inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 12, 2019 20:04:20 GMT -6
Well, this may not apply to you then, but this is the situation as I see it from some sides of the argument - First being please don't/why would you nerf playstyles and being OP because that's what we want (which is still intact from what I can tell, except perhaps a familiar not being a good strategy in nightmare - and I think that's permissible and perhaps for the best in interest of a challenge) But now has shifted to - why bother doing changes if nothing changed enough/was meaningful? Looks like either a no-win to me where x amount of guys are just going to be upset per quota, informing the casually content person falsely that everyone is upset about it, OR they're all in truth like Yaen and were just on principle against any changes at all - but again, if that were so, the reasoning and statements from before aren't consistent with that from what I can tell. First of all, yes I am against any changes at all by principle. This is a single player game and nerfs have no reason to exist here.
Second, please don't assume we're upset per quota, by doing this you are diminishing our complaints for no reason, and labeling me and others as "minor annoyances that should be ignored". We being the minority or not doesn't mean our opinion shouldn't be heard (it being applied is another matter entirely, but at the very least it should be discussed). This is the main reason I hate the modus operandi of Reddit with a passion, controversial opinions are downvoted to oblivion and are never taken in account or debated because nobody ends up reading them. That thing is an echo chamber by design.
And finally these arguments: Aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, from my perspective, the second one only was necessary because the other side wasn't satisfied with the first argument, so we had to clarify more our opinion, and the last one has nothing to do with the first two, it was more of a result of how the nerfs were done. The second argument is a direct consequence (or a corollary, should we start to get fancy) of the first one: if someone wants to be OP, let them be, it's their choice precisely because it's a single player game, the choice one player makes won't affect anyone but his own playthrough. This is the main reason of why we are against any changes on principle. I hope you understand the gist of it now. Then we have the third argument. From what I can see, it only started to appear because the people who are with nerfs were saying things like "the nerfs are necessary so the player has a motive to experiment other shards instead of playing the whole game using only a handful of them". Assuming this was the main motivation behind the nerfs, then they failed doing what they were trying to accomplish. As I have said multiple times here, if you want to force players to stop using whatever, you must apply a nerf hard enough to the point of it being almost useless, only doing that the player will start to feel that he should change his build, for it has become almost impossible to advance through the game.
So, in the end, what has this patch accomplished then? Assuming they wanted to force players to experiment, it seems that only the dullahammer heads were nerfed enough to do that. And I'm still against it, because now we have one less viable strategy for the sake of literally nothing. The players who were using them are now pissed off, and the ones who weren't got nothing out of it. The end result is nothing but negative, and for the sake of what? How did the game improve for those who weren't using dullahammer heads because they found it to be OP? For those who were though, now they are forced to use something else that for them could be less fun. Again, how is this a good thing?
Looking at the poll result, the nerf supporter is the minority.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 12, 2019 19:50:16 GMT -6
Zero times: I've not picked it up since spending an hour failing to beat the first boss, so I'm waiting until I recover enough interest to batter off it and get to the actually interesting part of the game. and yet the dev decided to nerf the game. Now, you have even lower chance to beat the boss.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 9, 2019 23:07:09 GMT -6
Feeling regret, not excited. Well, at least the physical copy is not tainted with nerf,
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 9, 2019 22:57:09 GMT -6
I had a question about one of the nerfs. I read on another forum that a level 90 dullahammer head was doing 5 damage. Is that true that even though the dullahammer head was that leveled up, only little damage is being dealt? I unfortunately have not had the time to test this. It might be true as they dev is totally clueless.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 8, 2019 20:32:34 GMT -6
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 8, 2019 20:30:20 GMT -6
Well, for a start, it's not a single-player game. Multiplayer is a planned feature that will be added in a future update. It was announced as one of the original Kickstarter stretch goals. So, I would assume that adjusting the stats on the single-player side is to keep everything consistent across the board. A better question might be, "Why make a bunch of tweaks now when we don't know how they'll affect multiplayer?" The problem is there is really no need to keep the shard/weapon power consistent across the board. Iga may have no experience in PVP content but at the very least he has to know PVE and PVP are different things.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 8, 2019 20:23:42 GMT -6
