Principles of design.

[jenx]

hmmmm, i must admit to some confusion and some sadness.

confusion, because i tend to like the ideas of bpat/sheila AND housepet, though i disagree with all of you at times (I don't always post it though). so, why can't we just have some plain old disagreements? What confuses me is all the personal criticisms of other contributors. what does that achieve?

sadness, because this has been a great game for a long time, waaaayyyy ahead of all the othe roguelikes i've played (and that's most of them), and the forums have consistently been a place for honest discussion, disagreement and collaboration at times. so we have different views sometimes, so what? ad hominen attacks against people almost none of us know in RL doesn't make the game better, it makes the forums less enjoyable to participate in.

<<hides and ducks for cover, pulling up flame-proof trousers over head >>

[Davion Fuxa]

Just shows the games age jenx. For the most part I'm sure there are also times where people agree/disagree with others - and not necessarily always in the same order. It is actually another advantage Tales of Maj'Eyal has in that you can't always expect the same people to agree with you over and over again.

Though I'm sort of wondering if I missed something. I myself haven't really been too active in the forums as of late so I'm scratching my head as to where some of this hostility is coming from; I take it I should be blessed that I haven't really viewed Buffing bad prodigies moreso then if I had viewed it?

I also kind of wonder what will happen when some thoughts and opinions on Embers of Rage start coming out and about - or the expansions to come after.

[Sheila]

The problem is when you disagree for the love of disagreeing jenx which usually gets nowhere
A lot of cherry-picking (see how he ignored half of my post), add pointless strawmen to the mix and that's what housepet generally does with his posts.
It's easier to keep this unhelpful attitude and tell someone they're insulting you than admit you're wrong and change some aspects.
I don't care when people don't agree with me, I do care when they provide nothing useful and dislike every idea that isn't their own.
He's right in one thing though, I'll just ignore everything he says from now on.

[grobblewobble]

<<hides and ducks for cover, pulling up flame-proof trousers over head >>

hah, but trousers don´t protect all vital areas. Even when you wear them over your head.

+1 to the rest you said

[bpat]

jenx, I don't think anyone has issues with there being disagreements, but mostly the type of disagreements that pop up. As someone who posts a lot on the ideas forum, it's pretty disheartening to people respond to threads with kneejerk reactions against change. After the prodigies thread, I've been disinclined to post anything on the ideas forum after getting completely useless replies like "opinions thread" and people complaining about me calling prodigies they like bad without even responding to the actual ideas. Sometimes it feels like for every useful reply I get, I get another that manages to disagree with the thread even existing at all.

Example of productive disagreement: "Eternal Guard is incredible on lower difficulties and still has a niche use on higher difficulties. There's really no situation where 300 reduction to a bunch of different damage types is bad. The real problem here is that block is so useless without prodigy investment that block-dependent classes (like Demonologist) struggle massively to get to 30."

Examples of unproductive disagreement
1) "Opinions thread. What you think is good/bad may be different from what I think is good/bad which in turn may be different from what... [other poster] thinks is good/bad."
2) "The only 100% solid reason I see to change a prodigy is if there is an extremely strong reason to show that there is almost no reason to even take said prodigy, in the sense that it can be shown that there will be a convincing reason to take another one every time."
3) "You're only balancing for the elite players who never make mistakes." (I get this comment a lot but only from people who've never touched Insane haha)

[Micbran]

....

Examples of unproductive disagreement
1) "Opinions thread. What you think is good/bad may be different from what I think is good/bad which in turn may be different from what... [other poster] thinks is good/bad."
2) "..."

Don't have to worry about not using my name. I want to be known for my "shitposting" and my helpful contributions.

Anyways, this thread has been completely derailed so let's try to get it back on track. Delmuir, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the DLC classes (Sawbutcher, gunslinger and psyshot), if you've played them. Do they have a playstyle that's different than berserker and archer? I feel like psyshot is pretty unique but Sawbutcher and Gunslinger are what berserker and archer should have been, respectively.

