Game Balance & The Endgame

[Captain Yesterday]

2 minutes ago, Monos King said:

Can you link to me a popular game or legacy server that does this? I think what your insinuating calls for investigation. Consider me intrigued.

Nope. Can't.

 

Dev's asking for player input, then refining it, and then implementing it base purely on player input and not some dev based plans(nerfs) I have never seen done.

[Machariel]

4 hours ago, FUBARczar said:

The current best successful master runs by AT are:

Scrappers 17 minutes

Blasters 23 minutes

Brutes 26 minutes

Corruptors 29 mins

Defenders 32 minutes

Controllers 32 minutes

Tanks 34 minutes

Stalkers 36 mins

DOMINATORS 46 mins

Sentinels DNF (yet)

MMs never tried

 

So yeah Dominators should be like to Blasters, what tanks are to Brutes, but not even close.  For starters, maybe try a simple damage modifier change to be the opposite of a Blaster: 1.125 Melee and 1.0 Range.  

My takeaway from this is that having more than one Dominator on a team can be redundant.  Once a mob is controlled, making it more controlled doesn't make the fight any faster.  Indeed, it might even slow it down, in that the time spent casting the control powers is basically wasted.  Also if like 20 enemies are confused, applying a hold or stun etc to them makes them stop attacking each other, so that potential damage is also lost.  Unlike controllers Dominators aren't really force multipliers and don't have debuffs that make things die faster, so while they can complete the TF in relative safety (and skip Minotaurs/Cyclops T9 by stacking hold magnitude), they can really only defeat things as fast as 4 Dominator secondaries.  I don't think that's necessarily bad, it's just a function of how the AT is designed.

 

On the other hand, it also makes a big difference whether those secondaries are like, Fire or Ice vs Elec or Thorny.  So they could definitely handle being looked at.

[ScarySai]

9 minutes ago, GM Widower said:

But I wouldn't particularly worry about this place turning into the WoW forums, if for no other reason than we actually bother moderating this place.

 

Blizzard's moderation is such a joke that I find it unfair to even call it anything close to moderation.

Edited September 21, 2020 by ScarySai

[Captain Yesterday]

9 minutes ago, Neiska said:

Secondly it wouldn't surprise me in the least if people tried to make multiple accounts or something to vote more than once etc.

Boy, you guys latched onto the vote concept to tear it apart like a tick on a hound dog.

 

It doesn't have to be a "vote". Get that out of your head.

 

Generally, I am talking about - Dev's ask what players want first/most - then implement, instead of the more common

 

<slams raw beef on the table> "there's your dinner, eat up, what you don't like raw beef" dev style.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Captain Yesterday

[Giovanni Valia]

9 minutes ago, Monos King said:

Can you link to me a popular game or legacy server that does this? I think what your insinuating calls for investigation. Consider me intrigued.

Spoiler

 

Voting for game changes is definitely a thing. Not always for the better though...

Edited September 21, 2020 by Giovanni Valia

[JayboH]

17 minutes ago, Andreah said:

I feel they've been doing a good job of asking for feedback and eliciting ideas and suggestions. 

Can confirm.

 

Some of my requests and discussions were not only listened to, but verbally agreed to on the forums, PMs, and development changes were made in closed alpha/beta.

[ScarySai]

3 minutes ago, Giovanni Valia said:

Voting for game changes is definitely a thing. Not always for the better though...

Perhaps not, though I think it could be a good way to keep the community involved, especially for something like HC, which really is a community thing at the end of the day. Like it or not, it's the community that makes this server successful, despite some...notable outliers.

 

I think if at least one thing in a patch in terms of priority came down to a vote, it could be interesting. Not exactly how things get changed, oh no no no - don't do that, but if it comes down to what gets changed, that could be fun. 

 

Of course, that means my kheldians will never get their overdue QoL, but it could be fun for you blasters and brutes out there.

[JayboH]

EDIT:  forums are freaking out, double post.

 

Why can't we delete posts?

Edited September 21, 2020 by JayboH

[zenblack]

20 minutes ago, Captain Yesterday said:

To avoid all these "bad feelings" why not create a format where devs say -

"Hey we were thinking of doing this? How many for How many against? Any ideas to change or improve it?"

Then you refine that forum around and around (put the forum shills to good use for once) until you get a majority 80%, then you implement that change.

 

But that would be too close to allowing real fun and it would take away the ability to inflict arbitrary and artificial tyranny.

 

I do not give permission to use this post to harm me in any way.

Bureaucracy for balance is one of the worst methods. Having feedback and then allowing it to inform your decisions (if you need more eyeballs on a problem) is a much better method.

