In the real world, when some brilliant inventor comes up with a new type of gun that turns the tides in battles and is highly un-fair, what do people do? They sure as hell don’t start raging and saying “No! That’s too OP!” No. They take it and make it better. Not worse. The only thing that we can do against such things is come up with a method of countering it.
We don’t just completely trash it and make it worse; we upgrade it and make it even more OP!
What I’m trying to say is, in the real world, better things are made better, not worse. Stop nerfing and start countering!
Don’t nerf new or overpowered objects. Instead buff existing objects to be able to counter that OP object.
Darkfox, honestly I would like to see what would happen if a developer of any game did that. Do it as an experiment and see how well it goes with the player base.
This isn’t the real world. It’s a game. And if things are OP and lack counters, typically, the common sense response would be to nerf it. Right now, the only “hard counters” to RT are cloaked covert ops surprise plasma arc + orion + missiles, and probably EB to get rid of those pesky mines, and recon microlocator plus ECM working together tightly and under the radar.
I fail to see how making OP responses to OP modules works. If it’s OP, nerf it. If it’s UP, buff it. That’s how games work, not serial one-upmanship. Take a look at how fighting games are balanced. If someone finds a way to consistently escape losing with a character to almost always make a comeback, that’s called OP. Such methods are typically nerfed, if not totally removed. If someone went insane for a day or so and added a 1f startup attack that always one-hit other characters, but had weakness like “only works while facing left”, players would be roaring for a nerf, or just plain old removal. Y’know, kinda like how people are responding to RT.
Common Sense is not always the best solution. Some of the greatest thinkers that are revered in our time were considered crazy in their own time. Darkfox isn’t using sense that most people use. He is using sense that could be insane or enlightened. It is often hard to tell the difference. Just keep an open mind or you may be missing out on a huge advancement. (do not respond to this. Don’t wanna get off topic)
Buffing certain tackler modules to reduce the effect of RT would be just a narrow slice of what Darkfox is suggesting. He is suggesting (I think) that we do this to some, if not a good portion, of OP objects. Just wait. Just think and see if this object absolutely is needing nerfed. Think of all possible ways you could implement or create a way to hard-counter BEFORE nerfing it.
It’s like rushing off to execute someone without knowing all the facts.
In the real world, when some brilliant inventor comes up with a new type of gun that turns the tides in battles and is highly un-fair, what do people do? They sure as hell don’t start raging and saying “No! That’s too OP!” No. They take it and make it better. Not worse. The only thing that we can do against such things is come up with a method of countering it.
We don’t just completely trash it and make it worse; we upgrade it and make it even more OP!
What I’m trying to say is, in the real world, better things are made better, not worse. Stop nerfing and start countering!
Too bad this is a videogame and not the real world.
You do realise that in the real world there are these things called “war crimes”, right? These war crimes ban the use of certain kinds of weaponry (flame throwers, chemical, biological or nuclear ordnance, etc) or certain tactics (deliberately killing civilians). There are real world consequences to breaking the rules of warfare.
As far as most people here are concerned, RT and aimbots are war crimes.
You do realise that in the real world there are these things called “war crimes”, right? These war crimes ban the use of certain kinds of weaponry (flame throwers, chemical, biological or nuclear ordnance, etc) or certain tactics (deliberately killing civilians). There are real world consequences to breaking the rules of warfare.
As far as most people here are concerned, RT and aimbots are war crimes.
Chemical warfare’s still legal to use against civilians. Haven’t you heard of tear gas?
Nuclear weapons have not been banned. The only precaution is to not deliberately target civilians, so you need a factory. Of course you don’t want to attack those cities in advance, you want people to go to them since they haven’t been attacked.
When technology advances, people either develop counters or get conquered. Our “scientists,” the devs, are “working” on it.
And, just like before; some understand, and some don’t. Oh well.
Yes. And you are one of those that don’t understand.
When Heart of the Swarm was in Beta, Terrans got a unit called the Warhound. This was found to be horrendously overpowered, and this feedback came from all levels of play. This included the kind of people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year playing StarCraft.
Blizzard did not tell Team Liquid to get over themselves and “learn to counter it.” Blizzard tried to balance it, and when they couldn’t they removed the unit altogether.
Your silly little “get over it” is the exact opposite of what multi-billion dollar game companies do. Maybe you should think about that before blaming everyone else for not knowing how to counter the RT.
Chemical warfare’s still legal to use against civilians. Haven’t you heard of tear gas?
Nuclear weapons have not been banned. The only precaution is to not deliberately target civilians, so you need a factory. Of course you don’t want to attack those cities in advance, you want people to go to them since they haven’t been attacked.
When technology advances, people either develop counters or get conquered. Our “scientists,” the devs, are “working” on it.
Tear gas isn’t quite as bad as, say, chlorine or nerve gas.