..... to your preferred playstyle.
Those 4 words really broke the quote lenght or something?
The Fer de lance dilemma and ships pricing
- Thread starter Marcus Franconium
- Start date
..... to your preferred playstyle.
Those 4 words really broke the quote lenght or something?
It's irrelevant. Everything should be balanced around every playstyle. If the FDL was the best miner, say, that would be wrong regardless of "preferred playstyle"
I ask again, how does giving up on balancing solve anything?
PvP balance and PvE balance aren't mutually exclusive and smart decisions can be made to make ships better at PvE when more expensive while not being oppressive in PvP
Last edited:
Goose4291
Banned
Not as much as they need a speed buff.
Maneuverability doesn't count for anything when your fighting some one who can open the throttle to get out of turn war with you, before mass locking and dominating at a range you can't close.
Or maybe read my entire post about why the nerf, buff cycle is doomed to failure?
According to you the FDL was balanced. According to other people it was not. And according to Frontier it was not but for other reasons that nobody expected. Now people want it nerfed because of PvP notions and others still want its jump range buffed because of PvE... *shrugs* never ends.
Give the player a fine tuning mechanic and let them be in charge of what to buff and what to nerf about their own personal ship (PvP, PvE, everybody has choices). Someone's ship is too OP you say? Tune your ship to exploit their weakness (i.e. what they had to sacrifice) and voila! Balance-sssssss.
Should have named the thread the Fer de Lemma
Yea, nice idea on paper.
Been tried since '98 or something by countless developers. I think I mentioned about 3 bazillion times (not counting) that open world PvP is a stupid concept. ^^
Well, the cutter is oppressive in trading. No idea how they're gonna balance that .. with PvP.
Yeah, specifically FA-OFF reverse needs a looking at. Reversing at 300m/s is broken
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Too bad that this is an open world game with PvP elements
giving up is not an option, it's a core part of elite, if you can't accept that, this isn't the game for youIt's not oppressive in trading because trading is a profession that is about progression. So the cutter is balanced by its cost
I'm not against price=earning power for professions, it's price = raw PvP ability that is not what elite is built around and needs to change
(are you seriously suggesting there are no good games with PvE and PvP elements??)
Top 10 games on steam right now:
Dota 2
CS:GO
DS III
TF2
The Division
GTAV
FM2016
ARK
GMod
Warframe
Games involving some degree of PvP: 10/10
Games involving PvE and PvP elements: 9/10
Games involving open world PvE and PvP elements: 5/10 (IE Every open world game)
Plus no. 11 is Rust, the epitome of an Open world game with heavy PvP and PvE elements
Last edited:
I agree like 90% Alexander but really all of those games were designed with PvP from the get go and they don't really mix elements, dark souls and the division both have just as many people complaining about invaders/unwanted pvp as here on the ED forums, GTA 5 should be the same but honestly is so chaotic anyway that nobody really cares that theres always a rumble going on in town.
Its a horses and zebras argument right? PvP games are the most replayable, thats why they are on the top of the list but a direct mixture of PvP and PvE elements almost never occurs, they tend to be lumped together with a filter for server etc.
Do any of those on the list allow forced PvP when your doing your PvE? I think only Ark & Darksouls come under that category, some might with various caveats, that is what your looking for as a comparison for if its stupid to mix them or not.
I think it can be handled correctly but you have to encourage a certain playerbase in the first place and then work from there. I'm currently playing black desert online and it has all the same problems you get in a single server system there are hundreds of threads a day asking for pve flags etc despite it being marketed quite heavily as a pvp game.
Its a horses and zebras argument right? PvP games are the most replayable, thats why they are on the top of the list but a direct mixture of PvP and PvE elements almost never occurs, they tend to be lumped together with a filter for server etc.
Do any of those on the list allow forced PvP when your doing your PvE? I think only Ark & Darksouls come under that category, some might with various caveats, that is what your looking for as a comparison for if its stupid to mix them or not.
I think it can be handled correctly but you have to encourage a certain playerbase in the first place and then work from there. I'm currently playing black desert online and it has all the same problems you get in a single server system there are hundreds of threads a day asking for pve flags etc despite it being marketed quite heavily as a pvp game.
Last edited:
it's really hard to get your point accross to people that dont know balance, thats why i dont bother d:
No idea what top 10 rankings have to do with quality (are you seriously suggesting you listen to some billboard top 10?), but of those games, I only consider TF2 to be actually good - which - surprise, surprise is the one game without "PvE elements". (which also had very little balancing issues in a pretty long time)
The others? No idea how balanced they are. Probably the same buff-nerf-buff-nerf-whine-rebuff cycle we've seen since 1998. If a pendulum is your idea of "balance" .. yea, I guess they are "balanced".
Didn't play Dota, but it's more popular counterpart LoL had a balance buff like every 2 weeks. buff-nerf-buff-nerf .. especially "jungle items" (which was the most "PvE" activity you could do there, however it's not PvE like ABA trading in ED .. you compete directly with your opponent over who PvEs faster .. so PvEvP .. and the runed glaive midlane Ezrael .. muh).
Last edited:
If you think balance is a pendulum its because you've never played a game where the developer actually knows how to balance (or don't notice)
Buff/Nerf does constantly happen whatever the case because things change, its an ideal that is striven for not a super tangible target
TF2 has had hundreds of buffs/nerfs they do it constantly, almost everytime they introduced a weapon set it created all sorts of imbalances.
Just take an ED example, if the Python hadn't been nerfed it would still literally invalidate 75% of the ships in game, in a single player game you can afford to leave things like that (though people still tend to complain about them) but in any game with multiplayer elements things have to be more tightly controlled to keep the experience fun.
Buff/Nerf does constantly happen whatever the case because things change, its an ideal that is striven for not a super tangible target
TF2 has had hundreds of buffs/nerfs they do it constantly, almost everytime they introduced a weapon set it created all sorts of imbalances.
Just take an ED example, if the Python hadn't been nerfed it would still literally invalidate 75% of the ships in game, in a single player game you can afford to leave things like that (though people still tend to complain about them) but in any game with multiplayer elements things have to be more tightly controlled to keep the experience fun.
Last edited:
If you think balance is a pendulum its because you've never played a game where the developer actually knows how to balance (or don't notice)
Buff/Nerf does constantly happen whatever the case because things change, its an ideal that is striven for not a super tangible target
TF2 has had hundreds of buffs/nerfs they do it constantly, almost everytime they introduced a weapon set it created all sorts of imbalances.
Just take an ED example, if the Python hadn't been nerfed it would still literally invalidate 75% of the ships in game, in a single player game you can afford to leave things like that (though people still tend to complain about them) but in any game with multiplayer elements things have to be more tightly controlled to keep the experience fun.
What would that miraculous game from that miraculous developer be?
Maybe all other developers should hire them to bring balance to the force.
I mentioned TF2 .. pretty well balanced classes .. each with it's unique skillsets - just non really on a 1vs1 level. It's team fortress after all ^^
Its pretty well balanced because they constantly balance it! thats the point lol
Do they? I log in every month or three for a round of pewpew and I haven't seen a single patch in .. forever.
Coming back to the FDL.
That thing offers little enough improvement over a FAS in hourly credit gains, which in turn offers little enough improvement over the Vulture. And all of them are dwarfed by trade and multirole ships.
No idea why any of those combat ships should be taken out of the ship progression and "balanced for PvP" (whatever THAT is supposed to be? should it have weaker weapons than a T7 has shields?) when there's a whole PvP mode with balanced ships and in the actual game, you can decide what gun you bring to the gunfight.
If the opponents are too boring .. haven't seen a vulture yet in those PvP events. I did see a DBX in the buckyball racing results, though. Guess the multi-time winner got bored with the cobra.
There was a minor balance patch only 2 weeks ago, https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Patches for its patch history
Good games require balancing its a fact that whenever you add a new feature/ship/weapon etc to a game sometimes it will have unforeseen consequences.
I'm not sure i'd start with the FDL but the idea that balancing = bad is awful :/ its an extremely important part of game design, argue for or against with good reasoning behind it.
Last edited:
There was a minor balance patch only 2 weeks ago, https://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Patches for its patch history
Good games require balancing its a fact that whenever you add a new feature/ship/weapon etc to a game sometimes it will have unforeseen consequences.
Yea, the last balancing patch was for some new gamemode they added 2015 it seems.
If new things get added, they need to be balanced - in that regard, the T7 might be a bit weak.
Balancing is not bad. Never said that.
Balancing around a single aspect is, in a multi aspect game (and having too many aspects in a game is still a stupid idea .. balance wise .. basically fryingpan-fire-hell-fryingpan,butnowitfeelscool
).Plus we do not have the slightest clue how the engineers are going to work and what they bring to the game, so not swinging the nerf hammer right now or even considering a rework of the ships might not be the worst idea. Then again .. some people are unhappy with "trade offs" and prefer straight up buffs, if they invest the time - even though trade offs are kinda what keeps that many ships valid for such a long time.
Last edited: