@Omnipotent Surely you realize that this meme is what you guys sound like by saying that… Having worked in game design, and specifically with content balancing, it’s a cop-out to be intentionally vague. Either you’re unconfident in your decisions as developers (and consequently worried that players will ‘call you out’), or you’re seeking to take advantage of the players’ ignorance on the system.
The only time a game developer will be taken seriously being vague is when they’ve already built a foundation of players trusting them to make good balancing decisions. HHG does not have that at all. Look at Panzer or Ifrit. Look at the fact that 80% of the heroes that exist are entirely unused and useless. If you want good feedback and a constructive dialogue with the players, then the players must be able to see how things are changing. You haven’t earned the right to be trusted to do a good job with balancing.
While Papa Marsh message may sound harsh, I totally agree with this one sentence. You always talk about listening to feedback, but we can’t give any feedback at all with such vague patchnotes
While I find the standpoint an agreeable one, I still would like a section to expand on it. Heck I don’t need numbers, but as some suggested the HotS approach wouldn’t be a bad one either (if overhauls or changes are done, add a bit of fluff text to expand on the matter, most of the time accurate numbers are there too)
For an example, let’s take Ifrit.
Your post implies a cool down Improvement. Normally I can view this statement in a few ways as there is no context or body to the statement:
Improvement sounds positive, so does it mean we are getting him to pound the ground even faster ( while it’s off the active cast gating)
We ‘improve’ the cool down by adding a higher amount of cycle time to it before another cast goes off.
We improve the cool down by making his hits count toward timer reduction.
This is what is meant by vague, devs. Let us put it to perspective. A direct translation would be: “we’re giving you a Batman franchise Joker” ( inspired after the melee Kurtz riflemen who bravely went behind enemy lines for some regular good ole high jinks)
And I’m like oh boy it’s Batman Joker! where HHG posts saying “find out which Joker you get”. So I get all giddy and log in, but my smile turns upside down; I was expecting a mark Hamill or Heath ledger Joker (I’d even take Cesar Romero!), but no, I got Jared Leto’s Joker.
In short, vague patch notes lead to two things:
false expectations as they are fully based on theory-crafting. This in turn leads to slow ability to deliver feedback and even slower dev response rates as the game runs no beta(or hero focus) testing for changes. This is how we get Panzer/Ifrit/Flatline in the first place as technically one of the main viable metas. We need a testing ground to help you guys make sure such abominations do not appear.
Players cannot trust the notes. You may as well post “NOTES owe us money! Why does NOTE not pay US their dues?” Patch notes are there to inform in some way or shape what @HHGs mission statement is, without basing everything on pure conjecture. I’d say Panzer’s overflowing damage is one that fits the bill here. We got told her damage would be tuned down, where in game I regret to inform you that removing shell strength vs barrier was not an issue.
In short, I would happily find some middle ground in the patch notes. However, the current status just doesn’t sit right with me as having to figure out hat exactly is being changed by playing the game is hard to figure out, unless I decide to fill my photo library with screen caps and do the before after thing. Posting accurate notes and inviting top tier PvPers for feedback on changes DEFINITELY should be something you should consider.
Yes thank you. The vague balance notes and this statement right here highlight that HHG does not in fact have desire to put effort into balancing the game. This is what would keep HH relevant in the long term. Instead, they are milking the cash-cow dry by focusing nearly all effort into short term profits. HHG proves again that Short-Term Gain > Long-Term Sustainability.