[Xanatos]

48 minutes ago, Neiska said:

I have noticed a bit of a change over time in the community. When it first started, the community seemed more supportive and positive. But after reading some comments here, I can't say its gotten better. Only the Dev's and Moderators know for sure but where I'm sitting, its seemed to have grown more toxic. I do hope its just me seeing that, because if it is getting more toxic, then for me the game is loosing some of what made it stand out to begin with. The people. It wasn't like other games where the community was harsh, sometimes openly hostile to one another. But now, I'm not so sure. And how I see it, that has more to do with people leaving (if they are) than any updates/changes/fixes that have been done.

 

I've noticed this too. In myself, as well. I think it's just covid lockdown & the political climate putting people on edge a bit.

 

If it makes you feel any better, it seems to just be a forum thing. People in game as as nice as they ever were.

[Andreah]

1 minute ago, Xanatos said:

If it makes you feel any better, it seems to just be a forum thing. People in game as as nice as they ever were.

We have a great player base here. I think better, in most ways; helpfulness, tolerance, respect; better than on live.

[Widower]

3 minutes ago, JayboH said:

EDIT:  forums are freaking out, double post.

 

Why can't we delete posts?

That was disabled for, uh, reasons - you should be able to hide your own posts?

[zenblack]

1 minute ago, Xanatos said:

 

I've noticed this too. In myself, as well. I think it's just covid lockdown & the political climate putting people on edge a bit.

 

If it makes you feel any better, it seems to just be a forum thing. People in game as as nice as they ever were.

TYRANNY

[Captain Yesterday]

13 minutes ago, Neiska said:

It says right in the user agreement that you sign to login each time "things may change". So this shouldn't be any sort of shock to you.  

That agreement was made "in good faith" in hopes that the game would improve for everyone, and not be nerfed and ruined for those who have invested, while being TOLD that you having LESS fun is somehow an improvement over previous conditions.

 

And  more so, because you can't play the game unless you click the box.

 

Since you are stuck on "agreements", you do understand, that they could just get it over with and stop slow dripping the bad and just nerf it all tomorrow?

 

make everyone do 1 point  of damage per attack, and each attack cost 125% end.

 

You still agreed to that. Why you complaining?

 

But then what would they do to spread covert misery? people would just log off.

 

i do not give permission to use this post to harm me in any way.

[JayboH]

1 minute ago, GM Widower said:

That was disabled for, uh, reasons - you should be able to hide your own posts?

Does it hide it from everyone or just myself?

 

My guess is they were disabled to prevent bumps, but in the end I think that's a rather weak reason.

[Monos King]

18 minutes ago, Captain Yesterday said:

Nope. Can't.

 

Dev's asking for player input, then refining it, and then implementing it base purely on player input and not some dev based plans(nerfs) I have never seen done.

There might be good reason for that. Here's a list of some:

1. Irksome in-game campaigning
2. Immediate alienation by the defeated populace.
3. Forcing casual or simply incapable players to monitor the forums
4. Really destructive changes being pushed forward

 That last one is where I'd center future discussions. Game designers don't a good player make, and players certainly don't make good game designers on that merit alone. People like buffs more than nerfs, obviously, and when player preference runs rampant bad things happen. Like dreaded power creep, powerset monotony, removal, etc. Players usually aren't looking at the wide scope of events and the future. They're too busy enjoying the game for different reasons, and want to cherish things that might need to be sacrificed to prevent issues later. I'm not too keen to focus on all that 24/7, and probably neither are you.

 

I'd love to play a long running game that did operate by vote ins though, that would be quite the case-study. 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Monos King
Mobile

[Xanatos]

Just now, Andreah said:

We have a great player base here. I think better, in most ways; helpfulness, tolerance, respect; better than on live.

  Absolutely. I was just saying to a friend that the game is so much better now than it was on live. Community included.

 

The smaller sub communities seem healthier too. The RP community on Everlasting and PVP community on Indominable seem bigger than they were at the end of live. (Have you seen all the nightclubs the RP groups have made on Everlasting? Absolutely blew me away!)

 

1 minute ago, zenblack said:

TYRANNY

Well, yes. But how did you know?

[SuperPlyx]

Just wanted to post in this awesome thread full of constructive discourse about something that hasn't happened yet.

[skoryy]

1 minute ago, Monos King said:

Game designers don't a good player make, and players certainly don't make good game designers on that merit alone.

Good ol' Monty Haul.  Still valid after all these years.

[JayboH]

2 minutes ago, Captain Yesterday said:

That agreement was made "in good faith" in hopes that the game would improve for everyone, and not be nerfed and ruined for those who have invested, while being TOLD that you having LESS fun is somehow an improvement over previous conditions.

...to be fair, a few of the 'nerfs' were known publicly here since at least April of this year: namely Titan Weapons and Tactical Arrow - because the devs told us they would be (and Titan W fans - you knew this was coming come on)

[FoulVileTerror]

I don't think you have a dastardly plan, @GM Widower, but . . . well . . . in the absence of fact, creative minds seek an outlet.  If certain members of the community can't see -any- plan, but are told that there expressly -is- a plan, and they notice trends which disturb or discourage them, they'll naturally fill in the blanks to the best of their abilities.

