|
Post by carnage on Mar 16, 2017 4:03:34 GMT -5
Anyway... I think this horse is dead enough. I'll stop beating it... for now. Andunedhel, you go ahead and get the last word in. It seems to me you are adding more power-speed tradeoff examples, but anyway, I'm not so much interested in having the last word on the Gary issue. Just sad that no one said a word about the attempt of having an objective grading system, based on something tangible, that I put forward, which would had been in the actual topic of the thread tho :/ Oh well, flames beat excells, I guess. I feel responsible too since I gave more attention to a guy trolling me instead of actually answering to people bringing relevant messages to the discussion. Sorry for that.
But there are been some very interesting posts around, including yours. It is very hard of course to have a really complete calculation that would reflect the field, even though like all numbers, they can always give some indications *if* used properly. I found your table very interesting indeed even if of course that would need some tweeks and additional work. Anyway thanks for your messages, they were certainly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by AηɗυηєɗнєƖ [ǀƬA] on Mar 16, 2017 5:32:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by carnage on Mar 16, 2017 7:05:07 GMT -5
I really appreciate this post so I want to point out some things to op. 1. If price exactly reflected value, then it would b pointless to buy cheaper bots. Everyone would just save up for the most expensive bots and skip the rest bc under your system, more expensive='better.' Then people would b purchasing fewer bots and that's not good for pix. I'm pretty sure the prices r scattered everywhere to keep players at every level constantly making purchases from beginning to end. Does that make sense? U also need to consider that the whole point of the gameplay design is that theoretically ever single bot and weapon has a place in a balanced hangar- let noobies in w cheaper stuff, force top level people to pay big to get the balance they need... BUT all the while, even if u r top tier, u still have to buy some of the cheaper things bc it's about balance and synergy, not just one build beats all. Basically my response to your post is, prices aren't SUPPOSED to reflect performance per se. They are supposed to b structured in a way that u r motivated to constantly b making purchases. 2. I hope u don't think I'm a 'don't touch anything' hater lol but u do actually need to take a chill pill regarding all the nerfs/buffs. The updates on weapon and bot strength is based on statistics. Not people saying 'omg that bot/weapon is annoying, therefore nerf it/I wish this bot was more useful, so it should b buffed.' If it's true that one bot or weapon is better than others, it comes out in the averages and it's simply that data that shows the need for changes. I found your post interesting, so I’ll add to that.
The reality is that the current price structure is a commercial structure. It is not a balanced nor it is a fair structure and that is totally on purpose from Pix. I personally understand it, I’d actually do the same in many ways. Let’s take the example of the Gepard : only Pix can have stats on how many Gepard are currently sitting in hangars. Probably hundreds, or even thousands. It makes total sense for them when they created the Gareth to make them to become as numerous as Geps into the game. For commercial purposes first, and for diversity also. The only way to do that was to make it significantly better than the Gepard for people to buy Gareths instead of Gepards, and that’s exactly what happened. Maybe they went a bit too far by making the Gareth even faster than the Gep because the shield was already a major advantage but whatever, long term, one day will come when Gareths will be just as numerous as Gepards into the game, and it is exactly at that point that it could make sense to balance things out and make both of them fair going forward. To do that, you have only two choices, which are tweeking prices, or abilities. Probably a little bit of both. If you don't do that, you are at risk of seeing robots being abandoned all together, and that is not at all a good thing for the game.
Thing is, people are afraid (not to say hostile) of the word buf or nerf. I don’t know the historic here, I only started playing in January. What I know for sure though is that long term, adjustments are a part of a balanced game. It is like everything though, the key is to be reasonable and having a fair balance. If you tweek robots every month, something is wrong. Now if you tweek one or two robots once in a while for very specific reasons, it can make sense however.
Keeping that in mind, I am not advocating to change anything now, exactly for the reasons stated above. Sure, there are currently some unbalances I find odd, sometimes even ridiculous. A light which is not only faster, but also stronger in pure fighting abilities than a heavy bot, it doesn't make sense to me. Having said that I fully understand that some of the very key criteria which should drive the decisions are ultimately known only by Pix like typically, the number of robots into the game. That is exactly why the aim of this thread is not to change things right now, but just to discuss overall values and status or robots with the community. Discrepancies are really obvious so I think it should be possible to discuss those without some of the knee-jerk reactions that we can see sometimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 20:51:27 GMT -5
I totally agree with it, except I think natash should haev a speed buff,the boa should be more expensive becasue the boa is great, and the carnage should have more health as it is underpowered on health. The raijin also needs some kind of buff as it is not as good as the rhino. Also griff and leo should be both more expensive than nat becuase it is underpowerd.
p.s my name is so similar to yours. (I didnt copy, i just also really like the Carnage)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Karma:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2017 4:35:06 GMT -5
Putting those things aside, you must also put aside the dumbfounded argument of "it exceeds its current class". The argument that light bots should stand no chance against heavy bots is idiotic. Why are light bots in the game, then? What's the point of having 2/3 of the bots in the game being useless? You're suggesting nerfing a bot that doesn't even compete against skilled pilots in heavy bots unless you're extremely skilled at using it. In the overall scheme of the game, the Gareth is completely uncompetitive in the top tiers against heavy bots. And your only argument, literally, is that it's better than the other light bots. In the previous MM the Gareth was already stealth nerfed due to the league restriction on it. It's why the geptards went full geptard. Seems Pix thought it needed a nerf under the old MM. As to the current MM it hasn't been adjusted to fit in. Gepards are a rare breed, and for a good reason. Now, they suck. As to completely uncompetitive, you yourself created a thread or post (I forget which) exclaiming about how TT players were now using the Gareth - so it must be the best! As is, I rarely see them, Silver III. Likely due to cost. Why get a Gareth when you're half way to a Galahad. Generally, when I do see them, they either a, don't stay around long, or b, piloted well, but get little in damage - depending on the map. As to why light bots are there, my opinion is that they were intended as learning bots on your way up to the medium, then heavy bots. Thinking of the old league restrictions. Buy a griff, off to Silver you go. Buy a Leo, bronze is ok - but watch your level.
|
|