Don't use it then. Why taking options from other players?Some people enjoy optimizing gameplay. The existence of blatantly overpowered stuff ruins that aspect of the game.
That's powercreep. If you only buff things, stuff will start getting silly. It's also much easier to nerf and test a few outliers than it is to buff every other ship up to the absurdity of the doom.
Don't use it then. Why taking options from other players?Some people enjoy optimizing gameplay. The existence of blatantly overpowered stuff ruins that aspect of the game.
That's powercreep. If you only buff things, stuff will start getting silly. It's also much easier to nerf and test a few outliers than it is to buff every other ship up to the absurdity of the doom.Don't use it then. Why taking options from other players?Some people enjoy optimizing gameplay. The existence of blatantly overpowered stuff ruins that aspect of the game.
Agreed with both posts, not much else I can add.
Don't use it then. Why taking options from other players?Because what is a challenge to most playstyles is a breeze for Doom, and what is a challenge to Doom is impossible for most playstyles. Then you either ignore one of those, or you have to spend more time creating similar content of different difficulty levels.
Interesting what you suggest to nerf it, but in that way what it still remain useful? If you remove mines you remove it main distinct feature, without that there will be no sense to use that at all. And still, all phase ships are glass cannon, I think they should be powerful because they very vulnerable to damage, and Doom only one which can effectively combat fighters and ships with Omni shields.Phase ships should be strong because they were designed to punch as a class higher, and to be a bit unfair. If they are no better than their size class, then they are overpriced.
And if you dislike Doom, there already Doom nerfing mod, use it, and don't ruin it for rest of us please.By that very logic you should be fine with it being nerfed, since it'd be easy enough to make an Old Doom mod.
About Doom, what it makes overpowered is only skillsIndeed. Without skills, it's merely broken. Or rather, the mine strike is.
especially stuff like Derelict Contingent, which can make 5-d moded junk unkillable and able to destroy several Onslaughts and Paragons in a row, nobody complains about thatAre you sure? (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20227)
About Doom, what it makes overpowered is only skillsIndeed. Without skills, it's merely broken. Or rather, the mine strike is.especially stuff like Derelict Contingent, which can make 5-d moded junk unkillable and able to destroy several Onslaughts and Paragons in a row, nobody complains about thatAre you sure? (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20227)
This right here. The game should be well balanced, and people who like using broken/overpowered stuff that trivializes aspects of the game can download mods to satisfy their power trips. A game that needs mods to be balanced is a bad game. Mods are the way to deal with things that are not balanced.And if you dislike Doom, there already Doom nerfing mod, use it, and don't ruin it for rest of us please.By that very logic you should be fine with it being nerfed, since it'd be easy enough to make an Old Doom mod.
If there's one thing I learned from being a year and a half on this forum is that people are eventually going to complain about everything, figuring out what feedback is legitimate from the...uh...Ludd-Posting comes with experience and common sense ;D
Don't use it then. Why taking options from other players?Some people enjoy optimizing gameplay. The existence of blatantly overpowered stuff ruins that aspect of the game.
I don't want every ship to feel like piloting a Mule, I'd much rather make flying a Mule feel like flying a Hyperion.
yeah the best-balanced game I've ever seen was TF2, whose design ethos was not "make things balanced by bringing down whats overpowered in the current meta" but "make everything overpowered in their own way so u can build a meta out of anything" & it turns out that works!
Its logical what pirate wrecks and Low Tech perform worse that High Tech, its stated in lore what Low-Tech is simply outdated stuff, like Onslaught which was made before shields were thing
My main concern if what all off "OP" stuff get hit by nerfbat, everything will come out like NightfallGemini said, game just become plain and boring.We got a taste of that in this release, especially with carriers.
QuoteMy main concern if what all off "OP" stuff get hit by nerfbat, everything will come out like NightfallGemini said, game just become plain and boring.We got a taste of that in this release, especially with carriers.
Tempest is a fun change that I'm excited about tbh, even if it is a net power decrease. Speaking of 'balancing through fun', changing a flat damage bonus into 'your drones are now supercharged with flux lightning and become glowing torpedoes that shoot the whole way in' is just great.
