The one time I'm okay with nerfing content soon after release is when it's actually impossible - when C'Thun was released in WoW, there were debates about whether it was even possible to clear the encounter with gear presently in the game (though he was downed fairly shortly after the "nerf", meaning the nerf may have been too powerful OR people had just wiped enough they already had learned the mechanics and just needed the encounter to be POSSIBLE).
And it also depends on the content. Tier 3 Naxx in WoW was very difficult (and the expansion released fairly soon after), so many people never actually cleared it. This was both why they rereleased in in Wrath (albeit probably a too-easy version considering how hard the initial one was) and why people that cleared it and had a full set of Tier 3, even in their bank two expansions later, were so awe inspiring. Hard content that few people do and few people see, there's no reason to nerf in my opinion.
On the other hand, content that a large portion of the playerbase is expected to do and see? In Cataclysm, when it launched, WoW went back from the "ezmode" days of Wrath to needing CC, healers needing mana, etc. But it did it in one huge leap that the community had difficult adjusting to. Combine this with some of the simple random dungeon ques and leveling (non-heroic) dungeons being HARD, with some bosses that could fairly easily wipe the 5 man small party if they didn't do things right (or, in the case of one particular rock elemental boss with a youtube pop music video of his voice clips - a sudden lag spike on the tank at the wrong time could mean a total wipe and then starting the fight all over again). They ended up nerfing the content TOO much, imo, but the need for a nerf of some kind was present.
The other case is nerfs that automatically happen over time as players gain gear and levels (and expansions are HORRIBLE at this). WoW has had a problem for years with item level bloat, and even after the great item level crunch of Mists or Warlords (I don't recall which), it was probably an expansion too late and they really didn't learn there lesson as ilevels right after the stat crunch went straight back to eponential growth. Final Fantasy 14 is likewise having this same issue, and they're only one expansion in.
The item level part of it is a problem that I think most MMOs have, but there was a cool graph on the topic that the WoW devs posted when they first started talking about it at the end of Wrath that I thought was really cool. It showed ilevel scaling with player level. It was a linear line from 1-60 - Vanilla WoW's original level range. That is, a level 10 character was expected to have ilevel 10 gear, which was around when you got your first "green" Uncommon quality gear with a stat point on it. Level 20 with ilevel 20 gear, and if you were lucky you might get a blue "rare" piece of gear, but maybe not until you were 30, that had two stat points. And so on. But stat growth was a linear progression through Vanilla. It was mostly linear through BC. But in Wrath it went somewhat linear with a steap slope into exponential, and then Cataclysm, it was straight up exponential growth such that one level would often see a character nearly double in power, and the highest tier of raid gear in the old game was instantly replaced with the release of an expansion by trash mob world drops.
This, of course, was ridiculous.
It also cheapened the raid gear and high level crafted gear effort from the previous expansion. In BC, Tier 3 gear might last you until level 68 or 69, you wouldn't replace it all until level 70 (the new level cap). In Wrath, you replaced it all by around level 75 (new level cap was 80). In all the expansions since, within the first level you can basically replace the last expansion's highest gear level.
This is part of a product of gear and rampant stat inflation (the devs have repeatedly said that they don't think players feel rewarded unless gear gives them a big jump in power - and I highly disagree with this. I thiink there is something to be said for having the gear models/the clout of attaining it, even if it's only got a few more points of stamina or whathaveyou). But it's also the product of increasing levels and expansions.
As a rule, I'm not a fan of expansions and character level cap jump. I think expansions should be very rare and only have characters gain one or two levels. I'd be fine if the base game only having up to level 20 and then future expansions only adding 1 or 2 levels. This is because more levels means more spells/spell ranks have to be added to the game, which contributes to "button bloat" and devs sometimes making ridiculous or annoying abilities because "well, they have more levels, we HAVE to give them SOME new ability!!" It also has the problem of severely nerfing content over time, but also making player's contributions lessened.
That is to say, in Vanilla WoW, you sometimes had people that weren't at level cap (55-59) do level cap content with the raid because they needed the bodies and their power level was close enough to be vaguely useful. By BC, and certainly later, you needed everyone at level cap because that difference in power between an X9 player and an (X+1)0 player was huge, even before factoring in gear that required level cap level to wear.
