Game isn't imbalanced, current balance just isn't fun.

I do agree with what both of you are saying, but I also cannot deny the legitimacy of his arguments.

I don't mind what he says or how he says it, as long as he doesn't engage in direct attacks of character (lambasting). Even then, I particularly don't care as long as he doesn't engage in direct attacks to me, everyone else is their own problem.

Hopefully, without having to draw attention to attack someone, someone's content and intellect quality, if poor, should appear unattractive to everyone involved in it's own merit. If someone can't tell if someone else's ideas or discussion sucks, then they probably both suck. Either way, trying to sell someone against others isn't necesary, they will smear their own name should they deserve it.

ON TOPIC, I agree that the game's current balance is sort of balanced. It just has false variety. Playing with tanks isn't playing with tanks, playing with bots isn't playing with bots. Playing with air is only sort of like playing with air. Playing with grenadiers, combat fabbers, turrets, and t2, unless highly situational which is maybe 1 use and not every game, are "trick choices". If you choose them, well shame on you, your stupid and you lose, good game.

Ideally, you want to balance the game, and give anything in it a proper use with the proper power to be used as the tool that they are.

To a greater extend, I hear often that the best balance makes everything seem overpowered in a vacuum, but at least you can choose your flavor of overpowered. Right now, dox are overpowered. That might even be okay in their own right. But, you have to make tanks have something more overpowered feeling, turrets have something overpowered feeling, and everything feeling overpowered it would all be about what you use as a tool to overpower what. Then everything feels excellent.

Congratulations you`re all terrible people!!!

Every single one of your points here are really.. really bad. So bad that quite honestly I don't want to waste time rebutting all of them because it would be too much effort for not much gain. All i'll say is you should try and realise what the logical content is of what you're saying, and what you're replying to, instead of just spouting off a bunch of strawmen whether intentional or not.

I'll just leave you with this. Have a think about what you really just said.

Dox, booms, bombers, hummingbirds, ants, spinners - wow sounds pretty familiar.

Painfully assuming you're right about infernos being unviable (you couldn't be anymore wrong about that btw lol), surely it isn't beyond you to do some simple math and realise that we are still at 6/8 units, while reality is 7/8 units. Yep, definitely sounds like we're only using a handful to me.

As for why we don't see naval on duellist or zaphod? Well, part of it might have something to do with there being no water. facepalm.gif. This obviously isn't to say that naval doesn't need work, but it's pretty disingenuous to calculate a % of useable units within a roster the way you have by including units that would not be possible or map sensible to build.

You decided to nitpick my argument instead of actually rebuff it. Nope. That's not something I respond to. Why don't you look at what I said instead of going for semantics?

Ah yes the S word. 'Someone' else in this thread also liked to use that get out of jail card.

I'm not the one avoiding the point, Elodea.

What point am i ignoring? Do you really want me to point out each and ever flaw in your arguement? Happy to oblige when i have the time, but i'd rather leave it to you to figure it out yourself otherwise how else might you learn?

this post makes me want to never go on the forums agains with the community interactions i have read. great god you all are so friendly to eachother its amazing.