Ok getting character Nerf is part of every game. That doesn't mean you or me like it at all.
1) Like VG will one class get Nerffed because another class complains ? i.e. Sorc's complaining about rogues
2) Why cant game mechanics be set in pre alpha/alpha/beta? Why does it happen after release? Why at the complaints of other classes?
I believe if you choose to play a class then your set with that class and its mechanics. If you don't like it then RE_ROLL.
Like tanks complain because one generates more agro than another again RE_ROLL. Or his heals are bigger than mine RE_ROLL. Or tha Rogue out DPS's my monk again I say RE_ROLL.
Now with that all being said how is the team going to handle this? You know its going to happen, there is no stopping it. I say a clear cut plan be put in place upfront and stay the course.
~Chaam
I don't usually worry about nerfs - especially in a game where your name will hopefully matter.
The way I see it - if my class is "FOTM" and everyone is playing it, I'll be ultra-powerful but maybe have a hard time finding a group because there are a billion more of me running around, and maybe finding drops harder to get because I am competing against those billions.
On the other hand, if I'm currently considered nerfed into the ground, I won't be considered ultra-powerful, I might have trouble finding groups outside of my guild / regular group members because everyone thinks my class sucks, but when I do, I'll likely have better luck with drops because everyone else is playing something else.
AND - when I'm neither FOTM or nerfed into the ground... well, probably not too much different :p
HOPEFULLY, what will happen is what happened in EQ. Rangers weren't really considered an awesome class most of the time I played EQ - but I rarely had trouble finding groups because I played fairly well and (perhaps more importantly) I was pleasant to be around in groups and always willing to go help folks with stuff.
My name mattered more than my class.
i am ok with nerfs in general, and when its not based on simple complaints from jealous onlookers.
i would like to see something different done with nerfs in regards to pantheon tho.
in previous games when they nerfed a class, it would get beaten with the Nerf bat like a traitorous mobster in a Terrintino Movie. then the devs stand over the body looking for any signs of life and smack it agian when they appear. Then, after the class has gone unplayed for a year or so they start buffing the class back up.
In pantheon i would like to see nerfs happen in small increments. like slicing a cake. done in small bits and with precision.
If you think about it - the nerfs usually come for two general reasons:
1) If one class of a given role can do their role better - OR - in the case of some of the roles, easier. So for example, if two classes have DPS as a primary function, and one is CLEARLY better than the other - or - if two classes are both tanks, and one can CLEARLY hold agro better than the other, etc..
2) If there are two classes of the same role, and one of them has better / more useful "toys" than the other. Meaning - if the classes are DPS, and both can do it equally, but one ONLY brings DPS, but the other brings DPS plus some ability that provides valued group utility.
I think the devs just need to make sure they pay attention to the little details. If a class is DPS and ONLY DPS, it should do enough extra DPS than a class that does DPS and provides utility to make one or the other a compelling choice for example. If one class does better AoE damage and another does better single target damage - there have to be occasions for both of them to shine. If one tank has better sustained agro and another has less sustained agro - it should maybe have better snap agro... those sorts of things.
It's not about making the classes EQUAL - I don't think anyone here wants different classes in roles that are essentially clones of one another - AND - given the classes in EQ and the classes in VG... I'd be stunned if we got that. They just need to make sure that the differences offer compelling choices - and allow everyone to shine sometimes.
I think everyone will be generally happy if their class is interesting to play and gets to be the hero (thus feeling ultra powerful) sometimes.
This, of course, is my pie in the sky hope for classes :)
The word Nerf is thrown around like it is a bad thing, when in actual fact, it is just a word for balance, optimise, change, fix or making something less effective etc.
The team will handle it the way they handle everything else and that is with professionalism, respect and a desire to make this game a success.
Please be very careful in this thread though, a lot of people have bad memories of nerfs from some of their favorite games and every single person here will at some point have been affected by a balance that they didn't agree with of some sort and have an unpleasant story to tell, myself included, that is life within the gaming industry no matter what you play.
