Jump to content

Nerfing In General - Quickest Way To Lose Your Playerbase


Recommended Posts

Maybe, when she and Rhino are not unkillable, than we can have better fights both boss and non-boss, and some of her other skills can be looked at. Maybe they have goals and plans that stretch out for the next 6 months that you are not aware of and the entire game is better off for the adjustments they are making and testing. Maybe they know shes useless and are working on a non-toxic way to fix her, which probably wont happen because her kit was a dumb idea in the first place as the entire damn thing is op and passive, not to mention boring.

DE's patch track record makes me seriously doubt that. 90% of balance changes have been "Nerf this, then nerf the gear that takes its place."

 

Another issue with skill balancing is that DE seems completely adamant in not removing the skills everybody deems useless. They're just planning on adding more super rare frame skills you have to collect. DE needs to stop doing this, they need to stop adding things and start balancing the pool they have now. It was bad enough that they brought in a very slot expensive mod as the answer to the knockdown recovery complaints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, when she and Rhino are not unkillable, than we can have better fights both boss and non-boss, and some of her other skills can be looked at. Maybe they have goals and plans that stretch out for the next 6 months that you are not aware of and the entire game is better off for the adjustments they are making and testing. Maybe they know shes useless and are working on a non-toxic way to fix her, which probably wont happen because her kit was a dumb idea in the first place as the entire damn thing is op and passive, not to mention boring.

Maybe we can just stop having bosses whose entire tactic to beating them is "stand there and shoot them"? Maybe then warframes with invincibility and damage decreasing abilities won't be so OP. The game will also be less boring. Over all "beta" isn't a good excuse for bad design decisions, if anything they should be working harder to make a quality product, they're relying on the beta testers to spread word of their game and keep it afloat. Personally I had been planning to spend real money until seeing this atrocious update and their response to it and I'm not the only one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
@OP : If you've played Diablo 3, when you buy an item from the auction house, there is a pop-up that essentially says "Items may be altered at any time."

I just searched for the words on that pop-up and ound their FAQ - I think it fits here perfectly...

What happens if there is a patch and the item I purchased is altered?

It's important for us to ensure that Diablo III remains balanced and fun for years after launch. To that end, it may be necessary to change stats or alter abilities of items from time to time. It’s very important to note that Blizzard will not be providing refunds or making other accommodations if a purchased item is later altered in a patch. Given this, it's up to players to determine whether they're comfortable purchasing items in the real-money auction house.

I'll repeat that: 'It's up to the players to determine whether they're comfortable purchasing items' [that may change].

Good call.

How many of its players did diablo 3 lose in the first 3 months of its launch? 70%?

Why not compare straight to End of Nations which imploded onto itself after the first open beta?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good call.

How many of its players did diablo 3 lose in the first 3 months of its launch? 70%?

Why not compare straight to End of Nations which imploded onto itself after the first open beta?

 

lol 70%

lol at trying to insinuate that item balancing was the reason people left d3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much every game I've ever played has the same mentality. I've never really understood it, but have gotten used it it.

 

@OP : If you've played Diablo 3, when you buy an item from the auction house, there is a pop-up that essentially says "Items may be altered at any time."

I just searched for the words on that pop-up and ound their FAQ - I think it fits here perfectly...

What happens if there is a patch and the item I purchased is altered?

It's important for us to ensure that Diablo III remains balanced and fun for years after launch. To that end, it may be necessary to change stats or alter abilities of items from time to time. It’s very important to note that Blizzard will not be providing refunds or making other accommodations if a purchased item is later altered in a patch. Given this, it's up to players to determine whether they're comfortable purchasing items in the real-money auction house.

I'll repeat that: 'It's up to the players to determine whether they're comfortable purchasing items' [that may change].

If you'd ever played Diablo 3 you'd know it was the greatest gaming disappointment of the last decade. Not exactly something I'd encourage DE to aspire to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol 70%

lol at trying to insinuate that item balancing was the reason people left d3

No, He's not wrong. If a game gets balanced to the degree that what was enjoyable is no longer enjoyable, people will leave. There are always better things out there. And he's not wrong about the playerbase of diablo 3 either. 76% of the player base fell off in the first 3 months. That is of course the people who bought the game at launch which was well over a million. I forget the number of units sold. Either way, your post is just you mocking someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, He's not wrong. If a game gets balanced to the degree that what was enjoyable is no longer enjoyable, people will leave. There are always better things out there. And he's not wrong about the playerbase of diablo 3 either. 76% of the player base fell off in the first 3 months. That is of course the people who bought the game at launch which was well over a million. I forget the number of units sold. Either way, your post is just you mocking someone.

