Over-Nerfing, Planetside 1, & What does Higby mean by "letting the game mature"? - Page 2

Khellendros · 2012-06-16, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Wait... Tri-shot and lashing are gone? What the fuck SOE?

You kidding? Tri-shot should never have been in the game in the first place.

Anyway, this bunch of devs seem like they are more deliberate in their actions, so I don't expect much knee jerk nerfing/buffing from them. That's barring any staffing changes over time ofc.

Xyntech · 2012-06-16, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Wait... Tri-shot and lashing are gone? What the fuck SOE?

I don't recall BF3 having tri-shot or lashing, so it's a good thing they removed them

Troscus · 2012-06-16, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

Just hope they don't put in player owned houses and start selling in-game mortgages for real money.

If they do, I for one won't be too disappointed. VANU PARTY AT MY CRIB!

QuantumMechanic · 2012-06-16, 10:33 PM

If some weapon is obviously OP you can't just leave it be for a long time just for "consistencies" sake.

However you can't just put a quick fix out for the weapon either. Othewise you won't realize you didn't get it right until it's out in production already and will require re-fixing (annoying players). Any balance fixes need to be verified on a test environment for a good while before getting the green flag to go into production. Lasher anyone?

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-06-16, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Khellendros

You kidding? Tri-shot should never have been in the game in the first place.

Anyway, this bunch of devs seem like they are more deliberate in their actions, so I don't expect much knee jerk nerfing/buffing from them. That's barring any staffing changes over time ofc.

It was in, and it wasn't a huge problem... so yeah, kind of miffed that it got removed. Of course, I never bothered with HA myself...

The noob · 2012-06-16, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

If some weapon is obviously OP you can't just leave it be for a long time just for "consistencies" sake.

However you can't just put a quick fix out for the weapon either. Othewise you won't realize you didn't get it right until it's out in production already and will require re-fixing (annoying players). Any balance fixes need to be verified on a test environment for a good while before getting the green flag to go into production. Lasher anyone?

Indeed, if a weapon is obviously OP or simply just better than every weapon of its type, it should be fixed relatively soonish, maybe even with suggestions from forums and communities on how it should be done, so its properly balanced, not nerfed into oblivion or barely touched at all. I just hope they don't just nerf or buff things because a few people got agitated that they were killed by such and such weapon or playstyle, or they simply have no clue in how to properly use a weapon or playstyle, that tends to kill game balance. Barring obviously broken balance issues, they should wait at least a week, probably even 2 or more weeks before beginning to deal with more intricate balancing, so as to let players gain familiarity with the game, and also build tactics and counter-tactics against various weapons, playstyles, vehicles, etc.

ODonnell · 2012-06-17, 12:55 AM

You apply "nerfs" to mechanics, abilities, items and such that were not intended and are so unbalanced that there is no other alternative.

You apply "buffs" to mechanics, abilities, items and such in place of "nerfs" so that the player base doesn't get a negative feel and instead have a positive experience because now they are on even ground.

Arcticus · 2012-06-17, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by LexTalionis

Elfailo gets what im hinting at. Ludwig von Mises had a theory on the inability to control market prices with a centrally planned monetary system, without causing mis-allocations in resources. Later Hayek went on to explain how the desires and needs and perceptions of value of individuals varied. This game has in it a centrally planned market economy, in which determining the value of the resources(vehicles equipment, etc.) is going to be highly controlled in order to maintain the right level of say tanks, or whatever the equipment is...

There aren't any win-win transactions going on here. It's all as coercive as it can be -- a huge battlefield -- Sure, "State" monopoly production with no ability to determine market prices...but...I guess my question would be, how would ABCT apply here? What is the equivalent of a boom? Of a bust? With a nanite production system, what are the higher-order capital goods into which the over-investment is being plowed during the boom phase?

Wondering how to apply Austrian theory in the age of PS2 instant nano production.

exLupo · 2012-06-17, 01:56 AM

One of the most common causes of over-nerfing is when two only vaguely comparable skills or weapons are put side by side. Often, a dev will apply massive buffs or nerfs to get these skills "in line" but, functionally, there is enough difference that the metagame will still cause problems. Another option is homogenization. It's not often employed but Blizzard did it with Cataclysm, radically redefining many classes in the name of balance simplicity and, while it worked, a lot of people were unhappy and the game's class depth took a hit.

