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

[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.

[Troscus]

I think you're saying you don't want nerfing to become rampant, due to the thread title, but the actual OP threw me off.

Anyway, I'd agree with that. Nerf what needs it, no faction needs a 9001 damaging rocket that locks on, goes through walls, and ignores flares. But I think the devs should use their own tool, that stats thing. Look at as many people as bloody possible, and see how they're doing, before nerfing/buffing ANYTHING.

That way you have honest to God hard data, not just a ton of people complaining a weapon is OP just because it kills them alot. Or a ton saying one's UP because they never bother to learn how to use it.

[TerminatorUK]

I definitely know what your saying....the years that were spent complaining over HA and the debacle that was BFRs (seriously, the devs must be have been on something if they thought the original versions was balanced) drained huge amounts of development time.

However, this time around, a combination of lower TTKs and what looks like less extreme differences in weapon characteristics should be easier to balance.

In addition, the infantry "shield damage until depleated, then health damage" is a much easier system to deal with balance-wise v.s. the old complicated "10 damage gets absorbed to armour before hitting the health" (rexo after the buff) or "6 damage gets absorbed to armour before hitting the health" (agile) meant that shotgun (mutliple pellets that was calculated independantly) and low-damage per shot weapons were difficult to balance against high damage per shot weapons.

Lastly, I get the real distinct feeling the devs are more experienced FPS gamers and understand how things play out in a game like this better.

Have faith - I know I do from what I've seen this time around :)

[dyslecix]

I definitely know what your saying....the years that were spent complaining over HA and the debacle that was BFRs (seriously, the devs must be have been on something if they thought the original versions was balanced) drained huge amounts of development time.

However, this time around, a combination of lower TTKs and what looks like less extreme differences in weapon characteristics should be easier to balance.

In addition, the infantry "shield damage until depleated, then health damage" is a much easier system to deal with balance-wise v.s. the old complicated "10 damage gets absorbed to armour before hitting the health" (rexo after the buff) or "6 damage gets absorbed to armour before hitting the health" (agile) meant that shotgun (mutliple pellets that was calculated independantly) and low-damage per shot weapons were difficult to balance against high damage per shot weapons.

Lastly, I get the real distinct feeling the devs are more experienced FPS gamers and understand how things play out in a game like this better.

Have faith - I know I do from what I've seen this time around :)
I think it will be harder to balance if anything, since the TTK is low, especially the HA weapons.

[TerminatorUK]

I think it will be harder to balance if anything, since the TTK is low, especially the HA weapons.

I see what you're saying but because the TTK is lower, it'll mean only minor adjustments will be required rather than sweeping changes.

[The Degenatron]

I certainly hope that the devs will sit back and LET people complain. For a LONG time. Maybe pepper in a few "Deal With It"'s for good meassure.

Why? Because the last time they catered to what the population WANT, not what was GOOD FOR THEM.

The whole idea that was lost - completely F'ing LOST - on people was that "No, you aren't going to be able to use the same tactics as your enemy uses against you." People never grasped that rather simple concept.

Instead, they wanted all of the weapons smoothed over to be one homogenous blend, where it didn't matter WHAT faction you were fighting for be cause it didn't really make any difference.

This time when someone says "Weapon X is way OP'd in Situation Y" I sincerely hope the answer is "Yes, we know. We did that on purpose. What are YOU going to do about?" When the whiners say, "But whaaaaaa, we can't do it!" the answer is "Well then switch to Empire A and learn from your fellow Empire B players how they deal with you. LEARN SOMETHING."

The devs do THAT, and THIS is the response the get from me:

We're not worthy - YouTube

[LexTalionis]

Elfailo gets what im hinting at. Ludwig von Mises had a theory on the inability to control market prices with a centrally planned monetary system, without causing mis-allocations in resources. Later Hayek went on to explain how the desires and needs and perceptions of value of individuals varied. This game has in it a centrally planned market economy, in which determining the value of the resources(vehicles equipment, etc.) is going to be highly controlled in order to maintain the right level of say tanks, or whatever the equipment is. This is much different than ps1 in that the individual had control over what he could pull with the exception of the timer, which was a clever buffer, in a simpler system. I wonder how much influence this market system has received from eve online or tribes ascent? But what I am also hinting at, is that despite all the b*tchin that'll happen, How set in stone does everyone think the values should be? It's funny, because adjusting the values adjusts the supply of whatever piece of equipment is being bought, it's so much like the fed, and other centrally planned institutions. Not doggin' on it. Wouldn't be possible otherwise, just trying to get some libertarian opinions on this system. Loving the F2P btw. They would probably use regression formulas and other statistical methods within excel to try and balance those values but im super curious how the game economy will work out and if SOE has any economics majors in there giving them advice for structuring the market systems. They have to. Fascinating.

[velleity]

Hayek played CPMA, I doubt the posters on this board will be able to relate.

[Virulence]

Higby meant that they need to allow the playerbase to have time to define and change the metagame - the tactics, strategies, playstyles, and unit compositions that are most effective - without the development team trying to force and/or pidgeonhole players into only using specific strategies through balance changes that make some tactics completely nonviable and others extremely powerful.

