommon weapons buffed. Reason for this is that the way it is now, it's hard to play with some of my friends who are new to ME3. Gold is too difficult for them with their limited manifests, but I don't really want to play Silver just to accommodate them.

But...not gonna happen anyway. Why did I waste my time typing this out...

Agreed.  My 8 year old son just started playing with me, and it's frustrating for him.  I'm sure he's not alone.  The same goes for unlocking the kits, gear, and other weapons.  There are so many.  I'm toying with the idea of doing a massive micro-transaction just to give him a jump start so he doesn't lose interest entirely.

Oooooo...MICRO-TRANSACTION...guess there's a method to BW's madness.  **blech**

[Dunvi]

galaxygrunt wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

galaxygrunt wrote...

In short, I think the nerfs were based on a skewed sample,

it's really amazing how irrationally emotional people are about the balance changes. if you actually look at the balance change history, the changes were severely balanced towards benefiting new and ****ty players. 

the number of nerfs in the game history is astoundingly small actually, and in almost every case it was very much obviously a situation of even the dumbest, ****tiest players managing ridiculous amounts of power. all of the cases of a weapon being hilariously overpowered in the hands of a player who can aim or understands game mechanics (reegar, harrier, black widow, wraith, talon, original/current acolyte, for some) have been frustratingly ignored.

I believe I saw someone mention earlier in the thread that you are the most skilled player in ME3.  I'll assume he wasn't being sarcastic.

It's really amazing how irrationally out-of-touch with the hoi polloi the elite of BSN are.  Over 800 hours played in this game, and I've yet to rise to the level of dumbest or ****tiest.  At least, I have to assume as much from your statement, as I haven't been able to achieve such levels of hilarity--either pre or post nerf/buff.

As I said in another response above, why should it matter to you?

I can see why it would matter to BioWare (can't have people earning credits too easily afer all!), but why would it matter to anyone else?

i think you misunderstand my point. ftr, i am not a member of the tippy top elite of the game, i simply understand it very deeply (though i've been a little out of touch for some weeks and my memory's already going).

my point was that there are many guns that are very, very good in the hands of very good players, and incredibly weak otherwise - the reegar is terrible if you don't know how to get into close range, or that it requires an ammo power that deal damage agiainst armor. the harrier is ridiculously overpowered in the hands of a player who can aim, and can control their fire so as not to waste bullets, and ridiculously weak in the hands of a player who mostly sprays and prays, or rarely leaves hard cover. and so on and so forth. if you cannot appreciate that the power and dps of such weapons are incredibly above and beyond what other weapons or powers do, then i have nothing to say to you. these guns have basically been untouched, despite those of us "elites" complaining - the so-called "vocal minority" you accused of dominating balance changes.

in comparison, powers and weapons that have been touched have almost always been buffs for guns and weapons that new players have access to, or normal players don't appreciate. such as flamer getting a buff soon after its release not because it needed it but because the average player couldn't get into range or apply its damage fast enough to appreciate that it was already a very strong power right from the start. such as the CSR, which has a hilariously high potential DPS, getting a buff towards the end. such as the hurricane getting repeatedly buffed despite its ridiculous potential because less skilled players can't land many of its bullets. constant grenade buffs because despite how incredibly overpowered they inherently are, newer players don't have grenade gears and crappy players don't understand how to run an ammo box track or use thermal clips enough to remain stocked.

very few weapons or powers in the game have ever been nerfed (and if you disagree, you aren't even trying to think) and those that have were always weapons that were mindlessly easy for even crappy players to use - the krysae and it's no-aim-required free grenade spam, the aiu and the tgi's trivialization of consumable ops packs and medigels, sabotage's one-button trivialization of the entire geth faction in the earliest days, stasis's one-button trivialization of phantoms, smash/slash spamming behind a wall...

[Stinja]

As someone who's has started an alternative account, and working back up thru the unlock system, I DO think you need tiers of weapon power.

It feels great to move from the common to uncommon guns, and likewise from uncommon to your first rare level 1 gun. The game needs some guns to be worse, so you feel progression.
You can't just buff every gun to be good.

I do agree within teirs some guns could do with balancing.
But whatever, not happening is it EA?

Personally I think the biggest problem is the number of unlocks, it took me 3200-odd games to max my manifest.  If any change would improve things it would be to reduce the number of ranks in a weapon to 5.
So a single unlock to 1 is equivalent to i+ii
2 = iii+iv
3 = v+vi
4 = vii+viii
5 = ix+x

Basically compress the unlocks to reduce the overhead.  Justbimo.

Modifié par Stinja, 30 août 2013 - 05:37 .

[rassmert]

that is not going to happen they are done with ME3, srry bro but thats the truth, also i believe the weapons are just fine the way they are

[capn233]

I just don't know why a consistent notion has been that anybody that wants overpowered weapons nerfed must obviously not want the ******-poor weapons buffed.

