Just say No to nurfs (oh and buffs)
By
Alphane,
Posted on: 2008-08-22 12:10 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
It doesn't censor assess - See? 
They strive for a perfect game, all (good) MMO devs do. They also know they won't achieve it and that there are other things they need to do too. I'd put it somewhere between 10% and 30% but those are just figures based on what I've read and haven't got anything to back them up.
We can handle you questioning them, can you handle us telling you we think they're doing it right?
@Jay Leon Hart
Kerensky: this has nothing to do with underwear
Zwillinger: I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Synapse: I had to resist starting my last post off with "Yo dawg!"
Yes if you think there spending your hard earned in the right way then more power to you I'm just one of them curious cats who will question everything!!!
Fair enough. Also, Birds > Cats
@Jay Leon Hart
Kerensky: this has nothing to do with underwear
Zwillinger: I put on my robe and wizard hat...
Synapse: I had to resist starting my last post off with "Yo dawg!"
[ QUOTE ]
Yes if you think there spending your hard earned in the right way then more power to you I'm just one of them curious cats who will question everything!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is fine, but I don't believe this is the first time you've posed this question? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm aged with a failing memory due to onset of dementia. That was partially a joke.) Repeatedly questioning the value of tweaks (there really are no nerfs going on) is not going to get people to turn around and agree with you, it's just going to result in the kind of answers you got and didn't like.
As long as they keep adding power sets, there will always be work to do on 'balance.' And while there is, there will be long and rancorous threads of complaint. Just wait until they start work on Spines... Then you'll see threads about nerfs. 
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Well Val as you seem to be the only one who has returned somesort of well thought out reply to my precept, If you will allow me let me express this in (some form of) mathmatics as it is a language that I feel comfortable with.
40% balance-Lots of players notice-Much Dev time required
30% balance-After a while you see it-Nuff Dev time required
20% balance-With some experience you notice-Dev time required
10% balance-Only veterans notice-Little Dev time needed
0% balance- Perfaection-But was it worth the sacrifices
10-4 come back yall
[/ QUOTE ]
Perfection and Balance are both impossible because they're highly subjective. That doesn't make them any less reasonable for the devs to strive for - and I hope they keep striving for it - but the first rule of MMOs is that the Devs will never be able to please all of the playerbase.
The only way to get anything approaching archetype/powerset balance in this MMO would be to reduce the options to one archetype with just 1 primary and 1 secondary powerset to choose from - but even then I suspect you'd get the playerbase moaning that the travel power pools weren't balanced against each other (heck, some do that now).
Honestly as I only care about PvE here I couldn't give a damn about balance as long as no sets are truly useless. Having sets of differing difficulty/power is actually a plus for me, because even though I mostly gravitate towards powerful powersets I do occasionally play the weaker ones for "more of a challenge".
Ok I do see the need for tweaks, especially with EM for stalkers as it pretty much was the default choice for most people (I know - I have an EM stalker - though I did think the ET change unwarranted for brutes/tankers) - but really all I want the Devs to do is keep adding content and keep fixing bugs and then I'll be happy.
[ QUOTE ]
I did think the ET change unwarranted for brutes/tankers
[/ QUOTE ]
Played an /NRG tanker? I can inform you that with enough +recharge it was possible to do near scrapper level damage just by continualy spamming ET.
I really should do something about this signature.
[ QUOTE ]
but the first rule of MMOs is that the Devs will never be able to please all of the playerbase.
[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the first rule of MMOs was "Never engage in a major brand war in Azeroth"? (And the second rule is "Never go up against a Korean when PvP is on the line!")
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre> Honestly as I only care about PvE here I couldn't give a damn about balance as long as no sets are truly useless. </pre><hr />
I would rather be able to pick an AT and then be able to pick the powersets for my character conception without worrying how easy that will make levelling. i.e. the 'challenge' bit comes from the AT rather than a weak powerset.
So, within an AT, I would prefer to see the sets well balanced. I don't care whether Blasters are balanced against Scrappers, because they have entirely different strengths and weaknesses, and different purposes and methods of overcoming superior foes.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Played an /NRG tanker? I can inform you that with enough +recharge it was possible to do near scrapper level damage just by continualy spamming ET.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to ET level - actually I think I deleted my Invul/EM at around L16ish, but that was back in I5 so I barely remember. But honestly with Tankers/Brutes it was always said that SS, EM and Stone were the big 3 melee sets (on the US forums anyway) - with Stalkers there was just the big 1 - and it was ahead of the rest by a much wider margin.
And anyway most powersets become a little ridiculous with tons of +rchg (I actually wish there was a lower cap on it) - my Mind/Psi dom doesn't have tons of global recharge yet (not til I get him to 50 anyway), but with SB and the base empowerment buff his attack chain is almost PSW -> MindProbe -> PSW as it is. But you can't balance sets around colossal +rchg because, apparently, IOs aren't mandatory and most people can't afford colossal +rchg.
Sure, for parity I guess EM did need nerfs across the board, but by picking EM a Brute/Tanker is making more of a trade-off than a Stalker - they're specialising in single-target damage and giving up the stronger area damage of other sets. For a stalker that wasn't much of a trade-off as they were always mostly single-target (until getting Electric Melee, anyway - oh and I guess Spines to a lesser extent - but there are trade-offs there in that your single-target ability, the main thing stalkers are supposed to be good at, will be sub-par).
Having EM on a 50 EM/Elec brute and a 47 EM/EA stalker I've got over the nerf now, but honestly not all sets are equivalent across all archetypes - the ET nerf certainly hit my lower survivability stalker a lot harder than it hit my brute.
Effort ramps the further towards 'perfection' you want to go. I merely questions the Devs 'Target' perhaps this is wrong I have less hard data than they do to [censored] but if they (and the community) can't 'handle' me questionong them then whatever I'll go question issues that are more 'negotiable'
Yes and you dumb censor bot thats A.s.s.e.s.s