42 réponses à ce sujet

[Geth Supremacy]

The balance changes were based around usage stats.

 

lol, yep i believe that too.

 

People like him!? KILL IT! MAKE them stop playing it!  Damn the abilities and the actual things that are OP.

[J. Peterman]

lol, yep i believe that too.

 

People like him!? KILL IT! MAKE them stop playing it!  Damn the abilities and the actual things that are OP.

 

I believe they officially confirmed that (on the forums at least).

[BeardyMcGoo]

I would have to load up the game and look at the characters for a refresher as its been so long.  One I know for a fact is the Phoenix adept and vanguard characters though.  I LOVED playing them when they first came out....when they were done with them it was so boring and dull I hated them.  I never played them after.

 

The typhoon was my baby when it came out....when they were done with it....it might as well be a common that you use on silver.  The Harrier was perfectly fine though.....

 

I never thought the vindicator was that "amazing" didn't its firing rate take a hit?  I never used it, but I had a friend who always did.

 

The Destroyer was always a good character, he is far, far, far, from the best and no where near OP, but the he didn't need nerfed at all.  That was stupid.  Some of the characters in the game and they left them alone and hit him?

 

There are others too I just need a refresher.

 

So....a cooldown increase (actually, a cooldown restoration to what it originally was) on smash made the phoenix characters "dull and boring"? Your problem. The smash they ended up with is still better now than the one they had when the classes were introduced.

Brophoon is still bogus. If you think it's bad, you're wrong.

Vindicator damage was nerfed really, really early on...and then had its damage numbers restored not too long later. Doesn't matter though because it was never good.

Devastator mode gets decreases in mag size and ROF. Well, then, the class must obviously be useless now.

 

ME3 still had way, way more meaningful buffs than nerfs.

[holdenagincourt]

I would have to load up the game and look at the characters for a refresher as its been so long.  One I know for a fact is the Phoenix adept and vanguard characters though.  I LOVED playing them when they first came out....when they were done with them it was so boring and dull I hated them.  I never played them after.

 

The typhoon was my baby when it came out....when they were done with it....it might as well be a common that you use on silver.  The Harrier was perfectly fine though.....

 

I never thought the vindicator was that "amazing" didn't its firing rate take a hit?  I never used it, but I had a friend who always did.

 

The Destroyer was always a good character, he is far, far, far, from the best and no where near OP, but the he didn't need nerfed at all.  That was stupid.  Some of the characters in the game and they left them alone and hit him?

 

There are others too I just need a refresher.

 

We are definitely off-topic but hopefully the mods will forgive us.

 

Phoenix characters actually received very small changes over their life cycle. The first change, on 12 June 2012,  was a big suite of buffs to Smash. Decreased cooldown time, increased damage, increased range. A reversal on 31 July kept the damage and range buff, but reverted the cooldown buff to its release value. The next month, Biotic Charge received serious buffs that really helped all vanguards. In any case, compared to release, the Phoenix characters were only buffed. So I don't agree that this is a case of a really egregious abuse of balance power. I still believe that the buff the Smash should have received and never did was an increase to its hit target limit.

 

N7 Typhoon was pretty OP when it was released, but yes it did receive some substantial nerfs. I was in favor of buffs for it, although the nerfs took place during a time when BioWare was trying, through a lot of different balance passes, to break camping strategies in the game, which were then dominant. Once they succeeded, I don't know why they didn't give Typhoon a bit of a buff. What I don't agree with is that Typhoon was somehow made worthless or trash tier; it became the province of a few specific classes and builds and needed some more support (ammo types e.g.) to shine. In my opinion, the major problem the Typhoon has had isn't a power one, but that it shines in non-meta situations (ME3 became a much more mobile game) and doesn't work as well if teammates aren't absorbing more than their share of enemy aggro (so, infiltrator users).

 

Vindicator is straightforward. It was randomly nerfed in an early balance change, which became fodder for BSN jokes for years. It sucked then, it sucked afterward, it even sucked after the damage nerf was reverted. It just never got the buffs it deserved and was basically forgotten. But that's a familiar story for a lot of the assault rifles in ME3.

 

Destroyer received a nerf to Devastator Mode at the same time it received a buff to Hawk Missile Launcher. What appears to have happened is that dev felt Destroyer's power level was about where they wanted, but that telemetry and user feedback suggested a lack of build diversity (the meta build skipped Hawks entirely at the time if I recall correctly). So they wanted to buff Hawk Missile Launcher to give players more options in how they approached the character, but didn't want to buff Destroyer as a whole because his general power was quite high. In my opinion the thinking behind this change was fine. It isn't good to have a kit in which there is one right answer, in which the choices are so easy that they require no trade-offs. Now, I think Hawk Missile Launcher could have been buffed more (removing the shield penalty completely and replacing it with a different upgrade would have been nice, but then you get into patch vs. live update territory, a practical debate we had amongst ourselves constantly back then). But do I think the Destroyer was rendered unplayable or trash by this change to his kit? No, I don't.