I'm a fan of a third option, the one we're discussing here. To sum up: Small tweaks to keep congruity between analogues and metagame maturation to find places for everything else. In time, many changes will be needed to all tools and skills but the bigger the difference between the things being compared, imo, the longer you should look at it and let the all of the players show you (not just the vocal minority on the forums telling you) how the game is going to be played.

Mostly, a lot of folks just need to htfu.

CutterJohn · 2012-06-17, 02:01 AM

I'd like to see them be more open to experimentation. Try out a semi experimental change for a week or 3, see what happens. "Ok, this week, we're playing with buggy damage, and are adding a burst fire mode to them" or whatever.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-17, 02:11 AM

Regarding letting the game mature...

A lot of tactics in PS1 did not emerge in beta or even several months after release. Over time tactics will develop, others will adapt to them, and then you innovate again. The cycle evolves the gameplay and that's difficult if not impossible to observe in beta. Many may not be seen until deep levels of certs are unlocked, and more when those deep unlocks are more prevalent and squads make intelligent use of them.

So its something that simply takes time to develop and observe. Along the way they'll discover problems that would have been impossible to see in Beta, and some things will require nerfing.

Sabot · 2012-06-17, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I'd like to see them be more open to experimentation. Try out a semi experimental change for a week or 3, see what happens. "Ok, this week, we're playing with buggy damage, and are adding a burst fire mode to them" or whatever.

Amen to that... I'd much rather they experiment than simply nerf something becuase suddenly there are 50 whine threads about it on the forum. Nerfing is never the solution in an MMO (unless the piece of equipment/mechanic is broken and is being exploited). At least not instantly... and definitely not 1-2 weeks after launch. Let it play out, let word spread on how to actually use it after intelligent and creative players have come up with a way to use it their advantage.

DarkChiron · 2012-06-17, 02:22 AM

I think my main fear in the way of nerfs/buffs is when they do something in regard to end game (high cert levels). I've seen games (WoW, COUGH COUGH) look at how skills/items can be abused in conjunction in the end-game (or only a specific portion of the game), and just nerf them at all levels of progression/use because of that. It will probably be less likely in Planetside 2, but I could see situations where it could happen.

Stew · 2012-06-17, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by LexTalionis

There are some things I wish had never happened with PS1, and then there are some things that were just necessary. But how much of that could have been waited out and allowed to play out the way the designers foresaw it? There will always be forum b****ing, but when does it become serious, and where do we draw the line? I would most prefer the least amount of intervention by SOE. Thinking that even some of the OP weapons can be mostly left alone, just to keep things as consistent as possible. For some reason this question reminds me of the great calculation debate of the early 20th century.

complaning about balanced is the way to say Iam noob i found the way to exploits weapons and i dont want them to fix it i want to break the game and make everybody Quit because they dont want to play with a single weapons/vehicules

whats the goal to have a weapons who always loose over another one in a 1 vs 1 figth ?

the designers never achive perfect balance at the begining they have no time to do it and test it properly

In beta when few more people comes some issues can be watch and FIX but some people who enjoys OVERPOWER weapons /vehicules will start complaining from the get go as soon as the dev team try to balanced thing out AND THIS IS WHATS BETA ARE FOR !

Also even after the beta few weapons will be broken and exploits so they will need to be FIXXXX BALANCE if to strong need to be NERF if to weak need to be BUFFF its the way it should be to achive balance and enjoyable experience for people who like diversity !

This is a perfect exemple of imbalanced guns after beta and is this should stay like this so everyones will start abusing it so the game will be call BF M26 Dart ? Nerfing is balancing thing that from the get go as been Broken and almost unuse during BETA so the dev did not have suffcient Data to balanced it well or they were to busy or lazy !

But the facts is Nerfing and Buffing is part of balancing to provide an overall more enjoyable and balanced experience !

DarkChiron · 2012-06-17, 03:04 AM

Originally Posted by Stew

whats the goal to have a weapons who always loose over another one in a 1 vs 1 figth ?

To fit the rock-paper-scissors model for the game. A MAX suit with double AA weapons shouldn't win against another with double AV weapons, or even a HA with an AV weapon (for instance). Trying to balance out weapons to make them have an even chance is antithetical to the idea of the game.

THIS IS NOT A BATTLEFIELD/COD game. Stop trying to apply their logic to this game.