Weapon Allowance (in General)


QBOddBird March 8 2007 11:35 PM EST

It was brought up in Chat, for some wouldn't it be better to have a RWA and a MWA? Since one tank uses two weapons if they intend to fight in both melee and ranged rounds

DH March 8 2007 11:41 PM EST

think its was a great idea. it would limit huge one sided weapons allowing for a little more balance in my opinion.

Being an Archer user, I could potentially feel the effects of such a change but im pretty sure it would be a really good addition to a kinda cool way of limiting overpoweredness.

Mikel March 8 2007 11:50 PM EST

This will make every generic and not allow for more strategies. IE: I'm an archer, so I prefer a bigger Elb. Critters uses nothing but his MH. So now we'd both have to have the same basic setup, which would hurt both of our individualized strats.

MrC [DodgingTheEvilForgeFees] March 9 2007 1:25 AM EST

This would mean re-writing my "How it should be done" (if anyone hasn't read this, Help! > Game Strategies > How it should be done).

For one, I'm far too lazy to be eager to do this. I'm also of the opinion that someone should focus their strength in certain areas to gain the best advantage, taking this away just means everyone runs the same tank strategy.

Weapons: ELB, MH. or SoD, MH.
As opposed to ELB and MH, SoD and MH, ELB, SoD, MH. (Only counting the weapons worth using... and yes, I know I'm about to be flamed).

As a rule of thumb, more options = more strategy.

... At this point I keep typing different strategies that will be wiped out and how we'll all be limited to similar builds but this keeps deteriorating into ranting so we'll leave it at this: You make myself and everyone smart enough to see melee is king use ranged, or everyone silly enough to use ranged use melee too and you have us all running similar builds. Keep it as it is and we have MrCs trying to gain an edge over Mikels (not that my > 1k MPR char is comparable...) and that's what I'd rather see.

AdminNightStrike March 9 2007 1:34 AM EST

"At this point I keep typing different strategies that will be wiped out and how we'll all be limited to similar builds but this keeps deteriorating into ranting so we'll leave it at this: You make myself and everyone smart enough to see melee is king use ranged, or everyone silly enough to use ranged use melee too and you have us all running similar builds."

Can you maybe break that into several smaller sentences? I really can't figure out what you're saying. Sorry...

Mikel March 9 2007 1:41 AM EST

I think it's past his bed time...




tucks MrC in. Night night

MrC [DodgingTheEvilForgeFees] March 9 2007 2:01 AM EST

*carps Mikel*

And Nightstrike, my apologies if my grammar really was that bad. Allow me to fix it up a little.

Make myself and everyone smart enough to see that melee is king also use ranged weapons. And everyone silly enough to have used only ranged (previous to this suggested change) also use melee weapons and you will have us all running similar builds.

Better?

Admindudemus [jabberwocky] March 9 2007 2:16 AM EST

the perceived choices we have at the moment seem to me to be illusory. it all boils down to how much usd you can pump into your gear. perhaps by limiting that somewhat we could get back to actual stat based strategies. in other words if you think usd is king then it may be limiting for you. not all of us choose to pump money into the game though and it would be nice to see some other options open back up.

[T]Vestax March 9 2007 2:28 AM EST

MrC to English Translation

"... At this point I keep typing different strategies that will be wiped out and how we'll all be limited to similar builds but this keeps deteriorating into ranting so we'll leave it at this:"

"I originally started writing out a long list of problems using a bunch of strats as an example, strats that would no longer exist. However, every time I did this I ranted needlessly, so I'll just say this instead:"

"You make myself and everyone smart enough to see melee is king use ranged, or everyone silly enough to use ranged use melee too and you have us all running similar builds."

"This change would force players that focus on melee and ranged equally. This would eliminate teams that focus on one or the other, therefore, every Tank team becomes the same."

Note: It was also implied within the text that melee combat is superior to ranged combat. This may or may not be a bit of humor since the common consensus is that Ranged combat is currently superior, yet the speaker uses a melee-only Tank strat.

"Keep it as it is and we have MrCs trying to gain an edge over Mikels (not that my > 1k MPR char is comparable...) and that's what I'd rather see."

"I prefer things the way they are, where a team like mine can try to get an edge on a team like Mikel's through specialization."

Note: I'm not exactly sure what he's trying to say between the parentheses, but I think he may be implying that you can't really compare a team like Mikel's to a MrChuckles' team. Perhaps to say that Mikel's team is the better of the two, even if MrChuckles wins against him.

[T]Vestax March 9 2007 2:32 AM EST

MrC to English to English Translation

"This change would force players that focus on melee and ranged equally."

"This change would force players to focus on melee and ranged equally.

AdminNightStrike March 9 2007 3:59 AM EST

Vestax, that was great!!

My eyes are opened :)

MrC [DodgingTheEvilForgeFees] March 9 2007 4:59 AM EST

Vestax, if I could afford it you'd certainly be hired as my permanent translator. ;)

I however wasn't joking about melee being superior.

Regarding your second note, my character First Strike is my only melee tank and whilst it's the highest in MPR its clearly not in use (note the score 1/4 of MPR) it's not my active character. I do have a character lower than 1k MPR which it would be safe to assume is my active character.

For the record, my melee tank (First Strike) has as of yet not been able to overcome Mikel's PTH, so it does not win.

The comparison was simply to state that with things as they are a melee tank and an archer are both usable strategies. I only used Mikel's character as an example because he posted immediately before me stating he had an archer.

To summarize the past few posts: this change would eliminate choices people can make when devising strategies. Limiting diversity and the impact of a good strategy. Therefore I'm against it.

My apologies OddBird, for this thread becoming more about "what the heck is MrC talking about?" and less about Weapon Allowance.

QBJohnnywas March 9 2007 5:17 AM EST

Mmm. Weapon allowance. I like the 'shape' of the current one; in that it allows a tank to focus on ranged or melee.

Being able to use up your total allowance by using only a massive ranged weapon doesn't automatically make you invincible. Melee focused teams, if built right, can beat you, this much I know from my own experiences with bow focused teams.

My own gripe with the WA is that it is simply too generous and thus makes it possible to maximise your damage hugely without impacting on your PR and rewards. Personally I think lowering it would work; much more simple than the other options we were given in the poll.

Whatever way it goes, unless Jon does something extreme, this will probably only affect a tiny percentage of CB tank teams. You only need look through the weapons stats to see the gap that exists between the top weapons and the rest of them.

Flamey March 9 2007 7:14 AM EST

I thought about it, and I don't like it, but that doesn't matter, because this will only affect the USD spenders or people who somehow have a crap load of money and high NW weapons. My WA is approx. 70 mil, even if you halve that, I still have a lot of space. It could also affect the occasional Rocket NUB.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00236s">Weapon Allowance</a>