One thing that REALLY annoys me:
By
Bosstone,
Posted on: 2012-04-25 09:04 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I had some big long speech, but I will cut it down to this:
If you are defending a mechanic that can be improved in some way because the improvement will affect your build, you're acting in a self-serving manner. Calling you selfish is rude and it shouldn't happen, but that's how it is.
If you have an argument for not changing the mechanic besides "It's always been that way" and "It will affect my build", then yes, you might have a case, but otherwise, you're going to be spinning your wheels because if the mechanic can be changed to something better, it should be. Period.
Quote:
I don't think that is completely accurate. I do think that the developers may have had a problem with the way procs behaved but they just didn't talk about it publicly since they had no tools at that time to change the way they worked.|
Originally Posted by Combat
For instance, see the proposed I24 proc changes. Procs have behaved in a roughly similar way since IOs were first added to the game, and the developers have never before had a problem with the way procs behaved, in the sense that the general mechanism was considered fine even when certain procs/powers were unbalanced. Yes, procs worked in a way that penalized some powers and aided others, but that was generally understood and still was an accepted part of the game. But now, I and others that utilized the nature of existing procs in order to enhance our gameplay are "selfishly trying to protect the bad mechanics for their gain." |
As new tools have been developed, they have been able to change several things, not just procs, that they couldn't change before (Hami-O's that affected a stat they weren't supposed to affect as one example).
It's also possible that with some of the new items they are trying to introduce that they need to use newer tools with them and they are trying to balance older items along with the newer items.
It's also possible that some of the changes are due to design decisions made by the current team of developers rather than staying with decisions made by previous development teams.
That's not someone trying to claim you are "selfishly trying to protect the bad mechanics for their gain" as you put it. That's someone offering a fairly reasonable and plausible assessment as to why things are being changed now.
Also, there have been changes to the game since day 1 and will continue to be changes to the game. It is the developer's that get to make the decision as to whether or not they think a specific change is needed and they are under no obligation to give us that reasoning. Also, they don't always tell us if they think that something isn't working as well as they want it to work or in the way they want it to work, especially if they don't have a way to change it.
Work with the changes or leave. That's your decision. That's been a decision every player has had to make over the years in regards to specific changes. The old phrase was "vote with your wallet" but that's no longer a relevant phrase.
If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough.
Black Pebble is my new hero.
Quote:
I think you mean "cheating" |
Originally Posted by Combat
most of what min/maxers do is NOT exploitative.
|
they are "exploitative"
exploiting something means taking advantage of it, often to an unethical degree. It does not mean cheating.
also min/max does not mean uber. it refers specifically to focusing on only a few things. Few uber characters min/max. They want high everything. A sniper who focuses on range and ignores recharge and defense would be a min/maxer.
Uber builds look for what is out of whack and exploit it. They deliberately seek out that which is overpowered to use. They should suffer no illusions that those will be nerfed to make them less or not overpowered.
I've been playing MMOs for just a hair under 10 years now, and that whole time, every couple of weeks, I've had to explain this to somebody who didn't get it:
In any multiplayer game, especially in any massively multiplayer game, if you find one combination of character class, skills, and equipment that is clearly more powerful than any other, and you start playing that combination? You will be nerfed. If what you do after that is move on to the next-most overpowered build? You will be nerfed again. To go down the path of the min/maxer is to spend your whole MMO career complaining about the constant nerfs.
There's a very good reason for this, and I've seen it with my own eyes. In Neocron, due to some irreparably broken character class design, there was one character class spec that, frankly, shouldn't have even been possible, the hybrid psi-monk. Reakktor Media spent years trying to find some way to balance it that would make it still fun, and still playable, but not overpowered -- by the end of which time their game was nicknamed "Monk-o-cron," because at least three quarters of all characters were hybrid psi-monks.
No massively multiplayer online game company wants that, or else they wouldn't bother introducing multiple character classes and multiple weapons (or multiple archetypes and multiple powersets) in the first place. And the only way they can stay on top of that is to nerf every clearly-overpowered Flavor of the Month that crops up. So if the only thing you can have fun playing is clearly-overpowered Flavors of the Month? Get used to the nerfs.
I don't think I explained my point thoroughly enough.
I'm not angry entirely at change. Sometimes change is warranted, ie in the cases I mentioned in my first post.
What's I'm angry about is the player response, specifically derisive player response to those who enjoy optimization. I dislike being told my opinion doesn't matter whenever game balance becomes an issue, whether it be AT balance, powersets, IOs, procs, or any other issue. I dislike being treated as inferior by other players because I engage in activity that enhances my gameplay.
This may not seem like an issue to some, but I have seen the sentiment in dozens of threads recently over a wide variety of topics. I could point out the exact posts that I am referring to if you wish.
