Nerfing things piss me off! Buffing things makes me happy! STOP NERFS! And your implants have completely failed at making me want to buy more SC
This whole "I don't like nerfs" attitude that I see from a few people is silly. If something is overperforming, nerf it. If something is underperforming, buff it. It's as simple as that. It's not that one is good and the other is bad. Listen... If you give everything improvements to match the thing which is performing (score, kills per minute, average K/D using it, or whatever metric you want to use) "the best" then you end up with all the weapons in the game being too easy to use. With everything being easier to use, you will see the gap between those who play the game well, and those who play the game not so well, closing. Now, some might view that as a good thing, but the issue is this; We play this game because it is a competition. If everyone is handed gear that a braindead monkey could use, what purpose is there in competing over it? It would be like having a competition to see who is best at breathing.
If you have a party and someone spills red wine on your carpet, you clean out the stain as best you can to match the rest of your carpet. You don't proceed to pour red wine all over your carpet to match the stain.
If that happened, then eventually every weapon would be 1 shot kill from the max infantry render distance with lockon. The Implants are actually quite nice, even if some of them are OP/useless (I'm looking at you regeneration and EOD HUD 3!) You could probably use level 2s without having to buy chargers if your a good player.
We play for fun? Some us just log in after work/school for fun, not score. To kill, destroy, sit on TS with friends and kill more. Guess most players log in to kill and kill with fun. I never ever looked on Leaderboard on Hex on "TAB" button to check my score. I would perefer to have old harasser becasue it was fun, and I wouldn't care less about killstreak, score/hour (never checked that either) or any other thing. If they nerf what is fun (although it is justifed sometimes)- I feel less joy, and still dont care about score. So eventually I will just leave if there is no fun things to use. And in FPS fun i all about killing. Mostly. You can think "competetive" but PS2 is not competetive game. CoD and BF are. Here we try to make some fun. Most, and since each big nerf is making playerbase a little lower- well, guess fun is big factor. No all people play for score. I prefer to have new good looking helmet on my HA then accurracy over 20% (I dont even know what accuracy I have, nor do I care) Another perspective maybe?
Oh, so *you* get to make the call, and no-one else. Got it. You spelled out arbitrary and subjective quantifiers. As such, you will be doing nothing but blaming your failures on weapon values and screaming for things to be changed in your favor. I fail to see the reward in publicly crusading against the latest scary thing using arbitrary values as a crumbling foundation for logical dialogue. I don't blame you. Its what the nerfers do. Consider for a moment a game where weapons kill, and players are required to own their experience. You take some, you give some, and everyone is looking to themselves to get better, not for the game to make it easier. This is the world of the non-nerfer.
I'm going to slowly and methodically explain this to you. This is your question: You are asking how a given person defines overperforming and underperforming. This is my answer: You ask, how can a person define those two terms? I tell you that a person can properly do this using these three aspects together: 1.) Analysis of performance statistics. 2.) Ones own experience with the thing in question, which allows deeper insight. 3.) Logical deduction combining arguments of others, your own insight, and the two previous points. Your response... just wow.
1.) How do you ensure that the statistics do not incorrectly skew? 2.) How does one weight subjective perception? 3.) How does one weight subjective perception? Your system isn't based on anything concrete. It is dependent on vehement argument.
I didn't exclude that... However, if there was no challenge in playing the game, would you bother with it? I also rarely look at my own stats - Frankly they do not bother me much. However, if this game were mindblowingly easy, I would not bother with it. When I say competative, I don't mean along the lines of the grotesquely boring individuals who like to say things about how they're "MLGpr0 look at my accuracy stat and K/D of 30, now watch how this scrub got rekt by me blah blah blah." Those are hyper competative idiots and they really do bring the game down (in my humble opinion). I won't go into the usual arrogant nonsense about the "catering to scrubs and casuals" or any of that jazz, because that comes from a position of massive arrogance as well. The fun in this game (yes, I also play for fun), comes from doing something that I had to learn. Winning without thinking or really doing anything is dull. The majority of players - even the most "casual" - would quickly lose interest in a game which is too easy. That is a point of considerable debate, which is not strictly speaking relevant to this discussion... But people like to argue over things such as average K/D when using a piece of gear, average SPM when using specific gear, life expetancy while using bits of gear... There are as many metrics for measuring this as there are people to argue about it. This generates a huge number of opinions on the matter, and is precisely the reason that every balance change is so bitterly fought over.
How does one define "overperforming" and "underperforming"? I believe that definition of these two things is very relevant to the discussion. *Unless* the thread is actually about someone not liking implants. In asymmetrical combined arms gaming, there are so many variable inputs that it is impossible to generate a credible paradigm for measuring weapon performance. This may be one of the best reason for believe that balance change shouldn't need to be fought over. And the criteria given above to achieve balance only encourages it. Philosophically, the players should be much more open to accepting weapon performance. Being beat by something doesn't mean a weapon is overperforming. The solution? An immutable law of physics (doesn't even need to be modeled in game, only on spreadsheet) that weapons obey. The game devs then tell the community that the weapons are modeled on rules that don't change because we want them too. The result? Those that can't hack it leave. Those that remain represent a community that accepts how dangerous combined arms FPS, and figures out how to win in-game instead of in-forum. So regarding nerfing, and the defense of it, one cannot help but think that those calling constantly for the game to be softer are only doing it to further their interests. After all, look at the self-admitted criterion above! Nonsense! I would rather be something I can be proud of. A player that gives it and takes it, that gets beat, and gets on with it.