[Meatball Mobeus]

Over nerfing is a good way to describe what happened in the first game.. Isn't it? Back in the day I was actually one of the few that thought that all of the HA weapons were balanced. Same with all the MBTs. But when I came back a few months ago to... what it is now. I was deeply saddened. The Lasher has no lash anymore, the Jack hammer no longer has its secondary shot (I wanna say it was the 2 shot, but I'm not sure. Its been the long), and the MCG is well... the same? I haven't really played with it that much.

I really do hope that they don't jump to every complainers whims, but I also hope that they will at least listen, and test it out with us before they nerf anything.

[Papscal]

Over nerfing has happened to every great game since the very first great mmo, Ultima Online. And it was released in 1995. By listening to whiners babys and entitlement style players on the forums UO was patched into an unrecognizable shell of what it once was. Every quality game since has followed that same path. Especially since WoW cornered the lemming market with what 12 mill+ subscribers last i herd. Since wow every "mmo" has attempted to copy its example as a get rich quick cookie cutter.

My hope is Higby means they wont jump the gun on trying to make every single player happy by patching PS2 into shareware.

[Soothsayer]

Hayek would have been better at gaming than Keynes.

That's really all I have to say.

Frankfurt School is recruiting!

[GreatMazinkaise]

Over nerfing is a good way to describe what happened in the first game.. Isn't it? Back in the day I was actually one of the few that thought that all of the HA weapons were balanced. Same with all the MBTs. But when I came back a few months ago to... what it is now. I was deeply saddened. The Lasher has no lash anymore, the Jack hammer no longer has its secondary shot (I wanna say it was the 2 shot, but I'm not sure. Its been the long), and the MCG is well... the same? I haven't really played with it that much.

I really do hope that they don't jump to every complainers whims, but I also hope that they will at least listen, and test it out with us before they nerf anything.

Wait... Tri-shot and lashing are gone? What the fuck SOE?

[Mag-Mower]

Hayek would have been better at gaming than Keynes.

That's really all I have to say.

Keynes created assisted aiming.

[LexTalionis]

LOL @ Magmower's comment.

@Elfalio: yeah definitely look forward to seeing how this plays out.

[Khellendros]

Wait... Tri-shot and lashing are gone? What the fuck SOE?

You kidding? Tri-shot should never have been in the game in the first place.

Anyway, this bunch of devs seem like they are more deliberate in their actions, so I don't expect much knee jerk nerfing/buffing from them. That's barring any staffing changes over time ofc.

[Xyntech]

Wait... Tri-shot and lashing are gone? What the fuck SOE?

I don't recall BF3 having tri-shot or lashing, so it's a good thing they removed them ;)

[Troscus]

Just hope they don't put in player owned houses and start selling in-game mortgages for real money.

If they do, I for one won't be too disappointed. VANU PARTY AT MY CRIB!

[QuantumMechanic]

If some weapon is obviously OP you can't just leave it be for a long time just for "consistencies" sake.

However you can't just put a quick fix out for the weapon either. Othewise you won't realize you didn't get it right until it's out in production already and will require re-fixing (annoying players). Any balance fixes need to be verified on a test environment for a good while before getting the green flag to go into production. Lasher anyone?

[GreatMazinkaise]

You kidding? Tri-shot should never have been in the game in the first place.

Anyway, this bunch of devs seem like they are more deliberate in their actions, so I don't expect much knee jerk nerfing/buffing from them. That's barring any staffing changes over time ofc.

It was in, and it wasn't a huge problem... so yeah, kind of miffed that it got removed. Of course, I never bothered with HA myself...

[The noob]

If some weapon is obviously OP you can't just leave it be for a long time just for "consistencies" sake.

However you can't just put a quick fix out for the weapon either. Othewise you won't realize you didn't get it right until it's out in production already and will require re-fixing (annoying players). Any balance fixes need to be verified on a test environment for a good while before getting the green flag to go into production. Lasher anyone?

Indeed, if a weapon is obviously OP or simply just better than every weapon of its type, it should be fixed relatively soonish, maybe even with suggestions from forums and communities on how it should be done, so its properly balanced, not nerfed into oblivion or barely touched at all. I just hope they don't just nerf or buff things because a few people got agitated that they were killed by such and such weapon or playstyle, or they simply have no clue in how to properly use a weapon or playstyle, that tends to kill game balance. Barring obviously broken balance issues, they should wait at least a week, probably even 2 or more weeks before beginning to deal with more intricate balancing, so as to let players gain familiarity with the game, and also build tactics and counter-tactics against various weapons, playstyles, vehicles, etc.

[ODonnell]

You apply "nerfs" to mechanics, abilities, items and such that were not intended and are so unbalanced that there is no other alternative.

You apply "buffs" to mechanics, abilities, items and such in place of "nerfs" so that the player base doesn't get a negative feel and instead have a positive experience because now they are on even ground.

[Arcticus]

Elfailo gets what im hinting at. Ludwig von Mises had a theory on the inability to control market prices with a centrally planned monetary system, without causing mis-allocations in resources. Later Hayek went on to explain how the desires and needs and perceptions of value of individuals varied. This game has in it a centrally planned market economy, in which determining the value of the resources(vehicles equipment, etc.) is going to be highly controlled in order to maintain the right level of say tanks, or whatever the equipment is...

There aren't any win-win transactions going on here. It's all as coercive as it can be -- a huge battlefield -- Sure, "State" monopoly production with no ability to determine market prices...but...I guess my question would be, how would ABCT apply here? What is the equivalent of a boom? Of a bust? With a nanite production system, what are the higher-order capital goods into which the over-investment is being plowed during the boom phase?

Wondering how to apply Austrian theory in the age of PS2 instant nano production.

[exLupo]

One of the most common causes of over-nerfing is when two only vaguely comparable skills or weapons are put side by side. Often, a dev will apply massive buffs or nerfs to get these skills "in line" but, functionally, there is enough difference that the metagame will still cause problems. Another option is homogenization. It's not often employed but Blizzard did it with Cataclysm, radically redefining many classes in the name of balance simplicity and, while it worked, a lot of people were unhappy and the game's class depth took a hit.

I'm a fan of a third option, the one we're discussing here. To sum up: Small tweaks to keep congruity between analogues and metagame maturation to find places for everything else. In time, many changes will be needed to all tools and skills but the bigger the difference between the things being compared, imo, the longer you should look at it and let the all of the players show you (not just the vocal minority on the forums telling you) how the game is going to be played.

Mostly, a lot of folks just need to htfu.

[CutterJohn]

I'd like to see them be more open to experimentation. Try out a semi experimental change for a week or 3, see what happens. "Ok, this week, we're playing with buggy damage, and are adding a burst fire mode to them" or whatever.

[Malorn]

Regarding letting the game mature...

A lot of tactics in PS1 did not emerge in beta or even several months after release. Over time tactics will develop, others will adapt to them, and then you innovate again. The cycle evolves the gameplay and that's difficult if not impossible to observe in beta. Many may not be seen until deep levels of certs are unlocked, and more when those deep unlocks are more prevalent and squads make intelligent use of them.

So its something that simply takes time to develop and observe. Along the way they'll discover problems that would have been impossible to see in Beta, and some things will require nerfing.

[Sabot]

I'd like to see them be more open to experimentation. Try out a semi experimental change for a week or 3, see what happens. "Ok, this week, we're playing with buggy damage, and are adding a burst fire mode to them" or whatever.

Amen to that... I'd much rather they experiment than simply nerf something becuase suddenly there are 50 whine threads about it on the forum. Nerfing is never the solution in an MMO (unless the piece of equipment/mechanic is broken and is being exploited). At least not instantly... and definitely not 1-2 weeks after launch. Let it play out, let word spread on how to actually use it after intelligent and creative players have come up with a way to use it their advantage.

[DarkChiron]

I think my main fear in the way of nerfs/buffs is when they do something in regard to end game (high cert levels). I've seen games (WoW, COUGH COUGH) look at how skills/items can be abused in conjunction in the end-game (or only a specific portion of the game), and just nerf them at all levels of progression/use because of that. It will probably be less likely in Planetside 2, but I could see situations where it could happen.

[Stew]

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.

complaning about balanced is the way to say Iam noob i found the way to exploits weapons and i dont want them to fix it i want to break the game and make everybody Quit because they dont want to play with a single weapons/vehicules

whats the goal to have a weapons who always loose over another one in a 1 vs 1 figth ?

the designers never achive perfect balance at the begining they have no time to do it and test it properly

In beta when few more people comes some issues can be watch and FIX but some people who enjoys OVERPOWER weapons /vehicules will start complaining from the get go as soon as the dev team try to balanced thing out AND THIS IS WHATS BETA ARE FOR !

Also even after the beta few weapons will be broken and exploits so they will need to be FIXXXX BALANCE if to strong need to be NERF if to weak need to be BUFFF its the way it should be to achive balance and enjoyable experience for people who like diversity !

BF3 - M26 Mass Destruction - Before OP Patch - YouTube

This is a perfect exemple of imbalanced guns after beta and is this should stay like this so everyones will start abusing it so the game will be call BF M26 Dart ? Nerfing is balancing thing that from the get go as been Broken and almost unuse during BETA so the dev did not have suffcient Data to balanced it well or they were to busy or lazy !

But the facts is Nerfing and Buffing is part of balancing to provide an overall more enjoyable and balanced experience !

[DarkChiron]

whats the goal to have a weapons who always loose over another one in a 1 vs 1 figth ?

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.

[Stew]

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]

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. :lol:

[Blackwolf]

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]

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. :lol:

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]

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]

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/comments/uo9jr/my_thoughts_on_the_current_state_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]

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]

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]

Well, if posts like http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/uo9jr/my_thoughts_on_the_current_state_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]

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]

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.

[LexTalionis]

@Kaffis Great reply man. That was exactly where my mind was when i started this thread. : D