Joker86 - from what I've seen, mainly no. Most of the arguments I saw (and I'd say I read about 50% of the pages in most of the recent whining threads) people resort to saying something is overpowered, or unbalanced, but don't explain how (if you say something is overpowered, explain to me if there is no counter-measure to defend against it). I've yet to see anyone ever justify how something is overpowered.
You think ladders are OP? Bring a ladder yourself. You think archers on rooftops are OP? Put some archers on a rooftop yourself.
As a general rule of thumb, every class can be countered by AT LEAST that same class, generally at least 1 or 2 other builds/classes as well.
I'll state it again, nothing in the game ever has been, or ever will be that overpowered that there is no way to counter it's strengths. Every class or build or technique has a weakness that can be exploited. I'm just tired of the answer to every issue is to "nerf" something.
The sheer existance of a counter doesn't make things BALANCED. To have BALANCED things, chances must be EQUAL (in general, given there are some rock-paper-siccor-mechanisms)
And if infantry brings an own ladder (which adds only a lot of weight, slowing you down and takes away precious item slots, so it's a bad solution!) it either gets destroyed by the archers before the infantry can get up, or even worse, the archers let them come up and shoot them to bits.
- It is completely unfair that infantry has to take the same item like archers only to take away an advantage archers gain from maps, and infantry doesn't have a single similar benefit from any map, except of pure "narrow alley" maps. In other words: if archers take a ladder they have a massive benefit from it. If infantry takes a ladder it has a slightly better chance to remove a massive benefit from enemy archers. Really?
- It is plain retarded to have archers being invulnerable to 50-66% of the enemy team until the end of the round.
- Infantry CAN use houses, too, to go into cover, but in difference to archers using houses they can't participate in the battle any more
- It is part of the basic class balance, that archers can attack infantry over distance, but once the infantry reaches the archers, they most likely will die. Roofcamping breaks this balance
- You can't simply "ignore" roofcampers and look for other targets. It is the most resonable thing to first kill the weakest enemies who can deal the most damage, which puts archers on a high position in the target priority list, but if they sit on a roof you can't do shit about it as they are standing above you and shoot your team to bits.
- Archers on a rooftop have noone to fear, in worst case someone can attack them at equal chances, so there is noone who has BETTER chances against them... I mean... WTF? Everyone else has a class he is weak against!
The only arguments FOR roofcamping I heard were:
- It's smart to take advantage of your sorroundings, it's okay to use natural benefits, so it's okay to roofcamp
But the same way you can argument:
- it's smart to use doping in sport, you benefit from it, so it's okay to dope
While correct in itself it still shows a massive amount of "dickness"...
I hope those are enough arguments for you to show that roofcamping IS OP.
And if you don't care about something, how can you know it's only whining and not justified?
You know, it's not like I want to attack you in any way, or to "prove I was right", but I feel somehow offended if I get named a whiner only because of complaining about an obvious and undeniably unfair advantage of a particular class over all other classes.
