|
Broose posted:Mr. Foster walks into a bar. The bartender says: "Why the long face?" a much better joke thank you sir
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
I was kicked from a server for being a "chatty Jew" recently
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Psion posted:hey speaking of which have they said anything at all about the C4 stacking nerf penalty? Removing it, ideally, but at bare minimum actually indicating it in the game? Silent penalties like that are MWO-tier decisions. Now now, don't go saying things you can't take back. Nothing in this game is MWO-tier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Oh, hey. A work in progress changelog preview for the upcoming update. http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=114423
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:17
|
|
Going through the changelog...quote:When players are killed they take into account the velocity of the attack that killed them. Player ragdolls fly through the air, splat against walls, make crunching sounds when they impact, and leave behind bloodstains.  quote:Demolitions Oh boy, a whole one change to demo! Let's take away the one thing it had going for it! quote:Increased ammo pickup amounts on certain weapons (boomstick, flamethrower, microwave gun, RPG-7) to get them more consistent across the board Okay, this is nice. quote:Zweihander Damage Reduced RIP
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
hans slashes unchanged?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
good night sweet demo you weren't very good
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
It looks like Armament isn't worth taking anymore. 25% less healing in exchange for 1% armor? If I knew how armor factors into damage taken I might have a better idea how much of a nerf that is, but it sounds pretty goddamn drastic. I don't think you could keep Hans' target alive solo. Zweihander nerf is nasty, but in all fairness it's effectively a DLC weapon, so it being so much better than the Zerker's standard options was kind of lovely. Ludicrous Gibs! fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
rip to zweihander, rip to zerker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Ludicrous Gibs! posted:It looks like Armament isn't worth taking anymore if you're only 10-19. 25% less healing in exchange for 1% armor? If I knew how armor factors into damage taken I might have a better idea how much of a nerf that is, but it sounds pretty goddamn drastic. It really looks like you need to pair it with Vaccination now to make it worthwhile. With Armament alone, I don't think you could keep Hans' target alive solo. Yeah, all I'm gathering from the nerf is that teams will need more medics. Moooorreeee medics All of these changes seem well intentioned but poorly researched to the point that they look like kneejerk reactions. Zweihander overshadowing the pulverizer? Nerf the gently caress out of it! Every medic taking armorer perks? Make them 1/3rd as effective! Hans? Hans is fine 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
why are they making good stuff worse instead of making bad stuff better
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
FirstPersonShitter posted:why are they making good stuff worse instead of making bad stuff better
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Do I see... 0 changes to Hans? Except that he does more damage? Wow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:13
|
|
FirstPersonShitter posted:why are they making good stuff worse instead of making bad stuff better Honestly, there's a time and a place for this. The Zwei probably was too strong, and Zerker will still be a strong class even with the nerfs. The Medic changes are questionable, and the inaction on Demo is pants-on-head retarded.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Maybe they don't want to touch Demo until they finish the M32 that will go in the tier 3 slot and work out all the bugs from replacing dynamite with C4  Maybe 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
About that:Yoshiro posted:We have a series of demo weapon changes we are looking at, but we wouldn't have enough time to do any testing against them before this update so we held off. This is why the "bundle balance changes with content drops" strategy of development is so frustrating to the playerbase. Are you guys going to run another beta so the changes can get playtested and fine tuned before hitting the retail pipeline? Uh, let me say that was a very good idea last time and I'd like to see it return. Psion fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 20:57
|
|
Psion posted:About that: It's a fairly substantial misunderstanding of the whole "early access" thing, I think. I understand and appreciate the desire to not push a bunch of half-assed content that work. That's bad. However, why not let the larger player base playtest the changes as they develop? There really hasn't been a good answer to this. If you've got a decent theory about what needs to change, implement the changes and see how they fare in the wild.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
I had a really long answer written up and it was stupid and wordy so I'll keep it short: We don't want to roll out changes that we know aren't good/fun changes. There's no point rolling out a change to the public if we don't think it's good/fun internally. The feedback we get from the community isn't really useful if we're just hearing it echo back something we already know so it doesn't make sense for us to change things for the sake of changing them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:32
|
|
Questioner86 posted:I had a really long answer written up and it was stupid and wordy so I'll keep it short: If you know it's not good and fun, why even consider implementing it in the first place? That suggests you've got a problem with your theory about what needs to change. I realize it's not necessarily fair to charge you with these questions since this is (based on my understanding) not something you can exercise control over, but I hope you can understand the spirit in which I'm pursuing this line of reasoning. It's not exactly uncommon that developers push a set of changes only for the community to respond negatively (see: ammo nerfs in KF2, terrible weapon balance passes in Payday 2, etc.).
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
"Demolitions Nuke radius reduced " Lol. Please don't tell me this is all you did. This is literally all he has going for him right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
FirstPersonShitter posted:rip to zweihander, rip to zerker. Which attack was considered a "bash" attack? The poke?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:If you know it's not good and fun, why even consider implementing it in the first place? That suggests you've got a problem with your theory about what needs to change. I realize it's not necessarily fair to charge you with these questions since this is (based on my understanding) not something you can exercise control over, but I hope you can understand the spirit in which I'm pursuing this line of reasoning. It's not exactly uncommon that developers push a set of changes only for the community to respond negatively (see: ammo nerfs in KF2, terrible weapon balance passes in Payday 2, etc.). That's a pretty simple thing to answer. You don't know if it's fun or not until you try it. Sometimes the first idea turns out to be wrong and you scrap it. Sometimes your 12th idea needs to be scrapped as well. That's why we don't get married to those ideas and if something is proving to be a bad change we don't push it out. We've pushed out things that weren't home runs in the past, but I think you'd be surprised as how much iteration goes on inside the studio before the public sees the 90% complete version of a feature and you guys help us push it that last 10%. I just have a professional investment with making sure that you guys don't get subjected to half baked ideas and broken fixes so you guys tend to get my point of view on this stuff since that's the developer straw that you pulled here on the Something Is Awful Comedy Web Forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:52
|
|
Questioner86 posted:That's a pretty simple thing to answer. You don't know if it's fun or not until you try it. Sometimes the first idea turns out to be wrong and you scrap it. Sometimes your 12th idea needs to be scrapped as well. dorkasaurus_rex posted:"Demolitions
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Questioner86 posted:That's a pretty simple thing to answer. You don't know if it's fun or not until you try it. Sometimes the first idea turns out to be wrong and you scrap it. Sometimes your 12th idea needs to be scrapped as well. I have hopes you guys have some Demo changes planned for the future so everything's fine and dandy with me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Yeah, Yoshiro has already stated that there's some balance stuff cooking (some of it related to demo) and it's just not ready for public consumption yet. It's a challenging time of the year with the Thanksgiving and December holidays so we're just concentrating on getting things done in the amount of time we have left for the year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Everyone is glossing over the really important issue here, and that is the Pat's mustache. Tripwire, what have you done with the mustache and what do you want for it's safe return.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
I get the impetus not to release broken crap, I do, but look at it from my perspective as someone who really wants to like demo: It's had problems for three months and it's not getting fixed in the next couple months. From a player perspective your goal of not wanting to produce poo poo - to "do it right or don't do it at all" - is in fact making me deal with demo being unfun for three, probably going to be five months. I guess what I'm trying to drive at here is I agree that only fun and good things should make it in the game. I think the existing update schedule, while nominally trying to accomplish exactly that, has the consequences that in your drive not to put bad new things in, you also can't - or don't - take existing bad things out. And yeah, I think that's a problem. Psion fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:21
|
|
Psion posted:I get the impetus not to release broken crap, I do, but look at it from my perspective as someone who really wants to like demo: It's had problems for three months and it's not getting fixed in the next couple months. From a player perspective your goal of not wanting to produce poo poo - to "do it right or don't do it at all" - is in fact making me deal with demo being unfun for three, probably going to be five months. But nerfing nuke at this point in time is a fun and good thing to do. Yep. Uh-huh. E: Updated Psion's quote. LuciferMorningstar fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
A lot of this really comes down to the old "You guys need to update more frequently" mantra, which is legit feedback. We just need to find that sweet spot between releasing frequent updates to existing content and finishing this game sometime before 2020 and I don't think we've quite struck that balance yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:But nerfing nuke at this point in time is a fun and good thing to do. Yep. Uh-huh. hey quote my edited version at least, you know I have the post-edit-edit-edit-edit disease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:30
|
|
Questioner86 posted:A lot of this really comes down to the old "You guys need to update more frequently" mantra, which is legit feedback. We just need to find that sweet spot between releasing frequent updates to existing content and finishing this game sometime before 2020 and I don't think we've quite struck that balance yet. Honestly, I don't think your update schedule is necessarily the issue. It might be slower than some people like, but it seems reasonably steady, and all evidence points to the game being feature-complete and (by basically any standards, EA or not) extremely stable. For an EA game, that's on the verge of being miraculous. Speeding up the rate of updates, or splitting them into smaller chunks and delivering balance changes faster and more incrementally might address the issue, but there are alternatives. The argument I'm making is that whoever is responsible for designing the game ought to have a solid theory as to what the game should look like, what constitutes "fun," and how all the perks ought to interact. From there, one admittedly needs to "salt to taste," but the idea that you cannot absolutely cannot know if a change will be good or bad, fun or unfun until you test it suggests that there is no underlying theory here. It didn't take but a few days for people to come to the consensus that Demo was in bad shape, and people have tossed out some recommendations that would be pretty trivial to implement. Are we to conclude that the playerbase is better at theorycrafting and making suppositions about the effects of changes than the actual game designers?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Questioner86 posted:A lot of this really comes down to the old "You guys need to update more frequently" mantra, which is legit feedback. We just need to find that sweet spot between releasing frequent updates to existing content and finishing this game sometime before 2020 and I don't think we've quite struck that balance yet. the first step is doing another beta. Do it do it do it. remember, the stakes for us players are "whatever we get in this patch's update to balance we have to deal with unchanged for months after" right now. Those are more immediate stakes to us (maybe not "higher" but immediate) so of course we have a strongly vested interest in making sure those changes are, y'know, fun. We want the same thing. LuciferMorningstar posted:E: Updated Psion's quote. thanks buddy 
