Why do you nerf? Why that way?

[Lt_Anders]

Assuming half the complete population is "anti-ranged" and half the population is "pro-ranged" to represent a balanced game. Somehow, a greater proportion of "anti-ranged" would be vocal than "pro-ranged" ? Why don't we have very loud people saying ranged need buffs ?

BUFF RANGED? That happens in Crpg?....I thought ranged was only nerf nerf nerf. I didn't see BUFF in Ranged Dictionary....Are you sure you're using the proper CRPG Dictionary?

[CrazyCracka420]

Kafein people don't go on the forums and say "HOMG this game is awesome, don't touch a thing". That's not what people do.  Humans mainly voice their opinion when they are unhappy.  This is my experience with human nature.  This is why most IT Support is a "thankless" job.  You're only directly interacting with people when they have a problem that needs to be fixed.  The 99% of the time you are making sure everything is running smooth behind the scenes, people just think it's normal, they have no reason to give you feedback.   The people who play the game have no reason to go to forums and pronounce over and over (as much as the whiners) how much this game rocks, and to leave it as it is/classes are balanced.  You clearly are an illogical fellow if you believe otherwise.

The only reason I'm here calling you whiners out, is because I sit at a computer all day trying to look busy at work, and I spend a lot of that time being a forum whore.

10-15 people shouldn't speak for all of the crpg community, they shouldn't be the ones dictating how balance happens.  I don't think your chart is accurate.  I don't think a lot of the "problems" developers have tried to fix (in regards to balance) over the years, were problems at all.  I think a lot of the time it was a perceived problem that was perpetuated by the amount of whine on the forums. 

A better team balance system would have fixed most of these "issues".  Or people just sucking it up and realizing that there will be counters to their play styles, and they need to adapt (teamwork is my favorite way to overcome obstacles and disadvantages). 

Half the population isn't "anti-ranged" and half isn't "pro-ranged".  I'd say most people fall in the "the game is good as it is" category.  To me, it seems like a lot of the complainers just want to be able to rambo charge straight ahead and not have to worry about teammates, or surroundings, or what the enemy team is doing.  And I think that's why they have such a problem with ranged, and always will (unless it's removed).   

[Kafein]

Half the population isn't "anti-ranged" and half isn't "pro-ranged".  I'd say most people fall in the "the game is good as it is" category.

My point is that more people want to change ranged closer to the way I want to see it changed than people want to change it in the other direction. If the game was more balanced, don't you think more archers would be vocal about the problems they are facing when dealing with e.g. shielders ?

That's why I usually consider internal melee balance to be more or less fine, despite the ridiculous amounts of text me and others write about it. Some things might be improved to make it better for all the involved parties, but nothing seems to get an inordinate amount of flak compared to everything else.

That's why assuming the game is perfectly balanced, it is very surprising that ranged do not complain about being defenseless against shielders in the same way shieldless infantry complains about being defenseless against ranged.

I also would like to add that people that come here to discuss balance are usually more concerned about the game than those that don't. They like the game more than other activities and will therefore spend energy to participate in its development rather than quitting when the quality decreases. When you argue for no change your motives are not very different it's just that the problems you perceive with the game, or lack thereof, are different. Furthermore, you can't dismiss balance arguments as being self-serving lobbying (except if we include having fun) when those that discuss balance and the community at large have repeatedly shown otherwise.

[CrazyCracka420]

I will concede that infantry should be the main focus of the mod, and should be the class that is "catered to" the most.  I don't like straight up "nerf" solutions, there's been quite a few creative and good solutions to fix the problem with too many ranged classes on the battlefield (without an actual hard nerf).  I still contend that a proper team balance system (doesn't have to balance exactly even) would solve a lot of the issues faced in game.  If there's 7 horse archers/crossbows on a 80 population server, and they are all on the same team, of course people are going to bitch and complain (rightfully so).  But the problem isn't horse ranged, it's the balance system that allows them to be all on the same team.  And I think that's been the case for the past 2 years in regards to most of the complaints.

But back to the OP, I still think that lobbying has a direct impact on what happens in game.  It seems like that has been the case ever since I started playing the mod (because I'm probably as big of a forum whore as anyone, I see a direct correlation between lobbying and changes to the game). 

[Kafein]

I will concede that infantry should be the main focus of the mod, and should be the class that is "catered to" the most.  I don't like straight up "nerf" solutions, there's been quite a few creative and good solutions to fix the problem with too many ranged classes on the battlefield (without an actual hard nerf).  I still contend that a proper team balance system (doesn't have to balance exactly even) would solve a lot of the issues faced in game.  If there's 7 horse archers/crossbows on a 80 population server, and they are all on the same team, of course people are going to bitch and complain (rightfully so).  But the problem isn't horse ranged, it's the balance system that allows them to be all on the same team.

In my opinion, class balance would hide the symptoms of the problem without actually solving the problem. Teams with unbalanced amounts of certain classes should not be more powerful than balanced teams. That's where the problem is.

For example, a balanced team can easily deal with a team with a large melee force if that threat is actually perceived by the balanced team, as it is relatively easy to downplay a melee advantage on most battle maps through positioning and "tactics" (read: setting up on hilltops, kiting, harassing flanks with cav and spreading out to delay the fight). But the same isn't true of mounted ranged for example.

[Silveredge]

It's really all subjective.  The devs can have a completely seperate vision then what you personally are feeling.  Every class may feel that this is overpowered or that is underpowered, when other classes could feel the opposite.  Then you have different skill levels of players who feel one way or another.  A player will refer to others that disagree with him as trolls or whiners and state that what they personally feel should happen is "balanced".

The few times that banner balance was disabled(albeit it on accident), all of the maps were 4 to 3 victories.  And even when it was so close and at least somewhat skill balanced, people bitched that they never saw x5's.  So you will never satisfy players, ever.  A lot of people are only happy when they have a reason to complain.  It gives them something to talk about.

I would rather the dev's just label everyone as complainers and keep going off of an overall vision along with data.  But at the same time looking over the forums and taking whats on there with a grain of salt.  Even though I may feel that there's something wrong with another class, I know that the classes need to be different.  That's what makes the game good, everything plays differently but in the end it all comes together pretty well.

[Grumbs]

Part of the problem is the devs we have now don't actually see the game as it is. We have Tydeus who plays NA, and I believe he plays seige? We have Paul who's hate of 2 handers is palpable with his "2hers are retards" kind of comments. He doesn't even play the game, when he does he mains with a shield class. The main devs are working on a new game

If we had proper representation like chadz said we would have like a year ago we wouldn't have as much complaining. We would know we had someone who at least saw things from our position even if they couldn't convince other guys on the team.

The devs do a lot of stuff that makes no sense. We have 1 handers getting totally over buffed. We have no requirements for xbowers. We have more WPF for 18+agi. Double whammy buff/nerf to anyone with less/more than 18 agi

I could write a list of more bad balancing that pushes the game towards the ranged fest we have, but that will do for now

[Kirman]

I read it all but ''World Of Tanks'' is not really a good example. I'm not talking about gameplay.