ninja_ardith wrote:
I've made several forum posts outlining that warriors are way too good recently, but the only thing that has been done is give swashbucklers new skills.
edoras wrote:
the thing that often frustrates me is that I really feel like some (not all) of the changes that Dulrik makes are based just as much off of anecdotes instead of data. The prone-removing-stances change, for example: What prompted that?
One of the unfortunate realities of the game is how real-life schedules impact availability for code changes to be implemented. Since the code changes to swashbucklers were implemented, there just hasn't been opportunity for much new code to go in. That just means by necessity that sometimes some changes go in more quickly than others, and sometimes "fixes" go in more quickly than others, and sometimes we're stuck with frustrating things longer than we'd like.
It's also much easier to identify problems than to identify truly effective fixes. Because no aspect of the game exists within a vacuum, every time you make one change, it has a ripple effect across the game, directly and in comparative relation. Any change to the barbarian class as a whole, for instance, affects all PC barbarians, plus all classes with access to barbarian type NPCs (ie- tribunals with leadership, scouts with tame, sorcs with charm, necros with control, etc), it affects the variable difficulty levels of all NPC travel/levelling zones, *AND* it affects mercs, swashbucklers, rogues, hellions, etc from a comparative balance perspective. All of these issues need to be considered whenever implementing any new changes, and usually we can foresee what most of those secondary and tertiary ripple effects will be, but it's impossible to predict all of them all the time. There's also always methods for twinkery and exploitation of such changes that can also often be foreseen, but sometimes may not fully come to light for a month, 6 months, a year, or significantly longer.
Data is most necessary for building a compelling argument for change. I understand and sympathize with the difficulty of that, but the staff is in a position of constantly having to weed through lots of suggestions/ complaints/ etc, and it's astounding how much of that comes directly from rumor, from emotional exaggeration, from extrapolation from a single event, or directly from the butts of one player or another who are flat-out lying through their teeth about a certain ocurrence. Tied up in this is having to discern between the playstyles of the players involved, the nature of the event they're drawing conclusions from, their opponents, the race/ class/ religion/ cabal mix involved, etc. Sometimes you've got a situation that seems completely balanced for years, and then a skilled player like finney gets ahold of it with the perfect blend of accompanying factors, and suddenly it blows up.
For these reasons and others, in addition to all the data and all the feedback from the most skillful players in the game and countless logs and debates and discussions, on some level you just have to make an educated guess, implement the most reasonable-sounding idea, and see what comes of it. Sometimes it's a tremendous success, sometimes it's an utter failure, and most often it falls somewhere in the middle and requires extensive play-testing and massaging to make it right.
If I remember right, the stance-changes were part of implementing the swash stance changes while trying to keep them from being overpowered, and also hopefully trying to help wimp the barbarian/merc aggressive/defensive stanced character-- but honestly my recollection of that is hazy now, so don't hold me to it. I have come to share in your disdain for those changes, and myself see them as an unsuccessful decision that was made. Perhaps they should work in regard to the advanced swash stances, but I think I would not be upset to see the typical defensive/neutral/aggressive stance in regard to prone be put back to how it used to be.
edoras wrote:
Was there a particular dataset which Dulrik used to justify changing enchant so that at most, you're only able to add +6 will onto your innate saves on gear?
I wasn't a big fan of this suggestion when it was going in, and fought against the original idea. This was part of the final compromise we came to, and I still think it was a good idea. Prior to this change, most spellcasters and the power of spells had become completely ineffectual due to the universally high number of saves that all players, particularly warriors, held on their gear. I think this change was a boost for spell-casters, and I still stand by it.
The biggest issue I had with this change was how it nerfed skins, which is still the only real problem I have with that change. I never saw the thread but somebody somewhere made mention of an idea they had for making skins carry over some innate enchants from their host creature. I actually *really* like that idea a lot, and would be interested in fleshing out specifics for how it could work, and to encourage Dulrik to address it in the near future, when time allows.
edoras wrote:
Was there a particular set of data that Dulrik used which made him think that MR barbarians needed to have an ability usable from the second row that can remove all buffs from their current target with no recourse given to their target?
Ugh. Don't even get me started on that one. I *HATED* the idea and implementation of aura of negation, and to this day I think I even hate it more than I did back then. IMO, AoN was a horribly conceived and implemented idea, and belongs in the garbage can. But I don't foresee that happening anytime soon, so I just have to eat those sour grapes for now.