Now: I should point out, I like soloing or small making old content. I was part of a family & friends guild and we had 7-9 people. So we would often do old content because we could and it was fun for us. (Also soloing Vanilla raids to get Transmog gear once that was implemented was fun). We, on occasionan, could beat and even farm a 10 man current content raid boss, but that was about it. But the old content gave us hours of fun just doing the story, farming the gear, farming the gold, or earning the mounts.
So I'm not saying I don't want content to semi-naturally nerf itself over time.
But what I am saying is I would like that to be a LONG TIME.
I was happy with WoW until Wrath and even into Cata where you could go do old content, but you still needed a team and still could get yourself killed if you pulled the entire raid. It was all the more epic when you COULD manage big pulls and then had to spend five minutes resting and repairing. But at some point it got to where you COULD pull entire raids solo if you wanted to - which while amusing sometimes, isn't great if it happens too quickly - and where some raid bosses in current content could be soloed by some classes after getting the next tier's worth of gear (though largely I was okay with that since it was usually only one boss due to some mechanic and that a player went to a lot of effort to truly master their class in order to do).
While I'm okay with this in time, one expansion (or one TIER) being the difference between needing a raid team and solo pulling ENTIRE RAIDS is a bit much. And I think expansions contribute negatively to this.
I remember a friend telling me once that when WoW started, they had a number of EQ players give input on the design. Some of the things requested were more updates to the game adding things and not having expansions for $40 a pop all the time. To this end, Vanilla WoW had something like 12 major patches (though take "major" how you will - some were updates that added weather effects, some added some factions and a dungeon or two or three [in fact, several classic WoW dungeons were actually added after release as major content patches], and some added a raid tier or part of a raid tier for the tiers that included several raid zones). I remember thinking good on them for listening to the community and such.
It also made the release of Burning Crusade that much more of a big deal when it DID happen.
But these days, the devs have even admited the model is to get a new expansion out every year (a goal they have not yet actually succeeded in), which implicitly is to make the company more money, but also has wreaked havok with the leveling/item level game and is part of the reason the last two expansions have a quick-level feature; because they know the end game is where people want to be, people want to play new content (which starts at the old level cap and not before), and that many people don't want to have to go through 90+ levels (100 now?) just to get STARTED on the new LEVELING content.
This is part of a larger problem I'm sure I've talked about before, but I'm hoping that, while this happens some over time, that Pantheon will be focused more on horizontal progression and major patch releases without constant streams of expansions. Expansions should be for truly huge new stuff - additional contintents and huge additions of data and game altering systems like new classes/races - not a few new raids, and certainly not coming with a new higher level cap that instantly renders characters at the old level cap meaningless.
.
Anyway, rambled a bit, but those are my caveats:
-IMPOSSIBLE content being nerfed to be POSSIBLE (not easy), I'm okay with
-Difficult content that is designed for the most hardcore shouldn't be nerfed
-"Common" content that is too difficult for the "common" player should be nerfed within measure
-Expansions should be rare (and only increase player level caps slightly), gear should be more horizontal progression to minimize ilevel growth rate over time
I don't think these are too crazy positions for me to hold.
Sarim said:And that's exactly what I said. I said once a guild has done the current group / lesser raid content, they should be able to do any (raid) content in the current expansion. Of course there will be always the hardcore players who do everything faster than the average, and I have no problem with that! But if content is so difficult that only a minority of players can do it in the current expansion, then it has been designed/balanced poorly.
This thread is about nerfing content after its release. I'm saying that it should be designed well and reasonable from the start, so that nerfs won't be required at all. And IMO that means, not designing content with the "top 5% of players" in mind.
I think it's resonable to create content for the 1% because, as the name sugestes only a small minority of players will get to see it in it's hardest form possbile, for most players it will make no difference if the encounters are hard or not, because they will not be even close to experiencing them.
That's why I find it reasonable to create content that's really hard to kill at release, because only a small part of the player base will be able to acces it. With the passing of time and consequent character devopment and proggression the rest of the player base will get to reach and experience that content, that's when nerfing content becomes the ideal solution. (not making things retardedly easy, just more accessible to the rest of the player base.)