There will be balancing in Pantheon as we have explained, we cannot avoid that but we would like a very long Beta process of up to a year if needed to fix any balancing issues, which is what Beta is for and if all the beta testers jump on and help out, this will help us greatly and ensure there is less chance of a large change needing to be made on the live launch servers after the game has been released.
We cannot promise that there will not be any balances, because there will be and to ask how we will handle them is a tricky question (and partly loaded) because we will rely heavily on the testers and then have to deal with anything that arises reactively, so while there will always be balances made in the gaming industry as a whole, we will continue to keep the lines of communication open and minimise the effect it has on the game and our community by trying our best to find and fix these issues during Beta but in saying that, we will not hesitate to balance or change something that is game breaking, being abused/exploited or used as a means to bypass something in game, no matter how many or how few people like it or are against it, our main priority is Pantheon and it's community and both of their longevity and that is more important to us than few people who may not understand the process and reasoning behind these changes.
Take VG for example, changes were made that I believe were not made with the best interest of the game and it's community in mind, which caused a lot of players to leave. I was a part of that and so were some team members, we all know the effect it had on people and will avoid something like that at all costs. Communication is key and that is where I come in! ;)
Introducing any kind of content to a balanced game will result in there most likely being unintended effects or change or a disruption to that balance, that is when changes sometimes need to be made, so even 5 years down the road if we add extra content, classes or levels etc. it will upset the existing balance and will have unintentional unbalancing problems that will need correcting, so please help us test when we put the call out and together we can try and minimise any unwanted changes.
I agree that nerf's are needed. My point is they need to be done before the game goes live. The information you receive through alpha and beta is more than enough to determine this.
Nerf's after a game goes live always seems as if it was do to pure pressure and not game mechanics. Now the adjustment of an ability by a point or two is understandable. Such as reducing an ability from 125dps to 120dps or what ever. Full on rebuild of abilities. and such not so much
Chaam said:
I agree that nerf's are needed. My point is they need to be done before the game goes live. The information you receive through alpha and beta is more than enough to determine this.
Nerf's after a game goes live always seems as if it was do to pure pressure and not game mechanics. Now the adjustment of an ability by a point or two is understandable. Such as reducing an ability from 125dps to 120dps or what ever. Full on rebuild of abilities. and such not so much
I understand your point mate and I tried to carefully address it in my post above but the bottom line is if we were to promise to never nerf past Alpha/Beta then we couldn't ever push any new updates or new content out, simple as that.
With updates and content it is impossible to foresee unintended imbalances, even with strict and thorough testing of patches/content before they are pushed live, so there will be changes and balancing that is ongoing throughout the life cycle of Pantheon and that is something no developer or company can avoid when they produce a game, unless they make it and walk away, abandoning it soon after release and that is not something we would ever do.
I understand the concern though, believe me I do, like many of you, I have seen it in many games over the years and especially in VG, I played a Rogue and a Psi as my mains and 10 other classes to level 55 so I don't need reminding of the pain I went through for so many years! ;)
I would hope that you guys would have the confidence in us by now to do the right thing though, we are gamers like you that have all lived and experienced balances and changes and we intend to handle these in a professional manner with the best interest of the game in mind at all times, I don;t want to sugar coat it either, there will be changes, some small, some big but rest assured when we need to make them we will communicate the reasons behind them and explain why they need to be made, they may not always be open for debate and not everyone will like them, we understand that but we will not just wildly swing the nerf bat due to forum posts or complaints of other classes being to OP.
We will always investigate and look at raw data and evidence first to see if there is actually a need to make a balance change and that is the most we can promise, I hope that you understand anything more promised, would be dishonest as it is impossible to predict the future or the changes that may arise and need balancing.
Thanks Kilsin,
It was more of a dig at the nerf in VG that came 1 1/2 years after release to my Rogue. My thoughts are after that much time if you don't have it right you never will.
My only concern in most area's are not the problems that can be created through code changes or game mechanics. Yet more about how to address this kind of stuff to the community.
