|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Philipp Achtel
Immobile Infantry
10
   |
Posted - 2013.03.09 01:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
On Planet Earth, when a tactic or technology is discovered to be unable to overcome a different technology that is designed to defeat it, the smart strategist changes tactics. Airplanes can be shot down by relatively inexpensive missiles? Let's invest in stealth technology or bomb their radar facilities.
On Planet DUST, when a tactic is checked by a relatively inexpensive tech, we cry and cry for a nerf. Why can't we just accept that not all tactics are equal, and spending more SP or ISK should not always give you an advantage if you chose to use those skills or that equipment in an unfavorable environment?
If half the corps here lived on Planet Earth, they'd spend half their time QQing to God or some such to "Nerf missiles! OMG, a $200 missile can shoot down my $30M bomber. Can we get some balance here! I paid money for this!  "
The fact is that cheap, smart solutions trump expensive technologies all the time. Just because an IED costs 20 bucks doesn't mean it can't destroy a vehicle that costs thousands of times that price. If you don't like it, then adapt.
Or you could cry like a baby. Whichever, really.
|
Philipp Achtel
Immobile Infantry
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 02:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yozora Mikadzuki wrote:Nope, completely false.
You clearly do not be long on this forum.
Pretty much the level of discourse I've come to expect. |
Philipp Achtel
Immobile Infantry
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 06:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Piercing Serenity wrote:
What new tactics can we "invest" in? We don't have the modules to diversify our tactics. There is no stealth. There are no 'unfavorable environments". We will keep asking for balance between different tactics until we have the means to create our own.
For one, you can do something different. Is AV cramping your style in a particular match? How about you don't spawn tanks over and over? An unrealistic expectation, I know.
Most players here would rather lose a few tanks, then come on the forums to get the rules changed in their favor, because it somehow offends them that they can't buy a win all the time.
|
Philipp Achtel
Immobile Infantry
13
|
Posted - 2013.03.09 06:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Piercing Serenity wrote:I'm confused with your most recent post Coleman.
You spoke of real-life scenarios between two technologies separated by their cost, utility, and age. You note that expensive airplanes can be destroyed by inexpensive missiles. The appropriate reaction (If I understood the OP correctly) is to invest in a superior technology designed to counter the one that destroyed you. I agree with the point but disagreed with your conclusion. That example does not justify ending the discussion of balance within DUST. It does justify a more close examination of the context in which our equipment was used.
I was the OP, not Coleman. You misunderstood my point. In fact, your interpretation is the exact opposite of my point. Smart strategists don't complain when their tools don't work, they do something different. That something different isn't always throwing more tech at the problem. If tanks aren't working, don't complain about AV, just stop using tanks for that match. It's not a "balance problem" that cheap weapons can destroy expensive things, so don't come onto the forums and claim that there's some problem that needs to be fixed
Piercing Serenity wrote:If you are arguing that: "People should stop complaining about losing gear so much and focus on using their gear more tactfully." then I agree. We, as a community, could always benefit from being more level headed. That doesn't mean that we should stop discussing balance. I still believe that there aren't any new tactics in this game. To use your example, if my plane is destroyed by a missile, I currently don't have the option to research stealth or destroy radar arrays. All I can do is avoid this obstacle or challenge it in spite of the difficulties.
If you are arguing that: "People should focus more on improving their own game before blaming their faults on their gear and the gear of their opponents", then I also agree. However, there is no solid connection between these two arguments, save for the one link I'm thinking of. Which argument are you using? We'll go from there.
People aren't discussing balance, really. They're meta-gaming by trying to influence patches in their favor. |
|
|
| |
|