Worthwhile Feedback?

[Ocene]

With the release of various documents, we tend to be quite vocal and we provide feedback for everything we see. After years of playing, we can instantly spot something that we know won't work.

However, our feedback is biased towards the mechanics that are in place today, and not the changes that might happen in the future. This is because we don't know those changes.

So, if there are plans about how ACs, specials, perks, damage, defenses, HD, ND, etc might work in the future, us knowing about those plans might help in maintaining the discussion to the point and provide a much more accurate feedback.

Food for thought.

[erozc]

I concur.

Someone hinted, or maybe it was a Freudian slip, that ACs are "going to be more useful" at least in PvP.

We know for sure Parry and Riposte are planned to do something.

There are hints, with HD added to TMS buffs even from low level, that the mechanic might change.

We also know you can piano non-related perks with the new key bindings.

So, much is amiss from the big picture even disregarding items.

[Xtremtech]

I tend toward the belief, that we're just not going to be able to give good feed-back on the values involved in the proposed changes. I think, that will largely have to wait until we're 'beta testing' the changes, once they've all been implemented and are in place. I think we can give feedback on the toolsets and the general direction of change.

So... we might look at the Crat document and evaluate the nukes... and the thing I'm most looking at is that there are four types, including alpha and finishing... that they have different effects attached etc. I'm not really expecting to be able to say whether they're balanced or not... until we see how Crat pets and weapons also work out against real targets.

Nor can we really know how long the capped attack speed on the Alpha nuke should be, until we see just how effective Crat crowd control is in holding off opponents... but we can say that it's probably right that they should have some cap on their alpha nuke - where perhaps an MP with much less crowd control might not have a cap or might have a shorter one.

There are too many variables - even if they were to give us some idea of the sorts of changes that might ome down the line, to evaluate how things will translate into real play. SO we should probably focus on commenting on toolsets and direction... and wait until beta to really sort the whole thing out in terms of balance adjustments to the actual values.

X

[Djiax]

Community, anyone, is able to voice their opinions about a general design idea. We can only be subjective about that, because there is no right or wrong here - it's all about choice. We can debate and discuss these things as long as we want on the forums, and argue for ages.

Objectives, competent players ----> can give decent and honest feedback about numbers, exact value, in depth changes, how the original idea is implemented. There is an exactly right balance we could find here. There are no choices anymore at this stage. The amount of players competent enough to give feedback for this stuff is very small imo.

The issue you talking about in your 1st post is mainly a technical aspect that we ain't able to judge right now, will need in game practice and many hours of /played to be objective about.

Altho, we can now gives feedbacks about the rough design idea - for instance the fact that FC want soldier's defensive toolset to work around not only reflects but self healing too.

The actual implementation is the technical aspect ; should AMS last 40 sec like it has been proposed ? should it be 50 ? or 1 min and half seeing how they nerfed the reflect amount ? Should solja's healing be at 30K/minute, should it be quick, steady over time, what recharge for these tool ? 1 min ? 25 sec ? etc.

An other exemple, Last Resort nano : it's a pure concept, that affect your gameplay : it saves you and kill you at the same time. Now should it heal 60% instead of 70% ? takes away 35% instead of 30 ? Set HP to 1 and clear all dot on end ? etc.

[Towerblock]

/agree strongly with all posts above mine.

[Johnnykay]

But it's so much more fun to scream "The world's coming to an end!" after reading the Soldier docs, amirite?

[Loucretia]

But it's so much more fun to scream "The world's coming to an end!" after reading the Soldier docs, amirite?

Actually it would be so much more fun to be able to say "wow, Awesome changes".

[Brofist]

Actually it would be so much more fun to be able to say "wow, Awesome changes".

I disagree.

[Chrys]

I remember someone hinting a year or so ago that perk calcs might be relooked, especially so that we aren't all striving to hit the magic number of perkability/unperkability (for AR or def depending on whose doing the perking ) but rather a broader range of percentage chances to land a perk based on off vs def. This would be an excellent change to reduce Alpha-Online but FC haven't made any noises about this change to date so it's hard to see if it'll go any further. If they do go in this direction, a lot of current feedback will have to change too.

[Berinda]

But it's so much more fun to scream "The world's coming to an end!" after reading the Soldier docs, amirite?

It so is.

[sultryvoltron]

There have been too many brief mentions and loose promises that haven't been talked about at all since their initial mention.

This makes it impossible to talk about a real post-balance world because many of us choose to measure changes with or without those things, because frankly they may or may not exist. If rebalance is to hit soon, may not seems more likely.