Do you inform them openly? Or just do a Ninja Nerf?
EDIT:
I ask this now because when the game forums are up and things are full swing in Alpha. These are question that don't "normally" get responses
Chaam said:
Thanks Kilsin,
It was more of a dig at the nerf in VG that came 1 1/2 years after release to my Rogue. My thoughts are after that much time if you don't have it right you never will.
My only concern in most area's are not the problems that can be created through code changes or game mechanics. Yet more about how to address this kind of stuff to the community.
Do you inform them openly? Or just do a Ninja Nerf?
EDIT:
I ask this now because when the game forums are up and things are full swing in Alpha. These are question that don't "normally" get responses
Yeah I understand and knew that you were referring to the VG mess which is why I went into a bit more detail explaining that I felt that pain too ;)
I don't agree with ninja changes as they are always found out by the players, so it is my personal opinion that all changes be announced by way of patch notes or a small announcement to the community explaining the reasoning behind the change (if the changes warrants an announcement as most of them will not require one, other than a bullet point in patch notes) and then moving on from there.
The Devs will not ask people if it's ok to balance, they have a job to do and I am trying to be very careful with my wording because it is never as easy as it is made out to be, there are always a lot of deciding factors and variables involved but as I stated above, we will always do our best to study raw data and evidence and make changes accordingly to benefit the game in the long run with as minimal impact to the players as humanly possible.
When I take the Community Manage role, it will be my job to communicate that information to you and help explain the developers reasoning behind the changes made, which is why I am so active in this thread, you guys should know by now that I am always upfront, honest and want the best for the game and the community that I am a part of!
So with that in mind, you can rest easy knowing that I will always do my best to communicate these changes to you and play a part in communicating with the Devs, the Team and the Community on issues such as these.
I think balancing and optimizing are fine, and I also think most players can recognize a legit "whoops, we goofed up a decimal place, a percent multiplier, etc" when something is clearly overpowered or underpowered.
I've covered PVE nerfs because of absurd notions about PVP already, ad nauseum, so no need to revisit, but one type of nerf hinted at, and one I wouldn't mind seeing at least discussed is what I call "whiny druid nerfs" that all take the form of a generalized, jack-of-all-trades class griping because some/none of their abilities are as powerful or necessary as the specialist classes. The Druid's Grove forum in early EQ1 days existed solely to send 1,000 page complaints to SOE about why druids can't heal as well as clerics, can't nuke/port like wizards, etc. And nerfs/balancing honestly seemed to come right of the pages of those whine-play threads.
So my question is this concerning this dreaded type of "for the sake of the community" thing, which is really "to shut up those freaking whiny druids" thinking - does Pantheon plan to have specialists, like the cleric being top healer, wizards being top nuke, rogues being top melee deepz, warrior as top meatshield, and then have hybrids? And if so, will VRI accept that yes, on a raid, only a warrior will main tank, and only a cleric will main heal, and well, that's how it works when there are specialized classes?
I think that's the underlying question about nerfs. Will VRI change design philosophy midstream because after 6 months, hybrid/general class needs a boost and specialized class takes the nerf to make them "equal", when they were never intended or designed to be equal?
Venjenz said:
I think balancing and optimizing are fine, and I also think most players can recognize a legit "whoops, we goofed up a decimal place, a percent multiplier, etc" when something is clearly overpowered or underpowered.
I've covered PVE nerfs because of absurd notions about PVP already, ad nauseum, so no need to revisit, but one type of nerf hinted at, and one I wouldn't mind seeing at least discussed is what I call "whiny druid nerfs" that all take the form of a generalized, jack-of-all-trades class griping because some/none of their abilities are as powerful or necessary as the specialist classes. The Druid's Grove forum in early EQ1 days existed solely to send 1,000 page complaints to SOE about why druids can't heal as well as clerics, can't nuke/port like wizards, etc. And nerfs/balancing honestly seemed to come right of the pages of those whine-play threads.
So my question is this concerning this dreaded type of "for the sake of the community" thing, which is really "to shut up those freaking whiny druids" thinking - does Pantheon plan to have specialists, like the cleric being top healer, wizards being top nuke, rogues being top melee deepz, warrior as top meatshield, and then have hybrids? And if so, will VRI accept that yes, on a raid, only a warrior will main tank, and only a cleric will main heal, and well, that's how it works when there are specialized classes?
I think that's the underlying question about nerfs. Will VRI change design philosophy midstream because after 6 months, hybrid/general class needs a boost and specialized class takes the nerf to make them "equal", when they were never intended or designed to be equal?
That is a great question Venjenz!
It is a very hard one to answer though for the simple fact that we have not got to that point in development yet, so I personally can't answer the question but my opinion and preference would be yes to a degree.
I do not think one class should rule them all in a group or raid setting but I think that Archetypes should be the best at what they do, so the Tanks would all be able to main tank as their primary role, all have roughly equal Mit, AC, Resist etc but slightly different.
So a Warrior could for example have the most HP and resist but a DK could have the most AC/Mit by a small margin, leaving the classes still able to do their primary roles within any group or raid setting but for some fights, a specific tank would be slightly better than the others (even though they could all tank it). We would have to balance that carefully though if we do end up going down that path.
I would like to see Healers all very capable of solo healing a group but again, some should have better mana regen, some have better buffs, some have better HoTs, some with better Direct heals and one with the biggest single heal others with biggest AoE heals etc.
If we limited the best tank role to the Warrior class and ignored all the "whinging" from the other tanks then we would have a serious problem on our hands, as no one would want to play the other tanks and everyone and their dog would roll a Warrior, so there would be no point in having a DK etc.
So that is my view anyway, I will pass this onto the team to see if someone with more knowledge on the classes and our vision can comment but that is what I would like to see happen, which is basically how EQ/VG handled it but I think we could tweak the classes a bit better with all the experience we have from seeing what happened with EQ/VG classes and their roles within groups/raids.
@Kilsin...
I'll use the tanking example to give a better explanation, since you gave such a good response, but I may have been slightly misunderstood.
In EQ1, the plate tanks can all tank any group content well. In fact, the knights (PAL and SHD) are preferred group tanks because of added utility. The Shadowknight with an epic 2.0 is the best single group tank in the game, since they single/group heal like bosses for 2 minutes of every 5, have snare, an array of lifetaps, and do serious DPS. However...when you have raid bosses who can drop 200k damage on well geared tanks in 1 second, which is about max total HP for any tank at this point, the WAR set of dmg mitigation disciplines and AAs ends up making them the one tank you simply have to have standing in front of dreaded raid boss mob, with an offtank PAL giving them the sick aura that increases their AC and incoming heal effectiveness and an SK off-tanking near them and giving all that group lifetap awesomeness, and 2-3 clerics dedicated to spamming remedy fast enough to keep them upright, and 2 enchanters alternating rune spam. Very specialized things for very specialized moments. I mean, I made an SK, and I know full well I will rarely ever be the one standing in front of bad raid boss mob_01 getting that MT glory. Okie doke. Not my class role, and I am fine with it. I will off tank, kite, do group lifetapping heals, stay right below the warrior but ahead of everyone else on the aggro list, and keep adds off my teammates...because that's my job.
In WoW, warriors are the general tank, bear druids are the AC/HP tank against slow heavy hitters, pallies are the AE tanks, and DKs are like warriors but have great abilities for really strange encounter mechanics, like aggro wipes and keeping healers out of fires. When a specialized role is needed, one of the tanking classes is the best at it, and raids use that tank. I had a blood DK and a pally, and again, I knew what I would tank, what I wouldn't, and that's just how the game was set up if you were at the bleeding edge.
The point being, that there are specific circumstances that call for a specific thing, and having one class that does that thing better than any other class seems immersive, defining and preferable. If a game starts off with this philosophy and everyone is onboard with it, I think the concern then becomes the whine play where someone rolls the AC/HP tank and then laments their lack of lifetap utility or something, and the devs respond by watering down/nerfing everything to placate forum griping.
