Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Bish Ounen
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 16:34:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Johnster I spent a lot of time on sisi testing it. Many people tried to express displeasure with the change but they did not listen. Why do they even bother testing?
Well, I'm glad that at least some people were on Sisi testing. I have to count myself out of that group though, as I have never been able to get Sisi to work for me. (Although it's likely I'm just doing it wrong.)
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the problem with this patch (and with many others in the past) is that it was simply "overly broad" in it's focus. What do I mean by that? Well, while I am not a programmer myself, I have worked in a programming shop as a Network Admin, and picked up a few tips from the programmers there.
Now, this by no means makes me an authority on programming, and particularly not on MMO game programming. So feel free to take my advice with a very large grain of salt. I hardly think of myself as the Sultan of Game Design, nor would I wish anyone to think of me that way.
That said, one of the key tenets they taught me was that when altering software (either bug patching, upgrading or adding features) the important thing to remember is to make your changes as small as possible. Focus down on a single issue, and try to avoid altering anything else.
Put another way, when trying to address one issue, make your changes small, incremental, and narrow in scope. If you don't have to touch a section of software to get to the desired outcome, then don't. Of course, you still need to have a mind on the project as a whole, but you want to alter as small as possible subset of things along the way, to avoid a cascade effect on the rest of your software and/or introducing more bugs into the process.
This, of course, is not easy to do. Software is often like a spiderweb. Pulling on one thread can move the entire structure, and pulling too hard can collapse everything, introduce damage, or alter the functionality in unforeseen and unintended ways. So it's not easy to do at all, and the CCP Devs have my respect for being willing and mostly successful at bug fixes and upgrades.
However, if they do have a failing, it's that they can be a bit overenthusiastic and overly broad and dramatic in their approach, (pulling on too many threads at once, or pulling too hard) and have run into some of the unintended consequences I mentioned earlier. This is where the player frustration and angry posts start to crop up.
Of course, it's impossible to please everybody, and some people are simply resistant to change. So you will never be able to completely avoid angry threads. However, when you get multiple threads from many people that go on for pages and pages and pages, with hundreds to thousands of different players commenting negatively on the changes, I think a reconsideration would be in order.
I believe my earlier suggestion of a new test patch would be appropriate. This would refocus the changes down to a small, narrow band that affects as little of the game mechanics as possible, while still achieving the desired outcome.
Unless someone else has a better idea, of course.
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
The Mavericks
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 16:41:00 -
[122]
Originally by: STONE76 see definition of nerf: In computer gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. The term originated as a reference to the NERF brand of child toys, which are made to minimize possible damage. In the same way, "to nerf" describes the action of making something less harmful.
The original definition of the word "nerf" was actually quite different, but it evolved into what you describe.
"nerf" was usually used used in conjuntion with abilities that didn't really funtion properly or was not good enough at what they did. The "nerf" was then an unhelpful change to this ability. ie. a failed attempt at fixing the ability.
==================================================
I should really get a sig. |
Dramund
Atonement Arms
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 16:48:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor
The original definition of the word "nerf" was actually quite different, but it evolved into what you describe.
"nerf" was usually used used in conjuntion with abilities that didn't really funtion properly or was not good enough at what they did. The "nerf" was then an unhelpful change to this ability. ie. a failed attempt at fixing the ability.
To be clear, "nerf" was originally coined directly from the metaphor that something that was once a weapon became no more useful than a nerf toy. At first, it was meant to apply to reasonable claims such as a spell being reduced in power so drastically that players had no more reason to use it ever. Not surprisingly, everyone started screaming nerf whenever "Sword of l33t aw3someness" had its damaged reduced by 2% even though it was still the best sword in the game.
And yea, official game forums as we know it were created. And the Earth facepalms.
|
benzss
Twisted Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 16:55:00 -
[124]
This thread has inspired me to make a tin foil hat for conspiracy purposes.
|
Bish Ounen
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 16:57:00 -
[125]
Originally by: benzss This thread has inspired me to make a tin foil hat for conspiracy purposes.
I hope my posts haven't encouraged that. I really did try to be thoughtful in my replys.
|
Hasak Rain
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 17:07:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Cpt Fina I'd like to chip in with what i think.
First of all there's alot of incredibly ungrateful people in the eve community. Judging from this thread alot of them seem to be incredible stupid too. Now I'm not just saying that, it's appearant to me now that alot of eve-players are plain dumb.
Secondly I think that the "no nerf" comment from CCP was refering to the general spirit of the patch; "boostpatch". Not the greatest thing to say in any patch that deals with gamebalance but certainly nothing to go "OMZORZ LIARZZ!" about.