Edit: damn autocorrect

[HammyHamster]

Since this fits in with the general principles of design, testing, and evolution (balance):

What about nerfs? Nerfs can be seen as a positive change towards balance, but are rarely implemented as players tend to favor gains over losses. For example some races really should have some reductions (shalore and maybe ogre) to promote better overall play balance. Some items as well.

I get the impression that nerfs are generally seen as a bad thing by most.

[grobblewobble]

Anyways, this thread has been completely detailed

Yes. Completely detailed.

Also agree lots with Hamster. "Nerfing is Good", that's also a design principle.
Buffing is also good, but without the occasional nerf it quickly leads to a powercreep spiral.

[bpat]

I don't really think people are "shitposters" for the most part (there's maybe two or three who I believe disagree for the sake of disagreeing), but I do think people should be more mindful of some things when they voice disagreements. Most people mean well but they often end up dismissing many great ideas without good reason. "Opinions thread" is a completely useless comment because the entire ideas forum is an opinions forum; if you're going to be dismissive like that without even reading the ideas then don't bother posting at all. HousePet is the only person who I believe actually read and gave any thought to my suggestions out of all the people who disagreed with my original post (not disagreements about specific ideas but the idea that most prodigies need major buffs). This is very disappointing and leads me to believe that many people are willing to let the game get stagnant because they're afraid of change. Because I've come to expect dismissive comments and unconstructive criticism, I am no longer inclined to post my ideas on here and I'm leaning more towards sharing my ideas only with people who I know will give useful feedback.

For EoR classes, Gunslinger is linear but fun, kinda like a better Archer. Saw Butcher is very unique since it's mobile and great at defense but it really struggles against some foes who are immune to bleed and it also doesn't have a reliable stun. Psyshot is weird and even though I beat EoR on Insane with one I still don't really know what they're supposed to do. I just played Psyshot like a tanky Gunslinger.

Nerfs are just less fun than buffs which is why they aren't suggested as often. Lots of people think Ogre should be nerfed but I don't see a way to meaningfully nerf them without completely dumpstering them so I figure races should just be buffed up to that point instead. Rather than nerf stuff I'd rather see the game just get a little harder to compensate for power creep over the years. I usually prefer nerfing items to nerfing classes and races. I think shortstaves especially could use some nerfs, and also psiblade damage (though mindstar egos should be buffed to compensate, they're seriously bad).

[Micbran]

Mindstar egos aren't too bad... You just need a set to make them good which really sucks for some users like the occasional cursed, wyrmic and psyshot.

Edit: as for nerfs, there are some nerfs that hurt players a lot more than the rares and bosses that use the talents that get nerfed. Most artifacts are at a pretty okay point, the class specific artifacts are good as long as you're the class they correspond to and meh otherwise. I don't have as much experience with EoR artifacts, but I have heard a little about the Sawrd artifact which sounds like it might need to be dialed back a bit. But as I said, never used it or seen it, other than on the forums.

Nerfing a damage talent's numbers tends to affect both players and the enemies that use the talents kinda equally, but players will definitely feel the effects of the nerf a lot more if they are playing the class with the talent that got nerfed. Meanwhile, nerfing utility usually wayyy hurts players, who tend to rely on that sort of stuff. Not saying the A.I. doesn't use it, but the player (hopefully) understands the game and the effects of a talent better. Plus, utility makes classes fun! Just look at PM, everybody's favorite*. I'm just gonna say that it's probably really hard to balance the game. Changing one thing can affect mobs and players alike, it's never just a black and white "I think everything's okay now."

Also, nerfing races will probably have the effect you described bpat, everyone will just play the nerfed race less... Or not at all. You remove a race's best talent, like shalore timeless, and the race is a mere fraction of what it's supposed to be. It's safe to assume, in my opinion, that nerfing that same "best thing" will have a similar effect, but to a lesser degree.


*okay probably not

[Atarlost]

Balance changes have nearly no impact on Normal because whenever you die, 90% of the time it's because of a poor decision rather than a bad build.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of normal.

Changes aimed at high level play are frequently unfun. And what you call "poor decisions" are usually a failure to engage in play that is not fun.

I have to be elsewhere, but I'll try to remember to come back and expand.

