117 réponses à ce sujet

[MaxCrushmore]

LOL

 

That sums up this whole thread from my perspective. I will stand by every word I have written.

 

@Daemoin - Good trick, berating me while also agreeing with me. All I said, in response to the video QMR attached, was to get that killstreak, the person in that video spent a ridiculous amount of time learning the exact spawning pattern and exact timing on respawns for that map. So on that we agree. That is a replicable result for many people in a variety of PvP video games if you are willing to spend the absurd amount of time required. The portion of my post related to cain mines was only in response to QMR's insistence that she could learn the spawn points for players and throw grenades at them .. well, the Merc doesn't even need to time it, they can just set the mines and move away. I don't give a **** if they are practical for PvP or not

 

@Spectre - Who did I demean? I've been posting here since 2012 and have only insulted one person, which netted me a 24hr ban, and that was XFG. What the player does in that video goes beyond 'learn the maps in the mp and enemy spawn points'. Don't try to drum up insults where none exist.

 

@QMR - You realize your last 2 paragraphs contradict each other, right? I know you like to make long winded posts with big words and all, but c'mon, some of the stuff you write is ridiculous. Keep in mind this whole 'discussion' started when you tried to claim Stasis wouldn't be as good in PvP as the QMI skill set.

 

In that last paragraph you try to define TTK, and in the paragraph before, you come up with this beauty "but you need LOS and to directly aim at the enemy, meaning you could have simply shot them". I wonder how much you really know about ME3MP? Because if you use Stasis, that is a hitscan power which, in a PvP setting, would equate to instant death. Instant probably falls into this category "TTK of 0> a weapon which requires multiple tenths to multiple seconds to fire"

 

Posting one video and calling that definitive proof is absurd. But I guess I'm just bad at video games, like you say. I'll let you in on a secret however, I play games for fun. I know, novel concept. IDGAF how good or bad other players are. If someone has fun spending a thousand hours trying to replicate the exact same feat in a video game, more power to them. Not my cup of tea however.

 

All in all QMR, it sounds like you need to branch out and use some kits that aren't Quarians, then maybe you'd have a better concept on non Quarian ME3MP powers. Git gud scurb!

 

This is the last post I am making in this thread, so feel free to continue posting about how I suck, how I know nothing, blah blah blah

[PatrickBateman]

But Patrick, it's not only speculation and theoretical argument - several posters in this thread have PvP experience, a lot of it in some cases.
 
Is PvP a good idea, and can it lead to fun games? Yes, obviously. Look at the success of the examples I quoted.
 
Can Bioware make a good PvP game based on the ME universe? Highly unlikely, based on how they did ME3MP.

To clarify, speculations and arguments regarding how MEMP would play out as a PVP game, lot's of such discussions above

[BeardyMcGoo]

 

PvP turned me into a complete ass

 

 

I didn't jump on the mic or anything. But if anyone had been in the room listening to me curse and swear, well that would be embarrassing (no cell phones or flash photography, please, and video recording is strictly prohibited.)

 

This is why I don't play (most) PVP focused games anymore. I played a lot of WaW/Black ops with some silly high K/D ratios, but I've never sworn at a game as  much as I have those. I'm not an angry person, but those games infuriated me. Black ops was the last PvP game that I put any reasonable amount of time into for a reason.

Now the only PvP games I play now are fighting games and occasionally some other in-the-same-room-with-your-opponents games (Mario Kart, Crawl, Speedrunners, etc) and they're much, much less aggravating (except in street fighter when I want a DP input and it reads it as a quarter circle input instead, but that's my own problem with execution, not the other player[s] being obnoxious).

 

Also, I think a Mass Effect PvP would be terrible because of the mechanics of the game. Vanguards alone would make me never want to touch such a game mode. And don't say infiltrators could easily counter vanguards, because you can deal with infiltrators just as easily as you can deal with a hunter, up to and including being able to charge them without having a proper target.

[q5tyhj]

Actually yeah, that logic is fine 

More than fine- it was flawless. The strategy of reasoning from a single case to a general rule is obviously a bulletproof one. 

 

Do you really want me to shitpost about 500 different videos and articles

I don't care either way, its sort of a pointless debate (as some have pointed out already), but common sense would dictate that if you are intent to refute a claim about how something mostly is, you need to do better than posting a single instance of that thing being otherwise. 

