Think Snipers are OP? Assassins are cheap? Come right in.

No, not really.

The use of the Quad Damage and the Invincibility Pentagram (And even the Invisibility Ring) on QuakeWorld where things that people agreed had no place on 1 vs 1 matches(Though it added map control strategies when playing on TDM), so they where removed from 1 vs 1s.

In Quake 2 every single player agreed that the BFG was an overpowered weapon that had no place in competitive matches, so the community took it upon themselves and banned the weapon from competitive matches in both 1 vs 1 and TDM, and nobody complained. Same thing happened for Quake 3.

Street Fighter II ST is another example. Akuma had no place whatsoever in tournaments because he wasn't designed to be used by players in the first place, he was designed to be a boss, and we know how Capcom loves to overpower their bosses. So the community banned Akuma from tournaments.

Point is when there is something that is game breaking, everyone will agree on it, or at least it will be more than 50/50 decision.

Neither of these decisions were completely unanimous - though you do address that in your final line.
At what percentage of an active forum base do you draw the line?

Like, I would say the majority of the PC users on this forum hate Assassins - so - is it enough to nerf it?
Does the pretty dodgy reasoning (sorry guys, but most of it is...) of these Assassin whiners give proper reason for a nerf purely because so many people are posting these complaints?

I dunno, if I were Scathis, I would be reading the posts and thinking about the situation for myself - rather than discounting issues when people disagree...
In fact, I'm sure this is what Scathis does.

-------------------------------------------------------

Actually @Scathis again,
I see you used the term "overwhelmingly overpowered" - does this mean that if something is simply "a bit overpowered", you won't touch it despite its negative effects on the game?

A good example of this is Metaknight in Brawl - at the moment I'm sure he's not banned, but the game (and especially the competitive metagame which at times has peaked at 90% of players playing Metaknight) would be much better off if he was less powerful.

Like, what level of balance are you actually going for?

I would think that even if the sin is totally fine, the fact that enough people complain would make Scathis consider a nerf (or, preferably, an "adjustment" which preserves her power level, but makes her less annoying) simply because it's good business sense. I've seen newish players (claim to) ragequit the entire game after a few rounds of getting destroyed by assassins. These people certainly won't recommend the game to their friends.

It's not actually a balance issue at all. The thing is, being killed by sins is just annoying. It's an instant death that you don't see coming (if you did see her coming, chances are you killed her or she ran away), and they have the luxury of being able to choose their targets, so they can often attack targets that are distracted by another enemy, and dying to someone other than the enemy you're engaged with is frustrating in any game. (Valve once stated that three big causes of rage in multiplayer games are: instant deaths (check), dying to someone you aren't engaged with (check), and dying in a way you feel you couldn't have avoided (not so much check in most cases, other than when you're fighting someone else and a sin appears out of nowhere and finishes you off.))

If it were up to me, I'd make attacking players as a sin more "high risk, high reward". If the sin screws up her assassination attempt, she should have to retreat immediately (and this successful retreat shouldn't be guaranteed at all). Force her to think extremely carefully about going after a player. She has the ability to choose her targets - force her to use this. When you get killed by a sin, knowing that if you had just been more aware, you could have killed her very easily would make it much less frustrating in my eyes.

You know what? I think I've described the assassin without armor endorsements perfectly.

I believe the original quote is: "Rock is OP! Nerf nao! Paper is fine, the people who complain about paper should just lrn2play." - Scissors

Yes, they where. I was an active Quake player, so i would know this. There were a set of "Universal" rules for Quake created and implemented by the community with competition mods.

But if you insist, please name me one top Quake player who whined about not having a Quad in a 1 vs 1 tournament.

Just one.

And while you are it, also name just one top Street Fighter player who had a decent argument on why Akuma should have not have been banned.

You came into the right thread! Read the OP!

Do you ever actually answer points or do you just go around from thread to thread being a jackass for its own sake?

Do you actually realise that he adressed his point and that this is his thread after all?

My point is that his post is virtually content-free and adds nothing to it, whether it's his thread or not. I've been a volunteer moderator on another site for eight years, and I have to say I'd probably have said something about it if I were employed here.

Just because you own a thread doesn't automatically absolve you of being an ******* within it. If Wylie said something Cali didn't agree with or found erroneous, he could have, you know, pointed out what it was or explained why it was wrong. Quoting a post and just saying "Junk... read the OP" isn't exactly productive and is very liable to encourage others to respond poorly. Regardless of thread ownership, in this particular exchange Wylie is adding to the discussion while Cali is not. No one has to agree or find them apt/pertinent, but Wylie does appear to be asking honest questions and seems interested in having an actual discussion. If someone (the thread owner or anyone) else doesn't, no one is making them post.

Just like you did now.

Yeah, because I'm clearly angry/upset and am insulting other users in my posts. :roll:

Pointing out that someone is behaving poorly != behaving poorly yourself. Sure, one can follow the other, but it's not a given.

You kinda missed the point but hey I don't judge you and will just refer to the OP since it's clearly relevant.

Shoutouts to my man Cali for the best thread on here.

