169 réponses à ce sujet

[Kingston Atticus]

Original Stikman wrote...

Chris Priestly, himself (I believe), stated that they had no plans to change Ascension mode (toggle). However, I made a thread requesting some duration changes, while others made some damage taken changes:
Thread

Yes but one of the devs (I think it was Bryan Johnson but can't quite remember) said during the Reckoning live stream playthrough (the day before Reckoning was released) that they WILL be buffing explosive ammo. But have you seen that buff yet? I sure haven't, so things change, or get pushed back or bumped ahead. It happens.

Modifié par Kingston Atticus, 13 mars 2013 - 03:31 .

[BjornDaDwarf]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Arctican wrote...


Coincidence would be BjornDaDwarf bringing up the case to buff Barrier and it gets buffed on the same day. On the other hand, the buff involving Annihilation Field rank 6 was acknowledged by a Bioware staff (Chris Sanche I believe) in a public thread. After a little back and forth discussion, he said he would bring it up with the rest of the balance team to see if anything could be done. If that argument wasn't brough to light, Annihilation Field would have never recieved that buff that following balance change.

But I do agree that most balance changes were not done because BSN brought it up, but because Bioware themselves did their own testing and made a change that happened to be what in line with what some BSNers thought. I believe the AIU is such a case.

Just going to hop in here, balance changes were never put in the same day. Generally the balance changes need to be in place thursday. I was the one who made the suggestion about buf****g barrier.

Brojo, I think you misunderstood.  That was used as an example of the COINCIDENCE of the BSN talking about buffing/nerfing a power, and then the power actually getting buffed.  I just got prophetically lucky the day I chose to post about Barrier, I think we all know that.  

[Original Twigman]

LeandroBraz wrote...

BSN can point out something that maybe the devs wasn't seeing, but at the end of the day, they will decide if it should be done. An example is the Reegar, it probably is the item with more threads asking for nerf on the BSN, so far the nerf didn't happened (I think only a weight increase, months ago). If BSNers has all this power over Balance changes, the reegar would be nerfed by now...

its not about having power, per se, its questioning how much our opinions weigh on the devs, and whether or not there are issues with that, potential utility, and/or ways we can improve the interrelational influence

[CINCTuchanka]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...
buf****g barrier.

epic

I'd do anything for barrier (but I won't do that)

[whateverman7]

Original Stikman wrote...

Can you explain more on this part, particularly in the difference betwee minority/majority of good players? I am pretty curious as to what you have to say.

sure, i can explain more:

- the difference between the minority/majority good players isnt skill level at the game, it's how vocal they are on the boards....despite the popular belief on here, there are a lot of good players at this game, it's just most arent that vocal on the boards....from the ones i've run into while playing, they are content for the most part with the things in the game and are just enjoying the game...

- now, the vocal minority that are good at the game have influenced changes by being very active on the boards....they post a lot and tend to help shape what a lot on the bsn thinks of something (kit, weapon, etc.)...there are a couple things i disagree with that, but in regards to the thread, that vocal group tends to think what they do in the game is what everyone will do in the game...once they find out how to use something effectively/effiecntly, they come voice their opinion on why it should be 'balanced'...and this tends to happen in a relatively short time something is released in game....with the randomness of the store and the possiblity the majority just dont have tons of credits stashed, in some cases they dont get to try something out before it's changed/balanced...and i feel that's wrong...

[Captain J. Sunshine]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

buf****g barrier.

Woah Bryan, calm down. No need to throw those kinds of words around.

[Original Twigman]

whateverman7 wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Can you explain more on this part, particularly in the difference betwee minority/majority of good players? I am pretty curious as to what you have to say.

sure, i can explain more:

- the difference between the minority/majority good players isnt skill level at the game, it's how vocal they are on the boards....despite the popular belief on here, there are a lot of good players at this game, it's just most arent that vocal on the boards....from the ones i've run into while playing, they are content for the most part with the things in the game and are just enjoying the game...

- now, the vocal minority that are good at the game have influenced changes by being very active on the boards....they post a lot and tend to help shape what a lot on the bsn thinks of something (kit, weapon, etc.)...there are a couple things i disagree with that, but in regards to the thread, that vocal group tends to think what they do in the game is what everyone will do in the game...once they find out how to use something effectively/effiecntly, they come voice their opinion on why it should be 'balanced'...and this tends to happen in a relatively short time something is released in game....with the randomness of the store and the possiblity the majority just dont have tons of credits stashed, in some cases they dont get to try something out before it's changed/balanced...and i feel that's wrong...

interesting take. Thank you for your explanation. I agree, there are a minority of "good" players that seem to shape the view on the game for a lot of players. Some for good, some for bad.

