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

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

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.

This will never happen the rock paper scisor AA.AV,AI is really important and they will not do such thing !

But if for exemple the NC Anti infantry weapons is 1.5 X more efficient than the terran ones and have same rate of fire and more stopping power is thats acceptable ? NO its not

So the NC weapons will have to be balanced to have a conterpart less acuracy less stoping power or less rate of fire ! also If their is 2 NC AI weapons and one of them is simply better in everything this weapons will need to have a conterpart as well if not the first AI will become unuse and useless so whats the goal to have OP weapons to make all the others useless ?

So thats it

LOL and also this is a shooter games and all games as to be balanced if not the game is broken ! Whats the deal with BF3 and COD ? i personally dont like CoD but even if i do not like the game i can take it as a exemple for broken balanced weapons etc..since all shooter game have to share the same elements BALANCE

[DarkChiron]

Originally Posted by Stew

But if for exemple the NC Anti infantry weapons is 1.5 X more efficient than the terran ones and have same rate of fire and more stopping power is thats acceptable ? NO its not

So the NC weapons will have to be balanced to have a conterpart less acuracy less stoping power or less rate of fire ! also If their is 2 NC AI weapons and one of them is simply better in everything this weapons will need to have a conterpart as well if not the first AI will become unuse and useless so whats the goal to have OP weapons to make all the others useless ?

So thats it

I understand what you mean now. I was having difficulty interpreting exactly what point you were making was (I fear I'm too tired right now).

Balancing the empires strengths is going to be weird. TR get the faster fire rates, NC get the higher damage, and the VS seem to get weapons without bullet drop and damage decay over distance (from what has been said). Making sure none of those give too much of an advantage will be something to watch out for.

So it turns out we agree completely and I don't know what I'm saying anymore.

[Blackwolf]

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.

So let's take a whack at this.

You think surgile, corner humping, insta triple jackhammer, Lasher 2.0, Oldschool reaver rockets of destroy everything within an 8 mile radius (I exagerate a little), Flails, BFRs, and a number of other stupidly over powered things should stay in the game unchanged??

Naw. I like many of the decisions they made. I actually dislike a number of buffs they gave though.

The Rexo buff from 150 to 200 armor, HART drop times decreasing, fiddling with the old re-cert timers.

I think we ought to let the DEVs decide what is fair, cheap, and stupidly over powered. And not try to jump to these conclusions based solely on that time you got your ass handed to you by a lone nut job in a BFR.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

I understand what you mean now. I was having difficulty interpreting exactly what point you were making was (I fear I'm too tired right now).

Balancing the empires strengths is going to be weird. TR get the faster fire rates, NC get the higher damage, and the VS seem to get weapons without bullet drop and damage decay over distance (from what has been said). Making sure none of those give too much of an advantage will be something to watch out for.

So it turns out we agree completely and I don't know what I'm saying anymore.

Its always a chalenge to fit a proper balance and thats why i disagree whith the OP !

He say thing like Dev did not have the time to balance everything until launch so he want them to lets everything imbalanced and broke to enjoys the Imbalanced OP weapons ! And its really BAd those ANti nerf people do not understand how devs works ...

Devs do not lisen to whiners on forums to fix weapons they do it after having sufficient DATA to do it sometimes the (( FIX)) broke the weapons to much etc.. but no devs no coders are perfect but they have to Post launch adjust weapons and blalance the most as they can !

People have to adapt multiple time to their weapons and this is the way it should be UNDERPOWER weapons as to be BUFF ! OVERPOWER WEAPONS Have to be NERF !

[WNxThentar]

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.

This tends to only work for those that have the OP weapons. Now that planetside 2 is being developed with the ability to data mine things then SOE can act if any weapons turn out to be OP. Allowing a weapon that is clearly over powered remain unchanged is just wrong and I'm sure most people got killed over and over by said weapon they wouldn't just want SOE to just sit on the problem especially when SOE have the tools to tweak these things. The more fighting that a weapon is involved in the more actuate the profile of the weapon becomes.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by WNxThentar

This tends to only work for those that have the OP weapons. Now that planetside 2 is being developed with the ability to data mine things then SOE can act if any weapons turn out to be OP. Allowing a weapon that is clearly over powered remain unchanged is just wrong and I'm sure most people got killed over and over by said weapon they wouldn't just want SOE to just sit on the problem especially when SOE have the tools to tweak these things. The more fighting that a weapon is involved in the more actuate the profile of the weapon becomes.

100 % Agree !

[GreatMazinkaise]

Well, if posts like http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/c...e_of_the_game/ are any indication, there's already a pretty necessary list of Buffs that need to occur, namely:

*Buff hip firing accuracy within reasonable ranges according to weapon (mostly close/mid-range); ADS is a long range accuracy tool that should be used accordingly. None of this stupid run -> stop -> crouch -> ADS -> shoot at ranges where you can easily see the lenses of your opponents' goggles.