TW/Elec Optimization
I've never met a player who complained about people who "build to succeed"
I have heard people complain that certain builds are unfair because they have far more potential (True or not, you decide), I have heard people complain about setups being too hard to work with (HEATs used to get this a lot), but the only time I hear people beating on "Min/maxers" is when they want to keep something that is obviously upsetting balance, and just for themselves. You may have caught a few knee-jerk reactions.
Yeah, I think you are better off dealing with this on a case by a case basis as it arises. Making a thread to complain about how min/max'ers are being treated is not going to garner the response that you seek.
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
Quote:
Like I said, I'd be fine with bringing examples to prove what I mean. |
Originally Posted by Devlin_Quaid
I've never met a player who complained about people who "build to succeed"
I have heard people complain that certain builds are unfair because they have far more potential (True or not, you decide), I have heard people complain about setups being too hard to work with (HEATs used to get this a lot), but the only time I hear people beating on "Min/maxers" is when they want to keep something that is obviously upsetting balance, and just for themselves. You may have caught a few knee-jerk reactions. |
I have heard people say, both directly and indirectly, that any nerf to a high performance set (Fire Control, Kinetics, SS, Fire Armor, etc.) is completely justified solely on the grounds that they are good.
I've heard people justify any and every change that affects high-end builds negatively, regardless of whether or not it was WAI. In a theoretical example, it would be like the developers deciding to change the 5-set rule to 3 sets, and a large portion of the playerbase approving solely because it hurt sets that were optimized.
TW/Elec Optimization
Quote:
Which is exactly why you need to address them when they do that. Making a thread to complain about them doing that is not going to address the issue directly at all.
|
Originally Posted by Combat
I've heard people justify
|
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
Quote:
that they are good, or that they are better than the other sets?|
Originally Posted by Combat
I have heard people say, both directly and indirectly, that any nerf to a high performance set (Fire Control, Kinetics, SS, Fire Armor, etc.) is completely justified solely on the grounds that they are good.
|
I am willing to bet that you cannot come up with a single example of someone justifying nerfing a set because it was "good" as opposed to "too good" or broken.
High performance sets are not the ones that are good. They are the ones that are exceptionally good. And sets which are exceptionally good or bad should be brought in line with everything else. Powers that are exceptionally good or bad need not be - balance is by set not power.
Quote:
Because it's not optimization that some are defending. It's clearly overpowered mechanics that they leveraged that they're defending. And they throw the term 'nerf!' against what is a valid fix/rebalance and are implacable at any change to that.|
Originally Posted by Combat
What's I'm angry about is the player response, specifically derisive player response to those who enjoy optimization.
|
I get angry at those who do that. I'm sorry you get angry when I get angry when I call them out for doing so.
Speeding Through New DA Repeatables || Spreadsheet o' Enhancements || Zombie Skins: better skins for these forums || Guide to Guides
No actual input, but the thread title made me think of this:
I was doing some playthroughs of City of Heroes. Now they will serve as memories of a better time ...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
Yeah, I think you are better off dealing with this on a case by a case basis as it arises. Making a thread to complain about how min/max'ers are being treated is not going to garner the response that you seek.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Darth_Khasei
Which is exactly why you need to address them when they do that. Making a thread to complain about them doing that is not going to address the issue directly at all.
|
Very well stated.
If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough.
Black Pebble is my new hero.
So the OP's upset at the responses mini-maxers get from people that are sick of listening to them complain? 
Quote:
I know what you're talking about. Agree that it's sometimes embarrassing and not constructive.|
Originally Posted by Combat
What's I'm angry about is the player response, specifically derisive player response to those who enjoy optimization.
|
But I've engaged in it myself occasionally, despite my better judgment. The reason is two-fold, IMHO.
Firstly, other players often get the impression "L33t" min-maxer players regard themselves as, well, elite -- better, smarter, more cutting-edge. This comes through in some of the complaints. It can be hard to be sympathetic when the guy who always acted like he was God's gift to gaming whines [not that I'm singling anyone specific out as such].
And secondly, the whining itself. I understand nobody likes a nerf, but each and every time, someone is bound to complain about it like it was the freaking Holocaust. Threats to quit are common. For one example, look at the elaborate, 318-post thread, The Enzyme Nerf Cometh, where some players -- you included, I see, upon re-skimming it -- were "somewhat worked up" over a long-foreshadowed change that reduced just one aspect -- DDR -- of the Shields powerset to, well, second-best in the game, still higher than other sets (Invulnerability, for example) whose DDR is considered usefully strong.
It's that sort of "sky is falling" response to any change (that doesn't make a set demonstrably stronger) that loses the sympathy of many players. I suppose even min-maxers who have not engaged in it wind up suffering for the extravagant claims of their fellows.
If we are to die, let us die like men. -- Patrick Cleburne
----------------------------------------------------------
The rule is that they must be loved. --Jayne Fynes-Clinton, Death of an Abandoned Dog
Quote:
This.|
Originally Posted by Sailboat
And secondly, the whining itself. I understand nobody likes a nerf, but each and every time, someone is bound to complain about it like it was the freaking Holocaust.
|
I'm not opposed to min/maxing. I even do it myself in other games. (I generally don't in CoX because I play it more for the environment and the genre than for the mechanics.)
