Bortas nerf

posted on August 5th, 2011, 4:13 am

I feel the Bortas  were nerfed when they lost the Ion storm torpedo . I would prefer they  lost the Ion storm generators on the ship and gained  back the torpedos .Bortas were great  to kill of stations for  recapture and  reuse . The torpedos  worked great also  to tear down a opponent ships  sheilds and hull points, but leaveing the opponent ship to die off for recapture. Just my .02cnts

posted on August 5th, 2011, 6:20 am

Concerning the Bortas, if it is required to be nerfed I suggest taking a different rout. Since the issue is destroying fleets (that is your concern right, for 3v3+ ?) it might be less difficult from a balance perspective to make a research for ships to have an increased resistance to the ION storm in levels, none of which reaching an immunity. For example 3 levels of 15% damage reduction of ION storm applying to all ships. If the issue is killing it, then that just requires enough ships within range as they (ships) can fire while taking damage from the storm.

If the problem is it being used in 3v3+ games then aside from the thoughts of preventive strategies, increased costs/times, or adding supply to the ability use. Then just agree not to use it or put in a special option to eliminate High tech-tree vessels as just eliminating the Bortas would not be fair. It would be like having a button to prevent Fed Warp-in in terms of power cut.

My opinion on this comment:
[...have you ever tried to convice a Teaparty member that Obama is not a Musilm? No matter what arguments you give they won't believe you...because their arguments are so much better (2nd name is Hussein and he is black)...nothing to add or rethink on their side...]

The bold statement is incorrect in so much as all it represents is a person or side that believes themselves to be right, not necessarily better (then everyone would be in agreement as arguments can be used to persuade.). Now in your opinion they may be better. which is ok. 

In my opinion it seems that this is a case of believing so strongly that you are correct, that you ignore or dismiss people trying to understand or help you. I interpret it this way because you don't seem to be explaining why you dismiss some people's responses other than with what comes across as a "you are not understanding what I've been saying". Not saying that you use that all the time just for some. Maybe you should re-explain your issue with the Bortas in more detail?

Thank you for reading.

posted on August 5th, 2011, 7:51 am

Maybe you should re-explain your issue with the Bortas in more detail?

You cant be serious...I even gave numbers to backup my arguments...and still some ppl don't get it. Sometimes you just have to admit that people are not able to get things (somthing I learned in recent years now). Again, getting from Vorcha to Bortas is even easier then going from small yard Romulan to Warbird. Or to get Chassi 3 and Defiants. And the Bortas are way way better than 2 Defiants or 2 Warbirds...

Also to argument about "Glass Cannon" is simply not true if we go by the observations in games with almost equally skilled players...there the Bortas can typically espace in 80% (I asume) of the cases and even level up this way.

The argument that Bortas are a rarely used strategy is also not strong. Take Diamonds for example, they where not seen that often untill some replays showed that kiting + nanites is much much deadlier then any Cube you can build. Now ppl almost always go for Diamonds. I could keep going with examples like this...so once people understand that Vorchas are not the end of the techtree, we will see more of them I guess.

Then just agree not to use it or put in a special option to eliminate High tech-tree vessels as just eliminating the Bortas would not be fair. It would be like having a button to prevent Fed Warp-in in terms of power cut.

Noone said the Bortas must leave the game. And now you throw in such an argument which is not helpfull at all.

then everyone would be in agreement as arguments can be used to persuade

The Teaparty and people like them dont use arguments. They use lies and ignorance and stupidity (and money of course) to achieve what they want. US is making it self a joke by supporting those kinds of people and their style of communication. But lets get on topic again...

In my opinion it seems that this is a case of believing so strongly that you are correct, that you ignore or dismiss people trying to understand or help you. I interpret it this way because you don't seem to be explaining why you dismiss some people's responses other than with what comes across as a "you are not understanding what I've been saying".