I still use them to good effect.QuoteMy main concern if what all off "OP" stuff get hit by nerfbat, everything will come out like NightfallGemini said, game just become plain and boring.We got a taste of that in this release, especially with carriers.
Buff everything else? Seriously? Don't nerf the 3-4 out of control ships buff the other 60+?
So I guess if one of those UP ships gets overbuffed we'll just buff everything again.
Buff everything else? Seriously? Don't nerf the 3-4 out of control ships buff the other 60+?
If you want OP stuff you can get that with mods.
That's the opposite of the design intent of tech levels in Starsector as written by the dev himself including in the very latest blog post. Tech levels are just alternate doctrines/design philosophies. A high-tech ship can be individually more powerful than a low-tech ship, but will pay that price elsewhere.
To quote : "The key thing is that high tech is not intended to be better than low tech, just a different way of doing things."
The only ships I think are too powerful are Doom and maybe Afflictor, and only with combat skills. I would say Radiant too if it was a human ship, but as a ship from an SNK boss faction, I would think the other Remnant ships are too weak (because they are more or less on par with the human ships) to be worthy of a purposefully overpowered (normally NPC-only) boss faction.
I would say Radiant too if it was a human ship, but as a ship from an SNK boss faction?
Edit: sorry I noticed it just now what do you mean byQuoteI would say Radiant too if it was a human ship, but as a ship from an SNK boss faction?
Radiant IS Vanilla.
Edit: sorry I noticed it just now what do you mean byQuoteI would say Radiant too if it was a human ship, but as a ship from an SNK boss faction?
Radiant IS Vanilla.
They're not saying that it isn't vanilla, I believe they're referring to the https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SNKBoss concept.
Radiant-class Drone Battleship
(https://i.imgur.com/UGnAZar.png)
Codex EntryRadiant's Stats (above) compared to a Paragon's (below)Spoiler(https://i.imgur.com/bIOXSEv.png)[close]OverviewSpoiler(https://i.imgur.com/m2TLvAg.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/blsekvV.png)[close]
Here we go. I'm going to have to go a bit off the rails in criticizing Vanilla Game Balance as a premise: the Radiant Drone Battleship is a balancing abomination that should've been adressed as soon as 0.95 released. The Remnants as a whole were a lot easier to defeat back in the 0.91 days and further back in time, but now that not only Officer skills but also AI algorithms have been improved along all the other new balance mechanics, the Radiant is well deserving of 60 Deployment Points, and this is accounting for the fact that the ship would be worth 70 Deployment Points instead if it was not Remnant and purposefully undervalued.
This ship is currently only worth 40 Deployment pointsbut is able to fit a staggering amount of front facing firepower consisting of 2 large energy hardpoints, 1 large energy turret, 2 large synergy turrets, 4 medium synergy turrets and 4 small energy turrets, in addition to 1500 Armor, 10.000 hullpoints, a 0.6 ratio shield, massive flux capacity, a ship ability that belongs to a Frigate and a 99% chance to always have an Alpha Core Officer making every single stat I just showcased that much more overbearing.
Disabling/Destroying the enemy Radiant(s) when fighting a Remnant ordo will translate in you winning that battle. Failing to pressure and kill it/them because it starts teleporting away and/or because the rest of its allied rabid honeybadger friends get in the way will guarantee a harder battle with more allied casualties and maybe even a loss.
Vanilla Variants
1)Standard Personal Rating: Wasted Large Weapon Mounts
Armament: 2 Autopulse Lasers (Linked), 2 Locusts (Alternating), 1 Paladin PD & 6 PD Lasers (linked), 4 Ion Beams (Linked), 4 IR Pulse Lasers (linked)
Hullmods: Integrated Targeting Unit, Expanded Magazines, Heavy Armor
9 Capacitors, 50 Vents
Without going into potential modifications to the Vanilla autofit, this is a textbook example of how to NOT set up a Radiant and it's the setup you wish for when fighting an Ordo. Heavy Armor is a 40OP dead weight unless it's integrated, Locust not only do pathetic damage to anything but weaksauce frigates but they also don't even have expanded missile racks, 4 Ion beams is overkill even for me and IR pulse lasers are as pointless as nipples on a breastplate.
What's with the fallacy that nerf=bad because it's a negative term?
Any game needs it's base state to be a balanced experience, a failure to do so is a failure of game design.