I'm typically never a fan of the nerf bat. If an encounter has been tuned to difficult, either let the players find a way or as others have stated - maybe next expansion once gearflation/levels provide the extra edge. If an encounter is "nerfed," I view it more as a fix, because some technique (exploit) was used that wasn't intended - casting through walls, off a rooftop, etc.
From the outset, VR have stated that 'a high level of challenge is critical' (See the FAQ, 'The Pantheon Difference' and 'Tenets'). It seem, therefore, against all their tenets to then reduce the challenge for any reason (apart from tweaking/fixing).
Given this:
(i) There will be a certain degradation of challenge in some areas from the raising of the Max level,
(ii) Some newer items/gear may make some other challenges easier,
VR are not new to the game and understand that some challenges will be much harder than others (albeit within a certain window of difficulty). Given that they will not have the 'Class nerf' problem that plagued EQ (since PvP balances do not affect PvE ones), the only issues to reduce challenge will be those created by newer content - if at all.
So, to answer OP's original question :
No, I cannot see content being nerfed only a few months after it is released:
While new content will be released in the months folowing launch - it is sure to follow a planned hierarchy of levels and strengths for items and mobs such that it integrates seamlessly into the pre-existing world as a whole!
There is a diffrence between nerf and content being tuned for balance.
I think once it is tuned correctly , the content shouldn't be touched.
The guild can either execute and progress or not.
The act of nerfing content does nothing but trivialize the merits of guilds that have completed it and cheapen the victory for guilds trying to complete it.
It has been said previously but my take on it...
Really good testing should gage the true difficulty of the encounter. This needs to be group size as well as various group make ups. I would say that if and when a good testing group knows what to do, and still has a chance to wipe 50 to 70% of the time, it should be pretty close. I would imagine that the average gear for test group make up should be above average. The percent of success cab be tested and lowered or raised as deemed fitting for the encounter.
It would be up to the players to learn what to do and what gear it takes as well as best group make up... The unfortunate truth to this, is it will take some dying to figure this out. This is why persistent raiding guilds win out over casual ones.
I still like it on the tougher end but not rediculous.
I dont think you will ever see this happen here as some have already stated. In EQ 99% of encounters were never nerfed. Yes later expansions allowed those encounters to be beaten much easier due to gear upgrades and levels. The thing about it is that there is content for everyone. If you want to be in the biggest raiding guild to kill the biggest gods and dragons in the game you can. If you would rather be in a more casual style guild then you may not be able to conquer those same encounters but there will still be some that you can. If you choose to be in a very small guild then there are things for you to do there as well. This style of MMO isnt meant for everyone to be able to kill everything. It caters to all player types and play styles. Just because you're in a smaller more casual raiding guild that isnt capable of killing a god doesnt mean it should be nerfed so that you can. There will still be plenty of raid encounters you can conquer just not all of them. You have to put forth the extra effort if you want to be a god slayer. The devs have stated many times that there will be content for all player types. Getting the best raid loot is just 1 of many facets of the game. In the end it is all about having fun. If you feel like you cant have fun unless you are able to kill every raid mob in the game then you will have to just accept what is required to do so. But there will be plenty of things to do no matter what type of guild you are in or even if you are not in a guild. That is what I appreciate so much with the dev team here. They are making sure there is enough content for everyone to enjoy no matter what your goals are. Nerfing encounters so that everyone can beat them is simply not going to happen. You will have to earn it...
Xxar said:There is a diffrence between nerf and content being tuned for balance.
I think once it is tuned correctly , the content shouldn't be touched.
The guild can either execute and progress or not.
The act of nerfing content does nothing but trivialize the merits of guilds that have completed it and cheapen the victory for guilds trying to complete it.
