Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 130

Thread: Disharmony

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Obtena View Post
    Sure, you're assuming they are addressing profs 'that needs help' first. That's not necessarily the case. It would be nice admittedly but that's obviously not their approach.
    Based on any law of necessitation (Oh, say, Maslow's heirachy of needs, for example), it would be pertinent to assume that that would be their approach - in essense, any time a person (or, to complete the analogy, a char) has an extreme need it rises to the top of the actions pile. When chars don't have any significant need their priority is lessened and they do not get attention.

    This would, by all accounts fairly well represent the way that forum based QQ works.

    The fundamental flaw with this system is that when there is a significant imbalance in the ratio of respective professions.

    Consider this situation:

    100 enforcers
    100 crats
    100 doctors
    80 soldiers
    80 engineers
    40 shades
    10 advies
    3 NT's
    2 MA's
    1 keeper
    1 MP
    1 trader
    1 agent

    If you assume that in the beginning there were equal proportions of all professions, and, you can assume that for every nerf or overpowered gain of another prof that a few members of each OTHER prof left out of frustration, that you start to see why some professions endure as popular choices over time.

    Subsequently, in mature game stage, another problem arises. This problem is a artifact of poor game management in ther previous stage of game development.

    This problem is completely different from the previous. Now the problem is imbalanced representation, and fallacious representation of needs among the population.

    Now, when there is such a heavy bias towards the big 4, there is a massive undermining of the general principal of needs and priorities. here's why:

    1. If there is 1 MA on the forums, and MA's get nerfed, one MA can only post so much before he finally gives up, in which case there will be no more MA representation on the forums and thus MA's can be nerfed forever and no one will care, furthermore because no-one ever sees actiave MA's in game, no one, despite how bad player they might be, will QQ over MA's because there are none. thus rendering them a static profession. They no longer recieve benefits, and no longer recieve nerfs.

    2. If there is 100 enforcers on the forums, if they get wind of even a tiny nerf, the QQ fest will rage far into the night and not stop until the Dev's have relented. hence cementing enforcers in the top ranks of "I cry until I get what I want" and never leave the top spot (notice anything familiar?)

    3. This situation is self perpetuating and relative balance is always and completely skewed towards the professions represented by the top 4-5 profs. Every other prof languishes. As time marches on, the effects can be seen in game and on forums, and in the Dev's patch notes. Enforcers never get nerfed, they get the biggest gains, and everyone who wants to be remotely competitive MUST roll an enforcer - and their presence on forums and in game continues to rise.

    Hegemony befits hegemony.

    Therefore, whatever approach you think FC has, is actually not an approach, it's actually some whimsical denigration of responsibility where they merely try to maintain the status quo of the most populous profs to keep them happy.

    The assumption that they have "an approach", therefore is flawed by 1. game maturity 2. lack of responsibility and proper integration of a heirarchy of needs during game adolescense and 3. lack of leadership during mature game stage that might have repositioned the development team in the ranks of "good" GD's as opposed to "bad" GD's who merely attempt to carry the torch before they fall on their face.


    On another note, I am an modeller. So, I actually build complex programs for a living, and trust me, the approach is the first thing you need to explain to any peer review board.

    The approach doesn't have to be any significant document on it's own, but it should be included in any document reporting on the modelling system (or software). As such, you would expect that FC has an approach.

    I've never in the entire time I've been playing AO (or any other MMO) seen so much as a documented "approach" to anything.

    Contrary to your assumption, however, and, as I stated previously, there is no historical evidence that they have this approach - they certainly are not adjusting all professions at once. That is a poor assumption Obtena. There is no evidence that they will attempt this at any point prior to the company running out of money.

    In fact, I will show you several pieces of evidence to refute this assumption.

    1. Very recently MA's (this patch) wil be nerfed (this shows that they are adjusting individual professions that they feel "got more than expected"

    2. Shades very recently got a full rework on whatever their nemesis nano was

    3. Keepers, by extension, got the removal of a virtually game breaking nemesis nano (which really didn't matter however because it was sort of an *******s only, use that against keepers)