QFT
|
Dexion Slayer
Perpetual Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 23:31:00 -
[127]
I think some ppl scared the devs away :( Poor cascade..
ill think ill just keep the greens :) -Dex |
Shemaul
A.C.M.E Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.14 23:47:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Shemaul on 14/03/2008 23:52:33
Originally by: Salliene
Originally by: STONE76 grappler
see definition of nerf: In computer gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. The term originated as a reference to the NERF brand of child toys, which are made to minimize possible damage. In the same way, "to nerf" describes the action of making something less harmful.
my point is anyone can try to sugar coat it all they want. a nerf is a nerf.
Actually, reducing resists against EM/Explosive makes those weapons MORE damaging. So they INCREASED the power of those weapons (albeit indirectly). So a large number of weapons and drones and fighters just became MORE effective and MORE damaging.
So it's a reverse nerf. Let's call it a fren since you seem to live and breathe by stuff that the internet tells you to say or believe.
Totally wrong. This way, every nerf is a reverse boost.
Reverse boost is a nonsense. Boost is if u add 10% more explosive damage on everything. No way to tell it elsewhere.
Your thought means everything: u remove 6 turret slot from the Apoc? It's a reverse boost for everyone facing an Apoc ...
It was a nerf. Despite what dictionary or google says.
|
DogSlime
Wilde Cards
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 01:32:00 -
[129]
As has been mentioned before, the argument that the resists nerf is in fact a boost is shown to be a LIE for various reasons, but in the case of industrials and mining ships, it is unquestionably a nerf - they don't usually fight, so they don't receive any kind of "boost" (reverse or otherwise) - they simply become weaker and are therefore nerfed for sure.
|
Herring
Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 02:13:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: CCP Casqade I'm not trying to tell you that the patch only affected you positively, neither did the Dev blogs.
To quote the news post:
Quote: not a single 'nerf'
So, either you're lying, or the news post is lying. Pick one.
Not a single 'nerf' = not one singular nerf = multiple nerfs
I'm sick of reinstalling, it's not what my days off are for |
|
Ira Theos
The Grind
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 03:56:00 -
[131]
I find the non-Amarr tears flowing here exquisitely satisfying..... Please continue.
by the way... you HAVE all been nerfed!
|
Face Changelette
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 07:49:00 -
[132]
Hey look, you can't launch a cyno if you're going over 500m/s. That's not a nerf is it CCP, because that benefits... someone right?
Stop the lies.
|
J Valkor
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 08:23:00 -
[133]
Edited by: J Valkor on 15/03/2008 08:26:04 The fifth turret on the Eagle and Zealot was a nerf to every other ship in the game.
Edit - If they had boosted all EM/EX based weapons in the game there wouldn't be so much whining even if the net effect was the same.
|
Disteeler
Segunda Fundacion T e r c i o s
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 08:52:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Hasak Rain
Originally by: Cpt Fina I'd like to chip in with what i think.
First of all there's alot of incredibly ungrateful people in the eve community. Judging from this thread alot of them seem to be incredible stupid too. Now I'm not just saying that, it's appearant to me now that alot of eve-players are plain dumb.
Secondly I think that the "no nerf" comment from CCP was refering to the general spirit of the patch; "boostpatch". Not the greatest thing to say in any patch that deals with gamebalance but certainly nothing to go "OMZORZ LIARZZ!" about.
QFT
Yep, agree. Reading this thread is embarrasing. Next time come to test server and post on development forums. Or go and cry a river.
Sig by Black Necris |
ShardowRhino
The Older Gamers R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.03.15 12:14:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Salliene
Originally by: STONE76 grappler
see definition of nerf: In computer gaming, a nerf is a change to a game that downgrades the power, effectiveness or influence of a particular game element in the attempt to achieve balance. The term originated as a reference to the NERF brand of child toys, which are made to minimize possible damage. In the same way, "to nerf" describes the action of making something less harmful.
my point is anyone can try to sugar coat it all they want. a nerf is a nerf.
Actually, reducing resists against EM/Explosive makes those weapons MORE damaging. So they INCREASED the power of those weapons (albeit indirectly). So a large number of weapons and drones and fighters just became MORE effective and MORE damaging.
So it's a reverse nerf. Let's call it a fren since you seem to live and breathe by stuff that the internet tells you to say or believe.
thats a moronic approach. its a NERF, not a reverse nerf aka a buff. Its a nerf as it reduced the effectiveness of a resist. Its not a BUFF because they didnt tweak the actual damage output of the weapons or drones you were suggesting that it was designed to buff. a buff to the damage would have been direct and only for specific weapons/ships/drones.
