What are you talking about?
Either way, yes, there has to be more work done because cowards and slobs are a thing.
Focused damage gives you:
Less to no trouble with cowards
Less trouble with slobs
Easier pecking order
Easier to destroy egg barriers
Majority of the bosses favor it
Certain specific waves like nasty surprise favor it.
And what does spread have? Mostly just small advantage against asteroid and bonus waves, and a few special missions(while some prefer focused damage, instead). Yeah, things are a lot less balanced than you think, and enemies like slobs and cowards need to be reworked.
4 Likes
Cowards aren’t challenging, they’re obnoxious as heck. Period. They need changes for sure and their current behavior shouldn’t justify using weapons with less, but stronger projectiles. That’s what balancing wants to resolve - every weapon has to be useful in its own way, and have its own weaknesses. Cowards aren’t a weakness they’re a handicap.
4 Likes
Assuming you’re talking about Plasma. We tried that, and everyone hated it. Plasma now fits a multi-purpose role. Manual for raw damage, automatic for crowd-clearing. There is nothing wrong with that.
Besides, if we nerf its manual fire rate, we’ll have to buff its base damage. And by a lot (up to 18-19k DPS), because of its fast overheat, and then adjust the AoE damage accordingly.
It’s very clear that cowards and slobs are the issue here. If we compare 
9 Ion and 9 Utensil, Utensil is the absolute better choice becuase it deals just as much damage but has half as many projectiles. The less times you hit a slob, the lower the odds that it will retaliate, and the more damage you deal to a coward in one hit, the more likely you are to skip one of its attacks.
6 Likes
We tried reducing the manual rate, not increasing the auto rate. And like two people hated it, but were very vocal (which is fair enough, but not everybody minded it.)
I actually feel that it’s too powerful now - it’s pretty superior to nearly every other weapon.
I do fully agree with this, though.
3 Likes
Yeah…there were more people, some just weren’t vocal, so you didn’t notice them.
That’s not because of the weapon itself, it’s because it’s what fits the “high damage with less projectiles” the most. In order to change that, we’ll have to rebalance other stuff, not plasma itself.
7 Likes
Well yes, that’s the point we’re (mostly) all agreeing about. Cowards are bad for game balance. 
7 Likes
I think there should be an “accuracy” measure for cowards that is proportional to the damage it takes. The more the damage taken by cowards, the more likely they are going to hit straight at you. Practically, such an approach would likely limit movement and thus make them more suspectible to destroy you. However, I am of the opinion that the deadliness of these special chicken types should depend on damage inflicted rather than projectile count.
1 Like
Why not?
Why? it’s intended as an automatic weapon. The point is to diſcourage firing it manuälly.
As far as I can tell, moſt of the complaints about ſlobs and cowards revolve around the greater difficulty of waves in which they are preſent. They’re there as a challenge. Alſo, juſt becauſe a particular enemy favours one kind of weapon does not mean that the enemy’s unbalanced, but rather means that the enemy is helping to create an environment in which no one weapon is good in all ſituätions. Even how it is now, plaſma rifle in not great for aſteroids (as indeed Orandza ſaid a few poſts up).
Alſo, I’ll point out that in the abſence of cowards, plaſmer becomes a lot leſs appealing, partly due to its overheat rate.
Alſo, it’s worth noting that people are far more eager to point out when ſomething is broken in ſuch a way that makes the game harder, but not when ſomething makes the game eaſiër. It is alſo worth noting that a lot of times changes that require the players to adapt are often unpopular becauſe they’re “unbalanced”. I think in reality we need to wait until a month after the laſt weapon changes and then we’ll be able to judge better if things are unbalanced, baſed off of the number of players uſing a given weapon all the time.
1 Like
Because it has 12000 automatic DPS, which is rubbish even when compared with Riddler’s rework (which is already going to be underpowered).
As I said, manual is used for raw damage. If you nerf that, you have to increase either base damage or automatic firerate, otherwise it will be too weak.
edit: I forgot to mention that you only have that 12000 DPS for five seconds.
3 Likes
Because it’s shitty gameplay design? Pretty much all elite missions have tons of cowards in them. Challenges too. Do we want to encourage players only to use certain weapons to be better and to play more easily?
Shooting here with any weapon that isn’t Absolver or Plasmer is a death sentence.
In the end it was decided to be a multi-purpose weapon. Unlike other weapons, it’s undeniable that Plasmer has two modes right now - manual and automatic AoE. Gives it its own characteristic that makes it stand out. However, making cowards useless is an unacceptable characteristic that must not be gotten rid of by nerfing Plasmer itself.
Disagree, thanks to its AoE feature it’s as useful as Neutron and Utensil. It deals a lot of damage before overheating. Using it manually has its own advantages.
Yeah like I established cowards don’t make the game acceptably harder, they make waves with them absolutely tedious.
And I think it’s a good time to settle problems related to enemies. We can’t make weapons useless to make space for bad enemy design, that’s beyond a bad idea.
6 Likes
Just because it’s intended doesn’t mean it’s good that way. It seems perfectly fine in its multi-function state. And yes, we’d have to buff its base damage if we nerfed the fire rate because it would just be awful again.
Then you’re not reading our posts.
Try using ion blaster at 10fp on chicken roulette where you’re surrounded by slobs. It’s not a challenge, it’s straight-up unfair.
And this would apply to most waves, really.
Yes, and I pointed out many more things that favor less projectiles with higher damage, as well.
Do you think people would complain less about something that could totally mess up your mission progress compared to something that is so easy, it’s just tedious, but at least lets you proceed normally?
Because they are unbalanced, and we already said why.
7 Likes
Evidently we come from different backgrounds. I never manual-fire lightening, plaſmer, or poſitron, and ſo I’m uſed to the power output of the automatic ſtream. Given that theſe are all intended to be purely automatic weapons, I’m goïng to continue thus, and am alſo goïng to continue ſupporting changes that diſcourage manuäl-firing them.
1 Like
That’s the problem. They were made to be automatic (the most visually), but they are performing better on manual. Why would you use worse option?
5 Likes
No one mentioned positron nor lightning. They’re automatic both by design and gameplay. We’re talking about Plasmer. If you wanna use it automatically, it’s one of the valid ways. But don’t encourage getting rid of its unique two-mode trait. It’s the only such weapon and that makes it worth using and not yet another Positron Stream.
WBP is meant to resolve this exact issue.
5 Likes
I know. And I’m happy that it seems we’re getting nearly all of them in the next update.
6 Likes
Hm. The weapons need some testing first though. We can’t say for sure that it’s “good” just yet, yes?
2 Likes
Actually I feel like it has more in common with Positron now. I had described Positron a few times as an “AoE” beam, and now we have a literal AoE beam that’s essentially better.
The situation could be worse though, I’m content to let it be for the time being.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.