Lorekeeper
And Pun-isher
|
We can acknowledge a more complex overarching issue without needing to have a player conflict over it. Different aspects of one compound problem, viewed from different perspectives, can look like different problems and spark theories that lead to different conclusions. These conclusions lead to legitimate concerns, but may seem mutually exclusive until brought into a unifying context, and so there's an unfortunate opportunity for conflict.
To establish some common ground: There is no intent whatsoever to skew the game in favor of one build over others. The reason for the Cutlasses to be changed again, as was explained in the relevant thread, was the concerns caused by letting a bug sit in a premium item for an exceptionally long time while clones were released. With the actual definitions at play on the table, what problem can we tackle from this common ground?
The broader issue at play here is build identity, and problems in this field (Be they caused by scheduling complications or less refined older standards) branch off into individual issues such as the ones being discussed here. Let's break this down into some key points:
The excessive proliferation of damage type toggles, for instance, resulted in a sharp reduction of items that distinctly feel like they belong to a specific build. This is not build bias, it's the very opposite problem: Mass appeal wrought by the pursuit of much-needed time efficiency. However, the proliferation of universal items would, by virtue of not addressing build identity concerns, let them aggravate over time. The concrete damage to build identity here is that the lines between playstyles blur as builds are encouraged to play the same.
When an item is broadly multiple-build or a generalist setup, the usual result is that it'll be perceived as belonging to/favoring the build that is most popular or produces the biggest numbers with it. For instance, Paladin is still often called a mage class to this day, when this is an incorrect definition unless we exercise out-of-game mage bias by calling anything that a mage build CAN use an exclusively mage-oriented item. But in unpacking the concerns that leads to these optics, we run into a perfectly valid one: When an item encourages one build's playstyle, but produces better results with the stats of another, the lines have gone for blurring to breaking. This is why it makes sense to arrive at the assumption of mage bias before accounting for the first point -- Because Warrior-playstyle items with magic toggles would perform better in Mage builds, and that's inherently bad.
Booster disparity is a problem, given that token contests make it much more likely to get Poelala without ever buying Z-Tokens, but this is a problem of old and recent standards clashing rather than one we can easily solve. It's a wrong if we do, wrong if we don't situation at this point How does this wind back to build identity rather than constituting mage bias? The above issues, combined with the former role of Dexterity in the accuracy of other main stats, created a context in which every build was judged by its ability to perform like a nuking Mage - While nuking mages played the Warrior playstyle with higher numbers. Mage builds had absorbed Warrior's niche, making Warriors the second best at being Warriors. Offensive Rangers, in the mean time, were utterly indistinct from Warriors in terms of build, and the same stats played better with Melee weapons due to higher damage in a context that trivialized accuracy. The booster situation increased the impact of this context, and thus the urgency of reestablishing the boundaries of builds.
While mode toggles are still a necessary tool in our box, most importantly to keep some huge sets or certain packages able to be tackled in one week during busy times, we've been switching it up for a few years. We've been trying to fill elemental and build gaps, and the latter has happened through attempts at creating items that reward specific builds rather than either forcing them, encouraging the playstyles associated with them. This is why the H-Series Tempest Power Armor doesn't have a magic clone, for instance. Because of the consecutive mage-accessible classes, warriors get a special share of this attention. However, this is an inherently slow process, as every year has to have some items for all builds regardless of which one is being focused on. Because this process is slow, progress can be difficult to notice and setbacks spark more intense discussions than they would if they came after huge releases dedicated to tackling the issue.
Build identity had a major change that complicates finding a middle ground in inter-build balance discussions. As of the first step of the stat revamp, the old definitions of pure builds ceased to apply. The stats that once made a Mage now make a Mage/Ranger hybrid. The stats that once made a Warrior now make a Warrior/Ranger hybrid. The stats that once made a Ranger... Oh. Right. The way that this was handled, namely making each stat govern its own damage and accuracy, by definition has not and can not take access to DEX based items away from anyone, because it didn't force non-Rangers to remove DEX. One can remain a double main stat hybrid, or replace a main stat with a secondary stat. This is simple in isolation, but a returning player might join a discussion using old definitions and be thrown for a loop. Now imagine that happens in a rather heated discussion. Not a fun prospect, is it?
On top of having changed, build identity as a whole is in flux right now. The stat revamp was built on a need to re-separate builds and reevaluate what the style of each should be, and then prompted another such reevaluation. And then the pandemic decided it wanted to weigh in on the opportunity to fix that. Several times, in fact. DEX is in a state of uncertainty as a result of these interruptions, while STR is still waiting for its turn to get a more detailed identity than hitting things and then hitting them again. It's easy to think that this favors INT when that stat was deemed to already be in a good place, but we're actively working on bringing the others up to par - It just has to be done in a way that plays distinctly from it.
Hopefully this can be considered a point of common ground going forward, and we can tackle this problem together rather than taking a letting it become a source of conflict.
Now then, Back to topic?
|
Printable Version
Icon Legend
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread
