Main > Gameplay
1.3.3 GUNS AND GUNNER SKILL BALANCE
Garou:
--- Quote from: Kriegson on October 29, 2013, 09:06:58 am ---Really now? If you're going to play Bf4 by all means do so, but not because of the theoretical uselessness of everything other than sniping against a handful of incredibly good snipers. Might want to actually play first and see how it pans out, maybe try some combinations you haven't before, who knows!
You don't have to justify playing some other game to us -_-
--- End quote ---
Look, do us a favor and follow the line of discussion before replying to it and making a ham fisted attempt to invalidate someone else's opinion. We're talking about the patch in regards to competitive play. That 'handful of incredibly good snipers' accounts for a solid portion of the teams currently engaged in the competitive scene. We are not talking about just hopping into pub matches and playing randoms.
If you have an opinion on the patch, by all means, please share your thoughts, but if you're going to try to tear down someone else's thoughts on the matter, at least have the courtesy to do it in context.
Kriegson:
@Garou
If I was quoting you or anyone else specifically, I would have done so, but after the third or so "I'm going to play Bf4 instead!" it gets a bit ridiculous. All I was saying is "If you're going to play another game, go ahead and do so for the enjoyment of the game, not in spite of a balance patch that you haven't even tested yet."
Metagame or not aside, you can stop acting like the game is ruined because of a handful of changes you haven't actually experienced yet. If you really consider yourself "The elite, Competitive group" then you can adapt your strategy to a few balancing tweaks.
So before invalidating someone's opinion and accusing them of not reading, you might actually want to read what they said and consider what their opinion actually was.
RearAdmiralZill:
Ill toss in the disclaimer that I haven't tried these changes out yet so I'm working off theory and just knowing what Muse is trying to do.
Rewind before the Hades was here. All we had was merc and gat for pierce. Anyone who was in the dev app knew this was a big stickler for awkm since changing either (kinda like flak/mortar) would change a lot of things.
Fast forward to now and you have fairly distinct methods here. Merc for your long range pierce, hades for mid-long, and gat for short. Options.
Just looking on paper, I think the gat could stand to have its old RoF back, just to balance out the other changes. Otherwise, I have to try out the range to get a feel for it.
Light flak needed a buff. It was rare to see it, since it was always outshined by the mortar. Again, need to try out the ranges to get a feel. I can't really complain about the mortar changes. Lesmok in them was just too simple. Now you really get that trade off, and you will probably want a gunner on it to change ammo for your range.
Carronades had it coming. Now one might think of lesmok over heavy, which balances their "long range."
Now to the complaints about short vs long. Idk. Need to play and see. It's easy to look at the changes and throw up your hands and say "MEH, LONG RANGE OP." In reality, it'll require more finesse to get close and utilize the short loadouts.
And before you quote me and try beating me with a "YOU'RE WRONG CHANGE IT BACK" stick, take a breath and think about your post.
Subarco:
This is a question for people in the competitive scene.
How do you propose to balance it so that brawling with gat/mort becomes viable once again among the upper tier teams, but not have it dominate the pub scene for the lower to mid tier teams?
Kriegson:
--- Quote from: Subarco on October 29, 2013, 10:34:31 am ---This is a question for people in the competitive scene.
How do you propose to balance it so that brawling with gat/mort becomes viable once again among the upper tier teams, but not have it dominate the pub scene for the lower to mid tier teams?
--- End quote ---
20 bucks says the response could be condensed into "Doesn't matter because they don't know how to play."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version