That's the most feared nerf. Generalists whining about the awesome power of a specialist in the one or two special cricumstances, and the entire set of classes all getting nerfed and watered down to the point where they end up as Generic_Tank_Class_01, Generic_Tank_Class_02, Generic_Tank_Class_03, etc, because well, if they aren't bland and generic, then someone will gripe. That "design to the lowest common denominator" nerf...that's the fear, that's the worry, and I think that's where most anger and dissatisfaction stems from.
This may not be received well - and many may not even agree with me. I'm possibly being a little self delusional with this post - but one thing I think could help is if the game itself doesn't give information that lets people actually SEE if something is not quite as good as something else.
In short, I think providing oodles of things that can be measured OBJECTIVELY opens the door to more nerfs being needed / demanded than keeping the information the game delivers to players mostly SUBJECTIVE.
Here's what I mean:
In WoW (or any other game with damage meters) - if, out of all of the DPS specs across all of the classes, ONE spec does 5% less DPS than all of the other specs - which for the sake of the example are all equal - everyone would consider that DPS class broken and less than desirable for raiding, grouping, etc... because how fast you can get through content matters. Even if having nothing but a full raid of that particular DPS class would be sufficient to succeed... it's broken. The DPS meters explicitly told everyone that.
Similarly, if ONE spec does 5% more DPS than all other specs - you would suddenly see a sea of that class / spec in the game - and you would suddenly see a flood of requests for nerfs from the other class / spec combinations. Because that one spec is clearly better. Damage meters told them that too.
That is an OBJECTIVE statistic to point at as proof you are either horridly broken or horridly overpowered. Plus or Minus 5% is something people can specifically point at. I can only imagine the angst over +/- 50%!
In a world without that meter - Will people even realize that class is doing 5% more or less? Doubtful. They might sorta know, but they won't explicitly know. Limit the information available, and then it comes down to SUBJECTIVE measurements.
Types of things you would then be able to notice:
- A real large scale objective difference between two classes... without being able to objectively say how big the difference is. SO... OMG how does that class kill so fast!
- "Feel" things... SO... "That class gets more stuff to do in groups than I do (more abilities) - I should have more!" - even if the OBJECTIVE truth is that your fewer things actually have more mathematical benefit... or "That class is boring!" - even though enough people think it's a fun class that it isn't the least played class, etc...
Subjective things can be explained, discussed, and nerfs can be avoided (or not). Objective things are - well - objectively provable... no escaping them.
Again - just my thoughts :)
EDIT: Note that I am not specifically referring to just damage meters - rather, anything within the game that offers explicit, objectively measurable data... as an aside, I also think providing such information sucks you out of the fantasy world you are trying to escape into / be part of. There is a difference between trying to use your abilities to do as much damage without pulling agro off of the tank, and watching your threat meter so you can stop doing damage when it says you are doing too much for example.
For me the most important thing about balance is that a class can fill its intended role. Not only theoretically, but in the real game. It doesn't matter if druids or shamans are advertised as "healers" if, in the important moments, they cannot fill that role. Of course a lot of this is about player perception too...for example a druid may be perfectly fine as healer for the content he's looking to do, but if people are used to another healer class (cleric) being better or just "more reliable", then they will seek out a cleric, and not the druid. If a class requires perfect execution (with no mistakes made) to fill its role, while another allows room for errors, then balance is probably not so good.
VG did a pretty good job when it came to balance. All tanks were capable of maintanking. All healers were capable of healing well. I don't recall the situation for dps classes or support, but I think there weren't many glaring imbalances either. I hope that Pantheon can achieve such an archetype balance too.
Wandidar said:
This may not be received well - and many may not even agree with me. I'm possibly being a little self delusional with this post - but one thing I think could help is if the game itself doesn't give information that lets people actually SEE if something is not quite as good as something else.
