CELESTA AUNGM
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
96
   |
Posted - 2014.01.06 16:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
stlcarlos989 wrote:Charlotte O'Dell wrote:TheAmazing FlyingPig wrote:CCP Saberwing wrote:Tanks still feel too strong in 1.7 and AV is not strong enough to stop them
WeGÇÖll need to do something about MLT tanks. We will see to rebalance some PG/CPU for equipment and more. More details will come in a dev blog/forum post. Le Source Thank you, Saberwing!!!! :D <3333 I wonder if tanks feel too strong because tanks got a buff, price cut, and every form of AV got nerfed? Seriously how didn't see this coming CCP 
Wow. Finally the fallout about HAVs is becoming a strong enough wave. 
CCP can't easily see things like this coming, because the "bad result" is not the product of buffing or nerfing math--it's produced by how we console players BEHAVE in the matches once the tweak/nerf/buff is introduced.
Before Dust 514, CCP has been operating a game based around the behavior of players with a PC, keyboard and mouse (they tend to be players strongly steeped in RPG, calculations, planning, and math--the PC players grew up with NON-visceral, NON-in-your-face games).
Players with a PS3 or similar console system have for years been steeped in VISCERAL ram-n-destroy, shock-n-impact Shooter, Driving, and Incineration games--just as grown-up and serious as PC games, but different. PC gamers grew up on "calculate-n-prepare before you enter the room" mindset... Console gamers grew up on the mindset of "load a fresh clip and kick in the door!"
CCP has tried to introduce and carry Dust 514 as a "calculating" game for us console players, where (unlike the free-to-rampage life we typically have with disposable or un-losable gear) players are supposed to value the ownership of their assets, and feel a little "worry", before taking all that SP and ISK you spent on that proto weapon or vehicle, and risking it irresponsibly on the battlefield.
 Create the "right" amount of "worry" that I MAY lose the HAV or DS that I invested so much work in,...and you have a match where more players calculate their decisions, try to synchronize with teammates movement to reduce their odds of being destroyed, and have less frequent but more eventful gun face-offs between opponents' weapons/vehicles.
 Not enough worry, and you have a match where players don't feel they have to calculate-n-prepare at all, will splurge their item away just "kicking in doors" (the ole' console players way), and will overpopulate and clog the map with a particular vehicles/asset because in their minds the item is disposable/easily-replacable.
 Too much "worry" will, like Mobius and Whinis expressed, make a player weigh too little battlefield gain against too small a survival rate, and decide it's not worth bringing my item out on the field at all--it will only be lost in 5 seconds.
These are BEHAVIORAL categories, not strictly math/stats categories. And CCP is learning that the SLIGHTEST well-intentioned buff, tweak, adjustment will accidentally tip the game into or out of any of these three categories.
The "balance" that CCP is going to have to continue trying to achieve is NOT in the easy to figure math and stats of the weapons/vehicles,... it's in how we players regard the items when we're using them. Predicting if the next tweak will cause us to make our skirmishes as phobic as an expensive car showroom, or as wasteful as Jonathan E's last match in Rollerball, is probably HARD, trial and error psychology. LOL, they study "the video tape", so they can see how we behave with our gear way more accurately than how we THINK we're behave with our gear.
Without the RIGHT amount of "fear of losing my item" mixed with the right amount of "perceived belief that I can make this important kill if I risk using my item", we will always be fixated and arguing about 'nerfing these numbers', 'don't buff those numbers', 'boppo-gun is OP', etc.
|