EPTOn April 13 2017 22:08 Ragnarork wrote:
Yeah, the R8 never got changed as well.
It was a "certainty" back then?
Yeah, the R8 never got changed as well.
It was a "certainty" back then?
?? How does that have to do with anything?
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 1100
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
?? How does that have to do with anything? | ||
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
it's obvious that a negev shouldn't cost 2000$ No one said it should cost 2000$ | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Kaiwa
Netherlands2209 Posts
 | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
The cost is excessive because if it needs to be factored classically into the economy aspect of the game, people won't even try, and just play with the standard weapons. So I get that Valve does that if they want people to actually use it. For an experiment, not to actually use it to replace the M4 or the AK from now on in CounterStrike. What they will do afterwards is the actual debate. On April 13 2017 22:16 Luolis wrote: I am not acting like this is the final change lol. I simply think that this change should never have happened at all. Doing this kind of "experiment" is pointless in the long run, because no matter what happens, either the negev will be overpowered or it'll stay unused (which isn't a bad thing). I'd rather Valve focus on some actual problems in the game than this kind of dumb shit. Are you implying they don't? And what problems exactly? | ||
|
Kaiwa
Netherlands2209 Posts
| ||
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
On April 13 2017 22:26 Ragnarork wrote: The thing is if you don't encourage the use, people won't use it, or not nearly as much as they'd like to actually have some sizeable sample for what exactly the impact of the gun is. The cost is excessive because if it needs to be factored classically into the economy aspect of the game, people won't even try, and just play with the standard weapons. So I get that Valve does that if they want people to actually use it. For an experiment, not to actually use it to replace the M4 or the AK from now on in CounterStrike. What they will do afterwards is the actual debate. Are you implying they don't? And what problems exactly? Something like UMP/pistols being overpowered. Stuff that actually matters at the high level, not trying to force people to use more negev when it's never going to be used at top level anyway unless its ridiculously broken. | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
Also, the fact you don't see an update with a change to the pistols / UMP doesn't mean they're not working on it. And I think it's good that they don't change stuff right away. The UMP has not had changes for a lot of time, and yet people discovered quite late its advantages (and it didn't magically removed its disadvantages compared to the rifles). So I'd be all in favor of leaving some time to the game and the pros to actually figure out new stuff instead of pushing for changes, nerfs, buffs, whatever immediately. Kind of how BW worked for quite a long time. Then the point I agree on and that I already mentioned is the beta branch. I don't know why Valve doesn't use it. My only guess so far is that not nearly enough people actually use it and it makes it pretty pointless, even tho among these few that use it we see awesome feedback sometimes. Also doing this kind of "experiment" is pointless in the long run, because no matter what happens, either the negev will be overpowered or it'll stay unused (which isn't a bad thing). If they want to make the negev usable without being overpowered, then experiments are one of the best things to do. And what will happen will actually matter. As to whether it'll make sense, it will be possible to judge when it happens, not right now. | ||
Epoxide
Magic Woods9326 Posts
On April 13 2017 22:54 Ragnarork wrote: Kind of how BW worked for quite a long time. Expanding on this; weapon balancing does not necessarily need to be tweaking the actual weapon. Map balancing can do this as well, an example is the sawed-off on cobble compared to on dust2. I don't like drastic changes, the meta should decide rather than balance patches. We are almost getting there with the UMP though. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
On April 13 2017 22:54 Ragnarork wrote: Also If they want to make the negev usable without being overpowered, then experiments are one of the best things to do. And what will happen will actually matter. As to whether it'll make sense, it will be possible to judge when it happens, not right now. My point with that is that negev will never be used unless it's overpowered, eg; this whole experiment is pointless in my pov anyways. | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
| ||
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
On April 13 2017 23:19 Ragnarork wrote: Well, your PoV is consistent with your assumption that the negev will never be viable or OP. But that's an assumption. I mean SG or AUG aren't really used and if negev is better than them, then i'd say the gun would be OP. And if it was worse, why would it be used? | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
| ||
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
On April 13 2017 23:31 Ragnarork wrote: What if the negev isn't supposed to replace the standard rifles? Like the AWP isn't just a different rifle but has a completely different purpose? Yea but i mean, why use the negev on buys, when you already have AWP and the standard rifles lol. If the answer is "because its better" then it's too strong, and if it's weaker why would you ever use it. | ||
|
Kaiwa
Netherlands2209 Posts
| ||
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
On April 13 2017 23:49 Kaiwa wrote: I don't think that because it's better it's too strong. That can be fine if the price is right. Yeah but im talking in a overall sense aka. "its good and cheap enough that i should rather use this than m4/ak". If it is then i'd say it's too good, but if the equation is worse then people will just use m4/ak and will never use the negev, which for me makes this experiment pretty pointless :D | ||
|
Ragnarork
France9034 Posts
On April 13 2017 23:41 Luolis wrote: Yea but i mean, why use the negev on buys, when you already have AWP and the standard rifles lol. If the answer is "because its better" then it's too strong, and if it's weaker why would you ever use it. That you can't see why doesn't mean there's no use. Who would've thought the UMP would actually become widely used and fit a "super cheap rifle" slot a year and a half ago? And why wouldn't there be a third category of weapons for buy rounds fitting a specific purpose that doesn't exist yet? If it can be used in a different role than the AK/M4 and the AWP, then your point is moot. | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19178 Posts
I miss the MP5  | ||
|
Genjimaru
Canada515 Posts
| ||
| ||