with less than half of the player base defeated last boss and they still think nerf is a good idea. This is beyond me. Well at this point 60% of people are against the nerf, that's still most of us 18.33% don't know at this point Considering that people against the nerf are winning the poll by a lot, not that it matters much because we have to live with the nerfs for now anyway Hopefully they won't decide to nerf us again but still won't be surprised if they do so The promo video where they said they listen to fans is false advertisement. Apparently, they just pretend to listen to fans but the truth is they don't care at all.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 8, 2019 20:21:19 GMT -6
Nerfing is lame and shouldn't be a thing in single player games in my opinion Anyone who wants a challenge probably isn't going to get it against AI, other players and leaderboard records is the answer for that. Considering we still need bug fixes and content it's really lame they are deciding to "balance" the game first if you're going to make controversial changes please get other things done first please Fixes>Content>Fixes To New Content>Cosmetic DLC>"Balance" exactly this. They can balance the PVP mode to their hearts' content but not in a single player game
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 8, 2019 20:18:20 GMT -6
And meanwhile I make a thread on the fun side of things about ideas for the cosmetics items and get zero replies. It's mostly complaint/reactionary stuff around here lately and it bothers me more than it should. It's just that most who would otherwise engage positively are playing the game or have moved on to their next game. I think that this is actually the natural progression of how things like this go, but I miss the excitement and discussion of what was to be. The dev created the unrest, they have themselves to blame. Right now I can't convince myself to keep on supporting Bloodstained.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 8, 2019 20:14:34 GMT -6
I fully support the opportunity to hit things more times before they die. Play nightmare and use the first weapon you found on the ship?
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 7, 2019 21:12:02 GMT -6
I was on my third play through nightmare. Then they introduced the nerf. I lost interest and deleted the shortcut from my dekstop and haven't played since then.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 7, 2019 2:19:01 GMT -6
with less than half of the player base defeated last boss and they still think nerf is a good idea. This is beyond me.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 7, 2019 0:55:44 GMT -6
Achievements for progress are an innate part of the game. Tracked for steam, PSN, and XBlive. Obviously not part of the switch release, and I haven't checked the GOG numbers, but there's no reason to believe they diverge significantly. As for how it's validated, you get an achievement for defeating the final boss. It's that simple. And I checked again tonight, the percent is 42% beat the game on steam, 52 percent on the PSN, and 38 percent on the xb1. At least according to steam, psnprofiles, and trueachievements. I feel the need to point out I am explicitly not overstating the capacity of the general purchaser. I'm flat out saying that plenty of people who bought the game probably aren't all that good. Assume a fairly standard bell curve, with most people falling somewhere around the middle. Maybe for you the game is easy cause you've done it before, it's a safe bet that most of the people who backed this game are a bit old hat at it, but even then not all. Maybe for about half, they'll never finish, or maybe it'll just take a lot longer. But either way, this is handicapping them, too. Having good faith in devs is what got this game funded. And when we got the product, the expectation was that we'd receive a certain amount of quality in the product. The subsequently required stability updates undermined that, and the 'balance' updates reinforce that question of how much faith we should have in the devs. Communication that things weren't ideal and a plan to correct it was good. Pushing balance changes before those corrections is bad (especially as they weren't on the list of top issues, further undermining the value of that previous communication). Again, it doesn't matter that it wasn't as much work, or that they're minimal, or anything about them, they should have held off implementing the changes until after the game was legitimately completed. Because otherwise we're beta testers. Which, nobody told me. And I don't recall agreeing to test unfinished product when I bought my retail copy. I can't speculate what their vision really was. Partially because they clearly are changing it. Which only tells me that what was released at launch wasn't it, and nothing in the industry points to anyone willing to change it being satisfied with once. I can't say that I've played too many games on normal that were moderately difficult. In my experience normal has always been pretty approachable, with multiple paths to success viable and often, a little too easy. But again, I can't speculate if that's what they wanted or not. But if you recognize that if it's too easy to use certain things, then don't use them. Maybe that's what you should do instead of advocate that nobody can use them. These changes undermine the idea that this game has had anything