test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Neverwinter Discussion › General Discussion (PC)

Why does Cryptic need player feedback when in-game logs speak for themselves?

lltsnwnlltsnwn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
edited June 2013 in General Discussion (PC)
Seriously doesn't Cryptic do report analysis on in-game data on a regular basis? If they see obvious patterns can’t they implement game adjustments (nerfs, buffs, etc) without 500 posts on the forum saying the same thing over and over?

If the vast majority of level 60 clerics have Astral Shield slotted in their encounter powers that would put a huge flag on the fact that the skill is Overpowered or Required. What about all of the other potential powers that are not slotted? Shouldn’t they be reviewed to make them more useful?

I don't understand why Cryptic can not make the vast majority of these game balance adjustments without requiring people to jump up and down on the forums for months…
12.jpgRanger.jpg
Post edited by lltsnwn on

Comments

  • unspecifiederrorunspecifiederror Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users Posts: 315 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    This is a fair point. Unfortunately is seems they decided Astral Shield was overpowered/required. Which is true.

    The problem is they decided it was overpowered without understand why it's required. It's not required because it's OP it's required but everything else is useless.
  • chai23chai23 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Because logs will parse one step factual information. They dont tell you when something is broken due to multiple code line interaction with several different instances of abilities being used in specific orders.....etc.
  • lltsnwnlltsnwn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    chai23 wrote: »
    Because logs will parse one step factual information. They dont tell you when something is broken due to multiple code line interaction with several different instances of abilities being used in specific orders.....etc.

    If the vast majority of level 60 of a specific class, say Clerics, all slot one power/ability, say Astral Shield, could they not take that information to their development team and ask them to review it? Could they also query the same data to determine which powers are NOT slotted and ask them to review it?

    During over-used and under-used power reviews could they not implement nerf/buff changes so that skills that are "required" are made less so by making skills that are not used more "viable"? All of this can occur without any direct player feedback. Five classes (GF, GWF, DC, TR, CW), five most and least slotted skills/powers on level 60 characters, buff/nerf said skills, ???, PROFIT!

    No advanced statistics degree required...
    12.jpgRanger.jpg
  • xervaixervai Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Cryptic gets logs on the server data? What are you on about, that's why they have a TEST server now.

    What looking at parsed data doesn't do is scream out "THIS IS WHAT THE CONSUMERS WANT". That's why they need feedback. They can only really deal with the theoretical, sample play testing, and anything deemed "out of bounds".

    You seriously want a bunch of numbers to speak for the masses? They need both.
  • lltsnwnlltsnwn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    unspecifiederror wrote: »
    The problem is they decided it was overpowered without understand why it's required. It's not required because it's OP it's required but everything else is useless.

    This is exactly my point... If they reviewed the in-game logs of level 60 characters with X gear score rating they can easily determine which skills/powers are under- and over-used. Nerfing "required" abilities without buffing "useless/broken" abilities just breaks what works without fixing what is not...
    12.jpgRanger.jpg
  • lltsnwnlltsnwn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    xervai wrote: »
    Cryptic gets logs on the server data? What are you on about, that's why they have a TEST server now.

    What looking at parsed data doesn't do is scream out "THIS IS WHAT THE CONSUMERS WANT". That's why they need feedback. They can only really deal with the theoretical, sample play testing, and anything deemed "out of bounds".

    You seriously want a bunch of numbers to speak for the masses? They need both.

    Consumers are all biased... X beat me so nerf X... I beat Y so Y is fine. Most of what players "want" is not good for the game as a whole.
    12.jpgRanger.jpg
  • kevinf08kevinf08 Member Posts: 432 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    They could be collecting feedback about balance changes for a myriad of reasons that would have no impact on the balance chnages at all.

    There is much to learn about a customer from feedback, especially negative feedback.

    I would imagine though that having the combination of the data from logs as well as player feedback gives a more comprehensive view of the current state of balance.
  • lltsnwnlltsnwn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    kevinf08 wrote: »
    They could be collecting feedback about balance changes for a myriad of reasons that would have no impact on the balance chnages at all.

    There is much to learn about a customer from feedback, especially negative feedback.

    I would imagine though that having the combination of the data from logs as well as player feedback gives a more comprehensive view of the current state of balance.

    I agree however Cryptic could make nerf/buff changes on ALL classes most and least used skills each week, 2 weeks, etc. At the very least they could review each classes least used skills on a weekly basis and buff them so that they would be somewhat useful so that when they DO MAKE A NERF to a skill that is considered "required" or "overpowered" it doesn't cripple the class because they have other powers/abilities to fall back on!
    12.jpgRanger.jpg
  • ceryndrionceryndrion Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    Data is only so good as the interpretation, the advantage that the playerbase has as a whole, is that they experience that data, as it happens, which gives much more context than pure numbers..

    I could give you a bag of flour, some eggs, butter and milk, and you'd know that they were ingredients, but would you know that they were to make pancakes? or a victoria sponge cake?


    Data is nothing without context.
    I reject your reality and I substitute my own!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of Perfect World Entertainment, or Cryptic Studios
    [ Rules of Conduct - Terms - FAQ - Support Centre - Important Stuff ]
  • x3mta3xx3mta3x Member Posts: 80
    edited June 2013
    lltsnwn wrote: »
    Seriously doesn't Cryptic do report analysis on in-game data on a regular basis? If they see obvious patterns can’t they implement game adjustments (nerfs, buffs, etc) without 500 posts on the forum saying the same thing over and over?

