Hello all, I'm a new poster and I figured I'd chime in with my two cents. I posted something in another thread that would pertain to this one as well. I'll paraphrase it somewhat, since I don't want to say the same thing again.
As far as balancing issues are concerned, it is a falsehood that classes should be "balanced" in the traditional sense in the mindset of combat. There is absolutely no reason to think like this. Classes should be balanced through their "imbalances". What I mean is that if a class is superb in one setting, ie. combat, they should be terrible at other aspects, ie. bartering with tradesmen or thieving or anything else. A warrior should be the hands down combat king. They excel at it, it's their job, their role. Or else, why play a warrior? Of course, this means that there has to be other, equally viable options for gaining experience than just combat. This way the other classes can excel at their strengths and still do something, rather than being either sub-standard damage dealers or on the flip side better warriors than warriors are.
Balance should come through a character's strengths, not by making all characters equal in terms of one specific character's strength.
Thats all well and good for PvE and it makes a lot fo sense to have different classes strong in some areas and weak in others. Thats what makes support type classes (here I refer to support in the combat role) useful in groups.
However if your game is going to include PvP then you need the classes to be balanced against each other. Yet another reason games should be one or the other.
How does HJ seem to be catering to achievers? I see it in most ways as not catering to achievers, with the 'less tediun, more fun" philosophy. Achievers live for tedium, since their ability to grind for exteneded hours through it is what makes them achievers to begin with. But what you want to is to find a exploit,and then be given a solem oath that it will remain there for the balance of the game? Wow. That is rediculous. So is your assesment that Raiding is for Socializers, not Achievers. Socializers hate raids, because they can't talk. The have to listen and follow directions of the raid leader, and there can be no idle chit-chat. That kind of thing gets raids wiped out. No socializing to be had in raids, it's all about the massive timesinks that appeal ONLY to acheivers. Everyone else hates that crap. No, HJ does not look like something that would appeal to acheivers IMO, but not for some of the reasons you state. There is Vangard though, that is ramping up to be one of the ultmate Achiver games, ever.
Achievers lives for a game with a LOGICAL evolution, peoples who are raiders are socialisers...but that would be a pointless debate here. You are definitely set in your ways. Even a guild like Afterlife or FoH are mostly consisting of socialisers. Achievers can bear a LOT of stuff, many did bear raiding. But I never see an achiever defending raiding for very long. A raiding guild consist of 3 or 4 achievers and fill it ranks with socialisers, peoples who enjoy talking with other for extended period of time, doing nothing really productive and been remotedly linked with the success. Thinking that raiding appeal to achievers is...misthinking.
Now I didn't say the majority of socialisers enjoy raiding, I say that the majority of raiders are socialisers. Not the same thing, I don't really understand socialisers wells. But I do know that the majority of folks defending raiding are socialisers and by no mean achievers.
No achiever worthy of this title can discuss the logic that the best grouper deserve to be a grouper. The best soloer deserve to be a soloer. The best raider deserve to be a raider. If the best soloer is a raider, than the game is glitched, all achievers agree on this. Socialisers doesn't. Socialisers bear more pain than achievers if you have any doubt, since bearing pain is a social thing.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
No, I am not looking to abuse the system, although I would if it is possible since it would be detrimental for me not to while other are.
I am looking to BUILD my character, and if I change class because another class is stronger, then the nerf will be all the more painful considering ALL the time and efforts I would have put into it.
I can't talk for other peoples. I know I never refuse a group unless I can't group and I would be wasting their time. I also know that I loooove to achieve, and to achiever I have to believe in the roots. And honestly, CoH remove a LOT of trust I have to the genre in general.
A free respect is barely a minimum after major NERFS, it is hardly enough in the eyes of an achiever, since I may now be stuck in a combo that is weaker and that I would never have pick if it would have been that weak from the start.
Saying GAME BALANCING is good post launch is debatable to say the least, as I am BUILDING something, if you change the very basic of what I am building, you risk destroying everything I did. You might say stuff like: You don't want overpowered characters in the game, in all honesty I don't want them either. But if I see a flaw, I will join them. If you punish me later on after all the effort I made, I lose faith.
Some peoples are trying to make me look bad and I resent this attitude. Is it bad to be developping my character to the best I can? If it is, then I should not even play, because I play for that. Not looking to abuse, looking to build the best stuff I can, not the same. I don't ask for any particuliar thing for a class, I don't say: Warriors deserve this or that...I will just adapt the best I can to a game and developp the best I can. I never do something that is not allowed, when devs say: Doing this will be punish, I don't do it. I expect them to correct it in a timely maneur.
Destroying achievements is destroying a lot...and game balancing must be considered a LOT. If I play class Z, despite the fact I rather be class C, but play it because it is stronger, than nerfing it is full of consequences, since I can't switch to class C, I have to start all over again. I want to achieve, I don't want to endlessly see the rules changes.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Originally posted by raccoon All the discussion in these threads comes down to one simple statement: You'll never please everyone. By nerfing a broken power, you anger the people who like the 'god mode' it presents. By boosting a weak power for one class, you anger the players of other classes because this levels the playing field. And so on.