For example, the claymore is one of the most overappreciated guns in the game, despite there being many, many better alternatives for most characters.

Tbh, i think the PC community has the most vocal community, so despite their numbers, they seem to be prominent on the board and are taken seriously. I think a part of that is that they churn out videos at a much higher rate than xbox members

[Original Twigman]

Kingston Atticus wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Chris Priestly, himself (I believe), stated that they had no plans to change Ascension mode (toggle). However, I made a thread requesting some duration changes, while others made some damage taken changes:
Thread

Yes but one of the devs (I think it was Bryan Johnson but can't quite remember) said during the Reckoning live stream playthrough (the day before Reckoning was released) that they WILL be buffing explosive ammo. But have you seen that buff yet? I sure haven't, so things change, or get pushed back or bumped ahead. It happens.

i can tell you are trying to make a point: Things change

but it doesn't really address the seemingly strong correlation between the quote i put.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Arctican wrote...

_only1biggs_ wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

I dunno, like Arcitcan said, there have been some instances where people bring something up and thigns get done.

read again what i said. people who think they have a bearing on what gets changed do not understand coincidence.

Coincidence would be BjornDaDwarf bringing up the case to buff Barrier and it gets buffed on the same day. On the other hand, the buff involving Annihilation Field rank 6 was acknowledged by a Bioware staff (Chris Sanche I believe) in a public thread. After a little back and forth discussion, he said he would bring it up with the rest of the balance team to see if anything could be done. If that argument wasn't brough to light, Annihilation Field would have never recieved that buff that following balance change.

But I do agree that most balance changes were not done because BSN brought it up, but because Bioware themselves did their own testing and made a change that happened to be what in line with what some BSNers thought. I believe the AIU is such a case.

BioWare did whatever testing they did prior to releasing the character.  They believed she was good to go, and they set her parameters to what they believed they should be.  If nobody said anything about the AIU on the forums, there would have been no changes to her.  Other balance changes in the past may have been based on data analysis or testing, but the AIU was nerfed because the forum complained.

[Arctican]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Arctican wrote...

_only1biggs_ wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

I dunno, like Arcitcan said, there have been some instances where people bring something up and thigns get done.

read again what i said. people who think they have a bearing on what gets changed do not understand coincidence.

Coincidence would be BjornDaDwarf bringing up the case to buff Barrier and it gets buffed on the same day. On the other hand, the buff involving Annihilation Field rank 6 was acknowledged by a Bioware staff (Chris Sanche I believe) in a public thread. After a little back and forth discussion, he said he would bring it up with the rest of the balance team to see if anything could be done. If that argument wasn't brough to light, Annihilation Field would have never recieved that buff that following balance change.

But I do agree that most balance changes were not done because BSN brought it up, but because Bioware themselves did their own testing and made a change that happened to be what in line with what some BSNers thought. I believe the AIU is such a case.

BioWare did whatever testing they did prior to releasing the character.  They believed she was good to go, and they set her parameters to what they believed they should be.  If nobody said anything about the AIU on the forums, there would have been no changes to her.  Other balance changes in the past may have been based on data analysis or testing, but the AIU was nerfed because the forum complained.

Then, explain the buff made to Piranha on the very first day of the Earth DLC.

Perhaps they believed she was good to go a week before release, but maybe around the time of release, further testings showed the AIU was better than they thought. If the forums didn;t complain, she probably would still be nerfed because new characters aren;t always balanced perfectly from the get go.

[Rudenut]

I have another way to look at balance changes reflecting what pro-balance bsn persons have expressed need to be balanced....(see what I did there?)

Could it be that many of the things that are being requested are actually logical and pointing out the obvious. So these changes may be planned internally after some playtesting and data gathering AND at the same time be requested by said pro-balance bsn persons.

Or at least the forums are read and the balance team looks at the things that are all a buzz and determines, after some playtesting and data gathering, that yes; (or no) these changes need to be implemented. Certainly they don't simply change anything simply because they thing the pro-balance bsn persons are purty or some such.

[Original Twigman]

Rudenut wrote...

I have another way to look at balance changes reflecting what pro-balance bsn persons have expressed need to be balanced....(see what I did there?)

