|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
6034
   |
Posted - 2014.11.24 02:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Mostly because they carry the following message, "If we nerf it and it's still okay to use then it was OP; if it is difficult to use, then it was never OP". It's just like witch hunt logic.
This is a dangerous way to think. It makes unnecessary nerfs on weapons for the wrong reasons which leads to whole classes being nerfed into the ground until they teeter between okay to terrible. People asking for nerfs to any equipment that stands out in the slightest want to make all weapons as effective as any other weapon. Or if they are an extreme weapon(Shotgun and Sniper Rifle) so useless that people are forced to use a more moderate weapon.
It's happened to the Flaylock, the Scrambler Pistol, Logi's... The Rail Rifle...
Now people are pushing to nerf the Breach AR and Shotgun. What's next? The Laser Rifle, Nova Knives, Mass Driver, Plasma Cannon even? It's just a matter of time. The nerf cycle has a domino effect.
When will the lunacy end!? When will we decide to start buffing under powered gear rather than nerfing everything down to dismal effectiveness? Whatever happened to taking things like a man and learning how to counter things rather than complaining about anything that forces one into even the slightest of disadvantages? The sense of entitlement to a fair fight in all situations is baseless.
We all accept that a Sniper Rifle should be better than a Shotgun at range, and vice-versa. So why do people complain about getting owned by a RR at range, a Flaylock in CQC, an MD when in a group, a Laser Rifle when charging across a field, a remote explosive when hacking an objective, a cloak user running straight at you because you rely to much on your map instead of on you eyes, a Scrambler Rifle when you shield tank or a bolt pistol when you armor tank? You can't always expect a fair fight, but that's okay because you're oponents don't always have the advantage.
Why can't we accept that the entire point of having different weapons is to put other players at a disadvantage? In some fights I will have the high ground and other times I will fight an uphill battle. All a mercenary can do is rub his hands together and start climbing and that's the way it's suppose to be.
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
6041
|
Posted - 2014.11.24 04:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
hfderrtgvcd wrote:You probably defended the cal logi and tac ar too
I've defended literally everything except exploits.
Before you make assumptions...
My first Proto weapon was the Swarm Launcher. I got it before I ever had a complex module or even a suit with enough CPU and PG to run it seriously.
I've never liked to use overused items because I want the challenge of making new things work as well as tried and true methods.
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
6042
|
Posted - 2014.11.24 04:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
Meeko Fent wrote:I see you're point, and respect it many occasions, but to just keep buffing, and buffin UP gear, and then you run the trend of power creep.
If we buffed the rifles up to RR level, then suits as a whole lose strength, meaning either they get buffed, or the TTK decreases, sparking those grand fights from... That time ago
This is true. We can't nerf or buff forever. Though, I didn't articulate it well, my point was that the community as a whole should not be so quick to want to change things just to make things fairer becayse things will never quite be fair from any one mercs point of view.
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
6044
|
Posted - 2014.11.24 11:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
sir RAVEN WING wrote:DeadlyAztec11 wrote:Mostly because they carry the following message, "If we nerf it and it's still okay to use then it was OP; if it is difficult to use, then it was never OP". It's just like witch hunt logic.
This is a dangerous way to think. It makes unnecessary nerfs on weapons for the wrong reasons which leads to whole classes being nerfed into the ground until they teeter between okay to terrible. People asking for nerfs to any equipment that stands out in the slightest want to make all weapons equally effective at all situations. Or if they are an extreme weapon(Shotgun and Sniper Rifle) so useless that people are forced to use a more moderate weapon like an AR or Scrambler Rifle.
It's happened to the Flaylock, the Scrambler Pistol, Logi's... The Rail Rifle...
Now people are pushing to nerf the Breach AR and Shotgun. What's next? The Laser Rifle, Nova Knives, Mass Driver, Plasma Cannon even? It's just a matter of time. The nerf cycle has a domino effect where anything that stands out as useful gets taken down a peg and then the next biggest gets chopped down.