The biggest issue (outside the fact that there aren't balance changes any longer, which is no small obstacle), is that they scaled enemy HP for the difficulty levels. I think if they didn't we could have had better weapon balance, and less of a reliance on Michael Bay Effect since explosions were the only thing that got a bonus as you increased difficulty.

Modifié par capn233, 30 août 2013 - 06:03 .

[Cyonan]

capn233 wrote...

I just don't know why a consistent notion has been that anybody that wants overpowered weapons nerfed must obviously not want the ******-poor weapons buffed.

The biggest issue (outside the fact that there aren't balance changes any longer, which is no small obstacle), is that they scaled enemy HP for the difficulty levels. I think if they didn't we could have had better weapon balance, and less of a reliance on Michael Bay Effect since explosions were the only thing that got a bonus as you increased difficulty.

Don't forget the notion that anybody who wants something nerfed obviously wants it to be nerfed into the ground until it's the worst weapon in the game.

[capn233]

Cyonan wrote...

Don't forget the notion that anybody who wants something nerfed obviously wants it to be nerfed into the ground until it's the worst weapon in the game.

Krysaed!

[megabeast37215]

I think it's a good list.

Yeah I'm a little late to the party..

[Cohen le Barbare]

capn233 wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Don't forget the notion that anybody who wants something nerfed obviously wants it to be nerfed into the ground until it's the worst weapon in the game.

Krysaed!

Even after the nerf bat, the krysae is still very much useable, even on platinum. The main issue with the weapon is the delay when you want to reload it.

I think with the increased difficulty (buff to enemies and all) the common/uncommon weapons should have been drastically buffed and rares kept the same or slightly nerfed so as to give newcommers a chance and not be categorized a hipster for using these weapons.

[galaxygrunt]

@Stinja

Sorry, can't quote on my phone.

A great suggestion I saw some months ago was to grant level one of all weapons automatically--and then have succeeding unlocks occur normally.

[UnknownMercenary]

capn233 wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

huh, must have missed it, sorry.
cyonan's looking at it now and we think we know what's going on. should be easy to fix if we're right.

Oh good, I always wanted DR leaning out of cover.

a significant DR boost while firing from cover makes sense since iirc firing from cover nullifies any stunlock

it's been a while though so i cant say for sure

[hawkera_prime]

Cant you all just STFU and wait for ME4 ?

[Kalas Magnus]

mi6o wrote...

Cant you all just STFU and wait for ME4 ?

have you heard anything of a me4?

[Radford]

mi6o wrote...

Cant you all just STFU and wait for ME4 ?

Uhoh, yessir, ofcourse, sir!

[RoundedPlanet88]

galaxygrunt wrote...

RoundedPlanet88 wrote...
Yes, those of us who used the pre-singularity overhaul human adept, without any of the new amazing weapons which can make it a beast, without acyolte, or reegar, or harrier, without gear bonuses, or hurricanes, and without the I-win buttons of the TGI, AIU, and Juggernant obviously had it "easier", "before the nerfs" . Overall, player power has increased by a huge factor, so please, don`t pull that argument, the first of us learned to play with currently sub-optimal kits/builds/weapons/consumables. Think on that before you rant.

Think on that?

2851 games played--I just missed a few of the first weekly challenges because I was busy playing and re-playing the campaign.  I've been a die-hard since the days of the first Mass Effect.  I only gingerly entered the waters of MP as a way to increase my galactic readiness.  Obviously I got hooked.

I don't want to get in to a pissing contest, but I will say this...

Has it occured to you that if you had the opportunity to hone your skills with "sub-optimal" weapons that, by the time better weapons came along, they could well be "OP" in your hands, while not being OP in less skilled hands (such as mine)? 

Has it occured to you that, having started earlier, when it was MUCH easier to max out the available weapons/gear/classes, that you would acquire and max out the new weapons earlier than newer and/or less skilled players--thereby making it easier to earn more credits and exagerrating the effect even more?

Has it occured to you that, even if what you say were 100% correct, it shouldn't matter to you?  Why should it bother you that someone else is having an easier time with their "I-win" buttons? I've yet to find such a button for myself by the way, and am content to run my vanilla T-Sent with Saber (and yes I loved the buff his passives got).  You can choose what you use.  You can choose who you play with.  How does it affect your fun?  Why should my position offend you so--unless you are one of those to whom I alluded.  This isn't a zero-sum game.

Think on that.

I, what is this?
Something that is Op will be Op in even non-good players hands, yes a skilled player will get EVEN MORE out of a kit/weapon, but that doesn't change the inherent qualities of the weapon/kit. This entire point of yours is "less skilled players can`t use it as well as skilled players, so its not OP", which is just a horrible argument to try and make.

The ignorance here is astounding. Those of us who started earlier will actually spend more on unlocking our manifest, combine that with the new era of speed running using rockets for credits, and the mild credit gain buffs?
Add in the massive amounts of player buffs? gear? grenade buffs across the board?
how does any of that make it harder to work on manifest completion?
The obvious answer is that it doesn't.

