246 réponses à ce sujet

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

Needs more dictatorship. At first you have to make a test to see if you are capable of really deciding what should be buffed or nerfed. An elector's license.

And then, all nerfs except for the one for Harrier, Reegar, BW and Hurricane are ignored.

[DHKany]

Butthurtdness EVERYWHERE.

[oO Stryfe Oo]

I like the voting concept, but I don't like the idea of everything being fixed with a raw damage buff/nerf. I want creative ways to buff/nerf kits, like changing the Juggernaut's Squad Command evolution to allow for 2 Turrets out, re-hauling the Phoenix kits' fitness trees (lash mastery?) and giving them a new running melee attack, or giving the Collector Rifle a small multiplier against Armor. Things that would require a patch.

But...I suppose if it was this or nothing...

[Ohnenick]

Air Quotes wrote...

Yes. I understand, BSN can be bat-**** crazy sometimes. True. But it also can be serious and helpful and do good things when it wants. That's what I'm counting on. That people will participate in balance change voting as seriously as they did in Bioware map surveys and member surveys. Thay were all great and had good results.  

Yes, I see what you mean. And being an optimisitic guy I grant that might even work for a while. But sure as a bear craps in the woods it would degenerate fast after a while. I totally expect stuff like the mentioned "lets vote for xxx 10 times inna row for lulz" inside the first 3 months.

In spite of being optimistic I'm also a firm believer in the wisdom of Albert Einstein (see quote in sig). So while i commend you for your good idea and and your trust in the good of all BSN-kind, I can't believe it would bring the desired outcome about - a better game.

Modifié par Ohnenick, 29 avril 2013 - 12:08 .

[TBLKNIGHT]

Air Quotes wrote...

TBLKNIGHT wrote...

How many Scrubs visit the Forums?

 

I dunno. But if they care about the game they can vote. And their vote and opinion is equally as powerful. 1 vote per person to prevent abuse. 

The answer is close to none. They'll have a problem voting then wouldn't they 

[Dunvi]

Air Quotes wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

The biggest fallacy here is thinking that this removes the need for testing.

 

We will test it. And it could be reversed. But a 10% buff or nerf will not make a big deal. 10% is my number. It could be 5% if we agree on it. 

I'm not talking about testing the validity of the buffs, I'm talking about: testing if the change implemented was actually implemented, testing if the change implemented didn't accidentally change something else as well, testing to make sure a zero wasn't accidentally added at the end of something, testing to make sure that the new change doesn't interact with something else unexpectedly.

Sure most of those are unlikely, but some of them...

[TBLKNIGHT]

Air Quotes my man, you have way too much faith in this community. Let the Devs do their jobs.

[Dunvi]

Air Quotes wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

The biggest fallacy here is thinking that this removes the need for testing.

 

We will test it. And it could be reversed. But a 10% buff or nerf will not make a big deal. 10% is my number. It could be 5% if we agree on it. 

I'm not talking about testing the validity of the buffs, I'm talking about: testing if the change implemented was actually implemented, testing if the change implemented didn't accidentally change something else as well, testing to make sure a zero wasn't accidentally added at the end of something, testing to make sure that the new change doesn't interact with something else unexpectedly.

Sure most of those are unlikely, but some of them...

 

I think simple number changes will not break the game. And it;s not like it's a hard patch. What was changed with balance change can be reverted with balance change.  

That's why I suggested that we vote on the simplest changes. No hard stuff. 

I still disagree.

Imagine how badly the BSN would rage if our 5% nerf to the Harrier accidentally dropped a digit on the Y value for the damage range...

Or when navigating through the file some dev accidentally highlights all of the old turian passive changes and then hits enter without looking...

[ryoldschool]

I like TO's idea. There are a few things that could probably be agreed on straight away.

explosive rounds need a buff ( I've been sitting on 255 level 3 for months - and yet they still drop in specter packs ) so any kind of buff to them would at least get them used.

You could tweak some damage values for a few guns so that they get used more.

At least it would make the forum a little more interesting, since something would at least change.

Modifié par ryoldschool, 29 avril 2013 - 12:23 .

[oO Stryfe Oo]

Air Quotes wrote...

Requires patches and testing and work. That's not gonna fly. 

Yeah, I know; I think I mentioned that it would require a patch in my post. Point is, raw buffs/nerfs to damage is lame. If that's all we're going to do, I'm fine with the title as is. BSN will throw what little balance the game had out of whack, because stupid people exist. If it doesn't happen immediately, it will happen later.

[Dunvi]

Air Quotes wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

Dunvi wrote...

The biggest fallacy here is thinking that this removes the need for testing.

 

We will test it. And it could be reversed. But a 10% buff or nerf will not make a big deal. 10% is my number. It could be 5% if we agree on it. 

I'm not talking about testing the validity of the buffs, I'm talking about: testing if the change implemented was actually implemented, testing if the change implemented didn't accidentally change something else as well, testing to make sure a zero wasn't accidentally added at the end of something, testing to make sure that the new change doesn't interact with something else unexpectedly.

Sure most of those are unlikely, but some of them...

 

I think simple number changes will not break the game. And it;s not like it's a hard patch. What was changed with balance change can be reverted with balance change.  

That's why I suggested that we vote on the simplest changes. No hard stuff. 

I still disagree.

Imagine how badly the BSN would rage if our 5% nerf to the Harrier accidentally dropped a digit on the Y value for the damage range...

Or when navigating through the file some dev accidentally highlights all of the old turian passive changes and then hits enter without looking...

 

They made them work properly before haven't they? I think Bioware could spare 1 guy to make proper change once in a month and double check it. 

Why do you think they only ever made 2 or 3 mistakes along those veins during the history of balance changes?

Did you ever realize that the balance changes were on, at minimum, a week-long delay (and I sorta suspect it was really more along the lines of a 2-week delay - determined what to try 2 weeks in advance, playtested internally for a week, gives them time to adjust stuff, decide something is too ambitious or not working and remove it, and continue testing, and all of this was almost certainly done by the Friday before balance changes because the deployment to servers actually took a lot longer than most people realized).