2009-10-24, 13:23:59
SirJoghurt Wrote:who does not agree this, know`s it, and just wants too keep this advantage, point
Formidable argumentation, thumbs up!
In my point of view this shows perfectly that the disagreement is more fundamental, some sort of epistemic necessary reason which distincts the view on the game. Somehow there is no consensus about how bt should look like. Personally i'm pro fast and aggressive gameplay, which does need a teleporter as soon as possible, so i can't (really just can't, becouse of epistemic reasons) see any valueble reason to nerf the teleporter, upgrade speed, etc.
The interesting thing is, that the players argueing for imbaness of teleporter the most, are those who don't play clangames very often. Why?
(1)
Reasons not related to balance issues. Doesn't concern us here that much.
(2)
SirJoghurt Wrote:maybe the reason is i dont play AT`s, cause in the last AT`s i played with... 6 of 10 ppl had porter/posion, of course not all with the same Tank... but not the Tanks/Weapons are the point, the point still is that the Porter is to strong for its price =)The problem here just is: Battletanks evolves dynamicly. Internal games 3 months ago looked a lot different than now and 1 year ago even more. When someone plays some games and doesn't like the current playstyle and stops playing those games from then on, he won't even notice that the gameplay differs in a couple of months. He just can't. Of course his view on balance should be questioned becouse of that (and only this view).
Now one can argue, that this player still plays now and then. But is this samplesize valueble for a good judgement about a very complex game? I doubt it is. (important for (1) as well)
Btw: Shift1: Why do you want to nerf the porter? I just read "it's too strong", but why do you think it is too strong?
Some more general thoughts about the argumentation: There is the argument "6 of 10 ppl had porter/posion, of course not all with the same Tank... but not the Tanks/Weapons are the point, the point still is that the Porter is to strong for its price " (SirJoghurt). Let's just grant for now that something which is played by a majority is imba (i questioned that allready, but there was no respond so i can just emphasize it once again) and grant it's those strat you mentioned (which I'd doubt as well judging from the clangames). We got 3 factors influencing: Tank, Poison, Porter. Players got different tanks, so we can drop the tank factor and got Poison and Porter. Now your conclusion is: Porter is too strong. Where does this conlusion come from? You got the axiom "Poison and Porter is too strong implies Porter is too strong"?
Another thought: Your elimination of the Tank factor goes like "players play different tank with those items and all of them are too strong - > items must be too strong". But why don't you conclude like this concourning the teleporter? You say: "the difference is, that porter+Longrange or porter+ maybe 3 e-canons for example is not imbalanced" (SirJoghurt). If you say so, why is the teleporter still too strong and not the item only appearing in allegedly imba builds, the Poison Magic? Of Course you can't do so, becouse it's way too obvious that poison alone is not too strong becouse there are a lot of builds with it not called too strong by you (i assume). So we would get into a position: Tank can't be the reason alone, Porter can't be the reason alone, Poison can't be the reason alone. What to do now? Just pic randomly one of those 3 and it happens to be the Teleporter? Or is there any other reason behind the ones you posted? If the combination of 3 factors is said to be imbalanced, is it the correct way of adapting to nerf one of them or are there ways to nerf the combination instead of the factors combined? Nerf one factor will nerf some other things which are not imbalanced according to you as well, which implies making them too weak (the porter + long range you mentioned for example). Is this the best way to reach alleged balance, making things too weak? Or rather: Is it the best way to balance by removing one alleged imbalance and add another one? I doubt it is.