100% agreed (as mentioned, as long as it's not broken or impossible)
Bazgrim said:Exactly. Even more reason why people with access to Pre-Alpha, Alpha, and Beta should actually test the game. And by that, I don't mean "this boss was too hard. it should be easier." Testing will mostly mean searching for bugs and exploits. But even more importantly, it means identifying mechanics that have no counterplay. For example, if a boss has a deathtouch ability that instantly kills a random character nearby and there is no sort of visual/auditory tell that warns you when it's about to happen (perhaps it even happens at random intervals) and there is no buff that can protect you against it... well then you'll probably want to suggest to the devs that the mechanic is not very FUN because there's literally nothing you can do about it and there's too much chance involved. The FUN aspect of challenges is figuring out how to counter the obstacle and then executing the plan. If that's not possible, something needs to change. If it's possible but you're just not skilled enough to execute it, well then get good lol ;P
I'm gonna agree, and disagree, if it's totally random, that's not cool bro. If it's not totally random... I wanna share a story, of the Dwarf Paladin who saved the day.
(And, I really am kicking myself in the head (or trying to, I'm not that flexible) for not being able to remember his name, but it was 20 years ago and I'm old and it's late)
Anyway, PoF, undergeared guild, we're trying to get the child's tear for a shaman epic. We have managed to clear almost everything, really all we need to do is pull the golems, kill the kid, and call it a night. Unfortunately Terror wasn't up, but Fright and Dread were. Which sucked, because terror didn't use death touch, the other two did. So we make our first attempt, I'm playing a monk and pulling because while it was mostly clear it wasn't entirely clear and we wanted the feign death in case I got some stragglers. This didn't work out, as I was our second highest melee dps, our third highest overall dps, and he DTed me as soon as I'd get back to the group. Thus, we didn't have enough DPS to down him before his DT reset (at the time it was a 2 minute timer) and he ate the warrior.
We made another attempt (actually we made a bunch of attempts because he didn't DT me as soon as I pulled him, he'd wait a bit, and it took me a few tries [few like 20 berjillion, or that's what it felt like] to figure out how long I had between pulling him and when I needed to FD to avoid getting DTed), this time with me getting him close, then hitting FD, then the warrior hitting him with an arrow, th... except now the warrior eats the DT, and we have no real tank (we had a 54 or 55 warrior, and a 46 paladin who was under geared), and things go even further off the rails than they did before.
We were contemplating what exactly to do. This little dwarf paladin who had spent the entire week struggling to get to 46 in time for the raid volunteers himself. He'd basically been the next best thing to useless for the raid. He didn't hit hard enough to be useful, he couldn't really tank well enough to be useful (particularly with our big whopping 54 or 55 warrior there) ... he really was just along as a tourist, and maybe a mascot. But ... if all we needed was someone to die? That sounds like a perfect job. So I ran out and pulled the big guy, and when I'm almost to camp I FD, and the paladin hits him with a stun and half a second later dies. It was glorious. The rest of the fight was over before the DT reset and the little paladin was the frickin hero.
Randomized DT on a random person at a random time would be the worst fricking idea ever. On the other hand a completely unresistable but entirely predictable DT? I'm okay with that. We figured out a plan and made it work. If we'd planned better, we likely would have been ready with a sacri.. I mean volunteer. (honestly, we simply hadn't counted on the rest of the party needing my dps to finish it off fast enough).
Nerfing isn't a bad word and it is a part of every games life, whether it be an MMORPG or an FPS game, changes are needed for when unforeseen/unintended things happen that change or affect gameplay so much that it throws the game off balance for many people.
Balance is key, boosts and nerfs will come and go in Pantheon just like in other games, we will do our best to get it right the first time but we are human and are unable to predict the future, so prepare yourselves for changes, boosts, nerfs and general balancing from testing right through until launch and beyond, it is the Ying and Yang part of gaming life, so embrace it, don't fight it, because it will happen! :)
Kilsin said:Nerfing isn't a bad word and it is a part of every games life, whether it be an MMORPG or an FPS game, changes are needed for when unforeseen/unintended things happen that change or affect gameplay so much that it throws the game off balance for many people.
Balance is key, boosts and nerfs will come and go in Pantheon just like in other games, we will do our best to get it right the first time but we are human and are unable to predict the future, so prepare yourselves for changes, boosts, nerfs and general balancing from testing right through until launch and beyond, it is the Ying and Yang part of gaming life, so embrace it, don't fight it, because it will happen! :)
For me it's always a question of why it happens. Did it happen because it was needed? Did it happen because a vocal minority kept saying, over and over and over and over, that it was needed? That's the key. If nerfing/boosting/Balancing happens because hard incontrovertable numbers pulled from the server side of things by the Live team say "Hey, this is a thing." That's great. When instead a nerf happens because a month after a boss is released 100 guilds have attempted it, 3 of those guilds have been successful, 87 of those guilds can see success within their grasp, they just know they have a few more things to work on and they'll be there, and the final 10 tried it twice and then resorted to going to the forums en masse and creating a poopstorm of whining so great that even the fan couldn't clear it all away.... that's not a cool thing.
And I know that's not what you were saying, and I know you probably knew what he was saying, and I know I probably didn't need to say anything, but on the other hand it's 7am, and I've been slamming redbulls for the last 4 hours and I can see my heart beat, but I don't even know how that is a thing, so I said the things, even though, you know, I didn't need to.
Reafwalk said:Kilsin said:Nerfing isn't a bad word and it is a part of every games life, whether it be an MMORPG or an FPS game, changes are needed for when unforeseen/unintended things happen that change or affect gameplay so much that it throws the game off balance for many people.
Balance is key, boosts and nerfs will come and go in Pantheon just like in other games, we will do our best to get it right the first time but we are human and are unable to predict the future, so prepare yourselves for changes, boosts, nerfs and general balancing from testing right through until launch and beyond, it is the Ying and Yang part of gaming life, so embrace it, don't fight it, because it will happen! :)
For me it's always a question of why it happens. Did it happen because it was needed? Did it happen because a vocal minority kept saying, over and over and over and over, that it was needed? That's the key. If nerfing/boosting/Balancing happens because hard incontrovertable numbers pulled from the server side of things by the Live team say "Hey, this is a thing." That's great. When instead a nerf happens because a month after a boss is released 100 guilds have attempted it, 3 of those guilds have been successful, 87 of those guilds can see success within their grasp, they just know they have a few more things to work on and they'll be there, and the final 10 tried it twice and then resorted to going to the forums en masse and creating a poopstorm of whining so great that even the fan couldn't clear it all away.... that's not a cool thing.
And I know that's not what you were saying, and I know you probably knew what he was saying, and I know I probably didn't need to say anything, but on the other hand it's 7am, and I've been slamming redbulls for the last 4 hours and I can see my heart beat, but I don't even know how that is a thing, so I said the things, even though, you know, I didn't need to.
It is always needed, whether a players think so or not, there is always a development reason behind the change, and it will rarely be discussed in detail as it will involve some kind of conflict or code or exploit that the team from any gaming company won't want to share publicly, most of the time, there are exceptions but my point was, they will happen, so don't hate on them, use the testing phase to help with as much as possible, we will work our butts off to find as many imbalances as possible but even with a perfect launch (which is almost impossible) things in the future will need balancing.
People are quick to blame "vocal minorities" or "whispers in devs ears" but I can assure you changes are made regardless of those things, we do what we think is best for our game, and it is as simple as that, sometimes we intend something to be completed or carried out in a different way that what players find, there is usually good reason for us wanting it done this way, so it will most likely be changed to fit our desired path.
It is easy to get caught up in the emotion of losing something that you were used too, or blaming it on rumours or hearsay of others feeding the devs information but I can assure you the decision will be made because we think it is in the best interest of our game and that is how we want it to be, it is a simple as that in most cases.
Redbull is bad for you man, go easy on them!
^^^ THIS. So much this. I'm glad to see Kilsin put this out there. People constantly fall prey to what is called the "Personal Stage". Where we think that what is happening is in direct reaction to - or involving ourselves. But more often than not, this simply isn't true. Yes, our feedback might augment a decision, but it most certainly is rarely the main reason for said decision.
Verdic said:^^^ THIS. So much this. I'm glad to see Kilsin put this out there. People constantly fall prey to what is called the "Personal Stage". Where we think that what is happening is in direct reaction to - or involving ourselves. But more often than not, this simply isn't true. Yes, our feedback might augment a decision, but it most certainly is rarely the main reason for said decision.
