Before asking for things to be buffed/nerfed please consider this...
- Thread starter Hell Razor5543
- Start date
I would just carry ths god weapon like an extra scb - in module off state and thus avoid all repercussions OP put as balanced.
then when needed, one shot somone or as OP stated since it takes two shots at most but lots of consequences after firing, just fire once to mostly devastate my opponent, module off the god weapon, and then use conventional weapons to finish off my crippled opponent.
there would then be cries of nerf to either this supposedly balanced weapon, or nerf ability to instantly enable/disable modules to gain/lose the abilities and consequences of those modules (e.g. Power draw of scb at zero in off state
then there would outcries of nerf people calling for nerfs, and kittens would die in droves.
for as long as people have been designing things, equally creative people come up with workarounds. There is no true balance and hence playstyle is not the core inflection point upon which this issue can be simply laid.
then when needed, one shot somone or as OP stated since it takes two shots at most but lots of consequences after firing, just fire once to mostly devastate my opponent, module off the god weapon, and then use conventional weapons to finish off my crippled opponent.
there would then be cries of nerf to either this supposedly balanced weapon, or nerf ability to instantly enable/disable modules to gain/lose the abilities and consequences of those modules (e.g. Power draw of scb at zero in off state
then there would outcries of nerf people calling for nerfs, and kittens would die in droves.
for as long as people have been designing things, equally creative people come up with workarounds. There is no true balance and hence playstyle is not the core inflection point upon which this issue can be simply laid.
To all that have repped me, thanks. I appreciate all the of the comments, and I did know that when I popped in "The Iron God Killer" it might provoke the wrong reaction (from people who had misunderstood what I was asking).
For those who want to see what it looked like, this is "The Iron God Killer";
TL;DR
Without possibly derailing the thread ill keep it short and vague. There are certain modules that have been tested and proven to be out of balance and are currently relied upon too much. There are weapons that are in the game that shoot the most expensive guided pillows ever. There are weapons that are not balanced enough to warrant an ammo cap raise.... so in the end the weapon is more of a short term gimmick when one gets bored of lasers.
The game needs more nerfing and buffing. Once i start seeing people post videos and fits all varying from hardpoints and internals for PvP and doing well in them then you can start defending Elite. But as far as i can see the Meta is too simple and is already figured out before FD makes any changes. Ive said it many times, if it wasnt for PvP the game would be funner and the weapons would be more diverse and entertaining.
Without possibly derailing the thread ill keep it short and vague. There are certain modules that have been tested and proven to be out of balance and are currently relied upon too much. There are weapons that are in the game that shoot the most expensive guided pillows ever. There are weapons that are not balanced enough to warrant an ammo cap raise.... so in the end the weapon is more of a short term gimmick when one gets bored of lasers.
The game needs more nerfing and buffing. Once i start seeing people post videos and fits all varying from hardpoints and internals for PvP and doing well in them then you can start defending Elite. But as far as i can see the Meta is too simple and is already figured out before FD makes any changes. Ive said it many times, if it wasnt for PvP the game would be funner and the weapons would be more diverse and entertaining.
Last edited:
Very good points there, I agree the game is balanced and all people have to do is to change the way they play, things are already setup so that players have to choose what to have on their ships, no weapon or shield is either too powerful or too weak, equipments and ships reflect their class and price which is how it is supposed to be.
I think people usually ask to nerf or buff stuff to fulfill their own personal agenda not cause they think the game is unbalanced, they lose so they ask for changes, they can't beat a Python with their Volture or Clipper, they ask for Python to be nerfed, they don't try to change the way they play or try to buy a better ship, all they want is for FD to make it easy for them to beat that Python with what they have.
So you are assuming the developers of the game are blindly applying stats to weapons/ships/modules without looking at the bigger picture or future plans?
Get real - if the devs had to examine every single thread demanding a change they would need a team of thousands
What a load of nonsence - just play the game as it is or dont!
I am sure nobody has a gun to your head making you play!
I have been reading through this thread. I accept that there are occasions when FDev have got things wrong (Super Powered NPC killing machines is one example that comes to mind), and when they have (and realised it) they have corrected the problems (OK, some things take longer than others). However, now ships have a far greater flexibility with what can be done with and to them, and so it should be easier for Players to produce a configuration that is more suited to their style of play. It is very simple (using Google and searching on the forum) to see what ship configurations are available, and all of the stats.
So, once again, I will ask you "Is it possible that your style of play is at fault?" before you ask for something to be buffed/nerfed.
So, once again, I will ask you "Is it possible that your style of play is at fault?" before you ask for something to be buffed/nerfed.
That's an impossible suggestion. Every game needs a form of balance, even single player games. Every game designer, at some point, has to input numbers into their game, and every number you put in is a balance decision, which directly impacts how much interest your game will manage to generate for players. Those numbers you can rarely get right on the first try, so at some point you have to buff or nerf something because you got things wrong.
What you described in your long winded description was, in fact, the way a weapon is balanced. But there is much more to weapons balancing than the good/bad effects. What does the weapon bring to the game? How does it improve gameplay, and most importantly, how will the players use it?
For instance, in Battlefield 3 they introduce a surveillance drone to allow the recon class to spot enemies. All fine and dandy until someone figured out you could get on the thing and ride it to the top of a building that was otherwise inaccessible. It was very difficult to shoot the player on top of the building with a standard gun so they could sit up there for the whole round and kill with relative immunity and change the course of the round. This was an exploit and needed to be fixed but there are many other smaller things that players figure out that need to be adjusted or the game mutates into something altogether different than what it was designed for or it will play havoc any continuing development . Think about the UA bombing of a community goal... You can argue that FD was right/wrong to intercede, but it was clear that they never intended for that to happen nor did they imagine what a few enterprising players could creatively do with the UA bombing. In hindsight, you can see how easy it was to disrupt the game but it is not necessarily so when designing it and testing it.
The mythical gun you dreamed up would be like an "I win" button for the player that got it. You think the cost of the gun would make it rare, but we have already seen players who did the grind to get the engineering stuff quickly to upgrade their weapons to use in PvP and use them to overpower weaker player at their pleasure so they would do the same with this. How would you like to come up against a wing with these weapons? Would the community goal station simply vanish because a wing of opposing players showed up and blew up the station? Would, instead of boycotting the engineer bases, they just destroy them? And even if they were not used, how do you balance a relatively new player in an Adder from getting one shotted all the time?
Game balance also includes how the game plays across the different skill levels of the game, not just ships or weapons. The experience that a player has is necessarily less challenging when they are new to the game, but it can't be vastly different than the one he has as he progresses.
The other considerations are also cheats... A gun like that would be highly desirable for cheaters much like the reward for a 26 killstreak was back in COD Modern Warfare 2... Get a 26 killstreak and you get the nuclear weapon... That kills everyone at the same time and you win the round! I can't tell you how many rounds were won and the winner only had 26 kills...
Again, weapons balancing is but one aspect of the game and balancing has to take place constantly to keep the from getting out of hand. That all said, yeah I don't like it either, but I've seen worse examples of it in other games and I don't feel they've done too badly here. Engineered weapons are going to be a problem and they will require more balancing than we've seen to date or we will see the game morph into something completely different that what it is now.
For instance, in Battlefield 3 they introduce a surveillance drone to allow the recon class to spot enemies. All fine and dandy until someone figured out you could get on the thing and ride it to the top of a building that was otherwise inaccessible. It was very difficult to shoot the player on top of the building with a standard gun so they could sit up there for the whole round and kill with relative immunity and change the course of the round. This was an exploit and needed to be fixed but there are many other smaller things that players figure out that need to be adjusted or the game mutates into something altogether different than what it was designed for or it will play havoc any continuing development . Think about the UA bombing of a community goal... You can argue that FD was right/wrong to intercede, but it was clear that they never intended for that to happen nor did they imagine what a few enterprising players could creatively do with the UA bombing. In hindsight, you can see how easy it was to disrupt the game but it is not necessarily so when designing it and testing it.
The mythical gun you dreamed up would be like an "I win" button for the player that got it. You think the cost of the gun would make it rare, but we have already seen players who did the grind to get the engineering stuff quickly to upgrade their weapons to use in PvP and use them to overpower weaker player at their pleasure so they would do the same with this. How would you like to come up against a wing with these weapons? Would the community goal station simply vanish because a wing of opposing players showed up and blew up the station? Would, instead of boycotting the engineer bases, they just destroy them? And even if they were not used, how do you balance a relatively new player in an Adder from getting one shotted all the time?
Game balance also includes how the game plays across the different skill levels of the game, not just ships or weapons. The experience that a player has is necessarily less challenging when they are new to the game, but it can't be vastly different than the one he has as he progresses.
The other considerations are also cheats... A gun like that would be highly desirable for cheaters much like the reward for a 26 killstreak was back in COD Modern Warfare 2... Get a 26 killstreak and you get the nuclear weapon... That kills everyone at the same time and you win the round! I can't tell you how many rounds were won and the winner only had 26 kills...
Again, weapons balancing is but one aspect of the game and balancing has to take place constantly to keep the from getting out of hand. That all said, yeah I don't like it either, but I've seen worse examples of it in other games and I don't feel they've done too badly here. Engineered weapons are going to be a problem and they will require more balancing than we've seen to date or we will see the game morph into something completely different that what it is now.
You are right of course, and this is why things are changed. The point is that it's not the players it's the changes that create problems. For example instead of giving the FDL a larger PP in response to the cheaper (but rank locked) FAS outgunning it, they could have corrected the FAS. Or they could have just left the FDL alone and we would not have the heat issues & changes we now have. There are many other examples, I'm sure you are familiar with plenty too
