5 replies to this topic

[Dunning Kruger Effect]

The topic: Why are nerfs or buffs so drastic? Rather than "gradual" over a series of patches?

I know the LRM buff is exaggerated by everyone "trying them out" but I'm curious why in MW:O (and in fact, most other games) buffs/nerfs are so drastic. Gameplay is drastically altered.

Flight time was increased by.. what 120 to 175? That's an increase of what? ~45%?

Note: This is NOT a LRM thread - there are plenty of those already. I'm just using it as an example. So please don't let this derail into a "lol LRM n00bs" thread.

The nerf/buff process:

What seems logical to me
Patch #1: Increase ONE variable (speed) a small amount - 10-15% to say 130-140

See how things go for a week or so.

Patch #2: If needed, increase the SAME variable (speed) another 10-15% to say 150-160. "Roll-back" increases if previous change was too much.

See how things go for a week or so

...and so on

I.e. Gameplay balance would be "fine tuned" rather than sweepingly altered.

What most companies seem to do
Patch #1: Increase speed radically (let's say 50% or so) to 175 whilst simultaneously indirectly buffing in another way (i.e. NARC buff) - thus changing 2 variables

See how things go for a month

Patch #2: Nerf the missiles by doing something totally different to the original action - say reducing damage by 50%, or buffing ECM range by double to 400m

My thoughts:
It seems very "unscientific" i.e. by changing two or more variables they cannot tell what causes any issues. If LRMs turn out to be "OP" in the long term - Is it the NARC buff? Is it the LRM speed? Did the AMS radius have any impact? It's impossible to know accurately as they were all changed at once.

By making radical changes it is hard to find a "sweet spot"

By "fixing" any problems indirectly by introducing new variables (i.e. damage reduction to LRMs, or extra "ghost heat" to multiple tubes) instead of reversing or tuning back actions (i.e. slow down LRMS to 150), it further complicates matters.

Back to my original question:
Why do companies buff and nerf so drastically and scientifically? Is there some sort of financial incentive? Does it attract back players by "freshening up" gameplay? Are nerf/buffs done scientifically, or are they just numbers pulled out of a hat?

I'd love to know the decision-making process (and the testing process - does MW:O have a test server I'm unaware of?)

[CheeseThief]

The NARC change was effectively minor, it simply change one line of code from 'NARC is Worthless 1', to 'NARC is Worthless 0'.

LRM's however have been progressively buffed and nerfed over the games life cycle. When the game launched LRMs were being outrun by most mechs that went faster than 100kmph. Then they were buffed to the 120m/s along with AMS buffs to maintain AMS effectiveness, and now many months latter they have been increased to 175m/s with a similar AMS buff.

The LRM's changes in contrast to it's counters has been nonexistent, it is still just as effective against ECM and AMS as it was before the recent changes. This 45% speed increase sounds big on paper but in practice it has simply changed it so that at a range of 800m the LRM's now give you 5 seconds to get out of the way instead of 7, which as far as buffs go is rather minor since it still has the same ammo, same damage, same ballistic arc, same weight, same size and the same lock-on time as it did in the previous patch.

Edited by CheeseThief, 22 March 2014 - 04:48 AM.

[DeiPax]

Speed changes are fine, but with them, reduce the damage. As it sits right now, any idiot can get in one of these and with little effort pump out 500+ damage.

[GI Journalist]

Dramatic changes have dramatic effects. Small changes have negligible effects. I suspect most game designers want to SEE the changes they make. It's much more of an artistic process, than a scientific one.

[Mawai]

I agree with the OP that smaller changes are better than larger ones.

However, I have a question ... how is spread of LRMs calculated? Consider ... each missile has a trajectory ... each missile can strike a different part of the target mech. How many missiles hit the target would be related to the missile spread. Is the missile spread fixed? Are they tighter at closer ranges?

OR ... is the missile spread calculated by obtaining the vector result from the parallel and a perpendicular spread velocity?

In the last case, increasing the missile velocity will also reduce the missile spread ... making LRMs take less time to reach their target AND increasing their effectiveness.

I have no clue if that is what is happening ... however, after playing a half a dozen matches specifically in an LRM boat ... my personal experience is that LRMs are performing better than I would expect from just a simple speed increase.

Given PGI's track record it would NOT surprise me to find that the missile spread has been incidentally reduced with the velocity increase of LRMs.

Edited by Mawai, 22 March 2014 - 05:01 AM.

[Monty Dukesman York]

All I will say to this thread is DONT TRY TO TEACH THESE MONKEYS HOW TO DEVELOP.... Look at the product, were still in beta with no QA

THEY HAVENT GOT A CLUE HOW TO DO THE JOB THEY ARE PAYED TO DO. If there was any accountablity for all the ******* U P S they manage to roll out patch after patch there would be no PGI by now.

Obviously thats not the case because were still getting very little quality and so much shit still.

Edited by Monty Dukesman York, 22 March 2014 - 06:10 AM.