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

To clarify, speculations and arguments regarding how MEMP would play out as a PVP game, lot's of such discussions above

I'll grant you that a PvP mode in ME:A is presently hypothetical. However, I stand firm on the fact that we already know, from numerous exisitng and successful PvP games, what it takes for PvP to be playable and fair. And if ME:A is anything like ME3, then we can quite simply deduce that either the PvP will have to have (for the sake of balance) a very badly nerfed subset of the kind of powers that are present in the SP and/or co-op MP, or else that it will end up as another PvP shooter of the same kind as many others. (And in the latter case, I'd expect the others to be better, because long experience counts when it comes to managing game balance. Bioware is no DICE, Valve, or Treyarch.)

[Teh_Ocelot]

I'm going to gif out how I see this thread, in my own mind:

 

Argument A:

 

 

Rebuttal A:

 

 

The rest of us cheering on the 2 still going at it after 5 pages:

 

 

The vitriol is strong with this one

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 

 

That guy is taking an almost evil amount of delight in watching that argument.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Anyway, as has been mentioned, a hypothetical PvP conversation is almost certainly moot.

 

ME:A represents a risk for BioWare. Had ME 3 not had MP, or had the MP not been successful, it's likely the decision to greenlight a post-trilogy sequel would have been seen as questionable. Even with all the "perfect 10" reviews that EA more or less "bought" by any laymen's definition of the term, the audience and critics who hadn't been compensated were considerably more savage, and there was hardly much faith that, from a story perspective, going forward with a sequel would be well-received.

 

In fact, even a cursory glance at the ME:A threads discussing the new setting would reveal that there remains a lot of antipathy and doubt from many of BioWare's customers.

 

I've always believed that the success of MP played a very significant role in the decision to go forward with ME:A. Introducing a new game mode that requires its own development team and resources (expanding the number of parallel teams to 3) and represents balancing challenges that dwarf the ones they were unable to fix in ME 3 is adding more unknowns to the process.

 

With a year to go, and multiplayer confirmed as horde mode, it's hard to imagine they'd be announcing PvP at this stage. The risks outweigh the potential reward for a game mode that is outside BioWare's bailiwick.

 

And I hate to say it, but... based on the netcode last time out, PvP would have a very difficult time running on EA servers with any consistent functionality. It's one thing getting pwned by lag when we're all on the same team. Without completely overhauling the design concept, giving hosts the kind of massive advantage that they would have over lagged out opponents would discourage even the most hardcore PvP fans from toughing it out.

 

Edit: It also occurs to me that it would hard to make it profitable. Subscriptions simply won't work unless they used the same subscription for both multiplayer modes, and I don't see that being successful, at all. Microtransactions would be hard to do without going "pay to win," but perhaps customization options would be enough (even if I doubt it.) The best option would probably be to charge separately for PvP DLC, and I suppose that could work.

[Quarian Master Race]

In that last paragraph you try to define TTK, and in the paragraph before, you come up with this beauty "but you need LOS and to directly aim at the enemy, meaning you could have simply shot them". I wonder how much you really know about ME3MP? Because if you use Stasis, that is a hitscan power which, in a PvP setting, would equate to instant death. Instant probably falls into this category "TTK of 0> a weapon which requires multiple tenths to multiple seconds to fire"

 

Posting one video and calling that definitive proof is absurd. But I guess I'm just bad at video games, like you say. I'll let you in on a secret however, I play games for fun. I know, novel concept. IDGAF how good or bad other players are. If someone has fun spending a thousand hours trying to replicate the exact same feat in a video game, more power to them. Not my cup of tea however.

It isn't a contradiction at all. Stasis does zero damage and adds a short length casting animation. It actually increases the mathematical TTK in most circumstances.

I don't care how you play games, the assertion that single shot weapons are in any way "useless" in the vast majority of PvP shooters is demonstrably false. Quite the opposite. Also, I've posted more than one video at this point, and can post many more. You, by contrast have provided no evidence for your assertions apart from anecdotal fallacies, and have proceeded to ad homenim attacks on people whom you deem to be playing the games wrong and have "too much time on their hands" without actually addressing the evidence presented. 

 

More than fine- it was flawless. The strategy of reasoning from a single case to a general rule is obviously a bulletproof one. 

 

 

I don't care either way, its sort of a pointless debate (as some have pointed out already), but common sense would dictate that if you are intent to refute a claim about how something mostly is, you need to do better than posting a single instance of that thing being otherwise. 

It was an example demonstrating that the logic behind the opposition's general rule was flawed, not a strawman assertion that most or all PvP games revolve around using singleshot weapons to spawnkill the opposition. Rebuttals on video game forums hardly need take the form of a scholarly research paper. The opposition's argument had no evidence, so little evidence was required to thoroughly defeat it as presented. Are you happy that I subsequently provided more evidence. How much evidence do I need to "win" in your authoritative, clearly unbiased arbitration on internet arguments? Moreover, why is the opposition seemingly not subject to any standard of objective scrutiny on their claim while I am?

