|
T.600 -> RE: =ED= Let's ask the staff thread (11/6/2015 11:07:48)
|
There's far too many issues with the game as it is to discuss in one post, but one I'd like to definitely bring up, and an issue that seems to have been echoed previously, is that of robots. I am specifically referring to the Infernal Android bot here. I don't see the rationale of making every robot have the same base damage at 170. This was a welcome buff for some bots (like Assault Bot or Pyro Fly), but it has put the IA out of proportion. IA was much more balanced before, where it traded off one large burst of damage for lower sustained damage. Now, with 170 base damage, it provides both sustained and burst damage. What's the problem with a lack of trade-off, besides forcing all focus builds to use the same bot? The fact that this has increased how luck focused battles are now. If that one massive burst (which now received a further damage increase with the added base damage) is deflected, then the battle is decided. Battles have come down to whether or not the IA will be deflected or not.
As for my question, why did you homogenize bot damage? In its previous state, bots could trade off utility for damage. A very simple example of this would require me to look back at the old days. Back then, Gamma Bot was better for damage whereas Assault Bot was a better utility bot for debuffs. Now, every bot has the same base damage. Sure, some bots have different specials, but it's not enough of a trade-off to switch bots, within focus builds. Let's not forget the fact that varium bots now have less of a discernible advantage over the IA. If your argument is going to be, that you homogenized bot damage simply to prevent further inflation of numbers, then why not keep the max bot damage at 190 still? This would make battles more interesting. For example, I loved seeing a battle between a 190 base damage Kartherax bot vs a 150 base damage IA bot. It was much more balanced. The opponent would have to time his burst perfectly, while the user with Karth could constantly apply pressure with a sustained flow of damage.
While I'm here, I might as well mention a few more matters. Thanks Charfade, for addressing the PvP botting issue, BUT, botting NPCs is much more of a problem. I understand that with ranks you wanted to create a system of endless levelling whereby players would have a constant motivation to gain xp (although this sort of thing is much better in PvE games :P). Botting NPCs allows players to gain a disproportionately higher amount of xp and credits than non-botters. Sure, underdog mode tries to address this, but, I do believe that ranks SHOULD provide an advantage, but they shouldn't be so easy to obtain by those who cheat. Now, what's the core issue which has led to NPC botting? The fact that 100 npcs can be killed per day, and, the fact that certain NPCs drop credit items which can be farmed for 24/7. Simple solution? Bring back the old NPCing system where it's a max of 15 NPC kills per hour. Phase out the credit drops from NPCs and bring back item drops in PvP for some supplementary credits. In regards to a question, I merely seek your opinion on the matter.
Last thing I'll say, and this is something I brought up with Alley before. Bring back passives and remove PASSIVE cores. I know it's a bold decision, but it would make the game enjoyable. What's wrong with passive cores? Some of them have far too much of an impact on the luck factor, which makes battles be decided more by luck than anything else. Remember, a fun PvP game has some element of luck involved, but strategy should always prevail. Cores such as a +5% bonus to crits on using aux are ridiculous. Another issue with cores is that everyone uses the same items, due to the ''must-have'' cores, such as the Azrael and Dread auxes. It would seem to me, that you think the solution to this would be just to add more variety of cores? Incorrect. Bringing back the old stat system where weapons have different stats would make build making more fun and allow us to see a lot more different weapons being used.
Thank you for reading. I do hope that you can take the time to address my issues/questions/queries. I have tried to be as constructive as possible.
|
|
|
|
