|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
577
   |
Posted - 2013.07.03 23:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Talos Alomar wrote:When you change something, you probably want that change tested, and receive feedback on that change, right?
This is why stealth buffs or nerfs make your life harder. Not many people neurotically check the damage and other stats of weapons every time they log on.
You need to tell us when a change has been made so we can give feedback on that change. just going in and tweaking the stats on a weapon does nothing if people don't know if they should go test a weapon to see if its effective.
Its also not just about making your job easier, its about not insulting your playerbase too. People get offended and pissed off when you just go and change their weapon on them.
Just make a thread that lists the changes you made and update it once a week. it's not too much to ask and it will really help the balancing process by letting your players actually test the damn changes properly. The feedback they're looking for is, generally, not forum feedback. Forum feedback is mostly noise TBH. The feedback they are looking for is data mined from the server logs. Players are providing this feedback regardless if they are aware of something or not.
They're idiotic for doing it that way then.
Servers can't tell you if something is fun or not. It's a machine, it has no opinion on the game that it runs. The playerbase does.
You don't balance a game based on some kind of OCD-spike from seeing 1 = 1.
You weigh opinions and arguments, and modify your numbers based on what feedback the people give, to strike a balance between them. Just like with the assault rifle, which is working wonderfully.
I just specced back into sniping, and not even a week goes by and it's already as weak as it was in Chromosome.
idgaf if the "server" says it's balanced. the player experience is that it's not. -10% is a huge loss. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
577
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 00:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Jathniel wrote:Buster Friently wrote:Talos Alomar wrote:When you change something, you probably want that change tested, and receive feedback on that change, right?
This is why stealth buffs or nerfs make your life harder. Not many people neurotically check the damage and other stats of weapons every time they log on.
You need to tell us when a change has been made so we can give feedback on that change. just going in and tweaking the stats on a weapon does nothing if people don't know if they should go test a weapon to see if its effective.
Its also not just about making your job easier, its about not insulting your playerbase too. People get offended and pissed off when you just go and change their weapon on them.
Just make a thread that lists the changes you made and update it once a week. it's not too much to ask and it will really help the balancing process by letting your players actually test the damn changes properly. The feedback they're looking for is, generally, not forum feedback. Forum feedback is mostly noise TBH. The feedback they are looking for is data mined from the server logs. Players are providing this feedback regardless if they are aware of something or not. They're idiotic for doing it that way then. Servers can't tell you if something is fun or not. It's a machine, it has no opinion on the game that it runs. The playerbase does. You don't balance a game based on some kind of OCD-spike from seeing 1 = 1. You weigh opinions and arguments, and modify your numbers based on what feedback the people give, to strike a balance between them. Just like with the assault rifle, which is working wonderfully. I just specced back into sniping, and not even a week goes by and it's already as weak as it was in Chromosome. idgaf if the server says it's balanced. the player experience is that it's not. First off, you can tell if it's fun or not simply by watching the numbers - people gravitate away from the not fun. Also, you'll note, that I said the forums are mostly noise, which they are, but not entirely noise. Believe it or not, data mining is far more accurate than weighing the opinions of a bunch of forum warriors. Incidentally, the AR, as you mentioned it, is still OP and EZ mode. Also, sniping has been stronger in Chromosome than in Uprising, so I'm not sure about your point here either. Player experiences, by definition, are subjective and inaccurate, and vary from player to player. Server numbers are not. Also forumites are a minority, and often have axes to grind. (See my point)
No. You CANNOT tell if its fun or not, simply by watching the numbers.
Sniping isn't fun for me anymore. I do it, because I'm fkin stuck with where my SP is, and I'm going to be stuck here for a VERY long time until enough SP trickles in.
So following that logic then, their numbers are already inaccurate because folks like myself can't move as freely as we need to.
In that case, a subjective opinion will cut to the chase, and zoom in on A point, much faster than server numbers would.
It's irrational to be so dependent on the "rational" to make a decision about what's fun. You figure that's why they broke the laser rifle? Or released the plasma cannon in its current iteration? (Or took 10 years to get a reasonable balance in EVE?)
Server numbers should only be used to corroborate feedback from the playerbase. Not used IN-PLACE OF the playerbase. One of the most flawed systems I've ever heard. No wonder it's taking forever to get anything done right.
Pointless even talking about this. Not like it's going help anything.
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
579
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 00:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Ah, but you can. You see not everyone who previously sniped will continue to do so if it isn't fun for them. Some may, like you, but some will not. Also, less people will spec into it, and people will spec out of it. So, you most certainly can tell if something is fun by the numbers.
You've got it backwards actually, forum posts should only be used to corroborate server numbers.
As far as the laser rifle per se, I can't say, but for the MD I can tell you that it was nerfed precisely because CCP didn't pay attention to their server numbers, and instead went with an emotional decision based on their internal office playing. This is bad, even when it's the devs making the decisions. The stats aren't all that matter, but they're the bulk of what matter.
Just to back this logical argument up all the way. It's the numbers on the servers that pay the bills as well. Your, or my, personal experiences do not. Only when our collective experiences add up to something measurable do they count for much.
Having said all this. I, of course, would like better communication from CCP on the changes. But don't kid yourself, your "personal experience" doesn't add up to much.
First off, we actually have to be able to "spec out" of something for those numbers to happen. Again, those numbers do not tell if something is fun, people do. Citing measurable variables does NOT. All it says are, "people are speccing out of this, speccing into that, etc." To conclude something is "fun" based on that data is the flaw in itself, because DATA is indifferent and can be viewed from countless angles.