    If the vast majority of level 60 clerics have Astral Shield slotted in their encounter powers that would put a huge flag on the fact that the skill is Overpowered or Required. What about all of the other potential powers that are not slotted? Shouldn’t they be reviewed to make them more useful?

    I don't understand why Cryptic can not make the vast majority of these game balance adjustments without requiring people to jump up and down on the forums for months…

    ANY game needs as much INFO as possible, period. You can't know everything just from logs. The devs NEED player input, along with tons of data, not just logs, to try and get everything working the way they want. It is not an easy task. I would NEVER fault any dev/game that asks for more info. More info is GOOD! :)
  • x3mta3xx3mta3x Member Posts: 80
    edited June 2013
    ceryndrion wrote: »
    Data is only so good as the interpretation, the advantage that the playerbase has as a whole, is that they experience that data, as it happens, which gives much more context than pure numbers..

    I could give you a bag of flour, some eggs, butter and milk, and you'd know that they were ingredients, but would you know that they were to make pancakes? or a victoria sponge cake?

    Exactly. And even if you knew it was for, say pancakes, you could have totally DIFFERENT tasting pancakes from the very same ingredients used. :)
  • talesmithtalesmith Member Posts: 116
    edited June 2013
    Problem with basing balance decision on ingame data alone is that well...most people are sheep. An ability might be perfectly viable but not considered 'meta' (ugly word imo) and thus underused. Or the other way around, overused abilities that may not be all that cracked up.

    For instance, when something has been UP for a long period of time players will be used to the fact that this thing is garbage. A good example here is the GWF. Before players pick up on improvements and realize the thing is once more viable it's usually necesary to overbuff it a little bit then tune it back in line, just so to overcome any prejudice players may have. In this case it would probably be necesary to overbuff GWF a little bit before the average player once more accepts him as part of a party.
  • lltsnwnlltsnwn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    ceryndrion wrote: »
    Data is only so good as the interpretation, the advantage that the playerbase has as a whole, is that they experience that data, as it happens, which gives much more context than pure numbers..

    I could give you a bag of flour, some eggs, butter and milk, and you'd know that they were ingredients, but would you know that they were to make pancakes? or a victoria sponge cake?


    Data is nothing without context.

    If every recipe requires flour and NO recipe requires marshmallows you can say that flour is "required" or "over-powered" and marshmallows are "not required" or "under-powered". If you are suddenly forced to quit using flour in ALL of your recipes because of a food allergy you are left with a "broken" cookbook...
    12.jpgRanger.jpg
  • talesmithtalesmith Member Posts: 116
    edited June 2013
    Bad analogies ho!
  • zurkhonzurkhon Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users Posts: 390 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    lltsnwn wrote: »
    If every recipe requires flour and NO recipe requires marshmallows you can say that flour is "required" or "over-powered" and marshmallows are "not required" or "under-powered". If you are suddenly forced to quit using flour in ALL of your recipes because of a food allergy you are left with a "broken" cookbook...

    I suddenly have the urge to eat marshmallows... weird. :confused:
    "Beware the engineers of society, I say, who would make everyone in all the world equal. Opportunity should be equal, must be equal, but achievement must remain individual."

    - Drizzt Do'Urden
    ― R.A. Salvatore
  • griennegrienne Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users Posts: 149 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    tbh I am not overly impressed with the common sense of the devs.

    Respecs on test server :/ you need Zen to actually do it. like really?
  • xervaixervai Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2013
    lltsnwn wrote: »
    Consumers are all biased... X beat me so nerf X... I beat Y so Y is fine. Most of what players "want" is not good for the game as a whole.

    That's why it takes them a while to make a decision. You can't make decisions solely on data when it comes to the "fun factor". You can only use it to refute or explain phenomena.

    Such as X beat Y, X is OP. Well data can show this to be true or not. Or maybe there ISN'T any data on that specifically. Heavy logging is super stressful on the servers/client. Not everything you do is sitting in a log somewhere. Without someone being vocal, showing a "want" they don't know what they should look at or communicate.

    Play-testing is the only way to know for sure while heavy logging is enabled. That's what typically takes so long. Without feedback from logging and the vocal minority they may not know where to look. Passive play-testing only goes so far.

    I seriously doubt just because there's an 18 page thread of doom about a topic they're going to run around and change their game. If it gets prioritized, they communicate, tweak it, test it, communicate, and decide what to release.

    How do you figure they need 20+ page threads of "feedback" before they make any changes? We don't know their priorities, we don't know their schedule, we only know their history/future plans as they give it.
  • lltsnwnlltsnwn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    grienne wrote: »
    tbh I am not overly impressed with the common sense of the devs.

    Respecs on test server :/ you need Zen to actually do it. like really?

    OH MY GOSH! FOR REAL?!?! That's just insane... Charge Zen for respecs on a TEST SERVER... Seriously... Like... WOW... /cry /sob
    12.jpgRanger.jpg
  • th0rfinnth0rfinn Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 119 Bounty Hunter
    edited June 2013
    If 99% of GWF uses the same 3 set encounters in PvP doe that makes it overpowered? No. AS was OP because it could stack making everyone tanky and nt use pots.
Sign In or Register to comment.