Return of Reckoning

Right. Because if an OP states that X is the weakest choice, your totally allowed to debunk that without being censored for derailing a topic... or when asking how a statement made by the OP isn't considered debunked/wrong(and therefore shouldn't be quoted repeatedly)... that's not changed halfway through at all right? Or when people keep repeating the same debunked or previously discussed issues, trying to make/counter an arguement gets censored as "repeating yourself"

Also, penril you haven't been the only mod for that forum. Not all of the "complaints" are issued towards you. Although it might seem like it, they aren't.

Bozzax's third point is the most relevant Imo. At times, it feels like balancing in a vacuum. Other times, ideas and threads are declined due to potential inc changes, then others along the same lines get discussed..

Penril wrote:Rules don't get changed halfway through the thread. You should only discuss OP's issue/suggestions. If you want to make a suggestion of your own, you make your own proposal in a new thread.

I understand the rules, but is that not the point of the discussion? To sort through facts no matter if they come from off-topic discussion to debunk or credit an argument.
Someone provides an idea and the community works off that idea to refine it or disprove it. The journey should not be dictated as long as the result warrants the final outcome. Moderation is needed, put limiting and asking to create new proposal could lead to hundreds of topics that are all the same with slightly different perspective. But Rules are Rules we know what we asked for and agreed to when we decided to partake in this project.

"Right. Because if an OP states that X is the weakest choice, your totally allowed to debunk that without being censored for derailing a topic"

Let me give you an example. Issue raised: WL pull is too strong, there is no way to avoid the pet because X.

Valid way to debunk him: "It is not too strong. You see the pet a mile away which gives your tanks time to CC it or swap guard to you in case you are pulled. I think your issue is raised from a 1v1 perspective".

Not valid way to debunk him: "It is not too strong. However I would nerf Pounce instead, because Y. And also their armor debuff, because Z". This kind of argument is censored/spoilered, yes.

See the difference?

@dabart: I have been pretty much the only Balance mod except for a few months period where Gerv took over (and did a fantastic job btw). I am not as nice as him, I admit that. He took the time to carefully check everything and summarize the proposals after a few days, telling you at what point the discussion was. I'm not like that: you guys should read the BDF rules before posting there, because I will enforce the rules. If you have a problem with the rules, you can take it to the ones in charge (Wargrim/Torque).

The ****? considering that is nothing at all like I posted... if for instance, someone claimed the WL disarm was too weak,we could say that the extreme amount of CC the WL has access to is what makes it balanced. Not according to your rules however. Or if that person stated the Lion dies too quick, we could point out the various ways it is incredibly powerful, and why how it can survive or work. Again, not via your standards.

Debunking the OP and offering an entirely different change to discuss are two different things.. Seriously, wtf does your example have to do with Debunking?

Edit: who said your not as nice as Gerv? I like you more honestly. At least your willing to communicate and answer PMs... disagreement does not equate to dislike...

Dabbart wrote: if for instance, someone claimed the WL disarm was too weak,we could say that the extreme amount of CC the WL has access to is what makes it balanced. Not according to your rules however.

For the last time, these are not "my" rules. I'm not gonna repeat that.

As for your example: You are correct, that is not a valid debunk. Having several other strong skills does not justifyone skill being weak/useless. If a skill is underperforming, it deserves to be looked at.

1.- Well, under the current system, its the users who should decide if the proposal is even an issue or not, it used to be the one moving them but its not anymore, to me this is mostly a copt out, i understand that is very hard if not impossible to be someone with full knowledge about all classes but when we can discuss only x topics at a time, there just will be time when the only things to discuss should not even be things that should be discussed, for example, right now we have Grace as a melee healer (this is something we cant even figure of what to do until client control, so, kinda pointless) Crowd control effects nerf (its entirely based on a solo WE/WH doing an infinite cc chain or something like that, why is even there?) and Dok/WP RF/SE regeneration (which is not an issue at all and the op just keep repeating how we should just buff it to test and see for no reason whatsoever)

So 3 topics that probably should not be discussed are being discussed because a) its not on us to explain for 2 weeks why they should not be discussed, as dumb as that sounds, b) there is not much proposals at all so what is there just gets moved to have at least something.

2.- You may have picked the worst example ever, Assault SW may not need an execute but they clearly need something because they need advantage in gear, rr and skill to be on equal terms with another mdps, so its not much about quaility of discussion as its just the playerbase being utterly unable to have some grasp of actually trying to balance the game as a whole instead of trying to benefit our side while disregarding others issues and painting them as ridiculous, you and me included.

3.-I dont even know why you cant discuss synergies or who told you that you cant, i guess you really wanted to tell everyone how slayers op will be and had to shoehorn it someway. Good job.

4.- Well, most people just realized that is a total and complete waste of time trying to test and suggest things, when you try to raise and issue and its not the playerbase but the guys in charge the ones who shut you down with no reasoning, you just give up and do something else,i can give you examples of people trying to test things and get shut down instantly and their attemps labelled as worthless like here https://github.com/WarEmu/WarBugs/issues/9522 or jsut check how many topics there was against RNG before they did something about it.