    4. Some ridiculous addition to the MA toolset was provided with the kuma tonfa, which, while interesting for the first 30 seconds of equipped gameplay, faded into the posthumus haze of "another failed attempt" by FC to farsically appease MA's in PVM. And, needless to say, was a complete waste of time - especially now paired with the ultimate fail of removing the disharmony damage proc.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by McKnuckleSamwich View Post
    Based on any law of necessitation (Oh, say, Maslow's heirachy of needs, for example), it would be pertinent to assume ...
    OH there you go again ... assuming stuff and throwing a bunch of academic terms in to boot. I'm willing to bet FC doesn't hire people based on things like laws of necessitation and heirarchy of needs type things. Honestly, I didn't read much of that last post. It might make a nice thesis or some well disguised QQ but I'm doubtful it's inline with to FC's approach to making changes. You seem to like to make stuff difficult. Let me simplify things for you a bit ... you don't know all of what FC has planned and all your fancy academic justification and analysis for how you think they should be doing whatever they do doesn't actually mean anything. What is relevant ... how FC actually implements the system changes. You hate it because you don't see the logic to it. You don't need to. What matters is what you get in the end. If you don't like it, you make a choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKnuckleSamwich View Post
    Contrary to your assumption, however, ....
    Oh wait ... I never made any assumptions. Thanks.
    Last edited by Obtena; Jul 19th, 2012 at 05:13:08.
    Awwww muffin, need a tissue?

  3. #43
    Just a followup, the MA nano doc was last updated on Jan 7th, 2010, 04:58:13 .

    meaning, it's been about 2.5 years since any of this "approach" to rebalancing for MA's was updated.

    In other words, we all been gimping about for a frigging long time. I'm glad you have faith in FC obtena, and that you think they have a defined "approach" or at least something they are working towards.

    The rest of us are voting using credit cards.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Obtena View Post
    OH there you go again ... assuming stuff and throwing a bunch of academic terms in to boot. I'm willing to bet FC doesn't hire people based on things like laws of necessitation and heirarchy of needs type things.
    What does hiring process have to do with whether or not they can balance a game?

    And, just to be clear, you're a retard if you think that. Any well run corporation will tell you that the top requirements for any business is that there is a market or marketable product, people capable of running the operation in order to produce a supply and capable people aroudn to deal with the clients/customers.

    Those are basic requirements of any business and therefore capable people are required to make anything happen. Hence, you need capable people. If needing capable people doesn't necessitate the requirement for capable staff and thus good hiring practices, you might as well take up origami or something that doesn't require a lot of deduction of logic, because clearly you didn't IP intel when you had the chance in school.

    edit:
    Oh, and btw, We're all on to you, you know. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you're a flavour of the decade roller and only intend to cement your prof as the do it all prof. It doesn't take a genius to know you're advocating solely for the enforcer profession. Unfortunately for you, when there's only you and your enforcer buddies left in game there'll be no-one to QQ about that your prof is teh nurfust and you need more boosts.
    Last edited by McKnuckleSamwich; Jul 19th, 2012 at 05:04:30.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by McKnuckleSamwich View Post
    What does hiring process have to do with whether or not they can balance a game?
    Nothing, I never claimed it did. I just find it funny your using academic semantics about needs hierarchy to convince people (and FC) that FC aren't doing things right. It's just a hunch but I would put money on the fact that FC didn't crack out the text book on Mozoltoff's Heirarchy of needs when they sit down to decide what to address in each patch.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKnuckleSamwich View Post
    edit:
    Oh, and btw, We're all on to you, you know.
    Oh you got me now.

    BTW, you're a modeller IRL ... that explains all the assumptions. I get where your coming from. I get why you are frustrated with how FC does things.
    Last edited by Obtena; Jul 19th, 2012 at 05:34:18.
    Awwww muffin, need a tissue?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Obtena View Post
    Nothing, I never claimed it did. I just find it funny your using academic semantics about needs hierarchy to convince people (and FC) that FC aren't doing things right. It's just a hunch but I would put money on the fact that FC didn't crack out the text book on Mozoltoff's Heirarchy of needs when they sit down to decide what to address in each patch.
    It doesn't take a genius to understand that if you got a ration pack of food, and a classroom with 5 fat kids with $10 in their pocket for lunch and three skinny kids with parents who can't afford to send them to school with lunch money that it's a pretty good bet you should share the ration pack with them and not the fat kids.

    Well, enforcers have better healing, better mitigation, better damage, more AR, more utility, more options, more damage, more burst damage, more team invites, more runspeed, more escape mechanisms, more weapon choices, more perk choices, more reflects, more armour based evades, more armour based max HP, more lower checking perks, more perks, more AOE perks, more stunning perks, more specials and finally and most importantly, more playability than MA's. One thing MA's can do, as if it's really an option though - is go ranged.

    Now, You got 100 fat f*cking chumpy enforcers who are stuffing their pie hole with all the goodies at the table, and you got 2 MA's still playing who haven't got a godd*mn crumb in 7 years.

    You REALLY think you need to consult a textbook to figure out who might need some help?

