Jump to content

Serious Poll: Balance Patches On A Weekly Basis.


38 replies to this topic

Poll: Balance patches and the meta of the past 9 months (85 member(s) have cast votes)

Would you like to see balance patches weekly?

  1. Yes (51 votes [60.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

  2. No (30 votes [35.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 35.29%

  3. Abstain (4 votes [4.71%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.71%

Would you like to see balance patches once every 2 weeks?

  1. Yes (37 votes [50.68%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.68%

  2. No (22 votes [30.14%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 30.14%

  3. Abstain (14 votes [19.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 19.18%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 PanzerMagier

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 1,369 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSome nameless backwater planet

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:04 AM

It has come to my attention a lot of forum gripe (as well as in game toxicity) is all about the current meta. Since all the current battle mechanics are not implemented, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to tweak weapon damage/range/Cooldown/heat values on a weekly bases? Not just weapons but relatively anything that requires immediate attention. We're in beta right? So let us test.

There's no point in waiting 2-9 months for a final fix on a game breaking mechanic, only to have a new one crop up days after said patch. So why not employ a balance patch on a weekly bases? At least we'll see some change then.

At the worst, we'll have a new game breaking mechanic every week, rather than the same old story for the following weeks/months.
All things considered, realistically, every week the game will be tuned closer and closer to balanced and fair environment!

Good idea? Bad Idea? Please discuss and don't forget to vote! Thank you.

EDIT:
Added a second question because of popularity.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 16 May 2013 - 07:38 AM.


#2 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:10 AM

Simply yes, balance patch every week!

+1

#3 Lefty Lucy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 3,924 posts
  • LocationFree Tikonov Republic

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:17 AM

Yes, I'd like to see it, but I doubt the devs' capability to do it.

#4 Jestun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:20 AM

Yes.

Frequent small changes please.

And if balance changes in the wrong direction due to one of these changes, do not be afraid to hold your hands up, admit the mistake and reverse the change in the next balance patch.

#5 Lupus Aurelius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 509 posts
  • LocationHarlech, Outreach

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:23 AM

What's game breaking? 99.9% of what is on the forums is opinion, (based on individual playstyle, competence, or lack thereof), and opinion only. I'd rather have careful OBJECTIVE analysis, while considering player input, by the devs, and that takes time. Measure twice, cut once...

Also, short term solutions create long term issues.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 16 May 2013 - 07:25 AM.


#6 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:26 AM

View PostJestun, on 16 May 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Yes.

Frequent small changes please.


#7 Jestun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:28 AM

View PostLupus Aurelius, on 16 May 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Also, short term solutions create long term issues.


No, making a change and then leaving it for a long time creates a long time issue.

Making a change and then reversing it if it causes an issue in the next patch (which would not be a long time if they are frequent) causes a short term issue. And if the changes are small too they cause a small short term issue.

#8 Star Captain Obvious Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 500 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:28 AM

I voted abstain, because weekly would probably be too frequent. It takes a little longer than that for a new metagame to settle in.

However this 2-3 months between balance tweaks has got to stop.

Alternatively more open and honest communication from the Devs with their thoughts on game balance in the form of Command Chair posts would be greatly appreciated.

#9 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:28 AM

If there was a test server where they made frequent balance changes, I'd probably spend most of my game time there.

#10 Xenroth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 326 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:29 AM

I think weekly is a bit too much, but with every content patch would be nice (so at least 2 balances per month)

#11 BillyM

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 530 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:31 AM

ER/PPC heat +1 projectile speed-15%
LRMdmg +15% SRMdmg +25%
MGdmg +25% MGrange +15%
MediumJJ +20% heat, HeavyJJ +30% heat, AssaultJJ +40% heat

Hotfix today would be suitable...

--billyM

Edited by BillyM, 16 May 2013 - 07:32 AM.


#12 Mechteric

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 7,308 posts
  • LocationRTP, NC

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:34 AM

No, it takes a week for the community to pick up on something, then another week to try to find a counter. 2 weeks minimum before even deciding if something should be done. So sayeth Perfect Imbalance.




#13 Butane9000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,788 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 16 May 2013 - 07:34 AM

I assume the "test server" will do this. However that whole idea is ridiculous because this is open beta and we are the testers. Just give us the same patches. My only conclusion is that they have begun treating this open beta as a soft launch and that's why they are making the test server. Which I find insulting to everyone whose worked and tested so hard between closed beta and now.

#14 Lupus Aurelius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 509 posts
  • LocationHarlech, Outreach

Posted 16 May 2013 - 08:29 AM

View PostJestun, on 16 May 2013 - 07:28 AM, said:


No, making a change and then leaving it for a long time creates a long time issue.

Making a change and then reversing it if it causes an issue in the next patch (which would not be a long time if they are frequent) causes a short term issue. And if the changes are small too they cause a small short term issue.


It takes far more than a week to properly evaluate impact. Your opinion of an issue is just that, an opinion, and subjective. Hard data has to be accumulated, evaluated, and "corrective action" formulated in such a way as to not create another issue. Unless it is a blatantly obvious issue, like when Artemis was first released, or the ECM threadnaught that broke 100 pages in 5 days, then time is required to properly address an issue.

Just because your OPINION on something is negative, does not mean KNEE-JERK IMMEDIATE ACTION is called for by the devs. Learn patience, and objectivity.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 16 May 2013 - 08:30 AM.