Unbalanced gameplay can be obtained through cheats/mods, and should not be expected of the main game outside dedicated modes/sliders/difficulties.
Players will naturally gravitate toward the most efficient gameplay, it is what a game has to work with, if the best strategy consist of sitting in a corner with a silenced sniper and abusing the enemy AI, everyone will do it eventually no matter how unfun to them.
And personal taste here, no not everyone wants ships to be zooming around like methed-up squirrels on ice, i like my ships with the momentum of a ship.
It's a ship that can be obtained and used by the player, therefore it should be in line with the faction it comes from in terms of DP effectiveness.Normally, no. It requires Automated Ships to recover and use (and Radiant takes a huge CR hit for going over the DP limit), and unless player goes for Tech 10, he gives up Special Modifications for that. I think having an SNK boss overpowered ship (that may have less than full CR) is a fair trade for Special Modifications.
What's with the fallacy that nerf=bad because it's a negative term?
Any game needs it's base state to be a balanced experience, a failure to do so is a failure of game design.
Unbalanced gameplay can be obtained through cheats/mods, and should not be expected of the main game outside dedicated modes/sliders/difficulties.
Players will naturally gravitate toward the most efficient gameplay, it is what a game has to work with, if the best strategy consist of sitting in a corner with a silenced sniper and abusing the enemy AI, everyone will do it eventually no matter how unfun to them.
And personal taste here, no not everyone wants ships to be zooming around like methed-up squirrels on ice, i like my ships with the momentum of a ship.
What's with the fallacy that nerf=bad because it's a negative term?
What's with the fallacy that nerf=bad because it's a negative term?But isn't it ironic that the most people who want to nerf OP ships are the people who aren't using them? Isn't it also ironic that you generalize everyone optimizing the fun out of games because it's the best strat, but then also add at the end that you're not part of that everyone because you don't do that?
Any game needs it's base state to be a balanced experience, a failure to do so is a failure of game design.
Unbalanced gameplay can be obtained through cheats/mods, and should not be expected of the main game outside dedicated modes/sliders/difficulties.
Players will naturally gravitate toward the most efficient gameplay, it is what a game has to work with, if the best strategy consist of sitting in a corner with a silenced sniper and abusing the enemy AI, everyone will do it eventually no matter how unfun to them.
And personal taste here, no not everyone wants ships to be zooming around like methed-up squirrels on ice, i like my ships with the momentum of a ship.
But isn't it ironic that the most people who want to nerf OP ships are the people who aren't using them?"No
If Doom for example, just went *poof* right now, how would that improve your gameplay experience, if you didn't even use it to begin with?
And to your question as to why nerf=bad, well it's because there are obviously people enjoying the stuff that you're asking it to be nerfed. You are telling people what to do or not to do, what to like and not to like. Imagine campaigning to ban cigarettes countrywide, do you really expect people to not speak up about it? You're asking to nerf the fun out of people's lives, to put it more dramatically.
Next reason is because what DuckFlux said, every nerf has to potential to be terrible, it's like playing russian roulette. People don't enjoy that either.
The main people highlighting the problems of, say, Dooms, did personally use them and fly them, often recording video evidence of their Dooms performing ridiculous feats such as soloing Remnant Ordo's, story bosses such as Ziggurats, and end-game enemies like Doritos (Either SCC or Zym IIRC?). Then they stopped using it because it trivialized the challenge fights (let alone the regular gameplay) were leading to non-positive gameplay experiences.Zym recorded some videos on the progress of his Doom-nerfing mod, which he eventually released. I recorded a couple of fights, where Doom singlehandedly destroys some random ordos, hypershunt guardians, the omega bounty. Though I have to say something - I didn't stop using Doom because of that. I didn't use it in regular gameplay in the first place and only took them for a spin to see how overpowered it is, then once I saw it stupid strong, I returned to my usual playstyle of not using phase ships (not because of their power level, but I just don't like the playstyle). Reminds me of when Doom got Mine Strike. "Oh look, it's broken. Eh, forget about it and have fun instead."