*No arbitrary limitations on re-centering your cursor

*Buff walking speed to a decent pace so that sprinting is actually, y'know FAST (MAX units are fine). Better yet, add a Surge implant as well that allows you to sprint with your gun out with accompanying CoF bloom and a gauge (not absolutely necessary, but fun).

[AimlessSpectre]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Brother I speak fucked up English fluently

I'm sorry, but I had to make an account for the sole purpose of telling you just how much I approve of this one line of text.

I very much approve of this one line of text.

[LexTalionis]

The problem with over nerfing/buffing, becomes a serious thing when you start factoring in resource costs and how the in game economy will flow. I'm just trying to get people to think about it. I personally feel that achieving balance is necessary, but at the same time should be utilizing all the date, and consider individual solutions, not just a copy and paste method applied to all the weapons because it worked once. Maybe just nerfing/buffing isn't the best solution. Maybe price tweaking could work better. Also I'm wondering about the side grades. Will we be able to readjust those after experimenting with them, and Will SOE let us make in game purchases during the beta. To show our support. What ways other than nerfind/buffing can yall think of to achieve balance? How about adjusting, say, a particular side grade that makes a rocket better for dealing with maxes particularly. or something along those lines. Post your ideas.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Brother I speak fucked up English fluently so I get your point. I just hate it. Not you. Just the thought of going 1v1 with a max and that being fair.

I don't fucking want fair fights. I want fights I figure out how to win. ¿Comprende?

The way to Win a fair figth is been Better !

better you are more chance you will win The way to figure out how to win is the way to figure out how to use your weapons caracter moovement and aiming skills at yout advantages

This way you will mostly win over the competition !

[Stew]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Well, if posts like http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/c...e_of_the_game/ are any indication, there's already a pretty necessary list of Buffs that need to occur, namely:

*Buff hip firing accuracy within reasonable ranges according to weapon (mostly close/mid-range); ADS is a long range accuracy tool that should be used accordingly. None of this stupid run -> stop -> crouch -> ADS -> shoot at ranges where you can easily see the lenses of your opponents' goggles.

*No arbitrary limitations on re-centering your cursor

*Buff walking speed to a decent pace so that sprinting is actually, y'know FAST (MAX units are fine). Better yet, add a Surge implant as well that allows you to sprint with your gun out with accompanying CoF bloom and a gauge (not absolutely necessary, but fun).

Yeah Hip fire as to be UNLIKE battlefield 3 and crysis 3 And more like MAG hip fire whithin a certain distance must be good even whiout the (( lazer )) who tight up the cross air hip fire !

So its a good thing they will start to fix that !

[Stew]

Originally Posted by LexTalionis

not just a copy and paste method applied to all the weapons because it worked once. Maybe just nerfing/buffing isn't the best solution. Maybe price tweaking could work better. .

Do you realize thats Nerfing Buffing MEANS TWEAKING ?

When i tweak my overclock on my GPU i play whith + voltage - voltage and i try out if it work or not same for memmory and clock speed its always + and -
You know + means buffing and - Means nerfing rigth ?

[TheInferno]

Originally Posted by Stew

Do you realize thats Nerfing Buffing MEANS TWEAKING ?

When i tweak my overclock on my GPU i play whith + voltage - voltage and i try out if it work or not same for memmory and clock speed its always + and -
You know + means buffing and - Means nerfing rigth ?

Stew, there's a large difference between changing the damage/accuracy/clip size of a weapon and changing the price, which is what he meant. Don't be condescending when it's a case of you not understanding what he means.

[LexTalionis]

So the latest interview with Smedley has revealed a little more information about this. He claims that the market system was heavily influenced by league of legends. I've never played this game, and don't know much about it. Anybody know more than that? I really really liked how he talked about the f2p model being the most capitalistic because it is strictly trying to sell quality. Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard, and Friedman would be proud. : D

[kaffis]

When to nerf, vs. when to let players adapt?

You have reams of statistics to crunch. You nerf/buff when the statistics bear the players out with a significant sample size.

Balancing around manufactured situations doesn't work. Manufactured situations are merely a tool we players can use to eyeball whether there's a problem. We can even formulate arguments around it, as an imperfect example. If those arguments are sound, and the manufactured situation is common enough (or similar enough to a common enough situation), then the statistics game-wide will bear it out.

If you don't have a broad enough sample size, or the statistics don't bear out the argument being made by players, you let it lie.


And this is coming from a libertarian. Game design is an engineered environment to begin with, with goals that run counter to some free-market ideals. This is okay, and by design (for instance, if one class is worthless, and another class is awesome, the free market would say it's okay for everybody to just play the awesome class. That's not good game design, though). It helps that the entity with the finger on the scale has access to statistics for, essentially, every transaction being made.

If the imbalance is small, and is compensated by other imbalances such that overall empire success is acceptable, statistically, you also let it lie.