resembling quality assurance. But you are right, that's an assumption on my part. But assuming you're right, and they have a QA team now who're listening to the community to implement these changes, then we are obligated to speak up even more, because they're only hearing a minority, and a dissenting voice is even more important. After fixating on the idea that they might cut content, I don't think they'd do it either, but we don't know. And any assurances that they won't will ring more insincere with every patch. We're up what, to 1.05 now? With no assurance that it's anywhere close to ever being done, and something like a dozen future patches we already expect. And there are plenty of ways to reduce things to the level of practically cut. Nerfing them into oblivion is practically the same thing(which, no, they have not done, but they could). But there is precedent of content cut from games flat out in a patch. Starting with World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and as recently that I know of as the Division. Yeah, those are different style games, but they're multiplayer nature has already been used to justify the balance changes on this game. And 'unapproved' methods of grinding were famously removed from Destiny a few times, the loot cave wasn't hurting anyone, but the devs there insisted people stop having fun that way. Again, that's not this game, but it wasn't the first time such things ran afoul of someone who decides these things, and got removed. As for this game specifically, if you're telling me that valefor is an acceptable change (or not), I'm not going to argue the point. I'm just pointing out as something establishing a reason I'm less inclined to trust that this game will be recognizable in a year. (And further lamenting that in 20 years when I can't patch it anymore it's going to be the bs 1.00 cartridge instead of the x.xx version we're going to be playing next year.) Suggesting that the purchasers of the game should be expected to undo it(setting aside that is significantly beyond the capacity for most users, and something actively discouraged by those platforms, and expressly against most of the terms of service), is absolutely not an acceptable solution. So, you gonna go through the effort of getting that as a patch pushed out to the ps4 xb1 and switch? We could talk in circles about when, how, or if this should ever get implemented forever. While I focus on my experiences (who wouldn't?), which are oriented toward the switch, my complaints are not exclusive to that. When I say finish the game before balancing it, I also mean the content that is expressly supposed to have come, but got pushed back to be 'free DLC'. But while we're at it, there's still bugs for even the PC version. They're rare, and mostly the same pc comparability difficulties (Which to be honest, there's just no way to really test every possibility of hardware configuration, so... Known issue of the industry). So in the standards of PC gaming, my issue can well be summed up as the whole thing stinks of "early access", not "retail release". Which especially considering the pedigree of the game and expectations, is something I'm never going to be okay with. Unless they're going to do a new printing of the cartridges and disks with everything patched up. 33% defeated the final boss on GOG
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 6, 2019 3:05:29 GMT -6
bloodstained.forums.net/thread/4174/top-issue-update-june-2019it wasn't a top issue in june 2019, it was never a issue but then they forcefully pushed nerf, bulldozed it through despite the backlash. At this point, I strongly believe nerf is just a smokescreen to cover up their inability to fix the bugs. Even though nerf hurts the game, it sparked controversy and allowed dev to deflect the bug issues. They took the easy way out and tried too hard to prove that they are still working on the game. You guys made fun of Konami but working hard to become Konami 2
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 3, 2019 21:15:53 GMT -6
maybe let me remind you of the nerf because your top issue and top priority is definitely nerf that you forcefully shove it down to fans throat. That means one of these 1) nerf wasn't even in the picture before the steam boy whining for nerf. That also means the nerf is not even a well thought decision, they never do any study and pulled the number from thin air then nerf it. 2)shady dev kept this information from fans because they expect backlash
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 3, 2019 21:01:15 GMT -6
if you love nerf so much, market this game as nerf infested game instead of shoving it down the fans' throat after release. If you are proud of what you do, why not? So the customers who don't like game with nerf can stay out of it.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 1, 2019 21:17:13 GMT -6
Well at this point I already made my opinion about the nerfs way too clear, but I just want yet again to comment about something just to make it clearer: Technique Buffs are welcome as they were completely overshadowed by even the most basic shards. While I'm not against buffing things (be it the player or enemies), be aware that this is your opinion. I personally spent half the game spamming Jinrai for how strong and fun to use it is. I had a blast using it to my heart's content and not even once I felt I was missing out on"more powerful" shards or techniques. Hell it made some bosses trivial like that one in the desert area. So, to me, your statement makes no sense.