Could it be that many of the things that are being requested are actually logical and pointing out the obvious. So these changes may be planned internally after some playtesting and data gathering AND at the same time be requested by said pro-balance bsn persons.

Or at least the forums are read and the balance team looks at the things that are all a buzz and determines, after some playtesting and data gathering, that yes; (or no) these changes need to be implemented. Certainly they don't simply change anything simply because they thing the pro-balance bsn persons are purty or some such.

right... its up in the air... we don't know how they test, why they test, or what they test for in order to determine a balance change. This would be some good things to know for those interested + it involves those already interested even more. The question is, how?

[Kingston Atticus]

Original Stikman wrote...

Kingston Atticus wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Chris Priestly, himself (I believe), stated that they had no plans to change Ascension mode (toggle). However, I made a thread requesting some duration changes, while others made some damage taken changes:
Thread

Yes but one of the devs (I think it was Bryan Johnson but can't quite remember) said during the Reckoning live stream playthrough (the day before Reckoning was released) that they WILL be buffing explosive ammo. But have you seen that buff yet? I sure haven't, so things change, or get pushed back or bumped ahead. It happens.

i can tell you are trying to make a point: Things change

but it doesn't really address the seemingly strong correlation between the quote i put.

Ok maybe your thread DID get him to play as a collector and use the ascension mode a few more times. If that is the case, I am glad. I hated the duration of it as well. But they promised to fix the explosive ammo a few weeks ago and when it came out there were lots of posts about it needing a buff, but that still hasn't happened. Because of it, most people pretend that ammo does NOT exist. So why give in to a couple threads about one thing and NOT a dozen about something else? Like I said things obviously change.
 
 Like you said they listened to your thread apparently. What changed is apparently that those who are screaming about the new characters are obviously more vocal and in some cases more annoying than those who have vocally asked for the explosive ammo buff.

@ Original Stikman - PLEASE don't think I am calling you annoying. I am NOT. I actually like most of YOUR threads, even if there is occasionally one I may not agree with. THis one does make sense, but so does my point about them changing what they are going to do in the Balance Changes. I am glad for the buffs this week, and not bugged by the nerfs. I am glad that they do SEEM to be listening to the better ideas for the most part.

 I am STILL going to keep hoping for those explosive ammo buffs that will make it good on more than one or two guns, though.

Modifié par Kingston Atticus, 13 mars 2013 - 04:22 .

[DullahansXMark]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Arctican wrote...


Coincidence would be BjornDaDwarf bringing up the case to buff Barrier and it gets buffed on the same day. On the other hand, the buff involving Annihilation Field rank 6 was acknowledged by a Bioware staff (Chris Sanche I believe) in a public thread. After a little back and forth discussion, he said he would bring it up with the rest of the balance team to see if anything could be done. If that argument wasn't brough to light, Annihilation Field would have never recieved that buff that following balance change.

But I do agree that most balance changes were not done because BSN brought it up, but because Bioware themselves did their own testing and made a change that happened to be what in line with what some BSNers thought. I believe the AIU is such a case.

Just going to hop in here, balance changes were never put in the same day. Generally the balance changes need to be in place thursday. I was the one who made the suggestion about buf****g barrier.

It's nice to get some insight on how these things work/worked, but how did this happen?

Bryan Johnson wrote...

buf****g barrier.

[Nydus Templar]

Dunno how many people have pointed out the incredibly paper thin Ex-Cereberus Adept/Vanguard and how that needs a buff. Somethings just aren't meant to be I guess.

[Original Twigman]

Kingston Atticus wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Kingston Atticus wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Chris Priestly, himself (I believe), stated that they had no plans to change Ascension mode (toggle). However, I made a thread requesting some duration changes, while others made some damage taken changes:
Thread

Yes but one of the devs (I think it was Bryan Johnson but can't quite remember) said during the Reckoning live stream playthrough (the day before Reckoning was released) that they WILL be buffing explosive ammo. But have you seen that buff yet? I sure haven't, so things change, or get pushed back or bumped ahead. It happens.

i can tell you are trying to make a point: Things change

but it doesn't really address the seemingly strong correlation between the quote i put.

Ok maybe your thread DID get him to play as a collector and use the ascension mode a few more times. If that is the case, I am glad. I hated the duration of it as well. But they promised to fix the explosive ammo a few weeks ago and when it came out there were lots of posts about it needing a buff, but that still hasn't happened. Because of it, most people pretend that ammo does NOT exist. So why give in to a couple threads about one thing and NOT a dozen about something else? Like I said things obviously change.
 
