zhadum wrote: Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless.
Demiurge_Will wrote: zhadum wrote: Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless. Yesterday I was reading a player-made summary of character changes we've made:viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2292 What counts as a "buff" and what counts as a "nerf" is often arguable, but more changes that we make fall in the first category than the second. There will always be louder reactions to nerfs: we human beings feel losses more acutely than gains, and it's not always as easy to see what's been gained when an overpowered ability or character is weakened as it is to see what's been lost.
zhadum wrote: Demiurge_Will wrote: zhadum wrote: Let's not forget that their idea of balance is to take anything they think is too strong and make it completely worthless. Yesterday I was reading a player-made summary of character changes we've made:viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2292 What counts as a "buff" and what counts as a "nerf" is often arguable, but more changes that we make fall in the first category than the second. There will always be louder reactions to nerfs: we human beings feel losses more acutely than gains, and it's not always as easy to see what's been gained when an overpowered ability or character is weakened as it is to see what's been lost. And yet, when you look at that list it basically makes my point for me. The ones on the list of nerfs were front line characters that many people were using - and they were destroyed so completely that the only time you see them in any quantity are when the event has a buff on them. The list of buffed characters are almost all 3rd stringers you only ever saw being used when they were buffed by an event - and after the changes, they are still 3rd stringers that nobody uses. The only exception there is Spider man - where you took a completely worthless ability and made it worth something - but then nobody uses Spider Man for his purple, he is used for his cheap stuns and heals (which I'm sure you are working on nerfing to oblivion soon enough)
Nemek wrote: So...they shouldn't nerf the overpowered and buff the underused? Is there a different formula to use?
zhadum wrote: Nemek wrote: So...they shouldn't nerf the overpowered and buff the underused? Is there a different formula to use? Congratulations, you were able to understand one of the points I was making, while letting the other point blow completely over your head. 1. If you nerf someone who is overpowered, and afterwords nobody uses the character - then you have nerfed the character too much. 2. If you buff a character that nobody uses, and afterwords nobody uses the character - then you have not buffed them enough. And if you are doing both 1 and 2 then of course most people are going to focus on the nerfs - BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHANGES THAT HAD ANY EFFECT ON THE METAGAME.
Narkon wrote: An easy fix to this mess could be the option to remove a cover from a character instead of breaking down the character to his components. For example an option next to each ability to 'remove' a cover for 50-100HP. However observing the options they have given us, I would expect the cost to remove/destroy a cover to be equal to the upgrade (1250 for a 3*). There is an issue here with lost ISO if the hero would lose the levels above his current max level after you remove a cover, but I assume most would be fine with this as an option to re-tune their character since the alternative is to build one from scratch. It also creates another HP black hole and since the devs seem to love giving us ways to spend our "hard earned" HP, I am sure they would love this option compared to a reset from their part. It would offer player the opportunity to try a certain combo of ability levels for themselves before deciding the final 13/15.
Badman82 wrote: Narkon wrote: An easy fix to this mess could be the option to remove a cover from a character instead of breaking down the character to his components. For example an option next to each ability to 'remove' a cover for 50-100HP. However observing the options they have given us, I would expect the cost to remove/destroy a cover to be equal to the upgrade (1250 for a 3*). There is an issue here with lost ISO if the hero would lose the levels above his current max level after you remove a cover, but I assume most would be fine with this as an option to re-tune their character since the alternative is to build one from scratch. It also creates another HP black hole and since the devs seem to love giving us ways to spend our "hard earned" HP, I am sure they would love this option compared to a reset from their part. It would offer player the opportunity to try a certain combo of ability levels for themselves before deciding the final 13/15. The only reason devs make things cost HP is because the market bares it. If people would stop throwing away HP, or in this case suggesting that the devs charge for a feature that's standard in any game where you build characters, they wouldn't put HP tags on things and wouldn't lower the HP progression rewards. Stop asking the devs to charge more money! If you would pay HP for a respec good for you. When the option comes out send D3 a check but don't encourage them to add more ways to to sap HP from people.
Clint wrote: Funny imaging in my mind when someone uses the wrong word. What the market bears, as in what it can hold without breaking vs. what the market bares as in what the market... I don't know, strips off, flashes us?