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

LexTalionis · 2012-06-16, 03:43 PM

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 · 2012-06-16, 03:50 PM

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 · 2012-06-16, 04:02 PM

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 · 2012-06-16, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by 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

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

TerminatorUK · 2012-06-16, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by dyslecix

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 · 2012-06-16, 04:36 PM

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:

LexTalionis · 2012-06-16, 05:51 PM

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 · 2012-06-16, 05:55 PM

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

Arcticus · 2012-06-17, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

LexTalionis · 2012-06-16, 08:11 PM

LOL @ Magmower's comment.

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

Troscus · 2012-06-16, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

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!

Virulence · 2012-06-16, 06:27 PM

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 · 2012-06-16, 06:50 PM

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 · 2012-06-16, 07:22 PM

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.

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-06-16, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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