Exactly :)
I'm glad to hear VR's standpoint on this matter, and hope it remains true throughout the game's lifespan.
But I also understand the cause for concern when you see what has happened in other games over the past decade+
Anyone remember when Furor had his hissyfit over plane of time in EQ?
Naxxramas anyone?
It does happen.
Here's a suggestion for the Dev's specifically regarding:
overpowered items/weapons/gear (something with an AE effect that is broader or more devastating than intended) - not spells
or unintended itemization (something ALL/ALL that should be race & class specific)
Instead of nerfing would they entertain making the item ultra rare? and to prevent obsessive camping- ultra-rare drop and randomize the monster (but keep it in same level) so if a 1 in 10,000 chance to drop off of monster 1 and once dropped, then there is a 1 in 10,000 chance to drop off of another monster. Never the same monster untill it has dropped of second monster.
so Monster 1- well-healed group engages in normal adventuring or questing, and all know there is a rare chance that item X will drop- and it does! everyone cheers or randoms or gives it to the class that can use it.
Randomizing factor then has item on 1 in 10,000 loot table on Monster 2. Years (heh) later, another humble and enterprising group, you know, getting some exp and having fun, very casual, engages monster 2 and it drops! arguments in group unsue over what NBG really means while corpse timer ticks down.
Only after Monster 2 drops the item, would then it be possible to be back on monster 1, or monsters 3 through 10, but not on 2, untill it is dropped from monster 3 (or 1 again)
Manouk said:Here's a suggestion for the Dev's specifically regarding:
overpowered items/weapons/gear (something with an AE effect that is broader or more devastating than intended) - not spells
or unintended itemization (something ALL/ALL that should be race & class specific)
Instead of nerfing would they entertain making the item ultra rare? and to prevent obsessive camping- ultra-rare drop and randomize the monster (but keep it in same level) so if a 1 in 10,000 chance to drop off of monster 1 and once dropped, then there is a 1 in 10,000 chance to drop off of another monster. Never the same monster untill it has dropped of second monster.
so Monster 1- well-healed group engages in normal adventuring or questing, and all know there is a rare chance that item X will drop- and it does! everyone cheers or randoms or gives it to the class that can use it.
Randomizing factor then has item on 1 in 10,000 loot table on Monster 2. Years (heh) later, another humble and enterprising group, you know, getting some exp and having fun, very casual, engages monster 2 and it drops! arguments in group unsue over what NBG really means while corpse timer ticks down.
Only after Monster 2 drops the item, would then it be possible to be back on monster 1, or monsters 3 through 10, but not on 2, untill it is dropped from monster 3 (or 1 again)
No, as it doesn't work like that,m we have no idea what the item or spell/ability will be, we may oversee a weapons bonus effect on certain mobs which ends up being able to one shot a raid target, so we can't leave that weapon in its current state for people to abuse and farm a raid target, we can't make it rare and allow it to continue either, it must be reduced in power or have the effect removed or the mob needs to be changed and out of those three options I just gave, changing the mob is a big job, the other two, not so much, which is why items and abilities get nerfed, it is a part of life and it will happen, hopefully not often as we will do everything in our power to foresee such issues and try to incorporate everything we know into making our spells, abilities and items but every now and then one or two will slip through and need balancing, so expect it to happen in Pantheon.
This thread has identified two types of nerf. I will name them:
The Fix-Nerf:
I don't think this is the kind that the OP was talking about, but the thread has spent a lot of time dwelling on it. Most people who object to the "Fix-Nerf" say they're unhappy because it's an indication of poor quality control. In their eyes, any nerf devalues sunk time, but maybe they see this kind as particularly irksome because it's not even for a good reason. To paraphrase: "You messed up by releasing buggy content and I solved it anyway. Now you want to diminish my achievement!? I am agrieved, sir!" Kilsin says: "expect it to happen in Pantheon." Because... of course it will. Come on.