Example: We have around 300 million Americans. 2 million of them like doing X activity. What do you conclude from that? Nothing. Only someone with an agenda would say,
"This data shows that X activity is not popular amongst Americans?" Why? because a majority of the 300 million aren't doing X activity.
Same would be for another person that says,
"This data shows that X activity is popular amongst Americans?" Why? Because 2 million are doing X activity.
Data goes either way.
So what do you do? You don't draw abstract conclusions like "X activity is/isn't fun." based on that data.
You ask people directly, "Why are you, or are you NOT doing X activity?" Then based on THAT data (because yes an opinion IS data, no matter how biased or irrational you think it is) you take action. |
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
579
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 01:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Buster Friently wrote:Jathniel wrote:Buster Friently wrote:Ah, but you can. You see not everyone who previously sniped will continue to do so if it isn't fun for them. Some may, like you, but some will not. Also, less people will spec into it, and people will spec out of it. So, you most certainly can tell if something is fun by the numbers.
You've got it backwards actually, forum posts should only be used to corroborate server numbers.
As far as the laser rifle per se, I can't say, but for the MD I can tell you that it was nerfed precisely because CCP didn't pay attention to their server numbers, and instead went with an emotional decision based on their internal office playing. This is bad, even when it's the devs making the decisions. The stats aren't all that matter, but they're the bulk of what matter.
Just to back this logical argument up all the way. It's the numbers on the servers that pay the bills as well. Your, or my, personal experiences do not. Only when our collective experiences add up to something measurable do they count for much.
Having said all this. I, of course, would like better communication from CCP on the changes. But don't kid yourself, your "personal experience" doesn't add up to much. First off, we actually have to be able to "spec out" of something for those numbers to happen. Again, those numbers do not tell if something is fun, people do. Citing measurable variables does NOT. All it says are, "people are speccing out of this, speccing into that, etc." To conclude something is "fun" based on that data is the flaw in itself, because DATA is indifferent and can be viewed from countless angles. Example: We have around 300 million Americans. 2 million of them like doing X activity. What do you conclude from that? Nothing. Only someone with an agenda would say, "This data shows that X activity is not popular amongst Americans?" Why? because a majority of the 300 million aren't doing X activity. Same would be for another person that says, "This data shows that X activity is popular amongst Americans?" Why? Because 2 million are doing X activity. Data goes either way. So what do you do? You don't draw abstract conclusions like "X activity is/isn't fun." based on that data. You ask people directly, "Why are you, or are you NOT doing X activity?" Then based on THAT data (because yes an opinion IS data, no matter how biased or irrational you think it is) you draw conclusions and take appropriate action. Player Feedback > Server Data (not the other way around) when it comes to answering a question like 'is this fun?' You "spec out" of something by speccing into something else. Actually, your 2 million example shows that compared to other activities, your 2 million activity isn't very popular. See, with Dust, the Devs know how many weapons they've created (as an example), so if a weapon is only used by 1% of the player base, then it is definitely "not popular" and, therefore, should be looked at. By the same token, if 90% of the players use it, then it should again be looked at, but this time for a little nerfing most likely. Only after you see an anomaly in the data do you look at why people aren't, or are, using something irregularly.
No, you "spec out" of something by receiving a respec. Once you are spec'd into something, that SP does not unspec itself, to be "spec'd out".
If you concluded from my example, that X activity isn't very popular, you are making a presumptive analysis, and assuming the nature of something without further information, because that's not what the data said. The data simply says that 2 million people are doing X activity.
You need a criteria, basis, opinion, intention, expectation, or standard... in order to determine if an "anomaly" is present. In the case of X activity, you concluded that the activity wasn't popular. Yet by what basis do you make that analysis? That 2 million is a small segment of a 300 million population? Comparison to other activities? That's incomplete data, and should by no means be used as a primary means of analysis. What if the rest of the population isn't doing X activity, because for whatever reason, they CAN'T? Until you know, why the people are or are not doing something, it's unreasonable to draw conclusions. At best, you can form a hypothesis.
The feedback from the playerbase are where your facts can be drawn. Then you can make a pie chart or whatever with different reasons for and against, etc.
But a question like, "is X activity fun?"... that can't be answered with server numbers. That's answered by the people that actually do the activity, and you can get good data from people by simply asking them the right questions, and being intuitive.
Server information can be, and is often erroneously analyzed. Your analysis of my example is proof enough of that concept.
The formation of the CPM and CSM is further proof. A playerbase calling out to be heard, but individuals that think a server knows better (in reality it's "my interpretation of the server data knows better than the playerbase").
Yeah, I take your point, though.
You're stating how things are, and not trying to argue how they should be.
There's a balance that has to be struck between the two.
What playerbase is saying, compared to what dev intentions are for the server. Hit that balance and you're golden. You can't go all playerbase (like what Sony did to SWG, and killed the game), and you can't ignore playerbase as "secondary" information either (like what happens to countless games that start off as subscription base, and descend into F2P after a few months).
But I hope someday, that CCP considers player feedback important enough, to not implement stealth nerfs.
|
Jathniel
G I A N T
EoN.
587
|
Posted - 2013.07.04 22:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Daxxis KANNAH wrote:All they need is a stickied thread with changes (only they post in the thread). Get an assistant / intern / pr to post the info.
And from time to time they can pop into the "noisy" threads and state why things are so or need more refining.
I really dont understand why you guys are arguing either or when they should be doing both.
Changes and upcoming changes. |
|
|
| |
|