 

Broken Record Mode Activate:  If all the cards get laid out on the table, including the ones which expressly state "we're not sure about this part yet, so here are the ideas we have so far," then I think everyone will be in a better place.   

 

I contend it's the half measures on transparency that are actively breeding the outcry of fear and trepidation from certain members of the community.  Of course the Homecoming Team will not be able to make everyone happy with all of their decisions, but when players can actually see the big picture rather than little fragments, they'll get to make an informed decision about their continued support.

And yes, the standard caveats come in to play:  

- Volunteers have real lives that are more important than the game.  

- Time and resources are limited.  

- It's a privilege to play this; not a right.  

- Things are constantly evolving.  

- The Devs and the community are constantly learning.  

- Everything is theoretical, until it's updated on the Live Servers.  And even then, it might get rolled back if necessary.

- Change cycles back in to chaos.  So, even if it's only temporary, it can be scary.  But the best cure for fear is knowledge!

It's like a sticky bandage.  Get it done in one swift action, let the thrashing of limbs happen, and then recover.  

I do not like to speak for everyone in anything I say, but I do genuinely believe that a detailed picture of what plans are in the works will be the healthiest way to play this out.

 

And, since it's ideal not to do these sorts of things in a vacuum bubble, I recommend the Homecoming Team start a thread titled:
"Homecoming Asks You, the Community:  What Would You Like to Know?"

Make it clear that some things might be blocked behind contractual obligations, and that the Homecoming Team isn't under any obligation to answer anything, but would like to foster goodwill with the community for a more positive feedback cycle.  I recommend you say that you would like the community to politely and respectfully state the issues that they want greater clarity regarding, and (I stress this) ask anyone who "doesn't want to see how the sausage is made" to politely not shout-down anyone who -does.-  

And then . . .

Make good on it.  Let the community know when the process of documenting begins, and if anything comes up which ends up putting it on hold.   Doesn't need to be a novel in those cases.  Could be as simple as "the author of public design document has some unexpected family matters.  Indeterminate delays will occur.  Sorry for this."

 

What do you (all of you) think?  

Is this on the table?   Some variation thereof?

I realize that even the senior GMs might not get to make the call on this, but I would still appreciate your feedback on how to make it happen.

[skoryy]

Going back on topic: Are controller buffs somewhere on the menu?  I've been meaning to post up some thoughts to the suggestions forum, this might be as good a time as any to do so.

[ScarySai]

3 minutes ago, Monos King said:

There might be good reason for that. Here's a list of some:

1. Irksome in-game campaigning
2. Immediate alienation by the defeated populace.
3. Forcing casual or simply incapable players to monitor the forums
4. Really destructive changes being pushed forward

 That last one is where I'd center future discussions. Game designers don't a good player make, and players certainly don't make good game designers on that merit alone. People like buffs more than nerfs, obviously, and when player preference runs rampant bad things happen. Like dreaded power creep, powerset monotony, removal, etc. Players usually aren't looking at the wide scope of events and the future. They're too busy enjoying the game for different reasons, and want to cherish things that might need to be sacrificed to prevent issues later. I'm not too keen to focus on all that 24/7, and probably neither are you.

 

I'd love to play a long running game that did operate by vote ins though, that would be quite the case-study. 

 

 

While I agree with you in this instance, because there's nothing I would fear more than the general playerbase having a say in how Kheldians are balanced in a hypothetical future update, it's important to consider the playerbase at least in some degree when it comes to future design direction.

 

See: the downfall of WoW since MoP ended.

[Andreah]

1 minute ago, Xanatos said:

  Absolutely. I was just saying to a friend that the game is so much better now than it was on live. Community included.

 

The smaller sub communities seem healthier too. The RP community on Everlasting and PVP community on Indominable seem bigger than they were at the end of live. (Have you seen all the nightclubs the RP groups have made on Everlasting? Absolutely blew me away!)

 

Well, yes. But how did you know?

And we even have a forums thread here filled with game change suggestions tailored for roleplayers! Ones they solicited from the community, and we discussed at some length. Is it a critical near term item ... no, but it's on the radar. 🙂

[Ralathar44]

5 hours ago, Gobbledegook said:

I would think quite a few players don't care for the wind up mechanic of TW, i know i don't. That could be influencing the numbers as TWs is very powerful.  Rage crash is annoying but everyone wants to be Superman 😛

The windup mechanics and the overall slow animations are why I don't play Titan Weapons.  It feels slow and plodding without the feeling of oomph for that speed....even if the actual mechanical numbers are superior.  Doesn't matter if it's the best melee set if I don't enjoy playing it.