...the obvious thing being missed here is it's not optional. Dooms and Furies and Radiants act as NPC enemies whether or not you choose to use them yourself, and it quickly becomes frustrating when the difficulty of a fleet becomes directly proportional to the number of Dooms or Radiants it contains regardless of the composition of the rest of the fleet. This also degrades the gameplay experience, and it's not an issue that can be solved by merely restraining to personally use certain ships and mechanics.I consider Doom the most dangerous human ship, but it's not the same gap as between the Radiant and other droneships. Regular Remnants aren't really different in their difficulty from similar sized human fleets, but once you throw Radiants into the mix, the challenge drastically and linearly increases with the number of Radiants you have to face.
What I meant by them not using it is that they aren't actively using it, as opposed to those who do. NPC Dooms I only encountered from ~300k bounties and once in the main storyline in a phase fleet that could've been avoided. There are onslaught low/mid tech fleets, pirate atlas and luddic prometheus fleets that give the same payout, so you aren't exactly forced to pick the TT deserter bounty.QuoteBut isn't it ironic that the most people who want to nerf OP ships are the people who aren't using them?"Nosurvivorsusers? Then where do thestoriesvideos come, I wonder?"
No, it's not ironic, and more importantly it's not true.
The main people highlighting the problems of, say, Dooms, did personally use them and fly them, often recording video evidence of their Dooms performing ridiculous feats such as soloing Remnant Ordo's, story bosses such as Ziggurats, and end-game enemies like Doritos (Either SCC or Zym IIRC?). Then they stopped using it because it trivialized the challenge fights (let alone the regular gameplay) were leading to non-positive gameplay experiences.
That's one problem solved by self restraint, but there's another issue intrinsic with the situation...QuoteIf Doom for example, just went *poof* right now, how would that improve your gameplay experience, if you didn't even use it to begin with?
...the obvious thing being missed here is it's not optional. Dooms and Furies and Radiants act as NPC enemies whether or not you choose to use them yourself, and it quickly becomes frustrating when the difficulty of a fleet becomes directly proportional to the number of Dooms or Radiants it contains regardless of the composition of the rest of the fleet. This also degrades the gameplay experience, and it's not an issue that can be solved by merely restraining to personally use certain ships and mechanics.
Man this whole thread is such a train wreck. What. people suddenly fear nerfs and think it's gonna ruin the whole game just because it has the POTENTIAL to ruin your fun of piloting the most broken thing in the game? Well good, if your thing is playing a game where there's zero choice when trying to optimize gameplay then just edit the numbers in the game so you can have your overpowered toys. I personally like having meaningful decisions in my games.What zero choice? Is there a Doom in your room that's threatening to mine strike your PC if you were to switch over to midline?
And to your question as to why nerf=bad, well it's because there are obviously people enjoying the stuff that you're asking it to be nerfed. You are telling people what to do or not to do, what to like and not to like. Imagine campaigning to ban cigarettes countrywide, do you really expect people to not speak up about it? You're asking to nerf the fun out of people's lives, to put it more dramatically.
Next reason is because what DuckFlux said, every nerf has to potential to be terrible, it's like playing russian roulette. People don't enjoy that either.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.More like all of the fun stuff gutted out of the game and nothing but sluggish, unresponsive, and uninspired wimps remaining in the game.
I agree with OP that nerfing is not really a great answer,
For the people saying that buffing things just causes powercreep, I want to point out that nerfing also cause powercreep, because there's always a some "second best" thing that is overshadowed by the current "overpowered" thing and that once the overpowered thing gets nerfed, then the "second best" thing will simply take its place.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Really, I think this is a problem of having a hammer and everything looking like a nail. A better solution to balance is to go sideways rather than buff/nerf
Also, Every mention of things being overpowered right now relates to either the skills, or to safety overrides. Why nerf the ships when these two things seem like more likely culprits?
I agree with OP that nerfing is not really a great answer,Ah yes, of course. Because we have no active examples of weaker choices getting buffed. Definitely not an entire blog post about it.
For the people saying that buffing things just causes powercreep, I want to point out that nerfing also cause powercreep, because there's always a some "second best" thing that is overshadowed by the current "overpowered" thing and that once the overpowered thing gets nerfed, then the "second best" thing will simply take its place.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Really, I think this is a problem of having a hammer and everything looking like a nail. A better solution to balance is to go sideways rather than buff/nerf
Also, Every mention of things being overpowered right now relates to either the skills, or to safety overrides. Why nerf the ships when these two things seem like more likely culprits?