When will the lunacy end!? When will we decide to start buffing under powered gear rather than nerfing everything down to dismal effectiveness? We can't always buff either but we need to make better decisions as a community on what we believe is OP or UP. Whatever happened to taking things like a man and learning how to counter things rather than complaining about anything that forces one into even the slightest of disadvantages? The sense of entitlement to a fair fight in all situations is baseless.
We all accept that a Sniper Rifle should be better than a Shotgun at range, and vice-versa. So why do people complain about getting owned by a RR at range, a Flaylock in CQC, an MD when in a group, a Laser Rifle when charging across a field, a remote explosive when hacking an objective, a cloak user running straight at you because you rely to much on your map instead of on you eyes, a Scrambler Rifle when you shield tank or a bolt pistol when you armor tank? You can't always expect a fair fight, but that's okay because you're oponents don't always have the advantage.
Why can't we accept that the entire point of having different weapons is to put other players at a disadvantage? In some fights I will have the high ground and other times I will fight an uphill battle. All a mercenary can do is rub his hands together and start climbing and that's the way it's suppose to be. So much fuss when the BrAR is about to be nerfed, but no one cares that they destroyed the RR. 'It's fine.' means obviously you haven't used it as it isn't what it's supposed to be. Where again did you defend the RR before it got nerfed into CQC? It was actually meant to be a buff not a nerf. I actually argued not to give it the "buff"(nerf).
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
6055
|
Posted - 2014.11.24 23:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Blueprint For Murder wrote:I have pro ARs and use an advanced RR over them on my gk suit.
There are things that are mathematically imbalanced (CR profile), functionally imbalanced (AV-V), and things that are both (SG scouts). There is also population balance or over use generally people want a wide array of weapons and races to face if this is not the case it creates poor game play, but this doesn't always have a barring on strength of the weapons themselves.
I don't see many ARs but if this is actually the case and I just don't notice it than I am convinced it is because a few idiots saw 14% huckyuck thats a lot huckyuck and started saying it was fotm. Now this is in combination with the RR nerf so it does have added value considering it is the counter to the RR now, and this is prime time to take advantage of those having trouble adapting.
FOTM is a huge problem because people are sheep and whether it is grand or not will be taken. Now don't get me wrong this is a great time to use the AR because of the RR nerf, but everyone should not have been using it creating this scale of devastation to RR users; this advantage should have been for those smart enough to use it not those that copy and paste their fits.
Yeah FOTM defines popularity not necessarily effectiveness. It's usually chosen by noobs who are trying to emulate better players.
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
6059
|
Posted - 2014.11.24 23:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yep, I detest lowering the bar for everyone.just because a couple of loud mouths want an extremely casual game. It's the equivalent of making marathons shorter just so more people will be competitive. It's a complete slap in the face to people who are dedicated to the game and will attract a crowed of people that will barely play but still scream loudly to make their personal experience as relaxing as possible.
This is a competitive game: people win big and people lose hard. That's the way we like it.
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
DeadlyAztec11
Ostrakon Agency
6073
|
Posted - 2014.11.25 10:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Leadfoot10 wrote:I disagree strongly with the premise of this thread.
The balance changes that CCP has done recently have all been well considered, if perhaps a few didn't go as planned. But what's more (to me) is that when mistakes were made, course corrections (both nerf & buff) have been issued, in a repetitive way to stay ahead of the playerbase and it's exploitive nature.
It's not an easy job, and certainly more work needs to be done -- but anyone who can't acknowledge the progress the game has made on balance and diversity recently is just not being fair -- as I, for one, am am pleased with how it's going.
If at first you don't succeed (in balance), try, try again.
And that's what Rattati and CCP seem to be doing.
Changing things at a whim to the tyranny of mob democracy isn't exactly the best way to balance things.
Put your flags up in the sky.
And wave them side to side.
Show the world where you're from.
Show the world we are one.
|
|
|
| |
|