A Note On Buffing/nerfing
#1
Posted 16 October 2017 - 03:13 PM
Obviously though you will always get a section of bad responses to any sort of nerf, and alongside that any kind of buff comes up as fodder for those who feel impacted by nerfs etc.
Along with that, the more you change at the same time the more general resistance you will come up against.
So with that in mind, I think the healthy course is to reinforce that idea that you (the devs) are looking over the current weapon balancing for the purposes of a specific goal (this was done well in the previous energy patch in terms of telling us what the goal was). When it comes to your overall planned changes you only need to speak in vagaries at that early stage, and reinforce that idea with each patch in that light.
But when it comes to the patches, stick with the idea of taking a focus like was done with the energy weapon patch, the negative responses to that patch were controlled by the idea that the other weapon categories would also see a pass, a scattered shotgun blast array of changes at a time is difficult to justify in that same regard particularly this far into the games standing position and content.
TL/DR (not that any dev will likely read this lol), focus on that idea of system changes, over just continuous small changes that come across as straight up little nerfs or buffs. People I think are much more willing to accept the idea that you are trying to keep weapon systems distinct as well as universally somewhat useful (which will inherently involve a lot of stat shifting), and then responding to how that plays out, particularly after the new weapon releases.
#2
Posted 16 October 2017 - 03:43 PM
The down side is that PGI hasn't released or even hinted at what their strategic goal is that all of the buff and nerfs are suppose to be supporting.
I think you are correct to assume "if we knew" we'd be able to see a path we're all headed towards. Rather than, the "what the heck was that all about" after every patch????
How in the heck can we get PGi to talk to us?
#3
Posted 16 October 2017 - 03:51 PM
Asym, on 16 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:
The down side is that PGI hasn't released or even hinted at what their strategic goal is that all of the buff and nerfs are suppose to be supporting.
I think you are correct to assume "if we knew" we'd be able to see a path we're all headed towards. Rather than, the "what the heck was that all about" after every patch????
How in the heck can we get PGi to talk to us?
How much money and how many candy bars do you have because it will probably take a good chunk of it for them to communicate with us.
#4
Posted 16 October 2017 - 03:59 PM
Edited by El Bandito, 16 October 2017 - 03:59 PM.
#5
Posted 16 October 2017 - 05:28 PM
Asym, on 16 October 2017 - 03:43 PM, said:
The down side is that PGI hasn't released or even hinted at what their strategic goal is that all of the buff and nerfs are suppose to be supporting.
I think you are correct to assume "if we knew" we'd be able to see a path we're all headed towards. Rather than, the "what the heck was that all about" after every patch????
How in the heck can we get PGi to talk to us?
Bro, I know Runescape gets alot of **** for being runescape, but its Devs have excellent community contact and even go way way out of their way to film podcasts and even livestream the game, or show off upcoming improvements and changes in videos.
Even compared to the battletech staff, PGI is silent.
... It makes me feel like PGI just doesnt care, and is just sitting behind a desk, laughing evilly while counting our mechpack money. It should also be noted that criticism is okay, and it isnt always an attack. legitimate criticisms are how things get fixed or changed based on player experience.
#6
Posted 16 October 2017 - 05:42 PM
#7
Posted 16 October 2017 - 05:58 PM
We used to talk a lot. Back in CB there were even devs who would actually join discussion in forum threads, instead of just making announcements. We all then realised that there were groups either fanatically supportive of or viciously opposed to any attempt at discussion about changing things. Some of the stuff we said was... well, pretty vile. If I were PGI, I wouldn't talk to us either. One thing this community is good at, is proving we are incapable of rational discourse - though we are getting better.
#9
Posted 16 October 2017 - 06:27 PM
#10
Posted 16 October 2017 - 08:19 PM
November11th, on 16 October 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:
Mostly. I'm surprised we haven't heard the approaching hoofbeats of the 33rd Irregular WTFPGI Brigade yet though.
They're out there. Probably musterin', and reminding everyone of the hundreds of dollars they suddenly aren't going to spend on mechpacks they weren't going to buy anyway.
#11
Posted 16 October 2017 - 08:26 PM
Kiiyor, on 16 October 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:
Mostly. I'm surprised we haven't heard the approaching hoofbeats of the 33rd Irregular WTFPGI Brigade yet though.
They're out there. Probably musterin', and reminding everyone of the hundreds of dollars they suddenly aren't going to spend on mechpacks they weren't going to buy anyway.
You know I said i wasnt going to give PGI money, and then they put up the piranha... they know my weaknesses TT__TT
Anyway, I'm pretty sure the WTFPGI brigade is actually occupied in another thread.
#12
Posted 16 October 2017 - 09:51 PM
Global weapon balance changes simply should not be made without an accompanying comprehensive 'Mech balance pass. Otherwise, just like the UAC nerfs last year, they will create more problems than they solve by hurting 'Mechs that are already sub-per to outright bad instead of only normalizing the small handful of overperforming variants. Individual targeted nerfs, like the ones that were applied to the TBR and SCR to break their game dominance several years ago, are a much better solution. The drivers of those specific 'Mechs and variants wouldn't be happy, but the game as a whole would be much better off than it will be with the current weapon-focused balance strategy.
#13
Posted 16 October 2017 - 09:57 PM
#14
Posted 16 October 2017 - 11:37 PM
Teer Kerensky, on 16 October 2017 - 09:57 PM, said:
That's not what people are complaining about. Things that aren't OP, and are in fact either OK or even underpowered, also get hit by the nerf bat in this patch, as collateral damage.
Like, any mech using IS Medium Laser with SRM6 gets nerfed. The cooldowns no longer align, either costing you DPS on your SRM6's if you wait for cooldown alignment, or giving more face-time to get off a follow-up shot.
Hell, ASRM6's are also nerfed with the change to Artemis.
#15
Posted 17 October 2017 - 01:02 AM
YueFei, on 16 October 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:
That's not what people are complaining about. Things that aren't OP, and are in fact either OK or even underpowered, also get hit by the nerf bat in this patch, as collateral damage.
Like, any mech using IS Medium Laser with SRM6 gets nerfed. The cooldowns no longer align, either costing you DPS on your SRM6's if you wait for cooldown alignment, or giving more face-time to get off a follow-up shot.
Hell, ASRM6's are also nerfed with the change to Artemis.
thats because PGI still tries to balance on tech level, but as long as chassis differ so much but use the same tech these "balancings" will never equally balance in a fair way to the chassis utilising this tech. PGI needs to focus on chassis balance
Edited by Lily from animove, 17 October 2017 - 01:02 AM.
#16
Posted 17 October 2017 - 04:19 AM
November11th, on 16 October 2017 - 05:28 PM, said:
Even compared to the battletech staff, PGI is silent.
... It makes me feel like PGI just doesnt care, and is just sitting behind a desk, laughing evilly while counting our mechpack money. It should also be noted that criticism is okay, and it isnt always an attack. legitimate criticisms are how things get fixed or changed based on player experience.
Look at League of Legends (LoL) as an example of video game staff involvement. Many Business reviews, Universities and others have used LoL in their graduate programs as a "teaching tool" for customer support paradigms in advanced technology markets.... Everyone that is hired must demonstrate their proficiency in playing the actual game before they are hired...... The entire executive staff "drops" in all of the time and actualy looks forward to hearing from players directly..... Sometimes, that is a bad thing and scandals have happended because of executive involvement..... But, at what, 6 to 10 million people on line each and everyday, maybe, just maybe, we should expect better from PGI and say "if they can do this, why can't you?"
If we are happy and feel part of the team and we buy more, because we are happy, then, PGI has the cash to reinvest in the game itself.... I know, "oh what pittiful stuff" but, sometimes, simple, the Occam's Razor approach works.
#17
Posted 17 October 2017 - 04:00 PM
Asym, on 17 October 2017 - 04:19 AM, said:
If we are happy and feel part of the team and we buy more, because we are happy, then, PGI has the cash to reinvest in the game itself.... I know, "oh what pittiful stuff" but, sometimes, simple, the Occam's Razor approach works.
LoL is a different case for sure, not only is it their main project (or at least has been for however long) that they have the majority of their development team involved in, they also don't have the "burden" of a lore to adhere to in exact specifics as well as that need to develop the next single player version that seems attached to Mech Warrior, and then the engine/graphics difference is substantial.
And if you don't think there are bad responses from the community that go ignored there then you are just deluding yourself, the moderators are likely worked pretty hard over there in fact.
They definitely stand out as an example of keeping the majority happy though it seems.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users