DUST Search - {Suggestion} Limit to "power" weapon allowed on BF similarly to the wa...

Tiel Syysch wrote:

ISK will never be a limit, you're just going to screw over the little guy. People with corp funding will have no problem stocking up, but a solo player will never be able to support the item.

Taking away the militia/tier 1 variants is just simply a bad idea. There's no reason to, and to require someone to skill into L2 or L3 of a skill before they ever get the item is just awful. Why would you do it if you didn't already know you liked the item? That's a huge waste of SP if you didn't know how it handled before you ever picked it up. I actually support militia versions of everything.

And again, I don't care if it's team wide or what the number is, I'm not going to support my not being able to use what I have SP invested in (what if it's my only fit?) just because other (potentially [much] worse) players spawned before I did.

Also, one of your things in the OP is to limit forge users. That'd be insanely bad when there are vehicles running crazy on the map. And no, we're not going to limit vehicles because we limit forges.

My opinion is that if you can buy it, you can field it. We don't need artificial restrictions as long as counters exist to each item. Some weapons need to be tweaked, sure, but we can mess with the numbers on those without taking them away (I've actually been using the mass driver since last build and thought it was OP before the ammo buff, no idea why they keep buffing this weapon).

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 15:09:00 - [1] - Quote I think a good solution to all the spamming of so called "power" weapons is to create a team limit for snipers, forge, hmg, MD and laser like 2-4 per team or better yet 1 per squad. This will create a greater level of balancing with weaponry without having to change any of weapon attributes. I think limiting it to squad would be best, this way you arent having to run into entire organized teams spamming a particular weapon and it forces squads to work as a team and be more tactical in their approach. Of course the obvious issue with this would be pub matches where people are thrown into squads at random and therefore may not be able to use their dropsuit fitting of choice hence why a team limit might be better. I find this approach works best because most shooters i play that have loadouts this is what often causes the imbalance it isn't one solitary user of a weapon but the force multiplier effect you get when multiple people use them, the other way shooters try to balance this out is they way U2 or Halo 2 had it where there was a standard loadout for everyone and "power" weapons needed to be picked up on the map which required map control. Clearly we don't want that. Another way for this to be balanced is if there was a build requirement to these "power weapons" that required EVE/Corp support so you couldnt get them without some well funded "sugar daddies" or better yet drop them from orbit upon request with a cooldown until you can receive another one. Point is there are a lot of ways to balance weaponry in this game without having to buff/nerf weapon attributes, in fact in every shooter i have played every time a dev "balances" one weapon the community moves on and finds the next weapon that is thier "swiss army knife" creating a perpetual cycle of imbalance until everyone who isn't a diehard fan of the game just gives up quits and moves on to the next "oasis" in hopes of finding water.
Vermaak Kuvakei Doomheim 88	Posted - 2012.12.19 15:31:00 - [2] - Quote Terrible, just terrible
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 15:38:00 - [3] - Quote Vermaak Kuvakei wrote: Terrible, just terrible And your idea for balance is? Also why terrible what is wrong with it?
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2283	Posted - 2012.12.19 15:56:00 - [4] - Quote Gunner Visari wrote: Vermaak Kuvakei wrote: Terrible, just terrible And your idea for balance is? Also why terrible what is wrong with it? its a terrible idea because it goes against the whole "sandbox" element
Kain Spero Imperfects Negative-Feedback 907	Posted - 2012.12.19 15:59:00 - [5] - Quote Weapons brought to the field should be limited by the ISK you are willing to loose, not some artificial cap.
Eternal Technique Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 281	Posted - 2012.12.19 16:06:00 - [6] - Quote It won't work in this game. Here's why: Right now every weapon, including snipers, mass drivers, forge guns, tanks, etc, are supposed to be balanced (whether this is truly the case is debatable, but that is the intention). This means there should be no real 'power weapon'. Everything has counters and no one type of weapon is supposed to dominate gameplay. Power weapons are inherently overpowered. What balances them is the fact that teams fight over them and has an equal chance to get their hands on one, but the idea is that you have to earn it. No one is able to repeatedly spawn in with an intentionally overpowered weapon. Also, power weapons are generally limited by their ammo capacity, so one person can't just pick one up and dominate for the rest of the game. Eventually it will run out of ammo and then teams will have to fight for it when it respawns. If you implemented this style of power weapon gameplay in DUST, it would completely change the game. You would have to change everything. The way this game plays atm, teams have the ability to play with whatever number of snipers, tanks, or heavies that they feel is appropriate. It creates a gameplay that relies on teams creating new strategies and coming up with counters to what the other team does. Obviously this whole premise would change if power weapons were introduced. I would be in favor of a game type that had power weapons, but it would have to be a completely new game mode and not a replacement of the current ones.