The Access-Nerf
I think this is what the OP was talking about. This is the sort of Nerf where a studio releases difficult content designed for their "core" player demographic, then - after it's been consumed by the high-time users - reduces the difficulty in order to make it accessible by a wider player base. This gives the studio a greater return on their content investment, but there are other reasons too. Players don't like this either for the same reason as before; it devalues their sunk time. Kilsin hasn't directly addressed this as far as I can tell.
Much depends on the type of content. If you release content intended to be not just challenging but damn hard, something that the best raid guilds have to work their butts off to eventually beat, and something that you don't *want* half your player base to beat, then it may never need a nerf other than to fix things as necessary. This is your "prestige" content, things that players spend months working towards so that they can brag and boast endlessly (and often tastelessly) to the less dedicated or fortunate about.
On the other hand, challenging content that you want most players to eventually succeeed at is a horse of a very different color indeed. You do NOT want only the top raid guilds to unlock various dungeons. You do NOT want only the top raid guild members to finish main line quest series. You do NOT want only the top raid guilds to be able to complete epic quest lines of the EQ2 type. You may not want any of these things to be trivial - I did say "challenging" after all - but a good pick-up group should be able to do any of these things once they know what is needed and maybe after a wipe or three. This is the content that should get nerfed if you find that while you had expected half your players to beat it within a month only 1/20 actually did.
dorotea said:This is the content that should get nerfed if you find that while you had expected half your players to beat it within a month only 1/20 actually did.
I dunno, if you tested it and are happy with the difficulty then I think it's reasonable to expect players to step up instead of lowering the bar. That's a race to the bottom. I think it's the difference between a "My world exists to cater to you" mentality versus a "My world exists to challenge you." Nothing wrong with easy content, but I don't like the idea of "grading on a curve."
Shai said:This thread has identified two types of nerf. I will name them:
- The Fix-Nerf - A reduction in difficulty due to unforeseen and unintended consequences, bugs, or abuse.
- The Access-Nerf - A reduction in difficulty intended to facilitate wider access to content.
The Fix-Nerf:
I don't think this is the kind that the OP was talking about, but the thread has spent a lot of time dwelling on it. Most people who object to the "Fix-Nerf" say they're unhappy because it's an indication of poor quality control. In their eyes, any nerf devalues sunk time, but maybe they see this kind as particularly irksome because it's not even for a good reason. To paraphrase: "You messed up by releasing buggy content and I solved it anyway. Now you want to diminish my achievement!? I am agrieved, sir!" Kilsin says: "expect it to happen in Pantheon." Because... of course it will. Come on.
The Access-Nerf
I think this is what the OP was talking about. This is the sort of Nerf where a studio releases difficult content designed for their "core" player demographic, then - after it's been consumed by the high-time users - reduces the difficulty in order to make it accessible by a wider player base. This gives the studio a greater return on their content investment, but there are other reasons too. Players don't like this either for the same reason as before; it devalues their sunk time. Kilsin hasn't directly addressed this as far as I can tell.
Yep, the Access-Nerf, as you've defined it, is the worst. This isn't something exclusive to WoW either.
The devs did this in Vanguard when they changed the exp rates in order to make the leveling time shorter. From the Vanguard patch notes:
Experience rates for killing NPCs have been increased significantly. The experience changes start as a small amount at low levels and scale up to a large amount in the early twenties. From then on, the increase remains fixed. This increase should be very noticeable for players above level fifteen. This change is in response to actual player leveling times not meeting our original target times within many different subsets of the player population. This increase will bring us much closer to our goal without exceeding it.
This was done on March 23, 2007, roughly 3 months after launch. Imagine how mad the players were, who leveled up under the original exp rates, to find out it was now much faster. This change made completely no sense to me. Why increase the leveling speed when there was no end-game content or raid zones in the game at the time? By making leveling faster, players run out of content faster, and quit playing faster because there was nothing to do. What was developers "good" reason for this?
This still irks me to this day haha.
While it's fun to beat something pre-nerf, it's also understandable that things need to be changed and testing can't forsee every possible problem/glitch/exploit/whatever. On the other end of the spectrum you sometimes (doubtful with Panth but who knows) have a raid that's way too easy for the payoff at first and then it gets buffed. It's less common, but it has happened in games.