 

those people leaving had nothing to do with item balancing, and anyone even remotely paying attention to the media surrounding the game knows that

Link to post
Share on other sites

those people leaving had nothing to do with item balancing, and anyone even remotely paying attention to the media surrounding the game knows that

Thank you for educating us about how bad of an example D3 is, maybe then it shouldnt have been bought up as an example in the first place?

Other than its all about changes, but if you really want to nit pick that hard, then there is planet side for you.

Feel free to review what the constant "balancing" of Sony has wrought in terms of online players.

They started with 20+ different game servers, they are down to 9.

Player base dropped 70-80% even with careful estimates

 

The thing that baffles me the most is that one has to bring examples for you and the white knighting children, cause they refuse to accept the fact that decisions like these impact negatively on the population.

SURPRISE SURPRISE: They do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@diablo

 

Clearly you all missed the point of bringing up diablo.

 

THE ONLY POINT OF DOING SO was to demonstrate that items will change in beta, in release. Game companies have the right to do that for better or worse. It is YOUR right as a consumer to support them or not when they do these things.

 

Explaining why the "nerf" (more like fix) wasn't needed would be far more useful than saying "nerfs will drive away players".

 

I'd bet money very very few people leave over this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@diablo

Clearly you all missed the point of bringing up diablo.

THE ONLY POINT OF DOING SO was to demonstrate that items will change in beta, in release. Game companies have the right to do that for better or worse. It is YOUR right as a consumer to support them or not when they do these things.

Explaining why the "nerf" (more like fix) wasn't needed would be far more useful than saying "nerfs will drive away players".

I'd bet money very very few people leave over this.

Two things Aki...

1. After the first large update in PlanetSide, people said the same. Then came the next patch, the next, the next and the next, till there was no longer any use for the servers and they had to be merged, just so people would find someone to shoot.

The result of these "very very few people leave over this" patches can be viewed on any graph revolving around player and server load measurement. The results vary between 70 and 80% player loss compared to day 1.

 

2. (And this is the actual point) None of the current ragery would have happened if the developers would have a BIT of common sense.

Such as for instance, not waiting 2 months before fixing a frame that is OBVIOUSLY overpowered, or do you care to explain it for us how to view banshee's case?

Well, accidentally we put a frame in the game that cleared 2 rooms straight on an ultimate. Shall we fix it? Naaaaah.

Lets wait till whatever percentage of the player base has farmed it, invested in it, or bought it via actual money. Once it has played out its usefulness, we will ram it to the ground.

 

See nerfing will always invoke negative feelings in people.

It just goes a bit worse, when you start an underhanded business model such as intentionally overpowering a frame so people would buy it, and then nerfing it to hell.

I dont know whether it was incapability, stupidity, or the exact opposite: dirty and logical thinking that has lead the devs to wait months before suddenly getting the idea, that the frames they have created might be a bit overpowered, but as the story goes: it doesnt matter and nobody gives a damn because people have already invested in these frames.

 

Next comes the excalibur nerf, the frost nerf, the trinity nerf, the saryn nerf, the volt nerf, the vauban nerf, and at the same time everything will be made even more harder to get. Yeah. I bet nobody will give a damn about it.

Lets see how much of a blood bath the forum will be turned into during the course of the next 1 month. Shall we?

Edited by Aerensiniac
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.

 

Clear and exact patch notes are needed.  People want to see balance.  Things that are too powerful being made less powerful.  Skills that are not useful enough made more powerful.

 

Transparency is no longer an option.  It's necessary, because so many other developers provide it.  You don't need full transparency, but you can't keep your players in the dark until you make big changes.

 

Bring bad news with good news. Otherwise, players develop learned helplessness and negative feelings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a) it's beta, of course frames powers are going to change

b) there are more important bugs and issues to address than certain powers being too good for a few weeks, its all PvE, so people farm a little easier for a few weeks, its not game breaking

c) you would have to be a complete moron to not expect nerfs to things like banshee's sound quake after just seeing the thing used or using it once

A) Other than the word beta next to the name, what part of this game is in beta? beta or not, charging a person $20 in plat for a warfarme or two and making heavy handed changes without any warning is bad biz

 

B) nerfs are needed, there are some warfarmes and powers that have been abused but..... tell the people, i have been playing MMOs since the days of EQ1, and have been thru more MMOs than I can care to count and only a few have stood the test the time, and all of them have been very very open about any and all changes.....dont be affraid of the playerbase, we are more understanding than most think

 

C) seeing nerfs comming? I did, I knew Rhino Skin would be nerfed, once I used it and found out about it I couldnt believe it....reducing to 80% damage is fair, but dropping some of the immunties was to much, and now its also buggy!

 

Overall some of the changes are needed, but if you are going to expect players to be loyal, be loyal to them, and understand that most gamers today are not teen kids (at least the paying ones) write it out, have an open disscusion, even if you dont change anything, a few days of knowing ahead of time is all most people want, and a reason why

 

(See EVE Online forums, they detail every rebalance to the .01 for every stat on every weapon or ship change, or new ships / weapons months ahead of time, they also have been earning millions a year for 10+ years)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good call.

How many of its players did diablo 3 lose in the first 3 months of its launch? 70%?

Why not compare straight to End of Nations which imploded onto itself after the first open beta?

I'm one of the players that Blizzard lost. I had Diablo 3 pre ordered and I played in the beta. Then the launch occurred and I couldn't even get into the game in the first 2 days. When I finally did get into the game, I found that it was hosted on blizzard's end and not client side, even in solo mode. So much for dodging the immense network lag with that. Not only that, there were hackers that were able to crack the authentication and bypass the login process and steal players items. Like... a fully leveled barbarian decked out in rares and such completely stripped and discarded. After seeing this happen before my own eyes, I logged off and put in a ticket for a refund. ( Reason being I do not agree to the EULA ) and I got it.

I have not even looked at the game since then. That many bad things happening that close together....

Link to post
Share on other sites

A) Other than the word beta next to the name, what part of this game is in beta? beta or not, charging a person $20 in plat for a warfarme or two and making heavy handed changes without any warning is bad biz

 

B) nerfs are needed, there are some warfarmes and powers that have been abused but..... tell the people, i have been playing MMOs since the days of EQ1, and have been thru more MMOs than I can care to count and only a few have stood the test the time, and all of them have been very very open about any and all changes.....dont be affraid of the playerbase, we are more understanding than most think

 

C) seeing nerfs comming? I did, I knew Rhino Skin would be nerfed, once I used it and found out about it I couldnt believe it....reducing to 80% damage is fair, but dropping some of the immunties was to much, and now its also buggy!

 

Overall some of the changes are needed, but if you are going to expect players to be loyal, be loyal to them, and understand that most gamers today are not teen kids (at least the paying ones) write it out, have an open disscusion, even if you dont change anything, a few days of knowing ahead of time is all most people want, and a reason why

 

(See EVE Online forums, they detail every rebalance to the .01 for every stat on every weapon or ship change, or new ships / weapons months ahead of time, they also have been earning millions a year for 10+ years)

 

I like your post, you see, finally a post that gives opinion on why the changes were bad, and how to make it different! bring those exact words into a whole new thread and get DE's attention on it, and you're probably gonna see a change. and good thing to see that you understand rhino nerf. It was abusive the way it was working, and I don't understand why people are crying about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think the changes were very much needed. All frames need less invuln if we ever want to have challenging enemies that don't rely on stunlock.

 

However, this game is charging cash for items, and on steam, while being a "beta". I really think DE needs to look at what they're doing before they actually do it (gorgon overkill nerf, blanket shotgun nerf, recent updates causing super-tank mega ospreys). It's as if they don't actually playtest before they release updates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things Aki...

2. (And this is the actual point) None of the current ragery would have happened if the developers would have a BIT of common sense.

Such as for instance, not waiting 2 months before fixing a frame that is OBVIOUSLY overpowered, or do you care to explain it for us how to view banshee's case?

Well, accidentally we put a frame in the game that cleared 2 rooms straight on an ultimate. Shall we fix it? Naaaaah.

Lets wait till whatever percentage of the player base has farmed it, invested in it, or bought it via actual money. Once it has played out its usefulness, we will ram it to the ground.

 

I guess this is the difference between you and I.

 

The VERY FIRST TIME I saw Banshee's skill used, and how crazy ridiculous the radius was, I realized how OP it was and that it would probably be nerfed sooner rather than later.

 

You claim that any bit of common sense by the devs and they would know that they should not have designed it like that. Well as a player with any bit of common sense, you should have known that a nerf (fix) was pretty much inevitable. To assume anything else is naive at best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think the changes were very much needed. All frames need less invuln if we ever want to have challenging enemies that don't rely on stunlock.

