| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Laboratus
Gallente
BGG
   |
Posted - 2007.01.18 09:47:00 -
[31]
"Balance" is the absense of a clear winning strategy. A strategy that in most cases leads to victory.
There are a lot of strong and weak strategies in eve, but not a definite win strategy. This is good, but most of the forum whine is aimed at making the strategies other ppl use weaker and trying to get better results from their own strategies.
You could almost claim that forum whine is a win strategy, since you never lose anything by whining, you can only cause nerf on your opponents. Therefore it is a definite win strategy and is quite "imbalanced".
___
P.S.
Post with your main.
Mind control and tin hats |
Coasterbrian
Gekidoku
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 10:34:00 -
[32]
Balance is, in it's simplest form, the ability to counter a tactic using a tactic that requires (relatively speaking) the same amount of isk. Certain game modules are out of balance, such as the always notable nanos. The problem is that there's only 3 ways to catch a nano BS (assuming the pilot isn't an idiot):
-Very fast frigs (with the problem that it's impossible to keep a nano BS locked down for long, due to the presence of another overpowered module, nos, which turns off the MWD and tackling ability of anything smaller than a cruiser in one cycle)
-Another nano BS (which just makes the problem worse)
-A rapier/huginn (with the issue here being that you must use an expensive tech II ship that takes moths of training to use in order to catch a cheap, potentially tech I fitted BS that can be used fine with 6 months of skill training).
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Twisted Attitude
Apocalyptica.
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 10:44:00 -
[33]
I don't mind balance as long as it doesn't kill inter-racial diversity, wich is some of the amarrian whiners want to do.
-------
 Originally by: Tiuwaz
for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons 
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
MASS HOMICIDE
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 10:49:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Coasterbrian
Balance is, in it's simplest form, the ability to counter a tactic using a tactic that requires (relatively speaking) the same amount of isk. Certain game modules are out of balance, such as the always notable nanos. The problem is that there's only 3 ways to catch a nano BS (assuming the pilot isn't an idiot):
-Very fast frigs (with the problem that it's impossible to keep a nano BS locked down for long, due to the presence of another overpowered module, nos, which turns off the MWD and tackling ability of anything smaller than a cruiser in one cycle)
-Another nano BS (which just makes the problem worse)
-A rapier/huginn (with the issue here being that you must use an expensive tech II ship that takes moths of training to use in order to catch a cheap, potentially tech I fitted BS that can be used fine with 6 months of skill training).
wrogn wrong wrong..
-2 Cellestis make a nanoBS uselless
- 5 stabbers can kill a nanoBS by themselves with FAR FAR less isk than a nano BS 2 stabbers are enough to tackle it. and a Blasterthotn then needs like 10 second to kill the webbed ship.
-Using sentry drones and moving a bit away so they have firing angle... will pwn the nanobs
- An Autocannon tempest will eat nanophoons alive!
- An artie tempest at 100 km from your gang will vap the nanophoon in 3 volleys. So 2 snipers 100 km apart form each other can defeat it ( although taht is an expensive option)
- A simple BS equipped with 2 large smartbombs will compeltely remob all firepower form any nanobs.
Unless i can't count that is far from 3.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
Sartaron
Amarr
Circle of Violence
United Corporations of Eve
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 10:52:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Sartaron on 18/01/2007 10:50:11
Edited by: Sartaron on 18/01/2007 10:49:26
Well, the more complex a game gets, the less balancing is possible, unless you make all things equal....
Some things certainly have te be looked over, like the nano-ships.
BUt all in all, I think:
Balancing = Boredom
The next thing someone might call for after balancing modules and ships might be to balance PvP through game mechanics like to forbid a gang to atatck another gang that is considarably smaller and the like.
So be careful, balancing the game too much.
EDIT: Typos
|
j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:12:00 -
[36]
Edited by: j0sephine on 18/01/2007 11:11:31
"BUt all in all, I think:
Balancing = Boredom"
*shrugs* poker is balanced, does it make it boring? Would it be less boring if it was turned into what people want the unbalanced EVE be like -- where all involved players always get the royal flush because it's the most optimal choice with the highest odds of winning?
note, how ironically enough having unbalanced game (with certain option more favourable than anything else) ... leads to the very thing people cite as why having balance would be "bad" -- you get everyone flying the same thing, with the only difference being, they're flying it *by choice* because it's stupid not to.
|
Sartaron
Amarr
Circle of Violence
United Corporations of Eve
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:19:00 -
[37]
Well, ok.
