Dimento Graven, on 17 February 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:
We have to objectively look at the entire system to judge the balance, not just focus on ONE set of numbers. That myopic view point is what got us to where we are now...
ding ding ding
When you "balance" an entire weapon system based on how it performed in one singular chassis...
well, sorry that's simply not balance. That's not how anyone wanting good balance in ANYthing balances.
It would be like this
@=$
$=@
But, when @ is placed inside ()
(@)>$
so let's adjust @ based on that
now (@)=$
but now
@<$
In other words, @ is equal to $ in terms of balance. Once @ is placed inside of () though, it becomes greater than $, but only in that instance.
So now if you balance it in a vacuum and only based on how @ is balanced in regards to that one example, you wind up with a weapon that's sub-par in everything BUT that one particular instance.
Which is why you don't balance weapon systems based on things like this.