DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes
Phalanx Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.02.21 21:38:00 -
[1]
The whole issue is not so much the nerfing as the way the nerfing is done in; it's done without consideration of the wider game impact or as to what shifts will happen as a result, plus if something is obviously overnerfed it takes 6 months to 1 year to rebalance it into something somewhat usefull again.
Then add to that, the lack of trying to avoid nerfing and changing stuff through giving love to other parts which has a far less negative impact on the way game (re)balance is received and perceived by the community.
The nerf everything to crap team and lets call it a boost forgets about real life time investement the skillpoint system has, specialicing into a specific direction often means training times of 1 year and another half year to a year to respecialize into something else.
Lot's of recent changes have gone from large scale nerfs to game core hitting nerfs like the carrier and base resist nerfs, issues raised on both those matters by the community are simply ignored or shrugged of with a we tested this so it's good (we are smart guys plus our ego > then your knowlegde). Then surprise surprise the effects on live are indeed as predidcted by the community and yet again ignored. If CCP intends the behaviour then fine, say so, however they say they mean it to have other effects then those that are achieved.
Chechlist should be imho:
1.) identify issue
2.) identify what intended design was
3.) identify the impacts of the issue on community
4.) identify reason for issue
5.) verify reason for issue
6.) verify impact of the issue on the community
7.) verify if issue really is an issue even though intended design might be off
8.) identify possible solutions
9.) sort possible solutions from positive impact on community to negative
10.) see which the most positive solutions are achievable
11.) propose solutions to community through devblog giving multiple options, interact with the community for set period of time (i.e. 7 days)
12.) make choice based on feedback or go back to the drawingboard starting from 1
13.) announce choice made
14.) program the biatch and announce deployment time (ie will be in patch 1.1 or 1.2
right now it feels like it is:
1.) identify issue
2.) sift through years of feedback on it (forgetting the timeframe and environment of that feedback)
3.) think of a way to solve it through nerfing the effect of the issue
4.) have a nerf programed and published on Sisi
5.) announce nerf couple of days later
6.) respond in feedback that you've really thought it through and that people should go to sisi to test it themselves because you assume they wont
7.) ignore valid concerns
8.) bring it live
9.) have a laugh for months to come over your early morning coffee reading the whine threads about it (the more whine threads the better you've nerfed something with each thread giving 10 points and each post 1 point, double the points mods need to intervene, tripple the points if you ****ed off someone from goonswarm, minus 100 points for every time someone likes your nerf.
10.) update your points on the internal website (make note to allocate resources to have a dev automate this) and check to see if you are the number one all time nerf devil from hell yet.
11.) ignore the effects the nerf caused for at least 6 months untill you stop scoring points with it and then maybe unnerf it slightly to refule the fire.
- - -
 Originally by: CCP Wrangler
If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...
|