For the people saying that buffing things just causes powercreep, I want to point out that nerfing also cause powercreep, because there's always a some "second best" thing that is overshadowed by the current "overpowered" thing and that once the overpowered thing gets nerfed, then the "second best" thing will simply take its place.That's not powercreep. Powercreep is when player strength outpaces the challenge that the game can provide. Imagine if every ship was buffed so they could solo doritos and remnant fleets like a doom can. That is powercreep. Anyone that has played mmos or arpgs for a significant amount of the game's lifetime has witnessed powercreep in action.
I don't think any of the nerfs in the blogpost put the tempest in a zero-pick condition or unfun to use.
It won't be in a pick-always-with-any-fleetcomp condition, and the system is much more interesting.
The post itself also buffed low-tech by giving it interruptible burn drive and a 2 ability frigate.
I don't think the doom was ever mentioned in the blog either.
I don't think the doom was ever mentioned in the blog either.I suspect the ship system itself will regrettably be left untouched, while Phase Mastery or Systems Expertise (or both) will be nerfed instead.
What zero choice? Is there a Doom in your room that's threatening to mine strike your PC if you were to switch over to midline?
I agree with OP that nerfing is not really a great answer,
For the people saying that buffing things just causes powercreep, I want to point out that nerfing also cause powercreep, because there's always a some "second best" thing that is overshadowed by the current "overpowered" thing and that once the overpowered thing gets nerfed, then the "second best" thing will simply take its place.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Really, I think this is a problem of having a hammer and everything looking like a nail. A better solution to balance is to go sideways rather than buff/nerf
Also, Every mention of things being overpowered right now relates to either the skills, or to safety overrides. Why nerf the ships when these two things seem like more likely culprits?
And again, culprit is the skill system, not only what it not very interesting, and rather limiting, and often it gives too big bonuses, especially Derelict Contingent or such, it gives more mines to so much hated here Doom, interesting everybody consider that perfectly balanced, and hate High-Tech only.No one complains about Derelict Contingent anymore, because everyone already acknowledged it as OP (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=20227) and there's no further discussion to be had.
No, because whenever something rears its ugly head in need of a nerf, it tends to be an outlier. You fix the outliers, at least those that contribute against a postive game experience and reinforce bad player behavior. Or whatever the developer doesn't want the player to be doing. If there's still "powercreep" after some buffs/nerfs, then the changes were insufficient. That's another matter.
There's no need to dramatize. Not every one of us complains absolutely all the time whenever anything happens. There is a point where complaints can be minimized. It is the job of the developer to recognize feedback that matters and find their own way to deal with complaints that they could never resolve.
Balance is an iterative process. Things can be the same for years, and developers can suddenly feel the desire for change due to a change in focus over time. The best thing about this game is that it is terribly easy to open up the ship csvs and do whatever balance changes anyone could ever want. The question is, does Alex design and balance the game around what he feels, or what we feel? And to what degree of both? For the most part, I don't get personally attached to elements of the game, especially a game in development, mind. Things *will* change. It's a matter of what and when (and how). I always trust Alex to make the correct decisions, whether it is the next patch, the patch next year, or the game's final update. That's the beauty of a game in development. There's always time to do additional adjustment; nothing is set in stone.
That's not powercreep. Powercreep is when player strength outpaces the challenge that the game can provide. Imagine if every ship was buffed so they could solo doritos and remnant fleets like a doom can. That is powercreep. Anyone that has played mmos or arpgs for a significant amount of the game's lifetime has witnessed powercreep in action.
Ah yes, of course. Because we have no active examples of weaker choices getting buffed. Definitely not an entire blog post about it.
No, it has to be completely one way or the other: either everything gets buffed, or everything gets nerfed.
I think you need to buff your passive aggressiveness there bro, I *think* you were trying to strawman me into saying something I didn't say, but I'm not sure.But I spec'd into passive aggression!?
I think you need to buff your passive aggressiveness there bro, I *think* you were trying to strawman me into saying something I didn't say, but I'm not sure.But I spec'd into passive aggression!?
You proposed a scenario where high tech gets nerfed, so midline stood out, so midline got nerfed, so low tech stood out, etc ad infinitum.
