Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21); Blog post: Skill Changes, Part 2 (07/15/21)

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

Author Topic: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed  (Read 3704 times)

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3281
    • View Profile
    • Bitbucket profile
    • Email
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #75 on: June 07, 2021, 07:55:04 PM »

I think you need to buff your passive aggressiveness there bro, I *think* you were trying to strawman me into saying something I didn't say, but I'm not sure.
But I spec'd into passive aggression!?

You proposed a scenario where high tech gets nerfed, so midline stood out, so midline got nerfed, so low tech stood out, etc ad infinitum.

Such a scenario only works in the case of balance only being obtained via debuffs, rather than the mix of buffs and debuffs we have repeatedly seen to be used.

No. No such condition exists. I never stated it in my scenario, nor do I accept it. That is something you came up with on your own, and you have not made an argument on that would be the case; sure, buffs can change the equation, but they do not necessarily invalidate the scenario.


Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.


This is the position in question, which seems quite similar to how Yunru understood it.

The blog post has most of it's content covering low tech mechanical and roster buffs - the one hightech nerf is a mechanical change that expands gameplay options.

Nothing in the blogpost suggests excessive flat stat nerfing.

Yeah, and Yunru inserted the idea that some how buffs invalidate the entire thesis, when I didn't mention them at all in said thesis.
Your 'thesis' doesn't mention buffs because the existence of a nontrivial number of buffs straight up disproves it by contradicting any notion of an endless cycle of nerfs, and your claim that buffs don't "necessarily invalidate" said thesis is nothing but petulance.

Were it modified to describe the actual past and predicted scenario of some things getting nerfs and some things getting buffs (not even necessarily in the same amounts), it would have read like:
High-tech gets nerfed and low-tech gets buffed, then... then what? Is midline still the predicted outlier, or low tech? Or do they end up balanced with each other and HT is now the outlier in the other direction, so HT gets buffed and nothing gets nerfed? And after we've applied this cycle of balance changes, the endless nerfs prediction diverges even further from what actually happens.

Somehow a cycle of "some things get nerfs and some thing get buffs" hardly sounds as horrific as a cycle of things only getting nerfed.

Bonus:
I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships."
Imagine having an entire blog post and still trying to read deep meaning into a Literary Reference title.
Logged

Kahnmir

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #76 on: June 07, 2021, 10:18:13 PM »

I think you need to buff your passive aggressiveness there bro, I *think* you were trying to strawman me into saying something I didn't say, but I'm not sure.
But I spec'd into passive aggression!?

You proposed a scenario where high tech gets nerfed, so midline stood out, so midline got nerfed, so low tech stood out, etc ad infinitum.

Such a scenario only works in the case of balance only being obtained via debuffs, rather than the mix of buffs and debuffs we have repeatedly seen to be used.

No. No such condition exists. I never stated it in my scenario, nor do I accept it. That is something you came up with on your own, and you have not made an argument on that would be the case; sure, buffs can change the equation, but they do not necessarily invalidate the scenario.


Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.


This is the position in question, which seems quite similar to how Yunru understood it.

The blog post has most of it's content covering low tech mechanical and roster buffs - the one hightech nerf is a mechanical change that expands gameplay options.

Nothing in the blogpost suggests excessive flat stat nerfing.

Yeah, and Yunru inserted the idea that some how buffs invalidate the entire thesis, when I didn't mention them at all in said thesis.
Your 'thesis' doesn't mention buffs because the existence of a nontrivial number of buffs straight up disproves it by contradicting any notion of an endless cycle of nerfs, and your claim that buffs don't "necessarily invalidate" said thesis is nothing but petulance.

Were it modified to describe the actual past and predicted scenario of some things getting nerfs and some things getting buffs (not even necessarily in the same amounts), it would have read like:
High-tech gets nerfed and low-tech gets buffed, then... then what? Is midline still the predicted outlier, or low tech? Or do they end up balanced with each other and HT is now the outlier in the other direction, so HT gets buffed and nothing gets nerfed? And after we've applied this cycle of balance changes, the endless nerfs prediction diverges even further from what actually happens.

Somehow a cycle of "some things get nerfs and some thing get buffs" hardly sounds as horrific as a cycle of things only getting nerfed.

Well, if Yunru had (politely) made this argument I may have conceded that he had a point and just taken my ball and gone home; because my original statement did not factor in buffs at all and was assumed a very specific scenario which I will admit I did not elaborate on much. Quite frankly I didn't expect it to cause people to lose their *** minds otherwise I would have. But instead he just said my statement was disproved by the existence of buffs (which do not, and you're wrong about this) without making an argument. Given how rude you are and how I've also been rudely dogpiled, I will instead point out the flaws in your thinking as a middle finger to you in particular, and I will do so in excruciating detail, also as a middle finger to you, in particular.

So first some givens:
* Alex has made a few offhand comments about nerfing hightech outside of the blog post not all of which I have seen, but as far as I know, he has only gone into specifics about the tempest and has not been very clear on how other nerfs will be approached
* I am not and have never made comments about dooms, which seems to be the source of a lot of this.... hatred. I was not evaluating them in my thesis because I frankly just don't *** use them. I am much more concerned with ships like the tempest and the playstyle of high-tech in general, which could very easily be made garbage if not handled gently.
* This thesis deals primarily with flat nerfs/buffs, I have already said I approve of the tempest changes, and have argued for sidegrade changes
* My main concern is not that nerfs are never warranted, but that they are frequently overdone, also I am really concerned why so many people seem to HATE hightech and are emotionally invested in doing so, as is illustrated by how out of control this discussion is getting.
*perfect balance is unachievable. Some things will simply always be better than others.

Thesis version 2.0 "I'm actually trying this time." or "why you're wrong and your father was a hamster" edition, if you prefer.

Games can get into a cycle of endless nerfs because in many way "power" or how good something is in the game is relative amongst the game elements. In otherwords, a ship is only good or bad depending on how good or bad it is relative to other ships. This causes changes in numbers to have an affect similar to squeezing a waterballoon, wherein if you squeeze it, the water simply shifts. likewise, the relative "power" of the ships changes, Ergo when something gets worse, something else gets better, even though only the nerfed ship is changed.

Regarding how buffs affect this, There are two scenarios to consider them under; which is where your thinking does not work because you seem to consider buffs under both scenario's simultaneously, which does not work and is contradictory.

Scenario 1
if we theorize that flat buffs =  flat nerfs in their impact on the game, then the according to the theory the cycle simply gets shifted, since you are still just squeezing the waterballoon.
spelling it out for you: the relative strength of the ship is still changed, and making something better makes something else worse. Essentially, because the "power" is all relative it turns into something of a zero-sum game. This is what you almost understood from my original thesis, and made some decent points regarding it, mainly that buffs can potentially counter nerfs. but this is very difficult to do if you are simply shifting the waterballoon (now you're squeezing two points of the waterballoon!) rather than making a structural change.

But because you are petulant or simply wanted to score internet points (or both), you moved the goalpost and shifted to:

Scenario 2: buffs =/= nerfs
In this scenario it is theorized that buffs fulfill a different role from nerfs, and is where the idea that buffs cause powercreep most likely comes from.
This gets really complicated because you have to go into specifics about how nerfs and buffs actually interact with each other, if at all. But I've run out of patience and time though so wrapping this up:
Scenario 1 does not disprove the thesis at all. But you seem to want it both ways in your assertion that buffs somehow disprove my thesis.

Quote
Bonus:
I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships."
Imagine having an entire blog post and still trying to read deep meaning into a Literary Reference title.

Do you talk to people like this IRL? Perhaps you're a Sperg? Would explain a lot.

