| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alara IonStorm
1832
   |
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:
it might be nice from a balance point of view to have tracking enhancers and tracking computers affect explosion velocity and/or explosion radius and/or missile velocity. i do not see the logic though; how is tracking your target making your missile explode faster?
also, you would have to nerf some missile types and/or hulls to keep overall balance, which isn't exactly an easy task.
Strawman
I think the point is that if there is a module that will debuff the system then must also be a module to buff it.
[/quote]
 That isn't a straw man it is an opinion. He did not purposely misrepresent your opinion but provided his own thoughts on the subject right below where you asked for an opinion. while calling it a straw man you ignored legitimate issues he brought up.
Just by stating something has a debuff that will be applied in 10% of all fights and almost never in fleets does not make it okay to give it a possible self buff. The issue that 200 HAM Drakes could post Drake balance with a TC hit to 60km with the accuracy of Heavies without the ability to counter because no fleet can organize 200 Disruptor onto 200 separate targets to counter such a hit.
To give Missiles use of TE's and TC's you would need to balance around their use tailoring the module so you both don't overpower any ship.
The poster said he would be interested in the game having these modules and I agree, but it is not a straw man to speculate on concerns with the mechanic and what steps Dev's would need to take to fix it.
|
Alara IonStorm
1832
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:
So we should not balance around ships and modules themselves but the potential for blobs of those ships and modules? Seriously?
Oh look you figured out what a straw man is.
Yes, yes you should balance around how those modules are used in blobs, you should balance around how those modules are used in gangs and how they are used solo.
Numbers lining up on a spreadsheet of buffs and debuffs don't matter if you over power or under power anything. So if a module in a blob makes that blob over powered and the counter designed is ineffective you can not just go with it.
Turrets were designed with module and rig buffs in mind while missiles were designed with only rig buffs in mind. If you want missiles to use module buffs you have to design ether the ship or the missile around it because the counter doesn't stack well.
|
Alara IonStorm
1832
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:The same should not be done when assigning a module to debuff them of course
Absolutely it should. You should take everything into account when balancing a weapon system.
What effect the debuff will have on solo or small gang ships, what effect it will have on blobed ships vs what effect the buff will have on solo / small gang ships vs what effect it will have on blobs.
You can not just add something just to have the buffs and debuffs line up on a spread sheet. You need to know how they will effect all aspects of warfare.
|
Alara IonStorm
1832
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:
Based on your sudden moment of clarity I suggest you re read the OP
CCP plans to make tracking disrupters debuff missiles.Based on this alone I suggested they should add modules that enhance missiles.
Read the OP and understood it perfectly.
Patri Andari wrote:
If you have no objection to that.....
I have no objection to them adding the buffs, I have an objection to them adding and not balancing around them which brings me to why I am posting.
Patri Andari wrote:
why are you posting again?
Reason #1. Because when Daniel Plain brought up needing to rebalance missiles you incorrectly called it a straw man and ignored it. He is right they need to rebalance them.
Reason #2. You stated that you should balance around ships and modules themselves instead of how they should be used on all fields of game play. Changing things so buffs and debuffs line up on a spreadsheet without taking into account the greater gameplay effect hurts the game.
Reason #3. You asked "What say you?" at the end of your OP. I say I like the idea but they need to rebalance and can not just shove it in a new module effect without seeing how it will effect the game. |
Alara IonStorm
1832
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:Also, I stand by my original evaluation of a strawman. The fallacy offered was that any plan to buff missiles by way of modules might make the systems OP without a rebalance.
While I may or may not agree with the premise offered by that observation it had nothing to do with my post. CCP plans to allow a module that exist ingame to debuff missile tracking. Based on that I suggested the need for modules to offset this.
David sought to critique the overall effects of such a buffing module in a vacuum as if the debuff was not on the table. This was the only focus of his post and call for balance. You may not think that a misrepresentation of my argument (a strawman) but I clearly do and quite understand the concept.
Simply misrepresenting an argument does not a straw man make. A straw man is when you look at the argument and act like it is a different yet similar argument for the purpose of attacking it.
Yes he did take the debuff out of the argument and he did for a very specific reason. The targeted debuff doesn't play out in the same situations as a self buff when scaled. This leads to issues in scaled fights that have to be addressed as the debuff counter is ineffective and is a valid point to consider.
It is very similar to a straw man and if the debuff was just as effective as the buff in every situation it would be a straw man argument. |
Alara IonStorm
1832
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:
"I disagree with your suggested counter to CCP's plans because I think it would make Missile systems OP BUT I also think CCP should not go ahead with this change without rebalancing missiles in general perhaps with an eye toward adding modules that offset the debuff"
^^ That is NOT a strawman argument. It also is a balanced approach that has credibility. What's more it is NOT what either of you said.
No that isn't a straw man but neither is what the other guy said.
Patri Andari wrote:
Instead of addressing the original concern, CCP making disrupters affect missiles with no eye toward balancing that module in the process, you simply attacked my proposed counter.
No one attacked your proposed counter but said that further balance work to missiles would have to be done to implement it. The attack only exists in your head.
Patri Andari wrote:
Not once have you suggested that CCP is marching into this without balance. No critique at all about the disease only that the cure is not a balanced approach. So do you have any thoughts on having disrupters debuff missiles...without any talk about re-balancing missiles or introducing modules to counter them or is that just fine by you, Strawman?
This thread is not about TD's affecting missiles. We all understand that and have different opinions about this but this thread suggests of a counter to that. People are commenting on how said suggestion would be implemented. If you wanted a discussion thread on the TD Change and not your counter idea you should have posted 2 separate threads.
My opinion is that without counter a TD that effects Missiles is bad, directly buffing current missiles with a TC or TE is a mistake as the EWAR system doesn't scale well. Balance work should be done to the hulls that use missiles and / or the missiles themselves if CCP wants to add in this module effect.
Patri Andari wrote:Also, Post with your (CCP) main 
 This goes along well with your mistaken idea that people are attacking you. |
Alara IonStorm
1832
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 04:57:00 -
[7] - Quote
Patri Andari wrote:
Actually this thread is about TD's affecting missiles. My proposed suggested counters were just that. Unrefined, knee jerk suggestions. Almost the same as CCP deciding to make this change in the first place. Somehow only two people did not get that. You are one of them.
I don't mind not following the direction you hope the thread will take. If you wish to make unrefined knee jerk suggestions then expect people to discuss the implications of said suggestions.
If you want people to discuss only what you want them to discuss then it is 100% your fault for splitting the focus of the thread between a CCP critique and a knee jerk suggestion. |
| |
|