If you didn't care either way, you wouldn't be attacking only me for a supposed lack of evidence while the opposition has provided literally nothing but anecdotal fallacy and argument by assertion. To provide an analogy, if I made the claim that modern golf clubs are "mostly useless" for driving a ball 150 yards based on the evidence that I and my entirely unskilled friends have never been able to do so, around people who actually knew anything about the competition in question, I would be laughed out of the room, and posting a single video of an amateur golfer consistently managing 200+ yard drives would be more than enough evidence to refute my claim.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

ME3MP is already PVP in a lot of circumstances, and is horribly imbalanced as it stands. I can't imagine how much worse an "official" PVP would be.

[Dalakaar]

It isn't a contradiction at all. Stasis does zero damage and adds a short length casting animation. It actually increases the mathematical TTK in most circumstances.
I don't care how you play games, the assertion that single shot weapons are in any way "useless" in the vast majority of PvP shooters is demonstrably false. Quite the opposite. Also, I've posted more than one video at this point, and can post many more. You, by contrast have provided no evidence for your assertions apart from anecdotal fallacies, and have proceeded to ad homenim attacks on people whom you deem to be playing the games wrong and have "too much time on their hands" without actually addressing the evidence presented. 
 

It was an example demonstrating that the logic behind the opposition's general rule was flawed, not a strawman assertion that most or all PvP games revolve around using singleshot weapons to spawnkill the opposition. Rebuttals on video game forums hardly need take the form of a scholarly research paper. The opposition's argument had no evidence, so little evidence was required to thoroughly defeat it as presented. Are you happy that I subsequently provided more evidence. How much evidence do I need to "win" in your authoritative, clearly unbiased arbitration on internet arguments? Moreover, why is the opposition seemingly not subject to any standard of objective scrutiny on their claim while I am?
If you didn't care either way, you wouldn't be attacking only me for a supposed lack of evidence while the opposition has provided literally nothing but anecdotal fallacy and argument by assertion. To provide an analogy, if I made the claim that modern golf clubs are "mostly useless" for driving a ball 150 yards based on the evidence that I and my entirely unskilled friends have never been able to do so, around people who actually knew anything about the competition in question, I would be laughed out of the room, and posting a single video of an amateur golfer consistently managing 200+ yard drives would be more than enough evidence to refute my claim.

You're being much more patient than I would be under similar circumstances.

[Dalakaar]

ME3MP is already PVP in a lot of circumstances, and is horribly imbalanced as it stands. I can't imagine how much worse an "official" PVP would be.

Psssht. That's total bs!
I don't believe you.
Prove it.
1v1 me babby.
I'll das your ribo all over your flavin.

=D

(really I just wanted to say I'll das your ribo...)

[DaemionMoadrin]

@MaxCrushmore - at least you could have written my name correctly. Copy/paste is not that hard.

 

You continue to miss the point though. PvP is by its nature a culture that pits gamers against each other. Yes, sometimes that results in friendly banter and people being nice and helpful about it. Most of the time though... it doesn't. It's more like, "In your face, noob!" and that's just the kid friendly version.

 

Gamers with more free time have an edge here because they can experiment, they can train, they can learn every weapon, every map, every kit... and then use that knowledge to dominate the game. This will never change. You don't get to complain about "Well, that only shows he had way too much time on his hands". I'm sorry, but that's life. Some people get advantages and skill often isn't enough to compensate.

 

It makes these games completely unfair at times. Even worse when it's a MMO and your opponent runs around with ultra-rare, legendary, special edition gear on top of playing a broken class that's next to impossible defeat even under normal circumstances... just because they had more time, money and patience than you had for the game.

 

And here's the problem: Unless you share that mentality, unless you are that competitive, unless you have that need to win... you won't have fun playing against (or even with) people like that. Your role changes from participant to bystander. You're that funny little assassin who couldn't even kill my pet while I took care of the real opponents and only let you live that long because you're a convenient lifedrain target to heal up after the fight. You're the guy who runs through my kill zone three times in a row because you absolutely had to get that rocket launcher. You're the guy whose shots I could ignore forever while sniping someone else.

 

A fun story because now I'm nostalgic:

 

A long, long time ago I played MechWarrior4: Mercenaries. Online, in several leagues. One of those leagues allowed players to challenge each other for duels. One guy saw my rank and still challenged me. He set all the terms: Small lava map, assault mechs and waves. Meaning after each kill the scenario resets. Now he wasn't a bad player and his mech loadout was decent... for open games. He just didn't think of adjusting anything for the new scenario. I, on the other hand, built a mech that could fire one absolutely devasting alpha strike, overheat instantly and shut down. Because it didn't matter as long as I hit. Result (sorry for the german):

 

Spoiler

 

This is what happens when casual players (who are the vast majority) end up in a game with someone who invested some effort. He didn't have any fun, he lost without a chance and he never played against me again.

 

Even if everyone was nice and helpful and understanding all the time, the fact that this is unfair would ruin the game for most players. The top 1% would become role models, people would try to copy their tactics and this would set the tone within the community.

 

Did you see the semi-final where Brazil lost to Germany 1:7 in the world cup? Imagine that happening every time you played. Over and over again. That's PvP in a nutshell. How long would players put up with being Brazil?

 

 

Mass Effect is for casual players. It would have to go through truly massive changes to be interesting to the PvP crowd. It starts with the netcode and hosting. Then you'd have to change how powers work, introduce resistances and immunities, perhaps increase cooldowns and add cooldowns to grenades, stimpacks, Ops packs etc. Change all the maps, change all the weapons, change all the kits... and what's left is Mass Effect in name only.

 

There is a reason why Counter-Strike looks so plain: It's because it's very, very fair. Which means everyone is the same and all weapons are the same, too. You can't have kits with smaller hitboxes or larger heads, that would be unfair. You can't have kits that move twice as fast or can move through walls. Dodging would often mean death because it makes you predictable and you don't get to attack while you do it. I can headshot any enemy who does a combat roll because I know where they come back up. Don't even get me started on the cover mechanic.

 

So if you want PvP: There are already games for that. No need to ruin ME:A for it.

[q5tyhj]

It isn't a contradiction at all. Stasis does zero damage and adds a short length casting animation. It actually increases the mathematical TTK in most circumstances.

I don't care how you play games, the assertion that single shot weapons are in any way "useless" in the vast majority of PvP shooters is demonstrably false. Quite the opposite. Also, I've posted more than one video at this point, and can post many more. You, by contrast have provided no evidence for your assertions apart from anecdotal fallacies, and have proceeded to ad homenim attacks on people whom you deem to be playing the games wrong and have "too much time on their hands" without actually addressing the evidence presented. 

 

It was an example demonstrating that the logic behind the opposition's general rule was flawed, not a strawman assertion that most or all PvP games revolve around using singleshot weapons to spawnkill the opposition. Rebuttals on video game forums hardly need take the form of a scholarly research paper. The opposition's argument had no evidence, so little evidence was required to thoroughly defeat it as presented. Are you happy that I subsequently provided more evidence. How much evidence do I need to "win" in your authoritative, clearly unbiased arbitration on internet arguments? Moreover, why is the opposition seemingly not subject to any standard of objective scrutiny on their claim while I am?

If you didn't care either way, you wouldn't be attacking only me for a supposed lack of evidence while the opposition has provided literally nothing but anecdotal fallacy and argument by assertion. To provide an analogy, if I made the claim that modern golf clubs are "mostly useless" for driving a ball 150 yards based on the evidence that I and my entirely unskilled friends have never been able to do so, around people who actually knew anything about the competition in question, I would be laughed out of the room, and posting a single video of an amateur 

Lol, oh boy... I had/have no interest in arbitrating such a pointless debate, was just noting an amusing logic fail in one of the handful of posts I happened to read. I mean, you may even be right in what you're ultimately saying (about single shot guns, or quarians, or whatever it is that's in dispute here exactly) but "here is an example of X being Y" is obviously not a reasonable rebuttal to the proposition that X's are mostly not-Y (the several paragraphs of frantic handwaving above notwithstanding). 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

In fora*, PvP is to multiplayer what romance is to single player.

 

It tends to involve more contentious and passionate discourse than the subject merits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I now officially feel like a pretentious douche for correctly using the Latin plural of forum. So f**k you all.

[larsdt]

In fora*, PvP is to multiplayer what romance is to single player.

 

It tends to involve more contentious and passionate discourse than the subject merits.

 

True. These word walls resemble the SP forum too much.

 

#MoarGifsPlz

 

[DaemionMoadrin]

In fora*, PvP is to multiplayer what romance is to single player.

 

It tends to involve more contentious and passionate discourse than the subject merits.

 

You make it sound so fancy.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

You make it sound so fancy.

 

 

Doth thouest suggesteth thateth waseth pretentioussooth?