Beeeees
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
272
   |
Posted - 2013.10.22 13:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
There is a highly destructive trend being present in heavily mixed communities like this one.
It is a common thing in every dedicated game forum ever, and sadly widely accepted as the norm by the majority of players of said "every game ever", to b!tch and moan and complain about overly specific issues while carelessly and often willingly disregarding the whole picture, quite often in order to skew the meta gameplay in their favour.
Captain Obvious etc. etc.
While the last part of the statement may or may not apply, everything before it still stands awkwardly in the middle of the room like an elephant at a political meeting everyone tries his hardest not to notice.
Which leads us to the point of destructive criticism.
"Nerf FG!" says the tanker.
"Nerf only the AFG!" says the protobear.
"Dont nerf the FG, nerf AR!" says the forgegunner.
"Dont nerf the AR, nerf the SCR!" says the ********.
This goes on ad nauseum, and there are always 2 trends to observe.
Trend 1: "Nerf everything but what I use!" Hey there Cap!
Trend 2: The assumption that the only kind of balance there is to achieve is the 1v1 balance. This is also sadly the route CCP seems to take more often than not.
To take the current FG debate, it is not the problem with FG being OP vs infantry, or tankers being UP vs AV.
The problem is that the general conceptual perception of those is shite. The concept, the idea behind artillery vs infantery is completely overshadowed by the concept of player vs player in the eyes of the community, aswell as in the eyes of CCP, which tries to accomodate said community.
The only thing that severely discriminates tankers from non-tankers is the effective market price of their weapon of choosing.
That is a completely off way to balance artillery versus infantry, but thats it, unless its the highest tier gear in which case pubsomp ensues, the only difference is the price.
On the contrary, CCP absolutely refuses to adjust handhelt weapon prices according to their overall performance.
This is a screaming anachronism, instead of controlling the access to a means of destruction as it is done with tanks, no distinction in the market price is done between weapons that are obviously outperform others in most situation and the most nieche guns that may or may not wreck in a specific situation.
This is the least invasive solution compared to painstalkingly fiddling with numbers that may even define the weapon in its role on the battlefield, potentially making it usless in its given role.
This is madness.
The whole flaylock fiasco could be elegantly solved by cranking the price of the godlock so high, the "millionaires" would burn their money faster than they get it, and flavour of the month bandwagon riders would think twice
Yet everyone was screaming "REMOVE FLAYLOCK, DELETE ASSETS, TORCH THE CONCEPTS, FIRE THE PROGRAMMER!" non stop for weeks. Yet in concept, the flaylock was fine, it was just the abuse of the flaws in its implementation.
Nobody said "Promote it to a primary, problem solved."
The most uninvasive, natural option was neglected because of hordes of monkies screaming "NERF", and its a near dead weapon right now.
And now comes The Point:
The biggest problem with destructive criticism is that the community with its behaviour effectively stops the devs from acting outside the box by formulating very specific demands. Overly specific. All the time.
Or at least I hope its not the other way around.
/Rant |