Psion fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
I know that just making everyone super powerful will make the game dull; balance by power creep is a game destroyer. But taking a bad class and making it objectively worse is just as stupid, only in the other direction. I don't think Tripwire is capable of producing patches quickly enough to address some serious core issues with this game. I wish I could say i'd be voting with my money here, but I already bought the game and sold a couple of my friends on it when I was still in the early honeymoon phases with it. I guess the only thing I can do to voice my opinion in a way that matters is to adjust my steam review to account for the fact that I can't really recommend it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
On one hand, I agree with the idea that they should be making other classes more fun, rather than nerfing cool ones. But on the other hand, I kind of hope the Zerker nerfs lead to less people playing that class. It kinda got silly that half the suicidal/HoE games I would join would always have at least 2 Bezerkers. One time I joined a game with 4 Bezerkers, all over lvl 20 and it turned the hardest difficulty into a complete joke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:The argument I'm making is that whoever is responsible for designing the game ought to have a solid theory as to what the game should look like, what constitutes "fun," and how all the perks ought to interact. From there, one admittedly needs to "salt to taste," but the idea that you cannot absolutely cannot know if a change will be good or bad, fun or unfun until you test it suggests that there is no underlying theory here. I think the disconnect between us here is that while minor changes can be very easy to predict and design around larger changes can be severely disruptive to the game as a whole and are often riddled with bugs and unintended consequences of changes. If design intent and results upon implementation synced up 100% of the time this wouldn't be an issue but I've never worked on a game where this was the case. If a change is "Make weapon Z do 10% more damage" there's not too much complicated design work, coder implementation or testing to be done and it's unlikely anything unintended is going to happen. If a change is "Make perk skill Y a passive ability inherent to the perk, develop a new skill to replace it in the tree and make sure there's a compelling choice between that skill and the alternative" you're talking about a lot more moving parts and chances for things to blow up in your face. And heck, sometimes the solution to the problem at hand is both of those things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 23:02
|
|
Questioner86 posted:I think the disconnect between us here is that while minor changes can be very easy to predict and design around larger changes can be severely disruptive to the game as a whole and are often riddled with bugs and unintended consequences of changes. If design intent and results upon implementation synced up 100% of the time this wouldn't be an issue but I've never worked on a game where this was the case. Let me reiterate the portion of my argument that is relevant here, for clarity: quote:people have tossed out some recommendations that would be pretty trivial to implement And it seems that you agree! And perhaps others at Tripwire could be persuaded to agree. At which point small changes might be a viable way to make substantial improvements without draining resources in the way that the larger rebalances that your designers prefer, for some reason that remains wholly unclear to me.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
You cant really say "this fix stuff is so hard we need to spend 3 months to make sure it's perfect" as a response to everyone asking for a gradual improvement that's trivially implemented by turning one damage/resistance value into another All the tweaking changes that could be tested by throwing them out weekly to, say, some kind of early access version like remember when the ammo capacity change happened and it was awful and people told you it felt like poo poo and then you could simply turn the values back without having to sink millions of manhours into designing and developing some major system overhaul? Do more of that. Use the ridiculous "beta within a beta" nonsense if you have to. But i honestly feel like i'm wasting my breath - i'm certain there are people working there who are (hopefully) pushing for the same approach but they're obviously not getting through for some reason or other. So everyone stating the obvious probably wont have any impact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to discussing this feedback tonight, but first let me say thanks for posting it. Anyway, the cost in development time to implement "easy" fixes is not trivial and we only do what we can given the available time. Sometimes we try easy fixes and they don't solve the problem, as much as people would love their easy solution to be the silver bullet to the issue, and sometimes we try easy solutions and they're a total slam dunk. I think it's easy to fall into a trap of thinking where your (the developer's) first idea on solving the problem HAS to be the ideal solution and I think it's easy for the community to fall into the same trap. Sometimes the easy solution doesn't prove out, even in basic internal playtesting, and you have to go back to iteration to get a real fix and that's just how it goes. Because doing a new build for public consumption (even a beta build) is a significant drain on company resources (Programers and QA, who could be working on new content) we tend to err on a "measure twice, cut once" kind of mentality. But, seriously. I appreciate all the feedback you guys give, compared to some of the other communities out there you guys and gals are always really constructive and "get" killing floor. You keep doing your thing and I'll keep bringing feedback to design meetings and try to get this game out of early access before all is dust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I think it should be down to earth, but totally off the wall and we should win things by playing
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Also please have a slider for the map list in servers with a ton of maps. You have to just scroll down manually now with no indication of how long the list is
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2015 00:44
|
|