    Just to put it into context for you, Enforcers got roughly 2.5x bigger DPS boost out of the add dmg patch than MA's did. And to add insult to injury, we just got nerfed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Obtena View Post
    Oh you got me now.

    BTW, you're a modeller IRL ... that explains all the assumptions. I get where your coming from. I get why you are frustrated with how FC does things.
    I'm not comparing what FC does and what I do. I know it would be impossible to document every code change and get client go-ahead on all of them, just as it is for me.

    But one thing about my work is that it's client driven. I make changes based on requests, and, if the requests are out of left field, I'll make sure they know what my position is.

    FC on the other hand, is not client driven, they are internally responsible only to themselves.

    Guess why their population is at an all time low? my turn to :rollseyes:

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by McKnuckleSamwich View Post
    It doesn't take a genius to understand that if you got a ration pack of food, and a classroom with 5 fat kids with $10 in their pocket for lunch and three skinny kids with parents who can't afford to send them to school with lunch money that it's a pretty good bet you should share the ration pack with them and not the fat kids.
    Nice analogy but this situation isn't that cut and dry as you would like to think it is. There ISN'T only one way to approach this problem and there are constraints at play here that we aren't aware of. The priorities for change are clearly not about who you think needs help so you need to take a step back and redo your 'model' on game change because that assumption is wrong. Stop trying to make it sound like it's the only way to proceed here.

    PS. It's funny how all these threads turn into QQ ENFO OP. A few more posts and maybe we can squeeze QQ NERF AS PISTOL too.
    Last edited by Obtena; Jul 19th, 2012 at 20:48:38.
    Awwww muffin, need a tissue?

  8. #48
    Servers are about to go down, if the come back up with the old 300 drain / hit at lvl 10 i'm going to question what that is about since Fia said that the healing part would stay the same, or boosted a little.
    Don't you just hate this kind of ppl
    http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...rouscranus.htm

  9. #49
    Funcom Needs to Seriously Look at the Trader Disharmony Line aswell. Especially Ma traders.... Wow nerf the Ma professions Disharmony but no one else's....mmmm Unsub time?

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Raishen View Post
    Funcom Needs to Seriously Look at the Trader Disharmony Line aswell. Especially Ma traders.... Wow nerf the Ma professions Disharmony but no one else's....mmmm Unsub time?
    Yeah i think i might let this last month run out and call it quits for AO. Its a great game but the DEVS have clearly lost focused. Its been about 3 years since they talked about rebalance and nothing major has happened. Their actions prove they dont know what direction to go anymore. Ima hate to walk away from the game but i think its about time

  11. #51
    It's now junk again and heals for 321 point regardless how how much +dd you have.
    I'm not sure if it's a mistake or what fc is thinking, but Fia (the GM) promised something very different, and i quote:
    The MA proc Disharmony will be converted from a drain proc to a heal proc. After reviewing this particular perk action we feel that it needs to see some changes in the next update as the changes done to perks and proc damage being affected by Damage Modifiers, really lifted the MA's ability far more than we anticipated.The healing part of the proc will remain and even be boosted a little, but it will no longer cause damage. We however feel like the MA has received a lot of attention from their damage modifiers affecting their perks and this should be making up for the loss of the small drain damage.
    This is not cool fc.
    Don't you just hate this kind of ppl
    http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...rouscranus.htm

  12. #52

    Funcom employee

    The MA proc Disharmony will be converted from a drain proc to a heal proc. After reviewing this particular perk action we feel that it needs to see some changes in the next update as the changes done to perks and proc damage being affected by Damage Modifiers, really lifted the MA's ability far more than we anticipated.The healing part of the proc will remain and even be boosted a little, but it will no longer cause damage. We however feel like the MA has received a lot of attention from their damage modifiers affecting their perks and this should be making up for the loss of the small drain damage.
    Quote Originally Posted by nanoforcer View Post
    It's now junk again and heals for 321 point regardless how how much +dd you have.
    I'm not sure if it's a mistake or what fc is thinking, but Fia (the GM) promised something very different, and i quote:


    This is not cool fc.
    I regret to learn that I was not clear enough in my post, with "boosted a little" I meant boosted from how much it used to heal before 18.5.0, and not after it was affected by the Damage Modifiers. As Obtena put it, one step back will allow for more steps forward, in a better direction.

    Fia
    Former Game Director of Anarchy Online.

  13. #53
    While I did understand your original post... seeing the numbers from nanoforcer means increasing the heal proc from 312 to 321 is the intented little boost? I mean really? I understand that "little boost" is quite vague but with that much of a increase you really wouldn't have need to bother.