In short, I think providing oodles of things that can be measured OBJECTIVELY opens the door to more nerfs being needed / demanded than keeping the information the game delivers to players mostly SUBJECTIVE.
Here's what I mean:
In WoW (or any other game with damage meters) - if, out of all of the DPS specs across all of the classes, ONE spec does 5% less DPS than all of the other specs - which for the sake of the example are all equal - everyone would consider that DPS class broken and less than desirable for raiding, grouping, etc... because how fast you can get through content matters. Even if having nothing but a full raid of that particular DPS class would be sufficient to succeed... it's broken. The DPS meters explicitly told everyone that.
Similarly, if ONE spec does 5% more DPS than all other specs - you would suddenly see a sea of that class / spec in the game - and you would suddenly see a flood of requests for nerfs from the other class / spec combinations. Because that one spec is clearly better. Damage meters told them that too.
That is an OBJECTIVE statistic to point at as proof you are either horridly broken or horridly overpowered. Plus or Minus 5% is something people can specifically point at. I can only imagine the angst over +/- 50%!
In a world without that meter - Will people even realize that class is doing 5% more or less? Doubtful. They might sorta know, but they won't explicitly know. Limit the information available, and then it comes down to SUBJECTIVE measurements.
Types of things you would then be able to notice:
- A real large scale objective difference between two classes... without being able to objectively say how big the difference is. SO... OMG how does that class kill so fast!
- "Feel" things... SO... "That class gets more stuff to do in groups than I do (more abilities) - I should have more!" - even if the OBJECTIVE truth is that your fewer things actually have more mathematical benefit... or "That class is boring!" - even though enough people think it's a fun class that it isn't the least played class, etc...
Subjective things can be explained, discussed, and nerfs can be avoided (or not). Objective things are - well - objectively provable... no escaping them.
Again - just my thoughts :)
EDIT: Note that I am not specifically referring to just damage meters - rather, anything within the game that offers explicit, objectively measurable data... as an aside, I also think providing such information sucks you out of the fantasy world you are trying to escape into / be part of. There is a difference between trying to use your abilities to do as much damage without pulling agro off of the tank, and watching your threat meter so you can stop doing damage when it says you are doing too much for example.
I understand what you mean mate and we have already stated that we will not have any dps meters, aggro meters, healing meters in this game, so there will be nothing to worry about in terms of mechanics like that being available to the players.
You will see exactly what you did in EQ and VG in terms of combat logs in a chat tab, that is all. It will then be up to the players to work out their dps, aggro etc with that information, the calculations and base values ect. will be kept internally and no public member will have access to them, just like how it was with EQ and VG. ;)
Kilsin said:
Wandidar said:
This may not be received well - and many may not even agree with me. I'm possibly being a little self delusional with this post - but one thing I think could help is if the game itself doesn't give information that lets people actually SEE if something is not quite as good as something else.
In short, I think providing oodles of things that can be measured OBJECTIVELY opens the door to more nerfs being needed / demanded than keeping the information the game delivers to players mostly SUBJECTIVE.
Here's what I mean:
In WoW (or any other game with damage meters) - if, out of all of the DPS specs across all of the classes, ONE spec does 5% less DPS than all of the other specs - which for the sake of the example are all equal - everyone would consider that DPS class broken and less than desirable for raiding, grouping, etc... because how fast you can get through content matters. Even if having nothing but a full raid of that particular DPS class would be sufficient to succeed... it's broken. The DPS meters explicitly told everyone that.
Similarly, if ONE spec does 5% more DPS than all other specs - you would suddenly see a sea of that class / spec in the game - and you would suddenly see a flood of requests for nerfs from the other class / spec combinations. Because that one spec is clearly better. Damage meters told them that too.
That is an OBJECTIVE statistic to point at as proof you are either horridly broken or horridly overpowered. Plus or Minus 5% is something people can specifically point at. I can only imagine the angst over +/- 50%!