So... no matter what you do, and no matter how hard you try, there's always going to be a group of people riding on your back, whining about something.
But it's also the same for the reverse. No matter how much you people whine about nerfs, it's an unchangeable aspect of MMORPGs. Things will always need fixing, especially if new content is being added every few months. If you can't accept this, then just go do something else.
Yet there is something to consider, the game is started. Peoples playing it accept it as is. Changing it post-launch is heavy in consequences.
Personnally I want the most well balanced game in the world, but if you fail doing that, then stick to whatever rules you have, no matter how 'broken'. That is pretty much my point of view on it, an achiever point of view.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Unfortunately if something is classed as broken then it requires fixing as its obviously not doing what was intended.
Think of it like buying a car - if something is broken you get it fixed. If a fault is discovered and its serious - your car gets recalled to be fixed - even if you personally had never experienced the problem. So yes you are inconvenienced.
Originally posted by _Shadowmage Unfortunately if something is classed as broken then it requires fixing as its obviously not doing what was intended. Think of it like buying a car - if something is broken you get it fixed. If a fault is discovered and its serious - your car gets recalled to be fixed - even if you personally had never experienced the problem. So yes you are inconvenienced.
But in this case, the fault is not serious. The customer is happy, enjoying this and not hindering the game. It is like calling back the car because the company put an engine that was too efficient and didn't consume enough gaz, replacing it with a big motor that eat of lot of gaz, make more noise and is less efficient, against the customer wishes. I mean, what will the other customers, buying the much weaker car think? Let's call back everything, just to make sure the other customers who doesn't have it feel it is fair. It is a non-sense.
In this domain, not every MMO requires Game Balancing post-launch, most of them (PvE at least) are doing fine without. CoH is a perfect example of a game that should never have been Game Balanced post I1 at the very least (can't talk of I1 balancing, I wasn't playing before), it was working fine and peoples where happy. Yet they change everything.
MMOs companies are classing stuff as "broken" and recalling pieces way too easily. The main reason that I play the game is to ACHIEVE a lot of stuff, while grouping or if can't, while soloing. If you Game Balanced too much, you just remove the main reason I am playing the game, as I can't do it anymore, I am constantly been nerfed and counter, where I can't achieve anything worthwhile anymore.
Game Balancing does indeed remove the sense of progression, of achievement. Which is the main reason why I look toward MMOs in general. On a side note, CoH prior these nerfs was doing much better than EQ, because I did feel my character progress on every level I can think off, I was soloing MANY bosses at level 50, or dozen of minions, or even monsters or some AV, while at level 1 I was having a hell of a time with 4 minions and couldn't face a lieutnant, the progression was real...where EQ for example didn't give that feeling at all. Yet, this is based on the CORE of the game evolution rather than with Game Balancing, but as you progress, you have to feel you are better, on as many ways you can think! Been able to face more monsters of my levels, of better type, that is a clear improvement that wasn't there in EQ where in the end, soloing a monster you level was harder than ever, while at level 1, you might have been able to deal with 4 mobs your level.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Comments
Hello all, I'm a new poster and I figured I'd chime in with my two cents. I posted something in another thread that would pertain to this one as well. I'll paraphrase it somewhat, since I don't want to say the same thing again.
As far as balancing issues are concerned, it is a falsehood that classes should be "balanced" in the traditional sense in the mindset of combat. There is absolutely no reason to think like this. Classes should be balanced through their "imbalances". What I mean is that if a class is superb in one setting, ie. combat, they should be terrible at other aspects, ie. bartering with tradesmen or thieving or anything else. A warrior should be the hands down combat king. They excel at it, it's their job, their role. Or else, why play a warrior? Of course, this means that there has to be other, equally viable options for gaining experience than just combat. This way the other classes can excel at their strengths and still do something, rather than being either sub-standard damage dealers or on the flip side better warriors than warriors are.
Balance should come through a character's strengths, not by making all characters equal in terms of one specific character's strength.
"I aim to Misbehave" - Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
Thats all well and good for PvE and it makes a lot fo sense to have different classes strong in some areas and weak in others. Thats what makes support type classes (here I refer to support in the combat role) useful in groups.
However if your game is going to include PvP then you need the classes to be balanced against each other. Yet another reason games should be one or the other.
Achievers lives for a game with a LOGICAL evolution, peoples who are raiders are socialisers...but that would be a pointless debate here. You are definitely set in your ways. Even a guild like Afterlife or FoH are mostly consisting of socialisers. Achievers can bear a LOT of stuff, many did bear raiding. But I never see an achiever defending raiding for very long. A raiding guild consist of 3 or 4 achievers and fill it ranks with socialisers, peoples who enjoy talking with other for extended period of time, doing nothing really productive and been remotedly linked with the success. Thinking that raiding appeal to achievers is...misthinking.
Now I didn't say the majority of socialisers enjoy raiding, I say that the majority of raiders are socialisers. Not the same thing, I don't really understand socialisers wells. But I do know that the majority of folks defending raiding are socialisers and by no mean achievers.
No achiever worthy of this title can discuss the logic that the best grouper deserve to be a grouper. The best soloer deserve to be a soloer. The best raider deserve to be a raider. If the best soloer is a raider, than the game is glitched, all achievers agree on this. Socialisers doesn't. Socialisers bear more pain than achievers if you have any doubt, since bearing pain is a social thing.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
No, I am not looking to abuse the system, although I would if it is possible since it would be detrimental for me not to while other are.
I am looking to BUILD my character, and if I change class because another class is stronger, then the nerf will be all the more painful considering ALL the time and efforts I would have put into it.
I can't talk for other peoples. I know I never refuse a group unless I can't group and I would be wasting their time. I also know that I loooove to achieve, and to achiever I have to believe in the roots. And honestly, CoH remove a LOT of trust I have to the genre in general.
A free respect is barely a minimum after major NERFS, it is hardly enough in the eyes of an achiever, since I may now be stuck in a combo that is weaker and that I would never have pick if it would have been that weak from the start.
Saying GAME BALANCING is good post launch is debatable to say the least, as I am BUILDING something, if you change the very basic of what I am building, you risk destroying everything I did. You might say stuff like: You don't want overpowered characters in the game, in all honesty I don't want them either. But if I see a flaw, I will join them. If you punish me later on after all the effort I made, I lose faith.
Some peoples are trying to make me look bad and I resent this attitude. Is it bad to be developping my character to the best I can? If it is, then I should not even play, because I play for that. Not looking to abuse, looking to build the best stuff I can, not the same. I don't ask for any particuliar thing for a class, I don't say: Warriors deserve this or that...I will just adapt the best I can to a game and developp the best I can. I never do something that is not allowed, when devs say: Doing this will be punish, I don't do it. I expect them to correct it in a timely maneur.
Destroying achievements is destroying a lot...and game balancing must be considered a LOT. If I play class Z, despite the fact I rather be class C, but play it because it is stronger, than nerfing it is full of consequences, since I can't switch to class C, I have to start all over again. I want to achieve, I don't want to endlessly see the rules changes.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Yet there is something to consider, the game is started. Peoples playing it accept it as is. Changing it post-launch is heavy in consequences.
Personnally I want the most well balanced game in the world, but if you fail doing that, then stick to whatever rules you have, no matter how 'broken'. That is pretty much my point of view on it, an achiever point of view.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
Unfortunately if something is classed as broken then it requires fixing as its obviously not doing what was intended.
Think of it like buying a car - if something is broken you get it fixed. If a fault is discovered and its serious - your car gets recalled to be fixed - even if you personally had never experienced the problem. So yes you are inconvenienced.
But in this case, the fault is not serious. The customer is happy, enjoying this and not hindering the game. It is like calling back the car because the company put an engine that was too efficient and didn't consume enough gaz, replacing it with a big motor that eat of lot of gaz, make more noise and is less efficient, against the customer wishes. I mean, what will the other customers, buying the much weaker car think? Let's call back everything, just to make sure the other customers who doesn't have it feel it is fair. It is a non-sense.
In this domain, not every MMO requires Game Balancing post-launch, most of them (PvE at least) are doing fine without. CoH is a perfect example of a game that should never have been Game Balanced post I1 at the very least (can't talk of I1 balancing, I wasn't playing before), it was working fine and peoples where happy. Yet they change everything.
MMOs companies are classing stuff as "broken" and recalling pieces way too easily. The main reason that I play the game is to ACHIEVE a lot of stuff, while grouping or if can't, while soloing. If you Game Balanced too much, you just remove the main reason I am playing the game, as I can't do it anymore, I am constantly been nerfed and counter, where I can't achieve anything worthwhile anymore.
Game Balancing does indeed remove the sense of progression, of achievement. Which is the main reason why I look toward MMOs in general. On a side note, CoH prior these nerfs was doing much better than EQ, because I did feel my character progress on every level I can think off, I was soloing MANY bosses at level 50, or dozen of minions, or even monsters or some AV, while at level 1 I was having a hell of a time with 4 minions and couldn't face a lieutnant, the progression was real...where EQ for example didn't give that feeling at all. Yet, this is based on the CORE of the game evolution rather than with Game Balancing, but as you progress, you have to feel you are better, on as many ways you can think! Been able to face more monsters of my levels, of better type, that is a clear improvement that wasn't there in EQ where in the end, soloing a monster you level was harder than ever, while at level 1, you might have been able to deal with 4 mobs your level.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren