War like life is not fair, one question if i may, why does it have to be fair? We are after all talking about a video game representing all out war are we not? so why does absolutley everything have to be fair? As to the heroe classes why not make them something you rank up in your chosen guilds, to represent powerful leaders or the guilds greatest champions?
Its not optimal for a guild to do that 24/7 rush you mention cause in most games cooperation is more rewarding than time spent alone. So it would be WAY better to the guild if they all converge their efforts in their own characters into helping the "main" one. You can pocket heal him, you can farm gold for him, you can repeat pve dungeons to get him the best gear. If someone would plan to rush a character it would require an actual team effort and not 5 ppl soloing the same char. And honestly? If they did it, they DESERVE the results. And this main char will help others get their stuff as well. Its part of any online game and its normal.
Maybe the word I should have used is balanced. For example, how is it balanced to reward a certain type of player? All players should be rewarded assuming they put in the effort. Now though we get into the discussion and arguments of words and meanings. What is "effort"? How can it be measured? Although, I agree with you life is not fair, and war is not fair the EC team also has to consider what is fun? is it accessible?
I don't see any problem with individuals on different accounts accumulating resources for the benefit of one player in that group.
Aye true and i meant not to nit pick, but rather to point out that there should be inbalances in the game, and that it comes down to the choices you make and your skills as a warrior and a team.
True, however if they fall over the other side of the horse and make it so difficult to play certain classes or specs, people just wont use it. Thats just how it worked so far. Usually nobody likes to play a gimped or weak class. True, this will will be a team play and no one class should kick everything 1v1 but they should work fine in their role and spec as intended ^^;
Resource limitation can be used as a side barring to make sure not too many get to use Lillies at the same time at the same moment. But unlocking this ability should be based on merit skill and determination, not just voting system and grinding hours. Simple grinding won't help unless all the five particiapating guild members are really and really good players. Yes, you are indeed right at the point of account sharing. A truely good player with excellent ping and teamspeak can help his guildmates get the hard achievements. But that is a much more solid protection against grinding than just allowing votes to deal with distribution. There are always many gamers who can really wreak havok but don't have public support nor require large guilds. In case all the goodies are distributed by the chain of command a good player will have no way of obtaining the gear to do his job best. And that feels even worse than situation in which a public-accepted leader doesn't get the best gear. Well, that much depends on the game system and what stats can be recorded. If the system can be tweaked for Borderlands variant with lots of stats and achievments for each weapon class ect Then it can be pretty easy to distribute the requirements between classes. The devs are the ones who make the choice. Although it's not that free because each class has a lore equivalent and as such has "in-built" requirements. 0:23 am here, so I'll spare people's eyes from reading TEXTWALLS about becoming Autarch... The flaws that can be pointed out can also be interpreted as in0built stimulators to people's skills and their growth. The flaws include 1) Lack of access to any and all goodies "just because you're a snowflake character" can be bad for those who want to be "Omg rare unique and overwhelmingly powerful heroes" jsut because they want to. Having seen the Eldar forum threads I can definitely say: We're heading for a disaster. people want to have tons of Phoenix lords, Farseers and some even want to be Avatars... What makes me sad. The good side: When a commander sees a player in Terminator armour or with Plasma rifle, he can be pretty muchsure that he can rely on this one. Because getting it is impossible for those, who don't know which side of the bolter is meant to be pointed at the enemy. No idle standing, loligagging and insane maneuvers that lead to squad wipe out. 2) Requirement to ahve good ping and sometimes luck to get the achievements. Without time-based achievments its nigh impossible to set the system. And people with high ping will hardly be able to wipe a dozen of enemies in a matter of seconds, no matter how good they aim and time their attacks. They just won't be able to. There is no good side of it. On the other side... Ping makes people sad even with plainly abusive Voting system. It is just a pain in fast-paced battles. No exceptions... well..actually there is. MOAR DAKKA. Speaking of fairness, how can one get the same gear, abilites and position if he doesn't play well? Just because he bought the game? So it's basically making a good player and a bad one equal. And that is definitely not fair. If I were to choose, who to support in this fairness case... I would support a good player. He deserved it. Want to get your ahnds on good toys? Go kill things effectively with waht you ahve. Not jsut grind for a few days or buy it from cash shop. That's my humble opinion. A good player needs to be rewarded. A bad one must be shown what goodies he can obtain if he starts thinking and aiming a bit.
I agree with you, and @miguelcaron, that imbalance of power between playable classes should feel real, but when you consider having ALL characters become that powerful it dilutes their meaning. I am fine with LIbbys/Termies etc running around causing crazy fight scenes. I just don't agree that there should be so many to make them meaningless, or too little that nobody but people completely without anything else to do are the only ones rewarded.
Aye mate and theres the diffuclt position the devs find themselves in, where do they draw the line so too speak.
Just to make sure we are seeing things from the same perspective first; 1. Powerful units (Libbys/Autarchs/warbosses) etc, should be rare and difficult to attain/achieve. Yes or no? 2. All players should have a chance to play the "super" units. Either by someone giving help or on their own. Yes or no? 3. Super units should be temporary. Either until the unit dies or the player logs out. (for example) yes or no? Also im not sure if you follow the devs and their comments but im pretty sure brent said that everyone can be a hero thru different means. Some will find it easier because a guild is helping them reach the required resources. Others can do it on their own via gathering the resources on their own. I ask that because the part in bold up top that I am quoting has been answered and im not sure if you have read that. The next part I bolded in which you talk about elder is exactly why I am discussing this with you. Everyone will only want to make a Avatar and we will have avatars everywhere, and then all the avatars (or whatever super unit) will have to be nerfed. hehe. On your next point, while I agree that someone whom has finally earned the resources to be able to be a "super" unit can be a good player, however, that is an assumption. You assume he will be willing and able to play the class as its meant to be played. You assume because he has gotten all the resources via playing hours and hours that he will use the super unit correctly. Just because you can play 12 hours a day and collect resources doesn't mean you will use teamwork, communicate, or know how to play "better" than other players. "2) Requirement to ahve good ping and sometimes luck to get the achievements." I am not even sure what your trying to argue here. Are you saying someone with bad ping would not be able to achieve something? im confused.