#15 Diablobo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,014 posts
  • LocationOn your six

Posted 16 May 2013 - 08:49 AM

It is a good idea to make the changes more quickly, but PGI can barely fix months old problems within a decent timeframe, so there is no way they can fix/change things every two weeks, much less every week.

#16 Jestun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 08:52 AM

View PostLupus Aurelius, on 16 May 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:


It takes far more than a week to properly evaluate impact. Your opinion of an issue is just that, an opinion, and subjective. Hard data has to be accumulated, evaluated, and "corrective action" formulated in such a way as to not create another issue. Unless it is a blatantly obvious issue, like when Artemis was first released, or the ECM threadnaught that broke 100 pages in 5 days, then time is required to properly address an issue.

Just because your OPINION on something is negative, does not mean KNEE-JERK IMMEDIATE ACTION is called for by the devs. Learn patience, and objectivity.


Where did I say my opinion was anything but an opinion? Where did I demand that PGI obey my every command?

Please base your replies on reality instead of fantasy.


How many matches do you think are played each week? What effect do you think frequent balancing patches rather than stale unbalanced gameplay would have on the population size (and therefore the number of matches played)?

You're fantasy post is right, my opinion is not what matters. I want PGI to take note of feedback and respond honestly and open, not just do what people say. I want them to look at the metrics which are recorded from our matches, as well as looking at the feedback and using their own knowledge of the game systems (which is obviously greater than ours).

So it's not about how long it takes a forum discussion to build up. Forum discussions are good and should certainly be addressed - but the actual balancing should primarily be based on the metrics.


Personally I can't see frequent balancing changes meaning less people play. I think it's more likely to increase the amount of people playing as they actually have something to test. They can see the game improve (or temporarily get worse if they make a mistake, it happens) a bit at a time rather than logging on one day to find a weapon type considerably weakened and having months before the next balance patch.

Of course 1 week may indeed be too short - I think perhaps the poll should have been a little less specific. But my point is that I'd far prefer frequent small changes which are communicated and discussed (by us and the devs) so we know why they are making the changes and what they are expecting / hoping to see. At that point we can actually test.

If there are concerns about knowing the intention my alter the results then it can always be posted on the next patch day. In fact, I may like this even more. This would split the feedback in two parts. First we'd get the patch. We'd get full patch notes and play as normal. We would provide feedback and our metrics would be recorded. Then the next patch comes out and the devs explain the intentions of the previous patch.

We can then discuss and assess how successful the changes were at fixing the issues they were intended to fix (as well as the feedback we have already given on the changes in general, before we knew the exact intention).


I think this thread is too focused on a specific timeframe.

Edited by Jestun, 16 May 2013 - 08:53 AM.


#17 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:03 AM

View PostJestun, on 16 May 2013 - 07:20 AM, said:

Yes.

Frequent small changes please.

And if balance changes in the wrong direction due to one of these changes, do not be afraid to hold your hands up, admit the mistake and reverse the change in the next balance patch.


I was under the impression these"small changes" would be made based on "Community Feedback". Can we expect that said Community would put their hand up and admit it was their "mistake", and politely ask the Dev to put it back where it was or just blast the Dev after they do what the Community has asked, like before...?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 16 May 2013 - 09:03 AM.


#18 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:27 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 16 May 2013 - 09:03 AM, said:


I was under the impression these"small changes" would be made based on "Community Feedback". Can we expect that said Community would put their hand up and admit it was their "mistake", and politely ask the Dev to put it back where it was or just blast the Dev after they do what the Community has asked, like before...?

If oyu mean by "put their hand up" that some will rage and flame, others will come forth with detailed analysis, basically everything that happens now, but more often? Yes, I think you can expect that. The rage might be lessened over time as we get closer to good balance, I think, but it will never disappear entirely, because a nerf to your favorite weapon is a nerf to your favorite weapon, and a buff to your most hated weapon is a buff to your most hated weapon and objectivity cannot be expected from everyone at all times.

#19 Ogresan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:40 AM

With the way people tend to all use the new stuff for the first while it is available, weekly balance patches are far too frequent. It takes a while to compile and decipher the data generated by our testing/playing. It takes even longer to separate the trends from that data and reconcile differences with anecdotal evidence provided through tickets and these forums. I imagine they also don't want to make new players lives more confusing by changing the numbers too often.

#20 PanzerMagier

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 1,369 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSome nameless backwater planet

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:48 AM

View PostLupus Aurelius, on 16 May 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:


It takes far more than a week to properly evaluate impact. Your opinion of an issue is just that, an opinion, and subjective. Hard data has to be accumulated, evaluated, and "corrective action" formulated in such a way as to not create another issue. Unless it is a blatantly obvious issue, like when Artemis was first released, or the ECM threadnaught that broke 100 pages in 5 days, then time is required to properly address an issue.

Just because your OPINION on something is negative, does not mean KNEE-JERK IMMEDIATE ACTION is called for by the devs. Learn patience, and objectivity.

Kid, this is a business. I'm a paying customer and as a paying customer I expect results. I am not gonna wait forever for PGI's long standing broken game. It's quite easy to spot that the MAJORITY players are not satisfied with the current meta. It only took a week to find it. There's your hard data. stop spewing all this nonsense. Do you enjoy waiting 9 months for change? What we might say may be opinions, but we're paying customers and caring supporters. So our opinions MATTER.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users