Someone mensioned denoting an item as pre-raid nerf which I think is kinda cool. Toss in flavor text on a dagger such as, "This tooth dates back to the days when [Boss Dragon Species] had larger venom sacks" if something like an AE got nerfed - but worded better/cooler. However, bosses will possibly go through multiple nerfs/buffs and there can't be an item change every time. So this probably is a bad idea in the end.
If people really want to complain about stuff they got when a raid was hard being too easy all of a sudden after a nerf, they should make sure they destroy items they got before a boss was buffed and reaquire them ;)
I think all nerfs should be done on a case by case basis. Using an EQ example: You had Guise of the Deceiver, a Rogue/Bard mask that was coveted for a clicky effect to cast Illusion: Dark Elf which could be cast by any race/class from the inventory. It was nerfed just shy of 7 months later and replaced with Mask of Deception, which only Rogue and Bard could use. I think it was entirely fine leaving the original with everyone who had obtained one before the nerf/fix. Same idea with Rubicite armor, though that was never replaced.
Other items were just too powerful as far as damage or effects and the retroactive nerf/fix made plenty of sense.
As for encounters themselves, I think fine tuning is okay. If you have a raid that only 1% of the population can kill after months and months, then I don't see a problem tweaking the encounter to be a little more forgiving so that maybe the top 5-10% can achieve success.
Manouk said:Here's a suggestion for the Dev's specifically regarding:
overpowered items/weapons/gear (something with an AE effect that is broader or more devastating than intended) - not spells
or unintended itemization (something ALL/ALL that should be race & class specific)
One way I've seen this handled that worked out (in cases where the item was a little overpowered or slightly more devastating, but not monsterously OP or significantly more devastating) was to leave the people who had the broken item with the broken item, create a new item closer to what the devs had intended, and then remove the broken item from the loot tables, and replace it with the fixed version. I tend to feel like any cases where that kind of fix wouldn't be too broken is the best way to go.
Of course, in cases where even the already dropped versions have to be nerfed, it's super fun to have that much power before the item nerf hits.
Anyone else remember when Kunark first dropped and the trash axe off of the giants was the best weapon in game? (There's a 50 damage 150 delay axe, however it was backwards when Kunark first dropped, 150dmg/50delay, it was so broken that there was a hotfix just for that. However, for a few hours, it was amazeballs)
Shai said:This thread has identified two types of nerf. I will name them:
- The Fix-Nerf - A reduction in difficulty due to unforeseen and unintended consequences, bugs, or abuse.
- The Access-Nerf - A reduction in difficulty intended to facilitate wider access to content.
The Fix-Nerf:
I don't think this is the kind that the OP was talking about, but the thread has spent a lot of time dwelling on it. Most people who object to the "Fix-Nerf" say they're unhappy because it's an indication of poor quality control. In their eyes, any nerf devalues sunk time, but maybe they see this kind as particularly irksome because it's not even for a good reason. To paraphrase: "You messed up by releasing buggy content and I solved it anyway. Now you want to diminish my achievement!? I am agrieved, sir!" Kilsin says: "expect it to happen in Pantheon." Because... of course it will. Come on.
The Access-Nerf
I think this is what the OP was talking about. This is the sort of Nerf where a studio releases difficult content designed for their "core" player demographic, then - after it's been consumed by the high-time users - reduces the difficulty in order to make it accessible by a wider player base. This gives the studio a greater return on their content investment, but there are other reasons too. Players don't like this either for the same reason as before; it devalues their sunk time. Kilsin hasn't directly addressed this as far as I can tell.
The "Access Nerf" just needs to be tested properly the first time around, if companies are basing their content on an elite hardcore guild testing them, then it may be a challenge for them and completely out of reach for the other 95% of their community, so they would reduce the difficulty to bring the challenge more in line with the majority of players after the hardcore crowd finished it.
As long as we use a range of people to help test our content and not just the top ~5% most extreme players, we will get the most balanced feedback and not have to worry about reducing difficulty down the track. ;)
Again, we are human and may make mistakes, content may still need adjusting but that is why we want long testing periods to try and capture as much of that as possible and adjust it before the official release.