What I actually ment was
(Over)Balancing = Boredom
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
MASS HOMICIDE
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:22:00 -
[38]
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 18/01/2007 11:11:31
"BUt all in all, I think:
Balancing = Boredom"
*shrugs* poker is balanced, does it make it boring? Would it be less boring if it was turned into what people want the unbalanced EVE be like -- where all involved players always get the royal flush because it's the most optimal choice with the highest odds of winning?
note, how ironically enough having unbalanced game (with certain option more favourable than anything else) ... leads to the very thing people cite as why having balance would be "bad" -- you get everyone flying the same thing, with the only difference being, they're flying it *by choice* because it's stupid not to.
In fact I find games as poker infinitely boring... its a good example of how I don want eve to be.
The best game i ever played is Il2 series with realistic combat planes, completely unballances as was in real life. I fly the under dog and I feel much more entretained.
The biggest true i ever hear of a gamer came from their forums,.. " balance is for loosers"
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 11:49:00 -
[39]
"In fact I find games as poker infinitely boring... its a good example of how I don want eve to be."
Out of curiosity, what you find so 'infinitely boring' about it? After all the game comes down to ability to outsmart/outbluff the opponents no matter what hand you're dealt... which if anything seems to be what people are generally asking the EVE to be like (no guaranteed win/lose combinations and the ability to outweight possible disadvantage with player's own skills)
"The best game i ever played is Il2 series with realistic combat planes, completely unballances as was in real life. I fly the under dog and I feel much more entretained."
Is it the same kind of 'the underdog' like people claim nano ships are 'underdogs' and 'out of the box'? ^^
(since i think you mentioned in another tread the air force tactics which involved swooping in, hitting some target and running the **** out before getting smacked back... and it just sounds well, familiar and hardly "underdog" when you give it a good thought o.O;
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
MASS HOMICIDE
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: j0sephine
"In fact I find games as poker infinitely boring... its a good example of how I don want eve to be."
Out of curiosity, what you find so 'infinitely boring' about it? After all the game comes down to ability to outsmart/outbluff the opponents no matter what hand you're dealt... which if anything seems to be what people are generally asking the EVE to be like (no guaranteed win/lose combinations and the ability to outweight possible disadvantage with player's own skills)
"The best game i ever played is Il2 series with realistic combat planes, completely unballances as was in real life. I fly the under dog and I feel much more entretained."
Is it the same kind of 'the underdog' like people claim nano ships are 'underdogs' and 'out of the box'? ^^
(since i think you mentioned in another tread the air force tactics which involved swooping in, hitting some target and running the **** out before getting smacked back... and it just sounds well, familiar and hardly "underdog" when you give it a good thought o.O;
They were underdogs because on plain toe to toe combat they had no chance. They had to use a subltle advantage (their capability of gaining more speed in a a dive than allied planes) to fight them. The underdog force, with 10 planes could engage uber force of 300 planes, kill a few and bug out.
That is what i want to be possible in eve.
I dont liek card games exaclty because they are "fair" and mostly about bluffing and detecting bluffs. Too static and no way to capitalize on advantages strategies etc.. too simplistic on itself 9only the iteraction withg the other players is richer)
If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!! |
j0sephine
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:20:00 -
[41]
Edited by: j0sephine on 18/01/2007 12:17:13
"They were underdogs because on plain toe to toe combat they had no chance. They had to use a subltle advantage (their capability of gaining more speed in a a dive than allied planes) to fight them. The underdog force, with 10 planes could engage uber force of 300 planes, kill a few and bug out."
Heh okay i guess our idea of underdog just differs, then. To me underdog is the side which has no advantage, period. Nothing to capitalize on. Something that's able to swoop in, avoid fire of 30x more enemies, kill about as many people as their own gang has *and* escape unscathed on top of that... that's not underdog, that's simply a team playing to their strength in situation where they know they have the upper hand.
(or in other words when you put a close combat master vs 5 snipers *at close range* and the close combat guys breaks all their necks before they can say "wtf" then it's not "whoo underdog won" to me by any means. It's simply the right guy at the right place shooting the fish in the barrel. yawn)
|
Mephesto Nizal
|
Posted - 2007.01.18 12:24:00 -
[42]
story wise, the militairy wants to stay competative with their factional nemesis..so the make changes accordingly. I guess you could see it in that way as well
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |