Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatoses
Same could be said about your proposal. Even if the balancing of guns could be point-based (senselessly more trouble than its worth) the same amount of thought, consideration and controversy would be existant.
What would be solved? Gun balancing wouldn't be any less difficult. Therefore the idea would solve nothing, making it useless. I'd suggest you not make underinformed or uniformed proposals.
|
How would it be any less difficult? It might not be that simple to implement, but it would make balancing weapons in the future way easier. Because one weapon will never have more points than the other, you'll most likely never encounter a gun that is more powerful than the next, statistically. The effects of the statistics themselves may have to be balanced, but that would mean it would universally balance with the weapons rather than individually. Right now I believe stats are pretty much assigned as 'seen fit', so you might end up with a weapon that has shoddy fire rate, but an attack power that way overcompensates and ends up statistically better than a gun meant to be equally as powerful with better firing rate. It would basically be doing what staff are trying to accomplish right now, but hard-coded.
Also, there is no harm in throwing out theoretical proposals. However, there is harm in dismissing them because "I know it won't work", when there is no firm reason to say it wouldn't. So really, your whole uninformed proposal stuff is a moot point. Because really, where is the harm in me making them?