 

However, this game is charging cash for items, and on steam, while being a "beta". I really think DE needs to look at what they're doing before they actually do it (gorgon overkill nerf, blanket shotgun nerf, recent updates causing super-tank mega ospreys). It's as if they don't actually playtest before they release updates.

 

That extra testing comes at a cost. With DE we get updates/hotfixes every week or so. With companies that extensively playtest to make sure it's a solid release, you only get updates once a month give or take.

 

Personally, I'd much rather have the constant but imperfect updates than waiting around and possibly getting bored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leech ospreys are in the same faction as the fusion moas, which broke them. How do you run into one but not the other? This implies they don't even play a level or two to see if everything runs correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That extra testing comes at a cost. With DE we get updates/hotfixes every week or so. With companies that extensively playtest to make sure it's a solid release, you only get updates once a month give or take.

 

Personally, I'd much rather have the constant but imperfect updates than waiting around and possibly getting bored.

The Dota 2 team manages to update the game every week and not break everything.

 

And even if DE can't update that fast, I'd rather take an update that has been taken care of properly instead of a rushed mess. It's getting tiresome now seeing how much of a mess is made every update, how many new bugs are introduced, how many old bugs rear their heads again etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think the changes were very much needed. All frames need less invuln if we ever want to have challenging enemies that don't rely on stunlock.

 

However, this game is charging cash for items, and on steam, while being a "beta". I really think DE needs to look at what they're doing before they actually do it (gorgon overkill nerf, blanket shotgun nerf, recent updates causing super-tank mega ospreys). It's as if they don't actually playtest before they release updates.

Except here's the thing. Removing any and all invincibility frames does not a challenge make. Look at excellent games like Devil May Cry 1, 3 and 4 or God Hand. Excellent, challenging combat systems and heavy inclusion of invincibility frames. Now imagine if a game like god hand had these devs behind it and took out all invincibility? It'd be a terribly unfun game after that. Just because they're too lazy to do anything more than up the firing rate of an enemy and rely on stunlock to make things "challenging" doesn't mean we should suffer unbearably dumb design decisions that will cripple the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except here's the thing. Removing any and all invincibility frames does not a challenge make. Look at excellent games like Devil May Cry 1, 3 and 4 or God Hand. Excellent, challenging combat systems and heavy inclusion of invincibility frames. Now imagine if a game like god hand had these devs behind it and took out all invincibility? It'd be a terribly unfun game after that. Just because they're too lazy to do anything more than up the firing rate of an enemy and rely on stunlock to make things "challenging" doesn't mean we should suffer unbearably dumb design decisions that will cripple the game.

Invincibility frames are one thing, 2-5 seconds of invuln while killing everything nearby is another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thread who complains about changes during a BETA. These threads are so funny :D

Because that excuse holds merit when there's a cash shop actively being pushed and the most recent update has made grinding even more of a chore.

 

If you're not going to add anything to a discussion, don't post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate the fact that a lot of games remain in "beta" for a lot longer then they should because they can tweak stuff indefinitely and just chalk it up to,

 

"Beta growth spurts."

 

If a game goes live with a cash shop you can spend real money in it?

 

It's a 'soft' launch to me.

 

It's not beta anymore.

 

It better be beta still... because the game has no proper beginning or end. It merely is the framework for a TPS space ninja dungeon crawler. What I am finding is that open betas become a downward spiral.

 

 

Games go into open beta with a half-finished game with the intention of finishing it while rolling. What seems to actually happen is that the cash store opens (because the game needs a revenue stream), people start buying, then start demanding, and Devs have to start treating that half-finished game as if it is an actual game. Early adopters skillcap and levelcap, demand more 'stuff' to keep the interested (rather than a proper endgame) while new players are turned off by the lack of proper introduction and tutorial. New weapons keep getting added to keep revenue coming to pay for development. The nerf wars start. Forums turn hostile. Reviews of the game start to turn sour. Old players leave because 'the game never became what it promised to become'. New players stop showing up, because most of them already tried it in its early unfinished state and weren't all that impressed. The game can no longer support a full development staff so they cut down to a skeleton crew to maintain the game and trickle in content. No radical changes occur any longer. The game dies.

Let's hope that doesn't happen here, but that is the curse of open beta - and we are all contributing to it as much as the developers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...