 

So to conclude, I can definitely see where you're coming from with some of these examples, but what I'm disagreeing with is that BioWare had an overarching pattern of carrying out nerfs that turned things into trash. Sometimes things were overnerfed, other times they were overbuffed, and to me the larger story is how they managed to actually do a pretty good job of buffing the underpowered things while addressing things that were truly out of control, e.g. Falcon, Krysae, Piranha). They weren't perfect, and certainly a lot of my pet causes were neglected (assault rifles, Pull, Cryo Blast, Ravage), but overall I felt they were thoughtful and fair.

 

Edit: For reference: http://forum.bioware...alance-changes/

[BraveLToaster]

Destroyer received a nerf to Devastator Mode at the same time it received a buff to Hawk Missile Launcher. What appears to have happened is that dev felt Destroyer's power level was about where they wanted, but that telemetry and user feedback suggested a lack of build diversity (the meta build skipped Hawks entirely at the time if I recall correctly).

You recall correctly.  A few people tried to argue for it on virtue of its stagger, but really it was pretty useless.  Destroyer was good at making strong guns stronger, and Hawk did not contribute to that.

[Geth Supremacy]

Here is what I read: NextArishok308 is bitter because his meta-build in ME3 was nerfed, and thus Bioware is evil and will only ever nerf things in a way that hurts the game.

 

Here is the truth: Bioware really does it's best to find balance, not just swing around a nerf bat frivolously. They aren't always right, but they are certainly not the spiteful nerf-mongers that NextArishok308 makes them out to be.

 

Actually I agree with some of the things that they did also.  I don't understand making some guns weak and then leaving other guns like the Harrier or the Particle Rifle or something always amazing, but to each their own.  As I said "I agree with some of the things that they do"

 

I absolutely think they ele needs knocked down a few pegs.  While yes when you auto match into every single lobby and there are 2 people playing ele that is a good indicator that something is wrong with the class, but I do not agree that, that should be the deciding factor and the ONLY deciding factor in what needs to be "balanced" among other characters as well.

 

I play their games....I love ME3 mp and I......play.....DAMP. 

 

You were putting words in my mouth so to speak though.  I played many different characters and to this day the Destroyer is still my fav.

[Altruismo]

Wait, you want to nerf the ring?

Fully skilled Immolate is 500% damage on hit, and 225% per second for 8 seconds.

With the ring it's 225% for 10 seconds, or an extra 450% weapon damage; the equivalent of a 90% increase in the damage on hit.

Even with Flashpoint you can only get the "free" cast once every 10 seconds and could only get a net gain fof 300% weapon damage (still less bonus damage in two casts than the 450% the ring currently gives).

 

Edit: actually, I think the ring bonuses only apply to base skill stats, so you wouldn't get the 30% increase to the extra 100% on hit from skilling Wildfire, yet you would still get the full 2 (.4) seconds duration. Making your desired ring, comparitively, even worse.

[DAMP Max]

Wait, you want to nerf the ring?

Fully skilled Immolate is 500% damage on hit, and 225% per second for 8 seconds.

With the ring it's 225% for 10 seconds, or an extra 450% weapon damage; the equivalent of a 90% increase in the damage on hit.

Even with Flashpoint you can only get the "free" cast once every 10 seconds and could only get a net gain fof 300% weapon damage (still less bonus damage in two casts than the 450% the ring currently gives).

 

90% of the mobs don't last 8 seconds in Threatening, I guess it might make more sense in Perilous where they live longer?  I would rather have the damage front-loaded than get an extra 2 seconds of burn time. 

 

And yeah, there seem to be a bunch of people posting here who are butthurt by past actions taken by Bioware in another game.  When asked "Why you do think they will nerf elementalists?" they answer with "Because the Ele is WTF L33t OP, that's why! And Bioware always nerfs anything that's OP".  Makes for some low level conversation...

[Silvershroud]

You can't take 3 or 4 archers or reavers into Perilous. But you can sure as hell take 3 or 4 elementalists.

Uhh, yeah.  I played a few perilous matches with 3 archers and my necro last night.  We won some, we lost some.  If I recall correctly, there was only one match that we didn't at least make it to zone 5.

[lpconfig]

Oh I'm sure they exist somewhere.

 

On par with reaver... lol... sure buddy. Death Siphon doesn't bug out.

 

You can't take 3 or 4 archers or reavers into Perilous. But you can sure as hell take 3 or 4 elementalists.

Actually, I have done precisely that very thing.  It worked out rather well.

[TeamLexana]

Nah, MOAR CALTRAPS.

[ALTBOULI]

Here is what I read: NextArishok308 is bitter because his meta-build in ME3 was nerfed, and thus Bioware is evil and will only ever nerf things in a way that hurts the game.
 
Here is the truth: Bioware really does it's best to find balance, not just swing around a nerf bat frivolously. They aren't always right, but they are certainly not the spiteful nerf-mongers that NextArishok308 makes them out to be.

This

[J. Peterman]

My Spirit Mark beats your Caltrop... 1 v 1 me, brah! THUNDERDOME!!! 

 

Damn you!!!! I was just thinking about creating a "Caltrops vs Spirit Mark" thread.

 

I won't let that stop me. Thread incoming.,,,

[TeamLexana]

I saw it! It was awesome! lol!