Actually, I should probably take some of this back: coming in and asking if he habitually acts like a jackass (while in my opinion still ultimately a good question) is/was a bad move: I could have said the same thing in about a thousand different ways that would have conveyed the same general concept (e.g., "what's the problem I thought he was asking decent questions and wasn't really talking to you anyway?" or the like) but in my short time here I've already gotten a little frustrated with a couple posts I've seen from him in a thread of mine and elsewhere. I just sort of blurted it out, which was a bad move. My bad. Cali, I'm sorry, but sometimes your attitude really rubs me the wrong way.

EDIT: I've read the OP, thanks.

Apart from reading, did you actually understood the tone of this topic, or just have sand in your bajingo?

And about you little frustration? Oh, some of us feel that also.

One day the Tank is OP, the other he sucks. Same with the Gunner and the Sniper.

One day everybody and their grandmas claims that Assassins sucks and are an easy kill, but the next day they are unstoppable machines that eat you homework on your way to school. Oh and they also love to kick dogs.

You know, some people are as tired about reading others complain in the same way that some are tired about the things they are complaining about.

So, and to end my participation in here...

When logic fails, Justin Timberlake comes and saves the day.

I always answer points. People just tend to ignore them.

If you did read the OP you'd understand I did answer his point. Also if you had read that gigantic mess that was the "NERF SNIPURZ!!" thread you'd see I presented a ton of valid reasons why they were wrong, which were promptly disregarded.

This entire thread is about people actually trying to understand the game before whining over EVERYTHING. Most people complaining about game balance don't even understand the first thing about the game mechanics!

The person I replied to has been explained several hundred times now why he's wrong. He has disregarded and ignored everything he's been told, and now he was even trying to troll one of the devs. The only possible reply is this thread's OP.

And I'm not particularly concern about whatever language you use. I prefer people being honest and straightforward instead of dancing around sensibilities.

Then fight fire with fire. If the only thing that makes sense to post is (in as many words) "you are stupid and wrong," just leave it. Actually posting it tends to make the other person angry and can bring out white knight assholes like me. It's just not worth it. I'm not familiar with his history, but If he's trolling the devs, they'll ignore it or act as they see fit, I doubt they require your assistance in attacking or trolling him back. I didn't really read his post like that, but to each his own and he may have a history I'm not familiar with. I'm not going to editorialize about the content of Wylie's post for the simple reason that whether you agree with it or not is your business: but quoting his post as 'Junk' and merely pointing back to a (basically troll) OP doesn't suit the purpose of a forum, which is ostensibly to discuss what is posted. If you didn't want people to do what Wylie did, you either shouldn't have posted at all or requested a lock.

EDIT: Also, the irony of you criticizing someone for trolling the devs--when this topic itself is basically a glorified troll of anyone who thinks @@thing@@ or @@mechanic@@ is OP or broken--is ironic almost beyond conception. You link to "Cry Me a River" in your OP and people are (?) somehow expected to react anything but negatively to your "debate" tactics? Please. I would guess we both agree that MNC is well-balanced, but I don't go around trolling people who might not agree. Just throwin' that out there.

It's a rant. I specifically said so in the OP. I never claimed this was anything else. It's a rant of someone who's tired of hearing the same damn thing over and over, a sentiment several other people have mirrored.

Ironically, you failed to follow your own advice. Why didn't you just ignore me then? Exactly.

Well, at least we can both agree the balance is fine.

Glad you noticed. I've recently learned something about myself; namely that I seem to have a knack for using my own (occasionally faulty ) behavior to exemplify both the positive and negative aspects of the points I'm trying to make.

I responded because I felt like I had something to bring up or discuss (namely your attitude, which not being familiar with Wylie's history seemed odd and unjustified to me), whereas you responded because you felt like you had nothing to bring up or discuss. You're correct that I essentially failed to heed my own advice: but look what it started and why it's preferable to avoid wholesale in the first place. I don't want this **** and I doubt you do either.

You say this guy is trolling the devs, and he has some posts on this forum--maybe he is, but uninformed readers (such as myself) don't know that and aren't going to go sifting through the post history of everyone on the forum. Much like my subsequent response to you, your initial reply to Wylie (and arguably the OP itself) is needlessly acrimonious.

The last shooter I played at length was Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, which had hints of being a great game but was hideously unbalanced in several important ways. In contrast, MNC is remarkable not only for its excellent balance, but that it was attained on release. There are a few minor things I'd consider looking at, but a hard nerf/buff on any one skill or player attribute might not be necessary at all. The metagame is still sort of maturing though, so we'll see what happens.

I don't particularly like that song.

The fact that you do might be a side-effect of thinking games are balanced at low level play a herp derp.

Or, it might be about pretentious people preaching about the balance of a game that they have been playing for little less than 2 months, regardless of how good they (Think) have become in that short period of time...

But it could also be what you said, who knows?


Oh wait sorry, i'm not good at this.

:roll:

Better.

Understanding the balance of a game isn't hard... it's just maths...
Doesn't require you to be good at the game either, that's just an added perk for me.