When that one guy here talked about the absolutly wrong facts about the HSA he dismissed himself. If you need any further explanation then, sorry, but you are not the target audience of this thread. And btw. it is not that they don't understand what I was saying, it is about NOT READING!

[James Zolar]

posted on August 5th, 2011, 8:46 am

Last edited by James Zolar on August 5th, 2011, 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ah, I will admit that I am guilty of skimming. Apologies for not fully reading the lead ups. However I do hope that I've added a twist to the issue.

Being one of these  would be useful.

posted on August 5th, 2011, 11:13 am

I begin to see who is the tea party member in this discussion...

posted on August 5th, 2011, 5:33 pm

I begin to see who is the tea party member in this discussion...

So do i. I'll rest my argument (again) that if a unit is balanced for 1-1 gameplay and gets nerfed for 3-3 gameplay, this will mean every single units has to be reexamined. You either have units balanced for 1-1 or for 3-3, personally i think 1-1 is the way to go and in addition it'll save a lot of time for the developers for important features such as the faction redo and new factions.

posted on August 5th, 2011, 5:41 pm

I'll rest my argument (again) that if a unit is balanced for 1-1 gameplay and gets nerfed for 3-3 gameplay, this will mean every single units has to be reexamined.

Its not an argument its a hypothesis. And to make it count you need to provide facts. Take the HSA nerf. Were all other ships affected by the nerf (made inbalanced) or not? I want a clear answer here from you or you are out as well.

posted on August 6th, 2011, 2:28 am

Who are you to deciede if someone is out of an argument? >:(

And when they changed the HSA it was to a specialized role, reducing damage to ships and increasing to stations........ it was a give and take..... not increasing all damage, and not reducing all, it was a ballenced change and did not require a retrospective shift of all ships, The Bortas nerf, would be nothing but a stat/speed/cloak/effectiveness reduction, and becuse that is one sided, it would require refinment of the other ships as well.

And Andre is right, things are ballenced to 1v1, not 3v3, in 3v3s you can pull of some crazy strats that are not possible otherwise, and thats part of the fun, if you don't like facing opponets that are willing to do something other than the norm, don't play 3v3s, i'm sure at least some of us will be delighted by your absence.

Simply put, you can't fix whats not broken, instead of trolling about a relitively minor issue, be happy for the mod we have, or bring up the issue as an opinion, not fact, and above all, treat others that scrutinize your logic with respect, if you respected thier opinion they would respect yours, and this thread woulbe be a more legit ballence disscusion, instead of a place where you step on people jus cuz they have a different opinion.

posted on August 6th, 2011, 9:17 am

The Bortas nerf, would be nothing but a stat/speed/cloak/effectiveness reduction, and becuse that is one sided, it would require refinment of the other ships as well.

Sorry, I didn'T know that you have detailed information what the devs would do in case of the Bortas. Of course, if you know that it would be just a stat boost, you could be right if not...be quiet, find real arguments and stop being offended by me revealing you own incompetence!

instead of a place where you step on people jus cuz they have a different opinion.

Sorry but you don't seem to get what the point is. I accept other peoples' opinion as soon as they are consistent, refer to the topic we talk about and not what people where understanding or estimating and if arguments are understandable, i.e. one pice of evidence leads to another. What you fanboys do is just comming with general arguments (if any), often not related to what I said nor precise enough to be valid.

Who are you to deciede if someone is out of an argument?

I just do it like I do my job...if students or project partners come with weired, inconsistent or non-relevant arguments they get a feedback to try harder...if they don't, I will not belive nor consider their opinion too much. Its quite common to do this in academic and science...so don't blame the system you don't understand.

posted on August 6th, 2011, 4:08 pm

Balancing is a touchy subject for most people, and while tempers can run hot it's important to still treat your peers with respect .

I was hoping that this thread would veer away from the ad hominem attacks, but since it has now become more about tit for tat rather than game balance it is clear that everything of significance has been said. If somebody has a new point to bring up they are free to PM me to reopen this thread, or they may start a new one.

Thread locked