    Edit:
    Actually healing is decreased from 312 pre dmg2nano patch to 300. Thanks for clarifying Critical. That's even less of a "Little boost".
    Last edited by XenonDe; Jul 19th, 2012 at 18:48:06.
    Deadly Whisper - RK1
    too many alts for to little space

  14. #54
    Yes it's very unfortunate when there are misscommunications like this, but at least now we know.
    Last edited by nanoforcer; Jul 19th, 2012 at 18:25:14.
    Don't you just hate this kind of ppl
    http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...rouscranus.htm

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by lindelu View Post
    I regret to learn that I was not clear enough in my post, with "boosted a little" I meant boosted from how much it used to heal before 18.5.0, and not after it was affected by the Damage Modifiers. As Obtena put it, one step back will allow for more steps forward, in a better direction.

    Fia
    While not completely clear it was clear enough for most people. Although I do see how it could have been misread. The bigger issue though is the original subject of this thread. The change to Disharmony as of the latest patch is a large setback for MA players. It is not the change to healing, for myself the healing component could have been completely scrapped as long as the extra damage was left in.

    With other profs being equal to or greater than an MA in the DD department, and bringing other useful benefits to a team, MA's are not in great demand for anything. Long term there are fixes for that issue but short term would it have been game breaking to leave the bump to MA damage? Just that alone would not have made MA's the go to prof for teams.
    It would however have made the people that play MA's feel like they had been tossed some type of bone. As much as we would all love to see the new engine released tomorrow, it is the small things that mean a lot. This could have been one of those small things.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by XenonDe View Post
    While I did understand your original post... seeing the numbers from nanoforcer means increasing the heal proc from 312 to 321 is the intented little boost? I mean really?
    The value on disharmony 10 heal is 300, not 321 - the extra 21 points are from 7% increased healing efficiency (ACDC/DB bracer/12man buff/whatever).


    Pssst! Lindelu! ... since the perk is no longer a drain proc, but a heal, why not return the damage part of the perk back, it won't effect the heal in... you know... no way what...so...ever...
    zDD - a Damage/HEALS/Tanks/XP parser
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlain View Post
    yea...the best way to fix messed up game mechanics is by giving up item slots for new 'bug fix items'...like I said before, next we'll get the Staff of Pet Pathing and perhaps an Anti-LD Ring and how about some pants that make it so I don't get forced to autoface my opponent after casting a nano when I'm trying to run away...Combined Developer's Wear of Autoface Resistance, and maybe some new symbs with broken quest resistance, oh, and how could I forget the upgrade to the scuba gear that adds Rubberbanding Resistance...

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by lindelu View Post
    I regret to learn that I was not clear enough in my post, with "boosted a little" I meant boosted from how much it used to heal before 18.5.0, and not after it was affected by the Damage Modifiers. As Obtena put it, one step back will allow for more steps forward, in a better direction.

    Fia
    The heal was not boosted at perk 10 The newest change is nothing but a nerf to even pre-18.5 disharmony for endgame MAs. please take another good look at it..

    The pre-18.5 perk healed for 130% of 240 dmg, which was 312 without modifiers(% nano damage from acdc/db bracer), the current heal is 300 without modifiers (heal eff. from acdc/db bracer). Please readjust the heal for endgame MAs and compensate somehow for the loss in damage as well.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalDmg View Post
    The value on disharmony 10 heal is 300, not 321 - the extra 21 points are from 7% increased healing efficiency (ACDC/DB bracer/12man buff/whatever).
    Oh right. Yeah that makes sense. Thought they increased it by 21 point to the first version we saw.. didn't think. So without heal eff it's actually still a heal nerf compared to the pre-dmg2nano patch disharmony. Comparing old 312 heal to new 300 heal makes that even less of a "little boost" to healing.
    Deadly Whisper - RK1
    too many alts for to little space

  19. #59

    sad ma

    Wow lol they just complete trashed a good thing that had positive feed back except for the healing part ( too much). The two steps forward they are talking about wont be for another year + . That Pistol with AS was a temp fix, why cant we have a temp fix in damage until FC has a alternate solution? It seems easy to switch obviously if devs rushed to do it because it was sooooooo OP right? Theres more important things they could of fixed but they wanna take away a positive thing for MA's, although unintentional, since AI released.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Keepjoe View Post
    Yeah i think i might let this last month run out and call it quits for AO.
    Lot of that going around.
    Gunfytr 220/30/70 Soldier Lawdog80 220/30/70 Advy
    Quote Originally Posted by Kintaii View Post
    Because we said so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anarrina View Post
    I am unamused. I strongly suggest you don't unamuse me further
    Quote Originally Posted by Means View Post
    This nano blocks CH. This is intended.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •