|
AstralCodex -> RE: =DF= March 26th Design Notes: Reimagined: March 2021 (4/8/2021 14:52:22)
|
Overall, I'm a big fan of the majority of the changes in this update. I'm especially a fan of the Ascendant, Dragon Mage, and Dragon Rogue changes, and also the kick -> +health changes. I also am a big fan of the new KAA customization. Also a super duper big fan of the potion training change, which was one of my main complaints with the DF early game. Let me stress again that I felt like the majority of the changes were really quite good, before I get into the two more contentious changes.
I am, however, not a fan of the Grove Tender Blade (all vs nature) change, since it seems to have come out of nowhere, and is a nerf in practice if not in technicality. When the functionality has been documented on forums by the initial developer (Ash), and has remained in place for 5+ years, and has survived two adjustments from the devs before (the -Flee seek fix and the -Health/-immo seek fix), it's really quite reasonable that players expect that this is the intended functionality of the weapon. I spoke with many people on discord who purchased grove tender for this reason, and several of them were very upset about spending $20 on this set only to have the functionality for which they bought the weapon removed. (I think one of them is even on indefinite hiatus in protest). I would be on board with this change if it was obvious that GT deserved a nerf (like old hamsters!). If GT broke the game, or let you trivialize IE or Pandora EX or the newest Ice and Dragons Challenge or whatever (like old hamsters!!), I would probably be calling for its nerf regularly like I was calling for the nerf of hamsters. As is, it seems like an unnecessary change that just upsets people who bought the set for $20 recently.
As for the trinket/on attack change, I'm a bit more torn. I agree that stacking 100 boost and then fishing for 600% or 700% on attacks is an absolute terrible play pattern, and should be discouraged. Doubly so when this was arguably the "optimal" play pattern (yuck) for many classes. Not only was it incredibly powerful, pulling it off just felt gross (as it required you rerolling constantly to fish for a 5 or 10% proc). If removing all the 600% or 700% on attacks is difficult (which it seems to be given how many of them there are), then I support removing boost from these on attacks. Good riddance. Doubly so if more powerful on-attacks will be introduced in the future after the change.
As for the trinket change, I'm much less of a fan, though I do understand where the change is coming from. A big draw of having separate boost stat is to interact with the trinket and on attacks - and if on attacks are removed, it's basically just the trinket. To explain about what I mean, consider a class with 100 boost and 100% damage per skill, versus one with 25 boost and 200% damage a skill. If there is no way to do damage outside of class skills, then the second class is clearly better. If boosts affect trinkets, though, then there would be situations where you'd use the first class over the second. This creates more variety in gameplay and the potential for asymmetric balance, which is always welcome!
I also strongly disagree with the characterization of trinkets as "insta-win buttons". I agree with TFS that in terms of damage, there were really only three offenders; the Defender's Cannon, DragonFable Friends, and Chi Blast, and I don't think any of them were close to being an "insta-win button". (EUD and C7 were stat sticks, and aren't really used for their skills?) I do agree that they were powerful, and that offensive gameplay for many classes (mainly Chaosweaver) did rely on trinket use. But I don't think they allowed players to trivialize any fights that weren't doable without the trinkets anyways - base mage's 6000 damage with red fruit dragonknight DFF on Hatir pales in comparison to most class nukes (with red fruit, DragonKnight), for example. If the devs feel that this is too much, then nerfing red fruit or DFF is probably the way to go, instead of basically removing the viability of the vast majority of trinkets in the game.
(EDIT 4/9: I'll also add that this is a very counterintuitive fix that's not at all documented in game, which extremely I'm not a fan of either.)
Okay, now that I've said my piece, I'm going to end by irresponsibly speculating on game balance and player-dev relations.
I think a lot of this is a difference in how much devs versus players prefer things be adjusted (esp downwards). As a player, I prefer if things generally remained the same, and I enjoy using powerful mechanics in ways that the devs may not have intended. That doesn't mean the player perspective is 100% against nerfs: I'd prefer if nerfs on unenjoyable gameplay patterns so as to discourage them, especially when these patterns are arguably the "optimal" way to play. Old Hamsters fell into this category, as does on attack fish with boost stack. Trivializing every fight with boost stack roll for crit Chi (a long, long time ago) was also uninteresting, as it meant I didn't have to strategize. Otherwise, from the player perspective, nerfs on items that significant amounts of effort or real money were spent on primarily... feels bad? Regular but unpredictable rebalancing can also remove existing strategies that players have spent time developing, which discourages making guides or strategies.
That being said, I also understand things from the dev perspective! If it's super easy to adjust things, then the developers can take more risks. It's ok to make things a little too good, if it can receive a slight adjustment a few months down the line when players realize the thing is a little too good. You can make more risky slotted specials, and spend more time on conceptualization and less on pre-release fine-tuning, if any mistakes can be fixed when they're caught. You can keep the game super fresh. You can make players find new, interesting strategies to old fights. You can fine tune the game live, bringing the game closer to your vision as a dev!
As I'm not a game developer, it's often really easy for me (and a lot of the other players I talked to on Discord) to default to the first view, where changes are met with hostility, and where we default to remembering the projects, guides, or videos that became outdated after a change. After my brief hiatus from the game, and having some time to think over the changes, I think I understand the dev perspective a lot more, and I encourage other players to do the same.
|
|
|
|