The only people who don't like a http://3.bp.************/-eLoQiH5PWIU/ULyVy-7tAmI/AAAAAAAACNI/DMMNZ06O-1s/s1600/Rayven+Cs-18+25.png Are the people who didn't have one.
First of all, I want to say that your post is an excellent one. You're actually engaging in a debate without being an ***. This is something a lot of people refuse to do, instead prefering to sling the proverbial poop at the metaphorical eyes. Nice job. I don't necessarily agree with you, but nice job. As far as I understand, this thread about saying a very broad and blanket "no" to ever reducing the power of an in-game item, weapon or ability. I agree with this statement. Here you lose me. I agree that defined parameters are required to balance around. If the dev team were to provide *the* metric by which all things should be measured, we would be in business and would be able to have definitive "x is overpowered, y is underpowered" statements from which to alter and change the way weapons, in-game items and abilities work. Of course providing *the* parameter by which everything should be measured is an impossibility. Here you seem to be making a little bit of an error. You are equating the devs nerfing an item to forum-based whining. This is probably not a good way of looking at the practice of nerfing. Furthermore, you are making the mistake of thinking that if everything is higher-powered, then the game is in some way harsher. Lets look at two extremes and examine them. Lets assume that all offensive ability is nerfed. Weapons are given a far longer TTK, and are harder to control with more bloom per shot, as well as higher and more unpredictable recoil. In this extreme, killing someone becomes very very difficult, meaning that novice players would not be able to score kills. In short, it is easier to stay alive, but far harder to "beat" another player. In this case, the game has become far more difficult in one regard (killing), and a lot easier in another (staying alive). In the other extreme, let us assume that all offensive ability is buffed. Weapons do more damage for a faster TKK, and are given very little recoil. They are made highly controlable in every situation, and work over a variety of ranges. In this instance, staying alive becomes extremely difficult, but killing people becomes extremely easy. Novice players are therefore able to get kills. In this case, the game has become far easier in one regard (getting kills) and far harder in another (staying alive). If you were to replace offensive with defensive in both of these examples, you would find the same... If you make defensive abilities too strong, then only expert players can get kills on a regular basis, but everyone finds it far easier to stay alive. If you make defensive abilities too weak, then novice players are able to get kills, but only expert players are able to stay alive. If you make either offensive or defensive capabilities too strong or too weak, then everyone playing will become frustrated. If you nerf offensive and defensive capabilities at the same time and at the same rate - then you end up with no net change. Likewise if you buff offensive and defensive capabilities at the same time and rate. What I believe planetside does well, is manage this overall balance between offensive and defensive capabilities nicely. Unlike CoD (for example) weaons are moderately difficult to use, and killing someone requires a certain threshold ability. Also, unlike some slow TTK games, you don't end up with two people standing across other sides of the room doing the jump/strafe/crouch dance for 40 seconds, while firing spitballs at one another, with the winner being either the guy with the best macro, or nine arms. Planetside strikes a good balance between gunplay/positioning/reaction time being important, and movement proficiency being important. Nerfing and buffing offensive and defensive capabilities in context with one another is essential for maintaining that offense/defense balance. Saying the practice of nerfing is purely due to forum whiners, is completely ignoring the bigger picture and wider context of the game's feel. Simply making stuff more lethal does not make the game harsher. Simply making stuff less lethal does not make the game softer. Going too far in either extreme will make the game simultaneously harder and more easy, depening on whether you aim to stay alive, or aim to kill. Nerfs and buffs are equally valid and indeed necessary in finding balance between all things. Edit: Just spotted the interesting zen overtones in the final line, and laughed.
Everything you're saying comes off to me as (and correct me if I'm wrong): "Numbers mean nothing. Experience means nothing. Logic means nothing. Nobody should ever say 'this is underperforming' or 'this is overperforming' because, that's like, just your opinion man!" Well obviously it is an opinion. Do you think nothing should ever be changed because, somewhere, it was someone's opinion? What is your point? If you're asking me how someone defines those two terms, then I am telling you the 100% guaranteed #1 way that a person could ever determine what they mean in the most objective fashion possible. I'm telling you the best way that even a developer could decide. You use your EXPERIENCE. You use STATISTICS. And you use LOGIC. What else could you possibly use? If your point is "everyone should just shut up and stop giving your opinions on balance, cause like, that's just your opinion man!" then you're a hardcore derp. This is a forum. The idea literally means a place to share ideas and opinions. Developers use this place to get feedback, aka our opinions.
Definitely not, that'd be ridiculous. Pre nerf harassers with vanguard ap cannons, and HE splash would be more like it.
There's more to making a good game than pure balance. You can have a super balanced game be completely boring. And a badly balanced game be super fun to play. History with SOE shows that they put very little weight on the fun factor when making balance changes. They pay for it by losing subscribers and general reduction in interest