Buff a weapon, increase its damage output directly. nerf a resist by reducing its resistence to certain types of damage.
as for the undock at topspeed + random direction. its not a nerf nor a buff. its a change to a game mechanic. actually you wouldn't want ships to undock slowly at a station if it was RL. think of it as a giant aircraft carrier launching ships ,augmenting their self generated thrust in x amount of distance. you want the aircraft/ship to clear the carrier/station. you would want to avoid massive pileups and possible damage.
if your a jita station operator you want the transports coming and going efficiently, not humping each other honkin their horns ans threatening each other if they dont move out of the way. If your a 0.0 station operator you dont want your ships that launch to defend the system stuck in a big ball of metal unable to move because the big fat raven undocked first and the interceptors 2nd which ar enow firmly planted against the hull of the raven. you want them to scramble quickly and effectively.
theres possible repercussions to the change but its not meant to be a nerf as it can just as easily be a buff depending on the situation. that is unlike the reduction of resists as its always seen as a nerf unless you like your ships getting weaker then they were to begin with.
|
Cordus
Advanced Combat Machines and Equipment Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 16:27:00 -
[136]
I think some of you people, incredibly, are still missing an important point here. The whole universal T1 resistance thing aside...
CCP also nerfed many specific faction and complex modules (e.g. shield resistance amplifiers and co-processors).
Yes, it's just a game, but it's also disappointing. Many of us think there was no reason to do that, and it's even worse because they apparently tried to sneak it in during the nerfless patch so we wouldn't notice it. I think this is customer abuse or something.
|
Cheyenne Shadowborn
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 18:17:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Zorlag
Originally by: CCP Casqade Sorry about that, I wrote a bit too fast.
My point with that particular ship is that you can now fit 3x 75mm railguns, giving you a greater range at a less less CPU and Powergrid cost. This gives you the ability to stay out of web range and deal more damage than before at the cost of less CPU and Powergrid. This depends on your fitting, of course but this is why I like the change of the Raptor.
You have clearly never played this game.
This thread delivers --
|
Cheyenne Shadowborn
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 18:25:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Khanid Kutie
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h I'd add in the whole new undocking behavior as a rather large nerf. Whether you agree with it or not it fits the definition.
have u actually TRIED undocking since the patch? omgz the "angular" undock is literally not that much a difference, and in face 99% of the time my insta undocks still work! The kicking you out at speed is a good thing...stop whining for whinings sake
All I know is my Iteron V, which normally takes what feels like 10 seconds to warp when undocking a certain station today took about 40.
But maybe I need to test that again, might have been that random thing where my ships just allign and speed up and just won't warp for (up to) minutes for no reason. Which in turn might be a de-sync, of which I'm seeing far too many recently. --
|
Mioelnir
KULT Production Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2008.03.16 20:57:00 -
[139]
Imho there are 4 reasons for entries in patchlogs.
a) it was broken and got fixed b) it was overpowered and got nerfed c) it was underpowered and got boosted d) it was a general balance change
The important part is not what the change did, as every change - except the typo ones - will have a negative effect on something. It is the mindset about the change, the reason why it was changed.
Trinity 1.1 contained no changes that were simply and only made to reduce the effectiveness of something, but a lot of fixes, general balance changes ("60% == too high base resist" being one of those) and specific boosts.
Therefor, nerf-free boost patch
|
Cordus
Advanced Combat Machines and Equipment Independent Faction
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 00:43:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Mioelnir Trinity 1.1 contained no changes that were simply and only made to reduce the effectiveness of something...
That would be true except for all the faction and complex modules that got nerfed. Those are cases where CCP simply and only made changes to specifically reduce the effectiveness of certain faction and complex modules.
I mention it here again lest we forget.
More has happened than just a simple rebalancing. We can sit around the campfire and sing how we'd like to buy the world a Coke, but that will never undo the module nerfing that happened as a result of this nerfless boost patch.
CCP has already insulted the intelligence of its players by calling it a nerfless patch, perhaps thinking that we were too stupid to notice the change if they omitted it from the patch notes (despite the fact that we'd bug reported it on Singularity). Please don't join them in insulting our intelligence too. If you're a player, then you're one of us -- not one of them.
|
|
Price Watcher
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 01:26:00 -
[141]
Some things were weakened in the patch.
That makes the bright shiny statement "and not a single nerf" a BRIGHT SHINY LIE.
It's not so much the nerfs that are making people angry. It's the lie.
But not me. I knew you would nerf stuff. You always do CCP. And you always put more bugs in with every patch and upgrade.
But I love you anyway.
POST WITH YOUR ALT!
Fix Suicide Ganking |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |