Preamble First of all, I'd like to start off by saying that this is not intended to be a rant of any kind. Haters on either side of this issue need not comment. And yes, I am fully aware it's just a game, so let's keep comments relevant to the topic. Now then, let's get started. The Issue I'm all for game balance, and thus far I think SOE has done a pretty good job. Sure there will be an occasional weapon/vehicle that can arguably be OP/UP under certain conditions, but nobody's perfect. Not even developers. That being said, I'm a little worried about some inconsistencies I've noticed cropping up regarding game balance and common sense physics. I think the best example of this is probably the Dalton. A big howitzer that lobs shells the size of a watermelon capable of doing devastating damage to a tank, but somehow leaving the infiltrator standing six feet away untouched just looks wrong. I understand why the devs changed the Dalton to what it is now and I approve, but wouldn't it make more sense to just make it appear that the Dalton fires something like a fin-stabilized discarding sabot? After all, those things are fired by some big guns and they'll go through just about any kind of armor, but they don't produce much in the way of shrapnel or a shockwave when they hit so it fits the role the Dalton (currently) fills. Another example of what I'm talking about is the damage the Vulcan (specifically the version mounted on the Harasser) does to vehicles vs the damage it does to infantry. The TRAC-5 kills the average infantry (i.e. non-infiltrator) with seven shots to the torso and does zero damage to all vehicles except ESFs, Harassers, and Valkaries. The Vulcan mounted on the Harasser does... well, a lot more damage to vehicles than the TRAC-5 shot-per-shot, but it requires the same number of shots to the torso to kill infantry as the TR stock carbine. TL;DR SOE, I believe you guys can do better than "because nanites". Feel free to add any examples of things that look/feel wrong you (forumsiders) can think of.
