Factions are losing their distinctions. There is a trend going on that few people are realizing. Many are being normalized or watered-down versions of another faction's weapon. It seems like everything is being "normalized" and "Balanced" across the board. This is a side effect of players crying OP on a factions particular weapon (Pre-Nerf striker o how i miss you. It was fun while it lasted). To give an example: The LMG 0.75x changes were implemented. DBG decided to add a buff on the accuracy of them in trade of nerfing the movement speed penalty. They have failed to see the consequence of this. LMGs are now getting closer in accuracy equivalent to medic class' Assault Rifles, the best mediumlong range automatic weapons in the game. It's also important to add the magazine size and killing potential per reload trumps the AR. I suggest people to take a look at the weapon Google sheet and sort each ADS accuracy column from low to high. - LMGs and carbines are getting too similar to ARs. - Some ARs fall behind in accuracy in comparison to LMGs and carbines. I know this isn't an intended change on behalf of DGB, but there needs to be an awareness on the side-effects of doing these DGB "nerfs". I'm sure there are other examples if I forgot a few. PS. The recent HA shield change wasn't a nerf at all. They just took away something in exchange of buffing another aspect i.e. duration.
Haven't experimented the overshield buff/nerf just yet, but what you state about LMGs is absolutely true, and something i thought right away after that specific autumn patch. While it's true that some LMGs did need a buff of sorts, i very much question the way DBG went with on that. Outside of the changes, the reason why the TR/NC 50 rounds mag LMGs (pseudo-ARs really) are being kept at such advantageous ads CoF is also a mystery to me. I don't have a problem with a big 750hp overshield on its own, but i do have a problem with big overshield+barely less accurate guns, with just as high velocity as ARs, the same single tier of damage drop, and barely slower (if not actually faster) to reload than a standard TR rifle.
Your initial argument desires to explain how adjustments are bringing different factions closer to one another; but, the substance of your example explains how changes to LMGs (Heavy Assault exclusive weapons) are bringing them closer to ARs (Combat medic exclsuive weapons), which is a class distinction, not a factional one. Was this intentional?
In summary: These "nerfs" are having a side-effect of making other aspects more in-line with other factions traits. Nerf trait "A" but change "B1 - Terran Republic". Consequently, "B1" is now closer to "B2-Vanu" traits. Same goes for B3-NC but who cares about them. Weapons are losing their distinct faction quality. All it takes is comparing a few 2012 to 2016 PS2 weapons. It used to be "Give an AR to a LA,Engin, HA and it'll be OP as F&ck!" Now its "Give an LMG (tmg-50, ursa less so) to a LA,Engin, Medic, and it'll be OP as F$ck!" Any medic would kill for a 50-75 round magazine sacrificing only negligable accuracy, if any at all.
A-Tross, TORQ, and SABR disagree, but otherwise yeah, there should be much more emphasis on faction diversity. For each NS weapon an ES equivalent, or another ES equipment should be added. The ES sniper rifles were a good example. NC and VS got unique sniper rifles, TR got a unique scout rifle, and an NS scout rifle was added as well.
People will always want nerfs, some justified, others based on feels. Same can be said about buffs really.
But always way more nerf requests than buffs. And the nerfs done are bigger and more numerous than buffs.
This isn't about people wanting nerfs or buffs. It's about the implementation of such changes that have a streamlined consequence across the weapon statistical medium. This affects Classes and Faction specific traits. Take a look at player statistics on class usage ( you can do the same for weapons, etc for a broader argument). Heavy assault is the most played class by a longshot. Why is this? It's pretty clearcut. 1. LMGs. 2. shields. 3. med-kit macros. i.e. best infantry class in game with ZERO nanite resource upkeep. There is no downside. That's one example of many liabilities that come with "nerfing" things. It USED to be that high-tier weapons were given to classes that offshot the downsides of their inherit abilities. *cough medic and ARs". But with all the changes since 2012, many things are getting drastically watered down. Is this the penalty for making a game accustomed to casuals? A couple years ago I never ran into so many HA's in my life. Now its 90% of any population.
1)You can't revive people 2)You can't repair MAXes 3)You can't camp roofs and other vantage points 4)You can't go invisible and are thus dependent on cover(honestly I think SMG infil is better than HA outdoors) Play defensively and revive people on the front line? Pick medic Play defensively and support friendly MAX? Pick engineer Play offensively on maps with little to no cover? Pick SMG infil Play offensively on maps that are vertically complex? Pick LA Run&gun and fight head on? Pick HA Honestly if you are going to run&gun and fight head on then why insist on playing anything other than HA? On the other hand if your job is to revive people then you can't say that HA does the job better than medic.
Good point. Would you rather: 1. Hold a capture point with 20 Heavy Assaults? 2. Hold a capture point with 2 Maxs, 4 engineers, 4 medics, 8 HAs, 2 LAs? (balanced team) I'm slightly more enlightened.
Completely agree, why do devs cave to the demands of gamers? as if they know what they actually want? Rock, paper, scissors should always be the format to balancing. In PS1 it was loosely based on this: TR have the high rate of fire and the "lots of bullets but not much accuracy" archetype NC were the big slow hitters, vanguard used to wreck but was very slow and too a while to reload etc. VS were kinda the inbetweeners, adopting high accuracy in some areas and high damage/aoe effects in others with a trade-off ever present This ladies and gentlemen is the right way to balance. You spawn as paper and get killed by scissors, so you respawn as rock and go get yours.
This is an exaggeration People who fear nerfs/rebalances really slow balance in a game Its still asymmetrical but closer to being all around fair And there are plenty of buffs people want DBG will hopefully get to those next
Yeah but it's not really because of the nerfs. Players always scream at nerfs but they forget buffs. Yesterday for instance Battle Rifles were buffed, and so was the Valkyrie and the Flashbangs. The problem is devs find easier and faster to set common values for weapons. Take the Battle Rifles: yesterday devs missed a great opportunity to differentiate them. Why do they have to be all the same?