Such a scenario only works in the case of balance only being obtained via debuffs, rather than the mix of buffs and debuffs we have repeatedly seen to be used.
I think you need to buff your passive aggressiveness there bro, I *think* you were trying to strawman me into saying something I didn't say, but I'm not sure.But I spec'd into passive aggression!?
You proposed a scenario where high tech gets nerfed, so midline stood out, so midline got nerfed, so low tech stood out, etc ad infinitum.
Such a scenario only works in the case of balance only being obtained via debuffs, rather than the mix of buffs and debuffs we have repeatedly seen to be used.
He's also ignoring the fact that the nerfs are extremely targeted at specific problematic ships and not all high tech ships. Apogee for example is not on the hit list just because it's High tech. The ones making attempts to paint it as nerfs to all high tech ships are the people building straw men in here.
I spec'd passive reckless.
This is the position in question, which seems quite similar to how Yunru understood it.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
This is the position in question, which seems quite similar to how Yunru understood it.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The blog post has most of it's content covering low tech mechanical and roster buffs - the one hightech nerf is a mechanical change that expands gameplay options.
Nothing in the blogpost suggests excessive flat stat nerfing.
Yeah... maybe before saying you've never said X, make sure you've never said X.
did I upset some kind of clique here? Is there some forum saint that I've questioned that no one is allowed to question?
I think you need to buff your passive aggressiveness there bro, I *think* you were trying to strawman me into saying something I didn't say, but I'm not sure.But I spec'd into passive aggression!?
You proposed a scenario where high tech gets nerfed, so midline stood out, so midline got nerfed, so low tech stood out, etc ad infinitum.
Such a scenario only works in the case of balance only being obtained via debuffs, rather than the mix of buffs and debuffs we have repeatedly seen to be used.
No. No such condition exists. I never stated it in my scenario, nor do I accept it. That is something you came up with on your own, and you have not made an argument on that would be the case; sure, buffs can change the equation, but they do not necessarily invalidate the scenario.
Your 'thesis' doesn't mention buffs because the existence of a nontrivial number of buffs straight up disproves it by contradicting any notion of an endless cycle of nerfs, and your claim that buffs don't "necessarily invalidate" said thesis is nothing but petulance.This is the position in question, which seems quite similar to how Yunru understood it.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The blog post has most of it's content covering low tech mechanical and roster buffs - the one hightech nerf is a mechanical change that expands gameplay options.
Nothing in the blogpost suggests excessive flat stat nerfing.
Yeah, and Yunru inserted the idea that some how buffs invalidate the entire thesis, when I didn't mention them at all in said thesis.
I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships."Imagine having an entire blog post and still trying to read deep meaning into a Literary Reference title.
Well, if Yunru had (politely) made this argument I may have conceded that he had a point and just taken my ball and gone home; because my original statement did not factor in buffs at all and was assumed a very specific scenario which I will admit I did not elaborate on much. Quite frankly I didn't expect it to cause people to lose their *** minds otherwise I would have. But instead he just said my statement was disproved by the existence of buffs (which do not, and you're wrong about this) without making an argument. Given how rude you are and how I've also been rudely dogpiled, I will instead point out the flaws in your thinking as a middle finger to you in particular, and I will do so in excruciating detail, also as a middle finger to you, in particular.I think you need to buff your passive aggressiveness there bro, I *think* you were trying to strawman me into saying something I didn't say, but I'm not sure.But I spec'd into passive aggression!?
You proposed a scenario where high tech gets nerfed, so midline stood out, so midline got nerfed, so low tech stood out, etc ad infinitum.
Such a scenario only works in the case of balance only being obtained via debuffs, rather than the mix of buffs and debuffs we have repeatedly seen to be used.
No. No such condition exists. I never stated it in my scenario, nor do I accept it. That is something you came up with on your own, and you have not made an argument on that would be the case; sure, buffs can change the equation, but they do not necessarily invalidate the scenario.Your 'thesis' doesn't mention buffs because the existence of a nontrivial number of buffs straight up disproves it by contradicting any notion of an endless cycle of nerfs, and your claim that buffs don't "necessarily invalidate" said thesis is nothing but petulance.This is the position in question, which seems quite similar to how Yunru understood it.
