Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
422
   |
Posted - 2014.05.13 01:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
As far as balance goes, I feel like this game needs to set different expectations. War has always been about shifting balances. I think WWI is the prime example because it was almost perfectly balanced, on the whole, for years. Consider the evolution of aerial combat in WWI.
During the Battle of Verdun in 1916, the French used their superior Nieuport 11's to establish air superiority. The Germans rolled out the biplane model Albatros D.III in 1916 to great success, resulting in part in "Bloody April" 1917 where the Germans ruled the skies. Then the British got their Sopwith Camels and their S.E.5a's and the French their SPAD S.XIII's, and the Allies gained the advantage--until the introduction of the Fokker D.VII in mass numbers, returning at least the technical advantage to the Central Powers.
My point is that superiority is frequently passed around throughout the course of a war, especially in the closest thing one could find to a "balanced war" in history. Not only did it pass back and forth from one side to another, it passed a lot between manufacturers--Nieuport, Albatros, Sopwith, Fokker. Maybe what's wrong is not the balance, it's the expectations about the balance. In a game that plans to last 10 years or more, is there something inherently wrong with the Rail Rifle being better than all the other rifles for 6 weeks until a rebalance comes along and the Scrambler Rifle becomes the best? So long as weapons don't become unplayable and none of them are clearly ridiculously overpowered, why not accept that one item have a temporary edge over others?
Maybe there's a way to build this in so that it's clear that shifting balances are something to expect. Maybe instead of simply rebalancing the existing items, they could be issued as new "editions" or variations on the old items. Maybe there could be a built-in kind of "damage inflation" to help keep the balance, meaning new "editions" of dropsuits and weapons would tend to inflict/absorb more damage than old "editions" over time, i.e., 5 years from now we might very well have double the damage and double the health. That way, instead of nerfing items people already have in their inventories, they just become obsolete.
As noted in the title, this is "spitballing." It may not be a good idea, but I'd like to explore it.
TL;DR: "Perfect balance" isn't a feasible goal for any game, so why not build in "shifting balance" that ensures anything that becomes overpowered doesn't remain that way for more than 6-8 weeks--as long as it's not ridiculous.
What Is Tiericide and Why?
|