Awesome, but I do question his "before it snows in Michigan" measurement. Is he actually taking into account the rates of global warming on that? Probably not
Aw hot dang really? wooooooooo! ... Then again, it was Miguel who said it. Let's hope it doesn't go the way of base upgrades and NPC guards
Anyone remember back when P2W meant if you didn't pay, you'd lose? Now people are discussing possibly negligible advantages in specific scenarios as P2W. I understand that adaptability is an advantage, I'm just commenting on how far P2W changed over the years. I'm all for RMT weapons being unlockable in game at launch, but later on down the line, they will need additional monetization that I'm all for coming from certain weapons being RMT only. RMT weapon with 8 dam, 9 acc, 3 RoF, 5 reload speed, and 30 rnds is a negligible advantage in very specific situations over a 9 dam, 8 acc, 3 RoF, 5 reload speed, and 30 rnds in game unlockable. It's all hypothetical though
It has changed quite a bit over time yup. Gaming in recent years has become more & more popular as well as competitive. As a result there a lots of talented players out there. If you have 2 professional players who are fierce adversaries, equal in skill in every way, then give one of them a exclusive weapon hidden behind a paywall that confers a bonus ideal to their engagement, the one with the advantage will likely come out on top. In a war among thousands such encounters do not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it does matter in terms of fairness of play & balance on the battlefield.
I would have faith in the other's ability to adjust to the situation if they are truly rivals and fiercely competitive. Like I said, it's all hypothetical. Everyone can make up examples to fit their beliefs in this situation and offer it up as anecdotal evidence.
I completely agree. One could make a case either way. Which is why this has gone on for 29 pages. The only way for it to be settled on neutral territory & ensure a balanced gameplay experience is to limit all founder/cash shop items to cosmetics only. Lets not forget though, at present non-founders will have no way to access attack bikes. They will be limited to Rhino etc. Essentially gameplay being locked off from non-paying customers. Is this acceptable?
That actually wouldn't solve anything in terms of the game's "balance," because all four factions won't have access to the same pool of weapons. Since all four factions aren't created equally, giving certain skins to weapons won't do didley squat if the game is "asymmetrically balanced." All the perceived imbalance theorycrafting is based off the notion that all will be equal, which won't be the case. Simply creating skins won't address this issue.
i find fun when people consider negligible the difference between a two Seat bike with heavy weapon and a 10 Seat transport. if someone think that so also tactical marine and devastator are sidegrade, because both have different advantage and disadvantage. and a question: if difference between two sidegrade are negligible why there is a difference? if the stat are so similar at the point to be not noticeable, negligible: the answer is simple: it's NOT a sidegrade, it's the same weapon wih the same role.
no theorycraft is not based of that. theoricraft is based on: "what give me the best tool with te best performance for a certain mission/role?" the theorycraft is more deep. because consider 3 different adversary with different tactics strenght and weakness so it's more important to have more sidegrades to chose from.
If this topic is something you are interested in or concerned about I've gone ahead & inquired about it in the founders lounge livestream #7 thread located here: https://forum.eternalcrusade.com/threads/questions-for-livestream-7.30046/page-4
