Lupus 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.
1