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 17:02:00 - [7] - Quote I was providing map spawned power weapons as a corellary to what some games do to limit "power" weapons. I quote power weapons because there are some who feel that MD's, Forge, HMG, Snipers, and Laser currently behave like "power" weapons. I do not think any of them are OP but rather they become OP as a result of multiple players on the field using them at once creating a force multiplier. This is why a cap on the number of players on who can be on the field at a time would balance them without having to make any tweaks to the current attributes they possess. (what that cap should be is something that can be tweaked over time to find the right balance) Additionally with nanohives a player can keep their weapon well supplied for a virtually an indefinite period of time. Personally i don't mind it the way it is now, but im thinking a few builds down the road because i already see threads for nerf this buff this. This occurs everytime a weapon is nerfed/buffed because as players we always seek the weapon that is the "ultimate" weapon to use no matter what the situation. This in turn leads to more threads about nerf/buff this. It basically creates an endless cycle of nerfing or buffing. This is also why i think the argument that each weapon has a counter and/or is balanced isn't strong because if that was the case than why do you see the use of one or two particular weapons over others, it is because the player finds those weapons to be consistent as their "swiss army knife" My point is this also if you take the militia variant or type I weapons which are free/cheap and you skill into the weapon profciency you can make them super deadly for very little risk. As a result a team could in theory run a boatload of these weapons at very little risk.. Edit- Also when i say cap i don't mean 3-4 cap for all those weapons total but individually so a cap of 3-4 snipers, as well as MD etc(3-4 is just an arbitrary number i am throwing out there). Also i made mention of an alternative way to balance them is to have build requirements or have them designated as drops that need to be requested. Of course another way to do is it to get rid of type I/Militia variants, BPO's of these items or if they are retained the isk is a lot greater than it is now because 8K for a type I MD is a joke right now i can run a type I MD and wreak havoc. Look at the militia forge and tell me that hasn't created a flurry of nonsense already. By creating a cap on these particular weapons you reduce the fundamental argument that a weapon is OP when in fact it isn't the weapon itself but the force multiplication of having so many of them on the field at once. Imagine being redlined or redlining but there are only 3-4 snipers to contend with instead of 8. Or lets say a team ran 7-8 MD users who were accompanied by TAR, a team of 3 MD with one TAR could reduce an entire area to bits if those MD's soften up and the TAR one shots everyone to finish the job. This is why i think a cap limiting the number of users for these weapons per squad and/or team would create an immediate balance without having to screw around with the weapons' attributes. It will force the use of AR's, SMG, Shotty, Pistol users while still allowing for the use of those other weapons without them getting out of control. I will finish with this one thought, if these weapons are "balanced" the way they are currently then will you run corp battles/clan matches with them allowed. How many other games have you played in a competitive match where the teams agreed to allow the use of "noob" tubes or Rockets, or snipers without pause. Edit- I should note that i run a logi MD build, and have considered creating a logi laser build(prolly not) so this actually hurts my playstyle if there enough other players in the game using MD at the time but i would make that sacrifice if it benefit the balance for the entire community.
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 17:21:00 - [8] - Quote Kain Spero wrote: Weapons brought to the field should be limited by the ISK you are willing to loose, not some artificial cap. Im all for this concept, but then they really should consider raising the ISK of the type I/milita variants because as is they can produce nasty results for very little risk, especially once you start specing into weaponry, operations, proficiency, sharpshooter and capacity. The type I weapons become incredibly powerful without having to risk much of anything.
Vermaak Kuvakei Doomheim 88	Posted - 2012.12.19 17:27:00 - [9] - Quote Gunner Visari wrote: Vermaak Kuvakei wrote: Terrible, just terrible And your idea for balance is? Also why terrible what is wrong with it? It makes it necessary for everyone to skill ars, and it's too cod like
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 17:47:00 - [10] - Quote Vermaak Kuvakei wrote: Gunner Visari wrote: Vermaak Kuvakei wrote: Terrible, just terrible And your idea for balance is? Also why terrible what is wrong with it? It makes it necessary for everyone to skill ars, and it's too cod like Well AR or shotty, or smg. Assuming when you get into a game the cap has reached your primary and secondary weapon. I mean if you are skiliing only into a sniper and not an alternative like a laser than that really isn't an issue of the game but player. Which is why when i say cap i don't mean a small cap for all the so called power weapons total but individually, so lets say there are 4 snipers in game already, if there are 4 lasers than yes it would screw over someone. But this is why i offered an alternative to balance be raising the isk requirement of some of the weapons at the milita/tier I level or remove them entirely and only have type II, type III as the starting level at which these weapons become available so that there is some added risk to using them and people can't spam them indefinitely with the added boost they would get from weaponry, operation, sharpshooter, capacity, proficiency.

Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.12.19 17:52:00 - [11] - Quote There doesn't need to be absolute balance between "power weapons" and something like an AR/SMG, there just needs to be counters. I'm not going to play a game that I can't use what I've spent SP in just because some awful player spawned with it first. And I'm not going to tell a corpmate I won't squad with him just because he uses the same gun as me.
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 18:03:00 - [12] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: There doesn't need to be absolute balance between "power weapons" and something like an AR/SMG, there just needs to be counters. I'm not going to play a game that I can't use what I've spent SP in just because some awful player spawned with it first. And I'm not going to tell a corpmate I won't squad with him just because he uses the same gun as me. Okay well what about raising the isk requirement or removing the militia/tier I variants of these weapons wouldnt that balance these weapons out a bit without the endless spamming? Also just because i mention a cap doesn't mean that cap has to be very small, i said squad but also said perhaps instead of squd make it team. I think allowing more than x numbers of these weapons at a time per side is what causes an imbalance and the knee jerk buff/nerf this threads that follows on game forums. What that x number is and if it is a total x for all those aforementioned weapons or x number of each weapons individually is worth exploring since it's still a beta. Why can't we just try this for a week or two and see if it sensible? Is it really that arduous a task?
Tiel Syysch Imperfects Negative-Feedback 634	Posted - 2012.12.19 18:23:00 - [13] - Quote ISK will never be a limit, you're just going to screw over the little guy. People with corp funding will have no problem stocking up, but a solo player will never be able to support the item. Taking away the militia/tier 1 variants is just simply a bad idea. There's no reason to, and to require someone to skill into L2 or L3 of a skill before they ever get the item is just awful. Why would you do it if you didn't already know you liked the item? That's a huge waste of SP if you didn't know how it handled before you ever picked it up. I actually support militia versions of everything. And again, I don't care if it's team wide or what the number is, I'm not going to support my not being able to use what I have SP invested in (what if it's my only fit?) just because other (potentially [much] worse) players spawned before I did. Also, one of your things in the OP is to limit forge users. That'd be insanely bad when there are vehicles running crazy on the map. And no, we're not going to limit vehicles because we limit forges. My opinion is that if you can buy it, you can field it. We don't need artificial restrictions as long as counters exist to each item. Some weapons need to be tweaked, sure, but we can mess with the numbers on those without taking them away (I've actually been using the mass driver since last build and thought it was OP before the ammo buff, no idea why they keep buffing this weapon).
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 18:32:00 - [14] - Quote Tiel Syysch wrote: ISK will never be a limit, you're just going to screw over the little guy. People with corp funding will have no problem stocking up, but a solo player will never be able to support the item. Taking away the militia/tier 1 variants is just simply a bad idea. There's no reason to, and to require someone to skill into L2 or L3 of a skill before they ever get the item is just awful. Why would you do it if you didn't already know you liked the item? That's a huge waste of SP if you didn't know how it handled before you ever picked it up. I actually support militia versions of everything. And again, I don't care if it's team wide or what the number is, I'm not going to support my not being able to use what I have SP invested in (what if it's my only fit?) just because other (potentially [much] worse) players spawned before I