Anyway, Think I'm done with this thread, too many of you are just here to score internet points rather than have a discussion.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2021, 10:34:05 PM by Kahnmir »
Logged

DownTheDrain

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #77 on: June 07, 2021, 10:49:51 PM »

As I said, hugs. Definitely needed.
Logged

PureTilt

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #79 on: June 08, 2021, 12:22:46 AM »

Arguments for not nerfing so far: alex can nerf to much and now all dumb and boring
alex can do same with buffs and now all can solo Doritos
if alex somewhere somehow said "i probably gonna nerf HT" doesn't mean he gonna kill it he want all playstyle to be competitive and by asking to not nerf clear outliers you make that much more harder
Logged




Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #80 on: June 08, 2021, 12:30:02 AM »

i hope u people know this was a shitpost lmfao
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

PureTilt

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #81 on: June 08, 2021, 12:55:58 AM »

i hope u people know this was a shitpost lmfao
1. no
2. it was awful shitpost
3. not funny, didn't laugh
4. there was enough people who was 100% serious about what they said
Logged




Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #82 on: June 08, 2021, 01:05:25 AM »

After 3 days of mindless arguing
- Deshara: "Guysss it was just a prank, why are you still arguing omgg"

Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Locklave

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #83 on: June 08, 2021, 01:48:41 AM »

I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships." Perhaps I have missed a forum post somewhere, but Alex hasn't been particularly clear on how many high tech ships are getting nerfed.

You are assuming an awful lot about my position; which is, has been, and always will be that flat nerfs are not a great balancing tool and should not always be the first resort.
I am, for instance OK with the tempest changes, they sound OK on paper, but we will have to wait and see.

I spec'd "get wrecked"

So even though he's clearly engaging in limited specific nerfs to set ships you felt it was safe to hyper generalize it as the entire High tech roster getting nerfed?

I'm not assuming anything, your entire premise is a massive unreasonable assumption that don't follow in any way shape or form with the games patch history and drawing comparisons to League of Legends that profits directly from cancerous practices like creating imbalance. Which is absurd. You talk about "industry standard" like this game has no long history and just some random devs are making it rather then a specific person.

His lack of clarity is your excuse. Clarity in a specific list of ships only.

Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

This lazy theory also works in reverse. If he buffs everything else to to play catch up (actual power creep) then something will get overbuffed resulting in an endless circle of more buffs too correct it. 

"And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing." Because it creates the exact same problem you are pretending is avoided.

But again this, everything you are posting, is entirely based around the idea that Alex is nerfing the entire High tech ship roster and not buffing Low tech at all. He's clearly buffing Low tech and if you bothered to read the thread you say he's "unclear" about you'd know Low tech is getting buffed.

So why are you posting stuff like this when you imply you actually read it? Your theories don't have a connection to anything that is actually happening based on the information we have.

I expect your posts to become more and more generalized rather then specific, because the details don't support what you are pushing.

i hope u people know this was a shitpost lmfao

This is a poor way to save face, there are pages of people taking this mess seriously.

Also you're OP could be read as hyperbolic exaggeration to be taken seriously in concept.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2021, 02:38:49 AM by Locklave »
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #84 on: June 08, 2021, 01:55:38 AM »

After 3 days of mindless arguing
- Deshara: "Guysss it was just a prank, why are you still arguing omgg"

you know what they say, if u wanna embarrass someone pretend to think they were kidding, if u wanna mock them pretend to think they were being sincere. the important thing is you've constructed a way for you to always be the guy crying under the smug mask meme instead of the guy crying meme.
Also, just bc there was 6 pages of people arguing in the thread doesnt mean I was the one arguing lmfao I've been playing ARMA, AKA trying to mod ARMA into being good (spoiler; u cant in 2021 just as much as u couldnt in 2017)
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

Vextor

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #85 on: June 08, 2021, 04:42:47 AM »

I don't think anybody cares whatever your intentions were at the moment of the creation of this thread, especially since you haven't added anything to the conversation beyond starting it. You could be a clown who invents electricity as a joke, but since it's useful, nobody cares if it was just one of your tricks and chances are they'll just label you as insane.
Logged

Kahnmir

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #86 on: June 08, 2021, 10:06:20 AM »

I'm sorry, but if I recall the blog post was titled "a tale of two tech levels" not "a tale of specific problematic ships." Perhaps I have missed a forum post somewhere, but Alex hasn't been particularly clear on how many high tech ships are getting nerfed.

