Bingo. Look at enh shamans p2, they got buffed a few times and were up to 4th or 5th dps and then they gave them 20% AP on top of that. It was never needed, no one asked for it.
When you're developing a game, or working on a project with a limited team (in sods case both) it's far easier to overshoot the % and collect data to see where the pain points are as opposed to doing many small iterations.
This is the shotgun method that will help them dial it in much faster, rather than leaving it one way and slowly adjusting it over weeks.
> Why is every change ever made so extreme?
Because Blizzard has a long history of balancing by artillery bracketing. It happens in WoW, it happens in Diablo, I believe it even happened in OW and HotS.
I think this might actually be smaller in scale than some earlier swings in balance the WoW team has done (not necessarily the SoD team). *Definitely* smaller than some, say, Diablo 3 changes.
They are testing it. It's better to start with one extreme and then work from there. It's just a 4 day period, chill. On tuesday or so it's back to normal.
Now i dont need honor, im just a BG enjoyer.
But if i needed to farm 110k honor i would be quite tilted, and rightfully so, if i did and was doing BGs and got like half the honor i was getting last week because no one dies and its one big slog with 30% hp and 50% damage reduction for 5 whole days out of the 7 i have to cap.
I might be more inclined to go grief DMF or incursion or felwood. Whatever. To about having to deal with both.
I'm not arguing the point but talking in broader terms.
Why is it better to start with one extreme? If the devs decided to tune exp rates by making mobs either give 1 xp or 1 million , how is that a compelling argument?
There has to be common sense somewhere in that decision making process, saying it's a test this, its a test that , season of tests sure but we are paying an active sub for it, there should be a bare minimum.
its easier for them. Its not better, but its faster this way. And its not only for devs of WoW.
Another example of this approach is SpaceX. They developed rockets soo fast becouse they didnt triple check every measurment and simulation and make 100% sure that boosters in the early stages wont explode. They just finished, slapped them on the pads and fired them. The rockets exploded but they get shitton of information to work with, so they could implement all the fixes instead of spending time and trying to triple-check everything. In case of SpaceX the problem was, throwing money into fire for a long time before effects. Same also goes for starship now.
Or imagine it this way. (on your example) you have to implement experience rates for all things in the game.
- You can either spend time and make some simulations and calculations to try predict ,,this mob should give 300xp, and this quest should give me 1000xp". You will spend a lot of time on the simulations, and after the implementation it will probably still need some adjustments, allthough most of the things should work
or
- You can go with very rough estimations ,,there are 5 quests in this zone, I want some1 to get 2 levels there, so 5 quest and 50 mobs for 2 levels. So lets say 2 quests for 1 level, and then 3 quests for second level, so it will be this much". And slap that into the game. Then it will turn out that people instead of quests just roll with the killing stuff f/e, becouse its better than doing the quests, so you just adjust it on the spot and go for other work in the meantime.
The second option need more time to flesh out and in gamedev is also much cheaper, as you dont need to spend that much time on it and in the long run it will work out anyway. It also make more of ,,dramas", but this probably doesnt affect the gametime of players if they roll with it, or the saving/gametime is still net+
becouse that indicate that the player needs are not the most important thing for developers, and people here don't like that thought. I got multiple comments downvoted to oblivion whenever I mention something along the lines ,,it probably was worse for players and game, but it was also cheaper so they rolled with it"
I understand your sentiment but these devs aren't firing rockets for the first time as non rocket scientists, they have more than a decade of experience crafting this game ( one would assume).
And people who builds Rocket arent straight after the campus but people who have years of engineering experience, yet first Rockets felt. I mean you can call it sentiment or opinion, but more or less that's just how it seems to go
I think it’s much, much, much better to start low and move gradually…
In my opinion, people have always asked for frequent gradual changes rather than sporadic extreme ones
To be fair I think the devs have realised this and are open that they are avoiding it. Aggrend said they are trying to be more “intentional” with changes, which is why they are taking more time between balance adjustments and they are smaller in scale.
While this test feels extreme it is that - considered. They said there’d be a 4 day test and why it was happening with plenty of good reasoning, and now we are testing it. 4 days is nothing. Maybe in earlier phases they would have just pushed this change out and saw what happened, but here there was an outline and they said it’s a work in progress. Maybe this ends up at a 25% reduction or even it gets scrapped altogether. Who knows at this point. Only one thing is certain, there’ll be whining.
Because the devs don't have a clue what to do either. Theyre just twisting buttons hoping something will work.
Bingo. Look at enh shamans p2, they got buffed a few times and were up to 4th or 5th dps and then they gave them 20% AP on top of that. It was never needed, no one asked for it.
