We need regular and frequent Combat Balance focused patches

"

avastcosmicarena#5899 เขียน:

The notion that balance doesn't matter in a PVE game is silly. It definitely matters. For example, right now, the Atalui's Bloodletting + Tecrod's Undying Hate combo is so far above everything else in damage, it's kind of crazy.

It's not like we need everything to be perfectly balanced, but way more skills should at least be in the same realm as each other. Right now, there are a lot of skills that are in completely different universes.

"

Evergrey#7535 เขียน:

That would be my dream job. I am an excel dweller and I love min-maxing stuff or optimizing for balance.

"

Orbaal#0435 เขียน:

"

Evergrey#7535 เขียน:

That would be my dream job. I am an excel dweller and I love min-maxing stuff or optimizing for balance.

GGG isnt even trying to achieve perfect nor close to perfect balance across all skills. That would be bad business for them and is not going to happen.
They will consider closing a gap of 5000% disparity in power down to about 500%
but thats pretty much it.

The goal isnt to achieve perfect parity but to constantly buff/nerf skills to shake up the meta to keep the game fresh and lure in players.
They will also never go for extensive mid-league balance patches because barely anybody would be still around to hear/read about those changes.
Instead they are using big balancing patches as a sort of marketingtool to draw in players at the very beginning of each and every league.

Thats been their very successful modus operandi for a decade+ and why on earth would the change a winning formula?

"

Icesinnox#6517 เขียน:

"

avastcosmicarena#5899 เขียน:

The notion that balance doesn't matter in a PVE game is silly. It definitely matters. For example, right now, the Atalui's Bloodletting + Tecrod's Undying Hate combo is so far above everything else in damage, it's kind of crazy.

It's not like we need everything to be perfectly balanced, but way more skills should at least be in the same realm as each other. Right now, there are a lot of skills that are in completely different universes.

I think the point is that the strong skills or ascendancies in the game are not hard countering other skills and ascendicies. It is not the same as a PVP game where picking X class ( which is considered too strong ) is actually hard countering players who want to play other classes. Because the class is being functionally hard countered in a pvp scenario.


Nerfs in a PVE focused game seem to take options away and not add them. Smith of Kitava for example. That is an entire ascendancy now not being utilized. Players gained nothing from the nerf. They simply lost a ascendancy which was worth playing.

Certain players are always going to powergame and pick which ever class/skill combination is the strongest currently. You can't really balance a game for this type of mindset because these players are going to default to the next strongest thing once the nerfs roll in. And then the cycle continues.

But if all ascendancies are at least worthwhile to play. Then even players with a powergaming mindset will eventually grow tired of playing the same ascendancy over and over again and will try new ascendancies (as long as they're worth while). And the pick rate ratio becomes more even.

"

Icesinnox#6517 เขียน:

I don't think nerfs have anything to do with this formula. I mean they could just over-buff a shit ascendancy every season and it would have the same effect.

"

Orbaal#0435 เขียน:

Thats been their very successful modus operandi for a decade+ and why on earth would the change a winning formula?

"

Orbaal#0435 เขียน:

"

Icesinnox#6517 เขียน:

I don't think nerfs have anything to do with this formula. I mean they could just over-buff a shit ascendancy every season and it would have the same effect.

Dont take my word for it.

Former CEO Chris Wilson explains the formula during his GDC 2019 talk.
Its available on YT and about an hour long.


Nerfing stuff is 100% part off it.
I cant recall the exact wording but essentially he is saying, that GGG is able to create "new" content this way with very little effort while making sure the game is still somewhat challenging.
Simply buffing stuff would violate the latter part of this statement.

But regardless. They want controlled chaos to create a rollercoaster of ups and downs to lure players in - not an equal playing field by making sure all skills are on a similar powerlevel.
That would result in stagnation and pseudo choices that arent even relevant because in the end everthing would be the same.

"

Icesinnox#6517 เขียน:

"

Orbaal#0435 เขียน:

"

Icesinnox#6517 เขียน:

I don't think nerfs have anything to do with this formula. I mean they could just over-buff a shit ascendancy every season and it would have the same effect.

Dont take my word for it.

Former CEO Chris Wilson explains the formula during his GDC 2019 talk.
Its available on YT and about an hour long.


Nerfing stuff is 100% part off it.
I cant recall the exact wording but essentially he is saying, that GGG is able to create "new" content this way with very little effort while making sure the game is still somewhat challenging.
Simply buffing stuff would violate the latter part of this statement.

But regardless. They want controlled chaos to create a rollercoaster of ups and downs to lure players in - not an equal playing field by making sure all skills are on a similar powerlevel.
That would result in stagnation and pseudo choices that arent even relevant because in the end everthing would be the same.

I understand the concept. I just don't see how nerfs actually work into it at this stage in the game
.
For example nerfing smith and INvoker. So that 30% of the player base default to Deadeye... And another 15-20% going is to Bloodmage. So effectly half of the player base are playing two ascendancies out of seventeen.. That is about as stagnated as you can get. And it has been three months of this.

And I dont' see any increased difficulty. Actually the game is easier than it was at release when players were playing half a dozen ascendancies. Deadeye, temporalis stormweaver, pillar of the god (gemling and invoker), pathfinder etc. The game is not more interesting (in terms of meta) now than it was at release. Even though they've added ascendancies since then.

I guess nerfs are warranted when most of the ascendancies are at a competitive level (in terms of pick ratio). So if all ascendancies are at least at 5% pick rate but you have two ascendancies which are just better and being played more. Then yes you can create interesting meta cycles by nerfing the top ascendancies and buffing a few others. Because the game is still offering options for other classes to play.

But when you have a bunch of ascendancies on 1% pick rate. And two ascendancies on 30% and 15%.. I think you need to stop nerfing shit and actually fix your game (as in rework the unappealing ascendancies). Because there is no chance the balance is even remotely close to being suitable for creating a interesting meta cycle when 75% of your ascendancies are not being played.