You are assuming an awful lot about my position; which is, has been, and always will be that flat nerfs are not a great balancing tool and should not always be the first resort.
I am, for instance OK with the tempest changes, they sound OK on paper, but we will have to wait and see.

I spec'd "get wrecked"

So even though he's clearly engaging in limited specific nerfs to set ships you felt it was safe to hyper generalize it as the entire High tech roster getting nerfed?

I'm not assuming anything, your entire premise is a massive unreasonable assumption that don't follow in any way shape or form with the games patch history and drawing comparisons to League of Legends that profits directly from cancerous practices like creating imbalance. Which is absurd. You talk about "industry standard" like this game has no long history and just some random devs are making it rather then a specific person.

His lack of clarity is your excuse. Clarity in a specific list of ships only.

Case in point, I predict that once high-tech gets nerfed, midline will simply take its place, then everyone will switch to whining about midline being overpowered, than midline will be nerfed, then people will start whining about low-tech being overpowered, then low tech will be nerfed, and THEN high-tech will be overpowered again. And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

This lazy theory also works in reverse. If he buffs everything else to to play catch up (actual power creep) then something will get overbuffed resulting in an endless circle of more buffs too correct it. 

"And what will have been accomplished out of all this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing." Because it creates the exact same problem you are pretending is avoided.

But again this, everything you are posting, is entirely based around the idea that Alex is nerfing the entire High tech ship roster and not buffing Low tech at all. He's clearly buffing Low tech and if you bothered to read the thread you say he's "unclear" about you'd know Low tech is getting buffed.

So why are you posting stuff like this when you imply you actually read it? Your theories don't have a connection to anything that is actually happening based on the information we have.

I expect your posts to become more and more generalized rather then specific, because the details don't support what you are pushing.


You caught me, this was all part of a secret agenda to ruin the game, nerfs are always good and great, there is never a reason to be worried that a dev might go overboard, and there definitely isn't a contingent of people very rude people (if this thread is anything to go by) who are extremely emotionally invested in seeing high-tech nerfed into the ground just because they don't like it.

You win a 1000 internets and have my permission to go jerk off to yourself in the mirror or something. And no, internet points are non-refundable, in case you were wondering.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5674
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: i dont think OP ships should be nerfed
« Reply #87 on: June 08, 2021, 10:16:08 AM »

... I look away from this thread for like 2 days and it turns into a dumpster fire. Forum rules: https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2668.0

Don't be jerks!



...
You win a 1000 internets and have my permission to go jerk off to yourself in the mirror or something. And no, internet points are non-refundable, in case you were wondering.


Not ok here. Consider this a warning.


i hope u people know this was a shitpost lmfao
After 3 days of mindless arguing
- Deshara: "Guysss it was just a prank, why are you still arguing omgg"

you know what they say, if u wanna embarrass someone pretend to think they were kidding, if u wanna mock them pretend to think they were being sincere. the important thing is you've constructed a way for you to always be the guy crying under the smug mask meme instead of the guy crying meme.
Also, just bc there was 6 pages of people arguing in the thread doesnt mean I was the one arguing lmfao I've been playing ARMA, AKA trying to mod ARMA into being good (spoiler; u cant in 2021 just as much as u couldnt in 2017)
To quote from the rules: "If your post doesn't contribute and instead serves as a way to stir up more negativity and rage from other users, it's toxic." Please consider this a warning and treat other forum users with more respect in the future.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2021, 10:50:29 AM by Thaago »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]