did. Also, one of your things in the OP is to limit forge users. That'd be insanely bad when there are vehicles running crazy on the map. And no, we're not going to limit vehicles because we limit forges. My opinion is that if you can buy it, you can field it. We don't need artificial restrictions as long as counters exist to each item. Some weapons need to be tweaked, sure, but we can mess with the numbers on those without taking them away (I've actually been using the mass driver since last build and thought it was OP before the ammo buff, no idea why they keep buffing this weapon). Vehicles are limited already, i don't know what the number exactly is but there have been a few times i havent been able to call in an LAV because it said the limit has been reached. This where my whole idea stemmed from. And yes in an ideal world they could tweak the weapons and create balance but my experience in every shooter i've played is there is always a weapon that becomes every players go-to. So if they can achieve it great, than my entire post is irrelevant and unnecessary, thats why it's just a suggestion and not a request. Hopefully they can tweak the MD's sniper and laser because i feel all the other weapons are pretty well balanced. But if they go too far with those weapons they will be utterly useless and i still feel that these weapons aren't OP by themselves but become OP when multiple users are on the field at a time with them, it's the force multiplier not the individual. Edit- In terms of the SP waste argument i think i good solution is to offer a one time free SP/ISK reset. Then further SP/ISK resets be granted with either AUR only(great revenue source) or AUR and SUPER HIGH ISK.
Mobius Wyvern BetaMax. 1216	Posted - 2012.12.19 18:50:00 - [15] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Gunner Visari wrote: Vermaak Kuvakei wrote: Terrible, just terrible And your idea for balance is? Also why terrible what is wrong with it? its a terrible idea because it goes against the whole "sandbox" element Agreed. You shouldn't be trying to force "balance" with crappy stuff like this.
Skihids Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising 969	Posted - 2012.12.19 19:05:00 - [16] - Quote Artificial limits are a poor way to balance a game. Weapons find a natural balance based upon rock/paper/scissors. Everyone on the other team brings out scissors and you bring out rocks. Problem solved naturally. If some weapon doesn't have a natural disadvantage then you give it one. AR's had none in Codex, but they do now. Name me one other weapon that is king in all situations.
Gunner Visari Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 163	Posted - 2012.12.19 19:16:00 - [17] - Quote Skihids wrote: Artificial limits are a poor way to balance a game. Weapons find a natural balance based upon rock/paper/scissors. Everyone on the other team brings out scissors and you bring out rocks. Problem solved naturally. If some weapon doesn't have a natural disadvantage then you give it one. AR's had none in Codex, but they do now. Name me one other weapon that is king in all situations. IMHO there aren't any. I only suggested this to to cut the head off of all the people complaining that snipe, laser, MD's now need nerf now that they are being utilized more with the recent changes to AR. Im beginning to realize that most of these complaints are likely coming from lone wolfers and not players who play tactically and in a team like myself because i dont see any weapon being OP, if anything the AR nerf might be too dramatic and same with the HMG(what can i say fatties need love to right?)
Obstinate squid Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.12.19 20:29:00 - [18] - Quote There's no reason to play seriously right now as it is the beta; right now it's about finding your niche and understanding the concept of the game, I mean I'm still learning this whole character sheet system they have and trying to find a good build. For a new game like this it will always take time for people to learn to like it or leave.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]