Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?
Posted: Mon 5 Feb 2018 00:54
FrangibleCover wrote:Absolutely, but you're making my point for me. That's an inconsistency, the prices aren't consistent. That is not imbalance, it does not make the Jaguar unreasonably cost-efficient or powerful. Indeed, the Jaguar is terrible. Time spend fixing this inconsistency would not be time spent making Wargame a better game. It wouldn't even be time spent making Wargame a more realistic game
Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.
Imbalance doesn't require power, it doesn't require OP'nes, it simply requires over-/underperformance.
It's the same inconsistency that's making the Su-27SK unreasonably underperforming (and was even worse before the patch that buffed it a bit), do you want to argue that fixing that plane wouldn't make Wargame a more balanced game?
How about the T-80A? Did its availability fix, after I highlighted it along with the other tanks, make Wargame a more balanced game?
What about the B-5? Would fixing that discrepancy, make Wargame a more balanced game?
What if it's a ~100-110 point ASF, that's the best a particular nation has at its disposal, that's priced inconsistently? Would fixing its price make Wargame a more balanced game?
What about a particular 80 pts tank that has too low availability compared to its counterparts? Would fixing its availability to be in line make Wargame a more balanced game?
You're creating an extremely dangerous slippery slope, where suddenly fixing inconsistencies will not be based on how obviously wrong the numbers for a unit are but based on someone's subjective opinion how "influential" a particular unit is for the gameplay.
How is that any better from the usual autofellatio people engage in when debating which unit to hit with the nerfbat because they got roflstomped by it in the last game?
Subjective shit doesn't work, you can almost universally argue against whatever suggestion is up for debate and you can never make progress. Fix the price discrepancies, because those are easy to identify, easy to fix and any debate about any discrepancy will be a one sided statement outlining their existence (case in point: Malka/Pion right now).
FrangibleCover wrote:you have expressed no dissatisfaction with the stats.
Which stats? Price/availability/veterancy are a stat. I've expressed clear dissatisfaction about them.
If you're talking about why I haven't suggested overhauling units which nobody uses well then ...
And also I did, in dozens of threads, use the search function.
FrangibleCover wrote:If you won't fight a 1v1, we can do it on your team-game terms. Me, melanin and whoever else we need against you and however many of your friends you need to get a game size you're comfortable with. I'm sure we could round up another eight.
Had you asked a year ago, we could have had some nice games. However the people I used to play with haven't even touched wargame in 7-9 months or more.
HrcAk47 wrote:This just shows that you're all bark and no bite. Many people calling you to a 1v1. You've been whipped raw with a glove to your face. What will you do?