Info > Release Notes
1.4.5 New Balance Changes "When Ambush Comes To Shove"
Hoja Lateralus:
--- Quote from: nanoduckling on March 20, 2016, 06:27:19 pm ---I've asked this previously, but it was a small part of a longer discussion. I really feel like folks would benefit from an answer to it as it underlies a lot of the issues I see here.
Why are small, frequent incremental balance changes seen as less desirable than big occasional ones?
--- End quote ---
Because of Muse's method. As they have said, their basis for balance changes are in-game statistics from non-competetive matches. Therefore it is more reasonable to wait and collect more data to prove or disprove validity of your balance changes. That's basically what Howard or Matthew have said, that perhaps they have waited for too long, but basically they wanted X months of time (collecting stats) before reacting. That's why they didn't react to people's feedback regarding pyra nerf. Since community is small perhaps a month-worth of data isn't statistically significant (enough). If Devs relied more on feedback than on stats, they could do the monthly changes.
Personally I think various patches prove that this way of thinking is ineffective. As some of you pointed out - it makes Muse buff the competetive meta-ship and nerf the competetive no-no ship. Nuff said.
nanoduckling:
That's fine in principle Disaster, but that is why I asked about the power analysis (I know you largely agree with my perspective here but I want to explain further my reasoning).
I did a back of the envelope calculation on how much data a typical days worth of GoI playing will generate and it is way bigger than any data set I ever get to work with. ~200 players online at a time, typical game time plus lobby ~30 mins, ~20 players per game, so ~20 games an hour makes ~500 games a day. That means a month gives ~15,000 games to work with. I wish I had those kinds of sample sizes for my work.
I'm not one of the folks who is grumpy that stats play a big role in balancing, although I share the concern that stats are being used without sufficient context. I worry if the stats are of sufficient quality and specificity to do the job being asked of them.
I also think balancing for low level play is foolhardy, but Muse tell us it is a mix. Well I would like to know what kind of mix. Is it 60-40, or 90-10? Because if the balance changes are going to be almost entirely determined by novice game statistics then my input and the input of other experienced players is mostly a waste of time. I'm happy to help pull the tractor out of the mud, but I need to know enough of us are pulling towards the road. If most of the pulling is just towards an entirely different patch of mud then I'm not sure I'm of much use.
I would like to know a bit more about what those stats actually are and how big a role they play though.
Chang'e:
Atruejedi would like us to know that ramming and receiving rams feels good.
Sorry. Just had to get that out of my system. It's a good read, and Muse did say they're reading it, so hopefully we'll see it implemented in the near future.
ZnC:
--- Quote from: GeoRmr on March 21, 2016, 07:27:57 pm ---I'm just going to email muse and refer them to jedis post and google doc
10 out of 10 nail on the head feedback
maybe if everyone emails them linking it some good will happen
--- End quote ---
Geo, Keyvias told jedi to share his feedback with the community. So I'm pretty sure they already know. :x
GeoRmr:
--- Quote from: Zanc on March 22, 2016, 10:07:14 am ---
--- Quote from: GeoRmr on March 21, 2016, 07:27:57 pm ---I'm just going to email muse and refer them to jedis post and google doc
10 out of 10 nail on the head feedback
maybe if everyone emails them linking it some good will happen
--- End quote ---
Geo, Keyvias told jedi to share his feedback with the community. So I'm pretty sure they already know. :x
--- End quote ---
It's about showing that we support it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version