Azarael wrote:I find it unfair that this point is being repeatedly stated when I have acknowledged it more times than I can count and stated that I am unable to do anything about it without having client control.
I don't mean to be unfair - and I'm sorry if I come across just nagging for the sake of nagging, I was just simply stating it. As you're probably aware of how I post my opinion/point of view, I can be very relentlessly about it, and I apologize.
And I also know that things are limited due client access, which is why I wonder what was the reason that changes are being done now without having full client control in first place - NOT trying to be a huge criticism here, just really wondering if it couldn't be pushed back in line at the to-do-list.
That is not because I'm afraid of changing the meta, or because I'm a purist of any sort. Simply because the state of unbalance created will last to long until client control is achieved, and that is not healthy for the game or community. And for changes (fundamental changes or simply balance changes) in my opinion, do require client control.
Azarael wrote:I'm also going to add that you achieve balance through experimentation and refinement. A few people seem to think that they have the ability to craft a package of changes which will fit perfectly with no further adjustment needed. It doesn't work that way. What I have an issue is is people criticising me for the actual process of refinement because they think that they could, essentially, fix classes perfectly in one shot. I've been in the optimal position previously of being one of the best players of a game and being its balancer/developer, and I rarely if ever managed to fix something in one go - and that was with a simpler system than WAR's and a playerbase that was about 2/3 of the size as well. I had to perform multiple coarse reworks to fundamental game mechanics before finding them acceptable.
Being good confers understanding of how a class or element works and how to exploit it to its best, as well as an understanding of its synergies, but that does not necessarily translate to knowledge of how best to fix that class, it doesn't prevent natural bias towards one's own classes, and it certainly doesn't give one person the ability to understand all of the subtle consequences that result from making any kind of change. Only experimentation and refinement do that.
And I agree with this, I'm not stating some other guy would be able to fully adjust everything in one shot, but would be far much easier if you've to take more into consideration players with the full understanding of the game, and whom have played it high at level when comes to balance - and not only that particular class, but others as well to understand the overall picture. Obviously you'd not only leave balancing up for them exclusively, that's not what I mean at all, but take into account their knowledge of the game first and foremost then the general "masses".
For example, if you ask a player that most people would consider a good player, but a guy who only and exclusively played only that class, and ask how to buff it, he'll name a bunch of things that his particular class requires, but does he know if those set of things are already not covered by other classes? How having more "things" in his class + the other classes already covering those things will affect the overall balance? Perhaps he wishes one thing to be an ailment, but what if the opposite side only has 1 healer that cleanse ailments, it'll make that particular healer a necessity. And so on.
In my opinion you'd have a sort-of flowchart when it comes to balance classes where you have:
- Development team decides that X needs to change, because of reasons a and b;
- Development team starts talking with particular good and helpful players about X, and gather opinions and more information about X;
- After gathering data about X from players (premades, warbands, etc) they review if X is indeed a problem, or if indeed X's problem is due a and b, and not something else entirely;
- Development team discuss internally some changes;
- Again discuss with particular players about the changes and gather feedback on effects of that;
- Adjust changes based on feedback or not, and reasons why it was done;
- Test internally changes and invite players to test them;
- Fine tune it according to internal test;
- Release changes;
- Gather more information and feedback from live testing;
- Discuss feedback from live testing with team and good players and see where the general opinion goes;
- Fine tune again or not;
I'm aware we might not be even close to have this time or resources, or that this is most likely done in paid new games and that we've an alpha server, but that's how I'd imagine in order to work. Simply because you can't have our general population here being the internal testers since they're not really testing anything, they're just "having fun" - hence why you can't go in towards "pleasing the masses" because if you do you'll never achieve balance.
Azarael wrote:Another issue is defense of the meta. Look at some of the arguments made against the DoK version of the changes - a principal one was that Covenant of Celerity, if locked to a melee DoK, would make a melee DoK overvalued or mandatory. This shows a lack of understanding of levels of balance, going up from coarse (foundational) balance up to fine balance. Like I said with Rubik's Cube - you need to understand that to properly solve a complex system, you must resolve foundational issues before making fine tweaks that risk being destroyed if you're forced into a coarse change.
There are 4 class pairings in my opinion that come under "coarse" because they were underperforming or overperforming AND they were concept violators:
1) Archmage/Shaman (terrible mechanic, worst healer at the time)
2) Engineer/Magus (joke status)
3) Knight/Chosen (mechanic violation, overpowered)
4) Warrior Priest/Disciple of Khaine (mechanic violation, overpowered)
So yes, when dealing with these 4 pairings, I fully expect(ed) that fine balance would be impacted. The difference between you and I is that I understand and expect fine balance shifts to occur if coarse ones are implemented, and I do not retreat from making coarse changes because of fine balance issues.
The good news is that those above classes represent the only ones which require coarse and disruptive adjustments. Once they are handled, I am more than happy to have fine issues commented upon by better players. I just won't be blocked on coarse changes.
At this part while I agree with most of what you've said, and about drastic changes to fix a fundamental flaw (I guess we just disagree on what we consider a fundamentally flaw class or mechanic, but this is something else entirely).
