

Nerfwarrior Online
#1
Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:53 AM
#2
Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:54 AM

#4
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:01 AM
They aren't always warranted, but sometimes they are. Balance is critical. If you don't balance the game, you will have people get bored by the few really viable choices the game has to offer - anything that's not in need of a nerf will fall down by the wayside, a trap for noobs or maybe something for the premades that steamroll their enemies even if they just equiped only one small laser, essentially letting them add insult to injury. But for a competitive game, the underpowered or "not overpowered" stuff is ballast.
Some balance issues can be better solved by buffing other things. For example, the best way to balance the Gauss Rifle is to make high heat weapons like (ER, Pulse) LLs and (ER) PPCs more viable, for example.
But in other cases, some weaopns are just too effective, and trying to bring all the other weapons on that level will lead to rocket tag - e.g. an extremely fast paced game where everything is killed rapidly, a game that only few players will enjoy. And that doesn't just apply to weapons. ALso "counter-measures" to weapons can be like that - imagine LRMs being able to oneshot mechs - unless you equip an overpowered ECM or a AMS which completely neuters them.
#5
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:02 AM
Voridan Atreides, on 21 November 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:
Personally, I'm getting tired of hyperbole.
Voridan Atreides, on 21 November 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:
Why?
Voridan Atreides, on 21 November 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:
They are, if they're serious, objective and backed by arguments. Your post, in contrast, is more on the conservative side, which is kinda inappropriate for a Beta.
#6
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:03 AM

#7
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:03 AM
#8
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:05 AM
#9
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:06 AM
#10
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:07 AM
#11
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:09 AM
Incidentally, stats are not king. I was just musing about how I've seen really skilled MW3 players using 'sub optimal' guns to eradicate teams. Example - the G36 is just 'not as good' as the ACR 6.8, but I've seen some decently-ranked players destroy teams endlessly with the G36.
"Have faith in your wargear." It may not be a space marine bolter - it may just be a lasgun. If you learn it, and master it, you will prosper.
But, again, the bolter is just better and neither gun is ever going to 'balance' against the other.
#12
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:14 AM
Nerf my OP GF !!!

Edited by Nuclear Weapon, 21 November 2012 - 08:14 AM.
#13
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:14 AM
Why you ask? Do you know ANYTHING about battletech?
Edited by Voridan Atreides, 21 November 2012 - 08:15 AM.
#14
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:23 AM
Vermaxx, on 21 November 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:
Incidentally, stats are not king. I was just musing about how I've seen really skilled MW3 players using 'sub optimal' guns to eradicate teams. Example - the G36 is just 'not as good' as the ACR 6.8, but I've seen some decently-ranked players destroy teams endlessly with the G36.
Comparing this to standard FPS games in terms of weapon balance is just stupid. You have Ammo, size, weight, and heat concerns that don't even exist in those games. Considering how much less they have to balance and the amount of money people throw at them, it still amazes me that weapon balance sucks in most CoD games.
#15
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:26 AM
Voridan Atreides, on 21 November 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:
When I am in a fully armored Cataphract and two volleys from a LRM15 headshots me, something is wrong. When a Cat with Six SSRM2s cant miss and cores my cataphract in less than 10 seconds, something is wrong. I dont mind lrm and srm boats, but when you make them hit 100% and make LRM's able to headshot with only two volleys, something is really really wrong.
#16
Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:49 AM

1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users