[Deerber]

RoZh2400 wrote...

err coots pls.

[RoundedPlanet88]

Element 0 wrote...

A whole year is not that much. There are PLENTY of MP games that were supported and are still supported after 5+ years. 

The whole myriad of balance changes were almost SOLELEY made to bring other kits more in-line with Infiltrators. 

If they really cared they would've kept doing monthly or even by-monthly balance changes instead of stoping right after Reckoning. 

So even with by-monthly we would've had 3 more balance changes in this time frame of 6 months. 3 balance changes could've fixed Cabal, nerfed Cain mines, buffed Electric Hammer and so on. 

But instead it was like this: "Yeah there will be more weekend events, yeah there will be more balance changes" How many? Exactly 1. 

Oh, and the latter part of weekend events were pretty much free Comm packs. It wasn't like in the beginning were whole community was involved in killing Brutes or whatever. Later it was like - Extract once with this character. Done. 

As for dev feedback. They haven't explained ANYTHING about the game or it's mechanincs till MONTHS after the release and AFTER we have discovered most of the things ourselves. 

Only then they started talkng about sync-kill mechanics and stuff. 

a whole year of weekly balance changes isn`t all that much? lolwut? Its an EA game, any balance changes at all should be viewed as a gift from heaven, I guarantee it wasn't EA who wanted to support the game that long.

and the weapon buffs/nerfs? seriously? your going to completely ignore the majority of the balance changes?

If they really cared, they would have released free MP DLCS, and/or done weekly balance changes, oh wait................. A more accurate statement on your part, and less self-entitled, would be "if they had cared more", although, at that point I suspect they were running into manpower issues

If balance changes had continued for another moth or two, we most likely would not have seen these changes, Bioware kinda has a history for pulling "lolwut?" balance changes right when we think we have them pegged. (slayer buff anyone?)

really? dev feedback didn`t exist at all? seriously? did you check the stickied threads? Just because you don`t like dev feedback, or how they do something, does NOT mean that they didn`t do it.

[Fortack]

Stinja wrote...

As someone who's has started an alternative account, and working back up thru the unlock system, I DO think you need tiers of weapon power.

It feels great to move from the common to uncommon guns, and likewise from uncommon to your first rare level 1 gun. The game needs some guns to be worse, so you feel progression.
You can't just buff every gun to be good.

Progression should come through experience and practice. Besides, why the heck do I have to pay 50 bucks for a game that only grants access to less than 1% of its content? Unless you invest an additional 500 bucks or play hundreds of hours of course.

This retarded system also ruins the game in the long run. In the beginning you are a complete moron with pathetic equipment. The game is very hard up to the point of being frustrating. But once you get comfortable with the game's mechanics you have access to all the super duper OP stuff and everything has become a complete cake walk. Progression? Lolwut?

[RoundedPlanet88]

Element 0 wrote...
Free DLC was ONLY and ONLY because this game MP was an ALPHA and had 1 mode. Free DLC was ONLY because the SP game ending sucked so hard that EA was in damage control and asking for money for MP DLC would've just made people laugh and say "eff this game forever" 

Majority of balance changes was to bring SP stuff to MP power levels and to bring kits to Infiltrator levels, because they just kept making more and more OP Infiltrators that broke and keep breaking weapons. 

The dev feedback was useful, but much too late. We already knew most of the stuff they told us about, because we already dug in the code. And their reluctancy to admit bugs was a really bad deal. Basically we had to make 10 threads about the same topic, before they said - "yeah SS is broken on Atlases or yeah Collectors don't take as much Explosion damage"

And even after all the Dragoon threads, they only confirmed a couple of days ago, that they are bugged and suppose to produce sounds of running and whips. 

As for patches - they mostly broke more than they've fixed, and 5 patches later - missile glitch still exists. 

The SP believe it or not is not the MP, hence the different names, and the Free DLC for the MP was not a requirement, they were under no obligation to ever release any of it, much less implement weekly balance changes for a whole year, much less even post said changes.

dev feedback too late is still dev feedback last I checked. and dev feedback is pretty much always "too late" they have many issues to test, and fix, before we even see it, so its not surprising that the community finds a lot of this out for themselves.

Patches believe it or not cost money, and again, I still can`t believe we got as many patches as we did all things considered, many games this buggy would at most get one, this one got FIVE. Saying that Bioware doesn't care after five patches, all at least attempting to fix the game, is just really, really self-entitled.

As for bugs, they may have not honestly caught said bugs before release, and the giant amount of bugs that they may have caught, we`ll never even see.

I honestly don`t care about your balance changes at this point, but claiming that Bioware doesn't care about the game they released, especially after all the work that they obviously put into it, is childish.

You obviously are incapable of seeing just how much work that they put into this game, beyond what they were required to. And there's nothing wrong with that specifically, but don`t have the gall to say that they don`t care simply because you are incapable of seeing all that they have done.