 Like you said they listened to your thread apparently. What changed is apparently that those who are screaming about the new characters are obviously more vocal and in some cases more annoying than those who have vocally asked for the explosive ammo buff.

@ Original Stikman - PLEASE don't think I am calling you annoying. I am NOT. I actually like most of YOUR threads, even if there is occasionally one I may not agree with. THis one does make sense, but so does my point about them changing what they are going to do in the Balance Changes. I am glad for the buffs this week, and not bugged by the nerfs. I am glad that they do SEEM to be listening to the better ideas for the most part.

 I am STILL going to keep hoping for those explosive ammo buffs that will make it good on more than one or two guns, though.

don't worry, i didn't take it that way.

[Original Twigman]

Nydus Templar wrote...

Dunno how many people have pointed out the incredibly paper thin Ex-Cereberus Adept/Vanguard and how that needs a buff. Somethings just aren't meant to be I guess.

I don't care if they do or don't. Every class is going to have a "worst of the worst."

besides, if you knew of a way to improve the class in a logical manner, would you have more confidence in executing your argument if you knew bioware would engage you in a discussion over it?

clearly, having a dev make a thread "balance suggestions" would be a bad idea, but at least developing some criteria for dialogue would be nice

[Rudenut]

Kingston Atticus wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Kingston Atticus wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Chris Priestly, himself (I believe), stated that they had no plans to change Ascension mode (toggle). However, I made a thread requesting some duration changes, while others made some damage taken changes:
Thread

Yes but one of the devs (I think it was Bryan Johnson but can't quite remember) said during the Reckoning live stream playthrough (the day before Reckoning was released) that they WILL be buffing explosive ammo. But have you seen that buff yet? I sure haven't, so things change, or get pushed back or bumped ahead. It happens.

i can tell you are trying to make a point: Things change

but it doesn't really address the seemingly strong correlation between the quote i put.

Ok maybe your thread DID get him to play as a collector and use the ascension mode a few more times. If that is the case, I am glad. I hated the duration of it as well. But they promised to fix the explosive ammo a few weeks ago and when it came out there were lots of posts about it needing a buff, but that still hasn't happened. Because of it, most people pretend that ammo does NOT exist. So why give in to a couple threads about one thing and NOT a dozen about something else? Like I said things obviously change.
 
 Like you said they listened to your thread apparently. What changed is apparently that those who are screaming about the new characters are obviously more vocal and in some cases more annoying than those who have vocally asked for the explosive ammo buff.

@ Original Stikman - PLEASE don't think I am calling you annoying. I am NOT. I actually like most of YOUR threads, even if there is occasionally one I may not agree with. THis one does make sense, but so does my point about them changing what they are going to do in the Balance Changes. I am glad for the buffs this week, and not bugged by the nerfs. I am glad that they do SEEM to be listening to the better ideas for the most part.

 I am STILL going to keep hoping for those explosive ammo buffs that will make it good on more than one or two guns, though.

Conjecture rarely exposes a truth.  I still think the changes that are made are a result of data collection.  Attention may be garnered but action is likely a result of corroborating data.

[Star fury]

I remember Protoman singlehandedly nerfing Piranha. Ah, good times...

Seriously, I doubt that Bioware give a damn about bsn, and rightly so. They have much better sources of information.

[Original Twigman]

Rudenut wrote...


Conjecture rarely exposes a truth.  I still think the changes that are made are a result of data collection.  Attention may be garnered but action is likely a result of corroborating data.

its a good theory, as is other's.

my question is: How do you collect data on determining whether or not something like ascension mode needs to be exteneded? or the power ratio is not where it should be?

Those questions are tough to answer without having that insider view

[Arctican]

Nydus Templar wrote...

Dunno how many people have pointed out the incredibly paper thin Ex-Cereberus Adept/Vanguard and how that needs a buff. Somethings just aren't meant to be I guess.

They're not even in that bad of a shape. The Bonus Power evolution buff was an indirect buff to the Phoenix Vanguard as well. There are other things that require a buff more, like Explosive Ammo, Nova;s Sustain evolution, CAR, etc..

[SavagelyEpic]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

buf****g barrier.

Go on...

[nicethugbert]

So, in summary:

Bryan Johnson wrote...

buf****g barrier.

[Bryan Johnson]

You all are having too much fun with my battles with the swear filter

[tevix]

I just assumed it was censored because a Dev saying the word "Buff" is heresey...