<!--quoteo(post=1836297:date=Mar 7 2011, 10:28 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Mar 7 2011, 10:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1836297"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What the hell? It's like, you completely misread my post to the point where you think I said the opposite of what I said, then disagreed with the opposite of what I said. ??? I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to that.
Either that or I'm misreading what you're saying because it's not very clear.
Edit: Nope, judging by your exo comment, clearly you've done some selective skim-reading. I don't blame you, it was very tl;'dr.
Let's go back. Recap. Here's what I'm saying: 1. Fix current things now - FIX features CODE-WISE, NOT just balance NUMBERS; add new features later, refine before adding new features, don't just lump them all together; you can balance numbers as you go easily. This confusion between current function and intended (final) function, leads to all these balance complaints. For example? Death-ray flamethrower. They prematurely nerfed it, then to balance the nerf, added some adrenaline-inhibiting gimmick. 2. Higher tier/cost weapons/classes <u>should not be</u> <b>significantly</b> stronger than lower tier/cost weapons - by extension, lower tier/cost weapons should never be worthless, useless or obsolete. Though this works from an RTS perspective, it isn't very fun from an FPS perspective. Case in point, the shotgun. 3. Following on from point 2, rock-paper-scissors mechanics in general, at least on the ground level (FPS perspective), should be discouraged. Failing that, the option to gtfo of there if you do see a rock to your scissors should always be there. However, this is not really fun for rock or scissors, so try to avoid this anyway. 4. CURRENTLY, using the flamethrower as an example, higher tier weapons are just some support gimmick. This is done to account for point 2. But, this is bad. I want variety. I want the flamethrower to be a viable, skilful weapon (failing the addition of another weapon like the HMG), and not merely some alien-gardening tool that prunes adrenaline in a shower of flame and clears away DI weeds. 5. Following on from point 4, this game needs more variety. The exo (with pick-any-two: minigun, claw and railgun) might provide that variety, but should necessarily have to be more frequent (lower cost, lower requirements) to be considered viable (from an add-variety perspective). This is not necessarily a bad thing. Choosable weapon upgrades(!) might provide that variety. Regardless, considering hte cost, the flamethrower should be a weapon at least as effective as the other two, rather than have some adren-drain gimmick.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misread what I was saying there. I didn't type it properly; bad English. I meant that I disagree with the Idea itself, I do not disagree with you.
And I agree with most of the things you said there, if not all of them. All of them are very good points. In my opinion the shotgun should have a damage decrease.
Shotgun damage is 200 max damage (20 damage per pellet. 10 pellets... I think) The shotgun damage should be decreased to at least 150 max damage (15 damage per pellet. 10 pellets) I think the shotgun damage should be decreased to a minimum of 100 max damage (10 damage per pellet. 10 pellets.... Same amount of damage as 1 rifle bullet)
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Nex Carnifex)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nex Carnifex)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Do you think there was a ton of nerfing and boosting in NS1? NO!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, why did you remove this post? Secondary, NS1 is still unbalanced as the game is <b><i><u>ONLY</u></i></b> fair when it is 6v6. If there are <b>less then the Aliens will dominate</b> and if there is <b>more then the Marines will dominate</b>.
Comments
???
I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to that.
Either that or I'm misreading what you're saying because it's not very clear.
Edit: Nope, judging by your exo comment, clearly you've done some selective skim-reading. I don't blame you, it was very tl;'dr.
Let's go back. Recap. Here's what I'm saying:
1. Fix current things now - FIX features CODE-WISE, NOT just balance NUMBERS; add new features later, refine before adding new features, don't just lump them all together; you can balance numbers as you go easily. This confusion between current function and intended (final) function, leads to all these balance complaints. For example? Death-ray flamethrower. They prematurely nerfed it, then to balance the nerf, added some adrenaline-inhibiting gimmick.
2. Higher tier/cost weapons/classes <u>should not be</u> <b>significantly</b> stronger than lower tier/cost weapons - by extension, lower tier/cost weapons should never be worthless, useless or obsolete. Though this works from an RTS perspective, it isn't very fun from an FPS perspective. Case in point, the shotgun.
3. Following on from point 2, rock-paper-scissors mechanics in general, at least on the ground level (FPS perspective), should be discouraged. Failing that, the option to gtfo of there if you do see a rock to your scissors should always be there. However, this is not really fun for rock or scissors, so try to avoid this anyway.
4. CURRENTLY, using the flamethrower as an example, higher tier weapons are just some support gimmick. This is done to account for point 2. But, this is bad. I want variety. I want the flamethrower to be a viable, skilful weapon (failing the addition of another weapon like the HMG), and not merely some alien-gardening tool that prunes adrenaline in a shower of flame and clears away DI weeds.
5. Following on from point 4, this game needs more variety. The exo (with pick-any-two: minigun, claw and railgun) might provide that variety, but should necessarily have to be more frequent (lower cost, lower requirements) to be considered viable (from an add-variety perspective). This is not necessarily a bad thing. Choosable weapon upgrades(!) might provide that variety. Regardless, considering hte cost, the flamethrower should be a weapon at least as effective as the other two, rather than have some adren-drain gimmick.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misread what I was saying there. I didn't type it properly; bad English. I meant that I disagree with the Idea itself, I do not disagree with you.
And I agree with most of the things you said there, if not all of them. All of them are very good points.
In my opinion the shotgun should have a damage decrease.
Shotgun damage is 200 max damage (20 damage per pellet. 10 pellets... I think)
The shotgun damage should be decreased to at least 150 max damage (15 damage per pellet. 10 pellets)
I think the shotgun damage should be decreased to a minimum of 100 max damage (10 damage per pellet. 10 pellets.... Same amount of damage as 1 rifle bullet)
Firstly, why did you remove this post?
Secondary, NS1 is still unbalanced as the game is <b><i><u>ONLY</u></i></b> fair when it is 6v6. If there are <b>less then the Aliens will dominate</b> and if there is <b>more then the Marines will dominate</b>.