[HousePet]

HousePet is the only person who I believe actually read and gave any thought to my suggestions out of all the people who disagreed with my original post (not disagreements about specific ideas but the idea that most prodigies need major buffs).

They were good suggestions.
I think were that thread went wrong is that you underestimated how much justification to give.
To 90% of the players, prodigies like Meteoric Crash (for example) are excellent. So they are completely baffled when you suggest they need buffing. You did try to give some justification (Blocking LOL), but it wasn't very good. Saying that you have won the game on Insane and you say its bad, doesn't have any meaning and alienates players who haven't won Insane.
90% of players who don't play Insane aren't going to be able to do the same analysis of prodigies as you, so you will need to explain your reasoning to them. (This is actually a good exercise in itself, as some things that makes sense in your head can be obviously wrong when you try to explain it to someone else.)

Also I'm pretty sure DarkGod gets wind of everything suggested, regardless of whether other people poopoo it. If you have presented a good idea in a good way, it doesn't matter what other people say. It is DarkGod who makes the decision.

[Sheila]

Balance changes have nearly no impact on Normal because whenever you die, 90% of the time it's because of a poor decision rather than a bad build.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of normal.

Changes aimed at high level play are frequently unfun. And what you call "poor decisions" are usually a failure to engage in play that is not fun.

I have to be elsewhere, but I'll try to remember to come back and expand.

No, it's really not. You don't need to play optimally in a "not fun" way to win normal or nightmare, I'd argue that it's the same way for insane unless you're playing garbage classes like bulwark.
You don't need to dig zigzagging tunnels in every area to beat normal or nightmare, you don't even have to do that on insane, but it'll boost your win rate for sure.
"poor decisions" means bad positioning/picking bad fights (ie getting surrounded), poor understanding of game mechanics(what does armor do exactly?), not preparing properly for strong opponent, not knowing the extent of how dangerous something is(What is in this vault? Chest bosses are so cheap!!), using cds at wrong times, wasting turns, not using better options(movement vs teleport), the list goes on. This isn't a hack-n-slash game, if you refuse to be critical of your mistakes and engage in tactical play, you're playing wrong.
For all it's worth, you can hit your head against the keyboard and win normal as long as you have a basic idea of what you're doing. Nightmare is just Normal+, Antimagic archmage can win nightmare for a reason. At the end of the day "fun" is subjective, and shouldn't be used as a serious argument.

Changes aimed at high level play and good design are the reason classes like brawler and sunpal are strong and fun, Shibari balances thanks to and around insane, this makes things work well in normal and nightmare given you know your mechanics and don't make simple mistakes. Turns out things aren't OP or strong until people find out that they are, amazing isn't it? Though this is okay because players with a poor understanding of difficulty and core mechanics won't. Unless, of course they play themselves with little to no thinking and extremely frontloaded talents like oozemancer.
You have no idea how higher difficulty works, so I don't think this is a helpful comment. It's this kind of attitude from normal players thinking they know more than insane players that generates a lot of the unneeded bloat that plagues these threads and causes a lot of friction and frustration.

Just in case anyone feels like throwing the buzzword around, there's no elitism, just a far deeper understanding of the game's difficulty and mechanics at a basic level.

[HousePet]

You mean those game mechanics that are the same on every difficulty level?

[Sheila]

You mean those game mechanics that are the same on every difficulty level?

You ask me why I reply to you, and after I say I would ignore you, you're clearly trying to bait a response, but I'm the one who shitposts eh? Amazing.

Normal players are very unlikely to have an understanding of mechanics at all, they're the same across all difficulties but they don't work the same. Defense is infinitely worse in insane that it's on normal. Powers/saves etc are the same. Strong mechanics become more apparent, IE range>melee, armor=good, etc. Even if you "know" how mechanics work on normal it doesn't mean your perception will always translate well to higher. You don't even NEED to know how most mechanics work in normal to win, most people don't, simply because you rarely need this knowledge.

It's not possible to have a realistic grasp on balance and mechanics based solely on normal, and if you expect anything other than normal to be doable, you can't balance around it. Balancing around the lowest possible denominator is not good design anyways.