If balance is truly important then



  • TBS needs to

    a) Setup core game to capture statistics so you can take rank + stats (kills/deaths, TO game wins etc.) from official servers.
    b) Disband the balance council.
    c) Review forum issues using real data, not opinions.

    If you want to have it based upon high rank players, fine. Certainly it will provide more accurate map balancing stats.



  • To be fair, I think they do a bit of both as they should. As in, they look at the core base of players and some of the high ranked, competitive players (i.e. The balance council). But you will also find that most of the balance council members said that TB did not go with most of their suggestions, only a few. So I don’t think it is fair to say that the balance council has undue influence.



  • @SHH_:

    To be fair, I think they do a bit of both as they should. As in, they look at the core base of players and some of the high ranked, competitive players (i.e. The balance council). But you will also find that most of the balance council members said that TB did not go with most of their suggestions, only a few. So I don’t think it is fair to say that the balance council has undue influence.

    Well my point was more that a balance council is unnecessary once you have validated that you are capturing accurate statistics.

    I understand some recommendations were ignored, and I certainly can’t imagine anyone on the balance council suggesting archers get buffed.

    But really everything that people suggest is based upon one persons experience, when if the did some minimal code changes they could capture everyones experience which is 100 times more feedback, divide it up into experience players versus noobs etc.



  • @gregcau:

    …when if the did some minimal code changes they could capture everyones experience which is 100 times more feedback, divide it up into experience players versus noobs etc.

    I can’t code but that sounds like more than just ‘minimal code changes’ to do what you’re suggesting. Especially for such a small team like TB.



  • @Pan:

    @gregcau:

    …when if the did some minimal code changes they could capture everyones experience which is 100 times more feedback, divide it up into experience players versus noobs etc.

    I can’t code but that sounds like more than just ‘minimal code changes’ to do what you’re suggesting. Especially for such a small team like TB.

    Not at all, I can code, and it would probably be a days work to code, another day to test.

    But then I am pretty good at coding, webservices, databases etc.



  • What’s The Balance Council?

    Is this actually a real thing?



  • @gregcau:

    Well my point was more that a balance council is unnecessary once you have validated that you are capturing accurate statistics.

    That’s well and good but they could still use thoughts on what to do with those weapons that are under or overpowered.

    @DokB:

    What’s The Balance Council?

    Is this actually a real thing?

    Basically a bunch of nerds that think they know what they’re talking about.



  • We know what weapons are underused and overused. Like BB said, it’s more about having a discussion about what changes can put those weapons in line. Generally I or someone else will throw out a proper direction for the weapon - I.E. turning the HWS from a stab spam weapon into a proper fast mace, making the polehammer anti-knight, etc. - and we brainstorm the values. Other weapons just need general tweaks, like the quarterstaff just getting a bit faster and a bit more damage or the dane axe overhead getting a slightly longer windup.

    Weapon balance is pretty straightforward and I completely think it should be done from the top down. Hence why the council exists to throw numbers around and settle on something that seems to accomplish the purpose of the weapon. Mechanical changes are something we do to make the game at large more intuitive - obviously a lot of the balance council was against many of the mechanical changes in patch 2, because any invested player in a competitive game generally wants the mechanics they’ve mastered to stay the same so they don’t have to relearn anything.

    People blaming the balance council for changes they don’t like are 99% of the time just outright wrong.

    But if you don’t like the Claymore you have my permission to blame Knil ;)



  • @SlyGoat:

    I.E. turning the HWS from a stab spam weapon into a proper fast mace, making the polehammer anti-knight, etc. - and we brainstorm the values. Other weapons just need general tweaks, like the quarterstaff just getting a bit faster and a bit more damage or the dane axe overhead getting a slightly longer windup.

    Let it be known that I am the best at fixing weapons B]



  • Unfortunately you are an MAA and so your opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt.



  • @dudeface:

    Unfortunately you are an MAA and so your opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Would you believe I was fine with the Maul one shotting MAAs in the body?



  • @BB:

    @dudeface:

    Unfortunately you are an MAA and so your opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Would you believe I was fine with the Maul one shotting MAAs in the body?*

    *To keep MAA viable in competetive scene they are given rocket launchers to compensate



  • @BB:

    @dudeface:

    Unfortunately you are an MAA and so your opinions have to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Would you believe I was fine with the Maul one shotting MAAs in the body?

    Any MaA worth his salt should be fine with this. Old Maul you shouldn’t have been getting hit by it in the first place.

    New Maul… well… We’ll see how things go from here.



  • @SlyGoat:

    But if you don’t like the Claymore you have my permission to blame Knil ;)

    8-)



  • I argued against many of the things that were ultimately brought into live, and still do to this day, as do many of the other balance council attendees.

    I disagree whole-heartedly with the notion that weapon balance is straightforward in a game with so many variables at stake. Claymore buffs seemed straightforward before you realize that with the 1.1 flinch time, it can lock you in an endless feint mixup after a single hit.

    Maul one shotting knights seems pretty straightforward, as knights were strong in the meta, and currently had no weapon capable of one shotting them (beyond crossbows), but the maul’s presence in a team engagement and the ability to quickly turn a multiman tight engagement into a team wipe was overlooked. Target switching and the presence of teammates greatly trumps the maul’s main weakness, furthermore, the changes to the facehug collision model have made it much harder to sidestep the maul, allowing head hits to occur even more often, especially now that the handle doesn’t hit inside their body with lookdowns as often.

    The changes to polehammer seemed straightforward, it should counter knights. So then why in the world did we scrap the original plan for it and it now oneshots man at arms (edit this is false, it leaves them with 2 health), as well as cleans up across the battlefield with ludicrous finishing ability, namely a blunt 105 overhead and a 72 piercing stab…

    Theres a lack of foresight in these straightforward decisions, in my honest opinion.



