Is the REAL problem with VQs...Norfleet?

Gandalf Parker · #1 May 6th, 2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kel:
Well, the original qustion was whether most of the people in the debate were in it because of Norfleet. I don't think most of the people in the debate think she is broken, they just think she is over-powered.

I think its not even that simple. The fact that she one of the most powerful choices, maybe even THE most powerful, is easy to admit to. Especially for certain nations and certain playing styles. But whether thats over-powered is different. If the lowest is always nerfed upwards, and the highest always nerfed downwards, then we will end up playing chess.

To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though.

Stormbinder · #2 May 6th, 2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:
Originally posted by Kel:
Well, the original qustion was whether most of the people in the debate were in it because of Norfleet. I don't think most of the people in the debate think she is broken, they just think she is over-powered.

I think its not even that simple. The fact that she one of the most powerful choices, maybe even THE most powerful, is easy to admit to. Especially for certain nations and certain playing styles. But whether thats over-powered is different. If the lowest is always nerfed upwards, and the highest always nerfed downwards, then we will end up playing chess.

To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though.

Nah, of course stength of VQs has nothing to do with Norfleet. I've only played against him few times, and I've played against dozens of VQ in other games, many of them were using simialar design. However obviously because it is so strong and fits his standard strategy Norfleet does use it most of the time, based upon what other players tell me.

johan osterman · #3 May 6th, 2004, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wikd Thots:
Dont back off now Rabi. Gandalf is just an old guy and wishes he can make us use our GOOD manners.

You go ahead and pick anything in the game you want and dont use wimpy words like balanse or opinion or please look at. TELL them that there game is all broke and defektiv messed up (not the word I wanted but I changed it 3 times till I got one I thot might stay). Those 2 guys in the garage after work should change what PLAYERS say is broke and stop doing just what they want to do

Preach on brother Wikd. Yes they should do what you want shouldn't they, seeing how they never play the game themselves, nor can have any valid opinions concerning balance of their own, especially since all PLAYERS agree on these balance issues. You also make an excellent point that you shouldn't mince words or be polite, behaving like a snotnosed brat underscores how strongly you feel and should serve to make people take you and your opinions seriously.

calmon · #4 May 6th, 2004, 10:14 PM

Quote:

To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though.

Even if i only see the fun factor in a mp game (fun its great for me too) i'm bored to see so much VQs. I want some diversity! This can only be reached by balance. Rabelais is like lot of here a very good analyst and sees the advantages in the multifunctional VP-chassis. He shoudn't be blamed for that.

Gandalf Parker · #5 May 6th, 2004, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vynd:
why Rabe shouldn't say he thinks the VQ is "broken" and needs to be "fixed." That's hardly what I consider offensive language. I have trouble believing that the devs are as overly sensitive to criticism as you're portraying them to be.

His isnt so bad. Not as bad as some.

Its more the total impression Im feeling. But you are probably right. It shouldnt matter how things are worded. Im sure any programmer would be willing to go back and look at something no matter how its referred to them. I dont think I would and I havent put nearly as much work in the stuff I program. But Im probably just a cranky "old guy"

[ May 06, 2004, 21:18: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Reverend Zombie · #6 May 6th, 2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by calmon:
Even if i only see the fun factor in a mp game (fun its great for me too) i'm bored to see so much VQs. I want some diversity!

There's a difference between being bored because everyone is using something they think is uber, and that thing actually being uber.

Gandalf Parker · #7 May 6th, 2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by calmon:

quote:
To be truthful Ive only found VQ to be fun to play with a couple of nations. I know fun-to-play isnt the deciding factor in some peoples games, especially multiplayer, but it means that for me the game isnt broke by her. Im still looking at it though.

Even if i only see the fun factor in a mp game (fun its great for me too) i'm bored to see so much VQs. I want some diversity! This can only be reached by balance. Rabelais is like lot of here a very good analyst and sees the advantages in the multifunctional VP-chassis. He shoudn't be blamed for that.

Your right, he shouldnt. We need testers who can find such things. And we should ask the devs to look into it. And even make some suggestions on how it might be balanced abit. Im all for it.