neteng101 wrote...
We might have to agree to disagree, but I'll attempt to explain one more time.
Choice and preparation is important... to allow for this, you need 3 buckets... not so good, decent, and good. If you put everything into the same bucket and make all powers/weapons equally effective, then preparation doesn't matter anymore. I don't think I've ever said of a "best weapon in each category" but having great weapons in each category is a good thing. If we followed your suggestion, the greats will be reduced to mediocrity.
Choice and preparation is important as I've said... again, part of choice involves having the ability to play the game in different ways. Playing a less viable build/weapon/power at a higher difficulty level is a greater challenge, it leads to variety. When you make these equal to all the rest, then it doesn't matter anymore, you're removing variety/choice... it leads to sameness at that point, ie. the game will just become boring.
I'm beginning to understand, but I still feel that your point is wrong. First, how does equality in effectiveness turn into flat equality? Think of the Valiant vs the Indra. Their DPS levels are almost identical, yet they are two inherently different weapons. The Indra rewards the player who can maintain aim on the opponent's head for a sustained period. Its difficulty in that regard is balanced by the fact that its rate of fire triggers ammo powers frequently. Now think of the Valiant. Its rate of fire means its less of a disaster to miss a crucial headshot, at the cost of lower damage than your traditional snipers. These weapons have different strengths for different playstyles. Their checks on eachother just balance out. The only variable is the man behind the scope: can he handle sustained aim, or does he go for the quick strikes of the Valiant?
The weapon's stats aren't the only thing we judge in its effectivness. These weapons are designed to play towards different strengths which is something you're leaving out. Why shouldnt the player who can handle the Incisor's kick be rewarded for that work? Why should he have to snipe in the exact same way everyone else does? I think if we balance weapons like this, then people will have to look beyond a stats sheet when they choose their loadout, . That's something that can't be read on a guide or a forum
Rarity can be a relative metric, and in that sense, you get more Ultra-Rares that are special/unique than you do Commons. Does not mean that there can't be some duds/weakers in each rarity level though... that's the problem when you think of everything in absolute terms... again, 3 buckets, as long as nothing is terrible or ungodly, then you do have balance. If there's not enough options in one bucket, we could shift things around.
I'm not saying there can't either. The Widow is, for all intents and purposes, a straight upgrade to the Mantis. It invalidates it. But I don't feel that the Mantis needs a buff: its a Common starter weapon. And there are terrible weapons. Maybe I'm a bit skewed here, but a terrible weapon to me is one that doesn't reward you properly for the work you put into it. I can keep an Eagle on a targets face all day, but in the end I'll be rewarded more for keeping a Tempest on that enemy's face.
As far as standard builds go - no two people play the same way. You can take a widely accepted build but it will still not work for some. Someone can make a less viable build work better, and get great satisfaction in the process of doing that. It just shows one dimensional thinking that goes on here that people cannot comprehend that they don't have to play the same build as everyone else all the time. For those that do, there are rewards that come for having this choice be a relevant factor.
But that's what you're asking for. Making the lines of weapon effectiveness more clear only add to that mindset. When the Indra first dropped, I remember seeing thread after thread of "Lol the Indra isn't worth the Ultra-Rare stamp". The Indra's DPS rival the BW's and the Valiant's. Now if all three have the same DPS, how do you pick? Yes, you pick to which ever one plays to YOUR strengths best. That's a meaningful choice. How is that one-dimensional?
Bioware's past fixes are pretty much in line with stuff people whine about constantly. Sure they fix it in all the wrong ways, like the matchmaker... but the causes of their misguided attempts are attrituble to stuff people complain about. Like FBWGG farmers. Like gold players complaining of noobs in their lobbies blowing games. And so on. The medicine/fix is often not something anyone ones. Be wise - stop complaining about everything. Unless something is really really broken (like that horrible new matchmaking system).
Or how about you demand less band-aids and more actual fixes? Nothing is ever going to get done about it if you sit there and take everything BioWare does.
Retour en haut