  • @Derpasaur:

    The changes to polehammer seemed straightforward, it should counter knights. So then why in the world did we scrap the original plan for it and it now oneshots man at arms, as well as cleans up across the battlefield with ludicrous finishing ability.

    Theres a lack of foresight in these straightforward decisions, in my honest opinion.

    Polehammer cannot 1 shot MaA.

    I do not see how buffing bad weapons like Polehammer, Maul and Claymore can be considered bad in ANY way.

    The game has bigger balance issues right now, namely MaA dodge, Archer projectiles and Shields.



  • @Falc:

    @Derpasaur:

    The changes to polehammer seemed straightforward, it should counter knights. So then why in the world did we scrap the original plan for it and it now oneshots man at arms, as well as cleans up across the battlefield with ludicrous finishing ability.

    Theres a lack of foresight in these straightforward decisions, in my honest opinion.

    Polehammer cannot 1 shot MaA.

    I do not see how buffing bad weapons like Polehammer, Maul and Claymore can be considered bad in ANY way.

    The game has bigger balance issues right now, namely MaA dodge, Archer projectiles and Shields.

    You’re right, I had forgot it was adjusted, and now it requires a ninja kick after, but the oversight on such ludicrous assist damage on a polearm remains. And yes, I agree those are in need of change.

    I agree that those weapons needed buffs as well, but not to the degree that they received.



  • I agree that the Polehammer is very powerful but imo there’s (apart from Archers since it’s a point-and-click-adventure now, especially without crosshair) other weapons that need a closer look-at.

    Claymore.
    Bearded Axe.

    Both of which have the unholy speed of 67% creating a black hole in space-time-continuum, both having ridiculously fast attacks (the B.A even more since it’s able to 2 hit Vanguards within 3 sec), literally no windup to interrupt and…you know I’m fine with the Claymore being a fast weapon. But not THAT fast, decrease the speed to like 60% or 62 or something but 67% is just breething acid out of its mouth. Greatsword is maybe a BIT op but it’s still counterable. Claymore is just stupid.

    Bearded Axe in particular needs some serious balancing, the speed acceleration is just plain retarded.
    I’m not the best player but I can take on 90% of the enemies on the battlefield. As MAA I was absolutely destroyed by the B.A. since as soon as I came into range my foe would have ended his windup phase and even though I hit him, he hit me as well, dropping me to 20% health whereas he still got 60% or more left.
    It’s just stupid, I had to take the fucking Brandistock to kill him. I don’t want to change class AND loadout to overcome one single noob who just spams lmb. :p

    Also I have to second gregcau in that point, I don’t know what the Council’s proposals were but if the Claymore was growing on their shit I can only say: Get rid off 'em! :p

    Last but not least fix the damn overhead lookdown mechanic, clanfags boasting being “TOP 3 CLAN IN THIS GAME” (cheers to FF you massive donkeys) by abusing lookdown is just unnecessary and grows hatred amongst the community. And no it’s not just clannies doing that but it’s mostly them.

    Try doing that with a normal hatchet you’d use to chop wood with. You’d faceplant so hard you would need a new row of teeth.
    Now imagine doing it with a Helbard (or the worst scenario) or the Bearded Axe.



  • @TheUndying:

    I agree that the Polehammer is very powerful but imo there’s (apart from Archers since it’s a point-and-click-adventure now, especially without crosshair) other weapons that need a closer look-at.

    Claymore.
    Bearded Axe.

    Both of which have the unholy speed of 67% creating a black hole in space-time-continuum, both having ridiculously fast attacks (the B.A even more since it’s able to 2 hit Vanguards within 3 sec), literally no windup to interrupt and…you know I’m fine with the Claymore being a fast weapon. But not THAT fast, decrease the speed to like 60% or 62 or something but 67% is just breething acid out of its mouth. Greatsword is maybe a BIT op but it’s still counterable. Claymore is just stupid.

    Bearded Axe in particular needs some serious balancing, the speed acceleration is just plain retarded.
    I’m not the best player but I can take on 90% of the enemies on the battlefield. As MAA I was absolutely destroyed by the B.A. since as soon as I came into range my foe would have ended his windup phase and even though I hit him, he hit me as well, dropping me to 20% health whereas he still got 60% or more left.
    It’s just stupid, I had to take the fucking Brandistock to kill him. I don’t want to change class AND loadout to overcome one single noob who just spams lmb. :p

    Also I have to second gregcau in that point, I don’t know what the Council’s proposals were but if the Claymore was growing on their shit I can only say: Get rid off 'em! :p

    Last but not least fix the damn overhead lookdown mechanic, clanfags boasting being “TOP 3 CLAN IN THIS GAME” (cheers to FF you massive donkeys) by abusing lookdown is just unnecessary and grows hatred amongst the community. And no it’s not just clannies doing that but it’s mostly them.

    Try doing that with a normal hatchet you’d use to chop wood with. You’d faceplant so hard you would need a new row of teeth.
    Now imagine doing it with a Helbard (or the worst scenario) or the Bearded Axe.

    Yes, in my opinion the bearded is OP as well, I mean there’s a slew of changes that need adjustments, IMO.



  • @Derpasaur:

    Yes, in my opinion the bearded is OP as well, I mean there’s a slew of changes that need adjustments, IMO.

    Bearded is definitely not op. It got increased windup and decreased release, which means it hits even slower than in live. Due to its short length it will never be picked much in TO, and it is not that good in 1v1 either.

    Claymore is also far from op due to its low damage and short reach. Couple that with a Vg, the class which dies the fastest, and you get a combination that is effective in 1v1, but certainly not outperforming other Vg weapons in teamfights. You simply can’t afford to stay close to a Knight for 4 hits as Vg.


Log in to reply