But after enough min/maxers whining when any change gets made that 'this will ruin my carefully-crafted build', I really lose sympathy.
If you enjoy the process of crafting meticulous builds to take advantage of the game mechanics, having the mechanics change should be a challenge to provide you more fun, shouldn't it?
--
Pauper
I completely understand being frustrated about change.
Optimization of a character is encouraged within the structure of the systems we provide. It's always important to remember that part of MMO game development predicates the need for change, which means that these systems will always be changing. I do get that it's annoying to rethink builds, especially for those who have used the same build for months, even years. At the same time, this can't stop us from making design decisions that are for the overall health of the game.
These changes are not slated until Issue 24. Because we know that this is an important matter for many of you, we wanted to open up the dialog now and include the Community in the feedback process from an early standpoint. For now, if you're VIP, please feel free to engage Synapse in conversation regarding these changes and provide feedback once it hits Beta.
There's plenty of time to work on this, so let's approach it as a marathon, not a sprint.
Andy Belford
Community Manager
Paragon Studios
Agreed that it should be case-by-case. There are some cases where unintended consequences do not substantially harm the game and in fact improve the experience. Then there are others that are identified as exploits by the devs, do break balance, and quite literally the only reasons for keeping them are entirely self-serving.
For example, the HO exploit was always stated to be an exploit. Powersets were not designed with the exploit in mind, and thus the exploit enabled them to achieve higher levels of performance than intended. The only reason given to keep them on was that players didn't want to lose their brokenness. The OP is on record as complaining hyperbolically that Shield Defense is now worthless, when in fact it was merely brought back in line with other defense powersets.
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
I do a lot to optimize characters, but in general I don't complain when things are changed. I accept that making use of exploits is a calculated risk on the part of the player, and that change in an MMO is inevitable. I consider dealing with the changes and figuring out how to use them to build a better character as part of the fun of build optimization. Every issue brings a new FotM, new ways to increase performance and a new build to reroll that subpar alt into. Optimization is like a logic puzzle, demanding good reasoning and judgement - it'd be a lot less fun if it were just about picking mids' builds from a list.
Nerfs are not always negative things, either. Part of the fun of playing an elite build is the sense of being significantly more powerful than others, but if everyone is playing the same thing, that that defeats the purpose of optimization. When I first made my shield scrapper the damage was phenomenal but it was not so noticeable with 4 other */SD on the team scrambling to get kills. After shield was nerfed, the number of shielders went down dramatically. Net result - even though the set was slightly weaker than before, I got to dominate the killcount much more often that fewer people were playing it. Overall, I consider that positive.
Sometimes, it applies fairly to things that are too far above the standard or using broken mechanics (old-PSW, Toggle-IH, I0 Smoke Grenade). However, a lot of times it is used as a standard argument for any change that affects min-maxed builds more than others. By definition, a min/max build is one that is optimized to take advantage of game mechanics. However, most of what min/maxers do is NOT exploitative. We use IO sets in order to get high recharge, we carefully manage pool powers and defense bonuses to get to the soft-cap, and we use procs in order to eke the last bit of performance from powers, and none of those were considered exploits until recently.
And that makes me angry. To me, optimization is a part of the game as fun as playing the game itself. Others like designing costumes, roleplaying, or any other activity, but I like to my characters that can do impressive things for their AT, powerset combination, or just in general. For some reason, this playstyle is often vilified in ways that other playstyles never are even when it often has no negative affect on other players.
When people say "I have little regard for those who are trying to selfishly protect the bad mechanics they've successfully leveraged for their own gain," it is offensive to me. It is especially offensive when the change affects something that has been constant for a long time or has been granted the WAI tag by developers.
For instance, see the proposed I24 proc changes. Procs have behaved in a roughly similar way since IOs were first added to the game, and the developers have never before had a problem with the way procs behaved, in the sense that the general mechanism was considered fine even when certain procs/powers were unbalanced. Yes, procs worked in a way that penalized some powers and aided others, but that was generally understood and still was an accepted part of the game. But now, I and others that utilized the nature of existing procs in order to enhance our gameplay are "selfishly trying to protect the bad mechanics for their gain."
It also angers me when people dismiss criticisms of those like me because they do not enjoy or participate in optimization, or do not do so to the same degree. The sentiment that a nerf to min/maxed builds is okay because it doesn't affect a casual player is the same as me thinking that a change that made Cat Ears unusable is okay because I don't use Cat Ears. Yes, it is easy to paint those that optimize as bad-guys and other playstyles as the good guys, but the playstyle is just as valid and will continue as long as the game exists. There is no reason to attack people like me for the way we play the game, and the vilification on virtually every thread about game balance is unnecessary.
Thank you, and have a good day.
TW/Elec Optimization