Why do developers take away to bring balance?

Lizelle

Because making something fun for everyone (with all their different opinions and preferences) it very difficult if not impossible. So sometimes you have to give, sometime you have to take... it is a balancing act.

Aett_Thorn

You will ALWAYS see more complaints on the forum than you'll see people supporting it. It's a particular type o sampling bias. Basically, people who either don't mind a change or even like it are much more likely to go to the forums to talk about it. Meanwhile, people who are upset are very likely to go and complain somewhere.

Doesn't mean that there are more people who don't like it than ones who do. Doesn't mean the opposite, either, though.

akray21

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

You will ALWAYS see more complaints on the forum than you'll see people supporting it. It's a particular type o sampling bias. Basically, people who either don't mind a change or even like it are much more likely to go to the forums to talk about it. Meanwhile, people who are upset are very likely to go and complain somewhere.

Doesn't mean that there are more people who don't like it than ones who do. Doesn't mean the opposite, either, though.

I understand... Sample size...

I play with DK's, Sorcs, and Temps'... I'm the only NB, and they don't see the NS set as OP, they actually wonder why I use it over something more useful...

BBSooner

If the set bonus synergy was that important to players then maybe ZOS didn't want people to be that reliant on something unrelated to the character itself, with or without acceptable counters. I can see how they would want to prevent a set bonus from being so central to a persons build (to the extent where the loss/reduction creates claims of class imbalance) would be an issue when trying to actually homogenize the performance of each class.

MercyKilling

Actually, to be more on topic it most certainly does seem like all game developers nerf rather than buff when seeking balance.

This could perhaps be because people complain loud about nerfs and do not mention anything that's been buffed, however.

Pantherin

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

I would buff what needed to be buffed, and nerf what needed to be nerfed. There are usually reasons behind the Devs choosing one or the other besides laziness or malice. However, sometimes it does mean making some players mad to make a better game experience.

Every other title before yours failed...because people were unhappy and quit

You would still take that approach and risk the same end results?

I would take a different approach...and strive for more.

Aett_Thorn

What are you talking about? "Every title before yours..." What titles are these? If you're talking about games, then some of these "failed" titles lasted for years, some even a decade or more, doing exactly what I described.

Pantherin

Lizelle wrote: »

Because making something fun for everyone (with all their different opinions and preferences) it very difficult if not impossible. So sometimes you have to give, sometime you have to take... it is a balancing act.

I can agree with that...

But if you never take...and always give...wouldn't you in fact be continuing to make it fun?

Taking is never fun...or results in positive feelings...

Aett_Thorn

Pantherin wrote: »

I can agree with that...

But if you never take...and always give...wouldn't you in fact be continuing to make it fun?

Taking is never fun...or results in positive feelings...

In the short term, yes. In the long run, people get VERY bored if you do nothing but buff, because the game becomes too easy.

Pantherin

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

You will ALWAYS see more complaints on the forum than you'll see people supporting it. It's a particular type o sampling bias. Basically, people who either don't mind a change or even like it are much more likely to go to the forums to talk about it. Meanwhile, people who are upset are very likely to go and complain somewhere.

Doesn't mean that there are more people who don't like it than ones who do. Doesn't mean the opposite, either, though.

True.

Pantherin

MercyKilling wrote: »

Actually, to be more on topic it most certainly does seem like all game developers nerf rather than buff when seeking balance.

This could perhaps be because people complain loud about nerfs and do not mention anything that's been buffed, however.

Perhaps...

But when they focus on the negative it becomes the reality.

They being the Devs. ..

Pantherin

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

What are you talking about? "Every title before yours..." What titles are these? If you're talking about games, then some of these "failed" titles lasted for years, some even a decade or more, doing exactly what I described.

Yes games...

Games we all left for one reason or another...

Because of the nerfs and changes we didn't like.

Pantherin

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

Pantherin wrote: »

I can agree with that...

But if you never take...and always give...wouldn't you in fact be continuing to make it fun?

Taking is never fun...or results in positive feelings...

In the short term, yes. In the long run, people get VERY bored if you do nothing but buff, because the game becomes too easy.

Yes easy is boring...but wouldn't the balance of adding make it to where it wasn't easy and still a challenge?

Adding to the content...adding to the community. ..

If it was out of control. ..yes I could see it being way to easy and boring..

Pantherin

...Ok.

...let's try this...

Pick one thing You feel needs to be balanced
or nerfed and instead of taking away from the game tell me how you could add to the game to bring balance...

Aett_Thorn

Pantherin wrote: »

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

What are you talking about? "Every title before yours..." What titles are these? If you're talking about games, then some of these "failed" titles lasted for years, some even a decade or more, doing exactly what I described.

Yes games...

Games we all left for one reason or another...

Because of the nerfs and changes we didn't like.

I came mainly from City of Heroes. A game which I played from almost the beginning to when the servers shut down. I didn't stop because of nerfs or changes, but because they pulled the plug on the game after 8 years.

The MMO I played in between was Neverwinter, which had no clue what it was doing in terms of game balance, and was merging underpowered classes and buffing overpowered ones. It was fun for a bit, but got old real fast because the entire PvE experience from 1-50 was no challenge at all.

Pantherin

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

Pantherin wrote: »

Aett_Thorn wrote: »

What are you talking about? "Every title before yours..." What titles are these? If you're talking about games, then some of these "failed" titles lasted for years, some even a decade or more, doing exactly what I described.

Yes games...

Games we all left for one reason or another...

Because of the nerfs and changes we didn't like.

I came mainly from City of Heroes. A game which I played from almost the beginning to when the servers shut down. I didn't stop because of nerfs or changes, but because they pulled the plug on the game after 8 years.

The MMO I played in between was Neverwinter, which had no clue what it was doing in terms of game balance, and was merging underpowered classes and buffing overpowered ones. It was fun for a bit, but got old real fast because the entire PvE experience from 1-50 was no challenge at all.

Yes.

Great game...I was also disappointed.

My gaming experience began with Ultima Online...and just about every MMOS after that....unless I was deployed...which I did that four times....a lot of games and a lot of experience. ..more than some less than others...it was the nerfs that caused me to lose interest and ultimately unsub

jelliedsoup

akray21 wrote: »

Circuitous wrote: »

akray21 wrote: »

Not unfair advantage... again, it has no combat utility...

Combat isn't where it has an unfair advantage. Using this set, you can easily beat people to resource nodes, harvest them (without getting off a horse or even leaving sneak), then sprint off to the next one faster than anyone else could even hope to attempt.

If you're willing to change sets beforehand (addons exist for just this purpose!), you can blaze to a combat zone, then switch to actual combat-viable armor before engaging before anyone on a horse could get there.

I think ZOS thought similarly to a lot of the set's users when they created it: let them give up combat prowess for incredible speed, and do cool things with it. Then the reality set in, and reports were filed on how the set is actually being used, and they decided it's best to pull the plug now, maybe try again with a tweaked set later.

Speed horses beat this set.

It was pretty obvious they were always going to nerf this.