In a world without that meter - Will people even realize that class is doing 5% more or less? Doubtful. They might sorta know, but they won't explicitly know. Limit the information available, and then it comes down to SUBJECTIVE measurements.
Types of things you would then be able to notice:
- A real large scale objective difference between two classes... without being able to objectively say how big the difference is. SO... OMG how does that class kill so fast!
- "Feel" things... SO... "That class gets more stuff to do in groups than I do (more abilities) - I should have more!" - even if the OBJECTIVE truth is that your fewer things actually have more mathematical benefit... or "That class is boring!" - even though enough people think it's a fun class that it isn't the least played class, etc...
Subjective things can be explained, discussed, and nerfs can be avoided (or not). Objective things are - well - objectively provable... no escaping them.
Again - just my thoughts :)
EDIT: Note that I am not specifically referring to just damage meters - rather, anything within the game that offers explicit, objectively measurable data... as an aside, I also think providing such information sucks you out of the fantasy world you are trying to escape into / be part of. There is a difference between trying to use your abilities to do as much damage without pulling agro off of the tank, and watching your threat meter so you can stop doing damage when it says you are doing too much for example.
I understand what you mean mate and we have already stated that we will not have any dps meters, aggro meters, healing meters in this game, so there will be nothing to worry about in terms of mechanics like that being available to the players.
You will see exactly what you did in EQ and VG in terms of combat logs in a chat tab, that is all. It will then be up to the players to work out their dps, aggro etc with that information, the calculations and base values ect. will be kept internally and no public member will have access to them, just like how it was with EQ and VG. ;)
This makes me happy! I remember in old EQ things like the haste percent on items wasnt shown...it was up to the players to try and figure it out.
Exactly Sevens - I'd like to see as much specific, objective information as possible removed from the game. Let players figure it out if they want to and are able to.
For me, this also includes UI components that try to help you determine objective information (even though these are relatively subjective).
Things like "Blue gear is good" and "Purple gear is better." Generally true, but maybe not always true... However, players treat it as an objective truth. I've seen people wearing a purple item when I know they have a better blue item... but they think the purple is better because it's purple.
It's a case of the game trying to help the player with information and leads to bad community interaction:
/shout LFM for uber dungeon. Must be full purple to join.
Slippery slope to gear score, etc...
Tell me LESS, please.
Wandidar said:
Exactly Sevens - I'd like to see as much specific, objective information as possible removed from the game. Let players figure it out if they want to and are able to.
For me, this also includes UI components that try to help you determine objective information (even though these are relatively subjective).
Things like "Blue gear is good" and "Purple gear is better." Generally true, but maybe not always true... However, players treat it as an objective truth. I've seen people wearing a purple item when I know they have a better blue item... but they think the purple is better because it's purple.
It's a case of the game trying to help the player with information and leads to bad community interaction:
/shout LFM for uber dungeon. Must be full purple to join.
Slippery slope to gear score, etc...
Tell me LESS, please.
To be fair, it doesn't always work like that and just to play devils advocate, it's the community that allows that type of mentality to become the normal way to "assess" if a player is suitable for the fight or not and you will never completely escape that mentality, even in EQ and more recently in VG if you did not have the right gear or enough HP/Heals/Dps for certain fights, there is simply no room for you in the group/raid unless there is enough of a force to carry you through it.
That person should not then get upset at not being able to join and then post a rant to for the forums that life sucks and the game is mean to them, they should take that as a sign that they need to play the game more and progress their character further so they will be a benefit to that particular group/raid and not a hindrance.
People don't like to hear that but they need to harden up a bit if we are going to go back to the good old EQ/VG days of no hand holding and not take things so personally but instead, strive to better themselves and their characters so they can join in on much harder content that has restrictions and certain expectations of gear/weapons and skill levels.
They need to set goals and achieve them in order to progress, they are my thoughts anyway ;)
Kilsin said:
Wandidar said:
Exactly Sevens - I'd like to see as much specific, objective information as possible removed from the game. Let players figure it out if they want to and are able to.
