Dedicate a whole issue to balancing
By
Acemace,
Posted on: 2010-03-26 06:17 in Suggestions and Ideas
I think you'll get about as much traction on that request as a request to dedicate a whole issue to fixing performance issues in open zones.
Meaning: None at all.
Game balance is an ongoing process. It will never be "finished."
Be well, people of CoH.
Besides the fact that it is never going to happen
Balancing is not one shot and forget.
Subsequent changes/additions to the game affect the balance, and so may require future adjustements.
So not only is it never going to happen, it simply cannot happen if we are ever to expect future additions to the game
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
Quote:
Why do say that?|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
Game balance is an ongoing process. It will never be "finished."
|
That would mean that they currently do not have something they are balancing around.
If you don't have a stat quo on where the balancing should be...then how are you "balancing" things?
Quote:
I'm confused by this.|
Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
So not only is it never going to happen, it simply cannot happen if we are ever to expect future additions to the game
|
Your saying that if the game was balanced...we could no longer get new things.
How do you figure?
Adding new stuff affects the current situation, and may require adjustments to the current powers/enhancements/inherents/whatever to bring things back into balance.
The only truly balanced MMO is a stagnant/dead one.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
Because the devs are not gods of perfection and foresight with infinite amounts of time to consider all possible ramifications of every change made to the game.
Do you have any idea how many powers are in this game? How many variables might affect each power? How changing an animation on one power might affect the overall feel and performance of a set?
If you got your wish, and the devs stopped working on everything to put every bit of their bandwidth into powers/enhancements balance, we wouldn't see a new issue until sometime around 2013. And they'd end up laying off at least 75% of their employees that have absolutely nothing to do with powers balance because they'd be sitting around with their thumbs up their backsides not allowed to work on anything because of this mandate to push a balance issue.
No new powersets. No new content. No new events. Nothing. Nada.
In other words, your request is a colossal waste of resources.
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
That doesn't have to happen if you take the time to balance something before you put it into the game.|
Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
Adding new stuff affects the current situation, and may require adjustments to the current powers/enhancements/inherents/whatever to bring things back into balance.
|
Adding new stuff should never require adjustments to the current.
Quote:
Anything new added to the game would require the balancing to be recalculated.|
Originally Posted by Vitality
I'm confused by this.
Your saying that if the game was balanced...we could no longer get new things. How do you figure? |
The suggestion is a bad one. Small tweaks are usualy overlooked by the majority, but major sweeping nerf-fests are hated by everyone. Just look at champion's launch patch.
Doing the balancing in a single swoop will likely cause a lot of people to walk out on the game.
Quote:
Good points...if you're right about it taking that long.|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
Because the devs are not gods of perfection and foresight with infinite amounts of time to consider all possible ramifications of every change made to the game.
Do you have any idea how many powers are in this game? How many variables might affect each power? How changing an animation on one power might affect the overall feel and performance of a set? If you got your wish, and the devs stopped working on everything to put every bit of their bandwidth into powers/enhancements balance, we wouldn't see a new issue until sometime around 2013. And they'd end up laying off at least 75% of their employees that have absolutely nothing to do with powers balance because they'd be sitting around with their thumbs up their backsides not allowed to work on anything because of this mandate to push a balance issue. No new powersets. No new content. No new events. Nothing. Nada. In other words, your request is a colossal waste of resources. |
I personally think it would be worth it...knowing, that the time I put into this character, grinding and all that fun stuff to get my character where I want it to be, that it will never be changed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
Adding new stuff affects the current situation, and may require adjustments to the current powers/enhancements/inherents/whatever to bring things back into balance.
|
Pretty much this.
Every time you add a new powerset, or IO, or Archetype, or mission, or story arc, or task force, or pretty much anything else that wasn't there before, you have to look at the entire game and see if there's anything that gets thrown out of whack by it.
Look at it like a see-saw. If both sides have equal weight on them it will be balaced. If you add something to one side, the balance will tilt toward that side. So you need to either add something to the other side, or move something from one side to the other.
Hence, every new thing you add has potential to throw off the balance. The only way to really finish balancing the game is to stop adding new things to it. And I think I can speak for the majority in saying that would be an unpopular solution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately. |
Quote:
Couldn't they do this before they add it...and then balance that around the game...not the game around the new powerset?
|
Originally Posted by ClawsandEffect
Pretty much this.
Every time you add a new powerset, or IO, or Archetype, or mission, or story arc, or task force, or pretty much anything else that wasn't there before, you have to look at the entire game and see if there's anything that gets thrown out of whack by it. |
Quote:
And you think they don't try to balance stuff before they add it?|
Originally Posted by Vitality
That doesn't have to happen if you take the time to balance something before you put it into the game.
Adding new stuff should never require adjustments to the current. |
Here's the deal. No group of testers can try every variation. No dev or team of devs can anticipate what thousands of players will do with something once they have it.
There's just no way. Unless you want something like one new issue a year, or no new content at all, then you're not going to get what you're asking for.
Besides. If they devote a full issue to "balance" what does everyone else on the staff do? They'd have to wait to see what the final balance changes were before they went ahead with any new content or systems. You're telling 2 small groups of people (the powers guys and the engineers) to do all the work while the other dozens of people sit around for months.
Idea. Does. Not. Make. Sense.
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Quote:
Yeah, that's a very good point.
|
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
Besides. If they devote a full issue to "balance" what does everyone else on the staff do? They'd have to wait to see what the final balance changes were before they went ahead with any new content or systems. You're telling 2 small groups of people (the powers guys and the engineers) to do all the work while the other dozens of people sit around for months.
|
Quote:
That sounds boring as hell to me.| I personally think it would be worth it...knowing, that the time I put into this character, grinding and all that fun stuff to get my character where I want it to be, that it will never be changed. |
I've been playing since Sep of 04. My first character is <-----that guy over there and he still gets a lot of my gameplay. I would love it if we were granted unlimited respecs at 50. Why? Cuz I've used them all up. ALL of them.
Why? Partly due to changes forced upon me. ED, the GDN, the claws revamp part 1, the claws revamp part 2, the addition of IOs and again when new IOs are delivered.
It's also partly due my min/maxing attitude. The recent BotZ change will force me to respec again. Goody. Castle's already stated we're getting a freespec for it.
Change must occur in an MMO. If it doesn't, it will become stagnant, boring and die.
The devs know this. Your request will never come to pass.
Be well, people of CoH.
Quote:
Change in content must occur...not change in character...unless you want to change it.|
Originally Posted by Bill Z Bubba
That sounds boring as hell to me.
I've been playing since Sep of 04. My first character is <-----that guy over there and he still gets a lot of my gameplay. I would love it if we were granted unlimited respecs at 50. Why? Cuz I've used them all up. ALL of them. Why? Partly due to changes forced upon me. ED, the GDN, the claws revamp part 1, the claws revamp part 2, the addition of IOs and again when new IOs are delivered. It's also partly due my min/maxing attitude. The recent BotZ change will force me to respec again. Goody. Castle's already stated we're getting a freespec for it. Change must occur in an MMO. If it doesn't, it will become stagnant, boring and die. The devs know this. Your request will never come to pass. |
...but, I do realize why this suggestion is a bad idea.
Quote:
You are operating from a few false premises, namely: |
Originally Posted by Vitality
Ok, I know a lot of people get mad over a "nerf" that changes their characters build...no matter how small this "nerf" is.
So, I'm suggesting that they get the nerfing over with and dedicate a whole issue to balancing this game. Then, players will never have to worry about the efficiency of their build being changed by outside factors. I think this would be a great idea. What do you all think? |
that "balance" is a process with an ending
that people would want an issue that contains nothing but changes of value in a database
that introducing new powers wouldn't impact the game
that introducing new enemies wouldn't impact the game
that "balancing" is only achieved via "nerfs"
that it is a great idea
Quote:
For me, this is already the case. Once I get to 50... my character is pretty much done, and where I want it to be... not to be changed.|
Originally Posted by Vitality
I personally think it would be worth it...knowing, that the time I put into this character, grinding and all that fun stuff to get my character where I want it to be, that it will never be changed.
|
Also, there is no grinding... at least not for me.
Pretty much what bill and Cat said. Balance is just that, "balancing." With every new element introduced into the game the devs have to balance this with preexisting elements. It's a process that continues and can never be fixed with one issue.
Quote:
I have a bit of a problem with this statement. For a few reasons. While the Devs can't concieve of EVERY possible way their changes may affect builds or might be abused. And they certainly can't account for every bug that might be exploited..|
Originally Posted by Lemur Lad
And you think they don't try to balance stuff before they add it?
Here's the deal. No group of testers can try every variation. No dev or team of devs can anticipate what thousands of players will do with something once they have it. . |
The beta-testers during i13 WARNED the developers that the changes would KILL ladder PvP and would widen the gap between PvE and pvp as well as push people away from PvP and many out of subscription entirely.
Those that beta-tested AE WARNED developers that the reward system was BAD and would be abused by farmers and RMT'ers, many made some great alternative suggestions...they were ignored.
I remember when BotZ came out many beta-testers told devs Exhaustively that the bonuses were too high and they'd be abused...they were ignored.
I could go on..but those are some of the glaringly obvious things I could think of that the devs could have fixed just by LISTENING to what their beta-testers were saying.
My point, if the devs would listen to criticism and the insightfulness of their beta-testers; MOST of the exploits and nerfs that the devs have made could have easily been avoided and anticipated.
Quote:
12,137
|
Originally Posted by bill z bubba
do you have any idea how many powers are in this game?
|
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tokyo
The beta-testers during i13 WARNED the developers that the changes would KILL ladder PvP and would widen the gap between PvE and pvp as well as push people away from PvP and many out of subscription entirely.
Those that beta-tested AE WARNED developers that the reward system was BAD and would be abused by farmers and RMT'ers, many made some great alternative suggestions...they were ignored. I remember when BotZ came out many beta-testers told devs Exhaustively that the bonuses were too high and they'd be abused...they were ignored. I could go on..but those are some of the glaringly obvious things I could think of that the devs could have fixed just by LISTENING to what their beta-testers were saying. My point, if the devs would listen to criticism and the insightfulness of their beta-testers; MOST of the exploits and nerfs that the devs have made could have easily been avoided and anticipated. |
Not to wade knee deep into an i13 PvP debacle debate, but Castle has stated that his full measure of PvP changes were not green lighted due to time constraints, and he believed his complete slate of changes would be well received, or something to that effect, someone will post a link to his comments if it's important enough.
As far as suggestions in beta over AE/Botz etc being ignored, I think you have to rationalize the fact that there is a time table to get these issues to live servers, and as long as there are no major bugs and everything is generally working as intended, an issue will go live as planned with a package of various fixes coming some time afterwards.
The AE imps/rikti farms and the subsequent Posi backlash was an illustration of how that can go bad, but it's unlikely it happened because the devs didn't listen to testers input or because they just didn't care.
Like a lot of people I've been in all the c/betas and I know the devs are listening to feedback, sometimes they just do what they can to get an issue out there, and hope to revisit problems players raised when they have time.
It's not perfect, but then neither are we. ;]
Quote:
So, basically he is saying that...if you hate PvP...it's not my fault so don't blame me?|
Originally Posted by Acemace
Not to wade knee deep into an i13 PvP debacle debate, but Castle has stated that his full measure of PvP changes were not green lighted due to time constraints, and he believed his complete slate of changes would be well received, or something to that effect, someone will post a link to his comments if it's important enough.
|
Also, that's pretty sad that they won't spend the time to get it "right".
Issues 4, 5, and 6 were almost entirely dedicated to balancing, at least hero-side. And look how popular they were 
Quote:
Thanks for telling me about beta tests I was there for. I disagree that most of those problems were easy to avoid though.
|
Originally Posted by Tokyo
Pretty much what bill and Cat said. Balance is just that, "balancing." With every new element introduced into the game the devs have to balance this with preexisting elements. It's a process that continues and can never be fixed with one issue.
I have a bit of a problem with this statement. For a few reasons. While the Devs can't concieve of EVERY possible way their changes may affect builds or might be abused. And they certainly can't account for every bug that might be exploited.. The beta-testers during i13 WARNED the developers that the changes would KILL ladder PvP and would widen the gap between PvE and pvp as well as push people away from PvP and many out of subscription entirely. Those that beta-tested AE WARNED developers that the reward system was BAD and would be abused by farmers and RMT'ers, many made some great alternative suggestions...they were ignored. I remember when BotZ came out many beta-testers told devs Exhaustively that the bonuses were too high and they'd be abused...they were ignored. I could go on..but those are some of the glaringly obvious things I could think of that the devs could have fixed just by LISTENING to what their beta-testers were saying. My point, if the devs would listen to criticism and the insightfulness of their beta-testers; MOST of the exploits and nerfs that the devs have made could have easily been avoided and anticipated. |
"Null is as much an argument "for removing the cottage rule" as the moon being round is for buying tennis shoes." -Memphis Bill
Ok, I know a lot of people get mad over a "nerf" that changes their characters build...no matter how small this "nerf" is.
So, I'm suggesting that they get the nerfing over with and dedicate a whole issue to balancing this game.
Then, players will never have to worry about the efficiency of their build being changed by outside factors.
I think this would be a great idea.
What do you all think?