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The blog post has most of it's content covering low tech mechanical and roster buffs - the one hightech nerf is a mechanical change that expands gameplay options.
Nothing in the blogpost suggests excessive flat stat nerfing.
Yeah, and Yunru inserted the idea that some how buffs invalidate the entire thesis, when I didn't mention them at all in said thesis.
Were it modified to describe the actual past and predicted scenario of some things getting nerfs and some things getting buffs (not even necessarily in the same amounts), it would have read like:
High-tech gets nerfed and low-tech gets buffed, then... then what? Is midline still the predicted outlier, or low tech? Or do they end up balanced with each other and HT is now the outlier in the other direction, so HT gets buffed and nothing gets nerfed? And after we've applied this cycle of balance changes, the endless nerfs prediction diverges even further from what actually happens.
Somehow a cycle of "some things get nerfs and some thing get buffs" hardly sounds as horrific as a cycle of things only getting nerfed.
Bonus:I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships."Imagine having an entire blog post and still trying to read deep meaning into a Literary Reference title.
As I said, hugs. Definitely needed.Hugs are a waste of OP. Why, I could fit an extra Needler with that!
i hope u people know this was a shitpost lmfao1. no
I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships." Perhaps I have missed a forum post somewhere, but Alex hasn't been particularly clear on how many high tech ships are getting nerfed.
You are assuming an awful lot about my position; which is, has been, and always will be that flat nerfs are not a great balancing tool and should not always be the first resort.
I am, for instance OK with the tempest changes, they sound OK on paper, but we will have to wait and see.
I spec'd "get wrecked"
Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
i hope u people know this was a shitpost lmfao
After 3 days of mindless arguing
- Deshara: "Guysss it was just a prank, why are you still arguing omgg"
I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships." Perhaps I have missed a forum post somewhere, but Alex hasn't been particularly clear on how many high tech ships are getting nerfed.
You are assuming an awful lot about my position; which is, has been, and always will be that flat nerfs are not a great balancing tool and should not always be the first resort.
I am, for instance OK with the tempest changes, they sound OK on paper, but we will have to wait and see.
I spec'd "get wrecked"
So even though he's clearly engaging in limited specific nerfs to set ships you felt it was safe to hyper generalize it as the entire High tech roster getting nerfed?
I'm not assuming anything, your entire premise is a massive unreasonable assumption that don't follow in any way shape or form with the games patch history and drawing comparisons to League of Legends that profits directly from cancerous practices like creating imbalance. Which is absurd. You talk about "industry standard" like this game has no long history and just some random devs are making it rather then a specific person.
His lack of clarity is your excuse. Clarity in a specific list of ships only.Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
This lazy theory also works in reverse. If he buffs everything else to to play catch up (actual power creep) then something will get overbuffed resulting in an endless circle of more buffs too correct it.
"And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing." Because it creates the exact same problem you are pretending is avoided.
But again this, everything you are posting, is entirely based around the idea that Alex is nerfing the entire High tech ship roster and not buffing Low tech at all. He's clearly buffing Low tech and if you bothered to read the thread you say he's "unclear" about you'd know Low tech is getting buffed.
So why are you posting stuff like this when you imply you actually read it? Your theories don't have a connection to anything that is actually happening based on the information we have.
I expect your posts to become more and more generalized rather then specific, because the details don't support what you are pushing.
...
You win a 1000 internets and have my permission to go jerk off to yourself in the mirror or something. And no, internet points are non-refundable, in case you were wondering.
i hope u people know this was a shitpost lmfao
To quote from the rules: "If your post doesn't contribute and instead serves as a way to stir up more negativity and rage from other users, it's toxic." Please consider this a warning and treat other forum users with more respect in the future.After 3 days of mindless arguing
- Deshara: "Guysss it was just a prank, why are you still arguing omgg"
you know what they say, if u wanna embarrass someone pretend to think they were kidding, if u wanna mock them pretend to think they were being sincere. the important thing is you've constructed a way for you to always be the guy crying under the smug mask meme instead of the guy crying meme.
Also, just bc there was 6 pages of people arguing in the thread doesnt mean I was the one arguing lmfao I've been playing ARMA, AKA trying to mod ARMA into being good (spoiler; u cant in 2021 just as much as u couldnt in 2017)