That's why I'm against nerfing things in this game, be them smaller or bigger in changes. Given how many tools are available to the player, and how different they are, the player is going to pick up what fits best for him and call it a day. You can't objectively judge a shard or technique to be bad based on your playstyle only. They all offer completely different gameplay mechanics and you're free to choose whichever you want for they are all powerful enough to bulldozer through the game without any problems. How, then, are you going to make the decision of which shards should you nerf when it's impossible to objectively point out which of them are way too strong?
And about the nerfs itself, just as expected they are all minor and I'm pretty sure that none of them is enough to make the player change his mind of which shard to use. I bet that people are going to still use Welcome Company after the patch. It then begs the question: what has this patch accomplished, but annoy the players who use those shards and enrage half of the game's community?
Exactly this. They nerf A to make B looks more attractive. It's like beating up Grade A student to make Grade B student looks better.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 1, 2019 9:44:38 GMT -6
The nerfs are pretty much spot on. While I agree it upsets some people ( nerfing a single player game), they aren't doing this just for the purpose of upsetting the players, but because they believe that by doing it, they are trying to balance a bit the game, so they can make people experiment other shards and strategies. One example on this patch , by buffing techniques, they incentive the players using them instead of using shards all the time. I know that some players don't like techniques because the are either not cost effective to be good enough, or we can mess up the inputs , or even the proximity needed to the enemy. However , I know it sucks to someone having one strategy as staple for the game being nerfed and making the player to adapt and change to new tactics . Or not having the big numbers that were there before. People don't like changes and they go with what is more comfortable to them. That being said, I don't think the dev team needs to explain everything to the players regarding the motivations to change A or B .They want to change to "improve" the balance, so they will do it regardless of the opinion of the others. However, I also do agree that these changes may be just adding artificial difficulty , making the enemies taking 1-2 more hits to die at the end. Also I know that the timing that was first announced was poor: people still suffering with crashes and problems at switch version, just wanting their ports to be fixed , so they send surveys for paid DLC , upsetting the people even more (I understand that was either to keep design artists employed for more time or to gauge future interest on getting paid content , but still the timing was poor). After that , an announcement with 90% nerfs / 5% improvements (map) / 5% buff ( familiar level scalling) without additional features the people were expecting for. The backlash is understandable. At least in this latest update they improved a bit : they gave us numbers of nerf values, list of bugfixes (very welcome changes) , technique buffs ( to compensate shards nerfs). This is already something, but I suggest in the future giving more information regarding number and statistics. Also it would be nice surprise us, players with new things that were not there before ( such adding elements icons to shards , so we can know what is the shard damage type instead of trying it and sorting /filtering by these elements. we already have these icons at equipments, adding it to shards would be a nice and welcome change that would make us, players, very happy) Nerfing craftwork is spot on? Please stop. It upset a lot of people and they are doing this to upset the players. Forcing players to use other shards and strategy is a joke and achieve nothing. So I switch from shard A to Shard B, now Shard B is better than Shard A because Shard A is nerf. So what next? Nerf Shard A next? The dev don't have to explain. To players, the nerf looks brain dead, that's all. I would rather play fun but unbalance game than balance but mind-numbing game. The most worrying thing is the number behind the balance update. It means they are planning for more nerf. This is a sad day for the series. Iga was once the guy who set the standard. But now, seems like he has lost his charm and become a follower.
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 1, 2019 3:18:27 GMT -6
this is a good practice and I hope they will continue to do it
|
|
inherit
447
0
Apr 2, 2022 21:10:06 GMT -6
182
DSLevantine
224
Jul 25, 2015 11:16:27 GMT -6
July 2015
dslevantine
|
Post by DSLevantine on Aug 1, 2019 1:25:53 GMT -6
Well, damn. At least, i managed to beat the game, all current content. And to backup the 1.05 installer, for possible future use. GOG version is the best version, out of them all. Yes, I am doing that too
|
|