(01-28-2021, 03:14 PM)St.Denis Wrote: Where does this end?
It ends when there is an actual irp reason why they shouldn't have it.
Balancing IDs by adding restrictions because an ID is too much fun compared to another ID is strangling the game by making it more boring, poorly RPed, anonymous, annoyingly restrictive, rule-lawyery, balance-bickery, biased, and paranoid.
You might just as well ask "Where does all this restricting IDs because they are too good compared to each other end?".
Farmer's Alliance look at some of the other Unlawfuls and decide the others are too good and they shouldnt be able to mine or have cruisers?
Mollys look at Aux and say they shouldn't have a large ZOI than them?
Brigands look at Maquis and say they shouldnt have Cruisers?
Maquis look at the Red Hessians and say Hessians shouldnt have Battleships?
Red Hessians look at Corsairs and Outcast and want to a) remove their bonuses and b) give them a ZOI that is as small and boring as theirs?
All this "restrict stuff because we want people to make characters in 23 faction instead of 4" is not only harmful because it literally makes gameplay worse, but also because it's based on a wrong premise. People dont spend more time playing disco if they are forced to have 23 chars in 23 factions instead of 4 in 3 factions, and they don't interact with other players more. They just do it more annoyed, lonely, bored, and anonymous.
How is it so hard to understand that "lets make the fun ID as crappy as the boring ID" is a much worse way of dealing with balance than "lets make the boring ID as much fun as the fun ID"?