You reap what you sow.

5.- There is no direction since Azarael left, there is twinks here and there but he had a vision, he tried to make it happen and it wasnt possible, we are waiting for this mythical beast called Client Control and we will know what happens when it gets here, if it ever does.

6.- Power creep fans have been rampant not only here, most online communities, its just a "lets feel ourselves" thing, we all circlejerk that nerfs sucks and making everything better is that, better, because we like how those words sound and what they imply, its sad but its what it is.

Anyway, the problem is we need someone that gives the project a direction and decides what is worthless and what is not, whoever that will be, i pity him.

bloodi wrote:1.- Well, under the current system, its the users who should decide if the proposal is even an issue or not, it used to be the one moving them but its not anymore

That can change. I have been moving proposals that follow the format/rules even though I might disagree with some of them, and letting the rest of the community debunk OP if they want to. The other option is for me to decline whatever I think is not worth discussing, but at that point I will have everyone (possibly even you if you ever make one proposal, though I doubt you will) sending me PMs complaining with "I invested too much time on that proposal and followed all the rules and you still didn't move it!!".

So I try to reach a middle ground, declining proposals that are extremely idiotic, but still considering those that might make sense to at least a few people (regardless of whether I agree with them or not).

You guys might think some proposals shouldn't even be there. Well, if they are that bad, don't waste your time reading them. They will either:

a) Die without reaching page 2, or
b) Be completely debunked by someone else, or
b) Be declined in the end by the devs in charge of coding it

bloodi wrote:3.-I dont even know why you cant discuss synergies or who told you that you cant, i guess you really wanted to tell everyone how slayers op will be and had to shoehorn it someway. Good job.

No clue what you meant here. Something about Slayers? Idk...

Penril wrote:You guys might think some proposals shouldn't even be there. Well, if they are that bad, don't waste your time reading them. They will either:

a) Die without reaching page 2, or
b) Be completely debunked by someone else, or
b) Be declined in the end by the devs in charge of coding it

That is the thing, A) Clearly doesnt happen, just taking a look at the balance forums will tell you that B) Is a quimera, yeah you can debunk it for being idiotic and they will just make up something even more idiotic, create false equivalences, make up numbers and you gotta debunk them again, over and over, you may just give up which will lead to the problem with A) They will just keep talking about it and since no one talks against them, they think its because they are right.

Its an issue we had even before, people just flat out lie and make up **** and there is no repercussion for that at all.

And C) can happen just right now, before any discussion is happening, if its bad enough it will get declined by a dev, why there was a discussion about it? Just say it when the discussion starts and we can talk about something that can happen, so you know, its not a gigantic waste of time.

Penril wrote:No clue what you meant here. Something about Slayers? Idk...

Its a reply to the points raised by OP, his 3 talks about slayers for some reason. I will spare you giving you **** about reading everything in the topic and all that.

bloodi wrote:
And C) can happen just right now, before any discussion is happening, if its bad enough it will get declined by a dev, why there was a discussion about it? Just say it when the discussion starts and we can talk about something that can happen, so you know, its not a gigantic waste of time.

Not even I know what can/can't happen. I wish I could tell you "yeah, if this proposal isn't debunked, we will be implementing it next week".

Take the balance forums as a place where some ideas might be discussed and, in the future, might be implemented if the devs consider them useful. Having said this, I realize a lot of people will stop posting there. Which is fine, I guess. I don't want to waste anyone's time.

Don't we have discussions about these things in a moderated manner simply for the fact that people will discuss them whether or not we have a dedicated space to do so? It's a grinding machine to remove people from discussing balance that should have nothing to do with discussing balance because they consistently either attack people, present bad arguments, or incessantly derail what should be fine discussions. It's also the other side of the "no balance talk outside of the balance forums". We have a dedicated mod with specific rules that apply to balance discussions to make sure we get the best quality discussions possible from the community. If that's the best we can do, well...

Will everything get implemented? No. Most of these things are buffs to aspects of classes that have historically underperformed, which is good! There are also significant nerfs to other overperforming aspects that people don't like to talk about. Which is fine, that just means we may nerf without significant discussion, as is our prerogative to do. Many things will be touched, changed, tweaked, etc, with that fabled client control, and the BDF will be where we go to review what sort of changes have already been discussed in a civil, measured, and thoughtful manner.

Without client control, nothing is transparent to the end user who doesn't get involved in tracking changes to their class. It means double/triple/quadruple work for us to list the changes in the patch notes, list changes on the forum, list the changes in code for people in-game, and actually update the tooltips in the client side that we don't have public yet (it does exist!). We need to cut out the middle parts, because those are the least transparent parts that I would wager a majority of new players miss. Then their class doesn't work as expected, and there's this persistent "this beta feels like ****" because X/Y/Z don't work like they should.