For me, this also includes UI components that try to help you determine objective information (even though these are relatively subjective).
Things like "Blue gear is good" and "Purple gear is better." Generally true, but maybe not always true... However, players treat it as an objective truth. I've seen people wearing a purple item when I know they have a better blue item... but they think the purple is better because it's purple.
It's a case of the game trying to help the player with information and leads to bad community interaction:
/shout LFM for uber dungeon. Must be full purple to join.
Slippery slope to gear score, etc...
Tell me LESS, please.
To be fair, it doesn't always work like that and just to play devils advocate, it's the community that allows that type of mentality to become the normal way to "assess" if a player is suitable for the fight or not and you will never completely escape that mentality, even in EQ and more recently in VG if you did not have the right gear or enough HP/Heals/Dps for certain fights, there is simply no room for you in the group/raid unless there is enough of a force to carry you through it.
That person should not then get upset at not being able to join and then post a rant to for the forums that life sucks and the game is mean to them, they should take that as a sign that they need to play the game more and progress their character further so they will be a benefit to that particular group/raid and not a hindrance.
People don't like to hear that but they need to harden up a bit if we are going to go back to the good old EQ/VG days of no hand holding and not take things so personally but instead, strive to better themselves and their characters so they can join in on much harder content that has restrictions and certain expectations of gear/weapons and skill levels.
They need to set goal and achieve them in order to progress, they are my thoughts anyway ;)
All that is true Kilsin, I think where the difference is is that I have no problem if my group or raid tells me "Hey youre not pulling your weight, people are dying or the mob isnt dying fast enough because of your low dps." What I want to never hear is 'Hey you only have a gear score of 500 and this dungeon is rated at 550" or "you only have blues? You need greens to group here" A good raid / group leader can usually tell who is a good player and who needs help. Sorry its early and im at work so sort of rambling...hope this made a little sense
Sevens said:
Kilsin said:
Wandidar said:
Exactly Sevens - I'd like to see as much specific, objective information as possible removed from the game. Let players figure it out if they want to and are able to.
For me, this also includes UI components that try to help you determine objective information (even though these are relatively subjective).
Things like "Blue gear is good" and "Purple gear is better." Generally true, but maybe not always true... However, players treat it as an objective truth. I've seen people wearing a purple item when I know they have a better blue item... but they think the purple is better because it's purple.
It's a case of the game trying to help the player with information and leads to bad community interaction:
/shout LFM for uber dungeon. Must be full purple to join.
Slippery slope to gear score, etc...
Tell me LESS, please.
To be fair, it doesn't always work like that and just to play devils advocate, it's the community that allows that type of mentality to become the normal way to "assess" if a player is suitable for the fight or not and you will never completely escape that mentality, even in EQ and more recently in VG if you did not have the right gear or enough HP/Heals/Dps for certain fights, there is simply no room for you in the group/raid unless there is enough of a force to carry you through it.
That person should not then get upset at not being able to join and then post a rant to for the forums that life sucks and the game is mean to them, they should take that as a sign that they need to play the game more and progress their character further so they will be a benefit to that particular group/raid and not a hindrance.
People don't like to hear that but they need to harden up a bit if we are going to go back to the good old EQ/VG days of no hand holding and not take things so personally but instead, strive to better themselves and their characters so they can join in on much harder content that has restrictions and certain expectations of gear/weapons and skill levels.
They need to set goal and achieve them in order to progress, they are my thoughts anyway ;)All that is true Kilsin, I think where the difference is is that I have no problem if my group or raid tells me "Hey youre not pulling your weight, people are dying or the mob isnt dying fast enough because of your low dps." What I want to never hear is 'Hey you only have a gear score of 500 and this dungeon is rated at 550" or "you only have blues? You need greens to group here" A good raid / group leader can usually tell who is a good player and who needs help. Sorry its early and im at work so sort of rambling...hope this made a little sense
Yeah I understand and agree with that completely and I am against that type of behaviour but I am also saying that it is up to us to stop that from taking over our game ;)