I've never seen a nerf done correctly. Sometimes they nerf it too hard, the other times they don't nerf it nearly enough; think ZOE MAXes and AV MANA Turrets.
This reminds me of something ... World of Warcraft in beta (yes I was in that beta) very early on had a XP penalty if you were not rested. People totally hated and highly criticized the system, there was some serious ****storm going in those WoW beta forums about that topic. So much that Blizzard "removed" the system for a few weeks. But later reintroduced the EXACT same system under the label of an XP bonus for being rested, without adjusting any XP values to the prior system ... most of the guys were fooled ... and praised the system. The exact same system under a different label ... get's different opinions ... So if we buff EVERYTHING ... people would be more happy despite nothing changing.
If the only response to an overpowered weapon is to raise the power of other weapons to match it, then eventually we all end up with portable tactical nukes that kill everyone around us with the push of a button. How long does that stay fun?
What if you also buff health/armor/shield ... the game essentially stays "the same" but everything got buffed ... most people only read their own section of the patch notes.
"What else could you possibly use?" Like I said before: weapons perform per an immutable law of physics. Those physics don't change, and neither do the weapons- unless it is shown that the weapons don't perform per the physics. Then, the community comes together as solutions based instead of crying based. Your second paragraph is odd. You're actually defending your right to make and argue arbitrary judgements.
Good read. Comparing things to the rest of the gameplay is exactly the approach I take. What type of gameplay is PS2 trying to create and how does element X improve/hinder that and how does it compare to anything similar in-game? If people don't make a reasoned argument for an adjustment, then they may well just be complaining for the sake of it. However, I don't see how labeling everything whine and failing to make any counter argument even when reasons are put forward for a change is any better than those same "forum whiners". It's exactly the same problem, just pushing for the status quo instead. The PS2 forums do have some great discussion. You've just got to sift through the posts that don't add anything of value either way. Haha, nice!
Okay, now give me a method by which an immutable law could be applied to planetside balance and weapon performance. Remember, any such law would need to be imposed, and would not be innate, by virtue of the game being a virtual environment, and the creation of a conscious mind. I mean, if you want to get into the phenomenology of planetside, I can follow you there. Yes.
Not sure I understand what you mean, but check this: Assuming Auraxis and Earth physics are the same, a LMG Round has (purely arbitrary numbers for value of round and physical effect) 50 grain weight round, a powder charge of 75, and caliber of .45. Applied to our physical laws, this means that the round will do 167 points of damage over a maximum velocity range of 300m, the recoil will be .10 per round, and the weight of the ammo will limit the number of rounds carried to 350. Etc. Whatever the numbers, they never change. That is the point. It doesn't matter that the weapon does well or doesn't do well in game. It does what its supposed to do, now its time for the players to step up and do what they are supposed to do. That is much simplified. Here is a bit more detail regarding ballistic physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics If you're really interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant Yeah, this stuff is much more reliable than the latest JEM rant.
I understood what you meant by an immutable law in terms of physics. Let me try and explain what I was getting at. An LA85A2 assault rifle, and an airsoft replica LA85A2 assault rifle both exist in the same universe and are therefore subject to the same physical laws. The LA85A2 assault rifle fires a NATO 5.56 round (62gr, roughly 4grams) at 970m/s. The airsoft replica fires a pellet (3.08gr, 0.2grams) at about 120m/s. The LA85A2 assault rifle naturally has far heavier ammunition and a greater kick when it fires - as you would expect. The rate of fire between the two could be much the same, however the airsoft replica will have next to no kick and you'd be able to carry more ammo than would ever be necessary. The two both conform to the same laws of physics, however one of them has small plastic rounds that bounce off people - and the other does not. One is objectively speaking a better weapon than the other. In this case the differences are fairly extreme... However, if we make the differences far closer and within the same range of numbers, you still have objective differences with what makes the better weapon. However, your system takes no account of this and instead says "well they conform to the same laws of physics and are within a similar range of numbers... The laws of physics change for nobody. Deal with it." That is not a position you an take, if weapon A is a peashooter, and weapon B is a next gen assault rifle. You have to observe how they perform when being used.
Okay, let me try this again. 1.) What the are you talking about? First, you say that weapons are bound to do certain things by the game's engine. What you, for some reason, prefer to call "immutable law of physics". Okay. Then you say that those "physics" don't change. Unless the developers decide to change the game engine, but okay. Then you say that the weapons don't change unless they "don't perform per the physics". What do you mean? 2.) You do not understand the meaning of the word 'arbitrary'. Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. That is a system that is based on reason. It is not arbitrary. It would be arbitrary if I said "I think X overperforms because that's how I feel". Saying, "I think X overperforms because of -insert argument here-. The evidence for this exists in-game. Also, here are some performance statistics that further back up this argument." is NOT arbitrary. You seem to think that opinions can't be logical or objective. 3.) Okay, let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say there is a weapon that fires grenades. The weapon is supposed to fire grenades. If I understand your argument correctly, as long as it fires grenades it is fine. What the weapon does well/doesn't do well is unimportant. How it changes the way the game is played is unimportant. Everything about the weapon, beyond the mechanics of it, is unimportant. It doesn't matter if the weapon has a splash radius of 50m and deals 10k damage per shot. Am I correct?
That's when up-front balance (and faction specific) happens. Which position can be more easily discussed with a good chance of conclusion 1) Impact = grain + charge / range a) Don't be impacted b) Use of friendly troops clearing will help cut the chances of that down 2) Dude, I just killed thousands of derps with this gun. There must be a problem a) OMG, this gun kills me all the time, you're right! b) It is so annoying...
If I do not understand the word arbitrary, then how do I know that it applies for the value system you expound? Actually, the exact opposite. Read our criteria again; see how they differ. Which of the two opposing criterion has a better chance of never being the same thing twice? Why is that? Wrong.
And to do this you will need to monitor the stats generated through actual use of the weapon, listen to users' testimony on their experience, then nerf/buff based on the information gathered both in statistical form and the experience of users... This is the current system in place. Your idea, as rigorous and systematic as it may be, when actually applied to the game does not actually make any difference to the way in which nerfs and buffs are administered to weapons. It is therefore redundant. The odd thing is that now you're not discussing the value of nerfs and buffs as a concept, but rather discussing how they should be administered. That is why I stated before having this entire ocnversation with you, that this line of discussion was not relevant to the thread as a whole. The very fact we've swerved this far off topic stands testament to that. remember, this thread was a dude saying that "nerfing things is bad and buffing things is good". Having established that offensive and defensive capability have to be in line with one another, and that nerfing the offensive capability does not make the game "softer" and that instead it just puts emphasis on a different skill set, I think both you and I can agree that a nerf to something which is outright too good, is a positive for balance.
Explaining nice and clear since you do not appear to understand. There is a standard which kills enemies at 0.60sec point blank. To reduce that time, you need to sacrifice long range capabilities and vice-verse. Lets call the standard X. All weapons need to stay in line with that or at least as close as possible... A weapon that is under performing Weapon<X A weapon that is over performing Weapon > X Then Nerfs and buffs are attributed to make this: Weapon ~= X There are loads of exceptions though such as shotguns, vehicles and maxes. OR We could do it YOUR way. If weapon>X, in order to bring it in line we do this X+=Y giving the result of a high X aka better gun. At this point read other posts since they describe what happens then better then I can.
Question: How many people in this thread believe that balance alterations are made based entirely or mostly on forum-whining?