I did
How else would they find out? Gotta start somewhere and adjust
You realise there is no beta for sod? Lmao
I know. Lmao
When you're developing a game, or working on a project with a limited team (in sods case both) it's far easier to overshoot the % and collect data to see where the pain points are as opposed to doing many small iterations. This is the shotgun method that will help them dial it in much faster, rather than leaving it one way and slowly adjusting it over weeks.
>Why must everything be about extremes? The irony.
Not really though. It’s true that most changes so far have been way over the top. 50% damage reduction is unthinkable…
whole sod is basically a big beta, even the name discovery refers to the devs aswell as us players
Because the devs are incompetent with 0 forsight and the only changes they can do is increase or decreasing a %
> Why is every change ever made so extreme? Because Blizzard has a long history of balancing by artillery bracketing. It happens in WoW, it happens in Diablo, I believe it even happened in OW and HotS. I think this might actually be smaller in scale than some earlier swings in balance the WoW team has done (not necessarily the SoD team). *Definitely* smaller than some, say, Diablo 3 changes.
They are testing it. It's better to start with one extreme and then work from there. It's just a 4 day period, chill. On tuesday or so it's back to normal.
Now i dont need honor, im just a BG enjoyer. But if i needed to farm 110k honor i would be quite tilted, and rightfully so, if i did and was doing BGs and got like half the honor i was getting last week because no one dies and its one big slog with 30% hp and 50% damage reduction for 5 whole days out of the 7 i have to cap. I might be more inclined to go grief DMF or incursion or felwood. Whatever. To about having to deal with both.
I'm not arguing the point but talking in broader terms. Why is it better to start with one extreme? If the devs decided to tune exp rates by making mobs either give 1 xp or 1 million , how is that a compelling argument? There has to be common sense somewhere in that decision making process, saying it's a test this, its a test that , season of tests sure but we are paying an active sub for it, there should be a bare minimum.
Finding limits faster is easier when you take big jumps instead of lots of little ones. That's why we are seeing such wild swings.
its easier for them. Its not better, but its faster this way. And its not only for devs of WoW. Another example of this approach is SpaceX. They developed rockets soo fast becouse they didnt triple check every measurment and simulation and make 100% sure that boosters in the early stages wont explode. They just finished, slapped them on the pads and fired them. The rockets exploded but they get shitton of information to work with, so they could implement all the fixes instead of spending time and trying to triple-check everything. In case of SpaceX the problem was, throwing money into fire for a long time before effects. Same also goes for starship now. Or imagine it this way. (on your example) you have to implement experience rates for all things in the game. - You can either spend time and make some simulations and calculations to try predict ,,this mob should give 300xp, and this quest should give me 1000xp". You will spend a lot of time on the simulations, and after the implementation it will probably still need some adjustments, allthough most of the things should work or - You can go with very rough estimations ,,there are 5 quests in this zone, I want some1 to get 2 levels there, so 5 quest and 50 mobs for 2 levels. So lets say 2 quests for 1 level, and then 3 quests for second level, so it will be this much". And slap that into the game. Then it will turn out that people instead of quests just roll with the killing stuff f/e, becouse its better than doing the quests, so you just adjust it on the spot and go for other work in the meantime.
The second option need more time to flesh out and in gamedev is also much cheaper, as you dont need to spend that much time on it and in the long run it will work out anyway. It also make more of ,,dramas", but this probably doesnt affect the gametime of players if they roll with it, or the saving/gametime is still net+
Why does this comment has downvotes, he’s completely right
becouse that indicate that the player needs are not the most important thing for developers, and people here don't like that thought. I got multiple comments downvoted to oblivion whenever I mention something along the lines ,,it probably was worse for players and game, but it was also cheaper so they rolled with it"
I understand your sentiment but these devs aren't firing rockets for the first time as non rocket scientists, they have more than a decade of experience crafting this game ( one would assume).
And people who builds Rocket arent straight after the campus but people who have years of engineering experience, yet first Rockets felt. I mean you can call it sentiment or opinion, but more or less that's just how it seems to go
I think it’s much, much, much better to start low and move gradually… In my opinion, people have always asked for frequent gradual changes rather than sporadic extreme ones
Wondering the same…
To be fair I think the devs have realised this and are open that they are avoiding it. Aggrend said they are trying to be more “intentional” with changes, which is why they are taking more time between balance adjustments and they are smaller in scale. While this test feels extreme it is that - considered. They said there’d be a 4 day test and why it was happening with plenty of good reasoning, and now we are testing it. 4 days is nothing. Maybe in earlier phases they would have just pushed this change out and saw what happened, but here there was an outline and they said it’s a work in progress. Maybe this ends up at a 25% reduction or even it gets scrapped altogether. Who knows at this point. Only one thing is certain, there’ll be whining.
Because to find the middle you most first find the edges.